Do the Ten Commandments define sin? (nope)

[Soyeong]

Seriously? You are really missing the point here.

Circumcision was the entry point to being under the law. By putting themselves under the law, Christ became of no value to them. That would be a step backwards.

Can you please either quote where God required all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved or acknowledge it was not something that God ever commanded? You should not take a ruling that was against obeying something that God never command as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded. We must obey God rather than man, so if the Jerusalem Council had ruled against obeying something that God commanded, then you should be quicker to disregard what they said than to disregard what God command, but they never did that. They did not have greater authority than God, so they had no authority to countermand God or to tell anyone not to obey any of His commands.

All throughout the Bible God wanted His people to repent and obey His Law, and even Jesus began his ministry with that message, so you still need to explain how it would make sense to interpret Paul as warning people that they will be cut off from Christ if they seek to follow Christ. How does it even make sense to say that it would somehow be a step backward to repent and obey God? Do you think that God does not want His commands to be obeyed? If you think that Paul was speaking against obeying God, then why should we follow him instead of following God?

What is the point of being saved by grace if you are going to try to earn it by the works of the law?

To use analogy, if someone were to give you a movie as a free give and it were to remain unwatched on your shelf, then there would be a sense that it belonged to you, but there would also be a sense that you have not really received what was given until watch it even though watching it does nothing to earn the gift. Or if someone were to pay for your college tuition as a free gift, then there would be the sense that you have not really received what was given until you attend classes even though attending classes does nothing to earn what was given.

Similarly, in titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to live in obedience to God, so participating in this training by grace through faith is not about trying to earn the free gift, but rather it is what it looks like be saved from living in disobedience to God and what it means to receive the grace that has been given. Again, David wanted God to show His grace to him by teaching him to obey His Law and obedience to God has never been about trying to earn our salvation.

 

[Soyeong]

Paul of course was speaking of his life as a Pharisee in rom 7:7-11&13-24. It is all about breaking the tenth commandment. The law relating to the inner man, the law only you and God need know you break

In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying God's Law and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive, and which he served with his flesh. In other words, he spoke about the God's Law, which is holy, righteous, and good (7:12), and which is not sinful, but was give to reveal what sin is, which should cause sin to decrease. However, he spoke about another law of sin that was sinful, which was working within him to cause him not to do the good of obeying God's Law that he wanted to do (7:13-20), which caused sin to increase. The 10th Commandment is just an example of one of the many laws that God gave that revealed what sin is.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It can't be absolute if you describe it as "pretty much", right? (see bold emphasis above)

No, what I meant was those three teachings that I mentioned pretty much cover all of God's moral laws. But there are a few others scattered in other parts of the bible. ALL sin is covered in the bible, though sometimes we miss some of them especially some of the more general moral princiiples, which I thought was what you were doing.

ss: But to be honest, I'm having trouble naming a sin that is outside the Bible. And even if I did, how could I confirm it is sin without the Bible as the deciding authority? I was thinking of things that are a part of modern life that would not be covered specifically.

Exactly, that is what I said above.

ss: But, you seem to agree with the main point of the OP. Unless I am misunderstanding you. I am addressing those who claim that the Ten Commandments define sin. They use this verse below to make the point. They claim that "the law' is the Ten Commandments. Not true. Or only partially true.

1 John 3:4 KJV
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

That verse is referring to all the moral law including the ten commandments. The ten commandment are though the basic framework of the moral law from which almost all moral laws are derived from.

 

[James Richards]

In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying God's Law and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive, and which he served with his flesh. In other words, he spoke about the God's Law, which is holy, righteous, and good (7:12), and which is not sinful, but was give to reveal what sin is, which should cause sin to decrease. However, he spoke about another law of sin that was sinful, which was working within him to cause him not to do the good of obeying God's Law that he wanted to do (7:13-20), which caused sin to increase. The 10th Commandment is just an example of one of the many laws that God gave that revealed what sin is.

The chapter, from verse 7 onwards is all about sin, taking occasion by the commandment(thou shalt not covet) to make Paul/Saul exceedingly sinfull. Paul indeed states the law is holy, just and good, but sin used what was holy just and good to arouse all manner of concupiscence in Saul. Verses14-24 goes into detail concerning what Paul wrote in verses 7-11
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, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.


Knowledge of Gods laws are not neccessarily followed by a reduction of sin, as was the case for Saul the Pharisee, the sin got worse once he knew the law. And Paul states once the law was given sin increased(Rom5:20) And he stated the power of sin is the law(1Cor15:56)

Right believing leads to right living, it is not attained to simply by knowing the letter of the law

 

[Soyeong]

The chapter, from verse 7 onwards is all about sin, taking occasion by the commandment(thou shalt not covet) to make Paul/Saul exceedingly sinfull. Paul indeed states the law is holy, just and good, but sin used what was holy just and good to arouse all manner of concupiscence in Saul.
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, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.


Knowledge of Gods laws are not neccessarily followed by a reduction of sin, as was the case for Saul the Pharisee, the sin got worse once he knew the law. And Paul states once the law was given sin increased(Rom5:20) And he stated the power of sin is the law(1Cor15:56)

Right believing leads to right living, it is not attained to simply by knowing the letter of the law

In Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that God's Law is good and that he did not blame what was good for bringing death to him, so neither should you. When God reveals our sin, then that should lead us to repent and cause sin to decrease. In Romans 5:20 and 1 Corinthians 15:56, Paul was speaking about a law that caused sin to increase, so he was speaking about the law of sin, not about God's Law. If those verses were speaking about God's Law, then God's Law would be sinful, but Paul directly stated that God's Law was not sinful (Romans 7:7).

 

[James Richards]

In Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that God's Law is good and that he did not blame what was good for bringing death to him, so neither should you. When God reveals our sin, then that should lead us to repent and cause sin to decrease. In Romans 5:20 and 1 Corinthians 15:56, Paul was speaking about a law that caused sin to increase, so he was speaking about the law of sin, not about God's Law. If those verses were speaking about God's Law, then God's Law would be sinful, but Paul directly stated that God's Law was not sinful (Romans 7:7).

In Rom 7:7 Paul was referring to Thou shalt not covet, one of the Ten Commandments. Rom 5:20 is quite plainly written: When the law was given sin increased. Sin increased in Saul the Pharisee once he knew the law, that is also very plainly written. I have not blamed the law for sin increasing, but rather sin, which took occasion by what was holy just and good to arouse all manner of sin in Saul and thereby condemn him.

 

[Soyeong]

In Rom 7:7 Paul was referring to Thou shalt not covet, one of the Ten Commandments. Rom 5:20 is quite plainly written: When the law was given sin increased. Sin increased in Saul the Pharisee once he knew the law, that is also very plainly written. I have not blamed the law for sin increasing, but rather sin, which took occasion by what was holy just and good to arouse all manner of sin in Saul and thereby condemn him.

Paul spoke about multiple laws, we should never assume which law he was speaking about. For example:

Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

In this verse he spoke about God's Law, which he served with his mind and directly contrasted that with the law of sin, which he served with his flesh, and throughout that passage of Scripture he was switching back and forth about which of the two he was speaking about. So if you just assume that he was always speaking about God's Law, then you're going to end up very confused doctrine. For example, Paul said in 7:22 that he delighted in obeying God's Law, so if he was speaking about the same law as 5:20, then that would mean that he was delighting in causing transgressions to increase, which would make no sense. Again, Paul directly said that God's Law was not sinful (Romans 7:7), so wherever he was speaking about a law that causes sin to increase, that is a good indication that he was speaking about the law of sin rather than the law of God. For example:

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Paul described the Law that we aren't under when we are under grace as being one where sin had dominion over us, which does not at all fit with his description of God's holy, righteous, and good Law, which he delighted in obeying, and which he directly said was not sinful, but rather it perfectly fits with his description of the law of sin, that was stirring up sinful passions and causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do.

 

[James Richards]

Paul spoke about multiple laws, we should never assume which law he was speaking about. For example:

Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

In this verse he spoke about God's Law, which he served with his mind and directly contrasted that with the law of sin, which he served with his flesh, and throughout that passage of Scripture he was switching back and forth about which of the two he was speaking about. So if you just assume that he was always speaking about God's Law, then you're going to end up very confused doctrine. For example, Paul said in 7:22 that he delighted in obeying God's Law, so if he was speaking about the same law as 5:20, then that would mean that he was delighting in causing transgressions to increase, which would make no sense. Again, Paul directly said that God's Law was not sinful (Romans 7:7), so wherever he was speaking about a law that causes sin to increase, that is a good indication that he was speaking about the law of sin rather than the law of God. For example:

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Paul described the Law that we aren't under when we are under grace as being one where sin had dominion over us, which does not at all fit with his description of God's holy, righteous, and good Law, which he delighted in obeying, and which he directly said was not sinful, but rather it perfectly fits with his description of the law of sin, that was stirring up sinful passions and causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do.

I think you find it hard to understand what Paul is writing about, or his thought process:
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, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.


The above concerns the commandment: Thou shalt not covet, that is irrefutable. And in verses14-24 he simply elaborates concerning his failure to obey that particular commandment. There is no confusion if you understand Paul's message. Paul did NOT delight in sin increasing, he hated it.

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. verse15

For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do verse19

I think we had better leave it there. It is plainly obvious the law that is being mentioned in rom 7:7-11, it is very plainly written. I will leave you with this

Right believing leads to right living, NOT simply knowing the letter of the law.

 

[James Richards]

What law stirred up sinfull passions in Saul the Pharisee? Or, what law did sin take occasion of to arouse all manner of sinner passions in Saul?


So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for 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. Rom 7:4-6

Which law is Paul speaking of in the above? In the next five verses he carries on and elaborates on what he has written, giving an example from his own personal life:

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, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment(thou shalt not covet), wrought in me all manner of concupiscence/sinfull passions

Its very sad, that often, if a subject is not understood on the internet, it is preferable to do sommersaults with what is plainly written rather than be open to beliefs that are not preconceived. Debate then becomes futile

 

[Saint Steven]

The topic of Acts 15 had nothing to do with whether followers of God should follow God. As I pointed out in my post what they were wanting to require Gentiles to do in Acts 15:1 was not something that God ever required, so they were upholding God's Law by rejecting that man-made requirement. ...

You are claiming that circumcision was something that God never required?

I suppose you mean that he never required gentiles to be circumcised. There is more to it. Verse five adds that they were also requiring gentiles to keep the law of Moses. I suppose you will claim that this was not God's law, but rather the law of Moses. However, the law of Moses was the law from God. God gave it to Moses. God did not relinquish ownership of it. It was the law of God for the Israelites only given through Moses.

Acts 15:5
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

 

[Saint Steven]

...
In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that His Law was not too difficult for His people to obey, so if Acts 15:10 were referring to God's Law, then they would have been in direct disagreement with God and they therefore would have been wrong. In 1 John 5:3, it also confirms that the commandments of God are not burdensome. Every Sabbath Jews thank God every Sabbath for giving them the Torah as instructions for life, so it is absurd to impose the view upon them that they considered the Law to be a burden that no one could bear. The Psalms contain extremely high praise for the Torah and I don't think it is a stretch to say that Jews were in agreement with the Psalms. If you think that the Psalms are Scripture and therefore express a correct view of God's Law, then you should also share it. …

This brings up an interesting point. Is compliance with the law difficult, or easy?

Some scriptures confirm that it is "not burdensome", and others that it is impossible to keep. You are arguing for "not burdensome", I'll take the other side.

The law was in fact in conflict with itself. Should a boy be circumcised on the eighth day if it is a Sabbath day? If my animal falls in a well should I pull it out? Do I help a bloodied traveler and become ceremonially unclean? Can I gather firewood on the Sabbath if my family is cold? Can I carry my mattress home on the Sabbath? Is that work?

Are these directions easy to follow? Or difficult to follow?
A burden, or not a burden?

Leviticus 5:1-13
“‘If anyone sins because they do not speak up when they hear a public charge to testify regarding something they have seen or learned about, they will be held responsible.
2 “‘If anyone becomes aware that they are guilty—if they unwittingly touch anything ceremonially unclean (whether the carcass of an unclean animal, wild or domestic, or of any unclean creature that moves along the ground) and they are unaware that they have become unclean, but then they come to realize their guilt; 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.
7 “‘Anyone who cannot afford a lamb is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the Lord as a penalty for their sin—one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 8 They are to bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one for the sin offering. He is to wring its head from its neck, not dividing it completely, 9 and is to splash some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering. 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.
11 “‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12 They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. It is a sin offering. 13 In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.’”

 

[Saint Steven]

…

There are 1,050 commandments in the NT, so to say say that the laws listed in Acts 15:19-21 are an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of mature gentile believers would be to disregard over 99% of the commandments in the NT, including those taught by Jesus, Clearly it was not intended as an exhaustive list for mature believers, but as stated it was a list intended not to make things too difficult for new believers. To use an analogy, when an employer hires a new employee, they don't want to make it too difficult for them by having them memorize everything that they will ever need to know about how to do their job up front, but rather they start with teaching them just the basics of what they will need to know with the understanding that they will continue to learn the rest on the job. So Acts 15:19-21 is along the same line of thought where they didn't want to make things too difficult for new believers coming to faith by making them memorize a long list of laws up front, but rather they started with the basics of what would make a clean break from paganism, which they excused by saying that they would continue to learn how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

This is another interesting point.

When I read the outcome of Acts fifteen, I have to ask, "What were you thinking?!!!" However, the text says: verse 28 - "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:"

I personally don't think there should have been any requirements from the law. As they said: "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” - vs 21 Meaning, the law was common knowledge.

Furthermore, the requirements were in conflict with the teachings of the Apostle Paul about food sacrificed to idols. The council said, "no", Paul said, "yes". (conditionally)

 

[Saint Steven]

I didn't deny that he made a clear reference to the whole law, but rather I spoke in regard to what he was referring to by the "whole law". There existed a large body of Jewish oral laws that existed in the 1st century while played a major role within Judaism that were the subject of much of the discussions about laws in the NT, which you need to account for.

The phrase "works of the of the law" does not have a definitive article in the Greek, so it is literally translated in the YLT as "works of law", which means that it does not refer to a definitive set of laws, such as THE Law of Moses, but rather Paul used it as a catch-all phrase to refer to this large body of oral laws, which people were being taught that they needed to obey in order to become saved. This is also how the phrase is used in the Qumran Text 4QMMT. It was the role of these man-made laws that were major issue in Acts 15 and Galatians.

It seems that you are building your case on a snippet from a single verse. I am using the full paragraph context. You are isolating words to make your case. You are making arguments based on what you think can and cannot be. And I suppose I am doing that to some degree as well. We both look at these things through different "lenses".

 

[Saint Steven]

Can you please either quote where God required all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved or acknowledge it was not something that God ever commanded? You should not take a ruling that was against obeying something that God never command as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded. We must obey God rather than man, so if the Jerusalem Council had ruled against obeying something that God commanded, then you should be quicker to disregard what they said than to disregard what God command, but they never did that. They did not have greater authority than God, so they had no authority to countermand God or to tell anyone not to obey any of His commands. …

I'm not claiming that gentiles are required to be circumcised. I was saying that circumcision was the entry point for gentiles who wanted to become Jewish proselytes. Which, unfortunately, was what the Jewish converts were promoting to gentile believers.

 

[Saint Steven]

…
To use analogy, if someone were to give you a movie as a free give and it were to remain unwatched on your shelf, then there would be a sense that it belonged to you, but there would also be a sense that you have not really received what was given until watch it even though watching it does nothing to earn the gift. Or if someone were to pay for your college tuition as a free gift, then there would be the sense that you have not really received what was given until you attend classes even though attending classes does nothing to earn what was given.

Similarly, in titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to live in obedience to God, so participating in this training by grace through faith is not about trying to earn the free gift, but rather it is what it looks like be saved from living in disobedience to God and what it means to receive the grace that has been given. Again, David wanted God to show His grace to him by teaching him to obey His Law and obedience to God has never been about trying to earn our salvation.

I hear this a lot. Something to the effect that, we are not REQUIRED to keep the law for salvation, but we are damned if we don't, because no sin will enter heaven. Not your words, I know, but that is the idea.

Frankly, anything that will keep you out of heaven is a requirement for salvation. Claiming that compliance with the law is a result of salvation doesn't play out. A person ends up in a worse place than before they were saved.

 

[Saint Steven]

No, what I meant was those three teachings that I mentioned pretty much cover all of God's moral laws. But there are a few others scattered in other parts of the bible. ALL sin is covered in the bible, though sometimes we miss some of them especially some of the more general moral princiiples, which I thought was what you were doing.


Exactly, that is what I said above.



That verse is referring to all the moral law including the ten commandments. The ten commandment are though the basic framework of the moral law from which almost all moral laws are derived from.

Thanks. Do you keep the Sabbath?

 

[Walks with watchers]

If you believe the Ten Commandments define sin, you have left yourself lots of wiggle room.

These sins are not covered under the TCs.
- Pride
- Greed
- Envy
- Wrath, Fits of Rage
- Lust
- Gluttony
- Sloth
- Dishonesty, Deception
- Impurity, Debauchery
- Witchcraft, Sorcery
- Hatred, Indifference
- Jealousy
- Showing Favoritism, Prejudice and Discrimination
- Selfish Ambition, Self-Centeredness
- Withholding Remedy to Human or Animal Needs
- Drunkenness, Drug Abuse
- Fornication, Sodomy, inappropriate behavior with animals
- Discord, Dissensions, Factions
- Unbelief, Disbelief, Agnosticism, Atheism
- Etc.

The definition of sin is not limited to the Ten Commandments.
The definition of sin is not limited to the Books of the Law.
The definition of sin is not limited to the Old Testament.
The definition of sin is not even limited to the entire Bible.

Okay, back to your wiggling.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

We could look at the Ten Commandments as a testing starter point which no one can completely pass unscaved.

M-Bob

 

[Walks with watchers]

Definition of SIN:
Saying the
I AM is
Not
Not Existing
Not The Life Giver
Not The Creator
Not Righteous Rightful Ruler Of The Heavens and all The Earth
Words actions and inactions that show these things to ourselves, to other lives and To The I AM Himself.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Definition of SIN:

Thoughts that run through my mind after I've been awake for about two minutes. Is it okay when I was asleep (I think?)

To be honest -- not always -- for some of those dreams at times are very sinful.

M-Bob