Romans 6:14

[ivdavid]

What exactly does "law" refer to here in Rom 6:14? What exactly is the nature of "grace"?

Most of us readily take the "law" here to refer to the OT Law given through Moses. Even there, we differ on whether all 613 commandments are referred to or if only the ten commandments are implied - the differences ranging between the moral laws and the 'ceremonial' laws. Some don't see this "law" as just a group of laws - rather they see the nature/manner/intent in which these laws are to be kept as being referred to here - the difference between being under the law for self-righteous merit and not. One can read the summary of quite an extensive discussion on this here, if interested.

I know that the Bible uses the "law" to refer to the OT Mosaic law in several places - the word being used as a collective noun for the many laws or the many books of the OT. But I don't think that's the usage here in Romans 6:14. The usage here seems to resonate with that in Rom 3:27 - where we are told "we are no longer under the law of works". The "law of works" is a more specific, individual governing principle - much like the law of gravity - where it does not directly refer to a set of OT laws as such.

The "Law of works", that we are told we are no longer under, is stated in Lev 18:5. Paul quotes the same and states it in negative light - as against faith and against the righteousness of Christ in Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12.
Rom 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

The "Law of works" states that the person who does the commandments of God, will have life - by his having done these commandments. Doesn't this seem quite obviously right? And yet Paul derides this as nullifying the grace of God. This Lev 18:5 itself was given by God - and yet it is the same God who says this is not of faith. Why then was it given? If we could discuss the answer to this question and its various implications, we might end up concluding on many of the topics that we are not yet decisively agreed upon here in these forums. We'd get to understand the true nature of "grace" and "faith".

 

[childeye]

Excellent idea ivdavid, if only we could all agree on the word, Word. The law is not of faith of course because a soul that was whole would not need be told don't murder or to Love your maker with all you are. Hence we have fallen and have become corrupt. The law was given because it condemns us all as sinners therefore, seperated from God in some degree. This should enlighten us and prove to us we cannot attain righteousness through our own ambitions as we were told we could by Satan in the garden. And we should not blame others as if they could, for we are helpless in our depravity. Hence the more we try to do the law, the more we are trying to prove man does not need God to be righteous and the more power is given sin. Love in other words is not squeezed out of dirt, by the will of dirt.

But I believe the law is more than that. It is a trap for Satan who thinks one can attain righteousness through willfull ambition. He does not esteem God as any vital essence for righteousness therefore, and God will use this ignorance to show all of heaven and earth His Glory. I believe Satan was in charge of the administration of the Old Covenant and he performed like the merciless stone hearted, yet highly intelligent being he is. As we know, Satan was enamoured with his own beauty given by God, and slowly iniquity or unequal judgment began to occur through the disdain of others through this vanity. But when he crucified the Christ in his ambition to excell, he revealed such ignorance begetting vanity, would kill the Maker Himself in overzealous selfrighteousness, even though all the while Satan believed he was serving the interests of God.

Hence when the Christ was crucified, all of heaven beheld the faults of Satanic impetus. For all his beauty and brains, he was brought to nothing and he became a spectacle and a byword for all to see. That's why we see war in heaven broke out and Satan lost his place in heaven immediately after Jesus was caught up to the throne of God. And this is how the blood of Jesus overcomes the devil and washes away sin.

P.S. In a way that is a paradox of reasoning, I guess it could be said that Satan did serve the interests of God after all.

 

[Adullam]

Excellent idea ivdavid, if only we could all agree on the word, Word. The law is not of faith of course because a soul that was whole would not need be told don't murder or to Love your maker with all you are. Hence we have fallen and have become corrupt. The law was given because it condemns us all as sinners therefore, seperated from God in some degree. This should enlighten us and prove to us we cannot attain righteousness through our own ambitions as we were told we could by Satan in the garden. And we should not blame others as if they could, for we are helpless in our depravity. Hence the more we try to do the law, the more we are trying to prove man does not need God to be righteous and the more power is given sin. Love in other words is not squeezed out of dirt, by the will of dirt.

But I believe the law is more than that. It is a trap for Satan who thinks one can attain righteousness through willfull ambition. He does not esteem God as any vital essence for righteousness therefore, and God will use this ignorance to show all of heaven and earth His glory. I believe Satan was in charge of the administration of the Old Covenant and he performed like the merciless stone hearted, yet highly intelligent being he is. As we know, Satan was enamoured with his own beauty given by God, and slowly iniquity or unequal judgment began to occur through the disdain of others through this vanity. But when he crucified the Christ in his ambition to excell, he revealed such ignorance begetting vanity would kill the Maker Himself in overzealous selfrighteousness, even though all the while Satan believed he was serving the interests of God.

Hence when the Christ was crucified, all of heaven beheld the faults of Satanic impetus. For all his beauty and brains, he was brought to nothing and he became a spectacle and a byword for all to see. That's why we see war in heaven broke out and Satan lost his place in heaven immediately after Jesus was caught up to the throne of God. And this is how the blood of Jesus overcomes the devil and washes away sin.

P.S. In a way that is a paradox of reasoning, I guess it could be said that Satan did serve the interests of God after all.

Well thought out and written! :yes

 

[stovebolts]

and yet it is the same God who says this is not of faith. Why then was it given? If we could discuss the answer to this question and its various implications, we might end up concluding on many of the topics that we are not yet decisively agreed upon here in these forums. We'd get to understand the true nature of "grace" and "faith".

Do you remember back in the garden... What lure was it for Eve that she might be tempered? What does the text say... "You will be like God"

I believe God replied to the Israelite.. So, you want to know what it's like to be God? You want to know what it's like to be me. Here ya go, be like me, go on, give it a try...

Do you want to know what grace is? When Cain murdered his brother, what did Abel's blood cry out for? That's right, it cried out for Justice.

What was it that Jesus fulfilled?... And what did the Blood of Jesus do?..

Grace and Peace.

 

[ivdavid]

Hence the more we try to do the law, the more we are trying to prove man does not need God to be righteous and the more power is given sin.

Just to clarify, I suppose you've used "law" here to refer to the set of God's commandments.

Now, suppose one takes up your statement, "the more we try to do the law....the more power is given sin", and asks you - "are we then not supposed to do the law?" - how would you negate such erroneous inferences from the truth you've spoken?

I believe God replied to the Israelite.. So, you want to know what it's like to be God? You want to know what it's like to be me. Here ya go, be like me, go on, give it a try...

Did God give Lev 18:5 to show that man cannot be perfectly good or that man cannot do any good in the flesh?

The level of our reliance on God would vary accordingly, right? As would the gravity of our sins and the corresponding grace for such sins. If I believed I am not at all perfect but still believed I can do some good at least, on my own, then I am not relying upon God to work these few good works in me since I'm able to anyway do them on my own. On the other hand, if I believed I could do no good on my own, then I would put my faith in God to work every single good in me - and I'd be led to appreciate His grace in greater light against the greater magnitude of my own sins, encompassing every work of mine in the flesh.

 

[childeye]

Do you remember back in the garden... What lure was it for Eve that she might be tempered? What does the text say... "You will be like God"

I believe God replied to the Israelite.. So, you want to know what it's like to be God? You want to know what it's like to be me. Here ya go, be like me, go on, give it a try...

Do you want to know what grace is? When Cain murdered his brother, what did Abel's blood cry out for? That's right, it cried out for Justice.

What was it that Jesus fulfilled?... And what did the Blood of Jesus do?..

Grace and Peace.

I can't stand the yellow guy. He mocks everything I say and tests my patience.

 

[childeye]

Just to clarify, I suppose you've used "law" here to refer to the set of God's commandments.

Now, suppose one takes up your statement, "the more we try to do the law....the more power is given sin", and asks you - "are we then not supposed to do the law?" - how would you negate such erroneous inferences from the truth you've spoken?

I'd simply state that love fulfills the law. But you're right, I should have said,"the more we try to do the law to prove we are righteous by our own "freewills", the more power is given sin". For this is the vanity of selfrighteousness that is pride. The point being that God is Love and if one abides in Love he will fulfill the righteous requirement of the law. Grace therefore is to experience Love acknowledging that God upholds us if we esteem Him as Love and the light of our souls. Such a Love is pure of heart with no carnal motives for we acknowledge that such righteousness is by grace through faith. Therefore by faith in the Eternal Spirit, He abides in us when we abide in Him and there is no vanity.

If we read Romans 1, we will see that disregard of the Godhead and the attributes of God in all things caused God to give men over to the lusts of the flesh. If we now esteem God as God by confessing we only can sin without Him, I think you will find that God will remove such vile affections and cleanse us. But we must forgive others their tresspasses against us and be charitable, gracious, understanding, and merciful in conviction to that belief. Otherwise don't expect such cleansing to occur. Works of repentance are not the same as works of the law.

 

[smaller]

What exactly does "law" refer to here in Rom 6:14? What exactly is the nature of "grace"?

Most of us readily take the "law" here to refer to the OT Law given through Moses. Even there, we differ on whether all 613 commandments are referred to or if only the ten commandments are implied - the differences ranging between the moral laws and the 'ceremonial' laws. Some don't see this "law" as just a group of laws - rather they see the nature/manner/intent in which these laws are to be kept as being referred to here - the difference between being under the law for self-righteous merit and not. One can read the summary of quite an extensive discussion on this here, if interested.

I know that the Bible uses the "law" to refer to the OT Mosaic law in several places - the word being used as a collective noun for the many laws or the many books of the OT. But I don't think that's the usage here in Romans 6:14. The usage here seems to resonate with that in Rom 3:27 - where we are told "we are no longer under the law of works". The "law of works" is a more specific, individual governing principle - much like the law of gravity - where it does not directly refer to a set of OT laws as such.

The "Law of works", that we are told we are no longer under, is stated in Lev 18:5. Paul quotes the same and states it in negative light - as against faith and against the righteousness of Christ in Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12.
Rom 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

The "Law of works" states that the person who does the commandments of God, will have life - by his having done these commandments. Doesn't this seem quite obviously right? And yet Paul derides this as nullifying the grace of God. This Lev 18:5 itself was given by God - and yet it is the same God who says this is not of faith. Why then was it given? If we could discuss the answer to this question and its various implications, we might end up concluding on many of the topics that we are not yet decisively agreed upon here in these forums. We'd get to understand the true nature of "grace" and "faith".

We also know that the Law is 'multifaceted,' not just one way or another.

There were for example 'carnal ordinances:'

Hebrews 9:10
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

These ordinances came with specific instructions and also dire penalties for disobedience.

We also know that the Law is (at least to some) spiritual, just as Paul stated in Romans.

There are, in essence, laws of fleshly obedience or external obedience and those same laws are explicitly outlined as to how they are 'all' to be followed spiritually in Romans 13:8-10, which as believers is how we are to view and follow 'any commandment.'

Paul often adhered to fleshly obedience. He does not hold these things against anyone and practiced same himself.

He also said they were not required elements of spiritually walking in those same laws.

Therein lies the dichotomy of Paul that has tripped up many.

The law also has other purposes as well, the primary of which is to pinpoint the fact that 'all' mankind has the presence of lawlessness within them. Many a grace alone adherent mistakes that their lawlessness is 'excused' on the basis of grace, which it is NOT. Lawlessness is never excused under Law or Grace and never was. Neither does the adherence to grace or operating in faith negate the laws intents to remain against lawlessness within the hearts of any in whom same is found and it is found in 'all,' believer or unbeliever.

There is much to be said about the law. Much to be learned about what is contained therein. But those things are not meant for understanding by many because lawlessness within people denies it is there and blocks right understandings of same.

Lawlessness within believers 'shuns' the law. It is forced to do so. Darkness is meant to resist and flee from the Light of Gods Words. That's the way it's always been.

As these matters apply to Romans 6:14, believers who follow the spirit of the law are not condemned by the law and should have zero fear of same.

Lawlessness within believers is not excused or granted lawless immunity under that same law.

There again lies the dichotomy of Paul on matters of law.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[childeye]

Yes the law is spiritual even as righteousness and unrighteousness is spiritual.

 

[smaller]

Yes the law is spiritual even as righteousness and unrighteousness is spiritual.

Indeed, or as one may prefer to see, the workings of the spirit in the person and the likewise converse working of anti-Christ spirits which are in fact of the 'tempter.'

This is how 'all' are known, text and spiritual wise. Neither operation can be denied in anyone. It is the essence of what most of us struggle with as far as understandings go because 'both' operators do operate. It's not a one or the other deal.

Lawlessness can not be dragged under grace. Grace cannot be dragged under the law against the lawless.

Yet both operators operate. When you read of 'straight paths' it's a right down the middle deal, swaying neither direction.

enjoy!

s

 

[glorydaz]

I believe Satan was in charge of the administration of the Old Covenant ..... ......But when he crucified the Christ in his ambition to excell, he revealed such ignorance begetting vanity, would kill the Maker Himself in overzealous selfrighteousness, even though all the while Satan believed he was serving the interests of God.

Childeye, perhaps you didn't mean this the way it came out, but I really must address it before talking about Romans 6.

Satan was not in charge of the administration of the Old Covenant. The law was given by God for a specific purpose and accomplished exactly what it was meant to accomplish.

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Satan did not crucify Christ or 'kill the Maker".

Christ laid down His life willingly out of love, so that mankind would be reconciled to God.

He came with the express purpose to die, it was planned from the beginning.

"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

"Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."

In fact, satan tried his level best to keep Jesus from going to the cross with the temptations in the widerness.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Childeye, perhaps you didn't mean this the way it came out, but I really must address it before talking about Romans 6.

Satan was not in charge of the administration of the Old Covenant. The law was given by God for a specific purpose and accomplished exactly what it was meant to accomplish.


Satan did not crucify Christ or 'kill the Maker".

Christ laid down His life willingly out of love, so that mankind would be reconciled to God.

He came with the express purpose to die, it was planned from the beginning.



In fact, satan tried his level best to keep Jesus from going to the cross with the temptations in the widerness.

AMEN!!!

 

[childeye]

=glorydaz;579409]Childeye, perhaps you didn't mean this the way it came out, but I really must address it before talking about Romans 6.

Satan was not in charge of the administration of the Old Covenant. The law was given by God for a specific purpose and accomplished exactly what it was meant to accomplish.

Glorydaz, when I said this I did mean it. Believe me, I do not say it lightly. We know Satan was a covering Cherub. We also know the Old Testament was under the administration of the angels. This would make it impossible that Satan was not a major player. For Satan means accuser and in Ezekials outline of the hierarchy of heaven that would make this cherub the left hand of God's administration on earth. For we know Satan had the keys to sheol and the power of death. We know Satan killed the Christ as sure as Judas betrayed him at the behest of the high priests of the temple. We know Jesus was killed according to the law for blaspheme. We know Jesus said that these were the wicked servants who had been put in charge of the vineyard and wanted his inheritance. We know that only in Jerusalem could the blood of all prophets sent by God be held to account, and Jerusalem was the center of the Old Testament... We know the children of bondage is Hagar and is the Old Testament and answers to Jerusalem on earth. We know the dragon depicted in Revelations waited to devour the child destined to be the King of kings. For Satan had the keys to death which was in his power given by God, but because this man had done no wrong, he was caught up to heaven and the law had no power to stop him. We also know all authority and power has now been given to Jesus, the true heir. We know that the New testament has replaced the Old by nailing the ordinances that were against us to the cross making a spectacle of principalities and powers in high places. We know then that Satan was cast down from heaven and only the slain lamb has the right to open the scroll of the new heavens and earth.

So considering that the letter of the Old kills and brings death but the Spirit of the New gives life, it is impossible to conclude any other way except that Satan was in charge of the Old Testament and Jesus who sits at the right hand of the Father until his enemies are made his footstool, is in charge of the New and everlasting Covenant.

Christ laid down His life willingly out of love, so that mankind would be reconciled to God.

Yes indeed, and Satan was the one who created the enmity between man and God, hypocritically playing both temptor and accuser. We see this in the story of Job. So it is, Jesus said he came to destroy the works of the devil.

He came with the express purpose to die, it was planned from the beginning.

Yes God had planned it since before Satan was even created I would presume, since the lake of fire was reserved for Satan and his angels. For scripture called Jesus a hidden arrow and the Gospel a hidden wisdom that would set the prisoners free from him who would not let the prisoners free.

In fact, satan tried his level best to keep Jesus from going to the cross with the temptations in the widerness.

The temptation in the wilderness? How does that have anything to do with Jesus' not going to the cross?

 

[glorydaz]

What exactly does "law" refer to here in Rom 6:14? What exactly is the nature of "grace"?

Most of us readily take the "law" here to refer to the OT Law given through Moses. Even there, we differ on whether all 613 commandments are referred to or if only the ten commandments are implied - the differences ranging between the moral laws and the 'ceremonial' laws. Some don't see this "law" as just a group of laws - rather they see the nature/manner/intent in which these laws are to be kept as being referred to here - the difference between being under the law for self-righteous merit and not. One can read the summary of quite an extensive discussion on this here, if interested.

I know that the Bible uses the "law" to refer to the OT Mosaic law in several places - the word being used as a collective noun for the many laws or the many books of the OT. But I don't think that's the usage here in Romans 6:14. The usage here seems to resonate with that in Rom 3:27 - where we are told "we are no longer under the law of works". The "law of works" is a more specific, individual governing principle - much like the law of gravity - where it does not directly refer to a set of OT laws as such.

The "Law of works", that we are told we are no longer under, is stated in Lev 18:5. Paul quotes the same and states it in negative light - as against faith and against the righteousness of Christ in Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12.
Rom 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

The "Law of works" states that the person who does the commandments of God, will have life - by his having done these commandments. Doesn't this seem quite obviously right? And yet Paul derides this as nullifying the grace of God. This Lev 18:5 itself was given by God - and yet it is the same God who says this is not of faith. Why then was it given? If we could discuss the answer to this question and its various implications, we might end up concluding on many of the topics that we are not yet decisively agreed upon here in these forums. We'd get to understand the true nature of "grace" and "faith".

Have you considered that we are no longer subject to the law of sin and death?

That would be my take considering the context.

 

[glorydaz]

Glorydaz, when I said this I did mean it. Believe me, I do not say it lightly. We know Satan was a covering Cherub. We also know the Old Testament was under the administration of the angels. This would make it impossible that Satan was not a major player. For Satan means accuser and in Ezekials outline of the hierarchy of heaven that would make this cherub the left hand of God's administration on earth. For we know Satan had the keys to sheol and the power of death. We know Satan killed the Christ as sure as Judas betrayed him at the behest of the high priests of the temple. We know Jesus was killed according to the law for blaspheme. We know Jesus said that these were the wicked servants who had been put in charge of the vineyard and wanted his inheritance. We know that only in Jerusalem could the blood of all prophets sent by God be held to account, and Jerusalem was the center of the Old Testament... We know the children of bondage is Hagar and is the Old Testament and answers to Jerusalem on earth. We know the dragon depicted in Revelations waited to devour the child destined to be the king of Kings. For Satan had the keys to death which was in his power given by God, but because this man had done no wrong, he was caught up to heaven and the law had no power to stop him. We also know all authority and power has now been given to Jesus, the true heir. We know that the New testamet has replaced the Old by nailing the ordinances that were against us to the cross making a spectacle of principalities and powers in high places. We know then that Satan was cast down from heaven and only the slain lamb has the right to open the scroll of the new heavens and earth.

So considering that the letter of the Old kills and brings death but the Spirit of the New gives life, it is impossible to conclude any other way except that Satan was in charge of the Old Testament and Jesus who sits at the right hand of the Father until his enemies are made his footstool, is in charge of the New and everlasting Covenant.

Yes indeed, and Satan was the one who created the enmity between man and God, hypocritically playing both temptor and accuser. We see this in the story of Job. So it is, Jesus said he came to destroy the works of the devil.

Yes God had planned it since before Satan was even created I would presume, since the lake of fire was reserved for Satan and his angels. For scripture called Jesus a hidden arrow and the Gospel a hidden wisdom that would set the prisoners free from him who would not let the prisoners free.


The temptation in the wilderness? How does that have anything to do with Jesus' not going to the cross?

I'm not even sure where to start.

Satan was cast down when he rebelled.

"Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."

Jesus saw him fall (long before Jesus was here on earth.)

And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

You have quite a list of "we knows" and they are simply not true. You give satan way too much power and control over what God controls. I'm actually dismayed by your statements above and see absolutely nothing but fanciful conjecture in them. Satan DID NOT kill Jesus. The entire plan of salvation from the foundation of the world was that Jesus would die on the cross.

Yes, the temptations in the wilderness were designed by satan to persuade Jesus to avoid going to the cross. He tempted Him to throw Himself off the mountain so He couldn't go to the cross. Jesus dying on the cross was necessary for the salvation of mankind...just what satan didn't want.

Here Jesus explains how he MUST go to the cross. When Peter says it must not be, Jesus says, Get behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me..." How much clearer can it get?

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

[childeye]

=glorydaz;579553]I'm not even sure where to start.

Satan was cast down when he rebelled.

Not according to Revelations. The scripture you cite is a prophetic anouncement of what will happen. Scriptures say vanity was the cause of Satan's iniquity and this is why he fell. This scripture does not say rebellion. You are however equating the fall of Satan with the casting out of heaven where his place as accuser in heaven is no more to be found. These are not the same.

Jesus saw him fall (long before Jesus was here on earth.)

The problem here is that Jesus says he saw him fall like lightning while on earth immediately after his disciples report to him. It is known that lightning has both negative and positive. So it is that some lightning goes up and some goes down. What this means is hard to say, for Satan often went back and forth we can safely assume. Was Jesus speaking of seeing something in the Spirit or was he watching lightning in the distance? But we do know for certain if we are to believe the report in revelations, that Satan was not cast out of heaven until after Jesus was crucified. Hebrews also verifies this by saying that the heavenly things all must be sprinkled with the cleansing blood of Christ which can only happen after the crucifixion.

The devils that were cast out only shows the power of the name of Jesus who was able to cast out demons before their time. I don't see how you apply this to the cross or Satan being cast out.

You have quite a list of "we knows" and they are simply not true. You give satan way too much power and control over what God controls. I'm actually dismayed by your statements above and see absolutely nothing but fanciful conjecture in them.

You may call it fanciful conjecture if you wish. But to claim the "we knows" are not true is undeserved; as all of it is a matter of recorded scripture which you cannot disprove.

Satan DID NOT kill Jesus.

Undeniably, Judas betrayed Jesus and scripture says Satan entered him. This led to his crucifixion. Judas was paid by the temple priests who sought to kill Jesus, so follow the money trail. It is hard to imagine that those who wished to kill Jesus were men ruled in their hearts by God. As the Kingdom of God is preached so that men may enter in, those who are without are not in the Kingdom of God. They are in the kingdom of darkness.

The entire plan of salvation from the foundation of the world was that Jesus would die on the cross.

I do not dispute that.

Yes, the temptations in the wilderness were designed by satan to persuade Jesus to avoid going to the cross. He tempted Him to throw Himself off the mountain so He couldn't go to the cross. Jesus dying on the cross was necessary for the salvation of mankind...just what satan didn't want.

Now this is not conjecture? Certainly it could be said that Satan knew that Jesus would be his downfall, but that this would happen through the cross does not appear to be conceivable to Satan. How do you know Satan knew Christ's crucifixion would ruin him? There are no scriptures saying that. On the contrary the dragon is seen in Revelations waiting to devour the King of Kings as soon as he was born. We know this because Herod sent soldiers to kill all the children under two years of age wherein an angel told Mary to flee to Egypt. This does not say he sought to kill Jesus to prevent him from being crucified. Moreover all of these temptations in the wilderness say nothing about the cross. You are reading way too much into this without any proof whatsoever.

Here Jesus explains how he MUST go to the cross. When Peter says it must not be, Jesus says, Get behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me..." How much clearer can it get?

Almost all teachers of theology agree that Peter was looking at this through a carnal interpretation of God's will. Therefore it was perfectly right that Jesus laid the claim that this was Satan who is the conversation in the flesh. It does not appear to be an attempt to disuade him, but the rebuke by Jesus of an assumption. Even Jesus alluded to this.
I've waited all night for this response. Everything you have said in this post, I have anticipated except for the seventy. Furthermore I also know there is probably nothing I will say that will convince you. Nor do I need to. You are of those who believe men have freewills and you do not so easily conceive of men being ruled by Satan without knowingly cooperating. It is no wonder you would find my supposed conjecture troubling.

I would point out I do not give Satan any power, for all power is given by God and there are powers over all things created. In humility I must admit that Satan has ruled in me and in mankind in the form of sin since the time we lost our freedom in the garden. But the Gospel takes away the power of Satan that is over us and puts him under our feet. To deny such a power existed over me is to deny the Gospel.

 

[ivdavid]

I'm still going to focus on just Romans 6:14 and its implications...

the more we try to do the law to prove we are righteous by our own "freewills", the more power is given sin.

Could you elaborate more on this, please. How are we then to do the law if not by our own freewills - are we "forced" to obey God's commandments in love, as some may put it?

Grace therefore is to experience Love acknowledging that God upholds us if we esteem Him as Love and the light of our souls.

Is this "if" a conditional clause? I'd think it is and I'd say rightly so. But how are we to esteem Him as Love and the light of our souls - is that too by Grace, a grace for the grace to experience Love(John 1:16)?

Works of repentance are not the same as works of the law.

Would you distinguish between "works of the law" and "the law of works"? The former refers to each and every commandment laid in the OT Law given by God through Moses. The latter refers to a single governing principle found in Lev 18:5.

Works of repentance are definitely not the same as "works of the law" - but do works of repentance fall under "the law of works"? If not, how are we to make sense of the commandments of God to repent and believe in His Son to live?

 

[ivdavid]

Lawlessness is never excused under Law or Grace and never was.

Absolutely.

The law also has other purposes as well, the primary of which is to pinpoint the fact that 'all' mankind has the presence of lawlessness within them.

As these matters apply to Romans 6:14, believers who follow the spirit of the law are not condemned by the law and should have zero fear of same.

If I asked - How do the believers follow the spirit of the law when they too have the presence of lawlessness within them? - I'm guessing your answer would be - "by the workings of the Spirit in that person".

Now, did the "believers following the spirit of the law" do anything different from the others, to have such working of the Spirit in them?

 

[ivdavid]

Have you considered that we are no longer subject to the law of sin and death?

That would be my take considering the context.

Yes, that's precisely what's implied in Lev 18:5, "the law of works", - If you don't do God's commandments ie if you sin, you will die.

But this is simply the other side of the coin found in the same Lev 18:5 - If you do God's commandments, you will live.

So, not being under the law of sin and death is equivalent to saying we are not under the law of - our doing God's commandments and living.

But that's precisely what the Gospel commandments are all about - the commandments of "repent and believe in Christ to have life". How does one reconcile these two parts of Scripture - both of which I believe to be true as God's Word?

 

[smaller]

Absolutely.


If I asked - How do the believers follow the spirit of the law when they too have the presence of lawlessness within them? - I'm guessing your answer would be - "by the workings of the Spirit in that person".

Now, did the "believers following the spirit of the law" do anything different from the others, to have such working of the Spirit in them?

Any honest believer will, sooner or later, come to the 'truthful' realization that there is another operator in their minds and hearts that is not them. That would be the tempter. If any deny that the tempter operates in their mind and heart they are merely speaking the tempters own thoughts.

THEREFORE, we LIVE in the Spirit regardless of the other working, understanding as Paul did that that working was not him as Gods child.

We are advised not to let 'sin' reign in our mortal bodies. To 'get there' is to realize that it surely 'is there' to begin with. And sin of course is 'of the tempter, the devil.' This portion of truth is the least favorite amongst the religious to swallow, but the fact of the matter has not and will not change.

Lawlessness and living in the Spirit co-exist in all believers in this present environment.

Many a believer has read this statement and extrapolated the matter to be external and only with other people:

Philippians 2:15
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

I would submit that the 'crooked and perverse nation' singular is the 'world' of the anti-Christ spirits of this world in which 'all' are presently immersed in regardless of their 'faith.' Truth and faith will eventually lead one to this reality.

So, if you understand this principle, you will also understand that the purpose of the law was and remains to 'expose' this lawlessness within and more importantly, from whence it comes.

The Law therefore stands, and the path away from that working is open and clear. Romans 13:8-10 shows what a believer does and what the tempter cannot do. The tempter cannot 'do this' because he and his are 'lawless.'

Yet even though the N.T. Gospels are filled to the brim with such examples of captives of the devil and the demonic, few discern that working as anything other than people. Such believers remain somewhat captive themselves. The problem was always 'much closer' to home, that is, in our own temple bodies.

enjoy!

s