Law was an impossible system to keep - Page 24

mfblume · #**231** 10-02-2016, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

This is what I asked you to respond to, Esaias.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=149

Bump

shazeep · #**232** 10-02-2016, 07:36 AM

you might read Rom7 in MSG to get another angle, too:

6 But now that we're no longer shackled to that domineering mate of sin, and out from under all those oppressive regulations and fine print, we're free to live a new life in the freedom of God. 7 But I can hear you say, "If the law code was as bad as all that, it's no better than sin itself." That's certainly not true. The law code had a perfectly legitimate function. Without its clear guidelines for right and wrong, moral behavior would be mostly guesswork. Apart from the succinct, surgical command, "You shall not covet," I could have dressed covetousness up to look like a virtue and ruined my life with it. 8 Don't you remember how it was? I do, perfectly well. The law code started out as an excellent piece of work. What happened, though, was that sin found a way to pervert the command into a temptation, making a piece of "forbidden fruit" out of it. The law code, instead of being used to guide me, was used to seduce me. Without all the paraphernalia of the law code, sin looked pretty dull and lifeless, 9 and I went along without paying much attention to it. But once sin got its hands on the law code and decked itself out in all that finery, I was fooled, and fell for it. 10 The very command that was supposed to guide me into life was cleverly used to trip me up, throwing me headlong. 11 So sin was plenty alive, and I was stone dead. 12 But the law code itself is God's good and common sense, each command sane and holy counsel.

mfblume · #**233** 10-02-2016, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

To which brother Blume said 'Amen.'

Question: If 'love' demands 'far more than law ever could or will', then how is the law a 'grievous burden which cannot be borne' in contrast to 'love' or 'grace', which according to you guys is stricter, harder, heavier, and far more demanding than law?

The difference is the Spirit! The Law was hard enough since it was made for a spiritual man. But nobody was spiritual. The New Covenant makes us spiritual people if we follow its principles. I say, if, because the Corinthians were in the new covenant but were not spiritual but carnal.

Bro Benincasa raised a good point earlier. Law is made for spiritual people, but Paul said he was carnal. If people in the church CAN BE CARNAL as the Corinthians were, then they can't keep it any more than ANYONE not born again can keep it. But certainly those not born again cannot keep it since they're all carnal.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Law was designed for spiritual people. And the new covenant was required to make us spiritual. For this reason, Paul said law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. It taught a lesson. Paul said in Romans 3 there are two pathways to righteousness: Law and Grace. Law is an impossible path to traverse. But grace brings us to the same righteousness law TRIED BUT FAILED to bring people.

Romans 3:21-22 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Quote:

To be quite honest, I think you guys do not have a holistic understanding of law and grace and how they relate to one another.

I have studied this issue far more than any other. And you know some of the other studies I've made. That is not to say that that means I am more correct than you. But it does say I have dealt intensely with the relationship between law and grace.

Now may I add my opinion of your perspective? I feel you heard someone say that everytime people dealt with LAW in the new testament in a negative manner it was not the Sinaitic law but the Pharisees' distortion. And that is unfounded. What gives this away as error is the statements you've made that surround respect of days in Romans 14 when you claimed that was talking about fasting and not sabbaths, and when you said Gal 4 is not talking about Old Covenant feast days but pagan holidays. That is the most obvious error you've made. But you repeat the same thing I've heard among lawkeepers who use this as a rule of thumb: The New Testament does not discourage people keeping Sinaitic Law but Pharisaical distortion. I completely disagree, and have explained why with our dealings with Acts 15, and demonstrated that error with my references to Romans 7 and Galatians 3, which I am still await your response for.

It's good to stop and make these summaries of our opinions, because they give each of us a better grasp of what the other is basing their beliefs on.

Quote:

I notice that because it seems you guys have somewhat of a patchwork or pastiche approach to this subject. And it includes some nice sounding theological phrases that simply don't exist in the Bible, like 'love demands far more than law ever could or will.' Or, 'the commandments of God are unbearable.'

They are statements made from scripture, that are showing the basic summary of what these scriptures stated. Paul said Law was ordained to life but he found it unto death in Romans 7. And Acts 15:10 says law was a yoke no man could bear. Surely you see why we make these claims although you disagree with the application.

Quote:

I do not claim to be an expert, but I do try to view everything in scripture in its original context, and I try to only declare the very things scripture declares, preferably using the words scripture uses.

We all do.

Quote:

I also have no theological background that I am coming from that might inadvertently sway my beliefs in causing me to either not see certain things, or see things that aren't there. I do honestly believe you are doing that to some extent in some of these discussions.

I wrote an entire series of books on this issue. SIN LESS, and my book on Esther entitled ESTHER'S BOLDNESS BEFORE THE THRONE. I am not simply deriving beliefs from others. Just for the record.

Quote:

But I also believe that in large measure we are in agreement, as to the final practical destination we both get to, in regards to basic obedience to God. There are of course some differences of belief in regards to what exactly is included in that, and of course we each take a different route, but I am glad that you teach the grace of God produces genuine, loving obedience to him.

Amen. So can you deal with my thoughts on Romans in the BUMPED post as well as my words on Galatians 3 that challenge the idea of Paul addressing a perverted law.

mfblume · #**234** 10-02-2016, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

you might read Rom7 in MSG to get another angle, too:

6 But now that we're no longer shackled to that domineering mate of sin, and out from under all those oppressive regulations and fine print, we're free to live a new life in the freedom of God. 7 But I can hear you say, "If the law code was as bad as all that, it's no better than sin itself." That's certainly not true. The law code had a perfectly legitimate function. Without its clear guidelines for right and wrong, moral behavior would be mostly guesswork. Apart from the succinct, surgical command, "You shall not covet," I could have dressed covetousness up to look like a virtue and ruined my life with it. 8 Don't you remember how it was? I do, perfectly well. The law code started out as an excellent piece of work. What happened, though, was that sin found a way to pervert the command into a temptation, making a piece of "forbidden fruit" out of it. The law code, instead of being used to guide me, was used to seduce me. Without all the paraphernalia of the law code, sin looked pretty dull and lifeless, 9 and I went along without paying much attention to it. But once sin got its hands on the law code and decked itself out in all that finery, I was fooled, and fell for it. 10 The very command that was supposed to guide me into life was cleverly used to trip me up, throwing me headlong. 11 So sin was plenty alive, and I was stone dead. 12 But the law code itself is God's good and common sense, each command sane and holy counsel.

That is exactly what I believe the text is saying. We'd be able to obey the law if sin was not in our flesh. But it is in there. And it's still in there after salvation. That's why there is the law of the Spirit of Life in contrast to the Law of Moses/God. Only the Law of the Spirit sets us free from sin and death, not the law of Moses. And the law of Moses uses fleshly life to serve God and depends on fleshly life. The reason it's hindered is because fleshly life contains sin. So reliance on the Spirit's life leaves sin dormant in our flesh, because it doesn't move us to rely on fleshly life. Relying on fleshly life STIRS SIN UP and sin uses law to ruin it all for us. But reliance on Spirit's life abandons the fleshly life as a tool, and sin cannot rise up.

SIN is the culprit. Not law.

Law is only spoken of negatively because indirectly sin gets its way when law is relied upon. But law is not the enemy. Sin that uses law is the enemy. So, if sin uses the law, then leave law alone, and get tot he same destination law tried but failed to get us to, and instead walk after the Spirit.

I declare Paul is saying "walking after the flesh" is the fleshly live of lawkeeping.

shazeep · #**235** 10-02-2016, 08:06 AM

um, and you just cannot equate that with the laws you keep, which insist They Are All Lost?

mfblume · #**236** 10-02-2016, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

um, and you just cannot equate that with the laws you hold, which insist They Are All Lost?

Here we go again....

Wow, you take your own quotes out of context.

Look, s, anyone who wouldn't talk to muslims about Christ because their koran already tells them to follow Jesus, when the Koran distinctly denies He so much as died on the cross, and the Bible says that's the all=important salvational factor, is readily understood as someone who simply does not follow proper context in the bible, but lives his lone ranger lifestyle of Christianity with the Lord in a dreamland of distorted context. Which is exactly why you won'd converse about context when challenged. You know more than any of us here!

shazeep · #**237** 10-02-2016, 08:10 AM

did i? i only just asked a question, MB. The two are directly related. I think you only persist now because of this...ability? to believe that They Are All Lost is a completely different subject from We Can Drone Bomb them Now, Thank You.

shazeep · #**238** 10-02-2016, 08:11 AM

sigh ok, if they are not related, and that is somehow "out of context," then briefly explain to me again why "they are all lost." point to the l...thing that convinces you of this

shazeep · #**239** 10-02-2016, 08:54 AM

guess you have to wait until you get back from "church" huh--because you have a law about that too, don't you? Of course the Bible says to not forsake congregating, but that sure isn't how it ends up irl, is it? Would the people shamed for missing a service agree with me, or you?

mfblume · #**240** 10-02-2016, 12:38 PM

Until you are willing to talk about context verse by verse in a chapter, sorry. Your view of law is what we discussed before.... wrong.

The fact is RULES or LAWS are fine UNLESS they are intended to earn you anything that the blood of Jesus alone can earn.

For example, a RULE that says we must come to the cross and accept it's work of salvation accomplished by Jesus for us, we are lost is a GOOD RULE, and is diametrically opposed to the NATURE of Mosaic law and Legalism because Mosaic law was a demand to earn salvation by good works, whereas LAWS of grace disallow us from earning grace.