EvC Forum: I'm trying: a stairway to heaven?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: I'm trying: a stairway to heaven?

Mr. Ex Nihilo

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 712

Joined: 04-12-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 151 of 303 (256427)
11-03-2005 5:35 AM

Reply to: Message 125 by iano
11-02-2005 7:05 AM

Re: Jesus gave directions

iano writes:

Eternally damned not because the abused it but because they are convicted of abusing it.

If the adversary was created perfect, then how did he fall?

In fact, how did Adam fall for that matter.

Did they break the law?

And why is it that their sin is radically different from anyone else's -- or is it?

iano writes:

No one is damned without being judged to have broken it.

And yet you continue to ignore this passage among many.

NIV writes:

And where there is no law there is no transgression.

Actually, here's the entire chapter in context...

Romans 4 writes:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about -” but not before God.

What does the Scripture say?

"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.

Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord
will never count against him."

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness.

Under what circumstances was it credited?

Was it after he was circumcised, or before?

It was not after, but before!

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.

And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath.

And where there is no law there is no transgression.

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring -” not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

He is the father of us all.

As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."

He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed”the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead -” since he was about a hundred years old -” and that Sarah's womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.

This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness -” for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

This is the other passage that I noted...

NIV writes:

But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

And here's the entire passage in context...

Romans 5 writes:

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.

And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned -” for before the law was given, sin was in the world.

But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

But the gift is not like the trespass.

For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I'm not reading this out of context iano. It's right there for you to examine.

iano writes:

Thus my point stands: the most significant danger of the law is eternal damnation for those judged according to it.

No it doesn't.

Sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

And where there is no law there is no transgression.

iano writes:

Which is the point of the law - to show a person just what they are messing with. Nobody will obey it.

No.

I just quoted the Scriptures above which explicitly state why the law was "added" later. Just in case you ignore it again, the Scriptures explicitly state in Romans 5:20 that the law was added so that the trespass might increase.

It continues with...

NIV writes:

But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

In other words, the law was given so that God's grace would reign through Christ.

The Scriptures also states in John 1:17,

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Galatians 3:19 also clearly states,

What, then, was the purpose of the law?

It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.

In other words, the law was not explicitly sent to condemn us, but to reveal Christ to us.

Furthermore, the Scriptures also explicitly state in Galatians 3:24,

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Again, the law leads us to Christ -- there's nothing about it's sole reason being strictly condemnation.

And finally Hebrews 7:11 clearly states,

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come -” one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

I've just pointed out many Scriptures (written or dictated by Paul himself) which explicitly state the exact reason why the law was put on earth through Moses by God -- and whenever they talk about "why" it was set up they all universally say that it's "purpose" is to lead us to Christ (which is exactly what I've been saying from the beginning).

I see nothing here about the law being set forth to show a person just what they are messing with. I also see nothing here about nobody obeying it either.

Can you at least point to one passage of Scripture which explicitly states that the law was sent "solely" to condemn us?

*sigh*

If you can't, then the entire basis of your argument essentially crumbles under your feet. If so, from here on in it seems that you have to show me where in the Scriptures it says that the law was given for the "sole purpose" of condemnation.

I think this is only fair. Unless, of course, you don't have to play fair. Favoritism and all that jazz y'know?

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 11-03-2005 05:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
	Message 125 by iano, posted 11-02-2005 7:05 AM		iano has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 154 by iano, posted 11-03-2005 8:48 AM		Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 712

Joined: 04-12-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 160 of 303 (256517)
11-03-2005 1:38 PM

Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
11-03-2005 8:21 AM

Re: Jesus gave directions

I tend to agree. But this is where I think iano's argument gets conflated with the purpose of law.

What has not been brought up yet is the ability of the person offended to forgive another.

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.

The situation changes, however, when someone is wronged, and the person wronged decides to forgive the person who did wrong to them.

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.

I'll come back to this.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2005 8:21 AM		crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 167 by iano, posted 11-04-2005 5:21 AM		Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 712

Joined: 04-12-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 162 of 303 (256521)
11-03-2005 3:10 PM

Reply to: Message 154 by iano
11-03-2005 8:48 AM

Re: Jesus gave directions

mrx writes:

If the adversary was created perfect, then how did he fall? In fact, how did Adam fall for that matter. Did they break the law? Why is it that their sin is radically different from anyone else's -- or is it?

iano writes:

Law breaking. Breaking Gods laws is a sin. I'm not sure about Satan but would imagine, God being just and all that, that satan, like Adam, broke Gods law.

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.

Romans 2:13-15 writes:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

iano writes:

Adams sin is different than ours I think. In the sense that he had no sinful nature so wasn't pre-disposed to sin like we are. Like most people who are the first to do anything, his sin is the most significant.

I agree here. 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.

iano writes:

Thus my point stands: the most significant danger of the law is eternal damnation for those judged according to it.

mrx writes:

No it doesn't. Sin is not taken into account when there is no law. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

iano writes:

Lets see if we can find common agreement: sin IS taken into account when there is law (which there is now) and where there is law there IS trangression (which there is now). There are transgressors now Agree?

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.

mrx writes:

I just quoted the Scriptures above which explicitly state why the law was "added" later. Just in case you ignore it again, the Scriptures explicitly state in Romans 5:20 that the law was added so that the trespass might increase.

iano writes:

The law added later was the mosaic law, eg: 10 commandments. There are adequate grounds to say there was law before:

- the mosaic law was added... to something
- trespass existed before the mosaic law, "increase"...from some level
- In the garden God said "Do not eat..." ...law

There is certainly adequate grounds to ascertain that the 10 Commandments were placed on the hearts of all people from the beginning. 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.

iano writes:

I agree with the reasons why the law was added. Do you agree that law and transgression (sin) existed before the mosaic law was added?

Yes. I do. And this is the critical distinction between what I'm saying and what you're saying.

mrx writes:

it's "purpose" is to lead us to Christ (which is exactly what I've been saying from the beginning).

iano writes:

I read through the scriptures you quoted and was a wondering where it would end up. You didn't have to go to so much trouble. I agree with the purpose of the law being a schoolteacher to lead us to Christ and as a consequence of that result in our justification

Yes, but you still maintain that the purpose of the law was soely to condemn, I'm saying that the purpose of the law was to lead to Christ.

Christ himself even confirms this as follows...

For example, Luke 24:44 says:

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

He again says in John 5:39-40:

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

iano writes:

But the law isn't Christ, neither does it justify. It only has a partial role in the whole salvation plan. To lead... to be the means whereby...

Exactly. It is intended to lead us to Christ.

iano writes:

The question is: how does it do this. What action does the law take. Condmenation is what it does. That's all it can do. The consequences of it doing that to us will cause us to flee to Christ. The law is only meant and can only go "BOOO!!!" ...and give us the fright of our lives. And we'll run..

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

iano writes:

The law has fulfilled its purpose once it goes "BOOO!!" Anyone who reaches that state will flee to Christ. He will be in the same position as the man at the end of Romans 7 who, having being condemned by the law will say "Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death" Next line "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ. Seamless transition to salvation.

Exactly.

iano writes:

The purpose of the law is to lead. It does so by condemning. The purpose of the law can then equally be said to condemn.

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.

iano writes:

Lead is just another word for condemn.

Lead can also mean "save".

iano writes:

Condemnation is the only role it can fulfill. It is but a cog in the wheel of the salvation plan.

Have you ever felt bad for a criminal before -- and wondered what happened in their lives that made them break the law in the first place?

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

I also see nothing here about nobody obeying it either.

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

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.

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 11-03-2005 03:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
	Message 154 by iano, posted 11-03-2005 8:48 AM		iano has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 170 by iano, posted 11-04-2005 11:05 AM		Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 712

Joined: 04-12-2005

Normal Thread Display

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!!

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 replied

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

Mr. Ex Nihilo

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 712

Joined: 04-12-2005

Normal Thread Display

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?

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 replied

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

Mr. Ex Nihilo

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 712

Joined: 04-12-2005

Normal Thread Display

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 replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	DrJones*, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0