If Adam Hadn't Sinned...

[JonC]

This is unbiblical nonsense. It is non christian mythology....this is all that is lefty when you depart from scripture.

I agree, Icon. The difference here is more than what it appeared at first (it's greater than the headship of Adam). Tom is working off an entirely different view (even if InternetTheologian thinks otherwise).

 

[JonC]

yes, I believe the federal headship of Adam is a minor error compared to the most important point., It is difficult to measure to whom I am responding .

But let us try, Consider if "THE souls of MEN are the fallen elohyim. or "angels". We are the bad guys in the Bible narrative and that Humanity is the method of redemption

Consider, the expulsion, the necessity of the physical world, and the method of redemption , Purpose for Israel, even Scripture etc. if the statement is true

I know with your knowledge of Scripture you can think about this scenario i objectively in detail . You may find an possible error I cannot overcome

Thank you for responding. I didn't want to misrepresent what you believed, and I think I understand you here. That was what I gathered from the other thread. It's been awhile...not a temporal while but a mental one ...but things started to click.

 

[Iconoclast]

I agree that it's "off the rails", but I think his detour is a bit deeper than denying the federal headship of Adam. Had I not remembered other conversations, I may have agreed with you. (I don't mean anything negative, brother, just that I don't think that doctrine answers for his theology. I believe his position and our positions are farther apart than you indicate).

Maybe this will help explain why I disagreed:

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/why-did-god-create-the-physical-universe.98798/

yes....when anyone departs from the safe haven of scripture into mythology...not only does he miss federal headship, but he has missed sola scriptura as the basis of our beliefs.
Tom....if you do not have complete confidence in revealed truth you will fail to grasp the gospel savingly.

 

[TomLaPalm]

yes....when anyone departs from the safe haven of scripture into mythology...not only does he miss federal headship, but he has missed sola scriptura as the basis of our beliefs.
Tom....if you do not have complete confidence in revealed truth you will fail to grasp the gospel savingly.

way past confidence in Original Scripture, not man's opinions about scripture

but I had a question about a statement you made,

Why do you think sinful man knew God before the Flood?

 

[TomLaPalm]

With ya'll's permission, I would like to take the position that the soul's of men are the sinful heavenly host to a new thread. I am very interested in what others think about this statement.

 

[Iconoclast]

way past confidence in Original Scripture, not man's opinions about scripture

but I had a question about a statement you made,

Why do you think sinful man knew God before the Flood?

The sins cataloged in Rom 1 were in part why God destroyed the world of the ungodly with a worldwide flood. They turned from God to idols and mythology. the thoughts and intents of their hearts was only evil continually.
Man devolved because of the effects of the fall....God destroyed them to protect the godly line and the promise of the seed that would come.

Now I was still waiting for you to offer your idea from the greek text on romans 3:23.....it happened at one point in time....show differently if you claim you have understanding of the original scripture.

 

[JonC]

With ya'll's permission, I would like to take the position that the soul's of men are the sinful heavenly host to a new thread. I am very interested in what others think about this statement.

I think that would be better, Tom. It is not the topic of the OP, and I have a feeling that the issue is going to be more involved than answering the question "if Adam hadn't sinned."

 

[JonC]

Here is a link to the thread discussing the position that the souls of men are the sinful heavenly host.

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/are-the-souls-of-men-the-fallen-heavenly-hosts.99701/

 

[Internet Theologian]

I agree, Icon. The difference here is more than what it appeared at first (it's greater than the headship of Adam). Tom is working off an entirely different view (even if InternetTheologian thinks otherwise).

I just love how you cast aspersions and put words in my mouth. Quite unbecoming of the Gospel.

2 Corinthians 12:9-10.

 

[TomLaPalm]

Here is a link to the thread discussing the position that the souls of men are the sinful heavenly host.

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/are-the-souls-of-men-the-fallen-heavenly-hosts.99701/

Thank you

 

[JonC]

I just love how you cast aspersions and put words in my mouth. .

Let’s see…..

When ppl stray from the Federal Headship of Adam, doctrines run amuck. Such an example is in this thread now.

Why did you disagree,.Jon? Look at TLP's stance. It is off the rails, theologically speaking.

I don't think straying from the federal headship of Adam is the source of the "amuckness" here.

Yep. No reason to disagree here.

The difference here is more than what it appeared at first (it's greater than the headship of Adam). Tom is working off an entirely different view (even if InternetTheologian thinks otherwise).

I do not understand your "conciseness" here, brother. If you disagree with me, that is fine. But don't object when I mention your disagreement.

What I said here, to clarify, is that Tom's position deviated from the traditional position regarding this thread in ways beyond the headship of Adam. You disagreed. I noted that you disagreed. That's all. Nothing offensive, no insults, nothing unbecoming a believer, and no words placed in your mouth.

One thing that I miss about the Army is that men had the courage to speak plainly. If by disagreeing with me you meant to agree with me, then apologies for my misunderstanding your "conciseness". Unsure

Quite unbecoming of the Gospel. Col. 4:4

I do understand, brother, why you may be ashamed of your words and actions over the past two weeks. I also have said things that I'm ashamed to have written. It happens. But the appropriate response is repentance, not insult.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Let’s see…..


I do not understand your "conciseness" here, brother. If you disagree with me, that is fine. But don't object when I mention your disagreement.

What I said here, to clarify, is that Tom's position deviated from the traditional position regarding this thread in ways beyond the headship of Adam. You disagreed. I noted that you disagreed. That's all. Nothing offensive, no insults, nothing unbecoming a believer, and no words placed in your mouth.

One thing that I miss about the Army is that men had the courage to speak plainly. If by disagreeing with me you meant to agree with me, then apologies for my misunderstanding your "conciseness". Unsure

Quite unbecoming of the Gospel. Col. 4:4

I do understand, brother, why you may be ashamed of your words and actions over the past two weeks. But the appropriate response is repentance, not insult.

I didn't disagree about deviating from the position concerning LaPalma.

[Edited: direct personal attacks removed; JonC]

 

[JonC]

I didn't disagree about deviating from the position concerning LaPalma.

Then, brother, you have my apology for misunderstanding. But that was my only point - that the issue was deeper than the headship of Adam. To clarify, if you were not disagreeing with my conclusion that the divide here was more than the headship of Adam, what exactly was your objection?