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.
Scriptures speaks of Christ's incarnation as necessary for him to become us, not merely for him to die on the cross. If that were the case, he could had just incarnated into a lamb and the Father would had accepted it just like he did in the Old Testament. This truth does not negate the importance of his death but rather. Every time the Bible speaks of his incarnation, it's purpose is expressed as the means wherby he becomes us, not as a means for him to die.
Mike wrote: What race would that be? Indy 500?
Well I will have to look that one up in my Calvinist hand book.
You have just annuled the essence of the incarnation. The Bible speaks of Christ becoming man as key to his redemptive act. He had to become one with the human race, because he needed to be us, if he were to be our substitute. And not only so, but I, as a Calvinist, would argue that he needed to become one with us if he is to represent the human race as Federal head. Otherwise it would be like a bunch of Mexican illegals holding office. His incarnation is not a vehicle for him to die, it is a vehicle for him to become us. He did not nor did he need to become flesh to die on the cross, he became flesh to become us. 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!!!
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?
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.
So I have been used by the Holy Spirit here at SA. You see folks that is one more reason why you should be nice to me and not rally around "Ban Yamil!"
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.
Mike wrote: So the idea apparently is, Adam represented us, thus when he sinned, we sinned. Therefore, this principle should apply such that someone who is, as an example, abandoned by his father as a child, sins the sin of abandonment. After all when the father sinned, the child must sin representatively. It's the Federal way. If the depravity is inherited, it is inherited directly from parent to child, (the parent being the Federal head of the unit family, as Adam is held to be Federal head of the human family) for the child must exist before he can have sin imputed to him. sonofadam posted a quote which seems to agree: "It is a corruption of all nature - an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb" The Federal relationship, if it is so, cannot end with the sin of, nor the death of the original head, but is representative on down the line, from parent to child. Therefore, when the parent sins, the child must sin in him. Of course, this is bogus and unbiblical.
The Bible speaks of the First Adam and the Second Adam which is Christ. There is nothing in between, so your objection breaks down.
Also the first sinner was Eve not Adam. Yet Adam is the Federal Head.
Lurker wrote: Nay, Yamil. On the contrary it is you , Arlyss and Alan who seem to insist that unless Adam's actual sin and his nature are a package imputed to all his progeny, his headship is negated. I reject that premise but if someone is willing to present an argument for it with sound biblical evidence we can discuss it. So far all I've seen is this speculation from Alan's post: "Christ redeems His people by the imputation to them of His righteousness. Must not Adam have ruined his, by the imputation to them of his guilt?" (Robert L. Dabney - The Fall and Original Sin)
Actually I do not hold to the theory of Federal Headship of Christ.n I was just merely playing devil's advocate with Mike since it seemed that the Calvinists were not standing up to defend their distinctive view. I probably can give you a very formidable argument if you would really like.
Nevertheless, my point is that the Federal Headship of Adam is the foundation to your theology. So to see you not defend it, is like bombing your very own foundation to your TULIP.
Mike wrote: Where is the need for us to be guilty of Adam's specific sin?
Because whatever is true of Christ as the second Adam must be true of his prophetic type (the first Adam). If the first Adam does not represent us in some measure, then it must be equally true that the second Adam (Jesus) does not represent us. You must ask yourself then, how does Christ represent us, if the first Adam does not represent us? What does it mean for Christ to be called Adam for that matter the second Adam? In what way is the first Adam a type of Christ?
Alan H wrote: Yamil's question raises a valid point:
Be careful there. You can get yourself kicked out of here for such words.
Mike wrote: A pleasantness, bro Lurker, that we should agree on this.
Ok this is starting to look weird. You have Calvinist and arminians siding with each other! Am I actually bringing unity to the forum? Ha!
I am not sure if Lurker understands what damage he is doing to his beloved TULIP. If he diverts from federalism, then he has no grounds to embrace the doctrines of grace.
Surely, I did not see this coming. Let's see how it all turns out.
Michael Hranek wrote: WOMI Welcome back. To clarify does God require children to be punished for the sins their fathers have committed but they personally have not? Yet do children inherit from their fathers the nature the bent to sin? I know, I know I am not a Calvinist so I will step aside and let you discuss thing with them.
No you did not. YOu did not just go there.
Hi John. I cannot believe you are still alive. I would had thought your hyper cousins would had disowned you and burnt you at the stake by now.
Well, its not a simple topic. In fact from what I perceive its one of the hardest to sort out.
Simple question... well let's try it again...
Does God pass the guilt of Adam for his original sin unto us?
In other words, if one should never commit one personal sin, will God still hold him liable for the sin of Adam simply becasue we were in Adam as out federal head?
Or does the doctrine of original sin speak only to the effects of Adam's sin to the race minus the solidary guilt.
I am not sure if I can get anymore simple than that without sacrificing clarity as to the question.
postulate wrote: We are guilty as charged in God's eyes. Our own eyes require to be opened to perceive this wretched estate. This is part of becoming Christian consequent to which repentance will follow.
I believe you do not understand the question. The question is not if we are guilty. I do not think there is anyone that would say no.
The question is are we guilty in Adam. Has the guilt of Adam's sin imputed unto us? We know that we are guilty of personal sins but does God solidarily see us guilty of the very sin of Adam as our federal head.
To admit that in original sin one receives the guilt of Adam is also admitting (since it naturally follows) that one also receives the consequence. Those who believe that mankind receives the guilt of Adam accept the consequences as well. n Yet those who believe that one only receives the consequences of original sin and not Adam's guilt, make a strong distinction.
So is it correct to say that you believe that mankind has also received the guilt of Adam as our federal head?