In this post -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1550735&postcount=33
What I am saying is - that Romans 6 is worth reading (as it turns out) and the text is actually true. .
So your role here is to convince Christians here that the Word of God is true. All true Christians believe the Word of God is true. So why spend time here trying to convince us that the word of God is true? Start a thread on it, I doubt you will find anyone who thinks differently.
I prefer to discuss the scripture itself - you prefer to talk about what some denomination may or may not think as if the scripture being quoted has nothing of importance to say on the subject. Not sure why you choose to avoid the text.
Actually, I like to both discuss the scripture AND discuss how the belief of it would play out in one's real life. It's not that I avoid the text, I post questions pertaining to actual life possibilities so I may rightly understand how one's pov could actually be applied.
I ask you some questions in this manner and rather than post an honest from the heart simple answer you post more scripture. I already heard you on the scripture, now tell me how your pov would be applied to a real life scenario.
I'm not avoiding the text, but you are avoiding applying your points of view to real life.
In this case - the saved saint who then chooses to live in rebellion is a slave to unrighteousness - a slave to sin - so the chapter ends with the warning "the wages of sin is death".
This then answers my question;
"So you are saying your SDA pov of the scriptures has two purposes for the law.
1) for the lost it is to condemn.
2) for the saved it will not condemn if violated, but it is to teach morals.
Is this correct?"
The answer is "no". According to your pov a saint can be condemned by the law just the same as the lost. There is no difference besides the fact that a saint CAN obey and a lost person CANNOT obey.
Yet if instead of merely failing now and then - we choose non-stop rebellion of the form "I CANNOT obey God's Word" - well then we have the warning of Romans 6 and Romans 8 to deal with. They speak of the problem of those who DO not obey God's word and who indeed CANNOT obey His Word.
First you show a lost person CANNOT obey God's word.
You show it takes being "born-again" that a person CAN obey God's word.
And now here in this last quote above you say that a saint CAN have the curse of "I CANNOT obey God's Word".
What you have just proven by your own words is that the "saint" is really no saint at all, but rather the lost spoken of in Romans 8.
You try to make the argument that a lost person CANNOT obey and a saint CAN obey. Then you turn right around and say that a saint could truthfully say "I CANNOT obey".
Do you see your contradiction?
Clearly if we "circle back" to the condition of the lost - then we all happily agree that such a person DOES not obey God's Word and indeed they CANNOT obey God's Word.
Are not you the one who just circled back to the "I CANNOT obey" of Romans 8?
If one CANNOT obey according to Romans 8 then one is not a saint.
You have a saint in rebellion saying "I CANNOT obey" and then you circle the saint back to being one of the lost of Romans 8.
If the person CANNOT obey then that person is no saint to behin with, but you have them a saint who CANNOT obey. One is either a saint or not.
Maybe you would like to reword your example so you don't have a saint saying they CANNOT obey God's word?
How about the saint saying "I CAN obey but I am CHOOSING not to obey"? Maybe this will work for your pov.
Then again, maybe not. For this person is still a saint and the law cannot disannul the promised eternal life through faith.
Gal 3:17And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Your pov has a huge problem here.