Observations about the law, the Law, God's law, Christ's law - four different things

[Wick Stick]

3. I have argued elsewhere that Paul sees our depraved minds as God's punishment on humankind for our idolatry and lack of reverence towards Him:

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to an unfit mind, to do those things which are not proper. (Romans 8:28)

So, we don't have a God-given conscience; we have God-given depravity. When Paul talks about "Sin" as an enslaving power, that's what he's talking about.

Interesting. It's not what they taught in Sunday School, but seems to be Biblically-sound.

I can think of a couple other places where God "gave over" people to depravity.

 

[Wick Stick]

What was that sin a violation of? (God's law) = God-given human conscience.

I was always taught that our conscience is external rather than internal - that the conscience is God prompting us, rather than an inborn part of mankind.

Quick Bible search says that probably isn't right...

 

[St. SteVen]

I would argue a God-given human conscience is NOT a given.

What do you make of this?

Romans 2:14-16 NIV
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,
do by nature things required by the law,(A)
they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,
their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them
and at other times even defending them.)
16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets(B)
through Jesus Christ,(C) as my gospel(D) declares.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

I can think of a couple other places where God "gave over" people to depravity.

But isn't that the extreme case of reprobation? And with the purpose of bringing them back.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

I was always taught that our conscience is external rather than internal - that the conscience is God prompting us, rather than an inborn part of mankind.

Quick Bible search says that probably isn't right...

I remember vividly as a child (and later in life) an uneasy feeling (in the pit of my stomach) when I was tempted to do wrong.
I can't say whether it was programmed or natural. But it seemed natural at the time.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to an unfit mind, to do those things which are not proper. (Romans 8:28)

What did they have prior to an unfit mind?

[

 

[Lambano]

What did they have prior to an unfit mind?

[

Innocence?

 

[gpresdo]

As for me and my house ...we will follow God's law....each one ......of many of them.
Thus the new testament (n
ew covenant) is to be followed.

 

[Wick Stick]

I remember vividly as a child (and later in life) an uneasy feeling (in the pit of my stomach) when I was tempted to do wrong.
I can't say whether it was programmed or natural. But it seemed natural at the time.

[

The idea I was given is that it was neither programmed nor innate. The little angel sitting on your shoulder was an outside person (uh... entity? deity?) talking to you.

When I looked up the word 'conscience' in ye olde trusty lexicon, I found that the NT Greek does NOT refer to any outside influence. The definition is more like 'with sight,' the idea being that one perhaps is choosing to do something wrong even though they see the problem.

 

[Wick Stick]

But isn't that the extreme case of reprobation? And with the purpose of bringing them back.

[

Maybe? I was thinking of Acts 7:

41-43 And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

Did God bring them back? He certainly called them back. Most of them didn't return. Then God adopted a bunch of Gentiles in their place to re-establish the nation. That doesn't feel like bringing them back. The star of Remphan is still on their flag...

 

[St. SteVen]

The star of Remphan is still on their flag...

Not the star of David?

[

 

[David in NJ]

I think the thing to see here is that the law (Torah law) is different than God's law.
Sin was in the world before the law (Torah law) was given. (Romans 5:13-14)
Sin was sin because it was in violation of God's law. (human conscience)

[

God's Law is CHRIST

All of CHRIST and His Law is contained in Two Commandments

But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

 

[Wick Stick]

Not the star of David?

If you respond to the bits in small print it leads to awkward conversations.

The Star of David, the Seal of Solomon, and the Star of Remphan/Chiun - these are all the same symbol, which also appears all over the world:


Remphan is the planet we know today as Saturn... and all the gods associated with that planet.

David is supposed to be one of the good kings. He shouldn't have been worshiping Saturn. If we're giving David the benefit of the doubt, then 'Star of David' is a mis-nomer. Now Solomon on the other hand...

 

[ewq1938]

Was there sin before Torah was given? Yes, obviously.
What was that sin a violation of? (God's law) = God-given human conscience.

Why was it wrong for Cain to murder his brother?

Killing must have a valid reason. Cain killed out of jealousy so it was immoral and would be murder which is an unlawful killing.

Like with Eve, we do not have a transcript of God telling someone what is wrong...but Cain was punished so it was wrong and I think we should assume God told people murder was wrong or that God programmed us all to know murder is wrong.

 

[St. SteVen]

... or that God programmed us all to know murder is wrong.

Through our God-given human conscience.

[

 

[Davy]

I think the thing to see here is that the law (Torah law) is different than God's law.
Sin was in the world before the law (Torah law) was given. (Romans 5:13-14)
Sin was sin because it was in violation of God's law. (human conscience)

[

Uh... WHAT?

The word Torah refers simply to the first five Books written through Moses. You start off above showing Biblical illiteracy by not even knowing what that word Torah means!

Apostle Paul quoted from God's laws in 1 Timothy 1, so which law is that from?? Are you going to try... and say that law Paul quoted from is a different... law than that what God gave Israel back in Old Testament history?? If that is what you are trying to say, you'd be very wrong, because MUCH of God's law is still in effect for today, upon those who walk by their flesh.

But it makes sense that 'some' just do not like that idea by Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 1 about God's laws that are still in effect, which is CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE by the way. What God's Word says as written just isn't that popular in many of today's churches, especially in the beth-aven vanity churches.

 

[St. SteVen]

Innocence?

Can you say that about anyone who is of age?

[

 

[Lambano]

Can you say that about anyone who is of age?

[

"Of age"? Romans 1:18-31 isn't about individuals. That's a common hermeneutical mistake. It similar to the "Original Sin" narrative in Romans 4 - but few people ever recognize it as such.

I've found the commentaries of Barclay and NT Wright on Romans to be helpful. Romans as a whole is written to house churches in Rome that are both Jewish and Gentile. Chapter 16, the personal greetings part that everybody skips over, names folks who are known to be or probably are Jewish (Paul's sister, Prisca and Aquila, a few others), and a lot who are most likely Goyim. One of Paul's objectives in writing this letter (what, you think he's just publishing his M.Div thesis?) is to unite them around Messiah Jesus. You can see that in chapters 12-15 (and especially 14).

Chapter 1 names every stereotype 1st-century Jews have about Goyim: They worship idols, they practice sexual perversion, they're wicked and violent - not like God's chosen people, oh, no, no, no. And then in chapter 2 he turns around and talks about the hypocrisy of God's chosen people...

This is what we are inside. All of us.

 

[St. SteVen]

"Of age"? Romans 1:18-31 isn't about individuals. That's a common hermeneutical mistake. It similar to the "Original Sin" narrative in Romans 4 - but few people ever recognize it as such.

I've found the commentaries of Barclay and NT Wright on Romans to be helpful. Romans as a whole is written to house churches in Rome that are both Jewish and Gentile. Chapter 16, the personal greetings part that everybody skips over, names folks who are known to be or probably are Jewish (Paul's sister, Prisca and Aquila, a few others), and a lot who are most likely Goyim. One of Paul's objectives in writing this letter (what, you think he's just publishing his M.Div thesis?) is to unite them around Messiah Jesus. You can see that in chapters 12-15 (and especially 14).

Chapter 1 names every stereotype 1st-century Jews have about Goyim: They worship idols, they practice sexual perversion, they're wicked and violent - not like God's chosen people, oh, no, no, no. And then in chapter 2 he turns around talks about the hypocrisy of God's chosen people...

This is what we are inside. All of us.

How does that assign innocence to humankind?

[

 

[Lambano]

How does that assign innocence to humankind?

[

Were Adam and Eve innocent?