* * *
Ok, you really have to hear the background of this next post. The other day I was tweeting with a guy whose Twitter handle is @fivesolasguy, (Brian Thornton.) He responded to a couple of tweets of mine and I have to be honest with you, his words felt very familiar to me. The following is a good sampling of our conversation.
* * *
* * *
Eventually, I got tired of the same runaround and so I said “gotta run” or something similar a couple of times. I continued to get more tweets after saying I had to go (notifications come to my smart phone) and I didn’t want to have to keep picking up my phone for the same guy tweeting the same ol’ stuff and so I blocked him. I think I have only one other person blocked in my 1+ yrs of tweeting.
Well, yesterday, I noticed Mr. Thornton came here to the blog and posted a couple of comments. He questioned why I blocked him on Twitter. So, I went back to Twitter to see what was going on. Apparently, he had tweeted and tagged me quite a bit. I found the evidence on Aug. 9 in which he spouted off publicly about me for blocking him. JA did something she doesn’t allow her kids to do – she rolled her eyes.
* * *
* * *
Wow – those are 6 tweets in a row. There were more, too. I couldn’t tell if the tweeting occurred all at once or throughout the day. I realized that this guy was obviously trying to get some message across to me and not satisfied with my earlier responses and so I gave him an offer to say whatever he’s trying to say in a paragraph or two and I’d post it here on the blog. (You might consider clicking on that link. The exchange is pretty funny – – one of our regular readers, Eric Fry, saw what was going on and put his TX cowboy boots on. Yea, he cut to the chase.) I figured why not – we could try to discuss it here with complete sentences and paragraphs without the Twitter character limitations and just be done with it already.
Hey, what do you know, he took me up on it. You can tell from the tweets above that we both were getting frustrated. Twitter can be very effective or it can be very ineffective. Our conversation was not getting anywhere.
But check out what he wrote. I can’t believe it’s the same guy. It definitely gives more insight into his tweets. The only edit I made was to break up a long paragraph, otherwise, this is exactly Mr. Thornton’s content. I’m looking forward to the discussion.
* * * * * *
A Call for Reasoned Discernment Before Judgment Is Made Upon Others
My wife and I have experienced what is known as spiritual abuse at the hands of a pastor who went to great lengths to “lord it over” his flock. He would arrive at your doorstep unannounced to rebuke you for not attending a service, have others call you out and rebuke you for some comments you made at a small group gathering, and would even verbally chastise you and threaten to remove you from membership if you did not repent of a particular sin he was convinced you had.
When I finally concluded that this guy was beyond the possibility of being reasoned with, I removed my wife and family from his spiritually oppressive influence. This guy was off the chain, so to speak, and I would not allow him to exert his unbiblical and sinful attempts to control us any longer.
My experience had made me a prime candidate to resist any future submission to a pastor/elder/shepherd (it did, in fact, result in me being hyper-critical for several years following that experience). But, in spite of what we went through, I remain convinced of the Bible’s teaching concerning the submission of Christians to their church leaders. Sadly, though, I fear that there are many who experience similar things that we did who become overly cynical, distrusting, and critical of anyone who teaches the biblical truth concerning the authority of church leaders over their congregations. Simply put, bad experiences do not negate the truth of God’s Word. And they don’t give us unfettered license to rail against anyone we believe is abusing their authority.
One of the main mistakes we can make (especially those of us who have experienced abusive practices firsthand from church leaders) is that, going forward, we fail to give others the benefit of the doubt. Paul said that love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things”, and I believe part of what Paul is saying there is that our love for one another inside the church will include an attitude and heart of trust, rather than distrust. Our love for one another, rooted in the common bond we have IN Christ, will (should) translate into carefully researched conclusions and comments regarding another’s supposed position on church authority, for example. That love will result in, not publicly expressed suspicion the moment we see a red flag or questionable information, but will instead lead us to make sure that we are counting others as more important than ourselves, which will hopefully result in us reserving judgment until we are sure of the truth. I have been guilty of this more times than I can count.
Another common mistake we tend to make is that we will attack and judge and critique something based upon what someone has written rather than how what has been written actually gets fleshed out in real life. For example, someone reads on a web site article about someone’s position on the church’s authority over a Christian, and they draw all sorts of conclusions and preconceived opinions, not based upon what actually occurs in real life, but rather based upon what was written. I have been guilty of this quite recently. I strongly disagreed with a particular “method” for doing something as it was written and explained on paper, and I began to passionately attack that method with much vigor and emotion. However, when I took a step back and decided to see how that method was actually being fleshed out in real life, my conclusions were completely opposite from my initial judgments. We can erect all manor [sic] of straw men that we can easily knock down (or burn in effigy), when the truth is all we’ve done is malign another member of the body of Christ for no good reason. Make no mistake, there are those who take advantage of others and abuse their authority in the church. And they must be exposed and stopped. But, every red flag is not a cause for misinformed declarations against others who profess Christ. When we do that, we very well may be bringing down someone who is truly on our side. And for what reason? Because we didn’t give the benefit of the doubt, or we didn’t do our homework, or we attacked some words in an article rather than examined real life actions. When that happens, we have acted no differently and no better than those we are accusing of wrong-doing.
I pray we would all grow in the grace of our Lord and Savior as we bear, believe, hope, and endure all things for the well-being of our brothers and sisters in Christ. May we seek to be well-informed, truly discerning members of the church.
Brian Thornton
Spiritual Sounding Board 
“So in a very real sense, religion is not only like a business, it is a business, when it can hire and fire people “at will”. And we pay for their salaries, and retirement, and yet, we have no say in the matter.”
Christianity is big business. Yes…we pay them so they (some, not all) can tell us what to do and how to live. (At least in the real world, we get paid for being bossed.) A good example is Voddie Baucham. You pretty much have to step in line if you wish to attend his church.
Brian– I noticed on your blog you link to Baucham. I have long since given up the hope that you will answer my question to you regarding just what exactly it was that made you a “huge supporter” of SGM, so I will move on to Baucham.
What is it exactly that compels you to link to Baucham? Is it his preaching style? His lifestyle? His patriarchy? The way he runs his church? His parenting style? His humility? His hatred of government schools? His sense of humor? Does it concern you if people find him on your blog, click the link and start listening, that they will be exposed to his extreme views in his sermons? If it’s his sense of humor that compels you to link to him, here’s a short video where he displays his comedic skills at the expense of those who do not homeschool and do not think the government schools, as he words it, will ruin our children. I personally find it shameful that a pastor would get up on a stage and belittle and mock fellow brothers and sisters in Christ merely because they would not agree to a method of schooling-but that is what you get when you link to Baucham:
I agree….best not to answer about SGM. How about it? What is it about Baucham?
LikeLike
@ lydia~
“Diane, I am convinced T4G has serious cult tendencies. Can you tell me why it has any followers left since all the things have come out about Mahaney’s methods/behavior/teaching at PDI/ SGM? He is one of the 4 MAIN faces of T4G.”
Indeed. Seems the Mahaney followers are NOT connecting the dots between what a professing Christian says and what his behavior reveals. And they are either deceived, or willfully looking the other way.
LikeLike
“How rich are these folks, selling their books?’
I really cannot comment as I don’t have facts….but some appear to be very well to do. Remember the you tube videos of the libraries of JMacArthur, Dever, Mahaney, can’t remember who else. These are church offices…nicer than many people’s living rooms and people are giving money to that?
LikeLike
I’ve also noticed that Brian does not answer direct questions. I told him that most C’s leave out Romans 5:13. I guess he misunderstood me, because he quoted Romans 5 verbatim, but in his synopsis below it, he never explained Romans 5:13. So, while he said that he would not skip it, he did skip it, even tho he quoted it.
I also asked him other direct questions, but he ignores them.
And JoeJoe, he has opinions, such as “I don’t believe that babies go to hell if they die”, but he can’t back it up with scripture, so it is only opinion.
He disagrees with me in “doctrines”, when I give my “opinion”, but I can back my opinion up with scripture.
I find it very disheartening that Brian’s “hermeneutics” are based on what someone else already decided for him.
While he states that he made his decisions on scripture long before he ever knew what C’s believed, his reference of Romans 5, for example, for his beliefs are straight from the C camp, and certainly not from his own independent study without outside influence. That is way too easy for me to discern. Before he knew what C was, I am quite positive that when he got to Romans 5, that he DID NOT say to himself, “Well, there ya have it, total depravity.”, and then proceed to find a church with like beliefs. No…someone influenced him in that belief.
Me, on the other hand, I do independent study…for the fun of it. It’s a hobby, not an income. And it’s even more fun when I seek out the controversies. I want to find out why people believe in what they believe. And then do everything that I can do to debunk that belief with scripture. These things take a lot of time, pens, college-ruled paper, and coffee. Not just a one quick look over of Romans 5. I go from Genesis 1:1 to the end of Revelation when I study a topic, any topic. And, I look at the spiritual, as well as the carnal.
I’ve got to the point that the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not even want to talk to me anymore. And what’s more, I keep getting blocked on all sorts of C’s blogs as well. I consider that to be a badge of honor.
Ed
LikeLike
The most commented blog post used to be this one: Indoctrinating Your Children with Doctrine with presently 596 comments.
LikeLike
“I really cannot comment as I don’t have facts….but some appear to be very well to do. Remember the you tube videos of the libraries of JMacArthur, Dever, Mahaney, can’t remember who else. These are church offices…nicer than many people’s living rooms and people are giving money to that?”
They can do quite well because with it comes with speaking gigs. I do know at seeker megas they had a captive audience to kick off the book sales. That puts it in another category for more sales promotion. That is one reason the T4G guys do so well with books. They can sell 10,000 right off the bat to their groupies and get lots of good reviews from well known names. That is another reason they circle the wagons. Kind of embarrassing to have blurbed the book on the cover and then speak out against some sort of bad behavior later. The cycle continues with more conference speaking gigs (yes paid well) where they promote each others books.
I know some mega church pastors whose parachurch incomes including speaking gigs/books/travel, etc reached up to an extra 150,000 thou a year.
LikeLike
Speaking of preachers that sell a lot of books, I grew up living next door to Joel Osteen…
LikeLike
Weird, I posted a comment from my phone which evidently did not post – – it was about cutting Brian some slack if he is not responding in a timely fashion because he may have home obligations.
Someone just sent me an e-mail telling me they noticed a recent tweet that he’s on a long road trip. So it may be a while before we hear from Brian.
Other weird happenings: I know Brian and I were following each other on Twitter – – I followed him right around the time of this guest article and he also followed me. I checked today and saw that we weren’t following each other. Weird. I didn’t unfollow. Maybe a Twitter glitch? So, I hit “follow” again. 🙂
LikeLike
Eric – How fortunate for you. You will be living happy, healthy and wealthy for the rest of your days. ::::big cheesy Osteen smile:::::::
LikeLike
Ok, I was just snooping at T4G site – – look at this lovebombing going on by CJ. When you’ve been built up time and again publicly by the Ceej, it must be so painfully difficult to diss on your friend: http://t4g.org/2006/05/mahaney-as-grateful/
Whenever he speaks at a conference, this is his MO, he puffs up his buddies with endless praise. In fact, each time I have heard him do this, I feel uncomfortable inside.
LikeLike
Ed,
Let’s see what the “C camp” has to say about Romans 5:13…
Hang on a minute while I pull out all my “how to indoctrinate the unsuspecting to Calvinism” books…
LikeLike
Brian,
I don’t want to know what the C camp has to say about it. I want to know what you have to say about it.
Ed
LikeLike
But, unfortunately, I gotta go to work…wont be back for a few hours.
LikeLike
Don’t you guys know sarcasm when you see it?!?! I’ll post my thoughts on it shortly.
LikeLike
Thanks, Brian, for checking in. I’m looking forward to your thoughts.
Sarcasm is a tough one on the internet where we can’t see facial expressions and hear the tone. I think my regular readers can tell when I’m using it. Sometimes it does cause confusion and I have to straighten things out.
LikeLike
Ok…let’s see…Romans 5:13…
“for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.”
Well, we know that sin was around before the law was given because we know that Adam disobeyed God and died, and that was before God gave the law through Moses. And then Paul basically says, “But how could that be since knowledge of sin comes through the law?”(Romans 3:20). And then he continues in verse 14 with his declaration that sin entered through one man and infected the entire creation, including all of humanity, by saying, “and even still, death reigned from Adam to Moses”.
And this is a great explanation of it from the ESV Study Bible:
“Sin was in the world before the Mosaic law was instituted, but it was not technically reckoned as sin before the time of the law. Paul does not mean that people were guiltless without the law, for he has already said in 2:12 that those without the written law are still judged by God (e.g., those who perished in the flood [Genesis 6–9] and those who were judged at the tower of Babel [Gen. 11:1–9]). Since people still died, this shows that they were guilty—as a consequence of Adam’s sin but possibly also as a consequence of having transgressed the universal moral law in their consciences before the written Mosaic law was given.”
LikeLike
There WAS law before Moses. There was “Don’t eat from this tree” among other things from God’s own mouth when interacting with the humans after the fall.
Disobeying separated all of us from God because we now have “knowledge” of good AND evil. We are not guilty for Adams sin. That would make God an immoral tyrant.
The “sin goo passed through sperm” thinking came from Augustine. The Reformers just tweeked it a bit. That thinking is another place where Mary worship comes from. And it makes no sense whatsoever that the guilt is passed on. Because how can a Holy God swim around in sin goo for 9 months? Mary obviously had it passed on to her. Did God remove the sin goo from her for 9 months and make her not guilty so our Holy Savior could be in there? Was the “imputed guilt” taken out of her for 9 months?
LikeLike
If Adam’s sin wasn’t passed on to everyone, then why does Scripture say that Adam’s one sin resulted in condemnation for ALL people? And why does it say that by Adam’s disobedience everyone was MADE a sinner because of it?
LikeLike
It doesn’t actually mean what you think it means. That is the interpretation from Augustine to Calvin read into it. Adam’s sin brought us all a consequence.
Not sure why folks cannot see that the wages of the sin at the fall was death as in. separation from God. Sin entered because of Adam (Eve sinned too it is just that she ADMITTED IT and Adam blamed God and Eve) and now we have knowledge of Good and Evil. Everything is corrupted including our bodies and the world. Not evil but corrupted. The sins you commit make you a sinner.
If you are born “sinning” from day one then your very existence is a sin. A baby’s very existence is nothing but evil sin. A baby crying for a bottle is sin. A baby crying to be changed is sin. A baby trying to grad your shiny watch is a sin. A baby;s cut little toe is evil. A baby’s cute little hands are evil. And believe me, many C’s teach this.
You believe in Plato’s and Mani’s dualism. It entered into Christianity through Augustine and has permeated translations and commentaries ever since. You follow Greek gnostic philosophy.
LikeLike
So Brian, what do you do with a Holy God swimming around in guilty sin goo for 9 months. Mary carried that imputed guilt you claim we all have for Adams sin. Was there some way the guilt was taken out? Or perhaps you believe Jesus was a lesser god (as with EFS/ESS) so it would not affect Him?
LikeLike
Ok, gotta run.
LikeLike
Scripture is clear: Adam’s sin resulted in a “sentence of damnation” (‘katarima’ Strong’s 2631) for all people. – Romans 5:18
Scripture is clear: By Adam’s sin we were all made sinners (‘Kathistemi Hamartolos’ – made sinners) – Romans 5:19
LikeLike
Bingo, Lydia. They make a claim about the BIble that the BIble doesn’t make about itself, and then pore over countless words of other people who have done the same thing, all in search of nothing more than knowing “the perfect truth” with absolute certainty. In the midst of this desperate and futile search for certaintypeople pick and choose what scripture and supporting facts they will give more weight to; they’re just cherry-picking the things that support the conclusion they wish to reach.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the people who haven’t abandoned common sense know that this “perfect correct knowledge of God” doesn’t pass the smell test. Calvinist, Arminian, or whatever, whenever certitude and security in doctrine take the forefront, then it’s a logical and honest question to ask whether someone is actually worshiping God or just their own certitude.
Just think of what the world might be like if all the energy that’s been put into being “right” were put into actually loving other people.
LikeLike
Brian,
I am just getting online, and am just beginning to start to read. I have to say, so far, based on your post of 12:34 PM, that the ESV version “Great explanation” was in actuality a terrible explanation.
Part of what you quote:
“Paul does not mean that people were guiltless without the law, for he has already said in 2:12 that those without the written law are still judged by God (e.g., those who perished in the flood [Genesis 6–9] and those who were judged at the tower of Babel [Gen. 11:1–9]). ”
I could run circles with you on that alone. Judgement of sin is AFTER YOU DIE, PHYSICALLY.
Hebrews 9:27, for it is appointed unto men once to die, AND THEN THE JUDGMENT. NOT BEFORE.
Besides, those people who perished in the flood was discussed in an epistle of Peter.
Judgments that take place BEFORE death, have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I invite you to see my explanation at 4:59 PM August 16, 2013.
But, so far, I haven’t seen you dissect it out very well, because while you state that death reigned from Adam to Moses, which is exactly what is written, you haven’t said a thing about LIFE reigning from Jesus onward. Death does not reign with Jesus.
But, I will continue reading…
Ed
LikeLike
Brian said:
“There WAS law before Moses. There was “Don’t eat from this tree” among other things from God’s own mouth when interacting with the humans after the fall. ”
That law was not the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil. It was only directed at ONE PERSON, Adam…then Eve was told by Adam about what God said.
My point…law was 1 commandment, and it was not directed at all of humanity.
Adam was gonna die a natural death anyway.
If Adam would have eaten of the TREE OF LIFE, then he would have had eternal life, and then his offspring would have had it as well…including you.
But since he did not eat of the TREE OF LIFE, he dies, just as everyone does.
There is only two things that is “IMPUTED” TO YOU. Or, as you have noted from your ESV “counted”.
1. Sin
2. Righteousness.
And since sin is NOT IMPUTED to those who have no knowledge of good and evil, the only thing left is Righteousness.
You cannot be convicted of a crime that you know nothing about with God. You must first have knowledge of it. Ignorance of the law is the excuse here.
No knowledge, know transgression, no sin, innocent.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian said:
“If Adam’s sin wasn’t passed on to everyone, then why does Scripture say that Adam’s one sin resulted in condemnation for ALL people? And why does it say that by Adam’s disobedience everyone was MADE a sinner because of it?”
All die a NATURAL DEATH…that was the condemnation. But, like I said before, Adam was gonna die a natural death anyway. He didn’t OBTAIN eternal life.
He had to have eaten of THE TREE OF LIFE to have obtained it.
See, SO MUCH FOCUS is about the tree of death, that the tree of life topic seems to be missed.
Our condemnation was death of the body. NO BIG DEAL, AS ADAM WAS GONNA DIE ANYWAY.
Ed
LikeLike
Whenever someone says, “scripture is clear” it just becomes circular and no point in continuing. Brian won’t respond to the problem of a Holy God swimming around in Mary’s sin goo of imputed guilt for 9 months. He has ignored the logical conclusion of his doctrine that babies are evil. That the very fact he exists is sin.
The other part is that most who embrace this doctrine seem to forget that they are affirming…that they themselves have no volition. They are incapable of making decisions or having wisdom at all. So all of their words/actions can only come from one of two places: God or Satan. As they have nothing to do with it. They are not capable of free thought and have no free will in reality. (Except for the contradiction taught that man is free to sin only) That, in and of itself, should be a good reason not to pay attention to their teaching.
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
Hey, I was just gettting ready to respond to your earlier post. I say I agree 100% in regards to your earlier post in regards to “for the wages of sin is death” equating to SPIRITUAL death, which is separation from God.
In Romans 5 we see the word death a few times, and so it must be discerned properly each time that we see that word. One is pertaining to death of the body, while the other is pertaining to spiritual death, separation from God.
And also, that was the whole point of Abraham’s Bosom. The people in Abraham’s bosom could NOT BE RELEASED from that place until sin was paid for by Jesus. No one could be in the presense of God until then. It was still a place of separation from God, for the RIGHTEOUS.
There is much much that Brian needs to learn, independently, away from the C influences. But he must be deprogrammed first.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian said:
“Scripture is clear: Adam’s sin resulted in a “sentence of damnation” (‘katarima’ Strong’s 2631) for all people. – Romans 5:18
Scripture is clear: By Adam’s sin we were all made sinners (‘Kathistemi Hamartolos’ – made sinners) – Romans 5:19
So what is your point. Scripture is clear that sin is not imputed whether sinners or not where no law is, there is no transgression…SCRIPTURE IS CLEAR.
The ole “the scripture is clear” mantra. Nice.
Ed
LikeLike
My point is that Paul’s statement in Romans 5:18 says that a sentence of damnation for all people resulted from Adam’s sin. Damnation is not death of the body. And to try and say it is shows a severe twisting of what Paul wrote.
Can you address that?
LikeLike
And according to Scripture death entered creation because of Adam’s sin, so there is support in Scripture that he was going to die whether he sinned or not.
LikeLike
Diane: I watched most of the Baucham video and heard enough. I have a hunch that he would not talk like that in his congregation.
This week, I got a package in the mail from Voddie. He had told me he would send me his book a while back after he saw this post: Voddie Baucham: Prescription for Spanking and the Shy Child
We e-mailed back and forth privately trying to get to some understanding on key issues. We did not get to any sort of common understanding on the issues we were discussing and then I had to go out of town and the conversation stopped. I just sent him a thank you e-mail, telling him that I’d like to read the book before continuing any conversation with him so that I have a better understanding of where he is coming from.
The book he sent is, Family Shepherds, with the subtitle, “Calling and Equipping Men to Lead Their Homes.” You’ll easily see why I am quoting the titles. I quickly skimmed two chapters. The first was Chapter 10, Remembering the Fall. This is in Part Four of the book, “The Training and Discipline of Children – Equipping Men to Raise Kingdom-Minded Warriors.”
The 2nd chapter I skimmed is in Part 5 – Lifestyle Evaluation – Equipping Men to Count the Cost of Family Discipleship. Chapter 13 is entitled, Church Membership.
My quick skim showed very few Bible verses, however, there were quite a few quotes from other popular religious names, some dead, some still alive. I would say that easily 1/3 of the Church Membership chapter is quotes; around 1/4th of the chapter on Remembering the Fall on the topic of discipline of children was quoted material.
Here is the first quote in Chapter 9 in which he starts the topic of child discipline:
LikeLike
Lydia said, “That, in and of itself, should be a good reason not to pay attention to their teaching.”
And the use of phrases like “Mary’s sin goo” is a good reason not to pay attention to your teaching.
LikeLike
Ed,
“Our condemnation was death of the body. NO BIG DEAL, AS ADAM WAS GONNA DIE ANYWAY.”
This makes no sense in light of how much time Paul spends laying out this “no big deal” condemnation that spread from Adam to all people. And the Greek word for ‘condemnation’ means a sentence of damnation. Damnation is spiritual punishment language, not physical (though I would say not ONLY physical, all humanity was also condemned physically by Adam’s sin).
LikeLike
“Mary’s sin goo”…sounds kinda icky, doesn’t it.
Regardless of the creative and spiffy descriptor, the truth remains that Jesus is both FULLY God and FULLY man. Yes, he was born of a human (a virgin), but he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and had no sin nature.
LikeLike
Brian at 1:57 PM: Scripture is clear: Adam’s sin resulted in a “sentence of damnation” (‘katarima’ (sic) Strong’s 2631) for all people. – Romans 5:18
Gary, at c. 6:29: Scripture is clear: “[O]ne act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” (Romans 5:18b, ESV). And that’s an actual quote from the Grudem and (no doubt) Piper official version of Holy Writ.
Still haven’t found anybody in Brian’s camp who can actually explain away Rom 5:18b, although I have drawn the occasional intellectually dishonest “thought stopper” as HUG has now taught us to call their Moonie inspired tactics. O.K., O.K. Probably it was the Moonies who were inspired by the C-camp.
LikeLike
I have noticed that Brian is ignoring my comments/questions. How disappointing,
LikeLike
Brian,
You had said:
“My point is that Paul’s statement in Romans 5:18 says that a sentence of damnation for all people resulted from Adam’s sin. Damnation is not death of the body. And to try and say it is shows a severe twisting of what Paul wrote.
Can you address that?”
Yes.
Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Romans 5:18 is NOT NOT NOT discussing the death of the body. Can I re-emphasize that any clearer? That statement is NOT NOT NOT discussing condemnation to HELL FIRE AND BRIMSTONE, either.
It is discussing SPIRITUAL DEATH, which is the SEPARATION from God.
There was a PLACE of separation from God for the RIGHTEOUS called Abraham’s Bosom.
NO ONE could be in the presence of God until Jesus paid the PENALTY for sin. It is appointed unto man once to die, and THEN the judgment…NOT BEFORE. Jesus died, and THEN he was judged for our sins. After that HE LED CAPTIVITY (THOSE IN ABRAHAM’S BOSOM) CAPTIVE, to be with him in heaven, in the presence of God…THE GIFT.
There was ALSO a PLACE of separation from God for the UNRIGHTEOUS, called SHEOL, or HADES.
You also said:
“And according to Scripture death entered creation because of Adam’s sin, so there is support in Scripture that he was going to die whether he sinned or not.”
Dissect 1 Cor 15:36-50. Get out some college ruled paper, and a pen…and a cup of coffee.
Make two columns. Column 1, title it Natural Body. Column 2, title it Spiritual Body.
Then tell me again what you come up with.
In all study, ALONE, buy a ream of college ruled paper, and a bunch of pens, and a bunch of coffee. Read the bible completely thru 5 times…no less than 5 times. Then study out TOPICS, and NOTE spiritual words and phrases and descriptions…some substitute the word spiritual for “poetry”.
Do that ALONE, for several months, sometimes until 4 in the morning, even if you have to work the next day. DO NOT listen to outside influences. Listen ONLY to the HOLY SPIRIT, as you need not that any man teach you. Write down verses…don’t use a computer…but use the pen and paper. Make sure the coffee is always fresh.
I am tellin ya, do that and you will write your own commentary, and you will be having people say that you are a heretic…but you will know otherwise. Then you will see things the way that most of us on this blog see things. To us, it isn’t a guessing game. We know. And we know that what you are following and espousing is wrong.
Ed
LikeLike
@ Julie Anne~
“It is with our sins,” declared the nineteenth-century Scottish author and pastor Horatius Bonar, “that we go to God, for we have nothing else to go with that we can call our own. This is one of the lessons that we are so slow to learn; yet without learning this we cannot take one right step in that which we call a religious life.”
It’s after reading junk like that that I remember Ephesians 1 and all it says a believer is: adopted, blessed, chosen, redeemed, favored and forgiven, joint heirs with Jesus and adopted sons and daughters.
LikeLike
Brian,
You say that Jesus had no sin nature.
That is false.
Jesus was sinless, yes, but he had the capability to sin.
Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Ed
LikeLike
Wait! Wait! Brian says Jesus is FULLY man. Well, if part of being human is the sin nature, and if Jesus didn’t have the sin nature, how can Jesus be said to be fully man? Was he born advantaged with a handicap (in the golfing sense)? If so, he wasn’t truly qualified to die a substitutionary death, whether penal, identificational or otherwise. My own thought is that there is a problem with the doctrine concerning the supposed sin nature. Flesh or sarx (σάρξ), yes. That’s in the Bible. “Sin nature” is nowhere to be found, at least in the ESV, which Brian appears to be using.
Well, O.K., I suppose Brian may again come back with the old canard about certain words like “Bible” and “Trinity” not being in the Bible. But again wait, wait! The word bible, at least, DOES appear in the Bible, or at least it does so in the Greek. In Revelation alone it appears about a baker’s dozen times. The word is βιβλίον, biblion. ESV translates it as “scroll.”
LikeLike
Ya, there is something about that ESV version that I just don’t like. It seems to be a POPULAR choice amongst the Calvinists. It uses words that, to me, I am not familiar with.
LikeLike
Maybe this is a minor point, but Brian keeps saying that Rom 5:18 references a “sentence of damnation.” A half dozen translations I just looked at, including Brian’s ESV, all use the word “condemnation” to translate κατάκριμα, katakrima. The word damnation is nowhere in sight in any English translation to which I have referred.
Brian, can you point me to a translation that uses the word damnation in Rom 5:18? If not, I would recommend a little more intellectual rigor. No doubt using the word damnation serves the point you are trying to make, but the embellishment costs you credibility. Among other things, it makes it appear you are attempting to gain an unfair(and not quite honest) advantage in arguing against the distinctions Ed makes between physical death, spiritual death, and consignment to hell.
I will give you credit for obliquely referencing Strongs 2631, my electronic version of which has “damnatory sentence” as an alternative meaning. However you are referencing Strongs in a manner that does not make clear you are arguing for an alternative translation.
Please, be a little more straightforward with us.
LikeLike
Romans 5:18 – “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”
One trespass=Adam’s sin resulting in a damnatory sentence (a declaration/judgment of damnation) against all people.
One act of righteousness=Christ’s atoning sacrifice resulting in act of God declaring men righteous and free from guilt and acceptable to him.
Those who fall into the second group (those being declared righteous by God) are determined by verse 17: they are, “those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.”
LikeLike
Gary,
The intellectual rigor, as you put it, that I used was to go back to the Greek. The word translated ‘condemnation’ literally means ‘a sentence of damnation”. Check it out for yourself.
LikeLike
A damnatory sentence is not an alternative rendering…it means the same thing as condemnation.
LikeLike
Brian, you are totally misreading that.
That is saying that under Jesus, death does not reign, because Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Moses meaning all who fall under the law of Moses).
My bible in verse 18 states the word “Judgment”, as in “judgment came upon all men to condemnation”
And it might surprise you, But I use a KJV. In the KJV the word “judgment” is Italicized.
Do you know what that means?
It means that the translators INSERTED that word, that the word “judgment” is NOT IN THE ORIGINAL WRITING OF SCRIPTURE.
Anything with an Italicized word is an insert.
Ed
LikeLike
Based on the Strong’s Concordance, the word “condemnation” is Greek Ref #2631 katakrima and it is defined as “an adverse sentence”.
NOT DAMNATION.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed,
I do happen to like the way ESV reads, although I use it with great caution. There are just certain issues (e.g. ecclesiastical authority, gender roles) where they have inserted their doctrine into the “translation.” It’s doctrine driving translation rather than the other way around.
What I really enjoy though, is being able to use their own preferred translation/interpretation to confound all these C’ista types. How do I know they are confounded? I know it by their silence. It is appearing that Brian is a lot like B4B. They quick to want to be heard, but when they get caught, they simply fall silent.
So, Brian,
Here’s your chance. Show us you’re up to the challenge. How do you explain away the plain and literal meaning of Rom 5:18b? It’s in the Bible, you know. You cannot credibly just ignore it. I would say Rom 5:18b either means what it says, or else you must admit that Scripture contains error after all.
LikeLike
Romans 5:18:
KJV- Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation
ESV – Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men
The word ‘judgment’ in the KJV does not change or alter the meaning, as can be seen by looking at the ESV, for example. The existence of condemnation implies judgment.
LikeLike
Ummm, will sombody please wake up Gary…he apparantly hasn’t noticed the last 20 or so comments that have been almost exclusively on Rmans 5:18, many by me.
LikeLike
Brian, I don’t disagree in regards to the ESV in that regard.
However, my alternative version is the NIVr.
But, other than that, I stick with the KJV pretty exclusively, altho I don’t mind comparisons.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian,
Good for you! You attempted to respond to my challenge while I was still typing it. But you fall short. In ESV Rom 5:17 reads, “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.” Well and good. Trouble is, v. 17 doesn’t say who it is that “receive” the abundance of grace, etc. This is specified in v. 18b, which very specifically and unambiguously identifies “all men.” Either Scripture means what it says, or it contains error.
Your move.
LikeLike
Ed,
2631 katákrima (from 2596 /katá, “down, according to,” intensifying 2917 /kríma, “the results of judgment”) – properly, the exact sentence of condemnation handed down after due process (establishing guilt).
LikeLike
Gary W,
You said:
” It’s doctrine driving translation rather than the other way around.”
That’s what I thought. Many different denominations have their pet favorites, due to that reason alone.
My first introduction was with the Jehovah’s Witnesses which uses the translation influence of WESCOTT AND HORT.
And if you really dig in to ANY Wescott and Hort translation, the deity of Jesus is extremely minimized.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian, I stick with the Strong’s Concordance definitions. It is more reliable, and WIDELY used throughout Christendom. It has a great reputation for being accurate.
Ed
LikeLike
So Gary,
You must be a universalist, then? If you believe ALL people receive the grace mentioned in verse 17, the only conclusion then is that all are saved. Is that what you believe?
LikeLike
Brian,
You say, “The intellectual rigor, as you put it, that I used was to go back to the Greek. The word translated ‘condemnation’ literally means ‘a sentence of damnation”. Check it out for yourself.” O.K., will the following do?
2890 κατάκριμα (katakrima), ατος (atos), τό (to): n.neu.; ≡ Str 2631; TDNT 3.951—LN 56.31 condemnation (Ro 5:16, 18; 8:1+). Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
2631. κατάκριμα katakrima; from 2632; penalty:—condemnation(3). Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
2631 κατάκριμα [katakrima /kat·ak·ree·mah/] n n. From 2632; TDNT 3:951; TDNTA 469; GK 2890; Three occurrences; AV translates as “condemnation” three times. 1 damnatory sentence, condemnation. Strong, J. (2001). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
2631. κατάκριμα katakrima, kat-ak´-ree-mah; from 2632; an adverse sentence (the verdict):—condemnation. Strong, J. (2009). Vol. 1: A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (40). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
On balance, you need to just stick with “condemnation,” or at least make it plain that you are arguing for logical inferences to be drawn (in your favor) that go beyond what the Text actually says.
Back to you.
LikeLike
Ed, that’s tantamount to burying your head in the sand, but feel free to do that.
LikeLike
Brian, altho there is a FROM in the definitions, it isn’t the definition. There is a root, yes, but again, the root isn’t added to the definition. There is a distinct definition.
LikeLike
In no way have I gone beyond what the text actually says. Quite the opposite. By using a thorough definition of the word, I showed more fully its meaning as it used in Scripture.
LikeLike
Brian, but how can I feel free when God already ordained it from the foundation of the earth? LOL.
Why reinvent the wheel? I’d rather have my head in the sand.
I am narrow minded. That means that I am a Christian, especially to the atheists.
LikeLike
Brian, well since you are all for getting to the root of a word, just remember, the next time that you go to get a prescription filled at the PHARMACY, that you are guilty of WITCHCRAFT.
Ed
LikeLike
Condemnation is a legal declarative term of eternal consequence by God against all those who follow Adam. This condemnation results from Adam’s sin, and can only be negated (or reversed) by the second Adam, Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Brian,
Now you’re trying to discredit me by labeling me. What I attempt to do is take Scripture at face value, recognizing that one must first navigate their way through what is spoken figuratively, poetically, and so on. I believe in judgment following death, I believe in Sheol, Hades, Gehenna (which is not the same as the popular concept derived from Dante’s Inferno or Milton’s Hell), Abaddon/Apollyon, the burning lake of sulfur, and at least one more Biblical term that is not coming to mind.
I also believe that Rom 5:18b must be taken at face value, or else one must admit that the Bible contains error.
So now, without resorting to attempts at such “thought stopping” strategies as putting labels on me, how do you explain away the plain and unambiguous assertion of Rom 5:18b?
And seriously, would you mind answering the questions I put to you today at 6:13 AM?
LikeLike
Brian,
You said:
“Condemnation is a legal declarative term of eternal consequence by God against all those who follow Adam. This condemnation results from Adam’s sin, and can only be negated (or reversed) by the second Adam, Jesus Christ.”
Then there is no such thing as “eternal consequence”
AGAIN, I PRESENT YOU WITH THE FOLLOWING:
Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Moses meaning all who fall under the law of Moses)
DEATH DOES NOT REIGN FROM JESUS ONWARD.
That death being discussed is SPIRITUAL DEATH, meaning SEPARATION FROM GOD.
Abraham’s bosom was for that purpose for the RIGHTEOUS.
After Jesus paid for sin, Abraham’s Bosom was emptied, as Jesus led captivity captive. There is no more DEATH (SEPARATION FROM GOD) EVEN FOR THOSE RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE FROM ADAM TO MOSES. THEY ARE FREE.
If you think that Adam is not righteous, then you have another thing coming. He sacrificed to God to keep the relationship going.
In the law of Moses, Sacrifices were done to keep the relationship going.
Even tho death reigned for them, meaning that when they died, they went to Abraham’s Bosom, LIFE reigns for them NOW. YES, EVEN THEM.
Ed
LikeLike
“Condemnation is a legal declarative term of eternal consequence by God against all those who follow Adam. This condemnation results from Adam’s sin, and can only be negated (or reversed) by the second Adam, Jesus Christ.”
Come on, Brian. You are asking us to accept your assertions about what the Bible means as thought the assertions were made in the Bible itself. You asked me for rigor with respect to the meaning of the Greek word for condemnation. I have given you definitions from four different lexicons. From these authorities (there’s a word you should be able to relate to) I’m sorry, but condemnation means condemnation. You can argue for a theological understand of the significance of the word, but you are then trafficking in the realm of speculation and conjecture. Unless, of course, I am overlooking some verse that specifically and unambiguously tells us that κατάκριμα (katakrima) means “a legal declarative term of eternal consequence by God against all those who follow Adam. This condemnation results from Adam’s sin, and can only be negated (or reversed) by the second Adam, Jesus Christ.”
LikeLike
“aybe this is a minor point, but Brian keeps saying that Rom 5:18 references a “sentence of damnation.” A half dozen translations I just looked at, including Brian’s ESV, all use the word “condemnation” to translate κατάκριμα, katakrima. The word damnation is nowhere in sight in any English translation to which I have referred.”
It is NOT a minor point. A few years back Piper and Mahaney did a series of sermons called the “Scream the Damned”. They are referring to Jesus Christ on the Cross and His crying out. I was absolutely stunned that they were not called out on this by supposed theologians. Instead it was accepted and even affirmed by other big names. So now, Jesus was “damned” on the Cross?
See, words do mean things and all this redefining and inserting words where they are not is causing huge confusion. That whole movement makes me ill. The simple truths are not enough. They have to make them into shock jock sermons.
LikeLike
Brian, If we are born sinners and Adams guilt is “imputed” to us how does that work except we have some sort of sin substance inside us that makes us entirely evil upon birth. Mary had to have it. And Mary carried God in the Flesh in her womb for at least 9 months. An evil totally depraved vessel carried the Holy God.
The problem is not with my sin goo (after all that is interpreting Augustine who is your doctrinal father), the problem is with the entire doctrine of imputed guilt. It makes God into an tyrant and is completely without any reason or basic logic which is not a sin because God created it! It is time for us to put 5th Century and 16th Century thinking behind us.
The problem with the false concepts of this determinist God and dualism is they have not gotten a real public hearing among the peasants until now with the internet. . Don’t be indoctrinated. Think. We are allowed to use these glorious brains God created. And He is Sovereign enough to create beings who can say no to Him. He is not a narcissistic insecure God who is only seeking His own Glory as Piper describes constantly. He loves His creation and wants us to have relationship with Him.
LikeLike
OK Brian,
Let’s get back to Romans 5:13. You have been successful at REDIRECTING the conversation, so I am bringing it back to your MANTRA.
Scripture is clear….
Before the law, sin was in the world but sin is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT imputed where there is no law.
There is ONLY TWO THINGS that can be imputed.
1. Righteousness or
2. Sin (NOT IMPUTE
Who is righteous? According to you, since you love Romans so much, There is NO ONE righteous, no not one. But let’s see what Jesus said:
Matthew 13:17
For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and RIGHTEOUS men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
Matthew 23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of RIGHTEOUS Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Luke 1:6
And they were both RIGHTEOUS before God, walking in ALL the commandments and ordinances of the Lord BLAMELESS.
And that is words of Jesus from the Gospels.
That tells me that Paul’s statement that there is no one righteous has a different context than the one that Calvinists espouse.
So, let’s bring this back from your re-direct. It was a good deflection, for a minute.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed,
I’m not sure what else you want me to say about verse 13. Regarding the result of Adam’s sin spreading to all humanity, Paul states it no less than six times:
sin came into the world through one man – v.12
many died through one man’s trespass – v.15
the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation – v.16
because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man – v.17
one trespass led to condemnation for all men – v.18
as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners – v.19
You have gotten hung up on verse 13, so here is what I believe about it:
For until the law, sin was in the world
This is a proof of sin’s having entered into the world, by one man’s transgression of the positive law of God, which forbid him the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; since it was in the world before the law of Moses was given: the sin of Adam and the guilt of that were in the world before, and came upon all men to condemnation; the general corruption of nature appeared before; and actual sins, and transgressions of all sorts were committed before; as by the immediate posterity of Adam, by the men of the old world, by the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, by the patriarchs and their posterity, by the Egyptians, Canaanites, and others. They were all guilty of sin, corrupted by it, and under the dominion of it, except such as were released from it by the grace of God: now when sin is said to be until this time, the meaning is not that it existed and continued until the law of Moses took place, and then ceased; for that law did not, and could not take away sin, it rather increased it, at least it became more known by it; but that it was in being before it, and had influence and power over the sons of men, so as to subject them to death:
but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
This looks like an objection, that if there was no law before Moses’s time, then there was no sin, nor could any action of man be known or accounted by them as sinful, or be imputed to them to condemnation; or rather it is a concession, allowing that where there is no law, sin is not imputed; but there was a law before that law of Moses, which law was transgressed, and the sin or transgression of it was imputed to men to condemnation and death, as appears from what follows.
What follows is verse 14:
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses
Though the law of Moses was not yet given, death exerted itself, and extended its dominion over all the sons and daughters of Adam, during the interval between Adam and Moses; which clearly shows that sin was in the world, and that there must be a law in being
This is what I believe about it. Period. Sin passed to ALL people because of Adam and ALL people were MADE sinners because of Adam’s sin.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Yes, you are right. To twist the word “condemned” into “sentence of damnation” is a much more egregious deceit than I had originally perceived. It reminds me of the way “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb 9:27) gets trotted out to supposedly prove the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment. There is this intellectual sleight of hand where judgment gets conflated with sentence.
Even the preachers who preach that God’s judgment always and without exception translates into eternal conscious punishment would complain were they to receive life in prison following a judgment of guilty for driving 1 MPH over the speed limit. Call me a heretic, but I simply do not believe that a just God, Who is love, will impose a sentence of eternal conscious punishment on a child who reaches the age of accountability one day, wrongfully and knowingly samples a grape at the grocery store that same day, and is run down by a Mack truck on the way home.
The C’ista-approved ESV says “He will render to each one according to his works,”(Romans 2:6), and “I will give to each of you according to your works.” (Revelation 2:23). I take this to mean that the punishment will fit the crime.
I will read Rom 5:18 as indicating that all are condemned, as in being judged guilty, but the sentence, following “one act of righteousness” is justification and life. I will not, however, claim that my understanding is to be received as carrying the authority of Scripture itself. That, it would seem, would be to share in Brian’s error.
LikeLike
Gary,
“egregious deceit”…Really?
What I did was egregious deceit?
Wow. The insinuations about me and my motives and tactics are getting stronger and stronger. I wonder how long it will be before I am banned from this blog for my “egregious deceit”.
Julie Anne,
I ask you again to take note at who is slinging the accusations and who is not. There’s a discernable pattern here among many of the commenters. And that pattern is to not only disagree with someone, but to demean, discredit, and engage in ad-hominem in the process.
I would hope we could discuss without all the derogatory inuendo. Is that possible, Julie Anne?
LikeLike
Brian,
I notice that your response to Ed at 6:00 AM tap dances all the way around Rom 5:18b. Well, let me indict you for probably also ignoring Rom 3:24.
[F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (Romans 3:23-24, ESV)
Note that those who are justified are the same as the “all” who have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Care to explain this Scripture away? Remember, no labeling or other Moonie-like “thought stopping” tactics allowed.
LikeLike
Hi Brian! 🙂
Did you see my 8/16 @ 8:19AM reply back to you? I tell the truth, I ran into hissop at Lowe’s yesterday, didn’t buy it but giggled & thought of you! Knew it wouldn’t purge my sin. I did buy a rose of sharon instead, it’s true. It’s one of my fav blooming shrubs. Anyhoo, you’ve remained silent on my reply refuting your assertion that God has determined babies are sinful at birth based on Psalms 51.
My reply should have rocked your total depravity, original sin boat. David, a modern day “drama king”, was bemoaning his adultery with Bathsheba. He was not declaring all mankind is born having sinned in the womb. Pls read my comment if you haven’t. Pls answer. Do you still think babies are vipers in diapers based on Psalms 51? Is it in one ear & out the other because I’m a woman? If so, why did you engage me specifically, then? Why have you gone MIA on Psalms 51? Trying to get your sea legs back?
Well, now I see you’ve moved on to Romans 5:18. Frankly, I am disappointed. Me thinks you are not critically thinking or studying, but regurgitating what you’ve been sitting under again. The last thing any true, honest, Berean scholar of the Bible wants to do is take a few random verses & make a theology out of it. Don’t you want to believe the whole counsel of God, the whole counsel of the Bible? Using all faculties, wisdom, common sense, conscience with help from the Holy Spirit? I pray you will.
And I would have thought you would have wisely tread lightly & kindly with us after your faux pas regarding Psalms 51. Instead you careen full on to Romans 5:18 as if you were Captain Hook, using it to prop up the very same wrong theology of total depravity, original sin. Oh well. You are taking on water fast as you will see. I’ll comment on that soon. I hear the ticking of the croc’s clock getting closer. 😉
LikeLike
I agree that it is getting out of hand, Brian. However, you’ve given as good as you’ve gotten in this thread, so keep that in mind when I ask everyone to try and make the tone more civil and befitting of Christians, especially on the day that we gather to worship and thank Jesus for the free gift of salvation.
I also hope that the tone can change to one of trying to understand our differences instead of trying to prove someone else wrong. Christ calls us to be unified; walls of doctrine make that very difficult. These are good topics to debate, but the first rule of Christian debate should be to accept that your opponent may be correct. I don’t seem to remember “Blessed are the debate winners…” in the Beatitudes.
I hope you all have a great day. Please share the crayons and try not to run with scissors while I’m at church.
LikeLike
“I would hope we could discuss without all the derogatory inuendo. Is that possible, Julie Anne?”
Brian, I respectfully suggest you go back and read your tweets in the post. You started and intensified a tone of superiority demanding Julie Anne answer to you. I think she has been more than fair, open and loving toward you. But your response to Gary’s comment is usually how I have seen discussions happen with guys in that movement, they attack first and then look for any offense in responses to them to point out. It is very immature.
In fact, I happen to know a leader in your movement was trying to backchannel some more well known bloggers to get the young men in the movement to tone it down because it was becoming embarrassing and even more so after the scandals and other divisions being caused in churches and para church organizations by the movement. There seems to be a “chip on the shoulder” mentality when people don’t automatically believe the interpretations you have been taught. It becomes difficult when young men are told over and over only they have the real Gospel and others do not. They do not have the wisdom and seasoning to have as much influence as they were influenced themselves so easily so they beat their truths with “their” bible interpretation clubs. Instead of sharing them with love.
I have always maintained this movement needs coercion and censoring in order to maintain itself. And we are seeing it with over the top church discipline, censoring (speaking of child molestations is gossip, no negative truths about the leaders, membership covenants) and on and on.
It IS egregious deceit to change word definitions and it is has been going on for centuries. That is why it is so dangerous to follow mere men instead of Jesus Christ. It was egregious deceit for Piper/Mahaney to teach that Jesus was “damned” on the cross. Do they really not know better? What is even more sad is that pastors/theologians did not call them out on it. The types you claim we are to submit to and obey. So the problem is even bigger than folks might realize.
As to Romans, it is a mistake to read it an individual salvation process filter. The historical context is crucial to understanding. The historical context tells us that Jews were coming back into Rome after being banished. Some of them were Christians so how would Gentile Christians understand why the Jewish Christians think they are the real thing because of their history? You can imagine the confusion when they come together. Chapter 1 read in that historical context makes it a bit more clear where this culminating narrative is going. It is too much to go into here on Romans but another HUGE problem I have with Reformed thinking is that it pretty much ignores Jewish thinking or Europeanized it. It is as if Jesus Christ were a European and Christianity started in the 16th century for real. I even cringe when I hear them say that every single verse in the OT points to Christ as if Jesus Christ is not really of the One True God of Abraham. But then in their paradigm, Jesus Christ is also a sort of lesser god in the Godhead.
LikeLike
Yes, my comment to Brian was tongue-in-cheek. And poking a little fun at his expense. We’ll see if he has a sense of humor. And he is welcome to tease back as well, I can take it & I like a good laugh at my own expense once in a while. He certainly uses sarcasm, as we see have seen & he has explained. But I don’t think that creative critical thinking muscle is getting much use. Too much sitting under? 😉 I hope he starts a workout regimen soon to get that muscle in shape. Who knows? He might get me to laugh at things other than the hyssop plant’s magic powers at purging sin & bones magically rejoicing. Still waiting for that youtube video. 😉
LikeLike
Brian,
It’s quite obvious to me that you really don’t have the heart to really study this thing out.
In Romans 4, it states
BLESSED IS THE MAN TO WHOM THE LORD WILL NOT IMPUTE SIN.
Not only that, it is quite obvious that you have yet to dissect ANYTHING that I noted in regards to Romans 7, and Deuteronomy.
It is obvious, that you just don’t care.
But, I again, reiterate:
Scripture is clear!!!!
Ed
LikeLike
@Lydia~
“I have always maintained this movement needs coercion and censoring in order to maintain itself. And we are seeing it with over the top church discipline, censoring (speaking of child molestations is gossip, no negative truths about the leaders, membership covenants) and on and on.”
Like this part in a recent statement from SGM?
Council of Elders Statement
August 5, 2013 by SGM Staff
“Consequently, we urge our brothers and sisters in Christ to avoid giving audience to Brent Detwiler’s unbiblical speech until such a time that he repents of this ungodly pattern. Such harmful speech is ruinous to the church of God.”
Unbiblical speech, avoid giving audience, ungodly pattern, ruinous to the church of God. How does anyone keep a straight face reading that? You wouldn’t if you have educated yourself about SGM.
LikeLike
There’s another one of them “C” buzz words again: ad-hominem.
If it isn’t strawman, it’s ad-hominem.
I don’t find those buzz words amongst any other religious debates that I have ever had, except with the C’s, and I have been debating for quite some time.
Ed
LikeLike
Diane said, “Like this part in a recent statement from SGM? Consequently, we urge our brothers and sisters in Christ to avoid giving audience to Brent Detwiler’s unbiblical speech until such a time that he repents of this ungodly pattern. Such harmful speech is ruinous to the church of God.”
Translation: the organization / group is more important that the people. Is this what Jesus cared about? Did he spend much time in the temple (church) or mostly among everyday people? Where, of all places, did Jesus get angry? At the “church” temple.
It may be ruinous to certain church organizations, but not to the people of God.
LikeLike
chapmaned24 said, “There’s another one of them “C” buzz words again: ad-hominem. If it isn’t strawman, it’s ad-hominem.”
Ditto. It’s weird. I think those words are used to prove some sort of intellectual high-ground. But I don’t think they realize it just makes them sound strange. Strawman makes me think “Wizard of Oz”. And ad-hominem? Well…..
Brian, I dare you to say ad-hominem 10 times fast. 😉
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
You bring up an EXCELLENT point, about historical context and the Jews in Rome, because the following verse is widely misused:
Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
So, even that had a context, because there were indeed righteous people, yes, more than one.
Matthew 13:17 (many)
For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
Matthew 23:35 (Abel)
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Luke 1:6 (The Parents of John the Baptist)
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
So, there is no one righteous, no not one, huh? Context of Jews in Rome, not in an overall generality.
Ed
LikeLike
A Mom,
” Strawman makes me think “Wizard of Oz”. And ad-hominem? Well…..”
I think the same with the Wizard of Oz. The ad-hominem, I think of that as an ad in the newspaper about a sale for HOMINY GRITS.
Yes, I really do believe that they use those words to prove superiority, a higher education, etc. But, NORMAL people don’t use those words.
I guess us normal people are the “little people”, as Leona Helmsley would call those “beneath” her, the peasants.
Ed
LikeLike
Gary,
The context for “all” is found in the previous verse, where Paul references “all who believe”. That is the proper context.
LikeLike
Diane,
“Consequently, we urge our brothers and sisters in Christ to avoid giving audience to Brent Detwiler’s unbiblical speech until such a time that he repents of this ungodly pattern. Such harmful speech is ruinous to the church of God”
Almost sounds like Chuck with Julie Anne
Ed
LikeLike
Brian,
You said to Gary,
“The context for “all” is found in the previous verse, where Paul references “all who believe”. That is the proper context.”
Let’s get much much deeper into that context, because you have a PREREQUISITE for the people that believe, in that ONLY GOD WILL CHOOSE WHO WILL BELIEVE, by giving them “saving faith”, for until God gives them “saving faith”, they are incapable of believing.
That is truly your context.
Ed
LikeLike
@ A Mom~
“Brian, I dare you to say ad-hominem 10 times fast”
lol…try “unbiblical speech” 10 times real fast.
LikeLike
Brian,
Egregious deceit? Well, yes, that is what I consider any assertion that Scripture says one thing when it does not in fact do so. I thought the same thing when I attended an AofG service 2 or 3 years ago and the District Superintendent, who was preaching, made the statement that “the bible says Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us.”
But is it argumentum ad hominem to assert that either you or this District Superintendent have made statements that are egregiously deceptive? No, not really–unless it is an ad hominem to accuse somebody of engaging in . . . . ad hominem attacks. 🙂 Please note that my previous sentence was typed in a spirit of good humored repartee, and with a cheerful and friendly smile on my face. To disagree with you is not to attack you. Even to attack your argument is not to attack you personally.
So, please allow me to gently prod you. When you respond to my arguments by accusing me of bad conduct, I really do perceive that this is just another “thought stopping” strategy. Quite a number of questions, put to you by others as well as myself, remain unanswered. You would serve yourself well by making some attempt to answer these questions. Otherwise, the natural interpretation is that you do not have answers.
LikeLike
“You bring up an EXCELLENT point, about historical context and the Jews in Rome, because the following verse is widely misused:
Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
So, even that had a context, because there were indeed righteous people, yes, more than one.
”
Yes and the Jewish Christians hearing that read from the letter Phoebe brought would have understood it perfectly as the lament it was in Psalms because they would have been familiar with it…… and after hearing the entire letter, the Gentiles would understand where they fit in. And the Jews would have known about the righteous people mentioned in the OT.
One thing that rarely gets discussed is how the Gentile believers viewed the Law of Moses in the 1st Century. Could it be because what was of importance was the Holy Spirit and “right living” in Christ? The focus was completely different than it is today to our shame. Now people are taught they CANNOT live righteously in Christ. They have no “ability” to do so. (makes one want to hide the silver and lock up the children!)
It is dangerous stuff when people take metaphor, hyperbole, poetry and idioms literal and apply them to everyday life to practice. Instead of seeing the larger theme. Shall we practice not being righteous? That is essentially what the determinist God paradigm teaches in the C world. . That is NOT what Paul is referring to in Romans.
LikeLike
” I thought the same thing when I attended an AofG service 2 or 3 years ago and the District Superintendent, who was preaching, made the statement that “the bible says Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us.”
I know, this stuff is everywhere and we are a bit unfair to the C’s not to admit it is even in the traditionally free will sorts of places, too. Just not to the same degree of coercion and censoring of thought. The “thought reform” tactics are not really there with it as they are in C world where man has NO volition at all. I am not sure we are aware of how much the thinking of Augustine and the Reformers infiltrated Christianity in the West as it spread.
I saw this thinking that “Christs righteousness is imputed to us” in the free will seeker mega world played out much differently though in my experience. It became a sort of cheap grace. You were expected to continue sinning because sinners, sin– but that was ok because Christ imputed his righteousness to you. You don’t need to seek Holiness and righteous living.
That is why we often see Christians (especially leaders) behavior become so bad. They have a ready made alibi why it is ok. Makes the sacrifice they claim to believe in sorta cheap.
LikeLike
Ed
Sorry for the delay in answering – Been busy…
And you guys rock – Another great comment thread…
Just browsed thru the last 150 or so comments this morning… Love it…
Ed – Here is your comment to me…
————–
chapmaned24 – @ AUGUST 15, 2013 @ 12:15 PM….
A Amos said to me:
“You write…
“There are church pastors, so I am not getting what you are saying.”
Name one… In the Bible…
Name one… Today…”
My response:
What are you talking about, “Name one”? What is that supposed to mean? Who cares what their name was? Fact, the word Pastor is in the Bible.
NAME WHERE.
You keep denying that certain words are not found in the Bible, when in fact they are.
Ed
————–
Ed, I’m “clearly” NOT explaining myself properly to you.
I agree with you – **the word pastors** “IS in the Bible.”
In the NT it is found ONCE – in Eph 4:11 and it is plural – pastors…
It is the Gr – Poimen = Which means shepherd. Poimen 18 times in the NT.
Only Two times as a “Title” – Both “Titles” Shepherd – refer to Jesus.
And Jesus said there is – “ONE” Fold and “ONE” Shepherd – Jesus…
IMO – Pastor/Leader/Reverends – We see “today” are NOT in the Bible.
And most of what they do “today” is NOT in the Bible.
That’s why I asked you to…
Name one… In the Bible…
Name one… Today…
Because – In the Bible, I could NOT name one “Pastor” – as hard as I looked.
Best I can figure is – Those who were shepherding, tending, feeding, careing for, God’s Sheep, took their example from Jesus, as man. Jesus, who humbled Himself, made Himself of NO reputation, and took on the form of a “Servant.” Phil 2:7-8. The “Title” pastor and shepherd is NOT used by His Disciples, “Mere Fallible Humans,” in the Bible. That “Title” is reserved for the “ONE” Shepherd – Jesus.
But – Today – That “Title” is every place. And many additional ones.
Today – That “Title” – Comes with – Power – Profit – Prestige.
ALL the things Jesus spoke against…
Job 32:21-22 KJV
Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person,
neither let me give *flattering titles* unto man.
For I know not to give *flattering titles;*
in so doing my maker would soon take me away.
LikeLike
All
Here are some “Titles – we find Today in – Christian-dumb…
BUT – are NOT Found in the Bible.
1 -Pastor/Leader/Reverend. 2 – Under Shepherd. 3 – Senior Pastor. 4 – Lead Pastor. 5 – Teaching Pastor. 6 – Executive Pastor. 6 – Youth Pastor. 7 – Singles Pastor. 8 – Worship Pastor. 9 – Reverend. 10 – Holy Reverend. 11 – Most Holy Right Reverend. 12 – ArchDeacon. 13 – Canon. 14 – Prelate. 15 – Rector. 16 – Cardinal. 17 – Pope. 18 – Doctor. 19 – M.Div. 20 – Paid Professional Pastors – in Pulpits – Preaching – to People – in Pews.
21 – His Holiness, The Most Holy Right Reverend Father Amos – Yup – That’s me – That’s the “Title” My Polish Uncle Gave Me – He was a Polish Pastor of the first Church of the Pleasant Parables of the Presence of God. He believed Proper, Preperation, Precedes, Powerful, Performance – so he Prayed a lot. After being the Prevailing, Parsing, Pastor for a period and enjoying the Power – Profit – Prestige – He started his own Denomination and made me, his wondeful nephew, second in command, and gave me this Powerful , Profitable, Prestigious “Title” – NOT in the Bible – His Holiness, The Most Holy Right Reverend Father Amos. 😉
LikeLike
Diane, You are supposed to submit to the elders who wrote that. :o)
But the problem is that Dever, Mohler, Piper, Bridgers, etc, etc, are well aware of these things and continued in their support and promotion of Mahaney even quite recently. What are we to do with that? Submit to them as “elders”? I think not. They have no wisdom or discernment and instead agree with such censoring and coercion by elders even when it comes to hiding EVIL.
LikeLike
@ lydiasop~
Your 8:34 comment was so helpful. Thanks!
LikeLike
@lydiasop~
As soon as I get off the floor from laughing I will be sure to submit.
LikeLike
chapmaned24 said, “A Mom, I think the same with the Wizard of Oz. The ad-hominem, I think of that as an ad in the newspaper about a sale for HOMINY GRITS.”
I know, right? I don’t use the “strawman” card. I try to use sound reasoning & everyone can read & decide for themselves. But when I hear someone else use the strawman card I can’t help giggling. I can’t help thinking of the Wizard of Oz & the one who wished he had a brain. Oh the irony. 😉
And the laughs on me as well, because I used to think the same thing, wait, strike that. I WAS NOT thinking, that was the problem. Glad I’m back to using my brain! And it feels real good. 🙂
LikeLike
A Amos Love,
You said:
“Because – In the Bible, I could NOT name one “Pastor” – as hard as I looked. ”
Why is it necessary to find a name of a pastor?
But, in every instance where we see Paul introducing himself, it is stated:
“Paul, an apostle”
Let’s do a substitution, just for example purposes:
“Paul, a pastor”
We, and I do mean EVERYONE who is a Christian, state: “Apostle Paul”, as a title, but the Bible just simply states, “Paul, an Apostle”.
So, we are all guilty of the title thing in regards to Paul.
My bottom line, I don’t find it wrong for the use of the word pastor as a title.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian,
Referring to my challenge regarding Rom 3:23 you say, “The context for “all” is found in the previous verse, where Paul references “all who believe”. That is the proper context.” Not a bad response, and you no doubt find reassurance in it, but your response is not exactly determinative. The immediate, same-sentence referent of those who “are justified by his grace as a gift” is the same “all” who are said to “have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Yes, it is those who believe in Jesus who are justified, but the question is, who is it exactly that believe? Because v. 18b is plain on its face, it is 18b that must be seen as being the determinative context of v. 17–not the other way around. At least one must so conclude from the plain, un-theologized reading of Scripture.
Now, I don’t expect you to be persuaded by any of this–at least if the theological traditions and ideological agendas of men have as powerful a stronghold on your thinking as appears to be the case. Still, perhaps you have the ability to at least understand the point I am making. If so, you will be all the more able to “test all things,” as we are admonished to do. 1 Thes 5:21.
In case it may be of some consolation to you, I would be able to to present a better refutation of my own position than what you have presented. However, it would require that I delve into the Greek, and it is not clear that you have the ability to go there with me.
And speaking of the Greek, you previously referred me to the Greek in an attempt to counter my challenge to your redefinition of the word condemned. One reason I would like to know whether you were home schooled is that I once had a discussion–O.K., it was a debate–with a home schooled young adult who attempted to counter my reference to Scripture by saying that, well, he would want to refer to the Greek to see what was really meant. The subject changed in a hurry when I proceeded to pull a Greek New Testament out of my pocket. It turns out the my debating opponent didn’t know Greek at all. I begin to suspect that anybody who presents as having greater debating skills than understanding has been home schooled under the influence of Vision Forum style agendas. I am especially suspicious when there is a commonality of ploys, such as attempting to refer to the Greek as some sort of a discussion stopper. Please note, however, that I accuse you of nothing. I simply note certain parallels with the known home schooler I encountered, and it makes me curious and, yes, just a bit suspicious.
So, whether or not your were home schooled under the influence of a Vision Forum style agenda, here is what I suspect you of: I believe that you may have been attempting to seek refuge in the Greek as some sort of a discussion stopping, “thought stopping” ploy. I do not say this to insult you. In fact I sincerely hope that you are a Greek scholar and that my suspicions are all ill-founded. Rather, just in case my suspicions have some small modicum of validity, I am hoping to help you see that it is dangerous to attempt to win your point with debating tactics as opposed to substance.
LikeLike
Lydiasellerofpurple,
“It became a sort of cheap grace. You were expected to continue sinning because sinners, sin”
Part of that thinking, I think, came from Luther, when he said “SIN BOLDLY”. The reason that he said that was to show that Grace has real meaning, much like what Jesus said about those who has many sins forgiven will love God more, but the ones who has few sins will love God less.
The Catholics HATE Luther for that statement, “SIN BOLDLY”. But I can tell you that he did not mean it in the same way that it is taken by some groups today, in order to show that we can do anything we want, all because we are covered by grace. That is cheap grace.
While I do not espouse to Luther or Calvin or the Catholics, Luther gets a bad rap for saying that, although I can understand why he said it. He said it because the Catholics believe in GOOD WORKS as a prerequisite to salvation, and they have all a strange view of grace, and strange view of sin, i.e. mortal sin vs. venial sin. I always thought sin was sin, no matter how ya sliced it.
Ed
LikeLike