Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of $140 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Anthony C.
Anthony C.
NJ/PA
Posts: 192
Joined: May 2016
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,549
Posts50,772
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,313
Tom 3,324
chestnutmare 2,868
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 28
Pilgrim 21
Recent Posts
Presuppositional Apologetics
by Tom. Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:42 PM
Adam created holy, so how could he fall?
by Pilgrim. Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:40 PM
Christmas
by Pilgrim. Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:01 AM
Key teaching of Dispys is Gnostic
by PerpetualLearner. Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:11 PM
Glorious Bach
by goldenoldie. Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:46 AM
Nothing New Under the Sun?
by PerpetualLearner. Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:25 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#20150 - Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:55 PM Some meat for the dogs . . .  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
What's wrong with this picture?
"Depart from Me, ye cursed, into the everlasting inner fire of hatred," saith the Lord, "because I was thirsty for your love and you did not give it to Me, I was hungry for your blessedness and you did not offer it to Me, I was imprisoned in My human nature and you did not come to visit Me in My church; you are free to go where your wicked desire wishes, away from Me, in the torturing hatred of your hearts which is foreign to My loving heart which knows no hatred for anyone. Depart freely from love to the everlasting torture of hate, unknown and foreign to Me and to those who are with Me, but prepared by freedom for the devil, from the days I created My free, rational creatures. But wherever you go in the darkness of your hating hearts, My love will follow you like a river of fire, because no matter what your heart has chosen, you are and you will eternally continue to be, My children."


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#20151 - Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:55 PM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . . [Re: CovenantInBlood]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
NH, USA
Quote
CovenantInBlood said:
What's wrong with this picture?

Sorry, but to answer your question would require far more time and space that has been alloted to me in this life. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

However, I just HAVE TO ask.... is this an actual quote from a current "bible" translation available to the public? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> . . . Oh yeh..... if so, which one?


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#20152 - Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:14 PM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . . [Re: CovenantInBlood]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,057
gotribe Offline
Permanent Resident
gotribe  Offline

Permanent Resident

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,057
Chicagoland
OK, I'm curious. Where did you get that quote?

(PS: I don't know if you can get any dogs to go after this meat. Most dogs know when to leave rotten meat well enough alone.)


Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine
Hiraeth
#20153 - Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:55 PM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . . [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
Sorry, but to answer your question would require far more time and space that has been alloted to me in this life.


Haha, well, I was debating the issue with a friend. I may post the results of my debate here.

Quote
However, I just HAVE TO ask.... is this an actual quote from a current "bible" translation available to the public?


Thankfully, it is not!


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#20154 - Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:00 PM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . . [Re: gotribe]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
OK, I'm curious. Where did you get that quote?


From a friend, who got it from here.

Quote
(PS: I don't know if you can get any dogs to go after this meat. Most dogs know when to leave rotten meat well enough alone.)


Hehe.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#20155 - Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:39 PM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . . [Re: CovenantInBlood]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Why not post the entire statement instead of just a paragraph which makes the writer look bad?

The premise of the writing is indeed very sound and in line with the revealed nature of God ("God is love").

Post up the whole thing and let's discuss it. It is actually a very interesting post. Oh, and by the way, there was an Eastern Orthodox writer who gave a very similar presentation.

You can read it here:

River of Fire by Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros

#20156 - Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:52 PM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . .  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
NH, USA
Quote
OrthodoxCatholic said:
Why not post the entire statement instead of just a paragraph which makes the writer look bad?

Perhaps you might consider reading more than just the first message posted in this thread? If you do, you will find that CovenantInBlood's reply to Gotribe included a link to the entire article, which he said can be found here: The entire article

Since I have read the entire article, I can confidently say that the author is woefully off base and is lacking in a true understanding of Scripture, not to mention the author's total disregard for the context of the passage quoted; i.e., Matt 7:22, 23 and even the language which the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle to write it.

BTW, I can agree that ONE of God's attributes is "love", it is by no means that attribute which predominates God's self-revelation in Scripture. And although it is not correct to bifurcate the Living God into His various "parts", if there is one attribute which stands out above all others it is undeniably his "holiness". God's love is a holy love. But it cannot be said that His holiness is a "loving holiness". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#20157 - Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:20 AM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . . [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


One of the things which I am working with is to understand which of Jesus' statements are directed specifically at the Jews of His day and which are directed to mankind in general. The passsage in Matthew 7 seems to have implications which point to the Great Tribulation of AD 70 in which those Jews who hated Christ were finally and conclusively sent out of the kingdom.

As regards the article mentioned, where can any soul go that God is not there? Is there a place in all of the universe which is without God's presence? I would have to say no. I lean to the idea that Christ redeemed all mankind unto God, just as Adam separated all mankind from God. But for those who are brought to God who hate Him, that warm fire of His love will be sheer torment to them.

It is only those who have loved Him, who have cut covenant with Him through Jesus Christ, and who have grown in that love which is holiness and righteousness, who will enjoy the love of God forever.

I wonder why such a view wouldn't be more in line with the essential character of God as expressed in the scriptures, i.e., that God is love.

I am not denying that there will be eternal torment for God haters in the afterlife. But I do question the manner in which that torment is administered. The Calvinist paradigm makes God appear a monster Who arbitrarily torments men without any reason at all. I never could accept that God sends "non elect" infants to hell based on nothing but His will to do so.

Brother Ed

#20158 - Sat Dec 18, 2004 2:41 AM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . .  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
Why not post the entire statement instead of just a paragraph which makes the writer look bad


First, my friend pointed to this specific paragraph. I didn't look at the rest until later. Second, the piece is VERY long. Third, the entire piece makes the writer look even worse, IMO. And fourth, the comment you've just replied to included a link to the whole piece! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Quote
The premise of the writing is indeed very sound and in line with the revealed nature of God ("God is love").


It is not sound at all. In fact, it overemphasizes God's love to the detriment of God's justice, holiness, wrath, etc.

Quote
Post up the whole thing and let's discuss it. It is actually a very interesting post. Oh, and by the way, there was an Eastern Orthodox writer who gave a very similar presentation.

You can read it here:

River of Fire by Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros


Yes, I believe that's who the piece was attributed to. A lovely attack on the Western church he presents at this link of yours, by the way.

"How can one love such a God? How can we have faith in someone we detest? Faith in its deeper essence is a product of love, therefore, it would be our desire that one who threatens us not even exist, especially when this threat is eternal."

Indeed, that is precisely the desire of the reprobate, and even the reasoning behind it. A shame that Dr. Kalomiros then tries to change God as He has revealed Himself in order to make Him more appealing to the masses!


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#20159 - Sat Dec 18, 2004 2:51 AM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . .  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
The Calvinist paradigm makes God appear a monster Who arbitrarily torments men without any reason at all.


A common charge levelled against Calvinism, and a charge without any basis. Men are tormented in hell because they are sinners, by consequence of the Fall. In fact, all of us deserve to be tormented in hell. But God has chosen, in love and mercy, to preserve a remnant from destruction.

The subtle error perpetuated by the kind of theology promoted in the piece by Dr. Kalomiros is that we men ultimately hold the keys to heaven and to hell, and that if we so desire, we will may rightly or wrongly perceive God's love. We choose whether we are saved or damned.

However, salvation is of the Lord, not of men.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#20160 - Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:03 AM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . . [Re: CovenantInBlood]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Here's is some of what I wrote in response to my friend as we debated the accuracy of this picture of the judgement:

Quote
God will actively punish those who have not been justified, and they will be punished justly and severely—not with love, but with the terrible wrath of the Almighty Judge: "I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that they have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!"

What's been set forth [here] is not a God who casts people into hell, but one who allows them to cast themselves. But no one casts himself into hell, anymore than a thief casts himself into prison. It denies God's active punishment; it makes Him out to be passive in their destruction. In short, it denies Him the judgement. That's not the picture the Bible presents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[In response to this line, "My loving heart which knows no hatred for anyone," I wrote:] "it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'"

[My friend complained about out-of-context proof-texting, and so I replied:] I don't think I need to quote the whole chapter for you. The meaning is perfectly clear that not every individual is the object of God's salvific purposes. Some indeed are prepared for wrath and destruction. Now, if you want to say that that's God's "love" toward them, you're really going to have to show how—"For God so loved each and every individual, that He will cast the majority of them into hell"?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[I provided a link to a piece by A.W. Pink, and my friend said that Pink was anthropomorphizing God. I responded:] I don't think Pink is anthropomorphizing God or explaining away a major theme of Scripture. Rather, as I think becomes all the more clear when reading the entire link, the perspective which you've presented is thoroughly rooted in a human incapability or unwillingness to believe that hate and love can coexist in God, and is explaining away the wrath and judgement of God by saying that it's really that men misperceive God's love for them.

The problem is that this presentation treats God's wrath as though it's only wrathful from the perspective of the damned. It makes Him to be active in loving them, but only accidentally (as it were) punishing them, and even then only because they perceive His love in the wrong way. But God's wrath is wrathful from His own perspective! It would be a horror no matter upon whom it fell. [Indeed, I might now add, Christ Himself bore it. Did He simply "misperceive" it, or was God's wrath truly terrible?]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

God's justice is good, surely, but it is not a benefit to the sinner anymore than prison itself is a benefit to the thief. Indeed, God's justice is the utter revocation of all the mercy He has shown the reprobate in life.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It makes a difference as to whether hell is something one throws himself into or something God throws one into. At the end of the day, is God a Judge or isn't He? Do we believe that God actually casts the reprobate into hell, whence they have no hope of escape but are forever imprisoned under divine judgement? Or is it we who possess the keys of hell, who by our perception of God's love make it a reality?

In the words of that article, if we believe that God is love, i.e., that He loves each and every individual who ever existed and that every action He takes is nothing but love, "we know that God never hates, never punishes, never takes vengeance."

That sentiment is utterly contrary to how God has revealed Himself throughout the Scriptures. If we take the Scriptures seriously, I think we must reject this view of the judgement of God.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#20161 - Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:46 PM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . . [Re: CovenantInBlood]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


A common charge levelled against Calvinism, and a charge without any basis. Men are tormented in hell because they are sinners, by consequence of the Fall.

Babies are not sinners. Sin is an act of VOLITION. To state that God would send "non elect babies" to hell makes Him a monster and injust. Babies cannot sin because babies have no volition.

In fact, all of us deserve to be tormented in hell.

No. Only those who CHOOSE TO SIN deserve to be in hell. Choosing sin (i.e. "covenant breaking") separates us from the love of God and casts us out of His presence eternally.

But God has chosen, in love and mercy, to preserve a remnant from destruction.

Scripture says that God is not willing that ANY should perish. It also says that Jesus the Christ died FOR THE WORLD.

Yet, I cannot disagree with you, for the Catholic Faith does teach predestination -- just not the kind that John Calvin created. Are you familial with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on predestination?


The subtle error perpetuated by the kind of theology promoted in the piece by Dr. Kalomiros is that we men ultimately hold the keys to heaven and to hell, and that if we so desire, we will may rightly or wrongly perceive God's love. We choose whether we are saved or damned.

Your terminology is imprecise. No man can choose salvation. That is all of grace. But eternal life, which is the inheritance of salvation, is entirely left to us and to whether or not we will A) enter into the covenant of God B) keep that covenant relationship faithfully. Covenant keepers recieve the inheritance of salvation, which the Bible says is "eternal life". Covenant breakers are disinherited. This is why Jesus states that at the Last Judgment, He will judge all mankind according to WHAT THEY HAVE DONE (John 5: 29 - 29)

St. Paul says the same thing in Romans 2: 5 - 10.


However, salvation is of the Lord, not of men.

Absolutely!!! No man could restore the broken covenant relationship between God and mankind. Only thge Cross does this. Only Jesus could do this. But salvation and eternal life are NOT THE SAME THING.

Scripture speaks of inheriting eternal life:

Mt 5:5; 19:29; 25:34; Mr 10:17; Lu 10:25; 18:18; 1Co 6:9-10; 15:50; Ga 5:21; Heb 6:12; 1Pe 3:9; Re 21:7

Eternal life is called "the inheritance"

Mt 21:38; Mr 12:7; Lu 12:13; 20:14; Ac 7:5; 20:32; 26:18; Ga 3:18; Eph 1:11,14,18; 5:5; Col 1:12; 3:24; Heb 1:4; 9:15; 11:8; 1Pe 1:4


Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

#20162 - Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:53 AM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . .  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
NH, USA
Quote
OrthodoxCatholic said:
As regards the article mentioned, where can any soul go that God is not there? Is there a place in all of the universe which is without God's presence? I would have to say no. I lean to the idea that Christ redeemed all mankind unto God, just as Adam separated all mankind from God. But for those who are brought to God who hate Him, that warm fire of His love will be sheer torment to them.

Hello again! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Unfortunately, as was the case with what you wrote in a previous thread re: covenant headship, I am likewise confused as to what you hold in regard to the nature and efficacy of the atonement. When you say that "Christ redeemed all mankind unto God", what exactly is your understanding of "redeemed"? For if Christ actually paid the ransom (Grk: lutron; cf. Matt 20:28; Mk 10:45; 1Tim 2:6), thus being the Redeemer (Grk: lutroo; cf. Gal 3:13; 1Pet 1:18; cp. Heb: goel in the book of Ruth), then must not the one who held those redeemed captive must legally set them free? This is simply a matter of justice and ethics. Since it was to God that the ransom was paid and He being perfectly just (Gen 18:25), then He would be obligated to no longer hold captive those who were in bondage. The inescapable conclusion is that for whoever the ransom was paid, they are free. And if the ransom was paid for all mankind without discrimination, then ALL are thus free and are not liable to judgment for non-payment of th ransom they owed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

Quote
You also wrote:
I am not denying that there will be eternal torment for God haters in the afterlife. But I do question the manner in which that torment is administered. The Calvinist paradigm makes God appear a monster Who arbitrarily torments men without any reason at all. I never could accept that God sends "non elect" infants to hell based on nothing but His will to do so.

I'm afraid that your conception of the Calvinist doctrine of eternal punishment is inaccurate, at least that which is held by the Infralapsarians within the camp. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> For, what we hold is that all men are condemned upon the basis that they are sinners; having received the "curse" of Adam's transgression, their covenant head, i.e., the guilt judgment incurred by Adam; a corruption of nature which is inherited by them and guilt which is imputed to them. Thus God is perfectly just in condemning all men to eternal torment, they being doubly guilty.

As to the condemnation of "non-elect infants", they being members of the human race whose head is the same Adam of that of adults, inherit a corruption of nature from which sin is its fruit and likewise guilt is imputed to their account, they are not exempt from God's wrath nor His perfect justice. (cf. Rom 3:10-18; 9:11ff; Eph 2:1-3; et al) That some infants are elect it cannot be doubted. But I think you would be hard-pressed to show from Scripture that ALL infants are "elect". To hold to such a view would prove too much, for most infants mature into adulthood and thus this would terminate in Universalism, which you have also said you reject, i.e., you do hold that there will be a Judgment by which some will be found guilty and cast into eternal damnation.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#20163 - Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:28 PM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . . [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hello again! Unfortunately, as was the case with what you wrote in a previous thread re: covenant headship, I am likewise confused as to what you hold in regard to the nature and efficacy of the atonement. When you say that "Christ redeemed all mankind unto God", what exactly is your understanding of "redeemed"? For if Christ actually paid the ransom (Grk: lutron; cf. Matt 20:28; Mk 10:45; 1Tim 2:6), thus being the Redeemer (Grk: lutroo; cf. Gal 3:13; 1Pet 1:18; cp. Heb: goel in the book of Ruth), then must not the one who held those redeemed captive must legally set them free?

Indeed. When Adam sinned, he took the whole of humanity into a state of separation from God as the covenant head. Therefore, when the Last Adam (1 Corin. 15:45) KEEPS COVENANT with God, and then dies in a substitutionary fashion, I think it is both just and reasonable that God reverse the effects of the Fall in a completely similar manner to the Fall.

I think I have scriptural warrant for this idea also:


Quote

Romans 5:11-21 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

I am sure you will agree with me that when the scriptures here state that "many" are "dead" that this is really stating that ALL MEN (mankind) is born into a state of death, right?

Therefore, if the meaning of the word "many" really has to do with all mankind, then according to the verses following that one, Jesus Christ also died for "many" (all mankind).


And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Note this verse. The free gift came upon ALL MEN unto justification. Whew!!! Wouldn't you agree that this is a pretty "heavy" verse?

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


And here is the verse which really does it for me. By Adam's sin the "many" (which we KNOW to be ALL MANKIND) were made sinners, so by the obedience of Jesus, the LAST ADAM, the "many" (which must also mean ALL MANKIND) are made righteous.

But.....is this righteousness AUTOMATIC as was the automatic sentence of death upon all mankind when Adam fell? I would say no.

We are sinners because of the organic union between our flesh and the flesh of Adam. We are literally "of Adam" in our very being, thus united to Him, we are indeed sinners after his nature.

Therefore, it is necessary to be organically united to the Last Adam to share in that righteousness. This is what salvation is -- being united to Christ Jesus. We do this when we "cut covenant" with Him.

But in regards to the federal and judicial headship of Adam, I thin the above verses prove this: that just as Adam brought the whole world into a state of separation from God, all mankind included, Jesus the Last Adam has re united all creation to God AS IF THE FALL NEVER HAPPENED!


Now I neither can completely prove this, nor am I going to insist that this is divinely revealed truth.; I haven't worked out all the implications of this -- but it seems that this is just of God to do this -- i.e., reverse the effect of the Fall in the same manner as the Fall occurred.

So in essence, Jesus died for Adam judicially, and also is our Passover Lamb that we might pass over from death to life if we so choose. This is why the New Covenant is better, because all the righteousness of all the OT saints still could not get them into Heaven UNTIL ADAM'S TRANSGRESSION WAS PAID FOR and mankind reunited to God.

Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.


This is simply a matter of justice and ethics. Since it was to God that the ransom was paid and He being perfectly just (Gen 18:25), then He would be obligated to no longer hold captive those who were in bondage.

EXACTLY!! When Adam's transgression was paid for, the ransom for all mankind was paid and we could no longer be held in bondage as were the OT saints. Salvation is then also our response to God's calling and our entering into covenant with God through Jesus Christ.

The inescapable conclusion is that for whoever the ransom was paid, they are free.

Let's see. Did Jesus pay the ransom for all? Or for just a select few. We say all. This is the historical position of the Christian Faith since the time of the Early Fathers. The Cross is not lessened nor dishonored if men spurn the gift and turn to their own way.(One of many responses I heard as a Calvinist)

And if the ransom was paid for all mankind without discrimination, then ALL are thus free and are not liable to judgment for non-payment of the ransom they owed.

The sin of Adam was done for all mankind without discrimination. The redemption of God should fit the nature of the Fall -- done for all mankind that all may obtain eternal life if they so desire.

I guess what I am trying to separate here is the corporate aspect of the sacrifice from the personal aspect. but these are just my thoughts.


I'm afraid that your conception of the Calvinist doctrine of eternal punishment is inaccurate, at least that which is held by the Infralapsarians within the camp. For, what we hold is that all men are condemned upon the basis that they are sinners;

babies are not sinners. They have no ability to make an act of volition. This is why I find the idea of babies being sent to hell because they are "not elect" reprehensible.

having received the "curse" of Adam's transgression,their covenant head, i.e., the guilt judgment incurred by Adam;

No man can be guilty for another man's sin. If that were so, I could be found guilty for your sin. I can suffer if you are my covenantal head and you sin, but that does not mean that I am a sinner like you. Example: when the prophets who were righteous men were taken into captivity along with the idol worshipping kings of Israel

a corruption of nature which is inherited by them

Indeed. All men are born with this corruption. The Early Fathers described it as sickness and the Eucharist they called "the medicine of immortality."

and guilt which is imputed to them.

No, what mankind received from Adam was the state of separation from God which the Bible calls "death". I am not guilty of Adam's sin. I am guilty of my own.

Thus God is perfectly just in condemning all men to eternal torment, they being doubly guilty.

Not what the Bible teaches. Jesus said that He would be the Judge on the Last Day and the basis upon which He would send men into perdition would be what they had done in their lives, not the sin of another (John 5: 28 - 29).

As to the condemnation of "non-elect infants", they being members of the human race whose head is the same Adam of that of adults, inherit a corruption of nature from which sin is its fruit and likewise guilt is imputed to their account, they are not exempt from God's wrath nor His perfect justice. (cf. Rom 3:10-18; 9:11ff; Eph 2:1-3; et al) That some infants are elect it cannot be doubted. But I think you would be hard-pressed to show from Scripture that ALL infants are "elect". To hold to such a view would prove too much, for most infants mature into adulthood and thus this would terminate in Universalism, which you have also said you reject, i.e., you do hold that there will be a Judgment by which some will be found guilty and cast into eternal damnation.

As I said before, a man is only held guilty for that which he has done. Infants have done nothing...therefore they are guiltless

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

#20164 - Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:31 AM Re: Some meat for the dogs . . .  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
NH, USA
OrthodoxCatholic,

Indeed our views of the atonement are miles apart. For in the first place, I hold consistently to a vicarious substitutionary (Grk: huper) atonement, i.e., that the punishment which Christ suffered was that which belonged to those whom the Father gave Him, aka: "His people, His sheep, the elect of God, those predestinated before the foundation of the world, etc., etc...!! Again, the ransom being paid, the law requires that the captives be set free, i.e., they are not liable to judgment. So again, either Christ IS the Redeemer of all men without exception and thus Universalism is true, OR, He is the Redeemer of a remnant saved by grace, which is the biblical teaching.

Now.... I would submit to you that your understanding of Rom. 5:12ff is fatally flawed.

(1) Paul is setting for the truth of "corporate solidarity". We see two Federal Heads; Adam and Christ. Whatever is true of the head is also true of those whom that head represents. (a) Adam, being the Federal Head of the human race represented all mankind, i.e., of the flesh. The punishment put on him for his disobedience fell also upon all his progeny, i.e., of the flesh. (b) Christ being the Federal Head of all those who were elected to be made sons of the Living God, according to the spirit/Spirit share likewise in that which He merited in His death, i.e., eternal life. (Isa 53:9; 2Cor 5:21; Heb 2:10; 7:18ff; 1Pet 2:22-24). In Adam came death but in Christ comes eternal life.

(2) The "death" spoken of in 5:12 is that same death which was promised of God to Adam in consequence of his disobedience; (a) Physical death, the seed of which sprang to life the moment he ate of the fruit, (b) Spiritual death, a corruption of nature; a radical change in his disposition wherein the love for God was lost and only fear and hatred of subservience to God emerged in its place, (c) Eternal death, the terminus of the immensity of his act of transgression is meted out on that last day. And it is this "spiritual death" which all men inherit and thus exhibit is theirs in that they die in the flesh at the end of their appointed days. And it is this death to which Paul alludes and which is a judicial sentence on all who are sinners by nature:


12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned . . .



The universality of death cannot be denied, especially when you admit that Adam, as the Federal Head of the entire human race, effected all without exception. The text is perspicuous in its teaching, that death is the result of sin; ALL die because ALL are sinners. The penalty of transgression is death. Those found guilty of transgression die. Thus since all die, all are guilty by virtue of their Federal Head and in addition to any personal sins which they may commit in thought, word and/or deed. As Paul also makes clear in so many other places, ALL are without a personal righteousness (Rom 3:10). ALL are born under the just wrath of God (Eph 2:1-3). That which differentiates between men is solely the discriminating mercy of God (Rom 9:10ff).


Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.



(3) Now, looking at the LORD Christ, as He is the Federal Head of "all, the many". As death came upon all men that are united to Adam in his transgression, so does justification come upon "all, the many" that are united to Christ in His death. But to this you balk and wrote: "The redemption of God should fit the nature of the Fall -- done for all mankind that all may obtain eternal life if they so desire.". The text simply does not say, "that all may obtain . . .", but rather:


Romans 5:16-17 (ASV) "And not as through one that sinned, [so] is the gift: for the judgment [came] of one unto condemnation, but the free gift [came] of many trespasses unto justification. For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, [even] Jesus Christ."



The analogy is fixed in that the consequences of one infallibly effects all and cannot be bifurcated. Thus "all die" and "all are justified and reign in life". As I pointed out to you before, if you are wanting to make "all" to mean "all mankind without exception", then of necessity you must also bow to Universalism, which I believe you do not wish to do. Or, you have to somehow understand the "all" to mean "all who come under the headship of another", the means of which is not synonymous between Adam and Christ. With Adam, all are joined with him by virtue of the flesh. With Christ, all are joined to Him by faith. The former is a "natural" relationship, the latter is a spiritual relationship. To this truth I made mention in another reply to you, i.e., the "Fatherhood of God" is not one of the flesh, but of the Spirit/spirit and it is not one of nature but of grace. Sinners BECOME sons of God when they are reconciled to God by grace through faith in Christ alone. Otherwise, all are born "children of wrath".


Ephesians 1:4-5, 11(ASV) ". . .even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, . . . in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;



In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 16 guests, and 97 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
December
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
666,360 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.053s Queries: 16 (0.002s) Memory: 2.7377 MB (Peak: 3.0457 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-16 12:50:11 UTC