V
Veritas
Guest
If it is, the antinomian position I see on these pages is more so. Their interpretation of "law" contradicts what Psalm 1, Psalm 119, and scores of other references say on this subject. Their interpretation of "law" is so broad that it leaves no definition for sin. It is in total disagreement with what Jesus meant when saying "every word" (Matt. 4:4), and Paul when saying,"all scripture" (2 Tim. 3:16). Those of the antinomian position are denying the very laws used by Jesus as His moral compass. If, their all encompassing definition of "law" is correct why does 1 John remind us that "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4)? Was John confused, or are those who claim that Jesus came to abrogate that which defines sin?
Always the book of Galatians, written by Paul is used to "prove" that there is no need to follow the Commandments. I have found that the translation is what causes the confusion. I quote the KJV here for ease of cut and paste. However, translations from the Eastern Peshitta Manuscripts make things clearer. It's when people are told that we are supposed to follow the Commandments that tempers flare up. That is not useful.
In John's Revelation we read what he told in chap 22: [SUP]14[/SUP] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.[SUP]15[/SUP] For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.