Post by ResLight on Jan 25, 2014 22:24:14 GMT -5
Regarding the idea that Adam will be raised in the day of judgment and the second death, the question has been asked:
"How can one that is born of sin but then becomes born of the Spirit be liable to the second death and yet Adam being created with a crown of glory receive a resurrection?"
One problem with the above is that the "new creature" is not born of sin, but is born of incorruption, that is, incorrupt. The new creature itself is created with the crown of glory as Adam had it before Adam sinned. (Psalm 8:4,5) We should note that nothing is brought to bear upon the new creature that the new creature would not be able to overcome, not necessarily in the flesh, but in the spirit. This ensures that the new creature himself cannot sin, except that the sin be completely willful.
It is the present sinful flesh, not the new creature, that is born of sin, that is, Adam's sin. As long as the sin is of the sinful flesh, the new creature does not come under the condemnation of the second death. No one is going to be made a new creature by means who is not going to be able to bear whatever trial God allows. Nevertheless, as long as the sin is attributable to the fallen sinful flesh, the new creature has not sinned. If any son of God sins, he is no longer a son of God, since a son of God does not sin. -- 1 John 3:9
One presents the argument that Adam's sin was different that sin of the rest of mankind, and Romans 5:14 is cited as proof.
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. -- King James Version
Homoioma
that which has been made after the likeness of something
a figure, image, likeness, representation
likeness i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity
Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Homoioma". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon". www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3667&version=kjv
Paul is saying that until the Law through Moses, even though people had sinned, their sin was not like Adam's sin, since Adam had been given a law, a commandment, and yet they died -- death reigned over them. The reason? Because as Paul goes on to show, they are were dying in Adam's condemnation. All of them were made sinners in Adam's transgression. Now, if the condemnation upon Adam was different from those who followed Adam, then those who followed Adam were not actually dying in Adam's condemnation. In other words, if Adam's condemnation was the second death, and those who were dying between Adam and Moses were dying a different condemnation, then they were not dying in Adam, but were dying outside of Adam, which is the opposite of what Paul was actually saying. Adam was, however, a likeness (before he sinned) to him who was to come, that is, Jesus. Before Adam sinned, he was a sinless "son of God". He was in good standing with his Creator as a son. He was given a choice of obeying or disobeying. However, the likeness differs from Jesus in the obedience, as Paul goes on the show, for Adam disobeyed, and Jesus obeyed.
Romans 5:14-19 supports the ransom for all, that all dying in Adam will be made alive. Indeed, if Jesus did not cover the sin of Adam, then the whole scriptural philosophy the ransom falls short. It would mean that Adam received a different condemnation than the race from his loins, and that what Paul said in Romans 5:8-19 is not really true. Actually, the same condemnation that was upon Adam has to be upon all mankind, else there could be no way to pay for that condemnation in one man. In other words, if the condemnation upon Adam was the second death, rather than Adamic death (which, in itself is self-contradictory), then, for mankind to actually receive from Adam that condemnation the whole race would be condemned to the second death. Actually Adam's condemnation, Adam's death, is what the human race was condemned to, nothing more, and nothing less.
If we are not dying the condemnation that came upon Adam, then there is no basis for our redemption in the one man, Jesus. The idea of any offsetting, or corresponding price, would be lost. If Jesus' sacrifice does not cover the sin of Adam so as to release Adam from that condemnation, then the only conclusion would be that the condemnation upon Adam is indeed different from that upon his descendants. However, there is one condemnation upon mankind through Adam, then Jesus has paid the price for all under that condemnation, which includes Adam. Praise Yah!
Yes, the scripture does tell us that we are dying in Adam (often called Adamic death, in contradistinction from the second death). There are only these two distinctions of death made in the Bible regarding mankind in general. (Jesus' death could viewed as a "sacrificial" death corresponding to Adamic death, in that it was offered in sacrifice in place of Adamic death.) The distinction is that for Adamic death, there is a ransom; for the second death, there is no ransom. Adamic death would have been just as eternal as the second death had there been no ransom. Jesus paid has eternally, once for all, paid the the price of condemnation that was upon Adam.
One argues that when Jesus shed his blood he purchased us, redeemed us, paid the ransom and became, in Adam's place, our Father, that he replaced Adam as the "eternal father" of the human race as prophesied in Isaiah 9:6. Evidently this is thought to mean that since Adam was replaced, then he will not be resurrected.
Jesus could be spoken of as the father of the human race due to the regeneration of the human race by means of Jesus. He became the life-giving spirit. However, he did NOT replace Adam as the original father of the human race. Adam could not be that father so as to regenerate the human race, since Adam, having sinned, and under the death condemnation, could not regenerate anyone.
"How can one that is born of sin but then becomes born of the Spirit be liable to the second death and yet Adam being created with a crown of glory receive a resurrection?"
One problem with the above is that the "new creature" is not born of sin, but is born of incorruption, that is, incorrupt. The new creature itself is created with the crown of glory as Adam had it before Adam sinned. (Psalm 8:4,5) We should note that nothing is brought to bear upon the new creature that the new creature would not be able to overcome, not necessarily in the flesh, but in the spirit. This ensures that the new creature himself cannot sin, except that the sin be completely willful.
It is the present sinful flesh, not the new creature, that is born of sin, that is, Adam's sin. As long as the sin is of the sinful flesh, the new creature does not come under the condemnation of the second death. No one is going to be made a new creature by means who is not going to be able to bear whatever trial God allows. Nevertheless, as long as the sin is attributable to the fallen sinful flesh, the new creature has not sinned. If any son of God sins, he is no longer a son of God, since a son of God does not sin. -- 1 John 3:9
One presents the argument that Adam's sin was different that sin of the rest of mankind, and Romans 5:14 is cited as proof.
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. -- King James Version
Homoioma
that which has been made after the likeness of something
a figure, image, likeness, representation
likeness i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity
Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Homoioma". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon". www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3667&version=kjv
Paul is saying that until the Law through Moses, even though people had sinned, their sin was not like Adam's sin, since Adam had been given a law, a commandment, and yet they died -- death reigned over them. The reason? Because as Paul goes on to show, they are were dying in Adam's condemnation. All of them were made sinners in Adam's transgression. Now, if the condemnation upon Adam was different from those who followed Adam, then those who followed Adam were not actually dying in Adam's condemnation. In other words, if Adam's condemnation was the second death, and those who were dying between Adam and Moses were dying a different condemnation, then they were not dying in Adam, but were dying outside of Adam, which is the opposite of what Paul was actually saying. Adam was, however, a likeness (before he sinned) to him who was to come, that is, Jesus. Before Adam sinned, he was a sinless "son of God". He was in good standing with his Creator as a son. He was given a choice of obeying or disobeying. However, the likeness differs from Jesus in the obedience, as Paul goes on the show, for Adam disobeyed, and Jesus obeyed.
Romans 5:14-19 supports the ransom for all, that all dying in Adam will be made alive. Indeed, if Jesus did not cover the sin of Adam, then the whole scriptural philosophy the ransom falls short. It would mean that Adam received a different condemnation than the race from his loins, and that what Paul said in Romans 5:8-19 is not really true. Actually, the same condemnation that was upon Adam has to be upon all mankind, else there could be no way to pay for that condemnation in one man. In other words, if the condemnation upon Adam was the second death, rather than Adamic death (which, in itself is self-contradictory), then, for mankind to actually receive from Adam that condemnation the whole race would be condemned to the second death. Actually Adam's condemnation, Adam's death, is what the human race was condemned to, nothing more, and nothing less.
If we are not dying the condemnation that came upon Adam, then there is no basis for our redemption in the one man, Jesus. The idea of any offsetting, or corresponding price, would be lost. If Jesus' sacrifice does not cover the sin of Adam so as to release Adam from that condemnation, then the only conclusion would be that the condemnation upon Adam is indeed different from that upon his descendants. However, there is one condemnation upon mankind through Adam, then Jesus has paid the price for all under that condemnation, which includes Adam. Praise Yah!
Yes, the scripture does tell us that we are dying in Adam (often called Adamic death, in contradistinction from the second death). There are only these two distinctions of death made in the Bible regarding mankind in general. (Jesus' death could viewed as a "sacrificial" death corresponding to Adamic death, in that it was offered in sacrifice in place of Adamic death.) The distinction is that for Adamic death, there is a ransom; for the second death, there is no ransom. Adamic death would have been just as eternal as the second death had there been no ransom. Jesus paid has eternally, once for all, paid the the price of condemnation that was upon Adam.
One argues that when Jesus shed his blood he purchased us, redeemed us, paid the ransom and became, in Adam's place, our Father, that he replaced Adam as the "eternal father" of the human race as prophesied in Isaiah 9:6. Evidently this is thought to mean that since Adam was replaced, then he will not be resurrected.
Jesus could be spoken of as the father of the human race due to the regeneration of the human race by means of Jesus. He became the life-giving spirit. However, he did NOT replace Adam as the original father of the human race. Adam could not be that father so as to regenerate the human race, since Adam, having sinned, and under the death condemnation, could not regenerate anyone.
