Would you glorify God if Calvinism was true?

[Clare73]

I’ve already proved you wrong on this numerous times.

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without merit.

Please do tell why were Sodom & Gomorrah destroyed if there was no sin that resulted in death between Adam & Moses?

So had they not sinned in Sodom and Gomorrah, they would all have lived forever, no death?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without merit.

You have done nothing to adequately address Ro 5:17, 18-19.

Biblical assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without merit.

In what post did you present your Biblical demonstration which adequately addresses my post #166, #177?

Until you Biblically refute my Biblical argument in posts #166, #177, you have proven nothing which refutes those arguments.

You said that there’s no law resulting in death between Adam & Moses and now you’re going to pretend that the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah doesn’t prove you wrong?

Sodom and Gomorrah aren’t biblical demonstration? Absolutely incredible!

 

[Clare73]

The Greek word Nomos doesn’t mean Decalogue it means law. As I’ve already proved to you because Paul uses the same word in reference to circumcision.

Previously addressed. . .

 

[Clare73]

I’ve already proved you wrong on this numerous times. Please do tell why were Sodom & Gomorrah destroyed if there was no sin that resulted in death between Adam & Moses?

The context is the Decalogue.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not based on the Decalogue.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Death came to all because all sinned. You don’t see that statement as evidence that death didn’t come to all because they were held accountable for Adam’s sin?

Denying imputed guilt is foundational for the supposed doctrine of the Age of Accountability.
Affirming imputed guilt is foundational for infant baptism, for it is seen as a remedy of imputed guilt.

It is impossible to reconcile these two approaches found in Romans 5.

Romans 5 and the Age of Accountability

John Warwick Montgomery once said, "Romans 5 is the Bible's own history of itself."

Paul assigns all humanity into two categories.....Those that are in Adam and those that are in Christ.

Paul then solidifies the two categories of humanity in his famous illustration formatted in Thesis–Antithesis structure.

Vs. 16 Adam brought Judgment, Christ brought Justification​

Vs.17 Adam brought Death, Christ brought life.​

Vs 18 Adam brought Condemnation, Christ brought acquittal.​

Vs 19 Adam brought sin, Christ brought Righteousness.​

Our Lord also maintains humanity divided into to categories:

"That which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit." (John 3)​

Parables of the Wheat and Tares,​

Sheep and Goats,​

Parable of the Dragnet​

The two sons​

Wise and Foolish Virgins​

Wise and Foolish Builders​

The Marriage Feast​

​

St. John in his prologue also holds to this two-fold distinction:

Children of God vs. "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man."​

​

********​

​

Those who affirm impute guilt on all humanity even infants....hold to a two category distinction.
Those who hold no imputed guilt on all of humanity even infants hold to a third category distinction.

This third category is define as: Neither in Christ, nor in Adam. The typical slogan Credobaptists use here is: Children who die before the Age of Accountability are SAFE BUT NOT SAVED as there is no imputation of guilt. This third category is foreign to Scripture.

All three branches of the Reformation era (Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans) are joined at the hip in affirming the imputation of guilt and baptism is its remedy.

Under no circumstances will Credobaptists affirm imputation and baptism as its remedy.

These two positions are hopelessly irreconcilable.

​

 

[Clare73]

Denying imputed guilt is foundational for the supposed doctrine of the Age of Accountability.
Affirming imputed guilt is foundational for infant baptism, for it is seen as a remedy of imputed guilt.

It is impossible to reconcile these two approaches found in Romans 5.

However, both cannot be found in Ro 5:13-19, for they are contradictory and, therefore, mutually exclusive.

Keeping in mind that the imputed sin of Adam (resulting in the death of all mankind) is presented in Ro 5:12-14, and stated in Ro 5:12, 15, 16, 17, 18-19.

Ro 5:13-19 does not contradict itself by denying the imputed sin of Adam stated in Ro 5:17-19.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Keeping in mind that the imputed sin of Adam resulting in the death of all mankind is presented in Ro 5:12-14, and stated in Ro 5:12, 15, 16, 17, 18-19.

Yeap. Correct. Using a two-three category distinction is a different way of saying the same thing. In my mind, it is a distinction without a difference.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Those who affirm impute guilt on all humanity even infants....hold to a two category distinction.
Those who hold no imputed guilt on all of humanity even infants hold to a third category distinction.

This third category is define as: Neither in Christ, nor in Adam. The typical slogan Credobaptists use here is: Children who die before the Age of Accountability are SAFE BUT NOT SAVED as there is no imputation of guilt. This third category is foreign to Scripture.

I disagree with that because infants are still born with a sinful nature and are therefore still in Adam.

All three branches of the Reformation era (Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans) are joined at the hip in affirming the imputation of guilt and baptism is its remedy.

I don’t agree with many of the doctrines of the reformation.

You never did answer my question tho.

Death came to all because all sinned. You don’t see that statement as evidence that death didn’t come to all because they were held accountable for Adam’s sin?

Paul’s statement that death came to all because all sinned is absolutely evidence to support my position that we inherited Adam’s sinful nature and that our death is not because we are held accountable for the actions of a man who lived 6,000 years ago that we had no control over.

I asked Clare this question so I’ll ask you as well. Would you say that it would be JUST for you to spank your second born child because your first born child stole something from you before your second child was even born?

 

[BNR32FAN]

There was sin from the beginning - Adam and Eve sinned, Jesus said sin lies at his door when Cain killed his brother Abel. Gen 4:7 Its shows the men in Sodom were sinful against God Gen 18:20 so there had to be God's law from the beginning, no law, no sin Rom 4:15. All has sinned Rom 3:23 which means all have been given God's law because where there is no law, there is no sin.

Sin started in heaven 1 John 3:8 so God's law is in heaven, His unedited version Rev 11:19 Psa 89:34 and was at Eden, which we also see in Exo 20:8-11 right in the Ten Commandments- Remember and points back to creation Exo 20:11 so shows it started at Creation, because where there is no law there is no sin Rom 4:15 and since there was sin, there was God's law as shown before Moses Gen 26:5. Sin, breaking God's law 1 John 3:4,is what separated man from God Isa 59:2. Man was separated from God in the garden and doing the same thing that separated man, is not how we are reconciled back to God Rev 22:14 We need a transformation in Christ John 14:15-18 Rom 6:1-4

Yeah Clare is just moving the goal post because she’s been proven wrong. She said that according to Romans 5:12-13 there was no law that carried a death sentence with it between Adam & Moses so I quoted Genesis 9:5-6 to show that murder carried a death sentence and the sins of Sodom & Gomorrah also carried a death sentence then all the sudden she starts claiming that when Paul mentioned the law in Romans 5 he was talking about the Decalogue not just a commandment of God. Paul doesn’t mention a single word about the 10 commandments in the entire chapter and I’ve already demonstrated that the Greek word Nomos is also used in Galatians 5:4 and other passages in reference to circumcision which has nothing to do with the Decalogue but none of that matters to her. She simply won’t ever admit when she’s made a mistake no matter what the scriptures actually state. She’s just conjured this idea about the Decalogue out of thin air with nothing to support it in order to avoid having to admit her mistake.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I asked Clare this question so I’ll ask you as well. Would you say that it would be JUST for you to spank your second born child because your first born child stole something from you before your second child was even born?

Only God can impute. Mankind cannot. Your examples affirms the absolute absurd belief mankind can impute judgment. That is the point of Ezekiel 18.....the son CANNOT impute his righteousness to his sinful father AND the father can not impute his guilt to his son. Duh!

This is mixing two categories how God administers justice through his commands and how mankind administers justice through the civil law on the basis of the 10C.

Your example of the second born and first born child shows how sinful man always covets God's administration of justice. This is a transgression of the First Commandment. Sinful man wants to be God in order to impute judgment such as your examples.

 

[Clare73]

Yeap. Correct. Using a two-three category distinction is a different way of saying the same thing. In my mind, it is a distinction without a difference.

However, there is no three-category distinction presented or stated in Ro 5:12-19.

There is only one category for all mankind; i.e., that of the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19, 12-14),
which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousness of Christ in Ro 5:18-19.

 

[BNR32FAN]

All three branches of the Reformation era (Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans) are joined at the hip in affirming the imputation of guilt and baptism is its remedy.

I was baptized when I was 5 years old and it didn’t mean a thing. I didn’t come to Christ until I was 38. Before that I lived a sinful life not caring anything about God’s commandments. After I came to Christ then I became a new creation before I was baptized a second time when I was 39 years old. So baptism when I was 5 didn’t change me and I received the Holy Spirit at 38 before being baptized a second time after having a true conversion. So what I witnessed in my life, baptism didn’t change anything at all, it was when I humbled myself to Christ that I became saved and received the Holy Spirit and became a new creation, not when I was baptized with water but when I was baptized with the Spirit.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Only God can impute. Mankind cannot. Your examples affirms the absolute absurd belief mankind can impute judgment. That is the point of Ezekiel 18.....the son CANNOT impute his righteousness to his sinful father AND the father can not impute his guilt to his son. Duh!

This is mixing two categories how God administers justice through his commands and how mankind administers justice through the civil law on the basis of the 10C.

Your example of the second born and first born child shows how sinful man always covets God's administration of justice. This is a transgression of the First Commandment. Sinful man wants to be God in order to impute judgment such as your examples.

Again you didn’t answer my question would it be JUST to punish that second child for the first child’s actions?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Yeah Clare is just moving the goal post because she’s been proven wrong. She said that according to Romans 5:12-13 there was no law that carried a death sentence with it between Adam & Moses so I quoted Genesis 9:5-6 to show that murder carried a death sentence and the sins of Sodom & Gomorrah also carried a death sentence then all the sudden she starts claiming that when Paul mentioned the law in Romans 5 he was talking about the Decalogue not just a commandment of God. Paul doesn’t mention a single word about the 10 commandments in the entire chapter and I’ve already demonstrated that the Greek word Nomos is also used in Galatians 5:4 and other passages in reference to circumcision which has nothing to do with the Decalogue but none of that matters to her. She simply won’t ever admit when she’s made a mistake no matter what the scriptures actually state. She’s just conjured this idea about the Decalogue out of thin air with nothing to support it in order to avoid having to admit her mistake.

Well I agree with part of your post, and I know this may be the first we have agreed on anything.

I believe the law is just a generic term, it could mean the Ten Commandments it could mean from the law of Moses, the context will tell us which law is being referred to because Paul will often just say law, so the context will tell us the law being referred to.

Galatians does mention the Ten Commandments, but most of it is about circumcision

For example:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

This is similar to what Jesus taught in Mat 5:19-30 where works of the flesh these feelings i.e. hatred, contention, all lead up to breaking God's law.

Anyway, I agree with you regarding there was a law between Adam and Moses because where there is no law, there is no sin and agree the goal post was moved.

Anyway, I just dropped in, I will let you all carry on.

God bless!

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your example of the second born and first born child shows how sinful man always covets God's administration of justice. This is a transgression of the First Commandment. Sinful man wants to be God in order to impute judgment such as your examples.

No this isn’t true at all it’s just a false accusation. My question is a simple yes or no question. Why can’t you simply answer yes or no?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well I agree with part of your post, and I know this may be the first we have agreed on anything.

I believe the law is just a generic term, it could mean the Ten Commandments it could mean from the law of Moses, the context will tell us which law is being referred to because Paul will often just say law, so the context will tell us the law being referred to.

Galatians does mention the Ten Commandments, but most of it is about circumcision

For example:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

This is similar to what Jesus taught in Mat 5:19-30 where these feelings i.e. hatred, contention, all lead up to breaking God's law.

Anyway, I agree with you regarding there was a law between Adam and Moses because where there is no law, there is no sin and agree the goal post was moved.

Anyway, I just dropped in, I will let you all carry on.

God bless!

Right but specifically verse 4

“And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭3‬-‭4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Paul was rebuking in verse 4 them for teaching that Christians had to be circumcised.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

However, there is no three-category distinction presented or stated in Ro 5:12-19.

Of course there is no third category distinction in Romans 5. It is a logical consequence of what occurs when one denies the imputation of guilt. Through out history there have been a lot third categories postulated circumventing the two category distinction----limbus infantum....is a prime example...the place in old RCC theology where all the dead unbaptized babies go.

A false third category surely allows the establishment of the doctrine of Age of Accountability: Neither in Christ, nor in Adam. This third distinction allows for a myriad of scenarios to be formulated:

• Infants and children are born with no personal sin and guilt therefore are ushered into heaven on there own merits of righteousness.
• Some believe they are saved by Christ’s work without faith.
• Some believe they are saved by God’s mercy.
• Some believe all infants are elect.
• Some believe all infants go to heaven (modified universalism)
• Some believe infants who die are given a special dispensation of the grace of God; it is not by their innocence but by God’s grace that they are received into heaven.”
• And the list goes on and on and on......

Baptism of course would be neglected and completely off the radar..... for baptism presupposes a two category distinction.

This third distinction maneuvers around how the solas work. More on this later.

 

[Clare73]

Of course there is no third category distinction in Romans 5. It is a logical consequence of what occurs when one denies the imputation of guilt. Through out history there have been a lot third categories postulated circumventing the two category distinction----limbus infantum....is a prime example...the place in old RCC theology where all the dead unbaptized babies go.

A false third category surely allows the establishment of the doctrine of Age of Accountability: Neither in Christ, nor in Adam. This third distinction allows for a myriad of scenarios to be formulated:

• Infants and children are born with no personal sin and guilt therefore are ushered into heaven on there own merits of righteousness.
• Some believe they are saved by Christ’s work without faith.
• Some believe they are saved by God’s mercy.
• Some believe all infants are elect.
• Some believe all infants go to heaven (modified universalism)
• Some believe infants who die are given a special dispensation of the grace of God; it is not by their innocence but by God’s grace that they are received into heaven.”
• And the list goes on and on and on......

Baptism of course would be neglected and completely off the radar..... for baptism presupposes a two category distinction.

This third distinction maneuvers around how the solas work. More on this later.

Have we lost sight of the fact that this is about actual NT teaching and not about maneuvers?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Have we lost sight of the fact that this is about actual NT teaching

Is the denial of imputed guilt an actual NT teaching?
Is the affirmation of the belief in the Age of Accountability an actual teaching?

Denial or affirmations of teachings contrary to the Word of God, will manifest itself in other NT teachings.

Take for example Social Trinitarianism....the belief you have to use human analogies to understand the Trinity.

The result of ST is the denial of the Substitutionary Atonement as the Father is in the form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offense he has not even committed. This also of course leads to Tritheism----as the will of the Father is not same as the will of the son. Social Trinitarianism is a re-packaged form of the old Trinitarian heresies.

 

[Clare73]

Is the denial of imputed guilt an actual NT teaching?

Does the NT deny imputed guilt?

Does the NT specifically deny every wrong doctrine man can come up with?

The denial consists in the NT affirmation of the contrary.

No affirmation = no teaching (i.e., denial).

What am I missing here?

Is the affirmation of the belief in the Age of Accountability an actual teaching?

Only if you can show where it is found in Scripture.
Apart from that, it is not an actual teaching.

Denial or affirmations of teachings contrary to the Word of God, will manifest itself in other NT teachings.

At which point, the teaching of the Word of God which denies it is then presented as correction.

Take for example Social Trinitarianism....the belief you have to use human analogies to understand the Trinity.

Did God make that rule in Scripture? . . .not.

Then it has no authority

The result of ST is the denial of the Substitutionary Atonement as the Father is in the form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offense he has not even committed. This also of course leads to Tritheism----as the will of the Father is not same as the will of the son. Social Trinitarianism is a re-packaged form of the old Trinitarian heresies.

Okay, you are arguing the consequences of non-Biblical understanding of the justice of God.
I address the non-Biblical understanding of God's justice with the Biblical explanation of God's justice, and which justice, like our own justice system, includes the death penalty.

I'm less about overturning the contra-Biblical with human reasoning than I am about presenting God's truth on the matter.