What exactly is the law?

[Tangible]

the point was, this was all pre law, the faith was pre law. Abe was imputed pre law, there was righteousness pre law.

it says abolished in his flesh..christians went to the cross with christ, we know the law will stand for the unsaved, rom 1-3, fine, paul said the law is not for the church, 1 tim 1, but for the unsaved, same critters listed in 1 tim 1, as rom 1, fine, but it says abolished in his flesh, for us.

we are not under law condemnation, law sin arousal, or law righteousness.

When God said "Do not eat" in the Garden, was that not Law?

 

[Frogster]

When God said "Do not eat" in the Garden, was that not Law?

it was not the law, rom 5;13 says there was a time of no law, gal 3;27 says it came 430 later, david, moses, hebrews, stephen, paul all stress sinai, with angels, as far as when the law came, the came of rom 5;20.

ok, do u agree with what i said, there was faith righteousness pre law?

 

[Tangible]

I see both Law and Gospel as eternal words of God. The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth. God's creative word "Let there be ..." is certainly a word of law that even calls things into existence that did not exist before.

In the Garden we have law - Do not eat - and gospel - you may eat, seed of the woman.
The revealed Law, the Torah, did come at a certain time, but God's law has been written on the hearts of men since the beginning (Rom 2).

 

[bugkiller]

When God said "Do not eat" in the Garden, was that not Law?

Is it the law? If it is why is there not in injuction proclaiming such?

bugkiller

 

[Frogster]

I see both Law and Gospel as eternal words of God. The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth. God's creative word "Let there be ..." is certainly a word of law that even calls things into existence that did not exist before.

The revealed Law, the Torah, did come at a certain time, but God's law has been written on the hearts of men since the beginning (Rom 2).

well...even in rom 2;14, it says they don't have the law right in the text 2 times, and 2;12 says perish without the law, so we need not overpress that.

well...do ya agree there was righteousness pre law?

 

[Tangible]

Is it the law? If it is why is there not in injuction proclaiming such?

bugkiller

I don't understand you question, but God clearly enjoined them from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Tangible]

well...even in rom 2;14, it says they don't have the law right in the text 2 times, and 2;12 says perish without the law, so we need not overpress that.

well...do ya agree there was righteousness pre law?

As bugkiller says, you can distinguish between this law or that law, but its all still God's Law. I believe St. Paul is speaking specifically of the revealed law in these passages.

 

[fhansen]

Abolished for righteousness. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. Are you saying that the law no longer condemns sin?
'Credited to him' means that even though he was not truly righteous, he was considered righteous because God had granted him faith to believe His promises, and he believed.

Abe's righeousness was not actual, it was imputed.

Well, that's not the point James is making-he's trying to guard against that idea, in fact.
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
Our actions are necessarily a part of our righteousness. The difference isn't in whether or not true righteousness, as distinguished from declared/imputed righteousness, is required; rather the difference is in how that righteousness will be obtained: by faith in God or by my own efforts-my own "righteousness", IOW- by the Spirit or by the letter.

 

[Tangible]

Considered righteous by whom? St. James is speaking of righteousness coram homnibus, not coram deo. Men can't see the righteousness given us by God, they can only see how it plays out in our lives. But even those without faith can appear to be righteous before men.

 

[Nanopants]

But, then, what about all of the symbolism used in the Gospels concerning the blind whose eyes were opened and what not?

 

[bugkiller]

The Law is how Christ earned righteousness for us. The righteousness of Christ rests upon the law, therefore the law has not been annulled or destroyed but fulfilled by Christ for those whom God has gifted with saving faith. The Law still stands to condemn those who are without faith in Christ.

OK I have used terms such as superceded which expresses to me the meaning of Jer 31:31-34. God says very clearly through Jeremiah the would be replaced and not like the one already made. Heb 8 says built on better promises not law (required performance). Now tell me what the effect of this is in reality for the Christian. Some seem to say there is no difference while Jeremiah says there is. Not according to has nothing to do with place or material on which something is recorded.

The law of faith, or the law of Christ, is a rhetorical device employed by St. Paul in order to contrast the two kinds of righteousness - the righteousness we cannot earn under the Law versus the alien righteousness of Christ granted us freely by grace through faith. If you want to call the Gospel the law of Christ, so be it, but it is not a law for us to observe and obey but a law outlining the New Covenant God has made with us in Christ. We can no more earn righteousness through obedience to a new law than we can through the old law.

Yes the righteousness that Christ has and imparts to me is er well was alien (not mine). That is not the present case however.

The law of faith is something that is real and works in all areas of my life.

What is the law of Christ? I do not think Paul uses it in a rhetorical way. Does Gal 6:2 coinside with the love one another statement of Jesus? Thus it would be a law (command of Jesus). If you are talking about something I need a reference.

The first use of the law is to curb and restrain man's sinfulness. If God had not taught us the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, and established worldly authorities to uphold the right and punish the wrong, life itself would soon falter and we humans, carried away by our sinful nature, would perish altogether.

From what do you get this understanding? The law failed in this aspect.

The second use of the law is to stand as a perfectly reflective mirror to make us see and acknowledge the depth of our sinfulness and our absolutely imperfect state. This Word of God judges, convicts, condemns and puts to death our old man, our fleshly sinful nature, Sin itself in us.

I buy that.

The third use of the law teaches us and leads us to love God and love and serve our neighbor. The new man in Christ desires to live freely in accordance with God's perfect law even though we will constantly fail. The Law shows us what to do and what not to do in order to live in thankful, reverent obedience and how to live in repentance for the times that we do fail and sin against God and our neighbor.

I guess you can claim being led by the law which brings death. I like being led by the Spirit which imparts life.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Abe's faith was credited to him as righteousness, because it led to obedience- of God's command! That's what James is referring to:

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. James 2:20-24

Abe's righteousness was actual, not merely imputed.

Not what the Scripture says. Sorry.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Abolished for righteousness. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. Are you saying that the law no longer condemns sin?

I do not think he is. OTH does the Spirit promote sin? Gal 5:18

'Credited to him' means that even though he was not truly righteous, he was considered righteous because God had granted him faith to believe His promises, and he believed.

Abe's righeousness was not actual, it was imputed.

I think we agree on that point. So do you have righteousness? How is it aquired? by the law? or the same way Abraham got his? Remember Abraham did not have the law. Deut 5:3

bugkiller

 

[fhansen]

Considered righteous by whom? St. James is speaking of righteousness coram homnibus, not coram deo. Men can't see the righteousness given us by God, they can only see how it plays out in our lives. But even those without faith can appear to be righteous before men.

Righteousness is righteousness; we're either righteous or we're not, regardless of who's looking, or who's doing the "considering". The difference, as you say, is simply that man, who judges by appearances, can't be sure whereas God, who judges by the heart, can be.

 

[Tangible]

But, then, what about all of the symbolism used in the Gospels concerning the blind whose eyes were opened and what not?

Sorry, what is this in reference to?

 

[bugkiller]

Righteousness is righteousness; we're either righteous or we're not, regardless of who's looking, or who's doing the "considering". The difference, as you say, is simply that man, who judges by appearances, can't be sure whereas God, who judges by the heart, can be.

Now that hits the nail on the head.

The truth seems to that we need to be righteous in the sight of men to be righteous in God's eyes. Maybe that is our whole problem.

bugkiller

 

[Nanopants]

Sorry, what is this in reference to?

You stated:

Considered righteous by whom? St. James is speaking of righteousness coram homnibus, not coram deo. Men can't see the righteousness given us by God, they can only see how it plays out in our lives. But even those without faith can appear to be righteous before men.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. Do you mean that righteousness can't be seen in an external sense, as in Abraham may have been righteous, but if we could observe him, we would not be able to see that righteousness?

 

[bugkiller]

Considered righteous by whom? St. James is speaking of righteousness coram homnibus, not coram deo. Men can't see the righteousness given us by God, they can only see how it plays out in our lives. But even those without faith can appear to be righteous before men.

bugkiller

 

[fhansen]

Now that hits the nail on the head.

The truth seems to that we need to be righteous in the sight of men to be righteous in God's eyes. Maybe that is our whole problem.

bugkiller

No, we just need to be righteous-unrighteousness has always been the problem, beginning with Adams first sin-disobedience of God-the granddaddy of all unrighteousness. IOW man's desire to be apart from God, with his own "righteousness", is exactly what mans unrighteousness consists of.

 

[squint]

But, then, what about all of the symbolism used in the Gospels concerning the blind whose eyes were opened and what not?

I consider it a small miracle when believers 'see' that there is symbolism in such accounts. So, for your reading and understanding pleasure:

[FONT=&quot]“TO DESTROY THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL.”
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is the “work” that The Living Word, Jesus, came to do and DID.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Jesus’ Work transpires:[/FONT]

John 9:4
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

[FONT=&quot]"While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam." So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Neither this man NOR his parents sinned! [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The most interesting part (to me, among other things) is the place where he was told to wash...the pool of Siloam.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The translators thought kindly enough to put in the meaning of Siloam in parenthesis (sent one) which they sometimes do where there is (perhaps) a vagueness.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The (possible) reason for the vagueness is that SILOAM also has a ROOT WORD in Hebrew which also means SENT AWAY ONE as well i.e. this word, Siloam can be both “sent one” and “sent away one.”
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The translators could have recognized the shining brilliance of BOTH TERMS.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Siloam {sil-o-am'}[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] of Hebrew origin 7975; n pr loc[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]AV - Siloam 3; 3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Siloam = "sent"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7975[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Shiloach {shee-lo'-akh} or (in imitation of 07974) Shelach[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] from 7971; n pr loc[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] AV - Siloah 2; 2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Shiloah or Siloah = "sent"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7971[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]shalach {shaw-lakh'}[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] a primitive root--[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) to send, send away[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1a4) to let loose[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1c1) to send off or away or out [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So AT THIS POOL of SILOAM we have a picture--->>> the place of washing to receive SIGHT.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Water is often times ASSOCIATED with The Word. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Pool of Siloam (can) mean both Shiloah (The sent one-Blind Man) and Shalach...(the sent away one-the BLINDING POWER OF SIN and EVIL present! the DEVIL upon that man, blinding him.) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The ONE sent AWAY from the blind man was the EVIL ONE in the flesh of that man that caused his blindness.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now you have your object lesson from Jesus.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Can you 'see' this?[/FONT]

If so, it's a miracle!

s