Faulty theology pt 2

[JonC]

I have to say. I have read all of your posts. I have read them multiple times. Like this one here They are very difficult to understand. Either they are not as clear as you think they are or you are being intentionally ambiguous.

What in the world does that even mean " and not spiritual"?

Hey Rev.

It is my articulation coupled with the fact that I am working through something @Reformed commented on another thread that is the issue, I'm sure.

By "and not spiritual" I mean that I believe the dichotomy presented in 1 Corinthians 15 (the First Adam being made a living soul, the Last Adam a life giving spirit, the natural is first and not the spiritual) applies to how we view Adam and the Fall.

I do not believe that Adam possessed what I refer to as spiritual life (the life of a born-again believer).

I believe that Adam was created natural as a "living spirit" but not "spiritual" in terms of 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hey Rev.

It is my articulation coupled with the fact that I am working through something @Reformed commented on another thread.

By "and not spiritual" I mean that I believe the dichotomy presented in 1 Corinthians 15 (the First Adam being made a living soul, the Last Adam a life giving spirit, the natural is first and not the spiritual) applies to how we view Adam and the Fall.

I do not believe that Adam possessed what I refer to as spiritual life (the life of a born-again believer).

I believe that Adam was created natural as a "living spirit" but not "spiritual" in terms of 1 Corinthians 15.

Please define "spiritual life"

 

[JonC]

Please define "spiritual life"

I define “spiritual life” that life in Jesus Christ (Romans 8:2) as the Spirit of God dwelling in us, that is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9).

 

[Revmitchell]

I define “spiritual life” that life in Jesus Christ (Romans 8:2) as the Spirit of God dwelling in us, that is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9).

That is incorrect and why your theology is do skewed. Those verses show the result of spiritual life not define it. Being spiritually alive is simply being in a right relationship with God (see my previous scripture on this) Adam being in a right relationship with God had spiritual life. Adam was not indwelt with the HG is correct on your part.

Jesus made it clear that the HG would not come till He left.

 

[JonC]

That is incorrect and why your theology is do skewed. Those verses show the result of spiritual life not define it. Being spiritually alive is simply being in a right relationship with God (see my previous scripture on this) Adam being in a right relationship with God had spiritual life. Adam was not indwelt with the HG is correct on your part.

Jesus made it clear that the HG would not come till He left.

Then my theology is spot on and we (ultimately) agree on the issue but disagree in definitions.

I already said sin severed that relationship with God.

Why do you think Paul made that dichotomy between Adam being "natural", a "living soul" and Christ a life giving Spirit if this life is merely relational?

Why emphasize the "natural" first and then the "spiritual" if the "spiritual" is relational rather than ontological?

Do you not believe the Spirit actually revealed to Peter that Jesus was God?

 

[Revmitchell]

Then my theology is spot on and we (ultimately) agree on the issue but disagree in definitions.

I already said sin severed that relationship with God.

Why do you think Paul made that dichotomy between Adam being "natural", a "living soul" and Christ a life giving Spirit if this life is merely relational?

Why emphasize the "natural" first and then the "spiritual" if the "spiritual" is relational rather than ontological?

Do you not believe the Spirit actually revealed to Peter that Jesus was God?

Sure but that doesnt make him indwelt. We do not agree on Adam having a right relationship with God which makes one spiritually alive.

 

[JonC]

Sure but that doesnt make him indwelt. We do not agree on Adam having a right relationship with God which makes one spiritually alive.

This is interesting (the differences in definitions). I think I initially took offense at the claim my theology was skewed when in fact we believe the same thing in regard to sin obstructing a relationship with God.

So to clarify:

You present spiritual life as having a relationship with God and spiritual death as not having a relationship with God.

This (by logical conclusion) means you reject the idea of Adam having a "fallen nature" because what changed was not Adam's nature but Adam's relationship with God due to Adam's transgression.

Is that a fair assessment?

 

[MB]

Sure but that doesnt make him indwelt. We do not agree on Adam having a right relationship with God which makes one spiritually alive.

If being spiritually alive means we have been saved and Adam was spiritually alive then we had no need for Christ to die for our sins. So why did Christ have to die?
MB

 

[Revmitchell]

This is interesting (the differences in definitions). I think I initially took offense at the claim my theology was skewed when in fact we believe the same thing in regard to sin obstructing a relationship with God.

So to clarify:

You present spiritual life as having a relationship with God and spiritual death as not having a relationship with God.

This (by logical conclusion) means you reject the idea of Adam having a "fallen nature" because what changed was not Adam's nature but Adam's relationship with God due to Adam's transgression.

Is that a fair assessment?

No one does not lead to the other. Not sure how you reached that conclusion. Further we do not agree as I hold to the orthodox position that Adam was spiritually alive prefall

 

[JonC]

No one does not lead to the other. Not sure how you reached that conclusion. Further we do not agree as I hold to the orthodox position that Adam was spiritually alive prefall

You are wrong for one simple reason -

Using your definition I also believe Adam had "spiritual life" as I have repeatedly stated that sin severed that relationship.

I am, of course, aware that both sides of the "fallen nature" and "sin in and with Adam" are orthodox positions. I never suggested your view was heresy or unorthodox.

Any fool (even me) knows both of our views are within orthodox Christianity. If you thought I was suggesting otherwise, my apologies. I ain't that stupid.

I reached that conclusion because you defined spiritual life not as the Spirit of God in Adam but Adam's relationship itself with God. If you are now saying "spiritual life" is not a relationship with God but was Adam's nature you need to give some heads up before changing definitions. Your theology may be skewed if you just shove bits and prices of views together as interchangeable reeds in the wind.


I believe that pre-fall Adam was in a relationship with God (fellowship and communion) and this relationship was severed by Adam's disobedience (Adam's transgression). You say your view is very different from this.

How?

 

[Revmitchell]

You are wrong for one simple reason -

Using your definition I also believe Adam had "spiritual life" as I have repeatedly stated that sin severed that relationship.

I am, of course, aware that both sides of the "fallen nature" and "sin in and with Adam" are orthodox positions. I never suggested your view was heresy or unorthodox.

Any fool (even me) knows both of our views are within orthodox Christianity. If you thought I was suggesting otherwise, my apologies. I ain't that stupid.

I reached that conclusion because you defined spiritual life not as the Spirit of God in Adam but Adam's relationship itself with God. If you are now saying "spiritual life" is not a relationship with God but was Adam's nature you need to give some heads up before changing definitions. Your theology may be skewed if you just shove bits and prices of views together as interchangeable reeds in the wind.

Again with the ambiguity

 

[JonC]

Again with the ambiguity

@Revmitchell ,

You are being ambiguous with the ambiguity .

I am trying to follow you, especially since you seem to be going at great lengths to create a large separation between our views. But I am having problems following your line of reasoning.

Here is what I believe:

I believe that Adam was created with a human nature and a human soul/ spirit (I am not ready to say for certain this is two or three aspects as @Reformed and @davidtaylorjr have offered food for thought that I'm still pondering).

I believe that God created Adam out of earth, planted a Garden, and put Adam in that Garden. I believe there was fellowship and communion between God and Adam (between God and man).

And then Adam disobeyed God and sinned.

Sin became a barrier by changing this relationship between God and man (sin severed this relationship).

Scripture (which is not beyond orthodox Christianity) teaches that Adam disobeyed God and Adam's "eyes were opened" and he "became like God knowing good and evil"and because of this sin (so that Adam would not eat of the Tree of Life) Adam was kicked out of the Garden. (That's my belief in a nutshell)

I do not see how that is ambiguity.

My view is, I hope, very clear (it is stated above and I think it is fairly simple).

Here is what I am asking of you:

If you can help me out with your view I'd appreciate it. Also, rather than just saying we disagree it'd help if you can say how and where. Is it with Scripture (if so please let me know which verse)?


Are you now saying that "spiritual life" is not a relationship with God but something in Adam's original nature that allowed Adam to have that relationship? And that this "something" was not the Spirit but something else?

 

[Yeshua1]

Wrong.

Reformed and Baptists have never declared that viewing Adam as being created natural (human body, human soul) of the earth and not spiritual (of heaven) heresy.

Many Baptists have affirmed my view. Done Reformed have. It is an old debate.

What is heresy, however, is calling Scripture theologically flawed and false.

I was saying that MB view on salvation proper, his Pel view was and is heresy, as the historical Church has defined it that way!
And Adam was created, totally different than any of us here, and had spiritual life due to that!

 

[Yeshua1]

That's really funny I'm a Baptist and I disagree. Calvinist and there doctrine Has tried to tell me what and how to believe ever since I came here. Yet I have not given in to the nonsense of man's thinking. Calvinism is Catholic heresy.
MB

So Jesus and Paul were both catholic then?

 

[Yeshua1]

And what's the deal with everyone getting all heresy calling happy?

It is one thing to view something as a heresy based on one's own personal beliefs or small group, but as I noted on another forum this is a Christian board (not a Calvinist board, not a non-Calvinist board).

A "heresy" here is at least an unorthodox Christian view.

In the context of orthodox Christianity Calvinism is not heresy. Arminianianism is not heresy. Penal Substitution Theory is not heresy. Christus Victor is not heresy. Genesis 2:17 referring to spiritual death is not heresy. Genesis 2:17 referring to physical death is not heresy.

In other words, on the Baptist section of this forum if you start to claim someone a heretic you are probably wrong. You may not like or agree with their view but even the most horrendous error made here (like questioning Braves winning the 2020 World Series) is probably within orthodox Christianity.

"Heresy" does not mean erroneous or false. It also does not mean "opposed to my view".

I am getting tired of seeing it used as a type of insult.

Going by the teaching of the historical church, Pel is heresy, as are full bnlown preterism and doctrines of Sda and Rcc!

 

[Yeshua1]

As long as you insist on calling me something I'm not I'll do the same for you. You are a full Pharisee. You act like you know it all when in reality you would not know a Pelagain if one jumped up and bit you. I do believe in the trinity and I don't believe man can save himself, as do Pelagains. Yet you do fit the Pharisee's.Criteria. You judge people just like they do which makes you hypocritical just like them.
MB

Are we born with a sin nature? can we decide to accept Jesus by our own free will, no need for God to enable us to be able to do that?

 

[JonC]

Going by the teaching of the historical church, Pel is heresy, as are full bnlown preterism and doctrines of Sda and Rcc!

Going by the history of the church both pelagianism and fatalism are heresies. If you choose to declare MB's position the extreme form then you have to accept the same for yourself along with the title "heretic".

I do not understand why you and your friends cannot discuss doctrine honestly (without pushing the other person "out of bounds"). You guys always seem to end up name calling.

 

[Yeshua1]

Faulty theology is when truth regarding God is refused to be heard.

The Word in John 1:1-2 stated to be two different "natures" if I can apply the term here. Twice said to be facing God, "with God," indicating the Word to be someone besides God, and identified as God too, being "was God." It sounds to be the Word was both not God and God at the same time. Being someone other than God, "with God." God does not change. Yet the Word changed to become flesh, a man. What changed? Not that the Word "was God," that did not change. But how the Word was "with God" did in fact change. Hear what John 1:1-2 says.

The Word was and is fully God! Was with the father, and was also God, John is just showing 2 Persons there, each one fully God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Going by the history of the church both pelagianism and fatalism are heresies. If you choose to declare MB's position the extreme form then you have to accept the same for yourself along with the title "heretic".

I do not understand why you and your friends cannot discuss doctrine honestly (without pushing the other person "out of bounds"). You guys always seem to end up name calling.

ONLY Hyper Calvinists are determinists, so I am not in the heresy side of things!

 

[Yeshua1]

Sadly, JonC has been inherently dishonest with his posting. I will not address him any longer as he has been dishonest and passive aggressive in his behavior. I have reported this to the admins.

I still cannot see where you and IU disagreed ever with Paul, just with Jon C understanding of what Paul said and meant!