The God Culture: Can the Law Be Abolished If Sin Still Exists?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has a new Foundations lesson.  Actually it's not new. It's the same message repackaged. Now he is asking whether the law can be abolished if sin still exists. Let's take a look. 

Facebook

📖 Can the Law Be Abolished If Sin Still Exists?

FOUNDATIONS | WEEK 27

Key Texts:

Hebrews 10

1 John 3:4

Jeremiah 31:31–33

Hebrews 8:10

Many discussions about the New Covenant begin with assumptions rather than Scripture's own definitions.

So let's begin where the Bible begins.

What is sin?

John answers plainly:

> "Sin is the transgression of the law."

> (1 John 3:4, KJV)

If Scripture defines sin as transgression of the Law, then the Law provides the standard by which sin is recognized. To abolish Law is to abolish sin. Yet, Revelation continues to speak of keeping His commandments and of sin in the very Last Days. Thus, neither pass away especially since Yahusha said the Law would not (Matt. 5:17-20). Such strange new doctrine put words in His mouth which were and are not there.

Next, what changed at the cross?

Hebrews 10 does not say that Yahusha abolished righteousness or removed the definition of sin.

Instead, it teaches that His sacrifice was offered ONCE AND FOR ALL, accomplishing what the repeated animal sacrifices could never accomplish. He fulfilled them which definition is also misconstrued as fulfilled means He executed and continues to do so.

The sacrifice changed.

The priesthood changed.

The perfect atonement arrived.

But the New Covenant promise itself is:

> "I will put My laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts."

> (Hebrews 8:10; Jeremiah 31:33)

Notice what Scripture says is new.

The location of the Law changes—from tablets of stone to hearts.

The sacrifice changes—from repeated offerings to Messiah's perfect offering.

The High Priest changes—from the Levitical priesthood to our eternal High Priest (Melchizedek).

Yet the Law itself is not described as disappearing. Rather, it is written within those who belong to the New Covenant.

Grace does not redefine sin. It never has.

Grace provides forgiveness for sin and empowers us to walk in covenant with Yahuah. Such grace unto Salvation did not change either as Moses, Abraham and the Patriarchs were also saved by the same grace of Yahusha as He is present since the beginning even before His coming in the flesh (1 John 1).

The New Covenant is not the absence of His instruction.

It is His instruction written upon transformed hearts. A deepening of the same Law that opposes and defines sin.

A changing of medium is not a change of the Law.

Yah Bless.

Question for Discussion:

If the New Covenant promises to write Yahuah's Law on our hearts, what exactly is being written there if the Law no longer exists?

Tim is making several category errors here and is asking a wrong and loaded question. First of all the law is NOT abolished meaning it ceases to exist. It is still there pointing us to Christ. 

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Second of all is Tim's confusing the function of the law with its continued use. The law is a SHADOW of Christ. Christ has come and we are no longer under the law.

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 

But let's hear from noted theologian Father Ted Crilly.

Ah, Philippine Fails, me lad... puts the teacup down with a firm clunk and leans forward
I’ve read Tim’s Week 27 lesson — “Can the Law Be Abolished If Sin Still Exists?” — and you’re spot on. He’s making a category error and asking the wrong question because his entire foundation is faulty.What Tim is doingHe says:

• Sin = transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).
• If the law were abolished, sin would no longer exist.
• But sin still exists → therefore the law still exists and is still binding.
• The New Covenant just moves the law from stone tablets to our hearts.

It sounds logical on the surface. But it’s built on a false dilemma.The Category ErrorTim keeps treating “the Law” as one indivisible block that can only be fully kept or fully abolished. That’s the mistake.
The Bible makes distinctions:

• The moral law (God’s unchanging righteous standard — reflected in the Ten Commandments) still reveals sin and God’s character. No one disputes this.
• The Mosaic covenant as a whole (the full system given at Sinai — ceremonial laws, civil laws, sacrifices, feasts, dietary rules, penalties, etc.) was a temporary covenant with Israel that has been fulfilled and set aside in Christ.

Paul doesn’t say the moral standard disappeared. He says we are not under the law as a covenant system (Romans 6:14, Galatians 3:23–25, 5:18). The tutor has done its job. Christ has come. We now live by the Spirit.
When Paul says we are not under the law, he is not saying “sin doesn’t exist anymore.” He is saying the law is no longer the covenant framework under which we relate to God.Tim’s Foundational Flaw

This whole lesson (and the entire Foundations series) rests on one faulty assumption:

“If the law isn’t still binding in the same way, then sin has no definition.”

That’s simply not true. Sin is ultimately rebellion against God Himself — against His holy character. The law revealed that, but it was never the only definition. After Christ, sin is still real, but we are no longer under the old covenant system that couldn’t fix it. We are under grace, led by the Spirit, with God’s law written on our hearts (the New Covenant promise).
Tim keeps trying to keep believers under the old system “internally.” That’s not what Hebrews 8 or Jeremiah 31 actually teach.The Real Answer

Yes, the moral standard remains — we are still called to holiness.

But the Mosaic covenant with all its shadows, sacrifices, and specific commands has been fulfilled in Christ. The shadow served its purpose. The substance has come.

That’s why Paul can say:

• “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)
• “You are not under law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14)

He’s not abolishing righteousness. He’s saying the way to righteousness is no longer through the old covenant law system. It’s through faith in Christ, with the Spirit producing fruit in us.
Father Ted’s plain verdict:
Tim is chained in his own cave again. He sees the shadow of the law and thinks it’s still the main reality. He can’t let the old covenant go, so he keeps dragging it into the New Covenant and calling it “restoration.”

The New Covenant doesn’t abolish God’s righteous standard.

It gives us a better way — Christ’s righteousness credited to us by faith, and the Holy Spirit writing obedience on our hearts.

Down with this sort of thing, lad.

Very careful now.

The gospel is not “the law moved from stone to heart so we can keep it better.”

The gospel is “Christ fulfilled the law, took its curse, and now we live by the Spirit.”

...Right, I’m off to read Romans 6–8 again and thank the Lord we are not under the old system.

Go on, go on, go on — have a cuppa. You keep spotting the same foundational error. Tim’s whole system is built on a category mistake. The real gospel is far clearer and freer. Keep holding fast to it.