Righteousness vs Morality [Archive] - Theology Forum

elohiym

January 26th, 2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

I don't think that believing is moral or immoral. no more than eating dinner is moral or immoral. Morality has to do with our relationship with each other. Morality has nothing to do with our relationship with God. God deals with us according to righteousness and not morality. The scripture states if you deny him, he will deny you. I believe it is a wrong choice to deny Christ, and thus it is a moral choice. Perhaps it is the only moral choice, but one nonetheless.

You can choose to not call it a "moral" choice, but that doesn't make sense to me, nor does it change the fact that denying Christ is wrong, and it has a scriptural penalty--rejection by Christ.

Maybe you can restate what you think I am claiming and show me--scripturally--how I am mistaken.

elected4ever

January 26th, 2005, 04:53 PM

Using arsenic on your spuds insead of salt is wrong but it is not a moral choice.

elohiym

January 26th, 2005, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

Morality is subject to laws.

There is no law that is able to impart life.

God is not subject to Law. God is righteous.

Denying Christ is unbelief. Do you claim that with your mind you do not serve the law of God?

What is that law of God, but love?

Can you divorce love from morality?

Dave Miller

January 26th, 2005, 04:59 PM

One cannot be amoral and righteous. One cannot be unrighteous
and amoral. Righteousness and morality are tied together
intimately, inseperably. Morality is the fruit which is borne of the
tree of righteousness.

No one is above the law. When one accepts Christ, all that pertains
to the law is contained within obedience to Christ's directives to
Love God and Love one another. The law, the "Thou Shalt Not's"
become irrelevant in the cleansing light of "Thou Shalt Love."

Dave

Sozo

January 26th, 2005, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by elohiym

What is that law of God, but love?

Morality is subject to law. God is love! God is not subject to love. God is not subject to law. We love because He first loved us. YOU have no capacity to love, unless God fills YOU with His Spirit. It is His life in YOU that loves.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."

Can you divorce love from morality? I just did.

Redfin

January 26th, 2005, 05:22 PM

If there is to be any hope of a resolution to this discussion, this premise of Sozo's must be addressed -

Originally posted by Sozo

Morality is subject to laws.

First, is this premise universally true (or could there conceivably exist such a thing as an "antinomian morality," that is, morality apart from law(s))?

Second, is Sozo using the term "law(s)" the same sense here as he uses it in the other parts of his syllogism?

I'm not taking sides, but this is really the nub of the argument.

Sozo

January 26th, 2005, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Redfin

First, is this premise universally true (or could there conceivably exist such a thing as an "antinomian morality," that is, morality apart from law(s))?

Good question!

God is both for and against the law.

Do you know how and why?

elohiym

January 26th, 2005, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

Morality is subject to law. God is love! God is not subject to love. God is not subject to law. We love because He first loved us.First, it's "We love him, because he first loved us," NOT "we love because he first loved us." There is a distinction.

Second, God is subject to his law. God cannot contradict himself. God is the law, and the scriptures support that. Why do you think the law can be summarized as LOVE? Why do you think the scriptures state: "the law is truth." Who is truth, sozo?

Then God is the law.Originally posted by Sozo

YOU have no capacity to love, unless God fills YOU with His Spirit. It is His life in YOU that loves.God renews HIS spirit in us. We don't get HIS spirit to replace our old spirit, if that is what you are implyingPsalms 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.There the Psalmist claims to already have the holy spirit. When God takes HIS holy spirit back is the second death.Psalms 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.Here the Psalmist asks to have the spirit he has (God's holy spirit) to be renewed, not replaced.

Without the capacity to love, we would not be able to enter the sheep fold. The spirit we are born with is God's spirit, and God is love.

So do you receive (renew) the holy spirit before OR after you enter the sheepfold? Is the capacity to love received only after baptism by the holy spirit?

Originally posted by Sozo

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."On that we agree. The fruit of the spirit is God. And there is no law against God, because logically God cannot be against himself. The verse you chose supports my contention.

I asked: "Can you divorce morality from love?"

Originally posted by Sozo

I just did. No. You tried. Try again, or perhaps modify your hypothesis to: "Beyond the moral choice to accept Christ there is no...blah, blah, blah.

Free-Agent Smith

January 26th, 2005, 06:20 PM

Free-Agent Smith

January 26th, 2005, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Dave Miller
When one accepts Christ, all that pertains
to the law is contained within obedience to Christ's directives to
Love God and Love one another. The law, the "Thou Shalt Not's"
become irrelevant in the cleansing light of "Thou Shalt Love."

Dave

Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not pray to any graven images.

I don't see where these have become irrelevant.
But those are Commandments, maybe you might want to be a bit more specific.

Lighthouse

January 27th, 2005, 01:13 AM

Frank Ernest

January 27th, 2005, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Dave Miller

One cannot be amoral and righteous. One cannot be unrighteous
and amoral. Righteousness and morality are tied together
intimately, inseperably. Morality is the fruit which is borne of the
tree of righteousness.
The Pharisees demonstrated that one can be unrighteous and moral.

No one is above the law. When one accepts Christ, all that pertains
to the law is contained within obedience to Christ's directives to
Love God and Love one another. The law, the "Thou Shalt Not's"
become irrelevant in the cleansing light of "Thou Shalt Love."

Dave
That is not true!
Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

wickwoman

January 27th, 2005, 07:55 AM

Dear Sozo:

"Be fair, admit that love has in it all the righteousness we need." -Rumi

God's love is in the heart of all men and women. Our true nature is therefore righteousness. Confusion results from an identity crisis. When we discover our true nature we will bear the fruits of the indwelling presence of God. This God Nature is not the result of any religion or rules created by men.

Morality is the natural result of the indwelling presence.
The degree to which a person displays moral behavior is equal to the degree to which they have contacted the indwelling Presence. Time in the peace and quiet is the way to find this Presence.

"Would you like for me to reveal to you the truth of the Friend? Leave the rind and descend into the pith. Fold within fold, the Beloved drowns in His own being. This world is drenched in that drowning." - Rumi

Sozo

January 27th, 2005, 08:08 AM

Hey witchy woman... what are you doing in this forum?

wickwoman

January 27th, 2005, 08:48 AM

That's what I love about you Sozo. You're posts are so well thought through. How long did that one take?

Sozo

January 27th, 2005, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by elohiym

First, it's "We love him, because he first loved us," NOT "we love because he first loved us." There is a distinction.

That is debateable, depending on which manuscript. However, I will not argue your point, because it does not take away from mine. Love is from God. Unless YOU are born of the Spirit, YOU cannot love God or anyone else.God is subject to his law That is false. God has NO relationship to the law. God cannot contradict himself. So? That does not mean that God is subject to the Law.God is the law, and the scriptures support that. No they do not, and no He is not. The Law was created by God. God did not create himself.Why do you think the law can be summarized as LOVE? Love is the fulfillment of the Law. The Law was made for sinners, and Jesus came and fulfilled the Law for us. If we are in Him, then the love of God dwells in us and the Law is fulfilled in us. The fruit of the Spirit is love, and against love there is no law. Love fufilled the Law, it is not the Law.Why do you think the scriptures state: "the law is truth." Who is truth, sozo? The Law is truth. Jesus is truth. But that does not make Jesus the Law. A rock is not a heart even if they are both hard.

The word of God is eternal, the Law is not.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever"

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished."

Even if "all" has not been accomplished, there is a time when it will be.
God renews HIS spirit in us. We don't get HIS spirit to replace our old spirit, if that is what you are implying Renews? When was the Spirit of God in us? He gives us His Spirit.

"Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit."

There the Psalmist claims to already have the holy spirit. When God takes HIS holy spirit back is the second death.

The presence of the Holy Spirit came and went before Christ was glorified. Believers were NOT born again, until Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in His body of believers.

"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.'" But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

Without the capacity to love, we would not be able to enter the sheep fold. The spirit we are born with is God's spirit, and God is love. What are you talking about? So do you receive (renew) the holy spirit before OR after you enter the sheepfold? Is the capacity to love received only after baptism by the holy spirit? We are baptised by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.

elohiym

January 27th, 2005, 11:12 AM

Sozo,

Before I show you all the errors in your last post, and answer your questions, why don't you explain what Paul meant when he stated:Ro 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.You claim to have no relationship with the law. I, like Paul, serve the law of God with my spiritual mind.

Sozo

January 27th, 2005, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by elohiym

Sozo,

Before I show you all the errors in your last post That's hilarious. The homo loving pervert is going to show me error. :rolleyes: Why don't you explain what Paul meant when he stated: Paul agrees that the Law has condemned him, and that in his flesh dwells no good thing. He serves the Law of God by accepting what it reveals concerning the sin that dwells in his flesh. Jesus set him free from the law, and from the condemnation that secured his death.

"I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."

wickwoman

January 27th, 2005, 12:49 PM

Sozo seems to think that calling someone a "lover" is an insult.

Sozo

January 27th, 2005, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by wickwoman

Sozo seems to think that calling someone a "lover" is an insult. If I was to say "You are wickwoman's lover", then yes, that would be an insult.

Dave Miller

January 27th, 2005, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not pray to any graven images.

I don't see where these have become irrelevant.
But those are Commandments, maybe you might want to be a bit more specific.

If you love your neighbor, you won't steal from or murder
her or him. If you love God, you won't pray to graven
images. Irrelevant was a wrong word, thanx. Fulfilled
is the right word.

Dave

Dave Miller

January 27th, 2005, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

The Pharisees demonstrated that one can be unrighteous and moral.

[/b][/u]

How? Is it righteous to misreperent God's Will? Is
it righteous to be hypocritical? Hypocrisy is another
way of saying bearing false witness, even if its your
own heart you are witnessing to falsely.

Dave Miller

January 27th, 2005, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Queer.

Punk.

Nineveh

January 27th, 2005, 04:11 PM

ww,
If you want to participate in the ongoing convo, please do, if not please remove yourself from this thread. Thank you.

wickwoman

January 27th, 2005, 04:14 PM

Dear Nineveh:

I did participate. Did you see my post? You may respond if you'd like. As for calling someone a "queer" I'd rather not. Thanks anyway.

wickwoman

January 27th, 2005, 04:20 PM

Nin:

In case you didn't see my 1st post it's #25. Nobody addressed it. However, Sozo did say something irrelevant and insulting but unresponsive.

Nineveh

January 27th, 2005, 04:22 PM

I asked you nicely, if you have nothing to add, please remove yourself from participating in this thread. If you aren't familiar with the rules of the Exclusively Christian Theology forum, you can find them here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12042). Please note I said nothing about your first post. It's your subsequent posts that add nothing to the conversation.

*Edited to add:

Take it to Knight, if you have a problem, thank you :)

elohiym

January 27th, 2005, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by wickwoman

"Be fair, admit that love has in it all the righteousness we need." -RumiTrue. God is love (1 Jn. 4:8,16). Love covers all sins (Pr. 10:12).

Originally posted by wickwoman

God's love is in the heart of all men and women. True. John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Proverbs 20:27 The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

Originally posted by wickwoman

Our true nature is therefore righteousness.True. Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Originally posted by wickwoman

Confusion results from an identity crisis.Basically true. Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Originally posted by wickwoman

When we discover our true nature we will bear the fruits of the indwelling presence of God.True. Matthew 7:16,20 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? ...Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Originally posted by wickwoman

This God Nature is not the result of any religion or rules created by men.True. Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Originally posted by wickwoman

Morality is the natural result of the indwelling presence.Change "morality" to love, or define morality as love, and I agree. 1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Originally posted by wickwoman

The degree to which a person displays moral behavior is equal to the degree to which they have contacted the indwelling Presence.Change "moral behavior" to love and I agree. John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Originally posted by wickwoman

Time in the peace and quiet is the way to find this Presence.True. Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

...but the only WAY to God is through love.

Originally posted by wickwoman

"Would you like for me to reveal to you the truth of the Friend? Leave the rind and descend into the pith. Fold within fold, the Beloved drowns in His own being. This world is drenched in that drowning." - Rumi How about...John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 12:11 AM

When man (Adam) became moral (knowing good from evil) he became responsible for the evil as well as the good. Man perverted righteousness in favor of morality. Man became independent from God. Before man knew good and evil (Morality) he was not responsible for the good or the evil that he did. Notice that before he became responsible for knowing there was no need to make a judgment in whether nakedness was good or bad. It is man who said that nakedness was bad, not God. It was an independent moral judgment and Adam acted on his own judgment rather than God's judgment. Morality is perverted righteousness.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 12:14 AM

PS. God did not make man free moral agents. Man did that for himself.

Lighthouse

January 28th, 2005, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Dave Miller

How? Is it righteous to misreperent God's Will? Is
it righteous to be hypocritical? Hypocrisy is another
way of saying bearing false witness, even if its your
own heart you are witnessing to falsely.
He said, "unrighteous." Learn to read.

They were unrighteous, yet moral. The two do not go hand in hand.

Free-Agent Smith

January 28th, 2005, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Dave Miller

If you love your neighbor, you won't steal from or murder
her or him. If you love God, you won't pray to graven
images. Irrelevant was a wrong word, thanx. Fulfilled
is the right word.

Dave For some reason you remind of Jimmy Baker.

Free-Agent Smith

January 28th, 2005, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by wickwoman

[quote]
"Be fair, admit that love has in it all the righteousness we need." -Rumi
Obeying God would be the smart thing to say. People tend to get love and lust intertwined.

God's love is in the heart of all men and women. Our true nature is therefore righteousness. Confusion results from an identity crisis. When we discover our true nature we will bear the fruits of the indwelling presence of God. This God Nature is not the result of any religion or rules created by men.
God's love wasn't showing even a tiny bit with Ted Bundy.

Morality is the natural result of the indwelling presence.
The degree to which a person displays moral behavior is equal to the degree to which they have contacted the indwelling Presence. Time in the peace and quiet is the way to find this Presence. Morality isn't the natural result, people still tend to fall every now and then. Christians pray to God... take your meditation elsewhere.

"Would you like for me to reveal to you the truth of the Friend? Leave the rind and descend into the pith. Fold within fold, the Beloved drowns in His own being. This world is drenched in that drowning." - Rumi
Hearing things like this is why you were asked to leave the "Exclusively Christian Theology" forum. Christians quote God. Christians quote Jesus. Christians also love to quote important people from the Bible. Take your "brotherhood of Islam" junk to another forum.

Lighthouse

January 28th, 2005, 01:36 AM

Didn't Jimmy Baker sleep with a whore?

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Sozo

That's hilarious. The homo loving pervert is going to show me error. :rolleyes:God bless you, sozo. Yes, I am going to show you your error; and I wanted you to know (and anyone reading) that I was going to address your errors in the previous post after you explained your understanding of Romans 7:25.

Incidentally, you didn't seem to mind a so-called "homo loving pervert" pointing out your error regarding the law just six days ago (See: sozo's error (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=659011#post659011)). Your response to me was:Originally posted by Sozo

:think: Hmmmm..... Let me think about that. Thanks! (cite (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=659072#post659072).) It appears you sometimes listen to so-called "homo loving pervert[s]". Therefore, please stop acting like a double-minded man.

I remind you that God loved us while we were dead in our transgressions, that we received the spirit of God, and therefore should love those who are dead in their transgressions. We should love the murderer, and love the adulterer, as God loved David, and us, BEFORE and AFTER their/our repentance.

Now, I asked you: "...why don't you explain what Paul meant when he stated: Ro 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

You answer:Originally posted by Sozo

Paul agrees that the Law has condemned him, and that in his flesh dwells no good thing. He serves the Law of God by accepting what it reveals concerning the sin that dwells in his flesh. Jesus set him free from the law, and from the condemnation that secured his death.First, it should be obvious to you that if Paul serves the law of God in any capacity, then he most certainly has a relationship with it. The law of God is love. So when you say a believer has NO relationship with the law, you are incorrect.

Second, you appear to overlook the "different law" in the members of Paul's body, the law of sin. It is THAT LAW that the believer no longer has a relationship with in the spirit.

Law of God (love) = Tree of Life
Law of Sin = Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil

One tree is life. One tree leads to death.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Sozo

Righteousness and morality are not the same.

I intend to prove over the next few weeks, in this thread, that righteousness is a gift by the grace of God, and morality is a result of works.

I also intend to prove that Christians are righteous, and non-Christians are moralists.

Anyone who teaches righteousness through moral choices is NOT a Christian.

Here are some examples of a moralist...

Original posts from godrulz

"Our nature is formed as we habitually make wrong moral choices. "

"Moral depravity occurs when the individual actually sins."

"We have free moral agency, and this is why we are exhorted to righteousness and culpable/accountable/responsible if we do not live up to our high calling."

"It makes salvation an unalterable metaphysical change rather than a relational moral change involving the will and love for God vs Self."

"There are reasonable conditions for forgiveness, if we are to be free from sin and His truth upheld."

"His moral and personal attributes are reflected in man, who is made in the image of God."

The bible says: "There is NONE who does good, there is not even ONE"

godrulz continues...:

"He does not know it (sin) as a certainty/actuality until the possibility becomes actual through the wrong moral choice. He would see our thoughts and motives heading the wrong way and would 'know' before we would that we are heading for sin."

"The moral law of God is still valid"

"The will is the seat of moral responsibility/accountability. To claim righteousness in Christ while having wrong thoughts, motives, and actions is inconsistent"

"Romans 12-14 deals with sanctification or practical living of our faith. This often involves obedient choices that are consistent with the moral law of God."

"We are moral agents."

"My church does practice tithing and upholds the moral law of God"

"Because we are saved and love Him, we will keep His moral vs ceremonial commandments."

"Sin and righteousness involve moral choices."

He just admitted that righteousness comes from "moral choices".

gorulz continues...

"Our nature and character is formed through a series of wrong choices."

"I question the blanket forgiveness of sins not yet committed."

The bible says:

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for ALL time, sat down at the right hand of God"

Speaking of salvation, godrulz proclaims...

"It is not a physical change, but a moral transformation"

"There is also a process of fleshing out the reality."

Stay tuned...

Removing these quotes from their original context and expansions is disingenuous.

e.g. I absolutely concur that no one does good. Paul states that mankind and all individuals are condemned and separated from God (Rom. 3). To use my quotes and then say the Bible says no one is good is a straw man caricature.

My use of the word 'moral' (choices; ethics; holiness/righteousness) is a technical, theological, philosophical term and contrasts with metaphysics (substance) or other disciplines of learning (like epistemology= knowledge). Terms can have ambiguity or vagueness depending on what one means by them. Again, a straw man caricature.

Circular reasoning or begging the question also assumes what one is trying to prove. So, if you define righteousness or morality in a subjective way, you can prove or disprove either view.

John Wesley and Charles Finney were vehemently attacked and misunderstood by the traditional Calvinists of their day. Their emphasis on holiness was misrepresented. I am in good company:)

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Sozo

He is the chief moralist.

All other moralists pale in comparison.

No one else, since Satan himself, is more right in his own eyes than godrulz.

The reason he uses a little "g" in his name is because he believes that he is the "god" that "rulz".

Family Feud:eek:

You do not have a clue what you are talking about.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by elected4ever

PS. God did not make man free moral agents. Man did that for himself.

:confused:

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 02:25 AM

Accepting Christ is a moral choice. Thus receiving God's righteousness requires at least ONE moral choice.

Who, besides sozo, wants to deny that?

2 Timothy 2:12 ...if we deny him, he also will deny us.

Is it wrong to deny Christ? Obviously.
Is it right to accept Christ? Yes. A logical conclusion.
A moral choice, based in love.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by elohiym

Accepting Christ is a moral choice. Thus receiving God's righteousness requires at least ONE moral choice.

Who, besides sozo, wants to deny that?

2 Timothy 2:12 ...if we deny him, he also will deny us.

Is it wrong to deny Christ? Obviously.
Is it right to accept Christ? Yes. A logical conclusion.
A moral choice, based in love.

Sozo tends to have logical fallacies and semantical issues in his diatribes.

Lighthouse

January 28th, 2005, 02:33 AM

Choosing God is not a moral action.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Choosing God is not a moral action. Is accepting Christ a moral choice? Yes or no.

If you answer no, then you are implying that Christians should not teach anyone that they must accept Christ to be saved, because it is not a moral choice...no consequence, good or bad.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Choosing God is not a moral action.

Depends on how one defines 'moral' 'action'. Is it an immoral action? In a precise theological definition recognized by philosophers and theologians, it is in the realm of 'morals' as opposed to metaphysics. What do you mean? Choosing God is not a self-righteous action done independent of the enabling and persuasion of God. Is repentant faith a free choice or is it something coerced by God? God said to choose today whom you will serve (Joshua). Jesus' or Paul's call to faith and belief presumes the ability to choose (contrary to TULIP). The image of God (will, intellect, spirit, emotions) is defaced, not erased. Total depravity is not total inability. While we were yet sinners, He demonstrated His love for us. He initiates, we respond. He provides, we receive.

Lighthouse

January 28th, 2005, 02:47 AM

It has nothing to do with morality, elohomo. The consequences we face are not for rejecting God. When we accept God we are freed from the consequences of our moral actions. But the choice, in and of itself, is neither moral or immoral.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 02:49 AM

Two options:
1. Accept Christ.
2. Deny Christ.

Is a choice required? Yes.

What divorces that choice from morality, if that choice carries a good or bad consequence? Nothing.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

The consequences we face are not for rejecting God.2 Timothy 2:12 ...if we deny him, he also will deny us.

Lighthouse

January 28th, 2005, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by elohiym

2 Timothy 2:12 ...if we deny him, he also will deny us.
It seems you've been denied.

Lighthouse

January 28th, 2005, 03:01 AM

Everything we do has a consequence of some sort. It doesn't make everything moral. Eating a cheeseburger is amoral. But it has consequences. Be they good or bad, they are consequences.

Are you really this stupid, or are you taking acting classes?

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 03:05 AM

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

It has nothing to do with morality, elohomo. The consequences we face are not for rejecting God. When we accept God we are freed from the consequences of our moral actions. But the choice, in and of itself, is neither moral or immoral.

Are all choices before and after salvation neutral?

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Everything we do has a consequence of some sort. It doesn't make everything moral. Eating a cheeseburger is amoral. But it has consequences. Be they good or bad, they are consequences.

Are you really this stupid, or are you taking acting classes?

Motive determines whether any given choice is praiseworthy or blameworthy, virtue or vice. Eating 50 cheeseburgers a day could be considered gluttony, which has moral overtones. Eating one burger for survival is morally neutral. Breaking a nutrition 'law' has consequences (clogged arteries). This does not mean it is a moral issue that affects salvation or growth. Rather than use a neutral issue, one must also talk about things like adultery, idol worship, stealing, hating parents, coveting, etc. These are not in the same category as going to McDonald's.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by elohiym

You are comparing accepting Christ with eating a cheese burger. You are implying that accepting Christ is an amoral choice.

What makes a choice moral as opposed to amoral? What makes accepting Christ an amoral choice?

He has artificially defined 'moral' outside of a proper theological use. He has made it a bad word. It can be used in a negative sense for human morality that is independent of God. It can also be used positively about moral laws that come from the heart of the Moral Governor of the universe. He governs 'moral' creation (those in His moral, spiritual, and personal image) with moral law. Inanimate creation is governed by the law of cause and effect. Animate creation is governed by the law of instinct. The Lawgiver has given laws in various categories. It reflects His wisdom and holiness. Moral law contrasts with lawlessness. It is not the antithesis of righteousness unless the motive is to be saved by it in one's own strength. If conformity flows out of right relationship with God and His life in us, then it is virtuous. If it is man-centered, the law sanctions us further as those who fall short of the glory and perfection of God. We cannot save ourselves, especially by trying to keep a 'moral law'. Once we are saved by God, we are free to live a life that pleases and glorifies Him and is for the good of our fellow man (we do not murder and steal for example...this is in the realm of morals....it is disingenuous to shun the word moral or law....they are merely descriptive and contrasted with math, physics, psychology, medicine, etc.). There is secular or Christian ethics. Ethics are based on morals, not metaphysics. Ethics are part of a Christian world view. We oppose abortion, unjust wars, euthenasia, etc. on moral and ethical grounds based on God's absolutes.

It mystifies me how these self-evident truths can be twisted into thinking I am a 'moralist' who thinks we are saved by keeping moral rules (despite my howling protests that I affirm and understand salvation by grace through faith in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, apart from self-reformation or law-keeping). I was helpless when I got saved. How could I possibly be saved when I could not even do secular work (nervous breakdown) let alone live like Jesus or a guru? How can I be saved based on my self-righteousness when I fall short of His perfection daily (thoughts, words, deeds, motives, commission, omission)? I need Him. If I thought I could save myself, I would be a Mormon or JW. Christianity is good news, not bad news that I have to reform or save myself.

Frank Ernest

January 28th, 2005, 05:04 AM

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Application to this topic?

Sozo

January 28th, 2005, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by elohiym

God bless you, sozo. He has, in Christ.Yes, I am going to show you error; You have a picture of yourself?Incidentally, you didn't seem to mind a so-called "homo loving pervert" pointing out your error regarding the law just six days ago I said I would "think" about" it. I thought for 5 seconds, concluded that you are a jackass, and moved on to more important things in life. Therefore, please stop acting like a double-minded man. I promise to never consider that YOU could possibly recognize your head from a donkey's butt from now on. I remind you that God loved us while we were dead in our transgressions, that (we) received the spirit of God, and therefore should love those who are dead in their transgressions. Who is we?First, it should be obvious to you that if Paul serves the law of God in any capacity, then he most certainly has a relationship with it. Who is YOUR life? Is your body going to physically die? Is your Spirit going to die? Do you have a relationship with death? Are "you" your body (which is dead) because of sin; or are "you" your spirit (which is alive) because of righteousness?

Paul agrees with the Law that it reveals his indwelling sin. That does not mean that he is subject to the Law, but only that the Law has revealed that he is dead. A man who is spiritually dead, has no relationship to God. He is dead to God, and alive to sin. Jesus set him free from that death. He is "therefore now" no longer condemned because he is in Christ, and free from sin and death which were revealed through the Law.

Is accepting Christ a moral choice? Yes or no.

NO

Your contention that accepting Christ is a "moral" choice is asinine, and completely contrary to what the bible says:

"For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law."

Accepting the gift of righteousness through Christ is not the fulfillment of a law. That is claiming that salvation is by works. Of course, godrulz would certainly give you a big thumbs up to that.

wickwoman

January 28th, 2005, 07:39 AM

Dear Elohiym:

Thanks for responding to my post. The invite you responded to and my offer to leave this thread that you seem to have read seems to have mysteriously disappeared.

I agree that love is the same as morality. I don't see how they could possibly be separated. Love without morality is not love. Morality without love is not morality.

The scriptures you posted are relevant. I would like to review them again in context. I will post more if they spark some interest. Thank you.

wickwoman

January 28th, 2005, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by elected4ever
When man (Adam) became moral (knowing good from evil) he became responsible for the evil as well as the good.

So do you believe they both existed prior to Adam & Eve's "knowledge" of them. In other words, that God created evil?

Or, alternatively, it is not so much evil that was born on the day the fruit was eaten, but knowledge of it and that it does not necessarily exist but at some point man beleived that it did and herein lies the problem.

Originally posted by elected4ever
Man perverted righteousness in favor of morality. Man became independent from God.

Righteousness by nature cannot be perverted. Nor can man be independent from God.

Originally posted by elected4ever
Before man knew good and evil (Morality) he was not responsible for the good or the evil that he did. Notice that before he became responsible for knowing there was no need to make a judgment in whether nakedness was good or bad. It is man who said that nakedness was bad, not God. It was an independent moral judgment and Adam acted on his own judgment rather than God's judgment. Morality is perverted righteousness.

I believe morality describes behavior whereas righteousness describes the condition of the heart. And they are not degrees of perversion vs. purity of each other. They are words used to describe the same result but in different places.

Result of love in the heart = righteousness.
Result of love in the behavior = morality, moral behavior.

Sozo

January 28th, 2005, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by wickwoman

I agree that love is the same as morality. I don't see how they could possibly be separated. Love without morality is not love. Morality without love is not morality.

The fruit of the Spirit is LOVE... against which THERE IS NO LAW (Morality)

To be "moral" you must be subject to the Law.

God is against the Law for righteousness, and He is for the Law to reveal sin.

Apart from Him, YOU cannot love. Any attempt on your part to love your neighbor apart from being indwelt by the Spirit of God is dead.

"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing."

All of your "incense sniffin', flower wearin', ohmming" doesn't mean crap.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Sozo

Accepting the gift of righteousness through Christ is not the fulfillment of a law. That is claiming that salvation is by works. Of course, godrulz would certainly give you a big thumbs up to that.

I can speak for myself. Salvation by works never has and never will be the condition of salvation or righteousness.:down:

Sozo

January 28th, 2005, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

I can speak for myself. Salvation by works never has and never will be the condition of salvation or righteousness.:down:

:rolleyes: "Sin and righteousness involve moral choices."

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Sozo

:rolleyes:

If you think sin has no volitional element you lack biblical grounding and common sense. It takes will, intellect, emotions, and genitals to commit adultery. Adultery is not imputed to you apart from an act of your will. If one's will is not involved, there is no responsibility, accountability, culpability. The law could not even condemn one for doing it, because some alien force would be doing it and you could blame it on that.

Likewise, to NOT commit adultery involves a choice. Job made a covenant with his eyes to not look lustfully on a woman. This choice is not coerced and is not in the realm of metaphysics (stuff, substance, things). Choices are in the realm of 'morals' (technical definition), not to be confused with your straw man 'morality' and self-righteousness.

Do not make a mountain out of a molehill and read more into my self-evident observations than I intend. Either I am doing a poor job of communicating, or the recipient needs a keener brain.

Sozo

January 28th, 2005, 08:52 AM

Do you not have the mental capacity to understand your own words?

You said: "Sin and righteousness involve moral choices."

YOU are making the claim that righteousness invloves making a moral decision.

That is another gospel.

YOU clearly believe and teach that righteousness is the result of your own ability to be moral. YOU are a moralist. YOU are self-righteous. YOU believe in salvation by the works of YOUR flesh.

These are NOT insults. They are a revelation of what YOU believe based on YOUR OWN words.

wickwoman

January 28th, 2005, 08:53 AM

Dear Sozo:

Biblical law is subjective as Jesus said: "you have heard it said an eye for an eye but I give you a new law . . . " Here he seems to be saying what was previously called "law" by the Jews was just something that was said, as if it were never valid. Perhaps, he questioned the "morality" of it. For instance, the "law" of our land says it is legal to have an abortion, do you believe it is moral?

Law is something that would hopefully spring from morality, but it is the subjective interpretation that causes the rub. So, this is why we have those who question the "morality" of the "laws." The law and morality are not one and the same. As Jesus illustrated in the verse quoted above. And Biblical Law is a misnomer when applied to the OT because those laws were specific to a certain time and group of people.

There is no true law set out in the Bible for all mankind except that set out by Jesus. Though these OT laws have been interpreted by the various Christians denominations throughout the ages who disposed of the inconvenient ones and kept the ones that gave power over other men. The only law for all wo/mankind was established by Jesus and his law was LOVE.

Dave Miller

January 28th, 2005, 09:19 AM

Sozo is trying to justify his Schizophrenia again. Morality is how
we treat our fellow human beings, our neighbors, and loving
neighbor was cornerstone to Christ's teachings.

No, "being good" won't get you into heavan, but being bad sure
can keep you out.

Dave

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 09:24 AM

Sozo

January 28th, 2005, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by elected4ever

Being good or bad does not keep one from heaven. As I suspected, and predicted, the dividing line between Christians and moralists is being clearly drawn.

Crow

January 28th, 2005, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Sozo is trying to justify his Schizophrenia again. Morality is how
we treat our fellow human beings, our neighbors, and loving
neighbor was cornerstone to Christ's teachings.

No, "being good" won't get you into heavan, but being bad sure
can keep you out.

Dave

I'm not quite sure if you're saying what you appear to be saying.

If a Christian is saved, do you believe that behaviors of the flesh, say adultry, theft, etc can negate one's salvation?

Do you believe that if a non-Christian sins, say adultry, theft, etc, that this can keep them from being saved if they come to Christ and accept Him as Savior?

If this is where you're coming from from, I disagree.

Salvation is a gift from God, His gift to us through grace by faith.

Morality is an instruction from God--"Don't steal" for instance.

We can be perfectly righteous, because the only righteousness we ever can possess is that of God Himself, which we receive as an unearned gift.

We can never be perfectly moral. Our sinful nature will see to that. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should not strive to behave decently and appropriately toward each other. But that's a whole different arena there, and it isn't salvatory.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Crow

I'm not quite sure if you're saying what you appear to be saying.

If a Christian is saved, do you believe that behaviors of the flesh, say adultry, theft, etc can negate one's salvation?

Do you believe that if a non-Christian sins, say adultry, theft, etc, that this can keep them from being saved if they come to Christ and accept Him as Savior?

If this is where you're coming from from, I disagree.

Salvation is a gift from God, His gift to us through grace by faith.

Morality is an instruction from God--"Don't steal" for instance.

We can be perfectly righteous, because the only righteousness we ever can possess is that of God Himself, which we receive as an unearned gift.

We can never be perfectly moral. Our sinful nature will see to that. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should not strive to behave decently and appropriately toward each other. But that's a whole different arena there, and it isn't salvatory. I am going to take a small exception to what you just said but don't be offended. please!

You said, "Morality is an instruction from God--"Don't steal" for instance." This is not so. Morality is man's standard of righteousness, not God's. Morality is perverted righteousness. It changes with time and circumstances. God gave instruction in righteousness not morality. Man can be moral but he cannot be righteous. Man therefore misses the mark. Man does what is good in his own eyes not necessarily God's eyes.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Sozo

Do you not have the mental capacity to understand your own words?

You said:

YOU are making the claim that righteousness invloves making a moral decision.

That is another gospel.

YOU clearly believe and teach that righteousness is the result of your own ability to be moral. YOU are a moralist. YOU are self-righteous. YOU believe in salvation by the works of YOUR flesh.

These are NOT insults. They are a revelation of what YOU believe based on YOUR OWN words.

Apparently you cannot read the qualifiers around the one sentence= tunnel vision and stereotyping.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

Apparently you cannot read the qualifiers around the one sentence= tunnel vision and stereotyping. Righteousness is not qualified by morality. Righteousness is qualified by God with out man's standard of conduct (morality). Your refusal to see yourself as God sees you is at the very heart of this discussion.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Sozo is trying to justify his Schizophrenia again. Morality is how
we treat our fellow human beings, our neighbors, and loving
neighbor was cornerstone to Christ's teachings.

No, "being good" won't get you into heavan, but being bad sure
can keep you out.

Dave

He does not understand semantical issues. He thinks his definitions of concepts are the only possible ones. He begs the question by assuming what he wants to prove. Morals, morality, righteousness, etc. must be defined since their can be ambiguity and vagueness due to different preconceptions about what these terms mean. Even a dictionary recognizes various meanings of any given word. There is also a difference between historical use (this is why 18th century theologians can seem odd when they used terms like 'moral' differently than what we do...words can evolve or permutate), common use, and precise theological/technical use.

Communication involves sender, message, recipient. Sozo jumps to conclusions too quickly.

I am also not a 'liar' when I share my sincere, informed opinions or views about doctrine or exegesis. Liars deliberately misrepresent as true what they know to be false (I did not steal a cookie...but really I did). Perhaps stick to 'stupid and idiot' (not that they are more accurate). I continue to pray that the Spirit will convict sozo to quit equating a different emphasis or understanding with Satan worship, Hitler's evil, and Christ-hating. This idiocy needs to be rebuked and repented of.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Crow

We can never be perfectly moral. Our sinful nature will see to that. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should not strive to behave decently and appropriately toward each other. But that's a whole different arena there, and it isn't salvatory.

If I say this, I am accused of being a godless moralist.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by elected4ever

I am going to take a small exception to what you just said but don't be offended. please!

You said, "Morality is an instruction from God--"Don't steal" for instance." This is not so. Morality is man's standard of righteousness, not God's. Morality is perverted righteousness. It changes with time and circumstances. God gave instruction in righteousness not morality. Man can be moral but he cannot be righteous. Man therefore misses the mark. Man does what is good in his own eyes not necessarily God's eyes.

Semantics. Two people using the same term with different connotations.

It would not be disasterous to say that Christian ethics or morals should be based on His holy character and absolute moral law (Decalogue, etc.). This contrasts with situational ethics, relativism, cultural differences, humanistic ideas, etc.

What is the difference between an unbeliever not commiting adultery and a believer not commiting adultery (this is not the criteria for salvation in either case)? The outward acts are identical and originate from the will in both cases.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 10:29 AM

Much to your dissatisfaction and misunderstanding the terms used are not semantical. Righteousness and morality are not the same thing.:nono:

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by elected4ever

Righteousness is not qualified by morality. Righteousness is qualified by God with out man's standard of conduct (morality). Your refusal to see yourself as God sees you is at the very heart of this discussion.

Look up all uses of obedience, righteousness, holiness, etc. It is not always divorced from choices or behavior. Genuine faith is evidenced by love and obedience. They are not diametrically opposed concepts. Faith without love=obedience is mere mental assent; obedience without faith/love is dead and moralistic.

Rom. 1:5 "...obedience that comes from faith..."

Rom. 6:16 "...obedience which leads to righteousness.."

2 Cor. 9:13 "...men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ."

2 Cor. 10:6 "And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete."

Heb. 5:8 Jesus learned obedience from what He suffered.

I Peter 1:2 "...who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, (why?) for OBEDIENCE to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood." (balance)

2 John 2:6 "And this is love (faith, trust, knowledge, obedience): that we walk in obedience to His commands...his command is that you walk in love (which is the summation of the Law= love God supremely and others equal to ourselves...love involves volition; it is not imputed).

Jn. 14:16 "If you love me, you will obey what I command."

Jesus knew the relationship between faith, love, trust, obedience. If I try to affirm the connection evidenced throughout the Old and New Testament, I am a moralist? Motive and source is the key, not outward acts.

2 Cor. 7:1 "Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify OURSELVES from everything that contaminates body and SPIRIT, perfecting (not past, completed tense) HOLINESS (why?) out of reverence (love, fear) for God."

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by elected4ever

Much to your dissatisfaction and misunderstanding the terms used are not semantical. Righteousness and morality are not the same thing.:nono:

Godly righteousness and humanistic morality are not the same thing. The term 'moral' is rightly applied to things involving free moral agency, whether good or bad. This behavior is not to be confused with the essential righteousness of God in Christ.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

Look up all uses of obedience, righteousness, holiness, etc. It is not always divorced from choices or behavior. Genuine faith is evidenced by love and obedience. They are not diametrically opposed concepts. Faith without love=obedience is mere mental assent; obedience without faith/love is dead and moralistic.

Rom. 1:5 "...obedience that comes from faith..."

Rom. 6:16 "...obedience which leads to righteousness.."

2 Cor. 9:13 "...men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ."

2 Cor. 10:6 "And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete."

Heb. 5:8 Jesus learned obedience from what He suffered.

I Peter 1:2 "...who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, (why?) for OBEDIENCE to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood." (balance)

2 John 2:6 "And this is love (faith, trust, knowledge, obedience): that we walk in obedience to His commands...his command is that you walk in love (which is the summation of the Law= love God supremely and others equal to ourselves...love involves volition; it is not imputed).

Jn. 14:16 "If you love me, you will obey what I command."

Jesus knew the relationship between faith, love, trust, obedience. If I try to affirm the connection evidenced throughout the Old and New Testament, I am a moralist? Motive and source is the key, not outward acts.

2 Cor. 7:1 "Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify OURSELVES from everything that contaminates body and SPIRIT, perfecting (not past, completed tense) HOLINESS (why?) out of reverence (love, fear) for God." Obedience does not equal morality.:think:

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by elected4ever

Obedience does not equal morality.:think: God did not make man to be a free moral agent. That is a human concept to justify a divergence from God's righteousness:p

Free-Agent Smith

January 28th, 2005, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Didn't Jimmy Baker sleep with a whore?

Among other things, yes.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by elected4ever

Obedience does not equal morality.:think:

Obedience is an outflow of being a child of God. Behaviour and motive should not be divorced from position or standing. Those who claim to be Christians and yet live like the devil do not evidence transformational faith and are rightly called hypocrites. Paul's letters were divided into a doctrinal half with a practical half. Belief and practice are consistent, not contradictory.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by elected4ever

God did not make man to be a free moral agent. That is a human concept to justify a divergence from God's righteousness:p

Are we quibbling about words? If Lucifer and Adam were not created free moral agents, then God is responsible for heinous evil, rather than Satan and man. Free moral agency is a double-edged gift and is part of what it means to be in the image of God. God is the ultimate free moral agent in the universe.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 11:54 AM

Free agents yes, to have the ability to chose. Moral no, we are not free to act independent of God's design for us, Righteousness Which is what man does.

wickwoman

January 28th, 2005, 12:10 PM

Dear Elohiym:

Here are some thoughts on the verses you posted. I do not expect you to answer the questions posed unless you want to. They are just some thoughts that came up when I read the scriptures.

Genesis 2:25
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

In the beginning, Adam and Eve experienced no shame. Was there shame to be had in this situation? Was there a reason to be shameful about nakedness? Of course not.

But later we see:

Genesis 3:7
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

What was the condition of their eyes before? Closed? And why did God create them with closed eyes? Or was it after the acqusition of this special knowledge of good and evil that they began to use all their senses? The Buddha taught that this craving after things to be experienced by the senses is what causes us pain and dissatisfaction.

What occurred that made them think that being naked was shameful? The eating of forbidden fruit? Why did the eating of the apple cause their bodies to be shameful? What alteration to God’s creation was done that made it shameful. Or could it be that it was only the perception of Adam and Eve that changed. And that their bodies were no more shameful then that in the beginning.
Matthew 15
1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!”
3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’[b] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his father[c]’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me. 9They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’[d]”

This is a discussion of the kind of laws being spoken of and my mention earlier that Jesus seemed to refute their validity and morality. He did this often which is why I repeat that the only law sanctioned by Jesus was the law of love.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

Apart from Him, YOU cannot love. Any attempt on your part to love your neighbor apart from being indwelt by the Spirit of God is dead.Hear that Jesus?Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.Now, since sozo doesn't think anyone has the capacity to love before they receive the holy spirit, and he claims you don't have the holy spirit until it's given, then Jesus was actually telling those people to do something they couldn't possibly do, or even imagine doing.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 01:33 PM

lighthouse,

I stated: "2 Timothy 2:12 ...if we deny him, he also will deny us."

You answered:
Originally posted by lighthouse

It seems you've been denied. How? I accept Christ.

This is where you are going to tell me about the conditions for salvation that I haven't met, that you apparently don't see, right? That is because you are in reality a moralist, albeit a selective moralist, and thus, according to sozo, NOT a Christian.

So you better have a good explanation why "it seems" that I have rejected Christ, and it should not have a stitch of morailty assigned to my motives. Go for it.

Lighthouse

January 28th, 2005, 02:02 PM

You do not have Christ, or you would not condone that which he came to set men free from.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

Who is YOUR life? Is your body going to physically die? Is your Spirit going to die? Do you have a relationship with death? Are "you" your body (which is dead) because of sin; or are "you" your spirit (which is alive) because of righteousness?

Paul agrees with the Law that it reveals his indwelling sin. That does not mean that he is subject to the Law, but only that the Law has revealed that he is dead. A man who is spiritually dead, has no relationship to God. He is dead to God, and alive to sin. Jesus set him free from that death. He is "therefore now" no longer condemned because he is in Christ, and free from sin and death which were revealed through the Law.Again, you seem to be avoiding Paul's words in regard to a "different law" which IS NOT the law of God that Paul claims his spiritual mind serves, obviously, since Paul claims his carnal mind cannot serve the law of God, but serves the law of sin. Who Paul is NOW, in the spirit, serves the law of God. He has a relationship with THAT law, which contradicts your assertion that believers have NO relationship with the law.

Your failure to address the distinction between these two laws that Paul clearly is describing is remarkable.

I asked: Is accepting Christ a moral choice? Yes or no.

Originally posted by Sozo

NO

Your contention that accepting Christ is a "moral" choice is asinine, and completely contrary to what the bible says:

"For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law."

Accepting the gift of righteousness through Christ is not the fulfillment of a law. That is claiming that salvation is by works. Of course, godrulz would certainly give you a big thumbs up to that. The verse you offer does not even imply that accepting Christ is not a moral choice. You conclusions are wrong.

I'll make it simple.John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.You have a choice to enter the sheepfold. There is only ONE door, which represents accepting Christ, the ONE right choice. If you make the wrong choice, you are labeled "a thief and a robber." Now if entering the sheep fold were an amoral choice, then you would only have to enter any way you could, and you could not be labeled immoral, like a thief and a robber, for doing so.

Accepting Christ is a moral choice. Only Satan would want a person to think otherwise.

Why don't you explain the danger in believing that salvation requires ONE moral choice to accept Christ? Can you?

If you want to teach that righteousness is not based on lawkeeping, fine. You have biblical support for that. However, the thrust of your thread appears to go beyond what you have biblical support for; and your conduct is entirely against the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the words of the Apostles.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

You do not have Christ, or you would not condone that which he came to set men free from. See, a moralist.

God came to set men free from slander and libel. God came to set men free from abusive name calling. God came to set men free from preferring certain persons over others. God came to set men free from hating their brother (murder).

Apparently, YOU do not have Christ, or you would not condone that which he came to set men free from. You both do those things, and condone the actions of others that do those things.

:ha:

Lighthouse

January 28th, 2005, 02:24 PM

What a queer.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Crow

If a Christian is saved, do you believe that behaviors of the flesh, say adultry, theft, etc can negate one's salvation?No.Originally posted by Crow

Do you believe that if a non-Christian sins, say adultry, theft, etc, that this can keep them from being saved if they come to Christ and accept Him as Savior?No.Originally posted by Crow

Salvation is a gift from God, His gift to us through grace by faith.True.Originally posted by Crow

Morality is an instruction from God--"Don't steal" for instance.Enter through the straight gate, is another example. Accepting Christ is a moral choice.Originally posted by Crow

We can be perfectly righteous, because the only righteousness we ever can possess is that of God Himself, which we receive as an unearned gift.True. The gift must be accepted, and thus accepting Christ is a moral choice.Originally posted by Crow

We can never be perfectly moral. Our sinful nature will see to that.In the flesh we cannot keep the law; in the spirit we cannot break the law. We are in the spirit.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 02:38 PM

Condoning and recognizing presences is two different things. We are to live civilly with all men that does not mean to condone the acts of all men. After all, if we condone unrighteousness where is the witness of righteousness that God has made us to be. That is godruz accusation that we condone unrighteousness. If we did then why do we suffer so?

Sozo

January 28th, 2005, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by elohiym

Hear that Jesus?Now, since sozo doesn't think anyone has the capacity to love before they receive the holy spirit, and he claims you don't have the holy spirit until it's given, then Jesus was actually telling those people to do something they couldn't possibly do, or even imagine doing. That is EXACTLY what He was doing!! Jesus shut the mouths of every self-righteous man so that they would come to the end of self and turn to Him for righteousness.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

You do not have Christ, or you would...Just fill in the blank with whatever you think equates to denying Christ.

THAT is a selective moralist, and thus lighthouse is NOT a Christian by sozo's definition.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

That is EXACTLY what He was doing!! Jesus shut the mouths of every self-righteous man so that they would come to the end of self and turn to Him for righteousness. False. He was telling them to love, in that case, their enemies. He also told them to love God, and to love their neighbor.

After telling them to love their neighbor, Jesus told of a man that was capable of loving his neighbor by showing mercy, contrary to sozo's assertion.

Luke 10:36,37 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves. And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

If I say this, I am accused of being a godless moralist. That is because THEY are selective moralists.

You decide who "THEY" are.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 03:31 PM

All moralism is selective. That is why men are sinners in the first place. That is why we cease to become moralist when we accept Christ. We become righteous. That righteousness is an imputed righteousness from God. Jesus has set us free from selective moralism. Yet in the flesh we remain selective moralist. That is why that in the flesh no man shell see God. We remain in the world and not of the world. It is not within man's power to not be selective moralist. Only God can do that.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 03:58 PM

Accepting Christ is a moral choice. Give scripture that conclusively proves otherwise, or admit the truth.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 04:04 PM

Choosing God is a choice not a moral choice. Show me were it is.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

All moralism is selective. That is why men are sinners in the first place. That is why we cease to become moralist when we accept Christ. We become righteous. That righteousness is an imputed righteousness from God. Jesus has set us free from selective moralism. Yet in the flesh we remain selective moralist. That is why that in the flesh no man shell see God. We remain in the world and not of the world. It is not within man's power to not be selective moralist. Only God can do that. If what you say is true, then you are making an argument against sozo's premise.

According to you, everyone is still a moralist because of their flesh. If that is true, then what is the difference between lighthouse and godrulz, or say, One Eyed Jack and godrulz?

So is a moralist a Christian or not? If you think that godrulz is a moralist, then why don't you think it's just his flesh acting selectively moral, as you say it always will, instead of joining "them" in their accusation that godrulz is not a Christian because he is a so-called moralist?

The moralist you think you see in godrulz, is that his flesh or his spirit? What do YOU expect to see in godrulz that would prove to YOU that it is his flesh NOT his spirit that is appearing to you as a selective moralist?

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

Choosing God is a choice not a moral choice. Show me were it is. I already did. Please read more carefully.

I stated to sozo:

I'll make it simple.John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.You have a choice to enter the sheepfold. There is only ONE door, which represents accepting Christ, the ONE right choice. If you make the wrong choice, you are labeled "a thief and a robber." Now if entering the sheep fold were an amoral choice, then you would only have to enter any way you could, and you could not be labeled immoral, like a thief and a robber, for doing so.

Accepting Christ is a moral choice. Only Satan would want a person to think otherwise.

Why don't you explain the danger in believing that salvation requires ONE moral choice to accept Christ? Can you?

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by elohiym

If what you say is true, then you are making an argument against sozo's premise.

According to you, everyone is still a moralist because of their flesh. If that is true, then what is the difference between lighthouse and godrulz, or say, One Eyed Jack and godrulz?

So is a moralist a Christian or not? If you think that godrulz is a moralist, then why don't you think it's just his flesh acting selectively moral, as you say it always will, instead of joining "them" in their accusation that godrulz is not a Christian because he is a so-called moralist?

The moralist you think you see in godrulz, is that his flesh or his spirit? What do YOU expect to see in godrulz that would prove to YOU that it is his flesh NOT his spirit that is appearing to you as a selective moralist? No, you misunderstand what sozo and lighthouse are saying. We are no longer subject to the flesh once we are saved. The deeds of the flesh becomes irrelevant in our standing with God. We have become the righteousness of God and that is relevant.

Going in a gate is not a moral issue. It is a decission one makes. If it is moral it is a human judgment and not God's judgement.

The defferance is that according to godrulz a person is acceptable to God on a bases of moral behavior. Moral behaveior is not relavent to the righteousness of God. God keeps us because of His righteousness and not our moral behaveior. Big differance.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 05:06 PM

It makes no difference to me whether or not you consider the decision to accept Christ or not a moral decision. The only question is did you accept Christ or not. My opinion then becomes irrelevant, even for godrules.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

It makes no difference to me whether or not you consider the decision to accept Christ or not a moral decision.Then please answer this question:

Is a person who believes that accepting Christ is a moral choice NOT a Christian?

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by elohiym

Then please answer this question:

Is a person who believes that accepting Christ is a moral choice NOT a Christian? The view of whither or not the acceptance of the Gospel or not is moral or immoral is not the relevant issue. It is wither one believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If one believes that morality is the bases of ones acceptance of Christ or is maintained by said morality, that person has not accepted Christ because he has not believe the testimony of Christ but has maintained for himself the right to decide what is or is not righteousness.

elohiym

January 28th, 2005, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

The view of whither or not the acceptance of the Gospel or not is moral or immoral is not the relevant issue.Wrong. It is relevant to the issue. Didn't you read sozo's opening post carefully?

Is accepting Christ a moral choice? Yes or no. (let your yes be yes, or no be no!)

Is a person that believes accepting Christ a moral choice NOT a Christian? Yes or no. (let your yes be yes, or no be no!)

Back up your answers with scriptures.

Sozo

January 28th, 2005, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by elohiym

Is a person that believes accepting Christ a moral choice NOT a Christian? Yes or no. (let your yes be yes, or no be no!)

You are such a pervert.

You come here every day, with absolutely no intention of preaching or arriving at the truth.

Accepting Christ is NOT a moral decision. No matter how many times you whine and cry about it, it NEVER will be. YOU set off to try and prove me wrong, and YOU have failed. ANYONE who teaches that salvation is the result of moral decisions is NOT saved.

If YOU believe that accepting Christ is a moral decision, then you are NOT saved.

Salvation is life! It is the gift of God. Righteousness is a gift. Morality is not a gift. People choose to be moral or immoral. Being moral will NEVER make you righteous. Both righteous and unrighteous people can choose to be moral. Righteousness must be PERFECT or it is not righteousness. Morality is subjective, and no one is perfectly moral, nor can they be.

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by elohiym

Wrong. It is relevant to the issue. Didn't you read sozo's opening post carefully?

Is accepting Christ a moral choice? Yes or no. (let your yes be yes, or no be no!)

Is a person that believes accepting Christ a moral choice NOT a Christian? Yes or no. (let your yes be yes, or no be no!)

Back up your answers with scriptures. Is believing in God moral or immoral? Is believing two plus two equals four moral? The answer to both questions is of course no. Believing in Christ is also not a moral issue. A person can be moral and not believe in Christ. If you don't know that then it's not my fault. Suppose you show Me the error of my way. You have presented no scripture to back up your clame.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

You do not have Christ, or you would not condone that which he came to set men free from.

I see you corrected your ('you're' signature). Perhaps you will correct some of your theology someday;) You're welcome.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by elohiym

See, a moralist.

God came to set men free from slander and libel. God came to set men free from abusive name calling. God came to set men free from preferring certain persons over others. God came to set men free from hating their brother (murder).

Apparently, YOU do not have Christ, or you would not condone that which he came to set men free from. You both do those things, and condone the actions of others that do those things.

:ha:

Let's all gang up on sozo-lighthouse:p

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by elohiym

False. He was telling them to love, in that case, their enemies. He also told them to love God, and to love their neighbor.

After telling them to love their neighbor, Jesus told of a man that was capable of loving his neighbor by showing mercy, contrary to sozo's assertion.

Luke 10:36,37 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves. And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Love is a choice seeking the highest good of another. The Bible implies that even pagans love their children, etc. How much more should Christians love, since His love has been shed abroad in our hearts. Loving God is also a choice to seek His highest good and glory. It is to delight in Him and His ways. It is to worship and obey Him. He gave us the capacity for love or selfishness/hate. He has set us free to love Him and others with our whole hearts. We die to self, take up the cross and follow Him.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

Choosing God is a choice not a moral choice. Show me were it is.

It is a choice. Is it an immoral choice? Choices involving sin, God, holiness are in the realm of 'morals'. He is using it in the theological, precise sense as contrasted to metaphysics. You really should get some formal education.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by elohiym

If what you say is true, then you are making an argument against sozo's premise.

According to you, everyone is still a moralist because of their flesh. If that is true, then what is the difference between lighthouse and godrulz, or say, One Eyed Jack and godrulz?

So is a moralist a Christian or not? If you think that godrulz is a moralist, then why don't you think it's just his flesh acting selectively moral, as you say it always will, instead of joining "them" in their accusation that godrulz is not a Christian because he is a so-called moralist?

The moralist you think you see in godrulz, is that his flesh or his spirit? What do YOU expect to see in godrulz that would prove to YOU that it is his flesh NOT his spirit that is appearing to you as a selective moralist?

We cannot divorce spirit/soul from will or body. Paul talked about what we do in our body, good and bad. "Flesh" does not have personal or moral capacity for moral choices, good or bad. It is a metaphor for sin. We sin with our will and body. There is not an invisible force inherited from Adam that is causative. Lucifer and Adam were innocent, yet they sinned without a so-called sin nature or original sin. A different view would mean we are not culpable for anything we do and are not truly in the image of God.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

The defferance is that according to godrulz a person is acceptable to God on a bases of moral behavior. Moral behaveior is not relavent to the righteousness of God. God keeps us because of His righteousness and not our moral behaveior. Big differance.

Huh? You are confusing sozo-l straw man caricature of what I believe with what I have actually taught. The fact that there is growth in the knowledge and character of Christ subsequent to salvation and that we are to make obedient choices does not mean we are acceptable to God based on external behavior. Blurring the distinction between justification (Rom. 4;5) and sanctification (Rom. 6-8;12) does not lead to clarity.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

You are such a pervert.

You come here every day, with absolutely no intention of preaching or arriving at the truth.

Accepting Christ is NOT a moral decision. No matter how many times you whine and cry about it, it NEVER will be. YOU set off to try and prove me wrong, and YOU have failed. ANYONE who teaches that salvation is the result of moral decisions is NOT saved.

If YOU believe that accepting Christ is a moral decision, then you are NOT saved.

Salvation is life! It is the gift of God. Righteousness is a gift. Morality is not a gift. People choose to be moral or immoral. Being moral will NEVER make you righteous. Both righteous and unrighteous people can choose to be moral. Righteousness must be PERFECT or it is not righteousness. Morality is subjective, and no one is perfectly moral, nor can they be.

You guys are using the same term (moral) in different ways. You are both right.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

Is believing in God moral or immoral? Is believing two plus two equals four moral? The answer to both questions is of course no. Believing in Christ is also not a moral issue. A person can be moral and not believe in Christ. If you don't know that then it's not my fault. Suppose you show Me the error of my way. You have presented no scripture to back up your clame.

Math is not moral. it is mathematical. Loving God or living selfishly is technically in the realm of the science of 'morals' (theological term). It should not be confused with morality or self-righteousness. Unless you use the term in the same way, you will not communicate with clarity and will continue to reject caricatures of each other's arguments.

Sozo

January 28th, 2005, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Let's all gang up on sozo-lighthouse:p How about just me? You lightweights, and gospel perverters, have yet to come close to disputing the evidence that proves that a moralist is not a Christian. However, YOU have finally admitted to being a moralist.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

How about just me? You lightweights, and gospel perverters, have yet to come close to disputing the evidence that proves that a moralist is not a Christian. However, YOU have finally admitted to being a moralist.

I do not consider myself a 'moralist' in a pejorative sense. I would consider myself a Christian, righteous in Christ. I would not consider myself lawless in the sense that I routinely break the absolute precepts of the Decalogue from the heart of God based on His character and will.

A religious moralist is NOT a Christian. We honestly agree (trust me).

Hook me up to a lie detector. I will categorically deny being a moralist in your sense. Wesley endured the false accusations of the Calvinists of his day because He longed for an experiential holiness walking with the holy God (Peter= be holy, because I am holy). Cmon, worthy opponent. I expect better of you than creating straw men and thumping your chest because you can blow them down. I am as much against religious moralists as you are. I have talked to hundreds of Mormons, JWs, and people of various religions urging them to replace their feeble attempts at religion and morality with the living Christ, who comes in and sets people free, and makes them holy, even as He is holy.

How about a holy hug for your brother? God, not god/William Rules!:kiss:

Crow

January 28th, 2005, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by elected4ever

I am going to take a small exception to what you just said but don't be offended. please!

You said, "Morality is an instruction from God--"Don't steal" for instance." This is not so. Morality is man's standard of righteousness, not God's. Morality is perverted righteousness. It changes with time and circumstances. God gave instruction in righteousness not morality. Man can be moral but he cannot be righteous. Man therefore misses the mark. Man does what is good in his own eyes not necessarily God's eyes.

Nope, :e4e: I'm not offended, you are right.

Ideally, man would base his standard of morality on what God has taught. But actions that are quite immoral from a biblical standpoint are often accepted by society as moral.

Morality does not = righteousness. Even if we base our morality upon God's word, morality or immorality are of the flesh. Righteousness is spiritual, and can only come from Him.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Crow

Nope, :e4e: I'm not offended, you are right.

Ideally, man would base his standard of morality on what God has taught. But actions that are quite immoral from a biblical standpoint are often accepted by society as moral.

Morality does not = righteousness. Even if we base our morality upon God's word, morality or immorality are of the flesh. Righteousness is spiritual, and can only come from Him.

Is this righteousness from God contrary to His universal moral law (e.g. Decalogue) or is it consistent with His character and revelation? How is this righteousness evidenced? Surely not in the same way as the deeds of the flesh (they are the antithesis of each other).

elected4ever

January 28th, 2005, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Is this righteousness from God contrary to His universal moral law (e.g. Decalogue) or is it consistent with His character and revelation? How is this righteousness evidenced? Surely not in the same way as the deeds of the flesh (they are the antithesis of each other). The law is the verbalization of God's righteousness. It is through law that we become aware of what is expected from us by God. The law was not for the purpose of conveying life but to show man that he could not keep a portion of God's law. The law ,while being holy,right and good , ministered death because after knowing the law we still violated it. The penalty for violating the law is instant death. In the flesh all men are dead to God. (By death I mean separation).

Being dead to God does not hinder one from doing good which is morality. I know a lot of people who do good things, Heroic things but that morality does not save them. God's law is not moral it is a statement of God's righteousness and the result of what happens when that law is violated. Like Paul, I would not have known sin if it were not for the law. In that man cannot keep the law Christ came and fulfilled the requirements of the law for me. So Who has delivered me from this death. I have been delivered from the law and been given life which is unity with Christ Jesus.

This unity is not in the flesh but in the Spirit because God has birthed within me a knew righteous Spirit that is born of His seed. Jesus did for me what I could not do for myself. He gave me life that I may live and not die. I cannot expect my flesh to do what it could not do and for which cause Christ died. God has given me everlasting life. If that life can be ended by the deeds of the flesh or even by the will of the flesh then that life is not everlasting and I am no better of with Christ than without Him. In fact I am far worse off than had I never know because now I am aware of the righteousness required by God and every day of my life would be full of fear and dread.

godrulz

January 28th, 2005, 11:42 PM

No quibbles here. The Law certainly condemns us as lawbreakers. We need a Savior, who happens to be the Lawgiver and Judge of the universe. We now have the Law of Love where we know and love the Father and Son as children of God. We also love others (enemies, spouse, children, neighbours) as a testament to Christ in us, the hope of glory.

elohiym

January 29th, 2005, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Sozo

You are such a pervert.

You come here every day, with absolutely no intention of preaching or arriving at the truth.:nono:

sozo, you are really making a fool out of yourself. I suggest you stop before you diminish your credibility any further. Also, I suggest you stop misrepresenting God by your actions, and consider the damage you do to TOL in pushing potential subscribers, participants, and donors away from these forums by your harsh conduct.Originally posted by Sozo

Accepting Christ is NOT a moral decision. No matter how many times you whine and cry about it, it NEVER will be. YOU set off to try and prove me wrong, and YOU have failed.No, sozo. YOU are paranoid!

I tried to PM you to suggest that you rethink your thread in light of the fact that accepting Christ IS a moral choice, moral and righteous are synonyms, etc. Your inbox was full. You have turned this into the big fat embarrassment it is by allowing your pride to get the best of you.

Did it ever dawn on you that YOU may be wrong? Aren't you just taking a biblical concept like Righteousness vs. Self-righteousness and twisting it to fit your own thesis of Righteousness vs. Morality?

It should be enough that I share scripture which proves accepting Christ is a moral choice, but you reject the plain word of God and insult me. Here is how the dictionary defines moral, sozo:

moral

1. involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individuals should behave

2. derived from personal conscience: based on what somebody’s conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what the law says should be done

3. in terms of natural justice: regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just
a moral victory.

4. encouraging goodness and respectability: giving guidance on how to behave decently and honorably

5. good by accepted standards: good or right, when judged by the standards of the average person or society at large

6. telling right from wrong: able to distinguish right from wrong and to make decisions based on that knowledge

7. based on conviction: based on an inner conviction, in the absence of physical proof (Source (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/moral.html))So as you can see, you have not properly used the word morality, and have improperly used it instead of self-righteousness.

It is evident that laws are derived from morality, not visa-versa as you have framed it. Morality is ONLY in opposition to immorality, NOT righteousness. In fact, let's look at the Thesaurus entry for the word righteous:righteous (adj)

virtuous, moral, good, just, blameless, upright, honorable, honest, respectable, decent

Antonym: sinful (Source ( http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_/righteous.html))Are you and your cohorts going to try and convince us now that the dictionary and thesaurus are wrong and YOU are right? Probably.Originally posted by Sozo

ANYONE who teaches that salvation is the result of moral decisions is NOT saved.

If YOU believe that accepting Christ is a moral decision, then you are NOT saved.I am sure you want to rethink those statements in light of the actual definition of moral and its synonym righteous.Originally posted by Sozo

Salvation is life! It is the gift of God. Righteousness is a gift. Morality is not a gift. People choose to be moral or immoral. Being moral will NEVER make you righteous. Both righteous and unrighteous people can choose to be moral. Righteousness must be PERFECT or it is not righteousness. Morality is subjective, and no one is perfectly moral, nor can they be. :blabla::blabla::blabla:

godrulz

January 29th, 2005, 02:14 AM

Let us all be on guard about semantical issues, begging the question/circular reasoning, and stereotyping without understanding. Eloyhim may or may not be right in all his concerns, but he is attempting to think the issue through and has some valid points. Critical thinking is a lost art and one we all need to grow in lest we believe things that are false or half true (heresy is not total falsehood; it is half truth).

A theological/philosophical/biblical definition of righteousness, morals, morality, etc. would be even more precise than a standard dictionary.

Those who read Boyd's new paper on omniscience and the future might see a parallel, logical issue:

SFV= will not vs will obtain:nono:

OFV= will vs might not obtain; might vs might not :chuckle:

Very technical issue, but similar to pitting one definition of righteousness against one definition of morals. Are they contradictory or contrasting? etc. (this will not make sense unless you read and followed the arguments for and against the settled vs open view of the future).