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.Tough. . .particularly when you don't see that Jesus was showing that it was actually lawful.
And I've stayed too long at the fair. . .
Like I said, you have no objective chapter and verse for your version of the law which you subjectively made up.
Subjective interpretation is an inescapable responsibility. Hence the rule of conscience.
The midwives were blessed by God (Ex 1:20-21) for lying to Pharaoh (Ex 1:17,19) to preserve innocent human life.Can you show me the verse that says, " Preservation of innocent (no conviction for crime) human life trumps all moral law."?
Exactly. They all violated the objective law as written. Subjective interpretation is an inescapable responsibility. Hence the rule of conscience.The midwives were blessed by God (Ex 1:20-21) for lying to Pharaoh (Ex 1:17,19) to preserve innocent human life.
Rahab was righteous for lying (Jas 2:25) to preserve innocent (convicted of no crime) human life.
David ate the forbidden showbread, which Jesus said was lawful because "to save life" is always lawful (Mk 2:25-26, 3:4).
Subjective interpretation must be in agreement with the law.Exactly. They all violated the objective law as written. Subjective interpretation is an inescapable responsibility.
Confirming once again your lack of any objective chapter and verse for your version of the law.It was about a higher moral law of God as Jesus presented, not about conscience.
Man has no authority to create moral law, his job is to obey the moral 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.Well, then, if you acknowledge the hair-splitting difference, that God is judge, why do you continue with the rule of conscience being the final authority?
I think you need to fix your first verse citation. Anyway as for the other verse:See Mk 22:25-26, 3:4.
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.Calvinism doesn't work, it has too many problems. I was a Calvinist for 7 years and attended a conservative Calvinist Seminary. I was all about it. But the more I read the Bible all the way through, the more I could see Calvinism is the philosophies and rationality of men being imposed on the text. Calvinism is too rational. It wants the Bible to make sense rationally, so it chops up the Bible and tries to make it rationally coherent. This is what leads to the dreadful problem of Biblical Literalism. Isn't it rational to say that if God writes a book it won't have errors? Isn't God rational too, and no rational being would write a book with errors in it. And isn't it rational to think that if there is a supreme being, then that being is all-knowing and all-powerful? Yes these make rational sense but they aren't what the Bible says. Therefore Calvinism is a structure that is forced upon the text and distorts it to provide proof for the rational claims the Calvinist already had decided beforehand.
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.Subjective interpretation must be in agreement with the law.
"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!"You and Clare are both trying to endlessly nitpick my statements without contributing anything innovative, constructive, useful, or meaningful.
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.The truth is, if the degree of felt certainty is high enough (ideally 100% certainty) - high enough to make further exegesis seem futile - you do NOT have to check it out with Scripture. The authority of the Voice/Vision, in that case, is final. Here, this usage of "final authority" isn't meant to usurp God's authority but rather to submit to it - meaning at this point the conscience is convinced that God Himself is speaking.
You've been creating a false dichotomy: EITHER God is the authority OR the conscience is the authority. The reality is that God expresses His authority via the conscience. Romans 2:15 makes it clear that He hand-crafted our conscience. Based on His design, I don't think it's possible to act in good conscience until we feel certain that we are submitting to His authority as best we know how.
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?"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!"
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.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.
Are you going to tell me that your conscience has never been manipulated?
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.Thoroughly wrong! If you are 100% certain of something such that further exegesis is futile, yet scripture disagrees with it...
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.Thoroughly wrong! If you are 100% certain of something such that further exegesis is futile, yet scripture disagrees with it...
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.Because, I'm a Christian, so the Inward Witness already has me feeling certain that Scripture is true.
"Good luck with that."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.
I'm not sure why you posted this. Do you think Calvinism differs from —i.e. opposes this?I love Jesus, because he died for me on the cross and he forgave my sins. Who can understand such a love? I'm certain that whoever turns to him will be forgiven, because he was punished for their sins too! I want to share this with the world: "Turn to Jesus and you too will be forgiven!". ✝️♥️
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean."Good luck with that."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?