I agree He would not, but that does not mean He could not. For scripture says there is nothing He cannot do. Then you will say "He cannot lie". I will say He can send a lying spirit. He can cause a man to walk off a cliff of his own volition, even as he caused the enemies of Israel to slay each other. I do not hold to the belief that there is any card that mankind holds in his hand that can be played against God. For that thought is contrary to the revelation that God is our goodness.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
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/
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
When did the Law pass or has it passed away?
- Thread starter Mellontes
- Start date
Drew
Member
I don't know what others are saying, but I am certainly not using that logic. The Law has been replaced by the Holy Spirit. So I can coherently assert that its wrong to do all sorts of things that happen to not be set as "New Testament" law.
Drew
Member
I believe that one of the most common errors in Biblical exegesis is to presume that the Bible sets forth a set of timeless truths. I suggest that if one approaches the Bible without presumption, one will discover that it is really an evolving narrative. And if that is the case, there is no reason to presume that the Law of Moses may have served a particular function, for a particular people, and for a particular time.
Besides, I think its clear that this is how Paul thinks - I have never, frankly, understood how people can read Paul and not see that he is declaring the end of the Law of Moses.
Besides, I think its clear that this is how Paul thinks - I have never, frankly, understood how people can read Paul and not see that he is declaring the end of the Law of Moses.
The way I see it is we end up debating semantics when we had set out to discuss the relevance of the topic. The New Testament needs the Old to be comprehensive as to what vanity is. In that sense it is true that there is a false dichotomy being discussed here. However the separation of the two is evident in the fact that there is only One Light to which both testify to from opposing directions. One before the cross and one after the cross.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Member
The Torah was the revelation of the character of who God is as expressed through the Son, Jesus Christ. What was given at Mt. Sinai was the very essence and being of who he is. He laid out a path for all to follow, or not follow, and had his Son live and follow out that path. He could not do anything contrary to the Word of God. All the laws one thinks in the OT are unmerciful, hard and cruel has never studied the Torah then. They were all based on love, or Jesus would never say his commandments are suspended on the 2 greatest commandments which is to love God, and love your neighbour. Everything is suspended on a coat hangar on these 2. Here is a list of the 613 commandments God gave to Moses. http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
Maybe I am missing your point, and won't belabor it.
Ryan
Member
1. What would have to be unlearned?
2. I am saying the Law is love and why wouldn't we want to walk in it?
3. I was just throwing this out there about the Witnesses to stimulate thought. Many think one of them will be Moses. If it is, which I don't think so, what do you think his message will be?
Ryan
Member
Sure we need a law to tell us it's wrong. Look at homosexuality marriages in the America's. Gonna soon be a law. We don't need a law for that? This is what is at work right now in our culture. A gradual and ever changing shift away from God's laws. As our society continues to gravitate towards lawlessness, we need to come closer to God's teachings and instructions and stand firm. Here are all the verses I found on Bible Gateway with the word lawlessness. What is the opposite of lawlessness?
- Matthew 7:23
And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ - Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
- Matthew 23:28 So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
- Matthew 24:12 Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.
- Romans 4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered.
- Romans 6:19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
- 2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
- 2 Thessalonians 2:1 [ Man of Lawlessness ] Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,
- 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
- 2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
- 1 Timothy 1:9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
- Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
- Hebrews 1:9 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”
- Hebrews 10:17 “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
- 2 Peter 2:8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),
- 1 John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
Returning evil for evil. War between neighbors. The vanity of the creation.
The law speaks of Love or commands that we are to love others is how I would say it. God is Love. There is nothing else morally good to walk in but His Spirit.
I would refrain from answering because I feel both sides have to be spoken for either side to make any sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, you rather made my point when you said the law is based on Love. God is Love, consequently the base is what upholds everything that is built upon it, including the commandments. Hence my point is that God (The Eternal Spirit of Love), is greater than the commandments to love.
About the Son of God
Member
Hi Ryan,
We haven't had much of a chance to talk; and the rapid fire nature of verse slinging has been difficult to keep up with! :crazy
I wanted to walk through a post of yours, and sort of comment it for reference.
Correct, that agrees with the fact that Aaronites no longer walk the earth; Jesus is the only possible high priest NOW, and no prophecy allows for another; But for all that agreement -- Hebrews says nothing about abolishing the low priesthood; but rather informs us that we *are* (present tense) a kingdom of priests ; which was originally promised to the Israelites *conditionally*.
Exodus 19:6,
1Peter 2:5, 1Peter2:9, Hebrews 13:15-16,
Notice: Hebrews 5:6 is not citing something stated in the Law of Moses from Sainai. Rather it's at a much later date, after sin had inundated Israel for years. Psalm 110:4, is from the Davidic kingdom long after Moses.
It's at a point in history where the covenant was being Judged on account of past sins, and not being codified.
But in 7:16, it says "law" quite clearly, in the original Greek and essentially says "law of-commands of-flesh" which is "sarks", as in the meat off a body.
A possible distinction I see is that Melchizadech did not offer animal sacrifices, but bread and wine.
A man who eats the flesh of dead animals lives for a day satisfying a natural hunger, but will still die (the first and second deaths);
However, he who eats the flesh of "life" receives also the Spirit to eternal Life (and does not die the second death).
Note: John 6:63 and John 6:53, amount to the same argument -- flesh alone grants only fleeting life; but fully living flesh (eg: by Spirit) is eternal.
I also checked the word, αθετησις, and it is used almost exclusively in the context of betraying an oath (treachery), breaking a covenant, or vigorous denial of somethings validity; eg: it's a *very* strong word.
Notably: It's found in Hebrews 9:26 as "to put away sin" ; If Covenant is spoken of in terms of a marriage oath, then athetEsis means divorce, suggesting the woman's a harlot.... and porn marriages are unlawful, therefore "put-away-able" It's a very anti-covenant word.
I mentioned this earlier; eg: a basis to believe that at least some of what Moses gave was intended as a permanent gift.
And we know the law was Grace Romans 5:20, but I also looked at the Greek, to come up with:
Galat 3:19 τι ουν ο νομος των παραβασεων χαριν προσετεθη αχρις ου ελθη το σπερμα ω επηγγελται διαταγεις δι αγγελων εν χειρι μεσιτου
And clearly, the "gift" spoken of, is the *Sainitic* law of Moses; a direct inference from Romans 5:14.
At various times in the thread, I have tried to discuss the difference in laws prior to Moses, and from Moses himself.
Some laws are the mediators concessions, which God was forced to "pass over". eg: see Matthew 19:7, and the distinction of the laws which preceded it, eg: the fathers, Noahide, Genesis. ( Genesis 2:24 against porn and divorce )
With respect to bestiality, there is also a law given in Genesis of the same kind: Genesis 2:20 -- where animals were not seen fit to be his helpmate; and I don't mean a pet, or work animal, but someone to share his soul with that he would no longer be alone.
( Side note: Bestiality, sin, and the incest laws are also something to consider for how two people Adam and Eve, begot the whole human race , evolution, all that stuff...)
You, yourself, though stumbled across this passage -- which shows even John talking about the New laws being "old".
But, it proves too much -- for the word "Beginning" is the Greek word "Genesis";
so that it's important to note that these are Torah laws, but not laws taking their origin from Sainai -- they aren't Moses' law.
In addition to writing the law, as messenger of God, with the angels, at Mt. Sainai, Moses also was caretaker of the history of all the Patriarchs, and the previous laws. So, it's important to separate them in the discussion as I don't lump them together.
Paul is very careful to draw his rules for his churches, as do the Acts of the Apostles -- from laws which predate Sainai.
A final note:
If it's helpful, here's a quick recap about my disagreement with other posters about the word "until";
"until" is an apologetically unstable word; and I mean a "cheap" apologetic. Here's the counterexample I gave.
It's rhetoric/polemic/sophistry to use "until" as a proof-text; for English readers generally make unjustified assumptions when reading "until".
Until does not mean that the thing "ended" or was "removed" afterward. In the case I show from Romans, Sin didn't cease being in the world once the law came; rather sin "increased".
Therefore: Each time the word "until" appears, the reader must judge what change happened, and not let their "feelings" and ignorance of further context unduly influence them.
We haven't had much of a chance to talk; and the rapid fire nature of verse slinging has been difficult to keep up with! :crazy
I wanted to walk through a post of yours, and sort of comment it for reference.
Correct, that agrees with the fact that Aaronites no longer walk the earth; Jesus is the only possible high priest NOW, and no prophecy allows for another; But for all that agreement -- Hebrews says nothing about abolishing the low priesthood; but rather informs us that we *are* (present tense) a kingdom of priests ; which was originally promised to the Israelites *conditionally*.
Exodus 19:6,
1Peter 2:5, 1Peter2:9, Hebrews 13:15-16,
The transfer is certainly true; but whether the WHOLE Mosaic law is now attached to Jesus is a point yet to be shown.
Notice: Hebrews 5:6 is not citing something stated in the Law of Moses from Sainai. Rather it's at a much later date, after sin had inundated Israel for years. Psalm 110:4, is from the Davidic kingdom long after Moses.
It's at a point in history where the covenant was being Judged on account of past sins, and not being codified.
That's one possible answer; but there might be a catch once we discuss faith vs. work, vs. workS, vs. command, vs. commandS (eg: John 6:28-29); but even before that -- if this is about *one* commandment, exactly which one of the 631 Mosaic laws -- or which of the 10 -- or exactly one of what is being revoked? What scripture verse from Exodus to Numbers specifies it?
Hebrews 7:18 begins with the word "for", and is written in response to verse 7:16 -- http://www.biblos.com/hebrews/7-16.htm
But in 7:16, it says "law" quite clearly, in the original Greek and essentially says "law of-commands of-flesh" which is "sarks", as in the meat off a body.
A possible distinction I see is that Melchizadech did not offer animal sacrifices, but bread and wine.
A man who eats the flesh of dead animals lives for a day satisfying a natural hunger, but will still die (the first and second deaths);
However, he who eats the flesh of "life" receives also the Spirit to eternal Life (and does not die the second death).
Note: John 6:63 and John 6:53, amount to the same argument -- flesh alone grants only fleeting life; but fully living flesh (eg: by Spirit) is eternal.
I also checked the word, αθετησις, and it is used almost exclusively in the context of betraying an oath (treachery), breaking a covenant, or vigorous denial of somethings validity; eg: it's a *very* strong word.
Notably: It's found in Hebrews 9:26 as "to put away sin" ; If Covenant is spoken of in terms of a marriage oath, then athetEsis means divorce, suggesting the woman's a harlot.... and porn marriages are unlawful, therefore "put-away-able" It's a very anti-covenant word.
That's true, but the statement has to be reconciled with the specific ordinances Moses gave concerning which tribes may be priests, and which ones can not. The very fact that Paul says their priesthood is not protected by an Oath -- means we need to look very carefully at how the Levites/Aaronites fit into the covenant at all. There is something going on that's not quite right.
I mentioned this earlier; eg: a basis to believe that at least some of what Moses gave was intended as a permanent gift.
And we know the law was Grace Romans 5:20, but I also looked at the Greek, to come up with:
Galat 3:19 τι ουν ο νομος των παραβασεων χαριν προσετεθη αχρις ου ελθη το σπερμα ω επηγγελται διαταγεις δι αγγελων εν χειρι μεσιτου
And clearly, the "gift" spoken of, is the *Sainitic* law of Moses; a direct inference from Romans 5:14.
At various times in the thread, I have tried to discuss the difference in laws prior to Moses, and from Moses himself.
Some laws are the mediators concessions, which God was forced to "pass over". eg: see Matthew 19:7, and the distinction of the laws which preceded it, eg: the fathers, Noahide, Genesis. ( Genesis 2:24 against porn and divorce )
With respect to bestiality, there is also a law given in Genesis of the same kind: Genesis 2:20 -- where animals were not seen fit to be his helpmate; and I don't mean a pet, or work animal, but someone to share his soul with that he would no longer be alone.
( Side note: Bestiality, sin, and the incest laws are also something to consider for how two people Adam and Eve, begot the whole human race , evolution, all that stuff...)
You, yourself, though stumbled across this passage -- which shows even John talking about the New laws being "old".
But, it proves too much -- for the word "Beginning" is the Greek word "Genesis";
so that it's important to note that these are Torah laws, but not laws taking their origin from Sainai -- they aren't Moses' law.
In addition to writing the law, as messenger of God, with the angels, at Mt. Sainai, Moses also was caretaker of the history of all the Patriarchs, and the previous laws. So, it's important to separate them in the discussion as I don't lump them together.
Paul is very careful to draw his rules for his churches, as do the Acts of the Apostles -- from laws which predate Sainai.
A final note:
If it's helpful, here's a quick recap about my disagreement with other posters about the word "until";
"until" is an apologetically unstable word; and I mean a "cheap" apologetic. Here's the counterexample I gave.
It's rhetoric/polemic/sophistry to use "until" as a proof-text; for English readers generally make unjustified assumptions when reading "until".
Until does not mean that the thing "ended" or was "removed" afterward. In the case I show from Romans, Sin didn't cease being in the world once the law came; rather sin "increased".
Therefore: Each time the word "until" appears, the reader must judge what change happened, and not let their "feelings" and ignorance of further context unduly influence them.
Last edited by a moderator:
M
Mitspa
Guest
This is the exact point the Holy Spirit makes through Paul, in that he writes that it is EVIDENT, that no man can be justified by the law. I can only look to the scriptures themselves to understand that is blindness is a result of the curse of the law itself.
The very fact that one cannot be honest enough in their own heart as to admit that which Paul admits in Rom 7, is the very legal right that satan has to blind the heart and mind of those who look to the written code of the law.
2 Cor 3:13-15
2 Cor 4:3-4
For it is written, My people perish for lack of knowledge.
About the son of God, I would like you to know, that this was a very informative post for me. I appreciate how you manage to tie up and also point out some of the loose ends. Your posts definitely make me think.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's correct to look at these things and would only suggest that we look at faithless (You faithless generation) - because that deals with a lack of fidelity, which also indicates lawlessness at least in part. What spring bursts forth with fresh water and also poison? Faithless and Lawless are tied to the same stone. It is also "adultery" when we betray our love for God by putting other things before him. This is also idolatry as may be clearly seen. It is called "what is right in your own sight" as opposed to considering God in all things. It is theft when we steal that which rightly belongs to Him or to our neighbor, giving preference to ourselves over all. It is returning cursing for blessing, and from that there is no escape save repentance and Christ Jesus who is our savior and sinless offering. Our hearts cry out to be like him but then after the words of faith proceed from our mouth, we lie also, not only to others as we try to justify ourselves and we lie to ourselves also and against the truth. The truth that we have not yet seen what we will be, but we shall be like HIM. There are very few things that are not torn asunder by lawlessness. It comprises a certain unwillingness to be taught and there is folly there which will bring so many more Scriptures to bear.
When we consider the parables, the prophets, the psalms an the new Covenant (our sacred agreement, no matter where it is written) and its Author who is the Finisher also, in light of the fact that we are not to tempt the Lord, nor are to to try to put God's precious Mercy to vain or to make it empty? But then, in response to these considerations, what do the lawless do? Being a law unto themselves, they teach others to do the same. Now enters Wickedness and there we have the reason that the Law has not, will not, and may not pass away. Is the law written on your heart? Does it tell you to love God above all and to love others as you love yourself? Can we agree that this has not changed just because the venue has? The "trial" that happens now is inside us as we follow after God, so the Power of the Law has been taken as we conform ourselves unto Him. We deal with the convicting power of the Holy Spirit who is our Teacher and Counselor, we have an Advocate and Paraclete. These things did not the law provide, yet and so, the sting of Death and the grave has been removed also NOW we have a path where the law provided no path. It is set aside and no longer has jurisdiction over those who follow after Jesus straight from the heart. Our hearts are being changed even as we speak to each other, building with care in our most holy faith. Changed from glory to glory as we accept the word into our hearts, and act on it, desiring the fruit of righteousness and despising wickedness all together. "Be thou holy, for I am holy," is a large part of that which is written directly into each of us by the Holy Spirit who is utterly holy and apart from all sin.
Some may consider the Mercy and very Purpose of God a light thing, but those of us who have been schooled by the law, love the Law. It was given for good purpose, and brought us to the one who sets us free. No longer bound but free indeed.
Last edited by a moderator:
jasoncran
Member
so then why do we need goverments then if we don't need laws?
Christians don't sin? we don't lie , steal and murder, and cheat etc?
how on the earth does one know the SPIRIT that is talking to you if you don't have the word in you to test it?
M
Mitspa
Guest
That is an honest point, but one could ask how can one know the word unless they have the Spirit that wrote it?
So the Word and the Spirit are one, the Spirit testifies to the blood of Christ. Not the flesh of a believer. The Spirit is not teaching us who we are "in the flesh" or before we came to Christ but who we are IN CHRIST.
in Him we have no sin and cannot sin. This is the spirit man.
The old man of flesh is always a sinner, no matter how well he keep a list of rules.
I personally never really understood any part of the Word of God until I received the Holy Spirit. I knew some of the commands and some other rules and such, but I did not know God, for God is known through His Love and that through the Holy Spirit.
This is why Paul said the letter kills but the Spirit gives life.
It is a mystery"for great is the mystery of godliness"
But a man who will not be honest enough to admit he cannot keep the written code of the law, will NEVER see the Kingdom of God. This is why a harlot or a child can see the Kingdom, before a hypocrite.
Also we have VERY CLEAR warnings in the New Testament against sexual sins. For anyone to act as if they are not there is just not honest.
Ryan
Member
Has it really though? What was the promise of the New Covenant? The sending of the Helper.
Ezekiel 36:27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
Can you find anywhere in the New Covenant an abolition of the Laws. The problem was never the laws, it was the people. So change the people, why change the laws when it was already deemed to be perpetual, eternal and perfect?
So you will assert me and my family observing Passover, which ended today, is wrong? Is that what you mean? Or do you mean something else?
Ryan
Member
Again with the Covenants, which Covenants are with a people other then Israel?
I'll match every single one of your Paul has declared the end of the Law verses, to one verse Paul saying the opposite or living in accordance with the Law of Moses. Are you ready? Go.
Ryan
Member
I am really sorry, I am having a hard time to quote everything you said, so my apologies if I missed anything.
What was the purpose of Hebrews and who was it written to? Letters were written to various groups to address various issues that community were facing. Hebrews was written to the Jewish community prior to the destruction of the temple and addressed how can the believers continue to draw near to God with sacrifices? Interesting if the Law had been annulled previously, why was there any need for a temple (as that is Law), or for a High Priest (which is also Law). Or why weren't they admonished for continuing to offer sacrifices if the Law had passed at the cross as some argue?
I just found out this term "ellipsis" as related to scripture. It is an insertion in italics the translators put in to assist with a thought. In Hebrews 8
Hb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hb 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.
So what was the whole point leading up to these passages. It was a system operated by Levitical Priests with their human flaws, and now being operated by the Melchizedezek High Priest. A priesthood is still required, just the provisions have been transferred ti Jesus.
Hb 8:13
In that he saith, A new (PERFECT HIGH PRIEST ADMINISTRATION) he hath made the first (HIGH PRIEST ADMINISTRATION) old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old (PRIESTLY SYSTEM) is ready to vanish away.
If there was an ellipsis to be made, it would be more accurately rendered as in the above brackets. And no the Levitical Priests have not been lost. Our Rabbi is a Cohen and many from the Levitical line, still do know their tribes. The Levites will once again be in charge of the temple come the millenium Ezekiel 44:15 (This is another topic and one I still don't have a good grasp on).
In respect to 1 John 2:7-8 you suggested that this could only mean prior to the Sinai Covenant. I say this could only be a literal to their place and time. I would say they have now been exposed to the teachings of Jesus and continue in the faith to Christ and to the obedience to the Torah as they would have learned Torah prior to the revelation of Jesus Christ. I believe there is no separation between Adam and Sinai. Sin was already exposed as God told Cain to get control of himself or sin would overtake him Genesis 4:7. But before that, we were not privy to what that sin was.
And I agree with your postings about until and trust what you say.
Now look up "telos" and see where it was translated in two separate ways. Romans 10:4 and 1 Timothy 1:5 You would be interested in what you find.
Did God somehow make an already perfect law according to His own standards even better by changing the commandments, or as some say, by abolishing them? Or perhaps did He improve the covenant by simply removing the imperfect human element from the priestly system and insert Jesus as the new perfect High Priest thus leaving all of God’s perfect law completely intact? Those are the only two choices.
In respect to 1 John 2:7-8 you suggested that this could only mean prior to the Sinai Covenant. I say this could only be a literal to their place and time. I would say they have now been exposed to the teachings of Jesus and continue in the faith to Christ and to the obedience to the Torah as they would have learned Torah prior to the revelation of Jesus Christ. I believe there is no separation between Adam and Sinai. Sin was already exposed as God told Cain to get control of himself or sin would overtake him Genesis 4:7. But before that, we were not privy to what that sin was.
And I agree with your postings about until and trust what you say.
Now look up "telos" and see where it was translated in two separate ways. Romans 10:4 and 1 Timothy 1:5 You would be interested in what you find.
M
Mitspa
Guest
The scriptures that prove beyond doubt that the written code of the law, is not of faith and has passed away for the believer have been presented over and over.
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, if one thinks that they are keeping pass-over according to the written code and tradition of the law, they are in fact at work to deny the true Lamb and His Blood.
1 Cor 5:7
M
Mitspa
Guest
Yes it is clear and evident! But God has a system, that the way to the tree of Life is gaurded by two flaming swords?
If a man cannot be honest enough to admit this clear and evident truth, the thought and intentions of their hearts have not been judged. They cannot pass through unto the Tree of life. For the harlot is able for they are sure that it can only be by Gods righteousness. But the hypocrite stumbles at the truth, for they had rather die, than to admit they are as wretched as the harlot. So they continue to look to the written code, seeking their own righteousness.
Blinded by their own sin, and slave to their flesh. They will not see the truth that Paul says is EVIDENT.