Patching the Israel-flaw in Covenant Theology

[JAL]

Because the Bible does not teach re-incarnation.

Um...yes it does. There is no viable explanation of the Fall other than ourselves as reincarnations of Adam.

 

[Al Touthentop]

What He WANTED to do was to point the finger at His contemporaries. That's precisely what He did.

It fell upon us to make sense of it. Until now, nobody has done so. Hence my proposal.

Wow. In 2000 years, you're the first guy to ever figure this out. I feel really sorry for all of those people in the past who didn't get it.

The problem with Sola-Scriptura people is that they assume that every passage is supposed to be clear - the so-called perspicuity of Scripture. I subscribe to a wholly different epistemology, grounded in conscience and pinnacled in direct revelation. Thus it is only under the light of the Holy Spirit can we expect to reliably interpret Scripture. In other words exegesis is a bit of a crap shoot. What we need is prophetic revelation (1Cor 14:1).

Nobody says every passage is to be clear. If they do, then they argue with the apostle Peter who says that some things are hard to understand.

But, since the Holy Spirit did inspire every author, the entire Bible is in fact prophetic revelation.

But certainly I'm no prophet, so I have to rely on exegesis for the moment. The difference is, I do NOT assume that Scripture is always clear. I do NOT presume the perspicuity of Scripture.

Nor should you. But to explain away the simple with novel ideas that can't be supported by any of the rest of the text, is really poor exegesis. If you're going to theorize, it has to be supported by the text as Isaiah wrote:

"Precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little.'

 

[JAL]

Please briefly share with me your own views of Adam. Some people are not aware of the many flaws in traditional views of Adam. I'll be happy to point them out.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Um...yes it does. There is no viable explanation of the Fall other than ourselves as reincarnations of Adam.

There's a perfectly simple explanation. The one that's written. We're all descended from Adam. He coveted what he was forbidden to have and disobeyed God. He was forced out of the garden and had children. How is it that we are unexplainable in that scenario? What is unexplainable about us?

 

[JAL]

Wow. In 2000 years, you're the first guy to ever figure this out. I feel really sorry for all of those people in the past who didn't get it.

This is an inappropriate response. Men said the same to Martin Luther and John Calvin. There is nothing wrong with pioneering a point of view.

 

[JAL]

There's a perfectly simple explanation. The one that's written. We're all descended from Adam. He coveted what he was forbidden to have and disobeyed God. He was forced out of the garden and had children. How is it that we are unexplainable in that scenario? What is unexplainable about us?

Ok a little more clarity. How do you see Adam? As our representative?
And do we have a sin nature from Adam?

 

[JAL]

Because the Bible does not teach re-incarnation.

Theologians don't always admit the problems with the traditional views of Adam. Occasionally you get wind of it when you read something like this:

"We were all physically present in Adam, so that we all sinned in his act".

That's funny. Sounds a lot like my position. Those words are from the systematic theology of Millard J. Erickson - a standard textbook in today's seminaries.

 

[JAL]

There's a perfectly simple explanation. The one that's written. We're all descended from Adam. He coveted what he was forbidden to have and disobeyed God. He was forced out of the garden and had children. How is it that we are unexplainable in that scenario? What is unexplainable about us?

You cited Ezekiel 18 earlier. Good. As it says, a son shall not pay for the sins of his father. How then do you justify the world suffering the consequences of Adam's sin? Including his very own children?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Please briefly share with me your own views of Adam. Some people are not aware of the many flaws in traditional views of Adam. I'll be happy to point them out.

Adam received the grace of God. He had an expiration date. God put the tree of life in the garden but Adam and Eve never ate of that tree. They didn't get around to it or weren't really interested in it; we don't know why. But a tree that made one live forever would be useless to a person who was already slated to live forever. So Adam was not going to live forever unless he hate of that tree.

He failed to appreciate the grace God had given him. Satan tried to convince Eve that God was withholding grace. There was more. Now had Adam and Eve truly appreciated the grace God had given them, they would have no desire for something that God had withheld. Eve, believing the serpant, took of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and took a bite. She didn't die physically. But that wasn't what God meant. He meant that they would not be in fellowship with him. And immediately her relationship with God, and Adam's when he ate of the fruit, died. They, of their own will, removed themselves from God's protection.

And when they realized their nakedness, something that wasn't part of the laws God had laid down, but then made known by their partaking of the fruit, they again failed to turn to God and confess what they had done, but tried to cover up their own sin by their own means. Having no relationship with God anymore, they didn't know what was required to make up for their sin. As God kicked them out of the garden, he sacrificed two animals to pay for their sin and then covered them with the animal skins. And from then on, we see that the way to atone for sins was the death of an animal.

And this is exactly what we do. We fail to recognize God's favor and want more. We make our own Gods and worship them thinking we'll have better than what God can provide us. We don't recognize that our very lives and souls were gifts from God. So we disobey.

God took away the tree of life to prevent Adam and Eve from living forever. And thus they left the garden and lived to the age they were already designed to reach and had children and began populating the earth as they were commanded to do.

 

[JAL]

See post 47

Adam received the grace of God. He had an expiration date. God put the tree of life in the garden but Adam and Eve never ate of that tree. They didn't get around to it or weren't really interested in it; we don't know why. But a tree that made one live forever would be useless to a person who was already slated to live forever. So Adam was not going to live forever unless he hate of that tree.

He failed to appreciate the grace God had given him. Satan tried to convince Eve that God was withholding grace. There was more. Now had Adam and Eve truly appreciated the grace God had given them, they would have no desire for something that God had withheld. Eve, believing the serpant, took of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and took a bite. She didn't die physically. But that wasn't what God meant. He meant that they would not be in fellowship with him. And immediately her relationship with God, and Adam's when he ate of the fruit, died. They, of their own will, removed themselves from God's protection.

And when they realized their nakedness, something that wasn't part of the laws God had laid down, but then made known by their partaking of the fruit, they again failed to turn to God and confess what they had done, but tried to cover up their own sin by their own means. Having no relationship with God anymore, they didn't know what was required to make up for their sin. As God kicked them out of the garden, he sacrificed two animals to pay for their sin and then covered them with the animal skins. And from then on, we see that the way to atone for sins was the death of an animal.

And this is exactly what we do. We fail to recognize God's favor and want more. We make our own Gods and worship them thinking we'll have better than what God can provide us. We don't recognize that our very lives and souls were gifts from God. So we disobey.

God took away the tree of life to prevent Adam and Eve from living forever. And thus they left the garden and lived to the age they were already designed to reach and had children and began populating the earth as they were commanded to do.

See post 48. You don't seem to be addressing the key issues. All you've said is that Adam and Eve sinned. Not sure why you needed that many words to say it.

 

[JAL]

At least it was a start. So let's get the show on the road, shall we? Scripture teaches that sin entered the world through Adam - and yet Eve sinned first !!!!

That's funny. Another problem passage. Oh, woops, it's not a problem passage for me. My claim is that Adam's soul is a material soul. Eve was derived from his ribs. Thus Eve was already a reincarnation of Adam. Therefore sin entered the world through Adam.

 

[Al Touthentop]

You cited Ezekiel 18 earlier. Good. As it says, a son shall not pay for the sins of his father. How then do you justify the world suffering the consequences of Adam's sin? Including his very own children?

They aren't suffering the consequences of Adam's sin. They can't be. God says he does not punish the sons with the sins of the fathers. Therefore, worldly hardships are not punishment. We know what the actual punishment is for sin. And bad people on earth seemingly suffer no hardships. They live in mansions and fly to other countries for lunch. God blesses the whole world in spite of its sin. See the rain? The animals for food? The farms? The ocean? The birds of the sky? We aren't punished on earth, we're blessed. Everyday we wake up, sinner or saved, God has given us grace.

The consequence of sin is eternal damnation. Permanent removal from God's grace. We have a way to avoid that, as did the Jews under the Mosaic law. It just happens to be a different method. Instead of many animals, one sacrifice.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Theologians don't always admit the problems with the traditional views of Adam. Occasionally you get wind of it when you read something like this:

"We were all physically present in Adam, so that we all sinned in his act".

That's funny. Sounds a lot like my position. Those words are from the systematic theology of Millard J. Erickson - a standard textbook in today's seminaries.

How about showing me a scripture that says that.

 

[JAL]

They aren't suffering the consequences of Adam's sin.

Then why am I not born in the garden as Adam was?
Why are fetuses in the womb suffering disease, starvation, injury, etc? When did they sin?

 

[Al Touthentop]

At least it was a start. So let's get the show on the road, shall we? Scripture teaches that sin entered the world through Adam - and yet Eve sinned first !!!!

Basically you are arguing with the authority of the scripture. The fact that you don't understand why Adam was charged with the sin, is not evidence that the scripture is in error. It is you who is in error.

There is no point in having a conversation with somebody who tries to argue with the scripture itself. Good morning. Good luck.

 

[JAL]

How about showing me a scripture that says that.

How about finding me a Scripture that uses the word Trinity?

If you can resolve the problem of Adam without recourse to my solution, I concede to you this part of the debate. But the truth is, there is no other solution, based on 2,000 years of failed attempts.

 

[JAL]

Basically you are arguing with the authority of the scripture. The fact that you don't understand why Adam was charged with the sin, is not evidence that the scripture is in error. It is you who is in error.

There is no point in having a conversation with somebody who tries to argue with the scripture itself. Good morning. Good luck.

As expected. You have no solution.

 

[JAL]

Basically you are arguing with the authority of the scripture. The fact that you don't understand why Adam was charged with the sin, is not evidence that the scripture is in error. It is you who is in error.

Where did I say that Scripture is in error? This is nonsense.

 

[JAL]

In response to:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Mat 24:34)

You wrote:

Only if he was talking about his second coming. He wasn't. He was prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem. That's a time passage. God's time passages must be respected. The near demonstrative pronoun there is specific (αὕτη). Had he wanted to indicate a time long in the future he wouldn't have said it that way.

He wasn't talking about his Second Coming? The disciples asked Him:

“Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (24:3).

To which Jesus responded:

30“Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth c will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory...Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

The disciples had no expectation of dying. They expected to see the end-time sign. Throughout the passage, He speaks to them as though they WILL indeed be alive for His return. He speaks the same way in Luke's version, for example. He never says, "Don't worry about it, as you won't be alive to see that end-time sign of my coming".

Again, you can fudge through this passage. But for me it's not even a problem passage. It is precisely the kind of language that I would EXPECT Jesus to use.

Even though the language he used seems to be talking about the Judgement Day, it must not be.

Or, He meant exactly what He said. For me there is nothing confusing or misleading about the language.

 

[JAL]

They aren't suffering the consequences of Adam's sin. They can't be. God says he does not punish the sons with the sins of the fathers. Therefore, worldly hardships are not punishment...The consequence of sin is eternal damnation.

You've conveniently limited the 'consequences' of Adam's sin to hell, as to dismiss the other consequences - such as death. There is no longer any Tree of Life for us to live forever. Originally, Adam and Eve experienced the glory of God as a covering obviating the need for clothing, and literally walked with Him in the garden. Look at Gen 3:16-19. It seems pretty clear that a curse befell mankind on account of the Fall. Paul even said:

"By the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man...One trespass resulted in condemnation for all people...Through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners" (Rom 5).

And yet you claim there were no consequences for us? Population studies suggest 100 billion people have lived and died to date. A God who visits the sins of one man upon 100 billion innocent people is a monster. Are you aware of Charles Hodges' so-called "defense" of this travesty? He admitted that we'd normally classify such a ruler as an evil tyrant, but since it was God, He gets a free pass! And it contradicts Ezekiel 18 !!!!

And if you deny that we have a sinful nature from Adam, you are left with another problem. Why not salvation by works? If we are born innocent:
(1) There is no need for the cross
(2) Paul was wrong when he said that all had sinned
(3) In fact there were infants in his day that definitely had NOT sinned.

I asked you two questions earlier. You did not respond.
(1) Do we have a sinful nature from Adam?
(2) Was he our representative?