Has the Law of Moses been Abolished?

vsjb34 · Fierce Poodle Joined: 04 Aug 2003 Posts: 281

anti- none, no, against.

nomos- law.

That is the source of the word. The definition is that you can live how you want because you are under grace.

Romans 6 is Paul's answer to that. He says "shall we sin that grace may abound"? Then he says "God forbid!".

vsjb34 · Fierce Poodle Joined: 04 Aug 2003 Posts: 281

Philippians 2:12-13
12 Therefore, my beloved, as
you have always obeyed,
not as in my presence only,
but now much more in my
absence, work out your own
salvation with fear and
trembling; 13 for it is God
who works in you both to will
and to do for His good
pleasure.

Gswisher,

What does this mean then?

gswisher · Rabid Pit Bull Joined: 04 Jun 2003 Posts: 421

AllSop · Sea Monkey Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 13 Location: Texas

metothezero · Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 3:47 pm Post subject:

Allsop, would you then entertain the notion that if you do not follow the commandments after salvation has been given, then the gift of salvation is forfeit?

AllSop · Sea Monkey Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 13 Location: Texas

Zathrus · Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 4:59 am Post subject:

So it's worth noting that all these warnings to the early church concerned issues of faith that could cause them to lose their inheritance. These warnings did not concern behavior, but belief.

Heb 10:38, 39
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Heb 3:18,19
18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

It was only turning away from righteousness through faith in Christ and turning back to seeking righteousness through the works of the law that could put the believers in the early church in danger of losing eternal life.

The most dire warnings in the new testament were against returning to the old covanent and trusting in the works of the law for righteousness. The ones in Heb 6:4-6 and Heb 10:26-29 are examples.

Van · Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 5:33 am Post subject:

As I said at the beginning, the debates are fueled by the underlying doctrines of men.

Allsop, Gswisher and Zathus believe that the Mosaic Laws were abolished when Christ died on the cross. They make two arguments (perhaps more that I have missed) to support this doctrine.

First they assert with uncertain logic, that the Law of Moses must be treated as a whole. They extrapolate the idea that if you break on part of the law, you have broken the whole Law into the idea that no part of the Law could be set aside - it is all or nothing. But does this follow? Nope.
The idea being conveyed by the concept that if you break one point of the Law, you have broken it all is that God is Holy, and if you break one point of the Law, your transgression creates a separation just as wide and as insurmountable as if you had broken every point of the Law. God is Holy and you are not. So this concept has nothing to do with abolishing by fulfillment some areas of the Law. In short, I do not believe this argument is valid, but to each his own.

The second point has to do with the ongoing ministry of the Law. First, they say the ministry is not on going, that Paul's mention of it should be viewed as historical, he is writing 20 or so years after the cross about his and his audience's condition before the cross without mentioning the point is no longer valid. Lets just say, to each his own. Next, gswisher says, and the others did not object, so they may concur, that the function of the Law of Christ replaced the function of the Law of Moses; that now, the Law of Christ makes the unsaved aware of their sinfulness and their hopeless condition, dead in their tresspasses. Note that this divides the law, God's Law given by Yahweh to Moses, from God's Law given by Christ, Yahweh in the flesh. So it is ok to divide the Law of God based on one doctrine, but not on another. Jesus abolished all the Mosaic Law on the cross, but beforehand created His own separate Law that was not abolished which happens to include all of the Mosaic moral law. Lets just say, the idea does not hang together, as far as I am concerned.

One final point - after I pointed out that Ephesians 2:13-17 applies to believers and not to unbelievers, it was again asserted without mentioning verse 13 that the passage applies to both believers and unbelievers. Lets just say the restatement ignored the point that every passage that indicates the Law has been abolished or set aside or fulfilled seems to apply only to those "in Christ" and so it seems questionable to extrapolate these passages to unbelievers.

gswisher · Rabid Pit Bull Joined: 04 Jun 2003 Posts: 421

Van · Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:00 am Post subject:

On what I think is a totally different subject, I wanted to say that the post concerning faith and the loss of faith, or the turning away from faith is a very important observation. I disgree with the point of the post - you can lose your salvation - my doctrine is once saved alway saved since I believe I am sealed with a pledge and God keeps his promises. But the keen observation that works based sins do not threaten the salvation of the saved is a great point.

Clearly there is a period when people have heard the gospel, and have trusted in some degree in Christ, when they are not saved. The parable of the Sower or the Four Soils demonstrates this fact. Just how long does it take for the gospel to "take root" in the heart such that by God's grace through heart-felt faith we are saved? This period may last differing lengths of time in different individuals. During this period they are vunerable to being lead astray, into a works based faith rather than a Christ based faith, be it circumcision or water baptism. I think, again based on the doctrine of once saved, alway saved, that these passages are talking out this uncertain duration period.

But as I said at the outset, this is completely off topic, but since it had been brought into the discussion I wanted to raise an objection.

gswisher · Rabid Pit Bull Joined: 04 Jun 2003 Posts: 421

Van,

I think you are trying to aply two covenants, which were inteded for God's elect, to those he never covenanted with. The law of Moses was never applied to the Gentile nations. He had no covenant with them. No one outside of Christ is in any kind of covenant with God. It seems like a moot point. Again, I give you the example of the wicked who were judged by the flood. By what law were they judged? God also said he would replace the old covenant with a new covenant. Does this mean part of it? The burden lies with you to show how God decided to retain the then ten commandments for unbeleivers. And if he did, should they observe the sabbath? Show me where the moral aspects of Moses law are given to unbelievers.

Heb 8:6 But now He has gotten a more excellent ministry, also by so much as He is a Mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first was faultless, place would not have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be,
Heb 8:9 not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day of My taking hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard them, says the Lord.

Van · Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 8:15 am Post subject:

Excellent post, gswisher, pardon me while I pause to see if I can find a flaw.

Van · Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 8:43 am Post subject:

In thinking about the certain truth in your post, I look at it like this.

Prior to Christ, a separation existed between the nation of Israel and everybody else (termed Gentiles). The Law of Moses was in effect only for those under the Law, those of the nation of Israel including decendents and some others, such as Ruth. Those not under the law, Romans Chapter 2, were condemned just as those between Adam and Moses were condemned without the Law. So the Law of God, not revealed, still brought death to all those lacking faith in God.

In summary, the Mosaic Covenent was completely replaced by the new covenent, and this affects the chosen indwelt believers. But, for those outside the new covenent, the Law of God still condemns them just as it did before the Mosaic Covenent, and just as it did for those outside the Mosaic Covenent. However, since Christ torn down the barrier between the nation of Israel and everybody else, then the revelation of the Law of God as presented in the Law of Moses still carries out an ongoing ministry to bring awareness of our sinful state and need of a Savior. Thus the gospel message is founded on this ministry. If we do not understand that we are dead in our tresspasses of God's law, that we are separated from God due to our sins, there is no basis for our faith.

Nobby · Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 9:01 am Post subject: This is Great!

Wish I could get Members in the Bible sudies to study like this! Smile

Nobby