# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Free Forever, to Act for Themselves

## helmuth_hubener

I found this an excellent and thought-provoking talk.  And certainly a profoundly and radically pro-freedom one.  And so I thought I'd share.


*Free Forever, to Act for Themselves*

William Shakespeare’s play The Life of King Henry V includes a nighttime scene in the camp of English soldiers at Agincourt just before their battle with the French army. In the dim light and partially disguised, King Henry wanders unrecognized among his soldiers. He talks with them, trying to gauge the morale of his badly outnumbered troops, and because they do not realize who he is, they are candid in their comments. In one exchange they philosophize about who bears responsibility for what happens to men in battle—the king or each individual soldier.

At one point King Henry declares, “Methinks I could not die any where so contented as in the king’s company; his cause being just.”

Michael Williams retorts, “That’s more than we know.”

His companion agrees, “Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if we know we are the king’s subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.”

Williams adds, “If the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make.”

Not surprisingly, King Henry disagrees. “Every subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s soul is his own.”

Shakespeare does not attempt to resolve this debate in the play, and in one form or another it is a debate that continues down to our own time—who bears responsibility for what happens in our lives?

When things turn bad, there is a tendency to blame others or even God. Sometimes a sense of entitlement arises, and individuals or groups try to shift responsibility for their welfare to other people or to governments. In spiritual matters some suppose that men and women need not strive for personal righteousness—because God loves and saves us “just as we are.”

But God intends that His children should act according to the moral agency He has given them, “that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” It is His plan and His will that we have the principal decision-making role in our own life’s drama. God will not live our lives for us nor control us as if we were His puppets, as Lucifer once proposed to do. Nor will His prophets accept the role of “puppet master” in God’s place. Brigham Young stated: “I do not wish any Latter Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ,—the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.”

So God does not save us “just as we are,” first, because “just as we are” we are unclean, and “no unclean thing can dwell … in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man [of Holiness].” And second, God will not act to make us something we do not choose by our actions to become. Truly He loves us, and because He loves us, He neither compels nor abandons us. Rather He helps and guides us. Indeed, the real manifestation of God’s love is His commandments.

We should (and we do) rejoice in the God-ordained plan that permits us to make choices to act for ourselves and experience the consequences, or as the scriptures express it, to “taste the bitter, that [we] may know to prize the good.” We are forever grateful that the Savior’s Atonement overcame original sin so that we can be born into this world yet not be punished for Adam’s transgression. Having been thus redeemed from the Fall, we begin life innocent before God and “become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for [ourselves] and not to be acted upon.” We can choose to become the kind of person that we will, and with God’s help, that can be even as He is.

The gospel of Jesus Christ opens the path to what we may become. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ and His grace, our failures to live the celestial law perfectly and consistently in mortality can be erased and we are enabled to develop a Christlike character. Justice demands, however, that none of this happen without our willing agreement and participation. It has ever been so. Our very presence on earth as physical beings is the consequence of a choice each of us made to participate in our Father’s plan. Thus, salvation is certainly not the result of divine whim, but neither does it happen by divine will alone.

Justice is an essential attribute of God. We can have faith in God because He is perfectly trustworthy. The scriptures teach us that “God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round” and that “God is no respecter of persons.” We rely on the divine quality of justice for faith, confidence, and hope.

But as a consequence of being perfectly just, there are some things God cannot do. He cannot be arbitrary in saving some and banishing others. He “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” He cannot allow mercy to rob justice.

It is compelling evidence of His justice that God has forged the companion principle of mercy. It is because He is just that He devised the means for mercy to play its indispensable role in our eternal destiny. So now, “justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own.”

We know that it is “the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom [the Father] wast well pleased; … the blood of [His] Son which was shed” that satisfies the demands of justice, extends mercy, and redeems us. Even so, “according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance.” It is the requirement of and the opportunity for repentance that permits mercy to perform its labor without trampling justice.

Christ died not to save indiscriminately but to offer repentance. We rely “wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save” in the process of repentance, but acting to repent is a self-willed change. So by making repentance a condition for receiving the gift of grace, God enables us to retain responsibility for ourselves. Repentance respects and sustains our moral agency: “And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.”

Misunderstanding God’s justice and mercy is one thing; denying God’s existence or supremacy is another, but either will result in our achieving less—sometimes far less—than our full, divine potential. A God who makes no demands is the functional equivalent of a God who does not exist. A world without God, the living God who establishes moral laws to govern and perfect His children, is also a world without ultimate truth or justice. It is a world where moral relativism reigns supreme.

Relativism means each person is his or her own highest authority. Of course, it is not just those who deny God that subscribe to this philosophy. Some who believe in God still believe that they themselves, individually, decide what is right and wrong. One young adult expressed it this way: “I don’t think I could say that Hinduism is wrong or Catholicism is wrong or being Episcopalian is wrong—I think it just depends on what you believe. … I don’t think that there’s a right and wrong.” Another, asked about the basis for his religious beliefs, replied, “Myself—it really comes down to that. I mean, how could there be authority to what you believe?”

To those who believe anything or everything could be true, the declaration of objective, fixed, and universal truth feels like coercion—“I shouldn’t be forced to believe something is true that I don’t like.” But that does not change reality. Resenting the law of gravity won’t keep a person from falling if he steps off a cliff. The same is true for eternal law and justice. Freedom comes not from resisting it but from applying it. That is fundamental to God’s own power. If it were not for the reality of fixed and immutable truths, the gift of agency would be meaningless since we would never be able to foresee and intend the consequences of our actions. As Lehi expressed it: “If ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.”

In matters both temporal and spiritual, the opportunity to assume personal responsibility is a God-given gift without which we cannot realize our full potential as daughters and sons of God. Personal accountability becomes both a right and a duty that we must constantly defend; it has been under assault since before the Creation. We must defend accountability against persons and programs that would (sometimes with the best of intentions) make us dependent. And we must defend it against our own inclinations to avoid the work that is required to cultivate talents, abilities, and Christlike character.

The story is told of a man who simply would not work. He wanted to be taken care of in every need. To his way of thinking, the Church or the government, or both, owed him a living because he had paid his taxes and his tithing. He had nothing to eat but refused to work to care for himself. Out of desperation and disgust, those who had tried to help him decided that since he would not lift a finger to sustain himself, they might as well just take him to the cemetery and let him pass on. On the way to the cemetery, one man said, “We can’t do this. I have some corn I will give him.”

So they explained this to the man, and he asked, “Have the husks been removed?”

They responded, “No.”

“Well, then,” he said, “drive on.”

It is God’s will that we be free men and women enabled to rise to our full potential both temporally and spiritually, that we be free from the humiliating limitations of poverty and the bondage of sin, that we enjoy self-respect and independence, that we be prepared in all things to join Him in His celestial kingdom.

I am under no illusion that this can be achieved by our own efforts alone without His very substantial and constant help. “We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” And we do not need to achieve some minimum level of capacity or goodness before God will help—divine aid can be ours every hour of every day, no matter where we are in the path of obedience. But I know that beyond desiring His help, we must exert ourselves, repent, and choose God for Him to be able to act in our lives consistent with justice and moral agency. My plea is simply to take responsibility and go to work so that there is something for God to help us with.

I bear witness that God the Father lives, that His Son, Jesus Christ, is our Redeemer, and that the Holy Spirit is present with us. Their desire to help us is undoubted, and Their capacity to do so is infinite. Let us “awake, and arise from the dust, … that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto [us] may be fulfilled.” In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am under no illusion that this can be achieved by our own efforts alone without His very substantial and constant help. We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. And we do not need to achieve some minimum level of capacity or goodness before God will helpdivine aid can be ours every hour of every day, no matter where we are in the path of obedience. But I know that beyond desiring His help, we must exert ourselves, repent, and choose God for Him to be able to act in our lives consistent with justice and moral agency. My plea is simply to take responsibility and go to work so that there is something for God to help us with.


Redpectfully, I disagree.  This is works salvationism.  If there is anything so clear in the Bible, it is that working for salvation is the sure way that one will never see eternal life.  God has set a stumbling stone, a "rock of offense" in the way of all those who work for their salvation:




> * Romans 9:30-33 
> 
> What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. 
> 
> They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "Behold , I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense , And he who believes in Him will not be  disappointed ."*


The reason that man cannot work for His salvation is that God is holy and He never bends the requirements of His law.   To be in God's presence, one must have a perfect righteousness.   A man can only have this righteousness by faith in the perfect God-man, the substitute, Jesus Christ.

----------


## pcosmar

> The reason that man cannot work for His salvation is that God is holy and He never bends the requirements of His law.   To be in God's presence, one must have a perfect righteousness.   A man can only have this righteousness by faith in the perfect God-man, the substitute, Jesus Christ.


I agree that you can not *Earn* salvation by works alone,,scripture is clear that it does have it's place.




> Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.





> *Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.*


There is balance in scripture. In the whole word of God.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Redpectfully, I disagree.  This is works salvationism.  If there is anything so clear in the Bible, it is that working for salvation is the sure way that one will never see eternal life.


  Fine with me!  Wherever I am sent, I'll just work hard, live happily, turn the devils out and make a heaven out of it.

----------


## otherone

> If there is anything so clear in the Bible, it is that working for salvation is the sure way that one will never see eternal life.






> Fine with me!  Wherever I am sent, I'll just work hard, live happily, turn the devils out and make a heaven out of it.


Agreed, Brother.  Just follow the two commandments, and let God and Sola figure out who's saved!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Agreed, Brother.  Just follow the two commandments, and let God and Sola figure out who's saved!


Who in the history of man has ever loved God with all their heart, soul, and strength and loved their neighbors as themselves?   Who has done this?

Was Jesus laying out requirements that man could meet there?

Or was his point that no man could ever do this, and if a man was to be righteous, this righteousness must come from somewhere else?

----------


## Brett85

> Who in the history of man has ever loved God with all their heart, soul, and strength and loved their neighbors as themselves?   Who has done this?
> 
> Was Jesus laying out requirements that man could meet there?
> 
> Or was his point that no man could ever do this, and if a man was to be righteous, this righteousness must come from somewhere else?


I think his point was that anyone who truly believes in what Jesus did on the cross for them will do the best they can to love God and love their neighbor as themselves.  Our imperfect efforts to love God and love our neighbor are evidence that we truly believe in what Jesus did for us on the cross.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree that you can not *Earn* salvation by works alone,,scripture is clear that it does have it's place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is balance in scripture. In the whole word of God.



No, there is no "balance" of works and faith in Scripture. 



> *Romans 11:5
> 
> So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
> *


Grace would no longer be grace if human work was involved in salvation in any way.

Paul goes on in this chapter to talk about the Jews who working so hard for their salvation:



> *What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain.The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written:
> 
> “God gave them a spirit of stupor,
>  Eyes that could not see
>  and ears that could not hear,
> to this very day.”
> 
> And David says:
> 
> ...


The only Jews that we're saved were the "elect among them". The rest were hardened because they self-righteously thought that their works could make them stand before a holy God.

----------


## otherone

> Who in the history of man has ever loved God with all their heart, soul, and strength and loved their neighbors as themselves?


You are such a busybody!  What difference does it make who obeys God, other than you?



> Or was his point that no man could ever do this, and if a man was to be righteous, this righteousness must come from somewhere else?


What difference does that make?
Does God ask anything other than what he commands?  It seems to me that you are overly concerned with salvation, as if some study, ideology, or understanding is necessary to make that happen.  Does God command this of you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think his point was that anyone who truly believes in what Jesus did on the cross for them will do the best they can to love God and love their neighbor as themselves.  Our imperfect efforts to love God and love our neighbor are evidence that we truly believe in what Jesus did for us on the cross.


No. Certainly not.  God is a holy God.  God NEVER lowers the standards of His law for ANYONE.  God will never allow sin into His presence.  

Jesus is not saying "here's what you have to do and try your best and God will accept your sinful attempt".

Jesus is saying to the Jews "okay, you want to righteous? Then perfectly love God every single second of your life and pperfectly love your neighbor as yourself".

For the elect who truly know God, we know that God is holy and never bends the requirements of His law.  We know that the law sets fourth the perfect standard of holiness and it is a standard that we can never meet.  This is why, to be saved, we must have the righteousness of Christ.   The righteousness of Christ ALONE is my only assurance of salvation.

----------


## Brett85

> No. Certainly not.  God is a holy God.  God NEVER lowers the standards of His law for ANYONE.  God will never allow sin into His presence.  
> 
> Jesus is not saying "here's what you have to do and try your best and God will accept your sinful attempt".


That's not what I'm claiming.  I'm saying that one's best attempt to follow God and do what's right is the evidence that one is truly saved.  It's the evidence that one truly believes in what Christ did for them on the cross.  The good works and the attempt to do what's right isn't what saves us, but it's what provides evidence that we are saved.  And I think that's what Jesus was saying in Luke 27: 25-28.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are such a busybody!  What difference does it make who obeys God, other than you?
> 
> 
> What difference does that make?
> Does God ask anything other than what he commands?  It seems to me that you are overly concerned with salvation, as if some study, ideology, or understanding is necessary to make that happen.  Does God command this of you?


God doesn't just command your best effort,  God commands a perfect sinless righteousness from you.  How can you ever hope to stand in the presence of God in the last day with even your best efforts?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's not what I'm claiming.  I'm saying that one's best attempt to follow God and do what's right is the evidence that one is truly saved.  It's the evidence that one truly believes in what Christ did for them on the cross.  The good works and the attempt to do what's right isn't what saves us, but it's what provides evidence that we are saved.  And I think that's what Jesus was saying in Luke 27: 26-28.


That's not what he's saying there.   But if that was what he was saying, let me ask you this:

Is the evidence of salvation something that God needs to in order to confirm our salvation?
Or is the evidence of salvation something that man sees in order to confirm the salvation of other men?

----------


## otherone

> God doesn't just command your best effort,  God commands a perfect sinless righteousness from you. * How can you ever hope to stand in the presence of God in the last day with even your best efforts?*


I CAN'T.
There's NOTHING I can do about that.
ALL I can do, is try my best to do as told.  The rest is up to God.
If God wants me by his side....that's his doing, not mine.
So....what are we left with?  His commandments....
Which are?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I CAN'T.
> There's NOTHING I can do about that.
> ALL I can do, is try my best to do as told.  The rest is up to God.
> If God wants me by his side....that's his doing, not mine.
> So....what are we left with?  His commandments....
> Which are?



So are you saying you do your part, and then God fills in the rest?

----------


## otherone

> Is the evidence of salvation something that God needs to in order to confirm our salvation?
> Or is the evidence of salvation something that man sees in order to confirm the salvation of other men?


Where in Christ's commandments is salvation mentioned?  Where is there a quid pro quo?

----------


## otherone

> So are you saying you do your part, and then God fills in the rest?


NO.
God says OBEY.  There is no "the rest".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> NO.
> God says OBEY.  There is no "the rest".


Right.  God says obey His commandments.   You haven't done that.  What hope do you have?

----------


## Brett85

> That's not what he's saying there.   But if that was what he was saying, let me ask you this:
> 
> Is the evidence of salvation something that God needs to in order to confirm our salvation?
> Or is the evidence of salvation something that man sees in order to confirm the salvation of other men?


Well, I guess God wouldn't actually need to see it to know that we're saved.  God is all knowing and knows whether we're saved without looking at any of our works.  But I still believe the Bible clearly teaches that anyone who's truly saved will do good works as a result of their faith.  There's no such thing as a Christian who doesn't do good works.  So I think that's a more reasonable interpretation of Luke 10: 25-28 than to suggest that what Jesus meant was actually the exact opposite of what he said, that Jesus was talking in some sort of code language to the man who asked him the question of how to receive eternal life.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where in Christ's commandments is salvation mentioned?  Where is there a quid pro quo?


Salvation is implied in all the commandments.   The Bible says "do this, and you will live, don't do this, and you will die".

So we have a situation where man has no chosen the latter, and eternal death is the result of all our lives.

----------


## otherone

> Salvation is implied in all the commandments.   *The Bible says "do this, and you will live, don't do this, and you will die".
> *
> So we have a situation where man has no chosen the latter, and eternal death is the result of all our lives.


So, you are saying that salvation is works based?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, you are saying that salvation is works based?


Yes.  Salvation is 1000% works-based.  To be saved, a man must have a life of perfect righteousness.   He must follow God's commands in even the slightest detail for his entire life to be saved.

----------


## otherone

> Yes.  Salvation is 1000% works-based.  To be saved, a man must have a life of perfect righteousness.   He must follow God's commands in even the slightest detail for his entire life to be saved.


Ah.
Now I understand.
And because this is impossible, we are all damned to hell?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ah.
> Now I understand.
> And because this is impossible, we are all damned to hell?


Yes.

----------


## otherone

> Yes.


Is there ANYTHING that you or I can do about it?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is there ANYTHING that you are I can do about it?


There is something you "must" do about it.  "Can" is not the question.  God holds all men accountable to this law and the ability of man never enters into the equation.




> ◄Acts 17:30*
> 
> In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

----------


## otherone

> There is something you "must" do about it.  "Can" is not the question.  God holds all men accountable to this law and the ability of man never enters into the equation.


So repentance is required for salvation? 
There are three commandments?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So repentance is required for salvation? 
> There are three commandments?


Not only is repentance required, faith, hope, love, and everything else commanded in the law is required for salvation.

----------


## otherone

> Not only is repentance required, faith, hope, love, and everything else commanded in the law is required for salvation.


But we can't do all those things!  It's sounds like what you are saying is that salvation is not in our hands!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But we can't do all those things!  It's sounds like what you are saying is that salvation is not in our hands!


Yes.  That's right.  Our repentance itself comes from God:




> *◄*2 Timothy 2:25*
> 
> Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,
> 
> *



But I see you hinting at that because salvation is all of God, that man is still not held to the standard of the law, but if there is anything so clear in the Bible, all men will be held to account.

----------


## otherone

> But I see you hinting at that because salvation is all of God, *that man is still not held to the standard of the law,* but if there is anything so clear in the Bible, all men will be held to account.


Not at all!  What I'm saying is, if there is nothing that anyone can do about it, then what possible difference could any of what you say make?

----------


## otherone

It's interesting how you responded to my comment that there are only two motivations, desire and fear.  You claimed "love" was a third motivation.
It would be easy to argue that one would "desire" to be closer to God, or "fear" damnation, but let's go with love.
IMO, love is it's own reward.  Anyone with children knows this.  One loves because one can not do otherwise.  Are we ever "perfect" in our love for our children?  Are we "perfect" in how we behave towards our children?  Of course not.  Do we expect a reward for our love for our children?  Of course not.
You believe the "purpose" for loving God is an expectation of a reward.  That is not love.  That is a bargain.  If God damns us forever, is that any reason to love him less?   If a child tells us to go $#@! ourselves, do we love them less?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's interesting how you responded to my comment that there are only two motivations, desire and fear.  You claimed "love" was a third motivation.
> It would be easy to argue that one would "desire" to be closer to God, or "fear" damnation, but let's go with love.
> IMO, love is it's own reward.  Anyone with children knows this.  One loves because one can not do otherwise.  Are we ever "perfect" in our love for our children?  Are we "perfect" in how we behave towards our children?  Of course not.  Do we expect a reward for our love for our children?  * Of course not.
> You believe the "purpose" for loving God is an expectation of a reward.*  That is not love.  That is a bargain.  If God damns us forever, is that any reason to love him less?   If a child tells us to go $#@! ourselves, do we love them less?



No I don't.   I said in that thread that the Christian man already has his reward.  The love he has is simply gratitude for the previously shown unmerited grace.

You are describing salvation as an exchange where man gives something and then God responds.  But salvation described in the Bible is an exchange between the persons of the Trinity.   God accepts the perfect law keeping of Christ as the payment for the sins of the elect.  Man's desire, effort, works is not part of that exchange.

----------


## otherone

> You are describing salvation as an exchange where man gives something and then God responds.


Where have I even implied that?
What I am saying is that God commands and Man responds.  Salvation is your hangup, not mine.  It's pointless to be so focused on something beyond my control.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where have I even implied that?
> *What I am saying is that God commands and Man responds*.  Salvation is your hangup, not mine.  It's pointless to be so focused on something beyond my control.


No.  God commands and man doesn't respond.

----------


## otherone

> No.  God commands and man doesn't respond.


Ok.  God commands, man DOESN'T respond, some are damned, some are saved.   And somehow, we're supposed to be concerned about something we're not involved in, and have no influence upon.  I like your theology...it requires nothing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ok.  God commands, man DOESN'T respond, some are damned, some are saved.   And somehow, we're supposed to be concerned about something we're not involved in, and have no influence upon.  I like your theology...it requires nothing.


Yes.  Salvation requires nothing from man.  It is 100% free.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who in the history of man has ever loved God with all their heart, soul, and strength and loved their neighbors as themselves?   Who has done this?


Have you ever lifted weights?  If you lifted weights did you ever max out?  If you lifted weights and you maxed out, did you ever find out later that you could lift more weight?

----------


## pcosmar

> Who in the history of man has ever loved God with all their heart, soul, and strength and loved their neighbors as themselves?  * Who has done this?*


Jesus Christ.

And he stands as advocate for any that call on him,,  against the accuser of man.




> And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jesus Christ.
> 
> And he stands as advocate for any that call on him,,  against the accuser of man.


Agree.  So it's Him alone that saves me, not anything in me.  Not my efforts, not my will, not my choice, not my good deeds.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Have you ever lifted weights?  If you lifted weights did you ever max out?  If you lifted weights and you maxed out, did you ever find out later that you could lift more weight?


Yes!  Eternal Progression!

http://grooveshark.com/#!/s/One+Step...e/2CCuPx?src=5

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> God is in sovereign control of every atom of existence and the heavenly host...Satan also.


We are co-eternal with God.  We existed before we were born.  We will always exist.  We have always existed, though initially in a less-organized form than today.

This is one great key to understanding things such as "Why do bad things ever happen?", and "If God created everything, why did He create evil?  Why did he create Satan?"  The premises are off.  God didn't create everything from nothing, and he most especially did not create any other personalities from nothing.  I am Me, independent and eternal.  And so are you, and so is Satan.

This is also the fundamental reason why we are free.  If we are just creatures, somehow created from nothing (don't ask how!), and utterly dependent for existence on a capricious and illogical God, if everything about us and within us was poofed into being by God, then we have no freedom.  We would just be puppets.  Lego men.  

As a side-note, life would have absolutely no meaning in such a Lego-men scenario.  God zapped everything into being, from nothing, for reasons of His own, and He knows everything that will happen, and He chose to make everyone exactly how they are and to have them do exactly what they do and there is, needless to say, absolutely nothing any one of us can do about it.

That's not freedom.  That's nothing.  That's a void.  An utter wasteland.  *If one person has all the power, then that same person also has all the responsibility.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *We are co-eternal with God.  We existed before we were born.  We will always exist.  We have always existed, though initially in a less-organized form than today.
> *
> This is one great key to understanding things such as "Why do bad things ever happen?", and "If God created everything, why did He create evil?  Why did he create Satan?"  The premises are off.  God didn't create everything from nothing, and he most especially did not create any other personalities from nothing.  I am Me, independent and eternal.  And so are you, and so is Satan.
> 
> This is also the fundamental reason why we are free.  If we are just creatures, somehow created from nothing (don't ask how!), and utterly dependent for existence on a capricious and illogical God, if everything about us and within us was poofed into being by God, then we have no freedom.  We would just be puppets.  Lego men.  
> 
> As a side-note, life would have absolutely no meaning in such a Lego-men scenario.  God zapped everything into being, from nothing, for reasons of His own, and He knows everything that will happen, and He chose to make everyone exactly how they are and to have them do exactly what they do and there is, needless to say, absolutely nothing any one of us can do about it.
> 
> That's not freedom.  That's nothing.  That's a void.  An utter wasteland.  If one person has all the power, then that same person also has all the responsibility.



Yeah, I know that is what Joseph Smith said, but this is contradictory to the Bible in so many places.  This is one of the ways you can know he was a false prophet, he contradicted the revelation that came before him.

God ALONE is immortal:



> *1st Timothy 6:15-16
> 
> which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

...

----------


## moostraks

> Yeah, I know that is what Joseph Smith said, but this is contradictory to the Bible in so many places.  This is one of the ways you can know he was a false prophet, he contradicted the revelation that came before him.
> 
> God ALONE is immortal:



John 8:51

"Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."

John 11:26
and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"

2 Corinthians 5:1-5
For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 

1 Corinthians 15:53-54
For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.

1 Peter 1:23
for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> John 8:51
> 
> "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."
> 
> John 11:26
> and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"
> 
> 2 Corinthians 5:1-5
> For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 
> ...



What do any of those verse have to do with what we are talking about?

----------


## moostraks

> What do any of those verse have to do with what we are talking about?


What are _you_ talking about? Guess you don't have ears?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Have you ever lifted weights?  If you lifted weights did you ever max out?  If you lifted weights and you maxed out, did you ever find out later that you could lift more weight?


The law requires a weight that no man could lift.  Christ alone lifted the weight that God required and God accepted His sacrifice.  That is why salvation is from God alone.  This is one of the most important aspects of Christianity.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What are _you_ talking about? Guess you don't have ears?


I was talking about the fact that the Bible teaches that God alone is immortal.  Joseph Smith denied this.  The verses you posted in response had nothing to do with the subject.

----------


## moostraks

> I was talking about the fact that the Bible teaches that God alone is immortal.  Joseph Smith denied this.  The verses you posted in response had nothing to do with the subject.


So you are saying the verses I posted had nothing to do with the subject of immortality? Are _you_ sure?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you are saying the verses I posted had nothing to do with the subject of immortality? Are _you_ sure?


No.  They have to do with _eternal life_, not immortality.  There is a difference.  In the verse from 1st Timothy, it says that God ALONE posseses immortality (_athanasian_) as a unique character of his being.  No other being, human or not, posses this.  

Christians (and for that matter, unbelievers) have never-dying souls, but they don't possess _athanasian_ as a unique character of their being.  

Joseph Smith said that intelligences and matter always existed.  In other words, humans existed in a pre-existent state.   This is not Biblical.  God alone posseses (unique to His being) immortality.

----------


## moostraks

> No.  They have to do with _eternal life_, not immortality.  There is a difference.  In the verse from 1st Timothy, it says that God ALONE posseses immortality (_athanasian_) as a unique character of his being.  No other being, human or not, posses this.  
> 
> Christians (and for that matter, unbelievers) have never-dying souls, but they don't possess _athanasian_ as a unique character of their being.  
> 
> Joseph Smith said that intelligences and matter always existed.  In other words, humans existed in a pre-existent state.   This is not Biblical.  God alone posseses (unique to His being) immortality.


Here you go taking one conversation and turning it into another then telling others what they can and cannot discuss. So when Bryan let you back on here again did he give you the keys to the place and tell you to keep idiots like me in their place or is this just your hubris speaking again?


And, for the record, I am not nearly as dim witted as you like to portray me, but immortality as a discussion was your choice of verbiage but as a concept these verse apply. I was just going with the discussion the OP put forth in the post you was splittin' hairs with him on. Ya know, the one where you started rambling about Joseph Smith and making a big hoopla about the word immortality.  

Oh, and:




> 1 Corinthians 15:53-54
> For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, *and this mortal will have put on immortality*, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.


Even uses your term. Just sayin"...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Here you go taking one conversation and turning it into another then telling others what they can and cannot discuss. So when Bryan let you back on here again did he give you the keys to the place and tell you to keep idiots like me in their place or is this just your hubris speaking again?


I don't think anyone is an idiot here.  I really like the discussions we have here...and I like the discussions I have with you.





> And, for the record, I am not nearly as dim witted as you like to portray me, but immortality as a discussion was your choice of verbiage but as a concept these verse apply. I was just going with the discussion the OP put forth in the post you was splittin' hairs with him on. Ya know, the one where you started rambling about Joseph Smith and making a big hoopla about the word immortality.  
> 
> Oh, and:
> 
> 
> 
> Even uses your term. Just sayin"...


Right, it uses the term, but it is talking about _eternal life_ there.  Remember, I said there is a difference between eternal life and possessing immortality as a unique character of your being and alone being pre-existent (what God has).

----------


## moostraks

> I don't think anyone is an idiot here.  I really like the discussions we have here...and I like the discussions I have with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, it uses the term, but it is talking about _eternal life_ there.  Remember, I said there is a difference between eternal life and possessing immortality as a unique character of your being and alone being pre-existent (what God has).


I am sure you do enjoy the conversations because how often do you get to publicly insult other folks like me and put them in their place for being unbiblical and clueless. (Your excessive use of "What do any of those verse have to do with what we are talking about?" is really rather trite)

Um, maybe you should back up and read what I wrote again? I was referring to the post you decided to go on a bender about and make some pet argument of yours while not even giving any credit to the person who was speaking to you about a concept which you are continuing to act like forum bully on. You are the one playing clipped form THEN you decided that you would insult my intelligence as though I don't know ANYTHING about, you know, ANYTHING.

If you reread what you said you will see all you gave HH was that God alone is immortal. That was it. Nothing else. Nope, not until after you _tried_  to act like I was a child interrupting the adult's conversation. And now you are just rambling on. Don't let me interrupt you...Maybe you can throw unbiblical in there somewhere as a slur? Or bring up some historical character which you can castigate but no one else dare discuss the um, historical nature of your beliefs.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am sure you do enjoy the conversations because how often do you get to publicly insult other folks like me and put them in their place for being unbiblical and clueless. (Your excessive use of "What do any of those verse have to do with what we are talking about?" is really rather trite)
> 
> Um, maybe you should back up and read what I wrote again? I was referring to the post you decided to go on a bender about and make some pet argument of yours while not even giving any credit to the person who was speaking to you about a concept which you are continuing to act like forum bully on. You are the one playing clipped form THEN you decided that you would insult my intelligence as though I don't know ANYTHING about, you know, ANYTHING.
> 
> If you reread what you said you will see all you gave HH was that God alone is immortal. That was it. Nothing else. Nope, not until after you _tried_  to act like I was a child interrupting the adult's conversation. And now you are just rambling on. Don't let me interrupt you...Maybe you can throw unbiblical in there somewhere as a slur? Or bring up some historical character which you can castigate but no one else dare discuss the um, historical nature of your beliefs.


Oh so you were agreeing with me?  Great!

----------


## moostraks

> Oh so you were agreeing with me?  Great!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to moostraks again.

_

----------


## jmdrake

> The law requires a weight that no man could lift.


Did you read the verse?  "Love the Lord your God with all *your* strength."  It doesn't matter if the weight is too much for you to actually "lift."  




> Christ alone lifted the weight that God required and God accepted His sacrifice.  That is why salvation is from God alone.  This is one of the most important aspects of Christianity.


Yes.  Jesus lifted the weight.  But He still wants us to love the Lord to the fullest extent that *we* can.  Have you ever heard of isometric exercises?  You can get stronger by attempting to lift a weight that you can't actually lift but only if you are putting everything you have into it.  When doing isometric exercise you are expected to "fail" at moving the object you are pushing against.  That doesn't mean don't push.

----------


## jmdrake

John Calvin's commentary on loving the Lord God with all your heart, mind and strength.

_What follows is an abridgment of the Law, [73] which is also found in the writings of Moses, (Deuteronomy 6:5.) For, though it is divided into two tables, the first of which relates to the worship of God, and the second to charity, Moses properly and wisely draws up this summary, [74] that the Jews may perceive what is the will of God in each of the commandments. And although we ought to love God far more than men, yet most properly does God, instead of worship or honor, require love from us, because in this way he declares that no other worship is pleasing to Him than what is voluntary; for no man will actually obey God but he who loves Him. But as the wicked and sinful inclinations of the flesh draw us aside from what is right, Moses shows that our life will not be regulated aright till the love of God fill all our senses. Let us therefore learn, that the commencement of godliness is the love of God, because God disdains the forced services of men, and chooses to be worshipped freely and willingly; and let us also learn, that under the love of God is included the reverence due to him.

Moses does not add the mind, but mentions only the heart, and the soul, and the strength; and though the present division into four clauses is more full, yet it does not alter the sense. For while Moses intends to teach generally that God ought to be perfectly loved, and that whatever powers belong to men ought to be devoted to this object, he reckoned it enough, after mentioning the soul and the heart, to add the strength, that he might not leave any part of us uninfluenced by the love of God; and we know also that under the word heart the Hebrews sometimes include the mind, [75] particularly when it is joined to the word soul What is the difference between the mind and the heart, both in this passage and in Matthew, I do not trouble myself to inquire, except that I consider the mind to denote the loftier abode of reason, from which all our thoughts and deliberations flow._

----------


## Theocrat

> Who in the history of man has ever loved God with all their heart, soul, and strength and loved their neighbors as themselves?   Who has done this?
> 
> Was Jesus laying out requirements that man could meet there?
> 
> Or was his point that no man could ever do this, and if a man was to be righteous, this righteousness must come from somewhere else?


The Holy Scriptures reveal to us that there were some who loved God and kept His Law in a fashion that pleased Him. For instance, we read in 1 Kings 11:38:




> And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee and wilt walk in My ways and do that is right in My sight, to keep My statutes and My commandments, *as David My servant did*, that I will be with thee and build thee a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee. [Emphasis mine]


That's why King David could say things like:




> The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands hath He recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the LORD and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all His judgments were before me, and I did not put away His statutes from me. I was also upright before Him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore hath the LORD recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in His eyesight. [Psalm 18:20-24]


But having said all of that, I do agree that David's righteousness was not attained of his own weal, wit, or will; it was given to him by God the Father, through the working of the Holy Spirit, because of what Jesus Christ was going to do as the High Priest of a new covenant, in time to come.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Holy Scriptures reveal to us that there were some who loved God and kept His Law in a fashion that pleased Him. For instance, we read in 1 Kings 11:38:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why King David could say things like:
> 
> 
> 
> But having said all of that, I do agree that David's righteousness was not attained of his own weal, wit, or will; it was given to him by God the Father, through the working of the Holy Spirit, because of what Jesus Christ was going to do as the High Priest of a new covenant, in time to come.


Right...and this is the standard argument from Reconstructionists and neo-legalists.  They say "you can actually DO the law!"  But of course this rejects the law/gospel distinction of Jesus and Paul...and is the standard argument of Rome and all of these other cults and sub-biblical theologies.  

The important thing to understand is that God never accepts an imperfect law-keeping.  He is not pleased with man's sinful efforts at self-righteousness.  He accepts Christ's perfect law-keeping alone.  And those passages you mention are VERY messianic.  Are you sure David wasn't prefiguring Christ there?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Right...and this is the standard argument from Reconstructionists and neo-legalists.  They say "you can actually DO the law!"  But of course this rejects the law/gospel distinction of Jesus and Paul...and is the standard argument of Rome and all of these other cults and sub-biblical theologies.  
> 
> The important thing to understand is that God never accepts an imperfect law-keeping.  He is not pleased with man's sinful efforts at self-righteousness.  He accepts Christ's perfect law-keeping alone.  And those passages you mention are VERY messianic.  Are you sure David wasn't prefiguring Christ there?


I'm not saying this is my own position, but is it not possible to say "the civil law of Israel should be applied today" (which is what I think defines a reconstructionist) without also saying "following the law has something to do with making you righteous?"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Holy Scriptures reveal to us that there were some who loved God and kept His Law in a fashion that pleased Him. For instance, we read in 1 Kings 11:38:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why King David could say things like:
> 
> 
> 
> But having said all of that, I do agree that David's righteousness was not attained of his own weal, wit, or will; it was given to him by God the Father, through the working of the Holy Spirit, because of what Jesus Christ was going to do as the High Priest of a new covenant, in time to come.


I believe there's more to it than that.  Its not just that David wouldn't have the imperfect righteousness that he did without Christ giving it to him (though I certainly believe that to be true).  Its that David's imperfect righteousness only pleased God because Christ died for all the sin.

Its sort of like this*.  A man gives to the poor often and generally is an upstanding member of the community.  One day he goes out and robs a bank for millions, which he is certainly unable to pay back.  He is brought before the judge.  The judge won't care about any of the good he's done.  Now, let's say a millionaire comes in and pays the fine for him.  Now he's free to go, and now future good deeds he does might be pleasing to the community.  However, that is only because his fine has already been paid.  Its not just that he couldn't do the good deeds without the millionaire.  Its that the only reason his good deeds even matter is that his evil has been paid for.

*I'm 95% sure that this analogy would break down into heresy at some point, but I think you guys get the point I'm making.

----------


## Theocrat

> Right...and this is the standard argument from Reconstructionists and neo-legalists.  They say "you can actually DO the law!"  But of course this rejects the law/gospel distinction of Jesus and Paul...and is the standard argument of Rome and all of these other cults and sub-biblical theologies.  
> 
> The important thing to understand is that God never accepts an imperfect law-keeping.  He is not pleased with man's sinful efforts at self-righteousness.  He accepts Christ's perfect law-keeping alone.  And those passages you mention are VERY messianic.  Are you sure David wasn't prefiguring Christ there?


The onus is on you to show that David was making efforts at self-righteousness when he says that he kept God's Law, because God commends David as one who actually kept all of His commandments and statutes, from the first passage I cited. I do agree that Psalm 18 is a Messianic Psalm, but it's also about King David, too.

By the way, the "Law vs. Gospel" distinction is false. That is a compartmentalization imposed upon the Scriptures from a systematic approach to theology, and it needs to be rejected vehemently.

----------


## Theocrat

> I believe there's more to it than that.  Its not just that David wouldn't have the imperfect righteousness that he did without Christ giving it to him (though I certainly believe that to be true).  Its that David's imperfect righteousness only pleased God because Christ died for all the sin.
> 
> Its sort of like this*.  A man gives to the poor often and generally is an upstanding member of the community.  One day he goes out and robs a bank for millions, which he is certainly unable to pay back.  He is brought before the judge.  The judge won't care about any of the good he's done.  Now, let's say a millionaire comes in and pays the fine for him.  Now he's free to go, and now future good deeds he does might be pleasing to the community.  However, that is only because his fine has already been paid.  Its not just that he couldn't do the good deeds without the millionaire.  Its that the only reason his good deeds even matter is that his evil has been paid for.
> 
> *I'm 95% sure that this analogy would break down into heresy at some point, but I think you guys get the point I'm making.


I understand your point.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe there's more to it than that.  Its not just that David wouldn't have the imperfect righteousness that he did without Christ giving it to him (though I certainly believe that to be true).  Its that David's imperfect righteousness only pleased God because Christ died for all the sin.
> 
> Its sort of like this*.  A man gives to the poor often and generally is an upstanding member of the community.  One day he goes out and robs a bank for millions, which he is certainly unable to pay back.  He is brought before the judge.  The judge won't care about any of the good he's done.  Now, let's say a millionaire comes in and pays the fine for him.  Now he's free to go, and now future good deeds he does might be pleasing to the community.  However, that is only because his fine has already been paid.  Its not just that he couldn't do the good deeds without the millionaire.  Its that the only reason his good deeds even matter is that his evil has been paid for.
> 
> *I'm 95% sure that this analogy would break down into heresy at some point, but I think you guys get the point I'm making.



I agree with this.  But then we are talking about sanctification,  not justification.   And I do agree that a Christian man can do things pleasing to God...but it's basis is in an already justified believer.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The onus is on you to show that David was making efforts at self-righteousness when he says that he kept God's Law, because God commends David as one who actually kept all of His commandments and statutes, from the first passage I cited. I do agree that Psalm 18 is a Messianic Psalm, but it's also about King David, too.
> 
> By the way, the "Law vs. Gospel" distinction is false. That is a compartmentalization imposed upon the Scriptures from a systematic approach to theology, and it needs to be rejected vehemently.


You don't think Paul teaches the law/gospel distinction in Galatians 3 and 5?  What about Romans 2, 3, 4, and 5?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree with this.  But then we are talking about sanctification,  not justification.   And I do agree that a Christian man can do things pleasing to God...but it's basis is in an already justified believer.


Yes, I agree with this.  And I believe the passages Theo was referencing deal with sanctification as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, I agree with this.  And I believe the passages Theo was referencing deal with sanctification as well.


Where neo-legalists go off the deep end (I hope Theo hasn't gone there) is when they say our law keeping after being justified in the "covenant" is the basis of our salvation.  Some like NT Wright are complete works salvationists.  Some have toned it down a little and bring justification back as the sole basis of salvation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not saying this is my own position, but is it not possible to say "the civil law of Israel should be applied today" (which is what I think defines a reconstructionist) without also saying "following the law has something to do with making you righteous?"


Sure, there is a distinction between Reconstructionism and neo-legalism, but the two have historically shared this same argument of "covenant righteousness".

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sure, there is a distinction between Reconstructionism and neo-legalism, but the two have historically shared this same argument of "covenant righteousness".


I don't really understand this.  I see why reconstructionism requires Presbyterianism and postmillennial, as the former gives the covenental basis and the latter an actual route of getting there that is at least potentially consistent with Christian principles.  I don't see why works-salvationism would logically go with reconstructionism though, at least not any more so than any other position (I am not a reconstructionist.)

----------


## Theocrat

> You don't think Paul teaches the law/gospel distinction in Galatians 3 and 5?  What about Romans 2, 3, 4, and 5?


Not at all, because Paul is trying to tear down (or redefine) another distinction in his letters to the Romans and Galatians--the distinction between what constitutes a "Jew" versus what constitutes a "Gentile." Paul, then, shows the inadequacies of circumcision as the basis of one's righteous status before God, without faith in the Messiah.

----------


## Theocrat

> Where neo-legalists go off the deep end (I hope Theo hasn't gone there) is when they say our law keeping after being justified in the "covenant" is the basis of our salvation.  Some like NT Wright are complete works salvationists.  Some have toned it down a little and bring justification back as the sole basis of salvation.


N.T. Wright does not teach "works-based salvation," Sola. Where has he ever said that we must be justified by law-keeping in order to be saved?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Yeah, I know that is what Joseph Smith said, but this is contradictory to the Bible in so many places.  This is one of the ways you can know he was a false prophet, he contradicted the revelation that came before him.
> 
> God ALONE is immortal:


I thank you very much for all your thoughts and input on this thread, Sola_Fide.  You present an interesting and very different perspective than my own, and it's thought-provoking, to me and I think to other as well.

I'm glad you're back.  Make it a wonderful day,

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Some further thoughts.  To review the Shakespeare scene:




> William Shakespeares play The Life of King Henry V includes a nighttime scene in the camp of English soldiers at Agincourt just before their battle with the French army. In the dim light and partially disguised, King Henry wanders unrecognized among his soldiers. He talks with them, trying to gauge the morale of his badly outnumbered troops, and because they do not realize who he is, they are candid in their comments. In one exchange they philosophize about who bears responsibility for what happens to men in battlethe king or each individual soldier.
> 
> At one point King Henry declares, Methinks I could not die any where so contented as in the kings company; his cause being just.
> 
> Michael Williams retorts, Thats more than we know.
> 
> His companion agrees, Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.
> 
> Williams adds, If the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make.
> ...


I, and the speaker of course, basically side with the king: every soldier is accountable for his own actions.  The cloak of war does not change murder to something-other-than-murder.  Every soldier has responsibility for his own life, his own choices.  He can choose whether to follow the king's orders, or to refuse.  He is a free and independent agent.

Now the king may try to force him to comply.  The choice may be: serve in my army, or be killed.  And because of that, the king, too, bears responsibility for the soldiers' actions, just as the mob boss bears responsibility for the hit man's.  But it's still a choice.  And so both the king _and_ the soldier are responsible for the mayhem and death they inflict upon the world.

But what if the king had a mind-control device?  Or what if the king had created everything and everyone in his kingdom exactly the way he wanted them to be?  What if all his subjects had been created by him, intentionally, to act in precisely the ways in which they act, and in which he knew in advance that they would act?  Then would the subject-creations bear any responsibility whatsoever or their pre-determined actions?

Answers welcome.  My own answer is no: If such  thing were possible, in that world the king bears all responsibility.  With total, absolute _dictatorship_ (also called sovereignty) comes total, absolute _responsibility_.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Without responsibility, can there be true freedom?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Without responsibility, can there be true freedom?


This is fallacy number 2:
*Logical Fallacies Of Synergism*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-Of-Synergism


Man's responsibility doesn't come from the fact that he is "free", it comes from the fact that God is over him as Judge.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> This is fallacy number 2:
> *Logical Fallacies Of Synergism*
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-Of-Synergism
> 
> 
> Man's responsibility doesn't come from the fact that he is "free", it comes from the fact that God is over him as Judge.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sola_Fide again.

I have to say that I still get stuck with this and I have been studying it and praying about it for over a year.  Keep teaching, Sola.  Thanks be to God.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I do not understand your answer to the question.

----------


## Ender

> I do not understand your answer to the question.


That's because it makes no sense. 

Man is free, he is not a slave- otherwise the Savior's sacrifice makes no sense and God's love does not exist.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's because it makes no sense. 
> 
> Man is free, he is not a slave- otherwise the Savior's sacrifice makes no sense and God's love does not exist.


No.  Jesus said man is a slave.  Listen to how he answers the Jews who assert they are sons of Abraham, and therefore free from God's justice against sin:




> John 8:33-24
> They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”
> 
> Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.


Ender, you have sinned, therefore you are a slave of sin, therefore you are not free from God's justice against sin.

----------


## Ender

> No.  Jesus said man is a slave.  Listen to how he answers the Jews who assert they are sons of Abraham, and therefore free from God's justice against sin:
> 
> 
> 
> Ender, you have sinned, therefore you are a slave of sin, therefore you are not free from God's justice against sin.



Those who judge others are the sinners. Learn a little from the words you quote.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Sola, I think that you think you've answered my question, but I still don't know what your answer is.

Yes?  No?  Squirrel?  42?  Location, location, location?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Those who judge others are the sinners. Learn a little from the words you quote.


The quote says nothing about judging.  But if you say that people who judge are sinners, fine.  You've judged. You are a sinner.

----------


## Ender

> The quote says nothing about judging.  But if you say that people who judge are sinners, fine.  You've judged. You are a sinner.


Look in the mirror.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Look in the mirror.


I have.  I am a sinner.  That is why I lean wholly on Jesus' perfect life for my righteousness before God.  Why don't you do this?

----------


## Ender

> I have.  I am a sinner.  That is why I lean wholly on Jesus' perfect life for my righteousness before God.  Why don't you do this?


*I am.*

And you do not.

This is for you:

You spend your time finding fault in others, belittling them and then trying to confuse them with trick questions. When you are asked a direct question you circumvent it and then accuse others of not answering questions. You look for ways to humiliate and degrade others while pretending to love God.

You belittle others beliefs and scorn any who do not fall at your feet. You adore your own supposed superiority and trample on the good people of this forum. 

Your god is NOT the God of Love but a selfish, arrogant, tyrant; one who delights in picking his favorites and letting others burn in hell because of his silly whims. 

This is NOT the God I worship. 

This is NOT the Christian way.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *I am.*
> 
> And you do not.
> 
> This is for you:
> 
> You spend your time finding fault in others, belittling them and then trying to confuse them with trick questions. When you are asked a direct question you circumvent it and then accuse others of not answering questions. You look for ways to humiliate and degrade others while pretending to love God.
> 
> You belittle others beliefs and scorn any who do not fall at your feet. You adore your own supposed superiority and trample on the good people of this forum. 
> ...


Well, a lot of this is just autobiographical about your feelings, which I can't comment on.  But I 1000% agree that we have different faiths and worship different Gods.

----------

