The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

[mark kennedy]

It seems the 'delusion' is getting deeper and deeper the more evidence turns up supporting it. Of course Mendel helped evolution along, like Newton's gravitation and Kepler's laws of planetary motion helped Copernicus. That is how science works.

You left out Darwin's a priori assumption of universal common descent. Darwinian evolution is not based on science, it's undiluted supposition and in case you didn't realize it no one has a problem with Mendel.

 

[Assyrian]

Apart from the suggestion he fixed his figures.

I though I read somewhere that Darwin didn't thing universal common descent was likely, but that it was only within kingdoms that there was common descent. It is only with the advent of modern genetic that we find we share genes with yeast.

Any way he hid not 'assume it', he proposed common descent as a hypothesis to explain the different species we see, and looked at the evidence to see if it would support or contradict the hypothesis.

Anyway, its Christmas over here now, Happy Christmas Mark.

Happy Christmas everyone.

 

[mark kennedy]

How do you know it was a given if no one mentions it? It is not as if you can find 'all sinned in Adam' in the writings of Paul.

Paul is explicit:

“Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin” (Rm 5:12).
“By the one man’s offense many died” (Rm 5:15).
“Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation” (5:18).
“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (5:19).
​

The Catholic church also claims traditions like Mary's immaculate conception and assumption into heaven are actually apostolic teachings handed down through the generations long before they were first mentioned. How is your 'all sinned in Adam' any different?

Those are extra-biblical canons, I hold to the Sola Scriptura doctrine of the Scriptures being the canon.

If you think your doctrine is different, how do you tell them apart?

By putting them to the acid test of Scripture.

A false doctrine can claim to be the teaching of the church that everyone assumed until it was challenged. But if no one mentioned it before how do you know it was handed down instead of just made up then?

It was handed down and continues both as a Biblical doctrine and a Church tradition.

St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi).​

This is firmly established as a Protestant doctrine and relies on the Scriptures, not an invented doctrine.

But, in the mean time, what must we do with our Bibles? -- for they will never agree with this. These accounts, however pleasing to flesh and blood, are utterly irreconcilable with the scriptural. The Scripture avers, that "by one man's disobedience all men were constituted sinners;" that "in Adam all died," spiritually died, lost the life and the image of God; that fallen, sinful Adam then "begat a son in his own likeness;" -- nor was it possible he should beget him in any other; for "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" -- that consequently we, as well as other men, were by nature "dead in trespasses and sins," "without hope, without God in the world," and therefore "children of wrath;" that every man may say, "I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin did my mother conceive me;" that "there is no difference," in that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," of that glorious image of God wherein man was originally created. (Original Sin By John Wesley Sermon 44)​

The early church was Creationist, there are no two ways about that:

For it was not enough for God to say, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," (Genesis 1:26) but deed followed word; for, taking the dust from the ground, He formed man out of it, conformable to His image and similitude, and into him He breathed the breath of life, so that Adam became a living soul. (Epistles on Arianism (Alexander of Alexandria)​

The sin of Adam is directly tied to the curse of the law and sin:

For by the sacrifice of His own body, He both put an end to the law which was against us, and made a new beginning of life for us, by the hope of resurrection which He has given us. For since from man it was that death prevailed over men, for this cause conversely, by the Word of God being made man has come about the destruction of death and the resurrection of life; as the man which bore Christ says: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive:" and so forth. For no longer now do we die as subject to condemnation; but as men who rise from the dead we await the general resurrection of all,"which 1 Timothy 6:15 in its own times He shall show," even God, Who has also wrought it, and bestowed it upon us. (On the Incarnation of the Word, by Athanasius)

For whereas man sinned, and is fallen, and by his fall all things are in confusion: death prevailed from Adam to Moses (cf. Rom. v. 14), the earth was cursed, Hades was opened, Paradise shut, Heaven offended, man, lastly, corrupted and brutalised (cf. Ps. xlix. 12), while the devil was exulting against us (On Luke 10:22 and Matthew 11:27 (Athanasius)​

Neither science nor Scripture can support your position because I have looked at the evidence and proof texts closely. You are simply rationalizing the proof texts away the way the actual evidence immediately forced into the world's mold.

 

[mark kennedy]

Apart from the suggestion he fixed his figures.

I though I read somewhere that Darwin didn't thing universal common descent was likely, but that it was only within kingdoms that there was common descent. It is only with the advent of modern genetic that we find we share genes with yeast.

This is the only figure in On the Origin of Species:

Any way he hid not 'assume it', he proposed common descent as a hypothesis to explain the different species we see, and looked at the evidence to see if it would support or contradict the hypothesis.

He offered only one logical disproof of his hypothesis of natural selection:

Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps...If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

The scientific literature is telling me that the expansion of the human brain from that of apes could only be the result of the accelerated evolution of highly conserved genes.

Anyway, its Christmas over here now, Happy Christmas Mark.

Happy Christmas everyone.

Merry Christmas

 

[gluadys]

Apart from the suggestion he fixed his figures.

I though I read somewhere that Darwin didn't thing universal common descent was likely, but that it was only within kingdoms that there was common descent. It is only with the advent of modern genetic that we find we share genes with yeast.

Any way he hid not 'assume it', he proposed common descent as a hypothesis to explain the different species we see, and looked at the evidence to see if it would support or contradict the hypothesis.

Anyway, its Christmas over here now, Happy Christmas Mark.

Happy Christmas everyone.

Here are his remarks in the Recapitulation chapter near the end of the Origin of Species. Emphases added.

It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. The question is difficult to answer, because the more distinct the forms are which we may consider, by so much the arguments fall away in force. But some arguments of the greatest weight extend very far. All the members of whole classes can be connected together by chains of affinities, and all can be classified on the same principle, in groups subordinate to groups. Fossil remains sometimes tend to fill up very wide intervals between existing orders. Organs in a rudimentary condition plainly show that an early progenitor had the organ in a fully developed state; and this in some instances necessarily implies an enormous amount of modification in the descendants. Throughout whole classes various structures are formed on the same pattern, and at an embryonic age the species closely resemble each other. Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class. I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.​

So he distinguishes between what he thinks can be confidently asserted (descent of all animals from no more than 4 or 5 originals) and what can be inferred only by analogy (all plants and animals have a common progenitor).

 

[theIdi0t]

P
It was handed down and continues both as a Biblical doctrine and a Church tradition.

St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi).​

It seems you know very little about Church tradition particularly when you mention St. Anselm, who appears in the 11th century. It's common among those of your type to misrepresent the early christian tradition, and writings to justify your bogus doctrines, but penal substitution is foreign concept to early Christianity, and it surely is not the view of the Greek Eastern part of the church. Sure Anselm held such a view, but even you can't argue that it was the minority view of the early church, unless you would like to delude yourself.

But here, allow the Theo Geek to break down for you:

The Church Fathers on the Atonement

 

[PaladinValer]

I'm not reviewing the thread, either ask them again or I'll simply dismiss this as rhetoric.

This tells me one of two things:

1. You simply ignored it based on a self-preceived notion of my "trollship" (which, I will remind you again, is nothing but libel as I have been active in the past and any bit of unwillingness on your's or anyone's part [to be fair] to actually go back and view the backlogs is not proof of my past activity's non-existence).
2. You simply ignored it based on the fact that it very well could result in your defeat in this debate.

2 seems to be the case, as will be explained below.

I'm an evangelical and I have always affirmed the fundamentals of the faith. You keep demanding an answer to a question you won't repeat.

You only just now asked me to repeat it. Am I only to be given negative seconds to reply? After all, I cannot read your request for repetition until you actually post that request.

You are being grossly unfair.

The contention was the Augustine invented the original sin doctrine based on a faulty translation from the Latin.

Pardon me, but this is a Straw Man.

1. I don't see anyone suggesting anything of the sort.
2. Since the six queries are directly based upon the premise that original sin is a true doctrine, any sort of claim that original sin is being ignored can be outright dismissed as null and void.
3. I have never given any direct or indirect words in regard to the origins of the doctrine of original sin. It seems you are putting words and ideas in my posts that do not exist. Please quote me as doing such or retract this.

That is absurd and the Scriptures speak clearly on this issue in both the Old and New Testaments. You have completely ignored the carefully prepared post I made earlier only to tell me to go fish the thread.

1. I didn't tell you to "fish" the thread. In addition, as a poster has said, 2 pages back isn't that far.
2. You sir have ignored a number of my posts. If anything else, pot meet kettle.
3. Your post was a Straw Man as it ignored my strongest points.

Theistic evolution is nothing more then an attack on creationism.

That may be what your opinion is, but since TEs accept Creation, it is of no merit.

It has no Scriptural basis but is in fact a compromise with the spirit of the age.

As evolution is a theory-fact discovered in the modern age, I don't expect it to have any "Scriptural" basis.

Since however it is not contrary to Scripture, that fact does not matter.

Now if you want to ignore the authority of Scripture as a doctrinal issue then I can only conclude you don't care about it.

1. For your information, sir, I accept the Holy Bible as God's Revelation to us, written by us yet totally inspired by the Holy Spirit, to be an authoritative source for doctrine, faith, and contains the fullness of what we to know on how to obtain salvation.
2. Even if I didn't believe the above, the fact that I am posting here in debate shows that I do care about it. Evidence of non-caring would be the absence of posting.

Post your queries if you want me to respond to them but I do not compromise my religious convictions based on secular philosophy.

Evolution isn't a philosophy. As such, this is a Straw Man.

Evolution is a secular philosophy that is contrary to Biblical theism.

This is equally untrue.

Evolution as natural history is nothing more then a modern mythology and if you find it is compatible with Christian theism then I have no problem with you.

History? Sir, I am a historian, and evolution isn't "history." It gives evidence to what has historically happened, but it in itself is a aspect of the purest science, not of history.

The history of evolution, however, is still being written.

As for the word "mythology," a myth is a story which teaches a moral or religious truth. Since evolution isn't a religion, the label of "mythos" is unmerited.

It's when you tell me I don't know my own theology or that somehow Creationism is imported into the Scriptures then it goes to another level.

Where have I stated that you don't know your own theology?

I have said your knowledge of theology is lacking, but that isn't the same as saying you don't know your own personal theology.

Absolutely



I would agree here with just one reservation. I don't see sin as just offenses, it's also the lack of righteousness. Sins of omission must be included but semantical hair splitting aside, yes I believe Jesus died for our sins.



The fall is a part of recorded history but yes, I believe the fall to have been an event in the distant past.



Yes, apart from the work of Christ applied by the Holy Spirit according to the will of the Father it is absolutely impossible.



Using the term inherited is awkward since we still have unredeemed flesh. Since I am sure that the meaning is meant to be general I would agree with only certain semantical reservations.



Absolutely!

Thanks for reposting it shernren, a very Merry Christmas to you and your's.

Grace and peace,
Mark

As promised, I will explain why "2" above is truth.

Please now go back those simple two (perhaps three by now, but it won't take very long really) pages and count how many Origins Theology "regulars" (as you define them) have actually affirmed them.

With your affirmation that these are enough, it is the TEs themselves, in their own agreement with you on all six, that have proven that your entire original premise is disproven.

Therefore, this debate is over.

 

[shernren]

You left out Darwin's a priori assumption of universal common descent.

This is the only figure in On the Origin of Species:

And of course it is entirely natural for a man who assumes universal common descent a priori to illustrate his beliefs by a tree diagram that has not one universal root, but 11 discontinuous roots, isn't it?

Paul is explicit:

“Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin” (Rm 5:12).
“By the one man’s offense many died” (Rm 5:15).
“Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation” (5:18).
“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (5:19).​

​

(emphases added) To say "all sin came through / by Adam" is a far cry from saying "all sinned in Adam".

Please now go back those simple two (perhaps three by now, but it won't take very long really) pages and count how many Origins Theology "regulars" (as you define them) have actually affirmed them.

With your affirmation that these are enough, it is the TEs themselves, in their own agreement with you on all six, that have proven that your entire original premise is disproven.

Therefore, this debate is over.

Mark doesn't seem too fond of thread-fishing.

I, on the other hand, am an avowed addict to said activity.

It's simple enough. The following people explicitly answered yes to all six (post number included) :

PaladinValer (#198)
Mallon (#199)
Melethiel (#200)
crawfish (#209)
gluadys (#210)
shernren (#226)

Here are the questions again as a refresher:

1. Do you believe in the Nicene Creed?
2. Do you believe that Christ died for all sins, original and actual?
3. Do you believe that, due to an event far ago in the prehistoric past, humanity Fell?
4. Do you believe that, from this Fall, humanity has been "broken" so that we are unable to be fully good and have a pure and wholly innocent conscience, will, and nature?
5. Do you believe that it is only by Christ's Grace that we were healed, are being healed, and will be healed of our imperfections that we "inherited" (for a lack of a better term) from the Fall?
6. Do you believe therefore that the Bible speaks the truth in that humanity Fell, Christ died for humanity's sins and for the healing of humanity's souls and nature, and that Christ is therefore infact a Second Adam?

Mark himself has cited no theological reservations with these questions, only semantical reservations (#336).

 

[mark kennedy]

This tells me one of two things:

2. You simply ignored it based on the fact that it very well could result in your defeat in this debate.

I ignored it because it was Christmas Eve and I have fielded the same TE arguments over and over while carefully prepared posts are left untouched.

By the way, I'm not retracting anything. The proof texts speak for themselves.

1. For your information, sir, I accept the Holy Bible as God's Revelation to us, written by us yet totally inspired by the Holy Spirit, to be an authoritative source for doctrine, faith, and contains the fullness of what we to know on how to obtain salvation.

Then you should understand the importance of vital proof texts and sound hermeneutics as a standard of interpretation. Man (specifically Adam) is specially created in Genesis and this historical narrative is affirmed by the New Testament witness. Paul in his letter to one of the earlier churches (no doubt primarily Jewish) adds a theological facet in one of his most complete expositions of the gospel.

Now if you can't get that then you are wasting time with these ad hominem attacks.

2. Even if I didn't believe the above, the fact that I am posting here in debate shows that I do care about it. Evidence of non-caring would be the absence of posting.

Oh you care about it, but your interest is not in the clear testimony of Scripture.

Evolution isn't a philosophy. As such, this is a Straw Man.

Darwinism is and Mendelian genetics is not dependent of naturalistic a priori assumptions ubiquitous to all of life throughout history. Darwinism is clearly metaphysics and eminently attackable as science. Poking holes in the patented absurdities of Darwinism has proven fruitless over 150 years of it's history. Darwinians speak clearly and concisely to being diametrically opposed to traditional theism and seek to usurp Biblical theism from religion itself.

This philosophy has found itself in legal theories pertaining to eugenics and religious philosophies like scientific positivism. You are either grossly mistaken, deceived or disingenuous. I leave that for you to sort out or rationalize away as you please.

History? Sir, I am a historian, and evolution isn't "history." It gives evidence to what has historically happened, but it in itself is a aspect of the purest science, not of history.

Evolution is defined scientifically as the change of the frequency of alleles in populations over time. Obviously that has a chronological element but a priori assumptions spanning back to primordial natural history is history in no uncertain terms.

I am no historian but I done some research on the history of science over the last 500 years. What I have noticed is that the genuine article of science is about tools, both mental (Calculas, the inverse square, Cartesian geometry) and physical (telescopes, microscopes, calipers). What Naturalism is focused on is metaphysics into all aspects of substantive reasoning. It is an ontology and epistemology that has become increasingly materialist and atheistic.

The history of evolution, however, is still being written.

I would say created.

As for the word "mythology," a myth is a story which teaches a moral or religious truth. Since evolution isn't a religion, the label of "mythos" is unmerited.

The antonym for myth is fact. Darwin was a mythographer as was his grandfather.

Where have I stated that you don't know your own theology?

Rest assured I do.

I have said your knowledge of theology is lacking, but that isn't the same as saying you don't know your own personal theology.

It is the same and I do know my theology. It's largely Wesleyan but primarily I'm an evangelical. That means that my theology favors a fundamentalist approach to doctrine with a broad spectrum of idea and principles related to other areas of study.

As promised, I will explain why "2" above is truth.

Please now go back those simple two (perhaps three by now, but it won't take very long really) pages and count how many Origins Theology "regulars" (as you define them) have actually affirmed them.

With your affirmation that these are enough, it is the TEs themselves, in their own agreement with you on all six, that have proven that your entire original premise is disproven.

Their treatment of the texts that are directly relevant dispel this superficial treatment of my position. For one thing the Scriptures are not even mentioned in your statement.

Therefore, this debate is over.

You part in it would appear to be. I'm just getting warmed up.

 

[mark kennedy]

And of course it is entirely natural for a man who assumes universal common descent a priori to illustrate his beliefs by a tree diagram that has not one universal root, but 11 discontinuous roots, isn't it?

He was proposing a model, which is actually pretty common. Anyone can propose a model to explain the data, Mendel actually provided a ratio. One thing Darwin never got a handle on was organizing the particulars. What he was good at was making a conversational argument from a labyrinth of anecdotal evidence. His mechanism has fallen short of being a factor in human evolution which is my primary focus as you know.

[/INDENT](emphases added) To say "all sin came through / by Adam" is a far cry from saying "all sinned in Adam".

No it's not, they are used interchangeably in the New Testament. Take a look at Ephesians the first three chapters. I'm not saying study it in detail just browse them real quick. There are 35 uses of 'in Christ' or it's equivalent. I already showed you how Levi was described as paying Mekezidek tithes because he was in Abraham when Abraham paid them.

Mark doesn't seem too fond of thread-fishing.

It sounds like you are turning to the theater, I won't interrupt your performance.

 

[mark kennedy]

It seems you know very little about Church tradition particularly when you mention St. Anselm, who appears in the 11th century. It's common among those of your type to misrepresent the early christian tradition, and writings to justify your bogus doctrines, but penal substitution is foreign concept to early Christianity, and it surely is not the view of the Greek Eastern part of the church. Sure Anselm held such a view, but even you can't argue that it was the minority view of the early church, unless you would like to delude yourself.

But here, allow the Theo Geek to break down for you:

The Church Fathers on the Atonement

An interesting link but you scathing indictment hardly follows. Penal Substitution while an interesting use of theological terminology is still a little vague. I am also concerned about this statement:

They didn't hold to original sin; they endorsed free will extremely firmly; they endorsed extremely firmly that the acts of humans could make them righteous before God; and they taught a final judgment according to one's life and character.​

That is precisely what concerns me most. I do not doubt for a second that we have to choose between being slaves to sin or slave to righteousness (Romans 6). It is just irresponsible to neglect the detailed exposition Paul did in Romans of the gospel starting with almost 2 1/2 chapters describing our fallen state. I realize that the heart of the emphasis has to be on a time of decision while the theological issues can be sorted over time. Never the less, if it is indeed a free will issue then some could choose righteousness by their own will. That is something unknown in Scripture and repugnant to Protestant theology.

Honestly, this Theo Geek seems to be teaching a works righteousness. I'll look around the site some more but I am finding things like this:

“Grace” was mistranslated and misunderstood and quite a complex theological system was developed around it, whereas it should be translated “favour” and understood as part of the ancient favour system.​

In my New Testament Theology it means 'unmerited favor'.

The phrase “Christ died for us” was read as a reference to penal substitution rather than martyrdom.​

This one is crucial, Christ died more then a martyrs death, he died an atoning death.

The fact that Paul and Judaism taught an achievable final judgment according to deeds was not realised​

Sounds like a works righteousness to me.

The Greek concepts of the mind and desires were not understood and so Paul’s self-control discussions were misread as meaning humans have a “sinful nature”. Mistakes in Interpreting Paul​

So is this really saying we have no sinful nature according to Paul?

Frankly I'm not impressed with a couple of quotes from Origen. This stuff in your link smacks of legalism.

 

[Melethiel]

It seems you know very little about Church tradition particularly when you mention St. Anselm, who appears in the 11th century. It's common among those of your type to misrepresent the early christian tradition, and writings to justify your bogus doctrines, but penal substitution is foreign concept to early Christianity, and it surely is not the view of the Greek Eastern part of the church. Sure Anselm held such a view, but even you can't argue that it was the minority view of the early church, unless you would like to delude yourself.

But here, allow the Theo Geek to break down for you:

The Church Fathers on the Atonement

Penal substitution was a minority view that didn't gain popularity until recently, but substitutionary atonement itself was not - just read Athanasius or the other early fathers, who held a balance between substitutionary atonement and victor models.

 

[theIdi0t]

Penal substitution was a minority view that didn't gain popularity until recently, but substitutionary atonement itself was not - just read Athanasius or the other early fathers, who held a balance between substitutionary atonement and victor models.

And what exactly is the difference between penal substitution and substitutionary atonement?

 

[Melethiel]

In a nutshell - classic substitution holds that Christ died in the place of humanity, paying the price for sin and accepting death (the penalty for sin) on behalf of mankind. Penal substitution adds the whole "God punishing" aspect.

 

[Assyrian]

Paul is explicit:
"Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Rm 5:12).
"By the one man’s offense many died" (Rm 5:15).
"Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation" (5:18).
"By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (5:19).

Again absolutely no reference to all sinned in Adam.

In your selection of quotes I see you dropped off the second half of verse 12 which tell us how this death passed on to all men: and so death spread to all men because all sinned. This comes at the very start of Paul's discussion of sin death and Adam and sets the context for the rest of his discussion. Whether you interpet Adam literally or figuratively, the consequences described in Genesis apply to all of us because we all sin. When we sin we are judged as Adam was, we die as Adam did the day he ate the fruit. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

You are also ignoring Paul's explanation of the comparison he is making between Adam and Christ. It is given in Rom 5:14 where he tells us Adam is a figure of the one who was to come. In the verses you quote after that, verses 15, 18 and 19, Paul is comparing Adam to Christ. His whole point is to tell us about Christ, but you try to interpret it as a lesson about the historical meaning of Genesis. His description is figurative. You might as well try to get historical detail out of Paul's description Sarah and Hagar. Was Hagar a literal mountain? Was Sarah the heavenly Jerusalem? If your argument about Adam are based on him being our literal ancestor, why not attach the same importance to Paul's description of Sarah, Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. But it is ridiculous an no one would even try to take this as a historical description. Paul is talking allegorically in both passages, why do Christians only take literal history from one?

Or was Jesus a literal rock that followed the Israelites in the desert? Were the Israelites literally baptised into Moses? That is what Paul says if you take his allegories literally. 1Cor 10:1 I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. The word example same word as figure or type in Rom 5:14. You cannot read literal history out of an allegorical description of text, even if the text itself describes literal history. There was a literal historical Sarah she wasn't literally or historically a mountain, a covenant, a city, or our mother.

But your biggest problem by far is that none of your quotes say we all sinned in Adam.

Those are extra-biblical canons, I hold to the Sola Scriptura doctrine of the Scriptures being the canon.

All sinned in Adam is an extra biblical canon too. It comes from Augustine and was passed down in out traditional theology. It is not biblical.

By putting them to the acid test of Scripture.

Then all sinned in Adam fails. It isn't in scripture.

It was handed down and continues both as a Biblical doctrine and a Church tradition.

St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi).​

This is firmly established as a Protestant doctrine and relies on the Scriptures, not an invented doctrine.

But, in the mean time, what must we do with our Bibles? -- for they will never agree with this. These accounts, however pleasing to flesh and blood, are utterly irreconcilable with the scriptural. The Scripture avers, that "by one man's disobedience all men were constituted sinners;" that "in Adam all died," spiritually died, lost the life and the image of God; that fallen, sinful Adam then "begat a son in his own likeness;" -- nor was it possible he should beget him in any other; for "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" -- that consequently we, as well as other men, were by nature "dead in trespasses and sins," "without hope, without God in the world," and therefore "children of wrath;" that every man may say, "I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin did my mother conceive me;" that "there is no difference," in that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," of that glorious image of God wherein man was originally created. (Original Sin By John Wesley Sermon 44)​

Well there is certainly no doubt all sinned in Adam has been handed down and continues as a Church tradition. What you have yet to show is that it is a biblical doctrine.

The early church was Creationist, there are no two ways about that:

For it was not enough for God to say, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," (Genesis 1:26) but deed followed word; for, taking the dust from the ground, He formed man out of it, conformable to His image and similitude, and into him He breathed the breath of life, so that Adam became a living soul. (Epistles on Arianism (Alexander of Alexandria)​

The early church certainly took Adam literally, but so do a lot of TEs. Otherwise the early church was divided among those like modern creationists who took the days of creation literally, and the ones like lots of TEs who didn't. Then again the early church tended to a have a much higher regard for science than modern creationists, and the majority rejected the anti science literalism of the day that contradicted science and preached a literal flat earth interpetation.

The sin of Adam is directly tied to the curse of the law and sin:

For by the sacrifice of His own body, He both put an end to the law which was against us, and made a new beginning of life for us, by the hope of resurrection which He has given us. For since from man it was that death prevailed over men, for this cause conversely, by the Word of God being made man has come about the destruction of death and the resurrection of life; as the man which bore Christ says: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive:" and so forth. For no longer now do we die as subject to condemnation; but as men who rise from the dead we await the general resurrection of all,"which 1 Timothy 6:15 in its own times He shall show," even God, Who has also wrought it, and bestowed it upon us. (On the Incarnation of the Word, by Athanasius)​

For whereas man sinned, and is fallen, and by his fall all things are in confusion: death prevailed from Adam to Moses (cf. Rom. v. 14), the earth was cursed, Hades was opened, Paradise shut, Heaven offended, man, lastly, corrupted and brutalised (cf. Ps. xlix. 12), while the devil was exulting against us (On Luke 10:22 and Matthew 11:27 (Athanasius)​

No mention of all sinned in Adam here either. I told you it was Augustine who gave us that one.

Neither science nor Scripture can support your position because I have looked at the evidence and proof texts closely. You are simply rationalizing the proof texts away the way the actual evidence immediately forced into the world's mold.

Apart for the ad hom about my motives, all you have given from scripture are a few quotes that ignore how Paul tell us the death he was talking about passed on to all men, and you ignore the context of the how he is talking about Adam, figuratively rather than literal and historically. And while because all sinned leads us to share in Adam's death as well as in the judgment and designation as sinners, there is no suggestion whatsoever, that we somehow all sinned in Adam. If there was you would have show it to us by now. It is completely foreign to Paul or the rest of scripture.

 

[Assyrian]

Here are his remarks in the Recapitulation chapter near the end of the Origin of Species. Emphases added.

It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. The question is difficult to answer, because the more distinct the forms are which we may consider, by so much the arguments fall away in force. But some arguments of the greatest weight extend very far. All the members of whole classes can be connected together by chains of affinities, and all can be classified on the same principle, in groups subordinate to groups. Fossil remains sometimes tend to fill up very wide intervals between existing orders. Organs in a rudimentary condition plainly show that an early progenitor had the organ in a fully developed state; and this in some instances necessarily implies an enormous amount of modification in the descendants. Throughout whole classes various structures are formed on the same pattern, and at an embryonic age the species closely resemble each other. Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class. I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.​

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.​

So he distinguishes between what he thinks can be confidently asserted (descent of all animals from no more than 4 or 5 originals) and what can be inferred only by analogy (all plants and animals have a common progenitor).

Thanks Glaudys, that's what I was looking for. I must save the reference.

 

[Assyrian]

shernren: (emphases added) To say "all sin came through / by Adam" is a far cry from saying "all sinned in Adam".

No it's not, they are used interchangeably in the New Testament. Take a look at Ephesians the first three chapters. I'm not saying study it in detail just browse them real quick. There are 35 uses of 'in Christ' or it's equivalent.

You can only say 'in Christ' is equivalent to 'through Christ' if you empty it of its local positional sense. That may be a valid interpetation for the 'in Christ' verses, though I think Paul is talking about us being 'in Christ' and having the riches of inheritance in him, spiritually, rather than simply being a flowery way of saying because of Christ. For me it is the key to understanding Pauline theology. Be that as it may, you can interpret the passages to mean 'because of' or 'through'. However, if you do you have lost any claim that all sinned 'in Adam' because we were all 'in Adam' when he sinned. If 'in' is equated to 'through' or 'by', it does not mean 'in' any more.

Any while there is an abundance of 'in Christ' and 'in him' teaching, I only know of one verse that speaks of 'in Adam' and this is not a reference to what happened in the past, it is present tense. 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die. That is not saying we all died in the past when we were in Adam. People die now and are in Adam now, and are in Adam when they die. We can be 'in Christ' because he is God the Son and his Spirit fills us all, but Adam was only human, if he was ever a literal human being, he is long dead and returned to the ground, how can we be 'in Adam' today? It only makes sense if 'in Adam' means being human part of the human race God named Adam in the beginning (Gen 5:2).

I already showed you how Levi was described as paying Mekezidek tithes because he was in Abraham when Abraham paid them.

Except the writer of Hebrews wasn't saying Levi was literally in Abraham's loins, he considered himself stretching the point and tells us so at the start of the verse.

Heb 7:9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham (ESV),
And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes (NASB).

There was a sense you might say Levi paid the tithe, but only in a symbolic way.

It sounds like you are turning to the theater, I won't interrupt your performance.

Or answer his point either.

 

[shernren]

Any while there is an abundance of 'in Christ' and 'in him' teaching, I only know of one verse that speaks of 'in Adam' and this is not a reference to what happened in the past, it is present tense. 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die. That is not saying we all died in the past when we were in Adam. People die now and are in Adam now, and are in Adam when they die. We can be 'in Christ' because he is God the Son and his Spirit fills us all, but Adam was only human, if he was ever a literal human being, he is long dead and returned to the ground, how can we be 'in Adam' today? It only makes sense if 'in Adam' means being human part of the human race God named Adam in the beginning (Gen 5:2).

And that raises the question: Paul had already used the phrase "in Adam" in 1 Corinthians, which as I recall was written in Ephesus before the occasion came to write Romans. So if Paul had meant "in Adam" in Romans 5, he could have written, well, "in Adam", instead of relying on mark two thousand years later to play thesaurus and find the hidden meaning.

Paul uses a specific preposition en to say "in Adam", and indeed uses that same specific preposition en again in Ephesians 1-3 when he says "in Christ". Why then could he not have used that in Romans 5? In verses 12, 18, and 19, the preposition used is dia, which as I understand is much more "through" than "in" - and verse 15 doesn't even have the preposition; the sentence structure is roughly more like "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if one's sin 'brought death to' many ... ". The "through" is added by translators to more accurately capture the tense implied by the Greek in "brought death to". So if you think Paul meant en Adam, why couldn't he have simply said en Adam?

 

[chaoschristian]

And of course it is entirely natural for a man who assumes universal common descent a priori to illustrate his beliefs by a tree diagram that has not one universal root, but 11 discontinuous roots, isn't it?


[/indent](emphases added) To say "all sin came through / by Adam" is a far cry from saying "all sinned in Adam".



Mark doesn't seem too fond of thread-fishing.

I, on the other hand, am an avowed addict to said activity.

It's simple enough. The following people explicitly answered yes to all six (post number included) :

PaladinValer (#198)
Mallon (#199)
Melethiel (#200)
crawfish (#209)
gluadys (#210)
shernren (#226)

Here are the questions again as a refresher:

1. Do you believe in the Nicene Creed?
2. Do you believe that Christ died for all sins, original and actual?
3. Do you believe that, due to an event far ago in the prehistoric past, humanity Fell?
4. Do you believe that, from this Fall, humanity has been "broken" so that we are unable to be fully good and have a pure and wholly innocent conscience, will, and nature?
5. Do you believe that it is only by Christ's Grace that we were healed, are being healed, and will be healed of our imperfections that we "inherited" (for a lack of a better term) from the Fall?
6. Do you believe therefore that the Bible speaks the truth in that humanity Fell, Christ died for humanity's sins and for the healing of humanity's souls and nature, and that Christ is therefore infact a Second Adam?

Mark himself has cited no theological reservations with these questions, only semantical reservations (#336).

For what it's worth, I too can affirm a 'yes' to those six questions as well.

 

[mark kennedy]

Again absolutely no reference to all sinned in Adam.

Through one man's sin means the same thing, that man was Adam.

In your selection of quotes I see you dropped off the second half of verse 12 which tell us how this death passed on to all men: and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

You are taking that out of context, there is a logical progression.

This comes at the very start of Paul's discussion of sin death and Adam and sets the context for the rest of his discussion. Whether you interpet Adam literally or figuratively, the consequences described in Genesis apply to all of us because we all sin.

"Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Rm 5:12).
"By the one man’s offense many died" (Rm 5:15).
"Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation" (5:18).
"By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (5:19).​

Verse 19 begins the explanation

"In doing this, the apostle admits, as an undoubted and well-understood fact:
1. That sin came into the world by one man, and death as the consequence. Rom 5:12.

2. That death had passed on all; even on those who had not the light of revelation, and the express commands of God, Rom 5:13-14.

3. That Adam was the figure, the type of him that was to come; that there was some sort of analogy or resemblance between the results of his act and the results of the work of Christ. That analogy consisted in the fact that the effects of his doings did not terminate on himself, but extended to numberless other persons, and that it was thus with the work of Christ, Rom_5:14. But he shows,

4. That there were very material and important differences in the two cases. There was not a perfect parallelism. The effects of the work of Christ were far more than simply to counteract the evil introduced by the sin of Adam. The differences between the effect of his act and the work of Christ are these.

(1) The sin of Adam led to condemnation. The work of Christ has an opposite tendency, Rom_5:15.
(2) The condemnation which came from the sin of Adam was the result of one offence. The work of Christ was to deliver from many offences, Rom_5:16.
(3) The work of Christ was far more abundant and overflowing in its influence. It extended deeper and further. It was more than a compensation for the evils of the fall, Rom 5:17.​

5. As the act of Adam threw its influence over all people to secure their condemnation, so the work of Christ was suited to affect all people, Jews and Gentiles, in bringing them into a state by which they might be delivered from the fall, and restored to the favor of God. It was in itself adapted to produce far more and greater benefits than the crime of Adam had done evil; and was thus a glorious plan, just suited to meet the actual condition of a world of sin; and to repair the evils which apostasy had introduced. It had thus the evidence that it originated in the benevolence of God, and that it was adapted to the human condition, Rom_5:18-21.
(Barnes Commentary)

When we sin we are judged as Adam was, we die as Adam did the day he ate the fruit. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Because when the law came sin was imputed.

You are also ignoring Paul's explanation of the comparison he is making between Adam and Christ. It is given in Rom 5:14 where he tells us Adam is a figure of the one who was to come. In the verses you quote after that, verses 15, 18 and 19, Paul is comparing Adam to Christ. His whole point is to tell us about Christ, but you try to interpret it as a lesson about the historical meaning of Genesis. His description is figurative. You might as well try to get historical detail out of Paul's description Sarah and Hagar. Was Hagar a literal mountain? Was Sarah the heavenly Jerusalem? If your argument about Adam are based on him being our literal ancestor, why not attach the same importance to Paul's description of Sarah, Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. But it is ridiculous an no one would even try to take this as a historical description. Paul is talking allegorically in both passages, why do Christians only take literal history from one?

It is not an allegory, you are twisting the actual meaning. Adam, the literal Adam, is a figure of Christ. Sarah, the literal historical Sarah, us used a figure. What is ridiculas is that you have so much free reign in you hermeneutics to make anything you don't like a figure of speech.

Or was Jesus a literal rock that followed the Israelites in the desert? Were the Israelites literally baptised into Moses?​

I know the difference between figurative language and allegory.

That is what Paul says if you take his allegories literally.

Figurative language is often used of literal people. Adam, is a figure of Christ, that does not make him a figure of speech.

1Cor 10:1 I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. The word example same word as figure or type in Rom 5:14. You cannot read literal history out of an allegorical description of text, even if the text itself describes literal history. There was a literal historical Sarah she wasn't literally or historically a mountain, a covenant, a city, or our mother.

Now you are trying to make figurative language mutually exclusive with a literal interpretation. When the children of Israel passed through the water of the Red Sea that was an actual event. Paul speaks of that as 'baptism' which is both literal and figurative at the same time.

But your biggest problem by far is that none of your quotes say we all sinned in Adam.

No, it says through 'dia' the offense of one man.

All sinned in Adam is an extra biblical canon too. It comes from Augustine and was passed down in out traditional theology. It is not biblical.

That is a lie, you have the text right in front of you are you deny the clear meaning. Your interpretation is really just an attempt to rewrite Paul. It did not start with Augustine, it started with Paul and only became a formal doctrine with the rise of the Pelagian heresy.

After some time the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death -- this being more easily understood as we see that parents transmit to their children hereditary diseases -- but they still violently attacked the transmission of sin (St. Augustine, "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", IV, iv, 6). And when St. Paul speaks of the transmission of sin they understood by this the transmission of death. This was their second position, condemned by the Council of Orange [Denz., n. 175 (145)], and again later on with the first by the Council of Trent [Sess. V, can. ii; Denz., n. 789 (671)]. To take the word sin to mean death was an evident falsification of the text, so the Pelagians soon abandoned the interpretation and admitted that Adam caused sin in us. They did not, however, understand by sin the hereditary stain contracted at our birth, but the sin that adults commit in imitation of Adam. This was their third position, to which is opposed the definition of Trent that sin is transmitted to all by generation (propagatione), not by imitation [Denz., n. 790 (672)]. Moreover, in the following canon are cited the words of the Council of Carthage, in which there is question of a sin contracted by generation and effaced by generation [Denz., n. 102 (66)].

The leaders of the Reformation admitted the dogma of original sin, but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism.Original Sin​

Do you ever take anyone in context?

Then all sinned in Adam fails. It isn't in scripture.

Not if you get the clear meaning of Romans 5 twisted.

Well there is certainly no doubt all sinned in Adam has been handed down and continues as a Church tradition. What you have yet to show is that it is a biblical doctrine.

I'm through watching you talk this in circles. That is simply not true, Paul says 'by one man' and that man he names as 'Adam'. Denying it tells us nothing about Romans but it speaks volumes for TE.

The early church certainly took Adam literally, but so do a lot of TEs. Otherwise the early church was divided among those like modern creationists who took the days of creation literally, and the ones like lots of TEs who didn't. Then again the early church tended to a have a much higher regard for science than modern creationists, and the majority rejected the anti science literalism of the day that contradicted science and preached a literal flat earth interpetation.

Paul did not teach a flat earth but he did teach a literal Adam.

No mention of all sinned in Adam here either. I told you it was Augustine who gave us that one.

In, through, by, it's all used in the same way. Take a look at the first three chapters of Ephesians and see how many time 'in Christ' or it's equivalent is used. Paul mentions Adam in Romans 5 because he is addressing a group of Christians who were largely Jewish. Obviously, they held to a literal Adam in the first century as well.

Apart for the ad hom about my motives, all you have given from scripture are a few quotes that ignore how Paul tell us the death he was talking about passed on to all men, and you ignore the context of the how he is talking about Adam, figuratively rather than literal and historically.​

What I have is the clear meaning of a positive proof text with supporting proof texts in perfect agreement. What you have is arbitrary and selective interpretation and random hermeneutics where anything you don't like is rendered figurative.

And while because all sinned leads us to share in Adam's death as well as in the judgment and designation as sinners, there is no suggestion whatsoever, that we somehow all sinned in Adam. If there was you would have show it to us by now. It is completely foreign to Paul or the rest of scripture.

Paul is crystal clear and denying it won't change that as much as you would like for it to.

t was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: “Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!” Blood and Water From His Side - St. John Chrysostom (344–407)

and know that your own oracle, when asked by some one to utter a hymn of praise to the Almighty God, in the middle of the hymn spoke thus, "Who formed the first of men, and called him Adam." (JUSTIN'S HORTATORY ADDRESS TO THE GREEKS))

I have repeated to you, in various ways; in order that, when the event should take place, it might be known as the operation of the power and will of the Maker of all things; just as Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs, and as all living beings were created in the beginning by the word of God.( Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew)​

This is about origins and there is no question that the early church believed in a literal Adam and Eve, that Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve, specially created and the transgression of Adam brought sin and death to us all.