Adam took things into his own hands, revolted from God and trampled His law beneath his feet. It behooves us to study the relation between Adam’s action and the universal miseries consequent on it, for it supplies the clue to all the confusion which perplexes us within and without. It tells us why infants are estranged from God from the womb (Ps. 58: 3) , and why each of us is born into this world with a heart that is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9). It is because Adam forfeited his Maker’s approbation and incurred His awful displeasure, with all its terrible effects. In Adam we broke the covenant of works; we offended in his offense and transgressed in his transgression; and thereby we departed from God’s favor and fell under His righteous curse. Scott said: "Thus man apostatized, God was provoked, the Holy Spirit forsook His polluted temple, the unclean spirit took possession, the Divine image was defaced and Satan’s image imposed in its place." Through the sin of its head the race was ruined and fell into a state of most horrible moral leprosy. Ours is a fallen world: averse to Cod and holiness, iniquity abounding in it, death reigning over it, lust and crime characterizing it, suffering and misery filling it"(A.Pink)
WOMI wrote:Scriptures speaks of Christ's incarnation as necessary for him to become us, not merely for him to die on the cross.....
I'm interested to know what you mean by "become us", as it seems you have mentioned this a few times now. I've always thought it necessary for the Lord to become a man that he might live and die and be raised as a man, because it was man that sinned.
In the following scripture "became us" means that Christ was "perfectly suitable for us" as an high priest who was sinless and able to "die for" an unlimited number of sinners, paying the price for sin, and applying that redemption price to whomsoever he would, according to the Father's Will and Purpose.
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. Hebrews 7:25-27 KJV
He saves all that come unto God by him.
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?
[URL=http://www.covenantedreformation.co.uk/haldrom.htm#LinkTarget_41719]]](Robert Haldane - Commentary on the Book of Romans)[/URL]
(Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans by Robert Haldane)
WOMI wrote:"He did not nor did he need to become flesh to die on the cross, he became flesh to become us."
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.
WOMI wrote:So the type has nothing to do with him being the first of his kind for he is not the first of his kind. He is the ONLY of his kind! Bless God!!!
1 Corinthians 15:20 "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."
Scripture calls him the firstfruits, therefore he is the first of his kind(spiritual man) Can't be firstfruits unless there's fruits to follow.
WOMI wrote:Romans 5 is speaking of a particular person, while Corinthians is speaking of a different race.
Corinthians 15 speaks of Christ's resurrection, resurrection order, and the mystery of resurrection. The Lord is highly emphasized in this chapter. In what version is found a different race in this chapter?
WOMI wrote:So the type has nothing to do with him being the first of his kind for he is not the first of his kind. He is the ONLY of his kind!
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Don't ignore election and predestination Yamil........
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
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.
Boy, I can make a good Calvinist. Ok which Presby wants to offer me membership?
WOMI wrote: Hey, you did not answer my objection that I made earlier concerning your post that I responded to.If we are righteous in Christ, if it is his righteousness that has been imputed unto us, as the last Adam, what does that say of the first Adam as the type?
The type is this-, Adam was the first of his kind, a living soul, a natural man, earthy. The last Adam was the first of his kind, a quickening spirit, a spiritual man, heavenly.
1 Corinthians 15:47"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."
The type is simply that they are each the first of their kind. Why do we need to complicate it?
As for your question, this is my opinion: If Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us, it says nothing about Adam's sin being imputed, for it is not imputation that is the type, but being the first of the kind(natural vs spiritual) that is the type.
1 Corinthians 15:48 "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly."
Men die in Adam because men are flesh, as was Adam. Flesh is subject to death. Sin brings it about.
WOMI wrote:(a) rally around "Ban Yamil!" (b) Now, if Lurker can be a Calvinist and reject one of the most fundamental doctines of Reformed theology, then can I still be a synergist and believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few? I mean, its only fair.
(b) Now, if Lurker can be a Calvinist and reject one of the most fundamental doctines of Reformed theology, then can I still be a synergist and believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few? I mean, its only fair.
(b) There have been a few people come onboard site and said they were Calvinists, but.........
As for you Yamil - we all know for definite that you are a dyed in the wool, member of the SAS. ______________
Mike wrote:is there something in Scripture that says Adam's sin brought him eternal death?
OH, And why did God say....Gen 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, AND TAKE ALSO of the TREE OF LIFE, and eat, and LIVE FOR EVER:"
So who gets to munch on the Tree of Life - and why?
WOMI wrote:Come on now. You could just ask me.
Ah well, in that case, please do go ahead full steam and no conferring!
John UK wrote:And I will attempt to play the theologian.
Mike wrote:John, is there something in Scripture that says Adam's sin brought him eternal death? If so, verses might help to clarify. If not, how could he representatively spread to his offspring a penalty that did not apply to him? To the serpent, God cursed the serpent. But to Adam, God cursed the ground. Adam was separated from the garden, but not from God, nor God from him. At what point did eternal death come in?
And I will attempt to play the theologian.
#1 If Adam's sin did not bring him eternal death, then the 'wages of sin is death' means that Adam dies and is no more existent. Or
#2 As the JW's incorrectly believe, Adam dies, dies again at the judgment, and is extinct.
#3 Now we know that the words 'death' and 'dead' in the Bible cannot be simply understood, Mike, don't we? For eg. I was 'dead' and 'alive' until the age of 26, when I 'died' and was 'made alive'. Or to be even more correct, I was 'made alive' and then 'died', thus gaining 'life'. I also seek to 'die' daily, but somewhat unsuccessfully.
Thankfully I have 'died' with Christ, been 'raised' with Christ, and will be 'glorified' with Christ. Praise the Lord!!!!!!!! And Amen!!!!
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.
If we are righteous in Christ, if it is his righteousness that has been imputed unto us, as the last Adam, what does that say of the first Adam as the type?
John UK wrote:Bro Lurker,If you choose to depart the forum, you should at least declare your position. We all have a Bible and get our doctrines from IT, so what is your doctrine, which you say is biblical?
He said to me, "I've not been contending for infused sin. Imputed when the Law was published by God through Moses."
While that statement is very confusing, I think that was his meaning; however, I can't quite figure out whose sin is imputed. Certainly not Adam's, because "that" Lurker adamantly denies. He seems to conclude that there was no law previous to the Mosaic Law being given.
There can be no sin where there is no law, for sin is always a violation of some law (except unrighteous laws, contrary to the revealed will of God - as there are many in our day, and new ones daily, which to obey is sin). Also, the fact there is death proves there was law, "for the wages of sin is death." And where is there sin without guilt, whether felt or not?
John UK wrote:---Representative Adam spreading to his offspring the penalties of spiritual death, physical death and eternal death.---
To the serpent, God cursed the serpent. But to Adam, God cursed the ground. Adam was separated from the garden, but not from God, nor God from him. At what point did eternal death come in?
John UK wrote:Yammy, my dear ol' thing You believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few? Can you show that from scripture? Just for my edification, you understand. p.s. Lurker isn't a Calvinist, but a free thinker.
WOMI wrote:Now, if Lurker can be a Calvinist and reject one of the most fundamental doctines of Reformed theology, then can I still be a synergist and believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few? I mean, its only fair.
You believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few?
Can you show that from scripture?
Just for my edification, you understand.
p.s. Lurker isn't a Calvinist, but a free thinker.
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.
_______________________________________
Now, if Lurker can be a Calvinist and reject one of the most fundamental doctines of Reformed theology, then can I still be a synergist and believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few? I mean, its only fair.
