tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post112248073331789661..comments2024-03-24T03:21:03.154-04:00Comments on CAMPONTHIS: GOD'S GREAT GOLDEN CHAIN...our unshakable hope of salvation in Christ Jesus the LordSJ Camphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-22449797797986845432012-01-02T12:55:05.489-05:002012-01-02T12:55:05.489-05:00Steve Camp,
I was very disappointed to discover t...Steve Camp,<br /><br />I was very disappointed to discover that the one who advocates "saying it would love" towards sinners would believe in God as one who would limit his love for sinners.<br /><br />It is also unfortunate that, in order to sustain such a theological view as you express, one must unjustifiably change the clear and plain meaning of words and terms as you seem to have done in your article with the word "foreknew" in Rom 8:29.<br /><br />Of course, that doesn't affect my appreciation of your songs I presently have on CD, fo which my #1 favorite is "Run to the Battle".Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12470212473565517507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-53207649073777463462009-06-16T18:40:59.331-04:002009-06-16T18:40:59.331-04:00Admittedly, I didn't see the rules at the bott...Admittedly, I didn't see the rules at the bottom sidebar until after having posted a few times and apologize for my error. You're welcome; I'm grateful. :-)J♥Yce Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14974221921014132431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-91919930970120068812009-06-16T16:16:41.446-04:002009-06-16T16:16:41.446-04:00Joyce
You are good to go. Post away... And thank y...<b>Joyce</b><br />You are good to go. Post away... And thank you for your sensitivity to the rules here.<br /><br />SteveSJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-64256738230089851382009-06-16T12:36:56.382-04:002009-06-16T12:36:56.382-04:00Foreknew = foreloved?
Steven, my profile doesn...Foreknew = foreloved?<br /><br />Steven, my profile doesn't comply either but has morphed cautiously to as it is with my husband's blessing. I am aware that unbelievers have impersonated Christian ladies and copied their blog style and name and registered an URL close to the real blog to confuse folks and then with the passage of a little time have posted in an unbecoming way for shock value and then some. I've also been privy to phone and snail/email abuse. Though an infrequent poster here ~ have no problem emailing you the info to comply.J♥Yce Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14974221921014132431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144354798036583312006-04-06T16:19:00.000-04:002006-04-06T16:19:00.000-04:00Thank you, for the clarification of one or two of...Thank you, for the clarification of one or two of theprevious doctrinal postings...I had been reading here since the day of COT's inception, and normally leave with good things to think about. However, this last bunch of postings left me confused and unable to sift, which I used to think was hard to do, that is confuse me doctrinally! hahaha!!<BR/>Although the article itself was like water to my soul and very timely...and as such, of the Lord!<BR/><BR/>Anyway, ...I couldnt put my finger on the truth at that time and am so glad I revisted, I thought this was getting in deeper than what I could handle...but, was not feeling on solid ground.<BR/><BR/>Campi's clarification WERE EXTREMELY helpful as I deem him as one approved to teach and rightly divide the word and someone whose teaching I have trusted for the better part of 15 years.<BR/><BR/>I only began posting recently, and checked that I have completed my profile :-}<BR/><BR/>Grace and Peace to All!Captured!https://www.blogger.com/profile/15046286731309790029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144335074420544172006-04-06T10:51:00.000-04:002006-04-06T10:51:00.000-04:00Steve, I appreciate you taking the time to publicl...Steve, I appreciate you taking the time to publicly acknowledge that mistake. Thank you, and thank you for understanding the spirit of my comment to that effect.Steve Sensenighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04366847574145407186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144326298012861542006-04-06T08:24:00.001-04:002006-04-06T08:24:00.001-04:00Steve S. I am very sorry that I didn't see his "an...<B>Steve S.</B> I am very sorry that I didn't see his "announcement" of changing his name. He did so to apparently to announce the start of a new blog of his and for that I do apologize.<BR/><BR/>But one thing I do not understand: If it was as innocent as that then: <B>1.</B> why did he continue to post in both names rather than just the "new" name to avoid possible confusion?; AND, <B>2.</B> why would he use another persons blog to promote his own? If you want to start one, just do it; but don't piggy back on the efforts of another without their permission.<BR/><BR/>Joseph could have just changed his name (I have done that before) and continued to post. But it appears he wanted to capitalize on the several posting at COT. Not good form.<BR/><BR/>I have been very patient with many of you on this blog this past week; I believe it was a mistake to allow Joseph to continue posting here without having to own up on his drive-by comments that I asked him to defend, and he did so without a sufficient reply. <BR/><BR/>That will not happen again. This thread is closed.<BR/><BR/>Steve<BR/>Col. 1:9-14SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144320631907394652006-04-06T06:50:00.000-04:002006-04-06T06:50:00.000-04:00Any blogger with that kind of volume is not capabl...<I>Any blogger with that kind of volume is not capable of reading every word of every comment all the time.</I><BR/><BR/>This is completely understandable, Steve. And that is why several tried to help you see that you had jumped to the wrong conclusion about Joseph's "deception" in changing his name.<BR/><BR/>None of us who were reading the thread thoroughly were at all confused by the name change because he explained it clearly.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, by deleting his posts completely, you have solidified your position without so much as even acknowledging that maybe, because you weren't reading thoroughly (by your own admission), you made a mistake.<BR/><BR/>I respectfully submit to you, Steve, that, in doing so, you have falsely accused and judged a brother. It was done publicly, and I think it deserves a public acknowledgement of that oversight.<BR/><BR/>Note that I believe this was purely a mistake on your part, and not done with any malice or hatred. But a mistake like that still needs to be acknowledged and corrected.<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/>steve :)Steve Sensenighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04366847574145407186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144301620200552892006-04-06T01:33:00.000-04:002006-04-06T01:33:00.000-04:00littlegal:You have given me a very good reason for...<B>littlegal:</B><BR/>You have given me a very good reason for pause here. In my frustration with those that had abused the rules of engagement, I hadn't considered a protection issue with you. You are a friend and would never desire to see you or your children placed in any harms way.<BR/><BR/>I will amend my thoughts in this area. First name will be fine; as long as other essentials are listed with a valid email address.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for helping me in this area. No lurking in the shadows for you :-). I look forward to your next post.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Steve<BR/>2 Cor. 4:5-7SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144295113513386272006-04-05T23:45:00.000-04:002006-04-05T23:45:00.000-04:00To those who have forced our long-suffering host's...To those who have forced our long-suffering host's hand on the "complete profile" issue, I respectfully offer that I wish you hadn't done so. Back when I first registered with blogger, I painstakingly filled out every aspect of my profile, with the exception of my surname. I omitted my last name in the interest of internet safety. Campi, as well as some of the longtime/frequent commentors with whom I have enjoyed becoming acquainted off-blog (and grown to trust), are all aware of my full identity. I am a female blogger, with 2 children to shelter & protect, and would prefer not to post my last name on the internet for the entire net-surfing world to see. I'll have to weigh the pros and cons & think long and hard before I do so. (I may be reduced to lurking in the shadows, instead of posting, beginning tomorrow). <BR/><BR/>I pray that this blog will continue to flourish, and may all that is communicated here continue to encourage believers and glorify Him.littlegal_66https://www.blogger.com/profile/09424599483109788899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144294935914397952006-04-05T23:42:00.000-04:002006-04-05T23:42:00.000-04:00"I receive over two-hundred emails everyday; plus ...<I>"I receive over two-hundred emails everyday; plus the blog posts here which also are many. Plus my ministry duties with AudienceONE, etc., it stays busy around here. Any blogger with that kind of volume is not capable of reading every word of every comment all the time."</I><BR/><BR/>Pretty much what I was trying to point out to folks in my preceding post, (which is buried somewhere ^up there^ in this thread). Be assured, Steve, that whatever portion of time you are able to invest here is greatly appreciated.littlegal_66https://www.blogger.com/profile/09424599483109788899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144293587358682412006-04-05T23:19:00.000-04:002006-04-05T23:19:00.000-04:00Bhedr I appreciate this comment-thank you. I also...<B>Bhedr</B> <BR/>I appreciate this comment-thank you. <BR/><BR/>I also thank you for being sand-paper on this blog and in this discussion to help keep me in the Word, on my toes and to help smooth out the rough edges in my life.<BR/><BR/>Read the Buchanan article--I think you will find it thought-provoking and biblically lucid.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace to you,<BR/>S.SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144276996908302102006-04-05T18:43:00.000-04:002006-04-05T18:43:00.000-04:00Steve S. "Thanks for making that rule. I appreciat...<B>Steve S.</B> <I>"Thanks for making that rule. I appreciate it."</I><BR/><BR/>That rule always existed. Hopefully others will finally take the time to comply.SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144274988158125422006-04-05T18:09:00.000-04:002006-04-05T18:09:00.000-04:00Michele: You wrote "Steve, if you delete everyone ...<B>Michele:</B> You wrote <I>"Steve, if you delete everyone who disagrees with you, there will be no one left to sharpen iron with."</I> <BR/><BR/>Your comment is without merit (no pun intended). I have never deleted a comment because someone doesn't agree with me. On the contrary, I invite debate and discussion from a wide variety of views.<BR/><BR/>BUT, I do delete or prohibit from someone posting on this site who doesn't obey the rules of engagement. Joseph has done that in a few different areas.<BR/><BR/>Needless to say, he is welcome here if he makes this right and honors the rules of this blog. Until then, he is prohibited from posting. <BR/><BR/><B>One point of reference for everyone who blogs here.</B> I receive over two-hundred emails everyday; plus the blog posts here which also are many. Plus my ministry duties with AudienceONE, etc. it stay's busy around here. Any blogger with that kind of volume is not capable of reading every word of every comment all the time. It is impossible. In the same way, I don't check everyone and their bio when they do post (I will from now on though). I have trusted people to be grown up, mature and honest as Christian that they would take it upon themselves to read and honor the rules of engagement here. I can see for some that is too much to ask. BUT, I do read most and have interacted here with several on an on going basis and have written extensively on this issue biblically, historically, and theologically.<BR/><BR/><B>So to reiterate from the rules of engagement a fair word of warning for all concerned who think the rules don't apply to them and are too prideful or busy to read them before posting: beginning today any one - friend or foe - who has not completed a full bio sheet will be deleted immediately starting tomorrow--no questions.</B><BR/><BR/>What I found interesting that when Joseph posted his last comment explaining his actions, he still hadn't updated his bio information. Unbelievable. He still thought his views were more important than being honorable about the rules of this blog. That cannot and will not be tolerated.<BR/><BR/>You all have until tonight to fill out your bios or you will not be allowed to post anything here in the future until you comply.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Steve<BR/>Col. 1:9-14SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144273439986020112006-04-05T17:43:00.000-04:002006-04-05T17:43:00.000-04:00Hi Steve,I have saved the comments on this post, a...Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>I have saved the comments on this post, and Joseph <B>did</B> say in his comment under "Blaurock" who he was:<BR/><BR/>"My real name is Joseph, but I've begun a blog under the name of Blaurock. The site is called,..."<BR/><BR/>I won't mention the name of the site unless you want to know the name of it. But Joseph simply started a new website and is now going by the name "Blaurock". <BR/><BR/>You must have missed this when reading his comment. Hope this clears things up now. I would have told you right away that they were the same person, but I never thought that it would upset you like this.<BR/><BR/>Like most people on this blog, Joseph put all kinds of information on his profile except for his full name. He gave us his first real name, Joseph, which is more than what most people do.<BR/><BR/>I know who <B>Uncialman</B> is and have been hurt and offended by his divisive spirit. But you allowed him to post anonymously.<BR/><BR/>I was going to remind him that no anonymous posts are allowed or they would be deleted, especially because it's easy to discredit people when you're anonymous. But I, too, noticed the double standard...that anonymous posts are allowed unless you don't like what they say. So, I said nothing.<BR/><BR/>I thought we all knew who Brian the BHDR is. I know his full name, because he used to post it. But like most people, he saw that he didn't need to put his full real name out there, so he apparently chose not to.<BR/><BR/>I would just like the rules to be consistent, Steve. It would avoid a lot of hurt feelings.<BR/><BR/>Steve, if you delete everyone who disagrees with you, there will be no one left to sharpen iron with. You said that you didn't want to talk about this active/passive obedience thing anymore. And I think that is a good idea. I had already said in a comment before that if this subject is too divisive, we should not discuss it any longer. And you had said the same thing.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, one on one, face to face would be better, but not on a blog, where there are too many people talking, and the finer points cannot be understood on each side because of all the glut of comments pouring in. It's just too much of a communication breakdown, especially for this subject.<BR/><BR/>You made the right decision to drop this subject. And I really think we should.<BR/><BR/>I have learned from this to always try to understand both sides of the argument, before seeking to be understood. If we can't appreciate what the other person is trying to say, if we can't discuss these finer points, with an open mind, and without feeling threatened, then we shouldn't bother at all. <BR/><BR/>I think both sides have presented their views biblically. Some will argue that one side is more biblical than the other. But if you don't come into this discussion with an open mind, and cannot respect each others views, then there will be nothing to be learned. If our minds are already made up, why are we debating this subject? <BR/><BR/>I think that God knows more about imputation than all of us. I wonder what it is that we do not know.<BR/><BR/>In His Love,<BR/>MicheleMichele Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05815737949587713100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144269379229504602006-04-05T16:36:00.000-04:002006-04-05T16:36:00.000-04:00No double standards at this endSo I understand tha...<I>No double standards at this end</I><BR/><BR/>So I understand that to mean that everyone will have to fill out the entire online profile form in order to be able to comment here.<BR/><BR/>That will be good, because it will be very helpful to know who is commenting here.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for making that rule. I appreciate it.Steve Sensenighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04366847574145407186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144265932825441542006-04-05T15:38:00.000-04:002006-04-05T15:38:00.000-04:00Steve S.: You wrote: "I know you're frustrated wit...<B>Steve S.:</B> You wrote: <I>"I know you're frustrated with some of the comments here, and I respect your freedom to run this blog however you desire. But as some of us have tried to express, there do seem to be some "double standards" coming through in the discussion."</I><BR/><BR/><B>1.</B> I am not frustrated with the comments here. People are free to express themselves on any issue with their point of view and enter into the discussion. I am frustrated that some here don't adhere to the rules of engagement and treat this blog as if they own it, control it or make policy. <BR/><BR/>Joseph, Blaurock, or whatever his real name is or whoever he may be, I understand has now started his own blog. Maybe three or four of his friends and him can chat together there about what they like and believe according to their own rules. I wish them the very best.<BR/><BR/><B>2.</B> As you know Steve, I invite good vibrant discussion here and welcome the challenge for some who represent views not in accordance with biblical Christianity to make their case here. No double standards at this end (I give people a lot of freedom here)--but, I do see the double standards with some who have posted here.<BR/><BR/><B>3.</B> This blog has been a blessing to many and myself--I have enjoyed meeting new friends in the faith and hearing their views. I don't agree with all that have posted, but I have learned from many of them and appreciate that greatly. None of us have arrived in this life... have we.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace to you,<BR/>Steve<BR/>2 Cor. 5:21SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144261781203119762006-04-05T14:29:00.000-04:002006-04-05T14:29:00.000-04:00Steve, you wrote: I want to know who I am speaking...Steve, you wrote: <I>I want to know who I am speaking with. Full disclosure is necessary here brother for you to continue to be allowed on my blog.</I><BR/><BR/>I just have to say that when I was participating in a discussion with you and some others, it was frustrating to click on "donsands" and "uncialman"'s names and not be able to find anything about them, either.<BR/><BR/>The profile for "uncialman" has no information whatsoever, and the profile for "donsands" has nothing but a link to a blog that Blogger says can't be found.<BR/><BR/>There were times when I would have preferred to respond privately to the comments those two gentlemen were making in support of your arguments, but were unable to.<BR/><BR/>I would hope that you would also require "full disclosure" from those who support you, too. You probably know who they are "in real life", but some of us don't.<BR/><BR/>I know you're frustrated with some of the comments here, and I respect your freedom to run this blog however you desire. But as some of us have tried to express, there do seem to be some "double standards" coming through in the discussion.<BR/><BR/>That is why I chose to finally bow out of the discussion on active obedience. However, by you saying that you don't think we can "agree to disagree" on this issue, it makes me wonder if bowing out was the right thing to do.<BR/><BR/>I have read all the posts and comments you have made in these past few weeks, and I still fail to see where you have answered some of the basic questions that I and others raised with actual biblical exegesis. If we still have questions, what can we do at this point?<BR/><BR/>in love for you as my brother in Christ,<BR/>steve :)Steve Sensenighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04366847574145407186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144242753926795122006-04-05T09:12:00.000-04:002006-04-05T09:12:00.000-04:00bhedr: Please fill out completely the online form ...<B>bhedr:</B> Please fill out completely the online form so that you can post here in the future. I do not allow anonymous posting.<BR/><BR/>SteveSJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144241697285733472006-04-05T08:54:00.000-04:002006-04-05T08:54:00.000-04:00FitMedic Thank you for your comments. I apprecia...<B>FitMedic</B> Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your emotional and heartfelt response; BUT that does not change the fact that Joseph is out of step with orthodox biblical Christianity on this issue and that the verses he usually offers are proof texts (and yes I read them all).<BR/><BR/>By commenting, you have not been <I>"breaking every supposed blog rule in the world"</I>; but you have broken the rules of engagement on this blog by posting anonymously which I do not allow (Rules of engagement #4.).<BR/><BR/>I think some of you engage theologically on issues with the same care as you do in posting your comments--with no regard for the rules. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, all future comments of yours will be deleted until you have fully completed the online bio form (Joseph this goes for you too. Last names must be included). I want to know who I am speaking with. Full disclosure is necessary here brother for you to continue to be allowed on my blog.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Steve<BR/>2 Cor. 5:21SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144241009514320552006-04-05T08:43:00.000-04:002006-04-05T08:43:00.000-04:00Blaurock: As you know, I do not allow any posting ...<B>Blaurock:</B> As you know, I do not allow any posting in "book form" on this blog (read rules of engagement #5). BTW, I copied your post onto Microsoft Word and it was five pages long, single spaced, no paragraph breaks at a 12 point font. That is not a comment but an article.)<BR/><BR/>Per rule #8, I am deleting your comment. You may repost in a more brief and reasonable length and I will be delighted to engage your views.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144240366521691032006-04-05T08:32:00.000-04:002006-04-05T08:32:00.000-04:00Joseph: You quoted Gal. 3:27 as a proof text to de...<B>Joseph:</B> You quoted Gal. 3:27 as a proof text to defend your view that we are clothed with Christ and not imputed with the righteousness of Christ (boldly disagreeing with MacArthur who did represent the orthodox view here).<BR/><BR/>There are two problems here:<BR/><BR/>1. This verse is not talking about imputation as in 2 Cor. 5:21;<BR/><BR/>2. It is making the comparison between baptism and "putting on Christ" is the most common and better rendering of this text as in Col. 3:1-12.<BR/><BR/>Baptism here could mean two things: being baptized by Christ with His Spirit into His body; or the physical act of baptism. Most commentators (and I agree) take the first view. This is a "dry" verse in other words.<BR/><BR/>So Paul is describing the wonderful reality of regeneration: of being in Christ by His Holy Spirit; the putting on is the new life and new character--the fruits of the new life.<BR/><BR/>Let's stay on topic here brother.<BR/><BR/>What I am most concerned for you Joseph is not just the misappropriation of Scripture that you do to try and make your point, but that you now asserting a denial of imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This is serious Joseph.<BR/><BR/>My older brother Norm who a few months ago went home to be with the Lord, was a faithful missionary in Lebanon and Jordan for over two decades and then in his last years of his life in Chicago to the Muslim people. He saw much fruit from his with his wife Bonnie to the Muslims in sharing the gospel.<BR/><BR/>Covenant theology was such a blessing in explaining the continuity of Scripture to the Muslim people. The preaching of the Law brings conviction upon men's souls; the preaching of the gospel of grace brings the hope that is only through Christ Jesus... Why Because Christ is the end of the Law! It was completely satisfied in Him.<BR/><BR/>When you say things like "The Law is not operative in justification" you reveal that you really don't understand biblically all that justification entails in the atonement. The law was operative in justification in that Christ's death fully paid the penalty of our sin on the cross. To sin is to transgress the law - as the Apostle John says.<BR/><BR/>Before you post again here Joseph, make certain of what you are trying to say, i will not tolerate the unsound doctrine that you continue to share like in the last comment you displayed. <BR/><BR/>I have a trust here dear brother to "retain the standard of sound words" and to "guard the truth."<BR/><BR/><B>For those who comment frequently here at COT I must offer this qualifier: though I allow vibrant discussion on a myriad of theological issues, the allowance of those differing views is in no way a condoning or an acceptance of those views. This issue of imputation is not one that we can simply conclude as "we agree to disagree." One view is biblical and orthodox, the other is not. Unfortunately what Joseph has been asserting here is not in accordance with orthodox, historical, biblical Christianity. Be discerning when reading his comments. <BR/><BR/>Thank you, Steve</B>SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144202762518310612006-04-04T22:06:00.000-04:002006-04-04T22:06:00.000-04:00Good to have you back. Solid teaching Steve, Thank...Good to have you back. Solid teaching Steve, Thanks. You are truly a man of His Word.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144187397274375032006-04-04T17:49:00.000-04:002006-04-04T17:49:00.000-04:00I am back in town and cannot believe some of the t...I am back in town and cannot believe some of the things I have read here. Let me address a few for you:<BR/><BR/><B>blaurock said:</B><BR/><I>Covenant theologians also are unsure of when this covenant of grace was established.</I><BR/><BR/>No uncertainty in the doctrines of grace or their timing. 2 Tim. 1:9 and Titus 1:1 tell us when this was established: "in times past eternal" between the Father and the Son. <B>2 Tim. 1:9</B> <I>"who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus <B>from all eternity,"</B></I> (emphasis mine).<BR/><BR/><B>Titus 1:2</B> <I>"in the hope of eternal life that God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,"</I><BR/><BR/>That is why John in Revelation 13:8 says, <I>"Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." </I><BR/><BR/><B>Joseph:</B> Thank you for your kind and supportive words in some of your commetns. They are appreciated.<BR/><BR/>I would like to begin to deal with one of your comments for I truly want to help you with some of your unbiblical thinking here:<BR/><BR/><B>You said:</B> <I>"All of us must remember that the gentiles were not under the Law but were in Adam. We were not engaged in keeping law but failing, we were in sin and dead. We were as much under the Law as we are now which is to say not at all. The law came to radicalize the state of sin, burden the conscience and cause men to plead for Messiah and mercy. It did not come to be the means of our righteous state. “Active Obedience” in the Atonement is a concept that portrays man as recoverable through the keeping of the Old Covenant."</I><BR/><BR/>You error here brother on several points:<BR/><BR/><B>1.</B> Gentiles are also under the law; shut up into sin:<BR/>-Rom. 7:4 ¶ "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God." <BR/> <BR/>-Rom. 3:9 ¶ "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;" <BR/><BR/>-Rom. 3:19 ¶ "Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;" <BR/><BR/>-Gal. 3:22 "But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Gal. 3:23 ¶ But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. Gal. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." <BR/><BR/><B>2.</B> You said, "The law came to radicalize the state of sin." No. The law, was God's perfect standard, given to men to convict them of their sin and incarcerate us under God's wrath (Rom. 2). <BR/><BR/>-Rom. 7:6 "But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." Rom. 7:7 ¶ "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”<BR/><BR/><B>Lastly, you say</B> "“Active Obedience” in the Atonement is a concept that portrays man as recoverable through the keeping of the Old Covenant." <BR/><BR/>Where do you get such nonsense? No one has ever asserted this claim. <BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>SteveSJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1144169424640638332006-04-04T12:50:00.000-04:002006-04-04T12:50:00.000-04:00joe,"Adam acts sinfully and, because we were conne...joe,<BR/><BR/>"Adam acts sinfully and, because we were connected to him, we were condemned in him.<BR/>Christ acted righteously and because we are connected to Christ we are justfied in Christ.<BR/>Adam's sin is counted as ours.<BR/>Christ's righteousness is counted as ours." John Piper, comments on Romans 5: 18-19<BR/>Perhaps you could contact Dr. Piper, and continue this debate.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.com