What have you understood about the charcater of The Ten Commandments??

[squint]

The Bible is only contradictory for those unbelieving people looking for a way out. Any honest person will readily see the progression of the Bible story.

You understand that nothing that was said therein denigrates the Law and it's rightful working and place for believers?

Paul died daily for cause. That cause was the presence of indwelling sin, of evil present, of the messenger of Satan in his own flesh, of the temptation he admittedly carried.

I thank GOD for showing us an honest man.

s

 

[from scratch]

Why would it have to? The measures of sin didn't change as it pertains to the findings of fact under law. Grace actually added to the measure as in 'anything not of faith is sin.' Looks substantially broadened by that definition.

Either you don't understand grace or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

One might think that grace has the same prohibitions i.e. not leading to murder, theft, adultery, etc. So again I would ask, where is there a difference, both law and grace being against sin?

Grace neither condones sin or enforcement of the law. I'd like to state it another way, but that would only produce false argument from the unbelieving.

The most obvious answer is that grace does not contain that liberty any differently than the law.

Only if you think that liberty means sin is OK.

As if living legally doesn't qualify?

Self righteousness won't pass the judgment. One needs the righteousness that isn't their own. One must accept the substitionary righteousness available only as a gift from God.

Indeed. No differently than under law.

Only when on the carnal level.

Stated many times, I have no issues with either being against sin including my own. That's precisely the direction both are meant to take us.

s

I disagree.

 

[from scratch]

You understand that nothing that was said therein denigrates the Law and it's rightful working and place for believers?

Paul died daily for cause. That cause was the presence of indwelling sin, of evil present, of the messenger of Satan in his own flesh, of the temptation he admittedly carried.

I thank GOD for showing us an honest man.

s

Then indeed something can separate us from the love of God.

No I don't denigrate the law. God replaced it with mercy in His grace just like He said He would.

 

[squint]

Either you don't understand grace or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Who's arguing? I just deny that squeezing ourselves in on one side or the other won't compute and was never meant to compute.

Grace neither condones sin or enforcement of the law.

So sez u. Grace as you yourself note is every bit against sin.

I'd like to state it another way, but that would only produce false argument from the unbelieving.

No idea what yer talkin about there. Most here are supposed to be believers. If a stray or two happens to learn something good on them.

Only if you think that liberty means sin is OK.

That is why your argument is no different than the legalist. Both parties rightfully I might add, do not prosper or promote sin in either case. So all the straining against those 'trying' to live legally in order to not sin would be no different than YOU trying not to sin under GRACE.

get it yet?

Self righteousness won't pass the judgment.

To say trying to live in separation from sin is self righteous now? What hat did you pull that one out of?

One needs the righteousness that isn't their own. One must accept the substitionary righteousness available only as a gift from God.

All the attributed righteousness you claim is not going to let a single sin crack through the door either.

Only when on the carnal level. I disagree.

It is not carnal to divide and separate from SIN by any measure my friend. That is the call of christian life.

s

 

[squint]

Then indeed something can separate us from the love of God.

No I don't denigrate the law. God replaced it with mercy in His grace just like He said He would.

I understand your efforts to try to drag the entirety of yourself through the door of grace. Gods Law and Grace are against sin. There is no getting around this fact by any measure of fancy theological footwork.

s

 

[VictorC]

So God admitted to making a mistake! He made the covenant that was flawed, so God made a boo boo.
According to you the Ten commandments was part of this covenant, that would mean that the commandments that you call holy was part of this flawed covenant. How flawed is God's holy sacred law? For that matter, how flawed is God? That s where your argument leads. How long before you admit that.

First of all, it is according to Moses that we know the name of the covenant from Mount Sinai as the Ten Commandments. If it wasn't for his contribution, we would probably call it something else.

Second, consistent with how you've discarded Scripture and replaced it with your own ideas, I can see that it isn't that difficult to fabricate an argument that concludes with God being 'faulty'. All it takes is changing the terms Scripture uses, to change the narrative God spoke to Jeremiah and what it lead the inspired author of Hebrews to conclude from God's own statement.

While you think God has to be 'faulty', what comes across is your conclusion that He did not promise to make a new covenant, unlike the one He made with Israel when He delivered them from Egyptian bondage. When you discard Scripture in this way, you've lost the argument you sought to make; the old covenant became 'obsolete', and is not moved to another location.

I also noticed this fantastic claim you keep making, even after repeatedly failing to provide support for it:

God says keep the Sabbath.

The agenda seventh-day Adventists have shows that they need to revert to the sabbath they as Gentiles were never given, and they have not entered into God's 'My rest' that Christians perceive to be the reality the shadows of the Law were designed to lead us into. This agenda drives the mutilation of Scripture into a fairy tale designed to ensnare others into a modified form of old-covenant Judaism with a 'Christian' label slapped onto it. They really have no use for Jesus after discarding His redemption.

 

[from scratch]

Did you ever take note of the following "thou shall not?"

Ephesians 5:18

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.
​

The Law would simply state not to get drunk on wine. That it is sin. Grace offers life, not just the prohibition.

Do not is vastly different from thou shalt not. This is often used as a thou shalt not verse even by the pro grace community who preach a version of grace and demand the law. A pseudo grace is preached and practiced in most of our churches these days. I reject that and am not welcome but tolerated in their social snot clubs. Just required to keep my mouth shut and indorse what they say by silence.

The Spirit enables one not to walk in his sin nature. But, the agreement must be that the one the Holy Spirit is filling must desire to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord. For that is why the Holy Spirit keeps us from sinning. So we can know the Lord more and more as we keep on growing in grace and truth.


God does not remove from us at this time from having a sin nature. This state of self weakness forces us to choose to be Spirit dependent upon if we desire to do God's will for our lives. Part of the reason behind that is because God is dealing with His judgement of fallen angels. The fallen angels at this time are free to accuse us when we sin. Why is that? When they do condemn us when we sin, inadvertently they are falling prey to judging themselves. By judging in us what they condemn backfires on themselves.

In a way, God gets a chuckle out of watching the evil angels who used to scream how God is unfair, while at the same time condemn vehemently believers who slip from grace. Fallen angels condemning for what they themselves are doing all the time. "Judge not lest ye be judged.. as you judge in others, so shall you be judged. God is vindicating His condemning the fallen angels by getting them to fess up by means of their jealousy and hatred for God's recipients of grace!


I will stop here for now.

Committing a sin isn't slipping from grace. Grace allows free will compliance and permits disobedience (not the same as endorsing or winking at sin). Yes I know that sounds kinda like OSAS stuff to which I deny.

 

[from scratch]

This get me angry. Why? I have never stated nor supported replacing grace with law. Where is that stated? The bible states that where sin abounds grace do much more abound, so that grace is not imputed where there is no law. Law must be to have grace. God grants us grace because we have transgressed the law. So grace against law and law against grace is stupid.
Romans 4: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Although you haven't made such a bold statement, what you post supports exactly that.

 

[VictorC]

God says keep the Sabbath.

Several have already noticed this fabrication, and have already jumped Elder111's case seeking support for his contention that experience has shown never comes.
So...
This seems like a good place to remind everyone of what Elder111 claimed before:

The Sabbath is the test. The tree in the mist of the Garden. That person have to decide on.

There isn't a hint of the sabbath being a test of any sort to God's redeemed possession anywhere in the Bible. You didn't get this from any Biblically literate source. This is further evidence that you're a seventh-day Adventist, who alone made this up.

Every man has been placed on trial, as were Adam and Eve in Eden. As the tree of knowledge was placed in the midst of the garden of Eden, so the Sabbath command is placed in the midst of the decalogue. In regard to the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the restriction was made, “Ye shall not eat of it, ... lest ye die.” Of the Sabbath, God said, Ye shall not defile it, but keep it holy. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” As the tree of knowledge was the test of Adam’s obedience, so the fourth command is the test that God has given to prove the loyalty of all his people. The experience of Adam is to be a warning to us so long as time shall last. It warns us not to receive any assurance from the mouth of men or of angels that will detract one jot or tittle from the sacred law of Jehovah.​

Linking the tree in the garden with the sabbath reveals your true source.
And yet in this same document written by Ellen White opens with this unBiblical claim:

The Sabbath was given to all mankind to commemorate the work of creation.​

We've already seen this isn't true. The sabbath wasn't given to the Gentiles, no one in Barbados has this commandment foreign to them, and it appears nowhere as a commandment given to God's adopted children.

Elder111's reliance is on Ellen White.
Not the Bible.

 

[from scratch]

Who's arguing? I just deny that squeezing ourselves in on one side or the other won't compute and was never meant to compute.



So sez u. Grace as you yourself note is every bit against sin.



No idea what yer talkin about there. Most here are supposed to be believers. If a stray or two happens to learn something good on them.


That is why your argument is no different than the legalist. Both parties rightfully I might add, do not prosper or promote sin in either case. So all the straining against those 'trying' to live legally in order to not sin would be no different than YOU trying not to sin under GRACE.

get it yet?



To say trying to live in separation from sin is self righteous now? What hat did you pull that one out of?



All the attributed righteousness you claim is not going to let a single sin crack through the door either.



It is not carnal to divide and separate from SIN by any measure my friend. That is the call of christian life.

s

Anything you say sir. I gotta go.

 

[squint]

Anything you say sir. I gotta go.

The observation of fact remains. Your version of grace is against sin no different than the law by your own statements.

Take it up sometime.

 

[VictorC]

A fault, one I'm guilty of myself, is to take verses not only out of context, but ignore other verses that teach an opposite view. Then we take the moral high ground to defend our view: the view is clearly stated in Scripture, we claim, are you denying its teaching, we ask.

The solution is to form a teaching that accommodates both views. Doesn't that break a fundamental rule, the rule that disallows contradictions? Not really. The NT writers used the same words that meant different things in different contexts, settings. We are saints, we do not have sin. If we claim to be without sin the truth is not in us!

Those who claim the law is valid use verses that teach this:

• “…For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified…” (Romans 2:13).
• “…Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid:yea, we establish the law” (Romans 3:31).
• “…Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just,and good” (Romans 7:12)
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).

Yes, I agree that taking verses out of their context presents a picture of something inconsistent with the narrative they appear in. And, that is the case with all of the examples you provided - with the exception of Matthew 5:17, where the qualification 'to fulfill' ( and 'till all is fulfilled' in v.18) is usually omitted. Sound bites are attractive to those who want to avoid the narrative.

 

[Sophrosyne]

This get me angry. Why? I have never stated nor supported replacing grace with law. Where is that stated? The bible states that where sin abounds grace do much more abound, so that grace is not imputed where there is no law. Law must be to have grace. God grants us grace because we have transgressed the law. So grace against law and law against grace is stupid.
Romans 4: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Actually by your practice of demanding Law upon people you HAVE supported replacing Grace with it. The Gospel of Grace repeals the Law upon believers and you seek to reverse that situation.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Easy-peasey. God wanted righteousness of God (pizza). Israel brought righteousness of their own (burger).

Would you like to guess what the "righteousness of God" referred to by Paul was?

Don't understand the link between your verse and comments.

 

[shturt678s]

I understand your efforts to try to drag the entirety of yourself through the door of grace. Gods Law and Grace are against sin. There is no getting around this fact by any measure of fancy theological footwork.

s

I thought law and grace actually deal with sin, and not so much against it, ie, law shows its guilt penalty, grace shows its removal thus they together produce contrition + grace (faith).

Only another view,

Jack

 

[squint]

I thought law and grace actually deal with sin, and not so much against it, ie, law shows its guilt penalty, grace shows its removal thus they together produce contrition + grace (faith).

Only another view,

Jack

I am not aware of becoming sinless by grace. I doubt if too many Lutherans of any flavor would see it that way either.

 

[Wordkeeper]

When Paul uses the word Law he means the response God requires from men, both Jew and Gentile. Those who sin without the Jewish Law will be judged without the Jewish Law, ie by the eternal, universal law.


Romans 2
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

IOW, law represented a result bound contract between God and Man.

After the Cross, this contract was abolished, not the law. IOW, the terms (not requirements) were null and void because the contractual obligations had been met, the result delivered.

Now, the requirements still exist (and will continue to exist as long as man exists!), but the terms have changed. The old terms were:


1. Hear the Law
2. Observe the Law
3. Realise the impossibility of meeting its requirements.
4. Realise the need for God to intervene.
5. Realise that God's solution would be the result of the promise to Abraham, analogous to Isaac, who was the result of a similar promise to Abraham:

Promise 1
The world would be blessed through Abraham's Seed

Promise 2
Abraham would have a son

Parallel for Promise 1
Israel tried to bless the world through their own seeds, resulting in the world being blessed through keeping of the Law. The result was a being put under a shackle.

Parallel for Promise 2
Abraham tried to have a son through Hagar, a slave. The result was a son born to slavery.


Bottomline, Ishmael was Abraham's effort at fulfilling Gods Promise, just as Israel's wrong observance of Torah was her effort at fulfilling Gods Promise.


How was Israel supposed to fulfill law? The way Abraham should have fulfilled God's promise, by believing it. God promised He would act, Israel should have believed. Because God did act. He sent Christ.

What became different when Christ came?

When Christ came, He made the only reparation possible, acceptable: a sinless sacrifice. Sinless because He needed to bear the sins of others. A sinful man could only bear the consequences of his own sin.

When Christ came, He gave rest, closure. The law was supposed to bring awareness of sin and dependence on God, and protection from its penalties, and closure, by giving life through union with God (there I said it). It didn't, because what could man unite with, without God sending the union partner, the destination, the Promised Land? All that Law could do was to recognise repentance, resulting in immunity, salvation, safekeeping by virtue of its pedagogic role, which was what John the Baptist taught. It could not give life, which was had by resting, abiding, in Christ.

Resting in Christ resulted in abillty to meet all the requirements of the Law.

Galatians 3
13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”— 14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Now I can post till the cows come home, show you this motif throughout Scripture, attempt to cover different aspects of the teaching, but really, coming out with your doubts would be much easier to reach a comprehensive view... and faster.

DO post what you feel is not clear, and definitely, point out the weaknesses in the argumentation. Blessings to be had for all, me included, because we could discover fresh truths, together!

I thought law and grace actually deal with sin, and not so much against it, ie, law shows its guilt penalty, grace shows its removal thus they together produce contrition + grace (faith).


Only another view,

Jack

 

[squint]

Promise 1
The world would be blessed through Abraham's Seed

Promise 2
Abraham would have a son

Parallel for Promise 1
Israel tried to bless the world through their own seeds, resulting in the world being blessed through keeping of the Law. The result was a being put under a shackle.

Parallel for Promise 2
Abraham tried to have a son through Hagar, a slave. The result was a son born to slavery.

Bottomline, Ishmael was Abraham's effort at fulfilling Gods Promise, just as Israel's wrong observance of Torah was her effort at fulfilling Gods Promise.

Even more than that. Abram to Abraham himself is exemplified in his own TWO flesh sons, one which can not be favored and one that is irrevocably for set for Gods favor.

See it in Galatians 4:29. That is not an allegory of Abrahams two sons, but of himself, and of all of us who believe as we struggle with our own NON BLESSED son of the flesh, trying vainly to make that one blessed rather than shown the door of departure.

 

[shturt678s]

I am not aware of becoming sinless by grace. I doubt if too many Lutherans of any flavor would see it that way either.

I thought even the modern waterdowned Lutherans understood that grace pardons the sinner, eg, Rom.3:24 thus sinless from the eyes of heaven - I could be in error?

Sinner Jack

 

[squint]

I thought even the modern waterdowned Lutherans understood that grace pardons the sinner, eg, Rom.3:24 thus sinless from the eyes of heaven - I could be in error?

Sinner Jack

Not aware of the conveyance of sinless perfection in this present life by any Lutheran body I'm aware of.