-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Adam's sin
- Thread starter Helen
- Start date
Y
Yelsew
Guest
Well Done Helen!
While the system commonly known as Calvinism (TULIP) is more in agreement with what God's word teaches, as compared to the system known as Arminianism, it is not the same as "the doctrine of Christ", 2John 9. The Lord Jesus Christ did not come up with a doctrinal system of mere 5 points, this must be held in mind.
To say that one holds to 5 point Calvinism does not mean much more than if another says he holds to 5 point Arminianism. It just means he has a little more doctrinal insight than the Arminian.
Many are secretly boastful and proud that they have embraced Calvinism. But the kind of 5 point Calvinism which allows for a peccable (could have sinned, capable of sinning) Jesus Christ within its framework is nothing but sophisticated idolatry. The same goes for the Calvinism which denies the preeminence of Christ Jesus the Lord in the bussiness of justification of God's chosen people. The Calvinism I am referring to is that which propagates Luther's heresy of "justification by faith alone", which says that a sinner is justified before God by or through his subjective faith in Christ. This kind of Calvinism may be harsh on Arminianism, but nevertheless it finds common ground with it in Luther's Sola Fide notion. Such Calvinism is no better than popery, which is the root of Arminianism according to some Baptists of old.
I do not want to be a Calvinist because Calvinism falls short of the doctrine of Christ and the Gospel of Christ on many vital points. Calvinism is most often a subtle form of ecumenism as well. The only ground of fellowship which the New Testament allows is the doctrine of Christ, 2John 9-11, not "Fundamentalism", KJV Onlyism, Calvinism, Arminianism etc. etc.
Harald
To say that one holds to 5 point Calvinism does not mean much more than if another says he holds to 5 point Arminianism. It just means he has a little more doctrinal insight than the Arminian.
Many are secretly boastful and proud that they have embraced Calvinism. But the kind of 5 point Calvinism which allows for a peccable (could have sinned, capable of sinning) Jesus Christ within its framework is nothing but sophisticated idolatry. The same goes for the Calvinism which denies the preeminence of Christ Jesus the Lord in the bussiness of justification of God's chosen people. The Calvinism I am referring to is that which propagates Luther's heresy of "justification by faith alone", which says that a sinner is justified before God by or through his subjective faith in Christ. This kind of Calvinism may be harsh on Arminianism, but nevertheless it finds common ground with it in Luther's Sola Fide notion. Such Calvinism is no better than popery, which is the root of Arminianism according to some Baptists of old.
I do not want to be a Calvinist because Calvinism falls short of the doctrine of Christ and the Gospel of Christ on many vital points. Calvinism is most often a subtle form of ecumenism as well. The only ground of fellowship which the New Testament allows is the doctrine of Christ, 2John 9-11, not "Fundamentalism", KJV Onlyism, Calvinism, Arminianism etc. etc.
Harald
I've never heard any Calvinists or anyone else here say that Christ could have sinned.
So what do you do with "By grace are you saved through faith" (Eph. 2:8, and even of it was God who gave the faith, it was still deemed necessary), and "But to him not working, but believing on Him justifying the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."(Rom. 4:5)
Hello, Eric ... did you read?? We all die because of Adam's sin. That is accountability. I am convinced once again that so much of this discussion is people who don't think through what they say. YOu guys cont
Remember that HElen just contradicted this in her "fine" post ... How, in Romans 5, can you be held accountable for JEsus Righteousness if you are not held accountable for Adam's sin??? That is the point PAul is bringing out.
Helen and many others (INCluding you I think) have denied this. She says the sins were paid for whether man believes or not.
Yes ... because of JESus death and election, not in order to get it.
No
YOU have not studied this passage apparently, if this is what you think. The point is that God is the one who grants repentance.
These passagse are far to easily overlooked in your desire to protect a system. OH well ...
YOU admitted this was true Helen.
Let's not mention John 3.35 or 36 then we will be able to dismiss 'calvinism' as we do Scripture.
'The Father loveth the Son,...'
'...and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
How can this be??
I believe the Scripture. If God is the 'love' that some beleive, then how is His wrath going to 'abide' on any?
Bro.Dallas
Brother Dallas, please don't confuse love with a lack of wrath! Here are some examples just from a human point of view:
1. My youngest daughter had a collection of Barbie dolls we had all added to through the years. She loved to dress them up etc. Until the day I walked into her room and saw she had taken off all the heads and arms and pieces of hundreds of dollars of Barbies were strewn across the room. Wrath? Oh yeah, believe it! Love her? Absolutely.
2. I was closer to my oldest daughter for a number of years than to any other girlfriend. When she was a teen she knew what I was thinking before I did sometimes! We had so much fun together and if anyone was going to end up a strong Christian, I was sure it was her. Until she ended up living with a guy out of wedlock, set her younger sister up to take a punishment for her own misdeeds, and then badly, badly hurt Barry shortly after we were married. I was furious.
If you truly care for something more than you care for yourself, which is what love is, then you are going to feel real wrath with anything or anyone that hurts the object of your love. (edit: re-reading this I had to laugh, because it sounds as it I loved the Barbies or the money in the first example. No! I was just trying to show you can even have wrath aimed at someone you love under some circumstances! The second, about my oldest daughter, is a great deal like the situation in Psalm 55. The pain of it was pretty terrific, but my anger was not because of myself, but because of what she had done to herself, her sister, and my husband.)
The Father loves the Son with a love we cannot even begin to understand. And as God they loved us enough for the Son to take our death and accept it as His own on the Cross, atoning for all our sins.
And those who refuse and insult the Son, whom the Father loves so, should not be the objects of His righteous wrath? If not, then that would mean the Father really did not love the Son enough to feel upset when the Son was insulted and rejected by us, right?
It is not caring which is incompatible with love. And, where God is concerned, it is also fear which is incompatible with love.
But wrath and hate are part and parcel of the results of love when the object of love is threatened or insulted, etc.
Oh yes, God's wrath does abide on those who reject the truth, for the final end point of that truth is His beloved Son, Jesus Christ, who IS The Truth.
1. My youngest daughter had a collection of Barbie dolls we had all added to through the years. She loved to dress them up etc. Until the day I walked into her room and saw she had taken off all the heads and arms and pieces of hundreds of dollars of Barbies were strewn across the room. Wrath? Oh yeah, believe it! Love her? Absolutely.
2. I was closer to my oldest daughter for a number of years than to any other girlfriend. When she was a teen she knew what I was thinking before I did sometimes! We had so much fun together and if anyone was going to end up a strong Christian, I was sure it was her. Until she ended up living with a guy out of wedlock, set her younger sister up to take a punishment for her own misdeeds, and then badly, badly hurt Barry shortly after we were married. I was furious.
If you truly care for something more than you care for yourself, which is what love is, then you are going to feel real wrath with anything or anyone that hurts the object of your love. (edit: re-reading this I had to laugh, because it sounds as it I loved the Barbies or the money in the first example. No! I was just trying to show you can even have wrath aimed at someone you love under some circumstances! The second, about my oldest daughter, is a great deal like the situation in Psalm 55. The pain of it was pretty terrific, but my anger was not because of myself, but because of what she had done to herself, her sister, and my husband.)
The Father loves the Son with a love we cannot even begin to understand. And as God they loved us enough for the Son to take our death and accept it as His own on the Cross, atoning for all our sins.
And those who refuse and insult the Son, whom the Father loves so, should not be the objects of His righteous wrath? If not, then that would mean the Father really did not love the Son enough to feel upset when the Son was insulted and rejected by us, right?
It is not caring which is incompatible with love. And, where God is concerned, it is also fear which is incompatible with love.
But wrath and hate are part and parcel of the results of love when the object of love is threatened or insulted, etc.
Oh yes, God's wrath does abide on those who reject the truth, for the final end point of that truth is His beloved Son, Jesus Christ, who IS The Truth.
Sister,
I am the father of three beautiful and wonderful children, none of which my wife or myself can remember not being a part of our lives. In this respect I understand your point completely...this is the human perspective.
However, what we are considering, IMHO, is the Godward perspective. In this is something very different than you or myself can bring to bear based upon the experiences in time we have with our offspring.
Can we honestly say that we 'loved' our children prior to their birth? (I know people love children and desire to have their own some day, this is not my question).
Can we honestly say the relationship God has with His Children is based from such an experience in time, or is it rather to be viewed from eternity? "We love him because he first loved us." When did He first love us? Were His love founded upon a 'right' choice we make from our supposed free will, then there falls to the charge of our Holy and Righteous Judge a charge of being a respecter of persons. How so? Because it is a love which delivers the gift of eternal life based upon the decision of a sinful creature. Were some more inclined to 'right' moral tendencies and thus in possession of a 'what if' mind-set that says rationally to them that if God is real then they love, believe and serve out of fear or even feigned fear or divine reference, then that love is not perfected but is imperfect and cannot be said to be flowing from the eternal fountainhead of all love which is the Grace of God.
I believe that our relationship with our children is based on such an emotional 'time' experience, this cannot be true of an all knowing all seeing God. If this were the case and only those timid toward the tendency of rebellion against the possible eternal God, then what is it that melts the hardest heart? Is it the merciful Love of God found in Christ Jesus, or is it in the incessant pleadings of preachers who do not understand the working of Grace that Christ accomplished on the Cross?
I am not prepared to wager the eternity of any (singular and inclusive) on the hope that a decision from an unregenerated result will fall in line with a diluted Machiavellianism that teaches the end justifies the means. I am however prepared from my study of the Word of God to present the Gospel message and allow the discretion of God the Father in sending forth into the hearts of His elect the Holy Spirit whereby they cry, Abba, Father. (Gal. 4.6).
To be more liberal than the Word of God is not what justifies sinners; Prov. 14.25.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
I am the father of three beautiful and wonderful children, none of which my wife or myself can remember not being a part of our lives. In this respect I understand your point completely...this is the human perspective.
However, what we are considering, IMHO, is the Godward perspective. In this is something very different than you or myself can bring to bear based upon the experiences in time we have with our offspring.
Can we honestly say that we 'loved' our children prior to their birth? (I know people love children and desire to have their own some day, this is not my question).
Can we honestly say the relationship God has with His Children is based from such an experience in time, or is it rather to be viewed from eternity? "We love him because he first loved us." When did He first love us? Were His love founded upon a 'right' choice we make from our supposed free will, then there falls to the charge of our Holy and Righteous Judge a charge of being a respecter of persons. How so? Because it is a love which delivers the gift of eternal life based upon the decision of a sinful creature. Were some more inclined to 'right' moral tendencies and thus in possession of a 'what if' mind-set that says rationally to them that if God is real then they love, believe and serve out of fear or even feigned fear or divine reference, then that love is not perfected but is imperfect and cannot be said to be flowing from the eternal fountainhead of all love which is the Grace of God.
I believe that our relationship with our children is based on such an emotional 'time' experience, this cannot be true of an all knowing all seeing God. If this were the case and only those timid toward the tendency of rebellion against the possible eternal God, then what is it that melts the hardest heart? Is it the merciful Love of God found in Christ Jesus, or is it in the incessant pleadings of preachers who do not understand the working of Grace that Christ accomplished on the Cross?
I am not prepared to wager the eternity of any (singular and inclusive) on the hope that a decision from an unregenerated result will fall in line with a diluted Machiavellianism that teaches the end justifies the means. I am however prepared from my study of the Word of God to present the Gospel message and allow the discretion of God the Father in sending forth into the hearts of His elect the Holy Spirit whereby they cry, Abba, Father. (Gal. 4.6).
To be more liberal than the Word of God is not what justifies sinners; Prov. 14.25.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
Eric B. I have encountered persons on this board, also on this forum (C/A), who either call themselves Calvinists or who are considered such by others, who have put forth sentiments that Christ could have sinned. The such are always quick to state "but he didn't". The ones who hold to such sentiment know who they are, and I do not now see any need to name them. It is enough when I state that such do exist. The Calvinism of such is not anything desirable, nor admirable.
Ephesians 2:8 says "For by the grace ye are saved through THE faith, and this thing not of you, of God the gift" (own literal translation, emphasis added)
A thing which almost all versions omit to translate is the definite article tês prior to "faith" (pisteôs). Why is that? I checked this verse against the versions I have on e-Sword, and none renders the article. The Textus Receptus has it, but the Eclectic Text does not have it. Hodges-Farstad' Majority Text has the article, but both ALT and EMTV, which are based on the MT, omit the article, and both are Formal Equivalent versions. Of the clearly TR-based versions of e-Sword the KJV, Geneva, YLT, LITV, MKJV all omit to translate the article, and all are FE versions. One can just ask "Why?"
The word translated "this" (thing) is neuter in gender, so it does not refer back to "the faith", but to the whole preceding clause - "by the grace ...saved through the faith". I was talking about justification, this verse does not talk about it. And the surrounding context does not address justification either.
But if while we are at the verse I ask, what exactly does "the faith" refer to? It does not say "saved through believing", but "saved through the faith". Also if I may ask, what exactly does "saved" refer to? Is it the thing commonly referred to as conversion, or is it regeneration? Or is is perhaps justification? I will not say anything more for now on this verse.
Romans 4:5 seemingly addresses justification. But then let me ask, does it really? It does not say "his faith is counted for justification", but "for righteousness". The Greek has different words for these two things.
Let's look at Rom. 3:21 from YLT
And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets,
Paul here refers to the OT Scriptures. If the NT teaches "justification by faith IN Christ Jesus" then the OT must teach the same. Because the NT echoes the OT as to what it teaches on justification, and further elaborates upon it (the OT). Paul did not contradict the OT. Therefore I challenge any who holds to the Lutheran/Protestant/Evangelical scheme of justification to provide OT scriptures which teaches or seems to teach justification before God by or through an act of faith IN the Messias.
Harald
Ephesians 2:8 says "For by the grace ye are saved through THE faith, and this thing not of you, of God the gift" (own literal translation, emphasis added)
A thing which almost all versions omit to translate is the definite article tês prior to "faith" (pisteôs). Why is that? I checked this verse against the versions I have on e-Sword, and none renders the article. The Textus Receptus has it, but the Eclectic Text does not have it. Hodges-Farstad' Majority Text has the article, but both ALT and EMTV, which are based on the MT, omit the article, and both are Formal Equivalent versions. Of the clearly TR-based versions of e-Sword the KJV, Geneva, YLT, LITV, MKJV all omit to translate the article, and all are FE versions. One can just ask "Why?"
The word translated "this" (thing) is neuter in gender, so it does not refer back to "the faith", but to the whole preceding clause - "by the grace ...saved through the faith". I was talking about justification, this verse does not talk about it. And the surrounding context does not address justification either.
But if while we are at the verse I ask, what exactly does "the faith" refer to? It does not say "saved through believing", but "saved through the faith". Also if I may ask, what exactly does "saved" refer to? Is it the thing commonly referred to as conversion, or is it regeneration? Or is is perhaps justification? I will not say anything more for now on this verse.
Romans 4:5 seemingly addresses justification. But then let me ask, does it really? It does not say "his faith is counted for justification", but "for righteousness". The Greek has different words for these two things.
Let's look at Rom. 3:21 from YLT
And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets,
Paul here refers to the OT Scriptures. If the NT teaches "justification by faith IN Christ Jesus" then the OT must teach the same. Because the NT echoes the OT as to what it teaches on justification, and further elaborates upon it (the OT). Paul did not contradict the OT. Therefore I challenge any who holds to the Lutheran/Protestant/Evangelical scheme of justification to provide OT scriptures which teaches or seems to teach justification before God by or through an act of faith IN the Messias.
Harald
Harald,
Here is a link to something I posted as a result of what I was reading in the posts of some, to the best of my knowledge no one had the stomach to attack A.W. Pink on this.
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=000675
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
Here is a link to something I posted as a result of what I was reading in the posts of some, to the best of my knowledge no one had the stomach to attack A.W. Pink on this.
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=000675
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
Y
Yelsew
Guest
Helen and many others (INCluding you I think) have denied this. She says the sins were paid for whether man believes or not.</font>[/QUOTE]The Atonement covers the sins of ALL, not just the believers, for this purpose,
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Then it MUST follow that all will be saved.
This is the heresy of universalism which goes completely against scripture.
Blessings,
Archangel
Y
Yelsew
Guest
Then it MUST follow that all will be saved.
This is the heresy of universalism which goes completely against scripture.
Blessings,
Archangel </font>[/QUOTE]Archangel, You do not understand Atonement or its purpose. You did not read my post, or you would understand what I said. Please set aside you false doctrine long enough to see what is said.
The purpose of the atonement is the elimination of sin as a factor for judgment! ALL mankind will be Judged equally and fairly upon faith in God alone. Those who believe receive eternal life with Christ, those who do not believe are cast into the lake of fire, the second death.
Yes atonement is universal and it applies to ALL mankind. Judgment is also universal, ALL will be Judged.
Atonement is God's work for God's purpose of levelling the playing field so that ALL mankind is equal at the judgement. There being ONE factor and only ONE factor for the dispensing of God's Justice. That factor is FAITH. If you have faith in God and especially in His beloved Son, you are passed from death unto life. If you do not have such faith, you are passed into the second death.
Y
Yelsew
Guest
...and I suppose it doesn't really matter that two directly opposed statements are made in the space of two small paragraphs...... </font>[/QUOTE]I take it by your statement that you believe "Deeds" which are works are required for Salvation. Yes? Then you disagree with Paul who tells us, "for by grace you are saved through faith, and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest anyman should boast."
If passing from death unto life is a matter of works that are judged at God's Throne, then what is the purpose of faith? and what is the purpose of the atonement?
Y
Yelsew
Guest
You just don't like your doctrines challenged!Originally posted by Frogman:
more and more my visits here seem to show me that there is more of 'my doctrine' among men than there is of the Doctrine of God.
Bro.Dallas
Intead of throwing stones, why not engage and find out what is true.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Yelsew,
The atonement, however, was not meant to "Level the playing field." It was meant to accomplish something--namely the redemption of sinners.
When Christ was on the Cross, He had the sins (of the elect or of all mankind--based on your being a Calvinist or an Arminian) placed on Him. This constitutes payment. Either He paid for the sins of the Elect or all mankind. If He paid for the sins of the Elect, there is no condemnation for them. Why? Because their penalty (demanded by God) as been paid by Christ's substitutionary-penal death.
If, as you claim, the sins of all mankind were placed on paid for by Christ, then all mankind's sins were paid for. Therefore, there can be no condemnation for anyone. Why? Because all the sins were paid for by Christ.
This is why your position degenerates into universalism.
If it is the case were OUR faith determines our salvation, then it is a work. This cannot be the case. It is either all grace or not-grace. There is no middle road.
Now, in your response, please give a valid arguemet based on scripture or some Christian scholarship. If you return to the ad hominem arguement, you will prove that you are not capable of discussing matters in an intelligable manner.
Blessings,
Archangel
This is of no substance. It is an ad hominem arguement, pure and simple.
Will all mankind be judged? Will the believers go to heaven and the non-believers go to hell? Will we be judged on our belief in Christ? Yes to all--at least we agree on that.
The atonement, however, was not meant to "Level the playing field." It was meant to accomplish something--namely the redemption of sinners.
When Christ was on the Cross, He had the sins (of the elect or of all mankind--based on your being a Calvinist or an Arminian) placed on Him. This constitutes payment. Either He paid for the sins of the Elect or all mankind. If He paid for the sins of the Elect, there is no condemnation for them. Why? Because their penalty (demanded by God) as been paid by Christ's substitutionary-penal death.
If, as you claim, the sins of all mankind were placed on paid for by Christ, then all mankind's sins were paid for. Therefore, there can be no condemnation for anyone. Why? Because all the sins were paid for by Christ.
This is why your position degenerates into universalism.
See above. The judgement being universal--I agree.
No, atonement is God's work to remove His wrath and the subsequent penalty from us (man--either some or all--based on your theology). This is the whole idea of the biblical concept of "Propitiation." Atonement involves BOTH the removal of God's wrath from us and the payment for our sin.
If it is the case were OUR faith determines our salvation, then it is a work. This cannot be the case. It is either all grace or not-grace. There is no middle road.
Now, in your response, please give a valid arguemet based on scripture or some Christian scholarship. If you return to the ad hominem arguement, you will prove that you are not capable of discussing matters in an intelligable manner.
Blessings,
Archangel
Y
Yelsew
Guest
I take it you mean you want me to reply in the same form that you replied?