The "law of faith."

[Dr. Rich]

Yes, John317, we have hashed this out before--right? I sincerely wish you well with your own opinion(s), and I thank you for allowing others to voice theirs too. Merry Christmas!

[Dr. Rich]

One more thing, none of the verses you gave have Jesus ever saying that salvation comes by faith or that one can become righteous by faith. Faith without doubt is perfect trust. Tell me please, has anyone ever seen someone move a mountain by faith?

You know that I believe faith has a part to play, but knowing what Jesus said and obeying is what is important as that is the proof we are abiding in Him.

[Hansen]

"Circumcision, as Rom 4 points out, was the outward sign of something he already had inside. Outward obedience is the visible manifestation of the change that has already taken place inside a person's heart. Living according to the dictates of the flesh is breaking the law. Being led by the Spirit denies the demands of the flesh to break the law."

Jerry, There were years between the time Abraham was justified by faith and the time he was circumcised. There was ~a decade, or more between the time he was justified and the time he offered Issac. Scripture says Abraham believed and it was counted as righteousness. The works which evinced that righteousness came years, even decades, later. Paul's argument in chapter 4 is obviously giving precedence to faith over works:

8 Blessed is the man to whom, the Lord will not reckon sin.

9 Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say, To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness.

10 How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision:

11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them;

12 and the father of circumcision to them who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision.

13 For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith.

"Is God a legalist to give the 10c by which to live by?"

That system failed miserably. He gave us Jesus as a better way.

Paul spends a lot of times in Romans explaining why the "law of works" was a misunderstanding on the part of the Jews. He points to Abraham because Abraham lived prior to Sinai. It wasn't possible for Abraham to enter life through the law because it didn't exist. Regardless of the texts you may pull from Genesis, as far as Paul was concerned, there was no law prior to Sinai

If your salvation paradigm puts the Decalogue at the center, if you believe that obeying the Decalogue is more important than justifying faith in Christ, then you are a legalist. Don't be embarrassed by the term. I use it descriptively, not pejoratively.

Many legalists, probably yourself included, are superior to me morally and in every other way. There are many Jewish people I could say the same about. That doesn't change what Scripture says.

If your point of view works for you and you honestly believe it is based on Scripture, who am I to say you are deluded? Even if you are, would it matter?

Take care.

[Gerr]

Paul's argument in chapter 4 is obviously giving precedence to faith over works:

Of course!!! For the believer who is saved by grace through faith, faith comes first. The subsequent works is the RESULT of a living faith, as the Apostle James makes clear. It is faith working by love, as Paul points out in ESV | ‎Ga 5:6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."

Your error is to put the cart before the horse by saying that because a believer obeys, he is trying to work his way to heaven! Why is it so hard to grasp the truth that a believer obeys as the loving response to God's grace? That's what Jesus said in Jn 14:15, "If you LOVE me, you will keep my commandments."

Quote:

Jerry, There were years between the time Abraham was justified by faith and the time he was circumcised. There was ~a decade, or more between the time he was justified and the time he offered Issac. Scripture says Abraham believed and it was counted as righteousness. The works which evinced that righteousness came years, even decades, later. Paul's argument in chapter 4 is obviously giving precedence to faith over works:

Do you think he waited until he was circumcised before he stopped worshiping idols? Or stopped murdering? Or coveting?

Quote:

If your salvation paradigm puts the Decalogue at the center, if you believe that obeying the Decalogue is more important than justifying faith in Christ, then you are a legalist. Don't be embarrassed by the term. I use it descriptively, not pejoratively.

Bogus charge by those who fail to understand the relationship of law & grace. I don't understand how you can say that my salvation paradigm has the 10c at the center!!! I am saved by grace through faith alone. That puts the Cross squarely at the center. As Paul says, ESV | ‎1 Co 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, ‎31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

Saved people do not go on living a life of sin/rebellion. They are won back to obedience that is based on faith, Rom 1:5.

ESV | ‎1 Pe 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Quote:

Gerry: "Is God a legalist to give the 10c by which to live by?"

Hansen: That system failed miserably. He gave us Jesus as a better way.

Does the way of Jesus lead to transgression of the 10c that He came to magnify?

Are you now contradicting yourself? Didn't you say that the OT Law was a law of faith?

"That system failed miserably?" Paul makes it clear that:

SV | ‎Ro 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

And in Hebrews he says:

ESV | ‎Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. ‎8 For he finds fault with them...

Again in Romans:

ESV | ‎Ro 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. ‎3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. ‎4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Quote:

If your point of view works for you and you honestly believe it is based on Scripture, who am I to say you are deluded? Even if you are, would it matter?

If you find one verse of Scripture that gives comfort & salvation to willful transgressors of the 10c, let me know.

[Hansen]

Gerry, Sorry I referred to you as "Jerry" above. Not sure where "willful transgressors" of God's law came from. Why do you assume, if you do, that I am a willful transgressor of God's law? Is it not rather uncharitable to make such an accusation against a person simply because they view salvation in a different manner than you do? From where does that innuendo originate?

"Saved people do not go on living a life of sin/rebellion. They are won back to obedience that is based on faith, Rom 1:5."

Have you read the thread on the "obedience of faith"? If so, apparently you disagree that the obedience of faith is what it is, Faith=obedience. The obedience of faith does not refer to keeping the Decalogue because we are believers.

"Prooftexting" simply doesn't work. Most of the prooftexts you quote, such as "If you love me, keep my commandments" are not talking about the Decalogue. "Sin is the transgression of the law" in addition to being a poor translation, in its context, it is not referring to the Decalogue, either

Nor is "He will magnify the law and make it honorable" a reference to the Decalogue. As the thread on the law of faith points out, the law is often a reference to the OT in its entirety. I noticed that you overlooked what was plainly spelled out there. The point of the thread, complete with examples, is that the term "law," sometimes, refers to the entire OT, not particularly the law of Moses or the Decalogue.

Jesus did not come to the earth to beat people over the head with the Decalogue. He came to show salvation is by faith, not by obedience to the Decalogue. In his dialogue with the RYR, he taught that even perfect commandment keeping is inadequate. Jesus taught the futility of commandment keeping as a means of salvation. He referred to the "Blesseds" as commandments during his great mountain sermon, thereby eclipsing Sinai.

One of the Decalogue was directed toward a cultural practice, oathtaking, which is largely irrelevant in modern society. Jesus himself abrogated the third commandment when he forbade oathtaking of any kind

I refer to your "proofs" as spoofs. Most of them, in their context, do not support a Decalogue oriented view of salvation. Many are not even talking about the Decalogue.

I'm sorry if you disagree. I don't expect you to change. Few people do. Apparently your religion has worked well for you, just as Catholicism, Mormonism, Judaism, etc. work well for their adherents.

I wish you well.

[John317]

... Why do you assume, if you do, that I am a willful transgressor of God's law? Is it not rather uncharitable to make such a malicious accusation against a person simply because they view salvation in a different manner than you do?

I doubt Gerry is accusing you of being a deliberate breaker of God's law, but if you know what God's law commands and you ignore it and do "your own thing," then that is really deliberately breaking God's law.

Originally Posted By: Hansen

The obedience of faith does not refer to keeping the Decalogue because we are believers.

Do you believe the Bible teaches that believers in Christ are free to disobey the commandments in the Decalogue? In other words, does faith in Christ free us from obedience to God's commandments?

Originally Posted By: Hansen

"Sin is the transgression of the law" in addition to being a poor translation, in its context, it is not referring to the Decalogue, either.

Whether you translate it as "sin is lawlessness" or "sin is breaking the law," etc., it all means the same thing: sin is disobedience to God's law.

The first part of 1 John 3:4 says "everyone who sins breaks the law [Gk thn anomian]."

The Greek indicates that it is speaking of a specific law and not merely of the principle of law.

What specific law, then?

The Bible is clear that the Decalogue defines sin:

Romans 7:7

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

James 2:9-11

But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. [10] For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. [11] For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

[John317]

I'm sorry if you disagree, that's your problem. I don't expect you to change. Few people do. Apparently your religion has worked well for you, just as Catholicism, Mormonism, Judaism, etc. work well for their adherents.

How about you? Are you any different from all the people you're talking about?

Is your religion working well for you?

We could just as well say that if you disagree, it is your problem, not ours. But we don't say that. Neither do we say we don't expect you to change. We should all change if we are convicted that we're wrong, don't you agree?

[John317]

Jesus did not come to the earth to beat people over the head with the Decalogue. He came to show salvation by faith, not obedience to the Decalogue

Neither Gerry nor I are suggesting that people are saved by law-keeping. That is an impossibility. If you think Gerry is saying this, you are completely misunderstanding him.

You are correct that Jesus did not come here to beat people over the head with the Decalogue. But neither did He come here to destroy or do away with the Decalogue. He categorically denied any such thought:

Matthew 5:17-20--

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [18] For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. [19] Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus Christ also said:

Matthew 15:3-6

He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? [4] For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Who ever reviles father or mother must surely die.' [5] But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, [6] he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

[Gerr]

Gerry, Sorry I referred to you as "Jerry" above. Not sure where "willful transgressors" of God's law came from. Why do you assume, if you do, that I am a willful transgressor of God's law? Is it not rather uncharitable to make such a malicious accusation against a person simply because they view salvation in a different manner than you do?

Didn't cross my mind to accuse of you of such. If that's how that statement came across, my apologies. But you have called me a legalist, even though nowhere have I ever claimed that my obedience counted for even one iota of merit. But now I am confused. You call me a legalist because I believe in obedience to the law, yet you bristle that I would think of you as a willfull transgressor of the law even though that was NOT thought of. My question then is this: If I'm obeying God's law and I'm a legalist, why are you not a legalist if you are obeying the law?

Quote:

Gerry: "Saved people do not go on living a life of sin/rebellion. They are won back to obedience that is based on faith, Rom 1:5."

Hansen: Have you read the thread on the "obedience of faith"? If so, apparently you disagree that the obedience of faith is what it is, Faith=obedience. The obedience of faith does not refer to keeping the Decalogue because we are believers.

Well, then, if Faith = Obedience, what are we arguing about? Unless of course, we are not agreed on what faith is obedient to?

Quote:

"Prooftexting," simply doesn't work. Most of the prooftexts you quote, such as "If you love me, keep my commandments" are not talking about the Decalogue. "Sin is the transgression of the law" in addition to being a poor translation, in its context, it is not referring to the Decalogue, either

When I use Scripture I'm prooftexting. What do you call it when you use Scripture to back up your position? Your thread on "the commandments in John" to me was a disingenuous attempt to exclude the 10c from the meaning of "commandments." Jesus clearly had the decalogue within the scope of His use of the word. All you have to do is check the other gospels. If John did not explicitly mention the decalogue, that's because his original audience surely undertood it.

Quote:

Nor is "He will magnify the law and make it honorasble" a reference to the Decalogue. As the thread on the law of faith points out, the law is often a reference to the OT in its entirety.

When the word "law" is used, you are correct that it often refers to the OT in its entirety. It may also mean just the pentateuch, or it may mean just a specific commandment within the law. Which use is intented has to be determined by the contextt. So we are agreed on this point.

Quote:

Jesus did not come to the earth to beat people over the head with the Decalogue. He came to show salvation by faith, not obedience to the Decalogue

I disagree with you. He came to do both, i.e. that sinners are saved by grace and that saved sinners are to obey the law. Paul taught it. So did Peter & others.

Quote:

That's why I refer to your "proofs" as spoofs. Most of them, in their context, do not support a Decalogue oriented view of salvation.

And where is your spooftext? You say my view of salvation is Decalogue-oriented because I say that the fruit of faith is obedience to the law?

Quote:

I'm sorry if you disagree, that's your problem. I don't expect you to change. Few people do. Apparently your religion has worked well for you, just as Catholicism, Mormonism, Judaism, etc. work well for their adherents.

I wish you well.

And if you disagree with me?

[Hansen]

"When the word "law" is used, you are correct that it often refers to the OT in its entirety. It may also mean just the pentateuch, or it may mean just a specific commandment within the law. Which use is intented has to be determined by the contextt. So we are agreed on this point."

Gerry, since we agree on the definition of "law" being determined by context, would you agree that the same is true of the word "commandment/s?" If you do agree, please show me anything in the writings of John which indicates he is referring to the Decalogue when he uses the term "commandment/s" Specifically, in John, when Jesus says "If you love me, keep my commandments," what other passages, in the context, indicate that the "commandments" refer to the Decalogue?

I might also mention the passage in John's epistles which says the love of God is to keep his commandments. What, in the context, indicates that the "commandments" are the Decalogue?

If you do not agree that the term "commandments," like the term "law," is defined by context, please explain why.

[Gerr]

Simply because even though John does not mention the decalogue in his gospel, it is within the scope of his use of the word "commandment." Let me show you why.

Jesus said: ESV | ‎Jn 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. ‎35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Point #1. One of the commandments then that comes under the commandment in ESV | ‎Jn 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments," is the command to love. But John in his epistle clarifies, ESV | ‎1 Jn 2:7 "Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning." How old? What beginning? NIV84 | ‎Dt 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. ‎5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. ‎6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts."

What commandments? Look at the previous chapter. Chapter 5 is a reiteration of the 10c.

If you read the whole epistle of John, there is no question that what he was talking about included the 10c. When he says, "Sin is the transgression of the law," there is no question as to which law points out sin.

Point #2. When Jesus told the woman in Jn 8:1-11, ESV | ‎Jn 8:11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more,” what particular sin was He referring to? Was it not the sin of adultery which is forbidden by the 10c? Was He not telling the woman to stop breaking the 10c?

Point #3. Jesus said the same thing to the invalid at the Pool of Bethesda, ESV | ‎Jn 5:14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” Whatever caused his invalidity must have been something sinful, something that violated the 10c. Whatever it was, Jesus told him what He commanded the woman, stop doing it.

[Dr. Rich]

"When the word "law" is used, you are correct that it often refers to the OT in its entirety. It may also mean just the pentateuch, or it may mean just a specific commandment within the law. Which use is intented has to be determined by the contextt. So we are agreed on this point."

Gerry, since we agree on the definition of "law" being determined by context, would you agree that the same is true of the word "commandment/s?" If you do agree, please show me anything in the writings of John which indicates he is referring to the Decalogue when he uses the term "commandment/s" Specifically, in John, when Jesus says "If you love me, keep my commandments," what other passages, in the context, indicate that the "commandments" refer to the Decalogue?

I might also mention the passage in John's epistles which says the love of God is to keep his commandments. What, in the context, indicates that the "commandments" are the Decalogue?

If you do not agree that the term "commandments," like the term "law," is defined by context, please explain why.

Which one is the truth: Matthew 22:37-40 or Gal. 5:14? Hammmm?

[Gerr]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Are you saying one is wrong? Hmmmmmmmmm!

[Woody]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Are you saying one is wrong? Hmmmmmmmmm!

ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God. Just as some believe that all that came forward from the mouth of Ellen White was likewise inspired.

[phkrause]

Which one is the truth: Matthew 22:37-40 or Gal. 5:14? Hammmm?

Both are the truth!

So lets see what they say!!!!!

Gal 5:4 You who are trying to be declared righteous by God through legalism have severed yourselves from the Messiah! You have fallen away from God's grace!

Matthew 22:37 He told him, "`You are to love ADONAI your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.' 38 This is the greatest and most important mitzvah. 39 And a second is similar to it, `You are to love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All of the Torah and the Prophets are dependent on these two mitzvot."

I see no problem with either of these, Dr. Rich.

[Gerr]

I didn't think you would.

[Hansen]

Gerry, The best approach is to let John himself explain what the “beginning” is. You incorrectly assume that he is referring to Deuteronomy. Why? You left off the part of the verse which explains what the commandment is. It is the word that they have heard, the teachings of Christ. This corresponds perfectly with what John said in his gospel: The commandments are the teachings of Christ

1Jo 2:7 beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning <746>; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.

Why would you leave off the part which explains the verse and then explain it with a passage from Deuteronomy? Absolutely no excuse for that kind of Scripture abuse. I was wrong to say you shouldn’t be embarrassed about being a legalist. If that’s how you handle the Bible, you should not only be embarrassed, you should be ashamed.

[Gerr]

While you may be correct that the "beginning" that was referred to in John's epistle was the beginning of Christ's ministry, I could not help going even farther back because the teaching about love did not start after the incarnation of Christ. It goes back to the Pentateuch. And the Jehovah who gave that law is none other than the One who claimed to be the "I AM."

[Hansen]

There is no legitimate reason to assume that 1 John 3:4 is speaking about violating the Decalogue. Essentially, the verse says that to “practice sin” is to "practice lawlessness.” John doesn’t use the word translated “lawlessness” anywhere else in his writings. He does, however, use the words translated as “practice sin”.

1Jo 3:4 everyone who practices <4160> sin <266> also practices <4160> lawlessness; and sin <266> is lawlessness.

1Jo 3:8 the one who practices <4160> sin <266> is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. the son of god appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.

1Jo 3:9 no one who is born of god practices <4160> sin <266>, because his seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of god.

None of these verses do much to help us understand 1 John 3:4. There is a passage in John 8 which is quite helpful:

30 as he spoke these things, many came to believe in him.

31 so Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed him, "if you continue in my word, then you are truly disciples of mine;

32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." 33 they answered him, "we are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that you say, ‘you will become free’?"

34 Jesus answered them, "truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits<4160> sin<266> is the slave of sin.

35 "the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 "so if the son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

37 "I know that you are Abraham’s descendants; yet you seek to kill me, because my word has no place in you.

John chapter 8 has much in common with 1 John 3:4,8,9 Jesus speaks of the importance of believing his words [not obeying the Decalogue] numerous times. He also speaks of being a child of the devil because of unbelief in his teachings, echoing the words of 1 John 3:8.

If you want to understand lawlessness in John’s writings, that’s the place to look.

[Gerr]

There is no legitimate reason to assume that 1 John 3:4 is speaking about violating the Decalogue. Essentially, the verse says that to “practice sin” is to "practice lawlessness.” John doesn’t use the word translated “lawlessness” anywhere else in his writings. He does, however, use the words translated as “practice sin”.

There is every reason to believe that the sin or the practice of lawlessness is the same as transgressing the decalogue for the following reasons:

1. In 1 Jn 3:12, John says, "We should not be like Cain who murdered his brother." That clearly refers to one of the 10c.

2. In 1 Jn 3:10 he says, "By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother."

No law defines righteousness or right and wrong, or what is loving and what is not a loving act as do the 10c. It is the decalogue that most clearly defines sin.

3. When John says, ESV | &#8206;1 Jn 2:11 "But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness." This clearly has reference to the 10c because in His sermon, Jesus said, "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire," ESV | &#8206;Mt 5:22.

4. And, BTW, when John said, ESV | &#8206;1 Jn 3:11 "For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. &#8206;12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother," the "beginning" that he was referring to cannot be the beginning of Christ's ministry because he goes back to the beginning in Genesis.

[Hansen]

"It is the decalogue that most clearly defines sin."

There are numerous definitions of sin in Scripture. Why would you to say that one is clearer than another? In John's writings, sin is also defined by the passage which says, The world will be convincted of sin because they don't believe in Christ (John 16:9). That's clearer to me. Anything you do, if you don't believe in Jesus, is sinful.

That message is repeated over and over in John's writings. That's obviously the central point in defining sin numerous times in the gospel of John.

Another definition, or a differently worded one:

1Jo 5:17 all unrighteousness <93> is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

A very clear definition of "lawlessness" is found in Matthew's writings:

Mt. 7:21 "not everyone who says to me, ‘lord, lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven will enter.

22 "many will say to me on that day, ‘lord, lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’

23 "and then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

Those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of heaven. Those who practice "lawlessness" will not; therefore, to not do the will of the Father is to practice lawlessness.

What is the will of the Father? Luke explains very clearly in the passage in his gospel which corresponds to the Matthew passage:

Lk 6:46 "why do you call me, ‘lord, lord,’ and do not do what I say?

He doesn't say do the will of the Father, he says not do what [Jesus]says

To do what Jesus says is the will of the father. To not do what Jesus says is lawlessness.

Gerry, Your not doing theology, you're engaging in apologetics. You are trying to defend traditional Adventist legalism. Of course you can't do a good job because the weight of [responsibly interpreted] Scripture is against you.

[Hansen]

Gerry, You have an unfortunate habit of neglecting the context of the passages you interpret. Take the following remark of yours for [another] example:

"1. In 1 Jn 3:12, John says, "We should not be like Cain who murdered his brother." That clearly refers to one of the 10c."

Notice the CONTEXT:

1 John 3:11 for this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another;

12 not as cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. and for what reason did he slay him? because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous.

John states, in the immediate context, that Cain slaying Abel violated the law of love, not the Decalogue.

Another uissue you raise is the time of the "beginning." As to be expected, "beginning" has different meanings, usually determined by the context.

Note:

Joh 2:11 "this beginning <746> of his signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him."

Here, the beginning refers to the start of Christ's ministry. The Bible itself explains when the beginning is.

If you do a careful study of the use of the word "beginning" it becomes very clear that "beginning" is usually easily defined by context. It often refers to the time when Christ's ministry began. Sometimes, it refers to a point more remote as in "the Devil sinneth from the beginning."

Happy holidays.

[Gerr]

"It is the decalogue that most clearly defines sin."

There are numerous definitions of sin in Scripture. Why would you to say that one is clearer than another? In John's writings, sin is also defined by the passage which says, The world will be convincted of sin because they don't believe in Christ (John 16:9). That's clearer to me. Anything you do, if you don't believe in Jesus, is sinful.

There are what, 3 billion people on this planet professing to all believe in Jesus. Are they all saved? Does believing in Jesus tell a thief that it's wrong to steal? Does belief in Jesus tell someone that it is a sin to commit adultery?

Quote:

That message is repeated over and over in John's writings. That's obviously the central point in defining sin numerous times in the gospel of John.

Another definition, or a differently worded one:

1Jo 5:17 all unrighteousness <93> is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

A very clear definition of "lawlessness" is found in Matthew's writings:

Mt. 7:21 "not everyone who says to me, ‘lord, lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven will enter.

22 "many will say to me on that day, ‘lord, lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’

23 "and then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

Those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of heaven. Those who practice "lawlessness" will not; therefore, to not do the will of the Father is to practice lawlessness.

What is the will of the Father? Luke explains very clearly in the passage in his gospel which corresponds to the Matthew passage:

Lk 6:46 "why do you call me, ‘lord, lord,’ and do not do what I say?

He doesn't say do the will of the Father, he says not do what [Jesus]says

To do what Jesus says is the will of the father. To not do what Jesus says is lawlessness.

Gerry, Your not doing theology, you're engaging in apologetics. You are trying to defend traditional Adventist legalism. Of course you can't do a good job because the weight of [responsibly interpreted] Scripture is against you.

Let me point out again that when John talked about "lawlessness" or "sin", he had to be thinking about the 10c and not just indefinite law.

1) When John said, ESV | &#8206;1 Jn 3:8 "Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning," what kind of commandment did he have in mind that Satan transgressed? Here is John quoting what Jesus taught: ESV | &#8206;Jn 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

So you see, John in quoting Jesus, clearly shows that when he spoke of Satan sinning, he was referring to the decalogue because he explicitly mentions at least two of the ten that he broke.

2) "One who does not love his brother" & "does not practice righteousness is not of God," 1 Jn 3:10. Loving one's brother or neighbor clearly refers to the last 6 commandments.

3) When he said, " We should not be like Cain who was the evil one who MURDERED his brother," and, "Everyone who hates his brother is a MURDERER," 1 Jn 3:12,15 clearly refer to the 10c.

[Gerr]

Gerry, You have an unfortunate habit of neglecting the context of the passages you interpret. Take the following remark of yours for [another] example:

"1. In 1 Jn 3:12, John says, "We should not be like Cain who murdered his brother." That clearly refers to one of the 10c."

Notice the CONTEXT:

1 John 3:11 for this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another;

12 not as cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. and for what reason did he slay him? because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous.

John states, in the immediate context, that Cain slaying Abel violated the law of love, not the Decalogue.

And what do you think the Decalogue is? A law of hate? When Jesus summarized the 10c, how did He put it?

Quote:

Another uissue you raise is the time of the "beginning." As to be expected, "beginning" has different meanings, usually determined by the context.

I already explained above about the "beginning" referred to.

Quote:

Happy holidays.

I wish you the best also. Thanks.

[Hansen]

"4. And, BTW, when John said, ESV | &#8206;1 Jn 3:11 "For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. &#8206;12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother," the "beginning" that he was referring to cannot be the beginning of Christ's ministry because he goes back to the beginning in Genesis.

Another uissue you raise is the time of the "beginning." As to be expected, "beginning" has different meanings, usually determined by the context.

I already explained above about the "beginning" referred to."

Yes, Gerry, you explained it. Unfortunately your explanation is incorrect. As the context points out, John does not say that Cain killing Abel is a violation of the Commandment to not kill. He says it was a violation of the commandment to love:

Joh 15:12 "this is my commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.

Joh 15:17 "this I command you, that you love one another.

In fact, no one knows just what "laws" existed at that time in history. I doubt that the Decalogue was known then.

Gerry, Do you agree with the explanation I offered which defines

'lawlessness" as violating the words of Christ? It may be easier to understand than John. Do you see the relationship between

'lawlessness" and "the will of the Father" in Matthew? Do you recognize the parallelism which correlates the "things I say" in Luke with the "will of the Father" in Matthew?

Do you agree that we will ultimately be judged by the teachings of Christ, not the Decalogue?

Joh 12:47 "if anyone hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Joh 12:48 "he who rejects me and does not receive my sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Joh 3:17 "for god did not send the son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

Joh 3:18 "he who believes in him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten son of god.

Since the teachings of Christ nullify the Decalogue, why do you cling to it?