Faulty theology pt 2

[Martin Marprelate]

Just to be perfectly clear: my post #19 is in no sense an apology of any sort.
Nor have I borne false witness against anyone.

 

[JonC]

Is quoting Scripture ever going over the line?

Apparently some just want to play victim. @AustinC posted that I was skewing the parable of the sower rather than recognizing my post as Scripture.

I have been thinking about what @Reformed posted about Adam (and man)being composed of the physical and non-physical (two parts), especially given the 1 Corinthians passage.

I will have to spend considerable time on this (I have viewed man as body and soul and spirit).

Where do you stand there?

 

[JonC]

Just to be perfectly clear: my post #19 is in no sense an apology of any sort.
Nor have I borne false witness against anyone.

I thought you were acknowledging that I posted the verses I found applicable. I should have realized you were not taking responsibility for your mistake.

Yes, you were and are bearing false witness. But I can see it may be out of ignorance rather than an intentional lie.

To clear up any misgivings and assumptions -

I posted the verses that I believed applicable in showing

1. Why Adam/ natural man came first.

Then I skipped 9 verses to show:

2. That Adam came first as natural and then Christ as spiritual.

So now you know that your assumption was false and why your post was in fact bearing false witness. And you know if you continue going forward it is no longer a false statement made in ignorance but an intentional lie as I have told you why I offered the passages I offered.

 

[AustinC]

The passage is 1 Corinthians 15.

It is not exegesis but Scripture (exegesis would be my interpretation of the text).

You said that you were unable to find any passage saying that Adam was natural and not spiritual do you thought I was arguing from silence. I gave you the passage. You rejected it.

I offered no interpretation. I gave you Scripture and you said it was theologically flawed, false, and rejected by Baptists.

It is unfortunate that you plagiarized without giving the source. That is on you.

Second, the context around the verses matter, which is why I shared the larger portion.
Your method was no different than the Roman Catholic Church, which chops up the Bible into sentences and then uses the sentence to prooftext and create faulty theology. I think your theological stance on this issue is very faulty and bordering on heresy.

I am done talking with you on this matter.

 

[MB]

Calminian Said;
Yes, you are right, you are not a calvinists or arminian. You are full Pelagian. Your argument that Catholics believe in original sin, therefore it's wrong is fallacious at best. Catholics believe in the Trinity, so I suppose you deny that also.


But original sin, that idea that Adam took on a sin nature when he fell, and passed it to his descendants is thoroughly biblical..

Rom. 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

You have to reject Paul to deny it.

Your accusation have no basis. I don't believe you even know what you are saying. I do not believe I can save myself. Christ saved me. I was called and drawn just like you. The difference is I do not add to scripture my own doctrines like you do. I do not believe in creeds and confessions of faith. I do not believe in Calvinism or Arminianism. My Christianity does not depend on what people like you think I am I will tell you what I am. I am a born again Christian who will not accept all your false Catholic doctrines.. I do not reject Paul's teachings but then I don't add nonsense to it either.
MB

 

[MB]

post did not work

 

[MB]

Calminian
Your accusation have no basis. I don't believe you even know what you are saying. I do not believe I can save myself. Christ saved me. I was called and drawn just like you. The difference is I do not add to scripture my own doctrines like you do. I do not believe in creeds and confessions of faith. I do not believe in Calvinism or Arminianism. My Christianity does not depend on what people like you think I am I will tell you what I am. I am a born again Christian who will not accept all your false Catholic doctrines.. I do not reject Paul's teachings but then I don't add nonsense to it either.

 

[MB]

It is unfortunate that you plagiarized without giving the source. That is on you.

Second, the context around the verses matter, which is why I shared the larger portion.
Your method was no different than the Roman Catholic Church, which chops up the Bible into sentences and then uses the sentence to prooftext and create faulty theology. I think your theological stance on this issue is very faulty and bordering on heresy.

I am done talking with you on this matter.

What a great blessing he won't talk anymore yipee
MB

 

[Reformed1689]

Apparently some just want to play victim. @AustinC posted that I was skewing the parable of the sower rather than recognizing my post as Scripture.

I have been thinking about what @Reformed posted about Adam (and man)being composed of the physical and non-physical (two parts), especially given the 1 Corinthians passage.

I will have to spend considerable time on this (I have viewed man as body and soul and spirit).

Where do you stand there?

Which post are you referring to so I can see what he said?

 

[Yeshua1]

This may be the clearest you have been with that first statement. However, it seems that you are differentiating between a human body, human spirit and a human soul as compared to...what...a non-human body, non-human spirit and non-human soul?

Is there an "unnatural" spirit that I am supposed to be aware of?

I believe that a human is born with a spirit that has no capacity to choose God. I believe that when Paul said we were dead in our trespasses and sins, he means we have no capacity to will ourselves to have faith and be justified. God must activate our spirit (be made alive with Christ) and give us the gift of faith so that we can believe.

The lost, therefore, have a spirit that is incapacitated to act and move toward God in repentance. The unsaved cannot make their spirits to be alive with Christ.

The spirit aspect of us is what died off in the fall, as God Himself must quicken us back to having a living spirit, as that is where we relate to God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Odd. I have said that first statement at least 5 times. Some disagreed by insisting man has a body and soul (not body, soul, and spirit).

What you probably should be aware of is that Adam us actually never described as "spirit", "spiritual", or "spiritually alive" in the Bible (a collection of "God breathed" books some of us believe to be the authority and measure for doctrine).

The Bible does, however, state that Adam was created natural and not spiritual.

The issue is you seem not to grap how Adam could have been created as Scripture states without also being created with spiritual life and then spiritually dying.

I cannot add any more to help you out.

Like I said earlier, sometimes men do not seem to understand Scripture in itself and needs a little narrative to make sense of the Biblical text. That is fine if it is the only way you can accept Genesis 1-3.

Personally, I believe Scripture (the actual text) adequate and lacking nothing. I do not need to add a mythological "temporary spiritual life that died" because it makes sense without the addition.

The big problem and mistake that you are making is that spiritual life as paul related it refers to glorified eternal state we will have, but John relates it to eternal life we have right here and now, as new creations in Christ!
So like us, Adam had both a physical and a spiritual life in Him due to being created by God directly, and no sin nor Fall yet happening!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm looking for the verse where God says "Adam was created natural, not spiritual." I can't find it.

Thus, I think you are arguing from silence.

Sometimes men make assertions as facts when they aren't. Sometimes men think they are making an intelligent argument when they are not.

Personally, I believe what God teaches in scripture, the actual word of God. I do not need to add mythological teachings that Adam had no spirit because it makes no sense that a spiritless person could be made alive with Christ.

He was spiritually dead, as in needing a messiah then, but why would he not be spiritually alive to God before, when he needed no savior as of yet?

 

[Yeshua1]

You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam became a life giving Spirit. But the natural, not the spiritual, is first - then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth. The second man is from heaven.

Paul related 'spiritual life"there to our final glorified states, not that life we have right now, as John made clear!

 

[Yeshua1]

There are some massive theological flaws in the above statement.

The first Adam was created and made in the image of God, which means he was created with a spirit.

The last Adam is God coming in humanity.

Both have a spirit. The first Adam's spirit was corrupted by sin. The second Adam's spirit is holy, as God is holy.

You're proposition is false.

Moreso, your theology is not Baptist theology. Your position should be shared in the other denominations forum.

Seems an awful lot like that theology held by our friend MB!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes.

That which is sown natural dies and then life.

The First Adam is of the earth, the Last Adam of heaven.

Adam was created a living soul. Christ became a life giving Spirit.

First the natural, then the spiritual.

The nine verses were not being referenced.

While your post is a poor apology, I will accept it. Just be careful that you do not bear false witness against members going forward.

Adam was in a relationship with God before he sinned, no need of the messiah, so had spiritual life!

 

[Yeshua1]

Calminian Said;
Yes, you are right, you are not a calvinists or arminian. You are full Pelagian. Your argument that Catholics believe in original sin, therefore it's wrong is fallacious at best. Catholics believe in the Trinity, so I suppose you deny that also.


But original sin, that idea that Adam took on a sin nature when he fell, and passed it to his descendants is thoroughly biblical..

Rom. 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

You have to reject Paul to deny it.

Your accusation have no basis. I don't believe you even know what you are saying. I do not believe I can save myself. Christ saved me. I was called and drawn just like you. The difference is I do not add to scripture my own doctrines like you do. I do not believe in creeds and confessions of faith. I do not believe in Calvinism or Arminianism. My Christianity does not depend on what people like you think I am I will tell you what I am. I am a born again Christian who will not accept all your false Catholic doctrines.. I do not reject Paul's teachings but then I don't add nonsense to it either.
MB

You keep on repeating Pelagius heresy!

 

[JonC]

Which post are you referring to so I can see what he said?

I honestly cannot remember.

He said he considered man to be of two parts - body and soul/ spirit (rather than three, body, soul and spirit).

 

[Reformed1689]

I honestly cannot remember.

He said he considered man to be of two parts - body and soul/ spirit (rather than three, body, soul and spirit).

I agree with that. Does Scripture state anywhere that soul and spirit are distinct from each other?

 

[JonC]

I agree with that. Does Scripture state anywhere that soul and spirit are distinct from each other?

I don't know (that is what I need to consider).

 

[AustinC]

Seems an awful lot like that theology held by our friend MB!

This is why MB is supporting JonC. Both are taking a position that Baptists do not take.