• 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!

Jesus Calling: New Age?

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I certainly think it is possible to listen to Calvinists. Sometimes they are spot on. Other times, not so much.

The caution we must consider is that Calvinists play fast and loose with scripture in order to bend it into supporting their mistaken man-made doctrine. But we we skip soterology (dreaded TULI) and end times (dreaded amillennialists) they can certainly help us to grow in our understanding of God's word.
 

Winman

Active Member
Okay I was wrong on WinMan.

My favorite commentary is Albert Barnes, he was Presbyterian and a Calvinist.

That said, he did not believe in Original Sin, just like me.

On Romans 5:19;

Albert Barnes said:
There is not the slightest intimation that it was by imputation. The whole scope of the argument is, moreover, against this; for the object of the apostle is not to show that they were charged with the sin of another, but that they were in fact sinners themselves. If it means that they were condemned for his act, without any concurrence of their own will, then the correspondent part will be true, that all are constituted righteous in the same way; and thus the doctrine of universal salvation will be inevitable. But as none are constituted righteous who do not voluntarily avail themselves of the provisions of mercy, so it follows that those who are condemned, are not condemned for the sin of another without their own concurrence, nor unless they personally deserve it.

I agree with what Albert Barnes said here concerning Romans 5:19 perfectly, and he was a Calvinist.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
My favorite commentary is Albert Barnes, he was Presbyterian and a Calvinist.

That said, he did not believe in Original Sin, just like me.

On Romans 5:19;



I agree with what Albert Barnes said here concerning Romans 5:19 perfectly, and he was a Calvinist.

Don't think one can be a proper Calvinist/reformed, and deny original Sin though!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Where in the world did you get the idea I espouse "Charismatic Theology"??? I'm not sure they even have a theology!!

I wasn;t, just was reacting to your posting about how was reformed theology to be seen as a better way to go?

Just saying that its much better then traditional Charasmatic views!
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Like I said, I'm not even sure they have a theology! And if'n they do, I ain't a subscriber.
If Benny Hinn is a representative of the Charismatic movement:
He believes there are nine persons in the trinity (three in each person).
That each believer is divine. "We are all little gods running around on this earth."
That Christ took on Satan's nature in the atonement.

You can find about more about the belief's of Benny Hinn here:
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/hinn/general.htm
 

Winman

Active Member
Don't think one can be a proper Calvinist/reformed, and deny original Sin though!

You'd have to ask Dr. Barnes, which might be tough. He was Presbyterian, that's about as Calvinist as you can get.

He simply couldn't find Original Sin in the scriptures and he was open about that.

And he was right.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
You'd have to ask Dr. Barnes, which might be tough. He was Presbyterian, that's about as Calvinist as you can get.

He simply couldn't find Original Sin in the scriptures and he was open about that.

And he was right.
Barnes on Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity - The object of this important verse is to express the deep sense which David had of his depravity. That sense was derived from the fact that this was not a sudden thought, or a mere outward act, or an offence committed under the influence of strong temptation, but that it was the result of an entire corruption of his nature - of a deep depravity of heart, running back to the very commencement of his being. The idea is, that he could not have committed this offence unless he had been thoroughly corrupt, and always corrupt. The sin was as heinous and aggravated "as if" in his very conception and birth there had been nothing but depravity. He looked at his, sin, and he looked back to his own origin, and he inferred that the one demonstrated that in the other there was no good thing, no tendency to goodness, no germ of goodness, but that there was evil, and only evil; as when one looks at a tree, and sees that it bears sour or poisonous fruit, he infers that it is in the very nature of the tree, and that there is nothing else in the tree, from its origin, but a tendency to produce just such fruit.
Are you sure about your hasty conclusions?
 

Winman

Active Member
Barnes on Psalm 51:5

Are you sure about your hasty conclusions?

Barnes was accused of heresy and tried because of his views on Romans 5;

Albert Barnes said:
All have sinned - To sin is to transgress the Law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all people have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all people are sinners, He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact - that all people experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, “All have sinned.” This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that people sin in their own persons, sin themselves - as, indeed, how can they sin in an other way? - and that therefore they die. If people maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?

Barnes simply said that Romans 5:12 does not say all men sinned in Adam, or that his sin was imputed to us.

Barnes admits all men have become corrupt, but he denies that the Bible anywhere teaches that Adam's sin is imputed to us.

And I agree with that, I believe all men will choose to sin and corrupt themselves. I do not believe Psa 51:5 is teaching that, and Psa 58:3 is hyperbole, newborn babies cannot speak, much less form the intent to lie. But all men when they mature will choose to sin.
 

padredurand

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
By his testimony and the testimony of someone else from 1910 I want to go open air preach in front of the Denver United Methodist Church about their hell bound false doctrine!!!

Hell-bound false doctrine? Because the are United Methodist or because they are Arminian? I'm asking with all sincerity. I really would like to know how you've come to this assessment of that particular church.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Barnes was accused of heresy and tried because of his views on Romans 5;



Barnes simply said that Romans 5:12 does not say all men sinned in Adam, or that his sin was imputed to us.

Barnes admits all men have become corrupt, but he denies that the Bible anywhere teaches that Adam's sin is imputed to us.

And I agree with that, I believe all men will choose to sin and corrupt themselves. I do not believe Psa 51:5 is teaching that, and Psa 58:3 is hyperbole, newborn babies cannot speak, much less form the intent to lie. But all men when they mature will choose to sin.

Again, no calvinist would deny original Sin as being a biblical truth, fo r if you had children, you know even as infants, their sin natures do act up!

And while barnes MIGHT have meant what you claim he did in that passage, DHK made it clear that he did hold to original Sin!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If Benny Hinn is a representative of the Charismatic movement:
He believes there are nine persons in the trinity (three in each person).
That each believer is divine. "We are all little gods running around on this earth."
That Christ took on Satan's nature in the atonement.

You can find about more about the belief's of Benny Hinn here:
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/hinn/general.htm

Many of their teachers hold to Jesus death was as a sinner, his divine side had left Him, and that he had to get born again in Hell!

They use that to reinforce since Jesus did His stuff as a birn again man, we can do the exact same things once born again!

Also, almost all hold to modern Prophets/Apostles, so there has been ongoing 'revelations" from the Lord, and of course, those all agree with them!
 
Top