One Died For All

[JAL]

I should have stated the syllogism this way:
Major premise: God punishes Adam alone for Adam's sin.
Minor premise: God punishes me for Adam's sin.
Conclusion: I am Adam

And by "punish" I don't mean hell alone. I mean ANY suffering or any detriment of any kind experienced as a consequence of the fall, first and foremost the universal expulsion of all men from the Garden.

 

[Clare73]

No, because those things were explicitly tied with the Mosaic covenant and were given as a part of it as the covenant obligations. When the revelation of the NT is understood, the temporary nature of the Mosaic covenant comes through and statements regarding it can be understood. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah all prophesied about the loss of the

covenant status and it can even be seen in Deuteronomy. There is no contradiction there, and the continuity between the two is apparent through numerous quotations and allusions to the OT that explain that Sinai was always intended to be replaced.

That's the replacement I am referring to.

What you see as "replacement" of the OT, I see as the OT being understood in the light of the NT
which governs the meaning of the OT, and
again, we're back to our opposing premises, which do not allow the resolving of our differences.

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73,
@Fervent

All traditional accounts of the Fall are irremediably flawed because a God who is perfectly kind and perfectly just will not visit the consequences of one man's sin upon 100 billion descendants.

Answer: We are Adam. That's the only VALID understanding of the Fall. Adam didn't pass on to you a sinful nature, rather you ARE sinful in nature because you, being Adam, sinned. You just don't remember being in the Garden.

How so? My theory is that God created one physical soul named Adam. After Adam sinned, God removed most of his sin-stained soul unto a place of suspended animation. At every human conception God mates a portion of the sin-stained soul to the embryo. In other words each human soul today is a physical piece of Adam's original soul.

I'm seeing here man's finite wisdom (logic) governing God's infinite wisdom in his revelation.
I'm thinking that is upside down.

Can I prove my theory? No - but 2,000 years of futility have proven that no other formula will solve this issue. This conclusion seems to be a bit of a logical syllogism and, as such, difficult to refute:
(1) God punishes Adam alone for Adam's sin.
(2) God punished each man for Adam's sin.
(3) Therefore each man is Adam.

If we claim to resolve the Problem of Evil, but fail to deal effectively with Adam, we're just kidding ourselves.

Your syllogism assumes that which Paul contradicts (Ro 5:18) in the revelation he received in the third heaven (2Co 12:2-7).

The NT reveals it to be more like a loose analogy:
of the first little skunk in creation, who peed on the carrots in the Garden
(which God had warned him woud have unpleasant results),
resulting in a noxious gas that altered his genetic code,
giving him an inherent stink,
and now every little skunk that descends from him is born with that stink (Ro 5:18).

 

[Clare73]

I should have stated the syllogism this way:
Major premise: God punishes Adam alone for Adam's sin.
Minor premise: God punishes me for Adam's sin.
Conclusion: I am Adam

Methinks that is more of man's finite wisdom seeking to overturn God's infinite wisdom.

And by "punish" I don't mean hell alone. I mean ANY suffering or any detriment of any kind experienced as a consequence of the fall, first and foremost the universal expulsion of all men from the Garden.

The NT reveals the punishment explicitly to be condemnation (Ro 5:18),
from which those who believe in and trust on Jesus' substitutionary penal atonement are delivered.

 

[JAL]

Methinks that is more of man's finite wisdom seeking to overturn God's infinite wisdom.
The NT reveals the punishment explicitly to be condemnation (Ro 5:18),
from which those who believe in and trust on Jesus' substitutionary penal atonement are delivered.

Recall that the Problem of Evil is (rightly) understood by atheists to be a logical contradiction ruling out the existence of God. You can't posit omnibenevolence and then contradict it. The point can be demonstrated by an analogy representing traditional versions of the Fall. From another post:

Suppose a man in the large state of Texas deliberately poisoned all the ground water, endangering the tens of millions of Texas residents. The President of the USA then declares, "Even though I have a way to purify the drinking water, I've decided that you should ALL suffer the consequences of his transgression. You will ALL drink poisoned water and DIE."

You would classify that President as the most evil man who ever lived (as would I). Even calling him a "monster" would be too charitable, there is no word adequate to describe such a degree of evil.


The church CLAIMS to want revival, but several of her teachings, when fully ramified, are incredibly insulting to God. It wouldn't be so bad if the church were simply honest and forthcoming about the apparent inadequacies in her doctrine. But to parade around like, "We know exactly what we are doing. We know our Bibles inside and out." ???????

Secondly, bear in mind that the Trinity - even the divinity of Christ - are logical constructs. I agree with both those doctrines, but they are not stated explicitly in Scripture. If you're opposed to reasoning, shouldn't you be opposed to those doctrines too?

 

[JAL]

The NT reveals the punishment explicitly to be condemnation (Ro 5:18),
from which those who believe in and trust on Jesus' substitutionary penal atonement are delivered.

Where have I contradicted that? All I've done is cast a wider net - my solution solves the Adam-issue both for those who regard the Fall as incriminating (like you I guess?) and those who regard it as merely consequential in effect.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

I haven't been following all your posts. Couple of questions for you about the Fall.

(1) Do you see Adam as our federal representative? Such that we are declared guilty on account of his sin?

(2) Can you explain why Paul says that sin entered the world through Adam, even though Eve sinned first? (This is not a problem for me because she was derived physically from his ribs and was thus a piece of Adam's physical soul).

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

A couple more examples of human reasoning:

(1) The Hypostatic Union. There is no explicit Scripture indicating that God added a created human being - one of us - to the Trinity.

(2) Intangible souls. The word "intangible" isn't found in Scripture. If it weren't for Plato, probably no one would believe that lie.

 

[Clare73]

Recall that the Problem of Evil is (rightly) understood by atheists to be a logical contradiction ruling out the existence of God. You can't posit omnibenevolence and then contradict it. The point can be demonstrated by an analogy representing traditional versions of the Fall. From another post:

Suppose a man in the large state of Texas deliberately poisoned all the ground water, endangering the tens of millions of Texas residents. The President of the USA then declares, "Even though I have a way to purify the drinking water, I've decided that you should ALL suffer the consequences of his transgression. You will ALL drink poisoned water and DIE."

You would classify that President as the most evil man who ever lived (as would I). Even calling him a "monster" would be too charitable, there is no word adequate to describe such a degree of evil.


The church CLAIMS to want revival, but several of her teachings, when fully ramified, are incredibly insulting to God. It wouldn't be so bad if the church were simply honest and forthcoming about the apparent inadequacies in her doctrine. But to parade around like, "We know exactly what we are doing. We know our Bibles inside and out." ???????

Secondly, bear in mind that the Trinity - even the divinity of Christ - are logical constructs. I agree with both those doctrines, but they are not stated explicitly in Scripture. If you're opposed to reasoning, shouldn't you be opposed to those doctrines too?

Okay, you're taking me out of my league here, with man's logic challenging the wisdom and sovereignty of God.
The logic of the atheist is neither appealing nor merit worthy to me.

In Romans, whose theme is righteousness from God, where the problem of God's rejection of Israel is addressed and God's righteousness vindicated, we have the Pharisee scholar, Paul's, conclusion on the "logic" of it all, which corresponds to Moses' conclusion (Dt 29:29) on his prophecy of the same (Dt 29:19-28).

In response to God's binding all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all (Jew and Gentile, both groups under discussion)--Ro 11:32, Paul resolves the "lack of logic" in an outpouring of praise:

"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor? (certainly not man's finite logic)
Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him? (See Job 41:11; Lk 17:9).
(there is nothing in us that can make God a debtor to us)
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

And that is the Biblical mind of the sons of God, definitely not expected from atheists.
.

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73,

A couple more examples of human reasoning:

(1) The Hypostatic Union. There is no explicit Scripture indicating that God added a created human being - one of us - to the Trinity.

The whole Jesus, including his resurrection body, is in heaven.
There are three divine spirits in one, all in the Trinity.
As personal seed of the divine Father, Jesus is divine as well as human, possessing a divine spirit as well as a human spirit.
That puts him in the Trinity, with a physical resurrection body possessing different spiritual qualities than the natural body.

This may be the burning issue with Satan--that in the glorifying of his Son,
God decreed to exalt mere matter above Satan,
to which Satan responded with vehement hatred of God's creation and
resolute determination to kill and destroy it.

(2) Intangible souls. The word "intangible" isn't found in Scripture. If it weren't for Plato, probably no one would believe that lie.

Are you asking if the soul is immaterial?
It is inextricably bound up with the spirit (Heb 4:12), which is immaterial.
The word of God is living and capable of dividing the two at the point of distinction.
.

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73,

I haven't been following all your posts. Couple of questions for you about the Fall.

(1) Do you see Adam as our federal representative? Such that we are declared guilty on account of his sin?

I see us declared guilty of his sin because the NT word of God reveals such (Ro 5:18).

It is part of the over-arching plan of God to glorify himself in the glory of Jesus Christ.

(2) Can you explain why Paul says that sin entered the world through Adam, even though Eve sinned first? (This is not a problem for me because she was derived physically from his ribs and was thus a piece of Adam's physical soul).

That's the way I see it. Adam was the first human created, the head of the line.

 

[Clare73]

Where have I contradicted that? All I've done is cast a wider net - my solution solves the Adam-issue both for those who regard the Fall as incriminating (like you I guess?) and those who regard it as merely consequential in effect.

I am stating that Scripture does not cast a wider net than damnation.
We have no authorization to do so ourselves.
.

 

[JAL]

Okay, you're taking me out of my league here, with man's logic challenging the wisdom and sovereignty of God.

Oh I get it. You accept human reasoning in all the doctrines I named. But if I happen to disagree with you on a point, you accuse me of human reasoning. Lovely.

The logic of the atheist is neither appealing nor merit worthy to me....And that is the Biblical mind of the sons of God, definitely not expected from atheists.

Logic itself is neither religious nor atheist, it is agnostic. I wasn't asking you to become an atheist. I was asking you to reexamine your logic.

In response to God's binding all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all (Jew and Gentile, both groups under discussion)--Ro 11:32, Paul resolves the "lack of logic" in an outpouring of praise:

And this doesn't require any illogic. My ontology resolves it perfectly. Seems you just don't want to consider an interpretation that actually works.

Look if theology is illogical - if it can self-contradict - hope cannot be based on theological grounds. The Bible and the discipline of theology become useless, and the promises of the Bible become contradictions in terms because they misleadingly purport to offer hope. I've already discussed this.

So is this your "resolution" to anyone who disagrees with you on a doctrine? You conclude, "I'm just right, you're wrong, take it up with the illogical Paul" ?????

This is the irony of evangelicals. Ask any evangelical, "Are you infallible?", and they respond, "No of course not." Then challenge him on a major doctrine and he'll respond, "I can't possibly be wrong on THAT one!". Thus they only pay lip service to fallibility. Literally.

Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him? (See Job 41:11; Lk 17:9).
(there is nothing in us that can make God a debtor to us)

Did you actually read that verse? The verse is asking whether God ever borrowed money from me, or some other asset of mine, such that He needs to repay me.

"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
Who has known the mind of the Lord?Or who has been his counselor?

"But we [apostle and prophets] have the mind of Christ" (1Cor 2:16).
All this is saying is that you can't always reliably predict the specifics of God's will without Direct Revelation. Immanuel come to us as an infant born in a manger? Who would have predicted THAT?

But there is no illogic to it. In this context, Paul is referring to an equally unpredictable decision on God's part. Trouble is, the church still has no clue what it is! Feel free to ask me, and if I have time I'll tell you about it. It pertains to the debate on Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism - which party are you in? I stand with Covenant Theology, but historically they missed Paul's point here. Hence they, like you, miss the point of Paul's doxology.

(certainly not man's finite logic)

For reasons stated, you can't rationally press an illogical point of view. What you CAN do, for starters, is be forthcoming that we don't know the answers (see my signature), admit that our traditional doctrines could EASILY be in error. If the church would preach my signature from the pulpit, I think we'd be a lot more prone to revival, and a lot more people would get saved.

For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

Amen !!!!

 

[JAL]

I am stating that Scripture does not cast a wider net than damnation.
We have no authorization to do so ourselves.
.

That's not an objection to my view. My view doesn't oppose universal condemnation in Adam. In fact it insists on it, but the main point is that it does so with justice, not with traditional caprice.

 

[JAL]

I see us declared guilty of his sin because the NT word of God reveals such (Ro 5:18).

Please don't dance around question. Please be specific - because I too agree with your generalized statement. We both agree, based on Romans 5, that all men are guilty in Adam. The question here is in what sense?
(1) For me, it is that we ARE Adam.
(2) For you, it SEEMS to be that Adam was our official representative.

Is that correct? Is #2 your position? I ask because I can't debate with a moving target.

Or are you afraid to reveal your exact position, fearful that it is too weak to withstand my objections?

That's the way I see it. Adam was the first human created, the head of the line.

Well the way you see it creates an unresolved contradiction in the text - it leaves Paul making an error of fact. Do you understand what the appropriate response is to a discovered contradiction? You're supposed to look for an alternative position.

 

[JAL]

The whole Jesus, including his resurrection body, is in heaven.
There are three divine spirits in one, all in the Trinity.
As personal seed of the Father, Jesus was divine as well as human, possessing a divine spirit as well as a human spirit.
That puts him in the Trinity, with a physical resurrection body possessing different spiritual qualities than the natural body.

This may be the burning issue with Satan--that God planned to exalt mere matter above him, the source his vehement hatred of God's creation and his determined effort to kill and destroy it.

Please desist with arguments about the body. That wasn't my point. The Hypostatic Union claims that God took a created human soul and added it to the Trinity. It insists that the soul within Christ's physical body was human, not divine. And my point is that this is a conclusion derived from human reasoning, in the sense that it is not stated explicitly in scripture.

Are you asking if the soul is immaterial?

No. I'm pretty sure that you believe that lie, as most traditional thinkers do. I'm just making the point that it is a conclusion based on human reasoning, specifically Plato's reasoning.

My point is that, since you already are prone to human reasoning, you cannot, in fairness, disparagingly accuse me of "human reasoning"

It is inextricably bound up with the spirit (Heb 4:12) which is immaterial.
The word of God is living and capable of dividing the two at the point of distinction.
.

Oh God. Please don't tell me you're an advocate of trichotomy. That is one of the most gibberish-doctrines in church history, and certainly stuck with at least one unresolved charge of contradiction.

 

[JAL]

And it is precisely because we, as bible students, are prone to so many doctrinal errors, that I champion the primacy of Direct Revelation above exegesis/scholarship (see 1Cor 14:1). I am categorically opposed to Sola Scriptura and consider myself to have a basic grasp of the fundamentals of Direct Revelation apologetics.

 

[Clare73]

Oh I get it. You accept human reasoning in all the doctrines I named. But if I happen to disagree with you on a point, you accuse me of human reasoning. Lovely.

Logic itself is neither religious nor atheist, it is agnostic. I wasn't asking you to become an atheist. I was asking you to reexamine your logic.

Actually, I have pretty much shown that my understanding of Biblical doctrine is not based in human reasoning (logic), but in the Word of God itself, understood in the light of all Scripture.

And this doesn't require any illogic.

But it does require that for which there is no Biblical authorization.

My ontology resolves it perfectly. Seems you just don't want to consider an interpretation that actually works.

Look if theology is illogical - if it can self-contradict -

Theology is simply the systematic organization of Biblical revelation.
Theology is not free to add to that revelation to make it "logical" or "actually work."

hope cannot be based on theological grounds. The Bible and the discipline of theology become useless, and the promises of the Bible become contradictions in terms because they misleadingly purport to offer hope. I've already discussed this.

Hope is based on the Word of God's revelation of the reality of Jesus' atoning work,
which delivers those who believe in and trust on him from God's wrath on sin (Ro 5:9),
hope is not based on theology.

So is this your "resolution" to anyone who disagrees with you on a doctrine? You conclude, "I'm just right, you're wrong, take it up with the illogical Paul" ?????

This is the irony of evangelicals. Ask any evangelical, "Are you infallible?", and they respond, "No of course not." Then challenge him on a major doctrine and he'll respond, "I can't possibly be wrong on THAT one!". Thus they only pay lip service to fallibility. Literally.

Did you actually read that verse? The verse is asking whether God ever borrowed money from me, or some other asset of mine, such that He needs to repay me.

Money is not mentioned. In the context of all Scripture, it means there is nothing in me
that can make God a debtor to me. He owes me nothing but justice--giving me that which I have earned, deserve; he does not owe me mercy, blessing, goodness, etc. I have no valid claim to anything but justice.

But we [apostle and prophets] have the mind of Christ" (1Cor 2:16).
All this is saying is that you can't always reliably predict the specifics of God's will without Direct Revelation.

In the context of 1Co 2:1-16, Paul is contrasting the mind of the world
which does not understand the secret wisdom of God--that has been hidden and that God has destined for the glory of the believer (2:6-7), and which has been revealed by his Spirit (2:12),
with the mind of the Spirit which Paul has received, speaking in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words (interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual men), which spiritual man is not subject to the judgment of men who do not have the Spirit (2:13-15), for
Paul has the mind of Christ (2:16).

Immanuel come to as an infant born in a manger? Who would have predicted THAT?

But there is no illogic to it. In this context, Paul is referring to an equally unpredictable decision on God's part. Trouble is, the church still has no clue what it is! Feel to free ask me, and if I have time I'll tell you about it. It pertains to the debate on Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism - which party are you in? I stand with Covenant Theology, but historically they missed Paul's point here. Hence they, like you, miss the point of Paul's doxology.

It is not about God being unpredictable, it's about the mind of the world which rejects the things that come from the Spirit of God because they are foolishness to them, they cannot understand them (2:14)
vs. the mind of those who have the Spirit and which mind understands the secret things of God,
it being the mind of Christ (2:16).

For reasons stated, you can't rationally press an illogical point of view.
What you CAN do, for starters, is be forthcoming that we don't know the answers (see my signature), admit that our traditional doctrines could EASILY be in error.

It's not about rationally pressing an illogical point of view.
It's about taking the Word of God at its word, in the context of the whole counsel of God.
And we do know the answers which God gives, which are never in error.

If the church would preach my signature from the pulpit, I think we'd be a lot more prone to revival, and a lot more people would get saved.

Jesus didn't command the church to preach your signature (Mt 28:18-20).

You are more wise than God now?

 

[JAL]

I don't see any real responses here. Just a pretense of one. I myself don't stoop to pretense-responses.

Actually, I have pretty much shown that my understanding of Biblical doctrine is not based in human reasoning (logic), but in the Word of God
itself, understood in the light of all Scripture.

All of us can say that "pretty much" to use you term. Otherwise we probably would not be Christians.

It just requires that for which there is no Biblical authorization....Theology is simply the systematic organization of Biblical revelation....

But I just gave you multiple examples of traditional beliefs for which there is NOT explicit biblical authorization. How is this a relevant response to me?

As noted, it's not.

Theology is not free to add to that revelation to make it "logical" or "actually work."

See above. That's exactly what orthodoxy has done in those multiple doctrines such as Hypostatic Union. Are you rebutting me, or yourself? Seems the latter.

Hope is based on the Word of God's revelation of the reality of Jesus' atoning work,
which delivers those who believe in and trust on him from God's wrath on sin (Ro 5:9),
hope is not based on theology.

You're not making sense. If the doctrines and promises of God can self-contradict, the Word of God affords no hope. Theology must assume that Scripture does NOT self-contradict, at least not on major issues.

Money is not mentioned.
In the context of all Scripture, it means there is nothing in me
that can make God a debtor to me. He owes me nothing but justice....

Right so why do you hold to a traditional view of the Fall that is neither kind nor just, as demonstrated in my state-of-Texas analogy?

 

[JAL]

@Clare73:

And again, it's not just a question of what God OWES us. It's a question of being consistent. If we define God as omnibenevolent - infinitely kind - then we must not hold to teachings where He behaves like an evil monster.