Transgressing the Law

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ED: Let me state, FTR, that I have never advocated any sort of "loose living" for Christians. Nor have I offered that any such will not be subject to judgment.

HP: May I respectfully say that if in fact you, via your theology, remove the penalty for sin in the believers life to something other than the stated penalty in Scripture for sin, you in effect, in spite of your efforts to the contrary, do indeed promote, although unwittingly, a sort of loose living.

It is like a traffic cop on a street corner that only has a whistle, and all he can do is to blow it at those that violate the law. When you remove the penalty of the law, you have in effect promoted disobedience to it, although as I said, possibly not intentionally, but none the less in essence you have.

Law without penalty is good advice or council but is no law at all. Removing the penalty as you and others believing in OSAS do, destroy the law. It sets up a system of antinomianism in spite of all well intentioned objections that you are not.

 

[DHK]

HP: May I respectfully say that if in fact you, via your theology, remove the penalty for sin in the believers life to something other than the stated penalty in Scripture for sin, you in effect, in spite of your efforts to the contrary, do indeed promote, although unwittingly, a sort of loose living.

It is like a traffic cop on a street corner that only has a whistle, and all he can do is to blow it at those that violate the law. When you remove the penalty of the law, you have in effect promoted disobedience to it, although as I said, possibly not intentionally, but none the less in essence you have.

No one here has removed the penalty of the law.
All our sins were paid for at the cross.
The penalty of the law was paid for by Christ. It is called the substitutionary atonement. I cannot, could not ever pay the penalty for my sin. It is impossible. But Christ paid it for me. Because he shed his blood, and by doing so paid the penalty for my sin, then that penalty is paid for entirely. If it were not so, then salvation would be of works and not of grace.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Either is all of works or all of grace. There is no in between position. Which do you choose.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: No one here has removed the penalty of the law.
All our sins were paid for at the cross.

HP: You indeed do remove the penalty for sin in a way that is unsupported by the Word of God when you state that sins yet to be committed, or are in the process of being committed, are already under the blood apart from the fulfilling of the conditions on the part of man that God said ‘without which’ no man shall be saved.

DHK: The penalty of the law was paid for by Christ. It is called the substitutionary atonement. I cannot, could not ever pay the penalty for my sin. It is impossible.

HP: Hell will be full of those, according to your stated ideas, that will be found fulfilling the task you say is impossible, i.e., fulfilling the payment due for their sins.

DHK: But Christ paid it for me. Because he shed his blood, and by doing so paid the penalty for my sin, then that penalty is paid for entirely. If it were not so, then salvation would be of works and not of grace.

HP: Christ paid the penalty for all sins, not that just of the elect. If it was a literal payment as you clearly suggest, when does it become ineffective to pay for the sins of the damned? What are those paying the penalty of that will find themselves in hell? Have not those sins been paid for entirely as you say? Who is man to attach a penalty to any sin that has already been paid for? If that is not double jeopardy for those in hell, tell us why not?

DHK: Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

HP: No one on this list has denied salvation is by grace, and not by works. Conditions for salvation are NOT meritorious works performed to merit salvation. Conditions are always thought of in the sense of not without which, not that for the sake of. Establishing conditions whereby we are saved in no wise constitutes salvation by works as you falsely imply. When God commands man to repent and to turn from their sins, without which salvation will not be accomplished, God is not promoting a works based salvation. God is sovereign DHK, and can place whatsoever conditions upon His gift of salvation He so desires, without creating a works based scenario or denying His grace.

DHK: Either is all of works or all of grace. There is no in between position. Which do you choose.

HP: Grace can and does come with conditions we must fulfill. Those conditions are not works, in the sense you try and limit the word, by any stretch of the imagination.

Either mans will is involved in obedience to the conditions Scripture states clearly are necessary for salvation or predestination of both the damned as well of the saved is invoked. Either all is necessitated by God or it is not. There is no in between position. Which do you choose?

 

[DHK]

HP: Grace can and does come with conditions we must fulfill. Those conditions are not works, in the sense you try and limit the word, by any stretch of the imagination.

Either mans will is involved in obedience to the conditions Scripture states clearly are necessary for salvation or predestination of both the damned as well of the saved is invoked. Either all is necessitated by God or it is not. There is no in between position. Which do you choose?

Define grace:
It is the free unmerited favor of God.
By the very definition of grace there are no conditions.
Jesus himself gave examples of this.
What are the conditions, that which you must do, in order for the rain to fall?
What are the conditions, that which you must do, in order for the sun to shine?
These are examples of His grace. It is free and unmerited. It is unconditional. About this grace Jesus said it falls upon the just and unjust alike. There is nothing you can do to receive it. It comes as a blessing of God. It is free, and totally unmerited. We can't live without it.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

The same is true concerning the grace of God that was wrought on the cross for our salvation. It is the free and unmerited favor of God. There are no conditions attached. Receive it by faith as a gift. If I give a gift to my daughter she must receive it, but that is not a work is it? She doesn't pay me money; she doesn't do chores or any kind of work or labor. She simply receives it and that is all. It is not a work. It is a gift. And so it is with the free gift of eternal life or salvation. It is a free gift to be received by faith. Just receive it with no conditions attached. If there are conditions then those conditions are works, and salvation is no longer by grace but rather of works, as Romans 11:6 testifies to.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Define grace:
It is the free unmerited favor of God.
By the very definition of grace there are no conditions.
Jesus himself gave examples of this.
What are the conditions, that which you must do, in order for the rain to fall?
What are the conditions, that which you must do, in order for the sun to shine?
These are examples of His grace. It is free and unmerited. It is unconditional. About this grace Jesus said it falls upon the just and unjust alike. There is nothing you can do to receive it. It comes as a blessing of God. It is free, and totally unmerited. We can't live without it.

HP: You would make an excellent apologist for the Calvinist DHK. You could not have painted a better picture of salvation according to that system of theology. You clearly establish two of the five points without even trying to do so. First, you establish irresistible grace, for just as you can do nothing to stop the rain from falling, neither, according to Calvinism, can you stop the grace of God from having its desired effect upon your life, completely and free from any human involvement.

Secondly, you establish limited atonement, for as you have indicated, those that this grace falls upon will complete its work on the lives of those that God has chosen to allow it to fall on, and those that do not find salvation real in their lives………well you have a small crisis here with your illustration. If it is all of God and none of man, you have just established double predestination, a notion I thought at least you found reprehensible. Your arguments here leave me in total confusion. You say that man is not involved, for you clearly said, there is NOTHING (EM) that you can do to receive it.” That only leaves one option. If you do not receive it, there is only one to blame, i.e., the God that withheld it, for again, according to you (and I quote) “there is NOTHING (EM) you can do to receive it. The atonement must be limited for only some are chosen to receive it and others could not have possibly received it due to the fact that God never chose them to or He would have granted it to them, just as the falling rain without them doing anything.

(To the listener: Now watch carefully the switch we are about to witness as DHK will cry foul and then tell us, in direct opposition to his statement here documented, that we indeed have to do something, i.e., believe.)

 

[DHK]

(To the listener: Now watch carefully the switch we are about to witness as DHK will cry foul and then tell us, in direct opposition to his statement here documented, that we indeed have to do something, i.e., believe.)

If I make an illustration about my daughter receiving a gift, and say: "All she has to do is receive it, then what does the receive imply? It implies that she believes it is hers to receive. She must believe before she receives.

There is on switch. Even the Bible teaches the same.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
--Inherent in receiving is believing. Even John states that. It is evident. And it is not a work. Believing never has been a work. It is not something that one does. Show me in the work force where one gets paid for trusting, for their faith, for their confidence, etc. It is not a work. It cannot be defined as a work.
A priest can get paid for baptizing children and for carrying out some of the other sacraments of the RCC, but he cannot be paid for believing.
A person can DO the works of repenting, that is, that which is involved in repentance. and it is work. Repentance from sins are works. Confessing them are works. But faith is not. In no way can faith ever be defined as a work. That is why salvation is by faith alone, and not of works.

When Jesus said "It is finished," He meant the work of salvation is finished. There is nothing more to be done. There is nothing that you can do; that I can do; that anyone can do. It is completed. Now simply accept it by faith. The penalty for sin has been atoned for. The sins of the world--all of them--have been paid for. The one who needs forgiveness needs only to ask on the basis of the shed blood of Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: If I make an illustration about my daughter receiving a gift, and say: "All she has to do is receive it, then what does the receive imply? It implies that she believes it is hers to receive. She must believe before she receives.

HP: You are getting very predictable DHK.

So we have you saying that there is 'NOTHING' we do, and yet you now say there is something we 'MUST' do. Do you not see a slight contradiction here? How can there be nothing yet something at the same time and concerning the same matter? It is just like rain according to you. Is it simply going to hit me on the head or in the case of salvation does it require my will to be voluntarily directed in a certain manner?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: When Jesus said "It is finished," He meant the work of salvation is finished. There is nothing more to be done. There is nothing that you can do; that I can do; that anyone can do. It is completed. Now simply accept it by faith. The penalty for sin has been atoned for. The sins of the world--all of them--have been paid for. The one who needs forgiveness needs only to ask on the basis of the shed blood of Christ.

HP: Here we have yet another stark contradiction. DHK tells us there is ‘nothing’ more to be done, and them he tells us that we need to do something, in this case ‘accept it by faith.’ One can only assume that to DHK ‘exercising faith’ is equivalent to ‘doing nothing.’ Strange logic to me. How about to you? Since when is doing something nothing???

 

[DHK]

HP: Here we have yet another stark contradiction. DHK tells us there is ‘nothing’ more to be done, and them he tells us that we need to do something, in this case ‘accept it by faith.’ One can only assume that to DHK ‘exercising faith’ is equivalent to ‘doing nothing.’ Strange logic to me. How about to you? Since when is doing something nothing???

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Since the Bible says so.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Since the Bible says so.

HP: Do not lay the contradiction of your ideas upon Scripture. Scripture is not self contradictory.

I completely agree with this passage of Scripture. It is the contradictory notions you are expressing as your sentiments that I am having trouble with. This passage does not state that there is nothing one must do in order to be saved. It is not addressing the conditions of salvation, but rather is addressing the grounds of salvation. Nothing God calls upon man to do, including to believe, is the grounds of salvation.

What is so unbelievable is that you accuse others with ‘salvation by works’ and state that there are NO conditions to salvation, and then you STATE a condition in the next breath, i.e., to ‘believe’ or ‘to accept by faith.’ Your problem is that you do not stay consistent for two posts in order for one to debate your notions. You are too busy playing the shell game, moving back and forth between opposing and contradictory notions at every turn. Stand still DHK. Tell us what you really believe. Is there nothing or something that man must do? You cannot have it both ways.

(For the benefit of the listener, I will tell you in advance that he cannot tell us what he believes other than to say he believes both, that there is nothing we can do and yet there is something we can do. He tries, but in vain, to hold two opposing ideas in balance when to even attempt to entertain the juggling act he is guilty of is to promote a clear contradiction of terms. If there is something man must do, it cannot be said there is nothing man must do. If one states that there is nothing a man can do, then one cannot state there is something he must do.

If one does not desire to entertain absurdities in their theology, one cannot hold opposing and contradictory notions as we see DHK here by clear example doing.)

 

[EdSutton]

HP: Do not lay the contradiction of your ideas upon Scripture. Scripture is not self contradictory.

I completely agree with this passage of Scripture. It is the contradictory notions you are expressing as your sentiments that I am having trouble with. This passage does not state that there is nothing one must do in order to be saved. It is not addressing the conditions of salvation, but rather is addressing the grounds of salvation. Nothing God calls upon man to do, including to believe, is the grounds of salvation.

What is so unbelievable is that you accuse others with ‘salvation by works’ and state that there are NO conditions to salvation, and then you STATE a condition in the next breath, i.e., to ‘believe’ or ‘to accept by faith.’ Your problem is that you do not stay consistent for two posts in order for one to debate your notions. You are too busy playing the shell game, moving back and forth between opposing and contradictory notions at every turn. Stand still DHK. Tell us what you really believe. Is there nothing or something that man must do? You cannot have it both ways.

(For the benefit of the listener, I will tell you in advance that he cannot tell us what he believes other than to say he believes both, that there is nothing we can do and yet there is something we can do. He tries, but in vain, to hold two opposing ideas in balance when to even attempt to entertain the juggling act he is guilty of is to promote a clear contradiction of terms. If there is something man must do, it cannot be said there is nothing man must do. If one states that there is nothing a man can do, then one cannot state there is something he must do.

If one does not desire to entertain absurdities in their theology, one cannot hold opposing and contradictory notions as we see DHK here by clear example doing.)

May I suggest that ridicule is not a particularly persuasive Biblical argument, at least to me.

But since you have mentioned "do" and what one "must do" to be saved, can you show where any other thing besides "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" is ever said that to be something one "must do" to be saved, in the sense it is used in Ac. 16:28-34?

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

HP: May I respectfully say that if in fact you, via your theology, remove the penalty for sin in the believers life to something other than the stated penalty in Scripture for sin, you in effect, in spite of your efforts to the contrary, do indeed promote, although unwittingly, a sort of loose living.

As another said, I did not remove anything. (Realize that the exact phrase "the Law" in the NT, when given no additional 'qualifiers', always refers to the precepts of the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy, and commonly referred to as the Mosaic Law.)

The Lord Jesus Christ did, as to removing the 'Mosaic law' for the Jews. (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14) Ergo, we are not under "the Law", but under grace. (Rom. 6:14-15) The Law has no dominion over me, 'cause I'm dead to the Law (Rom. 7:4) and through it. (Gal. 2:19) I'm free from the Law (Rom. 8:2), and by implication, I'm 'loosed from the Law.' (Rom. 7:2)

The Gentiles did not even have it to begin with, as even another poster, noted. (Rom. 2:14) You have even commented on that particular verse, as well, I believe. BTW, what is the stated penalty for sin? Is it not death? "The soul who sins shall die." Was not Moses not permitted to enter Canaan, because of a particular sin? What happened to Moses? He died. Did he lose his salvation because of this? I suggest not, because he was standing alonside Elijah with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, hardly a place one would find an unsaved man [BTW, Scripture never says Moses 'repented of this sin' (in fact, I don't believe Scripture ever even says He 'confessed' or responded to this pronouncement from the Lord in any way, except to acknowledge that he would not cross over Jordan (Deut. 32:2), unlike David who acknowledged or confessed his sin in Ps. 51, even.), nor is any individual person in Scripture ever said to have "repented" in any form, aside from Job and Judas, FTR.] but nonetheless, he is still called "the man of God" (Deut. 33:1; Josh. 14:6); Jesus mentions him as the standard for belief in Himself (Jn.5:45-46); he is found in the "Hall of Fame" of faith in Heb. 11:23-29. (More said about him, with seven verses, that any other individual listed in Heb. 11, except for Abraham. Elijah, Elsiha, and Ezra, for examples, don't even rate a personal naming, here, and Abel, Enoch, Noah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph each rate exactly one verse.)

Can not a believer commit a sin unto death? John speaks of such an one who is called a brother doing so, as you might note. (I Jn. 5:16-17) In context, he is obvioulsy referring to a 'Christian' brother, and not his biological family, from what I can see. Were not Annanias and Sapphira believers? I believe they were (Read the context, and see - Ac. 4:32- 5:11! ), an committed the "sin unto death," which for them, was that of "lying to the Holy Spirit" just as did some of the Corinthain believers (I Cor. 11:29-30), although the 'sin unto death' was different.) Would you suggest that Scripture is mistaken in Tit. 2:11-14?

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

It is like a traffic cop on a street corner that only has a whistle, and all he can do is to blow it at those that violate the law. When you remove the penalty of the law, you have in effect promoted disobedience to it, although as I said, possibly not intentionally, but none the less in essence you have.

The logic is OK, I guess. Got any Scripture to support this? BTW, why would one want to 'strengthen' sin, in any manner? The law serves to strengthen sin. (I Cor. 15:56b) I thought the idea was to make sin weaker and overcome it by victory. (Rom. 3:12; I Cor. 15:57; I Jn. 2:13-14; 5:4-5)

Law without penalty is good advice or council (sic) but is no law at all. Removing the penalty as you and others believing in OSAS do, destroy the law. It sets up a system of antinomianism in spite of all well intentioned objections that you are not.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying, I believe. (If it's good counsel, why would one not follow this principle?) And I believe you are misunderstanding the reasons for the Law, as well. The law was Israel's guardian [(ESV) tutor (NKJV) child-conductor (YLT) all of which, IMO, are better renderings of 'paidogos' than is the KJV with "schoolmaster"] until Christ. (Gal. 3:24)

No longer is this the case. (Gal. 3:23-25) Now we are a new creation 'in Christ' (II Cor. 5:17); clothed in His righteousness (Ph'lp. 3:9). We have new 'guides' that far exceed the righteousness of the "law of sin and death". (Ph'lp. 3:9; Rom. 8:2) I want to live under grace, with all it offers (Rom. 6:14-15; Gal. 4) and not be under the dominion of any weak, bankrupt beggar, which is exactly what the law is. (Rom. 6:14; 8:3; Gal. 4:9). I'm a King's Kid for Christ's sake, literally (I Sam. 12:22; Dan. 9:19; Rom. 15:30). I'm not getting tangled up and be found "fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:1-4).

I'm gonna' stand, not by my own fleshly strength in the "law of sin and death" i.e. the Mosaic Law, but live under the Laws of Grace, and entirely different proposition. These are variously described by Jesus as "My commandments" (Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:10) and "my words" (Mt. 24:35; Jn. 14:3; 15:7), for a couple of examples; and are all in 'grace' language, and elsewhere they are referred to as the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:2); the Law of Liberty (Jas. 1:25; 2:12); and the Royal Law (Jas. 2:8). I'm "just not going back" to something I never had, in the first place, when I can "press toward the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." (Ph'lp. 3:14) And this is not "antinomianism"!

Ed

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed: May I suggest that ridicule is not a particularly persuasive Biblical argument, at least to me.

HP: Ed, are you attempting to simply ridicule me?:wavey: If not why not? Why do you not come to the aide of DHK, and tell us why what I have said about his theology is in fact ridicule? For instance I said, “HP: If there is something man must do, it cannot be said there is nothing man must do. If one states that there is nothing a man can do, then one cannot state there is something he must do.”

Why don’t you show us differently? Can one say emphatically that there is nothing one can do and then turn right around and say that there is something he must do without being fairly charged with a contradictory statement? If you desire input into this discussion, (which by the way I would encourage by all means) try engaging in the debate instead of merely tossing in a stone. Your question asking me to show forth yet another thing we must do does not deal with the point of the discussion, which again was to clarify a stark contradiction. If we can first work on the contradiction, I will be happy to move on to other stated conditions in Scripture. Fair enough?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, speaking concerning salvation :”There is NOTHING (EM) you can do to receive it.”

DHK, again speaking of salvation using an illustration of I believe his daughter: "All she has to do is receive it, then what does the receive imply? It implies that she believes it is hers to receive. She MUST (EM) believe before she receives.”

HP: This sets the stage for a soul searching question. When one contradicts themselves in their theology, as DHK has just demonstrated for the list, stating there is nothing we can do to receive it and then tells us that we “MUST believe” before we receive it, would it be fair for me to accuse him of lying, either in one of the statements or the other?

If one has a clear contradiction in their theology, and adamantly refuses to accept council on the point, refusing to admit to the clear contradiction, and continues to contradict themselves time after time, does that necessitate him being a liar? If not why not?

Hint: Lying is a moral issue. As with all moral issues something MUST be present for sin or a violation of a moral precept is invoked. What is it? Was that, or can that be, discernable in DHK's postings from what he has written?

 

[DHK]

HP: This sets the stage for a soul searching question. When one contradicts themselves in their theology, as DHK has just demonstrated for the list, stating there is nothing we can do to receive it and then tells us that we “MUST believe” before we receive it, would it be fair for me to accuse him of lying, either in one of the statements or the other?

If one has a clear contradiction in their theology, and adamantly refuses to accept council on the point, refusing to admit to the clear contradiction, and continues to contradict themselves time after time, does that necessitate him being a liar? If not why not?

Hint: Lying is a moral issue. As with all moral issues something MUST be present for sin or a violation of a moral precept is invoked. What is it? Was that, or can that be, discernable in DHK's postings from what he has written?

Your rhetoric is astounding; your accusations entirely unwarranted.

Your argument is not with me; it is with God.

It was the Lord that inspired the Apostle Paul to write:
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Here the Word of God says:
1. Salvation is by grace. It is all of grace.
2. Salvation is through faith. It is through faith alone.
3. It is a gift of God. A gift never has to be worked for.
4. It is not of works. There are no works involved in salvation--none whatsoever. There is nothing to be done to receive the gift of salvation--nothing. Anything that you "invent" as a work falls outside of God's definition of a work. Take your argument up with God.

The words of Christ Himself.
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
--"It is finished." Christ paid it all. The work of salvation was finished on the Cross. There was nothing more to do, and there will never be anything more that man can do. What an insult to Christ to think that man can add to what Christ has already done, even as Christ declared: "It is finished!"

Mock if you wish, but salvation is not of works.
If one does not receive Christ as Saviour; believe on his sacrificial work he cannot be saved.
These two verbs "receiving" and "believing" do not indicate works.
What follows after salvation is the work of a believer.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Your argument is with God, not me.