Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article ,
lsenders{at}hotmail.com
>
> > from the very start in
> >disallowing the sin of Adam passing onto the entire **race**
>
> I didn't 'disallow' it. God Himself does, when He forbade that the
son be
> punished for the sins of the father.
>
Yet He visits the sins of the father onto the third and fourth
generation?  Ex 34.  You are side stepping the argument.  All are under
the sentence of death which means that all have sinned.  Where do we
begin listing all the scriptural references for that!  But even there,
the fall of the race does not specifically speak to an act of sin, but
to the ruin of man's inclination.  This you refuse to accept.

> > of which
> >he was a federal representative (Rom 5).
>
> I notice the term "federal representative" is NOWHERE in Rom 5. Must
be only in
> your oh-so-fertile imagination.
>
The word "Trinity" is no where to be found in scripture either, that
doesn't negate the truthfulness of the doctrine.  There are many such
words which are not found yet they are used properly to described a
particular teaching.  That humanity is a race, unlike angels, One could
die for all.  Christ is the federal representative of all of the elect
of God.  Adam is likewise, the federal head of the race.

> >  So the very presuppositions
> >out of which you form your system of theology is wrong.  Get the
> >foundation off kilter just a bit and the entire house is out of
wack.
>
> But since it is YOU who sees "federal representative" where it is
conspicuously
> ABSENT, it is YOUR foundation that is off kilter. And not by just a
little bit,
> either.
>
My dad can beat up your dad.  Again, your argumentation offers no
support or development.  It is pure negation without representation.

The human RACE is peculiar as being able to be federally represented.
It differs from the angelic realm, which is not a race.  There is no
atoning offer made by God for rebellious angels.  But that is not the
character, the design of humanity.  God designed it to be procreating
such that He could enter into it and represent it.  Do away with the
federal nature of Adam and you of necessity have to do away with the
federal nature of Christ's death.  Either He died for all or He didn't.
>
> >The "disastrous bad dogma" is your refusal to accept the depravity
of
> >man, -mankind.
>
> No, the disastrous bad dogma is your denial that God made everything
good and
> very good, so that even after the Fall, there is something good in
fallen man,
> something worth saving.
>
Apples and oranges.  As I have noted before, it seems that your
argumentation is getting weaker and weaker.  Man is worth saving
because he is created in the image of God and has worth and dignity.
There is also the issue of grace.  Again Ex 34.  YHVH YHVH, this
hendiady magnifies the essential nature of God - "grace and truth."

But this has nothing to do with the "goodness" of fallen man.  If you
don't understand the distiniction, then there's no use going any
further.  You need enlightenment of the divine nature.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/28/05 9:34:26 PM ---