What About Progressive Sanctification?

[QvQ]

When I use the term conscience I am actually referring to one specific rule:

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

That rule doesn't actually mention the word conscience and thus isn't really susceptible to objections about "conscience". Anyway that's the rule that God will judge all men on, unless He is unjust. Because it basically means, "Do what is right to the best of your knowledge". Which is the most askable of anyone.

I feel absolutely certain that stealing your car is Good for me. I feel absolutely certain that getting caught is Bad for me. Therefore I will steal your car and make certain I don't get caught. If I get away with it I am right..and smart to boot. Much merit for me!
I am glad you posted this. Now I understand why some politicians and religious leaders claim they evolved. However the law of evolution is to the strong, the ruthless, the most cunning. The evolutionary theologist will learn that natural law will not get them evolved paradise on earth. It will get them the jungle.

 

[JAL]

I feel absolutely certain that stealing your car is Good for me. I feel absolutely certain that getting caught is Bad for me.

That's not the rule. Read it again. You're very good at the strawman thing, aren't you?

 

[JAL]

Let me save you some time. I have posted that rule on several threads. No one has ever managed to formulate even one hypothetical scenario that clearly calls for making an exception to the rule. There cannot be any exceptions because the rule defines justice as unanimously understood.

 

[QvQ]

That's not the rule. Read it again. You're very good at the strawman thing, aren't you?

I can agree that a person who has a relationship with God (Christian) can by asking God, by studying God's Word, determine God's Will (right and wrong)
However, to say that "MY conscience" is inherently reliable?
Just sayin'

 

[JAL]

I can agree that a person who has a relationship with God (Christian) can by asking God, by studying God's Word, determine God's Will (right and wrong)
However, to say that "MY conscience" is inherently reliable?
Just sayin'

That's exactly what I said NOT to do. I said the system isn't susceptible to objections about "conscience" (because everyone has their own definition of that word). I was clear. In order to form a valid objection, you must find an exception to the RULE - a scenario that clearly calls for taking exception to it. Good luck with THAT endeavor. No one has succeeded to date.

 

[QvQ]

Let me save you some time. I have posted that rule on several threads. No one has ever managed to formulate even one hypothetical scenario that clearly calls for making an exception to the rule. There cannot be any exceptions because the rule defines justice as unanimously understood.

Stealing your car is fair and just. I don't have a car. You have two. You are rich, I am poor. You gain merit with God for suffering and sacrifice. I am the instrument of your merit because I am causing you suffering and sacrifice. I am an agent of god, the evolved one.

 

[JAL]

Stealing your car is fair and just. I don't have a car. You have two. You are rich, I am poor. You gain merit with God for suffering and sacrifice. I am the instrument of your merit because I am causing you suffering and sacrifice. I am an agent of god, the evolved one.

This isn't clear with respect to the Rule. What is your state of mind here? Are you saying:

"I feel certain that stealing your car is morally good/upright, and leaving it alone is evil".

If that is the case, you should steal it. Otherwise you have opted for a lifestyle of attempting to do evil. God cannot reward you for attempting to do evil. Clear?

 

[QvQ]

This isn't clear with respect to the Rule. What is your state of mind here? Are you saying:

"I feel certain that stealing your car is morally good/upright, and leaving it alone is evil".

If that is the case, you should steal it. Otherwise you have opted for a lifestyle of attempting to do evil. God cannot reward you for attempting to do evil. Clear?

IF I feel that stealing your car is morally good and upright I should steal your car? God will reward me because I did what I believed was right?
We are without excuse. Stealing a car is wrong. Even though I rationalize my gratification and self interest, feeling I am righteous and justified, even obeying God's law to share the wealth, forcing a selfish two car man to share and adding to his merit by causing him suffering and sacrifice, proclaiming I am a regular saint at best and a poor social justice warrior at worst, I am still in violation of God's law and He will not reward me or excuse me based on my rationalizations.
No excuses, God's law is immutable and He enforces it. Just ask Adam.

 

[JAL]

And lest anyone imagine that my Rule of Conscience is a useless tautology, allow me to explain its value. Throughout church history, especially the last 500 years, Bible scholars have ingrained within us a fear of Direct Revelation, especially those of the Sola Scriptura movement, but it happens even in the charismatic movement. They scare us into thinking that Direct Revelation cannot be trusted, and that the Bible - and especially existing Bible scholars - should be preeminent in the church and church life. The result is a church fertile for raising up Bible students but not for raising up prophets like Paul - people who understand the Scriptures CORRECTLY by Direct Revelation. This has led to 2,000 years of bad doctrine.

Here's WHY we can trust Direct Revelation. It operates by simply causing us to feel certain of a particular conclusion - thus it follows the Rule of Conscience as I defined it earlier. In fact that's how we all got saved: the Spirit convicted us (convinced us) of the gospel, also known as the Inward Witness. We can trust Direct Revelation because we never need to trust it directly - all we REALLY need to trust is the Rule of Conscience, a rule that has no exceptions.

This knowledge frees us up - it liberates us to pursue Direct Revelation with essentially reckless abandon, as there is really nothing to be afraid of.

(I have now unveiled my biggest doctrinal beef with the church, namely its failure to recognize the absolute primacy of Direct Revelation).

 

[JAL]

IF I feel that stealing your car is morally good and upright I should steal your car? God will reward me because I did what I believed was right?

Really? You're hung up on something as small as that? Why don't we raise the stakes a little? Here's 2 examples:

(1) "If I feel certain that killing my children is morally upright, and letting them live is evil, I should kill them."

(2) "If I feel certain that killing an entire nation is morally upright, and letting them live is evil, I should kill them."

For an example of #1, consider Abraham.
For an example of #2, consider Moses and Joshua. Except it wasn't just one nation. It was seven nations.

And I could give more examples.

Direct Revelation worked the same for all these men. The Voice caused them to feel certain that murder was the right thing to do, and Scripture celebrates them for following through. In fact, on the first go, Israel did NOT go up to do the slaughter, and THREE TIMES Hebrews rebuked them for disobedience to the Voice.

 

[QvQ]

And lest anyone imagine that my Rule of Conscience is a useless tautology, allow me to explain its value. Throughout church history, especially the last 500 years, Bible scholars have ingrained within us a fear of Direct Revelation, especially those of the Sola Scriptura movement, but it happens even in the charismatic movement. They scare us into thinking that Direct Revelation cannot be trusted, and that the Bible - and especially existing Bible scholars - should be preeminent in the church and church life. The result is a church fertile for raising up Bible students but not for raising up prophets like Paul - people who understand the Scriptures CORRECTLY by Direct Revelation. This has led to 2,000 years of bad doctr

Here's WHY we can trust Direct Revelation. It operates by simply causing us to feel certain of a particular conclusion - thus it follows the Rule of Conscience as I defined it earlier. In fact that's how we all got saved: the Spirit convicted us (convinced us) of the gospel, also known as the Inward Witness. We can trust Direct Revelation because we never need to trust it directly - all we REALLY need to trust is the Rule of Conscience, a rule that has no exceptions.

This knowledge frees us up - it liberates us to pursue Direct Revelation with essentially reckless abandon, as there is really nothing to be afraid of.

(I have now unveiled my biggest doctrinal beef with the church, namely its failure to recognize the absolute primacy of Direct Revelation).

I will go middle ground on direct revelation and Sola Scriptura. If a person studies alone, then that person must rely on direct revelation even when studying Scripture. However there are dangers, vain imaginings and vain glory, believing I know some special interpretation or I am the special person who knows it.
As an example of Conscience gone astray, The Aztec Priests and human sacrifice on a grand scale.
IT was morally right and necessary to enter WWII, so without knowing the conditions on the ground in Israel, war may have been ethically necessary. Murder is never ethical or right and it is as small as that.

 

[JAL]

I will go middle ground on direct revelation and Sola Scriptura. If a person studies alone, then that person must rely on direct revelation even when studying Scripture. However there are dangers, vain imaginings and vain glory, believing I know some special interpretation or I am the special person who knows it.
As of a example of Conscience gone astray, The Aztec Sun Priests and human sacrifice on a grand scale.

Again, that is exactly what I told you NOT to do. The system isn't vulnerable to objections based on the word "conscience" (everyone has their own definition). You must formulate a scenario that calls for taking exception to the Rule. You haven't done so, obviously because you can't.

Unless you really want to insist that God will reward you for deliberately attempting to do evil. Because that's what it means to take exception to the Rule.

 

[JAL]

You make a pretense of objecting to the Rule:

IF I feel that stealing your car is morally good and
upright I should steal your car? God will reward me because I did what I believed was right?
We are without excuse. Stealing a car is wrong.

What you are really doing here is ACKNOWLEDGING the rule. In YOUR mind:

"I feel certain that stealing a car is evil, and leaving it be is good"

Therefore you will leave it be, in conformity to the rule. But let's stretch your thinking, shall we? Suppose someone has planted a nuclear bomb with a timer in the middle of New York City. Time is running out. The only way to defuse it in time is to steal the nearest vehicle. In fact, you feel certain that the owner of the car will perish in the blast, so you are really trying to save his life. Now you mindset has changed:


"I feel certain that stealing a car is morally good, and leaving it alone would be evil".

What should you do? To me the answer seems obvious.

 

[QvQ]

Again, that is exactly what I told you NOT to do. The system isn't vulnerable to objections based on the word "conscience" (everyone has their own definition). You must formulate a scenario that calls for taking exception to the Rule. You haven't done so, obviously because you can't.

Unless you really want to insist that God will reward you for deliberately attempting to do evil. Because that's what it means to take exception to the Rule.

Unless it is God's definition of evil, then the rule does not apply. "Do what is right to the best of your knowledge" The Aztec Priests were doing exactly that however I don't think God would judge them to be righteous men.
As for consciously doing evil and expecting reward or suspension of judgement:
Any scenario where the ends justifies the means..let me count the ways
A poor mother stealing food for her babies.
The Donner Party, cannibalism
and the list goes on.

 

[JAL]

Unless it is God's definition of evil, then the rule does not apply. "Do what is right to the best of your knowledge" The Aztec Priests were doing exactly that however I don't think God would judge them to be righteous men.
As for consciously doing evil and expecting reward or suspension of judgement:
Any scenario where the ends justifies the means..let me count the ways
A poor mother stealing food for her babies.
The Donner Party, cannibalism
and the list goes on.

As expected. You were unable to postulate even one scenario clearly calling for departure from the rule.

As for consciously doing evil and expecting reward or suspension of judgement:
A poor mother stealing food for her babies.
The Donner Party, cannibalism
and the list goes on

If you're not currently paid for creating strawmen, you certainly should be. You're awfully good at it.

Clearly, the possibility of short-term benefit was not my concern. Rather, my point was that God will never commend anyone for deliberately attempting to do evil. Therefore we must follow the Rule.

 

[QvQ]

The rule includes a person's own judgement as to what is good and evil. If a person does what that person believes to be good, then God must agree? The rule states that a person is a law unto himself, in effect.
Ignorance of the law excuses no man. And no man is a law unto himself. That negates your rule.

 

[JAL]

Murder is never ethical or right and it is as small as that.

Murder is ALWAYS ethical and right if the divine Voice is commanding it.

Also there are situations of self-defense, or protecting others, that could easily justify it. Suppose you catch a pedophile strangling a kid, and shooting him in the head seems to be the only way to save the kid's life.

Different circumstances call for varying behavior - but the one thing we can always count on is that heeding the Rule of Conscience is always God's will.

 

[JAL]

The rule includes a person's own judgement as to what is good and evil. If a person does what that person believes to be good, then God must agree. The rule states that a person is a law unto himself, in effect.
Ignorance of the law excuses no man. And no man is a law unto himself. That negates your rule.

Still waiting for a specific scenario. Oh that's right, you don't have one.

 

[JAL]

The rule includes a person's own judgement as to what is good and evil. If a person does what that person believes to be good, then God must agree. The rule states that a person is a law unto himself, in effect.
Ignorance of the law excuses no man. And no man is a law unto himself. That negates your rule.

MY rule? LOL. Actually:
(1) It's God's rule, because He is just.
(2) Take a hard look at Romans 14 - the whole chapter - but the climax is this part:
"Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind" (verse 5)
The final arbiter of righteous behavior is whether I personally feel certain the action in question is good or evil.
(3) You'll find the same conclusion implied in the discussion of conscience at 1Cor 8.

Here's what you DON'T want. You certainly DON'T want God to judge you on what is right or wrong - much better for him to judge you on the Rule, that is, on what you THINK is right and wrong. Suppose for example God wants you to goto university-A but you THOUGHT He wanted university-B. Now He puts you under judgment for "disobedience" ! Maybe even strikes you with a fatal disease! Even though you did the best you could, acting to the best of your knowledge!

Is that really how you want God to treat you? I sure don't want that.

 

[QvQ]

Still waiting for a specific scenario. Oh that's right, you don't have one.

There isn't one you would accept. So I withdraw as I am wasting my time.
There is a very big difference between a murder and self defense, justifiable homicide.