Zwingli was also a murderer

I am able to distinguish the later group. However, in the "rating" of sin (for a lack of a better term) we see that the consiquences are different. And in respect to this observation I questioned you how do you distinguish one sin from another. You referrenced Torah. However, Torah is a specific thing it is Law, or a body of teachings, a compendium encompasing the first five books of the bible, its also the contract, covenant between God and a specific group of people. Namely the Jews. In this Covenant the promise is clearly defined in the second giving of the law or teaching.

Thus Ha Torah is a specific Covenant with the people of Israel and blessing and cursings go with it according to the contract. This is a national covenant with obligations and duties assigned civily. Jesus institutes a new covenant for all peoples that go beyond civil obedience into the realm of the spirit. Thus the two covenants are not equal. And sin is looked at differently as well. Thus civil punishments are temporal as in Torah but Spirit punishments are eternal and that is what I'm conserned about. Fornication will lead to the second death whereas in Torah its barely even wrong! Thus for us I wonder how we gauge sin that leads to death (second death). Torah isn't sufficient in telling us entirely which was my point which maybe poorly construed. However, hopefully you see why I am asking it.

 

In the Sermon on the mount it is sufficiently clear that the Torah was the basis which Jesus used to define sin and this is especially clear in Matthew 5:20-46.


Mt. 5:21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.



Hence, "the law" (Rom. 3:20) is the knowledge of sin and sin is violating of "the law" (1 Jn. 4:6) and that "law" is summarized in the Torah's summation of the ten commandments (Deut. 6:5-6):

Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.


Mt. 19:16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Compare the wording and response of Jesus to both of these men and you are forced to conclude that Jesus believed that the ten commandments were summarized rightly according to the Lawyers summary in Luke 10 because Jesus in Matthew 19 quoted from that part of the ten commandments having to do with relationships between men and then ended with the same summary conclusion of the last five commandments "thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself."

 

You don't classify sin. Accordingly all wrong things in the Torah is sin and it is "sin that leads to death". But not according to Nazaroo. He classifies sin and it is this I'm trying to get him to expound on. How does one classify sin into the "sin that leads to death" and the "sin that does not lead to death." It is in this context I suggest Torah, which Nazaroo uses to show varying punishment indicative of the classification of sin, is insufficient. My suggestion based on what Torah is and the the level to which Jesus increases the severity of action in regard to the Torah, is that Torah is not sufficient to help us determine what classification sin fall under with regard to this. Not that Torah is the baises of determining what is and is not sin.

 

My point is that Jesus the interpreter of the Torah did not define sin any differently under the New Covenant as under the Old Covenant as Ten commandments and the summary of the ten commandments remains the standard for defining sin under both.

Secondly, the interpreter of the Torah (ten commandments and summary) distinguished between eternal death for sin in general - gehenna and degrees of punishment for sins in particular in gehenna.


Lu 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Lu 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

De 25:2 And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number.

Hence, the principle of "according to" is certainly found in the Torah

 

Not really--#10 merely affirms the necessity of prevenient grace (consistent with Orange in AD 529), and #17 says nothing about Predesination/Election being unconditional. There is no specific affirmation of limited atonement, irresistable grace, or unconditional, inevitable perserverence of the saints in the Articles. (In other words, in terms of soteriology the Articles are just as compatible with classical Arminianism.)

 

So you think classification of sin that "leads to death" and "leads not to death" is expressed in Torah based on the varing punishments given? Lets look at the Old Testiment treatment of fornication

based on the consiquences of this activity it seems this would be a sin that "leads not to death". There is no indication of severity of condemnation other than the monetary value of it. However the New Testiment treats fornication in this manner.

and further

It is quite clear the severity it is treated with in the NT. Certainly a sin "that leads to death". If you are saying something else let me know.

 

Those things may be true of some Anglicans, but certainly not all of them, Nazaroo.

By no means all Anglican churches use the 1980 Alternative Service Book. Some use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, such as St. Mary's Winkfield, Berkshire, UK, who say: "We use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer at all our Morning Prayer and Communion services and take our readings from the King James version of The Bible." Some use Common Worship, which has now, I understand, replaced the ASB, and some with RC tendencies use the 1912 English Missal. (For example, St Chad's in Bradford, UK, who say: "Worship is Traditional Anglo-Catholic in nature - we use the English Missal at most Masses.") There may be some who use the 1928 prayer book - a quick browse shows me that there are several Anglican churches in the US that use the American 1928 Book of Common Prayer, but there is also a British version. I don't know (because I don't have a copy to refer to) what you meant when you described the ASB as "gay".

Certainly it is quite wrong to suggest that all Anglican churches use The Message as their bible translation. For example, St. Michael's, Cornhill, London: "We use the Authorised (King James) version of the Bible (1611) and the Book of Common Prayer (1662)." St. James's, Barton-under-Needwood: "We use the New International Version of the Bible in the weekly services and use other versions when desirable." If I had enough time, I could probably have found examples of Anglican churches using the NKJV, the RSV, and maybe even The Message.

A few Anglican churches have services for "blessing" animals (either pets, or farm animals, or both), but is not true that all Anglican churches do this. I wasn't sure whether by "unclean pets" you meant pets that are dirty, or pets that are among those animals listed in Leviticus as ceremonially unclean, such as lizards, mice and camels (I haven't heard of anyone keeping a camel as a pet though! )

Some churches within the Anglicanism started "ordaining" women, and some as you say began "ordaining" h*mosexuals, but again, not all do.

But if you feel as you do about the Anglican denomination, I wonder why you stay in it. How can you be a member of a church which (in your view) uses a bible translation you disagree with, uses the wrong form of liturgy, ordains the wrong people to the ministry, and has been taken over by "fags"? (That last one had me confused for a while! Here, "fag" is either a slang word for "cigarette", or in boarding schools, a younger pupil who does menial chores for an older one. But neither of those made much sense in your context, so I looked it up in a dictionary, and found that in your country it is an offensive slang term for a h*mosexual).

One minor point: If you use words like "hom*sexual" on the BB, it is a good idea to replace one letter with an asterisk. I think I'm right in saying that Google automatically places adverts based on the content of the page.

 

So what do you say is the 'sin that leads to death'? Do you subscribe then to a Catholic-style concept of there being mortal and venial sins?

 

No, I do not subscribe to the Catholic-style concept at all. One sin is sufficient to damn a soul to gehenna and many sins are sufficient to increase the suffering of that soul "according to" the works committed.

When God deals with his children's sin according to chastening (Heb. 12:5-10) there are various PRESENT degrees of inflictions all the way up to and including physical death. Children of God who blantanly continue in their sin in spite of obvious chastening by God are not subjects for our prayers for forgiveness as there can be no let up in chastening as long as a person continues in sin in the face of obvious chastening.

 

But do they thus forfeit their salvation? Are we talking spiritual death or merely physical death here?

 

Merely physical death.

 

The preceding context assures us that God will answer anything we pray for as long as it is "according to his will." However, when a brother continues in sin unresponsive to chastening by God it is not God's will to pray for the Lord to spare that person from the ultimate consequences of chastening which is taking the physical life of a brother. The reason is that chastening is designed to turn the child of God from their sin or else the chastening continues until either the child is turned or results in the ultimate present physical consequences - physical death.

 

I guess this is where we are talking over each other. "Sin that leads to death" in my mind is the second death rather than a mortal death. Is our understanding here different? And sorry I don't get

You can fornicate occasionally its ok but if you do it all the time you're done for? I need this explained.

I guess at the end of the day what I want to know is how you catagorize sin. What catagories do you establish. What determination do you make in the selection of what sin fits in what catagory. Simply Saying it says in Torah means nothing because Torah was a civil law as well as a moral law.

 

Carson Wells: Do you have any idea how damn crazy you are?
Anton Chigurh: You mean the nature of this conversation?
Carson Wells: I mean the nature of you.

dialog taken from the movie "No Country For Old Men" ..... sound a little familiar? :laugh:

 

What if I fornicate today, repent tomorrow, fall into temptation and fornicate again on Sunday, repent on Monday, fornicate on Tuesday, etc? Does it make a difference to my salvation whether I physically then die on Saturday or Sunday? I need to know this before I start calling the local hookers...