IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?

LoveGodsWord said:

Yes but that is not in context to what we are discussing now is it. The context to our discussion is Gods' 10 commandments and the claims they have been abolished.

Click to expand...

Well... I've been following this conversation fairly closely. I do not perceive the context to be about the ten commandments only. That's especially true when it comes to the idea of "without law".

Leaf473 said:

Well... I've been following this conversation fairly closely. I do not perceive the context to be about the ten commandments only. That's especially true when it comes to the idea of "without law".

Click to expand...

Well we must be reading different things. It is very easy to see that the context in my discussions with your friend is in regards to Gods' 10 commandments if you have been following my conversation because he is claiming that God's 10 commandments have been abolished. Without law in context to our discussion that Gods' 10 commandments has been abolished is in context to without law meaning lawlessness. My guess if that you have not been following our for you to make those comments.

LoveGodsWord said:

Well we must be reading different things. It is very easy to see that the context in my discussions with your friend is in regards to Gods' 10 commandments if you have been following my conversation because he is claiming that God's 10 commandments have been abolished. My guess if that you have not been following our for you to make those comments.

Click to expand...

I agree that the ten commandments is the subject of this thread, or at least part of the subject. It does not follow that every time someone says the word "law" they mean the ten commandments.

I've made quite a few posts on this thread myself. When I say "law" I could mean a set of laws that includes the ten commandments.

Leaf473 said:

If I may observe here,

@LoveGodsWord is defining "law" as the ten commandments.

@expos4ever is defining "law" as a set of laws which may or may not include the ten commandments (my impression).

Two very different definitions of "law".

Click to expand...

Indeed. But if I may add this rather obvious thing:

expos4ever is correct

LoveGodsWord is mistaken.

If you look up "law" in any dictionary it will not say "10 commandments"!

You cannot redefine words to suit your agenda!

I am sure you have noticed how, conveniently of course, certain posters have redefined "fulfill" to rule out the possibility that when something is fulfilled, it comes to an end.

The only "out" here about "lawlessness" is to argue that the writer of 1 John 3:4 himself has elected to use "lawlessness" in the highly restricted sense of only referring to the 10 commandments. And that obviously cannot work!

Here is why:

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

What about before the 10 were given? If the author of 1 John 3:4 is intending that we understand him as saying that "sin is violation of the 10 commandments", then no one before Moses was a sinner.

This has to stop - lawlessness does not mean "violation of the 10", it means violation of any law.

Leaf473 said:

I agree that the ten commandments is the subject of this thread, or at least part of the subject. It does not follow that every time someone says the word "law" they mean the ten commandments. I've made quite a few posts on this thread myself. When I say "law" I could mean a set of laws that includes the ten commandments.

Click to expand...

I am talking about the context of my discussion with your friend in regards to Gods' 10 commandments being abolished. That is my application to lawlessness.

expos4ever said:

Indeed. But if I may add this rather obvious thing:

expos4ever is correct

LoveGodsWord is mistaken.

If you look up "law" in any dictionary it will not say "10 commandments"!

You cannot redefine words to suit your agenda!

I am sure you have noticed how, conveniently of course, certain posters have redefined "fulfill" to rule out the possibility that when something is fulfilled, it comes to an end.

The only "out" here about "lawlessness" is to argue that the writer of 1 John 3:4 himself has elected to use "lawlessness" in the highly restricted sense of only referring to the 10 commandments. And that obviously cannot work!

Here is why:

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

What about before the 10 were given? If the author of 1 John 3:4 is intending that we understand him as saying that "sin is violation of the 10 commandments", then no one before Moses was a sinner.

This has to stop - lawlessness does not mean "violation of the 10", it means violation of any law.

Click to expand...

Your teachings God's 10 commandments have been abolished which is lawlessness (without law). Which is a teaching that is not biblical.

expos4ever said:

This has to stop - lawlessness does not mean "violation of the 10", it means violation of any law.

Click to expand...

Which includes God's law- the Ten Commandments.

Law is a generic term which could mean the law of Moses and it could mean the law of God. Context gives us the meaning in scripture. When scripture refers to the commandments of God, that most certainly is God's Ten Commandments.

Sin is lawlessness which includes God's Ten Commandments.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

LoveGodsWord said:

I am talking about the context of my discussion with your friend in regards to Gods' 10 commandments being abolished. That is my application to lawlessness.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is your "application to lawlessness". It does not follow that other people in the discussion are using that same definition.

And, as pointed out above, it may not be how the writer of 1 John is using "lawlessness".

expos4ever said:

Indeed. But if I may add this rather obvious thing:

expos4ever is correct

LoveGodsWord is mistaken.

If you look up "law" in any dictionary it will not say "10 commandments"!

You cannot redefine words to suit your agenda!

I am sure you have noticed how, conveniently of course, certain posters have redefined "fulfill" to rule out the possibility that when something is fulfilled, it comes to an end.

The only "out" here about "lawlessness" is to argue that the writer of 1 John 3:4 himself has elected to use "lawlessness" in the highly restricted sense of only referring to the 10 commandments. And that obviously cannot work!

Here is why:

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

What about before the 10 were given? If the author of 1 John 3:4 is intending that we understand him as saying that "sin is violation of the 10 commandments", then no one before Moses was a sinner.

This has to stop - lawlessness does not mean "violation of the 10", it means violation of any law.

Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think that 1 John 3:4 can rightly be interpreted to mean that if you don't have the ten commandments, you don't have any law of any kind.

I think what the writer is actually getting at is sin is the condition of being unrestrained.

LoveGodsWord said:

How is this a falsehood? - It isn't

Click to expand...

It is a falsehood, and an obvious one at that.

There are all sorts of laws in the world in addition to the 10 commandments!

If I lived in Australia 3000 years ago and violated local tribal regulations, am I not being lawless? Of course I am.

The Australians of 3000 years ago knew precisely diddly-squat about the 10 commandments.

LoveGodsWord said:

I am talking about the context of my discussion with your friend in regards to Gods' 10 commandments being abolished. That is my application to lawlessness.

Click to expand...

The "context of the discussion" plays no role in determining the meaning of words.

Words means what they mean - you cannot take the word "lawlessness" whose definition is this:

not governed by or obedient to laws; characterized by a lack of civic order

and then click your heels together and hope that it becomes this:

not governed by or obedient to lawsthe 10 Commandments; characterized by a lack of civic orderfollowing the 10 Commandments.

Leaf473 said:

Yes, that is your "application to lawlessness". It does not follow that other people in the discussion are using that same definition.

And, as pointed out above, it may not be how the writer of 1 John is using "lawlessness".

Click to expand...

Follow the discussion. You seem to not understand what is being posted to you.

expos4ever said:

The "context of the discussion" plays no role in determining the meaning of words.

Words means what they mean - you cannot take the word "lawlessness" whose definition is this:

not governed by or obedient to laws; characterized by a lack of civic order

and then click your heels together and hope that it becomes this:

not governed by or obedient to lawsthe 10 Commandments; characterized by a lack of civic orderfollowing the 10 Commandments.

Click to expand...

Sure I can. Lawlessness means without law. You teach and believe Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished therefore the new covenant is without the law of God's 10 commandments, therefore lawlessness. Call it whatever you want your teaching is one of lawlessness.

expos4ever said:

It is a falsehood, and an obvious one at that.

There are all sorts of laws in the world in addition to the 10 commandments!

If I lived in Australia 3000 years ago and violated local tribal regulations, am I not being lawless? Of course I am.

The Australians of 3000 years ago knew precisely diddly-squat about the 10 commandments.

Click to expand...

Nope. your teaching God's 10 commandments have been abolished which is a teaching of lawlessness meaning without law of God's 10 commandments.

LoveGodsWord said:

There is no scripture in all of Gods' Word that says they have been abolished in the new covenant.

Click to expand...

Again:

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
.....
7 But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came with glory so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
.....
For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances,

expos4ever said:

Again:

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
.....
7 But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came with glory so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
.....
For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances,

Click to expand...

WHAT IS ROMANS 7:6 TALKING ABOUT?

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 that gives us a knowledge of what sin is, 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 Gods Spirit in newness of life (Romans 8:1-4). So nope Romans 7:6 does not teach anywhere that Gods' 10 commandments are abolished. It is teaching that we must be released from the sin (breaking God's law) that has bound us to be married to another (Christ) to walk in newness of life not of the letter but of the Spirit of God. Every time you read the word "sin" above you can substitute it to breaking Gods' law and not believing Gods' Word *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; James 2:10-11 and Romans 14:23. If there is no law then we have no knowledge of what sin is.

May God bless you as you receive his Words of correction.

LoveGodsWord said:

Nope. your teaching God's 10 commandments have been abolished which is a teaching of lawlessness meaning without law of God's 10 commandments.

Click to expand...

This is an abject untruth, and needs to be called out as such.

You do not have the right to change the meaning of words. And you certainly do not have the right to then accuse others of an inconsistency just because they do not buy into your entirely illegitimate re-definition of that word.

LoveGodsWord said:

Follow the discussion. You seem to not understand what is being posted to you.

Click to expand...

I have been following the discussion.

I tend to agree that words have definitions, and it's best to use those common definitions as much as possible.

But the really critical thing is that everyone in the discussion use the same definitions.

What word do you use to describe the condition of being without the ten commandments?

What word do you use to describe the condition of being without any law of any kind, laws from the scriptures or laws enacted by civil authorities?

expos4ever said:

This is an abject untruth, and needs to be called out as such.

You do not have the right to change the meaning of words. And you certainly do not have the right to then accuse others of an inconsistency just because they do not buy into your entirely illegitimate re-definition of that word.

Click to expand...

Not really it is literal truth. You believe and teach that God's 10 commandments have been abolished in the new covenant right? Therefore you believe and teach in a teaching of lawlessness meaning without law of God's 10 commandments in the new covenant.

Leaf473 said:

I have been following the discussion.

I tend to agree that words have definitions, and it's best to use those common definitions as much as possible.

But the really critical thing is that everyone in the discussion use the same definitions.

What word do you use to describe the condition of being without the ten commandments?

What word do you use to describe the condition of being without any law of any kind, laws from the scriptures or laws enacted by civil authorities?

Click to expand...

No you haven't and sorry I do not believe you. Anyone following my discussions can see very clearly what law I am talking about. I have been very specific about it stating that I am talking about God's eternal laws of His 10 commandments that give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken. Those who believe and teach that Gods 10 commandments have been abolished in the new covenant believe and teach in a false teaching of lawlessness (without law) in the new covenant which is not biblical and is a teaching against all the old and new testament scriptures.