C
cfultz3
Guest
You do understand that the Law of Sin is the principle of sin in fallen nature, right?
Would you say that differently?
You do understand that the Law of Sin is the principle of sin in fallen nature, right?
A servant, who trusts his master, and knows his masters business. Does not think of the rules. Nor is he guided by the rules. He goes about his masters business. And in doing so, He does not have to worry about breaking the rules.
But of course. On the times he may mess up and forget his masters business for a minute and chose to serve self because of temptation. The rule immediately pops up and he realises he has broken his masters trust. And can get back to his masters business.
Do you understand the nature of refutation?
One way to do so is to ask a question whose answer by the other party will reveal their error which they are overlooking.
It's not about condemnation.
It's about bringing to light the contradictions in their understanding.
Not answering those questions gives the appearance of wanting to avoid having to deal with the contradictions inherent in one's (mis)understanding.
And not answering the questions in order to avoid dealing with the contradiction reveals one is not discussing in good faith.
But, all the while my dear Brother, his pleasure is to please his master. To do His Lord's will.
I love the second paragraph.
You do understand that the Law of Sin is the principle of sin in fallen nature, right?
The NT reveals that the revelation spoken by the Son (singular) in these last days (Heb 1:1-2), given through the NT writers, is a unique category of revelation, in contrast to the revelation which was fragmentary, occasional, lacking in fullness and finailty, which was spoken "in the past days. . .through the prophets (plural) at many times (occasional) and in various ways (fragmentary)."Thank you very much. Your open heart is the key, and my heart also must follow suit with your heart. Knowing that you have the heart you do, I am sure you are saddened as I am with the contention caused by assumptions. Just say that the law is valid for more than condemnation, or that the entire Word of God is relevant equally, or anything pertaining to
the equal validity of the Old Testament, and you are labeled.
Nevertheless, the NT reveals that there have been big changes:That is so sad. I'm not being defensive of myself, but I am contending for the faith.
I just can't see any part of the Word of God negated or changed according to God's plan
when God says He don’t change, and neither does Jesus change.
Nah. . .that's no fun.heheehhe...okay...okay....go for it![]()
Yeppers. . .Enforcing the law of the land would help. I would say if capital punishment was till legal, as it used to be, form coast to coast, there would be a notable decline in murder. If the Ten Commandments were still on the walls of our schools, as it used to be, there would be a decline in bullying, leading to killing in some cases. I would say if people would be responsible
for their promiscuity, there would be a whole lot less one parent families, and street crimes in our larger cities. I would say that Detroit would not be in the shape that it is today if there had been integrity enough for politicians to turn away from legalized extortion, and so on and so on.
Which doesn't mean you aren't loved.Then arguing before you ask the question is incorrect, for you really don't know what that person believes. As far as questions are concerned, I have no problem with a person who is asking a legitimate question to sincerely understand another persons heart. But answering questions that are not relative to that sincerity, and are leading questions that sound like a person hasn't kicked in the brain yet, are questions that the Bible says lead to contention. I have to admit that my frustrations have lead me to respond in kind, so I confess I was wrong. And you know that along with everybody else that frequent this thread.
Nevertheless, the NT reveals that there have been big changes:
Sabbath is no longer a law we must obey.
The "law of sin" is not the law of Moses, but the principle of sin in fallen nature.Would you say that differently?Elin said:You do understand that the Law of Sin is the principle of sin in fallen nature, right?
Some Sunday school classes do just that.Imagine what Sunday School would be like every week if we talked there the same as in here. There would be no teaching there either except for all to see what kind of characters we are instead of identifying the character (name) of God.
Jesus of Nazareth did not exist when the law was given to Moses.Rhetorically, who made those changes? Or was it the plan all along? I think it was the plan from the beginning so the sequence of events were never changed.
Malachi 3:6 (KJV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP]For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Hebrews 13:8 (KJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Would you agree that Jesus gave the law to Moses?
The "law of sin" is not the law of Moses, but the principle of sin in fallen nature.
Paul uses the word "law" in so many ways:
law in general
a principle or force compelling action, as in "law of sin," "law of my mind," "law of faith," "law of sin and death"
law of liberty
law of the Spirit of life
law of righteousness
Mosaic law
the whole law
the books which contain the law
the law of Christ
law of faith
"The law" does not always refer to the Mosaic law, or God's law.
The compelling force of of my fallen to sin is the "law of sin."Thank you.
My understanding of "Law of Sin" is this: don't eat from the tree, you will die. Don't do this or that, you will die. Any Law (no particular set of laws) which says what is sin (disobedience), as oppose to what is God's Law: Love.
If I understand you correctly, in that a law is the compelling force behind a committed sin (a particular law made me sin), then no, I did not know that.
My understanding is that the Law makes one recognize/acknowledge what sin is.
I think I am still misunderstanding you.
Con't.Thank you.
My understanding of "Law of Sin" is this: don't eat from the tree, you will die. Don't do this or that, you will die. Any Law (no particular set of laws) which says what is sin (disobedience), as oppose to what is God's Law: Love.
If I understand you correctly, in that a law is the compelling force behind a committed sin (a particular law made me sin), then no, I did not know that.
My understanding is that the Law makes one recognize/acknowledge what sin is.
I think I am still misunderstanding you.
The compelling force of of my fallen to sin is the "law of sin."