Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

HP: When “thou shalt not covet” is stated in Scripture, there is a clear implied penalty. Covetousness is a violation of God’s moral law and as such is indeed sin. No sin goes unpunished apart from an atonement being applied to it as the conditions for forgiveness are met. Are you suggesting that covetousness is not sin or that a violation of that law incurs no punishment?

 

Still waiting for a reply.

DHK, look up the word as you posted it, 'causuistic' and show us the definition of it according to a dictionary of your choice.

 

HP: In reality you deny that almost daily. You tell us that sins of a beleiver have already been atoned for before they have even been committed, so how in the world would any sin of a believer have a penalty of eternal separation from God?? If something is gone before it exists it must never have existed.

How have you taught anything short of a license to sin on this list for believers? Again, according to you, NO sin of a believer has any penalty for the individual that sins. If one is ever a believer, no penalty does or can exist for any sins committed.

 

HP: Well, here is my definition for ‘full of baloney’ found by searching the web, which by the way is a well recognized term used by individuals who dispel myths of those who make up self-serving terminology. Full of baloney: One that makes up and misapplies terms to try to give a bunch of nonsense the semblance of factual information.:thumbs:


Steaver, you need to either get yourself some glasses or read the posts. DHK claimed he has given me definitions out of the dictionary. I simply asked him to produce it which he has not nor has he in reality before as far as I can tell from the dictionaries I have researched. DHK needs to either produce the evidence that he flat stated he had, or admit he made up a story (giving him the benefit of the doubt he did not lie) concerning the evidence.:thumbs:

 

Here was my quote: DHK uses the words, “apoditic” and “causuistic” ( ‘causuistic’ in reality not even in the dictionaries I have checked including but not limited to the Oxford English Dict. and Websters.) to make a distinction between laws with and laws without a penalty, when in reality the words used have nothing at all to do directly with penalties or the lack thereof concerning law. He is manufacturing a philosophical notion from borrowed terms that in actuality have nothing whatsoever to do with the point(s) of penalty of the law he is trying to make. What does something being a necessary truth or something being of absolute certainty have to do with ‘law not having a penalty attached??’

I say once again that the approach DHK is taking is nothing short of a philosophical approach to the law of God that is not founded on truth, reason, or the Scriptures.

Here was DHK’s response:

HP: DHK, are you capable of understanding your own posts? My comments above are right on with the facts. You have never once given a definition from Webster’s or any other dictionary of the word “causuistic.” It is a manufactured philosophical term without the slightest basis of any factual definition from any dictionary that I have found thus far. Produce the facts as you say exist or admit you mis-spoke (or storied) when you stated: DHK: “I gave you references to dictionaries, including Merriam-Websters to the very words you say you cannot find.”

You did no such thing. You gave the a singular, not plural, dictionary definition for one word, not “causuistic” by the way, as you clearly imply you have. I never once refuted your definition of apodictic. I simply commented that concerning it you and the philosophers you are following misapply the term when you associate it with penalties of the law or lack thereof which is not even remotely indicated in any definition of the word itself.

Man up or produce the facts DHK.:wavey:

 

What is amazing to me about DHK’s philosophy is that a violation of moral law may or may not have penalties attached. Take murder for instance. In one case (thou shalt not kill) he denotes it as “apoditic” while in another case of murder (Num. 35:16) he denotes it as “causuistic.” What, pray tell, are we to gain from that contradictory distinction??

Tell us DHK, when and when not murder is a violation of moral law and when or when not a penalty is attached for a violation of that moral law? By what consistent standard do you come to your conclusions?

 

HP: What is the source? Is it from Scripture, a dictionary (as you clearly implied in your qoute I mentioned in the last post) a philosophy book, or what? Remember, cults make up terminology or attach manufactured definitions to known terms all the time.

 

HP: I found it but it was NOT from a dictionary as you indicated it was. You have never, contrary to your statement to me, ever provided one source other than a comment evidently out of a philosophy book to define "causuistic." At least we all know where you are establishing your doctrines from and it is not Scripture, logic or reason. You have chosen to follow a philosopher in his error, believing his false assertion of a manufactured distinction between of law with and without penalty. That is a false philosophical distinction without merit. That is certainly no foundation for sound or truthful theology.

 

HP: I have tried to show that the end of DHK’s theology is precisely the same as that of Calvinism in the following regard. No matter how DHK tries to separate himself from that well know system of thought, the end of his theology is deterministic, just as are the ends of Calvinism. The whole problem with Calvinism is that it is a deterministic system opposed to any real semblance of freedom. I maintain that DHK’s system of theology fits that deterministic mold to a tee, especially evident in his adament elimination of all conditions to salvation. You cannot get any more deterministic than that period. 'All is determined by God' in his theology and in Calvinism as well, and that is precisely determinism defined.