Who has not failed?

[BobRyan]

You are trying to bend the point such that "If I am not the author of scripture" then everyone must be convicted on all truth no matter what Christ said to the contrary in John 16 or what Paul says to the contrary. I find your logic "illusive" at that point.

Therefore the point remains - Is 66 and Lev 11 are not "my warning" to mankind - they are written by God. What mankind does with it - what mankind is willing to do with it - is not my issue either. I cannot help that Catholics uses images in their worship programs even though they can clearly read the 2nd commandment. But I never claim that no Catholic is saved simply because they pray to the dead and perhaps unknowingly violate the 2nd commandment.

Thus my position is no different at all when I talk about those who eat rats, cats, dogs and bats even though Isaiah 66 and Lev 11 tells them not to.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If you are saying that me and about 25 million other Christians who follow the teaching of scripture in Isaiah 66 and Lev 11 about not eating, mice, rats, bats, cats, dogs, horses etc are "special" because when we read the text we actually "follow it" -- I am not going to start by complaining about that observation.

I did not say anything about "following it" that makes one special. I said that maybe one is special for receiving "enlightenment",

A distinction without a difference.

 

[steaver]

You are trying to bend the point such that "If I am not the author of scripture" then everyone must be convicted on all truth no matter what Christ said to the contrary in John 16 or what Paul says to the contrary. I find your logic "illusive" at that point.

in Christ,

Bob

You present your own logic, claim it belongs to me and then find it illusive. It is yours, you figure it out.

Therefore the point remains - Is 66 and Lev 11 are not "my warning" to mankind - they are written by God.

And your point also remains that these warnings from God do not apply to those whom God does not "enlighten" even though they can read them or hear them. Such as myself.

What mankind does with it - what mankind is willing to do with it - is not my issue either.

According to your pov, only those who have been "enlightened" are held accountable for what they are "willing to do with it".

I cannot help that Catholics uses images in their worship programs even though they can clearly read the 2nd commandment.

Simply reading the commandment is not enough according to your pov. They must be "enlightened" by the Holy Spirit in order to be held accountable for the commandment. So it does not matter to God if they pray to Mary as long as God has not "enlightened" them otherwise.

But I never claim that no Catholic is saved simply because they pray to the dead and perhaps unknowingly violate the 2nd commandment.

Never said you did. On the contrary. You hold the position that they are excused if the Holy Spirit has not enlightened them. Simply reading God's word is not enough according to you even though the Author happens to be God. Go figure, but it is the web you weaved for yourself.

Thus my position is no different at all when I talk about those who eat rats, cats, dogs and bats even though Isaiah 66 and Lev 11 tells them not to.

We are not speaking of those who "paid no attention" to God's word.

We are not speaking of those who are "ignoring the word of God".

You have taken the position that one can read God's word and NOT be enlightened here or there and therefore not be held accountable for certain commands.

Merely "reading them", that is God's words, does not matter according to your pov. One must also be "enlightened" by the Holy Spirit as well.

The warnings according to your pov are of no effect to those whom the Spirit does not "enlighten". So they are only warnings to those whom the Spirit chooses to enlighten, such as yourself. You must obey, I am excused.

Does this pretty much sum up your pov?

 

[BobRyan]

Therefore the point remains - Is 66 and Lev 11 are not "my warning" to mankind - they are written by God.
And your point also remains that these warnings from God do not apply to those whom God does not "enlighten" even though they can read them or hear them. Such as myself.

My point is that everyone is accountable to God for themselves - "To him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin" James 4.

Thus I cannot sit in judgment on the Catholic that chooses to use images in worship in violation of the 2nd commandment. All I do is point to the truth of the 2nd commandment and I choose for myself to honor God's Word in that regard. The rest is between God and that Christian who chooses a different path.

The same is true for Christians that prefer rats, cat, dog, bat sandwiches no matter what Isaiah 66 or Lev 11 says to the contrary. My obligation only goes to the point of choosing to obey God's Word and choosing to "report the news" about what God has said in that regard.

You keep arguing that I should have some interest in people not going to heaven if they do not happen to follow God's Word as I choose to do. But God never gave me such a set of values.

Not sure where you get that idea.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

My point is that everyone is accountable to God for themselves - "To him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin" James 4.

in Christ,

Bob

And.....your pov declares that "merely reading or hearing" God's word on any particular command is not enough to hold the hearer responsible. One must hear the word of God concerning the command and ALSO be enlightened by the Holy Spirit that they should be honoring the command.

Therefore "To him that knows" according to your pov is "him that has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit", merely reading God's word or hearing the command from another is not sufficient for accountability.

Myself is a good example, as I said. I read Is 66 and Lev 11 many times over, yet the Spirit has never "enlightened" me that I should not eat pigs. You on the other hand read Is 66 and Lev 11 AND the Spirit "enlightened" you that you should not eat pigs (and whatever else is listed in these passages).

So I get to eat without consequence but you must obey the enlightenment you have been given. Seems like God being a respector of persons to me, but it is your theogy to follow if you please.

Thus I cannot sit in judgment on the Catholic that chooses to use images in worship in violation of the 2nd commandment.

Of course you can't, for the Spirit may not have "enlightened" them that the commandment is for them. So they could be excused.

Same would go for drunkenness or homosexuality according to your pov. They would not be held accountable for this sin if the Spirit chooses not to "enlighten" them.

This pov of yours would take much of the pulpit pounding out of the churches. "Thus saith the Lord" is moot UNLESS the Spirit also "enlightens" those Christians that they should obey. I suppose SDA preachers don't get too frustrated at those who refuse to obey God's word since they believe the Spirit chooses some for enlightenment and others for ignorance.

The drunk or the homosexual can be excused on the grounds of James 4 according to your view of it.

All I do is point to the truth of the 2nd commandment and I choose for myself to honor God's Word in that regard. The rest is between God and that Christian who chooses a different path.

We are not speaking of those who make choices. You are correct that if God has "enlightened" a person then they have a choice. But we are speaking of those in your pov who God does not enlighten on a particular command such as pig or rat eating. These folks are unaware of any choice and are not held accountable according to your pov.

My obligation only goes to the point of choosing to obey God's Word and choosing to "report the news" about what God has said in that regard.

Why do you feel obligated to "report the news"? Why preach Is 66 or Lev 11 to those who already read them many times as though they should obey them? Or the 2nd commandment to the Catholics? It should be obvious to you according to your pov that the Spirit is not requiring all Christians to obey all of God's commandments. So why bother to preach them if it has no bearing on their own souls?

You keep arguing that I should have some interest in people not going to heaven if they do not happen to follow God's Word as I choose to do. But God never gave me such a set of values.

I'm not sure where you got this idea. I never said you should be concerned that people are not going to heaven for not obeying certain commands. On the contrary, you have been saying that people can disobey and still be saved as long as the Spirit has excused them by not "enlightening" them.

What I wonder is why do you post God's word over and over on these issues as though we must all obey all of God's word when you yourself declare that we all do not have to obey God's word??

SDA's spend an awful amount of time on the subject of obeying God's commandments all the while declaring you are excused if the Spirit has not "enlightened" you.

You preach "thus saith the Lord" and then you preach "but you don't have to obey unless the Spirit enlightens you".

Pretty weak preaching if you ask me.

I listen to pastor Doug on his "amazing facts" program quite often and he preaches hard the commandments but I never hear him preaching this excusal doctrine along with it. If he would be honest with the people he should include this excusal in his sermons so no one goes away feeling their soul might be in jepardy for not feeling no "enlightenment" from the Spirit to obey.

:thumbsup:

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
My point is that everyone is accountable to God for themselves - "To him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin" James 4.

Special thanks to James for being the author of that statement -- not me.

Special thanks to God the Holy Spirit for causing James to write that text.

And.....your pov declares that "merely reading or hearing" God's word on any particular command is not enough to hold the hearer responsible. One must hear the word of God concerning the command and ALSO be enlightened by the Holy Spirit that they should be honoring the command.

So you are saying it is a ""To him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin" James 4 thing? OR are you saying that I am the author of James 4 - so really it is just "me"??

Therefore "To him that knows" according to your pov is "him that has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit"

As Christ said in John 16 "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now - The Holy Spirit will LEAD you into all truth".

You seem to be objecting to Bible statement after Bible statement. Is reading the Bible "not enough" for you?
:tongue3:

, merely reading God's word or hearing the command from another is not sufficient for accountability.

So that is why I have to keep reminding you of these texts?

Myself is a good example, as I said. I read Is 66 and Lev 11 many times

True enough.

As the Catholics read Ex 20:4-6 many times regarding the command not to use images in worship and the Is 8:19-20 regarding the command not to pray to the dead.

You on the other hand read Is 66 and Lev 11 AND the Spirit "enlightened" you that you should not eat pigs (and whatever else is listed in these passages).

Indeed those "do not eat rats, cats, dogs and bats" texts are sooo easy for me to read - I just seem to "get it". But that is just me. God tells me to share what His Word says - he does not demand that I judge others.

James says "To him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin" James 4

So I get to eat without consequence but you must obey the enlightenment you have been given. Seems like God being a respector of persons to me

You are free to spin it however you wish. In the end it is the "Spirit of Truth" that is both authoring the text and convicting the Christian - not me. I just read what He has written and agree to follow what He says.

Same would go for drunkenness or homosexuality according to your pov.

True. It is the Holy Spirit that "convicts of sin and righteousness and judgment" not "Steaver" and not "BobRyan".

I can report the news - but it is up to the Holy Spirit to convict.

Those who hear are free to "Claim" that the Holy Spirit has not convicted them that adultery or drunkeness or ... is "wrong". It is not up to be to judge them. Scripture says "God is not mocked whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap" Gal 6:7 - so they will need to be very "very" careful in their "God has not told me personnally" claims.

Christ said in John 16:2 that men would think "they offer God service" when they "seek to kill you".

People may think a great many things. But the amount of what they "claim" they don't know and should not be held accountable for - and what God sees them accountable for - may not always be the same thing.

I never claimed that the person is the judge of it. I always claim that God is.

Notice that in Romans 1 Paul keeps arguing the point "they are without excuse" speaking of pagans that have no access to scripture at all and yet are given up to things like homosexuality. Thus it is Paul's claim that the Holy Spirit is convicting them on a subjec that they themselves would like to pretend He is not convicting them on.

Still - that is not my business - it is between them and God. I simply report the news.

This pov of yours would take much of the pulpit pounding out of the churches. "Thus saith the Lord" is moot UNLESS the Spirit also "enlightens" those Christians that they should obey.

I guess that depends on just how much you "do not trust the Holy Spirit" to do His John 16 job.

You seem to object that it is not all "in your hands" to determine when and on what point someone else must surely be convicted.

I suppose SDA preachers don't get too frustrated at those who refuse to obey God's word since they believe the Spirit chooses some for enlightenment and others for ignorance.

They being fully aware of both John 16 and James 4 are often heard to say along with Paul in 1Cor 3 "one man plants, another waters and another reaps the harvest". The idea that every preacher gets to "sit in God's chair" and decide for themselves "who is convicted" for what is out.

But that does not mean that once someone is a Christian they can suddenly pretend "not to know if Christ is the savior". Going backwards is never "allowed" because it is the Eph 6 problem of falling away.

We are not speaking of those who make choices. You are correct that if God has "enlightened" a person then they have a choice. But we are speaking of those in your pov who God does not enlighten on a particular command such as pig or rat eating.

We are speaking of those in Christ's POV of whom "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now... the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth". You keep reading the text and yet struggling with it.

Why do you feel obligated to "report the news"? Why preach Is 66 or Lev 11 to those who already read them many times as though they should obey them?

Matt 28 "Go into all the world and MAKE disciples of all nations TEACHING them ALL that I have commanded you".

1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
John 14:15 "IF you Love Me KEEP My commandments"

Obeying God's Word - whether it be in Lev 11, or Isaiah 66, or John 14, or 1Cor 7 or Rom 3:31 or Rom 2:13-16 or ... It is all the same issue. God speaks - I choose to obey. That is what the new Nature does.

Or the 2nd commandment to the Catholics? It should be obvious to you according to your pov that the Spirit is not requiring all Christians to obey all of God's commandments. So why bother to preach them if it has no bearing on their own souls?

If "I was god" and I knew which person the Holy Spirit had convicted on a given point and which person the Holy Spirit was not going to convict on a given point - it would certainly change what I said to them.

I freely admit that.

However you err in thinking that just because a person rejects what the Holy Spirit is telling them - that the Holy Spirit must not be saying anything to them.

This is another area where your argument puts man in the place of God.

What I wonder is why do you post God's word over and over on these issues as though we must all obey all of God's word when you yourself declare that we all do not have to obey God's word??

Again - you are simply making stuff up. Not once have i said "We do not have to obey God's Word". Rather it is YOU who keeps saying "I read God's Word in Lev 11 and Is 66 and feel good about not obeying what it says there". I never claim that for myself and I never say that you are right in your claim. I leave it between you and God on those points. For all I know your claim to be in the dark is dead wrong. Christ said to the Jews "if you were blind you would have no sin - but you say that you SEE therefore your sin remains".

I merely say that there are those who do not know something is a sin and I claim that James is correct in his comment about those cases.

SDA's spend an awful amount of time on the subject of obeying God's commandments all the while declaring you are excused if the Spirit has not "enlightened" you.

That is true. We are firm on the point that there is no "shortcut around the Holy Spirit".

You preach "thus saith the Lord" and then you preach "but you don't have to obey unless the Spirit enlightens you".

Again your policy of just "making stuff up" does not help your argument as much as you have imagined.

I never said "you do not have to obey God's Word". I always say "This is what God's Word says. This is what we are to follow".

But I stop at the point of saying "and I as God know exactly what you are able to hear and accept from God's Word". This seems to be where all your frustration comes in -- the fact that I do not claim to be some kind of god.

I listen to pastor Doug on his "amazing facts" program quite often and he preaches hard the commandments but I never hear him preaching this excusal doctrine along with it.

You never hear him say the things you seem so willing to "Make up" but if you listen - you will hear him speak to the James 4 and John 16 texts when speaking of Christians in other denominations.

Keep listening.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver -

I am struck by the fact that your main complaint is that Adventists are not judgmental "enough".

I find that surprising.

But the point remains - we draw a clear line of truth based "sola scriptura" and let the chips fall where they may. But we are not called to judge others.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Steaver -

I am struck by the fact that your main complaint is that Adventists are not judgmental "enough".

I find that surprising.

But the point remains - we draw a clear line of truth based "sola scriptura" and let the chips fall where they may. But we are not called to judge others.

in Christ,

Bob

This has been your red-herring you keep posting. It does not exist.

My main point has been that according to your pov some Christians get an excusal by God Himself from obeying some of His commands while others are called to make a choice to obey or else suffer some consequences.

I am merely bringing to light the truth of your view which seems to be bothering you. I would have rather expected you to say "yes, your are right Steaver, you have rightly stated what I preach and believe".

Indeed those "do not eat rats, cats, dogs and bats" texts are sooo easy for me to read - I just seem to "get it". But that is just me. God tells me to share what His Word says - he does not demand that I judge others.

Do not feel to proud that they are "sooo easy for you to read" nor that you "just seem to get it". According to your pov it is easy and you get it only because God chose to "enlighten" you. Then you choose to obey.

There are Christians whom God has withheld this "enlightenment" according to your pov, so these cannot see the scripture as you do. Don't be too hard on them. I find your post seemingly very judgmental when it comes to these commandments, as if it should be as plain as the nose on your face just because you pointed out the text.

Preaching "thus sayeth the Lord" is making a judgment, but your view allows the hearer an out for not obeying. So don't talk down to those rat and cat eaters as though they are any less obedient than you to God's word. For according to your pov God may be giving them the freedom to eat whatever they please.

You are free to spin it however you wish. In the end it is the "Spirit of Truth" that is both authoring the text and convicting the Christian - not me. I just read what He has written and agree to follow what He says.

Don't you see your pride in this statement? You speak as though you are doing something special. You can only follow what He says because He has "enlightened" you. Many of us like myself are excused by God not having received this enlightenment. We have the text, but the Spirit has not added His enlightenment according to your pov. So why does us swine eaters bother you? Are you sure your not being judgmental in your heart?

Those who hear are free to "Claim" that the Holy Spirit has not convicted them that adultery or drunkeness or ... is "wrong". It is not up to be to judge them. Scripture says "God is not mocked whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap" Gal 6:7 - so they will need to be very "very" careful in their "God has not told me personnally" claims.

Of course, I would agree. My focus is on those whom God does not actually enlighten according to your view. It seems odd to me that God would not want a Christian to know that adultery and drunkeness are wrong. This is what makes your pov seem odd from what I have come to understand by studying the scriptures.

People may think a great many things. But the amount of what they "claim" they don't know and should not be held accountable for - and what God sees them accountable for - may not always be the same thing.

Now you are treading into another soil. This is something you cannot judge so it really becomes moot to the topic at hand. Your doctrine allows the believer an excusal from accountability. You cannot know who is faking it and who is not, so it would be best to error on the side of "not enlightened" rather than find yourself subtlely passing a judgment in your own heart towards another. Let their nay be nay and their yea be yea.

Notice that in Romans 1 Paul keeps arguing the point "they are without excuse" speaking of pagans that have no access to scripture at all and yet are given up to things like homosexuality. Thus it is Paul's claim that the Holy Spirit is convicting them on a subjec that they themselves would like to pretend He is not convicting them on.

Right, here Paul says they knew. But we are talking about saved Christians who the Spirit has decided not to enlighten according to your views and has decided to allow them to continue on in different sins for some reason unknown to us. I guess this makes perfect sense to you, but I don't see the logic or scripture of God telling some of His children to obey some things concerning sin and others don't have to.

We are speaking of those in Christ's POV of whom "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now... the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth". You keep reading the text and yet struggling with it.

You see, this is where you show your judging. Why say that I am "struggling with it"? You should say "don't worry about this text Steaver if you don't see what I see, for God has enlightened me but hasn't enlightened you yet".

Obeying God's Word - whether it be in Lev 11, or Isaiah 66, or John 14, or 1Cor 7 or Rom 3:31 or Rom 2:13-16 or ... It is all the same issue. God speaks - I choose to obey. That is what the new Nature does.

According to your pov, just because one has the "new Nature" it does not automatically "enlighten" them to God's commandments. I have the new Nature yet God allows me to eat bacon while having told you you must not.

However you err in thinking that just because a person rejects what the Holy Spirit is telling them - that the Holy Spirit must not be saying anything to them.

I never said any such thing. I am staying specifically on the subject of those who are not receiving "enlightenment". All others would be required to obey, such as yourself, according to your view. I have not been enlightened as of yet so I get to eat whatever I please so far, and this is according to your pov.

Again - you are simply making stuff up. Not once have i said "We do not have to obey God's Word". Rather it is YOU who keeps saying "I read God's Word in Lev 11 and Is 66 and feel good about not obeying what it says there".

I never said I "feel good". I said the Spirit has not "enlightened" me that this applys to me. You seem to get upset that the Spirit has given you a few more rules than He has given me. Don't get upset with me, talk to God about it. Tell Him you find it unfair. Maybe He will start telling all HIs children to put down the porkdogs.

Your pov states that a Christian is excused from obeying God's word if the Spirit has not enlightened them. This equates to at the least "Some do not have to obey God's Word". You should be clear about this in your preaching.

I never said "you do not have to obey God's Word". I always say "This is what God's Word says. This is what we are to follow".

.... "this is what we are to follow". Who is the "we" you speak of? If it is Christians then you go against your pov that ALL of the "we" are not being told to follow every command. So "we" all are not able to follow without the enlightenment of the Spirit. You should include this in your post to be fair to all those Christians out there whom God is excusing by His sovereign power and grace.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

Christ said "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" John 16.

James says "To him that KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4

Christ said "IF you were blind you would not have sin - but you say that you see - so your sin remains" John 9:41

Thus the fiction that everyone with a Bible just so happen to all have the same understanding of what the Bible says - of what truth is -- is pure fiction.

This has been your red-herring you keep posting. It does not exist.

The scriptures I gave are very clear - you simply choose not to understand them - thus making my point.

In Heb 5 Paul says "by now you should be a teacher (of the Word) but you are like babes that have come to need milk again" Heb 5:11-12

My main point has been that according to your pov some Christians get an excusal by God Himself

Let me help you with that "some more".

Christ said "IF you were blind you would not have sin - but you say that you see - so your sin remains" John 9:41

John 15:22 "If I had not come and spoken to them they would not have sin but now they have no excuse.."

some Christians get an excusal by God Himself from obeying some of His commands while others are called to make a choice to obey or else suffer some consequences.

James says "To him that KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4

I am merely bringing to light the truth of your view which seems to be bothering you.

The only thing I object to is when you start free-wheeling making stuff up that has never been argued by me as if I need to also support whatever wild idea you happen to imagine.

Pardon me while I draw the line at not going there with you; :type:


You claim that you struggle with the "do not eat rats, cats, dogs bats" commands in Lev 11 and Is 66 -- where as I claimed that I see and read the text and understand the words and follow the instruction quite easily. You then argue that I should feel sad about following the text of scripture so quickly.

Do not feel to proud that they are "sooo easy for you to read" nor that you "just seem to get it". According to your pov it is easy and you get it only because God chose to "enlighten" you. Then you choose to obey.

It is more accurate to say that some - like me - "I could bear that truth" while others fall into 1 of three groups.

1. The understand the text but choose to rebel against it.
2. They do not understand the text due to a number of things - traditions, innexperience, lack of deeper study etc.
3. They don't have access to the information at all.

It is not up to be to judge as to which group they are in. My role is to "teach them all things that I have commanded you" Matt 28:20

With the understanding that "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God" 2Tim 3:16

There are Christians whom God has withheld this "enlightenment"

According to your POV that is the case. But God says that the Spirit convicts of sin and righteousness and judgment and that He gives people the understanding that they can bear - some will still choose to reject what He tells them.

I find your post seemingly very judgmental when it comes to these commandments, as if it should be as plain as the nose on your face just because you pointed out the text.

Hello! I am the one that keeps arguing that everyone does NOT have the same understanding of scripture.

Did you forget which side of this debate you are supposed to be on?

Preaching "thus sayeth the Lord" is making a judgment

It is making the choice to accept and proclaim the Word of God. It is not claiming to know the soul of someone else.

So don't talk down to those rat and cat eaters as though they are any less obedient than you to God's word.

Wrong again. As I have said

1. I don't claim to know what the cat-rat-dog-bat eaters are thinking when they read Lev 11 and Isaiah 66 clearly telling them not to do those things. My job is not to "read the heart".

2. I am always free to share with them what God's Word says. Matt 28:20

3. It is up to the Holy Spirit to "convict of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16 - not me.

So why does us swine eaters bother you?

You keep insisting that ought to be bothered by what other people choose to do ... I keep arguing that this is not my role. My only role is to share the Word of God. It is between the other person and God as to which of the four categories they fall into.

It seems odd to me that God would not want a Christian to know that adultery and drunkeness are wrong.

Again "making stuff up" is not helping your argument as much as you might have at first imagined. Many Catholics are worshipping God using images in their services and praying to the dead. Many of those same Christians will be in heaven some day. When you spin their darkness into "God wanted them to be in darkness" you simply blame God for an aspect of human nature and free will and the actions of those who are misdirected by the traditions of men.

You cannot know who is faking it and who is not, so it would be best to error on the side of "not enlightened" rather than find yourself subtlely passing a judgment in your own heart towards another. Let their nay be nay and their yea be yea.

Indeed. As I have said from the start (while you have complained about it all the way through) my place is not to judge the condition of another.

I don't see the logic or scripture of God telling some of His children to obey some things concerning sin and others don't have to.

That is because you choose to blame God for the effects of the traditions of men and how those traditions blind men to the truth.

You should say "don't worry about this text Steaver if you don't see what I see, for God has enlightened me but hasn't enlightened you yet".

No I should not because I have no idea as to whether God has chosen to enlighten you on this or not.

The only thing I know is to share the Word of God as "truth" and let the chips fall where they may. Your idea of me peering into someone's soul and telling them not to worry about some text of scripture is your fiction about me sitting in God's chair.

I keep telling you that that is not gonna happen.

According to your pov, just because one has the "new Nature" it does not automatically "enlighten" them to God's commandments.

Indeed as Paul points out in Heb 5 some people do not advance beyond a very basic point. I am not the judge of where they are.
:jesus:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

The scriptures I gave are very clear - you simply choose not to understand them - thus making my point.

in Christ,

Bob

Thus you have just made my point. You have just judged that I "simply choose not to understand them".

Now tell me again how you do not sit in God's seat passing judgment on the heart of Steaver?

According to your pov I could be one of those who God has not "enlightened" to the scriptures you say "are very clear". But you dismiss your own pov and declare the heart of Steaver "chooses not to understand them".

You do not even realize how what you say you do and what you actually do are not lining up.

Let me help you with that "some more".

See how you are condescending? This is because you reject your own doctrine that the Spirit is not working along with your "helping" or preaching of the word. You cannot help yourself but to pass a judgment on me.

The Spirit has not enlightened me that the scriptures you are presenting are to be applied the way you are applying them. So you say "I choose not to understand" when that is not the case at all. It's not that I choose to not understand but rather the Spirit is not "enlightening" me. Thus I am excused from as you say "understanding" them.

You claim that you struggle with the "do not eat rats, cats, dogs bats" commands in Lev 11 and Is 66 -- where as I claimed that I see and read the text and understand the words and follow the instruction quite easily. You then argue that I should feel sad about following the text of scripture so quickly.

There you go again. I already addressed this once before. I never claimed to be "struggling" with the text. Quite the contrary. The Spirit has not told me that I should obey this text and not eat swine. It is not a struggle, it is easy for me to read the text and eat swine because the Spirit has not enlightened me any different. But you cannot eat swine because the Spirit has enlightened you to abstain. It's easy for you and it's easy for me. There is no struggle.

It is more accurate to say that some - like me - "I could bear that truth" while others fall into 1 of three groups.

1. They understand the text but choose to rebel against it.
2. They do not understand the text due to a number of things - traditions, innexperience, lack of deeper study etc.
3. They don't have access to the information at all.

What group is those who have read the text but the Spirit has not enlightened them so they are excused from obeying the text? Is that group 2?

It is not up to me to judge as to which group they are in. My role is to "teach them all things that I have commanded you" Matt 28:20

With the understanding that "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God" 2Tim 3:16

We are not arguing 2Tim 3:16. It really has no bearing on this topic. We both agree with 2Tim 3:16.

But your pov declares that a Christian can read the word of God which was inspired by the Holy Spirit and still not be held accountable if the Spirit did not also cause "enlightenment" as well. I find this pov odd, but it is what you believe.

Let's stay on point here.

Originally Posted by Steaver
There are Christians whom God has withheld this "enlightenment"



According to your POV that is the case. But God says that the Spirit convicts of sin and righteousness and judgment and that He gives people the understanding that they can bear - some will still choose to reject what He tells them.

What?? This has been your entire argument from the beginning! It is not my pov, it is yours.

You keep interjecting this argument that "some will choose to reject". Let's be clear (to use a popular Obama phrase) this conversation is not about those who hear and understand but CHOOSE to reject. Our subject is those who hear and do not understand BECAUSE the Spirit has NOT enlightened them to obey and therefore are excused from the command. There is no choice involved.

Again "making stuff up" is not helping your argument as much as you might have at first imagined. Many Catholics are worshipping God using images in their services and praying to the dead. Many of those same Christians will be in heaven some day. When you spin their darkness into "God wanted them to be in darkness" you simply blame God for an aspect of human nature and free will and the actions of those who are misdirected by the traditions of men.

We are not speaking of "human nature" for God is greater than human nature. We are not speaking of "traditions of men" for God is greater than traditions of men.

What have we been speaking of?

We are speaking of your doctrinal pov that declares the Spirit "enlightens" some Christians when they read the word and does not "enlighten" other Christians when they read the same word of God. And this NOT because any wrong doing on the part of the Christian doing the reading or hearing. But because God has chosen NOT to enlighten them.

This is your pov from the beginning and is why I said, "
It seems odd to me that God would not want a Christian to know that adultery and drunkeness are wrong."

Indeed. As I have said from the start (while you have complained about it all the way through) my place is not to judge the condition of another.

Well you keep judging me. You keep telling me that I am "choosing" not to understand. According to your pov you should "understand" that it is not that I am choosing to not understand, but rather that I have NOT been given the Holy Spirit "enlightenment" that you preach of.

That is because you choose to blame God for the effects of the traditions of men and how those traditions blind men to the truth.

Don't you see how you are arguing against your own pov? Are you telling me that the Spirit cannot break through the traditions of men? God can "enlighten" any person He so chooses. And when God does "enlighten" a person they are then Accountable for making a choice. However, we are not speaking of those who have been "enlightened". We are speaking of those born of God Christians who you say have not been enlightened. Not because God cannot break through traditions of men, that is just silly, but because God has chosen not to enlighten them according to your pov.

No I should not because I have no idea as to whether God has chosen to enlighten you on this or not.

Then why do you keep saying that I choose not to understand?

I'll tell you once again and will trust that you will not judge me a liar. God has not enlightened me that swine eating is forbidden for me. Does that make me special, I don't know. I don't know why God would enlighten you to not eat swine and not do the same for me. MAybe He finds you more special.

I always understood from the NT scriptures that God wanted His children to be of one accord. Yet you preach that God makes choices as to who should obey a particular commandment and who should not. (Remember, we are speaking of your pov that God does not enlighten all Christians to obey all truths all the time, we are NOT speaking about traditions blinding Christians or Christians making choices not to obey)

This makes no sense to me, but evidently it makes perfect sense to you. I am merely pointing out that your pov seems odd to me.

 

[BobRyan]

Christ said "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" John 16.

James says "To him that KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4

Christ said "IF you were blind you would not have sin - but you say that you see - so your sin remains" John 9:41

Thus the fiction that everyone with a Bible just so happen to all have the same understanding of what the Bible says - of what truth is -- is pure fiction.
Originally Posted by steaver

This has been your red-herring you keep posting. It does not exist.


The scriptures I gave are very clear - you simply choose not to understand them - thus making my point.

In Heb 5 Paul says "by now you should be a teacher (of the Word) but you are like babes that have come to need milk again" Heb 5:11-12

Obviously - I make the point that simply reading the text of scripture is not going to guarantee that people admit to and accept what the scripture says. (as we see above in the case of scripture given above showing that not all people will understand the same thing -- not all are at the same level of understanding).

Thus you have just made my point. You have just judged that I "simply choose not to understand them".

Now tell me again how you do not sit in God's seat passing judgment on the heart of Steaver?

You are the one choosing to ignore the texts I just gave you -- in your response above. I am simply pointing to that "detail".

According to your pov I could be one of those who God has not "enlightened" to the scriptures you say "are very clear". But you dismiss your own pov and declare the heart of Steaver "chooses not to understand them".

This is actually a key difference in our models.

You like to blame everything on God saying "I was not enlightened" (presumably "by God").

In my list of options for those who do not simply accept God's Word and obey it - not one of them was of the form "because God chose not to let them see the truth".

But you have come up with that option repeatedly.

Now this is the key difference. In a Calvinist model - God is ultimately responsible for every less-than-perfect act of man. Thus you can keep responding "so God chose not to enlighten them?" or "God chose not to enlighten me?".

But in the Arminian model - people are responsible for their own actions. Thus they may be influenced by the traditions of men - and then be slow to accept Bible truth - but that is not a case of God "choosing to make them slow" - as so many Calvinists would have it.

See how you are condescending? This is because you reject your own doctrine that the Spirit is not working along with your "helping" or preaching of the word.

Again your efforts to blame God for the condition of man are noted.

Good Calvinism.

But never offerred as one of my models here.

The Spirit has not enlightened me that the scriptures you are presenting are to be applied the way you are applying them.

I am more than happy to agree that you are using your Calvinist model to blame your actions on God "the Spirit has not enlightened me".

But now let's look at my model - and not keeping circling back to your model - when evaluating my model.

1. They understand the text but choose to rebel against it.
2. They do not understand the text due to a number of things - traditions, innexperience, lack of deeper study etc.
3. They don't have access to the information at all.

And then predictably you simply ignore the model I give - -and circle back to your own model

What group is those who have read the text but the Spirit has not enlightened them so they are excused from obeying the text? Is that group 2?

In your efforts to blame the Holy Spirit - you miss the John 16 text saying "I have many MORE things to tell you but you cannot bear them now - the Holy Spirit of TRUTH will GUIDE you into all truth". He does now "firehose you into truth" so that everyone has the same level - but He "guides" as each person makes their free will choice to either be led by the Holy Spirit or they find some excuse to reject his day-by-day leading. His role is to lead into truth - but you argue that since Christ "had many MORE things to tell them but they could not receive it" that this meant the Holy Spirit was simply arbitrarily NOT leading them into truth (in the blame God for all results model you are using).

But in the calvinist model there is only 1 scenario "God cause man to do something wrong"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Then why do you keep saying that I choose not to understand?

Because rejection of a truth - or blindness due to man-made-tradition etc is not an act of God - it is an act of man.

I point you to a clear text of scripture saying that rats,cats,dogs,bats are not "food" not "to be eaten" in fact "not edible" -- and you come back wtih "God has not enlightened me" - blaiming God even though you see in God's Word that He says it is not to be eaten.

I'll tell you once again and will trust that you will not judge me a liar. God has not enlightened me that swine eating is forbidden for me. Does that make me special, I don't know.

No more special than the Catholic who reading the 2nd commandment claims that God is not telling them to stop using images in worship.

Or the Catholic who reading Is 8:19-20 still wants to claim that "communion of the saints" is ok no matter what Isaiah says.

Nothing really "special" about that - it is as ordinary as rain.

I don't know why God would enlighten you to not eat swine and not do the same for me. MAybe He finds you more special.

If there is a way to pin this on God - I am sure a Calvinist model will find a way to do it.

Remember, we are speaking of your pov that God does not enlighten all Christians to obey all truths all the time, we are NOT speaking about traditions blinding Christians or Christians making choices not to obey)

This makes no sense to me,

Not a single one of my models was of the form "some people do not accept what they read in scripture because God does not enlighten them".

My model does not start the way yours does - blaiming God.

The model I use was stated as having these three options for not following what is plainly stated in scripture -

1. They understand the text but choose to rebel against it.
2. They do not understand the text due to a number of things - traditions, innexperience, lack of deeper study etc.
3. They don't have access to the information at all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a simple illustration.

You want to teach your child math at all levels. You are trying to teach your child Algebra but it is slow going - they resist the exercises draggin their feet through each one. Now a Calvinist comes along and says "I see you have refused to teach your child Calculus". And indeed it is true - you are not firehosing them with Calculus because that is pointless until you can get them through algebra.

But the calvinist wants to "blame you" - when in reality it is an issue of free will - and guiding your child step by step. It has nothing at all to do with you arbitrarily choosing not to teach them calculus.

But in the Calvinist model - that is exactly the problem they want to paint for you.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Not a single one of my models was of the form "some people do not accept what they read in scripture because God does not enlighten them".

My model does not start the way yours does - blaiming God.

The model I use was stated as having these three options for not following what is plainly stated in scripture -

1. They understand the text but choose to rebel against it.
2. They do not understand the text due to a number of things - traditions, innexperience, lack of deeper study etc.
3. They don't have access to the information at all.


in Christ,

Bob

Under which option or options is a Christian excused for not obeying according to your pov?

Under which option is "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" John 16. ?


:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

In the case of John 16 - we have the slow plodding model where the traditions of the Jews were so embedded in the Disciples thinking that even though they were fully engaged in full time ministry serving Christ - they had no clue that he was about to die for their sins. They were in the middle of the greatest event of all of time - and could not see the forrest for the trees.

How sad that man-made tradition should have such a hold on a disciple of Christ who served in the visible presence of Christ Himself.

And yet the theif on the cross -- though he starts out cursing Christ with the other theif - soon turns in response to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and confesses faith in the dying Savior.

Even Christ's own Mother did not see that clearly while she watched him hanging on the cross.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

In the case of John 16 - we have the slow plodding model where the traditions of the Jews were so embedded in the Disciples thinking that even though they were fully engaged in full time ministry serving Christ - they had no clue that he was about to die for their sins. They were in the middle of the greatest event of all of time - and could not see the forrest for the trees.

in Christ,

Bob

This is indeed a good example of John 16. The reader will notice that this is information which the disciples "could not yet bear" and is not any command for holy living or for honoring God.

Now could you answer my questions?

Under which option or options is a Christian excused for not obeying according to your pov?

Under which option is "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" John 16. ?

 

[BobRyan]

In your efforts to blame the Holy Spirit - you miss the John 16 text saying "I have many MORE things to tell you but you cannot bear them now - the Holy Spirit of TRUTH will GUIDE you into all truth". He does now "firehose you into truth" so that everyone has the same level - but He "guides" as each person makes their free will choice to either be led by the Holy Spirit or they find some excuse to reject his day-by-day leading. His role is to lead into truth - but you argue that since Christ "had many MORE things to tell them but they could not receive it" that this meant the Holy Spirit was simply arbitrarily NOT leading them into truth (in the blame God for all results model you are using).

But in the calvinist model there is only 1 scenario "God cause man to do something wrong"

My argument is that we are called to share the truth of God's Word with others and to believe that He is in God's chair knowing who is accountable for what.

Though the idea of "playing God" so as to know just exactly who is responsible for what - is a tempting idea.

But Christ gives us some information on it here -
Christ said "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" John 16.

James says "To him that KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4

Christ said "IF you were blind you would not have sin - but you say that you see - so your sin remains" John 9:41

And Paul tells us about Christians who are in the dark
In Heb 5 Paul says "by now you should be a teacher (of the Word) but you are like babes that have come to need milk again" Heb 5:11-12

 

[steaver]

My argument is that we are called to share the truth of God's Word with others and to believe that He is in God's chair knowing who is accountable for what.

Though the idea of "playing God" so as to know just exactly who is responsible for what - is a tempting idea.

But Christ gives us some information on it here -
Christ said "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" John 16.

James says "To him that KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4

Christ said "IF you were blind you would not have sin - but you say that you see - so your sin remains" John 9:41

And Paul tells us about Christians who are in the dark
In Heb 5 Paul says "by now you should be a teacher (of the Word) but you are like babes that have come to need milk again" Heb 5:11-12

That's very nice.

Now back to the last exchange of our conversation.

You had said;

The model I use was stated as having these three options for not following what is plainly stated in scripture -

1. They understand the text but choose to rebel against it.
2. They do not understand the text due to a number of things - traditions, innexperience, lack of deeper study etc.
3. They don't have access to the information at all.

I have asked these two questions;

1) Under which option or options is a Christian excused for not obeying according to your pov?

2) Under which option is "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" John 16. ?

Possible answers would be (1) (2) (3) or maybe none of the models you have given.

Then we can move our debate foward. Is there a reason you don't want to answer these questions?

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

as I already stated - 3 basic models for not doing what God has commanded.

The model I use was stated as having these three options for not following what is plainly stated in scripture -

1. They understand the text but choose to rebel against it.
2. They do not understand the text due to a number of things - traditions, innexperience, lack of deeper study etc.
3. They don't have access to the information at all.

Obviously 3 is a candidate for Christ's rule "if you were blind you would have no sin"

As I also pointed out

But Christ gives us some information on it here -
Christ said "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" John 16.

James says "To him that KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4

Christ said "IF you were blind you would not have sin - but you say that you see - so your sin remains" John 9:41

And Paul tells us about Christians who are in the dark
In Heb 5 Paul says "by now you should be a teacher (of the Word) but you are like babes that have come to need milk again" Heb 5:11-12

In the same way option 1 is clearly placing the sinner in the hot seat of accountability "you say you see - your sin remains".

2 - has many shades of gray - God is fully capable of sorting that out as well.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

as I already stated - 3 basic models for not doing what God has commanded.

Obviously 3 is a candidate for Christ's rule "if you were blind you would have no sin"

As I also pointed out

In the same way option 1 is clearly placing the sinner in the hot seat of accountability "you say you see - your sin remains".

2 - has many shades of gray - God is fully capable of sorting that out as well.

in Christ,

Bob

How does this answer my very pointed questions?

I am not asking about John 9.

I asked about John 16.

I see nowhere in this post where you answered my question about John 16.

Is there a reason you will not answer?

I have asked twice now and you reply about other scriptures.

You gave three models. I simply want to know where John 16 falls into one of your three options.

1) Under which option or options is a Christian excused for not obeying according to your pov?

2) Under which option is "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" John 16. ?

:jesus: