It's not my job to change your mind. That's the HS's job.
Has the Church Replaced Israel ?
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
It's your job to present a compelling argument, whether someone changes their mind or not.
Why are you even here on TOL, again?
The Holy Spirit won't override someone's will.
Weren't you just going on about how Calvinism is unjust?
I'm not going to abandon my position unless and until you can show it to be a falsehood.
You seemingly won't abandon your position no matter what anyone says to you, be it compelling or not.
Gary, if you were presented a compelling argument that your position was wrong, would you reconsider it?
I can't think of any compelling argument that you could make as you've been so rude I don't listen to you. Anything you say goes in one ear and out the other without pausing. so to speak. I've warned you time and timer again what the results of your rudeness are so why would you even ask?
You don't need the law to be evil, Gary, nor do you need it to be righteous.
This is super basic Christianity 101!
The idea isn't that there was no such thing as right and wrong but that there was no LAW, as in no government and no list of commandments. It is not necessary for their to be a rule hanging on the wall or on the books at the courthouse in order for it to be wrong for me to do intentional harm to my neighbor or to disregard my Creator.
Who cares what you don't support?
It is incredible to me the things you treat as though they are matters of personal opinion. Dispensationalism is either true or it's false. If it is false, then simply saying so wouldn't cut it, but it never occurs to you to even go so far as saying that it's false! Perhaps that's the case because you understand intuitively that you aren't capable of defending such a statement and so you instinctively avoid making such a claim so as not to embarrass yourself so blatantly. It is also possible, however, that its worse even than that. Perhaps you do more than just speak of things in terms of personal opinion. Maybe you actually do believe that dispensationalism is just one of a hundred personal opinions, one no more or less valid than another, at least not demonstrably so.
Does it ever even occur to you to think in terms of true and false?
If so, then why don't you ever make an actual argument?
If not, what are you doing here?
Nobody cares how you view scripture, Gary. Aren't you the one who debases your own idiotic views by coming here and publicly stating that you do not commit sin?!
I mean, you're literally, demonstrably, intentionally, publicly, proudly stupid. Why would anyone who has any familiarity with the bible whatsoever do anything but avoid your threads?
Clete
Last edited:
Nope. Not me.
Have you ever even read the bible at all?
Maybe start with Romans 10:14. Try to understand the point being made there. If you can't get it then just close the book and forget it. It's too hard for you.
Last edited:
No, that was Hoping. He's gone now.
Really? You're not the one who claims to no longer sin? Who was it then?
There's so many waste of time idiots on my ignore list that they get all mixed up sometimes. Not that it matters. Some birds have blue feathers, others have black.
Well, my apologies for clinging that particular piece of nonsense to your back.
Everything else I said holds.
Don't worry. I won't be holding my breath for a response longer than three syllables!
HOPING! Of course! What a clown he was.
Forget me for a moment.
If there was a compelling argument that was made by ANYONE that your position is wrong, would you be willing to change your position?
This is asking you if you're willing to be intellectually honest enough to admit when you're wrong.
Maybe you should consider why I'm being rude to you, and then listen. Or at very least, don't be dumb.
Yawn.
Aww, you're too nice!
To see if you're intellectually honest, Gary.
So far, you've shown you aren't.
That's not a good thing.
Why are you on here again?
I'm reminded of Paul in Acts 17:
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.
Bible Gateway passage: Acts 17:1, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:3, Acts 17:4 - New King James Version
Preaching Christ at Thessalonica - Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
Imitate Paul, indeed!
YOU need to follow the conversation.
I said nothing about how modern governments should treat criminals today.
You continue to jump to conclusions of the intent of my posts.
The only point I have made is that God did not insist that the law of killing an adulterer be inflicted upon David, thus David did not get what he deserved per the law for his adultery.
He was spared from death, shown mercy instead of getting what he deserved per the law.
If Christians are to live under and adhere to the letter of the law then we all should get what we deserve per the law because we are all lawbreakers.
But due to grace and mercy we don't, even though some still like to think that everyone should get what they deserve per the law.
David was shown mercy because he was faithful in worshiping the one true Most High God despite being a lawbreaker.
And we should do the same despite us being lawbreakers.
Obviously a brilliant scripture reference.I'm reminded of Paul in Acts 17:
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.
Bible Gateway passage: Acts 17:1, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:3, Acts 17:4 - New King James Version
Preaching Christ at Thessalonica - Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.www.biblegateway.com
Imitate Paul, indeed!
I wonder what it would take to get Gary to acknowledge that his literally inane comment about how its the Holy Spirit's job to convince people of the truth goes directly against such passages of scripture and implies that anyone who goes to Hell was a failure of the Holy Spirit to convince him to believe the truth.
How is it even possible for anyone older than twelve to believe such an idiotic thing? Is their entire life built on such cliche and utterly mindless drivel?
We aren't as stupid as you seem to think we are.
You are conflating (ON PURPOSE) God's direct response to a sin vs. what should be the law. Your having brought up what happened with David and what happens with those who trust Christ is off the topic. Literally, off the topic. We are not talking about salvation nor about how God deals directly with the king of Israel. Nor are we talking about what anyone deserves based on our rebellion against God (i.e. sin). What we are talking about is what the CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM should look like. Do you understand the difference between sins and crimes?
A criminal that is executed by the government doesn't necessarily go to Hell, even if his execution is just. One of the murderers who was crucified along side of Christ was with Jesus in Paradise that very day. His sin was forgiven but his execution was still just, by his own testimony.
Also, because there are no laws currently on the books calling for the death penalty for committing adultery, it would not be just to execute anyone for that crime right now. What we are saying has to do with what the laws should be; what the laws would be, if they were just. What's more, there is no biblical argument you can make against our position. Adultery is a capital crime, biblically speaking, - period. There isn't any sane way to argue otherwise. Therefore, the degree to which you disagree, is the degree to which you are unjust (i.e. unrighteous/evil). Morality is not a matter of personal opinion.
Clete
Last edited:
Then why did you jump into the middle of a conversation ABOUT how modern governments should treat criminals today with a comment on how God did not punish David according to the law?
Perhaps you can answer my question:
Tambora, to make things clear here, please answer the following question:
Do you believe that we (that is, modern human governments; I'm not talking about the Body of Christ, but rather of governmental responsibilities) should put to death those guilty of murder, adultery, kidnapping, rape, pedophilia, and/or other capital crimes?
Should the law of killing an adulterer be inflicted on adulterers today?
He got something far worse.
Public humiliation, in an honor-based culture.
There are some things worse than death. Like being forced to live with public humiliation in an honor-based culture.
In the purest sense of the term, yes, David was shown mercy, in that he didn't get what he deserved.
It doesn't change the fact that he got a far worse punishment than what he deserved.
You should stop ignoring that point.
Which law? I'm talking about laws implemented by human governments.
AMEN!
And what do Christians who have broken none of the laws of the land they live in deserve?
Nothing. They are innocent.
You can't change the fact that we are in the world. I mean, you could, but that would be a sin (murder, suicide).
Do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, and do not covet, are the foundations for a good criminal justice system.
But while coveting is a sin, it is not a crime, because governments cannot know the heart. However, the law against coveting is the foundation for determining motive in a case.
According to what?
God's law? Amen!
But we're not talking about God's laws against sin.
I'm talking about (righteous) criminal law, put in place by governments for men here on earth, against things which are criminal.
All (actual) crimes are sin, but not all sins are crimes. If you do not rightly divide God's word, you will never be able to determine what is both criminal and sinful, and what is only sin, but not criminal.
God told Israel in the Mosaic Law to show no mercy to criminals. We can rightly apply that command to any government, because showing mercy to criminals encourages them, if not enables, to continue committing their crime more.
By showing no mercy to criminals, they inherently show mercy to the victims, by making them whole again.
Criminals SHOULD get what they deserve, per the law. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anything more than what they deserve is unjust and cruel to the criminal.
Anything less than what they deserve is unjust and cruel to the victim, and does not sufficiently deter that and other criminals from committing the same crime (again).
Question, Tam: Do you know what the punishment for perjury (bearing false witness) should be, according to God?
Wrong.
David was not put to death by God because he repented of his crimes, and his sins against God. Yet he was still punished.
You don't seem all that familiar with the story, at least not any more, assuming you used to be.
I encourage you to go read it again. It's in 2 Samuel 12.
David was indeed given a threefold punishment, which was FAR worse than being put to death.
You keep making this about how Christians should act.
That's off topic to the discussion we were having before you butted in, the topic being about how GOVERNMENTS should behave, and the laws they should implement.
Now, please answer the questions you were asked. Here they are again, in case you forgot:
| Tambora, to make things clear here, please answer the following question: Do you believe that we (that is, modern human governments; I'm not talking about the Body of Christ, but rather of governmental responsibilities) should put to death those guilty of murder, adultery, kidnapping, rape, pedophilia, and/or other capital crimes? |
| Question, Tam: Do you know what the punishment for perjury (bearing false witness) should be, according to God? |
I hope y'all aren't.
Wrong.
My initial post on the topic was in response to Cabinet Maker wondering if killing adulterers in the old covenant law would still apply in God's new covenant.
That some of you want to take that in the direction of whether we should obey the civil laws we have today doesn't mean I have to go in that direction.
So stop playing the amateur mind-reader and get your facts straight.
Still trying to conflate two different things.
The New Covenant was for Israel for the end times. Not the Body of Christ today.
We were talking about criminal justice LONG before you jumped in and made an OFF TOPIC post about God's response to sin.
My response was to CM and what he asked about.
His question about the law of killing adulterers definitely had biblical roots to it.
And I responded that per the law David the adulterer should have been killed but wasn't.
That may be off topic per your one-track narrative, but it wasn't off topic between me and CM.
So does criminal justice.
And I pointed out to you that the law that said to execute adulterers remained, despite God not killing David for his crime, and that David was still punished.
Now, please address the questions you have been asked multiple times now:
| Tambora, to make things clear here, please answer the following question: Do you believe that we (that is, modern human governments; I'm not talking about the Body of Christ, but rather of governmental responsibilities) should put to death those guilty of murder, adultery, kidnapping, rape, pedophilia, and/or other capital crimes? |
| Question, Tam: Do you know what the punishment for perjury (bearing false witness) should be? |
It isn't wrong. Even if your initial response was to someone's specific question, you've insisted on the point even after having been repeatedly told that the point doesn't apply to what we're ACTUALLY talking about. You just go right along as though that doesn't matter and remake the same point no matter what anyone says. It's very clearly on purpose, not to mention childish and boring!
Has anyone on this thread asked whether we should obey today's civil laws? I haven't seen anyone ask that question!
You know why?
It's because that would be off the topic!
You're such a ridiculous clown.