Faulty theology pt 2

[Yeshua1]

I do not agree with @JonC on MANY things. But I honestly think you and @Yeshua1 are overplaying your hand here. He literally posted a verse, granted without reference, and did not offer exposition on that verse. So you can't really say his theology on that post is flawed. His theology on the topic in general? I agree it is flawed, but not on that post. Give it a rest.

I will "give it a rest" if JonC will agree that neither Austin or myself have stated at all that we disagree with Paul!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Adam had to have spiritual ldfe though, as was in right relationship with God, had not sinned yet, no sin nature residing in him when created! he also did not need the mediator, Messiah, between him and God until he fell, correct? Sin brought in that disconnect between him and God!
We both have spiritual llife and a natural life now,so why not Adam? Did the OT saints have spiritual life or not then?

 

[MB]

Adam had to have spiritual ldfe though, as was in right relationship with God, had not sinned yet, no sin nature residing in him when created! he also did not need the mediator, Messiah, between him and God until he fell, correct? Sin brought in that disconnect between him and God!
We both have spiritual llife and a natural life now,so why not Adam? Did the OT saints have spiritual life or not then?

If old testament saints had spiritual life there would have been no need for Christ to die.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

If old testament saints had spiritual life there would have been no need for Christ to die.
MB

Were they saved?

 

[MB]

Were they saved?

They were the Captives Christ set free they were held in Abraham's bosom until Christ set them free.
No one can be saved by the Law This is why they were held until Christ would come and give them the message of life everlasting
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

They were the Captives Christ set free they were held in Abraham's bosom until Christ set them free.
No one can be saved by the Law This is why they were held until Christ would come and give them the message of life everlasting
MB

were they saved as in would go to be with God?

 

[JonC]

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

What are you talking about?

I never said what Paul meant. I just quoted Paul.

 

[JonC]

I will "give it a rest" if JonC will agree that neither Austin or myself have stated at all that we disagree with Paul!

Why would I deny what all here have witnessed for themselves?

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.

Since he said he could not find it in the Bible I provided the passage:

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.

Then Austin quoted the passage I had just provided:

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.

And Austin started deny it step by step (this is what YOU agreed to on this forum) :

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.

I admit that I did not say that it was Scripture I was posting - but that does not change what was said and what the two of you rejected.

 

[AustinC]

Why would I deny what all here have witnessed for themselves?
Since he said he could not find it in the Bible I provided the passage:

Then Austin quoted the passage I had just provided:
And Austin started deny it step by step (this is what YOU agreed to on this forum) :


I admit that I did not say that it was Scripture I was posting - but that does not change what was said and what the two of you rejected.

You were dishonest and deceptive. You will deny this, but your plagiarism is obvious to all.
Second, your quote of 1 Corinthians 15 does not prove anything about Adam before the fall. Paul's point is not establishing your point.
I expect you will dodge and avoid and claim innocence. I have observed this trend throughout this thread.
Deny if you must. Observation is evident.

 

[Reformed1689]

You were dishonest and deceptive. You will deny this, but your plagiarism is obvious to all.
Second, your quote of 1 Corinthians 15 does not prove anything about Adam before the fall. Paul's point is not establishing your point.
I expect you will dodge and avoid and claim innocence. I have observed this trend throughout this thread.
Deny if you must. Observation is evident.

Give it a rest already. Let's get back to the topic and quit focusing on @JonC

 

[MB]

You were dishonest and deceptive. You will deny this, but your plagiarism is obvious to all.
Second, your quote of 1 Corinthians 15 does not prove anything about Adam before the fall. Paul's point is not establishing your point.
I expect you will dodge and avoid and claim innocence. I have observed this trend throughout this thread.
Deny if you must. Observation is evident.

Is this all you do is condemn others .Once a Pharisee always a Pharisee You're such a nag I'll bet you're never happy are you?
MB

 

[InTheLight]

You were dishonest and deceptive. You will deny this, but your plagiarism is obvious to all.

Puh-leeze.

When I saw that post by JonC I immediately knew it was from 1 Corinthians 15 (though I didn't know what translation.)

You got pwned. Stop your silly, ineffectual attempts at attacking.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[AustinC]

Puh-leeze.

When I saw that post by JonC I immediately knew it was from 1 Corinthians 15 (though I didn't know what translation.)

You got pwned. Stop your silly, ineffectual attempts at attacking.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Good for you. There was no reference anywhere and honestly, JonC added the second part after he stated the fool part. It was purely a dishonest post on his part. Next time I will double-check his posts to figure out if he is speaking or if he is plagairizing others.

 

[MB]

Good for you. There was no reference anywhere and honestly, JonC added the second part after he stated the fool part. It was purely a dishonest post on his part. Next time I will double-check his posts to figure out if he is speaking or if he is plagairizing others.

Who do you think you are? I think you are a cranky old Calvinist who can;t defend his theology. That's the problem.
MB

 

[Jerome]

Next time I will double-check his posts to figure out if he is speaking or if he is plagairizing others.

LOL, how about you start by double-checking stuff you've posted.

Oops:

Pelagianism, also called the Pelagian heresy, is the theological position that the original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid or assistance.

 

[Reformed1689]

Puh-leeze.

When I saw that post by JonC I immediately knew it was from 1 Corinthians 15 (though I didn't know what translation.)

You got pwned. Stop your silly, ineffectual attempts at attacking.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

This thread just needs to be closed. How many pages of this ridiculous feud are there now? Yes, @AustinC and @Yeshua1 got this one wrong, bad wrong and keep doubling down. And we all know I am not one to rush to @JonC defense...

 

[JonC]

You were dishonest and deceptive. You will deny this, but your plagiarism is obvious to all.
Second, your quote of 1 Corinthians 15 does not prove anything about Adam before the fall. Paul's point is not establishing your point.
I expect you will dodge and avoid and claim innocence. I have observed this trend throughout this thread.
Deny if you must. Observation is evident.

I was not dishonest or deceptive (unless you are claiming the apostles and Christ dishonest and deceptive for not providing a reference for Scripture they quoted). You asked for scripture and I gave it. I did not know that you and @Yeshua1 would not recognize it as Scripture and instead believe those passages were written by me rather than God.

The issue, however, is that you and @Yeshua1 rejected Scripture when you thought it was not Scripture. The content did not change. You both rejected what Paul wrote, the message God communicated, and declared it "theologically flawed" and "false".

It would have been no less true (and no less affirmed by Scripture) if those were my words and I did not realize it was also in the Bible. But in fact it was Scripture and you went line by line denouncing it.

What you probably should have done was say "my error, you are right JonC, Scripture does state that Adam was created natural rather than spiritual, I cannot believe I missed that" and then continued to defend your position (the passage does not negate your position nor prove mine....that was not why I posted it....I posted it because you asked for Scripture in saying you found none).

Instead you and @Yeshua1 doubled down, dug in, and tried to lay the blame on me for providing the passage without letting you know it was Scripture.

 

[JonC]

This thread just needs to be closed. How many pages of this ridiculous feud are there now? Yes, @AustinC and @Yeshua1 got this one wrong, bad wrong and keep doubling down. And we all know I am not one to rush to @JonC defense...

Until it reaches the appropriate number of posts I cannot close the thread as a moderator because I am involved in the thread.

I could close it as the author of the OP, however that is kinda a loophole. ..... yea.....too much a loophole.

But I agree with you. If it reaches 130 posts I'll close it. Otherwise @rsr, @Salty , or @Squire Robertsson can do the deed.

 

[JonC]

Good for you. There was no reference anywhere and honestly, JonC added the second part after he stated the fool part. It was purely a dishonest post on his part. Next time I will double-check his posts to figure out if he is speaking or if he is plagairizing others.

Careful with the plagiarizing charge. It may very well turn out like your calling Scripture theologically flawed.

And I have to ask - what's worse? Me quoting Scripture without saying "this is 1 Corinthians 15" or you and @Yeshua1 denouncing the Scripture I quoted as "theologically flawed" and "false"?

I really do not know why you've dug in so hard here. You should have just let it go long ago.

 

[JonC]

That was post 119, BTW. This is 120.