Strange doctrine being pushed by Jal?
Yup. For most of the readers, that would be a self-evident statement.
JAL said:
As I said, Millard J. Erickson's systematic theology is a standard systematic theology textbook, as far as I know, in seminaries accross the country. One thing is sure - he is arguably the most renowned evangelical theologian of our generation. And what does he conclude?
That (1) all men have physical souls and (2) that we were all physically present in Adam and thereby all sinned in his one act of rebellion.
He's half-right, at best. Men do not possess a soul, men
are souls. God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, and breathed into him the breath of life (spirit) and man
became a living soul. A living soul consists of body and spirit. The soul is not a separate part of man, it is the definition of man. Men are not tripartite beings. Men are souls in possession of a spirit and a body.
We were all
seminally present in Adam when he sinned, in the same way that Levi was
in Abraham when Abe paid tithes to Melchizadek, King of Salem. It is the way God views mankind, judicially. We did not exist as separate living souls when Adam sinned, but judicially, we are counted as having been there. You can call God unjust for seeing us that way if you want. but the Judge sets the rules, the prisoner doesn't.
I don't care how great a theologian you claim this guy is, but if he says we possess physical souls, and were physically present in Adam when Adam sinned, he has missed some things.
JAL said:
And what would we call a human judge who, much like Hitler, condemns people to death without a justifiable basis? We'd call him a monster. As I said, that's fine with me. I'm not going to keep debating you on this, if you are consistent. If the verse, "God is love" means, in your view, "God is a monster" (which spells the end of Christian hope), and if you, being logically consistent, freely admit there is no Christian hope, fine with me. I probably cannot disprove your view.
The problem is, you continually try to tell me what I believe, and tell others what I'm "really" saying, rather than deal with what I have actually said, without reinterpreting and redefining it. In essence, your answers, such as they are, are answering your own redefinitions, and not what I actually said. Notice how you redefine my words, and even what you imagine my words to be, in the terms of your won view. God is love = God is a monster. That's your view, not mine.
It's usually considered that the mention of Hitler in trying to answer an opposing viewpoint, indicates that one has run out of options, and shows the untenable nature of your argument, by appealing to an emotional construct, comparing the opposition's argument to Hitler, as though that was the be-all and end-all of the argument..
JAL said:
I have no quarrel with people who are logically consistent. Far be it from me to presume myself intelligent enough to disprove their position. My apologies for thinking that you were inconsistent.
But what have you tried to do? Convince people that you are logically consistent, and I have shown that you are not. Your response is to accuse me falsely, and to insult anyone who does not immediately accede to your view.
JAL said:
I respond in kind. Give me rhetoric? That's what you'll get - rhetoric. Give me a reasonable argument? That's what you'll get in return. It's all up to you.
I have tried to reasonably argue with you, but your response has been ad hominems and insults. Thus, you get what you give. I have shown that you cannot answer my challenges, so now you insult, and dismiss. You are free to do so, but you are not free to claim that it is I who cannot answer. I have. You have not. That's the way it is.