Total Depravity

[Arial]

The significance was that it made Jesus the actual, literal, begotten son of God. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the condition of his spirit when he was born. The condition of the any person's spirit when they are born is wholly independent upon the parents. It depends only on God who forms it.

The condition of a person's spirit when they are born is the same as the condition of the spirit of their father. You simply have a warped interpretation of what a spirit is and how we get our spirit. You have articulated it before and it is so weird and unbiblical that it is difficult to pin point. But it seems you think it is something separate from the rest of our existence. Along with the idea that God does not create anyone since Adam and Eve. That our procreation is apart from God but only a natural event and the only thing he has to do with it is to give each of us a spirit. So to you if one says we are born a sinner it means that God gave us a dead spirit. I cannot fathom even where that view comes from. But I do know, as I have said at least twice before, that it is a confusion between "spirit" and "spiritual". You apparently thing they are one and the same thing.

Now understand, that is how I hear what you are saying. If it is not what you are saying--please clarify and be clear in doing so.

The spirit of a person
is not formed. It is an integral part of the person. Persons have a spirit, just as they have a brain, a mind, arms and legs etc.

That being the case, I return to my question: What is the significance of the Savior not having Adam for a father? We know why (or should) God was his Father. But why was it significant that his father was NOT Adam. Think about it through the lens of "As in one man, Adam, all became sinners, so in the one man Jesus, all are made righteous." And do this without returning to the discussion of "all", because I am not dealing with that at the moment. Just keep the facts in mind. All without exception are sinners but not all without exception are in Christ. This is something you do believe as a stand alone statement.

 

[JIM]

Actually, if you are not an elect, hell is where you will end up because the Atonement is limited.

The first of that is of course true. Only the elect will receive the gift of eternal life. However, it is not limited in the sense that you would proclaim. Election is definitely a function of the one God chooses for eternal life. Election is conditional. The concept of unconditional election is derived from Augustinian heresy, straight out of his Gnostic background and transmitted into his wayward theology.

 

[Carbon]

The first of that is of course true. Only the elect will receive the gift of eternal life. However, it is not limited in the sense that you would proclaim. Election is definitely a function of the one God chooses for eternal life. Election is conditional. The concept of unconditional election is derived from Augustinian heresy, straight out of his Gnostic background and transmitted into his wayward theology.

Be careful Jim, you have no authority to teach here. Your words above are your opinion, acknowledge that.

 

[JIM]

The condition of a person's spirit when they are born is the same as the condition of the spirit of their father.

Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him (Zech 12:1).

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6).

Flesh begets flesh and Spirit begets spirit.

Now to your absurd statement. Consider a father who has been regenerated. And consider a child born before the father is regenerated and a child born after the father is regenerated. Are the conditions of those two children different? If not, why. not given what you said there?

 

[JIM]

Be careful Jim, you have no authority to teach here. Your words above are your opinion, acknowledge that.

And yours are no different. You deride me and my beliefs as Pelagian heresy; but then caution me for giving back to you a similar charge. What is with that? You can freely malign me, but the reverse is unacceptable?

And by the way, who has or has not the authority to teach here? As I have said before, once anyone says anything beyond a precise quotation from the Bible, it is only opinion. Even your statement concerning unconditional election is opinion.

 

[Carbon]

And yours are no different. You deride me and my beliefs as Pelagian heresy; but then caution me for giving back to you a similar charge. What is with that? You can freely malign me, but the reverse is unacceptable?

And by the way, who has or has not the authority to teach here? As I have said before, once anyone says anything beyond a precise quotation from the Bible, it is only opinion. Even your statement concerning unconditional election is opinion.

You have me wrong Jim. I let you say your piece. You did, it is now time to consider.
And for the record, you do not teach the orthodox, historical protestant beliefs or doctrines.

 

[JIM]

You have me wrong Jim. I let you say your piece. You did, it is now time to consider.
And for the record, you do not teach the orthodox, historical protestant beliefs or doctrines.

You mean I don't teach Calvinist/Reformed Theology doctrine, and you are correct. You really do not seem very much exposed to non-Calvinist teaching.

 

[Carbon]

You mean I don't teach Calvinist/Reformed Theology doctrine, and you are correct. You really do not seem very much exposed to non-Calvinist teaching.

I have done much study, Jim. I know more about many beliefs than you think. But, who cares.

 

[makesends]

There is nothing in Romans 5:12-14 that speaks even one word about Adam's sin being imputed to his race. Verse 12 says the spiritual death spread to all men because they sin. Nothing there about any imputation.

Verse 13 is telling us that even though the law of Moses had not yet been given, there was indeed law. It says that if there is no law, then there is not sin, but it says that there was sin, therefore there was law.

Verse 14 doesn't say there was no sin like Adam's, which was disobedience to a direct command of God. It says that there was sin which was disobedience against law, not given directly by God. That is why I took you back to chapter 2 showing you that even among the gentiles there was law, even if it was not verbally given by God.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in all of that has anything to do with any heretical teaching about Adam's sin being imputed to mankind.

Don't know if I've missed something, because I don't have the time to read the threads exhaustively, but can you show how Adam's sin imputed, is heretical?

 

[Carbon]

Don't know if I've missed something, because I don't have the time to read the threads exhaustively, but can you show how Adam's sin imputed, is heretical?

Yes, @JIM please do.

 

[makesends]

If you have children, do you punish them for doing something they didn't know was wrong?

I punished them for doing what they should have known was wrong, even if, at the time of their commission of it, their conscience did not bother them!

Example: He takes the lion's share of the fruit, but not of the Lima beans. I punish him for his selfishness so he will understand.

He eats with his mouth open, noisy and sloppy. If he stops but then returns to the habit, I make him eat under the table "with the pigs" so he will understand a little better what's going on.

 

[JIM]

I punished them for doing what they should have known was wrong, even if, at the time of their commission of it, their conscience did not bother them!

Example: He takes the lion's share of the fruit, but not of the Lima beans. I punish him for his selfishness so he will understand.

He eats with his mouth open, noisy and sloppy. If he stops but then returns to the habit, I make him eat under the table "with the pigs" so he will understand a little better what's going on.

It seems that you punish rather than teach. Or maybe you think punishing is teaching.

Maybe you should have taught him what it means to share. Maybe you should have taught him what selfishness is. Maybe you should have taught him not to eat with his mouth open, noisy and sloppy. If you hadn't told them any of that was wrong, then punishing instead of teaching them was without question really bad.

 

[JIM]

Don't know if I've missed something, because I don't have the time to read the threads exhaustively, but can you show how Adam's sin imputed, is heretical?

Read Ezekiel 18. I lays out pretty clearly that God does not impute the sins of one to another, not the faither's and not Adam's. in light of that it is heretical.

 

[JIM]

So now I will leave you all with whatever thoughts you might have about me. Good day to you.

 

[makesends]

You should answer that question of yourself. Why do you sin? Is there some independent feature of your own being that forces you to sin?

I thought I rather obviously was not talking about each independent feature of any particular person's being that forces them to sin, but, the common inherited sinfulness in which we are all naturally born. You continue to obfuscate by kicking the can of causation on down the road. I've had enough of it. Answer HOW it is possible that ALL HAVE SINNED, if they are born innocent, but Jesus only. But, you can't.

I don't claim anyone is forced to sin. That is your extrapolation of what you see the Reformed claiming. It's a strawman.

Again, complete nonsense. I am the only one here, apparently, that believes in the free-will choice to sin or not.

No. You are among several, here, though, granted they are a minority here, that believe in the sort of free-will notion you believe in. Many of us, including myself and @Eleanor use the term to designate that WE DO CHOOSE, and that our choices are real. But all fact is SURE, by God's establishing it. That does not rule out real choice, but uses it.

BTW, Jim, the tone there needs to change.

Your only sin imputed to you is your own personal sin. There is no other charged against you.

Assertion. Proof?

You are not remembering correctly. I have never made such a statement. I don't believe it. We don't sin because we are sinners; rather we were sinners because we had sinned and had not yet been forgiven. Once forgiven and once having been given the gift of the Holy Spirit wer are no longer considered to be sinners in God's eyes, rather we are saints.

You are presenting backwards, what I thought you had said. Read it again.

And most of that as you present it is pure poppycock.

Tone it down, man. The disrespect is not useful here. It certainly doesn't encourage honest debate.

What is basic to the Gospel is a belief in God and in the need to be redeemed from our own personal sins. God does not hold us responsible for anyone else's sins.

Did God not have Godless nations' little babies violently killed for that nation's idolatry? Was Israel, young and old, including newborn babies, not punished for their sins? "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Maybe this will momentarily help you think past your mental block: The Body of Christ is not just individual members, and the Body of Christ is our final destiny. We are not MORE than that --though, I agree and insist, that there are many more things we are, in Heaven, in Him, they all concern being the Body of Christ. We are not of ourselves, individual and independent.

 

[makesends]

Read Ezekiel 18. I lays out pretty clearly that God does not impute the sins of one to another, not the faither's and not Adam's. in light of that it is heretical.

I expect you do know that Ezekiel 18 follows a very opposite earlier edict, no? The entire book and, indeed, the whole of Scripture, must be brought to bear. It is eisegesis that selects proof-texts to support one's personal notions of self-deterministic principles. You need a lot more than Ezekiel 18 to prove your thesis that one individual has no responsibility concerning God's holiness being spurned by the group.

 

[makesends]

It seems that you punish rather than teach. Or maybe you think punishing is teaching.

Maybe you should have taught him what it means to share. Maybe you should have taught him what selfishness is. Maybe you should have taught him not to eat with his mouth open, noisy and sloppy. If you hadn't told them any of that was wrong, then punishing instead of teaching them was without question really bad.

You missed the point of what I was saying, in answer to your claim, along the lines that God does not hold anyone responsible for what they do not realize that what they are doing is wrong... We aren't describing my punishments or method of teaching right from wrong.

That's called shifting the goalposts, or red herring

 

[Eleanor]

You should answer that question of yourself. Why do you sin? Is there some independent feature of your own being that forces you to sin?

Again, complete nonsense. I am the only one here, apparently, that believes in the free-will choice to sin or not.

Your only sin imputed to you is your own personal sin. There is no other charged against you.

See Ro 5:17, 18, 19?

 

[Eleanor]

Read Ezekiel 18. I lays out pretty clearly that God does not impute the sins of one to another, not the faither's and not Adam's. in light of that it is heretical.

No, it says that one does not "inherit" their father's sin.

Imputation is not inheritance.

 

[Eleanor]

You should answer that question of yourself. Why do you sin? Is there some independent feature of your own being that forces you to sin?

Again, complete nonsense. I am the only one here, apparently, that believes in the free-will choice to sin or not.

That's not the way Jesus puts it. . .he says we are slaves to sin (Jn 8:34). . .slaves are not free.

Your only sin imputed to you is your own personal sin. There is no other charged against you.

Ro 5:17, 18, 19?. . .the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).