What About Progressive Sanctification?

[RickReads]

Yet another empty, unsubstantiated statement. Ignored.

I think we're done here. Not as challenging as I was expecting.

 

[JAL]

Rewriting the scriptures doesn`t work in the long run.

Do you care to believe the Scriptures? You certainly don't believe Ezekiel 18.

Do you believe Romans 5? I'm pretty sure you don't. In Rom 5, Paul said that sin entered the world through Adam.

Adam? But Eve sinned first! A seamless explanation is that, as I have alleged, Adam's soul was a physical soul, and Eve was formed from his ribs. Therefore since Eve was part of that same soul (Adam), sin did indeed enter the world through Adam.

Here too, as usual, you have no resolution of the contradiction, other than to embrace my position.

 

[JAL]

I think we're done here. Not as challenging as I was expecting.

Said the guy who ignored every logical contradiction sent his way! Thanks. You guffawed me on that one!

 

[RickReads]

Do you care to believe the Scriptures? You certainly don't believe Ezekiel 18.

Do you believe Romans 5? I'm pretty sure you don't. In Rom 5, Paul said that sin entered the world through Adam.

Adam? But Eve sinned first! A seamless explanation is that, as I have alleged, Adam's soul was a physical soul, and Eve was formed from his ribs. Therefore since Eve was part of that same soul (Adam), sin did indeed enter the world through Adam.

Here too, as usual, you have no resolution of the contradiction, other than to embrace my position.

All Eves fault. Maybe I agree with you on that

 

[RickReads]

Said the guy who ignored every logical contradiction sent his way! Thanks. You guffawed me on that one!

Well good, hope you don`t choke

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Exactly! Which makes for intellectually dishonest debate!

what you call dishonest what call biblical truth since we are making our argument from Scripture and take Paul's word in Romans 5 as the literal truth concerning adams sin and our condemnation under his original sin/disobedience which was passed down to all mankind.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

what you call dishonest what call biblical truth since we are making our argument from Scripture and take Paul's word in Romans 5 as the literal truth concerning adams sin and our condemnation under his original sin/disobedience which was passed down to all mankind.

hope this helps !!!

(Sigh). Where does my theory of Adam contradict those points? On the contrary it explains them in a judicially consistent manner, instead of misconstruing God as an unjust, unfair, dishonest, evil Judge.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

(Sigh). Where does my theory of Adam contradict those points? On the contrary it explains them in a judicially consistent manner, instead of misconstruing God as an unjust, unfair, dishonest, evil Judge.

that is your caricature not ours.

 

[JAL]

that is your caricature not ours.

No it's your view too. Because any leader who behaved in that manner would be deemed evil by YOU. Here's an example.

Suppose a man in the large state of Texas deliberately poisoned all the ground water, endangering the tens of millions of Texas residents.

The President of the USA then declares, "Even though I have a way to purify the drinking water, I've decided that you should ALL suffer the consequences of his transgression. You will ALL drink poisoned water and DIE."

You would classify that President as the most evil man who ever lived (as would I). Even calling him a "monster" would be too charitable, there is no word adequate to describe such a degree of evil.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You didn`t read verse 18, Peter isn`t talking about water baptism. You misunderstand the verse. It`s telling you that putting away sins doesn`t save you. Spirit Baptism gives you the good conscience, and that is what saves you.

No. Verse 18 says,

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:” (1 Peter 3:18).

This verse is referring to Jesus and His death and resurrection. Jesus was not spiritually made alive but He was physically made alive three days after His crucifixion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you care to believe the Scriptures? You certainly don't believe Ezekiel 18.

Do you believe Romans 5? I'm pretty sure you don't. In Rom 5, Paul said that sin entered the world through Adam.

Adam? But Eve sinned first! A seamless explanation is that, as I have alleged, Adam's soul was a physical soul, and Eve was formed from his ribs. Therefore since Eve was part of that same soul (Adam), sin did indeed enter the world through Adam.

Here too, as usual, you have no resolution of the contradiction, other than to embrace my position.

The Bible generally operates through the language of patrlineal descent--there are exceptions to this, but the rule tends to be father-to-sons. And so Adam is regarded as the patriarch of the entire human family. Thus "sin came through Adam" is the language of sin coming to all of us through the head of the human family--Adam. Conversely, Christ as the new or second Adam becomes, in a sense, the head of the new humanity, the progenitor of something new. So that what was dead in Adam is alive in Christ, what was wounded by Adam is healed by Christ. In Christ there is a new man, a new Adam, of which we participate in by God's grace.

There's no contradiction to resolve, not if one is paying attention to the Bible and the way ancient people spoke and what sort of language the biblical authors would therefore use. Our old patriarch, Adam brought sin and death by his disobedience, but the new head, Christ, brings life and resurrection from the dead.

It's a language to speak of being human "in Adam" vs being human "in Christ". Of speaking of the old man dead in his sins, and the new man alive by the grace of God.

Your convoluted explanation is completely unnecessary, and only introduces doctrinal and theological confusing nonsense to what is actually pretty straightforward.

Christ heals Adam, Christ saves Adam. That is, Christ saves us. Which is why historic icons of Christ's defeat and victory over hell depict Him rescuing Adam (and Eve usually) by literally pulling Adam out from his sarcophagus, from death to life in Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JAL]

The Bible generally operates through the language of patrlineal descent--there are exceptions to this, but the rule tends to be father-to-sons. And so Adam is regarded as the patriarch of the entire human family. Thus "sin came through Adam" is the language of sin coming to all of us through the head of the human family--Adam. Conversely, Christ as the new or second Adam becomes, in a sense, the head of the new humanity, the progenitor of something new. So that what was dead in Adam is alive in Christ, what was wounded by Adam is healed by Christ. In Christ there is a new man, a new Adam, of which we participate in by God's grace.

There's no contradiction to resolve...

Baloney. The contradiction is to Ezek 18 where no child shall suffer the consequences of his parents sin. Since that's just basic justice as universally understood, we don't even need Ezek 18 to establish what we already believe. And I further clarified the point via a hypothetical scenario in the state of Texas.

Usually at this point people "rebut" by appealing to the verse about God visiting the sins of the parents upon the children, but Ezek 18 is consistent with that verse. If we are all legitimately guilty in Adam, as only MY definition of Adam allows, then the sins of the parents can legitimately suspend (undeserved) mercies from the (already reprobate) children. Meaning, ULTIMATELY the children are paying for their own sin in Adam, NOT for the sins of their parents.

I'll take you seriously when you can convince me, of the Texas analogy, that the President behaved righteously.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Baloney. The contradiction is to Ezek 18 where no child shall suffer the consequences of his parents sin. Since that's just basic justice as universally understood, we don't even need Ezek 18 to establish what we already believe. And I further clarified the point via a hypothetical scenario in the state of Texas.

Usually at this point people "rebut" by appealing to the verse about God visiting the sins of the parents upon the children, but Ezek 18 is consistent with that verse. If we are all legitimately guilty in Adam, as only MY definition of Adam allows, then the sins of the parents can legitimately suspend (undeserved) mercies from the (already reprobate) children. Meaning, ULTIMATELY the children are paying for their own sin in Adam, NOT for the sins of their parents.

I'll take you seriously when you can convince me, of the Texas analogy, that the President behaved righteously.

This tells me that the basic problem then is your not understanding the doctrine of Original or Ancestral Sin. We aren't punished for Adam's sin, nor are we guilty of it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JAL]

There's no contradiction to resolve...

I also mentioned 2 additional, related contradictions.
(1) The notion of inheriting a taint from Adam is a self-contradictory concept. Sinfulness isn't something that HAPPENS to me - it can only be defined as something freely chosen. Take for example those who claim that the taint is biologically/genetically spread. Here's what I tell them. Suppose, Jesus, as a carpenter, injures His leg and goes to a hospital to get surgery, unware that the doctor will try a new procedure that alters Him biologically/genetically. Is He now sin-tainted? Doesn't make sense.
(2) Paul says that sin entered the world through Adam - but Eve sinned first. MY definition of Adam resolves this contradiction.

 

[JAL]

This tells me that the basic problem then is your not understanding the doctrine of Original or Ancestral Sin. We aren't punished for Adam's sin, nor are we guilty of it.

-CryptoLutheran

Where did I use the word punishment? I explicitly used the phrase "suffer the consequences" of. If I also used the word "punished" somewhere, that would only be superfluous to the core of argument, feel free to disregard it. The core of the argument remains.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I also mentioned 2 additional, related contradictions.
(1) The notion of inheriting a taint from Adam is a self-contradictory concept. Sinfulness isn't something that HAPPENS to me - it can only be defined as something freely chosen. Take for example those who claim that the taint is biologically/genetically spread. Here's what I tell them. Suppose, Jesus, as a carpenter, injures His leg and goes to a hospital to get surgery, unware that the doctor will try a new procedure that alters Him biologically/genetically. Is He now sin-tainted? Doesn't make sense.

Not how Original Sin works, it's not "biological/genetic". It's a spiritual sickness, one that we have by our sharing and participation in Adam's own fallen human nature.

(2) Paul says that sin entered the world through Adam - but Eve sinned first. MY definition of Adam resolves this contradiction.

Your "definition of Adam" is unbiblical and foreign to the faith of the Christian Church. Christian teaching is that through Adam came sin, because Adam's sin has caused a pollution within creation--it's not just we who suffer as human beings, the whole of creation suffers from the problem of sin and death. There is a wound in creation, a wound in our humanity; and so what is necessary is the healing of that wound. That's the point of the Incarnation, the point of Christ's perfect life, His death, and His resurrection.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Where did I use the word punishment? I explicitly used the phrase "suffer the consequences" of. If I also used the word "punished" somewhere, that would only be superfluous to the core of argument, feel free to disregard it. The core of the argument remains.

If you aren't talking about people being punished for the sins of their fathers, then why on earth would you use the passage talking about that? Because the passage about God not visiting punishment upon the sons of the fathers isn't about consequences, but about punishment.

Yes, the consequences of Adam's disobedience is sin and death, and not only we suffer those consequences, the whole of creation suffers those consequences. Which is why God's salvation of the world isn't just the salvation of individual people, it is the salvation and the ultimate healing and restoration of all creation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JAL]

Not how Original Sin works, it's not "biological/genetic". It's a spiritual sickness, one that we have by our sharing and participation in Adam's own fallen human nature.

I didn't INSIST that YOUR definition of the taint is biological, I was only giving one theory of the taint. If you have a different theory that's fine, but it suffers similar contradictions.

You call it a spiritual taint. Who tainted me? God? How does a holy God legitimately taint innocent babes with evil tendencies?

Again, sinfulness cannot be cogently defined as something that HAPPENS to me - only as something freely chosen. For example suppose I found a way to escalate your passions leading to gluttony, fornication, rage, and so on. Would that classify YOU as having a sinful nature? "Not hardly" as my grade school teachers used to put it.

 

[JAL]

If you aren't talking about people being punished for the sins of their fathers, then why on earth would you use the passage talking about that? Because the passage about God not visiting punishment upon the sons of the fathers isn't about consequences, but about punishment.

Again, whether it's consequences or punishment, the core of the argument obtains.

Yes, the consequences of Adam's disobedience is sin and death, and not only we suffer those consequences, the whole of creation suffers those consequences. Which is why God's salvation of the world isn't just the salvation of individual people, it is the salvation and the ultimate healing and restoration of all creation.

-CryptoLutheran

Yeah right. Show me that the President of Texas, in the analogy, behaved righteously.

 

[JAL]

Your "definition of Adam" is unbiblical...

Don't merely assert your position. Argue it.

...and foreign to the faith of the Christian

Sort of like some of the Reformed ideas were foreign to most Christians at the time of the Reformation? That kind of problem is what you are complaining about? Just to be clear?