ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

[Lighthouse]

And so the OP challenges you to explain the basis for Christ forgiving, if he was supposed to be preaching law not grace.
The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.

Who said God cannot forgive sins under the law?Or that grace was non-extant under the law?

So what was the basis of their faith if the reason for hope wasn't revealed?

The same basis for their faith in God before Jesus.

 

[Stripe]

For telling you that the OP isn't specifically dealing with your response?

:chuckle:

I don't want OP to deal with my response. That would make my response redundant.

If you do not understand the law, how can you possibly describe forgiveness?

What was the law regarding adultery?

 

[andyc]

Maybe Little Johnny W the Dance Director thinks you guys in England are supposed to speak King James English.

W gets all excited when he puts his Bullinger gimp mask on.

 

[andyc]

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

And where your above is concerned, ol Tim would not have had much of a choice, the poor guy, as earlier, the Apostle had had to say unto him...

1 Timothy 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

What you are doing is confusing the great power of our minds and emotions over every cell of our bodies, with the supernatural power of God that was at work back then; given its' intent back then.

I still recall once, while I was out on an extremely cold night; freezing to where my every word sounded much like that of a Pentecostal's supposed speaking in tongues.

At one point, I thought 'wait a minute; why am I freezing to death - it's 98 degrees inside me - I'm literally on a tropical island within...'

Next thing I knew; I was much better able to deal with that weather, broke a sweat as if I had been out sprinting under a ton of clothes in that biting cold weather.

Next morning, I get up; my sinuses blown up as result of my having ended up sweating under all that cold weather.

At first I thought "I must have caught a cold...'

Because we are raised to BELIEVE that kind of thing, right off.

But then, just as quickly, I put that automatic reading into things in check, and said to myself 'No I haven't; that's just my immune system. It's kicked into high gear to take care of business like it's supposed to, and my so called "symptoms" are nothing more than "a symptom" that my immune system is kicking butt like it's supposed to...'

IMMEDIATELY, my sinuses returned to normal...

Blew me away, these God given "abilities" given us in Adam.

Your asthma, andyc?

I'm glad for your sake that is no longer your problem. I really am.

At the same time, many forms of asthma are the result of a mistake made by the immune system. It takes what is actually "a false positive" as an actual attack, and responds accordingly.

A false positive it itself has accidentally generated.

As when a child dreams it owns a toy it does not really own and then gets up to play with it only to find it does not really own that toy.

As when we find ourselves looking for a passage we swear is there, only to find out ours was 'a false positive - here it is; in this other chapter over here, lol'

All that is the power of the mind over our physical behaviour, including; over every aspect of our physical body (skeletal; muscular; nervous; limbic, immune system; you name it).

Your belief and the ability of belief over all the above, accidentally set off its' opposite in your favor, or to your "salvation" from your "infirmity."

Nothing more.

That is NOT only NOT the supernatural power the Scripture is describing was in effect back then; but given the Scripture as to why such things were then in operation.

I "suspect...you are too superstitious..."

Me; "much study maketh" me "mad" - consistently so - as to the 100% Cessationism the Scripture clearly teaches is now "come."

Another time, I was at a home Bible study with a few people.

Sofas all around this big, low, living room table in the middle.

At one point I felt something at my feet; looked down; realized their family dog was fast asleep under the table, and left it alone.

Some 30-40 minutes or so into our study, the dog: a beautiful, full grown red Lab, wakes up and comes out from under the table.

Right off, one of the guys panics "I, I, I can't be around dogs" he blurts out "I'm allergic to dog fur!"

'That's interesting,' I thought 'the dog's been there all along...yet his allergy kicked in when only when he became aware the the dog was there...'

Later, I asked him a bunch of questions, curious about what was actually going on within him...

Turned out he had tragically lost a dog as a child "and ever since then I've been allergic to dogs," the poor guy said to me.

But; Believers not only being as superstitious as they often are, but often married to their ideas in their unawareness of thing or another; I left it at that.

Again, I'm glad your asthma is behind you...

Ok....what you need to do is meditate on these two verses.

Romans 4:17 (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") in the presence of Him whom he believed——God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;

1Cor 1:27-29
But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence.


Part of God's nature is to not accept a negative physical reality. I've watched you mock what you obviously do not understand, and you are behaving like those who despise a characteristic of God that he wants to see in his people.
When his children are confronted with impossible situations, God wants us to believe.

You are baptized in unbelief, so you do not understand this. If you are determined to do everything within your natural ability, you'll only have reason to glory in the flesh.

 

[andyc]

Who said God cannot forgive sins under the law?Or that grace was non-extant under the law?

If God was the one that wrote the law, and the law demands justice, how can God forgive while not violating his own word?

The same basis for their faith in God before Jesus.

Which was?

 

[andyc]

:chuckle:

I don't want OP to deal with my response. That would make my response redundant.

If you do not understand the law, how can you possibly describe forgiveness?

What was the law regarding adultery?

Death.

What did Jesus tell the accusers?

Stone her if you yourselves are without sin.

 

[Right Divider]

Death.

What did Jesus tell the accusers?

Stone her if you yourselves are without sin.

She had no accusers as the law demanded.

John 8:10-11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(8:10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? (8:11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.​

So Jesus did not condemn her AND the law was upheld.

 

[andyc]

She had no accusers as the law demanded.

John 8:10-11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(8:10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? (8:11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.​

So Jesus did not condemn her AND the law was upheld.

This is the problem when dealing with people who don't really understand the law.
There are various aspects to the law. When it comes to the sin of adultery, there is the moral law (the thou shalt nots), and the judical aspect of the law (the judgment).

When it comes to the moral aspect of the law, the woman violated the command. And so the woman was guilty, and will always be guilty. Every person on the planet is guilty when they commit a sin, whether it's a sin against the law, or a sin against conscience.

The judicial aspect of the law is the consequences for breaking the law. The punishment.

Now, what you're saying is that the woman escaped the judgment of the law because you think the trial was not lawful. This is irrelevant, as it is obvious a trial was never intended in the first place. All the accusers were interested in is Jesus' opinion regarding a person who had committed adultery, from the Mosaic law perspective.
Instead of asking a question concerning the law, they used a real situation where a person was caught. Under the Mosaic law, this woman was doomed, but what say Jesus? Someone who tended to undermine the law (from their perspective) by forgiving sinners?

If the accusers wanted to operate under the law, Jesus said, "go ahead and punish her", but he added, "if you yourselves are sure that you are without sin and fit to judge". Had the accusers themselves been with the woman in the past? who knows?

Let's say that the woman escaped the judicial aspect of the law, which meant her life was spared, did the law (and of course God) still condemn her because the sin was still committed, and she was still guilty?
Or was her sin forgiven by Jesus 100%?

If Jesus didn't forgive her, then she was still guilty of adultery, and still subject to judgement.
If he did forgive her, she obviously was not bound by the law. So what was the basis of her forgiveness?

It's humorous to watch you madists trying to figure this out, and dance all around the obvious.

 

[DAN P]

This is the problem when dealing with people who don't really understand the law.
There are various aspects to the law. When it comes to the sin of adultery, there is the moral law (the thou shalt nots), and the judical aspect of the law (the judgment).

When it comes to the moral aspect of the law, the woman violated the command. And so the woman was guilty, and will always be guilty. Every person on the planet is guilty when they commit a sin, whether it's a sin against the law, or a sin against conscience.

The judicial aspect of the law is the consequences for breaking the law. The punishment.

Now, what you're saying is that the woman escaped the judgment of the law because you think the trial was not lawful. This is irrelevant, as it is obvious a trial was never intended in the first place. All the accusers were interested in is Jesus' opinion regarding a person who had committed adultery, from the Mosaic law perspective.
Instead of asking a question concerning the law, they used a real situation where a person was caught. Under the Mosaic law, this woman was doomed, but what say Jesus? Someone who tended to undermine the law (from their perspective) by forgiving sinners?

If the accusers wanted to operate under the law, Jesus said, "go ahead and punish her", but he added, "if you yourselves are sure that you are without sin and fit to judge". Had the accusers themselves been with the woman in the past? who knows?

Let's say that the woman escaped the judicial aspect of the law, which meant her life was spared, did the law (and of course God) still condemn her because the sin was still committed, and she was still guilty?
Or was her sin forgiven by Jesus 100%?

If Jesus didn't forgive her, then she was still guilty of adultery, and still subject to judgement.
If he did forgive her, she obviously was not bound by the law. So what was the basis of her forgiveness?

It's humorous to watch you madists trying to figure this out, and dance all around the obvious.

Hi , so HUMOR me and say what we are to figure OUT and I do not DANCE all around the OBVIOUS ??

Can you explain why the MAN was not also charged with ADULTY ?

Also it has HAPPEBED under the Law of Moses !!

dan p

 

[DAN P]

If God was the one that wrote the law, and the law demands justice, how can God forgive while not violating his own word?



Which was?

Hi and ask God why He forgave King David for His ADULTY ??

Gives MERCY to whom He has MERCY ON !!

DAN P

 

[Right Divider]

This is the problem when dealing with people who don't really understand the law.
There are various aspects to the law. When it comes to the sin of adultery, there is the moral law (the thou shalt nots), and the judical aspect of the law (the judgment).

When it comes to the moral aspect of the law, the woman violated the command. And so the woman was guilty, and will always be guilty. Every person on the planet is guilty when they commit a sin, whether it's a sin against the law, or a sin against conscience.

The judicial aspect of the law is the consequences for breaking the law. The punishment.

Now, what you're saying is that the woman escaped the judgment of the law because you think the trial was not lawful. This is irrelevant, as it is obvious a trial was never intended in the first place. All the accusers were interested in is Jesus' opinion regarding a person who had committed adultery, from the Mosaic law perspective.
Instead of asking a question concerning the law, they used a real situation where a person was caught. Under the Mosaic law, this woman was doomed, but what say Jesus? Someone who tended to undermine the law (from their perspective) by forgiving sinners?

If the accusers wanted to operate under the law, Jesus said, "go ahead and punish her", but he added, "if you yourselves are sure that you are without sin and fit to judge". Had the accusers themselves been with the woman in the past? who knows?

Let's say that the woman escaped the judicial aspect of the law, which meant her life was spared, did the law (and of course God) still condemn her because the sin was still committed, and she was still guilty?
Or was her sin forgiven by Jesus 100%?

If Jesus didn't forgive her, then she was still guilty of adultery, and still subject to judgement.
If he did forgive her, she obviously was not bound by the law. So what was the basis of her forgiveness?

It's humorous to watch you madists trying to figure this out, and dance all around the obvious.

Another long-winded rant.... well done.

Your fallacious logic will get you every time!

Was King David "not bound by the law"?

 

[andyc]

David's own life was spared, but the judgement of God broke out on his family instead.
If God gave you the option to judge you for your sin, or your family, what would you choose?

 

[andyc]

Hi , so HUMOR me and say what we are to figure OUT and I do not DANCE all around the OBVIOUS ??

Can you explain why the MAN was not also charged with ADULTY ?

Also it has HAPPEBED under the Law of Moses !!

dan p

The fact that the man wasn't charged (maybe not even a Jew), is irrelevant.
He is no less guilty, is he?
Whether he sinned against Moses' law or conscience.

 

[Right Divider]

David's own life was spared, but the judgement of God broke out on his family instead.
If God gave you the option to judge you for your sin, or your family, what would you choose?

atrol: !!! COP OUT ALERT!!!! atrol:

 

[andyc]

atrol: !!! COP OUT ALERT!!!! atrol:

So you're saying that David was forgiven?
Even though the Son born to him and Bathsheba was put to death?

God also said, the sword shall never depart from your house, and as a result, Amnon died at the hand of Absalom after Amnon raped his sister. Absalom was killed by Joab after he rose up against David. And Solomon killed Adonijah.

David's life was spared, but the law did not forgive him. When faced with the facts by Nathan, David said, the man shall pay fourfold, and David happened to lose four sons. Coincidence?

 

[Right Divider]

So you're saying that David was forgiven?
Even though the Son born to him and Bathsheba was put to death?

God also said, the sword shall never depart from your house, and as a result, Amnon died at the hand of Absalom after Amnon raped his sister. Absalom was killed by Joab after he rose up against David. And Solomon killed Adonijah.

David's life was spared, but the law did not forgive him. When faced with the facts by Nathan, David said, the man shall pay fourfold, and David happened to lose four sons. Coincidence?

According to the LAW, he should have been put to death.

It always fascinating when folks like you go off on their illogical and anecdotal tangents in a vain attempt to "fix up" their faulty stories.

Keep up the great work andyc.

 

[Nang]

I find it highly amusing to see how awkwardly antinominians (MADists) grapple with divine forensics.

 

[serpentdove]

David's own life was spared, but the judgement of God broke out on his family instead.
If God gave you the option to judge you for your sin, or your family, what would you choose?

"Ouch." ~ E.T.

"If it feels good--do it. :banana: Do it in the streets." :idunno: ~ Michael Savage Ex 20:14

 

[andyc]

I find it highly amusing to see how awkwardly antinominians (MADists) grapple with divine forensics.

Yeah they've got no choice have they?

Either Jesus ministered grace, as he still does, or he was a brutal law enforcer.
If the former, mad does indeed find itself in the trash where it belongs.

 

[Stripe]

Death.

That's the penalty. I asked what the law is.

What did Jesus tell the accusers? Stone her if you yourselves are without sin.

You're ignoring the guts of the issue. Jesus was challenged on a point of law.

Had the Pharisees brought a watertight case, Jesus' response would not have worked.

So, do you know what the law regarding adultery is?

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app