Event vrs Process Justification

You have given no evidence that says Adam was eternally lost. Answer this question, yes or no.
Do you believe that Adam is in heaven? A simple yes or no will do.

Who is Hank, a friend of yours??
DHK

 

#1. I don't believe Adam is in heaven - but that is not because I don't think he was saved by Grace and BORN AGAIN in the OT. It has more to do with believing that thing God said in Gen 3 about mankind not having access to the Tree of Life.

#2. Adam NEEDED a Savior and there is NO case AT ALL in scripture where the Savior is needed by one who is NOT condemned as a sinner - lost.

#3. There is only ONE WAY in for the sinner - you MUST be born again!

IF you don't think Adam sinned - then there is a problem with your reading of that text.

If you don't think that the wages of sin is death then -- Romans 6.

If you don't think that Adam was "born again" then there is John 3.

IF you think that the PRE-new-birth condition of a sinner is "saved" -- then again - John 3 and Romans 3.

(Although why in the world Lloyd has not figured any of this out and responded to your post -- escapes me.)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Lloyd have you ever noticed that NONE of your responses include quote of God's Word??

You make your entire case "on ranting alone".

What is up with that?

Go to the Bible dude.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I guess "God will learn to write Matt 18 better after reading your non-quote post".

Forgiveness - yes.

Also true that in Matt 18 the forgiveness GIVEN is the REAL forgiveness that is given at conversion - i.e. justification past.

(Amazingly you seem to get this detail in Matt 18. I am quite surprised Lloyd.)

Amazingly - as the various OSAS proponents DENIED that very point - I belivee you were... "silent".

Actually - no such phrase as "positional forgiveness" in the Bible. So "going back to the Bible" that would be "FORGIVENESS does not mean we will ALWAYS REMAIN in Fellowship with God".

Hey - I AGREE with you there too!

(But I am sure some of your Calvinist friends would not).

Do you agree that we can not be "IN UNION" with Christ without being IN FELLOWSHIP with Christ?

Or do you view the wicked - depraved - sinner who forsakes God and chooses rebellion as "IN UNION with Christ" but OUT of fellowship with Him?

If so - WHERE is the text that defines that as "UNION with CHrist"??

Back to MAtt 18 --

In the parable the king is God, the slave is the lost, temporal debt is the REAL sinners debt, and the Kings temporal forgiveness is the REAL SINNERS forgiveness.

We seem to "agree" there.

In the parable the TEMPORAL story shows the ETERNAL truth.

Just as in the Lord's prayer "NEITHER will my Father forgive you if you do not forgive.."

IT is ALL a case of TEMPORAL points made to show ETERNAL truth!

No switching horses in the middle of that stream Lloyd.

Notice the fallacy you have entered. You admit that INITIAL forgiveness is REAL and avoids the unnacceptable consequence of the debt owed. But then when THAT SAME DEBT IS RETURNED -- you 'ignore that detail" and claim that TEMPORAL punishment would SUFFICE to pay what ONLY CHRIST Can pay for us!! (Or what WE can only pay IN HELL fire)

How "instructive".

Why do you go to such lengths??

So that..

I see.

"So that" you can get out of Christs OWN statement at the end --

I see.

No wonder you need to spin that chapter around a few times -- and no wonder you have "waited until know" to show HOW you need to spin the details IN THE TEXT.

But as we have just SEEN - you take the SAME debt that is OWED and claim that when it COMES BACK it is NO LONGER of eternal consequence! You argue that a SAVED SINNER can PAY THEIR OWN DEBT and STILL go to heaven!!

Notice that no such "heavenly reward" is given the servant in that case - your "sunny day" outcome is MISSING from the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK,
One thing good comes of Bob Ryan's posts which makes them worth being allowed on this forum - it is that their proponent cannot argue better against their fallacy.

 

Most offensive to me, Bob Ryan, is your regular ending. After what you have to say, every time?

 

Since nothing of substance has been posted since my last unanswered post - with the host of Bible points remaining "ignored" --

Here is a point of reminder ...

I guess "God will learn to write Matt 18 better after reading your non-quote post".

Forgiveness - yes.

Also true that in Matt 18 the forgiveness GIVEN is the REAL forgiveness that is given at conversion - i.e. justification past.

(Amazingly you seem to get this detail in Matt 18. I am quite surprised Lloyd.)

Amazingly - as the various OSAS proponents DENIED that very point - I belivee you were... "silent".

Actually - no such phrase as "positional forgiveness" in the Bible. So "going back to the Bible" that would be "FORGIVENESS does not mean we will ALWAYS REMAIN in Fellowship with God".

Hey - I AGREE with you there too!

(But I am sure some of your Calvinist friends would not).

Do you agree that we can not be "IN UNION" with Christ without being IN FELLOWSHIP with Christ?

Or do you view the wicked - depraved - sinner who forsakes God and chooses rebellion as "IN UNION with Christ" but OUT of fellowship with Him?

If so - WHERE is the text that defines that as "UNION with CHrist"??

Back to MAtt 18 --

In the parable the king is God, the slave is the lost, temporal debt is the REAL sinners debt, and the Kings temporal forgiveness is the REAL SINNERS forgiveness.

We seem to "agree" there.

In the parable the TEMPORAL story shows the ETERNAL truth.

Just as in the Lord's prayer "NEITHER will my Father forgive you if you do not forgive.."

IT is ALL a case of TEMPORAL points made to show ETERNAL truth!

No switching horses in the middle of that stream Lloyd.

Notice the fallacy you have entered. You admit that INITIAL forgiveness is REAL and avoids the unnacceptable consequence of the debt owed. But then when THAT SAME DEBT IS RETURNED -- you 'ignore that detail" and claim that TEMPORAL punishment would SUFFICE to pay what ONLY CHRIST Can pay for us!! (Or what WE can only pay IN HELL fire)

How "instructive".

Why do you go to such lengths??

So that..

I see.

"So that" you can get out of Christs OWN statement at the end --

I see.

No wonder you need to spin that chapter around a few times -- and no wonder you have "waited until know" to show HOW you need to spin the details IN THE TEXT.

But as we have just SEEN - you take the SAME debt that is OWED and claim that when it COMES BACK it is NO LONGER of eternal consequence! You argue that a SAVED SINNER can PAY THEIR OWN DEBT and STILL go to heaven!!

Notice that no such "heavenly reward" is given the servant in that case - your "sunny day" outcome is MISSING from the text.

</font>[/QUOTE]GE now posts that his list of things to be offended at "has gone up". As thrilling as that subject would be to explore further - how about the subject of the thread instead?

How about addressing the unanswered points already standing against the OSAS position?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob you did not address my last couple of posts and I won't address your until you address mine. You seldom take what we say and directly refute it. You normally just either re-state your first argument or make up a totally new one. That does not make for a good debate, just ships passing in the night. Please respond to the logic arguments as well as the scriptual ones. Thanks!!!

In Christ,
Brian

 

Bob,
Here are some points you fail to address, but continually gloss over?

1. Was Adam lost? You say, "yes."
The Bible says, "No." The answer I gave you that you fail to address is provided for you in Scripture:

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
--Was there shedding of blood on Adam's behalf?

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
--Why wasn't the covering of fig leaves good enough? Why did God have to sacrifice an animal and shed the blood of an animal to make coats of skins to cover Adam and Eve? The answer lies in Hebrews 9:22--Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. God forgave their sin with this sacrifice. Indeed they were his children, and he provided a sacrifice, as He provided us a sacrifice in the person of His Son, that they might have eternal life. They are not lost. Their fellowship was broken. God no longer walked with them in coolness of the evening in the garden. But with the sacrifice their fellowship with God was restored, albeit because of sin entering into the world, that form of fellowship would never be the same, it would take a different form from that time onward. But saved they were. There is no indication that they were lost just because they sinned. If they were, then so are you and everyone else on this board, no matter what you do. No sacrifice, not even the sacrifice of Christ would be acceptable to God. If God's sacrifice was not good enough for Adam, then how would God's sacrifice be good enough for us now?

Second, you have never explained fully the imaginary doctrine of "forgiveness revoked." It doesn't exist. It is man-made. It is taken from a parable which doesn't teach it. You have wrenched it out of its context to fit your own preconceived ideas. You have not rightly divided the word of truth. You cannot make up a doctrine from a parable and then try to find supporting Scriptures elsewhere. That is not good hermeneutics, and I think you are intelligent enough to know that. Doctrine does not come from parables; parables only support doctrine that is already taught elsewhere in the Bible--and "forgiveness revoked" is taught nowhere in the Bible.

The first thing to consider about the passage in Matthew 18 is that it is not talking about salvation or even remotely related to salvation. You somehow twist the Scriptures to read something into it that is not there. You are as bad as the Catholics who would say that the same passage would teach purgatory. It does not; neither does it teach it "forgiveness revoked." If it teaches "forgivenss revoked" it may as well teach "purgatory" as well. You have done a good job of butchering the Word of God here.

Peter says: "How often shall I forgive my brother, Lord? seven time seventy?"
That is the context; not "forgiveness revoked," but forgiving one another, specifically one saved brother forgiving another saved brother. Let me give you a specific example. If I said something to offend Gerhard, would that have any effect on my salvation? Of course not! Would Gerhard forgive me. You may ask him, but I think he would. How often would he forgive me if I kept on offending him in my tone of voice, and the manner of speaking to him? Jesus says 70 times 7, or as many tmes as I would do it. Is Gerhard that forgiving? You would have to ask him. But that is what Jesus is teaching. It has nothing to do with salvation. He is teaching about forgiving your brother. If you can read "forgiveness revoked" into that, then I can read "purgatory" into the same passage. It is a parable to teach about forgiving your brother, and nothing more. It has nothing to do with salvation or OSAS. And you have yet to address that. Here is how I address your approach to the passage of Mat. 18:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The next thing that you fail to address is how a born person can become "unborn???" This must a real trick. Is it magic? I gave you an example two or three times, but you have failed to properly address this point. One cannot undo that which is done. You cannot change history. Once a person is born, it is a fact of history that cannot be changed. Can you deny the fact of history that President George Bush is a real person in real life. He was born and not hatched. Likewise a person is born into God's family, and nothing can change that fact. I know the year, month, day, and even the hour when I was born again. It is a historical fact of my life. It can't be undone. I can't be unborn. You can't redo history. I am part of God's family because I was born into it. I am now his child, and there is nothing that can be done to change that fact. That is the whole teaching of the new birth. But you fail to address this point.
It looks like you have a lot of explaining to do!
DHK

 

Lloyd,

Amen!

BD

 

Post a link when you do that -- otherwise I have no idea as to how many are scattered on previous pages that were missed.

Having said that - I am going back for the most recent.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This post of mine - to you is not answered...

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384/11.html#000152

but after that post - I find this post from you to me.

We are justified.

The appeasement argument is not mine. It is the argument of those who choose to reject the Hebrew concept of "Atoning Sacrifice" in 1John 2:2 NIV - and put in its please "propitiation" claiming that God was being "appeased by Christ" into being good to us.

By contrast the point of "Atoning Sacrifice" is "God so Loved that He Gave".

According to God's Word - OT sacrifices were used as symbols of "ATONEMENT" not "APPEASEMENT".

In fact God says that HE IS NOT pleased with animal blood as a sacrifice but rather with a human heart that turns to God who calls us in love.

As 1John 2:1 says "WE HAVE an advocate with the father" as 1John 1:9 reminds us "IF we CONFESS our sins He is faithful AND JUST to FORGIVE us our SIN AND to cleanse us from all unrighteousness".

Not merely to solve the GUILT problem but to also address the Romans 6 problem of slavery to sin.

But the text does NOT SAY "If we DO NOT confess our sins he is faithful and just to FORGIVES US ANYWAY".

See?

Again I would say - post the link.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Brian -

Actually you posted here --

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384/10.html#000145

And then I responded here


http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384/11.html#000152


And then you kept claiming I never responded - and you never responded to the post I sent.

What is up with that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wrong - the bible says "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3.

And the Bible says that ALL are fully condemned by the LAw of God as sinners - under the penalty of death EVEN ADAM (See Romans 5).

I keep pointing this out and you keep ducking the point.

How is that glossing over it?

In fact I will end this post with that "ONE" Point to EMPHASIZE the need to actually address it.

Yes.

1John 2:2 "He is the ATONING SACRIFICE for OUR SINS and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"

In Heb 2 we find that Christ tasted the sufferings of death "for every one of mankind".

How much of a bigger yes can you ask for?

Then they needed no savior.

The entire point Paul makes in Romans 5 is that we all share THE SAME FATE as Adam.

How in the world can you gloss over that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have no idea why you are going there.

That would be the part where all Christianity "imagines reading Matt 18".

The chapter SHOWS the original debt OWED - is forgiven and then RETURNED.

Well that is "one way" to solve the problem for OSAS.

For the rest of us - we will just have to be content reading the chapter that doesn't exist - Matt 18.

Teaching comes from parables and when Christ said "SO SHALL My Father DO TO EACH ONE OF YOU IF you do not..."--

We can believe it - rather than turning a deaf ear to Christ saying "yeah yeah doctrine does not come from parables".

Your idea of tossing out anything you don't like when a parable does not please you - was not something that Jews were good at doing. Christ continually debunked their errors using parables.

I guess this is where you and Lloyd differ eh?

"FOR THIS reason the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN may be compared to a KING who ..."

In ALL the KINGDOM of HEAVEN may be COMPARED To style parables - the subject is ALWAYS SALVATION!

Next.


In Christ,

Bob

 

That was addressed in DETAIL.

I show that Adam did not become "UNCREATED" to choose rebellion - embrace sin - get kicked out of the garden and die.

The "unborn" argument as the "the only way to fail" does not work for BIRTH any more than it does for LIFE itself!!

"AS in ADAM ALL DIE - so in Christ shall ALL be made ALIVE".

Must we all be "UNCREATED" or "UNBORN" to die?

Find something that works.

Next.

In the mean time you need to take the ACTUAL post of Matt 18 and address the points I listed there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No one doubts the veracity of Romans 3:23. You are a sinner; I am a sinner; So are we all, and that included Adam after he sinned. Was Adam then completely unredeemable. Nonsense. Was the sacrifice that God made for Adam not sufficient enough to redeem him from his sins. Nonsense. You believe in a very anemic god if you believe that God was unable to atone for the sins of Adam. He sacrificed an animal. Blood was shed. Sins was forgiven. The case is closed.

If your interpretation of Scripture is correct then every person on this board including you and I are doomed to a Christless eternity. If there was no hope for Adam, then there is certainly no hope for us. If God couldn't save Adam from his sin, what makes you think that he can save us? Wasn't the sacrifice that God paid for Adam good enough. God himself sacrificed an animal, and you say it is not good enough?? Preposterous!!

The fact is you are not addressintg the point as shown above.

Consequently, and contrary to your previous statements, Adam then, was saved. For Christ tasted the sufferings of death for every man which includes Adam, and Adam never rejected the sacrifice that God provided for him.

Where is your logic here?
"The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL men," including Adam.
Adam needed a Saviour. God provided a way through a sacrifice just as he did throughout the entire period of the law with the Israelites. Did the Israelites need a Saviour? Of course! How was a Saviuor provided in the days of Moses through Malachi? The same way it was provided for Adam. It was provided through the shedding of blood. "For without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

All same the fate as Adam in that all have sinned, all have come short of the glory of God, and all need a Saviour in order to be saved. Adam sinned. Adam needed a Saviuor. Adam was provided with a sacrifice to atone for His sins, through His Saviuor, Jehovah God Himself. Is there anyone greater than Jehovah, the Lord of hosts?
DHK

 

Did you find/quote me saying "Adam was completely unredeemable"??

No?

Then why go there?

My point was that Adam NEEDED a redeemer for the SAME reason that ALL the fallen lost children of Adam NEED a Savior - the very SAME reason. We are ALL lost - ALL condemned ALL under the curse of sin - the wages of sin is the second death!

Christ came to REDEEM us from the CURSE. IF we are NOT under the curse then there is nothing to redeem us FROM!

This point is so simple and obvious -- how can it be that you refuse it??

In Christ,

Bob