Law was an impossible system to keep

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The key to this is not to think avoidance of lawkeeping means we can break laws and sin. It's just the MEANS of accomplishing the same END of righteous living above sin that lawkeeping was purposed to accomplish is fulfilled without lawkeeping. The Spirit in us is leaned upon to empower us to serve God. And the Spirit does not cause one to sin. Hence, the letter to the Galatians contrasts lawkeeping with grace and says there is no law against the fruit of grace. That does not mean we do not count sin as sin if we do commit sin. It simply means the results of Spirit empowerment are nothing the law of God forbids. The results of living by the Spirit is a life that does not commit sin. And it is only so long as one walks after the Spirit. The moment one ceases to do that, sins will occur again in one's life.

Starting to sound like much of the issue in dispute is one of terminology. By 'law keeping' I understand 'doing that which was commanded'. Thus, if a person honours their mother and father, they are 'keeping' the fifth commandment, because they are actually doing what was commanded.

So when I see 'avoidance of lawkeeping does not mean we can break laws and sin,' it strikes me as contradictory. If law keeping is doing what is commanded, then avoidance of law keeping would be 'not doing what is commanded', which would be the same as 'breaking laws and sinning'.

The law outlined or demonstrated, defined, marked out 'righteousness'. It identified 'sin', as Paul said 'I had not known lust except the law said thou shalt not covet.' Doing what the law of God commanded (actually performing that which was commanded) is 'doing righteousness'. Under the old covenant, however, the law could not CAUSE performance. The law was weak through our self-centered flesh. The cross of Jesus, however, was designed to accomplish what the law could not: righteousness. Not just in the sense of justification, or being pardoned and declared righteous. But also as in Romans 8 in the sense of actually being manifested or 'worked out' in the daily life of God's people. The Spirit of God takes the cross (death) of Christ and makes it a reality to us, so that through faith we follow after the Spirit and not the flesh, and thus the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us.

I deny that there is a natural or constitutional inability to obey the commandments of God, to do what was commanded, because that would necessarily absolve everyone of guilt. But I also very clearly say that unless the Spirit secures a person's voluntary cooperation with the gospel, that person will, in point of fact, never actually obey God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Maybe this was already addressed, as I haven't read every page, but, as you keep bringing up Job, I submit the following about Job:

Job was not a Jew, and was not part of the Sinai Covenant given to Israel through Moses. As such, his life was not governed by the Torah as revealed in the Pentateuch.

His ability, therefore, to be righteous, or not, was not determined by the keeping of the ordinances revealed in the Mosaic Law.

His was a law of the conscience, as Romans 2:14 shows:

There is no proof that Job was not an Israelite (not a 'Jew', there were more tribes than just Judah). The text does not identify exactly who Job was.

Romans 2:14 is a reference to Gentiles who have entered the new covenant. Outside of the new covenant, there is no Biblical mention of anyone having the laws of God 'written on the heart'.

There is evidence that Job knew the laws of God:

My foot hath held his steps, his way have I kept, and not declined. Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.
(Job 23:11-12 KJV)

Job knew 'his steps', he knew 'his way', he kept God's 'way', he knew and had not departed from 'the commandment of his lips' and he esteemed 'the word of his mouth more than ... food.' Thus, Job knew the way, commandment, and word of God, as it had been revealed at that time. This may indeed be pre-Sinai, but the laws of God were around and in place before Sinai, as it says in Genesis:

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
(Genesis 26:5 KJV)

There is in fact evidence that Job was aware of all ten of the ten commandments, which we can get into if desired.

The fact that Job repeatedly refers to 'sin' and transgression against God indicates that Job was aware of the law of God, and that it was in force. Where there is no law, there is no sin. So if there is sin, there must be law. (Law, in this instance in regard to Job and Abraham, should not be confused as referring to the Sinaitic Covenant - also known Scripturally as 'the law'. The Sinaitic Covenant took the laws of God and enshrined them into a specific covenant with Israel. But the laws of God - except for those things specifically unique to the Sinaitic Covenant - have been around from the beginning. After all, it has ALWAYS been sin to murder your neighbor, etc.)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Starting to sound like much of the issue in dispute is one of terminology.

It often is. I THINK THIS IS THE KEY in relating to one another. Now we can get somewhere.

By 'law keeping' I understand 'doing that which was commanded'. Thus, if a person honours their mother and father, they are 'keeping' the fifth commandment, because they are actually doing what was commanded.

I am using the phrase in the overall APPROACH of how we serve God. Either the METHOD of keeping laws -- any law -- or another METHOD of relying on the Spirit. Paul distinguished the two by saying oldness of the letter and newness of the Spirit.

There's nothing evil nor wrong about obeying our parents. The problem, though, is the means we accomplish that. The means of it being a form of law that we must WILL ourselves to obey. It could be any law. If it's a law, we are intended to "will" (a verb) ourselves to obey it. Period.

Paul's point, I believe, was that there has to be another method to accomplish the obedience in us aside from reading a written law and forcing will power to obey it. He said he tried that, and as soon as he resorted to LAW, sin rose up inside him and killed his whole attempt. He said he had the genuine will in his mind to keep that law. But sin inside him compelled him to do otherwise.

So, by lawkeeping, I am referring to the METHODOLOGY of how laws are meant to relate to us, and what we do with a law. The principle of law keeping cannot work, because of precisely what Paul explained.

THE SAME RESULTS law tried to accomplished are fulfilled BY ANOTHER MEANS. The Spirit's empowerment.

So when I see 'avoidance of lawkeeping does not mean we can break laws and sin,' it strikes me as contradictory.

And you are right. If I meant that. in fact, I claim that is precisely what Paul was trying to clear up by saying:

Romans 7:7 KJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Romans 7:13 KJV Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

But that is not at all what I mean. I mean, instead of taking a law and forcing will power to obey it, the same results that are supposed to be caused by such an effort can be accomplished successfully by another means.

If law keeping is doing what is commanded, then avoidance of law keeping would be 'not doing what is commanded', which would be the same as 'breaking laws and sinning'.

Yes, in the sense you are reading it. But that is not at all what I meant. That would be more like saying, in my words, the ACCOMPLISHMENT of doing what is commanded cannot be fulfilled in us through obedience to commandments. The SAME accomplishment INTENDED by the commandment is fulfilled in us through a means apart from obeying a commandment. It is attained through presenting ourselves to God's Spirit for empowerment that we might fulfill the same thing law tried, but failed to fulfill in us through its means of commandments and will-power obedience. And I think this is exactly what Paul tried to relate here:

Romans 3:20-22 KJV Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (21) 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:

Now, I now you think law was not meant to make us righteous to begin with. But bear with me about this.

The law outlined or demonstrated, defined, marked out 'righteousness'. It identified 'sin', as Paul said 'I had not known lust except the law said thou shalt not covet.' Doing what the law of God commanded (actually performing that which was commanded) is 'doing righteousness'.

Amen amen and amen!!

Under the old covenant, however, the law could not CAUSE performance. The law was weak through our self-centered flesh.

YES!!!

The cross of Jesus, however, was designed to accomplish what the law could not: righteousness. Not just in the sense of justification, or being pardoned and declared righteous.

And I think that INCLUDES fulfilling the actual lifestyle of righteous LIVING that Law could not fulfill in us.

But also as in Romans 8 in the sense of actually being manifested or 'worked out' in the daily life of God's people. The Spirit of God takes the cross (death) of Christ and makes it a reality to us, so that through faith we follow after the Spirit and not the flesh, and thus the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us.

A thousand amens!

I deny that there is a natural or constitutional inability to obey the commandments of God, to do what was commanded, because that would necessarily absolve everyone of guilt. But I also very clearly say that unless the Spirit secures a person's voluntary cooperation with the gospel, that person will, in point of fact, never actually obey God.

Here is where we differ, because Paul did indeed say he had the will to obey the law, but did not have the ability to perform it. And I think there genuinely is a viable guilt to those -- all of us -- who cannot obey this impossible law, despite the fact it's impossible anyway.

In fact, that is why I believe Paul describes the GUILT he felt in his inability to keep the law despite his will to do so, when he said "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?!"

And that is also why we keep on reading this:

Romans 7:25-8:1 KJV I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (8:1) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Paul summarized his failure by saying his MIND -- OR WILL -- served the law of God. in his head he was obedient! But what good is that if it cannot come out in ACTUAL obedient activity?

Then he said, although his MIND served God, HIS FLESH did not! It instead served the law of sin and death. That is another way of stating what he did here:

Romans 7:15 KJV For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

So, BECAUSE his mind served God but his flesh served sin, THEREFORE there is NOT THAT KIND OF CONDEMNATION to us if we simply STOP WALKING AFTER THAT FLESH that we serve sin with, and instead walk after the Spirit.

And I honestly think he means, "If we stop using the principle of lawkeeping (that form of walking after the flesh) to serve God, we will cease this crazy condemnation and guilt, because that methodology only stirs sin in us and ruins what we will to do. So, instead of living a life of obedience to rules, the same results that life was meant to accomplish in us is fulfilled BY ANOTHER methodology-- walking after the Spirit -- which is leaning on the SPIRIT to serve God instead of the FLESH to fulfill what we WILL to do."

I know it sounds odd at first to think LAWKEEPING is walking after the flesh. But I really think that's what he means. Since you HAVE to use your flesh -- will power -- to serve God with Law, and that doesn't work, stop walking after the flesh. Stop using will power to obey laws.

[mfblume]

The truth is LAW could have made us righteous if we did not have sin in our flesh to mess it all up.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There is no proof that Job was not an Israelite (not a 'Jew', there were more tribes than just Judah). The text does not identify exactly who Job was.

Romans 2:14 is a reference to Gentiles who have entered the new covenant. Outside of the new covenant, there is no Biblical mention of anyone having the laws of God 'written on the heart'.

There is evidence that Job knew the laws of God:

My foot hath held his steps, his way have I kept, and not declined. Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.
(Job 23:11-12 KJV)

Job knew 'his steps', he knew 'his way', he kept God's 'way', he knew and had not departed from 'the commandment of his lips' and he esteemed 'the word of his mouth more than ... food.' Thus, Job knew the way, commandment, and word of God, as it had been revealed at that time. This may indeed be pre-Sinai, but the laws of God were around and in place before Sinai, as it says in Genesis:

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
(Genesis 26:5 KJV)

There is in fact evidence that Job was aware of all ten of the ten commandments, which we can get into if desired.

The fact that Job repeatedly refers to 'sin' and transgression against God indicates that Job was aware of the law of God, and that it was in force. Where there is no law, there is no sin. So if there is sin, there must be law. (Law, in this instance in regard to Job and Abraham, should not be confused as referring to the Sinaitic Covenant - also known Scripturally as 'the law'. The Sinaitic Covenant took the laws of God and enshrined them into a specific covenant with Israel. But the laws of God - except for those things specifically unique to the Sinaitic Covenant - have been around from the beginning. After all, it has ALWAYS been sin to murder your neighbor, etc.)

The fact remains, though, that Paul distinctly made a division with the time of Moses who brought law. Job lived before Moses. So Job fell under this time period:

Romans 5:13 KJV (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

So, why did Paul say this about the period before Law if Job was required to live by Law? He had a word from God. But it was not a written law.

Here is where Paul named Moses to mark that distinction in time:

Romans 5:14 KJV Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Since Moses BROUGHT LAW, it was at the time of Moses that SIN WAS IMPUTED. That is why he named Moses after stating sin was not imputed before law was given.

And the reason he named ADAM was because from the time of Adam until Moses THERE WAS NO LAW. The actual CONTEXT is bringing out the point that people still died due to sin although that same sin was not imputed. But the point we can apply to our chats is that sin only was imputed once Law came, and that was at the time of Moses. Job lived in the period between Adam and Moses, when sin is not imputed. THAT must be reconciled with Job's words about the words of God's mouth,

[Esaias]

Well, that clears things up a bit as to what you mean by 'law keeping' vs what I mean by 'law keeping'.

Now, we just have to deal with the issue of 'will power' because I think, once again, we are using the same terms in somewhat different ways. I notice you are using terms like 'force' in association with 'will'. It makes me think of a drunkard or smoker trying to quit 'by force of will', meaning they want to quit but have strong desire and temptation to indulge, and cannot seem to muster the 'force of willpower' to overcome those temptations or desires.

I will think on this for a bit, and see if I cannot line out what I see as the differences in our uses of the term 'will', and perhaps identify how the Bible uses the term. I do want to keep in mind that the term 'will' can have several slightly different meanings, so I will try to be careful to distinguish what I am saying in order to avoid misunderstandings.

The 'p' letter on my keyboard is giving me trouble, I have to REALLY press it hard to make it show up, so bear with me if it seems like it takes awhile for me post. I may have to get back to this tomorrow. If you don't hear from me for a couple days it's because I broke my keyboard lol.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, that clears things up a bit as to what you mean by 'law keeping' vs what I mean by 'law keeping'.

Now, we just have to deal with the issue of 'will power' because I think, once again, we are using the same terms in somewhat different ways. I notice you are using terms like 'force' in association with 'will'. It makes me think of a drunkard or smoker trying to quit 'by force of will', meaning they want to quit but have strong desire and temptation to indulge, and cannot seem to muster the 'force of willpower' to overcome those temptations or desires.

I will think on this for a bit, and see if I cannot line out what I see as the differences in our uses of the term 'will', and perhaps identify how the Bible uses the term. I do want to keep in mind that the term 'will' can have several slightly different meanings, so I will try to be careful to distinguish what I am saying in order to avoid misunderstandings.

The 'p' letter on my keyboard is giving me trouble, I have to REALLY press it hard to make it show up, so bear with me if it seems like it takes awhile for me post. I may have to get back to this tomorrow. If you don't hear from me for a couple days it's because I broke my keyboard lol.

My N key is giving me problems on my laptop. It's gone. I have to hit the rubber piece in its very centre. lol. New keys on the way!

But how Paul used WILL in Romans 7:18 is indeed the key.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There is no proof that Job was not an Israelite (not a 'Jew', there were more tribes than just Judah). The text does not identify exactly who Job was.

Romans 2:14 is a reference to Gentiles who have entered the new covenant. Outside of the new covenant, there is no Biblical mention of anyone having the laws of God 'written on the heart'.

There is evidence that Job knew the laws of God:

My foot hath held his steps, his way have I kept, and not declined. Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.
(Job 23:11-12 KJV)

Job knew 'his steps', he knew 'his way', he kept God's 'way', he knew and had not departed from 'the commandment of his lips' and he esteemed 'the word of his mouth more than ... food.' Thus, Job knew the way, commandment, and word of God, as it had been revealed at that time. This may indeed be pre-Sinai, but the laws of God were around and in place before Sinai, as it says in Genesis:

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
(Genesis 26:5 KJV)

There is in fact evidence that Job was aware of all ten of the ten commandments, which we can get into if desired.

The fact that Job repeatedly refers to 'sin' and transgression against God indicates that Job was aware of the law of God, and that it was in force. Where there is no law, there is no sin. So if there is sin, there must be law. (Law, in this instance in regard to Job and Abraham, should not be confused as referring to the Sinaitic Covenant - also known Scripturally as 'the law'. The Sinaitic Covenant took the laws of God and enshrined them into a specific covenant with Israel. But the laws of God - except for those things specifically unique to the Sinaitic Covenant - have been around from the beginning. After all, it has ALWAYS been sin to murder your neighbor, etc.)

ha you rawk.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Starting to sound like much of the issue in dispute is one of terminology

i am persuaded that many or all of our disagreements involve a...bastardization of definitions, and there is in fact an angel in charge of this. there is a dept, it is huge it is going to take your breath away. like a million

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Votivesoul, any thoughts?

I will have to play some major catch up, as I haven't been able to really get into this thread yet. Hopefully I can do so soon.