The Law is not Abrogated: What does this mean?

[JohnRabbit]

Oh you had it explaIned to you.

are you serious?

Romans 10:14(NKJV)
14How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Acts 18:24-26(NKJV)
24Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.
26So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.


of course i had it explained to me!

 

[YSam44]

You agree it was the moral law that could not faultlessly be kept

Disagree, Christ kept it faultlessly!

 

[YSam44]

No, all of it. Paul doesn't differentiate in gal 3

Ceremonial and Ritual law was added later... you got that very wrong... and Paul does differentiate the two.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Disagree, Christ kept it faultlessly!

I apologise for not stating:

No one but Christ faultlessly obeyed the moral law. I will endeavour to add that in the future so as no one may misunderstand what I meant.
Once again I can only offer my sincere apologies

 

[YSam44]

The written law that should be obeyed unto righteousness was NOT given until Sanai.
Sin was in the world before that law was given, for man instinctively knew of Gods basic moral law.
Because of man's sinful nature/ their transgressions of what is instinctively known to them, the written law was given at sanai, it was added

What you talking about Willis?

 

[BobRyan]

You are right. The term under the law men's under the condemnation of the law.
As you responded to the post would you like to respond to the question concerning rom7:5

you said " Why are sinfull passions aroused in people by the law if they live under it?
Rom7:5"

here is what Rom 7:5 actually says.

5 For while we were in the flesh, (lost)
the sinful passions, (sinful nature)
which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

one view of this is that a nature bent-toward evil - sees the right... and chooses war against it.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Ceremonial and Ritual law was added later... you got that very wrong... and Paul does differentiate the two.

The forum is fortunate indeed to have someone with your spiritual insight on it

 

[BobRyan]

I apologise for not stating:
No one but Christ faultlessly obeyed the moral law.

True. Christ lived under the old covenant of "Obey and Live" -- He perfectly obeyed - He was sinless. Had He sinned He would need a savior and would have had none.

"All have sinned" Rom 3:23 -- so then all are condemned by the still-valid still-in-authority moral law of God which includes God's Commandments -- God's TEN Commandments. So then - all need a Savior.

This is included in the MAtthew 5 Law that Christ speaks about and then gives examples of - right out of the TEN Commandments.

 

[stuart lawrence]

you said " Why are sinfull passions aroused in people by the law if they live under it?
Rom7:5"

here is what Rom 7:5 actually says.

5 For while we were in the flesh, (lost)
the sinful passions, (sinful nature)
which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

one view of this is that a nature bent-toward evil - sees the right... and chooses war against it.

How about this:

If I said to you:

If you think of a pink rabbit God will condemn you to hell. What is the first thought that would come into your head if you believed me?

Consequently. If I said to you:
If you covet God will condemn you to hell, what thoughts would then come into your mind?

 

[BobRyan]

Ceremonial and Ritual law was added later... you got that very wrong... and Paul does differentiate the two.

True - differentiation can be seen for example in 1 Cor 7:19 "19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God."

 

[BobRyan]

yes, so if sin was in the world, then that means that there was law that was transgressed, right?

so it seems you need to revisit the line that says "before the law was given".

which simply means before it was given to israel as a nation!

True - the law was not yet given in stone - written by the finger of God in stone - yet it was still given as we see in Genesis 26:5

5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

God tells Cain "SIN is crouching at your door" in Genesis 3.. long before the stone tablets had the words written "do not murder"

 

[BobRyan]

How about this:

If I said to you:

If you think of a pink rabbit God will condemn you to hell. What is the first thought that would come into your head if you believed me?

Consequently. If I said to you:
If you covet God will condemn you to hell, what thoughts would then come into your mind?

And if you say "Do not Murder"??
And if you say "Do not take God's name in vain"??
And if you say "do not covet" do I instantly try to covet??

You can think of what coveting "IS" but that is not the same as coveting.

In any case - as Romans 8:4-9 points out - the lost "do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed CAN they" by contrast to the saints who walk in obedience in the Spirit.

 

[JohnRabbit]

True - the law was not yet given in stone - written by the finger of God in stone - yet it was still given as we see in Genesis 26:5

5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

God tells Cain "SIN is crouching at your door" in Genesis 3.. long before the stone tablets had the words written "do not murder"

exactly!

 

[stuart lawrence]

And if you say "Do not Murder"??
And if you say "Do not take God's name in vain"??
And if you say "do not covet" do I instantly try to covet??

You can think of what coveting "IS" but that is not the same as coveting.

In any case - as Romans 8:4-9 points out - the lost "do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed CAN they" by contrast to the saints who walk in obedience in the Spirit.

I would invite you to consider why Paul spent most of rom ch7 writing about that particular commandment.
Few are born who have tendencies to become homocidal maniacs, but we are all born with the development of sexual desire.
And Paul's core message was:
Die to a law of righteousness and sin shall not be your master

 

[BobRyan]

I would invite you to consider why Paul spent most of rom ch7 writing about that particular commandment.

Coveting is a thought crime.
But Paul argues in Romans 8 that it is only the lost that "do not submit to the Law of God AND in fact CAN not submit to it"

Paul's core message was:
Die to a law of righteousness and sin shall not be your master

In Romans 7 the "death" is not "to obedience to the LAW" -- in Romans 7 the "death" is the "penalty demanded by the Law" - the LAW demands the death of the sinner.

You are posting on a "Law is not abrogated" thread -- meaning "not abrogated by Christ".

Paul affirms this in Romans 3:31 as we both know.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Coveting is a thought crime.
But Paul argues in Romans 8 that it is only the lost that "do not submit to the Law of God AND in fact CAN not submit to it"



In Romans 7 the "death" is not "to obedience to the LAW" -- in Romans 7 the "death" is the "penalty demanded by the Law" - the LAW demands the death of the sinner.

You are posting on a "Law is not abrogated" thread -- meaning "not abrogated by Christ".

Paul affirms this in Romans 3:31 as we both know.

I completely agree with you. In Rom ch7 does not concern death to obedience of the law, but death to the penalty of the law.
so would you agree, it is tragic that many believe they are justified by obeying the TC

 

[JohnRabbit]

many believe they are justified by obeying the TC

you are being disingenuous, because you can't show where any, on this forum, believes that!

 

[YSam44]

The written law that should be obeyed unto righteousness was NOT given until Sanai.
Sin was in the world before that law was given, for man instinctively knew of Gods basic moral law.
Because of man's sinful nature/ their transgressions of what is instinctively known to them, the written law was given at sanai, it was added

So your saying man instinctively knows "not to kill"
"not to lie"
"not to covet"
"not to commit adultery"
"not to bear false witness"
"not to steal"
"not to bow down before any graven image"
"not to take the Lords name in vain"
"not to put any other gods before the true God."
WAIT FOR IT! "remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy."

Not buying it Willis!

 

[YSam44]

The written law that should be obeyed unto righteousness was NOT given until Sanai.
Sin was in the world before that law was given, for man instinctively knew of Gods basic moral law.
Because of man's sinful nature/ their transgressions of what is instinctively known to them, the written law was given at sanai, it was added

So Abraham who kept God's Law Gen 26.5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Now abraham kept Gods statutes and judgements. It was accounted to him righteousness Rom 4.3 "Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith."

In Leviticus 19.37 here God is warning Israel to keep his statutes and judgments and laws. Now how do you say that man instinctively knows all these things? I only listed 10 commandments in my last post and I suppose that without God's Word you would hardly know instinctively of barely one of these.

So how did Abraham know? When did the children of Israel know? If it was by instinct then why did God have to write it down?

 

[YSam44]

Quote the written law in genesis if sin was not instinctively known to Joseph.
I don't think you should quote rom ch7, I doubt you understand that chapter

Instinctive again? Do you not think that Abraham taught his children the way of God?

Gen 18.19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

Doesn't appear that this happens by instinct?