Under Grace or Under Law?...Round 3

[EdSutton]

If I didnt currently have my pussycat named Moses in my lap, I'd type out a thing for you showing that the laws moses wrote were put in the side of the Ark signifying their temporary nature, while the law of God (10 commandments) were put INSIDE the ark signifying their permanent nature.

I am aware of the Scriptures that speak of the things of "permanent nature" that went inside the Ark. Guess that means that "Aaron's rod that budded", and the pot of manna were permanent, as well.

And the "first and greatest commandment", and the "second like unto it" according to Jesus, by your own rationale were of a "temporary nature". And then some wonder why I shake my head. And sadly, at that! Maybe a wilting flower would be a better image. :flower:

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Why not just consider what God give and what Moses give.

God the ten + the two Commandments.

Usually a person shakes their head when they are confused Ed, maybe it will pass. I hope so.

 

[EdSutton]

What you are saying is to remove all the Law. There would be no sin if you remove the Ten Commanments. They were added so sin would appear sin.
You remove all the civil Law and watch this world go crazyier that it already is. Same is true with the Commandments so if your churches are always dealing with adultery, etc. Well, you told them it was ok, so what did you expect them to do.

I said not one thing of what you accused me of saying here. But why let facts get in the way?

Ed

 

[Claudia_T]

I am aware of the Scriptures that speak of the things of "permanent nature" that went inside the Ark. Guess that means that "Aaron's rod that budded", and the pot of manna were permanent, as well.

And the "first and greatest commandment", and the "second like unto it" according to Jesus, by your own rationale were of a "temporary nature". And then some wonder why I shake my head. And sadly, at that! Maybe a wilting flower would be a better image. :flower:

Ed

Ed thats nutty

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
What you are saying is to remove all the Law. There would be no sin if you remove the Ten Commanments. They were added so sin would appear sin.
You remove all the civil Law and watch this world go crazyier that it already is. Same is true with the Commandments so if your churches are always dealing with adultery, etc. Well, you told them it was ok, so what did you expect them to do.
I said not one thing of what you accused me of saying here. But why let facts get in the way?

Ed

Ed, you did amen that a man in the very act of adultery would still go to Heaven if he were saved, (if such a thing were possible, of which it is not.) Also, in that "amen" were that no unconfessed sin would cause a person to miss Heaven if he were of the saved. (Again, impossible)

What am I supposed to take away from an "amen" like that.

I agree with HBWMN in that no saved person will do such a thing.

 

[EdSutton]

Gen 26:5Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

They fail to see the difference is all I can think of.

Did it occur to anyone that "my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" might be something other than exactly what would be codified 400 years later, in what Scripture calls "all the Law of Moses"?

Witness Jesus speaking of 'lust being adultery,', and some 'anger equalling murder'. That is not found anywhere prior to Jesus stating that, least of all in the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Ed thats nutty

I may be nutty, but how do you figure that, when I merely followed the categories you laid out? Now I am confused on this.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Ed thats nutty

BTW, I may be nutty, as you said, but I am affixed to the right tree - the same one as Jesus! :thumbsup:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Ed, you did amen that a man in the very act of adultery would still go to Heaven if he were saved, (if such a thing were possible, of which it is not.) Also, in that "amen" were that no unconfessed sin would cause a person to miss Heaven if he were of the saved. (Again, impossible)

What am I supposed to take away from an "amen" like that.

I agree with HBWMN in that no saved person will do such a thing.

In fact, I "amened" that any who are/were saved will go to heaven. I merely did not try to be the judge as to who is. :saint:
If I'd a-wanted to be a judge, I'd have become a lawyer! :tongue3:

Ed

 

[Claudia_T]

BTW, I may be nutty, as you said, but I am affixed to the right tree - the same one as Jesus! :thumbsup:

Ed

but Jesus said that you are supposed to take up your cross and follow Him, in self denial. He said in fact you cant be His disciple unless you do.

Just kidding about the nutty remark too

 

[Claudia_T]

Did it occur to anyone that "my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" might be something other than exactly what would be codified 400 years later, in what Scripture calls "all the Law of Moses"?

Witness Jesus speaking of 'lust being adultery,', and some 'anger equalling murder'. That is not found anywhere prior to Jesus stating that, least of all in the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy.

Ed

what does that have to do with anything? Jesus came to magnify the Law and make it honorable... all He was doing there is expanding upon what was already there. He was telling people its not ok to commit adultery in your heart or to be so angry you wanted to murder someone but just not outwardly carry it out.

 

[Brother Bob]

In fact, I "amened" that any who are/were saved will go to heaven. I merely did not try to be the judge as to who is. :saint:
If I'd a-wanted to be a judge, I'd have become a lawyer! :tongue3:

Ed

Well sadly, you amened it if they were in the very act when they died also. You may not of read the post clearly and thought you were just amening the saved going to Heaven, that I admit, I do not know.

 

[Claudia_T]

You know, the question comes to my mind.... IF these people claim that you still should just not sin or else you get disciplined by the church for it but you just arent "under the law" as in condemned by it....

then WHY dont they get disciplined in their church for breaking all 600 laws if they claim we would still have to keep those as well?

why dont they go into this thing about the 600 laws then> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh all of a sudden they really know they DONT have to keep those laws... hmmmmmmmmmmmm??

yeah all of a sudden they realize there are only 10 commandments in the New Testament?

Claudia

 

[EdSutton]

Well sadly, you amened it if they were in the very act when they died also. You may not of read the post clearly and thought you were just amening the saved going to Heaven, that I admit, I do not know.

I have just taken the time to go back and read every post in this thread carefully, all 213 of them. I did not say any of what you said I "amened" in 213 posts. You sir are mistaken, I'm afraid, or I have absolutely no idea of what you are alluding to.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

I have just taken the time to go back and read every post in this thread carefully, all 213 of them. I did not say any of what you said I "amened" in 213 posts. You sir are mistaken, I'm afraid, or I have absolutely no idea of what you are alluding to.

Ed

Try this one Ed; The reason I remembered so was the fact that you would agree with that. If you supported something you didn't really read carefully, then I can accept that Ed, as a matter of fact, I hope you did misread it.

EdSutton

2,000 Posts Club
Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: KY
Posts: 2,670

RE: Under Grace or Under Law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK
Please Bob don't take anything personal. i was writing as objectively as possible using the word "you" generically, meaning anyone, not you personally.
I use the sin of adultery as an example because I know that it is a horrid sin in the eyes of most here. Your definition of a sin unto death and my definition of the same are quite a bit different. Adultery is not a "sin unto death," and one cannot prove it to be so. Perhaps another thread should be started on "sin unto death" or even a bit broader as "types of sin." But adultery does not fall there. Adultery is the same as lying. It is a transgression of the law. They are both breaking the Ten Commandments. So what is the difference in God's sight? None. It is just as bad to die with an unconfessed lie as it is to die with unconfessed adultery or in the act of adultery. What is the difference?
My sins are paid for. They were paid for at the time of salvation. They are under the blood. The minute I put conditions on the work of Christ--like saying that the sin must be confessed before I die, then I take away from grace, and my faith turns into a religion of works. It is no more of grace but of works. One cannot impose conditions on the salvation that Christ provided without any conditions.

Well said, Preach on!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Try this one Ed; The reason I remembered so was the fact that you would agree with that. If you supported something you didn't really read carefully, then I can accept that Ed, as a matter of fact, I hope you did misread it.

EdSutton

2,000 Posts Club
Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: KY
Posts: 2,670

RE: Under Grace or Under Law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK
Please Bob don't take anything personal. i was writing as objectively as possible using the word "you" generically, meaning anyone, not you personally.
I use the sin of adultery as an example because I know that it is a horrid sin in the eyes of most here. Your definition of a sin unto death and my definition of the same are quite a bit different. Adultery is not a "sin unto death," and one cannot prove it to be so. Perhaps another thread should be started on "sin unto death" or even a bit broader as "types of sin." But adultery does not fall there. Adultery is the same as lying. It is a transgression of the law. They are both breaking the Ten Commandments. So what is the difference in God's sight? None. It is just as bad to die with an unconfessed lie as it is to die with unconfessed adultery or in the act of adultery. What is the difference?
My sins are paid for. They were paid for at the time of salvation. They are under the blood. The minute I put conditions on the work of Christ--like saying that the sin must be confessed before I die, then I take away from grace, and my faith turns into a religion of works. It is no more of grace but of works. One cannot impose conditions on the salvation that Christ provided without any conditions.

Well said, Preach on!

Ed

This was in a now closed thread, so that is why I did not see it. I did not misread it, And I do agree with this (DHK's) post, fully.

Adultery is breaking the seventh commandment. That is certainly clear. Lying which is bearing false witness is breaking the ninth commandment. That is certainly clear, as well. What is the difference, there? Did I miss it?

Let's try this, since you seem to keep bringing up someone dying while physically in the act of adultery. Still adultery. Would that be different from dying while physically in the act of bearing false witness? Still bearing false witness. Again, if so, how do the two differ?

Could adultery be a "sin unto death"? Maybe, I guess, but Scripture does not declare that that is the sin unto death, anywhere I have seen. Could bearing false witness be a "sin unto death"? Again maybe, I guess, but Scripture does not declare that it is the sin unto death, anywhere that I have seen.

Let's try one more. One person dies while physically 'engaged' in the act of adultery. At the same time a second person dies shortly after commiting the same act, and before ever "confessing" it. A third person at the same time, again, dies after over sixty years since his or her one and only act of adultery, but that person was a teenager who was/is saved when he or she were twelve, committed the act when they were 18, and died at 80, "re-dedicated" (whatever that means) their life at 20, but because of 'shame' did not 'confess' to anyone that sin from two years prior, and apparently 'served the Lord' faithfully for 60 years, having basically forgotten that one-time adulterous episode. And a fourth, some faithful Christian for thirty years, who had never enen entertained such a thought prior, was driving down the road past the beach, and the most magnificent physical specimen they had ever seen, walked by wearing a hankerchief sized tight bathing suit, and for the first time, in their life, was tempted and actually looked on another with lust, and simultaneously was hit and killed in a car accident, all at the same time as the first three. It is your contention, according to your posts, that all four of these individuals would be lost individuals. I guess that the blood of the risen Lord, the second two were trusting in, was not really sufficient or able, alone, to take away their sin. God must have needed some help with that, I guess.

What is the basis for salvation, if the blood doesn't take away our sin? What is left but a "religion of works"? According to what you believe, one could never hope to know if they were saved until after they died, and then Scripture tells us it is too late. This teaching is just as arbitrary as the so-called "Calvinism" you often decry, and that rightly, BTW, but it is in fact, no different. There can be no such thing as knowing you are saved. And in the final analysis, you or I are the one responsible for being saved.

And unless one is the biggest egotist I've ever seen, one cannot say that they have loved the Lord with all the heart, all the mind, all the soul, and all the strength, and their neighbour as theirself, since that would be the sinless perfection you advocate, regardless of how you chose to word it. "And if we say we have no sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us." (I Jn. 1:8)

So which is it? I cannot speak for DHK; I cannot speak for Claudia; I cannot speak for Mike; I cannot speak for BrotherBob; I cannot speak for any but Ed, and like Paul, "I know Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day." Even if I were to die with some "unconfessed sin."

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Ed, maybe this is going too far for I can't answer for anyone except myself. You keep saying "blood take away our sin", well

that I believe. Also, the Lord said, as many as I love I also chastise and if you sin, I think the Lord will do His part of

chastisement. Why would He have to chastise you if the sin was already cleansed up? Don't make no sense. You said you

didn't amen it and then I show you and you say you agree with it. Took me some time to find it too. I have never said we

don't have sin. I just say we don't do the things like adultery that we did before we were saved. We use the sin of adultery

but I don't consider it different from any of the other Commandments. You have admitted that a person should be punished by

the church that commits adultery but on the other hand you say the Commandment against adultery is not binding, so you are

speaking both ways and if its not binding then the church would not have a right to confront anyone for anything. You speak of

a church of with no order for they have no order to go by unless they make up some of their own for you are saying all of God's

order are of none affect. I think you are reaching for straws when you make up all those cases that could have been. God

knows all, so he will take care of it. Again, if I committed adultery the church would not have to deal with me, I would remove

myself from them, for in no way would I want to be a hypocrit. Finally, I don't question your salvation for one minute or

anyone else's. I do judge a person's works but still whether they make it to Heaven or not is not my call. I am responsible for

taking care of a church and I use the Bible as my guide. The Ten Commandments are part of our orders on how we must live

and anyone wanting a home with us will live the same way. IMO

 

[BobRyan]

AMEN!

When God tells us we are freed from the curse of the Law, He means it.

Mike

Amen!

However some revise this text of scripture as "God's law is cursed and we are freed from His Law now".

Others revise it to mean "God's Law was His first attempt to provide a way of salvation -- it did not work".

Still others say "The Jews tried to spin God's Law AS IF it was ever given as a means of salvation -- so God had to delete His own law to stop the Jews from being successful at this false gospel idea".

But many have the Biblically sound position "God's Law demands the penalty of death for all sinners. Christ perfectly provides that payment - upholding the demands of the Law perfectly both in His Life and in His substitutionary atoning death paying what mankind owed". And in that model that Law is not "deleted" rather it is perfectly upheld - it's demands of payment perfectly met and applicable to those who accept Christ as their savior.

Grace provides
#1. For the payment due
#2. For the perfect righteousness demanded
#3. For freedom from slavery to sin.

Justice provides for the objective corporate review seen in Dan 7 where "judgment is passed in favor of the saints" Dan 7:22 based on "books that are opened" Dan 7:8-10 when the "court sits" and the ancient of Days takes His seat. For that is where "We must all stand before the Judgment seat of Christ to give an account for the deeds done in the body - whether they be good OR evil" 2Cor 5:10

"Therefore we must so live and so act as those who ARE TO BE JUDGED by the Law of Liberty" James 2

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ed,

... You keep saying "blood take away our sin", well that I believe. Also, the Lord said, as many as I love I also chastise and if you sin, I think the Lord will do His part of chastisement.

Why would He have to chastise you if the sin was already cleansed? Don't make no sense.

You said you didn't amend it and then I show you and you say you agree with it. Took me some time to find it too.

I have never said we don't have sin. I just say we don't do the things like adultery that we did before we were saved. We use the sin of adultery (BobRyan asks: as an example of sin? law breaking?) but I don't consider it different from any of the other Commandments.

Well said sir!

Br Bob said --

You have admitted that a person should be punished by the church that commits adultery but on the other hand you say the Commandment against adultery is not binding, so you are speaking both ways and if its not binding then the church would not have a right to confront anyone for anything.

Excellent point. Replacing the authority of the commandments of God with the authority of nothing more than the traditions of men - was dealt with in Mark 7 by Christ -- pre-cross.

You speak of a church of with no order for they have no order to go by unless they make up some of their own for you are saying all of God's order are of none affect. I think you are reaching for straws...

Haven't read all this thread -- I need to do some catching up to see how Ed went down that road.

Br Bob said -
I do judge a person's works (Matt 7) but still whether they make it to Heaven or not is not my call. I am responsible for taking care of a church and I use the Bible as my guide. The Ten Commandments are part of our orders on how we must live and anyone wanting a home with us will live the same way. IMO

Hmm sounds like James 2 and Romans 2 and Romans 8 and 2Cor 5:10 are all getting applied there...

Preach it!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Adultery is breaking the seventh commandment. That is certainly clear. Lying which is bearing false witness is breaking the ninth commandment. That is certainly clear, as well. What is the difference, there? Did I miss it?

Agreed - they are sin and God's Law "defines sin" according to 1John 3:4 and Romans 3 AND Gal 3 AND Romans 7 -- STILL to this very day.

Preach it!!

Ed said --

Could adultery be a "sin unto death"? Maybe, I guess, but Scripture does not declare that that is the sin unto death, anywhere I have seen. Could bearing false witness be a "sin unto death"? Again maybe, I guess, but Scripture does not declare that it is the sin unto death, anywhere that I have seen.

Let's try one more. One person dies while physically 'engaged' in the act of adultery. At the same time a second person dies shortly after commiting the same act, and before ever "confessing" it. A third person at the same time, again, dies after over sixty years since his or her one and only act of adultery, but that person was a teenager who...

You are simply missing the point Ed. To accept the fact that God's Law still defines what sin is - authorotatively - we have only to look carefully at Romans 3, and Gal 3 and Romans 7... etc.

But you argue against the idea that "saints are lost each time they sin" - I don't know that anyone is saying that.

I fully and completely reject the man-made tradition of OSAS and yet I DO NOT SAY that "saints are lost each time they sin" so I can hardly imagine that anyone on this board that does believe in OSAS would be saying that.

Ed said

What is the basis for salvation, if the blood doesn't take away our sin? What is left but a "religion of works"?

The problem is not that the blood of Christ does not provide for "forgiveness of sins AND the cleansing for all unrighteousness" the problem is that people find so many ways to spin and redefine "take away our sins" until the bend it around to saying "The law of God is deleted - so sin is gone by definition" they argue that the saints have no sin whether they repent of them or not - so "just ignore the Bible warnings to the contrary".

Never does the Bible teach that when a child of God - sins they HAVE no sin and NEED not repent and be forgiven.

Ed said
Accrding to what you believe, one could never hope to know if they were saved until after they died, and then Scripture tells us it is too late. This teaching is just as arbitrary as the so-called "Calvinism" you often decry, and that rightly, BTW, but it is in fact, no different. There can be no such thing as knowing you are saved. And in the final analysis, you or I are the one responsible for being saved.

The Arminian can KNOW that he is saved TODAY for certainty but can not know today that TEN YEARS from today he will CHOOSE to persevere and remain saved.

The 3 and 5 point Calvinist can not even know that -- for they hold to both OSAS and Perseverance -- one a man-made-tradition and the second a Bible doctrine. When mixed assurance is deleted.

Please think about it because some Arminians are mixing that same brew.


in Christ,

Bob