Commandments should not be followed ...

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

A related question springs to mind from Matthew 4:

“17”: From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Why did Jesus preach thusly?

If sin could not be conquered until the far side of the Cross, and if the Elect were irresisistibly called by God’s grace to be saved, and if all the work were done by Christ, what need was there for repentance at all?

Is repentance possible in such a salvation theology as we see with Moondweller and Sandusky.

And if it is possible, Moondweller at least nodding to free will, why does it stop being possible and relevant upon being baptized/born again?

:tiphat: :tiphat:

They just won’t answer the questions that do indeed prove their belief is wrong. They beleive things in direct opposition to the Bible, which they claim to accept as the only source of Truth. They take certain versus of the New Testament totally out of context. Is it any wonder that they cannot hold up their side of the conversation or answer our questions?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Be aware that what Teflon93 is doing with this post, is known as Projection.

I’ve been trying to keep him on track (a very difficult thing to do).

A quick definition of Projection:Projection:

the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety
I know it’s a very difficult request to meet; you’re off the hook.

You are quite wrong, Sandusky. Teflon 93 has asked you to explain something that should be very easy for you to do. He has been able to explain, through Scripture, why we, as Catholics believe all that we believe, and not believe as you do. You, however, have not been able to explain what should be the simplist of things if you believe the way that you do. Face it, you dodge the question because there is no answer, because you believe what is wrong. Both any answer you could come up with, and your silence should prove to you that the Catholic Church has it correct, while your beliefs are fallacy.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

Is that your last word, Sandusky?

No.

Teflon93:

Actually, I believe St Paul was referring to the Body of Christ—ie., the Church, in 1 Corinthians 2:16. I believe you may have erred in your translation of the Greek pronoun “we”, interpreting it to be St Paul using the “royal we”. The context indicates he’s speaking of the Church as a body. Hard for you to understand, surely, having willingly separated from that body.

He’s obviously talking about the church, and the church, described as a body, is made up of individual’s who comprise the whole body.

Each individual member of the church possesses the mind of Christ.

To have the mind of Christ does not mean that we know all things perfectly and can begin to play God and impose standards on people that God Himself does not impose upon them in His word. Neither does it mean that we do everything perfectly. What it means is that the believer is able to see life from Christ’s point of view, and that he has Christ’s values and desires (all of which are found in the scripture) uppermost in His mind, and he strives to live by them.

 

[Pax]

Exactly…

Augustine was the great theoretician, Jerome the self-taught language scholar. Since Augustine relied on the fallible Jerome … error begot error.

You’ve got an awful lot to learn about Jerome. He is arguably the greatest scripture scholar that ever lived, and he was educated in the languages. Moreover, Jerome had texts available to him that we do not.

Just what errors do you believe Jerome made that begat errors in Augustine? I admit that neither is infallible, but these were a couple of men that were great gifts to the Church then and now.

 

[Pax]

Either you haven’t read my posts or you choose to ignore the scriptural data within them.

Please read the scriptural data I gave and then provide your own exegesis. Ignoring it won’t help you.

moondweller,

I don’t know how busy your schedule is but I thought by now that you might have been able to read all of the posts I have written concerning Abraham. Hopefully, you will review them and then give your own exegesis.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Yes, I know this. However, Paul is clear that the Spirit of the Law is the Law of Christ (love). To the extent that we fail in love toward God and one another, we fall short.

I don’t recall Paul speaking of the Spirit in terms of His being the “Spirit of the Law,” perhaps you can point me to that; however, yes, if we fail in love toward God, and others we fall short. That’s a hallmark of believers (they fail) because they are not perfect, neither will they ever be while in the flesh, thus the need for God’s grace, and by that I don’t have sacraments in mind.

guanophore:

Indeed, and one of the ways that the Spirit does this is through the unchanging witness of God’s revelation of HImself from the beginning of creation until now. His moral precepts for man have not changed.

I wouldn’t limit the Spirit’s usage of God’s word only to the law, but to everything God set about to have recorded in scripture. That’s why it’s possible for the believer to “test the spirits,” and know those who are from God, and those who are not.

That’s why, were I you, I would be wondering how it is my infallible teachers would identify Protestants as “separated brethren” when our beliefs and understanding are clearly dissimilar.

guanophore:

Are you suggesting that one should disregard the Holy Writings, and “each one do what is right in his own eyes”?

You know that I’m not.

guanophore:

Do you think that it was not the same Spirit that engraved the stones, as the one that is shed abroad in our hearts? The Spirit does not say one thing, then change His tune, does He?

Certainly not; however, we are not instructed in the epistles to walk by the law, but to walk by the Spirit, and not by the flesh.

Whether or not you recognize it, whether or not you understand it, there was a transition from the old way of the law to the new and better way of the Spirit at Pentecost.

guanophore:

Well, I think not, but that is a matter from another thread. I understand that you did not experience the grace of God sacramentally, but that you did outside of the sacraments and that this experience was a powerful one that changed your life.

When you allege that it’s not possible for an ex-Catholic, or a non-Catholic to fully understand the sacraments you make your church to sound like a “cult,” and its members “cultists,” IMO.

In the book to the Hebrews, I see the author of Hebrews setting aside Jewish ritual worship while giving the narrative of the surpassing greatness of Christ, and the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old. (Later, the church introduced the idea that it had replaced Israel, and over time created its own system of ritual in the form of sacraments, complete with a re-presentation of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ).

Your church teaches that through its sacraments grace is obtained, and that partaking of its sacraments is necessary for each believer if he is to have any hope of eternal life.

guanophore:

I just note that Jesus told him (accruately in my view) that if he kept the commandments, he would have eternal life. The young man probably kept them as much as he believed he could.

”As much as he believed he could” is not good enough. James cites from Lev 19 and Ex 20, and states that if a married man is faithful to his wife but commits murder he’s a transgressor of the law—he’s not merely broken a commandment, but has transgressed the entire law (Jas 2:8ff). Thus one wrong thought, according to Christ, and you’re a lawbreaker (Mt 5:27-27); I submit that this happens to everyone, everyday.

Whether or not he sold his possessions, I don’t know.

(continued below)

 

[BRB]

Oh, but I only ape* the best*.

:

I told Tef to get that ‘monkey’ off his back.

Tef … when are you gonna get past this legalism bond U suffer under ?

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #764)

guanophore:

LOL. I think you are misunderstanding me here. A gift is put out for someone. That someone for whom it was given, who may have even asked for it, leaves it by the side of the road. The giver does not come and take it back, but waits for the intended recipient to claim it. God does not “rescind” HIs gifts, even if those for whom they are intended spurn them.

We both know that we have different understandings of what is meant by the “gift” of eternal life.

guanophore:

I think you misunderstand the meaning of “dead” here. Obviously, these people have life to the extent that they are able move, and breathe, and make decisions. We are all under a death sentence due to original sin, not to mention our personal sins.However God does not ask us to do things that are not possible for us. He gives us sufficient grace so that we can choose between right and wrong.

Dead means dead. The question is, in what sense?

God told Adam that in the day that he ate of the tree he would “surely die,” and yet, he lived 900+ years. So he didn’t “surely die” physically. Paul describes every believer as having been “dead in their trespasses and sins.” Those sins include, “walking according to the course of the world, according to the prince of the power of the air…indulging the desires of the flesh and mind,” thus the unregenerate are “…strangers to the promise and having no hope and without God…” (Eph 2:1, 2, 3, 12).

The wicked in their lifetime are called dead, because being bound in sin is being doomed to death, and being forever separated from God. The Biblical description of man as “dead” and in need of “rebirth” is deliberate.

guanophore:

I guess I cannot understand this. You maintain that a person is regeneration before they choose, and that is what makes them able to choose. That is what Catholics call prevenient grace. I cannot see the difference, at that point. Granted, there are differences later…

In a nutshell, what I mean by regeneration is the opening of the eyes by the Spirit to the truth. I see it as the “born again,” being “made alive,” being “brought forth by the word of the truth,” spoken of by Christ, Peter, James and Paul (Jn 3; Eph 2; Jas 1; 1 Pet 1).

Does prevenient grace cause one to be born again? I don’t think it’s described in that way; correct me if I’m wrong.

guanophore:

I will agree, however, getting back to the topic, that no amount of commandment keeping will avail one if he is not in a state of grace. So, if the rich young ruler kept all the commandments to the best of his understanding, yet lacked faith in Christ (as seems to be the case) what benefit would it give him?

None, IMO.

 

[BRB]

You’re prideful, Teflon93,.

Isn’t that one of the ‘deadly’ sins ?

 

[Teflon93]

I told Tef to get that ‘monkey’ off his back.

Tef … when are you gonna get past this legalism bond U suffer under ?

About the same time you get past your allegiance to The Atomic Church of Me and remove the monkeys of schism and disobedience from your back.

Since your definition of “legalism bond” translates to “doing what Christ commands”, and given your resistance to reason and evidence, I predict we’ll both be waiting a looong time.

 

[Teflon93]

Isn’t that one of the ‘deadly’ sins ?

No, it is one of the deadly sins.

The use of scare quotes is a clear sign of its ugly sister, smugness.

As is overuse of smileys.

 

[BRB]

Where in the bible does either Jesus or Paul state that once you have accepted Jesus as your savior and been baptised, you will not be judged if you become a murderer, child molester, adulterer, liar, thief…etc?

!!!

It doesn’t … but Christ [the Judge] does say this in Luke Chp 7.

to Simon [the Pharisee], “Do you see this woman ? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she wet them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
… “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

So faith … evidenced by loving actions [fruitful works].

And as Paul teaches in 1st Corinthians / Chp. 13 …

“If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

 

[BRB]

(To the lurkers)

The practice Sandusky’s currently engaging in is one non-Catholics around here indulge themselves in from time to time. I’ve dubbed it “running out the clock”, a term many will recognize from football.

In this case, however, they employ this tactic when they’re behind on points.

.

You talk like you’ve won the legalism vs faith debate.

So far MD and Sand have well acquitted themselves … and they lead in debate points by my scorecard.

 

[guanophore]

A related question springs to mind from Matthew 4:

“17”: From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Why did Jesus preach thusly?

If sin could not be conquered until the far side of the Cross, and if the Elect were irresisistibly called by God’s grace to be saved, and if all the work were done by Christ, what need was there for repentance at all?

Is repentance possible in such a salvation theology as we see with Moondweller and Sandusky?

And if it is possible, Moondweller at least nodding to free will, why does it stop being possible and relevant upon being baptized/born again?

I think this dilemma is easily resolved through dispensationalism. When one realizes that Jesus was talking at the time only to Jews who were under the Old Covenant, it is easy to recognize that nothing he was saying applies to Christians. This preaching was for the Jews, who alone could be saved by adhering to it. On “this side of the cross” (a new dispensation) only Paul in his epistles gives the organized doctrines of salvation.

 

[Teflon93]

You talk like you’ve won the legalism vs faith debate.

So far MD and Sand have well acquitted themselves … and they lead in debate points by my scorecard.

The East German judge having weighed in, the U.S. Olympic Team is down on points, right?

Surprise, surprise.

But keep running out the clock, BRB.

 

[Philthy]

to Simon [the Pharisee], “Do you see this woman ? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she wet them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” … “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

for the day of redemption. All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling must be removed from you, along with all malice. (And) be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ." So be imitators of God, 1 as beloved children, 2 and live in love, as Christ loved us and handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God for a fragrant aromaAnd in the very next sentences he says to those believers the following: .

3

Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, 4 no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. **5 ****Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. **6 Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. These verses very specifically and unambiguously refer to the wrath of God and the exclusion from the inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God as applying to believers and non-believers who are “disobedient” through a variety of sins, including those contained in the Commandments. And what specifically has been offered to counter this clear teaching? Interpretations of verses which never even say that “even if you sin, you will still inherit the Kingdom of Heaven”. Throwing out a verse where Christ said, “Your faith has saved you” does nothing to obviate the clear teachings of Christ and his Apostles that we are to “live a life worthy of our calling and election” and that if we dont we can squander our inheritance which he earned for us.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t recall Paul speaking of the Spirit in terms of His being the “Spirit of the Law,” perhaps you can point me to that;

Maybe I misunderstood what you said. I thought you were making reference to Christians following the Spirit of the Law, and not the letter?

2 Cor 3:4-6
5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, 6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

That does not mean that the ministry of the law (to make sin utterly sinful) has ceased.

however, yes, if we fail in love toward God, and others we fall short. That’s a hallmark of believers (they fail) because they are not perfect, neither will they ever be while in the flesh, thus the need for God’s grace, and by that I don’t have sacraments in mind.

Well, then, we are in agreement on that point. The Law remains as a pure reflection of God’s precepts specifically in those areas where we fall short. In each and every area where we do not embody the spirit of the law (righteous conduct) the just precepts of God will make this evident to us. I do not limit God’s grace to sacraments, either.

QUOTE=sandusky;3962515] I wouldn’t limit the Spirit’s usage of God’s word only to the law, but to everything God set about to have recorded in scripture. That’s why it’s possible for the believer to “test the spirits,” and know those who are from God, and those who are not.

Yes, I am in agreement on this point as well.

QUOTE=sandusky;3962515] That’s why, were I you, I would be wondering how it is my infallible teachers would identify Protestants as “separated brethren” when our beliefs and understanding are clearly dissimilar.

I do not wonder. All Who are joined to Christ our Head are members of HIs Body, the Church. Since there is only one Body, and only one Head, and only One Baptism, then all who are members are my brethren, even if I do not recognize them!

God knows those who are HIs, and it is not my job to sort them out. He specifically instructed that the weeds were to be left growing next to the wheat, and that they would be sorted by the angels at the harvest. I trust Him to take care of it.

QUOTE=sandusky;3962515] You know that I’m not.

I did not think so, but it sounded like you expected that the witness of the Spirit within each person would convict him of sin. I agree with this, but the ability of each of us to hear and respond to the Spirit is very subjective. It varies depending upon individual maturity, and life experience. A well formed conscience will conform to what God has revealed about Himself, and HIs moral expectations for man. However, man has an apparently infinite ability to rationalize misbehavior.

QUOTE=sandusky;3962515] Certainly not; however, we are not instructed in the epistles to walk by the law, but to walk by the Spirit, and not by the flesh.

I agree. The Law helps us to distinguish what belongs to the flesh from what belongs to the Spirit. Although it has no power in itself to make us walk uprightly, it is a sure guide.

QUOTE=sandusky;3962515] Whether or not you recognize it, whether or not you understand it, there was a transition from the old way of the law to the new and better way of the Spirit at Pentecost.

I must confess that I do not fully understand it. I accept it by faith, but not having lived as a Jew, and not really understanding what it was like to make sacrifices at the temple, it is a mystery to me how "In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord."Luke 1:5-6

How could they be righteous before God? How coudl they live blamelessly? Didn’t Peter testify that neither they (Apostles?) nor their fathers were able to “bear” the Law? How is it that some were able?

But, that is ok, as I am not sure I need to understand it, since I am not under it. More important for me is to understand how to live by grace, through faith.

QUOTE=sandusky;3962515] When you allege that it’s not possible for an ex-Catholic, or a non-Catholic to fully understand the sacraments you make your church to sound like a “cult,” and its members “cultists,” IMO.

Well, I don’t know if I “alleged” such a thing, but I don’t think it is possible for Catholics either. The reason they are called Divine Mysteries" is because they cannot be accessed or understood by human reason - only by faith. If walking by faith before God seems like a “cult” to you then I do understand that. I think this is a very old charge, one that can be seen in the book of Acts.

In the first century, Catholics were convicted before Ceasar for “drownding their children and eating their God”. Sounds pretty cultish to me.

QUOTE=sandusky;3962515] In the book to the Hebrews, I see the author of Hebrews setting aside Jewish ritual worship while giving the narrative of the surpassing greatness of Christ, and the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old. (Later, the church introduced the idea that it had replaced Israel, and over time created its own system of ritual in the form of sacraments, complete with a re-presentation of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ).

This might be grist for another thread, but I don’t think Hebrews was “setting aside Jewish ritual worship”. The system of sacrifices, yes, but the early Christians continued to follow the liturgical pattern of the Jewish synagogue service even after they were ejected from the synagogues. The pattern is the same to day as it was when Jesus and Paul preached in the synagogues. If you ever go to a Mass, then a synagogue service, you will recogize the pattern (liturgy) and even some of the language as identical.

QUOTE=sandusky;3962515] Your church teaches that through its sacraments grace is obtained, and that partaking of its sacraments is necessary for each believer if he is to have any hope of eternal life.

This contains some truth, however, God is not limited to the sacraments as an avenue of HIs grace. We have assurance that grace can be accessed in these ways, but they are not the only ways. the Chuch does not go so far as to say that “any hope of eternal life” depends upon the sacraments, since God is not bound by them.

QUOTE=sandusky;3962515] ”As much as he believed he could” is not good enough. James cites from Lev 19 and Ex 20, and states that if a married man is faithful to his wife but commits murder he’s a transgressor of the law—he’s not merely broken a commandment, but has transgressed the entire law (Jas 2:8ff). Thus one wrong thought, according to Christ, and you’re a lawbreaker (Mt 5:27-27); I submit that this happens to everyone, everyday.

I agree. But the Law was not understood that way in HIs day. Jesus brought new and deeper understanding to the Law than what anyone had previously.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

A related question springs to mind from Matthew 4:

“17”: From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Why did Jesus preach thusly?

If sin could not be conquered until the far side of the Cross, and if the Elect were irresisistibly called by God’s grace to be saved, and if all the work were done by Christ, what need was there for repentance at all?

Christ commands repentance.

Election doesn’t mean that one is born saved.

Paul lists this sequence: Those He foreknew, He predestined; these He also called; these He also justified; these He also glorified.

For your question, the key point in time is, ”these He also called.” Called by what and to what? By the gospel to Christ and to repentance—the change of mind and attitude toward God and the things of which the Gospel speaks (cf Mt 21:29).

God’s design is for the elect to appropriate the work of Christ though faith, and that requires God’s doing as well.

Thus the need for the irresistible, or efficacious, or effective grace and call: the sinner, being dead in sin, is naturally hostile toward God, indifferent toward divine things, and he exalts himself above God (Jn 3:20; Rom 3:11-12, 18; 1 Cor 2:14), and without God effectively overseeing his salvation, he’d be as the world and never come to Christ—another topic.

Teflon93:

Is repentance possible in such a salvation theology as we see with…Sandusky?

Yes; why do you think it wouldn’t be possible?

Teflon93:

And if it is possible, Moondweller at least nodding to free will, why does it stop being possible and relevant upon being baptized/born again?

Repentance is ongoing; why do you think it stops being possible and relevant upon being born again?

 

[mikeledes]

Here’s where we part:Mike, you know I disagree with you on that.

We’ve covered that ground many, many times before, certainly enough for me to understand your position, and for you to understand mine.

And, you should remember how our most recent venture into that territory concluded; therefore, I’m not going to revisit it with you, as I can think of no good reason to do so.

You mean we’re not going to get into another long and drawn out discussion on this issue. Darn, just when I stocked up on Gatorade.

I understand your point. However, what I post is not only for you, but for all those who are interested in this topic (Catholic and Protestant) and want to understand the opposing points of view. Believe me, I sometimes get tired arguing the same thing over and over again. But in the end, it’s not about me. What I do is for the greater glory of God and if that means being repetative and burning myself out, then so be it. I’m not suggesting that you don’t feel the same way.

BTW, I thought that last discussion we had was going well, that is, until the moderator had to intervene.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[moondweller]

No, moon. The fact that the Commandments reflect the moral expectations God has of mankind does not place us under the jurisdiction of the old covenant. God’s moral expectation of man has not changed, before, during, or after the Mosaic covenant.

Well, “remember the Sabbath to keep it holy,” is not exactly a “moral” reflection. It is true that the “thou shall nots…” reflect the moral purity of God (as does the whole Mosaic covenant, especially its sacrificial system), but its stated purpose, according to the N.T. was not to “reflect” but to “expose” sin (which ALL men, Jew and Gentile are under (Rom. 3:9; Gal. 3:22) to be utterly sinful (Rom. 7:13). Through the Law those who were under it (Jews) were not only sinners by nature and practice, but they also became transgressors of the Law and under a “curse” (Gal. 3:10). It’s called a double whammy.

What you’re presenting in your hypothesis, is just another form of Galatianism. Not specifically the desire to be circumcised, but in the same spirit, wanting to be justified by the Law. Completely ignoring the fact that its purpose (which includes the big 10) was never to justify anyone (it had no power to do so), but to lead those under it to Christ that they would be justified BY FAITH (in Christ), and through faith in Him receive the adoption as sons of God (Gal. 3:25-26).

Your spin gospel claims that God still demands that the Law be fulfilled by all men in some way, and so He sent the Holy Spirit to empower men for that very purpose. But as I said, that’s just another form of Galatianism. The Spirit has nothing to do with the Law and was sent only AFTER Christ inaugurated the NEW in His blood. The Spirit’s ministry is according to the new, not the old, faith not works, grace not law.

Yes, in every case, you impose the Law over you, which Paul calls “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). Not as the originators of this “gospel” did, demanding circumcision, but your spin, seemingly more palatable to N.T. teachings, asserts that one must fulfill the Law by the Spirit (erroneously declaring that to be His ministry), yet simultaneously retaining the “death and condemnation” factor of the Law through your doctrine of “mortal sins” (any transgression of the 10, and all others according to your tradition).

Your claim is that the divine moral requirements of the Law are never set aside. Oh, but they are, guanophore. According to Paul’s teaching (to the Galatians, btw) the covenant of Law (which included the Decalogue) was temporarily added alongside the Abrahamic covenant of promise only UNTIL the seed should come to whom the promise had been made (Gal. 3:19).

That “seed” is Christ (Gal. 3:16). Christ, the perfect Man, born a Jew, born under the Law, Himself fulfilled the Law. But through His substitutionary, sacrificial death, burial and bodily resurrection He became a Mediator of a NEW covenant by which the old became obsolete (Heb. 8:13). And through that propitiatory sacrifice God’s offended holiness, because of sin, was completely satisfied. And men now, both Jew and Gentile, through faith in Christ alone, are redeemed from the penalty of sin, having been forgiven of ALL sins (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14), justified (Rom. 3:24; 5:1), reconciled to God ((Rom. 5:11; 2 Cor. 5:18-19) and sanctified, being now “in Christ,” and therefore “under grace” and not “under law” (Rom. 6:14-15).

In great frustration Paul said to the Galatians:Gal 4:16-19 “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth? They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out so that you will seek them (as they still do today through the Law). But it is good always to be eagerly sought in a commendable manner, and not only when I am present with you. My children, with whom I am again in labor **until Christ is formed in you”**The true believer has no relation to the Law, whatsoever, nor the Law to him - but Christ.

Teflon93 keeps asking me if I’m his brother. Well, do we have the same mother? Not according to the allegory Paul presents in Gal. 4:21-31. Being under Law he is a child of the bondwoman, I of the free. Allegorically, Law and promise have two different ancestors. It was determined by God that the bondwoman and her son be cast out, that the son of the bondwoman (law) will not be an heir with the son of the free (grace). It is not by my judgment whether or not we are “brothers,” it is God’s, based on who, allegorically, is our “mother.”

It is BECAUSE we are justified by faith that we are able to fulfill the Law. It is the love of God, shed abroad in our hearts that enables us to love others as He has loved us.

By this spin you continue to keep yourself bound to the Law, Mt. Sinai, figuratively, a son of Hagar. You “love” as a requirement to fulfill the Law and condemn yourself and others by the Law through your doctrine of “mortal sin” (transgressing the 10)

The wages of sin have not changed, moon. The wages of sin have always been death.

The wages of “sin” is death. And that happened to Adam and ALL his posterity in the garden. Which did not change until Christ, the “second Man,” the Last Adam. But finish the passage Mr. G.:"…BUT the FREE GIFT of God is ETERNAL LIFE in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Paul makes it clear that those who sin will not inherit the Kingdom.

He doesn’t say that at all. Remember in the garden when Satan subtly changed the wording of God and asked Eve, “Indeed, has God said, you shall not eat from any tree of the garden” (Gen. 3:1)? We must be careful not to do the same. Paul did not say that those “who sin” will not inherit the kingdom. You changed his words. But that the “unrighteous” shall not inherit the kingdom. These he NAMES: fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, etc. These are NOUNS! He’s not listing “sins” by which one is excluded, but people identified by them, enslaved by them and in spiritual darkness. They’re unbelievers, the “unrighteous,” not numbered and named among the saints (see 1 Cor. 1:2); those of whom he goes on to say:1 Cor 6:11 "Such were some of you; but you were washed (i.e., by blood), but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God"Read in 1 Tim. 1:8-10 for whom law was made, guanophore. Are you saying you’re one of them? Paul gives this principle by which the washed, the sanctified and the justified in Christ (saints, by calling) are to live:1 Cor 6:12 “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything” (see 1 Cor. 10:23).Those who still seek the Law, in any way, to be justified actually snub their nose at the NEW covenant and its Mediator. That’s why Paul considered it so offensive.