Do you view your respective confession as functionally infallible?

[MW]

The problem is with the way the sections are being connected together. First, section 1 tells us what providence is -- preservation and gubernation.

Aha, now I see your secret. Make up words to define your schematic...

I know it has a definition, i just know it is fake though...

Obadiah Sedgwick (Westminster divine) wrote a treatise on providence practically handled. He uses the twofold distinction of conservation and gubernation. Gubernation means "governance." It was once a widely used word, because it has a long pedigree through Latin back to Greek, where it describes the person who steers the ship. See Acts 27:11.

 

[MW]

It also makes sense that we do not inherit sins from out natural parents, or else we would be held accountable for allof their sins.

Now you are confusing original sin and actual transgressions. May I suggest you do some more study on the subject before speaking dogmatically about it.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It also makes sense that we do not inherit sins from out natural parents, or else we would be held accountable for allof their sins.

Now you are confusing original sin and actual transgressions. May I suggest you do some more study on the subject before speaking dogmatically about it.

Hmm...intriguing...it does seem from Scripture that certain people are more prone to some sins that others (Paul's argument that the Cretans were liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons for example). Does this indicate that certain sinful tendencies are inherited, while original sin is imputed??

 

[MW]

Hmm...intriguing...it does seem from Scripture that certain people are more prone to some sins that others (Paul's argument that the Cretans were liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons for example). Does this indicate that certain sinful tendencies are inherited, while original sin is imputed??

Using the language technically, only Adam's first sin is imputed; by means of it we fall from original righteousness; but "original sin" is the corruption of our whole nature. This is inherited from our parents. We need to remember that the term was used acceptably without any reference to "imputation." As for particular vices, the apostle Peter says the vain conversation is received by tradition. There is a place for imitation so far as actual transgression is concerned.

 

[KMK]

Is there a limit to how many times one can 'thank' Rev Winzer in one thread?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Is there a limit to how many times one can 'thank' Rev Winzer in one thread?

He is the Puritan Board equivalent of Shane Warne (an Aussie cricketer who took a lot of wickets) - so probably not.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The problem is with the way the sections are being connected together. First, section 1 tells us what providence is -- preservation and gubernation.

Aha, now I see your secret. Make up words to define your schematic...

I know it has a definition, i just know it is fake though...

Obadiah Sedgwick (Westminster divine) wrote a treatise on providence practically handled. He uses the twofold distinction of conservation and gubernation. Gubernation means "governance." It was once a widely used word, because it has a long pedigree through Latin back to Greek, where it describes the person who steers the ship. See Acts 27:11.

Permit me to recommend Obadiah Sedgwick's treatise (highlighted previously in this thread) along with the introductory essay by Joel Beeke and Matthew Winzer very, very highly!

 

[Amazing Grace]

It also makes sense that we do not inherit sins from out natural parents, or else we would be held accountable for allof their sins.

Now you are confusing original sin and actual transgressions. May I suggest you do some more study on the subject before speaking dogmatically about it.

Excellent rebuttal Matthew. Please spare me the patronizing words. You are a traducian, I am a creationist. there is the difference. The HC and WCF could be much more clear on this point. Regardless of how much I study, Eve is not reponsible for my inherit sin/sin nature. I have shown clearly scripture. So instead of this response, replay to my points as i did yours please.

You use psalm 51 as your foundation. But it is made of sand regarding eve

 

[MW]

Excellent rebuttal Matthew. Please spare me the patronizing words. You are a traducian, I am a creationist. there is the difference. The HC and WCF could be much more clear on this point. Regardless of how much I study, Eve is not reponsible for my inherit sin/sin nature. I have shown clearly scripture. So instead of this response, replay to my points as i did yours please.

You use psalm 51 as your foundation. But it is made of sand regarding eve

Friend, need I remind you that this aspect of the discussion arose because you registered your dissent from the confessional documents on this particular point; and now you are quoting the confessional documents to substantiate a point that has never been officially addressed. Moreover, you dogmatically assert that I hold to a position that I haven't avowed. I apologise if it sounds like I am patronising you. My intent was merely to suggest a better manner of presenting your thoughts.

 

[KMK]

Aha, now I see your secret. Make up words to define your schematic...

I know it has a definition, i just know it is fake though...

Obadiah Sedgwick (Westminster divine) wrote a treatise on providence practically handled. He uses the twofold distinction of conservation and gubernation. Gubernation means "governance." It was once a widely used word, because it has a long pedigree through Latin back to Greek, where it describes the person who steers the ship. See Acts 27:11.

Permit me to recommend Obadiah Sedgwick's treatise (highlighted previously in this thread) along with the introductory essay by Joel Beeke and Matthew Winzer very, very highly!

I ordered my copy today!

 

[Amazing Grace]

Excellent rebuttal Matthew. Please spare me the patronizing words. You are a traducian, I am a creationist. there is the difference. The HC and WCF could be much more clear on this point. Regardless of how much I study, Eve is not reponsible for my inherit sin/sin nature. I have shown clearly scripture. So instead of this response, replay to my points as i did yours please.

You use psalm 51 as your foundation. But it is made of sand regarding eve

Friend, need I remind you that this aspect of the discussion arose because you registered your dissent from the confessional documents on this particular point; and now you are quoting the confessional documents to substantiate a point that has never been officially addressed. Moreover, you dogmatically assert that I hold to a position that I haven't avowed. I apologise if it sounds like I am patronising you. My intent was merely to suggest a better manner of presenting your thoughts.

Matthew: you are correct that I dissent against the wording of the documents on this issue, but where have I now used them to substantiate the same vein of thought? I am confused by your opinion here. And what position are you refering to? That you are a traducian i regards to the propogation of the sin nature?

 

[a mere housewife]

Wow. 7 other evil ninja arminian spies on the board. We really need to synchronize our plans for destruction.

 

[MW]

Matthew: you are correct that I dissent against the wording of the documents on this issue, but where have I now used them to substantiate the same vein of thought? I am confused by your opinion here. And what position are you refering to? That you are a traducian i regards to the propogation of the sin nature?

Let's backtrack. You denied the confessional teaching that man's corrupt nature is inherited from his parents. Because I defended that position you called me traducian, even though I never avowed it. Nevertheless, you think the confessions teach creationism. So we have a situation where I maintain the same teaching as the confession regarding original sin being conveyed from parents to their posterity, yet you regard the confessions as upholding creationism and me as upholding traducianism. I hope you can see your inconsistency.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Matthew: you are correct that I dissent against the wording of the documents on this issue, but where have I now used them to substantiate the same vein of thought? I am confused by your opinion here. And what position are you refering to? That you are a traducian i regards to the propogation of the sin nature?

Let's backtrack. You denied the confessional teaching that man's corrupt nature is inherited from his parents. Because I defended that position you called me traducian, even though I never avowed it. Nevertheless, you think the confessions teach creationism. So we have a situation where I maintain the same teaching as the confession regarding original sin being conveyed from parents to their posterity, yet you regard the confessions as upholding creationism and me as upholding traducianism. I hope you can see your inconsistency.

You need not avow it. It is either or. I never said I believe the confessons teach creationism though. How could I make that statement when I disagree with including eve in the mix as the documents present. Is there a post I said that Matthew?

 

[MW]

You need not avow it. It is either or. I never said I believe the confessons teach creationism though. How could I make that statement when I disagree with including eve in the mix as the documents present. Is there a post I said that Matthew?

What are you claiming then? that the confessions are traducian? that everyone who ascribes original sin conveyed from parents to posterity is traducian?

 

[Amazing Grace]

You need not avow it. It is either or. I never said I believe the confessons teach creationism though. How could I make that statement when I disagree with including eve in the mix as the documents present. Is there a post I said that Matthew?

What are you claiming then? that the confessions are traducian? that everyone who ascribes original sin conveyed from parents to posterity is traducian?

Yes becasue that is the definition is it not?

 

[MW]

You need not avow it. It is either or. I never said I believe the confessons teach creationism though. How could I make that statement when I disagree with including eve in the mix as the documents present. Is there a post I said that Matthew?

What are you claiming then? that the confessions are traducian? that everyone who ascribes original sin conveyed from parents to posterity is traducian?

Yes becasue that is the definition is it not?

No, that's not the definition. Both creationists and traducians hold that original sin is conveyed from parents to posterity. It's merely a question of how given their respective positions. Again, I can only suggest further reading on the subject.

 

[Amazing Grace]

What are you claiming then? that the confessions are traducian? that everyone who ascribes original sin conveyed from parents to posterity is traducian?

Yes becasue that is the definition is it not?

No, that's not the definition. Both creationists and traducians hold that original sin is conveyed from parents to posterity. It's merely a question of how given their respective positions. Again, I can only suggest further reading on the subject.

It is amazing how one can reconstruct plain definitions and mold them into grey. Then I guess for 4 years i have been reading the wrong material. I do not know what creationist view you are referring to, but if one exists then it is a charicature of the truth. Id like to know how one attains this new ecclesiastical internet authority to rewrite definitions Matthew, now that's what I would like to be enlightened on, becasue thats where I am confused. Regarding traducianism vs creationism, I am not confused at all.

if we think this through I believe the answer is very clear. If Adam's soul and ours had a different origin:

* (1) Adam by God breathing into him the breath of life, and
* (2) us having our souls imparted by our parents (Traducianism)

they could not be said to be of the same species because:

* (1) Adam's was from nothing and inbreathed directly by God, and
* (2) ours would be from "something" and propagated by our parents

Thus, Jesus could not be the “last man Adam,” since He would have been born of a different species in Mary. Or, if it is accepted that Jesus is "the last man Adam," (because Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit ...) He could ONLY redeem Adam and not his posterity, whom would be propagated of different parents in Traducianism. Thus, either way Jesus could not be the redeemer of God’s elect who, in Traducianism, would each be made from some preexisting material and wholly dissimilar.

Eccl 12:7 and the dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it. .

Zech 12:1 … Thus saith Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him:

Look at the creation of Eve… Would not Adam have said not only that Eve was "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" but "soul of my soul" (Gen 2:23)?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Nicholas,

You're treading on thin ice regarding your tone in this thread. So thin that you're about to be banned from it.

Matthew is not debating the definition of traducianism v. creationism with you. He merely stated that Creationism does not necessarily deny that corruption is conveyed from parents to posterity but that it views that conveyance differently.

Watch your attitude. I've stayed out of this but I won't for long.

I wouldn't take too much pride in four years of study to assume it gives you some scholarly credibility in this exchange that others lack.

 

[MW]

It is amazing how one can reconstruct plain definitions and mold them into grey. Then I guess for 4 years i have been reading the wrong material. I do not know what creationist view you are referring to, but if one exists then it is a charicature of the truth. Id like to know how one attains this new ecclesiastical internet authority to rewrite definitions Matthew, now that's what I would like to be enlightened on, becasue thats where I am confused. Regarding traducianism vs creationism, I am not confused at all.

This is the second time I've been accused of novelty in this thread, and for the second time I'll refute it with a simple reference from the past. A. A. Hodge: "Many creationists, however, refer the propagation of habitual sin to natural generation, in a general sense, as a law whereby God ordains that children shall be like their parents, without inquiring at all as to the method." (Outlines, 352.)

 

[Amazing Grace]

Nicholas,

You're treading on thin ice regarding your tone in this thread. So thin that you're about to be banned from it.

Matthew is not debating the definition of traducianism v. creationism with you. He merely stated that Creationism does not necessarily deny that corruption is conveyed from parents to posterity but that it views that conveyance differently.

Watch your attitude. I've stayed out of this but I won't for long.

I wouldn't take too much pride in four years of study to assume it gives you some scholarly credibility in this exchange that others lack.

I have a tendancy to speak from the flesh which is not intended Richard. There is no pride taken whatsoever. It is a topic too vast for me to even begin to scratch the surface. That being said, I ask that these distinctions be defined concretely and just not stated as :He merely stated that Creationism does not necessarily deny that corruption is conveyed from parents to posterity but that it views that conveyance differently. If I offended Matthew, I apologize. But since he has not eluded to the fact that I have, I was unaware that my tone was offensive.

Thank you for the warning and not banning me from this thread. I find matthew engaging and very articulate; moreso than myself. I have attempted to cover a good amount of ground on the subject and whether Mathew, you or anyone will be satisfied I do not know. I will not say that after all I have said, and my attempt to convey the subjects clearly, I have accomplished this goal to any degree. I pray that God enables some others to set the subject in a clearer light, or may lead some to understand the ideas I have attempted to speak and if they are wrong to bring me repentance.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Another Question on the HC, was presented today in study.

Question 11. Is not God then also merciful?
Answer. God is indeed merciful, [h] but also just; therefore his justice requires, [j] that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting [k] punishment of body and soul.

The question was asked, how did Christ satisfy God with everlasting/eternal punishment of body and soul when He was rasied in 3 days. I thought it was a good question, one that was not answered succesfully. Please help....

 

[MW]

The question was asked, how did Christ satisfy God with everlasting/eternal punishment of body and soul when He was rasied in 3 days. I thought it was a good question, one that was not answered succesfully. Please help....

The gift is valued according to the altar on which it is presented. Christ offered Himself through the eternal Spirit, Heb. 9:14, that is to say, He offered His human nature on the altar of His divine nature. His divine nature being eternal, His offering possesses an eternal quality. Hence, although Christ did not sacrifice Himself eternally, He nevertheless offered an eternal sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.

 

[Amazing Grace]

The question was asked, how did Christ satisfy God with everlasting/eternal punishment of body and soul when He was rasied in 3 days. I thought it was a good question, one that was not answered succesfully. Please help....

The gift is valued according to the altar on which it is presented. Christ offered Himself through the eternal Spirit, Heb. 9:14, that is to say, He offered His human nature on the altar of His divine nature. His divine nature being eternal, His offering possesses an eternal quality. Hence, although Christ did not sacrifice Himself eternally, He nevertheless offered an eternal sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.

Thank you Matthew. Is there writings on this? Can it be understood that His sacrafice is unending?

 

[bookslover]

Hence, although Christ did not sacrifice Himself eternally, He nevertheless offered an eternal sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.

Well done, Matthew. That's an important distinction, inasmuch as the Roman Catholic Church, if I remember rightly, insists that, in every Mass, Christ is offered as a sacrifice anew. Hence, they're use of the crucifix: they won't let our Lord off the cross. Our Lord offering an eternal sacrifice is a far different thing from sacrificing Himself eternally. The former is biblical; the latter is most definitely not.

 

[MW]

Thank you Matthew. Is there writings on this? Can it be understood that His sacrafice is unending?

The book of Hebrews is the best place to start. There we find great emphasis placed upon the divine dignity and superiority of Christ's person as a conclusive argument for regarding His sacrifice as supreme. For secondary materials, see Shorter Catechism answer 25; and expositions like those of Boston and Fisher explain the infinite value of Christ's sacrifice.

No, the sacrifice can't be considered unending because it is very clearly marked as something that has been accomplished once in the past. What we do find, however, is that Christ continually presents His one completed sacrifice in the heavenly tabernacle as a part of His continual intercession which He makes for His people whereby He saves them to the uttermost.

 

[MW]

Hence, although Christ did not sacrifice Himself eternally, He nevertheless offered an eternal sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.

Well done, Matthew. That's an important distinction, inasmuch as the Roman Catholic Church, if I remember rightly, insists that, in every Mass, Christ is offered as a sacrifice anew. Hence, they're use of the crucifix: they won't let our Lord off the cross. Our Lord offering an eternal sacrifice is a far different thing from sacrificing Himself eternally. The former is biblical; the latter is most definitely not.

Good point, Richard. Christ is perpetually humiliated and barely glorified in the Mass and its theology.

 

[JoeRe4mer]

I was wondering how many here view their respective confession as functionally infallible? I realize no one here would believe that their confession is actually infallible, but it seems to me most people treat the confession as such anyway.

I was just taking a nap and this question popped in my head. No issue really caused it, just plain serendipitous curiosity.

Multiple choices are allowed. Also, stating your reasons why if you're a "no" would be interesting.

Could you please explain functionally infallible. I think I have a sense of what you mean, but I would like some clarification to be certain.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Thank you Matthew. Is there writings on this? Can it be understood that His sacrafice is unending?

The book of Hebrews is the best place to start. There we find great emphasis placed upon the divine dignity and superiority of Christ's person as a conclusive argument for regarding His sacrifice as supreme. For secondary materials, see Shorter Catechism answer 25; and expositions like those of Boston and Fisher explain the infinite value of Christ's sacrifice.

No, the sacrifice can't be considered unending because it is very clearly marked as something that has been accomplished once in the past. What we do find, however, is that Christ continually presents His one completed sacrifice in the heavenly tabernacle as a part of His continual intercession which He makes for His people whereby He saves them to the uttermost.

Where I am getting the "unending thought" is located here:

24For Christ has entered, not into holy places(AV) made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God(AW) on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as(AX) the high priest enters(AY) the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is,(AZ) he has appeared(BA) once for all(BB) at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

THis most assuredly speaks of an eschalogical effect of His death right? The sacrifice of Christ was made in time, however its effect transcends time. Even when time itself is no more, the redemption we have through Christ�s sacrifice will remain. This is the answer I should have given to the person who asked the question.