Featured Atonement

Would Adam have sinned had God not said; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it?
Would sin have entered the world?
Would there have been need for atonement?

Myself, not sure. I think. yes but not sure.

 

You are really not addressing the specifics of my questions. When Jesus uses the analogy of the tree versus the fruit in Matthew 17 he defines the tree as the "heart" and the "fruit" as the products that come forth from the heart. But he defines the heart not merely as doing evil or being overpowered by an evil principle but "being evil" using a state of being verb to describe its condition. Paul also describes it as a condition rather than an action but a state or condition of war with God ("enmity" - rom. 8:7). Jeremiah describes infants as "transgressors from the womb" which again cannot refer to conscious doing of evil but being born in a state or condition of evil or evil by nature.

However, it seems that your view denies that "being evil" is the condition or state of fallen man from the womb, but rather that evil is a principle or law distinguished from man's being that merely enslaves him. If this were the case then man merely needs to be liberated from the principle or law of evil rather than in need of a "new" heart by a creative act by God.

Do you believe that Romans 7:14-25 is speaking of a lost man or a regenerated man? I would guess you are applying it to a lost man and that is why you can make such a distinction.

 

I begin with the holiness of God and define sin whether in principle (law), in attitude, or in action as rebellion against the holiness of God. That is why sin is a transgression, unrighteous, unholy, unclean, error, as all of these describe coming short of the glory of God. The Justice of God vindicates the glory of God and the Law of God defines justice. God is a moral Being, that is, a holy and righteous being and that is why sin is a moral issue because it defames, robs, and perverts the holiness of God. The holiness of God is our one and only reason for existence - to glorify His name. Sin is coming short of that sole purpose for our existence.

 

What I believe you fail to understand is that transgression of "God's command" is the transgression of God's Law! "Even before the Law" in context (Rom. 5:13-14) refers only to Mosaic Law. God's Law/command prexisted Moses as affirmed by conscience, as affirmed by the His law dealing with murder (Gen. 9) and His Law in Genesis 2:17. Paul's point is that there is only ONE LAW violated that is the cause for universal death between Adam and Moses and that is the law revealed in Genesis 2:17. Paul uses the Aorist tense verb of completed action in Romans 5:12 demonstrating the point of action is the Adamic sin of Genesis 2:17 which was a participant action by all humanity as one undivided human nature acting in one man - thus "in" Adam. Infants are subject to the "condemnation" of the Adamic sin which is death and that is why Jeremiah describes them as "transgressors from the womb."

Again, do you interpret Romans 7:14-25 as applying to a lost unregenerate man?

 

No human enters the world as a believer but all enter in unbelief and unbelief is sin. But why do all humans enter in unbelief as a condition of their soul?

Can God coexist with the "sin principle"(Isa. 59:2)???? Answer: No! Hence, spiritual separation from God is inherently inseparable from the "sin principle." This realm or sphere of death exists in union with "tresspasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1) as the active condition of enmity by man's spirit against God(Eph. 2:2-3) just as the life principle exists only when the spirit of man is brought in union with the Spirit of God, thus the holiness of God personified.

 

Do you believe that sin is descriptive of the CONDITION/STATE OF BEING of man's spirit that alienates/separates his spirit from spiritual union with God? Do you believe man's spirit can exist IN A STATE OF UNION with tresspasses and sins and yet exist in a state of spiritual union with God? If so, please explain with scripture to support your explanation. If not, then please explain why such a spiritual state of union with tresspasses and sins is not spiritual death (Eph. 2:1)?

 

Just curious @JonC and you may have answered this but it is a long thread, what do you believe the wrath of God is? Why are we under God's wrath if we are not saved?

 

Eph. 2:1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

If "dead" is metaphorical then so must be "quickened" and "saved" (v. 5). Moreover, neither "dead" or "quickened" can refer to physical death or the physical body.

Moreover, this "dead" cannot refer to a non-active entity or cessation of being but is descriptive of a spiritual condition that is manifest in disobedience and rebellion against God (vv.2-3). The cause is internal while the consequences are externally manifested.

Hence, here is a form of death that is due to union with "tresspasses and sins" that is non-material, non-physical but descriptive of the CONDITION of the human spirit that resides within the body that describes all humans who are "without God" and "without hope" (vv.12-13). This is spiritual death that exists as a state/condition of the human spirit FROM BIRTH. Hence, it is not something any post-fallen man EXPERIENCES as a transition from non-spiritual death to spiritual death but a condition of human nature due to the disobedience of one man - Adam "many be dead" which cannot refer to the physical body but to the state/condition of the soul. Hence, only Adam experienced a transition to spiritual death or to a condition of spirit that actively opposed God which transition was manifested by his own act of disobedience. Hence, in Cain and all other posterity that was the condition of the human spirit at conception "already condemned" in a state of unbelief, and tresspasses and sins PRIOR TO committing any conscious personal act of sin.

Hence, the TRANSITION to the spiritual condition of death occurred with Adam manifested by his act of sin whereupon he fell from his moral "upright" condition to a sinful condition of spirit. No such transition occurs in post-fallen mankind such as Cain and Abel as they are "transgressors from the womb." Hence, when Paul says death was "passed" from Adam to all mankind he is referring first and foremost to the immediate state/condition of the spirit of man - spiritual separation/death which eventually ends in this life with physical death and then ultimately the 2nd death.

 

So explain how "being EVIL" as a condition is not a moral condition or is "evil" an a-moral term?

In your parenthetical explanation you equate "state" of spiritual death with "flesh" and so I assume you cannot be referring to literal "flesh" but to a spiritual condition called "being flesh"? How is that not an immoral state of being? Is "being flesh" dormant?

 

Is the love of God rooted in God's holiness or is the holiness of God rooted in God's love? Please provide scriptural evidence for your answer.

 

Herein lies the problem. You seem to want to make up your own definitions of words.

What is Propitiation? What is Atonement? And the rest of your post was actually a pretty good argument for penal substitution.

We have violated God's law. Therefore we are punished under God's wrath. Christ took that punishment in our place.

End of story.

 

Jon does not believe Christ took our "punishment" because he does not believe "death" to be punishment for sin. He argues that it is not just to punish an innocent party for another's sins. So the atonement is not a matter of law but of love. That is why he emphasizes the proper beginning point cannot be wrath but love. I am sure he will explain.

 

Since, you admit to a condition of spiritual death but do not believe that any post-fallen human being ever experiences or transitions into spiritual death but all come into this world already in such a transitioned state of being spiritually dead, then with whom did the actual transition to spiritual death occur? Or is it something that no human ever experiences as there never was a transition to "spiritual" death because there never was a condition of "spiritual" life for any human? What then preexisted a condition of "spiritual death" and what would that condition be called?

 

Like, Romans 7:14-25 Romans 6 is also dealing with regenerate persons and not lost persons. Hence, the law of sin is not a condition of their spirit but the condition of the rest of their unregenerate nature (soul and body). In a regenerate person the "soul" is the battleground between the natural drives of the unregenerate body still under the law of sin versus the regenerate spirit. Dichotomoist are incapable of understanding this properly as they confuse regeneration with the soul instead of the spirit whereas the "soul" has not been regenerated and is still subject to the law of sin and equally without ability to do good apart from the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit (Philip. 2:13). Hence, putting on and putting off have to do with this battleground area of the soul between the regenerated spirit and the unregenerate soul and body of man which can only be won by Spirit power as there is no "soul" power to do good in a regenerated man (Rom. 7:18) as the unregenerate body is still sold under sin and there is nothing "good" in it. But this is not the state of the regenerated spirit or "inward man" that is created in "true holiness and righteousness" as defined by God's law (Rom. 7:22). The human spirit is the moral governor of the soul and thus a regenerated spirit changes the moral inclination of the soul from evil to "good" (Rom. 7:15-18) but the unregenerated soul still has no "power" to will good (Rom. 7:18).

My point is that you cannot use these texts to describe the unregenerate man or the "law of sin" operating in the unregenerate man.

 

Oh I am fully aware of what he believes. It makes no sense though, it does gymnastics to get around certain things, such as God's justice. The problem with @JonC is that he tries to define what is just when the only one who does that is God.

 

I think he is right about the beginning point determines your conclusion. That is why I asked him if God's love is rooted in God's holiness or is God's holiness rooted in God's love. His atonement view has its beginning point in God's love rather than in God's holiness. If the atonement is rooted in God's love instead of God's holiness than that produces "sloppy agape" but if God's love is rooted in God's holiness that makes God's love holy and just and thus consistent with His law and His wrath.