Who has not failed?

[BobRyan]

Do you believe one can have the Law written on the heart and mind and still be ignorant as to what the Law requires or actually means?

If yes, then what do you see is the advantage of having the Law written on the heart as opposed to just reading what has been written on paper?

:jesus:

In Gal 5 we are told that the fruit of the Spirit "love, joy, peace, kindness..." is the fruit that will be seen in all of those who are born-again.

That includes the Romans 2 group who have no access at all to the Word of God yet "do instinctively the things of the law - showing the work of the law of God written on their heart".

In Matt 22 Jesus' pre-cross gospel reminds us that the Law of God is based on two eternal principles

Love for God (Deut 6:5)
Love for our neighbor (Lev 19:18)

This is also going to be "written on the heart" of the born again saint NT or OT whether they can read or not... whether they are verbally instructed on that point by another human -- or not.

It was true of the OT saints before there even was a Bible and it is still true today.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

In Gal 5 we are told that the fruit of the Spirit "love, joy, peace, kindness..." is the fruit that will be seen in all of those who are born-again.

That includes the Romans 2 group who have no access at all to the Word of God yet "do instinctively the things of the law - showing the work of the law of God written on their heart".

In Matt 22 Jesus' pre-cross gospel reminds us that the Law of God is based on two eternal principles

Love for God (Deut 6:5)
Love for our neighbor (Lev 19:18)

This is also going to be "written on the heart" of the born again saint NT or OT whether they can read or not... whether they are verbally instructed on that point by another human -- or not.

It was true of the OT saints before there even was a Bible and it is still true today.

in Christ,

Bob

Thanks for responding Bob, but my questions were not directed as to whether the Law could be written on the heart, either OT or the NT.

I am focusing on the very act itself, no matter if it is pre-cross or post-cross.

Do you believe one can have the Law written on the heart and mind and still be ignorant as to what the Law requires or actually means?

If yes, then what do you see is the advantage of having the Law written on the heart as opposed to just reading what has been written on paper?

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

According to Romans 2 "the very act" is something done by the Holy Spirit.

And in Hebrews 8 God says "he does it" claiming "I will write My Laws on their heart".

as Paul says in 2 Cor 5 "if anyone is IN CHRIST he IS a NEW CREATION".

The new birth work of the Holy Spirit writes the law of God on the heart (and in the case of Romans 2 extreme example vs 14-16 -- it is done EVEN in the case of someone who has no access at all to the Word of God).

Such a person will be "convicted by their conscience" as Romans 2 points out - but they will not be "infallably informed" about every detail in the law of God - and so God makes it clear in James 4 that "To him that KNOWS to do right and does it not - to HIM it is sin". It is not as if any NT writers argue that once you are born again "throw scripture out the window".

Christ Himself states to his disciples in John 16 "I have MANY more things to teach you but you are not able to bear them now"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

According to Romans 2 "the very act" is something done by the Holy Spirit.

And in Hebrews 8 God says "he does it" claiming "I will write My Laws on their heart".

as Paul says in 2 Cor 5 "if anyone is IN CHRIST he IS a NEW CREATION".

The new birth work of the Holy Spirit writes the law of God on the heart (and in the case of Romans 2 extreme example vs 14-16 -- it is done EVEN in the case of someone who has no access at all to the Word of God).

Such a person will be "convicted by their conscience" as Romans 2 points out - but they will not be "infallably informed" about every detail in the law of God - and so God makes it clear in James 4 that "To him that KNOWS to do right and does it not - to HIM it is sin". It is not as if any NT writers argue that once you are born again "throw scripture out the window".

Christ Himself states to his disciples in John 16 "I have MANY more things to teach you but you are not able to bear them now"

in Christ,

Bob

Thanks Bob :thumbsup: I think I understand where you are coming from here.

Here is one thing I do not understand in your theology;

How can a born again child of God read a commandment from the scriptures, say the one "do not steal", and God not convict them that this command is to be obeyed? And thus that Christian goes about his life taking what is not his, having no conviction and he is not held accountable for it by God, because God "did not yet reveal unto him the truth" of what he has been plainly reading in the scriptures concerning this command?

You say that if the Christian reads a portion of God's word and does not obey it, it could be possible that God withheld conviction of this portion of His word and therefore the Christian would not be held accountable for the disobedience. Correct?

Why would God want to blind some of His children from obeying some commands? Does He want some of His children to steal, lie or deceive?

I am trying to apply some logic to your pov. It doesn't make sense to me that God would want to withhold truth from His children. They may read the commandment but God blinds them so they do not obey and then excuses them for not obeying. Does this make sense to you?

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks Bob :thumbsup: I think I understand where you are coming from here.

Here is one thing I do not understand in your theology;

How can a born again child of God read a commandment from the scriptures, say the one "do not steal", and God not convict them that this command is to be obeyed? And thus that Christian goes about his life taking what is not his, having no conviction and he is not held accountable for it by God, because God "did not yet reveal unto him the truth" of what he has been plainly reading in the scriptures concerning this command?

There is an easy way to see that on this very board.

Take the commandment not to make any graven images and use them in worship. Do you really think that "no Catholic Christian" has ever read that commandment??

Christ said "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" one of those things was the Acts 10 deal with Peter and Gentiles.

You say that if the Christian reads a portion of God's word and does not obey it, it could be possible that God withheld conviction of this portion of His word and therefore the Christian would not be held accountable for the disobedience. Correct?

If they could bear it - I am sure God would lead them to it. But their own bias, attachment to human tradition etc blinds their eyes.

Why would God want to blind some

There is no "God blinded someone" in the discussion so far. Not coming from me.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Steaver;
You say that if the Christian reads a portion of God's word and does not obey it, it could be possible that God withheld conviction of this portion of His word and therefore the Christian would not be held accountable for the disobedience. Correct?

If they could bear it - I am sure God would lead them to it. But their own bias, attachment to human tradition etc blinds their eyes.

in Christ,

Bob

So if we apply your answer to Paul's situation prior to his encounter with Jesus, for this is what led us to this discussion, then you would say Paul was not enlightened/convicted by God that hating Christians was the sin of murder because God decided Paul "could not bear it" at that time?

 

[BobRyan]

Not sure why God did not press the point with Peter in Acts 10 about the Gospel going to gentiles - long before that time.

Did God really have that hard a time convincing an Apostle that "God so loved the World"??

As for Saul thinking that God hated heresy and wanted the Jews to rid themselves of those who were guilty of blasphemy - that is not too hard to "imagine". After all if that carpenter from Nazareth was not in fact GOD - then he and his followers were guilty of blasphemy. And as tempting as it is for us to "Assume" that everybody would accept a carpernter from Nazareth as "God" but of course not a Carpenter from Jersey as "God" -- we need to stop and think about how it looked to people actually living at that time.

The issue is not as mysterious as you may have at first imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Not sure why God did not press the point with Peter in Acts 10 about the Gospel going to gentiles - long before that time.

Did God really have that hard a time convincing an Apostle that "God so loved the World"??

As for Saul thinking that God hated heresy and wanted the Jews to rid themselves of those who were guilty of blasphemy - that is not too hard to "imagine". After all if that carpenter from Nazareth was not in fact GOD - then he and his followers were guilty of blasphemy. And as tempting as it is for us to "Assume" that everybody would accept a carpernter from Nazareth as "God" but of course not a Carpenter from Jersey as "God" -- we need to stop and think about how it looked to people actually living at that time.

The issue is not as mysterious as you may have at first imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

I read this over at least three times. Maybe I am missing it, but is this an agreement that the reason Saul was not enlightened by God (concerning the commandment of murder) until the meeting with Jesus on the road to Damascus is because God decided Saul "could not yet bear it"?

You keep bringing up Peter from Acts 10. What commandment of the Law do you see Peter disobeying due to lack of enlightenment?

:jesus:

 

[DHK]

Galatians 2:11-13 But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before some people came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy; so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

Peter stood condemned for his hypocrisy. His example of the sin of hypocrisy even caused Barnabas to be carried away in this same sin. Though a decision had been made to treat all in Christ equally, Peter still treated the Jews better than the Gentile Christians. That was the height of hypocrisy.
Paul said:
I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
Those are strong words.

 

[steaver]

Not sure why God did not press the point with Peter in Acts 10 about the Gospel going to gentiles - long before that time.

Did God really have that hard a time convincing an Apostle that "God so loved the World"??

in Christ,

Bob

Well, it took Peter seeing the vision three times before he accepted the fact that Gentiles would be saved and eating pigs was not a sin. Peter was a bit hard headed. Some today are still rejecting God's vision to Peter. Paul covered this under the weak in faith (Romans 14)

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

I read this over at least three times. Maybe I am missing it, but is this an agreement that the reason Saul was not enlightened by God (concerning the commandment of murder) until the meeting with Jesus on the road to Damascus is because God decided Saul "could not yet bear it"?

Free will being what it is.

You keep bringing up Peter from Acts 10. What commandment of the Law do you see Peter disobeying due to lack of enlightenment?

:jesus:

Love your neighbor as yourself. Lev 19:18 comes to mind.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well, it took Peter seeing the vision three times before he accepted the fact that Gentiles would be saved and eating pigs was not a sin. Peter was a bit hard headed. Some today are still rejecting God's vision to Peter. Paul covered this under the weak in faith (Romans 14)

:jesus:

The text does not mention pigs.

It deal with rats, cats, dogs, horses, snakes, mice etc.

And Peter never does start chewing on rats in that story.

But when Peter does do - is tell the story to others 2 or 3 times and each time he informs them about the big deal of the Gospel going to gentiles. He never gets around to the "rat sandwich" theme when he retells the story - that so many get focused on.

I am guessing that when the plague was going around in Europe - it was a good idea to "avoid rat sandwiches" though I can imagine that that came as hard news to some of the peasants.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

The text does not mention pigs.

It deal with rats, cats, dogs, horses, snakes, mice etc.

And Peter never does start chewing on rats in that story.

But when Peter does do - is tell the story to others 2 or 3 times and each time he informs them about the big deal of the Gospel going to gentiles. He never gets around to the "rat sandwich" theme when he retells the story - that so many get focused on.

I am guessing that when the plague was going around in Europe - it was a good idea to "avoid rat sandwiches" though I can imagine that that came as hard news to some of the peasants.

in Christ,

Bob

Tell me Bob, what special blessing do you believe you are you going to receive in heaven for abstaining from eating pig?

Does it bother you at all that I, a pig eater, is going to receive eternal life just the same as a Christian non-pig eater?

So what if you do not eat pig? What's the point?

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

Tell me Bob, what special blessing do you believe you are you going to receive in heaven for abstaining from eating pig?

You never can predict just where/when the blessings may come. Obedience to the Word of God is kind of funny that way.

Does it bother you at all that I, a pig eater, is going to receive eternal life

Not in the least. I do not obey God's Word "because someone else will get punished if they don't".

That reason does not enter my equation at all.

But as for that future day of judgment mentioned in Isaiah 66 -- there is a certain negative outcome "for someone" who is "eating mice and detestible things" stated in that chapter - and predicted to take place on the day of God's judgment of mankind.

So far be it from me to predict "doom" for everyone who prays to the dead, or uses images or idols in worship, or eats mice as if God wanted them to do that ...

I still think that Isaiah 66 points to some who "do know better". And as James says "to the one that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin".

I am free to pass along the warning - but even so I fully expect to see a lot of people in heaven - that in fact prayed to Mary and a number of other dead people in this life.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[THEOLDMAN]

I've gotta know....the ONE person who has not broken one of the ten commandments since rebirth............were you rebirthed yesterday...or maybe TOday ???

 

[BobRyan]

Is that for HP? or are you saying that praying to the dead is not all that bad?

 

[steaver]

But as for that future day of judgment mentioned in Isaiah 66 -- there is a certain negative outcome "for someone" who is "eating mice and detestible things" stated in that chapter - and predicted to take place on the day of God's judgment of mankind.

So far be it from me to predict "doom" for everyone who prays to the dead, or uses images or idols in worship, or eats mice as if God wanted them to do that ...

I still think that Isaiah 66 points to some who "do know better". And as James says "to the one that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin".

I am free to pass along the warning - but even so I fully expect to see a lot of people in heaven - that in fact prayed to Mary and a number of other dead people in this life.

in Christ,

Bob

But the "warning" you pass can only be received by those who the Spirit chooses to "enlighten".

I have read Isaiah 66 dozens of times and have heard you "warn" dozens of times, yet since I have not been "enlightened" by the Spirit that I should not eat pig I get a free pass.

You on the other hand believe you have received "enlightenment" from the Spirit that you shall not eat the pig less you be cast into hell with a mouth full of bacon. Maybe you are special and have been set apart from most other Christians.

I actually feel blessed that God has allowed me to eat bacon, ham, porkdogs, etc, etc. I have been given quite a wide variety of food sources while you have been limited more than the average person. Maybe it is I who is blessed more than thee. :thumbsup:

I don't really see the point in your "warnings". I have heard you, yet nothing from the Spirit. Go figure.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

I've gotta know....the ONE person who has not broken one of the ten commandments since rebirth............were you rebirthed yesterday...or maybe TOday ???

The only explanation I can think of is...

Mat 18:20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver asks if I will be upset in the least to see all the many Christians in heaven who paid no attention to those "eat no mice" instructions that we find in places like Isaiah 66.

Does it bother you at all that I, a pig eater, is going to receive eternal life Not in the least. I do not obey God's Word "because someone else will get punished if they don't".

That reason does not enter my equation at all.

But as for that future day of judgment mentioned in Isaiah 66 -- there is a certain negative outcome "for someone" who is "eating mice and detestible things" stated in that chapter - and predicted to take place on the day of God's judgment of mankind.

So far be it from me to predict "doom" for everyone who prays to the dead, or uses images or idols in worship, or eats mice as if God wanted them to do that ...

I still think that Isaiah 66 points to some who "do know better". And as James says "to the one that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin".

I am free to pass along the warning - but even so I fully expect to see a lot of people in heaven - that in fact prayed to Mary and a number of other dead people in this life.

But the "warning" you pass can only be received by those who the Spirit chooses to "enlighten".

I have read Isaiah 66 dozens of times and have heard you "warn" dozens of times, yet since I have not been "enlightened" by the Spirit that I should not eat pig I get a free pass.

Well that may be. My prayer for all is that they follow as God leads them and that they go to heaven.

If that is done - I am more than satisfied.

You on the other hand believe you have received "enlightenment" from the Spirit that you shall not eat the pig less you be cast into hell with a mouth full of bacon. Maybe you are special and have been set apart from most other Christians.

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 actually feel blessed that God has allowed me to eat bacon, ham, porkdogs, etc, etc. I have been given quite a wide variety of food sources while you have been limited more than the average person. Maybe it is I who is blessed more than thee. :thumbsup:

I believe that there are a number of people in Asia eating rats, cats, dogs and bats even to this day that would fully agree with you on that point.

Nothing would please me more than to see happy Christians in heaven.

But as for "ignoring the Word of God" - I am one of those who are not content to go down that road. I did not write the warnings found in scripture - I merely "read them".

I don't really see the point in your "warnings".

Correction - the sentence above would make "me" the author of scripture. I did not write Isaiah 66 or Lev 11. I am pretty clear on that whenever I report what God has said there.

I have heard you, yet nothing from the Spirit. Go figure.

:jesus:

Turns out - the Holy Spirit is the author of scripture according to 2 Pet 1:21.

Another detail that seems to get lost in that story of yours.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Steaver asks if I will be upset in the least to see all the many Christians in heaven who paid no attention to those "eat no mice" instructions that we find in places like Isaiah 66.

in Christ,

Bob

That is not what I asked at all. We are not speaking of those who "paid no attention". I have paid attention to all of God's word. You have taken the position that one can read God's word and NOT be enlightened and therefore not held accountable for a particular command.

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", something one has no control over, it is up to the Spirit to do this on whom He chooses, according to your pov.

But as for "ignoring the Word of God" - I am one of those who are not content to go down that road. I did not write the warnings found in scripture - I merely "read them".

Here again, we are not speaking about "ignoring the Word of God". We already established in our conversation that your pov is that Saul was not "ignoring the Word of God" but simply had NOT been enlightened and therefore is excused.

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.

Correction - the sentence above would make "me" the author of scripture. I did not write Isaiah 66 or Lev 11. I am pretty clear on that whenever I report what God has said there.

But 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.

Turns out - the Holy Spirit is the author of scripture according to 2 Pet 1:21.

Another detail that seems to get lost in that story of yours.

Are you now changing your argument? This seems to be something one holding my pov would say. For I believe once a person reads God's word they indeed have been "enlightened" and are indeed held accountable for what they have read. The Spirit is ALWAYS working with the Word revealing truth to God's children. Not just picking and choosing who gets to be "enlightened" and who does not.

Are you changing your pov now?

:jesus: