One Died For All

[Clare73]

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.

I know. . .you want to play loosey-goosey, and when Paul doesn't allow it, you call him hair-splitting.
.

 

[JAL]

I know. . .you want to play loosey-goosey, and when Paul doesn't allow it, you call him hair-splitting.

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:

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).

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?

Random, arbitrary assignment of guilt is your understanding of divine justice? That's your reading of Ezekiel 18?

This kind of nonsense 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.

 

[Clare73]

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:

Interesting how you experience the demonstrated conclusions from the NT as "leverage,"
and NT meaning as "travesty of language." Only truth leverages.

"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)."

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?

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.

Random, arbitrary assignment of guilt is your understanding of divine justice?

It's not random, it's total when no descendant of Adam is exempt from it.

That's your reading of Ezekiel 18?

That very question referring to Eze 18:14-17 has been presented several times by you, and thoroughly addressed.

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.

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.

 

[JAL]

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.

You just keep ignoring my demonstrations. Sheer intellectual dishonesty. I don't think you're fooling anyone.

 

[Clare73]

"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.

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.

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.

No, I'm prosecuting the double parallel Paul has presented of the two Adam's.

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

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.

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

It is dealt with in the parable in that it it is necessarily excluded in order to maintain the integrity of the parallel.

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.

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."

And even if Paul had omitted the "all sinned", the corporate conclusion is warranted to account for divine justice.

That's an accounting of divine justice governed by your sentiments, instead of NT revelation.

Otherwise, for example, we have Adam's children suffering unjustly for his sins, contra Ezekiel 18.

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.

 

[Alter2Ego]

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.

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

 

[Clare73]

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

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]

You just keep ignoring my demonstrations. Sheer intellectual dishonesty. I don't think you're fooling anyone.

All I see are speculations and assertions, hardly any Biblical demonstrations from NT texts, which demonstrations have been addressed from NT texts.

We've probably reached the end of the argument about the argument, don't you think?
.
Holding for another post while glitch is dealt with.

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]

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.

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 5:18-19 parallels Christ's righteousness (which is imputed through faith,

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.

 

[JAL]

All I see are speculations and assertions, hardly any Biblical demonstrations from NT texts
.

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.

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.

I don't stoop to that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Clare73]

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.

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.

Yes, faith is complicit. . .and circumcision is not necessary for salvation, neither of which affects Paul's treatment in chps 3-5 of righteousness imputed in justification. He treats of faith in chp 4. However, in chp 5 he moves from faith, which has no bearing on the nature of sin and righteousness, to contrasting man's unrighteousness with God's gift of righteousness. His purpose and focus there are the two Adam's, and a pair of contrasting parallels he draws between them, based in imputation of both sin and righteousness. Faith is not even mentioned in 5:12-21. It would be an imposition on the text, which concerns itself with the two Adam's and the parallel imputations of sin and righteousness through them.

 

[Clare73]

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.

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.

That pretty well covers the water front, demonstrating how much of the NT you misunderstand.

You didn't provide understanding of Scripture, you provided your obscure objections and
extra/contra-Biblical solutions to them.

I don't stoop to that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

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?

 

[JAL]

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?

Standard response on your part - terminology-quibbling.

 

[JAL]

I wasn't even going to mention this one, but why not.

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.

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.
(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.
(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. At that point, He would have to admit that incriminating us ("guilty as charged") was an outright lie - which it was to begin with.

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. 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.

 

[Clare73]

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.

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.

And it's not about earthly suffering, it's about condemnation at the Judgment.

(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.

I am not adducing freedom as the principle to anything.
I am applying Jesus' principle of imputation (Lk 11:48) to the imputation of Adam's sin, demonstrated in Ro 5:12-15.

And to demonstrate Jesus' principle of Lk 11:48, 59-51, of one being personally responsible for debt one did not personally incur, I presented the analogy of the Anthropos family business, where the sons of the father are personally responsible for the father's debt, which they did not personally incur, because they continued the family business, thereby personally assuming its debt.

(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.

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Wishes and a $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

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

It's not about equality of "injustice," or inequality of justice, it's about imputation of guilt, in which one was not complicit.
I'm not trying to prove anything regarding God's justice, that's anciliatory. I am demonstrating how a principle, whose applicableness may be difficult to see (Lk 11:48, 50-51) may be easier to see in another situation (Anthropos family business).

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.

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.

I don't deal in or entertain speculations regarding the Word of God, have never been interested in them, I have dealt only with interpretations from the specific language of the texts themselves. The whole notion--that, if the Word of God does not specifically exclude it, one is free to believe whatever suits himself regarding it--is so contra-Biblical, that it's hard to believe anyone actually thinks it.
It's not for naught that Paul cautions: "Do not go beyond what is written." (1Co 4:6)
But just for you, I've bent my mind around your argument, and offer the following response to it.

"Complicit" is ruled out on three bases:

1) the definition of the word itself (already addressed),
2) Paul's demonstration using the death of those prior to Moses in Ro 5:12-15, and
3) Paul's parallels of Ro 5:18-19.

2) Let's begin with the second basis:
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.

3) And now to the third basis:
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 us.
.

 

[JAL]

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:

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.

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.

 

[JAL]

I have demonstrated in the analogy of the Anthropos family business how one can be personally responsible for debt one did not personally incur;

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.

 

[Alter2Ego]

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:

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

 

[Alter2Ego]

Until you can present scripture that says the resurrected body can enter heaven, you are stuck with 1 Corinthians 15:50.

I did, in post #500.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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)


QUESTION #1 TO CLARE73: Was Jesus a spirit creature or a fleshly creature before he came to earth?

SECOND TIME ASKING.

Alter2Ego


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