In another thread it was suggested that the law of God is just a set of rules.

I thought this would be interesting to discuss.

"The law of God has been given to us, that we may have rules to govern our conduct." {CE 112.2}

"The law of God is simple, and easily understood. ... There is no mystery in the law of God. All can comprehend the great truths which it embodies. The feeblest intellect can grasp these rules; the most ignorant can regulate the life, and form the character after the divine standard." {NL 31.2}

"God's law is the transcript of His character, and those only who obey this law will be accepted by Him. Every departure from obedience to the law of God is rebellion. It is for the highest interest of man to obey the law of God, for conformity to the principles of this law is essential to the formation of a righteous character. The rules of life that the Lord has given will make men pure and happy and holy. Those only who obey these rules can hear from the lips of Christ the words, 'Come up higher.'" {HP 361.5}

"He [the seeker of truth] must have the assurance of the word of God as to whether he is a rebel to His law, or loyal to His rules of government." {ST, July 6, 1888 par. 11}

"God has a law, and men must keep it. If they disregard these rules, they will not have that perfection of character that will give them an entrance into the mansions above." {YI, August 18, 1886 par. 3}

"Why cannot those who claim to understand the Scriptures, see that God's requirement under grace is just the same he made in Eden,--perfect obedience to his law. In the Judgment, God will ask those who profess to be Christians, Why did you claim to believe in my Son, and continue to transgress my law? Who required this at your hands--to trample upon my rules of righteousness?" {RH, September 21, 1886 par. 16}

Good quotes Rosangela.

On a personal side the law for me means freedom. If I live by the rules God has laid out I will be happier and healthier. I'll have a closer relationship with the Creator and my fellow man. His rules are logical and just.

Redfog

Is the law just a set of rules?

It is the directions from the manufacturer about the product that He made.

In case this point of my question is not being understood, the salient word is "just." (i.e. "only," "merely," "nothing more than)

If you are making a point of the word "just", at least provide the context in which it was written:

"If there is a distinction between principles and rules, it is that rules are just the expression of principles in a way that can be better understood by creatures. So, we say that love is a principle and the ten commandments are rules. But, of course, the ten commandments are love. By saying that rules are arbitrary you are saying that the law of God is arbitrary, for the law of God is just a set of rules."

The law of God was expanded when Jesus created the human race. It takes into account those things that are unique to our condition and circumstances.

Adam and Eve Knew the Law.--Adam and Eve, at their creation, had a knowledge of the law of God. It was printed on their hearts, and they understood its claims upon them (MS 99, 1902). {1BC 1104.1}

The law of God existed before man was created. It was adapted to the condition of holy beings; even angels were governed by it. After the fall, the principles of righteousness were unchanged. Nothing was taken from the law; not one of its holy precepts could be improved. And as it has existed from the beginning, so will it continue to exist throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. "Concerning thy testimonies," says the psalmist, "I have known of old that thou hast founded them forever (ST April 15, 1886). {1BC 1104.2}

Law Suited to Holy Order of Beings.--The Sabbath of the fourth commandment was instituted in Eden. After God had made the world, and created man upon the earth, He made the Sabbath for man. After Adam's sin and fall nothing was taken from the law of God. The principles of the ten commandments existed before the fall, and where of a character suited to the condition of a holy order of beings. After the fall, the principles of those precepts were not changed, but additional precepts were given to meet man in his fallen state (3SG 295). {1BC 1104.3}

Worded to Meet Fallen Intelligences.--The law of Jehovah dating back to creation, was comprised in the two great principles, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." These two great principles embrace the first four commandments, showing the duty of man to God, and the last six, showing the duty of man to his fellowman. The principles were more explicitly stated to man after the fall, and worded to meet the case of fallen intelligences. This was necessary in consequence of the minds of men being blinded by transgression (ST April 15, 1875). {1BC 1104.4}

The law of God existed before the creation of man or else Adam could not have sinned. After the transgression of Adam the principles of the law were not changed, but were definitely arranged and expressed to meet man in his fallen condition. Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the son of God (Ibid., March 14, 1878). {1BC 1104.5}

Precepts Given to Guard Decalogue.--In consequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai. Christ gave to Moses religious precepts which were to govern everyday life. These statutes were explicitly given to guard the ten commandments. They were not shadowy types to pass away with the death of Christ. They were to be binding upon men in every age as long as time should last. These commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law (Ibid., April 15, 1875). {1BC 1104.6}

(Isa. 58:13, 14). Every Specification Is God's Character.--The God of heaven has placed a benediction upon them that keep the commandments of God. Shall we stand as a peculiar people of God, or shall we trample upon the law of God and say it is not binding? God might just as well have abolished Himself. In the law every specification is the character of the infinite God (MS 12, 1894). {1BC 1104.7}

Law Denounces Slightest Sin.--God has given His law for the regulation of the conduct of nations, of families, and of individuals. There is not one worker of wickedness, though his act be the lightest and the most secret, that escapes the denunciation of that law (MS 58, 1897). {1BC 1104.8}

Holiness Made Known.--Our duty to obey this law is to be the burden of this last message of mercy to the world. God's law is not a new thing. It is not holiness created, but holiness made known. It is a code of principles expressing mercy, goodness, and love. It presents to fallen humanity the character of God, and states plainly the whole duty of man (MS 88, 1897). {1BC 1104.9}

(John 14:15). Ten Commandments--Ten Promises.--The ten commandments, Thou shalt, and Thou shalt not, are ten promises, assured to us if we render obedience to the law governing the universe. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Here is the sum and substance of the law of God. The terms of salvation for every son and daughter of Adam are here outlined (MS 41, 1896). {1BC 1105.1}

The ten holy precepts spoken by Christ upon Sinai's mount were the revelation of the character of God, and made known to the world the fact that He had jurisdiction over the whole human heritage. That law of ten precepts of the greatest love that can be presented to man is the voice of God from heaven speaking to the soul in promise, "This do, and you will not come under the dominion and control of Satan." There is not a negative in that law, although it may appear thus. It is DO, and Live (Letter 89, 1898). {1BC 1105.2}

Rosangela, you apparently felt a need to provide a context. I didn't see the need. It wasn't my intent to quote you out of context, but I didn't see, and don't see, the need of providing the context.

But of course you should know better than I, since you are the author, and I defer to that.

So my question is, do you mean that your statement "the law is just a set of rules" should be taken in some other way than a straight forward meaning of this phrase would indicate? What about the context would change the way this phrase should be taken?

I'm not trying to make you an offender for a word. I'm interested in what you mean in saying the law is just a set of rules.

John is getting at exactly the issues I had in mind.

The law was given with the main purpose to justify God’s judgment against sinners. That is what I am sure. So, it is just indeed a set of rules: Do it and live
But because no man could keep the law perfectly thought their obedience, the law now points out their incapability; their sins.

The law is a revelation of the character of the law Giver, God couldn’t lower down his standards of righteousness and holiness to meet fallen man capability in keeping the law in order they might be justified by the law in exchange of life, therefore, God knew that all men would come under condemnation of the law to die for their sins, which justifies him to abolish sin and sinners forever from his universe one day.

In this way he might justify men by his grace without the deeds of the law through Christ redemption work, those who knew him and have faith in him and those who never hear of him.

In His love

James S

Was the law ordained to life, or to death?

If the law was given for the purpose of justifying God in killing those who disobey it, then how can God justly kill those who didn't keep it before it was given?

Quote.
Was the law ordained to life, or to death?

If the law was given for the purpose of justifying God in killing those who disobey it, then how can God justly kill those who didn't keep it before it was given?
Unquote.

Was the law ordained to life, or to death?

Romans 7:10 – And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

If the law was given for the purpose of justifying God in killing those who disobey it, then how can God justly kill those who didn't keep it before it was given?

Romans 5:13 – For until the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15 – For where no law is, there is no transgression.

Before Sinai, sin did exist but if the Law was never given to men, sin of humanity could not be imputed because if there is no law there is no transgression (what does it transgress??). But death reigned since Adam, if God didn’t give his law, men did not deserve to die because death is the wages of sin.

So, once the law was given, humanity came under its jurisdiction, their sins is imputed, since Adam till the last born in earth history and God is just to abolish sin and sinners.

In His love

James S.

James, it's difficult for me to comprehend your postion on sin and law and the death penalty. Do you agree with Sister White's insights regarding the eternal nature of God's law and kingdom and character?

By the way, I agree with the idea that the law is what justifies justice (the death penalty), but it also establishes mercy. Without the law, neither one could exist independent of arbitrary rule. That is, without God making it up.

According to the theory being presented here, God could not justly condemn the wicked who lived before the law was given, because the law, according to this theory, hadn't been given yet. God could not after the fact condemnt those who disobeyed the law for something they knew nothing about. That would be the height of injustice. The giving of the law, in this case, would not establish the justice of God, but do the reverse. May it never be!

You responded to my question of whether the law was ordained to life or death with a quote from Paul, establishing that the law was ordained to life, which was my point. The purpose of the law was for us to obtain life, not death. It was ordained to life. Paul found it to be death to him, not because of the law, or God, but because of sin.

Paul explains this just after the part you quoted (vs. 13):

Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

The law was not made death to Paul, but sin. The problem is not the law, not God, but sin.

Quote.
According to the theory being presented here, God could not justly condemn the wicked who lived before the law was given, because the law, according to this theory, hadn't been given yet. God could not after the fact condemnt those who disobeyed the law for something they knew nothing about. That would be the height of injustice. The giving of the law, in this case, would not establish the justice of God, but do the reverse. May it never be!
Unquote.

The giving of the law, in this case, would not establish the justice of God, but do the reverse. May it never be!

Is God just when he wipes out the entire Antediluvian world leaving out Noah family? What makes he just?
Is God just when he brought fire from heaven and burned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? What makes he just?
Is God just when he executed the death upon the first born of Egypt families? Hat makes he just?

The Scripture clearly said that if there is NO Law, sin IS NOT imputed.
The Scripture clearly said that if there is no law there is no transgression.

Was there a Law since Adam till Sinai?
Very naïve to say yes, the Scripture said there was no law till Sinai.

How could God execute judgment using death if there is no Law? That is INJUSTICE.

So, it is correct that the Law was given to JUSTIFY God’s judgment.

In His love

James S

Quote.
You responded to my question of whether the law was ordained to life or death with a quote from Paul, establishing that the law was ordained to life, which was my point. The purpose of the law was for us to obtain life, not death. It was ordained to life. Paul found it to be death to him, not because of the law, or God, but because of sin.

Paul explains this just after the part you quoted (vs. 13):

Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

The law was not made death to Paul, but sin. The problem is not the law, not God, but sin.
Unquote.

The Law was ordained to life, it was given to men (Israel) in order they might seek life through their obedience as according to Leviticus 18:4,5.

God knew that no man except The Son of Man might be justified by the law and rewarded with life, but still give it to men? Why? What is the purpose to give a law to man but no man might keep it perfectly to obtain righteousness that brought life?

Is it to points out their sins or is it to justify them to live eternally as a reward for their perfect righteousness in obeying the law?

It is to justify men to live by keeping the law perfectly. That is the purpose of the law given, which has justified Christ to live and thus justify him to be our sin redeemer.

Pointing sins out and condemn men because of their sins is the indirect result of the presence of the Law. The Law shows men failures to keep the law perfectly because of their inability, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and thus, if not justifying the law would condemn, and the condemnation is death as the wages of their sins.

I agree with you that the problem is sin and not the law. The law only condemns sinners with death and thus justifies God to abolish sin and sinners with death as a means, because he is the Law Giver.

In His Love

James S.

Quote.
James, it's difficult for me to comprehend your position on sin and law and the death penalty. Do you agree with Sister White's insights regarding the eternal nature of God's law and kingdom and character?

By the way, I agree with the idea that the law is what justifies justice (the death penalty), but it also establishes mercy. Without the law, neither one could exist independent of arbitrary rule. That is, without God making it up.
Unquote.

Maybe through my replies to Tom above you come to know better.

But BTW, could you explain in brief what is “Sister White's insights regarding the eternal nature of God's law and kingdom and character?”

In His love

James S

JP: But BTW, could you explain in brief what is “Sister White's insights regarding the eternal nature of God's law and kingdom and character?”

MM: All three are based on God's timelessness. The principles of God's law are as eternal as He is. Thus, the law was not created. Instead, it has always been. In other words, He didn't have to make it up in order to execute judgment or offer mercy.

When I presented the question, I didn't say who said it. I was interested in the idea. It appears from your response that you agree with me, that the law of God is *not* just a set of rules, and the word "just" could have been chosen a little better, as in the word "precisely." However, quite a number of seemed to jump into the thread defending the idea that the law of God *is* just a set of rules. So it's making for an interesting thread.

A key question to consider is if God could have chosen some other set of rules. That's what would make it abritrary. If by a "set of rules," what is means is an enunciation of the principles which make up His character, as best suited for human being, then it seems to me that we are in agreement.

The point I was making was that the law of God was not something God made up, as if it could have been something different than what it was. God gave it as a hedge to protect us from the negative effects of disobeying it, which would have existed even had the law had not been given, as James is making evident in his posts.


Tom

James, I'm not understanding you. One the one hand you say God gave the law so He could justly kill people, and on the other you say He killed people before He gave the law, and that sin is not imputed where there is no law. So it looks to me like you are contradicting yourself.

The law is a transcript of God's character. God's character existed before the law was given. The law didn't create any new thing about God's character. Judgment has to do with how we match up to God's character. We are either in harmony with God's character or not, regardless of whether the law had been given. The law doesn't make us anything we weren't already. It's a dianostic tool. It recognizes sin, and it recognizes righteousness.

I didn't understand the EGW question you directed to me.

Quote.
JS: But BTW, could you explain in brief what is “Sister White's insights regarding the eternal nature of God's law and kingdom and character?”

MM: All three are based on God's timelessness. The principles of God's law are as eternal as He is. Thus, the law was not created. Instead, it has always been. In other words, He didn't have to make it up in order to execute judgment or offer mercy.
Unquote.

I disagree if the law is not created, it was written by God's own finger. And God must issue a legal written law to execute his judgment. He must, otherwise he is unjust, unfair, a tyrant and dictator , precise as what Satan said about him and no one would love him.

In His love

James S.

Tom.

My line of though is clear that in order to justify what happened to men ever since Adam and Eve was expelled from Eden, God must issue a legal written law , without that he would be seen as a Tyrant, Dictator and not a loving God.

Enforcing his judgment without a set of rules, a written law, is showing his injustice and tyranny.

Therefore, when the time is right (at Sinai) God issued his written law, written by his Own finger, if he think it is not important to issue his law, he might command people to do what he wants without ever issuing a law written by his own finger.

Once the law was issued all men came under condemnation (Romans 3:19), because the Decalogue was not mean to be for Israel only and came in force just after the time it was issued, but it covers people and the time since the fall of Adam (when there is no law yet) till heaven and earth pass (Matthew 5:18).

If God never issued a written law (the Decalogue), then his judgment against men ever since the fall of Adam is UNJUST and NOT FAIR . Because when there is no law, there is no transgression and when there is no law, sin is not imputed, but nevertheless death reigned from the time of Adam’s fall till the issuing of the law at Sinai (Romans 5:13, 14).

It is clear, that I make a clear distinction between orally spoken law or commandments and written law (the Decalogue). The time when there is no written law, Paul refers as when there is no law, which I agree.

Romans 5:13 (NIV).
….., for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

No matter the law is a transcript of His character that exist ever since there is God, but to be JUST and FAIR, God must make it written to legalize and justify his judgment.

In His love

James S

The purpose for this thread is to pursue the question of if the law of God is simply a set of rules. Let's try that word. Whether we use the word "just" or "precisely" or "merely" or "only" or "simply" or whatever, my question remains the same.

Consider that the law is a transcript of God's character. Also the law is called "truth" by the Psalmest, and we are that it's end is "life."

Also the ten commandments may be viewed as ten promises, which have their Amen in Christ, to be received by faith.

Can these things be adequately encapsulated by the phrase "just a set of rules"?

James, if there were no law, then, by your own argument, God can not execute judgment on those who lived before the legal document was drafted.

For God to execute generations of men based on a document which He wrote hundreds or thousands of years after they lived would be the height of injustice! The law can only be a standard of justice for those who lived before it was formerly given at Sinai if it already existed in some form, and Paul brings out that it did exist in Romans 1 and 2, in that God has revealed Himself to all men so that they are without excuse.

Also the law was not ordained to death, but to life. It is sin which causes death, not the law, which Paul points out:

And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Rom. 7:10-14)

The problem is not with the law, but with sin. And the purpose for which God gave the law was not to condemn, but to save! God's character was revealed perfectly in Jesus Christ, who repeatedly told us that He came not to condemn, or to judge, or to destroy, but to save.

The law cooperates in our salvation by making clear our sin, and by making clear to us the righteousness of God, so that we will be driven to Jesus Christ in whom we can find pardon for our sin and the righteousness which the law declares.

James, the truth about God's existence was not written until Moses wrote about it hundreds of years after the Flood. Does this mean God did not exist until Moses wrote about Him? I'm sure you will answer - No. So, then, why are you insisting the law did not exist until Jesus gave it to Moses on tables of stone? Abraham obeyed the moral law long before it was ever written. I agree, however, that the other laws were new to Israel.

Quote.
James, if there were no law, then, by your own argument, God can not execute judgment on those who lived before the legal document was drafted.
Unquote.

I disagree! It is not my argument, but Paul:” ….., for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.” Romans 5:13 (NIV).
“Nevertheless death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses ………….” Romans 5:14 (NIV).

Clearly stated here:
1. The law was given at a later stage than the entering of sin in this world.
2. Death reigned from the time of Adam’s fall till Moses time when the law was given at Sinai
3. The time within Adam’s fall till Sinai when the Ten Commandments was given to Moses, is a time “before the law was given” IOW “when there is no law.”
4. If there is no law sin should not be taken into account, because, if there is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4:15)
5. But nevertheless death reigned in the time when there is no law, which is a time since the fall of Adam till Moses.

These are not my argument but Paul, the same with what I think that death which happened to people at the time when there is no law is an event that needs to be justified , because there is God Creator of heaven and earth and King of the universe. Therefore, the Law at last was issued at Sinai, written by God’s own finger on blocks of stone, to enunciate to mankind that this Decalogue is the law of God that God is the author of the Decalogue : Do it and live!

The implication to those who transgress God’s law is death, which by the issuance of this written law, is justified.

Ever since Sinai, through the Decalogue God has a legal law to justify his judgment.

Sorry Tom, we couldn’t get to agreement because I think you have seen it wrong.

In His love

James S

So it was not a sin for Cain to kill Able since there was no law against it?

Redfog

James, what you have presented is not Paul's argument, but the reverse. Paul is not arguing that there was a time when the law did not exist. As Mike pointed out, it is written that Abraham obeyed God, and kept His commandments. Paul is speaking of the time the law was formerly given, when it was spoken by Him at Sinai, but if what you are suggesting were true, then God would not be just, but unjust, because how could God execute people after the fact for a law He gave *after* they had committed whatever crimes they were supposedly guilty of? How does this make any sense?

If I cross an intersection in my car, where there isn't any stop sign, can a cop write me a ticked for running a stop sign which is put in some years after I've moved to another state?

When God tells us to "do it and live!" it is as a loving Father who has given us wise counsel. He is telling us the principles which lead to life, happiness and peace. We see the fruit of these principles in the life of Christ, who was the Law personfied. We see the perfect picture of love, which is what God's character looks like. It is not God saying, "Do it, or else!"

Rules are arbitrary if there is no inherent reason for their existence. If you think the Ten Commandments were given as a practical expression of God's love, then we are in agreement.

The principles of God's government can be summed in a single word: love. In two "words" they would be, love for God, and love for others. In ten, they would be the ten commandments.

These principles were explained to man so that he could know happiness, life and peace. The punishment for breaking these principles is suffering, misery and death.

There is nothing arbitrary involved here. The arbitrariness comes not from using the word "rule" or not, but from the idea that the breaking of the law is punished by some artificial, or imposed, means, rather than as the outworking of principles that are out of harmony with God's character.

Waggoner expresses this point well:

All who sin are treasuring up for themselves wrath. It should be noted that in the judgement God is clear. Men receive only what they have worked for. God is not arbitrary. He has not fixed arbitrary decrees, and declared that whoever violates them shall be visited with vengeance. The punishment that will come upon the wicked is the necessary result of their own choice. God is the only source of life.

His life is peace. Now when men reject him, the only alternative for them is wrath and death. "For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord; they would none of my counsel; they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them." Prov. 1:29-32. Trouble and death are bound up in sin; they are what men choose when they refuse the Lord. (Waggoner on Romans, chapter 2)

This is the point I was wishing to make. If you agree with what Waggoner said here, then we are in agreement.

So it was not a sin for Cain to kill Able since there was no law against it?

Redfog

According to Paul, even it was a sin (for sin was in the world since Adam's fall) but because there was no law yet (was just given to Moses at Sinai hundreds of years later)it should not be taken into account and would never be if the law never come.

I my self will say yes, if there is no law (Decalogue) you may kill, steal, commit adultery, etc.

In His love

james S

Quote.
…., but if what you are suggesting were true, then God would not be just, but unjust, because how could God execute people after the fact for a law He gave *after* they had committed whatever crimes they were supposedly guilty of? How does this make any sense?

If I cross an intersection in my car, where there isn't any stop sign, can a cop write me a ticked for running a stop sign which is put in some years after I've moved to another state?
Unquote.

What is the punishment of Adam when he sinned in Eden?
What is the punishment for those who sins at the time since Adam’s fall till Moses?
What is the punishment for those who sins at the time of Moses till the cross of Christ?
What is the punishment for those who sins at the time of Christ till the end of the world?

They all have one single punishment: Death, same as Adam who must die for his single transgression. But why should we die, even we did not sin after the similitude of Adam’s transgression? Because the wages of sin is death; a single and universal punishment for transgressors of the law of God.

So, it doesn’t matter God presented his Decalogue right away after Adam’s fall or 1,000 years later or 2,000 years later, it would just justify him for the execution of death against sinners to abolish sin forever from his universe at the end of time.

Remember, when there is no law, there is no transgression and when there is no law, sin is not taken into account, IOW, sin is not imputed, then death should not happened to men, but nevertheless they die still. Whether this is the 1st death or eternal death, it doesn’t matter. Because if the law is not given, Christ wouldn’t come and we remain in our grave forever.

So, to answer these questions, God, if he doesn’t want to be seen as a Dictator and a Tyrant MUST ISSUE his own law, to justify his judgment. Orally spoken laws and commandments could not be taken into judgment, that is the point.

Therefore we see that Christ resurrection was a proof that God is just, and his law is just. Christ is the only “man” in earth history that was justified by the law for his perfect righteousness in obeying the law and God rewards him with life. “Do it and live” comes true; God is not a liar.

On the other hand, all men came under condemnation for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, the law could justify no one; the result: all must die legally.

“All” here of course refers to all men from all times who was created by the Law Giver.

In his love

James S.

I have an interesting sermon about this topic. If anyone is interested, let me know; I can pass on a transcript or an mp3 file. If length is not a problem, I could also post it to be read.

It is about why God gave laws and the errors many Christians make about God's Law. It even uses the heading text of this forum.