Who can answer this?

[By Grace]

Excuse me, huh? I am having trouble following how you arrived at this conclusion. I'd never, nor did I ever say anything that is remotely that disrespectful to God or His Word.
In response to the first post, all I was saying was that it would be a good idea to answer the potential question of WHY we ought to be good so that its benefits will be apparent. Benefits like pleasing an all powerful God, avoiding the wrath of God against unrighteousness are all advantages of being good that we as Christians would do well to promote.

Here is the key phrase in that, which you objected to:
"that, you then create a well-intentioned but blasphemous thought against God"

I was attempting to say two distinct things by using that phrase:
1) your blasphemy was not deliberate, and was a result of your attempt to learn about God.
2) that the result of that intention was indeed blasphemy because of your usage of the phrase: "you ought to be good" by asking the question of why is that the case?" The concept of "being good" is warm and cuddly because it is ambiguous. It does not have the force of "Thou shall not do this, but you shall do that" coming from an omnipotent God behind it.

If this statement were true, "avoiding the wrath of God against unrighteousness are all advantages of being good that we as Christians would do well to promote " then Scriptures like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:4-6 would be unnecessary.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast​

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour​

let me put this another way, and I do not mean to be disrespectful in ANY way, but it seems as if your view of the Bible is anthrocentric (man centered) but I believe that the best way to study the Bible is to be theocentric (God centered) because it is He who caused it to be written so that we could learn about Him.

]My understanding is that according to Paul, the Law as schoolmaster was implemented in order to help his people understand what sin was (Gal 3:20). It was a guide to them to help a people struggling with sin live more holy lives that pleased the LORD. So the Law apparently only needed to be written and put in place because the people were not doing what they should have been doing naturally as Paul indicated in Galatians 2 when we spoke of the Gentiles that "naturally though they weren't given the Law.

Are you perhaps implying that it was possible to keep the law in its entirety?

That they "naturally obey things in the law" is to the best of my research is not found in Galatians. Perhaps you reference another Scripture, or are you paraphrasing something? I ask because it is universal that we all sin and come short of the glory of God. Here is a passage that tells us that despite our best intentions, and even the "laws we make for ourselves" we break. Therefore we are under condemnation

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:​

The phrase "10 Commandments" is actually a misnomer. Didi you know that the Hebrew phrase actually translates into English as "The 10 Words or Statements?" It can be said that these 10 statements were the words that made up the covenant between God and the Israelites.

http://christianity.stackexchange.c...n-commandments-sometimes-called-the-decalogue
http://www.torahatlanta.com/files/The_Ten_Commandments.html

While your sources tell you is that the word transliterated hdbr is a combination of the definite article h + the word dbr, meaning 'word"; and the word transliterated as srt is a compound word used to enumerate, it does not tell you that the Hebrew title word for the entire book of Deuteronomy is "ha dabarim".

Therefore, there is more to those words than can be gathered from your research. I do commend you for looking, however. But from what I read from following the footnotes from the "Torah Atlanta" site is that the information you cite is from several Jewish-Christian Torah-only groups. Therefore because they are highly suspect because unanimously, they reject the New Testament.

Therefore, I respectfully ask, "What exactly is your point?"

 

[Tristan]

Hi Tristan, where is it written that we may murder in certain instances? The commandment was "thou shalt not murder".

People have the rights that GOD has ordained, and no others (a pointing the 56 Founding Fathers who wrote the Declaration of Independence recognized when they stated the rights we have are given by God and are therefore inalienable). A government licensing sin doesn't give anyone the right to a sacred institution that God gave us as the foundation of all society (marriage). Marriage was given and defined to us by God Himself starting with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It is always only 1 man and 1 woman becoming 1 forever. If people who practice the sin of homosexuality want to spend time together it by definition cannot be referred to as "marriage" of any kind, for there is only 1 marriage and God has spoken. He doesn't need to make any amendments, He was right the first time.
When you say God does the judging, you are referencing what God has already judged as sin. The judgements that will come refer to what we have done in this life with our callings and for unbelievers whether or not they accept Jesus as their sacrifice for sin (for all sin has been forgiven already at the Cross of Christ). The judgements also refer to the rewards we will get for what we have done and whether our work for Him according to our calling passes the test of the fire it will pass through.

Jesus directly addressed this:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." -Matthew 5:21-24

Murder is different from killing in that it involves malice and anger. It's not okay to murder BECAUSE it involves holding a grudge and harbouring ill will toward someone. As I've brought up:

"To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work." -Titus 1:15-16

The real key here is what's on the inside.

"The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." -Luke 6:45

So rather than focusing on the actions being right or wrong and deciding whether a person is good or evil, it is better to focus on the attitude with which they are doing that action and determining whether it is good or evil. If someone is acting out of love, then their actions are good. If they are acting for the sake of self benefit to the detriment of others, or they are harming others in anger, it is evil. It's often not so cut and dried, but time and time again Jesus spoke of what comes out of your heart being what matters.

This is why I don't condemn people who are homosexual. If they display love for each other, then I will not judge them...because out of love, only good can come.

 

[Tristan]

Here is the key phrase in that, which you objected to:
"that, you then create a well-intentioned but blasphemous thought against God"

I was attempting to say two distinct things by using that phrase:
1) your blasphemy was not deliberate, and was a result of your attempt to learn about God.
2) that the result of that intention was indeed blasphemy because of your usage of the phrase: "you ought to be good" by asking the question of why is that the case?" The concept of "being good" is warm and cuddly because it is ambiguous. It does not have the force of "Thou shall not do this, but you shall do that" coming from an omnipotent God behind it.

If this statement were true, "avoiding the wrath of God against unrighteousness are all advantages of being good that we as Christians would do well to promote " then Scriptures like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:4-6 would be unnecessary.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast​

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour​

let me put this another way, and I do not mean to be disrespectful in ANY way, but it seems as if your view of the Bible is anthrocentric (man centered) but I believe that the best way to study the Bible is to be theocentric (God centered) because it is He who caused it to be written so that we could learn about Him.


Are you perhaps implying that it was possible to keep the law in its entirety?

That they "naturally obey things in the law" is to the best of my research is not found in Galatians. Perhaps you reference another Scripture, or are you paraphrasing something? I ask because it is universal that we all sin and come short of the glory of God. Here is a passage that tells us that despite our best intentions, and even the "laws we make for ourselves" we break. Therefore we are under condemnation

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:​

While your sources tell you is that the word transliterated hdbr is a combination of the definite article h + the word dbr, meaning 'word"; and the word transliterated as srt is a compound word used to enumerate, it does not tell you that the Hebrew title word for the entire book of Deuteronomy is "ha dabarim".

Therefore, there is more to those words than can be gathered from your research. I do commend you for looking, however. But from what I read from following the footnotes from the "Torah Atlanta" site is that the information you cite is from several Jewish-Christian Torah-only groups. Therefore because they are highly suspect because unanimously, they reject the New Testament.

Therefore, I respectfully ask, "What exactly is your point?"

"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." -Romans 2:14-16

You said:

"That they "naturally obey things in the law" is to the best of my research is not found in Galatians."

Sorry, I found what was being paraphrased. I also brought it up a while ago.

 

[WIP]

Jesus directly addressed this:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." -Matthew 5:21-24

Murder is different from killing in that it involves malice and anger. It's not okay to murder BECAUSE it involves holding a grudge and harbouring ill will toward someone. As I've brought up:

"To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work." -Titus 1:15-16

The real key here is what's on the inside.

"The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." -Luke 6:45

So rather than focusing on the actions being right or wrong and deciding whether a person is good or evil, it is better to focus on the attitude with which they are doing that action and determining whether it is good or evil. If someone is acting out of love, then their actions are good. If they are acting for the sake of self benefit to the detriment of others, or they are harming others in anger, it is evil. It's often not so cut and dried, but time and time again Jesus spoke of what comes out of your heart being what matters.

This is why I don't condemn people who are homosexual. If they display love for each other, then I will not judge them...because out of love, only good can come.

To make sure I understand correctly....you're saying that no matter what I do to or with another person as long as what I do is out of love for them, then it is good?

 

[By Grace]

"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." -Romans 2:14-16

You said:

"That they "naturally obey things in the law" is to the best of my research is not found in Galatians."

Sorry, I found what was being paraphrased. I also brought it up a while ago.

Thank you for your clarification, and for citing the correcting book, Tristan.

Nevertheless, I believe you err because you are not taking the entire context in mind, and as a result,you end up with an unintended pretext. With that in mind, let us consider the context:

Romans 2: 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
​

The first thing I want to call to your attention is the subordinate clause to verse 12. It runs from verse 13 to15, and the KJV translators put that in parenthesis (which I made in bold red for visibility) to give the flavor of the Greek. That subordination (actually meaning below in importance) makes it clear that verse 12 is the primary verse, and everything following that is secondary, and is making an explanation of verse 12.

You can see how I created several subordinating clauses in the above paragraphs in order to clarify what I meant previously in the sentence. Paul did likewise here in Romans, and elsewhere, for it is a hallmark of his writing.

As a result, your unintended pretext is three fold:
1) it is in opposition to verse 12
2) it is in opposition to verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:4-6, both of which were quoted in full in my previous post.
3) the translation that you use gives a false impression, and is contrary to the KJV and the other translations.

Pretext 1 is wrong because of what I underlined in verse 14. It says, and it is similar in all other verses I checked and posted below. Essentially it is upholding things like Hamurabi's Code and other similar ancient laws because they contain some of the things in the Ten Commandments. For example murder is a universal prohibition.

Pretext 1 is also wrong because I believe that you assume the phrase things contained in the law is an indication of having the entire Torah, and its 613 laws

Pretext 2 is wrong because it leads to a false impression of universalism, and of salvation by works, as opposed to salvation by grace alone.

Below is why (using English translations) pretext 3 is wrong. This is not to espouse a "pick and choose your favorite translation" type of thing. Instead, it is using various English translations to demonstrate what the Greek grammar actually says. And because it is understandable that most people do not have access to Greek tools, it is not expected that they are familiar with the things in the Koine Greek New Testament

Verse 14 in several versions

14 For when those of the nations, which have no law, practise by nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law to themselves;
DARBY

14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
ASV

14 When Gentiles who have not the [divine] Law do instinctively what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, since they do not have the Law.
Amplified New Testament


14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
AV 1873

14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
ESV

14 For when Gentiles,who do not have the law,by nature do what the law requires,they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
ESV NT Rev. Int.

14 The Gentiles do not have the Law; but whenever they do by instinct what the Law commands, they are their own law, even though they do not have the Law.
GNT

14 So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law.
HCSB


14 For whenever Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
ISV

14 For whent he Gentiles,which have not the law,do by nature the things contained in the law,these,having not the law,area law unto themselves:
KJV


14 When outsiders who have never heard of God’s law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience.
The Message

14 For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves.
NET

14 For when entiles who do not havethe Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not havingthe Law, are a law to themselves,
NASB95

14 For whenGentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not havingthe Law, are a law to themselves,
NASB

14 (Those who are not Jews do not have the law, but when they freely do what the law commands, they are the law for themselves. This is true even though they do not have the law.
NCV

14 Those who aren’t Jews do not have the law. Sometimes they just naturally do what the law requires. They are a law for themselves. This is true even though they don’t have the law.
NIrV

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
NIV

14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
NKJV

14 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it.
NLT

14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves.
NRSV

14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
RSV

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
TNIV

14 For, when nations that have not a law, by nature may do the things of the law, these not having a law—to themselves are a law;
YLT

What did surprise me in the above was the fact that you used the ESV, which is an EXCELLENT translation, but when I researched that verse in the notes, and cross references, the verse is referring back to Romans 1:19

Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.​

As a result, because you did not follow that, you were led off onto a false impression.

Finally, pretext 3 is wrong because it violates the doctrine of the perspicuity of the Scriptures. That is a nice Sunday word that means "clearness", and in practical terms, perspicuity means that it will not say that "A is truth" in one place, and then contradict itself elsewhere by saying that "not A is the truth".

My hope is that you .. edited .. will examine this, and my previous post to see what things are true in them, and correct me where I have gone wrong.

​

​

 

[Tristan]

To make sure I understand correctly....you're saying that no matter what I do to or with another person as long as what I do is out of love for them, then it is good?

"Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." -Romans 13:10

Yes, as long as you do something out of love, it is good, because if it is not something good, you are not loving.

By Grace (your post is too long to reasonably quote)

I don't agree with the KJV translations in places all over the Bible...so I use other translations with fewer issues, preferring the ESV. Those parentheses are grammatically incorrect when there's a semicolon. Just get rid of the unnecessary punctuation and it's a lot clearer.

"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." -Romans 2:12

So what are the "things in the law?" Well let's a be a little careful here. The terminology in this section is very Jewish, so we use terms like circumcision which harkens back to the covenant made with Abraham.

"So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." -Romans 2:29

This here is very telling. You're telling me I believe that we have to obey the letter of the law, but just a little further in Romans 2, Paul goes into detail about how it's not about the letter of the law, it's the Spirit of the law. It's not the written code that we are judged by anymore. Paul addressed this at the Jerusalem Council in Acts:

"Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." -Acts 15:10-11

This isn't works based salvation. I still can't believe people are drawing that out of what I'm saying. It's by the grace of Jesus that all of us are saved. It's not about upholding all the laws literally. It's a circumcision of the Spirit. We uphold the law by the Spirit which we can tell by the fruit of the Spirit. Love being the most important of all. When Gentiles by nature do what the law requires, they are not doing what the letter of the law requires, they are fulfilling it through love, because we know that love is the fulfillment of the law.

edited

So concerning Romans 1:19, let's take it in the context of this section:

"They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." -Romans 1:29-31

One cannot have the Spirit and be like the above. So clearly verse 1:19 refers to people that do not have the Spirit. I've seen literal nonbelievers that are full of love...and love doesn't do anything of the above.

Thanks for.... edited ....opportunity to clear things up.

 

[turnorburn]

tob

 

[WIP]

"Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." -Romans 13:10

Yes, as long as you do something out of love, it is good, because if it is not something good, you are not loving.

One word...euthanasia. I have a hard time calling that good.

 

[Tristan]

One word...euthanasia. I have a hard time calling that good.

Relevance or red herring?

 

[WIP]

I don't understand.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

euthanasia is called logical fallacy.
People might think it is good but it goes against God's word.

 

[Tristan]

edited

I don't understand.

We're not debating whether something is right or wrong. I'm saying that you can do whatever you want in love, because love does no wrong. If something is wrong and you do it, you cannot say you are loving...but then again, no action itself is wrong...so we end up having to really figure out what love is. Taking it case by case is probably the best way to decide that, rather than blanket saying one thing is innately wrong. There are situations where murder (in a legal sense) is necessary. Not in 99.999% of circumstances, but I can come up with one.
edited

 

[Tristan]

A logical fallacy is an error in logic. Please elaborate on how euthanasia is a logical fallacy and please explain how it's even relevant to this discussion.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

A logical fallacy is an error in logic. Please elaborate on how euthanasia is a logical fallacy and please explain how it's even relevant to this discussion.

A red herring is a logical fallacy.
That's a word you used when questioning euthanasia.
I answered your question.
I guess you just don't understand what you are saying.
But that's okay, I luv ya anyway.

 

[Tristan]

A red herring is a logical fallacy.
That's a word you used when questioning euthanasia.
I answered your question.
I guess you just don't understand what you are saying.
But that's okay, I luv ya anyway.

But that's not a logical fallacy. Not agreeing with God's word (without explaining how it doesn't) is not a logical fallacy. You also didn't explain why euthanasia is even relevant.

Don't feel it's on topic.

 

[reba]

lets stay on topic. Staff

 

[By Grace]

By Grace (your post is too long to reasonably quote)

I tend to be pedantic at times, especially when I believe that I am correct. Then the post gets long as I state Scriptural principles, and exegete via English what Scripture says. My aim is to make as solid a case as I can for what I believe.

I don't agree with the KJV translations in places all over the Bible...so I use other translations with fewer issues, preferring the ESV. Those parentheses are grammatically incorrect when there's a semicolon. Just get rid of the unnecessary punctuation and it's a lot clearer.

"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." -Romans 2:12

So what are the "things in the law?" Well let's a be a little careful here. The terminology in this section is very Jewish, so we use terms like circumcision which harkens back to the covenant made with Abraham.

I cited English punctuation because I did not want to have to explain the meaning of a subordinating clause. Besides, in the extant copies of Scripture, whIch exist today, there is no punctuation. It is written In Unicals like this: THECATINTHEHATISSKINNY

"So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." -Romans 2:29

This here is very telling. You're telling me I believe that we have to obey the letter of the law, but just a little further in Romans 2, Paul goes into detail about how it's not about the letter of the law, it's the Spirit of the law. It's not the written code that we are judged by anymore. Paul addressed this at the Jerusalem Council in Acts:

"Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." -Acts 15:10-11

Where are you going on this, Friend? I ask because I do not want to get off on another tangent that rightfully belongs in the Calvinism/Armnian threads, and for personal reasons I do not "debate" there; I post infrequently there.

This isn't works based salvation. I still can't believe people are drawing that out of what I'm saying. It's by the grace of Jesus that all of us are saved. It's not about upholding all the laws literally. It's a circumcision of the Spirit. We uphold the law by the Spirit which we can tell by the fruit of the Spirit. Love being the most important of all. When Gentiles by nature do what the law requires, they are not doing what the letter of the law requires, they are fulfilling it through love, because we know that love is the fulfillment of the law.

edited

So concerning Romans 1:19, let's take it in the context of this section:

"They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." -Romans 1:29-31

One cannot have the Spirit and be like the above. So clearly verse 1:19 refers to people that do not have the Spirit.

Chapters 1-3 of Romans culminate in the statement Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. As a result there are none of us who are not guilty before a just, righteous and holy God

I've seen literal nonbelievers that are full of love...and love doesn't do anything of the above.

Thanks for.... edited ....opportunity to clear things up.

Please clarify this statement for me because I read it, it seems as if you are saying "If I love God, I will not sin against Him"

ON A PERSONAL NOTE PUBLISHED PUBLICLY
We seem to have gone off on the personal areas, which I surely did not intend to do. In my theological study, I have been trained to be discerning about theological statements. My brain goes like this, if anyone makes a statement that is slightly different than what I learned in Systematic Theology, then I automatically take that statement, and run it out to its logical conclusion.

As a result I spotted a fallacy in something you posted, and the "running out" of that statement resulted in the conclusion that you were eventually denying both the omniscience and omnipotence of God. By temperament and by training, I am a teacher, so I am very quick to spot things that may lead others astray. So when you made that statement, I labeled it as "blasphemy" and in my mind, I was careful to label your statement blasphemous, but I made sure that I did not call you a blasphemer, going so far as to say that you were well-intentioned, and not being divisive when you posted that.

NEVER has it been my intention to cause you grief or embarrassment, nor shall it be so in the future. As a result, i request that if you find something which I post possibly offending that you do not automatically assume the worst. Ask ne a question, as I did when I posted "Please clarify this statement for me..." above.

Thank you,

 

[By Grace]

A logical fallacy is an error in logic. Please elaborate on how euthanasia is a logical fallacy and please explain how it's even relevant to this discussion.

Euthanasia literally means "good death"

Yes, it is not relevant to the topic at hand, but it was placed in play to illustrate a logical fallacy, of which another poster said you were guilty.
I believe you were unaware of the definition. You now know it, so

 

[eddif]

"You ought to be good".
This is a prescriptive idea.
How can we measure the truth against an idea?

Metaphysical ?
I used to think this was a bad word, but when I read about things hidden from the foundation of the world, it takes on a new meaning. God created the physical creation with purpose. Hidden within the physical are lessons to be learned. These greater than the physical things are what metaphysics is all about.

If I talk about reigns (kidneys) I can take body cleaning, but taken on to mental thought, mental cleaning is understood when bad thoughts are eliminated.

Truth against an idea?
A physical action screams to be linked to an idea. The first part of Romans 1 lets God define evil and good, and the last part of Romans 1 has some judging against God's original thoughts. If an idea can be good or evil, then every idea (imagination) must be found to be truth or error. The wrath of God from heaven hints at error (not what man decides). When we agree with God we are not a primary judge (we are just in agreement). When we choose to oppose God's ideas we are judging (becoming equal or above God). Daily I have the flesh to deal with. I have to confess my sin. Daily others may have different sins to deal with. No matter how much I think I know; truth judges my ideas.

God's love.
His love might get me in rehab if I need it. Gods love might encourage me if I need it. So my idea of love might not be His idea of love. Some folks respond to compassion, but others respond to fear (Jude).

Oxen represent bishops ( metaphysics in example).

The jerk from Mississippi
eddif

 

[By Grace]

Can you please define inspiration?

"the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, esp. to do something creative." A mental stimulation is generally not direct. That section in Corinthians refers to the message that Paul is passing on. God can certainly inspire them with a message, and then they write it in their own words. This makes sense, because the tone is different in almost all of the books. It doesn't say "all scripture is dictated by God."

When we speak of the Bible, we go to a much higher level than what you posted. Here is a shortened version of the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

A Short Statement
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Articles of Affirmation and Denial
Article I.
WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

WE DENY that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II.
WE AFFIRM that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

WE DENY that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III.
WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

WE DENY that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.
​

from http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
==============================================================================================
These (and the rest of the 19 articles in total that follow) have been definitive for the Evangelical community believing in the plenary and accuracy of the Scriptures on the matters which it speaks. Using the example of your words above "It doesn't say "all scripture is dictated by God." " since the Bible NEVER uses the terms such as you suggest, "dictated by God" it is logically impossible to establish either a positive or a negative from a negative statement. In other words, "prove to me that I did not steal the cookie from the cookie jar."

The last three paragraphs of the exposition section read as follows, and I believe that they are quite significant.

In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth, we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the main stream of Church history from the first days until very recently. We are concerned at the casual, inadvertent, and seemingly thoughtless way in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has been given up by so many in our day.

We are conscious too that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible which God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one's critical reasonings and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further.

We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified. Amen and Amen.
​

One unique thing about this board is that saying "You are wrong" is severely frowned upon because everyone has a right to believe as they wish, but that position does permit questioning others, and rational discussion of ideas.

Therefore, I ask you to consider the things that Jesus said about the Scriptures, especially when He said that "not one jot or tittel will be broken..."

When the long-forgotten scroll of the Pentateuch was discovered in the Temple, why was there a subsequent fasting and period of mourning when they read it if God's hand did not write that (not in the literal sense, of course)?

Why was it necessary for both Mark and Matthew to make two exactly accurate genealogies of Mary and Joseph?

Why was it necessary to establish that there were two independent witnesses of the circumcision of Jesus?

Why was it necessary for the prophet Isaiah to say to the scoffing and ungodly king Ahaz that the proof that not one arrow would fall in Jerusalem that "a virgin shall conceive"?

Isaiah 7: 9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.
10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. [the prophet told him to ask ANYTHING from God as a sign]
12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. [this is a false piety because he was the greatest king in terms of evil, ever in history. His wife was the infamous Jezebel]
13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.

Yes, I had to get Christmas here!

But these questions are not just "pricks in your side" they are designed to have you look at Scripture to see if the things mentioned in it are indeed so. the Bereans did that, and they were commended for that by Paul.

Ultimately, you need to ask yourself, "Is my belief congruent to or in opposition to what Jesus taught, what the Apostles taught, and what indeed the Bible itself teaches? The things in the Bible are put there for a reason, and IMHO it is vitally important to discover why God put them in the first place.