One Died For All

[Clare73]

Right. To summarize your "argument", your position is, "My Doctrine of God is correct (even though it contradicts love and justice) because I am the authority on the Word".

Not quite. . ."my doctrine of God is correct" because it is God's NT revelation, which you have not demonstrated from the NT is incorrect.

I'm not the arbiter of God's love and justice, the Word of God written is,
understood in the light of the NT, which is the fulfillment and completion of the OT.

The OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed.

Gotcha. I think I'm done with this topic.

Agreed. . .
.

 

[JAL]

Not quite. . ."my doctrine of God is correct" because it is God's NT revelation, which you have not demonstrated from the NT is incorrect.

I'm not the arbiter of God's love and justice, the Word of God written is,
understood in the light of the NT, which is the fulfillment and completion of the OT.

The OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed.

Agreed. . .
.

Baloney. You haven't demonstrated anything but circular arguments and contradictions.

 

[Clare73]

Baloney. You haven't demonstrated anything but circular arguments and contradictions.

Having laid the argument to rest, now it's on to the argument about the argument:

My demonstrations of Biblical truth are from the NT God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) Scriptures,
which are the fulfillment and completion of the OT Scriptures.

Please show where you have demonstrated from the NT that my reading of it is incorrect.
.

 

[JAL]

Having laid the argument to rest, now it's on to the argument about the argument:

My demonstrations of Biblical truth are from the NT God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) Scriptures,
which are the fulfillment and completion of the OT Scriptures.

Please show where you have demonstrated from the NT that my reading of it is incorrect.
.

Approximately the last 100 posts. I also cited 3 top-notch evangelical scholars on the impossibility of reconciling the apparent contradictions inherent to Representation/Imputation/Federalism. At least they were honest about it.

 

[Clare73]

Please show where you have demonstrated from the NT that my reading of it is incorrect

Approximately the last 100 posts. I also cited 3 top-notch. by you. evangelical scholars on the impossibility of reconciling the apparent contradictions inherent to Representation/Imputation/Federalism. At least they were honest about it.

Continuing the argument about the argument:

Citations by you are not demonstration from the NT by you.

Demonstration from the NT of imputation:

2Co 5:21 - "God has made him who had no sin to be sin (offering) for us."

1Pe 2:24 - "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."

Man's sin is imputed to Christ.

Ro 5:18 - The result of one trespass was condemnation (that brings eternal death) for all men. . .
the result of one act of righteousness was justification (God's judicial declaration of "not guilty")
that brings (eternal) life for all men (Gentile as well as Jew).

Ro 5:19 - Just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of one man the many will be made righteous.

Christ's righteousness is imputed to man, as Adam's sin is imputed to man.

If you have a better word than "imputation" for Ro 5:18-19, please feel free to present it for discussion.

 

[JAL]

Continuing the argument about the argument:

Citations by you are not demonstration from the NT by you.

Demonstration from the NT of imputation:

2Co 5:21 - "God has made him who had no sin to be sin (offering) for us."

1Pe 2:24 - "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."

Wow. 600 posts deep and you still don't know the difference between Reprsentation/Imputation vs Atonement. Christ atoned for us. This proves (hands-down) that redemptive economy is NOT representational/imputational. Do still not understand? If Christ were our rep, no need to die!

Representation means that we assume the status of our rep (the rep doesn't need to die). As long as the rep remains innocent, WE remain innocent.

Atonement and Representation are two radically different theories of jurisprudence. Stop conflating them. If you like, maybe I can go back and find the post where I initially explained these distinctions to you.

 

[JAL]

Ro 5:18 - The result of one trespass (of Adam) was condemnation (eternal death) for all men. . .the result of one act of righteousness (atonement) was justification (God's judicial declaration of "not guilty") that brings life for all men (Gentile as well as Jew).

Right. And?

Why do you assume this MUST mean Representation/Imputation? Why can't it mean "complicit in Adam" as I maintain?

 

[JAL]

I'm beginning to think that you still don't even know my theory of Adam...

 

[Clare73]

Wow. 600 posts deep and you still don't know the difference between Reprsentation/Imputation vs Atonement. Christ atoned for us. This proves (hands-down) that redemptive economy is NOT representational/imputational. Do still not understand? If Christ were our rep, no need to die!

It is our sin that is imputed to Christ (1Pe 2:24; 2Co 5:21).
It is not Christ's atonement that is imputed, it is Christ' righteousness that is imputed.

"Representation" means that we assume the status of our rep (the rep doesn't need to die). As long as the rep remains innocent, WE remain innocent.

I do not state "representation," I state "atonement" (reconciliation by propitiation).

Atonement and Representation are two radically different theories of jurisprudence. Stop conflating them. If you like, maybe I can go back and find the post where I initially explained these distinctions to you.

I do not use "representation," I use "atonement" (reconciliaton through propitiation).

Ro 3:25 - "God presented (Gr: protithemi) him as (place of) propitiation (Gr: hilasterion--lid, cover of the Ark) by his blood."
See 1Jn 2:2, 4:10.

2Co 5:21 - "God has made him who had no sin to be sin (offering) for us."

1Pe 2:24 - "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."

Man's sin is imputed to Christ, whom God presented as propitiation (atonement) for man's sin.

 

[Clare73]

Demonstration from the NT of imputation:

2Co 5:21 - "God has made him who had no sin to be sin (offering) for us."

1Pe 2:24 - "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."

Man's sin is imputed to Christ.

Ro 5:18 - The result of one trespass was condemnation (that brings eternal death) for all men. . .
the result of one act of righteousness was justification (God's judicial declaration

of "not guilty")
that brings (eternal) life for all men (Gentile as well as Jew).

Ro 5:19 - Just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of one man the many will be made righteous.

Christ's righteousness is imputed to man, as Adam's sin is imputed to man.

If you have a better word than "imputation" for Ro 5:18-19, please feel free to present it for discussion.

Right. And?

Why do you assume this MUST mean Representation/Imputation?
Why can't it mean "complicit in Adam" as I maintain?

First, because of the definition of the word:

"Complicit" means/requires that I am/be an accomplice in the action, that I actually help or do the action itself.
I did not personally eat of the apple with Adam, I am not complicit in Adam's disobedience.

"Imputation" means that although I did not actually do the action, it is attributed, ascribed to me
as though I did it, even though I did not.
I did not actually eat the apple, Adam's disobedience is imputed to me,
(justifiably so because I show my approval of his disobedience in my own disobedience).

Second, because in Paul's treatment of the two corresponding Adam's (Ro 5:12-21), complicity neuters and makes irrelevant vv.12-15, where those from Adam to Moses died even though they were not complicit in sin, through which all death comes.
Why would Paul even bring it up, why distinguish so strongly between those from Adam to Moses and those from Moses to the NT, if he knew that all mankind, from Adam to Moses without distinction, were complicit in Adam's sin?
Why the establishment of non-complicity between Adam to Moses? Does he just like beating the air with irrelevancy? He could, and would have skipped over it, left it out entirely, if non-complicity had no relevancy to his presentation of the two Adam's in vv. 18-19.

No, Paul (and everybody else) makes distinctions for a reason.
And his reason was, in the context of the two Adams, to show no complicity in any sin from Adam to Moses--to show that those from Adam to Moses were not "complicit" in any sin, in the Biblical sense of responsibility for sin (complicitly).

Ro 5:12-15 is to establish no complicity in sin for those from Adam to Moses, thereby demonstrating in the contrasting parallels of vv. 18-19, that just as they had no complicity in the righteousness (justification) of Christ, likewise they had no complicity in the sin of Adam--both are imputed.

Third, because of Paul's two contrasting parallels in Ro 5:18-19, where his treatment of them
rules out the meaning of "complicit":

a) parallel of Adam's one trespass (which we did not help or do, not complicit) to
Christ's one act of righteousness (atoning death, we did not help or do, not complicit),

b) parallel of Adam's disobedience to Christ's obedience (neither of which we helped or did,
not complicit in either).

Nothing in the conrasting parallels is complicit. That's Paul's whole point.
Both Adam's sin and its remedy, Christ's righteousness, are imputed--attributed, ascribed to me.

 

[JAL]

Clare73 said: Demonstration from the NT of imputation:

2Co 5:21 - "God has made him who had no sin to be sin (offering) for us."

1Pe 2:24 - "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."

Man's sin is imputed to Christ.

(Sigh). I have no objections to the usage of the term imputation. We've been over this. I DO object to using it as Representation.

Nobody denies that there is SOME kind of imputation dynamic in Scripture. What I have shown is that it is NOT the kind you think. Atonement is ONE kind of imputation. Representation is another.

You're the one who kept using the the term imputation in the sense of Representation. I didn't want to make this a terminology debate, so I've been treating Representation/Imputation as synonyms for our exchanges.

Ro 5:18 - The result of one trespass was condemnation (that brings eternal death) for all men. . .
the result of one act of righteousness was justification (God's judicial declaration of "not guilty")
that brings (eternal) life for all men (Gentile as well as Jew).

Ro 5:19 - Just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of one man the many will be made righteous.

Not sure why you keep quoting these verses. They certainly don't pose any problems for me.

Christ's righteousness is imputed to man....

Sure. Imputed. But not representationally imputed. Not according to the facts. He atoned. See my last post for the difference.

...as Adam's sin is imputed to man.

Nope. As many scholars recognize, the parallel between Adam and Christ is not exhaustive. The common denominator is that, for both Adam and Christ, one act had implications for many people. That's about all. You'll have to admit some differences. Two examples.
(1) Consider your assumption that Adam is our rep. Does it require faith to fall in Adam? No. So if it's an exhaustive parallel - if Christ is our rep - why is saving faith required?
(2) Adam's fall automatically applies to all men. If it's an exhaustive parallel, why isn't Christ's righteousness automatically applied to all men?

"Complicit" means/requires that I am/be an accomplice in the action, that I actually help or do the action itself.
I did not personally eat of the apple with Adam, I am not complicit in Adam's disobedience.

Confimed. You still don't know my theory of Adam, then? It's precisely my position that we are Adam, pieces of his physical soul, which means you DID "personally eat of the apple with Adam" even though you don't remember it.

Second, because of Paul's use of two parallels in Ro 5:18-19 which disallow the meaning of "complicit"

Several false premises here, for example the assumption of exhaustive parallel, plus your inability to differentiate between Atonement vs Representation/Imputation.

If I am complicit in Adam's disobedience (actually did the sin), then to maintain Paul's parallel...

Stop right there. NO ONE can consistently argue for an exhaustive parallel.

Ok?

 

[JAL]

I do not use "representation," I use "atonement" (reconciliaton through propitiation).

You're missing the point. If representation "works" - if it is a valid jurisprudence - God could have spared His Son the cross.

The fact that Christ went to the cross is proof that Representation is not a valid system in God's eyes.

As it turns out, God holds to the human concept of justice (here I mean real justice, not your Anthropos-injustice example), meaning:
(1) One must be complicit to be incriminated . For example your father cannot incriminate you (see Ezekiel 18). This rules out Representation.
(2) Atonement is acceptable at least in some cases. For example, I can pay my son's speeding ticket.

I won't respond to the rest of your post as it is material already covered in my last post.

 

[Clare73]

(Sigh). I have no objections to the usage of the term imputation. We've been over this.
I DO object to using it as Representation.

Nobody denies that there is SOME kind of imputation dynamic in Scripture. What I have shown is that it is NOT the kind you think.
Atonement is ONE kind of imputation. Representation is another.

Sure. Imputed. But not representationally imputed. Not according to the facts. He atoned. See my last post for the difference.

My brain is fried. . .would you briefly explain the difference.
I don't know what "representationally imputed" means.

Nope. As many scholars recognize, the parallel between Adam and Christ is not exhaustive. j. .You'll have to admit some differences. Two examples.
(1) Consider your assumption that Adam is our rep. Does it require faith to fall in Adam? No. So if it's an exhaustive parallel - if Christ is our rep - why is saving faith required?

I don't know what "representation" means.

(2) Adam's fall automatically applies to all men. If it's an exhaustive parallel, why isn't Christ's righteousness automatically applied to all men?

Paul doesn't present it as exhaustive in Ro 5:19.

 

[JAL]

Paul doesn't present it as exhaustive in Ro 5:19.

Exactly! You keep saying that the parallel proves your point. But since it's not a full parallel, it doesn't prove much of anything in this debate. It's not terribly relevant.

My brain is fried. . .would you briefly explain the difference.
I don't know what "representationally imputed" means.

I don't know what "representation" means.

What is not clear? Honestly it seems like you begin with the assumption, "I can't possibly be wrong", and then when I show that your position isn't a match to the facts of Scripture, you infer some kind of miscommunication as the culprit.

Let's start with Adam.
(1) I claim to be Adam (a piece of his physical soul). I myself ate the fruit (although I don't remember doing so).
(2) You imply that Adam is our rep, his actions determine our status, and thus we are guilty because HE ate the fruit.

My commentary on #1: Millard J. Erickson holds a view similar to mine. He wrote possibly the most widely-used systematic theology textbook in the world today - it's used in most seminaries, probably all of them. He claims that your soul is a material presence in your body, and it is a piece of soul handed down from our ancestors beginning with Adam. Thus, he writes, "we were actually present within Adam, so that we all sinned in his act". The major difference between us is that he clings to the Platonic philosophy such as the notion of an immaterial soul. He maintains that our soul is by nature immaterial but becomes a physical presence whenever placed inside a human body. He's obviously trying to stand on both sides of the fence. He also argues, quite cogently, that this corporate Adam is the best match for Romans 5 because Paul says that we all sinned in that one act.

My commentary on #2. If Adam is our rep, meaning his status determines our status, then our individual actions are irrelevant. This contradicts every chapter of the Bible, because those chapters regard our actions as relevant and punishable. I've seen you, on this thread, try to stand on both sides of the fence. For a while you'll incriminate us in Adam, and then suddenly you'll begin incriminating us by our own actions. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Clare73]

At post #611:
Atonement is ONE kind of imputation. Representation is another.

1) Atonement is not imputation of either kind, the atonement is applied, not imputed.

2)"Imputation" (reckoned; credited; counted as) is Biblical (Ge 15:6; Ro 4:9, 10, 6:11).

3) Where is "representative" found in the NT?

4) There is no "complicit." See post #610, where parallels of Ro 5:18-19 do not allow "complicit" in Adam's sin.

Exactly! You keep saying that the parallel proves your point. But since it's not a full parallel, it doesn't prove much of anything in this debate. It's not terribly relevant.

Review the parallels in post #610. You've missed something.

What is not clear?

Probably your misunderstanding of atonement as imputed rather than applied is confusing me.

Honestly it seems like you begin with the assumption, "I can't possibly be wrong", and then when I show that your position isn't a match to the facts of Scripture, you infer some kind of miscommunication as the culprit.

Atonement as imputation would be miscommunication.
Maybe I just don't understand your misnomenclature.

Let's start with Adam.
(1) I claim to be Adam (a piece of his physical soul). I myself ate the fruit (although I don't remember doing so).
(2) You imply that Adam is our rep, his actions determine our status, and thus we are guilty because HE ate the fruit.

No, I state that the guilt of that one trespass (disobedience) is imputed to us--attributed, ascribed as though we did it, although we did not.
Being ascribed to us, it makes us guilty of Adam's sin.

If Adam is our rep, meaning his status determines our status, then our individual actions are irrelevant.

I don't, and never have, maintained Adam is our rep.
Is it your assumption that I do that is confusing me?

I've seen you, on this thread, try to stand on both sides of the fence,

It is your misunderstanding of the NT that sees me on both sides of the fence.

For a while you'll incriminate us in Adam, and then suddenly you'll begin incriminating us by our own actions. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Tell it to Paul. . .he does exactly just that:

we are made sinners--Ro 5:19 (''incriminated' in Adam) and condemned by Adam's trespass--Ro 5:18, which is justly imputed to us,
because we are in agreement with his disobedience to God (principle of Lk 11:48, 50-51), demonstrated by our own disobedience to God ("incriminated" by our own actions).

 

[JAL]

I was discussing Adam, now you've gone back to Christ. Fine. You've got contradictions there too.

Atonement is not imputation of either kind, the atonement is applied, not imputed.

(Sigh) Here again, you're quibbling over terminology, (whereas I am focusing on your MEANING). This is especially frustrating because you don't even use your own terminology consistently, so we keep going around in circles. For example here you say:

"Atonement is not imputation of either kind, the atonement is applied, not imputed."

Unlike earlier (610) where you said:

"Christ's righteousness is imputed to man, as Adam's sin is imputed to man."

"Imputation" (reckoned; credited; counted as) is Biblical (Ge 15:6; Ro 4:9, 10, 6:11).
Where is "representation" found in the NT?

It's NOT found in my opinion. Which is precisely why your position is incorrect - you IMPLY that Adam represented us. Because either:
(1) I was present in Adam, complicitly sinning. My position.
(2) Or he was my "representative", a person "standing or acting for another" (Websters Dictionary). Your position.

When you say that Adam's sin is imputed to us, that's option #2, even if you dislike my terminology.


After all, what other term can I possibly use to describe your specific position on Adam? I can't use the term "impute" because that term is used to some extent in ALL positions. It's ambiguous here. I tried to use the standard term "federalism" but you objected. No matter what term I use, you go back to "impute" which quickly becomes ambiguous in some of our disagreements.

Going back to Christ. Either:
(1) Christ was crucified to pay/atone for our sin.
(2) OR, He was our rep. If He was our rep, He didn't have to die. Do you get that? (Representation isn't about death, it is about ascribing (your word) the status of one man, such as Adam, to others). Whereas atonement is suffering-plus-death-plus-ascribing.

Clearly representation isn't something that God accepts. If God were okay with representation, He would have spared the Son the cross.

No, I state that the guilt of that one trespass (disobedience) is imputed to us--attributed, ascribed as though we did it, although we did not.

That's representation, Adam was thus a person "standing or acting for another" (Websters Dictionary).

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

1)
No, I state that the guilt of that one trespass (disobedience) is imputed to us--attributed, ascribed as though we did it, although we did not.

Right. You've been quite clear that God is the liar and evil monster who proclaims "guilty as charged" to 100 billion innocent people. I hear you loud and clear.

ascribed as though we did it, although we did not.

Really? We weren't all there in the Garden, existing corporately in Adam and acting complicitly in him? I'm curious how you deal with the following verses - here I'm challenging you with respect to fetuses, infants, toddlers:

"We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23)

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" (Rom 5:12)

When did all these fetuses, infants, toddlers sin? There isn't any mention here of imputation/ascription/representation. Taken literally, Paul is saying that everyone actually sinned - and there were plenty of fetuses, infants, and toddlers when he wrote those words.

As I said, Millard Erickson and I have a like position (we are Adam) and he finds these verses very probative of our position and thus quite challenging to representation/imputation/ascription.

 

[Clare73]

I was discussing Adam, now you've gone back to Christ. Fine. You've got contradictions there too.
(Sigh) Here again, you're quibbling over terminology, (whereas I am focusing on your MEANING). This is especially frustrating because you don't even use your own terminology consistently, so we keep going around in circles. For example here you say:

Atonement is not imputation of either kind, the atonement is applied, not imputed."
Unlike earlier (610) where you said:
"Christ's righteousness is imputed to man, as Adam's sin is imputed to man."

That is correct: atonement is applied, righteousness is imputed.
Atonement and righteousness are not the same thing.

Atonement is Jesus' work on the cross.
Righteousness here is justification, the result of faith in Jesus' work on the cross.

1) "Imputation" (reckoned; credited; counted as) is Biblical (Ge 15:6; Ro 4:9, 10, 6:11).

2) "Representative" is not Biblical.

3) There is no "complicit." See post #610, where parallels of Ro 5:18-19 do not allow "complicit" in Adam's sin.

4) Atonement is not imputation of either kind, the atonement is applied, not imputed.
The atonement is applied as the blood was applied to the lid of the Ark to cleanse it of the defilement caused by the sins of the High Priest, his household, and the people. Because the Tabernacle was in the midst of the people, it was defiled by their sin, which made it an unfit dwelling place (Lev 15:31) for the presence of God. Therefore, it had to be atoned for (cleansed of) sin.

It's NOT found in my opinion. Which is precisely why your position is incorrect -
you IMPLY that Adam represented us.

No, I do not. I am saying Adam's' guilt was "arbitrarily" assigned (imputed) to us (none the less
justly so--principle of Lk 11:50-51; i.e., "Therefore,"--because although we didn't actually do
his deed (disobedience), we approve of it--Lk 11:48).

Because either:
(1) I was present in Adam, complictly sinning. My position.
(2) Or he was my "representative", a person "standing or acting for another" (Websters Dictionary). Your position.

That may be the only two options in your system.
Paul's revelation is not based on your system.

My understanding being the product of Paul's system causes your system to be confusing to me.
You keep indicting me based on your system, and I keep requiring you to demonstrate your point in Paul's system, which you rarely, if ever, attempt to do.
Paul's system was revealed to him in the third heaven, yours is simply a construct of the human mind invented to rectify your difficulties with what was revealed to Paul in the third heaven.
Paul's system enjoys the authority of God, your system enjoys no authority at all.

When you say that Adam's sin is imputed to us, that's option #2, even if you dislike my terminology.

Neither of them is the imputation of Ge 15:6; Ro 4:9, 10.

Imputation is "arbitrarily" ascribing, attributing to me as though I did it, although
I did not actually do it.

After all, what other term can I possibly use to describe your specific position on Adam?
I can't use the term "impute"

"Impute" (Ge 15:6; Ro 4:9, 10) is precisely what is shown in Ro 5:18-19.

because that term is used to some extent in ALL positions. It's ambiguous here. I tried to use the standard term "federalism" but you objected. No matter what term I use, you go back to "impute" which quickly becomes ambiguous in some of our disagreements.

Going back to Christ. Either:
(1) Christ was crucified to pay/atone for our sin.
(2) OR, He was our rep. If He was our rep, He didn't have to die. Do you get that?

No, I don't. But it doesn't matter, because it is not Biblical and, therefore, irrelevant.

(Representation isn't about death, it is about ascribing (your word) the status of one man, such as Adam, to others). Whereas atonement is suffering-plus-death-plus-ascribing.

Atonement is applying, not ascribing.

Clearly representation isn't something that God accepts. If God were okay with representation, He would have spared the Son the cross.

That's representation, Adam was thus a person "standing or acting for another" (Websters Dictionary).

 

[Clare73]

Right. You've been quite clear that God is the liar and evil monster who
proclaims "guilty as charged" to 100 billion innocent people. I hear you loud and clear.

In Ro 5:12-15, Paul demonstrates Adam's sin imputed to us, where his purpose is to show that those prior to Moses were not complicit in sin because there was no law to sin against, but they died anyway, and death is through sin.
See post #610 for complete treatment, showing why complicity in Adam's sin is excluded.)

Paul demonstrates righteousness imputed to us from Ge 15:6, where Abraham's righteousness was imputed to him because of his faith.
In Ro 5:19, he parallels the two imputations--Adam's sin imputed to us and Christ's righteousness imputed to us (through faith), having already paralleled the two single acts producing each one, respectively, in v.18.

The NT reveals the imputation of Christ's righteousness as a parallel of the imputation of Adam's sin.
Ro 5:18-19 are closed parallels, the subject of which (the parallel of the Second Adam to the First Adam) does not admit any alternate explanation, or the parallels would be destroyed.

Your issue is with Paul's revelation received in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-7).

Really? We weren't all there in the Garden, existing corporately in Adam and acting complicitly in him? I'm curious how you deal with the following verses - here
I'm challenging you with respect to fetuses, infants, toddlers:

"We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23)

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" (Rom 5:12)

I take Paul at his word.

"All are condemned--"by nature (we are born with our nature) objects of wrath" (Eph 2:3)
by the trespass of Adam" (Ro 5:18).

When did all these fetuses, infants, toddlers sin?

They were born objects of wrath by their (sinful) nature (Eph 2:3).

There isn't any mention here of imputation/ascription/representation. Taken literally,
Paul is saying that everyone actually sinned - and there were plenty of fetuses, infants, and toddlers when he wrote those words.

Paul is saying Eph 2:3.

We are by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3), we are born with our (sinful) nature,
condemned already until we believe in the Son (Jn 3:18),
that wrath remaining on us if we reject the Son (Jn 3:36),
and saved from God's wrath only through faith (Ro 5:9)

 

[JAL]

That is correct: atonement is applied, righteousness is imputed.
Atonement and righteousness are not the same thing.

Atonement is Jesus' work on the cross.
Righteousness here is justification, the result of faith in Jesus' work on the cross.

1) "Imputation" (reckoned; credited; counted as) is Biblical (Ge 15:6; Ro 4:9, 10, 6:11).

2) Where is "representative" found in the NT?

3) There is no "complicit." See post #610, where parallels of Ro 5:18-19 do not allow "complicit" in Adam's sin.

4) Atonement is not imputation of either kind, the atonement is applied, not imputed.
The atonement is applied as the blood was applied to the lid of the Ark to cleanse it of the defilement caused by the sins of the High Priest, his household, and the people. Because the Tabernacle was in the midst of the people, it was defiled by their sin, which made it an unfit dwelling place (Lev 15:31) for the presence of God. Therefore, it had to be atoned for (cleansed of) sin.

No, I do not. I am saying Adam's' guilt was "arbitrarily" assigned (imputed) to us
(none the less justly so--Lk 11:50-51, because although we didn't actually do his deed (disobedience),
we approve of it--Lk 11:48.

Neither of them is the imputation of Ge 15:6; Ro 4:9, 10.

Imputation is "arbitrarily" ascribing, attributing to me as though I did it, although
I did not actually do it.

"Impute" (Ge 15:6; Ro 4:9, 10) is precisely what is shown in Ro 5:18-19.

No, I don't. But it doesn't matter, because it is not Biblical and therefore, irrelevant.

Atonement is applying, not ascribing.

Ignored. Almost every single line is a meaningless terminology quibble.

You're just trying to save face in the aftermath of a refuted position.