Obligation with ability

[Revmitchell]

Do you accept the Biblical definition that to disobey in ONE POINT is to disobey in ALL POINTS? It seems you are rejecting that definition of obedience or what consittutes "good" in God's sight?

No I just think you are using scripture in to general of a nature and not specific enough. It allows for your private interpretation to be sure.

So let me ask you, if you disobey ONE POINT and God defines that as disobedience to EVERY POINT of the Law then how can you keep one point without keeping every point?????? Can you name any other human but Christ that can or that did?

So what you are suggesting here is, and I am assuming you are speaking of the James 2 passage, is that your private interpretation of that passage is that if someone commits murder then they are also guilty of adultery?

Is that what you are saying?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
You are failing to grasp the absolute essentials of the atonement. The atonement is designed to satisfy THREE ESSENIALS demanded by the Law.

1. The essential of Righteosness that satisfies the Standard demanded by the Law.

2. The essential of Penalization for coming short, violating the standard of the Law.

3. The essential Standard of righteousness demanded by the Law - the glory of God or the righteousness of God - which is sinlessness.

These three essentials could only be satisfied by the LIFE and DEATH of Jesus Christ as Christ "knew no sin" and "did not sin" and "neither was sin found in him" but he was the SPOTLESS lamb of God thus satisfying the righteous standard of the Law - sinless perfection.

The Death of Christ satisfied the eternal penalty of the Law

In God's model for Atonement "The Day of Atonement" in Lev 16 the life and death of Christ are depicted in the selection of the "Lord's Goat" a spotless victim that is slain as "the sin offering". So that is Lev 16:15.

The scope for the Bible concept of "Atonement" also includes vs 15-32 the work of Christ as High Priest. (Which is why we do not have universalism - even though we have a once-for-all completed "Atoning Sacrifice" 1 John 2:2 NIV at the cross).

But in the High Priestly work of Christ we have victory over sin - not merely the covering for the past - but the new creation "we have been RAISED with him" Romans 6 and in that work of Christ we are freed from slavery to sin - to sinning.

Thus the 1Cor 10 statement that Paul makes about victory over sin that is made available to the saints - through Christ,

There is no "unreasonable God demands" in scripture.

I have been considering your statements, but question certain wording of your points.

The work on the "day of atonement" is perhaps better considered as the day of propitiation. For it was the shedding of blood that started the work of atonement.

The phrase "Day of Atonement' is how God words it.

Lev 23:27
“Also the tenth day of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement. It shall be a holy convocation for you; you shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire to the Lord."

Though I agree with you that many people only consider the doctrine up to the the point where the sin offering is slain and offered up to God on the altar of sacrifice -- in Lev 16:15. Which as 1John 2:2 tells us - is the completed work of Christ at the cross.

But as you rightly point out - the completed sacrifice - is the start of the work of Christ in Atonement. What follows His work as sin offering is His work as High Priest.

On the Cross, the shedding of blood was the start of the work of redemption.

Christ as "high priest" was the one offering the sacrifice not the sacrifice itself, though He was the sacrifice.

Indeed. Hebrews 7, 8, 9 and 10 cover the fact that Christ is in heaven now - in the presence of God "for us" as our High Priest - seated at the right hand of the Father.

Remember after in the garden He stated, "Don't touch me..." But, what then of the "work of the High priest." John calls that work "advocate."

Very true. Paul speaks also of the "one mediator between God and man" in 1Tim 2:3-5.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But in the High Priestly work of Christ we have victory over sin - not merely the covering for the past - but the new creation "we have been RAISED with him" Romans 6 and in that work of Christ we are freed from slavery to sin - to sinning.

Thus the 1Cor 10 statement that Paul makes about victory over sin that is made available to the saints - through Christ,

There is no "unreasonable God demands" in scripture.

I am not certain that Romans 6 is presenting that we have "victory over sin," but that we die to sin. That is, just as Christ died in our place taking on the sins of us, and not only us, but the whole of humankind from the beginning to the last, the believer must also die to the fleshly and be enslaved to God.

We are to "present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."

Christ being the sacrifice, we are to be like Aaron, who did not present himself that day unwashed and in old filthy garments, but clean and with the appropriate robing.

Romans 6 deals specifically with our performance our actions as saved saints who have been baptized into Christ and raised with him in newness of life this way.

[FONT=&quot]1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him (I have highlighted the actions in real life, and the commands Paul gives pertaining to the born-again saints and sin in real life).[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead,
13 -and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]14For sin shall not be master over you[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for you are not under law but under grace.
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you
became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. [/FONT]


Later in Romans 8 Paul contrasts those who "cannot" obey the Word of God - with those who by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit - can.

[FONT=&quot]Rom 8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]



in Christ,

Bob













Here again, you place the victory as some accomplishment that redeem have available. See, what Paul said, "Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness." So, where is the "victory over sin" that you cite?

Christ paid in full the sin debt of all humankind for all time(s). (1 John 2)

What then is left? The same as was neglected by the "examples" that Paul discussed in 1 Cor.

The reconciliation (the true meaning of atonement) and throughout the OT that was that part of redemption that was missing and why "most ... were laid low." Not that God was reconciled to man (for that can not be) but that man must be reconciled to God.

That the "most" were not reconciled to God is why they were "laid low."

The question then is, "Why were they not reconciled?" Because they loved darkness rather than light. The attempted to hide from the light for fear the light would expose their evil.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Biblicist]

No I just think you are using scripture in to general of a nature and not specific enough. It allows for your private interpretation to be sure.

So how do you interpret the explicit clear universal or comprehensive statements in Romans 3:9-20? It would seem that you must repudiate such universal statements "there is none...." "all have...." "every mouth..." "the whole world..." if sin in one point does not violate the law as a whole irregardless of which individual point is violated?

So what you are suggesting here is, and I am assuming you are speaking of the James 2 passage, is that your private interpretation of that passage is that if someone commits murder then they are also guilty of adultery?

I believe that every point of the law is connected with and based upon one mutual priniciple, which when broken violates every point of the law as the very same principle that ultimately defines violation of one point of the law is the very same principle that defines violation of every point of that law.

For example, if the initial violation of law occurs at the point of motive, and only one proper motive underlies the intial fulfillment of law then every law is equally violated when the wrong motive occurs in connection with any point of the law.

Let us say that the only proper motive essential to initial fulfillment of any law is love and thus the initial violation of any law is the absence of love as the right motive then to initially violate one point of the law constitutes the same violation of every point of the law as every point's initial violation is the same.

For example, take the commandments of murder and adultery. If violation of both laws occurs at the same INITIAL point (any other motive but love) then to violate that principled motive necessarily violates every point of the law because every point requires the same motive/principle (love) for initial obedience.

Hence, violation of the law occurs at the level of motive. Only one motive underlies the whole law and therefore the initial fulfillment of any point requires the same motive. Thus, in reverse the absence of this right principle/motive violates every point of the law.

Isn't this exactly why Christ could say the commandments of murder and adultery were already violated INTERNALLY by wrong ATTITUDES rather than the consequences of those attitudes or actions? Did not these wrong attitudes equally violate the only proper motive behind all commandments - love? Hence, a person manifesting the wrong motive is in violation of every point of the Law becasue every point of the law requires love to prevent its violation.

Carefully reread what I have said and prayerfully consider it and I think you will see it is impossible to violate one point of the Law without violating every point and thus it is equally impossible to obey one point of the Law without obeying every point of the Law as disobedience and fulfillment are determined and defined at the point of motive.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Thus the 1Cor 10 statement that Paul makes about victory over sin that is made available to the saints - through Christ,

There is no "unreasonable God demands" in scripture.

Paul points out that the Gospel goes beyond benefiting the saints with justification - it also provides victory over sin and this promise according to Paul is founded on "the faithfulness of GOD".

1 Cor 10

[FONT=&quot]12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.
13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.
14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.[/FONT]


And then Paul follows this statement with a very pointed discussion about not worshiping before images/idols in any way "in real life" not mere theory but in actions.

Here again, you place the victory as some accomplishment that redeem have available.

Paul presents it as a benefit of the Gospel that is based on the "faithfulness of God" in 1Cor 10.

And in Romans 8 he contrasts that benefit to the saints with the problem that the lost have in subjecting themselves to the Word of God (or rather - not being able to do such a thing) as noted in my prior post.

See, what Paul said, "Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness." So, where is the "victory over sin" that you cite?

Recall that in 1Cor 10 Paul is pointing to real victory over real sin because he is about to go into the importance of not worshiping false gods, idols etc as in their former way of life.

Christ paid in full the sin debt of all humankind for all time(s). (1 John 2)

What then is left?

Paying our debt of sin is one thing - freeing us from slavery to sin is another.

How can we not notice that real temptation and real victory is the preface in vs 13 that then leads into really - really not worshiping idols as opposed to mere lip service to the idea of not worshiping idols in vs 14-20?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Revmitchell]

So how do you interpret the explicit clear universal or comprehensive statements in Romans 3:9-20? It would seem that you must repudiate such universal statements "there is none...." "all have...." "every mouth..." "the whole world..." if sin in one point does not violate the law as a whole irregardless of which individual point is violated?





I believe that every point of the law is connected with and based upon one mutual priniciple, which when broken violates every point of the law as the very same principle that ultimately defines violation of one point of the law is the very same principle that defines violation of every point of that law.

For example, if the initial violation of law occurs at the point of motive, and only one proper motive underlies the intial fulfillment of law then every law is equally violated when the wrong motive occurs in connection with any point of the law.

Let us say that the only proper motive essential to initial fulfillment of any law is love and thus the initial violation of any law is the absence of love as the right motive then to initially violate one point of the law constitutes the same violation of every point of the law as every point's initial violation is the same.

For example, take the commandments of murder and adultery. If violation of both laws occurs at the same INITIAL point (any other motive but love) then to violate that principled motive necessarily violates every point of the law because every point requires the same motive/principle (love) for initial obedience.

Hence, violation of the law occurs at the level of motive. Only one motive underlies the whole law and therefore the initial fulfillment of any point requires the same motive. Thus, in reverse the absence of this right principle/motive violates every point of the law.

Isn't this exactly why Christ could say the commandments of murder and adultery were already violated INTERNALLY by wrong ATTITUDES rather than the consequences of those attitudes or actions? Did not these wrong attitudes equally violate the only proper motive behind all commandments - love? Hence, a person manifesting the wrong motive is in violation of every point of the Law becasue every point of the law requires love to prevent its violation.

Carefully reread what I have said and prayerfully consider it and I think you will see it is impossible to violate one point of the Law without violating every point and thus it is equally impossible to obey one point of the Law without obeying every point of the Law as disobedience and fulfillment are determined and defined at the point of motive.

Most of this is unnecessary and a bit convoluted. Here it is in a nutshell. The James 2 passage simply means that once you have broken on law you are guitly to the point of needing eternal judgment. Break one law of all of them the guilt is the same. But none of this proves the op.

 

[The Biblicist]

Most of this is unnecessary and a bit convoluted. Here it is in a nutshell. The James 2 passage simply means that once you have broken on law you are guitly to the point of needing eternal judgment. Break one law of all of them the guilt is the same. But none of this proves the op.

You obivously did not read with comprehension what I said or you would not make this response. Would you kindly reread it and try to understand what I said.

The proof that you can understand my point is if you can explain why "lust" or "anger" violated the commandments about adultery and murder BEFORE the act of adultery and murder were committed. Why are these commandments equally violated at the preaction level? What is it that is violated at this ATTITUDE level that condemns the man whether or not the actions are carried out?

 

[BobRyan]

The reconciliation (the true meaning of atonement) and throughout the OT that was that part of redemption that was missing and why "most ... were laid low." Not that God was reconciled to man (for that can not be) but that man must be reconciled to God.

That the "most" were not reconciled to God is why they were "laid low."

The question then is, "Why were they not reconciled?" Because they loved darkness rather than light. The attempted to hide from the light for fear the light would expose their evil.

"HE came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN receive Him not" John 1.

And as you point out in John 3 some accept Gospel of Christ and the way of escape and some reject it "because they loved darkness rather than light for their deeds were evil".

The message of the saved to the lost is -- "we beg you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God".

2Cor 5
18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.


The reconciliation that is going on now via the work of Christ as High Priest is not only in purifying the saints (1John 3:3-5 - Hebrews 9:11-14, Malachi 3:1-6

Malachi 3
1 ""Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,'' says the LORD of hosts.
2 ""But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.
3 ""He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the LORD offerings in righteousness.
4 ""Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years.
5 ""Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,'' says the LORD of hosts.
6 ""For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

What is more - it is well known even among the Jews today that the Lev 16 Day of Atonement at the end of the year - is a day of judgment of the entire world.

So part of the "reconciliation" that is being performed after the cross pertains to the benefit of that judgment when as Dan 7:22 states "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" as a result of the "books that were opened" for the myriads and myriads to see and the "court that sat" with the Ancient of Days presiding.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Skandelon]

Your arguments are completely false. The purpose of the Law is to reveal their INABILITY

Inability to do what? TO KEEP THE LAW...TO EARN SALVATION BY WORKS!

NOT, as you erroneously impose on the text, the inability to respond to the gracious sacrifice of Christ and the powerful means by which he draws all men to himself!!!

The law reveals their need for a savior and for his grace because of our inability to keep that law, it does NOT reveal an inability to turn to God for that grace.

 

[Skandelon]

1. Would you agree God commanded Israel to keep the Law?

Yes. For the purpose of revealing our need for grace (which we know is applied through faith). See sig. line...

2. Would you agree that obedience to the Law must be defined by God's standard rather than yours or mine? For example, James 2:10-11 sets forth God's standard for obedience and disobedience to the Law.

I believe so, if you mean it how I think you mean it...

3. Would you agree that fallen man does not have ability to keep every point of the law? If not, then why do we need Jesus?

I believe we fall short in keeping the law and thus need a savior.

4. Would you agree God is nevertheless just in condemning men for coming short of that standard?

Absolutely

A major argument presented by Arminians is that God cannot justldy condemn men for what they are unable to do.

That is incorrect according to my understanding. Some might believe that God "would not" condemn men for what they cannot control, but I think most would agree that God can do whatever He wants. We are debating what we believe scripture reveals about God's choices, his justice and his gracious provisions in light of what condemns a man.

Their argument is not biblical

Well, based on what you've said so far it would be difficult for you to make that case considering you have yet to properly define what our argument actually is...

, as it is clear that God obligates Israel under the threat of just condemnation to keep God's stanard of obedience to the law when he knows fully well they are not able to do so

So, if you punished your son for lying to you by locking him in his room, then you called out to him through the door saying "you can come out and be reconciled," but the door is too thick for the child to hear you and the door remains locked so that even if he did hear you he wouldn't be able to exit. Do you honestly think it would be perfectly reasonable to go beat the child for his "unwillingness" to come out of the room when you called him to be reconciled?

Because like it or not, that is what you have God doing. You have God binding all men over to their sin since the fall of man (total inability...i.e. locking them in the sound proof room) then you have God sending a message to 'all creation' appealing for them to repent and be reconciled (i.e. to come out of the locked room); then you have God punishing men for their unwillingness to accept the truth that He originally bound them to due to the fall (i.e. beating the child for not coming out when called).

You don't see an issue with that? Really? Be objective.

To argue that the cross enables them or sacrificial offerings enable them is placing the cart before the horse as there would be no need of the cross if they were able to keep that obligation in the first place.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! You really aren't getting our perspective, are you? Wow.

We aren't saying the gospel (cross or sacrifices) enables men to keep the obligations of the law, we are saying they enable the man to respond in faith to the one who fulfilled the law in our stead. Again, see my signature line.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes. For the purpose of revealing our need for grace (which we know is applied through faith). See sig. line...

Here is the foundation of your logic. The immediate purpose of the Law according to scriptures is to reveal the knowledge of sin and that we are sinners and only AFTER doing that first does the Law lead us to see the need of a Savior. You cleverly omit the most immedate purpose of the law without which there is NO NEED FOR ANY FURTHER PURPOSE of the law.

That is incorrect according to my understanding.

What do you mean??? This has been your consistent argument since I have entered debate with you and it the archives are full of this argument by you. Every Arminian on this forum has repeated this objection over and over again agnosium.

Some might believe that God "would not" condemn men for what they cannot control

"Some"???? Baloney, you and every Arminian on this forum has insisted this over and over again!!! What do you think the words "Would not" means????

The truth is that you are in a corner and you know it and are trying to wiggle out of it by cleverly choosing your words to make readers this is not a problem for you when it is.

You cannot deny that God commanded Israel to keep His law with full knowledge they were incapable of so doing according as God defines "keeping" it - James 2:10 - and that is precisely why "all men have sinned and COME SHORT" as NO MAN has ABILITY to avoid coming short and yet they are justly condemned by God - without ability to avoid it. That destroys the whole system of Arminianism because the only JUST solution to condemnation of ALL MEN without ability is that they freely forfeited that ability as one undivided human nature existing in and acting in unison in ONE MAN.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Post #31 .... Pet Peeve ..... "AD NAUSEAM".....2nd paragraph...vs agnosium.

 

[The Biblicist]

Inability to do what? TO KEEP THE LAW...

Obviously since I do not believe in justification by works. The Law cannot lead anyone to Christ until it reveals the complete and utter inability of man to obey it. No human being but Christ has the ABILITY to attain "the glory of God" but all "COME SHORT".

NOT, as you erroneously impose on the text, the inability to respond to the gracious sacrifice of Christ and the powerful means by which he draws all men to himself!!!

You have already admitted that John 12:32 does not and cannot refer to all men without exception as that is easy to prove and which I did prove. Furthermore, John 6:64 lists "some' whom John 6:65 denies were drawn to Christ and so your assertion is completely and utterly unbiblical.

 

[The Biblicist]

Post #31 .... Pet Peeve ..... "AD NAUSEAM".....2nd paragraph...vs agnosium.

Yeah, he simply cannot grasp the obvious and so we repeat it over and over and over again.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yeah, he simply cannot grasp the obvious and so we repeat it over and over and over again.

Have you read PENOY's commentaries on "the Atonement" thread. It might do your heart some good. Just saying VS this kinda stuff. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

Here is the foundation of your logic. The immediate purpose of the Law according to scriptures is to reveal the knowledge of sin and that we are sinners and only AFTER doing that first does the Law lead us to see the need of a Savior. You cleverly omit the most immedate purpose of the law without which there is NO NEED FOR ANY FURTHER PURPOSE of the law.

Since when do I deny that the purpose of the Law is to reveal we are sinners and in need of a savior? Proving we are sinful doesn't prove we are unable to repent from sin when confronted by the powerful gospel appeal.

What do you mean??? This has been your consistent argument since I have entered debate with you and it the archives are full of this argument by you.

Find it. If I argued it consistently then it should be easy to find and quote for me so I can explain to you what I was saying, because I've CONSISTENTLY believed that God can do whatever he wants...He is GOD! We are debating about what God has REVEALED about HIMSELF and his Justice...not just what we think is just. It just so happens that what the average person 'thinks' is just more lines up with our perspective than yours, but I'd argue that has more to do with the fact it is...and I do believe it lines up with the text...as is consistently being referred to as well.

"Some"???? Baloney, you and every Arminian on this forum has insisted this over and over again!!! What do you think the words "Would not" means????

Settle down. 'Would not' and 'Could not' are pretty different meaning. I've readily admitted the Calvinism system COULD be correct, in that God COULD have done it that way if He so chose, but I don't believe that is what is revealed. Guys like Luke don't believe it could have been any other way...that God was bound by the deterministic method.

The truth is that you are in a corner and you know it and are trying to wiggle out of it by cleverly choosing your words to make readers this is not a problem for you when it is.

Now, brother, please don't start this again. I assure you that I do not at all feel backed into a corner. I don't debate like that. I'm very relaxed when I discuss these things...I don't get all worked up like some do and I've learned over the years not to get personal. You just misunderstood my position a little and I corrected it...not a big deal.

You cannot deny that God commanded Israel to keep His law with full knowledge they were incapable of so doing

And was the purpose of giving them that law ever to make a way of escape (as you alluded to earlier). Was the purpose ever to attain righteousness? Was the purpose ever to avoid being condemned? Was the purpose ever to provide a path to heaven?

No, no, no, no and no.

So, why go back and claim that the purpose of the law to escape condemnation clearly can't be attained, so that must mean the purpose of grace to escape condemnation through faith must equally be unattainable? It doesn't follow.

You are taking the bad news of scripture and confounding it with the good news of scripture. One method to attain righteousness is impossible, in fact it was never purposed by God for that end, but the good news is that you can trust in one who has fulfilled the law to be saved. You take the bad new and make the good new really bad too by suggesting that trusting in Christ (the fulfillment of the law) is just as impossible as keeping the whole law by yourself. That is unfounded biblically, period.

If the only thing you can point to in order to prove that God condemns people for something they can't control is the law then you have no ground on which to stand.

Now, if God hadn't overlooked the sins previously committed by those in the OT, and didn't send his Son to atone for the sins of the world, (which He would have been perfectly just to do btw) then your point would be valid.

 

[The Biblicist]

Since when do I deny that the purpose of the Law is to reveal we are sinners and in need of a savior?

Yes, you are quite a skilled debater. You clearly omit this in your previous post (which I responded to and pointed out) in order to avoid my argument that the purpose of the law was first and foremost to reveal TOTAL INABILITY or to say it another way, none can keep the law and all come short of the glory of God. This has to be the first and immediate purpose or else there is no need of a Savior.

However, I am through debating with you because it is a waste of my time. Using such tactics clearly proves you have no real but only a pretense interest in honest and objective debate. I am sure you will deny that but it is a clear waste of time to continue this kind of debate.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, you are quite a skilled debater. You clearly omit this in your previous post (which I responded to and pointed out) in order to avoid my argument that the purpose of the law was first and foremost to reveal TOTAL INABILITY or to say it another way, none can keep the law and all come short of the glory of God. This has to be the first and immediate purpose or else there is no need of a Savior.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What exactly did I omit?

I agreed with you that the purpose of the Law was to reveal we are sinful and in need of a savior...and that we are Total Unable to attain righteousness through the works of the law. How is that omitting anything?

I disagreed with you about your presumption that the truths above somehow prove that mankind is equally unable to attain righteousness through faith in Christ.

How is that being disingenuous or 'tactical' in this discussion?

Again, brother, I think you have a tendency to read nefarious intent into my words where they don't exist.

 

[BobRyan]

Since when do I deny that the purpose of the Law is to reveal we are sinners and in need of a savior? Proving we are sinful doesn't prove we are unable to repent from sin when confronted by the powerful gospel appeal.

Find it. If I argued it consistently then it should be easy to find .

Ahhh yes... "The details".

It is not often that "the details" support Calvinism so if you appeal to "details that do not confirm Calvinism" them it is possible that the discussion will end at some point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Skandelon]

Ahhh yes... "The details".

It is not often that "the details" support Calvinism so if you appeal to "details that do not confirm Calvinism" them it is possible that the discussion will end at some point.

Indeed, and a wise man once said that the strongest aspects of one's argument is not typically reflected in the part that is addressed by his opponent, but the part that is ignored...and most of post #36 was ignored. I don't assume it was for this reason, but after being accused of being a "skilled and tactical debater" simply because I requested details, it makes me wonder...