Christy,
(1) There is nothing I wrote to you that is contradicted by other portions of Scripture. Yes, the Bible does speak in several ways about what Christ’s death and resurrection accomplished, but none negate the idea that those who derive from the first Adam and his sin–and only those–can be forgiven by the last Adam and His atonement. Paul’s logic is clear and unassailable, and in fact melds perfectly with (as you note) the Davidic Covenant of 2 Sam. 7:12 or the High Priestly accomplishment of Christ as depicted in Hebrews 8-10. The extent of Christ’s atonement is explained and (as you say) limited only by what Paul writes in Romans 5. You can dispute Paul’s argument and his implications, but you are disputing Paul and not me. At some point, his words have to mean what he wrote them to mean.
(2) I am not sure about your comment on the “huge percentage” of Christians throughout history to the present who did not or do not agree with what I wrote to you about the extent of the atonement. I would hope they would agree by the time they got to Romans 5 and read Paul’s argument. I do know that those who are true Christians will have believed the gospel “in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:1-4), of which Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 are a part. Luther’s comment seems applicable here: “Let miserable men, therefore, cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own hearts to the brilliantly clear Scriptures of God.”
I do acknowledge that people can demonstrate saving faith never having read Romans 5 or 1 Corinthians 15, and never having been exposed to Paul’s discussion of the relationship between Adam and Christ and how that relationship, in turn, applies to the extent of the atoning sacrifice. Sinners do not have to know how Christ’s atonement cleanses them of all unrighteousness and reconciles them to God. They just have to trust Christ when He says it is the only manner for that to occur. I tell our students commonly one doesn’t have to have perfect theology for entrance to heaven.
But on the other hand, it concerns me when that theology is presented in a straightforward manner and is further explained, and the reaction is to dismiss it by claiming that it is contradicted in other portions of Scripture–all to maintain a stranglehold on the idea that this Adam wasn’t a real person from whom all subsequent persons descend. At some point it does make me wonder if we are talking about the same Jesus and the same gospel. After all, Paul does say there will be presentations of “another Jesus” and “a different gospel” as the same serpent who conned Eve tries to exert his wiles upon the unsuspecting (2 Cor. 11:4).
Luke in his Gospel writes (Luke 3:38) that his Jesus descended backward from David to Abraham to Adam to God. In fact, he ends his Spirit-inspired genealogy with this wondrous statement: “the son of Adam, the son of God.” Luke believes Jesus is a real person. He believes David and Abraham are real. He believes God is real. Why in the world would he not believe Adam is real? What textual authorization gives one permission to take Adam from this genealogy and impose on this “term” the abstract, figurative idea that the nomenclature is used to represent God’s determination that His image will now rest upon this species? This is eisegesis, not exegesis. This is nothing less than the determination that when Scripture meets “science,” “science” wins, not withstanding all the genuflections to the authority and infallibility of Scripture in the BL
official statements.
(3) Why have I spent all these hours dialoging? Why not just throw up my hands and move on? As I have written elsewhere, it is not my contention that maintaining an evolutionary perspective about creation means one is not a Christian. What it does mean is that one is going to have an increasingly impossible time piecing together all the truth of God’s Word without spiritualizing, allegorizing, or otherwise discarding text after text after text. And if God says we are to be sanctified by His Word (cf. John 17:17), and time and again one is revising His Word to fit erroneous paradigms, then how is one going to be sanctified? How is one going to grow?
It is out of this concern that I have written all that I have to you and Ted and anyone else who would care to read our discussion. No Christian has any business interacting as we have unless one simultaneously solicits the blessing of God for the other, and especially for those believed to be wayward in their doctrine, that He might open their eyes and redirect them toward truth. That is my request from God.
Evolution is, simply stated, a lie from the enemy. Its underpinnings are founded upon unvalidated and therefore illegitimate presuppositions about how the world once worked in a manner which cannot be tested or proven today. It is thus faulty science leading to faulty speculations that then masquerade themselves as “facts.” Most importantly, its implications blatantly contradict what God has plainly written in Scripture, which then leads to a meretricious handling of Scripture ultimately designed to ask the old serpent’s question: “Did God really say…?” My denunciation of evolution and all it portends is solely that you and others who have interacted in these posts might acknowledge the above as true and might then elevate the sufficient, clear, authoritative and necessary Word of God to its rightful place.
At this point, it is my intent to disengage and turn to other tasks. As Ted writes elsewhere, I will read any further comments you might wish to convey. And as he ends elsewhere, I greet you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Colin