SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Moral Government Overview

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

I think you were replying to me, so I will answer.

The Pharisees believed that because they did certain things, they were righteous before God. Jesus condemns that idea by saying, "except your righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees..."

The issue is not if they were moral in the sense of right and wrong, but did they use their own form of morality as means to be justified by God? The answer is a resounding yes.

They too saw no need for Christ, as He could not possibly add one wit to their spiritual stature. They were offended by the talk of needing an "alien righteousness" or righteousness from another. They believed that since God commanded, then they could, and then they began to change what transgressions were, like in the issue of divorce.

This changing of what sin is is prevalent within many "perfection" types, and "moral" types as well. They change sin into "mistakes", or "unconcious misbehaviour" thus they can maintain this "sinless" state.

Of course if we would honestly humble ourselves and agree with God that we are as wretched as he says we are, and that all we are is sin and misery, we would see a great need for the righteousness of Another, and Christ would be exceedingly great to us.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/7/19 13:25Profile









 Re:

I don't believe anywhere did I IMPLY THE DID THE Bible IMPLY that a certain standard of living or keeping would justify righeousness would save us. What I implied was that a changed heart would occur and it would be a result of having HIS righteousness. By their fruits you will know them. As in how Saul being changed on the road to Damascus and his name being changed to Paul. In meeting Jesus changing or having a change of heart by the power of the Holy Spirit and as a result refusing to stand with the Pharisees as he had in past who claimed to have a moral ethics but did not keep his commandments. Paul turned from being with the group that was trying to silence Jesus and His authority and joined in to establish JESUS's authority and HIS righteousness. The Pharisees added to OLD TESTAMENT WORD thousands of other laws of their own and they were not even keeping the ones that were already there. When we read in the New Testament we see Paul still teaching and preaching the 10 commandments, not to be saved, but as a result of having Jesus' grace and mercy given to us.
Eph 2:8-10

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus UNTO GOOD WORKS, which God hath before ORDAINED THAT WE SHOULD WALK IN THEM.
KJV

Paul was changed and he didn't preach that anyone would accepted Jesus that it did not make a difference in a person's ethics and moral behavior but quiet the contrary. And to say moral and ethics have nothing to do with christianity is not true. They don't produce salvation, but it can't help but be a is a result unless we have a form of godliness and deny the power thereof.

 2007/7/19 13:45
Nile
Member



Joined: 2007/3/28
Posts: 403
Raleigh, NC

 Re:

Quote:
The Pharisees believed that because they did certain things, they were righteous before God. Jesus condemns that idea by saying, "except your righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees..."



This is what Jesus said about the pharisees in Matthew 23:

[i]Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a]that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.[/i]

When He said be more righteous than they, He meant it, for the pharisees were (in general) wicked men, "white-washed tombs", "broods of vipers", who took money from widows and other evil things. They were hypocrites.

Quote:
They too saw no need for Christ, as He could not possibly add one wit to their spiritual stature. They were offended by the talk of needing an "alien righteousness" or righteousness from another.



Why do you say that the pharisees specifically believed this?

Quote:
They believed that since God commanded, then they could, and then they began to change what transgressions were, like in the issue of divorce.



My friend, it is of utmost absurdity to say that God has commanded that which He knows cannot be done. That believe is unbiblical and will lead to antinomialism. Only a cruel, wicked, and perverse tyrant would command His subjects, under penalty of death, to do something which He absolutely knows they cannot do.

Here is an exscript from The Atonement by Albert Barnes, I hope many read it:

---

The atonement, it would be said, is designed, according to the usual representations of it, to furnish an exhibition of the character of God such as has been made nowhere else in his dealings with men, or to develop traits of character which could not have developed but for this; and evil was allowed to come into the system in order to furnish a means of the manifestation of the character of God which could not have been otherwise made; as if, it would be said, defects had been purposely allowed in the construction of a machine in order to furnish an occasion to exhibit in a higher degree the skill of the inventor: the existence of the defect, as well as the remedy, both being designed to bring out in its fullness the character of the inventor. In accordance with this view, it would be said that the doctrine of the atonement implies that there are certain attributes of the divine character which could be developed fully in the ordinary works of creation and Providence, but that there are certain others which can be developed only through the medium of sin and misery, and that, as it is desirable that the divine character should be fully displayed, evil has been allowed to come into the system in order to furnish an opportunity for the exhibition of a method of correcting it, thus developing certain attributes of the divine nature which could not otherwise be made known. The idea, according to the doctrine of the atonement, it would be said, seems to be, that there are certain attributes of the divine nature--as power, wisdom, skill--which can be sufficiently manifested in the works of creation contemplated as without sin or suffering; but that there are certain other characteristics of the divine mind which, in order to their being displayed, need the instrumentality of sin and suffering in his creatures, and that the fact that they can be displayed through that medium is a sufficient reason why the race was suffered to fall, and why sin and woe were permitted to spread over the world; or, in other words, that the benefits of such a display of the divine character will be a full equivalent for all the acknowledged evils resulting from the existence of sin, and all the woes that the race will endure. A slight illustration of this idea would be, that it is a sufficient reason why a wasting and painful disease should be suffered to spread through a community, that it gives occasion for the display of skill and benevolence in the healing art; or that, though multitudes suffer and numbers die, still, a sufficient reason for allowing the introduction of the disease would be found in the manifestation of what could not otherwise be known, the benevolence implied in a remedial system. Would not greater benevolence, it would be asked, be shown by preventing the disease altogether? Is not manifest injustice done to the suffering and the dying in bringing these woes upon them in order that there may be a display of the benevolent character of others? Could we vindicate an arrangement by which a pestilential disease should be sent upon a community, sweeping multitudes into the grave, in order that there might be a display of the mercy implied in the healing art? And can we vindicate the arrangement by which it was contemplated that a world should fall into sin, and an entire race of beings otherwise innocent and happy be subjected to the evils of apostasy, and pain and woe spread over the face of a beautiful part of creation, and all forms of crime be committed, and vast numbers perish forever, in order that the character of God might be more fully developed? Is not a grievous wrong thus done to an innocent race? And can there be any equivalent for such a manifest wrong in the fact that the divine character is thus more fully displayed? Could it be an equivalent to the multitudes that should suffer from the plague, or the smallpox, or the cholera, that a remedy was found out which would display in the highest degree the skill of the discoverer, and might in fact save multitudes of others from the ravages of the disease? And can any conceivable exhibition of the divine character, either to this world or to the universe at large, be a sufficient compensation for the introduction of sin into the system, for the wide, deep, and enduring desolations that sin has caused? If the question could have been submitted to the universe of created intelligences, can we suppose that any one race among those created intelligences could have been found who would have seen such manifest good as likely to result from the arrangement, that they would have been willing to be made the subjects of it?

---

I have a question for you roaringlamb...

The Old Testament many times speaks about "righteous men", "doing righteousness", "having righteousness", "being righteous" ect. specifically in the Psalms and Proverbs.

Who does the Old Testament refer to when it speaks of such people?

Looking to Jesus,
-Nile


_________________
Matthew Miskiewicz

 2007/7/19 14:14Profile









 Re:

Why do we cloud the waters. Either Jesus makes a difference in our life and because HIS SPIRIT live in us and gives us a desire through HIS power to make a difference in the culture around us or we believe he doesn't have any power to make a difference in our life and we believe HE has no power to make a difference in and through our life or the culture. It's one of the two, which is it.

After I take bath and get clean the last thing I want to do is go lay in the middle of garbage dump. I might be forced to but I want like it.

The Pharisees had access to Jesus but they wanted to keep the status quo, they wanted to do it the way they had always done it and would not allow HIM to make a difference in their life. Not all of the Pharisees did ignore HIM though. One named Saul met Jesus on the Road to Damascus and was changed by HIS power. He got a new name, a new song, a new life and was a new creation, he spoke with a new tongue. He did say the same things he used to say.
Old things had passed away and all things had become new. Then he was not ashamed of the gospel.
He no longer believe that Ceasar had all the answers but Jesus was King of his life. What the government said was not the rule of thumb. He might get persecuted for disagreeing but it did not move him. Man he had some power. Where did it come from?

 2007/7/19 15:25
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
Why do you say that the pharisees specifically believed this?



It is easy to see, for their attitudes toward Christ. The questioning of his authority etc. Ultimately, His crucifixion.

The Pharisees are a wonderful picture of the natural religious man who believes only in an outward appearance but has no need for the inward heart transformation. Much of today's preaching focuses on the same things. We are told how to, instead of who did.

Quote:
My friend, it is of utmost absurdity to say that God has commanded that which He knows cannot be done. That believe is unbiblical and will lead to antinomialism.



Really, can you keep all of the moral law? Could you keep all of the ceremonial law? Or is this the point of it all, that man cannot do anything to produce a righteousness that God approves of.

Now to say that this leads to antinomianism is ludicrous, for now you argue against St Paul who says, "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." and yet he has no problem declaring that the "just shall live by faith."

In your view I understand your concern, because man must generate his faith, and thus it becomes worrisome that he may fall. But in my view, as in the Scriptures, faith is a gift of God, and God promises that all who are called shall be justified, and all that are justified shall be glorified. Thus what God begins He finishes.

Now that faith that justifies will produce fruit, and it can be no other way for that would be in contrast to the Scriptures.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/7/19 16:43Profile









 Re:

Evidently you have a computer glitch and cannot read my post. In no way form nor fashion have I said or implied that anyone can live a sinless life and if they did, which is impossible, only one man ever did, Jesus who paid our sin debt and if it were possible it would justify us before God. What I did say was no one can have the Holy Spirit given to them and morality not be an important issue in there life which was what this post was about.
If you are not going to read what I wrote and respond accordingly then we won't get very much accomplished in our exchanges.
Rom 2:14-16

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
KJV

 2007/7/19 16:53
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Brother?Sister?
I do not know if you adressing me, and I apologize if my reply was taken as aimed at you, it was to nile.

I am sorry, please forgive me. :-D


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/7/19 17:03Profile









 Re:

My mistake. No problem. Have a great day.

 2007/7/19 17:07
Nile
Member



Joined: 2007/3/28
Posts: 403
Raleigh, NC

 Re:

Quote:
Really, can you keep all of the moral law? Could you keep all of the ceremonial law? Or is this the point of it all, that man cannot do anything to produce a righteousness that God approves of.



My brother, which point can I not keep? In which point does Jesus not set free me? In which point does the Holy Spirit not empower me?
Please give scriptural support for which specific sin I cannot overcome through the blood of Christ.

Jesus said to a blind man, "May it be done to you according to your faith." I have faith that Jesus can cleanse me from all sin.

Also brother, please understand that I am NOT saying we are justified by our righteousness!!! We are made right before God because of the blood of Jesus, [u]on the condition[/u] that we repent of all our sin.

I have three simple questions which have taught me many things, I'd like to know what you think the answers to them are:

1. Which sin do I not need to repent of to be saved?
2. If sin every day, am I not living in sin?
3. If I commit the same sin every day, have I repented of it?

-Nile


_________________
Matthew Miskiewicz

 2007/7/19 18:27Profile









 Re:

Quote:

moe_mac wrote:
A moral govermment is not an avenue to the Lord. A moral government and a person standing for a moral government is a result of HIS presence in their life.

The lack of concern for moral laws and HIS righteousness is:
John 19:15
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priest answered, We have no king but Caesar.
KJV


Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.



moe mac,

Please tell if I am wrong, but I think you might misunderstand what Moral Government is (in this context)

He is not talking about a moral Government, like a ruling body over a nation or city, etc.

Moral Government theology is some men's interpretation of the atonenment, sanctification etc. It is a Theology, not desire for an ethical Government.

Again please let me know if I am reading you incorrectly.

Mahoney.

 2007/7/19 20:45





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy