- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,778
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Totally misses the force of the argument. Does a babe have a choice to be born into a world of suffering and even starvation?Because man has been given dominion in this world. Choice. Function. God would be violating His Own Word by interfering in this way.
I think the best theory is that God doesn't violate His own word. He has declared in creating man and giving him dominion that man would have a choice and say in how the future of that would would come about. For God to then override man's free choices would be a violation of His Word.
Sorry, you can't reconcile this with "God is love" without recourse to a corporate Adam.
That's a miscarriage of justice according to Ezek 18, according to which babes shall not suffer for the sins of the parents. Logically, the only way it is justifiable to visit the sins of the parents upon the children is if the children are equally guilty (in corporate Adam).Mankind is the cause of all suffering. And we (corporately) bear the consequence of that sin, even if it is visited very acutely and individually at times.
By the way, just to clarify, do you hold a view similar to Federalism, that Adam was our representative? In other words,is your theology Adam-centric?
If so, you need to address the various charges of contradiction that I leveled against federalism on the other thread. If not, you should explain how you manage to interpret Romans 5 without Adam-centricity.
Well duh. If justice is to be served, we should be suffering for that which is our fault, not for what someone else did. Yes, that's my basic answer (again, duh), and the difference between my answer and yours is that mine doesn't logically contradict justice.That's your basic answer: Infant suffering is our fault. It is caused by us (corporately.) And because God has given us freedom and dominion, the buck stops here.
Muz
Upvote
0