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 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.
Either you don't understand grace or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.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.
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.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?
Only if you think that liberty means sin is OK.The most obvious answer is that grace does not contain that liberty any differently than the law.
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.As if living legally doesn't qualify?
Only when on the carnal level.Indeed. No differently than under law.
I disagree.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
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
Either you don't understand grace or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
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.
Only if you think that liberty means sin is OK.
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.
Only when on the carnal level. I disagree.
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.
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.
God says keep the Sabbath.
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.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.
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.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.
Although you haven't made such a bold statement, what you post supports exactly that.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.
Several have already noticed this fabrication, and have already jumped Elder111's case seeking support for his contention that experience has shown never comes.God says keep the Sabbath.
The Sabbath is the test. The tree in the mist of the Garden. That person have to decide on.
Anything you say sir. I gotta go.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
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).
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.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.
Don't understand the link between your verse and comments.
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
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
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.
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
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?