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

[from scratch]

So the Biblical definition is faulty?
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. To take away sins not the law!

i Do you notice what you are saying here? Your position is that because you are going to break the rules there should be no rules. Is that really how God is? Should you not give your children rules because they will break them anyway? Continuing with your example, there should be no speed limit because people will exceed it anyway. God gave the Ten Commandments, if that was just the problem Jesus had no need to die, all God had to do was to remove the law. As a matter of fact since He is the all knowing God he did not need to put it there in the first place hen to have to remove it. God made a mistake and then He had to correct it with His life? Think again!
My precious sisiter, it is God that gave the rules. You feed that he did not know what he was doing?
We are not set free from God requirements, not to steal or lie or commetting adutery. Your set free from the penalty of death after you have done such. Knowing that we have sinned we trun in repentance to God and recieves His forgiveness and golry Halelu, He saves us. My sister, don't you thing love has something to do with a wife not committing adutery? Don't you thing that love has something to do with worshipiing God an dHm alone? Don't you thing that Love has something to do with Honoring you parents? The Ten commandments is about love. That was always the case. Deut 6: 5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Mat. 22: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Look above. Jesus spoke the same message in Deuteronomy with the Ten commandments so why do you thing that because He repeated it again that it suddenly replaces the Ten Commandments?
It is a theology that we have developed not one that Jesus gave. Look at the passage in Mathew carefully and see that Jesus was answering a question and that the lawyer knew the answer. It was a test by the Lawyer to trap Jesus and not a Statement that Jesus was making of a new position.

What you don't seem to accept and understand from the plain text is God gave the law exclusively to Israel and no one else. You also don't accept and understand God made a new different covenant.

 

[Sophrosyne]

What you don't seem to accept and understand from the plain text is God gave the law exclusively to Israel and no one else. You also don't accept and understand God made a new different covenant.

Yes..... this is the two statements that are ignored constantly here.... with impunity. Why didn't God force ALL mankind to keep the Mosaic Covenant AND Mosaic Law? Nobody was held accountable for it BUT those whom willingly included themselves WITH Moses and the nation formed under his leadership at that time (Israel). The Law was never branched out into the world and God never instructed Israel to punish anyone other than their OWN people using it as a standard. If the Law wasn't for anyone but Israel then why suddenly is it now for anyone BUT Israel now? Jesus didn't change the Law to INCLUDE non Israelis in ANY of his edicts.... nor did ANY apostle of his including Paul change the Mosaic Covenant to include (in the future) gentiles who became Christians (NOT JEWS).
We have a blatant denial of the New Covenant here by those promoting the Mosaic Law upon Christians. They surgically extract parts of it, taking what they call Holy and castrating it for their ideas of righteousness and imposing bits and pieces upon Christians pretending they are now connected to a mysterious source of righteousness that is proven by the Bible to NOT EXIST as nobody but Jesus ever was proclaimed righteous VIA the Law itself, and Jesus was already righteous WITHOUT THE LAW.

 

[from scratch]

The fact that transgression of the law is a sin is beyond question. It is a fact of many scriptures. The fact that sin is of the devil is also beyond question and is a fact of many scriptures.

Satan/devils and LAW are just as intimately linked as man is.

Uh, because Satan and devils resist God? Do you think Satan is termed the adversary for no cause?

I've cited to you several times now to read 'our' Gospels. Matt. 13, Mark 4, Luke 8 and many other scriptures show that Satan automatically resists Gods Words where they are sown.

Satan reacts adversely to LAW, does so primarily through the thought realm via TEMPTATIONs and every sin is connected to Satan.

How much more linkage do you want?
The law was not made to save THEM, but to CONVICT and to DAMN THEM.

Why is it you can't seem to get the fact that Satan/devils and mankind overlap on matters of sin? Does it offend you, the fact of our sin being linked to Satanic slaveship?

Scriptures leave all of us who claim to be 'christians' only ONE PATH out of the MESS of Satanic slaveship. It is found (among other places) in Romans 13:8-10, which is the spiritual fulfillment of the LAW by/in everyone who does that. When believers do this they prove that Christ is in them, LOVING.

Satan and devils assuredly can not perform that. That is one way to determine who is a slave and who is a free man.

Seriously? Do you even understand this subject matter? IT's one of the most basic foundational christian theological principles there is.

Satan is the enemy of God.

Where do you get the idea I ever promoted that? Never have. Have always said the exact opposite. Who are you reading? Someone else?

Stay on cue.

No argument from me. My main point in these matters is that under either LAW or GRACE that the tempter is not justified under either flag and all of us are subject to temptation after salvation.

Therefore we can not claim the tempter is legal or the tempter is under grace. For any reason.

Your avenue out of that fact was to claim you are void of internal temptation of the tempter. That is where you fell off the viable conversation list.

s

No one can serve opposing masters.

 

[from scratch]

I'd suggest a closer read of content followed by credible questions.

->Did I say that believers are bound to the law? No. That does not account for the entire equation presented as there is 'more' to the believer than just the believer. I understand this is where you will continue to not see.

->Am I implying you are not christians? No. Where in the world did you come up with that one? I've NEVER made or implied anything of that sort.

->The last question is more credible.

If we observed how Paul defines and describes himself we should all be able to see the following facts:

-Paul had indwelling sin that was 'not him.'
-Paul had evil present with him.
-Paul had temptation in his flesh.
-Paul had a messenger of Satan in his flesh.

Do you see just Paul? I don't as that is not how Paul shows us himself.

When you get this far get back to me. Otherwise you see just Paul and that is not the case that Paul makes. If you ever do understand 'how' Paul describes himself we can move along on the scale of mutual understandings.

Paul's understanding of LAW and how that relates to us directly relates to how Paul showed us himself. It's also why Paul is hard to understand.

A believer is entirely under Grace.

The lawlessness that is present with all of us in the form of indwelling sin, of evil present, of the tempter remains illegal under the law and is not under grace. This is not a difficult concept once a believer 'truthfully' comes to the conclusion that temptation is internal and is of the tempter.

At that point the believer sees that it is not just a question of 'themselves alone' nor are the subjects Paul dealt with done in that manner. Paul accounted himself accurately. He was entirely saved, entirely under grace. But that was not 'all' that Paul consisted of nor is it for any of us.

s

Who are the righteous in 1 Tim 1:9?

You've said and implied the law and grace are the same thing. I haven't yet seen your response to my question about the definition of each proving such a thing. The Bible shows very clearly there is a difference.

 

[squint]

What you don't seem to accept and understand from the plain text is God gave the law exclusively to Israel and no one else. You also don't accept and understand God made a new different covenant.

No legalist can be convinced of that because it is not a truthful statement.

From Jesus:

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Jesus did not throw away the Word of God or cast it aside.

Every N.T. principle was taken directly out of the Old Testament Word of God, every Word of which was upheld by the Apostles.

Paul shows us for example in Romans that the position of justification apart from the Law is in fact witnessed to in the Law and the Prophets. (Romans 3:1)

Peter says the same thing about Grace to which the Prophets testify to in 1 Peter 1:10.

The notion that Jesus or the Apostles cast aside Gods Word of the Old Testament is false. Believers just have a hard time seeing these matters as spiritual and insist on literal only sights of the Old Testament. Paul said the law is spiritual and spiritual IT IS.

Jesus taught the Word of the Old Testament in PARABOLIC fashions precisely because The Word is SPIRITUAL in nature.

Luke 8:11
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

The Word of the Old Testament is not a matter of simple black print on paper. It is parabolic in nature and deals with spiritual matters and every Word of God is of Jesus Himself as The Word who became flesh.

The seed is in fact HIM, Jesus. As Paul shows us in:

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The Old Testament Word of God became Flesh and dwelt among men. It was precisely in this way that the LAW changed. He is The New Covenant.

Both the Priesthood and the Law were personified forever As Christ, Jesus.

I would never expect any 'legalist' to abandon Gods Words. It is not required nor would I consider that practice a practice of orthodox christianity of any sort.

Old Testament Word of God is sprinkled into the Nicene Creed to describe the Trinity of God. It is not possible to credibly toss it aside.

A lot of you guys try to get legalists to side with Grace Alone on a contrived basis of tossing away Gods Words. That is not a path that any should take on the way to understanding Grace.

The Law is VITAL to establishing the facts of SIN. It is an irremovable part of the Gospel.

s

 

[squint]

Who are the righteous in 1 Tim 1:9?

You've said and implied the law and grace are the same thing. I haven't yet seen your response to my question about the definition of each proving such a thing. The Bible shows very clearly there is a difference.

Again, I've said nothing of that sort. I can only say that the topic matter is over your head.

 

[from scratch]

No legalist can be convinced of that because it is not a truthful statement.

From Jesus:

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Jesus did not throw away the Word of God or cast it aside.

Every N.T. principle was taken directly out of the Old Testament Word of God, every Word of which was upheld by the Apostles.

Paul shows us for example in Romans that the position of justification apart from the Law is in fact witnessed to in the Law and the Prophets. (Romans 3:1)

Peter says the same thing about Grace to which the Prophets testify to in 1 Peter 1:10.

The notion that Jesus or the Apostles cast aside Gods Word of the Old Testament is false. Believers just have a hard time seeing these matters as spiritual and insist on literal only sights of the Old Testament. Paul said the law is spiritual and spiritual IT IS.

Jesus taught the Word of the Old Testament in PARABOLIC fashions precisely because The Word is SPIRITUAL in nature.

Luke 8:11
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

The Word of the Old Testament is not a matter of simple black print on paper. It is parabolic in nature and deals with spiritual matters and every Word of God is of Jesus Himself as The Word who became flesh.

The seed is in fact HIM, Jesus. As Paul shows us in:

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The Old Testament Word of God became Flesh and dwelt among men. It was precisely in this way that the LAW changed. He is The New Covenant.

Both the Priesthood and the Law were personified forever As Christ, Jesus.

I would never expect any 'legalist' to abandon Gods Words. It is not required nor would I consider that practice a practice of orthodox christianity of any sort.

Old Testament Word of God is sprinkled into the Nicene Creed to describe the Trinity of God. It is not possible to credibly toss it aside.

A lot of you guys try to get legalists to side with Grace Alone on a contrived basis of tossing away Gods Words. That is not a path that any should take on the way to understanding Grace.

The Law is VITAL to establishing the facts of SIN. It is an irremovable part of the Gospel.

s

OK so you don't accept God's word. I think I detect a PEBKAC problem.

 

[squint]

No one can serve opposing masters.

That is entirely beyond any point as well.

The last bastion that many run to to avoid the conclusion of their sin is in fact of the devil is to deny they have temptation of the tempter.

So if that's where you want to go, then go there. I don't consider that claim to be a credible claim.

The tempter tempts and tempt in mind he does regardless of anyone's claims of immunity.

s

 

[squint]

OK so you don't accept God's word. I think I detect a PEBKAC problem.

you're grasping at fallacies now. that is completely the opposite of anything I've said.

 

[from scratch]

I'd suggest a closer read of content followed by credible questions.

->Did I say that believers are bound to the law? No. That does not account for the entire equation presented as there is 'more' to the believer than just the believer. I understand this is where you will continue to not see.

->Am I implying you are not christians? No. Where in the world did you come up with that one? I've NEVER made or implied anything of that sort.

->The last question is more credible.

If we observed how Paul defines and describes himself we should all be able to see the following facts:

-Paul had indwelling sin that was 'not him.'
-Paul had evil present with him.
-Paul had temptation in his flesh.
-Paul had a messenger of Satan in his flesh.

Do you see just Paul? I don't as that is not how Paul shows us himself.

When you get this far get back to me. Otherwise you see just Paul and that is not the case that Paul makes. If you ever do understand 'how' Paul describes himself we can move along on the scale of mutual understandings.

Paul's understanding of LAW and how that relates to us directly relates to how Paul showed us himself. It's also why Paul is hard to understand.

A believer is entirely under Grace.

The lawlessness that is present with all of us in the form of indwelling sin, of evil present, of the tempter remains illegal under the law and is not under grace. This is not a difficult concept once a believer 'truthfully' comes to the conclusion that temptation is internal and is of the tempter.

At that point the believer sees that it is not just a question of 'themselves alone' nor are the subjects Paul dealt with done in that manner. Paul accounted himself accurately. He was entirely saved, entirely under grace. But that was not 'all' that Paul consisted of nor is it for any of us.

s

What does Paul mean with -

Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

and

Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

 

[squint]

What does Paul mean with -

Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

and

Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Sin is of the devil. Do the math.

 

[from scratch]

you're grasping at fallacies now. that is completely the opposite of anything I've said.

No sir I'm not grasping at straws. I'm stating the obvious. Nice dodge though.

 

[from scratch]

Sin is of the devil. Do the math.

For sure. That simply doesn't mean sin or the devil resides in my heart.

 

[squint]

For sure. That simply doesn't mean sin or the devil resides in my heart.

Immune from temptation of the tempter then? Is that your conclusion?

I might also add that none of us escape the findings of the law that we are sinners, even after salvation, fwiw.

The law continues to prove this fact whether we toss it or not. That conclusion doesn't change after salvation.

s

 

[squint]

No sir I'm not grasping at straws. I'm stating the obvious. Nice dodge though.

Nice dodge of what? The strawman you hung up as my statement? lol

 

[Elder 111]

I want to address what I bolded in your response.

That is not the position being made. You have used logic to come up with a false conclusion.

it is the belief of most orthodox minded Christians that The price for sin has been paid. That it is now our place to come to Christ to receive forgiveness and go and sin no more. Yes the law defines sin just as Love defines godliness.
If the Law was made to be perfectly kept only one has kept it. But that was not the purpose of the Law. The Law was to teach us. Not how to be perfect but show us that we are not.

So you are saying God told us not to kill so that we will know that we are what? He told us to worship Him only so that we may know that we are idol worshiper? He told us not to commit adultery so that we may know what? That we will know that we will always be adulterers? God told us to honor our mothers and fathers because He knew that we will ignore them and look to collect they goods after they die?

I think every Christian (whether knowingly or not) has attempted at least a few times to follow the Law. Failure bring us back to reality. Even as we attempt and really focus on it we fail. The problem, my friend is the focus. Our focus should be upon Christ. I have also found that when I take my focus off Christ, I sin just the same as when I take my focus off the Law. But knowing full well that the Law cannot save me I'll live on in Christ as the remedy is with Christ and not the Law.
The Law is cold and dead. Written on cold dead stone. Christ is risen offering love. Written upon our hearts with His Holy Blood.
You hurt me. dearly so. My friend the focus not on the law. Jesus is our salvation but as such I have to live holy. Living a holy life includes not stealing lying, not committing adultery. In other words I keep the law!
Christ not against His Holy Ten Commandments that HE wrote with His own Hands. If Christ is in me I live as the Ten commandments dictates.It is not that I look to them for salvation, but being saved I naturally live within their parameters.

Merry Christmas Elder 111. May the Advent bring your family peace and may love (Christ) abound in your household.[/quote]

 

[from scratch]

Immune from temptation of the tempter then? Is that your conclusion?

I might also add that none of us escape the findings of the law that we are sinners, even after salvation, fwiw.

The law continues to prove this fact whether we toss it or not. That conclusion doesn't change after salvation.

s

Who claims immunity from temptation? Not me!! Hey you can deny your position in Jesus Christ if you want. I like the positive while you dwell on the negative. Why? I love good things.

 

[from scratch]

So you are saying God told us not to kill so that we will know that we are what? He told us to worship Him only so that we may know that we are idol worshiper? He told us not to commit adultery so that we may know what? That we will know that we will always be adulterers? God told us to honor our mothers and fathers because He knew that we will ignore them and look to collect they goods after they die?

I think every Christian (whether knowingly or not) has attempted at least a few times to follow the Law. Failure bring us back to reality. Even as we attempt and really focus on it we fail. The problem, my friend is the focus. Our focus should be upon Christ. I have also found that when I take my focus off Christ, I sin just the same as when I take my focus off the Law. But knowing full well that the Law cannot save me I'll live on in Christ as the remedy is with Christ and not the Law.
The Law is cold and dead. Written on cold dead stone. Christ is risen offering love. Written upon our hearts with His Holy Blood.
You hurt me. dearly so. My friend the focus not on the law. Jesus is our salvation but as such I have to live holy. Living a holy life includes not stealing lying, not committing adultery. In other words I keep the law!
Christ not against His Holy Ten Commandments that HE wrote with His own Hands. If Christ is in me I live as the Ten commandments dictates.It is not that I look to them for salvation, but being saved I naturally live within their parameters.

Merry Christmas Elder 111. May the Advent bring your family peace and may love (Christ) abound in your household.

Certainly because that is the lie promoted in religious circles.

 

[GenemZ]

Sin is of the devil. Do the math.

What with this math stuff? Sin began with the devil. He was the first to sin. Do the math. You're not the devil. He has enough problems of his own. Matter of fact, when you represent him with your attitude, it embarrasses him. It makes him realize what a loser he is.

 

[GenemZ]

Who claims immunity from temptation? Not me!! Hey you can deny your position in Jesus Christ if you want. I like the positive while you dwell on the negative. Why? I love good things.

In Christ we are supposed to build each other up. Do the math. He's a minus.