What part of "requirements of the LAW will be FULFILLED IN US" don't you get?

[Zeena]

A Law existed prior to sin:

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

The KJV is incorrect in this translation, it should read; "Whosoever committeth sin practices lawlessness; for sin is lawlessness,"


Pav o poiwn thn amartian kai thn anomian poiei, kai h amartia estin h anomia




Anomia

1. the condition of without law
2. because ignorant of it
3. because of violating it
4. contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness

1 John 3:4
Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

2 Thessalonians 2:7
For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way.

2 Thessalonians 2:3
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Wherefore could the Apostle Paul state simply 'before the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law' [paraphrased]

 

[cesty]

The KJV is incorrect in this translation, it should read; "Whosoever committeth sin practices lawlessness; for sin is lawlessness,"


Pav o poiwn thn amartian kai thn anomian poiei, kai h amartia estin h anomia




Anomia

1. the condition of without law
2. because ignorant of it
3. because of violating it
4. contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness

1 John 3:4
Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

2 Thessalonians 2:7
For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way.

2 Thessalonians 2:3
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Wherefore could the Apostle Paul state simply 'before the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law' [paraphrased]

Actually, anomia means illegality, and thus presupposes that a law of some sort has been violated. Therefore, I agree with the King James version, in that it suggests that sin is the transgression of the law. Keep in mind that John is talking about committing sin in 1Jn. 3:4. If there were no law then there could be no sin, as then there would be nothing to transgress (Rom. 4:15).

 

[cesty]

1. You've offered only one Biblical definition of sin. Are you aware that there are others, including:

(i) To every man who knows to do right and does it not, to him it is sin.
(ii) All wrong doing is sin.
​

These definitions are not dependent upon the existence of the law that was added 430 years after Abraham. This has been and continues to be my point.

2. You claim that the law was added because of transgression of law. How can law be added if it already existed. Once we acknowledge that there are other Biblical definitions of sin, we realize that "transgression" was possible even before the law was added.

3. You claim that the Bible differentiates between "moral" and "ceremonial" and yet you've offered no Biblical evidence. Titus 3 offers no such distinction. If there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial, why is the fourth commandment listed so consistently among the commands you view as ceremonial (for example, see Leviticus 23 and Exodus 34)?

Consider the following:

(i) According to Romans 7, we are to die to the law that includes the ten commandments (see Verse 7).

(ii) According to 2 Corinthians 3, the letters engraved on stones are the ministry that brings death that pales in comparison with the ministry that brings life.

(iii) According to Galatians 4, God gave the command to get rid of the slave woman who represents the covenant that was from Sinai.
​

None of these passages support your position that the Bible differentiates between moral and ceremonial laws. In fact, the phrases "moral law" and "ceremonial law" cannot even be found in Scripture.

BFA
​

I have no desire to debate with you over this or anything else for that matter. I thought that you would have gotten the hint when I quoted the following:

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." (Titus 3:9-11 KJV)

 

[Zeena]

Actually, anomia means illegality, and thus presupposes that a law of some sort has been violated. Therefore, I agree with the King James version, in that it suggests that sin is the transgression of the law.

Hrrm, perhaps I did not explain myself thoroughly the first time..

I believe 'illegality' keeps with the spirit of the law, but it is not what is actually written;

the Greek Lexicon show this here --> Anomia - Greek Lexicon

with the subsequent verse here --> Interlinear Study Bible on StudyLight.org

Where did you get your information?

I do not see that in the Lexicon..

A good word study on this in Scripture is 'lasciviousness.' and and good word study apart from Scripture is licentiousness [which is also Biblical, see Jude; eg:lasciviousness]

licentious - Wiktionary

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature Bauer, Gingrich, Danker; Young's Literal Translation: "ye who are working lawlessness"; NASB: "YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS"; NKJV: "you who practice lawlessness"

Antinomianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



------------------

Actually, anomia means illegality, and thus presupposes that a law of some sort has been violated. Therefore, I agree with the King James version, in that it suggests that sin is the transgression of the law.

I believe he's talking more along the lines of identity, or character, if you will, rather than the ACT of sinning, for WE ALL, indeed, sin [even on occasion, though less and less as we grow in Grace & the knowledge of our Saviour Jesus] Does the fact that we sin now label us as anti-Christs, or is that title held for a peson who IS?

2 Thessalonians 2:3
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Is that now to mean that the seed of Satan is merely an actor on a stage, a man who is righteous but occasionally sins, or that it is his NATURE to do so? No, he is a man OF lawlessness, ergo WHO he is in his heart!

Mark 7:20-23
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Keep in mind that John is talking about committing sin in 1 Jn. 3:4. If there were no law then there could be no sin, as then there would be nothing to transgress (Rom. 4:15).

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

Romans 7:7-8
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. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

It is obvious that Eve knew not what she was doing, in that she was deceived.. Ergo, she did not know that what she did was sinful, even though the commandment of God was already given to Adam.

Adam, he knew what he was doing because he had the commandment of God saying 'Of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat, for in the day ye eat thereof in dying thou shalt die' [paraphrased].

Are you not now comparing the eternal moral law with levitical law and ordinances?

THE law that was done away with was the Livitical law and ordinances, not the moral law, friend.

For indeed, the Livitical Preisthood is fulfilled in Christ, and we have no need of another High Priest, for all the fulness of the Godheads dwells within Him bodily.

see; col 2

 

[Cribstyl]

A Law existed prior to sin:

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

Sabbatarian take this verse out of it's context and use it as a presidence. The context does not consider nor support "before the law was given." So, saying law existed before sin contradicts where scriptures teach about the Sin of Adam and the comming of the law. (Rom5)

Another law was added as a result of the first Law being transgressed in some way:

"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." (Galatians 3:19 KJV)

The context proves, that the law was added to the covenant or promises made with Abraham

The first is what is known as the moral Law; and the second is what is to be understood as the ceremonial/sacrificial law.

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." (Titus 3:9-11 KJV)

Again, you isolate a text from it's context as if your commentary is truth.
These text from Titus proves that doctrines about striving to keep the law is what is being said to avoid.
Also ,Avoid those who harp on about being in the geneology of God's chosen.

The context proves the gospel of Jesus Christ is the doctrine of righteousness by faith.

Tts 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Tts 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Tts 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

 

[Avonia]

Sabbatarian take this verse out of it's context and use it as a presidence.

If the Bible is so clear about Sabbath, why aren't the Sabbatarians getting it? And why do clear-thinking human beings become Sabbatarians?

I find your certainty, and the certainty of those you question, similar.

 

[Sophia7]

If the Bible is so clear about Sabbath, why aren't the Sabbatarians getting it? And why do clear-thinking human beings become Sabbatarians?

I find your certainty, and the certainty of those you question, similar.

There have been controversies over the Sabbath throughout Christian history, so certainty on both sides and criticism of the other side are nothing new. Personally, I see the Sabbath as a disputable matter, best left to individual conscience and conviction.

 

[Avonia]

There have been controversies over the Sabbath throughout Christian history, so certainty on both sides and criticism of the other side are nothing new. Personally, I see the Sabbath as a disputable matter, best left to individual conscience and conviction.

Well said. And true of many things, because absolutes don't afford individual movements very well.

Sophia, you are such a powerful voice in the Adventist community - even though you are "not one anymore." I appreciate that.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I have no desire to debate with you over this or anything else for that matter. I thought that you would have gotten the hint when I quoted the following:

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." (Titus 3:9-11 KJV)

I did not realize that you were "aiming" that Scripture in my direction. I suppose I should have been more perceptive. I thought we were merely having a discussion. It is not my intent to try and force you into a discussion that does not interest you. Although I will continue to post in this thread, you are under no obligation to respond to my posts. Please only do so if you're interested in discussion.

I wish you all of the best.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Sorry but I dont think you are paying attention to detail. Did you read my post? I asked you about the definite article you are using when you say law. You wrote "the law" It has a definite article pointing to a specific law which is the Mosaic law. I said law you said the law. In romans 5:12 Paul used the definite article "the" showing us he had a specific law in mind. Many x-adventist also claim that there was sin before law which is not true. Did you see the bible definitions I supplied? They point out that the command to Adam is the same as law.


b

FYI--I was not disfellowshipped from the SDA denomination. I am a former Adventist, not an ex Adventist. Your comments regarding ex Adventists really do not seem to reflect my position.

Your prior posts seem to indicate that you believe that Romans 5 is the basis of my position. This puzzles me, as I did not bring Romans 5 into the discussion. Although we could certainly discuss Romans 5 if you'd like, note that the book of Galatians has been the context for my comments up to this point.

I am happy to discuss Romans 5. As I do, I note that, unlike English that uses both a definite article and an indefinite article, Greek has only one article that can be either definite or indefinite based on usage. I also note that Romans 5:12 contains no reference to "law." Is it possible that you mean to refer to Verse 13, which contains the following phrase:

"For until the law sin was in the world."
​

If so, how do you understand the phrase "until the law?" Does this phrase present a similar idea that is found in the following two passages?

"Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. The LORD spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire, while I was standing between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said, I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me." Deuteronomy 5

"Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made." Galatians 3
​

BFA

P.S. The "Bible" definitions you provided aren't actually found in the Bible. Rather, they are human interpretations. They may or may not be accurate, but they are not "Biblical."

 

[cesty]

I did not realize that you were "aiming" that Scripture in my direction. I suppose I should have been more perceptive. I thought we were merely having a discussion. It is not my intent to try and force you into a discussion that does not interest you. Although I will continue to post in this thread, you are under no obligation to respond to my posts. Please only do so if you're interested in discussion.

I wish you all of the best.

BFA

Well, it wasn't solely directed at you, but anyone who is striving over the law. I try to avoid debates as much as possible these days. They only bring out the worst in me, which by the way, shouldn't be there at all. But I also see that such activity induces others to be harsh and unkind towards each other. It just doesn't edify.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Well, it wasn't solely directed at you, but anyone who is striving over the law. I try to avoid debates as much as possible these days. They only bring out the worst in me, which by the way, shouldn't be there at all. But I also see that such activity induces others to be harsh and unkind towards each other. It just doesn't edify.

Well, I certainly would prefer it if my comments were loving and kind. If I've failed in that regard, I do apologize.

What do you mean when you use the phrase "striving over the law?"

BFA

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Sabbatarian take this verse out of it's context and use it as a presidence. The context does not consider nor support "before the law was given." So, saying law existed before sin contradicts where scriptures teach about the Sin of Adam and the comming of the law. (Rom5)
The context proves, that the law was added to the covenant or promises made with Abraham

this text dose not prove what you are say. it was added BECAUSE OF transgression.

it is important to note that the word transgression means to willfully violate. if something is being willfully violated or transgressed then a standard must have existed prior to the adding of the law to violate.
No one would argue that murder or stealing or adultry or coveting or idolorty extisted prior to the 10c's being written, but for some reason they have a problem with the Sabbath. if you are going to reason that then you must be consitstant. The what was coedified in the law was what Righteous people already knew was wrong. remember the was was written for the unrighteous not the righteous.

 

[believehim]

FYI--I was not disfellowshipped from the SDA denomination. I am a former Adventist, not an ex Adventist. Your comments regarding ex Adventists really do not seem to reflect my position.

Dog man...you are rather touchy aren't you. Kool out! This is a matter of semantics here. I'm not saying that you where dis-fellow shipped. Didn't mean to give you that impression. All I was saying is that you are no longer adventist. I consider my self as an x adventist as well even though I voluntarily left the organization. Sorry for the confusion.

Your prior posts seem to indicate that you believe that Romans 5 is the basis of my position. This puzzles me, as I did not bring Romans 5 into the discussion. Although we could certainly discuss Romans 5 if you'd like, note that the book of Galatians has been the context for my comments up to this point.

I never said you personally where using that text. And yes I did bring it up to prove that sin entered by one man who broke a law. Nothing more nothing less.

I am happy to discuss Romans 5. As I do, I note that, unlike English that uses both a definite article and an indefinite article, Greek has only one article that can be either definite or indefinite based on usage.

Good call.

I also note that Romans 5:12 contains no reference to "law." Is it possible that you mean to refer to Verse 13, which contains the following phrase:

"For until the law sin was in the world."​

Yes
​

If so, how do you understand the phrase "until the law?" Does this phrase present a similar idea that is found in the following two passages?

"Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. The LORD spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire, while I was standing between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said, I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me." Deuteronomy 5

"Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made." Galatians 3​

Yes and you are proving my point. The law of Moses came 430 years after Abrahams promise.
​

BFA

P.S. The "Bible" definitions you provided aren't actually found in the Bible. Rather, they are human interpretations. They may or may not be accurate, but they are not "Biblical."

Oh so you infer Thayers Greek Definitions are not based on the meanings of the literal language and cultures of that day? Do you also believe this about Strongs as well? So they are not biblical? So every major Christian seminary might as well stop teaching Greek and Hebrew to their students who use these great text books. So you say that because you don't think Gods command to Adam was a law as those Greek definitions support? Fine if you believe that. I differ from you on that point.

b

 

[believehim]

this text dose not prove what you are say. it was added BECAUSE OF transgression.

it is important to note that the word transgression means to willfully violate. if something is being willfully violated or transgressed then a standard must have existed prior to the adding of the law to violate.
No one would argue that murder or stealing or adultry or coveting or idolorty extisted prior to the 10c's being written, but for some reason they have a problem with the Sabbath. if you are going to reason that then you must be consitstant. The what was coedified in the law was what Righteous people already knew was wrong. remember the was was written for the unrighteous not the righteous.

Because you can't find where it was commanded of God to keep before Moses.

b

 

[Zeena]

If the Bible is so clear about Sabbath, why aren't the Sabbatarians getting it? And why do clear-thinking human beings become Sabbatarians?

Prolly 'cuz they construde the moral and levitical laws as one and the same?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Oh so you infer Thayers Greek Definitions are not based on the meanings of the literal language and cultures of that day?

I believe them to be a human interpretation.

Do you also believe this about Strongs as well?

Yes.

So they are not biblical?

No. Concordances and dictionaries are not inspired. This in not to say that they never contain accurate information.

So every major Christian seminary might as well stop teaching Greek and Hebrew to their students who use these great text books.

Christian seminaries teach all sorts of materials that aren't the Bible itself (such as post-canonical authors). It is not my position that such a practice is wrong. Rather, it is my position that it is helpful distingish between the Bible and that which is not the Bible.

So you say that because you don't think Gods command to Adam was a law as those Greek definitions support?

I find no Biblical basis for this position. The law was added 430 years after Abraham. Since Abraham lived after Adam, the law was added after Adam.

Fine if you believe that. I differ from you on that point.

No problem. I'm sure we will agree to disagree on other points as well. It isn't my objective to coerce you to see things as I do. I am here for discussion.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

this text dose not prove what you are say. it was added BECAUSE OF transgression.

Indeed. And sin existed before the law was added.

it is important to note that the word transgression means to willfully violate. if something is being willfully violated or transgressed then a standard must have existed prior to the adding of the law to violate.

I've yet to see anyone posting here that would take issue with the fact that there were standards before the law was added. God Himself existed before the law was added and we know that His Spirit convicts men regarding sin and righteousness and judgment.

No one would argue that murder or stealing or adultry or coveting or idolorty extisted prior to the 10c's being written, but for some reason they have a problem with the Sabbath.

We can confirm in Scripture that there was a standard relating to murder, adultery and idolatry before the law was added.

In order for the law to be considered "eternal," it must never have a beginning. The sabbath had a beginning, as did the passover, the feast of tabernacles and the day of atonement.

We first learn of men setting aside a sabbath in Exodus 16. Many argue that the practice began before Ex. 16, but there is no Biblical confirmation. Regardless, one thing is clear. The sabbath had a starting point. It did not always exist.

The what was coedified in the law was what Righteous people already knew was wrong.

I agree with this statement. However, it is helpful to note that Adam and Eve likely knew nothing about God's commands to the Israelites regarding the passover, the feast of tabernacles and the day of atonement. Deuteronomy 5 confirms that God had given commands to the Israelites that He had not given to those who lived earlier.

BFA

 

[believehim]

I believe them to be a human interpretation.

With all do respect, thats not what I asked you. Do you infer Thayers Greek Definitions are not based on the meanings of the literal language and cultures of that day?

No. Concordances and dictionaries are not inspired. This in not to say that they never contain accurate information.[\quote]

Who said anything about being inspired? I ask if they where biblical...so are they biblical?

Christian seminaries teach all sorts of materials that aren't the Bible itself (such as post-canonical authors). It is not my position that such a practice is wrong. Rather, it is my position that it is helpful distingish between the Bible and that which is not the Bible.

You must have the wrong idea...no one is having a problem distinguishing between what is bible or not. But to knock against such valuable resources as Strongs and the such is unwarranted. Great men of faith have relied on and use those resourced or some like them for years. In fact without them it would be almost impossible for some bible doctrines to have the correct idea of what is being said.

I find no Biblical basis for this position. The law was added 430 years after Abraham. Since Abraham lived after Adam, the law was added after Adam.

So when God told Adam not to eat of the tree in the mist of the garden, that was not a law in you opinion?

No problem. I'm sure we will agree to disagree on other points as well. It isn't my objective to coerce you to see things as I do. I am here for discussion.

BFA

As I am here as well for discussion.


-b.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Who said anything about being inspired? I ask if they where biblical...so are they biblical?

No, they are not Biblical. Dictionaries and concordances should be distinguished from the Bible. Though helpful, they were are not inspired.

You must have the wrong idea...no one is having a problem distinguishing between what is bible or not.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. You seem to refer to concordances and dictionaries as "Biblical." In contrast, I would classify them as "helpful."

There are a number of folks who feel qualified to render their own translations using concordances and dictionaries. I personally do not place a lot of weight on such arguments.

But to knock against such valuable resources as Strongs and the such is unwarranted.

Since I've said that they are helpful,I clearly have not knocked them.

So when God told Adam not to eat of the tree in the mist of the garden, that was not a law in you opinion?

It was a verbal comand. It was not intended to be "eternal" (as so many claim the law to be). It was not intended to have a "universal application" (as so many claim about the law). It was a verbal command.

BFA