Who would want men to NOT keep God's Laws?

[Lulav]

Who would want men to NOT keep God's Laws?

Think about it.

Go back to the Beginning.

 

[expos4ever]

Your implied argument is that if God gives us a Law, Satan must be behind any efforts to suggest that we do not keep that Law.

That is a weak argument as there is no Biblical basis for assuming any particular Law is eternal. For all you know, God could decide that a particular Law is no longer needed and then rescind it.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Not God!

Started from the first lie in the garden……you shall not surely die. Genesis 3:4 The exact opposite of what God said.

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

God said- Exodus 20:6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Jesus said: “If you love Me, keep My commandments.

Man says- we do not need to keep the commandments, we can depend on our own righteousness not God’s Psalms 119:172. We do not need God to sanctify us, we can sanctify ourselves. The Lord says otherwise Isaiah 66:17. we are sanctified by the Truth of God’s Word John 17:17 and all of God’s commandments are Truth Psalms 119:151

Thank you Lord for your pure Word to guide us through the narrow path!

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Who would want men to NOT keep God's Laws?

Think about it.

Go back to the Beginning.

The sacrificial system is the heart of the law. How do you square that with keeping the law ? Thanks for clarifying.
Blessings.

 

[eleos1954]

Who would want men to NOT keep God's Laws?

Think about it.

Go back to the Beginning.

Who would want men to NOT keep God's Laws?

Yep .... the serpent and his minions.

 

[Soyeong]

Your implied argument is that if God gives us a Law, Satan must be behind any efforts to suggest that we do not keep that Law.

That is a weak argument as there is no Biblical basis for assuming any particular Law is eternal. For all you know, God could decide that a particular Law is no longer needed and then rescind it.

Lulav's argument stands or falls on its own merits. If Saten is behind effort for man to not keep God's law and man has become convinced that we should no longer keep it, then the weakness is not I Lulav's argument, but rather it is in your argument.

God's righteousness and all of his righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:142, 160), so it is false that there is no biblical basis for thinking that any particular law is eternal. The only way that a law for how to act in accordance with God's nature could be rescinded is if that is no longer an aspect of God's nature, however, God's nature is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His nature are eternally valid and will never be rescinded. If God could rescind laws so that it was no longer in accordance with His righteousness to help the poor or to refrain from committing adultery, then His righteousness would not be eternal.

 

[Lulav]

Your implied argument is that if God gives us a Law, Satan must be behind any efforts to suggest that we do not keep that Law.

It was not an argument, it was a statement and a question, but you get the gist.

Let's go back to the beginning, When there were only two people on earth, living in bliss in a place where they had everything they needed, where the sun shone upon them in a perfect climate, where they could eat if they wanted to but didn't have to and where the LORD GOD the creator walked with them in this garden.

They were given the first commandments for mankind.

+ the Positive ones

1. Be fruitful and increase in number;
2. fill the earth and subdue it.
3. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
4. Tend or guard the Garden

- The Negative one

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying,
“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”


Very simple, really.

But it was a challenge to the one who had also been given positive and negative commandments from the Lord.

He had already transgressed or broken them.
Now just like children who don't like to be the only one doing wrong against their parent and point the finger at their sibling and 'tell' what wrong they did in hopes their punishment won't be as harsh, he wanted to cause them to 'fall' away from the love of the Father who had made them perfect from the start.

After creating Adam, the end of the creation week the LORD proclaimed that it was VERY good.

'Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.'​

Now within the Garden we read:

9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. ​

The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.​

In the middle of the garden stood two trees, one called the 'Tree of Life' which is seen once again In Revelation

2. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.” ’​

​

22. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.​

​

22.Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.​

To those who walk right will get to reach out and take from that tree and live forever, something they were denied the day they listened to the Serpent and not the LORD GOD.

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.​

Adam was told to not eat of only one tree and that became the target, the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.

The LORD had allowed it there in the Garden as a TEST to see if the man He had created and given the choice to love Him and obey Him or not would choose to do so. He did not want robots for children, He wanted those to love Him by choice for Love is nothing if not given freely and willingly.

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”​

Questioning the Word of LORD GOD , what He said or Commanded, questioning his Law.

2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”​

Adding to the Word, the LORD didn't say anything about touching it.

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”​

Denying the Word of God, calling Him a liar, teaching not to follow Him. The serpent now becomes a false Prophet.

Leading them astray to follow other gods ---

As you can see these are all things found in Torah.

Something that the serpent doesn't want anyone to do because this would make them greater than him because they loved the LORD GOD enough to obey him and not be subject to the fate he was.

That is a weak argument as there is no Biblical basis for assuming any particular Law is eternal. For all you know, God could decide that a particular Law is no longer needed and then rescind it.

The Satan tried, hoping that too. But there is plenty of Biblical basis. The LORD did not change his Laws, in the New Covenant, but how they were enacted. Instead of just externally, they would be 'hard wired' within His people.

Connected to Gen 3:15 the one coming from the Womans' seed needed to be stopped.

Showing that God does not make laws that are only temporary He says this:

Thus says the Lord,Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,And its waves roar(The Lord of hosts is His name):​

​

36 “If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the Lord,Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”​

​

37 Thus says the Lord:​

“If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the Lord.​

So the Sun still shines, the moon and stars at night, heaven still with all our technology cannot be measured and the foundations of the earth still are not understood.

 

[expos4ever]

Lulav's argument stands or falls on its own merits.

Well we agree - let the argument stand or fall on its own merits.

If Saten is behind effort for man to not keep God's law and man has become convinced that we should no longer keep it, then the weakness is not I Lulav's argument, but rather it is in your argument.

This is one of the most obvious examples of begging the question I have ever seen.

God's righteousness and all of his righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:142, 160),

Have you actually examined the original Hebrew? In both cases, the relevant term is "owlam".

From Strong's: long duration, antiquity, futurity

Now then, since the term can, repeat can, be interpreted as indicating a long, albeit finite, duration, I suggest your assertion is not supported. At least without some further argument as to why we cannot interpret "owlam" as connoting true eternality.

The only way that a law for how to act in accordance with God's nature could be rescinded is if that is no longer an aspect of God's nature, however, God's nature is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His nature are eternally valid and will never be rescinded.

Demonstrably incorrect as you have been repeatedly shown.

You conflate God's nature with how God works in the world - it is obviously conceptually coherent for God to have a constant nature yet change the way He works in the world. How is this not punishingly obvious?

Let's say Joe's nature as a loving father never changes. Does that mean He will require his 25 year old daughter to be "in by 11" just as he did when she was 13?

The painfully obvious point: Joe's nature has not changed but the rules he confers on his daughter can change.

 

[expos4ever]

It was not an argument, it was a statement and a question, but you get the gist.

Let's go back to the beginning,....

Questioning the Word of LORD GOD , what He said or Commanded, questioning his Law.

2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”​

Adding to the Word, the LORD didn't say anything about touching it.

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”​

Denying the Word of God, calling Him a liar, teaching not to follow Him. The serpent now becomes a false Prophet.

An attentive reader will see this is a diversion. You are painting a very negative picture of the person who rejects God's commands.

And well you should.

But, as anyone who is following carefully and thinking through the issues, the obvious objection will arise. And it is this:

Yes, we all know that disobedience to God is bad. But that is not the central issue - the central here is what set of commands apply at any given time. And where is your case that the Law of Moses is necessarily an eternal set of Laws.?

At least to this point in the argument, I see no case. But you do address it, below.

Leading them astray to follow other gods ---

As you can see these are all things found in Torah.

Readers who are not thinking carefully can be tripped up by this misleading reasoning. Surely you have to understand that just because there is a prohibition against X in Law Y, this decidedly does not means that we could not get that same prohibition against X from some other source of moral guidance even if Law Y is retired. To put it bluntly: If the Holy Spirit tells me to not murder, why do I need the commandment? And it is not as if there was not a ton of material in the NT telling us precisely this: the Spirit replaces the Law!

This slightly subtle fact is something people on your side of this issue frequently get tripped up on.

Thus says the Lord,Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,And its waves roar(The Lord of hosts is His name):

36 “If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the Lord,Then the seed of Israel shall also cease​

From being a nation before Me forever.”​

​

37 Thus says the Lord:​

“If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,​

I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the Lord.​

So the Sun still shines, the moon and stars at night, heaven still with all our technology cannot be measured and the foundations of the earth still are not understood.

The irony here is that the context in which these words were written, as well as clear Biblical precedent for the use of end of the world language in a specifically metaphorical sense, actually undercuts your position. Here is the relvevant stuff:

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

A New Covenant not according to the covenant I made with their fathers.

And, unless you are going to say Paul did not write under the inspiration of the spirit, we know that Gentiles who have never even heard of the law will somehow end up doing what God wants them to do:

For when Gentiles who do not have [q]the Law [r]instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having [s]the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

And there we have it. Jeremiah writes of a law "on their inward parts"; Paul clearly echoes that same language in a setting where we know for a fact that the law of Moses as a prescriptive written code is out of the picture. The most you can salvage here is that the underlying spirit or principles of the Law of Moses are disclosed to Gentiles. But certainly not the written code itself - Paul says it is the of Moses of the Gentile that accuses them, not the law of Moses.

Now to the end of the world language. I have repeatedly made the case, and no one has challenged it, that bear is clear biblical president or using language about the moon and the stars seeking to shine in a specifically metaphorical sense to refer to events in the here and now. You are trying to take such language literally in support of your position. But it is beyond dispute: it is at least plausible that this language is it intended to be understood as a metaphor.

 

[Lulav]

To put it bluntly: If the Holy Spirit tells me to not murder, why do I need the commandment?

I'll answer this for now and come back to your other objections later, dinner time soon.

Have you ever thought that if the Holy Spirit tells you not to murder and you don't murder that there is still another reason for it to be valid and still for today?

What of others that don't believe, don't have the Holy Spirit to guide them?

Sorry but they are 'still on the books' and that book resides in Heaven.

The one that mentions murder is contained within the throne of God, called the 'Ark of the Covenant'.

That is what testifies against all.

Just like any Municipal law book, the laws made stay on the books and are necessary for any convictions that need to be made. If the law is annulled, then no one can be prosecuted for trespassing it.
Everyone will stand before the Holy Bima on Judgement day. There has to be a legal document to hold what each person does and to hold them accountable to.



The wicked man is so arrogant he always thinks, “God won’t hold me accountable; he doesn’t care.”

Doesn't look like the law is done away with by this:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

 

[expos4ever]

I'll answer this for now and come back to your other objections later, dinner time soon.

Have you ever thought that if the Holy Spirit tells you not to murder and you don't murder that there is still another reason for it to be valid and still for today?

What of others that don't believe, don't have the Holy Spirit to guide them?

Sorry but they are 'still on the books' and that book resides in Heaven.

About your last statement, can you please post some scripture to support this claim? Now about "others": I have never intended to imply anything about the source of moral guidance for non-believers. But I suggest the evidence is beyond clear: the Law of Moses is set aside for believers. I think that to believe otherwise, you have to say that Paul did not write inspired scripture as he is so clear on this matter.

The one that mentions murder is contained within the throne of God, called the 'Ark of the Covenant'.

That is what testifies against all.

I do not understand the point you are making here.

Just like any Municipal law book, the laws made stay on the books and are necessary for any convictions that need to be made. If the law is annulled, then no one can be prosecuted for trespassing it.

But you are pushing the analogy too far. In the secular world, yes, you need a written law in order to prosecute someone. But we are not talking about the secular world - God can hold people to account by saying they did not follow the dictates of the indwelling Spirit.

Everyone will stand before the Holy Bima on Judgement day. There has to be a legal document to hold what each person does and to hold them accountable to.

Why? Why does there have to be a legal document? If God provides us with an inner moral compass - the Holy Spirit - why do we need a written law?

The wicked man is so arrogant he always thinks, “God won’t hold me accountable; he doesn’t care.”

Doesn't look like the law is done away with by this:

This reasoning does not hold up for the reasons provided above - one most certainly can be held accountable if you are given the indwelling Spirit.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

This does not work, as has been explained many times, but I am happy to repeat the argument. There is clearly no necessity to interpret this text as suggesting that all humanity are subject to the Law. Yes, Jews who lived before the Law ended will indeed be held accountable to the Law - I have never denied this (although I understand why you might think otherwise.

In the very same chapter, Paul writes this, which cannot be interpreted any other way than as affirming that the Law is for Jews only:

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

Yes, some Jews will indeed be judged by the Law - Paul is crystal clear about this in Romans 2. But Romans 3:19 cannot be used to imply that all humanity will be judged by the Law.

 

[Soyeong]

Demonstrably incorrect as you have been repeatedly shown.

You conflate God's nature with how God works in the world - it is obviously conceptually coherent for God to have a constant nature yet change the way He works in the world. How is this not punishingly obvious?

Let's say Joe's nature as a loving father never changes. Does that mean He will require his 25 year old daughter to be "in by 11" just as he did when she was 13?

The painfully obvious point: Joe's nature has not changed but the rules he confers on his daughter can change.

To say that someone has a particular nature or character trait is to speak about how they act in the word, so to say that God is righteous is to say that He acts rightly and to say that someone is courageous is to say that they act courageously, so it is correct to conflate the two, and conceptually incoherent for one to change while there other remains the same.

On the other hand, you are incorrectly conflating a change in the situation with a change in the way that someone acts in the world. If all of Joe's children have a curfew while they are young and don't have a curfew as adults, then that is acting in consistent manner that is not changing the way that he acts in the world, however, if he requires his first child to have a curfew when they are young and he encourages his second and his second child to stay out late when they are young, them that would be changing the way that he acts in the world.

The way to act in accordance with God's nature is situational, so there are situations where it is in accordance with God's nature to kill someone and situations where it is contrary to His nature to do that, but as long as these situations are being distinguished in a consistent manner, then it is not changing the way that God acts in the world. However, if there was a situation where it was not in accordance with God's righteousness to kill someone and there was later an identical situation where it now in accordance with His righteousness to kill them, then that could only be because God's righteousness had changed and is not eternal. So it is conceptually incoherent for the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness to change while God's righteousness remains the same.

If God were to rescind His command against murder and then commanded that it righteous to commit murder, then that would be contrary to God's righteousness being eternal, so the fact that God's righteousness is eternal excludes the possibility that that will ever happen. In other words, if any action can change so that it becomes or ceases to be righteous, then it would be meaningless to say that God's righteousness is eternal. The only way that law for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness can be rescinded is if it is no longer a way to act in accordance with God's righteousness.

Have you actually examined the original Hebrew? In both cases, the relevant term is "owlam".

From Strong's: long duration, antiquity, futurity

Now then, since the term can, repeat can, be interpreted as indicating a long, albeit finite, duration, I suggest your assertion is not supported. At least without some further argument as to why we cannot interpret "owlam" as connoting true eternality.

I agree that the Hebrew word can refer either to eternity or to a long but finite duration, however, because God's righteous laws are based on His righteousness and His righteousness is eternal, then it is clearly the case that it is saying that all of His righteous laws are also eternal.

This is one of the most obvious examples of begging the question I have ever seen.

Begging the question is if the only reason to believe a premise is if you already believe the conclusion, which I have not done. All throughout the Bible, God was wanting His people to turn from their wickedness and obey His law, He commanded His people not to listen to anyone who speak against obeying His law, and He sent Jesus with that Gospel message in accordance with the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness. So Lulav raised a very good point that stands on its own merits that it is clearly Satan who wants men to not keep God's law, which weakens the position of those who also want men to not obey God's law, which should lead them to reconsider which side they want to support. On the other hand, your point is contrary to God's eternal nature, so it is not a good objection and does not have merit on which to stand.

 

[IoanC]

Well, God decides who keeps His Law. And satan convinces God's opponents to not keep God's Law.

 

[expos4ever]

To say that someone has a particular nature or character trait is to speak about how they act in the word, so to say that God is righteous is to say that He acts rightly and to say that someone is courageous is to say that they act courageously,

Profoundly misleading. Obviously a God whose nature is "good" will actly "goodly". But you cannot possibly not understand that there are different ways to act goodly, Or different ways to act courageously.

It is obvious what is happening here: you have to know that what I am saying is correct, but you dance away by stating something that is in effect a tautology - that the good act goodly, and the courageous act courageously.

Well, obviously. But entirely besides the point.

On the other hand, you are incorrectly conflating a change in the situation with a change in the way that someone acts in the world. If all of Joe's children have a curfew while they are young and don't have a curfew as adults, then that is acting in consistent manner that is not changing the way that he acts in the world,

What??!! If Joe rescinds the curfew, he is changing the way he acts in the world. Other readers will see this as obvious.

however, if he requires his first child to have a curfew when they are young and he encourages his second and his second child to stay out late when they are young, them that would be changing the way that he acts in the world.

No - this is perhaps a more dramatic change, but rescinding the curfew is screamingly obviously a change of way of acting in the world. It is clear what is going on - you cannot allow yourself to acknowledge what will be obvious to any objective reader: that to rescind a curfew is to change the way one acts in the world. You have to evade this fact since the analogy to the situation with the Law of Moses is painfully obvious.

 

[Soyeong]

Profoundly misleading. Obviously a God whose nature is "good" will actly "goodly". But you cannot possibly not understand that there are different ways to act goodly, Or different ways to act courageously.

It is obvious what is happening here: you have to know that what I am saying is correct, but you dance away by stating something that is in effect a tautology - that the good act goodly, and the courageous act courageously.

Well, obviously. But entirely besides the point.

I stated that the way to act in accordance with God's nature is situational, so I agree that there are different ways to do good depending on the situation and have not claimed otherwise. If someone does good in one situation and then does good in a different manner in a different situation, then the way that they act in the world is still by doing good, so they have not changed the way the they act, but rather changing the way that they act would if there was a situation where they changed to doing something other than what is good. It is tautologically true that the good act goodly, which is why the position is incoherent that someone can remain eternally good while changing from acting goodly.

What??!! If Joe rescinds the curfew, he is changing the way he acts in the world. Other readers will see this as obvious.

If someone acts in the same way every time that they are in the same situation, then they are not changing the way that they act, but rather changing the way that they act would be if they were in the same situation and chose to do something different instead. So if Joe has a rule that everyone under 18 has curfew and he is consistently still acting in accordance with that rule when someone under 18 has a curfew and when someone over 18 does not, then he has not changed the way that he acts in the world from being in accordance with that rule, but rather changing the way that he acts would be doing something other than what is in accordance with that rule.

No - this is perhaps a more dramatic change, but rescinding the curfew is screamingly obviously a change of way of acting in the world. It is clear what is going on - you cannot allow yourself to acknowledge what will be obvious to any objective reader: that to rescind a curfew is to change the way one acts in the world. You have to evade this fact since the analogy to the situation with the Law of Moses is painfully obvious.

If Joe rescinded the curfew, then that would mean that he was no longer against those under 18 having a curfew, so if he was in the same situation with someone under 18, he would no longer require them to have a curfew, which I agree would mean that he was now changing the way that he was acting in the world. However, of Joe still acted in accordance with the rule that everyone under 18 has a curfew, then the situations where he is with those over 18 who do not have a curfew would not mean that the rule has been rescinded or that he was acting in different way that is not in accordance with that rule.

The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so when someone follows those laws while they are in the land and does not follow them while they are not in the land, then they are not changing the way that they are acting to something other than what is in accordance with what God's law instructs. Those laws are not rescinded when people are not in the land, but rather they still exists and still apply whenever it is the situation that people are in the land.