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.
Yet another empty, unsubstantiated statement. Ignored.
Do you care to believe the Scriptures? You certainly don't believe Ezekiel 18.Rewriting the scriptures doesn`t work in the long run.
Said the guy who ignored every logical contradiction sent his way! Thanks. You guffawed me on that one!I think we're done here. Not as challenging as I was expecting.
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.
Said the guy who ignored every logical contradiction sent his way! Thanks. You guffawed me on that one!
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.Exactly! Which makes for intellectually dishonest debate!
(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.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 !!!
that is your caricature not ours.(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.
No it's your view too. Because any leader who behaved in that manner would be deemed evil by YOU. Here's an example.that is your caricature not ours.
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.
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.
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.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.
I also mentioned 2 additional, related contradictions.There's no contradiction to resolve...
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.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
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.
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.
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.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.
Again, whether it's consequences or punishment, the core of the argument obtains.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.
Yeah right. Show me that the President of Texas, in the analogy, behaved righteously.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
Don't merely assert your position. Argue it.Your "definition of Adam" is unbiblical...
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?...and foreign to the faith of the Christian
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?