Reconcile this

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think "we" have NOT come to THAT conclusion. I do not believe in "gracious ability", as taught by Arminians and (some) Calvinists, which is the idea that all people have a natural inability to obey God's moral law, and that only through a supernatural or "gracious" impartation of Divine power is a person actually able to fulfill their moral obligations.

1. If a person has a natural inability to obey God, then they are not a subject of moral law, and are not a moral agent, and are not capable of having moral character. Moral law is law that commands what a person OUGHT to do, which necessarily implies that the person COULD do what is commanded. You cannot possibly "ought" to do that which you strictly and naturally "cannot" do.

2. Following from 1, if people are thereby not moral subjects, then there is no moral basis for Judgment. But the Bible everywhere speaks of the Judgment as distinctly moral, it is a matter of "right and wrong". People are judged for not doing what they ought to have done, and for doing what they ought not to have done. They are not judged for what they could not possibly have done.

3. If the only way a person COULD obey God is through a divine impartation of grace, a "gracious ability", a "moving of the Spirit", then all who die sinners do so specifically because God chose not to empower them to be obedient. They would have the ultimate excuse upon Judgment day, and the result is the same as predestination to damnation: God is the cause and enabler of their sin, He ensures they continue in sin, He ensures they do NOT obey, He makes certain they DO sin, precisely because He FAILS to "empower" them to obey.

4. The idea of a gracious ability, or that "people cannot obey God unless the Spirit of God empowers them", confuses natural law and moral law, natural ability and moral ability, and natural inability and moral inability. Moral law concerns voluntary action (choices), and therefore by definition those choices must include a natural ABILITY to make those choices. People do not disobey God because they CANNOT obey, but because they WILL not obey. The moral work of the Spirit is not to impart a natural ability that did not previously exist, but rather to LEAD (motivate) to faithful obedience.

When the Scripture speaks of the work of Spirit in circumcising the heart and causing Israel to walk in God's commandments and statutes and ways, it is not speaking of a supernatural impartation of NATURAL ability, but rather it is speaking of the MORAL work of the Spirit in softening the hearts of His people, leading them into a voluntary faithful obedience to His will.

Sin, and obedience, are voluntary:

Romans 6:16-19 KJV
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? [17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. [18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. [19] I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

So whatever we are to make of the distinctions between the old testament saints and the new testament saints, one thing is clear - the difference and distinction is not and cannot possibly be one of natural ability to obey God.

When I speak of needing the Spirit, I speak of the continuous correction of the Spirit in your life teaching you, giving you understanding, of God's will and his word. The same prayer you see in Psalms 119, for example. I'm not speaking of a black and white system where if you don't have the Spirit guiding you, all you can do in life is evil.


Anyways, I just read this:

[Galatians 3:1-5 NKJV] 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain--if indeed [it was] in vain? 5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, [does He do it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?--

When you read stuff like that, and Acts, and the first chapters of Luke about OT saints walking with God, and the Spirit moving so much in their lives, sometimes I wonder if we are putting too much emphasis on the wrong thing. It looks too me that the NT saints point of view about the coming of the Spirit difference between the OT and the NT has to do more with the greater works and abundant prophecy than with the assistance to walk right. It is like the closeness with the Spirit is a given, and the ability to keep God's commandments is a given, but the "Spirit coming" means power, and the prophetic.

However, when you read Paul's epistles, you also come to the conclusion that receiving the Spirit has a covenant sealing meaning as well. So, yeah, it is empowerment for greater works as a group but also a covenant promise that seals.

[Amanah]

If you look at the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5), Jesus is asking the disciples to elevate their relationships from the letter of the law to the Spirit of the Law ("You have heard that it was said . . . But l say unto you").

The infilling of the Spirit enables people to produce the Fruit of the Spirit.

Galatians 5:22-23 ESV
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

If you look at the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5), Jesus is asking the disciples to elevate their relationships from the letter of the law to the Spirit of the Law ("You have heard that it was said . . . But l say unto you").

The infilling of the Spirit enables people to produce the Fruit of the Spirit.

Galatians 5:22-23 ESV
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

I don't think that's what Jesus was talking about. He didn't come to improve the Law, but to fulfill it. That means, he showed the right interpretation of the law by teaching it, and living it. What Jesus was showing in Matthew was how people were working around the law of God with interpretations to conveniently allow certain things. For example, the "eye for eye" but I tell you "if someone hits you in the cheek", talks about someone hitting back, and the violence escalation going up, and legally, not getting in trouble. However, the original meaning of eye for eye was to put a restriction on vengeance (see Lamech Gen 4:23-24), and to not be executed by the victim on the spot, but by judges after the event. The one with the right attitude would stop the chain of violence (nobody does retribution on the spot putting the other cheek so the point was to walk away with the humiliating insult), knowing that God would execute vengeance, whether through the judicial system God instituted, or if that fails, He himself in his time.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I don't think that's what Jesus was talking about. He didn't come to improve the Law, but to fulfill it. That means, he showed the right interpretation of the law by teaching it, and living it. What Jesus was showing in Matthew was how people were working around the law of God with interpretations to conveniently allow certain things. For example, the "eye for eye" but I tell you "if someone hits you in the cheek", talks about someone hitting back, and the violence escalation going up, and legally, not getting in trouble. However, the original meaning of eye for eye was to put a restriction on vengeance (see Lamech Gen 4:23-24), and to not be executed by the victim on the spot, but by judges after the event. The one with the right attitude would stop the chain of violence (nobody does retribution on the spot putting the other cheek so the point was to walk away with the humiliating insult), knowing that God would execute vengeance, whether through the judicial system God instituted, or if that fails, He himself in his time.

I heard an explanation about the turning the other cheek. That it wasn't just simply a willingness to be slighted and not seeking vengeance. Rather, if a man smote you on the cheek, it was almost certainly a backhand slap to the right cheek, using the right hand. By turning the left cheek and offering it to be struck as well, you gave the smiter a three-fold choice (one of three options): 1, use the right hand to smite you on the left cheek which would have been an open handed slap and would have exposed the slapper to legal penalties for publicly insulting you in a manner not allowed; 2, use the left hand to backhand slap the left cheek which would have been a huge faux pas as the left hand was used for, um, hygienic purposes, and thus exposing the slapper to public ridicule as a totally uncouth person; or 3, walk off and leave you alone.

Don't know if that's all entirely true, or if I even remembered it all correctly, but when it was presented it was presented with some pretty convincing evidence at the time, so there's that.



As for "an eye for an eye", that was a legal maxim from the Law of God that the punishment was to fit the crime:

Exodus 21:22-25 KJV
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. [23] And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, [24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Leviticus 24:17-20 KJV
And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. [18] And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. [19] And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; [20] Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Deuteronomy 19:16-21 KJV
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; [17] Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; [18] And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; [19] Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. [20] And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. [21] And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

If a man smote you on the right cheek, to demand satisfaction at law (which would result in the man being smitten himself upon the right cheek), was rather petty. The purposes of God would be better served by allowing the slight to go than to be straining out the gnat in court. Just as God brought rain and sunshine upon the just and the unjust, and was not just sitting there looking for the slightest excuse to condemn men, neither should we be petty towards others. Thus, our righteousness had to exceed that of the Pharisees, meaning our standard of behaviour and ethics had to be higher than that of the Pharisee sect who were known for giving "smooth words" and "loose interpretations" to the Law, missing the point and violating the spirit of the Law and will of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

When I speak of needing the Spirit, I speak of the continuous correction of the Spirit in your life teaching you, giving you understanding, of God's will and his word. The same prayer you see in Psalms 119, for example. I'm not speaking of a black and white system where if you don't have the Spirit guiding you, all you can do in life is evil.

Sounds like we are on the same page then, if by this you mean the Spirit's work is a "motivating" work rather than an impartation of an otherwise naturally impossible ability.

Anyways, I just read this:

[Galatians 3:1-5 NKJV] 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain--if indeed [it was] in vain? 5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, [does He do it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?--

When you read stuff like that, and Acts, and the first chapters of Luke about OT saints walking with God, and the Spirit moving so much in their lives, sometimes I wonder if we are putting too much emphasis on the wrong thing. It looks too me that the NT saints point of view about the coming of the Spirit difference between the OT and the NT has to do more with the greater works and abundant prophecy than with the assistance to walk right. It is like the closeness with the Spirit is a given, and the ability to keep God's commandments is a given, but the "Spirit coming" means power, and the prophetic.

However, when you read Paul's epistles, you also come to the conclusion that receiving the Spirit has a covenant sealing meaning as well. So, yeah, it is empowerment for greater works as a group but also a covenant promise that seals.

Perhaps the seal or sign or token of the covenant is the greater and prophetic works? "These signs shall follow them that believe" etc.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I heard an explanation about the turning the other cheek. That it wasn't just simply a willingness to be slighted and not seeking vengeance. Rather, if a man smote you on the cheek, it was almost certainly a backhand slap to the right cheek, using the right hand. By turning the left cheek and offering it to be struck as well, you gave the smiter a three-fold choice (one of three options): 1, use the right hand to smite you on the left cheek which would have been an open handed slap and would have exposed the slapper to legal penalties for publicly insulting you in a manner not allowed; 2, use the left hand to backhand slap the left cheek which would have been a huge faux pas as the left hand was used for, um, hygienic purposes, and thus exposing the slapper to public ridicule as a totally uncouth person; or 3, walk off and leave you alone.

Don't know if that's all entirely true, or if I even remembered it all correctly, but when it was presented it was presented with some pretty convincing evidence at the time, so there's that.



As for "an eye for an eye", that was a legal maxim from the Law of God that the punishment was to fit the crime:

Exodus 21:22-25 KJV
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. [23] And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, [24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Leviticus 24:17-20 KJV
And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. [18] And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. [19] And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; [20] Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Deuteronomy 19:16-21 KJV
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; [17] Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; [18] And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; [19] Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. [20] And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. [21] And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

If a man smote you on the right cheek, to demand satisfaction at law (which would result in the man being smitten himself upon the right cheek), was rather petty. The purposes of God would be better served by allowing the slight to go than to be straining out the gnat in court. Just as God brought rain and sunshine upon the just and the unjust, and was not just sitting there looking for the slightest excuse to condemn men, neither should we be petty towards others. Thus, our righteousness had to exceed that of the Pharisees, meaning our standard of behaviour and ethics had to be higher than that of the Pharisee sect who were known for giving "smooth words" and "loose interpretations" to the Law, missing the point and violating the spirit of the Law and will of God.

Check this out from the Talmud: https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.9...h=all&lang2=en

One who strikes another must give him a sela. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that he must give him one hundred dinars. If he slapped another on the cheek, he must give him two hundred dinars. If he slapped him on the cheek with the back of his hand, which is more degrading than a slap with the palm, he must give him four hundred dinars.

If he pulled his ear, or pulled out his hair, or spat at him and his spittle reached him, or if he removed the other’s cloak from him, or if he uncovered the head of a woman in the marketplace, in all of these cases, he must give the injured party four hundred dinars.

Fines for acts of humiliation. I have also read that in general, the "eye for eye" was hardly enforced in practice in the court anyways, but rather other things were imposed on the offender.



Regarding the eye for eye, striking the cheek is not just the public humiliation, but can actually hurt you and even make you land on the floor hard enough to hurt your face if it gets you unprepared. Being there, done that. So, I would say, if it is really necessary, people can go to court about it, but in general, it is best to let it go as Prov 19:11 implies. Looking for proper justice in court is not forbidden by Jesus, but it is still encourage to let it go and take the wrong, and ultimately, to let vengeance to the Lord (1 Cor 6:5-7, Rom 12:17-21). The main point in that passage is basically what Rom 12:17-21 summaries.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sounds like we are on the same page then, if by this you mean the Spirit's work is a "motivating" work rather than an impartation of an otherwise naturally impossible ability.




Perhaps the seal or sign or token of the covenant is the greater and prophetic works? "These signs shall follow them that believe" etc.

Yes, I think it is coming down to that.