Holiness

from scratch · Sep 18, 2011

JohnRabbit said:
FYI:
you know that there's no definite article, the, in the original greek!

and the greek word for "law" is like ours in english. you have to know the context to understand which law you're talking about!

So let me ask you why is it such a point of contention for you? Must be painful or you wouldn't be trying to get rid of my use of the. The real point I'm making is that I nor Jesus, Paul, Peter, James and even the pharisees were refering to a law but the law. In English this is the way we show a specific.

So if you want to argue that a law came after Abraham and that it was until the Seed came or until John that is fine by me. But then you invalidate the argument that law existed before Abraham. So you still have no leg to stand on.

Make no mistake about it I'm speaking about the law which came by Moses that includes the 10 Cs.

You desperately need to get around this fact. IMHO this would make the 10 Cs just ordinary run of the mill laws and nothing special. Fact is no one was obligated to these laws for any reason before Mt Sinai.

from scratch · Sep 18, 2011

JohnRabbit said:
"added because of transgressions" ?

why don't you explain "transgressed what?"???

beats me. All I know is that the law was added because of transgressions. To say more is assumption with nothing to back it up.

I think you say the law existed before Mt Sinai to which I dis agree based on inspired Scripture.

I have seen the word assume broken down as ass-u-me. I personally that is exactly what assumption does.

My relationship with God requires me to believe. It doesn't require me to understand much anything. God's ways are past finding out. I have no need to explain and justify any actions of God. Do I have any questions that lurk in my mind an heart? You bet ya!

Your position requires the denial of Scripture.

from scratch · Sep 18, 2011

LittleLambofJesus said:
Perhaps Hebrews 9:15 can shed more light on that

http://www.christianforums.com/t7411599-18/#post53494411
Galatians 3:19

3:19 What then the law of the transgressions/parabasewn <3847>?
Grace was added/placed until which may be coming the seed to whom He has promised being prescribed/charged thru messengers in hand of a mediator

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G3847 matches the Greek παράβασις (parabasis), which occurs 7 times in 7 verses in the Greek concordance
This particular form of the word used in Gala 3/Hebrews 9

Young) Hebrews 9:15 And because of this, of a new covenant he is mediator, that death having come for redemption of the transgressions/parabasewn <3847> under the first covenant, those called may receive the promise of the age-during inheritance,

But his basis is that we don't have a new covenant, just an amended covenant. This is in direct conflict with Scripture, even the direct quoted words of God (Jesus).

from scratch · Sep 18, 2011

fhansen said:
I dont think faith guarantees one will obey the commandments-but love does.
If you love me, you will keep my commandments John 14:15
And this is Gods goal for us, because this is true justification for man.

But aren't you guys sort of saying the same thing anyway? One side says we must keep the commandments while the other side says that we don't need to be conscious of them because we keep them ipso facto if we have genuine faith.

Either way, IMO, we must keep them-faith is not a one-for-one replacement for obedience- it must result in obedience, or better said, must lead to love, which results in obedience by its nature.

"Under the Law", "bondage to the Law", "yoke of the Law"; these terms all apply to a mentality that believes that the Law, itself, can justify us-as if mere external obedience could make us internally clean, pleasing to God. But we'll still be judged by the Law, according to the whole context of Rom 2, IMO, especially in light of all the other NT admonitions to be vigilant, persist in doing good, persevere, feed the poor, be perfect, be holy, invest ones talents, feed the poor, clothe the naked, keep oil in ones lamp, generally with dire consequences if we dont.

We cant avoid the need for having a sense of moral obligation. Isn't that, for all practical purposes, what Adam & Eve objected to after all? Its not a matter of whether well obey-its a matter of how well obey-either by Gods Spirit, or by our own efforts, as if we were good enough to do it without His help, which is another way of describingthe attitude of man that resulted in Original Sin.

But in any case man doesnt need the Law, first of all, he needs God, first of all. IOW, man doesnt need the Law in order to please God, rather man needs God in order to fulfill the Law.

Some claim we're regulated by an outside force even reuiring things that are not required of the Christian according to the NT/NC. I'm not regulated by an outside force such as the law. I'm regulated by the Holy Spirit from with in which has changed my heart and thus my behavior. This provides the same results as required from those claiming a need for regulation by an outside force called the law. This is manipulation and the requiring of works for salvation. This is contrary to the Gospel. This is contrary to the words of God (Jesus).

The use of John 14:15 is abused to manipulate the ignorant to conform to the law (well their adjustment of the law) and away from salvation IMHO. I back this with a very poignant Scripture - Gal 5:4 which says one can't have both. To require the law voids salvation - grace. I didn't say this the Scripture does. So is one going to accept the Scripture or not. Parse out the verse. Argue over sentence structure if you like. I will and do.

The same people who use John 14:15 won't touch 15:10. Why is this? It spells disaster for their abuse of 14:15.

fhansen · Sep 18, 2011

from scratch said:
I'm regulated by the Holy Spirit from with in which has changed my heart and thus my behavior.

Just an aside here, but isn't Rom 2:14-15 suggesting that it's possible (though presumably not easy) for Gentiles ignorant of the gospel to obey in somewhat the same manner?

Frogster · Sep 18, 2011

YosemiteSam said:
Yes, sin entered through one man...easy enough...however, by what was said earlier, the bible states that it was "sin"...If it were sin, then there was law... As Paul said, "I would not have known sin, except for the law." So law existed even in the time of Adam...Adam knew he had sinned. Adam and Eve were cut off from the tree of life. So all those after Adam were cut off from the tree of life as well. Remember, if there were no law then there could not have been sin. So sin existed and thus law existed as well.

Have you ever thought how could could these be judged by a law as sinners but yet it was almost what 1700 years before Sinai. Yes, law certainly existed, the bible is clear on that point. So what was "added 430 later"? Why does it not say it was added 1700 years later? Certainly all those prior to Moses sinned also. All of them.

How did they know what sin was? You argue that there was NO LAW, but the fallacy of that argument is not consistent and contradicts what the bible says. Abel was a preacher of righteousness. How could this be if there were no law? How could this be if it were Moses who wrote the first five books of the bible 1700 years later? What did Abel preach from? How did they know what sin was prior to Sinai? But yet God tells us Abel was a minister of righteousness. How can that be. According to your view the only sin was that Adam ate an apple. Really?

Sin was in the world before the law, most assuredly. Paul states that fact. Why don't you tell us how sin was in the world before the law?

no, very simple, it was not Mosaic law, it was the one sin, by the one command. One...one...

Why does it stress one?

5;18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Frogster · Sep 18, 2011

JohnRabbit said:
FYI:
you know that there's no definite article, the, in the original greek!

and the greek word for "law" is like ours in english. you have to know the context to understand which law you're talking about!

What verse are you speaking of, just so I know?

Sometimes it is true, there is no article, but sometimes there is, so if you could please show what verses you are talking about, I reread the thread, but I can't figure out what exactly verses you are speaking of.

Frogster · Sep 18, 2011

fhansen said:
Just an aside here, but isn't Rom 2:14-15 suggesting that it's possible (though presumably not easy) for Gentiles ignorant of the gospel to obey in somewhat the same manner?

But the overarching theme, of 1-3, was showing hypocrisy of all, and how no one actually could obey, maybe sometimes, but never always. In the end, the consumation of the3 chapters, was condemnation, in 3, because all have sinned.

brinny · Sep 18, 2011

Holiness. What a beautiful, glorious, inexplicable word. What a beautifully glorious, inexplicable God.

Frogster · Sep 18, 2011

JohnRabbit said:
"added because of transgressions" ?

why don't you explain "transgressed what?"???

It can also be translated as Rom 5:20, to increase transgressions, as per noted scholars F.F Bruce, C.E.B. Cranfield, and Charles B Williams, who in his translation WORDS IT AS 5:20, TO INCREASE THE TRANSGRESSION.

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 18, 2011

JohnRabbit said:
FYI:
you know that there's no definite article, the, in the original greek!

and the greek word for "law" is like ours in english. you have to know the context to understand which law you're talking about!

Actually unlike the Hebrew [where the article is joined to the root word], in the greek the article is seperate

It appears the first time it is used with the article "the" is in this verse:

NKJV) Matthew 5:17 " Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Textus Rec.) Matthew 5:17 mh nomishte oti hlqon katalusai ton nomon h touV profhtaV ouk hlqon katalusai alla plhrwsai

Last time used with article:

(NKJV) James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point,] he is guilty of all.

Textus Rec.) James 2:10 ostiV gar olon ton nomon thrhsei ptaisei de en eni gegonen pantwn enocoV

http://www.christianforums.com/t7549230-23/#post57234334
Are you under THE law, Grace or both (2)

http://www.scripture4all.org/

"The-Law" occurs 48 times in 47 verses.

First time used [the article for the word "the" is joined to the root word in the hebrew]. I will study on this more

Rotherham) Leviticus 7:37 This is the-law--for the ascending-sacrifice, for the meal-offering, and for the sin-bearer, and for the guilt-bearer,--and for the installation-offerings, and for the peace-offering:

fhansen · Sep 18, 2011

from scratch said:
Some claim we're regulated by an outside force even reuiring things that are not required of the Christian according to the NT/NC. I'm not regulated by an outside force such as the law. I'm regulated by the Holy Spirit from with in which has changed my heart and thus my behavior. This provides the same results as required from those claiming a need for regulation by an outside force called the law. This is manipulation and the requiring of works for salvation. This is contrary to the Gospel. This is contrary to the words of God (Jesus).

For my own understanding, I guess it might be more correct to say we either feel obligated to consciously obey the law or we feel that the law is obeyed in the right way, automatically, when the HS is guiding us, or causing us to obey it, rather than to describe the law as a force. It's either us doing the obeying, or trying to for better or worse, or it's God in us doing the obeying. But in any case we should feel unison with the law, certainly no reason for conflict with it.

11822 · Sep 18, 2011

from scratch said:
Then pray tell me do you require the flesh to comply with the law?

We have been spouting this very reference for the longest. You should note that these things are sin and a violation of the law. But you should also notice thay aren't called by the name of sin in Galatians. These thing are delt with on a different level. They aren't dealt with as violations of the law.

I require my flesh to obey Gods will. This thread is about holiness but you use it to talk about the law instead. You haven't told us what holiness is, but you rail against me when i do, but i'm just listening to the apostles, they said to be wise and know what the will of God is, but you say they are making lists, the apostles tell us but you accuse them of making lists and teaching law, i'm beginning to wonder if you yourself even know what Gods call to holiness is.

Tell us what Holiness is then scratch. What is Gods will scratch, we all know its living by faith in Jesus Christ, but what else did the apostles tell us was Gods will?

from scratch · Sep 18, 2011

LittleLambofJesus said:
Actually unlike the Hebrew [where the article is joined to the root word], in the greek the article is seperate

It appears the first time it is used with the article "the" is in this verse:

NKJV) Matthew 5:17 " Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Textus Rec.) Matthew 5:17 mh nomishte oti hlqon katalusai ton nomon h touV profhtaV ouk hlqon katalusai alla plhrwsai

Last time used with article:

(NKJV) James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point,] he is guilty of all.

Textus Rec.) James 2:10 ostiV gar olon ton nomon thrhsei ptaisei de en eni gegonen pantwn enocoV

http://www.christianforums.com/t7549230-23/#post57234334
Are you under THE law, Grace or both (2)

http://www.scripture4all.org/

"The-Law" occurs 48 times in 47 verses.

First time used [the article for the word "the" is joined to the root word in the hebrew]. I will study on this more

Rotherham) Leviticus 7:37 This is the-law--for the ascending-sacrifice, for the meal-offering, and for the sin-bearer, and for the guilt-bearer,--and for the installation-offerings, and for the peace-offering:

Thank you and bless my son. Even if you're older the me.

11822 · Sep 18, 2011

Be wise and know what The will of God is.

from scratch · Sep 18, 2011

fhansen said:
For my own understanding, I guess it might be more correct to say we either feel obligated to consciously obey the law or we feel that the law is obeyed in the right way, automatically, when the HS is guiding us, or causing us to obey it, rather than to describe the law as a force. It's either us doing the obeying, or trying to for better or worse, or it's God in us doing the obeying. But in any case we should feel unison with the law, certainly no reason for conflict with it.

The thing is that we're not obligated as Christians to the expired covenant and everything called the law is the OC or the covenant given at Mt Sanai -Deut 5:3 and 4:13. This is the only covenant to be replaced. See Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.

razeontherock · Sep 18, 2011

Frogster said:
For Paul's point to stick, where he was showing that the whole sin issue was by Adam, and sin spread to all, killing all from Adam, he had to show all died even though they did not do the exact sin of Adam, and they did not die because of their own personal sin, hence, the imputation from law.

It is like saying if Obama got thrown out of the country for a crime, all of the democrats would have to leave too, even though they did not do the crime of Obama. It is federal headship.

If there was the law prior, he could not prove that it was all by Adam. Because it would have been personal sin, via the law.

Very interesting!

Is the part I emphasized true? Can we verify that Scripturally? Is this any different from original sin, and why do the Orthodox not teach it?

Is it not possible that 'federal headship' is a valid concept, but we each had to commit our own sin to be "in Adam?" This reconciles everything as far as I can tell, but that alone does not mean it is the way reality is.

11822 · Sep 18, 2011

I never thought i would see the day when Christians would teach that obeying Gods will is a bad thing. Please don't tell me i'm not obeying from the heart because only God knows that. Accusing someone this way amounts to an assertion, not a revelation.

1Ti_1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

razeontherock · Sep 18, 2011

YosemiteSam said:
Yes, sin entered through one man...easy enough...however, by what was said earlier, the bible states that it was "sin"...If it were sin, then there was law... As Paul said, "I would not have known sin, except for the law." So law existed even in the time of Adam...Adam knew he had sinned. Adam and Eve were cut off from the tree of life. So all those after Adam were cut off from the tree of life as well. Remember, if there were no law then there could not have been sin. So sin existed and thus law existed as well.

Have you ever thought how could could these be judged by a law as sinners but yet it was almost what 1700 years before Sinai. Yes, law certainly existed, the bible is clear on that point. So what was "added 430 later"? Why does it not say it was added 1700 years later? Certainly all those prior to Moses sinned also. All of them.

How did they know what sin was? You argue that there was NO LAW, but the fallacy of that argument is not consistent and contradicts what the bible says. Abel was a preacher of righteousness. How could this be if there were no law? How could this be if it were Moses who wrote the first five books of the bible 1700 years later? What did Abel preach from? How did they know what sin was prior to Sinai? But yet God tells us Abel was a minister of righteousness. How can that be. According to your view the only sin was that Adam ate an apple. Really?

Sin was in the world before the law, most assuredly. Paul states that fact. Why don't you tell us how sin was in the world before the law?

You are overlooking the significance of the often repeated the law.

The law of Moses was not given until ... (wait for it) ... Moses. A & E had ONE command, and couldn't even keep that. Noah had 7, and apparently those were all in place long before the Ark.

fhansen · Sep 18, 2011

from scratch said:
The thing is that we're not obligated as Christians to the expired covenant and everything called the law is the OC or the covenant given at Mt Sanai -Deut 5:3 and 4:13. This is the only covenant to be replaced. See Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.

Yes, but my understanding of the NC promises of Jer 31 and Heb 8 & 10 is that they're referring to Gods' grace making the Law "natural" for us as it were, and as it presumably would've been for Adam & Eve. Is that what you mean?

Holiness

from scratch

Guest

from scratch

Guest

from scratch

Guest

from scratch

Guest

Oldbie

Galatians is the best!

Galatians is the best!

Galatians is the best!

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Galatians is the best!

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Oldbie

Newbie

from scratch

Guest

Newbie

from scratch

Guest

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency