Questioning godrulz...

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

Because you are a loud mouth egotist who spreads dissension in the body of Christ with your doctrines of demons.

As long as you continue to treat the gospel with disrespect, then I will make it my life's goal to make sure that everyone, exposed to your lies, has ample evidence.

The fact remains that everytime you are confronted with a direct question you make up lame excuses for not answering.

I see your Romans 1-3 and call you with a Romans 4-8

I still wish you would use your time and energy to reach the lost, like JWs, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

I have answered many of your direct questions. I am weary of your ways.

 

[Lighthouse]

godrulz-
How about youb tell us what you think Romans 1-3 says? Or tell us why you think all men are considered sinners...

Don't just point to the Bible. Tell us what you get from it. We won't get the exact same thing you do. That is already pretty evident.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

godrulz-
How about youb tell us what you think Romans 1-3 says? Or tell us why you think all men are considered sinners...

Don't just point to the Bible. Tell us what you get from it. We won't get the exact same thing you do. That is already pretty evident.

Romans 1-3 shows that man is universally condemned because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (3:23). Our righteousness is as filthy rags. All have rebelled and turned away from the living God. The Law condemns us as lawbreakers/lawless. We suppress the truth by our wickedness (Rom. 1). We are without excuse.

The gist of Paul's arguments do not relate to Augustinian 'original sin' and an Adamic sin nature.

Sin involves volition. Babies do not have mental or moral capacity to sin. Sin is not a substance (genetic passed on from Adam).

 

[Lighthouse]

Okay. Now, I'm sure there are more questions... unless Sozo doesn't feel the answer was satisfactory.

 

[godrulz]

Summary:

2 proposed options to explain why all sin:

i) We sin because we are born sinners.

This is the Augustinian Federal Headship of Adam THEORY of original sin (Catholic, Reformed). It says there is something causative back of the will that makes us sin. This genetic substance theory lacks biblical support. Stealing, murder, adultery, etc. are volitional sins. If we all have this Adamic nature, we could blame things on him and all should be doing these things (which they are not).

ii) We are sinners because we sin.

We are born with physical depravity that gives us a propensity to living for the desires of the flesh over the glory of God. We all suffer the physical consequences of the Fall (death, sickness, etc.). Our sinful nature is formed as we continually chose the flesh and selfish, rebellious things. One sin makes us a sinner. This is moral depravity. Choices cannot be passed on from others. They originate in the will (hence we are not born morally depraved, but innocent...until we sin). Every human eventually (and from an early age) actualizes that which is potential at birth. We are responsible for sin and selfishness because of our wills that do not have to chose evil (free moral agency). Even if we did not overtly break the Commandments, our hearts, thoughts, and motives condemn us. No one seeks God and His glory. We all need a Savior. Kingdom of Self rules until the Spirit convinces, convicts, and draws us to the rightful King of kings, and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ.

In either view, the end is the same: we are all sinners and are universally condemned and in need of redemption.

Harmartiology (views on the nature of sin) is a non-salvific issue. Godly, capable scholars and grass root believers can hold to either theory of why all men sin. The latter view is more defensible from Scripture, since sin is portrayed as lawlessness and selfish, rebellious choices, not a substance passed down from Adam that we would not be responsible for.

I think it is more appropriate to discuss views on their own merits (as we have on other open, topical threads). To put an individual on the chopping block to be judged by self-proclaimed judges lacks maturity and integrity. However, I can play the game since you feel I am such a threat to the flock

No one answered my riddle about who Adrian's turtles were in Rocky.

Answer: Cuff and Link

Let's call sozo Cuff, since he is the lead prosecutor.

Lighthouse can be Link, since that is an alliteration

 

[Yorzhik]

Lighthouse can be Link, since that is an alliteration

Now that's funny.

BTW, good answer.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by godrulz

i) We sin because we are born sinners.

This is the Augustinian Federal Headship of Adam THEORY of original sin (Catholic, Reformed). It says there is something causative back of the will that makes us sin. This genetic substance theory lacks biblical support. Stealing, murder, adultery, etc. are volitional sins. If we all have this Adamic nature, we could blame things on him and all should be doing these things (which they are not).

I do not think it lacks Biblical support: for as "in Adam" all die Why do you suppose we have to die?

"in sin did my mother concieve me".

Originally posted by godrulz
We are sinners because we sin

If so, then the odds are that out of the billions of people born since Adam, more than 1 would have made it through life without sinning. So far, I only know of 1 person who has never sinned.

This is an anecdotal arguement, I realize, but billions is alot of people. No wonder the scriptures say, "there is not a man upon the Earth that doing good and sinneth not."

Regards,

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

Now that's funny.

BTW, good answer.

Cuff Link...

The Borg is making them one. Resistance is futile.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by LightSon

I do not think it lacks Biblical support: for as "in Adam" all die Why do you suppose we have to die?

"in sin did my mother concieve me".


If so, then the odds are that out of the billions of people born since Adam, more than 1 would have made it through life without sinning. So far, I only know of 1 person who has never sinned.

This is an anecdotal arguement, I realize, but billions is alot of people. No wonder the scriptures say, "there is not a man upon the Earth that doing good and sinneth not."

Regards,

In Adam, all die physically, a consequence of the Fall. We die spiritually when we personally sin and are separated from God. If we persist in this state, we face eternal death. We did not exist when Adam sinned, so we did not literally die at that time. Rom. 5:12 death came to all men, because all men sin (not just because Adam sinned). Adam was the occasion for sin and its consequences entering the human race. 5:17-19 (difficult paragraph to exegete 12-19) life reigned through the righteousness of Jesus. This provision does not mean that all are saved (universalism). This parallels the statement about Adam. There is a conditional aspect. Adam was the opportunity/occasion for sin. Those who follow in his steps have the same consequences (all die physically regardless, of the fall). Jesus was the occasion for salvation to all who believe.

We are born in the image of God. It is defaced, not erased.

Ps. 51:5 sinner from birth...this is a Hebraism that expresses that David has sinned from as long as he can remember. It is a poetic, heart prayer of David, not a didactic portion on the nature of original sin.

cf. 71:6 'from birth I have relied on you'. Did the newborn infant pray and yield to God?

58:3 from birth the wicked go astray...have you seen a baby murder or commit adultery? Hebraism vs wooden literalism.

Jesus was the only sinless man. Sooner or later, every person will fall short of God's holy perfection in word, thought, motive, or deed. We live in a fallen world with a physical propensity to live for the flesh vs Spirit. We do not have to sin because of an invisible Adamic nature, but we all inevitably to sin by commission or omission. We all fall short of the perfect glory of God.

I realize that the classic, traditional view assumes 'original sin'. This is why Catholics baptize babies as a sacrament ('born again' at that time). Augustine was bound by sin and developed this doctrine to explain his experience. Apart from isolated proof texts with alternate explanations, the weight of Scripture supports the principle that the soul that sins is the one that will die (Ezekiel). Sin is volitional, not an inherited substance from Adam. We cannot blame our sin on Adam or Satan. James 1:15 puts the blame on us (LSD= lust, sin, death= spiritually fatal).

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Rom 5.18-19

So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone.

For just as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Adam's sin, not ours, brought us condemnation. Christ's obedience, not ours, brought us justification. That's the analogy given above. If you mess with the first clause, then that line of reasoning destroys the second clause: the Gospel of grace.

 

[logos_x]

Originally posted by ilyatur

Rom 5.18-19

So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone.

For just as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Adam's sin, not ours, brought us condemnation. Christ's obedience, not ours, brought us justification. That's the analogy given above. If you mess with the first clause, then that line of reasoning destroys the second clause: the Gospel of grace.

Amen!!!

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by ilyatur

Rom 5.18-19

So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone.

For just as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Adam's sin, not ours, brought us condemnation. Christ's obedience, not ours, brought us justification. That's the analogy given above. If you mess with the first clause, then that line of reasoning destroys the second clause: the Gospel of grace.

Read literally as cause-effect would lead to universalism. Though Christ died for everyone, not all are saved (universalism). Adam's sin and Christ's death are the occasion for death and life. We are responsible/accountable for what we do with our wills and the provision of Christ. God would not be just to condemn us for Adam's sin even before we are born. We are held responsible for our own rebellion. There are consequences to the human race for Adam's sin (death). Those who believe are saved by Christ. Those who reject Him are not saved.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

God would not be just to condemn us for Adam's sin even before we are born.

Would God be just to make us righteous for someone elses obedience?

 

[logos_x]

Originally posted by godrulz

Read literally as cause-effect would lead to universalism.

Indeed!

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by Sozo

Would God be just to make us righteous for someone elses obedience?

Would God require us to choose to accept the rightousness earned through Someone elses obedience?

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by BChristianK

Would God require us to choose to accept the rightousness earned through Someone elses obedience?

Yes

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Originally posted by ilyatur

Rom 5.18-19

So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone.

For just as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Adam's sin, not ours, brought us condemnation. Christ's obedience, not ours, brought us justification. That's the analogy given above. If you mess with the first clause, then that line of reasoning destroys the second clause: the Gospel of grace.

Originally posted by godrulz

Read literally as cause-effect would lead to universalism. Though Christ died for everyone, not all are saved (universalism). Adam's sin and Christ's death are the occasion for death and life. We are responsible/accountable for what we do with our wills and the provision of Christ. God would not be just to condemn us for Adam's sin even before we are born. We are held responsible for our own rebellion. There are consequences to the human race for Adam's sin (death). Those who believe are saved by Christ. Those who reject Him are not saved.

Rom. 11.32 For God has imprisoned all in disobedience, so that He may have mercy on all.

A couple things to say here: the accent is on God's will, not man's. And it's plain from scripture that these verses do not support universalism. It's the logic of imputation that's being driven home in these passages. The scope of the atonement is not their point.

Overextended dogmatic inferences from scripture, and specualtions about how Adam's guilt is transmitted--this is secondary stuff. The Bible says that we are accounted guilty because of Adam without saying how. It's enough to know that this is how God thinks of us, and he runs his universe accordingly.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by ilyatur

Rom 5.18-19

So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone.

For just as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Adam's sin, not ours, brought us condemnation. Christ's obedience, not ours, brought us justification. That's the analogy given above. If you mess with the first clause, then that line of reasoning destroys the second clause: the Gospel of grace.

POTD!!! :first:

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

Would God be just to make us righteous for someone elses obedience?

Minimally, the work of Christ on the cross satisfies God's love and justice allowing Him to wisely treat us as if we never sinned. Christ was a substitute for the penalty of sin. Trusting Him means we are in Him and His righteousness. Without a substitute, we would remain condemned and God would compromise His moral government by forgiving rebels without a change of heart or satisfaction of the demands of the Law.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by logos_x

Indeed!

This is why a careful exegesis does NOT lead to the conclusion that Christ's death gives blanket redemption for everyone. Many other explicit verses establish the conditions of appropriating His finished work.