The Heart of the Gospel- The Resurrection

[Eleanor]

Now, now. Why must believers always resort to the strong arm tactic of 'your view is heresy' instead of just talking and recognizing that there are legitimate differences of opinion among believers. If I recall there's a relatively recent book that provides five different views on this topic by top Christian NT scholars.

Augustine's Romans 5.12 main basis for original sin doctrine was relying on a mistranslation. This has been corrected in most modern Bibles:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

Contraire. . .

1) Poor scholarship - Ro 5:12 is not presenting sinful nature inherited.
It is presenting imputed sin of Adam. Not the same thing.
Adam's imputed sin is the pattern (Ro 5:14) of the imputed righteousness with which it is contrastingly paralleled in Ro 5:18-19.

2) Guess ole' Paul also had a poor transaltion of Ro 5:12, because his whole argument of Ro 5:12-14 rests on "because all sinned."

To me (and you may disagree, that's fine), I find the arguments convincing by those evangelical OT scholars who argue Adam & Eve were created mortal prior to the Fall ("out of dust"; which is why "to dust you will return"). They were created mortal and had to remain in God's presence in the garden of Eden where the Tree of Life was to remain living. Their disobedience and wanting to depend on themselves instead of on God resulted in expulsion from God's life sustaining presence and cherubim so they could not return to the Tree of Life. Thus, they were left to their own mortality (they were created with) without God's life sustaining presence.

By this view there's nothing intrinsically sinful about the mortal, physical body (which flirts with docetism and Gnostic dualism heresy anyway).

My understanding is that Christ's atonement is what takes away our sin (sin can't be in God's presence, so when someone dies how could they be in God's presence if they had to wait for a resurrection body to eliminate sin? Plus, there is still sin of the mind, sinful thoughts and such apart from the body).

My understanding is that sin is taken care of by the cross, but the "last enemy" as Paul tells us in 1 Cor 15 is "death"; mortality, which is then defeated by an immortal resurrection body.

Those who rise from the dead on the last judgment have their sins not already been atoned for? Were they atoned for so their spirit goes to heaven but then on resurrection day God puts them back into a "sinful body"?

Thats why (one of many reasons) why I see 1 Cor 15 as talking about the mortal physical body vs the immortal with no harmatology sin overtones, which according to 1 Cor 15.3-5 Christ already died for ("Christ died for our sins...").

I know you will disagree, and that's okay. There are top notch scholars on both sides of this who also disagree.

 

[TB2]

1) Poor scholarship - Ro 5:12 is not presenting sinful nature inherited.

Says you to Dr Douglas Moo, one of the world's leading authorities on the book of Romans (poor scholar he is not). Funny how the word "inherited" is not actually in the verse but "because all sinned" is. And by "inheritance" (the puppy thing you mentioned in your previous comment) do you mean Mendelian genetic inheritance? Just wondering how that works and where in our genes sin is located.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

Adam's imputed sin is the pattern (Ro 5:14) of the imputed righteousness with which it is contrastingly paralleled in Ro 5:18-19

-"Death reigned....even over those who did not sin" as that was the condemnation for disobedience in the garden. Humanity left to its mortality

-"Consequently just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people." Yes, kicked out of the garden of Eden and from God's life-sustaining presence and divine wisdom for right-and-wrong, and we were left to our own mortality and own "wisdom" on right/wrong.

-Paul maintains tight contrasts. "Through the disobedience of one man.... the many were made sinners" [and what's with that "many" instead of "all"?] does not mean "through" "biological genetic inheritance (just as a dog is born a dog)," because that would mean "through the obedience of one man the many will be made righteous" means righteousness is "biologically inherited/genetically transmitted" through Jesus.

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 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.

2) Guess ole' Paul also had a poor transaltion of Ro 5:12,

Umm, no, Paul wrote the letter

 

[EarlyActs]

Says you to Dr Douglas Moo, one of the world's leading authorities on the book of Romans (poor scholar he is not). Funny how the word "inherited" is not actually in the verse but "because all sinned" is. And by "inheritance" (the puppy thing you mentioned in your previous comment) do you mean Mendelian genetic inheritance? Just wondering how that works and where in our genes sin is located.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned


-"Death reigned....even over those who did not sin" as that was the condemnation for disobedience in the garden. Humanity left to its mortality

-"Consequently just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people." Yes, kicked out of the garden of Eden and from God's life-sustaining presence and divine wisdom for right-and-wrong, and we were left to our own mortality and own "wisdom" on right/wrong.

-Paul maintains tight contrasts. "Through the disobedience of one man.... the many were made sinners" [and what's with that "many" instead of "all"?] does not mean "through" "biological genetic inheritance (just as a dog is born a dog)," because that would mean "through the obedience of one man the many will be made righteous" means righteousness is "biologically inherited/genetically transmitted" through Jesus.

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 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.

Umm, no, Paul wrote the letter

The question of the imputation of sin is nothing about biological or genetic. Even when a term like 'made righteous' is used Paul can be talking about the debt of sin being paid off.

This is where the distinction between debt and doing or stain of sin is very important and operate very differently. As different as past and present.

Justification is about debt being cleared through the historic event of Christ.
Transformation is about what we do now, with the Spirit's help, about sinning.

Because we move through time, we never outgrow justification; we need it daily like Israel needed manna daily, and could not store it.

Most of Romans 1-5 is about the debt. 2 Cor 5 is about debt. Gal 3 is about debt. The term might not be there, but that is what justification deals with. 'God calls things that are not as though they were' in Christ, in those who have faith in him. Rom 4.

 

[TB2]

The question of the imputation of sin is nothing about biological or genetic. Even when a term like 'made righteous' is used Paul can be talking about the debt of sin being paid off.

This is where the distinction between debt and doing or stain of sin is very important and operate very differently. As different as past and present.

Justification is about debt being cleared through the historic event of Christ.
Transformation is about what we do now, with the Spirit's help, about sinning.

Because we move through time, we never outgrow justification; we need it daily like Israel needed manna daily, and could not store it.

Most of Romans 1-5 is about the debt. 2 Cor 5 is about debt. Gal 3 is about debt. The term might not be there, but that is what justification deals with. 'God calls things that are not as though they were' in Christ, in those who have faith in him. Rom 4.

I think we're in agreement. And of course we're talking about legal metaphors for spiritual transformations. But that's also why I see Adam similarly. These are spiritual matters. Biological inheritance/genetic transmission takes it too far and is anachronistic (and is docetism and gnostic dualism).

 

[Eleanor]

Says you to Dr Douglas Moo, one of the world's leading authorities on the book of Romans (poor scholar he is not). Funny how the word "inherited" is not actually in the verse but "because all sinned" is.[/B]

"Precisely, because Ro 5:12 is not presenting inherited sinful nature.

And no more funny than your failure to assimilate my post #101 and, therefore, assume Paul is presenting inheritance of sinful human nature in Ro 5:12.
We do inherit our sinful nature, but that is not the burden of Ro 5:12-14.
(Don't confuse scholarship with enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.)

And by "inheritance" (the puppy thing you mentioned in your previous comment) do you mean Mendelian genetic inheritance? Just wondering how that works and where in our genes sin is located.

The same place our nature is located.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

That is precisely the conundrum Paul is resolving; they were guilty of sin, when sin was not taken into account:

a) death is the result of sin (Ro 6:23), and sin was not taken into account where there is no law (Ro 5:13),
b) yet they all died when they were not guilty of (not charged with) sin,

-"Consequently just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people."

"Resulted" = indirect causation by Adam.

Sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20). We do not die because of Adam's inherited sin.
We die because we are mortal.

Yes, kicked out of the garden of Eden and from God's life-sustaining presence and divine wisdom for right-and-wrong, and we were left to our own mortality and own "wisdom" on right/wrong.

-Paul maintains tight contrasts.

Paul is no longer treating of the issue of Ro 5:12-14, he is now applying its conclusion.

"Through the disobedience of one man.... the many were made sinners" [and what's with that "many" instead of "all"?

Will be addressed below.

does not mean "through" "biological genetic inheritance (just as a dog is born a dog)," because that would mean "through the obedience of one man the many will be made righteous" means righteousness is "biologically inherited/genetically transmitted" through Jesus.
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Pattern of what?

Of what could the sinful Adam possibly be a pattern for the righteous Christ?

15 But the gift is not like the trespass.

And now Paul applies the conclusion of his demonstration in Ro 5:12-14, keeping in mind that sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20).

For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

"And the rest of the story:"

Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men,
so also the result of one act of righteousness was the justification that brings life for all men." (Ro 5:18)

How do we receive the righteousness of justification? That is likewise how we receive the condemnation of guilt.

Just as through the disobedience of the one man the many (all those born of Adam) were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many (all those born of Christ) will be made righteous. (Ro 5:19)

How are we made righteous? That is likewise how we are made sinners.

We are made righteous by imputation (Ro 4:1-11), and we are made guilty by imputation (Ro 5:12-14), niether by inheritance.
We do not inherit Adam's sin (Eze 18:20), Adam's sin is imputed to us just as righteousness is imputed to us (Ro 4:1-11) through faith.

And the imputation of Adam's sin is in addition to inheriting our sinful nature and committing our own sin.

In summary:
we inherit our sinful nature,
Adam's sin/guilt is imputed to us, just as righteousness is imputed to us,
we merit the guilt of our own sin.

 

[Eleanor]

The question of the imputation of sin is nothing about biological or genetic. Even when a term like 'made righteous' is used Paul can be talking about the debt of sin being paid off.

That is precisely what it means everywhere he is not referring to sanctification.

This is where the distinction between debt and doing or stain of sin is very important and operate very differently. As different as past and present.

Justification is about debt being cleared through the historic event of Christ.
Transformation is about what we do now, with the Spirit's help, about sinning. [/quote]
Transformation is sanctification, where our sin is fogiven through confessing (agreeing with God about our sin).

Because we move through time, we never outgrow justification; we need it daily like Israel needed manna daily, and could not store it.

Our sin debt is once and for all cleared for all time.

Most of Romans 1-5 is about the debt. 2 Cor 5 is about debt. Gal 3 is about debt. The term might not be there, but that is what justification deals with. 'God calls things that are not as though they were' in Christ, in those who have faith in him. Rom 4.

Sin debt = condemnation.

The debt has been paid. There is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

 

[TB2]

In summary:
we inherit our sinful nature,

And how precisely do we "inherit our sinful nature"?

 

[Eleanor]

And how precisely do we "inherit our sinful nature"?

It's a matter of disposition. We are born with it.

Just as dogs are born with a disposition for meat and not for vinegar,
so we are born with a disposition that prefers self over God, our will over God's will, which is the nature of sin.

 

[TB2]

It's a matter of disposition. We are born with it.

Just as dogs are born with a disposition for meat and not for vinegar,
so we are born with a disposition that prefers self over God, our will over God's will, which is the nature of sin.

Dogs' hardwired behavioral instincts are genetically based. Are you saying the same for the human sin nature?

 

[Eleanor]

Dogs' hardwired behavioral instincts are genetically based. Are you saying the same for the human sin nature?

I'm saying what the NT presents. We are born with a sinful nature; i.e.,
"we are by nature objects of wrath". (Eph 2:3) . .we are born with our nature.
"gratifying the cravings of our flesh (sinful nature) and following its desires and thoughts" (Eph 2:3). . .we are sinful by nature.

 

[TB2]

I'm saying what the NT presents. We are born with a sinful nature; i.e.,
"we are by nature objects of wrath". (Eph 2:3) . .we are born with our nature.
"gratifying the cravings of our flesh (sinful nature) and following its desires and thoughts" (Eph 2:3). . .we are sinful by nature.

I'm asking you to clarify if this "sin nature" is transmitted genetically

 

[Eleanor]

I'm asking you to clarify if this "sin nature" is transmitted genetically

I have presented what Scripture presents.
I have no authority to go beyond Scripture.

However, Paul was somewhat skimpy on genetics.

 

[TB2]

I have presented what Scripture presents.
I have no authority to go beyond Scripture.

However, Paul was somewhat skimpy on genetics.

So then you disagree with josheb about the "sinful body"?

 

[Eleanor]

So then you disagree with josheb about the "sinful body"?

I haven't been tracking @Josheb.

Paul refers to the sinful nature as "the flesh," which would be the body (wherein the sinful nature resides).

 

[Eleanor]

So then you disagree with josheb about the "sinful body"?

I haven't been tracking @Josheb.

Paul refers to the sinful nature as "the flesh," which would be the body (wherein the sinful nature resides).

However, Paul uses "flesh" (sinful) in contrast to "spiritual" (sinless) when referring to the pre-resurrection and resurrection bodies.

How would you apply that to the bodies?

 

[TB2]

However, Paul uses "flesh" (sinful) in contrast to "spiritual" (sinless) when referring to the pre-resurrection and resurrection bodies.

How would you apply that to the bodies?

That's one place where I think we disagree.

The two uses of flesh in 1 Cor 15 lack moral/sinful overtones.

The contrast is between the mortal non-resurrection body, and immortal resurrection body

 

[Eleanor]

That's one place where I think we disagree.

The two uses of flesh in 1 Cor 15 lack moral/sinful overtones.

Non-responsive to my question regarding Paul's use of flesh (natural) physical bodies and spiritual physical bodies.
That's not how we do hermeneutics among the informed.

One more time. . .

Biblically there are two fleshes pre-resurrection, Jesus and ours. Jesus' is sinless, ours is sinful.
Paul is referring to us in 1 Co 15: 49 51, not to Jesus. Therefore, he is referring to sinful flesh, the only earthly flesh in existence.
Present the Scripture where Paul ever speaks of the flesh apart from its sinfulness (fallen nature).
There is no speaking of pre-resurrection flesh by Paul that does not necessarily include its sinfulness (fallen nature), including his own.
So stop the unbelieving nonsense.

Why is it so important to you to deny the NT apostolic teaching, authoritative to the church, that pre-resurrection flesh is necessarily sinful (fallen nature)?

The contrast is between the mortal non-resurrection body, and immortal resurrection body.

The contrast is between the perishable (due to sin) and the imperishable (1 Co 15:50).
The contrast is between the mortal (due to sin) and the immortal. (1 Co 15:53).
And when is the perishable and mortal not sinful? Never.

Your personal lense keeps you from rightly understanding Paul, as in Ro 5:12-19 and 1 Co 15.

 

[EarlyActs]

Did you all discuss the role of the resurrection as fulfilling what the patriarchs were expecting? This gift of justification, says Paul in Acts 13, and Gal 3, was the good news.

 

[Eleanor]

Did you all discuss the role of the resurrection as fulfilling what the patriarchs were expecting? This gift of justification, says Paul in Acts 13, and Gal 3, was the good news.

Do you mean the resurrection proving that Jesus was who he said he was and that what he said was true?

That "What God promised to their fathers he has fulfilled for us their (NT) children" (Ac 13:32)--who are the one olive tree of God's people going all the way back to Abraham (Ro 11:16-23)--"by raising up Jesus"?

The blessing promised to Israel ("holy and sure blessings promised to David," v.34) are fulfilled in the NT church, those blessings being:
"through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." (Ac 13:39)

And which is the gospel, where justification by faith (Ro 3:28)--a declaration by God of "not guilty," a sentence of acquittal, a legal finding of right(eous) standing with the Court; i.e., penalty paid, time served, no debt owing, forensic righteousness--is the result of the remission of one's sin by faith in the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ, which remission is salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9) on sin.

 

[TB2]

The contrast is between the perishable (due to sin) and the imperishable (1 Co 15:50).

Let's take one error at a time, starting with this one: perishable does *not* mean sinful (as I'm sure you know), and your "perishable (due to sin)" is *your* interpretation. An interpretation that is *not* supported by the text.

53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

Paul's contrast between the 'natural' non-resurrection body, and 'spiritual' resurrection body, is clearly between a perishable body (=as in mortal) vs an imperishable body (=as in immortal).

Your argument seems to be that the non-resurrection/natural body is perishable (mortal) "due to sin." Yet, this contradicts what Paul, himself, says earlier in the text:

"If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.

Paul is quoting Genesis 2.7

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground [natural man] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being [spiritual man].

The spiritual man is spiritual because God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." The natural man is natural because God formed him "from the dust of the ground." The natural man is perishable (mortal) because God created him "from the dust of the ground" ("from dust you came and to dust you will return").

God created both the natural man ("from the dust") and the spiritual man (that "became a living being") BEFORE the Fall.