Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Generational Curse

[Rocky]

Ed: I do not call all dispensationalist antinomianist, never have never will.
In fact I didn't call anyone a antinomianist, now did I?

Ah but you made that statement after I made some dispensational statements. And No you just hinted at someone one pushing it, at any case you made the accusation in two threads, passive aggression, Classic Ed lol..

Ed: To try to simply dismiss those laws is being antitnomianis by definition.

No not completely or else Paul would have been antinomianist because he spoke about not being under law but under grace and even going as far as saying "if you seek to be justified from the law you have fallen from grace" as I pointed out that you disagree with , by definition at its core antinomianism is a derivative of a gnostic belief that man can live in sin and still remain saved, kind of like a precursor to once saved always saved? So you disagree with the apostle Paul? Where did Paul say that the law was our moral compass and what law? stoning children for being disobedient, dietary laws? Keeping the Sabbath? wearing two fabrics together? Ed I think I am going with Paul on this, you maybe a smart guy but sorry :)

Ed: I would discuss Paul's comments that you brought up but I have already expressed my opinion of TRYING to discussing religion with you.
Something about playing chess with a pigeon.

Yeah and in that discussion I gave scripture as well, and it ended up with you getting mad lol... Ed I gave scripture, it is a simple as that. sorry that it does not line up with your opinions. But we must go with the bible despite mans ideas and theology..

[Justaned]

Ed: I do not call all dispensationalist antinomianist, never have never will.
In fact I didn't call anyone a antinomianist, now did I?

Ah but you made that statement after I made some dispensational statements. And No you just hinted at someone one pushing it, at any case you made the accusation in two threads, passive aggression, Classic Ed lol..

Ed: To try to simply dismiss those laws is being antitnomianis by definition.

No not completely or else Paul would have been antinomianist because he spoke about not being under law but under grace and even going as far as saying "if you seek to be justified from the law you have fallen from grace" as I pointed out that you disagree with , by definition at its core antinomianism is a derivative of a gnostic belief that man can live in sin and still remain saved, kind of like a precursor to once saved always saved? So you disagree with the apostle Paul? Where did Paul say that the law was our moral compass and what law? stoning children for being disobedient, dietary laws? Keeping the Sabbath? wearing two fabrics together? Ed I think I am going with Paul on this, you maybe a smart guy but sorry :)

Ed: I would discuss Paul's comments that you brought up but I have already expressed my opinion of TRYING to discussing religion with you.
Something about playing chess with a pigeon.

Yeah and in that discussion I gave scripture as well, and it ended up with you getting mad lol... Ed I gave scripture, it is a simple as that. sorry that it does not line up with your opinions. But we must go with the bible despite mans ideas and theology..

Yes you did give scripture.

[frad70]

What will we say of passing wrong morals through corrupting little kids then? E.g. alcoholism taught by example? Isn't it sometimes a generational curse passed on to children grandchildren etc.?

[Justaned]

I totally agree with Paul if we try to justify ourselves or seek Justification by the Law we are wrong.

However I never said that or suggested that. Now did I?

I said the Law should be our moral compass. That almost every law of our land is based or has it's foundation in the Law of the Old Testament.

The Law will not justify but the Law still gives outstanding direction.

To simply the ignore or discount the Law is by definition antinomianism.


The fact that I have to state the above totally proves my point when I said, "Trying to discuss religion with some on forum is like playing chess with a pigeon; they knock over the pieces, dump on the board, then struts around as though they have won something."

[Rocky]

Ed you really did not read my reply did you?
Here this pic reminds me of you when someone gives you scripture that refutes you:

[Rocky]

Ed wrote: However I never said that or suggested that. Now did I?

I said the Law should be our moral compass. That almost every law of our land is based or has it's foundation in the Law of the Old Testament.

The Law will not justify but the Law still gives outstanding direction.

To simply the ignore or discount the Law is by definition antinomianism.


The fact that I have to state the above totally proves my point when I said, "Trying to discuss religion with some on forum is like playing chess with a pigeon; they knock over the pieces, dump on the board, then struts around as though they have won something

Ok Ed here is a counter point, Paul calls the law the ministry of death and calls it a curse to us. Yes the law is righteous, but it is not a moral compass, not one verse in the new testament states that. It was given to give knowledge of sin and to show guilt and to hold men accountable and to bring the whole world guilty before God until Christ came. Jesus summed it up with, love God and love your neighbor as yourself. I ask you which Law? The dietary laws? how about stoning children for being disobedient to parents, how about not planting two different seeds, or wearing two different fabrics? How about sabbath keeping? So ed which laws are we to follow since you want to hold on to it so much? But again I agree with Paul and not with you on this For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Call me a pigeon strutting around knocking over chess pieces and boasting if you want, I am just giving scripture and not my opinion, you seem to be doing the latter, so nice try with the pot shots.. And yes the bible knocks over the chess pieces, not me ..

Ed wrote: I totally agree with Paul if we try to justify ourselves or seek Justification by the Law we are wrong.

But, you are disagreeing with him in other areas and key points about this, you seem to just want to hold on the some Laws that was never intended to function as you claim. I want nothing to do with the law because I am dead to the law by the body Christ according to Paul
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God..
So who is right, you are him, What I am giving you is not from me but from him.. Ok since you are in error about the Law :) can we get back on subject and why you believe in superstitious generational curses

[Justaned]

I think the Old Testament law on adultery has some merit don't you? I also think the ones on murder could be considered to be essential to society. How about witchcraft, satanism, idolatry? Perhaps with out the law about stealing Bonnie and Clyde would be hero's instead of bank robbers. How about the ones dealing with fraud, accidental homicide, destruction of the property, usury laws and etc. Nay we don't need to worry about any those.

Fact even our abortion laws that this country once had were based on Old Testament law. But we didn't let that bother us as the murder of 40 million + babies will testify to.

Rocky you go such extremes I never mentioned justification, never mention dominion, never mentioned living under the Law.
So why go there? For your drama?

Likewise I never said we should follow the punishments, like stoning disobedient kid. I said the Old Testament Laws are worthy as a moral compass and should not summarily be dismissed. I further said to do so was definition antinomianism. Like it or not. That is fact. Further discussion on that point is nonsensical.

Moral compass do you know what that means? A moral compass like a regular compass only points in the direction we should go. It does not force you to go in that direction nor does it punish you if you don't. I simply points the way. To ignore the use of the Old Testament Law as a moral compass is the definition antinomianism. To suggest the Old Testament law fails to do an adequate job of being an moral compass is senseless.

[Rocky]

My Drama? You started this discussion, And yes it does have merit in society well 9 out of the 10 commandments do have merit, and I am not advocating murder, adultery, lying, and lust and such that it is is ok, what sensible human being advocates such things? And even some unbelievers believe those things are wrong but the moral compass as you call it does not not make people live any better now does it. I showed you what the bible says about the law and the purpose of it, it seems to me and I could be wrong, you just refuse it and reject it. I get what you are saying Ed, however it is a bit off according to Paul. If the law was a moral compass as you say God would not have had to send Jesus if we could live a moral life by obeying it. Oh and do you keep the Sabbath according to the law? It is one of the 10 commandments by the way. I got over 600 more laws in the old testament we can see if you are keeping them as well if you would like. Did you know that the bible says cursed is anyone that does not obey everything that is written in the law, better go back and check off every thing to see if you have that moral compass up to par.

[Justaned]

My Drama? You started this discussion, And yes it does have merit in society well 9 out of the 10 commandments do have merit, and I am not advocating murder, adultery, lying, and lust and such that it is is ok, what sensible human being advocates such things? And even some unbelievers believe those things are wrong but the moral compass as you call it does not not make people live any better now does it. I showed you what the bible says about the law and the purpose of it, it seems to me and I could be wrong, you just refuse it and reject it. I get what you are saying Ed, however it is a bit off according to Paul. If the law was a moral compass as you say God would not have had to send Jesus if we could live a moral life by obeying it. Oh and do you keep the Sabbath according to the law? It is one of the 10 commandments by the way. I got over 600 more laws in the old testament we can see if you are keeping them as well if you would like. Did you know that the bible says cursed is anyone that does not obey everything that is written in the law, better go back and check off every thing to see if you have that moral compass up to par.

Rocky
Never said a moral compass made people do anything, so why suggest I did?

I know what the Bible says about the Law above and beyond the few verses you cite, so what is the point?

If you get what I'm saying then what is the problem? I didn't go beyond or in contradiction of Paul.

The fact God had to send Jesus does not negate the Law it only proves man's rebellion.

I don't keep the Sabbath law because Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath, Jesus declared Himself Lord of the Sabbath, Shiloh.

Many of the 600 laws are ceremonial laws pertaining to Temple worship, Sabbath worship, and etc. However there are many on extortion, theft, social responsibility (such as property damage, accidents, usury laws, and laws on personal behavior like honoring parents, honoring the elderly, caring for the sick, orphans) and laws on social interaction.

Again the curse of not following the law has been removed by Jesus we have both conceded that so why bring it back up?

Rocky say any thing you want but the Law gives us our moral code. It is the basis for christian ethics and behavior that is undeniable, except by those that openly practice antinomianism.

The Law gives us standards, precepts, statues, commandments, judgement, knowledge (read Psalm 119), and yes death.
However Jesus removed the death part. We are no longer subject to the penalty of the law but the law does give us a moral code.
Jesus declared the Law would not pass away nor that He came to destroy the law. Jesus said he was fulfillment of what the Law pointed to, the righeousness of God.

What Paul is teaching in the scripture you cite is the fact that we are no longer justified by the Law, we can not be found righteous by keeping the Law.
The Jew can not live a life that conformed to the law and be found righteous, as his forefathers (those before Christ) did. But Paul is not suggesting we scuttle the law only that we not longer look to it for our righeousness.

[Rocky]

Hi Ed, You started this mainly by making an accusation about some theology that no one was pushing and saying:
"I think a comment was made that we are no longer under the law, but scripture says we are no longer under the curse or punishment of the law."
As always when someone mentions grace you seem to get offended in some way.
I just merely pointed out that this is not completely true, For the scripture declares were are not under the law but under grace.
I don't know You seem to get offended when anyone mentions that we are save by grace through faith, or if believing and faith is mentioned you make accusations that those of us that believe we are save by grace through faith, are just practicing easy believism or that we are advocating sin and lawlessness, hence the accusation of antinomianism.

and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;