Featured What happens to those who never hear abut Christ?

All sinned .....at one point in time.......in Adam.........one moment in time

 

"you were dead in YOUR trespasses and sins in which YOU once walked"

 

I think Jordan had a good OP.
Your response to it demonstrates how you allow your Calvinistic blinders to keep you from seeing the truth.

 

The aorist tense completed punticular action is used in the word "sinned" in Romans 5:12. The text does not say "all SHALL sin" but "all HAVE sinned" at one puntilar completed point of action, and contextually that is "THE SIN" introduced in verse 12 and further given the credit in verses 15-19 as the singular cause for all mankind being made "dead" and being made "sinners" - ONE SIN not many sins as you argue.

Moreover, the next two verses argue for that very point. There can be no sin without law as sin is the violation of the law and yet between Adam and Moses death reigned, meaning it was a violation of some law that had UNIVERAL consequences.

NO! it can be the law of conscience because infants died and that death is not the consequence of violating conscience as infants sometimes died in the womb or died before they could personally and indivdually discern right from wrong. So universal death cannot possibly refer to conscience. The only law is the law that was violated by Adam in verse 12 - Genesis 2:16.

Paul just said "and death BY SIN" and so infants had to violate some kind of law to suffer the "death" IN THIS CONTEXT which is "by sin."

Additionally, it is impossible for the INDIVIDUAL infant to sin like Adam, as Adam's sin was a willing knowing sin. Infants cannot sin like that as INDIVIDUALS and therefore the infants could have only sinned as ONE CORPORATE HUMAN NATURE in Adam. So dont' respond by the lame excuse that "see infants could not sin like Adam" as you are totally confusing INDIVIDUAL sin with CORPORATE union of human nature that sinned in Adam.

MOREOVER, the whole following context is about how THE SIN of one man MADE many BE DEAD. THE SIN of one many MADE MANY SINNERS. Your entire argument is the opposite of what Paul is saying. Your argument is MANY SINS are responsible for many being made sinners but Paul does not say that does he? Be honest!

 

Errrr, ahhh no & that aint a gonna force him to re-exam his faith. Save a cataclysmic event to people close to the heart, I'm a feared he is terminally focused on his POV & that aint a gonna change.

It is what it is!:tonofbricks:

 

That verse is also correct......but keep in mind the chicken came first....not the egg.

 

Looks as if it is you who need a spiritual eye exam......His posts and theology are very solid.
You cannot even begin to find fault with it.

 

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (All means all simply because all are born with a sin nature. We are depraved. We inherit a sin nature. This is the accepted teaching of the depravity of man both in the Bible and throughout historic orthodox Christianity--I hope we can agree on this much).

Salvation is through Christ alone. There is only one way to be saved. That way is through the blood of Christ. Any argument so far?

Now realize that God does not condemn a man for not having heard the gospel; he condemns him because we are dead in sins (Eph.2:1), because we are sinners (Rom.3:23), and there is only one way to be saved and that is through Christ (John 14:6).

God has done all that he could and at infinite cost. He loved us so much He died for us. What more could he have done. He paid the ultimate price. That price, that payment for salvation is sufficient for ALL men, that is ALL who will accept, all, no exclusions.
(Don't give me that election c.r.a.p.). Salvation is for all who will receive it.
We have no right to challenge God.

In His divine wisdom He has charged those of us who know and understand this message to spread it to those who don't. They are as we were, "dead in their sins." The Bible says they are "without excuse." They (or we) cannot blame God.

There is a possibility that some of them, perhaps a minority of them will trust the Lord if someone goes to them. Remember that only about 3% of those present trusted Christ on the Day of Pentecost. And they all had a background in the OT Scriptures.
But that puts the burden on us. We who have been born again are duty bound must see that these ones receive the gospel that they have never heard. We have the keys of the gospel, the keys of eternal life. How are we using them?

The question you or I may not be able to answer is this: Why did God in his infinite mercy, allow you and I to hear the message of salvation, while others have never heard. I don't know. The immediate response ought to be one of praise and thanksgiving to the Lord that he has allowed me to hear His word and opened my heart as He did Lydia's to receive His Word.

God is both sovereign as well as just. In his justice he has condemned us ALL for our sins. There are no exceptions here. In his mercy he has provided a way of salvation. There is no other way of salvation. But since that mercy is completely undeserved no one (not you, and not any Calvinist emphasizing the elect), can question God's right to reveal that message first to whomsoever he pleases.
One cannot rejoice in that good news selfishly. If it comes to us first, then we have an obligation to pass it on to others who have never heard it before.

 

DHK

Okay...

DHK......have you lost your mind???

You speak of the great biblical doctrine, the great blessing of God in this way???
{"]Don't give me that election c.r.a.p.} No wonder you get part of the verses correct and then go off the rails.....I frankly am stunned that you view biblical revelation in these terms....This is the most ungodly post I have seen on BB.

To speak of scripture in such a profane way is beyond the pale.

 

So if yours is the chicken, we can't be dead in our sins, we were dead in Adams. Can't be dead in both.

 

So does that mean you are in opposition to that post of mine? I think even your Primitive Baptist brothers would take you to task if you objected to it. But you're just a rabble-rouser anyway.

 

Go line by line in that post of mine and dare to disagree.

 

The doctrine of election as pertaining to the Calvinist point of view is wrong. I believe in election and could take the time to go through it if I had the time or the desire but I don't.
Perhaps the phrase "can't teach an old dog new tricks" could apply, but I am sure there are more apt idioms.
Suffice it to say that the doctrine of election applies to the saved and not the unsaved is what I believe.
John R. Rice once wrote a book entitled: "Predestined to HELL, NO!" I think that was the name of it. I agree. The Calvinist view is a warped view. I am not a Calvinist and am under no obligation to accept or refute Rippon's post. If he would like to he can refute mine instead.

 

Since I Made My Post First -By All Rights...

Hey! Don't give me that election _ _ _ _ ! ;-)

Your methodology is so transparent. I made a post --a very biblical one. You think it is objectionable --but you don't want to take it apart. So you are into drive-by posts.

 

hello WD,

Well Adams chicken was first..maybe it gave births to many chicks....

We all sinned in Adam as our representative...then we confirm that fact by the mountain of sin we commit...going forth from the womb speaking lies...

we are sinners by imputation and experience...you can say twice dead apart from God's mercy

 

He is not having a good night at the keyboard:laugh::laugh:

I do not understand how he says he can possibly believe the doctrine and speak of it in that way???? It made the apostle Paul bless and praise God's name....not quite the same response.

Do you notice how non cals even hate the terminology and go to great lengths to avoid it?

Some speak of God's nature, or God's character to avoid the clear teaching of Unconditional Election of individuals as if God cannot do what he will with His own.

Instead of seeing it for the great blessing it is....they accuse God of being unfair, which is exactly Pauls answer to such objectors in Romans 9.

 

In case you didn't get it the subject of this thread is:

If you want to carry on about election go to the Cal/Arm forum. I addressed the OP, and the title of the thread. You are off topic and seem to ignore it. Any good reason for an attempt to derail the thread into Calvinism??

 

A little history refresher is what you need DHK. In the history of this thread :

Jordon was the first to mention Calvinism --yes the author of the OP said :"your doctrine of Calvinism" in post 14.

EW&F spoke of "legalistic Calvinists" in post 25.

Rippon, in response told the above that he was a quasi-Calvinist in post 29.

DHK spoke of "Calvinistic blinders" in post #43.


DHK spoke of "Calvinist emphasizing the elect" in post 48.

DHK yet again brought up Calvinism in post 53 "The Calvinist view is a warped view."

DHK not having his fill of mentioning what he himself brings up every chance he gets -speaks negatively of Calvinism in post 57.

 

Lol......Is that the way it happened?

Those who do not hear.....have to be perfectly sinless at the white throne or go into the second death.

 

I just responded to the content of your post. Looks like you introduced that theme into this thread.....:thumbs::thumbs: