Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I know. . .you want to play loosey-goosey, and when Paul doesn't allow it, you call him hair-splitting.In not one case did you demonstrate any distinctions relevant to OUR discussion. Rather you opportunistically seized upon this irrelevant hair-splitting as a way of deflection.
Your behavior is worse than hair-splitting. It's a travesty of language leveraged for deflection. For example when I characterized your position as, 'Adam is our rep', you 'objected' with:I know. . .you want to play loosey-goosey, and when Paul doesn't allow it, you call him hair-splitting.
So let me get this straight. In your view God did not actually PLAN on having Adam's behavior represent our status with Him? He just randomly and arbitrarily up and decided, after Adam sinned, to ascribe/impute his guilt to us? Adam was never originally INTENDED to function representationally?No... 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).
Interesting how you experience the demonstrated conclusions from the NT as "leverage,"Your behavior is worse than hair-splitting. It's a travesty of language
leveraged for deflection. For example when I characterized your position as, 'Adam is our rep', you 'objected' with:
Clare73 said:"No... 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)."
Adam's sin was always intended to function as imputation, just as Christ's righteousness was always intended to function as imputation (Ro 5:18-19).JAL said:So let me get this straight. In your view God did not actually PLAN on having Adam's behavior represent our status with Him? He just randomly and arbitrarily up and decided, after Adam sinned, to ascribe/impute his guilt to us? Adam was never originally INTENDED to function representationally?
It's not random, it's total when no descendant of Adam is exempt from it.Random, arbitrary assignment of guilt is your understanding of divine justice?
That very question referring to Eze 18:14-17 has been presented several times by you, and thoroughly addressed.That's your reading of Ezekiel 18?
I understand you despise being bound by NT specificity, and experience that specificity as contemptuous "terminology quibbling."This kind of demonstrates the kinds of ridiculous extremes to which you will go to tie up this whole conversation in terminology-quibbling as an obvious means of evading the core of my objections.
You just keep ignoring my demonstrations. Sheer intellectual dishonesty. I don't think you're fooling anyone.Interesting how you experience the demonstrated conclusions from the NT as "leverage,"
and NT meaning as "travesty of language." Only truth leverages.
Adam's sin was always intended to function as imputation, just as Christ's righteousness was always intended to function as imputation (Ro 5:18-19).
None of this was an after-thought, it was the ordained plan of God's wisdom from before the foundation of the world.
Same ole, same ole. . .you're interpreting the NT in light of the OT, which is backwards.
It's not random, it's total when no descendant of Adam is exempt from it.
That very question referring to Eze 18:14-17 has been presented several times by you, and thoroughly addressed.
I understand you despise being bound by NT specificity, and experience that specificity as contemptuous "terminology quibbling."
But it still falls to you to demonstrate those assertions from the NT.
Clare73 said:"Complicit" is ruled out for two reasons, as presented in post #610.
1) the definition of the word, and
2) Paul's parallels of Ro 5:18-19 do not allow it.
See post #610.
Ro 5 demonstrates that I did not, as you maintain that I did, because Ro 5:18-19 parallels Christ's righteousness (which is imputed through faith, as was Abraham's righteousness).JAL said:Sheer intellectual dishonesty. Like Millard Erickson, I maintain that I DID eat the apple, as part of corporate Adam. Here's your reply at post 610.
No, I'm prosecuting the double parallel Paul has presented of the two Adam's.Your reply is, 'No you did not eat the apple therefore Romans 5 rules out that you did" !!!!!
You're putting words in Paul's mouth.
You're shoving your position down his throat. It is sheer assertion masquerading as an oracle of Paul. How is that not intellectual dishonesty?
You continue in that same post.
Meaning: nothing in the parallels can be complicit, it is ruled out, because what we know from the text is (the imputation of) Christ's righteousness (justification) in the parallel requires that Adam's sin is imputed, in order to be the contrasting (sin and righteousness) parallel (of imputation) Paul is crafting.Clare73 said:Nothing in the parallels is complicit
It is dealt with in the parable in that it it is necessarily excluded in order to maintain the integrity of the parallel.Exactly. It's not dealt with in the parallel. Hence it is intellectual dishonesty to rule it out preemptively,
The rest of the passage states that "all sinned"--to be understood in the light of the previous parallel of imputation, which necessarily excludes "complicit."without letting the REST of the passage speak for itself.
The rest of the passage states that "all sinned" which fits perfectly with corporate Adam.
That's an accounting of divine justice governed by your sentiments, instead of NT revelation.And even if Paul had omitted the "all sinned", the corporate conclusion is warranted to account for divine justice.
The justice lies in Adam's children agreeing with Adam's sin, demonstrated by their continuance in their own sin, the principle of Lk 11:48, 50-51.Otherwise, for example, we have Adam's children suffering unjustly for his sins, contra Ezekiel 18.
Clare73:Post #501 demonstrates that Jesus the Son is God.
We know that the Father is God.
That leaves demonstration that the Holy Spirit is God.
1) The NT shows three divine agents, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the work of salvation:
a) Father, Son and Holy Spirit at its beginning (Lk 1:35, at the inauguration of Jesus' public ministry (Mt 3:16-17) and in the work of atonement (Heb 9:14),
b) the Holy Spirit completing the work of the Father through the Son (the work of salvation)--Ac 2:38- 39; Ro 8:26; 1Co 2:4-13--vv.4-6; Eph 1:3-14--v.14, 2:13-22--v.18; 2Th 2:13; 1Pe 1:2),
c) the only way to enter the kingdom of the Father is through faith in the Son and regeneration by the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:1-15--vv.5, 15-15).
2) The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are bracketed together as the triune name (singular) of God (Mt 28:19).
a) Paul uses all three interchangeably in 1Co 12:4-6,
b) they are linked in prayer for divine blessing in 2Co 13:14,
c) they are linked in pronouncement of divine blessing in Rev 1:4-5.
3) The close connection in the NT between Father and Son, Father and Spirit, and Son and Spirit point to a co-equal relationship; i.e.,
a) "The Lord (Jesus) is the Spirit". . .the Lord (Jesus) who is the Spirit (Ro1:7, 1Co 1:3, 2Co 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2,; Php 1:2; 1Th 1:1, 3:11; 2Th 1:2, 8, 12, 2:16, 3:5; Ro 8:27; Gal 4:6; 2Co 3:16-18).
The Spirit is one with Jesus in the unity of the Godhead. The Lord (Jesus) works in men through the Spirit; i.e., the Son and Spirit are co-equal divine beings.
b) The Father who will send the Spirit (Jn 14:26), as it was the Father who sent the Son (Jn 5:23, 36).
The Father will send the Spirit "in my name," as Jesus' deputy, doing Jesus' will, acting as his representative and with his authority (Jn 14:26).
As Jesus came in his Father's name (Jn 5:43), acting as his Father's agent, speaking the Father's words (Jn 12:49-50, 14:24), doing the Father's works (Jn 4:34, 5:36, 10:25; 17:4) and bearing witness throughout to the One who sent him,
so would the Spirit come in Jesus' name, to act in the world as the agent and witness of Jesus (Jn 15:26).
It is the Son who will send the Spirit "from the Father" (Jn 15:26).
As the Father sent the Spirit into the world, so the Son will send the Spirit into the world (Jn 16:7).
So the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father.
c) The Son is subject to the Father (for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name--Jn 5:23, 36, 43).
The Spirit is subject to the Father (for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name--Jn 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father (for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father--Jn 15:26, 16:7, 14:26).
d) So Jesus shows three distinct and separate persons in revealing the mystery of the Trinity--the heart of the Christian faith in God.
That mystery is three separate and distinct Persons, and one God--the Son doing the will of the Father, and the Spirit doing the will of the Father and the Son.
e) The NT throughout presents the Son and Holy Spirit as divine agents, co-equal with the Father, but distinct, separate and personal (possessing personhood). Nowhere does the NT give us to understand that they are not divine, or are of an inferior nature to the Father. They are always presented as equals--in their nature, in their origin, in their work, in their power, in worship of them.
Always in the NT they are viewed as divine agents, possessing deity within themselves.
And while the NT shows three divine agents, it also shows only one God (Mk 12:29; 1Tim 2:5).
That is the gospel Jesus spells out to Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-21); viz., the combined action of the Triune God.
Those who deny the Trinity have to scale down the gospel--and they do.
Those who deny the Trinity deny the majesty of God, for they have him
begetting inferior beings that are not divine,
redeeming by proxy--not involving his person in the redemption by the Son and sanctification of men by the Spirit, paying no personal price, not indwelling men and
thereby they rob him of his glory (Ex 14:14).
They have to make God too small, and they do.
They take out the very heart, core and meaning of Christian faith in God.
Correct, Scripture does not state God is a Trinity, it is the conclusion of the "wall of text" showing all the Scriptures that lead to that conclusion.Clare73:
I did not ask you for a wall of text. In any event, none of the scriptures you gave in your above response say anything resembling God is a Trinity.
I suggest you try with three verses of scripture at a time. Then use your first three selected verses to show where it's in reference to Trinity.
Alter2Ego
All I see are speculations and assertions, hardly any Biblical demonstrations from NT texts, which demonstrations have been addressed from NT texts.You just keep ignoring my demonstrations. Sheer intellectual dishonesty. I don't think you're fooling anyone.
It is Paul's revelation from the third heaven (2Co 12:1-5) which reveals that the physical natural body that goes into the ground (burial) is raised as a physical spiritual body (1Co 15:42, 44), similar to the present physical natural body organizationally, but radically different in that it will be imperishable, glorious and powerful (1Co 15:42-44).In none of those two scriptures does Jesus say he will return with a physical body. Until you can present scripture that supports your claim that physical bodies can survive in the spirit realm, you are stuck with 1 Corinthians 15:50.
This is so completely ridiculous. The parallel asserts that Adam's sin spelled death for many, and Christ's atonement spelled life for many. That's all. We've been over this several times now. Everything else is eisegesis on your part. I could use the same eisegesis technique against you because, for example, you said:Ro 5 demonstrates that I did not, as you maintain that I did, because Ro 5:18-19 parallels Christ's righteousness (which is imputed through faith, as was Abraham's righteousness).
We know that Christ's righteousness (justification) was imputed, not complicit.
To parallel Christ's imputed righteousness (justification) to us, Adam's sin must be imputed to us.
No, I'm prosecuting the double parallel Paul has presented of the two Adam's.
Meaning: nothing in the parallels can be complicit, it is ruled out, because what we know from the text is (the imputation of) Christ's righteousness (justification) in the parallel requires that Adam's sin is imputed, in order to be the contrasting (sin and righteousness) parallel (of imputation) Paul is crafting.
The contrasting parallels of Ro 5:18-19 do not allow the meaning of "complicit." Because of the (imputed) righteousness (justification) of Christ in one half of the parallel, the (imputed) sin of Adam is required, to maintain, and not destroy, the parallel into senselessness.
The parallel is between (what we know is) imputed righteousness of Christ and imputed sin of Adam, between the First Adam and the Second Adam.
It is dealt with in the parable in that it it is necessarily excluded in order to maintain the integrity of the parallel.
The rest of the passage states that "all sinned"--to be understood in the light of the previous parallel of imputation, which necessarily excludes "complicit."
That's an accounting of divine justice governed by your sentiments, instead of NT revelation.
The justice lies in Adam's children agreeing with Adam's sin, demonstrated by their continuance in their own sin, the principle of Lk 11:48, 50-51.
It is both imputation of Adam's sin and engagement in one's own sin that condemns mankind.
Faith is complicit behavior. Thus the parallel REFUTES your claim that Adam affected us non-complicitly. Thus your own eisegetical technique refutes your whole position.Ro 5:18-19 parallels Christ's righteousness (which is imputed through faith,
Sure, no demonstrations on my part, if you ignore the fact that your position leads to:All I see are speculations and assertions, hardly any Biblical demonstrations from NT texts
.
On that basis, the Bible can be made to say anything.. Just randomly open it, drop your finger somewhere on the page and begin exegeting whatever you seek to demonstrate.This is so completely ridiculous. The parallel asserts that Adam's sin spelled death for many, and Christ's atonement spelled life for many. That's all. We've been over this several times now. Everything else is eisegesis on your part. I could use the same eisegesis technique against you because, for example, you said:
Faith is complicit behavior. Thus the parallel REFUTES your claim that Adam affected us non-complicitly. Thus your own eisegetical technique refutes your whole position.
Sure, no demonstrations on my part, if you ignore the fact that your position leads to:
(1) Adam-as-rep (call it imputation if you insist) contradicting individual accountability from Gen to Revelation (contradicts every chapter of the Bible)
(2) Adam-as-rep (call it imputation if you insist) contradicting Ezekiel 18
(3) The concept of representation/imputation obviating the cross. (If Christ is our rep, His righteous status serves as our status even without death).
(4) Adam-as-rep (call it imputation if you insist) misconstruing God as a liar and evil.
(5) Adam-as-rep (call it imputation if you insist) contradicting Paul's claim that all sinned (Ro 3:23; 5:12);
(6) Your position entrenching Paul in a contradiction since he claims that Adam sinned first (Rom 5:12) even though Eve sinned first (my ontology resolves that issue seamlessly).
(7) Self-contradictory jurisprudence because Eve, on your assumptions, could have exonerated all of us by simply murdering Adam in cold blood before he had a chance to sin and impute sin.
(8) Inherited sinful nature, offensive to God, contradicting the self-evident fact that inherited dispositions are NOT offensive to God (only complicit dispositions are offensive).
Yes, if eight demonstrated contradictions don't count as a demonstration, I've demonstrated nothing at all. Correct. I concur.
That pretty well covers the water front, demonstrating how much of the NT you misunderstand.The fact that you shrugged off all eight demonstrations - and will continue to do so - is hardly grounds for telling the blatant lie that I never provided any.
Rep is not a concept I traffic in, it is your concept, not mine. I've never seen it anywhere in Scripture.I don't stoop to that kind of intellectual dishonesty.
Standard response on your part - terminology-quibbling.Rep is not a concept I traffic in, it is your concept, not mine. I've never seen it anywhere in Scripture.
Who came up with that extra-Biblical notion?
So your argument is, incriminating 100 billion innocent people for Adam's sin is just because they freely choose to continue in his sin. However:The justice lies in Adam's children agreeing with Adam's sin, demonstrated by their continuance in their own sin, the principle of Lk 11:48, 50-51.
It is both imputation of Adam's sin and engagement in one's own sin that condemns mankind.
Eze 18:14-17 has been addressed several times, showing that imputation of Adam's sin is not contradictory to it, according to Ex 20:5 and the principle of Lk 11:48, 50-51.I wasn't even going to mention this one, but why not.
So your argument is, incriminating 100 billion innocent people for Adam's sin is just because they freely choose to continue in his sin. However:
(1) A sinful nature is tormenting (viz. the agony of temptation). Thus you ALREADY have innocent people suffering for the sins of the parent Adam even BEFORE they sin, contra Ezekiel 18.
(2) In terms of additional torment, these innocent fetuses, infants, toddlers often suffer starvation, disease, injury, and death BEFORE they agree to continue in sin. Some are born physically and mentally handicapped. Again, contra Ezekiel 18.
I am not adducing freedom as the principle to anything.(3) You flatly contradict yourself because earlier you said that the sinful nature divests us of the freedom to walk in righteousness. Yet here you are adducing freedom as the key to showing your system just.
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.(4) You'd still have a contradiction even if we had enough freedom to overcome our sinful nature. Following your logic, choosing to walk in righteousness would divest God of a basis for incriminating us.
It's not about equality of "injustice," or inequality of justice, it's about imputation of guilt, in which one was not complicit.Your position is so full of contradictions that a critic hardly knows where to begin.
Your appeal to Lk 11:48, 50-51 fails on several grounds mentioned earlier. You haven't proven that God was equally unjust in those passages
Okay, I think I'm finally understanding what you are saying. I couldn't address it to your satisfaction before, because it is so far from my reference points that I couldn't make sense of it.You CAN'T prove it because I showed you two alternative interpretations/solutions. Your reading of that passage is - like everywhere else - sheer assertion.
In point of fact, sheer assertion isn't untenable if one can show all the alternatives self-contradictory. But when your own position is itself full of contradictions, your sheer assertions don't amount to a hill of beans.
The irony of this? Even those who agree with you that Adam's guilt was imputed to us - those who generally stand on your side - disagree with this non-complicity conclusion. They rather agree with me that the law of conscience has ALWAYS reigned (see Romans 1 and 2), see for example R.C. Sproul's reference to Rom 2:15 here:In Paul's treatment of the two corresponding Adam's (Ro 5:12-21), "complicity" neuters and makes irrelevant the text of 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 demonstrate no complicity in any sin--to show that those prior to Moses were not complicit in any sin, in the Biblical sense of responsibility for sin (complicitly).
And his reason for that demonstration is that non-complicity is an integral component of his upcoming parallels in vv.18-19.
Ro 5:12-15 is to establish no complicity in sin for those prior to Moses, thereby demonstrating in the contrasting parallels of vv. 18-19, that just as they had no complicity in the sin of Adam, likewise they had no complicity in the righteousness (justification) of Christ--both are imputed.
And probably five times I've responded that you can't shove a human-system injustice down my throat as proof that God is unjust. If I'm missing something here, seems you've yet to reveal what it is.I have demonstrated in the analogy of the Anthropos family business how one can be personally responsible for debt one did not personally incur;
Clare73:Correct, Scripture does not state God is a Trinity, it is the conclusion of the "wall of text" showing all the Scriptures that lead to that conclusion.
Scripture likewise does not say, for example, "God is sovereign," but it is everywhere presented in the Bible (Da 4:35; Ac 2:23, 4:28, 13:48; Lk 22:22; Ro 8:29-30, 9:14-29, 11:25-34; Eph 1:4-12; 2Th 2:13; 1Pe 1:2) for starters.
Clare73:I did, in post #500.Until you can present scripture that says the resurrected body can enter heaven, you are stuck with 1 Corinthians 15:50.
Jesus said he would be with the people for only a short time and then he would go to the one who sent him. (Jn 7:31-33)
At the empty tomb, he told Mary that he was returning to his Father and her Father, to his God and her God (Jn 20:17).
That's heaven.
Clare73:The Son of God is divine spirit incarnated (united with human body) on earth.
He died and rose from the dead with a resurrection body and returned to the Father in heaven.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?