My understanding is that Jesus came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill the law and the prophets.

What was it that Jesus told the rich young ruler when he asked what he needed to do to inherit eternal life?

The law points to Christ. If I throw out the law, I throw out the map. I am saved by faith, but that faith MUST change my life, the way I live, in order to be real. I cannot and will not be saved by keeping the law, but I keep the law because I love my Lord and want to do as He asks.

Sometimes we must look not at the result, but at the motivation to discover whether it is legalism or not.

Jesus is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. He never changes, why would He change the rules on us? I'm not sure about this old covenant/new covenant thing, but I know that my God is always the same. There is nothing confusing about following Jesus, there is nothing confusing about His law or His covenant. He has asked that I keep His commandments and I will.

DenBorg.

Nice to hear you again and continue with this thread. I think since no one continue with this topic then they may all agree with my view.

I will answer your statement that I quote below:

Quote:

The problem with this belief, besides the lack of Biblical support, is that if it were true, then Adam and Eve could not have sinned; for sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4) and where no law is, there is no transgression. (Romans 4:15)

Neither could anyone possibly sin since the time of Christ's death on the cross, because the law was done away with, and where there is no law, there is no transgression.

Since the Bible undeniably states that sin cannot exist without the law, then that means there is no need for a Saviour to save us from sin, because sin cannot be without the law.

Therefore, Christ died for nothing, and we have no need of Him.

That is one question that those who believe this way have been unable to answer:
How can there be sin when there was no law?

- - - -
But, of course, if there is no law, then neither is there any sin, and hence no need for a Saviour; for why would we need to be saved from nonexistant sin?! (Romans 4:15; 1 John 3:4)

Such beliefs are not in agreement with the Word of God.

Unquote.

I saw that you think without the LAW there would be no sin because sin is the transgression of the law, and since there is no sin, Christ didn’t need to come and die to redeem us but since He did come, then He died in vain.

This reasoning is very normal but unfortunately it shows your lack of understanding the bible.

Read this verse carefully and think hard, hopefully you may see your error.

Romans 5:12-14.
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Before I comment on this verse I want to hear from you what do you think about it?

In His love

James S.

Avalee.

Surely against what you believe and had been taught, my view is a false doctrine.

But against the bile teaching, it is the gospel of Christ.

In His love

James S.

James,

Couldn't the same thing also be said of you?

Surely against what you believe and had been taught, our view is a false doctrine.

But against the Bible teaching, it is the gospel of Christ.

Saul of Tarsus truly thought the Christian view was false doctrine until his experience on the road to Damascus from which exited Saul of Tarsus and entered the Apostle Paul.

Denborgh.

If sin is “just” a transgression of the law, and that the law is the Ten Commandments, how could Adam broke any one of the law in the 10 Cs? He broke the law “don’t eat” and this is not mentioned in the 10 Cs.

“14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.”

There are a dual information in this verse. It may say that death reigned over those who did not break any law of the Ten Commandments as did Adam (a proof that in Eden there is no law, no 10 Cs), it may also say that death reigned over those who did not sin by breaking a command because for them there is no law, as did Adam, for him there is no 10 Cs, what is a command for him that he transgressed was only “don’t eat.”

The first means that death reigns over those who has not the chance to keep the law (10 Cs) and transgress it, this include those Gentiles who has never hear the law, babes and little children’s.

How about Adam’s descendants till Moses, were they includes in the above? They may be includes, because even though they knew the law requirements orally spoken to them, but breaking it has no claims over them, since at their time there is no (legal) law that might judge and condemn them. “If there is no law, there is no transgression”, and if they transgress what God spoke to them, their sin is not imputed or taken into account.

But nevertheless, they all die! Why? Not because this death is the wages of sin, since there is no law and so there is no wages of sin. So, why they all die? Merely it was because all were cut off from the Source of Life.

The second is for those who were not under the law, this includes the Gentiles that have not the law, the Jews and Adam’s descendant before Sinai, and those who believe that Christ has fulfilled the law and released them from being under the law, under the obligation to keep and obey the law (10 cs).

Both give the same proof that there is no law (legal) before Sinai. The law just came in effect and legally stands as a standard of righteousness and judgment for the Jews to whom the law was given, since Sinai. From here on; sin is the transgression of the law, and the wages of sin is death.

This give a broader indication, that God judgment at the end of time is not based on the 10 Commandments, since there were many who has not the law and were not under the law. There is “some thing else” as a standard of judgment, and according to me, this judgment is based on the principle of heaven since there are we going to go. Does the aspirant for heaven has the principle of heaven in their heart or not, are they FIT for heaven or not.

Thus, God’s universal judgment I believe is based on deeds as according to heaven principle, which is love that seeks no self in it.

The Gentile’s who have not the law and never hear the law or the gospel, were judge by this deeds, since many will have this deeds that conforms to the principle of heaven. So are those who were not under the law, they have these deeds as fruit of the Spirit.

In His love

James S.

I believe the 10 commandments can be summarized as:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and love thy neighbour as thyself."

If this is how it is summarized, then I could definitely see that Adam broke that commandment because he loved Eve more than God. The sin was not eating the fruit exactly, the sin was in putting another person/thing before God in his life. He was forewarned of the consequences and was commanded to not eat the fruit of that tree, and he contrarily chose to eat it anyway. That breaks a commandment of God and the first 4 commandments as given to Moses.

sarah.

Then we do agree that what is transgressed at eden is not the Ten Commandment but the principle of heaven, LOVE that was transgressed since Adam love himself more then his love to God.

But God could not condemn him if there is no legal law, that's why he give the Ten Commandments hundreds years later to have the legal right to judge man for their sins.

This is just a proof that there is no such a legal law of the Ten Commandments in Eden, but its principle was there since it is based on the nature of God, his love that seeks no self.

In His love

James S