What Side Of The Fence Are You?

[The Archangel]

Hardly. Someone having the nerve to question JoJ's understanding of the greek in favor of their own (who admitted earlier in this debate to NOT be a greek scholar) reeked of arrogance, as there was no substance behind it.

So we are saying John of Japan is infallible? That is, in effect, what you are saying and you are doing so because his reading, though it is in the minority of scholarship, agrees with yours.

By the same token for you to name JoJ a Greek scholar (as gifted as he may be), is improper when you admittedly have not studied Greek yourself. This is getting someone else to fight your battles for you. This would not be the case if you could articulate why you agree with his exegesis or why you disagree with my exegesis. But, because you have not studied the language, you cannot do this--not that this is a deficiency on your part, you are simply out of your league.

The truth of the matter is that Dr. Walter, who obviously knows Greek, interacted with JoJ's assertions (which were brought back up by you) and spoke against them on the same level--Greek to Greek. You are simply not in a position to argue Greek to Greek.

Therefore Dr. Walter is in a much better position to engage JoJ on the merits of the passage in Greek and you are in no position to call him arrogant because he disagrees with JoJ--only because you have no real basis to establish "scholarship" on either side, not knowing the language yourself.

Now, I'm sure this post will generate a bitter, attacking diatribe from you, but let me assure you that I am not attacking you (or at least not intending to). I am speaking to facts.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

argumentum ad captandum

Emotion, though it would certainly be negatively affected by such a view of "justice," has nothing to do with my argument. My argument has to do with the common understanding, most accepted meanings and even the most varied technical definitions of the term "justice." Of which I challenge you to find any that would contain any semblance of your views regarding God's treatment of mankind.

 

[tinytim]

Mono here...

 

[The Archangel]

Emotion, though it would certainly be negatively affected by such a view of "justice," has nothing to do with my argument. My argument has to do with the common understanding, most accepted meanings and even the most varied technical definitions of the term "justice." Of which I challenge you to find any that would contain any semblance of your views regarding God's treatment of mankind.

I think you are correct when you say "My argument has to do with the common understanding, most accepted meanings and even the most varied technical definitions of the term "justice." You are arguing about justice. However, you are arguing about justice from the man's-eye point of view, not the biblical, or God's-eye, point of view.

That is the problem and the great chasm between us on this issue.

The Archangel

EDITED IN:

The argumentum ad captadum, being the appeal to emotion or, literally "catching the common herd," was leveled at you because of your appeal to a human understanding of justice, not a biblical understanding of justice. Thus it was an appeal to the emotion of humans who viewed your false portrayal of biblical justice as being the same as human justice and seeking to get them on your side by this "justice" argument when the premise of human justice is non-sequitur to biblical justice as you have argued it.

 

[The Archangel]

Mono here...

Sodium? Glutamate?

Sorry! I couldn't resist the temptation....BAD ARCHANGEL!

 

[Skandelon]

I think you are correct when you say "My argument has to do with the common understanding, most accepted meanings and even the most varied technical definitions of the term "justice." You are arguing about justice. However, you are arguing about justice from the man's-eye point of view, not the biblical, or God's-eye, point of view.

That is the problem and the great chasm between us on this issue.

The Archangel

EDITED IN:

The argumentum ad captadum, being the appeal to emotion or, literally "catching the common herd," was leveled at you because of your appeal to a human understanding of justice, not a biblical understanding of justice. Thus it was an appeal to the emotion of humans who viewed your false portrayal of biblical justice as being the same as human justice and seeking to get them on your side by this "justice" argument when the premise of human justice is non-sequitur to biblical justice as you have argued it.

Really? Aren't you "begging the question" (yet another fallacy) just a bit to assume your view of justice is supported biblically?

1. Why has every justice system of man (including those in the bible) not allow for this type of so-called justice?

2. If "Justice" is as you have described then would you be ok with our American system judging and condemning mankind by these same so called views of "justice?"

3. Where in scripture does it define justice as being the certain condemnation of one man for the sin of another without hope of redemption ...all the while the appeals for reconciliation, frustration and pretend patience of the judge? How is man "without excuse" in your view of justice?

 

[Winman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skandelon
That is just what I was thinking. They think it is just for God to condemn mankind from birth to an eternity burning in hell because two people ate a piece of forbidden fruit...all the while pretending to call them to repentance, pretending to be upset with them for not repenting, pretending to appeal to them to be reconciled, pretending to be patiently waiting on them and pretending to be angry with them for not doing what ONLY HE can make them do. What sane person would ever define that as being JUST???

Your issue, then, is not with Calvinists, but with God.

The Archangel

No, his issue is with Calvinism. Many other Christians would agree with Skandelon (myself for one). You assume your doctrine is correct, but that is all it is, an assumption. If your doctrine is error, then you are falsely charging God with condemning all mankind to death for the sin of Adam. But the scriptures clearly show God never condemns a man to death for the sin of his father, neither does he condemn a father to death for the sin of his son.

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

If God condemned all of mankind to death for Adam's sin, then God is breaking his own commandment. No, the scriptures clearly show every man is condemned for his own sin, not another's.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

This verse does not say Adam's sin passed upon all men, it says by Adam sin entered the world. It does not say Adam's sin went any further. But death also entered in by sin, and so death passed upon all men "for that all have sinned". This is our own sin, not Adam's. We are condemned to die because we have knowingly and willfully sinned ourselves, not because Adam sinned thousands of years ago.

How anybody can rationalize this and say that it is just to condemn someone to death for someone else's sin is astounding to say the least.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is a vast difference between representation by the first and second Adam and personal responsiblity BETWEEN FALLEN SINNERS for the personal sin of your father.

In the former there is a federal headship where all those being represented do receive all the consequences both good or bad due to actions of "one man." In the latter, personal sins are not charged against another.

Have you brethren ever read Romans 5:12-22 and noted the repetitious phrase "by one man" many were "made" sinners or righteous??

If you are going to reject the consequences of one man's sin upon all mankind then you better also reject the doctrine of substitutionary atonement by one man - Jesus Christ.

No, his issue is with Calvinism. Many other Christians would agree with Skandelon (myself for one). You assume your doctrine is correct, but that is all it is, an assumption. If your doctrine is error, then you are falsely charging God with condemning all mankind to death for the sin of Adam. But the scriptures clearly show God never condemns a man to death for the sin of his father, neither does he condemn a father to death for the sin of his son.

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

If God condemned all of mankind to death for Adam's sin, then God is breaking his own commandment. No, the scriptures clearly show every man is condemned for his own sin, not another's.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

This verse does not say Adam's sin passed upon all men, it says by Adam sin entered the world. It does not say Adam's sin went any further. But death also entered in by sin, and so death passed upon all men "for that all have sinned". This is our own sin, not Adam's. We are condemned to die because we have knowingly and willfully sinned ourselves, not because Adam sinned thousands of years ago.

How anybody can rationalize this and say that it is just to condemn someone to death for someone else's sin is astounding to say the least.

 

[Skandelon]

There is a vast difference between representation by the first and second Adam and personal responsiblity BETWEEN FALLEN SINNERS for the personal sin of your father.

In the former there is a federal headship where all those being represented do receive all the consequences both good or bad due to actions of "one man." In the latter, personal sins are not charged against another.

Have you brethren ever read Romans 5:12-22 and noted the repetitious phrase "by one man" many were "made" sinners or righteous??

If you are going to reject the consequences of one man's sin upon all mankind then you better also reject the doctrine of substitutionary atonement by one man - Jesus Christ.

Actually, the inconsistency seems to be much more blatant from your side of the the debate than ours. In your system, Adam represents EVERYONE but Christ on represents a select few. In our system, Adam represents EVERYONE and so does Christ, which is consistent with Paul's teaching in Romans 5.

So, in reality we both accept the consequences of one man's sin upon all mankind (in that we all agree we are all sinners); but you are the one who rejects the doctrine of substitutionary atonement for the majority of mankind.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Actually, the inconsistency seems to be much more blatant from your side of the the debate than ours. In your system, Adam represents EVERYONE but Christ on represents a select few. In our system, Adam represents EVERYONE and so does Christ, which is consistent with Paul's teaching in Romans 5.

So, in reality we both accept the consequences of one man's sin upon all mankind (in that we all agree we are all sinners); but you are the one who rejects the doctrine of substitutionary atonement for the majority of mankind.

No my friend you do not understand the Biblical position at all. ALL who are "in Adam" are represented by Adam just as ALL who have been chosen "IN CHRIST" before foundation of the world are represented by Christ. ALL in Adam die but ALL in Christ live. All that are "in Christ" have been in Adam but not ALL that are in Adam will be the "all" in Christ. All in Christ have been "chosen in him" before the world began according to God's purpose of grace.

 

[The Archangel]

Actually, the inconsistency seems to be much more blatant from your side of the the debate than ours. In your system, Adam represents EVERYONE but Christ on represents a select few. In our system, Adam represents EVERYONE and so does Christ, which is consistent with Paul's teaching in Romans 5.

So, you have here, in effect, a de facto universalism.

So, in reality we both accept the consequences of one man's sin upon all mankind (in that we all agree we are all sinners); but you are the one who rejects the doctrine of substitutionary atonement for the majority of mankind.

The Calvinist position accepts substitution and once true substitution is understood there can be no other conclusion than a particular redemption. But if you have everyone being substituted for, then there is no reason for anyone to go to hell. After all sin is why the unbeliever is sent to hell, not non-acceptance.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Really? Aren't you "begging the question" (yet another fallacy) just a bit to assume your view of justice is supported biblically?

1. Why has every justice system of man (including those in the bible) not allow for this type of so-called justice?

2. If "Justice" is as you have described then would you be ok with our American system judging and condemning mankind by these same so called views of "justice?"

3. Where in scripture does it define justice as being the certain condemnation of one man for the sin of another without hope of redemption ...all the while the appeals for reconciliation, frustration and pretend patience of the judge? How is man "without excuse" in your view of justice?

Since this is off topic of the OP. I'll start a new thread.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

So, you have here, in effect, a de facto universalism.

Not if their is a conditional term for the application of the substitutionary atonement; de facto faith.

For example, suppose a son steals some money and is arrested. A parent may pay the debt of of their son's misdeeds by meeting the legal financial requirements, but the judge may still place a condition upon the son's release. The judge might say, "Your financial debt has been paid so if you will apologize for your misdeeds and repent you will be set free." Atonement is provided, but it is only applied conditionally.

 

[gb93433]

I would remind you also, world-renowned New Testament and Greek scholars agree with me. Men who have written tome upon tome about the New Testament and are as comfortable with Greek as a fish is in water.

The more I study Greek the more I see the ignorance of others. So I am curious who the scholars you refer to might be?

 

[The Archangel]

The more I study Greek the more I see the ignorance of others. So I am curious who the scholars you refer to might be?

The most notable is Dr. Thomas Schreiner. He is a world-class New Testament scholar.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Not if their is a conditional term for the application of the substitutionary atonement; de facto faith.

For example, suppose a son steals some money and is arrested. A parent may pay the debt of of their son's misdeeds by meeting the legal financial requirements, but the judge may still place a condition upon the son's release. The judge might say, "Your financial debt has been paid so if you will apologize for your misdeeds and repent you will be set free." Atonement is provided, but it is only applied conditionally.

Your argument is flawed. Biblically, the "parent" is also the Judge. And, according to the law once the requirement is satisfied--the debt being paid--the debt is paid. This is why Paul uses the word "cancelled:"

13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Colossians 2:13-15, ESV)
​

Now, again, I agree that we must have faith. But having faith in Christ is the result of God canceling our debt, not the cause of it.

The Archangel

 

[convicted1]

Mono here...

Bro Tim,

You need an antibiotic for that. Sorry, I didn't want to resist that. Love ya Brother!!

Willis

 

[Skandelon]

Your argument is flawed. Biblically, the "parent" is also the Judge. And, according to the law once the requirement is satisfied--the debt being paid--the debt is paid. This is why Paul uses the word "cancelled:"

13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Colossians 2:13-15, ESV)
​

Now, again, I agree that we must have faith. But having faith in Christ is the result of God canceling our debt, not the cause of it.

The Archangel

Do you believe God forgives a man before the man even confesses his sin?

If one can't confess until he has the faith to believe and he can't believe until his debt has been canceled then your response must be affirmative.

So, when the scripture says, "If you confess with your month and believe in your heart you will be saved." Or, "If you confess your sins he is faithful to forgive your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness." It has it all backwards, right?

It should say, "If you have been cleanse and your debt has been forgiven you will have faith and confess your sin."

You just flipped the gospel on its head.

 

[Winman]

Now, again, I agree that we must have faith. But having faith in Christ is the result of God canceling our debt, not the cause of it.

Yes, this is completely opposite of what many scriptures teach.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

What is the "it" in Gen 15:6? It is Abraham's faith.

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

It is always shown that a man must first have faith before righteousness is imputed to him. I could show many scriptures besides these, but if you don't believe one, you won't believe all.

 

[Winman]

If you teach that we are all guilty because of Adam's sin, then you must also believe that everyone will be made righteous because of Jesus's righteousness.

Rom 5:18 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.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

I think these verses cause serious problems for the doctrine of Federal Headship. Because if you believe Adam's sin passed upon all men, then you have to believe Rom 5:18-19 are teaching that Christ's righteousness has passed upon all men and all will be saved.

So, this cannot be the proper interpretation of Romans 5.