Once Saved, Always Saved?

[daughterofthemosthigh7]

If imputation is true to the Scriptures, then God judges you for stuff you can't actually be responsible for and is unjust ACCORDING TO HIS OWN STATED MEASURES FROM SCRIPTURE.

And if a person is transformed at the point of salvation, and it is completely finished, then he will be perfect from the point of salvation onward. Antinomianism, therefore, is literally the ONLY logical belief to be assumed if one believes salvation is completed at conversion. If you cannot give up your salvation by free will, then the moral law has absolutely no hold on you. If Hitler really was a believer when he was a child, it doesn't matter what you think of him, he will be one of your neighbors in heaven.

And no, the "Hitler didn't really believe when he was a child" argument doesn't fly because that's assuming you know exactly what was going through kid Hitler's mind. Or it's assuming that a person doesn't have free will after conversion, in which case, we're left with the "God as monster" paradox because HE forces people to live with Him against their will.

amen to the if truly transformed/conversion part... & then onward indeed! that's how i see it

 

[Wordkeeper]

Imputation is being true to scriptures. Paul's comparison of Adam's disobedience+sin consequences imputed to all his seed, whilst the Christ's obedience+righteousness to his own, Romans 5:18-19. You cannot deny this and is the very heart of the gospel.

Now if you suggest below that righteous living does not come in play and only a matter of judicial argument you are totally wrong. The reformers believe that if GOD SAVES PEOPLE HE ALSO "CHANGES" THEM. There is probably no better exposition and study of the work of the holy spirit in the life of the believer than those made by the reformers. Unfortunately all arguments made by anti-osas factions assumes a conclusive antinomianism to all those who believe it and this blinds them like a fog of war and guides all there arguments and denial of all other scripture reference that supports it.

Quote
"A closer look: imputed righteousness versus reckoned righteous".
....................

"Luther himself does not always go quite this far. He is prepared to say that only by the accrediting of a merciful God and by faith in his word do we become just. He also is prepared to say that all of our good is in fact outside ourselves and located in Christ. But, as scholars have pointed out, Luther does not usually use the language of imputation."

..….…..….....…..........…....

"The crediting language ("it was reckoned") is not forensic language but commercial or bookkeeping language... In early Judaism there was the belief in the good and evil deeds of a person being recorded in ledgers... It is a mistake to simply read Paul's righteousness language through a forensic filter, not least because Paul believes that God requires of his people that, once saved, they actually lead righteous lives. Paul would likely be appalled by the notion that he is talking about some sort of legal fiction, including the idea that Christ is righteous in the believer's place in such a way that believers are not required to be righteous. Even worse would be the notion that when God looks at believers, he simply sees Christ's righteousness and reckons it to their accounts, instead of believers having to live holy lives."

http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.in/2008/08/romanswitherington-4.html?m=1

The blogger is referring to a book by Ben Witherington in which it is pointed out:

The Latin Vulgate translates Romans 4 as Abraham believed God and it was reckoned (reputatum) as righteousness.

Jewish scholars viewed the recording of individual sin and righteousness as an accounting model. In other words, in the text, righteousness was actually credited to Abraham. The exchange is Abraham faith becoming Abraham's righteousness, just as your deposited cheque becomes your credit amount in your bank account.

Unfortunately, Erasmus used the word imputatum, very popular with the lawyers of his times to mean infer or transfer, instead of reputatum, for his translation choice in his famous Greek New Testament of 1516.

So reckoned, counted became 'transferred'.

But Luther never taught the idea of imputed righteousness. It was Melanchthon who did. He used Erasmus' Greek New Testament and the idea became lodged in Reformed teaching.

The Indelible Image : Theological and Ethical Thoughts

Ben Witherington

https://books.google.co.in/books?id...ved=0ahUKEwjZ3N37lbvPAhUXSY8KHeFSBssQ6AEIHjAB

It's sad that we read positive and negative reviews of simple things like cellphone batteries before we are convinced about buying them, but never read opposing reviews about doctrine we are taught before buying into them.

 

[Wordkeeper]

The thorn in the flesh was an evil spirit sent to buffit him ..not a sin. Which makes your entire premise wrong.

Thanks for the reply. It is good to question ideas, as Scripture asks us to test every spirit. We need to look for faults (weaknesses!) in each idea, yours, mine and those of commentaries. The result may be:

I am wrong.

You are wrong.

Every commentary is wrong.

Yes, while discussing, we may find a totally different answer to a question about what the weakness was, a question that has puzzled believers for more than 2000 years!

Several commentaries suggest the weakness was lust full thoughts.

Could the power of God be manifest alongside a boasting of a sinful weakness?

A few suggest it was possession by evil spirits.

Could the power of God be manifest alongside a boasting of a possession by evil spirits?

I suggest he boasted of a different type of weakness, something that just occurred to me, a new idea, discovered because you tested all spirits:

Paul was boasting he had no qualification to do the things and say the words he did:

John 5:19So Jesus explained, "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing.


John 14:10Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds

Jesus was uneducated. Some people feel inadequate that their ministry lacks credibility because they are not educated. They desire strongly that God would take away this weakness which seems to discredit their work. But God said His grace was sufficient. It was actually an advantage to have the weakness, because then people would have to acknowledge that the person had spent time with God.

Acts 4:13 When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and discovered that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized these men had been with Jesus. 14And because they saw the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say against this.

 

[Alithis]

Thanks for the reply. It is good to question ideas, as Scripture asks us to test every spirit. We need to look for faults (weaknesses!) in each idea, yours, mine and those of commentaries. The result may be:

I am wrong.

You are wrong.

Every commentary is wrong.

Yes, while discussing, we may find a totally different answer to a question about what the weakness was, a question that has puzzled believers for more than 2000 years!

Several commentaries suggest the weakness was lust full thoughts.

Could the power of God be manifest alongside a boasting of a sinful weakness?

A few suggest it was possession by evil spirits.

Could the power of God be manifest alongside a boasting of a possession by evil spirits?

I suggest he boasted of a different type of weakness, something that just occurred to me, a new idea, discovered because you tested all spirits:

Paul was boasting he had no qualification to do the things and say the words he did:

John 5:19So Jesus explained, "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing.


John 14:10Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds

Jesus was uneducated. Some people feel inadequate that their ministry lacks credibility because they are not educated. They desire strongly that God would take away this weakness which seems to discredit their work. But God said His grace was sufficient. It was actually an advantage to have the weakness, because then people would have to acknowledge that the person had spent time with God.

Acts 4:13 When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and discovered that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized these men had been with Jesus. 14And because they saw the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say against this.

Dude ..read the scriptural text its not complicated paul was not ill ,or sick he did not have lust problems lol he was not continually living sinfully in total contradiction to EVERYTHING he preached ..
it says it so clear children get it -
....because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

its black and white .. no commentary required .

 

[Geralt]

need to emphasize the word "fulfilled" - past tense.

The proper translation repeated. Thanks . Always good to reiterate the truth of God in Christ.

 

[Geralt]

actually you are correct - God in parts of scripture shows he judges people for other person's responsibility or irresponsibility. Adam is an obvious galring example.

but you are also NOT correct - that God is unjust.

what you miss in reading scripture is the concept of corporate representation and corporate accountability - that God judges or rewards a group of people based on the actions of one of their own.

Rom 5:18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous. ​

i've been hammering this point over and over again, and yet astonishing that you do not still understand the gospel !

by adam sin all his seed fall, but christ righteousness all his elect are saved.

without the concept of corporate accountability due to the work of one man, there is NO gospel.

If imputation is true to the Scriptures, then God judges you for stuff you can't actually be responsible for and is unjust ACCORDING TO HIS OWN STATED MEASURES FROM SCRIPTURE.

And if a person is transformed at the point of salvation, and it is completely finished - no i did not say or imply anything like this, then he will be perfect from the point of salvation onward.

Antinomianism, therefore, is literally the ONLY logical belief to be assumed if one believes salvation is completed at conversion. -> correct in terms of justification, the reason why Paul made the argument in Romans 6! otherwise there will be no reason to write Romans 6- for believing a completed justification will nonetheless err people to sin more so that grace may abound more which is antinominism.

If you cannot give up your salvation by free will (this assume saved people have a desire to throw it away- but then again this is not reality just an argument), then the moral law has absolutely no hold on you.

If Hitler really was a believer when he was a child, it doesn't matter what you think of him, he will be one of your neighbors in heaven. And no, the "Hitler didn't really believe when he was a child" argument doesn't fly because that's assuming you know exactly what was going through kid Hitler's mind. Or it's assuming that a person doesn't have free will after conversion, in which case, we're left with the "God as monster" paradox because HE forces people to live with Him against their will. - Hitler did not say he believed in OSAS or imputed righteousness so this argument is irrelevant.

 

[pescador]

Dude ..read the scriptural text its not complicated paul was not ill ,or sick he did not have lust problems lol he was not continually living sinfully in total contradiction to EVERYTHING he preached ..
it says it so clear children get it -
....because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

its black and white .. no commentary required .

As is almost all of Scripture. It says what it says and people lift it out of context to prove a predetermined thought. Thanks for not being one of those and posting the Scripture and its clear meaning.

 

[stephen583]

I'm actually surprised this question of "Once Saved Always Saved" breaks down basically to 50/50 in the poll. I was raised a Baptist (sort of like Catholic Lite and the rite of confession), where all you have to do is get water re-baptized every few years and you are supposedly covered. I left the Baptist Church when I was 13 years old, when the pastor informed my father my clothes (although clean), were too thread bear and therefore inappropriate for church services. As you can imagine, we were a very poor family.

What I learned since leaving the Baptist Church, is that salvation is not guaranteed by any perfunctory act of religion, especially when such acts of contrition become so mechanical they are unaccompanied by any true remorse, or willingness to live according to God's Will. It's pretty clear to me a saved Christian can be lost to God. It says so implicitly in the Gospel.

"No one who puts a hand on the plow and looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62).


Anyone who commits this sin, has committed the one UNPARDONABLE sin "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 12:32, Mark 3:28-30). Defiant opposition to the Holy Spirit, is the same thing as spitting in the very face of God.

Attending confession, saying a hundred "Hail Marys", being re-baptized in water, or proclaiming yourself a "Born Again Christian", performing all sort of spiritual signs, healings, speaking in tongues, and waiving around live rattle snakes, won't save you once you've Blasphemed the Holy Spirit by having put your hand to the plow and looked back. It's that simple.

 

[Albion]

I was raised a Baptist (sort of like Catholic Lite and the rite of confession), where all you have to do is get water re-baptized every few years and you are supposedly covered....What I learned since leaving the Baptist Church, is that salvation is not guaranteed by any perfunctory act of religion, especially when such acts of contrition become so mechanical they are unaccompanied by any true remorse, or willingness to live according to God's Will.

The answer to that...and the reason so many have voted their belief in OSAS/Eternal Security is because most of those who voted that way apparently understand that the horrible misrepresentation of the principle of OSAS that you've described here from your Baptist days is NOT what OSAS is all about. I'd bet that everyone who answered the poll would have said "No" to the question if the proposition were described in the way you did (in the bolded part of your message above).

It's pretty clear to me a saved Christian can be lost to God. It says so implicitly in the Gospel.

It also says "so implicitly in the Gospel" that the Elect will be safe in Christ.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

need to emphasize the word "fulfilled" - past tense.

Of course. He filled full the ceremonial law. That was put on the cross when he was.

 

[stephen583]

It also says "so implicitly in the Gospel" that the Elect will be safe in Christ.

Really ? You think so ? I read something entirely different in the Revelation where it says Satan will be given the power to make war against God and the saints will be OVERCOME by evil (Revelation 13:7), and they will be MARTYRED as their fellow servants were, who stand before the throne of God crying out for vengeance against those who dwell on earth (Revelation 6:10-11).

Your SOUL might be SAFE with Jesus.. but there's no guarantee YOU are going to remain safe and sound on earth until the Second Coming. That's pure conjecture on your part, because that promise isn't found anywhere in the Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Really ? You think so ?

Sure. That's why this is a controversial issue. If one side or the other had nothing in scripture to point to it would made reaching a conclusion a whole lot easier. To really make a decision, it is necessary to consider all the Bible passages and verses that bear upon the topic (just as with other issues like the mode of baptism) and not simply cite one and say "that's it!"

Your SOUL might be SAFE with Jesus.. but there's no guarantee YOU are going to remain safe and sound on earth until the Second Coming.

All right, but that doesn't have anything to do with the subject we're discussing.

That's pure conjecture on your part, because that promise isn't found anywhere in the Scripture.

Not only would that be conjecture, but I never "conjectured it" anyway.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Dude ..read the scriptural text its not complicated paul was not ill ,or sick he did not have lust problems lol he was not continually living sinfully in total contradiction to EVERYTHING he preached ..
it says it so clear children get it -
....because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

its black and white .. no commentary required .

2 Corinthians 12:9But he said to me, “My grace is enough for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” So then, I will boast most gladly about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may reside in me. 10Therefore I am content with weaknesses, with insults, with troubles, with persecutions and difficulties for the sake of Christ, for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.

So you hold to my second option:

Could the power of God be manifest alongside a boasting of a possession by evil spirits?

Even though the idea is interesting, even creative and impractical, which sometimes appears compelling and attractive, going by the popularity of some weird Calvinist and RCC teachings, can you imagine Paul boasting:

"Nyah! nyah! I got a monkey on my back and he's a live one and none of you can touch this!"

so that the power of Christ can manifest itself even more strongly in him? I don't think so.

Isn't it more likely that he was always being hazed by the others for being one unnaturally born, and feeling at a lost to explain why, because he was an outlier, because no other man used by God had ever attacked His People and was still called. This would have disqualified Paul from being an Apostle , especially as the Jews took great pride in Bible knowledge and tested everything for authenticity. They even questioned Jesus for his low birth and provenance:

John 1:46Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of
Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."

What stopped their mouths were the superb explanations of the mysteries of God hidden in Scripture, words of life, and the unmatched miracles performed, attributable, as the magicians of Pharaoh admitted, only to the presence of God, His finger, with the doers of these wondrous acts.

Luke 11:20"But if I drive out demons by the fingerof God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

Indeed the Kingdom of God comes, is lowered down from Heaven, projected earthwards, when we pray for it, bread from above, to certify the truth of the message.

All it leaves for us to do is boast of our weakness, our disqualification to do the work, for the presence of God to continue to manifest powerfully in our lives. Something Moses learned too late.

 

[AngelOf Laodicea]

To find the answer to that question David, Read Rev 3:9, then armed with that scripture, go to your local synagogue and speak it. You will be sure to be given your answer.

The truth of Torah?
Please spare me your supposed hidden wisdom and either clearly explain it in an articulate way or be considered as somebody who is just wanting attention and recognition.

No offense, but I doubt people's understanding of anything about Torah if they cannot articulate an answer when asked a simple question.
Here is "a" truth about Torah:
One cannot even begin to understand Torah until one studies ancient near eastern covenant laws and customs.
This is because Torah is the signs of a covenant made on Sinai with Israel.

 

[1John2:4]

The truth of Torah?
Please spare me your supposed hidden wisdom and either clearly explain it in an articulate way or be considered as somebody who is just wanting attention and recognition.

No offense, but I doubt people's understanding of anything about Torah if they cannot articulate an answer when asked a simple question.
Here is "a" truth about Torah:
One cannot even begin to understand Torah until one studies ancient near eastern covenant laws and customs.
This is because Torah is the signs of a covenant made on Sinai with Israel.

Well that is not true, you do not need some ancient eastern understaing and knowledge. God made it very simple to understand so the simplest of all people could come and hear it and understand it.
Dueteronomy 11 For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor isit beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

 

[Alithis]

2 Corinthians 12:9But he said to me, “My grace is enough for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” So then, I will boast most gladly about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may reside in me. 10Therefore I am content with weaknesses, with insults, with troubles, with persecutions and difficulties for the sake of Christ, for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.

So you hold to my second option:

Could the power of God be manifest alongside a boasting of a possession by evil spirits?

Even though the idea is interesting, even creative and impractical, which sometimes appears compelling and attractive, going by the popularity of some weird Calvinist and RCC teachings, can you imagine Paul boasting:

"Nyah! nyah! I got a monkey on my back and he's a live one and none of you can touch this!"

so that the power of Christ can manifest itself even more strongly in him? I don't think so.

Isn't it more likely that he was always being hazed by the others for being one unnaturally born, and feeling at a lost to explain why, because he was an outlier, because no other man used by God had ever attacked His People and was still called. This would have disqualified Paul from being an Apostle , especially as the Jews took great pride in Bible knowledge and tested everything for authenticity. They even questioned Jesus for his low birth and provenance:

John 1:46Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of
Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."

What stopped their mouths were the superb explanations of the mysteries of God hidden in Scripture, words of life, and the unmatched miracles performed, attributable, as the magicians of Pharaoh admitted, only to the presence of God, His finger, with the doers of these wondrous acts.

Luke 11:20"But if I drive out demons by the fingerof God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

Indeed the Kingdom of God comes, is lowered down from Heaven, projected earthwards, when we pray for it, bread from above, to certify the truth of the message.

All it leaves for us to do is boast of our weakness, our disqualification to do the work, for the presence of God to continue to manifest powerfully in our lives. Something Moses learned too late.

you keep adding ion things simply not written . you slip in the words "a possession by evil spirits" when the text says no such thing . and it wasn't sin elsewhere Paul calls on the witness of timothy to verify the manner of life which he lives as being consistent with all he preaches .. people like to attribute some kind of unrepentant sin in pauls life ..but they do so to appease their own conscience methinks . it is not so, it is not written to be so .. dont add in words that are simply not there and then build doctrines on them .

 

[Alithis]

I'm actually surprised this question of "Once Saved Always Saved" breaks down basically to 50/50 in the poll. I was raised a Baptist (sort of like Catholic Lite and the rite of confession), where all you have to do is get water re-baptized every few years and you are supposedly covered. I left the Baptist Church when I was 13 years old, when the pastor informed my father my clothes (although clean), were too thread bear and therefore inappropriate for church services. As you can imagine, we were a very poor family.

What I learned since leaving the Baptist Church, is that salvation is not guaranteed by any perfunctory act of religion, especially when such acts of contrition become so mechanical they are unaccompanied by any true remorse, or willingness to live according to God's Will. It's pretty clear to me a saved Christian can be lost to God. It says so implicitly in the Gospel.

"No one who puts a hand on the plow and looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62).


Anyone who commits this sin, has committed the one UNPARDONABLE sin "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 12:32, Mark 3:28-30). Defiant opposition to the Holy Spirit, is the same thing as spitting in the very face of God.

Attending confession, saying a hundred "Hail Marys", being re-baptized in water, or proclaiming yourself a "Born Again Christian", performing all sort of spiritual signs, healings, speaking in tongues, and waiving around live rattle snakes, won't save you once you've Blasphemed the Holy Spirit by having put your hand to the plow and looked back. It's that simple.

interesting but a very mingled mixed up statement .. so right in some parts yet so full of wrong assumptions in others .

 

[sculleywr]

actually you are correct - God in parts of scripture shows he judges people for other person's responsibility or irresponsibility. Adam is an obvious galring example.

but you are also NOT correct - that God is unjust.

what you miss in reading scripture is the concept of corporate representation and corporate accountability - that God judges or rewards a group of people based on the actions of one of their own.

Rom 5:18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous. ​

i've been hammering this point over and over again, and yet astonishing that you do not still understand the gospel !

by adam sin all his seed fall, but christ righteousness all his elect are saved.

without the concept of corporate accountability due to the work of one man, there is NO gospel.

So a person isn't present, hasn't even been created yet, and is held responsible for his own personal salvation to answer for the deeds of a person he could never have any influence on? This is what happens when you over-emphasize the criminal aspect of sin, and see the crime as the cause of the sickness instead of the way it really is, with the crime being a SYMPTOM of the sickness. We are not judged for the sin of Adam. We are infected because of it, but we are not judged. If God was so unjust as to judge us for the actions of Adam, then we wouldn't ever have the option of salvation because then Jesus is literally acting against God's own interests, and since Jesus is God, this is impossible. It would turn the Trinity into exactly what Christ said about Satan when He said Satan would not work against Satan's own interests: a house divided.

If God's desire was to hold man responsible for the actions of Adam, then Christ wouldn't have come. Shoot, there would be NONE of the events in Scripture. And don't tell me that God was forced to judge us against His will, because He is the Judge in your picture of Him. He is all-powerful. He set the rules, therefore, just as with the laws of nature, like the law of co-creation (for every piece of matter created, an equal amount of antimatter is created), or the law of gravity, He can supercede those laws.

See, Scripture very clearly says EXACTLY what deeds we will be judged for: our own. Romans 2:2 quotes from Psalm 62:12, repeating the statement that God will judge each man according to his own deeds. In the judgment as described by Christ in Matthew, with the sheep and the goats, the sheep and goats are judged according to their own deeds, and not the deeds of any other. The temporal consequences of sin were passed down, and with them the knowledge of both good AND evil. But the sin itself is the sin of Adam and Eve, and none other. The eternal judgment, as described by Christ, and even in Revelation, says nothing about Adam's sin.

So no, God doesn't judge ETERNALLY for the sins of others. Our sins can effect others, but do not pass the buck onto God. When your sin causes pain for another person, it's your own foolish fault. Saying God causes the pain is accusing God of being unjust according to the very laws He told us He never breaks, the same laws we are governed by. If you judged a man because of his father's actions, before even seeing his own actions, have you not sinned? Even if he were to commit sin, you would still be sinning if you judged him by anything other than his own fruits. Can God sin? No. Then He doesn't do that. Every man who found his way into judgment and was found lacking made his own bed. We don't need help from grandpappy Adam to make our own bed. For that matter, however, the sin of Adam was completely finished at the Cross. It wouldn't have any power past that point even if it were capable of having power above that of any other human.

 

[Geralt]

don't act like you never knew this has happened before aside from adam, see Joshua 7
the whole concept of the priesthood also rests on this very concept

believe what you want and try to form a system which what may sound convenient, but Romans 5:12 ff is still scripture.

Rom 5:18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous. ​

it is a bitter pill much like romans 9.

So a person isn't present, hasn't even been created yet, and is held responsible for his own personal salvation to answer for the deeds of a person he could never have any influence on? This is what happens when you over-emphasize the criminal aspect of sin, and see the crime as the cause of the sickness instead of the way it really is, with the crime being a SYMPTOM of the sickness. We are not judged for the sin of Adam. We are infected because of it, but we are not judged. If God was so unjust as to judge us for the actions of Adam, then we wouldn't ever have the option of salvation because then Jesus is literally acting against God's own interests, and since Jesus is God, this is impossible. It would turn the Trinity into exactly what Christ said about Satan when He said Satan would not work against Satan's own interests: a house divided.

If God's desire was to hold man responsible for the actions of Adam, then Christ wouldn't have come. Shoot, there would be NONE of the events in Scripture. And don't tell me that God was forced to judge us against His will, because He is the Judge in your picture of Him. He is all-powerful. He set the rules, therefore, just as with the laws of nature, like the law of co-creation (for every piece of matter created, an equal amount of antimatter is created), or the law of gravity, He can supercede those laws.

See, Scripture very clearly says EXACTLY what deeds we will be judged for: our own. Romans 2:2 quotes from Psalm 62:12, repeating the statement that God will judge each man according to his own deeds. In the judgment as described by Christ in Matthew, with the sheep and the goats, the sheep and goats are judged according to their own deeds, and not the deeds of any other. The temporal consequences of sin were passed down, and with them the knowledge of both good AND evil. But the sin itself is the sin of Adam and Eve, and none other. The eternal judgment, as described by Christ, and even in Revelation, says nothing about Adam's sin.

So no, God doesn't judge ETERNALLY for the sins of others. Our sins can effect others, but do not pass the buck onto God. When your sin causes pain for another person, it's your own foolish fault. Saying God causes the pain is accusing God of being unjust according to the very laws He told us He never breaks, the same laws we are governed by. If you judged a man because of his father's actions, before even seeing his own actions, have you not sinned? Even if he were to commit sin, you would still be sinning if you judged him by anything other than his own fruits. Can God sin? No. Then He doesn't do that. Every man who found his way into judgment and was found lacking made his own bed. We don't need help from grandpappy Adam to make our own bed. For that matter, however, the sin of Adam was completely finished at the Cross. It wouldn't have any power past that point even if it were capable of having power above that of any other human.

 

[sculleywr]

don't act like you never knew this has happened before aside from adam, see Joshua 7
the whole concept of the priesthood also rests on this very concept

believe what you want and try to form a system which what may sound convenient, but Romans 5:12 ff is still scripture.

Rom 5:18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous. ​

it is a bitter pill much like romans 9.

Led to does not mean made them guilty. Because we receive the knowledge of good and evil before we are ready for it and mature enough to use it, we sin. Your interpretation of the Scripture contradicts Romans 2 and Matthew 25. Sorry. Man is judged by his own deeds. The whole concept of original guilt is something created by the Roman Catholics in their slavish devotion to Augustine's most glaring mistake. But Romans cannot contradict itself. Either a man is judged by his own deeds as Paul writes in Romans 2 and Christ depicts in the Sheep and the Goats, or Scripture is lying in one of the two instances, or Scripture is just plainly not the guide we need to use because Christianity is fundamentally false. Show me one depiction of the JUDGMENT where man is judged by any deeds not his own. Can't? Well, no you can't. Because there aren't any.