God did away with some of His own sayings

[BenFTW]

It is not an ACCUSATION... it is my conclusion by inference. <COFFEE need COffee!> SO here is the thing Ben... you go buy some bibles, rip them in half at the OT/NT division and give the OT to non-believers.... and tell them this is going to LEAD you to Christ. Now, how LONG are they going to have to live in the OT before they meet CHRIST???

The moment they realize they can't save themselves. They come to an awareness they are in need of the Savior. I am not saying you should separate the two as mutually exclusive in coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, they pair well to bring about a revelation of Jesus. However, we do not combine the old and new covenant. They are not something to be combined, you do not put grace into Law, though God did impart mercy. You cannot set rules and regulations in an atmosphere of grace, it sucks the air right out of liberty.

He isn't throwing out the Old Testament, it has its purpose. It leads men to Jesus Christ, it reveals their complete inadequacy to save themselves. It is but a shadow of what has come. That is, Jesus. So it is important, there are things to learn by it. It, however, cannot be combined and joined to the new covenant as something to be fulfilled by our daily actions. That is done by grace, imputation, and a renewing of our minds to who we now are in Jesus Christ, and having the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

People will say only the ceremonial laws were "done away with" but the moral law of the Law still stands. That isn't completely true, all of the Law has been nailed to the cross and Jesus fulfilled all of it to then impute His righteousness to us. Yes, there are moral absolutes, but again, the fulfilling of these absolutes by our daily living while beneficial by no means saves us. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[shotgunner]

There goes the carnal rhetoric again. Don't you present yourself as a living sacrifice to God? It reasonable ya know. Paul said so. So you don't need a schoolmaster. If not, you should be able to find your own way to school, for a schoolmaster led small children to school. When a person is mature enough, they take the same route as previously shown. Has Jesus actually caused His own Father's words to be absent from the ones He came to save? This is not a "law thread." I sincerely wish that anti law people would stop demanding it to be.

What does it mean to present myself a living sacrifice to God? Don't sacrifices die? What that means is that I die to self and live my life based on Christ. I live, not I but Christ in me. If I keep looking at self, I haven't become a sacrifice at all.

The true carnal mind is the one that looks to self, how well self is doing, is self good enough, is self keeping the law enough. Is self presenting self as a sacrifice well enough?

 

[just-me]

The moment they realize they can't save themselves. They come to an awareness they are in need of the Savior. I am not saying you should separate the two as mutually exclusive in coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, they pair well to bring about a revelation of Jesus. However, we do not combine the old and new covenant. They are not something to be combined, you do not put grace into Law, though God did impart mercy. You cannot set rules and regulations in an atmosphere of grace, it sucks the air right out of liberty.

Just to interject a little. Just because the container is worn out doesn't mean that the contents are in the same condition.

 

[BarlyGurl]

..... it is soooo IRKSOME when people storm into a thread for the purpose of derailing the commentary in MAKING THE TOPIC WHAT THEY THINK IT IS vs actually participating in the thread discussion. ACCUSING the participants of being "false teachers, holier than thou, yadda yadda, because they can't UNRAVEL their own wrong thinking and understand the topic".... SO for those of you who are going to CONTINUE to do that... I am no longer responding to YOU. IF you decide to participate in the actual TOPIC of the thread... I am delighted to exchange comments with you.

 

[just-me]

What does it mean to present myself a living sacrifice to God? Don't sacrifices die? What that means is that I die to self and live my life based on Christ. I live, not I but Christ in me. If I keep looking at self, I haven't become a sacrifice at all.

The true carnal mind is the one that looks to self, how well self is doing, is self good enough, is self keeping the law enough. Is self presenting self as a sacrifice well enough?

Desiring God's word to disappear rather than our own iniquity is where the grave mistake take place. If we demand God's word to be seen as harmful rather than our own nature, we are making a grave mistake. Rather than focus on ourselves as inferior, we make it a habit to focus on God's 'old' word and calling it inferior instead.

I look to God, and as He reveals Himself, He also reveals me to myself because He looks at the heart of man. His grace causes me to see my inferiority. So what is the "law of liberty" minus certain spoken words of God? How can this liberty take full effect according to God's word if some of God's word is rejected because it cannot be understood spiritually? That frame of mind doesn't make it because the mirror of God's word, reflecting our true self cannot be seen if any portion of God's word is rejected purposefully, as the adversary desires. We see, we walk away, and purposefully forget who we really are because the reminder is too grievous for us to bear. So we say to ourselves how gracious it is that we are not burdened with those things that are supposed to disappear according to our own warped doctrine. Why should we break the mirror and deny ourselves the true "law of liberty" by replacing it with a fake one that distorts the true image?

James 1:21-25
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
[SUP]22 [/SUP]But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
[SUP]23 [/SUP]For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
[SUP]24 [/SUP]For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

 

[NotmebutHim]

I think a lot of confusion stems from our misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:

"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." - Matthew 5:17-19.

My understanding and interpretation of the passage is this: Jesus didn't "do away with" the Law; He fulfilled all of its requirements. So because He accomplished that for us, we don't need to be so bogged down with trying to keep the Law. We need only rely on His righteousness, and He will help us to live Godly lives.

Here's a human analogy: We have laws that forbid robbery, rape, murder, arson, etc. Most of us live lives such that we do not do the things that these laws forbid. However, just because we meet the outward requirements of human laws doesn't mean that the laws are no longer valid. For example the law against robbery still stands even though I have never gone out and robbed a bank (and have no intention to do so in the future). The only difference is that I've met its requirement (or fulfilled it) by obeying.

 

[just-me]

I think a lot of confusion stems from our misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:

"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." - Matthew 5:17-19.

My understanding and interpretation of the passage is this: Jesus didn't "do away with" the Law; He fulfilled all of its requirements. So because He accomplished that for us, we don't need to be so bogged down with trying to keep the Law. We need only rely on His righteousness, and He will help us to live Godly lives.

Here's a human analogy: We have laws that forbid robbery, rape, murder, arson, etc. Most of us live lives such that we do not do the things that these laws forbid. However, just because we meet the outward requirements of human laws doesn't mean that the laws are no longer valid. For example the law against robbery still stands even though I have never gone out and robbed a bank (and have no intention to do so in the future). The only difference is that I've met its requirement (or fulfilled it) by obeying.

I like your analogy. If we take God's word out of the true context, then we are guilty of "taking the Lord's name in vain." That's a hard saying but there are many that demand God's grace to be an adversary to God's own words. This thread is a wakeup call so we will all say without hesitation that all that God has ever spoken completely applies to us as true believers in Christ Jesus to this very day. Jesus came to change us, not His own Fathers words in certain categories of importance by our own wrapped understanding of what we have been taught by false doctrines.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The moment they realize they can't save themselves. They come to an awareness they are in need of the Savior. I am not saying you should separate the two as mutually exclusive in coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, they pair well to bring about a revelation of Jesus. However, we do not combine the old and new covenant. They are not something to be combined, you do not put grace into Law, though God did impart mercy. You cannot set rules and regulations in an atmosphere of grace, it sucks the air right out of liberty.

He isn't throwing out the Old Testament, it has its purpose. It leads men to Jesus Christ, it reveals their complete inadequacy to save themselves. It is but a shadow of what has come. That is, Jesus. So it is important, there are things to learn by it. It, however, cannot be combined and joined to the new covenant as something to be fulfilled by our daily actions. That is done by grace, imputation, and a renewing of our minds to who we now are in Jesus Christ, and having the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

People will say only the ceremonial laws were "done away with" but the moral law of the Law still stands. That isn't completely true, all of the Law has been nailed to the cross and Jesus fulfilled all of it to then impute His righteousness to us. Yes, there are moral absolutes, but again, the fulfilling of these absolutes by our daily living while beneficial by no means saves us. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

to add, It also shows mistakes they made, and helps us not to make the same mistakes. it does so much that it would take a few pages to say what all it does.

The problem is this thread is all about doing (which is why it was started) which is a different context altogether.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

..... it is soooo IRKSOME when people storm into a thread for the purpose of derailing the commentary in MAKING THE TOPIC WHAT THEY THINK IT IS vs actually participating in the thread discussion. ACCUSING the participants of being "false teachers, holier than thou, yadda yadda, because they can't UNRAVEL their own wrong thinking and understand the topic".... SO for those of you who are going to CONTINUE to do that... I am no longer responding to YOU. IF you decide to participate in the actual TOPIC of the thread... I am delighted to exchange comments with you.

How can you exchange in comments when even the one who opened the thread refuses to talk about what is being said?

He has been asked numerous questions about the topic. yet has not answered. (funny that you have also, yet have not answered)

thats what is sad.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think a lot of confusion stems from our misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:

"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." - Matthew 5:17-19.

My understanding and interpretation of the passage is this: Jesus didn't "do away with" the Law; He fulfilled all of its requirements. So because He accomplished that for us, we don't need to be so bogged down with trying to keep the Law. We need only rely on His righteousness, and He will help us to live Godly lives.

Here's a human analogy: We have laws that forbid robbery, rape, murder, arson, etc. Most of us live lives such that we do not do the things that these laws forbid. However, just because we meet the outward requirements of human laws doesn't mean that the laws are no longer valid. For example the law against robbery still stands even though I have never gone out and robbed a bank (and have no intention to do so in the future). The only difference is that I've met its requirement (or fulfilled it) by obeying.

This is not the point the op is trying to portray though.

WHile your right the law that says do not rape is still valid. The law itself is NEVER going to prevent someone from raping someone else. It is far for complicated that that. The law CAN give a punishment to those who break it, but it is totaly helpless when it comes to showing someone how to do it.

Where these lawyers get things so screwed up is they say it can. and we who disagree are saying Gods word is meaningless. which is not true.

No one in this room is denying that even the ten commands are no longer laws which should not be broken. We are saying, they never could tell us how to be righteous people to begin with, all they could ever do is prove we are sinners, and need Christ (thus they point to Christ) not so we could live righteous lives.

 

[BarlyGurl]

How can you exchange in comments when even the one who opened the thread refuses to talk about what is being said?

He has been asked numerous questions about the topic. yet has not answered. (funny that you have also, yet have not answered)

thats what is sad.

Oh, I noticed her answered several posts and used scripture reference too. Hmm, maybe what you mean is... YOU are not being successful at turning the conversation into what YOU want it to be so YOU are going to continue to throw stones and vilify the thread... and the OP... and ME.... and anyone else who will not capitulate to your attempt to control the thread?

 

[just-me]

Again He did away with the first for a better Covenant...

Hebrews 8:7-8 KJV
[7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. [8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

The container is warn out but the contents within are still in good shape.

 

[pottersclay]

​popcorn anybody?????

 

[BenFTW]

There is something to be inferred by the OP that apparently some are missing. It is implied within the very topic of the thread. This isn't a matter of derailing a thread but pointing to its obvious conclusion. No, we are not under Law, period.

 

[just-me]

Oh, I noticed her answered several posts and used scripture reference too. Hmm, maybe what you mean is... YOU are not being successful at turning the conversation into what YOU want it to be so YOU are going to continue to throw stones and vilify the thread... and the OP... and ME.... and anyone else who will not capitulate to your attempt to control the thread?

I have EG on my ignore list, so his posts mean nothing to me unless I open them to see what he said. Most of what he says is not important to me because I have dealt with him before. I know his doctrine and he knows mine. I never start controversies with him, but he does with me. LOL

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Oh, I noticed her answered several posts and used scripture reference too. Hmm, maybe what you mean is... YOU are not being successful at turning the conversation into what YOU want it to be so YOU are going to continue to throw stones and vilify the thread... and the OP... and ME.... and anyone else who will not capitulate to your attempt to control the thread?

Yeah. Another strawman.

Are you people ever going to answer questions?

I think everyone here (except maybe for people like you) have already figured out THIS IS A LAW THREAD. By the way he has answered.

So why do we who are saved need a schoolmaster? Can you answer, or will you be like Just me and others and ignore the question. Or use a passage of scitpure WHICH DOES NOT ANSWER the question and say you answered it??

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I have EG on my ignore list, so his posts mean nothing to me unless I open them to see what he said. Most of what he says is not important to me because I have dealt with him before. I know his doctrine and he knows mine. I never start controversies with him, but he does with me. LOL

Yeah and I will CONTINUE TO CONFRONT PEOPLE TRYING TO PUSH LAW ON THE CHURCH OF GOD. Because I HAVE SEEN THE DAMAGE IT DOES, (it even caused me to be a prodigal son for 5 years, and destroyed 5 years of my life)

You having me on ignore will never prevent me from confronting a false truth.

 

[just-me]

There is something to be inferred by the OP that apparently some are missing. It is implied within the very topic of the thread. This isn't a matter of derailing a thread but pointing to its obvious conclusion. No, we are not under Law, period.

Only if we demand to be lawless by rejecting it.

If our house burns down we are homeless.
If we demand not to say anything, we are speechless.
If we are fired, we are jobless.
If we are incoherent, we are mindless.
If we are asleep, we are fruitless.
If we are without fear, we are fearless.

Need I explain more? LOL

 

[BenFTW]

The container is warn out but the contents within are still in good shape.

We agree with this, what God calls sin in the OT is still sinful and wrong. No one is arguing against this or trying to dispute it. There are things to be learned in the OT, even more important, things about Jesus Christ. Searching the scriptures through the lens of the cross, through Jesus' sacrifice that completely changed everything in how we relate to the Law and the Father.

 

[BenFTW]

Only if we demand to be lawless by rejecting it.

If our house burns down we are homeless.
If we demand not to say anything, we are speechless.
If we are fired, we are jobless.
If we are incoherent, we are mindless.
If we are asleep, we are fruitless.
If we are without fear, we are fearless.

Need I explain more? LOL

And so the truth of the OP comes to light. He fears lawlessness is a fruit of grace(at least the one we portray), which could be entailed a license to sin. As eternally-gratefull points out, this is a Law thread. The argument of whether we believe all of what God says is a call to obedience and the OP thinks this obedience is to the Law. BarlyGurl, do you see it for what it is now?