Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 8:02 PM
25 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, edge, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
21Next
Author Topic:   I'm trying: a stairway to heaven?
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 166 of 303 (256690)
11-04-2005 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by iano
11-03-2005 9:30 AM


Re: Iano, please stop ducking and dodging.
mrx writes:

People's actions, if they are considered good in God's eyes, are the result of the Holy Spirit. Within the focus of Pauline theodynamics, there's no debating this part iano.

iano writes:

You wish :) Taking the lead and advice and counsel of the Holy Spirit doesn't remove the decision making process from a Christian.

Yes, actually it does -- at least on one side of the debate. The only thing we can do on our own, exclusively part from God, is choose to sin.

iano writes:

We chose to follow his lead or not.

Our ability to follow God is not the result of our own human decisions.

Observe...

NIV writes:

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God —- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

iano writes:

God is pleased with us when we chose for him and...and presumably vice versa.

I certainly agree with you here.

iano writes:

We remain free-willed beings under influence.

But if we are able to make a mental leap to believe in God in order to secure our salvation, then it is our own actions that are necessarily saving us -- and not necessarilly God's.

I thought you said that we could do nothing to earn our own salvation -- and wasn't this what Paul was saying all along, that our actions cannot save us?

For the record, I've been consistently saying this all along: our actions do not save us -- our actions are the evidence that God is alive in us and moving us according to his will.

iano writes:

I wouldn't think so. To play it safe I'd say it would be the things that the bible says are made: the universe, plants and animals, us.

mrx writes:

Our actions are made by the power of the Holy Spirit when we are aligned to God's will.

iano writes:

I've probably answered this statment in the above.

No. You haven't.

It appears as if you've actually contradicted yourself above.

In your original stance you were saying that we are saved solely by God's grace -- that we can do nothing to earn our salvation.

Now you are apparently saying that we save ourselves when we accept God's grace -- which is freely given to all who will accept it.

Which position are you taking?

iano writes:

We produce the goods, by (or under guidance) of his spirit.

Really?

What happened to this verse you consistently quoted before?

Isaiah writes:


All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

The Scriptures plainly state, as you yourself have quoted, that "all our righteous acts are like filthy rags."

See how I bolded the word "our" in the passage above?

Who's works save us iano -- is it our works or God's works?

iano writes:

Just like a mother guides her child as they bake their first cake, the cake is the result of the childs effots under guidance.

But we're not talking about baking a cake, are we?

We're also not talking about works being a prerequisite for salvation either, are we?

iano writes:

Cooperation.

Ahah! I see now. ;)

So your saying that God is powerless to save us unless we allow him to save us, correct?

Sounds like "works-righteousness" to me.

iano writes:

God doesn't overpower and dominate to the exclusion of the person.

He most certainly does.

NIV writes:


But if I say, "I will not mention him
or speak any more in his name,"
his word is in my heart like a fire,
a fire shut up in my bones.
I am weary of holding it in;
indeed, I cannot.

Is not Jeremiah's description not similar to all who hear the call of God, being that they cannot help themselves but to do God's will?"

iano writes:

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).

This sounds like the argument that was used against you earlier but that you yourself argued against. If we're going to accept the Scriptures at face value, we're not going to delineate between who's source was more reliable within the Scriptures. They must be in agreement and concordance with one another, even if expressed from radcially different groups of people over the hundreds of years.

iano writes:

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

So now you're saying that man's works can save them?

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

There's no arguing with this part iano.

iano writes:

I'm not that sure that I am.

You are if you're twisting your theological position around to say that man earns his own salvation by God's grace. Man does not earn his own salvation. God gives it freely.

iano writes:

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.

I'm listening.

iano writes:

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

Who said that man was a robot?

There are entire multitudes of choices laid out before man to explore and learn from. A man could choose to be a police officer, or a graphic designer, or musician, or anything legal and law-abiding for that matter -- but the key thing is that whatever he does he should do it for the Lord.

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Now answer my questions:

iano writes:

Yes SIR!! :)

:D

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

Can non-Christians be moved by the Holy Spirit or not?

What happens to babies when they die -- do they go to hell because they didn't believe in Christ?

Did Adam go to hell?

iano writes:

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 8:8

Before I go further with this, I wll note your previous answer...

iano writes:

The Spirit does draw and convict (or convince) men of their need of salvation. He shows them their sin. He holds up the impossible standard of the law for example and lets man see just how far he falls short of it. When a man yields to the call (however long it takes) he will come to see himself as God sees him: a hopeless, bankrupt sinner - up to his neck in it no matter how good he may appear by world standards. He will realise his position that nothing he can do will change that and that the wages of his sin will be death and Hell. He will see that this, whilst undesirable, is a completely merited and just decision on Gods part....

Balaam was moved by God's Spirit to prophesy in God's name about the coming of Christ according to many Christians...

NIV writes:

Now when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he did not resort to sorcery as at other times, but turned his face toward the desert. When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God came upon him and he uttered his oracle:

Balaam even realizes he was guilty earlier when he faced off against the Angel of the Lord in Numbers 22:34:

NIV writes:

Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, "I have sinned. I did not realize you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back."

And yet, even after all these things that Balaam did according to the Holy Spirit, Balaam was tragically described as follows in the Christian Scriptures...

NIV writes:

With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey —- a beast without speech -— who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

Another passage says the following...

NIV writes:

Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality.

But now let's take a look as the "gifts of the Spirit" for a moment.

NIV writes:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another PROPHECY, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body —- whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free -— and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

If the gifts of the Spirit are only given to Jews and Christians who have the Spirit's indweling, then how did Balaam prophecy by God's Spirit only to later fall away into the depths of damantion?

The Scriptures even say that it was Christ himself who gave these gifts...

NIV writes:

But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.

This is why it says:

"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men."

(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Clearly Balaam is called a "prophet" in the Christians Scriptures. As such, again according to the Christian Scriptures, the only "prophets" who existed also had God's indwelling Spirit uttering thier words for them -- they clearly spoke by the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet Balaam rebelled against the Spirit's indwelling and went straight into damnation...

NIV writes:

These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.

They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity -— for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Of them the proverbs are true:

"A dog returns to its vomit,"

and,

"A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

Sounds like Balaam most likely went to hell to me.

iano writes:

As 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.

I'm fairly sure that I would agree with some of your reasons here. I too am quite confident that God brings the souls of innocent little babies into heaven.

If you feel like explaining your reasons for believing this, please feel free to do so. You won't hear any arguments from me on this one.

iano writes:

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.

Then why did you say this earlier?

iano writes:

Whilst I agree that we can do nothing to earn our salvation - it is all of God - we don't get it by default either. Damnation is the default positon - we are all born in Adam.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by iano, posted 11-03-2005 9:30 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by iano, posted 11-04-2005 2:20 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 167 of 303 (256707)
11-04-2005 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
11-03-2005 1:38 PM


Re: Jesus gave directions
mrx writes:

In the case of the on-duty and off-duty police officer, there is no real room for this. It is not the on-duty police officer's purpose to forgive -- it is his duty to enforce the law.

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.

Again, if the ability to forgive is not fairly applied to all parties involved in these crimes, it can certainly lead to a corrupt process again. But, if the person wronged forgives all impartially based on what they knew, then the system can maintain fairness.

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. Jesus

Forgiveness 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 11-03-2005 1:38 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 11-05-2005 4:13 AM iano has responded

iano
Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 168 of 303 (256711)
11-04-2005 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by purpledawn
11-03-2005 1:57 PM


Re: Law and Teachings
Purpledawn writes:

Jesus was a teacher, not a law giver and you have not shown me otherwise.

"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.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is not teaching about salvation, he is teaching about righteousness. Right behavior.

...and the consequences of not behaving right too.

Jesus taught that as you forgive others, God will forgive you your transgressions. Therefore one can be forgiven their transgressions and be in a righteous state.

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.

Now I'm not saying that righteousness guarantees salvation, so don't go there.

Your wish is my command. I might just not follow it though - given that I am a law-breaker myself...

Jesus does not intimate that the Mosaic Laws are impossible to follow

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 hand

Which reminds me: this thread is about showing "try" not showing "it's not try".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by purpledawn, posted 11-03-2005 1:57 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by purpledawn, posted 11-04-2005 7:38 AM iano has responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1537 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 169 of 303 (256719)
11-04-2005 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by iano
11-04-2005 6:09 AM


Re: Law and Teachings
quote:
"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.

You jumped away from Jesus again.

There is the written Law and the oral Law. Gazing lustfully on a woman is from the oral law. Jesus is teaching, not expounding any new law.

quote:
purpledawn writes:

Jesus does not intimate that the Mosaic Laws are impossible to follow

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.


Interesting that you can infer that the Mosaic Laws are impossible to follow, but we cannot infer that God will count us righteous for sincerely attempting to obey his laws even though we may fall short once in a while. You have not shown that Jesus considered the laws impossible to obey.

Whereas, I can and have shown you that people were able to follow the laws.

Mt 1:19
And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

Lu 1:6
They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

Mt 5:20
"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

These show that the laws can and were considered to be obeyed. To be able to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees shows me that there is room to improve, even though they were considered righteous.

Just as our legal system doles out punishment according to the severity of the offense, so did the Jewish legal system. All transgressions were not of equal weight, no matter what Paul says.

Jesus told the rich man exactly what was necessary to enter eternal life.

Mark 10:19
"You know the commandments, 'DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.' "

Lu 18:20
"You know the commandments, 'DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.' "

19:18-19
Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

quote:
Which reminds me: this thread is about showing "try" not showing "it's not try".
The speed limit on the road here is 55 mph. Whenever I drive I attempt not to exceed the limit. Outside cercumstances cause my speed to vary. Hills, deer, potholes, distraction, etc. Sometimes my speed exceeds the limit by a few mph. Once it goes above the 55 mark, I have failed to obey the speed limit. When I see that I have exceeded, I reduce my speed and am back at the limit.

The examples you gave are emotion based and not cut and dried line items to obey. They can be influenced from outside and inside our bodies. God understands that. Jesus understood that.

That's why the forgiveness factor was built into the law, which even covers unintentional sins, and supports the idea that attempting to do what is right is acceptable.


Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by iano, posted 11-04-2005 6:09 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by iano, posted 11-04-2005 3:19 PM purpledawn has responded

iano
Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 170 of 303 (256769)
11-04-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
11-03-2005 3:10 PM


Re: Jesus gave directions
STOP PRESS +++ STOP PRESS +++ STOP PRESS +++ STOP PRESS

Mr X. This is the start of a longish post in response to a longish post. The post after that is an even longer post responding to an even longer post of yours. I know there a limit of 300 but we'll crash the server if we clock up 300 posts of this length. What say you that we do? The OP asks for biblical evidence of of trying and we (through both our efforts) are digressing...to what happens babies for example. Can I suggest that you, as the person who is under law (the OP), maybe line up the main structure of where your arguement is going eg::

I'm showing A. If A can be shown then it supports B. If B can be shown it establishes C. And if C then lack of trying results in condemnation. Then we could pick where we agree and figure where is the best place to discuss. And then discuss that point

Maybe too as a background and not for debate here, to do a rough guide to the mechanics of the story as you see it. Cos I'm not sure how you see it. For example I reckon it goes:

All born infected with sinful nature. Thus all sin. Infection means Spirit is dead and body will die.

None can follow the law and will sin. On death personal sin will be judged. Damnation guarenteed because all will have some sin and any amount results in damnation (break a bit, you've broken it all)

Law meant as a schoolteacher and used by H.S. to convince the person of the above position before its too late

If the above is successful then the person will believe, receive, become. Child of God,born again saved, gets H.S. as indwelling etc

Person exhorted to obey law as part of sanctifying process. This process has aims but has nothing to do with loss of salvation. "For I am convinced that neither...."

Person dies...happy days

ROLL PRESS +++ ROLL PRESS +++ ROLL PRESS +++ ROLL PRESS

mrx writes:

I agree. There are passages of Scripture which indicate that the requirements of the law are written on the hearts of all people from the beginning.

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

Adam was created perfect from the beginning. His default position seems to be starting form the vantage point of having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit -- yet he still fails and leads all people to experience physical death from then on.

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.

But the Mosaic law is not in effect anymore. We are talking about some other law here as far as I'm able to determine -- the law which is written onto the consciences of all people from the beginning, otherwise known as the royal law. The Mosaic law may incorporate some aspects of this primal revelation of the royal law, but the requirements of the Levitical priesthood are no longer binding on anyone.

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.

Just because the Levitical priesthood is fulfilled in Christ, with all its rules and regulations being nailed to the cross, the knowledge of good and evil as defined within The Ten within the hearts of all people are still very much present and must be upheld as the Holy Spirit enables them to do so.

This is interesting. From whence the idea that Jesus only fulfilled a particular branch of the law?

No. Forgiveness in Christ is what the law leads to.

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)

And yet is can also be said that it does so by transforming the observer of the law so as to have compassion on those who are afflicted under it.

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.

iano writes:

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

mrx writes:

And yet, as Romans 13:10 clearly states, "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Galatians 5:14 goes further and says, "The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" And finally James 2:8 clearly states, "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right."

There is no contradiction here as far as I can determine. None.

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 salvation

This message has been edited by iano, 04-Nov-2005 07:24 PM

This message has been edited by iano, 04-Nov-2005 07:39 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 11-03-2005 3:10 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 11-05-2005 4:29 AM iano has not yet responded

iano
Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 171 of 303 (256820)
11-04-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
11-04-2005 3:05 AM


Re: Iano, please stop ducking and dodging.
mrx writes:

People's actions, if they are considered good in God's eyes, are the result of the Holy Spirit. Within the focus of Pauline theodynamics, there's no debating this part iano.

mrx, in response to the response writes:

Yes, actually it does -- at least on one side of the debate.

So which is it: open to debate or closed to debate? :) (only ribbing mrx, winding down for the weekend an all that...)

mrx writes:

Our ability to follow God is not the result of our own human decisions. Observe..

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God —- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

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.

Romans 5:1 "Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

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...

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God —- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of 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.

iano writes:

Cooperation.


iano writes:

We produce the goods, by (or under guidance) of his spirit.


Isaiah writes:

All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

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 sin

Man 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)

mrx writes:

Ahah! I see now. So your saying that God is powerless to save us unless we allow him to save us, correct?

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.

YOUR QUESTIONS:

Spirit: Action vs Indwelling:

When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God came upon him and he uttered his oracle....

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 11-04-2005 3:05 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

iano
Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 172 of 303 (256832)
11-04-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by purpledawn
11-04-2005 7:38 AM


Re: Law and Teachings
purpledawn writes:

You jumped away from Jesus again.

The restriction to Jesus-only was a request of yours. And apparently I'm not granting it.:)

Jesus is teaching, not expounding any new law.

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.

Interesting that you can infer that the Mosaic Laws are impossible to follow...

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.. :)

...but we cannot infer that God will count us righteous for sincerely attempting to obey his laws even though we may fall short once in a while.

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.

You have not shown that Jesus considered the laws impossible to obey

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)

Whereas, I can and have shown you that people were able to follow the laws.

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.

Mt 1:19
And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

Joseph considered righteous. No works mentioned

Lu 1:6
They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

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.

Mt 5:20
"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

"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?

All transgressions were not of equal weight, no matter what Paul says.

Paul is inaccurate and Mark and Luke are reporting accurately. Hmmm.

The examples you gave are emotion based and not cut and dried line items to obey. They can be influenced from outside and inside our bodies. God understands that. Jesus understood that.

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.

unintentional sin

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by purpledawn, posted 11-04-2005 7:38 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by purpledawn, posted 11-04-2005 4:55 PM iano has responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1537 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 173 of 303 (256860)
11-04-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by iano
11-04-2005 3:19 PM


Re: Law and Teachings
Apparently you really don't wish to discuss the issue. You are allowed to infer but I am not, so there is no sense in wasting my time to explain when you don't wish to address what I'm saying.

You have shown that you don't really understand the ministry of Jesus or his culture and don't wish to apparently.

You're trying to battle, not explain.

Just don't get to comfy in your club. It may not be such a sure thing.

Romans 11:11
I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

Romans 11:21
for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
11:22
Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.


Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by iano, posted 11-04-2005 3:19 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by iano, posted 11-05-2005 7:18 AM purpledawn has responded

Legend
Member (Idle past 3086 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 174 of 303 (256887)
11-04-2005 6:04 PM


Hi iano,

so....

in Message 113 I summarized the biblical basis on which I think that 'trying your best' is the crux of Jesus' teachings.

I've also asked you to show me where in Jesus's teachings you get the the impression that Jesus's 'commands' imply absoulte perfection.

As you've failed to refute my point and, at the same time, failed to provide backup for yours, I take it that the case is now closed.

have a good weekend,


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by purpledawn, posted 11-05-2005 10:10 AM Legend has responded

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 175 of 303 (256992)
11-05-2005 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by iano
11-04-2005 5:21 AM


Re: Jesus gave directions
iano writes:

I think your comflating duty with grace.

I think you're conflating justice with forgiveness -- but in the wrong direction I will note.

That's just my opinion on the matter though.

I'll explain this more below.

iano writes:

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.

It doesn't end there though. That's what crashfrog was trying to tell you. It's also what I'm trying to tell you. I'm fairly sure that's what others here are trying to tell you too.

For example, what if the graphic artist decides not to pay the fine because he felt that the law was perverted by the on-duty officer paying the fine for his off-duty companion?

It will then be both police officers' duties (both off-duty and on-duty) to then go out and apprehend the graphic artist "criminal" and then bring him (forcefully if need be) before the court system.

Even so, if the graphic artist then attempts to flee incarceration, he then becomes a fugitive potentially fleeing from the law -- because now he has broken the laws which were requiring him to not resist arrest and report to court appropraitely.

It doesn't end with the issuing of a ticket.

iano writes:

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.

It most certainly is. And you know this.

iano writes:

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.

Receiving grace is not a "right". It is given "freely" to all people iano. The only thing people can do (on their own power) is choose to reject it.

Are you now saying that we have to earn this grace by belonging to the correct group?

iano writes:

The graphic artist has no basis for his complaint.

What part of corruption do you not understand?

iano writes:

YOur conflating again I think, the status of the on-duty cop as both justice and grace.

Now you're catching on to what I've been trying to explain to you.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary writes:


Main Entry: con·flate
Pronunciation: k&n-'flAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): con·flat·ed; con·flat·ing
Etymology: Latin conflatus, past participle of conflare to blow together, fuse, from com- + flare to blow -- more at BLOW
1 a : to bring together : FUSE b : CONFUSE
2 : to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

Exactly.

iano writes:

He has no duty to extend grace.

He does if he is to be consistent with himself and not showing favoritism. What he has to do for one he has to do for another or else corruption is called forth.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary writes:


Main Entry: cor·rup·tion
Pronunciation: k&-'r&p-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : DEPRAVITY b : DECAY, DECOMPOSITION c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
2 archaic : an agency or influence that corrupts
3 chiefly dialect : PUS

iano writes:

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.

But if he doesn't extend grace freely to all, then he is engaging in corruption -- the very most damnable thing which resides at the rotten heart of the Mystery of Iniquity.

KJV writes:


Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And this is exactly where the analogy reaches its limit iano: The royal law is not about condeming others. It's about forgiving others, forgiving those who have wronged you personally.

Now let's change the situation around a bit.

Corruption of the Law writes:

The graphic designer and the off-duty police officer are both speeding down the road doing 90 kph.

Up around the corner a car ahead of them with a family of children are driving the proper speed limit of 50 kph.

Coming around the corner both the off-duty cop and the graphic artist attempt to stop -- but both fail and crash into the car, with pieces of debree flying everywhere. Boxes go flying. Seats go flying. Devices go flying. All the occupants in the car struck by the off-duty police officer and the graphic designer die except for the father.

The father is simply knocked unconscious.

Although injured, both the off-duty cop and the graphic designer are relatively unharmed.

When the police, clean-up crew, and ambulances arrive on the scene, the police officers immediately recognize one of their friends and attempt to secure him away -- leaving the graphic designer to take the full blame for the accident.

The father of the children who was killed in the car only now comes around -- and he can't say for sure what happened (he can only trust the testimony of the police officers).

The police officers then speak to the father and explain how the off-duty cop was "valiantly" attempting to prevent the "reckless" graphic designer from causing an accident.

The graphic designer stands there totally shaken by what he sees happening here. He knows the off-duty cop is just as guilty as he is in causing the death of the children.

The father then looks at the graphic designer and says, "I want that man punished!"

The off-duty police officer then goes with his partners and escourts the graphic designer to the local jailhouse.

The ambulance drivers bring the father to the hospital and the remaining clean up crew cleans up the mess that both the graphic designer and the off-duty cop caused.

When in the jailhouse the graphic designer sits behind bars shaking both over the damage he has personally participated in and the allegations that are being trumped up against him.

The off-duty police officer put some "files" away and then walks over to the jail cell and leans against the bars. He looks to the graphic designer and says, "See? I'm one of the good guys. My friends will back me up and make it so that it appears that I did absolutely nothing wrong. We've just put the report in there."

The graphic designer then looks up at the off-duty police officer. He can't believe what he's hearing.

The off-duty police officer then lowers his head in semi-humility, kind of feeling sorry for the graphic designer behind bars, "It's too bad you're not one of us. We probably could've helped you too if you had connections with the law enforcement."

The graphic designer then says, "But I really am guilty of killing those children -- just like you. How can you sit there and not feel bad about what you're doing?"

The off-duty police officer replies with something very disturbing, "I do feel bad but I'm innocent. My friends in high places covered up the wrong I did and made me innocent because I'm a police officer just like them. When you're a good guy like me you're above the law -- and the law can't touch you. See? I'm innocent."

Now think about this for a moment.

How is what the off-duty police officer did in this hypothetical situation any different from how you are presenting salvation for only Christians?

It doesn't sound much different to me.

Anyone else reading this thread see any difference?

iano writes:

We must remember this discussion is ultimately about God and how justice and grace hold there:

Yeah. You're right. We must remember that, shouldn't we?

iano writes:

Forgiveness 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.

So far we've been talking about law and the corruption thereof.

Now let's talk about God's grace.

God's Grace in Effect writes:

The remaining clean up crew are still cleaning the tragic mess when they stumble upon something interesting.

They've searched through pieces of debree that flew everywhere. They've searched through the boxes that flew everywhere. They've searched through the seats that flew everywhere.

Then one of the clean-up crew picks something up off the ground and yells, "Hey! Look at this! It's Joe's mobile video camera!?!"

One of the other men from the clean up crew says, "Yeah, Joe always liked to think he was on-duty -- even when he was off-duty."

One of the women from the team says, "Yep, he always had it mounted even when not on duty. Isn't that crazy? Let's play it back and see what happened."

Meanwhile, in the hospital, the father of the children is going through a personal hell. He can't stop thinking of his children. He know's they're in heaven -- but he can't help but want to take out revenge on the graphic designer.

He's got a lot of time to sit here since his house is empty. There's not going to be anymore laughter in the house for a while.

He sits in the hospital and he thinks of his wife's smile. He thinks of when his youngest girl was born, and all the complications that happened -- and how it was a miracle that she lived as long as she did. And then he thinks about his oldest son and the conversation they had just the night before.

Warm Fuzzie Story so "warm" and "fuzzy" it will make you want to puke writes:

oldest son writes:

Dad, is hell a real place?

father writes:

Yeah, actually, it is.

oldest son writes:

Why do people go there?

father writes:

Well...Because they're guilty of sinning before God. I guess I haven't really though much about it to be honest."

oldest son writes:

But aren't we all guilty in God's eyes?

father writes:

Well...technically yes...but if you believe in Jesus, your sins are wiped away.

oldest boy writes:

Really? I thought it was different than that?

father writes:

How so?

oldest boy writes:

It thought that only those who were not forgiven went to hell?

father writes:

Well...yeah...techically you're right."

oldest boy writes:

Then why don't we start forgiving more people so that more people can get to heaven?

father writes:

Well, it doesn't quite work that way though.

oldest son writes:

Actually I think it does work that way.

Jesus said, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

I do think it's as simple as that.


It was at this time that the father realized that his grudge against the graphic artist was not what Jesus had in mind. It was at this time that he knew he had to forgive the man whom he believed had been solely responsible for the death of his family.

It wasn't his "right" to forgive. He "had" to forgive in order to fulfill the law of the gospel.

A short while later, back at the police office, the telephone begins to ring.

The off-duty police officer answers the phone and hear's the voice of the father who's family he had just participated in killing that day.

He hears the sound of the father saying, "Release the man. I'm not pressing any charges against him. Tell him he's free to go home and that I'm not going to hold any grudges. It's going to take me long time to get over this -- but I'm not going to live with this burning anger in me for the rest of my life. Tell him he's free to go."

The off-duty police officer drops his Tim Horton's coffee (double double) as he puts the phone down and looks over to the graphic designer sitting in the jail cell.

He's about to tell the man that he's free to go when the phone rings again.

As the Tim's coffee slowly makes a small river on the police desk, Officer Joe can hear the sounds of sirens in the background -- sirens slightly different form his own police car's siren.

Officer Joes slowly picks up the phone and this time it's an officer from the RCMP talking, "I'd like to speak with officer Joe if I could. The clean up crew just came in here with a mobile video camera that he was employing when an accident occured."

Officer Joe sits there looking around dumbfounded at his fellow officers. They're just local police and do not have any authority over the RCMP.

In the background officer Joe can hear the sound of the RCMP sirens stopping as they pull up right beside the local law enforcement office where all the corrupt cops are sitting.

The RCMP officer on the phone continues, "Please inform officer Joe that he is to remain where he is until such time that we can take him in.

We've just reviewed the contents of a mobile video camera. It seems to be showing -- from a very odd angle -- several officers covering up the full responsibility of part of an accident.

I'm not sure what will happen to the other man who was involved in the accident. If the man who survived that wreck decides to drop charges, that's fully his right and I can't argue with that.

However, officer Joe has abused the law thoroughly -- and that's our jurisdiction.

We plan on charging him and his friends to the fullest extent of the law for crimes of corruption to the highest degree."

At that point the RCMP officers from outside come in through the front door.

We'd like to speak with officer Joe please.

It is at this point that officer Joe finally realizes that if he had simply admitted to his guilt in the first place he would not be in this situation.

The father who he "sinned against" would've forgiven him too.

But because he corrupted the law itself, the father who he sinned against no longer had any authority to release him by "forgiving him".

By corrupting the law officer Joe became trapped in his own sins.

This is the difference between the Corrupt Law and the Law of the Gospel: the Law is not fulfilled unless one stands in the appropriate place and pronounces forgiveness on all equally. Only Christ, who is true-God and true man, had the authority to do this.

NIV writes:

I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

This message has once again been made too long by by Mr. Ex Nihilo -- but iano, please take the time to read it because it's not bad,
11-05-2005 04:21 AM

What? :confused:

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 11-05-2005 06:27 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by iano, posted 11-04-2005 5:21 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by iano, posted 11-05-2005 8:01 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded
 Message 179 by iano, posted 11-05-2005 8:58 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded
 Message 188 by iano, posted 11-07-2005 8:13 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded
 Message 190 by iano, posted 11-07-2005 9:31 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 176 of 303 (256994)
11-05-2005 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by iano
11-04-2005 11:05 AM


Re: Jesus gave directions
iano writes:

STOP PRESS +++ STOP PRESS +++ STOP PRESS +++ STOP PRESS

Then I'll just make this short and sweet. You haven't really defended your position at all.

You assume that humanity's default position is damnation based on Adam's sin -- but you yourself admit that you don't know what Adam's destination is according to the Scriptures.

How can you make this claim if you admit that you don't know?

Would you like to hear reasons why many Christian people do beleive that Adam had the Holy Spirit's indwelling?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by iano, posted 11-04-2005 11:05 AM iano has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 177 of 303 (257011)
11-05-2005 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by purpledawn
11-04-2005 4:55 PM


Re: Law and Teachings
pd writes:

Apparently you really don't wish to discuss the issue. You are allowed to infer but I am not, so there is no sense in wasting my time to explain when you don't wish to address what I'm saying.

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"

you have shown that you don't really understand the ministry of Jesus or his culture and don't wish to apparently. You're trying to battle, not explain.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by purpledawn, posted 11-04-2005 4:55 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by purpledawn, posted 11-05-2005 9:13 AM iano has responded

iano
Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 178 of 303 (257019)
11-05-2005 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
11-05-2005 4:13 AM


Re: Jesus gave directions
iano writes:

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.

mrx writes:

It doesn't end with the issuing of a ticket.

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.

iano writes:

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.

mrx writes:

It most certainly is. And you know this.

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?

Receiving grace is not a "right". It is given "freely" to all people iano. The only thing people can do (on their own power) is choose to reject it.

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.

Are you now saying that we have to earn this grace by belonging to the correct group?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 11-05-2005 4:13 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

iano
Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 179 of 303 (257025)
11-05-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
11-05-2005 4:13 AM


Re: Jesus gave directions
iano writes:

The graphic artist has no basis for his complaint.

mrx writes:

What part of corruption do you not understand?

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 short

The 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 it

Is the on-duty cop doing wrong and why?

PS: am reading your story: will come back on a response to it in full

This message has been edited by iano, 05-Nov-2005 02:02 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 11-05-2005 4:13 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1537 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 180 of 303 (257028)
11-05-2005 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by iano
11-05-2005 7:18 AM


Re: Law and Teachings
Matthew 23:13

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."


Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by iano, posted 11-05-2005 7:18 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by iano, posted 11-05-2005 9:43 AM purpledawn has not yet responded
 Message 185 by iano, posted 11-07-2005 5:29 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019