ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

[Lighthouse]

This is absolutely wrong.

I'd like to be there when you say this to God's face.

Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
-Romans 9:18

The law was a contract between God and Israel. Those who were under the law were bound to it, and God was bound to it. God has magnified his word above his name. His word can never be broken, as Jesus said. So you cannot have God forgiving sin when there is no basis for forgiveness. That would make God double minded, and his word untrustworthy.
If people are going to deny this, they are on very shaky ground. What's stopping God from just forgiving everyone?
Why even send Jesus to be a sacrifice for sin if God can just decide to forgive sins because he's God?

Who said there was no forgiveness under the Law?

People were forgiven their sins when they offered the proscribed sacrifices under the law. But not for Sin. Jesus' sacrifice was more than atonement; it was propitiation. His sacrifice is permanent and for Sin, not just sins.

Jesus forgave this woman's sins, not her Sin.

If Jesus was a messiah operating under law, and a law that condemned sinners, how could she have faith in a man who was a law enforcer, not a sin forgiver?

You're a moron.

He was both; these things are not mutually exclusive.

There is no forgiveness to those who commit a sin carrying the death penalty.

None? So they all went to Hell?

Do you know anything about Abraham's Bosom?

Like so many here, he's giving his straw-man a terrible thrashing!

It's just too bad for him it's something that he invented and only exists in his mind.

Indubitably.

 

[andyc]

You aren't suggesting that everyone since Moses went to Hell forever and are without hope, are you? If not, you're sounding more and more like a dispensationalist and undermining your own argument with every sentence.

You have to think like a person under the old covenant to appreciate the situation.
Think of it like this. Only God would dwell in the most holy pace of the tabernacle, and only the high priest would be allowed in once a year to make atonement for the people. The ceremonial and sacrificial system gave people an awareness of how unlike God man is. And yet for some strange bazaar reason, God was interested in this people he chose. And so the entirety of the law was directed towards the natural physical man, and it was meant to expose all of his imperfections to give a million reasons why the man can't exist in the literal presence of God.

Somehow this condemnation of the flesh would have to be dealt with, in order for God to relate to man in a more acceptable way which we understand as the Spirit which is what the new covenant is all about.
So it's not that everyone went to hell condemned, but the physical man went to the grave condemned, but also in hope. That hope would be Jesus.

This is a stupid question! It doesn't challenge dispensational teaching because it challenges a doctrine that no one believes in!
Once again, it presupposes that there could have been no grace when the Law was in effect, which is simply not so. It just isn't so, Andy! You can kick and scream and pound your fist and throw a big fit and repeat yourself and ignore everyone who tells you otherwise and whatever else you can think to do but it won't change the fact that your so called, 'challenge' is stupidity because it challenges a doctrine that no one believes!

I ask again, why bother arguing against doctrines that no one believes in? Who exactly are you trying to discredit? You might as well be chastising Santa Claus for stealing children's teeth while they're sleeping.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Maybe you should just clarify to those who share your view, what exactly was this grace. As I've said, the only grace I see is the sacrificial system, but this only removed immediate judgement. It did not remove the shame of failure from the conscience like the new covenant does.
Under the new covenant, God relates to his children in the Spirit. So if they fail in the flesh, as long as there is a repentant heart that refuses to deny that we've failed, we know that God will not condemn us. The law that is looking for weaknesses in our flesh has no voice to us, because God is relating to us in the Spirit.

 

[andyc]

I'd like to be there wen you say this t God's face.

If God was like that, I would do gladly, because he would not be a God of his word, as you have made him out to be.

Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
-Romans 9:18

:doh:

His mercy is towards those who don't deserve it, but seek it. That was the whole point of Paul's argument.
However, it had to be according to God's covenant. I'm amazed that you are so narrow minded and dull that you cannot understand this. God could not show forgiveness if it conflicted with the demand of the law, as this would mean that he would violate his own word, and cease to be God.
God has exalted his word above his name, and so if he violated his word, his name is worthless.

If you deny this, then you are just sick, and not even worth responding to.

When you read the old testament you actually see God showing compassion to people, simply because he had no covenant with them. If a man sins outside the law, He's is not subject to the judgement of the law, is he?
Classic example of this Rahab the prostitute. She wasn't under the law, and so wasn't subject to it's condemnation. However, because she knew she was judged as a Canaanite, she helped the spies in order to save her own life. And God honored her word, which you would have to see as faith.

Who said there was no forgiveness under the Law?

People were forgiven their sins when they offered the proscribed sacrifices under the law. But not for Sin. Jesus' sacrifice was more than atonement; it was propitiation. His sacrifice is permanent and for Sin, not just sins.

Jesus forgave this woman's sins, not her Sin.

Obviously it wasn't the sacrificial system that removed her sin, and she was subject to the law, and so what was reason for her to have faith?
What was the basis for her to be forgiven while under a covenant where there was no forgiveness?

So far you are embarrassing yourself something rotten, and I'm only glad that so far no other madists has stooped as low as you with responses like yours.

You're a moron.

He was both; these things are not mutually exclusive.


None? So they all went to Hell?

Do you know anything about Abraham's Bosom?

Under the old covenant there was only the physical life that was guaranteed. The adulteress went to the grave condemned as an adulteress.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The adulteress went to the grave condemned as an adulteress.

I do not think so, unless she continued to sin that way, and there is nothing to say she did or did not.
LA

 

[Right Divider]

The adulteress went to the grave condemned as an adulteress.

Wow andyc, making a claim to know something that only God can know. That's called blaspheme. :noway:

 

[Clete]

You have to think like a person under the old covenant to appreciate the situation.
Think of it like this. Only God would dwell in the most holy pace of the tabernacle, and only the high priest would be allowed in once a year to make atonement for the people. The ceremonial and sacrificial system gave people an awareness of how unlike God man is. And yet for some strange bazaar reason, God was interested in this people he chose. And so the entirety of the law was directed towards the natural physical man, and it was meant to expose all of his imperfections to give a million reasons why the man can't exist in the literal presence of God.

Somehow this condemnation of the flesh would have to be dealt with, in order for God to relate to man in a more acceptable way which we understand as the Spirit which is what the new covenant is all about.
So it's not that everyone went to hell condemned, but the physical man went to the grave condemned, but also in hope. That hope would be Jesus.



Maybe you should just clarify to those who share your view, what exactly was this grace. As I've said, the only grace I see is the sacrificial system, but this only removed immediate judgement. It did not remove the shame of failure from the conscience like the new covenant does.
Under the new covenant, God relates to his children in the Spirit. So if they fail in the flesh, as long as there is a repentant heart that refuses to deny that we've failed, we know that God will not condemn us. The law that is looking for weaknesses in our flesh has no voice to us, because God is relating to us in the Spirit.

The only ones who need clarity of my view a people like you who go around knocking over straw men.


So, in your view, did everyone before Christ go to Hell or not?

If not, why not?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Not according to Grosnick and his mates.

Ask him/them.

LA

:chuckle:

LA is wrong again.

 

[andyc]

Wow andyc, making a claim to know something that only God can know. That's called blaspheme. :noway:

I do not think so, unless she continued to sin that way, and there is nothing to say she did or did not.
LA

LA we're talking about the adulteress under the law, not the adulteress in the gospel that Jesus didn't condemn.
The adulteress under the law went to the grave condemned because she was stoned to death. Heaven and hell isn't really mentioned in the OT as a reward or punishment.

 

[andyc]

The only ones who need clarity of my view a people like you who go around knocking over straw men.


So, in your view, did everyone before Christ go to Hell or not?

If not, why not?

No strawman. Before Christ, people will be judged either by the law if they were under it, or without the law (conscience).
The challenge in the OP is concerning the basis for Christ to forgive people of sins if he was a law enforcer.

 

[Stripe]

No strawman.

No answer, you mean. You were asked a question:

In your view, did everyone before Christ go to Hell?

Before Christ, people will be judged either by the law if they were under it, or without the law (conscience).

Which indicates that you think they did indeed all go to hell.

The challenge in the OP is concerning the basis for Christ to forgive people of sins if he was a law enforcer.

Your challenge is devoid of any rational thought.

 

[Clete]

No strawman. Before Christ, people will be judged either by the law if they were under it, or without the law (conscience).
The challenge in the OP is concerning the basis for Christ to forgive people of sins if he was a law enforcer.

Then you believe one or more of the following three things...

1. It is possible for a person, other than Jesus, to have followed the Law perfectly.

2. God's standard is not perfection.

3. Everyone who died prior to Jesus' death, went to Hell.


And yes, you are making a straw-man argument. You are arguing against a doctrine that Mid-Acts Dispensationalism DOES NOT TEACH! It's as cut and dried as that.
What's more is that you are refusing to be corrected, which only means that you don't really care about the truth, you just don't like Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and will make any argument against it that happens occurs to you, whether it's valid or not. You need to get a life.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

If God was like that, I would do gladly, because he would not be a God of his word, as you have made him out to be.

How would He not be a God of His word?

:doh:

His mercy is towards those who don't deserve it, but seek it. That was the whole point of Paul's argument.
However, it had to be according to God's covenant. I'm amazed that you are so narrow minded and dull that you cannot understand this. God could not show forgiveness if it conflicted with the demand of the law, as this would mean that he would violate his own word, and cease to be God.

How would forgiveness conflict with the law?

By the way, I know the mercy was given to those who sought/seek it. I never said otherwise.

God has exalted his word above his name, and so if he violated his word, his name is worthless.

If you deny this, then you are just sick, and not even worth responding to.

And the Scripture that states His word is above His name is? And what, exactly, do you think His word on his subject is?

When you read the old testament you actually see God showing compassion to people, simply because he had no covenant with them. If a man sins outside the law, He's is not subject to the judgement of the law, is he?
Classic example of this Rahab the prostitute. She wasn't under the law, and so wasn't subject to it's condemnation. However, because she knew she was judged as a Canaanite, she helped the spies in order to save her own life. And God honored her word, which you would have to see as faith.

Irrelevant.

Obviously it wasn't the sacrificial system that removed her sin, and she was subject to the law, and so what was reason for her to have faith?
What was the basis for her to be forgiven while under a covenant where there was no forgiveness?

There was forgiveness under the law. You're an idiot if you think otherwise.

And her faith was in Him: the Messiah.

So far you are embarrassing yourself something rotten, and I'm only glad that so far no other madists has stooped as low as you with responses like yours.

To think there is no grace under the law, and that Go cannot forgive those who have faith while under the law, is great foolishness. Maybe even more so than atheism.

Under the old covenant there was only the physical life that was guaranteed. The adulteress went to the grave condemned as an adulteress.

You have no Scriptural basis for your argument. You're a moron.

 

[patrick jane]

this would mean that he would violate his own word, and cease to be God.

You are insane with your posts - :kookoo:

You think God could ever cease being God?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

:chuckle:

LA is wrong again.

That's nothing new. She's got a really bad habit of being wrong.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

That's nothing new. She's got a really bad habit of being wrong.

A normal person would try to explain.

LA

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

A normal person would try to explain.

LA

Then, why aren't you explaining why you're ALWAYS wrong?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Then, why aren't you explaining why you're ALWAYS wrong?

I only appear wrong to heretics and beast worshippers.

LA

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I only appear wrong to heretics and beast worshippers.

LA

:chuckle:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I only appear wrong to heretics and beast worshippers.

LA

You forgot to add Democrats to that list. By the way: "Don't be a chump, vote for Trump."

 

[Clete]

His mercy is towards those who don't deserve it, but seek it. That was the whole point of Paul's argument.

That was NOT Paul's whole point but we'll save that for later.

However, it had to be according to God's covenant.

You keep sounding like a dispensationalist! You replace the word "dispensation" with "covenant" but otherwise, you have the principle of it down pat.

I'm amazed that you are so narrow minded and dull that you cannot understand this.

Those who live in glass houses....

God could not show forgiveness if it conflicted with the demand of the law, as this would mean that he would violate his own word, and cease to be God.
God has exalted his word above his name, and so if he violated his word, his name is worthless.

Christ's death on the cross paid the debt of any God wishes to forgive. The righteous debands of the Law (a.k.a. justice) is therefore met and the Law is no longer needed and in fact was taken out of the way having been nailed to that cross.

When you read the old testament you actually see God showing compassion to people, simply because he had no covenant with them.

That is NOT the reason God show compassion to people in the Old Testament! Good greif man! Do you think God needs the Law to be righteous? Do you really think that God is subject to the Law or that His righteousness it contingent upon it? You need to think this through a little more thoroughly.

If a man sins outside the law, He's is not subject to the judgement of the law, is he?

Now THIS is what Paul's whole point is! The Law is gone; nailed to the cross and satified by the death of God the Son. It has nothing to say to those who are in Him.

Classic example of this Rahab the prostitute. She wasn't under the law, and so wasn't subject to it's condemnation. However, because she knew she was judged as a Canaanite, she helped the spies in order to save her own life. And God honored her word, which you would have to see as faith.




Obviously it wasn't the sacrificial system that removed her sin, and she was subject to the law, and so what was reason for her to have faith?
What was the basis for her to be forgiven while under a covenant where there was no forgiveness?

So far you are embarrassing yourself something rotten, and I'm only glad that so far no other madists has stooped as low as you with responses like yours.




Under the old covenant there was only the physical life that was guaranteed. The adulteress went to the grave condemned as an adulteress.

There's no time to respond to the rest in detail. I would like it if you'd answer my question though. Do you actually believe that everyone after Moses and prior to the cross went to Hell? If not, how did they avoid it?


Resting in Him,
Clete