Featured Genesis 3:22, fallen man, sinless man Christ

Is it possible we can actually agree on something? This may be a monumental moment in history.

 

There was something else I wanted to point out but the conflict began and I lost track of it.

The Scripture tells us who was saved in the Book of Genesis.

Abel was accepted by God when he brought an animal sacrifice before the Lord, Cain was not accepted when brought a sacrifice from the fruits of the earth (vegetables),

Cain knew as well as Abel what sacrifice to bring, but he was in rebellion against God.

We are told that Enock walked with God, Noah was a preacher of righteousness.

Very few were saved in those early days when the knowledge of God was very limited.

There is no mention whatsoever that Adam and Eve humbled themselves before the Lord through the animal sacrifice that represented Christ.

Most scholars believe they are not mentioned with the rest of the few believers because they never repented and humbled themselves before God.

 

Sure, if you cease your knee-jerk criticisms and judgements of schools of thought that you clearly know nothing about. You show your ignorance when you do that,

 

Well, be fair and show me exactly where my ignorance was placed. I'm a big boy, I can take it!

I'm sure we can we can work it out.

 

In these parts where I was raised, if you call a man ignorant, you man up with telling him how he was ignorant. If not, then take your part with the women folk.

 

The most recent:

Ignorant is not a derogatory word if used in the right way. I'm ignorant of many things, so are you.

If you thicken your skin a little, perhaps you won't take offense at every little thing and act like a little girl.

 

I've got some thick skin, but if I'm wrong then prove me wrong!

You've proven nothing here but that you disagree.

You're going to have to do better than this, ky!

 

Now you're either being dishonest or you've a short memory. You were totally ignorant of Adam as a type of Christ and proceeded to deride Covenant Theology for positing it, here.

 

Yep, that seems like a difference of interpretation

Now prove me wrong, and we'll be getting somewhere..

 

What exactly do you think we're talking about Charlie? I'm talking about your knee-jerk criticisms and judgements of schools of thought that you clearly know nothing about. I just linked to the most recent example. here: Genesis 3:22, fallen man, sinless man Christ

 

How is it that you can't understand, if you disagree with anything I've said, then show me from Scripture where I erred. You've shown me nothing, ky, but what you disagree with.

Show me in Scripture your understanding of the type, I've have clearly shown you mine.

ONE MAN brought "death" by sin into the world, Adam.

ONE MAN brought "life" and redemption into the world, Jesus Christ.

Now correct me from Scripture that this is not the type!

Just disagree ain't gonna cut it, ky.

 

I did, HERE

 

Consider this type @Charlie24 (I'm probably going to hell now for sure)

Eve was tricked into eating the fruit, Adam was not. He willingly chose to partake in order to have his bride, Eve, who was dead from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, a type/foreshadow of the law.

Christ willingly chose the death of the cross in order to have His bride, the Church.

 

Yes, it's an anti-type.

Adam is the type of Christ as the counterpart in the fulfillment of Christ (prophecy) coming to undo what Adam did.

It's the same as the Blood of animal sacrifice of the OT Law representing the Blood of the offering of Christ. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, but the coming Christ would.

Both are a figure/prophecy) of what was to come.

 

I'm afraid you're in over your head here, ky.

 

I'm causing to much controversy and creating to many enemies to remain here.

I'll be moving on now and let BB get back to normal operation

 

No, Charlie, I'm sorry, don't go! I'll lay off, You're taking this waaaay too seriously, I was just having some fun. You're well mannered and likable, we need participants like you. I won't bother you anymore.

 

Man was not created with a sin nature. He was created innocent. He had to be tested and if he passed the test, he would’ve been righteous and if he failed it, then he would be a sinner. He failed it.

Christ did not have the spirit of Adam. He had the spirit of God. Christ did not fail it. He started a new race of humanity.

 

Everything is fine, Brother. I know it's nothing personal, forum wide.

I don't hang around very long on any site, it just doesn't work for me, so I move on.

It was a pleasure to meet you, and I wish for all of you Num. 6:24-26,

"The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:

The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace."