• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Eternal life, given or offered?

I want to focus on this comment. Can you expound upon it?

Paul says because of the One Sin of the One Man, condemnation was passed on to all men. This is judgement of the Sin of the One Man is the cause of condemnation spread upon all men. How? Because Adam is the Federal Head of the Human Race; just like the second or last Adam is also the Federal Head of the New Heavens and New Earth.

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.

This passage is clear and explicit of the One Man's Sin. Some will argue that Adam's sin is not imputed to his progeny (natural descendants of Adam/those born of the flesh). But Paul again hammers that death reigned between Adam's Fall and Moses. Why does Paul mention this? Because there was no Law between Adam's Fall and Moses. And where there is no Law there is no sin. Knowledge of sin comes through the Law. But yet the judgement of death due to sin still reigned upon all people between Adam and Moses. This is because all people are fallen in Adam and inherit Adam corrupt nature and his curse because we all are born of Adam. Understand, this is why we need to be born again of the Spirit, not the flesh.

So, please provide your exposition on all sinned, thanks.​
[edited for false accusations against persons because their belief differs from that of the poster, and the idea that original sin is an excuse for one's own sins.]

I will just note here that like so many, you cite Romans 5:18a to make your point. But 18a is not the point that Paul was trying to make.

ESV) Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

(KJV) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The point of Paul's statement there is not 18a; rather, the point Paul is making is 18b: so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

I will note here that Paul is using the "AS -- SO" grammatical construction to make his point. That demands that the "AS" with all men in 18a and the "SO" with all men in 18b must be referencing the same "ALL MEN". Otherwise, the connection and correlation make no sense whatsoever. Please observe that the correlation in verse 18 (as well as in verse 19) is only concerning the effect of Adam's trespass in comparison with Jesus' righteousness. The effect of Adam's trespass is universally accepted as dealing with all men from birth. Thus Paul's use of the "AS -- SO" construction demands that the effect of Jesus' righteousness is also dealing with all men from birth. It is not dealing with the sins of all men. Paul takes up that topic beginning in Chapter 6.

So then how can that be? It means that, whatever the effect of Adam's trespass upon all men was, the effect of Jesus' righteousness negated it. All men are not born in original sin due to Adam; rather all men are born in original grace due to Jesus. So then why has death spread to all men? Because, as Paul stated earlier in verse 12, all men sinned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You obviously need an excuse for your own sins. Even more than an excuse, you need to blame someone other than yourself for your own personal weaknesses. And that is Adam. You seem to think, very arrogantly, that were it not for Adam, you might have lived the perfect life before God. What nonsense. And I am not speaking of just you, but the entire company holding to the concept of original sin.

I will just note here that like so many, you cite Romans 5:18a to make your point. But 18a is not the point that Paul was trying to make.

ESV) Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

(KJV) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The point of Paul's statement there is not 18a; rather, the point Paul is making is 18b: so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

I will note here that Paul is using the "AS -- SO" grammatical construction to make his point. That demands that the "AS" with all men in 18a and the "SO" with all men in 18b must be referencing the same "ALL MEN". Otherwise, the connection and correlation make no sense whatsoever. Please observe that the correlation in verse 18 (as well as in verse 19) is only concerning the effect of Adam's trespass in comparison with Jesus' righteousness. The effect of Adam's trespass is universally accepted as dealing with all men from birth. Thus Paul's use of the "AS -- SO" construction demands that the effect of Jesus' righteousness is also dealing with all men from birth. It is not dealing with the sins of all men. Paul takes up that topic beginning in Chapter 6.

So then how can that be? It means that, whatever the effect of Adam's trespass upon all men was, the effect of Jesus' righteousness negated it. All men are not born in original sin due to Adam; rather all men are born in original grace due to Jesus. So then why has death spread to all men? Because, as Paul stated earlier in verse 12, all men sinned.

I would offer.

Its not personal weaknesses. Dead as a door nail in and transgression and sin without a living hope of God in this world.

Dead is dead never to rise. Corrupted flesh returns to the field of clay Death .it has no manageable ability .Dead as a door nail

No such thing as original sin. Simply an oral tradition of dying mankind. A doctrine as a oral commandments of dying mankind .

Catholiscim dividing into two workable categories mortal and venial

Assigned. .Two different places of sufferings wondering, wondering . Limbo, the the venial sinners (younger) and Purgatory for the more mortal. . mature .

Jesus born of the flesh. He acknowledges his flesh signified (comparison) , as sinful profits for zero .What did profit are the living words of the Spirit of life. Christ our husband word is Spirit and life giving .


John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
 
The effect of Adam's trespass is universally accepted as dealing with all men from birth. Thus Paul's use of the "AS -- SO" construction demands that the effect of Jesus' righteousness is also dealing with all men from birth.
I am not going to get in the middle of this debate with LA. I just want to point something here. You actually agree with the doctrines of original sin. You say that used to be true but it is not true anymore because Jesus change that for all men on the cross. Now all men are born sinless and aren't sinners until they do sin.

However, what does that mean for all the faithful who died before Jesus even came? And it would seem that he would have to die again as each becomes a sinner. Or he only paid for the sin of Adam. Or he died for the sin of Adam, purifying all born after his death and yet not doing so at the same time. He did something that did nothing.
 
[edited for false accusations against persons because their belief differs from that of the poster, and the idea that original sin is an excuse for one's own sins.]

I will just note here that like so many, you cite Romans 5:18a to make your point. But 18a is not the point that Paul was trying to make.

ESV) Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

(KJV) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The point of Paul's statement there is not 18a; rather, the point Paul is making is 18b: so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Incorrect, this is why you are misinformed. Paul is making a juxtaposition between the Two Adam's here, One Man brings sin, death and condemnation, the other brings Obedience, Justification, and Life to all those who believe. In other words, the first Adam breach God's Covenant of Works with his One Act of Disobedience, and the Last Adam (Christ) fulfills and restores the Covenant of Works with His One Act of Obedience that brings Justification and Life that is freely given to those who believe. Read the entire run of passages from verse 12-21.

One huge crux of a point you are missing is that Paul is making a contrast between only two people; Adam and Christ. And how we are either in Union with Adam or Christ, there is no third category, neutral place, no space between them. You are either a sinner in Adam or a believer in Christ; either dead or alive; either condemned or Justified.
I will note here that Paul is using the "AS -- SO" grammatical construction to make his point. That demands that the "AS" with all men in 18a and the "SO" with all men in 18b must be referencing the same "ALL MEN". Otherwise, the connection and correlation make no sense whatsoever. Please observe that the correlation in verse 18 (as well as in verse 19) is only concerning the effect of Adam's trespass in comparison with Jesus' righteousness. The effect of Adam's trespass is universally accepted as dealing with all men from birth. Thus Paul's use of the "AS -- SO" construction demands that the effect of Jesus' righteousness is also dealing with all men from birth. It is not dealing with the sins of all men. Paul takes up that topic beginning in Chapter 6.

So then how can that be? It means that, whatever the effect of Adam's trespass upon all men was, the effect of Jesus' righteousness negated it. All men are not born in original sin due to Adam; rather all men are born in original grace due to Jesus. So then why has death spread to all men? Because, as Paul stated earlier in verse 12, all men sinned.
You can try to distort this all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Paul is centralizing the Two Adams and their works. All men have been condemned by the Act of disobedience by the One Man. It doesn't all men, but by ONE MAN ACT.
 
Last edited:
Hebrews gives us the definition of faith:
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Romans gives us the source of faith:
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Neither the definition of faith, nor the source of faith can even be a concept which could be assigned or connected with Jesus. The very phrase, Jesus' faith, is an oxymoron. It makes no sense. It cannot be attributed to Jesus Christ, God the Son.
Jim, Jesus as the Son of Man, did increase in wisdom, knowledge and faith, yes faith! Though Jesus was God, living in human flesh~he also was fully man as much as you and I are, yet without sin. Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, in order to condemned sin in the flesh and making him the perfect sacrifice for our sins as the Lamb of God that would be made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God through him~his perfect obedience and faith which he possessed as a man. God did not die as God, but Jesus as the man Christ Jesus, did! Jesus as a man did have faith in God~call it oxymoron all you want, yet it only shows that you do not fully understand the atonement that God provided for his elect in his Son's life, death and resurrection from the dead.
Also, I would point out that justification is a legal concept. Justification is the legal act of God declaring a complete right legal standing before the law of God and a freedom from the law’s penalty. It is the declaration by God of the complete forgiveness, the total remission, of the sins of the repentant believer. There really is no other justification than "legal" justification.
Jim I understand that justification is used in a legal sense, which I said so above, even though it also is used in other senses, which I will not go into now, since it would serve no purpose for this subject of this thread. But, knowing that it is used in a legal sense, then it is in no way offered to the sinner who is dead in trespasses and sin, but it is freely given to God's elect by grace alone. Please consider:
Romans 3:20~Therefore by the deeds of law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight; for by law is the knowledge of sin.
The word therefore denotes the final conclusion drawn from the whole of the preceding discussion, beginning at Romans 1:18. The Apostle had shown that both the Gentiles and the Jews are under sin; that is, they have brought down upon themselves the just condemnation of God.

The conclusion, then, from the whole, as containing in this verse, is evident. By the deeds of the law, or......The reference here is to every law that God has given to man, whether expressed in words, or imprinted in the heart. It is that law which the Gentiles have transgressed, which they have naturally inscribed in their hearts. It is that law which the Jews have violated, when they committed theft, adulteries, and sacrileges, and which convicted them of impiety, of evil-speaking, of murder, of injustice. In one word, it is that law which shuts the mouth of the whole world, as had been said in the preceding verse, and brings in all men guilty before God.

The deeds, or works of law~ When it is said, by works of law no flesh shall be justified, it is not meant that the law, whether natural or written, was not capable of justifying. Neither is it meant that the righteousness thus resulting from man's fulfillment of all its demands would not be a true righteousness, but that no man being able to plead this fulfillment of the law before the tribunal of God ~that perfect obedience which it requires~no man can receive by the law a sentence pronouncing him to be righteous. So how in the world could it possibly be offered to such men.

To say that the works of the law, if performed, are not good and acceptable, and would not form a true righteousness, would contradict what had been affirmed in the preceding chapter, verse 13, that the doers of the law shall be justified. A scripture you and others often quotes but does not understand, is that, no flesh born of Adam is capable of performing perfectly.

The Apostle, then, does not propose here to show either the want of power of the law in itself, or of the insufficiency of its works for justification, but solely to prove that no man fulfills the law, that both Gentiles and Jews are under sin, (its condemnation) and that all the world is guilty before God.

No flesh~Paul reference appears to be to Psalms 143 David there says, 'no man living.' Paul says, 'no flesh.' Is a term that marks a certain dignity, the other denotes meanness. The one imports that whatever excellence there might be "supposed" to be in man, he could not be justified before God; and the other, that being only flesh~that is to say, corruption and weakness~ he ought not to pretend to justification by himself. Thus, on whatever side man regards himself, he is far from being able to stand before the strict judgment of God.

Shall be justified in His sight~ The meaning of the term justified, as used by Paul in the whole of this discussion, is evident by the different expressions in this verse. It appears by the therefore, with which the verse begins, that it is a conclusion that the Apostle draws from the whole of the foregoing discussion. Now, all this discussion has been intended to show that neither Gentiles nor Jews could elude the condemnation of the Divine judgment. The conclusion, then, that no flesh shall be justified in the sight of God by the works of law, can only signify that no man can be regarded as righteous, or obtain by means of his works a favorable sentence from Divine justice. It is in this sense that David has taken the term justify in Psalms 143, to which the Apostle had reference, Enter not unto judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. The terms in His sight testify the same thing, for they accommodate themselves to the idea of a tribunal before which men must appear to be judged. It is the same with regard to the other terms, by the deeds of law; for if we understand a justification of judgment, the sense is plain: no one can plead before the tribunal of God a perfect and complete fulfillment of the law, such as strict and exact justice demands; no one, therefore, can in that way obtain justification by their own works~thereby it must be given freely to them by grace.

In justifying men, God does all the work, and men receiving justification, contribute nothing towards it. This is in opposition to the justification proposed by the law by means of obedience, in which way a man would be justified by his own righteousness, and not by the righteousness which God has provided and bestows FREELY.

For by law is the knowledge of sin~ Paul does not here intend simply to say that the law makes known in general the nature of sin, inasmuch as it discovers what is acceptable or displeasing to God, what He commands, and what He forbids; but he means to affirm that the law convicts men of being sinners. For his words refer to what he had just before said in the preceding verse, that all that the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God, which marks a conviction of sin. But how, it may be said, does the law give that knowledge or that conviction of sin? It does so in two ways. By the application of its commandments, and its prohibitions to our new man, for it excites and awakens the conscience, and gives birth to accusing thoughts. This is common both to the written law and the law of nature. It does this, secondly, by the declaration of punishments and rewards which it sets before its transgressors and observers, and as it excites the conscience of the awaken elect sinners, and gives rise to fear and agitation, thus bringing before the eyes of the elect sinner the dreadful evil of sin. This also is alike common to the law of nature and the written law~but mainly the written Law which our minds have been quicken to see and understand.

Here it is important to remark that God, having purposed to establish but one way of justification for all men, (Jews and Gentiles) has permitted, in His providence, that all should be guilty. For if there had been any excepted, there would have been two different methods of justification, and consequently two true religions, and two true churches, and believers would not have had that oneness of communion which grace produces. It was necessary, then, that all should become guilty. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given (the knowledge of this justification to their conscience) to them that believe, Galatians 3:22; Romans 11 32.

We shall consider the Mertitorious Cause of Justification; The Efficient Cause of Justification; The Instructmental Cause of the elect knowing their Justification; and lastly, the Final Cause of Justification.
Job 25:4~"How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?"
 
I am not going to get in the middle of this debate with LA. I just want to point something here. You actually agree with the doctrines of original sin. You say that used to be true but it is not true anymore because Jesus change that for all men on the cross. Now all men are born sinless and aren't sinners until they do sin.

However, what does that mean for all the faithful who died before Jesus even came? And it would seem that he would have to die again as each becomes a sinner. Or he only paid for the sin of Adam. Or he died for the sin of Adam, purifying all born after his death and yet not doing so at the same time. He did something that did nothing.
All aspects of the redemption provided by the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ are retroactive back to the very beginning, including Adam and Eve. Thus it didn't used to be true. It was never true. The 18th chapter of Ezekiel says that it was never true. It would have been true for the entire world had it not been for Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
 
Last edited:
Incorrect, this is why you are misinformed. Paul is making a juxtaposition between the Two Adam's here, One Man brings sin, death and condemnation, the other brings Obedience, Justification, and Life to all those who believe. In other words, the first Adam breach God's Covenant of Works with his One Act of Disobedience, and the Last Adam (Christ) fulfills and restores the Covenant of Works with His One Act of Obedience that brings Justification and Life that is freely given to those who believe. Read the entire run of passages from verse 12-21.​
It is you who are misinformed. You begin your distortion with the very first verse in that passage. Verse 12 does not say that one man brings sin, death and destruction. It says that it was by Adam that sin came into the world. It doesn't even say that death came into the world by Adam; rather it was death through sin. And death through sin was and is by God, Himself. It was not something that Adam did or caused. The death through sin is strictly due to the fact that God, because He is holy and righteous, must condemn sin. That existed for all eternity, because God is God. The only reason that death spread to all men is not because of Adam; but instead because of all men. They sinned. God does not hang that millstone around the neck of Adam. That millstone is hung around the neck of each and every one of us.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many are quite willing to blame God for their own failures.
One huge crux of a point you are missing is that Paul is making a contrast between only two people; Adam and Christ. And how we are either in Union with Adam or Christ, there is no third category, neutral place, no space between them. You are either a sinner in Adam or a believer in Christ; either dead or alive; either condemned or Justified.​
The comparison is not between two people. The comparison is between the effects upon all of mankind of the actions of two men, Adam and Christ. You say there is not third category. There is not even a second category. There is only one category and is all men, the whole of mankind. That was true with verse 12 and that remains throughout the passage of 12-21. There is absolutely no rational reason to change the meaning of "all men" or "the many" mid-sentence in verses 15, 18 and 19.

You want to impose the phrases "IN Adam" and "IN Christ" into the text. You do that only because of your distorted soteriology. But those phrases are not in the text. Man's problem is not with Adam; man's problem is with himself.

Trust God, if Adam had not sinned, you would have. You are no better than Adam in that regard. God does not need Adam to bring condemnation upon you. You sinned. You died because you sinned (v.12), not because of anything that Adam did. That you or anyone refuses to accept that is the real tragedy in all of this.

Now for what it is worth, I believe that verses 20 and 21 should really be the first two verses of the next chapter, chapter 6. Verses 12 -19 have not addressed the personal sins of man. That discussion begins with verse 20 of chapter 5 and continues through chapter 8 which describes in detail how the all-sufficiency of grace gives victory over personal sin.
 
Jim, Jesus as the Son of Man, did increase in wisdom, knowledge and faith, yes faith!
I will study your post in more detail and perhaps respond later. However, in the meantime, I would like your input to how your definition of the faith OF Jesus can possibly be aligned with either Hebrews 11:1 or Romans 10:17:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
 
I will study your post in more detail and perhaps respond later. However, in the meantime, I would like your input to how your definition of the faith OF Jesus can possibly be aligned with either Hebrews 11:1 or Romans 10:17:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Yes the faith or plan of Christ's labor of love "Let there be". . . it became the thing his living hope hoped for .

So the creative powerful faith of Christ comes from hearing "Let there be" the law of faith . Christ working in with us. :

It is not of human understanding (faith. . .dead ).He gives us little of His "Let there be faithful power.

Calling us children of little faith previously having no faith power to believe.

Hebrew 11:4 By faith ( Emanuel working with) Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Throughout the Bible every time the word faith as power of God is used it represent Christ yoked with mankind, making the daily burdens lighter with a living hope beyond the grave

Hebrew 11:5-9 By faith (power of God) Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
 
I will study your post in more detail and perhaps respond later. However, in the meantime, I would like your input to how your definition of the faith OF Jesus can possibly be aligned with either Hebrews 11:1 or Romans 10:17:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.


Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Jim, I'll give you this to consider: You must separate the complex natures of Jesus, being fully man, and fully God.

No man ever had faith like Jesus did ... even after God forsook Him on the cross ... He still by faith, confidently committed His spirit to Him. Hallelujah!

Matthew 27:43

Matthew 27:46

Luke 23:46

Hebrews 2:13 cp 11:6

Also, consider:

Romans 3:22~Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

God’s righteousness we desperately need is not by the law but by faith of Jesus Christ.

We trust the King James Bible, so we do not alter this text to read, “faith in Jesus Christ,” which modern translations do to conform the text to their concept of faith and its role.

The faith of Jesus Christ could be our faith in Jesus Christ, as modern Bible versions make it, though this or similar phrases using the preposition of generally do not mean in, though we presume so in Ephesians 3:12.

The faith of Jesus Christ could be the doctrine, gospel, or religion of Jesus Christ, as in James 2:1 and Rev 14:12, though this usage typically requires the definite article the.

The faith of Jesus Christ could be His trust in God that directed His obedience for us.

We choose the interpretation that it is Jesus Christ’s faith and trust in God that guided and motivated His obedience in life and death to legally secure God’s righteousness for us.

If we choose faith in Christ, as modern versions, we create a tautology or redundancy, since our faith is identified again immediately by the word believe. We want to avoid righteousness being by faith to those with faith or by believing to those that believe.

If Paul intended our faith in Jesus Christ, he well knew how to write it, as he did in other places (Gal 3:26; Eph 1:15; Col 1:4; 2:5; Mark 11:22).

We want to preserve the distinction in the text between by (Jesus Christ) and unto and upon (those that believe), for the source of righteousness is different than its objects.

We know it is His faith and obedience that counts legally (3:24; 5:17-19; II Cor 5:18-21; etc.), so we are not taking a position contrary to the testimony of scripture.

This is what we have been taught by those coming before us, which we do not change without overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

We choose this interpretation in Galatians 2:16; 3:22; and Philippians 3:9, which has similar phraseology, for the same reasons as given here.

If the apparent latitude in interpretation of this phrase bothers you, ascribe it to inspired ambiguity, where a phrase can have one or more senses consistent with truth!

Our Lord’s faith, or His confidence and trust in God, is a certain and great fact of the gospel, for He had greater faith His entire life than Abraham or other examples of faith.

Justification is by obedience of One, and He obeyed in life and death (Rom 5:15-19), which obedience could not have pleased God without being founded on great faith.

Jim, please consider: Scripture says by prophecy and fulfillment He trusted God (Ps 16:1; 18:2; Heb 2:13). Our Jesus was more faithful than Moses, who had great faith (Heb 3:1-6; 11:23-29). His prayer in Gethsemane was heard due to His fear and faith (Heb 5:7-8; Mat 21:22). His perfect obedience to the will of God secured our sanctification (Heb 10:7-10). But without faith, He could not have pleased God (Heb 11:6; Matt 23:23; John 8:29). When compared to all the examples of faith from the Old Testament (Heb 11:1-40), Jesus is clearly the superior example of faith we should aspire to follow (Heb 12:1-2).

Jesus is not the object of justifying knowledge, making it our knowledge; but rather He is the subject of it, for justification is by His knowledge of God’s will (Is 53:11). The knowledge Jesus had was that faith and confidence in God that led Him all His life, took Him through Gethsemane, His horrible trial, and His miserable crucifixion, until He finally committed His spirit to His Father at the moment of death. His enemies testified that He had great faith and trust in God (Ps 16:8; Matt 27:43). How can there be greater faith than giving His soul to God (Lu 23:46 cp Mat 27:46). His perfect fulfillment and obedience to the law required more faith than any man.

More could be added, but enough for now.
 
Last edited:
Red, every one of the verses that you cite claiming "the faith OF Jesus" are simply one more place where the KJV errs. Even John Gill recognizes that even though his thinking about the meaning or result of faith in Jesus is more than a bit off.

Your trust in the translators of the KJV and associated mistrust in just about every other English translation is terribly misguided.
 
Okay, sure, whatever you say. Obviously your make believe theology is above Scripture. You Sir are condemned by One Man's Act Of Disobedience. And you can only be saved by One Man's Act Obedience.

So, if you reject this, then you believe that sinners can be saved by their own merits. They do not need Christ to be saved. If Adam's Sin cannot be imputed to you, then your sins cannot be imputed to Christ. So, your sins are not atone for. Big problem, don't you think?​
 
Okay, sure, whatever you say. Obviously your make believe theology is above Scripture. You Sir are condemned by One Man's Act Of Disobedience. And you can only be saved by One Man's Act Obedience.

So, if you reject this, then you believe that sinners can be saved by their own merits. They do not need Christ to be saved. If Adam's Sin cannot be imputed to you, then your sins cannot be imputed to Christ. So, your sins are not atone for. Big problem, don't you think?​
My sins are not imputed to Christ. If they were, then He would not have been the perfect pure sacrifice.
 
My sins are not imputed to Christ. If they were, then He would not have been the perfect pure sacrifice.
Sad
 
Yup, people obviously do not understand what imputes means. It shows his ignorance and rather than doing his homework and learning he placing all his marbles into his conjecture of nonsense.
 
You obviously do not know what imputes means. So, how does Christ Atone for your sins?
He doesn't. He did. Because He is the Son of God. Obviously, you do not know what was required of the sacrificial "Lamb".
 
Yup, people obviously do not understand what imputes means. It shows his ignorance and rather than doing his homework and learning he placing all his marbles in his conjecture of nonsense.
I know full well what impute means. And if one sin of Adam imputed to me condemned me to eternal damnation, what do you the sins of the whole world imputed to Jesus would do? Clearly neither happened. And you call me ignorant?
 
He doesn't. He did. Because He is the Son of God. Obviously, you do not know what was required of the sacrificial "Lamb".
Okay How DID he atone for your sins. I know how he atone for mine. Because he took my sins; bore my sins; my sins were placed on him; my sins were imputed to him; God made him sin; all these are synonymous. And He atone for my sins by His blood.

I know the reason you cannot say this, because it will contradict your position of Adam's sin being imputed to us.
 
Back
Top