Did all the laws end at the cross- Part 2

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
8,191
2,197
54
Northeast
✟181,909.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It’s part of tithing.

I personally think you’re looking at this from all the wrong way, but thats another topic.

Take care Leaf.
Well... the discussion topic is Did all the laws end at the cross,
so presenting clear scriptures of laws that didn't end at the cross seems right in line.

So the next tithing law we come to is
Numbers 18:21
“I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the tent of meeting.

May the Lord bless you and keep you!
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Are you saying that someone has to know all the letters of the entire law before God is able to write anything on their heart?
No. When we first come to God's Word we are called babes in Christ. As as grow in the knowledge of Gods' Word we know more about what Gods Word says and as we believe and follow it (faith) Gods' Spirit works in our lives to change our heart to walk in Gods' Spirit. According to the scriptures in times of ignorance God winks at and does not hold us accountable for sin until He gives us a knowledge of the truth of His Word (Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31; James 4:17) at this time God expects us to believe and follow what His Word says. According to the scriptures, if at this time after God gives us a knowledge of the truth of His Word and we choose instead to continue in sin and unbelief there remains no more sacrifice for sin but a fearful looking forward to of the judgement to come which will devour the adversaries. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God *Hebrews 10:26-31.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Part 2 of the last post to you...
Romans 7:7, Paul says something good about the law - that it told him what sin was. Of course, this, despite overly simplistic statements to the contrary, does not require use to believe the Law remains in force - I can say something good about a former NFL player who is now retired.

But notice the pattern: In verse 6, Paul tells us we no longer serve the law. Yet in verse 7 and again in 12 he lauds the Law.

My point is this: Romans 7 establishes a clear precedent where Paul affirms the goodness of the law while also affirming its time is over. This, I believes, gives us more justification for thinking that in 3:31, he is doing the same thing - applauding the law, recognizing its important role in God's plan, while also believing is now retired. From chapter 7 we know that Paul has good things to say about the law and we also know he believes it is in the past. These things are not contradictory.

Again, look at the pattern in chapter 3 - Paul has just said that justification has nothing to do with Law. Even if, as I believe to be the case, Paul thinks the law is retired, he is highly motivated to dispel the notion that he is saying the law was irrelevant - hence he "upholds" or "establishes" the law.

This was already addressed elsewhere your taking a single scripture from it's contexts around Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-25 and Romans 8:1-13 and trying to apply an interpretation to fit a teaching of lawlessness (without law) which is not biblical or supported in the scriptures. There is no where in the entire bible that teaches that God's 10 commandments are abolished. It is a teaching that has Paul in contradiction with Paul when he says faith does not abolish Gods' law it establishes Gods' law in Romans 3:31 or that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God in 1 Corinthians 7:19 or elsewhere when Paul shows that we love our neighbor as ourselves by being obedient to those commandments from Gods' law that show us how we love our fellow man in Romans 13:8-10.

Paul also shows in Romans 8:1-4 that the righteousness (moral right doing - Psalms 119:172) of the law is fulfilled in us as we walk not in the flesh but in Gods' Spirit (see also Galatians 5:16). Paul does not teach a teaching of lawlessness or that Gods' 10 commandments are abolished anywhere in the bible. He teaches they are established by faith and are a part of Gods 'new covenant promise *Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-36 and Ezekiel 36:24-27. It is Paul not me that says that God's law is holy, just and good in Romans 7:12 and that it is God's law that gives us the knowledge of what sin is when broken that is defined as breaking Gods' law in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 and that the purpose of Gods' law is to show us we are all sinners in need of Gods' grace that we can receive through faith as shown in Romans 2:4-29 to Romans 3:1-23 and that faith does not abolish Gods' law, but establishes Gods' law in the lives of all those who believe what Gods' Word says.

Your interpretation of a single scripture in Romans 7:6 taken away from it's context to apply a meaning that Gods 10 commandments have been abolished has Paul in contradiction with Paul and the rest of the bible. Here let's prove this and add all the context back in first by looking at the previous verse your disregarding. We can have a look at the whole chapter if your interpreted and their connection with Romans 6:1-23 through to Romans 7:1-25 and Romans 8:1-13 in another post if your interested that says the same thing that is being shared with you here, but let's simply start with the immediate scripture context your disregarding again if it might be helpful. Romans 7:1-7 is building on what Paul was talking about in Romans 6:1-23 where he contrasts baptism and the death of the old man of sin or dying to our sinful nature and walking in newness of life. Romans 8:1-13 is building on both Romans 6 and Romans 7 contrasting walking in the Spirit and not in the old man of the flesh that has died so that we can be married to another in Christ. This is all context your disregarding that does not agree with your interpretation of Romans 7:6.

Take a look...

Romans 7:1-7
[1], Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
[2], For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
[3], So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
[4], Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
[5], For when we were in the FLESH <G4561 Carnal mind or sinful human nature>, the motions of SINS, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit to death.
[6], But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
[7], What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust,3 except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

FROM THE SCRIPTURES ABOVE
  • Paul is speaking to those who understand the law - Romans 7:1
  • The law has dominion over a man as long as we live - Romans 7:1
  • Example of marriage and a woman being bound to her husband as long as she lives - Romans 7:2
  • If the husband dies then she is free to marry another - Romans 7:2-3
  • We are to become dead to the law (of our first husband) by the body of Christ - Romans 7:2-4
  • For when we were in the flesh (first husband sinful nature) the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death - Romans 7:5
  • We are to die to what has bound us which is sin - Romans 7:5-6
  • Dying to that which has bound us (sin and death) we can serve in newness of life of the Spirit - Romans 7:6 compare Galatians 5:16 with Romans 8:1-4 and Romans 8:13.
  • It is through the law of God we have the knowledge of what sin is - Romans 7:7
The context your disregarding here is that Paul is talking to those who know the law and is saying that before we come to Christ we (those who know the law) are married to the law of sin and death which is working in our members. That is Gods' law reveals sin to us and gives us the knowledge of what sin is when broken. This first husband (sinful nature) must die before we can be married to Christ to walk in His Spirit in newness of life. This agrees with what Paul is talking about already in Romans 6:1-23 where he is talking about the true meaning of "baptism" and dying to the old man of sin so we can walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:1-7
[1], What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
[2], God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? [3], Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[4], Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[5], For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
[6], Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin.
[7], For he that is dead is freed from sin.
[8], Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
[9], Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dies no more; death has no more dominion over him.
[10], For in that he died, he died to sin once: but in that he lives, he lives to God.
[11], Likewise reckon you also yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
[12], Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in the lusts thereof.
[13], Neither yield you your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin: but yield yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
[14], For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace.
[15], What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
[16], Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness?
[17], But God be thanked, that you were the servants of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
[18], Being then made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness.​

FROM THE SCRIPTURES ABOVE
  • We are not to continue in sin - Romans 6:1-2
  • We are to be dead to sin - Romans 6:2
  • We baptized into Christs death - Romans 6:3
  • We are buried into Christs death through baptism - Romans 6:4
  • We are to walk in newness of life - Romans 6:4-5
  • Our old man of sin and death is crucified with Christ - Romans 6:6
  • Our old man of sin and death is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin - Romans 6:6
  • Our old man of sin and death is dead in Christ so we can be freed from sin - Romans 6:6-7
  • Our old man of sin and death is dead with Christ so that we can live with Christ (married to another - Romans 7:1-7) - Romans 6:8
  • We are to reckon ourselves dead indeed to sin, but alive to God through Jesus - Romans 6:11
  • We are not to let sin (breaking God's law) reign in our bodies any longer - Romans 6:12
  • We are to yield ourselves to God as those being alive from the dead - Romans 6:13
  • Sin (breaking Gods' law) is no longer to have dominion over us - Romans 6:14
  • We are made free from sin to become servants of right doing - Romans 6:18
................

CONCLUSION: It is that which binds us that we are released from which is sin that we are to die to not the law so that we can be married to Christ and walk in His Spirit. We are released from the condemnation of sin and death through faith in Gods' Word and by walking in His Spirit in newness of life (Romans 8:1-4). So nope the single scripture you have taken out of it's context in Romans 7:6 as shown above does not teach anywhere that Gods' 10 commandments are abolished. It is teaching that we must be released from the law of sin (breaking God's law) and death that has bound us in order to be married to another (Christ) to walk in newness of life not of the letter but of the Spirit of God.

May God bless you as you receive his Words of correction.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
8,191
2,197
54
Northeast
✟181,909.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. When we first come to God's Word we are called babes in Christ. As as grow in the knowledge of Gods' Word we know more about what Gods Word says and as we believe and follow it (faith) Gods' Spirit works in our lives to change our heart to walk in Gods' Spirit. According to the scriptures in times of ignorance God winks at and does not hold us accountable for sin until He gives us a knowledge of the truth of His Word (Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31; James 4:17) at this time God expects us to believe and follow what His Word says. According to the scriptures, if at this time after God gives us a knowledge of the truth of His Word and we choose instead to continue in sin and unbelief there remains no more sacrifice for sin but a fearful looking forward to of the judgement to come which will devour the adversaries. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God *Hebrews 10:26-31.
Okay... does a person have to read a law in the Bible before God can write it on their heart, in your view?
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,687
5,784
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,954.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Romans 3:20 has been quoted more than once providing context from Romans 3:9-31 showing that all of us have sinned and that it is through the law we have a knowledge of what sin is
The problem is this. You have, I believe, not dealt with these facts:

- The chapter is telling us a history - this is really beyond dispute.

- Early in the chapter we have the bestowing of the law on the nations of Israel. Again, this part of the history this chapter is providing.

- Then, in verse 21, we get this key clause:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed,

This "but now" makes it clear where Paul is in his story - in verse 21, he is now in the present moment, and using the "but" to contrast what is the case in the present with what he has just said in verse 20!

You are an impossible spot. No one who knows how to write properly would ever follow a statement that the Law provides knowledge of sin with a "but now" if that author is not intending to tell us that what he has said prior to the "but now" is now in the past.

The logic is, I suggest, inescapable. That is, if you take Paul seriously.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Leaf473
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,687
5,784
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,954.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There is no again the post you are quoting from in post # 275 linked and elsewhere, is directly addressing your earlier argument and claims that God's 4th commandment is a "shadow law" pointing to things to come in Christ.
I never claimed that anything is a "shadow" law - I have never even heard of that term till someone else used it in this thread.

Simple question: why can God not elect to retire the Sabbath?

This teaching is not biblical or supported in the scriptures. As shown in the scriptures already the Sabbath points backwards not forward to thing to come
Strawman - I have never claimed that the Sabbath "points forward" to anything. I have merely argued that since Christ rises on the first day of a new week, this suggests new creation which, in turn, suggests that to continue to honor the day that celebrates the "old" creation narrative is to symbolically show that one is not aware that Jesus has instituted a new round of God's creative activity.

In short, the Sabbath has been superseded - it honours a past creative work of God. We are now in the new creation phase.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Okay... does a person have to read a law in the Bible before God can write it on their heart, in your view?
There is no salvation outside of faith in God's Word according to the scriptures *see John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8-9; Hebrews 11:6; Romans 14:23; Romans 10:17.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The problem is this. You have, I believe, not dealt with these facts:

- The chapter is telling us a history - this is really beyond dispute.

- Early in the chapter we have the bestowing of the law on the nations of Israel. Again, this part of the history this chapter is providing.

- Then, in verse 21, we get this key clause:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed,

This "but now" makes it clear where Paul is in his story - in verse 21, he is now in the present moment, and using the "but" to contrast what is the case in the present with what he has just said in verse 20!

You are an impossible spot. No one who knows how to write properly would ever follow a statement that the Law provides knowledge of sin with a "but now" if that author is not intending to tell us that what he has said prior to the "but now" is now in the past.

The logic is, I suggest, inescapable. That is, if you take Paul seriously.

Your repeating yourself while not reading and ignoring the scriptures and the posts that have already been sent to you that already answer your questions. Go read the posts I have sent you that already address your question instead of trying to micro-quote me and ignore the rest of the posts and scriptures already shared with you that have already addressed your questions.

Take Care.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I never claimed that anything is a "shadow" law - I have never even heard of that term till someone else used it in this thread.

Simple question: why can God not elect to retire the Sabbath?


Strawman - I have never claimed that the Sabbath "points forward" to anything. I have merely argued that since Christ rises on the first day of a new week, this suggests new creation which, in turn, suggests that to continue to honor the day that celebrates the "old" creation narrative is to symbolically show that one is not aware that Jesus has instituted a new round of God's creative activity.

In short, the Sabbath has been superseded - it honours a past creative work of God. We are now in the new creation phase.

Already addressed with detailed scripture responses to you that you refuse to discuss with me. If you disagree with anything I have posted or the scriptures already shared with you that are in disagreement with you please address them showing why what has been shared with you is not correct in your view. You have already been provided all the contexts that you leave out of your claims here that show why your teachings of lawlessness (without law) are not biblical, so I suggest you pray about it and consider what has been shared with you in love and as a help to you from the scriptures and receive Gods' correction and be blessed.

Take Care now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,687
5,784
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,954.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your repeating yourself while not reading and ignoring the scriptures and the posts that have already been sent to you that already answer your questions.
Take Care.
Well, if you have already addressed Romans 3:20 in a manner that addresses my concerns, and not in a way that evades my concerns, then you should be able to identify the post number(s) where my questions have been answered.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,687
5,784
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,954.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Already addressed with detailed scripture responses to you.....
Please provide the post numbers where you have refuted my arguments. Not someone else's arguments, my argument.

Here is what the readers see, I suggest: they see that you have not actually engaged my argument, but that you dance around it, making all sorts of detailed arguments that artfully evade my argument.

But, please, prove me wrong: explain precisely what is wrong with my argument which is simply this: the fact that Jesus rises on the first day of a new week means new creation which, in turn, means that the markers of the old creation (Genesis account) are now superseded. As one commentator puts it "To continue celebrating sabbaths is to focus on the signposts when we have already arrived"

And please, no irrelevant tangents about "shadow" laws - a concept I have never raised - and no manifestly illogical lines of reasoning such as "because the Sabbath looks back and does not look forward, it therefore cannot be abolished". That reasoning, if you are indeed using it, is simply not logical - the fact the Sabbath Law was instituted to "look back", which I agree with, obviously does not make it a law that cannot be abolished; readers will know this.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,687
5,784
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,954.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Okay... does a person have to read a law in the Bible before God can write it on their heart, in your view?
Well, if he answer "yes", then he is disagreeing with Paul here:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

I cannot imagine a more clear articulation of the view that the believer does not need to refer to the "written code" - they know the law instinctively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leaf473
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,687
5,784
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,954.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Here are the words of one Andy Fortner (Jesus is Our Everyday Sabbath). Here he comments on that famous passage where Jesus says "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath"

This isn’t primarily a story about finding a loophole in the Sabbath regulations. This isn’t primarily about finding precedent in the Old Testament for reaping and eating on the Sabbath. It isn’t even primarily about whether or not you can do good by healing a man on the Sabbath. This is a story about who Jesus is! It is all about Jesus saying to them and to us: I am greater than David. I am the fulfillment of all that David typified. I am greater than the temple. I am the fulfillment of all that the temple typified and symbolized. I am greater than the Sabbath. I bring to you a rest and satisfaction that not even the Old Testament Sabbath could provide. In the words of N.T. Wright, “If Jesus is a walking, living, breathing Temple, he is also the walking, celebrating, victorious sabbath.”
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Well, if you have already addressed Romans 3:20 in a manner that addresses my concerns, and not in a way that evades my concerns, then you should be able to identify the post number(s) where my questions have been answered.
What this translates as to me as I read it is that you did not like the detailed scripture responses you were provided that show the scripture context you left out of your earlier posts that show that your claims in regards to Romans 3:20 were not supported in the scriptures. The scriptural replies that add back the context that disagrees with have been provided in love as a help to you in post # 317; post # 325; post # 360 linked. All you done is micro-quote some of these posts while not addressing anything while trying to avoid discussing the linked posts provided here that show the context your disregarding in Romans 3 that does not agree with you. It is you how is evading a discussion on Romans 3:20. I have provided all the context in the linked posts above. It is you who refuses to discuss them. Of course you do not have to if you do not want to but don't pretend that your views on Romans 3:20 have not been addressed in detail with you providing the contexts your disregarding that shows your claims and teachings of lawlessness (without law) are not biblical.

Take Care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Please provide the post numbers where you have refuted my arguments. Not someone else's arguments, my argument

Which ones? Everyone of your arguments have been refuted by Gods Word from the scriptures, by adding the scripture context back into the discussion you have left out of your posts the disagree with your claims and teachings of lawlessness (without law). I am still awaiting for you to address them. You can find them here in

YOUR ARGUMENTS REFUTED BY SCRIPTURE CONTEXT PROVIDED HERE...
  1. Post # 208 linked
  2. Post # 209 linked
  3. Post # 241 linked
  4. Post # 274 linked
  5. Post # 275 linked
  6. Post # 317 linked
  7. Post # 318 linked
  8. Post # 319 linked
  9. Post # 320 linked
  10. Post # 321 linked
  11. Post # 322 linked
  12. Post # 325 linked
  13. Post # 333 linked
  14. Post # 360 linked
  15. Post # 363 linked
All of the posts above show why your teachings of lawlessness (without law) are not biblical by providing the scripture contexts you leave out. There is not a single one that you have addressed. I am still waiting for you to address these posts that are in disagreement with your teachings here. Of course you do not have to if you do not want to. There were only sent in love and as a help for you. I will leave it between you and God. It seems you have a lot of catching up to do.

Take Care now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Here are the words of one Andy Fortner (Jesus is Our Everyday Sabbath). Here he comments on that famous passage where Jesus says "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath"

Then we have the definition from God's Word as to what the Sabbath is here...

Exodus 20:10 [10], But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God

Here we have the words of men calling Jesus the Sabbath in the post you provided. Then we have the scriptures defining the scriptures saying no! The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God!

According to the scriptures, only Gods' Word is true and we should believe and follow them over the teachings and traditions of men that lead us away from Gods' Word to break the commandments of God *see Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29; 1 John 2:3-4 and Matthew 15:2-9.

Take Care now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,687
5,784
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,954.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Up to yesterday, I had given no thought to the notion that the Sabbath might be a signpost - something that gives us advance notice of another thing that we will encounter "down the road".

I am now convinced it is indeed a signpost that is now in the rear view mirror, to continue the metaphor.

Consider this from Jesus: Come to Me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest

Sound familar?

but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work,

It appears that some in this debate will have to say this yet another coincidence. Just as it is a coincidence - so some here have to maintain - that Jesus' last words were "
it is finished" after having said the Law will end when "all is accomplished"

It certainly seems to me that Jesus is effectively saying "I am the new Sabbath, the very thing that the old Sabbath pointed to."

No doubt you will hear the objection "there is no scripture that says the Sabbath was abolished"

That may be true, but the fable about the goose that laid the golden egg never explicitly declares that it is a morality tale about greed. Yet, one cannot miss this as the underlying message.

Scripture teaches us many great truths that cannot be isolated down to single proof text. One of these is that Jesus comes to take on the covenantal role of Israel - she was charged to be the means by which the nations will be blessed but has proven faithless. And now Jesus takes on this role. This cannot be proven by "a verse", but the theme is there for all with open eyes to see.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,687
5,784
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,954.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
According to the scripture God does not change *Matthew 24:35; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 33:11; Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 13:8; Malachi 3:6.
Ah yes, the old "God does not change so this means the way He cannot possibly implement a redemption plan that evolves over time" argument.

This is not convincing. Yes, our God does not change, but that does not that He cannot do different things at different times.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,687
5,784
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,954.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Not at all. All these translations are very relevant because your trying to argue that Gods' law does not give us a knowledge of what sin is when the scripture says God's law gives us a knowledge of what sin is.
Let's start with the easy stuff first. You claim that God's law is needed today to tell us what sin is. Well. let's look at Paul's exact wording in Romans 7:7

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet

Note the past tense: Paul is referring to the fact that, yes, in the past, the law gave him knowledge of sin. Based on this text alone, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about whether that role continues. Hmm, I wonder if Paul writes anything else that would allow us to settle the question as to whether that role continues today?

We need not look far - Romans 7:6

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,211
4,283
USA
✟484,446.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Let's start with the easy stuff first. You claim that God's law is needed today to tell us what sin is. Well. let's look at Paul's exact wording in Romans 7:7

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet

Note the past tense: Paul is referring to the fact that, yes, in the past, the law gave him knowledge of sin. Based on this text alone, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about whether that role continues. Hmm, I wonder if Paul writes anything else that would allow us to settle the question as to whether that role continues today?

We need not look far - Romans 7:6

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I am pretty sure covertness was not removed from God's law (or any of the commandments of God) as shown:

This seems clear enough:


Ephesians 5:5
For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Romans 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness,
sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

On the flip side this this is the fruit of a saved person:

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

And our two choices....

Romans 6: 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

Rom 8:4 .. the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are in accord with the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.


Walking in the Spirit (the newness of the Spirit from Romans 7:6) is not hostile to God and keeps the law of God.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0