quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

All sin must be removed from the account of the sinner. Once removed, through new sin, it can accumulate again. The remedy for those sins that occur after one is born again, is aknowledgment, repentence, restitution (if possible) and prayer.

So yes, you are indeed saying that Jesus did not atone for all sin on the cross?

If I, a born-again, washed in the blood believer, walk out of this building.. cross the street and think an impure thought and then immediately get smashed by a truck.... I am now dead and eternally separated from God?

Is that what you're saying?

"Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." [James 5:19-20]

YOU tell ME what it says.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

You will not read that in scripture nor in my post.

Then what are you saying? And don't copy and paste. I know what you said, but since I apparently misunderstood you, can you elaborate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

You will not read that in scripture nor in my post.

Then what are you saying? And don't copy and paste. I know what you said, but since I apparently misunderstood you, can you elaborate?

See [post #48]

quote:

(every1needsgod) Theo, why can't you answer a simple, kind-hearted question?! I asked you not to copy and paste. Is this really how you debate? I can obviously go back and read your posts. I have, which is why I have also asked another question. This is what is called "debating".

You gave me a Scripture verse. BIG DEAL! That answers NOTHING. ANYONE can twist ANY Scripture verse to say ANYTHING they want it to. Giving me a Scripture verse does not clarify your position one bit. It often makes it more obscure, because half the time they are out of context. So again, I ask you to please elaborate on your point. You said that I misunderstood you, and if so, can you please explain exactly what I misunderstood? Is this too much to ask from you?

quote:

(theo) All sin must be removed from the account of the sinner.

quote:

(theo)Once removed, through new sin, it can accumulate again.

quote:

(theo)The remedy for those sins that occur after one is born again, is aknowledgment, repentence, restitution (if possible) and prayer.

quote:

(earthless) So yes, you are indeed saying that Jesus did not atone for all sin on the cross?

quote:

(earthless) If I, a born-again, washed in the blood believer, walk out of this building.. cross the street and think an impure thought and then immediately get smashed by a truck.... I am now dead and eternally separated from God?

Is that what you're saying?

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

Theo, thank you for answering my questions. Though I strongly disagree with your beliefs. But another question, if you could be so kind.. have you participated in the Eternal Security/OSAS one stop thread?

I ask because I do not want to further derail this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

Theo, thank you for answering my questions. Though I strongly disagree with your beliefs. But another question, if you could be so kind.. have you participated in the Eternal Security/OSAS one stop thread?

I ask because I do not want to further derail this thread.

Never heard of it.

quote:

This is a reference to the fact ALL sin was forgiven at the cross. The sins committed during the old testament systems, were forgiven looking forward to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. This also included all the sins in the New Testament that preceded the death of Christ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

Theo:

I too would like to thank your for for participation and clarification. And I do agree with earthless. This topic can obviously go no further. But I do thank you for clearifying your position and cleaning up any misunderstandings I had. However, I would like to comment on one quote of yours that I think does not deviate too much.

quote:

This is a reference to the fact ALL sin was forgiven at the cross. The sins committed during the old testament systems, were forgiven looking forward to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. This also included all the sins in the New Testament that preceded the death of Christ.

This is simply wrong, in my opinion, and I hope you just slipped up on you diction. All sins were PAID FOR, not forgiven. The difference is this. When Jesus died, He died to save ALL mankind. That is, He died to give everyone an equal chance. But His death did not forgive everyone's sins. His death forgave only the sins of those who place their trust in Him. But, maybe this is not what you believe, and perhaps you honestly believe that Jesus actually forgave every man's sins, period. If this were so, everyone would be saved, and this would make you a universalist, hence the reason I brought this to attention. If I have misunderstood you, could you explain where?

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

Theo:

I too would like to thank your for for participation and clarification. And I do agree with earthless. This topic can obviously go no further. But I do thank you for clearifying your position and cleaning up any misunderstandings I had. However, I would like to comment on one quote of yours that I think does not deviate too much.

quote:

This is a reference to the fact ALL sin was forgiven at the cross. The sins committed during the old testament systems, were forgiven looking forward to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. This also included all the sins in the New Testament that preceded the death of Christ.

This is simply wrong, in my opinion, and I hope you just slipped up on you diction. All sins were PAID FOR, not forgiven. The difference is this. When Jesus died, He died to save ALL mankind. That is, He died to give everyone an equal chance. But His death did not forgive everyone's sins. His death forgave only the sins of those who place their trust in Him. But, maybe this is not what you believe, and perhaps you honestly believe that Jesus actually forgave every man's sins, period. If this were so, everyone would be saved, and this would make you a universalist, hence the reason I brought this to attention. If I have misunderstood you, could you explain where?

You did not misunderstand me. I mis spoke. You are correct, I just got sloppy careless. Jesus "PAID THE DEBT" is correct. It is through that paid debt sin is forgiven, but that is not the same thing.

Thank you for pointing that out.

quote:

"pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart" (2 Tim. 2:22)

"Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm" (1 Tim. 1:5-7)

"having faith and a good conscience" (1 Tim. 1:19)

"Likewise, deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a good conscience" (1 Tim. 3:8,9)

"speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron" (1 Tim. 4:2)

quote:

"For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it" (Deut. 30:11-14)

quote:

"For Christ is the end of the law (i.e. goal/purpose to which it pointed) for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, 'The man who does those things shall live by them.' But, the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, 'Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say?

'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart' (that is, the word of faith which we preach)."

(Romans 10:4-8)

and

"How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

'How beautiful are the feet of those
who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good
things!'

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our report?'

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, have they not all heard?


Yes, indeed:

'Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world' (Psalm 19)

(Romans 10:14-18)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic

An initial observation about the OP:

The word "guilt" is often used in two different senses in everyday discourse:

1) The objective truth that such and such crime/offense was committed. In other words, it's the "fact" that some evil/transgression has occurred.

2) The subjective response by the criminal/offender over the crime/offense committed.


Now with this distinction in mind, I want to say that the second, "subjective" sense of guilt, is not really "guilt" at all. Instead, we normally reserve this concept under the term contrition/remorse.

A person can lack the "subjective" feeling of contrition/remorse....yet, nonetheless, still be objectively "guilty" of some crime/offense. We often call such a person a "hardened" criminal because he/she no longer experiences the accompanying subjective feelings before and after committing criminal acts; or those feelings are so negligible as to be ineffective as a determent of future criminal behavior.

The bible uses a similar idea, translated into English as "hardness of heart". In the Gospel of Matthew (13:10-17), for instance, Jesus addresses the disciples about their concern over His speaking to everyone in parables. The summary of Jesus' response is that He spoke in parables so that those who were true seekers would continue to inquire of Him the meaning of His teaching; indicated in vs. 12 "whoever has, to him more will be given". And, of course, speaking in parables allowed the Lord to speak freely without arousing the suspicions and hatred of Jewish and Roman authorities.

But, specifically, Jesus gave an answer as to why certain people do not understand Him:

"For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing and their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them". (Matt. 13:15)

This passage is not teaching that the Lord Jesus Christ is being deceptive; nor does it teach that Christ would exclude anyone from the salvation that He is offering. After all, in Matt. 23:37 He weeps "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem....often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing".

And that's the rub of the predicament of those whose "ears are hard of hearing..etc.": they are not willing to hear. If Jesus had told them openly the things that He kept hid in parables, it would have done no good to the "hardened". Perhaps akin to "throwing pearls before swine". It might have even been spiritually harmful to them, similar to St. Paul's analogy of feeding with milk and meat (1 Cor. 3:1,2)

In fact, the case of Pharoah is a good example of this. His heart hardened towards God. It also says that "God hardened Pharoah's heart"; but the phrase "God hardened Pharoah's heart" should be understood to mean that the "mercy" that God extended to him only made his condition worse; not that God was withholding His love or mercy from Pharoah. It was precisely His mercy that did harden Pharoah!! As it's been said that "the same Sun that melts wax also hardens mud".

The epistle of St. Paul to Timothy says much the same thing, concerning the the "inner" eye of the heart:

quote:

"pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart" (2 Tim. 2:22)

"Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm" (1 Tim. 1:5-7)

"having faith and a good conscience" (1 Tim. 1:19)

"Likewise, deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a good conscience" (1 Tim. 3:8,9)

"speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron" (1 Tim. 4:2)

So, from a "legal" and "social" standpoint, people understand that there are some citizens who lack "heart"; or are "heartless" (i.e. sociopathic types).

And from the standpoint of the bible, Christians understand that some people lack the willingness to perceive and believe God (i.e. reprobates).

In both of these standpoints, the issue is not the absence of "intellectual" perception of crime/offense. Rather, it's the lack of the appropriate response from a person's deep center (i.e. heart/conscience). And it's this "center" by which we perceive God. And it's by God that we receive the subjective feeling of having done something wrong; much like how our nerves tell us that our hand is hovering directly over an open flame.

And this "center" (i.e. heart/conscience), is the "image" of God within us.

That is why the Old Testament can say this, concerning the Law:

quote:

"For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it" (Deut. 30:11-14)

That is why the New Testament can say this, concerning the Gospel:

quote:

"For Christ is the end of the law (i.e. goal/purpose to which it pointed) for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, 'The man who does those things shall live by them.' But, the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, 'Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say?

'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart' (that is, the word of faith which we preach)."

(Romans 10:4-8)

and

"How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

'How beautiful are the feet of those
who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good
things!'

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our report?'

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, have they not all heard?


Yes, indeed:

'Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world' (Psalm 19)

(Romans 10:14-18)

In Western/Latin theology, the resolution of men's sinful "hearts" (i.e. hardened hearts), is cast in legal/juridical notions: "justification", "propitiation", "judgment", "substitutionary atonement" (i.e. divine bailout), "imputed righteousness", emphasis on "eternal punishment" (i.e. consequences), etc.

And there is a truth to the legal/juridical model. But it's false and damning to make that model be the exclusive and/or most important way to understand God and man.

Understand that this theological "school" came out of the Roman Empire; an Empire whose significant cultural contribution, among others, was it's "legal" system. And since Rome occupied the Mediterranean at the time of the New Testament era, it shouldn't be surprising that the language of the New Testament writers was flavored with legalese.

However, this isn't the only way to understand God and man. The Byzantine/Eastern tradition, even up to this day, favors the medicinal/therapeutic model (i.e. emphasis on God as the Great Physician, the church as the hospital, and man as "sick" patient). See here for a good summary of this: Ancestral vs. Original Sin

To specifically address the OP's question:

Who says that criminal defendants aren't allowed to "judge" themselves? After all, some criminals do commit suicide in lieu of their crimes (i.e. Hitler and the Columbine shooters). Others, having evaded the police, sometimes do turn themselves in.

However, the "criminal" is the one whom the "victim" is attempting to exact justice. The legal system is in place to ensure that such justice is "fair" and "equitable" for all parties concerned. And, in the legal system of the U.S., a case is not left in the hands of any one person. Rather, justice is parceled out between the defense, the prosecution, the jurors and the judge. All parties contribute to the "justice" of a case.

Hope this helps and God bless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

All societies understand why a criminal defendant is not allowed to judge his own guilt. That's because the interests of a criminal defendant is in saving his own skin. So he cannot be considered credible enough to judge whether or not he deserves death.

God is the judge because he made His laws. So only God can determine who broke them and who didn't. Yet most human beings feel qualified to sit in judgment of God and themselves. That's because we humans are all sitting in the criminal defendant's chair on judgment day, trying to save our own skin. That's also why the biggest complaint about God by humans is that he sentences people to eternal death. So since most humans are trying to save their own skin, they can't be honest enough to judge their own guilt. However, a judge is much more likely to be merciful if a defendant admitted his guilt and felt remorse for it. But even earthly judges will sentence a criminal to death if he committed a crime that mandates death by law.

Not so with God. God will pardon every crime if we simply admit it as a crime, feel remorse for it and accept His forgiveness. But if we can't even be honest enough to do that, then God has no recourse but to punish us since He will not allow himself to be mocked forever or he'd be a wimp and not to be respected. But he can't punish us until we die because he gives each of us 365 days times the number of years we live to confess and repent. So he can't punish us until and the last second of our lives which makes our punishment eternal. No earthly judge is that lenient with any lawbreaker.

So those of you who are quick to criticize God need to look at the thousands of times you've broken God's laws in your lifetimes before you're qualified to judge God.

quote:

Great insight - good post all around

quote:

ORIGINAL: Butterflytearz

A child of God does not defend his own guilt but rather confesses it and repents, Even if the consequences of our sin kill us,,, Jesus can make you whole again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic

An initial observation about the OP:

The word "guilt" is often used in two different senses in everyday discourse:

1) The objective truth that such and such crime/offense was committed. In other words, it's the "fact" that some evil/transgression has occurred.

2) The subjective response by the criminal/offender over the crime/offense committed.


Now with this distinction in mind, I want to say that the second, "subjective" sense of guilt, is not really "guilt" at all. Instead, we normally reserve this concept under the term contrition/remorse.

A person can lack the "subjective" feeling of contrition/remorse....yet, nonetheless, still be objectively "guilty" of some crime/offense. We often call such a person a "hardened" criminal because he/she no longer experiences the accompanying subjective feelings before and after committing criminal acts; or those feelings are so negligible as to be ineffective as a determent of future criminal behavior.

The bible uses a similar idea, translated into English as "hardness of heart". In the Gospel of Matthew (13:10-17), for instance, Jesus addresses the disciples about their concern over His speaking to everyone in parables. The summary of Jesus' response is that He spoke in parables so that those who were true seekers would continue to inquire of Him the meaning of His teaching; indicated in vs. 12 "whoever has, to him more will be given". And, of course, speaking in parables allowed the Lord to speak freely without arousing the suspicions and hatred of Jewish and Roman authorities.

But, specifically, Jesus gave an answer as to why certain people do not understand Him:

"For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing and their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them". (Matt. 13:15)

This passage is not teaching that the Lord Jesus Christ is being deceptive; nor does it teach that Christ would exclude anyone from the salvation that He is offering. After all, in Matt. 23:37 He weeps "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem....often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing".

And that's the rub of the predicament of those whose "ears are hard of hearing..etc.": they are not willing to hear. If Jesus had told them openly the things that He kept hid in parables, it would have done no good to the "hardened". Perhaps akin to "throwing pearls before swine". It might have even been spiritually harmful to them, similar to St. Paul's analogy of feeding with milk and meat (1 Cor. 3:1,2)

In fact, the case of Pharoah is a good example of this. His heart hardened towards God. It also says that "God hardened Pharoah's heart"; but the phrase "God hardened Pharoah's heart" should be understood to mean that the "mercy" that God extended to him only made his condition worse; not that God was withholding His love or mercy from Pharoah. It was precisely His mercy that did harden Pharoah!! As it's been said that "the same Sun that melts wax also hardens mud".

The epistle of St. Paul to Timothy says much the same thing, concerning the the "inner" eye of the heart:

quote:

"pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart" (2 Tim. 2:22)

"Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm" (1 Tim. 1:5-7)

"having faith and a good conscience" (1 Tim. 1:19)

"Likewise, deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a good conscience" (1 Tim. 3:8,9)

"speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron" (1 Tim. 4:2)

So, from a "legal" and "social" standpoint, people understand that there are some citizens who lack "heart"; or are "heartless" (i.e. sociopathic types).

And from the standpoint of the bible, Christians understand that some people lack the willingness to perceive and believe God (i.e. reprobates).

In both of these standpoints, the issue is not the absence of "intellectual" perception of crime/offense. Rather, it's the lack of the appropriate response from a person's deep center (i.e. heart/conscience). And it's this "center" by which we perceive God. And it's by God that we receive the subjective feeling of having done something wrong; much like how our nerves tell us that our hand is hovering directly over an open flame.

And this "center" (i.e. heart/conscience), is the "image" of God within us.

That is why the Old Testament can say this, concerning the Law:

quote:

"For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it" (Deut. 30:11-14)

That is why the New Testament can say this, concerning the Gospel:

quote:

"For Christ is the end of the law (i.e. goal/purpose to which it pointed) for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, 'The man who does those things shall live by them.' But, the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, 'Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say?

'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart' (that is, the word of faith which we preach)."

(Romans 10:4-8)

and

"How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

'How beautiful are the feet of those
who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good
things!'

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our report?'

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, have they not all heard?


Yes, indeed:

'Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world' (Psalm 19)

(Romans 10:14-18)

In Western/Latin theology, the resolution of men's sinful "hearts" (i.e. hardened hearts), is cast in legal/juridical notions: "justification", "propitiation", "judgment", "substitutionary atonement" (i.e. divine bailout), "imputed righteousness", emphasis on "eternal punishment" (i.e. consequences), etc.

And there is a truth to the legal/juridical model. But it's false and damning to make that model be the exclusive and/or most important way to understand God and man.

Understand that this theological "school" came out of the Roman Empire; an Empire whose significant cultural contribution, among others, was it's "legal" system. And since Rome occupied the Mediterranean at the time of the New Testament era, it shouldn't be surprising that the language of the New Testament writers was flavored with legalese.

However, this isn't the only way to understand God and man. The Byzantine/Eastern tradition, even up to this day, favors the medicinal/therapeutic model (i.e. emphasis on God as the Great Physician, the church as the hospital, and man as "sick" patient). See here for a good summary of this: Ancestral vs. Original Sin

To specifically address the OP's question:

Who says that criminal defendants aren't allowed to "judge" themselves? After all, some criminals do commit suicide in lieu of their crimes (i.e. Hitler and the Columbine shooters). Others, having evaded the police, sometimes do turn themselves in.

However, the "criminal" is the one whom the "victim" is attempting to exact justice. The legal system is in place to ensure that such justice is "fair" and "equitable" for all parties concerned. And, in the legal system of the U.S., a case is not left in the hands of any one person. Rather, justice is parceled out between the defense, the prosecution, the jurors and the judge. All parties contribute to the "justice" of a case.

Hope this helps and God bless.

quote:


We are all punished for sin whether or not we are aware of the law. Those who don't know their master's will still be punished, although less severely. But a sin is a sin to God. As James says if we stumble just once, we are guilty of breaking the whole law. Only in man's eyes are there hierarchies of sin.

So the point is that no human being is qualified to judge God because we are the defendants in His courtroom.

And as far as suicide goes, those who commit suicide are claiming that God is a liar when he says he will not give us more than we can bear. And God is not a liar. So they obviously didn't trust God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deborlie
Judging God! Who are we, the created, to judge Him?

quote:

ORIGINAL: deborlie
He can do what He very well pleases and not ask us or tell us a thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
One can accept it but not want it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Decisions come from our least stressful option. Thus if one is ruled by the devil, his decisions will be made from being deceived by Satan. The Pharisees made "decisions" to obey God, but their hearts had not been washed by the Holy Spirit. So they did not truly repent because they washed only the outside of the cup by their own hands. True repentance is when the heart a