Jefferson said:
Are you sure you want to do this? You would be conceding to one of my main points.
Jefferson, this point is that Christians are
legally without sin in the eyes of God--that's a clearly stated doctrine. The part that is disputable is whether or not future acts that would have been sin were you not saved are counted as sin, legally speaking, in God's eyes. On the other hand, if you were arguing that Christians are not capable of wrongful acts, I would dispute you. (I know--you're not arguing that).
Under those definitions, whether or not you are considerd a "sinner" ... yes, I'm sure that I do not want to tangle with this issue: and if that requires conceding the point, then I certainly have no problems doing so.
I stated that the “one” who uses the law in First Timothy 1:8 is a believer. But verse 9 says he is not supposed to use the law for himself (“the law is not made for a righteous person”). So who is the Christian commanded to use the law for? It’s obvious by the context that the Christian is commanded to use the law for the unbeliever.
Only in the English. Let us look at 1 Tim 1:8 in the Greek again:
Oidamen de oti kalos 'o nomos ean tis auto nomimos cretai,
"We know that the law is beneficial if a certain one himself lawfully uses it.
It's a technically correct translation ... but it's not really precise enough in one word. The word "auto" means "himself", true enough ... but the case is
dative, which means that this word is the recipient of the action of the sentence.
A more accurate translation would be:
"We know that the law is beneficial if a certain one lawfully uses it
to or for himself,
After clarifying the side issue of my doctrine of Christians and “sin” in their lives you are responding to this central issue of mine with “I’m going to take a pass on this.” Are you sure you want to pass on one of my central arguments?
Yes, I am, because this issue is based on the 1 Tim translation--which as you see, is reflexive. "The law is beneficial if a man uses it for himself." This is not a command to impose or judge others by the law: this is a command to restrain oneself.
But what about Christian congressmen? What standard should they use when deciding what laws are moral and what laws are immoral, someone else’s standard other than their own Bible-based standard?
In America, a Congressman swears or affirms the following:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Part of "faithfully discharge the duties of the office" is to make and maintain laws within the bounds of the Constitution, and of US law. If a Christian feels that they cannot serve in that capacity and make laws based on the Constitution, then that Christian has taken the Oath of Office under false pretenses.
Splendid, but completely off-topic. I never argued that your claim was a priori--I was refuting your claim that my rejection of the Bible was "a blind leap of faith."
You may be able to provide evidence that you believe is compelling to you but that is a far thing from proof. Without proof you ultimately have to take a blind leap of faith. It may be faith based on evidence but it is still faith nevertheless. It’s the same with my faith. It’s faith based on evidence.
Jefferson, your own scriptures deny this definition of faith (Heb 11:1). Please do not take me for a fool--I've tried that in the past, and found it to be a rather uncomfortable circumstance.
How do you reconcile the contradictory statements that the law was rendered idle but yet God will use this supposedly idle law to judge people? If it’s rendered idle then how can God use it on Judgement Day?
How do
I reconcile it? Jefferson,
I don't. Remember, I hold that your Bible is the work of men, not of God.
My point is there is a huge percentage of the American public who think the murder of Terri Schaivo was a moral act. So much for the “We don’t need the Bible because everyone knows murder is wrong” argument.
That's because that portion of the population does not believe that Terri Schiavo's death was murder. So much for "We need the Bible because everyone knows that abortion and end of life are murder." You Christians can't even get that straight amongst yourselves, and you want to impose your views on Christian and non-Christian alike?
The Queen of Sheba was impressed by Solomon’s application of God’s law in First Kings 10:9 – “Blessed be the Lord your God, who delighted in you, setting you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord has loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness."
Jefferson, I've already stated that the Bible is not historically accurate. It's ... difficult in the extreme to expect a debate opponent to accept an inaccurate source as "historical proof."
They are biblical. God has given everyone a conscience. The agreement nonchristians have on moral issues with Christians is due to the conscience the Christian God has given them.
OK, so in that instance, every law that agrees with the Bible--no matter if it came first,m or came from a culture that has never read a Bible--is a Biblical law? But what of those cultures whose laws do not agree? Oh, I forgot--those are cultures where "God has given them over to their sinful desires."
Jefferson, that's not evidence of anything but a false dilemma in your doctrine. "Mans laws agree with Gods laws because God wrote those laws on their conscience. And when those laws don't agree, man's laws are because of their sinful desires."
Jefferson, one who "rightly divides the word of God" will clearly see that the Law is one piece, and annot be separated into ceremonial and legal compartments. If this were not so, then homosexuality would not be classified with the same word--"abomination"--as eating shellfish.
That’s a logical fallacy. It’s like saying that because envy and murder are both sins and since murder is a crime, that therefore envy should be a crime also. Those 2 things
can be separated.
Oh, they certainly
can be separated--indeed, one could choose to separate the "not" from the phrase "thou shalt not." But such separations are modern doctrines--they are not provenanced in scripture.
What disobedience in the church? 2 Cor. 19:4-5 speaks of a time after the church’s “obedience is fulfilled” So who’s DISobedience is Paul referring to?
First and foremost, be careful of the typos--that's the second time you've cited that passage as "2 Cor 19." (Yeah, I know, the keys are too close together ... I do it to.
)
Secondly, Paul is speaking of coming into the church at Corinth like a man attacking the city. He will come into the church and demolish the strongholds of their false doctrine and the arguments and pretentions of their false prde, and establish their obedience as a conqueror puts down rebellion. Having done so, he will then punish those who set up the false doctrines, as the conqueror--now in control of the rebelling city--punished those who rebelled against him.
READ THE PASSAGE, Jefferson--it's all right there in black and white. This is Paul's warning to the church at Corinth: "Please straighten up your behavior before I get there, because I would rather be meek with you when I come. But if I have to be bold when I arrive, I will wipe away every defense that you have."
Finally, consider First Cor. 6:2,3: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?” Verse 2 shows that one day in the future we will judge nonchristians. Verse 3 implies therefore start practicing today.
Jefferson, that has got to be the single most dishonest attempt at "exegesis" I've seen on this forum.
Read the context: Paul is trying to get the Corinthians to stop dragging matters between brethren to the city courts. Verse 4 clearly states that the matters Christians are judging are matters
between Christians.
Jefferson, in that last quoted passage, you've shifted from questionable logic to outright dishonesty. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: kindly do not make the mistake of taking me for a fool.
