DB Yes it seems both are used interchangeably depending upon the point discussed. Paul in Romans chap. 6 + 7 appears to stick with the singular.
Below is Isaiah in his prediction of Christ, note sin in v10/12 but iniquities plural in v11.
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for *SIN*, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their *iniquities*. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the *sin* of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
DB + Lurker Is it not true rather to say Christ died for our sin, - not sinS?(Plural)
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of SIN might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve SIN. 7 For he that is dead is freed from SIN. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto SIN once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto SIN, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not SIN therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Fellow Saint You wrote "the Apostles acknowledged that some were resisting the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts. This shows the inconsistency of the effectual calling doctrine."
I disagree it illustrates the effectiveness of God's calling by demonstrating that God's calling works on the Elect, but mans sinful presumption does not work. Thereby excluding the non-elect as is shown in Matt 7:21-23.
Man cannot/does not resist grace when God is calling His Elect. God IS love and knows best, which man perceives only by grace and the Holy Spirits indwelling.
"ALL those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and them only he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God" (W/Conf 10)
Refs::- Rom. 8:30; Rom. 11:7; Eph. 1:10-11. II Thess. 2:13-14; II Cor. 3:3, 6. Rom. 8:2; Eph. 2:1-5; II Tim. 1:9-10. Acts 26:18; I Cor. 2:10, 12; Eph. 1:17-18.
After becoming a saved Christian you are not "Punished" for sin, - You are "Chastised" by God as Father.
Note well 2Cor 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: - Constrained by divine love.
15 And that he died for all, that THEY WHICH live should NOT henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. - Grace and the Holy Spirit helps you achieve this.
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. - The flesh is an old influence still in the children of wrath, - Not in the believer.
17 Therefore *IF* any man be IN CHRIST, he is a NEW CREATURE: old things are PASSED AWAY; behold, all things are become NEW. - Observe the change.
18 And all things ARE OF GOD, who hath RECONCILED us to HIMSELF by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
Sanctification does not fail. Justification is immediate. Calling is effectual.
JD It appears to be essential to your arminian philosophy to have a very large ego. I suspect that this is indicative of how you believe that a human input is necessary to complete salvation. Your little multi-choice games are written by someone who cannot reach beyond this heresy. Therefore the questions are loaded with the answers smoke. The smoke which you yourself blow/post as your attempt to illustrate that you can penetrate scripture. Yourself and Yamil are excellent devices to prove the truth is not in you, by observing your fruit in posts.
Thanks for the insult Yamil, I'm very glad you disagree with me.
But the worst name you could call me is arminian, synergist or free willer, - then I'd really be in a foul mood too.
What the true Calvinist always tries to teach you poor heretics, is that God is Sovereign and quite capable of saving any sinner, even without their permission or cooperation. But it's exasporating work. It just seems you always want to demote God and DIY salvation all by your self?
"I say that man, before he is renewed into the new creation of the Spirit's kingdom, does and endeavours nothing to prepare himself for that new creation and kingdom, and when he is re-created has does and endeavors nothing towards his perseverance in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone works both blessings in us, regenerating us, and preserving us when regenerate, without ourselves..." Martin Luther (Bondage of the Will)
"Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man." - C.H. Spurgeon from His sermon Faith and Regeneration
Jo 6.63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing"
cbcpreacher your "By the way, you never responded in regard to not being able to sing the name of Jesus or to sing about the blood of Christ."
Where in Scripture OT or NT does it command/declare we are to sing these points? It appears that the omission of these teachings from the Psalms, brings you to conclude that if you do not specifically sing them, - you are not praising God? Do they negate Psalms for you?
TULIP1 has already pointed out below that the Psalms indeed the whole Bible is about Jesus.
BTW - WHOM did Jesus praise whilst HE was on earth. Do you follow Him?
God's specific personal selection of Praise is recorded in history. You will find it in the Bible. In Hebrew it is called the Book of Praise. In English we use the Greek term PSALMS.
Whose choice will you use in worship, God's, or the evil hearted sinners?
Finally cbcpreacher, thankyou in your post this time, for not vilifying me quite so much. And I'm not upset about your taking a stand, simply debating the issue.
Quote "The more he studied, the more Pearson saw the Bible not as the literal word of God but a book by men about God -- primitive men prone to mistranslations, political agendas and human emotions."u/q
As soon as you remove God as the author of Scriptures then you reject His authority and look for a new and nicer one. The Liberals do this all the time.
Rev 1:18 "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."
Mike New York I presume you are a hymn singer Mike, and one of the verses you will comply with to sing praise is Eph 5:19. Now can I ask you how you complete this "imperative" - in "making melody in your heart" Do you for example "pluck your heart strings melodiously"
Eph 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
I sincerely hope you dont disobey this "imperative" Mike.
I can see no reason whatsoever that the word "praise" cannot be incorporated into the lyrics of a psalm of praise to God.
Indeed if I recall from my hymn singing days there are not a few instances, of using the term in hymns written by mortals too.
"Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, Let the earth hear His voice! Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, Let the people rejoice." Fanny Crosby. Is this a summons to the people, - or is she hoping the Lord will receive this?
Mike as I have intimated before - If you and others want to reject the personal selection of God, as recorded by HIM in HIS Word then OK! If you prefer the more modern idiom to the ancient "Book of Praise" then thats YOUR choice.
All I have done is posted my reasons for not going modern and leaving the Scriptures behind.
cbcpreacher from New York stated "And your diatribe about preaching was just plain foolishness. I guess you must think a dumb argument is better than no argument. But you know what they say, "Better to keep quiet and let them think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". It might be time to close your mouth!"
Clearly this is a phenomena of the specific denominational type which he belongs to, we have seen it before on site.
Thus if someone DARES to disagree with you then attack with nasty expletives and derogatory, disparaging remarks.
The hate filled heart rears it's ugly head in venom again from this denomination's disciples.
I suppose next he will suggest that this is "love thy neighbour" and in fact that he is a pious Christian.
And why? Because I sing Psalms???
Strange world isn't it!!!
God be with you cbcpreacher. Please don't condemn people for obeying these Words of the Lord, in the way HE recorded.
Psalm 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
Psalm 9:2 I will be glad and rejoice in thee: I will sing praise to thy name, O thou most High.
Psalm 9:11 Sing praises to the LORD, which dwelleth in Zion: declare among the people his doings
Yamil Re your post 7/10/07 5:15PM That "Baptists" are - for always - throughout history and everybody else is wrong.
I notice that all your info comes from "Baptist" sources????? Surprise! Surprise!
""Baptists make no effort to trace a historical succesion back to the age of the Apostles. Their only claim is that at every age in church history there have been groups that have held to the same doctrines that Baptists hold today. These groups may or may not have been connected and they have been known by various names. There were the Montanists (150 A.D.), the Novatians (240 A.D.), Donatists (305 A.D.), Paulicians (650 A.D.) , Albigenses (1022 A.D.), Waldensians (1170 A.D.) and the name Anabaptists came into prominence just before the time of the Protestant Reformation.""
Of course the other denominations reject this; - Not so surprising. For example the presbyterians associate themselves in history with the Waldensians too.
So your "hypothesis" is disputed by many historians and theologians. We are not surprised that "Baptist history" - IS written by "Baptist historians"
But please, - by all means furnish this "Hypothesis" to Baptists, if you want to.