One Died For All

[Clare73]

Clare73:

Suppose you provide scriptural support for the believe that "there are three divine spirits" and all three are part of a Trinity.

Alter2Ego

Jesus often refers to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and himself as the Son in his many claims about himself; e.g.,
he came down from heaven (Jn 3:13, 6:38, 42, 62), and
was sent by God (Jn 5:36-40, 10:36, 13:3, 16:28)
with power to forgive sin (Mt 9:2-6), etc., etc., etc.

The gospel of John opens with the "Word," which the Jews used as a way of referring to God
(Dt 32:1-2; Isa 55:8-11; Ps 107:20),
in the beginning was the Word--the Word is eternal,
which Word was with God--personality, personhood of the Word, distinct from the Father,
and which word was God-deity of the Word who is distinct from the Father,
through him--male personhood,
all things were made--creator (Col 1:13-17),
in him was life--all life in creation is in and through him (Col 1:17),
the life was the light of men--the Word revealing,
the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14)--incarnation,
which incarnation reveals the Word to be God's Son, the only begotten of the Father (Jn 1:14).
.

 

[Clare73]

I never got a straight answer out of you as whether Adam is our rep

I don't know anything about rep.
My view is Adam's guilt is imputed to those of Adam
as Christ's righteousness is imputed to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

You get to decide if that is "federal headship" because I don't know what that means.

 

[Clare73]

More precisely it's based on that the belief that we suffer on account of Adam's sin, meaning, ANY kind of consequences.

Is it your position that Adam's sin did not spell consequences for us?

Consequences of Adam's sin is condemnation, from which Jesus saves those who believe in him.

Don't know how to say it any better than that.

Oops! This wasn't addressed to me. . .sorry about that.

 

[JAL]

What I want is to explain what the finite mind of man sees as contradictions....

You seem to be confirming my allegation of your willingness to push unresolved contradictions in a debate.

...my premise being that God's view of "kindness" is what governs.

Yet you hold to a traditional view of the Fall in which I see no kindness.

So. . .I learn from God's love for sinners, where in order to cancel (forgive) the debt/punishment of their sin, he first had to send his Son (Jn 3:13, 5:36-40 6:38, 42, 62, 10:36, 13:3, 16:28) to suffer the most brutal scourgings, cruel mockings, and an agonizing death on the cross to satisfy his justice.
What he required of his Son wasn't "kind," nor was it "good" in the finite view of man.
From this I learn that all God's attributes are governed by his justice, and that his justice "contradicts" my finite view of "kind."

(1) This isn't making sense. If you really believed that the biblical data contradicts kindness you'd have no hope.
(2) Required of His son? Hardly. Involuntary atonement is not justice. The assumption must be that the Son went willingly as a volunteer - as an act of kindness costly both to the Father and Son. Thus justice (atonement) is satisfied by His act of kindness contrary to your silly insinuation that the two are in contradiction.

Therefore, I have no need to impose on God my finite view of "kind," particularly when my view is not in agreement with other explicit Scripture.
I learn that my finite reasoning and logic are not arbiters of God's truth.
I learn that his truth is to be received, not critiqued, evaluated and judged by the finite mind of man.
And that's now "I roll."

It's not a matter of imposing our views upon God. It's a matter that hope is impossible if His character really does stand in contradiction to our understanding of kindness. I can't prove to you that God is kind, nor can I force Him to conform to kindness. But if I claim to have a theology consistent with hope, then I must assume He DOES conform to humanly understood kindness.

Feels like I've repeated these points a hundred times on this thread.

In the OT, descendants are reckoned through the father, not the mother.
Biblically, we are officially descendants of Adam, and whose guilt was imputed to us.

Ok then in that case you're saying that Eve's actions have no moral status because Adam is our rep. On that point you are consistent, then - but of course I gave a six point rebuttal against representation. I haven't checked to see if you responded to it.

 

[JAL]

Who said I subscribed to those beliefs?

Who said I held those views?

So you reject the following beliefs:
(1) Trinity
(2) Christ's divinity
(3) Incarnation
(4) Intangible souls

And we could add more such as:
(5) Free will.

You might feel that the Bible IMPLIES these doctrines, but it takes human reasoning to get there because it's not explicit. And I could go on and on. I'm confident you have multiple opinions that you deduced from Scripture regarding things like abortion, contraception, church services, evangelism, prayer, eschatology, sanctification, covenants, trichotomy - exegesis always involves human reasoning. I could even go through your posts on this thread and highlight some of them.

Therein lies the problem. You think that what is contradictory to finite human reasoning is contradictory of God.

Newsflash: We are humans. In the discipline of theology, all we have at our disposal is human reasoning. Therefore if a conclusion appears to contradict, we should look for a resolution - and keep our eyes peeled for a better conclusion.

A good example of that fallacy is the "logical" assumption that responsibility for sin requires that man have free will, capable of obeying God in all things at all times.
However, the Word of God reveals that man is responsible for his sin, even though he is not able to obey God in all things at all times.

What's your point? Yes, obviously, if we found a resolution for an apparent contradiction, then it is no longer an apparent contradiction, so we need not look for a better conclusion. Duh. And?

I hold to the Biblical view of the Fall, that Adam's guilt/debt due to sin is imputed to all mankind
(Ro 5:18), because it is the Word of God. That such imputation is just can be demonstrated.

Oh really? You can demonstrate that representation counts as justice - despite my six-point rebuttal?

Ok I'll keep reading to see if you managed that feat.

 

[JAL]

Yes, if their dissent is based just in what seems right to them, it is human reasoning, it is not the Word of God which is the authority.

No, it is based on what seems right to all of us. That's why I gave that state-of-Texas analogy at post 445. I've never heard anyone retort, "That President behaved with impeccable kindness, generosity, and justice.

It then becomes yours to demonstrate from the Word of God the interpretation is incorrect.

That's what I do. I demonstrated a logical contradiction to the Word of God - the idea that a God with impeccable kindness, generosity, and justice forces 100 billion innocent descendants of Adam to essentially drink poisoned water and DIE. (The clear point of the Texas-analogy). If you don't see a contradiction there, it is only because you don't WANT to.

It's one standard, the Word of God is the authority for truth, whether it is contradictory to one's finite human reasoning, or not.

Who said that the Word of God self-contradicts? All we need is a theology that doesn't self-contradict. Mine.

See you're doing it again. Your double standard. If YOU agree to a doctrine, you claim it to be "demonstrated from the Word of God". But in regard to those who disagree with your reasoning, you accuse them of "finite human reasoning."

Why can't you admit that
(1) Human reasoning is a necessary tool in exegesis.
(2) It doesn't make sense to randomly dismiss it as "finite human reasoning" when faced with an apparent contradiction. Resolve the contradiction promptly, or be open-minded to an alternative conclusion.

So what do they do with Heb 4:12 which clearly presents one?
I need to see on what Biblical basis they reject Heb 4:12.

I wasn't sure that I wanted to debate trichotomy on this thread. I once wrote a 2-page essay against it, but not sure if it will conveniently paste here, with the footnotes. But I might find a link to an online article and paste it here instead.

 

[JAL]

It's not what he can do, it's what he does do. . .they aren't the same.

In those terms, there is no need for the Word of God written.
Yet he has given us his "God-breathed" Scripture (2Tim 3:16),
which is our boundary for his truth (1Co 4:6).
Eve has demonstrated how easily man is deceived by Satan, who is quite capable of masquerading as an angel of light with a message from God.
That is territory I have no intention of entering.

Would that not also apply to a message from the one masquerading as an angel of light?

Because there was no Scripture.
Somebody had to first receive the revelation before it could become Scripture.
Abraham was one of them.
But now it is God himself who has given us his Word written in Scripture (2Tim 3:16),
and I'm thinking if his Word spoken was all we needed, as it was with Abraham who had no Word of God written to consult, then he wouldn't have given his Word written to us.

Yes, the Word of God written confirms that the Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the sons of God; i.e., born again (Ro 8:16).

You're straying too far off the reservation for me.

Supposed "contradictions" in the Word of God written, according to the finite human mind, is absolutely no cause or basis for placing any other form of revelation over it.
The Word of God written was given as our measure and plumb line to protect us from deception in any other form of revelation (1Jn 4:1; 1Th 5:21).

I'm dancin' with the one that brung me--the Word of God written.

Who are you trying to impress with this post? I already told you I was somewhat versed in Direct Revelation apologetics. You don't think I've addressed these kinds of silly Sola Scriptura arguments before? Heck even the Catholics have refuted most of them for centuries!

Newsflash: You can't effectively rebut apologetics unknown to you. I have a unique defense of Direct Revelation in the sense of multiple arguments that I haven't seen anywhere else.

The question is whether I want to repeat all that material on this thread. If you want to do some reading, feel free to ask me for some links to my threads. I mentioned 3 points of demonstration. I should have mentioned a fourth:

(4) The NT defines evangelism ('witnessing') as prophetic utterance, for it "It will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you." I proved THAT point in just two short posts, if you want the links.

 

[JAL]

I hold to the Biblical view of the Fall, that Adam's guilt/debt due to sin is imputed to all mankind (Ro 5:18), because it is the Word of God. That such imputation is just can be demonstrated.

Ok I think I responded to your posts. Did I miss one? Because, in response to my 6-point rebuttal of imputation/representation, I fail to see where you demonstrated that such is perfectly kind, generous, and just.

 

[JAL]

So what do they do with Heb 4:12 which clearly presents one?
I need to see on what Biblical basis they reject Heb 4:12.

Time for a little primer on Heb 4:12.
(1) In a materialism such as mine, the verse carries no support for trichotomy. Consider the physical body - one body but many part with different names. Despite the many parts/names, all parts behave the same, they all behave like ordinary machinery/matter. Now imagine a physical mind spread throughout the human body. Feel free to assign different names to different parts (soul, spirit, heart, mind/intellect) - because you might feel that each name best describes one part (based on its most prominent faculties). Nonetheless these are, ultimately, mere nominal/superficial distinctions incidental to the distribution of the the mind in the body. It's all mind, it's all the same.

(2) But there is no need to rely on materialism to address Heb 4:12. We often distinguish between the different facets of the inner man. If a person is overly-emotional, we might warn them, "Keep your intellect and your emotions separate." Or, "Keep your mind and your emotions separate." In the same way, soul and spirit, in Heb 4:12, could be referring to 2 different facets/faculties of the inner man. Which ones? Thoughts and intents, for example:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Here's where it gets interesting. Actually we have listed here, potentially, six components at last:
(1) Soul
(2) Spirit
(3) Thoughts
(4) Intents
(5) Heart
(6) Body
Why does the trichotomist, then, limit himself to 3 parts? Trichotomy is, essentially, random exegesis. Why not add
(7) Conscience

Jesus said, "Love God with all you heart, soul, mind, and will." That's four parts, but only adds two new ones to the list.
(8) Will
(9) Mind
If we settle for the random trichotomist hermeneutic, where does the list end? And where does it begin?

Look, we can resolve this ambiguity via two instruments;
(1) Consistency
(2) Coherence.

And that's what my 2-page rebuttal of trichotomy does. It addresses:
(1) Consistency. The NT uses the nine terms above somewhat interchangeably. More to the point, the term "heart" occurs 1,000 times in the bible. In one verse or another - if you survey the 1,000 verses - you'll find that ALL psychological faculties are placed in the heart-bucket. This proves that we have ONE inner man (the heart) variously named soul, spirit, mind, will, conscience, etc.

(2) Coherence. Trichotomy is easily shown incoherent, for example it cannot provide a coherent theory of the new birth. This is because ALL faculties are involved in sin, and thus ALL faculties must be reborn. This isn't compatible with a two-way split where only half the faculties are made new.

Hope this helps.

 

[Clare73]

;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?

I bear to strongly disagree. . .to repeat what I've just posted:

Jesus often refers to Father, Holy Spirit, and Son (himself) in his many claims about himself; e.g.,
he came down from heaven (Jn 3:13, 6:38, 42, 62, 8:58, 17:5, 24; 1Jn 1:1-4), and
was sent by God (Jn 5:36-40, 10:36, 13:3, 16:28),
possessing all authority (power) in heaven and earth (Mt 26:64, 28:18; Lk 10:22; Jn 13:3, 13)
to die as a ransom for the sins of many (Mt 20:28, 26:28; Jn 10:11)
with power to forgive sin (Mt 9:2-6),
to conquer Satan (Jn 12:31; Lk 10:18; Mk 1:23-26, 5:6-13),
to speak for God (Jn 7:16, 8:25-28, 12:44-45, 49-50, 14:10; Lk 9:35, 10:16),
and to judge all mankind (Jn 5:22, 27, 8:26, 12:48; Mt 25:31-33),
as the exclusive (barring all others) way to God (Jn 14:6),
the source of all truth and life (Jn 1:4, 14:6, 5:25-26, 6:40),
the decisive factor in the eternal destiny of every man (Jn 3:18-19, 36; 5:24, 6:40, 8:24-25),
equal with God--doing what God does (Jn 5:18-19, 8:19, 12:44-45, 14:7-9, 16:15, 17:10),
--as the Father works, so the Son works (miracles) - (Jn 5:17),
--as the Father gives life, so the Son gives life (Jn 5:21),
--as the Father is Judge, so the Son is Judge (Jn 5:22),
--as the Father is to be honored, so the Son is to be honored (Jn 5:23),
--as the Father has life in himself, so the Son has life in himself (Jn 5:26)
--as the Father sends with authority and power, so the Son sends with authority and power (Jn 20:21)
--as the Father makes law, so the Son makes law (Mt 5:24-47, 12:7-8, 19:9, 21:23-27,ch 23, Lk 6:5)
--as the Father confers the kingdom, so the Son confers the kingdom (Lk 22:29),
empowering the apostle to speak for him, as well as for God (Lk 10:16; Jn 13:20),
to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15; Lk 24:48-49), and
speaking exactly what God told him to say when he made these claims about himself (Jn 12:49).

Jesus is saying in these claims that he is no less than God. And this is the way the Jews understood him (Mk 2:3-7; Jn 6:41-42, 10:30-33, 5:18, 8:58-59, 19:7), which is why they killed him.

All of which is the reason John opens his Gospel
with the "Word," which the Jews used as a way of referring to God
(Dt 32:1-2; Isa 55:8-11; Ps 107:20),
in the beginning was the Word--the Word is eternal (see Jn 17:5, 24; 1Jn 1:1-3),
which Word was with God--distinct from the Father, personhood
and which word was God-deity of the Word who is distinct from the Father,
through him--male personhood,
all things were made--creator (Col 1:13-17),
in him was life--all life in creation is in and through him (Col 1:17),
the life was the light of men--the Word revealing,
the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14)--incarnation,
which incarnation reveals the Word to be God's Son, the only begotten of the Father (Jn 1:14),
to which Heb 1:3-4 testifies.

The divinity of Christ is not just a logical construct, it is divine revelation of the Word of God written.
If by "logical construct" you mean it is the necessary conclusion of NT revelation, then I agree.
But it is a poor choice of words, for
it smacks of being an invention of the logic of man
rather than a necessary conclusion of divine revelation.

Your knowledge/comprehension of the Word of God written is woefully inadequate.

 

[Clare73]

How Can God Justly Hold Man Responsible for Adam's Sin?

To the question: if man did not personally incur the sin of Adam, how can God justly hold man responsible for that sin?
Well, that is answered by law in our own legal system.
If we consider it to be just there, why would we consider it to be unjust with God?

Take the Anthropos family business. As long as the Anthropos sons of future generations (who successively inherit their father's business) keep up the family business, they are in justice personally responsible for the debts of that business, even though they did not personally incur those debts, which may have been incurred by previous generations, such as the mortgage on the building.

The principle here is: personal responsibility for debt does not require that the debt be personally incurred.

The same is true in God's spiritual economy.
Because man is the son of Adam, keeping up the family business of Adam (sin), he is responsible for the debt of Adam, even though he did not personally incur that debt.

Really? Is this a "logical construct" of man, or do we see this principle anywhere in Scripture.
Well, as a matter of fact we do, it's not a new principle, which is why it is embodied in our own system of laws.

In Lk 11:48-51, Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world; because in rejecting Christ, the Prophet who was to come (Dt 18:18; Jn 1:21, 6:14, 12:49; Ac 3:22-23, 7:37), they were keeping up their forefathers' business of rejecting the prophets God sent to them and were, therefore, liable for all the debts of their forefathers' business (v.51).

So in the same way, man is responsible for the sin of Adam even though man did not personally incur that sin (Ro 1:32) and, therefore, there is no injustice in man's responsibility for Adam's sin.

Now to another point demonstrated in this post:
God's justice not agreeing with man's notions is never an indictment of God,
it is always an indictment of the finite mind of man.

Let this be a lesson: it is always a serious miscalculation to indict the Word of God written because it offends one's personal notions.

We do not judge God, he judges us.
We do not judge the Word of God written, it judges us
(as it judges this silly notion that God is unjust).
--Bible 101

Ka-peesh?
.

 

[JAL]

The divinity of Christ is not a logical construct, it is divine revelation of the Word of God written.

Sorry, you can't get there without reasoning. Not one verse you cited says, "Jesus is God". You DEDUCED that from the verses. Example.

the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14)--incarnation,

Incarnation? Where does that verse mention Christ? You're making a logical deduction there. You're connecting some dots. As I said, I don't need these major-doctrine examples. Respecting lesser doctrines, you've formed a hundred opinions by now as a longstanding Christian. You've connected a LOT of dots. That's all I'm saying.

As for the Trinity, most of the those passages could be cited in favor of Unitarianism or polytheism. It takes some reasoning (or indoctrination) to be a Trinitarian.

Look, you can't even get STARTED in exegesis without human reasoning. Where do you learn Hebrew and Greek? From a lexicon created by fallible men! Fallible human reasoning is ALWAYS involved in exegesis! (Which is, by the way, one rebuttal to Sola Scriptura).

 

[Alter2Ego]

I'm aware of the wording, which is why I qualified it as I did. The "condemnation" spoken of is the penalty of death, as Adam's sin caused death to enter the world. It is not a condemnation of guilt transmitted as punishment.

Fervent:

Thank you for your clarification. Yes. I agree that the condemnation spoken of in the Bible is with reference to the fact that Adam's sin caused death to enter the world. This is confirmed by scripture.

"That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12)

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

 

[Alter2Ego]

More precisely it's based on that the belief that we suffer on account of Adam's sin, meaning, ANY kind of consequences.

Is it your position that Adam's sin did not spell consequences for us?

JAL:

Apparently you skipped past some of what I stated at Post 482. Below is what I previously said:

JAL:

While it is true that all of Adam's offspring (the entire human race) inherited sin and imperfection from Adam, none of us are punished for Adam's sin. Instead, we are responsible for our own wrongful conduct in light of the fact we were created with free will--the ability to make independent choices.

The consequence of sin is death to all of us, because we commit sins due to the imperfection we inherited from Adam.

 

[Clare73]

Sorry, you can't get there without reasoning. Not one verse you cited says, "Jesus is God". You DEDUCED that from the verses. Example.
Incarnation? Where does that verse mention Christ? You're making a logical deduction there. You're connecting some dots. As I said, I don't need these major-doctrine examples. Respecting lesser doctrines, you've formed a hundred opinions by now as a longstanding Christian. You've connected a LOT of dots. That's all I'm saying.

As for the Trinity, most of the those passages could be cited in favor of Unitarianism or polytheism. It takes some reasoning (or indoctrination) to be a Trinitarian.

Look, you can't even get STARTED in exegesis without human reasoning. Where do you learn Hebrew and Greek? From a lexicon created by fallible men! Fallible human reasoning is ALWAYS involved in exegesis! (Which is, by the way, one rebuttal to Sola Scriptura).

The self-evident is not a "logical construct."
.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Jesus often refers to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and himself as the Son in his many claims about himself; e.g.,
he came down from heaven (Jn 3:13, 6:38, 42, 62), and
was sent by God (Jn 5:36-40, 10:36, 13:3, 16:28)
with power to forgive sin (Mt 9:2-6), etc., etc., etc.

The gospel of John opens with the "Word," which the Jews used as a way of referring to God
(Dt 32:1-2; Isa 55:8-11; Ps 107:20),
in the beginning was the Word--the Word is eternal,
which Word was with God--personality, personhood of the Word, distinct from the Father,
and which word was God-deity of the Word who is distinct from the Father,
through him--male personhood,
all things were made--creator (Col 1:13-17),
in him was life--all life in creation is in and through him (Col 1:17),
the life was the light of men--the Word revealing,
the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14)--incarnation,
which incarnation reveals the Word to be God's Son, the only begotten of the Father (Jn 1:14).
.

Clare73:

None of the scriptures you provided above say anything resembling Trinity.

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

 

[JAL]

As long as the Anthropos sons of future generations (who successively inherit their father's business) keep up the family business.

Voluntary entrance into a business agreement, typically in hope of profits. Has nothing to do with involuntary suffering of consequences or condemnation in Adam. False analogy.

(Sigh). Again, I GAVE you an analogy at post 445. You've done nothing to refute it because you can't.

God's justice not agreeing with man's notions is never an indictment of God,
it is always an indictment of the finite mind of man.

You haven't shown that it disagrees. Ezekiel 18 shows that it DOES agree - children pay for their own sins. If God defines justice any way He pleases, the cross wouldn't be necessary to fulfill His purposes.

In one of my six points of rebuttal to Representation, I noted that it makes God a liar - it pronounces an innocent man "guilty as charged". If any judge treated you this way, you'd consider him a liar.

If God is a liar, hope cannot be predicated on theological grounds. But even more to the point, such lies do not resolve the Problem of Evil. Dishonestly declaring 100 billion innocent people "guilty as charged" is hardly an act of maximum kindness, generosity, and justice. Again, you cannot justifiably posit omnibenevolence - infinite kindness - and then flatly contradict it. Doesn't make sense.

We do not judge God, he judges us.
We do not judge the Word of God written, it judges us
(as it judges this silly notion that God is unjust, or the silly notion that
the divinity of Christ is a "logical construct").
--Bible 101

Ka-peesh?
.

(Sigh). Again, nobody's judging God. The goal here is to judge which theology make sense - which one is consistent with hope.

Look, representation contradicts justice as we understand it. As I warned you, when you reach an apparent contradiction, look for another interpretation. Case in point:

In Lk 11:48-51, Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world.

Correct. He issued the same indictment in Mat 23. And He did more than that. In the next chapter (Mat 24), He foretold the present generation of Jews to be alive for His Second Coming. Are you seeing a pattern here? He even said this, "Some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom [with His angels]" (Mat 16). And this, "You will not be finished preaching in the streets of Israel before the Son of man comes."

(And I could provide more examples). ALL these verses indicate a generation of perpetuity - existing in the past, present, and in the future to come. Allow me to explain. I have a thread subtitled, "Will the real Israel please stand up?" Remember I told you that the church missed the point of Paul's doxology? I said that Paul was alluding to one of God's unpredictable decisions - as unpredictable as the baby in the manger. Here's the doxology.

33Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and i knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” 35“Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” 36For from him and through him and for him are all things.To him be the glory forever! Amen.

This doxology is from Romans 11, where Paul is identifying Israel as God's elect! As I told you, the doxology pertains to the debate between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. I side with Covenant Theology, but Romans 11 makes it clear that Israel is NOT the church. And Paul concludes:

"And all Israel will be saved" (11:26)

How can this be true? Millions of Jews are dying unsaved and going to hell! The answer lies in what Paul said earlier:

"Not all who are of Israel, are Israel" (9:6).

Will the real Israel please stand up? Who is the real Israel? Let's go back to my theory of Adam. Essentially it establishes that Adam is still alive, we are Adam, therefore we are reincarnations of Adam - not in some weird, random, Eastern sense of reincarnation but rather in a sense carefully controlled by God. Like it or not, there is a biblical form of reincarnation.

The promises were made to the Israel of Moses generation. THAT is the real Israel. THAT is the elect of God. This means that God will continue reincarnating their souls - at least those not yet saved - until every last one of them has saving faith. Used to be, He'd just reincarnate them as Israelites/Jews. But now that the gospel has gone universal, He might be reincarnating them as Gentiles. Any of us Christians could be a true Israelite, even though we don't remember living as a member of Mosaic Israel.

Hope this helps.

 

[JAL]

The self-evident is not a "logical construct."
.

Personal bias. It is NOT self-evident to all exegetes. Some organizations don't connect those dots. Just because we dismiss them as heretics doesn't prove that they are wrong. We had to use reasoning to conclude that they are wrong.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Moot point. Did you read my state of Texas analogy? The point of the analogy is that ANY consequences of Adam's sin would be unjust.

That was post 445.
One Died For All | Page 23 | Christian Forums

JAL:

I did not read your "state of Texas analogy" since what you opine has no bearing on scripture.

Furthermore, your claim that "ANY consequences of Adam's sin would be unjust" is not based on reality. Why so? It was AFTER Adam disobeyed Jehovah and ate of the forbidden fruit aka AFTER Adam sinned and thus became imperfect that he began siring children. As a consequence, all of his offspring inherited his imperfection. That is the law of genetic inheritance.

Take yourself, for instance. Because you are the offspring of your two direct parents, you share 50% of your mother's genes and 50% of your father's genes. Whatever imperfections your direct parents have, you carry them within you, and you pass them down to your own children. Likewise, Adam and Eve passed down their genetic imperfections and sin and death to their offspring--ALL OF US.

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." (Romans 5:12 -- New Living Translation)

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

 

[JAL]

JAL:

I did not read your "state of Texas analogy" since what you opine has no bearing on scripture.

Furthermore, your claim that "ANY consequences of Adam's sin would be unjust" is not based on reality. Why so? It was AFTER Adam disobeyed Jehovah and ate of the forbidden fruit aka AFTER Adam sinned and thus became imperfect that he began siring children. As a consequence, all of his offspring inherited his imperfection. That is the law of genetic inheritance.

Take yourself, for instance. Because you are the offspring of your two direct parents, you share 50% of your mother's genes and 50% of your father's genes. Whatever imperfections your direct parents have, you carry them within you, and you pass them down to your own children. Likewise, Adam and Eve passed down their genetic imperfections and sin and death to their offspring--ALL OF US.

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." (Romans 5:12 -- New Living Translation)

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Post ignored. You said that giving an analogy was invalid, and then you proceeded to devise an analogy based on human parents. Just as you ignored my analogy, I ignore yours.