One Died For All

[JAL]

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 him, he cannot understand them (2:14) vs. the mind of those who have the Spirit and which understands the secret things of God, it being the mind of Christ (2:16).

I have a brother who is an atheist. Talk to him about a God in the manger. With his mindset, he'd consider it foolishness whether beforehand (a prediction), or in the aftermath.

But God in a manger is not an illogical belief. If it were, we'd all be in big trouble, concerning our hope for salvation.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73

I've asked you this question a couple of times now. You seem to be avoiding it.

Do you see Adam as our representative? Such that we are declared guilty - guilty by representation - on account of his sin?

 

[Clare73]

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.

It is for me in light of 1Co 4:6: "Do not go beyond what is written."

 

[JAL]

It is for me in light of 1Co 4:6: "Do not go beyond what is written."

You're just contradicting yourself. As I've shown, you hold to multiple doctrines devoid of explicit biblical warrant.

 

[Clare73]

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 see it more in the context of our being a descendant of Adam, of his line.

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?

I need to let you know how I roll.

I don't "debate," because the only authority for me is the Word of God, man's logic
not-with-standing. My only goal is that understanding of the Word in any part be consistent with the Word of God in all parts, not necessarily consistent with "logic."

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.

Refresh my memory on Paul's error of fact in the way I see it.
I'm getting lost in the weeds.

 

[JAL]

I see it more in the context of our being a descendant of Adam, of his line.

Ok so Adam is the representative for anyone in his line? I think that's what you're saying, right?

Look, if you hold to a position, state it. If you can't identify a clear stance of your own, then don't sit here and criticize those of us who offer real answers to biblically-based questions.

I need to let you know how I roll.

I don't "debate,"....

This whole thread has been an ongoing debate between you and Fervent.
Again, pretense of a response.

My only goal is that understanding of the Word in any part be consistent with all the other parts of the Word of God, not necessarily consistent with "logic."

Exactly. For example if we say that God is infinitely kind, and then have a view of the Fall that ascribes to Him unkind, evil behavior, we've contradicted the Word of God.

You seem to want to justify contradictions.

Refresh my memory on Paul's error of fact in the way I see it.
I'm getting lost in the weeds.

Paul said that sin entered the world through Adam, but Eve sinned first.

 

[JAL]

For MY system, it's NOT an error of fact.

 

[Clare73]

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.

I find the human soul and human spirit pretty much inextricably related in Scripture.
I'm not much given to distinguishing them like that.

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.

And Jesus' parable of Lk 16:19-31, where something of Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man are still living, and in the parable it's not their bodies. You tell me what it is.

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

I disparage conclusions that are not warranted from anything in Scripture.
My "human reasoning" is the necessary conclusions of Biblical statements:
From "God is all knowing," I "reason" that he knows my mind.

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.

Just taking the Word of God at its word in Heb 4:12.
That's how I roll.

 

[Fervent]

@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.

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 theory is nothing more than your own musings. It may be convincing to you, but(and I don't say this to be mean) it's rather worthless because it's pure speculation. The Bible says that we are rightly subject to death because all have sinned. And the order is no error, God gave the command to Adam so it was not broken until he had eaten of the tree. Whether Eve was ever truly subject of the command requires speculation, but Adam was the one charged with the keeping it and he broke it.

 

[Fervent]

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.

The entire OT is not the law given at Sinai, that's contained in Exodus-Deuteronomy. A contradiction is not a revelation, it's not showing some kind of hidden mystery and a contradiction of one of the major prophets on what is presented as a universal principle of God's justice isn't a minor issue. Your premise seems to be "Let me read the NT how I want, and then I'll ignore everything in the OT that goes against it by stating the NT supercedes the OT."

 

[JAL]

I find the human soul and human spirit pretty much inextricably related in Scripture.
I'm not much given to distinguishing them like that.

You glossed right over the point of the statement you were supposedly responding to. Dancing.

And Jesus' parable of Lk 16:19-31, where something of Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man are still living, and in the parable it's not their bodies.

(Sigh). Relevance? I've made it pretty clear that soul and body are two distinct substances.

My "human reasoning" is the necessary conclusions of Biblical statements

Like I said, I get it. When YOU employ human reasoning you call it "biblical". If someone dissents with your conclusions, you disparage it as "human reasoning". Thus you identify yourself as the Authority on interpreting the Word of God, and thus exempt from having to resolve any contradictions in your thinking.

It's a double standard. Like I said, I get it.

Just taking the Word of God at its word in Heb 4:12.

Perfect example. Historically - and still today - 99% of professional theologians disagree with trichotomy and would fault your interpretation. But you don't see any need to consider their objections to your reading because you're the Authority on the Word.

I get it.

 

[JAL]

@Fervent
You're wasting your time debating with @Clare73. She's exegetically infallible in her own eyes.

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73

I've asked you this question a couple of times now. You seem to be avoiding it.

Do you see Adam as our representative? Such that we are declared guilty - guilty by representation - on account of his sin?

I see us guilty by imputation, reckoned to us by God (Ro 5:19).

 

[JAL]

I see us guilty by imputation, reckoned to us by God (Ro 5:19).

Why do you keep dancing around the question? Imputation of what? Adam's sin, right?

Adam thus imputes sin to all in his line, thus acting as their representative. Right?

 

[Fervent]

@Fervent
You're wasting your time debating with @Clare73. She's exegetically infallible in her own eyes.

I think chances of she and I coming to an understanding is better than you and I, though so long as conversations remain amicable I never see them as a waste of time as challenges to my own position may come up that I need to reconcile.

 

[Clare73]

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.

I've not heard of "Direct Revelation" or its apologetics.

 

[JAL]

I've not heard of "Direct Revelation" or its apologetics.

That's why I gave you 1Cor 14:1 as a reference. Two basic components:

(1) Suppose God wants you to do something - or believe something - right now. Why can't He simply speak to you? Must He wait until you've become a bible scholar and hopefully, by chance, reach that same conclusion exegetically? Thus Direct Revelation is, first and foremost, God conveying a message to us in real time, instead of waiting for us to deduce that information via bible-study.

(2) Prophets like Abraham existed before the Bible. In fact without prophets, our Bible wouldn't exist. When the prophet Abraham heard a message, he didn't need to "check it out with Scripture" (there wasn't any Scripture yet). In other words, Direct Revelation is self-authenticating. An excellent example is when he heard a voice commanding him to murder his own son. He didn't need to "check it out with Scripture".

By apologetics, I mean that I can:
(1) Show that our saving faith is based on self-authenticating Direct Revelation, not on exegesis.
(2) Show that Sola Scriptura - the idea that exegesis is the only final authority - is an inherently self-contradictory claim. (But why bother? You've made it pretty clear that you have no interest in resolving any contradictions in your thinking).

 

[JAL]

Also I can show:
(3) That the NT doesn't seem to lend much weight to exegesis. Rather it urges us to prioritize Direct Revelation, placing it on the very top rung of the priority ladder alongside love (1Cor 14:1). In particular, 1Corinthians is an epistle that defines spiritual maturity as mature prophethood. This argument is the thesis of chapter 2 but is strongly reiterated in chapter 13.

 

[JAL]

And Jesus' parable of Lk 16:19-31, where something of Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man are still living, and in the parable it's not their bodies. You tell me what it is.

Again, I believe in two components, body and soul (both tangible).
Therefore if the parable presumes disembodiment, then it is referring to souls.

Not sure why you think this is an issue for me.

Also I hesitate to build my metaphysics on parables.

 

[JAL]

Just taking the Word of God at its word in Heb 4:12.
That's how I roll.

How you SHOULD 'roll' is be honest with yourself about the fact that none of us are fully immune to 2,000 years of indoctrination. Like most Christians you keep telling yourself that your conclusions came "straight from the Word of God" but there is real danger that you're viewing it largely through the lens of traditional thinking. And, typically, the only flag to warn you of the problem is someone like me coming along and raising objections to your views.