One Died For All

[JAL]

Specious superficiality. I certainly don't think God is the stupid one as far as this conversation goes...

Well, if your commitment to heathen philosophy is so great that you want to accept it over Scripture, even to the point of stupid exegesis, that's your prerogative. But in that case please desist from accusing me of sheer philosophy. Look, every theological stance is somewhat philosophical because the Bible doesn't tell us everything. The question is which stance:
(1) Is most coherent - less vulnerable to the charge of gibberish
(2) Resolves the greatest number of problem areas (Incarnation, Fall, Problem of Evil, creation, regeneration, etc, etc, etc).
(3) Is most supported by Scripture.

And I haven't see any evidence that traditional theology, in these three areas, can hold a candle to my conclusions.

 

[JAL]

Realistically, I should have put an end to this conversation a long time ago. Some Scripture you should read and understand:

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Romans 1:19-25 ESV

Is there a point here?

 

[Clare73]

Care to cite the Hebrew grammar you're basing that reading on? Because from my Hebrew classes it's a case of emphasis using a qal infinitive with a qal imperfect.

Talk to someone who traffics in Hebrew.

 

[Clare73]

No, Romans 5:18 does not say we are condemned by God. At least not in the sense you appear to be using it,

In the context of Ro 5:12-21, condemnation is about righteousness, and a parallel in imputation of unrighteousness and righteousness. The consequences of imputed unrighteousness from Adam is condemnation to the wrath of God, remedied only by faith and trust in the Son who substituted for me in paying the penalty (sentence) due me for my unrighteousness, which was imputed to me (Ro 5:18-19).
The consequences of unrighteousness is always condemnation to God's wrath, under which by our very nature (sinful) we are born (Eph 2:3).

destined to die from birth from the corruption of sin but not held guilty on account of it otherwise Paul would be contradicting rather than revealing mysteries of the Old Testament, e.g. Ezekiel 18. That you have to remove Jesus from having a nature like ours in order to justify your faulty reading should give you pause since the incarnation is an essential truth to uphold, but instead you simply double down and try to play word games.

You are shoe-horning your erroneous doctrine into the NT texts in a vain attempt to unseat them.

Why do you care that NT doctrine is not in agreement with you?

 

[Clare73]

The fullness is revealed by the NT, but the issue is you're taking a reference to the OT in "hilasterion" reading it according to pagan appeasement rituals and then distorting the OT picture based on that reading. The placement of the blood in each sacrifice depends on the sin that its cleansing, with greater cleansing getting closer to the altar itself. Understanding "mercy seat" or "atonement cover" requires first understanding what was accomplished there to know what it reveals about Christ, not inserting pagan ideas and forcing them on the text.

Actually, the blood was both sprinkled and applied in one, and in the other it was only applied.

There were only two altars, the bronze at the entrance to the sanctuary and the gold inside the sanctuary in the Holy Place.

The blood of the sin sacrifice (Lev 4) for a priest or the whole community was sprinkled before the curtain in the Holy Place and applied to the horns of the gold altar in the Holy Place.
The blood of the sin sacrifice for an elder or member of the community was applied to the horns of the bronze altar at the entrance to the sanctuary, and

in both sacrifices the remainder of the blood was poured out at the base of the bronze altar.

The different treatments are due to the magnitude of the offense, one by a priest or the whole community, and the other by single individuals only.

 

[Clare73]

Now it seems you've gone beyond simply bordering on docetism into outright denying that Christ's incarnation was in fact human flesh but instead another substance.

Okay, so the example limps.

The difference between Jesus and mankind is in the disposition, not in material flesh.
Mankind has a fallen disposition to self before God, and
Jesus has a perfect disposition to God before self.

Hebrews is clear that it is in every way, not simply an approximation.

Hebrews is correctly interpreted only in the context of the whole NT,
where we learn that Jesus and the Father are One (Jn 10:30).
It is blasphemy to state that God, including God the Son--Jesus, is one with anything sinful,
therefore, your interpretation of Hebrews is necessarily incorrect.

As for your statement about the animal sacrifices, you'd have to prove that substitution was in fact in mind in the sacrifices

No, the OT is correctly understood in the light of the NT.
That Jesus' atonement was substitutional shows that the sacrifices, which were types of his sacrifice, were also substitutional.

if you're going to rely on them as evidence and that doesn't really speak to the issue at hand because Adam's sin didn't just affect human beings it brought corruption into all of creation.

The issue "at hand" is not an issue in atonement of the NT and, therefore, not an issue for me.

 

[Fervent]

Okay, so the example limps.

The difference between Jesus and mankind is in the disposition, not in material flesh.
Mankind has a fallen disposition to self before God, and
Jesus has a perfect disposition to God before self.

Hebrews is correctly interpreted only in the context of the whole NT,
where we learn that Jesus and the Father are One (Jn 10:30).
It is blasphemy to state that God, including God the Son--Jesus, is one with anything sinful,
therefore, your interpretation of Hebrews is necessarily incorrect.

No, the OT is correctly understood in the light of the NT.
That Jesus' atonement was substitutional shows that the sacrifices, which were types of his sacrifice, were also substitutional.

The issue "at hand" is not an issue in atonement of the NT and, therefore, not an issue for me.

Except Paul doesn't say "disposition" or anything of the sort, he says flesh. So if it's not in the flesh, then how is it transmitted? How do we receive the "sinful nature" from Adam if it is not in our lineage from him, which is through the flesh?

 

[Fervent]

In the context of Ro 5:12-21, condemnation is about righteousness and a parallel in imputation of unrighteousness and righteousness. The consequences of imputed unrighteousness from Adam is condemnation to the wrath of God, remedied only by faith and trust in the Son who substituted for me in paying the penalty (sentence) due me for my unrighteousness, which was imputed to me (Ro 5:18-19).
The consequences of unrighteousness is always condemnation to God's wrath, under which by our very nature (sinful) we are born (Eph 2:3).

You are shoe-horning your erroneous doctrine into the NT texts in a vain attempt to unseat them.

Why do you care that NT doctrine is not in agreement with you?

NT doctrine is in accord with what I am saying, it is the Augustinian doctrine that Luther and Calvin refined that is in disagreement. Paul never contradicted the Old Testament and would not contradict something as clear as "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." by insinuating that God held us responsible for Adam's actions. Your doctrine is not NT doctrine, it is the theological spinnings of men.

 

[Clare73]

Except Paul doesn't say "disposition" or anything of the sort, he says flesh. So if it's not in the flesh, then how is it transmitted? How do we receive the "sinful nature" from Adam if it is not in our lineage from him, which is through the flesh?

Paul presents two dispositions (laws) in Ro 7--one of the fallen human nature--flesh (law of sin), and one of the regenerate spirit (law of his mind), one desiring to please God (law of his mind), but unable because of his flesh (law of sin), where deliverance from the conflict comes not through his effort but through Christ.

 

[Clare73]

NT doctrine is in accord with what I am saying, it is the Augustinian doctrine that Luther and Calvin refined that is in disagreement. Paul never contradicted the Old Testament and would not contradict something as clear as "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." by insinuating that God held us responsible for Adam's actions. Your doctrine is not NT doctrine, it is the theological spinnings of men.

Again, you are not understanding the OT in the light of the NT revelation of Jesus Christ.
The OT is the NT concealed. The NT is the OT revealed.

We will not be resolving any differences when our premises are opposed.

 

[Fervent]

Paul presents two dispositions (principles) in Ro 7--one of the fallen human nature--flesh, and one of the regenerate spirit, one desiring to please God but unable, and one empowered by rebirth in Jesus Christ to please God.

You read undo significance into John's use of a rare word, why do you not read Paul's use of a well-defined word as it is defined? There's nothing about disposition in the word Paul used, it simply means flesh. Do you think Paul was mistaken with his word choice?

 

[Fervent]

Again, you are not understanding the OT in the light of the NT revelation of Jesus Christ.
The OT is the NT concealed. The NT is the OT revealed.

We will not be resolving any differences when our premises are opposed.

That doesn't address what I said in any sense, the NT is the continuation of the OT not a contradiction and replacement. Otherwise you're simply discarding the OT and replacing actual exegesis with your own theological biases. Paul extensively relied on the OT in order to demonstrate his points, and while he did demonstrate some things hidden in the OT he did not contradict it. What you are proposing is a direct contradiction and replacement with an alternative, which is not revealing meaning. Revealing meaning is drawing on what's there and showing how it applies in a fuller sense, amplifying the OT.

 

[Clare73]

You read undo significance into John's use of a rare word, why do you not read Paul's use of a well-defined word as it is defined? There's nothing about disposition in the word Paul used, it simply means flesh. Do you think Paul was mistaken with his word choice?

I think you are mistaken regarding its meaning in light of the whole NT.

 

[Clare73]

That doesn't address what I said in any sense, the NT is the continuation of the OT not a contradiction and replacement. Otherwise you're simply discarding the OT and replacing actual exegesis with your own theological biases. Paul extensively relied on the OT in order to demonstrate his points, and while he did demonstrate some things hidden in the OT he did not contradict it. What you are proposing is a direct contradiction and replacement with an alternative, which is not revealing meaning. Revealing meaning is drawing on what's there and showing how it applies in a fuller sense, amplifying the OT.

We will not be resolving our differences when we are using different premises,
primarily regarding substitutionary penal atonement for the removal of the wrath of God on our sin.

First, God's wrath (Ro 2:5, 5:9) is nothing if it's not penal.
Second, that Jesus died for (in the place of) all that trust in him (Ro 5:8; 1Pe 3:18; 1Jn 4:10), establishes substitutionary atonement, from both of which we then know that
the OT types of Jesus' sacrifice were likewise substitutionary and penal atonement.

Our irreconcilable difference is that I use NT revelation to know the meaning of the OT, and
you use the OT for the meaning of the NT, seeking to impose supposed OT meaning onto NT revelation.

You also seek to unseat NT revelation of Jesus' divine nature as the result of being sired by God the Father, revealed in Jesus' own statements about himself.
You likewise seek to defile his human nature, maintaining that it is fallen, sinful, which would then disqualify him as an atoning sacrifice, which had to be flawless, without imperfection.

 

[Fervent]

I think you are mistaken regarding its meaning in light of the whole NT.

It's consistently used in accordance to the Greek common usage, to which the flesh was assigned blind appetites. It's only when we've been steeped in "sinful nature" thinking that it appears as such, in no way does the context demand such a read.

 

[Fervent]

We will not be resolving our differences when we are using different premises.

If your premise is whatever we want/think the NT is saying dominates and it doesn't matter if it directly contradicts the OT, then I suppose we won't resolve our differences. Though that is not the NT revealing the OT, it is the NT replacing the OT.

 

[Clare73]

It's consistently used in accordance to the Greek common usage, to which the flesh was assigned blind appetites. It's only when we've been steeped in "sinful nature" thinking that it appears as such, in no way does the context demand such a read.

Paul wasn't using the Greek common usage.
Keep in mind Paul was a Pharisee scholar. He knew and was steeped in the Scriptures, to the point of persecuting Christians as a heretical sect.
Paul was "steeped in the 'sinful nature' thinking" that God is steeped in.

Paul takes his meaning of "flesh" from Ge 6:5. . .and in Ge 8:21, God says it hasn't changed.
God says it is in the "heart," and a good word for that is "disposition" or "sinful-nature."

 

[Clare73]

If your premise is whatever we want/think the NT is saying dominates and
it doesn't matter if it directly contradicts the OT,

Is abolishment of the sacrifices and the ceremonial law a contradiction of the OT?

then I suppose we won't resolve our differences. Though
that is not the NT revealing the OT, it is the NT replacing the OT.

Like the New Covenant replaced the Old (Mosaic) Covenant, or
the mediatorship of Christ replaced the mediatorship of Moses, or
the priesthood of Melchizedek replaced the priesthood of Aaron, or
the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ replaced the OT sacrifices, or
freedom from law-keeping replaces the ceremonial law, or
baptism replaced circumcision (Col 2:11-12)?

 

[Fervent]

Is abolishment of the sacrifices and the ceremonial law a contradiction of the OT?

Like the New Covenant replaced the Old (Mosaic) Covenant, or
the mediatorship of Christ replaced the mediatorship of Moses, or
the priesthood of Melchizedek replaced the priesthood of Aaron, or
the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ replaced the OT sacrifices, or
baptism replaced circumcision (Col 2:11-12)?

No, because those things were explicitly tied with the Mosaic covenant and were given as a part of it as the covenant obligations. When the revelation of the NT is understood, the temporary nature of the Mosaic covenant comes through and statements regarding it can be understood. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah all prophesied about the loss of the covenant status and it can even be seen in Deuteronomy. There is no contradiction there, and the continuity between the two is apparent through numerous quotations and allusions to the OT that explain that Sinai was always intended to be replaced.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,
@Fervent


All traditional accounts of the Fall are irremediably flawed because a God who is perfectly kind and perfectly just will not visit the consequences of one man's sin upon 100 billion descendants.

Except Paul doesn't say "disposition" or anything of the sort, he says flesh. So if it's not in the flesh, then how is it transmitted? How do we receive the "sinful nature" from Adam if it is not in our lineage from him, which is through the flesh?

Answer: We are Adam. That's the only VALID understanding of the Fall. Adam didn't pass on to you a sinful nature, rather you ARE sinful in nature because you, being Adam, sinned. You just don't remember being in the Garden.

How so? My theory is that God created one physical soul named Adam. After Adam sinned, God removed most of his sin-stained soul unto a place of suspended animation. At every human conception God mates a portion of the sin-stained soul to the embryo. In other words each human soul today is a physical piece of Adam's original soul.

Can I prove my theory? No - but 2,000 years of futility have proven that no other formula will solve this issue. This conclusion seems to be a bit of a logical syllogism and, as such, difficult to refute:
(1) God punishes Adam alone for Adam's sin.
(2) God punished each man for Adam's sin.
(3) Therefore each man is Adam.

If we claim to resolve the Problem of Evil, but fail to deal effectively with Adam, we're just kidding ourselves.