Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists
- Thread starter BrianJOrr
- Start date
jsjohnnt
New member
actually, Romans 5:12 teaches us that the Adamic sin condemns us all "because we have all sinned." We are not "lost" because of Adam, we are lost because of our own malfeasance.
No doubt about it, Adam was the anti-type to Christ, but just as we benefit from the curse of Adam because we participate in his sin, so, too, we benefit from the Life, because we participate in Him.
Cross Reference
New member
Spiritual death is what is being inferred. Spritual death is eternal separation from God which, for the righteous before the cross meant paradise, the abode of the dead, Abraham's bosom, without the possibily of release to Heaven and the Presence of God..
Adam may hve been the anti-type of the man Jesus but Christ, The Word? I don't think so.
So what you are saying is we benefit from sinning and dying and living because we participate in the Life of Jesus Christ? How does that work?
CR: Firstly, I presume you mean 'implied' and that your level of English doesn't extend to distinguishing correctly between these basic words.
Secondly, it is entirely your own invention that God's warning to Adam was in reference to something you call spiritual death. Your invention.
Thirdly, your ridiculous idea that God pronounced eternal separation from God on every man and then sent Jesus to save us - which can only mean that the so called eternal death wasn't eternal at all - is nothing but a joke that you haven't bothered to think through for even a second.
You remind me of the guy in Proverbs who does his best to tell as many people as possible what a fool he really is. You know - the one whose only chance of looking intelligent is if he keeps his mouth shut.
jsjohnnt
New member
My goodness, how old are you? Out of high school? Seriously.
(allow me to finish my edit of this post after I publish it .. so don't jump to conclusions until this caveat is resolved. Just give me a couple of minutes. Thanks). I am finished and the following is more of my responce:
Spirtual Clearical - what difference does it make to my point? The fact is that Romans 5:12 has that pesky line in it that declares that we all die because we all sin . . . . and how many scriptures are there that declare our personal responsibility for caving in to our humanity? I mean, Jesus as "son of man," proved that "I am only human" is an excuse. His life of perfection condemns us all; his death and resurrection saves us all . . . . . . . . . as long as we in the shadow of love and caring, ala the prodigal and his father.
And why on earth do you deny Jesus as the Christ of God and, thus, God himself when you write: "the man Jesus but Christ, The Word?" Splain please or repent.
Finally, you write this: "
So what you are saying is we benefit from sinning and dying and living because we participate in the Life of Jesus Christ? How does that work?" We benefit from the faithfulness of Jesus, the Christ of God. Why would you include "sinning" in your question? You believe that Christ was sinless as do I. So, your question should have been: " . . . . what you are saying is we benefit from . . . . . dying and living because we participate in the Life of Jesus Christ? How does that work?"
How does that work? Well, he became like us in everyway (Heb 2:17-18) so that he could minister atonement to all of us as the Priest of God. It is by his faith that we are saved (Habakkuk [in prophecy] 2:4). We are baptised into the Living Christ, we believe into the Living Christ, we confess into the Living Christ . . . so why is "into the Living Christ" so important? Because, again, it is his life, his death, his resurrection that benefits us all.
Cross Reference
New member
Cross Reference
New member
Originally Posted by jsjohnnt
actually, Romans 5:12 teaches us that the Adamic sin condemns us all "because we have all sinned." We are not "lost" because of Adam, we are lost because of our own malfeasance.
No doubt about it, Adam was the anti-type to Christ, but just as we benefit from the curse of Adam because we participate in his sin, so, too, we benefit from the Life, because we participate in Him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross Reference View Post
Spiritual death is what is being inferred. Spritual death is eternal separation from God which, for the righteous before the cross meant paradise, the abode of the dead, Abraham's bosom, without the possibily of release to Heaven and the Presence of God..
Adam may hve been the anti-type of the man Jesus but Christ, The Word? I don't think so.
Probably much older than you are. So please have pity on me.
Romans 5:12 doesn't say that. So please start over. Read it until you get it right before comenting.
I didn't say that either. Seems you are on a roll.
You said that, not me. My comment was: "How does that work?"
He was MADE to be sin by God. Jesus did not become us in everyway. That would imply He willingly sinned to understand our pain! However, Jesus was in every way TEMPTED as we are to understand our issue in dealing vanity. BTW, that is one more reason He wasn't divine at this point in time otherwise He would not have to be tempted to find out anything about us.
Correction: "It is the JUST who are saved by His faith." If you are of the Just then you must be walking as He walked. Now, if you want the details on that kind of faith know that it implies living by the very Life of the Son of God. See Gal 2:20 KJV ONLY __ no modern translation here for their lack of the insight into what Paul was attempting to convey..
Whose we?? If you are all of that why are you still sinning????!!!! STOP!!
actually, Romans 5:12 teaches us that the Adamic sin condemns us all "because we have all sinned." We are not "lost" because of Adam, we are lost because of our own malfeasance.
No doubt about it, Adam was the anti-type to Christ, but just as we benefit from the curse of Adam because we participate in his sin, so, too, we benefit from the Life, because we participate in Him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross Reference View Post
Spiritual death is what is being inferred. Spritual death is eternal separation from God which, for the righteous before the cross meant paradise, the abode of the dead, Abraham's bosom, without the possibily of release to Heaven and the Presence of God..
Adam may hve been the anti-type of the man Jesus but Christ, The Word? I don't think so.
No. I am saying Adam was not anti-type of Christ, the Word of God
Probably much older than you are. So please have pity on me.
Romans 5:12 doesn't say that. So please start over. Read it until you get it right before comenting.
I didn't say that either. Seems you are on a roll.
You said that, not me. My comment was: "How does that work?"
He was MADE to be sin by God. Jesus did not become us in everyway. That would imply He willingly sinned to understand our pain! However, Jesus was in every way TEMPTED as we are to understand our issue in dealing vanity. BTW, that is one more reason He wasn't divine at this point in time otherwise He would not have to be tempted to find out anything about us.
Correction: "It is the JUST who are saved by His faith." If you are of the Just then you must be walking as He walked. Now, if you want the details on that kind of faith know that it implies living by the very Life of the Son of God. See Gal 2:20 KJV ONLY __ no modern translation here for their lack of the insight into what Paul was attempting to convey..
Whose we?? If you are all of that why are you still sinning????!!!! STOP!!
Mr Orr.
Just for the record, if you persist in continually misrepresenting me and making up straw men, I will have to just ignore you. This kind of talk doesn't help anything. It only serves to make you look worse than you already do. If I say I don't mean something, then that is the end of the matter and there is no point whatsoever in your insisting that I do mean it. It is not my responsibility to help you to understand - it is your responsibility to work out what it was that you misunderstood. Your problem lies in two contributory factors: 1) Your inability to understand plain English and 2) your insatiable desire to prove openness theology wrong, no matter what the cost, which leads you to add to your inability to understand plain English your acceptance of the idea that lying about or misrepresenting your opponents is acceptable. I hope this doesn't happen again. It has happened before. If it happens again I shall cease debating with you.
Also for the record, you did not answer the substantial issues I raised in previous posts but carried on regardless. I said that your position was incoherent and that if you tried to support it with scripture, then this was the same as stating that scripture supported incoherence. All your analysis of Romans 5 won't help you make your position coherent. You need to bring some arguments why your doctrine of original sin is coherent, not reinforce your incoherence with some scripture quotes. It is easy to see that the scripture doesn't support your position at all. (of course it doesn't - because Scripture is inspired by God and a house divided against itself cannot stand.) You glide in easy steps from 'All men sinned' to 'All men are condemned in Adam from birth'. I look forward to hearing from you your logical justification of your doctrine. And why God is just if he makes men sinful and then judges them for it.
I don't think there are many takers for 'Sure, God is unjust/incoherent and here is the scripture to prove it.'
Last edited:
BrianJOrr
New member
Your failure to address issues I have raised is stacking up:
Your contradiction regarding the fate of those who have not heard the gospel, my Genesis 3:15 question, the tension between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, and your so-called refutation of 'Calvinist's proof-text' post, which I responded to, was weak.
However, I really don't need you to answer these because I see that you are so anti-Calvinist, your presuppositions force you to steer away from any Reformed interpretation. When I make a plain objection, showing inconsistencies and even a blatantly clear contradiction, you don't address them because the I believe the consistent conclusion would result in a Reformed understanding (the most biblical one that is) of the texts, and you can't have that.
I think if your position was truly the coherent and biblically sound one, it would be readily available for the church at large in some published form, having been tried and tested over the years, showing its ability to hold weight and be consistent in all aspects of the faith.
However, based off these few interactions, I don't think your interpretive model could stand up to being poked, prodded, and ultimately thrashed by seasoned biblical and systematic theologians. Historical theology and the plethora of biblical and systematic expressions of the Scriptures from the Reformed persuasion has demonstrated its consistency in biblical interpretation. Just because you reject it, doesn't prove anything. I believe you are not able to handle that the Scriptures rightly declare that God is sovereign over the ends and the means of everything, all according to his will.
If what you have given me in response is your best effort, then I will accept and not insist you provide more thorough answers, plus I am tired of reading your personal attacks when I ask for clarification.
So, by all means, ignore me. I am good with that.
Your contradiction regarding the fate of those who have not heard the gospel, my Genesis 3:15 question, the tension between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, and your so-called refutation of 'Calvinist's proof-text' post, which I responded to, was weak.
However, I really don't need you to answer these because I see that you are so anti-Calvinist, your presuppositions force you to steer away from any Reformed interpretation. When I make a plain objection, showing inconsistencies and even a blatantly clear contradiction, you don't address them because the I believe the consistent conclusion would result in a Reformed understanding (the most biblical one that is) of the texts, and you can't have that.
I think if your position was truly the coherent and biblically sound one, it would be readily available for the church at large in some published form, having been tried and tested over the years, showing its ability to hold weight and be consistent in all aspects of the faith.
However, based off these few interactions, I don't think your interpretive model could stand up to being poked, prodded, and ultimately thrashed by seasoned biblical and systematic theologians. Historical theology and the plethora of biblical and systematic expressions of the Scriptures from the Reformed persuasion has demonstrated its consistency in biblical interpretation. Just because you reject it, doesn't prove anything. I believe you are not able to handle that the Scriptures rightly declare that God is sovereign over the ends and the means of everything, all according to his will.
If what you have given me in response is your best effort, then I will accept and not insist you provide more thorough answers, plus I am tired of reading your personal attacks when I ask for clarification.
So, by all means, ignore me. I am good with that.
musterion
Well-known member
I've asked the same question myself, many times. His posts are typically void of substance, and he turns nasty on a dime.
Theology will always thwart attempts to systematize it. Theology is the study of God, who is a person, not a system.
musterion
Well-known member
Very well said and very true. At this very moment on another board, a quite arrogant newbie is stirring up trouble over completely innocuous topics. One of his stated hobbies is systematic theology. If I get a chance I'm going to ask him if he digs Sproul...I bet the answer will be "of course!"
Systematic theologies are boxes into which finite men end up trying to stuff the infinite God.
Systematic theologies are boxes into which finite men end up trying to stuff the infinite God.
Brian, if I interpret my own words, surely that is the correct interpretation of them, no? What was it about
that you do not understand???
You asked for clarification and that is what I gave. It is obvious that you did not listen. It is obvious that you ignored. It is obvious that you showed no respect.
PhD? I hope you feel you have more authority when you eventually get it.
Pastor, front lines? I feel sorry for the ones who will have to pick up the pieces.
Thanks for your interaction.
By the way, I don't usually put people on ignore. I just ignore them. I'm fed up with saying things that you don't manage to listen to.
Cheers.
Well said. It's exactly what I said earlier in the thread, which I will requote as my final statement in this debate:
Last edited:
Cross Reference
New member
Much like other untoward "newbie" theologies as dispensational(ism) and cessation(ism), endeavor to do. To what end is the question, isn't it? I susppose some new sort of elit(ism) ___ or bane, eh?
Cross Reference
New member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
Something to keep in mind when entertaining these more newbie theologies like MAD, etal.
Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
Something to keep in mind when entertaining these more newbie theologies like MAD, etal.
Theologies that do not promote themselves as systematic? No, not really.
Cross Reference
New member
Systematic as a guage to measure a theology? I don't think so.
What? :AMR: