Dichotomy or Trichotomy?

Ah, I see you are erecting the "impenetrable wall" of discussion.

What I have presented is of "good and necessary consequence" derived from Scripture.

Do you believe Christ had Mary's genetic material making up the blood coursing through His veins?

We both know that Scripture claims the "bloodline" of Joseph and Mary for Jesus, so the literal "blood" line is not of consequence.

 

Wrong and completely unbiblical.
He is of the 'seed' of David. You dance all you want but your 'jig' is up. He is not a 'figuritive' son of David but a literal through his lineage found in Matt 1. He is born of flesh having clothed Himself in flesh.

The very promise in Gen states:

Who is the 'seed' of the woman God is refering to??

or this one :

Which makes abundantly clear that Jesus was 'of the seed of David according to the flesh"

 

Allan - read my post above. The literal "blood" line is of no consequence.

 

It is a matter of great consequence. Either He was literally of the seed of Mary and thus of the 'seed' of David or else He is not the rightful King of Israel or He was a liar and a deciever and the prophets have become false. God Himself would be a liar to His own word. Yes, I believe the matter is of great and significant consequence.

I have looked at a few Calvinist (Matthew Henry, J. MacAuthur, J.I. Packer, Calvin - thus far) and all presuppose the natural birth culminating from the womans seed yet without a sin nature but still suseptable to the temptations of the flesh yet without yeilding to sin. (to paraphrase them)

 

I never stated they were sinning in his procreation. I said the sin nature is passed on via the father not the mother.

All children are conceived and or are born with a sin nature.

 

I'd have to say at this point, jdl, that you are 'hardening your heart' to the truth. You have become enamoured with your own paradigm and become galvinized against scriptural evidence to the contrary and even any consideration of same.

"Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed." Heb 12:11-13

skypair

 

Remember, as you reference these men, that one of their key credos is Semper Reformanda.

Please also quote one or two specific instances that states Christ's flesh was derived, at least partially, from the flesh of Mary.

 

Which, if one were to biblically define "sin nature," it would mean "fleshly instincts" but not "sin guilt," right?

"Original sin's" guilt does not afix to each human born but the "flesh-transmitted" curse (physical death) on account of Adam's "original sin" does.

See, neither of these terms exist in the Bible, Allan. We need to be very careful that we know a) what Calvinists mean vs. b) how the Bible describes the concept Calvinists try to "pawn off on" their constituents.

As has already been affirmed by jdlongmire, Calvinists believe that babies are born guilty of "original sin" as, thereby, "sinners" ("sin natured"). Then they have to "cover their poop" with statements like this --- "Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" --- that make a mockery of their entire sotierology! Infants are neither "elect to salvation" (believing) nor "condemned to reprobation" (unbelieving) as they would have it. They are INNOCENT.

skypair

 

lol - again, says the pot to the kettle.

I am not enamored of anything - I am of the same spirit as Martin Luther:

"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

 

So foolish - Calvinists ascribe salvation to the Lord, since it belongs to Him and He gives it when and to whom He pleases. It is derived of "good and necessary consequence" that anyone incapable of responding to the outward call would be covered under the mercy of God's grace.

Or do you believe that all babies go to Hell?

If not, how do you explain it?

BTW: you continue to validate my standard response link to skypair.

 

Scripture please.

You have not been around long enough to have read my view of what scripture tells us. Babies are born "JUSTIFIED according to innocence." The OT saints were "justified according to faith." Neither of these groups is yet SANCTIFIED by the indwelling Holy Spirit. For that reason, they will be resurrected together into the MK of Christ to believe and receive Him as we have.

HOWEVER ---- the innocent who will be given the capacity to believe may not believe. But this does keep the scriptural promise that Christ is the only way to salvation (Acts 4:12) -- it meets the promise that He "lighteth EVERY man that cometh into the world" (John 1:9). And Isa 49:20-23 gives us the prophecy of what the resurrection of the innocent will be like.

Are you willing to learn what the Bible says or will you go on with your unfounded comments and self-satisfied retorts?

skypair

 

CHAPTER 10

OF EFFECTUAL CALLING

Paragraph 1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call,1 by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;2 enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;3 taking away their heart of stone, and giving to them a heart of flesh;4 renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;5 yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.6
1 Rom. 8:30, 11:7; Eph. 1:10,11; 2 Thess. 2:13,14
2 Eph. 2:1-6
3 Acts 26:18; Eph. 1:17,18
4 Ezek. 36:26
5 Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 36:27; Eph. 1:19
6 Ps. 110:3; Cant. 1:4
Paragraph 2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature,7 being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit;8 he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.9
7 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8
8 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:5; John 5:25
9 Eph. 1:19, 20
Paragraph 3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases;11 so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
10 John 3:3, 5, 6
11 John 3:8
Paragraph 4. Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit,12 yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:13 much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.14
12 Matt. 22:14, 13:20,21; Heb 6:4,5
13 John 6:44,45,65; 1 John 2:24,25
14 Acts 4:12; John 4:22, 17:3


LBC 1689

 

Can you point me to your substantiation or did you make it up from "whole cloth"?

I can see you are a solo scriptura (vs sola scriptura) kinda guy.

lol - again you substantiate my standard response link to skypair.

 

Didn't the 1689 Baptist Confession specifically reject the "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" verbiage used by the Presbyterians in the Westminster Confession to excuse the paucity of Biblical support for many of their beliefs?

 

not sure, and I'd like to see some substantiation to your claim, but the LBC does not reject the paradigm I have been proposing, in fact I think it supports it.

from here

 

The 1689 Baptist Confession specifically rejected the "or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" verbiage used by the Presbyterians in the Westminster Confession to excuse the paucity of Biblical support for many of their beliefs:

Presbyterian Confession: I.6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, . . .

Baptist Confession: I.6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, . . .

 

Thanks for making your case clear. - you didn't substantiate the reason why they changed it though, beyond your assertion.

lol - guess they didn't like "deducing" - it does say necessarily contained, though and the section I referred to does not refute the paradigm I have set forth.

 

Um. I believe the topic was INFANT salvation. Much as you have given me here, it says 1) nothing of infants who 2) are not capable of any of the "steps" your paradigm proposes anyway.

Forsooth :laugh:: They cannot "come out of that state of sin and death" because they have not yet sinned. They have no "minds to enlighten" nor any "understanding [of] the things of God with which to be "saved" (according to your paradigm anyway). They have no "will" of their own to "renew." They, therefore, could not "come most freely," now could they.

So I ask again --- what is your paradigm for INFANT salvation which you boastingly flaunt as "Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word"???

And oh, in case you didn't read it, this is "eye wash" for those too lazy to look up what these citations actually say. There is no reference to infant salvation in them. It seemingly proposes to make all "elect" persons saved without ever believing or understanding what they NEED to believe -- Acts 4:12.

This is VERY revealing. let's just surmise what this could mean, shall we? If they are not Calvinist? If they are not baptized by the Reform church as infants? Or is it "men that do not [join the Reform church]" as Calvin himself would no doubt have it in Geneva, Switzerland!?

Question (per Mt 22:14): Are you "chosen" or "called?" Let me translate for you: Are you "elect" or "saved?"

Similarly, are you "drawn" or have you "come?" Did you notice that the verse is silent on what happens to those who are "drawn" but don't "come?"

Do you still not have enough evidence that Satan is deceiving you? You are "caught" in his deception and you can't find your way out, jdl. There are so many questions you cannot answer with your "theology" but you are "diving head first into an empty pool!!"

skypair

 

Who would of ever thunk it, that we agree from time to time............ You sure have a gift with "words".....:laugh: :laugh:

BBob,

 

from a review of the book True Confessions:

"Did you know that some of the most significant differences between the 1689 Confession and the Westminster Confession occur with reference to the doctrine of God, revelation and the incarnation? Did you know that the 1689 Confession does not teach that divine truth can be found in the “good and necessary consequence” of Scripture, as the Westminster Confession had put it? Did you know that the 1689 Confession includes the imputation of Christ’s active and passive righteousness as an element of justification, but that the Westminster Confession does not? Did you know that the 1689 Confession moved back from the Westminster Confession’s teaching on reprobation? Or that the 1689 Confession removes almost all references to the “covenant of works,” all reference to the religious duties of the magistrate, the Westminster Confession’s teaching on engagement and divorce, and the Westminster Confession’s forbidding of private communion?"