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

[from scratch]

Trumps it? HOW?

Did you misread that post?

 

[from scratch]

I've asked you before that if that is the case, how then is grace any different regarding sin?

Then I must be misunderstanding what you're asking. Its plain to me what the difference is in regard to sin. Grace doesn't say thou shalt not where aw the law does. Under grace the Holy Spirit doesn't lead one to sin or the law to keep one from sinning. If I say liberty you might say yep to sin. I wouldn't say that at all. In choosing to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit one chooses live righteously as a lifestyle. This doesn't say one can't be led away by his own lusts of the flesh and sin. In case you haven't heard there is a war taking place with each of us. The rebellious living sacrifice keeps crawling off of the altar.

 

[Sophrosyne]

You keep sidestepping.

No... I'm not. I equated breaking the Law = death something that Grace doesn't have at all. Christians are not required to stone people which Israel under the Law was required to do. This whole thread is about the Law and the Law is a ministry of death according to Paul.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Trumps it? HOW?

by demanding compliance to the Law which means to them it supercedes or trumps Grace.

 

[squint]

Then I must be misunderstanding what you're asking. Its plain to me what the difference is in regard to sin. Grace doesn't say thou shalt not where aw the law does.

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.

Under grace the Holy Spirit doesn't lead one to sin or the law to keep one from sinning.

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?

If I say liberty you might say yep to sin.

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

I wouldn't say that at all. In choosing to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit one chooses live righteously as a lifestyle.

As if living legally doesn't qualify?

This doesn't say one can't be led away by his own lusts of the flesh and sin.

Indeed. No differently than under law.

In case you haven't heard there is a war taking place with each of us. The rebellious living sacrifice keeps crawling off of the altar.

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

 

[GenemZ]

Then I must be misunderstanding what you're asking. Its plain to me what the difference is in regard to sin. Grace doesn't say thou shalt not where aw the law does.

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.

Under grace the Holy Spirit doesn't lead one to sin or the law to keep one from sinning.

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.

If I say liberty you might say yep to sin. I wouldn't say that at all. In choosing to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit one chooses live righteously as a lifestyle. This doesn't say one can't be led away by his own lusts of the flesh and sin. In case you haven't heard there is a war taking place with each of us. The rebellious living sacrifice keeps crawling off of the altar.

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.

 

[Elder 111]

Of course you dismissed the fact that God promised to make a new covenant, and the inspired author of the epistle to the Hebrews caught God's meaning to indicate the first covenant was replaced, and not moved to a new location. God did not replace the people, nor did He say anything about replacing them; He laid the blame on the first covenant from Mount Sinai.



There is no 'table'.

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.

 

[Nanopants]

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.

No He didn't make a mistake. The Old Covenant was never an unconditional promise, and without the law it establishes, there would have been no crucifixion. The reason why it appears to have failed is because it did what it was designed to, as Paul said...

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory... -Rom 9:22,23

The Apostles would have been well aware of everything that led up to the crucifixion, including the involvement of the law and teachers of the law. In their reiteration of the law, they may have been following in Moses' footsteps to prepare for another, perhaps many more, or at least something similar. Bear in mind that they gave strict and clear warning about attempting to be justified by works of the law.

 

[Elder 111]

not really.... when you wish to replace grace with the Law you end up trumping it

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.

 

[Elder 111]

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.

Please help my confusion.

It is as simple as this. You love your wife you know that she loves pizza and has asked you bring some home today. You turn up at home with burgers and tells her you brought them because yo love her with all your heart. How does that look to you?
God says keep the Sabbath. Do you see another request in that respect? He blessed it sanctified it, what for, you think? So that we can ignore it? It is special to Him and then we do something else and say we love Him.
If you love me Keep my commandments. God wrote ten with His own hand. God made you with His own Hands. Name anything else God did with his own hands? You are precious to him so is His Sabbath and Holy law.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Elder111 wrote:

It is as simple as this. You love your wife you know that she loves pizza and has asked you bring some home today. You turn up at home with burgers and tells her you brought them because yo love her with all your heart. How does that look to you?

Excellent! Israel did exactly that. What burgers did Israel bring to God?

Romans 10
3For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

 

[shturt678s]

It is as simple as this. You love your wife you know that she loves pizza and has asked you bring some home today. You turn up at home with burgers and tells her you brought them because yo love her with all your heart. How does that look to you?
God says keep the Sabbath. Do you see another request in that respect? He blessed it sanctified it, what for, you think? So that we can ignore it? It is special to Him and then we do something else and say we love Him.
If you love me Keep my commandments. God wrote ten with His own hand. God made you with His own Hands. Name anything else God did with his own hands? You are precious to him so is His Sabbath and Holy law.

If it's that simple where in the N.T. does God say, contextually, keep the Sabbath?

Jack

 

[squint]

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.




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.

One of the more astute posts I've seen on the subject in awhile.

You might consider that those same wicked messengers are fully involved in every sin in any case. (1 John 3:8)

At least you got a big chunk O missin' back on the table.

s

 

[squint]

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.

Paul delineates this matter quite succinctly in the 'Pattern of God.'

First the natural, then the spiritual, found in 1 Cor. 15.

The Old Testament law is fleshly carnal ordinance given to fleshly carnal men.

Jesus, God Himself in FLESH, arrived to fulfill not only that aspect of the Law, but to DRIVE home the point the fact that the LAW was always Spiritual. It deals with internal matters, of mercy, forgiveness, justice, faith, grace. All the finery of Heaven's Eternal Matters are deeply embedded in that same Word of God.

The natural men of Israel were blinded to these matters intentionally. They were judged harshly, paying with their LIVES in many cases.

The Law, Gods Word, consists of TWO EDGES. One firmly against sons of the flesh, the other entirely in behalf of the sons of promise. Again a picture of the old man and the new, the natural man and the spiritual man.

The natural man does not see whom the law is against NO MATTER what they do or perform. The spiritual man knows the law is our ally in all matters.

Every man who claims Christ submits himself to both aspects of the Law.

Paul for example shows that there were matters within himself that fully deserved the condemnation of the LAW. And he definitely LAYED that DEATH upon himself, as shown in Romans 7.

From there, raised to newness of LIFE in LOVE.

It is a difficult matter to come to grips with. To walk in both the condemnation of our sin and the newness of LIFE.

This general principle is understood by most of christiandom. That we are both sinner and saint simultaneously. What is not as widely known and accepted is that our sin, yes ours, is in fact of the devil and the LAW is immutably against that working in ANY MAN, and rightfully so.

This can not change. In the end it will be the opposite. As the LAW is lifted up, that bad actor is slated to show his ugly head in progressive fashions.

It is the job of us to UPHOLD THE Law to bring His Final Judgment upon this world.

That judgment starts with each of us, beheaded from that bad actor in the spiritual sense. That is why judgment starts at the CHURCH. The churches have already been divided upon this ground. Liars everywhere with scattered remains.

When any believer claims they are legal, they are also claiming their internal tempter is LEGAL as well. They DO LIE. They are pawned by that liar.

When any believer claims the entirety of what they consist of is under grace they also are claiming their internal tempter is under grace. They have the same blindness of the legalist when they do so.

Both Law and Grace are specifically meant to LOCK THE TEMPTER out of the equations of God. To SHUT that door and LOCK it tight.

Currently all churches have one foot in and one foot out, individually.

The honesty God brings in His Disclosures is the cleansing method. We are therein washed.

s

 

[Wordkeeper]

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).

The opponents of the teaching use:

Romans 10:4, which reads: “For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
"There remains therefore a rest (literally sabbatismos, 'Sabbath rest') for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His" (Hebrews 4:9-10).
Etc.

Using verses atomistically leads to confusion. A view that uses both supporting and seemingly contradictory verses is needed, a wholistic explanation. Since you are putting more stuff into the mix, its possible to end up with an unwieldy explanation. So we need not only to be cogent, comprehensive, but also lucid. A tall order.

 

[Rev Randy]

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.

No no no no. God made no mistake at all. God has a plan which the Law was indeed a part of. The Law was not to teach us right from wrong. Man already knew right from wrong. The Law took away every excuse. It taught us our need for a savior. It put our failing right in our face.
Grace is not a set of Laws. It is a gift given to us who do not deserve it. It's love given in the place of deserved condemnation. Let us not confuse the Commandments of Christ with Grace. Grace is not an excuse to sin. It's a remedy when we do indeed sin.

 

[from scratch]

Elder111 wrote:

Excellent! Israel did exactly that. What burgers did Israel bring to God?

Romans 10
3For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

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

 

[squint]

All scripture is Purposefully Divinely Contradictory.

There are two diametrically opposed facts that stand together in every construct of Gods Words. The simplest understanding is that God is for good and against evil.

Neither side of that dictate is going to change.

The only difficulty is when we try to crowd the entirety of ourselves only under one side of the measures. To sway to the left or to the right.

The solution to this dilemma is allegorized in the Red Sea. The waters were separated, the Israelites walked straight ahead, turning neither to the left or the right. If they turned to the left, left expressing the Word of God against evil, they would wrongfully place the sons of God as evil. If they swayed to the right, they would wrongly place the evil present with them as being right.
STRAIGHT PATH acknowledges BOTH HANDS of God are firmly in place. The enemies in pursuit, wherein both walls collapse upon them in Gods Divine Judgment. This pictured also as the SIGN that follows them who believe. They, Israel were baptized in this SEA as a TYPE.

Both WALLS of water, standing, expresses this matter. Even driven by an east wind, east being an indication of the origin of evil and Gods Move against evil/the enemies.

This matter is allegorized in many other O.T. structures as well. Aaron and Hur holding up the hands of Moses whilst he sat on a rock in Exodus 17 is another fine example of this same principle. Even including the dictate that that war, that battle would continue from generation to generation.

These matters run deep.

s

 

[from scratch]

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).

The opponents of the teaching use:

Romans 10:4, which reads: “For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
"There remains therefore a rest (literally sabbatismos, 'Sabbath rest') for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His" (Hebrews 4:9-10).
Etc.

Using verses atomistically leads to confusion. A view that uses both supporting and seemingly contradictory verses is needed, a wholistic explanation. Since you are putting more stuff into the mix, its possible to end up with an unwieldy explanation. So we need not only to be cogent, comprehensive, but also lucid. A tall order.

Yes simple statements aren't good enough for those who are bent on proving what they believe against the truth. Far to many here have and idea they bring to the Bible and only wish to support that. They won't come to the Bible to hear what it says. Some here have even said they don't want to talk about the Bible. Such statements have come from the pro law group. I've never in over 3 years heard such a statement from the pro grace side of the fence.

 

[from scratch]

All scripture is Purposefully Divinely Contradictory.

There are two diametrically opposed facts that stand together in every construct of Gods Words. The simplest understanding is that God is for good and against evil.

Neither side of that dictate is going to change.

The only difficulty is when we try to crowd the entirety of ourselves only under one side of the measures. To sway to the left or to the right.

The solution to this dilemma is allegorized in the Red Sea. The waters were separated, the Israelites walked straight ahead, turning neither to the left or the right. If they turned to the left, left expressing the Word of God against evil, they would wrongfully place the sons of God as evil. If they swayed to the right, they would wrongly place the evil present with them as being right.
STRAIGHT PATH acknowledges BOTH HANDS of God are firmly in place. The enemies in pursuit, wherein both walls collapse upon them in Gods Divine Judgment. This pictured also as the SIGN that follows them who believe. They, Israel were baptized in this SEA as a TYPE.

Both WALLS of water, standing, expresses this matter. Even driven by an east wind, east being an indication of the origin of evil and Gods Move against evil/the enemies.

This matter is allegorized in many other O.T. structures as well. Aaron and Hur holding up the hands of Moses whilst he sat on a rock in Exodus 17 is another fine example of this same principle. Even including the dictate that that war, that battle would continue from generation to generation.

These matters run deep.

s

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.