Mike wrote:
Almost. I would indeed expect a Calvinist to come up with such fuzzy stuff. Or perhaps a devil's advocate.

Mike wrote:
However, if he became flesh to become us, he became us so he could die in our stead, which he could not do otherwise than becoming flesh.

Mike wrote:
What race would that be? Indy 500?

You have also contorted the type of the first Adam. What ever is true of the first type has to be true of the antitype and vice versa. Romans 5 is speaking of a particular person, while Corinthians is speaking of a different race.

Thirdly, you have ignored the whole meaning of Romans chapter 5 which has everything to do with imputation and nothing to do with physiology.

John UK wrote:
And I will attempt to play the theologian.

Mike wrote:
I don't think WOMI believes that. Or at least he didn't used to. Perhaps he was being facetious?

Hey, you did not answer my objection that I made earlier concerning your post that I responded to.

Alan H wrote:
This discussion has prompted me to that effort. Don't assume you have it right; neither shall I. Only the Holy Spirit can reconcile that which seems contrary to us while we place the Scripture under the bare scrutiny of our own natural reason (or some one else's).
May the Lord bless you my dear friend.

Ha!

I would agree with Alan's sentiments. We are dealing with one of the most profound and difficult portions of Scripture. We can glory in the fact that no matter what the interpretaion may be correct, Christ is the answer. If it leads us to a more awesome reverence and adoration of the work and person of Christ, then I say that your particular interpretation is close enough.

_______________________________________

Mike wrote:
So the idea apparently is, Adam represented us, thus when he sinned, we sinned. Therefore, this principle should apply such that someone who is, as an example, abandoned by his father as a child, sins the sin of abandonment. After all when the father sinned, the child must sin representatively. It's the Federal way. If the depravity is inherited, it is inherited directly from parent to child, (the parent being the Federal head of the unit family, as Adam is held to be Federal head of the human family) for the child must exist before he can have sin imputed to him.
sonofadam posted a quote which seems to agree: "It is a corruption of all nature - an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb"
The Federal relationship, if it is so, cannot end with the sin of, nor the death of the original head, but is representative on down the line, from parent to child. Therefore, when the parent sins, the child must sin in him.
Of course, this is bogus and unbiblical.

Limay wrote:
As an Arminian type Yamil, you have not become cognizant of the difference between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.

Lurker wrote:
Nay, Yamil. On the contrary it is you , Arlyss and Alan who seem to insist that unless Adam's actual sin and his nature are a package imputed to all his progeny, his headship is negated. I reject that premise but if someone is willing to present an argument for it with sound biblical evidence we can discuss it. So far all I've seen is this speculation from Alan's post:
"Christ redeems His people by the imputation to them of His righteousness. Must not Adam have ruined his, by the imputation to them of his guilt?" (Robert L. Dabney - The Fall and Original Sin)

Actually I do not hold to the theory of Federal Headship of Christ.n I was just merely playing devil's advocate with Mike since it seemed that the Calvinists were not standing up to defend their distinctive view. I probably can give you a very formidable argument if you would really like.

Mike wrote:
Where is the need for us to be guilty of Adam's specific sin?

Alan H wrote:
Yamil's question raises a valid point:

Mike wrote:
A pleasantness, bro Lurker, that we should agree on this.

I am not sure if Lurker understands what damage he is doing to his beloved TULIP. If he diverts from federalism, then he has no grounds to embrace the doctrines of grace.

Finally someone looked it up in their Calvinist handy dandy answer book.

I am surprised that Lurker did not opt to mankind receiving Adam's guilt imputed to us. I would think of all people he would. Hi Lurker.

Mike, good explanation of Romans 5:13, although a little different than the way I would do it. Yet, you are the first one to actually deal with the text where this argument would be centralized.

The question you must ask yourself then Mike, is, how can the the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (the second Adam) be true on the believer if the guilt of Adam was not imputed unto us?

Have you guys forgotten so soon?

Michael Hranek wrote:
WOMI
Welcome back. To clarify does God require children to be punished for the sins their fathers have committed but they personally have not?
Yet do children inherit from their fathers the nature the bent to sin?
I know, I know I am not a Calvinist so I will step aside and let you discuss thing with them.

Ha!

Hi John. I cannot believe you are still alive. I would had thought your hyper cousins would had disowned you and burnt you at the stake by now.

Well, its not a simple topic. In fact from what I perceive its one of the hardest to sort out.

Simple question... well let's try it again...

Does God pass the guilt of Adam for his original sin unto us?

In other words, if one should never commit one personal sin, will God still hold him liable for the sin of Adam simply becasue we were in Adam as out federal head?

Or does the doctrine of original sin speak only to the effects of Adam's sin to the race minus the solidary guilt.

postulate wrote:
We are guilty as charged in God's eyes.
Our own eyes require to be opened to perceive this wretched estate.
This is part of becoming Christian consequent to which repentance will follow.