The Damning Sin and Salvations Offer

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Many purport that the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ. Some of those claim that those in the OT were saved just like those in the NT. My question deals with what Scripture states in the OT was the cause of the sinners separation from Christ. I only desire to see Scriptural responses from the OT as to the cause of the malady of sin and what is at the heart of our separation from God. If you do not know or cannot find any clear references, you can simply plead ignorance.

If we are saved the same way as those in the OT, i.e. by faith, would not it be reasonable to assume that we are lost in the same manner as those were in the OT? Again, do not post your dogma unless you have a Scriptural foundation for it. Again we are looking for the cause of sins malady as recorded in the OT or that speaks to those in the OT.

As far as the rejection of Jesus Christ as the damning sin, it would seem to have several problems, specifically in view of those gentiles in the OT. How were they to hear of the Messiah, being banned from the temple an not even being an object of the covenant God gave to the Jews? If God desired to give the gospel to the Gentiles in the OT, He sure had a peculiar way of showing it. Does not Ephesians paint an opposite view of that purported by some that state God grants to all men the opportunity of salvation and that the damning sin is the rejection of that offer?
Ephesians 2: 11 ¶ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Does not this passage state clearly that the Gentiles, at least as a whole, were alienated from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God? Where do we find that God offered all the Gentiles in the OT the right to partake of his covenant with the Jews? If an uncircumcised Gentile even tried to enter the sanctuary he would have been killed, would he not? Again, a strange way to offer the same hope to all as some proclaim is the case.

If the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ, how were the Gentiles to reject an offer that they had specifically been alienated from?

 

[BobRyan]

Kay started a thread "What does this mean" about Matt 18:9 "If your right hand offend CUT it off for it is BETTER to enter into heaven lame than to go into hell fire"

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1092836&postcount=1

Is that not in fact the condemnation of sin and the threat of the loss of salvation?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Kay started a thread "What does this mean" ……Is that not in fact the condemnation of sin and the threat of the loss of salvation?

HP: I fail to see the direct relevance of her thread and your question to this thread. Why not simply address the issues I am raising? Try answering the questions I pose here directly. For starters, how could the damning sin be the rejection of Jesus Christ, especially in the case of the Gentiles of the OT, if in fact the Gentiles were excluded, alienated from the covenant made with the Jews in the OT according to Scripture?

 

[Dan V.]

Many purport that the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ. Some of those claim that those in the OT were saved just like those in the NT. My question deals with what Scripture states in the OT was the cause of the sinners separation from Christ. I only desire to see Scriptural responses from the OT as to the cause of the malady of sin and what is at the heart of our separation from God. If you do not know or cannot find any clear references, you can simply plead ignorance.

If we are saved the same way as those in the OT, i.e. by faith, would not it be reasonable to assume that we are lost in the same manner as those were in the OT? Again, do not post your dogma unless you have a Scriptural foundation for it. Again we are looking for the cause of sins malady as recorded in the OT or that speaks to those in the OT.

As far as the rejection of Jesus Christ as the damning sin, it would seem to have several problems, specifically in view of those gentiles in the OT. How were they to hear of the Messiah, being banned from the temple an not even being an object of the covenant God gave to the Jews? If God desired to give the gospel to the Gentiles in the OT, He sure had a peculiar way of showing it. Does not Ephesians paint an opposite view of that purported by some that state God grants to all men the opportunity of salvation and that the damning sin is the rejection of that offer?
Ephesians 2: 11 ¶ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Does not this passage state clearly that the Gentiles, at least as a whole, were alienated from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God? Where do we find that God offered all the Gentiles in the OT the right to partake of his covenant with the Jews? If an uncircumcised Gentile even tried to enter the sanctuary he would have been killed, would he not? Again, a strange way to offer the same hope to all as some proclaim is the case.

If the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ, how were the Gentiles to reject an offer that they had specifically been alienated from?

Sinners in all ages are seperated from God because of sin.

Gen3:23 "Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man...."

Psalm5:8-10 "For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue. Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee."

One attribute of God which needs to be considered is His sovereignty - in this case, with respect to saving men. In short, He will save His elect, in time, by the means He has decreed. This started on a very smalle scale, then grew to Israel, then to all the corners of the earth as the gosple is preached.

Since He owes even the chance to hear the gospel (Romans 10) to no one, the fact that He grants it to some means that He is both merciful and sovereign.

Romans 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Do you really want God to be fair with you?

Dan V.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DanV: Psalm5:8-10 "For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue. Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee."

HP: I am just wondering how far you will try and go with this passage. Who are the ‘them’ mentioned? Is David considering himself as one of them? Is he making a universal statement as to the condition of all mankind?

DanV: Since He owes even the chance to hear the gospel (Romans 10) to no one, the fact that He grants it to some means that He is both merciful and sovereign.

HP: In this I agree.

DanV: Romans 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

HP: That clearly indicates to me that all have not nor will receive the same offer from God dealing with salvation, although it is true that God provided for man a salvation that is indeed sufficient to save and atone for the sins of the entire race. God invites all through the finite means He has chosen, man cooperating in sharing the message.

DanV: Do you really want God to be fair with you?

HP: First, what does it matter what I desire or you desire? God will be God. He is just. The word ‘fair’ means a lot of different tings to different people. Some obviously feel that in order to be fair God must grant His salvation to all on an equal basis. I do not believe that is necessitated by being fair in the least. What I do believe God is under necessity to do IF He is going to blame and punish me for moral failure, is to grant to them all the requisite abilities needed to determine their intents including a free will to choose between two or more alternatives. I believe Scripture clearly represents God as doing this. In this light I know God is indeed fair with everyman.

 

[Dan V.]

HP: I am just wondering how far you will try and go with this passage. Who are the ‘them’ mentioned? Is David considering himself as one of them? Is he making a universal statement as to the condition of all mankind?



HP: In this I agree.


HP: That clearly indicates to me that all have not nor will receive the same offer from God dealing with salvation, although it is true that God provided for man a salvation that is indeed sufficient to save and atone for the sins of the entire race. God invites all through the finite means He has chosen, man cooperating in sharing the message.



HP: First, what does it matter what I desire or you desire? God will be God. He is just. The word ‘fair’ means a lot of different tings to different people. Some obviously feel that in order to be fair God must grant His salvation to all on an equal basis. I do not believe that is necessitated by being fair in the least. What I do believe God is under necessity to do IF He is going to blame and punish me for moral failure, is to grant to them all the requisite abilities needed to determine their intents including a free will to choose between two or more alternatives. I believe Scripture clearly represents God as doing this. In this light I know God is indeed fair with everyman.

Comparing scripture with scripture, Paul quotes Psalm 5 to describe all men outside of God's electing grace.

Man lost his ability to do any good, and are guilty in Adam (Romans 5:12). God's requirement of perfect obedience remains the same because God does not change. He does not lower the standard.

Again, man always has choices before him, to do good or evil. Being born evil, hating God, he will never pursue God, nor do that which is good as He has defined it. Thus he lost his ability. Man can not not love whom he already hates.

One rare exception is John the Baptist in the womb - evidence of sovereign regeneration.

Sincerely,

Dan V.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DanV: Again, man always has choices before him, to do good or evil. Being born evil, hating God, he will never pursue God, nor do that which is good as He has defined it. Thus he lost his ability. Man can not not love whom he already hates.

HP: You have babies being born hating God. That is as evil as it is absurd. There is not a shred of evidence that such is the case. You speak of choice, then you say we have lost the ability. Which is it? It cannot be both at the same time in the same sense. Necessity and choice are at antipodes with each other. If you believe in necessity say so, but please do not confuse yourself and others that somehow you believe in choice. If one hast lost the ability to do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances, choice cannot be predicated of his actions. To think otherwise is paramount to predicating choice to a rock being kicked off of a cliff, suggesting that the rock, on its way to the ground, somehow has formulated a choice to hit the ground.

If when formulating our theology and mental philosophy, we would keep this one simple and true God-instilled principle at the forefront of our minds, we would not error in the matter of predicating or eliminating choice. If there is only one possible consequent for any given antecedent, choice is impossible to be predicated of an action or intent. Choice can only be predicated of an action or intent when two or more consequents are possible under a given antecedent.

John the Baptist is inded an unusual case. Who knows the state of his birth? If indeed he was born filled with the Holy Spirit, why would he need to be regenerated? Possibly the state he was born in has something to do with another difficult or dark saying regarding him. Jesus said, Lu 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." I simply have no solid explanation of this mystery. 'Possibly' he was indeed Elijah incarnate. This topic might make a great thread.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Many purport that the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ. Some of those claim that those in the OT were saved just like those in the NT. My question deals with what Scripture states in the OT was the cause of the sinners separation from Christ. I only desire to see Scriptural responses from the OT as to the cause of the malady of sin and what is at the heart of our separation from God. If you do not know or cannot find any clear references, you can simply plead ignorance.

If we are saved the same way as those in the OT, i.e. by faith, would not it be reasonable to assume that we are lost in the same manner as those were in the OT? Again, do not post your dogma unless you have a Scriptural foundation for it. Again we are looking for the cause of sins malady as recorded in the OT or that speaks to those in the OT.

As far as the rejection of Jesus Christ as the damning sin, it would seem to have several problems, specifically in view of those gentiles in the OT. How were they to hear of the Messiah, being banned from the temple an not even being an object of the covenant God gave to the Jews? If God desired to give the gospel to the Gentiles in the OT, He sure had a peculiar way of showing it. Does not Ephesians paint an opposite view of that purported by some that state God grants to all men the opportunity of salvation and that the damning sin is the rejection of that offer?
Ephesians 2: 11 ¶ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Does not this passage state clearly that the Gentiles, at least as a whole, were alienated from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God? Where do we find that God offered all the Gentiles in the OT the right to partake of his covenant with the Jews? If an uncircumcised Gentile even tried to enter the sanctuary he would have been killed, would he not? Again, a strange way to offer the same hope to all as some proclaim is the case.

If the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ, how were the Gentiles to reject an offer that they had specifically been alienated from?

The idea that the only damning sin is unbelief is false. As I estimate, it is really those who hold to univeral redemption that hold this idea if they believe in a substituionary atonement. Otherwise, under what grounds are men damned? They only have unbelief to fall back on. To which is replied, isn't unbelief sin?

Men, in whatever age or time, are damned for their sins.

God did not offer all Gentiles under the Old Covenant the right to partake with the Jews. God chose a people and left the others. As the Scripture you mentioned, they were alienated and without God and without hope in the world. By eternal election they were included and brought in in the fullness of times, that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs with His people--grafted in.

There is prophecy in the OT speaking to this but none understood it until the time of Christ and His Apostles. This also is the plan of God, to reveal this mystery at the end of the age.

I can go back and provide the Scriptures if you like, but a reading of Ephesians, Colossians, and Hosea should be enough for anyone to recognize this truth.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: You have babies being born hating God. That is as evil as it is absurd. There is not a shred of evidence that such is the case. You speak of choice, then you say we have lost the ability. Which is it? It cannot be both at the same time in the same sense. Necessity and choice are at antipodes with each other. If you believe in necessity say so, but please do not confuse yourself and others that somehow you believe in choice. If one hast lost the ability to do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances, choice cannot be predicated of his actions. To think otherwise is paramount to predicating choice to a rock being kicked off of a cliff, suggesting that the rock, on its way to the ground, somehow has formulated a choice to hit the ground.

If when formulating our theology and mental philosophy, we would keep this one simple and true God-instilled principle at the forefront of our minds, we would not error in the matter of predicating or eliminating choice. If there is only one possible consequent for any given antecedent, choice is impossible to be predicated of an action or intent. Choice can only be predicated of an action or intent when two or more consequents are possible under a given antecedent.

John the Baptist is inded an unusual case. Who knows the state of his birth? If indeed he was born filled with the Holy Spirit, why would he need to be regenerated? Possibly the state he was born in has something to do with another difficult or dark saying regarding him. Jesus said, Lu 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." I simply have no solid explanation of this mystery. 'Possibly' he was indeed Elijah incarnate. This topic might make a great thread.

That men are free moral agents, choosing or refusing what seems good or evil them, none deny. Manking acts without compulsion in accordance with their desires or inclinations. Who is denying this? How does a man choose what he does not prefer to choose?

That God is Sovereign over the entire creation, both of material and the mind, of both the wicked and the righteous, we cannot deny--Scripture proves it. Scripture abundantly reveals God's influence on the minds of men and His Lordship over material things. Does the Evangelical Arminian deny this? No. God's influence prompts virtuous action and thought.

The real issue we are debating is how God exercises His Sovereignty over all things without interfering with the free agency of men. Or, how God's influence on men in bringing salvation will lead to a certain performance of it without destroying human freedom.

We conclude that God does exert His influences unto certain and preordained ends. He WILL do all His pleasure. To assert that this necessarily destroys human freedom must be proved by the one making the assertion, and perferrably by Scripture. We can prove both human freedom and Divine Sovereignty by Scripture.

But how the Spirit operates we cannot claim to understand, for "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." John 3:8

The Scriptures gives us no precept that God cannot give eternal life to whom HE will, but the contrary. If the "arminian" thinker supposes God does use His influences is bringing men to regeneration, it falls on them to explain how and to what degree this influence is exerted before it destroys the freedom of men. What is the exact amount that is exerted before free agency is destoyed? Can anyone fix the limit? If not, how can we know when the limit is passed?

Regeneration is the creation of God, for "We are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Does the thing created assist in the creation?

Let us then affirm the things revealed in Scripture: Man's free agency and God's absolute supremecy over all things. And let us not delve into mysteries that are not given to men to know.

RB

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RB: Let us then affirm the things revealed in Scripture: Man's free agency and God's absolute supremecy over all things. And let us not delve into mysteries that are not given to men to know.

HP: The problem is that you are trying to hold to ideas that are absolutely contradictory. Either God created man to be the first cause of his intents, or God is. Which is it. If God determines all outcomes, he is responsible for them. If God created man to be the cause of his intents, then man is responsible. You are entertaining an absurdity to say that man is free and responsible if in fact God is the cause.

In theology we can entertain many uncertainties, but we should never entertain absurdities. We may error as a philosopher or a theologian, but our duty should be to eliminate all absurdities as either. You cannot say that man is free and say that God determines all things. Again, which is it? Are you holding to determinism or freedom?

It is good to note that human freedom clearly has its limits. God can overrule our freedom any time He so desires. Just the same, if God is going to blame or praise man, ‘in those things’ freedom of the will must exist. Not freedom to do as one wills, but freedom to be a first cause of ones mortal intents. Deny that man is the first cause of his moral intents, and you have just eliminated morality as it pertains to man. Deny that man is the first cause of his intents and one places a great injustice upon the Just character of God, for such would establish that God punishes man for an unavoidable fate of God’s own making.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: The problem is that you are trying to hold to ideas that are absolutely contradictory. Either God created man to be the first cause of his intents, or God is. Which is it. If God determines all outcomes, he is responsible for them. If God created man to be the cause of his intents, then man is responsible. You are entertaining an absurdity to say that man is free and responsible if in fact God is the cause.

In theology we can entertain many uncertainties, but we should never entertain absurdities. We may error as a philosopher or a theologian, but our duty should be to eliminate all absurdities as either. You cannot say that man is free and say that God determines all things. Again, which is it? Are you holding to determinism or freedom?

It is good to note that human freedom clearly has its limits. God can overrule our freedom any time He so desires. Just the same, if God is going to blame or praise man, ‘in those things’ freedom of the will must exist. Not freedom to do as one wills, but freedom to be a first cause of ones mortal intents. Deny that man is the first cause of his moral intents, and you have just eliminated morality as it pertains to man. Deny that man is the first cause of his intents and one places a great injustice upon the Just character of God, for such would establish that God punishes man for an unavoidable fate of God’s own making.

Herein is where you do err. That the Scriptures reveal both the free moral agency of man and God's absolute sovereignty as true. To percieve in inconsistancy, or to be unable to reconcile or understand the two, is a problem with the human mind not the doctrines of God. For us who hold to the Scriptures as the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God, we are compelled to accept the teaching of Scripture as God gives it. Example after example in Scripture give us a clear picture of men acting freely and God's eternal purpose being accomplished in both the righteous and the wicked. THere are instances where GOd said He was fullfilling His purpose through a particular nation and king and that king didn't even know it. The king was acting according as he willed, all the while doing exactly what God had foreordained to be done.

In this we see that God is neither the author of sin and evil nor is He reduced in His absolute sovereignty over all things. Neither is the free agency of men destroyed or their wills forced. This is the revelation of Scirpture.

The fact that you cannot reconcile it does not make it untrue. You argue from your own sense of logic and morality. You seem to forget that God's ways are not your ways, and His thoughts are not your thoughts. His ways are higher than your ways, and His thoughts higher than your thoughts. When the apostle Paul behled God's ways in cutting off Israel (though a remnant remained) that the Gentiles might be grafted in, and that their falling has become the salvation to the Gentiles, he did not fret over trying to understand it. He praised the wisdom and depth of God in His ways and declared how high and lofty they are, even to past finding out.

You have replied with "if's" and reasoning and not with Scripture. We have both proved the aboslute soveregnty of God both by Scirpture and reason.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RB: Mankind acts without compulsion in accordance with their desires or inclinations.

HP: The question is not whether or not man chooses according to their selfish desires and selfish inclinations, for all sinners do. The question is, do they possess, at least at some point in their life, the abilities of choosing in another direction. If they do, then following their desires is indeed their choice and as such is not acting out of force or coercion. If they do not have the abilities of contrary choice, again at some point and time in their lives, then force, and or coercion, is unavoidable. Why? Because there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent. That always, in whatever realm you are dealing in, constitutes force or coercion. There is no exception. That is a principle of truth given to us by God Himself.

You believe, as I understand you, that ones sinful nature does indeed determine the direction one must choose. That is shear determinism at its core.