Disturbing Trends, Doctrine as Idol, J.D. Hall

Indoctrinating Your Children with Doctrine

*     *     *

Someone sent me a link to this book for children.  The book was just recently published – just over a month ago – April 2013.

arminians

Here is the book description from Amazon:

Come along on a journey with Mitchell, as he recalls his nightmare for his mother. Mitchell was in a land of darkness and gloom, when due to no cooperation of his own, a Knight in shining armor saved him and all the other captives He intended to save. “Help! Arminians are Giving Me Nightmares Again!” is a children’s allegory designed to teach your kids the Doctrines of Grace through the use of creative story-telling.

So check this out.  Here’s this book for children advertised on Amazon, right?  A book written specifically for children, mind you.   Go read the one negative review and all of the comments following.  We’ve got a doctrinal war going on, people.  A doctrinal war going on in the review section of a children’s storybook.

Here is that one negative review (as of June 1, 2013 – because you can be sure more will be coming):

I apologize. The decription is enough to give me the heebee-jeebees. Didn’t buy or read the book; don’t intend to. Since only a very few are chosen for salvation and many, many will go to eternal damnation (along with all and every infant), the chances of my grandchildren being those for whom God intended to save is awfully slim. Don’t want to give them Calvinistic nightmares. (Source)

As of right now, there are three pages of bantering back and forth Calvinism vs Arminianism.  Here are a couple of more comments following the negative review (man, see what happens when you leave a negative review somewhere – I sure hope this guy doesn’t get sued).

Actually, the fear that God won’t choose someone because they are too bad dovetails with the classic Arminian doctrine of conditional election, whereas unconditional election isn’t based on how good or bad the sinner is. So thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. Conditional election would give a kid nightmares. (Source)

And here’s a response to the above comment:

Keystone, your comment shows that you do not know Arminian doctrine rightly.

That’s the point of “unconditional election”. It has nothing to do with merit or demerit. Calvinism teaches man is not worthy of salvation, and that is right. However, it also essentially teaches that others are damned without any reference too their deserving it (although, that is denied; nevertheless, it is the logical conclusion).

Conditonal election would not give nightmares for the Arminian can truthfully tell the child God loves him and will save him; all he need do is trust Christ.

If the Calvinist were honest, he would need to tell the child that he might be of the elect or you might be damned to hell forever and there is nothing you can do about it. While the child cries that God can’t be like that, in good Calvinist fashion, you can tell him, “Who are you, child, to answer back to God.”

If I were 7 years old and heard Calvinistic doctrine, I’d have stinking nightmares…along with wetting my pj’s! (Source)

You all have got the picture that these are review comments on a CHILDREN’S BOOK, right? Let me rephrase it, these are reviews for a book that was written for us to read to our cute little munchkins/offspring/heritage/blessings/arrows/passel/whatever-you-want-to-call-your-kids.

We all know that Christianity has basic tenets:  Christ’s death and resurrection, virgin birth, Christ is Son of God, saved by grace through faith, etc.  Silly me – I thought I just needed to know those kinds of basics to be a Christian.  It wasn’t until a few years ago that I had even heard of the names “Calvinism” and “Arminism.”  It confused me.  It still confuses me.

We’ve talked about the idolatry of doctrine before.  I believe the idolatry of doctrine can create an environment in which abuse is allowed to continue in churches.  The obsessive focus on doctrine can become a distraction to the message of Christ and what it really means to live out the life Christ intended:  loving God and loving others.

I have a problem with training children this stuff at such a young age.  What is the purpose? To raise up little like-minded warriors to defend your brand of Christianity?  Yea, I know, train up a child in the way he should go passage in Deuteronomy – – and that’s based on your interpretation of scripture because we all know your interpretation is the right interpretation and it doesn’t matter whether this stuff has been argued and debated for centuries, you’ve got it all figured out.  Uh-huh, I’m tracking with you.  I bought into this stuff in the Homeschool Movement when we were told to produce as many babies as possible so our little children could become spiritual warriors on the battlefield.

If the Bible has everything we need for life and godliness, why do my children need to learn Calvin’s stuff or the Arminian stuff?  Why can’t it just be solely from the Bible?   LDS carry their Bibles, too, along with the Book of Mormon when they go to their wards to worship.  I have seen some combo versions that include the Pearl of Great Price and The Doctrines and Covenants.   These are all part and parcel of LDS.

The way I’m seeing it, there are some Christians who behave the same way as Mormons. They have their Bible along with the Institutes of Calvin.  I wonder if there is a combo Calvin Institutes/Bible in publication yet?  By the way, I’m picking on the staunch Calvinists because that is my frame of reference.  Do Arminians have a “bible” like Calvin’s Institutes?  If they do, then add them to this paragraph.  I’m picking on anyone who adds another book to their Bible and elevates it to the level of Bible.  Ask a Mormon which book is more important to them.  They have a hard time saying that the Bible is #1.  When I talk to some people, I get the feeling they read more about their brand of doctrine than they read from their own Bibles.

I have a problem with people elevating men’s ideas as gospel above the Bible and especially when those men’s ideas become so divisive that somehow Christ and the true meaning of Christianity somehow gets lost.

Yea, I think I’ll stick with just the Bible for my kids.  Men and their ideas complicate Christianity for me.  For realz.

*     *     *

Related links:

608 thoughts on “Indoctrinating Your Children with Doctrine”

  1. Since there are so many comments, I won’t mention names, except to say that, imho, PJ, Born4Battle, Just Me, Andrew, and Darrell have been on the mark about Calvinism and related subjects. I may have left out some.

    What R.C. Sproul, Jr. said is ridiculous. Calvinism is not well-served by too many of its present-day “spokesmen.” I know that Michael Horton is a figure of fun to some here, but I recommend his book, “For Calvinism” to those who would like to learn about the real thing. It’s the companion to “Against Calvinism,” by Roger Olson. And, of course, the “Institues” themselves.

    As I’ve written before, if Calvinism is not consistent with Scripture, then to hell with it (insert your joke here). I don’t think it always is, and I reject it in those cases.

    Why consult Calvin, or any other person who has written about Scripture? I think God has created some great minds who have studied the Bible more than most of us, and they can be helpful, up to a point. Any time we take a class, or even use a Study Bible, we are being influenced by someone’s opinion. But, yes, to almost (or more than almost) worship a teacher is idolatry.

    Calvin did not come up with TULIP. Many years after his death, some followers of James Arminius, in Holland, drew up five articles of doctrine that they insisted be used to change the doctrinal position of the Church of Holland. A group called the Synod of Dort opposed the articles with their own, which led to the acronym of TULIP.

    Actually, Luther wrote more about the “doctrines of grace” than did Calvin. Nevertheless, the name “Calvinism” stuck. As someone has mentioned, these basic arguments began with Pelagius and Augustine; this was not something entirely new.

    Total Inability is a more descriptive label than Total Depravity. It means that man is helpless to do anything concerning his salvation. God did not force Adam to sin; Adam chose to. Because of this, sin spread through all mankind, meaning that all were born spiritually dead (Rom 5:12, Eph 2:1-3). IF THIS IS NOT TRUE, THEN CALVINISM MAKES NO SENSE. But Scripture over and over tells us that the natural state of mankind is wickedness, enmity with God, and the inability to do anything good according to God’s standards. (Gen. 6:5, 8:21; Eccl. 9:3; Jer 13:23, 17:9; Is 53:6, 64;6; Psalm 51:5, Rom 3:10-18, 8:7-8; Col 2:13; 1 Cor 2:14; John 8:44, etc.)

    (What the neo-Calvinists, esp. Mahaney and Driscoll, say about there being no difference between a non-believer and a believer concerning TP, is not Scriptural and not Calvinist.)

    God could have left all of us in this condition, but He decided to save some. (John 6:44, 6:65, and the many verses that contain the word “elect.”) Why did He not save all? Scripture doesn’t tell us. Did God base his decisions on whom to choose based on something special He saw in them? Well, maybe especially weak, foolish, lowly, and despised (1 Cor 1:27-29). Those who have been chosen have not the slightest reason to boast.

    Isn’t it more logical to boast if we believe that we, on our own, came to faith while others did not? I’m sure that many believers don’t think that, at least consciously, but doesn’t it follow? At least among people who have equally been exposed to the gospel, why do some believe and others don’t? If both groups have free will, why do some will to believe and others do not? Does God completely stay out of it?

    Someone mentioned that God doesn’t give us faith. What about Eph 2:8-10?

    Some have said that Calvinism teaches that God created people and made some go to heaven and others to hell. This isn’t true, but this comment is already too long enough to go into it. But even if God allowed people total freedom to choose, meaning that they were not affected by Adam’s sin, isn’t it true that God, at any rate, foresaw that some would choose heaven and some choose hell? And, if He did, would it not have been more merciful for God to have not created mankind?

    My point is that it’s not true that Calvinism posits a “cruel” God. And it’s not true that non-Calvinist Christianity posits a God who is all sweetness and light. God judges.

    Like

  2. Amos said:

    I think I have to go along with Eric on this one…

    “I’m done talking to Calvinists.” Because…

    Calvinists are Depraved, Morally Corrupt and Wicked…

    How can you trust what they say?

    Don’t forget murderers, Amos. R.C. Sproul, Jr. said he and I both are murderers (and oh yea, baby, I’ve got the screen shot to prove it). The dude doesn’t know me outside of me debating him in Twitter, yet he seems to know that I’m a murderer. Weird. I’ve never even taken birth control pills (he believes women who take BCP are murderers).

    Like

  3. Andrew,
    They got that from Chuck but he went to cemetery I mean seminary. In my new faith I believed it but a month after I left CCCM I found myself a freshman in college. Go figure.

    Like

  4. Andrew said: You may be right about the idolatry of doctrine but if you have been around Calvary Chapel as long as I have, you would realize there are plenty in that camp that have a complete disdain for doctrine. How many CC pastors will say, I don’t need to go to cemetery I mean seminary to be qualified mocking any kind of advanced training. So I think it is all about your perspective.

    You’re exactly right, CC is a completely different ballgame, isn’t it? But yet, the abuse patterns are the same.

    Like

  5. As long as it is sound doctrine, it can’t be idolatry. Idolatry is sin, but every word of God is pure (see Proverbs 30:5). It’s only “idolatry” if it’s “false doctrine”. Remember, sound doctrine is good. http://biblehub.com/titus/2-1.htm

    “Sound Doctrine” was written by the Holy Spirit. “For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (see 1 Peter 1:21).

    Like

  6. As long as it is sound doctrine, it can’t be idolatry. Idolatry is sin, but every word of God is pure (see Proverbs 30:5). It’s only “idolatry” if it’s “false doctrine”. Remember, sound doctrine is good. http://biblehub.com/titus/2-1.htm

    “Sound Doctrine” was written by the Holy Spirit. “For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (see 1 Peter 1:21).

    Like

  7. Thanks HUG (12:04),
    I now have visions of a semi German version of this song with Barth singing about Van Til. That would be very funny (I have an odd sense of humor).

    I just read ‘The Great Gatsby’ to prepare for the new movie version. I believe dear Daisy, whom Gatsby calls ‘money’ is a man-eater. You’ve helped me frame my caution in a new way: If you’re a Tulip stop acting like a Daisy.

    Like

  8. Julie Anne

    You ask…
    “Ok, I’m trying to relate this to me as blogger/moderator.
    Is it better for me to be Arminian or Calvinist?”

    Shhheeeessshhh??? – Doesn’t anyone want to follow Jesus?
    Doesn’t anyone want to be one of His Disciples?
    Learning Directly from Jesus? NO middle man?

    Didn’t Jesus say…
    My Sheep *Hear My Voice* – and – Follow Me:.
    John 10:27

    But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost,
    whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things…
    John 14:26

    It is written in the prophets, And they shall be ALL taught of God.
    John 6:45

    Out of heaven he made thee to *hear His voice,*
    that *He might instruct thee:*
    Deuteronomy 4:36

    I will instruct thee and teach thee
    in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.
    Psalms 32:8

    I vote – We send ALL these famous guys packing… Get lost…
    Calvin – Armenious – R.C. Sproul, Jr – R.C. Sproul, Sr. – Luther…

    In my experience – When you’re looking for living water…
    You have to dig your own wells.

    Gotta get it from Jesus for yourself… You need NOT that any man teach you…
    He is the “ONE” teacher – Mat 23:8.

    1 John 2:26-27 KJV
    These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
    But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you,
    **and ye need not that any man teach you:**
    but as **the same anointing teacheth you** of all things,
    and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you,
    ye shall abide in him.

    Jesus wants to teach us sheeple – And Lead us sheeple…

    Thank you Jesus

    Like

  9. LV Apologetics

    I can agree when you write…
    “sound doctrine” is good.”

    But – Who determines what is “Sound Doctrine?”
    And – Who determines what is “False Doctrine?”

    Like

  10. LV Apologetics

    There seems to be lots of differing “Sound Doctrine” around.

    wikipedia reports approximetly 40.000 denominations today.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

    I think they ALL denominations believe they have “Sound Doctrine”
    But – they ALL dis-agree about something. 😦

    Even if wikipedia is off by 90% – that’s still 4,000 denominations
    That have differring “Sound Doctrine.”

    So, now what do we do?

    Like

  11. Well, we could always correct an old children’s song from Sunday School and VBS to fit Calvinist doctrine…

    “Jesus loves some of the children.
    But just some children of the world.
    Red or Yellow, Black or White.
    You’ll be lucky to see the light.
    Jesus loves some of the children of the world.”

    Like

  12. Thank you Amos!!!

    With apologies for the bit of plagiarism (the regulars here will understand), let me suggest that all sound doctrine, and the only sound doctrine, can be summed up in one word:

    {{{{{JESUS}}}}}

    Like

  13. Andrew, I stand by what I said, in that the context of Romans 3-7 is in regards to Law vs. No Law. The Context of Romans 9-11 has a different context, as does Romans 1-2, etc., etc. My position does not change.

    Like

  14. Gary W,
    You had said:
    “I don’t doubt that Abraham had the kind of faith you describe. I can only conjecture that his faith was increased by his obedience, as I tend to suppose it was. I can see how it is faith that leads to obedience, as it surely does. I can also see that obedience leads to greater faith, which is my own experience. It’s not either/or in either direction. it is both/and, or so I suppose.

    Clearly, if faith must start out with the “know that I know that I know” kind of assurance, I am, as of this very moment, doomed.

    My Response:
    You are basically saying that you have no faith. Get faith, because the ONLY thing that pleases God is faith.

    Hebrews 11:6
    But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

    Like

  15. No, Gary, he initiated it. He sinned, ,that separated him from God, and then he sacrificed. He even taught his children to do the same. It wasn’t a response from God, because the sin separated him from God. God killed the first animal in order to show Adam how it was done. If you want a relationship with God, there must be a sacrifice. God not only killed the first animal, he killed the last animal (THE LAMB OF GOD). The first animal “covered” sin, the last animal took away the covered sin. I don’t understand how you cant see that in Genesis. But, oh well. There are things in the Bible that you have to see by using spiritual eyes, not carnal eyes.

    Ed

    Like

  16. Ed,

    If faith is to “believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him,” I suppose I’m o.k. But it doesn’t read, “he that cometh to God must know that he knows that he knows that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” Also, it may say that without faith it is impossible to please Him, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other things that also please Him, assuming the precondition of faith has been met. To me it all makes more sense if I keep in mind the notion that faith without works is dead. Regardless of what precedes, what, no works, no faith.

    Like

  17. Gary,
    I apologize in advance, for I know that this was not directed to me, but I just felt the need to say something.

    You had said:
    “sylphesylphe,
    Just love on your son and he will respond to that more than what he is told at church. Talk to him and listen. Ask questions. Kids love to be heard. That covers a multitude of theology. Maybe that IS theology.”

    My response:
    I would think that the son’s father and the church would expect that the child would respond to what he is told in church, rather than anything that the mom says or does. I agree with what you said “utterly” (110%), I really do, but I can see a spiritual abuse situation just waiting to happen.

    Ed

    Like

  18. JA,

    Here is a stab at the song from Armenian perspective. All in good humor, I hope. I am not that creative. Someone could do better.

    “Jesus loves all the children.
    All the children of the world.
    Yellow, Black or White don’t call my bluff.
    Never quite sure if your good enough.
    Jesus loves all the children of the world.”

    Like

  19. I quote a comment left here earlierby An Attorney, b/c I see lots of references that are proof-texting Romans.

    One must be careful proof-texting out of the Pauline corpus. Paul frequently sets up a straw man argument, then shoots it down. Happens several times in Romans in particular. A law school bible study analyzed Romans as a legal treatise, wherein the counter arguments are put forth first and then shown to be in error or inadequate, then followed by the better argument, some counterpoints, then the best argument! One could be proof-texting from the counter argument section.

    I have seen this happen in the citation of legal treatises, making it look like the author was backing the opposite position, because some one did not read the whole thing with understanding.

    Like

  20. Andrew,
    You had stated:
    “Yes, Pelagianism is heresy.”

    My response:
    Only in your camp, not mine. In my camp, total depravity, limited depravity, utter depravity are all heresy.

    Ed

    Like

  21. But – Who determines what is “Sound Doctrine?”
    And – Who determines what is “False Doctrine?”

    Whoever is in POWER, of course.

    “Some will say what we want to do is illegal. Before that can happen, make sure WE are the ones who define what is legal and what is not.” — L Ron Hubbard

    Like

  22. Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttt?

    I’m really thinking I might be better served by taking lots of acid and listening to the Grateful Dead.

    I’ve been using large doses of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic for the past couple years myself.

    Like

  23. Andrew, so if Pelagianism was condemned by meetings that took place hundreds of years ago, then I have to buy into what someone believed centuries ago? Why are my beliefs supposed to be based on what dead men thought? Why is their opinions more superior than mine? Just because people of a different generation believed that the world was flat, does that mean that I have to, as well? It was later proven that the world was not flat. Well, it was later proven that the people that agreed to something in the past was wrong, too. It’s just that some wish to still hold on to the false belief that the world is flat, and the Vietnam war is still going on (my dry sense of humor is kicking in).

    Ed

    Like

  24. HUG, Congratulations on posting that embedded video. I’m envious of your skills. I now have to go to the back door of the site to see the html code you used to get that YouTube up. I wasted probably 10 minutes trying last night. Ugh.

    All I did was just cut-and-paste the URL of the YouTube page directly to the comments, like you do with some blog comments where it links automatically. I was surprised when it actually embedded; I was expecting just a hypertext link to the video’s YouTube page. Don’t know whether this is an artifact of your blog engine, the settings of the machine or Web browser I was using at the time (current IE) or both.

    Like

  25. Ed,
    What is your camp? You almost appear to be saying we don’t need a savior with a remark like that. So you don’t even believe in limited depravity? Do you believe in a Fallen nature or are you already perfect?

    Like

  26. I am still learning the many differences between Calvinism and Arminianism – I never even heard of those terms until a couple of years ago. All I will ever claim as my “doctrine” is a belief in the salvation offered by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A couple of years ago, some college friends had their first baby. I remember reading their blog when the munchkin was about a year old. Imagine my horror when I read about the munchkin’s “first sin” and the many theological musings of watching your child sin, knowing that he/she is now doomed until he/she becomes a believer. The child had simply tested boundaries for the very first time when told the word “no” and that caused the whole blog post.

    Maybe we need to back up from our big fancy words and doctrines and battles to see who knows said doctrine better than the other person. Let’s become like the little children and simply love Jesus because He first loved us, not because he likes one doctrinal group better than another one. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll relearn the very first Bible verse most of us ever memorized, John 3:16. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    Like

  27. A Amos Love, Eric, and Julie Anne,

    This is comical: A Amos Love states:

    Depraved = morally corrupt; wicked:

    I think I have to go along with Eric on this one…

    “I’m done talking to Calvinists.” Because…

    Calvinists are Depraved, Morally Corrupt and Wicked…

    How can you trust what they say?

    My Response: By their own admission, Calvinists are morally corrupt, and wicked. I’d love for Dr. James White to read that one!!! Funny!

    Like

  28. “Andrew, so if Pelagianism was condemned by meetings that took place hundreds of years ago, then I have to buy into what someone believed centuries ago?”

    If you want to believe what Pelagian taught centuries ago, than you can certainly do that. BTW, most humanistic professors in many academic setting today believe exactly this so have at it. But, I think you would be hard pressed to call it a church.

    Like

  29. “Until you defenders of Calvinism put a gigantic boot straight in the rear ends of Mohler, Devers, Mahaney, and Jack Graham, don’t expect anyone that lives in the real world to give a tinker’s damn about anything you have to say.”

    Ok, what about Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel? These guys are vehemently against anything Calvinistic. Just saying.. Better put a boot strap there as well.

    Like

  30. Jeff Brown,

    You had said:
    ” meaning that all were born spiritually dead (Rom 5:12, Eph 2:1-3). ”

    I disagree that we are born spiritually dead. We die a spiritual death:

    Deuteronomy 1:39 and Romans 7:9

    We die when we get knowledge of Good and Evil.

    Your topic in being born spiritually dead is the doctrine of original sin, and I don’t believe in it, because we are not born spiritually dead…we die a spiritual death, once we get knowledge…just like Adam and Eve. On the day that they got knowledge is the day that they died a spiritual death. Read Romans 7:9 as to when Paul died…and he was a Jew, under the law of Moses, as were those in Deuteronomy 1:39.

    Like

  31. “What is the difference between total and utter? If total is 100%, is utter 110%?”

    Is this a serious question or you just want to keep mocking? You already mentioned that you don’t even believe in “limited” depravity so that must mean you believe in zero depravity which to me means perfection. You are the first person I have ever met who has made a statement like this.

    Like

  32. “Ok, what about Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel? These guys are vehemently against anything Calvinistic. Just saying.. Better put a boot strap there as well.”

    Yep, I’d be all for that. I’m sick of mealy-mouthed slimeballs that try to twist the Bible to fit their sick agendas, no matter if they’re Calvinist or Arminian in nature.

    But reality show us that the Calvinists are in front in the “defending our misanthropy with the Gospel” category.

    And yes, Andrew, I’ll flat-out say that you’re being a dodgy mealy-mouth just like your sick Calvinist leaders with all of your, “but what about?…” BS.

    Grow a set and be a real man, Andrew. Stand up for what is good and right, even if it goes against your pet doctrine. I seriously doubt you have the manhood to do that.

    Like

  33. HA – Eric – -Someone sent me a youtube of Dever singing CJ’s praises earlier today. The article must have come from the YouTube video. I’m almost done.

    Like

  34. Eric,
    I don’t think I have even put one argument on the table either for or against Calvinism in this entire blog. I have mainly put forth the Palagian heresy of which it appears every segment including Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant (Arminian and Calvinist) seem to be in agreement on and against Palagian. You completely stand alone in your defense of Palagian in any church that I know of. But if you want to call Scientology a church than please don’t call it Christian.

    Like

  35. Gary W,

    What do you mean to begin your sentence with the word “IF”? Is that how the verse states it? If?

    However, if you dissect the definition in Hebrews 11:1, as I posted, what, three or four or more times, you should understand that it is certainly a know that you know that you know.

    Faith is the substance of things HOPED for, the EVIDENCE of things unseen.

    What is the definition of HOPE? I already told you that hope is an EXPECTATION and that you are JUST WAITING for it to happen.

    The word substance…in some translations it is stated “ASSURANCE”.

    I can’t explain it any better than that, that it is a know that you know that you know that you are going to get what you expect, and the context of Hebrews 11 is that we get eternal life (The Promised Land), that we are heirs to the promise given to Abraham, that we are the sons of Abraham, his seed. It all boils down the the covenant that God gave to Abraham, PROMISED LAND! We know that we inherit it. That is eternal life.

    Why are you in doubt? Get some faith, brother!!!!!

    Ed

    Like

  36. Andrew,
    You ask me:
    “Ed,
    What is your camp? You almost appear to be saying we don’t need a savior with a remark like that. So you don’t even believe in limited depravity? Do you believe in a Fallen nature or are you already perfect?”

    Did I say that? No, I do not believe in any depravity. We get eternal life by faith, not by obeying law. We have no depravity. I am a sinner, and all I have to do is believe that Jesus is my savior. I am not depraved. Never was. Never will be. Abraham didn’t have ANY of the law of Moses…he was justified by what he BELIEVED. No depravity there.

    Like

  37. ” I have mainly put forth the Palagian[sic] heresy of which it appears every segment including Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant (Arminian and Calvinist) seem to be in agreement on and against Palagian[sic]. You completely stand alone in your defense of Palagian[sic] in any church that I know of. But if you want to call Scientology a church than please don’t call it Christian.”

    First off, it’s ‘Pelagian” not ‘Palagian.’ And no you haven’t been arguing against Pelagianism, you’ve been arguing for Calvinist depravity.Nor have you ever argued against semipelagianism, all you’ve done is argue for Calvinist Total Depravity, so quit lying to us and yourself about what you’re claiming to do, Andrew.

    As I wrote in my blog post, if you wish to defend Calvinist Total Depravity, and accept that as your theology, then I’m perfectly happy to concede the point that YOU are totally depraved. But you can take your misanthropy and shove it when it comes to your trying to paint the rest of humanity with your diseased doctrine.

    Like

  38. Andrew,
    Humanistic professors have nothing to do with this argument. Those professing to be Christians defining what they believe is the argument here. I know of no humanistic professors professing to be a Christian.

    Like

  39. Ed,

    I guess we’re back to this: If small faith is not enough, I’m doomed, because that is all I have. Still, my testimony is that when I take small steps of faith, in the form of obedience, my assurance grows. If the Bible contradicts my experience in this respect, there is nothing left but despair. Then again, Jesus had something to say about faith as small as a mustard seed. Then again, again, my mustard seed faith has never so much as moved a small pile of dirt, much less an entire mountain. Thank you for you concern, but I am left with naught but despair. (He says with a straight face.)

    Like

  40. Andrew,
    Total, utter, limited…

    I guess that you simply cannot answer the question that I posed, then, huh?

    Is limited 50%, total 100% and utter 110%?

    Like

  41. “I am not depraved. Never was. Never will be. Abraham didn’t have ANY of the law of Moses…he was justified by what he BELIEVED. No depravity there.”

    So Why is there even a need for Abraham to be” justified “if he already was with no depravity?

    Like

  42. Gary W,
    Obedience to what, Gary? We are to be obedient to faith. What does that really mean? If you believe in something, then you will live your life BASED ON that belief. It sounds to me like you are not quite sure what you believe. If you believe that a chair will hold you without falling apart, you sit in it. Sitting is the works.

    Let me be more direct:
    Do you believe that YOU will inherit eternal life? If you do, then live out your life BASED ON that belief.

    Ed

    Like

  43. Yeah, I’m done with “christians.”

    You want to claim to be a “christian” and hold to a doctrine of hating people, go right ahead. But don’t squawk when people in the real world dismiss you out of hand.

    Like

  44. Andrew,
    Study that question on your own. You will find it. It is definitely in the Bible. Begin, however, by reading all of Romans Chapter 4. Then go back and read everything about Abraham…everything, and dissect it. The answer to your question is found in the bible, and your question is certainly not a rhetorical one, either. It deserves an answer. But you need to look up the answer on your own. Then you will see what I have been discussing, that we are not depraved, not limited, total or utter. And remember, Abraham didn’t have the law of Moses. That is the MOST important part of the story.

    Ed

    Like

  45. Ed,

    You ask, “Obedience to what, Gary?” Obedience to Jesus’ new commandment that we love one another.

    You ask me, “Do you believe that YOU will inherit eternal life?” No. I believe that I already have inherited eternal life. More specifically, I believe that I have already been granted that life which is to be characteristic of the age to come. I don’t like the word “eternal” as a translation of the Greek word for “age.”

    Like

  46. Ed,

    BTW, the (eternal) life I now possess consists of my possessing Jesus, or, better yet, of my being possessed by Jesus.

    Like

  47. Gary W, Those are the two commandments in the New Test, and that proves that you are a Christian, as John states that you will know the disciples of Christ because they have love for one another, however, faith is a law, that we are to be obedient to.

    If you read 1 Cor 15, you will see that there were people following Jesus, loving people, etc., but they did not believe in eternal life (the resurrection of the dead, nor that Jesus rose from the dead, etc.). What good does loving people do if you have no BASIS of your faith? Our faith is BASED ON something. What is it?

    Like

  48. Gary W,
    I see you answered my question in your second post above. If you believe that you have Jesus, aka eternal life, then you live out your life KNOWING THAT YOU KNOW that you have eternal life.

    Like

  49. Ed,

    Alright, you have beaten me into submission. I know that I know that I know. It’s just that it doesn’t feel like it.

    Like

  50. Gary,
    Good questions. Being a student of the Bible (studying, learning, reading over and over) can only increase ones sensitivity and concern for all of the ills besetting the human race and society in general. And while there is a greater concern for all the things you mentioned, there is also the knowledge that our greatest mission while still on this earth is the saving message of the gospel – the death of Jesus Christ for OUR sins and his resurrection for our eventual glorification. More simply put, while concern for all that plagues us is definitely important, as is addressing them with love, compassion and tangible effort, the greatest thing we can do for our fellow human beings is give them Jesus. A ‘social gospel’ without the message of Christ’s death for the sins of men is no gospel at all.

    I think I would be a miserable ‘Christian’ indeed if I fed and clothed folks but didn’t give them Jesus..

    That’s how I feel about all of that. I know you asked for details concerning what I do

    Like

  51. Gary,

    Actually, issue of monergistic v. synergistic regeneration is critical to how we carry out the Great Commission’. Either God is sovereign in the salvation of men (monergism) or we are sovereign over our own salvation (synergism). Either Christ’s death on the cross actually secured the salvation of men (monergism), or it only made it possible for men to save themselves with their personal decisions (synergism). One is biblical and the other is not. We cannot have it both ways. If we believe God alone saves, our efforts in personal evangelism (preaching the gospel) are merely the means God has decided to use to save men. Our privilege is to share Christ and the gospel message in all it’s truth, including the issue of sin. If we believe men can and must save themselves we need to give people a Jesus they will like which requires removing the ‘offense’ of the gospel (the issue of sin).

    Nuff said for now. Just think about it for awhile.

    Like

  52. “Jesus loves the willing children.
    All ascenting children of the world.
    Red or Yellow, Black or White.
    It’s their nature to be right.
    Jesus loves the willing children of the world.”

    Next up; Carnal Eyes

    Like

  53. Carnal Eyes by the Weedroots

    Temptation eyes
    Looking through my, my, my soul
    Your carnal eyes
    Come on and judge me
    judge me tonight

    Like

  54. Born4Battle,

    I will think about it. Actually I’ve been thinking about it since at least the early 70’s. But I’ll give it a bit more thought before responding.

    In the meantime, have you consider my earlier questions, which I here repeat: What difference has all the [doctrinal] knowledge made in your life? Do you find that your heart is for the hungry, for widows and orphans, for the oppressed, for the imprisoned? I am expecting the answer is yes, but is your heart level concern translated into action? If so, what action, specifically?

    Now, I’m not suggesting that we somehow earn salvation by feeding the hungry, taking care of widows and orphans, and so on. However, I note from the closing verses of Matthew that, if we are not about these sorts of things, we are goats, consigned to eternal punishment. We are not saved by works. Therefore, I can only conclude that, if we are not engaged in acts of mercy, we were never saved to begin with.

    Like

  55. (*pokes head back in after several hours away, only to find a hundred + comments more than there was last time, and thinks: “wow, that escalated quickly”*)

    Just a couple of quick thoughts — because hey, what’s the fun of a fire if you can’t occasionally pour some gasoline on it 🙂 —

    Andrew, two quick thoughts: 1) there’s an awful lot more to being a Pelagian than simply denying depravity. Reducing Pelagianism down to that doesn’t win any points. 2) The Eastern Orthodox deny depravity, deny original sin AND are not Pelagian. It can happen. I’ve a gaggle of EO friends, some of whom are in seminary or working on theology degrees, and none of them would be terribly thrilled to hear someone telling them they believe in depravity….

    Born4Battle, methinks you’ve got some false dichotomies going on. One need not deny free will simply because one counts himself a monergist–and that’s the major beef I take with the Reformed version of Augustinianism…wel, ok, it’s *A* major beef I take with the Reformed version of Augustinianism…

    (*after pouring on the gas, he ducks back out the back door…*)

    Like

  56. There’s always a revolving door here, Ryan. No one’s late for any parties 🙂

    I am a bit nervous about that gas part, but didn’t see any flaming in your comment. Whew.

    Like

  57. Born4Battle,

    O.K., here are my responses to the points you posted at 4:55 pm.

    You state: Either God is sovereign in the salvation of men (monergism) or we are sovereign over our own salvation (synergism). My view: Sovereignty consists of authority combined with power. God supplies the power, that is, the means, of salvation. He cedes authority to men to accept or reject that which He has made possible.

    You state: Either Christ’s death on the cross actually secured the salvation of men (monergism), or it only made it possible for men to save themselves with their personal decisions (synergism). My view: Jesus’ death on the cross was sufficient to secure salvation for all men, women and children for all of human history, past, present and future. This work was accomplished by Jesus alone, and there is nothing we can contribute to it. Yet, we are granted freedom to accept or reject what Jesus has accomplished.

    You state: One is biblical and the other is not. My view: Neither view should be said to be Biblical because neither is explicitly stated in Scripture. Both views are based on the application of human reason to the Divine Text. Therefore, neither view may be accepted as infallible.

    You state: We cannot have it both ways. My view: We cannot have it completely one way, and also completely the other way. However, it is certainly possible for one view to be correct in part, and for the other view to also be correct in part. Correlatively, it is entirely possible for one view to be incorrect in part, and for the other view to also be incorrect in part.

    Ryan M. has already noticed what I take to be false dichotomies in your position.

    Like

  58. Gary,
    I recommend you do an actual study of monergism v. synergism. These are not concepts I invented, I am not engaging in a personal debate. I was offering food for careful thought and objective consideration

    Like

  59. By your logic Gary, the doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical either. Jehovah’s Witnesses and fine Modalists everywhere would agree with you, but hopefully no orthodox Christians.

    Like

  60. Born4Battle, may I humbly recommend that you do an actual study of monergism v. synergism as well? I think you’d particularly benefit from reading up on some non-Reformed Augustinian views…

    And yes, by Gary’s logic, the doctrine of the Trinity would be rather difficult to piece together from Scripture alone. But then, “sola scriptura” isn’t “biblical” either, is it? We need some further criteria for Christian truth… Maybe we need Holy Tradition after all…

    Like

  61. I don’t believe in the trinity either, B4B, and I am not a Pentecostal, or a Jehovah’s Witness. Isaiah 9:6, the son is the everlasting father. What was the response that Jesus had with Philip when he asked Jesus for him to show them the Father, and that would be sufficient? When you get to heaven, will you ask Jesus to show you the Father, too? What will Jesus say to you? Answer: The same that he told Philip. Then will you respond, “No, really Jesus…is he out with Abraham, or is he watering the flowers in the garden, please show me the father…I will wait.”

    Jesus is just gonna shake his head at you. Jesus is God, and there is only one God. So, all we have to do is to figure out how Jesus is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that is very very very easy to figure out. The trinity people can only tell us that it’s a mystery.

    When the disciples baptized people, they used an actual name when baptizing. They didn’t use a phrase. The trinity folks use a phrase, “I baptize you in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit”. But the apostles didn’t use a phrase, they used a name, and that name is Jesus. Jesus is the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit. Now, I know you will say that is heretical. So be it. Dead men told us that we have to believe in a trinity. Why? Because they said so, and can’t explain it beyond “it’s a mystery”?

    Did you know that you are a trinity, so to speak? One person is a three in one.

    Spirit, soul, body.

    What does John 4:24 state? God is a spirit. Jesus wasn’t a ghost on this land. He was the BODY of God. God (SPIRIT) in the FLESH (BODY).

    FATHER: SPIRIT
    SON: BODY
    HOLY SPIRIT (MIND/SOUL) OF CHRIST.

    One person. I don’t believe that three people or beings is one God. Not one bit.

    I say all that to say that Gary is right when he said that we don’t have to buy off on the only two choices that dead people presented, monergism v. synergism. In other words, there is more to the story than just those two choices that dead men didn’t lay out on the table.

    Ed

    Like

  62. Good Sirs Ryan and Ed,

    I am not trying to be sarcastic or flippant here. Monergism and synergism are concepts that I summarized in brief, because I have studied them at length and evaluated them in light of the scripture that claims to support each. I know where I stand at present, and where I stood before carefully studying scripture, but my opinion is not the issue. I just think it’s a fascinating study that that goes to whether or not regeneration precedes faith (faith is a gift), or follows it (faith is something that originates in man).

    I also have Augustine’s Confessions on my shelf. One can read both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in his writings. I will leave that to you fine gentlemen and not provide any particular quotations, as you seem to think I am trying to prove ‘personal’ points here, which I am not, I assure you.
    Concerning the Trinity, I will not argue about that either or prove how the Bible supports it or how the concept was developed in the history of our church, There are sufficient free resources for that also.

    Pentacostalism and Modalism are two different categories; one defines a Christian sect and the other a view of God. Modalism is also not the same thing as the ‘Jesus only’ (Jesus is all three) view.

    I will go no further concerning these things. It is not wise when objective dialogue is not something that seems possible right now.

    Like

  63. HA! Look at what you guys did – – this doctrinal war here is the topic of discussion at the pingback above. That cracks me up! The article includes a longer excerpt of the “children’s” book which. I agree 100% with the blogger:

    Sadly, while the blogger at Spiritual Sounding Board — who is closing in on 400 comments since Saturday — gets a little worked up on this, we have to agree. The Reformed movement just sunk to a new low.This is unconscionable. This type of book is simply not of God.

    Like

  64. Born4Battle,

    Let me respectfully submit that dialogue must run in both directions. I have responded to your statements on the matter of monergism vs. synergism. Now, if you will, please respond to the questions I will now put to a third time:

    What difference has all the [doctrinal] knowledge made in your life? Do you find that your heart is for the hungry, for widows and orphans, for the oppressed, for the imprisoned? I am expecting the answer is yes, but is your heart level concern translated into action? If so, what action, specifically?

    We are admonished to test a tree by it’s fruit. If the fruit of monergism in your life is such that you qualify to be counted amongst the sheep receiving eternal life (Mt. 25:31-46), then I will have some basis for re-examining the question of monergism vs. synergism. I say “re-consider” because I was very much a monergist for about the second and third decades of my Christian walk (I am now well into my 5th decade). The fruit of monergist ideas in my own life was very bad indeed. I have attributed this bad fruit to my own bad choices, but these choices were very much fueled by the kinds of monergistic views you espouse.

    So, again, what is the fruit of monergism in your life? All I can see so far is that, if I disagree with you, you take a dim view of my intelligence. I mean no disrespect, but that is not a good fruit.

    Like

  65. We believe that salvation is a gift, a gift of grace from God, accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus. But like any gift, the designated beneficiary of a gift must accept the gift or it is not completed. The one designated to receive a gift must either accept the gift or it is rejected! Thus, we must either accept the grace gift of faith and salvation or the gift is rejected. This is neither monergism nor synergism, but between. For God does all the hard part — all of the work, and our only action in salvation is to accept or not his great gift. But God grants us the freedom to accept or reject His gift.
    BTW, the legal system does not allow one to impose a gift on another. The beneficiary of a gift must accept it and act as if it has been accepted, or reject it. An example is a gift of a portion of an estate after the death of the benefactor; one may decline to accept any or all of whatever was designated to be given, and then the law will act to pass that onto someone else.

    Like

  66. Born4Battle,

    Here is an apology. I see that you answered my questions in your 4:43 post yesterday afternoon. Yes, certainly, give people Jesus. Yet, I think it quite dangerous to ignore what Jesus says in the closing verses of Matthew 25. Are we to ignore Jesus because he was teaching what we prefer to malign as “social gospel?”

    It seems to me that those who share your views have a great tendency to preach Jesus, while ignoring all that it means to actually follow Jesus in a practical and tangible way. They used to get upset at me for asking how it could be that the faith they presented, and which I had adopted, resulted in very little actual change in my life. I appreciate your invitation to conduct a more thorough study of monergism vs. synergism. However, there is less left of this life than there was yesterday, and I think I will choose to spend my time and efforts pursuing Jesus himself. Then, I think, all else will fall into place.

    Like

  67. An Attorney,

    If the Wikipedia article on monergism is reliable, it seems Born4Battle set up something of a strawman in his depiction of the synergistic position. It appears that synergism in no way involves man saving himself, as intimated by B4B. Assuming, again, that the Wikipedia article is accurate, the positions you and I have outlined are very much consistent with the synergistic position.

    Like

  68. Born4Battle,

    I disagree that faith is a gift. That is Calvinism. I don’t believe in Calvinism, or that faith is a gift. Grace is the gift. But it is by faith that we get the gift.

    By the way, whether you are sarcastic or flippant, that doesn’t bother me. That is my personality, and I usually get along really good with like personalities. It’s all in fun. I am great friends with someone who I debate with from time to time where our discussions get heated, very heated. But at the end of the day, we might get together for a beer. I don’t question your sincerity, or your salvation. I just find that your logic is just way too much on the side of philosophy, rather than on the side of faith.

    Colossians 2:8
    Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy…and not after Christ.

    Like

  69. To accept a gift, one must have faith in the giver of the the gift, that it is what it purports to be and the gift is in fact a gift and not a contract that requires more of the recipient than the accepting of the gift in good faith. That includes faith that the giver is, can actually make the gift, and has not attached undisclosed limitations on the gift. So it is by faith that every gift is accepted as a gift. To accept the gift of salvation, we must have faith that God is, that he is offering a free gift of salvation, and that his motivation is not profit but his love for us. Fairly simple, and not an effort or work on our part. The faith required is fairly simple and limited. It may later grow, but that is post-salvation, when we are in a growing relationship with the great giver of gifts, because he has given us that most important of gifts.

    Like

  70. Crimany, the comments on this post have really blown up in the past few days. So, if any of y’all are still reading this, I have a question. As I’ve indicated before, I have difficulty in using doctrinal label to categorize my beliefs. For example, I see myself as leaning more complementarian than egalitarian, and so for simplicity’s sake, I will say I am complementarian. I see differences in how I define it and some others define it to the point that I almost cannot call myself complentarian, though. At the same time, I cannot call myself egalitarian because of a couple key (key in my mind) disagreements.

    I am seeing the same type of thing with the whole Calvinism/Arminian debate. I lean much more closely to a belief similar to what Calvinists do, so for simplicity I would say I hold Calvinist beliefs, not Arminian. I think I am more in the middle though, as I see some differences in my take and thinking of TULIP and how others see it.

    So my question is, if anybody is interested, if I put in a comment my own take on TULIP, would you consider me a Calvinst, Arminian, or somewhere in between? I’m not really asking if you would agree with my beliefs on the subject, but how you would characterize it? What do y’all think?

    Like

  71. “Andrew, NO, the drama unfolds in Romans Chapter 4, the topic of Abraham.”

    Ed, NO, the drama starts to unfold in the Garden way before Abraham in Genesis. Melchizedek preceded Abraham as did Christ. Maybe they are the same person.

    Like

  72. JoeJoe said:

    So my question is, if anybody is interested, if I put in a comment my own take on TULIP, would you consider me a Calvinst, Arminian, or somewhere in between? I’m not really asking if you would agree with my beliefs on the subject, but how you would characterize it? What do y’all think?

    I say ditch the labels entirely. They are too divisive. I’m 48 yrs old (for only one more month) and for 35+ yrs I never worried about such a thing. Ever since learning about it, it’s caused more trouble than anything – people telling me this, telling me that, disagreeing, blah, blah. I don’t see any of those labels in the Bible. Ditch the labels and get Jesus. My $.02 . . . . next?

    Like

  73. Ed,
    You need to quit this anti-Calvin obsession and do a good study of Eph 2:8-9. I would also refer you to a slew of commentaries, but they’re just a bunch of stupid dead guys.

    Like

  74. chapmaned24 –

    Rom 7:9 is a challenging verse, but, from the context of the passage it is in, and from other passages by Paul, I don’t think we can conclude that he means that he was spiritually alive before he knew the law.

    First of all, verse 7 speaks of knowing – being aware – of sin, in this case covetousness. Paul coveted before knowing the law against it, but the law not only defines sin, it stirs it up (v. 8).

    Rom 5:12-14: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.”

    Even though sin is not counted where there is no law – apparently not counted as an infraction of the law – death reigned before the law. Therefore, all people (Jews and Gentiles) sinned before the law, and death was the result.

    “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” (Eph 2:1-3)

    This doesn’t seem to say that we were born spiritually alive, esp. when it says that we were “by nature children of wrath.” Knowledge of the law (Mosaic and pre-Mosaic) has nothing to do with this condition. (Also, there is Ps 51:5 – “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” – and other verses.)

    “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved…” (Eph 2:4-5)

    Here is where we are made spiritually alive – together with Christ – despite being dead in our trespasses. Yes, we still sin, but we are also able to not sin.

    Gary –

    Please don’t take it personally. If you did, I would Arminianate.

    Like

  75. Eph 2:8-9. ‘and ‘that’ not of yourselfs. The ‘that’, if we are to adhere to Greek grammar, refers to both grace and faith. That’s the argument and Calvin didn’t invent it, my friend.

    Like

  76. No, Andrew, the drama unfolds with Abraham. The covenant was given to Abraham, not Adam. Abraham was promised land, not Adam. Abraham was promised seed. And how did he get it? By faith, not by following a set of rules or regulations…in other words, without the law of Moses. Law vs. No Law. That is the context of Romans 3-7.

    Like

  77. Born4Battle, Eph 2:8-9 Not of yourselves MEANS that you don’t get eternal life by obeying the law of Moses. The law of Moses is a barrier to faith. Abraham didn’t have the law of Moses. There was no barrier. Faith is not a gift. Grace is.

    Ed

    Like

  78. Everyone here seems to be repeating themselves, and proof-texting out of Romans without regard to my earlier comment, so here it is again.
    An Attorney
    JUNE 3, 2013 @ 3:07 AM
    One must be careful proof-texting out of the Pauline corpus. Paul frequently sets up a straw man argument, then shoots it down. Happens several times in Romans in particular. A law school bible study analyzed Romans as a legal treatise, wherein the counter arguments are put forth first and then shown to be in error or inadequate, then followed by the better argument, some counterpoints, then the best argument! One could be proof-texting from the counter argument section.

    I have seen this happen in the citation of legal treatises, making it look like the author was backing the opposite position, because some one did not read the whole thing with understanding.

    Please be very careful about proof-texting short passages from the Pauline corpus. Paul used a manner of argument that includes use of the counter-arguments to his position, which he then showed to be a false counter-argument. You can end up with a false theology with reckless proof citations out of Paul’s letters.

    Like

  79. The whole “covering” and “hair” thing in Paul’s writings are examples of an argumentation method, showing the ridiculous implications of some of the things he was hearing from the church to which he was writing.

    Like

  80. Jeff Brown:
    You state:
    “Rom 7:9 is a challenging verse, but, from the context of the passage it is in, and from other passages by Paul, I don’t think we can conclude that he means that he was spiritually alive before he knew the law.”

    I disagree. I believe that is exactly what it is saying, that he spiritually died once he got knowledge. That is also the death date of Adam and Eve, when they got knowledge.

    Every person’s life is just like Adam and Eve’s. We start out innocent, until we get knowledge. The law is the KNOWLEDGE of sin.

    How can we say that children that are abused “lost their innocence” when Calvinists state that they are not innocent?

    Ignorance of the law is the excuse. Those who are ignorant of sin are not held to account. They are sinners, but not held to account.

    Deuteronomy 1:39 (Who gets to go to the “PROMISED LAND”?

    Those with no knowledge of Good and Evil. What was the name of that tree in the Garden?

    Let me break it down with scripture with more clarity.

    1 John 3:4
    Sin is the transgression of the law

    Romans 3:20
    The law is the knowledge of sin

    Romans 5:13
    Sin is not imputed (placed on your account) when there is no law

    Romans 4:15
    For where no law is, there is no transgression

    Romans 4:8
    Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute (place on your account) sin.

    Romans 4:16
    Therefore it is of faith that it might be grace

    *******

    Romans 6:2 We are dead to sin. That means that sin does not exist.

    Romans 7:4
    Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law

    That means that the law does not exist.

    Galatians 2:19
    For I through the law am dead to the law

    That means that the law does not exist.

    Bottom line, Law (not of faith) vs. No Law (faith)

    Did Abraham have law or no law?

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s