Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The purpose of the law was show us that we are sinners and lead us to God. That is the one and only purpose of the Law. Paul said it better than most when he said the law was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Once I figure out that I am in fact a sinner the law has no more purpose in my life. I am to live by the faith of the son of God from that point on. The law has an expiration date and it has expired. Time to chuck it before it stinks.
Paul says a lot of things that you apparently are taking just the opposite. There is no scripture supporting a spirit giving the law to Adam whatsoever as it equates to anything you are trying to connect it to. God only gave Adam a few commands, such as don't eat of the fruit, name the animals, and when he was kicked out go forth and multiply. There was no mention of adultery, killing, honoring parents, etc... especially NO mention of the Sabbath being kept on a cyclical basic either in or out of the garden. In other words simply..... You've got NOTHING nowhere as proof to back up your claims.... just a bunch of opinions that are worthless when it comes to a debate.
Paul says nor implies no such thing. To serve God only is adultery? See what you promote?So...
You rejected Romans 7 where Paul explains that being bound to the Law and Jesus concurrently is akin to adultery, we have been delivered from the Ten Commandments that held the recipients in the past tense, and you aren't aware of the larger context that includes the Law working wrath and excluding those bound by it from eternal life.Romans 4This is the same message Paul presents in Galatians 4.
13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
You've now rejected the message conveyed in both epistles, and you still haven't reconciled your contradiction with yourself, or with Scripture.
Review the many posts we've exchanged on this topic.
You can't reconcile your views with this inspired author's epistle that consistently explain our deliverance from the Ten Commandments on one hand, and instruct us to cast off the Ten Commandments on the other. The paradigm you operate within is totally incompatible with the Gospel of God's redemption in Jesus Christ.
You preach an unholy and unbiblical gospel.Paul speaks of the Law as a curse and Peter refers to it as a yoke of bondage. We are not under the old covenant anymore so the ten commandments are not binding on believers. They are under a new covenant where the Holy Spirit teaches us right from wrong and the law of love (agape) is written in the fleshy tables of the heart.
There are only two commandments in the NT which are faith and love. The entire duty of the Christian us summed up in these two words. Faith and love are nothing like the old law. I cannot do faith or love no matter how hard I try. Both are the gifts of God and are received when we realize that all our good works are as filthy rags. If you believe you can keep the ten commandments you are under the curse and spiritually blind.
Paul wrote plainly to the Jewish believers in Rome that they're delivered from the Ten Commandments. He also instructed the Gentiles in Galatia to cast off the Ten Commandments. These are plain statements that you can't reconcile your beliefs with.Paul says nor implies no such thing.
Moses wrote plainly that the Ten Commandments was the covenant from Mount Sinai. We refer to it as the Mosaic Covenant or the old covenant commonly. On the other hand, you show that you don't know what the Ten Commandments was each time you refer to it by the plural verb 'are'; it is a singular covenant, and even Solomon refers to the tablets of stone as the covenant God handed to Moses. The Biblical authors knew what the Ten Commandments was, and you've already shown that you rejected the epistles to the Romans and the Galatians in your previous posts.The ten commandments are not the covenant!
Telling me that you're confused and can't make sense of the Bible just reenforces the points that I've made to you. And still you have done nothing to rectify your contradiction with yourself, as well as Scripture. I promise to remember this each time you make the absurd claim that the Ten Commandments was a product of man, and not God. I further promise to remember how you dismiss God's redemption as "an unholy and unbiblical gospel".To serve God only is adultery? See what you promote?
Duet 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
How is the The commandments the covenant here? Is not the Covenant also the promise? How then can the Ten Commandments be the Promise? The Commandments is our part to play in the Covenant.
You are putting the puzzle together with parts that look like they fit but the picture does not make sense. There is no picture! Just confusion!
The scriptures never say the law has only one purpose, rules are made for safety or protect life, rules are not made to be broken. The wages from sin is death. Yeshua did not come to abolish the law, heaven and earth shall pass away before G-d's holy law pass away.
You preach an unholy and unbiblical gospel.
Most folks of your persuasion argue the Ten Commandments are the covenant. So I'm guessing by your comments that there really isn't a covenant to begin with.You here also admit that the covenant is not the Ten commandments only.
I will accept that it was so important that it took first place, then and now.
I fully understand and agree. The problem is the other side isn't arguing from that standpoint. They see no spiritual significance in the covenant. They alsway talk about the flesh even when they include a blurb about the spiritual intended to distract the reader. Sorry to confuse you.You're referring to the posterity of Hagar the human.
That isn't the topic.
We're talking about Hagar the covenant from Mount Sinai.
Then how does it kill? That doesn't sound like life to me.Originally Posted by Elder 111
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 and the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Your changed emphasis changes the meaning of the text? The law is still ordained to life.
What are you saying? What then happened to life?That because I sin death is my reward.
I think they have no concept of the spirit at all, scriptures equating it are always connected to the Law when one cannot see how in spirit you can ever keep the Sabbath Day to begin with it takes the flesh to participate one can keep a "sabbath rest" in the spirit but the spirit doesn't work akin to the Sabbath Day understanding so it really isn't participating in the rest part of it at all.I fully understand and agree. The problem is the other side isn't arguing from that standpoint. They see no spiritual significance in the covenant. They alsway talk about the flesh even when they include a blurb about the spiritual intended to distract the reader. Sorry to confuse you.
Are you trying to say you never sin or never sinned and have this life? What does that do to Paul's statement? Are you better than Paul? Put up some evidence.Is that a joke? LOL.
Yes Paul speaks of the ten being ordained to life, and because he broke them he was subject to death. So?
So...
You rejected Romans 7 where Paul explains that being bound to the Law and Jesus concurrently is akin to adultery, we have been delivered from the Ten Commandments that held the recipients in the past tense, and you aren't aware of the larger context that includes the Law working wrath and excluding those bound by it from eternal life.
Romans 4This is the same message Paul presents in Galatians 4.
13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
You've now rejected the message conveyed in both epistles, and you still haven't reconciled your contradiction with yourself, or with Scripture.
Review the many posts we've exchanged on this topic.
You can't reconcile your views with this inspired author's epistle that consistently explain our deliverance from the Ten Commandments on one hand, and instruct us to cast off the Ten Commandments on the other. The paradigm you operate within is totally incompatible with the Gospel of God's redemption in Jesus Christ.
Have you read LK 24:44 which allows for Heb 7:12? Evidently heaven and earth have passed away because the law changed. If this isn't true then your argument fails or Jesus is a sinner and can't be the promised Messiah.The scriptures never say the law has only one purpose, rules are made for safety or protect life, rules are not made to be broken. The wages from sin is death. Yeshua did not come to abolish the law, heaven and earth shall pass away before G-d's holy law pass away.
Nice try. Now would you address what I said?Before a book was written , the law from nature existed on earth.
Most all of us are talking about the law of God as He gave it to Israel and not the law of nature. Would you kindly quit trying to derail the subject?The law from nature existed in the garden, G-d is spirit, the spirit gave Adam the law. You say only one or few commands were given, yet Adam broke them all.
You must be talking nonsense because you don't make any sense.Paul says nor implies no such thing. To serve God only is adultery? See what you promote?
The ten commandments are not the covenant!
Duet 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
How is the The commandments the covenant here? Is not the Covenant also the promise? How then can the Ten Commandments be the Promise? The Commandments is our part to play in the Covenant.
You are putting the puzzle together with parts that look like they fit but the picture does not make sense. There is no picture! Just confusion!
Legalists do not even have a gospel. There is no good news in law keeping.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?