Why do people ultimatively go to hell?

To the list,
I believe it is my time to retire for the evening. My only words to my friend Brother Bob are, “May all the logs of your dreams be animated, in color, and above all, interesting!!” :smilewinkgrin: Goodnight!

 

Read Pelagius's Commentary on Romans

51 bucks...thats not to bad if you like the guy

 

Heavenly Pilgrim,
You stated:

Yes, the word used in verse 19 is ‘many’, however in the preceding verse (vs. 18) Paul uses the word ‘all’ in the same comparison, thus using them interchangeably.

Are you here affirming that we receive what is commonly called a “sin nature”? And are you using the “sin nature” to explain how we are “made sinners” (vs. 19) through Adam?

Here, You seem to be basing our fall and condemnation on us following Adams bad example. In other words, doing just like we see Adam doing. However, notice that Paul focus is not on the likeness with Adam but those who were “not” like Adam . Notice verse 14:
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those whose sins weren't like Adam's disobedience, who is a foreshadowing of him who was to come.


You stated:

As I have presented, Rom. 5:19 says that we are “made righteous” (which you admit is by imputation) just as we are “made sinners” (which I take to be by imputation for Paul’s comparison to hold).

Are you denying that verse 12 is an unfinished comparison? Please expand upon this.
In reference to your last sentence above, imputed sin is counted as the individuals sin in the same way that Christ’s righteousness is counted as our righteousness. So saying that “all sinned” does not eliminate imputed sin.

Heavenly Pilgrim, I am truly attempting to put myself in your shoes and think through your line of reasoning. But truthfully, I cannot see how this does justice to the text.
Paul is actually discussing our relation to Adam and the resulting condemnation. Surely we would expect Paul to mention something as important as a sin nature if that indeed was the vital connection that brings condemnation. However, as stated earlier, Paul repeatedly focuses on the ‘one’ sin of the ‘one’ man that brings condemnation. This fits perfectly with what I am affirming, but his silence is strange if the crucial factor in our condemnation (In relation to Adam) is merely an example or sin nature.

.
Let’s put your example into Paul’s comparison in verse 19, to better help you understand what I am asking. Are we “made righteous” by following Christ’s example or by Christ’s righteousness?
If you say that we are ‘made sinners’ by following Adams example, then for the parallel to hold (vs. 19), you must affirm that we are ‘made righteous’ by following Christ’s example, which is to deny the Gospel.
You then quoted Ezekiel:

First of all, the historical context in Ezekiel is not focusing on Adam’s sin and his posterity as Romans 5 in a Didactic context of that very issue. If we took your position, we would have Ezekiel contradicting Moses (Ex. 20:5), Christ (Matt. 23:35,36), and Paul in Romans 5.
I agree essentially with R. L. Dabney, whom I offer you a quote that I will have to put in a post immediately following this one (look below this post).


You then stated:
Christ stands as the door with His offer and provision, and knocks.

Just a side point, but I do believe the passage in Revelation, in context, is written to a church, not a particular individual who needs salvation.

I then asked you if God ever punished people for something they did not do actually do.
You answered:

I was not arguing that the punishments were necessarily “eternal”. I was simply trying to prove that the principle of God judging an individual through another (representative) is not unheard of and I would argue is prevalent throughout scripture and pervades differing contexts (eternal/temporal). More importantly, this very principle is what is involved in our very salvation (imputation of a representatives work).

In conclusion, forgive me for the long post. I will not be able to do any more of this length, but I do look forward to any clarification of some of the points that I mentioned. I will read and think through any objections/concerns that you present. Thank you so much for your time and patience.

 

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 )

 

James, how is this any different than what you do?

 

This is addressed to you. I know God is just...just read the Psalms sometimes. The fact that you quoted a verse doesn't mean anything about what I posted, nor does it disprove it. I quote verses all the time...and you ignore them :laugh:

 

To Southern and the list:

I appreciate the time you spent on your posts. I could have done without the explanation of men I cannot address or discuss with. I desire to discuss with you and those on this list alone. I do not desire to get caught up in the trap of debating or discussing the beliefs of those not on this list.

I first spent quite some time responding to your posts with a lengthy response. After finishing that response, I do not feel lead at this time to post it. I doubt many would actually read it anyway. I will choose rather to cut to the chase. I leave you for now with this simple response. I am not trying to shortchange your efforts, but to facilitate an understanding of the most important issues at stake here as I see it without boring or confusing the readers.



Salvation has two ingredients; the provision or atonement and the conditions God has mandated for man to fulfill. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness involves both.

Any notion of connection or imputation of Adam's sin or subsequent condemnation, involves our will as well, not in just the 'doing' of some necessitated impulse. It involves the actual forming an intent of our own free will in agreement to the selfishness that Adam exhibited in the formation of his intents.

 

Humans are born with sinFUL natures even befor they can knowingly sin. Their nature is in rebellion against God - they are "by nature children of wrath" according to the NT.

The total depravity of that situation is pointed out in Rom 3.

The result is that even infants NEED a Savior. Fortunately - they have one.

Paul starts with a specific instance of “justification past” – in this case it is the instance of the saints living in Paul’s day that ARE currently undergoing tribulation. This is not to say that all other saints in all other ages are not also justified. Indeed they were/are and those yet to be saved – certainly will be justified just as Paul points out. But in this case the context is that living saints undergoing tribulation that produced “perseverance” are in fact fully justified. (Justification past)

Death spreads to ALL mankind for ALL sin EVEN those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s offence.

I.E Infants NEED a savior. But they have one – so they are fine.


All of Calvinism’s favorite words to redefine – are here. WORLD, ALL MEN etc. And who can argue that ALL have sinned (not just the “elect”)?? Who can argue that the WORLD really does Not mean the Whole World has fallen under the domain of sin – for All have sinned. God appears to be using very “Arminian” terms here – once again.

Though it is granted that it can be shown “in some contexts” that “World” is specifically speaking of the “World of unsaved people”. (yet “never” can it be shown that the “world” means “all the saved people” for never does the Bible say “The World is saved” or “The Whole World will one day be saved”.)

The Same all-encompassing Many that were lost because of the one fall of the one man Adam are benefited by the One man Christ!!!

Here is a text that Calvinists will not be quoting to Arminians any time soon.

Rom 5:16-17 “Shows” that the same group condemned and subject to death – in that same context and to that same scope of humanity – there results “justification” and “the gift of righteousness”. Just as the condemnation to ALL – does not place ALL immediately in the lake of fire and brimstone nor does it preclude that ALL from later entering into Justification – SO the justification to ALL does not bring ALL immediately into heaven or make ALL believers having experienced justification past and currently enduring tribulation that produced perseverance. Rather in both cases the same group “humanity” is subject to condemnation AND to justification. But neither the condemnation nor the justification is “completed” for all can not be IN the lake of fire and fully justified at the same time – neither indeed is such a completed (ended) concept in mind for EITHER the “condemnation” mentioned or the “justification” mentioned.

Now we see again that the same ALL that were condemned by Adam’s fall – are in the scope of the benefit of Christ’s gift.

again - all men - same author, same subject, same reference as we see in vs 12 nailed down here again. All men condemned by Adam - and all men benefited by the one act of Christ – but NEITHER “result” (condemnation and justification) is fully matured-completed. This is very obvious in the case of the condemnation -- for NOBODY is now in the lake of fire and what is more ALL the saints who are in fact justified – saved – HAD to have been “condemned” and THEN justified (saved from that very condemnation). This is not possible if the condemnation is completed (hint: in the roasting of the lake of fire nobody gets justified) .

So this shows that the scope and domain of the condemnation is truly ALL just as is the case for Justification – but in both the case of condemnation and justification – the results are not yet completed. So when we say that condemnation applies to ALL and justification applies to ALL – is the same ALL and it is the same concept of an incomplete “result”. (Under condemnation – subject to condemnation – but not in fact experientially standing in hell). So all are under the umbrella of justification that is not brought “to the world” by “The savior of the World” but all are not in fact “justified” either at the time of Paul or even today since we have MORE yet to be saved justified and we have the fact that ALL do not “open the door” when Christ stands at the door and knocks.

 

HP: Really? I thought Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me for such is the Kingdom of heaven.” Jesus told us that we need to become like little children in order to enter heaven. Is being a sinner a prerequisite to entering heaven? Scripture please.

Show me one solitary Scripture that states that children are sinners in need of a Savior.

Scripture states, " Lu 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." If infants are sinner, tell me why they will not perish if they are too young to repent?

By the way, have those infants accepted Christ? I know how you feel about the need to do that in order to enter heaven. Would I be right in assuming you believe God has given to infants the gospel?

 

HP: Have I missed your promised post today with those freshly imprinted words of Pelagius? Still waiting.

 

Heavenly Pilgrim,

Thank you for your kind response. Trust me, I perfectly understand your situation. I rarely have time to go in depth with individuals on message boards and I am sure they grow frustrated with me.

Also, I do not think you are "short changing" me. These type of discussions can go in many directions and we all have to pick and choose what particular arguments are the most important to address.

Heavenly Pilgrim, may God bless us both as we seek to understand his word. :thumbs:

 

HP: Never kinder words spoken. I appreciate you.

I just found myself writing a short book to answer the questions raised in your post. It is hard for me to decide what to respond to in order to get to issues in a manner that will not loose or bore the readers. I would gladly continue our discussions if you have the time.

Help us narrow down the discussion. It will save us both time and incite more readers.

 

HP: This verse was raised as being at antipodes with Ezek. 18:20 which states, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Ex. 20:5 is obviously used to support the notion of imputed sin. The question is does it? If we look at the verse in Ex, it clearly states two things about the individuals that God visits with the iniquity of the fathers. First, that their fathers did iniquity, and that THEY THEMSELVES HATED GOD. There is but one simple question that nees to be asked to debunk the issue if in fact imputed sin of the father is supported by this text. Why would not God visit those that hate God with the iniquity of their fathers that hated Him as well? Does this verse state in any way that God holds them accountable for the sins of their father, or punishes them on the account of their fathers sin? No way.

So much for those stating that it is impossible to keep the commandments.

 

"being a sinner" is the result of being a child of Adam and having a sinFUL nature according to Rom 3 "there is non righteous...NONE that seek after God -- no not one".

Jesus mentioned a number of people that would be in heaven or where the children of God - children of the kingdom etc. That never meant "they never sinned" or "they never had sinful natures".

When in Eph 2 we see that "by nature we are the children of wrath" - what 'nature' is that?

Eph 2
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air[/b], of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

"SinFUL nature" held by all. NOT ONE being exempted "no not one"

Rom 3 -


9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "" THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;


12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.''

Infants "make no decision" and can not fathom the Gospel. They have "sinful natures" making them "by nature" the "children of wrath" as the rest - but they have no thinking ability to obey or sin "to him who knows to do right - and does it not - to him it is sin".

They have a savior -- because they need one and Christ "is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world" 1John 2:2.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Heavenly Pilgrim,

This will be my last post. However, I will gladly read any concerns/critique of my post.

Let me say that I believe that Romans 5 (the text we have been discussing) clearly teaches that we are made sinners through Adam in the same manner that we are made righteous by Christ, which is by imputation (Rom. 5:19).

In your last two posts you made only two basic arguments that I essentially disagree with. And to them I will briefly reply:

You stated:

Let me first of all state that I agree that our will is active in receiving the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (Rom. 5:17 ; ‘receive’). However, the same is not or should I say cannot be true with Adam.

I think your basic error is not recognizing the relationship we bear to Adam and Christ. All men bear a natural relationship to Adam by birth (Acts 17:26). We do not ‘choose’ to be born naturally as Adams descendant. However, we are not descended from Christ by natural birth as with Adam but by Spiritual birth (John 3). Our familial relationship must be changed from Adam to Christ and this change is accomplished through faith (our wills being active in the process). To put it simply, We are born into Adam and reborn into Christ.

You then responded to my critique of your use of Ezekiel 18:

While much could be said, I want to list two things worthy of note:
1.)This passage in Ezekiel is just one of many showing God punishing people for what a Representative (someone else) did. Instead of reinvent the wheel, I ask anyone following this discussion to simply look at the mass of Biblical evidence that I will quote in a post immediately following this one, to make it more readable.

2.)But to enter into your specific objection. I actually agree that God will not hold a person (in the context) accountable if they do not agree with their fathers sins through repentance. And when a person is regenerated and converted, they cease to agree with their Father Adam. But unless they are converted, they will be held accountable for their Fathers (Adam) sin. This I think is in clear agreement with Romans 5 as I presented.

I kept it as simple as possible. Thank you for your patience and kindness in answering my questions. :thumbsup:

 

The following quote from an article by Lorraine Boettner (quoting Hodge) clearly shows the Biblical evidence of God holding people accountable for what a Representative (another person) did. A principle that our very salvation depends upon, the work of Christ (our representative) on our behalf.

I pray that this will put the matter beyond question from a scriptural standpoint:

“In the following section Dr. Charles Hodge, one of the ablest theologians that America has produced, has given a very clear exposition of this subject: "This representative principle pervades the whole Scriptures. The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity is not an isolated fact. It is only an illustration of a general principle which characterizes the dispensations of God from the beginning of the world. God declares Himself to Moses as one who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation, Ex. 34:6, 7 ... The curse pronounced on Canaan fell on his posterity. Esau's selling his birthright shut out his descendants from the covenant of promise. The children of Moab and Ammon were excluded from the congregation of the Lord forever, because their ancestors opposed the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. In the case of Dathan and Abram, as in that of Achan, their wives, and their sons, and their little children perished for the sins of their parents. God said to Eli that the iniquity of his house should not be purged with sacrifice and offering for ever. To David it was said, The sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.' To the disobedient Gehazi it was said: 'The leprosy of Naaman shall cleave unto thee and unto thy seed forever.' The sin of Jeroboam and of the men of his generation determined the destiny of the ten tribes for all time. The imprecation of the Jews, when they demanded the crucifixion of Christ,'His blood be on us and on our children,' still weighs down the scattered people of Israel... This principle runs through the whole Scriptures. When God entered into covenant with Abraham, it was not for himself only but for his posterity. They were bound by all the stipulations of the covenant. They shared its promises and its threatenings, and in hundreds of cases the penalty for disobedience came upon those who had no personal part in the transgressions. Children suffered equally with adults in the judgments, whether famine, pestilence, or war, which came upon the people for their sins.. .. And the Jews to this day are suffering the penalty of the sins of their fathers for their rejection of Him of whom Moses and the prophets spoke. The whole plan of redemption rests on this same principle. Christ is the representative of His people, and on this ground their sins are imputed to Him and His righteousness to them. No man who believes the Bible, can shut his eyes to the fact that it everywhere recognizes the representative character of parents, and that the dispensations of God have from the beginning been founded on the principle that the children bear the iniquities of their fathers. This is one of the reasons which infidels assign for rejecting the divine origin of the Scriptures. But infidelity furnishes no relief. History is as full of this doctrine as the Bible is. The punishment of the felon involves his family in his disgrace and misery. The spendthrift and drunkard entail poverty and wretchedness upon all connected with them. There is no nation now existing on the face of the earth, whose condition for weal or woe is not largely determined by the character and conduct of their ancestors. The idea of the transfer of guilt or of vicarious punishment lies at the foundation of the expiatory offerings under the Old Testament, and of the great atonement under the new dispensation. To bear sin is, in Scriptural language, to bear the penalty of sin. The victim bore the sin of the offerer. Hands were imposed upon the head of the animal about to be slaughtered, to express the transfer of guilt. That animal must be free from all defect or blemish to make it the more apparent that its blood was shed not for its own deficiencies but for the sin of another. All this was symbolical and typical ... And this is what the Scriptures teach concerning the atonement of Christ. He bore our sins; He was a curse for us; He suffered the penalty of the law in our stead. All this proceeds on the ground that the sins of one man can be justly, on some adequate ground, imputed to another.' '--Systematic Theology, ii, pp. 198-201. "

( Taken from : http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Boettner/atonement/a6.htm )

 

Matt 23

28 "So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31 "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.



32 "Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34 "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,
35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36 "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

 

HP: Here, in order to establish the false notion of imputed guilt, the writer tries to use a certain curse to establish the fact. Let me ask the reader a question. Where does it state in any way that the curse was a moral curse with moral consequences? There simply is no evidence to that effect.

We are not trying to establish if ones posterity does not in fact, in some cases at least, reap consequences for their fathers sins or the ignorance or careless actions of their father or others, but if in fact God imputes ‘sin’ and its corresponding eternal penalty to ones posterity for no other reason than imputed guilt. That is not established in the least with the illustration alluded to.

HP: I trust this is covered in the above objection.

HP: Could anyone show forth such a reference? I could not find one that established this clearly. Even if in fact it is stated or alluded to, it most certainly would be speaking to the tribes, not simply individuals. Are we to assume that if you are of a certain race descending form either of these tribes that it is not possible to be saved and that one is found eternally guilty before God for the imputed guilt of being a descendent of Ammon or Moab? The author again begs the question.

HP: Being killed as a result of the sins of ones parents in no wise induces the notion or supports the notion of imputed sin. If one gets drunk and places his family in a car and they are all killed, are all those in the car guilty of the fathers sins? Just because God saw in His wisdom to take the physical lives of men, women and their children, in NO wise suggests that they are to be judged guilty on the account of imputed sin. The author, nor any of us, is privy to the reasons why God allowed them or any others in such cases, to perish. To see physical death is not reason to beg the question and assume without proof that God imputed to them the sins and subsequent moral punishment without their freewill participation in the every same sins.

HP: Many sins have consequences that will last as long as the earth survives. How does this establish imputed sin?? Because my great, great, grandfather might have been a slave holder and even mistreated his slaves, and the consequences of slavery never completely vanish from our nation, are we to assume that I need to repent for the sins of this long deceased ancestors, and that God holds me morally accountable for their sin by imputation? The author cannot be serious, or he is so biased by his own pursuits to find proof texts to support his dogma of original sin that he is blind to the illogical and unscriptural avenue he is embarking upon.

HP: We are discussing the notion of imputed sin. Let me ask the reader, How does this verse establish or substantiate the notion that God imputes the sin of one man with its associated eternal penalty to another? The author clearly begs the question in every reference. It is not dissimilar to the logic employed by those that see a demon behind every bush.

There is absolutely no reason to complete refuting the litany of texts offered by this author. There is not one of them that ca be used by any fair minded individual to support the notion that God imputes to ones posterity the sin and guilt of their fathers or Adam, without the individual themselves forming like intents.

.

HP: If I was an infidel, I as well could see the fallacious, illogical, and unjust nature of such a picture of injustice as this author tries to show forth by begging the question time after time. Such is simply not the case nor can it be justly so. Even the heathen and infidels have a better sense of justice than what this author implies by his misappropriation of the litany of Scriptural texts he employs to show support for the dogma of imputed sin and subsequent guilt.


I certainly hope that you Southern, do not see fit to leave us now. It is not a fine time to do so. I hope you can find a way to reconsider your exit.

 

HP: We know of the texts. What do they prove IYO? That is the question that begs to be answered.

 

HP: Here we have one verse in Duet. that clearly and soundly refutes the idea of imputed guilt. We also have an entire chapter devoted in Ezekiel that sets forth the same idea, that everyman is accountable to God for their own sins and that God does NOT impute moral guilt or moral punishment for the sins of another and that everyman will be held accountable for their own sins.

I would like to see Southern or any others refute these clear passages or show us how they support, or are consistent with, the idea that a Fair and Just God imputes the sins of another to his posterity.