The Similtude of Adam's transgression

[The Biblicist]

Pure baloney and nothing but word games, trying to redefine the word "similitude".

I proved your definition of "similitude" was dishonest and you are unable to respond to that evidence, which is:


1. It is never used in Scripture to mean the "exact same" thing but rather something that is "SIMILAR" or a shared LIKENESS found in the original.

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there rises another priest,

The greek term translated "another" is "heteros" meaning one different in kind and so this "another priest" that "rises" is not the EXACT SAME but nevertheless shares a common likeness.

Jas 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Man is made in the "similitude" of God. He is not God but shares a common LIKENESS with God as he is made in the "image" of God.

Readers, notice Wiman has NO RESPONSE to my Biblical evidence his definition of "similitude" is absolutely false.
All he can do is reply with insults. He can provide not a single Biblical reference to support his definition of "exact same" - Not one!

 

[Protestant]

Have you forgotten election is "unconditional" in Calvinism? In Calvinism, God loved Jacob without condition, and he hated Esau without condition, it has nothing to do with being good or bad. It is complete mystery why God loved Jacob and hated Esau in Calvinism.

Romans 9:11 refutes Original Sin, because it says Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. But according to Biblicist, both Jacob and Esau, and you, and me, and all men ever born were in the garden with Adam picking that forbidden fruit off the tree of knowledge and actually taking a bite of it.

Paul must have forgotten that Jacob and Esau ate the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. :laugh:

I have asked you two direct questions which you avoid in this latest post.

I will ask again:

Question # 1: Into what moral state were Jacob and Esau born: righteous or unrighteous?

Question # 2:

Originally Posted by Winman
All men (and babies) die as a consequence of Adam's sin.

Yet, in your post # 22, you stated:

Every man dies for his own personal sin.

Which is it?

Please use Scripture to prove your cause.

 

[The Biblicist]

I proved your definition of "similitude" was dishonest and you are unable to respond to that evidence, which is:


1. It is never used in Scripture to mean the "exact same" thing but rather something that is "SIMILAR" or a shared LIKENESS found in the original.

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there rises another priest,

The greek term translated "another" is "heteros" meaning one different in kind and so this "another priest" that "rises" is not the EXACT SAME but nevertheless shares a common likeness.

Jas 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Man is made in the "similitude" of God. He is not God but shares a common LIKENESS with God as he is made in the "image" of God.

Readers, notice Wiman has NO RESPONSE to my Biblical evidence his definition of "similitude" is absolutely false.

All he can do is reply with insults.

Not only I have proven beyond any question that Winman's definition of "exact same" is absolutely false and which he has NO RESPONSE,
but I have also provided exegetical based evidence that his denial that all men sinned when Adam is false.

Winman's interpretation of Romans 5:12 demands the following reading:

"death SHALL pass upon all men that SHALL sin"

"death passed upon all men who SHALL sin"


However, the text uses the Aorist tense completed action "have sinned" at one punctilliar action in time. - "by one man sin enterd the world and death by sin"

Furthermore, in case the reader did not get this grammatical point, Paul repeatedly claims that judgement of many occurred because of "one man's disobedence" and MANY "be dead" (aroist tense) because of "one man's" action and MANY were "made sinners" (aorist tense) because of "one man's sin.

No one can deny that the totality of human nature with all of its possible or potential individual expressions consisted and existed in Adam when he sinned and thus "IN ADAM all die" as universal death is explicitly and repeatedly restricted to sin "death by sin."

 

[The Biblicist]

Not only I have proven beyond any question that Winman's definition of "exact same" is absolutely false and which he has NO RESPONSE,
but I have also provided exegetical based evidence that his denial that all men sinned when Adam is false.

Winman's interpretation of Romans 5:12 demands the following reading:

"death SHALL pass upon all men that SHALL sin"

"death passed upon all men who SHALL sin"


However, the text uses the Aorist tense completed action "have sinned" at one punctilliar action in time. - "by one man sin enterd the world and death by sin"

Furthermore, in case the reader did not get this grammatical point, Paul repeatedly claims that judgement of many occurred because of "one man's disobedence" and MANY "be dead" (aroist tense) because of "one man's" action and MANY were "made sinners" (aorist tense) because of "one man's sin.

No one can deny that the totality of human nature with all of its possible or potential individual expressions consisted and existed in Adam when he sinned and thus "IN ADAM all die" as universal death is explicitly and repeatedly restricted to sin "death by sin."

Moreover, Romans 5:12-19 demand that sin is the cause of universal death.

1. by one man sin entered the world and "DEATH BY SIN" - What is the origin of death? "by sin"

2. Death passed upon all men because all men HAVE SINNED. - What justifies death upon all men? "all have sinned".

3. Where there is no law sin cannot be imputed and yet between Adam and Moses there is UNIVERSAL DEATH and so sin was imputed. The whole argument in verses 13-14 is to justify universal death. Where there is no violation of Law there can be justification of death is his point. Again only sin justifies death.

4. Death passed upon "even those" who could not violate their conscience, could not violate the Law of Moses, could not willfully sin in regard to their own person but yet suffered Death. Again, the only justification for the death of "even those" who did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression must be the violation of law and infants cannot violate the law of conscience. The possible law that can justify their death is Adam's violation of Genesis 2:17 which proves that "all in Adam die" and thus they must have existed previously "in Adam" and violation of Genesis 2:17 is the just cause for their death, judgement, being made sinners and being dead as verses 15-19 continue to repeat over and over again.

This proves that all men consisted and existed in one human nature that transgressed Genesis 2:17 BEFORE they were individualized through generation as infants and mentally impaired suffer death and the whole gist of this section is to prove "death by sin" and the ONLY SIN repeatedly mentioned is "one man's sin" and that one sin violates no other law possible but Genesis 2:17

 

[Winman]

I proved your definition of "similitude" was dishonest and you are unable to respond to that evidence, which is:


1. It is never used in Scripture to mean the "exact same" thing but rather something that is "SIMILAR" or a shared LIKENESS found in the original.

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there rises another priest,

The greek term translated "another" is "heteros" meaning one different in kind and so this "another priest" that "rises" is not the EXACT SAME but nevertheless shares a common likeness.

Jas 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Man is made in the "similitude" of God. He is not God but shares a common LIKENESS with God as he is made in the "image" of God.

Readers, notice Wiman has NO RESPONSE to my Biblical evidence his definition of "similitude" is absolutely false.

All he can do is reply with insults.

You did no such thing, I even quoted Albert Barnes who defined "similitude" as; "In the same way; in like manner. The expression "after the similitude" is an Hebraism, denoting in like manner, or as"

The dictionary defines similitude as;

the quality or state of being similar to something.
synonyms: resemblance, similarity, likeness, sameness, similar nature, comparability, correspondence, comparison, analogy, parallel, parallelism, equivalence;

I don't know who you think you are fooling, but the only person you are fooling is yourself. Romans 5:14 says that men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude or likeness of Adam's sin. This utterly refutes your view that these men were in the garden with Adam eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge.

I guess you believe if you stubbornly hold to a lie that somehow it will become the truth. You are self-deceived.

 

[The Biblicist]

You did no such thing, I even quoted Albert Barnes who defined "similitude" as; "In the same way; in like manner. The expression "after the similitude" is an Hebraism, denoting in like manner, or as"

The dictionary defines similitude as;

the quality or state of being similar to something.
synonyms: resemblance, similarity, likeness, sameness, similar nature, comparability, correspondence, comparison, analogy, parallel, parallelism, equivalence;

Try reading what you are writing! Twelve of the thirteen dictionary definitons support my view.

Any Bible Student knows that HISTORICAL USAGE at the time of writing takes precedence over etymology (which also supports my view) or theological bias (Barnes, you). Not even "equivalence" supports your definition of "exact same"! So NONE of these dictionary definitions support your definition.

Neither you or Barnes can find ONE INSTANCE in Scripture where your definition is supported! NOT ONE!

In contrast EVERY SINGLE USAGE in Scripture supports my definition and even the word "similar" which is derived from "similtude" supports my view.

Even Barnes when it comes to the other occurrences of this term in Scripture as in Hebrews 7 denies it means "exact same"

After the similitude, Resembling; that is, he was to be of the order of Melchizedek. Albert Barnes

 

[Winman]

Try reading what you are writing! Twelve of the thirteen dictionary definitons support my view.

Any Bible Student knows that HISTORICAL USAGE at the time of writing takes precedence over etymology (which also supports my view) or theological bias (Barnes, you). Not even "equivalence" supports your definition of "exact same"! So NONE of these dictionary definitions support your definition.

Neither you or Barnes can find ONE INSTANCE in Scripture where your definition is supported! NOT ONE!

In contrast EVERY SINGLE USAGE in Scripture supports my definition and even the word "similar" which is derived from "similtude" supports my view.

Even Barnes when it comes to the other occurrences of this term in Scripture as in Hebrews 7 denies it means "exact same"

After the similitude, Resembling; that is, he was to be of the order of Melchizedek. Albert Barnes

I realize you are a Calvinist, and that as a Calvinist you can assign whatever definition of a word is convenient for you at the moment, but Romans 5:14 is clearly saying that men from Adam to Moses did not sin the same kind of sin as Adam. They were not in the garden picking the forbidden fruit off the tree and eating it.

If Paul was trying to teach men after Adam were in the garden eating the forbidden fruit with him, then he would not have limited it to men from Adam to Moses as he clearly does, but would have included ALL MEN that ever was or will be born.

We were already told by Paul that men without law perish without law because they are a law to themselves, the law being written on their hearts. If your view were correct, then Romans 2:12 would be a lie. There would be no such thing as a man without law, and they would have perished with law, not without.

In addition, there are many other scriptures which refutes your view. In Romans 9:11 Paul clearly tells us that Jacob and Esau had done no evil. This would be a lie if your view is correct, if your view is correct then Jacob and Esau would have eaten the forbidden fruit in the garden with Adam.

Romans 7 refutes your view, Paul says he was spiritually alive until the commandment came, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. This is when Paul learned the commandments as clearly shown in Rom 7:7. Upon learning the commandments he became accountable and spiritually died the first time he violated a known commandment.

If your view was correct, then Romans 7:9 would be a lie, Paul would have been born dead in sin, as he sinned with Adam in the garden.

You can believe whatever you want, but your view is total error.

 

[The Biblicist]

I realize you are a Calvinist, and that as a Calvinist you can assign whatever definition of a word is convenient for you at the moment

The meaning of Similitude has NOTHING to do with Calvinism or Arminianism.

Your own dictionary authority denies your definition of "exact same thing."

Every Biblical use denies your definition of "exact same thing."

You have NOTHING to justify your forced definition of "the exact same thing" as the meaning of "similitude."

Every reader on this forum can easily see you are wrong and will do ANYTHING to justify your Arminian interpretation even falsify the clear definition of words, repudiate your own dictionary definitions or do whatever it takes to repudiate self-evident truth if it stands in your way.

 

[The Biblicist]

If Paul was.... if your view is correct then.....
If your view was correct, then....QUOTE]

Here is where Winman, Van and Skandelon ultimately flee as their final authority - philosophical speculations and/or illustrations when they are faced with exegetical contextual based evidence they have no answer, no response, no clue how to deal with. They simply shift the discussion over to the "if" method of argumentation rather than dealing with the exegetical facts placed directly in their face.

 

[Winman]

If Paul was.... if your view is correct then.....
If your view was correct, then....

Here is where Winman, Van and Skandelon ultimately flee as their final authority - philosophical speculations and/or illustrations when they are faced with exegetical contextual based evidence they have no answer, no response, no clue how to deal with. They simply shift the discussion over to the "if" method of argumentation rather than dealing with the exegetical facts placed directly in their face.

The if/then argument is a valid form of argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms

You should try using logical arguments, maybe folks will start listening to you.

 

[The Biblicist]

The if/then argument is a valid form of argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms

You should try using logical arguments, maybe folks will start listening to you.

It is not a valid form of argument WHEN it is used to skirt the exegetical based data and that is precisely what you are doing. Where are your responses to the exegetical based data I presented? NADA! You simply ignore the contextual based data that denies your interpretation and skip off to the philosophical land of "if/then" argumentation.

 

[Skandelon]

The text is quite clear. Man, you've really got a problem with this, don't you?

I can see you now have stepped out of the debate and refuse to engage my questions or arguments, even when I show you how Gill, a respected Calvinist, supported my assertions.

You got caught supporting a 'justification by works' position, probably unintentionally as you weren't thinking things through, and when I questioned you on it this is how you react...revealing.

 

[kyredneck]

I can see you now have stepped out of the debate and refuse to engage my questions or arguments, even when I show you how Gill, a respected Calvinist, supported my assertions.

You got caught supporting a 'justification by works' position, probably unintentionally as you weren't thinking things through, and when I questioned you on it this is how you react...revealing.

Oh baloney, such drama. What'd I get caught doing, quoting the text?:

Originally Posted by Skandelon
Their works or God's works? Just to be clear...

The text is quite clear. Man, you've really got a problem with this, don't you?

...in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek: Ro 2

So which one is your favorite here? Which one do you wish to emphasize above all others?:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul was answering the objection about Gentiles being condemned for breaking a law that they were never given.

Not so! Paul is laying down the just principles which God shall employ in the day of judgment toward those seeking to be justified by their own works - v. 6

If their works are determined to be good by God then they will receive eternal life and heaven. If their works are deemed evil by God then they will receive condemnation and eternal judgment by God - vv. 7-9

In verse 10 he assures the readers that God will not base his judgement upon respect of persons but by a just standard - v. 10

In verses 11-15 Paul deals with what STANDARD God will use to determine whether their works are good or evil. In regard to the Jew seeing to be justified by his works the Law of Moses will be the standard - vv. 11-13

In verses 14-15 Paul entertains the objection that Gentiles are without "the Law" of Moses and so how can God judge those who seek to be justiified by their works. He answers by claiming that conscience does "the work of the law." He does not say conscience IS THE LAW of Moses Or that the law of Moses is written upon the conscience, but that it only performs the same "work of the Law" Law of Moses WHICH IS to distinguish between right and wrong. Therefore, the conscience becomes to the Gentile what "the Law" of Moses is to the Jew and the basis to determine whether their works are good or evil.

Neither the Jew or the Gentile will be justified by their works (Rom. 3:9-18).

However, in regard to this OP, the conscience is introduced in Romans 2:14-15 NOT AS THE EXPLANATION for UNIVERSAL SIN oR DEATH but rather the explanation how God will determine good and evil for those without the Law of Moses. The death of Infants cannot be explained by conscience. Nor is conscience ever mentioned in Romans 5:12-19 as the cause of universal death. The only law provided by necessary inference in Romans 5:12-19 as the cause of univeresal death is "one man's disobedience" of Genesis 2:17.

 

[Winman]

LOL, Romans 2:12-15 is exactly why men from Adam to Moses died.

If Paul was saying men from Adam to Moses died because of Adam's sin, he would not have restricted it to men from Adam to Moses. Does Original Sin only apply to men from Adam to Moses? NO!

No, Paul clearly says men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin in a similar fashion as Adam. They were not there in the garden sinning with Adam. Romans 5 said there was only ONE MAN"S OFFENCE, not many.

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Romans 5 does not support the Realistic Theory that all men were "in Adam" sinning with him in the garden. It says only Adam sinned, not all men.

Adam as the first or precedent introduced the condemnation of death as the judgment or penalty for sin. This is how Adam's sin made all men "sinners"

Likewise Jesus was the first or precedent for those that believe. All those who believe as he trusted his Father are imputed righteous.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh baloney, such drama. What'd I get caught doing, quoting the text?:

Quoting the text is fine, but we are debating its INTERPRETATION, which you now are avoiding for obvious reasons.

HERE in THIS POST you seem to suggest that the two passages are at odds with each other because YOU BELIEVE the latter teaches mankind is justified by works... I asked you to clarify and you refuse by just quoting the text aimlessly as if that answers the objection. I even present commentators of your own perspective which back me up and still I get only distain and a re-quoting of the text. Any objective individual can see you are avoiding engaging the debate.

 

[The Biblicist]

If Paul was saying men from Adam to Moses died because of Adam's sin, he would not have restricted it to men from Adam to Moses. Does Original Sin only apply to men from Adam to Moses? NO!

So what is your explanation for Paul limiting it between Adam and Moses then? If he were trying to prove that universal death among mankind is equal to universal sin among mankind then why limit his scope of application from Adam to Moses?

Don't give me your personal opinion but give me a contextual based reason for that limitation that is necessary to his developmental argument.

 

[Skandelon]

Even Piper, quoting Stott, acknowledges my take on this passage is the most accepted interpretation of Rom 2, yet you treat it with distain instead of engaging with a cordial rational discussion. That reveals all we need to know...

What does Paul mean by it in verse 13?

"Doers of the Law" - Hypothetical?

Does Paul mean that this is a hypothetical statement? - "The doers of the law would be justified, if any actually did what the law required, but they don't." This is, perhaps, the most common interpretation. John Stott says, "This is a theoretical or hypothetical statement, of course, since no human being has ever fully obeyed the law (cf. 3:20)" (Romans: God's Good News for the World [Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994], p.86). His main argument is from Romans 3:20 where Paul says, "By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." -Piper

 

[Skandelon]

Originally Posted by Skandelon:
Paul was answering the objection about Gentiles being condemned for breaking a law that they were never given.

Not so!

I agree with what Piper states here...

How Can God Be Impartial When Only the Jews Received the Law?

But there is a problem here - an objection that has to be answered. So Paul takes another step in his argument. Here's the objection: You say, Paul, God is going to judge all people according to their deeds, and therefore impartially, but, in fact, God gave the Law of Moses only to the Jews, and so they have access to what deeds are required of them, and the rest of the world doesn't. So how can you say that God is impartial to judge according to deeds when he has only told one group of people what the deeds are that they should do?

How Can You Do the Law if You Haven't Read it?
But that immediately raises another problem that Paul now has to answer. Somebody is going to say: How can anyone do what the law requires if they don't have a copy of the Law to read and follow? Paul, you say that doing and not hearing is what counts, but still those who have the Law are at an advantage, because they know what they have to do. - John Piper​

If their works are determined to be good by God then they will receive eternal life

So, you too believe men are saved by works? Please expound.

 

[The Biblicist]

Even Piper, quoting Stott, acknowledges my take on this passage is the most accepted interpretation of Rom 2, yet you treat it with distain instead of engaging with a cordial rational discussion. That reveals all we need to know...

Romans 2:6 makes it clear that this is a judgement of works whether they are good or bad. The Law of Moses is NOT the only standard being used to determine good verus bad in regard to these works. The Gentiles when Paul wrote did not have the Law of Moses and did not do the works of the Law of Moses. The law furnishes one standard (vv. 11-13) while the conscience which Paul says does the "work of the Law" of Moses provides another standard for determing the works by Gentiles if they are good or bad. It does the "work of the Law" of Moses in that it distinguishes between right and wrong thus providing a standard for judging works.

Neither does he say the Law of Moses is written on the conscience or is the Law of Moses. The law of Moses is much more definitive than conscience whereas conscience can be trained to justify what the Law of Moses condemns as sin. For example, culture can train the conscience it is wrong to kill your mother but have no problem killing the mother of your enemy or in another tribe.