This Do, and Thou Shalt Live

[preacher4truth]

No, your ideas are wrong.

According to your false ideas God blames man for not keeping the law even though He knows that he does not even have the ability to keep it.

No, I said that man is guilty of breaking the law and he cannot be declared guilty unless he has the ability to keep it.

You have no concept of the righteousness of God because you portray Him as declaring men guilty of not keepiing the law even though He knows that they were not given the ability to keep it.

Nope. God Himself declares men guilty of a Law which He knew we could not keep, which is merely showing man is lost in sin, to bring them to Christ. The fact that we cannot keep the law proves our lost state and need to be saved.

You've just painted God as unfair, this teaching is pelagian and false. That, and you've been admonished well beyond the Scriptural mandate to do so.

You're in grave error.

 

[savedbymercy]

jerry

Are Paul's words a lie?

Of course not, but you not Paul..

 

[preacher4truth]

One more time for Jerry:

You and no one else can keep the Law.

The horrendous error in Shugarts theology is that he falsely assumes: 1) Man can keep and fulfill all of the Law; 2) Man, being a created being can do what only God was prophesied to do, and as the only One who could, and his false theology rejects this truth; 3) Shugart then can die for the sins of others as a perfect, spotless lamb; 4) He can then reign as "christ" on the right hand of God.


This is nothing short of false teaching.

Your teaching is false.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You've just painted God as unfair, this teaching is pelagian and false. That, and you've been admonished well beyond the Scriptural mandate to do so.

It is you who says that God judges men guilty for not keeping the law even though He knows that they do not have the ability to keep it. You cling to your illogical ideas and you prove that you have no idea about what constitutes a person "guilty."

If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes"?:

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

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

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

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

One more time for Jerry:

You and no one else can keep the Law.

Just one more time I will answer you. No one keeps the law but it is not because they do not have the ability to keep it. Paul makes it plain that they have that ability:

"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).

A man has the ability to keep the law but not the "will" to keep it. At some time in life every person goes his own way instead of God's way.

 

[preacher4truth]

It is you who says that God judges men guilty for not keeping the law even though He knows that they do not have the ability to keep it. You cling to your illogical ideas and you prove that you have no idea about what constitutes a person "guilty."

If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes"?:

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

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

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

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

Friend, you misunderstand much, you don't understand context, which leads you into much error. You also proof-text, which not only takes a passage out of context, but also doesn't employ the whole counsel of God in interpretation. Yor conclusions are those espoused by cult groups, Jehovahs Witnesses for an example.

All the world is guilty before God, which means "age" thus, this entire age then is guilty before God, which includes all who will and have ever lived within this age.

The only person who could keep the Law is Christ.

The Law was given to show the elect that they could not keep the law, to show ones guilt, and to lead them to One who could.

Your problem isn't with me, it's with God and His Word.

 

[preacher4truth]

"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)

This verse does not teach what you say it teaches. It doesn't even imply it. Just another proof-text, one of your worst to date.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me ask you a question:

Can a person be held responsible for not keeping the law if he does not have the ability to keep it?

Thanks!

Yes! IF he has forfeited that ability! Romans 5:12-19 teaches that he forfeited that ability through representation. When Adam sinned all sinned because "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS."

Not only did he forfeit that abilty through REPRESENTATION, he was acted when Adam acted as all of human nature acted in Adam - thus all have actually sinned when Adam sinned.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes! IF he has forfeited that ability! Romans 5:12-19 teaches that he forfeited that ability through representation. When Adam sinned all sinned because "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS."

Not only did he forfeit that abilty through REPRESENTATION, he was acted when Adam acted as all of human nature acted in Adam - thus all have actually sinned when Adam sinned.

Psa. 53:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Pr 22:15 ¶ Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

Every parent knows from observational experience that children ALWAYS require discipline to restrain evil that naturally flows from their hearts as soon as they are able to express themselves.

Solomon says this is "bound in the heart" of a child and discipline is necessary to drive it from them. David says that they were conceived "in sin."

Why is it that children need to be trained to do what is right but naturally do what is evil without any training, if they are not evil by nature from birth?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Friend, you misunderstand much, you don't understand context, which leads you into much error.

Friend, you put the ideas invented by men ABOVE what the Scriptues actually teach. Your false teaching makes God out to be a tyrant who punishes men for not keeping the law even though He made them in such a way whereby they do not have the ability to keep it.

And instead of repenting from this false portrait of God you cling to it.

You also proof-text, which not only takes a passage out of context, but also doesn't employ the whole counsel of God in interpretation. Yor conclusions are those espoused by cult groups, Jehovahs Witnesses for an example.

I have seen this tactic before and it is unworthy of a Christian. You do not give any evidence that I took anything out of context then you compare my teachings to that taught by cults!

All the world is guilty before God, which means "age" thus, this entire age then is guilty before God, which includes all who will and have ever lived within this age.

you have no idea about what constitues a parson "guilty" of anything. According to your ideas the Lord declares people guilty of failing to keep the law even though He made them in such a way whereby they do not have the ability to keep it.

The only person who could keep the Law is Christ.

Yes, and the fact that He was made just like us proves that we have the ability to keep it.

Your problem isn't with me, it's with God and His Word.

Your problem will be at the Bema seat of Christ when you have to explain why you continue to teach that God holds men "guilty" of not keeping the law even though, according to you, he knows that they have no ability to keep it.

I would not want to be in your shoes on that day!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezek.18:20).

 

[The Biblicist]

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezek.18:20).

Why this text? It is not the fathers (plural) that acted as our representative in the garden!!!! It was Adam - "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS"

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezek.18:20).

Those who teach original sin say that the sin of Adam was imputed to his son Abel and all of the descendants of Abraham:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith, VI./3).

According to that the son, Abel, does indeed bear the iniquity of his father Adam. But the Lord will do no such thing. A person is not responsible for anyone's sins but his own.

How were all men made sinners by the offense of Adam? Simple. If he would have remained in innonence then "law" would not have come into the world and sin is not imputed when there is no law:

"...even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: for until law sin was in the world; but sin is not put to account when there is no law" (Ro.5:12-13).

How did "law" cme into the world by Adam that lead to all men being sinners? When Adam ate of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" he had the knowledge of the law written in his heart and his "conscience" bore witness to that law. His very nature had changed. The Lord said:

"Behold,the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen.3:22).

Adam now had a "conscience" of the law written in his heart. All of Adam's descendants would thereafter be born in Adam's likeness and image, also having a "conscience", or an inborn knowledge of God's law:

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth" (Gen.5:3).

So Adam was responsible for death coming unto all men because he was responsible for bringing "law" unto all men. When all men after Adam sinned against the law written in their hearts they died spiritually--"and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

 

[The Biblicist]

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezek.18:20).

Those who teach original sin say that the sin of Adam was imputed to his son Abel and all of the descendants of Abraham:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith, VI./3).

According to that the son, Abel, does indeed bear the iniquity of his father Adam. But the Lord will do no such thing. A person is not responsible for anyone's sins but his own.

Abel bears the iniquity of Adam in no differnt sense than any descendent bears the iniquity of Adam. Adam (not Eve) acted in a representative capacity when tested by law. "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS" not just Abel.

The Ezekiel passage as no bearing on the first Adam any more than the Second Adam. The second Adam did not bear his own iniquity but the iniquity of others just as the first Adam passed down his iniquityto others. Hence, you cannot deny one without denying the other. Both Adam's acted as representatives for others.

How were all men made sinners by the offense of Adam? Simple. If he would have remained in innonence then "law" would not have come into the world and sin is not imputed when there is no law:

The law preceded their sin as the law was established by God in the Garden before they sinned (Gen. 2:16). They broke God's law when they transgressed His direct command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It was this very law that Paul argues that all Adam's descendents violated when Adam sinned - "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS".

Proof that all mankind sinned when Adam sinned is that sin was present in the world between Adam and Moses and yet no other law was in the world. This means all mankind living between Adam and Moses were SINNERS by nature and that is why death reigned between Adam and Moses when no other law existed but that one in the garden.

Rom. 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses..."

How did "law" cme into the world by Adam that lead to all men being sinners? When Adam ate of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" he had the knowledge of the law written in his heart and his "conscience" bore witness to that law. His very nature had changed. The Lord said:

"Behold,the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen.3:22).

Adam now had a "conscience" of the law written in his heart. All of Adam's descendants would thereafter be born in Adam's likeness and image, also having a "conscience", or an inborn knowledge of God's law:

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth" (Gen.5:3).

So Adam was responsible for death coming unto all men because he was responsible for bringing "law" unto all men. When all men after Adam sinned against the law written in their hearts they died spiritually--"and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

I agree with you concerning the law of conscience. However, the scriptures disagree with your theory that Adam brought law into the garden. God brought law in the Garden PRIOR to Adam's fall. It is not an either or but both! Most importantly the latter is a direct consequence of the former not vice versa. Because Adam violated God's Law he sinned and became experientially knowledgable of good versus evil.

Both sin and death existed between Adam and Moses. Mankind sinned against conscience BECAUSE by "ONE MAN"S OFFENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS" by nature. Hence, a sinful nature preceded sinning against conscience.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Here is hoe the Calvinists say that the guilt of sin was imputed to ALL of Adam's descendants, INCLUDING Abel:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith, VI./3).

According to this the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to all of Adam's posterity, including his son Abel.

So in other words according to this Abel bore the iniquity of his father, Adam. But the following passage from the Scriptures declares in no uncertain terms that God will do no such thing:

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezek.18:20).

No one said that law did not exist before Adam sinned but the law of which I was speaking that resulted from Adam's sin is one which is universal in scope (death passed to all men):

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).

The only universal law is the one written in the hearts of men, the one of which the "conscience" bears witness.

Men die spirtually as a result of their own sin so therefore the teaching of the Calvinists that a person is born spiritually dead is wrong:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith, VI./3).

That is the Calvinist's version of the false doctrine of Original Sin it is is easily shown to be in error. A "death in sin" is not conveyed to all men by original generation because a person must be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually as a result of breaking God's law.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aide of truth.

Jerry, you are speaking the plain truth on this matter as I read you. You are not proof texting as some '4truth' claim you are. You are simply are coming to Scripture devoid of the presupposition of Augustinian original sin.

May your tribe increase! Lead on!:thumbsup:

We need to start thinking right about truth and theology again.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry, in your first post you hit the nail on the head as to the very core of every system of fatalistic necessity, separating that system of necesity from the truth. The heart of the matter lies in the simple words, "theoretically impossible." Upon that solitary notion is the great divide between a system of liberty, freedom, morality, justice, and that of one of fatalistic determinism.

As you well know, when one eliminates the 'theoretic possibility' of obedience to the law, there is no other end but a system of necessity. Oh what great error the elimination in ones theology/philosophy of 'theoretic possibilities' gender.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, in your first post you hit the nail on the head as to the very core of every system of fatalistic necessity, separating that system of necesity from the truth. The heart of the matter lies in the simple words, "theoretically impossible."

Thanks for your remarks, Heavenly Pilgrim. There is another point which I have not brought up yet, and that point is in regard to Paul's words here in "bold":

"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.7:9-10).

How could the law be "ordained to life" unless it was at least theoretically possible for a person to obtain eternal life by keeping the law? In other words, how could it be said that the law was "ordained to life" if men do not have the ability to keep the law?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry: "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.7:9-10).

How could the law be "ordained to life" unless it was at least theoretically possible for a person to obtain eternal life by keeping the law? In other words, how could it be said that the law was "ordained to life" if men do not have the ability to keep the law

?

HP: I could not even imagine how to play the devils advocate on this matter. I would have to throw out every bit of Divine truths instilled in my heart by God to even consider a response to your answer. God has instilled guidelines of absolute truth in my heart and I cannot think outside of those Divine parameters of immutable justice.

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm going to jump in here with a couple of thoughts on the question before us.

Theoretically, and I emphasize theoretically, if one could keep the law perfectly, then God would allow him into heaven.

But, you better keep all of it, because James 2:10 says even if you keep it all but fail to keep just one small part of it, it's the same as if you broke all of it.

The reality of it is, that by the time we are old enough to learn to read that verse, we have already sinned. Bummer. We mess up one time, and we're done for.

Jesus, in Matthew 5:48 said

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Some might say that God wouldn't tell us to do something that was impossible. But that's not the intent of that verse. It is to tell us that God can't cut us any slack. He can't tell us it's all right not to be perfect. He could never say it's okay to sin.

Then, Paul drives the dagger through the heart. Romans 8:7-8

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

So, in theory, if we could keep the law, we could save ourselves. But in reality, it's impossible, because we can't.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom we speak of a perfect date, and even some speak of a perfect wife or a perfect husband. We speak of a perfect game, and a perfect diamond, of a perfect day, and a perfect trip, even a perfect baby or child.

Could one (of an individual saying no one can be perfect,) in reality be guilty of making the perfection God demands of man to be viewed as something it is not in reality according to the way God sees perfection in man? Could not the perfection, that God demands of us humans, be relative in many ways, such as knowledge, light. abilities, etc? Does an adult act on the same level of obedience as say a child? What do you think?

One thing I know for certain is, that God requires no impossibilities from man. God is Just.