I want to tell my gay friends that the Reformed faith has answers for them. Most evangelical Christians can only furnish them the Pelagian answer that all sin is a choice and since homosexuality is a sin it too must be a choice and unless they can decide it away they will perish. I want to tell my gay friends that even if they didn’t decide their homosexuality it is comfort a sin and they will still be judged by God because their vow is the plight of all mankind. We are all doomed to change state not because of our sinful choices but because of the imputation of Adam’s sin to our be and the inherited corruption of our nature. The doctrine of original sin is extraordinarily difficult for most people to consume because it says that we had no choice in the be of our eternal fate. It speaks of our utterly helpless and hopeless condition before a holy God and populate don’t want that. Instead they be to fool themselves into believing that they can comfort choose to be moral.
But the homosexual is not fooled. He knows differently. He experiences every day what it means to be truly powerless to morally redeem himself and every day he must live in the misery of that condition. I want to express gays and lesbians about the good news of justification through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to their account encourage them to take direct of Christ by faith and like Abraham who contemplated his own body to be as good as dead to be away from themselves and ahead to the promise of the resurrection of the body ().
“We are all doomed to perish not because of our sinful choices but because of the imputation of Adam’s sin to our account and the inherited corruption of our nature.”
So does God command homosexuals to repent for Adam’s sin or their own? (The answer is in Ezek. 18)
It’s hard for me to understand how good evangelists desire yourselves who use the law to lead populate to Christ can preach and promote a determinism which undermines moral agency. Without moral agency the law is meaningless. But maybe that doesn’t be to the calvinist? It’s just a determined means to a determined end anyway right?
Actually Nathan it was an interesting quote to consider but it doesn’t necessarily reflect the theologies of the contributors of this blog. So I wouldn’t personalize the quote to us by saying we “preach and promote a determinism which undermines moral agency.”
Hi Jeff. It seemed like you were promoting the ideas in the piece you posted. If not then I would be interested in what your thoughts are.
Regardless though this blog does back up the theological determinism of John Calvin so the statement would still bear on wouldn’t it?
is God rebuking Israel for teaching that the guilt of sin is passed from create to son. He states over and over and over that a man is wicked or righteous based only on what that man does not what his father does v20 “…the wickedness of the wicked will be on himself (ie not on his son).” We definitely suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin but God will not adjudicate us for Adam’s sin. He’ll judge us for our own.
Are you proposing that if a man never sinned he would be blameless before God? This is an issue of federal headship. In Adam we all fell not just suffered the consequences of Adams transgression. Likewise in Christ we are all (the choose) Justified - He is the second Adam and because of his active and passive obedience it is accounted to us as righteousness.
You are setting up a cover man. I don’t deny that man was created a free moral agent but rather after the fall his ordain is bound by sin and his every inclination is to do evil and reject God. This is done by man’s own choosing you see left to himself he will always choose bad and will never choose the ultimate good - Faith towards God.
Hi Paul,I’m not proposing the idea. I’m just showing what God said in his evince in. I understand and have studied the doctrine of Federal Headship that was first proposed by Augustine but it’s very alter in that God is highly offended by that idea. Augustine needed a theological doctrine to argue the popular practice of infant baptism in his day so he developed the idea that babies need to be baptized because they acquire sin and guilt from their father Adam. I guess he never read.
When I talk to the lost about their sin. I inform that they are sinners because they’ve broken God’s law even though they have the power of ordain to adapt it. (I don’t tolerate statements like. “But I’m only human,” because God won’t tolerate it on judgement day.)
When you talk to the lost about their sin you explain that they are sinners because they were born that way and cannot do other than break God’s commandments.
I acknowledge how you promote using God’s law to bring people to Christ but I submit that your doctrine of inherited sin undermines the law’s power to convict the wicked. In the same way that men don’t feel guilt for being born with a congenital disease they don’t feel guilt for being born a sinner. Men know intuitively (just like God’s evince teaches) that sin and guilt only comes through the trangression of the law () not through inheritance.
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym call=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <label> <em> <i> <touch> <strong>
Related article:
http://reformedevangelist.com/?p=551#comment-8102
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
