The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Ok. I didn't think you a universalist to begin with. While, I don't agree with your assessment, I do understand more clearly what you're saying. I hope you are well.
Blessings in Christ,
The Archangel
-
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!
Best One-Volume Systematic Theology?
- Thread starter Mikey
- Start date
Ok. I didn't think you a universalist to begin with. While, I don't agree with your assessment, I do understand more clearly what you're saying. I hope you are well.
Blessings in Christ,
The Archangel
Thanks. I'll ponder on this.Do we correct those who are not wrong?
The bible seems to make a distinction between the two.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Doctrine (teaching) tells us what is right.
Reproof tells us where we are not right.
Correction tells us how to get right.
Instruction tells us how to stay right.
He does seem to hold to almost a primitive Baptist view on Evangelism and how to teach/preach the Gospel!
Christ is sinless and Perfect, He is God, He can be nothing less than perfect.
Romans 8:3
Mikey
Active Member
Why was Christ's Human nature not corrupted? Why was He not under original sin?
Technically speaking, i'm not saying that, Hence why i quoted Romans 8:3
IF Jesus had been born of the seed of Joseph, would have been a sinner though!
I think you missed the BIGGER picture. Christ is Born of God, because GOD is His Father. He is the Son of God. And that is why He is not a sinner. Yet He had the same flesh you and I have.
Same human flesh, NOT the same sin nature!
This is kind of a side point...While i agree He did not have 'sin nature' (i believe it is more biblical to say spiritually dead--hence our need to be 'born again'), i find it funny that you claim that Christ had sin nature when He was on the cross.
Last edited:
I typically agree. But with the reference I suggest i disagree (except that I think one should have a pretty good foundation before studying any systematic theology).
Too often people study to be indoctrinated rather than to truly learn and in the end they wind up looking like the theology they studied.
Indeed. Those who deny the validity of the Great Commission for us are usually either primitive Baptist or ultra dispensationalist.
Thank you kindly.
NO! rather, I claim that he who knew no sin become the sin bearer on our behalf, that he paid to God what we could not do ourselves!
So, in that he took on Sin, He took on sin nature? He became a sinner? what exactly are you saying?
Barth was not sound though on how he viewed either Election or doctrine of scripture!
Due to the Virgin Birth!
Hyper Calvinists also hold to no need to evangelize sinners, as the lost will be saved regardless if actually hearing the Good news!
No, for Jesus came in LIKENESS, not SAMENESS of human flesh!
Jesus, while on that cross, became the sin bearer, so while he never ceased to be either God or sinless, was treated by the Father as if He were!
That's not the point of the book I recommended (it wasn't about election or the doctrine of scripture).
And with Barth you sometimes have to ask "which one"?
