I'm trying: a stairway to heaven?

Your comments in this area of your post remind me of the original thread request. "Trying". Only those who obey the law will be declared righteous. There is no trying here Mr X only obey. Do you have anywhere, scripturally, which says or indicates in some other clear way that "trying to obey" is the same as "obeying"It is worth noting (for any boys and girls out there who maybe reading this and is starting to see my point that there is no trying implied here or anywhere else - and who may be getting a little worried) that this verse is in the opening scene. Paul hasn't got to explaining the gospel yet. What do they mean? The same as Paul meant. Get yourself out from under the law as soon as you possibily can. No time to lose. Just a minor technical point. A Christian may 'lead' someone to Christ (in fact they don't - God just uses Christians to spread HIS gospel) but we don't lead them to heaven. Only Christ does that. You draw out some comparison with a Christians role and the apostles role. What it is I'm not sure. But whatever, an apostle is a different kettle of fish than a Christian. General comparisons can't be made. These were men set aside in a particular way. For example, one characteristic of an apostle is that he has seen the rised Lord. Me, I can't wait to see the risen Lord. DifferentHey Mr X, can you keep the posts shorter or do multiple posts dealing with different things. Scrolling up and down to cut n paste takes too long this way. ta

Eternally damned not because the abused it but because they are convicted of abusing it. No one is damned without being judged to have broken it. Thus my point stands: the most significant danger of the law is eternal damnation for those judged according to it.Which is the point of the law - to show a person just what they are messing with. Nobody will obey it. Your teaching 'trying' Mr X. Lets have something from our Christian Scriptures. None of this "obey must mean trying because God looks into the heart" which others do employing a jumble of random, out of context verse, plucked hither and thither. Plain teaching that trying to obey the law = obeying the law. A timely word of warning indeed. Have a read of Romans 2:1 again there Mr X Salvation by wanting? Obey Mr X, Obey. Aren't you forgetting a small detail? A Christian is a person who receives something they hadn't got before. He's called the Holy Spirit. The chances of killing, raping and pillaging are somewhat diminished from whatever levels they were before. Point being, a man who is not under law cannot be judged under law. The law and all it's mechanisms can only work and be applied to those who are subject to it. I don't see anything which indicates people honestly searching for truth in the passage (Romans 2:11-16) I see people who are conscious of breaking and adhering to law, even though they unlike the Jews (who he is addressing) haven't got, like them, the written law. Paul is and has been in this passage, pointing to the universality of law breaking: you have a written version or you have a conscience. "All have sinned and falled short of the glory of God" This is not "the gospel section" - it's an "explaining why a gospel is necessary section" You quoted much on Justice. But I don't get your point. God is just. He will judge each according to what he had done. A rabid lawbreaker can expect more punishment than a less rabid lawbreaker. Each deed will be repaid with an exactitude of justice that would boggle the mind.But a Christian won't be judged by the law or adherance to it. Someone else has paid the price of his sins. As a complete aside and I won't enter into a debate with you. Could you give a brief run down on what Jesus actually accomplished. How does he fit in the scheme of this "damnation by not trying enough" theology I do. Paul exhorts Christians to 'good behaviour' later in Romans and elsewhere. But not in the sense or for the reason that they will be condemned if they don't. But only certain people are given the right in eternity, to be called his sons... I couldn't agree more...

Knowledge and understanding through discussion it is... Tentatively yes. If you had an example to see context it would help me to be more certain I has indeed thanks. But be gentle on me. Be Christ-like Nope. A person who repents, ie: recognises (in whatever way that comes about) of their reliance on self and on their need of a savior, has a number of things happen to them. They are:made righteous in Gods sight
have their sins forgiven
are at peace with God
are translated out of the realm of darkness and into the realm of light
has eternal life (note 'has'),
receives the Holy Spirit as indwelling
is assured of their salvation (even if they don't recognise it themselves)
are born again ...etc etc.If a person is convicted (or convinced) of their need (by the workings of the law in them - the law showing them that they cannot keep the law) - it is the Holy Spirit moving them to this point. But they have not got the Holy Spirits indwelling.Different thing... We are born spiritual descendents of Adam. Adam our federal head. When he fell, we fell. We've inherited the sinful nature that entered at the fall. The reason for the virgin birth was to break the sin line that travelled down to every single one of us. Jesus was born like Adam - without a sinful nature. Jesus the second Adam
Jesus, unlike Adam obeyed completely.In Adam we were born. In Adam we remain. Unless taken out of Adam and put 'in Christ'.That's how the mechanics work. God puts our old man, the one with the sinful nature, the one who is dead to God and his laws - to death. He kills him. Crucifies him with Jesus on the cross. Then resurrects us (which is when we become Christians or Christ in's)Put to death, raised to life. Born again. And there is no detailing in the mechanics of it which show how we can be uncrucified or lose our position in Christ.Like it ain't rocket science This message has been edited by iano, 02-Nov-2005 12:29 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Nov-2005 12:30 PM

God wants everyone to come into his 'club' You can join or not join. But if you chose not to join it's little bit ridiculous to complain about the benefits that the people who have chosen to join. Is it not? A couple of problems with this. Firstly, saying your a Christian doesn't make you one - so we can't tell whether this guy was one or not.Secondly, although a Christian has all sin forgiven he is not left to own devices. He gets the Holy Spirit and undergoes sea changes. He comes to hate sin more and more, comes to recognise his sin more and more. If a person thinks Christianity is a licence to sin then try it. You may be in for a shock Try Romans 6: verse 1 and see what Paul has to say about it.One thing is for sure. If a person considers their being a Christian to be an opportunity to sin as they please and get away with it then one thing is pretty sure: they are not a Christian

For what it's worth PYGoing to church doesn't make you a Christian
Reading the bible doesn't make you a Christian
Praying doesn't make you a Christian
Being brought up in a Christian home doesn't make you a Christian (God has childred - no grandchildren)
Be born in a Christian country doesn't make you a Christian
Saying, thinking or feeling you are a Christian doesn't make you a Christian
Believing that God exists doesn't make you a Christian
Being a theologian doesn't make you a ChristianGod is the only one who can make a person a Christian. If your heart wants him to then he will. Nothing will stop it, nothing will take it away. A Christian who is made such by God cannot become a non-Christian...its a one-way door.

I'm a Christian. I can't help that fact. And person can be a true Christian and not share just about any of my beliefs. There is only one thing a person must do to become a Christian. It matters not whether you agree with all the bible or come from a different denomination. You can believe in "claiming healing and it will be done" I don't. You can believe in a second blessing of the Holy Spirit. I don't. You can believe that the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus. I don't. But believing these things neither prevents nor cancels a persons ability to become a ChristianBecoming a Christian is first and foremost a positional thing. A legal declaration by God that the person is declared righteous in his sight. That the person isn't righteous in their own or others sight matters not. What God sees matters. Subsequent to the legal declaration of citizenship or sonship does the Christian experience the power of God in his life. People become Christians despite organised Religions not because of them. There are Christians in every denomination and none. God doesn't reside in Religion, he works around Religion. Religion is always about law no matter which one it is. Jesus hated Religon for crying out loud. Christianity is about freeing people from the yoke of the law. Freeing them from Religion. Of course it does. It is sin inside a person which would love such a situation to be true. The person who loves sin.But hopefully there will be a few who look at themselves, hate the lawbreaker in themselves (in whichever way they happen to break 'the law'), despair at ever being free from the apparent addiction of being unable to stop themselves doing what they hate doing. It is such people who are closer to salvation than they imagine. Such people have the brunt of the law doing precisely what it is supposed to: make them feel condemned. And they feel condemned and ashamed and guilty. Such people don't want a licence to sin - they long to be free of sin."And if the son sets you free - you shall be free indeed" And what do you have to pay? Nothing. He paid.It would make you cry.....

What is corrupt about an on duty cop paying the fine of a fellow cop caught speeding? Its the cops choice to decide who he fines he wants to pay. The graphic artist hasn't a leg to stand on. Is it favoritism that a golf club member may play a game of golf at the club and a non-member can't. Of course not. It has nothing to do with favoritism but with membership. Or citizenship. Or sonshipThe Romans 2 passage is talking about people who are not Christians (not in Christ). And there is no favoritism shown there. Both (possessors of the law written on tablets and possessors of the law on conscience) are members of the same club. The "Not In Christ" club. The "Under the Law" Club. All members of this club get the same basic treatment - their sin will be judged under the law - without fear or favour. All members of the 'in Christ' club get the same basic treatment: eternal life without fear or favour Which way is that? And could we leave it anyway mr x. This thread is really about the scriptural basis for 'trying' in connection with salvation or damnation You mean you are not saying anything about works and damnation? I thought you were. I know we've spun off but can we go on topic. What I say about Paul (or anyone else) is done in relation to the OP To counter the view that says:"works affects salvation" or "If saved, works can lose your salvation"...can be shown scripturallyI know it's diverged but if we try we can maybe stay on track. Fresh start if you like

I think the writing is a bit more universal than that. Jesus came to seek and save the lost. That means everybody. The gospel was to be spread to the ends of the earth. It speaks to you and me and everybody. Lost and found alike. Yup. "He who follows the law yet stumbles on but a piece of it is guilty of breaking all of it" Undeserved. Nail on the head. This is the best direct attempt to deal with the OP Purpledawn. But there is a mish-mash of ideas assembled together (with the motivation, I'm sure, to try to assemble the overview for me). Your instinctive law will differ from anothers which is why I was looking for a biblical case. Take the word perserverance. You have a view. Your own view. The King James uses the phrase 'patient continuence'. A Greek lexicon for the word 'continuence' kicked up this... Trying and failing and trying again is not indicated.

The cop has dispensed justice equally in both cases. Both drivers are stopped, both are issued ticket. The fine must be paid. When it is paid, justice has been served. Justice is blind. It is mechanical. It has rules and as long as the rules are adhered to it has nothing more to say. There is nothing unjust about the cops actions.Now if he hadn't paid the fine and let the cop off. That would be unjust. But he does pay the fineFavoritism. The cop shows favor. Favor on the basis of club membership, friendship, repaying a favor. Whatever. There is a reason for it. But it is not unjust. He can show favor if he likes. Its his money to do what he like with afterall. The graphic artist has no complaint about justice not being served. He has got perfect justice. But no favor. Why not. The on-duty cop has no reason to offer any. It's his money to do what he likes with: to show favor to whom he will show favor, mercy to whom he will show mercyCan you accept impartial justice after which, partial favor? In the area of the application of justice he, like the cop, shows no favor, is impartial. Once justice is served the favor comes in. Take separation of sheep and goats. Justice based on absolute fairness. Once justice is complete, favor most certainly comes in.In the Romans passage, God shows no favor in application of Justice. Both Jew (the religious) and Gentile (the irreligious) are both under law and will be dealt with under law. Written law or Conscience Law. No difference. "All have sinned and fallen short.." As I hope I've shown above, there is a difference in where the favor takes place. The cops favor took place AFTER the application of justice. Justice is not perverted so long as the ticket is issued and the fine is paid. Justice is over at that point. The analogy above is a different one and if you want I'll deal with it on the suitable lines. Whats unfair? I sin and you (for example) sin. Both of us deserve to be punished for our sin. We accept justice must be done. Now, I have accepted Jesus' offer (open to all) to pay for my sins instead of me. You (for example) haven't. Jesus is punished for my sins and you're punished for your sins. What gripe have you got? What should have happened?- Jesus can't makes any offer we both must pay ourselves?
- you should not have to pay even though you haven't accepted his offer and I have?
-neither of us pay regardless and justice isn't done?What's wrong with Jesus paying for my sin and not yours - if you don't want him to? Surely the choice is his to offer and ours to accept.I fail to see what the difficulty is!!This message has been edited by iano, 02-Nov-2005 09:00 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Nov-2005 09:02 PM

An analogy was put up and was modified slightly to reflect the fact that the on-duty cop paid the fine rather than just letting the off-duty cop off.- the latter would be injustice - showing partiality
= if the on duty cop used police funds to pay the fine it would be injustice
- if the on duty cop scrubbed the crime from the computer it would be injustice- if the off duty cops mother paid the fine it would be justice
- if the off duty cops friend paid the fine it would be justice
- if the off duty cops collegue pays the fine it is justiceJustice in the analogy given, is served and finished when the fine is paid in a legally acceptable way. There is nothing illegal in what the cop has done. It is his legally earned money. He can spend it in any legal way he likes. Justice, in this case, doesn't care where the money comes from. A fine is assigned to a name and the fine is paid. The offence is wiped clean.Hauling the analogy into the general justice system is erroneous in two ways:It tries to make a mere analogy fit all possible scenarios
It tries to make our legal system comparable to Gods legal system. But they are not the same, merely analogous It sure would be. But the police force isn't doing it. An individual is - out of his own private funds. His motivation is fellowship, a friends motivation in paying would be friendship, a mothers motivation in paying would be love. This is a private, and perfectly legal affair between the cop and the cop. The graphic artist has nothing to do with it. He too can have his fine paid by someone else through fellowship/friendship/love. The slate is wiped clean - not by concealing evidence but by payment of the fine issued. The slate is wiped clean by meeting the legal requirement set forth in law. $200 in this case No legal or ethical basis? Hmmm. Firstly, we're not talking about ethics we're talking about justice. Not that there is any unethical about what the cop does. Secondly, there is a legal basis for what I said above: issue ticket/fine must be paid. The law doesn't proscribe who pays the fine as long as the account it settled on behalf of the offendent. Once it is, justice is completeIn this case. Which is the one we are talking about. It ends with the paying of the fine. Which was done by the on duty cop.You then veer off into murder etc which is another analogy which would need dealing with in another way. But the point is not to investigate our justice system but Gods.Anyway Mr X. What's this got to do with trying

Law breaking. Breaking Gods laws is a sin. I'm not sure about Satan but would imagine, God being just and all that, that satan, like Adam, broke Gods law.Adams sin is different than ours I think. In the sense that he had no sinful nature so wasn't pre-disposed to sin like we are. Like most people who are the first to do anything, his sin is the most significant. Lets see if we can find common agreement: sin IS taken into account when there is law (which there is now) and where there is law there IS trangression (which there is now). There are transgressors now Agree? The law added later was the mosaic law, eg: 10 commandments. There are adequate grounds to say there was law before:- the mosaic law was added... to something
- trespass existed before the mosaic law, "increase"...from some level
- In the garden God said "Do not eat..." ...lawI agree with the reasons why the law was added. Do you agree that law and transgression (sin) existed before the mosaic law was added? I read through the scriptures you quoted and was a wondering where it would end up. You didn't have to go to so much trouble. I agree with the purpose of the law being a schoolteacher to lead us to Christ and as a consequence of that result in our justification But the law isn't Christ, neither does it justify. It only has a partial role in the whole salvation plan. To lead... to be the means whereby...The question is: how does it do this. What action does the law take. Condmenation is what it does. That's all it can do. The consequences of it doing that to us will cause us to flee to Christ. The law is only meant and can only go "BOOO!!!" ...and give us the fright of our lives. And we'll run..The law has fulfilled its purpose once it goes "BOOO!!" Anyone who reaches that state will flee to Christ. He will be in the same position as the man at the end of Romans 7 who, having being condemned by the law will say "Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death" Next line "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ. Seamless transition to salvation.The purpose of the law is to lead. It does so by condemning. The purpose of the law can then equally be said to condemn. Lead is just another word for condemn. Condemnation is the only role it can fulfill. It is but a cog in the wheel of the salvation plan. If you obey the law then you won't sin. But everyone is a sinner. thus no-one obeys. Obeying some of the law, some of the time is not the same as obeying the law. Obeying the law means just that. Obeying. This is the original thread topic. Making "obey", a command = "try to obey", an exhortation

Justice is defined by what the people responsible for determining, enforcing and executing the justice, not you. Your opinion has no bearing. (try it next time your in court ) If these people decided that justice is served by the issuing of a ticket and payment of a fine and they don't proscribe who coughs up the cash, then when the cash is coughed up, justice is done. It matters not who pays the fine in this caseIf God says his son can be punished in the place of a sinner then it matters not what you think. Justice is defined by the justice maker, not you.This message has been edited by iano, 03-Nov-2005 01:54 PM

You wish Taking the lead and advice and counsel of the Holy Spirit doesn't remove the decision making process from a Christian. We chose to follow his lead or not. God is pleased with us when we chose for him and...and presumably vice versa. We remain free-willed beings under influence. edit: remove erroneous contentI've probably answered this statment in the above. We produce the goods, by (or under guidance) of his spirit. Just like a mother guides her child as they bake their first cake, the cake is the result of the childs effots under guidance. Cooperation.God doesn't overpower and dominate to the exclusion of the person. Pauls writings are the product of a scholar. 1 John on the other hand apparently only contains 200 different words and as a literary piece reflect the limitations of a poorly educated man. (as well as making it a nightmare to analyse theologically). In all cases in scripture (as elsewhere in spirit-led life), mans own God-given qualities shine through the pages. Man is not set aside by God I'm not that sure that I am. I'm trying to expand things a bit. Your John to my Paul as it were . It's all about relationship. God relating to man and man relating to God. A reinstatement of the relationship that was broken in the Garden. The break that caused Adam to hide. To walk WITH God "in the cool of the evening" again.Proper relationship: man dependant on God, man as sons of God. Not Robots Yes SIR!! A non-Christian can be affected in an external sense by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one who convinces a person of the laws condemnation for example. There is no indwelling of the Spirit however. The two might seem to be the same thing but they are not, eg: No fruit can be produced by a non-Christian which is pleasing to God - not even if they are the same things that a Christian might do that does please God - say giving money to the poor. A non Christian is a person who "is in the flesh". Excuse the single line quote but I don't think it's out of context: "They that are in the flesh CANNOT please God" Romans 8:8As I said b4. "I don't know" if babies go to heaven. Though I could give a reasoned case as to why I think they do.Did Adam go to heaven. IIRC that I said I didn't know. There is too little said about him to decided one way or the other.This message has been edited by iano, 03-Nov-2005 04:38 PM

Whereever the lawmakers get the raw material and however they go about teasing things out is a matter for the lawmakers. You, even if you are a lawmaker, are subject to the fruits of their efforts. Justice is whatever product is produced. That's what happens in real life Crash. ...Just has a quick flick down the rest of your post Crash. I'm not sure I'll be able to get along with your tone.Ciao...This message has been edited by iano, 03-Nov-2005 02:44 PM

"Our adhering" to them PD. I demonstrate here that the bible is meant for us. That it is for all mankind at all times. When I request later that people don't use own subjective argument, I meant not basing their case on something that cannot be derived and argued to be so biblically. For example. Some say obey=try becausea) no one can obey
b) God wouldn't be unreasonable
c) thus it must mean try..That is a non-biblical, subjective arguement of the type I was trying to avoid getting into I understand that talk of sheep and goats and stuff would have found a particularily strong resonance then. But we've got Google It is not 'their' law. It is law in their (God given) nature. It is in their (God given) conscience. Gods law transmitted other than on tablets. And all who are under Gods law: whether tablet or otherwise
- will be judged according to it. And anyone found guilty of breaking even the tiniest piece of it will be considered as breaking all of it. Jew and Gentile alike - for God does not show favoritismPaul is just setting out his stall here PD. He sums up his point that all are in the same boat: both irreligious and religious - just before he begins his exposition of the gospel. As an aside, by the word 'universal' I don't mean that everything in the bible is relevant to everyone in the world at every moment in time. It is meant for people of all eras okay. But if a portion of the bible is addressing a person who is saved: either then or now, then it is universally applicable to saved people. If a portion of the bible is talking to unsaved people then it is universal to all, then and now, who are unsaved. Ultimately, that is the division. Saved/unsaved.A person is born unsaved and may or may not 'become saved during their life.This message has been edited by iano, 03-Nov-2005 05:34 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 03-Nov-2005 05:35 PM