The world has twisted the law into a shape that it was not intended to have been...
The very worst part of the law was what ruled the day... hypocrisy.
So when Jesus came and actually walked in the true intent of the law which was to walk in the law of liberty. That out of gratitude to God he did the will of God. This gratitude (spirit) was what helped him discern the love and mercy and grace of God. Yet this walk was so far from the walk of this twisted law that it became considered sinful. Had Jesus attempted to fulfill the law by walking in the law of the world then then he would have stoned the prostitute because he was the only one there who was "without sin".
The way of holiness became despised.
Yet it is the rock that the builders rejected that the temple was built upon.
Had Jesus Christ not walked in the law of liberty he would not have fulfilled the law.
For that was the intent of the law to inspire the law of liberty..
The law of liberty was the fulfillment of the law.
This thread has beome much more complicated than I was hoping for! I was attempting to find a simple answer. My one question is to Mr Wearword is how can Christ have walked the law of liberty when he was the one who had to fufill ALL of the OT law? (Including being the Passover Lamb.)
Thanks to others for helpful comments.
Once again, there was plenty of liberty in the law of Moses. The law of Moses was never intended, imho, to be a straightjacket, which Jesus Christ recognised in Matthew 12:1-13, culminating in verse 12,' How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days', and in Mark 2:23-28, 'And he said unto them, " The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath":'
The phrase, "Law of Liberty" is only used twice in the Bible - in the epostle of James. Perhaps it would be a good idea to define what that means rather than just throw phrases around that we think we know the meaning of. While Paul said we are not under the Law of Moses, we do have a higher "law" - the Law of Christ or the Law of Liberty.
While the Old Testament Law was "weak" in that it could not change a person's heart, it is nevertheless call "holy, just, and good" in Rom. 7:12. But Jesus presented an even higher standard. He taught that God was more interested in our hearts than just our outward actions. One could go through the motions of the Law and be legally "blameless" but still not have a godly heart. For example, if I am angry with a person, and even wished they were dead, I would not have been sinning according to the Law of Moses as long as I didn't act on it. But Jesus said that even being angry was as bad as murder. Likewise, he said that looking on a woman with lust is just as bad as committing adultery. Is this just a stricter set of rules to follow? Or is there something more?
Jesus taught about works as fruit coming from the heart. Good fruit comes from a good heart, bad fruit comes from a bad heart. This ties the whole law/grace question in with the most basic issue - the heart of man. The only way to be righteous before God is to have a change of heart. And the only way to change your heart is by God's power. This is what the new birth and the holy spirit are all about, although we didn't learn it that way in TWI.
The phrase, "Law of Liberty" is only used twice in the Bible - in the epostle of James. Perhaps it would be a good idea to define what that means rather than just throw phrases around that we think we know the meaning of. While Paul said we are not under the Law of Moses, we do have a higher "law" - the Law of Christ or the Law of Liberty.
While the Old Testament Law was "weak" in that it could not change a person's heart, it is nevertheless call "holy, just, and good" in Rom. 7:12. But Jesus presented an even higher standard. He taught that God was more interested in our hearts than just our outward actions. One could go through the motions of the Law and be legally "blameless" but still not have a godly heart. For example, if I am angry with a person, and even wished they were dead, I would not have been sinning according to the Law of Moses as long as I didn't act on it. But Jesus said that even being angry was as bad as murder. Likewise, he said that looking on a woman with lust is just as bad as committing adultery. Is this just a stricter set of rules to follow? Or is there something more?
Jesus taught about works as fruit coming from the heart. Good fruit comes from a good heart, bad fruit comes from a bad heart. This ties the whole law/grace question in with the most basic issue - the heart of man. The only way to be righteous before God is to have a change of heart. And the only way to change your heart is by God's power. This is what the new birth and the holy spirit are all about, although we didn't learn it that way in TWI.
'Is this just a stricter set of rules to follow? Or is there something more?' I would say there is something more than a stricter set of rules. Jesus also taught that the Pharisees gave tithes 'of mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment, and the love of God; these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.' Luke 12:39-44. In the category of looking on a woman with lust, my husband (who is a window cleaner and has several accounts with 'Hooters' and other strip clubs) occasionally finds himself in the company of various attractive women with varying degrees of clothing on in the course of his job. This has always posed an interesting dilemna for him, because some of these women seem to take it as a personal insult if a man doesn't turn his head and at least give them more than a passing glance, (some women are insulted if the reverse happens and a man stares, also), so he has developed a philosophy of 'nothing below the neck', which seems to work most of the time.
I agree with you last paragraph, except for the statement about not learning it in TWI. Some of us were taught that in TWI, although the teachers of that were few and far between.
Oops, I forgot to log on AGAIN. One more time this is Jean, not John.
The phrase, "Law of Liberty" is only used twice in the Bible - in the epostle of James. Perhaps it would be a good idea to define what that means rather than just throw phrases around that we think we know the meaning of. While Paul said we are not under the Law of Moses, we do have a higher "law" - the Law of Christ or the Law of Liberty.
Is it significant that the only place in the Bible that the phrase 'Law of Liberty' is used is in the epistle of James, which is addressed to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, not to the body of Christ?
Is it significant that the only place in the Bible that the phrase 'Law of Liberty' is used is in the epistle of James, which is addressed to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, not to the body of Christ?
How do you figure it's not addressed to the body of Christ?
Yes, I know how to read (Jas 1:1).
It could be addressed (specifically) toward Christian churches made of of former Jews in the diaspora. It could be addressed to the new Israel in its diaspora from the New Jerusalem.
I ask because to unconverted Jews, the identification of oneself as the slave (servant) of Jesus Christ would hardly be the way to identify oneself (if the author wished to be read). And, according to St. Paul, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." If something is written toward formerly Jewish Christians, there is no reason why it would not also apply to formerly gentile Christians.
How do you figure it's not addressed to the body of Christ?
Yes, I know how to read (Jas 1:1).
It could be addressed (specifically) toward Christian churches made of of former Jews in the diaspora. It could be addressed to the new Israel in its diaspora from the New Jerusalem.
I ask because to unconverted Jews, the identification of oneself as the slave (servant) of Jesus Christ would hardly be the way to identify oneself (if the author wished to be read). And, according to St. Paul, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." If something is written toward formerly Jewish Christians, there is no reason why it would not also apply to formerly gentile Christians.
Just something to consider.
And worthy of consideration. I brought it up because of the verse that refers to many Jews as 'thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous for the law:' (Acts 21:20). It occurred to me that Jews might have special circumstances that would necessitate the reference to a 'Law of Liberty'. I have very little (or none) Biblically to back that up with except that it seems odd that the only two usages occur in a book written specifically to Jews (or Jewish Christians).
Ok all. This has probably been asked before, but I figure most of us are constantly re-thinking some of our beliefs. I know Romans says the things that were written aforetime were for our learning. I have some questions about that.
If we go chronologically and not by the cannon/order of our current Bibles, it changes everything. It doesn't actually say in the verse or context what the time period "aforetime" is--we were taught it was before Pentecost. Where did that come from for real? Do you now consider the Gospels pertinent and applicable to you? Most of the Gospels and epistles were all written around the same time, often by some of the same men.
Do you still emphasize mostly the Epistles in your life or do you now refer more often to Jesus Christ's ministry and teachings? If we are supposed to follow Jesus Christ and if we are to make him our Lord, then shouldn't we know what He taught and did? I know I pretty much ignored a lot of the Gospels in twi-we were always teaching about epistles-except when it was December or near Resurrection Sunday
for what its worth, penguin and whomever
i consider both OT and NT (including the gospels) a deeply jewish book more than anything
i think that perhaps the entire book is off limits to most christians and catholics alike
mostly because of 2000 years of basically rejecting most all jewish attitudes on the matter
there is a saying that "one must be a good jew before they can be a good christian"
says a lot about the deeply jewish purposes of Jesus's mission and life
and without an understanding of the broad range of jewish attitudes towards their scriptures and storytelling
(which is about way more than just the mere lexicon and atlas stuff that both jews and christians often get stuck in)
and strange as it sounds..i would go as far as to recommend that christians should stick to studying christian histories of the past 2000 years
...as something that is largely different from what most of the bible was talking about...though quite valid in its own ways
and there is plenty of amazing worthwhile books and character and histories to study there...no doubt
and perhaps not all of it, but the most important parts of it, i would even go as far as to include it in the world's "books of dying"
...meaning...that the way we try and use the books these days (as a basis for theological, moral and political purposes)
is pretty much way off the mark, and only exacerbates our religious intolerances towards each other
and the NT is largely a record of the jesus starting a movement that helped the jews finally discover the value of truths beyond their own racial lineages
...a spiritual rediscovery of color red that saved many jews from the world
and save the world from many jews
of course, this may seem less than the magical mythical jesus stories many seem to prefer
but i find that the bible only INCREASES in value with such a position
meaning...it may actually help mankind as a book this way
where the exclusive tribal approach obviously is NOT
and perhaps even increasingly so
same can be said for any other old scripture
btw..i am not a jew by race or religion...though i think i have a very jewish foot or two
And worthy of consideration. I brought it up because of the verse that refers to many Jews as 'thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous for the law:' (Acts 21:20). It occurred to me that Jews might have special circumstances that would necessitate the reference to a 'Law of Liberty'. I have very little (or none) Biblically to back that up with except that it seems odd that the only two usages occur in a book written specifically to Jews (or Jewish Christians).
Agreed with the above.
I made my statement sort-of on reflex. There are a lot of ex-twi people who still buy into the construct that they don't need to act in accord with James (because it's not written to us, but to the Jews). Thus mitigating the uncomfortable scripture verses that are contained in there, including the definition and application of the "law of liberty" throughout that epistle.
I made my statement sort-of on reflex. There are a lot of ex-twi people who still buy into the construct that they don't need to act in accord with James (because it's not written to us, but to the Jews). Thus mitigating the uncomfortable scripture verses that are contained in there, including the definition and application of the "law of liberty" throughout that epistle.
Agreed. And if you read it and the Gospels carefully, you find that James was saying some of the same things that Jesus said (especially in the Sermon on the Mount). Of course, TWI said that the Gospels weren't addressed to us either. Pity.
I agree with you last paragraph, except for the statement about not learning it in TWI. Some of us were taught that in TWI, although the teachers of that were few and far between.
Oops, I forgot to log on AGAIN. One more time this is Jean, not John.
I find that interesting and surprising. You're right, it was few and far between. The teachings I heard may have talked about the heart, but I never heard anything about the holy spirit being able to change your heart. What I always heard was that holy spirit was for operating "all nine all the time" and having supernatural power, but it was up to my self-discipline and renewed mind to change my heart in accordance with the Word. In fact I remember asking one limb coordinator once about whether the holy spirit enables us to live a better Christian life, and he said he had never thought about that!
I find that interesting and surprising. You're right, it was few and far between. The teachings I heard may have talked about the heart, but I never heard anything about the holy spirit being able to change your heart. What I always heard was that holy spirit was for operating "all nine all the time" and having supernatural power, but it was up to my self-discipline and renewed mind to change my heart in accordance with the Word. In fact I remember asking one limb coordinator once about whether the holy spirit enables us to live a better Christian life, and he said he had never thought about that!
I had the great privilege of having a B.C., who was in the second Way Corps, for several years, and he was a remarkably wise individual. I remember a teaching he gave on Psalm 51:6-12. 'Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit'. I have prayed prayers remarkably like that in my life, with some allowances for the difference in administration. I find it interesting that David prayed for the restoration of the 'joy of thy salvation'. I believe that we can never lose salvation, but sometimes we lose sight of the sheer joy of it.
I made my statement sort-of on reflex. There are a lot of ex-twi people who still buy into the construct that they don't need to act in accord with James (because it's not written to us, but to the Jews). Thus mitigating the uncomfortable scripture verses that are contained in there, including the definition and application of the "law of liberty" throughout that epistle.
I have learned a great deal from the book of James because I come from a family and church that make TWI on its worst day look like a leisurely stroll in the park. My family (and church) were so legalistic that when my sixth grade teacher played 'Jesus Christ Superstar' for my class, and I made the terrible mistake of enjoying it (and admitting it at dinner); the dinnertable 'discussion' or browbeating lasted until midnight (we sat down to eat at 5:00); and the fallout lasted for several weeks (my parents went to the schoolboard and demanded he should be fired, etc., etc.,). So I have had to learn not to condemn myself for every little mistake.
Danny; certainly the new birth is not a license to live like the devil as even Paul admits in Romans 6:1&2, 'What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?'
I had the great privilege of having a B.C., who was in the second Way Corps, for several years, and he was a remarkably wise individual. I remember a teaching he gave on Psalm 51:6-12. 'Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit'. I have prayed prayers remarkably like that in my life, with some allowances for the difference in administration. I find it interesting that David prayed for the restoration of the 'joy of thy salvation'. I believe that we can never lose salvation, but sometimes we lose sight of the sheer joy of it.
Very rare in those days. I wonder if he got in trouble for teaching "unoffical doctrine."
Is it significant that the only place in the Bible that the phrase 'Law of Liberty' is used is in the epistle of James, which is addressed to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, not to the body of Christ?
Sometimes it is useful to look at other translations. Nearly every translation I checked other than KJV translates "law of liberty" as "perfect law".
And to the Jews, the law/Torah is perfect and does give freedom. Sounds contradictory I now, but it so.
Sometimes it is useful to look at other translations. Nearly every translation I checked other than KJV translates "law of liberty" as "perfect law".
And to the Jews, the law/Torah is perfect and does give freedom. Sounds contradictory I now, but it so.
The first usage in James 1:25 even in the KJV uses the phrase 'perfect law of liberty'. Jesus seemed to recognize the freedom in the law/Torah in various places in the gospels when he pointed out that 'the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath' and other places. Good point.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
9
11
29
Popular Days
Jun 6
44
Jun 7
13
Jun 4
11
Jun 11
6
Top Posters In This Topic
markomalley 9 posts
Jeaniam 9 posts
T-Bone 11 posts
DrWearWord 29 posts
Popular Days
Jun 6 2007
44 posts
Jun 7 2007
13 posts
Jun 4 2007
11 posts
Jun 11 2007
6 posts
DrWearWord
The world has twisted the law into a shape that it was not intended to have been...
The very worst part of the law was what ruled the day... hypocrisy.
So when Jesus came and actually walked in the true intent of the law which was to walk in the law of liberty. That out of gratitude to God he did the will of God. This gratitude (spirit) was what helped him discern the love and mercy and grace of God. Yet this walk was so far from the walk of this twisted law that it became considered sinful. Had Jesus attempted to fulfill the law by walking in the law of the world then then he would have stoned the prostitute because he was the only one there who was "without sin".
The way of holiness became despised.
Yet it is the rock that the builders rejected that the temple was built upon.
Had Jesus Christ not walked in the law of liberty he would not have fulfilled the law.
For that was the intent of the law to inspire the law of liberty..
The law of liberty was the fulfillment of the law.
The law of liberty requires humility toward God.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Once again, there was plenty of liberty in the law of Moses. The law of Moses was never intended, imho, to be a straightjacket, which Jesus Christ recognised in Matthew 12:1-13, culminating in verse 12,' How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days', and in Mark 2:23-28, 'And he said unto them, " The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath":'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
The phrase, "Law of Liberty" is only used twice in the Bible - in the epostle of James. Perhaps it would be a good idea to define what that means rather than just throw phrases around that we think we know the meaning of. While Paul said we are not under the Law of Moses, we do have a higher "law" - the Law of Christ or the Law of Liberty.
While the Old Testament Law was "weak" in that it could not change a person's heart, it is nevertheless call "holy, just, and good" in Rom. 7:12. But Jesus presented an even higher standard. He taught that God was more interested in our hearts than just our outward actions. One could go through the motions of the Law and be legally "blameless" but still not have a godly heart. For example, if I am angry with a person, and even wished they were dead, I would not have been sinning according to the Law of Moses as long as I didn't act on it. But Jesus said that even being angry was as bad as murder. Likewise, he said that looking on a woman with lust is just as bad as committing adultery. Is this just a stricter set of rules to follow? Or is there something more?
Jesus taught about works as fruit coming from the heart. Good fruit comes from a good heart, bad fruit comes from a bad heart. This ties the whole law/grace question in with the most basic issue - the heart of man. The only way to be righteous before God is to have a change of heart. And the only way to change your heart is by God's power. This is what the new birth and the holy spirit are all about, although we didn't learn it that way in TWI.
Read here for more details.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
'Is this just a stricter set of rules to follow? Or is there something more?' I would say there is something more than a stricter set of rules. Jesus also taught that the Pharisees gave tithes 'of mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment, and the love of God; these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.' Luke 12:39-44. In the category of looking on a woman with lust, my husband (who is a window cleaner and has several accounts with 'Hooters' and other strip clubs) occasionally finds himself in the company of various attractive women with varying degrees of clothing on in the course of his job. This has always posed an interesting dilemna for him, because some of these women seem to take it as a personal insult if a man doesn't turn his head and at least give them more than a passing glance, (some women are insulted if the reverse happens and a man stares, also), so he has developed a philosophy of 'nothing below the neck', which seems to work most of the time.
I agree with you last paragraph, except for the statement about not learning it in TWI. Some of us were taught that in TWI, although the teachers of that were few and far between.
Oops, I forgot to log on AGAIN. One more time this is Jean, not John.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Is it significant that the only place in the Bible that the phrase 'Law of Liberty' is used is in the epistle of James, which is addressed to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, not to the body of Christ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
How do you figure it's not addressed to the body of Christ?
Yes, I know how to read (Jas 1:1).
It could be addressed (specifically) toward Christian churches made of of former Jews in the diaspora. It could be addressed to the new Israel in its diaspora from the New Jerusalem.
I ask because to unconverted Jews, the identification of oneself as the slave (servant) of Jesus Christ would hardly be the way to identify oneself (if the author wished to be read). And, according to St. Paul, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." If something is written toward formerly Jewish Christians, there is no reason why it would not also apply to formerly gentile Christians.
Just something to consider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
And worthy of consideration. I brought it up because of the verse that refers to many Jews as 'thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous for the law:' (Acts 21:20). It occurred to me that Jews might have special circumstances that would necessitate the reference to a 'Law of Liberty'. I have very little (or none) Biblically to back that up with except that it seems odd that the only two usages occur in a book written specifically to Jews (or Jewish Christians).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
for what its worth, penguin and whomever
i consider both OT and NT (including the gospels) a deeply jewish book more than anything
i think that perhaps the entire book is off limits to most christians and catholics alike
mostly because of 2000 years of basically rejecting most all jewish attitudes on the matter
there is a saying that "one must be a good jew before they can be a good christian"
says a lot about the deeply jewish purposes of Jesus's mission and life
and without an understanding of the broad range of jewish attitudes towards their scriptures and storytelling
(which is about way more than just the mere lexicon and atlas stuff that both jews and christians often get stuck in)
and strange as it sounds..i would go as far as to recommend that christians should stick to studying christian histories of the past 2000 years
...as something that is largely different from what most of the bible was talking about...though quite valid in its own ways
and there is plenty of amazing worthwhile books and character and histories to study there...no doubt
and perhaps not all of it, but the most important parts of it, i would even go as far as to include it in the world's "books of dying"
...meaning...that the way we try and use the books these days (as a basis for theological, moral and political purposes)
is pretty much way off the mark, and only exacerbates our religious intolerances towards each other
and the NT is largely a record of the jesus starting a movement that helped the jews finally discover the value of truths beyond their own racial lineages
...a spiritual rediscovery of color red that saved many jews from the world
and save the world from many jews
of course, this may seem less than the magical mythical jesus stories many seem to prefer
but i find that the bible only INCREASES in value with such a position
meaning...it may actually help mankind as a book this way
where the exclusive tribal approach obviously is NOT
and perhaps even increasingly so
same can be said for any other old scripture
btw..i am not a jew by race or religion...though i think i have a very jewish foot or two
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Agreed with the above.
I made my statement sort-of on reflex. There are a lot of ex-twi people who still buy into the construct that they don't need to act in accord with James (because it's not written to us, but to the Jews). Thus mitigating the uncomfortable scripture verses that are contained in there, including the definition and application of the "law of liberty" throughout that epistle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Agreed. And if you read it and the Gospels carefully, you find that James was saying some of the same things that Jesus said (especially in the Sermon on the Mount). Of course, TWI said that the Gospels weren't addressed to us either. Pity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I find that interesting and surprising. You're right, it was few and far between. The teachings I heard may have talked about the heart, but I never heard anything about the holy spirit being able to change your heart. What I always heard was that holy spirit was for operating "all nine all the time" and having supernatural power, but it was up to my self-discipline and renewed mind to change my heart in accordance with the Word. In fact I remember asking one limb coordinator once about whether the holy spirit enables us to live a better Christian life, and he said he had never thought about that!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I had the great privilege of having a B.C., who was in the second Way Corps, for several years, and he was a remarkably wise individual. I remember a teaching he gave on Psalm 51:6-12. 'Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit'. I have prayed prayers remarkably like that in my life, with some allowances for the difference in administration. I find it interesting that David prayed for the restoration of the 'joy of thy salvation'. I believe that we can never lose salvation, but sometimes we lose sight of the sheer joy of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
Jeaniam
Because of those verses (which are great) and verses like that
I don't think the new birth is all presto live like the devil and everything
will be alright.
The gospels has lot to say to the do gooders.
I like the place Jesus says I don't even know you.
The bit about adminstrations sometimes is out there.
I am God I change not.
David a man after Gods heart.
Moses didn't go in the promised land.
Lots of folks was suprized by God.
After all God says the thing written before or for our learning.
I would think I would need to learn what went right and wrong for those guys.
I think the gospels are big time better understand how and why The Lord did some things.
Why the 2 commandments?
I don't discount them and put before the epistles.
Yes they are good and Paul was a swell guy after his conversion.
BUT JC was the one after all not Paul or Moses or Ruth or Adam didn't save me.
I could read the epistles every hour and miss the love of the gospels wow
that would be messed up.
Not to know the works of Jesus the pain suffering for my sins.
I 'm not saying I worked for anything or understand anything.
I am saying the rest of the bible is just as important as the epistles.
I am saying I was taught (the way I understood) that the rest was not as important.
Maybe my cry to God should be Put in me a right spirit and help my heart to be right.
Maybe it should be restore unto me the joy of your salvation.
Peace
Edited by DannyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I have learned a great deal from the book of James because I come from a family and church that make TWI on its worst day look like a leisurely stroll in the park. My family (and church) were so legalistic that when my sixth grade teacher played 'Jesus Christ Superstar' for my class, and I made the terrible mistake of enjoying it (and admitting it at dinner); the dinnertable 'discussion' or browbeating lasted until midnight (we sat down to eat at 5:00); and the fallout lasted for several weeks (my parents went to the schoolboard and demanded he should be fired, etc., etc.,). So I have had to learn not to condemn myself for every little mistake.
Danny; certainly the new birth is not a license to live like the devil as even Paul admits in Romans 6:1&2, 'What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?'
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
Jeaniam
Thanks for the verse. I had read that a few times.
I guess not to get of the topic of the gospels the new birth is not all
cut and dry.
I was more promoting the gospels and learning what my savior did
for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Very rare in those days. I wonder if he got in trouble for teaching "unoffical doctrine."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sometimes it is useful to look at other translations. Nearly every translation I checked other than KJV translates "law of liberty" as "perfect law".
And to the Jews, the law/Torah is perfect and does give freedom. Sounds contradictory I now, but it so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
The first usage in James 1:25 even in the KJV uses the phrase 'perfect law of liberty'. Jesus seemed to recognize the freedom in the law/Torah in various places in the gospels when he pointed out that 'the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath' and other places. Good point.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.