| Author | Message | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1611 Registered: 4-2000  |
Paul, Thank you for your comments. Since we agree that God's norm cannot be perfectly attained by sinful flesh, does this mean that we should not make any attempt to honor our parents (fifth commandment) because we can't do it perfectly anyway? The indwelling Spirit never contradicts nor ignores God's revealed will, in the Bible, for our lives. Moreover, the Holy Spirit empowers us to obey God's directives. As Charles Spurgeon rightly stated,"The grace that does not change your life will not save your soul." God already knows of our moral inability to perfectly submit to His will. However, we are not exempt from rendering our very best praise and service to Him. Obviously, God has an important reason why the fifth commandment was reiterated in the NT. The Bible is God's voice speaking to us. By the way, there are more moral guidelines (lists for human behavior) in the NT than in the OT. Apparently, due to our sinful nature, our sovereign God knows we need specific lists for our Christian conduct--not merely some generalities that could be misunderstood. Our theology determines the intensity of our doxology. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9558 Registered: 12-2003  |
Dennis, you said: "Without God's moral laws, whether written on our hearts or found in sacred Scripture, there is no sin, no gospel, and no saving grace." I think I know what you're driving at, but the Bible clearly distinguishes between sin not being imputed and sin existing. Romans 5:12-14: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." Sins. or wrong deeds, are not considered violations when there is no law (see Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13), but SIN—the original spiritual death which which we are born IS reigning and DID reign, even before the law was given. Furthermore, sins may be counted as sins even without the law, because Romans 2:14-15 clarifies that Gentiles who do not have the law can actually keep the requirements of the law because their consciences bear witness. People are condemned for suppressing the knowledge of God (Romans 1:18-32). To say that neither sin, the gospel, nor saving grace exist without the law is to seriously misread Scripture. Romans 1, 2, 4, and 5 clearly say that sin and death existed before the law. The law does not "create" sin or grace or the gospel. It merely defined the sin that ALREADY existed, and sin "increased" in the lives of humans because they were not only spiritually dead but aware of sin and overtly guilty of specific sins. The law increased people's guilt. It did not bring sin into existence, and it certainly didn't bring the gospel or grace into existence. It merely revealed the need for those sovereign realities. Moreover, the New Covenant is not without law. We have the law of Christ which Jesus revealed in the Sermon on the Mount and which Paul over and over described. Hebrews 7:12 says that where there is a change of the priesthood, there is a change of the law, and Jesus defined the new commandment He gave. He gave the summary statement as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love one another as I have loved you". In Matthew 5-7, Jesus defined more specific characteristics of the law, taking it to thought and motive and out of the realm of behavior. Sin has existed in all humanity since Adam and Eve, and people were guilty of that sin even before the law was given. The law merely defined sins more clearly. It increased "sin" by creating awareness. The new law, the law of Christ does the same thing: it brings sins into convicting reality by accusing our thoughts and motives, not merely our destructive behaviors. The Law of Christ dives us to surrender and thus marks the distinction between mere "social gospels" (doing good deeds for the poor, widows, and orphans, etc) and true evangelism (surrendering one's motives and work to the Lord Jesus rather than to certain "work"). When we surrender to Jesus, our work becomes clear as He reveals it. When we surrender to good works, our hearts and motives can remain relatively unengaged. The law brought the knowledge of sin to people who were already sinners (Romans 3:20); it did not make sin or grace "real". They were real even before! Colleen | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 241 Registered: 1-2007  |
Bobj I have checked my Hebrew lexicon/concordance here is what I found on pleasure in Isaiah 58:13 H2656 chephets khay'-fets From H2654; pleasure; hence (abstractly) desire; concretely a valuable thing; hence (by extension) a matter (as something in mind): - acceptable, delight (-some), desire, things desired, matter, pleasant (-ure), purpose, willingly. Here is the root word of chephets H2654 chaphets khaw-fates' A primitive root; properly to incline to; by implication (literally but rarely) to bend; figuratively to be pleased with, desire: - X any at all, (have, take) delight, desire, favour, like, move, be (well) pleased, have pleasure, will, would. Here is this word (chephets) used several times in Isaiah so we can get the context and use of it. Isa 58:3 Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge? Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours. Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Isa 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Isa 48:14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Paul | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 417 Registered: 1-2006  |
Thanks Paul I haven't been able to find anything similar to the explanation I read years ago! It was so long ago I have no idea who wrote it. Bob | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1615 Registered: 4-2000 |
Colleen, The phrase "Law of Christ" is referring to the Gospel--not another set of moral do's and don'ts. Indeed, the ethics of the OT law are the ethics of the NT gospel. For example, as a passage sometimes misapplied by well-meaning people, Romans 10:4 does not in any way hint that Christ abolished or made the moral law of God of no effect. This is not a reference to Christ having perfectly fulfilled the law through His teaching (Matt. 5:17,18) or through His sinless life (2 Cor. 5:21). Instead, this Pauline passage is simply saying that the end focus of the law is Christ--not the end or termination of moral law itself. As the second half of the verse shows, Paul means that belief in Christ as Lord and Savior ends the sinner's futile quest for righteousness through his imperfect attempts to save himself by efforts to obey the law. There would never have been a Fall in Eden without Adam and Eve disobeying God's commands. Likewise, Noah would not have found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8) without law to condemn him. Divine grace originates from God, and it is sovereignly extended to those in a sinful condition. The fact that sin existed before the law was given to Moses reveals the existence of some forms of law. The Noahic covenant prohibited murder and ingesting blood just like the Mosaic covenant later did. Likewise, some ceremonial food laws existed (in Noah's day) prior to the giving of the Law on Sinai. Obviously, there were some sacrificial laws in place in the days of Cain and Abel. Sacrificial laws reflect the needs of a sinful nature. God's command to be fruitful and to multiply is the only commandment, given under the Adamic and Noahic covenants, that human beings have consistently and passionately obeyed throughout this earth's history. God's holy, transcendent laws pre-existed the laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The soteriological stance of Scripture reveals God's holy laws have always existed in some form--even during the time when Lucifer rebelled in heaven. And note this. Not even an angel can rebel against something that doesn't exist. If God's law does not prohibit or address a certain deed, than it is not sinful (i.e., "Sabbath-breaking" under the New Covenant). However, we are still sinners by nature. Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4) in all ages and in whatever form it was given (i.e., oral, written, transcribed, chiseled, etc.). The violation of God's law included all the ceremonial, civil, and judicial laws under the Old Covenant. The Jews were smart enough to know that not all directives from God in the Torah carried the same significance, weight, and purpose. The Ten Commandments were historically-conditioned for the Hebrew people. This is why the Decalogue contains elements of ceremonial law (its moral precepts, being reiterated in the NT several times, are binding upon all Christians). In regard to Romans 5:12-14, we didn't personally violate God's command against eating from the forbidden tree in Eden. However, an inherent propensity to sin entered the human realm; people became sinners by nature. Adam passed to all his descendants the inherent sinful nature he possessed because of his first disobedience. One cannot be disobedient or sinful without some form of law in place. Adam's fallen nature is present from the moment of conception (Ps. 51:5), making it impossible for man to live in a way that pleases God. Since sin transformed Adam's inner nature and brought spiritual death and depravity, that sinful nature (as Augustine rightly stated) would be passed seminally to his posterity as well. We are not held accountable for Adam's specific sin, but we are consequently cursed with a condition caused by that original sin. Though "all sinned" (verse 12) and were regarded as sinners, because there was no strict accounting of their specific points of violation. But even without the Mosaic Law, death was universal. All people from Adam to Moses were subject to death, not because of their sinful acts against the Mosaic Law (which they did not yet have) but because of their own inherited sinful nature. Adam sinned against the holiness of God. Both Adam and Christ were similar in that their acts affected many others. Moreover, because all humanity existed in the loins of Adam, and have through procreation inherited his fallenness and depravity, it can be said that all sinned in him. Therefore, humans are not sinners because they sin, but rather they sin because they are sinners. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9567 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ummm--yeah--I believe that's essentially what I said, Dennis! I just used different words! Our only differences are essentially two details: whether or not Adam's sin is connected to chromosomes or to the human spirit, and whether or not sin exists without "the law". Obviously, "law" has always existed because God has always existed. God Himself IS Law. All law originates in and flows from Him. We are by nature objects of wrath (Ephesians2:3) because we are born into Adam's sin. We are sinners with or without written law. Written law simply identified sin and caused it to increase. But ALL sin is the transgression of God's will, or God's law. God doesn't have to have law written down for it to exist and to define our condition. Law existed and defined mankind's behavior before Sinai. After the cross Law still exists and is written on our hearts by the Living God Himself. God Himself is our law, not merely some written guidelines. Law is much bigger than the 10 C's! Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1617 Registered: 4-2000 |
God's moral directives are more extensive than those found in the Ten Commandments. One still has the potential of being a very ungodly person by merely adhering to the Decalogue. There are about three dozen sins not condemned in the Decalogue. Since the Ten Commandments were not sufficient as a moral compass for the Israelites, they certainly are not sufficient for believers today as well. The non-Decalogical moral laws in the Torah were very important (i.e., prohibitions against incest, homosexuality, bestiality, greed, strife, drunkenness, indolence, rudeness, gossip, unforgiveness, boasting, unfairness, trickery, child abuse, wife beating, permanent physical harm, destruction of a fetus, cruelty to animals, etc.). However, the Ten Commandments provide a basic summary of God's revealed will for our lives. No Christ-follower will find fault with the moral content of the Decalogue. In the context of the Decalogue, Paul concludes: "So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" (Romans 7:12 NASB). Dennis Fischer | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 242 Registered: 1-2007 |
The 10 commandments were set for Israel only, they were only a shadow of God's Glory. They were not the exact representation of God, only in types and shadows for the time. Surely we can all agree that the 10 commandments plus all of God's laws are good, They are Holy, Just and Good as they emminate from the Lord almighty. But now God's true glory has been revealed to us in Jesus. Jesus is the exact representation of God, the very Image. All who have seen the Son have seen the Father. On the Mount of transfiguration Moses and Elijiah were standing next to Jesus, The Father's voice speaks out, This is my beloved Son Listen to Him. Than the apostles only saw Jesus alone. The Law and the Prophets were until John but now Grace and truth came by Jesus. Certainly reading the Old Testament is great and full of examples, lessons, and is profitable for reproof, correction and instruction, yet our Moral guide is Jesus not the 10 commandments. Jesus fulfilled the law in the sense that He magnified it, He fill it full of Meaning, He revealed God's true character and laws therefore thus eliminating the stone, He superseded it. The 10 Words are never called the 10 commandments in the Old Testament the true definition in Hebrew is the 10 Words, God spoke all of those words to the Israelites out of the fire and smoke from Sinai. They placed the 10 Words in the tabernacle. John said in the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word is God, and than The Word became flesh and dwelt (which in greek is tabernacled) with us. the 10 Commandments were all but a shadow of Christ as well. He is the Stone that the builders rejected which became the chief cornerstone. Old Covenant Israel broke the covenant (10 Commandments) they rejected it, and they rejected Jesus. We worship Jesus our true God and have no other God's before us. We do not make any Graven images of God for Jesus is the Image of God. We come to Jesus to find rest, to enter God's rest. We learn through the Spirit to love other's as Christ Loved Us, not as the 10 commandments tells us but as Jesus did and taught. You see Jesus is God's law in our hearts. John summed it up perfectly this way 1 John 3:23 And this is His Commandment That we believe (To have Faith, entrust)on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another as He (Jesus) gave us commandment. The 10 commandments were glorious but they have faded away as the true Glory Jesus has come. The 10 commandments are not our guideline, although as Dennis correctly stated, The teaching and meaning and implication of them are still applied to us as revealed to us by Jesus. Paul | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1784 Registered: 10-2002  |
About the Ten Commandments, just for background information, I thought it might be helpful to read through some of what was posted at the beginning of this earlier thread: http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/11/8451.html?1236729551 The Westminster Confession started on the wrong foot when thinking about "Law" and the "Ten Commandments", with similar ideas to what EGW believed. Aside from that... I think this is sort of looking at things in photo-negative. We could say slightly more accurately that the 10C provide a basic summary of what is not God's revealed will for our lives. Does that make sense? But the problem goes beyond the mere "negative" form of the Ten Words covenant. Reading it in the sheer opposite still doesn't capture the incredible will God has for us in our lives. It gives a sort of true fuzzy view of it, but it is still a woefully incomplete picture: 1) Don't have other gods before God (in reverse, have God before other gods) 2) Don't make idols (in reverse, ...?) 3) Don't misuse God's name (use His name correctly) 4) Don't work on Sabbath (rest on Sabbath) 5) Honor your parents 6) Don't murder (reverse? protect life?) 7) Don't commit adultery (be faithful) 8) Don't steal (reverse? pay for things?) 9) Don't lie about others (tell the truth about others) 10) Don't covet (be happy with what you have) You can actually get some pretty good moral directives & good parts of God's will for our lives by looking at the 10C in reverse. But it's rather speculative at best, and poor Bible-reading at worst. Funny thing, as I was finishing up around the 10th command, I got deja-vu because that directive to "be content with what you have" is found at least once or twice in the New Testament. What could only be guessed at in speculative reverse in the 10C is spelled out clearly in the New Covenant! However, no matter how good the speculative reverse of the 10C is, as I noted earlier, it is still woefully incomplete. This is because the 10C does not contain the revelation of Jesus Christ (except in the Sabbath command). That is why the 10C are woefully inadequate as a basic summary of God's revealed will for our lives. In fact, what is noted above could be wholly arrived at inside Judaism without Jesus Christ at all. And I think many Jews do get that out of it. But God's revealed will is for us to know what He has done for us on the cross, to believe on His Son, to be in His Son, and to live in Him. Not just to refrain from sin, but rather to become righteous. Paul said "I died to the law... it is no longer I who live, but Christ Jesus lives in me." This is the secret of the Christian's "daily life" and all of God's "morality". All of His will for our lives is contained in knowing Jesus Christ and letting Him live out His life within us. Personally, if I have to find a "summary" in Scripture of God's revealed will for our lives, I would probably settle for 1st John 3:23, the crowning definition of God's "commands" (which I wrote about in two posts on this thread: http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/11/8426.html?1236224156). The command to "believe in Jesus Christ" contains trust in Him, following Him, and letting Him be in you. The command to "love one another (as I have loved you)" goes light years beyond anything in the Old Testament because it bases the definition of "love" on what Christ has done for us... "This is how we know what love is." I believe that both theologically and practically, God's revealed will for our lives is centered on the revelation of what His Son has done for us in the cross. Bless you in Jesus tonight! Ramone (Message edited by agapetos on March 18, 2009) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1620 Registered: 4-2000 |
Paul, What fault do you find in the nine commandments (from the Decalogue) reiterated several times in the NT? Dennis Fischer | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1870 Registered: 8-2004  |
Dennis, If there had been no fault there would have been no need for another covenant. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1624 Registered: 4-2000 |
Mary, I am referring specifically to the moral content of the Decalogue, not its covenantal distinctives. If the moral content was not ideal in those nine commandments, God would not have restated them several times in the New Testament for Christians to follow. What exactly is there not to like about them? Is there something wrong in placing our full confidence in the NT Scriptures? Dennis Fischer | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1876 Registered: 8-2004 |
You seem to be jumping around. Is it the nine commandments or is the the NT Scriptures (also called, appropriately, the New Covenant)? The articles of confederation had good points. But any place that our nation currently 'agrees' with them is because of our current constitution, not because the moral content of the articles is still binding. We have a new law of the land. In the same way, the old covenent (and the 'words of the covenant' are the Ten commandments) has been superseded by Jesus Christ Himself (the One to whom the Law and Prophets pointed). In the place of the Law, He gave us the Holy Spirit. In place of obedience to a list of rules and regulations He told us to take up our crosses and follow Him. Walk in the Spirit (this is not just a trite saying), and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. The Holy Spirit will not direct anyone to sin. He is God and cannot sin, so how could He cause another to? But this is not because He is following a list, this is because of Who He is. And by beholding Jesus, as the Holy Spirit reveals Him to us, we are changed into His likeness. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1625 Registered: 4-2000 |
Mary, The Decalogue as a unit or covenant is no longer binding. However, its moral precepts are reiterated many times in the NT. Thus, they are binding upon us. These nine restated commandments (from the Decalogue+many non-Decalogical laws) are a part of the NT canon. The Bible is God's voice speaking to us. We are not authorized to ignore any passages in the NT Scriptures in a cafeteria manner. If there was something wrong or inadequate with these moral directives from the OT, God would not have placed them all over the NT for Christians to follow. While it is important to see covenantal distinctives throughout redemptive history, it is also important to see the commonalities between them (i.e., God's holy, moral laws). Dennis Fischer | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1626 Registered: 4-2000 |
The indwelling Spirit does not contradict or ignore the clear moral directives of Scripture that He Himself inspired. The increasingly popular "Spirit-centered antinomianism" puts such trust in the Holy Spirit's inward prompting as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live. Freedom from law as a way of salvation is assumed to bring with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct. Such thinking is foreign to the NT gospel. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9576 Registered: 12-2003 |
You know, this is an issue at least partly of semantics. Dennis, I am confident that you know that neither Mary (nor any of the rest of us) is advocating antinomianism. The problem with the discussion above is that it takes words and slightly twists their meanings so as to make them appear to communicate something other than the original writer meant. No one is even hinting that the moral principles of the Decalogue were flawed. The only "flaw" was in the limitations of the old covenant, according to Hebrews. But no one is suggesting those principles were flawed. Further, living by the Spirit does not, as you say, direct people away from Scripture...and again, neither Mary nor anyone else is even hinting at such an outrage. Further, no one here is advocating substituting the Holy Spirit for Scripture--any part of Scripture. The issue is the role of the 10 Commandments, not their value. To see them as the words of the old covenant, as stated in Exodus 34:28, simply means that as a statement of God's conditions for His covenant people, they have been fulfilled and superceeded by the Lord Jesus in the new covenant. To say that Jesus Himself has taken the place of the written law is not antinomian, and no one is looking for excuses to live apart from every word of Scripture. Rather, in the new covenant, we are asked to relate to Scripture with greater understanding and accountability than in the old because we have the ultimate revelation of the Son of God. We are asked to submit to every word of Scripture as the Holy Spirit writes its truth on our hearts. We are asked to submit to Him every temptation and desire and longing and uncertainty and allow Him to convict us of truth as revealed in His word. We do not lay our lives before the commandments. We lay them before the Lord Jesus. The issue here is that we relate to God differently now that Jesus had shed His blood and created the new, living way to the Father through the torn curtain which is His body. We don't disdain the law; we embrace Jesus instead of embracing the law, and the law's principles come to life in us through the miracle of God's own work in us. We see all of Scripture as His revelation, and we see His Spirit as our teacher--not the Decalogue per se. The bottom line here is an issue, again, of a "system" of understanding. Covenant theology doesn't "see" the law as completely fulfilled in Jesus in its every aspect. Covenant theology still sees the law as necessary for people to be convicted of sin and to know morality. Yet Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be the One who would convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment when He came (John 16:8-11). The Bible is clear about the supremacy of the Lord Jesus—His supremacy over everything, even law, sin, death, conviction of sin, over righteousness, and judgment. Holding onto part of the old system while embracing the new is what Paul described as spiritual adultery in Romans 7. The law is holy, righteous, and good. Jesus is more holy, more righteous, and better. Moreover, the law could never yield righteousness; it could only reveal sin (Romans 3:20). Jesus, however, not only reveals sin, but he gives us righteousness. He is far superior to the Law—and to the temple which housed the law (Matthew 12:6). Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1786 Registered: 10-2002 |
Wow, thank you for writing that, Colleen. You know, in Adventism I had this idea that if someone said "We're not under Law now, but under the Spirit", if someone said that I had this idea they were just trying to get out of obeying God, just trying to make excuse for sinning. But nothing could have been further from the truth. I thought I had them pigeonholed, but they knew something I didn't. They knew a Spirit who could produce far better morality than what I thought they were just trying not to have to keep. At best, if I'd actually known the people who preached the Spirit, and known that they were good, honest people, at best I would have thought they were being doctrinally irresponsible, or that their preaching "gave others a license to sin". But again, there the "fruit" test came in. People who say such things (people who echo Paul about not being under the law anymore, and rest in the power of the Spirit instead), these people don't generally produce loose-living, decadent disciples. I see them instead leading disciples who are passionately in love with Jesus and have an inner moral sense that transcends anything I could have imagined in Adventism. There is a real limitation to words and setting up a sort of system that focuses on words but makes little room to investigate people and fruit. The system works according to logic, but the Spirit is a living reality that thwarts the tight 'system'. According to the system's logic, people are in danger by claiming to be released from Law (with Paul) and resting in the Spirit. The system just can't handle the unseen reality of the Spirit who often defies logic. The idea that the Spirit can keep us more morally safe than the Law makes about as much logical sense as "losing your life to save it". My goodness, I love You, God! In Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 6643 Registered: 3-2004  |
In my worhip this week I read that the Spirit dwells in me. Even though I had read that verse before it really hit home. The Spirit DWELLS/LIVES in me. Because He does, He knows me better then I know myself and I can trust Him 100%. How awesome is our God!! Diana L | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 245 Registered: 1-2007 |
Dennis, I do not have any issues with the Decalogue. I am not required to keep them. They have faded and been superceded by Jesus Himself. My moral guide is the Spirit. The Spirit with Scripture teaches me and instructs me. God's Moral requirements are much more than what the Decalogue contained. In the Decalogue there is no mention of Homosexuality, Drunkeness, Hate for a brother without cause,Lust in the Heart, Turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, Loving my enemies, Loving my neighbor as Christ has loved me, Giving my cloak when asked for my shirt, Not divorcing my wife unless adultry is involved, etc. God's Law is much more than the Decalogue. The Decalogue was only temporary. The problem with God's law is me. I am a sinner, I am not capable of keeping it. I can go on forever telling you how many times in my life growing up I Used God's name in vein, Idolatry. I am guilty of commiting adultry with a married woman when I was only 22 years old before I was married.I am guilty of Adultry of the heart and hating my neighbors, I am guilty of breaking and entering into peoples homes ans stealing for drug and alcohol money. I am wretched if you will. If I am to stand before God without Christ, I am only worthy of Hell fire. Now I have done alot of growing up since those days and trust me, I regret all of it. But I am still a sinner in God's eyes, you break one point in the law and you are guilty in all. Before I came to God I had anger issues I was angry at God and life My mom is an alcoholic and my Dad was a heroin addict. He left the family when I was 4 years old. My mom took out her depression and anger out on my brother, sister and I. She put her self into the bottle and other married men whom took advantage of her. My dad would only show up around Christmas to give us a sob story about needing money knowing we just have received money as a gift, we of course loving our dad and being young would give it to him. He would take it and disappear. I hate to say this now and regret it but I hated God, I couldn't understand He would allow this to happen. I was one angry rebellious child and teenager. I also neglected my marriage, in fact until recently I didn't even know how bad I was in my marriage until God really showed me the condition of my heart and what true love is. The love that I am not capable of without God dwelling in me and teaching me. The love that the decalogue could not give me, only but the Spirit of God. God has done a miracle in me, and I am witness. The change He has done in me goes beyond anything I have ever been able to do. As an Adventist the only thing following the decalogue did for me was cause me to fear that I was not good enough, Judge others, become prideful and sometimes arrogant. I am not God and cannot become like God, but God can dwell in me by Faith in Jesus. It is a reworking of myself by God from the inside out. God has made so many changes in me, It's only but a miracle that I am still her today alive, I am a new man and I can only give credit to the Lord. Without God I was hopeless and in my own sins. The Decalogue could only but condemn me. In my own sorryful condition trying to follow the decalogue would produce nothing in me. Coming to God in Faith by the Grace He has given me in Jesus is what tore me up and received Him into my life. As an Adventist I did not understand this Grace. Sorry didn't mean to carry on about my life, but God himself tells us that the Decalogue has faded and been superceded by Jesus through the Ministry of the Spirit. Jesus is our Covenant, He is the stone that the builders rejected. Christ in my heart is God's law. Paul | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 213 Registered: 10-2008 |
Paul, Thank you for sharing. God does redeem all - I am finding that out for my life, too. Your parting sentence is very poignant, "Christ in my heart is God's law." Excellent!! Christ in my heart is a "higher" law, but also His indwelling flows through me to follow after that deeper obedience. Keri |
