Originally posted by twhitehead
So where are the consequences for you taking it up to 95?

I can understand you deliberately applying restrictive consequences to them for their own good. But would you ever punish them in a way that does not achieve that end? Would you punish them merely as retribution?

You've missed the point by trying to apply the analogy too far.

I am a grown ass man, with a direct link to the ebb and flow of consequences with no one in between.
My sons required a buffer once they received a measure of freedom.
One of them is on his own now, and any restrictions previously applied are now removed.
The other is soon to be in that same position, and will receive that same severing of protection.

The consequences of man's failure to speak and do the truth are so far removed from retribution, as to not even be part of the same conversation.
When man goes to hell, it is not because God is mad at him.
He goes to hell because he refuses to acknowledge God as God, God as good.

Either man is the liar or God is.
Can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Here we go again. .. the licence to sin principle.
Very nice.

It is a license to sin only for those who suffer from arrested moral development, stuck at the stage of reward and punishment delivered by an external agent. The morally mature reason to refrain from doing evil is that it is evil, not because one will otherwise be punished.

We internalize the agency of reward and punishment by modeling ourselves after the external agent, in the case of Christians, we model ourselves after Christ. This can even be done without being a theist. This basis (that in brief is "WWJD" ) is not terminated by being forgiven.

For this reason the debate that has taken over this thread is moot.

Originally posted by JS357
It is a license to sin only for those who suffer from arrested moral development, stuck at the stage of reward and punishment delivered by an external agent. The morally mature reason to refrain from doing evil is that it is evil, not because one will otherwise be punished.

We internalize the agency of reward and punishment by modeling ourselves after the ...[text shortened]... inated by being forgiven.

For this reason the debate that has taken over this thread is moot.

Well, the trouble of not having a standard to model after or look at is,
without one who is to say what is and is not evil? You cannot know you
are upside down without knowing what is right side up! The punishment
and reward, or stick and carrot have been around a long time.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You've missed the point by trying to apply the analogy too far.

No, I just showed that the analogy explained nothing and was not relevant to the situation. In other words, you had no point.

Originally posted by JS357
It is a license to sin only for those who suffer from arrested moral development, stuck at the stage of reward and punishment delivered by an external agent. The morally mature reason to refrain from doing evil is that it is evil, not because one will otherwise be punished.

We internalize the agency of reward and punishment by modeling ourselves after the ...[text shortened]... inated by being forgiven.

For this reason the debate that has taken over this thread is moot.

Well your point is well taken ie that there are some Christians who suffer from arrested moral development, and they use the saving grace of Christ as a licence to sin. Thanks for that.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I taught my sons how to drive (the girls still a little bit too young yet), then sent them to the required classes for licensing in our state.
Once they passed their tests and were given a driver's license, I gave them a car to drive.
The car they drive has a speedometer which indicates the speed of their forward movements from zero to 140 MPH--- althoug ...[text shortened]... r physics or new information will step in with either deadly or merely restrictive consequences.

I get your point. There are dire consequences for breaking the 'freedom of the road' rules. That freedom comes with conditions and a price tag applies to just about everything. Break the rules and there are consequences.

By accepting Christ there is a freedom from the law and lengthy moral guidelines of Moses. However that was replaced by the law of Christ which can be summarised by 'Love God and your neighbour as yourself"

Paul said:

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Galatians 5:13-14 KJV)

Yes you have freedom in Christ, but NO you cannot use that liberty in Christ to sin.

There are several passages that describe the consequences of accepting Christ and tasting the good things to come and thereafter falling away. So be warned.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You are mistaken.

Paul preaches that 'freedom in Christ' means freedom from the Law of Moses ie there is no burdensome list of laws to follow. But you still have to follow the law of Christ... mostly charity and love.

There is such a thing as losing your salvation through sin as Paul explained in several places, and which you are well aware of.

If I was well aware of them I wouldn't be accusing you of peddling a doctrine of fear would I. Besides, if it is that easy to lose salvation don't you think god would have called it out more explicitly in scripture.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Well your point is well taken ie that there are some Christians who suffer from arrested moral development, and they use the saving grace of Christ as a licence to sin. Thanks for that.

Yes there is this type of Christian; but here is where you error: just because these people exist and behave such, does not mean they will not be dealt with by their father. To assume that they will be dealt with by being cast into hell is not scripturally supportable, it is against the nature of god and it is error.

Originally posted by divegeester
If I was well aware of them I wouldn't be accusing you of peddling a doctrine of fear would I. Besides, if it is that easy to lose salvation don't you think god would have called it out more explicitly in scripture.

It is explicit but you choose to ignore the passages.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I just showed that the analogy explained nothing and was not relevant to the situation. In other words, you had no point.

Other than giving you credit for using English words and syntax, your words here have literally nothing to do with the conversation up to this point.

You didn't challenge the analogy, nor did you demonstrate its irrelevance.
You only demonstrated that you didn't understand it, so I will explain it in even simpler terms than used before.

Just because the car can exceed the speeds for which it was intended doesn't mean one ought to drive at those speeds.
Conversely, just because all sins have been forgiven doesn't mean one ought to sin unabated.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Just because the car can exceed the speeds for which it was intended doesn't mean one ought to drive at those speeds.
Conversely, just because all sins have been forgiven doesn't mean one ought to sin unabated.

And the reasons you gave for not speeding were twofold:
1. Fear of punishment by a parent.
2. Fear of having an accident.
What are the reasons for not sinning?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
.. just because all sins have been forgiven doesn't mean one ought to sin unabated.

If one were to drive like a jackass there will be dire and fatal consequences. Likewise Christ, Paul, Peter, James, John all warned about the consequences of unabated sin. There is no eternal life for those CHrist has found to be guilty of unabated sin.

Originally posted by Rajk999
There is no eternal life for those CHrist has found to be guilty of unabated sin.

"Unabated" sin can be forgiven (even though the word is not used in scripture). Jesus paid the price for all sin, you cannot put a measure or a limit on what is and what is not forgiven. You assume that the only way god deals with his people is by taking back the gift of salvation. This would like a parent booting their child out of the house for repeating the same domestic offence. It's nonsense.

"God disciplines those he loves", he's says "my rod (of discipline) and my staff (of authority, -- I believe) comfort you".

Look at the likes of Moses and David, murderers both; Moses a hothead and disobeyed (was disciplined for it by not crossing Jordan but still is in heaven) and David a conniving adulterer, (again disciplined but favoured by God) look at Jonah - disobedient to the extreme and horribly judgemental over the people of Nineveh. Look at Peter denying Christ, Thomas doubting him.

If these sins did not keep these men from God, then what sins will you commit between now and your death that will be greater these that will keep you from God?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Well your point is well taken ie that there are some Christians who suffer from arrested moral development, and they use the saving grace of Christ as a licence to sin. Thanks for that.

You are probably meaning me. I never said grace was a license to sin. In fact I don't think anyone here ever implied that. Besides you don't need a license to sin, we do that very well without a license.
Your whole concept is strict adherence to law(words of Christ) or whatever tag you choose to label it.
My whole point is that when a person is genuinely born again, regenerated, saved, he/she is changed on the inside. They receive a new nature.
This new nature (spirit) has to become dominant in the mind as well. That is why the bible compels us to renew our minds according to the word of God.
A truly saved person does not want to sin. If a person wants to sin, then I would question whether he is born again to start with.
What you preach is changing the outside by observing rules and regulations, while what the bible teaches is God changing you from the inside out, which over time, study and obedience will transform a person to the calling Christ called us to.
You should read more than just the gospels. Spend some time in the epistles, it will serve you well.

Originally posted by divegeester
"Unabated" sin can be forgiven (even though the word is not used in scripture). Jesus paid the price for all sin, you cannot put a measure or a limit on what is and what is not forgiven. You assume that the only way god deals with his people is by taking back the gift of salvation. This would like a parent booting their child out of the house for repeati ...[text shortened]... ll you commit between now and your death that will be greater these that will keep you from God?

What about the guy that shot to death a bunch of kindergarden children and when the police came, he shot himself to death so he would get away without punishment? But we have a God of justice that will make sure he gets plenty of punishment in the Lake of Fire and Brimstone.

Hitler had millions of Jews burned to death in furnaces. Hitler killed himself to avoid punishment. I bet the Jews are glad they have a God of Justice that will punish those that burned them in fire. I would think those Jews would think the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, where those that did those evil things to them would be tormented forever, a fitting revenge, if God is really a God of Justice for his people.