A determined view of salvation or the RIGHT view, part deux

[Skandelon]

I have yet to confront a person embracing a false doctrine who will admit to its inconsistencies.

Now, brother, I will admit there is some subjectivity to this debate. I will also admit that our view appeals to mystery regarding certain aspects of how the human will functions (just as Calvinists must appeal to mystery on other points).

But the straw man fallacy that I pointed out above is a basic fact of the matter. It would be like me saying, "You believe the sky is green and grass is blue." That is just factually an error.

You said, "you refuse to acknowledge that Adam stood as the representative of the human race." And that is factually INACCURATE. I (and most Arminians) do in fact hold the the federal headship view...and even the concept of Original Sin. That is not my opinion, that is not emotionalism, that is not an inconsistency, it is just a fact of the matter which you blatantly denied. Now, wouldn't you rather debate me rather than a stawman? Maybe you MEANT to say something like, "You say you believe in federal headship but you are inconsistent because..." But you didn't say that. Now, would you like to start over?

 

[Yeshua1]

Now, brother, I will admit there is some subjectivity to this debate. I will also admit that our view appeals to mystery regarding certain aspects of how the human will functions (just as Calvinists must appeal to mystery on other points).

But the straw man fallacy that I pointed out above is a basic fact of the matter. It would be like me saying, "You believe the sky is green and grass is blue." That is just factually an error.

You said, "you refuse to acknowledge that Adam stood as the representative of the human race." And that is factually INACCURATE. I (and most Arminians) do in fact hold the the federal headship view...and even the concept of Original Sin. That is not my opinion, that is not emotionalism, that is not an inconsistency, it is just a fact of the matter which you blatantly denied. Now, wouldn't you rather debate me rather than a stawman? Maybe you MEANT to say something like, "You say you believe in federal headship but you are inconsistent because..." But you didn't say that. Now, would you like to start over?

yes, you do see that view similiar as calvinists due, but the real difference is that you based in the ultimate sense salvation upon what we decide to do with grace of God, how we free will decide that issue,not upon what God has determined in that issue!

 

[The Biblicist]

Now, brother, I will admit there is some subjectivity to this debate. I will also admit that our view appeals to mystery regarding certain aspects of how the human will functions (just as Calvinists must appeal to mystery on other points).

But the straw man fallacy that I pointed out above is a basic fact of the matter. It would be like me saying, "You believe the sky is green and grass is blue." That is just factually an error.

You said, "you refuse to acknowledge that Adam stood as the representative of the human race." And that is factually INACCURATE. I (and most Arminians) do in fact hold the the federal headship view...and even the concept of Original Sin. That is not my opinion, that is not emotionalism, that is not an inconsistency, it is just a fact of the matter which you blatantly denied. Now, wouldn't you rather debate me rather than a stawman? Maybe you MEANT to say something like, "You say you believe in federal headship but you are inconsistent because..." But you didn't say that. Now, would you like to start over?

It is all in one's definition and application of terms. Your interpretation of federal headship is repudiated by Paul.

1. All whom Adam represented are no more and no less than all created in Adam by God and that union made manifest through natural generation. Thus ALL in Adam die.

2. All whom Christ represented are no more and no less than those created in Christ by God and that union made manifest through supernatural generation. Thus ALL in Christ are made alive. Christ represented only those God "created in Christ" (Eph. 2:10) or his promised seed.

Each man represents His own seed and they are not equal. The "seed" of Adam is greater in number than the "seed" of Christ (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 53:10) the promised seed of Abraham or the children of faith.

Isa. 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Romans 5:16-17 deny there is an exact parallel between Adam and Christ, what they provided and for whom they provided in their representative work and that is precisely why Romans 5:16 uses the less definite term "many" rather than the more inclusive term "all."

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Romans 5:17 denies there is an exact parallel between those represented by Adam and those represented by Christ. That distinction is made by the words "who receive the abundance of grace" thus denying Christ represented all whom Adam represented.

17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Thus Paul denies that Christ represented all whom Adam represented. He represented only the "many.....who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness." Only after making this qualifying distinction that separates the "many" for whom Christ represented from among the "many" Adam represented does Paul then shift to the more inclusive "all" in verses 18-19 where "all" refers to the totality represented by each man. Those in verse 18-19 represented by Christ are "all" who receive abundance of grace rather than "all" represented by Adam.

Therefore, your use and application of "federal headship" is not supported by Scriptures but is mere use of words empty of Biblical content.

 

[Winman]

Romans 5:17 denies there is an exact parallel between those represented by Adam and those represented by Christ. That distinction is made by the words "who receive the abundance of grace" thus denying Christ represented all whom Adam represented.

Here Biblicist knowingly violates Paul's form of parallel argument in Romans 5. He applies Adam's judgment and condemnation UNCONDITIONALLY to all men, but only applies Christ's justification and free gift to those who CONDITIONALLY believe.

This violates Paul's form of argument where each side of each verse MUST be treated equally.

Rom 5:18 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.

Does anybody know what the term "even so" means??

 

[The Biblicist]

Here Biblicist knowingly violates Paul's form of parallel argument in Romans 5. He applies Adam's judgment and condemnation UNCONDITIONALLY to all men, but only applies Christ's justification and free gift to those who CONDITIONALLY believe.

This violates Paul's form of argument where each side of each verse MUST be treated equally.

Rom 5:18 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.

Does anybody know what the term "even so" means??

You don't read too well do you?? Romans 5:16 denies there is an exact paralllelism or don't you know the meaning of the words "NOT AS IT WAS"!

Romans 5:17 qualifies the "many" that Christ represented by the words "who receive" thus qualifying the "ALL" represented by Christ as compared to the "ALL" represented by Adam.

Romans 5:18-19 then makes the parallel "EVEN AS" as previously qualified by verses 16-17.

 

[Skandelon]

It is all in one's definition and application of terms. Your interpretation of federal headship is repudiated by Paul.

Ok, so you say, "I think your definition is flawed and here is why..." You don't say that I deny the doctrine of federal headship and then ridicule me for pointing out your error.

I never provided a definition of federal headship but I suppose I'd agree with any notable Calvinists or Arminian on their definition regarding the representation of Adam. Thus, I don't see how you could think Paul's words would 'repudiate' what we all should agree upon regarding the definition of Adam's federal headship.

All whom Christ represented are no more and no less than those created in Christ by God and that union made manifest through supernatural generation. Thus ALL in Christ are made alive. Christ represented only those God "created in Christ" (Eph. 2:10) or his promised seed.

This gets into the doctrine of Limited Atonement, and who Christ represents in his work of atonement. We can agree on the basic understanding of federal headship and disagree on this point. If you don't believe me take some time to study some of the Princeton theologians who are also notable "Calvinists." Men such as C. Hodge, Shedd, Dabney, and AA Hodge all taught a version of provisional (or universal) atonement, yet would still stand in perfect agreement with the standard definition of federal headship. You have confounded two different matters making this discussion more difficult that it needs to be.

We can affirm the concept of federal headship and move on to discuss Limited Atonement (i.e. who in particular Jesus represents), if you'd like?

 

[The Biblicist]

and then ridicule me for pointing out your error.

Ridicule???? I simply disagreed with you. I used no ridicule at all.

I never provided a definition of federal headship but I suppose I'd agree with any notable Calvinists or Arminian on their definition regarding the representation of Adam. Thus, I don't see how you could think Paul's words would 'repudiate' what we all should agree upon regarding the definition of Adam's federal headship.

Yes, you did! You stated that your view of federal headship demanded that "all" represented by Adam were represented by Christ. Hence, you are the one that brought universal atonement into this discussion, not I. I simply disagree with your version of universal federal headship.

I affirm federal headship. I just do so consistently in that the same 'all' being represented by Adam is the same 'all' represented by the second Adam (Christ.) - Skandelon

Romans 5:17 repudiates your view of federal headship. Deal with the scripture evidence I provided you and Winman.

 

[Skandelon]

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

It is funny how you can read this and see something totally different than what I see. I guess God just predetermined us to see this differently?

The same MANY that died is the same MANY to which grace abounds. That seems pretty clear to me, as all people are certainly 'many' in numbers. If not, then Paul's words in Romans 11:32 should leave no doubt:

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."​

Romans 5:17 denies there is an exact parallel between those represented by Adam and those represented by Christ. That distinction is made by the words "who receive the abundance of grace" thus denying Christ represented all whom Adam represented.

17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

See, this is the crux of our disagreement (and the split even in the Calvinistic ranks from men like Hodge, etc). The statement "who receive the abundance of grace" is proof of synergism, in that it proves grace is provided for whosoever to receive it. That is 'provisional atonement,' just like the Passover and the serpent lifted in the desert. Both were GRACIOUSLY PROVIDED for the WHOLE GROUP, but the benefit only applied to those in faith responded. Grace is PROVIDED to the WHOLE GROUP (in this case the WORLD), but only those who respond in faith benefit. It has not changed in over 6 thousand years except in the minds of Calvinistic thinkers.

Thus Paul denies that Christ represented all whom Adam represented.

There is a stark difference in the 'representation' of the whole and the individual's responsibility. All of Israel (the whole) was graciously provided for during the sacrifice of Yom Kippur, in that the WHOLE nation was represented by that sacrifice, but did every Jew automatically benefit from that sacrifice or only those who, in faith, did as they were instructed?

 

[The Biblicist]

It is funny how you can read this and see something totally different than what I see. I guess God just predetermined us to see this differently?

The same MANY that died is the same MANY to which grace abounds. That seems pretty clear to me, as all people are certainly 'many' in numbers.

You are ignoring that Paul does not use the Greek term "pas" here but a less definite term "polus". His change of terms is not mere accident or insignificant.

Second, you are presuming and inserting the idea of "same" into this text (v. 15) which is not there.

If not, then Paul's words in Romans 11:32 should leave no doubt:

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."​

Two different contexts over 5 chapters apart. Second, the term "men" (Gr. anthropos) is not found in Romans 11:32 as your chosen translation inserts. Third, the contextual antecendent for the first "pas" in verse 32 are the elect Jews in verses 28-31.

See, this is the crux of our disagreement (and the split even in the Calvinistic ranks from men like Hodge, etc). The statement "who receive the abundance of grace" is proof of synergism, in that it proves grace is provided for whosoever to receive it. That is 'provisional atonement,' just like the Passover and the serpent lifted in the desert. Both were GRACIOUSLY PROVIDED for the WHOLE GROUP, but the benefit only applied to those in faith responded. Grace is PROVIDED to the WHOLE GROUP (in this case the WORLD), but only those who respond in faith benefit. It has not changed in over 6 thousand years except in the minds of Calvinistic thinkers.

The contextual explanation of HOW they receive it is exactly the same way that all in Adam receive the consequences of his one representative act of disobedience. They receive it by representation and experience it through generation. Likewise, all in Christ receive the consequences of his representative actions. They receive it by representation and experience it through regeneration.

There is a stark difference in the 'representation' of the whole and the individual's responsibility. All of Israel (the whole) was graciously provided for during the sacrifice of Yom Kippur, in that the WHOLE nation was represented by that sacrifice, but did every Jew automatically benefit from that sacrifice or only those who, in faith, did as they were instructed?

You are forgetting that the vast multitude of human beings did not partake of it at all. Only Israel as a type of God's elect partook of it. The sacrifice was offered up for ALL ISREAL but not for the Amlikites or the Philistines or etc.

 

[Skandelon]

You are ignoring that Paul does not use the Greek term "pas" here but a less definite term "polus". His change of terms is not mere accident or insignificant.

Second, you are presuming and inserting the idea of "same" into this text (v. 15) which is not there.

The same word, "MANY" is used to describe both being represented...just as in the other verse the same word 'ALL' is used to describe both. And not only here but also in Romans 11:32. It is really difficult to deny, which is why I'm sure some even from your own Calvinistic camp don't even try to take your approach (i.e. Spurgeon).

Two different contexts over 5 chapters apart. Second, the term "men" (Gr. anthropos) is not found in Romans 11:32 as your chosen translation inserts. Third, the contextual antecendent for the first "pas" in verse 32 are the elect Jews in verses 28-31.

I know you think this makes perfect sense and seem perfectly plausible because you are convinced of it, but this seems soooo far fetched and stretched to me. It feels like you'd be willing to deny Jesus himself coming out of a cloud and saying directly to you, "Dude, I meant ALL MEN! Your are wrong!" And you saying, "You mean all the elect, right?" No matter what anyone says you have become convinced of this...I get it...but when there is even strong division over this issue within your own ranks that is typically an indication that the point isn't a very strong one to stand upon.

The sacrifice was offered up for ALL ISREAL but not for the Amlikites or the Philistines or etc.

So was every Israelite atoned for, even those who rebelled and refused to wipe the blood on their doors?

If not, why not? Could it be because the provision was for the WHOLE group, but the individual was still responsible for wiping the blood on the door?

And if an Egyptian family, in faith, had done what was asked, do you believe God would have passed over killing their first born?

 

[Winman]

You don't read too well do you?? Romans 5:16 denies there is an exact paralllelism or don't you know the meaning of the words "NOT AS IT WAS"!

I read well and discern better. I see another false teacher wresting scripture.

Verse 16 is not saying what you are trying to make it say. It is simply saying the effect caused by Adam came from one single sin, whereas the benefits of Christ's work applies to MANY sins.

It has nothing to do with altering Paul's parallel form of argument. Whatever you apply to one side of the verse you MUST apply to the other side.

Romans 5:17 qualifies the "many" that Christ represented by the words "who receive" thus qualifying the "ALL" represented by Christ as compared to the "ALL" represented by Adam.

And the "many" in the first half of this verse are those who sinned as Adam sinned.

You are trying to apply Adam's sin to all men unconditionally, but applying Christ's work conditionally to those who believe. This violates Paul's parallel form of argument.

Romans 5:18-19 then makes the parallel "EVEN AS" as previously qualified by verses 16-17.

Romans 5:18-19 is where your view of Original Sin fails. If Adam's sin unconditionally applies to all men, then Christ's work must unconditionally apply to all men as well. The words "EVEN SO" show that both sides of this verse MUST be treated equally.

Of course, this would lead to univeralism, and those folks who believe in universalism will always quote Romans 5:18-19 as their very strongest argument for this doctrine.

And the truth is, they have a strong argument if sin is indeed applied to all men unconditionally.

But that is not the case, Romans 5:12 very clearly says death passed upon all men conditionally FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED. This is speaking of personal sin.

The correct interpretation is that sin is applied conditionally to all men who sin as Adam sinned, and righteousness is imputed to all men who conditionally believe as Jesus did. Thus, only those who believe would be saved, and Paul's parallel form of argument is not violated.

 

[Winman]

Mankind was in Adam's loins when he fell. When he fell, we fell too, being in Adam, he being our fountain head. Man was born a sinner, having a sin nature, that was passed onto him because of Adam's deed(s).

This is completely false and refuted by Paul himself in the book of Romans;

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

If all men were in Adam's loins and sinned in the garden when he did, then Paul could not have said that Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. Even before they were conceived they sinned with Adam in the garden if this doctrine is correct.

But there is so much more! If we are guilty of sinning with Adam, then we are also guilty of sinning with all our grandfathers, each and every time they sinned. But what is even more remarkable, we also did GOOD when they did good! If they believed on Jesus and were saved, then all of their descendants would have believed in his loins and been saved as well.

This false doctrine comes from misinterpreting scripture shown in Hebrews 7.

Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

This scripture says Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec in the loins of his grandfather Abraham. Now it is not really saying this, but some have tried to use this scripture as a proof text for Original Sin.

So, if this doctrine is true (it isn't), then we would not only be guilty for ALL the sins of ALL our grandfathers, but we would also be credited with ALL the good ALL of our grandfathers did. If they were saved, all their descendants would be saved.

This shows how ridiculous this belief that we all sinned in Adam's loins really is. It is nothing but pure medieval superstition.