| Author | Message | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
Of particular interest to former Adventists, I forgot to also list peanuts and peanut butter as forbidden or occasional foods if you want to avoid kidney stones (that would include several meat analogs by Worthington and Loma Linda Foods as well). I happen to really love peanut butter, unfortunately. Sylvia and I like the product called REAL PEANUT BUTTER found in the refrigerated section of food markets. I will probably substitute with another favorite called PEACH BUTTER by Smuckers. If you have never eaten peach butter, you really need to try some. In the event that one does not want to curtail their favorite foods, prescription pills are available to hopefully compensate for dietary indiscretion. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
In Romans 7, Paul gives an analogy of marriage. He then compares this relationship to our relationship with the law(?). Here is the passage in question: 1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. In this passage, who was our former spouse? Was it the Law or was it our sinful nature? In His Grace Doug | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Well, Doug, I will venture an opinion, but others may have a finer understanding of the passage. It seems to me that the answer, in some sense, both. Primarily, the answer might be ìour sinful nature.î However, because Paul goes on to say ìyou also were made to die to the Law,î we can infer that we have died to our sinful nature through the body of Christ and, because the law is the enabler and enforcer of the relationship, we have died to the law. That is, we were ìmarriedî to our sinful nature, and we were ìmarriedî to the law in order to point out our sinful nature. Therefore, when we die to sin through Jesus Christ, we break both of those relationships. Jerry | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I think I agree with Jerryóin a way, you can't separate our sinful nature from the curse of the law. Our death changes our relationship to law. (Think civil lawódeath removes its responsibility over us!) Our death in Christ removes the responsibility of the law of sin and death over us. (Law, I think, is even bigger than the Mosaic law. Those before Moses were still condemmed to death by their sin. The Mosaic law simply made Israel conscious of their sinful condition, the requirements and curse of the law, and their hopelessness.) So, when we die in Christ, we die to ourselves and live instead in Jesus. Dying to ourselves means the law of sin and death has no more power over us because Jesus became sin for us and took its penalty. The curse of the law is satisfied for those who are alive in Him. This marriage metaphor is really a rich one! You're asking really thought-provoking questions, Doug! I think that in a sense it has mutliple levels of meaning. When we are alive in Christ, he is our spouse. We have his nature placed in us, and he has authority over us. Before we are alive in him, the law of sin and death has authority over us, and we are in bondage to our sinful nature. The curse of the law and our sinful natures are inseparable. Our eternal life and the living Christ are inseparable. That is why as Clay Peck and Dale Ratzlaff have both written, we commmit spiritual adultery when, as Christians living in the grace of Christ and his finished work, we also try to keep the law. We cannot serve both the law of sin and death and the living Christ who has defeated the power of sin and death. Great question, Doug. I don't feel as if I've really plumbed its depth; you've made me think! Colleen | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Thanks Jerry. I had been reading this as saying that we died to the Law (our former spouse). In fact, the movie "Sleeping with the Enemy" had become one of my favorite movies because of its parallel to chapter 7. In that movie, Julia Roberts plays a woman who was married to an abusive husband. He was a perfectionist, and condemned her for the least little infraction. Eventually, she escaped from her husband and began a new life with another guy who accepted her for who she was and treated her with such tenderness and kindness, like she'd never experienced before. Over time, she began doing things for him that she used to do for her ex-husband (i.e. cooking special meals), but it was done out of love rather fear. However, she lived in constant fear of the old husband finding her new location. Eventually, he found her, destroying the peace and tranquility of her new life. It was only after he was dead that she was truly free from his abusive ways and able to enjoy life with the new guy. It is an amazing parallel to Romans 7--as I understood it. This morning, I was reading chapter 6 and 7. In chapter 6, Paul makes several references to our sinful nature no longer being our master. He also says, "you died to your sinful nature" as compared to 7:4 where he says "you died to the Law." Then, at the beginning of Chapter 7, he gives the illustration, which appears to be a continuation of the point he was making in chapter 6. In context, I would agree with you that he is saying that we were married (bound) to our sinful nature, but in dying through the body of Christ, that bond has been severed and we have been released from the Law's requirement--which binds us to our sinful nature until one of us (our nature or our spirit) dies. Later in chapter 7, he talks about his spirit, who wants to do right, and his flesh, who continually does wrong being at war with each other. Is this the actual marriage he is referring to? If so, it is definitely the definition of the ultimate dysfunctional marriage. What is the implication of this? Well, when chapter 7 speaks of being an adulteress if we join to another while our husband is still alive, is it saying that if we attempt to follow after the Spirit (or be joined to Christ) while our sinful nature is still alive that we are committing adultery? Contrast this to the traditoinal interpretation that spiritual adultery is attempting to keep the law and be married to Christ at the same time. I am still trying to figuring this out. I welcome anyone else's insight. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Yes, Dougóthat makes sense. It's interesting to look at it from the perspective of committing spiritual adultery if we try to follow Christ while our sinful natures are alive. I think the "adultery" motif works both directions. You really can't be married to yourself and to Christ at the same time. That's why so many Adventists (and others as well, but I know more about Adventism!) appear so confusing; they say the right things, "do" the right things, but they aren't free in the love of Christ. They are trying to marry Christ without being born again. That's the confusion of ADventism and of any belief that adds to the gospel or doesn't acknowledge the new covenant. Praise God for new life! Colleen | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Yes its making more and more sense. Using that interpretation, then the sinful nature would be the body of death that Paul speaks about--the original ball and chain. You know what is scary is that this is the explanation of Romans 7 that I think I remember hearing in Adventism. Colleen, I didn't mean to ignore your coments earlier. Evidently I was posting at the same time as you. As usual your comments were very insightful--especially when you mentioned that the law spoken of here has to be larger than the Mosaic law. When you interpret the law as speaking of the law of sin and death (and not just the Mosaic law), everything seems to fit much better. Based on your statements, I was a little unclear how you arrived at your last statement: "That is why as Clay Peck and Dale Ratzlaff have both written, we commmit spiritual adultery when, as Christians living in the grace of Christ and his finished work, we also try to keep the law. We cannot serve both the law of sin and death and the living Christ who has defeated the power of sin and death." Do you care to elaborate? I can not tell you how refreshing it is to find a place to be able to explore God's word without dogma, antagonism, and debate. I truly appreciate all of you. You exemplify the Spirit of Christ. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Sorry, Doug. That is unclear! This is just unfolding before my eyes as well. I'll see if I can explain myself. If the sinful nature is under the law of sin and death, and the Mosaic law is the written expression of that law, then the written law is only for those who have not been born again. In other words, as Paul also says in Romans, the law is righteous and good. It declares the way a righteous person would live. But it carries the curse of death with it for any who do not keep it. It was given for the purpose of making Israel aware of the sin that was just an subconsious fact of life before Sinai. It was given to point out sin and lead people to their need of a Savior. The Mosaic law made their hopeless condition clear. The Mosaic law was impossible to keep, and it clearly condemned to death all those who (inevitably) did not keep it. Enter Jesus. He becomes sin for us; he accepts the penalty of sin. He breaks the bondage of sin and restores oneness with the Father for all who accept his sacrifice. When we accept him, we pass from death to life. We become born again by the Holy Spirit, true children of God; new creations. Because Jesus has covered us with his righteousness and placed his nature in us via the indwelling Holy Spirit, because we died to sin by accepting His death, we are no longer bound to the law of sin and deathóeither the larger, universal law of sin and death or to the written expression of the curse of death for sinners. So, I think I'm beginning to think(!) that the first spouse is sinful flesh which is intrinsically bound to the law of sin and deathóa law which includes the Mosaic law, the written code that was against us. (Colossians 2:14) Sinful flesh is inseparable from the law, unwritten and written, which condemns sin to death. Eternal life in Jesus is free from the law. We are alive to Christ who replaces the law as our authority. Sin is under the authority of death. The new birthóour new selvesóare under the authority of Christ who fulfilled the law of sin and death and gave us himselfóhis lifeóinstead. So, we commit adultery when as Christ-followers we continue to try to keep the law which was designed for unregenerate people to be led to an acknowledgment of their sin and their ultimate end. And, as you pointed out, Doug, we commit adultery if, as unreborn people, we claim to belong to Christ and try to live in him by our own power and works. We can't have two spouses. Either we have sinful flesh under the authority of the law of sin and death as our spouse, or we have Christ as our spouse (the new birth) and are under his authority and gifted with love and life. Does that makes sense? Colleen | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Oh, this is getting deeper by the moment. We all know that the definition of sin is derived from the greek word "hamartano" which means to "miss the mark." The question is, "what is the mark." I submit to you that rather than the mark being the law, as it is typically defined, the mark is life (fellowship with God). Therefore, in a real sense, sin is anything that keeps me from having true fellowship with God. This is totally consistent with the point that Colleen just made about the law being larger than the Mosaic Law and explains why those before Moses were still under the condemnation of sin. So, then couldn't we actually define sin as "unbelief?" It has nothing to do with the things we do. Instead, it has to do with why we do things. Does Romans 14:23 sound familiar to anyone: "...everything that does not come from faith is sin." Or how about, James 1:14,15: "but each one is tempted when by his own evil desire he is dragged away (from the abundant life that is found in Jesus)and enticed. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when it (sin)is fullgrown gives brith to death (adultery, murder, gossip, stealing, etc.) Now it makes sense why legalism is so dangerous. Legalism focuses on outward behavior, but sin is internal. It occurs long before any action ever occurred. Eve sinned when she first contemplated the idea that God could be witholding something from them (unbelief). With that understanding. some verses that usually raise the hackles on the back of my neck make more sense. For example, Romans 6:7 says, "...anyone who has died has been freed from sin." Now, do you know anyone who has been "freed from sin" in the traditional definition of the word? I know that I certainly have not. Or how about all the references in Romans about being "set free from sin." It just hasn't happened. I have blasphemously thought before, "is it possible that we have exchanged one impossible standard for another?" The solution that some of us have suggested is to say that we are no longer "under the law"--meaning that God understands that we cannot help the things that we do, so he doesn't condemn us. Mind you everyone doesn't take this attitude, but it is a widespread one within the Christian community. In taking that attitude, do we not encourage people to continue to be bound? Yet, over and over throughout the book of Romans, Paul says, we have been set free from sin. Now, I see that being set free means releasing my unbelief--nothing more (and nothing less). And so when Paul says that I have been "set free from sin and have become a slave to God," or when he says "sin shall not be my master," or that I have "died to the law," he means that I have finally realized that "my way" doesn't cut it--never did and never will. Once I recognize that (beyond intellectualism) following after the Spirit will be a piece of cake. Now I no longer have to cringe at the condition that I find painfully obvious in one of the sweetest promises in the Bible, "There, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the Law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, So to summarize, freedom is not freedom from the law, it is freedom from ME. Don't we serve an awesome God? In His Grace Doug | ||
| Carol_2 (Carol_2) |
yes we do serve an awesome God! and i thank Him for using all of you to encourage me! doug, colleen, jerry, and all of you -- i hope you realize how God is using you to help so many of us. thank you! love and prayers, carol | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
I don't have time to really digest all of this but it overwhelms me--once again--that I have been struggling with this same issue. I know I am not "free" from sin, even though I know that I am. I'm sorting it all out too and trying to grasp the realization of just who I am in Christ. I think when I finally "get it" I will be free. Seems that WHO I am (in Christ) has nothing to do with what I DO (in the flesh) My "Who" can change my "do" but my "do" can't change my "who" Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. LOL Will try to find time for a more elegant response-ha! | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Sabra, I'm ROFLOL, only you could say something like that and get away with it <smile>. You're great. Thank you for the kind words Carol. I too have to go back and read Colleen's post again. It is deep! Doug | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Great point, Doug. One way I've come to think of sin is that it is a dead spirit, unconnected to God. Adventists believe sin is genetic and behavioral; I've come to believe it's really spiritual, not physical. We are born with dead spirits, out of touch with God. The new birth is when our spirits come alive and the Holy Spirit indwells us. That's when we become new creatures, children of God. He becomes our true Father. When we die to self, that's when we accept Christ's death and become alive in him by the Holy Spirit. Sin is then dead in usóbut we still inhabit sinful flesh even though our spirits are now alive. Our inherited spiritual death DOES affect us physically; we have all kinds of innate temptations and drives to do evil. Those temptations do give birth to the temptation to act in unbeliefówhich would ultimately lead back into sin, as you pointed out, Doug. But when we are alive in Christ through the Holy Spirit, we're no longer on our own fighting these temptations. We are spiritually alive with the Holy Spirit's power helping us to choose life on a continuing basis. All this is really abstract and hard to explain, and I'm undoubtedly missing some really important details, but I'm so grateful that God reveals himself to us and helps us gradually grow in him and increase in the knowledge of him! I love what you said, Sabra: "My 'Who' can change my 'do' but my 'do' can't change my 'Who'." I totally agree! Colleen | ||
| Carol_2 (Carol_2) |
sabra - you are so funny! and i do think you make perfect sense! you're very refreshing to all of us. carol | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Yes Colleen, that makes perfect sense. I had to read what you said in the morning, when I think better. In reading this it is easy to get discouraged, because it seems to be saying that if the sinful nature is dead, and we are alive to Christ, that we should no longer be bound to our fears, neurosis (I loved your use of that term in an earlier post), habits, etc), but that is not necessarily true. This is where reading an entire portion of a passage, and not just one or two verses becomes important. Beginning with verse 18, we find out that this transformation does not occur until the second coming when we receive our glorified bodies. So, right now, all we have is a promise of what is to come. That makes it sound like we are hopelessly stuck with our sinful nature until then. But, God in His infinite mercy has not left us to our own devices, He has given us the Holy Spirit as a down payment on that promise so we can start enjoying the benefits now. Now, Adventist will attempt to teach you that the Holy Spirit enables us to keep the Law, however, verse 18-25 teaches the exact opposite. "It says for in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all for what we do not yet have we wait patiently." God gives us the opportunity to taste what it will be like to live freed from our sinful natures (the degree to which we experience it is in direct proportion to our willingness to submit to the Spirit), but we won't know in full until then. Sabra, I know what you mean about not being free. God woke me up last night with a text that he has brouht to my attention before. Do you remember the man at the Pool of Bethesda? He had been coming there for thirty years (or something like that). Do you remember what Jesus said to him when He approached him? "Do you want to get well?" What an awesome question! Then he told the man to "pick up your bed and walk." I think, he is telling us the same thing. "Do you want to free?" Then, stand up out of the mudpile." He has made us free, now like the man at the poool, we have to decide whether we believe it enough to act on it or not. ANyway, I guess I said all this to say that this has been a very illuminating passage for me. I see it much clearer than I ever have before, and I thank all of you for allowing me to think out loud on the forum here. The sobering thing about it is that I am left with the question, "do you want ot be free?" Mere knowledge never set anyone free. Its only acting upon the knowledge that truly sets one free. In His Grace | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Doug, thank you for thinking out loud with us. This passage was really illuminating for me, too. I really like how you've summarized the issue for yourself: Do you want to be free? Wow. But you're right. That is what Jesus asks us. Thanks for asking such a thought-provoking question yesterday. Praise God for the Holy Spirit and for his promise of complete freedom to come! Colleen | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
I love Joyce Meyer and she says we are trying to get into a chair we're already seated in. We are already the righteousness of God, we already have the power to be free, we are already dead to sin, our spirit knows it but our mind and flesh still has to figure it out. I know if we walk in the Spirit we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, but I'm not walking in the spirit evidently. Exhausting really if you think about it, and hey, what about the REST!! I think it is interesting that self-control is the last fruit of the spirit. Maybe we gotta get the others right first. I dunno. Praise God, I'm not where I was anyway. | ||
| African (African) |
I have been trying to digest all this and am definately going to have a deeper look when I have more time. There is so much of what you all have said/shared that has made me really see these passages in a new light. My husband used a simple illustration in our last bible study and I hope you don't mind me sharing it here. We were discussing how nothing in ourselves can save us - Jesus did it all. He said it was like walking down the street carrying a heavy load on your head or shoulders (btw that is a common site in these parts), someone stops to give you a lift in their automobile. You're so pleased for the lift, you get in but still continue to carry the heavy sack on your head! Jesus wants to take the load, he sets us free! He said to come to him with our heavy loads and HE WILL GIVE US REST. How often we believe we are set free and resting in Him, yet we still carry the baggage? Just a thought. | ||
| Gatororeo7 (Gatororeo7) |
Doug, i dont have much more to add than whats been posted, but i can tell that God is really opening up the Gospel to you; because really you're still finding out what it really is and getting those sda cobwebs out. i suggest a look at galatians as well. you'll be surprised at how closely they're related. joel | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Thanks Joel, Galatians was the first book that God used to begin removing the veil from my eyes. I need to go back and read it again though. Afterall, I've read the book of Romans a couple of times since my "libertation," and God definitely showed me some new stuff this time around. I agree that the point I am coming to understand about freedom is consistent with Galatians chapter 5 and 6, It is also consistent with the whole second half of the book of Ephesians. I think it was important for God to teach me about resting in his completed work before he begins taking me to the next level. As Bob George would say, I had to understand His death, so I could begin to experience His life. In His Grace Doug |
