-
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!
Why do people ultimatively go to hell?
- Thread starter xdisciplex
- Start date
Brother Bob
New Member
Yes.......
Brother Bob
New Member
double.......
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
I sure hope i find a post from a Arminian that says Pelagius was off base. The last 6 months I have seen on the BB a switch from a Arminian plan and more toward a full Pelagius view. This free untained will with no sin nature is in no way part of our faith or found in the Bible. Pelagius was wrong. Man IS a sinner. There is not a "little good" in all men that only needs to grow. Even Charles Wesley and James Arminius held to a fall of man. Wesley and Arminius handled this in other ways, but at least they claimed that man has a sin nature.
Come on Arminian brothers, do not let me down on this. Is this a hero of the faith or a bad guy?
Come on Arminian brothers, do not let me down on this. Is this a hero of the faith or a bad guy?
Brother Bob
New Member
Click on my picture and read my profile.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
It appears that much of the thrust of this thread has been to show a connection between he imputed righteousness of Christ as being in like fashion to the notion of imputed sin. In discussing the issue with a very well able and kind individual, Southern, I brought to our attention the following question. It is very disappointing that Southern seems not able to continue our discussions. None the less, we move on.
As was stated in our discussions, Southern tried to reason from Romans chapter 5 that sin is imputed to us in like manner or by like principles as the righteousness of Christ is, by trying to draw a parallel from a realm not closely related to morals and then apply the created principle of federal headship to the arena of morals. I felt, and still do that this is not proper or wise to draw such a parallel, for there is no indication in Scripture or reason that such a parallel is proper to maintain and there is clear indications that it is completely improper to do so. I asked him to look at two clear passages of Scripture and to show us how he would harmonize these passages with his proposed link between his views or the views of Hodge that he set forth. This is what I asked him.
I would like for you to explain the texts in Duet.24:16 and the thrust of the entire chapter in Ezek.18 for the readers, and explain how they support this connection of imputed sin and subsequent guilt you say exists in Romans 5.
Would there be any willing that kept up with our discussions that might desire to give an answer to this question for the list? Of course I would prefer that Southern respond, but who knows, that may not be possible. At any case, I believe my question is worthy of an honest attempt of harmonization.
As was stated in our discussions, Southern tried to reason from Romans chapter 5 that sin is imputed to us in like manner or by like principles as the righteousness of Christ is, by trying to draw a parallel from a realm not closely related to morals and then apply the created principle of federal headship to the arena of morals. I felt, and still do that this is not proper or wise to draw such a parallel, for there is no indication in Scripture or reason that such a parallel is proper to maintain and there is clear indications that it is completely improper to do so. I asked him to look at two clear passages of Scripture and to show us how he would harmonize these passages with his proposed link between his views or the views of Hodge that he set forth. This is what I asked him.
I would like for you to explain the texts in Duet.24:16 and the thrust of the entire chapter in Ezek.18 for the readers, and explain how they support this connection of imputed sin and subsequent guilt you say exists in Romans 5.
Would there be any willing that kept up with our discussions that might desire to give an answer to this question for the list? Of course I would prefer that Southern respond, but who knows, that may not be possible. At any case, I believe my question is worthy of an honest attempt of harmonization.
Heavenly Pilgrim,
You have been shown good character throughout our discussion and I will respond one more time. I will offer some explanation on those verses out of respect for you. Thanks.
You showed basically three misunderstandings of my position that I hope you will from this point respond to and present accurately.
1.)You argued that I have not shown any connection between Adam and our condemnation. You stated:
I have indeed shown a connection clearly in Romans 5. You reject this connection without any plausible exegetical reason. In fact the explanations you have offered clearly contradict Paul’s focus and language in the chapter. (see my earlier critique of your position)
Paul says that we were made sinners (vs. 19) by the ‘one’ sin of the ‘one’ man.
You admit that a person is ‘made righteous’ by imputation, yet you reject Paul’s parallel that we are ‘made sinners’ in the same way we are ‘made righteous’ i.e. by imputation.
Verse 19 again:
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
2.)Next, you argued that the scriptures I presented, showing God judging through a representative, were only ‘temporal’ and not ‘eternal’ in nature. You stated:
Again, the point that I was trying to establish and did establish is the general principle of God judging people for what someone else (a representative) does. NOT that every time He does this it is necessarily of an ‘eternal’ nature.
This is a principle that pervades both the temporal (Jer. 32:18) and eternal realm (Rom. 5 ;1 Cor. 15), the OT (Exodus 20:5) and the NT (Matt. 23:32-36). So to point out that the examples were merely ‘temporal’ is beside the point.
3.)You next assumed that since our will is active in receiving the righteousness of Christ then it must therefore be active in receiving the imputation of Adam’s sin. You stated:
This argument is based on a misunderstanding and does not take into consideration the difference in our relation to Adam and Christ. I have already presented “why” the will is active in receiving the righteousness of Christ and how it differs from imputation of Adam’s sin.
As I have already stated, we do not ‘choose’ to be born of Adam, we are his descendant by ‘natural’ birth (Acts 17:26). However we are not born into Christ naturally but ‘spiritually’ (John 3). Your familial relationship must be changed, and this is done through the instrumentality of faith. We are born into Adam and reborn into Christ. If you disagree with my explanation from scripture, then please say so and state why you reject it without ever mentioning my explanation.
4.)Lastly, you asked about Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18 and how it relates to imputation. I have already shown in an earlier post why Ezekiel 18 does not contradict what I state. For the sake of time, I will quote R.L. Dabney’s response (which I agree with) to Deuteronomy 24:16 first and then Ezekiel 18 in the post immediately following this one.
:wavey: God bless us both.
You have been shown good character throughout our discussion and I will respond one more time. I will offer some explanation on those verses out of respect for you. Thanks.
You showed basically three misunderstandings of my position that I hope you will from this point respond to and present accurately.
1.)You argued that I have not shown any connection between Adam and our condemnation. You stated:
I have indeed shown a connection clearly in Romans 5. You reject this connection without any plausible exegetical reason. In fact the explanations you have offered clearly contradict Paul’s focus and language in the chapter. (see my earlier critique of your position)
Paul says that we were made sinners (vs. 19) by the ‘one’ sin of the ‘one’ man.
You admit that a person is ‘made righteous’ by imputation, yet you reject Paul’s parallel that we are ‘made sinners’ in the same way we are ‘made righteous’ i.e. by imputation.
Verse 19 again:
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
2.)Next, you argued that the scriptures I presented, showing God judging through a representative, were only ‘temporal’ and not ‘eternal’ in nature. You stated:
Again, the point that I was trying to establish and did establish is the general principle of God judging people for what someone else (a representative) does. NOT that every time He does this it is necessarily of an ‘eternal’ nature.
This is a principle that pervades both the temporal (Jer. 32:18) and eternal realm (Rom. 5 ;1 Cor. 15), the OT (Exodus 20:5) and the NT (Matt. 23:32-36). So to point out that the examples were merely ‘temporal’ is beside the point.
3.)You next assumed that since our will is active in receiving the righteousness of Christ then it must therefore be active in receiving the imputation of Adam’s sin. You stated:
This argument is based on a misunderstanding and does not take into consideration the difference in our relation to Adam and Christ. I have already presented “why” the will is active in receiving the righteousness of Christ and how it differs from imputation of Adam’s sin.
As I have already stated, we do not ‘choose’ to be born of Adam, we are his descendant by ‘natural’ birth (Acts 17:26). However we are not born into Christ naturally but ‘spiritually’ (John 3). Your familial relationship must be changed, and this is done through the instrumentality of faith. We are born into Adam and reborn into Christ. If you disagree with my explanation from scripture, then please say so and state why you reject it without ever mentioning my explanation.
4.)Lastly, you asked about Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18 and how it relates to imputation. I have already shown in an earlier post why Ezekiel 18 does not contradict what I state. For the sake of time, I will quote R.L. Dabney’s response (which I agree with) to Deuteronomy 24:16 first and then Ezekiel 18 in the post immediately following this one.
:wavey: God bless us both.
Last edited by a moderator:
Objections From Scripture.
A Scriptural objection is raised, from such passages as Deut. 24:16. It is urged with great confidence, that here, the principle on which Calvinists represent God as acting, (God the pure and good Father in Heaven,) is seen to be so utterly wicked, that imperfect human magistrates are forbidden to practice on it. I reply; it is by no means true that an act would be wicked in God, because it would be wicked in man. e. g., Man may not kill; God righteously kills millions every year. But second: the object of civil government is very different from that of God’s government. The civil magistrate does not punish sin in order to requite absolutely its ill–desert, (this is the function of God alone,) but to preserve the public order and well–being, by making an example of criminals. Now, of that element of guilt against society, the children of the murderer or thief are clear; for the magistrate to shed their blood for this, would be to shed innocent blood: i. e., innocent as to that element of guilt which it is the civil magistrate’s business to punish. Here, let it be noted, the punishment of Achan’s Saul’s, etc., children, for their fathers, was the act of God, not the magistrate. The cases were exceptional.
Objections From Ezekiel 18:1–23 Answered.
Again: it is urged with much clamor, that in Ezek. 18:1–23, God expressly repudiates the scheme of imputation of fathers’ sins to their posterity, for Himself, as well as for magistrates; and declares this as the great law of His kingdom: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." We reply: He does not mean to disclaim the imputation of Adam’s sin to the human race. For first: He does not mean here, to disclaim all principles of imputation in His Providence even as to parents and posterity subsequent to Adam. If you force this sense on His words, all you get by it is an irreconcilable collision between this passage and Exodus 20:5, and obvious facts in His providence. Second, if it were true universally of human parents subsequent to Adam, it would not follow as to Adam’s first sin. For there is a clear distinction between that act of Adam, and all the sins of other parents. He alone was a federal head in a Covenant of works. The moment he fell, by that act, the race fell in him, and its apostasy was effected; the thing was done; and could not be done over. From that hour, a Covenant of works became inapplicable to man, and neither parents nor children, for themselves, nor for each other, have had any probation under it. So that the case is widely different, between Adam in his first sin, and all other parents in their sin. Third: the Covenant to which this whole passage has reference was, not the old Covenant of works, whose probation was forever past, but the political, theocratic Covenant between God and Israel. Israel, as a commonwealth, was now suffering under providential penalties, for the breach of that political covenant exactly according to the terms of the threatenings. (See Deut. 28.). But although that was indisputable, the banished Jews still consoled their pride by saying, that it was their fathers’ breach of the national Covenant for which they were suffering. In this plea God meets them: and tells them it was false: for the terms of the theocracy were such that the covenant–breaking of the father would never be visited under it on the son who thoroughly disapproved of it, and acted in the opposite way. How far is this from touching the subject of Original Sin? But last: we might grant that the passage did refer to original sin: and still refute the objector thus: God says the son who truly disapproves of and reverses his father’s practices, shall live. Show us now, a child of Adam who fulfills this condition, in his own strength; and we will allow that the guilt of Adam’s sin has not affected him.
(taken from http://www.pbministries.org/R.%20L.%20Dabney/Systematic%20Theology/chapter29.htm )
Heavenly Pilgrim, for the sake of truth I want to encourage people (and pray you will too) to go to the following website that addresses your scriptural and philosophical arguments in more detail:
http://www.pbministries.org/R.%20L.%20Dabney/Systematic%20Theology/chapter29.htm
God has given the church teachers throughout history and R. L. Dabney has went into more detail on alot of the issues we have discussed. Plus hes from the SOUTH! :thumbs:
A Scriptural objection is raised, from such passages as Deut. 24:16. It is urged with great confidence, that here, the principle on which Calvinists represent God as acting, (God the pure and good Father in Heaven,) is seen to be so utterly wicked, that imperfect human magistrates are forbidden to practice on it. I reply; it is by no means true that an act would be wicked in God, because it would be wicked in man. e. g., Man may not kill; God righteously kills millions every year. But second: the object of civil government is very different from that of God’s government. The civil magistrate does not punish sin in order to requite absolutely its ill–desert, (this is the function of God alone,) but to preserve the public order and well–being, by making an example of criminals. Now, of that element of guilt against society, the children of the murderer or thief are clear; for the magistrate to shed their blood for this, would be to shed innocent blood: i. e., innocent as to that element of guilt which it is the civil magistrate’s business to punish. Here, let it be noted, the punishment of Achan’s Saul’s, etc., children, for their fathers, was the act of God, not the magistrate. The cases were exceptional.
Objections From Ezekiel 18:1–23 Answered.
Again: it is urged with much clamor, that in Ezek. 18:1–23, God expressly repudiates the scheme of imputation of fathers’ sins to their posterity, for Himself, as well as for magistrates; and declares this as the great law of His kingdom: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." We reply: He does not mean to disclaim the imputation of Adam’s sin to the human race. For first: He does not mean here, to disclaim all principles of imputation in His Providence even as to parents and posterity subsequent to Adam. If you force this sense on His words, all you get by it is an irreconcilable collision between this passage and Exodus 20:5, and obvious facts in His providence. Second, if it were true universally of human parents subsequent to Adam, it would not follow as to Adam’s first sin. For there is a clear distinction between that act of Adam, and all the sins of other parents. He alone was a federal head in a Covenant of works. The moment he fell, by that act, the race fell in him, and its apostasy was effected; the thing was done; and could not be done over. From that hour, a Covenant of works became inapplicable to man, and neither parents nor children, for themselves, nor for each other, have had any probation under it. So that the case is widely different, between Adam in his first sin, and all other parents in their sin. Third: the Covenant to which this whole passage has reference was, not the old Covenant of works, whose probation was forever past, but the political, theocratic Covenant between God and Israel. Israel, as a commonwealth, was now suffering under providential penalties, for the breach of that political covenant exactly according to the terms of the threatenings. (See Deut. 28.). But although that was indisputable, the banished Jews still consoled their pride by saying, that it was their fathers’ breach of the national Covenant for which they were suffering. In this plea God meets them: and tells them it was false: for the terms of the theocracy were such that the covenant–breaking of the father would never be visited under it on the son who thoroughly disapproved of it, and acted in the opposite way. How far is this from touching the subject of Original Sin? But last: we might grant that the passage did refer to original sin: and still refute the objector thus: God says the son who truly disapproves of and reverses his father’s practices, shall live. Show us now, a child of Adam who fulfills this condition, in his own strength; and we will allow that the guilt of Adam’s sin has not affected him.
(taken from http://www.pbministries.org/R.%20L.%20Dabney/Systematic%20Theology/chapter29.htm )
Heavenly Pilgrim, for the sake of truth I want to encourage people (and pray you will too) to go to the following website that addresses your scriptural and philosophical arguments in more detail:
http://www.pbministries.org/R.%20L.%20Dabney/Systematic%20Theology/chapter29.htm
God has given the church teachers throughout history and R. L. Dabney has went into more detail on alot of the issues we have discussed. Plus hes from the SOUTH! :thumbs:
Amy.G said:Bro. Bob,
May I ask what an Old Regular Baptist is?
Amy,
I would suggest that many of the Regular Baptist's of today are substantially different from the early Regular Baptist. (see Kenneth Good's "Are Baptist's Calvinists"; also the Philadelphia Confession and their relation to it)
Brother Bob
New Member
We came from the Separate Baptist split to United Baptist and then to Regular Baptist. Where we differ from Primitive Baptist is that the Old Regular believe that all men have a chance to go to Heaven through belief in Jesus Christ, repenting of your sins and being "born again". Our practice and faith is much like the Primitive Baptist with the exception of we believe God give man a choice of good or evil.
There are many Old Regular Baptist churches in the US but they differ greatly in belief and practice. So, to answer your question I can only give the part of the Old Regular Baptist that I am a member of which is mostly in Kentucky, Virginia, Tenn. Ohio, Fla, Mich, WV and some S C and N C.
I would never attempt to answer for all Old Regular Baptist for as Southern says, there have been many changes over the years.
Last edited by a moderator:
You ask me a question...and then answer for me. Do you really want an answer?
Do you ever compare Scripture with Scripture? What is the context, then, of what you say...
Joh 15:24If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.
Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Deu 24:16 "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
The idea is that they still went to hell! Surely you would not say they went to heaven would you? And go ahead and answer by all means. If you have a different answer than the one I supposed go ahead. While you are at it ask Paul the same question. In Rom. 9:19 He supposed obvious answers as well. Deut 24:16 is God's commandment to men! Not what God says of Himself. As I said before. Don't try to hold God to a standard put on man by God! He is not obligated to abide in the standards of man. God commands us to love our enemies & He puts His in hell. Can you claim that is unfair?webdog said:
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you believe all of the children in the flood went to hell?!? I highlighted something that's really important in regards to those who perish in that verse, and this was in reference to the gentiles.jne1611 said:
And to answer your question if I would send people to Hell forever...if the law stated that it is the just punishment for their refusal to have faith in Christ...the answer is yes. Are you a judge? I sure hope not! You sound like you would let murderers off the hook.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't believe a word of that answer. And no I would not let a murder off the hook, but I cant see anyone saying they would put them in hell forever that considered that question not trying to keep their argument solid. As regards the highlighted text. That means that prior to the law there was a standard that convinced men of sin. The law amplified it.webdog said:
I never supposed the babies all going to hell in my statement. I asked you could you judge them worthy of death as much as their parents.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP:I have never read a more preposterous statement as to the character of God. God has made it abundantly clear that He is Just, Loving, Truthful, Full of Mercy and Grace, Holy, Pure, Righteous, a God that will not perpetrate evil under any circumstances. This writer takes actions we know full well to be heinously evil and wicked, and states that if God does them they are holy and righteous acts. The author goes as far as to say that God murders MILLIONS every year! I can think of no more wicked blight to paint upon a Holy and Righteous God than this author paints.
Man is not told it is wrong to kill. Man is told it is wrong to murder. Man is ‘commanded’ to kill under certain instances, but never told or permitted to murder. If the author cannot discern the difference between killing and murder, he is a moral Neanderthal. To even consider for a minute that our Holy God would commit a pure act of selfishness in the act of murder is unthinkably wicked. To
say that He does it millions of times a year is beyond wicked absurdity. The author paints a picture of a cosmic butcher, not a Holy God. How could the mind of an intelligent man professing to love a Holy God say such things is a total and complete mystery to me. He simply is not thinking rational or morally.
HP: One of the problems with this author is that he fails to understand or demonstrate that in morals intent is that which rightfully incurs guilt or praise, whether or not it is an intent to selfishness or an intent towards benevolence. Surely God can, in His wisdom, due to His Infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, do that which we could not do due in light of our limited understanding, but that is a far cry from saying that God can commit murder when we are forbidden to. The motivations of murder are always pure selfishness, while killing can indeed be justified, especially when God takes the life, for we can rest assured that His motivation is NEVER selfish, and His acts are always pure and righteous altogether. I may not understand why God does certain things, but I can know ABSOLUTELY His intents and actions are in accordance to love. Yes God Kills, but never murders. Yes man can kill without violation of the law under certain circumstances. Yes killing is ALWAYS justified if God does it for He is love and all of His intents and actions are in accordance to His righteous nature. God would NEVER in a thousand years violate His own moral laws and act contrary to his own moral attributes. If God states it is sin for us, He would never operate from the selfish intents that merit His moral condemnation in men or angels.
We are commanded to be holy even as He is Holy. If Holiness consists in arbitrary intents of selfishness or holiness according to whatever whim happens to influence God at a particular instance, that would be the character we are commanded to take upon ourselves. What utter preposterously wicked notions that genders. God is no such God, and we are certainly not commanded to follow any such arbitrarily selfish and wicked pattern. God help us.
Last edited by a moderator: