ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 2, 2006 18:38:03 GMT 10
anyway, maraming salamat Kuya B., Linsi and HOtty for allowing me to realize this again...through this discussion..
maraming salamat...
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 2, 2006 18:42:58 GMT 10
banshik:
After the fall we may be considered nothing - but God did reveal a divine plan for the redemption of man which accounted for something. Besides, if the relationship of between Man and God did amount to nothing : (a) why choose your Son to become Man? (b) why establish a covenant with the chosen people? Did the patriarchs/prophets/etc. call God (Yahweh their "Father" - if yes could it be that filiation still existed (c) could it be that a relationship between Man and God still exist?
ruth:
Can you expound Kuya B...about the Divine Plan? or pwede na ba ito sa ibang thread?
sige po maya maya na sagot ko dito...trabaho muna.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 2, 2006 19:15:10 GMT 10
Yours Hotty: Kuya B.... Tanong po: Nun bang gawin ng Lord ang moral law, nag expect ba siya na susundin ito ng tao? Hi Hotty, Yes. It is the plan and design of God that Man gets to do good, obey and love God. The reason why God made laws is not for man to disobey them - but rather for Man to realize how to love and follow God. To say that God made laws so that man could disobey Him would be contrary to the nature of God which is all good. Why? By creating something like laws which would be meant to make intrinsically evil acts would mean that God has been a "cooperator of evil" because God made something for man to become evil. This is not the case, because the purpose of Law is for man to do good and not to do evil.
pa singit hotty and kuya banshik din..
when God gave man His laws did he expect him to keep it? my answer is ironical with kuya banshik's
my answer is NO.. knowing all things God was fully aware that man would not-indeed could not keep his laws when he gave it.
e kung ganun bakit nagkaganun at nagbigay pa siya ng laws? as in everything God had a wise and good purpose [/size]
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 2, 2006 19:29:45 GMT 10
thanks linsi, for supporting my view na answer is NO....
|
|
|
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 2, 2006 19:49:48 GMT 10
Hi Hotty, Sa iyo muna dahil medyo mahaba yung kay Ruth. The moment God gave instructions to Man, there in effect is Law - Moral Law. It was further defined through the revelation of the commandents - but Moral law has existed even before. When God gave instruction to Abraham to kill Isaac, that maybe considered as a law for Abraham only...Not applicable the law given to Abraham to all.... Kaya the moral law we are talking here is the 10 commandments of GOD... MOral LAW na universal kamo…. This is your post: reply # 83: This also supports that Man by nature is good because God would not adopt a being which is intrinsically evil. This also supports why the law and its application is universal and why moral culpability applies to all - lahat ng tao ay anak at may pananagutan sa Ama. Linsi, i will ask you questions if i oppose from your post(from the start alam mo nang agree ako sa yo with the conscience thing)..So far wala pa naman ako tanong sa yo kaya continue posting..Maybe the word probation is yun lang ang di ko ma-gets...
|
|
|
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 3, 2006 11:07:37 GMT 10
I have read genesis last night and hope that God gave me enough wisdom for this discussion…. Lins, umayon ako kay Kuya Banshik about moral law, referring yun sa first law- not to eat the forbidden fruit “before the fall” .But when “after the fall” moral law was given to man during moses era. I do agree with you too. Nakulangan lang ang tanong ko kay Kuya B about MORAL LAW AFTER THE FALL, yun ang tanong ko kay Kuyang na hindi nya nasagot( Cain and Abel how they pleased GOD without MORAL LAW) [blue]Take note guys: When the fall in the garden happened, though man by nature is good but then nagkasala(by his own choice, the freewill) by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge , he/she now have the knowledge of good and evil. Na sa simula naman ng creation, ang alam lang ng tao, GOD had made the earth good, them(adam and eve) of being good, the place where God brought them was good, everything was good in paradise. But then nung nagkarun na ng karunungan ay nalamang may MABUTI AT MASAMA pala.(genesis 3:22 22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever). Moral Law “after the fall” never exist yet “liban na lang nung binigay kay Moses ang 10 commandments of GOD. “ What made Cain or Abel think that they are wrong? What made Cain and Abel think that they are right? May Karunungan na ang tao ng MABUTI AT MASAMA… God said to Cain at genesis 4: 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door: and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.Now alam ng tao ang MASAMA AT MABUTI, anong kasunod? Freewill muna…good ba or evil? Kapag ang choice is good or evil, next is……… Heto na si konsensya(holy spirit) paalalahanan ka….. good or evil the choice… Kung good, sasabihin nya, alright go, do it… Kapag evil, oppppsss di mabuti o masama yan!” Then action follows…. Panong nalaman ng tao na di nya sinunod si konsensya(holy spirit) at mali ang choice nya, di naman sya aware kung ano ang standars ng LORD? [brown] Answer is... Nakakaramdam sya ng guilt…. The conscience(holy spirit) is grieving… [/brown] The pagans, the skeptics, non-believers who do not know the moral law in our times right now, anong pinagkaiba nila dun sa mga naunang hindi pa sakop ng 10 commandments, “after the fall of adam and eve” prior moses time? Why they prefer right over wrong without knowing the moral law? [black]So hope this helps…. [/black] [/blue]
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 3, 2006 13:25:27 GMT 10
Lins, umayon ako kay Kuya Banshik about moral law, referring yun sa first law- not to eat the forbidden fruit “before the fall” .But when “after the fall” moral law was given to man during moses era. I do agree with you too. Nakulangan lang ang tanong ko kay Kuya B about MORAL LAW AFTER THE FALL, yun ang tanong ko kay Kuyang na hindi nya nasagot( Cain and Abel how they pleased GOD without MORAL LAW)
sis
agreed, pero yung pagbabawal ng Lord sa pagkain ng forbidden fruit kay adam at eve ay hindi po moral law, that is personal between God and our first parents kc noon wala pang batas, ang moral law ay 10 commandments at nagsimula lang nung ibigay kay moses sa mt sinai. ang 10 commandments ay unang moral laws para sa mga israelitas.
kaya nga ang kasalanan ni adam at eve ay hindi yung pagkain ng forbidden fruit eh, ang kasalanan nila ay more on DISOBEDIENCE.
GANITO:
bilin: wag ninyong kainin ang bunga gawa: kinain kasalanan: pag suway
wak malilito- kaya ang unang utos ay hindi moral law dahil wala pang kasalanan sina adam at eve, remember they are devoid of evil, meaning walang wala pa silang kasalanan, ang moral law ay ibinigay lamang sa tao, at isa sa mga dahilan ay upang malaman ng tao na siya ay makasalanan kaya siya ay binigyan ng moral law.
kaya pagkatapos ng taong magkasala after the fall, dun ibinigay ng Lord ang moral law sa panahon ni moses.
|
|
|
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 3, 2006 13:41:22 GMT 10
Re: Moral Law, Natural Law, Nature of being a MAN « Reply #134 on Today at 2:45pm » i wanted to agree with you hotty, ang moral law basically ay ang 10 commandments dun nagsimula ang batas para sa israel.
Re: Moral Law, Natural Law, Nature of being a MAN « Reply #99 on Yesterday at 8:41pm »
therefore the first simple moral law was disobeyed.Hi Linsi, No offense meant. Which is which? your reply kay Kuya banshik, can u explain on this?
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 3, 2006 14:02:15 GMT 10
The probationary commandment given to adam was personal, not moral. There was no obvious wrong in eating from the forbidden fruit.
anong bawal dun sa fruit? fruit lang po yun kung iisipin, pero pinagbawal (personal) at ang penalty? (curses kasama ang DEATH)
Sa pinakamababaw na example. pag sinabi ng nanay pwede mong kainin ang lahat ng nasa ref pero wag na wag mong kakainin ang kaka bake na vanilla cake dahil magagalit siya ( galit may consequences yun)
anong masama sa pagkain ng cake? wala ,cake yun e edible, masarap, ang mali dun ay sinuway mo ang gusto ng nanay mo na wag kainin..-- THAT IS PERSONAL.not moral
likewise the prohibition of eating the forbidden fruit was A TESTING LAW BECAUSE THE EVIL WAS NOT SELF-EVIDENT, KC nga yung pinagbawal na kakainin ni adam and eve ay prutas lang yun eh at yun ay pagkain masarap nga eh, kaya personal law yun hindi moral.
anong sama pagkain sa cake e vanilla cake nga yun eh sarap , ang mali dun hindi mo sinunod yung utos ng nanay mo.
so yun yung sinasabi ko na probationary state ni adam at eve, it was a testing state na post ko na yung iba for ruth.
kung nag obey sana si adam at eve, magkakarun sila ng holy character rising to a new level of blessing na gaya ni enoch.
kaya yung utos kay adam ay personal alw not moral law.
bottomline"
ang moral law is dealing with God's rules for holy living pero nung panahon ni adam before the fall holy living pa nun sila at wala pa siyang kasalanan.
ang purpose ng Lord, ay marating ni adam ang higher level of blessings and fellowship with God through OBEDIENCE and the law was personal.
|
|
|
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 3, 2006 14:13:08 GMT 10
The probationary commandment given to adam was personal, not moral. There was no obvious wrong in eating from the forbidden fruit.
anong bawal dun sa fruit? fruit lang po yun kung iisipin, pero pinagbawal (personal) at ang penalty? (curses kasama ang DEATH)
Sa pinakamababaw na example. pag sinabi ng nanay pwede mong kainin ang lahat ng nasa ref pero wag na wag mong kakainin ang kaka bake na vanilla cake dahil magagalit siya ( galit may consequences yun)
anong masama sa pagkain ng cake? wala ,cake yun e edible, masarap, ang mali dun ay sinuway mo ang gusto ng nanay mo na wag kainin..-- THAT IS PERSONAL.not moral
likewise the prohibition of eating the forbidden fruit was A TESTING LAW BECAUSE THE EVIL WAS NOT SELF-EVIDENT, KC nga yung pinagbawal na kakainin ni adam and eve ay prutas lang yun eh at yun ay pagkain masarap nga eh, kaya personal law yun hindi moral.
anong sama pagkain sa cake e vanilla cake nga yun eh sarap , ang mali dun hindi mo sinunod yung utos ng nanay mo.
so yun yung sinasabi ko na probationary state ni adam at eve, it was a testing state na post ko na yung iba for ruth.
kung nag obey sana si adam at eve, magkakarun sila ng holy character rising to a new level of blessing na gaya ni enoch.
kaya yung utos kay adam ay personal alw not moral law.
bottomline"
ang moral law is dealing with God's rules for holy living pero nung panahon ni adam before the fall holy living pa nun sila at wala pa siyang kasalanan.
ang purpose ng Lord, ay marating ni adam ang higher level of blessings and fellowship with God through OBEDIENCE and the law was personal.
Waaaaa, bakit God warns them about dieng kung kakainin nila ang fruit? Kung very simple ang law na yun? Anyway, la problem kung moral or not moral ang tawag sa first law(pero aralin ko pa rin, babalikan kita kapag may support verses ako, kung wala, di hindi moral law)... Ang importante yung moral law relating conscience na pinag-di-diskursuhan nyo ni kuya banshik...
|
|
|
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 3, 2006 14:15:06 GMT 10
In short, He created Adam and Eve and made them live in perfect bliss in the Garden of Eden...in order for mankind to know what it is like to live in perfect union with God. He gave us free will..para di naman tayo robot. He gave us the Law..in order for us to practice our free will.agree....
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 3, 2006 14:41:11 GMT 10
From hottyfecehh Waaaaa, bakit God warns them about dieng kung kakainin nila ang fruit? Kung very simple ang law na yun?
sis
yun na nga napa kasimple ng utos at wala pa silang muwang sa kasalanan nun, anong ginawa- unang testing palang wag kakain SUMUWAY NA..
SAMANTALANG LAHAT NG BUNGA PEDENG KAININ testing lang na isang bunga wag kakainin pumalpak kaagad.. so paano natin sasabihing yung unang utos kay adam e moral law
anong immoral sa pagkain ng bunga, ahehe kaya nga nasabi ring commandment of works dahil hindi pa alam ng tao nun kung anong moral at immoral kc nga ala pang batas at bale personal na simpleng utos lang ito na galing sa Lord .
ang batas ay ginawa para sa mga nagkakasala, laws are made for law breakers, hindi pa nga nakaka break ng kahit anong law si adam at eve nun eh,they were devoid of evil, kaya probation nga po.
at samantalang wala pa ngang muwang sa kasalanan si adam at eve, e ang description ng moral law una ay para ma lead sa holy living at ipaalam ang kahulugan ng kasalanan.
before the fall holy living na nga si adam at wala pa siyang kaalam alam sa kasalanan therefore hindi moral law yung utos it was personal at probationary (testing) dahil unang utos po eh, at naguutos ang Lord sa mga nilalang niya na pure at wala pang kasalanan at ni hindi alam kung anong kahulugan ng kasalanan that was before the fall.
isa pa yan ang ayaw na ayaw ng LORD DISOBEDIENCE
kung magbabasa ka ng book of deuteronomy nandun lahat ng curses at blessings at ang punot dulo lahat ay disobedience at obedience..
ang kailangan ng Lord sa atin ay OBEDIENCE.
|
|
|
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 3, 2006 15:09:01 GMT 10
ehehe.... gets ko na.... Because moral law defines as: moral law=the law of duty as regards what is right and wrong in the sight of God; specifically, the ten commandments given by Moses right and wrong there stands for good and evil.... sinample ko pala yun sa mahabang paliwanag ko sa taas na...saka lang pala nagkamuwang ang dalawang tao about good and evil dahil sa pagkain ng fruit ng tree of knowledge.... Thanks lins.... Muah! Pero parang tuso naman ni LORD...pano kung ang sinabi NYA kay adam and eve is "wag lumukso sa river" e lumukso pa rin, sarap maligo at mainit...SUMMER na SUMMER... E without their knowing malalim pala ang river? waaaaa, e di nalunod, patay na bago pa natanong kung anong ginawa nilang dalawa?
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 3, 2006 15:34:58 GMT 10
Then Samuel said: "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. (1Samuel 15:22 )
OBEDIENCE IS BETTER THAN SACRIFICE
ahehe yun na nga sis
ang tao kc tayong lahat basta pag ginusto walang pakealam at ang mahirap pa sa tao mas marunong pa sa Diyos kaya ayan tuloy ang nangyari
kaya nga sabi ko hindi expected ng Lord na makakasunod ang tao sa batas eh.. e bakit ginawa ang batas.. or moral law?
may mas maganda Siyang plano kc
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 3, 2006 17:38:48 GMT 10
From hotty Pero parang tuso naman ni LORD...pano kung ang sinabi NYA kay adam and eve is "wag lumukso sa river" e lumukso pa rin, sarap maligo at mainit...SUMMER na SUMMER... E without their knowing malalim pala ang river? waaaaa, e di nalunod, patay na bago pa natanong kung anong ginawa nilang dalawa?
Yun ang paningin masarap maligo at mainit, samantalang sinabing wag lumukso sa river
yung pagkain ng forbidden fruit, ang katumbas ng diobedience sa pagkain nun pinaliwanag ng Lord beforehand "You will surely die" sinabi na ng Lord ang magiging consequences po
di ba ganyan tayo? marami tayong hindi alam? at sasabihin natin ay mas maalam ang Diyos, yun ang gusto ng Lord maging pure ang heart natin at the same time binigyan niya tayo ng dominion (talino, intellect at free choice) kompleto po.
higit sa lahat yung free choice hindi pinakealaman ng Lord.. although sinabi niyang "you will surely die" yun po ang culpability, yun yung consequences at katumbas ng responsibilidad sa choice natin.. pero yung free choice natin hindi pinakealaman-
pede nating gawin yung gusto natin para ano pa at sinabing free kung pipigilin niya..
yun nga lang sinabi niya ang kakahinatnan pero yung act ng pagsasagawa ng pinili natin ay malaya nating magagawa kaya nga free will, free choice.
at yan ang story ng fall of man, pinili ni adam at eve na sumuway kahit sinabi na sa kanilang "you will surely die" at kahit pa napaka ideal ng kanilang tirahan, still ginamit nila ang malayang pagpili at pinili nila ang kamatayan.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 5, 2006 12:18:31 GMT 10
Kuya...Ang sabi nya: He created us in His own image...He intended as to be Good...
but when we were tested...foolish pala tayo and wicked...
but He never said we will be on our foolish and wicked state for eternity...we can still fulfill what He intended us to become...
through The Refiner's Fire....alam ko pa alam nyo ang kanta na ito. .... Hi Ruth,
1. You just said that "God created Man in His own image"... God's intentions were "good" This means that: (a) Man is by nature good because the intention and purpose of God was good (b) Man was made under God's image
2. Even if Man failed the test and commits sin, it does not change the nature of man being made under the intention of "good" and for the purpose of "good".
It also doe snot mean that if man sins' the nature of man changes as being a "creature by nature evil".
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 5, 2006 12:27:20 GMT 10
ruth: kuya we were created with His intention for us to be good...and He created us without limiting us...kaya nga tayo binigyan ng free will...kaya nya sinabi na you can eat all the fruits of the trees in the garden exept one...
kung nilimitahan nya ang nature natin...then sana di na lang sya naglagay ng Law for us to practice our free will
at bakit nya pa pinabayaan na tuksuhin tayo ni Satan? bakit di na lang nya pinigilan agad si Satan at dun palang sa time na tinetempt si EVE? para di na tayo nagkasala...para namaintain ang nature natin na pagiging Good...if that is our nature talaga? Hi Ruth,
1. This is the predicament. The premise you presented is that "free will" is to be defined as the basis of sin....when in fact it should be defined as the basis given by God to man in order for man to do good. Man needs free will in order to love and obey God. BTW. This is not a limitation but a reinforcement on the true prupose of freedom given by God to man.
2. Law is very necessary in order for man to discern the precepts in order to follow God. Even God knows what the "probable" (meaning under the pretext of man's free will) what man would do the Law is a means to assure that Man would not abuse this free will.
Kasi pag sinabi natin na alam naman ng Diyos na magkakasala din ang tao ay para din natin sinabi na walang kahulugan ang batas ng Diyos at ang nangingibabaw ay ang "free will.
3. If God intervened gainst Satan and temptation - then it could no longer be "free will". It becomes conditional... and true love can not be practiced and realized by man.
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 18:03:17 GMT 10
kuya,
I want to continue this discussion sana with you..kaya lang...busy talaga.
1.) sayo galing yun term na limitation....kaya sabi ko hindi nya tayo nililimatahan...hehhe
Free will as the name suggests is without limitation, He gave us a choice to be good as He intended us to be or but we choose to be a sinner (which He did not intended to us to become)...
intention = Good not intended = Sinner
eh Adam and Eve, disobeyed God..offended Him...therefore it proved mankind's nature to SIN...
as it is the snake's nature to be MEAN "sabi sa Bible, the MEANEST beast that God has created"...that means God created the MEANEST beast,....it was the snake's nature to be MEAN
as it is the nature of Man to SIN...as what the fall of eden proved...
2.) agree..Law is very necessary...for us to know that we are sinners...and we will never achieve perfection in this life...without Christ...we can never be perfect..because only Christ is pefect..
3.) exactly! yun nga sinasabi namin ni linsi at hotty...
marami pa ring disagreement between linsi, hotty, you and me...but it does not mean we cannot agree...tuloy lang po
what is the difference between a sinner and intrinsically evil? wala po ako sinabi na Man is intrinsically evil ang sabi ko Man is a sinner by nature...
to linsi and kuya B.
Sin is an offense towards God..
when Adam and EVE disobeyed the first law..they offended God..therefore eating the forbidden fruit is a SIN..
again..paano naman yun sinabi ni God before the flood..."He discovered that man is wicked and He was grieved???"
nung lang nya nadiscober na ang ginawa nyang tao ay wicked...and He was grieved...but even so He continued to love mankind...gave mankind the chance to be refined...to what He intended them to be...pure and undefiled..and to glorify Him and only Him...
kung di Nya mahal ang mankind...di na sana nya binigyan pa ng chance na may mabuhay pang tao sa mundo thru Noah...sana pinabayaan na lang din Nya ito mamatay..
despite the nature of man to SIN...He still gave us a chance to renew ourselves...(as depicted by the regeneration of mankind thru Noah)...
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 18:25:51 GMT 10
eto po nasa Genesis 6 and kwento ng Great Flood..
wala pang 10 commandments nito, wala pa si Moses...despite all the grace He dispenses to mankind after the Fall of Eden, they continue to be wicked...and it displeased God...
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
9 This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress [c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. [d] 16 Make a roof for it and finish [e] the ark to within 18 inches [f] of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 18:29:25 GMT 10
Again, when God asked Noah and His family to build the Ark, it was a test of Will din...
He could just have saved them from the Flood..
but He did not...He gave Noah and His family a chance to practice their FREE WILL...
pwede naman nila idisobey ang Dyos...pwedeng hindi sila gumawa ng ARK...but they did...they obeyed God...and they were SAVED...
being Good...being obedient is a choice..!
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 18:32:06 GMT 10
it was another lease to live a new life for MANKIND...but if you will continue reading Old Testmanet...the pattern and error of mankind's ways are repeated and told again and again and again
and God's forgiveness was told again and again...
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 18:44:31 GMT 10
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 18:54:11 GMT 10
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 18:56:08 GMT 10
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 19:00:14 GMT 10
kaya nga sinabi na Christians usually have deny ourselves...deny our sinful nature...in order to live in the spirit
this is the reason why Christians have to always swim upstream...to be in this world..but not of the world..deny the flesh...deny our sinful nature...
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 19:05:32 GMT 10
kaya nga narealize ko napakabait ng Dyos...despite of our sinful nature...He gave us His son..to destroy that sinful nature...He condemned SIN...but He did not condem the SINFUL MAN...
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 19:08:08 GMT 10
pbc.org/library/files/html/3518.htmlThanks be to God -- through Jesus Christ our Lord! {Rom 7:25a NIV} So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin ... {Rom 7:25b NIV} Romans 8:1 [but,] therefore, 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 the sinful nature [or, the flesh] desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature [the flesh]. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. {Gal 5:17 NIV}
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 19:11:55 GMT 10
"I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law." That is, as he said earlier, "I want to do good. I believe in it. I delight in God's law in my inner being. I am changed; I agree that the law is good. But I find I can't do it."
yan ang dilemma ni Paul
and it is also our dilemma today
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 19:17:46 GMT 10
For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin -- {Rom 6:6 NIV}
kaya lang po minsan, kapag nakawala na tayo sa bondage ng sin..we get so confident that we can do it ourselves without God...we get so confident kasi akala natin since our nature is good...that good naturedness will take us into what God intende us to be...
parang ganito yan...
human beings are intended to walk in 2 feet..but we start out walking in 4 feet (2 feet & 2 hands)...
ang isang toddler bago maglakad kelangan ng walker...minsan nagiging confident na ang bata at ayaw na mag-walker...ang gagawin nya hahawak na lang sa walls..sa sofa or sa kahit na anong bagay para makalakad with support...minsan hahawak pa sa kamay ng parents nya...
but there will come a time that he will think he can do it by himself na...bibitaw sya...then madadapa...then he will realize di nya pala kaya pa maglakad mag-isa
hahawak uli sya sa parents nya..or sa pader..or sa sofa..
and he will repeat the cycle..lalakad na walang suporta...madadapa...
and then he will finally walk alone...
we are intended to be pure and undefiled..but our nature is sinful
to gain victory over sin...try natin makawala..uulit na naman...kakawala ulit...madadapa...uulit...madadapa...
then finally makakawala na tayo from sin...
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 19:26:07 GMT 10
|
|