What people believe does not change the truth...

[Alawishis]

This won't take long.

Oh, my!
Removing a large portion of your post's body reveals that you're contending against your own acknowledgement of Scripture's conclusion that we have been delivered from the law, identified in the passage as the Ten Commandments. It also reveals a certain confusion about the reason there is a new covenant based on God's adoption, and imputed righteousness based on His performance instead of our feeble failure to perform.

The reason Jesus died, in a concise nutshell:

Hebrews 9
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 ¶ And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.​

This was the reason Jesus died, and without the death of the Testator, there is no such thing as a new covenant, no redemption of transgressions that impute sin to us, and no salvation.

We are going over the same things already addressed. See my reply to BFA for clarification. You see the answer to what where you thought I was contending against myself.

 

[Soon144k]

You never answered my question about whether you reject the book of Acts as Scripture. Do you also reject the book of Hebrews?

It is my understanding that the book of Acts was written by Luke at the direction of Paul for the purpose of enhancing the reputation of Paul and diminishing the reputations of the disciples of Jesus Christ who were the leaders of the Jerusalem assembly. This is from Robert Eisenman who wrote James, the Brother of Jesus and other books on the early church. Read some of them before you argue with me about this.

No one knows who wrote the book of Hebrews, so if you want to believe that it is the very words of God and has the same credibility as the Old Testament and the authors of the New Testament that we are sure of then go right ahead. At least Paul identified himself in his own epistles, and the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are historically well established. It is highly likely that Peter actually did not write 2 Peter (he would have been dead at that time), and it is not a sure bet that Peter actually wrote 1 Peter, either, due to Greek language and grammar issues. The book of James was NOT written by the disciple of Jesus; it was written by James, the brother of Jesus-who actually usurped the position that Jesus gave Peter as head of the Jerusalem Assembly by claiming that God gave him a vision like He did Paul. This James was not a friend of Jesus, and even tried to get Jesus to go to Jerusalem ahead of schedule so that He (Jesus) might be arrested and killed. James NEVER gave up his love for Judaism, and was one of the people that Paul railed against for saying that circumcision was still necessary, even for a Christian.

I do not understand why people do this, however. Why place your eternal life and your trust in writings about which there is no record, except that it somehow made it into a document that was put together not by God but by men for their own prurient purposes. If you have enough faith you can and will believe ANYTHING.

There is LOTS more, but that is enough for you to chew on right now. I am not saying any of this just to be provocative; it is backed up with historic and textual facts. Don't let these facts get in the way of your faith; doing that could strain your belief system beyond the breaking point, and we wouldn't want that, now would we?

Time for bed. Goodnight all. Happy Dreams, Angels Guard You.

 

[Alawishis]

So, on the topic of adultery, how would you define it?

Not sure if you are asking me.
I'm not comfortable defining sin as it relates to others, that's God's job and his alone. How I define adultery to you should be irrelevant. I do know that sin is not limited to the action but includes the intent and even contemplation of the act. Not sure if that is what you are looking for

I suggest you prayerful look to the scriptures for guidance if you really need an answer.

 

[Kira Light]

It is amazing what passes for a "fact" these days.

What strikes me about what Soon144k and k4c preach is this belief that Satan outplayed God to such a huge extent. Jesus went through so much just to let Paul and James destroy it all and cast billions into hellfire. God is so incredibly weak and powerless against Satan. He failed to get His message spread accurately when it would have been so simple. Why?

 

[Aibrean]

Well it's not irrelevant when you consider how many in the OT (like David and Solomon) had multiple wives and concubines. David obviously committed adultery with Bathsheba. They couldn't keep the law. David was never stoned.

The law now for us is not on tablets of stone. It's written on our hearts. The Holy Spirit guides us.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Ah OK.

Hi Alawishis. I'm sure you have limited time to post here. Therefore, I appreciate the time you took to reply to my post. Maybe at some point you'll have some additional time to reply more specifically to things I wrote in my last post. In the meantime, I'll follow you for a moment down the path you'd prefer to travel.

Well, being delivered from the law is not the same as destroying it.

No, it isn't. Neither is fulfilling the law the same thing as destroying it. To fulfill the law, one fully meets its obligations so that no more is needed to meet them. The requirements are FILLED FULL. The law does not disappear. Rather, its requirements have been completely satisfied.

Let say a man gets himself in a load of trouble. In the course of events he winds up committing a serious crime. For the crime he has committed in his country there is a death penalty. The penalty is fair because the crime he has committed is grievous. He is condemned by the law in his country and found guilty and sentenced to death. The penalty must be paid as the crime has been committed. Now, lets also say that through a technicality in the law his Father is able to take the the penalty for his child. The penalty will be paid but not by the man who committed the crime but by his father. The father is executed and his child goes free, pardoned because the penalty has been paid. The law is still valid if the man goes out again and commits this crime or another he will still be convicted even though he has been pardoned for his previous record.

I don't find this to be an apples to apples comparison. What you've described is substitution. Substitution is an entirely different concept than fulfillment. With substitution, one person takes the penalty for another. With fulfillment, the requirement of the law has been fully met.

Let me offer an example of my own to illustrate fulfillment:

Let's say an elderly, retired resident of Jonestown lives on a fixed income; has fallen on hard times; has not paid his property taxes in 3 years; and has no hope of ever paying them anytime in the future. Let's say that a generous benefactor steps in and provides a check to the city fathers of Jonestown in the amount of $1 billion. Not only does this satisfy the amount required to pay the 3 years of taxes, but it also more than covers all future tax amounts the man could ever possibly owe. The elderly man's obligation to pay taxes has been fully met. The tax law did not disappear, but its requirements have been filled full. The elderly man could continue to pay taxes if he wishes, but this does not negate the fact that his obligation no longer exists.
​

The law cannot change, and the penalty must be paid the penalty of sin is death. God laid out the law showing us what sin is. If we destroy the law then all those guilty of transgression are no longer in violation and are no longer under the penalty. No one then need die to pay the penalty for a law that does not exist.

Covenants are finite in their execution. They are intended for specific groups of people during specific periods of time. You seek to apply a finite covenant to a group to which it was never given during a time period in which it does not apply. When you have a moment to reply to my last post, maybe can explore together the finite nature of the covenant you're describing.

It's precisely because the law could not change that Christ had to come here and pay the penalty. He has delivered us from the law not by destroying it, but by paying the price of sin. He died for us that we might live. Praise God !

No, Christ would have needed to die with or without law because sin exists with or without law. All wrong doing is sin. Any man who knows to do right, to him it is sin. This can be seen clearly when we notice that sin existed for centuries before the law was added (the law was not added until 430 years after Abrham). Therefore, Christ's sacrifice was needed ever before there was a codified system of law.

BFA

 

[VictorC]

We are going over the same things already addressed. See my reply to BFA for clarification. You see the answer to what where you thought I was contending against myself.

I saw that, and just a couple of points came to my mind as I read it. One of your responses was this:

The law is still valid if the man goes out again and commits this crime or another he will still be convicted even though he has been pardoned for his previous record.

For the man to be convicted again demands a clause in the law to provide for double-jeopardy. The man has already been convicted by the law's penalty for death in the atonement provided by God's Lamb without spot or blemish, and the law cannot put a man to death twice.

And the absence of that legal provision leads to my next point:

The law cannot change, and the penalty must be paid the penalty of sin is death. God laid out the law showing us what sin is. If we destroy the law then all those guilty of transgression are no longer in violation and are no longer under the penalty. No one then need die to pay the penalty for a law that does not exist.

First of all, I agree that the law cannot be changed. It is this reason that God delivered us from it and declared the first covenant to be obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). As Romans 4:15 states, "because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression". It would be prudent to review Romans 4 to see what came before the "because" in this statement.

Second of all, God didn't leave the law for us to destroy. That was His legal course of action that He retained to Himself as the law's Creator: "He takes away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9). The "He" was Jesus Christ, and the "first" was the first covenant from Mount Sinai, which was the law mediated by Moses.

It does not matter if language is used to tell us we have been delivered from the law, or that the law was made obsolete and taken away. The disposition of it's jurisdiction over those who received it is the same in that the law is powerless to those who have experienced God's redemption from the curse of the law. And, that was His design in the law that exposed sin to us and caused us to realize our need for His redemption:

Galatians 3
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.​

 

[VictorC]

There is no 'new' Covenant, there is no 'old' Covenant; there is only the Covenant, eternal and unchanging. Without the Covenant/10 Commandments (Deut.4:13) there can be no Kingdom of Heaven. Without a Kingdom of Heaven (Dan.2:44,45) God cannot do battle with the kingdom of the world. Without this battle and the Kingdom of Heaven defeating the kingdom of the world there can be no 7th Trumpet wherein the 'kingdoms of the world become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ' (Rev.11:15,19).

Saying that the Covenant has somehow changed between the Old Testament and the New Testament shows a distinct lack of understanding of the purpose and operation of the Covenant. God is the same yesterday, today and forever; and so is HIS Covenant.

For the created to share the eternalness of the Creator is to deny the time the covenant came into existence, and also denies the limited jurisdiction that covenant had. It condemned all those under it because of their noncompliance, and estranged all the Gentiles from the promise to Abraham that in his Seed the nations would be blessed. Erasing vast quantities of Scripture as you do leaves you with no witness account of the solution God provided for the universal condemnation of the law that the Biblical record shows was not eternal. For you, there remains only circumcision and no future.

 

[Soon144k]

It is amazing what passes for a "fact" these days.

What strikes me about what Soon144k and k4c preach is this belief that Satan outplayed God to such a huge extent. Jesus went through so much just to let Paul and James destroy it all and cast billions into hellfire. God is so incredibly weak and powerless against Satan. He failed to get His message spread accurately when it would have been so simple. Why?

In the prophecy of the Wheat and the Weeds Jesus states that both Truth and Lies are in the same place; God planted the wheat first (Old Testament and the testimony of Jesus Christ while on earth) and the Enemy planted weeds later, at night when there were no prophetic fulfillments taking place (after Jesus ascended to Heaven the 2nd time). What is this 'place'? It is where followers of Jesus would naturally go to find truth, The Bible. The problem is that Christians believe that there is ONLY truth in the Bible, when in fact there are both Truth and Lies, and it is up to US to discern the difference (Matt. 24:4). This is called "FREE WILL", and it is God's greatest gift to mankind. However, along with the gift comes the responsibility to CHOOSE, which means being able to tell the difference between what is True and what is a lie.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

What is this 'place'? It is where followers of Jesus would naturally go to find truth, The Bible. The problem is that Christians believe that there is ONLY truth in the Bible, when in fact there are both Truth and Lies, and it is up to US to discern the difference.

We wish you well in your endeavor to pick and choose.

BFA

 

[Soon144k]

We wish you well in your endeavor to pick and choose.

BFA

You did not refute what I said using Scripture and/or with the words of Jesus Christ, and that is because you believe by 'faith'. I do not believe ANYTHING by faith. My belief is based solely on the words and teachings of Jesus Christ as He gave them to His own eyewitness disciples. What's your excuse?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

You did not refute what I said using Scripture

No. Nor did I intend to. That's not my purpose in posting here. Never has been.

I do not believe ANYTHING by faith.

That's a shame.

My belief is based solely on the words and teachings of Jesus Christ as He gave them to His own eyewitness disciples.

You seem to have faith that:
* The gospels were actually written by the disciples.
* The gospels have been preserved in their original intent and meaning.
* The translations that you use are faithful translations of the text.
* The disciples accurately captured the events as they occurred.
* Jesus said what the disciples recorded Him as saying.
* Jesus actually walked this earth and interacted with men such as the disciples.

I'm not saying that it's bad to have faith in such things. Rather, I'm simply noting that you seem to believe certain things by faith. However, I really don't know you and so I could certainly be wrong in my perceptions.

BFA

 

[Soon144k]

No. Nor did I intend to. That's not my purpose in posting here. Never has been.



That's a shame.



You seem to have faith that:
* The gospels were actually written by the disciples.
* The gospels have been preserved in their original intent and meaning.
* The translations that you use are faithful translations of the text.
* The disciples accurately captured the events as they occurred.
* Jesus said what the disciples recorded Him as saying.
* Jesus actually walked this earth and interacted with men such as the disciples.

I'm not saying that it's bad to have faith in such things. Rather, I'm simply noting that you seem to believe certain things by faith. However, I really don't know you and so I could certainly be wrong in my perceptions.

BFA

To the casual observer it may look like faith but it is anything but. Faith can turn to trust under the evidentiary rules of 'reasonable doubt'. The more hearsay evidence you eliminate and the more eyewitness testimony you allow the further from 'faith' you move. Faith is only necessary when you are in the dark. A flashlight in a dark space can help you find the right direction in which to travel, but turning on the light and illuminating the entire space is the only way to find ALL the truth.

Three of the four gospels were written by disciples of Jesus Christ; Matthew, Mark for Peter, and John. Luke was not a disciple of Jesus Christ, he was a disciple of Paul and therefore does not qualify as an eyewitness.

These eyewitness gospels are for the purpose of leading people to Jesus Christ who never knew Him in person, through the words of those who did.
To facilitate this Jesus told His disciples that THEY would remember EVERYTHING that He said to them.

“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John 14:25-26.

Jesus did not promise that this would apply to events that the disciples participated in with Jesus, yet because of this promise remembering events would trigger the remembering of the words of Jesus and would give the events accuracy with respect to His words.

By comparing the eyewitness accounts one with the other and with non-eyewitness accounts we can with sureness be able to discern that which is a translation error with the truth of what Jesus said. For example, Luke has one of the thieves on the cross next to Jesus asking for forgiveness. NONE of the other eyewitness disciple include this event in their accounts of the crucifixion. They have the two thieves cursing Jesus until His death. Because there is a discrepancy in the accounts the only choice is to go with the eyewitnesses and dismiss Luke's account as inaccurate and unreliable.

The more knowledge and understanding you gain by detailed research into the truth the less faith you need to support your beliefs. In Heaven NONE of us will have any need or use for faith. Why not begin that process right now?

 

[Pythons]

Soon144k,

If you don't believe anything by faith I have a question for you...
...Why do you belive in the 1844 teaching of Ellen White?
...When, according to simple math, 31 A.D. did not include a Friday, Saturday?

 

[Alawishis]

In the prophecy of the Wheat and the Weeds Jesus states that both Truth and Lies are in the same place; God planted the wheat first (Old Testament and the testimony of Jesus Christ while on earth) and the Enemy planted weeds later, at night when there were no prophetic fulfillments taking place (after Jesus ascended to Heaven the 2nd time). What is this 'place'? It is where followers of Jesus would naturally go to find truth, The Bible. The problem is that Christians believe that there is ONLY truth in the Bible, when in fact there are both Truth and Lies, and it is up to US to discern the difference (Matt. 24:4). This is called "FREE WILL", and it is God's greatest gift to mankind. However, along with the gift comes the responsibility to CHOOSE, which means being able to tell the difference between what is True and what is a lie.

I'm feeling like you are walking on a dangerous precipice here. When you begin to believe that the bible is corrupted with lies you open up permission for yourself to pick and choose the truths that you deem valid based on your own human needs. Whenever you find something that is not palatable to you it can easily be discarded as error. There are others in history that have said these words and it usually resulted in them producing their own versions of scriptures where their "corrections" replace the words that do not support human needs.

Instead I put it to you to take the entirety of the bible. If you find something you do not like, or something that does not make sense, pray God to reveal it's mysteries to you. Dig deep and I'm sure if you keep Jesus first you will find your answers.

 

[Soon144k]

Soon144k,

If you don't believe anything by faith I have a question for you...
...Why do you belive in the 1844 teaching of Ellen White?
...When, according to simple math, 31 A.D. did not include a Friday, Saturday?

Where on earth did you get the idea that I believe in anything Ellen White taught?

My understanding is that Jesus was crucified in 30 CE, which is the Wednesday year of the final week of years of the 490 year prophecy in Dan. 9:24, which ended in 33 CE. According to my calculations Jesus was crucified ON Passover which was a Wednesday in that year, and was resurrected on Sabbath just before sunset exactly 3 nights and 3 days later. This in no way agrees with what EGW taught.

 

[Alawishis]

Well it's not irrelevant when you consider how many in the OT (like David and Solomon) had multiple wives and concubines. David obviously committed adultery with Bathsheba. They couldn't keep the law. David was never stoned.

The law now for us is not on tablets of stone. It's written on our hearts. The Holy Spirit guides us.

I'm not sure if you are trying to make the distinction that having the law impressed upon our hearts is not OT as it is today.

Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart [is] my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.
Isaiah 51:7

Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with [my] whole heart.
Psalm 119:34

I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law [is] within my heart.
Psalm 40:8

How lucky for the aforementioned they didn't have to pay the civil penalty many others had. Still, being a king has it benefits I suppose. I hear your words about David and Solomon. They kept God's law written in their hearts and still they faltered many times. There are many other examples of men and women that wanted to but could not keep to the law.
Paul said
"For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."
Romans 7:19
"Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed [is] willing, but the flesh [is] weak."
Matthew 26:41

We keep the law in our hearts and our hearts want to keep the law, but our sinful natures betray us.

Which of us has not fallen time and time again? As long as we get back up forgiveness is there for us, praise God. Sometimes the hardest part is forgiving ourselves, or letting go of the guilt and truly believing in our hearts that we truly are forgiven.

 

[Alawishis]

Hi Alawishis. I'm sure you have limited time to post here. Therefore, I appreciate the time you took to reply to my post. Maybe at some point you'll have some additional time to reply more specifically to things I wrote in my last post. In the meantime, I'll follow you for a moment down the path you'd prefer to travel.

Thank you so much for your kind words. I must say I do appreciate this opportunity to discuss God's word with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I pray this is as much a blessing for you as it is for me. Yes unfortunately I don't have the all the free time I would like, which one of us does really. If I missed some of your queries I do apologize I will endeavour to go back and pick up what I missed later, time permitting.

No, it isn't. Neither is fulfilling the law the same thing as destroying it. To fulfill the law, one fully meets its obligations so that no more is needed to meet them. The requirements are FILLED FULL. The law does not disappear. Rather, its requirements have been completely satisfied.

I beg to differ. Fulfilled is not quite the same as, FILLED FULL, but it is partly. Let me come back to this later.

Isn't saying that, "so that no more is needed to meet them", the same as destroying the law, removing it's requirements, it's no longer needed. So I ask you what is a law where there is no requirement to obey? A law without requirement is just empty words and not a law at all. What do you suppose would happen if the police announced they would no longer enforce any of the theft laws. They'd keep the laws on the books but they were no longer going to hold anyone accountable to them. What do you suppose would happen once word got out? I think you'd agree it would be absolute mayhem. I don't think you would have trouble saying lawlessness would abound. My point is that is if a law is not enforced, if you are not required to keep it, it is no longer a law.

Now Christ did fulfil the law in that he paid the penalty. He paid our ticket for us. This brings me back to fulfilled. Fulfilling the requirements of a law does not make it go away, it's simply paying the penalty. In the case of God's law the penalty is ...death. What did Christ do he paid the penalty, he died for us. He fulfilled the requirements of the law, he paid the price, he died for us. Take another look at the precepts of the ten commandments ask yourself are we off the hook for these or does God expect us to live by these standards. If the fourth one troubles you forget that one for now, look at the others. Are these 9 commandments sound? How would God feel if you broke any one of those 9 commandments? Are we absolved from keeping these 9? Does writting them in our heart mean we don't have to keep them, or does it mean we take them to heart and make them part of our life?

Consider also these definitions of fulfil:

Fulfilled

• - to put into effect (execute)
• - to meet the requirements of (a business order)
• - to measure up to (satisfy)
• - to convert into reality
• - to develop the full potentialities of

Antonyms: breach, break, transgress, violate

I don't find this to be an apples to apples comparison. What you've described is substitution. Substitution is an entirely different concept than fulfillment. With substitution, one person takes the penalty for another. With fulfillment, the requirement of the law has been fully met.

Yet isn't that what happened when Christ died for us. He took our sins upon himself and he paid the price that we should have paid.

Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
-- 1 Corinthians 7:23 --

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son
In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins
-- Colossians 1:13,14 --

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree.
-- Galatians 3:13 --

What is the curse of the law? The penalty of death.

Let me offer an example of my own to illustrate fulfillment:

Let's say an elderly, retired resident of Jonestown lives on a fixed income; has fallen on hard times; has not paid his property taxes in 3 years; and has no hope of ever paying them anytime in the future. Let's say that a generous benefactor steps in and provides a check to the city fathers of Jonestown in the amount of $1 billion. Not only does this satisfy the amount required to pay the 3 years of taxes, but it also more than covers all future tax amounts the man could ever possibly owe. The elderly man's obligation to pay taxes has been fully met. The tax law did not disappear, but its requirements have been filled full. The elderly man could continue to pay taxes if he wishes, but this does not negate the fact that his obligation no longer exists.

That's an interesting example. I don't completely disagree with it. The law is still kept.. Here is where I have trouble with your example. The law is not really broken, it's not illegal to fall behind in your taxes as far as I know. Eventually the penalty for not paying your taxes is likely jail or stiff fines. That is the law, I like your example more as a covenant than a law. A covenant is an agreement between two parties. If you live on the land you agree to pay the gov't it's taxes, that's a covenant. A law is an enforcement a covenant is an agreement between two parties for mutual benefit. The law enforces the covenant so that both parties keep up their side. So the couple were in risk of breaching the covenant. If they were found guilty eventually of tax evasion, or whatever it's deemed, then that is breaking the law. So when this benefactor steps in and prepays for the next 1000 years, he has "fulfilled" the covenant. They don't have to sacrifice lambs anymore but the law is still valid.

Unlike this example we are not automatically afforded forgiveness for future sins like a prepaid credit card for buying all the sin we can eat. In order to claim the gift we must feel the need and ask for forgiveness. And yes it is given freely, but it's not meant to be an all you can eat buffet. If the couple had to ask for each instalment after they felt the need it would be closer to a parallel of salvation.

Christ said:
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
-- John 8:12,11 --

"Go, and sin no more", not 'go back and live your life like you did before.' Yes Christ will forgive us as many times as it takes. You are right the sins are prepaid, but it's not a licence to sin. We are expected to write the law in our hearts, make changes in our life.

No, Christ would have needed to die with or without law because sin exists with or without law. All wrong doing is sin. Any man who knows to do right, to him it is sin. This can be seen clearly when we notice that sin existed for centuries before the law was added (the law was not added until 430 years after Abrham). Therefore, Christ's sacrifice was needed ever before there was a codified system of law.

BFA

Paul told us:
"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."
-- Romans 7:7 --
The law is a list of the definitions of sin. It shows us what sin is.

Sin has existed since Satan's fall. Satan coveted God's power. He put himself before God, soon after he was bearing false witness and committing murderous thoughts. These are all sins no question. This happened long before the 10 commandments were written for the Israelites. Eve listened to Satan and coveted God's power also. She put herself before God. Adam listened to Eve over God. They both bore false witness. Cain presumed upon God and later murdered his own brother. Sin goes against the nature of God. Many more sins followed these, everyone of them were transgressions of the one or more of the ten commandments as they were later written down. When I speak of the law of the ten commandments I don't mean the stone tablets, and not so much the words, but the precepts. It was always a sin to murder, it was always a sin to steal, it was always a sin to commit adultery, it was always a sin, blaspheme, it was always a sin to covet. These have never changed. They were always sins and they always will be. Yes sin existed before the stone tablets, but the precepts of the law have existed long before. God did not make up these laws on Sinai, I put it to you Israel knew many of them previous but had likely forgotten some. VictorC posted a scripture showing the Pharaoh knew it was wrong to lie. I suggest these were all known but because as is man's nature people became increasingly wicked. At Sinai it was time for God to set the record straight, and He wrote them all down so they should not forget...or at least would not have the excuse.

The penalty for sin has always been death. The penalty also has not and cannot change. We are all doomed, condemned by a law we cannot in ourselves keep. It is for this reason Christ came to die for us. To pay the price that we may live.

"For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
-- Romans 6:23 --

Forgive me, I went on longer than I first intended. Thank you for your patience.
God Bless us and keep us all.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

If I missed some of your queries I do apologize I will endeavour to go back and pick up what I missed later, time permitting.

You did. All of them, in fact. However, I appreciate your pledge to go back and respond to them.

I beg to differ. Fulfilled is not quite the same as, FILLED FULL, but it is partly.

I don't disagree that Christ paid the penalty for us, but you still seem to blur Christ's act of substitution with His act of fulfillment. Those were 2 separate acts.Let me offer an example to illustrate this point further.

The SDA denomination believes that Jesus Christ filled full God-given requirements relating to:

* Offering animal sacrifices
* Observing all but one of the convocations/feasts listed in Leviticus 23
* The importance of wearing tzitzit and following other Israelite practices
* Being circumcised
​

Would you agree that Jesus filled these requirements full, or do you think that we have a continued, ongoing obligation to follow these God-given commands?

Here is where I have trouble with your example. The law is not really broken, it's not illegal to fall behind in your taxes as far as I know.

Indeed, it is. Quite illegal. There are laws requiring the payment of taxes. If you break these laws, you are subject to a penalty beginning with the first year you do not pay.

Eventually the penalty for not paying your taxes is likely jail or stiff fines. That is the law, I like your example more as a covenant than a law. A covenant is an agreement between two parties. If you live on the land you agree to pay the gov't it's taxes, that's a covenant. A law is an enforcement a covenant is an agreement between two parties for mutual benefit. The law enforces the covenant so that both parties keep up their side. So the couple were in risk of breaching the covenant.

The man wasn't in risk of breaking the law (remember that he violated specific laws requiring him to pay taxes), he had in fact broken the law and should have faced stiff penalties. Unlike your example, where the benefactor only provided substitution, my example includes the concept of fulfillment. My benefactor not only took the penalty upon himself (by paying the man's back taxes) but he also filled the obligation full (by paying all future taxes). This is how substitution and fulfillment interact.

If they were found guilty eventually of tax evasion, or whatever it's deemed, then that is breaking the law. So when this benefactor steps in and prepays for the next 1000 years, he has "fulfilled" the covenant. They don't have to sacrifice lambs anymore but the law is still valid.

YES, the law is still valid.
And NO, the man is no longer under an obligation.

IMPORTANT POINT: The same covenant that says "sacrifice lambs" also says "keep the sabbath." In fact, God instructed the children to keep the sabbath by offering a special animal sacrifice. The two practices were inextricably connected by God's own command. If Jesus Christ has fulfilled one, He has also fulfilled the other. After all, not one jot or tittle of the law can pass until ALL have been fulfilled.

Unlike this example we are not automatically afforded forgiveness for future sins like a prepaid credit card for buying all the sin we can eat. In order to claim the gift we must feel the need and ask for forgiveness. And yes it is given freely, but it's not meant to be an all you can eat buffet. If the couple had to ask for each instalment after they felt the need it would be closer to a parallel of salvation.

You seem to attached a number of quid pro quos to a gift given freely. In your scenario, it would seem that we claim the gift and then give it back and then claim the gift and give it back. I've never heard of this type of freewill gift giving.

The law is a list of the definitions of sin. It shows us what sin is.

And the Spirit's role is ___________?

Sin has existed since Satan's fall. Satan coveted God's power. He put himself before God, soon after he was bearing false witness and committing murderous thoughts. These are all sins no question. This happened long before the 10 commandments were written for the Israelites. Eve listened to Satan and coveted God's power also. She put herself before God. Adam listened to Eve over God. They both bore false witness. Cain presumed upon God and later murdered his own brother. Sin goes against the nature of God. Many more sins followed these, everyone of them were transgressions of the one or more of the ten commandments as they were later written down. When I speak of the law of the ten commandments I don't mean the stone tablets, and not so much the words, but the precepts.

Thanks for confirming that sin exists in the absence of law. Sin exists in the absence of law because the Holy Spirit convicts men of sin and righteousness and judgment. This was not only true before the law was added, it has also been true since the Seed came (I'm specifically referring to Galatians 3 here).

It was always a sin to murder, it was always a sin to steal, it was always a sin to commit adultery, it was always a sin, blaspheme, it was always a sin to covet. These have never changed. They were always sins and they always will be.

What do we do with the fact that God commanded men to kill? Is this not the very reason that the ministry of the Spirit brings life and the ministry of the letters engraved on stones brings death (I'm specifically referring to 2 Corinthians 3 here).

Yes sin existed before the stone tablets, but the precepts of the law have existed long before.

The mind of God has always existed. If you are appealing to us to follow the conviction of the Spirit, then I'm 100% on board with your way of thinking. However, if you are appealing to us to follow an old covenant that was made between God and Israelites and that expired "when the Seed came" then I must respectfully disagree.

God did not make up these laws on Sinai, I put it to you Israel knew many of them previous but had likely forgotten some. VictorC posted a scripture showing the Pharaoh knew it was wrong to lie.

Of course they did. I've already acknowledged that sin existed before the law was added.

It would seem that we agree that -- with or without law -- sin can exist.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The more knowledge and understanding you gain by detailed research into the truth the less faith you need to support your beliefs.

I agree with you that -- the more a person thinks he knows -- the less he feels the need for faith. However, we differ in that I don't see this as a desirable thing. In my mind, there is a difference between (i) searching for understanding and (ii) believing you alone are closing in on "the truth."

BFA