Law was an impossible system to keep

[shazeep]

i think it is splitting hairs to differentiate "Be Holy" and "agape" personally, but you say "big difference." could you expound there?

[shazeep]

and in that vein, you really didn't answer how you perceive

"Be Holy, as I am Holy."

which might answer the last post, but we might get more if i leave them in this order, so...

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

To realize that we can do nothing apart from Him?

unfortunately "do nothing" is what is often perceived as the operative phrase for those who many would argue take that concept too far. There is even a church saying about it, which i've kinda forgotten, something about getting saved and being so religiously good that you are no earthly good or something?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Totally missed what I said about agape and the golden rule. Communication is gone.

we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, so i wouldn't be too sure about that. And not to overload you here, but you say that i totally missed what you said, which was

"Fact is, we get his holiness and agape when we accept the work of the cross before we do one good deed,"

which i didn't miss, i just completely disagree with--well, except for the part intimating that we can get His "holiness/agape," but never mind that for now--which i indicated by directing us back to your interpretation of the GR,

"I extend the golden rule to muslims, catholics and anyone else who truly does to others what they want done to them."

which i don't even see how you might defend, but i am seeing that they are intimately connected in some way that is not quite clear to me yet.

[shazeep]

You can run, but you can't hide, Mr B. I don't think you even believe God exists, tbh. Of course i could be wrong there, but i can at least say that i now understand why many, or at least some, do not consider OP to even be a Christian sect, which made no sense to me a year ago. You display--rather proudly--anti Christian understanding at several points, this just being the latest; and these are evident in your absences, with all due respect. But since those are hard to track, i have kept a list, and i can go dig up 'gutless' et al if you ever want to have a real discussion. I'm sure this seems as if i'm trying to hang a millstone about your neck, when really i'm offering a parachute, but i hope you see that you are standing on the edge of a cliff, and not that i care but you have much more to lose than i did. Best of luck to you, should you wish to keep gambling.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

many soldiers die with the belief in their hearts that they are dying for the freedoms of those they may not agree with or like; there is even a cliche they like to use about it, i'm sure you know the one. Regardless of my belief in the matter, and soldiers guarding poppy fields etc. their suicide rate tells me that many men of conscience join for the right reasons, even if they...wake up? later.

Are you making void Paul's words in Romans 5 about only Christ dying for sinners?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i think it is splitting hairs to differentiate "Be Holy" and "agape" personally, but you say "big difference." could you expound there?

Holiness is not simply "belonging to." How is that agape love?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

You can run, but you can't hide, Mr B.

I don't think you even believe God exists, tbh.

Attack away and make me the issue every time. I'll still pray for you.

This is utterly ridiculous. You simply have it in for me and twist everything I say. It always always comes down to attacking my person when it comes to your responses and purpose. You cannot stay objective. And it is because the cross is an offense to you and you stumble.

Of course i could be wrong there, but i can at least say that i now understand why many, or at least some, do not consider OP to even be a Christian sect, which made no sense to me a year ago. You display--rather proudly--anti Christian understanding at several points, this just being the latest; and these are evident in your absences, with all due respect. But since those are hard to track, i have kept a list, and i can go dig up 'gutless' et al if you ever want to have a real discussion. I'm sure this seems as if i'm trying to hang a millstone about your neck, when really i'm offering a parachute, but i hope you see that you are standing on the edge of a cliff, and not that i care but you have much more to lose than i did. Best of luck to you, should you wish to keep gambling.

Your purpose in always attacking me as a person reveals your nature.

[mfblume]

More indication law cannot be kept...

Law is compared to a dictatorial husband in Romans 7.


Paul said the woman in the illustration of the marriage to a cruel husband is the believer. The husband is law. And so long as they both live, each is bound to the other. The woman is not free to marry another until the husband be dead. Why would she want to be married to another. It was for the same reason people do not want to be under law.

Rom 7:1....Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Rom 7:2....For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3....So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

In normal conditions of marriage the one spouse must die for the other to marry another spouse. But in salvation, the woman, so to speak, which stands for the believer, dies.

Rom 7:4....Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Normally it is impossible for the woman to die in order for her to remarry another man. But in the case of the gospel, it's not. We die through Christ's death. We die by the death of the body of Christ who died on the cross. We die with him.

And the purpose of being married to Christ instead of the Law, is that we might bring forth fruit unto God. Children for the Lord.

Now why weren't the "children" produced under Law entitled "fruit unto God."? After all it was God's Law? Would not the results of being married to law cause a person to bear fruit unto God as a result?

No. If we could keep law, then yes. But Paul shows it is a "no."

Paul then describes how the "children" of the marriage to the cruel husband are compared to the "motions of sin".

Rom 7:5....For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

The "children" we bear for the husband called Law are referred to as "fruit unto death." "the motions of sin."

And Paul brings this out very clearly as he continues writing.

Rom 7:8....But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

By keeping law, the sin residing in our flesh takes advantage of the fact that Law urges flesh to strive and serve God in NATURAL POWER. It's not that Law is wrong,m because if our flesh, that must be exerted to serve God under Law did not have sin, we would succeed!

But, unfortunately we have sin in our flesh. So, Law only incites sin into action and activity. THAT IS WHY LAW IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP.

Now, what do those who think Law CAN BE KEPT have for an explanation of what Paul was saying here, after having said life under law is a like marriage to a husband that produces @motions of sin@ for children?

The motions of sin Paul claimed were like the children a woman bears who is married to Law were things like covetousness. Until Law came, sin was dormant, so to speak. Dead. But it came alive when Law came, and FORCED HIM to commit covetousness.

And Paul continued in Romans 7 showing his personal WILL was to NOT SIN. But something inside his flesh MADE HIM DO WHAT HE DID NOT WANT TO DO in serving God under law. It made him commit EVIL instead of GOOD.

If Paul's desire was to serve God under Law and do good, and if it is POSSIBLE to do so, why is it that Paul said the good he willed to do was not done, but the evil he did not want to commit is what occurred instead?

Rom 7:14-16....For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. ..(15)....For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. ..(16)....If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

Law cannot work because it is spiritual and we are carnal. We are sold under sin.

How can man succeed in keeping Law if Paul distinctly taught otherwise here?

[shazeep]

Mr B, anyone could tell you that your interpretation of the Golden Rule is not un-Christian, but anti-Christian, and why someone has not done so, even in a pm or something, is beyond me. As i said, I'm sure you feel you are being attacked, but if you will look the only injury is to your denial and avoidance, not your person. You were there for "gutless" and "no, you are bailing because you are about to get painted into another corner," and...i don't have the list to hand, but the point is that it is disingenuous to come to a forum and proudly state that you are in denial and simultaneously offended.

So i will say again that you are not representing the Christian point of view, at several places now, and if i am wrong then i only need to be corrected when i say that

"I extend the golden rule to muslims, catholics and anyone else who truly does to others what they want done to them"

is not the Christian understanding of the Golden Rule, even a little bit. I am sorry, but you are in grave error. You. You are adept at playing the victim card, but if you just go look back at the first time you said this--or any of those other times--i wasn't being a jerk about it. So yes, you are now being attacked, verbally, on a forum. Go figure.