Re: The Law
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:53 am
That's right.. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Either you follow it or you don't.jlay wrote:"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." Romans 14:7
In this discussion, I have no doubt that G is fully convinced in his own mind that a believer should follow the Law. And he should have no doubt that I am fully convinced otherwise. But I don’t see this verse speaking to that issue, and I will explain why. What you mention regarding tattoos, however, does fit the verse. Personal conviction about a behavior, choice, or an action.
Again... You don't get it. We don't follow G-d's law to attain salvation. We follow it BECAUSE we are saved. We DON'T turn G-d's gace into lawlessness. What does Jude 1:3-4 say about that??This goes back to an old conversation about tattoos and lev 19:28. For me its a personal conviction. Our bodies are temples, and don't belong to us. Without going into lengthy debate- your position is I'm trying to keep the law by not having tattoos, yet if you don't have tattoos then its not because your living by the law- to me its an observation. The LAW is good, we cannot try and blame the law- its HOLY!!! The law isn't sin Rom 7:12. The law doesn't measure holiness... we are equal in Christ, no more than ones sin over anothers sin, say you stole and I killed! You say I have to keep every law, my response is just as ridiculous you would have to break every law- hence the issue!!! I say we have freedom and liberty in the Spirit- even when we chose to sin (not that we should, but in the struggle we all do) we know that Grace covers that. Grace covers ALL.
Jude 1:3-4, “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness [lawlessness] and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Having a tattoo doesn't appear to be an issue of salvation. We follow the commandments in faith.jlay wrote:If you have a personal conviction not to get a tattoo, then I wouldn’t say you are trying to keep the law. That is certainly a possibility, but not necessarily the case. That is NOT the issue of the thread. The issue is whether the Law is the prescriptive means of Holy living for the believer. I also have a personal conviction not to get a tattoo. I would also say there are many personal convictions I hold that would line up with the Law. And there are things forbidden in the Law that I do not hold a personal conviction to uphold. If I got a tattoo would I be violating Israel’s Law? No. Obviously, if I have a moral aversion to tattoos, and I get one anyway, then I have transgressed my conscience, and thus have sinned. The Law of Israel does not accommodate that liberty.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
A specific time for a specific people?? Simply garbage... So you don't think that to stop stealing, adultery, murder or rape don't apply to anyone anymore?jlay wrote:You are correct, we would not know sin except by the law, the natural root of which is etched on the human conscience. In other words, moral discernment. Here is a question: Is stealing wrong because the Law says so, or does the Law say so, because it is wrong? I would say the former and the later. The Law deals with moral truth, but that is not all it deals with. It was wrong to kill before the Law was given. And the Law was given at a specific time for a specific people.
Again.. You miss the point. Honoring G-d commandments is actually good. Honoring the other commandments such as the Sabbath is so that we don't burn out. What would you have us rather do? Work ourselves to death and eat animals that are bad for our diet?jlay wrote:Is eating shell fish a violation of natural morality? No, but God forbade the Israelites to eat such. So, since it was forbidden, disobeying the authority of God was the moral infraction. If God says don't eat of the tree, then it is the violation of the decree that brings the sin. It isn't as if the act of eating is sinful. However, murder is wrong inherently. Eating fruit from a tree is not. I would look at the Sabbath the same way. Unlike murder, stealing, adultery, the Sabbath day doesn’t have a natural moral relationship to the human conscience. But God decreed it for Israel, and how it should be held. So to break the Sabbath was to transgress the governance of God. At some point in this thread, something was said(regarding the Sabbath) to the effect, "Are you saying that it is bad for man to rest?" As if holding the anti-nomian position is saying that it isn't good to rest, or take a day off. That is a strawman. To invoke the Sabbath in this way is to manipulate the law. Some of the Torah is consistent with inherent moral truths (don't steal) and some not (remember the Sabbath).
Romans 7:12, “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”
Again we are SAVED from the curses of it through Christ... Galatians 3:13. But that doesn't give us a license to sin either. Romans 7:7...jlay wrote:It is interesting that Paul said, “The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent.” (Acts 17:30) What is it that God overlooked? In essence it was the idolatry of the Gentiles in the audience. But not in the sense that they were breaking the 2nd Command. The issue was salvaiton. They were not savable because they were in violation of a practical truth. Their false Gods and Goddesses were the product of their ignorance regarding the one true God. Paul is now informing them that there is one true God, so that now they are without excuse. They need to repent. That is they need to forsake that foolish thinking and embrace the truth. Then and only then can they be saved. After all, you can’t be saved if you think Jehovah is just another higher being on Olympus.
There are practical elements throughout the Law that people, even who don't even believe in God, will follow. Do not murder. That's because it is morally right based on nature and nature’s God. Murder is wrong, and the Law rightly affirms this truth. But the Law, for Israel, was not simply a command not to do something. It was also a governance for a people group chosen by God to bring forth His plans on the Earth. (The Kingdom) There are also elements in the law, which are not inherently obvious, that were specifically given regarding the economy of Israel. For one, the punishments for violating those laws. For example, there is certainly an element of rest contained within Sabbath. But that is not really the reason for the Sabbath. The Sabbath and its penalty had a very specific purpose for Israel. Do I feel any personal conviction, today, that those who don’t keep the Sabbath should be stoned to death? No. Yet, I do understand why God issued such a harsh penalty, to those UNDER the Law, for trespassing this command. Especially in relation to His purposes in Israel.
LOL.. A personal conviction nor to steal.. So if you think you magically know all the Bible, then why are you so opposed to following it? Also Israel was told not to steal, murder, etc.. So you are saying that doesn't apply to us anymore?jlay wrote:Next example. I have a personal conviction not to steal. But I don’t have a personal conviction to stone a thief and his entire family to death for stealing. See Achan in Joshua. But I do understand that in the economy of Israel, one man’s disobedience was not simply one man’s disobedience. It was the violation of the corporate covenant with God. The entire nation was defeated because of the individual transgression. Israel sinned. That is NOT how God is dealing with man today. If I sin today, it doesn’t mean that all of the Body of Christ sinned. And therefore we are going to lose a battle against the Midianites. That is what it is to be under the Law. We can’t segregate, or amend it to accommodate our religious preferences. But that is exactly what is happening in the pro-Messianic movement.
If the new nature was really in you, then you won't be opposed to G-d's commandments because they are FREEDOM and HOPE...jlay wrote:Let’s make it clear. Unlike Gman implies, I agree with EVERYTHING The scripture says about the Law. EVERYTHING. What I don’t agree with is his eisegesis regarding when, how and to whom the Law applies today. All of the scripture is written to us. Not all of it is written for us. Edification is different than application. And in that regard I see Paul's ministry revealing that God is NOT dealing with man today through the Law. The Law is not something a Christian should keep, or observe as a method of Christian living. Why? It is outside. The new Nature is within.
James 1:25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.
Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.
Romans 16:26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith.
Progressive revelation does NOT mean that we toss away G-d's commandments now.. What did Christ say?? Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Has heaven and earth passed away yet?? Prove it...jlay wrote:Gman quotes the Psalms in stating the Law is perfect. (Psalm 19:7) Is that true. Yes. Perfect in what sense? Well, let’s consider that verse in light of the progressive revelation. “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.” (Heb. 8:7)
Is this verse saying that the Law was wrong? No. Is this in contradiction with what David said? No. The Law dealt practically with, and governed a people who were not perfect. (Heb. 7:28)
Matthew 5:17-19, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
In other words cherry pick and create your own laws... So it is deceiving others.. Brilliant.jlay wrote:So what was David saying? Well for one, He is speaking as one of the covenant people. And he is speaking in a very poetic voice. This isn’t a “thus declares the Lord” scripture. He says it is perfect, converting the soul. So, does that mean that we proof text this poetic verse and then casually throw it into an argument where Hebrews and Romans is addressig the matter in a legal sense? No. But that is what is Gman is doing.
Grace is not a license to sin. And being an anti-nomian is not advocating murder, theft, or any other sinful behavior. If someone considers one day over another for their own edification, then I say go for it. But that is certainly not the context of what is going on here.
Zacchaeus has actually grasped what G-d's word is trying to convey.. Our bodies are HOLY!!!! That is why we don't put stupid graffiti marks all over them like the pagans do. We are to be separate of the world 2 Corinthians 6:17.
