Is the fourth commandment a moral issue?

[Eila]

Then I'll have to vigourously spank whoever taught you the Bible.

Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

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

Note also:

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:


Genesis 6:5
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil

Genesis 18:20
And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

I was asking for the text that says where there is no law there is no sin. You gave a list of texts, but none of them say that. Is there some version out there that says "where there is no law there is no sin"? I've heard that text referred to quite a bit, but have yet to find it. I'm speaking of the text you specifically referred to in your list. It is a quote based on inferences or is there an actual text that says that?

 

[djconklin]

Read Romans 4:15 and 1 John 3:4.

 

[Eila]

Read Romans 4:15 and 1 John 3:4.

Thank you. I am familiar with both texts. I'm assuming that you are saying there is no one text that says "where there is no law there is no sin", but you are combining two versus to come up with that statement.

You do run into problems with putting those two verses together though based on the English word transgression. You have two different Greek words and 1 English word. I'm not sure how one can put together the two to make 1 statement.

Romans 4:15 transgression
"transgression
New Testament Greek Definition:
3847 parabasis {par-ab'-as-is}
from 3845; TDNT - 5:739,772; n f
AV - transgression 6, breaking 1; 7
1) a going over
2) metaph. a disregarding, violating
2a) of the Mosaic law
2b) the breach of a definite, promulgated, ratified law
2c) to create transgressions, i.e. that sins might take on the
character of transgressions, and thereby the consciousness
of sin be intensified and the desire for redemption be aroused "


1 John 3
"[SIZE=-0][SIZE=-0]the transgression of the law
New Testament Greek Definition:
458 anomia {an-om-ee'-ah}
from 459; TDNT - 4:1085,646; n f
AV - iniquity 12, unrighteousness 1, transgress the law + 4160 1,
transgression of the law 1; 15
1) the condition of without law
1a) because ignorant of it
1b) because of violating it
2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness [/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[djconklin]

Two different Greek words have two different meanings; no surprise. I wasn't using the English word. One doesn't build theology by only looking at what one word--unless one has looked at every single occurence of the word and looked at what is used in conjunction with it.


From http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3847&Version=kjv (parabasis)
1) a going over
2) metaph. a disregarding, violating
a) of the Mosaic law
b) the breach of a definite, promulgated, ratified law
c) to create transgressions, i.e. that sins might take on the character of transgressions, and thereby the consciousness of sin be intensified and the desire for redemption be aroused

(anomeia)
1) the condition of without law
a) because ignorant of it
b) because of violating it
2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness

So parabasis is a violation of the law and anomeia is also a violation of law.

 

[Eila]

Two different Greek words have two different meanings; no surprise. I wasn't using the English word. One doesn't build theology by only looking at what one word.

If you weren't using the English word then why did you put "where there is no law there is no transgression" with "sin is transgression of the law" to come up with "where there is no law there is no sin"? Or maybe I misunderstood your explanation of where you came up with the "where there is no law there is no sin".

 

[djconklin]

Now I know how computer techs feel when they get a call about their cup holder being broken.

How do I simplify this? (Thinking out loud.) Both terms point to a transgression of the law Therefore, the two texts can be merged into one simple sentence in English: "where there is no law there is no sin."

 

[Eila]

Now I know how computer techs feel when they get a call about their cup holder being broken.

How do I simplify this? (Thinking out loud.) Both terms point to a transgression of the law Therefore, the two texts can be merged into one simple sentence in English: "where there is no law there is no sin."

I don't think that is how Biblical interpretation is supposed to work. We have 2 different texts, 2 different books, 2 different contexts, and 2 different Greek words.

Anomia is from anomos which refers to being without law. It is translated as iniquity most often.
Parabasis is about the breaking of a command.

I could understand the one simple sentence (not as a restatement of Scripture, but an explanation) if you have the same Greek word and the same context. Putting part of a text together with a part of another text can change the meaning. I think some people have heard those two texts put together so much that they think that it is actually in the Bible like that.

 

[freeindeed2]

Now I know how computer techs feel when they get a call about their cup holder being broken.

How do I simplify this? (Thinking out loud.) Both terms point to a transgression of the law Therefore, the two texts can be merged into one simple sentence in English: "where there is no law there is no sin."

That's not how it works. You should know that as a 'researcher'.

In CHRIST alone...

 

[elijahorao]

Unless of course you were a gentile or sojourner and one compelled and much desireous of joining up as a child of Israel. There were actual rules spelled out for non-Israelites when the wanted to join with the Children of Israel.

Are you a gentile ricker that wishes to join with Israel, which as a type is embodied in Jesus Christ?

Isa 56:6 ¶
Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Isa 56:7
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Ricker, I know we've been over the whole "my covenant" thing. But honestly, what was God's covenant with the Children of Israel based on? What was contained in the Ark?

The Ten Commandments perhaps?



Thanks for that ricker!

Did you miss the significance of this: "....does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise."

So what's the inheritance based on ricker?

Joining with Jesus Christ, the true vine, the true son of Israel. When we join with Jesus we become "adopted" sons and daughters. The "adopted" don't bring in the rules they want to bring in, they abide by the rules of the family they have been adopted by.

touche

 

[elijahorao]

Interesting you should post this on your debate section on the Sabbath in defiance of your own board rules.

[
It is obvious this is written for those under the laws at the time.
.
.

It doesn't say the Sabbath is in effect in the future, does it? What exactly on it's own do you think it says that would prove a point for yourself?


Say what you will about me. You are the one who has preconcieved notions of what any given Bible passage means. This comes from your "spirit of prophecy". You start with her beliefs and try to mold the Bible to achieve the desired results. If you are so open minded about things the Bible teaches, can you name me one instance of theology where you disagree with Ellen?


You sure make a lot of unchristian accusations and assumptions about me. I have absolutely no problems with the KJV.



Does this say the law given to the Israelites? No, commands.

Lets compare it with what John wrote elsewhere.






Ah, the remember thing, because it was first given in Exodus 16, maybe?
God blessed the seventh day of creation. The Sabbath command was given to the Israelites as a sign to them both looking back to this rest at creation and their deliverance from Egypt, and looking forward to the rest from our works stated in Hebrews 4.



"14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
I believe what the Bible says, not Ellen White.
Read what the Bible says and believe.



Spoken as one who has never been born again and recieved the Holy Spirit. Do you honestly think the Holy Spirit would lead us to do those things you have mentioned? Do you not think these would be addressed by the commands to the Christian church to love God and our neighbor?
There are many words written to the church admonishing us as what is permissible and profitable for the Christian and what is to be avioded.

BTW where have I said there is no law?

ricker you demonstrate that you are certainly not a prophet. How? Look at my profile and you will see that I am not a seventh day adventist (although I hold fast to the core principle of saving faith in Jesus, testimony of His working in my life and keeping commands of God)
If EGWhite happens to be correct about some of the things she says, that is not my fault. She has been mistaken about many things. So what! That has no effect on me, I do not follow her. (she is dead) You have not effectively dismissed the right and legitimate points you tried to counter by tarring me with the Egwhite brush. I hasten to add that I think it most probable that she served God as best she could and that God's grace in Christ is so sufficient for her that I dare not judge her for errors that are purported in publications and I cannot either refute or prove.
Please deal with me as I am and judge me not for the (perceived) errors of others.
Cheers, may you be enlightened in Jesus' name.

 

[Cribstyl]

Originally Posted by Cribstyl
Your questions seems constraining to me. I said ADAM was disobedient. (to the commandment he was given)

I'm sorry Crib. Could it be that you are constrained because the question shows the limitations of your thoughts?

That was a noticeable foul considering all the questions that RND asks.....Senti correctly said '

.. He did not say he was constrained. He said your questions seemed to be constraining. But you had to take a dig at him. Shameful.

Then you have nerves to call us blind

I didn't read RND question as shameful--it was a good observation.

Just because we dont agree, dont mean I have to be called narrow minded.

Imagine someone holding up a coin and you only see one side--you have limit which affects how you will see things (does the coin have a heads and a tails or is it two of the same? How do you know?).

If the coin is two-sided, with patience the truth can be revealed or not, who cares?

Or, the classic case of the blind men checking out an elephant. I'm not surprised to see that RND was judged and condemned.

RND was not judged, you and RND were the ones to judge because I dont agree with you two.

Hmmm, You and I have been dialoging for years about the same issues, but you just stepped up the insults to another level.

I've been to your web sights and read your extensive materials without presenting my observations. I take it that you think you're intelegent and should be respected.

Why not confront me based on our dialogs?

At least you're consistant in presenting your angle of truth.

Bartender
I'll take another double 1Cor13

CRIB

 

[RND]

Originally Posted by Cribstyl
Your questions seems constraining to me. I said ADAM was disobedient. (to the commandment he was given)

That was a noticeable foul considering all the questions that RND asks.....Senti correctly said '

Then you have nerves to call us blind

Just because we dont agree, dont mean I have to be called narrow minded.
If the coin is two-sided, with patience the truth can be revealed or not, who cares?

RND was not judged, you and RND were the ones to judge because I dont agree with you two.

Hmmm, You and I have been dialoging for years about the same issues, but you just stepped up the insults to another level.

I've been to your web sights and read your extensive materials without presenting my observations. I take it that you think you're intelegent and should be respected.

Why not confront me based on our dialogs?

At least you're consistant in presenting your angle of truth.

Bartender
I'll take another double 1Cor13

CRIB

Since the question asked apparently has been misunderstood let me try to rephrase it and see if the question asked can get an answer.

My original question was: Could it be that you are constrained because the question shows the limitations of your thoughts?

Rephrase:

Could it be you felt that I constrained your question due to not examining the implications of your thoughts regarding the topic fully?

I asked a simple question Crib. If you were offended by it I apologize. The question was not meant to impune your IQ just examine the aspects of your argument.

 

[sentipente]

Good try, RND. It would have been better if you had just let it be. That hardly qualifies as a rephrase.

 

[RND]

Good try, RND. It would have been better if you had just let it be. That hardly qualifies as a rephrase.

I figured it would go over your head.

 

[sentipente]

I figured it would go over your head.

I do better when people admit to reality instead of trying to pull the wool over other people's eyes.

 

[Cribstyl]

Since the question asked apparently has been misunderstood let me try to rephrase it and see if the question asked can get an answer.

My original question was: Could it be that you are constrained because the question shows the limitations of your thoughts?

Rephrase:

Could it be you felt that I constrained your question due to not examining the implications of your thoughts regarding the topic fully?

I asked a simple question Crib. If you were offended by it I apologize. The question was not meant to impune your IQ just examine the aspects of your argument.

Rewind

Originally Posted by RND
So then God caused a flood on the world because of sin (disobedience)?

How did those killed in the flood know they were being disobedient?

Your questions seems constraining to me. I said ADAM was disobedient. (to the commandment he was given)

Your questions limitted me(constained me) to talk about the people who died in the flood being "disobedient".

This sets you up as implying, there was a law that they failed to keep.

Paul said people sinned, but unlike Adam transgression. (because Adam broke a direct commandment from God.) This really implies that people did'nt break commandments as Adam did, but they commited unrighteous and ungodly acts rightly called SIN.
Rom 5:14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

The fact that these truth reenforces Paul saying in verse 13, "Sin was in the world before the law". So the texts are clear and do not need commentary to contradict this reconfirmed understanding about "sin and the law".
............................................................................

RND......Thank you for the chat and good luck babyboy ....we dont agree and I'm tired of chasing your questions and sharp edged.
I dont think your apology is genuine because you fail to acknowlege the facts.

God bless

CRIBSTYL

 

[RND]

I do better when people admit to reality instead of trying to pull the wool over other people's eyes.

The only way you could feel if someone was pulling the wool over your eyes is to pull the knit cap over your head yourself. You were never part of the exchange between Crib and myself.

You just injected yourself into the frey on your own....as usual.

 

[RND]

Rewind


Your questions limitted me(constained me) to talk about the people who died in the flood being "disobedient".

If they weren't "disobedient" then why the judgment against them?

This sets you up as implying, there was a law that they failed to keep.

The fact, Paul said that, people sinned but unlike Adam transgression, (because Adam broke a direct commandment from God.) This really implies that people did'nt break commandments as Adam did, but they commited unrighteous and ungodly acts rightly called SIN.
Rom 5:14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

The fact that these truth reenforces Paul saying in verse 13, "Sin was in the world before the law", does not need commentary to contradict this reconfirmed understanding.

So "sin" wasn't "sin" before it was called "sin?" God decided to punish those that were engage in "sin" even though it wasn't called "sin?"

I think this is what I was referring to when I suggested that you haven't "thought" through everything you pose.

If sin is the wages of death we can certainly assume that those that died in the flood died as a result of their sin.

RND......Thank you for the chat and good luck babyboy

Thanks.

....we dont agree and I'm tired of chasing your questions and sharp edged.

I agree they can be difficult to answer without having a grasp on the truth.

I dont think your apology is genuine because you fail to acknowlege the facts.

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion....even if it's wrong.

 

[sentipente]

The only way you could feel if someone was pulling the wool over your eyes is to pull the knit cap over your head yourself. You were never part of the exchange between Crib and myself.

You just injected yourself into the frey on your own....as usual.

You must believe you are funny.

 

[RND]

You must believe you are funny.

I was quite serious senti.