Romans 6:14

[ivdavid]

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

Let me simply state that this is what I believe too.

Having stated that, I'd like to understand more on what you believe. Before Paul was converted by God, was he in the same state of "living in the Spirit and being influenced by the tempter within him", having only his understanding of this reality changed, at conversion - or was the change to include his beginning to "live in the Spirit" from that moment on, which was not so before, with his understanding on reality also being changed?

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

What about in the unbelievers? What is their state? And if it's any different, what did we believers do differently, to be in this present state from that former state?

 

[smaller]

Let me simply state that this is what I believe too.

Having stated that, I'd like to understand more on what you believe. Before Paul was converted by God, was he in the same state of "living in the Spirit and being influenced by the tempter within him", having only his understanding of this reality changed, at conversion - or was the change to include his beginning to "live in the Spirit" from that moment on, which was not so before, with his understanding on reality also being changed?

To me it is a matter of degrees of light. Paul, prior to being the 'new man' was a blinded slave of Satan, even thinking he was doing God service by participating in killing people.

God in Christ directly intervened in Saul's life. Here was Paul's directive, and it's quite clear. The proverbial scales falling from his eyes, signifying the blinding scales of Satan evaporated by the Light of God upon him.

Acts 26:18
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

What about in the unbelievers? What is their state? And if it's any different, what did we believers do differently, to be in this present state from that former state?

I am a more liberal in my views of other people, believing that there is no 'separation' between God and Love. Here is 'whom' I consider to be born of God and known of God, Jesus paint notwithstanding. John the Apostle tells us clearly that we know others by their 'fruit' or lack of same. So did Jesus.

There is no separation between Jesus and Love. Only religious dividers see it otherwise, and I consider such ill advised and 'of Satan' upon their minds:

1 John 4:7
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

Those who claim otherwise simply do not know God and they do not because of the influences of the tempter upon their minds, so I do not 'blame' religious hypocrites for non-acceptance of the above. I know from whom it comes.

enjoy!

s

 

[stovebolts]

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.

NIV: Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

In part, I believe it was to enable the healing of their oppression and misguided culture.. A dog that's been beaten has issues, and Israel had been in Egypt for 400 years and had acclamated themselves with the idea of pantheon and the sinfulness associated with it. I am not sure if you have done any studies of slavery after the Civil War, but a lot of the slaves didn't know what to do with their freedom, and actually preferred being slaves. It's like taking a drug addict off drugs, they are lost, but they need faith in somebody else to bring back their humanity by being a guide, or a light that shows the a better way to live, the way back to God.

It was given as a guide to bring them closer to God by showing them God's very nature, and to live the way God created them to live so that their days would be prosperous. It was given to show their dependence on God, and that they had to have faith in God.. They had to trust God, and not themselves and by obeying the law, it exposed their faults. This is why Scripture warns about hardening ones heart, because when we do, we don't put our faith in God, and rely on our own works to justify ourselves.

 

[stovebolts]

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

I don't see how I am mocking you...

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.

While this may be true for some, I don't believe it is true for all. Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments" and this is echo'd in the commandments given in Deuteronomy 6. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength. Which by the way, is included in the 613.

Do we dismiss the words of Jesus and live the life we want, or do we try to show our love to God by obeying his commandments?

 

[childeye]

=StoveBolts;579632]I don't see how I am mocking you...

You are not mocking me, the yellow guy is. It was a joke. Sometimes my humor does not come across as intended. I apologize for the remark.

While this may be true for some, I don't believe it is true for all.

It is true for all that dirt cannot love. Such love is the very breath and life that was God in us from the beginning.

Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments" and this is echo'd in the commandments given in Deuteronomy 6. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength. Which by the way, is included in the 613.

Some hear Jesus saying, prove your love of me by doing these things. Others hear Jesus saying those who love me do these things. To truly love someone is to desire they be pleased not discomforted. To me, love God because written commandment says to is patronizing God. To Love God without being told to is to have no need to be told, and such a love is pure. To know Him is to love Him.

Do we dismiss the words of Jesus and live the life we want, or do we try to show our love to God by obeying his commandments?

A difficult question for me. I do not see how the "life we want" and "obeying God's commandments" are mutually exclusive. One would have to believe that God does not have one's best interests in mind to accept that they must either dismiss Jesus to live the way they want or obey Jesus and not live the way they want. Such is the spirit of rebellion masked in such a proposition. This is indeed the point that disobedience is precipitated by distrust and there fore righteousness is by faith. Hence we show we love God by trusting He loves us and obeying His commandments.

 

[stovebolts]

You are not mocking me, the yellow guy is. It was a joke. Sometimes my humor does not come across as intended. I apologize for the remark.

ha ha, got it I just love that little guy.. not sure why :toofunny

It is true for all that dirt cannot love. Such love is the very breath and life that was God in us from the beginning.

Nicely said and that love, is the very spark every human being has..

Some hear Jesus saying, prove your love of me by doing these things. Others hear Jesus saying those who love me do these things. To truly love someone is to desire they be pleased not discomforted. To me, love God because written commandment says to is patronizing God. To Love God without being told to is to have no need to be told, and such a love is pure. To know Him is to love Him.

I understand, but to love something, or someone is something that is lived out because it's more than just a feeling, or words. Often, love takes on action. I love my wife, so I do things that show her that I love her. But it is more than action, and it's more than desire, and it's more than what we can always understand.

The commandment states, "Love the lord with all your heart. That means, let all of your desire be to serve God. and with all your soul. That is, all of your intellect and thought, and then it says, all your strength. That is, everything that you do.

Each part of the commandment to love the Lord your God is complementary of anther. We can have the desire and the intellect to love, but we often fail to do the action. Or sometimes, we do the right things, but we fail to have the right motive. Or, we have the right motive, we we don't have the desire.

So the commandments are not to Love God, but rather, "How we love God". And of course {even my wife tells me how she wants to be loved, not that she doesn't think I don't love her, but she tells me what she likes, and I try to do what she likes, because I love her}, Also, these commandments on How to Love God are given to those who already Love God, because we both know you can't make anyone love anyone else.

A difficult question for me. I do not see how the "life we want" and "obeying God's commandments" are mutually exclusive. One would have to believe that God does not have one's best interests in mind to accept that they must either dismiss Jesus to live the way they want or obey Jesus and not live the way they want. Such is the spirit of rebellion masked in such a proposition. This is indeed the point that disobedience is precipitated by distrust and there fore righteousness is by faith. Hence we show we love God by trusting He loves us and obeying His commandments.

That's what it's all about.. the difficult questions... Even Jacob wrestled with God ;)

 

[ivdavid]

To me it is a matter of degrees of light.

Yes, but are these degrees distinguished by a clear demarcating line? What I mean is, do you see any difference between being 'in the spirit' and 'in the flesh' w.r.t. being able to perceive this light - as contrasted in say Romans 8 or in Galatians?

I am a more liberal in my views of other people, believing that there is no 'separation' between God and Love.

I guess we might differ here on semantic grounds. I too don't believe there is a separation between God and Love - as long as Love is properly qualified to be the love that is of God, approved by Him. Would you say God approves of the internal disposition of those in Matt 5:46 and Matt 6:2?

We do observe that all "good dispositions" that are of God, always unfailingly result in "good deeds". The error here seems to be in defining these deeds as "good" in themselves - when actually it is the internal disposition that determines if a deed is good or not. So we cannot simply look at certain deeds that we have observed to always follow "good dispositions" - and determine that the disposition of such deeds must have been of God. There is a very good possibility that the very same deeds could have been done out of a fleshly disposition too, which is not of God. Would you agree?

"Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God."

Would you say the ones referred to as "sinners" in Luke 6:32 are born of God and know God? The contrasting tone there doesn't seem to suggest so.
(Note: I don't consider the word "sinner" to simply indicate one who commits sins, as if the ones to whom this passage was addressed to didn't commit any - I take "sinner" to indicate one in the flesh who continually rebels against God and His ways from the heart, ie one who has not yet been regenerated with a new heart to love God.)

 

[ivdavid]

"Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach."

What you have quoted is the "righteousness of faith" (Romans 10:6-9). But as I mentioned in the OP, the "righteousness of the law" is not of faith and is against the righteousness of Christ(Rom 10:3-5). Why then was Lev 18:5 given? Isn't it to point out our inability to do the commandments of God - thereby pointing us to Christ in faith that He will work in us what we ourselves are unable to do, because of sin in our flesh?

This is why Scripture warns about hardening ones heart, because when we do, we don't put our faith in God, and rely on our own works to justify ourselves.

"faith in God" expecting Him to do what exactly? Justify us by His works - am I right?

Also, would you say that "not hardening one's heart" is a work that we ought to rely upon ourselves to do or is this too beyond us, thereby leading us to fall upon God to preserve us against this too?

 

[Sinthesis]

We know Jesus was killed according to the law for blaspheme.

Not true. Jesus did not blaspheme.

 

[smaller]

Yes, but are these degrees distinguished by a clear demarcating line? What I mean is, do you see any difference between being 'in the spirit' and 'in the flesh' w.r.t. being able to perceive this light - as contrasted in say Romans 8 or in Galatians?

No one sees perfectly, period. Paul admitted to this himself. The reason is our present condition. Paul had evil present and stated outright that he had a messenger of satan put upon him, by God no less.

Why? Because Gods strength is made perfect in weakness. Not 'our' self wrought stuff. Saul as Paul, the old man thought he was doing God service. Paul realized that not only he, but everyone else was under the power of the deception of the tempter, and in that God 'allowed' Paul to 'see' what the cause of that weakness was, the power of Satan.

I don't believe the tempter ever left him alone. But once spotted as 'not you or I or any other person' it does change how we might read the text and how we might react to various temptations ourselves. It is much easier to cut the other captives some slack and not 'beat them' with our religious sticks. If God wants anyone else to see, then that's His Business as well. In the meantime I don't think God is against any good working in anyone. I see that as all of Him in some way or another.

I guess we might differ here on semantic grounds. I too don't believe there is a separation between God and Love - as long as Love is properly qualified to be the love that is of God, approved by Him. Would you say God approves of the internal disposition of those in Matt 5:46 and Matt 6:2?

God approves of the evil present within all not ONE BIT, period and we all have it.

God is not against any good work. This is the reality of everyone. The 'law' of sowing and reaping is still in effect.

Just because one believes does not mean evil is no longer present with any of us.

And I could list several dozens of scriptures that shows God is surely for 'good' in and by anyone.

We do observe that all "good dispositions" that are of God, always unfailingly result in "good deeds". The error here seems to be in defining these deeds as "good" in themselves - when actually it is the internal disposition that determines if a deed is good or not.

Regardless of Paul's good deeds evil was still present with Paul. You won't see Paul giving any nods of approval to that working and that's all there is to it. No one eradicates the presence of the tempter, particularly if they are engaged in the field of battle. That seems to have amplified the problem in the churches eh?

Christians in general want to blanket themselves with some sort of 'perceived' perfection. But none want to admit to the presence of evil, which same is of the tempter.

So therein lies the problem, really. The tempter, the evil present in people 'hides' itself so as not to be known as 'no longer I.' That is what a liar in them does. I don't blame the people, knowing the cause. It's quite nice to see it that way actually.

So we cannot simply look at certain deeds that we have observed to always follow "good dispositions" - and determine that the disposition of such deeds must have been of God. There is a very good possibility that the very same deeds could have been done out of a fleshly disposition too, which is not of God. Would you agree?

If one understands that all the good in the world won't justify the 'evil present' within any person and all the bad in the world will not diminish the good works done, there remains this exact position.

There is good and evil in ALL. Trying to decipher it any other way only led me to frustration and denial. I prefer reality and believe scriptures show 'why' this is.

Once you understand that Jesus looked Peter in the face and spoke to Satan therein, one has no need to ever see just Peter alone ever again. Likewise Peter was not Satan nor was Judas, even though Satan entered him as well.

There is no use ignoring the other party or covering up the other party or 'excusing' the other party.

Jesus didn't practice that. I don't either. I've spoken to Satan or devils many times, but I still understand that a child of God is also present therein as well. Just 'covered up.'

Paul advised us well here:

Romans 12:18
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

1 Corinthians 9:19
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

One must understand that with 'all men' who are unbelievers, it is in fact the 'god of this world' who is blinding them from the Gospel. There is just no use beating a blinded slave. They can't see because God has not allowed them to.

We are advised to resist the devil and to love our neighbors.

Would you say the ones referred to as "sinners" in Luke 6:32 are born of God and know God?

Personally I'd be hard pressed to say that anyone hasn't loved at some time in their lives, so I'd refer back to 1 John 4:7 and give them the benefit of the doubt. As it pertains to Luke 6:32 if one understands that 'all' the people of Israel were taught to be Gods children (read Deut. 14:1 or Psalm 82:6 for examples) one would see that there are Gods children, all of Israel, and their companion in the flesh and mind, and that would again be the TEMPTER.

So it is just plain fruitless to keep trying to apply scriptures to one that may not apply to the 'other.' It's not that easy. Christians in particular always want to only take the 'good scriptures' and leave the ones they don't personally like.

I understand that every DAMNATION and WOE scripture applies to the evil present with me, and in that light I also have great reason to fear God in this present life.

Whether that evil present shows up on the outside or not is irrelevant. It's still there and I know it. I will not provide excuses for that working or cover it up or grant it God Grace. That working is not meant for grace. I understand whom I battle with and it ain't my fellow man.

The contrasting tone there doesn't seem to suggest so.

You might get the picture here at some time that I don't view anyone as just themselves. If not I understand 'why' that is and why you might not be able or allowed to see it that way. No offense to you as Gods child.

(Note: I don't consider the word "sinner" to simply indicate one who commits sins, as if the ones to whom this passage was addressed to didn't commit any - I take "sinner" to indicate one in the flesh who continually rebels against God and His ways from the heart, ie one who has not yet been regenerated with a new heart to love God.)

People can claim to love God all they want. If they can't love their neighbors who they see with their eyes and do good to them, all their claims are meaningless.

And even if they do love them, we all still have evil present with us, which will never get off the hook, be excused, covered up or painted with Grace. This again is a picture of the tempter who tries to 'get us all.'

enjoy!

s

 

[stovebolts]

"Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach."

What you have quoted is the "righteousness of faith" (Romans 10:6-9). But as I mentioned in the OP, the "righteousness of the law" is not of faith and is against the righteousness of Christ(Rom 10:3-5). Why then was Lev 18:5 given? Isn't it to point out our inability to do the commandments of God - thereby pointing us to Christ in faith that He will work in us what we ourselves are unable to do, because of sin in our flesh?

Hi Again,
I agree that there are those who seek righteousness in the law, while righteousness has always come by way of faith which is why Abraham is uplifted through his faith in many parts of scripture.

I'd like to look at the Leviticus passage..
Leviticus 18:4-5 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

I don't see this as something pointing to our inability to do per the Deut passage. But more to your point, I believe Paul's theology addresses exactly what your getting at, so yes, on one side of the coin I think it's fair to come to the conclusion you did.

Romans 7:8-9 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

"faith in God" expecting Him to do what exactly? Justify us by His works - am I right?

I'd agree with that. Anytime we give ourselves the credit, we fail to see what God has done, or is doing in our lives. After all, we are his workmanship, created to do good works before the foundations of the world.

Also, would you say that "not hardening one's heart" is a work that we ought to rely upon ourselves to do or is this too beyond us, thereby leading us to fall upon God to preserve us against this too?

I don't quite get that angle... I look at hardening one's heart when we reject the truth and refuse to see what is clearly in front of us. (1 Tim 4:2)

Gotta run, but I'd like you to exanad upon your last statement if you could.

Thanks!

 

[Hawkins]

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.

It actually doesn't matter. It depends on what audience the verse is trying to address. At the time when it was written, Paul might address the Jews as his audience, but as the Word of God a general meaning may also be there which later will address its audience both the Jews and Gentiles.

In general, "Law" here refers to God's Law. If when it is specifically addressed to the Jews, "Law" refers to Mosaic Law. Again it doesn't matter if you treat it as the Oral Mosaic Law or the Written Mosaic Law, as long as the Jews are addressed both can be refered to as "Law". Mosaic is just a version (or reflection) of God's Law for the Jews to obey. So the Jews are thus live by Mosaic Law and will be judged by the Mosaic Law when the Judgment Day comes. You, as a Jew, can be considered as "righteous" if you successfully pass the judgment by Mosaic Law.

Gentiles however are not bound to such a covenant to subject themselves to Mosaic Law, they follow another version/reflection of God's Law, that is, the Law God buried in everyone's heart. However, the Gentiles don't know who the true God is, they keep walking away from the true God and His Law. They actually follow their own standard to do things, the version of God's Law buried in there hearts is bluring away that they can't be considered as "righteous", especially in the eyes of the Mosaic Law biding Jews such as Paul.

In addition to this, the Law in our hearts is much more abstract while the Mosaic Law version makes everything explicit for the Jews to follow. Because it is more abstract, it is supposed to be more difficult to keep especially under the circumstance that the Gentiles are far away from the true God.

All these became unimportant as Jesus Christ brought as a far more advanced covenant. Under this covenant, the Jews can be considered no longer under God's Law (to them the version is Mosaic Law), while the Gentiles don't subject them to God's Law either as long as they (both the Jews and Gentiles) choose to believe Jesus Christ and to be under the protection of the New Covenant.

Jesus Christ's teaching is yet another version/reflection of God's Law. The New Covenant however specifies that unlike any other version/reflection of God's Law, there's no longer a death line there. Law usually marks a line there when you choose to get cross, you will be considered dead and be subject to the death penalty. This death line no longer exist under the New Covenant, except that the insulting of the Holy Spirit is still a death sin. And unlike any other reflection of God's Law, judgment is not done by Law itself but Jesus Christ. That is, under the New Covenant you are not judged by any Law, instead you are judged by Jesus Christ Himself (as you are a follower of His teaching).

To summarize,

The Jews:
bound by a covenant specifying that they should abide by Mosaic Law (both Oral and Written) till Jesus first coming. Their accuser is Moses (so most likely Moses will use the standard of both the Oral Law and Written Law to accuse the Jews).

The Gentiles:
They are supposed to follow "the Law in heart". However they don't know the true God and thus far away from Him. The gradually set up their own standard to do things though "the Law in heart" still has crucial influence to them. It seems that Satan will be their acuser on the Judgment Day

Under the New Covenant:
The boundary between the Jews and Gentiles are gone. In Christ we are all brothers and sisters. Both the Jews and Gentiles are supposed to follow Christ's teaching. And Jesus Christ will be the Judge on the Judgment Day. The role of an accuser becomes invalid.

 

[glorydaz]

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?

Which would bring us back to the law of Moses, which has been replaced by the inward laws in the New Covenant. Where before sin lorded it over us through the lusts of the flesh, we have the full right to reject sin and it's power. Now we serve in "newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter." Renewal is always inside out and begins with man's spirit, then mind, and last of all the body (it's practices). Interesting thread, BTW. Deep subject!

 

[smaller]

Which would bring us back to the law of Moses, which has been replaced by the inward laws in the New Covenant. Where before sin lorded it over us through the lusts of the flesh, we have the full right to reject sin and it's power. Now we serve in "newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter." Renewal is always inside out and begins with man's spirit, then mind, and last of all the body (it's practices). Interesting thread, BTW. Deep subject!

The Laws never changed one iota as it was 'always' spiritual in nature, being from God. God Himself in Jesus Christ ILLUMINATED the spiritual reality of those laws, as expounded by Paul right here.

Romans 13:
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.


11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.


Any who do not DO as the LAW commands via the SPIRIT stands CONDEMNED and shall be SWEPT AWAY as DIRT from the HOUSE of God.

It is the TEMPTER in the HOUSE OF MAN who can NOT be LAWFUL. Those who do not LOVE are his slaves in the flesh.

enjoy!


s

 

[glorydaz]

Not according to Revelations. The scripture you cite is a prophetic anouncement of what will happen.

Not many will claim to know exactly what Revelation is saying.
John spoke of what was, what is and what will be, but I'm quite sure you and I would not agree on that book.

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.

Yes, it's all recorded, and therefore can be disproved.
We'd have to go point by point on that one and this is not the thread for that.

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.

Yes, the fact that satan sought to kill Jesus through Herod shows quite clearly he did not want Him to go to the cross. And, yes, it was more than conceivable because satan knows Scripture better than we do, and the Bible is filled with Scriptures that say exactly how Jesus was to die. Satan not only knew how, but he knew what it would mean for him.

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.

Yes....I am one of "those" who believe men have freewills. That, too, is supported by Scripture.

I know you don't like the term "free will", but that's neither here no there in this thread.

 

[glorydaz]

The Laws never changed one iota as it was 'always' spiritual in nature, being from God. God Himself in Jesus Christ ILLUMINATED the spiritual reality of those laws, as expounded by Paul right here.

Romans 13:
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.


11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.


Any who do not DO as the LAW commands via the SPIRIT stands CONDEMNED and shall be SWEPT AWAY as DIRT from the HOUSE of God.

It is the TEMPTER in the HOUSE OF MAN who can NOT be LAWFUL. Those who do not LOVE are his slaves in the flesh.

enjoy!


s

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

 

[childeye]

=ivdavid;579579]I'm still going to focus on just Romans 6:14 and its implications...

Sorry if I took your thread off track.

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?

I am not sure how the commandments factor in with Love, as Love does not work at the behest of commandments. Love God with all your heart mind and soul is the product of knowing Him in whom we first began in trust but through no fault of Gods, we distrusted Him.

This force called Love that even the command to love God yet is a piece of God, is of course the only goodness in mankind. Now it is true we may run from love out of fear of what it will cost us; but this fear comes from where, when in reality it costs us more when we run away? It is a deceiving spirit in ignorance of our reliance upon the love that is God and is us that will only result in the hardening of heart and will only obtain misery and the loss of everything worthwhile.

It is in effect running from ourselves and afraid to discover ourselves lest we hate what we discover. The belief it is a freewill that distrusts God is therefore a lie from Satan, who confounds the mind by equating distrust of the Trustworthy with both choice and freedom, and ends up unwittingly counting a never satisfied greed as a worthy endeavour. In reality it is ignorance and blindness to why we need God to be whole. And since it is in our own interests to be happy and content and this can only be found in God, sin also is a brutal slavery. So in reality for our own happiness, we all are forced to submit to Love even as God has always told us, or we are forced to become wicked and depraved, even depisers of Love. The Truth of this leaves no viable alternative but to serve God.

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)?

The Truth of our dependance upon Love to exist is by grace revealed in the form of the Holy Spirit of Truth. For we have known God from the beginning but were duped into thinking we didn't. Therefore we distrusted God in not trusting ourselves and have lost ourselves even as we have lost Who God is. Sadly, now our recognition of God is measured by only a fear of the unknown, some commandments and ordinances, and only He can reveal Himself Who has hidden Himself from us.

And God has ordered that according to as much as we were unthankful and vain through not esteeming Him, likewise we are blind to what we are missing, so that we cannot see what we would be thankful for. We become therefore what we believe. In this it could be said that without sin we could not really know from where we had fallen. Such misery can only be removed by grace. Because even that which is in us is that remains good, is inadequate to restore us to the point that we recognize the cause of our misery. For since we become the image of god we believe in, it is in there where we fall short of the Glory of God and cannot imagine His incorruptuble character with a corrupted mind.

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.

I don't think I can using your definitions, but I will try. As I said, Love does not work at the behest of commandments. The only caveat is that God being love itself must fufill the very commandment He gives by motivating the creature enough to do so, but this defeats the purpose of showing men who He is and what it means to be God if the men think they do it and not the piece of God within them. Conversely, if the piece of God inside us does not do it, we then feel we are to blame for our disobedience and count ourselves wantonly evil when we simply were void of the love necessary to accomplish the task. And as I said this love was not there because our image of god is insufficient.

Hence I am not a student of the law. I don't understand some laws that were given. I only know Love as has been given to me. So for example love does not motivate me to stone a man for gathering wood to build a fire to keep warm because it is a Sabbath and one should not work, but the law requires I do so. The law required Jesus to stone the adultress but he also used the law to spare her, admonish her and then released her from her accusers. There are many laws therefore that I sense mean something other than they appear outwardly because the love in me does not always agree and the Spirit does not always align with the interpretation of what is written.

Having said that, I would therefore venture to say the works of the law as you put it, refering to every commandment laid out by God, are His desires without the knowledge of what it is like to be a creature in ignorance of Himself. For the allknowing would not require the ignorant to be all knowing but He would expect us to love even in our ignorance. Is it possible God does not know what it is like to be flesh even as we do not know what it is to be Spirit?

I therefore think the trust of God is to trust the piece of Him inside us so that we may truly be a free will. So it is that the love in me that is a piece of Him does not agree with some of the commandments and yet He wrote the commandments. To be true and honest, we must follow what His voice inside us says even if it appears against His commandments. For Satan quotes the commandments only to tempt or to accuse and he does not love. Likewise however, the commandments must have the ability to account for mercy and understanding. Without this, we would hear a joke in heaven and we all would wait to see if God laughed before we decided it was funny. Then God for all the company in His presence would sadly be alone all by Himself.

Therefore, the law of works would refer to being forced to do them out of fear of death and as a measure of one's will to save himself from wrath rather than out of a pure Love.

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?

Works of repentance are evidence of change in direction and change of mind and heart. They actually walk away from the boundry laws of thou shalt nots, toward the thoushalts. They forgive and turn the other cheek to spare others in charity of forgiveness. They do not condemn knowing he who wantonly sins is under an illusion and lost. Such is the long suffering of pure love from the perspective of the knowledgable man rescued from his own darkness. All in all love works all ways and all directions even as light does. Ultimately, as Christ is the true Image of God, to believe in Him is to find God and find yourself.

 

[childeye]

=glorydaz;579771]I know you don't like the term "free will", but that's neither here no there in this thread.[/QUOTE]

For the record I believe in a free will defined as the will set free from lies, not one that is counted free while a slave to sin. This thread is on topic accordingly, as is every thread that has Truth, even as the Gospel sets the prisoners free. It's all about that.

 

[ivdavid]

But more to your point, I believe Paul's theology addresses exactly what your getting at, so yes, on one side of the coin I think it's fair to come to the conclusion you did.

Romans 7:8-9 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Could we take a closer look at the passage you've quoted -

Rom 7:6 states that we are delivered from the law[I still think it alludes to the Lev 18:5 'Law of works' here]. Why do we need to be delivered from the law - because sin in our flesh brought forth fruit unto death through the law (v.5) when instead we must be bringing forth fruit unto God (v.4).

And v.7 states that we cannot recognize sin in our flesh except by the law. The same is also stated in Rom 3:20, where the flesh is again shown to be unprofitable - and the purpose of the law is to enable us to recognize sin in our flesh. More specifically, we would never have recognized the motions of lust in us except if the commandment to not covet was contained in the law. How exactly is this?

v.8 explains that sin works in us all manner of covetousness at the time of striving to obey the commandment in the flesh. This is not to say that it doesn't work evil in us at other times, but it's when we attempt to keep the spiritual commandment that we really find out there is such an evil influence within us. For, without the commandment, I did not recognize sin in me and I thought I was obedient to the law and hence had life. But once the commandment came, and I strived to obey it as it should be, I found I was actually unable to obey it and then, I knew I was to be condemned under the law - ie I, who thought I had life because of my 'obedience' under the law, died under the spiritual law (v.9).

How did I think so high of myself in such error - it was because sin deceived me and slew me(v.11). In that it shows its true extent of sinfulness - deceiving me into corruption even through that which is holy(v.13).

v.14 again contrasts the spiritual with the fleshly - and implies that the flesh cannot work what is spiritual. The same is reiterated in v.25 - the flesh can only serve the law of sin. What is the conclusion we can take away from this - that sin in our flesh enslaves us into deception and corruption, and sin in our flesh is made recognizable to us by the law.

An implication of this is that any spiritual commandment given to us, cannot be obeyed in the flesh, only in the regenerated new spirit - therefore giving all glory to God and His working in man while none to the flesh and its working.

Would you agree to the above?

I don't quite get that angle... I look at hardening one's heart when we reject the truth and refuse to see what is clearly in front of us.

If you have no issues with what I've written above, apply Romans 7 in the context of the spiritual commandment to "not harden one's heart". I would see the exceedingly sinful sin reviving with this commandment and deceiving and slewing man even in this commandment(v.9,11). For this spiritual commandment cannot be kept in the flesh - in that, we are to depend upon God to preserve us against falling in this too. Complete reliance on God, zero on ourselves. All glory and credit to God, all accountability and blame to us in the flesh.

 

[ivdavid]

Under the New Covenant:
The boundary between the Jews and Gentiles are gone. In Christ we are all brothers and sisters. Both the Jews and Gentiles are supposed to follow Christ's teaching.

I agree to all this. I'm simply looking into why the the Law of works(not the same as Mosaic Law) was given in the first place - only to be later replaced with the Law of faith. None of God's ways are in vain - so I thought we could all discuss the purpose behind this work of God. What did God intend for us by giving us the Law of Works which no man can fulfill? There has been quite some insight on this so far in this thread - may God reveal more of His ways to us unto His glory alone.

Also, do you see the old covenant as a mistake by God to be corrected by His bringing in the new covenant - or was the old covenant's purpose itself entirely different, completely planned by God? What did God intend through the old covenant? As for me, I believe that God planned the Old covenant out in complete control, to show us our own inability in the flesh to keep our end of the covenant because of sin in us. This is why the new covenant speaks of what God does in man and not what man does at all.