True Justification, works of the Law of Moses, & Conditional Security

stuart lawrence · Oct 29, 2015

EmSw said:
So, would you call yourself a lawless person?

Technically if you are not perfect in the flesh you break the law. Therefore you are a lawbreaker. Are you perfect I your flesh? I admit I am not in mine
However when Paul mentions the term to timothy he is speaking of people who's lifestyle is one of habitual lawlessness, they wilfully seek to do that. A christian cannot be a lawbreaker in that sense for they have been born again

stuart lawrence · Oct 29, 2015

Jason
This is what I believe is the biblical way for a person to set out on the Christian path:

Crossing over

A man stumbles into a church service one night in a desperate state. The years of drunken revelry, sleeping with woman after woman and constantly seeking to gratify the flesh have caught up with him. He is broken, alone and in despair. He would never have thought of entering a church, believing it could offer no hope for someone such as he, but for some reason he was irresistibly drawn to enter the building. He feels uncomfortable as he walks through the door. Churches aren’t for people like him but for those who have lived decent, upright lives, people who have pure hearts and minds, people who have not been corrupted as he has been by the world. To his great surprise, however, when the altar call is given, he stumbles forward to accept Christ as his Saviour.

A kindly old man chats with him after the service. He tells him a battle will now follow so that he can see victory over the sin he is a slave to. The man tells him this victory can only be won, however, by looking to Jesus and trusting that He died for him. That is the only righteousness he can have before God. The new convert considers this a very strange battle to be in, with strange rules that don’t make sense, but there is something about this kindly old man that makes the new convert trust him. He has so much love for him, a filthy rotten sinner, it exudes from every part of the man sitting next to him. The man gives the new convert a few simple scripture verses and advises him to place them in rooms in his home. Then when the battle becomes difficult, he can look to them and gain strength. The new convert takes them, along with a New Testament the old man gives him.

He walks away from the church, slightly bemused. His life has been in a terrible state for years. He is a habitual thief who has spent time in prison, he is a slave to alcohol, he swears like a trooper, and he has had many affairs. For a long time he has been desperate for a way out, but never once dreamed of turning to God. He’d imagined he would have had to live an almost perfect life or God would have cast him into hell. He was too weak for that. He had no strength left. He was broken from living a life steeped in the worst of sin. Yet now this old man was telling him all he had to do was trust Jesus. That would decide the battle ahead.

So the man starts out on his walk. As we previously discussed, some sin the new convert can immediately stop, for it has not tied itself so tightly around him that he is a slave to it. So this man determines not to steal again, which immediately brings positive fruit from his new found Christian walk. He also determines there will be no more affairs. Even the bad language immediately starts to lessen, so evidence of his change of heart by being born again is already plain to see.

The drinking is not so straightforward, however; he has been its slave for many a year. A couple of days after the man gets saved, he is sitting at home in the evening. All of a sudden a huge desire for alcohol comes over him. He has a drink, hoping to satisfy the craving, but it doesn’t. His conscience hurts him as he pours the second drink, but the pull of alcohol is fierce. By the time he takes the third drink, he is not thinking so clearly because the alcohol is having an effect. Eventually he drinks far too much before stumbling into bed.

When he wakes in the morning, he feels anguish in his heart. Things were going so well, but now he has let God down. A voice whispers in his head, You’d better give up with God, for Christians cannot go around drinking as you did last night. You can’t stop being a slave to sin and get where you need to be if you drink like that. The man pauses. The voice sounds reasonable. He knows he cannot cross over to where he needs to be if he continues to drink as he did the night before. He remembers, however, the old man telling him the night he got saved that only one thing could make him acceptable in God’s sight − faith in His Son − and that would bring him the victory. So despite his sorrow for how he acted, he determines to trust in this truth rather than dwell on his failure. It isn’t easy to do, but he perseveres. He looks to Jesus and trusts he is still saved. The voice in his head tells him he is just faking his Christianity, but the man determines to keep looking to Christ and carries on in the faith.

A couple of days later the same thing happens. The man drinks far too much and wakes up in great sorrow for his actions the night before. The voice inside his head tells him he will have to give up on Christianity now. God may have forgiven him once for drinking too much, but he won’t a second time. If he remains a Christian, he is making a mockery of the faith. He is as good as promoting sin. Once again, the man pauses. The voice sounds reasonable and logical.

He rings the kindly old man who spoke to him the night he got converted and truthfully tells him about his drinking and the voice inside his head. To his amazement the man tells him not to worry because he’s winning the battle, and Satan must be getting worried if he’s accusing him that much. He reminds him he must keep looking to Jesus and trusting he is saved because Jesus died for him, and not look to his imperfections and failures. He puts the phone down, surprised by the man’s words, though reassured by what he told him. Once again, however, he considers this battle to have strange rules that don’t seem logical at all. He has to fight his natural reasoning and understanding to hold onto faith in Christ.

For a time the lapses continue where alcohol is concerned. After each occasion, the man wakes in the morning feeling terrible because he drank so much the night before. Each time, the voice inside his head increases its accusations: “You’re just a hypocrite”; “You’re faking your Christianity”; “You can’t be a Christian and drink as you do.” Despite the accusations, however, the man clings to Christ. He trusts what the old man told him the night he was saved.

After a time something startling happens; the man finds he is becoming more able to resist the alcohol. Bit by bit he is able to markedly resist his drinking. Eventually the amount he drinks is so little it has no adverse effect on him at all. He is thrilled. That kindly old man in church was right; he was seeing the victory by faith in Christ. He praises God for what He has done for him, through Jesus. TBC

stuart lawrence · Oct 29, 2015

Cont

With his mind now free from thinking about alcohol, however, another weakness is unleashed. All of a sudden his mind is flooded with impurity. A voice whispers in his ear: “You can’t be a Christian and have thoughts like that; you’re just faking it.” Satan plants a few scripture verses in the man’s head to endorse this view, for he is not averse to quoting scripture out of context when it suits him. For a second the man pauses. The voice in his head again sounds reasonable. He cannot ignore what scripture plainly states. But then he looks at the scripture verse the old man gave him that is pinned on his wall: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” He is grateful for those words and looks to Jesus, trusting he is still saved and not condemned.

The voice inside his head once again tells him he’s a hypocrite and just fooling himself, but he won’t be swayed. He has seen the victory over alcohol by faith and trusts he will have victory over the impure thoughts, as well. For a time the impure thoughts flood his mind. He keeps looking to Jesus, clinging to Him as a limpet clings to a rock. He holds onto what the man told him. He only has one righteousness in God’s sight, faith in His Son. As the battle rages, however, the voice inside his head is relentless: “You’re a hypocrite”; “You’re just faking your Christianity”; “You’re weak”; “You’re useless”; “You’re too dirty and rotten to be saved”; “You have to be pure to be a Christian, not like you are. You’re just a sinner.”

“Yes, I am a sinner!” the man finally cries out in anguish. “But Jesus died for sinners!” All of a sudden the room gets very quiet. The only sound is the traffic outside on the street. He can’t hear the voice in his head anymore; it has gone strangely quiet. The man is grateful and keeps looking to Jesus. He has gone too far now to turn back. He suddenly knows he will keep trusting no matter what happens, for Jesus is all he has. He is in a boat with Jesus, and he can only sink if Jesus sinks. The impure thoughts start to lessen, and the man is surprised by how quickly this is happening. He is seeing the victory, just like he saw victory over alcohol. By now, all his bad language has also ceased.

Satan realises this man will not be swayed from trusting Jesus died for him, so he is forced to give up, move on, and try to find someone else to devour. He will return at times to see how the man is doing and fire some arrows at him, but he has lost the main battle. He only had one thing to begin with to try to turn the sincere-of-heart convert away, and it didn’t work. Satan uses the good and holy laws of God to try to make a convert feel condemned.

The man is not perfect in the flesh. He will be a work in progress all his life, for he lives in a body of weak flesh. By faith in Christ, however, he has crossed over from offering himself as a slave of sin, to offering himself as a slave of righteousness, which leads to holiness.

Now, friend, what kind of man do you think will emerge from that battle? Well we know he won’t be a proud man, for he never won the battle; Jesus did. He just stood by faith in Him. He will love God greatly for changing a sinner such as he. He will know the great love, mercy, and compassion of God, and he will want to tell others of what God has done in his life. He will witness of the grace he has received. He will be a merciful person, for he has obtained great mercy. He will want to be faithful, for he knows God has loved him much, forgiven him much, and delivered him from the pit he was in.

Now that man never looked to the law and strove to obey it. He looked to Jesus and trusted Him. By doing so, the higher points of the perfect, holy, and righteous law of God are now evident in his life.

He was involved in the same high-stakes battle as the young man from the previous chapter, but the young man hinged everything on trying to defeat the sin (a work of the law), whereas this man hinged everything on trusting Jesus. The young man, therefore, got excited about the sin, whereas this man got excited about Jesus. The young man had followed the way of Paul the Pharisee, this man, the way of the Gospel that Paul the Christian preached in Romans 6:14: “ For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. (through faith).” (NIV)

stuart lawrence · Oct 29, 2015

Open Heart said:
bump

I love your quote from John Paul 11

Soyeong · Oct 29, 2015

Jason0047 said:
The words "works of the Law" mentioned in the New Testament is in reference to the works of the Law of Moses or the Old Covenant Law .

For the words "works of the Law" appears 5 times in Scripture.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=works+of+the+law&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

And it is clearly in reference to the Law of Moses.

Romans 9 is about Israel, so there is no point showing you that the words "works of the Law" is clearly in reference to the Law that they kept.

The other occurence of the words "works of the Law" is mentioned in Galatians and also is in reference to the Law of Moses. It is evident by just reading the chapter. But here is a bread crumb or clue that makes it obvious.

"why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Galatians 2:14).

The other 3 occurrences of the words: "works of the Law" is in Galatians 3. Again, it is obvious this talking about the Law of Moses because of many bread crumbs or clues contained therein. For one, it says the Law was added because of transgressions (Galatians 3:19). Second, it says the Law is a school master that brings us unto Christ (Galatians 3:24).

"Works of law" is certainly related to the law of Moses, but only so far it is in regard to man-made traditions for how to keep the law of Moses, so it is not something directly commanded by God. It was common for certain groups to say that you needed to obey the law according to their traditions in order to be saved. For instance, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls Qumran text 4QMMT, we have:

Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen [that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel. (p. 364, Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation)

In other words they are saying that if you keep our traditions, then you will be saved. Much of the discussion about the law in the NT is about the way that God should be obeyed, not about whether God should be obeyed. Compelling Gentiles to live as Jews is another example that is talking about Jewish traditions rather than God's law. The Jewish tradition in question is the one that forbade Jews from meeting with or associating with Gentiles, which Peter mentioned in Acts 10:28, which is why he moved to go eat with the circumcision group. This is the same group in Acts 15:1 that wanted to require Gentiles to keep the law according to the customs of Moses in order to be saved, so they're saying the same type of thing. By moving to eat with them, Peter's actions were saying to the Gentiles that they weren't actually saved and that they needed to go along with what the circumcision group was saying and follow their traditions in order to be saved, which why Paul proceeded to emphasize that we are justified by faith in the next verse.

While I agree for the most part in the 6 points you brought up. I do not agree that we are to obey ceremonial laws or judicial laws in the Law of Moses because Scripture says Christ nailed to the cross those ordinances that were against us. The eternal moral law has been carried over into the New Covenant (Obviously). However, while Jesus did keep the Old Law perfectly, He was also making changes to the Law, too. For Jesus said to turn the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye. Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in the act of adultery. When Jesus died upon the cross, the temple veil was torn. Meaning, the Law that required the animal sacrifices was no longer binding or acceptable. Jesus is now our perfect sacrifice. The priesthood order of Aaron has been disolved or fulfilled in Christ. Jesus is now our Heavenly High Priest (of a new priesthood order). We go to Christ as a mediator and not a physical priest. There are no more Levites. Also, after Christ's death, Peter had a vision from God that he could now eat unclean animals. This a direct violation of OT Law. In fact, Scripture itself states the Law has changed (Hebrews 7:12). Which makes sense because we are under a different Covenant. Jesus said, no man puts new wine into old wine skins.

....

What was nailed to crosses was the crimes that the person had committed, not the laws themselves. In other words, they didn't have to legislate new laws every time someone was crucified. This fits perfectly with Messiah being our kinsman redeemer who took the penalty for our sins and set us free from our slavery to sin, but does not fit at all with being set free from a set of holy, righteous, and good instructions. God has no reason to set us free from that, we have no need to be set free of that, nor should we even want to be set free from what is holy, righteous, and good. Rather, the law was meant to be received as a divine privilege and delight, as the Psalmist understood (Psalms 1:1-2, Psalms 119), and as Paul understood Romans 7:22). Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), so we have been set free from transgressing the law in order to be free to not transgress the law, not to be free to sin and disregard the law.

Morality is about what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. Furthermore, the Bible makes no distinctions between moral, civil, and ceremonial laws, but rather the violation of any of God's laws is a sin and immoral. It can be useful to us to fit God's law into different categories, but I see no justification for artificially imposing those categories into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself. The New Covenant involves God's law being written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), so all of God's laws are carried over, with the change only in regard to those laws concerning the Levitical priesthood.

Jesus didn't actually teach anything new, but rather he taught how the law should be fully and correctly understood and obeyed. The woman caught in adultery is another example of how Jesus followed the law rather than changed it. There was no man who was also accused of adultery (Leviticus 20:10), the woman did not confess to her crime, there were no witnesses (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:6, Deuteronomy 19:15), and there was no judge to pronounce a sentence (Deuteronomy 19:17-21), so if Jesus had stoned her, then he would have been acting in violation of the due process of the law. Their goal was not to seek justice, but to try to trick Jesus into either speaking against obeying God's law or Roman law.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/new.html

There are two curtains that lead to the Holy of Holies, so one curtain being torn in problematic for that interpretation. Furthermore, Paul continue to offer sacrifices, which included sin sacrifices (Acts 18:18, 21:23-24) in accordance with the law (Numbers 6). There will also be sin sacrifices during the Millennium (Ezekiel 44-46). The blood of goats and bulls never took away sin, so they could not be made obsolete by one that did.

In Peter's vision, all kinds of animals were let down in the sheet, so why didn't he obey God's command by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals, as the Torah permits? Why did he object? The answer is that the Pharisees had a man-made ritual purity law that said that if something clean came into contact with something unclean, then it became defiled/impure/common (See Mark 7:3-4). All of the animals were bundled together, so all of the clean animals were in contact with unclean animals and had become common. Thus all the animals in his vision were either common or unclean and by refusing to eat one of the clean animals that had become common, Peter was disobeying God to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke him by saying not to call unclean what he had made clean, but rather God rebuked him for referring to clean animals as common. So Peter's vision was about correcting a man-made ritual purity law, which Peter interpreted as including the man-made laws about Gentiles (Acts 10:28), and had absolutely nothing to do with God's dietary laws. Peter gave the interpretation of his vision three times and not once did he say anything about dietary laws.

Luke 5:39 says that the old is better, so there are problems with interpreting that Jesus was talking about covenants. To describe Jesus as being incompatible with Judaism is both bad theology and bad history. Rather, the context Jesus was selecting his disciples and was being criticized for his selection because of their behavior. Jesus responded with a double parable that borrowed from Jewish tradition found in Pirkei Avot 4:20. When we use the same symbolism, we see that the old and new garment/wineskins are previous educated/uneducated students, the patch is teaching, and the old/new wine is old/new is previous/new teaching. If you try to teach a lesson meant for a new student to an already educated student, then you will fail to teach the new student and the already educated student will reject it. In response to their criticism about his choice of disciples Jesus essentially replied that you can't teach and old dog new tricks.

stuart lawrence · Oct 29, 2015

Soyeong said:
"

Luke 5:39 says that the old is better, so there are problems with interpreting that Jesus was talking about covenants. To

In my niv it is written as:

And many after drinking the old wine don't want the new, for they say. The old is better

I would personally believe Jesus was referring to the two covenants

Soyeong · Oct 29, 2015

stuart lawrence said:
In my niv it is written as:

And many after drinking the old wine don't want the new, for they say. The old is better

I would personally believe Jesus was referring to the two covenants

Yes, saying the old is makes it problematic if Jesus' point was that the New Covenant was better. And again, the context was not about covenants about Jesus' selection of disciples. I recommend reading this article:

http://www.bethimmanuel.org/articles/new-wine-and-old-wineskins-parable-luke-536-39-re-examined

cuja1 · Oct 29, 2015

stuart lawrence said:
The most dangerous churches in Christendom are those that earnestly stress righteous living, and demand almost sinless perfection but do not alongside that preach Paul's gospel message of how sin is to be overcome. The result has been disaster for many

I agree, so many people want to throw the book at you and tell you what you have to do, but have no desire to help you lift the burden. People will tell you what you have to do but don't want to be bothered with helping you accomplish it.

I had a counselor continually tell me what I was doing wrong and finally I got ticked off and told her I don't know how to do it the right way.

It's so easy to point out sins, it's harder to help people overcome them. I think that's what God does. He knows we do wrong, but He shows us how to overcome them.

If you read the Bible in a certain way, it sounds like everyone has to be perfect right now or they go straight to hell forever.

Bible Highlighter · Oct 29, 2015

Dear Stuart:

I am not going to read multiple book length posts about you or another's personal beliefs, and or experiences. I am here to discuss the Bible. If you are try to make a point with your lengthy unscriptural replies (but yet you believe they are trying to demonstrate some kind of truth), just make your point in a sentence or two. My time is limited and I am here to discuss the Bible. As for Romans 7: Paul is not shooting down one in doing the moral things within the Law like not coveting, ect. As I stated before, Paul says we are to love others which fulfills the moral law in the Law of Moses like not coveting, not stealing, etc. The problem in Romans 7 is that the Jews had a false salvation system of just obeying the Law alone. They did not accept the gospel or Jesus Christ.

...

stuart lawrence · Oct 29, 2015

Soyeong said:
"

The New Covenant involves God's law being written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), so all of God's laws are carried over, with the change only in regard to those laws concerning the Levitical priesthood.

.

As sin is transgression of the law, and as you say the law is now written on our hearts and placed on our minds. If you are right concerning which were the only laws not carried over, would you accept if any person did not have heartfelt conviction they sinned concerning any

Jason0047 said:
Dear Stuart:

I am not going to read multiple book length post about you or another's personal beliefs, and or experiences. I am here to discuss the Bible. If you are try to make a point with your lengthy unscriptural replies (but yet you believe they are trying to demonstrate some kind of truth), just make your point in a sentence or two. My time is limited and I am here to discuss the Bible. As for Romans 7: Paul is not shooting down one in doing the moral things within the Law like not coveting, ect. As I stated before, Paul says we are to love others which fulfills the moral law in the Law of Moses like not coveting, not stealing, etc. The problem in Romans 7 is that the Jews had a false salvation system of just obeying the Law alone. They did not accept the gospel or Jesus Christ.

...

We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. Gal 2:15-18

When a person becomes a Christian they seek to cross over from being a slave to sin to a slave of righteousness, leading to holiness not by works of the law(striving to defeat the sin) but by faith in Christ. I hope that is abbreviated enough!

It is a hard thing to admit you are wrong-isn't it! Most seem to understand what Paul is clearly stating in Romans 7

stuart lawrence · Oct 29, 2015

cuja1 said:
I agree, so many people want to throw the book at you and tell you what you have to do, but have no desire to help you lift the burden. People will tell you what you have to do but don't want to be bothered with helping you accomplish it.

I had a counselor continually tell me what I was doing wrong and finally I got ticked off and told her I don't know how to do it the right way.

It's so easy to point out sins, it's harder to help people overcome them. I think that's what God does. He knows we do wrong, but He shows us how to overcome them.

If you read the Bible in a certain way, it sounds like everyone has to be perfect right now or they go straight to hell forever.

This has done huge damage to many. Christian counsellors spend much time with people who became Christians and ended up mirroring what Paul stated happened to him in Rom 7:7-11

stuart lawrence · Oct 29, 2015

stuart lawrence said:
As sin is transgression of the law, and as you say the law is now written on our hearts and placed on our minds. If you are right concerning which were the only laws not carried over, would you accept if any person did not have heartfelt conviction they sinned concerning any

We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. Gal 2:15-18

When a person becomes a Christian they seek to cross over from being a slave to sin to a slave of righteousness, leading to holiness not by works of the law(striving to defeat the sin) but by faith in Christ. I hope that is abbreviated enough!

It is a hard thing to admit you are wrong-isn't it! Most Christians I chat to seem to understand what Paul is clearly stating in Romans 7

cuja1 · Oct 29, 2015

Jason0047 said:
I want you to read the chapter with no agenda or with a thought of what you believe. For I just re-read the chapter again. What is it telling us. It is addressing the problem of obedience to the Law of Moses alone as a source of salvation (Which is something I don't believe). Paul talks about how he once struggled to keep the Law by his own effort and it was an utter failure. Paul needed a Savior to cleanse him of his past sin to help him to walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh (Where there is no Condemnation) (Romans 8:1). But does that mean one can continue in sin so that grace may abound? Paul already answered that question with, "God forbid" in Romans 6:1. Meaning, a believer cannot continue in sin so that grace may abound. Paul forbids it. In fact, Paul says several times in Scripture that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. He says be not deceived on that matter.

In fact, Paul says we are to obey certain moral laws that were a part of the Old Law by us loving others (See Romans 13:8-10).

...

Maybe by this Paul means that we should try to overcome sin. Sin destroys. Anyone that has done it long enough will see that sin causes a lot of problems for you and those around you. But maybe Paul is saying not to give up the fight against sin. Don't just say, I like it I'll keep doing it. Keep fighting it but realize you may fail too.

stuart lawrence · Oct 29, 2015

In Romans 7:7-11 Paul states when the commandment came to him,(Thou shalt not covet) sin used what was good and holy to arouse all manner of concupiscence in him.
He states in Rom 6:14. Sin shall not be your master, for you are not under law but under grace.

I believe the penalty of sin, brings great fear of sin, and fear of sin brings much allurement to sin. Hence, Romans 7:7-11 & Rom 6:14

If I said to you if you think of a pink rabbit God will condemn you to hell. What is the first thought that will come into your head if you believe me?
Consequently. If I said to you. If you break the law of Thou shalt not covet, God will condemn you to hell. What is the first thought that will come into your head if you believed me?

cuja1 · Oct 29, 2015

EmSw said:
Here is what Paul actually said in 1 Thessalonians 4:3 -
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality;

I interpret this verse differently.
This verse isn't saying that God's will is for us to abstain from sexual immorality. It is saying that His will is our sanctification. Period.

Then we have the word "that". We could substitute the word "that" for "so that".
If we do that, the meaning becomes sanctification enables us to abstain from sexual immorality.
"should" in this case means "can"

To me the verse is saying that God's will is for us to be sanctified so that we are able to abstain from sexual immorality.

Possible?

stuart lawrence · Oct 29, 2015

cuja1 said:
I interpret this verse differently.
This verse isn't saying that God's will is for us to abstain from sexual immorality. It is saying that His will is our sanctification. Period.

Then we have the word "that". We could substitute the word "that" for "so that".
If we do that, the meaning becomes sanctification enables us to abstain from sexual immorality.
"should" in this case means "can"

To me the verse is saying that God's will is for us to be sanctified so that we are able to abstain from sexual immorality.

Possible?

If I understand you correctly(I may not) I like what you wrote.
If we concentrate on the sin itself and focus on that, we are less likely to see the results we want. If we look to be sanctified according to the biblical truth as to how sanctification is to take place, this will result in us abstaining from sexual immorality

Meowzltov · Oct 29, 2015

cuja1 said:
Then we have the word "that". We could substitute the word "that" for "so that".

No you can't. It's entirely different.

stuart lawrence · Oct 29, 2015

Open Heart said:
No you can't. It's entirely different.

Can you satisfy my curiosity?
Why is a catholic on a thread instigated by a fundamentalist. Only doctrinally they are the people furthest apart aren't they?

Meowzltov · Oct 29, 2015

stuart lawrence said:
Can you satisfy my curiosity?
Why is a catholic on a thread instigated by a fundamentalist. Only doctrinally they are the people furthest apart aren't they?

Somewhere along the way the thread must have come up in my alert system for having a KEY WORD such as JEW (I'm a Hebrew Catholic).

cuja1 · Oct 29, 2015

Open Heart said:
No you can't. It's entirely different.

How is "that" being used in this verse then? How does it link the phrases in this verse:
"For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality"?

The verse clearly says that God's will is our sanctification.

True Justification, works of the Law of Moses, & Conditional Security

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Freylekher Yid

Well-Known Member

Freylekher Yid

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency