Romans 6:14

[ivdavid]

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).

Could you elaborate on what you've said here. Because I feel this is the crux of the covenant change.

"Sin lorded it over us through the lusts of the flesh" - is this your rendition of verses like Rom 7: 14,23,25 ? That the flesh can serve the law of sin only?

"we have the full right to reject sin and it's power" - I'm guessing you're describing the state of a believer in Christ here. We now are enabled to reject the guilt and power of sin - but how? What changed in us? Are we still not prone to the influences of sin in our flesh? I'm guessing you'd refer to the regenerative work of God in man and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer to explain how man is enabled to finally serve God and not sin. Am I right?

"Now we serve in 'newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter'." - could you elaborate on this? What is the oldness of letter - some might take this as the redundancy of the OT commandments against the Laws of Christ to love. I know the commandments to love are all-encompassing of the OT commandments but this is not to say that the OT commandments are redundant. Each of them do carry spiritual significance that is eternal - I hope you'd agree with me.

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.

The old covenant has indeed been replaced with the new - the "law of works" has been replaced with the "law of faith". But why does this have to imply that the OT commandments are no longer in spiritual force - I believe they are descriptive of God's work in us. Just as the OT exodus is playing out in our lives today, spiritually.

 

[ivdavid]

I am not sure how the commandments factor in with Love, as Love does not work at the behest of commandments.

That's true. I heard my aunt tell me - that God's commandments aren't exactly prescriptive to the believer in Christ, they are descriptive of what God works out in him unto His glory. I found that explanation quite satisfying.

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.

Slaves to sin or slaves to God - Romans 6 says the same.

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.

I guess when God works in man, it is made apparent to man that such are His works and ways. Any high headedness by man is humbled by God who leads the same to repentance and a renewed walk in His ways.

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.

I'm not sure about what you've said here - I know it's not one's place to determine another's blame, but are we not each accountable unto God on our own? When I have transgressed God's will, I know it is sin in my flesh that has done this, but what am I to confess and how am I to seek forgiveness if I will not hold myself guilty of this transgression? And isn't being void of love the very definition of being evil?

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.

Permit me to share my understanding of the same. As a youngster, I was quite disrespectful of my mother and I always blindly and hypocritically justified it under some pretense of self-righteousness. After I was converted a believer in Christ, God led me to the OT laws which said that one who has dishonored his parents must be stoned to death. Now that broke my heart - not by the conviction that I am guilty of this, not by the self-condemnation that I deserved nothing better, not by the fear of the gravity of the sin or the judgement - but by the grace and mercy of God in still pardoning me in love.

I am convinced I could not have appreciated that extent of God's love for me if the law had not said so. I wouldn't have seen that extent of His mercy and compassion. I believe the law in its entirety plays its role beautifully in pointing us to Christ.

I can embrace the law in order to embrace mercy - for without the law, the very concept of mercy does not exist.

Works of repentance are evidence of change in direction and change of mind and heart.

I too believe they are an evidence of God's working in us, rather than the cause of God's working in us.

 

[childeye]

=ivdavid;580263]

I'm not sure about what you've said here - I know it's not one's place to determine another's blame, but are we not each accountable unto God on our own?

Essentially, I am saying that we will blame ourselves with contempt and believe we are evil if we do not come to the realization that we need God to not be evil. That is to say that we must see the powers that divide us, first in ourselves before being able to excuse it in others. How did Jesus put it? First remove the plank from your own eye so you can see clearly before trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye. This self condemnation holding ourselves and others responsible for blindness, is a blackness in the soul that will cause men to despise the belief that a God exists who will judge us even as we believe we will be going to hell for what we do. It is a hopelessness that is against faith. Likewise we blame others accordingly as wantonly evil and compound our error in hypocrisy.

I believe to give account is to answer for what I've done with the time afforded me on this earth. I expect this to be answering for wicked acts more than righteous ones.
One must be honest before God and when I am faced with explaining my sin I will honestly say it was my weakness in the flesh.

When I have transgressed God's will, I know it is sin in my flesh that has done this, but what am I to confess and how am I to seek forgiveness if I will not hold myself guilty of this transgression?

Such an admission will only be viable as to obtaining mercy if I have stayed true with the same conviction for others. I will have had to have shown mercy in the same understanding for others for the same reasons, if I am to seek mercy for myself. I feel guilty because I have food while others go hungry. Is not this guilt Love? Why should I resent it and not give thanks for it? Why do such semantics exist in words? Even because there is a left and a right. We need both to clap our hands.

And isn't being void of love the very definition of being evil?

I believe absence of Love as evil is a good general summary. But as sin is many different directions from God so also does evil vary in definition. Fear is also good if describing the appropriate type of fear, otherwise fear also can be evil as in distrust of anything. Evil in the bible can be understood in many ways. It may mean calamity and a tearing down if done by God. It may even mean spoiled as in unthankful and malcontent.

Permit me to share my understanding of the same. As a youngster, I was quite disrespectful of my mother and I always blindly and hypocritically justified it under some pretense of self-righteousness. After I was converted a believer in Christ, God led me to the OT laws which said that one who has dishonored his parents must be stoned to death. Now that broke my heart - not by the conviction that I am guilty of this, not by the self-condemnation that I deserved nothing better, not by the fear of the gravity of the sin or the judgement - but by the grace and mercy of God in still pardoning me in love.

How about understanding why our parents are the way they are? Can we not yet honor them then in truth and fulfill the law when we see their predicament is the same as ours? How about knowing we didn't know any better when we were blind and ignorant of spiritual things and neither did they? I know that you are clever enough to take this to another level. Here is what I think you are asking? If it's not our faults we were blind, why do we require mercy? Because since we have all become corrupt, mercy is the only way we can all escape hypocrisy.

I am convinced I could not have appreciated that extent of God's love for me if the law had not said so. I wouldn't have seen that extent of His mercy and compassion. I believe the law in its entirety plays its role beautifully in pointing us to Christ.

I can embrace the law in order to embrace mercy - for without the law, the very concept of mercy does not exist.

Excellent reasoning although I think it is possible to come to the same conclusion without having to read the law. For we all want to be proud of our parents through Love without the workings of the Law. I could even despise my parents through the law. What if they beat me when I had done nothing wrong? What if they hated that I was born because of the burden I imposed upon their lives? All in all, there is an accuser working in all of us that will be defeated and silenced before all may enter heaven pure of any lingering malice.

 

[ivdavid]

Here is what I think you are asking? If it's not our faults we were blind, why do we require mercy?

No, not at all. You've misunderstood me. Perhaps I haven't explained myself properly and most likely am still not able to. I do not believe it is our fault that we were blind - and yet I believe we have to own up for the wrongs that is done on account of such blindness.

I'd be putting together Lev 5:17, Rom 7:17 and Rom 7:24 together in that order to explain my reactions to this.

This self condemnation holding ourselves and others responsible for blindness, is a blackness in the soul that will cause men to despise the belief that a God exists who will judge us even as we believe we will be going to hell for what we do. It is a hopelessness that is against faith.

Did what I say really come out as this? It wasn't intended to.

I don't believe I will go to hell for the sins I've done - precisely because of what Jesus has done. But that is not to say I don't count myself as deserving of going to hell. I'd say that faith in Christ's sufficiency is indeed the substance of my hope(sure conviction) of not going to hell - rather being in Christ for eternity.

Likewise we blame others accordingly as wantonly evil and compound our error in hypocrisy.

It's not others I blame as such - I rather do believe all flesh to be evil because of sin in it. I look unto the regenerative work of God to see good worked in man. Let me simply say that I'm focusing on what God is doing rather than what man is doing.

I don't know if I've cleared up anything or ended up confusing you more. But that's the best I can do now. Perhaps I'll try and elaborate later, if needed.

 

[childeye]

=ivdavid;580360]No, not at all. You've misunderstood me. Perhaps I haven't explained myself properly and most likely am still not able to.

I believe we are getting confused through semantics. Some of what I said were rhetorical statements not meant to be directed at you, personally.

I do not believe it is our fault that we were blind - and yet I believe we have to own up for the wrongs that is done on account of such blindness.

This statement is an excellent point of ponderance. You are indeed gifted in your honesty to not leave a stone unturned in search of identity in Christ. Such is walking in the light and is how we find ourselves.

Such enlightenment may be something that addresses confidence in one's self in standing against what we acknowledge as accusation against our character as sons of God. Jesus was tempted to prove his character in the wilderness which is the same accusation. But I do not want to take your point off track.

Yes I too believe we must own up to our failures for the sake of correction. Hence works of repentance are composed of exactly that. I believe we may be finding ourselves forever as God reveals the infinite He has placed inside us through the Holy Spirit, yet somewhere we will rest in faith of what we slowly realize is inevitable. These words may not seem to mean much or even say anything at all. But I say them only to point out that confidence in one's self is no different than belief that God in us is what ultimately is being questioned.

 

[glorydaz]

Could you elaborate on what you've said here. Because I feel this is the crux of the covenant change.

"Sin lorded it over us through the lusts of the flesh" - is this your rendition of verses like Rom 7: 14,23,25 ? That the flesh can serve the law of sin only?

"we have the full right to reject sin and it's power" - I'm guessing you're describing the state of a believer in Christ here. We now are enabled to reject the guilt and power of sin - but how? What changed in us? Are we still not prone to the influences of sin in our flesh? I'm guessing you'd refer to the regenerative work of God in man and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer to explain how man is enabled to finally serve God and not sin. Am I right?

"Now we serve in 'newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter'." - could you elaborate on this? What is the oldness of letter - some might take this as the redundancy of the OT commandments against the Laws of Christ to love. I know the commandments to love are all-encompassing of the OT commandments but this is not to say that the OT commandments are redundant. Each of them do carry spiritual significance that is eternal - I hope you'd agree with me.


The old covenant has indeed been replaced with the new - the "law of works" has been replaced with the "law of faith". But why does this have to imply that the OT commandments are no longer in spiritual force - I believe they are descriptive of God's work in us. Just as the OT exodus is playing out in our lives today, spiritually.

Paul is saying that the law, though spiritual, just, and holy in itself, was insufficient for justification, sanctification or the freeing of man from the power of sin. While the sinful appetites of the flesh cannot entirely extinquish the voice of reason and conscience, the law does not give man the power to be delivered from sin.

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Yes, I do agree with you. The oldness of the letter would be the form and substance instead of the newness of spirit. It isn't that the commandments are no longer spiritual, in fact Jesus expanded on them to include our heart attitude. What changed in us was our spiritual rebirth. This is why the renewing of our minds is so important. It's part of the sanctification process. Our spirit is given life, our soul (mind -self) is renewed, and our body is the last to be conformed into His image.

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved."

Have you ever considered why the husband/wife analogy is used here beyond what is commonly taught? Just curious.

 

[ivdavid]

Have you ever considered why the husband/wife analogy is used here beyond what is commonly taught? Just curious.

I'm sorry - but "here" where? And what is commonly taught? I'm sorry for having lost the flow, but I don't know what exactly you're referring to here.

If you're referring to Romans 7:1-4, I'd say that it describes an end to "the law of works" and a shift to "the law of faith" - which still does not imply that the OT commandments are no longer in force. I'd say each and every one of them are in spiritual force unto all eternity - these being the very reflection of the unchanging nature of God.

But if you were referring to something else, you'll need to specify it, for me to comment on it.

 

[glorydaz]

I'm sorry - but "here" where? And what is commonly taught? I'm sorry for having lost the flow, but I don't know what exactly you're referring to here.

If you're referring to Romans 7:1-4, I'd say that it describes an end to "the law of works" and a shift to "the law of faith" - which still does not imply that the OT commandments are no longer in force. I'd say each and every one of them are in spiritual force unto all eternity - these being the very reflection of the unchanging nature of God.

But if you were referring to something else, you'll need to specify it, for me to comment on it.

The Mosaic law was given to Israel. Christ is the end of the law for believers.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Here man is not justified by the work of the law...this is not speaking of the "law of works".

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

The law made nothing perfect....man is not sanctified by the law.

For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Here we see the Law of Christ or the Law of the Spirit of Life. Not tables of stone which were a "ministration of death, written and engraven in stones.."

2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

Now instead of Thou shalt not kill, Christ's Law says Thou shalt not hate or be angry. The Royal Law. We know that Jesus made it even more difficult to keep the Law, which is only possible when we are in Christ.

As for the husband wife issue, I'm not comfortable speaking about it at this time. This will probably provoke enough discussion. ;)

 

[stovebolts]

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?


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.

Sorry, didn't see your response.

I agree with much of your exegesis, very well said. However, when I look at what Paul is saying, I think he's talking about covenant. The covenant at Mt. Sinai was a covenant with the Law, and it came directly from God. thus, Romans 7:12. Paul starts this theme speaking of a woman under covenant (marriage) and how that woman would be in adultery if she went with a new husband (Christ), that is, unless the old covenant was made void, and by way of example, he uses the death of the husband (verses 2 and 3) while verse 25 speaks of the new covenant in Christ. (Jer 31:31)

It seems to me anyway, that Paul thinks that good works are a part of who we are (eph 2:10), but we are not saved by our works (eph 2:8), so I don't think Paul ever tried to separate the physical from the spiritual. Instead, both work in union, as was the intent of the law when given (Deut 6:4).

It's not that I disagree with you, but currently I'm just not seeing what your seeing. Perhaps God has blinded my eyes to this? I dunno, but I do know that God's timing is always perfect.

Grace and peace.

Jeff

 

[stovebolts]

If you're referring to Romans 7:1-4, I'd say that it describes an end to "the law of works" and a shift to "the law of faith"

Maybe this is my disconnect. The law was never about works, but instead, it's always been about faith, and Abraham is our example of that. God has always wanted us to have faith in him, but we don't. For example, what did the Isrealites do when God told them that the Land was their, all they had to do was go check it out and give a report on the land... What did they do? they gave a report on the people of the land, and didn't have faith that God could do what he said he would do.. and this off the tailcoats of what had just occured in Egypt.

Unfortunately, it's our tendency to believe that we can earn our keep, and that we are deserving of our wages. When we do this, we don't have faith in God, but ourselves.

So maybe this law of works, is when we think that we've earned our keep and stuff is owed us, and we begin to think we are better than our neighbor and loose our purpose (deut 4:6)... The law shows us that we can't keep it, and we are deserving of death. Thanks be for God who we have to put our faith in...

 

[glorydaz]

Sorry, didn't see your response.

I agree with much of your exegesis, very well said. However, when I look at what Paul is saying, I think he's talking about covenant. The covenant at Mt. Sinai was a covenant with the Law, and it came directly from God. thus, Romans 7:12. Paul starts this theme speaking of a woman under covenant (marriage) and how that woman would be in adultery if she went with a new husband (Christ), that is, unless the old covenant was made void, and by way of example, he uses the death of the husband (verses 2 and 3) while verse 25 speaks of the new covenant in Christ. (Jer 31:31)

It seems to me anyway, that Paul thinks that good works are a part of who we are (eph 2:10), but we are not saved by our works (eph 2:8), so I don't think Paul ever tried to separate the physical from the spiritual. Instead, both work in union, as was the intent of the law when given (Deut 6:4).

It's not that I disagree with you, but currently I'm just not seeing what your seeing. Perhaps God has blinded my eyes to this? I dunno, but I do know that God's timing is always perfect.

Grace and peace.

Jeff

This brings to mind what I wanted to mention earlier.
The church is to be the bride of Christ, with Christ as our head... as the husband is the head of the wife.

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Because fallen man left his proper position as God's wife...

For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

And desired to be the husband...the head and independent from God, God gave him the law which he cannot possibly keep, to expose the "old man". Maybe this is where the law of works comes in. The old man believed he could follow the law without reliance on God.

Since, now, the old man (the first husband in this example) is crucified with Christ, the new man is able to take his proper position as wife, depending on God and taking Him as our head. Just a thought....

 

[childeye]

=glorydaz;581261]

Because fallen man left his proper position as God's wife...
And desired to be the husband...the head and independent from God, God gave him the law which he cannot possibly keep, to expose the "old man". Maybe this is where the law of works comes in. The old man believed he could follow the law without reliance on God.

Since, now, the old man (the first husband in this example) is crucified with Christ, the new man is able to take his proper position as wife, depending on God and taking Him as our head. Just a thought....

But this is exactly what is meant when we say men do not have a freewill. They are not free to not be the she of the He that is God. Nor are we free under Satan's direction as is shown by our disability to sin. Satan said we could better our station under God by knowledge of good and evil. This implies subtly that there is something wrong with being dependent upon God.

 

[glorydaz]

But this is exactly what is meant when we say men do not have a freewill. They are not free to not be the she of the He that is God. Nor are we free under Satan's direction as is shown by our disability to sin. Satan said we could better our station under God by knowledge of good and evil. This implies subtly that there is something wrong with being dependent upon God.

That men are weak in the flesh, doesn't mean that they're unable to choose. Look at Adam and Eve. Eve was deceived. Adam was not deceived, but chose to IGNORE God's commandment. He "refused" to hear the commandment, and he did so without being deceived in any way. Which, of course, is why we see that sin entered the world through one man, Adam.

That man is free to choose life is shown here...

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Can we successfully choose to not sin apart from God? No, because the flesh is weak, but we can choose life by looking upon Jesus.

 

[ivdavid]

It seems to me anyway, that Paul thinks that good works are a part of who we are (eph 2:10), but we are not saved by our works (eph 2:8), so I don't think Paul ever tried to separate the physical from the spiritual.

Yes absolutely, good works are a part of us, yet not us - but Christ in us. I believe the law shows us that we, by ourselves, have no good in us ie in our flesh. This points us to Christ and what He does in us - thereby we can say that the good works in us are worked out by God in us and not by us ourselves in any way, and hence we can claim not to be saved by "our" works. And consequently, the good works worked out in us are not unto justification but unto sanctification - we, having been justified by Christ's work on the cross alone.

Maybe this is my disconnect. The law was never about works, but instead, it's always been about faith...

Why do you call this a disconnect? I think we're agreed upon the intent of your statement. The law was always meant to point us to faith in God(Gal 3:24), though the law itself was not of faith(Gal 3:12). This complex nature of the law is what I wanted to explore in this thread.

Unfortunately, it's our tendency to believe that we can earn our keep, and that we are deserving of our wages. When we do this, we don't have faith in God, but ourselves.

Very true. This is a little excerpt from the biography of John Wesley, one of the greatest vessels of God unto His glory, before his and his brother's conversion -

"Do you hope to be saved?", asked one Peter Bohler. When Charles [Wesley] answered "Yes", Peter asked, "For what reason do you hope it?" Came the answer,"Because I have used my best endeavors to serve God." Bohler's answer was merely a shake of his head.

 

[ivdavid]

The Mosaic law was given to Israel. Christ is the end of the law for believers.

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness and justification. That need not mean that the commandments of God in the Mosaic law are redundant now, spiritually, - right?

Let me define two terms for a better understanding -
"the physical/natural world of flesh and blood" - is this world that we are in presently.
"The spiritual world" - is the spiritual realm that overlaps our present physical world, and is the very kingdom of God.

Now, let's take the OT commandments dealing with unclean foods. These were given to man by God representing a part of His law to be obeyed in this "present physical world". But Col 2:16 clearly state that these are no longer in force in the "present physical world". Romans 14 takes it to another level, especially v.17 stating - the Kingdom of God("the spiritual world") is not meat and drink. If the "spiritual world" is not meat and drink, then why pass commandments on those in the first place - and why revoke them now in the "present physical world"? Why?

I'd start with 1Cor 15:46 - the natural/physical comes first, then comes the spiritual. The OT law given to man was spiritual even back then(Rom 7:14), but it communicated in terms that the 'natural' of the "present world" could understand - for man as a representative, had no spiritual discernment yet - that was until Christ came and the Spirit poured upon man. The commandment therefore referred to the natural things of this "present world" - namely meat and drink. But when the fullness of time came, the natural had to give way for the spiritual - ie the natural context of this law had to be removed to reveal the actual spiritual context of the entire and very same law. Step 1 - removal of the natural ; step 2 - revealing of the spiritual.

We see God removing the natural in Acts 10:15. This, God uses as the seed to plant a much more important teaching - that this present physical world of flesh and blood is not indicative or reflective of what the spiritual world represents. God does this by showing how the "gentiles" according to the present world of flesh and blood need not necessarily be so in the spiritual world - that these could be the spiritual jews in the spiritual world while the fleshly jews of this present world could be the "gentiles" in the spiritual world(Rom 9:6).

Now, we see that the natural world serves as a shadow for things to come in the spiritual world - like a small-scale analogy of what actually occurs in the spiritual world. And since we believe that all of the spiritual jews will be saved, this has to be shadowed in the natural world too, else the assurance of the analogy breaks down - and that's why I believe the jews of the natural world too will come to be saved (Rom 11:26).

Now onto step 2 - what was the spiritual intent of the commandments to avoid unclean food? I guess from Matt 4:4, the word of God is the spiritual bread for us - and we find that Jesus Christ is the Word of God and our Bread of Life. The commandment could be construed to state that we are to "feed" on only Christ for our life - and every other "food" is unclean and would result in death(John 6:53). I guess this is the spiritual force of God's OT Law which is valid and in force even today - and unto all eternity.

So I believe, Christ being the end of the law is only the end of the law of works unto justification - but not necessarily the end of the commandments as such - which are all in spiritual force for all eternity. I'd like to know where exactly you'd differ with me on this, if you do at all.

Now instead of Thou shalt not kill, Christ's Law says Thou shalt not hate or be angry. The Royal Law.

I wouldn't say Christ did away with the OT law, replacing it with an "instead of..." as you mean it - I'd say He was removing the natural to reveal the spiritual in that very same commandment. This is the only way I'm able to reconcile Matt 5:17-18 with the Gospel.

Here[Gal 2:16] man is not justified by the work of the law...this is not speaking of the "law of works".

"works of the law" do refer to "works" done under the "law" - the "law of works". The Bible does have different usages of the same word "law" in different places - I guess there is bound to be some confusion in terms here.

 

[glorydaz]

So I believe, Christ being the end of the law is only the end of the law of works unto justification - but not necessarily the end of the commandments as such - which are all in spiritual force for all eternity. I'd like to know where exactly you'd differ with me on this, if you do at all.


I wouldn't say Christ did away with the OT law, replacing it with an "instead of..." as you mean it - I'd say He was removing the natural to reveal the spiritual in that very same commandment. This is the only way I'm able to reconcile Matt 5:17-18 with the Gospel.


"works of the law" do refer to "works" done under the "law" - the "law of works". The Bible does have different usages of the same word "law" in different places - I guess there is bound to be some confusion in terms here.

You did a good job clarifying what you mean, and I can't find anything to disagree with as you've explained it.

 

[childeye]

=glorydaz;581700]That men are weak in the flesh, doesn't mean that they're unable to choose.

Of course no one is suggesting men don't choose as in mentally deliberate. I believe it should be obvious that knowledge and ignorance are major factors in which way a man will choose. This alone compromises the inherent responsibility of choice since one could not expect the foolish to make wise decisions. However the definition of a freewill described as a noun defines a will as free from restraint or compulsion which nullifies your use of the term as viable. For being weak in the flesh is regarding sin and the compulsive will of the flesh which is in conflict with the will of the inner man. There therefore are two wills in a man warring with one another over what actions will be taken. While it appears man can choose between the two, we know that sin has a power that has overcome men even unto death. This fulfills what God warned of in the garden. Hence if it were true we could overcome sin by our own mental deliberation, God would be a liar and Satan would be true.

Look at Adam and Eve. Eve was deceived. Adam was not deceived, but chose to IGNORE God's commandment. He "refused" to hear the commandment, and he did so without being deceived in any way.

In my view you are overly critical of Adam. You have applied the verse of Paul's out of context, trying to link his reasoning that the man should be in authority over the woman, with saying Adam knew precisely what he was doing and intentionally betrayed the Almighty. Respectfully, this would lead one to believe it was Paul's sound judgement, that Adam who knowingly betrayed God should be in authority over the woman who did not intentionally betray God but was merely tricked into doing so. Paul would then be advocating that the thieves should be in chrage of the gullible. This of course would make Paul out to be ridiculous, which is why Paul could not have meant what you implied. The fact is Adam, in a moment of confusion over whether God had been honest with him, trusted the woman who was a piece of himself. Her being inder deception, persuaded Adam and consequently so also was Adam deceived by listening to the woman.

Which, of course, is why we see that sin entered the world through one man, Adam.

That man is free to choose life is shown here...

These two statements are contrary with one another. For if man could choose life according to the works of the law, sin does not hold ant power over mankind to stop him from attaining eternal life. The scripture you have given as proof of a freewill therefore proves the exact opposite. For through the law came the knowledge of sin and the curse of death, which is why we need the atoning blood of Christ that we may be free from the curse of the law. Consequently you cannot believe that Jesus died for our sins because we could not attain life through the choice presented in the Old Testament and still believe men have a freewill to choose life according to the Old Testament.

Can we successfully choose to not sin apart from God? No, because the flesh is weak,

Here we are somewhat in agreement. I however view the flesh as a seperate will and the Spirit of eternal Love as the only viable will in man pertaining to righteousness.

but we can choose life by looking upon Jesus.

Yes we can admit we are not free to choose life according to the Old Testament and then hope for mercy through the blood of Christ. Still it remains that scripture does not maintain that men are free to believe this. For Christ is foolishness to some as scripture says and it must be given by God for a man to come to Christ as Jesus said over and over.

 

[glorydaz]

Of course no one is suggesting men don't choose as in mentally deliberate. I believe it should be obvious that knowledge and ignorance are major factors in which way a man will choose. This alone compromises the inherent responsibility of choice since one could not expect the foolish to make wise decisions. However the definition of a freewill described as a noun defines a will as free from restraint or compulsion which nullifies your use of the term as viable. For being weak in the flesh is regarding sin and the compulsive will of the flesh which is in conflict with the will of the inner man. There therefore are two wills in a man warring with one another over what actions will be taken. While it appears man can choose between the two, we know that sin has a power that has overcome men even unto death. This fulfills what God warned of in the garden. Hence if it were true we could overcome sin by our own mental deliberation, God would be a liar and Satan would be true.

You're leaving out the fact that we are created in God's image and He has made us with a conscience and shown us His glory and lovingkindness in all we behold. If what you say is true, then none of the Old Testament beleivers could have come in faith, and they did.

In my view you are overly critical of Adam. You have applied the verse of Paul's out of context, trying to link his reasoning that the man should be in authority over the woman, with saying Adam knew precisely what he was doing and intentionally betrayed the Almighty. Respectfully, this would lead one to believe it was Paul's sound judgement, that Adam who knowingly betrayed God should be in authority over the woman who did not intentionally betray God but was merely tricked into doing so. Paul would then be advocating that the thieves should be in chrage of the gullible. This of course would make Paul out to be ridiculous, which is why Paul could not have meant what you implied. The fact is Adam, in a moment of confusion over whether God had been honest with him, trusted the woman who was a piece of himself. Her being inder deception, persuaded Adam and consequently so also was Adam deceived by listening to the woman.

No, it's pretty clear that Eve was deceived and Adam disobeyed, which is exactly why Adam was to be the authority. Had Eve been the head, satan would always win out. With Adam as the head, man would have to choose to disobey.

These two statements are contrary with one another. For if man could choose life according to the works of the law, sin does not hold ant power over mankind to stop him from attaining eternal life. The scripture you have given as proof of a freewill therefore proves the exact opposite. For through the law came the knowledge of sin and the curse of death, which is why we need the atoning blood of Christ that we may be free from the curse of the law. Consequently you cannot believe that Jesus died for our sins because we could not attain life through the choice presented in the Old Testament and still believe men have a freewill to choose life according to the Old Testament.

Faith has always been an option for man...including during the OT times. Yes, I can believe Jesus died for our sins, and yes, I can believe man has always had a choice to choose life.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

You're leaving out the fact that we are created in God's image and He has made us with a conscience and shown us His glory and lovingkindness in all we behold. If what you say is true, then none of the Old Testament beleivers could have come in faith, and they did.


No, it's pretty clear that Eve was deceived and Adam disobeyed, which is exactly why Adam was to be the authority. Had Eve been the head, satan would always win out. With Adam as the head, man would have to choose to disobey.


Faith has always been an option for man...including during the OT times. Yes, I can believe Jesus died for our sins, and yes, I can believe man has always had a choice to choose life.

I can't seem to find "anything" to disagree with you about. You have to be speaking the TRUTH...

 

[childeye]

=glorydaz;581913]You're leaving out the fact that we are created in God's image and He has made us with a conscience and shown us His glory and lovingkindness in all we behold.

Being made in God's image does not mean we have freewill. It simply means we become whatever image of God we imagine. Hence the True Image of God was sent so that we may believe and be changed accordingly.

If what you say is true, then none of the Old Testament beleivers could have come in faith, and they did.

The True Image of God was revealed to all pre New Testament believers as Jesus said, Abraham rejoiced to see his day and he saw it and was glad. Before Abraham was I was.

No, it's pretty clear that Eve was deceived and Adam disobeyed, which is exactly why Adam was to be the authority. Had Eve been the head, satan would always win out. With Adam as the head, man would have to choose to disobey.

Your judgment of Adam is unfair in my view, being that it is obtuse. Even as Abraham saw Jesus and was glad, so also would Adam have been glad to find out Satan was wrong about God. For the false image of god had come from the devil, which is what put Adam in the predicament of wondering if he really knew God. You should think carefully about this. How we judge others reveals the purity of our hearts. Hence Satan was sure Job would curse God, which says more about Satan than it does about Job.

Faith has always been an option for man...including during the OT times. Yes, I can believe Jesus died for our sins, and yes, I can believe man has always had a choice to choose life.

Here you contradict your own points. For you equate choosing to do the law as equivalent to righteousness by faith. We could not choose to do written commands any more than a man can conjure love at his discretion. Moreover, faith is not a decision made through intellect. Faith comes by revelation of what is undeniably trustworthy. To trust is to be convinced of the integrity of our maker, and so also establishes us whom He has made, including Adam.

You say you can believe Jesus died for our sins. So what? To establish it is by your own freewill you have done so, you must also be able to choose to not believe in the Christ. I know for a fact you cannot choose to distrust Christ no matter how hard you try. I don't expect that you can deny the power of this reality lest you become a liar, therefore you should concede this point and be at peace. After all it only serves to glorify God.