[Seekers] Punishment (Ward)
Ward Fenley kingdom@ksinc.net
Mon, 02 Mar 1998 00:17:53 -0600 (00888841073, 34FA4F11.59917924@ksinc.net)
Michael W. Fisher wrote:
>
> Ward Fenley wrote:
>
>
> MWF
>
> Hmm. No response to my quiz yet. In case you've forgotten, here it is again,
> verbatim from the first post:
>
Sorry, I am on 3 emailing lists, each of which concerns me far more than
this list that suddenly appeared in my reply to all section, unbeknownst
to me. But, through sovereign providence, here I am!! :o\
> Okay Ward, maybe you can solve the following quiz. I've given it to almost a
> dozen different professing Christians on assorted different lists. So fat none
> have succeeded. Maybe, since you're so sure of yourself, you can succeed where
> they have failed to so much as make an attempt:
>
> 1.) Define, via the bible, "murder".
Unless God commanded otherwise, these are what appear to be His orders
for OC Israel:
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for
in the image of God made he man.
Pretty succinct.
> 2.) Define, via the bible, "stealing".
Exo 22:1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell
it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
Apparently taking something that is not yours.
>
> 3.) Define, via the bible, "rape".
Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the
man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her
shall die:
>
> What you should be able to do is find the applicable passages and demonstrate
>
> that it is unnecessary to already know what "murder" "stealing" or "rape" are in
> order to infer that each is prohibited. Another way to put it is that you should
> be able to go through the Bible, replace any instance of any of the above words
> or their cognates, and demonstrate that the Bible defines such terms contextually
>
> such that it is possible to know exactly what it is that is prohibited, even if
> that particular word was otherwise unknown for some reason.
>
> Bonus question: Is it wrong, as in immoral (a sin?) for you to lose property
> which someone else has entrusted to your care, and which you have voluntarily
> agreed to safe guard? In legal speak, you agree to act as the bailor of the
> bailees property, thus creating a bailment. At law, the bailor is liable for any
> loss or damage to the bailees property once the bailment is created. That's the
> law. Thus the question in effect asks: Is the law moral?
Unsure.
>
> If you cannot come up with satisfactory answers for at least the first three
>
> above, using the bible and strict deductive logic, then what that tells us is
> that
> the Bible, rather than being "gods holy word" and a SOURCE of "absolute morals"
> actually -presupposes- that the reader already HAS a moral code, and thus thus
> the bible merely supplies Gods backing for the priestly punishments for
> violations
> of the presupposed moral code by putting the sentences in Gods mouth. But note,
> that adds nothing to the arena of moral discourse.
I completely agree. But the Bible deals with mankind at his origin (or
at least those under covenant. The Bible teaches that sin (transgression
of the law [Gods law] is not imputed when there is no law. It is not
saying it is not sin, but rather it is saying that those who are without
law perish without law. I am fine with this. We are dealing with those
who have law exposed to them, regardless of whether they are professing
"JEWS" or not.
>
> ************
>
> Good luck.
I don't believe in luck or freewill.
>
--
Ward Fenley
Kingdom of Sovereign Grace
Phone: 850-438-9053
Email: kingdom@ksinc.net
Web address: http://www.ksinc.net/~kingdom/
Psalms 145:11-13 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk
of thy power; {12} To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and
the glorious majesty of his kingdom. {13} Thy kingdom is an everlasting
kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.