'Theology Discussion Group'

I am more concerned that the so-called 'leaders' of that particular church are condoning and even administering this sacrament to this woman a second time. THAT sir, is most grievous, for it shows a lack of sound biblical teaching on their part. Darrin's response is typical, in that it doesn't matter evidently to him whether or not truth and the proper exercise of it are maintained, but rather 'if it feels good, do it!' is the rigour of the day. How sad! But, I also find that I must again disagree with you brother over yet another issue on this Baptism subject, and that is your own understanding of water baptism itself. Does water baptism, has water baptism EVER symbolized regeneration? Being that I am a Paedobaptist, I hold that baptism, the sign and seal of the redemption in Christ of the New Covenant superseded circumcision, the sign and seal of the redemption in the Christ to come of the Old Covenant. Circumcision, being a shadow and type of Baptism was given to Abraham not as a 'sign' of his regeneration but of his being a recipient of the blessings of the Covenant with God; ie., salvation and more specifically Justification. This is the primary meaning and that symbolized in both circumcision and baptism, NOT regeneration.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Do you really think the apostle Paul 'bent' the eternal and immutable truths taught him by the Lord Jesus Christ to accommodate the various people he confronted so as to 'possibly save some'? I would rather hold that Paul was a shining example of his Master who taught him all things which He, the Lord Christ did before him and perfectly. And the Lord Christ NEVER even considered allowing his hearers dictate his words or actions, not could He have done so. Perhaps you would benefit from reading the linked article: The Refusal of Christ to Conform to the Wishes of the People.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Let's be consistent now shall we? If what you believe was true, then the Lord's Table should not be administered either, for it too is a proclamation of God's saving grace in Christ Jesus and the cleansing from sins in His blood. [Still continuing with your line of thought] Was not Christ's atoning sacrifice sufficient to remit all the sins of His sheep? If so, then why drink a glass of wine [grape juice for our Fundamentalist brethren] repetitively at the Lord's Table? Is not the communion we have with Christ effected by the indwelling Spirit? Then why partake of the bread at the Lord's Table? Why have communion at all? This same sacrament was instituted before Pentecost and with only Jewish disciples. But perhaps you DO view the Lord's Table as superfluous to the Gentile portion of the Christian Church and was restricted to a by-gone dispensation during the first century among Jewish converts? Is it not sufficient that the Lord Christ COMMANDED both baptism and the Lord's Supper be practiced perpetually among His beloved? Can it be that the entire Christian Church, with all it's disagreements over doctrine, yet in agreement in the perpetuity of these two sacraments/ordinances, were all wrong? As an aside, and not meant to carry any weight of argument, I would love to see you stand face to face with Calvin, or Edwards, or Owen or Spurgeon and tell them that they are in serious error and have misinterpreted the Scriptures in regards to the truth of Baptism. And then open your Bible and show them 'a better way'! :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Let's be consistent now shall we? If what you believe was true, then the Lord's Table should not be administered either, for it too is a proclamation of God's saving grace in Christ Jesus and the cleansing from sins in His blood. [Still continuing with your line of thought] Was not Christ's atoning sacrifice sufficient to remit all the sins of His sheep? If so, then why drink a glass of wine [grape juice for our Fundamentalist brethren] repetitively at the Lord's Table? Is not the communion we have with Christ effected by the indwelling Spirit? Then why partake of the bread at the Lord's Table? Why have communion at all? This same sacrament was instituted before Pentecost and with only Jewish disciples. But perhaps you DO view the Lord's Table as superfluous to the Gentile portion of the Christian Church and was restricted to a by-gone dispensation during the first century among Jewish converts? Is it not sufficient that the Lord Christ COMMANDED both baptism and the Lord's Supper be practiced perpetually among His beloved? Can it be that the entire Christian Church, with all it's disagreements over doctrine, yet in agreement in the perpetuity of these two sacraments/ordinances, were all wrong? As an aside, and not meant to carry any weight of argument, I would love to see you stand face to face with Calvin, or Edwards, or Owen or Spurgeon and tell them that they are in serious error and have misinterpreted the Scriptures in regards to the truth of Baptism. And then open your Bible and show them 'a better way'! :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
---
============== I do not see the problems with observing the Lord's Supper or Communion that there are with practicing a 'water baptism'...be it by sprinking or immersion. Also, we do not have to answer to these great Bible scholars that you mentioned, but only to the Lord Himself whom we will meet face to face. Just because 'we have always done it that way' should not be our reason for keeping or holding on to a certain practice in the church. I did not say that these men were in 'great error'; they served their time very well in all the Light God gave them. freegrace

Are you serious? 'I did not say that these men were in 'great error'; they served their time very well in all the Light God gave them.' You are clearly saying here that God deliberately has kept the Church, from the days of the Apostles until 'whoever' it was that came up with this idea that water baptism was restricted to an arbitrary time period and only for Jewish converts. Again, with great similarity that within all Christendom there are many differences of dogma, yet Predestination, until the last 150 years, was universally held by the overwhelming majority of denominations and individual Christians, including Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, between whom there was chasmic disagreement. The same holds true for Baptism. Sure, we may differ as to the mode (immersion, effusion, aspersion). We may indeed differ over who are legitimate recipients (adults only or including infants). We may even differ as to the exact meaning of Baptism. But one thing which has not been disputed is the perpetuity and practice of it within the Christian Church, even in it's broadest meaning. I would encourage you to consider the implications of what you are embracing at this point in your pilgrimage. :-) Secondly, and lastly, again if one wishes to embrace the methodology used to conclude that water Baptism is invalid for the Church, even as early as the time during which the Apostles themselves still lived and taught the truths of God, then the same MUST be true also for the doctrine of the Lord's Table, for they both originated from the very same source, the LORD Christ Himself, and during the exact same time period and to the very same individuals. As I see it, you are forced into a 'both/and' situation from which there is no defense. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Welcome to The Highway's 'Theology Discussion Forum'. If you haven't done so, I would direct you to the 'Guidelines' of the Forum which you can read by clicking the link in the Forum's introductory header. It is important that you understand how this Forum is set up and what rules it operates by. As to your questions concerning Baptism, which seem to be becoming more of a 'challenge' to Paedobaptists rather than an honest inquiry by one who is seriously studying the issue and seeking answers, :-); and since you probably have missed the previous discussions on this topic, I would like to ask you, as one who seems to embrace Credobaptism, if you would be so kind as to give me your brief Definition of what Baptism means. When I asked this question before, it went no where actually, but perhaps you would be willing to engage me at this point by simply doing this? Thanks. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim PS: There is a very interesting article on The Highway web site which you might avail yourself for the purpose of increasing your knowledge and furthering your 'study': The Means of Grace: Baptism.

First, Prestor John didn't really give a definition as much as he rightly corrected someone else's response that did not define Baptism. This has always been the most difficult thing for Baptists to do, for as I see it, their error in restricting baptism to only 'believing adults' prohibits them from being able to have a definition period. I remember debating John Reisinger on the topic of Baptism publicly over 15 years ago when I was younger and had lots of 'vim and vigor', hehehe. At the conclusion of that debate, which was a 'draw', we embraced as brothers in Christ and realized that we shared far more in common on this issue of Baptism than we differed on. I think that the main reason that the debate was able to be 'spirited' but never harsh, heated or hateful is because there was a solid grasp of the whole of Scripture on both sides. We both realized that neither view had an advantage but rather both views could be plausible. What is actually came down to was how one's view was APPLIED. And if you remember this too was a topic discussed here as well and is more of an issue that divides than the actual doctrine of Baptism itself. And if I may launch a 'dart' at this point at all my Baptist brothers, has anyone ever seen or heard of any church advertise its name as e.g., 'Grace Paedobaptist Church', or 'Whatever City Infant Baptism Community Church', etc.?? I think this speaks volumes in itself and so I'll not make further comment. :-) Tom, brother. . . IF I even suspected that you or anyone else was becoming a 'yes man' in my regard, I would immediately be burdened with guilt for possibly being a substandard teacher of God's Word and perhaps much worse. If I have succeeded in attracting 'followers' whose eyes are focused upon me rather than the LORD Jesus Christ, then I am at best a miserable failure both to men and before God. May this never be true. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim 'If you find yourself loving any pleasure better than your prayers, any book better than the Bible, any house better than the house of God, any table better than the Lord's table, any person better than Christ, any indulgence better than the hope of heaven - take alarm!' - Thomas Guthrie.

Thanks for the reply. The problem here is that not only is the definition you give assent to not supportive of 'Believer's Baptism', it mitigates against it and further it raises insurmountable problems. 1) To be a true definition, what is stated MUST be true absolutely. There can be no conditions and/or qualifications which would make it untrue. Let me illustrate! The 'definition given says that Baptism IS a 'witness,' 'picture,' and a 'sign'. Those things which are witnessed to, pictured and signs of, MUST be true and always occur or Baptism cannot be in fact any of those things defined. Let's take something very simple but true to the point as an example of this fact. Mercedes still manufactures their fine automobiles with a hood ornament. Most people can quickly recognize it when they see it. This hood ornament too is a 'witness'; to the famous reputation that Mercedes has for building automobiles of fine craftsmanship. The design is also a 'picture' that represents something, to which I must admit I haven't a clue what, hahaha. And it is also a 'sign' that points again to the name, factory, and excellence of that automobile. When anyone sees this emblem, this hood ornament on a car, it SIGNIFIES that the automobile IS a Mercedes. If another automobile manufacturer, eg., Chevrolet, put the Mercedes hood ornament; their 'witness,' 'picture,' 'sign' on their cars, they would immediately be sued and made to take it off. Why? Because the thing signified would not be that which the 'sign' pointed to. Again... When you see a Mercedes, it too signifies something.. it is a testimony to itself and all that went into the design and manufacturing of it. As the name 'signifies', it is a Mercedes REGARDLESS of who is driving it, where it is driven or how it is driven. A Mercedes is a Mercedes if I drive it down the street, or if you do or even if a monkey drives it. Why? Because the definition of what a Mercedes IS does NOT depend on a set of 'conditions and or qualifications' to be what it is. This 'definition' of Baptism, which is just a more detailed version of the more popular one, 'Baptism is: The outward sign of an inward reality.'; making reference to the indwelling Spirit signifying the salvation of the one baptized, is NOT a true definition for it cannot stand alone as being consistently true REGARDLESS of circumstances. Why? Well, simply, IF Baptism IS: 'An outward sign of an inward reality', then it MUST also be true, that all those who are the recipients of that 'sign' (Baptism) MUST have the 'reality', i.e., salvation. But immediately, all Baptists without exception jump up and yell, NO....... we do not believe that everyone who is baptized is saved!!! I say, Amen! agreed. But then the definition is not true and must be discarded for it is NOT true. It cannot stand alone and give credence to it's absolute signification regardless of the person subject to it. Again, simply put, this 'definition' which is no definition at all, is only 'true' part of the time. It's verity in signifying those things within its definition are ONLY true IF the person being baptized IS IN FACT A TRUE BELIEVER. The meaning of baptism is dependent NOT upon objective truths, but upon the truthfulness of the subjective testimony of the object of baptism itself. This is like saying a Mercedes is ONLY a Mercedes IF a rich person from Dallas drives it, but any other time, it's an Edsel; hardly an acceptable case for what a definition is supposed to be and is. However, I do believe that there is a biblical definition for baptism which is a true DEFINITION; i.e., it describes what Baptism IS in and of itself under all circumstances and regardless of who it is that is subjected to it. Thus, theoretically, it wouldn't matter WHO is baptized for what Baptism truly means to be true; i.e., it ALWAYS is a TRUE: 'witness,' 'picture,' and 'sign' and much more EVERY SINGLE TIME it is administered. But I've leave that possible for another time. I am more interested in your and other's responses to what I have said here. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

I too agree with Dr. Packer's remarks concerning baptism. :-) However, you conclude that his understanding of biblical baptism automatically EXCLUDES infants. I find this rather intriguing since Dr. Packer is a Paedobaptist and rejects the idea that baptism = immersion. There is no doubt that one of the reasons for the disparity shown here is that Packer and myself are taking an OBJECTIVE definition of baptism which stands on it's own REGARDLESS of the recipient undergoing the sacrament, and you and most all Baptists are taking a SUBJECTIVE definition of baptism which stands only on the credibility and reality of a profession of faith by the one being baptized. My contention is that no where in Scripture can one show this to be what the Lord Christ nor any of the inspired writers taught. Again, let me try and illustrate, but only this time much more briefly. The definition of the Gospel is OBJECTIVE, in that it states what it IS INHERENTLY; i.e., it's content; the message itself. It makes no difference WHO hears it. The Gospel doesn't change according to the audience being address; albeit the majority of modern professing Christians would loudly disagree. But the Scriptures say differently, that the Gospel is a SET of objective elements which are perpetual and immutable. The Gospel is a compilation of facts concerning God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, sin, death, judgment, atonement, reconciliation, grace, glory, etc. The Gospel isn't defined according to the faith or lack of it of the one who hears it. Likewise, Baptism should be defined according to a set of OBJECTIVE truths which are perpetual and immutable; that do not vary according to the one being baptized. This is why it simply CANNOT be: 'An outward sign of an inward reality'! For most all of us, regardless of our position on this doctrine, will freely admit that there are some, perhaps even many who are not true believers when they are baptized. And it is clear that this is where you are getting you main objection to infant baptism! You say that the definition won't allow an infant to be baptized!! Why? Because how could one be sure that faith is present? And that's exactly my objection... you are making an alleged faith the GROUND of defining what Baptism IS! But in doing so, your objection to paedobaptism falls far harder upon you than me. For how can you, or anyone, GUARANTEE that everyone, anyone, who is baptized INFALLIBLY is a true believer? Simply, you can't!! Therefore if baptism is ONLY for true believers, then it is incumbent upon someone, some body to discern and decree that one is truly saved before they are eligible for baptism. Now I know all the hemming and hawing that goes on at this point and all the excuses why we can't pronounce absolute salvation upon anyone. But this only goes to prove my point exactly. It is IMPOSSIBLE to defend 'Believer's Baptism', unless you are willing to show that true faith can be discerned INFALLIBLY. And I think that many Baptists have wisely dropped this nomenclature and opted for 'Credobaptism' instead. Although the same problems plague them as well after the more acceptable terminology has been adopted! :-) Look forward to your reply.

In His Grace, Pilgrim

Excellent reply. I think this is where the 'rubber hits the road'; i.e., the acknowledgment and understanding of the ONE Covenant of Grace with its Continuities and Discontinuities. Many of the objections to Paedobaptism by Credobaptists I think can be sufficiently answered in the recognition of the Covenant's New Universality and New Spirituality. The basic structure and intent of the Covenant of Grace hasn't changed from its original inception in the Garden of Eden. But with the coming of the Messiah and the Lord Christ's fulfilling of all its requirements, the Signs and Seals i.e., Baptism and the Lord's Table, were given to show forth the completion of His atoning work where in the Old Economy, all the other 'signs and seals' pointed forward to Him and that work he accomplished for the elect. It is my personal view, that once one understands that Baptism MUST be defined OBJECTIVELY and thus its meaning is universal and perpetual regardless of the spiritual state of the recipient, then discussion of WHY Baptism can and should be administered to infants of professed believers will be far more fruitful.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every believer, wherein he is immersed in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as a sign of his fellowship with the death and resurrection of Christ, of remission of sins, and of his giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life. It is prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord's Supper

There you go Pilgrim how's that? Definition enough?

'Personally though, and this is something that I disagree with Baptist tradition over. If someone like Pilgrim came in my Church and I knew that they were believers. I would have no trouble with them having Church fellowship or for that matter participation in the Lord's Supper, or for Church membership if they so desired.

Is that your equating membership in the local church/assembly with baptism while I am equating it with the body of Christ. I believe that every person must be baptized period. And I agree with Calvin in that the churches should determine how baptism is to be performed.(Institutes Book 4; 15:19) but I must say that their decision as to the mode of baptism must be based upon scripture. Prestor John Servabo Fidem.

Hey, that's not bad! well, better than what has been offered to this point. However, the focus is still upon the recipient, which may or may not be a legitimate recipient of the blessings included in it. Of course, this definition states explicitly that Baptism is to be equated ONLY with 'immersion'! If we were to accept this as a true premise 'definition' does this thereby mean that if a person is not immersed, then he has not been truly baptized and is therefore guilty of disobedience to Christ's explicit command to be 'immersed in water'? And if this is true, does this then negate all the blessings indicated?

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

As to your comment about the focus being upon the recipient. This I believe is the core of the difference between credobaptists and paedobaptists. You and I will both agree that in both of our views there are those that are baptized that will not hold true to that baptism. However, while yours would be baptized as an infant and then taught of Christ until they made a good confession, ours would be discipled first and then after their confession baptized. Now sir I would say that this is the command found in Matt. 28:18-20 that teaching first comes and then baptism. That is a better eisogeisis of the scripture.

Prestor John

Hey, that's not bad! well, better than what has been offered to this point. However, the focus is still upon the recipient, which may or may not be a legitimate recipient of the blessings included in it. Of course, this definition states explicitly that Baptism is to be equated ONLY with 'immersion'! If we were to accept this as a true premise 'definition' does this thereby mean that if a person is not immersed, then he has not been truly baptized and is therefore guilty of disobedience to Christ's explicit command to be 'immersed in water'? And if this is true, does this then negate all the blessings indicated?

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
---
================ Ephesians 1:3 says that all true beleivers are *already* blessed in heavenly places with Christ! What 'blessings' will a person miss out on if they are not baptised 'with' or 'in' water? Just wondering. Thanks. freegrace

A 'monitor' informed me that you were mistaken for someone else who is not welcome here.... sorry about your post being deleted! :-) As to your query concerning 2 Peter 3:9, the answer is really quite simple. If you would just go back to 1:1 and read through the Epistle to 3:9 and notice WHO is being addressed and the use of 'we' and 'us', then you will clearly see that the 'usward' etc. in 3:9 does not apply to every man, woman and child who was ever born, now is, or ever will be, but Peter is rather addressing his letter to believers. I think you can take it from there. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

You wrote this horrid bit of eisogesis, ' 'The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any [of you] to perish but for all [of you] to come to repentance.'' The INSPIRED TEXT says: 2Pet 3:9 'The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Grammatically it is indisputable that the antecedent of 'any' and 'all' is us-ward. But hey, if you want to add to the Word of God that's fine, for I am willing to go along with your eisogesis just for the sake of argument. So allowing your inserted [you] to be read INTO the text, it still stands grammatically necessary that the two [you's] are referring to us-ward! Thus as I have maintained all along, one must determine by SOUND EXEGESIS who the us-ward refers to. From the very first verse: 'to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:' of the Epistle and throughout its entirety, Peter is addressing BELIEVERS and makes reference to the ELECT which have not yet come to faith. Only someone who is deliberately blind would be unable to see this. There are so many references to believers through 2Peter that they are to numerous to list. The entire purpose of Peter's epistle is to upbuild and encourage believers who are under severe persecution for their faith. You then asked, 'Why would Peter have been so foolish as to assume that people who had not yet come to repentance were elect?' Peter was shown of God that the elect must COME TO repentance and that God Himself would grant the repentance needed (Acts 11:18). So then, how can one be so foolish as to ask such a question? Is it your view that the elect are born inherently repentant? Paul evidently was also 'foolish' in your eyes, for not only did he KNOW that the elect must come to repentance, but that they were in need of regeneration first, being 'dead and trespasses and sins' and were 'by nature children of wrath, even as others' (Eph 2:3). Why would Paul be so foolish to believe that all the elect must COME TO repentance? Because the LORD God told him so (cf Acts 18:9, 10). John the Baptist preached a CALL TO repentance (Matt 3:2) and so did the Lord Christ preach the necessity of repentance (Matt 4:17). The fact that ONLY the 'elect' are given the ability and desire to repent surely proves that ALL THE ELECT must at some point and time COME TO repentance. But, who are the elect? Do they walk around with red dots on their foreheads? Perhaps they have neon signs glued to their backs so that everyone can recognize them? No, the 'elect' are those who DO repent and believe. Therefore the necessity to call ALL MEN to repentance and faith. And it is THROUGH the outward 'call' that the Spirit of God works the 'inward call' and the fruit thereof is REPENTANCE. Is it so very hard to put yourself into the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of those whom Peter is addressing in his inspired epistle 'to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:', 'brethren,' 'beloved,' 'we,' 'us-ward' and so many more phrases which make reference to those who are 'in Christ'! The entire epistle focuses upon THEM and contrasts THEM with 'false prophets,' 'persecutors', 'scoffers,' 'ungodly men', et al, of which all shall perish. The readers were deeply concerned about family, friends etc., who as yet had not COME TO repentance because it seemed that the return of Christ was imminent. And if He should suddenly appear, then the great Judgment would be ushered in and they would surely perish in their sins. But Peter assures them that God's promises are sure and that not 'any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.' So, the issue is whether or not you want to fall into rank UNIVERSALISM, or take the passage in its proper context and accept the fact that Peter is addressing ALL the elect, both present at that time and those who were to come.

Pilgrim

A text out of context is nothing more than PRETEXT!

Pilgrim

Well, your reply is quite telling... I said little about your translation but critcized your EISOGESIS (interpretation) of that translation. As I showed you, the two [you]'s plainly are inseparably bound to the usward before it. And the fact that the [you]'s are in brackets should also tell you something? or at least I hope it would. As usual you refuse to deal with anyone's rebuttals to your postulations. This happens so often that I can only assume that you can't return a cogent and/or relevant answer and/or you recognize the validity of all these refutations but love error more than the truth. Sooooo, as with nearly every other thread you involve yourself in and play this silly game, I will bow out of this topic for discussion as well, as far as responding to you.

Sounds good to this old man's ears brother! :-) What is many times either misunderstood by some and denied by others is the two-fold nature of the 'curse' put on Adam for his transgression. 1) The GUILT of Adam is 'transferred', i.e., 'Imputed' to all of us. Being that Adam was the Federal Head of the entire human race, he was our representative, so that whatever he did he did not just as an individual, but as one who acted on behalf of all who would follow him. As you correctly stated, it wasn't as if we were actually and physically there, although there are those who take the 'Seminal' position on this. Doubtless, as Levi was 'in the loins of Abraham', so were we in Adam, for genetically we share his existence as it were. Rather, we were there with Adam as he was our Corporate Head and thus he acted and spoke on our behalf. This 'Corporate Solidarity' is that which all men participate in with Adam, and in which all those who believe share with their HEAD, the LORD Christ. His perfect life and sacrificial death are ours, and they are ours as if we ourselves lived that perfect life of righteousness and suffered the eternal wrath which God poured out upon Him. 2) The CORRUPTION which Adam experienced immediately after his disobedience, which was promised by the LORD God, 'for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' [ Side Note: I believe that Eve's response to the serpent, 'But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.' (Gen. 3:3), was a true statement. Adam was either told this and relayed it to Eve, or God repeated His prohibition to them both at a subsequent time, or Eve was properly (spiritually) understanding the true import of God's original commandment. (cf. Matt 5:27ff and Jesus' rendering of the Law). This 'death' was three-fold: 1) physical, 2) spiritual and 3) eternal. The spiritual death is that corruption which came upon Adam and is actually passed on to all his progeny. We INHERIT the corruption of the soul as just punishment for having disobeyed the explicit commandment of God. In this case, we ACTUALLY own the corruption of soul, whereas the GUILT is 'imputed'. In both instances, there is no injustice on God's part in imposing both the GUILT and the CORRUPTION to all mankind. What needs to be maintained is that this CORRUPTION is the just punishment due for the GUILT we all bear. And being guilty before God, we are by nature, 'children of wrath' and subject to the eternal death to come. It is upon THIS basis that all men are condemned to hell/Lake of Fire. No actual sins are necessary for one to be cast into hell, for we are 'conceived in sin' and under the judgment of God by nature. The fact that 'all men die' is testimony to the fact that 'all have sinned'! For the wages of SIN is death. It is an interesting fact, that if what Eric, the Arminians, Semi-Pelagians, Pelagians and all the cults believe about 'innocence' and this 'externalizing' of sin were true, then Paul's discourse in Romans 9 would be a mute issue and there would have been not one objection, such as, 'Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?' (Rom 9:19). The salvation apprehended in Christ is solely due to the sovereign mercy of God upon those who otherwise would stand guilty before Him in their natural condition. It is only by a predestinating, electing, sovereign God of all mercy and grace that any are saved. Thus in Christ Jesus God is '. . . just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.' (Rom. 3:26). Finally, the faith which is a prerequisite to justification is imparted by Grace at the time of regeneration. Again, to externalize faith is to misunderstand the nature of both regeneration and faith itself. The 'believing' on the Lord Christ unto justification is the 'external' manifestation of the faith which is imparted to the soul. An embryo is incapable of expressing that faith in the same manner as a cognizant adult. And it would be ludicrous to require that it be done so. The same applies to those who, by God's providence, are born with mental disabilities and are also incapable of comprehending and/or expressing what 'normal' adults do. So what hope do we have that infants and those who are mentally incapable of comprehending the necessity of being in Christ or who are incapable of expressing a sure desire to be found in Christ through the outward believing upon Him? We have a sure hope, for 'Salvation is of the LORD!' For not only did the LORD our God provide the 'way of salvation' in Christ, but all the necessary MEANS by which all those whom He has determined to reconcile to Himself in Jesus Christ are also infallibly imparted to each and every one for whom Christ died by the Spirit's working of regeneration in them.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Your heading of this message was, 'I'm not Pilgrim, or even close, but...'. Does that mean that you have more hair than I do? Well, I surely hope so! :-) I will not presume to know exactly what Eric's views are concerning the doctrine of Justification, but I can surely agree with you. Our righteousness is an 'alien righteousness', although possessed by us through faith, it is not a righteousness that is ours by nature, even after regeneration and our believing upon Christ. This is why Luther was emphatic in his delineation of the doctrine of justification that we are 'simul iustus et peccatore' [simultaneously righteous AND sinner]. In other words, this righteousness is not INFUSED in us. Again, walking carefully upon this razor's edge, we must also affirm, that there is indeed a transformation of our souls, which regeneration is but the first phase. We are henceforth Sanctified, being made to 'partake of the divine nature' (2Pet 1:4); being 'made holy' (Eph 1:4) due to having been 'predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son.' (Rom 8:29). Albeit this transformation is partial and principial, it is nonetheless actual and real. However, this transformation of our newly created natures is NOT the basis of our righteousness, for that transformation is the RESULT of having been DECLARED righteousness on the basis of the Lord Christ's vicarious substitutionary 'active and passive obedience.' Christ's death was sufficient ONLY to 'blot out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;' (Col 2:14). It was his perfection in keeping all the Law of God which secured for us that necessary righteousness which is imputed to us when we trust in HIM (note: not by believing that Jesus died for us! This is part of the assurance of faith; cf. Gal 2:20). The relationship between our Great Redeemer and us as sinners is so intimate that Paul states: 2Cor 5:21 'For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. We are no more actually 'made righteousness any more than the Lord Christ was made to be sin; i.e., our sins were vicariously borne by Him so that He suffered the penalty due us in Himself. And we are made to be righteous in that HIS righteousness is IMPUTED to us as if it were our own. It is an incomprehensible act of sheer grace on God's part that we should 'bear' the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Being a 'picky guy', I would like to just comment on one small matter which you said: 'And it can't be forgotten that it was believers' sins which were the nails which bound him to the cross. It was for the very purpose of the vicarious suffering for believers' sins for which He died:' This is surely a true statement, that our sins were object of God's eternal wrath which fell upon the Saviour. However, He didn't die for 'sins', but rather He died for US; us as persons; His beloved sheep. Let me expand just a bit but say that this is NOT directed at you whatsoever...!! What I want to say now is directed at the modern conception and popular belief that 'God hates and punishes SIN, but He loves the sinner!' This is woefully bad language at best. What this concept does is to diminish, if not even deny the deep eternal love of God which He had for those whom He predestinated to be reconciled to Himself through the SUBSTITUTIONARY death of His only begotten Son. The wrath of God did not fall upon 'sin(s)' at that cursed cross, but upon the LORD Christ, who took OUR place. Sin is not something which exists apart from a sinner. Sin exists ONLY because a PERSON has transgressed the Law of God. Sin is the failure to 'love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and might.' (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37). And this is the mystery of the ages, that those whom God HATED due to our sin natures which are the root of all the sins committed in the body, He, by the counsel of His own will, from all eternity determined to bless a remnant of Adam's fallen race by offering up His beloved Son in our behalf, in love, having predestinated us. . . to be conformed to the image of His Son. It is there at that cruel cross that the infinite paradox took place; where God's holy hatred toward sinners and God's eternal love for these enemies of God were displayed in their fullest sense. 'Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!. God didn't punish 'sin', but rather His wrath fell upon ME on that cross. I have been crucified with Christ! And thus that perfect righteousness of Christ is 'put upon' the believer; he is 'clothed' with the righteousness of Christ. (cf. Zech 3:1-5; Rev 3:5; Matt 22:11, 12). That righteousness of Christ given to us is 'external' as was Adam's leaf. Yet it is sufficient to cover ALL our nakedness and thus we are DECLARED righteous and adopted as heirs, being made sons of God 'in Christ'!

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Good old Pilgrim is short on free time so I'm going to pass the ball over to Dr. John Murray. Thus I will refer you to probably one of the finest presentations on this subject that I have had the privilege to read, The Imputation of Adam's Sin. I have my doubts that it is online, but perhaps a search might in fact turn it up. Otherwise, it is still available for sale through the publisher, 'Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing'. In this book he deals with all the various views that relate to imputation, e.g., 1) The Sin Contemplated: Pelagian view, Roman Catholic view, Calvin's view and the Classic Protestant view, 2) The Union Involved: Realistic view and Representative view (to which I adhere), 3) The Nature of the Imputation: Mediate, and Immediate (to which I adhere) 4) The Sin Imputed. In the beginning of the book Murray deals with the syntactical problem of the text itself, which is very intriguing and enlightening. Highly Recommended

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Good old Pilgrim is short on free time so I'm going to pass the ball over to Dr. John Murray. Thus I will refer you to probably one of the finest presentations on this subject that I have had the privilege to read, The Imputation of Adam's Sin. I have my doubts that it is online, but perhaps a search might in fact turn it up. Otherwise, it is still available for sale through the publisher, 'Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing'. In this book he deals with all the various views that relate to imputation, e.g., 1) The Sin Contemplated: Pelagian view, Roman Catholic view, Calvin's view and the Classic Protestant view, 2) The Union Involved: Realistic view and Representative view (to which I adhere), 3) The Nature of the Imputation: Mediate, and Immediate (to which I adhere) 4) The Sin Imputed. In the beginning of the book Murray deals with the syntactical problem of the text itself, which is very intriguing and enlightening. Highly Recommended

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
---
______________________ BOOOOOO HIIIIISSSSSSSSS! ....laz