One Died For All

[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:

The problem for you is that your Texas analogy--after I read it a few minutes ago--does not compare to inherited sin and imperfection that all of Adam's descendants got.

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

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

Your above analogy relies on the LACK of action by a fictional U.S. President after someone else poisoned the ground water. Based on your analogy, that fictional U.S. President represents the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible aka JEHOVAH and the man who poisoned the ground water represents Adam. In your analogy, you had the fictional U.S. President specifically say he would do NOTHING to cure the situation. To quote your fictional U.S. President:

"Even though I have a way to purify the drinking water, I've decided that you should ALL suffer the consequences of his transgression. You will ALL drink poisoned water and DIE."

Your analogy fails when compared to the situation with Adam's deliberate sin after which Adam passed on sin, imperfection, and death to his offspring--all of humanity. Here is why: whereas in your analogy the fictional U.S. President did NOTHING to cure the situation, Almighty God Jehovah took steps to CURE the situation. He took steps to rescue humanity from Adam's sin when he allowed his precious son, Jesus Christ, to come to earth and die for all mankind.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16 -- New American Standard Bible)

Alter2Ego


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

 

[Clare73]

All that verbiage in your last post is just a facade to make it look like a rebuttal, but repeating the same tired old assertions already refuted. For example here you make a long-winded argument for non-complicity:


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:
Our First Federal Head | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org
I've pointed out Romans 1 and 2 to you multiple times and you just keep ignoring it. I even showed you proof that the pre-Moses era wasn't an anarchy and nihilism bereft of law, the proof was that God held Noah's generation accountable for their sins against conscience, and Sodom and Gomorrah as well. You keep ignoring every Scripture shown to you and just focus, with tunnel-vision, on any verse that you THINK supports your position.

The rest of your post is another tired repetition of your "argument" based on a parallel of Adam and Christ. I showed in post 649 that your argument relies on an eisegesis-method that, if legitimate, would only refute your own position. This is what you do - just keep repeating same long-winded already-refuted "arguments".

You appealed yet again to Lk 11:48, 50-51 which I just responded to in my last post, as usual you ignored my response. I mentioned that I provided you two alternative readings/solutions. Same goes for Ex 20:5. One might ask, "Why should JAL's 2 interpretations/solutions be preferred?" Because mine do not contradict the concept of God's justice, love, and kindness - virtues of God reaffirmed at Ezekiel 18.

Earlier your "rebuttal" was to say things like, "You have a finite understanding of justice." Right. As human exegetes, that's all we've got! The only decisive away to adjudicate between multiple competing interpretations is to detect contradictions, for example contradictions to our finite understanding of justice. Our finite understanding of the virtues is a solid principle for two reasons:
(1) If God doesn't confirm to our finite sense of virtue, we cannot claim hope on theological grounds. For example if God doesn't conform to my understand of honesty, then He is a liar and His promises worthless.
(2) Scripture makes it clear that He DOES conform to the human definitions of virtue (one only need to look at Ezek 18 to see this). How so? Because Scripture enumerates every single form of human evil behavior and assures us that God's behavior is precisely the OPPOSITE. We DO understand those human examples, and thus we DO know what the opposite means. By this formula, what we END UP with is the standard human concept of virtue. Such is our God.

This is not to say that our finite minds comprehend the full MAGNITUDE of His virtue. Quantitatively, I can't grasp the full measure of His love. But qualitatively speaking, I know what love is - it's kindness. And if God doesn't conform to that human definition, I have no hope.

My hope is only in Jesus Christ who has secured for me God's favor, fellowship, provision, and
blessed eternal inheritance, of which the Holy Spirit is the guarantee, down payment, earnest.

Are you gonna' be there with me?

 

[Clare73]

Clare73:

Your conclusion from a wall of copy-pasted, out-of-context verses of scripture, does not indicated that the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is a Trinity. Telling me what you chose to conclude has nothing to do with what those scriptures are actually saying--based upon their context.

Again, I suggest that you begin by selecting THREE specific verses of scripture--from those that you posted earlier--and then explain to the rest of us where any of those first THREE verses of scriptures should lead everyone to the conclusion that a Trinity God exists in the Judeo-Christian Bible.


Alter2Ego

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

I don't know where you got your rules, but no doctrine of God is established with only one verse in the Word of God written.

I have presented the short passage of Jn 1:1-14 which establishes the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

If you're looking for one verse or passage to establish the Holy Spirit as divine, it's not presented in one verse or passage, and I don't tell God to how many verses he is limited in revealing anything.
.

 

[Clare73]

Clare73:

No. You did not present any scriptures at Post 500 that indicate a physical body can enter heaven. What you presented at Post 500 were two scriptures where Jesus stated he would be returning to his heavenly father.

In none of those two scriptures does Jesus say he will return with a physical body.

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).
.

 

[Clare73]

Clare73:

That's not what I asked you. I asked you a direct question, which you are now dodging. Here is the question again, precede by the scripture that clearly says physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God—which happens to be in heaven:

"What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever." (1 Corinthians 15:50 -- New Living Translation)

The physical body that cannot inherit the kingdom of God is mortal, dying, which is why it cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Our resurrection physical spiritual bodies are like Jesus' resurrection physical spiritual body, imperishable (cannot die), glorious and powerful, and can enter the kingdom of God.

QUESTION #1 TO CLARE73:

Was Jesus a spirit creature or a fleshly creature before he came to earth

Wrong premise.
"Have you stopped beating your friends?". . .has a wrong premise.

Humans are spirits enclothed in flesh (natural body).

Jesus was divine spirit (being), before he came to earth, not a creature which is created.
When he came to earth, he acquired a created human body with a human spirit.

SECOND TIME ASKING.

In none of those two scriptures does Jesus say he will return with a physical body.

It is Paul's revelation from the third heaven (2Co 12:1-5) that we have a natural physical body and
a spiritual physical body (1Co 15:44).

The natural physical body which goes into the ground (burial) is raised as a spiritual physical body (1Co 15:42-44), similar to our present natural physical bodies organizationally, but radically different in that they will be imperishable (i.e., cannot die), glorious and powerful (1Co 15:42-44).

All eyes will see Jesus coming (Mt 24:30, 26:64), so it will be his physical spiritual body.

 

[JAL]

Here is why: whereas in your analogy the fictional U.S. President did NOTHING to cure the situation, Almighty God Jehovah took steps to CURE the situation. He took steps to rescue humanity from Adam's sin when he allowed his precious son, Jesus Christ, to come to earth and die for all mankind.

Completely inadequate response. I was talking about 100 billion people born into a world of disease, starvation, suffering, death. That hasn't changed, despite the cross. How many of these people die? All of them. The analogy is perfect.

 

[JAL]

My hope is only in Jesus Christ who has secured for me God's favor, fellowship, provision, and
blessed eternal inheritance, of which the Holy Spirit is the guarantee, down payment, earnest.

Are you gonna' be there with me?

Sure. And? Is there a point here?

 

[Clare73]

Sure. And? Is there a point here?

Well, you didn't address the argument itself.

 

[JAL]

Well, you didn't address the argument itself.

What argument? My posts 654, 656, 657 are pretty thorough responses to you. What crucial point do you think I missed?

 

[JAL]

Well, you didn't address the argument itself.

Here's a verse not discussed much:

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1Cor 15:22).

What does "in Adam" actually mean? And what does "in Christ" mean? For all your talk about parallels, surprising you seem to overlook this one. I remind you that sound exegesis trades on linguistic precedent. Do we have clear precedent for the notion that "in Adam" means either of your two claims:
(A) imputed guilt?
(B) inherited sinful nature?

Neither, because nobody talks that way. Take for example B (inheritance) Suppose I inherited a genetic disorder, such as myopia, from grandfather Bob. I would never say. "In Bob, I have myopia". Nobody uses that kind of language, we have no precedent for it.

What we DO have precedent for is using the word "in" to designate location or immersion. "The dirty dishes are in the sink" (located/immersed within the sink). Note the parallel. "In Christ" means "immersed in His presence", for example: "They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that came to rest on each of them" (Acts 2). In the same way, "in Adam" easily translates to "Within Adam", because, in my view, all our souls were originally located in Adam's body. This creates a clear parallel.

 

[Clare73]

All that verbiage in your last post is just a facade to make it look like a rebuttal, but repeating the same tired old assertions already refuted. For example here you make a long-winded argument for non-complicity:

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:
Our First Federal Head | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org
I've pointed out Romans 1 and 2 to you multiple times and you just keep ignoring it. I even showed you proof that the pre-Moses era wasn't an anarchy and nihilism bereft of law, the proof was that God held Noah's generation accountable for their sins against conscience, and Sodom and Gomorrah as well. You keep ignoring every Scripture shown to you and just focus, with tunnel-vision, on any verse that you THINK supports your position.
The rest of your post is another tired repetition of your "argument" based on a parallel of Adam and Christ. I showed in post 649 that your argument relies on an eisegesis-method that, if legitimate, would only refute your own position. This is what you do - just keep repeating same long-winded already-refuted "arguments".

You appealed yet again to Lk 11:48, 50-51 which I just responded to in my last post, as usual you ignored my response. I mentioned that I provided you two alternative readings/solutions. Same goes for Ex 20:5. One might ask, "Why should JAL's 2 interpretations/solutions be preferred?" Because mine do not contradict the concept of God's justice, love, and kindness - virtues of God reaffirmed at Ezekiel 18.

Earlier your "rebuttal" was to say things like, "You have a finite understanding of justice." Right. As human exegetes, that's all we've got! The only decisive away to adjudicate between multiple competing interpretations is to detect contradictions, for example contradictions to our finite understanding of justice. Our finite understanding of the virtues is a solid principle for two reasons:
(1) If God doesn't confirm to our finite sense of virtue, we cannot claim hope on theological grounds. For example if God doesn't conform to my understand of honesty, then He is a liar and His promises worthless.
(2) Scripture makes it clear that He DOES conform to the human definitions of virtue (one only need to look at Ezek 18 to see this). How so? Because Scripture enumerates every single form of human evil behavior and assures us that God's behavior is precisely the OPPOSITE. We DO understand those human examples, and thus we DO know what the opposite means. By this formula, what we END UP with is the standard human concept of virtue. Such is our God.

This is not to say that our finite minds comprehend the full MAGNITUDE of His virtue. Quantitatively, I can't grasp the full measure of His love. But qualitatively speaking, I know what love is - it's kindness. And if God doesn't conform to that human definition, I have no hope.

What argument? My posts 654, 656, 657 are pretty thorough responses to you.
What crucial point do you think I missed?

The argument and point that:
It's not about "all have sinned" of Ro 3:23.

The context (5:12-19) shows that Adam's sin involved the rest of mankind in condemnation
(vv. 18-19) and death (v. 15).
Sin was in the world (5:13), but sin was not specifically attached to Law until it was attached to the Mosaic Law.
The Law of conscience establishes how sin was in the world (i.e., 3:23), thereby establishing
the justice of the imputation of Adam's sin due to mankind's agreement with it (as in Lk 11:48),
according to Jesus' principal of Lk 11:48-51.
.

 

[Clare73]

Here's a verse not discussed much:

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1Cor 15:22).

What does "in Adam" actually mean? And what does "in Christ" mean?

It's another parallel, not about imputation, but mortality and immortality.

As through the sin of Adam all men became mortal, because all receive the sinful nature from him,
so through the merit and resurrection of Christ, all who receive the spiritual nature from the Holy Spirit will be made alive and immortal at the resurrection.

For all your talk about parallels, surprising you seem to overlook this one. I remind you that sound exegesis trades on linguistic precedent. Do we have clear precedent for the notion that "in Adam" means either of your two claims:
(A) imputed guilt?
(B) inherited sinful nature?

Neither, because nobody talks that way. Take for example B (inheritance) Suppose I inherited a genetic disorder, such as myopia, from grandfather Bob. I would never say. "In Bob, I have myopia". Nobody uses that kind of language, we have no precedent for it.

What we DO have precedent for is using the word "in" to designate location or immersion. "The dirty dishes are in the sink" (located/immersed within the sink). Note the parallel. "In Christ" means "immersed in His presence", for example: "They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that came to rest on each of them" (Acts 2). In the same way, "in Adam" easily translates to "Within Adam", because, in my view, all our souls were originally located in Adam's body. This creates a clear parallel.

.

 

[JAL]

The argument and point that:
It's not about "all have sinned" of Ro 3:23.

The context (5:12-19) shows that Adam's sin involved the rest of mankind in condemnation
(vv. 18-19) and death (v. 15).
Sin was in the world (5:13), but sin was not specifically attached to Law until it was attached to the Mosaic Law.
The Law of conscience establishes how sin was in the world (i.e., 3:23), thereby establishing
the justice of the imputation of Adam's sin due to mankind's agreement with it (as in Lk 11:48),
according to Jesus' principal of Lk 11:48-51.
.

You continue to ramble a bunch of non-sequiturs whose dots don't connect, in pretense of making a demonstration. For example you say:

thereby establishing
the justice of the imputation of Adam's sin due to mankind's agreement with it

This was refuted a few posts back. Agreement is meaningless here if it doesn't mean "freely willed compliance" but you yourself admitted that the sinful nature precludes freedom. I pointed out this contradiction just a few posts back. You keep repeating the same "arguments" already shown to to self-contradict.

And even if you could resolve THAT contradiction, you'd still be faced with another. Your argument is based on "agreement" (compliance with Adam's sin). Ok suppose a few people freely choose to walk in non-compliance, that is, they walk in righteousness. Following your logic, Adam's sin would NOT be imputed to them. The end result is this;
(1) Those who sin are condemned.
(2) Those who obey are exonerated.

In other words, Adam's behavior has NO SAY in our condemnation or exoneration, WE OURSELVES make that determination individually - which is the whole point of Ezekiel 18 !!!! Thus you refute your whole theory of Adamic imputation !!!

All these contradictions were pointed out to you earlier.

 

[JAL]

It's another parallel.
In Adam--all who receive Adam's sinful nature (disposition to please self).
In Christ--all who receive the Holy Spirit and spiritual nature (disposition to please God).

As through the sin of Adam all men became mortal, because all received from him the same sinful nature,
so through the merit and resurrection of Christ, all who receive the Holy Spirit and the spiritual nature are made alive and become immortal.

.

Nope. Your reading of 1Cor 15:22 fails of linguistic precedent and is thus random, chaotic, sloppy exegesis. What was that you said about "loosey goosey"?

 

[Clare73]

You continue to ramble a bunch of non-sequiturs whose dots don't connect, in pretense of making a demonstration. For example you say:

thereby establishing
the justice of the imputation of Adam's sin due to mankind's agreement with it

This was refuted a few posts back. Agreement is meaningless here if it doesn't mean "freely willed compliance"

Not according to Jesus in Lk 11:48.

but you yourself admitted that the sinful nature precludes freedom. I pointed out this contradiction just a few posts back. You keep repeating the same "arguments" already shown to to self-contradict.

And even if you could resolve THAT contradiction, you'd still be faced with another. Your argument is based on "agreement" (compliance with Adam's sin). Ok suppose a few people freely choose to walk in non-compliance, that is, they walk in righteousness. Following your logic, Adam's sin would NOT be imputed to them. The end result is this;
(1) Those who sin are condemned.
(2) Those who obey are exonerated.

In other words, Adam's behavior has NO SAY in our condemnation or exoneration, WE OURSELVES make that determination individually - which is the whole point of Ezekiel 18 !!!! Thus you refute your whole theory of Adamic imputation !!!

All these contradictions were pointed out to you earlier.

Jesus' principle of Lk 11:48-51 contradicts your arguments.
.

 

[Clare73]

Nope. Your reading of 1Cor 15:22 fails of linguistic precedent and is thus random, chaotic, sloppy exegesis. What was that you said about "loosey goosey"?

That post was edited to:

"It's another parallel, not about imputation, but mortality and immortality.

As through the sin of Adam all men became mortal, because all receive the sinful nature from him,
so through the merit and resurrection of Christ, all who receive the spiritual nature from the Holy Spirit will be made alive and immortal at the resurrection."

 

[JAL]

1) Failure to demonstrate linguistic precedent,

Please. The word IN is regularly used to denote location/immersion. All we need is one clear example. We have probably thousands.

2) of which precedent you'll have to first convince Paul that he must comply.

That's not the issue. It is YOU, as the exegete, who must comply with preestablished precedent, or at least something we can relate to in everyday speech (at minimum). Otherwise we shouldn't take your interpretation seriously, it should be dismissed as "loosey goosey".

(Yawn). As usual, another pretense of a response.

 

[JAL]

Not according to Jesus in Lk 11:48.

Jesus' principle of Lk 11:48-51 contradicts your arguments.
.

I've refuted your self-contradictory reading of that passage too many times to bother repeating myself. By now it's pretty clear that you mostly indulge in the pretense of a demonstration.

 

[Clare73]

Please. The word IN is regularly used to denote location/immersion. All we need is one clear example. We have probably thousands.


That's not the issue. It is YOU, as the exegete, who must comply with preestablished precedent, or at least something we can relate to in everyday speech (at minimum). Otherwise we shouldn't take your interpretation seriously, it should be dismissed as "loosey goosey".

(Yawn). As usual, another pretense of a response.

My post to which you are responding here was edited during the posting of your response to it,
making your response to that post here inaccurate.
.

 

[JAL]

My post to which you are responding here was edited during the posting of your response to it,
making your response to that post here inaccurate.
.

Nope, still no linguistic precedent established for your reading of 1Cor 15:22.