Law was an impossible system to keep

[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.

[mfblume]

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]

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

[mfblume]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

well, i would call that a spiritual principle, but fine, that can be a law, if you like. I have no problem with that. Until you become the definer of the definitions for everyone else. That is my only objection. And ps, someone with both feet in the grave who is left with a skeleton church should maybe reflect before telling anyone else they are "wrong" so often, i mean, it isn't my church that is placing hands on the antichrist to shield him from satan lol. Just saying.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, i would call that a spiritual principle, but fine, that can be a law, if you like. I have no problem with that. Until you become the definer of the definitions for everyone else. That is my only objection. And ps, someone with both feet in the grave who is left with a skeleton church should maybe reflect before telling anyone else they are "wrong" so often, i mean, it isn't my church that is placing hands on the antichrist to shield him from satan lol. Just saying.

When you can deal with definitions properly as in the case of legalism and law, we can discuss this in length. I've always wanted to.

And my church isn't any skeleton with both feet in the grave. lol

We're growing!