The Law of God in the NT - What is it?

I'm just trying to be clear.

 

Is this to say that UNLESS one agrees FULLY with the Law of God then they have not been born of God?

And how does one define "fully" or "agrees"? You yourself said that some of the Law has been dismissed. Isn't this getting into making "understanding and agreement" in all aspects of the Law part of a determination of one's actual standing in Christ?

Take for example the Sabbath Law. I don't agree with your pov on this Law as it relates to Christian's obedience or the "keeping the commandments of God". Wouldn't you say that I am breaking God's command to keep the Sabbath? And if so, then does this mean I cannot be saved or I have not been saved?

Can I live in what you would consider the breaking of God's Sabbath commandment and still be saved? If I can, then what are we arguing about with all this "Christians keep God's commandments" stuff? Can I break God's commandment, refusing to repent thereof, and still be a Christian saved by the blood? If "yes" then how does it matter which commandment I refuse to keep? If I break one I am guilty of all, correct? If "no" then you would have to believe that anyone not keeping the Sabbath commandment can be saved.

:jesus:

 

Is the "Law" here the Law of Moses? I suggest that the answer is no. And I say this knowing full that I have been adamant in many other posts that when Paul refers to "the Law" he is almost always referring to the Law of Moses.

Well here in this text from Romans 2 is, I think, one of the exceptions.

Please bear with the length of what follows:

Note what Paul writes later in this same chapter:

25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

And what has Paul written moments before?

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

I suggest this strongly shows that Paul has two distinct conceptualizations of the Law. One of these is the written code of the Law of Moses that functions to mark Jew from Gentile. The other is the "essence of the Law of Moses" that even the Gentile can follow. Note that Paul is talking about Gentiles, as uncircumcised men, keeping the Law.

Any Jew worth his salt would immediately, and rightly, protest that circumcision, while perhaps technically not part of the Law of Moses (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And the Law of Moses was for Israel alone (I suspect some of you will challenge me on this!). In any event, in verse 14, Paul has made it clear that the Gentile is not subect to the Law of Moses - the Gentile is characterized as "not having the Law".

Allthough things get complicated, if we are to take Paul seriously here, we have to see him as discerning two aspects of Torah - the one that demarcates the Jew from the Gentile (including, e.g., circumcision) and the one that "gets written on the heart of the Gentile" (and the believing Jew, of course).

Note also how such an interpretation allows us to make sense of clear statements that "law" has been abolished (e.g. Eph 2:15) and other statements that "law" has been established (e.g. Romans 3:31). The law that has been abolished is the Law of Moses that marked the Jew from the Gentile, and the "law" that has been established is the one written on the heart of Jew and Gentile alike who have faith in Christ - the imperative to love God and love neighbour.

Consider also this from Romans 9:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

Yet again, we have Paul with two faces to "law". Paul's argument here is that the Jew followed the rules and regulations of the Law of Moses but did not arrive "at that law" - the second sense of law that undergirds but is not to identified with the Law of Moses.

For Paul, the Law of Moses, including the 10 commandments, is a kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of a more foundational "law". It is because the Jew pursued the "rules and regulations" and forgot the heart that the problem arose. And, as per Romans 10 (just a few breaths later), they did so not so much from a legalistic error, but rather from a "racial exclusion" error:

Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God

From these texts, we see that Paul's view of "law" is complex, and that he can claim that there is a sense in which some "law" has been established even though he is otherwise clear that the written code of the Law of Moses has been abolished.

 

I disagree - the allusion to "when the Law came" in Romans 7 is instead an allusion to the giving of the Law of Moses at Mount Sinai. There are several arguments in support of this:

1. Although this is not often realized, there is an "exodus" structure to chapters 6, 7, and 8 of Romans. In chapter 6 we have a reference to baptism, corresponding to the transit of the Red Sea. In chapter 7 we have a treatment of the giving of Law at Sinai (this is my hypothesis in light of what is there in chapters 6 and 8), and in chapter 8 we have the Spirit leading the peope, alluding to the leading of the pillar of cloud by day and fire night. I suggest that Paul is "reprising" exodus here. And if this what he is doing, it makes structural sense to see the Romans "coming of the Law" as an allusion to the giving of the Law of Moses, prior to the giving of the Spirit.

2. Consider this material from Romans 7:

For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

I suggest that the reference to "do not covet" is a rather clear allusion to the 10 commandments. So when Paul refers to the "coming of the law", he is referring to the delivery of the Law of Moses at Sinai, not to the illumination by of the Law of Moses by the Holy Spirit.

3. Besides, in light of this same text that speaks of the commandment bringing death, I do not see how we can say that death arises in virtue of the Spirit illuminating the Law of Moses - that brings life not death.

I think the arguments are compelling - in Romans 7, Paul looks back on what was true of the Jew living under the Law of Moses. There is no Holy Spirit yet, we only get in chapter 8.

Fundamentally, the person described in the main body of Romans 7 is hopelessly enslaved to sin. How can this possibly be true of the Christian?

 

This does not mean that they have the 10 commandments written on their heart. You should do a study of the word "Law" in the NT - it does not always means the same thing.

This passage means that they know there is a right and wrong. The "works" of the law - what is that? It's knowing that there is moral right and wrong; this is because we are made in the image of God and God gave us a conscience.

Then he goes on to say that there is no one who walks in obedience to God's law but "all have strayed and fallen away." That's the point.

Yes, Rom. 2 deals with the lost state.

What's the point of the above? Rom 2 is just part of one book; you are supposed to read the whole book to see the message, you know. Chapters were not added to the Bible until about the 13th century or later.

Those are not success cases. Paul is saying that to people who obey, then x. But later he show us that no one is righteous by works or following the law.

You should read the whole book of Romans at one sitting and compare it to other parts of the Bible. The Bible does not contradict, and as I posted, God tells us that if one could be righteous by the works of the law, then "Christ died needlessly." So we know that no one could be righteous by following the law.

Bob, I like you and I wish you'd check out those websites about the SDA; the SDA has you all mixed up because of some of their aberrant teachings.

 

HP: You sound like DHK now. I never called you a Calvinist. When one takes a position in lock step with the very heart of Calvinism as you have in your adherence to a literal payment, you have accepted a firmly entrenched theory in the system of Calvinism, whether or not you are cognizant of if you so desire to be shown in accordance with that system of thought.

The literal payment theory is simply the notion that the atonement was a forensic proceeding in which sins were literally paid for on the cross. Hence the clearly Calvinistic notion that all past present and future sins of the elect have been atoned for, which is simply not the case in any forensic sense. That theory is simply in error. No sins were literally paid for on the cross. The cross made a way whereby all sins could be forgiven, but no sins are remitted until one fulfills the conditions for forgiveness via repentance and faith.

 

You call a lot of biblical teachings Calvinist when they are no such thing. There are biblical teachings everyone agree on - Calvinists and non-Calvinists, and substitutionary atonement is one of them. Is that what you are talking about? I never heard of the "literal payment theory." Did you make that term up?

That Christ paid for the penalty for sins on the cross is just a part of the historic Christian faith and is supported biblically. In fact, 5 point Calvinists would say that he paid only for the sins of those elected to believe, limited atonement, with which I disagree.

So the penalty for the sins was paid for but no one is forgiven without faith. When one has faith there is salvific justification: one is imputed with the righteousness of Christ. This is forensic because one is not really made righteous in actuality but rather, one is declared righteous in the eyes of God.

Bearing sins on the cross:

Righteousness through faith

Phil 3:9

 

The righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer at the moment of faith is never lost or taken away; one is sealed with the Holy Spirit and the Bible says one has eternal life. Eternal life begins the moment one believes.

I no longer will post on these topics - losing salvation, obedience required for salvation, etc. as I have debated those enough here and elsewhere. I have come to the conclusion that it is fruitless to try to show those who continue to believe otherwise.

Starting when I was a new believer and throughout my Christian life, I have been confronted all the time by people trying to get me to be KJVO, by universalists, by those who deny hell, by those who believe you can lose your salvation, and so forth (this does not include the cultists I encountered) - many who email me through my website and others were personal encounters. One was even by letter. I have studied all these topics because I had to respond to these people and I had to clarify my own thoughts on the matter. I've done that and I need to move on.