-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Spiritual death has been "passed" from Adam
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
That s factually false! Anyone can read our exchanges and clearly see you are responding directly to my statements, shall I reproduce your posts? Fess up!
Half truth! You never made that claim until I quoted Romans 7:12 wherein I made that claim saying that God's law reveals God's righteousness as the very same terms that describe God describe his law. When you did make that claim, what was I supposed to do refute what I just proved which was the very same claim???
Another claim that I first made not you. I claimed that the law, the prophets and the incarnation of Christ were all revelations of the righteousness of God. No one, and I mean no one disputed that the righteousness of God was not revealed in salvation as that was one of my first claims in this debate as I claimed the new birth was the creative act by God where in true holiness and righteious was the "image" of God and that image was imparted in new birth. So, who are you arguing against?
Another half truth as you have consistently denied that the righteousness of God was revealed in the law until you were forced to admit because of the evidence placed before you.
I am the one who made the accountability argument not you as you did not confess this until now in this post.
this was never part of your arguments until at the end of our discussion. what you previously said was our redemption is revealed the righteousness of God but claiming that repentance and faith in the gospel saves a person has never been something I have ever disputed.
I am simply not interested in defending that claim (I've offered it for y'all to take or leave as you see fit).[/QUOTE]
This is a total untruth as you NEVER ONCE made this part of your argument until the disputed "this" post as that was the very first time you used that language and then falsely accused me of claiming repentance and faith in the gospel was insufficient to save anyone.
Anyone can read back through this thread and see the truth and as POTUS says "fake news" is what you are reporting. You will give an account for perverting these issues.
Have I legitimately engaged your post? Had I sought to debate you I would have gone line by line but I have adopted the policy of stopping when another resorts to insults. I have no idea what you have posted beyond the first three sentences of each post.
reading three lines and responding is entering into debate! It explains why you are completely ignorant of the defense of my position because you never read enough. In post #41 I used the new birth as the revelation of God's righteousness which you claim I don't believe and you claim I think is foolish. You make yourself foolish when you make false charges when you could avoid it by simply reading the post.
But enough of this! I am dropping this matter but I don't think I can respect what you say anymore since you respond to posts without reading them.
I count 21 posts by you on this thread, the large majority of which have been in 'discussion' with @The Biblicist. For someone who's not debating, you've had a lot to say for yourself.
I am not making charges (either true or false). I think we could have an interesting discussion, and I would read your entire post and consider what you are saying because I respect you and your opinions...except for the insults. I respond to your first question/ statement ect. because were you interested in legitimate conversation I believe you would not have resorted to ad hominem (it's my way of keeping the door open without validating your "method").
Yes. I like to talk.
And not to consider other people's replies.
I do consider other people's replies until they become insulting. Insults simply negate anything that follows. On these forums it saves a lot of reading.
I wasn't going to respond to your posts above because it would do no good, but when you make these inferred false charges about my posts I must respond even though I already know your modus operandi in responding to criticisms.
I went back starting with post#41 where our discussion began. I could not find any "insults" or "ad homenim" remarks in any of the first three lines of any of my posts from that point forward to you. The worst things I could find are expressions like "I don't buy it" and "you are wrong." I went back and reread all my posts in their entirety and there are no insults and no ad homenim remarks. However, if criticizing your views are interpreted as personal insults then I am guilty as charged. I may have stated on a couple of occasions that a certain view or argument was irrational or etc., but I never addressed that at your person. So, I really don't know what basis you have to charge me with insulting you? It seems if I attack your position you take it as an attack on your person.
Of course I did say you falsely charged me when you accused me of believing it is foolish to think that simple repentance and faith is all one needs to be saved. However, anyone can read my previous posts in this thread and easily see I never said such a thing or even implied such a thing. Indeed, it was one of my major arguments that the new birth imparts the moral "image" of God "in true holiness and righteousness" and Adam was created "upright" and in the "image" of God. So, that charge is both baseless and false.
It is greivious to me to write this post as I know it will be simply brushed aside as that is your modus operandi to personal criticisms but nevertheless, I could not allow you to make such inferred charges (as I am not mentioned by name but anyone reading this thread can see who you are talking about) as they are charges that have no basis.
I don't mean extreme insults (that would have been an issue for moderation). I mean things like referring to my belief as "nonsense", introducing ideas foreign to the conversation like “God doesn’t have two standards of righteousness”, “it would be nice if we could have an actual dialogue…but that is not your style”, “you have a very short memory or a very selective memory”, false inferences like “why would you deny God is a ‘moral being?” and “why would you deny [God] has a just and holy nature?” (when obviously I never denied either), “don’t you get tired of misrepresenting people?”, etc.
These quotes are examples of being insulting rather than seeking honest dialogue. Honest dialogue would be to engage my explanation that God’s moral law is a demonstration of God’s righteousness, but God’s righteousness is more than the moral law (the apple being a fruit, but fruit not being an apple).
Were you truly interested in dialogue then I believe you would have sought to understand my view and explain your view rather than dictate and defend your position. It seems that you are looking for a platform, or an echo chamber, not dialogue. And that is fine, as long as you know that is what you are doing. But do not pretend otherwise. Here you want to grandstand, display your theories, and enjoy an echo chamber. That is very different from dialogue.
You gotta be kidding me?????? These are the kind of "insults" and "ad homenim" language you take offense at??????? You made absolute false charges against me and I called you out on them. You can't even measure up to your own standards, Look at your very own post where you say in the third paragraph - "Were you truly interested in dialogue....It seems that you are looking for a platform, or an echo chamber than dictate and defend your position....But do not pretend otherwise. Here you want to grandstand.....rather than honest dialogue." What are these but the very same kind of "insults" as you talk down and lecture me when you do the very same thing.
This is precisely the kind of response I thought I would get from you and that is why I hesitated even to address this issue. I have lost all respect for you as a person.
Since, I believe that God created Adam in his own "image" which includies "true holiness and righteousness" (Eph. 4:24) thus making Adam "upright" (mutably and conditionally), then I am being charged with believing that it is nonsense "for one to be saved all he or she has to do is repent and believe (to trust God)."
Jon was referring to his previous post where he said:
Scripture tells us that God is not the author of evil. I do not have to rely on the law or my own understanding to accept that is fact. All I have to do is trust God.
That is the difference. There is a righteousness apart from the law. And this righteousness cannot be understood by those trapped in an idea that the law defines God's righteousness. - Jon
You can clearly see that Jon was not talking about salvation above when he said "All I have to do is trust God" but he was denying that he needed "to rely on the law or my own understanding to accept that is fact." (e.g. God is not the author of evil).
I responded:
Now you are talking nonsense! What do you mean all you have to do is "trust" God? Did God audibly speak to you and define his words? Did God explain to you audibly what is evil? Explain evil without using your own understanding (mind) or God's Word? And when you give this explaination without using understanding or God's Word why should anyone believe what you say? - The Biblicist
You say "God is not the author of EVIL" and yet how can you even know or define what "evil" is apart from His Law? You can't (Rom. 3:20). How can we know and define good, or just, or holy apart from his law? You can't! Hence, his law reveals and defines all of these moral terms, thus revealing and defiing the very attributes of God. The law reveals and defines what is righteous, just, good, holy, evil and the ADMINISTRATION of the law reveals what is justice, righteousness, holiness and sin. - The Biblicist
As you can plainly see there is no mention of simple repentance and faith in the gospel but rather the argument is about trusting God for definitions and understanding of evil apart from revelation from God. Yet, Jon falsely charges me with thinking it is nonsense to simply only repent and beleive the gospel for salvation.
Whether you agree or disagree with my view that written revelation is the only means to define moral terms and revealing and defining the attributes of God, it is plain to see at no time did I ever say or infer that it is nonsense to only simply repent and believe the gospel to be saved.
I also believe that God created Adam in his own image, which includes true holiness and righteousness (Adam was created “upright”). I did not even engage, much less deny, the fact on this thread.
Again, I believe you are not interested in dialogue because of comments like quoted above. I have not even engaged (much less denied) that Adam was crated in the image of God (I do not know where you are coming up with this stuff.
Were you interested in what I believed you would not have characterized my belief as "nonsense". I am not interested in discussing with you something you have predetermined to be foolishness. There is no benefit to it.
I recommend continuing your conversation with those who may not challenge your position. For me, I can't think of another way to let you know I have no interest in discussing this with you.
I think the fire marshal should inspect The Biblicist's psyche. With all the strawmen he beats up, there is plenty of combustible fragments lying about that could burst into flames with the slightest spark.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Where did I get it from? How about here:
Adam was not created "morally good" or "morally evil". - Jon C Post#35
You have changed your position a lot. You used to argue that Adam was not even created morally good but argued that "good" in Genesis 1 had nothing to do with moral uprightness.
The term "moral" refers to right and wrong values/character/conduct. Conduct is merely the expression of moral character and moral character is simply manifest of moral values.
We are in a debate Jon!! I am not trying to discover what you believe as you have plainly told me what you do and do not believe. What I said was nonsense was your claim you didn't need a written revelation from God (the Law/scriptures) to know the definition of evil/sin and the character of God because you said God tells you and you just trust God. I said that is "nonsense" and then you turn my words into meaning that I believe simple repentance and faith in the gospel is the only thing needed to be saved!!!!!!!!! Tell me, where in the world did that charge come from??????? I never said that! I never said anything to infer that but that is what you charged me with.
There was no predetermination on my part, BECAUSE you plainly told me what you believed and that was what I was responding to as "nonsense."
You always like talking down to people and making snide remarks and yet you charge me with "ad homenim" remarks when I say anything close to what you have just said.
I see. When I say Adam was created righteous and "upright" I do not mean Adam must have somehow changed in order to have committed an immoral act (to sin). He was created neither morally good or morally evil. Perhaps if you consider that you may see why I object to the way are "debating" and why I bow out. Much of what you have to say here is ad hominem- not pertaining to the subject at hand.
One of the good things about these forums is we get to choose those with whom we discourse. I do not mind talking to you, but there is a dishonest undercurrent in some following these threads. I do not continue anymore when the conversation becomes personal. That way I do not feed that element.
He was created in the "image" of God which is inclusive of "true holiness and righteousness" (Eph. 4:24). Paul is applying this description to the character of the new man in this passage but he is equally defining this as inclusive of the "image' of God. Hence, Solomon says that God made Adam "upright" he is referring to this aspect of God's image - "true holiness and righteousness." This characterization was mutable and conditional as it was destroyed by the act of sin and the purpose of new birth is to restore this aspect of God's nature in man.
I don't believe Adam must have somehow changed "in order to" have committed an immoral act (to sin) either! I think it is the act that changed him from a "righteous and upright" condition to a spiritually dead, dark, depraved condition. That change is called "the fall" as he fell from an "upright" condition to "fallen" depraved condition. I believe his "upright" condition was conditional and mutable.
The term "moral" simply refers to a righteous or unrighteous value system that characterizes the condition of the human soul. God created man's soul with a value system that characterized God's value system or as Paul describes that value system to be "true holiness and righteousness." The act of sin by Adam permenantly changed the value system of his soul derived from the "image of God" to an opposite value system that characterized Satan or a "depraved, or unholy and unrighteous" condition of his soul. That transition between value systems is described by the word "die" in Genesis 2:17 and it is a death that occured "in the day" he ate rather than 930 years later when his body was separated from his immaterial nature. Hence, spiritual death (spiritual separation between man's spirit and God's Spirit) precedes and is the cause of ultimate separation between man's material and immaterial nature). It is the very same value system defined as "dead in tresspasses and sins" by Paul in Ephesians 2:1-3 as that value system characterizes not merely man's soul but his conduct (Eph. 2:2-3).
So, this transition from "true holiness and righteousness" to "unholiness and unrighteousness" is inclusive in the word "death" as applied not to the body but to the spirit of man.
Hence, Adam's spirit was created in an "upright" condition or "in true holiness and righteousness" and this condition was CONDITIONAL AND MUTABLE as this condition was lost in the act of sin as sin separated Adam from God spiritually, thus separating Adam from the source of "true holiness and righteousness" and that spiritual separation is inclusive of "death" in the Bible which is characterized as a spiritual state of unholiness and unrighteousness. The New birth restores that condition by bringing the spirit of man back into spiritual union with God in an unconditional and immutable state, unlike the conditional and mutable condition of Adam.
I do not believe that the “image of God” includes a “true holiness and righteousness” that equates to God’s holiness and righteousness. So I would look at Adam as being created without sin (upright) and then sinning in the nature that God gave to him. This is one difference, IMHO, between Adam’s created righteousness and God’s righteousness. Adam was created “right” with God and “upright” (not an enemy). From that state Adam fell.
The term "moral" is concerned with the principles of right and wrong that define immaterial character and consequently are manifest by a behavior that corresponds with either right or wrong principles. Please let that definition sink in.
For example, God's character is defined by "true holiness and righteousness". Therefore, as a matter of conduct "God cannot lie" as that would be contrary to the kind of moral principles that define His character.
Adam was created in the same "moral" image of God, meaning his soul was created in an "upright" condition so that his soul was characterized by principles of "true holiness and righteousness." However, unlike God, Adam's moral image was not immutable but mutable and conditional.
Adam's sin was the cause that transitioned his mutable condition from "upright" or from "true holiness and righteousness" to a fallen condition or to an unholy and unrighteous condition of character manifested in corresponding conduct that harmonizes with that act of sin. This change of moral condition from a character defined by principles of righteous and holiness to a character defined by principles of unrighteousness and unholiness.
The moral nature of ones character is manifested in behavior. Behavior or conduct is a consequence of character and character is defined either by principles of righteousness or unrighteousness.
Hence, it is proper to say God has a moral nature as his character is defined by principles of righteousness and holiness which dictates his conduct.
Hence, it is proper to say God created man after his own "moral" image or created him "upright" or with a character defined by principles of righteousness. He created him with "free will" and thus with a character that can transition between righteousness to unrighteousness by choosing to do wrong. Thus, unlike God, man was created with a mutable moral character/nature and his continuance in an "upright" or "in true holiness and righteousness" was conditioned upon continuing in obedience to God. When Adam chose to sin, he transitioned from an "upright" moral condition of character to a fallen condition of character.
New birth restores man to a permenant, immutable condition of true holiness and righteousness like unto the moral nature/character of God.
Hence, the fall of man was a transition of moral character/nature from "upright" to fallen depraved and that transition is inclusive of what the Bible calls "death."
- Status