Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Like I said, you have no objective chapter and verse for your version of the law which you subjectively made up.
The midwives were blessed by God (Ex 1:20-21) for lying to Pharaoh (Ex 1:17,19) to preserve innocent human life.
Exactly. They all violated the objective law as written. Subjective interpretation is an inescapable responsibility. Hence the rule of conscience.
Subjective interpretation must be in agreement with the law.
Confirming once again your lack of any objective chapter and verse for your version of the law.
Maybe the disconnect here is that you don't understand what the "rule of conscience" is repudiating. It is repudiating the notion that Scripture alone is a final authority. Let's understand what this means.
I think you need to fix your first verse citation. Anyway as for the other verse:
Exactly. Calvinists interpret the Bible in accordance to their Calvinist framework. And Calvinism is fatalism that is largely unfalsifiable because God's Will is discerned by what happens, not from scripture.
Meaning, if you make a mistake in your exegesis, God should punish you like a rebel? Even if you did the best you could, acting in good conscience, and thus felt certain you were properly understanding and obeying the law? Is that what you really believe? Somehow I don't think so.
"Innovative" must mean a lot to you. Apparently Biblically sound orthodoxy just doesn't do it for you. Hence you invent your own system, to include a god who is not entirely sovereign. PLEASE pick up on my statement I make here, as a Reformed believer intending irony, when I say, "Good luck with that!"
Thoroughly wrong! If you are 100% certain of something such that further exegesis is futile, yet scripture disagrees with it, but since you are certain anyway, whether you conscience is convinced that God Himself is speaking, it fully demonstrates that your conscience is WRONG. It is not true that it is God Himself speaking, or your apparently perverted "conscience" has purposefully taken what he said wrong.
Yes, my God who allows libertarian freedom isn't the entirely-sovereign control-freak of Calvinism. I thought we were discussing the rule of conscience?
Wow. You still don't get it. If I'm 100% certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B. This is true regardless of whether the devil himself has manipulated my conscience.
What's that even supposed to mean? If I'm 100% certain of something, that normally means I'm 100% certain that Scripture does agree with it. Because, I'm a Christian, so the Inward Witness already has me feeling certain that Scripture is true.
Earlier I understated my point. So let me be more clear. If you are 100% certain of something, at that point it would indeed be the sin of impertinence to check it out with Scripture. If you are 100% certain God told you to do something, are you still going to question it? Really? That's rebellion. Abraham wasn't supposed to question the Voice commanding him to slaughter his son - he was only supposed to obey it. Same for the murderous acts of Moses, Joshua, David, and others like them.
I really like that teaching. One of the most important lessons for Christians to learn is how to be led by the Spirit of God. But because some Christians don’t understand how God leads, they seek guidance through methods other than those God has set forth in His Word.
I'm not sure why you posted this. Do you think Calvinism differs from —i.e. opposes this?
