Right Behavior Inherits Eternal Life

If this (actions as indicators not enablers) had been said at the beginning I would have agreed straight away. Let me take a plunge and say that absence indicates something too. The discussion can then perhaps move to what those actions are Indicator then okay. Lets move on I was pointing out the logical possibilities possible by Jesus' 'will' thats all. At that time we had not expanded to discovere what we have discovered. What about the thief on the cross? No actions of obedience there - other than to obey the command "believe". If no one gets to heaven except through and in Christ then he was in Christ. And he only acknowledged the Lord as Lord. No love evident, no actions evident other than that Action will confirm. Lack of action then no confirmation. A person may well be in Christ but not see (or better, not recognise Christ in him - yet. Take a newly born Christian. He may not know anything about being in Christ, he may not be at the stage of wanting to confirm anything (for lack of need at that point). If a one day old Christian then there has (thief on a cross like) been no time to act. There is nothing to discern. But he is a Christian whether he knows it or not.Let us proceed?

Does this not refer to an old covenant? What about the new covenant the one where God writes his laws on mens hearts rather than on stone?A convenant is a contract. When a new contract is issued the old is superceded. Whereas the old covenant was conditional (if you) then new isn't "I will write.."Whilst no expert on what precisely made up the old law it seems clear that Paul is talking about that which was written on stone, tradition, oral etc. Whatever is was that the Jews understood to be the law at that time. The conditional old covenant law."By the deeds of the (old covenantal) law shall no man been seen as righteous in his sight"But if not righteous then no heaven. So whilst the adhering to the old law would not result in a man gaining righteousness (for none can keep it all), it could serve a purpose: it is able to make man conscious of his sin. "Conscious of sin" is not the same as knowing how to behave. That is an unwarranted expostion of the word. Conscious simply means "aware of". It doesn't imply necessarily that one can use the law to avoid sin. It just says that man will be made "aware of his sin" - aware that he is a lawbreaker.Which, incidently, is precisely what is happening the man in Romans 7. Is he not becoming aware of sin in him?AbE: When I said what the Jews understood by the Old (conditional) covenant at that time. I should have said what they (via Judaism) still understand now - they are still operating by the Old conditional convenant. When you said Christianity was a sect of Judism you were quite wrong. Christianity operates according to the new (unconditional convenant). This is not sectism - a sect relies on the foundations of the orthodoxy from which is deviates. The basis of Christianity is not reliant on the Judaism old covenant. It is relies on something completely new. The new convenant makes the old null and void - and Judaism along with itThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Dec-2005 03:54 PM

quote:

---

PurpleDawn writes:

​

Correction: There is not one who hasn't sinned. There can be many who aren't sinners. Being a sinner means you are in the state of sinning. Not everyone is in a state of sinning. Jesus supposedly never sinned.

​

You mean when a person has their sinful nature killed off?

---

You can't kill off your evil inclination.Within us is an evil and a good inclination. If the evil inclination is in control, it shows in one's behavior and vice versa.If we have our evil inclination under control (yes with God's help through Jesus), then we should not be falling short of the mark (sin) on a regular basis.Therefore a simplistic view is that once we repent (understanding that what we are doing is wrong and stop doing it), we reconcile our relationship with God and are forgiven we are no longer in a state of sinning or being considered a sinner.If you still don't understand then start another thread, because this isn't really what this thread is about.

---

Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-

I gave you biblical support for my statement, don't open another can of worms. Please stay on track.We already covered "works of the law" and it isn't the Mosaic law.Don't confuse covenant with law.If you want to discuss covenants, then start a new thread.

---

Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-

Your biblical backup introduced convenant. Don't point the finger at me for challenging it Anyway, now that you have introduced it and if new covenant is law written on hearts and old law written on tablets of stone, spoken by God etc then why do you think convenant and law are so different? We didn't cover it. You put up theological links with large amounts of information on them. But we haven't figured out whether these links are making assertions or making a case. I went to the trouble of actually trawling through one of them to find the reason why your case doesn't yet hold (I challenged the basis for Churches of God's view (they went wrong in the paper on righteousness by faith - getting their Genesis reference wrong - if a link in the case fails then it is not a case).

I agree but God can and does. Who is this old man who was crufified with Jesus. How can John say that we cannot sin. How can we that are dead to sin live any longer therin.What is this evil inclination you speak off Could this simplistic view expand to say at what point or level of realising we are wrong and stop doing it that this reconcilation and forgiveness takes place and the state of sinning no longer exists or that we are considered a sinner?You cannot be considered a sinner and not a sinner at the same time. So there must be some threshold condition for moving from one to other state.

quote:

---

Your biblical backup introduced convenant.

---

As showing when the Nation of Israel came into being. Period.

---

Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-

I feel you are truly missing the basic idea, and apparently I'm not explaining it well. Not much else I can do.I suggest you do more research if you are truly interested in understanding the battle within.

---

Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-

We should be able to progress without worrying about what a convenant is. I gather the law you reckon Paul is talking about is the 10 commandments and the various other rules and regs by which the Jews operated. What I was after when I said "biblical evidence" was something that would show what you said was indeed the case above as to purpose.Whatever the reasons God gave the law then, he knew full well the following If it is purpose we are after we must look and see what the bible says about purpose. Your welcome to develop purpose biblically if you want. There may be multiple purposes too.One thing we can say is not a purpose is that a man is made righteous by observance to the law.An effect of the law is that it makes man concious of his sin. If it has an effect it is reasonable, I think, to say that that is a purpose - alongside any other purpose it may have. Note 'concious' as I've said before is not the same as knowing how to behave. 'Concious of' means 'aware of' and one can only be aware of something that one has exposure to. I say 'his sin' because Paul in Romans 7 talks about this very same thing as being something the man (including Paul at some point in his life) realises about himself. It is not an abstract awareness: sin out there somewhere, but sin inside.We know the law is a schoolteacher too. So this too is a purpose of the law. And we know that a person can die to the law in the sense that they are freed from it. Thus it is not the purpose of the law that it be effectual at all times for all people.Purposes of the law:
- not to make a man righteous
- to make man concious of his sin
- to lead someone to Christ
- not to be effectual for all people at all timesIf what you say above about purpose is true (and that would need to be shown), we can say that it is not the only purpose.

Hmm... It doesn't seem so long ago that you were saying: (in the Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts topic).So, the "sole" purpose of the law has now become a fourfold (at least) purpose, which doesn't even mention condemnation?A little consistency might be in order. Since you seem to have difficulty remembering your own position, allow me to reiterate mine: The main purpose of the law is for our benefit - not God's - to help us to get along with each other. Remember that the law can be a blessing as well as a curse?"The law" is about outward things that we do, not about what we inwardly believe, or claim to believe.How do you propose to "lead someone to Christ"? By stepping over the tramp in the doorway? Or by helping him, as the good Samaritan did?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Amen!

quote:

---

How do you propose to "lead someone to Christ"? By stepping over the tramp in the doorway? Or by helping him, as the good Samaritan did?

---

For all the times I've heard the statement that the law is to lead us to the messiah, no one has ever actually laid out the path of how it was supposed to do that.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

I made my point in Message 224 concerning the purpose of the law.I have no clue what you are doing.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

Glad to see your paying attention at the back there Ringo The basis on which I go out from the bible is that it tells the truth, that it contains no contradictions, that it is all the word of God etc. I then come up against the following as they have to do with a believer"don't let sin reign" vs "you are not able to sin".These apparent contradictions are, I would argue, not contradictions because the whole story can accomodate both without a problem. Its just a question of knowing the whole story. The same with sole purpose. Something can have diverse purposes and still have a sole purpose.The purpose of my motorcycle engine is to combust air/fuel. The purpose of my motorcycle engine is to provide a rigid body onto which ancillary elements can be attached. The purpose of my engine is to run as efficiently as possibleThe sole purpose of my motorcycle engine is to be the source of motive power for my motorcycle. The sole purpose accomodates a multitude of partial purposes. And they are purposes in their own right.If the law carries out its sole purpose: to convict a person of their sin then the other purposes will be accomplished- they will have arrived at Jesus. They will be saved. Consequence of sole purpose
- their righteousness will not have been obtained by following law - a consequence of sole purpose
- they will be freed from the law and it will no longer be effectual in the sense that it condems - a consequence of sole purpose

Well you can tell everyone you heard it here first. Man in Romans 7. Toddling along either unconcerned about God and his law or thinking that by following the 10 commandments (for instance) that he is okay.The God, by his spirit reveals to man what his law is. He starts showing both that:a) his law must be kept in full otherwise damnation beckons
b) neither party is keeping it.Both parties, the irreligious and the religious (righteousness by law adherent) get a shock. "Bu...bu...bu...but that means I'm going to go to hell. What on earth am I going to do. Even though I am now aware of the (full extent of the) law I find that no matter how hard I try, I cannot keep it. Who will save me from this body of death.That's how the law does it (or rather God does it by applying his law to us, for us) It makes us cry out "HELP"And that's all that God wants. Is for us to acknowledge that we need him, that we are in fact dependent on him to save us. For us to get off the throne we have set ourselves up on - be that the throne where God gets no look in at all, or the religious throne which defines for itself what law it reckons needs to be followed and to which extent.God squeezes with the law. As soon as we squeak HELP he steps in.Nobody leads another person to God. That is a figure of speech. God may us another to get his message out. But salvation belongs to God

Okay, let me add that to my Irish-to-English phrasebook: sole = multitude. Now, let's look at your analogy. Your motorcycle engine doesn't fulfil any of its multiple mini-purposes unless it actually does something - i.e. unless it actually works. You can "believe" as fervently as you want that it is a good engine but unless you can actually start it and get from A to B with it, it's worthless. In fact, it's worse than worthless - it's dead weight.Similarly, you can "believe" as vehemently as you want that you are saved, but unless you do what Jesus told you to do, your "belief" is just as worthless as a shiny motrcycle engine that won't run.By the way, I wish you would also respond to the rest of my post - the part that purpledawn liked.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.