"The sufficiency of Grace" a continuation of "The sufficiency of Christ" family debate.

[Dancelittleewok]

I don’t mean to give you are hard time, but I just don’t follow you.

To put it in your theology:

Adam, the representative of humanity in the Garden, he commits original sin.
Consequently, humanity is totally depraved and has a “sin nature.”
Christ, the New Adam, commits no sin and has no “sin nature.” Christ is both God and man.
Christ suffers for the elect on the Cross, suffering the wrath from the Father as he puts the elect’s sin upon His Son and can no longer look upon His Son.
The elect are few arbitrarily chosen by God.
They are saved and have eternal life. Everybody else is damned.

My critique:

Can Christ truly be the new Adam if He only died for the elect while conversely the original Adam’s sin affected all? Whom is God going to send for those affected by the Fall?

You have two choices:

1. Christ wasn’t representative of humanity but of the elect. And following that logic to be the New Adam, the original Adam’s sin must have only affected some. If that’s the case, then you do have sinless humans walking around unaffected by original sin. Yet you don’t believe that, since you’ve said all have sinned. Plus if Christ only died for the elect, then the rest of humanity wasn’t saved to begin with and God’s role as Savior is questioned because He would have to send another to fulfill the promise in Genesis 3:15. See the disconnect?
2. Christ died and redeemed all i.e. “Once and for all” (Hebrew 10:10). Adam’s sin affected all. So therefore, the New Adam’s sacrifice is truly sufficient, there is no other Savior needed to save the rest of mankind. Mankind has a choice to partake of this great gift to salvation or damned himself by his own free will hence the claim of universalism doesn’t equate.

Do you follow now?

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think the Reformed view is that God never intended to save the rest.

In that sense, The Apostle makes a mistake in saying that Jesus is a 2nd Adam, since what Adam did affected all of humanity, but what Jesus did affected only a few. He probably just used a bad analogy there. It would have been better to compare Jesus to the 2nd Noah!

Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 is the light you need to focus on in regards to the 2nd Adam.

 

[2nd_Adam]

To put it in your theology:

Adam, the representative of humanity in the Garden, he commits original sin.
Consequently, humanity is totally depraved and has a “sin nature.”
Christ, the New Adam, commits no sin and has no “sin nature.” Christ is both God and man.
Christ suffers for the elect on the Cross, suffering the wrath from the Father as he puts the elect’s sin upon His Son and can no longer look upon His Son.
The elect are few arbitrarily chosen by God.
They are saved and have eternal life. Everybody else is damned.

My critique:

Can Christ truly be the new Adam if He only died for the elect while conversely the original Adam’s sin affected all? Whom is God going to send for those affected by the Fall?

You have two choices:

1. Christ wasn’t representative of humanity but of the elect. And following that logic to be the New Adam, the original Adam’s sin must have only affected some. If that’s the case, then you do have sinless humans walking around unaffected by original sin. Yet you don’t believe that, since you’ve said all have sinned. Plus if Christ only died for the elect, then the rest of humanity wasn’t saved to begin with and God’s role as Savior is questioned because He would have to send another to fulfill the promise in Genesis 3:15. See the disconnect?
2. Christ died and redeemed all. Adam’s sin affected all. So therefore, the New Adam’s sacrifice is truly sufficient, there is no other Savior needed to save the rest of mankind. Mankind has a choice to partake of this great gift to salvation or damned himself by his own free will hence the claim of universalism doesn’t equate.

Do you follow now?

Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15. Do you think my screen name of 2nd Adam was by chance? Paul always writes about our vital union with Christ, or being in Christ!!! We are either united to Adam or the 2nd Adam!

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15. Do you think my screen name of 2nd Adam was by chance?

No. Care to answer the question…Are God’s people not humanity?

 

[2nd_Adam]

No. Care to answer the question…

Thanksgiving and Prayer
3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, 5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing—as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth, 7 just as you learned it from Epaphras our beloved fellow servant. [2] He is a faithful minister of Christ on your [3] behalf 8 and has made known to us your love in the Spirit.

9 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. 11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks [4] to the Father, who has qualified you [5] to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Col 1

Have a good afternoon my Catholic siblings in Christ. I’ll check in sometime later this evening.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15. Do you think my screen name of 2nd Adam was by chance? Paul always writes about our vital union with Christ, or being in Christ!!! We are either united to Adam or the 2nd Adam!

It is agreed that our union is vital with Christ, so much that God sought to suffer and die for all. If it is up truly important, do you not think God with his Mission to a Savior would’ve left some out? It’s analogous to say that Christ would’ve only died for the heart, the lungs or the toes but the whole Body of Christ.

 

[2nd_Adam]

It is agreed that our union is vital with Christ, so much that God sought to suffer and die for all. If it is up truly important, do you not think God with his Mission to a Savior would’ve left some out?

gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=romans+9&src=esv.org

 

[Dancelittleewok]

gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=romans+9&src=esv.org

“Once and for all…” Hebrews 10:10…do you think Paul would’ve contradicted himself?

 

[ryanoneil]

That is the classifical debate between the orthodox Catholic Faith and historical confessional Protestantism. We all believe that salvation is past, present and future. I noticed that you quoted Romans 2 and 5. However, those verses that you quoted need to be understood from within the context of Romans 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Paul wrote very systematically in regards to the gospel of God’s grace. We are declared righteous at the point of conversion because the righteousness that God demands is a perfect righteousness found in Christ alone. We can also know this through the other 11 or 12 Epistles of Paul too. Jesus also bring this truth to light too. Of course we both believe that God is making us righteous, but nobody achieves that perfect righteousness of this side of glory. How can you have a relationship with a Holy God when you are both saint and sinner at the same time?

We agree salvation is past, present, and future. We Catholics believe that justification is also past present and future because it is an ongoing process. We believe righteousness is more than declared. We believe Paul was justified when he encountered Christ, but would not say that Paul’s sins were covered up and Christ’s righteousness was imputed to him. Ananias commanded Paul to stand up and be baptized and “wash away” his sins because justification is ongoing and real inner changes take place.

I don’t understand the last question.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

We agree salvation is past, present, and future. We Catholics believe that justification is also past present and future because it is an ongoing process. We believe righteousness is more than declared. We believe Paul was justified when he encountered Christ, but would not say that Paul’s sins were covered up and Christ’s righteousness was imputed to him. Ananias commanded Paul to stand up and be baptized and “wash away” his sins because justification is ongoing and real inner changes take place.

I don’t understand the last question.

I think Adam is referring to Luther’s “dung covered by snow” i.e. sinners are not inwardly righteous but these sinners are saints because of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to them. The elect are not righteous but declared such by God based on Christ’s work at the Cross wherein he took their punishment of sin (read: hell) and God imputes this perfect righteousness to them hence the elect now have eternal security. Sin isn’t removed by covered so God only sees His Son whenever the elect sin.

 

[2nd_Adam]

It is agreed that our union is vital with Christ, so much that God sought to suffer and die for all. If it is up truly important, do you not think God with his Mission to a Savior would’ve left some out? It’s analogous to say that Christ would’ve only died for the heart, the lungs or the toes but the whole Body of Christ.

I can’t argue with that in which Christ died for the whole body of Christ.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I can’t argue with that in which Christ died for the whole body of Christ.

I’m saying by your own logic, that only some would be saved within the Body of Christ–a few organs but not the Body.

Care to address the other questions? Hmmm…

 

[2nd_Adam]

We agree salvation is past, present, and future. We Catholics believe that justification is also past present and future because it is an ongoing process. We believe righteousness is more than declared. We believe Paul was justified when he encountered Christ, but would not say that Paul’s sins were covered up and Christ’s righteousness was imputed to him. Ananias commanded Paul to stand up and be baptized and “wash away” his sins because justification is ongoing and real inner changes take place.

I don’t understand the last question.

As you know, what you consider ongoing justfication, Protestants call that portion of salvation as sanctification. Do you think a Catholic is justifed, then loses his justification and returns to the kingdom of darkness, and later regains his lost justification and becomes united to Christ again? Is this the Catholic pattern of salvation?

 

[2nd_Adam]

I’m saying by your own logic, that only some would be saved within the Body of Christ–a few organs but not the Body.

Care to address the other questions? Hmmm…

Help me out, who are you defining as the body of Christ, those who are united to Christ by faith by the Spirit?

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think Adam is referring to Luther’s “dung covered by snow” i.e. sinners are not inwardly righteous but these sinners are saints because of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to them. The elect are not righteous but declared such by God based on Christ’s work at the Cross wherein he took their punishment of sin (read: hell) and God imputes this perfect righteousness to them hence the elect now have eternal security. Sin isn’t removed by covered so God only sees His Son whenever the elect sin.

Sure, in regards to justification through imputation. A forensic justification is the only way to have a relationship to a Holy God as sinner saints. If your peace with God is based on how you are doing in the Christian life on a partiuclar moment or day, then you are on a wild roller coaster ride! How can you walk by faith in that kind of view?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Help me out, who are you defining as the body of Christ, those who are united to Christ by faith by the Spirit?

Are you trying to lead me to say the elect?

Furthermore, I said it was an analogous comparison. By your own logic, Christ cannot be the new Adam because He didn’t die for all humanity but the elect except Adam’s sin didn’t affect a select few but all. Christ is humanity’s representative as was Adam is the Garden.

To put it in your theological terms:

Salvation only for the elect is like saying the eye is better than the heart of Body of Christ; the elect are better so good that God would only die for them. If that’s your theology, you must not have Christ as the New Adam and His mission as Savior is questionable. Christ didn’t come to save mere organ of humanity but it’s whole body.

 

[zerinus]

I can’t argue with that in which Christ died for the whole body of Christ.

Question for you Adam. Do you post on CARM as well? That is a good place for you to post. You will meet a lot of like-minded folks down there. I am sure you will find that a much more congenial place to post than here.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Sure, in regards to justification through imputation. A forensic justification is the only way to have a relationship to a Holy God as sinner saints. If your peace with God is based on how you are doing in the Christian life on a partiuclar moment or day, then you are on a wild roller coaster ride! How can you walk by faith in that kind of view?

Ah, but Adam we Catholics don’t believe in a salvation based our own personal righteousness. Salvation is a gift for all but we must choose it everyday. If I am tempted, I know I can call upon Jesus to help me, etc.

This brings me to another contradiction is Calvinism, which I referenced in the old thread.
How can one be saved by not saved inwardly at the same? How come free will only works with the original Adam and when you are in the sanctification mode?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Are you trying to lead me to say the elect?

Furthermore, I said it was an analogous comparison. By your own logic, Christ cannot be the new Adam because He didn’t die for all humanity but the elect except Adam’s sin didn’t affect a select few but all. Christ is humanity’s representative as was Adam is the Garden.

To put it in your theological terms:

Salvation only for the elect is like saying the eye is better than the heart of Body of Christ; the elect are better so good that God would only die for them. If that’s your theology, you must not have Christ as the New Adam and His mission as Savior is questionable. Christ didn’t come to save mere organ of humanity but it’s whole body.

Federal headship or representation according to Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15:

1st Adam = All humanity including Mary, but not Christ

2nd Adam = New humanity only, or new creation those united to Christ

What do you mean by the whole body? Who’s the whole body in your view, all of humanity?

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Galatians 6:15
For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. - 1 cor 15

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Question for you Adam. Do you post on CARM as well? That is a good place for you to post. You will meet a lot of like-minded folks down there. I am sure you will find that a much more congenial place to post than here.

CARM is hardly “congenial” at least for us Catholics and I imagine for Mormons as well.