"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." (Acts 2:39) Three observations:
1) Notice that the promise is monergistic - it is to those whom the Lord calls - that's how the promise is phrased. It's not to "even as many as shall work really, really hard."
2) Paedobaptists sometimes quote this passage incompletely as though it just say "unto you and to your children." It says more than that, and the "even as many as the Lord our God shall call" is definitely key.
3) Still, I haven't heard my Reformed Baptist brothers provide an adequate explanation for the reference to children, if not to suggest that God is going to continue dealing with families as families. This looks like the kind of thing we see several times in the Old Testament - now with an expansion to those who are not Jews. That's not the central point of the verse, but it seems to be the most obvious reason for the reference to children - a passing reference to the fact of familial treatment that God applied up to this point both with respect to Israel and the nations.
Monday, February 09, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
Amen, Tfan. In Acts 2, God takes the established covenant formula and extends it beyond the offspring of Abraham to those of every tribe, nation and tongue.
Genesis 13:15 for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever.
Hey TFan,
Infants don't prophesy (see Joel 2:28).
I think the point is that the guilt of killing Christ need not be visited on the decedents of Jews who had Christ crucified.
But one good infant baptism question deserves another. 1 Peter 3:21 calls baptism a "pledge" of a clean conscience before God. I what sense are infants capable of a pledge?
God be with you,
Dan
To as many as the Lord our God shall call(Acts 2:39) Called through the Gospel message not willy nilly before they were born. That is what John 6:44-45 is about (that Calvinists routinely twist for their own devices).It also goes hand in hand with Romans 10:14-17 how shall believe in whom they heard and how shall they hear without a preacher sent. John 17:18 as you have sent me into the world even so have I sent the Apostles. Jesus was sent the exact same way the apostles were the only ones we know were sent of God because Jesus said so! So you can stand on Calvin's murderous shoulders and anyone else in history all you like to be astray. But I will line up with the apostles and Jesus who did not teach us to become like little hell bound baby cretins but said they we were to become like children as innocent. Not with inherited sin.
@gimj: the prenatal John Prodromos saluted Christ; Jeremiah was called antenatally; just sayin'...
Regarding infants and prophecy, interestingly (in addition to KS's points):
Psalm 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
Matthew 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Regarding the pledge - it is God's pledge to us, not ours to him. Infants can receive even if they cannot give.
I don't follow your point about guilt.
Similarly,
In Acts 15:15 we have the Jerusalem Council rendering a decision on circumcision based on Amos 9:11.12.
A verse that is translated by the Council to refer to "all the Gentiles" rather than the more general "all the Nations" of the Hebrew manuscripts. A more specific application for a specific situation.
TF, in your specific application of Acts 2 it may include children also, but not necessarily. Just as the decision to circumcise does not include "all the Gentiles".
TF,
Regarding Matthew 21, Christ quoted it to defend children old enough to sing "Hosanna to the Son of David". The word infant is form Latin for in-fatus, meaning those who don't speak. So if they don't speak, they don't speak prophesies.
On 1 Peter 3:21, one of us is way off. Because of your usual accuracy with scripture, I feared it was me. So I read a half dozen commentaries and they all agreed the pledge is "to God" rather than from God. Of course the text says it's "to God". So unless you can provide some argument or link to an argument, I am just going to have to disagree.
On Acts 2:39, I hope we can find common ground on Peter's general point that you and your family need not perish, but can experience forgiveness. Now we might differ on if "your children" includes future generations or not. All that I am saying above is that I think that it does.
God be with you,
Dan
Kirk Skeptic,
They called him John the Baptist not John the Catholic. ;-)
God be with you,
Dan
What I find interesting is the obvious promise of God was originally given to Abram that God would make him great and he would become a blessing and that all that blessed him would be blessed AND that in Abram all the "families" of the earth shall be blessed. "Monergism" The idea of a family implies and is implicit that there will come forth children.
What goes along that reasoning is this:::>
Gen 12:7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.
"Monergism" Notice what followed the promise made to Abram?
Then this:::>
Gen 18:17 The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,
Gen 18:18 seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
Gen 18:19 For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him."
"Monergism" again. But this time, notice the emphasis being placed on what follows the promise made? Verse 19 says God elected Abraham so that he would "command" both his "children" and his "household".
One wonders with this evidence why any "Elect" parent would not want to begin the inculcation and instruction of their child as early as eight days from birth by baptism?
Are we suppose to believe Abraham didn't start teaching his children the truths he was imparted until they were old enough to reason? As we know "God's Faith" comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
No where in those verses from Genesis does God teach that we should reason with our children into Faith.
It does seem to me that our Reformed Baptist friends are teaching just that? Doesn't the reasoning go something like this? Wait until your child is old enough to reason, then teach them about Christ and Him crucified and if they then want too, apparently the Holy Spirit wants us to wait for them to want to be baptized first, then we give them a test to be sure they understand what baptism is all about, then we have a baptism service.
mlculwell
// But I will line up with the apostles and Jesus who did not teach us to become like little hell bound baby cretins but said they we were to become like children as innocent.//
Interesting. Can you then explain this in regard to that that I cite from your comments?:::>
Joh 21:5 Jesus said to them, "Children, do you have any fish?" They answered him, "No."
And more precisely this, too:::>
Joh 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
Apparently Jesus wanted the Apostles when they were to enter into their earthly ministries spreading the Gospel to the ends of the earth to feed lambs too!
Dan,
//Now we might differ on if "your children" includes future generations or not. All that I am saying above is that I think that it does.//
Can you explain why God would have this written and not want parents thinking about their grand children and great grand children:::>
Psa 78:1 A Maskil of Asaph. Give ear, O my people, to my teaching; incline your ears to the words of my mouth!
Psa 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old,
Psa 78:3 things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us.
Psa 78:4 We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might, and the wonders that he has done.
Psa 78:5 He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children,
Psa 78:6 that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children,
Psa 78:7 so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments;
Psa 78:8 and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God.
Do you see it? First verse three:
" things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us. "
I was told or I read somewhere that the one sense of the five senses that is fully formed at birth, with the exception of a child born deaf, is their hearing!
Then verse four:
"We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might, and the wonders that he has done."
These parents are to tell it to the "coming" generation!
Oh, but wait. We also then have this in verse six:::>
"that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children,"
Isn't that amazing that God, who is the one who told Abram that in him all the families of the earth would be blessed, is giving instructions to parents and grand parents and great grand parents to be thinking about their children "coming" so that those children once born would be taught to think about their unborn children and their unborn children.
Doesn't this establish for us the idea that we are to be thinking about the future generations of children to be born into the world?
Micahel wrote:"Apparently Jesus wanted the Apostles when they were to enter into their earthly ministries spreading the Gospel to the ends of the earth to feed lambs too!"
Yes absolutely he(Jesus) did want the Apostles to feed the lambs who could understand to believe and receive. Other than That do you have point?
Babies should not be baptized because they cannot believe or receive plus they do not have the false doctrine of inherited sin. no such false doctrine exists in scripture that is a Calvinist fabrication.
Babies die because of the curse of sin brought about by Adam, not because they inherit sin. I even heard James white make that false statement on his dividing line and I had to laugh even though it is a very sad serious false teaching.
mlculwell
//Babies should not be baptized because they cannot believe or receive ...//
mlc, can you cite any Scripture that supports that idea?
mlc //the false doctrine of inherited sin//
mlc, can you cite any Scripture that supports that idea?
thanks
Michael said:" can you give any scripture that say they do not believe or receive?"
My answer:
About as much as I can for the book of Mormon and the creeds being on the same level!
He also says:" Can give any scripture that says there is no inherited sin?"
My answer UM No! Because no scriptures exist either way! The scriptures are as silent as The worship of the saints and the Pope being the head of the church!
If you want to argue from silence(Which is what you are doing) Babies have under-developed minds to neither know what they are doing is wrong or right! Sin is something we do not something we inherit. How do I know the scriptures tell me so!
We can make all kinds of false doctrines. bring your scriptures for either and i will knock them clean out of your hands!
mlculwell,
just an after thought regarding this verse:
Gen 12:7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.
We understand what Abram did was very spiritual in nature not natural when after building that altar, he called upon the Name of the Lord.
We learn one of the interpretations to that verse is found here:::>
Gal 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.
Of course one has to account for all those babies from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah to Christ that were born. But also, one has to account for what Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born again before they die a natural death to pass from here to Paradise.
And of course, we think in terms of "spiritual" life not carnal when reasoning with these truths from Scripture.
So, when you read in John 21 Jesus call the several fishermen, "children" in verse five, of course we understand Jesus was making a distinction about their level of "spiritual" maturity not their historical maturity. Historically, it is supposed that several of the Apostles, if not all of them, were much older in natural age than Jesus who when He was inviting them to breakfast that morning He was only 33 plus years old.
We can say this matter, this issue about infant baptism, is a spiritual one not a natural one. So when baptizing anyone, young or old, we are doing a spiritual work for the Lord, a righteous deed to be sure!
mlculwell
// Sin is something we do not something we inherit. How do I know the scriptures tell me so!//
Can you then explain what Paul was revealing here:::>
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Mlculwell:Sin is something we do not something we inherit. How do I know? The scriptures tell me so!//
Can you then explain what Paul was revealing here:::>
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Mlculwell:
There is nothing here that gives us an inherited sin false doctrine.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
At least try please! You have given me nothing here that says we have inherited sin. (You are still arguing from silence)
That is his(Paul's) Flesh that wars against the Spirit of God. But Paul has the Spirit. And?
Romans 5:13-15
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 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.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.(The spirit) For if through the offence of one many be dead,(The curse of sin) much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. It is not inherited sin it is the curse of the law the day you eat you shall surely die.
Inherited sin is the false doctrine of your federal head and murderer John Calvin.
If you are speaking about babes in Christ who are able to believe and have that capacity and not infant baptism; then we agree! We will never agree on inherited sin as it is a clear false teaching as clear as baptism for infants is false teaching.
mlculwell,
well then I guess we will never agree, or, rather, until there is a change of heart by the revelation that comes from the the Holy Spirit one way or the other, we will never agree.
There are several personalities I could cite at this point that shows even the most righteous believers found written about in both the Old and New Testaments claimed their sinfulness. At this point I don't suppose it would be helpful.
I will though take a risk and cite one verse that is, for me at least, the connector verse that shows inherited sin is in my flesh and yours and everyone's regardless of their predetermined state of being in the Mind and Will of God before the foundation of the world and our conception.
Gen 3:20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
If you hold to that verse as truth, that is, all living means every person ever born from a womb, then within our genes is the fallen human nature Eve had. All humans were procreated from the union between these two fully created adults, Adam and Eve. Cain and following from his murderous act against his brother Abel inherited this fallen state of being. It is this that is at issue here or rather, our Election from this fallen race, that from Eve comes all living humans born into this created world we are born into.
Michael, You have again shown me nothing!
A nature of flesh without the spirit of God to do the things of the flesh instead of God which is sin is not inherited sin! We inherited the curse of the flesh and sin by having flesh! Te whole world is affected by it. But we have not inherited sin! All have sinned because we have committed the act of rebellion against the very righteous laws and nature of Holy God. I hope you are not trying to say that I think because I do not share you false view that I have never sinned and did not need redemption for that sin because I guarantee, I saw my sin
from the word of God and recognized I needed for him to redeem me from that sin ad then fill me with his Spirit that i might not sin against him ever again.(read Acts 2:38) and please stop with the false dichtomy of Monergism versus synergism and it does not exist accept in Calvinism!
Baptism is the new circumcision, and I recall no OT infant being asked for a profession of faith prior to the mohel doing the deed. Given the continuity between the covenants, ISTM I would need an explicit NT instance of infants being denied the sign of the covenant before I would so presume to withold it from them. The assumption is " maintained unless modified" rather than "repealed unless repeated."
mlculwell,
Ok, maybe this will help clarify what I mean by "inherited sin"?
By virtue of the verse I cited from Genesis 3 I believe I have a "flesh" and "blood" connection with Eve. Adam and Eve were sinless until they partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. At that time their being, a natural flesh and blood creation began the process of decay and eventually they experienced death where their body, soul and spirit left that flesh and blood container. The life that was in their blood left the blood behind.
What I inherited was their sinful nature. I sin because of this sinful nature. I did not become a sinner because I sinned. I was a sinner and I did what was natural for me to do and did I ever!
Did I eat from the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and began dying? No, because of the sinful nature I was born with I began the process of dying at birth.
Does that help clarify things for you?
Kirk Skeptic:" Baptism is the new circumcision, and I recall no OT infant being asked for a profession of faith prior to the mohel doing the deed."
Mlculwell:I do not recall any "confession of faith" period anywhere in scripture! That is an invention of the nominal churchianity that does not care what scripture actually says as Gods final authority. Besides that you are partly correct NT Baptism is circumcision of a new babe in Christ, not a literal baby baptism. Baptism in Jesus name only(Acts 4:12 None other name) is in order to remit.Acts 10:48 gentiles were COMMANDED to be Baptized In Jesus name. The name is the authority to remit sins(Acts2:38,8:16,10:45,19:5,22:16) Again It is the name Jesus that has power and authority to remit the sins, not the Baptism, which is the type of circumcision. A new born Jewish child was named and circumcised the 8th day after their birth.(Luke 1:59) A baby has no inherited sins to remit. The 8th is the new beginning not before so you cannot argue otherwise.. Repentance is a type of death to the old man and baptism is also a type of burial of the old man (Roman 6:4) receiving the Spirit is the resurrection and all 3 shows the truth of Acts 2:38 in identifying with Christ's own death,burial and resurrection.
KS: Given the continuity between the covenants, ISTM I would need an explicit NT instance of infants being denied the sign of the covenant before I would so presume to withold it from them.
MLCulwell: I would need an explicit scripture saying they are born little hell bound cretins that Calvinsim makes them before I would baptize and Infant for remission of nonexistent sin. and I have all the confidence in the world you will never come with a passage that i have not dealt before and prove you wrong! They can neither hear the Gospel repent or believe which are required in scripture for Baptism (Mark16:16,
KS:The assumption is " maintained unless modified" rather than "repealed unless repeated."
I see that you have given nothing but your tradition that is far from the types the scriptures have given.
Peter says this way eight souls were saved by water(The sin was washed away by the water) But they were in the Ark which is a type of The name Jesus a strong tower.(1st Peter 3:21)
In Luke 24:47 Jesus himself confirmed Acts 2:38 as the only truth for all times when he said that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my My name among ALL NATIONS beginning(Not ending) At Jerusalem were those men asked what must we do(T be saved? And Peter said repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for this promise is unto you and your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call.(Acts 2:38-39)
Hebrews 9:22 The blood is not applied by mental faith which is not faith at all when you ignore the word of God. Can you imagine Abraham being told "get out of your country"! Says God! "That is a work" Abraham says! No it is the Grace of God through his word!
I did not become a sinner because I sinned. I was a sinner and I did what was natural for me to do and did I ever!
Yes, You did become a sinner because you sinned! You sinned because your flesh does what it does naturally, which is to do the things of the flesh, which is at war with the Spirit of God. That is not inherited sin. There is no way for you to prove it.
I hope I'm not stepping on your toes by insinuating myself into your conversation with Kirk?
mlculwell //
Mlculwell:I do not recall any "confession of faith" period anywhere in scripture!//
Well I will cite two from Scripture. Take it or leave it on the table. My guess is you'll come up with a pretty good eseigesis for them too:::>
Abraham:
Gen 22:5 Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you."
That's a confession of the Faith God gifts all His Elect.
Paul:
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down)
Rom 10:7 "or 'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Here I believe is a good example of exegeting Abraham's confession to his servant boys on that day he went to offer Isaac up as God commanded.
mlculwell,
would I be correct in making this conclusion about you, that you are a oneness Pentacostal? And everything has to be in Jesus Name only?
You are not saved by calling on him you must call on him they way a man sent of God(The apostles are the Only ones sent of God) tells you to call on him(John 17:17-20) and that is through Acts 2:38 you will never learn this in your church. I was very sure that you would come back with that false interpretation that is popular today and is wrestling of the scriptures to destruction.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Yes I am Oneness! There is no such thing as Jesus only! It is Jesus everything! Baptism must be in Jesus name!
To the one who denies original sin:
Guilt always carries with it pollution, so you can't accept the inherent pollution of Adam's sin in his descendents and deny the inherent guilt of Adam's sin in his descendents.
I do not deny Adam sinned. I deny the false doctrine: we inherit sin.
The Calvinistic false doctrine of inherited sin is like all false doctrines of Calvin, they are misinterpretations of scripture.
Funny how people compartmentalize salvation: in every other aspect of life we bare consequnces related to our antecedents, but somehow true libertarian free will comes into the pictue when we speak of salvation. I did not choose to be born when, where, how, and to whom I was; my parents' and governments' decisions have effects on me to this day, so why would their sin not touch me? Of course, as mentioned avove, there is plenty of Scriptural evidence for original sin, but absolutely none for libertarian free will - it is an imported concept, making our Oneness friend the eisegete here.
Also, since he eschews the hermenuetic of continuity, and God chose not to repeat his prohibition against bestiality in the NT, do Oneness churches discipline their hayseed members who get too intimate with the livestock? Just askin'...
BTW I'm a Lutheran.
KS, I never said anything about others sins not touching me!You need to focus. I am talking abut inherited sin being a false doctrine and you are adding all this baggage that is different subject from inherited sin. If you do not mean what you say then say so? compartmentalize you mean like you do with God? TF do you see How nasty minded and ungodly your people are in saying such filthy things? That s not a Godly thing for KS to say to anyone simply because he does not like what I am saying. KS you have destroyed yourself with such.
mlculwell,
I'm trying real hard to follow your reasonings here.
I relate best to points being made when they are made with Scripture.
So, again, please provide some Scripture that teaches inherited sin is unbiblical?
Where in the Bible does it teach inherited sin is a false doctrine?
Michael, I do not care what you can follow, or not follow. I am not going to fall into your stupid trap. That is what I call what you just did.
You asked me to provide scripture for your *tradition* that does not exist in scripture in the first place....
The bible does not talk about inherited sin period! So I am not going to provide a scripture for your misinterpretation that say anything about inherited anything! It is Calvinisms false doctrine based on what they think they see in scripture.
mlculwell, which do you say is unbiblical:
1. hereditary guilt?
2. hereditary corruption?
3. both?
You will find those 2 next to the trinity in the scriptures. Oh yeah none of them are in the scriptures... I am not doing that either! We are corrupt because of the sin we do. Not because of Heredity of anything. We have the same flesh Adam had that is the only thing we inherited.Flesh wants the things of the flesh and not the things of the spirit. But when you taste the Spirit you want the spirit and not the flesh.
we are guilty and corrupt because of sin that we dd not inherit but that we did.
Why are we all corrupt then? Why do we all sin without exception?
When God created us he declared His creation good. Yet now all sin and fall short of the glory of God. What happened?
We all sin because we are flesh. If it were not sad it would be comical
to hear you flounder.
ct,You just refuted your own argument. We sin and fall short of the glory of God. God made Adam and Eve perfect and without sin but yet they were enticed by the lust of the eye and they sinned. They brought sin into the world where there was none and corrupted the perfect world with sin and it brought the curse of death upon all even to those who had not sinned after the manner of Adams transgression.(Romans 5:13-15)
Inherited sin is the silliest doctrine of them all as far as tulip is concerned, they are all terrible doctrines, but that one is the worst.
@mculwell: my comments are apropos because they point out that we do indeed inherit genetically and socially without our leave, and original sin is no different. Perhaps it's you who need to focus. terms like "born in sin" and "conceived in iniquity" suggest something more than Judaism's yetzer ha ra and yetzer ha tov (inclinations to evil and good), god's judgment of and on Esau reiterated in Romans 9 precedes any of their actions; in fact, the whole chapter is a good lesson in total depravity. So BTW is "dead in trespasses and sin," more than suggesting that there is nothing goood in us; oh, and of course, dead men don't make decisions for Christ.
So fR from being silly, better and more sober minds than he assembled have proposed total depravity as the teaching of Scripture, most notable Augustine. Do, for your own sake, keep to the topic and avoid abusive ad hominems, which are no arguments at all.
Kirk Sceptic, You and I are done! You do not use the filthy language you used with me and expect me to have any kind of a conversation with you. You did your side no service and show that you have no restraint with that kind of nonsense.
We inherit a sin nature. We inherit corruption. Whether you want to deny guilt goes along with that or not, it is corruption that we inherit.
Original sin is the loss and absence of original righteousness. We're not born innocent like Adam was in the Garden before the fall. We are born without original righteousness. This hereditary corruption is transmitted to all of Adam's descendents through generation. This is original sin.
You tied sin to flesh. For the sake of argument, so then why is flesh bad? When God created flesh He said it was good. Something happened to make it bad. Even granting your cause for sin (flesh), God didn't create flesh evil. Something happened. That what happened is carried to us through birth. That is the corruption of our nature and our lack of original righteousness.
You're having difficulty denying something is inherited. It's seems you might really only have a problem with inherited guilt, since here and there you seem to grant inherited corruption. So how do you think guilt can be separated from corruption?
Sin and corruption constitute man guilty before God. Sin here is both active sin and absence of original righteousness. The active sin flows from our corrupt nature from birth. Our guilt is imputed to us from our king we are born under, Adam. Only by being reborn can we come under the Kingship of Christ which is salvation.
There is no such thing as "total depravity." That is a Calvin invention. I have heard all that nonsense bad interpretation that born in sin and shapen in inequity means inherited sin.
Jacob and Esau were not chosen for salvation one over the other. Jacob was chosen over Esau to fulfill God's purpose in Israel in the coming Messiah, and ultimate salvation.
What made it bad that you do not seem to get through your head is they somehow sinned after God made them Perfect. Nothing magical happened. God created them sinless and then they sinned. I have heard all this nonsense before and I am sick of hearing it!
@mlculwell: which was the filthy language: Hebrew, or Latin?
I'm separating these things out for you to see more clearly, and you're intent on mushing them back all together the easier to pronounce it all nonsense.
You need to drop the pose that Calvinists are just out to trick you. Our lives mean more to us than to dedicate them to tricking you.
>I have heard all this nonsense before and I am sick of hearing it!
Why are you hanging out at a Calvinist blog then?
Because the title was Acts 2:39 half of the truth of salvation acts 2:38 that you Calvinists know absolutely nothing about.
Kirk do not act like you do not know what you said. You implied the sin of bestiality for those who believe like me.
ct, Please? I do not believe you are trying to trick me! Micahel was trying to trap me into the following:"Can give any scripture that says there is no inherited sin?"
Can you believe that? there are no scriptures either way for or against. You take something seemingly vaguely implied and you build an entire false doctrine around it.
No mlculwell, the issue of bestility was brought up in the context of covenatnal continuity: if what was said in the OT is only valid for today if repeated in the NT, and bestiality is only condemned in the OT, then besitality must be ok by your hermeneutic. The application was to compare circumcision of infants int he OT with bapitzing them in the NT. I could not have made that plainer, and no acusations were either made or implied.
Go away Kirk stop trying to play it off you sir are a liar.
You wrote:"Also, since he eschews the hermenuetic of continuity, and God chose not to repeat his prohibition against bestiality in the NT, do Oneness churches discipline their hayseed members who get too intimate with the livestock?" That is the lowest of the Low that anyone can go and think that way.
@mlc: thank you for proving my point.
mlculwell,
you are disgusting! You have impugned my integrity and Kirk's.
I did not lay some nafarious trap for you to fall into.
I have shown you in several Scriptures inherited sin. You on the other hand have not shown any Scripture that proves that to be false then accuse me of laying a trap for you.
You are disgusting and I believe a disgrace to the ministry you supposedly represent.
That is in and of itself nothing seeing we are all totally depraved as the Bible teaches.
You are also a disgrace to any civility or courtesy of discussion or debate.
You have impugned your self by identifying with such filthiness.
Michael, get this through your head? You wrote the following:"Can give any scripture that says there is no inherited sin?" There is no scriptures that even remotely talk about inherited sin. But you believe the ones you use are talking bout inherited sin. That is the same thing in arguing Oneness versus trinity there are no scriptures that talk about a trinity but there is nothing I can give that is going to change your mind because that is your tradition and to question would be blasphemous to you! I think it is blasphemy to hold the doctrine of the trinity as truth! Let me be clear it is a sin because it is polytheism. You will not understand where I am coming from.
To mlculwell
I appeal to you with these Words and pray that you will be delivered from the snares of the evil one who has captured your heart and mind so that you can be freed and able to relate to others according to the Word of God:::>
1Pe 5:5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."
1Pe 5:6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,
1Pe 5:7 casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.
1Pe 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
1Pe 5:9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.
1Pe 5:10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.
1Pe 5:11 To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
To mlculwell
to your response that there is no Scripture that distinguishes between the Father and Son and or Holy Spirit,
I offer several Scriptures for your consideration:::>
1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Heb 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
To not see the distinctions being made in those verses that Scripture clearly and effectively show is to prove blindness, being blinded by a spirit with ill will and so I harken back to the previous post where I offered you a Biblical framework to humbly relate to us on this blog without impugning our integrity and conscience as you have with vitriol.
1Pe 5:5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."
Michael, I am laughing at your response!You wrote the following ignorant reply to me:
"your response that there is no Scripture that distinguishes between the Father and Son and or Holy Spirit,"
I vehemently deny that false charge! Oneness makes a clear distinction That you do not understand. That distinction is Spirit/God/ Father/Eternal/does not die and flesh/man/mortal/son those are the only two distinctions! You would put the son in the God category by the other (God) I put the son in the man category distinct from the God category in which there is only one person of that God and it is in the one persons of the man Christ Jesus, Genuine man, and genuine God! there are no 2 or 3 persons of God! You confuse the incarnation of those 2 distinctions. You show right away you have no idea how to approach this debate but you start out like all of your side that is ignorant of what we Oneness teach about God!
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Amen! God was manifest in the flesh!
Right there are the only 2 distinctions God/Father and Flesh or man and son. Both are in Jesus! The son is what trins. confuse to be God the fictitious son. Why Not call the Father the Father of God? Does that Shock you? It should as much as God the son shocks me! It does not exist in scripture anymore than the father of God or the Ghost God!
It's a Hebraism. Son of God means of the same substance (essence).
I hope you are not implying a God gene was inherited by god jr?
The angels were called sons of God! Christians are called the son of God.
I have a whole post on my blog where I deal with the deceit of Matt Slick on that very subject titled Son of God is not a term of divinity.
http://manuelculwell.blogspot.com/search/label/Son%20Of%20God%20Not%20%20Term%20Of%20Divinity.
mlculwell, you're wildly impious on the foundations of the faith. My salvation rests on the economic work of the Trinity.
You guys always want to talk about your Christology, but to me a person who doesn't recognize the Holy Spirit as God has the very flames of the Lake of Fire on him before I hear of his unorthodox Christology.
I agree! A guy who does not recognize the Holy Spirit has the flame of Fire to forward to! And A guy that does not recognize that the Holy Spirit is another way for saying God period does not God in the first place!
God is Holy(Psalm 99:9) Which God? God is Spirit (John 4:24) Which God? Thus God is the Holy Spirit! There is no person of God known as the Holy Spirit! That title belongs to God in His work of regeneration in dealing with man. And I know the scripture you and confuse to try and prop that false doctrine up. Trinitarian are polytheists 3 persons are 3 gods like the hindu 3 persons are 3 gods. If not you might want to rethink calling them polytheists with their Vishnu, Scheva, and Brahama.
I agree with the OP. The common Reformed Baptist interpretation of Acts 2 that says that the phrase "as many as the Lord our God shall call to himself" qualifies all that comes before, so that only the elect are being spoken of, would make the broad covenantal language superfluous and awkward there.
What's more likely, that Peter meant, "The promise is for you (if you're elect and eventually repent/believe), your children (if they're elect and eventually believe), and all who are far off (if they're elect and believe)"; or: "the promise is for you and your children whether you receive it by faith or reject it and experience the covenant curses, and the promise is also for all those far off who will be brought near by evangelism/missions, and duh it is also for their children" ?). I think clearly the latter is more consistent with OT formulae as well as the rest of NT teaching.
Post a Comment