I myself am not under the law

[Oldmantook]

Every believer can follow the letter of the law?
Therefore believers never dwell on any impure thoughts. They never get angry without just cause, they never look at a woman with lust in their eye. They always love their enemies-always. If someone stole something of theirs they would gladly give more besides what was stolen with nothing but love in their hearts for the thief who stole from them. It is easy to write statements, I wonder how easy it is to live up to them.
Paul writing to believers wrote:
The letter kills, he was not speaking in the past tense

You have proposed a straw man argument as I never mentioned having to be sinless or perfect in order to follow the letter of the law.

Everyone sins and no one is without sin as 1 John 1:10 clearly states. Following the letter of the law does not entail sinlessness but rather is marked by a general lifestyle of obedience to God by following his commandments. We all fail to follow perfectly but our lives can be marked by general obedience to God. When we occasionally sin, we repent and seek his forgiveness. For sin is transgression of the law (1 Jn 3:4). That is why 1 Jn 1:7 states that those who live by "walking in the light" indicative of a lifestyle of obedience (but still sin occasionally) can be forgiven and cleansed IF we walk in the light. In contrast John also warned that those who are practicing sin are "of the devil" per 1 Jn 3:8. Those who habitually sin, evidence no repentance in their lives and are obviously practicing lawlessness. They have not kept God's commandments and their faith in Jesus as dictated by Rev 14:12.

Following God's commandments is evidenced by a sanctified life; not a sinless life.

 

[not under law]

Obeying the letter of the law, is not making any slips concerning it.
Thou shalt not covet
It doesn't say you may have the odd relapse, it says: Thou shalt NOT period.
Therefore to follow the letter of the law is perfect obedience of it. The Spirit of the law is different.
However, it is no longer a law written in ink for the believer, it is not a law engraved in stone, but one written on tablets of human hearts by the Spirit of the living God.
So it is tragic, that some claim to have to read what is written in ink in order to know what law is in their heart and mind. That's not the new covenant

 

[not under law]

.

 

[Oldmantook]

Obeying the letter of the law, is not making any slips concerning it.
Thou shalt not covet
It doesn't say you may have the odd relapse, it says: Thou shalt NOT period.
Therefore to follow the letter of the law is perfect obedience of it. The Spirit of the law is different.
However, it is no longer a law written in ink for the believer, it is not a law engraved in stone, but one written on tablets of human hearts by the Spirit of the living God.
So it is tragic, that some claim to have to read what is written in ink in order to know what law is in their heart and mind. That's not the new covenant

Believe as you wish as your belief is set in concrete which is of course your prerogative! The spirit of the law is different?? How so? If you sin continuously, you are of the devil 1 Jn 3:8. If you live according to the flesh, you will die Rom 8:13. Try again.

 

[not under law]

The letter of the law, for compliance must be perfectly obeyed, though some find it hard to understand this. The Spirit of the law, is you in your heart wanting to live a life in accordance with what is in your heart and mind, though that is true, you never will perfectly obey, something you would have to do in order to obey the letter.
As a child, I used to read my bible during the sermon(I was young) and I would read of the Ten Commandments. I wondered why the tenth one was there, it seemed so trivial to me compared to the rest. I figured God placed it at the end just to make the number up to ten. But in those days, I reasoned thou shalt not covet only referred to desiring your neighbours car or nice house, material goods. Though I knew that was wrong, it was hardly as grevious as not murdering or stealing. However, once I reached puberty I immediately knew impure thoughts were sin, I knew it in my heart and mind, though still, by reading the letter of the tenth commandment I had not changed my view, I didn't realise it was the tenth commandment I was breaking.
Yet on the other hand, I have met so many who role out the phrase: ''You must obey the ten commandments'', the inference being, they obey them without much trouble and you are justified by obeying them. I have to wonder, why these people do not understand what obeying those commands entails. It almost seems as if two parallel religions are going side by side in Christianity. Interestingly, the group who most insist you must obey the law have shown far less love, mercy and compassion in their lives(from what I have seen) than those who do not. And they always fail to practice what they preach to others. As a good friend of mine once said. ''If the ten commandments are written in your mind and placed on your heart, how can anyone believe they can be righteous/justified by obeying them'' A good point in my view.
Paul, specifically writing of the ten commandments to believers:
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The greater glory of the new covenant
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 2Cor3:6-9

 

[Oldmantook]

The letter of the law, for compliance must be perfectly obeyed, though some find it hard to understand this. The Spirit of the law, is you in your heart wanting to live a life in accordance with what is in your heart and mind, though that is true, you never will perfectly obey, something you would have to do in order to obey the letter. So you can follow the Spirit of the law but not the letter of the law.
As a child, I used to read my bible during the sermon(I was young) and I would read of the Ten Commandments. I wondered why the tenth one was there, it seemed so trivial to me compared to the rest. I figured God placed it at the end just to make the number up to ten. But in those days, I reasoned thou shalt not covet only referred to desiring your neighbours car or nice house, material goods. Though I knew that was wrong, it was hardly as grevious as not murdering or stealing. However, once I reached puberty I immediately knew impure thoughts were sin, I knew it in my heart and mind, though still, by reading the letter of the tenth commandment I had not changed my view, I didn't realise it was the tenth commandment I was breaking.
Yet on the other hand, I have met so many who role out the phrase: ''You must obey the ten commandments'', the inference being, they obey them without much trouble and you are justified by obeying them. I have to wonder, why these people do not understand what obeying those commands entails. It almost seems as if two parallel religions are going side by side in Christianity. Interestingly, the group who most insist you must obey the law have shown far less love, mercy and compassion in their lives(from what I have seen) than those who do not. And they always fail to practice what they preach to others. As a good friend of mine once said. ''If the ten commandments are written in your mind and placed on your heart, how can anyone believe they can be righteous/justified by obeying them'' A good point in my view.
Paul, specifically writing of the ten commandments to believers:
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The greater glory of the new covenant
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 2Cor3:6-9

You have the habit of not replying to the scriptures I cited. Why is that? You claimed that following the spirit of the law is different from following the letter of the law. I cited Rom 8:13 and 1 Jn 3:8 which both warn that disobedience to the law - whether the letter or the spirit - brings spiritual death. You are free to ignore those warnings as you insist otherwise.

 

[not under law]

You have the habit of not replying to the scriptures I cited. Why is that? You claimed that following the spirit of the law is different from following the letter of the law. I cited Rom 8:13 and 1 Jn 3:8 which both warn that disobedience to the law - whether the letter or the spirit - brings spiritual death. You are free to ignore those warnings as you insist otherwise.

You disobey the law, you must unless you perfectly obey it. So have you experienced spiritual death? Just quoting segments of the letter isn't any good to you(actually is it very harmful for you) if you fail to follow what you tell others. A pity you cannot get out of your academic exercise of the bible, you would learn far more of what really matters

 

[not under law]

Once again. Folllowing the Spirit of the law is you in your heart wanting to live as God wants you to live, that is what you seek and how you generally live your life, but because you are not perfect in your flesh, you will inevitably at times transgress the law within you. Though that is not what you want to do for you have been born again. The letter of the law must be perfectly obeyed for obedience. Hence the letter kills

 

[Oldmantook]

Once again. Folllowing the Spirit of the law is you in your heart wanting to live as God wants you to live, that is what you seek and how you generally live your life, but because you are not perfect in your flesh, you will inevitably at times transgress the law within you. Though that is not what you want to do for you have been born again. The letter of the law must be perfectly obeyed for obedience. Hence the letter kills

You still have not replied to Rom 8:13 and 1 Jn 3:8. I'll also add another one to perplex you further. How about Js 5:19-20? All of these verses warn of spiritual death for anyone who is disobedient to God - including disobedience to the spirit of the law. Need I wait longer for you to address these verses or shall I assume you are incapable of doing so?

 

[not under law]

You still have not replied to Rom 8:13 and 1 Jn 3:8. I'll also add another one to perplex you further. How about Js 5:19-20? All of these verses warn of spiritual death for anyone who is disobedient to God - including disobedience to the spirit of the law. Need I wait longer for you to address these verses or shall I assume you are incapable of doing so?

You have had to ignore everything I have written to you, though I have addressed most of what you wrote. I see you could not confirm you yourself commit sin according to the biblical definition of sin, as you have not claimed to be sinless. So as you admit christians are not sinless/perfect in the flesh, I am frankly astounded you are quoting scripture without allowing for that. It is a total contradiction(once again) of your stated beliefs. It is a pity you cannot discern the difference between a lifestyle of sin and sin you do not want that you inevitably at times commit for are not perfect in your flesh. This will be my last response to you, as I previously told you, debating with someone who is led of acadamia is pointless and fruitless:

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1John1:8

No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 1John3:9

Looks a contradiction at first glance doesn't it. However, if you asked the vast majority of Christians if you must be perfect in the flesh/sinless to be saved they would respond ''No'' for they know no believer is perfect in this regard(1John1:8)

However, if you asked the vast majority of Christians if you can be a Christian if you live a lifestyle of sin, they would also respond ''No (1John3:9)

As you yourself commit sin of whatever form that takes, it is beyond me you are quoting the bible as you are, you simply condemn yourself. Discernment should(should) tell you there is a difference as outlined between the two verses and that should help you concerning all your other quotes concerning this subject
One last piece of advice, don't apply to others what you do not apply to yourself:
The measure you use to judge others will be used to judge you Matt7:2

 

[Josheb]

Important Note:

Please check out this article here by Ray Stedman; However, there is even a more amazing write up than this one by Bible commentator James Boice here that explains Paul's mistake in regards to going back to the Old Law; Please keep in mind I do not share their views on Soteriology, though; I merely agree with their view on what happened with Paul in Acts of the Apostles 21; The commentary by James Boice is a paid commentary, but it is well worth the price for the Scriptural references he makes.).

Were the words and practices of Paul as recorded by Luke inspired?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Where the words and practices of Paul as recorded by Luke inspired?

Where did I ever state such a thing that would give you this wrong impression?
Many times on the forums folks make outrageous claims of things I do not believe that I never even stated or they imply as such by asking a loaded question that is simply not true. It would be like saying to me: "So how long have you been kicking your dog across the room like a football?" Such a statement would not be true because I don't even own a dog, and neither did I give such words that would even imply such a thing.

On my "profile page" in the "information" section, I provide a link to "my statement of faith" on the forums (of which you can check out here), I state the following words:

The Written Word of God (i.e. the Bible).

The King James Bible is the divinely inspired preserved Word of God for our world language today. It is perfect and without error. I believe this to be the circa. 1900 Cambridge Edition KJV (Because this is when both the printing process and set standard of grammar and spelling had been perfected). Granted, while I believe the KJV is the perfect inerrant Word of God today for English speaking people, I do believe it is also very important that a believer also uses Modern Translations so as to help them to update the 1600's English (i.e. Early Modern English) to today's English (i.e. Late Modern English).

Also, I believe that even the most smallest details in God's Word is profitable; For all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). This is why it is important for the saint to study to show himself approved unto God (2 Timothy 2:15). I believe that the Old Testament Scriptures speak a lot about Jesus. I believe the book of "Revelation" is the last book of the Bible and that there is no more revelations or prophetic writings to the Bible (i.e. Sola Scriptura). Everything we need to know spiritually and prophetically is in God's Word. To see my Biblical defense on why I believe the Cambridge Edition circa. 1900 KJV is the divinely perfect Word of God for our day, see this CF thread here.

 

[Oldmantook]

You have had to ignore everything I have written to you, though I have addressed most of what you wrote. I see you could not confirm you yourself commit sin according to the biblical definition of sin, as you have not claimed to be sinless. So as you admit christians are not sinless/perfect in the flesh, I am frankly astounded you are quoting scripture without allowing for that. It is a total contradiction(once again) of your stated beliefs. It is a pity you cannot discern the difference between a lifestyle of sin and sin you do not want that you inevitably at times commit for are not perfect in your flesh. This will be my last response to you, as I previously told you, debating with someone who is led of acadamia is pointless and fruitless:

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1John1:8

No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 1John3:9

Looks a contradiction at first glance doesn't it. However, if you asked the vast majority of Christians if you must be perfect in the flesh/sinless to be saved they would respond ''No'' for they know no believer is perfect in this regard(1John1:8)

However, if you asked the vast majority of Christians if you can be a Christian if you live a lifestyle of sin, they would also respond ''No (1John3:9)

As you yourself commit sin of whatever form that takes, it is beyond me you are quoting the bible as you are, you simply condemn yourself. Discernment should(should) tell you there is a difference as outlined between the two verses and that should help you concerning all your other quotes concerning this subject
One last piece of advice, don't apply to others what you do not apply to yourself:
The measure you use to judge others will be used to judge you Matt7:2

You have addressed me using your OPINION. I have given you SCRIPTURE which you blatantly ignore. Bad habit on your part. Rom 8:13 makes it clear that those BRETHREN who are living according to the flesh (Greek present tense) - WILL DIE. This is a first class conditional clause in the Greek as indicated by the conditional word IF. The first class condition is a simple cause and effect statement; i.e. IF you do this THEN this will happen. Therefore if a Christian is sinning as is his habit, then he faces spiritual death. It is the practice of sin that results in spiritual death/loss of salvation. Everyone Christian including myself sins as no one is without sin but not every Christian sins habitually and therein lies the distinction which you utterly fail to grasp. Those who sin occasionally, repent and demonstrate that they are living a sanctified life. Those who sin habitually, fail to repent and demonstrate that they are living a disobedient life. These Christians as Rom 8:13 attests to will die. Comprende?

 

[Josheb]

Where did I ever state such a thing that would give you this wrong impression?

Red herring. I don't think anything I read did give that impression. I don't need to have such a view to ask the question asked.

Now, would you mind please specifically answering the specific question asked so the op-relevant conversation can be had?


Were the words and practices of Paul as recorded by Luke inspired?

 

[Josheb]

The King James Bible is the divinely inspired preserved Word of God for our world language today. It is perfect and without error.

Wow. There is so much wrong about those two sentences.

First, the doctrine of biblical infallibility is not specific to, nor does it mention, the King James translation. The doctrine of inerrant scripture specifies God's word in its original form, not its translated form.

Second, 17th century English is not a "world language." It was not a world language in 1611 and it is not a world language today.

Third, the King James translation is an English translation of Hebrew, Greek and Latin manuscripts that were themselves translations of the original Hebrew, Chaldean, Aramaic, and Greek originals. In other words, the KJV - and all English translations - are translations of translations. The KJV is not original and it is not "inspired." The KJV does not claim to be inspired; it claims wo be "authorized." Huge difference.

Fourth, the King James translation is not perfect and without error. It has many errors. This is evidenced by the fact the KJV translators have edited and changed the KJV more than 200 times since it was first published! One of the most obvious errors is the translating of the word, "agape" as "charity." The word agape does not mean charity. No amount of rationalization will ever change that fact.

Lastly, this matter of the KJV has absolutely no relevance to the question asked. The question asked was,

Were the words and practices of Paul as recorded by Luke inspired?​

Luke did not record Paul's words and actions in English, and he most definitely did not record Paul's words and practices in 17th century English. That notion is so prima facia factually incorrect it amounts to absurdity. Luke mostly likely wrote the book of Acts in Greek. When Luke wrote the book of Acts, he did so recording the events of the early Church, the ekklesia.

Pretty plain, simple, direct question that could be answered with a single word, "Yes," or "No." Can I get an answer to that question? Thx


Were the words and practices of Paul as recorded by Luke inspired by God or not?


.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Red herring. I don't think anything I read did give that impression. I don't need to have such a view to ask the question asked.

Now, would you mind please specifically answering the specific question asked so the op-relevant conversation can be had?


Were the words and practices of Paul as recorded by Luke inspired?

I talked about how the King James as being perfect and divine and I talked about how I believed in Sola Scriptura. So that should have given you the answer to this question. For surely if you are aware of 2 Timothy 3:16, and I believe in every word of God in my Bible as being 100% true and perfect, and divine, then surely your answer is already provided for you then.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Wow. There is so much wrong about those two sentences.

First, the doctrine of biblical infallibility is not specific to, nor does it mention, the King James translation. The doctrine of inerrant scripture specifies God's word in its original form, not its translated form.

Second, 17th century English is not a "world language." It was not a world language in 1611 and it is not a world language today.

Third, the King James translation is an English translation of Hebrew, Greek and Latin manuscripts that were themselves translations of the original Hebrew, Chaldean, Aramaic, and Greek originals. In other words, the KJV - and all English translations - are translations of translations. The KJV is not original and it is not "inspired." The KJV does not claim to be inspired; it claims wo be "authorized." Huge difference.

Fourth, the King James translation is not perfect and without error. It has many errors. This is evidenced by the fact the KJV translators have edited and changed the KJV more than 200 times since it was first published! One of the most obvious errors is the translating of the word, "agape" as "charity." The word agape does not mean charity. No amount of rationalization will ever change that fact.

Lastly, this matter of the KJV has absolutely no relevance to the question asked. The question asked was,

Were the words and practices of Paul as recorded by Luke inspired?​

Luke did not record Paul's words and actions in English, and he most definitely did not record Paul's words and practices in 17th century English. That notion is so prima facia factually incorrect it amounts to absurdity. Luke mostly likely wrote the book of Acts in Greek. When Luke wrote the book of Acts, he did so recording the events of the early Church, the ekklesia.

Pretty plain, simple, direct question that could be answered with a single word, "Yes," or "No." Can I get an answer to that question? Thx


Were the words and practices of Paul as recorded by Luke inspired by God or not?


.

1600's English is still a form of English that we can read today based on today's English. It is not like writing Chinese symbols to a person whereby they would have no clue as to what was being written in no way shape or form. With a dictionary, and looking at the context, a person can use today's English language to figure out the English in our current King James Bible. It is still is English, and English is the world language.

In either case, I cannot force you to see what I know about the King James Bible. I am willing to die for believing it is inspired and perfect. This is not by mere faith alone, but by the evidences that back up the King James. I believe it was helpful that I accepted this early on in my faith when I accepted Christ. I believe that we as believers have to be born again by water. This is being born again by accepting that God's Word (the Bible) is the very words of God. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Sure, the Holy Spirit worked through men of God to write Scripture, but they are the very words of God for us today. They are without error. If you cannot see that, only God can reveal that to you and by your seeking after the truth on such a thing. But.... if you do not want to see it, I cannot help that.

In either case, whether you agree with me or not, may God bless you;
And may you please be well, and safe during this time.

 

[Josheb]

I talked about how the King James as being perfect and divine and I talked about how I believed in Sola Scriptura. So that should have given you the answer to this question. For surely if you are aware of 2 Timothy 3:16, and I believe in every word of God in my Bible as being 100% true and perfect, and divine, then surely your answer is already provided for you then.

Yes, you did do that and yes, you did that imagining it answered the questions asked, but it does not.

If you believe every word of the Bible then you also believe the law is no longer a means of justification or righteousness but it does remain applicable in other ways, as stated and affirmed in the New Testament scriptures.

Yes?