bibliology QUIZ

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Win, if you're going to deliberately ignore my explanations regarding what I consider your misunderstanding of the passages, there isn't any point in continuing. Your last post re-raises issues I responded to in my last post. You're offering nothing new, and you certainly aren't refuting anything I've said. So why bother continuing? If you decide you want to respond to what I've said, rather than rehashing old ground, we can go forward. But that last post doesn't do anything but repeat your previous points.

 

[Winman]

Win, if you're going to deliberately ignore my explanations regarding what I consider your misunderstanding of the passages, there isn't any point in continuing. Your last post re-raises issues I responded to in my last post. You're offering nothing new, and you certainly aren't refuting anything I've said. So why bother continuing? If you decide you want to respond to what I've said, rather than rehashing old ground, we can go forward. But that last post doesn't do anything but repeat your previous points.

I have answered you. You said that if I do not believe Adam's sin was imputed to us, then it would not be possible for Christ's righteousness to be imputed to us. That is totally false.

The difference is that I believe sin is imputed to us CONDITIONALLY when we sin like Adam. Likewise righteousness is CONDITIONALLY imputed to us when we believe.

Dr. MacGorman addressed your view and showed why it is error. This is a man who taught Greek for 56 years. He just might have understood the language here a little better than you.

“We want to know how men were made sinners by Adam's disobedience. Was it because all men were seminally present in the loins of Adam when he sinned, and thus inherited his guilt (Augustine)? Was it because Adam as the federal head of the race cast the wrong vote in Eden, and so rendered all men guilty before God (Cocceius)? We must affirm that there is no evidence for either of these theories of original sin in this passage. Indeed a study of both Genesis 3:1-24 and Romans 5:12-21 reveals that neither passage explains how the effects of Adam’s sin were transmitted to his descendants.”

“We know that the death of Christ on the cross does not automatically grant all men a right standing with God. In Romans 3:24-25 Paul made plain that Christ's accomplishment on the cross avails for us only upon the basis of our faith in him. We do not inherit salvation because of what Christ has done. Rather by God's grace we receive salvation through faith in Christ.

We do not inherit salvation through Christ's obedience apart from our personal involvement in faith. Nor do we inherit condemnation through Adam’s disobedience apart from our personal involvement in sin. Neither salvation nor guilt can be inherited.”

This is where folks go wrong with Romans 5:12-21, they are inconsistent. They want to apply Adam's sin "unconditionally" but apply Christ's righteousness "conditionally" when we believe. This violates Paul's form of argument, Paul is treating each side of each verse equally.

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

You cannot treat the first half of each verse unconditionally, and then treat the second half conditonally. This is inconsistent and error.

And that is where you are going off the tracks.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I have answered you.

Not in that last post, no. You simply repeated what you said in the post previous to that.

You said that if I do not believe Adam's sin was imputed to us, then it would not be possible for Christ's righteousness to be imputed to us. That is totally false.

Prove that Scripturally it is totally false. Telling me that isn't proof, it's opinion.

On one hand, we suffer the consequences of Adam's disobedience and have inherited a sinful nature from him, as I've repeatedly shown from Romans 5:12-19. But, where Adam sinned, we didn’t, to the extent we are punished for it. Nonetheless, we are affected by Adam’s sin. This is how. Before the fall, Adam was sinless, perfect, and good. He bore God's image. But, after the fall, he became a sinner. His nature was changed from "good" to "bad." Since we are his children, we inherit his sinful nature. Try as you might, you cannot dispense with Romans 5:12 as teaching anything but that fact. In this sense, we suffer for what Adam did. He caused his descendants to have sinful natures and all of us suffer because of it. This is called imputed sin. It means that we have inherited a sinful nature and that all of what we are as individuals (mind, body, soul, spirit, emotions, and thought) is touched by sin.

In addition, creation was also affected by the fall. God had given dominion of the world to Adam. Adam sinned and sin entered the world, again as it says in Romans 5:12. That means that death entered the world along with disease, pestilence, earthquakes, famine, as well as sin. They all have their root in the fall. That is why the Bible states that creation is longing for its redemption.

Romans 8, (NASB)
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.​

Are you going to tell me Adam's sin affected creation, except for his offspring? Does that really make sense to you? Unfortunately, your arguments thus far make it apparent it does.

The difference is that I believe sin is imputed to us CONDITIONALLY when we sin like Adam. Likewise righteousness is CONDITIONALLY imputed to us when we believe.

That's an Arminian argument and completely without merit. It supposes that men not only have a choice in Christ, but they also have a choice in sin. That's ludicrous.

Dr. MacGorman addressed your view and showed why it is error. This is a man who taught Greek for 56 years. He just might have understood the language here a little better than you.

MacGorman also claims that his view is the "traditional Southern Baptist view" and that is an outright lie, or gross error. So claiming imputed sin is an "erroneous doctrine" would be one of at least two errors he's made in his career.

This is where folks go wrong with Romans 5:12-21, they are inconsistent. They want to apply Adam's sin "unconditionally" but apply Christ's righteousness "conditionally" when we believe. This violates Paul's form of argument, Paul is treating each side of each verse equally.

It violates your interpretation of Paul's argument. Your interpretation is wrong. Paul also quotes Psalm 14:1-3 in Romans 3:10-12, assuring us that no one is righteous.

Romans 3, (NASB)
10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."​

That disproves your conditional imputation emphatically. If there was no imputed sin nature, then one could "choose" to do righteously. That's impossible.

You cannot treat the first half of each verse unconditionally, and then treat the second half conditonally. This is inconsistent and error.

And that is where you are going off the tracks.

As I've shown you, it is you who are being inconsistent, not I. There can be no conditional imputation, as it is obvious throughout the Bible that our sin nature, passed to us from Adam, will not allow it. So there is no inconsistency in what I believe. The inconsistency lies in your belief that there is choice in sin. Your problem is that you attempt to make Romans 5 stand alone, in order to tear it down. But is part of a progressive argument that carries from Romans 1:1 through Romans 7:25. There is no choice in sin. Sin is our nature. Christ is our answer. That is what Romans is all about.

 

[Winman]

Not in that last post, no. You simply repeated what you said in the post previous to that.

Now you are losing me, and I have no idea what you are asking for.

Prove that Scripturally it is totally false. Telling me that isn't proof, it's opinion.

You are asking me to prove what I believe? What kind of question is that? I believe sin is imputed to men when they willingly and knowingly sin. You will just have to take my word that is what I believe.

That's an Arminian argument and completely without merit. It supposes that men not only have a choice in Christ, but they also have a choice in sin. That's ludicrous.

What? You do not believe men have choice to sin or not? That would make God a liar, he told Cain that he had choice;

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

God not only implied Cain could do good, he told Cain that he would be accepted if he did good. If men inherit a sin nature from Adam, no one would have had a stronger dose than Cain, the very first man born after the original sin.

This utterly refutes your view.

MacGorman also claims that his view is the "traditional Southern Baptist view" and that is an outright lie, or gross error. So claiming imputed sin is "error" would be one of at least two errors he's made in his career.

That's your opinion. Most Southern Baptists believe man retains free will. In the recent document from the SBC several hundred Baptist pastors signed and agreed man becomes a sinner by his own personal sin.

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or renders any person guilty before he has personally sinned.

http://sbctoday.com/wp-content/uplo...al-Southern-Baptist-Soteriology-SBC-Today.pdf

Hundreds of Sourthern Baptist pastors hold a similar view to Dr. MacGorman.

It violates your interpretation of Paul's argument. Your interpretation is wrong. Paul also quotes Psalm 14:1-3 in Romans 3:10-12, assuring us that no one is righteous.
Romans 3, (NASB)
10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
That disproves your conditional imputation emphatically. If there was no imputed sin nature, then one could "choose" to do righteously. That's impossible.

This scripture does not say men are born sinners, nor does it prove inability. If I were to say that none of my neighbors ever goes to church, no, not one, would you understand that to mean they were unable to go to church? Nonsense, but that is how YOU interpret scripture, reading your presupposition into it.

This scripture actually refutes Original Sin, because it says they have "turned aside" which means they originally were not out of the way. It also says they have "become" useless which shows they were not born useless. The truth is right before you, but you are oblivious to it because you have been conditioned by false doctrine.

And again, Cain could have done well as I showed before. The scriptures absolutely refute your view.

As I've shown you, it is you who are being inconsistent, not I. There can be no conditional imputation, as it is obvious throughout the Bible that our sin nature, passed to us from Adam, will not allow it. So there is no inconsistency in what I believe. The inconsistency lies in your belief that there is choice in sin. Your problem is that you attempt to make Romans 5 stand alone, in order to tear it down. But is part of a progressive argument that carries from Romans 1:1 through Romans 7:25. There is no choice in sin. Sin is our nature. Christ is our answer. That is what Romans is all about.

That is ridiculous, Paul spends the first three chapters of Romans proving that all men are sinners because of personal sin.

Again, were men without the law guilty because of Adam's sin in Romans 2? NO, Paul clearly tells us they were guilty because they were a law unto themselves and violated the law written on their hearts. Paul did not even mention Adam in these first three chapters.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

What? You do not believe men have choice to sin or not?

Ironically, only in Christ. Before knowing him, they have no choice whatsoever. They will sin, even if it is in the slightest thought. Nonetheless, they will sin.

That would make God a liar, he told Cain that he had choice;

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

God not only implied Cain could do good, he told Cain that he would be accepted if he did good.

And even then, faith is what provided the "good" men do. You don't really think this boils down to the nuts and bolts of "I'll do this so I'll do good," and then the next day forget his "ability" to do that, do you? ONLY in Christ -- even before the cross -- was righteousness possible, and it was only based on "love God, love others" even before Moses wrote those words in Deuteronomy. You're really not grasping what the Bible teaches.

That's your opinion. Most Southern Baptists believe man retains free will.

As do I. It is not exclusive of imputed sin. Now I know you really don't get what the Bible teaches. This is a waste of time. But I will say, your citing of "several hundred pastors" who believe as MacGorman does is less than two percent of SBC pastors, so you're not really arguing from a very strong position of authority there.

 

[Winman]

Ironically, only in Christ. Before knowing him, they have no choice whatsoever. They will sin, even if it is in the slightest thought. Nonetheless, they will sin.

That is not what God implied when he spoke to Cain, he implied Cain could do well, and would be accepted if he did so. You can listen to Calvinism, I will listen to God.

And even then, faith is what provided the "good" men do. You don't really think this boils down to the nuts and bolts of "I'll do this so I'll do good," and then the next day forget his "ability" to do that, do you? ONLY in Christ -- even before the cross -- was righteousness possible, and it was only based on "love God, love others" even before Moses wrote those words in Deuteronomy. You're really not grasping what the Bible teaches.

Lots of talk, but it doesn't negate that God himself implied Cain could do well and be accepted. Again, I will believe God, you can believe Calvin, and Luther, and all those so-called Reformed "scholars". They must have overlooked Genesis 4. :laugh:

As do I. It is not exclusive of imputed sin. Now I know you really don't get what the Bible teaches. This is a waste of time. But I will say, your citing of "several hundred pastors" who believe as MacGorman does is less than two percent of SBC pastors, so you're not really arguing from a very strong position of authority there.

Right, you are a genius, and I couldn't possibly understand the scriptures.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

That is not what God implied when he spoke to Cain, he implied Cain could do well, and would be accepted if he did so.

And still, the only way he could "do well and be accepted" is by faith in God and have that faith reckoned (imputed!!) to him as righteousness. Abram did so, but he wasn't the first. He was merely the first of which the account of his saving faith is recorded in God's word.

You can listen to Calvinism, I will listen to God.

I adhere to the Bible, not Calvin. Not sure what you're adhering to.

Lots of talk, but it doesn't negate that God himself implied Cain could do well and be accepted.

To paraphrase Inego Montoya, "You keep using the phrase. I know it does not mean what you think it means." Done here. As I said three posts ago, waste of time.

 

[Winman]

And still, the only way he could "do well and be accepted" is by faith in God and have that faith reckoned (imputed!!) to him as righteousness. Abram did so, but he wasn't the first. He was merely the first of which the account of his saving faith is recorded in God's word.

Yes, he would have to trust God to obey him, and God implied he had the ability to do so, and that if he did obey he would be accepted. God did not tell or imply to him that he was incapable of obeying.

I adhere to the Bible, not Calvin. Not sure what you're adhering to.

I am referring to Total Inability. It actually goes back to Augustine, but Luther and Calvin are more famous for it's advancement as church doctrine.

To paraphrase Inego Montoya, "You keep using the phrase. I know it does not mean what you think it means." Done here. As I said three posts ago, waste of time.

Hey, don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I'll say this before parting: The Calvinists think I'm Arminian, the Arminians think I'm Calvinist.

I must be doing something right!! :laugh: :tongue3: :godisgood: :jesus:

 

[Winman]

I'll say this before parting: The Calvinists think I'm Arminian, the Arminians think I'm Calvinist.

I must be doing something right!! :laugh: :tongue3: :godisgood: :jesus:

And that's good, because the truth is somewhere in the middle.

But Original Sin is false doctrine, I could show you many more scriptures that would prove it, though they are not as direct. If you pay attention, you will see for yourself.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

This is a verse that is commonly cited to prove Original Sin, but it actually refutes it.

No piece of clothing starts out dirty, all clothing is originally pristine clean. No piece of clothing starts out as a rag, all clothing starts out whole. No leaf starts out dead and faded, all leaves start out green, tender, and alive. No leaf starts out on the ground blowing away, all leaves start out attached to the tree.

It is right there, but folks do not see it because they have been indoctrinated with false doctrine. Here is another;

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Like Jesus, Peter compared us to sheep going astray. Well, you have to be in the flock to go astray. Note that now we are "returned" to Jesus. If we are born separated from God as Original Sin teaches, then we could not be said to be "returned" to God, but that is exactly what Peter taught.

You can't return someplace you have never been.

Pay attention and you will see the scriptures constantly and repeatedly show us as not lost originally, but becoming lost or "going astray". You will see this over and over again if you pay attention.

It is difficult to change views when you have been taught falsehood all your life.

 

[OldRegular]

Why, he did all the work for me. He made the layup look as easy as pie.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

And that's good, because the truth is somewhere in the middle.

But Original Sin is false doctrine, I could show you many more scriptures that would prove it, though they are not as direct. If you pay attention, you will see for yourself.

Win, my brother and my friend -- and I say this with apology as I'm sure I've been snarky, churlish or ugly in our exchanges these last few days -- I've studied it extensively. Had I lived in the First Century, I would have been a Berean, as I take nothing, even from trusted pastors and teachers, without examining it for myself. I long ago settled the issue of whether I accept the concept of imputed sin through Adam, and I unequivocally accept it. It is truth, from what I can glean from Scripture. So we'll have to agree to disagree. I will not continue to bash your viewpoint or attempt to sway you, and I would ask that you not try to sway me, as I will not be swayed from this doctrine, and I do not wish debate to cause dissension or division between us or others. God bless, and let's move on. :thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

Win, my brother and my friend -- and I say this with apology as I'm sure I've been snarky, churlish or ugly in our exchanges these last few days -- I've studied it extensively. Had I lived in the First Century, I would have been a Berean, as I take nothing, even from trusted pastors and teachers, without examining it for myself. I long ago settled the issue of whether I accept the concept of imputed sin through Adam, and I unequivocally accept it. It is truth, from what I can glean from Scripture. So we'll have to agree to disagree. I will not continue to bash your viewpoint or attempt to sway you, and I would ask that you not try to sway me, as I will not be swayed from this doctrine, and I do not wish debate to cause dissension or division between us or others. God bless, and let's move on. :thumbsup:

Very well reasoned post...:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

So what do you believe and why? Explain. From looking at the posts on this board it is possible there is a division on these terms and many do not even know it because they have not studied this doctrine in depth. For example there are some here that deny the doctrine of original sin and do not believe the plain readings of scripture when presented on this doctrine. This is because they do not believe their Bibles. Or perhaps they do believe their Bibles, they just have issues with Hermeneutics and that is another possibility. Some great theologians believed in inerrancy and infallibility, but did not understand Hermeneutics which resulted in questionable interpretations.

have to define what is meant by terms Inerrancy/Infallibility first!

My view?

Originals were inerrant totally freed from ANY mistakes/errors

greek/hebrew texts today, used for translation intolanguages of versions of bible, Infallible as they have some errors/mistakes'corruptions: but sufficient close enough to originals that we can be confident that they are infallible, in that they can be trusted to tell us the truth in whatever doctrines and practices taught in there!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originals were inerrant totally freed from ANY mistakes/errors

greek/hebrew texts today, used for translation into languages of versions of bible, Infallible as they have some errors/mistakes'corruptions: but sufficient close enough to originals that we can be confident that they are infallible, in that they can be trusted to tell us the truth in whatever doctrines and practices taught in there!

So what you are saying is that inerrancy was not preserved by God, but infallibility has been. I can certainly agree with that.

Since inerrancy has not been preserved by God, why is it such as issue? Some claim that it is evidence of the divine nature of the scriptures, but I can write an inerrant shopping list (or any other document) and it does not prove anything about divine inspiration.

Inerrancy is too low of a view of scripture.

Scripture is living and active, energized by God through the Holy Spirit. It is not merely words on the page, but an aid for humankind to understand the mind and heart of God and enter into His kingdom life. Scripture does not fail to do (infallible) this when humankind decides to engage it with humility and obedient intent.

 

[Yeshua1]

So what you are saying is that inerrancy was not preserved by God, but infallibility has been. I can certainly agree with that.

Since inerrancy has not been preserved by God, why is it such as issue? Some claim that it is evidence of the divine nature of the scriptures, but I can write an inerrant shopping list (or any other document) and it does not prove anything about divine inspiration.

Inerrancy is too low of a view of scripture.

Scripture is living and active, energized by God through the Holy Spirit. It is not merely words on the page, but an aid for humankind to understand the mind and heart of God and enter into His kingdom life. Scripture does not fail to do (infallible) this when humankind decides to engage it with humility and obedient intent.

Inerrancy only applied to the originals, as they were the documents "God breathed"

Infallibility is what our bibles are, in that they give us accurate information regarding salvation, nature of God, all doctrines and practices etc....

2 errors to avoid here:

Do not hold to say what a barth would, that the bible "becomes" sacred txts to us ONLY when the Holy spirit reveals that to us, almost like its anormal book unless/until that happens!

Or neo orthodoxy, that holds the bible is accurate only when describing theolgy and doctrine, as inpiration did not extend to all of it, so even originals had some errors/mistakes in them!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Inerrancy only applied to the originals, as they were the documents "God breathed"

Yes, I understand that view very well. What you are saying is that you don't have access to an inerrant Bible today because you do not knowingly have any original texts available to you.

What good is a theory of inerrancy that does not include preservation of that inerrancy? That view of scripture is too low. The essence of it is that inerrancy is an essential characteristic of scripture for us to trust in it, but we can't trust the Bibles we have now since inerrancy was limited to the original manuscripts. It is actually a low view of scripture.

Infallibility is what our bibles are, in that they give us accurate information regarding salvation, nature of God, all doctrines and practices etc...

Sure. The Bible does not fail to do what it was intended to do.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The Bible does not fail to do what it was intended to do.

And just to clarify my response here, I understand the purpose of the Bible is to introduce us to the story of God interacting with humanity so that we may enter the Kingdom of God through the Triune action of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It provides an objective standard for faith and practice through the stories of God's earliest people through the description of the life and work of the early church in the Book of Acts, the epistles and the Revelation of Jesus Christ.