Born in Sins part2

The scriptures clearly teach there is no theoretical possibility to obtain eternal life by law keeping EXCEPT IN THE MIND OF A LOST SELF-RIGHTEOUS HERETIC!


Jerry, HP and others on this forum actually believe that all men can POTENTIALLY obtain eternal life by keeping the Law.

They use the Lawyer and rich young ruler examples to prove this is a POTENTIAL possibility even though they claim this potential is THEORETICALLY possible but never actually possible.

However, this theory is not only actually impossible (as they admit) but it is also potentially impossible (which they do not admit).

1. In both contexts there is no recognition of sinfulness by either party.

2. In both contexts there is no recognition of Christ as Savior

3. In both contexts there is no recognition of any need to be saved.

4. In both contexts they presume they can keep the law for eternal life

These four factors characterize every single example they use to prove THEORETICAL sinlessness = justification of eternal life by law keeping.

So, how do you deal with people who do not acknowledge they are sinners, they do not acknowledge Christ as Savior or any need to be saved but presume they can keep the law for eternal life? You send them to the Law to teach them what they are completely ignorant and deceived about - the knowledge of sin and their own sinfulness! You let them beat their head upon that inpentrable wall of sinless perfection.



How the Lord dealt with the rich young ruler PROVES that Christ did not bellieve in THEORETICAL justification under the law.


A. The PRESUMPTION OF INHERENT GOODNESS AND ABILITY TO KEEP THE LAW BY THE RICH YOUNG RULER:

Mt. 19:16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

Mt. 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21

1. He claimed to be EQUALLY inheritantly good as Christ - "good Master....good thing shall I do"

2. He claimed ability to "do" what is sufficiently "good" to obtain eternal life.

3. He claimed goodness equal to all the laws demands from his youth up "all these things have I done"

4. He never acknowledged sinfulness

5. He never acknowledge Christ as Savor

6. He never acknowledge any need to be saved.


B. CHRIST'S RESPONSE:

Mt. 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:

Mt. 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect,

1. Christ denies there is anyone inherently "good" but God - hence, there are none who can THEORETICALLY be justified by law because first one must be POTENTIALLY or THEORETICALLY good to be THEORETICALLY justified by the law as good.

2. Christ understood His assertion to have kept "all" the law as the claim to be "perfect" in his own eyes and therefore put his self-perception to the test by demanding he sell all that he has and give to the poor and follow Christ to demonstrate his claim of sinless perfection of law keeping!

3. Christ denies there is anyone inherently good but ONE - hence, infants are not born inherently good by nature.


There is only one possible way to deal with any human being who:

1. Acknowledges no recognition of sinfulness.

2. Acknowledges no recognition of Christ as Savior

3. Acknowledges no recognition of any need to be saved.

4. Presumes they are inherently and sufficiently good

5. Presumes they have and can keep the Law good enough to inherit eteral life

6. Rejects Christ's claim that there is NONE good but ONE - God

You direct them to the Law and tell them this is what is required to do what you presume you can do and are asking to do.

The scriptures clearly teach there is no theoretical possibility to obtain eternal life by law keeping EXCEPT IN THE MIND OF A LOST SELF-RIGHTEOUS HERETIC!

".....for IF there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." - Gal. 3:21

 

I read all the post guys, Jerry, it simply is not possible even in theory because you are dealing with the Word of God and God's plan that has been implemented to bring glory to Jesus Christ alone! No one could keep the law, not even Adam, even he was created to fail.

Tell me something Jerry, was it theoredically possible for Jesus to sin? Your theory doctrine concerning the law falls into the same category.

 

I am interested in what the Lord Jesus said and that is exactly the subject we are discussing so there is no reason that I should be ashamed.

It is you who refuses to answer what I said earlier about the meaning of His words so instead of answering me you attack me personally!

Suppose a person heard the following conversation between a lawyer and the Lord Jesus:

"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (Lk.10:25-28).

Then suppose that person came over to the Lord Jesus and asked Him, "So if a person keeps the law then they will obtain eternal life?"

After all, that would be the logical inference anyone would draw from hearing that exchange between the two men.

In your opinion how would the Lord Jesus answer that question.

 

Neither Christ or any other writer entertained your SUPPOSITIONS but flatly denied the possibility of such SUPPOSITIONS:

"There is NONE good but ONE"

"With men THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE"

Tell me, what would happen if you started making SUPPOSITIONAL arguments based upon Christ's explicit denials??????

No, Instead you choose to make suppositional arguments flatly contradictive to Christ's explicit denials on this matter.

 

Then suppose that person came over to the Lord Jesus and asked Him, "So if a person keeps the law then they will obtain eternal life?"
--I cannot answer a supposition.
--I cannot answer beyond what the Bible says.
The Bible makes it clear that a man cannot keep the law. Therefore I am duty bound to answer in that way. I have answered that way in the very words of Jesus himself, but you rejected the words of Jesus.
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (John 6:29)
--That is the only work that Jesus requires--faith in Christ.

In your opinion how would the Lord Jesus answer that question.
--My opinion is worthless. The question is: What saith the Lord? What does the Word of God say on this matter?

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)

The only work that Jesus requires is belief in him and his atoning work.
He made that clear. Furthermore you are taking this scenario out of the gospels. Go to the epistles which are post-cross, where salvation is more explicitly explained, after Christ died and rose again. Then you will find a fuller definition of the gospel message where there are absolute statements concerning the impossibility of keeping the law. If one does not consider the totality of Scripture, but only relies on a proof text here and there he is doomed to failure.

 

Then please keep your opinion to yourself!

What saith the Lord?:

Again. here are His words spoken to the lawyer:

"This do, and thou shalt live."

This statement is either true or it is not. There is no middle ground.

If it is true then it is at least theoretically possible for a person to obtain eternal life by keeping the law.

If it is not true then the Lord Jesus told the lawyer something that He knew was not true.

We both know that and that is exactly why you refuse to answer my question.

 

You have no understanding about what the Lord Jesus was referring to here. Matthew Henry writes:

"Note, God only is good, and there is none essentially, originally, and unchangeably, good, but God only. His goodness is of and from himself, and all the goodness in the creature is from him; he is the Fountain of goodness, and whatever the streams are, all the springs are in him,Jam. 1:17. He is the great Pattern and Sample of goodness; by him all goodness is to be measured; that is good which is like him, and agreeable to his mind" (Matthew Henry, Commentary on Matthew 19).

It is "impossible" because men do not have the "will" to live a sinless life. Not because they do not have the ability. In fact, the Lord Jesus was made like us in every way and He kept the law. So that is proof that a man does indeed have the ability to keep the law.

I said nothing that contradict any of his words.

But you refuse to answer my question in regard to one of the Lord Jesus' affirmative statements. So I will ask again. Was the Lord Jesus telling the truth when He told the rich man the following:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).

This statement is either true or it is not. There is no middle ground.

If it is true then it is at least theoretically possible for a person to obtain eternal life by keeping the law.

If it is not true then the Lord Jesus told the rich man something that He knew was not true.

I answered your points so it is time for you to answer mine.

 

You are right that they make a mockery of God's justice.

In God's eyes a man is "guilty" when he sins:

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (Ro.3:19).

The word "guilt" is defined as "fact or state of having committed an offense or crime; grave culpability, as for some conscious violation of moral or penal law" (The American College Dictionary).

The concept of "culpability" is essential in determing a person's guilt. The word "culpable" means "deserving blame or censure; blameworthy" (Ibid.). A person is not "guilty" unless he is "culpable" or "deserving blame" of a violation of a moral law. The word "blame" means "to lay the responsibility of (a fault, error, etc.) on a person" (Ibid.).

If a person comes out of the womb wholly inclined to all evil, as the Calvinists teach, then he cannot be held responsible for any sins which he commits. If the Calvinists are right then a man has no control over his actions since he is made "opposite to all good."

Therefore a person cannot be found guilty of the sins which he commits because he cannot be held responsible for those acts and therefore he is not "culpable."

The Calvinists have the Lord declaring people guilty who, according to their ideas, are not guilty.

 

Neither the Christ or Paul are disputing any claim that man is God or that man is claiming any special attribute belonging only to God. Neither context supports that wild claim.

The Greek term translated "good" has to do with intrinisic goodness. Same word used by Paul in Romans 3:12. Both are denying that man is "good" in regard man's nature.

Spurgeon has a better grip on this passage:

As for the question of having eternal life through a good work, Jesus answers him on his own ground. Life by the law comes only by keeping it’s commands: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." No one has ever fulfilled them so as to be good: did this young man think that he could do so? Yet, on the ground of law, if he would deserve eternal life as a reward, he must be as good as God, and keep the commandments to perfection. - C. H. Spurgeon

There is not one word about lacking "will" in this text but rather the very opposite!! He came EAGERLY WILLING asking "what good thing shall I do."

What Christ denied was lacking was not "willingness" but intrinsic goodness as it is intrinsic goodness the law demanded to obtain eternal life.

No one has denied that what he is demanding for eternal life is true!

However, what we have been denying is that Jesus taught it was THEORETICALLY possible for any man to obtain life that way! Indeed, Christ said it was not possible but "IMPOSSIBLE."

Your premise is flawed so your conclusion is flawed. For your premise to be true Jesus would have had to acknowledge that man is instrinscially "good" by nature becuase that is the necessary element required in your premise for your conclusion to be true.

However, Christ and Paul bluntly repudiate the very basis that your premise PRESUMES for it to be true!

Do you understand my answer??? I doubt it! So I will break it down in baby steps for you.

1. Your premise ASSUMES that man is by nature intrinsically "good" as that assumption is essential to conclude that it is theoretically possibly for man to obtain eternal life by law keeping.

2. If man is not intrinsically good, but intinsically evil, then it is irrational to presume it is theoretically possible for an intrinsically evil man by nature to obtain eternal life by law keeping because the law demands intrinsic goodness to keep it commands.

3. Christ repudiates your ASSUMPTION and thus repudiates the theoretical possiblility that man can obtain eternal life by law keeping.

Christ uses the law according to the purpose God gave it - TO SHUT THE "MOUTH" (Rom. 3:19) of every SELF-RIGHTEOUS HYPOCRIT by revealing the knowledge of sin, thus proving that "there is none good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:12).

The law was designed to "shut" your mouth because that is the nonsense you are spouting out!

 

I do, and that is why I quote Scripture. The question is: Why do you ignore the Scripture I quote? Why do you ignore the responses I give? Why do you just keep on repeating the same old, the same old? Perhaps if you would actually address the post; the answers given we would get somewhere.

But there is such a thing as rudely jumping into the middle of a conversation, not knowing the end of it, and assuming you have the answer. That is what you did. You rudely butted into the middle of this conversation and took what the Lord said right out of its context. It is like this.

The teacher is talking to the parents of little Johnny:
"Johnny is going to fail this year....
unless he completes the assignments that were given to him"
--But you jumped in right after the word "year," and have told everyone you know that Johnny is going to fail this year. How cruel and unjust! You didn't stay long enough to listen to the rest of what the teacher had to say.
In like manner you haven't listened long enough to what Jesus said in this conversation. You have stopped in the middle of it and taken a verse out of context, out of the middle of the conversation, and are building a false doctrine around it. Do you think that is fair and right? Do you think that it is "rightly dividing the word of truth?"

It reminds of the woman trying to find God's will for her life. She did it by opening the Bible randomly to different passages allowing her finger to fall to whatever verse her Bible would open to.
The first time she opened it the passage said:
"And Judas went and hanged himself."
And then: "Go and do thou likewise."
And then: "What thou doest, do quickly."
Then finally: this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. (1 Thes. 5:18)

What do you think? Should she have followed the "will of God" for her life that she have found? Or should she have done some proper Bible Study that involves the whole counsel of God. You remind me of this woman in the way that you are approaching Scripture.

Go to the end of the conversation. What does Jesus tell the rich young ruler to do?
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. (Mark 10:21)
--If he had done that he would have had eternal life. Following Christ would have guaranteed him eternal life. For in following Christ he would have had a change of heart. He would have had to forsake his treasures and follow Christ. His treasures were his idol. He coveted after them. He needed to repent. He needed to make Christ the Lord of his life, not his treasures.
--But what happened?
He went away sorrowful for he had many riches. He would not allow Christ to be Lord of his life. He could not give up his riches for Christ's sake. Covetousness is sin. It is one of the Ten Commandments that he could not keep, that he said he kept. He lied.

Having rudely jumped into the middle of the conversation you do not know this. By the time we come to the end of the conversation we know that it is impossible, even theoretically.

As I said again, you cannot assume anything by jumping into the middle of a conversation. That is just plain rude. You have to wait until the end of the conversation before making your conclusions.

My conclusions are based on the Word of God, not on your baseless assumptions.

 

Well said.

 

According to Spurgeon "Life by the law comes only by keeping it’s commands."

Even Spurgeon understands that it is theoretically possible to receive eternal life by keeping the commandments.

thanks for the quote because it supports my view!

So when the Lord Jesus said the following to the rich man He was telling him that it is impossible to enter into life by keeping the commandments?:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).

You prove once again that you will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous!

 

Both Spurgeon and Christ are denying what you must assume to be the criteria for that theoretical possibility - intrinsic good human nature.

You simply do not understand that your theoretical supposition must have for its basis exactly what Christ repudiated - intrinsic good human nature!

"There is none good but one and that is God" hence it is both literally and theoretically "impossible" with man.

 

Here Paul also reveals that it is at least theoretically possible for men to obtain eternal life by his own works are deeds:

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile" (Ro.2:5-9).

Those who continue in well doing will be given eternal life.

You do not believe that.

 

This passage in context, as well as the lawyer and ruler context assume it is theoretically possible ONLY if man is theoretically good instrinsically but Christ and Paul deny the latter which makes the former theoretically "impossible."

 

Considering Spurgeon, he said ""Life by the law comes only by keeping it’s commands."

Even Spurgeon understands that it is theoretically possible to receive eternal life by keeping the commandments.

That suppports my view!

So when the Lord Jesus said the following to the rich man He was telling him that it is impossible to enter into life by keeping the commandments?:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).

You prove once again that you will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous!

 

Why would Paul even speak of the possibillity of anyone receiving eternal life by his works if it was not even theoretically possible?

All you are doing is saying that what Paul wrote there cannot be true!

 

You flit from passage to passage, from text to text, without stopping to deal with the one at hand. I have dealt with the one you have been asking about, answered it successfully, and still you are not satisfied. What do you do? The same thing--go to another passage, take it out of its context, try to make it mean something that it doesn't mean. When will you stop??

First note the over-all context. In chapter one Paul addresses the Gentiles and their sinful condition. In chapter two, Paul addresses the Jews and their sinful condition. In chapter three, Paul addresses both Jew and Gentile--the world, and their sinful condition--for their is none righteousness, no not one; there is none good, no not one.

You have jumped into the middle of a "conversation" (so to speak), as usual, not knowing the context. Chapter two is addressing the Jews.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. (Romans 2:1)
"O man" here is "the Jew." They were judgmental of others, yet they did the same things as the Gentiles. In that they were condemning themselves.

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? (Romans 2:4)
--Here is the key verse, the one you neglected to quote.
Note: It is the goodness of God that leads one to repentance. Repentance is needed not works. And it is the goodness of God that will lead one to repentance. God is gracious. But he will never allow a person into heaven based on works.
But what have the Jews done instead? They despised the riches of God's goodness and forbearance and longsuffering. They rightly deserved condemnation.

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; (Romans 2:5)
--The refusal to repent and accept God's offer of forgiveness results in them "treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath." It refers to the final condemnation of the wicked at the Great White Throne Judgment.

Who will render to every man according to his deeds: (Romans 2:6)
Scripture never teaches that salvation is by works; but it consistently teaches that judgment is by works.

The Judgment seat of Christ for believers:
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (1 Corinthians 3:13)

The Great White Throne Judgement:
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)
--Judgment is always according to works; salvation, never.

To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: (Romans 2:7)
--The saved are those who do continue in well doing. They do seek for glory and honor and immortality. The do have eternal life. This is a description of the saved. This could never be descriptive of the unsaved.

But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, (Romans 2:8)
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; (Romans 2:9)
--In contrast to the saved are those that are contentious and do not obey the truth. Their lives (the unsaved), follow after unrighteousness, indignation, and wrath, tribulation and anguish. All of this happens to those that do evil whether Jew or Gentile.

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (Romans 2:10)
--This is still in the context of judgment. This time it is the judgement of the redeemed. At the judgment seat of Christ they will receive glory, honor and peace.
There is no salvation by works.