Calvinist Confusion

[JonC]

There seems to be a difference here:
Genesis 1:26. 'Then God said, "Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.'
Genesis 5:3. 'And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image......'

I disagree that this reflects an ontological change. The reason is even later we are told that murder is an abomination because man is created in God's image. This was a fundamental belief (I believe still is) among the Hebrew people as well.

What it does show, however, is that Adam is the representative of man. Christ is the "last Adam", another Representative of man in His Resurrection (as the Firstborn among many brothers).

We can't really get into it here, but it may be a topic (although already discussed....as are they all) for another thread.

 

[The Biblicist]

Since the thread is approaching its end I don't want to start on a course we can't continue.

I think one difference between our views here may be this "pre-fallen" and "post-fallen" state.

I agree there was a change:

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil

And I agree this resulted in consequences (through Adam's sin death entered the world; God subjected Creation to futility). And I absolutely agree that the only possible solution is a "new birth".

But I do not believe Adam's nature changed. I don't see Adam as a "cause" for human sin but rather a representative of mankind in that man surrenders to the flesh and sins. I believe that Adam, even when God breathed life into him, was flesh and would need a "new-birth".

I suppose you could say that I believe God's command that Adam transgressed is very much like God's Law which Israel transgressed and God's commands to mankind which we all transgress. This shows us who we are and that we need a Savior. I believe it was the same with Adam.

If I understand you correctly you have completely abandoned orthodox Christianity with regard to the doctrine of the fall of man - not only completely abandoned it but attempting to repudiate it!

There is no possible way that unfallen man needed new birth as you claim "even when God breathed life into him, was flesh and would need a 'new birth." I am sorry but that is simply false and easy to prove as false.

For example, The very nature of the new birth proves your position is wholly and totally false.

1. New Birth is a creative act of God that restores moral ability to do "good" works - Eph. 2:10
2. New Birth is a creative act of God that restores the moral image of God in man or "righteousness and true holiness" - Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
3. New Birth is an inward washing and renewing by the Holy Spirit - Tit. 3:5

Secondly, Romans 5:12-19 completely and utterly repudiates your position. There can be no death where there is no sin and there can be no sin where there is no violation of law. Paul argues that "death...judgement....condemnation" of all mankind was due to ONE MAN and HIS ONE ACT of sin because when he sinned all humanity sinned in him because all humanity existed as one indivisible human nature in Adam - thus IN ADAM ALL DIE. This is his argument and he proves it in verses 13-14 because death reigns over all mankind between Adam and Moses where there was no Mosaic Law and yet there can be no death where there is no law. His point? Genesis 2:13 is the law broken by all mankind existing in one man breaking that law.

Second, death during that same period of time reigned over those who had not sinned in the same similitude of Adam. Adam's sin was a knowing and willful sin unlike Eve who was decieved and it is this one act of knowing and willful sin by Adam that condemned all mankind to death even infants in the womb and/or mentally incapable humans who nevertheless die who cannot sin after the similitude (likeness) of Adam.

Paul's argument is simple! Where there is no law there is no death and yet death between Adam and Moses cannot be attributed to breaking Mosiac Law or the law of conscience and therefore the only possible just grounds for their partaking in death is they existed and acted as "one man" violating the only law given by God previous to Mount Sinai - the law of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Paul denies that the plural sins of "many" are responsible for "death...judgement....condemnation" of men but that is precisely what you are teaching and are forced to adopt as you deny human culpability due to "one man" and one act by that one man.

Third, this sin and death problem precedes any moral action by all other humans even prior to birth as they are "concevied in iniquity" or in a SIN CONDITION making them sinners by nature as the cause of for later being sinners by action.

I realize why you take the view you do because it is the logical consequence of all the other erroneous views you have already adopted and whether you realize it or not you are rejecting the very heart of orthodox Christianity.

 

[The Biblicist]

Since the thread is approaching its end I don't want to start on a course we can't continue.

I think one difference between our views here may be this "pre-fallen" and "post-fallen" state.

I agree there was a change:

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil

And I agree this resulted in consequences (through Adam's sin death entered the world; God subjected Creation to futility). And I absolutely agree that the only possible solution is a "new birth".

But I do not believe Adam's nature changed. I don't see Adam as a "cause" for human sin but rather a representative of mankind in that man surrenders to the flesh and sins. I believe that Adam, even when God breathed life into him, was flesh and would need a "new-birth".

I suppose you could say that I believe God's command that Adam transgressed is very much like God's Law which Israel transgressed and God's commands to mankind which we all transgress. This shows us who we are and that we need a Savior. I believe it was the same with Adam.

I noticed you make no attempt at all to address the evidence I presented but just summarily reject it. Do you even admit that the lost condition of man is spiritual separation from God, thus being in a state "without God" and thus separated spiritually from the Light, life, love and holiness of God???? If not, then explain from whence does that condition described in Ephesians 4:24 (similar texts are Rom. 3:9-20; 7:14-25; 8:7-9; etc.) occur? From birth? After Birth? After willful sin? If after willful sin, then are you saying we are not born sinners, not born condemned, not born in spiritual separation from God but born into this world without sin, without condemnation, without judgement? It appears to me that you are saying every human being is born into this world in a moral and spiritual condition equal to Adam prior to his sin. If so, then what just basis is there for death due to his sin (rom. 5:12-19) to be "passed" down to all other human beings?

 

[JonC]

If I understand you correctly you have completely abandoned orthodox Christianity with regard to the doctrine of the fall of man -

I think to safe to say you either misunderstand me or you misunderstand orthodoxy in terms of the Christian faith.

My position here, just like my rejection of Penal Substitution Theory, is certainly many reject. But to say it unorthodox to Christianity in regard to the Fall is overstatement (ad hominem), ignorant of historical theology, or merely a misunderstanding of my statements.

 

[The Biblicist]

But I do not believe Adam's nature changed. I don't see Adam as a "cause" for human sin .

Paul believes that Adam's sin is the cause of both death and sin entering into this world (Rom. 5:12) and why death is "passed" upon all other mankind.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

You have to read this to mean by many mens sins many men were condemned to death whereas Paul says the very reverse that it is by one man's singular sin many men be dead, condemned and judged.

Paul believes that by "one man" and his "one" act that death, judgement and condemnation came upon all other mankind.

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.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
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.)
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.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[JonC]

I noticed you make no attempt at all to address the evidence I presented but just summarily reject it. Do you even admit that the lost condition of man is spiritual separation from God, thus being in a state "without God" and thus separated spiritually from the Light, life, love and holiness of God???? If not, then explain from whence does that condition described in Ephesians 4:24 (similar texts are Rom. 3:9-20; 7:14-25; 8:7-9; etc.) occur? From birth? After Birth? After willful sin? If after willful sin, then are you saying we are not born sinners, not born condemned, not born in spiritual separation from God but born into this world without sin, without condemnation, without judgement? It appears to me that you are saying every human being is born into this world in a moral and spiritual condition equal to Adam prior to his sin. If so, then what just basis is there for death due to his sin (rom. 5:12-19) to be "passed" down to all other human beings?

There is no time here to justify a responce we can't follow.

 

[JonC]

Paul believes ...

I will stop you here.

We can't argue what Paul believes. We can argue what Paul wrote. This is a mistake others make too often.

We don't have time to do this conversation justice on this thread.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think ot safe to say you either misunderstand me or you misunderstand orthodoxy in terms of the Christian faith.

How can it be possibly understood any other way. You are denying that man is born into this world in a condition of spiritual separation of God, thus without life, without light, without love, without holiness but rather comes into the world like pre-fallen Adam. Is that not true?

 

[The Biblicist]

There is no time here to justify a responce we can't follow.

Then do so in some other thread.

 

[The Biblicist]

I will stop you here.

We can't argue what Paul believes. We can argue what Paul wrote. This is a mistake others make too often.

We don't have time to do this conversation justice on this thread.

I will stop you here, we can argue what Paul believes BECAUSE of what Paul wrote just as I can argue what you believe BECAUSE of what you write

 

[JonC]

I will stop you here, we can argue what Paul believes BECAUSE of what Paul wrote just as I can argue what you believe BECAUSE of what you write

The issue is interpretation. We can give our words but not our understanding. When you argue another's belief you place yourself as that persons advocate in the debate.

If you are planning on arguing as the vicor of Paul then I bow out.

 

[JonC]

Then do so in some other thread.

That would be great. I am taking our church youth group on a trip this weekend so I will be in and out (and using my phone).

 

[The Biblicist]

The issue is interpretation. We can give our words but not our understanding. When you argue another's belief you place yourself as that persons advocate in the debate.

If you are planning on arguing as the vicor of Paul then I bow out.

Of course the issue is interpretation even when the conversation is not written but oral but words have contextual meaning which allows anyone to realize what the other person is or is not saying and Paul is not saying what you are saying as it is clear from his choice of words within the context he places them. That choice of terms and context is what I have placed before you and I hope you will have time in another thread to address them.

 

[JonC]

Of course the issue is interpretation even when the conversation is not written but oral but words have contextual meaning which allows anyone to realize what the other person is or is not saying and Paul is not saying what you are saying and it is clear from his choice of words within the context he places them.

Ok. Then Paul believes what I believe as evidenced by the Scripture you provided.

(I will not seriously engage a thread at its closing point).

 

[The Biblicist]

That would be great. I am taking our church youth group on a trip this weekend so I will be in and out (and using my phone).

Sounds fun! In my early years I was the leader of our youth group.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok. Then Paul believes what I believe as evidenced by the Scripture you provided.

(I will not seriously engage a thread at its closing point).

Ok, but you merely declare it, while I placed evidence before you to demonstrate my interpretation. I look forward to you not merely making declarations but offering contextual based proof that the evidence I placed before you is erroroneous.

 

[JonC]

Ok, but you merely declare it, while I placed evidence before you to demonstrate my interpretation. I look forward to you not merely making declarations but offering contextual based proof that the evidence I placed before you is erroroneous.

The issue is I agree with Pauls words. I disagree they evidence your interpretation.

 

[JonC]

Sounds fun! In my early years I was the leader of our youth group.

They are a good group.

 

[utilyan]

First of all Kevin Thompson is known for bearing false witness in his videos. Do you intend to stand by his comments steaver?

Doesn't stop you from following Martin Luther and John Calvin.

 

[The Biblicist]

The issue is I agree with Pauls words. I disagree they evidence your interpretation.

Easy words to say, but demonstration is another thing. I have placed before you the evidence and we will see if you can show from context that my conclusions are wrong.