Romans 5:19 uses many to refer to those who are made sinners in Adam and also uses many for those who because of Jesus will be made righteous.

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

Not sure of what “assertion“ I made you need demonstrated? This assertion:

“Not to the degree where one must “impose”, “qualify”, or ”provide” a thought , word, or idea upon any given passage the author did not present in the immediate surrounding context?”

Demonstration from previous post:
“Here is an example. In Romans chapter 5 and 1st Corinthians 15 are in complete harmony with one another. Paul contrasts and compares the global effects of Adam’s disobedience and the global effects of Christs obedience. The grammatical structure of both passages leaves no ambiguity. In Adam “ALL” die just as in Christ “ALL” are made alive. The ALL in Adam = The Many in Christ. The Many in Adam = The ALL in Christ. This is indisputable … perfect harmony … One passage speaking to condemnation/justification and the other speaking to resurrection/consummation.“

blessings,

 

[Hoping2]

No. Your out of context verse mining has led to :
This. This belief is not biblical and a delusion.

Which "belief" ?
That sin lads to a second death ?
Or that rebirth is from God's seed ?

Believers with saving faith are in the light and do not practice sin but, in the flesh, will still sin.

If one is saved/converted, they are in the light...and that light is God, in whom is no sin ! (1 John 1:5)
We are no longer walking in and after the "flesh".
We walk in and after the Spirit. (Rom 8:9)

There would be no need to repent if we didn’t sin. So in your delusion, you don’t repent so the sins remain in you.

If a first repentance from sin, (turn from sin) is true, there won't be any return to it.
Further sin just manifests false repentances.

“If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭1‬:‭8‬-‭10‬ ‭NASB2020‬

Perfectly apt scripture, though addressing those walking in darkness/sin.
They cannot say they have no sin. (1 John 1:8)
Or that they have fellowship with God and His Son. (1 John 1:6)
Nor can they honestly say they even know God ! (1 John 2:3)
But those who walk in the light/God can respond in the affirmative to all those statements !
We can't walk in both at the same time.

 

[Hentenza]

Which "belief" ?
That sin lads to a second death ?
Or that rebirth is from God's seed ?

If one is saved/converted, they are in the light...and that light is God, in whom is no sin ! (1 John 1:5)
We are no longer walking in and after the "flesh".
We walk in and after the Spirit. (Rom 8:9)

If a first repentance from sin, (turn from sin) is true, there won't be any return to it.
Further sin just manifests false repentances.

Perfectly apt scripture, though addressing those walking in darkness/sin.
They cannot say they have no sin. (1 John 1:8)
Or that they have fellowship with God and His Son. (1 John 1:6)
Nor can they honestly say they even know God ! (1 John 2:3)
But those who walk in the light/God can respond in the affirmative to all those statements !
We can't walk in both at the same time.

Your interpretation is incorrect. Let’s look at the pronouns.

“This is the message WE have heard from Him and announce to YOU, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If WE say that WE have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, WE lie and do not practice the truth; but if WE walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, WE have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses US from all sin. If WE say that WE have no sin, WE are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in US. If WE confess OUR sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive US OUR sins and cleanse US from all unrighteousness. If WE say that WE have not sinned, WE make Him a liar and His word is not in US.” (Emphasis mine).
‭‭1 John‬ ‭1‬:‭5‬-‭10‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 John 1:5-10 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we l | New American Standard Bible - NAS

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we l

bible.com

So who are “we“ which, of course, includes the writer. John wrote this epistle to the churches and those who believe in the name of the Son of God. If you believe in the Son of God then this is directed at you.

“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5‬:‭13‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

bible.com

 

[Hoping2]

Your interpretation is incorrect. Let’s look at the pronouns.

“This is the message WE have heard from Him and announce to YOU, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If WE say that WE have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, WE lie and do not practice the truth; but if WE walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, WE have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses US from all sin. If WE say that WE have no sin, WE are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in US. If WE confess OUR sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive US OUR sins and cleanse US from all unrighteousness. If WE say that WE have not sinned, WE make Him a liar and His word is not in US.” (Emphasis mine).
‭‭1 John‬ ‭1‬:‭5‬-‭10‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 John 1:5-10 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we l | New American Standard Bible - NAS

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we l

bible.com

So who are “we“ which, of course, includes the writer. John wrote this epistle to the churches and those who believe in the name of the Son of God. If you believe in the Son of God then this is directed at you.

“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5‬:‭13‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

bible.com

Some of the verses of 1 John 1 apply to those who walk in sin/darkness. (6,8,10)
Other apply to those who walk (or about to start their walk) in God/the light. (5,7,9)
Verse 7 says ALL our sins can be washed away.
Verse 9 says ALL our unrighteousness can be cleansed.
Why can't those people say they have no sin ?
They can, and if their repentance from sin stands true, they will never sin again.
STAY IN THE LIGHT !

 

[Hentenza]

Some of the verses of 1 John 1 apply to those who walk in sin/darkness. (6,8,10)

Does the Apostle John walk in darkness?

 

[Hoping2]

Does the Apostle John walk in darkness?

I would think not.
As he wrote about what is available in the light/God, I feel he would have availed himself of his own prophesy.
In the light/God, he could have fellowship with God and His Son.
And, he could say he knew God.
And, all his past sins had been washed away by the blood of Christ.
He wouldn't have been able to do any of that from in the darkness/sin.

 

[Hentenza]

I would think not.
As he wrote about what is available in the light/God, I feel he would have availed himself of his own prophesy.
In the light/God, he could have fellowship with God and His Son.
And, he could say he knew God.
And, all his past sins had been washed away by the blood of Christ.
He wouldn't have been able to do any of that from in the darkness/sin.

Which is why your interpretation does not hold water. By using the pronouns “we” and “our” John is including himself in the conversation. So if you say that those verses refer only to those walking in darkness then you are saying that the Apostle John walks in darkness.

 

[Clare73]

Not sure of what “assertion“ I made you need demonstrated?

That would be yours of post #39, which assertion has no Biblical merit without Biblical demonstration thereof.

Crickets. . .

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

Just another typical deflection … comparing apples to oranges. Good Grief …

And yet we use "sovereign" and "Trinity," neither of which words are in Scripture, but which concepts are there.

While "impute, reckon, credit" (logizomai) are presented in Ro 4:3, 5, 6, 8, 9,11, 22,23, 24, 5:17-19.

My quote: “Free2bHeretical4Him! said:
Not to the degree where one must “impose”, “qualify”, or ”provide” a thought , word, or idea upon any given passage the author did not present in the immediate surrounding context.”

Answer:
Above is my comment concerning the issue I have with you qualifying “The Many” in Romans 5 to not being the same as “The All.” In your post #2 you stated the following:

Your quote: “"Many" neither necessarily includes nor excludes "all," so you interpret it in the light of all the NT. . .”

I maintained regardless of the use of “many/all” in the NT it has no bearing on the way Paul was using them in Romans 5. The grammatical structure of Romans 5 leaves no question to Paul’s use/application of them. “The All” and “The Many” are equal one the other. That is just a fact …

I asked you to demonstrate how the use of “all/many” in the NT could have any bearing on Paul’s use in Romans 5. You provided nothing.

That is why I maintain each passage of Scripture should be able to stand on its own. I then provided you with a comparison to Paul’s use of “The All” in Romans 5 with Paul’s use of “all” in 1st Corinthians 15. Same application. “In Adam all” (just as) “In Christ all”. The grammatical structure leaves no ambiguity on Paul’s use of them in that passage. Thus the use of “all” in the NT has no bearing on that passage.That is how Scripture interprets Scripture. That is not playing games with God’s word nor is it an attempt to “overthrow” the concept that Scripture interprets Scripture.

Note: you never demonstrated how I was “playing games with the word of God.

Then you reply with the sovereign and trinity comment along with the other words like impute, reckon and credit. Like I challenged you on their use in Romans 5? I did not. You were engaging our brother Jeff concerning those words. I have no issue with any of those words.

I am speaking about preserving the integrity of the passage at hand and not letting one’s theological position to dictate the plain reading and intent of the author in the immediate surrounding text. Not if we use words like trinity that aren’t actually in the Scriptures. Now, try to impose trinity in to a text and I would have an issue.

Thus your reply with sovereignty/trinity is irrelevant, has no bearing on what I was saying and, in my opinion, evasive in its intent.

Blessings,

 

[Hentenza]

That is why I maintain each passage of Scripture should be able to stand on its own.

This is a hermeneutics disaster in progress. No verse was ever written to stand in an island devoid of literary and/or cultural context, author purpose, etc. My brother this answers why you attempt to support error.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

This is a hermeneutics disaster in progress. No verse was ever written to stand in an island devoid of literary and/or cultural context, author purpose, etc. My brother this answers why you attempt to support error.

What you have just articulated in the above is exactly what I mean by “stand on its own.” My hermeneutics is just fine brother. You would have to read the exchange between myself and Clare73 to understand the context of my statement. If by error you mean my position on Universal Reconciliation I am quite comfortable with where I rest in the Scripture.

 

[Hentenza]

What you have just articulated in the above is exactly what I mean by “stand on its own.” My hermeneutics is just fine brother. You would have to read the exchange between myself and Clare73 to understand the context of my statement. If by error you mean my position on Universal Reconciliation I am quite comfortable with where I rest in the Scripture.

No passage of scripture should ever stand on its own. But this is what you suggest.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

No passage of scripture should ever stand on its own. But this is what you suggest.

Feel free, as I suggested, to read through the exchange between myself and Clare73 to gain understanding of my statement. What you are doing is a perfect example of not taking my statement in context. I agreed with your statement of what is entailed in understanding a passage so why are you pushing against me without first understanding the context? I spent enough time in my exchange with Clare73 so I’m not going to reconstruct said exchange just to defend my statement to you.

 

[Hentenza]

Feel free, as I suggested, to read through the exchange between myself and Clare73 to gain understanding of my statement. What you are doing is a perfect example of not taking my statement in context. I agreed with your statement of what is entailed in understanding a passage so why are you pushing against me without first understanding the context? I spent enough time in my exchange with Clare73 so I’m not going to reconstruct said exchange just to defend my statement to you.

Ok then. But it is still a strange statement to make.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

Ok then. But it is still a strange statement to make.

I apologize for being rather curt in my reply … It was an abbreviated statement that Clare73 would understand as to what I was referring. I wasn’t thinking about clarity for outside readers. Here is just a snippet of what I mean:

All interpretation must be in agreement with all the NT to be correct,

Not to the degree where one must “impose”, “qualify”, or ”provide” a thought , word, or idea upon any given passage the author did not present in the immediate surrounding context. Such forced interpretations will do nothing but add confusion to the authors original idea and intent. It is far better to simply say “I don’t know“ and revisit one’s theological position. Again. Any given txt must be able and allowed to stand alone with the intent the author had in mind when writing the passage. We must pursue harmony within the Scripture without stepping on the toes of the authors original intent and design for writing the passage in question.

Here is an example. In Romans chapter 5 and 1st Corinthians 15 are in complete harmony with one another. Paul contrasts and compares the global effects of Adam’s disobedience and the global effects of Christs obedience. The grammatical structure of both passages leaves no ambiguity. In Adam “ALL” die just as in Christ “ALL” are made alive. The ALL in Adam = The Many in Christ. The Many in Adam = The ALL in Christ. This is indisputable … perfect harmony … One passage speaking to condemnation/justification and the other speaking to resurrection/consummation.

Paul and his readers didn’t have the complied NT as we have today. No study aids etc … I feel quite certain Paul knew of his intent for the audience to whom he was writing and meant exactly what he said. I’m equally certain his readers, more than likely, had a fairly good grasp of what he was saying. No need to “reinterpret“ what he meant by how he used “The All/The Many” in this passage and its immediate surrounding context. If this passage harmonizes with other passages of Scripture, particularly Paul’s epistles, as I demonstrated, then we have harmony.

 

[Hentenza]

I apologize for being rather curt in my reply … It was an abbreviated statement that Clare73 would understand as to what I was referring. I wasn’t thinking about clarity for outside readers. Here is just a snippet of what I mean:

No problem. All is well.

Not to the degree where one must “impose”, “qualify”, or ”provide” a thought , word, or idea upon any given passage the author did not present in the immediate surrounding context. Such forced interpretations will do nothing but add confusion to the authors original idea and intent. It is far better to simply say “I don’t know“ and revisit one’s theological position. Again. Any given txt must be able and allowed to stand alone with the intent the author had in mind when writing the passage. We must pursue harmony within the Scripture without stepping on the toes of the authors original intent and design for writing the passage in question.

Here is an example. In Romans chapter 5 and 1st Corinthians 15 are in complete harmony with one another. Paul contrasts and compares the global effects of Adam’s disobedience and the global effects of Christs obedience. The grammatical structure of both passages leaves no ambiguity. In Adam “ALL” die just as in Christ “ALL” are made alive. The ALL in Adam = The Many in Christ. The Many in Adam = The ALL in Christ. This is indisputable … perfect harmony … One passage speaking to condemnation/justification and the other speaking to resurrection/consummation.

Paul and his readers didn’t have the complied NT as we have today. No study aids etc … I feel quite certain Paul knew of his intent for the audience to whom he was writing and meant exactly what he said. I’m equally certain his readers, more than likely, had a fairly good grasp of what he was saying. No need to “reinterpret“ what he meant by how he used “The All/The Many” in this passage and its immediate surrounding context. If this passage harmonizes with other passages of Scripture, particularly Paul’s epistles, as I demonstrated, then we have harmony.

But I still don’t see how this advances your argument. All means all in some instances but in others it just means all of a subset for example.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

No problem. All is well.

But I still don’t see how this advances your argument. All means all in some instances but in others it just means all of a subset for example.

Agreed. … and in this passage “the all” is all and “the many” is all and that is all I mean to say. It matters not that in some cases all can be a subset. It is not the case in this passage.

 

[Hoping2]

Which is why your interpretation does not hold water. By using the pronouns “we” and “our” John is including himself in the conversation. So if you say that those verses refer only to those walking in darkness then you are saying that the Apostle John walks in darkness.

You just need to understand that he was writing about two different kinds of people.
One kind walked in the light/God.
The other kind walked in darkness/sin.
We can't walk in both at the same time...as there is no sin in God.