It sounds as if you are explaining away the obvious truth of Romans 5. But thanks ok believe whatever you wish that is fine with me.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It sounds as if you are explaining away the obvious truth of Romans 5. But thanks ok believe whatever you wish that is fine with me.Relevance? I already addressed that passage - and not in the traditional ways that construe God as unjust, evil, a liar, and so on.
So the "obvious truth" of Romans 5 is that God is the most evil being on the planet, such that He visits the consequences of 1 man's sin upon 100 billion innocent offspring?It sounds as if you are explaining away the obvious truth of Romans 5. But thanks ok believe whatever you wish that is fine with me.
Sounds to me like you are trying to explain away the obvious truth of Ezek 18 - that a child should not suffer for the sins of his parents.It sounds as if you are explaining away the obvious truth of Romans 5. But thanks ok believe whatever you wish that is fine with me.
great that is your position but I will stick with Paul's in Romans 5So the "obvious truth" of Romans 5 is that God is the most evil being on the planet, such that He visits the consequences of 1 man's sin upon 100 billion innocent offspring?
That's your "obvious truth"? Surely a more plausible "obvious truth" - a more cogent theory of Adam - would be this one:
"We were all physically present in Adam, so that we all sinned in his act" (Erickson, Christian Theology).
That is my position.
Relevance? Just as I was pretty sure that you don't understand the hypostatic union, I'm definitely sure that you don't understand my position. I just EXPLAINED those verses, providing the only viable explanation in church history - the only explanation known to date that doesn't misconstrue God as evil, unjust, and so on.great that is your position but I will stick with Paul's in Romans 5
Romans 5
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
hope this helps !!!
(Sigh). Again, here's my position on Romans 5:great that is your position but I will stick with Paul's in Romans 5
Romans 5
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
hope this helps !!!
appealing to authority(Sigh). Again, here's my position on Romans 5:
"We were all physically present in Adam, so that we all sinned in his act" (Erickson, Christian Theology).
Do you not understand how that position addresses the verses?
It certainly wasn't an exclusive appeal to authority. I do not claim, "I believe this only because Erickson said it".appealing to authority
Sounds to me like you are trying to explain away the obvious truth of Ezek 18 - that a child should not suffer for the sins of his parents.
In fact that truth is so self-evident that I don't need Ezek 18 to back it up. Anything less would make for an evil, unjust God.
No the problem is, in your mind we suffered some consequences of Adam's sin. That is not consistent with a perfectly kind, loving, fair, just God.The problem is, everyone sinned and fell into condemnation. Jesus is the only one who ever fulfilled the requirements.
exactlySeems I can't win here. If I mention a view that is new to you, you guys will complain, "That is too abnormal/heretical to discuss".
And then if I show that other scholars support my view - proving it is NOT abnormal - you'll complain, "You're just appealing to authority"
I can't win!
Exactly! Which makes for intellectually dishonest debate!exactly
Seems I can't win here. If I mention a view that is new to you, you guys will complain, "That is too abnormal/heretical to discuss".
And then if I show that other scholars support my view - proving it is NOT abnormal - you'll complain, "You're just appealing to authority"
I can't win!
Unresolved logical contradictions are CERTAINLY not the truth.UNFORTUNATELY YOUR OPINIONS AREN`T BIBLICAL. INVENTING A NEW VIEW DOESN`T = TRUTH
No the problem is, in your mind we suffered some consequences of Adam's sin. That is not consistent with a perfectly kind, loving, fair, just God.
For one thing, once Adam and Eve sinned, why not just start over with, say, Bob and Sally? Why visit consequences upon 100 billion innocent offspring? That cannot be reconciled with perfect kindness.
Whereas, in MY definition of Adam, it makes sense for 100 billion people to suffer - they are not innocent!
No, that's what traditional theologians did when they looked to Plato instead of Scripture to define God. That's your heritage.You are inventing your own god. That doesn`t work in the long run.
Yet another empty, unsubstantiated statement. Ignored.Rewriting the scriptures doesn`t work in the long run.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?