Heavenly Pilgrim said:
HP: Sorry you are under time constraints. I enjoy your posts. I have that problem often as well.
Here are my thoughts. I am free to change if I receive light differently. You make some excellent points. Just the same, IMHO I see something different here.
First, Paul is the exception to the rule, not the ordinary. How many individual can honestly say that they lived a life concerning the law, BLAMELESS? Paul did. I believe he was being honest. Obviously Paul did not have the knowledge of Christ before salvation that he later received. I maintain that to be consistent with Paul’s testimony of his former life, that indeed the actions he did prior to salvation were indeed not accounted to him as sin. I believe that it was not until God opened his eyes, and in RETROSPECT saw his actions as in direct opposition to what he thought he was accomplishing, that sin was imputed. If Paul would have received the light of his past actions, and refused to repent ‘in hindsight,’ sin would have indeed been imputed. I can see no other possibility in view of Paul’s own testimony of being blameless concerning the law, and the fact that he was shown mercy with that mercy being ‘directly tied’ to his ignorance. Again, I see Paul’s case as being an exceptional aberration of the normal individual. My personal case, prior to and at salvation, was not like Paul’s. I see Paul as the ‘extreme’ exception to the rule if not the only case.
I see a similar case with Job. God called him perfect, and yet after receiving a personal visit from God Himself, IN VIEW OF THAT NEW LIGHT, Job saw himself as a terrible sinner. God never called him a sinner, and even had his miserable comforters apologize to him. It appears to me to be the case with both Job and Paul, that God held them accountable, ‘only in retrospect’ of the new revelation they had both received. I do not believe for a minute that God held either man responsible at the time of their new visitation of light, for anything prior to their encounters with God, revealing to them new light, which initiated the light of conviction and subsequent need for repentance, which in turn brought on their new sense of reprobation. Only in retrospect, subsequent to their encounters and new light from God, could either man condemn himself and denote themselves as sinners.
“To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, TO HIM it is sin.” The notion that God holds men responsible morally for something they had absolutely no knowledge of is morally reprehensible and unjust. “Where there is no knowledge, sin is NOT imputed.” Sin is not an ‘entity,’ sin is a pronouncement of God upon an act of disobedience. When God says He does not pronounce an act as sin, or impute sin to the action, no sin has occurred. No knowledge, no sin, is the Scriptural admonition.
Sin is foremost a moral issue. Morality speaks directly to intents of the will alone. An action is morally reprehensible, or sinful, if there was knowledge of what was required of the individual prior to the formation of the intent just as Scripture and reason dictates.
Moral law and civil law operate under completely different guidelines and cannot be confused. Ignorance is no excuse in respect to civil law, but ignorance is in fact reason to dismiss any pronouncement of guilt in relationship to moral law. Civil law is concerned only with the action itself, moral law with the intent that precipitated the action. Sure, a judge can examine intent in civil law, but the judge is under no obligation to do so. A judge setting in judgment over a moral issue is bound by the very nature of morality to only pronounce guilt or innocence as a direct determination of intent alone.
The logical conclusion from this line of reasoning is that people in ignorance should NOT be taught the gospel, because in so doing, you make them guilty before God.
Take the following verses, "in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. - II Thess 1:8-10
Does ignorance sound like it is acceptable to God? When I read these verses, it sure sounds like if you don't know God or don't obey the gospel, eternal punishment and destruction awaits.
The early christians were "everywhere preaching the word". Did all those who heard the word, accept it? Certainly not. They would have been better off never hearing the gospel in the first place, yet Jesus told them to preach the gospel to all nations and every creature (Matt 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16).
Heb 11:6 says that God is a rewarder of them who dilligently seek Him and that without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please him. Will God reward the ignorant who don't seek Him with those who do seek Him?
As I've stated before, Jesus said that unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins (Jn 8:24). Was this conditional upon hearing?
Saul heard Stephens address and that they had betrayed and murdered the righteous one (Acts 7:52), yet remained unconvinced. Saul/Paul stated that the things concerning Jesus and the "way" were not done in a corner (Acts 26). After his conversion, he was proclaiming what Moses and the prophets said was going to take place.
Saul knew about Jesus. He had rejected him. In fact, he tried to make others blaspheme (Acts 26:11). Why was he was furiously enraged with the Christians? They accepted that Jesus was the Christ, or the Messiah and that made Paul mad.
Saul's actions were considered as direct persecution to Jesus (Acts 9:5).
If all wrongdoing, (or unrighteousness) is sin (I Jn 5:7), then when one does wrong, it is sin.
If ignorance did not make it sin, then the statement would have to be, "some wrongdoing" is sin. However, all wrongdoing is sin.
Was Saul doing right when he persecuting Jesus, endorsing the deaths of Christians, trying to force them to blaspheme? Just because Saul was sincere, did not make him right. He was still doing wrong. All wrongdoing is sin, therefore, Saul was sinning as he was persecuting.
I think you will have a hard time trying to use scripture to show that sins are imputed retroactively upon hearing.
What is the consequence of believing a lie? Is there any? Did Saul believe a lie, that Jesus was not the Son of God? The answer was right before him, written in the law and the prophets, as he had stated. So, does God say it is ok to believe a lie?
II Thess 2:10-14 - and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
