Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I checked the text and it does not say that Adam's guilt is imputed to anybody... Maybe you meant something else, like an inclination to sin?(The first) Adam's guilt is imputed to all men born of him (Ro 5:12-15),
Iranaeus is no more authoritative than any other Christian.And yet they still managed to sin.
Iranaeus is considered to be orthodox by all of the apostolic churches. Read what he wrote here.
Man has received the knowledge of good and evil. It is good to obey God, and to believe in Him, and to keep His commandment, and this is the life of man; as not to obey God is evil, and this is his death. Since God, therefore, gave [to man] such mental power (magnanimitatem) man knew both the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience,
"Evidently" only if you think a totally free will, no sin influencing it, is unable to choose evil.that the eye of the mind, receiving experience of both, may with judgment make choice of the better things; and that he may never become indolent or neglectful of God's command.
Evidently Iranaeus understood that Adam & Eve possessed a sinful nature from the very beginning.
Which does not require a sinful nature, only a completely free will, which free will by definition requires the abilility to choose both good or evil.They were able to choose to do both good and evil,
What does "Calvinism" have to do with it?a quality given to them by God Himself. I’m not the one disputing orthodoxy. It’s your theology that is unorthodox. Calvinism has been refuted by every single apostolic church that still exists.
Have you dealt with the dilemma posed by Paul in Ro 5:12-15; i.e.,I checked the text and it does not say that Adam's guilt is imputed to anybody... Maybe you meant something else, like an inclination to sin?
It seems to me you are saying the opposite of what is in the text.Have you dealt with the dilemma posed by Paul in Ro 5:12-15; i.e.,
there was no law with a death penalty between Adam and Moses, as there was in the Garden with Adam,
where there is no law, there is no sin,
where there is no sin, there is no death (Ro 6:23),
yet all died between Adam and Moses even though they did not sin, because there was no law to sin against.
So of what sin did they all die?
They died of the sin of (the first) Adam imputed to all those born of him, (Ro 5:12-15),
just as the righteousness of (the second Adam) Christ is imputed by faith to all those born of him (Ro 5:18-19), and
just as righteousness was imputed by faith to Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3), and is imputed to those in Christ by faith (Ro 4:1-11).
Do I say that, or does Ro 5:13 say: ". . .sin is not taken into account when there is no law."It seems to me you are saying the opposite of what is in the text.
For example, you say: "where there is no law, there is no sin"
My NIV does not say, "To be sure."While the text says: "To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given" (Rom 5:13, NIV)
But is it what I am saying, or what the text is saying?That's why its difficult to make sense of what you are saying.
Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that sin is imputed upon anyone. Ezekiel 18:20 makes that clear. Romans 5 does not say that everyone is condemned for Adam’s sin it says that our condemnation is a RESULT of his sin. Death came to all BECAUSE ALL SINNED, not because Adam sinned.We are not condemned because of our nature, we are condemned because Adam's sin/guilt is imputed to all men born of (the first) Adam (Ro 5:12-15), just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to all men born of (the second Adam) Christ (Ro 4:1-11, Ro 5:18-19).
Did Cain not sin when he killed able?How can you read Ro 5:12-15 and omit the heart of the dilemma it presents; i.e., there was no law carrying the death penalty between Adam and Moses, and where there is no law, there is no sin, yet all died because of sin (Ro 6:23)?
For what sin did they die?
They died because of Adam's sin imputed to all those born of (the first) Adam.
Everyone knows that your theology has been refuted by every single church established by the apostles. It is not apostolic teaching.It is not "my theology," it is the authoritative apostolic teaching of the NT.
What Bible version are you using that uses the word “inherit” or “guilt”? Your paraphrasing but you need to take a closer look at what was actually written.Ezekiel states the son will not inherit the guilt of the father.
Adam's sin is not inherited, it is imputed by God (Ro 5:12-18), with the result that
all are by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).
Iranaeus was an early second century bishop who knew more about the early church than we ever will. He was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John Zebedee. These men had access to the original manuscripts and Polycarp had the opportunity to be taught directly by an apostle of Christ. Iranaeus was taught by Polycarp. So Polycarp had access to way more information than we have from the scriptures. He was able to talk with and ask questions to one of the 12, possibly even other apostles as well and pass that knowledge onto his disciples. I have a lot more confidence in the accuracy of an early second century bishop’s writings than a 16th century pastor’s writings when it comes to the subject of scriptural interpretation and what the early church actually taught.Iranaeus is no more authoritative than any other Christian.
Amen but when it comes to interpretation of the scriptures the early church writers carry more weight than a 16th century theologian.Our authority for God's truth is his word written.
That is the one and only rule by which we measure doctrine.
You do not deal with the Scriptures presented which present such.Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that sin is imputed upon anyone.
(The first) Adam's sin/guilt is not inherited by birth, it is imputed by God (Ro 5:12-15, Ro 5:18-19) to all those born of Adam,Ezekiel 18:20 makes that clear. Romans 5 does not say that everyone is condemned for Adam’s sin it says that our condemnation is a RESULT of his sin. Death came to all BECAUSE ALL SINNED, not because Adam sinned.
Yes, Cain sinned (sin was in the world), but according to Ro 5:13, because there was no law of God carrying the death penalty, Cain's sin was not taken into account (counted against him) for death/mortality.Did Cain not sin when he killed able?
Indeed, but his sin did not count against him, thereby causing his mortality (Ro 5:13).“Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.””
Genesis 4:6-7 NASB1995
None of which has anything to do with what is presented in Ro 5:12-15; i.e., no law of God carrying the death penalty was in force between Adam and Moses and, therefore, no sin causing mortality was taken into account against anyone, so there should have been no death at all between Adam and Moses, and yet they all died.Thru the dialog between God and Cain we can conclude that Cain knew what sin was. We can also deduce by Cain’s reaction to God speaking to him that this was not his first conversation with God. Cain obviously didn’t seem to be the least bit surprised by God addressing him directly. Cain’s reaction seems to be quite nonchalant conversing with God, not a reaction one would expect from conversing with God for the first time. The scriptures don’t record any previous conversations between God & Cain but we can deduce that Cain knew what sin was and most likely from previous conversations with God.
Why do you think God brought upon the flood?
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,”
2 Peter 2:4-10 NASB1995
God brought about the flood because of man’s sin, so evidently there was a law that was given before the flood. After Cain killed able God commanded that anyone who killed Cain would be punished. So killing Cain was considered a sin. If Noah had refused to build the ark that would’ve been a sin. When Noah got off the ark after the flood God commanded him not to eat meat with blood. He also commanded that man shall not shed another man’s blood. These are just a few examples of laws that God gave before the Mosaic law.
Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.Everyone knows that your theology has been refuted by every single church established by the apostles. It is not apostolic teaching.
The word "inherit" may not be used but its meaning; "to receive from one's ancestors or, by extension, from one's predecessors" is used (Ex 20:5, Eze 18:20).What Bible version are you using that uses the word “inherit” or “guilt”? Your paraphrasing but you need to take a closer look at what was actually written.
“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
Ezekiel 18:20 NASB1995
“The son will NOT BEAR THE PUNISHMENT for the father’s inequity”. The righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. In other words one man is not punished for another man’s sin, each man will be punished for his own sin. Hence sin is not imputed, ever. Romans 5 doesn’t say anything about imputed sin. You’re injecting it into the passage. The word used is “resulted” not “imputed”. Resulted can mean thru a chain of events, it can’t in this case mean that we are punished for Adam’s sin because that would directly contradict God’s own words in Ezekiel 18:20. If Ezekiel 18:20 didn’t specifically state that each person is punished for his own sins then your theology could be plausible but because it contradicts Ezekiel 18:20 it is not plausible.
Nothing of which Iranaeus received from his sources would be in disagreement with the NT Scriptures, which we also have and by which we can measure everything.Iranaeus was an early second century bishop who knew more about the early church than we ever will. He was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John Zebedee. These men had access to the original manuscripts and Polycarp had the opportunity to be taught directly by an apostle of Christ. Iranaeus was taught by Polycarp. So Polycarp had access to way more information than we have from the scriptures. He was able to talk with and ask questions to one of the 12, possibly even other apostles as well and pass that knowledge onto his disciples. I have a lot more confidence in the accuracy of an early second century bishop’s writings than a 16th century pastor’s writings when it comes to the subject of scriptural interpretation and what the early church actually taught.
Nope, the text itself in the context of all Scripture carries all the weight.Amen but when it comes to interpretation of the scriptures the early church writers carry more weight than a 16th century theologian.
You can hardly accuse them of not trying to Biblically demonstrate their case, can you?Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.
Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit, right?It's not "my theology," it is authoritative NT apostolic teaching.
I have no idea what their "case" is. I know only what the poster stated.You can hardly accuse them of not trying to Biblically demonstrate their case, can you?
Right. . .the Biblical demonstration, Ro 5:18, was made in post #111.Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit, right?
That's how you show your teaching is NT apostolic teaching? Ok? Not that different from what they are doing imo.I have no idea what their "case" is. I know only what the poster stated.
Right. . .the Biblical demonstration, Ro 5:18, was made in post #111.
Are you not understanding the simple statements. . ."the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (born of Adam). . ."the result of one act of righteousness was justifcation that brings life for all men" (born of Christ) in Ro 5:18?That's how you show your teaching is NT aposotlic teaching? Ok? Not that different from what they are doing imo.
I don't have a problem with you explaining Scripture from your heart's understanding and with intention of being apostolic. That is all good! It's just when you say that your teaching is NT apostolic teaching, and not your understanding of the NT apostolic teaching I react.Are you not understanding the simple statements. . ."the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (born of Adam). . ."the result of one act of righteousness was justifcation that brings life for all men" (born of Christ) in Ro 5:18?
Does any of the above disagree with NT teaching?
Is not all of the above precisely NT teaching?
What are you not understanding?
Justification is for the saved, not the unsaved.I don't have a problem with you explaining Scripture from your heart's understanding and with intention of being apostolic. That is all good! It's just when you say that your teaching is NT apostolic teaching, and not your understanding of the NT apostolic teaching I react.
I think we have the same understanding of Rom 5:18. The difference is that you think those that are brought life are elect unbelievers, where I think it refers to believers that are brought life through Christ.
Agree with you.Justification is for the saved, not the unsaved.
Both? Isn't that the same thing?One is saved; i.e., sin remitted, from God's wrath (Ro 5:9), then one is justified (declared forensically righteous), both by faith.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?