Transgressing the Law

I pray you never have to go through that again Ed. We all suffer and not knowing each other, do not have the least idea, what the other one on here is facing in life. One thing I do know and preach to my congregation, that each and every one of them have burdens to bear and I am aware of that, even as I have my own problems. Besides I am heading for 70 now, but thankful, for I never ever believed that I would be alive this long.

Now, as far as the Gentiles having or not having the Law, they did not or were never under the "Law Covenant', but the Law of the Commandments are within them. Not were within them, but are there today, unless they have been born again, then those laws are in their hearts and minds, the same as the Jews.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Little children are "alive" spiritually, for they have not sinned, therefore have not died in sin. They do come to a point in their life that they bluntly die, and are in need of a Saviour, to restore them spiritually. They need Christ to overcome the death to their bodies in the resurrection. Even those under the Law, need the blood of Christ, but they had faith and died with that faith.

Eze 18:9Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

If it were not "alive", then it could not die.

I am very interested in when, you consider that Paul was "alive without the Law". The Law was in existance when Paul was born.

I am sorry for misunderstanding you so much Ed. You must not be originally from Kentucky. I have had a hard time understanding you since being on here. I try, but I fail.

The unbeliever, was not dead until he became an unbeliever and the law entered and he died.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

They died spiritually.

When we speak of "being under the Law" we should say "Law Covenant", which includes several laws such as circumcism, sacrificies, statues and the Law of the Commandments.

When we speak of alive without the Law, I believe it to be the 10 Commandments, for Paul begin to quote them and so did Jesus, so as to make it plain which Law they were talking about.

Teachers all dead, they "killed" themselves and were buried with a hair piece. They never could get their tongues back in their mouths. Odd..........................


BBob,

 

Nor have I "suffered" the same things or in the same manner as you.

For an example, even though I have had four bypasses, I had never showed the first sign of any heart problems, until a preliminary 'cath' was done before my obviously necessary carotid surgery, and showed some blockage. After I discussing this thoroughly with the physician (along with my bride and sister-in-law, who both happen to be highly trained cardiac nurse specialists, as well, with my bride being the senior nurse at St. Joe's in this, having been in charge of the unit for 16 years, whenever she is working) we all came to the agreement that this was the best route to follow, in this, so we did proceed in this manner. (In fact, it was during my recuperation, when I could effectively do nothing else, that I discovered the BB, and became a member of this Board.) I cannot say I have actually had major heart problems, or at least suffered from such, as you have, either.

I went to a school reunion of the Bible College I attended, over the Labor Day weekend, and only yesterday, found that a former schoolmate, who was also there, and actually was a couple of years younger than I, had had a major cerebral hemorrhage, causing cardiac arrest, and the CT done after 'resusitating' her showed major heart damnage, as well, and she was on a ventilator, and her husband and daughter made the decision to take her off the life support, based on the results of the tests done. There just 'happened' to be an outstanding neurologist visiting at the hospital (there were no neurologists on staff, there) where she was taken and the CT scan was done, and he graciously read the scan, and said that there was nothing that could have been done, even if she were at the finest hospital in the country, at the time this occurred. She went on to be with the Lord in less than 10 minutes.

For any in the Greater Atlanta area who may have known her, this was Mindy Parrish, and her husband was Doc (John) Parrish, and daughter Shana. Pray for Doc and Shana.

I would respond further to this post, but considering I got sidetracked into mentioning the homegoing of Mindy Parrish, do not want to detract from this, further. I'll try and respond more, later.

Ed

 

I am sorry for your loss of your friend and schoolmate (Mindy). May God Bless her family and all that will miss her.

BBob,

 

HP: You overlook a most important matter. A Sovereign God chose to grant salvation in a manner of His choosing, which enables or allows Him to grant a pardon to those of His choosing. He has chose only to grant a pardon for sins that are past and salvation to those who willing fulfill the conditions God set forth, without which no man shall be saved. Nowhere does Scripture state that any sins presently engaged in or future sins that one might commit are simply automatically forgiven and forgotten and cast into the depths of the sea as far as the east is from the west from us as a result of an initial act of faith. Once granted it is ours to hold in obedience. If we fail to persevere in obedience, and chose, of our own making to squander our inheritance, it is us, not God, that does not keep up our end of the covenant, and as such all responsibility for failure to receive our once promised inheritance lies on our shoulders, not God’s .

HP: First, I have never stated any such thing to my knowledge. I totally agree that that is not how it happens. That is simply something that you try and place in the mouths of others that simply is not in accordance to what they have stated not in accordance to what they believe. What is it that you refer to such misrepresentations as? Do you refer to such misrepresentations of another’s words as a lie, slander, and or both? Of course if I or any other has stated that God takes away that which He has given, would you be so kind as to post the quote you are referring to?

Speaking of making God out to be a liar, I fail to recall you giving a viable answer to the question I asked you. If God promises to forgive our sins and to cast them from us in the depths of the sea and to separate us from them as far as the East is from the West, does it make Him out to be a liar when He remembers them in order to chastise the believer for them?

 

Your question never has made much sense, and is really not worth answering.

If God promises to answer all my algebra questions, gives absolute correct answers, and then buries the results in the sea never to remember them again; does it make him a liar when He remembers the results of my physics test?

Not a perfect illustration. But you will note that physics has nothing to do with algebra (at least in this illustration).
And daily sanctification has nothing to do with salvation.

 

Thank you on behalf of her family and friends.

Ed

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
Speaking of making God out to be a liar, I fail to recall you giving a viable answer to the question I asked you. If God promises to forgive our sins and to cast them from us in the depths of the sea and to separate us from them as far as the East is from the West, does it make Him out to be a liar when He remembers them in order to chastise the believer for them?

HP: If you are going to develop an illustration, you need to at least try to add the pertinent parts to it. In the illustration you set forth, does God ‘promise’ NOT to remember, and then chastise you for a poor performance?

HP: Let the reader understand that daily sanctification and chastisement for sin are not one in the same, nor does DHK’s line of reasoning speak to the issue I have raised. He skirts the real import of the question for reasons known or unknown to himself, but never the less does.

For the benefit of the listener, the point I am trying to make with DHK is simple. If God promises to forgive and forget, and to never remember our sins again He means what He says AND WILL DO IT. If God is subsequently involved in the chastisement of ones sin, it is living proof that it is NOT yet forgiven nor can it simply be forgiven and forgotten, for He is in the direct act of bringing it to our attention along with motivation for repentance IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO HIS PROMISE CONCERNING SINS UNDER THE BLOOD.

The idea that DHK and multitudes of others, is that they presume upon the grace of God, believing an idea unsupported by the Word of God. That false notion is wrapped up in the false literal payment theory that every sin a believer has ever committed, is now committing, or will ever commit in the future, is already forgiven prior to and apart from any and all conditions in direct opposition to the clearly mandated conditions by God in His Word as necessary for forgiveness. Such an idea as the literal payment theory enjoins is foreign to the Word of God and to the Church prior to the advent of Augustine.

 

HP, I have stated many times to you: As long as you deny the Biblical doctrine of eternal security you will never have a proper understanding of salvation, and how God will, can, and does forgive all of our sins: past, present and future, at the time that we put our faith and trust in the blood that he shed for us on the cross. He paid the penalty, not just for some of our sins, but for all of them. His blood was sufficient, not just for some of our sins, but for all of them. Scripture after Scripture attests to that, including the most widely quoted Scripture of the Bible

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The sins of the whole world means just that: every single sin, of every age, of every sin, has been atoned for. Jesus Christ has paid the penalty of every sin that was ever committed--from Adam and all the generations up until He comes again.
That means all of my sins: past, present, and future have been forgiven, doesn't it?
But how did Christ make that possible.
1. He could die for our sins because He was sinless.
IPet.3:18 says that He was the just dying for the unjust. He was the sinless one dying for the sinful one.
2. The reason that He could pay the penalty for all of our sins, the sins of all ages, is because He is God. With God there is no time. He Himself is eternal. He is timeless, immutable, never changing. He says: "I am the Lord; I change not."

This is not universalism. Our salvation, forgiveness of sin, the gift of eternal life, is all predicated on accepting Christ by faith and faith alone. Salvation is efficacious only to them that believe.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
--If you believe you are not condemned; If you believe not you are condemned already.

The Bible states in many places that not only has God forgiven all of our sins, but that He remembers then no more; he has cast them behind his back; he has buried them in the depths of the sea. They will never be remembered again.
In order to believe that you must believe in eternal security.
Because my salvation is secure in Christ, God will never look upon those sins again in reference to my salvation

There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. None.
Regarding our salvation God will never hold any sin against the believer--even if it is now a future sin. Why? Because it is already under the blood, paid for by Jesus Christ. When God looks down from heaven He doesn't see me, but rather the righteousness of Jesus Christ that I am clothed in. He doesn't see the sin. It has been forgiven. This is all in relation to salvation.

Sanctification, fellowship, our walk with God, and yes even chastisement as a result of our disobedience has nothing to do with salvation. We cannot lose our salvation, but we can lose our fellowship with God.
If my son disobeys me, he may fall out of favor with me for a short period of time, but he will never be disowned by me. He will always be my son.

I will always by a child of God no matter what happens. As a child of God, my Heavenly Father may chastise me when I sin. He does that because He loves me; if I wasn't His child He wouldn't chastise me. That only happens to believers that can never lose their salvation. Their sin has already been blotted out, forgiven. The Great Judge has seen to that. But for our sakes he wants us to confess that which we presently sin that we might keep in good standing with God.

Be realistic here. Do you think that God is not omniscient. Of course God knows all our sins. He remembers them no more is a figurative expression to describe a legal state. When the penalty of a crime is paid for in full, the judge closes the case. It is sealed and "forgotten."
After six years (I think) all points on a person's drivers record are dropped (that is those points that are six years and older). They are "forgotten" and not to be remembered again. Those points or penalties should not affect your insurance rates again.
God forgets better than man forgets. His forgiveness is complete. It doesnt' mean that He is not omniscient. The term is used in a legal sense.

 

I have no clue as to your age, but all my sins were future by more than 1900 years, when Jesus took them upon Himself when He laid down His life on Mt. Moriah.

Or are you contending He only died to pay for some of the sins of the world?

Ed

 

HP:I will try and get back with both you and DHK this weekend the Lord willing.:thumbs:

 

Well, I grant that I seldom use the word "payment" in speaking of this, much preferring the words of "Paid in Full."

That said,

Funny, I coulda' swore both Apollos and John lived before the time of Augustine.

Ed

 

HP: Either way it begs the question as to what sense it was or was not 'paid in full.'

Let me ask you Ed, in this payment, was every individual sin addressed that you and all others have or will have? Let’s say you have committed murder for instance. If that was true, was the penalty for that specific sin paid for in full? Can God ever hold one accountable for a sin that has been paid for in full? Can a sin that has had the penalty paid for in full every be even brought up again once it has been paid for? If so, where is the Scripture that substantiates your position? Are you trying to tell us that in reality the condition for being 'paid for in full' in reality depends on whether or not one believes? If so, are you then admitting that the effectiveness of the 'payment made in full' is conditioned upon the will of man? If not why not?

I am certain that you would deny universalism, so can or does God ‘unpay’ that which you say has been already paid for in total in the case of those that in the end will be lost? Was God’s payment a temporary one, in reality depending on whether or not one would come along two thousand years later and happen to believe?’ Somehow you have to eventually disconnect from the ‘payment in full’ you say you believe in and the fact that in the end there will be multitudes who will suffer the full penalty of the law for sins they committed. If the sins of all have been paid for in full ‘in the sense of a literal payment’ as you seem bent on defending, you are either going to have to admit that the payment was not sufficient to accomplish its ends or man’s will, by not believing, can over-rule the necessitated effect of the forgiveness of all sin as you are implying happened. Can ones un-belief nullify that which you say has already been accomplished in finality? Is man’s unwillingness to believe more powerful than God’s payment you say has already been accomplished, and that ‘in full?’ Are you seriously considering the necessitated logical ends of your stated positions Ed? I for one believe you are digging a deep theological hole from which the notions you are imbibing will never escape the reality thereof.

HP: You need to quit swearing and attend to the logical ends of your stated positions.:thumbs:

 

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

God knows, according to his foreknowledge, (He is omniscient) who the elect will be. The elect will never "unbelieve," as you suggest. They are the elect, the born of God, the forgiven, the sanctified of the Spirit, the set apart ones, the adopted ones. They have been sprinkled by the blood of Jesus Christ, and all their sins have been wiped away. They are the elect of God. God knew who they would be before the foundation of the world. They can never, never become the un-elect. It is an impossiblity. They are kept by the power of God. Salvation is of the Lord.

Therefore all their sins: past, present, and future have been forgiven, and were forgiven in eternity past, according to the foreknowledge of God.

Does that discount faith. No, not at all.
Salvation is by faith and faith alone.
But God knew ahead of time who would believe and who would not.

 

HP: You need to address the same questions I posed to Ed. They apply to your sated position as well.

Your problem is that you assume without proof your stated position of OSAS, consistently begging the question.


You seem to have a disdain for a conditional salvation, but I believe it will become absolutely clear that you in fact do believe there are conditions to not only salvation, but the payment of sins. I believe that it can be clearly established that either your position is simply inconsistent, or you in the end will end up in the camp of those holding to a limited atonement and irresistible grace.

Is there not a five point Calvinist on this board left that can clearly see the inconsistency of the position of DHK, Ed and others, who try in vain to hold to the literal payment theory and yet deny the logically necessitated ends of that position, i.e., a limited atonement and irresistible grace?

 

Is the Calvinist your god?
I have repeatedly told you before I am not a Calvinist, and if you bothered to read in some of the theology threads you would see me debating with them. You arrogantly assume that which you do not now. It is offensive. You have done this many times before. I have never associated myself with Calvinism, so why bring Calvinism into this discussion. It is a red herring.

 

HP: You try to have it both ways DHK. First you tell us it is all in direct relationship to God’s foreknowledge, and then you try and tell us it is in accordance to those that choose to believe. You give lip service to the denunciation of limited atonement, but that tell us that it is the ‘elect of God’ that have had ‘all their sins wiped away.’ You could not hold to a more Calvinistic position than that. Has it not been your position that 'all the sins of the entire world' were paid for in full? Why do you now limit it in your comments here posted to those of the elect alone??? Why do you say that it is the 'elect' that have been sprinkled? Why not the sins of the entire world? Could one sin be 'paid for in full' apart from the blood being sprinkled on it? Again, why do you now only speak of the sprinkling over the selected sins of the elect? If that is not a limited atonement, the Pope is not a Catholic.

I thought the ‘wiping’ would take place at the time of forgiveness, would it not? If not why not? Can God forgive sins without the effect of that payment being effective in the lives of ‘the whole world’ you seem to like to talk about? Can God pay for the sins of the entire world without wiping away the sin debt held to their charge? If so, explain to us how the will of man, involved in ‘belief’ or the lack thereof, can thwart the forgiveness and sin payment you have indicated in times past was ‘paid for in full’ in relationship to the sins of the entire world?

...and the points I am making are not red herrings. :thumbs:

 

Try answering the post I gave you in #109. That was quite detailed and well laid out.

 

Here are some questions for DHK, Ed, and others of like beliefs. Can sins be ‘paid for in full’ apart from the blood being sprinkled on them? Once the blood is applied can it be withdrawn? Was a literal payment made for the sins of the entire world? Was the blood applied to the sins of the entire world? If not, how could have they been paid for apart from the blood? If you agree that the blood was indeed applied to every sin on behalf of the ‘sins of the entire world,’ and that the debt of all sin was indeed ‘paid in full,’ explain to the listener why one cannot logically conclude that either universalism reigns or God must withdraw the forgiveness He says the blood paid for in it application to the sins of the entire world, on the account of those that in the end will be lost and held accountable for their sins once paid for?

 

The literal payment of sins is literal because it is all based on the eternal security of the believer.