Unrighteousness is unrighteousness whether there are laws forbidding it or not. God banned Cain even though there was no commandment saying; "Thou shalt not murder". Laws were created because of sin, for the purpose of guiding us away from sin, but I believe that all forms of wrongdoing are counted against us whether we know the law or not. Wickedness exist in spite of the law, but God never endorsed wickedness prior to the law. So I don't personally think that ignorance of the law is a defense for breaking the law. Nor is the absence of a law a defense for unrighteous behavior. We all choose between good and evil, law or no law. We all have the knowledge of good and evil, and we can all distinguish between right and wrong, so I presume that we will be without excuse for doing bad, even if we plead ignorance of the laws? But I reckon God will judge and sort it all out in the end.
No Law = no sin?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
According to Christ's testimony-- as an expert witness in all matters relatedwilliemac said:
to the plan of salvation --believers are in absolutely no danger of hell and
eternal suffering for anything they might do or say.
†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.
Paul concurs.
†. Rom 8:1-2 . .There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus, because in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from
the law of sin and death.
The law of sin and death is defined by Paul as:
"The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23)
Now; since Paul concurs with Christ that believers are in absolutely no danger
of being condemned to hell for their sins; how is it that you dare to refute Paul
by quoting passages from his own writings; and in the process of refuting Paul;
thereby refuting Christ?
I gotta say: some of you anti-OSAS people defend your position like men gone
mad; and that's just the plain truth of it.
God did no such thing. Cain walked out on God of his own volition. The onlyDan57 said:
thing God did was take away his green thumb.
†. Gen 4:12 . . When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops
for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.
Cain's nomadic way of life wasn't the result of a ban; but simply because he
would have to scrounge for wild sources of food since he would have little
luck at raising any of his own.
The proper punishment for murder isn't banishment anyway. The proper
punishment is death (Gen 9:5-6, Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and
Num 35:31-34) but since no law against murder was yet in force in Cain's
day; then God couldn't prosecute him to the fullest extent. All He could do
was give Cain a rap on the knuckles.
You know; the way some of you people resist Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and
Gal 3:17, I have no choice but to conclude that you sincerely believe in your
hearts that Paul was just another chat room bee-esser who didn't really know
what he was talking about.
Buen Camino
/
That's not how I read it.. God told Cain that he was cursed, and could no longer farm the ground. That sounds like a punishment to me? When Cain was banned from farming, he said to God "Thou has driven me out", which suggest to me that Cain did not leave of his own volition.Webers_Home said:
"And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me." (Genesis 4:9-14)
In Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13, Paul is teaching the new covenant, where we are no longer bound by the curse of the law. The law designated the punishment for sin, it never suggested that no wickedness or unrighteous acts ever occurred prior to the laws existence. Obviously, there would be no need for laws if there was no sin to begin with.
Dan57, on 08 Oct 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:
ADAM cains father was made in the image of God ----------------image meaning he knew Gods will perfectly not that he looked like God after all God is spirit ..
so there for Adam knew to tell his son cain
about Gods will about not murdering .
i think you have given concrete evidance that adam did tell his son cain about God not liking murder ... simply because God is just. and cain would have known this because of a just God making Adam in his image.. ALSO not to murder is written in peoples hearts the bible says ..
the commandments of exodus 20 were given and binding only on those God took out of egypt and their children's children.
CAIN------- Forgetting the promise of christ to come would have looked at God as simply a harsh punisher .
he would have taken Gods curse to be a hateful God // ALL BECAUSE HE threw away THE PROMISE OF CHRIST THAT WOULD COME.
now look at the difference between a beleiver and cain ..
remember the women Jesus tells dogs have no right to eat what was meant for others.
She was not about to Go away from her only savior Jesus,, untill her sins were forgiven.. she knew JESUS loved her and was mercyful ,, She also knew she did not deserve Jesus love or HIS mercy . and Jesus knew she loved him more than those of the so called right birth ..And she Got even more than she wanted from Jesus ...
JESUS LIFTED HER UP FOR US ALL TRY TO BE LIKE HER .. SCRIPTURE PLEADS have trust in Jesus LOVE AND MERCY FOR YOU just like her !
Dan57 said:
ADAM cains father was made in the image of God ----------------image meaning he knew Gods will perfectly not that he looked like God after all God is spirit ..
so there for Adam knew to tell his son cain
about Gods will about not murdering .
i think you have given concrete evidance that adam did tell his son cain about God not liking murder ... simply because God is just. and cain would have known this because of a just God making Adam in his image.. ALSO not to murder is written in peoples hearts the bible says ..
the commandments of exodus 20 were given and binding only on those God took out of egypt and their children's children.
IM NOT DIs agreeing with you im just showing a different side to this..Dan57 said:
CAIN------- Forgetting the promise of christ to come would have looked at God as simply a harsh punisher .
he would have taken Gods curse to be a hateful God // ALL BECAUSE HE threw away THE PROMISE OF CHRIST THAT WOULD COME.
now look at the difference between a beleiver and cain ..
remember the women Jesus tells dogs have no right to eat what was meant for others.
She was not about to Go away from her only savior Jesus,, untill her sins were forgiven.. she knew JESUS loved her and was mercyful ,, She also knew she did not deserve Jesus love or HIS mercy . and Jesus knew she loved him more than those of the so called right birth ..And she Got even more than she wanted from Jesus ...
JESUS LIFTED HER UP FOR US ALL TRY TO BE LIKE HER .. SCRIPTURE PLEADS have trust in Jesus LOVE AND MERCY FOR YOU just like her !
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
Of course that's not how you read it; and why should you?Dan57 said:
I strongly suspect that when people first arrive in heaven; they're
immediately shuttled off to a sort of Bible gulag for indoctrination so that
everyone in heaven knows the same things and believes the same things;
and thus put an end to all this damnable debating.
"Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but
that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment." (1Cor 1:10-11)
HAW! I seriously doubt that's even possible down here on earth the way
things are; especially on the internet where hardly anybody is looking to get
to the bottom of things; but rather; looking for a sounding board and/or a
perpetual bull session.
Buen Camino
/
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
Your imprimatur is not only entirely arbitrary but it also presumesmusterion said:
one's self infallible. Just because somebody's interpretations appear
to your way of thinking scripturally correct doesn't necessarily mean
they really are; not when everybody else is making the very same
claim for themselves; both for and against. Caveat Lector.
Buen Camino
/
What he posted is what the Bible says. If you don't like it, your problem isn't with whomever points it out.
You should pay attention to whom you are talking. I quote John 5:24 more than anyone. I am a SO (saved once). I also promote assurance and the guarantee that comes from the indwelling to the Holy Spirit. I also believe that from God's perspective it is osas. Just read some of my posts and see.Webers_Home said:
However, I asked for an explanation of a passage in Romans. You did not deliver. You simply argued against it. That does not cut it. In any doctrinal position that I hold to, I have considered the typical objections and studied the passages used in them to get a grasp of what they mean. This is not paper-covers-rock we are playing. If one holds to a doctrine, he must be able to defend it without having the bible in conflict with itself.
musterion said:
Thank you for your concern. But your opinion is also duly noted. 'My position' is merely a reflection of what I read. I am careful not to insert my own logic into my interpretations. You don't have to tell me that the body of Christ is real. It is obvious. However, you didn't give an explanation of Paul's words to the Romans in ch.11:21,22. Instead you did exactly what Webers did, above. You simply argued with it by quoting another passage. So now you are using scripture to refute scripture. My intention is to rather use scripture in a way that my conclusions from one passage do not contradict scripture somewhere else.
Paul used the words "cut off" (vs.22). I'm sorry if you are freaked out by the thought that this would somehow dismember our Lord's body. But He Himself said that if your hand causes you to sin, then cut it off. This was a metaphor, of course. But it reveals His own heart, that He would not allow anything to harm those whom He loves. So, if a member of His body of believers is poison to the rest of the body, I should hope He severs it. Instead you paint a picture of a control freak who gave mankind freewill only long enough to get a person saved, then He removes it and programs us like puppets to do His bidding. This reflects the kind of hyper-Calvinistic thinking that I oppose.
It also shows a rather shallow understanding of relationship, in my humble opinion.
As I explained earlier. I fully support the idea that God will not change His mind concerning His commitment to those whom He loves. He gives everlasting life to they who will receive it by faith. But it seems to me that you have a one-sided viewpoint about this. I assume you agree that we have the ability to humble ourselves and receive the free gift of life by faith. If so, what changes? Do you think that God takes this ability away once we are in His grasp? When Paul used the word "slaves", he admitted he was using human terms for the lack of a better way to describe it. How does this then become somewhat of a prison? Are we now locked up in the kingdom against our own will? Is this what you are proposing from the use of that word (slave)?
I would rather think that God allows free will to remain intact. Otherwise relationship and intimacy become a farce. They become unsatisfying. We love Him because He first loved us...not because He forced us to love Him or covertly programmed it into us. I love my wife because I choose to and want to, not because I feel obligated or have to. If she ever got the sense that I was insincere in my love for her, what would her response be? Do you think it is any different in our relationship with God? We are made in His image. He is a relationship Being. Do you think that He would be satisfied having intimate relationship with robots?
No, my friend. No matter how slim or unlikely the chance is that a believer would turn away, that scenario is presented in scripture as a possibility. On the other hand, God has promised that those who are of faith will not come under judgment, but have passed from death to life (John 5:24). As far as He is concerned, His commitment to us is irrevocable. But our response ...that is the question. Are we infallible?
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
Genesis is often labeled the book of beginnings; and I'm satisfied that it's an
appropriate description; take for example the incident below:
†. Gen 3:1-3 . .The woman replied to the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of
the other trees of the garden. It is only about fruit of the tree in the middle
of the garden that God said: You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die.
Was Eve correct? No; she wasn't. By comparing the wording of her reply
with the wording of God's statement at Gen 2:16-17, it's readily seen that
God didn't forbid Adam to touch the fruit; only to eat it.
What we have in that incident is the very first example of human nature's
rather curious propensity to interpret what it hears rather than listen to what
it hears.
Back when Dr. Laura Schlessinger conducted a daily radio program, one of
her pet peeves was callers attempting to re-word her advice. But just as
soon as they'd start off with "in other words you mean" she'd clamp down
on them with "DON'T interpret what I say! Just get out there and follow my
instructions exactly the way I told you." (chuckle) Laura's pretty tough.
Well; Eve wasn't the last of the cage-free interpreters. Here again, is yet
another example. And like they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
†. Gen 4:14 . . You have banished me this day from the soil, and I must
avoid Your presence and become a restless wanderer on earth
Was Cain correct? No, he wasn't. By comparing the wording of his complaint
with the wording of God's statement at Gen 4:12, it's readily seen that Cain
was cursed more than the soil; but not cursed from the soil. He could still
farm if he wanted; but God made sure that whatever he produced wouldn't
be adequate to sustain him.
Did God actually say that Cain must avoid His presence? No; Cain read that
into God's statement just as Eve read touching the fruit into God's statement.
Cain did the very thing that his mom did: he interpreted what God said
instead of listening to what God said; and to this very day; Eve's brats are
still interpreting what God said instead of listening to what He said. And
then they're patted on the back for being "scripturally correct".
†. Gen 4:16a . . Cain left the presence of The Lord
Adam and his wife were driven from the garden; but they weren't driven
from God. The family kept that connection and brought up their boys to keep
it too. Cain's leaving the presence of The Lord was his own choice; he wasn't
driven.
Why didn't God plead with Cain to stay in touch? Well, that would be like
throwing good money after bad. God had already tried at Gen 4:7; and like
Einstein once remarked: Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing the
same way over and over again and expecting a different result. Well; God's
not insane; He knows when to say when. Sadly, there are people for whom it
can be said: That was the last straw.
Of all the things that Cain had done up to this point, walking out on God was
his worst mistake. Yes, he would have to scrounge for food; but that was a
mere slap on the wrist compared to loss of contact with his maker. People
need to think that over. No matter how harsh your circumstances are, and
no matter what life has thrown in your face, loss of contact with your maker
is much worse. It is wise to stay in touch with God even if your life is a train
wreck and God seems oblivious to your circumstances.
When the Adams fell, God drove them out of the garden; but not out of
contact. When Cain fell, he wasn't driven out of contact either. He took the
initiative to break contact of his own volition. Though doomed to the life of a
nomad, Cain should have made the best of it and tried to maintain some
sort of connection with his maker.
†. Ps 103:8-14 . .The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger,
abounding in steadfast love. He will not contend forever, or nurse His anger
for all time . . As a father has compassion for his children, so The Lord has
compassion for those who fear Him. For He knows how we are formed; He is
mindful that we are dust.
That Psalm's encouragement is restricted to "those who fear Him". The Cains
of this world are of course excluded.
refuting Rom 4:15 and Rom 5:13.
BTW: your remark is a very common rejoinder all across the internet— so
common that anymore it's become a tiresome cliché. Can't you think of
something new? Everybody seems to be copying everybody else's material
these days—no imagination, no originality.
Buen Camino
/
Genesis is often labeled the book of beginnings; and I'm satisfied that it's an
appropriate description; take for example the incident below:
†. Gen 3:1-3 . .The woman replied to the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of
the other trees of the garden. It is only about fruit of the tree in the middle
of the garden that God said: You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die.
Was Eve correct? No; she wasn't. By comparing the wording of her reply
with the wording of God's statement at Gen 2:16-17, it's readily seen that
God didn't forbid Adam to touch the fruit; only to eat it.
What we have in that incident is the very first example of human nature's
rather curious propensity to interpret what it hears rather than listen to what
it hears.
Back when Dr. Laura Schlessinger conducted a daily radio program, one of
her pet peeves was callers attempting to re-word her advice. But just as
soon as they'd start off with "in other words you mean" she'd clamp down
on them with "DON'T interpret what I say! Just get out there and follow my
instructions exactly the way I told you." (chuckle) Laura's pretty tough.
Well; Eve wasn't the last of the cage-free interpreters. Here again, is yet
another example. And like they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
†. Gen 4:14 . . You have banished me this day from the soil, and I must
avoid Your presence and become a restless wanderer on earth
Was Cain correct? No, he wasn't. By comparing the wording of his complaint
with the wording of God's statement at Gen 4:12, it's readily seen that Cain
was cursed more than the soil; but not cursed from the soil. He could still
farm if he wanted; but God made sure that whatever he produced wouldn't
be adequate to sustain him.
Did God actually say that Cain must avoid His presence? No; Cain read that
into God's statement just as Eve read touching the fruit into God's statement.
Cain did the very thing that his mom did: he interpreted what God said
instead of listening to what God said; and to this very day; Eve's brats are
still interpreting what God said instead of listening to what He said. And
then they're patted on the back for being "scripturally correct".
†. Gen 4:16a . . Cain left the presence of The Lord
Adam and his wife were driven from the garden; but they weren't driven
from God. The family kept that connection and brought up their boys to keep
it too. Cain's leaving the presence of The Lord was his own choice; he wasn't
driven.
Why didn't God plead with Cain to stay in touch? Well, that would be like
throwing good money after bad. God had already tried at Gen 4:7; and like
Einstein once remarked: Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing the
same way over and over again and expecting a different result. Well; God's
not insane; He knows when to say when. Sadly, there are people for whom it
can be said: That was the last straw.
Of all the things that Cain had done up to this point, walking out on God was
his worst mistake. Yes, he would have to scrounge for food; but that was a
mere slap on the wrist compared to loss of contact with his maker. People
need to think that over. No matter how harsh your circumstances are, and
no matter what life has thrown in your face, loss of contact with your maker
is much worse. It is wise to stay in touch with God even if your life is a train
wreck and God seems oblivious to your circumstances.
When the Adams fell, God drove them out of the garden; but not out of
contact. When Cain fell, he wasn't driven out of contact either. He took the
initiative to break contact of his own volition. Though doomed to the life of a
nomad, Cain should have made the best of it and tried to maintain some
sort of connection with his maker.
†. Ps 103:8-14 . .The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger,
abounding in steadfast love. He will not contend forever, or nurse His anger
for all time . . As a father has compassion for his children, so The Lord has
compassion for those who fear Him. For He knows how we are formed; He is
mindful that we are dust.
That Psalm's encouragement is restricted to "those who fear Him". The Cains
of this world are of course excluded.
That's a curious statement considering the trouble you went to in post #1musterion said:
refuting Rom 4:15 and Rom 5:13.
BTW: your remark is a very common rejoinder all across the internet— so
common that anymore it's become a tiresome cliché. Can't you think of
something new? Everybody seems to be copying everybody else's material
these days—no imagination, no originality.
Buen Camino
/
Mungo said:
That's a good catch Mungo... it's about understanding the difference between the Old CovenantMungo said:
and the New, and how the Law is applied in both covenants. Jer. 31:33-34 says,
33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house
of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, " I will put My
law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be
their God, and they shall be My people.
34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each
man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know
Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the
LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will
remember no more."
What exactly does God mean when He says He will put His Law in them and write His Law on their
hearts? The key words is "He will do it", and man will have absolutely nothing to do with it. No man
can write the Law on their own hearts. The purpose of the Old Covenant was to show all men that they
were helpless in achieving that goal.
In verse 34, God said, all will KNOW Him from the least to the greatest. Why will they know Him? The
reason is because God will write the Law in their hearts, and the Law is the character and nature of the
Almighty.
The Israelites were suppose to receive the Law @ Mount Sinai, but they rejected it by running afar off,
and they told Moses to go get the Law for them (Exodus 20:19). They were fearful and confessed that
God would kill them. In other words, if they heard the words of the Law they would die. There is a lot
of truth in that statement, because when you hear and understand the Divine Law the "old man" will die.
The Divine Law, which is a Fiery Law , it is used to burn up the carnal mind so you can serve the Lord
by the Spirit and not by the letter. Example... the ten spies came back with a bad report and it influenced
the Israelite's decision to stay out of the Promised Land, because they received the Law (character and
nature of God) second hand, and they wasn't sure God was going to protect them from the giants. They
didn't believe that God could do what Joshua and Caleb told them He would do.
I said all of that to say this... Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you from the curse of the Law. All of
mankind had the curse of the Law placed upon them through the fall of man. In other words, our sin had
to be dealt with every year until Jesus Christ came to completely propitiate them. Now our sins don't hang
over our head because they are covered by the blood of the Lamb.
Under the New Covenant God is writing the same Law upon your heart... as I said earlier... He is doing it.
How does He do it? When He died on the cross, He also ascended upon high and sent back the Holy Ghost
to teach us the LAW by the Spirit.
John the Baptist understood the purpose of Jesus first coming... it was to write the Law upon our hearts and
not on stone tablets. For he said, Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and FIRE. We know what the
fire is, it's the Divine Law (Deut. 33:2), but the Spirit is given to help us understand the character of God by
understanding His Law by the Spirit. John 14:26 says,
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My
name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance
all that I said to you.
So the letter of the Law was abolished, but the Spirit of the same Law is being written upon our hearts even
today. The Ten Commandments under the Old Covenant become the Ten Promises in the New Covenant. Let
me explain.
Thou shall not steal (Old Covenant), and Thou will not steal (New Covenant) because God has written that Law
on your heart and it isn't an issue anymore. Exodus 34:1 reads,
34 Now the LORD said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two stone tablets
like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were
on the former tablets which you shattered.
This is a powerful prophetic scripture because it prophesied how the Law was broken under the Old Covenant, but
the same Law was instituted under the New Covenant without being broken, thus, the commandments become the
promises of God. God says, I will take the desire from them and they will obey my command through my perfect Son
Jesus Christ. Jesus never broke the Law and we through faith receive imputation by believing that God will also make
us perfect in the 1st Resurrection.
What a God! What a Plan!
Logabe
Similar threads
