To you it has been given to know...

[Eleanor]

No, I see "Adam 'brought" death into the world"... I do Not see.. through God's imputation of his sin to all mankind. I see that as an Addition.

Okay. . .but the teaching of Ro 5:17 is that Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind (Ro 5:12-16, 18-19).

The teaching of Ro 5:14 is that
1) it was the imputed sin of Adam which caused the deaths of mankind between Adam and Moses when there as no law to trangress and, therefore, cause their deaths, and
2) that imputed sin of Adam to those of Adam is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteosness of Christ to those of Christ.

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to (not "of".. "To".. to what?) all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of LIFE to all men."

In context of the rest of the NT, "all men" here means "both Jew and Gentile," and not "all Jews and Gentiles."

I would argue it's "condemnation TO death"... a death sentence.

It's condemnation to both spiritual death and physical death.

It may seem splitting hairs, but.. it has a pretty weighty theological/doctrinal implication depending on specificity here.

Yes, it does.

 

[XrzrX]

Okay. . .but the teaching of Ro 5:17 is that Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind (Ro 5:12-16, 18-19).

The teaching of Ro 5:14 is that
1) it was the imputed sin of Adam which caused the deaths of mankind between Adam and Moses when there as no law to trangress and, therefore, cause their deaths, and
2) that imputed sin of Adam to those of Adam is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteosness of Christ to those of Christ.

In context of the rest of the NT, "all men" here means "both Jew and Gentile," and not "all Jews and Gentiles."

It's condemnation to both spiritual death and physical death.

Yes, it does.

Yeah, many variables here. I'm aware this is "a" teaching.. I was raised on it.. but, frankly I'm not currently convinced. I believe the 'death' God spoke of was indeed physical death, in that day.. not "spiritual death". The "second death" cites rejection of the Son, the unforgivable sin. Sodom and Gomorrah show the death penalty for sin.. Adam and Eve were spared, and covered by God for their sin. The first shadow of Christ.

 

[Carbon]

Is it Synergism for the Seed to germinate in a Regenerate Soil? If not, then the Power is in the Seed; no matter the Soil...

If I understand you correctly, I totally disagree.
I'm not sure how you understand regeneration. Here is how I understand it: God regenerates and gives life to a dead soul (New birth, born again). There is no germination in the process. There is either life, or there isn't.

If you would, please explain your understanding. I dont want to assume. Thanks

 

[Eleanor]

Yeah, many variables here. I'm aware this is "a" teaching.. I was raised on it.. but, frankly I'm not currently convinced.

Well, I'm not sure how one thinks that Paul got it wrong in Ro 5:12-19.

I believe the 'death' God spoke of was indeed physical death, in that day.. not "spiritual death".

Yes, Ro 5:12-19 is about physical death, and
the imputed sin of Adam causing our spiritual condemnation as the imputed righteosness of Christ causes our spiritual righteousness.

The "second death" cites rejection of the Son,

I don't see "second death" in Ro 5:12-19.

the unforgivable sin. Sodom and Gomorrah show the death penalty for sin.. Adam and Eve were spared, and covered by God for their sin. The first shadow of Christ.

 

[Carbon]

Yeah, many variables here. I'm aware this is "a" teaching.. I was raised on it.. but, frankly I'm not currently convinced. I believe the 'death' God spoke of was indeed physical death, in that day.. not "spiritual death". The "second death" cites rejection of the Son, the unforgivable sin. Sodom and Gomorrah show the death penalty for sin.. Adam and Eve were spared, and covered by God for their sin. The first shadow of Christ.

Do you not believe in original sin?

 

[Eleanor]

Do you not believe in original sin?

Ah do. . .it is the imputed sin of Adam to all mankind (Ro 5:17, 12-16, 18-19).

 

[Josheb]

The inquiry is to explain what appears to be a massive contradiction in your doctrine. Thus far, no explanation that doesn't add even yet more contradiction.

"my doctrine"?


Tell me what is my doctrine, O Mr. Mindreader? When you get done answering that question, tell me about the contradiction.

 

[Arial]

"of course they chose rebellion.." See, this is why it's so difficult to debate with you guys. What kind of "choice" are you talking about?

I am not talking about a choice when it comes to salvation. There is no choice. One either believes or they don't believe. It is you who are bringing choice into the matter by likening salvation to the choices given in the Old Covenant of whether to obey or disobey the law. They are not the same thing.

Salvation is by grace, not law. Tell me your interpretation of Eph 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing: it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Don't leave out any of the words or ideas. The minute you add the idea that man chooses to believe and is saved to that, you have removed grace, gift, and God's workmanship. Just a heads up.

 

[Arial]

You yourself said the "nature" is not life and death.. it's in Adam or Christ, but you prove it by this statement. Adam is death, Christ is Life. The flesh dies.. yet we are Already seated with Christ, eternal. Our nature is Life. A position and a reality.

I did NOT say that "nature" is in Adam or Christ. Our nature is in the nature of our father Adam. Our position as believers is in Christ. That WILL change our nature, but it has not changed our nature YET. Positionally we remain counted as righteous via the imputed righteousness of Christ, until Christ returns and we are changed.

Do you still sin? Surely you will not say "no". So why do you still sin if you are in Christ? Why did Paul even do so (Romans 7: 15-25). Ever here the parable of the scorpion and the frog? There is your answer. If you haven't heard it, ask and I will give it, or you can "Google" it.

 

[Arial]

I said simple, not reductive. Man is the chicken.. the conscience is the seed, and that is a gift. It's funny, the 'tactic'.. you guys vacillate between reductives for things that are nuanced, and 5K page philosophical thesis' for things that are pretty black and white. I mean, it's red flag stuff.. and I wish you'd see it.

I don't have the enthusiasim to reply to that at the moment. So I will just note that the above is a tactic used to deflect and divert, and it is an ad hominem fallacy. It focuses on discrediting the individual or group rather than engaging the the substance of the argument. It is also argumentative and intended to make the exchanges personal rather than substantive.

 

[XrzrX]

Do you not believe in original sin?

I do believe in 'original sin', that brought sin and death into the world.. and for most of my life the same definition as you. But frankly, thanks to Calvinism I've come to reevaluate the doctrine, and I find it wanting. Scripture states we are saved from our own sin, not Adam's sin.

 

[XrzrX]

"my doctrine"?


Tell me what is my doctrine, O Mr. Mindreader? When you get done answering that question, tell me about the contradiction.

Calvinist doctrine, which I will grant.. is pretty inconsistent so yes, misnomer to call it 'yours'. The contradiction is clear. Blind people don't need truth obscured for them, it's redundant.. and idea it's a "mercy" against further 'accountability' is frankly ridiculous.. in fact, twisted and perverse.

 

[XrzrX]

I am not talking about a choice when it comes to salvation. There is no choice. One either believes or they don't believe. It is you who are bringing choice into the matter by likening salvation to the choices given in the Old Covenant of whether to obey or disobey the law. They are not the same thing.

Salvation is by grace, not law. Tell me your interpretation of Eph 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing: it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Don't leave out any of the words or ideas. The minute you add the idea that man chooses to believe and is saved to that, you have removed grace, gift, and God's workmanship. Just a heads up.

So man can choose to wield the sword, but not to lay it down?

 

[Arial]

I am saying that...

The Trodden Soil has no power of it's own...

The Good Soil has no Power of it's own; if it did, that's Synergism. The Gospel is the Power of God unto Salvation...

I say it is God who prepares the soil, making it good, and he plants the seed, it grows and bears fruit. A parable is a principle and it only goes so far. The fact that the seed grows and produces fruit does not mean that the seed is growing and producing on its own. When the word lands on the good soil (the regenerated heart) it takes root.

Interesting, if it is God who prepares the good soil, that would imply that it needed to be prepared in order to be good soil. Otherwise it was not good soil like all the rest. Of course, the parable does not say that, but given the full counsel of God that we have, is it safe to make the implication? It it is then we have a clear case of we are all in the same boat, and the kingdom of heaven belongs to those God chooses to give to Christ.

 

[Arial]

So man can choose to wield the sword, but not to lay it down?

??? Is that your answer to what the Eph 2 passage means? That makes no sense.

 

[XrzrX]

I did NOT say that "nature" is in Adam or Christ. Our nature is in the nature of our father Adam. Our position as believers is in Christ. That WILL change our nature, but it has not changed our nature YET. Positionally we remain counted as righteous via the imputed righteousness of Christ, until Christ returns and we are changed.

Do you still sin? Surely you will not say "no". So why do you still sin if you are in Christ? Why did Paul even do so (Romans 7: 15-25). Ever here the parable of the scorpion and the frog? There is your answer. If you haven't heard it, ask and I will give it, or you can "Google" it.

You're conflating "nature" with "behavior", that is a colloquial definition.. not a theological one. Our nature is "what we are".. not what we do. God has 2 natures, God and Man.. our nature will only ever be man, even glorified. So, it's not 'corruptible flesh' that was our nature, it was, and is just a tent. Our new nature is What we are in Christ, a New Creation.. One Spirit with God, which is NOW.. not later.

 

[XrzrX]

??? Is that your answer to what the Eph 2 passage means? That makes no sense.

You say a man can choose to rebel.. wield the sword, but not believe, lay down the sword.

 

[Arial]

You say a man can choose to rebel.. wield the sword, but not believe, lay down the sword.

You are still conflating the two things. Law and Gospel. Does Scripture ever say "Choose you this day to believe in Christ and you will be saved?"

Can I expect your interpretation of Eph 2 that I quoted to be forthcoming?

 

[XrzrX]

You are still conflating the two things. Law and Gospel. Does Scripture ever say "Choose you this day to believe in Christ and you will be saved?"

Can I expect your interpretation of Eph 2 that I quoted to be forthcoming?

You're deflecting, the issue in question is not the 'subject' it's ability.. and it's "Total Inability" remember. The rebellion is defiance of the Obedience of Faith, tantamount to the unforgivable sin. "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding men that everyone everywhere should repent.." Acts 17:30. Yes.. it's a command. Repent of unbelief.. the unforgivable sin.

 

[Arial]

You're conflating "nature" with "behavior", that is a colloquial definition.. not a theological one.

Nature is nature. It does not have to have a theological definition.

Our nature is "what we are".. not what we do.

ANd that is how I am using it. What are we? Sinners. Why do we sin? Because it is our nature to sin. Why is it our nature to sin? Because our father Adam became a sinner and we are like our father. (Basic biology).

God has 2 natures, God and Man.

JESUS the Son, has two natures: God and man. The Father does not have two natures. The Holy Spirit does not have two natures.

our nature will only ever be man, even glorified. So, it's not 'corruptible flesh' that was our nature, it was, and is just a tent. Our new nature is What we are in Christ, a New Creation.. One Spirit with God, which is NOW.. not later.

Man was created very good. Not corrupt, but corruptible. Mortal---ABLE to die, but would not die with access to the tree of life. Through Adam we became doomed to death and corrupted. At the resurrection of the dead in Christ, or if we remain alive when Christ returns, we will still be us as the individuals that we are, but we will be changed to immortal and uncorruptible. (1 Cor 15). Obviously that is not now. Positionally and legally we are justified through faith in Christ, our sins having been canceled---Jesus paid the debt.