Are words of life meant for only those already living?

Wonderfully accurate depiction of God's Grace Skandelon. The one with the compliant, the one who satisfies the complaint, and the one who benefits by the actions of THE SON! What marvelous Grace.

 

It was them sireens. They done loved him up, and turned him into a horny toad.

 

Sorry I didn't get back here sooner. I'm having headaches to beat the band these days, because of some medicine I'm taking, so I try not to do the computer very long at one sitting.

Was Adam's fall actual or potential? Your view is that Adam's fall was actual but Christ's was necessarily potential. That's the only way you can end up with general atonement.

It is inconsistent exegetically to say that Adam's fall was actual with respect to all men and then say that this is not true of the atonement in Christ. This is no assumption on my part, it is an assumption on YOUR part that is inconsistent with your assumption about the fall in Adam. You must approach the text with potential atonement in mind in order to arrive at your conclusion. I'm approaching the text in a manner that is hermaneutically consistent.

Did all really fall in Adam or not? Yes, of course they did. You do not deny this.

Then if the all who are in Christ is all men everywhere then are they really justified or not? If so, then you end up with universalism. If not, you end up with limited atonement. The only way you can say what you say is to say that the atonement was potential and not actual, but that would require the fall in Adam to be potential as well. To do that you must assume that all means all men everywhere and that the design of the atonement is general. On the other hand, my interpretation simply follows on with the same logic applied to 5:12 with regard to the fall in Adam.

Adam’s one sin brought death into the world as the certain consequence of sin. This was real and actual, correct?

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

This was real and actual. The text is explicit on that, correct?

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many

The text does not say ALL. It says MANY. All men died in Adam, many are justified in Christ. The atonement is somehow limited, correct?

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one;

Which we all affirm was real and actual, not symbolic and potential, correct?

much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

Then why is it necessary exegetically for you to say that this is symbolic and potential and not real and actual?

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;

Again, you agree this is real and actual...

even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life'"

Is the actual or potential? To be exegetically consistent it must be actual, not potential. Why?
Because What happens to the representative must, of absolute necessity, also happen to all he represents. Adam's disobedience guaranteed the condemnation of all he represented and Christ’s obedience guarantees the justification of all He represented. If Jesus represents all men, not only those that are given to Him by the Father (John 6), then you end up with universalism."This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." John 6:39

Linguistically, the verbs in Romans 5 are also indicative with respect to both are they not? This necessarily tells us, by the very rules of Greek grammar that these are not potentialities, these are real states. With respect to being made righteous, this is future tense, indicative mood, passive voice. The indicative mood expresses real, actual facts in causal, temporal, and result clauses. This use fits that description. Thus we are talking about an actual, not a potential. By defintion, if the atonement is actual, it must be limited in scope, not power, or you end up with universalism. Therefore, this passage, exegetically, grammatically can not support general atonement because of the mood of the verbs.

Also, who is the "we" of 5:1? Is it also all men everywhere or Christians? The text indicates Christians. It is also inconsistent to plug in a potential and general atonement on that basis as well and then say that the "we" of 5:1 refers only to Christians, because these verses about Adam and Christ are expounding on those verses preceding. 5:6 uses "we" again. "While WE were still helpless..." Now, is Paul being hypothetical here or not? That is absolutely necessarily grammatically to render a teaching on general atonement out of this passage. What clue do you see that I do not that this is demanded by the text? Is it not more consistent to say that the Christ died for the ungodly, specifically us, e.g. us Christians, since there is nothing here to demand a hypothetical "we" in 5:6 and 5:1, particularly when we do not believe that Paul is speaking of a hypothetical all men with respect to Adam later in this discourse. You end up flipping between the hypothetical, potential "all" and the real, actual "all" if you go with your view, not to mention ignoring the indicative mood of the verbs and what that means grammatically.

You also end up with Jesus interceding for those for whom He did not die, and the Father not granting the requests of the Son, which puts the Godhead at cross purposes.

[ January 05, 2005, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

The first Adam brought to sinners the Adamic nature, the proclivity toward sinning. The second Adam {Christ} died for every sin that ever will be committed by sinful human beings. [John 1:29 & I John 2:2] The Adam in the Garden affected actual sin for every human created being. Jesus died for the actual not potential sin of every human soul. This is what makes unbelief so wicked and such an affront to Almighty God.

At the judgment bar of God every sinner will be without excuse in that Jesus actually died for the sins of the world. [John 1:29 & I John 5:19]

Those who believe savingly become His elect. The second Adam is ‘spiritual’ [I Cor. 15:46c] He is from Heaven [vs. 47] and this last Adam is ‘a quickening spirit.’ Those who trust in Jesus for salvation are made alive in the Spirit and at death will be spirited away to the felicity of Heaven. [II Cor. 5:8 & Philippians 1:23]

All sinners are represented in Christ as He has actually died for all of His lost created beings that have come from the first Adam in the Garden of Eden.

Jesus plan was not to die just for only some of His lost created human beings. His love is for all. [John 3:16] Christ's attribute of Divine justice precludes Him from any partiality. [Deut. 10:17; Job 34:19 & Romans 2:11]

Now watch some poster ignore most or all of this truth, backed up with the Word of God Himself.

 

Very concise and CLEAR, easy to understand SKANDELON!

Keep up the good work of Clarifying God's Word!

 

All people have died spiritually in Adam; the second Adam makes it possible for all to be adopted sons and daughters of the living God. If the Effectual Call is correct then many of the writers of the New and Old Covenant made mistakes in their manuscripts and the Scripture is not as flawless as we all believe. Either Jesus ‘ . . . tasted death for every person or He did not. [Hebrews 2:9] If God ‘cherry picks’ His elect than the first Adam’s Fall was more deadly than the second Adam’s Divine ability to save all lost souls. Did Jesus die only for His select, favored ones, or has His love extended to each of us? John the Apostle makes it radiantly clear that Christ did die for our sins, but did not neglect atoning for all of the sons and daughters of Adam’s/God’s human race. [I John 2:2] There is no favoritism in the balances of the Lord’s attribute of Divine Justice.

Either God through Christ has ‘taken away the sins of the world’ [John 1:29] or John the Baptist was wrong. If we cannot trust the truth that Jesus removed the ‘sins of every son and daughter of Adam’ we could jump the fence also and begin to doubt whether He was and is the ‘Lamb of God.’ Did He not pay the ‘ransom for all?’ Jesus through the Apostle Paul to the church reminds us not only that He is the only Mediator for sinners and saints, but that His precious blood is adequate in it’s ability to take away anyone’s sins.

Confession of sins is what makes His covering of sins viable. [Acts 2:21 & I John 1:9]