Deborah13
Member
Just don't look at his acting career
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Just don't look at his acting career
No, I'm pretty sure walking after the flesh means doing the deeds of the flesh, and walking after the Spirit means doing the deeds of the Spirit, and that we Christians most certainly can walk after the flesh, doing the deeds of the flesh:There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. The second part of the verse describes what those in Christ are doing...not walking AFTER the flesh but are walking AFTER the Spirit.
I going to dare to say from what I have heard from you that you do not walk AFTER the flesh ever. That does not mean that you never sin but does mean that your heart is in the right place with God and the desire in your heart is for God and therefore, you are walking AFTER the Spirit. You are running the race in the right direction after the Spirit which leads to eternal life not after the flesh that leads to death.
It sounds like you're saying we were married to the law.The Law did not die but we died to the Law therefore we are free to enter into a new marriage covenant.
It sounds like you're saying we were married to the law.
What we used to be 'married' to is sinful flesh, submitting to the dictates of that husband, with the law acting as a sort of marriage license that held us in that marital submission and obedience to husband flesh:
"8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence." (Romans 7:8 NASB)
But at the cross, husband flesh died. Therefore, the law has no more authority to act like a marriage license and hold us in marital obedience to a husband that has died, and so with the death of husband flesh we are free to now be in marital submission to Christ:
18 Being then made free from sin (through death of the sin nature), ye became the servants of righteousness." (Romans 6:18 NASB)
So, we died to the law in the sense that the flesh died and ended the power of the law to stir up sin within us. That hardly means we don't have to now fulfil and uphold the righteous requirements of the law that once made us sin when husband flesh was alive because those righteous requirements are part of an old relationship. No. Now that husband flesh is dead, and with it the power of the law to stir sin up in us, we are now free to obey Christ and fulfill and uphold the righteous requirement(s) of the law.
we died to the Law
I pretty sure you are correct, I agree, it means doing the deeds of the flesh because one is going ''after'' the things of the flesh.No, I'm pretty sure walking after the flesh means doing the deeds of the flesh, and walking after the Spirit means doing the deeds of the Spirit, and that we Christians most certainly can walk after the flesh, doing the deeds of the flesh:
"12 Therefore *, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die : but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live" (Romans 8:12-13 NASB)
And Paul says that anyone who does NOT walk after the Spirit is the one who is not condemned. Besides, Paul talks about Christians being condemned by what they do here:
"Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." (Romans 14:22 NASB)
And James talks about it here:
"9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. " (James 2:9 NASB)
Maybe you're afraid to interpret Romans 8:1 as the condemnation of doing wrong because you think that to be condemned means to be lost(?) It does not. At least as long as you don't persist in your condemnation to the point of eventually being turned over to it by God.
Do you think James was talking about the law in it's first covenant form?Yup, James says that if they did that they were breaking the Law of Moses and if they broke one they had broken them all.
Better to be judged by the law of Christ, law of liberty, law of the Spirit. I really do like Maine lobster very much.
Do you think James was talking about the law in it's first covenant form?
Even the dietary laws get fulfilled, not abolished, in this New Covenant. It's just that they find their fulfillment in the way of the New Covenant, not in the old way of the first covenant, but fulfilled nonetheless. Just like the law of the oxen we talked about. The point being, we still come under the condemnation of the law when we do not fulfill the law of Moses, which means fulfilling the law of Moses in the new way of the New Covenant when it comes to the worship, cleanliness, and separation laws.
So, James is talking about the whole law, but in it's New Covenant form. And we are indeed convicted by that law when we do not uphold some aspect of it.
Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?It sounds like you're saying we were married to the law.
Because you do. But how about this....The law of Moses in it's New Covenant form?
One thing I find alarming in all these post's is, I seem to be the only one who discusses of brings up the fact that the Abrahamic Covenant is what the law was added to.
Because you do. But how about this....
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
The bondwoman and her son were sent away. Abraham was sorry to see this son go because he loved him but God told him to listen to the freewoman.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Well not quite, the Jews (Judah) were under a marriage contract with God.
That is who Paul is talking to and convincing that they are no longer bond by that marriage contract and were free to enter into the new marriage contract with Christ. He had set them free from it so they could be married to Him. They died in Christ so they died to the law, that marriage contract. Just like when the husband dies he is no longer bond by the law.
Deborah, I don't think anyone argues that the first covenant has been laid aside. The argument is whether or not the law of Moses has been laid aside. We know it hasn't for the simple fact that when we are obedient through our faith in Christ the law of Moses gets fulfilled, not laid aside as obsolete.Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
The bondwoman and her son were sent away. Abraham was sorry to see this son go because he loved him but God told him to listen to the freewoman.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
In context, the dominion being spoken of here is the dominion of the law to make us sin. We have been released from the power of the law to do that because the sin it arouses died on the cross with Jesus. But so many in the church think 'dying to the law' means not having to do it anymore. True in regard to the first covenant way to keep the law. But not true in regard to the righteousness of the law of Moses itself. We did not die to that--we uphold and fulfill that.Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
They were, but this is not the context in which Paul is speaking about marriage in Romans 6 and 7. Let me show you:Well not quite, the Jews (Judah) were under a marriage contract with God.
Do you believe that the moral principle that you should feed someone who laborers for you just can into being in the Law of Moses? How about paying the laborer who works for you? Where Paul states it in Tim. I think. That's two things that are found in the Law of Moses for sure why wouldn't they be, they are good sound moral laws? I fail to see how we are fulfilling the Law of Moses, that is only two points in the Law of Moses. But they do show that by doing those things that the righteousness of God's law is being fulfilled in us.Deborah, I don't think anyone argues that the first covenant has been laid aside. The argument is whether or not the law of Moses has been laid aside. We know it hasn't for the simple fact that when we are obedient through our faith in Christ the law of Moses gets fulfilled, not laid aside as obsolete.
The confusion comes in for some because the fulfillment of the law of Moses in this New Covenant, not it's abolishing, is done in a new way in regard to the various literal first covenant ways to keep the law of Moses. The law of the oxen being a good example. As we see, that law does not get abolished in this New Covenant. It gets fulfilled in this New Covenant, not abolished, when we feed the workers of the gospel who are busy treading out the grain in the kingdom of God. What got laid aside is the old covenant way to do that.
Note two things about the law of the oxen:
Like other laws, Christ did not fulfill that--we do. That defeats the argument that the law of Moses ceased because Christ fulfilled all of it so we don't have to.
And it's not a law that can be argued that it continues into the New Covenant because it's part of some other eternal law outside of the law of Moses. It's obviously a Mosaic command alone, pure and simple. Yet it continues in this New Covenant, defeating the 'cosmic law' argument.
The literal temple, Levitical priesthood, and sacrifices.Would you describe for me what you see as the old covenant, that has been made obsolete? What are particulars of that covenant (contract)?
The methods and timetables attached to them.What are particulars of that covenant (contract)?
When in the OT did God make that covenant? What is the scripture in the OT that describes that covenant being made?The literal temple, Levitical priesthood, and sacrifices.
Hebrews explains how they comprise the first covenant that has been made obsolete by the New Covenant of Temple, Priesthood, and Sacrifice.
The methods and timetables attached to them.
Nice observation.Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
...
The Gentiles who were not circumcised proselytes were not in this marriage contract with God.
I Don't know off the top of my head. The passage I'm referring to that explains the passing of the old covenant and the institution of the New Covenants, and what they are, is this:When in the OT did God make that covenant? What is the scripture in the OT that describes that covenant being made?
Heb_8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.I Don't know off the top of my head. The passage I'm referring to that explains the passing of the old covenant and the institution of the New Covenants, and what they are, is this:
6 IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.
7 "THEN I SAID, 'BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.' "
8 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law ),
9 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first (Mosaic offerings and sacrifices) in order to establish the second (Christ's offering and sacrifice)
(Hebrews 10:6-9 NASB parenthesis mine)