Limited Atonement insanity.

[JonC]

It really can be understood to be simple.

Adam's disobedience lead to the whole human race to be born with a sin nature.

I know this is a very common doctrine (and I am not disagreeing), but I can't help but wondering exactly how this is reconciled with the fact that this idea is not actually expressed in the text of Scripture.

What I mean is we all agree that through Adam's transgression sin and death entered the world.

We all know that we are by nature "children of Adam".

And we all know that Adam sinned against God with the nature he had....and having sinned his eyes were opened and he became like God in knowing good and evil.

But how exactly did we get to this inherited sin nature because of Adam's sin?

I ask, again, not to disagree but just wondering why we do not view Adam as man's representative substitute in the Garden of Eden.

 

[DaveXR650]

It's a passage the anti-Cals use to dispute Limited Atonement. It needs to be addressed. I just did.

You just quoted the verse. Why would you quote a verse that anti-Cals use to dispute limited atonement?

 

[37818]

But how exactly did we get to this inherited sin nature because of Adam's sin?

The fundamental causes of mankind's sin nature.

By inheritance of God's knowledge of good and evil through Adam and Eve.

 

[DaveXR650]

But how exactly did we get to this inherited sin nature because of Adam's sin?

I think the idea is that if you don't accept actual imputed guilt of Adam's sin to all of mankind you are left with the question of how you can explain the obvious connection stated by Paul in Romans 5. Verse 19 clearly states that by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. They either directly share the guilt or they inherited a propensity to sin as descendants in a fallen state.

 

[percho]

I know this is a very common doctrine (and I am not disagreeing), but I can't help but wondering exactly how this is reconciled with the fact that this idea is not actually expressed in the text of Scripture.

What I mean is we all agree that through Adam's transgression sin and death entered the world.

We all know that we are by nature "children of Adam".

And we all know that Adam sinned against God with the nature he had....and having sinned his eyes were opened and he became like God in knowing good and evil.

But how exactly did we get to this inherited sin nature because of Adam's sin?

I ask, again, not to disagree but just wondering why we do not view Adam as man's representative substitute in the Garden of Eden.

Question?

because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;

Does the definite article appear to imply that sin existed, yet had not been introduced into the system of order just laid down?

What sin? Also, before Adam brought the sin into the world and thus the death, was sin and death going to be necessary to the destruction of the devil and his works?

put on the whole armour of God, for your being able to stand against the wiles of the devil, because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places; Eph 6:11,12

Was Adam, of flesh and blood, created because of the existence, of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places; ?

Did God make some kind of mistake, in Adam, and then have to correct that mistake, in Christ or did God know what He was doing from before the foundation of the world? Also was the original plan to be through Adam plus children and also through Christ Jesus plus children?

 

[JonC]

The fundamental causes of mankind's sin nature.

By inheritance of God's knowledge of good and evil through Adam and Eve.

I actually know the arguments. I was curious as to why they were initially introduced. Was it developed during the early Catholic Church, or another sect?

I'm not saying it is wrong, just wondering about its theological development.

I know how the current Doctrine of the Trinity was developed, and the debates concerning "nature"...but not sure where this exact element developed.

What I mean is, is this an early form of the Doctrine of Original Sin (part of it's development) or a part of the doctrine itself, or an outgrown?

 

[JonC]

I think the idea is that if you don't accept actual imputed guilt of Adam's sin to all of mankind you are left with the question of how you can explain the obvious connection stated by Paul in Romans 5. Verse 19 clearly states that by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. They either directly share the guilt or they inherited a propensity to sin as descendants in a fallen state.

I agree that we have the nature of the one in whose image we are made (Christ or Adam).

I'm just not sure about "fallen state" verses being "of the flesh" (Adam) or "of the Spirit" (Jesus).

 

[JonC]

Question?

because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;

Does the definite article appear to imply that sin existed, yet had not been introduced into the system of order just laid down?

What sin? Also, before Adam brought the sin into the world and thus the death, was sin and death going to be necessary to the destruction of the devil and his works?

put on the whole armour of God, for your being able to stand against the wiles of the devil, because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places; Eph 6:11,12

Was Adam, of flesh and blood, created because of the existence, of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places; ?

Did God make some kind of mistake, in Adam, and then have to correct that mistake, in Christ or did God know what He was doing from before the foundation of the world? Also was the original plan to be through Adam plus children and also through Christ Jesus plus children?

In regard to your first question, we can't say. Sin entering the world can mean the world in general or the world of man.

No mistake was made. God created Adam abs Adam had a mind set on the flesh (as evidenced by his transgression). His eyes were opened.

 

[37818]

Was it developed during the early Catholic Church, or another sect?

The Catholic Church does not teach mankinds sinful nature is do to inheriting God's knowledge of good and evii. Per Genesis 3:22, And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

The Son of God did not need a sunless mother to be born a sinless human. The knowledge of good and evil was a key part of His divine nature being He was both fully God and fully man.

 

[JonC]

The Catholic Church does not teach mankinds sinful nature is do to inheriting God's knowledge of good and evii. Per Genesis 3:22, And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

But Adam sinned before his eyes were opened.

 

[37818]

But Adam sinned before his eyes were opened.

Eve ate of the tree before Adam. Genesis 3:6, And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, . . .
Without the eating of the tree there is no sin nature.

 

[JonC]

Eve ate of the tree before Adam. Genesis 3:6, And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, . . .
Without the eating of the tree there is no sin nature.

I guess what I'm asking is why the developed "sin nature" if Adam and Eve sinned without having one.

Did Scripture (in James) about how sin is conceived somehow not apply to Adam and Eve?

And why does the Bible give a different explanation regarding sin than this change of nature?


You say "without the eating of the tree there is no sin nature." I disagree. I believe that eating of the tree itself was a sin. It was the result of "a mind set on the flesh", of sin born out of giving into the temptation of the flesh.

The difference is where you see Adam's sin as being followed by Adam getting a sin nature and us inheriting that fallen nature, I see Adam as the representative if man (we would have done the same).

 

[Brightfame52]

Not really. Are you saying the first 'all men' below means the entire human race, but the second 'all men' below means only the elect?

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.

Yes really. Rom 5:18-19 are about the same group of people and the efficacious results to their particular federal head acting in their behalf. The many in Vs 19 is the all in Vs 18

Are you a universalist now ? You believe Justification of life has come upon all men without exception ?

 

[Brightfame52]

BF you have missed to meaning of Paul's comment because you have again ignored context. Romans 5:12-19

Rom 5:12 "...through one man sin entered the world...thus death spread to all men"
Rom 5:18 "..through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life" NKJV

We see in this text Rom 5:12-18 the cause and the remedy for our separation form God.

Paul then gives a summation in Romans 5:19
"...by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..."
so also
"...by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous"

Your conclusion is flawed, you are reading into the text rather than letting the text inform you.

Rom 5:18 The all here is limited to the many in Vs 19 and its the elect, who are Justified by Christs Death alone.

 

[Brightfame52]

@DaveXR650

That passage is not about different aspects of the atonement. It is saying that God is the saviour of all men, with the added statement to clarify that this is not talking about universalism.

Correct, if you study that word especially it clearly denotes that. Its the word μάλιστα:

1. especially, chiefly, most of all, above all
   
   
   most (in the greatest degree) or particularly
   
   So it can read without strain:
   
   For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, particularly of those that believe.

 

[kyredneck]

Are you a universalist now ?

Lol, as much as you are a 'cherry-picker'. You cherry pick the first 'all men' in the passage to mean the whole human race, You cherry pick the second 'all men' to mean a select few.

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men [the human race] to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men [the elect few] to justification of life.

 

[37818]

I know this is a very common doctrine (and I am not disagreeing), but I can't help but wondering exactly how this is reconciled with the fact that this idea is not actually expressed in the text of Scripture.

What I mean is we all agree that through Adam's transgression sin and death entered the world.

We all know that we are by nature "children of Adam".

And we all know that Adam sinned against God with the nature he had....and having sinned his eyes were opened and he became like God in knowing good and evil.

But how exactly did we get to this inherited sin nature because of Adam's sin?

I ask, again, not to disagree but just wondering why we do not view Adam as man's representative substitute in the Garden of Eden.

The finite good mankind's acquired sin nature is the result of the acquisition of the infinititly good God's knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 3:22.

 

[Silverhair]

Rom 5:18 The all here is limited to the many in Vs 19 and its the elect, who are Justified by Christs Death alone.

As usual you exhibit your selective reading and or reading into the text.

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

Judgement came to ALL men just as the means of salvation came to ALL men. The fact that salvation is available to ALL does not mean the ALL have to or will be saved. The person still has to trust in Christ for salvation.

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.

What I do not see in this text is "elect". That is something that you read into the text.

I note that you want to alter by reading especially as {particularly}
1Ti 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially {particularly} of those who believe.

How does that change what is said in that verse. Christ is still the savior of ALL men. Especially or {particularly} those that believe.

 

[Brightfame52]

Lol, as much as you are a 'cherry-picker'. You cherry pick the first 'all men' in the passage to mean the whole human race, You cherry pick the second 'all men' to mean a select few.

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men [the human race] to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men [the elect few] to justification of life.

Again the all in Rom 5 18 is restated in Vs 19 as the many, and the many has the definite article in Vs 19, a specific group, not all without exception. Besides do you believe Justification of life in Vs 18 resulted for all without exception ? If you do thats universalism another false doctrine.

 

[Brightfame52]

As usual you exhibit your selective reading and or reading into the text.

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

Judgement came to ALL men just as the means of salvation came to ALL men. The fact that salvation is available to ALL does not mean the ALL have to or will be saved. The person still has to trust in Christ for salvation.

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.

What I do not see in this text is "elect". That is something that you read into the text.

I note that you want to alter by reading especially as {particularly}
1Ti 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially {particularly} of those who believe.

How does that change what is said in that verse. Christ is still the savior of ALL men. Especially or {particularly} those that believe.

Both Rom 5 18 ; 1 Tim 4 10 is limited to the elect