ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

andyc

New member
Recently I've been amused by the madists responses to the fact that Jesus forgave a woman caught in the act of adultery. The mads have amazingly convinced themselves that Jesus was a Mosaic law enforcer. Well, they have to think that, don't they?
Otherwise, Jesus would be seen to be operating with grace, mercy and forgiveness like the Jesus all non madists know and love.

So the simple point that the madist has to try and figure out is, what was the basis for people to receive forgiveness of sins by Jesus?

All non madists prepare yourselves for the most ridiculous bizarre responses to this question you could possibly imagine.
But first, lets look at the following passage......


Luke 7:36-50
Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil.


If you're a madist, this woman just did the most stupidest thing possible. She decided to worship a Mosaic law enforcer. The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. What kind of grace could she possibly be hoping for from a lawman?
After all, the letter kills, and Jesus was supposed to be a minister of the letter, right? :chuckle:
Jesus wasn't supposed to be speaking words of spirit and life, was he? of course not :chuckle:
What was this woman thinking?

Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, "This man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner."


He's got a point there, hasn't he, madists?

And Jesus answered and said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you."

Listen up, madists.

So he said, "Teacher, say it." "There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. "And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?" Simon answered and said, "I suppose the one whom he forgave more." And He said to him, "You have rightly judged." Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. "You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. "You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. "Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much.

Hang on. The woman came to Jesus in faith because she knew he'd forgive her? and so she was pouring out her love for him (worshiping him).?

She had FAITH to be forgiven in other words! And she was forgiven! GRACE GRACE GRACE! Not law!

Now if you're the pharisees sitting at the table watching this, or if you're a madist, there's a very serious question to ask here.
What is the basis for Jesus to forgive this woman's many sins? If he's a law enforcer, there is no basis. You see, the old covenant law was bound between God and man. In the same way that man was bound by the law, God was also bound by it.
How can God overlook a violation of the law one minute, and then condemn the next?
Scripture tells us that the law and the prophets were until John, and so there was a new covenant being introduced that was not according to the letter, and where faith was the only requirement. Faith in Jesus to forgive sins.

But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little." Then He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" Then He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace."

What? her faith saved her? Faith in what?
What's the basis for sins to be forgiven if the sinner is under condemnation from the law, and Jesus is supposed to be a law enforcer?

You won't believe the mad responses to this.

Go!
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Scripture tells us that the law and the prophets were until John, and so there was a new covenant being introduced that was not according to the letter, and where faith was the only requirement.

Yep.

MADists claim the law and the prophets were until Mid-Acts, then they claim the law and the prophets was put on hold, then a new time period called "the age of grace" was put in place, then they claim Jesus is going to rapture away all the believers, then God's going to go back to the law and prophets again.

Not only do MADists deny the law and the prophets was until JTB, they deny the new covenant was put in place, and they deny anyone (including Jesus) ever preached the new covenant.

MAD is a mess.
 

andyc

New member
So you silly preterists think Christ didn't keep the law or teach the law.
Figures.

How Can Jesus teach a law that condemns, while at the same time forgive violations of the law?

This system would make God the violator of the law.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Recently I've been amused by the madists responses to the fact that Jesus forgave a woman caught in the act of adultery.
I've been amused that the preterists here do not recognize that the very question put to Jesus Christ was concerning the law

John 8:5 KJV
(5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
 

andyc

New member
Yep.

MADists claim the law and the prophets were until Mid-Acts, then they claim the law and the prophets was put on hold, then a new time period called "the age of grace" was put in place, then they claim Jesus is going to rapture away all the believers, then God's going to go back to the law and prophets again.

Not only do MADists deny the law and the prophets was until JTB, they deny the new covenant was put in place, and they deny anyone (including Jesus) ever preached the new covenant.

MAD is a mess.

Well that's right. If Jesus was supposed to uphold the strictness of the law, there are consequences for failure. If Jesus removes the consequences, it' ceases to be a law to those finding forgiveness.
 

andyc

New member
I've been amused that the preterists here do not recognize that the very question put to Jesus Christ was concerning the law

John 8:5 KJV
(5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Firstly I'm not a preterist.
Secondly, the accusers wanted Jesus to undermine the law by offering forgiveness to the woman.

You really need to face the fact that Jesus was operating with grace towards those who believed in him.
You can harden your heart against this if you want, but you're just going to look more and more stupid.
 

Interplanner

New member
Firstly I'm not a preterist.
Secondly, the accusers wanted Jesus to undermine the law by offering forgiveness to the woman.

You really need to face the fact that Jesus was operating with grace towards those who believed in him.
You can harden your heart against this if you want, but you're just going to look more and more stupid.



Tam,
you realize that was a Judaic Pharisee speaking, right? What would you expect?
 

andyc

New member
There was an instance where God put away David's sin of adultery and murder, but God didn't take away the condemnation of the law for what he did. The judgement of God broke out on his family, and David wrote psalms that show him struggling with the guilt in his conscience.

The mads will still probably use this as an old testament example.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So you silly preterists think Christ didn't keep the law or teach the law.
Figures.

Christ Jesus didn't teach the law, He preached the kingdom of God.

(Luke 16:16) "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How Can Jesus teach a law that condemns, while at the same time forgive violations of the law?

This system would make God the violator of the law.
Jesus didn't violate the law.
To violate the law would be sin because the law is the knowledge of sin.
Jesus did not sin.


Romans 3:19 KJV
(19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Jesus Christ was under the law. (Gal 4:4)
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Christ Jesus didn't teach the law,
Silly preterists.

Matthew 5:18-19 KJV
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 

andyc

New member
Jesus didn't violate the law.
To violate the law would be sin because the law is the knowledge of sin.
Jesus did not sin.


Romans 3:19 KJV
(19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Jesus Christ was under the law. (Gal 4:4)

Jesus was the one who fulfilled the law or our behalf.
He took all of the condemnation everyone deserved on himself.

And so obviously he couldn't stand by the law and uphold it's condemnation towards those who violated the law, and forgive them at the same time. If he forgave, there had to be a basis for this forgiveness, and it is your job to figure what this basis is.

You won't be able to do it. So it would better for you to exit the thread to save face.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Jesus was the one who fulfilled the law or our behalf.

Vicarious lawkeeping is a lie.

If He kept the Law FOR us ("lived a perfect life on our behalf" as some say), rather than just dying for our sins and rising for our justification, then He Himself would need not have died since in effect no one would have broken the Law by virtue of His having kept it for us. We'd be absolved by His perfect lawkeeping and, thus freed, the Cross would have been pointless.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Tam,
you realize that was a Judaic Pharisee speaking, right? What would you expect?
You realize that they asked Jesus about the law, right?

They didn't ask Him if He had any special knowledge of the woman'a guilt.
They asked Him concerning the law.
To condemn someone outside the instructions of the law would make one a lawbreaker.
The instructions on how to conduct an inquiry of adultery was specified in the law.
Did they violate the law? Yes.
Did Jesus violate the law? No.
 

Interplanner

New member
[/QUOTE]
Vicarious lawkeeping is a lie.

If He kept the Law FOR us ("lived a perfect life on our behalf" as some say), rather than just dying for our sins, then He Himself would need not have died since in effect no one would have broken the Law by virtue of His having kept it for us.



You're completely missing what took place in the atonement then. Mankind's sins were imputed/credited to him, and because he completed all righteousness, his righteousness can be imputed back, 2 Cor 5.

Rom 10: Christ has fulfilled the law, so there may be righteousness for all who believe. 10:4.
 

andyc

New member
Vicarious lawkeeping is a lie.

If He kept the Law FOR us ("lived a perfect life on our behalf" as some say), rather than just dying for our sins, then He Himself would need not have died since in effect no one would have broken the Law by virtue of His having kept it for us.

His perfect life alone would only have accomplished his own salvation. The law had a claim on everyone else, and this is where atonement is made on our behalf.
 

Interplanner

New member
You're completely missing what took place in the atonement then. Mankind's sins were imputed/credited to him, and because he completed all righteousness, his righteousness can be imputed back, 2 Cor 5.

Rom 10: Christ has fulfilled the law, so there may be righteousness for all who believe. 10:4.
 
Top