One Died For All

[Alter2Ego]

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

Fervent:

Romans 5:18 does indeed say we are all condemned by God as a result of Adam's sin.

"Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone." (Romans 5:18 -- New Living Translation)

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." (Romans 5:18 -- King James 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

 

[Alter2Ego]

I should have stated the syllogism this way:
Major premise: God punishes Adam alone for Adam's sin.
Minor premise: God punishes me for Adam's sin.
Conclusion: I am Adam

And by "punish" I don't mean hell alone. I mean ANY suffering or any detriment of any kind experienced as a consequence of the fall, first and foremost the universal expulsion of all men from the Garden.

JAL:

Your conclusion, that you are Adam, is based on your belief that you are being punished for Adam's sin.

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

Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

The whole Jesus, including his resurrection body, is in heaven.

Clare73:

Scripture does not support your claim that Jesus' resurrected body is in heaven. To the contrary, scripture makes it clear that flesh and blood cannot inherit Jehovah's kingdom, which happens to be in heaven.

"What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor can corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Corinthians 15:50 -- Christian Standard Bible)


Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

There are three divine spirits in one, all in the Trinity.
As personal seed of the divine Father, Jesus is divine as well as human, possessing a divine spirit as well as a human spirit.
That puts him in the Trinity, with a physical resurrection body possessing different spiritual qualities than the natural body.

Clare73:

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

Alter2Ego

 

[JAL]

I see us guilty by imputation, reckoned to us by God (Ro 5:19).

I never got a straight answer out of you as whether Adam is our rep but I can find no other viable interpretation of your words. You should be aware of some of the problems facing that view. Basically it can be summarized as incoherent jurisprudence.
(1) If Adam is our rep, Eve should have murdered him before he got a chance to sin. As long as the rep dies innocent, we are all innocent by representation.
(2) If Adam is our rep, our own sins have no moral status. Representation means that our status is the status of the rep. This contradicts any and every chapter of the Bible that regards individual sin as relevant, immoral, and reprehensible. Basically it contradicts almost every page of the Bible.
(3) If the cross redeemed Adam, then all men should automatically be innocent by representation. Just as it doesn't take "faith" to Fall in Adam, it shouldn't take faith to be redeemed in him either.
(4) Selecting Adam as our rep is cruel. Representation means that all we need is an innocent rep. So why not select, say, Christ? Since Christ never sinned, we'd be innocent by representation - no need for Him to die on the cross.
(5) Representation makes God a liar. If someone commits a crime today, and a judge declares you guilty by representation, you'd consider the status of "guilty as charged" to be an outright lie.

Such is the Reformed view - some of them go further and claim that Jesus is our new rep. Why then did He have to die? Aren't we innocent by representation in that case? This argument contradicts penal atonement.

 

[JAL]

JAL:

Your conclusion, that you are Adam, is based on your belief that you are being punished for Adam's sin.

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

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

 

[Fervent]

Fervent:

Romans 5:18 does indeed say we are all condemned by God as a result of Adam's sin.

"Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone." (Romans 5:18 -- New Living Translation)

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." (Romans 5:18 -- King James 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'm aware of the wording, which is why I qualified it as I did. The "condemnation" spoken of is the penalty of death, as Adam's sin caused death to enter the world. It is not a condemnation of guilt transmitted as punishment.

 

[JAL]

(6) Representation contradicts Ezekiel 18. The children of Adam should not pay consequences for his sins.

 

[JAL]

deleted

 

[JAL]

@Fervent,

Oh sorry I think I responded to the wrong person.

 

[JAL]

JAL:

Your conclusion, that you are Adam, is based on your belief that you are being punished for Adam's sin.

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

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

 

[Clare73]

Ok so Adam is the representative for anyone in his line? I think that's what you're saying, right?

Look, if you hold to a position, state it. If you can't identify a clear stance of your own, then don't sit here and criticize those of us who offer real answers to biblically-based questions.

I don't think of it as me "holding a position," I see it as what the Word of God presents.
To answer your question in the way you want it answered, I don't find anything in Scripture on "federal headship," and I'm not even really sure what it means.
I "hold" to Ro 5:18-19.
Adam's sin is imputed to those of Adam, as
Christs' righteousness is imputed to those of Christ.

This whole thread has been an ongoing debate between you and Fervent.
Again, pretense of a response.

I guess that's right, but without all the nomenclature of formal debate, I see it more as a discussion of what Scripture actually presents.

Exactly. For example if we say that God is infinitely kind, and then have a view of the Fall that ascribes to Him unkind, evil behavior, we've contradicted the Word of God.
You seem to want to justify contradictions.

What I want is to explain what the finite mind of man sees as contradictions, my premise being that God's view of "kindness" is what governs.
So. . .I learn from God's love for sinners, where in order to cancel (forgive) the debt/punishment of their sin, he first had to send his Son (Jn 3:13, 5:36-40 6:38, 42, 62, 10:36, 13:3, 16:28) to suffer the most brutal scourgings, cruel mockings, and an agonizing death on the cross to satisfy his justice.
What he required of his Son wasn't "kind," nor was it "good" in the finite view of man.

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

Paul said that sin entered the world through Adam, but Eve sinned first.

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

 

[Clare73]

@Fervent
You're wasting your time debating with @Clare 73.
She's exegetically infallible in her own eyes.

Fervant has shown my fallibility, not based in his logic, but explicitly from the Word of God.
.

 

[Clare73]

I don't see any real responses here. Just a pretense of one. I myself don't stoop to pretense-responses.
All of us can say that "pretty much" to use you term. Otherwise we probably would not be Christians.
But I just gave you multiple examples of traditional beliefs for which there is NOT explicit biblical authorization. How is this a relevant response to me?

Who said I subscribed to those beliefs?

As noted, it's not.
See above. That's exactly what orthodoxy has done in those multiple doctrines such as Hypostatic Union. Are you rebutting me, or yourself? Seems the latter.

Who said I held those views?

You're not making sense. If the doctrines and promises of God can self-contradict, the Word of God affords no hope. Theology must assume that Scripture does NOT self-contradict, at least not on major issues.

Therein lies the problem. You think that what is contradictory to finite human reasoning is contradictory of God.
A good example of that fallacy is the "logical" assumption that responsibility for sin requires that man have free will, capable of obeying God in all things at all times.
However, the Word of God reveals that man is responsible for his sin, even though he is not able to obey God in all things at all times.
There is no contradiction Biblically, because man has what man (philosophy) calls free agency, he does not have what man (philosophy) calls free will (capable of obeying God in all things at all times) because of the Fall.

I don't consider myself "debating" so much as presenting the Biblical demonstrations which show the compatibility of what man's finite reasoning and logic say are contradictory.

Right so why do you hold to a traditional view of the Fall that is neither kind nor just, as demonstrated in my state-of-Texas analogy?

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

 

[Clare73]

I have a brother who is an atheist. Talk to him about a God in the manger. With his mindset, he'd consider it foolishness whether beforehand (a prediction), or in the aftermath.

That pretty much confirms the Word of God in 1Co 2:14).

But God in a manger is not an illogical belief. If it were, we'd all be in big trouble, concerning our hope for salvation.

Agreed.

 

[Clare73]

You glossed right over the point of the statement you were supposedly responding to. Dancing.

(Sigh). Relevance? I've made it pretty clear that soul and body are two distinct substances.

I don't think in the terms you do and don't have your reference points.
Sometimes, I really don't know what you mean in your reference points.

Like I said, I get it. When YOU employ human reasoning you call it "biblical".

I call it Biblical when I demonstrate it from Scripture.

If someone dissents with your conclusions, you disparage it as "human reasoning".

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

Thus you identify yourself as the Authority on interpreting the Word of God, and thus exempt from having to resolve any contradictions in your thinking.

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

It's a double standard. Like I said, I get it.

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

Perfect example. Historically - and still today - 99% of professional theologians disagree with trichotomy

So what do they do with Heb 4:12 which clearly presents one?

and would fault your interpretation. But you don't see any need to consider their objections to your reading because you're the Authority on the Word.

I get it.

I need to see on what Biblical basis they reject Heb 4:12.

 

[Clare73]

That's why I gave you 1Cor 14:1 as a reference. Two basic components:

(1) Suppose God wants you to do something - or believe something - right now. Why can't He simply speak to you? Must He wait until you've become a bible scholar and hopefully, by chance, reach that same conclusion exegetically? Thus Direct Revelation is, first and foremost, God conveying a message to us in real time, instead of waiting for us to deduce that information via bible-study.

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

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

(2) Prophets like Abraham existed before the Bible. In fact without prophets, our Bible wouldn't exist. When the prophet Abraham heard a message, he didn't need to "check it out with Scripture" (there wasn't any Scripture yet). In other words, Direct Revelation is self-authenticating.

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

An excellent example is when he heard a voice commanding him to murder his own son. He didn't need to "check it out with Scripture".

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

By apologetics, I mean that I can:
(1) Show that our saving faith is based on self-authenticating Direct Revelation, not on exegesis.

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

(2) Show that Sola Scriptura - the idea that exegesis is the only final authority - is an inherently self-contradictory claim. (But why bother? You've made it pretty clear that you have no interest in resolving any contradictions in your thinking).

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

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

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

 

[Clare73]

Also I can show:
(3) That the NT doesn't seem to lend much weight to exegesis. Rather it urges us to prioritize Direct Revelation, placing it on the very top rung of the priority ladder alongside love (1Cor 14:1). In particular, 1Corinthians is an epistle that defines spiritual maturity as mature prophethood. This argument is the thesis of chapter 2 but is strongly reiterated in chapter 13.

Well, in chp 14, Paul is presenting prophecy (which is instructive to the hearers) as superior to tongues.
Keeping in mind that much of the NT, probably including Romans, had not yet been written, only Galatians and Thessalonians probably had been written. There wasn't much NT for the Corinthians to consult.

 

[Clare73]

How you SHOULD 'roll' is be honest with yourself about the fact that none of us are fully immune to 2,000 years of indoctrination. Like most Christians you keep telling yourself that your conclusions came "straight from the Word of God" but there is real danger that you're viewing it largely through the lens of traditional thinking. And, typically, the only flag to warn you of the problem is someone like me coming along and raising objections to your views.

You didn't address Heb 4:12.
.

 

[Clare73]

Clare73:

Scripture does not support your claim that Jesus' resurrected body is in heaven. To the contrary, scripture makes it clear that flesh and blood cannot inherit Jehovah's kingdom, which happens to be in heaven.

"What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor can corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Corinthians 15:50 -- Christian Standard Bible)


Alter2Ego

Thanks . ."flesh" in Paul means the natural body before the resurrection, not the resurrection body which can enter heaven.

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.
.