Jeff Scanlan wrote:
> ‘duty for duty’s sake’…what sort of talk is that? Tautology, I think.
> 
> This is just becoming word games. We are commanded to do it as a means 
> of identification.  As we obey the command we identify.

Actually, Chad raises a very good point.  God does not desire mere duty 
from us.  He desires a heart of love that obeys.  The Pharisees 
fulfilled their "duty" by tithing but their hearts were far from Him.

I once read that if one is honest because "honesty is the best policy" 
then one's honesty is corrupt.  I think it is equally true that if one 
obeys because, well, not obeying is far worse, then one's obedience is 
corrupt.  That is the attitude of the Pharisees.  They "obeyed" the Law 
but there was no love for God.  When we reduce obedience to mere duty 
rather than an act of love, we miss what is one of the greatest promises 
of the New Covenant.

The real concern here is that you think it is possible to fulfill one's 
duty to God apart from a heart overflowing in love (based on your 
statements, "The point you were trying to make was that duty could be 
joyous and maybe should be. I simply pointed out that that was not 
necessarily the case. We can do things out of duty without throwing a 
party in doing it..").  Obedience that does not stem from love for God 
is not obedience.
--
john-thomas

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *From:* Chad Richard Bresson [mailto:breusswane@...]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 30 April 2008 8:27 PM
> *To:* soundofgrace@...
> *Subject:* Re: [soundofgrace] Baptism Celebration
> 
> Duty for duty sake is sin.  It does not meet the requirements necessary 
> for true obedience and must be repented of.  Duty for duty sake does not 
> involved "faith" or "joy" and is bringing law into the NC.
> 
> We are not baptized first and foremost because it is commanded.  We are 
> baptized because we are identified with Christ's death and resurrection 
> and publicly declaring the gospel (rom. 6) and because we are becoming 
> disciples (Matt. 28:18-20).  Yes, it is command, but the command in 
> terms of its significance to the event is way down the list.
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Jeff Scanlan <jscanlan@... 
> <mailto:jscanlan@...>> wrote:
> 
> Stop avoiding the issue. The point you were trying to make was that duty 
> could be joyous and maybe should be. I simply pointed out that that was 
> not necessarily the case. We can do things out of duty without throwing 
> a party in doing it.