Do You Believe in Absolutes?

[Jerry Shugart]

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.

Let us look at these different translations so that we can get a sense of what Paul said:

"And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death" (Ro.7:10; KJV).

"I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death" (NIV).

"The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me" (ESV).

"and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me" (NASB).

All of these translations demonstrate that the "commandment" was to result in life. Paul NEVER said that that idea is a wrong one.

In what way can the Law bring life, according to you. Here the Lord Jesus says that the commandments can bring eternal life:

"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).

According to your mistaken view man does not have the ability to keep the law so it is impossible that the commandments were to result in life!

 

[The Biblicist]

Let us look at these different translations so that we can get a sense of what Paul said:

"And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death" (Ro.7:10; KJV).

"I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death" (NIV).

"The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me" (ESV).

"and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me" (NASB).

All of these translations demonstrate that the "commandment" was to result in life. Paul NEVER said that that idea is a wrong one.

In what way can the Law bring life, according to you. Here the Lord Jesus says that the commandments can bring eternal life:

"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).

According to your mistaken view man does not have the ability to keep the law so it is impossible that the commandments were to result in life!

You are missing two important words "I FOUND" showing a matter of personal experimentation! What he thought was not what he found out by personal experience! He thought he was "blamless" in regard to the law before salvation but he found out he was as "dung" in regard to his own righteousness. Until a person finds this out they will remain LOST and DECEIVED.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are missing two important words "I FOUND" showing a matter of personal experimentation!

What "he found" was the fact that even though the commandment was to result in life for him but it did not. Instead it resulted in death.

And so far you refuse to answer my question:

In what way can the Law bring life, according to you?

Not only that, even though Paul said he died as a result of breaking a commandment you say that he did not die. According to you the only thing that died was "knowledge."

You prove over and over that you will not hesitate to twist the Scriptures to such an extent that your interpretation no longer bears any resemblance to what is actually said. When a verse does not match your teaching you just edit what is said by adding words which are not there.

 

[The Biblicist]

What "he found" was the fact that even though the commandment was to result in life for him but it did not. Instead it resulted in death.

And so far you refuse to answer my question:

In what way can the Law bring life, according to you?

By sinless perfection! Go for it!!

You share the same ignorance of Saul of Tarsus who believed he could acheive life by the law but he was more consistent than you! He actually beleived he was "blameless" touching the law until the Holy Spirit imparted the true demands of the law - not to violate even one point INTERNALLY in regard to the intent of his heart as well as EXTERNALLY in any word or action.

That is how the law obtains eternal life! If you can do it, go for it! If not, then stop playing these silly stupid mind games that pretends that man has the ability to be "blameless" touching the law and thus able to obtain eternal life by keeping every point of the law obediently INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That is how the law obtains eternal life! If you can do it, go for it! If not, then stop playing these silly stupid mind games that pretends that man has the ability to be "blameless" touching the law and thus able to obtain eternal life by keeping every point of the law obediently INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY

The Lord Jesus told a man that if he kept the law then he would receive eternal life.

But according to you it was the Lord Jesus who was playing a silly stupid mind games because, according to you, a man does not have the ability to keep the law. 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).

According to you Christ could never be the "end of law for righteousness" because law never was in regard to obtaining righteousness.

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"?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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

According to you Christ could never be the "end of law for righteousness" because law never was in regard to obtaining righteousness.

HP: Interesting use of logic Jerry. Very interesting indeed. :thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It is simply false to believe as Calvinists do that the only purpose of the law was to condemn. Certainly it does that but law has always existed . The law is at its heart an expression of the very Character of God. The Calvinist, or those leaning hard towards Calvinism, have tunnel vision concerning the law, as if though it must only be relevant to what they say it is relevant to and nothing more. They are simply far from the truth on this point.

God's law is eternal, existing antecedent to sin, in the very nature and character of God Himself. The law was there to convict the angels that fell and was there before sin entered the heart of man. Without the existence of God's law, all would be chaos from the beginning, and God could not be a God to trust. He, God Himself, in principle, as much as applies to His Infinite Character, acts in accordance to His law. Without law, love could be hate and hate could be love. Without law there is no such thing as hate, love or morality possible, We need to think carefully on this matter of God's law.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Lord Jesus told a man that if he kept the law then he would receive eternal life.

But according to you it was the Lord Jesus who was playing a silly stupid mind games because, according to you, a man does not have the ability to keep the law. 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 also told them to be "perfect EVEN AS your father in heaven IS perfect" - that is our responsibility but if you think you have the ability then go for it and prove you have never once sinned in your entire existence because that is exactly what being perfect "EVEN AS" God "IS" perfect is all about!

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

According to you Christ could never be the "end of law for righteousness" because law never was in regard to obtaining righteousness.

Do you really think that Christ had to keep the law in order to be righteous??? Or did he he keep the law because he was already righteous???

Christ came from heaven to earth to satisfy the laws's demands BECAUSE NO HUMAN BEING COULD satisfy it but Christ because all were sinners by nature and by practice!

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"?

If I have to respond to such absolute nonsense then there is no rational reason to continue such a discussion. The text simply demands that Grace cannot ORIGINATE from works [ek] nor can works ORIGINATE from grace [ek] and neither can they be mixed without ceasing to be what they are by nature. This text condemns your position thoroughly! However, you have to have eyes to see and it is obvious no eye sight is even in sight.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: He also told them to be "perfect EVEN AS your father in heaven IS perfect" - that is our responsibility but if you think you have the ability then go for it and prove you have never once sinned in your entire existence because that is exactly what being perfect "EVEN AS" God "IS" perfect is all about!

HP: You make God out to be a taskmaster, a Master demanding of His servants to reap where He has not sown. God never said, Be Eternally Infinite even as I am, now did He? neither does He require anything out of man things He has not provided the means for him to comply with. When God demands obedience, it is obviously not from eternity past, but is speaking of our formed intennts and subsequent actions from a point in time forward. Your argument above is sheer folly on you rpart, to act as if though god, if commanding anything at all, demands us to perform an impossibility to please Him.

God, in demanding us to be perfect, is clearly not the perfection you make it out to be. Whatever it is, it is attainable in this present life through the help God proffers. To deny that God is able and willing to help us walk holy before Him is to deny the power and promises of God, and to make the Word of God of non effect. Something I would think twice about doing if I were you.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
1Co 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Th 5:24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

If God demands it, we can do it through the strength God offers us, if we will.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: You make God out to be a taskmaster, a Master demanding of His servants to reap where He has not sown.

I was not the one who said those words! Jesus said those words, so your beef is with him not me. I simply repeated them to your deaf ears. You have deaf ears beause you are charging Christ with distorting God's command to be "perfect EVEN AS your Father in heaven IS perfect."

God, in demanding us to be perfect, is clearly not the perfection you make it out to be.

Jesus said, "EVEN AS" what do you say? Your beef is with Christ. Jesus said, "there is NONE good but one, and that is God" and so Jesus went on to say "if thou wilt be PERFECT" thus confirming what kind of perfection that separated all men from God to be! Moral perfection! Hence, your beef is with Christ's words!

Whatever it is, it is attainable in this present life through the help God proffers.

James spells it out! To fail in ONE POINT is to fail in EVERY POINT so to succeed is to KEEP EVERY POINT! You think you can do it? Go for it!

To deny that God is able and willing to help us walk holy before Him is to deny the power and promises of God, and to make the Word of God of non effect. Something I would think twice about doing if I were you.

The Bible plainly tells you God's design for the law but you won't beleive it (Rom. 3:21) which is simply to reveal the knowledge of sin! The bible plainly tells you that the law was never designed to obtain life for sinners (Gal. 3:21) but you won't beleive it. It plainly tells you what the law was designed to do - it was designed to be like a "school master" to lead us to Christ because only Christ could satisfy the Law's demands.

If you could be perfect EVEN AS God is perfect, you would not need Christ, you would not need salvation because there is no condemnation of anyone who is perfect EVEN AS God is perfect!

You are blind to the most simple and basic truth of the gospel and you will continue in your blindness like Saul of Tarsus until God opens your eyes to make you see that you are not "blameless" touching the law but all your law keeping is as "dung" in God's sight.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: If you could be perfect EVEN AS God is perfect, you would not need Christ, you would not need salvation because there is no condemnation of anyone who is perfect EVEN AS God is perfect!

HP: You are beside yourself Biblicist. You are putting up paper ducks to shoot at. What do you mean by "if you could live perfect you would not need Christ?" All have sinned and came short of the glory of God. For starters, every sinner needs Christ to cover for sins that are past. Ever believer that has any hope in the least of living godly in this present world, needs Christ in every moment of every day. Whatever are you speaking of?

I am not blind to the nonsensical positions of Calvinsists and those that lean hard towards Calvinism. I simply do not believe that philosophical position is in accordance to Scripture, reason, or experience.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: You are beside yourself Biblicist. You are putting up paper ducks to shoot at. What do you mean by "if you could live perfect you would not need Christ?" All have sinned and came short of the glory of God. For starters, every sinner needs Christ to cover for sins that are past. Ever believer that has any hope in the least of living godly in this present world, needs Christ in every moment of every day. Whatever are you speaking of?

Keeping the law to obtain eternal life means not coming under its condemnation or else you forfeit eternal life according to the law's demands! You admit that all have already forfeited justification by law keeping because they are under its condemnation! You can't have it both ways? Either you qualify by the Law's standard for eternal life or you disqualify!! All condemned forfeit eternal life by the Law's standard which is to keep it by never violating one point because if you violate one point you violate all points and that brings ETERNAL death thus forfeiting justification for ETERNAL life! Keeping all points without failing one point is being "perfect EVEN AS your Father in heaven IS perfect"! God has NEVER violated one point!

The Law is not of faith (Gal. 3;10) and so they are always CONTRASTED and it is one or the other but not both! You want both! But you admit all men have already been invalidated by the Law's standard for justification! No person can be under its ETERNAL condemnation and its ETERNAL justification as the former invalidates the latter.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the law to justify sinners and it only takes one sin to be a sinner and one sin to violate every point of the law! So simple and yet so blind and deaf to the simple heart of the gospel.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Keeping the law to obtain eternal life means not coming under its condemnation or else you forfeit eternal life according to the law's demands! You admit that all have already forfeited justification by law keeping because they are under its condemnation!

HP: Wrong. I do not believe as you do that the 'all have sinned' in any way includes infants. "For such is the kingdom of heaven." Babies and even small children have not came under any condemnation of God's law. They are not moral agents. Moral law is designed for moral agents alone. Not until they come to the age of accountability does God judge them as sinners. Until then, "for such is the kingdom of heaven."

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Wrong. I do not believe as you do that the 'all have sinned' in any way includes infants. "For such is the kingdom of heaven." Babies and even small children have not came under any condemnation of God's law. They are not moral agents. Moral law is designed for moral agents alone. Not until they come to the age of accountability does God judge them as sinners. Until then, "for such is the kingdom of heaven."

I have answered the Matthew 18-19 use of children over and over again and no response has been given except a mocking bird response - repeat it again without addressing the evidences against your interpetation.

You have admitted that children are "BORN WITH DEPRAVED SENSIBILITIES" but you deny the fruits of those sensibiltiies - lying, anger, wrath, stubborness, selfishness, definance, etc. - are sin becasue you refuse to define sin by any other definition than willful transgressing of the law.

However, we all know that the Bible defines sin by OMISSION or coming short of the glory of God or the Image of God! Can you with straight face claim that lying, anger, wrath, stubborness, selfishness DO NOT come short of the glory of God?

Regardless, if they are held accountable does not change that the fruit of that depraved sensibilities are sin by Biblcial defintion of omission?

Regardless, if such atttitudes and actions are done ignorantly does not change what these fruits are by definition!

ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God! Infants sin by omission and when they reach the age of accountability NOT ONE outside of Christ has failed to sin by transgression.

The law offers eternal life to only those who do not violate it! No such human exists besides Christ!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Let us look at the following verse again:

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

Of course the word "righteousness" is in regard to "law" and a person's "righteousness," as witnessed by the "context":

"For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them" (Ro.10:5).

The Biblicist is totally confused about what is said in these verses. Here is his reply:

Do you really think that Christ had to keep the law in order to be righteous??? Or did he he keep the law because he was already righteous???

It is beyond me how anyone can imagine that I am saying that the Lord Jesus Christ had to keep the law in order to be righteous.

But there it is right before our eyes. The Biblicist is so confused that he cannot understand what Romans 10:4 is saying and that is because it contradicts his discredited ideas.

What is said just two verses earlier in the same chapter is a perfect description of the Biblicist:

"For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Ro.10:2).

The Biblicist cannot even understand the most simple truths revealed in the Bible because he reads it through Calvinist lenses!

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the law to justify sinners and it only takes one sin to be a sinner and one sin to violate every point of the law! So simple and yet so blind and deaf to the simple heart of the gospel.

If it were not at least theoretically possible for the law to justify anyone then why would Paul say the following?:

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

 

[The Biblicist]

If it were not at least theoretically possible for the law to justify anyone then why would Paul say the following?:

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

It is theoretically possible for the law to justify SINLESS people! It is not theoretically possible for the law to justify SINNERS!

Christ was a SINLESS person and he satisifed the law's full demands for SINNERS only! He did not come to save the righteous - because there are none!

Romans 10:1-3 denies SINNERS can be justified by law - that may be Zeal by those who try but it is IGNORANCE.

Romans 10:4 - Christ satisfied the law COMPLETELY and therefore Christ is the END -complete satisfaction of the law for only believers! He is talking about righteousness by justification - legal positional imputed righteousness that obtain legal imputed eternal life!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It is theoretically possible for the law to justify SINLESS people! It is not theoretically possible for the law to justify SINNERS!

I never said any such thing

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said that.

Here Paul speaks opf how a person can be justified by the law and obtain eternal life:

"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. if a person sins it is obvious that they have not CONTINUED in well doing. But since none of this matches your Calvinist theology you just deny it and then put words in my mouth which I NEVER said.

You prove that you cannot even understand these simple arguments any better that you can unerstand what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: It is theoretically possible for the law to justify SINLESS people! It is not theoretically possible for the law to justify SINNERS!

HP: Deu 13:17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;
Deu 13:18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

Deu 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
Deu 11:27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
Deu 11:28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deu 30:20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

1Ki 9:4 And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments:
1Ki 9:5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever

Jer 44:10 They are not humbled even unto this day, neither have they feared, nor walked in my law, nor in my statutes, that I set before you and before your fathers.
Jer 44:11 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will set my face against you for evil, and to cut off all Judah.


What would the prophets of old say about this remark of Biblicist? When Biblicist says unequivocally that all are sinners from birth, he has just disavowed any and all possibility he vainly tries to say exists, even theoretically.