Comments on: Adam’s Sin and Old Testament Theology

By: MSH

MSH — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:17:38 +0000

if there is a last Adam and an Adam, there are two Adams. 1 + 1 = 2. The first Adam was a type of Jesus (Rom 5:14) who was the last Adam (the subsequent Adam, and so a second one; 1 Cor 15:45). That’s all the phrase means.

By: Cognus

Cognus — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 03:37:57 +0000

gosh, MSH, I was all set to send this to a loved-one re: an ongoing discussion, then I saw your term “second Adam”. Huh? there is no reference in scripture to “second Adam”.
there is Adam, and there is “LAST Adam”. There is no other Adam.

By: WoundedEgo

WoundedEgo — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:21:09 +0000

>>>…Yes, I agree that what Adam did extended to the entire human race (there’s your corporate identity idea). But, as I noted several posts ago, I’m just asking HOW that is true. And of course, how that questioned is answered must deal with the Jesus problem.

When Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the garden and tree of life, they constituted all of mankind, so “all sinned” and death “passed trough to all men.”

The curse on the ground was removed by the Noahic covenant.

By: Robert Betts

Robert Betts — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:43:27 +0000

Hi
Many thanks for the link
Kind regards, Rob

By: MSH

MSH — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:14:42 +0000

@Robert Betts: Here’s the link:
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/08/paul-original-sin-and-rabbinic-theology/

By: Robert Betts

Robert Betts — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:08:15 +0000

“I came across an article last week about Paul’s view of Romans 5:12. I now have two of them that discuss his theology in light of earlier Judaism (not the OT per se, due to the above difficulty).”

You mentiond above you were going to post these – where could I find these, as I’m also looking at Romans.
Many thanks

By: MSH

MSH — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:04:38 +0000

@dwmtractor: My view: Adam was a contingent being; he was not deity. And so, he needed divine enablement to stay in fellowship with God, but even in fellowship with God, he had the ability to make a wrong choice (I believe free will is essential to divine imaging since freedom is a communicable attribute of God – this is tied to my view of imaging [the "image" of God isn't a thing in us; it is a status and should be thought of as what we are and do]). Not sure that helps or not.

By: MSH

MSH — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:02:11 +0000

@Jonnathan Molina: I can’t say I’d agree with Wills as you articulate him in the last paragraph. But I also would not be completely comfortable with Luther. I think this is yet another false dichotomy in theology (a false either-or proposition). Why can’t aspects of both be true? Are not grousp of people made up of individuals? Does not the exile teach us that the “elect” nation of Israel was basically composed of wicked people that were not followers of Yahweh? I just don’t like these few alternatives. Regarding works, I think the Scripture is pretty clear: Works are essential to salvation (there’s James) but they are NOT the meritorious cause (there’s Paul). We do not merit salvation, but if we have no works, we have no true faith.

By: Romans 5 and Theistic Evolution « Castle of Nutshells

Romans 5 and Theistic Evolution « Castle of Nutshells — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:20:58 +0000

[...] theistic evolution, about how I explain away Paul’s use of Christ as a second Adam in Romans. Mike Heiser recently addressed this (though independently of theistic evolution – I don’t want to sully his name), and I [...]

By: MSH

MSH — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:51:24 +0000

@cwmyers007: I think I’ll go ahead and post them.