Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
Yes, there are some people who are inexcusable. But only God knows which are and which are not. Ageed?
Absolutely, I agree only God knows.
Quote:
The inherent nature you speak of is very often twisted via socialization. In short, socialization differentiates our values until what appears to be right to you will seem totally nonsensical to others. In such cases a just God will understand and show mercy. That's what Jesus died for--so that God could show mercy based on his ransom sacrifice.
Put it this way, would someone who actually does hear the gospel and does experience the witness of the Holy Spirit be excused because socialization twisted his judgment?
Quote:
Repetition of the same text in many different Bible versions doesn't necessarily constitute majority text.
Never said it did, but it does show in this case that every translation agrees that people are "without excuse" before God. It does not mean "ignorance=destruction", it means you aren't ignorant because God has revealed Himself.
Quote:
Neither does a presentation of many texts in seeming support of an idea necessarily mean that they nullify a singular text. Why? Because the majority texts might be applied in the wrong manner based on a misunderstanding while the single text might have been applied correctly.
Huh? The whole of the NT is in agreement that "Eternal life is gained by accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior" as you put it. The idea that Jesus is bypassing that route and granting salvation based on ignorance for those who knew full well what they were doing seems more than a stretch. Matthew Henry puts it this way:
Quote:
The petition: Father, forgive them. One would think that he should have prayed, "Father, consume them; the Lord look upon it, and requite it. The sin they were now guilty of might justly have been made unpardonable, and justly might they have been excepted by name out of the act of indemnity. No, these are particularly prayed for. Now he made intercession for transgressors, as was foretold (Isa. 53:12), and it is to be added to his prayer (Jn. 17), to complete the specimen he gave of his intercession within the veil: that for saints, this for sinners. Now the sayings of Christ upon the cross as well as his sufferings had a further intention than they seemed to have. This was a mediatorial word, and explicatory of the intent and meaning of his death: "Father, forgive them, not only these, but all that shall repent, and believe the gospel; and he did not intend that these should be forgiven upon any other terms. "Father, that which I am now suffering and dying for is in order to this, that poor sinners may be pardoned. Note, [1.] The great thing which Christ died to purchase and procure for us is the forgiveness of sin. [2.] This is that for which Christ intercedes for all that repent and believe in the virtue of his satisfaction; his blood speaks this: Father, forgive them. [3.] The greatest sinners may, through Christ, upon their repentance, hope to find mercy. Though they were his persecutors and murderers, he prayed, Father, forgive them. (2.) The plea: For they know not what they do; for, if they had known, they would not have crucified him, 1 Co. 2:8.
Henry grants "there is a kind of ignorance that does in part excuse sin" and I agree with that, but he is also careful to add that many of those who had a part in the spectacle of the crucifixion were converted at the preaching of Peter.
Quote:
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Quote:
Actually, what does count is whether indeed we are describing God as just or unjust. If we are describing Him as arbitrarily unjust, then our idea should be rejected for one which glorifies his righteous personality and not one which cases people who are cognizant of ethical matters in reference to passing of judgment to wince.
I believe in a just God, and I don't see how I've portrayed Him as anything but just.
Quote:
Sorry if I offended you. But the incomprehension claim was yours in reference to yourself in relation to my clear explanations. So I was simply agreeing with your own statement. In any case, I apologize if offense was given.
No problem, but what incomprehension claim?
Quote:
The reason I posted the question was to see just how extensive the belief in no-excuse if you are ignorant belief is not to challenge your right to hold that belief since obviously it is your right to believe whatever you choose to. I personally don't see things the way you do--but I am not condemning you as inexcusable since only God can read our hearts. So it isn't in a judgmental way that I am conversing with you. Neither was I trying to get rid of you since I did request feedback and do appreciate feedback when I ask for it. I was only throwing up my hands in resignation because you claimed not to understand any of the points I put forth. Based on that I assumed any further conversation would lead nowhere.
You must have me confused with someone else. I don't recall, nor can I find where I made any claim not to understand what you were talking about.
Quote:
a just judge would never condemn someone for not doing something he is incapable of
We agree on that, you just seem to carry it a little further than I would.
Quote:
As for the scripture, well, there are people who are definitely inexcusable. However, neither you nor I are in any remotely qualified position to say exactly who those individuals are. That is for God to decide since he alone qualifies for that responsibility despite human assertions otherwise.
And that my friend, is exactly my point of view as well, and I don't find it contradictory to anything I've said.
Quote:
About Jesus' words, I think they are very clear. In certain cases ignorance is considered to be sufficient for forgiveness. Not all cases, certain cases.
1 Timothy 1:13
though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,
Starman, sorry but that's a poor example. We have the account of Paul's conversion and he did receive mercy in that he was healed - but he was also obedient - "and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." Paul emphasized in this passage that "the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith" and that the mercy he received and his conversion was "a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting."
Quote:
Acts 3:17
"And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.
Acts 3:16-18 (in Context) Acts 3 (Whole Chapter)
Again, read the bookends, "through faith in his name" in verse 16 and "Repent ye therefore, and be converted" in verse 19.
Quote:
Acts 17:30
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,
The key is quite simply in the last half of the verse, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent
Quote:
The error lies when we attempt to carpet bomb all cases under the inexcusable condemnation rule which wasn't intended to be an arbitrarily applicable no-exceptions-permitted rule to begin with but which can be viewed as one as you are doing now.
Starman, I have yet to even imply "ignorance=destruction" is a "no-exceptions-permitted rule." All I'm doing is agreeing with scripture which basically boils down to, God used to overlook ignorance but he doesn't now, He commands all people everywhere to repent and have faith in Christ, and that if you have the capacity to plead ignorance he won't accept that as an excuse, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
