I'm trying: a stairway to heaven?

I think your comflating duty with grace. The cop does his duty. He has enforced the law the extent of which, in this case, is stopping all who break the speed limit and issuing a tickets to all and by extension, ensuring that the fine is paid. His duty ends there.What he does after that is his own business. It has nothing to do with his duty. He could chose to pay the fine of both the cop and the graphic artist or neither of them or the graphic artist only. But he choses to pay only for the cop. The graphic artist has no cause for complaint, he has recieved perfect justice. What the on-duty cop does after his duty is exhausted is none of the graphic artists business.He might complain that he didn't receive grace. But receiving grace is not a right, it is entirely up to the person giving it as to who they give to. The graphic artist has no basis for his complaint. YOur conflating again I think, the status of the on-duty cop as both justice and grace. The cops duty is enforcing justice only. He has no duty to extend grace. If it is not his duty to extend grace then he is not neglecting his duty, whether he extends grace or not. The cop in his role as justice has been offended. In his role of grace, in forgiving, he must, as all forgivenss must, pay the cost to his status justice himself. He must pay the fine by grace, to his status as justice.We must remember this discussion is ultimately about God and how justice and grace hold there:When we sin we break Gods law. God is Justice
Gods law demands justice - our paying the due fine for breaking the law
Gods is Grace too
In applying grace cannot ignore his justice
If applying grace he must pay the price on our behalf which is demanded by his justice
He pays the price. JesusForgiveness isn't something that just happens in a vacuum. When God, who has been offended against himself pays the price demanded by his justice due to application of grace then that is the definition of forgivness. Only people to whom God extends this grace have their sin paid for. Whilst Grace is universally available, it is not universally accepted.

"The law is a schoolteacher to lead you..." I think using the word 'teacher' to escape out of Jesus expositing the Mosaic law is a little weak. Jesus is also Lord. And Lords are entitled to give laws. And they are entitled to teach those under the law what the law says.Jesus said is a man so much as look at a woman lustfully he is guilty of breaking the (Mosaic) law of adultery. There is no reference to spirit behind the law. Lust = lawbreaking. ...and the consequences of not behaving right too. So what happens when you don't forgive another their transgressions. Lets face it, one may forgive some of the people all of the time and forgive all of the people some of the time. But no-one forgives all of the people all of the time. No one gets into a righteous state by partial forgiving. A partially righteous state thus?But there is no such thing, to my knowledge, as a partially righteous state. Righteous/unrighteous. No middle ground. Your wish is my command. I might just not follow it though - given that I am a law-breaker myself... He didn't have to. Just look at them. The Mosaic laws were a wall. A scaleable wall or so many, especially the Pharisees, but not all, thought. Jesus, in expounding on the law, showed the depth and breadth and height of it. He didn't have to say nor imply it was an impossible wall to scale. He just showed the wall....and then proceeded to scale it himself. Having conquered it and sitting astride the top of it, he reaches down to us with outstretched arms. Whoever quits staying busy trying to scale it and looks up, they will see the outstretched arm, realise they ain't going to make it themselves and can decided to take his handWhich reminds me: this thread is about showing "try" not showing "it's not try".

STOP PRESS +++ STOP PRESS +++ STOP PRESS +++ STOP PRESS ROLL PRESS +++ ROLL PRESS +++ ROLL PRESS +++ ROLL PRESS Fair enough. I like it when we agree...although there is a difference between the requirements written on hearts and the law written on hearts - the latter which God later (in Jerimiah) said he would do. Suffice to say that everyone can be justly convicted of breaking the law because the requirements of it are known to them through conscience at least I disagree. There is no evidence of indwelling of Spirit as regards Adam. Given the purpose of indwelling of the Spirit: to lead and instruct in the way of righteousness and to intercede with the Father on our behalf - I would say that this view doesn't fit. Adam had two things to deal with as a blank slate. The command of God and the deceit of satan. The choice was his own. Okay, there is sufficient law requirements available for all man at all times. Be it "don't eat the apple, 10 commandments, lust=adultery, law through conscience etc or any combination of these. No matter. All have sinned. All have broken the law insofar as it is applicable to them - and knowingly so. All can be condemned on that basis. This is interesting. From whence the idea that Jesus only fulfilled a particular branch of the law? The law doesn't accomplish forgivness. It delivers us to the door of salvation. But we must believe. When we believe, our sins are forgiven. The Law is just a mechanism to bring us to the point of being in a position to make a decision. It is a compelling case it makes, but it doesn't make the decision for us.By your argument ongoing from here, we could have: the purpose of the law was to save, to sanctify, to allow us to avoid hell, to give us glofied bodies, to know God and enjoy him forever etc, to judge the angels etc. Just because these things are subsequent to the law succeeding in its work it doesn't mean the law achieves these things or that these things were its purpose.The law is just a cog in the whole, like I say. When analysing a mechanism, in this case the mechanism of salvation, we look at the function of the individual componants. And all the Law does, this componant in the whole, the sole way it can operate - is to condemn. So whilst the consequences - feeling oneself under condemnation - will lead to (but not into) Christ, the purpose is condemnation.(Strictly we're both wrong here. The law on its own does nothing. The Holy Spirit is the one who uses the law, exposes us to the law, shows us we are lawbreakers. Thus it may better be stated that "a purpose of the Holy Spirit is to use the law as a tool to show us we are (or are going to be if we look at it 'in time') condemned under the law) But all who are under the law are afflicted by it. The only way to be unafflicted by the law is to be freed from it. And the only way that happens is to be saved. Once saved, compassion does come into it. The saved person sees that they were freed by no working or merit on their count. They realise (or should realise) when they look at a person afflicted or under law, just as they were: "there but for the grace of God, go I". It might for example cause them to log on to EvC and start telling others the good news.I don't know why you're here but its why I'm here. It might be hard to see the compassion and I can be an arrogant, argumentitive git at times. But that is the reason behind it in essence. These verses are not for all. These are addressed to "Christians" or those "in Christ" or those that "have believed the gospel of Jesus Christ" or those "who have been made righteous". All the same category of people. All these people have been freed from the law. They are no longer under the law nor will they be judged by the law.An exhortation to follow the law is not done in connection with a gaining or losing of salvation. (Note the language of exhoration used throughout the epistles. It is never used by Jesus) The gospel is explained in detail in the first half of Romans. The person to who has believed it, who has been translated from under laws judgement is then exhorted to follow the law - but not in order to avoid losing what they have gained. That would leave us with three categories of people which I think you might (?) classify as follows:The unsaved who don't believe the gospel at all
The saved who do believe and by obeying the law avoid losing their salvation
The saved who do believe but don't obey the law and lose their salvationThis message has been edited by iano, 04-Nov-2005 07:24 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 04-Nov-2005 07:39 PM

So which is it: open to debate or closed to debate? (only ribbing mrx, winding down for the weekend an all that...) Following God is subsequent to being saved. Which is the process described in the above verse. A man cannot follow God before he is saved. One cannot follow a God who one does not know (nor I imagine can he love a God with all his heart soul and mind if he does not know God. Man is made at peace with God when he is saved. If peace now then emnity before and as we see in Romans 1 God treats them as enemies. A man does not follow a person he is at emnity with. Following is subsequent to salvation.To address a central theme in your post: Man cannot save himself.God is indeed the one who must does it all, if a man is to be saved. God is the one who puts in the law, he is the one who by his spirit convinces a man he is a lawbreaker and a such is doomed. He is the one who brings a man to the point where he can cry out to God... Notice the verbs highlighted. Man must recieve, man must believe. When this happens then God does something. Of course they are not born of natural descent. Of course it is not a decision. Belief is not a decision one makes "I'll decide to believe" A man believes because he has been made able to believe by God - because it is possible to do so, And when he does so he becomes a child of God.And man can refuse to believe. He will do it by resisting the action of the Holy Spirit as He attempts to convict a man of his sin. A man can deny his culpability, avoid the conviction, wriggle away from it, make excuses, hardening his heart to the work of the Spirit in the process. I would suggest that the one unforgiveable sin; "grieving the Holy Spirit" refers to this denial. God cannot save because man refuses to be saved. Man has got free will after all. He must not be forced into salvation.So, salvation is totally of God. Every aspect of it is of God. When a man believes it is because he has been brought to the point where believing is his only option... "who will deliver me from this body of death" cried in anguish.But damnation is in mans hands, through refusal to be brought to this point. Refusal upon refusal upon refusal. God takes the credit if we are saved. Man takes the 'credit' if he is lost.I don't know if this deals with all the points on your post relating to this issue Mr. X but I thought clarification would be a useful way of addressing them. You seem to be mixing up my position (probably my fault given the diverse nature of our discussion...which was about..oh never mind )Let me reiterate what I have said before in sequence form:Man cannot do anything to earn his salvation (use of Isaiah quote)Man does not have indwelling Spirit before he is saved. The Spirit "acts on him" but this is not the same "indwelling". "Acted on" has the purpose to convict a person of sinMan cannot produce fruit pleasing to God without the Spirit indwelling (use of Isaiah quote possible here too)At salvation, one of the many things that happen is that a man receives the Spirit as indwelling.The work of the Spirit as indwelling (thus only in the saved) produces fruit unto God.The fruit is produced as a result of cooperation: Spirit leading / Man following the Spirits lead. Man, even if saved won't always follow.Man still has battle with sin in his mortal flesh. Man indeed responsible for yielding to his flesh...but sin forgiven and man cleansed again (Jesus washing disciples feet - the bath has already been taken) As it is put above is, I think, a better way. But in a sense you are right. God cannot save those who refuse it. "Thy will be done" he says in effect. Spirit: Action vs Indwelling: Like I've said a number of times: "acted upon by the Spirit" is not the same as "indwelling of the Spirit". As far as I am aware (not being OT-familiar) the Spirit was first given as "indwelling" or "filling" at Pentecost. And indwelling is only ascribed to Christians after that. Prior to that the Spirit "acted upon" people. I don't necessarily see how:Prophesy by being "acted upon" by the Spirit = Prophecy "by indwelling" of Spirit...is established here. A man can obey a particular one of Gods laws by sheer willpower as a result of the the Spirits action by indwelling and follow the same law with relative ease. The 'product' is the same: obedience (or prophecy).... but the action of the Spirit is different.

​

Babies going to heaven:

​

I too am quite confident that God brings the souls of innocent little babies into heaven... You won't hear any arguments from me on this one.

​

Lets see about that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Babies aren't 'innocent'. They are sinners, born that way. That's why they die. But given that they haven't become conscious of sin and cannot actually commit their own sin, when they come under Judgement (as all born under the law must) the charge sheet will be empty. That's how I see it. But I reckon scripture is silent on the specifics.

​

Adamned?

​

But if you don't know for sure whether Adam went to hell or not, then why do you insist that damnation is the default position for all born in Adam?

​

When Adam fell he got a disease, a sinful nature. He transmitted it to his offspring - to everyone. He had the disease. Everyone gets the same disease. Everyone can be 'healed' of the disease from Adam down. Whether he was subsequently 'healed' or not is irrelevant. The significance of him was he caught the disease and transmitted it. We are all in the same boat as him from that point. It's contained in:

​

Romans 5:12 writes:

​

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. 13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18

The restriction to Jesus-only was a request of yours. And apparently I'm not granting it. Expounding means "explaining the meaning of whats already there but is not clear" not expanding and putting in new stuff. The law was already there, people just didn't understand the extent of it. And they were, we read, "astonished". He thought with authority not as their scribes had. Given that "gazing lustfully" is part of the law (and extrapolating all the base laws to have this height, breadth and depth (lust=adultery, anger=murder, etc) I have good reason to believe no one can follow it. Show of hands time. Who can keep the law now that it has been expounded upon? C'mon lurkers...that means you too.. Maybe the 'cannot' is a typo. If not I couldn't agree more. Assuming it is a typo and it should read 'can' then we have a very important and essential piece of doctrine only extractable by inferance.The OP asked for biblical backup. If by inference you mean man-made construct then this isn't the thread for it. I don't have to - although I have shown the wall he built. "Who then can be saved" cried the disciples "With man this is impossible" said Jesus in reply. You can try show he said they were possible to follow (and not for example by saying "he wouldn't give them if he knew they were impossible" That is man-construct not biblical) If there was no one righteous before Jesus and they died, then all before him go to Hell. Only the righteous go to heaven. All that these examples mean is that the person was considered (like Abraham) to be righteous in Gods sight. This occurred (as with Abraham) by faith in what God said. A person can be as saved in Christ before Christ came as they can be after he came. Joseph considered righteous. No works mentioned Both righteous and works mentioned. Now which is it: righteousness causes works/works cause righteousness? Hint: Righteousness is never arrived at, biblically, by works. Works alongside or as a consequence of righteousness, always. "Unless"... Jesus points to the what was considered the highest standard around and tells the people "unless you exceed that standard". By how much? Well considering he called the Pharisees "white washed tombs" it gives an indication of how much.How high would the average Jew have reckoned the wall was based on this illustration? Empire State? Everest? Paul is inaccurate and Mark and Luke are reporting accurately. Hmmm. The argument is man-made. Can it be shown that God and Jesus understand this as you say. I'm not being picky but it is the limit of the discussion. Otherwise we can all say what we think based on what we think ourselves is reasonable. You don't do it often but seem to here. A contradiction in terms unless there is a biblical case for such things. Conscience is there. We don't listen to it but not because its unintentional.

I don't mean to offend and that post came after a long day. Whilst tone might be off, I don't think the content was. I'm replying to a longish post of yours and get at the end to "God understands" and "Jesus understands" (which are microns away from saying "it's okay as long as you try"). "Trying" the very point under discussion, is arrived at by this major leap: "they understand" Ones understanding of Jesus ministry will influence ones view: "trying" or "not trying". I understand it alright and that understanding leads to the view "nothing to do with trying". All you say is that I don't agree with your view. Which is correct. Which is what we are discussing.

You talk of the graphic artist getting pissed off and not paying and fleeing justice etc. Read the above which you used to start this off. "- ensuring the fine is paid". All of what you write is part of justice. The graphic artist must pay: he offended, he pays. That's it. And justice extends until he does. What he thinks of justice is irrelevant. He offended and he will have to pay. I've said as much myself. I know nothing of the sort. Maybe we have to quit on this analogy mrx. You think it unjust, I don't. Can we do that? Being offered grace (sins forgiven) is not a right. Nevertheless it is offered. And it offered to all not 'given' to all. People can reject the offer and if they do it's down to them ultimately.Grace is poured out freely on all without their asking too. This grace they are given. Gods providence. God calling all sinners. The Holy Spirit convincing of sin. This is all grace too. Accepting the offer is not earning it. When we accept the offer God makes us a member of his family /kills off the 'old man' and raises us to new life: son and daughters in his family / grace flows unto forgiveness etc. But not if we're not members of the family. God cannot forgive someone who won't believe. His justice prevents it.

The analogy has it's limits mrx. We're dealing with something in the real world. And in the real world, if the on-duty cop pays the fine out of his own pocket then Justice wouldn't bat an eyelid. Justice has no provision about who pays the fine, just that it is paid. If there is anything illegal about it (say the money was stolen) then Justice isn't over. But the money is legal. Justice doesn't have any other requirement. Yours and Crashs view doesn't change that.The cop can show all the favoritism he likes so long as he doesn't break the law in doing so. Your later story as to covering up the accident is a case in point. Favoritism in the form of a cover-up is breaking the law. Paying anothers fine out of your own pocket isn't.Lets work it out a different way:The fine is $500 . The off-duty cop pays it on the spot.The off-duty cop remarks that this will leave him shortThe on-duty cop gives him $500 from his own wallet and deposits the off-duty cops money at the police station accounts dept. He does it purely because he is a colleague and he wants to do itIs the on-duty cop doing wrong and why?PS: am reading your story: will come back on a response to it in fullThis message has been edited by iano, 05-Nov-2005 02:02 PM

Halleujah. Bang on topic I've got to nip off to do the Saturday duties. But will get back on this PD.

Had a read of this over the weekend PD and a couple of things occurred to me. The first, which kind of deals with the issue at hand, is that the word 'trying' isn't associated with any particular action indicating works or good deeds or following laws etc. Just 'trying'.It got reminded me of other such directions which could be associated with salvation "Strive to enter throught the narrow gate" is one that springs to mind. In this Matthew passage trying is related to "those" who are trying.Certain people are trying to get to heaven. Not all but some number. Who would they be these people? People, in the first instance who believe there is a God and there is a heaven it would seem.But there is only one way to get to heaven - through Jesus. "Nobody comes to the Father except through me" a he says. No method which excludes Jesus is going to work. So we have certain people who are aware of God and heaven and are 'trying' and 'striving' to get there. And Jesus is the only way.Jesus in this passge is railing at the Pharisees. He is saying that not only are they making it difficult by their actions but they are actually preventing people from getting to heaven. And what the Pharisees are is religious. They are law followers (or thought they were) and proponants of the idea that following laws is how you get to heaven. We can't read that here but that we know about them. Not only did they opposed Jesus but they pressurized people (with threat of expulsion from the temple (blind mans parents) to keep them away from Jesus. In trying to keep people from Jesus they were keeping them from the very person they needed to get them into heaven in the first place.Not that the Pharisees are soley to blame. Jesus is only condeming their part - not the guilt of the person who goes by Phariseeism (or our modern day equivilent: Religion). Whilst a publican may be railed at for serving a man too much drink, the man himself is too responsibleThat's my take on it PD, but like I say above, 'trying' here is not related to any law-keeping efforts so doesn't to my mind deal with the request of the OP

The only people who reckoned the Pharisees were righteous were the Pharisees themselves and people. Jesus didn't. Their righteousness, their own righteousness through following the laws they did, was not going to get them to heaven ("unless your righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees...") Righteous in the sight of God - not man.The contrast?Self-righteousness ("all your righteousness are as filthy rags)Jesus' rightouesness given to us ( "but now a righteousness from God is revealed which is by faith from first to last)It would be interesting to see what evidence there is for righteous (in the sight of God especially) meaning a person doesn't sin.It would also be interesting to get your view as to the reasoning behind the view that Pauls writing can be considered as less relevant that Matthew or Luke etc.

There is to my mind a bit of a problem with the analogy itself. It is not the fathers place to administer justice. Both the graphic artist and the cop have sinned against justice. They have committed an illegal act in the first place with their driving leading to death. And justice will deal with both of them. It would have been better to have the father being an RCMP member which would more accurately reflect God as both the person sinned against and the person who administers justice.Now the RCMP/father arrives as justice and in possession of the full picture (as God would be). He is faced with two people; neither of which has not followed the law (thou shalt drive responsibly). One has denied his guilt. His subsequent twisting of the law compounds the problem. This will be taken into account when justice is administered. But justice is on the scene for one reason: the original law breaking - the driving. All that happens is subsequent and related to the original crime. The RCMP/father knows what happened, despises the carelessness compounded by subsequent corruption and pours out his full wrath on the law-breaking copThe graphic artist, who accepts his guilt in breaking the law, is repentant. The RCMP/father decides to forgive. And he can because:a) he is the one sinned against both as father and justice.
b) he, as forgiver, pays the full price himself - as forgiveness must
c) he, as justice, is satisfied with the price. Only he, as justice can decide whether the price is sufficient in order to satisfy his justice.The RCMP member/father can apply forgiveness or justice. And he does apply it - on the basis of the persons reaction to their crime. One of our central disagreements is about this very point. I say (via Paul) that a man is freed from law (being able to condemn) and you say follow the law or condemnation results. Not every word Jesus spoke is the gospel no more than every word Paul spoke is the gospel.A man has a right to apply "eye for an eye" he is not breaking Gods Law by doing so. Jesus, as he did with anger and adultery, expounded the law. "Remember" he says "An eye for an eye will be applied back to you so think before you judge or condemn. Forgive and you will get eye for an eye. Don't forgive and you will get eye for an eye. Judge and you will be judged, don't judge and you won't be.This is not gospel. This is expounding and explaining how Gods Laws work. The only thing one can do reading this as it is is to shiver in fear. No man will go through his life without judging, no one will go through his life always forgiving. There is no warrant for deciding that try is sufficient. Jesus plainly says what will happen
if you don't forgiveWhats the point in concentrating on sins that are forgiven because I forgive? Fine, they are gone, past, done and dusted. Its the sins that aren't forgiven because a person hasn't forgiven that will be dealt with.Where's the Good News in that?PS: have you got a step-by-step guide as to your view on the 'whole story' similar to the one I gave a few posts back. Not by analogy but just plain english. Like I said - not necessarily for debate but just to see how you view the mechanics. If it such that 'try' will only be shown by seeing the overall workings then it would be good to deal with it in that way. What do you think?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ?...or maybe he was only talking to the mob with the stones in that time and place This message has been edited by iano, 07-Nov-2005 01:20 PM

The difference is the lack of corruption. The offender (the Christian) has, like everyone, committed sin. And every sin must recieve the penalty due. But if the person accepts the gift offered, God transfers the punishment due to the person, over onto Christ. Grace: Gods Riches At Christs Expense as it were. God, to go back to the original analogy, pays the fine of the person who has become a member of his family.The problem with your corruption analogy is that the cop wasn't going to have to pay the price for his crime. But neither was anyone else. The crime just sat there. Justice wouldn't have been doneWhat is the method of forgiveness as you understand it Mr X. Which sins are forgiven a person and how does this happen. And which sins are not forgiven and what happens a person who has unforgiven sin?This message has been edited by iano, 07-Nov-2005 02:33 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 07-Nov-2005 02:34 PM

Firstly she didn't try anything. She did it. She loved her neighbour as herself. Whether or not a particular result was obtained matters not. She didn't fail in any way to love her neighbour as herself. Certainly the car driver would not have considered her to have done any less that he would have wanted her too. Success with flying colours I reckon.And the elder failed as miserably as she passed.The question is, what happens next week when the girl is at college and sneaks a peak at her classmates work in math because shes weak at math and needs the grade to pass the year? Where she doesn't even try but has a goal and does whats required to achieve itRighteous action this today, unrighteous action next week. All the way through her life. Where does she end up: heaven or hell?