1. 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!

Adam's sin

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Helen, Apr 22, 2003.

  1. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    OK, here’s a try at responding person by person. I have spent at least two hours putting this together. I would beg those who read it to read it with some care simply out of courtesy if nothing else:

    Brother Dallas: Two points, both from the Bible and not from me:
    1. It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
    “Today, if you hear his voice,
    do not harden your hearts.”

    Hebrews 4:6-7

    Thus I would first point out to you that “a long time” before David the gospel was preached to people. Therefore yes, Christ’s sacrifice had to do with all people from all time since creation. This is emphasized in Revelation 13:8 when Christ is referred to as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

    2. When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place ONCE FOR ALL by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption … Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared ONCE FOR ALL at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
    Hebrews 9:11-12, 25-27

    Please note that “once for all” appears twice. The second time is in direct reference to the entire history of man, immediately following, as it does, “since the creation of the world.”

    Christ’s sacrifice took away the sins of the world (as in the above, he did away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.). Anything less would have left His work unfinished. He stated, Himself, however, from even before the Crucifixion, that there would be one sin that could not be forgiven, and that one sin has directly to do with the free will He Himself gave man at the creation of man. The one sin that could not forgiven was the rejection of the truth of Christ. This was the sin of the Pharisees who considered him from Satan. Shown the truth, they rejected it. This also ties in directly with Romans 1. It also is explained so very clearly so many places in the entire Bible (consider the phrase “And Abraham believed God and he credited it to him as righteousness…”), but perhaps most explicitly stated by Christ Himself in John 3:

    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believed stands condemned already BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF GOD’S ONE AND ONLY SON.

    As Jesus told us, there is, truly, one sin that could not be forgiven. But He did not say it was not atoned for! Consider that. The debt was paid, even for rejecting Him, but the person who rejects Christ puts himself out of range of forgiveness from Christ. All that is rejected, and Christ respects that free will – for His gifts are without repentance – including that one! Is this heretical? Not according to Luke 17:3-4

    ”If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgiven him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” -- In other words, forgiveness is connected to repentance.

    I know this goes against Calvinism, but this is exactly what the Bible is saying!

    Would it be better for people never to hear the Gospel? Of course not! Without it, they are liable to all kinds of deception which could destroy the time God gave them here! The Gospel is the truth, and leaving people in deception even for a time under any pretext is wrong. How can they obey Christ if they don’t know Him? And if they cannot obey Him, how can the truth then set them free? Why would anyone want to leave anyone else in bondage once second later than possible? People may refuse the freedom the truth offers, but that does not ever mean we should not offer the truth!

    In the section of the thread regarding whether or not Eve conceived before the Fall, that is HIGHLY doubtful since Cain, the murderer, was her firstborn. In your argument against that pre-sin conception, you forgot, I think, the best argument you had: the Bible. In Genesis 4:1, we see that “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain” comes AFTER chapter 3, the chapter in which Adam and Eve sin.

    I’ll respond to the Cain’s wife question when I get to Scott!

    To Ken the Spurgeonite: I do not believe, personally, a child is ever ‘innocent.’ Children sin. That is not the point at all. The point is, however, that they sin unintentionally, or without intention. They sin as a result of sin nature, not as a result of conscious rebellion. Do they need a Savior? Of course they do! However it was Jesus who said the little children are His, not Helen! It was Jesus who said their angels in heaven always see the face of the Father, not Helen! It was God who decreed the age of 20 as being the age of accountability in the Exodus, not Helen! It was God who established the series of sacrifices for unintentional sins, not Helen! It is the Bible which tells us Jesus was the one sacrifice for all, not Helen! And it was Paul who said that before he knew the law he was alive, not Helen! It was Paul who talked about those who reject the truth they are given, not Helen! It was Jesus who declared Himself the Truth, not Helen!
    It was also Jesus who said men are condemned for not believing, not Helen!

    Our sins certainly deserve hell for us, but Jesus took all that away on the Cross. To say that we go to hell for our sins now is to deny His work on the Cross. Please show me one place in the Bible where we are told that any man will go to hell because of his sins. I can find plenty of places where condemnation is a result of unbelief, however.

    Yes, I do know there will be eternal torture (Matthew 25: 46, etc.) – but that is for rejection of Christ. Christ took care of sins. And yes, at this point I know I have some very dearly loved members of my family who will not be in heaven, and my heart is totally burdened for them. And yet, I also find myself, as time goes by, starting to accept. But even the idea of accepting such horror is difficult. Nevertheless, they have rejected Christ. All of us, however, sin. What is ‘really gross’ is not that their sins are already atoned for, but that they are refusing this free gift from our Lord. It is their refusal which will send them to hell.

    At least that is what the Bible says…

    And I do not disagree that everything the unsaved person does or says is not ‘contaminated’ by their sin nature, but I will argue that not everything they do or say is sin. Sin is disobedience against the law, for it is the law which defines sin – at least according to Paul. A child sitting at the table eating with the family is not sinning, is he? Or are you going to presume that even while eating dinner he or she has a head full of sinful thoughts instead of maybe paying attention to something daddy or mommy is saying?

    And for you to say that everything we think, do, or say is contaminated by our sin nature even after we are saved is in direct contradiction to Paul’s clear statement in Romans that “You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.” It also contradicts his statement that we have the mind of Christ. It also contradicts what Paul says in Romans 8:9 regarding the fact that those who are Christ’s are controlled by the Spirit. Yes, it does appear that you and I have radically different theologies!

    Can I sin? Of course I can – and do! But I am no longer controlled by sin and I am, more and more, becoming conformed to the image of Christ, as all those who are born again in Him are predestined to be. And as I am more and more conformed to that image, I find myself more and more capable of a sort of praise that is pure and not at all contaminated by sin – because, to quote one of my favorite songs, “Even the praise comes from You [God].” As Christ works in and through me through the agency of the Holy Spirit, those works are not at all contaminated, but are His.

    You say I do not take the impact of sin nature in our lives seriously enough, or the ramifications of it. I think I do. I am a Christian because there was a time in my life when God showed me the true condition of my heart and I ‘threw up’ spiritually. I was totally revolted by what I saw, and sickened to the core of me. I saw what sin had done to me. I can see what it does to others. Please do not judge what you think I do or do not know about sin nature! I know it is a killer. And before that it maims, distorts, tortures. The ‘mother of all Sadam’s’ if you like!

    But I also know that God freed me from its grip and has put His own Holy Spirit in me, who is daily transforming me, and my whole being praises Him for that.

    OK, Pastor Larry, here we go again!

    First, I am a biblical Christian. Please quit throwing your Aristotlean pigeon-holing at me and read what I actually say instead of jumping to conclusions about things because of a few words here or there which are buzz words for you.

    The separation of the Ten Commandments from the rest of the Hebrew law is VERY clearly delineated by God in Deuteronomy. If you had taken the time to bother to read the Bible studies Barry and I are doing right here on Baptist Board, you would have seen where we pointed that out.

    Deuteronomy 5 closes with the instructions from God that more laws will be coming, but that they will be for this people alone to follow in the land they are being given to possess for themselves. This is an important distinction between the Ten Commandments and the laws which follow. The Ten Commandments are universal: each individual man has the ability to obey or disobey without societal sanctions. But the law for Israel which comes after is different. Look closely at what God says about it in the final verses of chapter 5 of Deuteronomy:

    ”Go, tell them to return to their tents. But you stay here with me so that I may give you all the commands, decrees and laws you are to teach them to follow in the land I am giving them to possess.”

    [Moses then adds] So be careful to do what the Lord your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to the right or to the left. Walk in all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days in the land that you will possess.


    The one point that should be added here is that although the laws which will be following are not commanded for society today, they nevertheless form a basis of what is right and good in a society and which have been used by a number of countries and involves what has come to be known as “the Judeo-Christian ethic.”

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=43;t=000082

    Next, you wrote to me, “The Bible teaches that we all sin. And we are all responsible for that sin. The reason we sin is because of our sin nature. We are accountable for our sin.”
    Of course we are all accountable for our own sin. I have NEVER argued against that. My argument in this thread in particular is that we are not accountable for ADAM’s sin! We have the consequences of our sin natures due to his sin, but we are not held accountable for the decision he made to disobey so long ago in the Garden of Eden! That is the whole point of this thread! Maybe you do not believe we are held accountable for Adam’s sin, but for those who do believe that, they are also saying we carry some responsibility for the fact that Adam sinned. And if we are responsible for Adam’s sin in any way, and are thus charged with it as being responsible, then why not apologize to God for your part in it? Certainly, being sorry for what you have done is part of repentance, is it not?
    Or perhaps your concept of being charged with something does not imply responsibility for it? That is strange to me, for if I am charged with a crime, that does mean I am being held responsible to some degree for it!
    On to unborn babies – I am not arguing they are not conceived having a sin nature. I am saying there is no way a baby can sin in the womb! First of all, he does not have the neurological connections to understand even what a law is! And, according to Paul, it is the law and his subsequent response to it which caused his spiritual death! Nor is the baby in the womb capable of doing anything but moving and developing!
    I would also say that the idea of conscious choice is clearly indicated by Paul in Romans 7 as well as by the entire concept of the need for sacrifices for unintentional sins in the Old Testament. “Choose this day whom you will serve” also implies a VERY conscious choice!
    I would still argue that death is the consequence of sin, not the punishment for it. Christ took the punishment for it and those of us who are in Him still die physically! Are we to be punished also for what He took the punishment for? Or do we simply still have the consequences to deal with? I argue for the latter, for God is just, and once the price has been paid, it has been paid. When it was paid by Christ, it was paid in full.

    You then referred to Revelation 20:11-15 and 21:8. Revelation 15 states that the lake of fire is for anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life. Would you agree that those who are adopted into the family of God are those whose names are written in the Book of Life? If you are willing to agree to that, then I would refer you to John 1:11-13: He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

    In other words, those who believe are those whose names are in the Book of Life. I read nothing there about sinning. I am assuming you honestly believe, then, that Jesus did NOT pay the price for sins! Might I ask you what He was on the Cross for, then, according to your theology? Had He not sacrificed Himself on the Cross, then yes, we would all be condemned because of our sins. But that payment for our sins was precisely what He DID accomplish on the cross. Now we can only be condemned for rejecting that truth.

    As far as Rev. 21:8 is concerned, please note that the unbelieving – who are, by the way, the cowardly – are also those who practice the acts mentioned immediately after. The believer would never be involved in any of that. Sin is the RESULT of the sin nature in man. When a man chooses to keep his sin nature, in defiance of Christ, then those works are going to manifest themselves, for, as Christ also said, from the heart issue the words and actions of a man. Their sins are as much a fruit of their spirits as our good works are of ours. They are not condemned because of their fruits. They are condemned because of the entire tree of unbelief which ended up yielding those fruits, as Paul also says in Romans 1. A tree may be identified by its fruits, but it is not condemned because of them. It is condemned to the chopper’s ax and fire because it is the KIND of tree that produced those fruits.

    You then accuse me of dismissing Scripture with ease. And yet I would submit that everything I have said I have backed up with Scripture – and Scripture in context. I would also submit that it is my husband and I who are taking the enormous amounts of time the Bible study requires, and that you are not even making comments and have obviously not even read anything we have dealt with. Please do not accuse me of dismissing Scripture! I daresay, in some areas, I seem to know it better than you do. You did not seem to be aware of the statements by God in Deuteronomy separating the Ten Commandments from the rest of the law!

    Finally you asked if unbelief is a sin. Yes. It is also atoned for by Christ. However unless repented of, it cannot be forgiven. You are confusing atonement with forgiveness. They are different. I, for instance, could pay all your debts monetarily, which would atone for them. But unless you apologized for having put both of us in that position, and even though my heart might want to forgive you, as long as you did not want that forgiveness, you would not have it. It would be yours to accept or reject, regardless of either the condition of my heart or the amount of money I might have paid to get you out of debt. It is the same with Christ. The sin of unbelief is atoned for, paid for – but forgiveness is another matter altogether.

    To Scott Emerson:
    No, the Bible is not silent regarding the conception of Cain. It is given in the beginning of Chapter 4 of Genesis – immediately after the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.

    Now you asked who Cain married. Yes, his sister. There were no genetic defects then. In fact, incest was not defined or forbidden until the time of Moses. Instead we find just the opposite occurring: it was preferred to marry within the close family. You will find, as was already mentioned, that Abram was married to Sarai, his half sister. When their child, Isaac, was of age to marry, Abraham sent his servant back to the family group to find a wife for Isaac from within the family group. This was also the choice Isaac and Rebekah had for Jacob, and Esau’s marriages outside the family group were quite distressing to his parents.

    Like all parts of the Old Testament, we find this is a picture of a spiritual truth given in the New Testament: what has light to do with darkness? We are not to be unequally yoked, but to marry a brother or sister in the Lord.

    Genetic defects, getting back to the first generations of men, tend to build up somewhat slowly, as sexual reproduction gets rid of most mutations. In addition, the explosion of the fountains of the deep at the time of the Deluge (Genesis 7:11) would have brought up the first radioactive materials known to man, thus exposing Noah’s family to strong radioactivity immediately after the Flood. Thus we also find that the age expectancy drops by half immediately after that – a sure sign that there has been genetic damage. And yet even that was not enough to endanger children of family marriages. It took until the time of Moses for the genetic defects to build up enough so that there was a danger if a man married his close relative.

    If, by the way, there had been children born before sin, then Paul would have been lying when he stated that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Brother Dallas viewed this concept as the beginning of error. I disagree with him only in that I view it as the result of error… smile.

    And while I don’t know about when Adam sinned relating to his time spent in the Garden, I do know that they were obedient up until that time, as disobedience is sin, and that they had been commanded by God to be of one flesh, which is taken as meaning sexually active. So although they may have been sexually active, conception did not take place. Since Eve was without a doubt fertile, there is at least that indication that they were in a state of sinlessness for only a very short time. In addition, the beginning of Genesis 4 may be indicating (nothing I would argue for, but something that should be mentioned) that this is the first time Adam lay with his wife.


    Finally, toBob Ryan: I am not arguing that all do not die, Bob, even though Enoch and Elijah didn’t! (Or perhaps they will on the streets of Jerusalem during the Tribulation?)

    Nor am I arguing that children do not need our Savior. I think you have not read what I have written too carefully?

    However, a new birth is only needed if one has died. Paul indicates in Romans 7:7-11 that he did not die until he knew the law, at which point “sin sprang to life”, he rebelled against the law consciously and deliberately, and then died spiritually. I do not see how a new birth is needed, however, for someone who has not yet died spiritually. Will that child with his sin nature intact be in heaven should he die as a child? No, for ‘we shall all be changed.’ They will be fixed and made right, too. By virtue of the work of Christ.

    =======

    For anyone interested, Barry put up my response to Calvinism on his website here:
    http://www.setterfield.org/calvinism.htm
     
  2. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't remember the post this is in reference to; but you misread my belief. I do not beleive that Adam knew his wife Eve until after the fall, by this is the sin nature passed to all men, except the man Christ Jesus. This is my argument and I believe Scott's is that this is an argument from silence. If I misquote Scott from my misunderstanding then I ask you folks to forgive me, no one knows my fallibility better than I do myself, but never have I supported that children were born to Adam and Eve prior to the Fall. If my post reads as such then it is because I left out the proper words to show.

    Now in answer to the charge against Calvinism, I do not believe these doctrines teach anything other than the need to proclaim the Gospel message to all men. But nowhere in Scripture are we given license to permit men to make a choice they are unable to make in their bondage to sin. I believe we are born into this bondage and we sin because of this bondage, not that we enter into the bondage because we sin, nor that we are inclined to sin, but that we are sinners because we are born sinners.

    I know the Gospel was preached from the beginning of time. If you will read the first three verses of Genesis you will find the Gospel message in this; and now we have such a large group of unregenerate people in the church they cannot take the Spiritualizing of Scripture, this is how things were taught to our fathers, through types and shadows.

    I do appreciate the time you have put into your response, when I get time I will read your response to calvinism on the posted url. I think it was you who responded to my "hebrew servant" post. I apologize for not having the time to post what I believe that portion of scripture to be teaching. We have been absent from our home and I have not taken the time to enter the post. I will though, my studies will end in two weeks and I will be able to address it better then.

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas [​IMG]
     
  3. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Brother Dallas, I was trying to buttress your argument regarding the conception of Cain, not go against it! Oh for decent wording on my part... [​IMG]

    About being able to make a choice even though one is in bondage to sin. One may not be able to do anything about one's bondage, but even a slave can wish he were free. That wish comes free to him. That is the free will issue as I see it. We can want something even when we are powerless to do anything about it. So yes, we have a choice about what we want. We may not be able to achieve it, but God judges the heart, right?

    Jesus did everything. We could and can do nothing. But our wants, our wishes, are free for us to want and wish as we will.

    I am accused of being Arminian, Pelagian, etc. etc. ad nauseum. But I DON'T think man can save himself or help himself or maintain his own salvation or anything else. But he can want to be free or refuse the offered freedom -- this is the free will issue as I see it, and the point on which we will ultimately be judged. It is ours to accept or refuse. All the work, however, has been done by Christ.

    Just wanted to make that clear.

    I think one of the mistakes Calvinism makes is to equate spiritual death with spiritual unconsciousness. This cannot be true or hell would have no meaning! The spiritually dead person is one who is separated from God, just as the physically dead person is one who is separated from his body. Death is separation, not unconsciousness of the spirit. Therefore the spirit, even though unsaved and spiritually separated from God, or dead, is still in a position where a response is possible, or God would NEVER have been able to have Isaiah quote Him in Isaiah 1:18-20 as saying that.

    I do agree with you that we are born in bondage to sin. That does not make us guilty of being in bondage, though! We did not chain ourselves, but were born in that condition (and conceived in that condition). It makes as much sense to accuse a baby of being guilty of being a sinner as it does to accuse me of having freckles on my face! Now, if those freckles were sins, and there was a way to get them erased and I refused that when I was old enough to make some kind of decision about it, then yes, that would be sin. But just having the freckles in the first place is nothing I could help. Neither can any of us help being born in bondage to sin. And you simply cannot in any form of justice or fairness punish a person for something he has absolutely no control over!

    As far as any lengthy responses, I know this is the time for studies. My daughter is already panicking over her finals. Don't worry about the time it will take! If all this has disappeared into oblivion, feel free to start a new thread... [​IMG]
     
  4. The Archangel

    The Archangel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    233
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Helen,

    I feel left out. You didn't respond to my earlier post. :(

    I read the link you posted. It is very interesting and I am hoping that I will be able to post some things pertinent to the subject. I'll probably start a new topic, however, when I do respond.

    Blessings,

    Archangel
     
  5. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm sorry Archie, I didn't see anything that needed to be responded to!

    If you and I are agreeing, we had better be careful, eh? :D
     
  6. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen,

    Sorry, perhaps I misread your post and jumped to the conclusion that you thought I proposed Adam had children prior to the fall.

    In my view of being in bondage, perhaps the slave could wish to be free, but the bondage is so complete that I believe the slave does not realize he/she is not able to 'freely' choose any form of true freedom. Instead, they will set about in developing works of righteousness. I believe it thus becomes the task of believers and especially those called to preach, to witness to the true Gospel at all times that God opens the opportunity, but to permit the Lord to draw those whom He would call to Himself.

    An example I can give you is my own son.

    I had been given an appointment to preach in a Baptist church 30 miles from our home in a community where my wife's family live. They are all Methodist or Christian in denomination. In fulfillment of the appointment I preached and afterward the pastor of the church preached. After his sermon, my youngest son (8 years old at the time) who was sitting beside me grabbed my arm. When I looked down at him he was crying. I thought something was hurting him and I asked him what was wrong. He looked at me and stated that God was fighting the devil out of his heart. I asked him if he wanted to pray and he said yes. He and I and the pastor prayed literally as the church was departing. Immediately after this, my wife's family, the 'Arminians' in doctrine scolded me for permitting him to do this, stating that he was 'too young.' The worse part is that they did this in his presence and this discouraged him for three years. I remained supportive of him, but refused to tell him that what happened that day equalled his salvation, I remain certain that God is able to condone the souls of all who are seeking.

    Last fall he again came under conviction at our home church and at this time he gave his experience and that experience was found at the first episode, it had been stifled by those who support, teach and believe man's free-will. In our Great nation, they have this liberty, but I am thankful that the Lord has put me and my family in a place where the Gospel is preached and where the Spirit is depended upon to deliver any of whom He Will. Now I have one of three children who know the power of God and not just the form thereof. This is why I stay clear of the 'free-will' theory. There is no depth in it and as far as I am concerned it is a bucket so full of holes it can hold no water.

    Was it Calvinism's doctrine or the doctrine of Arminians' "age of accountability" which discouraged this thirsting soul?

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas
     
  7. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Helen,

    Refusing the command of God to come to Jesus in repentance and faith is a sin. Why do you not understand that it is a sin to disobey a command of God?
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will respond to only a part of it since most of it is not worth my time today. I have some other pressing issues.

    There is a discipline called historical theology which addressses what people believed in history and what that belief was called. People who believed what you believe about this point have been called Pelagians for over 1500 years. If you do not wish to be that, then change your belief, but don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about. I have shwon you the proof in other places. This is not Larry's idea. I didn't even know what Pelagianism was for a long time. Then I studied it. In other places I posted direct quotes about Pelagianism that say exactly what you say. That you reject that or are unfamiliar with it does not change the fact of it. I am sorry you respond so negatively to it. If it really bothers you, then study history and find out what orthodox theology has said about your views and at least accept the labels that describe what you believe. I accept them. I am a Baptist, Fundamentalist (INcluding separatist), calvinist, etc. And I don't reject it when I am called that because I understand what they mean. IF someone said I was a Pelagian, I wouldn't whine about it. I would show why I am not a Pelagian by contrasting their views with mine. As I have said, your view is not entirely pelagian but on one particular point it is.

    While that view is prevalent among some, it is certainly not beyond contradiction. In the Bible, the "Law" is the the "Law." There is no division in that Law. We are not denying that there are different aspects to the Law, but it is all "the Law." It existed as a whole and was expected to be kept as a whole. Paul (Gal 5:1ff) and James (Jas 2:10) both agree that the Law exists as a whole and to enforce one part was to enforce it all (Gal 5) while breaking one part was breaking all (James 2). It cannot be separated from the rest of it.

    NOr am I denying the usefulness of the standards in the ten commandments. But we obey them because they are eternal in nature, not becuase they are a part of the 10 commandments. Your distinction is a secular one, not a biblical one.

    Without going deep here because of time, this distinction will not stand in light of the whole of Scripture about the Law of Moses. Hpeefully in the future, you will have time to work through this. BTW, I don't read the Bible Study forum but I am glad that you and Barry take the time and put the work into that. I am sure many people are blessed by it. (I wrote this before I saw you slam me for not reading and participating.)

    The poitn of Rom 5 is that we are held accountable for Adam's sin. That is why we die, both physically and eternally. IF Scripture didn't say it, I wouldn't take the time to respond to this discussion. But Scripture makes clear that we sinned in Adam because he is our federal head. That makes possible our righteousness in Christ. I still think you have not properly reckoned with that. The parallelism of Rom 5 refutes your view. We become righteous the same way we become sinners. That is the whole point. If we, as you say, become sinners by our own acts of sin, then we can only become righteous through our own acts of righteousness. Yet that is impossible. Therefore, just as we became sinners in Adam with all that that brings, so we become righteous in Christ with all that that brings. This cannot be overlooked in order to maintain a view.

    Then on what basis do people spend eternity in hell for sin? You just blow right over the passages that teach people go to hell for their sin. For instance you say that the unbelieving are the cowardly, but John is listing sins. It is not the structure that you have tried to make it. YOu have a God who sends people to hell for sins that have already been paid for. I reject that view of God as unjust.

    Very bad assumption. I do believe JESus paid for sins. I can't see how you believe that though. YOU believe that Christ didn't really pay for them but only somehow made a payment possible. YOu believe that his death was not really efficient but requires an act of repentance on the part of man. I believe his death was efficient for sins and totally satisfied the wrath of God. This is serious stuff that you are amazingly saying. I cannot believe the stuff that is being written here.

    To be, in the words of John, the propitiation for our sins. He satisfied the wrath of God for us and removed it. But he did not do that for all. His death was sufficient for all but not efficient for all. That is the only reason why some go to hell.

    An awful lot of people would disagree with you. I don't think you have dealt with Scripture in context at all with respect to this becuase your position will not allow it. YOu still have not dealt with REv 20:11-15 which explicitly refutes you and your attempt at Rev 21:8 is interesting (as I will show in a minute). They are in hell for their sins. That bad fruit showed their nature to be sure. So they are in hell for their nature?? And everyone has a sin nature, they are born with it as you say. And so you have jsut singlehandedly refuted yourself. You have just made mankind accountable for the sin of Adam because their sin nature (for which they are sent to hell according to you) came from Adam. They are cut down by the axe because of the kind of tree that they were, which they were born as. Can you not see how you have just contradicted yourself? I incidentally would agree with what you said about Rev 21:8 for the most part though I would probably word it differently. But in your statement is the contradiction of your position.

    I read about 3 or 4 forums at most on here. I don't have time for it. I spend too much time on here now. I read the stuff I am interested in and post if I am interested. I say you have dismissed Scripture, not because of your comments there, but because of your comments here. Until you show the fruit of not dismissing Scripture, what else am I to believe? That is not an accusation but I really don't appreciate your comments that somehow I should feel compelled the visit the Bible study forum. My point is that Scripture teaches something very different than what you believe about this and I wish you would change because I AM quite sure Scripture will not. You probably do know Scripture better than I do in some ways. I appreciate your diligence in many areas.

    So people go to hell for something Christ atoned for?? You distinction between forgiveness and atonement is distinctly untheological in the sense you are using it in here. Atonement is the satisfaction of debt, meaning that debt can not be charged. The debt is forgiven.

    So now you have denied the sufficiency of Christ's death and placed the merit for salvation in the lap of man. I reject that at face value. I do believe that repentance is a necessary thing. But it is a certain thing for those to whom God grants it (Rom 2:4; 2 Tim 2:24-26).

    I think that perhaps you did not really think through this. When you pay my debts, you are not the one who forgives them. The creditor is the forgiver, not you. It doesn't really matter what you think about my "putting us in that position." What matters is that the creditor has received his money. He can no longer come after me because I point to you and to the receipt and say "She paid it and you wrote the receipt." If he were to sue me, I can point to the payment and say, "You already got it." There was a better analogy from your side of the equation. You could have said that you would give me the money to pay my debt and then it is up to me to accept it or not. (However, that would essentially put in the position that was defended at the Council of Trent and I don't think you are there either).

    You are confusing the emotional forgiveness of human relations with the judicial/forensic forgiveness of God. When Christ paid for sin, it was done.

    Again, your confusion about these theological issues has led you down a wrong path. You have not reckoned with the implications of what you are saying. YOU are picking and choosing which Scriptures you will use and which you will ignore. YOU are failing to understand the context of the arguments of Scripture, such as Rom 5, etc. These things lead to bad theological positions. But I don't imagine this will make much of a difference. It is admittedly deeper than I intended it to be and deeper than most people are interested in going.

    Helen, I appreciate your zeal about these many theological issues and hope and pray that you will continue to study the word of God and serve him with great passion. I strive to do that myself and often find myself failing. But I am thankful that we serve a merciful God, no matter how much we might disagree about how he does some things.
     
  9. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen,

    You alluded to Isaiah 1.18-19 to show a 'free-will' choice offered to man from God. I disagree.

    How does this show a free-will in an individual who is in bondage to sin?

    Bro. Dallas [​IMG]
     
  10. DanielFive

    DanielFive New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    0
    ... Bingo!

    Wouldn't a greater spiritual application apply to Jesus Christ... Who as the second man Adam from heaven took upon himself the sins of his bride... Chosen before the foundation of the world and laid down his life to save his beloved?... Brother Glen [​IMG] & [​IMG] Sister Charlotte [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Great Post Brother Glen.

    God Bless

    Enda
     
  11. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I find it amazing Helen that you state on the one hand that Jesus has borne the penalty for unbelief and then on the other hand state that man will also receive the penalty for unbelief. You are saying you believe that God will punish two separate people for the same offense.

    Also, I believe you misunderstand what is involved in atonement. In Jesus' atonement, He provided justification so that we stand in a right relationship with God based on Jesus' perfection - just as if we ourselves had never sinned and just as if we had always been perfect. God will not, indeed cannot, punish one whom Jesus' atonement has justified.

    Atonement also provides propiation so the that the wrath of God has been turned away from us because of what Jesus has done. God will not, indeed cannot, punish one from whom His wrath has been turned completely away.


    Also, substitution took place in Jesus' atonement as our sins were placed on Him and His righteousness was placed on us. God will not, indeed cannot, punish one in whose place Jesus stood as his substitute.

    We only have forgiveness of sins because of Jesus' atonement, period, not because of our faith or our repentance.

    Jesus accomplished all of the above on our behalf. And anyone for whom Jesus accomplished all of the above will be in heaven, period. God will not, indeed cannot, punish anyone for whom Jesus has already borne the penalty. For Him to do so would mean that He is unjust and God is just and perfect and righteous.
     
  12. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    LOL --
    I messed up the tendon on my right hand and typing like this with only one finger on my left hand is the pits. This much has taken me about two or three minutes. I'll try to respond tomorrow. I'm giggling too much now trying to type this way. Anyway, I have this choice, right?

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry about your hand. Alvin Law would use his toes. ;)

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas [​IMG]
     
  14. massdak

    massdak Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes you have the choice to use your working finger for typing yet your other members are unable and unless or until it heals or should God enable you to type as before you are enslaved to your injury and your free will choice is limited. ( you have just proved that free will is only conditioned upon being enslaved by sin)
    congrats you are now a Calvinist
     
  15. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    LOL -- God is faithful to heal! Anyway, Barry is now dragging me out of the house to see the Home and Garden Show and have lunch out and buy a new frying pan as our daughter munched the non-stick coating on the old one....

    It should be a great day! You didn't really think you would be rid of me so easily, did you?

    (Yeah, my thumb still hurts, but not nearly like last night. I think it was spasming then -- the pain was fierce. But healing is on the way, especially if I don't ramble on like this! :D )
     
  16. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    That passage says nothing about "accountability", just that sin spread from Adam. Noone is held accountable for something hereditory, and which they themselves did not personally, consciously choose. It's when we sin that we become accountable. I'm not saying that we don't become "sinners" until we sin, but since it is the works we are condemned for, as you correctly showed, it is when we begin doing these works that we are held accountable.
    This whole "didn't really" thing is just a hypothetical assertion that means nothing in time. If a person receives Christ, his sins are "really" paid for, and Christ's death was "really" efficient for him. (One could argue in the Calvinist scheme, there is no "real" payment of efficiency for a given person, because nobody can "really" know they are elect until they persevere until the end. (as you have kind of admitted in the past).
    And don't you argue with Harald, the Primitives and others that repentance on the part of man is required?

    And wouldn't this have God deliberately predestinating to Hell the people He did not make it efficient for? (Which you and others vehemently deny, insisting the "only reason" they go to Hell is their own unwillingness).

    In Romans 2:4, "God leadeth thee to repentance" is being spoken to someone Paul is warning about "treasur[ing] up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath...", so this right here is someone who could still wind up lost, even though he is being "led" (drawn) and has to choose to accept the repentance God is offering.
    In Timothy, this is not just "any unsaved", but rather, "those who oppose themselves" means "those who set themselves against", or are "disputatious" (and this we see in the context ragarding "strifes"). So this seems to be people who argue against the truth so much that they are hardened, and thus "in the snare of the devil". This is not saying that they were never given any choice to repent before.

    [ April 27, 2003, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
     
  17. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    You are right, Eric. But perhaps the best way to say it is that God did not so much predestine them to hell in the Reformed mind, but rather they consider that He abandon them to hell.

    So much for God being love!
     
  18. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    God is love more than you or I or anyone can ever imagine, Helen.

    God neither predestines nor abandons anyone to hell. To say such a thing is a verbal slap in the face of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who are striving just as earnestly as you or anyone else is to understand God's Word and to faithfully serve Him.
     
  19. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ken, there is no other word for it. He loved some enough to predestine them for salvation in your book. The only possible logical continuation of that is that He did not love the others enough to predestine them for salvation but, instead, abandon them to hell. And that for something they had absolutely no control over at all -- the natures they were born with.

    So there go justice and mercy, too!
     
  20. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, Helen. God's love, justice and mercy prevail irregardless of our lack of understanding how all of this plays out in the end. [​IMG]
     
Loading...