what purpose does the law serve...

[Battle Hymn]

what purpose does the law serve now that the old covenant has passed away and the new is in place? First since the old covenant was made with the Jews and not with gentiles, but what relation does the law hold for believers who are no longer under the law?

truthinreligionandpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/08/laying-down-law.html

 

[DD2008]

Romans 3:20 KJV
[20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The law illustrates how bad we are and how good God is.

 

[St_Worm2]

Romans 3:20 KJV
[20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The law illustrates how bad we are and how good God is.

Exactly ..

When I first became a Christian, all I wanted to know was how to please God. The Law helped me understand how to do that because it clearly showed me the kind of behavior God expected of me, how to be "righteous" before Him. I didn't have to wonder what was right and what was wrong, it was right there.

As far as its value for us today, for those outside of Christ, it's what they should live by and will, in the end, be that which they are judged by. For Christians, it will continue to be our guide, helping us to understand what is pleasing and what is not pleasing to a Holy God. We may not be judged by it concerning our salvation, but "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", and the myriad of other extra-Decalogue, non-ceremonial laws, are still certainly rules we are expected to follow as we seek to please Him every day ..

Yours and His,
David

 

[Battle Hymn]

So I guess my follow up, is the Christian obligated to obey the law? and if yes, what is the obligation's purpose?

 

[wanelad]

It has been mentioned in a round about way, we are saved by Grace through "faith", this is not just believing as even Satan believes. Faith is an action word the apostle James said James 2:18 is to be shown by our works. If one truely believes in Faith there is also a repentant heart, but how can you repent without knowing what to repent from eg the Law. James 2:20-26 elaborates further.

Daleko above summed it up nicely, if you truly love God which is the first and utmost commandment (Math 22:37-40) why would you even want to break it? however his Grace is there as a protection if we confess our sins we are forgiven.

Read what John said in Revelations 2:1-29 to the 7 churches do not be fooled to think this is not relevant to us today

 

[DrFrank]

Christians are required to follow the Ten Commandments to remain morally pure but are not required the multitude of other laws for the Jews that are detailed in the Old Testament.

Matthew 5:18 (New King James Version)

18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

 

[bling]

The Law of Loving God and others that all the Laws are based on remains. The Sabbath has been expanded to be everyday and since we are priests, in the temple (our bodies) offering sacrive of ourselves 24/7, we can worship 24/7.

 

[DeaconDean]

][/B]The Law helped me understand how to do that because it clearly showed me the kind of behavior God expected of me, how to be "righteous" before Him. I didn't have to wonder what was right and what was wrong, it was right there.

So...you can get righteousness even after the point of salvation from following the "Law"?!?

Clearly then, you don't need the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us the same as it was to Abraham.

Just observe the Law to please God and you will incur "righteousness.

Christians are required to follow the Ten Commandments to remain morally pure but are not required the multitude of other laws for the Jews that are detailed in the Old Testament.

Matthew 5:18 (New King James Version)

18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Where does it say that?

If I am not mistaken, context plays a large part in this.

To whom was the Lord speaking to?

And...did not Christ by the time He went to the cross, had He not fulfilled all the requirements of the Law?

Evidently not.

So what of the Law remains to be fulfilled?

The only “law” that existed prior to the giving of the Decalogue at Mt, Sinai, was the commandment by God to Abraham to circumcise the male sons. The giving of the Decalogue at Mt. Sinai, marks a moment in time. For it was here that God gave His revealed will for the Hebrews. The Apostle Paul was the biggest advocates of N.T, times that the Gentiles were not under the Law. Even the first Apostolic Council agreed to the extent that only a few of the items included in the “Law” even applied to Gentiles.

Lets get this straight, the “Law” does serve a purpose, even today. It is God’s revealed will. And Paul states that it was put into place to identify what was and wasn’t sin. And for a time, it was used as a way to establish man’s standing before God by his relationship to the Law. And even Paul made the boast that one could achieve blamelessness as concerned the Law. (cf. Phil. 3:6)

The demands of the Law were strict. There was no allowances for half-hearted tries. There was no “Red-ribbon” for giving it your best shot and failing. That is why Jesus was needed. All the demands of the Law, all that it demanded of man, we could not fulfill. The harder they tried, the more they fell because they became aware that the Law increased sin.

That is why when Paul said: “teloV gar nomou CristoV” (Christ is the end of the law) as far as the Law and establishing a right standing before God, the Law has come to an end. No longer can man plea to God “Look how well I’ve kept the commandments and the Law.” The Law has been disposed from it place as mediator between God and man, and Christ has rightfully taken its place.

Borrowing from Paul’s great defense against “legalism” we need to remember three things from the book of Galatians:

First, Paul answers that the law was added to identify sin as transgression against God. In doing so, the law did more than just identify sin, it condemned those who did these acts. And while the world was under the power of sin, the Jews were imprisoned and guarded by the law (3:22). The law was meant to guard Israel until the arrival of Christ.

Second, Paul is desperately trying to sway the minds of the Gentiles in the Galatian church. When the law was in effect, not only were the Jews guarded, but the Gentiles were excluded from the promises of God. The Jews had so hoarded the promise of God by living it in a legalistic manner, that Gentiles were looked at with contempt and considered slaves like Ishmael. To return to the law willingly would place the Gentiles in the position that the Jews were once in, to be condemned by the law, and to find themselves excluded by the very nature of the law. Being in Christ means freedom from the condemnation the law naturally brings. Paul yearned for the Galatians to remain in the freedom of Christ and removed from the restraint of the law that had formerly enslaved them as Gentiles.

Lastly, according to Paul then, the law was neither positive nor negative; it was merely a necessity. More importantly it was a necessity for only a limited time, a time that had come and gone. Since that time had been superseded with the arrival of Christ, to continue to live under the law would go back to the time before Christ. No longer would the Gentiles be free, but the law that had condemned the Jews for centuries would now condemn the Gentiles.

Jesus, teaching to a crowd of Jews took all 613 "Laws" and boiled them down to only two:

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Mt. 22:36-40 (KJV)

I'm not gonna post this all tell you that I can do the decalogue (10 Commandments) because the truth is, I can't.

Heck, I'll probably be the only person here in this thread that will admit that I can't even do the two mentioned above.

I ask each one of you who has even done the two mentioned above?

Paul clearly taught that the Law was a "paidagwgoV" (pahee-dag-o-gos'), a tutor i.e. a guardian and guide of boys. Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood.

But once you have reached the point of salvation, the "paidagwgoV" is no longer needed. (cf. Gal. 3:23-25)

Yes, the Decalogue is a "guide" for us to follow, it is God's revealed will for man, but who of us, even after the point of salvation, lives up to it?

We can't even do the two Jesus told the Jews to follow in Mt. 22.

No sir, our "right standing before God" either before salvation or after is not established in how well we have kept the "Law" ot even the Decalogue.

My right standing before God is established in Christ and His fulfillment of the "Law".

I can truthfully say that because I am in Christ, because He fulfilled the Law, I have (past tense) fulfilled the Law.

And I will not preach or teach that any Christian needs to submit themselves back to any part of the Law.

Paul also used the example of circumcision to teach that if you use observe one part of the "Law" then you are duty-bound to fulfill all the Law:

"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." -Gal. 5:3 (KJV)

And James tells us that we had better be prepared to fulfill all the Law because if you fail in one, you fail in all:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." -Jas. 2:10 (KJV)

I'd rather get into heaven on God grace, than to think I have to get in based on how well I have kept the Decalogue or even the two commandments.

It basically that simple.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[St_Worm2]

So...you can get righteousness even after the point of salvation from following the "Law"?!?

Clearly then, you don't need the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us the same as it was to Abraham.

Just observe the Law to please God and you will incur "righteousness.

I'm sorry if my words and intent were not clear to you, but that's NOT what I meant. Oddly though, while you asked a perfectly legitimate question of me, you decided to answer the question for me.

Oh well, have a nice day!

--David

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm sorry if my words and intent were not clear to you, but that's NOT what I meant. Oddly though, while you asked a perfectly legitimate question of me, you decided to answer the question for me.

Oh well, have a nice day!

--David

No, I would still like an answer to:

When I first became a Christian, all I wanted to know was how to please God. The Law helped me understand how to do that because it clearly showed me the kind of behavior God expected of me, how to be "righteous" before Him. I didn't have to wonder what was right and what was wrong, it was right there.

Through the Christ event, are we not already righteous before Him?

Evidently not for you said:

The Law helped me understand how to do that because it clearly showed me the kind of behavior God expected of me...We may not be judged by it concerning our salvation, but "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", and the myriad of other extra-Decalogue, non-ceremonial laws, are still certainly rules we are expected to follow as we seek to please Him every day ..

So, if this is correct, when one of your loved ones dies, do you touch them in the coffin?

If so, your "unclean". (cf. Num. 19:11-13)

This is an "extra-decalogue" "Law" is it not?

Do you have an 18" knee wall around your roof?

If not, your disobeying one more of the "extra-decalogue" laws. (cf. Deut. 22:8)

How do you determine which ones of the "extra-decalogue" Laws apply and which ones do not?

Evidently you know which ones apply and which ones don't so please tell me how to determine which ones apply and which ones do not.

Your right standing before God is not determined by whether or not before or after salvation how well you have followed the Law, Decalogue or otherwise.

Are you seeking to please God through some sort of "Law" keeping, or are you already accepted of God?

"To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -Eph. 1:6 (KJV)

Although the ostensive purpose of the Law was as a means of obtaining life (Lev. 18:5), Paul believed the Law had another purpose, a salvation-historical purpose. Paul knew that God knew the Hebrews could not be declared righteous by observance to the Law even though this was theoretically possible. God had another purpose for giving the Law and it was to bring to the Hebrews the knowledge of sin and their sinfulness. The Law would even serve to increase sin in the world. The Law would prepare for Christ, and once it fulfilled it purpose, it would become salvation-historically obsolete.

Paul explains in Rom. 3:19 that the purpose of all scripture is for Jews to conclude that no one can be declared righteous from the works of the Law. Rather, what the Law accomplishes is to define sin, and to bring its violators to where they know themselves as sinners. “diagar vomou epignwsiV amartiaV” (for through law is full knowledge of sin“ -Rom. 3:20) With the Law, sin becomes defined as transgression and it becomes possible and therefore it is possible to have a knowledge of oneself as a sinner. Similarly, in Rom. 5:13, Paul says that where there is no law, there is no sin. Meaning that sin presupposes the Law; in the absence of the Law, there is no sin in the sense of transgression of the Law, although there may be disobedience.

The same idea is expressed in one of the most heated, and debated passages of Romans. In Rom. 7:7-8, Paul says:

“What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? Let it not be! But I did not know sin except through law; for also I did not know lust except the law said You shall not lust. But sin taking occasion through the commandment worked every lust in me; for apart fro law, sin was dead.”

“alla thn amartian ouk egnwn, ei mh dia nomou” Paul here begins to show how sins personified, used the commandment to entrap him. In his viewpoint, sin remains inactive without the Law (cf. Rom. 7:8-9) And says ironically, that with the introduction of the Law, what was intended to bring life brought death. When presented with the Law for the first time, the Hebrews naively assume that they can obey it, However, as stated before, the Law serves to nail a man to his sin, the unexpected result is that man is held in bondage to his sin so that now the Law is passively complicit in producing violations of itself. And this was the Jewish experience with the Law. As soon as he became aware of God’s requirements in the Law, their tendency to sin, defined as transgression of the Law, sprang to life. (cf. Rom. 7:9) For Paul, sin was a power that rules over, and becomes actual in the presence of the Law. Sin requires an external object in order to become actualized and the Law serves this purpose. (cf. Rom. 7:7)

This also appears the inferred meaning in Gal. 3:19a:

“Why, then the law? The transgressions because of it was added”

“ti oun o nomoV; twn parabasewn carin prosteqh” He means that the Law was added because the Jews (and indeed all mankind) are sinners. Paul uses a divine passive in this passage, so that it is God who added the Law because of transgressions. Paul does not explain in which sense the Law was added because of transgressions, but he does write: “until the seed comes to whom it was promised”. (Gal. 3:19b) This implies that one reason why the Law was added was in order to prepare for the coming of Christ, the “seed”. (cf. Gal. 3:16) Why the existence of transgressions required that the Law be made manifest is not stated. But with little doubt we can say that for Paul, the Law functioned to bring sin to light, so that they would see the need to be declared righteous apart from their own efforts or “works of the Law“. (cf. Gal.3:22-23; Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13, 20; 7:7-8) It is also probable that a view held by Paul is that the Law was added to define sin as sin and thereby functioned also to bring the sinner into condemnation and thusly prepare them to receive the righteousness of God.”

Many say that without the Law, as far as Gentiles are concerned, there would still be “conscious” (what Paul referred to as the “law written on the heart” [Rom. 2:15]), however, conscious does not function in the same manner as the Law because conscious can be defiled and even “seared”. (cf. 1 Cor. 8:7; 1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15) Dictums of conscious are thusly liable to being rendered ineffectual, either in part, or wholly. Unlike the conscious, the Law is experienced as existing independently of the one who is subject to it, and not susceptible to perversion. The introduction of the Law has the effect of bringing into existence sin as being defined as violation of divinely -given commandment. It is also possible that Paul means that the Law was added in order to produce transgressions (cf. Rom. 5:2). This would also have the desired effect of preparing the Jew to receive the righteousness of God insofar as the more transgressions a Jew has, the less inclined they would be to deny their need of the righteousness of God.

Paul says:

“…that might abound the offense”

“But that the Law was added in order that transgressions may increase.” Not only does the Law supply a knowledge of sin, but it even increases sin by inciting those who to whom the Law was given to sin. In other words, the Law provided the Hebrews with opportunities to transgress that which formerly were not envisioned. And, as he later explains, the Law functions to generate sin because it provides the Hebrews something to rebel against.

The more you use the Decalogue and other "extra-decalogue"

"rules we are expected to follow as we seek to please Him every day "

The more you will find that you can't do it, the more you will sin.

Plain and simple.

Like I said, I'd rather get into heaven on God's grace alone, rather than be judged on close to perfect I kept the decalogue even after the Christ event in my life.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[St_Worm2]

You're choosing to answer questions for me again, DD. I can only conclude that you enjoy a good dialogue with yourself, or that you believe you're already so aware of how I'll answer that you've decided to go ahead and do it for me to give my digits a rest from all that typing ..

In either case, have a nice day!

--David

No, I would still like an answer to:



Through the Christ event, are we not already righteous before Him?

Evidently not for you said:



So, if this is correct, when one of your loved ones dies, do you touch them in the coffin?

If so, your "unclean". (cf. Num. 19:11-13)

This is an "extra-decalogue" "Law" is it not?

Do you have an 18" knee wall around your roof?

If not, your disobeying one more of the "extra-decalogue" laws. (cf. Deut. 22:8)

How do you determine which ones of the "extra-decalogue" Laws apply and which ones do not?

Evidently you know which ones apply and which ones don't so please tell me how to determine which ones apply and which ones do not.

Your right standing before God is not determined by whether or not before or after salvation how well you have followed the Law, Decalogue or otherwise.

Are you seeking to please God through some sort of "Law" keeping, or are you already accepted of God?

"To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -Eph. 1:6 (KJV)

Although the ostensive purpose of the Law was as a means of obtaining life (Lev. 18:5), Paul believed the Law had another purpose, a salvation-historical purpose. Paul knew that God knew the Hebrews could not be declared righteous by observance to the Law even though this was theoretically possible. God had another purpose for giving the Law and it was to bring to the Hebrews the knowledge of sin and their sinfulness. The Law would even serve to increase sin in the world. The Law would prepare for Christ, and once it fulfilled it purpose, it would become salvation-historically obsolete.

Paul explains in Rom. 3:19 that the purpose of all scripture is for Jews to conclude that no one can be declared righteous from the works of the Law. Rather, what the Law accomplishes is to define sin, and to bring its violators to where they know themselves as sinners. “diagar vomou epignwsiV amartiaV” (for through law is full knowledge of sin“ -Rom. 3:20) With the Law, sin becomes defined as transgression and it becomes possible and therefore it is possible to have a knowledge of oneself as a sinner. Similarly, in Rom. 5:13, Paul says that where there is no law, there is no sin. Meaning that sin presupposes the Law; in the absence of the Law, there is no sin in the sense of transgression of the Law, although there may be disobedience.

The same idea is expressed in one of the most heated, and debated passages of Romans. In Rom. 7:7-8, Paul says:

“What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? Let it not be! But I did not know sin except through law; for also I did not know lust except the law said You shall not lust. But sin taking occasion through the commandment worked every lust in me; for apart fro law, sin was dead.”

“alla thn amartian ouk egnwn, ei mh dia nomou” Paul here begins to show how sins personified, used the commandment to entrap him. In his viewpoint, sin remains inactive without the Law (cf. Rom. 7:8-9) And says ironically, that with the introduction of the Law, what was intended to bring life brought death. When presented with the Law for the first time, the Hebrews naively assume that they can obey it, However, as stated before, the Law serves to nail a man to his sin, the unexpected result is that man is held in bondage to his sin so that now the Law is passively complicit in producing violations of itself. And this was the Jewish experience with the Law. As soon as he became aware of God’s requirements in the Law, their tendency to sin, defined as transgression of the Law, sprang to life. (cf. Rom. 7:9) For Paul, sin was a power that rules over, and becomes actual in the presence of the Law. Sin requires an external object in order to become actualized and the Law serves this purpose. (cf. Rom. 7:7)

This also appears the inferred meaning in Gal. 3:19a:

“Why, then the law? The transgressions because of it was added”

“ti oun o nomoV; twn parabasewn carin prosteqh” He means that the Law was added because the Jews (and indeed all mankind) are sinners. Paul uses a divine passive in this passage, so that it is God who added the Law because of transgressions. Paul does not explain in which sense the Law was added because of transgressions, but he does write: “until the seed comes to whom it was promised”. (Gal. 3:19b) This implies that one reason why the Law was added was in order to prepare for the coming of Christ, the “seed”. (cf. Gal. 3:16) Why the existence of transgressions required that the Law be made manifest is not stated. But with little doubt we can say that for Paul, the Law functioned to bring sin to light, so that they would see the need to be declared righteous apart from their own efforts or “works of the Law“. (cf. Gal.3:22-23; Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13, 20; 7:7-8) It is also probable that a view held by Paul is that the Law was added to define sin as sin and thereby functioned also to bring the sinner into condemnation and thusly prepare them to receive the righteousness of God.”

Many say that without the Law, as far as Gentiles are concerned, there would still be “conscious” (what Paul referred to as the “law written on the heart” [Rom. 2:15]), however, conscious does not function in the same manner as the Law because conscious can be defiled and even “seared”. (cf. 1 Cor. 8:7; 1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15) Dictums of conscious are thusly liable to being rendered ineffectual, either in part, or wholly. Unlike the conscious, the Law is experienced as existing independently of the one who is subject to it, and not susceptible to perversion. The introduction of the Law has the effect of bringing into existence sin as being defined as violation of divinely -given commandment. It is also possible that Paul means that the Law was added in order to produce transgressions (cf. Rom. 5:2). This would also have the desired effect of preparing the Jew to receive the righteousness of God insofar as the more transgressions a Jew has, the less inclined they would be to deny their need of the righteousness of God.

Paul says:

“…that might abound the offense”

“But that the Law was added in order that transgressions may increase.” Not only does the Law supply a knowledge of sin, but it even increases sin by inciting those who to whom the Law was given to sin. In other words, the Law provided the Hebrews with opportunities to transgress that which formerly were not envisioned. And, as he later explains, the Law functions to generate sin because it provides the Hebrews something to rebel against.

The more you use the Decalogue and other "extra-decalogue"

"rules we are expected to follow as we seek to please Him every day "

The more you will find that you can't do it, the more you will sin.

Plain and simple.

Like I said, I'd rather get into heaven on God's grace alone, rather than be judged on close to perfect I kept the decalogue even after the Christ event in my life.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Yukerboy]

The purpose of the law was so that sin may increase.

With that said, we who are no longer under law cannot sin, for sin is transgressing the law.

You are as obliged to not steal as you are to not eat bacon wrapped scallops (which is an amazing appetizer).

 

[Mayor Of Simpleton]

the law serves the cops , without it they have no reason to lock up criminals.

 

[DeaconDean]

You're choosing to answer questions for me again, DD. I can only conclude that you enjoy a good dialogue with yourself, or that you believe you're already so aware of how I'll answer that you've decided to go ahead and do it for me to give my digits a rest from all that typing ..

In either case, have a nice day!

--David

I like answers.

I also gave an answer to your presupposed answer.

But I'll tell you what, I'll make one more statement then I shall wait for your response.

The big difference between you as a "presupposed" Presbyterian, or Reformed Calvinist, is that even though we are freed from the Law, this Baptist Calvinist, does not preach or teach any form of adherance to the Law, whether it is the Decalogue or any form of the Law.

The Guidelines I have been given as a Gentile Christian are those given by the First Apostolic Council:

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;..That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." -Acts 15:14-20, 28-29 (KJV)

You know, as I read this, I don't see any command from the Apostles to obey the Decalogue.

And as I read this, I see only four items from the Law that are applicable to Gentiles.

Am I missing something?

Yes we should use the decalogue as a "guide", but I'm also here to tell you that if somebody breaks into my house in the middle of the night with the intent to harm me or my family, I'll shoot first and ask questions later and go back to sleep till the police arrive.

I will break the commandment.

Now, which "extra-decaloge" Laws apply?

So, if this is correct, when one of your loved ones dies, do you touch them in the coffin?

If so, your "unclean". (cf. Num. 19:11-13)

This is an "extra-decalogue" "Law" is it not?

Do you have an 18" knee wall around your roof?

If not, your disobeying one more of the "extra-decalogue" laws. (cf. Deut. 22:8)

How do you determine which ones of the "extra-decalogue" Laws apply and which ones do not?

Why do you preach and teach "Law" to Christians when we are freed from the Law?

Is not the Law written on the hearts of Christians?

So tell me, how do you determine which Laws apply and which ones do not since:

The Law helped me understand how to do that because it clearly showed me the kind of behavior God expected of me...We may not be judged by it concerning our salvation, but "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", and the myriad of other extra-Decalogue, non-ceremonial laws, are still certainly rules we are expected to follow as we seek to please Him every day ..

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[heymikey80]

To the Opening Poster: you'll need to answer as to what you mean by "need to follow the Law". Clearly we are quite capable of violating the Law. The question (and it's not packed with meaning here) is, to what purpose would someone follow the Law?

If its purpose is to become righteous and gain salvation, then no, we're considered righteous and have gained salvation by God's grace through faith in His Son.

The question then drops to what Paul asked at the outset of declaring justification by faith in Romans 3:20-31 "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."


So, do we follow the Law?

If we were without God's grace in Christ Jesus, Yes, the Law remains staring us in the face to declare us guilty.
Once we receive God's grace through faith, No, the Law is not a stipulation to satisfy for salvation.
Yes, as Christians, the Law remains as an obligation for us as family members of God's house, to grow up to the status we've been placed in.​