What are the distinctives of "Reformed Baptist"?

[JonC]

No. It means that people claim to be followers of Christ. JWs and Mormons claim to be Christians. The Reformed confessions, especially the 1689, SHOW that people are followers of Christ.

No. That was what Luther attempted to do, and ended up with a partial reformation. The Reformed confessions ripped up Roman Catholicism and went back to the Bible.

No. Reformed means 'Formed again.' It is fair to criticize the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England for retaining certain Romanist doctrines, and the Heidelberg Catechism and the WCF, although they did a good job, left infant 'baptism' and the idea of a 'state church' untouched, but the 1689 Confession completed the Reformation, and if you want to criticize it, which is fair enough, you need to be specific, which you never are.

No. What is lipstick on a pig is someone who is constantly bigging-up pre-reformation teachings, pretending to be Biblical.

JW's and Mormons did not exist during the Reformation.

Reformed means "reformed according to the word of God". The Reformers were trying to correct errors in Roman Catholic doctrine.

They were re-forming their tradition (Roman Catholic tradition) to align with Scripture as best they could.

It would have been better had they simply looked to follow God's Word and develop doctrine from Scripture rather than reforming their tradition. It would have been an impossible task for them, because they came from and understood Scripture (as do you) from a distinctively Roman Catholic tradition.

Reformed theology could have been a good start back to God's Word, but too many stopped at the Reformation. They view the Reformers almost as little popes.

There is a reason the Reformed look to confessions and the Reformers rather than God's Word.

Again, @Martin Marprelate gave us a good example.

If a mormon decided to re-form Mormon theology according to Scripture you would end up with Reformed Mormonism that contained a lot of error, Scripture interpreted through Mormon theology, and areas that were closer to the Bible than than Mormonism.

That is exactly what hapoened during the Reformation.

It isputting lipstick on a pig rather than abandoning the pig all together.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Reformed Baptist distinctives of the TULI are not in the bible and should be thrown out of every baptist church in America.

This is your definition of "soul liberty," is it?

Again, @Martin Marprelate gave us a good example.

If a mormon decided to re-form Mormon theology according to Scripture you would end up with Reformed Mormonism that contained a lot of error, Scripture interpreted through Mormon theology, and areas that were closer to the Bible than than Mormonism.
I think you should give us all your view on how Mormon theology might be Reformed according to Scripture

That is exactly what hapoened during the Reformation.

No it isn't, and you have not given us so much as a hint as to how it might have been.

It isputting lipstick on a pig rather than abandoning the pig all together.

No it isn't, and you personally have not abandoned the pig, but persist in citing Roman Catholic authors to deny Reformed doctrine.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

The reformers didn't fail, the Roman Church refused to accept that they were/are in error - if they "failed" then I guess you should become Roman Catholic.

How was Luther despicable? Yes, there is documentation, he was instrumental in making known widespread that salvation is by grace alone thru faith alone, and pointed men to Christ as their savior. I suppose there are those who dislike you as well, thank God people's opinions aren't what justifies, but instead it is faith in Christ.
Luther didn't author that in order to "give cover to Hitler." Hitler used many things for cover, and Hitler happily twisted whatever he wanted for his own benefit, sadly Luther's sinful writings about the Jews was used to justify a very evil act - I guess it just goes to show our sins aren't without consequences for others.

Nuts!

 

[Jerome]

the WCF used the word 'Reformed,' and...the 1689 Confession did not follow it (cf. WCF XXIV:3; LBCF (1689) XXV:3).

Precisely. The Baptists rejected using the descriptor 'Reformed' that the Presbyterians had used!

Go thou and do likewise!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Precisely. The Baptists rejected using the descriptor 'Reformed' that the Presbyterians had used!

I'm glad that you agree with me. Do you also agree that one solitary usage of 'Reformed' in the whole of the WCF is by no means sufficient to prove anything?

 

[JonC]

If a mormon decided to re-form Mormon theology according to Scripture you would end up with Reformed Mormonism that contained a lot of error, Scripture interpreted through Mormon theology, and areas that were closer to the Bible than than Mormonism.
I think you should give us all your view on how Mormon theology might be Reformed according to Scripture

No it isn't, and you have not given us so much as a hint as to how it might have been.

No it isn't, and you personally have not abandoned the pig, but persist in citing Roman Catholic authors to deny Reformed doctrine.

Mormon theology could be reformed exactly as the Reformers reformed Roman Catholic theology.

You would end up with a false understanding of Atonement, a lot of human philosophy, but you would have bits of biblical doctrine in there as well. Some versions could even contain the actual gospel.

In the end who knows? We do not have re-formed Morminism. We have re-formed Roman Catholicism.


Think about just how much Roman Catholic doctrine the Reformers kept (the nature of the church, the structure, even Communion to a great extent, Aquinas' theories of the Cross, Augustine's theory of inherited sin, the mide of baptism....the list goes on).

If you took your faith and separated what was actually in God's Word from what you believe is somehow taught by God's Word (when "properly understood" as given by the demi-gods...or Re-formers of RCC theology) you have mostly re-formed RCC theology and very little of God's Word.


But every man has to make a choice who to follow. I choose God. I do not count it against you that you prefer men and re-formed RCC doctrine. Men have every right to worship whomever they choose (true faith is not compelled belief).

Re-formed Catholicism, just like Catholicism contains too much myth, too much philosophy, too much theory, and too much error for me. But both also contains the gospel and men can be saved despite their errors.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Mormon theology could be reformed exactly as the Reformers reformed Roman Catholic theology.

Exactly how did the Reformers reform RCC theology?
Their attempts failed. Luther was excommunicated!

We have re-formed Roman Catholicism.

We who?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But every man has to make a choice who to follow. I choose God.

You do nothing of the kind, and never have whilst I have been on this forum. You follow your own mind, which has shown itself time and time again to be insufficient for the job. You cannot bring a single piece of Scripture to bear to prove your silly and offensive allegations.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Exactly how did the Reformers reform RCC theology?
Their attempts failed. Luther was excommunicated!

Stop being so silly! The Reformers rescued millions of people from the errors of Romanism, often at the cost of their own lives.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Nuts!

So you don't have any meaningful response?

 

[JonC]

Exactly how did the Reformers reform RCC theology?
Their attempts failed. Luther was excommunicated!

We who?

Some took the RCC atonement theory with them (Lutherans) but others reformed that view to create something different (Calvinism). All, to my knowledge, maintained RCC theory developed from Augustine's theory in regard to the Fall. All maintained believers baptism to be heresy. All maintained the RCC view of the Church in relation to civil government. All adopted the spiritualization of Genesis 3 (something unheard of prior to Catholicism). All utalize covenants as an authority to express their faith.

I could go on.

We as in Christianity. We have various theologies, including re-formed RCC theology (Reformed theology).

Stop being so silly! The Reformers rescued millions of people from the errors of Romanism, often at the cost of their own lives.

The problem is they rescued some from RCC theology by moving them to a re-formed version on that error.

I'm fairly certain Lutherans hold to vicarious atonement - Catholics do not.

Yes, but Luther (and traditionally Lutherans) hold to a satisfactory Atonement (Calvinists do not).

Luther himself did not develop a different theory of Atonement but applied it differently (technically Catholics historically viewed Christ's Atonement as applying only to "original sin", and that doctrine based on Augustine use of a Latin mistranslation).

Reformed theology is more biblical than RCC in ways, but in other ways it is less biblical or equally unbiblical.

@Martin Marprelate hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Reformed theology was an attempt to "re-form" their doctrine using the Word of God.

We never end up with the truth when we start with a theory or theology and try to re-form it. Here the "radical reformers" were right. Reformed theology stopped short and ended uo just as bad as Catholicism, if not worse.

That said, reform os by degrees. The Reformers should not be condemned for taking those very important first steps towards God and His Word. Reformed theology should be condemned for abandoning that work.

In the end Reformed Theology is nothing but the ultimate form of "easy believism" , which perhaps why men of that tradition cling so tightly to those "first steps".

You do nothing of the kind, and never have whilst I have been on this forum. You follow your own mind, which has shown itself time and time again to be insufficient for the job. You cannot bring a single piece of Scripture to bear to prove your silly and offensive allegations.

Now you are being silly. The doctrine that I hold as essential is not only a historical position but more importantly it is in God's Word. Yours is not actually in God's Word (it is what you and a relatively small sect believe is taught by Scripture).

Do you not understand the difference? When you condemn my faith you are literally condemning God's Word ("what is written") and have never once addressed my understanding of His Word. All I have rejected of your tradition is what is NOT in the Bible anywhere (what your heros tell you the Bible means) When I say your tradition is an erroneous theology I am saying I disagree with those men who tried to re-form Roman Catholic theology.

We stand where we stand. Either I am correct and we are both Christians who disagree or you are correct and you are a Christian while I am not, or we are both incorrect.

My position is, as I have stated, that the Reformers did a good work but their re-forming should have continued. Catholicism and Reformed theology are not without the gospel they misunderstand so there can be Christians found holding those errors. There are many who have been carried away by the philosophies, and will hear "I never knew you".

The strength of my faith is that it is found in the actual words of God. I have no interest in expounding on what God has given us in His Word. So I may misinterpret a passage, but I have not added to Scripture what I believe the Bible "teaches" (I believe the Bible teaches "what is written").

You, on the other hand, can only point to men who tell you what the Bible "really teaches when properly understood". No different from trusting a Pope to tell you what the Bible "really" means.

So I am comfortable in my syand - even with misinterpretation- because it is standing on the actual Word of God.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Some took the RCC atonement theory with them (Lutherans)

I'm fairly certain Lutherans hold to vicarious atonement - Catholics do not.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Stop being so silly! The Reformers rescued millions of people from the errors of Romanism, often at the cost of their own lives.

Perhaps they did. However, reforming individuals does not equate to reforming the RCC.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

The reformers didn't fail, the Roman Church refused to accept that they were/are in error - if they "failed" then I guess you should become Roman Catholic.

"...Roman Church refused to accept that they were/are in error...". Therefore, Luther failed.
"...if they "failed" then I guess you should become Roman Catholic." Why would you guess I should become RC? Nuts!

How was Luther despicable? Yes, there is documentation, he was instrumental in making known widespread that salvation is by grace alone thru faith alone, and pointed men to Christ as their savior. I suppose there are those who dislike you as well, thank God people's opinions aren't what justifies, but instead it is faith in Christ.

Salvation is a result of God's choice. Being born-again.
(Eph 2:8 KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Luther didn't author that in order to "give cover to Hitler." Hitler used many things for cover, and Hitler happily twisted whatever he wanted for his own benefit, sadly Luther's sinful writings about the Jews was used to justify a very evil act - I guess it just goes to show our sins aren't without consequences for others.

"Luther didn't author that in order to "give cover to Hitler."" The fact is it did.


Quotes From "Of Jews and Their Lies" by Martin Luther
First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now, but that we have now given them their due reward.

Second, that all their books their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible, be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted. For they use all of these books to blaspheme the Son of God, that is, God the Father himself, Creator of heaven and earth, as was said above; and they will never use them differently.

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country. They may do this in their own country or wherever they can without our being obliged to hear it or know it. The reason for this prohibition is that their praise, thanks, prayer, and doctrine are sheer blasphemy, cursing, and idolatry, because their heart and mouth call God the Father *Hebel Vorik* as they call his Son, our Lord Jesus, this. For as they name and honor the Son, thus they also name and honor the Father. It does not help them to use many fine words and to make much ado about the name of God. For we read, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" [Exod. 20:7]. Just as little did it avail their ancestors at the time of the kings of Israel that they bore God's name, yet called him Baal.

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it, because their blasphemous and accursed mouth and heart call God's Son *Hebel Vorik,* and thus also call his Father that. He cannot and will not interpret this otherwise, just as we Christians too cannot interpret it otherwise, we who believe that however the Son is named and honored thus also the Father is named and honored. Therefore we must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy of uttering the name of God within our hearing. He who hears this name-from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away. And may no one be merciful and kind in this regard, for God's honor and the salvation of us all, including that of the Jews, are at stake!

Luther's arrogance is revealed by his rejection of select books of the Bible he didn't like. I find this despicable.

Why Did Martin Luther Remove Inspired Books From the Bible?
Why Did Martin Luther Remove Inspired Books From the Bible?

There numerous resources available to validate my position.


Martin Luther
"The image of Martin Luther on this postcard signifies an exploitation of his name and legacy. The Nazi’s often used Luther to justify their anti-Semitism and nationalism. Throughout other forms of Nazi propaganda, he has been referred to as a “fighter against the Jewish spirit in the Christian Church” as well as “Dr. Luther is one of the greatest anti-Semites in German history.” Martin Luther did, in fact, have a number of anti-Semitic writings. He believed Jews should be converted to Christianity and he gradually lost patience when they did not begin to embrace the religion. It’s been stressed that he was not a Nazi anti-Semite, but a religious anti-Semite; he was opposed to Jews not as an ethnic group but because they refused to convert"

 

[5 point Gillinist]

"...Roman Church refused to accept that they were/are in error...". Therefore, Luther failed.
"...if they "failed" then I guess you should become Roman Catholic." Why would you guess I should become RC? Nuts!

Rome's failure to accept what scripture teaches wasn't Luther's failure, it was theirs.
If you preach the gospel to someone, and they refuse to accept it, is that your failure?

Salvation is a result of God's choice. Being born-again.
(Eph 2:8 KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Not sure what your point is with this. You said that there was no documentation that Luther was saved; as the verse you quoted states one is saved by grace, thru faith, from God - thus Luther was saved because he held to those.

"Luther didn't author that in order to "give cover to Hitler."" The fact is it did.

I don't think Luther (who lived in the 1500s) wrote those sinful things for Hitler ( who didn't come to power until the 1930s) to use for cover. Luther was obviously not a perfect man - but it is by grace that we are saved thru faith - unless of course you don't actually believe that and think that men are ultimately justified by their works.

Luther's arrogance is revealed by his rejection of select books of the Bible he didn't like. I find this despicable.

Luther actually repented of his derisive statement about the book of James.

I'm convinced that you just hate Luther. You proclaim to believe in the gospel of grace, yet condemn Luther to hell because he doesn't meet your requirements.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

I'm convinced that you just hate Luther. You proclaim to believe in the gospel of grace, yet condemn Luther to hell because he doesn't meet your requirements.

Nonsense.

I have no reason to believe that Luther was born-again. If he was not, then his eternal existence will be in hell.

(Gen 12:1 KJV) Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
(Gen 12:2 KJV) And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
(Gen 12:3 KJV) And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


Study Guide for Genesis 12 by David Guzik
e. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you: God also promised He would bless those who bless you and to curse him who curses you. This promise — inherited by the covenant descendants of Abram, the Jewish people — remains true today and is a root reason for the decline and death of many empires.

I believe the hatred expressed by Luther toward the Jews placed the curse of God upon him. Additionally, Luther added to scripture. Additionally, as stated previously, he disagreed with several books in the Bible and wanted to move them to an amendment.

Luther actually repented of his derisive statement about the book of James.

That is news to me. Please provide supportive documentation.

I don't intend to review all of your posts, but to my recleation, you have not provided any documentation to support your positions.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Nonsense.

I have no reason to believe that Luther was born-again. If he was not, then his eternal existence will be in hell.

Ah. I guess being saved by grace thru faith in Christ isn't enough then.

I believe the hatred expressed by Luther toward the Jews placed the curse of God upon him.

This IS adding to God's word. One can't believe the Bible, or Christ's words, that all sins will be forgiven (except for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) if you hold that Luther's derision towards the Jews at the end of his life kept him out of the kingdom. That is also idolatry to put the Jews on such a pedestal - and I say that as a dispensationalist.

Additionally, Luther added to scripture. Additionally, as stated previously, he disagreed with several books in the Bible and wanted to move them to an amendment.

You are adding to scripture, and taking away from it with your views on salvation or refusal of God to give it based on Luther's racism.

I don't intend to review all of your posts

So then why are you on an internet forum?

Also, you don't want to quote Guzik, he is a Calvinist, and also does speak favorably of Luther.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now you are being silly. The doctrine that I hold as essential is not only a historical position but more importantly it is in God's Word.

Your problem is that you do not know what God's word teaches, and since you believe yourself to be too clever to learn from others, you are never likely to learn at all. Almost every heresy under heaven was started by people who 'just believe the Bible.' The Bible will tell you that, 'Where there is no counsel, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.'

Yours is not actually in God's Word (it is what you and a relatively small sect believe is taught by Scripture).

What I believe is that, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge." You clearly think that only a "relatively small sect" believe that. Perhaps you are right.

Do you not understand the difference? When you condemn my faith you are literally condemning God's Word ("what is written") and have never once addressed my understanding of His Word.

I have been addressing your [mis]understanding of God's word for around 20 years.

All I have rejected of your tradition is what is NOT in the Bible anywhere (what your heros tell you the Bible means) When I say your tradition is an erroneous theology I am saying I disagree with those men who tried to re-form Roman Catholic theology.

If you ever read my posts (which is something I increasingly doubt) you will know that I almost never quote from a Confession. I quote Scripture which is more than you do most of the time.

We stand where we stand. Either I am correct and we are both Christians who disagree or you are correct and you are a Christian while I am not, or we are both incorrect.

I have never said that you are not a Christian. To say such a thing is way beyond my pay grade.

My position is, as I have stated, that the Reformers did a good work but their re-forming should have continued.

Are you really not aware of the saying, 'Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbi Dei" 'The Reformed church is always in need of being reformed according to the word of God'? That is why the earliest confession were replaced as time went by. Today we have a host of matters - like transgenderism, for example - of which the Reformers never gave a thought. Wise churches have added codicils to their confessions to cover this sort of thing without abandoning the wisdom of the past.

Catholicism and Reformed theology are not without the gospel they misunderstand so there can be Christians found holding those errors. There are many who have been carried away by the philosophies, and will hear "I never knew you".

There are many who have been carried away by human philosophies. These are they who think themselves too clever to listen to the wisdom of the past and as a result they have wandered into their own Bypath Meadows, far away from the truth

The strength of my faith is that it is found in the actual words of God. I have no interest in expounding on what God has given us in His Word. So I may misinterpret a passage, but I have not added to Scripture what I believe the Bible "teaches" (I believe the Bible teaches "what is written").

The weakness of your faith is that in several cases it is not found in the actual words of God. You deny their obvious meaning so that you can sound clever on this forum.

You, on the other hand, can only point to men who tell you what the Bible "really teaches when properly understood". No different from trusting a Pope to tell you what the Bible "really" means.
I believe that, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge." If you disagree with that, it is your problem.

So I am comfortable in my syand [sic]- even with misinterpretation- because it is standing on the actual Word of God.

So might Charles Taze Russell and a host of other heretics have said.

 

[JonC]

Your problem is that you do not know what God's word teaches,

God's Word teaches "what is written" in Scripture. We are not to lean on our own understanding but on every word that comes from God.

This is where you and I disagree.

I have read your posts for the past two decades. You do post Scripture and then you tell us what you believe the Bible teaches. The issue is what you say the Bible teaches is very different from from the actual Word of God
Look, I once shared your view. We would have agreed on most things discussed here. I get what you are saying.

But I have come to believe that the Bible teaches "what is written" in God's Word. As such it is impossible that I could ever agree with you because what you believe is foreign to the text of Scripture.

If the Bible makes sence, is logical, is complete as written (the text) then there woukd be no need for your theories about what the Bible really teaches.

I may hold an error in interpretation, BUT it will be an error in interpretation of the actual Biblical text rather than what some men believe is "really" taught by Scripture.

The "obvious meaning" argument is a logical fallacy used by men who have no argument.

We have God's Word....God's actual words to man. Then we have many sects within "Christianity" who will tell us what the Bible, when properly understood, really teaches. They will tell us the "obvious" meaning of the Bible. People will choose which of these "God given teachers" to follow. And many will call out to Jesus only to hear "I never knew you".

A Calvinist, a Catholic, an Arminian (etc.) can also be a Christian. I am not denying that. But God warns us against leaning on our understanding, telling us to lean on every word from God, and be careful not to be carried away by these philosophies.

Often the problem is not what errors are believed but how men hold these errors. Do they lean on their understanding or hold their understanding with a grain of salt? Have they been carried away from the faith by Calvinism, or Arminianism? If so, has God hardened their hearts?

Where you look to God to reveal to you teachings not in His Word I believe the Spirit guides and teaches us by illumination and application of what is actually written in the Bible.

I can text my faith with God's Word. I do this daily. I can misinterpret verses. But Jesus will make me stand. My beliefs are in God's Word. I can highlight the words.

Your faith fails the test. You can only test your faith about what you think the Bible teaches against what you think is taught by the Bible and consult men who agree with you for validation. You are the author of your own faith.

Have you ever considered that the reason God's Word does not make sence to you as it is written, that the reason you believe God has provided men not to teach but to give you the "real meaning" of the Bible, may point to a greater problem?

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

You have made an interesting claim (or, to be more precise, you have repeatedly an interesting claim). But you have not been able to substantiate that claim.

You say that there are passages in the Bible that I reject. If this is true then you would provide those passages and I would be grateful for you pointing it out.


If it helps (and as a reminder of what I believe) here is a summary if my views on the topics I have discussed (it is just a summary). It is what you have called a "heresy".


God created Adam (man) from the dust, planted a Garden and placed Adam there. God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2). God told Adam that in the day he ate of the fruit death would be certain (Gen 2:17). Adam transgressed God’s command and his eyes were opened (Gen 3:6-7). God told Adam that because of his transgression he would work the land (the land was cursed) until he died, for he was dust and to dust he would return (Gen 3:19). God told the Serpent that he would put enmity between him and the woman, and between their offspring, that He would crush its head and he would strike His heel (Gen 3:15).

Adam had become like God, knowing good and evil. So that he would not take from the Tree of Life and live forever, God cast Adam out of the Garden, back to the place from which he was created (Gen 3:21-24).
Through Adam’s sin death entered the world and spread to all man, for all have sinned Rom 5:12). Sin was in the world before God gave the Law, but sin was not charged against people as a transgression as they did not break a command (vs. 15). Nevertheless, death reigned even where there was no law because of sin.

Just as through the disobedience of one man, Adam the many were made sinners , so also through the obedience of the one man, Christ, the many will be made righteous (Rom 5:18-19).

The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), for sin produces death (James 1:15). Death spread to all because all have sinned (Romans 5:12). It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. (Heb 9:27). I believe that God became man (truly man) like us but without sin (Heb 4:15). He bore our sins bodily on the cross (1 Peter 2:24).
God became one of us (Heb 2:11-13) so that we would become like Him (Jn 15:4; Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 3:18) and share in His glory (Rom 8:17).

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:23). The second statement (the gift of God) does not nullify the first (the wages of sin), because sin produces death (James 1:15). But it does remove the sting of death (1 Cor 15:55) because although we die yet shall we live (John 11:25).


Please point out any passages I have rejected. If there are any I need to examine them and revise my belief.

Just saying I reject passages does not help without providing the passages I reject.