One Died For All

[JAL]

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

Again, repeating verses that don't prove anything because they fit perfectly well with my own position.

Another pretense of a defense. Another deflection that doesn't address the core of the arguments raised.

This is all about you trying to save face. I've had enough.

 

[JAL]

I will address this point one more time, for the benefit of anyone monitoring ths thread.

I said:

? 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)

Of course you deflect, as always, you don't tell us when these fetuses, infants, toddlers sinned:

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

Let's take a look at that verse again. You see, unlike you, Paul didn't presume God to be the sort of evil jerk who let's innocent fetuses, infants, and toddlers suffer starvation, disease, and DEATH. Here's Paul's explanation as to WHY they die:

"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)

They die because they actually sinned. Yes they are born with a sinful nature - I never denied that part - they became sinful in nature because they actually sinned! (In Adam).

 

[JAL]

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

Stop telling lies. You admitted that the parallel isn't exhaustive. Hence the parallel allows for various kinds of divergence, except of course those commonalities explicitly converged in the language of the parallel.

 

[Clare73]

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

Only to those who don't understand their meanings and the important differences between them.

You just wanna' play loosey-goosey with the NT as you do with the OT, but the Word of God
in ole' Paul the Pharisee's revelation from the third heaven (2Co 12:1-7) is specific, definitive, erudite,
harmonious, separating the soul (speculation) from the spirit (NT revelation), locking out from the NT any and all intrusion by human fancy, keeping one grounded in the mind of God rather than floating around in novel ideas, and they finding it too distasteful to even address. . .
in sum, just too exoteric for the esoteric taste.

As for me and my house, all Scripture is the wisdom and power of God, the OT being understood in the light of the NT, its fulfillment and completion.

That is our real difference and disagreement.
.

 

[Clare73]

I will address this point one more time, for the benefit of anyone monitoring ths thread.

I said:

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)

Of course you deflect, as always, you don't tell us when these fetuses, infants, toddlers sinned:

You're asking me to prove your premise.

Let's take a look at that verse again. You see, unlike you, Paul didn't presume God to be the sort of evil jerk who let's innocent fetuses, infants, and toddlers suffer starvation, disease, and DEATH. Here's Paul's explanation as to WHY they die:

"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)

They die because they actually sinned. Yes they are born with a sinful nature - I never denied that part - they became sinful in nature because they actually sinned! (In Adam).

So. . .they are born with a sinful nature. . .but they became sinful.
Meaningless terminology quibble?
Like the righteousness of justification as distinct from the righteousness of sanctification,
which Paul is emphatic to distinguish, is terminology quibble?

And there ya' gone again!. . .Disagreeing with Paul's explanation for the death of those from Adam to Moses, when no sin was accounted to them because there was no law to sin against, yet they died anyway--from imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:12-14).

The infants sinned when Adam's sin/guilt was imputed to them; i.e., accounted to them as their own,
as our sin was accounted to Christ as his own (1Pe 2:24; 2Co 5:21), which occurred when they came into existence, for it is the condition of all men without exception.

The sinful nature is bound up with death, hostility to God, insubordination, unacceptability with God (Ro 8:6-8) and powerlessness (Ro 5:6). That nature is not acceptable to God from the moment it exists.

Where's the problem? It's all been taken care of through faith in Christ.
.

 

[Clare73]

Stop telling lies. You admitted that the parallel isn't exhaustive. Hence the parallel allows for various kinds of divergence, except of course those commonalities explicitly converged in the language of the parallel.

Refresh my memory. . .don't remember admitting to any "complicit"

 

[Clare73]

Again, repeating verses that don't prove anything because they
fit perfectly well with my own position.

Good to hear. . .

Another pretense of a defense. Another deflection that doesn't address the core of the arguments raised.

Which argument escapes me because it is not in the NT pattern of thought and speech.

This is all about you trying to save face. I've had enough.

Or you wanting to play loosey-goosey?

 

[Clare73]

duplicate

 

[Clare73]

duplicate
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.
Perhaps this will help.

Our resurrection bodies will be like Jesus' resurrection body.
From the NT accounts, we know that it would appear and disappear.
We know that it would appear in a closed room, "walking through the walls" so to speak.

That suggests to me that our spirits are clothed in a physical body by decision of the person, and unclothed by the decision of a person.
That suggests to me that the resurrection person is capable of living in the spirit realm.

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.

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).

 

[JAL]

Only to those who don't understand their meanings and the important differences between them.

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.

 

[JAL]

So. . .they are born with a sinful nature. . .but they became sinful.
Meaningless terminology quibble?

Since you still can't seem to comprehend my simple position after 175 posts, touting yourself as an authority on Paul is hardly credible.

 

[JAL]

Refresh my memory. . .don't remember admitting to any "complicit"

But you're not entitled to deny it. That's the point. The only parallel drawn in Romans 5 is that, with both Adam and Christ, one act affected many people. That's all. It is sheer intellectual dishonesty to insist that the passage rules out "complicit", that is, a physical soul where the parts behave complicitly in unison.

And there is PLENTY of material in Romans supportive of a physical soul, notably Paul's usage of the terms flesh and body.

 

[Clare73]

Since you still can't seem to comprehend my simple position after 175 posts, touting yourself as an authority on Paul is hardly credible.

Your position assumes constructs I've never heard.
I've been too long with a NT mind, too long with NT reference points, to really grasp intricate complex conceptions so totally outside my reference points, unless they are broken down, explained and arranged so I can make sense of them. I have nothing to which to relate them which would give me understanding of them.

It matters not whether I am "an authority on Paul."
It falls to you to Biblically demonstrate in the light of the NT where I am incorrect.

 

[JAL]

The infants sinned...

This is nonsense outside of a corporate Adam. Adam sinned, whereas fetuses, infants, and toddlers do not sin. You're trying to shove your incoherent position down Paul's throat, but it just won't fit.

 

[JAL]

One doesn't have to be an authority on Paul to repeat what he states on paper.

More intellectual dishonesty. That statement would be true only if you merely quoted verses verbatim - and nothing more.

 

[Clare73]

But you're not entitled to deny it. That's the point. The only parallel drawn in Romans 5 is that, with both Adam and Christ, one act affected many people. That's all. It is sheer intellectual dishonesty to insist that the passage rules out "complicit", that is, a physical soul where the parts behave complicity in unison.

"Complicit" is ruled out for three reasons, as presented in post #610.

1) the definition of the word,
2) the death of those from Adam to Moses in Ro 5:12-15, and
3) Paul's parallels of Ro 5:18-19 do not allow it.

See post #610.

"Complicit" is ruled out on three bases:

1) the basis of the parallel between the first Adam's sin and the second Adam's righteousness, wherein the
imputed righteousness of the second Adam requires an imputed sin of the first Adam to be parallel.
But "complicit" is not parallel, would destroy the parallel and, therefore, is necessarily ruled out.

Your position is that
a) actually being a part of Adam makes one "complicit" in Adam's sin,
b) the parallels of Ro 5:18-19 are limited simply to the consequences to mankind of the one act of each of the two Adam's.

The problem with that is your view of soteriology is based on
the rejection of your personal perception of imputation of Adam's sin as a "cruelty of God,"
which personal difficulty you resolve by a limited "reincarnation" and a limited parallel in Ro 5:18-19
(that should be your first clue).

Whereas, my view is based on a foundational stone of soteriology, imputation of Christ's righteousness (justification--judicially declared guiltless).

Your soteriology requires a limited "reincarnation," nowhere found in the NT (your second clue),
while mine is based on a foundational stone of Biblical soteriology (your third clue).

In sum, the basis/governor of my soteriology is the NT.
the basis/governor of your soteriology is personal sentiment.

2) So where do we get imputation of Adam's sin? From Ro 1:12-14:
where Paul demonstrates that all those from Adam to Moses died, even when no sin was accounted against them because there was no law to sin against.
But death comes through sin, so what sin were they guilty of that caused their death?
They died because they were guilty of Adam's sin.

If mankind is a limited "reincarnation" of Adam, and we were in Adam when he sinned, then
why does Paul even bring up the point of no sin being accounted to those from Adam to Moses, it's irrelevant--if they all died because they were in Adam

3) 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 contrasting 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.

 

[Clare73]

More intellectual dishonesty. That statement would be true only if you merely quoted verses verbatim - and nothing more.

No wonder you don't understand the NT.

 

[Clare73]

This is nonsense outside of a corporate Adam. Adam sinned, whereas fetuses, infants, and toddlers do not sin.
You're trying to shove your incoherent position down Paul's throat, but it just won't fit.

Assertion without (Biblical) demonstration is assertion without (Biblical) merit.
.

 

[JAL]

"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.

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.:

"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.

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.

Nothing in the parallels is complicit

Exactly. It's not dealt with in the parallel. Hence it is intellectual dishonesty to rule it out preemptively, 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.

And even if Paul had omitted the "all sinned", the corporate conclusion is warranted to account for divine justice. Otherwise, for example, we have Adam's children suffering unjustly for his sins, contra Ezekiel 18.

 

[JAL]

Assertion without (Biblical) demonstration is assertion without (Biblical) merit.
.

Echoed back to you 1,000-fold.