Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

[DHK]

HP: Would one of those fruits of the Spirit be lying DHK, something by the way you claim all still do?

It is a sin committed by all; it is a fruit evidenced by a false teacher.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dr. Walter: For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. - Rom. 5:19

HP: That is a great verse to start with. First, you do error if you assume without proof that the word ‘made’ implies 'necessitates.' Prove to us that it carries the connotation of 'necessitates,' by ‘Scripture’ and not merely by an assumed philosophical assumption. Would the old adage, ‘the devil 'made' me do it’ add any possible light to how the word ‘made’ is used in common parlance?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: It is a sin committed by all; it is a fruit evidenced by a false teacher.

HP: I was under the impression that something we do is indeed a fruit. Are you suggesting otherwise?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Below is my statement that deals with Romans 4:1-5:2 which is about "justification" not atonement and your words comment to my words immediately follow in regard to my Romans 4:1-5:2 statement:



Quote:
Dr. Walter: In Romans 6 Paul consistently uses the Aorist tense "died" denoting a completed action in the past. In Romans 4:9-12, 24-25; Paul uses the Aorist tense and in Romans 5:1-2 uses the Perfect tense along with the Aorist tense demonstrating a completed action in past time. Justification is a forensic term and has to do with our legal standing (Rom. 5:2) in Christ.



HP: The atonement is not properly thought of as a forensic proceeding. That is a theoretical position known as the literal payment theory and does not have its foundation in Scripture. Again, I understand your philosophical position, but I certainly do not believe such a position is supported by the Word of God.

Both of these statements are found in your post above and your statement is a direct response to mine above. I am talking about apples and you respond about oranges.

HP: Please show us where I stated you said it was. I simply made a statement. It is clear from your remarks you are treating the atonement ‘as if though’ it is/was a forensic proceeding, of which it is/was not.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dr. Walter: In Romans 6 Paul consistently uses the Aorist tense "died" denoting a completed action in the past. In Romans 4:9-12, 24-25; Paul uses the Aorist tense and in Romans 5:1-2 uses the Perfect tense along with the Aorist tense demonstrating a completed action in past time.

HP: Am I the only one that would interpret the above remark to be commenting on the atonement???

You are treating the atonement, as evinced by your comments above, as a forensic proceeding, of which it was not. The grounds of justification were indeed laid and finished, but justification is not accomplished individually until we personally fulfill the stated conditions of salvation, i.e., initially repentance and exercise faith.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Wow! You don't read to well do you? I did prove it by demonstrating the same word is used with Adam's posterity IN THE SAME VERSE and they are effectually "MADE" sinners and the absolute proof is they are born into this world as sinners and demonstrate as soon as they are given a chance. It is effectual unless you show me that human beings are not born with a sinful nature and demonstrate that sinful nature as soon as they are born????

Furthermore, Paul does not say "MIGHT" be made righteous but "SHALL...be made righteous" that is a definite not a potential.

HP: That is a great verse to start with. First, you do error if you assume without proof that the word ‘made’ implies 'necessitates.' Prove to us that it carries the connotation of 'necessitates,' by ‘Scripture’ and not merely by an assumed philosophical assumption. Would the old adage, ‘the devil 'made' me do it’ add any possible light to how the word ‘made’ is used in common parlance?

 

[DHK]

HP: I was under the impression that something we do is indeed a fruit. Are you suggesting otherwise?

You can continue playing your game of semantics with Dr. Walter, but I am not going to engage in games with you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

My friend,

Here is how it all began in post #286. First, you quoted me as saying:

Dr. Walter: Christ died, thus removing us under its dominion and condemnation because we died "in Christ" when we were united LEGALLY "in him" through justification.


Do you see the word "justification" above? Now, you responded to this by saying the following:


HP: Now for one that chastises BR for using too many Scriptures, it appears to me you need to support your stated notions with at least enough to make your points. At what point in time does Scripture state one ‘dies in Christ’ and where does it say we are “legally” in Him through justification?”

I answered by taking you to the scriptures that speak of Justification - Romans 4:1-5:2 and pointed out the Aorist tense, Perfect tense completed actions to prove that we "died" in him POSITIONALLY through justification at the time of initial faith as this whole chapter is about "justification" by faith. The terms "justify" and "justification" are legal forensic terms used in a court of law. Therefore we "died" aorist tense in him positional by justification through faith as a compelted act.

Now, if you don't understand this, then either ask the appropriate questions or just drop the discussion because your making a fool out of yourself. I am more than happy to engage in serious debate but it is prettry obvious to me that you simply like to argue and that is about it. I hope you prove me wrong and come back with some common sense.

HP: Am I the only one that would interpret the above remark to be commenting on the atonement???

You are treating the atonement, as evinced by your comments above, as a forensic proceeding, of which it was not. The grounds of justification were indeed laid and finished, but justification is not accomplished individually until we personally fulfill the stated conditions of salvation, i.e., initially repentance and exercise faith.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Questioning a remark of yours that was clearly suggesting a meaningless and sophistic distinction is not playing games DHK. Why not simply answer the question??? It was certainly a valid question that needed to be asked.

 

[DHK]

Questioning a remark of yours that was clearly suggesting a meaningless and sophistic distinction is not playing games DHK. Why not simply answer the question??? It was certainly a valid question that needed to be asked.

If an apple tree has but one apple on it, is it considered to be a fruit-bearing tree?

 

[DHK]

This thread needs to be closed as it has exceeded the 30 page limit.
Please feel free to start another.