Zwingli was also a murderer

[David Lamb]

Only adults who commit mortal sins need salvation.

The bible tells us that all sins are mortal sins. Romans 6.23 doesn't say:
"For the wages of some sins is death," but "the wages of sin is death."

The division of sins into mortal sins and venial sins is a Roman Catholic doctrine.

 

[Nazaroo]

Nobody is born innocent. We are all born under the wrath of God. Children are in need of salvation as much as any adult. Salvation is deliverance from sin. Don't you pray for the salvation of young ones?

Nope.
Instead, I pray that children don't fall into your error,
by accidentally listening to you.

God's Law is clear.
And Justice is clear.
Appropriate punishment for appropriate crime.

A thief has to pay back 2fold or 4fold for instance, not something else.

An unplanned homicide gets banishment.
Planned murders can expect death penalty under eye for an eye.

 

[Nazaroo]

The bible tells us that all sins are mortal sins. Romans 6.23 doesn't say:
"For the wages of some sins is death," but "the wages of sin is death."

The division of sins into mortal sins and venial sins is a Roman Catholic doctrine.

Your teaching here is unfortunately erroneous.
It is similar to other Protestant errors, which are recent nonsensical 'magical thinking', and hence worthless.

For instance, many quote,
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Ezek. 18:20)
as if it supported your thesis that any sin no matter how small,
earns the death penalty.
But the original context of this saying,
which was never meant to stand alone
as a universal blanket statement,
shows that the meaning is this:

NO SUBSTITUTIONS,
and God DOESN'T punish the innocent for crimes done by the guilty.
Each person is responsible for his own crimes,
and God will not punish a father for the sins of a son, or vice versa.

In other words, the popular saying in Israel is wrong:
The children's teeth should NOT be set on edge
because the father ate sour grapes.

A careful read of the whole chapter 18 of Ezekiel
makes the true meaning of God's message here plain:

"The soul that sins, he shall die." means this:

"The one who commits the crime will die for it,
not someone else. That would not be true justice,
and that most certainly isn't GOD's justice."​

If God is going to punish,
He will punish the right person.
There will be no mistakes on Judgement Day.

 

[quantumfaith]

Nope.
Instead, I pray that children don't fall into your error,
by accidentally listening to you.

God's Law is clear.
And Justice is clear.
Appropriate punishment for appropriate crime.

A thief has to pay back 2fold or 4fold for instance, not something else.

An unplanned homicide gets banishment.
Planned murders can expect death penalty under eye for an eye.

Naz,

Should we then maintain "lex talionis" (sp) today? Should we stone homosexuals and adulterers and those belligerent to their parents?

 

[Nazaroo]

Naz,

Should we then maintain "lex talionis" (sp) today? Should we stone homosexuals and adulterers and those belligerent to their parents?

Who is "we"?

Are you a part of the appointed government (the THEOCRACY) of Moses?

If not, you have no mandate or authority to set yourself up as a law enforcement party.

The moral law never changes however, nor does the punishment.

Homosexuality is a death penalty offense.
Bestiality is a death penalty offense.
Cursing your parents is a death penalty offense. (Mark 7:10)
Jesus isn't kidding.
If you are ashamed of the Gospel, you may be shamed BY the Gospel.


God can enforce His own law.
He doesn't need you.
You can read about God enforcing His law daily in the paper,
after much patience and longsuffering.

You would be a fool to forget:

"Their foot shall slip in due time."

 

[David Lamb]

Your teaching here is unfortunately erroneous.
It is similar to other Protestant errors, which are recent nonsensical 'magical thinking', and hence worthless.

Do you mean that I was wrong to say that the bible teaches that all sins are mortal sins, or wrong to say that the division of sins into "mortal" and "venial" is a Roman Catholic doctrine? How are either of those things "magical thinking"?

For instance, many quote,
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Ezek. 18:20)
as if it supported your thesis that any sin no matter how small,
earns the death penalty.

Many may quote the Ezekiel verse, but I didn't. Strange, therefore, that you should spend the greater part of your reply to my post on Ezekiel 18.20, and not even mention the verse I did quote, Romans 6.23.

But the original context of this saying, which was never meant to stand alone as a universal blanket statement, shows that the meaning is this:

NO SUBSTITUTIONS, and God DOESN'T punish the innocent for crimes done by the guilty. Each person is responsible for his own crimes, and God will not punish a father for the sins of a son, or vice versa.

In other words, the popular saying in Israel is wrong: The children's teeth should NOT be set on edge because the father ate sour grapes.

A careful read of the whole chapter 18 of Ezekiel makes the true meaning of God's message here plain:

"The soul that sins, he shall die." means this:

"The one who commits the crime will die for it,
not someone else. That would not be true justice,
and that most certainly isn't GOD's justice."
​

If God is going to punish,
He will punish the right person.
There will be no mistakes on Judgement Day.

You seem to be arguing about something quite different to what I said. I said that all sins are, in God's view, "mortal sins" (that is, worthy of death). But in your treatment of Ezekiel 18, you seem to be talking about a different matter - one person not being punished for another's sin. Certainly no human being could take the punishment for another human being's sin.

However, you say that God doesn't punish the innocent for crimes done by the guilty, but praise Him, He does! Isaiah 53.10-11:

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.
​

And in 2 Corinthians 5.21:

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
​

If God didn't punish the innocent Saviour for the sins of His people, no one could go to heaven, for whether we commit headline-grabbing sins like murder, rape and big bank robberies, or whether our sins are known only to ourselves and God (such as not loving Him with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength and all our mind), we have sinned. We sin because we are sinners. We need a Saviour. The impression I got from reading your post is that you believe some people can go to heaven on their own merits.

But perhaps I have misunderstood the point you were trying to make, in which case, I apologise.

 

[Matt Black]

Nazaroo, I can't figure you out. Your profile states you're Anglican, yet you don't subscribe to Anglican soteriology but instead seem bent on resurrecting the Torah. Please explain yourself!

 

[David Lamb]

My mind goes right to God's word, given to Ananias:

"Carry on: for I have chosen him for Myself,
to bear My name to the nations and kings, and the descendants of Israel:
- for I will show him how greatly he must suffer for My name's sake." (Acts 9:15-16)
​

If I had just discovered I had been murdering God's saints,
by being struck blind by Jesus Himself,
and was left cowering and fasting in somebody's basement,
contemplating my heinous sins in the darkness,
and a man of God arrived with the above message after 3 days of abandonment,
I'd need a change of pants.

But Jesus said to Ananias: "I will show him (Paul) how greatly he must suffer for My name's sake," not "because he has been such a vile sinner." John the Baptizer, James, Peter, and other followers of Christ suffered for the sake of the Saviour

And Saul was not born again as Paul; he continued to be called Saul right up to Acts 13.9. That's some time after his conversion. There is no indication either that God implimented a change of name, as He had with Abram/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, Jacob/Israel, and so on.

Not really meaningful, so I haven't anything to say about name changes.

People usually change their name to hide their past lives.

But you did have something to say about a supposed name change; you wrote: "Saul was born again as Paul". That was the point I was answering. As for Saul/Paul wanting to hide his past life, that doesn't seem to tie in with the fact that he carried on being called Saul for some time after his conversion, or with the fact that he openly refers to his pre-conversion life several times, as for instance before King Agrippa, in Acts 26.9-11:

"Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities."
​

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Nazaroo, I can't figure you out. Your profile states you're Anglican, yet you don't subscribe to Anglican soteriology but instead seem bent on resurrecting the Torah. Please explain yourself!

Is there any such thing as an American Anglican? Ive never seen one....Apostate Episcopalians yes but this other thing, naaa.

 

[Matt Black]

Well, there are such beasts - Doubting Thomas is one such non-apostate. But the vast majority of right-thinking US Anglicans are leaving TEC and seeking alternative episcopal oversight on one form or another - it's complicated but basically they remain Anglicans, just not members of TEC. Nazaroo, however, is waaaay-leftfield even for the remaining libruls in TEC.

 

[Nazaroo]

Dear David (Lamb):

First of all, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my comments. I also thank the Lord for your continued good spirit and attitude, which I find to be sincere and open, and genuinely curious, as opposed to closedminded or argumentative.

I will try to answer your questions and continue below:

Do you mean that I was wrong to say that the bible teaches that all sins are mortal sins, or wrong to say that the division of sins into "mortal" and "venial" is a Roman Catholic doctrine? How are either of those things "magical thinking"?

I meant to say that the Bible does NOT teach that all sins are mortal sins. If Catholics also make a similar distinction to mine, great, but I couldn't care less. I strongly suspect however, that their definitions and their consequences are quite different than mine however.

God is first of all just, and His righteousness requires fairness, balance, and perhaps (but not necessarily), mercy. God cannot inhumanely punish the innocent unfairly, nor do I believe He could do so at all without explaining to a man how and why he was in error or in sin. 'The Law of the Lord is perfect.' (Ps. 19:7) If the Law of God is just, and yet "our Law does not judge a man until hearing him", (John 7:51) then we can expect God to be at least as fair and righteous as the Law which He gave us is.

God secondly, is merciful, and this implies from a practical viewpoint that sins are forgiven. What sins? The Bible indicates that almost EVERY sin can be forgiven (not that it will be!). Jesus said "every manner of sin will be forgiven EXCEPT blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 12:31-32) (It is obviously very important then to find out what that is, but I leave it for another time).

Third, some people were not forgiven. We are told that Judas, whose crime was the actual betrayal of Jesus unto torture and death, was lost. (Acts 1:16-26)

Men are not held accountable for what they do not know. The blind man did not know Jesus, but was not under any wrath. (John 9:35-36, and 9:3)

Men are accountable for what they DO know. (Acts 12:23)

The Law demands death for mortal sins (Heb. 10:28)

The Law demands less for lesser sins (Exod. 22:1)

The NEW Testament distinguishes between greater and lesser sins: "He who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11).

Not all sins lead to death, but some do. Some sins allow a man to be restored to the body of Christ (1st John 5:16). Other sins, including unrepentance, make a man an outcast, banished, or remove him from the fellowship of community of Christ.

Christian children, and probably all children, are born under the general grace of God, and are not under wrath or condemnation until they fall into serious sin. "else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. ." (1st Cor. 7:14)

Many may quote the Ezekiel verse, but I didn't. Strange, therefore, that you should spend the greater part of your reply to my post on Ezekiel 18.20, and not even mention the verse I did quote, Romans 6.23.

You seem to be arguing about something quite different to what I said. I said that all sins are, in God's view, "mortal sins" (that is, worthy of death). But in your treatment of Ezekiel 18, you seem to be talking about a different matter - one person not being punished for another's sin.

Certainly no human being could take the punishment for another human being's sin.

Agreed.
Therefore, who is Jesus? a human being?

However, you say that God doesn't punish the innocent for crimes done by the guilty, but praise Him, He does! Isaiah 53.10-11:

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.
​

And in 2 Corinthians 5.21:

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
​

If God didn't punish the innocent Saviour for the sins of His people, no one could go to heaven, for whether we commit headline-grabbing sins like murder, rape and big bank robberies, or whether our sins are known only to ourselves and God (such as not loving Him with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength and all our mind), we have sinned. We sin because we are sinners. We need a Saviour. The impression I got from reading your post is that you believe some people can go to heaven on their own merits.

But perhaps I have misunderstood the point you were trying to make, in which case, I apologize.

You are here discussing the concept of atonement, vicarious substitution, and remission of sins via penal suffering.

We'll leave that to one side for the moment, because it doesn't address the question of whether some sins are not mortal sins, or "death inducing" sins.

 

[Matt Black]

Just to answer one point: Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

 

[Nazaroo]

Nazaroo, I can't figure you out. Your profile states you're Anglican, yet you don't subscribe to Anglican soteriology but instead seem bent on resurrecting the Torah. Please explain yourself!

Actually, I'm easy to figure out.
Its just not convenient for those with an agenda.

I'm an Anglican (by birth, study, attendance, baptism),
who BELIEVES IN THE BIBLE (unlike most other Anglicans).

Unfortunately, that makes me not only unpopular in the world,
but also, not really surprisingly, unpopular among Anglicans too.

 

[Matt Black]

Yet your doctrine doesn't line up with Anglicanism or indeed evangelicalism (if that's what you imply by 'believing what the Bible teaches')...?

 

[David Lamb]

Just to answer one point: Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

I was about to say the same thing, Matt!

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Nazaroo]

The bible tells us that all sins are mortal sins.
Romans 6.23 doesn't say:

"For the wages of some sins is death," but
"the wages of sin is death."

The division of sins into mortal sins and venial sins is a Roman Catholic doctrine.

Well, first I disagree that the division and distinction between sins is merely a Roman Catholic doctrine. The Bible, especially the OT Law, makes a great many subtle distinctions between various sins.

This difference between individual sins (plural) and the category "SIN" (general, generic, inclusive, universal) is part of the reason for the confusion as to the meaning of Romans 6:23 etc.

Neither does Paul say,
"the wages of sins (plural) is death."

Paul first of all is here talking of all sin, sin as a type, a category, an identity, an abstract noun naming a whole group of activities with specific properties.

Paul would tell you, sin is known, and (adequately) defined by the LAW of God. We know instinctively a key difference between a CRIME (something forbidden by the criminal code of a country) and simply an obligation (something which is not forbidden, but has consequences). If I park my car, but the time runs out on the meter, through no fault of my own (I am delayed), I pay a parking ticket. I haven't committed a crime, its just a misfortune of circumstance. I agreed to the risk of a ticket when I parked my car. This doesn't mean I confessed I was a parking violator, or intended to overstay my parking time.

But even among crimes, we also have a God-given sense of fairness and justice: We don't cut off someone's hand for stealing, which is OVERpunishment. We could rightfully impose a 4-fold penalty for stealing, as a proper deterent to discourage stealing. It would also be wrong to simply make a man pay back what he stole, because this would not give him any reason not to steal again. God's law is perfect, meting out justice and mercy.

If we would not cut off a man's hand for simply stealing a loaf of bread, then God would not kill a man or throw him in hell for stealing the same loaf of bread:
"If you being evil know how to give good things to your own children,
how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him?" (Matt.7:9-11)
Jesus instruction would be absurd, and useless, and meaningless, if God wasn't kinder, more merciful, and greater in generosity than men:
"If you only have mercy on those who do so to you,
what reward can you expect? Even sinners do the same." (Matt. 5:46-47).
Jesus' teaching here would be worthless, if God were more cruel than men.

If God really were as petty, cruel, heartless and unrighteous as a man,
then Jesus' teaching is in vain, and angry atheists and blasphemers
who say God is unrighteous and cruel would be correct.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Dear David (Lamb):

First of all, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my comments. I also thank the Lord for your continued good spirit and attitude, which I find to be sincere and open, and genuinely curious, as opposed to closedminded or argumentative.

I will try to answer your questions and continue below:



I meant to say that the Bible does NOT teach that all sins are mortal sins. If Catholics also make a similar distinction to mine, great, but I couldn't care less. I strongly suspect however, that their definitions and their consequences are quite different than mine however.

God is first of all just, and His righteousness requires fairness, balance, and perhaps (but not necessarily), mercy. God cannot inhumanely punish the innocent unfairly, nor do I believe He could do so at all without explaining to a man how and why he was in error or in sin. 'The Law of the Lord is perfect.' (Ps. 19:7) If the Law of God is just, and yet "our Law does not judge a man until hearing him", (John 7:51) then we can expect God to be at least as fair and righteous as the Law which He gave us is.

God secondly, is merciful, and this implies from a practical viewpoint that sins are forgiven. What sins? The Bible indicates that almost EVERY sin can be forgiven (not that it will be!). Jesus said "every manner of sin will be forgiven EXCEPT blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 12:31-32) (It is obviously very important then to find out what that is, but I leave it for another time).

Third, some people were not forgiven. We are told that Judas, whose crime was the actual betrayal of Jesus unto torture and death, was lost. (Acts 1:16-26)

Men are not held accountable for what they do not know. The blind man did not know Jesus, but was not under any wrath. (John 9:35-36, and 9:3)

Men are accountable for what they DO know. (Acts 12:23)

The Law demands death for mortal sins (Heb. 10:28)

The Law demands less for lesser sins (Exod. 22:1)

The NEW Testament distinguishes between greater and lesser sins: "He who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11).

Not all sins lead to death, but some do. Some sins allow a man to be restored to the body of Christ (1st John 5:16). Other sins, including unrepentance, make a man an outcast, banished, or remove him from the fellowship of community of Christ.

Christian children, and probably all children, are born under the general grace of God, and are not under wrath or condemnation until they fall into serious sin. "else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. ." (1st Cor. 7:14)



Agreed.
Therefore, who is Jesus? a human being?



You are here discussing the concept of atonement, vicarious substitution, and remission of sins via penal suffering.

We'll leave that to one side for the moment, because it doesn't address the question of whether some sins are not mortal sins, or "death inducing" sins.

How do you distinguish between greater and lesser sin. the Greater being the sin that is Mortal and the Lesser not Mortal? And how do you determine the Punishment for the Lesser?

 

[Nazaroo]

Yet your doctrine doesn't line up with Anglicanism or indeed evangelicalism (if that's what you imply by 'believing what the Bible teaches')...?

It matters not to me who lines up.
Its whether or not what a man says is true that matters.
I have no "doctrine" fixed on tablets of stone.
I do have a Bible, that I trust can be intelligently
and spiritually interpreted and discerned.

If a teaching of the Bible finds itself in opposition to an Anglican or Evangelical,
who do you think is going to back down?
Pharaoh, or God?
Who do you think is going to get spanked, and who will be doing the spanking?
the Anglican, the Evangelical, or God?

I think this is going to make a good joke:
An Anglican, and Evangelical, and God, went to a tent meeting, and...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It matters not to me who lines up.
Its whether or not what a man says is true that matters.
I have no "doctrine" fixed on tablets of stone.
I do have a Bible, that I trust can be intelligently
and spiritually interpreted and discerned.

If a teaching of the Bible finds itself in opposition to an Anglican or Evangelical,
who do you think is going to back down?
Pharaoh, or God?

There is a fallacy in your argument. As can be seen abundantly clear from this site, the bible can be taken to mean various things by differing perspectives. In your statement it is clear you've made yourself to be the authoritative judge as to certain specific meanings of scripture which can be refutted using the same scripture against you. Certainly this is not Anglican and leans more evangelical or even fundalmenalist. Anglicans do have a repository of review Ie a traditional understanding of scriptures. So in essence what you are saying is really
" I have a bible that I trust can be intelligently
and spiritually interpreted and discerned - and if you disagree with MY interpretation then you are in opposition to the bible"

See how the fallacy works?

 

[Matt Black]

Indeed. Nazaroo, you really shouldn't be an Anglican if you don't for example, agree with this, as appears to be the case. If you want to be a 'Me, Jesus and My Bible'-type, then Anglicanism really isn't for you and you'd be better off starting your own little independent fundamentalist congregation, where you can be your own Pope and only people who agree with your peculiar interpretation of Scripture can join.