Adam's sin

Archangel,

And the biblical idea of the Judgment Throne of God is what?

Seems to me being cast into the lake of fire is a supreme example of God's wrath, therefore atonement failed!

Removal of God's wrath is not the purpose of Atonement. Atonement for the sins of the world is the "equalizer" of mankind, the sins of all mankind are paid for, removing sin as a factor in God's Judgement. Atonement removes the penalty of sin as a determinant factor for eternal life or the lake of fire. The works each person did will be judged as if by fire prior to the final judgment of the person at the Throne of God. With Sins Atoned for, and Works judged, That leaves only Faith as a judgment factor for all when they appear before the Judgment Throne of God. God sees whether or not one believed in His beloved son who atoned for their sins. If one does not believe in Jesus, that one is cast into the lake of fire for the rest of eternity, the second death. However if one is found to believe in Jesus or have Faith in God as Abraham did, that one is passed from death unto life eternal with Jesus the Christ, Glory to God!

If not so, the death-row converts and deathbed converts could not be saved because of their sins. But because those sins were atoned for, they cannot be held in judgment against them before the Throne of God. Therefore it is faith alone that saves from God's wrath of casting unbelievers into the lake of fire.

ABSOLUTELY FALSE! Faith cannot be a work, for something to be a work, energy must be expended toward a result. Believing takes no energy whatever. Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith and not of yourselves it is the gift of God, Not of works lest any man should boast." (bold emphasis mine) Faith is not of works! It is not something you can do! but it is something you can have!

Atonement is not something man can do either, it was done by Jesus the Christ in man's behalf!

[Personal comments removed. Keep your dialogue appropriate.]

[ April 29, 2003, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

"my" doctrines should be challenged. As far as truth I already know what it is and it is ONE, not many facets, degrees, nor possibilities.

Bro. Dallas

 

Here is truth, faith is something you can have, but it is not a possession of natural man.

Bro. Dallas

 

Excuse me?

Does God have a need of faith? What is there that Omniscient God does not know for which he must have faith?
Do the angels have a need of faith?
Do the cheribim have a need of faith?
Does man have a need of faith? Man is the only one in the whole of God's creation that does need and does possess faith. Whether a believer or non believer, every human who has, is, and will, live on this earth has faith in something. Faith is an attribute of mankind. Faith in God, and in Jesus, and in salvation is all that man can hope to have while living this natural flesh life.

Prove me wrong!

 

Hi Yelsew

I note your expression: "However if one is found to believe in Jesus or have Faith in God as Abraham did, that one is passed from death unto life eternal with Jesus the Christ, Glory to God!" What do you mean, that if we have faith in God "as Abraham did", that that person passes from death to life? I don't follow your logic here. Surely it is ONLY by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, that a person can be saved! There is no other faith than one can have, and expect to be saved! Please clarify.

 

I don't have to prove you wrong, you accomplished this without any assistance from me.

Man needs faith, man has faith, why does he stand in need of something that he already has. I also note here you are again denying scripture, I hear Paul proclaim that not all men have faith.

Bro. Dallas

 

I mean that it is human faith in God, which today is belief in Jesus, where yesterday it was faith like that of Abraham's, by which God passes one from death unto eternal life. God gets the Glory for making it so!

 

Just clarify a little more please.

Thanks.

Bro. Dallas

 

I don't have to prove you wrong, you accomplished this without any assistance from me.

Man needs faith, man has faith, why does he stand in need of something that he already has. I also note here you are again denying scripture, I hear Paul proclaim that not all men have faith.

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]Faith is an attribute of man. Faith requires an object. The object of faith does not have to be Jesus and God to be faith.

Paul was saying that not all men have faith in the object that Paul was addressing. So Paul was stating the truth, but not all the truth regarding faith. There is a large industy that thrives on telling people to have "faith in ourselves", there are whole religions based on faith in something other than Jesus and God.

Faith which man has, man needs! Faith is part of the make up of mankind.

Prove me wrong!

 

Just clarify a little more please.

Thanks.

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]You know the scripture you figure it out!

 

I was trying to figure out if you knew the scripture You are right, I do know what the scripture says concerning this and I know that Abraham believed nothing less than I do myself. Do you need scripture proofs?

Bro. Dallas

 

Then what is your point?

 

thanks Yelesew.

Bro.Dallas

 

That is us being affected by it. It is not "accountability" in the sense of God condemning everyone for that sin (as if they personally did it) apart from their own sins. We share one punishment from that sin-- the first death. Each individual person's second death is from their own sin. Remember, just as you pointed out to Helen (I do not agree on that point, and I was getting ready to respond with the same point until I saw that you did), Rev. 20 shows that works are what people are condemned for, not Adam's sin.

You're making it completely "symmetrical, but the point is that we are on a path to death we inherited from Adam, and the righteousness that puts us on the path to life is imputed to us from Christ. If it were 100% symmetrical, then since all were "imputed" with Adam's sin, than the same ALL would have to be imputed with Christ's righteousness, and all would be saved!

But you're saying in our case they're "not really" paid for. What I say, that may differ from what others say, is that that payment has to be applied. This is how "those whose sins were paid for are still punished for those sins, [which are then 'paid twice']" is avoided.

But using your line of reasoning, they could still argue that this still makes His death and election not efficient in their own right.

I was acknowledging that God grants repentance. What I was showing was that these passages are not saying He grants it only to some and withholds it unconditionally, to others.

 

Scripture doesn't make this distinction. Why should a person die if they are not accountable. Your argument would be closer to true if you said it was unfair (which is essentially what Helen has said).

Paul made it completely symmetrical. All in Adam are affected by Adam's sin in the same way that all in Christ are affected by his righteousness. The "all" is defined by "in Adam" and "in Christ." Your view destroys the meaning of hte passage.

But you then deny the value of Christ's payment by saying it really doesn't count. That undermines the infinite value and worth of Christ's death. He died to save people, not simply to make salvation possible.

No they can't. His death and election are what bring faith and repentance. They are inseparable for the elect.

 

Scripture doesn't make any such "distinction" because it nowhere in that passage mentions "accountability" in the sense of moral guilt. It just says sin passed from one to the rest, and you're reading something else into it. Holding people "accountable" ("guilty"), condeming them for it, and then leaving them with no way out of that is also "unfair", but it's you who always argues against "fairness", and I am not arguing for it at that point. People do die or are otherise negatively affected because of others' sins.

Actually, it doesn't say "in Christ", at least in the version I'm reading, (unless I missed it). It says either "all" or "many" for both states. Of course we know all won't be saved, as all were in in sin, but I think this shows us the righteousness being offered to all, and Paul's point is how we get both sin and righteousness from these "heads", symmetrically, but obviously, since the same all who became sinners will not become righteous, the symmetry breaks somewhere however you look at it, as well as by the point of "condemned by works (not something imputed to us); saved by grace (which is imputed to us)".
"All" is a type of "many", though many is not necessarily "all"; and that "many will be made righteous", so here we have the distinction that all (or "many") are sinners, the gift extends to all ("many"), and "many" (but not all) receive the gift (justification). But the difference between "many" and "all" in v.19 is qualified by "will be", showing that this is not a one time selection of who will be justified, like all were condemned at one time. Justification is on a person by person basis). Likewise, regarding "federal heads", nowhere is it insinuated that Christ is made the head only of a group of predetermined individuals. As "the second Adam" (1 Cor.15:45-47) he has become the new representative of the human race, as Adam was. But if people reject Him, it is they who choose to remain in Adam (And just think of all the unsaved's appeals to "I'm just human" to justify their sin. Without knowing it, they are directly appealing to the headship of Adam).

Who said anything about "not counting"? And even though, from our viewpoint it may technically be "possible", still that does not take away from its value. In your scheme, from our viewpoint, it is the same. Look at any given person out there: it is "possible" that he may be elected and have Christ's payment applied to him. Even those who are saved, you and others, (beginning with Calvin himself) admit that it is possible you have a "vain faith", and since it is God who determines it, what can you do or even know for sure? So at best, you are only "possibly" saved. So that is just a word game that doesn't amount to anything in determining which position is more biblical.

 

Or perhaps it doesn't make it because it doesn't exist. The death that comes is "because of sin." That sounds like accountability. I think your saying that some people die becuase of other's sins is apples and oranges and is wrong anyway. Their own sin is what made them "killable."

That is the point of the passage. Study it out and it becomes evident. I have shown this is many places elsewhere. What it clearly does not mean is that all without exception are made righteous in Christ. That would be universalism. It is a prime error of Ray and some other who have tried to have "all" without really understanding "all of what."

But your misunderstanding has led you to this conclusion. The symmetry does not break down in my (The proper ) understanding. The symmetry, which is the point of the whole thing, is perfectly intact.

I think you have misunderstood "vain faith." A vain faith is one that does not continue or persevere. Assurance is based on, in part, obedience. If the obedience isn't there, then the assurance is gone. If I fall away and reject finally the faith, then I have shown myself to be unsaved. That is the point of 1 John, Col 1, Heb, etc.

 

Ray and others have never said that ALL are saved! ALL, however can be saved if ALL believe in God, The father, Son and Holy Ghost! That is God's desire that all should be saved.

One thing is sure, at the Judgment Throne of God, ALL will be judged. Jesus Atonement was for the sins of the world (ALL). Therefore at the Throne of Judgment, the faith condition of the "defendants" is all that will be judged.

 

But you're the one who said that "death" was by itself the
"accountability". Of course, death comes from "sin". But where does the sin come from that causes the death? It comes from our nature we have inherited from Adam.

It may not break down in your understanding, but I was talking about the scriptural understanding.

But that's just what I am saying. If our assurance is based on our own "obedience", then salvation ultimately is as well, and salvation is at best "possible".

 

The sin nature ensures that we sin and the death results from that. But even babies die because of Adam's sin. I think you are bent on making a distinction that doesn't stand up too well. You are slicing the balogna a little thin for me.

Obviously not

IN no way, because obedience does not bring salvation, it demonstrates the reality of salvation. YOu have confused salvation with assurance of salvation.