True or False: Grace is harder than Law

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I fail to see how this answered my question.

Perhaps the question assumes things that need to be re-examined?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Perhaps the question assumes things that need to be re-examined?

Good point.

Jesus never corrected the rich man that he couldn't keep the law.

Very good Esaiasan your Kung Fu is very good.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Good point.

Jesus never corrected the rich man that he couldn't keep the law.

Very good Esaiasan your Kung Fu is very good.

I believe that was the point, though. Law was made to show man that we cannot do what is required without His intervention. Why else would Jesus proceed to ask the rich man to do something that was impossible for him?

I believe the ruler was deceived. And Jesus as much as said he did not keep them all by following up on his questions by asking him to give all he had to the poor, which he knew the man could not do.

In fact, the disciples around watching the conversation got the point.

Mat 19:25....When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26....But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Jesus knew he had not kept the commandments. But rather than blatantly tell him so, he proved his point by asking him to do the impossible.

Can we enter the Kingdom by keeping law? Fully keeping Law would cause one to live, according to Moses:

Gal 3:12....And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Lev 18:5....Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

That's why Paul said the law was ordained to life, but Paul said he found it to be unto death.

Now, why would Paul say Law was ordained to life, and cited Moses' words as proof in Leviticus, and then talk about how Paul willed to do good but failed miserably, and termed it a means leading to death, if people can keep law? Paul couldn't.

It was Romans 6 through 7 that I never heard anybody hardly preach about. So, I set out to dig and pray and search it out. And seriously, I cannot see how anyone is correct in saying law can be kept perfectly so as to earn life as Moses said lawkeeping would, when Paul distinctly said no one can attain what Moses said by keeping law.

And Job lived BEFORE LAW, and Paul said sin is not imputed when there is no law. Hence, Job is upright.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Perhaps the question assumes things that need to be re-examined?

Perhaps nothing.

You're the one, in post #27, who argued persuasively, that the reason people don'y obey God's laws is due to a moral inability. To quote:

Moral inability means an inability due to unwillingness.

and

We are not willing, and thus fail to do what we are obligated to do, and therefore incur GUILT. This is why sin is odious to God.

So, instead of being flip, just try to answer the question:

Where does the unwillingness come from?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Perhaps nothing.

You're the one, in post #27, who argued persuasively, that the reason people don'y obey God's laws is due to a moral inability. To quote:



So, instead of being flip, just try to answer the question:

Where does the unwillingness come from?

And since there is "no man who sins not", and "all have sinned", and since "sin is the transgression of the law", it means that there is no man who ever had a willingness to keep God's law, and that all have had an unwillingness to keep God's law.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Perhaps nothing.

You're the one, in post #27, who argued persuasively, that the reason people don'y obey God's laws is due to a moral inability. To quote:



and



So, instead of being flip, just try to answer the question:

Where does the unwillingness come from?

Whom shall we blame for our unwillingness to obey God?

By the way I'm not trying to be flip, I was trying to get you to think about your question as to whether or not it reflects the paradigm represented in the Bible.

Why is everyone unwilling to keep the commandments of God? Are they? Was the rich young ruler someone who did not in fact keep the commandments of God? He obeyed those commandments, he confessed he had consistently obeyed them, and Jesus did not rebuke him for his 'hypocrisy in thinking and claiming he could actually keep the law of God consistently'. What he lacked was not obedience to any of the given commandments of God. What he lacked was following Jesus - even if you obeyed all the commandments of the law you STILL CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED because apart from Christ there simply is no justification possible. The rich young ruler was given the opportunity to follow Christ - and he turned it down, preferring instead to keep his wealth.

He made a choice - a voluntary choice. He was unwilling to follow Jesus. Why? Where did that unwillingness come from?

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.
(James 1:14-16 KJV)

His desires were more important to him than Christ's desires, that's for sure.

Again, James says that sin is the result of yielding to desires, as when a man yields to a temptress. So then why do people yield to their desires instead of to God's desires (as explained in his word)?

Jesus said this:

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
(John 8:34 KJV)

People who commit sin are the bondslaves of sin. Paul said this:

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
(Romans 6:16-20 KJV)

So then sinners are bondslaves of sin, and they became servants because they yielded themselves to sin, and sold themselves into bondage to disobedience and iniquity.

Why?

Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
(2 Timothy 3:4 KJV)

Sinners love pleasures - specifically, they love their own desires - more than they love God. And therefore they are unwilling to sacrifice their desires for God's.

Seems pretty simple, actually.

Why do people love pleasure more than they love God? Sounds like a great philosophical question, but I think it is self evident. PLEASURES. There is 'pleasure' in sin for a season. There is some kind of self-benefit the individual believes they are getting. 'I lied because I didn't want to get into trouble, Momma.' 'I stole because I wanted it, period.' 'I killed her because she talked back to me, and it made me feel bad inside when she talked back to me, but it made me feel better about myself when I shot her. I might feel bad about it now, but AT THE MOMENT my FEELING was to take out my anger and frustration on her with a 12-gauge.' I don't think anyone here who has ever been involved with fornication needs an explanation as to 'why' a person is unwilling to say 'no' to temptation, it's pretty well known: 'it felt good'.

People are unwilling to obey God when it interferes with some perceived pleasure they are going to have from doing that which is forbidden.