'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[cygnusx1]

If this is the case, then not all sin can be attributed to us from Adam.

Ezekiel 18 -
21 But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.

I don't see anything about the sin Adam committed, do you? Don't you think if Adam's sin was so destructive for mankind, God would have mentioned it here?

that is because the Prophet is speaking about a wicked mans sins , not adams sin and certainly not all his fathers sins which are revisited , you cannot grasp any truth if you only quote the side that "helps " your case , its lopsided .

I'm only quoting what Paul said.



I keep hearing about this 'being born' with Adam's condemnation, but NOT ONE person has provided ONE passage which states this. Perhaps you will be the first Cygnus.

merely quoting what scripture says is OK for a parrot , it is understanding the text that makes all the difference .. tell me are all men righteous ? of course not ! and its there , right there that you will begin adding to Gods word/ you will say they are all righteous IF ............... and then will follow a list , but that isnt what the text says at all.

 

[hedrick]

I'm going to respond to a couple of things at the same time.

I've been thinking about our connection with Adam. I've commented on two models, one that Adam's sin is imputed to us, the other that we inherit a corrupted nature from Adam. My sense is that imputation is too much like legal fiction, but that there is a more Biblical way of speaking of what may ultimately be the same thing.

But first a detail. Here's an interesting comment on Luke 11:50, from the Word commentary: 'Monumental tombs are normally, and rightly, taken to celebrate the life of the deceased; the Lukan polemic here interprets the tomb building as rather a celebration of the death (murder) of the prophets involved: “your fathers perpetrated the murder and you celebrate it.”'

Nevertheless, I do think there's a sense that in continuing to sin, we become part of what Clare calls the "family business" of sin. I wouldn't call that imputation, however, since imputation suggests giving someone a status that they haven't earned. In this case we have earned it. Perhaps the closest modern legal analogy is conspiracy. If a group is part of a conspiracy, they become guilty of each other's acts. We're all part of a conspiracy to sin.

The OT, particularly, reflects a tradition in which children and parents are closely identified with each other, and what one does affects the other. Ezek 18 does indeed protest this. But I don't think we can allow that one passage to completely remove the whole Biblical sense of people being involved in each other. Ezek 18 reminds us that this involvement doesn't put us into a hopeless situation where there's no way to escape what our parents did. Nor can being the child of righteous parents ultimately save us if we rebel against God. But still, Rom 5 is based on the concept of solidarity. We are involved in each other. Think of John Donne's "No Man is an Island," and Christians bearing each others burdens. That solidarity can be established by descent, by common faith, and even by common behavior. Ezek 18 reminds us of the limitations of solidarity. But Ezek 18 is not an endorsement of modern American individualism, where we each take our own path to (or away from) God on our own.

I would say that Rom 5:12 ff invokes this concept of solidarity. I wouldn't quite say Adam's sin is imputed to us. That suggests a legal fiction. I prefer Clare's concept of the family business. We are involved in the racial business of sin, of which Adam is the founder. As such, Adam's sin is in some sense our own, though not so directly that God would punish us for it if that were our only problem. But this involvement is not unjust, as 5:12 reminds us, since we have also sinned. We're part of the conspiracy. Ezek 18 doesn't tell us that no such solidarity exists, but rather that it has limits. We can get out of it. In this case the way out is God's grace. God's grace working through faith in Christ moves us from solidarity with Adam to solidarity with Christ.

Does Rom 5:18 say that we are all justified? It certainly seems to. However again, I would point out that there's a difference in our connection with Adam and our connection with Christ. We are physical descendants of Adam. We are not physical descendants of Christ. We are Christ's through faith. Paul does use "all" in a number of places when speaking of salvation. I would say it's not impossible that he was a universalist, and that 5:18 means what it says. However it's also possible that there was an implicit limitation to those who have faith. After all, this passage continues into 6, which speaks of the way we are united with Christ.

 

[Arcoe]

Hi, Arcoe. In light of the above, how do you interpret the following (apologies if this has been brought up before):

Mat 23:35-36 KJV
(35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
(36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

This says nothing about you and me being condemned because of Adam's sin. In fact, Adam isn't even mentioned.

But in light of what you have written, Matthew 23 says this -
31 Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.

They were filling up the measure of their fathers' guilt. I believe Jesus was saying they are committing the same sin as their fathers, namely murder.

 

[cygnusx1]

This says nothing about you and me being condemned because of Adam's sin. In fact, Adam isn't even mentioned.

But in light of what you have written, Matthew 23 says this -
31 Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.

They were filling up the measure of their fathers' guilt. I believe Jesus was saying they are committing the same sin as their fathers, namely murder.

Of course you do , you have dug yourself a hole and admitting error now is painful , sins are visited upon offspring , and Christ declared even the blood of Abel and the rest of the prophets shall be required of "this generation " ! That's right God judged the nation for nationally rejecting all the prophets even before thousands of them were even born !

It's hereditary judgement for ancestral sin , and it is scriptural .

 

[hedrick]

This says nothing about you and me being condemned because of Adam's sin. In fact, Adam isn't even mentioned.

But in light of what you have written, Matthew 23 says this -
31 Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.

They were filling up the measure of their fathers' guilt. I believe Jesus was saying they are committing the same sin as their fathers, namely murder.

The point of this passage isn't that it mentions Adam, but that it is an example of the Bible's tendency to view sin not just as an individual problem, but as a corporate one. Why did they bear the guilt of their fathers who murdered the prophets? Because their actions showed that they were acting in solidarity with their fathers.

A similar principle applies in saying that all sinners are in solidarity with Adam.

 

[hedrick]

When speaking of people being born as sinners, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Psalm 51:5. Most of the passages quoted seem dubious to me, but that really does reflect that idea.

I note however that Ps 51 is not the only Biblical statement on the subject. It says that we are born as part of a sinful people. But God's grace is active from the beginning as well, e.g. Is 49:1, and more importantly, 1 Cor 7:14.

 

[bottomofsandal]

There are elements of truth in a number of the so-called "theories" of atonement, as such, each should be weighed by Scripture. I embrace limited atonement and substitutionary atonement, but also the satisfaction view, and the penal view. Each of them have a different emphasis. Outside of Scripture, I believe at least two of them have their official theological origin in St. Anselm of Canterbury.

Safe to dismiss Moral Influence ???



The Moral influence theory of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. In this view, the purpose and result of Christ's death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action.
Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm’s Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). It was largely taught in liberal Christian circles.


Source: Theopedia

 

[ForceofTime]

This says nothing about you and me being condemned because of Adam's sin. In fact, Adam isn't even mentioned.

But in light of what you have written, Matthew 23 says this -
31 Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.

They were filling up the measure of their fathers' guilt. I believe Jesus was saying they are committing the same sin as their fathers, namely murder.

Thank you for the reply, Arcoe. And thanks to Cygnusx1 and Hedrick for great responses. May the peace of our Lord Jesus be with you all.

EDIT: I just wanted to add also as a way of remembrance: Joh 9:2-3 KJV And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? (3) Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

 

[ForceofTime]

The word “righteousness” also embodies all that God expects of His people. The verbs associated with “righteousness” indicate the practicality of this concept. One judges, deals, sacrifices, and speaks righteously; and one learns, teaches, and pursues after righteousness. Based upon a special relationship with God, the Old Testament saint asked God to deal righteously with him: “Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king’s son” (Ps. 72:1).

Thanks for posting these great resources, Apologetic_Warrior. Here is another article you might enjoy: (emphasis mine)

If we would understand the reason why it is called “the righteousness of God,” we must bear in mind that there was a twofold manifestation of righteousness in the Cross of Christ:

there was first a manifestation of the righteousness of God the Father, in requiring a satisfaction to His justice and inflicting the punishment that was due to sin; and to this the Apostle refers when he says that “God set forth Christ to be a propitiation…to declare His righteousness, that He might be just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.”

There was, secondly, a work of righteousness by God the Son—His vicarious[7] righteousness as the Redeemer of His people, when He “became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross,” and thus became “the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

May the grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

 

[Clare73]

There's more than one literal reading of original sin.
Ro 5:19 is too clear for any other reading of it.

The one you mention is that we are guilty of Adam's sin. However John Calvin took a different view: that as a result of Adam's sin, his nature was corrupted. He passed that corrupted natures on to us. That corrupted nature makes a right relationship with God impossible (without grace), and thus is grounds for condemnation. I think you'll find that the Bible's discussion of Adam is compatible with either approach, and possibly others that I may write about.

It is far from clear that Rom 5 speaks of imputation of sin. It says:
* sin came into the world through Adam
* death spread to us because we have sinned
* death exercized dominion
* many died through Adam's sin

None of this says that sin is imputed.

Wrong. . .and what does John Calvin have to do with it?

Paul is the only one that matters here.

"None of this says that sin is imputed" because you left out what the text says in v.19.

Is Christ's righteousness imputed to us, or not?

"For just as (in the same way) through the disobdience of the one man (first Adam), the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man (second Adam), the many will be made righteous." (Ro 5:19)

It couldn't be any clearer that we are made sinners just as (in the same way) we are made righteous,
and that is by imputation.

In both cases, the outcome (sin, righteousness) had nothing to do with what mankind did.
Both sin and righteousness were imputed to them.

I think that's just as reasonable an exegesis as Clare's, since it uses only things that Paul actually says, rather than imputation of sin, which he doesn't.

That is irrelevant. . .and you should know that.

The word "imputation" does not have to be used to present the prinicple,
just as "sovereignty" or "Trinity" do not, and are not, used in presenting those Biblical principles.

<If you're going to address inappropriate snide comments, address inappropriate snide comments of all parties in the dialogue.>

 

[bling]

There are elements of truth in a number of the so-called "theories" of atonement, as such, each should be weighed by Scripture. I embrace limited atonement and substitutionary atonement, but also the satisfaction view, and the penal view. Each of them have a different emphasis. Outside of Scripture, I believe at least two of them have their official theological origin in St. Anselm of Canterbury.

They all have huge problems and inconsistencies, so why not come up with one that works.

 

[Clare73]

There are elements of truth in a number of the so-called "theories" of atonement, as such, each should be weighed by Scripture. I embrace limited atonement and substitutionary atonement, but also the satisfaction view, and the penal view. Each of them have a different emphasis. Outside of Scripture, I believe at least two of them have their official theological origin in St. Anselm of Canterbury.

Substitutional penal atonement is presented in Ro 3:25-26, [post=62647466]here[/post].

 

[bling]

Thanks for posting these great resources, Apologetic_Warrior. Here is another article you might enjoy: (emphasis mine)

If we would understand the reason why it is called “the righteousness of God,” we must bear in mind that there was a twofold manifestation of righteousness in the Cross of Christ:

there was first a manifestation of the righteousness of God the Father, in requiring a satisfaction to His justice and inflicting the punishment that was due to sin; and to this the Apostle refers when he says that “God set forth Christ to be a propitiation…to declare His righteousness, that He might be just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.”

There was, secondly, a work of righteousness by God the Son—His vicarious[7] righteousness as the Redeemer of His people, when He “became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross,” and thus became “the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

May the grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

You say: “…in requiring a satisfaction to His justice and inflicting the punishment that was due to sin”, so who is due that punishment? (You cannot punish sin?)

Righteousness has to do with right behavior (doing the right thing). Is being just also being righteous? The Bible gives examples of judges being just and also not being just, so is it ever “just” to punish the innocent and allow the guilty to go free?

Would we not have to fairly and justly be punished for our disobedience in order to stand justified?

 

[bling]

Substitutional penal atonement is presented in Ro 3:25-26, [post=62647466]here[/post].

That is just your personal interpretation that extrapulates the context.

 

[Clare73]

Clare, if you are going to continually berate me with your attitude, then I will have move on to others who do not have such an attitude.

Circlin' the wagons. . .you're just looking for an out because you cannot address Ro 5:12-21.

And of course, the following are not attitude:

"Since you consider yourself guilty, what did the forbidden fruit taste like?"

"I am beginning to think you are trying to deceive me again."

Etc.

I would advise get off Romans 3, and stay on 1 Corinthians 13 for a while.

I'm sure you will understand if I do not follow your advice, and stay on Ro 5.

Pay attention.

In Ro 5:12-21, the NT establishes our personal responsibility for the sin into which we are born, where two illustrations are used to show that unregenerate man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression.

The passage is based on the Biblical principles that death is the result of sin (Ro 6:3), and sin is transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4).

1) In vv. 12-14, the NT reveals that even those from Adam to Moses who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Ro 4:15, 5:13) died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12) of sin ("sin was in the world," v.13).
But when there was no law to transgress, the only sin in the world that could cause the guilt of death (Ro 6:23) was Adam's transgression.
And thus the NT establishes that unregenerate mankind since Adam is born guilty of the sin of Adam's transgression.

In vv. 15-16, the NT contrasts, and then

2) in vv. 17-19, the NT parallels the trespass of Adam and the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to show the Biblical principle which is involved.
Note that in v. 18, the NT states that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass, just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.

Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1Co 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement) in the two of them is of the same nature (1Co 15:22).
In one man we were made sinners, just as in one man we are made righteous.
The NT is drawing clear parallelisms of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither half of the parallel does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what mankind did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelism would be destroyed.

The clear meaning is that Adam's guilt is imputed to us, just as (in the same way) Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, which is the Biblical principle of imputation the NT reveals here.

So the NT reveals that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for (guilty of) the sentence of condemnation into which he is born because of the guilt of Adam which is imputed to him.

Now that does raise the question, if man did not personally incur the sin of Adam, how can God justly hold man morally responsbile for that sin?

And that is addressed [post=62739406]here[/post], as part of the previous presentation to you.

The NT is quite clear that we are born in Adam's sin, which is the meaning of original sin.

So, no Arcoe, the NT reveals that your original sin was not the first sin of which you are personally guilty.

 

[Clare73]

Genesis 2:17
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Did they die the day they ate of it?

You are missing something.

Ephesians 2:1
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,

Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh,

Again, absolutely NOTHING about being born in sins and trespasses.

So what died. . .and when did it die?

Was it alive when they were born. . .and then died. . .when. . .and why?

If you knew the Scriptures, you would know that is addressed in Ro 5:12-21 ([post=62739406]here[/post]).

John 3
18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already,

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

The condemnation and wrath are already on them because they are already dead.
What is dead? When did it die?

In light of Ro 5:12-21 (mankind is guilty of Adam's sin) and Eph 2:3 (by our nature, with which we are born, we are objects of wrath), when did our condemnation and God's wrath on us begin?

If judgement came to ALL men, then you must believe the gift of righteousness came to ALL men, just as the passage states.

No need to worry Clare, the gift of righteousness came to ALL men, just as condemnation came to ALL men.

So you don't believe Ro 5:19?

Not surprising.

And since you don't believe it, you set the Scriptures against themselves, because you don't know how to reconcile them.

Hint.

"All" means a lot of things in the NT, depending on its meaning in light of the whole counsel of God:
all Jews only,
all Gentiles only,
all mankind, Jews and Gentiles,
all believers only,
all unbelievers only.

And because you set the Scriptures against themselves, you don't understand them, as you don't understand
Ro 3:25-26, [post=62739653]here[/post],
Ro 5:12-21, [post=62768917]here[/post], and
Ro 6:1-4, [post=62762036]here[/post].

You've got a lot of reckoning to do with Scripture.

But if you do understand them, then please address Ro 5:12-21 in the light of the whole counsel of God, without setting the Scriptues against themselves.

 

[Clare73]

TO BE RIGHTEOUS. . .

Thanks, Warrior, for your kind words and wonderful contributions in those posts.

 

[cygnusx1]

That is just your personal interpretation that extrapulates the context.

No it isn't , hundreds of thousands of Protestants agree with Clare , instead of the cliched put down attempt to deal the issue !

 

[Clare73]

They all have huge problems and inconsistencies, so why not come up with one that works.

The word of God already presents one in Ro 3:25-26 ([post=62647466]here[/post]).

It's not our job to come up with one we think "works" better.

The problems and inconsistencies are only in your erroneous personal notions.

 

[Clare73]

Substitutional penal atonement is presented in Ro 3:25-26, [post=62647466]here[/post].

That is just your personal interpretation that extrapulates the context.

And after many requests, you have yet to give a consistent (logically sensible) and Bilbical explanation of Ro 3:25-26.

Talk is cheap.
It costs to put your money where your mouth is.