@wordsmith: *a trumpet sounded and its summons echoed through the meadow. I charged up a hill, the sun gleaming off my armor. readying my sword I reached the peek and gazed into the valley. A giant, ten feet tall and with arms the size of tree trunks towered before me. I faltered and swallowed hard “this is going to be harder then I thought.”*
Alright wordsmith *cracks his knuckles* Lets do this! (also, if these are your stale crackers I really dont want to meet your fresh crackers XD)
“I will start out by sending you Romans six and seven… because you took both of those Romans passages out of context. Romans eight still applies here, but it’s not crucial to my point. This chunk of Romans says two things that I believe are very important here (though I’m sure it says more than that). A. There is still a law we are to follow, B. We cannot follow it perfectly which would result in our death but Christ took that off of us so we can strive for it without worrying about it crushing us.” *talks a deep breath and then realises it slowly* I cant really disagree with you here… I mean the verse coming to mind is
“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. ” (1 John 5: 2-4)
So ya, I guess I have no choice but to agree with you here…
@eden-anderson: you said “believe that when Christ came he fulfilled the Old Law…ALL OF IT. And we now have a new standard of living.”
I was thinking the same thing but now I’m not so sure… I think Wordsmiths right, were still called to obey the law, at least some part of it… However I do think you raised a very valid point “But who are we to decide what Christ fulfilled and what Christ didn’t fulfill?” wordsmith, how do we decide between moral law and Mosaic law? Becase the mosaic law definitely was fulfilled ,the NT makes that quite clear. However, for lack of a better argument “Thus I conclude here that Jesus never changed morality. We are still to follow the (moral) law, but are not bound to it for justification which would result in our going to hell.” However, I will add to your conclusion the word moral for the sake of clarification. Alright, wordsmith, you have fulfilled point 3 of my ‘convince me’ requirements (in regard to the moral law) however you still face the problem of points 1 and 2 before I come to your side XD.
“Now! I say that NT doesn’t trump OT, and that’s because it doesn’t need to.” I still hold to my argument of different ‘times’. Unless clearly part of the moral law, we cannot assume a command from the OT applies to the new testiment (for reasons previously listed: namely context)
“Also… If you get to say that the sword thing doesn’t apply to us because it’s in the OT I get to say that about Jesus sermon on the mount. It’s in the OT. Yeah… that doesn’t work.” ya, I agree… That logic has problems XD
“And yes… he does call us to be like him… but we are not here for the same purpose. In fact I found a self defense passage where Jesus seems to be promoting self-defense: “But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.” Mark 3:27 ” I argue we are still here to live as Jesus did and as Eden put it “We see over and over again verses of turning the other cheek, loving our enemies, denying ourselves, taking up our crosses.” That is the NT Christian calling, its very clear threw out scripture.
As for your parable verse, I wouldn’t put to much weight on it. Parables, are analogies, useful for some truths but never fully accurate. They cant be taken to mean anything but what they were designed to mean. Otherwise, we could take this parable:
“And he told them a parable to show that they must always pray and not be discouraged, 2 saying, “There was a certain judge in a certain town who did not fear God and did not respect people. 3 And there was a widow in that town, and she kept coming to him, saying, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary!’ 4 And he was not willing for a time, but after these things he said to himself, ‘Even if I do not fear God or respect people, 5 yet because this widow is causing trouble for me, I will grant her justice, so that she does not wear me down in the end by her[a]coming back!’” 6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unrighteous judge is saying! 7 And will not God surely see to it that justice is done to his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night, and will he delay toward them?”(Luke 18:1-7 NIV)
and say God listens to use if/ because were annoying XD It just doesn’t work. Your parable is not talking about self-defence and thus cannot be used to say something about self-defense (as I see it)
“And so I think we are permitted to fight so as not to leave our family vulnerable.” again, this is ‘corporate self-defence’ the argument that its ok to defend yourself cuz it helps someone else. Now (unless you want to try and prove their inseparable) were talking about just defending yourself for the sake of saving yourself, not others. Also does “making sure your family’s not vulnerable” really justify potentualy sending someone to hell? as Eden said “Can we as believers in Jesus, with a clear conscience, take the life of another human? If they are an unbeliever we are sending them to eternal punishment. Hell. And I think I would rather die then live with the guilt that I sent someone to hell.”
“When you mention turning the other cheek, that would be in contradiction to much of scripture, unless we read it as not having revenge, which really makes more sense, in both the language and consistency.” eden already adressed this but, just so you know, I do think your interpritain as a ‘dont take revenge’ verse is correct in this case : D.
“In Philippians: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2: 3-5) That is not only referring to our relationships with one another (brothers and sisters), but it’s also referring to selfish ambitions or vain conceit. Self defense is neither of those, and if a person is attacking us we can assume by their fruit, that they are not a brother or sister. ” so you belive were only ment to have the mindset of christ in our relationships? I’m pretty sure we can both agree “having the mindset of christ” applies to everything.
“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.”This is in the context of how we act in accordance with fellow saints” I’m confused, are you claiming we are only supposed to love christians? thats not what your saying right?
““Be angry and do not sin;” There is a place for righteous anger. Anger is a form of resistance, whether physical or not.” Uh I find this controversial, namely because I recently discovered a verse in James which says “for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” (James 1:20)
alright, im sorry but I’ve got to go. I’m in NZ, on break for goodness sake and theres no way i can stay inside anylonger XD
INTJ- trying to grow into real wisdom; James 3:17