What have you understood about the charcater of The Ten Commandments??

[from scratch]

The observation of fact remains. Your version of grace is against sin no different than the law by your own statements.

Take it up sometime.

So would you kindly give us a definitive statement about the operation of the law and one of grace? Obviously both aren't the same thing. I maintain that neither have the same goal or purpose.

 

[squint]

So would you kindly give us a definitive statement about the operation of the law and one of grace? Obviously both aren't the same thing. I maintain that neither have the same goal or purpose.

Trying to meet on common ground for both sides of the discussion in pointing out that both law and grace proponents agree on one major consideration. One which you seem reluctant to extend.

That being that Grace is not in favor of sin, does not sanctify sin and does not authorize sin.

Your statements are no different than the legalist in this regards of being against sin. Is this a difficult concept for you to concede to?

Why don't you acknowledge that fact for them? They certainly have extended that agreement to you.

s

 

[Rev Randy]

I am not aware of becoming sinless by grace. I doubt if too many Lutherans of any flavor would see it that way either.

So no theosis for the Lutheran? Bummer.

 

[squint]

So no theosis for the Lutheran? Bummer.

Nah, the conveyance of temporary sinlessness is not on the agenda from what I recall anyway, if that is the theosis conveyance.

Everyone of us remains planted in weakness, dishonor, corruption and a natural body until it is otherwise put off.

 

[from scratch]

Trying to meet on common ground for both sides of the discussion in pointing out that both law and grace proponents agree on one major consideration. One which you seem reluctant to extend.

That being that Grace is not in favor of sin, does not sanctify sin and does not authorize sin.

Your statements are no different than the legalist in this regards of being against sin. Is this a difficult concept for you to concede to?

Why don't you acknowledge that fact for them? They certainly have extended that agreement to you.

s

If the law equals or is the same as grace, why are they called 2 different things?

They don't work the same way. Neither brings a utopia some seek. The law demands performance and grace doesn't.

I've no clue where you get the idea someone let alone me say grace sanctifies sin.

Certainly neither the law nor grace favor sin. Yes my statements are very different from those who favor the law over grace.

Who here is authorizing sin? It sure isn't me. I haven't read anyone else doing it either.

 

[squint]

If the law equals or is the same as grace, why are they called 2 different things?

Not in regards to matters of sin, which they are both obviously against.

Why try to differentiate when they are rightfully the same, against sin?

 

[from scratch]

When Paul uses the word Law he means the response God requires from men, both Jew and Gentile. Those who sin without the Jewish Law will be judged without the Jewish Law, ie by the eternal, universal law.


Romans 2
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

IOW, law represented a result bound contract between God and Man.

After the Cross, this contract was abolished, not the law. IOW, the terms (not requirements) were null and void because the contractual obligations had been met, the result delivered.

Now, the requirements still exist (and will continue to exist as long as man exists!), but the terms have changed. The old terms were:


1. Hear the Law
2. Observe the Law
3. Realise the impossibility of meeting its requirements.
4. Realise the need for God to intervene.
5. Realise that God's solution would be the result of the promise to Abraham, analogous to Isaac, who was the result of a similar promise to Abraham:

Promise 1
The world would be blessed through Abraham's Seed

Promise 2
Abraham would have a son

Parallel for Promise 1
Israel tried to bless the world through their own seeds, resulting in the world being blessed through keeping of the Law. The result was a being put under a shackle.

Parallel for Promise 2
Abraham tried to have a son through Hagar, a slave. The result was a son born to slavery.


Bottomline, Ishmael was Abraham's effort at fulfilling Gods Promise, just as Israel's wrong observance of Torah was her effort at fulfilling Gods Promise.


How was Israel supposed to fulfill law? The way Abraham should have fulfilled God's promise, by believing it. God promised He would act, Israel should have believed. Because God did act. He sent Christ.

What became different when Christ came?

When Christ came, He made the only reparation possible, acceptable: a sinless sacrifice. Sinless because He needed to bear the sins of others. A sinful man could only bear the consequences of his own sin.

When Christ came, He gave rest, closure. The law was supposed to bring awareness of sin and dependence on God, and protection from its penalties, and closure, by giving life through union with God (there I said it). It didn't, because what could man unite with, without God sending the union partner, the destination, the Promised Land? All that Law could do was to recognise repentance, resulting in immunity, salvation, safekeeping by virtue of its pedagogic role, which was what John the Baptist taught. It could not give life, which was had by resting, abiding, in Christ.

Resting in Christ resulted in abillty to meet all the requirements of the Law.

Galatians 3
13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”— 14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Now I can post till the cows come home, show you this motif throughout Scripture, attempt to cover different aspects of the teaching, but really, coming out with your doubts would be much easier to reach a comprehensive view... and faster.

DO post what you feel is not clear, and definitely, point out the weaknesses in the argumentation. Blessings to be had for all, me included, because we could discover fresh truths, together!

What exactly are you calling the law?

 

[from scratch]

Not aware of the conveyance of sinless perfection in this present life by any Lutheran body I'm aware of.

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

 

[squint]

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Some people just don't get it.

 

[Rev Randy]

Nah, the conveyance of temporary sinlessness is not on the agenda from what I recall anyway, if that is the theosis conveyance.

Everyone of us remains planted in weakness, dishonor, corruption and a natural body until it is otherwise put off.

Not quite the meaning. Perfection explains it better.

 

[squint]

Not quite the meaning. Perfection explains it better.

I am not aware of conveyance in the Word for the sinless perfection of the flesh in this present life.

 

[from scratch]

You understand that nothing that was said therein denigrates the Law and it's rightful working and place for believers?

Paul died daily for cause. That cause was the presence of indwelling sin, of evil present, of the messenger of Satan in his own flesh, of the temptation he admittedly carried.

I thank GOD for showing us an honest man.

s

The law has no rightful place in the life of the believer (Christian) according to 1 Tim 1:9.

 

[from scratch]

Not in regards to matters of sin, which they are both obviously against.

Why try to differentiate when they are rightfully the same, against sin?

I'm not saying any such thing. Both are against sin.

 

[squint]

I'm not saying any such thing. Both are against sin.

Bravo. Now maybe you and the legalist have common ground to work from.

 

[from scratch]

Who's arguing? I just deny that squeezing ourselves in on one side or the other won't compute and was never meant to compute.

So sez u. Grace as you yourself note is every bit against sin.

No idea what yer talkin about there. Most here are supposed to be believers. If a stray or two happens to learn something good on them.

That is why your argument is no different than the legalist. Both parties rightfully I might add, do not prosper or promote sin in either case. So all the straining against those 'trying' to live legally in order to not sin would be no different than YOU trying not to sin under GRACE.

get it yet?

Under grace I find I don't have to struggle with sin. I have more a natural tendency to do what is right(eous). I don't entertain sin. I didn't say temptation isn't placed in my path. Mostly I don't even pay it any attention and it soon passes.

To say trying to live in separation from sin is self righteous now? What hat did you pull that one out of?

No living legally won't qualify one as righteous self or other wise. That has nothing to do with liberty.

All the attributed righteousness you claim is not going to let a single sin crack through the door either.

No, but that righteousness from God is what is required. The carnal aspect of a Christian's life is dead or their not a Christian. IOW the carnal isn't born again as Nicodemus noted to Jesus. Strangely Paul agrees with this if one reads Romans.

It is not carnal to divide and separate from SIN by any measure my friend. That is the call of christian life.

s

 

[squint]

The law has no rightful place in the life of the believer (Christian) according to 1 Tim 1:9.

I have no idea how you could derive that meaning from 1 Tim. 1:9 as obviously that is not true.

The law is for? Sinners.

s

 

[from scratch]

I understand your efforts to try to drag the entirety of yourself through the door of grace. Gods Law and Grace are against sin. There is no getting around this fact by any measure of fancy theological footwork.

s

You don't understand. So don't try and put words in my mouth about me trying to take my old sinful flesh nature anywhere much less heaven.

 

[squint]

Under grace I find I don't have to struggle with sin. I have more a natural tendency to do what is right(eous). I don't entertain sin. I didn't say temptation isn't placed in my path. Mostly I don't even pay it any attention and it soon passes.No living legally won't qualify one as righteous self or other wise. That has nothing to do with liberty.No, but that righteousness from God is what is required. The carnal aspect of a Christian's life is dead or their not a Christian. IOW the carnal isn't born again as Nicodemus noted to Jesus. Strangely Paul agrees with this if one reads Romans.

If you are claiming to be sinless under grace just say so.

 

[Elder 111]

If it's that simple where in the N.T. does God say, contextually, keep the Sabbath?

Jack

The N. T. does not have a passage like that, that I can recall. What I see is that it was kept by Jesus and the disciples/apostles. There is not a statement that says not to keep it either.
There is not a statement in the N.T. that says you should not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, how should we view that?

 

[from scratch]

Bravo. Now maybe you and the legalist have common ground to work from.

No the legalist is take all or nothing. There is no working with them.