That's sort of ironic since none of us are discussing whether or not Calvinism is wrong.
I'm actually sort of surprised that he responded to my post at all. I was under the impression that I was on all the Calvinist's ignore lists around here.
Is Calvinism Wrong?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
That's sort of ironic since none of us are discussing whether or not Calvinism is wrong.
I'm actually sort of surprised that he responded to my post at all. I was under the impression that I was on all the Calvinist's ignore lists around here.
Well, technically, we're discussing something foundational to the issue, whereas B57 was trying to go off on his typical rant against those who oppose Calvinism, which everyone has heard hundreds of times before, which doesn't add to the discussion.
What we're discussing has to with the foundations of Calvinism.
Though, I do agree, it is somewhat ironic...
I think that we should get back to the article and forget about John W's attack against me.
Regarding my statement that Jesus is the new Adam. It is not possible for Jesus to actually be the new Adam because he is the eternal Son of God, Colossians 1:16. What I meant was that Jesus is like the new Adam. The Bible teaches this,
"For as by one man's disobedience (Adam) many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Christ) many shall be made righteous" Romans 5:19.
The first Adam brings sin and death upon us, the second Adam (Christ) brings righteousness and eternal life". Jesus is LIKE a new Adam.
"For as by one man's disobedience (Adam) many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Christ) many shall be made righteous" Romans 5:19.
The first Adam brings sin and death upon us, the second Adam (Christ) brings righteousness and eternal life". Jesus is LIKE a new Adam.
Please provide scriptural support for this so-called "new Adam", and that Christ is like him.
There are many scriptures that parallel Adam with Jesus, 1 Corinthians 15:22.
Romans 5:14 says, "Who is a figure of him that was to come"
Romans 5:15 says, "For if through the offence of one (Adam) many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift of grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded into many".
Romans 5:16 says, "And not as it was by one man that sinned (Adam) so is the gift: for the judgment was by one (Adam) to condemnation, but the free gift (Christ) is of many offences unto justification".
Also Romans 5:17, Romans 5:18, Romans 5:19 all parallel Adam with Jesus.
So, in other words, "new Adam" is not used in the Bible to describe Christ.
Gotcha.
Perhaps you should reconsider using the phrase "new Adam" and instead use the phrase "last Adam."
The mods tolerate the utter evil comments of open theists and other Arminians, but ban Reformed thinkers at the drop of a hat. It's rather pathetic.
Regardless of whether you use "new Adam" or "last Adam" Jesus is still our representative and has acted in our name and on our behalf so that we can be justified by what he has done.
When and where did that happen? B57 has been harassing me without interference for years.
"New" and "Last" have different meanings, Robert. You're conflating two very different terms, trying to force them to mean the same thing.
The Holy Spirit, who is our teacher, John 16:13. Can reveal things to us that are not found in the Bible.
You will not find the word "representative" in the Bible either.
Not anymore He doesn't, or at least, not to the extent that He did.
John 16:13 is talking about what (would in the future) happened in Acts 2. It has nothing to do with anything post Acts 9.
Which is completely different than calling something "New" when the Bible describes it as "Last," which is a completely different word that does not mean the same thing at all.
I like the phrase "new Adam". If you say "last Adam" people will think that you are talking about the Genesis Adam. God and his Son like new things. A new heaven, a new earth, a New Testament. The word "new" appears in the Bible over 150 times. I don't think that Jesus would mind me calling him the "new Adam".
That's not a very good standard you have.
People will think there's a new Adam besides Jesus when you say "New Adam."
The Bible, afaik, never calls Adam the "old" Adam. It does, however, call him the "First Adam," and contrasts that term against Jesus' "Last Adam."
Remember what the Bible says about adding to it?
This is called conjecture.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
B57 is far from what one should consider orthodox Calvinism. He is a hyper-Calvinist, a position declared heretical by all conservative Reformed groups. He trolls many other sites with the same tactics and suffers the moderation duly dealt him.
I am not seeing moderation of Calvinists that actually behave themselves being any more pointed than it is with other folks. Of course, the "cage-stage" Calvinist that may wander in unawares will find himself in hot water quickly.
It is best to use the usual canards and cavils directed at the Calvinist as foils for furthering the conversation in the right direction. Focus on the arguments being made, not the person making them as much as possible. Lay out the doctrine properly and wisely. Leave the rest to the providence of God.
There is an old humorous saying that if you cannot afford to go to seminary, just ask a Calvinist a question.
Emulate that. :AMR:AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I prefer to not attempt to improve upon the inspired Scripture (1 Corinthians 15:45).
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1 Corinthians 15:45
Word frequency has no direct bearing on the matter. It is a category error to use this reasoning. By the way, the word "last" appears 85 times in 80 verses in the KJV, and "new" exactly 150 times in 131 verses. :AMR:
AMR
I don't buy the "hyper calvinist" label. That's generally an excuse from an Arminian who isn't comfortable with the five points of Calvinism provided in response to the Remonstrants.B57 is far from what one should consider orthodox Calvinism. He is a hyper-Calvinist, a position declared heretical by all conservative Reformed groups. He trolls many other sites with the same tactics and suffers the moderation duly dealt him.
I am not seeing moderation of Calvinists that actually behave themselves being any more pointed than it is with other folks. Of course, the "cage-stage" Calvinist that may wander in unawares will find himself in hot water quickly.
It is best to use the usual canards and cavils directed at the Calvinist as foils for furthering the conversation in the right direction. Focus on the arguments being made, not the person making them as much as possible. Lay out the doctrine properly and wisely. Leave the rest to the providence of God.
There is an old humorous saying that if you cannot afford to go to seminary, just ask a Calvinist a question.
AMR
I have the freedom to interpret the Bible as I see fit. The scripture plainly says... "Who is the figure of him that was to come" Romans 5:14. The NEW ADAM. Religious people like yourself don't have the freedom to interpret scripture as they see fit. I do because I am not religious.
The word "representative" is not in the Bible either, but through the scriptures it is easy to see that Jesus was our representative, even if the Bible does not say so.
The purpose of the Bible is to reveal Christ and his Gospel, which it does very well. It is not another Torah that must be followed letter by letter.