Mans nature

[Gup20]

What you saying is oxymoronic - "they die because they die" thus the cause equals the results when the Bible gives only one cause for death (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). Again you are contradicting your interpretation of Ezek. 18 where you demand that the condemnation of death cannot result without personal sin. Either death is the direct condemnation of sin or it is not. Make up your mind.

They die because of the curse. God cursed the whole universe with death, and it is a curse that has not been lifted. We don't die because we are each individually guilty of Adam's sin.... we die because the consequence of Adam's sin was God cursed the earth death, and that death is passed to us. Each of us are guilty of our own sin, and therefore the judgement that God gave to Adam, and that has passed to us is justified.

The promised redeemer in Genesis 3:15 comes from the seed of "the woman" not Adam or man.

Where did the woman come from? Oh yeah... out of man. You might have a point if God created Eve separately rather than taking her out of Adam. Your theory of two separate species of human (male and female) is demonstrably false.

Or do you believe in UNIVERSAL salvation that "all in Adam" equals "all in Christ"???????? Hence, no one goes to hell????

Absolutely not, but your interpretation of Romans 5 would demand it.

In this passage it is the singular act by one man that is the cause of the effect - sinners, righteous not the reverse as your rationale is attempting to make. Many are made sinners as consequence of the cause of one man's action. Many are made righteous as the consequence of the cause of one man's action.

By your rationale, you are a universalist.

You are completely misundestanding his point. He is not denying that representative men are the cause of both consequences for "many"; he is denying that Christ's obedience is FINITE and LIMITED. It took only ONE SIN to make many sinners but the representative work of Christ is sufficient for MANY SINS to make many sinners righteous.

I'm not a Calvinist, so I will never be able to see this from your perspective. But I don't wish you any ill will. Be blessed.

 

[The Biblicist]

They die because of the curse.

But the "curse" IS death and so you have death the cause of death! Still oxymoronic and Biblically wrong! Sin is the cause of dying and dying is the curse of sin. You are attempting to squeeze in a THIRD party to stand between "sin" and "death" and it ain't so!

God cursed the whole universe with death, and it is a curse that has not been lifted.

Because sin has not been removed! Death only continue because sin continues. Remove sin and you remove death because death cannot exist were there is no sin. Infants die because they are sinners BY NATURE. Infants died between Adam and Moses because they SINNED in Adam not because of personal individual transgression of the law between Moses and Adam as the law did not exist.

We don't die because we are each individually guilty of Adam's sin.... we die because the consequence of Adam's sin

I wish nothing but the best for you as well.
f
Thus you contradict your use of Ezek. 18 where no one dies who does not sin. However, you have all infants dying without sin. You have Christ dying without sin, when in fact, "he was MADE SIN' (2 Cor. 5:21) and therefore his "death" was just in keeping with being "made sin" for us. That is the only reason we are justified from the penalty of the law because of Christ's death. What has been born again, saved never dies (Jn. 11) and what aspect of our nature does die is due to the indwelling "law of sin" residing in it (Rom. 7:18-21).

Each of us are guilty of our own sin,

and we "all sinned" IN ADAM by nature as the whole of nature existed in Adam when Adam sinned, and thus "all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12b). Just as when Christ died "all in Christ" died with Him. Just as Christ is now seated in heavenly places we are also seated "in Christ" (Eph. 2:7). We are created in Adam POSITIONALLY and by NATURE (generation) just as all who are created in Christ, are in Christ positionally and by nature - new birth.

Where did the woman come from? Oh yeah... out of man. You might have a point if God created Eve separately rather than taking her out of Adam. Your theory of two separate species of human (male and female) is demonstrably false.

Modern science tells you that you are a product of your mother and father but they do not equally supply the same aspects of your human nature.

Absolutely not, but your interpretation of Romans 5 would demand it. By your rationale, you are a universalist.

Not at all. To be a universalist I would have to take your position that "ALL" in Adam EQUALS "ALL" in Christ. I do not take that position. My position is that one must be created in Christ to be "in Christ" just as one must be created in Adam to be "in Adam." Therefore, I reject that "all in Adam" equal "all in Christ" because none in Christ will be lost and that is not true of "all in Adam" is it??? Even the free will arminian lost and saved and lost theory must believe a person can only be lost OUTSIDE of Christ not In Christ.

 

[awaken]

No, I am saying that Adam had the ability to sin, though not the nature to sin, and not the desire to sin. He had the ability to lust, though he had no knowledge of what lust was.

It is a not a sin to be tempted. It is a sin to act on temptation.

Note James 1 says God doesn't tempt anyone. Satan tempted Adam, capitalizing on Adam's ability to choose to sin. Adam sinned WITHOUT having a sin nature.

I agree with that!

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with that!

I do too! However, we are not dealing with the unfallen nature of man but with the fallen nature of man and that is entirely a different story - Rom. 8:7-8.