Do You Believe in Absolutes?

[Jerry Shugart]

The most heathen culture has a peverted law or standard as conscience does not provide any perfect law. They may not kill their own brother but they may think it is perfectly alright to kill your brother. They may not kill one of their own tribe members but they may believe it is alright to kill, rape or pillage the neighbor villiage. Paul's point is that all men operate according to some standard due to the light of conscience. When they violate conscience, and all do, they can be held accountable according to the light they have and what they did with it.

That does not answer my question:

How do you explain the fact that a man can "do by nature the things contained in the law" since, according to your ideas, he does not chose righteousness because of his own love for darkness and hatred for righteousness?

The Context begins in verse 12 that demonstrates God's judgment is just and part of that justness is that man is judged according to the light he has not according to the light he does not have. He is judged according to the works under whatever law he operates by. No man keeps any law given to him without offence and to offend in one point is to offend all points.

Again, that does not answer my question.You are doing nothing but evading what I said. Again, here is what you said:

Man is able to choose freely according to his own desires! Nothing prevents him from choosing righteousness but his own love for darkness and hatred for righteousness.

I will repeat what I said in the hope that you will actually address what I said:

If you are right how do you explain the following verse?:

"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.2:14).

Paul describes the law as being "holy" and "just" and "good":

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Ro.7:12).

How do you explain the fact that a man can "do by nature the things contained in the law" since, according to your ideas, he does not chose righteousness because of his own love for darkness and hatred for righteousness?

 

[The Biblicist]

That does not answer my question:

How do you explain the fact that a man can "do by nature the things contained in the law" since, according to your ideas, he does not chose righteousness because of his own love for darkness and hatred for righteousness?

Man has not lost his power of free choice. However, the will does not act independent of the heart of man but rather expresses the heart of man which is the seat of lust/desires. The two Greek terms translated "will" in the New Testament confirm that the will is but the vehicle of heart expression (thelema; Boloumai). Hence, the Gentiles in regard to the law written on their conscience, are able to make choices and do make choices. However, their choicses are always in keeping with their hearts desires and therefore they may at times choose to do what their conscience dictates and at other times choose to violate it.

The conscience only provides a standard sufficient to provide a RELATIVE standard of right and wrong that can be broken, retrained or seared. The conscience provides only a basis for just judgement because all gentiles break that law as much as all Jews break law by special revelation (Rom. 3:9-20). Natural revelation whether in observable nature or internal conscience NEVER provides salvation light as that comes by special revelation.

Lost people make right and wrong decisions every day in keeping or in violation of their conscience. However, the motive behind their decisions is NEVER "for the glory of God" and thus all their decisions are SIN due to the root problem in the heart - intent!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hence, the Gentiles in regard to the law written on their conscience, are able to make choices and do make choices. However, their choicses are always in keeping with their hearts desires and therefore they may at times choose to do what their conscience dictates and at other times choose to violate it.

That contradicts what you said earlier:

No man keeps any law given to him without offence and to offend in one point is to offend all points.

You want it both ways!

 

[The Biblicist]

That contradicts what you said earlier:


You want it both ways!

You simply don't understand my response! All the moral choices they do make are SINFUL choices because they are rooted in and originate from a SINFUL INTENT found in the heart. Hence, in reality there is none that doeth good no, not one.

Ability to choose and do what the law says whether that law is natural revelation of conscience or special revelation by Moses does not make their choice and/or actions righteous or good in God's sight. God looks upon the heart because all that we choose to say or do must originate from the RIGHT or GOOD or RIGHTEOUS motive - "for the glory of God." Lost men can choose to do what the law says (general or special) but their choice is EVIL in God's sight because their heart is EVIL because the root of their heart's desires or its INTENT/MOTIVE is evil.

So, yes they can choose to do what they perceive to be good according to the law of conscience or written law but that choice does not make it good or right in God's sight. They must fulfill the law according to God's design and standard not theirs!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You simply don't understand my response! All the moral choices they do make are SINFUL choices because they are rooted in and originate from a SINFUL INTENT found in the heart.

Of course you must somehow make Paul's words of no effect since they contradict your ideas. He said the following:

"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.2:14).

They either did the things contained in the law or they didn't. And Paul makes it plain that they did. But you deny his words because what he says completely destroys your theology:

No man keeps any law given to him without offence and to offend in one point is to offend all points.

 

[The Biblicist]

Of course you must somehow make Paul's words of no effect since they contradict your ideas. He said the following:

"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.2:14).

They either did the things contained in the law or they didn't. And Paul makes it plain that they did. But you deny his words because what he says completely destroys your theology:

Of course they did the things contained in the law just as Paul claimed to have been "blameless" in the law, as he too did the things in the law but it did not save him did it? Now, touching the law (speaking from his own perspective) he was "blameless" but was he "blameless" in the sight of God? Not according to Paul!

Philip. 3:6.... touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

Do you believe Paul contradicted himself and had it both ways?????

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Of course they did the things contained in the law just as Paul claimed to have been "blameless" in the law, as he too did the things in the law but it did not save him did it?

We are not talking about what saves anyone but instead your remark here:

No man keeps any law given to him without offence and to offend in one point is to offend all points.

You are obviously wrong with Paul's words here in view:

"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.2:14).

Do you believe Paul contradicted himself and had it both ways?????

Of course Paul did not contradict himself. His words in regard to being "blameless" were obviously in regard to how other men viewed him because he knew that he was not blameless before God:

"Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death" (Ro.7:7-10).

Do you believe that Paul believed that he was blameless before God in regard to the righteousness demanded by the law?

And in what sense was Paul saying that the commandment was "ordained to life"?

Thanks!

 

[The Biblicist]

We are not talking about what saves anyone but instead your remark here:

You are obviously wrong with Paul's words here in view:

"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.2:14).

Of course Paul did not contradict himself. His words in regard to being "blameless" were obviously in regard to how other men viewed him because he knew that he was not blameless before God:

"Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death" (Ro.7:7-10).

Do you believe that Paul believed that he was blameless before God in regard to the righteousness demanded by the law?

And in what sense was Paul saying that the commandment was "ordained to life"?

Thanks!

You answered your own objection.

Paul is the writer in both passages. In both passages the law is obeyed in the very same manner BECAUSE NO MAN CAN DO THE LAW according to God's command or other wise doing would be equal to justification by the Law!

So yes, Gentiles can do the law in the same sense that Paul did the law. So no, neither were able to do the law according to how God defines doing it. Get it????

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You answered your own objection.

And as usual you did not answer my questions!

 

[The Biblicist]

And as usual you did not answer my questions!

The problem is not that I don't answer your questions because I do. The problem is that you simply do no accept the answers I give.

I answered your last post very clearly and explictily. If you do not think so, you need to reread what I said.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The problem is not that I don't answer your questions because I do. The problem is that you simply do no accept the answers I give.

The problem is that you did not answer these questions;

Do you believe that Paul believed that he was blameless before God in regard to the righteousness demanded by the law?

And in what sense was Paul saying that the commandment was "ordained to life"?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

There is not the least shred of evidence that complete obedience to known commands of God would not have ended in eternal rewards for Adam or any other.

I believe according to Scripture that indeed Paul did in fact live blameless according to the law, and it was for this reason that God used him as He did. It was not until God granted Paul light, light he was completely ignorant of up until that time, that he was slain by the light of God's law. It was in light of that new revelation of God and His law that Paul saw himself as the chief of sinners.

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem is that you did not answer these questions;

Do you believe that Paul believed that he was blameless before God in regard to the righteousness demanded by the law?

Before he understood what the Law really meant, yes, he believed he was blameless touching what the Law demanded. After he understood what the law really meant, no, he believed he was the "chief of sinners."

He was doing the law as he perceived the demands of the law just as the gentile in Romans 2:14-15 can do the law of conscience as he perceives or he can violate it as he perceives it.

And in what sense was Paul saying that the commandment was "ordained to life"?

The word "ordained" is not found in the Greek text. What is found is only the Greek preposition "eis". Literally, the text reads "And I found to me unto life it was death." He is merely expressing his personal view as a lost religious person.

He thought his obedience to the commandment would bring life but he found out it brought death instead. This is what he means as in Galatians 3:21 he states if there was a law that could bring life then life would have been by the keeping of the law. However, God never intended the law to bring life to sinners because one sin brings you under its condemnation rather than under its approval. So no sinner could ever obtain life by law. The only ones who believed that were those who do not understand either what sin is and/or what the law really demands. Sinners obtaining eternal life by the law is an oxymoron.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

So here we have it. If Biblicist claims it is true, that must make it an absolute.... in his mind that is.

How about trying to address the topic at hand? Are there absolutes? If so, show us from reason and Scripture what they are. Show us how we can test your philosophy/theology for truth. Telling us that this something is true and establishing evidence is two different things.

I set forth a first truth of reason that can be judged universally by men. In order to do something blameworthy or praiseworthy man must have choice. Choice not only to 'do as one wills' as the philosophy of the Calvinist or those leaning hard towards Calvinism in error do declare, but rather the ability to be the first cause of ones moral intents. Nothing you have said so far refutes or denies the truth of this universal principle. Show us why this simple truth does not in fact show your philosophy to be in error. If what you say is indeed truth, God can do nothing praiseworthy for He has no power of choice according to you.

 

[The Biblicist]

So here we have it. If Biblicist claims it is true, that must make it an absolute.... in his mind that is.

How about trying to address the topic at hand? Are there absolutes? If so, show us from reason and Scripture what they are. Show us how we can test your philosophy/theology for truth. Telling us that this something is true and establishing evidence is two different things.

I set forth a first truth of reason that can be judged universally by men. In order to do something blameworthy or praiseworthy man must have choice. Choice not only to 'do as one wills' as the philosophy of the Calvinist or those leaning hard towards Calvinism in error do declare, but rather the ability to be the first cause of ones moral intents. Nothing you have said so far refutes or denies the truth of this universal principle. Show us why this simple truth does not in fact show your philosophy to be in error. If what you say is indeed truth, God can do nothing praiseworthy for He has no power of choice according to you.

God is the Absolute and thus the beginning point to determine all absolutes. General revelation serves only to reveal that such a God exists and remove all judicial excuses as only a fool says there is no God (Psa. 14:1) because general revelation declares His existence both outwardly in creation and inwardly by conscience. However, general revelation serves no salvic ends but only serves a just basis to judge men's responses to what creation declares.

Only God's special written revelation provides salvic ends and provides an absolute authority to determine right from wrong. Conscience can be trained, changed, seared and serves and in whatever condition serves only to prove man is a sinner because man will violate whatever condition his conscience may be in.

Speical revelation is inspired by God and thus accompanied by the Spirit of God and is self-authenticating and self-interpretating. It is authenticated by objective evidences (prophecy, scientific, archelogical and personal experiential confirmations) so there is no excuse to reject it as final authority to determine doctrine and practice acceptable to God and what is right versus what is wrong.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: God is the Absolute and thus the beginning point to determine all absolutes. General revelation serves only to reveal that such a God exists and remove all judicial excuses as only a fool says there is no God (Psa. 14:1) because general revelation declares His existence both outwardly in creation and inwardly by conscience. However, general revelation serves no salvic ends but only serves a just basis to judge men's responses to what creation declares.

HP: It is flawed philosophy to say that general revelation is limited as you have stated it is. How many times does the Scripture have to be repeated that shows clearly that philosophy to be in Scriptural error?

Rom 2:14 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:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Nothing you have said thus far gives any reasonable explanation to these verses that refute what you claim concerning what you call as general revelation. Still waiting on a clear response, as I know others are as well.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: It is flawed philosophy to say that general revelation is limited as you have stated it is. How many times does the Scripture have to be repeated that shows clearly that philosophy to be in Scriptural error?

Rom 2:14 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:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Nothing you have said thus far gives any reasonable explanation to these verses that refute what you claim concerning what you call as general revelation. Still waiting on a clear response, as I know others are as well.

Only because you cannot either read or you cannot understand what I said, or you simply ignore what I said. It is one or the other!

Conscience is general revelation (Rom. 1:19-20) and serves no other end but to establish personal accountability to a moral standard. A moral standard that is flawed by a fallen nature, a moral standard that can be retrained, changed or seared due to fallen nature. It only serves to demonstrate the fallen nature of man and provide a just basis to demonstrate he will violate any law, no matter how flawed, retrained, changed, or seared.

The moral standard is not salvic just as general revelation of God's power and Godhood is not salvic but rather to render man responsible to acknowledge God's existence and respond accordingly.

He has ability to do according to his conscience but his conscience NEVER provides salvic revelation. Hence, what he can do by nature is respond to its approval or condemnation. There is no man but Christ that ever kept the law of conscience without violating one point and that is the demand of law to keep it without violating it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: General revelation serves only to reveal that such a God exists and remove all judicial excuses as only a fool says there is no God

Biblicist: Conscience is general revelation (Rom. 1:19-20) and serves no other end but to establish personal accountability to a moral standard

HP: Rom 2:14 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:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

HP: You try and have it both ways, but still IGNORE the truth of the verse. Let me point it out once again. "do by nature the things contained in the law"


Tell us Biblicist what these words mean. How does 'doing the things contained in the law' serve only to establish personal accountability or show that God exists? It would show to me that they are not simply driven by a sinful nature as you would suggest they "ONLY" can be because God is coerced or driven by His Nature, again acording to you. .

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Rom 2:14 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:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

HP: You try and have it both ways, but still IGNORE the truth of the verse. Let me point it out once again. "do by nature the things contained in the law"


Tell us Biblicist what these words mean. How does 'doing the things contained in the law' serve only to establish personal accountability or show that God exists?

What I said was

"He has ability to do according to his conscience but his conscience NEVER provides salvic revelation. Hence, what he can do by nature is respond to its approval or condemnation. There is no man but Christ that ever kept the law of conscience without violating one point and that is the demand of law to keep it without violating it. "

Therefore conscience provides proof that no man is perfect but all have sinned agains whatever light they have been given. Thus conscience provides a just basis to judge the Gentiles as sinners and the immediate context is about the just basis of God to judge sin according to the light they are given because they violate whatever revelation that is given them.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In order to do something blameworthy or praiseworthy man must have choice.

That is absolutely correct but the Biblicist and the Calvinists cannot understand this simple principle. They teach that a person really has no choice:

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).

However, if a person sins he is declared "guilty" before God:

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

In order for someone to be declared "guilty" he must be "culpable," and that words means "deserving blame or censure; blameworthy" (Ibid.).

The word "blame" means "to lay the responsibility of on a person" (Ibid.).

If the Calvinists are right and a person comes out of the womb "made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil" then that person is not responsible for any evil acts which he commits because he was made by God in that way.

He is not culpable so therefore he cannot be declared "guilty." However, the Scriptures declare in no uncertain terms that a man is indeed "guilty" when he sins so it is clear that he has the ability to keep God's law.