Time for the truth 7

[Elder 111]

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.

It is not moving from law to grace that is depicted here in Romans 7 as the husbands. The above interpretation is no where in the context, not even implied.
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

 

[Elder 111]

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.

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.

Romans 7 does not used the law as an image of the Husband. It says : For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. The law is the bond/rule not the Husband. Who or what has died in the text? Not the law! "ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ;" (verse 4). It is us that die, The fleshly desires. Death in this text does not refer to the Law! It is very much alive. " that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." We are now fashion by God through the Holy Spirit to live holy lives.
Verse 5 verifies this: 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.

 

[maco]

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.

There are two ways to view the Law. One is as the means to attain right standing with God and the other as the means to express your love to God. Well I know in my flesh I stumble and fall by nature but my mind still knows that the Law of God is holy, righteous and good. In Christ my focus is no longer trying to make myself acceptable to God through the Law because in Christ I already am. So I now serve God by loving Him the way He defines love. You could say you serve the Law with the mind knowing that it is holy, righteous and good and profitable for expressing godly love.

Romans 7:25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

You could say that you delight in the Law according to the inward man.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

We don't obey the Law to be righteous, we are righteous so we obey the Law. We obey the Law through love even if it's not perfectly done in these sinful bodies.

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

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.
​

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.

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.

Where James 2 is concern, the tenets of the law James speaks of is of the ten C's. The holy conclusion therefore should be that James is saying that if one obeys part of the ten commandments and not all we are still guilty sinners.

 

[VictorC]

Romans 7 does not used the law as an image of the Husband.

Yes, it does.

Romans 7:4
Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.​

The use of "another" denotes a plurality of 'husbands' alluded to in the narrative. The former 'husband' is the Law identified in the text as the Ten Commandments.

It says : For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. The law is the bond/rule not the Husband. Who or what has died in the text? Not the law! "ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ;" (verse 4). It is us that die, The fleshly desires. Death in this text does not refer to the Law! It is very much alive. " that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." We are now fashion by God through the Holy Spirit to live holy lives.
Verse 5 verifies this: 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.

I already pointed out this very verse in my post (which you haven't answered). God in his infinite wisdom knew long before you were born that you would just go through the motions of the flesh according to the law, and call it "keeping".

We have already seen that you don't keep the Law.

 

[VictorC]

Where James 2 is concern, the tenets of the law James speaks of is of the ten C's. The holy conclusion therefore should be that James is saying that if one obeys part of the ten commandments and not all we are still guilty sinners.

James looks at your continued adultery, and concludes you don't keep any of the Law. I'm convinced you didn't bother to read what I posted to you.

 

[maco]

Romans 7:25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

If the Law is done away with then so are these two verses. You need to understand what God is doing with us and His Law.

 

[Elder 111]

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.

The problem is that you are believing that "delivered from" means deleting the law. The text does not even imply that!
If you were deliver from the path of a speeding car, would one take it that the car was destroyed? Or that your position in relation to the path of the car was changed?
Our relationship to the law has changed not the law! Are we delivered from serving God alone? Are we delivered to committed idolatry? Ah There lies the problem. That is what it would means if there is no law for Christians to observe.

 

[Elder 111]

James looks at your continued adultery, and concludes you don't keep any of the Law. I'm convinced you didn't bother to read what I posted to you.

You seem to thing that if I have not changed my position I did not read your Post. It is not for lack of me reading your post but for lack of you being correct.
The Ten commandments starts by saying serve God alone. When you can show me Why God would remove that and make sense maybe you can get an ear, Maybe!

 

[Elder 111]

When all in this forum can show where it is now Ok to commit adultery as per Scripture then we can show something of the law not being for Christians. Until then the Truth is that the seventh commandment still stands for all God Children!!!

 

[listed]

It is not moving from law to grace that is depicted here in Romans 7 as the husbands. The above interpretation is no where in the context, not even implied.
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Sure - But now we are delivered from the law. Reads like severance (loosed from) to me. Paul is talking about the law not man and wife. The whole of Romans is exclusively about the law not a discussion thereof.

 

[listed]

There are two ways to view the Law. One is as the means to attain right standing with God and the other as the means to express your love to God. Well I know in my flesh I stumble and fall by nature but my mind still knows that the Law of God is holy, righteous and good. In Christ my focus is no longer trying to make myself acceptable to God through the Law because in Christ I already am. So I now serve God by loving Him the way He defines love. You could say you serve the Law with the mind knowing that it is holy, righteous and good and profitable for expressing godly love.

Romans 7:25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

You could say that you delight in the Law according to the inward man.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

We don't obey the Law to be righteous, we are righteous so we obey the Law. We obey the Law through love even if it's not perfectly done in these sinful bodies.

Can 1 retain salvation and not keep the Sabbath - a violation of the law and therefore sin according to you? How when the law does not apply to Gentiles or Christians?

 

[listed]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

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.
​

Where James 2 is concern, the tenets of the law James speaks of is of the ten C's. The holy conclusion therefore should be that James is saying that if one obeys part of the ten commandments and not all we are still guilty sinners.

While James identifies the 10 Cs as the law, you do not.

 

[listed]

Romans 7:25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

If the Law is done away with then so are these two verses. You need to understand what God is doing with us and His Law.

No.

 

[listed]

Romans 7:25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

If the Law is done away with then so are these two verses. You need to understand what God is doing with us and His Law.

According to you the law of God is exclusively the 10 Cs. Jeremiah says otherwise.

 

[Elder 111]

Sure - But now we are delivered from the law. Reads like severance (loosed from) to me. Paul is talking about the law not man and wife. The whole of Romans is exclusively about the law not a discussion thereof.

How are you loose from the law? If the woman marries agains and have another while married does she not commit adultery? Oops!

 

[listed]

The problem is that you are believing that "delivered from" means deleting the law. The text does not even imply that!
If you were deliver from the path of a speeding car, would one take it that the car was destroyed? Or that your position in relation to the path of the car was changed?
Our relationship to the law has changed not the law! Are we delivered from serving God alone? Are we delivered to committed idolatry? Ah There lies the problem. That is what it would means if there is no law for Christians to observe.

That indeed is the net affect. Read Jeremiah 31:31-33.

 

[listed]

You seem to thing that if I have not changed my position I did not read your Post. It is not for lack of me reading your post but for lack of you being correct.
The Ten commandments starts by saying serve God alone. When you can show me Why God would remove that and make sense maybe you can get an ear, Maybe!

God does not bow to your logic

 

[listed]

When all in this forum can show where it is now Ok to commit adultery as per Scripture then we can show something of the law not being for Christians. Until then the Truth is that the seventh commandment still stands for all God Children!!!

Only the SDA say such things. No 1 here but them suggest 1 can no sin. Which you allow because you run from the law to grace every time you violate the law.

 

[Elder 111]

God does not bow to your logic

Of course not! But I respect God and bow to Him and reverence His holy law.