How do Calvinists know, that they have eternal life ?

[ivdavid]

Grubal Muruch - "a) sins----deliberate disobedience to the law of God (plural sense of the meaning)"

ivdavid - "Would you then say that a person who transgresses the law of God without knowing it at that point in time - but later realizes it - is not guilty of the same and need not bear this iniquity?"

I'm just asking you about the disobedience to the law of God that may not be "deliberate" or "done knowingly" at the time of that transgression but is realized later - would you say that such a person is not guilty of that transgression and that it is not a sin? This seems to be the implication of your definition of "sins" - am I right?

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Hmm...alright. If you, Grubal, feel that my questions are forcing you into conclusions, we can simply stop discussing. You are not obligated to continue a discussion at all. I'd rather have you say "you don't know" to something than be forced into concluding erroneously for the sake of responding.

If your answer hinges on the actual timeline of Christ's death on the cross, then Christ must have addressed this to everyone - believer and unbeliever. But in John 8:24, he says only the unbelievers will die in their sins, implying that the believers would not. Your timeline argument fails here.

Also, Jesus should have addressed only those unbelievers who would die before Jesus' death for your interpretation to be valid - but that's not derived from John 8:24.

Have all the OT saints died in their sins? Your timeline argument implies so.


What distinction is there between jew and gentile with respect to Jesus' redemptive work?

you said---Hmm...alright. If you, Grubal, feel that my questions are forcing you into conclusions, we can simply stop discussing. You are not obligated to continue a discussion at all. I'd rather have you say "you don't know" to something than be forced into concluding erroneously for the sake of responding.

Grubal---- My goal here is not to "make things up as I go" but to try and answer the questions as I believe them to be." I'm surely not "privy" to ALL things Spiritual...

you said----If your answer hinges on the actual timeline of Christ's death on the cross, then Christ must have addressed this to everyone - believer and unbeliever. But in John 8:24, he says only the unbelievers will die in their sins, implying that the believers would not. Your timeline argument fails here.

Grubal----Jesus was speaking to the Jews in specific to the Pharisees. There is no"timeline failure" Christ had not gone to the cross when He was speaking to these folks. Therefore, the sin question had not been taken care of by Christ Himself. Also the people He was speaking to were still living under the Law and therefore were accountable to the Law. The reason He said, the unbelievers would die in their sins, is because without the Atonement that was about to take place, there was no "ultimate sacrifice" for their sins. Those, no doubt, who received Christ (with faith) at the time He was talking to them, would not die in their sins, due to the fact they put their trust in Him. But, those who rejected Him as "Messiah" (such as the Pharisees) would, die in their sins, having not a Saviour who would indeed, pay for the sins of the world, in a short while...

you said----Also, Jesus should have addressed only those unbelievers who would die before Jesus' death for your interpretation to be valid - but that's not derived from John 8:24.

Grubal---were not told who would or would not die before Jesus death (that wasn't the issue here) Christ came to the Jews and was truly "their" Messiah, but they rejected Him. And He said to them that rejected Him, they would therefore, die in their sins. that's the context. No timeline failed and Jesus was speaking to all that were around listening at that time (not just unbelievers) He was addressing everyone...

you said----Have all the OT saints died in their sins? Your timeline argument implies so.

Grubal----Take Abraham for instance, the Bible tells us, "(Romans 4:3) "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Those who were obedient to God and served Him did not die in their sins. Previous to the Law men were judged by their works. Salvation has always been by Faith, in the Old Testament and the New...

you said----What distinction is there between jew and gentile with respect to Jesus' redemptive work?

Grubal----there is none. We the Gentiles have been "grafted" in. And now those (Jew or Gentile) who place their faith in Christ are "equal heirs" A child of God, however, you want to put it...The Body of Christ, etc...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Grubal Muruch - "a) sins----deliberate disobedience to the law of God (plural sense of the meaning)"

ivdavid - "Would you then say that a person who transgresses the law of God without knowing it at that point in time - but later realizes it - is not guilty of the same and need not bear this iniquity?"

I'm just asking you about the disobedience to the law of God that may not be "deliberate" or "done knowingly" at the time of that transgression but is realized later - would you say that such a person is not guilty of that transgression and that it is not a sin? This seems to be the implication of your definition of "sins" - am I right?

The answer depends on pre-law or post law ? I find it difficult to believe that a person does not know that he has broken one of the commandments (especially today in this world) If we lie (that's sin) if we steal (that's sin) and so on. You might say the commandments of God are written on our "corporate" conscience, more or less...Please be more specific about the kind of offence of which you are referring to ??

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Are you evading the question? I've made it clear that in reality the Spirit's working is absolutely necessary - I'm exploring through argument, the nature of man. It's not to conclude against the working of the Spirit.

And since you vehemently and rightly state that the Spirit is essential, I take it that man cannot accept the Word of God without the working of the Spirit. Why do you think that is? Specifically, what role does sin play in such inability of man to accept God's word?

you said---- I take it that man cannot accept the Word of God without the working of the Spirit. Why do you think that is? Specifically, what role does sin play in such inability of man to accept God's word?[/QUOTE]

Grubal----We first hear the word, then the Spirit uses that truth to convict our hearts, then we must except or reject the message. God does NOT force His Salvation on "ANYONE." Faith pleases God, He's word says so...Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness... We must put our faith in Christ, else we will not be saved...

 

[ivdavid]

I think your having difficulty grasping the idea that it depends on which side of the coin your on.

Yes, I am struggling with your definitions - you're the first Christian I've come across who has claimed a variable standard of "good" and "bad" for mankind. I thought we were the absolutists - against any post-modernistic subjectivity. But perhaps I haven't fully understood your beliefs yet.

A definition of doing "good" for the believer would be, something that brings glory to God...

Fair enough. And I presume that this is revealed as an absolute standard to man by God through the Bible. In our case, we could run with the 10 commandments.

The "unbeliever" does something considered good, and only receives the appreciation of his fellow man and a good feeling about himself, but, no glory goes to God...

What do you mean by "something considered good"? This seems circular - you are defining "good" by saying it is something "considered good". What is "considered good"? Is it something absolute or is it subjective according to what the majority agree upon?

Or are you talking about the intent of such "good" acts - where the intent here is not to bring glory to God but to bring glory to self?

An unbeliever can do good acts and bad acts.
A believer can do good acts and bad acts.

You've also got to state it aloud that the meaning of "good" and "bad" in your first statement is not the same as in your second statement. I don't think that's obvious at all to any here - since the norm is to accept a single standard of "good" and "bad" for all mankind, as defined by God's Law.

Works are an action that takes place to achieve a positive goal.
The "unbelievers" goal is to bring the glory back to himself...

I wish you could see the folly in your beliefs. Since when did "glorying in the self" be considered a "positive" goal? Unless of course you have defined 2 versions of "positive". Where "positive" to the unbeliever may be "negative" to the unbeliever and vice versa - but it's all subjective and so it's fine - is that how you look at it?

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Yes, I am struggling with your definitions - you're the first Christian I've come across who has claimed a variable standard of "good" and "bad" for mankind. I thought we were the absolutists - against any post-modernistic subjectivity. But perhaps I haven't fully understood your beliefs yet.


Fair enough. And I presume that this is revealed as an absolute standard to man by God through the Bible. In our case, we could run with the 10 commandments.


What do you mean by "something considered good"? This seems circular - you are defining "good" by saying it is something "considered good". What is "considered good"? Is it something absolute or is it subjective according to what the majority agree upon?

Or are you talking about the intent of such "good" acts - where the intent here is not to bring glory to God but to bring glory to self?



You've also got to state it aloud that the meaning of "good" and "bad" in your first statement is not the same as in your second statement. I don't think that's obvious at all to any here - since the norm is to accept a single standard of "good" and "bad" for all mankind, as defined by God's Law.


I wish you could see the folly in your beliefs. Since when did "glorying in the self" be considered a "positive" goal? Unless of course you have defined 2 versions of "positive". Where "positive" to the unbeliever may be "negative" to the unbeliever and vice versa - but it's all subjective and so it's fine - is that how you look at it?

you said----What do you mean by "something considered good"? This seems circular - you are defining "good" by saying it is something "considered good". What is "considered good"? Is it something absolute or is it subjective according to what the majority agree upon?

Grubal----To give an example, you see that your neighbor has lost his/her job, they have three kids and are short on food. You choose out of the "good" of your heart to go to the store and purchase three or four bags of grocery's. Now, that would be considered (by the majority of people) to be an act of kindness...

you say----Or are you talking about the intent of such "good" acts - where the intent here is not to bring glory to God but to bring glory to self?

Grubal----An "unbelievers intent is not to bring glory to God. But,may enjoy the adoration of his fellow man or he might just be doing something nice for a fellow human being. The believer is also susceptible to desiring attention or praise from other's, but his intent should be to do good so that God gets the glory...

you said--- since the norm is to accept a single standard of "good" and "bad" for all mankind, as defined by God's Law.

Grubal---The problem lies within the benefit or lack of benefit of both good and bad, and to which category do we attribute the outcome...

you said----I wish you could see the folly in your beliefs. Since when did "glorying in the self" be considered a "positive" goal? Unless of course you have defined 2 versions of "positive". Where "positive" to the unbeliever may be "negative" to the unbeliever and vice versa - but it's all subjective and so it's fine - is that how you look at it?

Grubal----Glorying in self should never be a goal for the believer. He should be seeking to bring glory to God...However, the unbeliever can never bring glory to God. Therefore, he does a kindness, that may have an "ulterior" motive, such as, self gratification (patting himself on the back) or social recognition, or perhaps he enjoys doing for other's...

 

[ivdavid]

ivdavid - "Would you then say that a person who transgresses the law of God without knowing it at that point in time - but later realizes it - is not guilty of the same and need not bear this iniquity?"

The answer depends on pre-law or post law ?

Post law.

I find it difficult to believe that a person does not know that he has broken one of the commandments

Are you aware of what we call a hypothetical argument? We consider a scenario that may not strictly be realised in reality - but we explore it nonetheless for a greater insight into the truth of certain aspects being considered. Are you in any way uncomfortable with such arguments?

If not, you could simply answer the question, assuming that there does exist a person who doesn't realize he has transgressed God's commandments at that point in time, but realizes later.

You might say the commandments of God are written on our "corporate" conscience, more or less...

That's true. But there's also sin in us deceiving us(Rom 7:11).

Please be more specific about the kind of offence of which you are referring to ??

I was only referring to Lev 4:2 - specifically, Lev 4 : 3,13,22,27. Your definition of "sins" does not seem to include these unintentional/ignorant transgressions as sins - which is why I asked if such transgressions are also guilt-worthy as sin?

 

[Grubal Muruch]

ivdavid - "Would you then say that a person who transgresses the law of God without knowing it at that point in time - but later realizes it - is not guilty of the same and need not bear this iniquity?"

ivdavid---I'm going to have to answer these questions in the morning. I have to go for now. I'll post with you tomorrow. You have some good questions...Until tomorrow...

 

[ivdavid]

I'm going to have to answer these questions in the morning. I have to go for now. I'll post with you tomorrow.

Please respond at your own convenience. I do not expect replies from anybody within any period of time - as I hope I'm given the same liberty from others.

Now, that would be considered (by the majority of people) to be an act of kindness...

So you subscribe to a subjective morality when it comes to the unbelievers? I find that hard to believe given everything else you've said.

Well, let's try this another way. You mentioned earlier that the unbelievers commit sinful "bad" in the flesh. Since these are sinful, it indicates that they were deliberate transgressions of the Law of God. And you're saying that such sinful acts are "bad" - the "bad" that you use under the category of unbelievers. But this is the same "bad" under the category of believers too. Are you saying that "bad" too is descriptive of any act that transgresses the Law of God and that it's the same for both the believer and the unbeliever?

Glorying in self should never be a goal for the believer.

Is it permissible as a goal for the unbeliever then? I don't get such distinctions - why not simply say that "Glorying in self should never be a goal, period."? And that this is commanded by God to all men without exception?

 

[Grubal Muruch]

ivdavid - "Would you then say that a person who transgresses the law of God without knowing it at that point in time - but later realizes it - is not guilty of the same and need not bear this iniquity?"


Post law.


Are you aware of what we call a hypothetical argument? We consider a scenario that may not strictly be realised in reality - but we explore it nonetheless for a greater insight into the truth of certain aspects being considered. Are you in any way uncomfortable with such arguments?

If not, you could simply answer the question, assuming that there does exist a person who doesn't realize he has transgressed God's commandments at that point in time, but realizes later.


That's true. But there's also sin in us deceiving us(Rom 7:11).


I was only referring to Lev 4:2 - specifically, Lev 4 : 3,13,22,27. Your definition of "sins" does not seem to include these unintentional/ignorant transgressions as sins - which is why I asked if such transgressions are also guilt-worthy as sin?

you said-----"Would you then say that a person who transgresses the law of God without knowing it at that point in time - but later realizes it - is not guilty of the same and need not bear this iniquity?"

Grubal says-----My only conclusion would be, (since were only speaking hypothetically) the person would still stand guilty. Ignorance of the law would not be an excuse (much like it is in our earthly system of law) I would add a "caveat" however, that would be, we're speaking about "post" law (circa, right now) so, considering Christ has paid the price for the sins of the world, we are no longer held accountable for sin. The sin question has been taken care of. We see in Revelation the "order of things" John saw, the small and the great standing before the judgment seat and the "books" were opened and the "unbelievers were judged according to their "works" not their sin (we notice) and the "book of life" was opened and whoever's name was not written was cast into the "lake of fire."

I'd also like to add to this, Leviticus speaks about, what the people are to do, in case they sinned, "Unintentionally."

you said----Are you aware of what we call a hypothetical argument? We consider a scenario that may not strictly be realised in reality - but we explore it nonetheless for a greater insight into the truth of certain aspects being considered. Are you in any way uncomfortable with such arguments?

Grubal---- I don't mind, "dabbling in the abstract."

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Please respond at your own convenience. I do not expect replies from anybody within any period of time - as I hope I'm given the same liberty from others.


So you subscribe to a subjective morality when it comes to the unbelievers? I find that hard to believe given everything else you've said.

Well, let's try this another way. You mentioned earlier that the unbelievers commit sinful "bad" in the flesh. Since these are sinful, it indicates that they were deliberate transgressions of the Law of God. And you're saying that such sinful acts are "bad" - the "bad" that you use under the category of unbelievers. But this is the same "bad" under the category of believers too. Are you saying that "bad" too is descriptive of any act that transgresses the Law of God and that it's the same for both the believer and the unbeliever?


Is it permissible as a goal for the unbeliever then? I don't get such distinctions - why not simply say that "Glorying in self should never be a goal, period."? And that this is commanded by God to all men without exception?

you said-----So you subscribe to a subjective morality when it comes to the unbelievers? I find that hard to believe given everything else you've said.

Grubal-----There are, guidelines of behavior set up in the Scriptures with regards to "morality." Also, there are social "Mores." Where have I made the morality of the unbeliever, "subjective?"

you said----Well, let's try this another way. You mentioned earlier that the unbelievers commit sinful "bad" in the flesh. Since these are sinful, it indicates that they were deliberate transgressions of the Law of God. And you're saying that such sinful acts are "bad" - the "bad" that you use under the category of unbelievers. But this is the same "bad" under the category of believers too. Are you saying that "bad" too is descriptive of any act that transgresses the Law of God and that it's the same for both the believer and the unbeliever?

Grubal----Transgression is transgression whether done by the believer or unbeliever. I might add that when the "believer" willfully sins, he is subject to the "discipline" of the Lord, at God's discretion..."The Lord disciplines His own."

you say-----Is it permissible as a goal for the unbeliever then? I don't get such distinctions - why not simply say that "Glorying in self should never be a goal, period."? And that this is commanded by God to all men without exception?[/QUOTE]

Grubal---- What you say is true. However, we were speaking about the "intent or motive" of a "seemingly," selfless act of charity towards another human being...

 

[ivdavid]

My only conclusion would be, (since were only speaking hypothetically) the person would still stand guilty. Ignorance of the law would not be an excuse (much like it is in our earthly system of law) I would add a "caveat" however, that would be, we're speaking about "post" law (circa, right now)

Agreeable on all points.

Can we then agree upon this working definition for "sins" -
a) sins----disobedience to the law of God (plural sense of the meaning)"
(I've done away with the word "deliberate", since both of us agree that ignorance of the law, post law, is not an excuse.)

the "unbelievers were judged according to their "works" not their sin

As per my working definitions( I'll provide them in my next post), "works" that are judged on that final day - can only be "good" or "bad/sinful" and nothing else. So according to me, the revelations passage makes no difference, since I see "sins" being a subset of "works" and not mutually exclusive.

I don't mind, "dabbling in the abstract."

Great. I'll continue later - am a little caught up now.

 

[ivdavid]

Grubal Muruch,

Just to let you know where I'm coming from - I'll state my understanding of the same terms -

a) sins - any transgression of the Law of God. The Law of God, according to me, is any and every commandment of God given to man to be kept in spirit and in truth - this includes the ten commandments. To be comprehensive, I'd refer to simply the two commandments to love as indicative of the whole essence of God's Law or will - the law being a manifestation of His will.

b) works - any act of man is technically a "work". Such acts may be "good" because they were worked out by God in him or they may be "bad/sinful" because they were worked out by man himself in the flesh.

c)good - No variable definitions for believer and unbeliever. Any act that brings glory to God is good ie any act that does not transgress the Law of God is good and not sinful/bad. This is equally applicable to all men.

d)bad - descriptive of any act that does not bring glory to God ie any act that transgresses the Law of God. No variable definitions - just this absolute one for all men.

e) forgiveness - not counting the transgression of a person against him.


I think we are both agreed upon the definitions of "sins" and "forgiveness" so far. And given the following, I'm inclined to believe we concur on "bad" too -

ivdavid- "Are you saying that "bad" too is descriptive of any act that transgresses the Law of God and that it's the same for both the believer and the unbeliever?"
Grubal Muruch - "Transgression is transgression whether done by the believer or unbeliever."

Would you then agree with my definition of "bad"?

 

[ivdavid]

Grubal Muruch,

I think you may have missed out on this earlier question - which would help me understand an important part of your beliefs -
ivdavid - "Can one be condemned if they have no sins imputed to them?"

I ask this question because you seem to be saying that there is only one side to a coin. You seem to believe that God does not permit the unbelievers into His kingdom on that final day judgement only because they do not have the required works to get in - but their condemnation to spend eternity apart from God is not at all because of their sins. Have I gotten this wrong?

Analogically speaking, you have set up judgement day as when the accounts of men are called in. Now God expects say $100mn from every man - but man has run up a debt of negative balance -$200mn before God. Now you're saying that Christ took up every person's every single debt and nailed it to the cross - this referring only to the -$200mn. And you're saying nobody is in debt now. You believe Christ erased the negative balances of every single person and has brought them all to the 0 mark by His death on the cross - and then offers the provision for the +$100mn to all who believe in Him. These who have not put their faith in Him still try and work on their own to come up to the $100mn mark that God requires of them - and they are not able to pay this - and hence these are left out of the kingdom. These who did not believe into Christ and who strived on their own, are left outside only because of their inability to muster up the $100mn - but not because of their negative balance debt which Christ has already settled on the cross. Is this how you're seeing it? If not, tweak the analogy around to help me understand.
(Note: these numbers used are random and serve no purpose in themselves.)

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Grubal Muruch,

Just to let you know where I'm coming from - I'll state my understanding of the same terms -

a) sins - any transgression of the Law of God. The Law of God, according to me, is any and every commandment of God given to man to be kept in spirit and in truth - this includes the ten commandments. To be comprehensive, I'd refer to simply the two commandments to love as indicative of the whole essence of God's Law or will - the law being a manifestation of His will.

b) works - any act of man is technically a "work". Such acts may be "good" because they were worked out by God in him or they may be "bad/sinful" because they were worked out by man himself in the flesh.

c)good - No variable definitions for believer and unbeliever. Any act that brings glory to God is good ie any act that does not transgress the Law of God is good and not sinful/bad. This is equally applicable to all men.

d)bad - descriptive of any act that does not bring glory to God ie any act that transgresses the Law of God. No variable definitions - just this absolute one for all men.

e) forgiveness - not counting the transgression of a person against him.


I think we are both agreed upon the definitions of "sins" and "forgiveness" so far. And given the following, I'm inclined to believe we concur on "bad" too -

ivdavid- "Are you saying that "bad" too is descriptive of any act that transgresses the Law of God and that it's the same for both the believer and the unbeliever?"
Grubal Muruch - "Transgression is transgression whether done by the believer or unbeliever."

Would you then agree with my definition of "bad"?

you said-----a) sins - any transgression of the Law of God. The Law of God, according to me, is any and every commandment of God given to man to be kept in spirit and in truth - this includes the ten commandments. To be comprehensive, I'd refer to simply the two commandments to love as indicative of the whole essence of God's Law or will - the law being a manifestation of His will.

Grubal-----Excellent!!

you said-----b) works - any act of man is technically a "work". Such acts may be "good" because they were worked out by God in him or they may be "bad/sinful" because they were worked out by man himself in the flesh.

Grubal----Excellent!!!

you said-----c)good - No variable definitions for believer and unbeliever. Any act that brings glory to God is good ie any act that does not transgress the Law of God is good and not sinful/bad. This is equally applicable to all men.

Grubal-----The only difference is, a good deed done "in the flesh" does not bring glory to God or reward to the believer, otherwise the deed is the same. That's where we differ...

you said-----d)bad - descriptive of any act that does not bring glory to God ie any act that transgresses the Law of God. No variable definitions - just this absolute one for all men.

Grubal-----The "bad" may bring loss of reward to the believer once he's in Heaven.

you said-----e) forgiveness - not counting the transgression of a person against him.

Grubal-----I can live with this definition. Very good!!

you said-----"Are you saying that "bad" too is descriptive of any act that transgresses the Law of God and that it's the same for both the believer and the unbeliever?"

Grubal-----Yes, bad is bad.

you said-----Would you then agree with my definition of "bad"?

Grubal-----Yes!!

I'd say we're pretty well aligned on these issues...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Grubal Muruch,

I think you may have missed out on this earlier question - which would help me understand an important part of your beliefs -
ivdavid - "Can one be condemned if they have no sins imputed to them?"

I ask this question because you seem to be saying that there is only one side to a coin. You seem to believe that God does not permit the unbelievers into His kingdom on that final day judgement only because they do not have the required works to get in - but their condemnation to spend eternity apart from God is not at all because of their sins. Have I gotten this wrong?

Analogically speaking, you have set up judgement day as when the accounts of men are called in. Now God expects say $100mn from every man - but man has run up a debt of negative balance -$200mn before God. Now you're saying that Christ took up every person's every single debt and nailed it to the cross - this referring only to the -$200mn. And you're saying nobody is in debt now. You believe Christ erased the negative balances of every single person and has brought them all to the 0 mark by His death on the cross - and then offers the provision for the +$100mn to all who believe in Him. These who have not put their faith in Him still try and work on their own to come up to the $100mn mark that God requires of them - and they are not able to pay this - and hence these are left out of the kingdom. These who did not believe into Christ and who strived on their own, are left outside only because of their inability to muster up the $100mn - but not because of their negative balance debt which Christ has already settled on the cross. Is this how you're seeing it? If not, tweak the analogy around to help me understand.
(Note: these numbers used are random and serve no purpose in themselves.)

you said----- "Can one be condemned if they have no sins imputed to them?"

Grubal----- Romans 4:15 says---Because the law works wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

you said-----I ask this question because you seem to be saying that there is only one side to a coin. You seem to believe that God does not permit the unbelievers into His kingdom on that final day judgement only because they do not have the required works to get in - but their condemnation to spend eternity apart from God is not at all because of their sins. Have I gotten this wrong?

Grubal-----The "unbelievers" do not enter the kingdom because,

1) They rejected God's offer (gift) of forgiveness and mercy...

2) Their names are not written in the "Book of Life."

you said-----but their condemnation to spend eternity apart from God is not at all because of their sins. Have I gotten this wrong?

Grubal----No, that is correct. You see God provided a way for man's sins to be forgiven and receive God's mercy. But, there are some who have "rejected" God's only provision to show mercy and to forgive man of his sins. And that is through Christ's Atonement on the cross. Christ died for the sins of the world, and ALL men are covered by His sacrifice. But, not ALL will claim this provision God has offered. For they must claim it through placing their faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour...

you said-----Analogically speaking, you have set up judgement day as when the accounts of men are called in. Now God expects say $100mn from every man - but man has run up a debt of negative balance -$200mn before God. Now you're saying that Christ took up every person's every single debt and nailed it to the cross - this referring only to the -$200mn. And you're saying nobody is in debt now. You believe Christ erased the negative balances of every single person and has brought them all to the 0 mark by His death on the cross - and then offers the provision for the +$100mn to all who believe in Him. These who have not put their faith in Him still try and work on their own to come up to the $100mn mark that God requires of them - and they are not able to pay this - and hence these are left out of the kingdom. These who did not believe into Christ and who strived on their own, are left outside only because of their inability to muster up the $100mn - but not because of their negative balance debt which Christ has already settled on the cross. Is this how you're seeing it? If not, tweak the analogy around to help me understand.
(Note: these numbers used are random and serve no purpose in themselves.)[/QUOTE]

Grubal---- According to Revelation 20:11-13 The small and the great stand before the judgment seat of Christ and the "books" are opened and they are judged (from the things that are in the "books") according to their "works" (deeds in the flesh) Another book is opened called, "the book of life." and those whose names are not written in this particular book are cast into the "lake of fire." Those things written in the "books" may be everything that person ever said, thought, spoke, and did, a whole history of that persons life. And they will be judged accordingly...

 

[ivdavid]

ivdavid - "Can one be condemned if they have no sins imputed to them?"
Grubal Muruch - "Romans 4:15 says---Because the law works wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."

I'd rather come across as dense than presume wrongly. Is your response a yes or a no to my question? Seems like a 'no' to me - but affirm the same, please.


Grubal Muruch - "God provided a way for man's sins to be forgiven and to receive God's mercy."
Are man's sins forgiven already and God's mercy granted already before a person believes into Christ - or does this happen effectively after one believes?

Grubal Muruch - "But, there are some who have "rejected" God's only provision to show mercy and to forgive man of his sins."
Yes. When these people reject God's "provision" for them, do they still receive mercy from God and are their sins still forgiven?

Grubal Muruch - "ALL men are covered by His sacrifice. But, not ALL will claim this provision God has offered."
Again, if people do not claim this provision - is the provision still effectively valid in their case? If you are confused about what I'm asking, please tell me so. What I'm driving at is just this - If a person does not claim God's provision for forgiveness of sins, is the provision still applied to that person and are his sins still forgiven? If they are, then what's the use of this condition - that they have to believe in Christ to have their sins forgiven - they'd be forgiven anyway, right?

Grubal Muruch - "For they must claim it through placing their faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour..."
I've rephrased the same question as many times as you've rephrased this same above statement - I'm hoping for an unambiguous answer. What happens if a person does not claim it[the provision of God] - is the provision still given to them?

ivdavid - "Analogically speaking....Is this how you're seeing it? If not, tweak the analogy around to help me understand."
Is there any part of the analogy you didn't understand - I could clarify such areas for you. You see, if you could actually go through the analogy and tell me if that's the way you're seeing things and if not, where exactly you differ, - I'd be able to understand in clearer fashion what it is you exactly believe.

 

[ivdavid]

The only difference is, a good deed done "in the flesh" does not bring glory to God or reward to the believer, otherwise the deed is the same. That's where we differ...

It's amazing to see how the smallest of differences could lead us to completely distant conclusions along the line.

Now, if "good" in "good works/deeds/acts of man" is defined as those works/acts/deeds of man that bring glory to God - shouldn't you be calling these above deeds/works/acts "in the flesh" as "not good" ie "bad"?

I think I know where you're having a problem. Suppose a man gives alms to the poor and does it for his own glory ie this act of man is not unto the glory of God - I'd term this act as "bad/sinful" - and I guess your problem here is that I'm implying the act of giving alms to the poor as "bad/sinful" which is NOT what I'm doing. I'm only saying that this man has transgressed the Law of God - which commands us to do our works in love for God and equal love for neighbor - and this man has transgressed these and hence has done "bad" - according to our definition of "bad". Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[Grubal Muruch]

It's amazing to see how the smallest of differences could lead us to completely distant conclusions along the line.

Now, if "good" in "good works/deeds/acts of man" is defined as those works/acts/deeds of man that bring glory to God - shouldn't you be calling these above deeds/works/acts "in the flesh" as "not good" ie "bad"?

I think I know where you're having a problem. Suppose a man gives alms to the poor and does it for his own glory ie this act of man is not unto the glory of God - I'd term this act as "bad/sinful" - and I guess your problem here is that I'm implying the act of giving alms to the poor as "bad/sinful" which is NOT what I'm doing. I'm only saying that this man has transgressed the Law of God - which commands us to do our works in love for God and equal love for neighbor - and this man has transgressed these and hence has done "bad" - according to our definition of "bad". Do you see what I'm getting at?

you said-----Now, if "good" in "good works/deeds/acts of man" is defined as those works/acts/deeds of man that bring glory to God - shouldn't you be calling these above deeds/works/acts "in the flesh" as "not good" ie "bad"?

Grubal-----First of all why would a good deed such as, feeding the poor suddenly be considered "evil" simply because of the one doing the good deed ? The difference lies in the outcome of the deed, meaning, the believer is bringing glory to God by being obedient and loving his neighbor. (And this is due to the indwelling Spirit) On the other hand, the unbeliever receives no Spiritual rewards while here on earth or the afterlife. And he's not doing the deed to be obedient and bring glory to God, quite the contrary, he's doing it of he's own volition (not being influenced by the indwelling Spirit) and receiving only personal gratification and perhaps the admiration of those around him...

you said-----
I think I know where you're having a problem. Suppose a man gives alms to the poor and does it for his own glory ie this act of man is not unto the glory of God - I'd term this act as "bad/sinful" - and I guess your problem here is that I'm implying the act of giving alms to the poor as "bad/sinful" which is NOT what I'm doing. I'm only saying that this man has transgressed the Law of God - which commands us to do our works in love for God and equal love for neighbor - and this man has transgressed these and hence has done "bad" - according to our definition of "bad". Do you see what I'm getting at?

Grubal-----I answered the first question without "Thoroughly" reading your question first. As you see, my answer is probably what you expected me to say. Therefore I left it in tact... Basically we're saying the same thing here. The good deed being done depends on the "intent" of the heart. The believer, for the glory of God, the unbeliever, for selfish reasons. But the act itself is still considered "good" although the "intent" be different...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

ivdavid - "Can one be condemned if they have no sins imputed to them?"
Grubal Muruch - "Romans 4:15 says---Because the law works wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."

I'd rather come across as dense than presume wrongly. Is your response a yes or a no to my question? Seems like a 'no' to me - but affirm the same, please.


Grubal Muruch - "God provided a way for man's sins to be forgiven and to receive God's mercy."
Are man's sins forgiven already and God's mercy granted already before a person believes into Christ - or does this happen effectively after one believes?

Grubal Muruch - "But, there are some who have "rejected" God's only provision to show mercy and to forgive man of his sins."
Yes. When these people reject God's "provision" for them, do they still receive mercy from God and are their sins still forgiven?

Grubal Muruch - "ALL men are covered by His sacrifice. But, not ALL will claim this provision God has offered."
Again, if people do not claim this provision - is the provision still effectively valid in their case? If you are confused about what I'm asking, please tell me so. What I'm driving at is just this - If a person does not claim God's provision for forgiveness of sins, is the provision still applied to that person and are his sins still forgiven? If they are, then what's the use of this condition - that they have to believe in Christ to have their sins forgiven - they'd be forgiven anyway, right?

Grubal Muruch - "For they must claim it through placing their faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour..."
I've rephrased the same question as many times as you've rephrased this same above statement - I'm hoping for an unambiguous answer. What happens if a person does not claim it[the provision of God] - is the provision still given to them?

ivdavid - "Analogically speaking....Is this how you're seeing it? If not, tweak the analogy around to help me understand."
Is there any part of the analogy you didn't understand - I could clarify such areas for you. You see, if you could actually go through the analogy and tell me if that's the way you're seeing things and if not, where exactly you differ, - I'd be able to understand in clearer fashion what it is you exactly believe.

you said-----I'd rather come across as dense than presume wrongly. Is your response a yes or a no to my question? Seems like a 'no' to me - but affirm the same, please.

Grubal----- according to your question and considering what Paul is saying, the answer would be, no...However, the answer is related to the question and may not represent the context of which Paul is speaking. Therefore, further examination of the Scriptures involved, would have to be explored in a more meaningful way, other than presenting a simple answer to a simply question...

you said-----Are man's sins forgiven already and God's mercy granted already before a person believes into Christ - or does this happen effectively after one believes?

Grubal-----My simple answer would be, no, after. How can a "gift" be given, "before" it's been delivered and subsequently been received ? There's an order to everything...

you said-----Yes. When these people reject God's "provision" for them, do they still receive mercy from God and are their sins still forgiven?

Grubal-----No. As we have seen in Revelation, those not found in the "Book of Life" well, we know what happens.

you said-----Again, if people do not claim this provision - is the provision still effectively valid in their case? If you are confused about what I'm asking, please tell me so. What I'm driving at is just this - If a person does not claim God's provision for forgiveness of sins, is the provision still applied to that person and are his sins still forgiven? If they are, then what's the use of this condition - that they have to believe in Christ to have their sins forgiven - they'd be forgiven anyway, right?

Grubal-----The "provision" is available to anyone, due to the fact, "Christ died for the sins of ALL men." But in order to benefit from His "sacrifice" one must, hear the word, believe the word and have that word "applied to one's life. Nonetheless, the provision is available...

you said-----
I've rephrased the same question as many times as you've rephrased this same above statement - I'm hoping for an unambiguous answer. What happens if a person does not claim it[the provision of God] - is the provision still given to them?

Grubal----- unequivocally, no...To draw an analogy, a business provides medical insurance to "all" it's employees, but, in order to benefit from said,insurance one must sign up for it. Some may choose (for whatever reason) to pass on the insurance, but nonetheless it is available to ALL"