I see your point Clare and at first I thought you might be on to something but
after more reasoning with the word I am not sure.
Let me register my protest to disagreeing with what Scripture teaches because it does not agree with one's reasoning, rather than seeking the error in one's reasoning to bring it into agreement with Scripture.
Let me likewise register my protest to the assumption that God's reasoning must agree with man's reasoning. Okay. . .now that's off my chest.
Please try your best to answer my questions with something meaningful, not, I don't know but that's what it says and I believe it and that settles it : )
I can answer with something meaningful. . .and I like doing that, but I'm not sure that you're giving serious thought to what I present.
God created Adam knowing he would sin and all his descendants would inherit his sinful nature and end up sinning. So what was the point of imputing Adams sin to everyone?
Well, first of all there is
Ezekiel 18:20, there is
no inheritance of our forefathers' sin.
Secondly, I somewhat addressed God's mind on that issue in my post to you, #705.
Bottom line:
God has shut up all men (
"all" meaning Jew as well as Gentile) in sin (so)
that he might have mercy on them all (
"all" meaning Gentile as well as Jew). (
Romans 11:32).
Thirdly, as we don't
inherit guilt (
Ezekiel 18:20), so we don't
inherit righteousness. . .both are i
mputed to us.
Isn't being born with a sinful nature bad enough? Why curse us with Adams sin also?
What are the different effects of imputed sin vs inheriting a sinful nature? Isn't the results the same, don't we end up being sinners either way?
There are different effects, but it's not about effects.
It's about the
wisdom of God in his design of
two Adam's--the second being the
exact counterpart of the first,
the first unrighteous, and the second righteous,
whereby all those
born of the
first Adam have the
guilt of
one unrighteous
act i
mputed to them, and
all those
born of the
second Adam have the
righteousness of
one righteous act
imputed to them,
God thereby shutting up all those born of the first Adam in sin and condemnation,
so that all things shall come to all men (
"all" meaning Gentile as well as Jew) in the second Adam alone,
not leaving even the
possibility that man can have anything outside of Christ, except a promise to perish (
John 3:16-18,
36).
On the subject of no sin between Adam & Moses because they did not have the command or the law. Hasn't there been many, even up to this very day who have not had the command or the law? We know how these sin and are judged Rom. 1-2 but isn't this different than
how you say Paul says the ones between Adam and Moses are judged?
I say? That's "
Romans 5:14 says," "they did
not sin" by breaking a command.
Paul says they were
judged not to have sinned.
It's got nothing to do with what "I say."
Paul distinguishes in
Romans 5:12-21 between judgment with and judgment without curse, where
1) violation of one's
own conscience, for which there
would be
judgment but for which God did
not attach a
curse of death, and
2) violation of
God's commands (Eden, Mosaic law) for which there would not only be
judgment, but
also an attached
curse of physical death (Eden,
Galatians 3:10),
as it was with Adam's sin against
God's command being cursed with physical death.
So in
Romans 5:12-21, it's about God cursing with death
only the violation of his
commands, and
yet all mankind between Adam and Moses
dying without violating God's
commands. . .that means
they were
still being cursed
anyway. . .by
imputed guilt.
Thus Paul demonstrates the
imputation of Adam's guilt to
all mankind, with or without God's law.
All mankind dies
physically because of the guilt of Adam
imputed to him.
And so regarding your question above,
the effects are different:
the imputation of Adam's guilt (not law-breaking) is the cause of physical death, while
the unregenerate nature is the cause of eternal death.
And thus
God shuts up all men (
Jew as well as Gentile) in disobedience (so)
that he might have mercy on them all (
Gentile as well as Jew). (
Romans 11:32).
On whether this bothers me: This sort of theology has little or nothing to do with personal salvation but it is interesting and I love to discuss it, but I can't say it really bothers me.
Likewise, it does not "bother" me, nor am I inclined to discuss it for the sake of discussing it, but rather for the purpose of accuracy and truth regarding the word of God.
Have you ever thought about how few folks, religious or non religious,
even know the questions, much less the answers?
And which is due to the dearth of good Biblical teaching in the churches, for some time now.
Nevertheless, the matter is presented in NT teaching that it may be known, not that it is necessary that all know it.
Ex 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
I have wondered if "those who hate me" could apply to the children as well as the father? What do you think?
I think it means those succeeding generations who hate God have the iniquity of their fathers visited on them, that if the succeeding generations don't hate God, the sin of their fathers is not visited on them.
The way I understand the above scripture is the children of the wicked are sometimes/visited with suffering for the sins of a wicked father as we plainly see they are, this is the results of God's natural laws. The Jews in Ezekiel 18 are trying to say God is imputing blaming/punishing them for their fathers sin but God is saying it is their own.
Which does not negate the meaning of
Exodus 20:5.
PS: When you say biblically demonstrate,
what you really mean is to demonstrate it the way you see it.
No, I am asking for a Biblical demonstration of the way
they see it when we are in disagreement. I believe the word of God can be known, that it is not all just "someone's interpretation," and I see the only way to sort it out is to measure interpretations in light of the whole counsel of God, as the Bereans did with Paul.
This is why I do not quote a lot of scripture but just interpretate it the way I understand it.
But in order to arrive at a correct understanding, other Scripture must be considered
in the meaning of its context.
I Have known people who quote reams of scripture, thinking that proves their point, which seems kind of silly to me.
Anyone can quote scripture but what God really means by it is what counts.
Precisely, its meaning is what it means
in its context. . .translate: one needs a working knowledge of Scripture to understand anything correctly.
We are just in the process of trying to understand.
Some don't correspond as though they are "in a process."
