God expects us to live up to the light we have.

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Steaver:
"If this is right, then those who depart from the faith will be teaching others that those meats which God has declared are GOOD to eat in Leviticus chapter 11 are actually FORBIDDEN by God to eat! Does that make any sense at all to you?"

GE:
you, not it, make no sense to me I admit!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Steaver:
"
Quote:
Joe Smith......"We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost."

Anyone can say as much, It all comes down to what has been written (not "additional" light) and how each student allows the scriptures to interpret themselves.

This so called "light" interpretating is bogus! The scriptures ARE God's light concerning doctrinal matters. Interpretation is a matter of "study".

GE:
I am with you! Nevertheless, one may know the Scriptures by heart, but not its Author. It's an old and faithful saying. Without the Holy Spirit enlightening the mind no one shall come to a knowledge - a true knowledge - of God. It does become a personal matter in the end; or what't's the worth?

 

[steaver]

HP: What?? Where does it ever say that Paul murdered anyone?

"And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him".(Acts 22:20)

Can you find the passage where Paul tells us why God showed mercy to him?

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting". (1Ti 1:9-16)

What is the difference between simply taking another’s life as an emissary of a government and murder? Do you even see a difference?

It is a matter of the heart.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

GE:
I am with you! Nevertheless, one may know the Scriptures by heart, but not its Author. It's an old and faithful saying. Without the Holy Spirit enlightening the mind no one shall come to a knowledge - a true knowledge - of God. It does become a personal matter in the end; or what't's the worth?

I agree. Enlightenment allows one to see the truth of what has been already plainly written. Only scripture may interpret scripture. One must have the Spirit and one must use the full counsel of God.

God Bless!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steavers: "And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him".(Acts 22:20)

HP: How was this murder? Can you prove intent from this passage? Was Paul consenting to Stephen’s death out of some selfish motivation? You cannot prove murder apart from establishing intent. Certainly, Paul IN RETROSPECT with NEW light saw his former actions as sinful, but he also stated he lived in all good conscience. Do you believe he was in error when he said that?

Suppose you were commissioned by a government to oversee the death of an individual, that sometinme later it was revealed that thie individual you killed was innocent. Would you not look upon your former actions with remorse, inspite of knowing full well what you did was with a clear conscience, again not carrying out the action in revenge or for selfish motivation but rather in compliance to the laws in force an in obedience to the powers that you served under? How would such actions be seen as 'murder?'

 

[Amy.G]

HP: How was this murder? Can you prove intent from this passage? Was Paul consenting to Stephen’s death out of some selfish motivation? You cannot prove murder apart from establishing intent. Certainly, Paul IN RETROSPECT with NEW light saw his former actions as sinful, but he also stated he lived in all good conscience. Do you believe he was in error when he said that?

Suppose you were commissioned by a government to oversee the death of an individual, that sometinme later it was revealed that thie individual you killed was innocent. Would you not look upon your former actions with remorse, inspite of knowing full well what you did was with a clear conscience, again not carrying out the action in revenge or for selfish motivation but rather in compliance to the laws in force an in obedience to the powers that you served under? How would such actions be seen as 'murder?'

Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if theyfound any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Matthew 5:21-22 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Certainly, Paul IN RETROSPECT with NEW light saw his former actions as sinful, but he also stated he lived in all good conscience. Do you believe he was in error when he said that?

HP: Amy, how would you answer the question I raised?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ac 9:1 ¶ And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

HP: Amy, there is no mention of murder in my Bible that I can find.

 

[Amy.G]

Ac 9:1 ¶ And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

HP: Amy, there is no mention of murder in my Bible that I can find.

slaughter=murder

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Amy, how would you answer the question I raised?

HP: Certainly, Paul IN RETROSPECT with NEW light saw his former actions as sinful, but he also stated he lived in all good conscience. Do you believe he was in error when he said that

?
Please give the scripture you are referring to.

 

[steaver]

HP: Certainly, Paul IN RETROSPECT with NEW light saw his former actions as sinful, but he also stated he lived in all good conscience. Do you believe he was in error when he said that

So you believe God excuses sin because of "good" concsience?

Paul considered himself a murderer and that is what I said Paul was. Why do you argue against the scripture?

Some think that those who murder their babies in the womb are excused because they do it out of ignorance or are excused because the man law says that they are allowed to do it. That is bogus, because they actually do have a God given conscience and they either know deep down something is very wrong or they have a very dark, stoney and evil heart.

They can suppress the guilt, but they know, and Paul knew as well. Paul in retrospect, as you say, knew very well that Stephen committed no crime against God deserving of being put to death, that is murder. But Paul's dark, stoney heart could not see his sin at that time. This does not excuse his sin. And likewise those who sit by and "consent" through their voting representatives into office who support these infant murders are murderers themselves as well.

As I said, it is a matter of the heart. Whether suppressing the truth or being far to evil to feel anything.

Is one excused of murder because one does not believe in his own heart that it is murder? I would say not in man's law nor in God's law.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

"slaughter"(KJV) is "phonos"(GREEK) which means according to Strong's..."from an obs. primary pheno (to slay); murder.---murder, + be slain with, slaughter.

Paul was a murderer. God's word says so. End of story! :wavey:

God Bless!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Certainly, Paul IN RETROSPECT with NEW light saw his former actions as sinful, but he also stated he lived in all good conscience. Do you believe he was in error when he said that?

Amy: Please give the scripture you are referring to.

HP: 1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.


Ac 23:1 ¶ And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Certainly, Paul IN RETROSPECT with NEW light saw his former actions as sinful, but he also stated he lived in all good conscience. Do you believe he was in error when he said that
?
Amy: Please give the scripture you are referring to.

HP: 1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.


Ac 23:1 ¶ And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

Steavers: Paul was a murderer. God's word says so. End of story!

HP: God’s Word does not say so as I read it. The word is ‘slaughter’ and in no way ascribes the motives necessary to commit murder that I can see. If you have a verse that would indicate a personal selfish motive say of revenge, show us. I can find no such verse. I will gladly admit, that it will be God that judges his motives and not you or I. I would admit in this case I could be wrong, but just the same I am trying to harmonize the acts with the passages concerning his conscience and the testimony as to why God showed him mercy. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed. There must be light of what is required for moral blame to be assessed. In the case of Paul, I am sorry but with the information that is given to us, I can see no plain indication of either. Ignorant? Yes. Wicked in retrospect? Absolutely. Guilty of murder? No way, at least using the inforamtion that is given. He was isimply carrying out the orders of the powers and rulers over him. He had not been given the light that Jesus was God and his followers true disciples of God.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Certainly, Paul IN RETROSPECT with NEW light saw his former actions as sinful, but he also stated he lived in all good conscience. Do you believe he was in error when he said that
?
Amy: Please give the scripture you are referring to.

HP: 1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.


Ac 23:1 ¶ And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.



HP: God’s Word does not say so as I read it. The word is ‘slaughter’ and in no way ascribes the motives necessary to commit murder that I can see. If you have a verse that would indicate a personal selfish motive say of revenge, show us. I can find no such verse. I will gladly admit, that it will be God that judges his motives and not you or I. I would admit in this case I could be wrong, but just the same I am trying to harmonize the acts with the passages concerning his conscience and the testimony as to why God showed him mercy. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed. There must be light of what is required for moral blame to be assessed. In the case of Paul, I am sorry but with the information that is given to us, I can see no plain indication of either. Ignorant? Yes. Wicked in retrospect? Absolutely. Guilty of murder? No way, at least using the inforamtion that is given. He was isimply carrying out the orders of the powers and rulers over him. He had not been given the light that Jesus was God and his followers true disciples of God.

Where does it say in scripture that Paul was following orders? Paul himself says he is the chief of sinners. He admits that he stood by while was Stephen was being stoned. He admits that HE persecuted the church. Jesus asked him, "Saul, why are YOU persecuting ME?" To say that Paul was innocent of murder is just ridiculous. I have never heard anyone claim that.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: To say that Paul was innocent of murder is just ridiculous. I have never heard anyone claim that.

HP: God alone will be the judge. What I am trying to indicate is there is no reason in Scripture given impugning Paul’s motives that would indicate to me he was a murderer. I believe Paul to be above all an honest man and believe he was not lying when he stated that he had lived in all good conscience.

If you believe he was a murderer, go ahead and preach it. Some might find themselves someday having to apologize for misguided accusations. I personally desire to error on the side of caution.

The issue has not only to do with Paul, but a lot of others as well. Take our service men for instance. They are put in a lot of instances where they have to make split second decisions, or are ordered to carry out the killing of certain individuals that in retrospect could have been mistakes of judgment. I for one would be cautious of ever calling one a murderer unless there is clear evidence of a selfish motivation.
You can IMO carry out what might be termed slaughter without ever murdering anyone, at least in some instances.

 

[Amy.G]

You can IMO carry out what might be termed slaughter without ever murdering anyone, at least in some instances.

If you will just consult Strong's Concordance, you will see that the word "slaughter" in the verse in question means "murder". You can dance around it all you want, but that is what it means. Paul murdered.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Where does it say in scripture that Paul was following orders?

HP: Excellent question. Probably nowhere. I should have prefaced my remark with ‘it is highly possible or likely that Paul was carrying out the order of the Jewish hierarchy of his day.’ Being a Pharisee of the Pharisee’s, and a very dedicated man to the law and the traditions of the Jews, I can not see him on some personal vendetta in the least. He knew what murder was and I believe would no more have done that than violate the Sabbath or took the Lord’s name in vain. He was obedient to everything he knew at the time. He had studied under one of the leading and very well known Jewish teachers of his day. He obviously and honestly thought he was doing God a service. He said that concerning the law he was blameless. Are we to suggest that he did not understand the principles involved in murder? I could not believe that for a minute. Was he lying about following the law to the letter?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: you will see that the word "slaughter" in the verse in question means "murder"

HP: In the EDOTNT, it states that the word “slaughter” refers to “in a general sense of killing in war.” I am sure we all could find the right source to substantiate or prove our point.

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver -- Instead of avoiding this post -- address post 69 showing that you oppose the very methods used by the reformers. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=940065&postcount=69

The same is shown in post 72 and 73 -- Steaver - you simply ignore what you can not answer and then repeat some bogus argument nobody has MADE here!!
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...7&postcount=72

And I am guessing we can add
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...9&postcount=89

To the list of unnanswered posts waiting on Steaver...

Not to mention the example we have with Peter in the NT - REPOSTED here
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=107

How in the world does that "SHOW" anything but the failure in your own position?

Just a thought.