Evangel...dichotomy?

[Seth]

There's another reason we are given the Spirit. To break the bond of sin. Do you agree with that?

[Seth]

Also, you said the Spirit was given so Christ could be with us. I agree, and Paul said that Jesus Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness for those who believe.

Do you think that means he is the end of righteousness itself or the method by which we achieve it?

If we are not under the Law but the Spirit causes us to be moral and obey God, will our actions contradict the Law since the Law is also moral?

[CST]

There's another reason we are given the Spirit. To break the bond of sin. Do you agree with that?

Well, since the Holy Spirit is God and everything to do with God's purposes involves breaking the bond of sin. But I thought that was primarily achieved when Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified. God breaks the bond of sin entirely through His efforts and giving the spirit is one of those efforts and that is grace. And we don't receive the spirit by our efforts either. So this man appears, under that logic, not to have received the spirit after all or he wouldn't be sinning and the same for this woman. Hmm. I don't think it works like that but then it seems a bit arbitrary to suddenly single out this sin like this man was the only person in the community who was sinning which I doubt.

Also, you said the Spirit was given so Christ could be with us. I agree, and Paul said that Jesus Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness for those who believe.

Do you think that means he is the end of righteousness itself or the method by which we achieve it?

If we are not under the Law but the Spirit causes us to be moral and obey God, will our actions contradict the Law since the Law is also moral?

Isn't Jesus both the end and the method since it's by no works of our own?

If the Spirit causes to be moral and obey God? I refer you to the previous point that if we do neither does that mean we haven't really received God, grace or the Spirit? In
which case why is it meaningful to respond to us as if we are? I'm sure it is helpful. But I feel we're on the precipice of a very circular position here.

But ultimately God is moral and only God. Morality, as I mentioned elsewhere is the upholding of God's purposes in the world. Opposing those purposes is immorality and God respond to immorality so that His purposes will be fulfilled and all associated with them. The law keeps those purposes on course and following them keeps us on course to avoid opposing them but those purposes are not the law and not even recorded in the law directly.

:2c:

[Seth]

I'm glad we agree that the Spirit causes our morality. Here's what the Bible says about that.

Galatians 5
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

Paul is denying that the power by which we attain morality in our actions should be credited to the Law. That's why he says "walk according to the Spirit" not "walk according to the Law." However those moral actions don't contradict the Law's moral directives either.

This is why the man was thrown out of the church. Not because he was under the Law and broke it. Not because he didn't have the Spirit. But because he wasn't walking according to the Spirit.

[CST]

'Do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh.' Well, what's the point of being free then? The idea of being free is connected with being able to make our own choice if we are restricted in any thing in any way than in the place we are restricted we are not free. I'm not say we should be able to indulge the flesh, willy nilly. I'm just say the position doesn't seem consistent.

And the same as I'm saying since you see or prove that anyone has the spirit. You can't show if there's any special act of defiance by which they're not walking in it.

I still see 'destruction of the flesh' as short hand for execution, Paul doesn't seem to suggest any option of repentance here until afterwards at the judgement. And again, what of the woman?

[Seth]

'Do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh.' Well, what's the point of being free then? The idea of being free is connected with being able to make our own choice if we are restricted in any thing in any way than in the place we are restricted we are not free. I'm not say we should be able to indulge the flesh, willy nilly. I'm just say the position doesn't seem consistent.

And the same as I'm saying since you see or prove that anyone has the spirit. You can't show if there's any special act of defiance by which they're not walking in it.

I still see 'destruction of the flesh' as short hand for execution, Paul doesn't seem to suggest any option of repentance here until afterwards at the judgement. And again, what of the woman?

The point of being free is to be free from sin, not to be free TO sin. The idea of being free is defined by the Bible, not our own conception of freedom. By being restricted from sin, we are free from its bondage.

The way I understand how the Spirit in the New Covenant and the Law in the Old Covenant correlate is this:

Supposing I am driving on a dirt road, and I know that there are kids playing around, but there is no sign to say what the speed limit is. So, I decide to slow down out of concern for their safety to 50 miles per hour. Thousands of miles away there is a Pakistani road that has a limit of 50 miles per hour. That's the same speed I was going in America. Does that mean I am under Pakistani law, just because my actions are correlating with their speed law? No.

In a similar way, the Spirit causes us to break the bond of sin so that by walking according to the Spirit our actions will correlate with things the Law says, without us being under it. Just because our actions correlate with the moral requirements of the Law does not mean we are under it, or that we can credit it for our morality.

[eaglesway]

Freedom is the "perfect law of liberty". For freedom Christ has set you free, why then be subject again to the yoke of bondage.

Bondage.

The law and the flesh are both bondage.

The glorious liberty of the children of God is the law that awaits the whole creation- love perfected in freedom by the Spirit, living water flowing from the innermost being- the true law of God.

But freedom does provide enjoyment as well. I am free to enjoy a glass of wine... a slice of roast pork....lol.

I am not free to indulge in sin, for instance adultery, fornication, drunkenness, gluttony- all these things produce bondage, slavery, ruination.

Or really, I am free to indulge them, but God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows thus shall he also reap. If I sow to the flesh I will reap corruption, if I sow to the Spirit I will reap life, and life more abundantly.

:2c:

[CST]

'Do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh.' Well, what's the point of being free then? The idea of being free is connected with being able to make our own choice if we are restricted in any thing in any way than in the place we are restricted we are not free. I'm not say we should be able to indulge the flesh, willy nilly. I'm just say the position doesn't seem consistent.

And the same as I'm saying since you see or prove that anyone has the spirit. You can't show if there's any special act of defiance by which they're not walking in it.

I still see 'destruction of the flesh' as short hand for execution, Paul doesn't seem to suggest any option of repentance here until afterwards at the judgement. And again, what of the woman?

The point of being free is to be free from sin, not to be free TO sin. The idea of being free is defined by the Bible, not our own conception of freedom. By being restricted from sin, we are free from its bondage.

The way I understand how the Spirit in the New Covenant and the Law in the Old Covenant correlate is this:

Supposing I am driving on a dirt road, and I know that there are kids playing around, but there is no sign to say what the speed limit is. So, I decide to slow down out of concern for their safety to 50 miles per hour. Thousands of miles away there is a Pakistani road that has a limit of 50 miles per hour. That's the same speed I was going in America. Does that mean I am under Pakistani law, just because my actions are correlating with their speed law? No.

In a similar way, the Spirit causes us to break the bond of sin so that by walking according to the Spirit our actions will correlate with things the Law says, without us being under it. Just because our actions correlate with the moral requirements of the Law does not mean we are under it, or that we can credit it for our morality.

Oh, I get this although I don't think your analogy is very good. If there's no speed limit sign on the road you're bound to the national or local speed limit of the area and you have a responsibility to know that law. If you're caught breaking Pakistani law not knowing what the speed limit was will not get you off.

My point isn't right, without the law people suddenly have a very different idea of what actually constitutes sin and, while I think incest and its ilk certainly do, I again expect that this man and his father's wife will probably have their own idea and lots of ways of justifying it to them selves and it isn't helpful when Paul says things like:

"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything." (1 Cor. 6:12)
"All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up." (1 Cor. 10:23)

The first of those is the next chapter, the very next chapter. OK, define 'helpful'. Define 'build-up' People have different ideas about the things that build them up and are 'helpful' to them and saying 'All things are lawful' looks at lot like it could be rephrased as 'Nothing is prohibited' and there's nothing in the language its self to say that not what Paul's saying. Jesus said He didn't condemn anyone but His word would condemn on the last day. Which is fine. I'm not sure what part of this equation gives Paul the authority to do now, what Jesus said He wouldn't do till later.

To be honest I have no idea if the Corinthians actually did what Paul said we imagine they did because we don't have any direct reply. We only have letter two which may or may not contain pertinent facts, there seems to be some dispute over whether there is evidence of some sort of resolution here.

[Seth]

Oh, I get this although I don't think your analogy is very good. If there's no speed limit sign on the road you're bound to the national or local speed limit of the area and you have a responsibility to know that law. If you're caught breaking Pakistani law not knowing what the speed limit was will not get you off.

If the local law is 65 mph, and I slow down to 50 mph for the good of a child just near the road who might step into the road, my actions may coincide with Pakistani speed limit of 50 mph, but that does not mean I am under their law.

My point isn't right, without the law people suddenly have a very different idea of what actually constitutes sin and, while I think incest and its ilk certainly do, I again expect that this man and his father's wife will probably have their own idea and lots of ways of justifying it to them selves and it isn't helpful when Paul says things like:

"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything." (1 Cor. 6:12)
"All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up." (1 Cor. 10:23)

Contextually Paul was talking about "You say, "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both." Food is neutral.

Keep in mind, I didn't say there is NO law for people in the New Covenant. I am saying we are not under the Old Covenant law. Here's what the Bible says is the law under the New Covenant.

1 John 3
22and we receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24The one who keeps God's commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

Paul said the same thing when he said that loving our neighbor fulfills the whole Law. The way we follow those commandments (believe in Jesus and love one another) is by walking according to the Spirit.

If one walks according to the Spirit, he doesn't need an enumerated list of what he can and cannot do. Love will come naturally, and there is no law against love. Paul was not saying that rape and incest is permissible. All things are permissible which are outside the scope of the New Covenant commandments, such as the meat we eat as Eaglesway said.

[CST]

Except as I keep pointing that man and his apparently undisciplined stepmother would probably claim, yes we love each other we are being loving. The law in its original form of course points out that they are not being very loving to this man's father.

My difficulty here is that I'm finding some of these distinctions very hard to maintain logically in this letter he seems to push very hard towards disciplining this man the punishment looking very final at least until judgement day.

In the letter that follows which may or may not speak to the same thing (2 Cor. 2) he speaks a lot more to the idea of forgiveness. Without the original reports he received it's very hard to draw conclusions about what happening. What size is the Corinthian church, who would initial write and receive these letters who else in Corinth were not in the Church? To what degree was this man not walking in the Spirit, was sleeping with his stepmother his only offense in this matter where he might otherwise seem rather exemplary (I admit I find that hard to believe, I take this sort offense as a big deal), what's the full situation here?

I basically have two issues here given that I have little to no information about this. I know that the end of sin is always death, or, less poetically sorrow and misfortune. That's how it will play whatever if you are pursuing sin and blindly pursuing it. So at what point are we supposed to be discipline someone and to what degree are we supposed to be forgiving them. Now I should make it clear I don't think that mercy and justice are two sides of the same coin like the church seems to think. Mutually exclusive where you have to choose one or the other. They can be implemented together perfectly complementary.

But I fear a law of caution in implementing them and an unclear application can likely be very unhelpful and do more hard than good. It's hard to tell from the cold texts what is what.

[Seth]

Except as I keep pointing that man and his apparently undisciplined stepmother would probably claim, yes we love each other we are being loving. The law in its original form of course points out that they are not being very loving to this man's father.

You don't need a law to know that they weren't being loving to the man's father. That's why Paul said that the works of the flesh are "manifest" or obvious. Then he listed them.

Galatians 5
19The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,  23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit (or "walk by the Spirit"). 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

That's why I say you don't need a law to know that they weren't being loving to the man's father. It's obvious. Self control is part of the fruit of the Spirit. Kindness. Goodness. Faithfulness. Those who walk according to the Spirit therefore do not need the Old Covenant Law to dictate their actions, because those traits follow naturally.

And like I said, just because those traits result in actions compliant with the Old Covenant law, does not mean we are under that law.

So at what point are we supposed to be discipline someone and to what degree are we supposed to be forgiving them.

I don't see any tension between discipline and forgiveness. I do see tension between revenge or grudge holding and forgiveness. But that is clearly not what Paul did.

[CST]

Well, no but Paul wasn't present so he certainly had no grudge or bias towards the man in question. That's not my point because he's not the one in a direct relationship with him and actually administering the punishment he's commanding. At the moment there's a sizable, apparently very sizable, demand to restore the death penalty over here in the UK although I get a very strong impression it's entirely for vengeful reason but because we have a 'democracy' there's a possibility it could still pass.

Obviously the what the man and his stepmother are doing is not loving if the father is still married to her but that's adultery and there are clear laws about that. What happens if the father is dead?

[Seth]

If the father is dead, and the contract is void, strictly speaking it can't be adultery. That doesn't mean it isn't icky.

[CST]

My point, which I was short on time and didn't elucidate to completion, was that we were talking about love. We were arguing that the New Covenant was love and that covers all relevant aspects of the old covenant without actually having to check with any of its rules to see it something is OK. The point here was that the violation of the son taking and sleeping with his stepmother was unloving towards his father. Now there are three possibilities I see here:

1. That the father and stepmother are still married, therefore sleeping with the stepmother would be adultery and falls under this law  with all condemnation thereof.
2. That the father has divorced the former, he has thrown her over. She is technically free even if she actually isn't. Taking her could be seen as unloving to his living father but he hasn't been very loving to her.
3. The father is dead, loving or not he knows nothing about the relationship between his son and his widow/former wife. Is it still unloving it he doesn't know about it?

This problem is compounded by the fact that this woman is his stepmother, not his father's first wife but a later model. Quite possibly a younger model closer to his son's generation, because older gentlemen are prone to do that. I'm not sure so 'loving' it is for a father to go and take a wife his sons age. But because as faithful as I am the law always seemed to contain a suspiciously high degree of double standards in it where a man can take as many wives as he wants from as many conditions as he wants while a woman can only take one husband. Now there are also practical reason for this too but it makes me wonder where the buck stops in situations like this when trying to identify who's been more unloving and thus broken the new covenant first.

[Seth]

Basically, the way I read what you are saying, is how do we determine when someone is being unloving? The Law of Moses had a similar problem of generality. There was to be no labor on the Sabbath. What if what I consider labor is different from what you consider labor? Same with the Constitution. It protects freedom of speech. What kind of speech? Not speech that threatens others. I think that is why the Spirit was given, so that we could pray about it and work together as a Body to find the answers to morality issues as they come up. The Spirit guided Paul to find the resolution, not just an external set of facts.

[CST]

Yeah, but presumably we can listen to or ignore the Spirit as and when we choose. Obviously the first results in virtuous behaviour the second in sinful but this doesn't matter until someone else decides to oppose the behaviour which may or may not be for virtuous reasons and then they rally other people to follow them who most probably also may not be responding for virtuous reasons.

The law of the Sabbath is my least favourite of the laws we call the Ten Commandments for exactly the reason you describe, how do we know what constitutes work. I have read little things here and there which lead be to believe there are clues in the text as to what constitutes work, but I don't really speak ancient Hebrew I don't know what many of those clues would be.

In the same way when Jesus makes the case of David going into the temple and eating what is unlawful to eat because him and those he's with are starving I still can't get rid of the immediate reaction: and that makes it OK because..? The law does offer any exception of this kind as it's written and Jesus spent most of His ministry hiding the fact that He had the authority on such matters as far as His main audience were aware He was simply stating an opinion on what happened His interpretation of what is recorded. He didn't specifically explain how you're meant to get this from the law, as written in the text David simply breaks the law but isn't punished for it on this occasion.

All Jesus really says is to quote that God requires mercy not sacrifices, which is fine except I'm not sure how keeping the law by not breaking it is meant to be considered a sacrifice. I've always found this presentation of the law in the New Testament hugely difficult to understand.

[Seth]

Yeah, but presumably we can listen to or ignore the Spirit as and when we choose. Obviously the first results in virtuous behaviour the second in sinful but this doesn't matter until someone else decides to oppose the behaviour which may or may not be for virtuous reasons and then they rally other people to follow them who most probably also may not be responding for virtuous reasons.

I'm not exactly sure how all this links back to the two-evangel theory, but that's why we are told not to ignore the Spirit. The moderators of this forum have had to step in and block abusive members because they are able to understand when abuse is occurring. That is similar to what Paul did. They start with the definition of love: gentle, kind etc, and from there they apply those standards specifically to a forum setting by way of fleshed out rules that define what is appropriate or not.

I've always found this presentation of the law in the New Testament hugely difficult to understand.

I am not sure I can be of much help at this point. All I can go on is what the scripture says about the Gospel, who is under Mosaic Law, and who is not, and for what reason they are not. Again, I am not really sure how it connects to the two-evangel theory.

[CST]

Yeah, but presumably we can listen to or ignore the Spirit as and when we choose. Obviously the first results in virtuous behaviour the second in sinful but this doesn't matter until someone else decides to oppose the behaviour which may or may not be for virtuous reasons and then they rally other people to follow them who most probably also may not be responding for virtuous reasons.

I'm not exactly sure how all this links back to the two-evangel theory, but that's why we are told not to ignore the Spirit. The moderators of this forum have had to step in and block abusive members because they are able to understand when abuse is occurring. That is similar to what Paul did. They start with the definition of love: gentle, kind etc, and from there they apply those standards specifically to a forum setting by way of fleshed out rules that define what is appropriate or not.

I've always found this presentation of the law in the New Testament hugely difficult to understand.

I am not sure I can be of much help at this point. All I can go on is what the scripture says about the Gospel, who is under Mosaic Law, and who is not, and for what reason they are not. Again, I am not really sure how it connects to the two-evangel theory.

I think you maybe missing my point, you seem to be suggesting here that identifying the voice of the Spirit is as easy as an image of the traditional God materializing in your mind and telling you what to do. It isn't it's usually not. This is a UR forum I would say that any voice suggesting ET or ED to people is not of the Spirit and so people who advocate those things are disobeying God. They however would proclaim that in fact we are not listening to the Spirit when He reveals that ET or ED is in fact the end of many people. Saying we're told not to disobey the Spirit seems simple to me but unless we've got a perfect reception which I doubt anyone does than most people often plough on regardless thinking they ae listening to it even when they're not. Although in some cases it's hard not to think that they must really be kidding themselves.

I thought question about who is and isn't under the Mosaic Law is very pertinent to a discussion about the two Evangels. As I understand it from what you said earlier the two Evangel theory says Jewish Christians, the one Evangel theory says no one. Although of course we are under the law of love which was what I was stating it can be quite hard to discern what that is because people come up with there own conclusions about what is loving and then support these with their own reasonings which they pretend to themselves are of the Spirit whether they are in fact or not.

I'm certain we all must do this or none of us would ever do any thing wrong.

[Seth]

I think you maybe missing my point, you seem to be suggesting here that identifying the voice of the Spirit is as easy as an image of the traditional God materializing in your mind and telling you what to do. It isn't it's usually not.

This is a UR forum I would say that any voice suggesting ET or ED to people is not of the Spirit and so people who advocate those things are disobeying God. They however would proclaim that in fact we are not listening to the Spirit when He reveals that ET or ED is in fact the end of many people. Saying we're told not to disobey the Spirit seems simple to me but unless we've got a perfect reception which I doubt anyone does than most people often plough on regardless thinking they ae listening to it even when they're not. Although in some cases it's hard not to think that they must really be kidding themselves.

I don't think I said anything about a voice. If I did, I certainly didn't mean it literally. I don't deny that God's leading might come in the form of a voice, but deliverance from sin goes way deeper. I said "walk according to the Spirit." In Romans 2 we see that people who have had their hearts circumcised by the Spirit do things of the Law naturally while not being under the Law. It becomes their nature. And, Paul said that if you have been set free from sin, don't go back to it. Meaning, that the change occurs in the mind by setting the mind free from slavery to carnality. Maybe that is where you might be misunderstanding me.

I thought question about who is and isn't under the Mosaic Law is very pertinent to a discussion about the two Evangels. As I understand it from what you said earlier the two Evangel theory says Jewish Christians, the one Evangel theory says no one. Although of course we are under the law of love which was what I was stating it can be quite hard to discern what that is because people come up with there own conclusions about what is loving and then support these with their own reasonings which they pretend to themselves are of the Spirit whether they are in fact or not.

Yes people can do that, but that's why the Apostles didn't just establish the "law of love." They spend pages and pages defining it too. Paul gives us long lists of examples of what we were to be delivered from.

However, none of that can be followed without the Spirit. Peter calls it the "divine nature" which followers of Christ have been given so that their very nature changes from the inside out. If there is gray area one would pray about it and pursue the definition of love (selflessness, kindness, gentleness). Paul said that we should take inventory of ourselves. Are we really abiding by selfLESSness?

[trettep]

Yeah, but presumably we can listen to or ignore the Spirit as and when we choose. Obviously the first results in virtuous behaviour the second in sinful but this doesn't matter until someone else decides to oppose the behaviour which may or may not be for virtuous reasons and then they rally other people to follow them who most probably also may not be responding for virtuous reasons.

The law of the Sabbath is my least favourite of the laws we call the Ten Commandments for exactly the reason you describe, how do we know what constitutes work. I have read little things here and there which lead be to believe there are clues in the text as to what constitutes work, but I don't really speak ancient Hebrew I don't know what many of those clues would be.

In the same way when Jesus makes the case of David going into the temple and eating what is unlawful to eat because him and those he's with are starving I still can't get rid of the immediate reaction: and that makes it OK because..? The law does offer any exception of this kind as it's written and Jesus spent most of His ministry hiding the fact that He had the authority on such matters as far as His main audience were aware He was simply stating an opinion on what happened His interpretation of what is recorded. He didn't specifically explain how you're meant to get this from the law, as written in the text David simply breaks the law but isn't punished for it on this occasion.

All Jesus really says is to quote that God requires mercy not sacrifices, which is fine except I'm not sure how keeping the law by not breaking it is meant to be considered a sacrifice. I've always found this presentation of the law in the New Testament hugely difficult to understand.

Let me give you a real word example to show you how Jesus kept the law but also broke it.  Let's take the SPEED Limit law for example,

At some point, lawmakers noticed there was a lot of death and injury on the roadways.  So they said we need to pass a law to redice  this so they said we shall pass the following law "Obey Established  Speed Limits".  Now the real law is what is behind this ordinance which is to "Reduce death and injury on the highways".  We shall call that the Spirit of the Law where as the "Obey Established Speed limits" is the LETTER of the law.  Lets summarize:

Letter of the law - "Obey Established Speed Limits"
Spirit of the Law - "Reduce Injury and Death on the Highways"

You see by the letter we should be able to realize the motivation contained in the Spirit of the Law. 

Now what happens when your in the following situation:

Your driving in your car on the highway and you see a flat bed truck carrying truck tires.  It hits a bump and suddenly one of the tires falls of the truck and starts rolling toward your lane.  You know that if you hit your breaks the car behind you will smash into yours.  However, you know if you SPEED UP and BREAK the speed limit that the tire will pass safely between your car and the one behind you.  So you speed up and break the speed limit.  At this point you actually broke the LETTER of the Law but you UPHELD the Spirit of the Law.

This is how you should understand the Letter of the Law in the Bible and how it relates to the Spirit of that Law.

[Seth]

If Paul is right that the Law is not for a righteous man but for sinners (1 Tim 1:9), I would conclude that while Jesus may have fulfilled the requirements of it, he was never indebted to it, so he could never really break it. Jesus may have offered a sin offering sheep to avoid offense, but since he didn't have any sin, he didn't really have to do it. What sin of his own would he have been atoning for? The Law assumed that ALL it's followers were sinful. Jesus wasn't like his fellow men. And, I think that is why he joins us to him in faith, so that we can be free like him.

[CST]

I think you maybe missing my point, you seem to be suggesting here that identifying the voice of the Spirit is as easy as an image of the traditional God materializing in your mind and telling you what to do. It isn't it's usually not.

This is a UR forum I would say that any voice suggesting ET or ED to people is not of the Spirit and so people who advocate those things are disobeying God. They however would proclaim that in fact we are not listening to the Spirit when He reveals that ET or ED is in fact the end of many people. Saying we're told not to disobey the Spirit seems simple to me but unless we've got a perfect reception which I doubt anyone does than most people often plough on regardless thinking they ae listening to it even when they're not. Although in some cases it's hard not to think that they must really be kidding themselves.

I don't think I said anything about a voice. If I did, I certainly didn't mean it literally. I don't deny that God's leading might come in the form of a voice, but deliverance from sin goes way deeper. I said "walk according to the Spirit." In Romans 2 we see that people who have had their hearts circumcised by the Spirit do things of the Law naturally while not being under the Law. It becomes their nature. And, Paul said that if you have been set free from sin, don't go back to it. Meaning, that the change occurs in the mind by setting the mind free from slavery to carnality. Maybe that is where you might be misunderstanding me.

I thought question about who is and isn't under the Mosaic Law is very pertinent to a discussion about the two Evangels. As I understand it from what you said earlier the two Evangel theory says Jewish Christians, the one Evangel theory says no one. Although of course we are under the law of love which was what I was stating it can be quite hard to discern what that is because people come up with there own conclusions about what is loving and then support these with their own reasonings which they pretend to themselves are of the Spirit whether they are in fact or not.

Yes people can do that, but that's why the Apostles didn't just establish the "law of love." They spend pages and pages defining it too. Paul gives us long lists of examples of what we were to be delivered from.

However, none of that can be followed without the Spirit. Peter calls it the "divine nature" which followers of Christ have been given so that their very nature changes from the inside out. If there is gray area one would pray about it and pursue the definition of love (selflessness, kindness, gentleness). Paul said that we should take inventory of ourselves. Are we really abiding by selfLESSness?

You're misunderstanding me, it's not a literal voice that not my point. My point is that we have no objective way to know when we are walking in the Spirit and when we're not because we have know way of determining our own thoughts and ideas from other duplicitous sinful ones that may come we can pervert the definition of 'love' in our mind and if we pray we have no real way of knowing if the answer we think we've got is actually the answer God wanted to give. There isn't a semi-imaginary path of the Spirit unfolding before us showing which way to go. These are metaphors and metaphors don't give real information. The written law gives real information the suggestion that people have to think about it leads every opportunity for human sin to creep in and pull us right off course.

Yeah, but presumably we can listen to or ignore the Spirit as and when we choose. Obviously the first results in virtuous behaviour the second in sinful but this doesn't matter until someone else decides to oppose the behaviour which may or may not be for virtuous reasons and then they rally other people to follow them who most probably also may not be responding for virtuous reasons.

The law of the Sabbath is my least favourite of the laws we call the Ten Commandments for exactly the reason you describe, how do we know what constitutes work. I have read little things here and there which lead be to believe there are clues in the text as to what constitutes work, but I don't really speak ancient Hebrew I don't know what many of those clues would be.

In the same way when Jesus makes the case of David going into the temple and eating what is unlawful to eat because him and those he's with are starving I still can't get rid of the immediate reaction: and that makes it OK because..? The law does offer any exception of this kind as it's written and Jesus spent most of His ministry hiding the fact that He had the authority on such matters as far as His main audience were aware He was simply stating an opinion on what happened His interpretation of what is recorded. He didn't specifically explain how you're meant to get this from the law, as written in the text David simply breaks the law but isn't punished for it on this occasion.

All Jesus really says is to quote that God requires mercy not sacrifices, which is fine except I'm not sure how keeping the law by not breaking it is meant to be considered a sacrifice. I've always found this presentation of the law in the New Testament hugely difficult to understand.

Let me give you a real word example to show you how Jesus kept the law but also broke it.  Let's take the SPEED Limit law for example,

At some point, lawmakers noticed there was a lot of death and injury on the roadways.  So they said we need to pass a law to redice  this so they said we shall pass the following law "Obey Established  Speed Limits".  Now the real law is what is behind this ordinance which is to "Reduce death and injury on the highways".  We shall call that the Spirit of the Law where as the "Obey Established Speed limits" is the LETTER of the law.  Lets summarize:

Letter of the law - "Obey Established Speed Limits"
Spirit of the Law - "Reduce Injury and Death on the Highways"

You see by the letter we should be able to realize the motivation contained in the Spirit of the Law. 

Now what happens when your in the following situation:

Your driving in your car on the highway and you see a flat bed truck carrying truck tires.  It hits a bump and suddenly one of the tires falls of the truck and starts rolling toward your lane.  You know that if you hit your breaks the car behind you will smash into yours.  However, you know if you SPEED UP and BREAK the speed limit that the tire will pass safely between your car and the one behind you.  So you speed up and break the speed limit.  At this point you actually broke the LETTER of the Law but you UPHELD the Spirit of the Law.

This is how you should understand the Letter of the Law in the Bible and how it relates to the Spirit of that Law.

That's a inference and it's a good one and no doubt correct but if you're caught breaking the speed limit you could still be prosecuted even if you explain why you did it because you have broken the law and often human courts will follow the letter of the law if they feel like it and even when it seems ridiculous and unreasonable especially if it makes them and theirs look powerful.

Oh, and the car behind who isn't maintaining an effective stopping distance is also breaking the law.

I've noticed that what you are suggesting is best done with what we call the Ten Commandments the general understanding is that we're supposed to be able to derive all the other laws from proper understanding of those. After all there are commandments against murder and adultery and stealing. Where's the commandment against rape? There's a law against rape (vaguely) But there's no 'thou shalt not commit rape' in the Ten Commandments. Presumably I have to presume it's covered under the stealing or the covetousness commandment. Or possibly the adultery but technically no adultery as commonly understood may be occurring. It could also be the honouring of the father and mother commandment, I suspect that actually covers an awful lot.

But the problem is with things like that how you honour your parents can change from society to society love is understood differently, how some societies behave even these days would shock some people here.

If Paul is right that the Law is not for a righteous man but for sinners (1 Tim 1:9), I would conclude that while Jesus may have fulfilled the requirements of it, he was never indebted to it, so he could never really break it. Jesus may have offered a sin offering sheep to avoid offense, but since he didn't have any sin, he didn't really have to do it. What sin of his own would he have been atoning for? The Law assumed that ALL it's followers were sinful. Jesus wasn't like his fellow men. And, I think that is why he joins us to him in faith, so that we can be free like him.

He didn't have to be Baptized either technically except I think it is generally understood paradoxically that even though He was innocent He would have sinned if He hadn't kept the commandments given at the time so at the same time He did so He could maintain His innocence, which of course He did. I think that's how these things are understood.

[Seth]

You're misunderstanding me, it's not a literal voice that not my point. My point is that we have no objective way to know when we are walking in the Spirit and when we're not because we have know way of determining our own thoughts and ideas from other duplicitous sinful ones that may come we can pervert the definition of 'love' in our mind and if we pray we have no real way of knowing if the answer we think we've got is actually the answer God wanted to give. There isn't a semi-imaginary path of the Spirit unfolding before us showing which way to go. These are metaphors and metaphors don't give real information. The written law gives real information the suggestion that people have to think about it leads every opportunity for human sin to creep in and pull us right off course.

We do have objective ways of knowing that. The Apostles provided a new law "believe in Jesus and love each other." Then they provided definitions "Love is patient, love is kind, etc....." This is why Paul said that the works of the flesh are obvious. Some may be less obvious and require more prayer and help through fellowship. However, if someone perverts the definition of love in their own minds so that they think that murder is loving, or rape is loving, or incest is loving, then they will simply have to be shown why they are wrong, either now or later. A written Law cannot do what you are talking about either, because people have to think about what the Law says as well, and if we allow sinful thoughts to lead us, we will find a way to manipulate the general language of the written Law the same as if we didn't have one.

Eventually, the Lord will clear up where we went wrong, if we went wrong. When people really want to sin, they will find a way to justify it whether with a written law or without one.

That's all in God's hands anyway. He is in control of who he sanctifies so that they cannot be deceived.

He didn't have to be Baptized either technically except I think it is generally understood paradoxically that even though He was innocent He would have sinned if He hadn't kept the commandments given at the time so at the same time He did so He could maintain His innocence, which of course He did. I think that's how these things are understood.

My view is that because he was completely sanctified by the Spirit, it was impossible for him to sin.

[eaglesway]

I don't think it was impossible for Him to sin, if I understand you correctly. Where would the victory be? I think that being as He was tempted in all manner as we are, yet without sin- He simply chose righteousness out of the life that was in Him, "becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross. Therefore God has given Him the name above every name".

I believe He overcame by faith and thus became the author of our salvation.  :2c:

[Seth]

There are two possible reasons for being tested, that I can see. One, to prove something to one's self. Or, to prove something to another person. If God wanted to prove to man that Jesus was the spotless lamb, predestined to be so, the best way to do it would be to test him and show that he passed the test.

God predestined him to be who he was at that moment. If it were possible for Jesus to sin, then it was possible for the prophecies to fail. He would be the spotless lamb, so the prophecies said, and if God had to keep trying over and over for to make a perfect human being fulfill his will, then we can't trust God to fulfill anything.