grace or pure sovereignty?

Yelsew,

Was Jesus condemned? Yes BUT! not for any sin (original or committed) on His account. He chose to offer Himself for the sins of the Elect. God, through Christ, redeemed for Himself a group of people.

In short, He had no "original sin" or "actual sin" or legally guilty standing.

The sins of the father thing....I know what you're trying to say. But, there are contextual issues at work here. Please supply chapter and verse so that I know exactly where you are getting what you are saying.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

Yelsew,

Let me hazzard a guess: 20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. Ezekiel 18:20

Is this the passage that you are referring to?

I think it should be noted that we are talking about different things--apples and oranges if you will.

We'd agree that there are none Righteous, right? This is due to the sin of Adam. However, NONE of us are innocent of our own sins.

Augustine put it this way:
1. Before the fall: humans were able to sin and able not to sin.

2. After the fall: humans were not able not to sin.

3. After the cross: humans in Christ were able to sin and able not to sin.

4. In the eternal state: humans will not be able to sin.

Of course, Augustine wrote this stuff in latin. I can't remember the whole latin thing so I just summed it up.

I think he has done some big-time, good exegesis. Augustine has read Romans, obviously!

I gotta run.....more later!

Blessings,

Archangel

 

The objects are Adam vs. Christ, as head, not whether what they passed down to us was in the same way (i.e. "imputation").

The passage says nothing about anything "legal". It's talking about states people are in. And Yelsew made a good point, If all men are imputed with Adam's sin, then so would Christ share this. But then his not having a uman father is supposed to be what broke this chain. But where is all of this in scripture? And the passage shows that Christ is the new head of man, and if people are condemned, it is only for rejecting him as their head. As "the second Adam" (1 Cor.15:45-47) he has become the new representative of the human race, as Adam was. But if people reject Him, it is they who choose to remain in Adam (And just think of all the unsaved's appeals to "I'm just human" to justify their sin. Without knowing it, they are directly appealing to the headship of Adam). Not because God appoints only some to Christ's headship.
All of this fits in with the Origenic view of human preexistence that underlies this theory, as was mentioned. And it necessitates reprobation of the unborn, but most here seem to deny that.

[ March 02, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Eric B,

You asked:

The passage about Melchizedek and Abraham was not quoted to talk about anything legal. The legal standing of guilt is seen in many other places. For example Romans 5 states:

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. 13 In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One.

This passage clearly shows that even without the law having been given, people still die. The fall created a condition in which everyone was under the effect of death (which is a consequence of the fall). Since there was no law to break and since people still died, there must be a "legal standing of guilt" before God (regardless of sinful action) as a result of the fall.

This response is quoted from another of my posts from another thread.

You ask:

Yes, Jesus was fully human. Yes, He had a human nature. However, He also had a perfectly Divine nature too. He was two natures in one person. Now what does all that mean?!

First of all, many (as you have implied here) beleive that sin is essential to humanity. It is not. The sinful conditon came onto humans AFTER the creation. We were intended to be without sin. We were not created sinful.

Christ is a special creation (Thus the "Second Adam" idea). Jesus' sinlessness should not call into question His humanity. His sinlessness actually defines what humanity was intended to be from the beginning. Jesus is the pattern for what humanity should be. He is the standard, not us.

There are some givens and theological thoughts that must go into this idea:

1. Jesus never sinned.

2. Jesus was tempted by Satan with real temptations.

Facts are important. However there is a third and most important fact.

3. James 1:13 clearly states that God cannot be tempted with evil.

If, and this is a big if, Jesus' humanity was the only component to Himself, then yes, He could have sinned or had a sin nature like ours. However, Jesus' humanity is Always united to His divinity. Therfore, since He is God and God cannot be tempted by evil, Jesus could not sin.

If this is the case, as you say, that Jesus is the new Adam for the entire human race, then why are there believers and unbelievers? Why will there be a heaven for some and a hell for others? If Christ represents us all, in his work on the cross, then all are saved.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

Jesus was not condemned, no one condemned him, he willingly submitted himself to be the sacrificial lamb that atones for the sins of the world.

 

Mark 14:64(NASB)
"You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

 

Mark 14:64(NASB)
"You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you think for even a nanosecond that Jesus was vanquished by the condemnation of man? Oh foolishness! He sacrificed himself before the foundation of the world. He is the the Sacrificial Lamb of God! The fact that man may have voted on his death has no bearing on anything. But it is conclusive evident that his own rejected him.

He could have called 10,000 angels! But that was not the plan! I believe he could have spoken the word, and Jerusalem would have become instant dust! But if he had, he would have been no better than any of us because he would have disobeyed the Father.

 

Mark 14:64(NASB)
"You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you think for even a nanosecond that Jesus was vanquished by the condemnation of man? Oh foolishness! He sacrificed himself before the foundation of the world. He is the the Sacrificial Lamb of God! The fact that man may have voted on his death has no bearing on anything. But it is conclusive evident that his own rejected him.

He could have called 10,000 angels! But that was not the plan! I believe he could have spoken the word, and Jerusalem would have become instant dust! But if he had, he would have been no better than any of us because he would have disobeyed the Father. </font>[/QUOTE]You have confirmed both: election before the foundation of the world, for who did Christ offer himself for? and depending on whom to make His offering effectual? and secondly, you have shown the one "person" who has lived without sin in this world; Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, who in his person completed both these.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Since divine Grace and divine Sovereignty are Both attributes of God, you can't have one without the other! So your premise is bogus to start with.

Jesus said, "if I be lifted up I draw all (men) to me" Yes, "all men", for it is mankind that Jesus came to seek and to save, and not the rest of the Creation which is not yet in danger, even though sinful man is exploring ways to do that.

You continue to claim that all mankind is dead without clearly defining "dead", so I will state that I agree that from God's point of view all mankind is dead because the "innocence relationship" that man had with God in the Garden no longer exists and must be restored. That is why Jesus the Son of God was sent to mankind in order to atone for the sins that broke the innocense relationship and which continue to maintain the broken condition. Jesus restores that relationship for all who will and do believe in him, even on his name.

 

Look at your quote again

It's not "all sinned because they were charged with the sin of the first man". It's not some abstract "legal imputation" to otherwise neutral individuals; we received from him natures that make all of us sin, and it's these acts of sin that condemn us. All this talk about what condemns people to Hell, why don't we look at the Bible's account of the actual judgement to Hell in Rev. 20:12,13. Here, we clearly see that people are judged by their [own] WORKS not Adam's. The condition they received from adam caused them to commit those "works", but it is clearly those works that violate the Law, which forbids what else, but certain works.

As I said, it's because they reject Him and (unwittingly) choose to remain in Adam. Another important verse in this passage is 15: "the free gift is NOT like the offense". No one could help being affected by the offense, but anyone can choose to receive the gift. (Which also answers the ridiculous idea that sometimes comes up, that because we couldn't choose our first birth, then how could we choose our second)

 

I guess the whole issue, besides what election, predestination and foreknowledge really mean, boils down the assumption:

Romans 5: God charges each individual with legal guilt apart from their own acts of sin
Romans 9: God is "just" to leave men in this condition.

But when it is shown that both scriptures have been misinterpreted, the whole premise loses its basis. The only thing you have to fall on is "why do you believe and not another— do you have some merit within yourself?". Granted, this is the best argument, though according to the Scripture's definition of faith vs. works, it does not really follow either. We must judge Augustine and his theology by scripture, not squeeze it into scripture.

 

Eric B,

It would appear that you did not read the entire passage that I posted. Let me post it again and go into detail.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. 13 In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man's trespass the many died, how much more have the grace of God and the gift overflowed to the many by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ.

Verse 12:
</font>

• Sin entered the world through one man--Adam.</font>

</font>

• Sin is not actions in this context. Sin is a power.</font>

</font>

• Death spread to all men becaus all have sinned.</font>

</font>

• Sin is actions here at the end of the verse.</font>

This means that the power of sin came into the world through Adam. That power is the cause of all actions of sin.

Verse 13:
</font>

• Sin predates the law.</font>

</font>

• Without the law, however, sin is not charged to anyones account.</font>

This means that even though people sinned, it was not counted as sin. Why? There was no law to call sin sin.

Verse 14:
</font>

• From Adam to Moses death happened.</font>

This means that even though no actions of sin were charged to anyone, people still suffered the effect of Adam's sin--death in this case.

Conclusion: Because of Adam's sin we are all guilty before God. Our acts of sin further condemn us. However, from Adam to Moses there were no acts of sin to condemn (because they could not be charged because there was no law). Therefore, we must all have a "Legal" standing of guilt before God because of Adam's sin. Otherwise, those people from Adam to Moses would not have died. There could have been no judgement for committed sins (for reasons stated above) yet people were coming under the judgement of death.

Following Verses:
Verse 15:
</font>

• For if by the one man's trespass the many died</font>

Verse 16:
</font>

• because from one sin came the judgment, resulting in condemnation</font>

Verse 17:
</font>

• Since by the one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man</font>

Verse 18:
</font>

• So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone</font>

Verse 19:
</font>

• For just as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners</font>

Verse 20:
</font>

• law came along to multiply the trespass</font>

We, regardless of our actions (which do matter and we are judged for them also) we have a standing of guilt before God. We are already condemned for the sin of Adam. This passage from Romans clearly shows this. The parts of the verses I didn't quote, however, are the good news. Christ, by His Grace, breaks the chains of Sin and Death and offers new life to the lifeless. How Awesome!

Blessings,

Archangel

(Wow! That's a long post!!!!)

 

I take exception to the bolded statement.

That is clearly stating the law and the penalty for breaking the law. So law was present in the garden before the first sin happened. Adam broke the Law! That is why it is said that whoever breaks the least of the law breaks it all, and that the wage for sin is death!

 

This "power" of sin is that we took on a nature passed down from Adam that makes us sin. This says nothing about legal imputation.

So what you seem to be saying is that because there was no "law", God couldn't really condemn anyone, so He must have come up with this "legal" guilt to get all those people before the law.
This is not what this was saying. A written law (with all it's immediate punishments and sacrificial atonement rituals prescribed) was "added because of sin"(Gal.3:19), but God's universal law was still there. Men were condemned, for Cain not giving the right offering, then killing his brother, all the sin of the antediluvian world, and every other act recorded up until Moses, even though it was not all written down. Even the sabbath was expected to be kept before the 10 Commandments were given. (Ex.16:25-30). So no "legal imputation" was necessary. Man was given some sense of what God wanted before Moses, and still violated it.

But only to some. that's not "tidings of joy to all men" (Luke 2:10, 11)

 

As Genesis 2:16,17 CLEARLY shows,

Sin did not predate the Law. God gave his first commandment to man and included the penalty for failure to obey. Sin came as the result of disobeying the law.

 

I take exception to the bolded statement.

That is clearly stating the law and the penalty for breaking the law. So law was present in the garden before the first sin happened. Adam broke the Law! That is why it is said that whoever breaks the least of the law breaks it all, and that the wage for sin is death! </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, I should have been more specific. There was no law between Adam's fall and the law of Moses. However, during that time, men did still die.

Sorry for the confusion,

Archangel

 

God gave this law sometime after banishment from the Garden and the Mosaic law. This is Law and the penalty

 

God gave this law sometime after banishment from the Garden and the Mosaic law. This is Law and the penalty </font>[/QUOTE]Yelsew,

You are picking a fight with the scripture here, not me.

The idea of the passage that you quote is different from the one I am talking about.

God did not require Cain's life from him as a payment for his sin of killing Abel. According to the Law of Moses, this is required. Therfore, this sin was not counted against Cain becuase there was no law. However, Cain still died showing his standing of legal guilt before God.

Blessings,

Archangel