Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,219
Members1,326
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
8 registered members (Karen Y, Daryl, dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, 3 invisible),
2,481
guests, and 13
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: Johann]
#147508
11/26/12 03:10 PM
11/26/12 03:10 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,639
California, USA
|
|
Which of the 10 commandments tells us that sin is in our thoughts? Thou shalt not covet. That only happens in the thoughts. The rest of them also reach into our thoughts, even though many try to comply with them by outward behavior.
By God's grace, Arnold
1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: asygo]
#147532
11/26/12 11:17 PM
11/26/12 11:17 PM
|
Banned SDA Active Member 2015
3500+ Member
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,613
USA
|
|
You are correct Asygo, but Jesus also said "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28
"When the thought of evil is loved and cherished, however secretly, said Jesus, it shows that sin still reigns in the heart. The soul is still in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. He who finds pleasure in dwelling upon scenes of impurity, who indulges the evil thought, the lustful look, may behold in the open sin, with its burden of shame and heart-breaking grief, the true nature of the evil which he has hidden in the chambers of the soul. The season of temptation, under which, it may be, one falls into grievous sin, does not create the evil that is revealed, but only develops or makes manifest that which was hidden and latent in the heart. As a man “thinketh in his heart, so is he;” for out of the heart “are the issues of life.” Proverbs 23:7; 4:23. {MB 60.1}
So sin is not only an act, but it is a state of mind. We cut ourselves off from righteousness in order to sin in our hearts, and once the seed has taken root it leads to open rebellion. When you willingly fantasize about sin, it is counted as sin.
This does not include the thought bombs that Satan throws at us, trying to get us to THINK you have sinned. So it is important to know where the cut off point is. This is essential to knowing what is from God and what is from Satan.
Always fall to the word of God when thoughts arise. This our safe haven.
Search me oh God and know my heart, test me and know my anxious thoughts, see if there is any offensive way in me and lead me to the way everlasting. Amen
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: APL]
#147538
11/27/12 12:03 AM
11/27/12 12:03 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,639
California, USA
|
|
We talked about why Jesus had to die. Your best answer is that dogs have cancer. But we all know that's not the crux of the Great Controversy. Enoch was sanctified long before Jesus was crucified, which causes logical problems for your position. Are you just trying to be inflammatory because you do not understand what I've been saying so you make false charges - Jesus dies to save dogs. Really. To refresh your memory, here's a little exchange we had regarding the need for Jesus to die on the cross: Are you saying that if Jesus did not come and die on the cross, He would not have been able to heal a broken leg? Or a palsied hand? Or a broken neck? The physical ailments are a consequence of sin. Are you saying they are not? A dog getting cancer is a consequence of sin. Are you saying it is not? We were talking about Jesus dying on the cross, and you brought up dog cancer. I'm not being inflammatory at all. Just trying to express what I think you are saying. If you spoke clearly, there wouldn't be an issue. And don't stop with Enoch, remember Moses and Elijah. Can you clarify for me, so you believe or not believe that Jesus had to die to save Enoch, Moses and Elijah? Yes - Jesus had to die? Or No, Jesus did not need to die to save them? What is your answer? Let me refresh your memory again. Enoch is saved the same way we are, and needed the same sacrifice we needed. Good. We agree on that. That was easy. Some things that seem to need clarification turn out to be clear after all. But there's something that is still unclear with you. I asked you this a while back, but you still have not answered. Here it is again: Was Enoch healed, nearly 4,000 years before Jesus died on the cross?But there was a question that came before that, which you never answered clearly: Did Enoch need Christ's death on the cross in order to be regenerated?My answer is clear, short, to the point: Yes! What is your answer? Can you do it in 3 letters or less?
By God's grace, Arnold
1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: jamesonofthunder]
#147539
11/27/12 12:09 AM
11/27/12 12:09 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,639
California, USA
|
|
So sin is not only an act, but it is a state of mind. We cut ourselves off from righteousness in order to sin in our hearts, and once the seed has taken root it leads to open rebellion. Wholly agree.
By God's grace, Arnold
1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: asygo]
#147548
11/27/12 02:35 AM
11/27/12 02:35 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
We talked about why Jesus had to die. Your best answer is that dogs have cancer. But we all know that's not the crux of the Great Controversy. Enoch was sanctified long before Jesus was crucified, which causes logical problems for your position. Are you just trying to be inflammatory because you do not understand what I've been saying so you make false charges - Jesus dies to save dogs. Really. To refresh your memory, here's a little exchange we had regarding the need for Jesus to die on the cross: Are you saying that if Jesus did not come and die on the cross, He would not have been able to heal a broken leg? Or a palsied hand? Or a broken neck? The physical ailments are a consequence of sin. Are you saying they are not? A dog getting cancer is a consequence of sin. Are you saying it is not? We were talking about Jesus dying on the cross, and you brought up dog cancer. I'm not being inflammatory at all. Just trying to express what I think you are saying. If you spoke clearly, there wouldn't be an issue. And don't stop with Enoch, remember Moses and Elijah. Can you clarify for me, so you believe or not believe that Jesus had to die to save Enoch, Moses and Elijah? Yes - Jesus had to die? Or No, Jesus did not need to die to save them? What is your answer? Let me refresh your memory again. Enoch is saved the same way we are, and needed the same sacrifice we needed. Good. We agree on that. That was easy. Some things that seem to need clarification turn out to be clear after all. But there's something that is still unclear with you. I asked you this a while back, but you still have not answered. Here it is again: Was Enoch healed, nearly 4,000 years before Jesus died on the cross?But there was a question that came before that, which you never answered clearly: Did Enoch need Christ's death on the cross in order to be regenerated?My answer is clear, short, to the point: Yes! What is your answer? Can you do it in 3 letters or less? Enoch is saved the same way you and I are saved. Are we saved by Christ' death or His life? Answer - we are saved by His life. We are reconciled by His death. We are saved by His life. Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 1 Corinthians 15:12-13 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 1 Corinthians 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
And this one is key: John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: APL]
#147557
11/27/12 03:17 PM
11/27/12 03:17 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,639
California, USA
|
|
I asked for yes or no, and you give a long answer that gave neither yes nor no. Don't be surprised if you are misunderstood, since you seem to go out of your way to be opaque.
Let me try again: Did Enoch need Christ's death in order to be regenerated?
By God's grace, Arnold
1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: asygo]
#147559
11/27/12 03:21 PM
11/27/12 03:21 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
So sin is not only an act, but it is a state of mind. We cut ourselves off from righteousness in order to sin in our hearts, and once the seed has taken root it leads to open rebellion. Wholly agree. Are you sure you guys are in agreement? Arnold, you believe we are guilty and condemned because "our fallen nature" tempts us from within to be unlike Jesus - even if we abide in Jesus and refuse to cherish or act them out. James, you believe we are guiltless if we abide in Jesus and refuse to cherish or act them out. The difference has to do with 1) Sin as a state of mind (guilty because we cherish sin), and 2) Sin as a state of being (guilty because our fallen nature tempts us from within). PS - Everyone agrees sin is also a state of doing.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: Mountain Man]
#147565
11/27/12 03:48 PM
11/27/12 03:48 PM
|
Banned SDA Active Member 2015
3500+ Member
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,613
USA
|
|
Let me try again: Did Enoch need Christ's death in order to be regenerated?
Most definitely yes! "To Walk With God—The father ... will bind his children to the throne of God by living faith. Distrusting his own strength, he hangs his helpless soul on Jesus and takes hold of the strength of the Most High. Brethren, pray at home, in your family, night and morning; pray earnestly in your closet; and while engaged in your daily labor, lift up the soul to God in prayer. It was thus that Enoch walked with God. The silent, fervent prayer of the soul will rise like holy incense to the throne of grace and will be as acceptable to God as if offered in the sanctuary. To all who thus seek Him, Christ becomes a present help in time of need. They will be strong in the day of trial.8 {AH 212.4} So sin is not only an act, but it is a state of mind. We cut ourselves off from righteousness in order to sin in our hearts, and once the seed has taken root it leads to open rebellion. Wholly agree. Are you sure you guys are in agreement? Arnold, you believe we are guilty and condemned because "our fallen nature" tempts us from within to be unlike Jesus - even if we abide in Jesus and refuse to cherish or act them out. James, you believe we are guiltless if we abide in Jesus and refuse to cherish or act them out. The difference has to do with 1) Sin as a state of mind (guilty because we cherish sin), and 2) Sin as a state of being (guilty because our fallen nature tempts us from within). Mountain man, this would be predicated on what is meant by the term "in Jesus". I too believe we come from a fallen condition so the old man is continually trying to rear his ugly head through the temptations of Satan. I agree with you Mt Man that being "In Christ" we do not sin, but being "in Christ" depends upon remaining faithful daily and truly repenting if we do fall to get back "in Christ". In other words we are not in Christ if we are sinning. There is a break, which is what repentance resolves. We do not need to repent if we have not sinned since being forgiven in the past. Forgiveness covers our PAST sins not the future. It is when we give in to lust of the flesh first in thought then in actions that our connection with God is broken and we are overcome by temptation. Asygo puts it into words differently and if I am off on his intent please forgive, but I think he and I are in agreement here. It may be through this example that you two will understand each others intent on the subject better. And every brother has the right to come to a better conclusion through acknowledging the truth of a subject viewed from a different angle.
Search me oh God and know my heart, test me and know my anxious thoughts, see if there is any offensive way in me and lead me to the way everlasting. Amen
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: asygo]
#147582
11/27/12 05:47 PM
11/27/12 05:47 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
I asked for yes or no, and you give a long answer that gave neither yes nor no. Don't be surprised if you are misunderstood, since you seem to go out of your way to be opaque.
Let me try again: Did Enoch need Christ's death in order to be regenerated? Enoch, Moses and Elijah needed Christ's death and life.
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: APL]
#147586
11/27/12 05:57 PM
11/27/12 05:57 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Since Jesus didn't die on the cross until years later, how did it help them regenerate?
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|