Law Vs Grace, or Law AND Grace?

[canuckamuck]

Now the question you've been ask multiple times by WolfBitn comes to mind, "Why didn't you address the words if you have a problem with them instead addressing of me?" It seems you do it everywhere you go . . . I would bet good money that your a RINO the way you always do it. Its so ACORNish. It really is such a poor character trait and detracts from your credibility.

I really need to know, what is with the RINO and the ACORN, is this some inside joke I am missing out on.

Also, I also find your editorial square brackets to be a a bit disingenuous.

Gator's Idea of Royal law hits closer to the mark.

[precepts]

WolfBitn's

Precepts

Its pretty hard to misinterpret scripture when you take a nonmetaphorical statement and believe it as it is written... this leads us to believe that his sin was then willing

How could his sin be willing when we already established that Adam was gullible not knowing good or evil. The reason why only Eve was charged with transgression is because after realizing what she did, instead of bearing the consequences alone, she beguiled Adam. That's the point.

WolfBitn's

And youre right... Satan didnt deceive Adam... just as the scripture says. Yet Adam transgressed the law and ate of the tree, but God also made a way to be merciful through sacrifice

Because they weren't capable of knowing good and evil until they ate of the fruit.

[BlindSeeker]

Well of course the word of God can stand on its on. But here in the discussion forum where we discuss the Word of God I sometimes to add in brackets words for clarity.

They do not add clarity, they add in your own opinion, which is not the same as the Word of God. This is a dishonest way to do things.

This is news to me . . . that the use of square brackets to clearly show you are injecting you own understanding in something becomes evidence of dishonesty.

Believe it or not RG, it is an acceptable practice in discussing written things . . . because it reveals person input rather than hides it. It is actually the opposite of what you accuse it to be. It is in fact

[mizzdy]

QUOTE

When did Yeshua break the law? And when did He excuse the breaking of it? And where does He make a difference between the 10 and the rest?

Luke 6

1And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

2And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

3And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

4How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

5And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

6And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.

7And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.

8But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.

9Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?

10And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

11And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.

If Yeshua had broken the laws He in no way could have qualified to become the perfect sacrifice. Walking through the fields and eating the wheat?, Yeshua is our high priest, He did nothing wrong by eating and giving to others. It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. It is the oral law that surrounds the law of Moses with fences that they are talking about here. When did G-d ever say it is unlawful to eat on the Sabbath? The Pharisees were condemning them for not washing their hands either, where in any law in scriptures does it tell you you cannot eat unless you wash your hands? I mean its great hygiene and all. Studing the rabbinical and oral law shows this all out.

[Ovedya]

If you want to argue semantics, i prefer you argue it with someone else. I prefer good intelligent honest discussion to picking on semantics and forgetting the entire point of a thread

As for your disagreement that Adam was not under a law, and that we arent under that same law... are you implying that from Adam until now we have not been under the law of "Believe God and Repent or perish"?

Seems to me semantics are pretty important when it's concerning the kingdom of the heavens, wouldn't you say. Besides, you are the one here arguing the semantics of the law.

This is the fourth time now I've noted a veiled insult coming from you whenever someone challenges you. If you prefer "good intelligent honest discussion" then perhaps Worthy is just too far beneath you. Perhaps you need a forum in which persons of your greater intelligence and superiority can match wits and insults with you.

[WolfBitn]

If you want to argue semantics, i prefer you argue it with someone else. I prefer good intelligent honest discussion to picking on semantics and forgetting the entire point of a thread

As for your disagreement that Adam was not under a law, and that we arent under that same law... are you implying that from Adam until now we have not been under the law of "Believe God and Repent or perish"?

Seems to me semantics are pretty important when it's concerning the kingdom of the heavens, wouldn't you say. Besides, you are the one here arguing the semantics of the law.

This is the fourth time now I've noted a veiled insult coming from you whenever someone challenges you. If you prefer "good intelligent honest discussion" then perhaps Worthy is just too far beneath you. Perhaps you need a forum in which persons of your greater intelligence and superiority can match wits and insults with you.

No worthy has just been fine, and ive had some great comments coming my way... its the 2, you and gator, who have seen fit to not look at the evidence ive had a problem with in 2 threads only...

And again, youre addressing me and not the points

Mizzdy

If Yeshua had broken the laws He in no way could have qualified to become the perfect sacrifice. Walking through the fields and eating the wheat?, Yeshua is our high priest, He did nothing wrong by eating and giving to others. It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath

Yet its against levitical rabinical law... Yes He did break their law

But He kept the law of God that stood in Adams day and stands now

[kross]

The law of sin and death has convicted all of us of our sins. Once we have seen our sinful ways and repented and were saved by the work of JESUS on the cross, HE was the fulfillment of those laws. Thus, we were condemned under the law and saved out from under the law and into grace and the fulfillment of the law by HIM who said HE is the fulfillment of the law.

Yes indeed, agreed. If Christ had not fulfilled the law we would have no savior.

However, once we are saved, shall we continue to break the 10 so that the grace of God should abound even greater? God forbid

My other post clearly answers that question. However, just for you, I will answer it again.

No person who is indwelt by the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD will continue down the path of sin. Many in the church who have a religion but no real relationship will continue in sin because they are not saved and are not the adopted children of GOD. Now, there are those who are not set free from bondage that GOD has not determined to set them free from. But, they are still a people who have the love of GOD in their spirit, even if their flesh still serves sin. GOD will deal with this in HIS time and where such sin exists, grace is greater.

There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in CHRIST JESUS. For they are lead by the spirit and not the flesh. More importantly, they will be judged by a righteous and trustworthy GOD who will judge them by their spirit and not the works of their flesh.

[kross]

Well of course the word of God can stand on its on. But here in the discussion forum where we discuss the Word of God I sometimes to add in brackets words for clarity.

They do not add clarity, they add in your own opinion, which is not the same as the Word of God. This is a dishonest way to do things.

Here I felt the need to because of who I am speaking to. You seem to have difficulty understanding some simple things here.

very nice brother.

Now the question you've been ask multiple times by WolfBitn comes to mind, "Why didn't you address the words if you have a problem with them instead addressing of me?" It seems you do it everywhere you go . . . I would bet good money that your a RINO the way you always do it. Its so ACORNish. It really is such a poor character trait and detracts from your credibility.

again, very nice. Your use of words within words to attack and insult is very good. What a good witness to your faith you have there.

I would suggest that you might try and not let your political views cloud your Christian judgement so much.

If you feel the words do not apply, state why . . . don't ask me why I placed them there . . . I feel they apply, but that's obvious.

The why is important, though I am sure you dont want to talk about the why.

They dont apply because "Royal Law" and "written by the finger of God" are not one in the same unless you are willing to say that only those written by the finger of God are Royal law.

Excuse me, but those commandments were written on tablets of stone by the finger of GOD and the brackets were placed in there to remind us that these are not written by men. I persnally thought they were both appropriate and [obviously] necessary.

[canuckamuck]

As someone who adds editorial comment to his own comment you perhaps are not the best judge of the use of square brackets.

However, this is a silly side road that has not much to do with the debate.

[canuckamuck]

No person who is indwelt by the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD will continue down the path of sin. Many in the church who have a religion but no real relationship will continue in sin because they are not saved and are not the adopted children of GOD. Now, there are those who are not set free from bondage that GOD has not determined to set them free from. But, they are still a people who have the love of GOD in their spirit, even if their flesh still serves sin. GOD will deal with this in HIS time and where such sin exists, grace is greater.

There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in CHRIST JESUS. For they are lead by the spirit and not the flesh. More importantly, they will be judged by a righteous and trustworthy GOD who will judge them by their spirit and not the works of their flesh.

This is a problematic statement, even though it argues in favor of my point that we shall live by the Spirit and not by the law.

I do not believe that every Spirit-filled believer ceases from all sin. Even James admits stumbles

James 3: 1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

2 For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body.

It is better to say there is no condemnation for those who are in CHRIST JESUS. For they are covered by the blood of redemption. Being perfected and transformed from glory to glory.

I have heard others say truly born again believers cannot sin, and then I have seen their transgressions and heard them tell lies.