Romans 9 Is Not About Predestination!

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Clete,
If you're going to post so sanctimoniously claiming to defend the honor of God, you'd do well to respond to my various charges on this thread that the mainstream view of God's holiness deprives it of any merit. The "universally understood" (your words) definition of merit is that it is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over time. Thus you cannot consider innate qualities worthy of praise. For example if a man is lazy but is filthy rich, he has no merit, compared to a man born dirt poor who labored/suffered for many years to become wealthy.

Again, the cross proves this definition of merit. Without suffering, the cross merits no praise, it would not be worthy of praise. What we need is a world view where God labors to become holy (skilled, knowledgeable, powerful, pure, zealous), as my simple materialism allows.

I cannot take seriously a world view that ignores the problem of merit.

You shouldn't post so disparagingly of others views while you still have unresolved issues.
 
Upvote 0

Clete

Active Member
Dec 19, 2019
120
47
54
Tomball, TX
✟10,542.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Amazing. This whole post suggests a complete inability to understand what I wrote. You didn't even detect which questions were rhetorical and thus thought I was implying the exact opposite of what I intended. I guess you're just in too much of a hurry. Before you continually call someone a blasphemer, you might want to try to understand what's being said.
Look man, all I know how to do is to read what your write. It is not my responsibility to figure out what you mean. If I misunderstood then clarify. Otherwise, my post stands as writen.

That's twice I've told you that. It will be the last.
 
Upvote 0

Clete

Active Member
Dec 19, 2019
120
47
54
Tomball, TX
✟10,542.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, Clete, the analogy doesn't apply to MY understanding of God and Adam. It applies to YOURs. By calling it blasphemous, you've only labeled yourself and your own view. MY theory of Adam isn't faced with that charge. That's the whole point.

Are you still not getting this?
You're lying. I explained how the analogy would work in under my doctrine. Your analogy has nothing at all to do with what I believe, which you had to know when you wrote this.
 
Upvote 0

Clete

Active Member
Dec 19, 2019
120
47
54
Tomball, TX
✟10,542.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That whole post was one of the most sanctimonious posts I've ever seen. You're making it exceedingly hard for me to see how this is not dancing.
He couldn't? Really? Impossible for an infinite God to simply start over with Bob and Sally?
Nope!

As I explained in more detail in my sanctimonious post, hypocrite!

Ok so now you are conceding that it is theoretically possible.
The one sentence immediately preceded the other. Maybe try reading through my entire post before posting something idiotic and sanctimonious.


That's funny, because you just called me a blasphemer when I suggested that same possibility - in fact it was the whole point of my post, and you dismissed the entire post as blasphemy, even threatened to click the ignore button.
That wasn't the blasphemous part. Duh!

Care to explain why the results need be the same if God started over with Bob and Sally? I thought you believed in free will? So why is it necessary that Bob and Sally would fall after the fashion of Adam and Eve?
Because God did it right the first time! It could not have been done any better! Do you really believe that you're smarter than God and that it would have been better had you been in charge and commanded that the whole thing be scrapped and started over from scratch? Is that really what you believe?

That is so sanctimonious it's not even funny. Where did I say that God could have done it better than He did?
When you suggested an alternative to what God actually did and then said that's the way you would have done it! That, and when you displayed a total lack of understand of what God's "curse" was. It was not a punishment, it was a mercy.

All I've said is that He DID do it better than YOUR reading implies. In MY theory of Adam, God's behavior is a lot better than in YOUR theory of Adam.
By what standard? Your own?

(Sigh) And I'm telling you, once again, that the fix is not in debate here. Can we depart from the strawmen, please?
I can only go by what is written in your own posts. I respond to the words that you yourself have typed. I'm not making any of this up as I go.

He DIDN'T mess it up! Not on MY reading! YOUR reading is the one that makes it look like God messed it up.
You're delusional.

Can anyone make sense of this conversation?
What it sounds to me like is that you think I believe something that I don't believe and are debating me like I'm your average Catholic or Baptist or whatever who believes in the doctrine of original sin.

We did not inherent guilt from Adam. Corruption begets corruption and thus we did inherit his corrupted nature which Paul calls "the flesh" but that isn't at all the same thing as "original sin" which teaches that we are conceived deserving Hell fire, which is antithetical to anything remotely associated with anyone's idea of justice, not to mention the fact that it is directly contradicted by large tracts of scripture, the most blatantly obvious being Ezekiel 18.

This "flesh" Paul speaks of is passed through the father, which is why it was necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin. The Catholics stupidly believe that it was Mary's conception that was immaculate because they fail to understand this simple concept, never realizing that if the flesh is passed through the mother, their solution only backs the problem up one generation.

When Jesus died and rose from the dead, the righteous act of the last Adam undid the unrighteous act of first Adam. Thus, by virtue of Christ's death, there is no danger of anyone going to Hell or being otherwise punished for anything other than the sins that they themselves choose to commit.

Now, that's all perfectly normal Christian doctrine. There are millions of Christians all over the planet that believe what I just said. There's not one Christian in 10,000 that believe a syllable of your "theory" which is intend to fix a problem that does not exist and which is 100% foreign to anything that resembles normal Christian doctrine or anything biblical for that matter.

"Adamic particles"! I mean you can't even be serious! It's laughably ridiculous and asinine in the extreme. You have zero chance of getting me to take it seriously for even one second.

Clete
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You're lying. I explained how the analogy would work in under my doctrine. Your analogy has nothing at all to do with what I believe, which you had to know when you wrote this.
I don't engage in dishonest debating. What I'm saying is that YOUR view of Adam doesn't exonerate God of impropriety. Recall that even G.C.Berkouwer had no solution, as I documented in an earlier post. You are SAYING that your view accomplishes this but I don't see how.

Look, an infinitely kind God should not even create a world where it is POSSIBLE for the sin of one man to have consequences for the entire human race. That's not maximally kind. In MY system that's not an issue for two reasons:
(1) ALL of us sinned in Adam, corporately, as one material soul (later redistributed). I am Adam. You are Adam. The only soul who suffers consequences is the Adam who sinned.
(2) God is not infinite! (Although this point probably isn't relevant to our debate over Adam).

In YOUR system it IS an issue. Because "such universally understood concepts as love and justice" simply do not allow the sin of one man to have consequences for 100 billion people. What am I missing here? You would NEVER treat your kids that way if you had other options. I certainly wouldn't.

You are saying that I'm a liar, you are saying that you've clearly and fully exonerated you're system of impropriety. I am not lying to you. To meet that burden, you have to do at least two things:
(1) Establish that starting over with Bob and Sally wasn't a viable option.
(2) Establish why THIS kind of world (a world of consequences) was NECESSARY.
Note that #2 seems impossible. Why so? Because the existence of the angels proves that this kind of world was NOT necessary. For example it is not as though, when Lucifer sinned, he thereby caused 100 billion fetuses to suffer in the womb. There were no such consequences. Only those angels who actually sinned suffered the consequences. So how can you sit here and tell me that God had NO OTHER OPTIONS but to create a world like this, and then curse 100 billion innocent people with the consequences of Adam's sin? You sit here and espouse a seemingly absurd position - a position flatly contradicted by the very facticity of angels - meanwhile calling me a liar and blasphemer?
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It could not have been done any better! Do you really believe that you're smarter than God and that it would have been better had you been in charge and commanded that the whole thing be scrapped and started over from scratch? Is that really what you believe?
Um...That's what I said. God COULDN'T have done it any better - because MY theory of Adam allow for that conclusion. Yours does not. Are you able to understand anything I am saying? I guess not.
 
Upvote 0

Clete

Active Member
Dec 19, 2019
120
47
54
Tomball, TX
✟10,542.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You seem to be equivocating. In that post you said that:
(1) We receive a nature from our father.
(2) Christ escaped corruption for lack of an earthly father.

Then elsewhere you seem to say that we DIDN'T get a sinful nature from our father. Can anyone make sense of this? I'm just trying to understand. I think my initial reading of you was fairly plausible given your statements 1 and 2.
If I said that it was a typo. I'd have to see the post. We did not inherit guilt from Adam or from anyone else. We are held guilty only for the sins we ourselves choose to commit.

Do we, or don't we get a nature from earthly faither? If so, what is the "nature of this nature" that we receive and Christ did not receive, for lack of an earthly father?
Have you not read the New Testament?

I don't understand how anyone who calls themselves a Christian can even ask this question.

Read Romans 7. That's the only answer I know how to tell you.
 
Upvote 0

Clete

Active Member
Dec 19, 2019
120
47
54
Tomball, TX
✟10,542.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well you are free to disagree with the passage, but predestination is part of Romans 9-11 which make up the whole context of this part of Romans.

YOu said passages need to be consistent with the whole thought on it and stand alone as well!

Well look at these verses standing alone.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

God has mercy on who HE will have mercy on and hardens who HE wishes to harden.

You should parese verse 22, especially the verb "fitted". It is in the passive
voice which means that being fitted for destruction is done to them not by them!

So while the bigger context in Romans 9-11 is the glory of God demonstrated in Israel (and as a sub them the gentiles) predestination is definitely a subject in the discourse.
I never denied that Paul speaks about predestination. My post proves that Romans chapter 9 is not about predestination at all. That doesn't mean that Paul didn't ever talk about the issue at all just not in chapter 9 which is what you Cavlinist constantly want everyone to believe. You rip the potter and the clay story out of its context, as well as the story about Abraham's twin sons and want to use them to say that God predestines individuals to either heaven or hell for no reason whatsoever, which is obviously false to anyone who knows that God is just.

Clete
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
By what standard? Your own?
Spoken like a Calvinist! By "such universally understood concepts as love and justice" (your words).

What it sounds to me like is that you think I believe something that I don't believe and are debating me like I'm your average Catholic or Baptist or whatever who believes in the doctrine of original sin.
No, many of my objections aren't hinged on that assumption. For God to even allow starvation, injury, neglect, disease, etc, to befall Adam's descendants isn't maximal kindness and justice - UNLESS they sinned corporately in Adam, as my view asserts. Gen 3 has Him cursing the whole human race. Why? It makes sense on MY reading of Adam. How does it make sense on yours?

We did not inherent guilt from Adam. Corruption begets corruption and thus we did inherit his corrupted nature which Paul calls "the flesh" but that isn't at all the same thing as "original sin" which teaches that we are conceived deserving Hell fire, which is antithetical to anything remotely associated with anyone's idea of justice, not to mention the fact that it is directly contradicted by large tracts of scripture, the most blatantly obvious being Ezekiel 18.
Ok so we ARE born with a corrupt nature, then? If so
(1) How? It is logically incoherent to claim that corruption begets corruption. Corruption cannot be PASSED - because sin isn't something that HAPPENS to me. Look Donald Bloesch admitted that traditional thinking cannot explain a transmission of corruption. Why can't you admit it? If he's wrong, explain how it's possible.
(2) How is this maximal kindness? Just because Adam sinned, 100 billion people get a corrupt nature that makes them all the more likely to end up in hell?
(3) I don't see how you can keep claiming that this is not a version of original sin. I think you need to look up the term in Wikipedia. Original Sin pretty much encompasses any doctrine that claims that Adam's sin bore consequences for mankind.

This "flesh" Paul speaks of is passed through the father, which is why it was necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin.
(Um...and you say this is NOT a version of original sin. OK if you say so). What do you mean exactly by the flesh? Earlier you said the taint was not biological, if I recall correctly? So what is this flesh? Is it the sinful nature? How does it taint us? If not, what are you trying to say here?

When Jesus died and rose from the dead, the righteous act of the last Adam undid the unrighteous act of first Adam. Thus, by virtue of Christ's death, there is no danger of anyone going to Hell or being otherwise punished for anything other than the sins that they themselves choose to commit.
Huh? That's a non-statement. The soul who sins shall die. That defines justice even if Christ had never atoned. So, in other words, you just said literally nothing about the cross. Zero. Which is okay because that's not the crux of the debate.

Now, that's all perfectly normal Christian doctrine. There are millions of Christians all over the planet that believe what I just said.
No, what you just said wouldn't make sense to any Christian because it shows an inability to comprehend justice.


There's not one Christian in 10,000 that believe a syllable of your "theory" which is intend to fix a problem that does not exist and which is 100% foreign to anything that resembles normal Christian doctrine or anything biblical for that matter.
Truth is a popularity contest? So the church fathers should have remained silent, then? After all, if they were to write something that wasn't already popular belief, we should have thrown it away? You're not making any sense. And it's not a good marker because probably not one Christian in 10,000 will do anything more than sit in the pew totally unaware of the travesties of Plato's legacy and the resulting incoherence of many traditional doctrines. If you want to base your doctrines on what the average pew-member believes, good luck with that.

"Adamic particles"! I mean you can't even be serious! It's laughably ridiculous and asinine in the extreme.
No problem. Just resolve the basic contradiction inherent to an immaterial soul. Which you ignored. Here it is again - and Charles Hodge admitted he had no solution. An immaterial mind cannot interact with a material body. To say it can is like speaking of square circles. If you want specific examples of this principle, just ask. But I think you won't because, after all, ignorance is bliss.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
This seems to be the denial of the parallel. Christ conferred Life on many. Adam conferred Death on - himself alone? How is that a parallel? Paul reiterated the parallel elsewhere, "As in Adam all die, so all in Christ will be made alive" (1Cor 15:22). I just don't see how any other reading is faithful to Paul's words.

When we sin we put ourselves "in Adam." We are not born in him.
You're saying that Ezekiel 18 excludes the possibility of us sinning corporately in Adam. That's just not true.

It's absolutely true.

“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Ezek merely states that those who sinned shall pay. That's my position. Unfortunately your view has fetuses suffering who have not even sinned yet - in flat contradiction to Ezek 18, so thanks for bringing it up.

You're not telling the truth. Your straw man regarding my position is one you knock down yourself and then think you've made some amazing rhetorical point. Ezekiel states that God does not charge the son with the sin of the father. We are NOT charged with Adam's sin and God unequivocally says so and mocks those who claim that the sons pay for the sins of the father. In fact he calls such an assertion "unfair."

So everyone has to die even if there is no sin in the world. That doesn't sound very kind on God's part. Seems to me a valid theodicy will always gravitate towards maximum kindness on God's part. Also it seems textually week since God pronounces death as part of the universal curse in Gen 3, "to dust you shall return." The CONTEXT is cursing. THAT is where a return to dust - and thus death - is pronounced. I'm not saying your reading is impossible but it's hardly the most plausible reading.

You have a very low opinion of God who has already refuted your blasphemy. Adam was already going to return to dust. He blew his opportunity to be mortal when he failed to eat of the tree of life. Part of not having the knowledge of good and evil is having the knowledge of good. Had he had any knowledge of good, the first fruit he would have eaten was the fruit of the tree of life.

So the problem I have is that, if all children are born pure, why don't they see God like Abraham, Moses, Christ, and all the major prophets? Why don't they all see the angels like Elijah did? Why aren't they all filled with the Holy Spirit from birth, like John the Baptist was? You're entitled to disagree, but I just don't believe it.

None of those is required for children to be born pure. In fact Jesus tells us that they are pure and that we should become like them.

Matthew 18:3
Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. 3“Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

It would be ridiculous to tell people to become like children if they are born in sin. He was telling us to be born again and become as we were when we were children. When you're born again, you have no sin, just like a child.


What I see in children is that, from the getgo, they manifest a sinful nature.

Jesus and Paul didn't. Your view is wrong. It isn't supported by scripture. If it is, it would be taught somewhere other than the scriptures you misunderstand. Children have their own wills and it takes training before they understand what good behavior is or what bad behavior is for that matter. They are born without sin and until they know what is either good or bad, they are alive to God and dead to sin, just exactly as Paul wrote.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well, yes, but Paul and his ministry wasn't the original plan. The idea was that Christ would return before many of his disciples died (Matthew 16:28), set up Israel's Kingdom and preach the gospel to all nations with Christ reigning as King in Israel (Matthew 28:18-20 and elsewhere). This was what was prophesied from at least as far back as Daniel chapter 9 but it was stopped (paused) because of Israel's unbelief (Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18).

It was not stopped at all. This is dispensationalist teaching. There is only one way to God now and that is through Christ. Daniel's prophecies were perfectly fulfilled and in the time determined by God.

So when Israel's program was ended and God turned instead to the Gentiles there was this transition period where you had two separate groups of believers. One was primarily in Jerusalem and had sold all their Earthly possessions in anticipation of Christ's imminent return and who were still under the law because the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). The other being those saved by faith only apart from the law (Romans 4:5).

God did not turn INSTEAD to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were always to be included. He reconciled Jews and Gentiles into one body just as was prophesied. Any Jew can become a Christian. The old law was cut off, not individual Jews.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"Adamic particles"! I mean you can't even be serious! It's laughably ridiculous and asinine in the extreme. You have zero chance of getting me to take it seriously for even one second.
Wake up and smell the materialism, friend. Before I begin to show a bit of the biblical evidence, let's get some perspective here.

All of us know that matter exists. In fact, we even know - due to the existence of the human brain - that thinking is a physical process. Thus the following are factual, empirical claims:
(1) Matter exists
(2) Thinking is a physical process
Because these are empirical FACTS, no proof is needed. What now of Plato's claim that magical immaterial substances exist? Do we have any empirical evidence? Do we have any scientific proof? Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary corroboration. It's EXACTLY like me walking up to you and stating, "Trust in the Force, Luke." Why should you believe in such magic - such apparent nonsense?

Thus we have the following scale:
(1) Materialism has ZERO BURDEN OF PROOF because it is based on empirical claims.
(2) Immaterialism is an EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that, as such, calls for extraordinary amounts of corroboration.

So what do we find in Scripture? Plenty of evidence for materialism. Zero evidence for immaterialism. Again, the only touted biblical "basis" for immaterialism is the ASSUMPTION that Plato's immaterial 'spirit' properly translates ruach/pneuma in the Bible. And the biblical contexts discredit that Platonic translation time and again (we'll get to that later).

With that as the background, let's start to look at some of the biblical evidence for materialism. Let's take a look at Ex 33:18ff where God walked by Moses. Here's what the ISBE (a volume written by 200 evangelical scholars) said about it:

"The glory of Yahweh is clearly a physical manifestation, a form with hands and rear parts, of which Moses is permitted to catch only a passing glimpse, but the implication is clear that he actually does see Yahweh with his physical eyes" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on "glory")

Augustine noted that the biblical theophanies were consistently material, specifically he mentioned the Fire, the Lightning, the the Dove, etc. Furthermore, Moses' face shone with Light in the aftermath of that experience. Was it physical Light? Here's a longer post proving that the divine Light is undeniably physical throughout Scripture (see post 427 on another thread).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It would be ridiculous to tell people to become like children if they are born in sin.
That's just silly. There's an obvious reason to emulate children - namely child-like trust in and dependence on their father. When I was a child, I had no worries. I was carefree. I knew my Dad would take care of everything. I put all my trust in him. But I lost that confidence as I got older. Jesus is telling us to regain that confidence - albeit in the heavenly Father. This has NOTHING to do with whether or not children have a sinful nature.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
That's just silly. There's an obvious reason to emulate children - namely child-like trust in and dependence on their father. When I was a child, I had no worries. I was carefree. I knew my Dad would take care of everything. I put all my trust in him. But I lost that confidence as I got older. Jesus is telling us to regain that confidence - albeit in the heavenly Father. This has NOTHING to do with whether or not children have a sinful nature.

It would only be obvious if they are pure. If they're not, there's no benefit whatsoever in becoming like spiritually dead children. Original sin is not taught in the bible anywhere. Not one place. It was introduced as a doctrine 3 centuries after Christ and it isn't taught in the old testament anywhere. You've taken the word of a sexually deranged philosopher who saw sex in everything. So much so that he invented 'concupiscence' which says that it is in the act of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] that a man passes on his own sin nature. That anyone could take him seriously is crazy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟826,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, yes and no. The law was under-girded by grace but that doesn't mean that obeying the law was optional. It was your obedience to the law that gave access to grace in that God knew that there was no way for men to obey perfectly. In fact there were sacrifices intended to atone for sins that you didn't even know you'd committed.
Where does it ever say: “your obedience to the law that gave access to grace”?

No one but Christ was ever “obedient to the Law”? It does not work on a percent bases, since it is all or nothing.

The atonement for sins sacrifices were very educational as a shadow of what was to come with Christ, but it did not solve anything, since all mature adult Jews did, at sometime in their life, rebellious disobedience needing to be banished or killed.
The Old Testament believers had no concept of that though. They were simply told to obey the law and did so to the best of their ability and that was it. Paul's doctrine was kept secret until Christ revealed it to Paul (Romans 16:25).
No! The Jews had plenty of examples of: their nation, Nineveh, David, Moses, Abraham and others being “saved” by grace and the prophets taught, seeking God’s Love, repenting and accepting God’s forgiveness. Any Jew, who tried to “obey” the Law would quickly realize that it was impossible, look at the extremely righteous Paul when he was Saul, and read “thou shall not covet” Ro. 7.

The “Law” gives us lots of ways to sin, which emphasizes the need for forgiveness and not a way to not sin.

Ezekiel 33:12 “Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous.’

Ezk. 18: 30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!

Isaiah 30:15 This is what the Sovereign Lord, the Holy One of Israel, says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it

Psalm 130:

Out of the depths I cry to you, Lord;2 Lord, hear my voice. Let your ears be attentive

to my cry for mercy. 3 If you, Lord, kept a record of sins,

Lord, who could stand? 4 But with you there is forgiveness,

so that we can, with reverence, serve you.

Psalm 103: 2Praise the Lord, my soul and forget not all his benefits—3 who forgives all your sins

and heals all your diseases, 4 who redeems your life from the pit

and crowns you with love and compassion,

Micah 7:18 Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy.
The confusion wasn't just about a change in what God required. The problem that Paul was dealing with, not just in Romans but in several of his letters, is that Christians who had been saved BEFORE God cut off Israel (i.e. Peter, James and John) were still under the law (Acts 21:20) and some of their converts where teaching that everyone else should be as well and even Peter got swept away in this misconduct to the point that Paul had to get in his face right in front of everyone because Peter didn't realize the implications of his actions.
Where and when did God “cut off Israel” since there was always a remnant?

Paul became all things to all people. Paul told people to hold to their conscience and do what they knew to be right, but not do stuff to hurt their weaker brothers and sisters.

Paul had no problem with Jewish Christians and even himself continuing to keep the Law in good conscience and to help others, but gentile follow the legalistic part of the Law was a waste, but they all kept the Moral part of the Law.

If Peter “mistakenly” followed the “Law”, Paul would have taken him aside to teach him more clearly, but Paul went directly to him in front of everyone since Peter was being hypocritical (he knew better).
Well, yes, but Paul and his ministry wasn't the original plan. The idea was that Christ would return before many of his disciples died (Matthew 16:28), set up Israel's Kingdom and preach the gospel to all nations with Christ reigning as King in Israel (Matthew 28:18-20 and elsewhere). This was what was prophesied from at least as far back as Daniel chapter 9 but it was stopped (paused) because of Israel's unbelief (Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18).
There are plenty of places where in the OT Christ was to bring salvation to both the Jews and the gentiles.

Where does it say: Paul and others were to “stop” preaching to Jews?

Your whole: “Messiah was to be an earthly King of Israel”, takes a very Jewish interpretation of prophecy. Christ taught and served both unclean Samaritans and gentile while on earth.

Why did Paul always go to the synagogue first when coming to a new town?

Why did Paul baptize some Gentiles and Jews?

Yes, the Jews were not blessed because they did not obey like the prophets promised them, so Jer. 18 kicked in, but that was happening even before the Messiah came.
So when Israel's program was ended and God turned instead to the Gentiles there was this transition period where you had two separate groups of believers. One was primarily in Jerusalem and had sold all their Earthly possessions in anticipation of Christ's imminent return and who were still under the law because the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). The other being those saved by faith only apart from the law (Romans 4:5).
No there was always to be one people:

Ro. 1: 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ro. 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Ro. 2: 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

Ro. 3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

Ro. 3:9… Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.

Ro. 3:22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,

Ro. 3: 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Ro. 4: 16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

Eph. 2: 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.



That is enough, but there is more.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Al Touthentop
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It would only be obvious if they are pure. If they're not, there's no benefit whatsoever in becoming like spiritually dead children.
That's an overstatement of what I said. I didn't advise to become like them in EVERY WAY. So again, your conclusion draw from that passage isn't sturdy. You can emulate a child in ONE respect (his childlike trust in his father) while diverging from him in other respects (his various sins).


Original sin is not taught in the bible anywhere.
Pelagianism is, however, taught in Scripture? I sure don't see it.

Not one place. It was introduced as a doctrine 3 centuries after Christ and it isn't taught in the old testament anywhere. You've taken the word of a sexually deranged philosopher who saw sex in everything. So much so that he invented 'concupiscence' which says that it is in the act of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] that a man passes on his own sin nature. That anyone could take him seriously is crazy.
Anything's possible. It might be that I am influenced by a philosopher - or it might be that I don't see much corroboration of Pelagianism in Scripture. Or it might be a combination of those factors. But the biggest factor, as far as I can see, is that God cursed the entire human race (Gen 3), and I can't justify that without my theory of Adam.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"Adamic particles"! I mean you can't even be serious! It's laughably ridiculous and asinine in the extreme. You have zero chance of getting me to take it seriously for even one second.

Cited from one of the most oft-consulted systematic theology textbooks in use today:

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

You can certainly laugh. Meanwhile all the evangelical seminaries using Millard J. Erickson's textbook will be laughing right back at you.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
When we sin we put ourselves "in Adam."
I fail to see how that makes for a plausible reading of "As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Because what you really mean, by that reading, is:

"Sinners die, but in Christ all will be made alive."

Thus Paul has taken THAT simple statement, in your reading, and made it incomprehensible to the reader:

"As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will made alive."

Huh? To begin with, nobody talks that way. If my grandfather Henry were the first drunkard in my lineage, I would never refer to my own drinking, for example, as a state of being "in Henry". Since exegesis is an imperfect science, hermeneutics needs some ground rules to avoid absolute chaos. One of the axiomatic rules is that we should aim to never accept a reading without linguistic precedent. Do we have some clear examples either from Scripture or Greek culture where people talked that way? Pretty sure we don't.

In MY reading, it is ontological. Containers are part of everyday materialism. Thus Adam's body was a container for the entire human race. Thus the statement "As in Adam all die" is similar to a sentence like this:

"All those in the auditorium died, when it caught on fire."

People DO talk this way. Containership is fully precedented language. Not only that, but we see the demoniac as a container for Legion, possibly containing 2,000 demons in one human body.

It's absolutely true.
It's clear you want it to be true. I am Adam. Therefore I am the one who sinned. Hence I should pay for my sins. That's the ONLY reading of Ezekiel 18 that makes any sense. If am NOT Adam, as YOU claim, then I shouldn't suffer consequences, per Ezek 18. Unbelievable that you would transpose my conformity to the passage with your non-conformity.


You're not telling the truth. Your straw man regarding my position is one you knock down yourself and then think you've made some amazing rhetorical point. Ezekiel states that God does not charge the son with the sin of the father. We are NOT charged with Adam's sin and God unequivocally says so and mocks those who claim that the sons pay for the sins of the father. In fact he calls such an assertion "unfair."
In my system, I AM Adam. So you're saying that Adam shouldn't be charged with Adam's sin? That's patently absurd on common sense and, to boot, clearly at variance with Ezek 18.

You have a very low opinion of God who has already refuted your blasphemy. Adam was already going to return to dust. He blew his opportunity to be mortal when he failed to eat of the tree of life. Part of not having the knowledge of good and evil is having the knowledge of good. Had he had any knowledge of good, the first fruit he would have eaten was the fruit of the tree of life.
No. I have a theory of Adam that culminates in a high opinion of God. In my system, Adam alone suffers the consequences of Adam's sin. That's proper justice. All alternative systems lead to a low opinion of God. What was that you said about blasphemy?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This "flesh" Paul speaks of is passed through the father.
Again, transmission of a sinful nature (from my father or anyone else) is a contradiction in terms, because corruption isn't something that HAPPENS to me. It must be a voluntary choice.

Anyway I'm glad you brought up the flesh. Here's a post on Romans 7 and 8, establishing the mind-body fusion as the "sinful flesh". Paul was a staunch materialist - but don't confuse my system with Manicheanism or the like. Unconscious matter (the regular human protoplasm) obviously cannot and does not sin. Only the conscious, volitional material mind (and by material I simply mean tangible, not atomic) can sin.

James' discussion of the untameable tongue is an excellent example of Paul's "sinful flesh". (Since the material soul is fused to the entire body, even the human tongue is evil). In the book of James, verse 3:6 classifies the tongue as evil. James nowhere says that an evil immaterial mind misdirects the tongue, on the contrary he argues that the evil tongue seizes control of the whole body, directing it like a bit steers a horse, or a rudder steers a ship. Verses 7 and 8 even place the evil tongue in the category of living creatures potentially eligible for taming. Isaiah‘s experience drives the nail into the coffin. When Isaiah saw God face to face, He suddenly realized that his entire physical mouth was evil - just like the untamed tongue. He cried out in anguish:

"Woe unto me I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty!” (Isa 6).

What was the solution for Isaiah's evil lips? Was God supposed to apply immaterial divine Life to an immaterial mind? Guess again. The angel grabbed a material coal aflame with material divine Fire and physically applied it directly to his material mouth. This is no different than the tongues of Fire falling upon the disciples heads on Pentecost.

But I'm confident that you won't believe any of these dynamics. You've already sold out to Plato, at the expense of Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0