God has always dealt with [people from the standpoint of GRACE.
If you are preaching anything else you are preaching a false message.
If you are preaching the dispensational error invented by John Nelson Darby you deserve criticism!
Hello agm
Discussing
the law is a large topic. What you are speaking of is Paul's response to the
Judaizers.
Preaching the law is not preaching to the choir as most resist God, His word, and the laws demands on them.
Of course Christ is the solution.....but as it is explained in Romans 10
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness
to everyone who believes.
This shows that the broken law is what is the background
for the good
news to be given.
Which is what I actually was stating.
I have never met an adult who did not know they broke at least one of the ten commandment.
I didn't have to teach them the law, I didn't have to hammer them with the law, and I never met a person who wouldn't readily agree that the broken law was also a matter that God would hold them responsible.
What is suggested by those who would cover their sin, not desire their sin to be exposed is that in some manner God will not hold them responsible.
That either by the good they have done, or minimizing the evil done, or suggesting the love of God will overlook the evil, are all excuse that we have all heard, often.
What then is the real confrontation?
It resides in submitting to God's plan and in none other.
That is the crux of the argument.
If one harps on the broken law, it matters little.
It is enough that folks know the law has been broken and that God has provided a redemption.
The results are in God's hands.
Perhaps there is a difference between Britain and America on this matter, but over here the problem is convincing people that they are sinners.
If they think at all about God, they think they are fine with Him.
Most of tem don't know the 10 Commandments anyway.
The WOTM approach can be helpful with such people.
They won't go to the Doctor unless they realise that they're sick.
It seems that here people know that they are sinners and take a bit of pride in that notion.
They still believe that they are fine with God, if they believe in a god, because God is essentially like they are (he also finds humor in life's little sins).
People here know that drunkenness and lust is a sin, yet they happily fill the bars and strip clubs because, well, you know...they are basically good people and God probably chuckles at such misadventure.
That's been my experience anyway.... :confused:....not my experience as in going to strip clubs and getting drunk, but listening to after the fact conversations.
This is not entirely accurate. The moral law was given and (besides the sabbath) is the way of life and how God will judge the world at the judgment seat of Christ. One can take the 10 commandments and ditch the rest because we are not under the ceremonial and other laws found in the Torah.
Are you teaching exegetical antinomianism here? Correct me if I am mistaken. Note there is a difference in practical antinomianism and exegetical antinomianism.
We are under the moral law. How can you conclude that we are not?
I disagree with you and your exegetical antinomianism. We are indeed under the moral law (the 10 commandments) and God will judge us on the basis of our rewards in Heaven. The degrees of punishment in Hell will also be based on the 10 commandments for the world.
Under what authority do you divide the Law.
Doesn't Scripture teach it cannot be divided?
Was this not Paul's reasoning when he rebuked Peter, that he was upholding a Law that he had already broken and was guilty of breaking the whole?
No, brother.
I am saying that Cain was guilty under God's law but not under the Ten Commandments.
I am saying that Paul was correct in determining Gentile guilt for breaking God's moral law, but not under the Law of Moses.
That's all I'm saying, that we are not under Torah but we are still commanded to obey God's moral law.
Sorry if my initial statement was not clear (I've been busy...busted water heater).
I have affirmed that we are under the moral law.
I have denied that we are under the authority of the Mosaic Law.
Many of us learned that teaching first.
At first you do not question anything you just want to learn what is offered.
A new Christian does not know enough to question anything because they are new and lack
scriptural command or any real biblical overview.
You should not be afraid to read the best views by those who
hold that view.
No matter which view you hold you should
never neglect all lawful duties because of the view you have adopted.
If your view leads to any failure to serve and worship God it is a wrong view.
Antinomian tendencies follow that view and strange as it seems leads to a legalistic bondage.
Some of us have posted a link to the 95 objections to that view.
It is written
in a caustic manner as the writer sometimes goes over the edge letting his emotions derail his thoughts.....but look more at the issues and questions
raised.
No and you know he is not. But he was quoting you saying that we are under the 10 commandments which does include the Sabbath, so do you follow the Sabbath and if not, why do you say we are under the 10 commandments?
Where we perhaps disagree is that I believe God’s moral law is reflected in the Ten Commandments but are not the Law itself.
God’s moral law existed from eternity past, even before we were created, because it reflects God’s own nature and as such is the ontological duty of us as creatures in obedience to our Creator.
Then Ten Commandments….actually, the moral aspects of Torah as a whole…were binding on Israel in a particular way because they constituted a significant portion of God’s Old Covenant with Israel.
For them, they were guilty of breaking God’s moral law but they were also under a greater guilt for transgressing Torah as a special revelation of God.
Gentiles were not under the Law, not even the Ten Commandments.
That does not mean that Gentiles were free to murder, steal, lie, or commit adultery.
They were guilty as well.
But they were not guilty of breaking the Law of Moses (they were not in danger of forfeiting promises that were not for them to begin with) because the Law was never an authority over them.
They were, however, guilty of breaking God’s law.
Essentially, if you took the Law of Moses and wrote out God’s moral commands to us, we would both agree that that was how we should live.
You may suggest it is because the Ten Commandments are an authority over us.
I would suggest that it is because of God’s moral law which transcends the Ten Commandments.
But we would get along just fine.