Law was an impossible system to keep

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Really think about it.... someone who lives by the Ten Commandments might think that they are doing pretty good. However, the Ten Commandments are woefully incomplete. For nowhere in the Ten Commandments do we read that we are to visit the widows and/or the orphans in their affliction. Nor do the Ten Commandments command that we feed the hungry and care for the sick and needy. While the Ten Commandments are ethical, they would only keep you from being kicked out of church, arrested, divorced, or shot by a jealous spouse. Beyond that, they are really of little "moral" value. For love demands far more than Law. For example, if you saw a stranded motorist on the side of the road, nothing in the Ten Commandments commands you to stop and assist them. However, love would demand that you stop and seek how you might help, and to even give out of your own abundance to see to it that this motorist's immediate needs are met.

Love demands far more than law ever could or will.

Amen.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Really think about it.... someone who lives by the Ten Commandments might think that they are doing pretty good. However, the Ten Commandments are woefully incomplete. For nowhere in the Ten Commandments do we read that we are to visit the widows and/or the orphans in their affliction. Nor do the Ten Commandments command that we feed the hungry and care for the sick and needy. While the Ten Commandments are ethical, they would only keep you from being kicked out of church, arrested, divorced, or shot by a jealous spouse. Beyond that, they are really of little "moral" value. For love demands far more than Law. For example, if you saw a stranded motorist on the side of the road, nothing in the Ten Commandments commands you to stop and assist them. However, love would demand that you stop and seek how you might help, and to even give out of your own abundance to see to it that this motorist's immediate needs are met.

Love demands far more than law ever could or will.

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?

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 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.'

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. 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.

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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

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?

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 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.'

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. 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.

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.

Did you tape this?

Bro, could you speak more about what you posted?

Also pray for us we have a pretty big killer storm bearing down on us which looks none too friendly.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Did you tape this?

Bro, could you speak more about what you posted?

Also pray for us we have a pretty big killer storm bearing down on us which looks none too friendly.

I have an entire series on the epistle to the Romans, chapter by chapter, on our utube page.

Saw about that storm, will be keeping y'all in prayer.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I have an entire series on the epistle to the Romans, chapter by chapter, on our utube page.

Saw about that storm, will be keeping y'all in prayer.

I have listened to the teaching on Romans.

Thank you

[mfblume]

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[shazeep]

amen. of course a church turns this into "we have rules to follow, to find Grace" instead of "we are willing to suffer you for your sakes, demonstrating Grace."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

amen. of course a church turns this into "we have rules to follow, to find Grace" instead of "we are willing to suffer you for your sakes, demonstrating Grace."

The only rules to follow grace are the manners to be born again and learn to walk after the Spirit. There is a Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, which is how to follow the Spirit and let it guide us.

Rules are great unless they're steps of how to earn righteousness.

[shazeep]

ah, Grace can be earned now, ok

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ah, Grace can be earned now, ok

I just said rules are great unless they are used to earn righteousness, and righteousness comes by grace through, so neither can be earned. How you ever got the idea I said grace can be earned is beyond me. But I've come to expect that.

Rules are not always steps to earning wages. It is a rule to say we cannot use fleshly life to live a spiritual life. That has nothing to do with earning.