Once again the Lampstand Magazine has produced an unfortunate article which doesn’t fairly reflect the facts on the ground in an article called “Death the Last Enemy (Part 2)” in Volume 23. The article notably fails (as did the last one) to deal with any of the arguments/rationale advanced by those who accept EC. Continue reading
For more detail on this subject see this post.
Paul moves on from discussing the implications of the law in his members which dragged him into sin to then discuss Romans 8 – and the triumph of the faithful in God’s love despite their personal failures (as considered in Rom7). Critically he continues the dualistic approach he commenced in Rom 5:12, we are either in Adam/servants of sin/dead/carnal or we are in Christ/servants of God/spiritually minded. Continue reading
Paul describes his natural as carnal/fleshly in Rom7:14 and goes on to with the most pertinent discussion of our nature and our inevitable inability to do what is right in Rom7:17-23 Continue reading
If Paul’s experience, like ours, is that there is always evil present, how asks the special creationist could Adam and Eve be described as a very good? How could Adam & Eve have no knowledge of good and evil if they had a mind like ours and so evil was present with them? Continue reading
Ignoring for a moment the imperfect exposition of “very good” in Genesis, a difference emerges between literalists on the application of “very good” in Gen1:31. Some limit it to Adam and Eve only – despite them not being even mentioned in the verse. Others at least more consistently with the text apply their interpretation of ‘very good’ to everything. This then leads them to suggest there was no death of anything in the Garden of Eden (if you insist very good = amortal and ignore the difference between Gen 1 & 2). Continue reading
In v14 Paul here raises a logical question. Everyone died from Adam to Moses despite there being no law. They had no instruction about restricted fruit or 10 commandments but died anyway. He doesn’t answer this issue – just observes it for answering in v15.
His point is not actually about Adam – it’s about Christ and the contrast to Adam. So Paul continues the contrast, building with the statement that Adam was a figure a type of the Christ – he is establishing Adam as a typical/representative federal head in contrast to Christ. However the section from v 13-18 is effectively in parenthesis and complex because, as Cranfield notes, Paul has Continue reading