Zwingli was also a murderer

[Thinkingstuff]

This seems entirely wrongheaded to me.

You are able to distinguish:

(1) adultery from fornication.

(2) the death penalty from other penalties.

(3) the distinction in penalty in the Torah re: adultery vs fornication

(4) the Old Testament from the New Testament

(5) the teaching of Christ from the teaching of Moses

(6) death from life.

(7) the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom of earth.

But you are unable to distinguish:

(1) mortal life (limited to 120 years by God) vs. eternal life.

(2) the reward for obediance to Torah (a long life) vs. the reward for faith and obediance to Christ (eternal life).

(3) the penalty for severe disobediance to Torah (death) vs. the penalty for disobediance to Christ (the Second Death).

(4) laws, precepts, guidelines and instructions for Israelites in the Old Covenant vs. laws, precepts, guidelines and instructions for Christians in the New Covenant.

If you had these things clearly distinguished in your mind, based on the distinctions found in Holy Scripture,
you would not be confusing conditions regarding the New Covenant and Kingdom of Christ with conditions regarding the Old Covenant and life on earth.

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.

These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb...12That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day 13That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God... but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law...1And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:...15But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Are you really?

I'll give some items which you most certainly would have difficulty with. I really don't think you know the Articles as much as you claim you wish for a return to them. A number are quite Calvinistic.

#9 deals with Original Sin

#10 deals with No Free Will

#11 concerns itself with Justification

#17 regards Predestination and election

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.)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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

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

If a man ENTICES a virgin who is NOT BETROTHED (engaged), and lies with her, he shall surely PAY the bride-price for her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall PAY MONEY according to the bride-price of virgins.

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.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither FORNICATORS, nor idolaters, nor ADULTERERS, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

and further

Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

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.

 

[David Lamb]

See this is the funniest thing, if only it were a laughing matter.

I don't really know the 39 Articles as well as the hundreds of theologians who have disagreed about their meaning do.

But last time I read them, they seemed sensible to me.

(1) Trouble is, the Anglican leaders took the PrayerBook out of the pews, and replaced it with some gay thing called the "Alternative Services" book.

(2) Then, they took the KJV Bibles out from the pews, and replaced it with "the message".

(3) Then they ordained women, brought unclean pets and farm animals into the church for a blessing.

(4) Then, they started blessing gay homos*xual relationships.


(5) Finally, they started ordaining openly homo*xual men living in sexual union with other men, as 'priests'.

So the thing is, I really didn't change my beliefs at all that much from when I was a young Christian teenager. But somehow, the Anglican church got taken over by fags, while I was out looking for work.

From my perspective, its the Anglicans who aren't Anglicans.
I haven't really moved from the position that Bloomfield, Wordsworth, Canon Cook and Dean Burgon held in the 1800s.

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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?

1 Jn. 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Is this a New Covenant passage???? Is there a sin "unto death" and is there sin "not unto death"? John believes so!

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.

The New Testament does not treat fornication in an absolute sense as you suggest. Even you admit that forgiveness is available to the fornicator but that does not necessarily mean forgiveness removes all consequences of that sin and physical death might be such a consequence although eternal death cannot be as it is forgiven.

Moreover, these texts you refer to are those who are fornicators CHARACTERISTICALLY and not truely born again persons but manifestations of unregenerated professors of Christianity (tares) among the saved. Saved persons who sin cannot get away with it (Heb. 13:5-10).

 

[Matt Black]

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?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The New Testament does not treat fornication in an absolute sense as you suggest. Even you admit that forgiveness is available to the fornicator but that does not necessarily mean forgiveness removes all consequences of that sin and physical death might be such a consequence although eternal death cannot be as it is forgiven.

Moreover, these texts you refer to are those who are fornicators CHARACTERISTICALLY and not truely born again persons but manifestations of unregenerated professors of Christianity (tares) among the saved. Saved persons who sin cannot get away with it (Heb. 13:5-10).

I believe it does. And my point is that the OT has a different treatment with regard to Fornication than does the NT. OT does not treat fornication as a sin leading to death while the NT clearly does. The assumption is that it is unrepentant sin. OT treatement of Fornication isn't eternal damnation but an oversight in which you should pay the girl or the girls family off. The NT treatment of this behavior is castigation from the community of believers that can only be resolved by the Blood of Jesus Christ. Thus reliance on the Torah for classification of sin leading to death and not to death is tough at best. Certainly you don't hold that Fornication is not the same as sexual immorality? Do you hold that its permisable? I know some who call themselves Christian that do. Are you in that catagory?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I believe it does. And my point is that the OT has a different treatment with regard to Fornication than does the NT. OT does not treat fornication as a sin leading to death while the NT clearly does. The assumption is that it is unrepentant sin. OT treatement of Fornication isn't eternal damnation but an oversight in which you should pay the girl or the girls family off. The NT treatment of this behavior is castigation from the community of believers that can only be resolved by the Blood of Jesus Christ. Thus reliance on the Torah for classification of sin leading to death and not to death is tough at best. Certainly you don't hold that Fornication is not the same as sexual immorality? Do you hold that its permisable? I know some who call themselves Christian that do. Are you in that catagory?

I think perhaps you are confusing the civil application of the law in regard to the NATION of Israel and its government execution of the law with the justice of God in dealing with individuals directly apart from civil application.

For example, the civil application of justice for fornication may be comparable to judicial laws today but HUMAN CIVIL ADMINISTRATION of justice must be distinguished from God's JURISDICTION directly with individuals.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[Dr. Walter]

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

Merely physical death.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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

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.

 

[Nazaroo]

What I see is that the discussion is sliding all over the place, confusing instances, categories, types, apples and oranges.

You are using categories that are simply not relevant to the question at hand:

(1) Its not about Gentile vs. Jew. murder is sin for all.

(2) Its not about Covenant vs. non-Covenant. Thou shalt not steal.

(3) Its not about old Covenant vs. New Covenant: The moral Law stands forever. Murder is ALWAYS a sin.

(4) Its not about Torah vs. Jesus. The moral core of the Torah must be obeyed by Israelites, Christian or not.

(5) Its not about 'Roman Catholic' vs. 'True Christianity': The Bible made distinctions between death-penalty sins and non-death-penalty sins long before there were any popes.

(6) Its not about British-Israelism. That belief is not salvific nor mandatory, nor even relevant to most Christians, let alone applicable in discussions on sin and salvation.

(7) Its not about Anglican vs. Nazaroo: Anglicans can't even define their own version of Christianity. If we wait for that, we'll be waiting for hell to freeze over.

(8) Its not about old Dispensation vs. New Dispensation. God and His moral code is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

-----------------------------------------

Its about a few very simple facts:

(1) One of you rightly noted that Jesus DID set a HIGHER standard of Christian rules for living. But you didn't go anywhere intelligent with that.

Jesus did raise the bar, FOR CHRISTIANS, not for unbelievers, gentiles, Jews, barbarians or anyone else. Jesus and Paul DID codify new community rules and methods for solving disputes and meeting both community and individual needs. But none of that has any direct bearing on the Moral Law, except to compel Christians through the love of God to reach far HIGHER than the minimal requirements of the Law.

(2) You are misusing the New Testament as well. Its not that fornication as an act, or a sin, or an instance of immoral failure is now a "death-penalty" offense, or even a "Second-Death"-penalty offense. That never happened.

But one of you rightly observed that those who ARE adulterers, i.e., unrepentant, and who continue to live in adultery, risk remaining outside the New Covenant forever, and eternal damnation. And those who CONTINUE in fornication (which will obviously be accompanied by lots of other unspiritual and sinful behavior) that cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Committing fornication is not a "Second-Death"-penalty offense; but LIVING in fornication IS. Nor does this observation make a single act of fornication a "First-Death"-penalty offense. The Law hasn't changed, and God is not mocked or contradicted.

Don't confuse unrepentant, unregenerated behavior with death-penalty sins. The long lists in the NT are not all death-penalty sins in this life, but they ARE the outward signs and the fruits of unrepentant, unregenerated behavior. Paul is saying that those who do those things cannot possibly be real Christians, or expect salvation. They are still sinners.

The first letter of John rightly points out that even members in good standing of the Godly Body of Christ, the Christian community, are at risk of falling on their face. When they do, its not a joking matter, but neither is it inevitably a "Second-death" situation. Its a situation that requires immediate action by the community, and also action in the form of repentance as soon as possible by the guilty party. Why? because the longer a habit continues, the less likely it is to stop, and the farther away salvation and God is.

But the New Testament makes clear that we are to FORGIVE truly repentant brothers and sisters, and that we are to HELP them make amends and repair any damage, and that we are NOT to write them off as "predestined" to eternal damnation for supposedly committing a "Second-Death"-penalty offense.

The murdering robber on the cross was forgiven. The Eleven deserting Apostles were forgiven. Peter the denier was forgiven. Paul the murderer was forgiven. The woman taken in adultery was forgiven. Some of them committed "death-penalty" offenses under the Torah.
Some of them would have earned "Second-Death"-penalties, IF THEY CONTINUED IN THEIR SINS on an ongoing, habitual basis. But all of them were saved by repentence and in some cases preemptive forgiveness by the Redeemer. This takes place strictly speaking OUTSIDE the Law.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think perhaps you are confusing the civil application of the law in regard to the NATION of Israel and its government execution of the law with the justice of God in dealing with individuals directly apart from civil application.

For example, the civil application of justice for fornication may be comparable to judicial laws today but HUMAN CIVIL ADMINISTRATION of justice must be distinguished from God's JURISDICTION directly with individuals.

No I'm not confusing the two if you read my earlier post you would see that. However, Nazaroo attempts to classify sin based on Torah and the verses he use are civil applications to support his point of differing punishments for different offenses. I suggest and continue to suggest that Torah when viewed in this manner is inadiquate as a means of Classifying sin as to what is a sin that leads to death and sin that does not.

Maybe the confusion lies in that I understand "leads to death" as the second death and total seperation. Maybe you are understanding it just as a physical death. Since, there are difference in treatment of specific sin then I wonder how does one go about "classifying sin?" as to whether it leads to death or not.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Its about a few very simple facts:

(1) One of you rightly noted that Jesus set a HIGHER standard of Christian rules for living. But you didn't go anywhere intelligent with that.

Jesus did raise the bar, FOR CHRISTIANS, not for unbelievers, gentiles, Jews, barbarians or anyone else. Jesus and Paul DID codify new community rules and methods for solving disputes and meeting both community and individual needs. But none of that has any direct bearing on the Moral Law, except to compel Christians through the love of God to reach far HIGHER than the minimal requirements of the Law.

(2) You are misusing the New Testament as well. Its not that fornication as an act, or a sin, or an instance of immoral failure is now a "death-penalty" offense. That never happened.

But one of you rightly observed that those who ARE adulterers, i.e., unrepentant, and who continue to live in adultery, risk remaining outside the New Covenant, and eternal damnation. Its those who CONTINUE in fornication (which will obviously be accompanied by lots of other unspiritual and sinful behavior) that cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Nor does this observation make a single act of fornication a "First-Death"-penalty offense. The Law hasn't changed, and God is not mocked or contradicted.

Don't confuse unrepentant, unregenerated behavior with death-penalty sins.

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

Committing fornication is not a "Second-Death"-penalty offense; but LIVING in fornication IS.

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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:

 

[Matt Black]

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...