Born in Sins part2

[Jerry Shugart]

Please answer the questions I gave you. Why should I go on to your questions if you will not answer mine??????

All of your questions are asked in an effort to try to prove that the Lord Jesus was wrong about what He said. All you are doing is trying to divert the attention away from what the Lord Jesus said about how a person can obtain eternal life.

Is this person an infant?

Please read the passage because the answer can be found there. Do you think that "infants" can become lawyers?

Is this person not of the age of accountability?

Please give me evidence from the Bible which speaks about that kind of age.

Has this person ever committed willful sin?

I do not know but the fact stands that the Lord Jesus told him, "This do and thou shall live."

Is it potentially possible that a person who is not an infant, who is not under the age of accountability and who has willfully sinned to be justified by the Law?

If the Lord Jesus was NOT teaching that it is possible to otain eternal life by keeping the law then why did he say, "This do and thou shalt live"?

Now you can answer my questions:

If keeping the commandments cannot bring eternal life then why did Paul write the following?:

"I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death" (Ro.7:10).

If the commandments were never intended to bring eternal life then why did Paul say that they did? If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes"?:

"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes" (Ro.10:4; DBY).

Paul also speaks of the believing remnant out of national Israel and says that their election is of grace and therefore "it is no more of works":

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:5-6).

If no one could theoretically be saved by "works" then why would Paul say that "it is no longer of works"?

 

[DHK]

Of course you ust ignore what He said because He made it plain that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law. Otherwise, how can you explain the facts which we read here:

"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).

Read the entire story. Why does he say keep the law. He knows he cannot. The rich young ruler immediately lies. He says he has done this from his youth up. But Jesus knows he hasn't. He leads the conversation down the road, and when the rich young ruler goes away sorrowful, because he has much riches, he has just demonstrated the sin of covetousness. He coveted his riches more than his desire to serve God. He could not keep the Ten Commandments.

He told the man that if he kept the law then he would live--"this do, and thou shalt live."

He couldn't do it, and proved it.

In the second chapter of the epistle to the Romans Paul reveals that a man can theoretically obtain eternal life by his "deeds" or by his "works":

"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).
This speaks of judgment. Every man will stand before God and be judged. They will not merit eternal life by works, they will be judged accordingly, but can merit nothing by their works.

Those who continue in well doing will be given eternal life. Paul also says that it is the doers of the law who shall be justified:

You missed the part where it says: "The goodness of God leads you to repentance." Not good works. Read the entire passage.

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

He is speaking of the Jews who thought they were justified. They were God's people. They had God's law. But if they thought they were God's people according to their lineage, and were not even doing God's law, then they better think twice. Paul was pointing out a fallacy in their thinking.

If it was theoretically impossible for those under the law to be justified before God by law-keeping then it certainly would make no sense for Paul to say that "the doers of the law shall be justified."

The Bible does not contradict itself. You are taking this verse out of its context. Why would he say this in one place and the exact opposite in another place??
Notice from verse 13 to 15 is a parenthetical.
Paul comes back to the major theme if verse 16:
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Romans 2:16)
--We are not judged by works; but by the gospel. This is clearly taught in verse 16. Verses 13-15 brought out a comparison of the Gentiles to the Jews. The Gentiles were keeping the law thought they did not have the law. They shamed the Jews. The Jews were not keeping the law; nor could they! It was impossible, not even theoretically possible.

If it is not theoretically possible for anyone to obtain eternal life by keeping the commandements then the Lord Jesus certainly would not have told anyone that they could inherit eternal life by keeping the law. But He did!

Why? To show them that they are sinners! He said: "What must I DO to have eternal life?" You cannot DO anything. You must trust Christ. DOING will not get you into heaven. Only faith in the grace of God will get you there. That is what Jesus demonstrated.

 

[The Biblicist]

All of your questions are asked in an effort to try to prove that the Lord Jesus was wrong about what He said.

By accusing me of making Christ a liar you are not only PRESUMPTUOUSLY assuming that your interpretation is correct [or else you would have no basis to charge me with making Christ a liar] but you are demanding that I accept that presumptuous interpretation as the basis to even discuss this passage.

If that is not making an accusation built upon circular reasoning nothing is!

Now please answer my questions.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Now please answer my questions.

Are you blind? Evidently you see only what you want to see because I did answer them. now answer mine!

 

[The Biblicist]

Are you blind? Evidently you see only what you want to see because I did answer them. now answer mine!

Do you really want me to answer your questions the way you answered mine?????????? I can answer your questions that way. I can be deceitful and dishonest. Answer my questions with integrity!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Read the entire story. Why does he say keep the law. He knows he cannot. The rich young ruler immediately lies. He says he has done this from his youth up. But Jesus knows he hasn't. He leads the conversation down the road, and when the rich young ruler goes away sorrowful, because he has much riches, he has just demonstrated the sin of covetousness. He coveted his riches more than his desire to serve God. He could not keep the Ten Commandments.

So the ord Jesus was not telling the truth when He referred to the law and then said:

"This do, and thou shalt live."

I say that the Lord esus was telling the truth and if the lawyer kept the law perfectly then he would have ing=herited eternal life. You say that what the Lord Jesus told Him was not true!

He is speaking of the Jews who thought they were justified.

How can you say such an outrageous thing since there is absolutely nothing in the context that even hints that Paul is saying that:

"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 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" (Ro.2:12-14).

Paul says nothing about what the Jews thought! But since that does not fit your preconceived ideas you must explain it away.

If keeping the commandments cannot bring eternal life then why did Paul write the following?:

"I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death" (Ro.7:10).

If the commandments were never intended to bring eternal life then why did Paul say that they did? If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes"?:

"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes" (Ro.10:4; DBY).

Paul also speaks of the believing remnant out of national Israel and says that their election is of grace and therefore "it is no more of works":

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:5-6).

If no one could theoretically be saved by "works" then why would Paul say that "it is no longer of works"?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you really want me to answer your questions the way you answered mine?????????? I can answer your questions that way. I can be deceitful and dishonest. Answer my questions with integrity!

You speak of integrity and you ask if the person was an infant even though the passage says that it is a "lawyer" which is in view. I answered your questions and you refuse to answer mine.

I can understand why!

 

[The Biblicist]

You speak of integrity and you ask if the person was an infant even though the passage says that it is a "lawyer" which is in view. I answered your questions and you refuse to answer mine.

I can understand why!

You are simply being deceptive! You did not answer my questions but rather asked questions when the answers were self-evident as you even admit above!

I simply made the immediate context in regard to the the subject being addressed by Christ plain and obvious. You cannot deal with the obvious implications because it proves your whole interpetation is false, twisted and perverted. The Bible repeatedly says that no flesh can be justified by the law but you use this text to pit it against those passages.

It is self-evident that Jesus is not talking about sinners but only people who meet the qualifications for KEEPING THE LAW - not one point of violation.

Hence, Jesus is not teaching that this sinner or any other sinner has potential to be justified by the law but rather is using the Law exactly for what it was designed for and "ADDED" to do, shove it in the face of self-righteous hypocrits and challenge them to try to do it, knowing no such "flesh" exists. The Law was given for ignoramuses to REVEAL what they don't know they are - SINNERS and thus shew it is impossible. Think not? Try it?

Find the infant that is morally perfect in keeping with the law? Find the infant that does what Jesus did and never sins!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hence, Jesus is not teaching that this sinner or any other sinner has potential to be justified by the law!

So if you are right then the Lord Jesus was not telling the truth when He told the lawyer the following?:

"This do, and thou shalt live."

If keeping the commandments cannot bring eternal life then why did Paul write the following?:

"I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death" (Ro.7:10).

If the commandments were never intended to bring eternal life then why did Paul say that they did? If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes"?:

"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes" (Ro.10:4; DBY).

Paul also speaks of the believing remnant out of national Israel and says that their election is of grace and therefore "it is no more of works":

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:5-6).

If no one could theoretically be saved by "works" then why would Paul say that "it is no longer of works"?

 

[The Biblicist]

So if you are right then the Lord Jesus was not telling the truth when He told the lawyer the following?:

"This do, and thou shalt live."

What else do you tell a person who comes to you on the presumption that he can do it? What else do you tell a person who cannot see himself as a sinner but as one who can be justified by the law? You simply direct him to the law and say do this and you will live.

That is the purpose the law was added to reveal that all men are sinners by nature and by choice and until they recognize that there is no hope of salvation for them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist said: What else do you tell a person who comes to you on the presumption that he can do it? What else do you tell a person who cannot see himself as a sinner but as one who can be justified by the law? You simply direct him to the law and say do this and you will live.

HP: The truth. That is what you can tell everyone. Jesus certainly did not lie the the man. Jesus told him the truth.

 

[DHK]

So the ord Jesus was not telling the truth when He referred to the law and then said:

"This do, and thou shalt live."

Was Paul telling the truth?
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)

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

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)
--It is impossible to keep the law.
The law does not justify a person.
No man can keep the law.
Either your interpretation is wrong, or the Bible is wrong and Paul is telling lies.
I go with your interpretation is wrong.

I say that the Lord esus was telling the truth and if the lawyer kept the law perfectly then he would have ing=herited eternal life. You say that what the Lord Jesus told Him was not true!

Jesus clearly demonstrates that the young man could not keep the law, and in the end committed the very sin of covetousness. You need to look at the context of the entire passage. Even after what Jesus said to him, the young man lied to him about keeping the law. As Paul says, no man can keep the law.

How can you say such an outrageous thing since there is absolutely nothing in the context that even hints that Paul is saying that:

I said that Paul's words were directed to the Jews. Let's take a look:

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)
--The Jew judged others. They thought they were better. In reality they committed the same things that the Gentiles did, thus Paul condemned them.

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (Romans 2:9-10)
--The Jew first and then the Gentile--this order is mentioned twice here.

Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, (Romans 2:17)
--Can't be any clearer than this verse can it?
Who is he addressing his words to? You are called a Jew!
Read the rest of the chapter. It is addressed to the Jews.

"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 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"

(Ro.2:12-14).

"For as many as have sinned without the law." The Jews had the law. The Gentiles didn't. The passage is written to the Jews. The Gentiles, which had not the law, were putting the Jews to shame.

Paul says nothing about what the Jews thought! But since that does not fit your preconceived ideas you must explain it away.

You have not read this chapter have you?

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? (Romans 2:3)
--He is addressing the thoughts of the Jews. They thought that they could escape the judgement of God by their works, by their sacrifices, by their keeping of the law. But they won't.

If keeping the commandments cannot bring eternal life then why did Paul write the following?:

"I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death" (Ro.7:10).

This is Paul's testimony. He refers back to the time where he persecuted Christians. He thought he was doing God's will. But that command, that law, brought death. The wages of sin is death, the Bible says (Rom.6:23).

If the commandments were never intended to bring eternal life then why did Paul say that they did? If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes"?:

He didn't. He said they brought death. Why did you not bold the last part of the verse as well. The command brought death, not life. Christ is the end of the law. The law was nailed to the cross. Christ is the end of the law. Christ brought righteousness. The law kills; Christ brings life.

"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes" (Ro.10:4; DBY).

It is not the law, but Christ that brings righteousness. The law is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more.

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Colossians 2:14)
--The handwriting of ordinances refers to the law. It is nailed to the cross.

Paul also speaks of the believing remnant out of national Israel and says that their election is of grace and therefore "it is no more of works":

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:5-6).

And so...It is not of works.

If no one could theoretically be saved by "works" then why would Paul say that "it is no longer of works"?

In the OT their works had to be made manifest. They looked forward to the coming Messiah. They were a shadow of things to come. He was speaking of OT ceremonial law. Salvation is not of works.

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Romans 11:6)

 

[Darrell C]

When we examine the following passage we can see that the Lord Jesus taught that a person can, at least theoretically, obtain eternal life by his own works:

Theoretically.

Why was it that the scribe, that sought to test Jesus, and to justify himself, could not receive eternal life by keeping the law?


Hebrews 8

6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Theoretically, it was possible. But in practice, it was an impossibility, thus the need for the New Covenant.

"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).

And had he done this in truth, he may have received eternal life. But that would deny the necessity for Christ, wouldn't it?

There is no doubt that the Lord Jesus made it abundantly clear that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law.

And likewise, there is no doubt that man could not keep the law, or keep the covenant.

They could not, though they religiously studied the scriptures, even recognize the Messiah.

If a man is born dead in Adam's sin, as the Calvinists teach, then no law-keeping can bring him righteousness or eternal life. If he is ever going to be justified then it must be by the pentalty being paid. He must be "justified by death," he must be "justified by blood" (Ro.5:9).

What penalty is it that man should pay? And if the sacrifice of animals were a necessity, does that not show a need for atonement? And did not the High Priest offer for all of Israel? Not just the ones that did not keep the Law?

And did not Christ come because those sacrifices...could not take away sin?

Therefore if a person is born dead in sin then it is not theoretically possible that anyone can gain eternal life by his own works or deeds as judged by law. However, the Lord Jesus made it plain that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law.

But the word of God makes it clear that they could not, thus Christ died, for that sin. Nowhere does the Lord deny His own ministry by suggesting that man could be justified by the law in the eternal sense.

God bless.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darrell: And likewise, there is no doubt that man could not keep the law, or keep the covenant.

HP: I disagree. It was not that one 'could not' but that men 'did not' keep the covenant. Scripture affirms ths point.


Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deu 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deu 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deu 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deu 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
Deu 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

 

[Darrell C]

HP: The truth. That is what you can tell everyone. Jesus certainly did not lie the the man. Jesus told him the truth.

Hello HP, did you miss my response on page two?

Check back later,

God bless.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darrell: Romans 5:19
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Paul presents the concept that by Adam's disobedience "many" were made sinners, and it seems suggested that "not all" were made sinners, if I get the implication right.
We have but to back up one verse to see that it is "all" inclusive:
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
To deny that Paul allows for exceptions or exclusions from this simple bible truth cannot be sustained with any argument that might be presented. That one might wish to deny what is called "original sin" does not negate that scripture is clear that all have sinned, to the exclusion of only one, and that is Christ.

HP: If you desire to use the word "all " in verse 18 as universally so without exception or possibility of exception, you would have to treat the "all" in the latter part of the verse in the same manner, effectively establishing universalism?

 

[Darrell C]

HP: If you desire to use the word "all " in verse 18 as universally so without exception or possibility of exception, you would have to treat the "all" in the latter part of the verse in the same manner, effectively establishing universalism?

So there are men to whom the free gift is not offered?

And that does not negate the fact that "all men" are in view.

Was that the only point worth responding to? lol

God bless.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darrell, there were so many points in your post I have to admit I did not spend a lot of time trying to remember where is was that I saw your post. You will just have to forgive me. :smilewinkgrin:

Darrell: So there are men to whom the free gift is not offered?

HP: Absolutely. All have not heard, nor will all hear. God is not under any obligation to offer the free gift to anyone. What God 'is' under obligation to do IF men are to be blamed, is to insure that everyman has the necessary abilities to accept or reject, act in accordance to or act in opposition to, truth on some level.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell, there were so many points in your post I have to admit I did not spend a lot of time trying to remember where is was that I saw your post. You will just have to forgive me. :smilewinkgrin:


HP: Absolutely. All have not heard, nor will all hear. God is not under any obligation to offer the free gift to anyone. What God 'is' under obligation to do IF men are to be blamed, is to insure that everyman has the necessary abilities to accept or reject, act in accordance to or act in opposition to, truth on some level.

Forgive you? Well...okay. lol

Having said all of that...it seems that you are saying that salvation is withheld from some.

I agree that man has to have an understanding, meaning that children and those mentally impaired, God will make provision for in mercy, however, that does not change the fact that in Romans we read:



Romans 5:18-19
King James Version (KJV)

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


"Judgment came upon all." And that, "to condemnation, agreeing with Christ in that man is, if he does not believe on the name of Christ...condemned.

Again, the original point was whether this applied to just "many," as we see in the next verse, or, to "all."

That this is true is evident, despite what we decide concerning the "gift," which is Christ, and is offered to all men. And this, unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


When we get to "many" in this verse, the same subject is on the table, the fact that many were made sinners by one man's disobedience is still clear, and the obvious conclusion is that no, not all will be made righteous.

But it still remains that it is indisputable that "one man" is the focus...right?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darrell: 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


When we get to "many" in this verse, the same subject is on the table, the fact that many were made sinners by one man's disobedience is still clear, and the obvious conclusion is that no, not all will be made righteous.

But it still remains that it is indisputable that "one man" is the focus...right?

HP: No. There many persons mentioned. There is Adam's disobedience and then there are the many made sinners by that disobedience, and then Christ is mentioned as well as the many made righteous through His obedience.

Now that tells me that no one is simply picked to receive His gift while others are simply rejected. It tells me that if we are to receive of the gift of God we also will have to be obedient to His stated conditions of salvation (although not the same issues involved with Christ's obedience) just as one has to willingly yield themselves to sin to be a partaker of Adam's sin although it is different in kind than the sin Adam committed.