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.
It is not my contention that Grace authorizes sin. Grace is an expression of the love of God. The very reverse of condemnation.Grace has authorized no sin the last time I checked Randy.
Care to go on record otherwise have at it.
s
It is not my contention that Grace authorizes sin.
Grace is an expression of the love of God. The very reverse of condemnation.
I have a question I'm wanting to ask you but I'll do it via PM as it could be taken wrongly if I'm assuming incorrect.
We are looking at this much differently. I do not view Grace as the other side of the Law coin. Comparing the two is as comparing apples and dead fish.I would certainly hope NOT.
Therefore your intentions that direction are not one bit different than the Law.
(pardon my attempts at finding common ground for all believers. it's not that difficult to find IF one desires to harmonize between believers)
Paul in Galatians 5 as one example is every bit against the illegal activity he lists there as the law is, and yes, that IS applied to believers.
No problem.
s
We are looking at this much differently. I do not view Grace as the other side of the Law coin. Comparing the two is as comparing apples and dead fish.
I see a few posting suggesting that we(Christians) will be judged by the Law.
I do not agree with that concerning the final Judgement. I'm fine with self examination by the Law. But the Law offers no remedy. Only condemnation. No forgivness, but only temporal appeasement.
Jesus was sent to the world and for the world. He was our example and set the example for us, including the Sabbath. Jesus did not do things simply because He was a Jew our was living with them.
It iis totally about the heart. Keeping the Sabbath is not about earning Salvation, it is about doing what God requires. Keeping the Sabbath while hating your bother will not get you to heaven either.You have a point there. But I think you're missing a point.
With the immediate punishment gone, it does tend to work that way. Does that make our sinfulness proper? No, it simply shows our rebelliousness.
Now on the Sabbath issue: Does God examine the intent of our heart or demand we hold to the letter of the Law?
I will say no more than the fact that the same passage you are quoting states that the people were at fault not the Law. The table not the chair.Let me get this straight - you insist that the broken chair isn't broken, and you're just going to hide it under a table you introduced and pretend it isn't broken anymore. Instead of addressing the analogy I presented, you want to change the chair into a table.
No, let us address the chair instead, for it is the chair I introduced to represent the broken covenant from Mount Sinai, which Moses named the Ten Commandments.
Hebrews 8 describes the old chair:
Both Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 contain a narrative of God making a new covenant, or a new chair, that is not according to the pattern of the old chair: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.
- The old chair is faulty: if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
- The old chair was violated, i.e. broken: they did not continue in My covenant.
- The old chair is obsolete: In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first obsolete.
- The old chair is ready for disposal: Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
While you assert that hiding the chair under the table somehow made it new (which is absurd), the narrative you're confronted with tells a entirely different story: the old chair is disposed of, and God made a new chair of an entirely different design.
A misrepresentation.I think those promoting the Law would disagree with you that Grace is against sin, instead they would contend that Grace ALLOWS free sinning and thus the Law is superior to Grace and trumps it.
I will say no more than the fact that the same passage you are quoting states that the people were at fault not the Law.
The table not the chair.
not really.... when you wish to replace grace with the Law you end up trumping itA misrepresentation.
I think those promoting the Law would disagree with you that Grace is against sin, instead they would contend that Grace ALLOWS free sinning and thus the Law is superior to Grace and trumps it.
Actually sin under the Law is supposed to carry (in many cases) the penalty of death while under grace Jesus took that penalty already.Grace does not allow for free sinning anymore than the Law. Why should it? In what way? Explain what you mean, please.
Grace is superior to the Law in that the Law can not give anyone power to overcome sin with inner peace. Virtue. Grace has an intent to free one to serve God, not sin. Under Law, one had to serve the Law as his God.
If someone under grace abuses his calling, as having been placed by God? That should make any difference from what the prodigal son did, who chose to sin while under the Law. Free sin, is free sin. The only difference is what one must get around and through in order to sin. Those who want to sin, will sin. Makes no difference if it was under Law, or grace. Rebellion against God is not eliminated by the means to live what is required by God for his approval.
Actually sin under the Law is supposed to carry (in many cases) the penalty of death while under grace Jesus took that penalty already.
Actually sin under the Law is supposed to carry (in many cases) the penalty of death while under grace Jesus took that penalty already.
No, Christians are not required to stone adulterers etc... try againSins involving the penalty of death carries the same penalty under the dispensation of grace. Why should that be different?
1 John 5:16God does not let anything get by Him. But, maybe you prefer taking your fellow believer outside and stone him to death as they did under the Law? Is that what you miss?
If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death,
you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does
not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that
you should pray about that.
Well then we agree. Now as nearly every poster has told you they keep Christ in their heart as their Sabbath, why are you insistent that we must attend Church on Saturday? Sure seems the letter of the Law is more important to you.It iis totally about the heart. Keeping the Sabbath is not about earning Salvation, it is about doing what God requires. Keeping the Sabbath while hating your bother will not get you to heaven either.
I think those promoting the Law would disagree with you that Grace is against sin, instead they would contend that Grace ALLOWS free sinning and thus the Law is superior to Grace and trumps it.
I just don't see any pro grace poster making such a claim here in this forum. Would you kindly point me to an example of this with a shortcut to that post?Jesus condemned sin in sinful flesh no differently than the law.
Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
The formula many hyper grace adherents suppose is that sin is now OK because of that action. It isn't. Never was. Under either measure, law or grace, sin remains condemned.
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?