Adam represented all men and Christ represented...who exactly?

[Skandelon]

Calvinism seems to presume that Adam represented "all people" while Christ represented "his people"...the "elect."

But the text clearly says Christ died for the same "all" that Adam represented.

There is no argument that we were all represented by Adam, so why would anyone just assume that we weren't all represented by Christ, being the second Adam?

The only reason Calvinists make that assumption is because they presume that providing all men justification must equal salvation unto eternal life for all men (Universalism), but I submit that one can be justified in some sense, yet still condemned. How?

By Christ's death all men are justified in regard to the law (Old Covenant) and therefore will not be judged in regard to the works required by the law in that Covenant. Instead they will be judged by the requirements of the new covenant of Grace. There is only one requirement. FAITH.

So, because of Christ's work on the cross, no one is now born under the curse of the law for it has been fulfilled once and for ALL by Christ. No one is required to meet the standard of the law and in that sense is justified according to the demands of the first covenant. Those under the law will be judged by the law, but we are under Grace and will be judged by our response to the gospel of grace.

John 12:44 Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not *believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

You can see from this verse that Christ is not judging men for their sin in regard to the law, instead he is judging them based upon their response to his Words, which are the gospel message of reconciliation for the world.


What say you?

 

[annsni]

Those of us outside the law were never subject to the law. The law was not given to Gentiles.

Can you show me Scripture that says that man can be justified but still condemned? How does that work? Jesus' blood only covered some of the sin?

 

[zrs6v4]

-Christ did not come to abolish the Law, it still stands and condemns.
-I dont think Christ wiped away the Law on the cross for all mankind, but I think that He made it possible to be saved from the Law.
- Some are under the Law and some are under grace. Those under the Law are required to keep the whole Law which is their condemnation. Those under grace are set free from the Law and live by faith. This Law of faith in Christ is the only way. Christ is the cornerstone.
-"Do we nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary we establish the Law."

 

[Skandelon]

Ann and others,

Let's look at an analogy (which all fall short, so don't nit-pick it). Let's say you break into a home and steal all their money and you get caught three weeks later. You are brought before the judge and the plantiff, who you stole the money from, says, "I will not press charges IF you return my money." So, in a sense you have been pardoned from punishment, but its conditional. You must return the money, but you have already spent it so even if you tried you couldn't meet that condition for pardon, so the condition initially set is too high for you to meet (like the law). The plaintiff's son stands up and says, "Here is the money dad, the debt is paid." The plaintiff then look to the man and says, "The condition that you couldn't meet has now been met by my son, and now all I ask you to do is repent and you will be forgiven." (Pause)

At this moment in the analogy would it be inaccurate to say that this man has shown you incredible mercy? Would it be inaccurate to say that he has provided justification? The condition hasn't been met but the provision has been made, right? The plantiff has done everything needed for the defendant to be completely pardoned.

In that regard the defendants have been justified. Does that make sense? I'm still working through this myself, so I'm not arguing, just discussing...

 

[Aaron]

That's a horrible analogy. It didn't just fall short, it wasn't even close.

God gave us a better analogy. Did the high priest represent all the people of the world on the Day of Atonement, or just the elect? (Hint: the ones for whom he stood were on his breastplate.)

 

[Amy.G]

That's a horrible analogy. It didn't just fall short, it wasn't even close.

God gave us a better analogy. Did the high priest represent all the people of the world on the Day of Atonement, or just the elect? (Hint: the ones for whom he stood were on his breastplate.)

The high priest made atonement for ALL Israel (God's elect). Was every single Jew saved? Was Judas saved? If not, why not? Wasn't he part of Israel? Wasn't atonement made for him?

 

[Winman]

Christ's sacrifice paid for all men, the scriptures say so many times.

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

This verse speaks of unsaved men who are damned to swift destruction, but it says Jesus bought them.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Christ is the propitiation for all men's sins, not just the saved, but the unsaved as well.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Are the unsaved and unelect sinners? If so, Christ died for them.

 

[Marcia]

Calvinism seems to presume that Adam represented "all people" while Christ represented "his people"...the "elect."

But the text clearly says Christ died for the same "all" that Adam represented.

There is no argument that we were all represented by Adam, so why would anyone just assume that we weren't all represented by Christ, being the second Adam?

The only reason Calvinists make that assumption is because they presume that providing all men justification must equal salvation unto eternal life for all men (Universalism), but I submit that one can be justified in some sense, yet still condemned. How?

By Christ's death all men are justified in regard to the law (Old Covenant) and therefore will not be judged in regard to the works required by the law in that Covenant. Instead they will be judged by the requirements of the new covenant of Grace. There is only one requirement. FAITH.

So, because of Christ's work on the cross, no one is now born under the curse of the law for it has been fulfilled once and for ALL by Christ. No one is required to meet the standard of the law and in that sense is justified according to the demands of the first covenant. Those under the law will be judged by the law, but we are under Grace and will be judged by our response to the gospel of grace.

Are you saying that men were previously saved by the law? No one was ever justified by the law.

 

[Marcia]

-Christ did not come to abolish the Law, it still stands and condemns.
-I dont think Christ wiped away the Law on the cross for all mankind, but I think that He made it possible to be saved from the Law.
- Some are under the Law and some are under grace. Those under the Law are required to keep the whole Law which is their condemnation. Those under grace are set free from the Law and live by faith. This Law of faith in Christ is the only way. Christ is the cornerstone.
-"Do we nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary we establish the Law."

No one can be saved by the law; the law was never given to save. It was given to show men that they can't ever match the holiness/standards of God.

 

[fbcodr]

Christ's sacrifice paid for all men, the scriptures say so many times.

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

This verse speaks of unsaved men who are damned to swift destruction, but it says Jesus bought them.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Christ is the propitiation for all men's sins, not just the saved, but the unsaved as well.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Are the unsaved and unelect sinners? If so, Christ died for them.

AMEN AND AMEN!!!:applause::thumbsup:

 

[zrs6v4]

No one can be saved by the law; the law was never given to save. It was given to show men that they can't ever match the holiness/standards of God.

Of course not, but the Law is still around for the very reason you stated. It also does not become useless when we are saved, but we observe the Law by faith.

Im not sure where you misunderstood me, but I was quoting Scripture

 

[Skandelon]

Are you saying that men were previously saved by the law? No one was ever justified by the law.

Nope. What did I say that would make you think that?

 

[Winman]

AMEN AND AMEN!!!:applause::thumbsup:

Thank you, it is good to see there are a few here who understand.

I posted Romans 5:18 in another thread, but it is applicable here as well.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

This verse shows that Adam introduced a legal penalty into the world. It was a judgement of condemnation, in other words, the death penalty. Let me give you an example of this.

Back in the mid 60's young people started experimenting with LSD. There was nothing the law could do about it, it was a relatively new drug not well known. It was clear that the drug was very dangerous and harmful. Some people experienced terrible "trips" and committed suicide. The daughter of TV personality Art Linkletter was one such case. Other people experienced severe depression, psychosis and other mental illnesses.

But still, for awhile there nothing the law could do, because there was no laws against this drug. People could manufacture and distribute it freely and did.

Well, finally laws were passed against it. It had been perfectly legal for nearly 30 years, but because people started abusing it, laws were passed to make it illegal. So, because of these people a legal judgement was introduced that passed upon all men (except a few in certain medical professions). Now today, if you are caught using or possessing LSD you can be fined or even placed in jail or prison. And it because of the abuse of LSD by young people in the 60's.

This is what Adam did. Because of his sin he introduced a legal judgement or sentence that passed upon all men. Now, anyone who sins is immediately condemned to death by God.

But go back and read Romans 5:18 again. It says because of Christ's righteousness that the free gift of justification of life passed or came upon all men.

A Calvinist will easily say "all men" concerning the judgement to condemnation means just that, all of mankind. But then they will turn around and try to argue that "all men" when speaking of the free gift of justification of life only means the few elect. But this cannot be, this is what is called a parallelism. Both instances of "all men" mean exactly what they say, all of mankind without exception.

 

[Marcia]

Nope. What did I say that would make you think that?

I wasn't sure what you thought, that's why I asked. I found your statements somewhat confusing.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Calvinism seems to presume that Adam represented "all people" while Christ represented "his people"...the "elect."

But the text clearly says Christ died for the same "all" that Adam represented.

There is no argument that we were all represented by Adam, so why would anyone just assume that we weren't all represented by Christ, being the second Adam?

The only reason Calvinists make that assumption is because they presume that providing all men justification must equal salvation unto eternal life for all men (Universalism), but I submit that one can be justified in some sense, yet still condemned. How?

By Christ's death all men are justified in regard to the law (Old Covenant) and therefore will not be judged in regard to the works required by the law in that Covenant. Instead they will be judged by the requirements of the new covenant of Grace. There is only one requirement. FAITH.

So, because of Christ's work on the cross, no one is now born under the curse of the law for it has been fulfilled once and for ALL by Christ. No one is required to meet the standard of the law and in that sense is justified according to the demands of the first covenant. Those under the law will be judged by the law, but we are under Grace and will be judged by our response to the gospel of grace.

John 12:44 Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not *believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

You can see from this verse that Christ is not judging men for their sin in regard to the law, instead he is judging them based upon their response to his Words, which are the gospel message of reconciliation for the world.


What say you?

I'd say your over-preoccupied with Calvinism.

 

[Allan]

I'd say your over-preoccupied with Calvinism.

To be fair though, you don't state these same sentiments of or toward those Cals/Reformed who come on here and do the exact same thing toward the Non-cals and Arminians. Instead you agree and appluad them for doing the same things. - But I will agree with the apparent truth of your statement

It appears that some who are just coming on or back to the board lately truely are overly-preoccupied with the C/A debate and disproving the false teachings/heretical propaganda, ad nauseum .. of the other view.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

To be fair though, you don't state these same sentiments of or toward those Cals/Reformed who come on here and do the exact same thing toward the Non-cals and Arminians. Instead you agree and appluad them for doing the same things. Let's be fair.

I however do agree with you that many who are coming on or back to the board truely are overly-preoccupied with the C/A debate and disproving the false teachings/heretical propaganda, ad nauseum .. of of the other.

Actually I have, and you have seen it in the past. But your getting old now and are forgetting things. lol

I have actually called out that 1689er feller.

 

[Allan]

Actually I have, and you have seen it in the past. But your getting old now and are forgetting things. lol

I have actually called out that 1689er feller.

I modified my earlier post as you were writing this.

Who is the 1689er. I must have missed his stuff - maybe that is for the better

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I modified my earlier post as you were writing this.

Who is the 1689er. I must have missed his stuff - maybe that is for the better

Lately I am just seeing him complain about being called a troll. But his Calvnist rhetoric has been overbearing and lacked grace, and rather ignorant supposing that non-calvinists (maybe I should say insinuating) are not saved.

 

[Skandelon]

You have the ability to skip threads and not respond to things that don't interest you, or do you? I'm studying up on the subject for some research I'm doing and this gets my juices flowing and sharpens me to think through all avenues of this topic. If you don't like it, don't read it. You won't hurt my feelings.