Law/Nt/Legalism/Antinomiam thought/kitchen sink...pt3

[Yeshua1]

““The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Mount Sinai. The LORD did not make this covenant with our ancestors, but with all of us who are alive today.” (Deuteronomy 5:2–3)

Adam and Eve were under the Covenant of Works, so that would include the law, correct?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Where is your scriptural proof saying other than what Moses said? ““The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Mount Sinai. The LORD did not make this covenant with our ancestors, but with all of us who are alive today.” (Deuteronomy 5:2–3)

Did God give the command that murdering someone is wrong prior to Genesis 4? I don’t recall this. So, if the Law wasn’t before Exodus, Cain’s murdering Abel wouldn’t have been a sin. Yet, God punished him for murdering his brother.

 

[JonShaff]

Did God give the command that murdering someone is wrong prior to Genesis 4? I don’t recall this. So, if the Law wasn’t before Exodus, Cain’s murdering Abel wouldn’t have been a sin. Yet, God punished him for murdering his brother.

Romans 5:12-13 So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned –
for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.
Romans 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses...

 

[SovereignGrace]

Romans 5:12-13 So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned –
for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.
Romans 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses...

That still doesn't answer the question. The law was upon Adam's heart from creation, imo. The only command given in the Garden was to not eat of the ToK. If Adam would have gotten mad and killed Eve after their eyes were opened, he would have still committed sin, even though God did not tell them to not kill each other. I know this may be a little far fetched, but I think you'll catch my drift.

There was not a command given at that time to not kill(murder in proper context),when Cain murdered Abel, but it was upon his heart to know it was a sin to murder his brother. That is what I meant in that last post.

 

[kyredneck]

I agree with most everything you posted here except your last sentence about the heathen. They are brought up and Romans to as an example to unbelieving Jews that even Heathen who did not have the written word of God are still able to do some of the things contained in the law without having seen or heard the law because it's impressed in them even though it's damaged by the Fall they still have the impress of God's moral law on themselves but in the Fallen condition so the Heathen that are brought up by Paul who do the works of the wall are not the regenerate people you're speaking about but he's using them as an example to the Jews that even unsaved Heathen can do some of the things in the law .
you're misunderstanding his use of that just for the Gentiles which have not the law.
they don't have the formal written law

Between inserting into the text wherever you please ‘the ceremonial law’ and ‘the moral law’ you can fabricate it to say whatever you please.

I’m done here.

You are completely misunderstanding the purpose of Paul in Romans 1:18 - 3:20. It is to prove that no one is righteous…..

Are you so dense or so dogmatized that you’re unable to see that the topic of Romans 2 includes those that are indeed righteous?:

7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:

10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:

They’re righteous because God has wrought within them:

15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

My guess is that you and Icon both are so indoctrinated with the unscriptural justification by faith ‘alone’ that you can’t come to grip the scriptural doctrine of God rendering to every man according to his works.

 

[Reformed]

That still doesn't answer the question. The law was upon Adam's heart from creation, imo. The only command given in the Garden was to not eat of the ToK. If Adam would have gotten mad and killed Eve after their eyes were opened, he would have still committed sin, even though God did not tell them to not kill each other. I know this may be a little far fetched, but I think you'll catch my drift.

There was not a command given at that time to not kill(murder in proper context),when Cain murdered Abel, but it was upon his heart to know it was a sin to murder his brother. That is what I meant in that last post.

This is exactly right. The key to understanding this is in Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:26 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..."

Humanity possesses the image of God (Imago Dei) in a structural or substantive manner; that the image of God is inherent in persons as qualities that define their nature (McKim). In what way does humanity possess the image of God? Morally. Humanity lacks many of God's attributes. We are not omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. Only God can create ex nihilo. However, human beings possess moral character. We have the innate ability to determine right from wrong which Adam possessed upon his creation. When the Law was finally given it codified what had already been given verbally. The Law established a tangible and legal aspect but it did not introduce new concepts of right and wrong.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I’m done here.

If only!

7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:

10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:

They’re righteous because God has wrought within them:

15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Are you so dense or so dogmatized that you do not understand the plain words of Scripture?
'Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified, for by the law is the knowledge of sin' Romans 3:20). The 'doers of the law' will certainly be justified if they do the law, but they don't. That is Paul's whole point. If they did, why on earth would they need Christ?

What part of 'There is none righteous, no not one' do you not understand?

My guess is that you and Icon both are so indoctrinated with the unscriptural justification by faith ‘alone’ that you can’t come to grip the scriptural doctrine of God rendering to every man according to his works.

Both you and I had better be praying that God does not reward us according to our works! Fortunately, He has something far better in store: 'Just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those who have their sins forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute iniquity"' (Romans 4:6-8; Psalm 32:1-2).

It is only after one has been saved by grace alone through faith alone that one can do the 'good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them' (Ephesians 2:10).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No Icon, YOU'RE the one confused if you believe that the ministration of death 'regenerated' and sent anyone to heaven. Very confused you are.

You are very confused if you believe that either Icon or myself believe that OT saints were regenerated by the law.
That is crazy! Psalm 32:1-2 again. OT saints were saved in just the way NT saints are: grace alone, faith alone.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'm wondering if you read my post fully?

I did read it all.

I said:

Yes I understand, not committing adultery is a good sign that you love your wife. But someone can neglect loving their wife and not be in adultery whatsoever.

This was not a "token nod" to the seventh Commandment.

What you don't seem to 'get' is that the Decalogue and, say Ephesians 5:25 are not in competition with each other, they compliment each other. Yes, it is sinful to neglect one's wife even if one is not being physically unfaithful, but it is also sinful to be physically unfaithful even if you are showing love to your wife in a hundred different ways, and the sin is not against her so much as it is against God who gave the commandment (Genesis 39:9; Psalm 51:4); and by the way, He gave it in eternity, not only on Mt. Sinai (Acts 15:18).

More later..

 

[Iconoclast]

Between inserting into the text wherever you please ‘the ceremonial law’ and ‘the moral law’ you can fabricate it to say whatever you please.

I’m done here.



Are you so dense or so dogmatized that you’re unable to see that the topic of Romans 2 includes those that are indeed righteous?:

7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:

10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:

They’re righteous because God has wrought within them:

15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

My guess is that you and Icon both are so indoctrinated with the unscriptural justification by faith ‘alone’ that you can’t come to grip the scriptural doctrine of God rendering to every man according to his works.

You totally missed this passage, so when it is explained you reject the explanation as it does not fit your idea.
Martin has been spot on in everything he posted...if you read each of his posts you will see the passage as it should be understood, in fact every commentary I have seen matches his explanation.

 

[JonShaff]

I did read it all.

I said:

Yes I understand, not committing adultery is a good sign that you love your wife. But someone can neglect loving their wife and not be in adultery whatsoever.

This was not a "token nod" to the seventh Commandment.

What you don't seem to 'get' is that the Decalogue and, say Ephesians 5:25 are not in competition with each other, they compliment each other. Yes, it is sinful to neglect one's wife even if one is not being physically unfaithful, but it is also sinful to be physically unfaithful even if you are showing love to your wife in a hundred different ways, and the sin is not against her so much as it is against God who gave the commandment (Genesis 39:9; Psalm 51:4); and by the way, He gave it in eternity, not only on Mt. Sinai (Acts 15:18).

More later..

Oh trust me, I get it.

 

[1689Dave]

Did God give the command that murdering someone is wrong prior to Genesis 4? I don’t recall this. So, if the Law wasn’t before Exodus, Cain’s murdering Abel wouldn’t have been a sin. Yet, God punished him for murdering his brother.

Thanks for your observation. As I said, the Two Great Commandments are everlasting and each has them written in their hearts. You know how you want others to treat you, so you are responsible to treat others likewise. This is the basis of all law.

When a person becomes born again (born from above) this law becomes binding to the conscience. So you did not need to tell Abel, Job, or Abraham not to steal, they did not want to because of the new nature God instilled in them.

But, God used the wicked to fend for the believers beginning with Abraham's soldiers. And when He developed Jacob into the nation of Israel, he controlled the wicked using Ten Commandments based on the Two Great Laws. Good people do not need laws. But God harnessed Israel's greed promising physical reward for obedience, and disaster for disobedience. In this sense, the Ten Commandments were much like our civil laws.

But just as civil law cannot save the soul, neither could the Ten Commandments save the soul.

 

[1689Dave]

Adam and Eve were under the Covenant of Works, so that would include the law, correct?

I believe the "covenant of works" is a fabrication used by the Reformed. But nonetheless, Adam and Eve had the Two Great Commandments written in their heart. With God breaking them down to a practical level as he did with Israel and the Ten Commandments.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But just as civil law cannot save the soul, neither could the Ten Commandments save the soul.

Neither can the 'Two Great Commandments' save the soul. Christ does that.

 

[JonShaff]

I think what many people miss is that it takes God's Grace--His Divine Enablement--to live for His Good Pleasure (Phil. 2) regardless of how these discussions have been going. If it wasn't for Christ Living in us we would not have any righteousness of our own nor would be be able to live out righteousness either.

 

[1689Dave]

Neither can the 'Two Great Commandments' save the soul. Christ does that.

But, if a person has the Holy Spirit, they will live according to the Two Great Commandments. These are NT ethics. The Ten forced people under threat of death to do good, because they were not good.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But, if a person has the Holy Spirit, they will live according to the Two Great Commandments. These are NT ethics. .

There is no difference. The 'Two Great Commandments' could only bring the Scribe in Mark 12:28-34 so far; they could not bring him into the kingdom. He approved of them, but he didn't understand that he was a sinner and couldn't keep them. They function in exactly the way that the Decalogue does to unbelievers and in exactly the same way towards believers. And that is not surprising because the one is a summary of the other.

The Ten forced people under threat of death to do good, because they were not good

In that case why does the Psalmist love them so much in Psalm 119? Why does the blessed man 'delight in them in Psalm 1?
The law cannot save, whether it's the Royal law or the Decalogue. But to the saved person, whether OT or NT, they are the path of life (Psalm 16:11).

 

[JonShaff]

There is no difference. The 'Two Great Commandments' could only bring the Scribe in Mark 12:28-34 so far; they could not bring him into the kingdom. He approved of them, but he didn't understand that he was a sinner and couldn't keep them. They function in exactly the way that the Decalogue does to unbelievers and in exactly the same way towards believers. And that is not surprising because the one is a summary of the other.

In that case why does the Psalmist love them so much in Psalm 119? Why does the blessed man 'delight in them in Psalm 1?
The law cannot save, whether it's the Royal law or the Decalogue. But to the saved person, whether OT or NT, they are the path of life (Psalm 16:11).

Jesus is the Path of Life---Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness.

 

[1689Dave]

There is no difference. The 'Two Great Commandments' could only bring the Scribe in Mark 12:28-34 so far; they could not bring him into the kingdom. He approved of them, but he didn't understand that he was a sinner and couldn't keep them. They function in exactly the way that the Decalogue does to unbelievers and in exactly the same way towards believers. And that is not surprising because the one is a summary of the other.

In that case why does the Psalmist love them so much in Psalm 119? Why does the blessed man 'delight in them in Psalm 1?
The law cannot save, whether it's the Royal law or the Decalogue. But to the saved person, whether OT or NT, they are the path of life (Psalm 16:11).

The spiritual among Israel saw the Ten Commandments differently from the wicked. The wicked thought they were good for not stealing even though they wanted to. The spiritual would not only keep from stealing, they would give from a heart of love, according to the Two Great Commandments written in their hearts. The wicked thought they were good for not killing their enemies. The spiritual would bless and love their enemies as Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed, the entire NT ethic rests on the Two Great Commandments, which prod us to do the exact opposite from what the Ten Commandments forbade....in a heart of love.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are very confused if you believe that either Icon or myself believe that OT saints were regenerated by the law.
That is crazy! Psalm 32:1-2 again. OT saints were saved in just the way NT saints are: grace alone, faith alone.

Many accuse us as holding to the law saving people in the Ot, or that we must keep the law to be saved now, would that view not be more held by those like a Scofield?