Time for the truth 7

[listed]

You'll have to talk to God about that.

No I can still read and believe.

 

[VictorC]

The picture you have painted is not what God has demonstrated. Your claim is that to acknowledge God's holy Ten commandment law as still binding on us is to commit adultery against Jesus.

False - it isn't me making that claim, but rather a New Testament author inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Adultery is to have a relationship with someone other than your husband, in this case Christ/God. The Ten commandments originated and was given by the same God/Jesus. So how can there be adultery? Can one commit adultery with one's own Husband now? obedience is a another word for adultery now?

Adultery in this narrative is having two spouses concurrently - the Law and Jesus Christ. You can belong to one or the other, but claiming to belong to both is spiritual adultery.

Your appeal to Romans 7 does not help your cause, for a holy consideration of the text demonstrates the complete opposite to what you have portrayed.

We'll see who is taking the opposite view of the narrative

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (What does he mean here? the answer is given in the next verses)

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. (is it not clear here that we violated the law in our fleshly state committing sins which would cause eternal death, we do not need a theologian to decode that for us here!)

The text is clear to me. Following the motions of the Law is performed in the flesh, which as presented with past-tense verbs shows the condition of "those who know the law" (v. 7:1) before their current salvation in Jesus Christ.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (We are delivered from the law, how? By the removal of the law? No!! but by walking in newness of the Spirit!! We don't do what we use to do! That is confirmed below.)

You make up the most imaginative junk to avoid the text. In this example, the Law isn't removed, but rather God's redeemed are removed from the Law. Other epistles use prose that removes the Law and leaves the redeemed (Hebrews), but the end effect is the same either way: the Law has no jurisdiction over God's redeemed.

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

There's that quote from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 -you shall not covet- that shows without a doubt "the law" in this narrative is the Ten Commandments, otherwise known as the Mosaic covenant or the covenant from Mount Sinai.

So this text confirms that there is no adultery in keeping the law of God as you want to suggest.

It is the inspired author who makes that claim - not me. I simply accept the text at face value. Not you! Look at the language you use in this retort: "keeping the law of God". Where does the author mention anything about "keeping" the Law?
Nowhere.
He describes your performance in the flesh as motions, as the KJV you used translates it. Not "keeping".
We already know you don't keep the Law. You're just going through the motions and pretending reality matches your self-induced delusion.
God knows this.
That's why He inspired the author of this epistle to describe your motions in this manner, and He knew your condition 2000 years before you entered onto the scene.

Throughout your post, you made conclusions quite the opposite of what the text actually says. Making a claim that the Law retains you concurrent with your claim of Christ's redemption (from what, you don't acknowledge) is the same as claiming to belonging to two spouses at the same time - which is adultery.

How I summarized the text is completely accurate.

If adultery is your latest hot button (wonder why?), then it would behoove you to review the first seven verses of Romans 7. Paul also draws on the prohibition against adultery, shows that those who try to remain the property of the Law concurrent with Jesus Christ are committing adultery, and shows that those who were retained by the Law in the past tense have been delivered from it. He then documents "the law" in his narrative by quoting from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21, showing that we have been delivered from the Ten Commandments.

But it seems you're determined to claim two spouses and remain in an adulterous affair. That's what the old-covenant "christianity" of Adventism has led you to live.

 

[maco]

No God's Spirit never leads a man to his twisted thinking. Surely you can not rightly say God is leading the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches to allow and promote gay marriage. You assign things to people improperly and unjustly. What more proof does one need that you are promoting religion and not a relationship with God?

So what you're saying is that Presbyterians and Episcopalians are not Christians?

 

[listed]

So what you're saying is that Presbyterians and Episcopalians are not Christians?

Not at all. Most all if not every church has ungodly participants including yours. In some well most even the leadership are ungodly simply making easy money. IOW it is nothing more than an easy means to feed their mouths.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Not at all. Most all if not every church has ungodly participants including yours. In some well most even the leadership are ungodly simply making easy money. IOW it is nothing more than an easy means to feed their mouths.

I agree that membership to a group of "Christians" doesn't make you saved which is the true definition of a Christian IMO.

 

[maco]

Not at all. Most all if not every church has ungodly participants including yours. In some well most even the leadership are ungodly simply making easy money. IOW it is nothing more than an easy means to feed their mouths.

Did not Jesus die for the sins of the whole world? Are they not under grace? Are you saying that you have the ability to judge one's position with God?

 

[listed]

Did not Jesus die for the sins of the whole world? Are they not under grace? Are you saying that you have the ability to judge one's position with God?

Seems to me we are authorized to look at fruit.

 

[Elder 111]

I do not believe you have a clue what Paul is saying. Your take is Paul is promoting the law even when he says - But now we are delivered form the law.

Of course. Not deliver from keeping the law for that is obvious but deliver from the condemnation of the law by not violating the law. That is what you fail to comprehend. We can not be delivered from not lying, stealing or coveting can we? Are we deliver from serving God only? Starting thinking! The key to this is that Paul said we are deliver from death, which is the result of violating the law.

 

[listed]

Of course. Not deliver from keeping the law for that is obvious but deliver from the condemnation of the law by not violating the law. That is what you fail to comprehend. We can not be delivered from not lying, stealing or coveting can we? Are we deliver from serving God only? Starting thinking! The key to this is that Paul said we are deliver from death, which is the result of violating the law.

Well pardon my ignorance, but where do you get delivered from condemnation of the law in Romans 7?

 

[listed]

Of course. Not deliver from keeping the law for that is obvious but deliver from the condemnation of the law by not violating the law. That is what you fail to comprehend. We can not be delivered from not lying, stealing or coveting can we? Are we deliver from serving God only? Starting thinking! The key to this is that Paul said we are deliver from death, which is the result of violating the law.

Please explain how we are delivered from the law means we are free to sin.

Paul no where says we are free from punishment. Is avoiding punishment why you run from the law to grace? Does that not cancel out the law? My guess is you are merely using grace as a free pass and get out of jail free card.

 

[Elder 111]

There's that quote from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 -you shall not covet- that shows without a doubt "the law" in this narrative is the Ten Commandments, otherwise known as the Mosaic covenant or the covenant from Mount Sinai.



How I summarized the text is completely accurate.

No It is not!
I have taken out the above of your reply to prove a point, and it is this.
You have claimed that Paul is talking about the Ten commandments because he mentions coveting which is of the ten. Yet when the same is done by James in James 2:11, the emphatic response is that James is not talking about the ten. Paul quotes one command James quotes two, one says yes to the ten but two does not qualify. That is plain hypocrisy on the part of all that do so.

 

[listed]

No It is not!
I have taken out the above of your reply to prove a point, and it is this.
You have claimed that Paul is talking about the Ten commandments because he mentions coveting which is of the ten. Yet when the same is done by James in James 2:11, the emphatic response is that James is not talking about the ten. Paul quotes one command James quotes two, one says yes to the ten but two does not qualify. That is plain hypocrisy on the part of all that do so.

Have never seen either used before in the way you claim Paul is citing the 10 Cs. I always use both of them showing the 10 Cs are the law. I am sure VictorC does as well.

 

[Elder 111]

Well pardon my ignorance, but where do you get delivered from condemnation of the law in Romans 7?

The example given is of a woman being married. The law of adultery does not change if the husbands dies, but here relationship to the law. If she remarried after the death of the husband the law of adultery goes no where. She will still be guilty if the has another man while the second husband is alive. So it is not delivered from keeping the law is it?

 

[listed]

The example given is of a woman being married. The law of adultery does not change if the husbands dies, but here relationship to the law. If she remarried after the death of the husband the law of adultery goes no where. She will still be guilty if the has another man while the second husband is alive. So it is not delivered from keeping the law is it?

It appears to me you are lacking in communication skills. Paul is not talking about women. Paul is talking about the law using marriage as an illustrative tool. In the narrative the woman's husband is the law. I just imagine you have the same problem with Romans 6.

 

[Elder 111]

Have never seen either used before in the way you claim Paul is citing the 10 Cs. I always use both of them showing the 10 Cs are the law. I am sure VictorC does as well.

But you want to tell me that it is all the law and not just the ten C's. Have you forgotten? My point is that if I am talking about sheep it is sheep I am talking about. If James mentions things of the Ten C's it is the ten C's he talking about, so that James says that if we break one of the ten commandments we are guilty of all. Which means that James confirm the ten C's as still binding which is not what you would have that is why the plain understanding is denied.

 

[Elder 111]

It appears to me you are lacking in communication skills. Paul is not talking about women. Paul is talking about the law using marriage as an illustrative tool. In the narrative the woman's husband is the law. I just imagine you have the same problem with Romans 6.

Brother I used the same analogy the demonstrate our relationship to the law.

 

[listed]

But you want to tell me that it is all the law and not just the ten C's. Have you forgotten? My point is that if I am talking about sheep it is sheep I am talking about. If James mentions things of the Ten C's it is the ten C's he talking about, so that James says that if we break one of the ten commandments we are guilty of all. Which means that James confirm the ten C's as still binding which is not what you would have that is why the plain understanding is denied.

There are no NT personalities referring to the law in the way you do. Every personality in the NT says the law when quoting any aspect of the law. The prophets refer to the law the same way.

 

[listed]

Brother I used the same analogy the demonstrate our relationship to the law.

Do not ever call me brother again as long as you push the law as an obligation for Christians and condition of salvation. Judaism is not Christianity and I am not a Jew. I also am not black.

If the husband (law) dies the wife is free too marry another (grace). You maintain we are obligated to both the dead husband (the law) and grace (the living husband). If you are married to another (grace) and wish to have a marital relationship with the dead husband you not only are committing adultery but also necrophilia compounding sin. In the Scripture only men were allowed to have more than 1 spouse.

 

[VictorC]

No It is not!

Note that you didn't identify a single item that is "wrong" in my summary. In fact, you didn't respond to anything I posted.

I have taken out the above of your reply to prove a point, and it is this.
You have claimed that Paul is talking about the Ten commandments because he mentions coveting which is of the ten. Yet when the same is done by James in James 2:11, the emphatic response is that James is not talking about the ten. Paul quotes one command James quotes two, one says yes to the ten but two does not qualify. That is plain hypocrisy on the part of all that do so.

Do you have any idea just how absurd your post looks?
Your argument is based on "wrong"-ness by leaving Romans and wandering off to James, and then complaining about how somebody else may or may not handle this unrelated passage of Scripture that is completely immaterial.

Romans concludes your claim to belong to two different legal spouses concurrently to be adultery. If you need to wander off to what James says, then it would behoove you to note that James 2:10 looks at your adultery and concludes you noncompliant to the the entire Law (including the Ten Commandments): "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all."

I think you killed your argument. No sense beating a dead horse anymore.

 

[VictorC]

Of course. Not deliver from keeping the law for that is obvious but deliver from the condemnation of the law by not violating the law. That is what you fail to comprehend. We can not be delivered from not lying, stealing or coveting can we? Are we deliver from serving God only? Starting thinking! The key to this is that Paul said we are deliver from death, which is the result of violating the law.

There isn't one iota of "keeping the law" found in Romans 7:6, which is the passage Listed alluded to. That's your own fabrication - as I pointed out to you in my post. Here's what Scripture actually says"

But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.​

Nothing about "keeping the law".
You're just going through the motions of the flesh and pretending this is "keeping".
It isn't.
Scripture claims we (who know the Law, v. 7:1) have been delivered from the Law, that held the recipients in the past tense.
The Law kept the recipients until God's redemption.
You have reversed this relationship of what kept whom in your post.