Al did not like that I referred to his comment "God seemingly puts
more significance on a wet body than a willing heart" as "an appeal to the
emotionally absurd." Yet in his following comments it seems to me that he
does not recognize why I refer to it as such. He cites Hosea 6:6, "For I
desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt
offerings." (His translation substitutes loyalty for mercy).
Al, let me ask a rhetorical question. Do you really intend to
imply that God did NOT want sacrifice at all? Is it your intent with this
passage and with Psalm 51:16-17 as well as 1 Samuel 16:7, to imply that God
did not want the very things that He commanded? That is what you are
implying whether you intend to or not. If these passages are to be taken
as you try to present them then we have to assume that God just arbitrarily
demanded sacrifices that he truly did not want.
The implication of that is more severe than you perhaps imagine
for we are told that Heb 9:22 KJV "And almost all things are by the law
purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Then
six verses later we read, Heb 9:28 KJV "So Christ was once offered to bear
the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the
second time without sin unto salvation." Peter tells us that we "were not
redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain
conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:"
1 Peter 1:18-19 KJV. Now Brother if what you are trying to imply is true, then
our God is more cruel that even the God Molech whom He despised so
much. We have a God that allowed the sacrifice of His Son. He did so
UNNECESSARILY. If sacrifice was so undesirable to Him then He need have
never required it in the first place.
You make the statement that "It was not the sacrifices and rituals that
ultimately gained one his restoration and salvation, it was a sincere HEART
turned fully to God." Al, what you do not see is that the one does not
exclude the other! Oh, you gave lip service to it in your definitions, but
you do not truly believe it. Your arguments all imply a sincere heart
without the follow through obedience. This is why the statement is an
appeal to the emotionally absurd. It tries to lead a person to the
emotional feelings of the heart is right as long a sincerity is involved
and God is much more pleased with sincerity than with compliance. It is
emotional and it is absurd.
It is absurd because the Bible DOES NOT TEACH SUCH. John 14:15
KJV "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Emotion (attitude) and
obedience. John 15:14 KJV "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I
command you." Emotion (attitude) and obedience. John 14:21-24 KJV "He that
hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he
that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will
manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord,
how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the
world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will
keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and
make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my
sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which
sent me." Emotion (attitude) and obedience.
Even concerning our worship Jesus said that we must, must mind
you, worship Him in spirit (attitude) and truth (obedience). The two are
inseparable yet you have argued that one can be saved without the other
consistently throughout your affirmative while claiming that you do not
believe the very thing that you are arguing for!
Al you misquoted me when you said that I said "that it is
reasonable to think a willing heart would be acceptable to God." What I
actually said, (and I had to read my rebuttal twice to find what you were
referencing) was this; "It would SEEM that a willing heart is perfectly
acceptable doesn't." (I left the "it" off the end of that sentence). I went
on to say that "It would be sufficient for me. It would be sufficient to
any one of you reading this discussion. It certainly SEEMS reasonable that
it would be acceptable to God."
This was to point out the emotional appeal that Al made when he
said "Thus, God seemingly puts more significance on a wet body than a
willing heart." What I said in response to that and what Al said that I
said are NOT the same.
He then refers to the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15. He
talks about a Father who "will run and embrace that child who has turned
away from the pigpen and is headed for home, . . ." He say "THAT is the
revealed nature of the Father I worship and serve. He doesn't sit on the
porch waiting for those last few feet to be walked and for every penitent
act to be performed."
So Al, yes this parable shows a Father that is waiting with open
arms for the prodigal child to return home to Him. That is the intent of
the parable is to show the Father's willingness to forgive. Where can we
infer anything in that parable that negates the necessity of doing what the
Father requires. Is there something in this parable that negates the need
to be baptized? The need to have one's sins washed away? No, Al. There
is not.
Wait . . . it does say "while he was yet afar off" doesn't
it. Perhaps this means that one hasn't even walked out the door to get in
the car yet? Al, you know that it doesn't. It was you yourself that said
in your very first affirmative that a command not obeyed is a command not
obeyed. A person that has not been baptized has not obeyed. Plain and simple.
In response to my request for a thus saith the Lord for an
exception to baptism Al acknowledges that there is not one. He states, "If
such a passage existed we would not be having this debate." Al, I submit
to you that since there is no such passage we should not be having this
debate. I can and will show where there are many "thus saith the Lord's"
necessitating baptism. You can show none showing a commandment, an
example, nor a necessary inference that there is an exception to baptism
being required. In all honesty that should be sufficient to end the
discussion. We are having this discussion because you friend are unwilling
to accept what the scriptures do say.
He then states that "our discussion centers around our respective
views of the nature of our Father in a very special circumstance. Which
has the greater governance over His dealings with penitent believers: law
or love? Commandment or compassion? The Father I have come to know is
characterized by the latter. Michael apparently perceives Him as the
former."
This statement epitomizes the terrible misunderstanding that Al
has concerning our God. Law and love are not separated. I have already
shown that previously in this article. Commandment and compassion are not
incompatible. Read Romans 9:15-33. God says that He will have mercy upon
whom He will have mercy and compassion upon whom He will have
compassion. The rest of that passage makes clear just whom that will
be. It will be those whose love for God makes them obedient to His will. Law
and love, commandment and compassion my friend are inseparable
concepts. Too many today try to convince us that we have a shizophrenic
God. There is law BECAUSE of love. There is commandment BECAUSE of
compassion.
Alas, I got in a hurry and paid the penalty. I meant to say
"Jesus did NOT "not condemn" her sin." I left out the word sin and changed
the meaning of the sentence. Other than that Al had no adequate response
to my comments concerning the woman at the well and they still stand unopposed.
Then in reponse to my comments about his examples of those in the
process of obeying, but dying before having obeyed he simply says that
"once again I would remind him that our God's ways are not BENEATH man's
but rather HIGHER! NOBLER!" This is tantamount to Al saying that his
position is higher and nobler because he considers it the more merciful and
compassionate. I think that he dangerously presumes too much. He
certainly has not proven that it is the case that God would save someone
that has not obeyed Him.
He did not like my response about the two persons (examples) that
he gave. I thought I was rather clear that grace was not mine to
extend. That was what he asked me, if I would extend grace to
them. Apparently what he meant to ask me is did I believe that the
scriptures teach that these two men were compliant with the will of God and
saved as a result of their obedience. My answer is no they were not
obedient and no they are not saved . . . according to the scriptures!
Al makes another inadequate stab at Abraham, but totally ignored
my illustration of what would be required for Abraham to become a parallel
to his affirmative. Abraham still does not help him.
In response to Nadab & Abihu, Uzzah, and Uzziah, Al totally
ignores Uzzah and Uzziah and makes only unsubstantiated assertion
concerning Nadab and Abihu. I won't offer arguments against mere
assertion. If he had evidence showing that Nadab and Abihu were drunk he
should have presented it. I see no such evidence. He disagrees on each
that there was good intent, but offers no arguments so I have to suppose
that he has none.
In response to Al's story of God's working in mysterious ways all
I can say is that such a story at the end of Al's failed affirmative does
not surprise me at all. I will say this however if a man waits his entire
life then finally after living so long decides well, now I will get
baptized and dies on the way to the baptistery then my friends that man
took his chances and lost. As a result, he died lost. Heb 10:31 KJV "It
is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
 |