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.
Sleaker,
Earlier you suggested that faith, not conscience, should be the basis for our decisions. To begin with, faith is a feeling of certainty - precisely what I have been describing, as opposed to doubt (uncertainty) as the opposite of faith. To act according to our current feeling of certainty is what I call "acting according to conscience." Now if you would prefer to call it, "acting according to faith," - fine, so long as it is also admitted that even a deluded person, if he acts according to his feeling of certainty (his faith), is doing the best he can do, and hence cannot be condemned for it. He may be condemned for prior actions, for instance his sin in Adam, but he cannot be chastized for acting "according to faith."
What about the suicide bomber? According to Paul, men are generally well aware that their deeds are evil (see Romans 1 and 2) in virtue of their conscience. But if we assume for the moment that the suicide bomber has a deluded conscience, that he feels 100% certain that he is doing the right thing, we cannot condemn him for it, nor can God. All we can ask of man is that he always do what is right to the best of his knowledge and ability. If he happens to have a deluded sense of morality, and if he is unable to recognize it as deluded or change it, we cannot blame him for his behavior. Even the courts recognize insanity as a defense. They might lock him up, but not because he is "guilty" but rather to protect society.
Romans 3 - NLT said:Then what's the advantage of being a Jew? Is there any value in the Jewish ceremony of circumcision?
2 Yes, being a Jew has many advantages. First of all, the Jews were entrusted with the whole revelation of God.
3 True, some of them were unfaithful; but just because they broke their promises, does that mean God will break his promises?
4 Of course not! Though everyone else in the world is a liar, God is true. As the Scriptures say, "He will be proved right in what he says, and he will win his case in court."
5 "But," some say, "our sins serve a good purpose, for people will see God's goodness when he declares us sinners to be innocent. Isn't it unfair, then, for God to punish us?" (That is actually the way some people talk.)
6 Of course not! If God is not just, how is he qualified to judge the world?
7 "But," some might still argue, "how can God judge and condemn me as a sinner if my dishonesty highlights his truthfulness and brings him more glory?"
8 If you follow that kind of thinking, however, you might as well say that the more we sin the better it is! Those who say such things deserve to be condemned, yet some slander me by saying this is what I preach!
9 Well then, are we Jews better than others? No, not at all, for we have already shown that all people, whether Jews or Gentiles, are under the power of sin.
10 As the Scriptures say, "No one is good-- not even one.
11 No one has real understanding; no one is seeking God.
12 All have turned away from God; all have gone wrong. No one does good, not even one."
13 "Their talk is foul, like the stench from an open grave. Their speech is filled with lies." "The poison of a deadly snake drips from their lips."
14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15 "They are quick to commit murder.
16 Wherever they go, destruction and misery follow them.
17 They do not know what true peace is."
18 "They have no fear of God to restrain them."
19 Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses and to bring the entire world into judgment before God.
20 For no one can ever be made right in God's sight by doing what his law commands. For the more we know God's law, the clearer it becomes that we aren't obeying it.
21 But now God has shown us a different way of being right in his sight--not by obeying the law but by the way promised in the Scriptures long ago.
22 We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done.
23 For all have sinned; all fall short of God's glorious standard.
24 Yet now God in his gracious kindness declares us not guilty. He has done this through Christ Jesus, who has freed us by taking away our sins.
25 For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times.
26 And he is entirely fair and just in this present time when he declares sinners to be right in his sight because they believe in Jesus.
Yes, but precisely what I am trying to tell you is that a person who acts in conscience is not breaking the law. You admit this a few sentences later when you say, "I agree, we cannot blame him for his behavior." A man who cannot be blamed (what Scripture calls a "blameless man") is not a lawbreaker, but the opposite thereof.Why can't God condemn the man who breaks the Law? He is above the Law, He made the Law, and he is the judge of those who transgress it, not the consciounce.
Why do you assume there is a difference? How do you KNOW that God didn't command him to kill people even as He tested Abraham. You don't KNOW this. You merely have an opinion. But for purposes of theological accuracy, that's not good enough. If this bomber feels the same feeling of certainty as the man who gives poisoned bread to his kids unknowingly, we must judge.them alike. We can't have a double-standard of ethics. If both men believe themselves to be acting according to the will of God, He should reward them both equally. Again, I admit that if the bomber arrived at this feeling of certainty by deliberate malice, for that he is guilty. But once the feeling of certainty is in place, he is now obligated to it, and God must reward him for his obedience to conscience even as He rewards the man who (unknowingly) feeds poisoned bread to his kids.The difference between the man who gives poisoned bread and the man who suicidally kills many people is..
Yes, if he malicously altered his own concscience, he is guilty for altering it. But nonethless, once it is altered, it is obligatory. We must always heed our conscience, our sense of right and wrong. For if I do the opposite of what I think is right, this would be deliberate attempt on my part to do malice. Malice has nothing to do with the final outcome of the action (i.e whether people get killed). Malice has to do with the INTENT of the heart.The man who suicidally bombs is not acting under the same lack of knowledge, for the conscience must have been given from God, and then altered. God does not create a broken conscience, it is man who corrupts it.
Look, if you are saying that we don't REALLY know his heart's intent, and hence can't judge him, fine. But if we ASSUME (for the sake of argument, as a hypothetical), that he is acting according to conscience, then we can indeed declare him innocent in the bombing - although he is guilty for having pre-corrupted his conscience. You cannot convince me that acting according to conscience "is wrong" or even "might be wrong." It is NEVER wrong. Therefore, contrary to your conclusion, conscience IS INDEED the highest authority in a man's life.And so the action the suicidal man is taking is directly related to the morality of the action, murder is not moral. But you are very right in the idea that we cannot blame him, We have no place to judge that. That is God's place. This is why determining conscience as a Judge over Sin is wrong, and unscriptural.
Frankly I don't see anything in those verses that refutes my claim.You suggest that conscience makes us void of sin if we carry no guilt, but I'd like to point out Romans 3, especially verse 19-20.
bernergirl you may be correct in your thinking. We aren't told any law until the ten commandments in Exodus.
It wasn't until just recently though I discovered some things. We aren't told any laws concerning clean and unclean animals nor are we told how we can tell until Leviticus 11, yet why was it in Gen 7:2 Noah was told to take 7 pairs of clean animals and 1 pair of unclean animals?
Why is it that Cain and Abel, Abraham and Jacob, among others we know made offerings and alters to God, but its not until the nation of Israel leave Egypt that we see God giving anyone rules and regulations regarding them? Does that mean it wasn't required before then? Also why is it that Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain's was not? Theres nothing anywhere there explaining what God required of the sacrifice.
If there were no laws to say what was right or wrong then how would the world have known they were doing evil in the sight of God before the flood? In Gen 6:5-6 we are told that God was sorry he had made mankind and that their wickedness (which was evil continually) filled his heart with pain. Also if there were no laws, with what would God have had to judge their deeds against to show them they were doing evil?
What about Sodom and Gomorrah, would God have had no reason to destroy them as well because there was no law which told them they were doing the wrong thing (Gen 19)? God even promised Abraham that if he could find 10 people in Sodom who were righteous that he would spare the cities (Gen 18:32). that being the case, how do you tell who is righteous and who is not without a law? If you know of a way I would love to hear of it!
And why are those who say we should follow the Mosaid Ceremonial laws for the sabbath are quiet about the rest of the Mosaic laws?
(Where) do the scriptures say such a thing? How do you determine which laws are moral and which are civil or ceremonial?
I don't find those very convincing.
remembering the sabbath, and abiding by the mosaic laws concerning work on the sabbath are two different things with the mosaic laws adding a large number of ceremonial requirements to the sabbath.No one says that we ought follow the Mosaic ceremionial laws for the sabbath. This is because they pointed to and were fulfilled in Christ.
Furthermore, the Mosaic Law is split into three: (1) Ceremonial, (2) Civil and (3) Moral.
(1) pointed to Christ and we fulfilled by him and so no longer apply.
(2) were specific to Israel and so no longer apply.
(3) these are binding upon all men at all times.
Back to the Sabbath. The sabbath is a creation ordinance and predates the giving of the Mosaic Law and so the people of God (in the OT the Israelites) were called to remember the sabbath day - the day upon which God rested (Genesis 1-3).
However specific to their ceremional laws they had many sabbaths. These were specific to Israel in the OT and went with the comming of Christ. However the single sabbath principle as creation ordinance remains.
Clarifications?
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?