Law was an impossible system to keep

[mfblume]

How could unregenerate man keep law if we read...

Romans 7: 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

How could unregenerate man keep law if we read...

Romans 7: 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

Carnal man goes through the motions while his heart is far from God.
In all actuality the carnal man hates what he is doing and therefore can't wait until the service is over. He may draw nigh to God with his mouth, but his heart is far from God. He is a white washed sepulchre filled to the brim with rotting corpses. Psalm 81:15 “Those who hate the LORD would pretend obedience to Him; and their time of punishment would be forever."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Carnal man goes through the motions while his heart is far from God.
In all actuality the carnal man hates what he is doing and therefore can't wait until the service is over. He may draw nigh to God with his mouth, but his heart is far from God. He is a white washed sepulchre filled to the brim with rotting corpses. Psalm 81:15 “Those who hate the LORD would pretend obedience to Him; and their time of punishment would be forever."

Amen. And that's my point. Anyone unregenerate cannot rise above this level of carnality, and therefore cannot keep law. No one could be spiritual before the new covenant.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen. And that's my point. Anyone unregenerate cannot rise above this level of carnality, and therefore cannot keep law. No one could be spiritual before the new covenant.

Genesis 6:9 states that Noah was perfect "blameless" in his generation.

Genesis 17:1 has God commanding Abram to walk before Him blamelessly.

Job 1:1 also claims that Job was blameless and upright in God's sight.

Luke 1:6 states that Zechariah and Elizabeth blameless, righteous in God's eyes, and that is attested to them observing all the Lord's commands with His decrees blamelessly.

While all of the above were blameless they still had to believe in the Messianic hope. The law didn't grant them salvation, because they understood that the law was only carrying them to the schoolmaster. Once the schoolmaster appeared, and only then, would they get what they were searching for. Luke 2:29-32 "Now you are releasing your servant, Sovereign Lord, according to your word, in peace; For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples: a light for revelation of the Gentiles, and glory of Your people Israel." Simeon waited day and night, because he understood the Torah's promise Psalm 119:174.

Simeon like all the other remnant who came before him knew that the Law was good, if one used it legitimately. They understood like the Apostle Paul it was only a schoolmaster to lead one to the Master. Therefore once the Master came He, removed the flaming sword, and opened the doors to Eden

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Genesis 6:9 states that Noah was perfect "blameless" in his generation.

Genesis 17:1 has God commanding Abram to walk before Him blamelessly.

Job 1:1 also claims that Job was blameless and upright in God's sight.

Noah, Job and Abram were before Sinaitic Law. So, these examples of inability or ability to keep Law can';t really be applicable. And a command to Abram to walk blamelessly doesn't necessarily mean Abram could do so.

And of course all of this must be taken into consideration with what the New testament teaches. So, if carnal man cannot keep law because law is spiritual, I cannot see how it doesn't still stand that no one could keep law before the new covenant.

Luke 1:6 states that Zechariah and Elizabeth blameless, righteous in God's eyes, and that is attested to them observing all the Lord's commands with His decrees blamelessly.

By far that is the most impacting verse in relation to this issue. Bravo!

Now, we know they were not actually righteous by their obedience, since Law stated none are righteous, and it was written to Jews under law as these folks were under law. So we know there is no contradiction. Therefore, what is the answer? Paul stated law was ordained to life but he found it to be unto death. They were righteous in the eyes of God. Righteousness cannot come from lawkeeping.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

In order for them to be righteous in His eyes there had to be some kind of consideration toward the then-future work of the cross. As I told Esaias, Acts 15:10 stated the fathers of Israel experienced something they could not bear. That could only be law. So how do we reconcile these passages? There must be some kind of reliance in the then-future work of the cross for this to fit the overall counsel of God in the bible.

While all of the above were blameless they still had to believe in the Messianic hope. The law didn't grant them salvation, because they understood that the law was only carrying them to the schoolmaster. Once the schoolmaster appeared, and only then, would they get what they were searching for. Luke 2:29-32 "Now you are releasing your servant, Sovereign Lord, according to your word, in peace; For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples: a light for revelation of the Gentiles, and glory of Your people Israel." Simeon waited day and night, because he understood the Torah's promise Psalm 119:174.

Simeon like all the other remnant who came before him knew that the Law was good, if one used it legitimately. They understood like the Apostle Paul it was only a schoolmaster to lead one to the Master. Therefore once the Master came He, removed the flaming sword, and opened the doors to Eden

Amen! Good stuff. So, now we must reconcile all of these words with what I've really been awaiting for. Paul's words that Law was ordained to life but he found it to death, and how does this fit with unregenerate man unable to keep a spiritual law?

[Esaias]

VERY good. +1!

[mfblume]

Very good observations. However, law being an impossible system is still valid. Here's why.

Abraham, Noah, and Job were all before Law. And you made a great point, Bro B., in noting Abraham's faith was counted for his righteousness. And that faith was dependent upon Christ's cross.

The issue about Law being impossible is in regard to consistent lifestyle. Esaias wondered what I meant by that, and I tried explaining it as best I could. So, Esaias, not sure if you got my point. But consistency is the issue. None can consistently keep it. Anyone can refrain from adultery, for example, but consistently, even without lusting in the heart?

And the biggest issue that proves law could not be kept is its own inclusion of trespass offerings and sin offerings. There were offerings for failure to obey law. Adultery and murder had no offerings. But there were offerings, because God knew man could not consistently keep it.

That's the issue I am pointing out, and is what Paul was referring to in Romans 7. Sin rises up as an assassin and uses the law to slay us eventually. The eventual issue is the point to notice. It means consistency is the concern.

I really need to see someone deal with my thoughts on Gal 3 and the early part of Romans 7, especially verse 10 that shows us what the rest of the chapter is about. Esaias said only a sociopath would actually have the problem described in Romans 7, however I disagree. The consistent keeping of law cannot be done. It takes one's faith and dependence on the cross, if they're considered righteous before the cross, for one to be called righteous during that time.

And we may be at loggerheads on the issue of Acts 15:10 because I simply do not believe the idea that Peter was addressing Pharisaism is correct whatsoever in that verse, because he said their fathers could not keep it, and they weren't under pharisaism.

I'm not sure if Acts 15:10 and Rom 7:10 and Gal 3:10 (funny how they're all in verse 10) are sticklers and not easy to respond to, for reason that these have not been dealt with yet. Esaias did talk about Acts 15:10, but I'd really like a response to my claim that Sinaitic covenant demanded circumcision to enter the congregation as much as Pharisaism did. And that is what I need a response to.

[shazeep]

mmmkay, go with that then.

[shazeep]

and i do mean that--if your model is producing fruit, by all means pursue it. However, in a wider context the shrinking of "your" borders should not be ignored imo.

[Aquila]

I don't know if this is even relevant to this conversation, but as I was reading posts I remembered a conversation I had with a rabbi (half of my ex-wife's family was Jewish). This rabbi said that he didn't believe that the Law was designed to be kept literally. He said it was a two edged sword. I questioned what he meant by that, and he took the law on adultery as an example. He said how the Law required adulterers to be stoned. He said that the Law condemns the adultery and expresses that the adulterers are worthy of death by demanding death. However, it also judges the heart of the one who would take up stones against them. The heart that could actually stone them, is a murderous heart, even though they are fulfilling the Law to the very letter. However, the heart that looks at the Law's demand, yet finds it impossible to do out of compassion, that person's heart is right before God....even though they refused to follow the Law's demand. It's almost as though the Law is saying, "See them? Their guilty! Worthy of death, kill them! Kill them! Kill them now!" The heart that drops the stone and says, "I can't.", that heart is righteous.

Now, I'm not sure about every nuance of that take on it. But it did remind me of how Jesus dealt with the adulterous woman brought before him who was caught in the act of adultery.

I don't know if this post even fits with this topic. But it was a memory that just came back to me as I was reading.