Born in Sins part2

[DHK]

You continue to misrepresent what I teach because of your inability to distinguish between the two.

If you want to discuss existentialism, then why not go to a forum where philosophy is discussed. This is not that place.
We are not discussing theoreticals here. If it can't happen in reality, then it can't happen even theoretically. If the Bible says it can't happen, then it can't happen even theoretically.

There is one way to heaven; one way to be justified, and that is through faith in Christ. If one does not believe that he will end up in hell. That is a reality. Theoreticals must fit the realities or they are worthless. They are discounted and thrown away.

The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and must have some validity even before it becomes a theory. You haven't even gotten that far yet. You have put forth a hypothetical, not worthy of being called a theory. Then the theory must be tested and the results must support the theory. Here they don't. The results of the Word of God don't support your hypothesis. The entire totality of Scripture is against what you propose. It is heretical.

Therefore there is no flesh justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: (Romans 5:1)

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (Romans 3:24)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:28)

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)
--Did Jesus lie to us in the above statement.\?
If not, then it is not even theoretically possible that one should get to heaven by keeping the law or doing good works.

Salvation is through Christ alone, by faith alone, through grace alone.
There is no other way.

 

[DHK]

HP: Try that one on your Pastor.​

This is not her church; it is a debate board, and the poster's rebukes were uncalled for.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: This is not her church; it is a debate board, and the poster's rebukes were uncalled for.

HP: I cannot understand why you are so touchy DHK. You need to toughen up. Why some on the board can call another believer a heretic, ascribe ones approach to theology as 'cultish', call into question another's salvation, ....just for starters, and you have DEFENDED them no less. Whats all the fuss??

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Moriah: Have you given up any sins since Jesus saved you? Have you changed at all? Do you turn your brother away if he comes to you hungry?
If you have given up sins, and if you have changed since Jesus saved you, and if you would feed your hungry brother who came to you for help, then why do you continue to speak against doing good as if it were wrong to teach this, the Word of God teaches this! If you had a Christian friend who was sinning, would you not try to talk to him about his sin, to help him stop sinning? The Bible says faith without deeds is dead, so why do you speak against anyone who repeats this?

HP: One of the most affective tools in debate is introspection. If you can get the one you are debating to convince himself of the truth via his own cognitive reflection with the aide of conscious, you are well on your way to getting your point across in a manner they cannot escape.

When one simply approaches every notion from a Scriptural prospective, we have clearly witnessed the shenanigans that can be played with everything from the Gk to verb tenses, to selective context arguments, etc. When one appeals to the conscience of man, try as he wills, it will have its effect unless the conscience is so seared it cannot function.

Your questions are right on target for any of us to ask ourselves as to the effect salvation has had practically speaking on our lives. NOT simply to condemn but rather to get the one you are debating with to come to the right conclusions by their own abilities to reason and reflect. An excellent approach in debate. Nothing unreasonable or unfair in the least. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: What are you? The salvation police? Examine yourself and leave others alone.

HP: Amy, as explained in my post above, Moriah has done absolutely nothing wrong in the manner he addressed DHK. We are not in Sunday School class or a Sunday morning service. We are having an online debate between men and women who choose to debate. There was absolutely nothing in the least unkind or wrong with Moriah's approach or questions asked.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and must have some validity even before it becomes a theory. You haven't even gotten that far yet. You have put forth a hypothetical, not worthy of being called a theory.

The Lord Jesus' words here, in your opinion, are not worthy of being considered a valid hypothesis upon which to base a theory:

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

To you that is not enough to even consider the possibility that a person can, in theory at least, obtain eternal life by keeping the commandments. And what about Paul's words here?:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).

According to your so-called "scientific method" the words of Paul when he speaks of the doers of the law being justified do not have any validity!

Why would he say such a thing if there was not some truth behind it?

 

[DHK]

The Lord Jesus' words here, in your opinion, are not worthy of being considered a valid hypothesis upon which to base a theory:

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

To you that is not enough to even consider the possibility that a person can, in theory at least, obtain eternal life by keeping the commandments. And what about Paul's words here?:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).

According to your so-called "scientific method" the words of Paul when he speaks of the doers of the law being justified do not have any validity!

Why would he say such a thing if there was not some truth behind it?

I have told you before. You but into the middle of a conversation, not knowing what is being said, and you can get any meaning you want. You need to know what has been said before and after the verse that you post. But you ignore that basic rule of hermeneutics. So you come up with whatever interpretation you want to force into the passage.

No the passage does not teach what you are saying it does. You simply quote a verse out of context.

Here is what the Bible teaches:
"There is no God." Psalm 14:1. Am I correct? That is what is written there. Is that is what is being taught? This is how you quote Scripture and post it, and then derive your theology from the Bible. "There is no God."
Right?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I have told you before. You but into the middle of a conversation, not knowing what is being said, and you can get any meaning you want.

The following words of Peter are not found in a conversation so no one is butting in:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).

Why would he say such a thing if there was not some truth behind it?

No the passage does not teach what you are saying it does. You simply quote a verse out of context.

If Paul is not saying that it is at least theoretically possible for a person to be justified by doing the Law then his words must have a different meaning.

What is your interpretation of the meaning of Paul's words at Romans 2:13?

 

[plain_n_simple]

Here is the paradox. God says you cannot break the Law, and a man can never follow the Law perfectly without breaking one. Break one you break all 613. Be led by the Spirit, and you will not break the Law. I am not trying to follow the Law, I am following the Spirit so I will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. To a true believer in the grace of God, the Law should no longer be an issue. It was our schoolmaster to bring us to the gospel.

 

[DHK]

If Paul is not saying that it is at least theoretically possible for a person to be justified by doing the Law then his words must have a different meaning.

What is your interpretation of the meaning of Paul's words at Romans 2:13?

There are not theoreticals. Did you read my post #181?

If you want to discuss existentialism, then why not go to a forum where philosophy is discussed. This is not that place.
We are not discussing theoreticals here. If it can't happen in reality, then it can't happen even theoretically. If the Bible says it can't happen, then it can't happen even theoretically.

There is one way to heaven; one way to be justified, and that is through faith in Christ. If one does not believe that he will end up in hell. That is a reality. Theoreticals must fit the realities or they are worthless. They are discounted and thrown away.

The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and must have some validity even before it becomes a theory. You haven't even gotten that far yet. You have put forth a hypothetical, not worthy of being called a theory. Then the theory must be tested and the results must support the theory. Here they don't. The results of the Word of God don't support your hypothesis. The entire totality of Scripture is against what you propose. It is heretical.

Therefore there is no flesh justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: (Romans 5:1)

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (Romans 3:24)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:28)

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)
--Did Jesus lie to us in the above statement.\?
If not, then it is not even theoretically possible that one should get to heaven by keeping the law or doing good works.

Salvation is through Christ alone, by faith alone, through grace alone.
There is no other way.

What does the Bible say? It does not speak in theoreticals; it speaks in realities. This forum is a debate forum for Biblical discussions, not philosophical ones.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: This forum is a debate forum for Biblical discussions, not philosophical ones.

\
HP: Oh please DHK. You cannot hardly post a single post without injecting philosophy, stated or implied. None of us can.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What does the Bible say? It does not speak in theoreticals; it speaks in realities.

If you are right then we must believe that the following words of Paul are speaking of a reality:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Oh please DHK. You cannot hardly post a single post without injecting philosophy, stated or implied. None of us can.

He is continually looking for an excuse for refusing to answer what I said here:

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.

Since DHK cannot dream up an answer that demonstrate that the Lord Jesus did not really mean what He said then he must dream up a reason to explain why he refuses to answer.

He is fooling no one!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry: 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.

HP: Correct

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

HP: He would answer, absolutely or I would not have said what I said.

I am glad God set me free from the bondage of the dogma of OS and all the false implications of that dogma.

Jerry: Since DHK cannot dream up an answer that demonstrate that the Lord Jesus did not really mean what He said then he must dream up a reason to explain why he refuses to answer.

He is fooling no one!

HP: Oh yes he is. Himself.

 

[DHK]

He is continually looking for an excuse for refusing to answer what I said here:

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).

Jesus said:
This do:
(Luk 10:27) 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.

(Luk 10:28) And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
The catch is this. Can any man do this?
One cannot do this by keeping the law.
One cannot do this without being saved.
One cannot do this without faith in Christ, and the indwelling of the Spirit.
In fact not even a Christian can keep these commandments.
No one can.

They are stated thus, for they are goals that a Christian must work toward. They are stated as commands because they summarize all the Ten Commandments in just two. However no man can keep these. Jesus demonstrates this very clearly, time and time and time again. He demonstrates that no man can keep the law.

Matthew 5:48, for example, he commands us to be perfect as God is perfect. But no man can do that either. It is only a goal that we can strive toward. There are many such commands in the Bible that man cannot keep. They are stated as such for if we had no law we would be a lawless society. But who is perfect.

Are you perfect? Have you never sinned? Have you ever broken man's law--speeding? parking ticket? jay walking? etc. Have you ever broken man's law? We cannot even keep man's law perfectly though it is written down for us. How can we keep God's law perfectly though it be written down for us. Impossible! We are human, frail, creatures of dust, bound to fail, and thus we are in need of a Savior.

However if you don't need a Savior, then don't ask for one. But I wouldn't want to take that chance if I were you. I doubt very much if you would end up in heaven.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jesus said:
This do:
(Luk 10:27) 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.

(Luk 10:28) And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
The catch is this. Can any man do this?

Of course. The Lord Jesus was made like His brothers in every way and He kept the law perfectly. That in itself is evidence that men have the ability to keep the law. What is lacking in us is the 'will" to keep it, not the ability.

They are stated thus, for they are goals that a Christian must work toward. They are stated as commands because they summarize all the Ten Commandments in just two. However no man can keep these. Jesus demonstrates this very clearly, time and time and time again. He demonstrates that no man can keep the law.

The Lord Jesus is proof that man is able to keep the law.

Are you perfect? Have you never sinned? Have you ever broken man's law--speeding? parking ticket? jay walking? etc. Have you ever broken man's law?

No, I am not perfect but I know that every single time I sinned there was nothing that made me sin and instead I did it of my own free will. I decided to do something which I knew was wrong because I decided to go my own way instead of the way which I knew was right.

However if you don't need a Savior, then don't ask for one. But I wouldn't want to take that chance if I were you. I doubt very much if you would end up in heaven.

Evidently you are saying that I am not saved despite the fact that I never said that I do not need a Savior and you know it. As soon as I heard the "gospel of grace" I knew that I am a sinner in need of a Savior.

Again you set up a straw man at my expense so that you can knock it over in the hope that no one will notice that you did not answer my question:

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.

 

[DHK]

Of course. The Lord Jesus was made like His brothers in every way and He kept the law perfectly. That in itself is evidence that men have the ability to keep the law. What is lacking in us is the 'will" to keep it, not the ability.

No, that is evidence that Jesus did not have a depraved heart; that he was born of a virgin to escape the curse of Adam; that he was completely sinless and a perfect man in every way. He was God; the God-Man. You are not.

The Lord Jesus is proof that man is able to keep the law.

Since the Lord of Glory is the only one that could live sinless that proves your entire theory wrong. No human could do it, not even Adam. All men since Adam have a sin nature. You are making a stronger and stronger case for the depravity of man with your comments.

No, I am not perfect but I know that every single time I sinned there was nothing that made me sin and instead I did it of my own free will. I decided to do something which I knew was wrong because I decided to go my own way instead of the way which I knew was right.

You choose to do evil. Your nature enjoys evil. It is that same nature that all men has; you are not alone. It is called a sin nature. We don't have a divine nature that God has. God's nature was described by the prophet in this way:

(Hab 1:13) Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

We don't have that kind of nature "that cannot look on sin or them that deal treacherously..."
Our nature is sinful; his nature is absolutely holy. He could not sin.

Evidently you are saying that I am not saved despite the fact that I never said that I do not need a Savior and you know it. As soon as I heard the "gospel of grace" I knew that I am a sinner in need of a Savior.

As long as you keep saying that it is possible for you to go to heaven simply by works or keeping the law, I will assume that is what you believe. Otherwise why would you be here arguing such a position? If you really believe that you can get to heaven by keeping the law, then you don't need a Savior, you need a law. And if you think you can keep it, as you keep on saying it is possible, then why a Savior? I would not take my chances on that if I were you. But if you don't believe that then this entire discussion is moot. Go and find a philosophy board.

Again you set up a straw man at my expense so that you can knock it over in the hope that no one will notice that you did not answer my question:

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.

The Lord did answer the question.
You keep throwing philosophical speculations into the Bible where there isn't room for any. I base my faith on the truth of the Word, not on speculative philosophy. But if that is the foundation of your faith, then by all means go for it. Why the need for a Savior then? I would hate to be you standing before Christ as judge if this is truly your belief.

However if this is not your belief, then this thread should simply be closed. It is for discussion and debate on the Bible, not philosophy; not "what if the Bible...." I don't base my faith on speculations. I base my faith on truth--the truth of the Word of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, would not a more correct way of putting it be, that you place your faith in your undertanding of the Word of God?

 

[DHK]

DHK, would not a more correct way of putting it be, that you place your faith in your undertanding of the Word of God?

No.
You can be sincere, but sincerely wrong.
The Muslims say that they believe the Bible.
Their understanding of the Bible is the version of the Bible contained in the Koran. Their understanding is completely different than ours.

The J.W. and the Mormon have a completely different understanding of the Bible than we do. They may be sincere, but they are sincerely wrong.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Plain'n'simple: Here is the paradox. God says you cannot break the Law, and a man can never follow the Law perfectly without breaking one.

HP: I would say that man 'will never,' not that man 'can never.' They could if they would but they will not.

PnS: Break one you break all 613. Be led by the Spirit, and you will not break the Law. I am not trying to follow the Law, I am following the Spirit so I will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. To a true believer in the grace of God, the Law should no longer be an issue. It was our schoolmaster to bring us to the gospel.

HP: Theoretically you are correct, but what happens if you fail to follow the Spirit or fail to be led by the Spirit, and sin? I say the law stand ready to condemn us at that point. I personally would repent and seek forgiveness at that point. I am certain if that was the case, you would also.

We have Pastors on this list stating they sin every day in thought word and deed. How can it be said of them they are following the Spirit or that the law has nothing to say to them?

By the way, I like your testimony!:thumbs: