Is The Law God Told Moses Bad For Us As Christians?

[Genevanpreacher]

 

Standing Firm In Christ, on 21 Jun 2014 - 4:25 PM, said:

According to Acts, Gentiles are not to be taught to keep the Law. [Yes, like circumcision, and keeping 'temple' service, etc.]  According to Romans, one is committing spiritual adultery [is this possible for a born again child of God?] if one goes to the house of the Law while married to Christ [Paul went there many times himself, and so did others.]. According to Galatians, one is a fool to place oneself under the authority of the Law after one has been saved [Hello? I never said one 'had to', as a command, force himself to OBey, it comes natural to a child of God]. According to 1 Timothy, the Law is not for the righteous [this is where we get the idea of the laws of our land help to keep crime away from society, where is that at odds with what I said?].

Best to look unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith,& walk in the Spirit than to choose the path of an ungodly foolish adulterer, IMO. [so I guess you think I am a spiritual adulterer in this last statement, since I OBviously don't think it is wrong to keep the word that God himself wrote out for his people to follow as his directives for a successful way to serve him in this life?]

 

I must be saying this wrong.

I do not think it is 'natural' for a lost man to 'want' to follow that which is right. hence, we in society use the 'law' to keep crime at bay.

I do believe it is in the mind and will of a saved man to follow that which is right. That is why the 'law' is not for the saved.

And we know what is right, by what God commanded, to Moses [as well as other prophets of God].

Those things that God wanted man to do, were what pleases him, - and what God did not want man to do, the 'shalt nots', are what displeases God.

 

That is how we should live our daily lives, knowing what things in the past that the Lord commanded man, are a good source for us to 'follow' to have a peaceful and healthy existence.

 

 

Is my addition to this post understandable? Is there 'error' here from me?

[HappyChristian]

Thaks, GP. And just as a pre-warning to those who might post here - keep it civil.

[Genevanpreacher]

Thanks, GP. And just as a pre-warning to those who might post here - keep it civil.

 

You are very welcome, and I hope I will be civil.

And I hope to get some good input.

[LindaR]

I posted this in another thread here, but don't remember where, so I'll post it here again:

 

The Relationship of the Christian to the Law and Grace

 

Before the Mosaic Law was instituted at Mt. Sinai, there were people who lived righteous lives in conformity to God's moral absolutes.

 

Abel (Hebrews 11:4)

Enoch (Genesis 5:22, 24; Hebrews 11:5)

Noah (Genesis 6:9; Ezekiel 14:14, 20)

JOB (JOB 1:8; 2:3; Ezekiel 14:14, 20)

 

The fact that some people lived righteous lives in conformity to God's moral absolutes before the Mosaic Law was instituted indicates two things:

 

People can be related to the eternal, unchangeable, moral absolutes of God without being under the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law; and it is possible to be free from the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law without being lawless.

 

Prior to Mount Sinai, God administered His moral absolutes over all mankind in ways other than through the Mosaic Law.  From Mount Sinai to the cross of Jesus Christ, He administered His moral absolutes over Israel through the Mosaic Law.  Since the time of the cross, God has been administering His eternal absolutes over all of mankind in a way which is different from and superior to the Mosaic Law.  The moral absolutes have not changed, but the way of God's  administering those absolutes has changed.  For example, idolatry and adultery have been just as wrong in God's sight since the time of the cross as they were when the Mosaic Law was in effect, but since the cross, God has not required the death penalty for those sins (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) as He did when the Mosaic Law was in effect (Exodus 22:20; Leviticus 20:10).  The new, superior way of God's administering His moral absolutes is called grace.

 

Freedom from the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law does not involve freedom from the eternal, unchangeable moral absolutes of God.  It only involves freedom from one way of God's administering His absolutes--namely through the Mosaic Law.  If one is under God's grace, in administering His eternal, unchangeable, moral absolutes, one will not be lawless.

 

Although the Mosaic Law had three aspects (civil, ceremonial, and moral), it functioned as an indivisible unit.  Thus, to place oneself under one aspect of the Mosaic Law is to OBligate oneself to be under the entire Law.  James declared "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10).  James was asserting that the breaking of only one part of the Mosaic Law made a person guilty of breaking the entire Law.  The only way this could be true was if the Mosaic Law were an indivisible unit.

 

The fact that the Mosaic Law was indivisible by nature has a strong implication concerning the relationship of the Christian to the Mosaic Law.  The implication is that since the Mosaic Law was indivisible by nature, the Christian who places himself under its moral aspect OBligates himself to keep every aspect of the Law (the civil, ceremonial and moral).  (Galatians 3:10)

 

Source: There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology by Renald E. Showers (excerpts from chapter 16, The Relationship of the Christian to Law and Grace, pg. 187-190)

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Paul did return to the Law on at least one occasion.  Maybe his returning to the Law was one of the reasons he told the young pastor Timothy "Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief."  After all, he did compare going to the house of the Law while married to the one who had risen from the dead with adultery.  Also, when Paul did submit to the Law, it was under pressure of others.

If we walk in the Spirit, there is no need for the Law.  A husband who truly loves his wife will not have to be told not to commit adultery.  His love for her will prevent him from doing such.  It is the same with the child of God.  His love for Christ should be the motivating factor that keeps him from running to the house of the Law.

1 Timothy was not speaking of our laws today.  The context clearly shows that.

*edited to add:  Please remove the red coloring.  It is very hard on my eyes.

[Genevanpreacher]

Sorry SFIC. That better?

I will try to use blue from now on brother. 

[Genevanpreacher]

"  After all, he did compare going to the house of the Law while married to the one who had risen from the dead with adultery.  

 

Are you referring to 1 Cor. 6:15-20?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Are you referring to 1 Cor. 6:15-20?

No.

Romans 7:1-4 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

[Genevanpreacher]

Romans 7:1-4 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

 

Oh. Good one!

But I disagree that this is saying anything about 'spiritual adultery'

Please try reading verses 5-14. And reading verse 25 is a good finality of the 'law of God in my mind'.

 

  After all, he did compare going to the house of the Law while married to the one who had risen from the dead with adultery.  

 

Reading the verses you 'state' say this, I see nothing in it to show the above, nor strengthen the quote below.

 

"According to Romans, one is committing spiritual adultery"

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Oh. Good one!

But I disagree that this is saying 'spiritual adultery'

 

 

Reading the verses you state say this, I see nothing in it to show the above, nor strengthen the quote below.

 

"According to Romans, one is committing spiritual adultery"

There is none so blind ans he who will not see.

[Genevanpreacher]

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

 

Nothing good comes from nothing.

[No Nicolaitans]

There is none so blind ans he who will not see.

 

 

Nothing good comes from nothing.

 

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

 

 

 

Sorry, thought I'd get in on the adages.  

[beameup]

Hammurabi"s Code was in effect during the time of Abraham.

[Genevanpreacher]

Hammurabi"s Code was in effect during the time of Abraham.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

So as a civilian in your home, are you forced, right now, to OBey the laws of the land in not stealing your neighbors rake?

Do you feel the need to not kill a stranger, driving by your house, with your loaded gun?

 

That is how I perceive someone's view, of the Law of God given to Moses, when they say the phrase "We ain't under the Law no more".

As if someone who thinks there is value in God pointing out to man what we shouldn't do, is 'slavery' to a useless law, and is not valuable anymore to mankind.

 

Anyone else?