Adam as a Type of Christ

Transcript

GR 2220
10/20/2019
Adam as a Type of Christ
Romans 5:12-17
Gil Rugh

Romans chapter 5 and we will do an open time for questions afterwards so be thinking about those. We haven’t done that for a little bit, we had the time, but I took it. Tonight, this is your chance so if you don’t get on it quickly you know what will happen. We’re going to Romans 5 right now. We come to one of the most important and one of the most challenging sections in our Bibles. Very crucial for the theology that it unfolds for us in explaining the connection between the sin of Adam and the righteous act of Christ. Understanding where sin had its beginning and how Christ came to provide the remedy for that sin.

We’re in the section that deals with God providing justification, righteousness for sinful human beings. That began in chapter 3 verse 21 and it runs down through chapter 5 verse 21. So this is concluding that particular section with chapter 6. The chapters 6, 7, and 8 will talk about the doctrine of sanctification which has to do with particularly our conduct and the provision for living the new life in Christ.

Chapter 5 has emphasized God’s work in Christ providing justification. The chapter opened up, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Then we are told in verse 6, “While we were still helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly,” that doctrine of reconciliation. I thought we might look at 2 Corinthians, but I think we’ll wait. Don’t want to get confused and off-track. Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5 are the two key passages. I mentioned a couple other passages, there are a few others that use a form of the word “reconciliation” if we do a sideline on that but we won’t do that now. There’s enough to occupy ourselves so I don’t want to bring in other passages that might distract us.

So we, who were the enemies of God, have been reconciled to God by the work of Christ, brought into right relationship with Him. And that means the things that broke our relationship, kept our relationship as one of enmity, have been resolved by the work of Christ. Verse 11 said “Not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.” Then he’s ready to come in with verse 12 and that will be a unit, verses 12-21 really, pulling together everything really that has happened up to this time in the book of Romans. So will include the issue of our sin and condemnation and also our justification by the finished work of Christ. Because really what happened in Adam would carry us back to the condemnation, the first section of Romans, to understand sin and how sin got here, its impact upon everyone. What he’s going to have is Adam is going to be a type of Christ. If you look in verse 14 we’re going to talk about Adam, “nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses.” Adam is functioning at the end of verse 14, “Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come,” so he is said specifically here to be a type of Christ. In other words, certain things about Adam and his actions prefigured what Christ would do and His act and the comparison through this will be the one act of Adam and the one act of Christ. One act of disobedience, one act of obedience, and the impact of that one act of disobedience upon all and that one act of obedience upon all. So we’ll walk through that and it’s an emphasis on the one and the many through this section.

The word “one” is used a dozen times in these verses beginning in this section, verse 12 and following down through verse 19 in particular. So that stress on the one, on the one, and then he’ll talk about the many, all, the many, all, the many, all, he’ll go back and forth with that. You may have them marked in your Bible from previous times. You’ll note that word “all” is used twice in verse 12. Then he’ll talk about the many down in verse 15. He’ll use the word “many” twice. It goes back and forth like that. It’s the one and the many, the impact of the one on the many and then what Adam did, he prefigures Christ. They are the two heads of the race. So in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul will use that same comparison there and talk about Adam and then Christ as the “second Adam” because both men stand as representative heads of the human race.

Another thing for you to note, verse 12, just to give you an overview here, is the initial statement, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned --.” And then you notice that hyphenated line after because the next section is like a parenthesis. Verses 13 down through verse 17 are an elaboration, then with verse 18. So you go from verse 12 in one sentence to verse 18. So verse 12 said, “Therefore, just as through one man” then verse 18, “So then as through one transgression” then verse 19, “For as through one man’s disobedience.” So you can see these three verses, verse 12, verse, 18, and verse 19 really begin with the same statement, “just as through one man”, “through one transgression”, “through one man’s disobedience.” Then verses 13 to 17 are an elaboration after he makes the statement in verse 12, never really finishes it until he comes down to verse 18. He elaborates with explanation in verses 13 to 17.

So verse 12, “therefore …” he’s building on what he has talked about in connecting to the first eleven verses when he talked about the work of Christ in coming -- so we who were helpless to do anything to rectify our condition, to save ourselves. Christ was sent to die for sinners so we could be brought into right relationship with God. “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world,” this is a reference obviously to Adam. You’ll note when you get into the rest of scripture any uses or references back to the original chapters in Genesis take it as literally interpreted. It’s exactly as it was said. It’s important because many who claim to be evangelical Christians have moved away from understanding the opening chapters of Genesis as literal. But if they’re not literal you see what happens. If Adam wasn’t a literal man at that point in time, carrying out a literal act the comparison dissolves. So just another indication that scripture interprets itself and when it uses the Old Testament and the opening chapters of Genesis that are under attack, it’s not a science issue, it’s a theological issue. We won’t go into the asides of how they’ve changed the opening chapters of Genesis.

But here, “just as through one man sin entered the world.” Now sin was present in the angelic realm before this but Paul is concerned with its entrance into the human race. Any sin of Lucifer evidently preceded this and it is referred to in 1 John 3:8; Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28 but we are concerned about how did it get into the human race and its impact on the human race. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin.” Here is the explanation why do people die. We have seen this, this is end of all, death. It’s the culmination of human life, death. We all go to the same end, death. Why? Originally Adam was not created to die. He’d still be living today if he hadn’t sinned and of course the world would be a much different place. But the point, through one man sin entered the world, one man, Adam. Now Eve sinned, but the race did not fall until Adam sinned. We’ll talk about the implications of that as the head of the race and his sin. Because the “one man” is important because that’s the comparison with Christ, one man. “One man, sin entered the world, and death through sin,” that’s the explanation. We have physical explanations why people die but the foundational reason is because of sin. That rebellion brought the penalty of sin, physical death, spiritual death, eternal death. And the key concept in death is separation. Spiritual death happened immediately for Adam and also Eve, when their relationship with God was broken. That is spiritual death, separation of a person from God. Physical death is separation of your spirit from your body, the body without the spirit is dead. Eternal death is separation from God for eternity for the unredeemed. So, separation is the key idea. It’s never annihilation or cessation of existence and Christ’s death will be the remedy for all three. Physical death is the most obvious but spiritual death is the most serious, because spiritual death has eternal consequences. If you are spiritually dead and you physically die in that condition you will be spiritually and physically separated from God for eternity.

Alright, “sin entered the world and death with sin,” they go hand in hand. Theistic evolution just bypasses this and makes it some sort of mythical explanation because you have to have death occurring before you got to the evolutionary point where Adam came into existence. If you believe in theistic evolution, that God started it, but death is occurring before and Adam then would be living, literally on a graveyard of millions and some speculate billions of years in the process of dying. You have just multiplied the problems and the move away from scripture. So “death spread to all men,” so here’s where it begins to get challenged then. Because “all sinned”, because “all sinned.” What does that mean? I was going to just go to the right answer as I understand it but I checked a couple of study Bibles and they go a different way so we’re going to mention three possible interpretations of this. The third one will be the one I think is correct.

The first is everyone dies because everyone sins like Adam sinned. I think that’s the least defensible explanation. We all do sin but that’s not what is being made here. The connection is with the one sin of Adam death entered the world and death spread to all men because all sinned. If you just stop there and say, yeah, we all sin like Adam did. Adam committed an act of sin so he dies and everybody since him has committed acts of sin, so they die. That seems like a simple explanation but it won’t fit the development of what goes on here, the comparison would break down. That would mean we become righteous just because Christ did an act of righteousness and when we do acts of righteousness then we will be righteous. The comparison wouldn’t follow through very well.

The second explanation and it’s the one, if you’re using a study Bible you may well have in the notes. It’s called the seminal view, the idea that we are all in Adam when he sinned. There’s a certain amount of truth to that, so we sinned when he sinned because we were in Adam. You can come over to Hebrews chapter 7 because that’s usually the verse that is used for this. Hebrews chapter 7 verse 9 and this is where Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, the priest-king of Jerusalem, who was a type of Christ. Christ’s priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek. But in this Hebrews chapter 7 verse 8 Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek so he was acknowledging the superiority of Melchizedek because verse 7,” the lesser is blessed of the greater” and when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek he was recognizing his superior person in this case. In verse 9, “so to speak, through Abraham even Levi.” Now Levi is the tribe designated in the Mosaic Law to be the priestly tribe. Now since all the Jews descend out of Abraham, in a sense Levi was in Abraham’s loins because he would be a physical descendent out of Abraham. So what he says here that, verse 9, “so to speak through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes.” Because under the Law it would be the Levites, the Levitical priesthood who would have tithes paid to them by the other Jews. But when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek he recognized his superior priesthood and since Levi would be his descendent, and in that sense was potentially …, several hundred years down the road, he was paying tithes. That’s why they call it the seminal view because the seed of Levi is in Abraham, because they are physical descendants. So they are saying that’s what is happening in Romans 5.

Come back to Romans 5. That’s the key passage for that. There’s an element of truth in it obviously. A couple of problems with that view. I think it’s the view in the MacArthur Study Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible, most of you would use one of those two. I think both of those reflect the seminal view, I checked it before I came in. I didn’t have a MacArthur Study Bible, but I had the notes that go with it and I checked the Ryrie. So good men hold that view.
I think there are some problems with that view. Verse 14 says, when we say all have sinned, verse 14 said “but all who have sinned did not sin like Adam sinned.” So between Adam and the Mosaic Law people died but they weren’t sinning like Adam sinned. Adam sinned by violating a specific commandment but there was not a specific commandment that the subsequent people broke until we get to the Law and then all the commandments are given. But they still died. Well, if it’s a matter of us being in the loins of Adam as the descendants of Adam, we all sinned with the same sin Adam sinned and the same kind of sin. I was committing that act of sin just like Adam did so I was breaking the Law. Just like Levi was paying tithes, so to speak, because when Abraham paid them Levi was paying them. So when Adam sinned I’m sinning, it would be my act of sin, that’s what the seminal view is saying. Also it would break down in the comparison with Christ because you are saying when Christ did His act of righteousness, dying on the cross, I was in Him and so that was my act of righteousness. Well, we’re going to be identified with Christ in His death but that’s something subsequent. So want to be careful with the analogy. So I don’t think the seminal view can stand the test of working through the passage.

I think the simple view is Adam was acting as our representative, he was appointed as the head of the race and he acted as our representative. And we understand that happens in government. Our president makes a decision and an act and the whole country, for example, is at war. The leaders act as our representatives. We say, “Well, that wasn’t my vote.” You’re at war. People get bombed because their leader or leaders made the decision as their representative. So, I think that’s the picture here, Adam was the representative head of the race and that compares with Christ, He is the second representative of the whole race. I don’t want to say everybody was in Him with that one act of righteousness because then everybody would be saved, just like everybody is condemned, so that would break down the comparison. They’re both heads of the race and both their one act impacts everyone, the one act of Adam and the one act of Christ. But I don’t want to make that one act that I was in Adam seminally so I made that act and that act was my act also. Then everybody would be in Christ and that would include those who never believe and they would be identified with Christ and His one act. So those who hold that aren’t saying that, but that’s why it seems to me the comparison doesn’t follow through. So Adam was the representative head of the race. He had the legal responsibility to act on behalf of all who would descend from him, represent man, mankind. And I think Christ does the same by parallel, His one act of righteousness is on behalf of the whole race. Now be careful there. There is a connection that has to be made so we want to understand Romans has brought us to this point. Everyone is not automatically in Christ but His act of one, His one act of righteousness is on behalf of the whole race. We’ll talk more about this. This gets into the issue of the extent of the atonement, limited and unlimited. But I think it is important to understand the one act of Christ is on behalf of the whole race otherwise the comparison becomes rather a non-comparison.

Alright. “So death spread to all men, because all sinned.“ Now he’s going to break that off and give an explanation and a development. He won’t pick it up again, really, until down to verse 18, when he can say “so then as through one transgression” and he picks up that. But the explanation, obviously is very important and it’s a detailed development. Verse 13, “for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no Law.” Now that doesn’t mean that people weren’t sinful, but sin was imputed. In other words, Adam had a specific law God gave, do not eat of that tree, if you do you’ll die, so there’s a specific commandment and law that Adam violated. Well, we don’t have the Mosaic Law, remember he’s been showing the Law and the place of the Law. The Law was later added so you have to understand there weren’t specific laws that people were breaking but they were dying. Which indicates what? They were sinners, they were sinful, the impact of Adam, what Adam did, was passed on to them. So the Law was not given but death is in the world. And it wasn’t because: which commandments did they break. Well, there’s no specific commandment, we’re just told that they died.

Come back to Genesis 5. This is …, the way it’s stressed here I think is an important emphasis that is behind this. You have the sin, the fall of the race with the sin of Adam and Eve in chapter 3, then you have Cain and Abel and Cain kills Abel, you have murder taking place. Then you come to chapter 5 of Genesis and you have, “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.” And “He created them male and female, and He blessed them” when He created them. Then, verse 3, after a certain amount of time, Adam became the father of a son in his likeness so the original likeness is created in Adam. Then it’s derived from Adam to the woman who will have her unique characteristics, but she gets the image of God from Adam, not directly from God as Adam did. There’s only one person who gets the image of God directly, that’s Adam. That’s why Paul in writing to the Corinthians says the man is the glory of God and the woman is the glory of the man. And again, he takes the creation account extremely literally, exactly as it is stated. And then you’ll note what happens on each of these. The end of verse 5, so all the days of Adam, “and he died.” And then Seth lives so long, and the end of verse 8, “and he died.” And that repeated refrain, the end of verse 11, “and he died”, the end of verse 14, “and he died”, the end of verse 17, “and he died”, the end of verse 20, “and he died.” Then the exception, Enoch, “he walked with God and he was not,” so he didn’t die. He is an exception, that is a preview of the exception God can make, but for the rule of the race it’s death. And after Enoch we pick up then with Methuselah, verse 27, “and he died” and it just goes on, verse 31, “and he died”, and then we’re down to Noah. And everybody on the face of the earth is going to have to die so death is the prevalent characteristic of the race but the Law hadn’t been given. We’re not told there what laws they were breaking. We can go back and say, this is what happened to Adam, God gave him a specific commandment, Adam broke it.

So that’s the point back in Romans chapter 5, verse 13, “for until the Law sin was in the world,” obviously people were dying. But sin is not imputed where there is no law, there was no particular law being broken. Doesn’t mean people weren’t sinners but they’re not sinning in the way that Adam was. Verse 14, “nevertheless death reigned.” That word ‘reigned’ will come up several times in these verses. “Death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.” So he makes the point, they didn’t sin just like Adam did. But obviously they’re sinners because the flood of Noah comes about because every thought of man’s heart was only evil continually. So sin pervades the race and death as a result of sin.

So with that came the sin nature as we’re aware and the sin that’s going on that brought the penalty, but it goes back to Adam who is “a type of Him who was to come.” Anytime we’re looking at types we’ll look at what is the positive and the negative. He is a type in this way and he is a type in what he does not do so there a comparison and a contrast, if I put it that way, a comparison by similarity and a comparison by contrast. “He is a type of Him who was to come.” So there’s no doubt that Adam is a type of Christ because the scripture tells us he’s a type of Christ. In what way is he a type? And there’s going to be some comparison in verses 15-17.

And you’ll see the first thing verse 15 says, “but the free gift is not like the transgression,” so he’s going to clarify things, the similarities and the differences of what took place, and both are important. The way that Adam and Christ are alike and the way that they are different, which shows the superiority of Christ and what He has done. So verse 15, “the free gift is not like the transgression.” And you see, a free gift, and compared to the transgression, there is the contrast. Adam transgressed, what Christ did provides a free gift, a “free gift is not like the transgression.” Well, if you were just picking up with verse 12, you’d say, well, what’s this free gift? But what has he done? From chapter 3 verse 21 down through chapter 5 verse 11 he has explained what God did in Christ so He could provide a gift to us that we could not earn or merit. So the free gift of what we have in Christ, the anti-type, if we will, is not like the transgression. In what way? “For if by the transgression of the one …” Remember we talked about the one man up in verse 12, now we’re talking about the transgression of the one Adam the many died. That’s his point, Adam’s sin brought death on the human race and since everyone of us are descendants of Adam every one of us bear the penalty that Adam incurred as our representative. So “the many …,” and “the many” is a Hebrew expression for all. We call it a Hebraism, it is an expression that refers to all. “The many died,” we’re told about it, it’s all up in verse 12, “so death spread to all men because all sinned,” so that (verse 15) “by the transgression of the one, the many died.” Who are the many? The all. “Much more did the grace of God,” remember he’s showing how the free gift is different than what Adam did. “Much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man,” so again now the comparison. There’s the dissimilarity but it’s one man and one Man, so he’s a type, one-man Adam acting as a type of the one-Man Christ. “The gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.”

Now those who hold to limited atonement, and that you’re trying to follow along in a note in one of your study Bibles where they talk about many is used in two different ways in this passage. Well, we come and let our exegeses determine our theology. The problem I have with different aspects of reformed theology and covenant theology, they come up with their theology and then they reinterpret the Bible to fit with the theology. I take it, the many died and what God has done in Christ abounds to the many, all, as it was defined. In verse 12, “death spread to all,” verse 15 says, “the many died,” so the many and the all are used interchangeably. I take it, what he is saying, the one-man Jesus Christ and the gift He secured for us by His one act abounds to the many. Who needs it? The many, who are under the sentence of death. And the comparison, remember Jesus said that the gate is broad that leads to destruction and many go in that way. The gate to life is narrow and few go in that way. The comparison really gets to be pretty minimal. If we’re only saying Christ died for the elect, and the teaching of scripture is very clear, they are few. Well, Adam did something that impacted the whole race; Christ did something and He just impacted a small percentage of the race, the elect.

Now, I understand they try to say, well, there are benefits that come out. We’re talking about the basic issue, death. Now some of the things they say, well, there are benefits to the non-elect. They come out with, well, he’s talking about it is the basic issue, the issue of sin, the consequence of penalty of sin. The first Adam brought it on the race, the second Adam provided the deliverance for the race. Now not everyone is going to benefit from that. But it’s important that the provision be made for those that experience the consequence of the first Adam. The provision is there for all of those under the second. So the many died and the grace of God through the act of one man abounds to the many. The many, I take it, the context determines it. We’re still here in the same sentence and you’re going to use the word “many” in two different ways. What basis would you do that? Well, my theology. Well, wait a minute, put your theology on the shelf and do your exegesis and then build your theology.

So you note he emphasizes, the middle of the verse, “much more did the grace of God,” its grace, “and the gift,” again by the grace. Grace, gift, grace. You understand that as we’ve seen previously in this section on righteousness God intervening on our behalf to accomplish only what He could do. Verse 16, “The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned.” So we’re back to the one again, we go back and forth, “the one”, “the many”, “the one”, “the many”, “the one”, “the all”. Verse 16, “The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression.” One transgression, one act of sin brought death upon everyone. Continuing in verse 16, “but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.” So, in other words, Adam only did one sin and it would spread to everyone.

Now think about it, every sin committed since the sin of Adam in the garden and including that sin, had to be covered by the death of Christ on the cross, so that’s the point. One sin, we were in Ecclesiastes here and it says one sinner causes much damage, and we see with Adam, its sin. How many billions of people and how would you count the sins? Trillions of sins have been committed. But all Adam had to do was one thing. Christ’s act had to be so significant that it could encompass all the sins that have taken place since that one sin and be sufficient to pay the penalty, that’s the comparison. On the other hand, the end of verse 16, “the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.” The work of Christ had to come and all the sins that have ever been committed He had to take care of, provide righteousness for those, forgiveness so that their debts could be absolved, cleared, clean.

Verse 17, “For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one.” Remember I said that word “reigned,” “rules,” it dominates everywhere. “By the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one.” So you see, that one action meant death reigned through the one; to emphasis this, that one man had that tremendous impact. Verse 17, “much more those who receive the abundance of grace,” again, abundance of grace, “and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life,” death can be overcome, “through the One, Jesus Christ.” Now the provision is made for everyone, but in any type, you’re not automatically in Christ, it’s by faith. But the analogy becomes almost pitifully small if, in one sense I can say it that way respectfully, if you’re only talking about His death is just for the elect. How do you do it percentage-wise? It’s a small percentage-wise of the world that comes to believe in the Savior. But His work is for the many, the multitude of transgressions created by all. And it’s the gift, it’s provided there, so it’s sufficient and efficient, which is what that Lumbard Formula originally meant.

Now some of the reformed people say, well, it’s sufficient but it’s not efficient. It is both sufficient and efficient, but it is not applied until a person believes. It wouldn’t be efficient if it wasn’t sufficient, it wouldn’t be sufficient if it wasn’t efficient. Oh, it’s sufficient for all but there is not provision for you, it could not be efficient for you. It could be, that’s the whole argument here. So the provision is of that magnitude. But the point of application is you have to be in Christ, that is not automatic. So “the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.” So the contrast between death and life.

One act, one act, this gets into other reformed issues. Active and passive obedience, reformed theology talks about the active obedience of Christ and the passive obedience of Christ. They say the active obedience of Christ is Him keeping the Mosaic Law perfectly, so He could acquire righteousness by His obedience to the Mosaic Law, so He could pass that righteousness on to us. The passive obedience of Christ is His death on the cross. I don’t find that as scriptural at all. In the first place, the Bible never talks about the righteousness of Christ being given to us, it’s always the righteousness of God provided to us in Christ, we get God’s righteousness, not a man’s righteousness earned. That’s why He’s the God-Man. What He does is of such greater magnitude, His one act of righteousness. And then that means taking His whole earthly life as a package. Again, we try to develop a theological system and then we come to scripture and read it into it. It’s one act of righteousness. Are you talking about Adam had a whole life of sin, and Its just designated as one? No, it was one act. It is the death of Christ on the cross and that alone pays the penalty of sin. Now it’s true, He’s the sinless sacrifice, He never sinned. That’s what demonstrates He was qualified to be the sinless Lamb of God, that’s what He was. But He wasn’t here earning righteousness for us. He came to do what He could do as the God-Man. With one act of righteousness, death on the cross, He could pay the penalty for all mankind. That encompasses that one, all the sins of all men. Well, you say, then everybody should be saved. No, because God says it will be only applied to those who believe, so the application of the atonement is different than the extent of the atonement. Just like none of the elect are saved until they believe because we were dead in our trespasses and sins until. So the death of Christ didn’t pay the penalty for anybody’s sin personally, but it paid the penalty for all sin, potentially for everybody, and only those who believe will have that applied to them. And the blood of Christ, none of it is wasted. They’ll say, well, God wouldn’t want any of the blood of His Son wasted so He would only have His death be for those that He was going to save. All those logical arguments. I come to scripture and it tells me what it did and He made provision for the many.

I said we’re going to do questions, we need to stop, that’s a good break point. How about that? See, I can do a sudden stop; when I do that in the car it bothers Marilyn, but we’ll stop there. That will give a chance to mull this over, think about it. You can write down any questions you might have and we can address those. We’ll pick that up and move on from there.

Let me have a word of prayer and then we’ll open it up for you, for questions. Thank you, Lord, for Your word, for its richness. Lord, thank you it’s a word You gave to be understood. And Lord, there are things that are hard to understand, to take more intense study, a broader understanding of Your word. But, Lord, we rejoice that we have the Spirit and that You have Your word, so we can understand You and Your working, and appreciate it’s greater breadth and depth, the wonder of the salvation that was provided for us in Christ. We give You thanks, in Christ’s name, amen.

Ok, we haven’t opened it up for questions for awhile. I’ve done some different subjects while I was gone, let me just start right there. Somebody have a question? It doesn’t have to just on what we just talked about, maybe it’s something else that’s come up and been on your mind and you’d like to ask about it.
Question: Maybe this is too obvious from what you are just talking about, but your implication then is: those who have developed a 5 point Calvinist view have not taken that directly from the scripture but taken it through a rational perspective?

Answer: Yes, and just to decide. We call it the 5 points of Calvinists, but Calvin, I think the evidence and support, maybe mention some books here in a moment, was not a 5-pointer. But reformed theology is reflected in those 5 points, but Calvinists before the Reformation were what we could call 4-point more than 5-point. But true, I think that part of the appeal of the reformed system it’s an intellectual system. You don’t get it from just reading your Bible, you get it from studying theology and then coming to your Bible and making it fit. I mean, you have to come up with a covenant of grace, covenant of redemption, the covenant of works and they all admit, well, none of those are called covenants in the Bible. So then we create these covenants and then we have to fit the scripture into the covenant we created.

That’s where it’s a logical system, it’s a scholarly system that appeals to, I think, people because you really got to study this. I mean, if I said that if you have studied the Bible for many times (now if you have learned it here, it doesn’t count) but I said, well, what is the covenant of redemption? I don’t know, where is that in the Bible? Well, it’s not there, they just came up with it and then they devise the system. There are disagreements on that. The covenant of works, nobody can trace it back till the end of the 16th century, then it gets put in there and pretty soon you’ve got all these things. So, yeah, it’s a logical system, they build it with logic. Well, you know, it’s logical that God would have made an agreement with His Son before the foundation of the world. And that covenant is Christ would come and die to pay the penalty for sin and God would give Him the group of people that He would die for. Well, wait a minute, now we’re going to put our system together logically. So, it’s more of a logical system then an exegetical system. And I think reformed people would agree with that although they would argue that the scripture supports that system. I think it’s read into the scripture, we all have to be careful of that.

We’re dispensational in our theology but our claim is that system comes out of a consistent literal interpretation of scripture. To support that system you have to develop a nonliteral interpretation of prophecy because it’s the overarching covenant of grace which is the overarching covenant and it just goes on. So it is a logically developed system of theology, it's not an exegetically derived. So you’ll have different systems of interpreting. That’s where you open the door to not interpreting the opening chapters of Geneses literally. Because if you’re not going to interpret the exegetical prophetic portions literally, well, maybe creation style literature shouldn’t be interpreted literally. Because the Babylonians had their own account of creation and then the others had their own account of creation. So maybe this is just the way they would have expressed things in that day which is where much of the evangelical movement is gone, to also accommodate science. Well, we’ll just say that, you know, it’s not literal, it’s creation genre, you don’t interpret it literally. And the book of Revelation is apocalyptic genre, it’s that kind of literature, you don’t interpret it literally. So that’s where I think literal interpretation consistently applied doesn’t lead you to reformed theology.

Question: What’s your main defense for getting into these smaller details that wouldn’t necessarily effect salvation? Such as where our sin came from in relation to Adam.

Answer: Ok, my reason to get into them is God says get into them. God doesn’t, I say this respectfully, talk to just hear Himself talk. He’s the infinite God. I am thankful, I know you all probably have sets of multiple volumes. I’m glad He graciously put it down to one book, it wouldn’t help me if I had 35 volumes this size. But He’s God, He holds us accountable to know what He says, we are expected to pay attention. And so yeah, that’s a trap. And together for the gospel is an example of that. We had a movement where they got some different Christian leaders together, together for the gospel. I’ve talked about that triage where this is what is most important, this of secondary importance, this is of third level of importance, and eschatology, of course, is third level. But what is really important is the gospel and the facts of the gospel and I don’t minimize that, but I have a problem, I am not called to be God’s editor, and so in one sense everything is important. And you don’t understand the doctrine of salvation if you don’t understand the details that He’s unfolding here.

That’s where people get into trouble, where they are not into the word in a serious way. Things come along and, well, yeah, that sounds reasonable, yeah, that sounds acceptable. So my reason for getting into these minute detail is that God put them there and I’ll be held accountable for knowing them and living in light of them. You back off of these …, if we don’t understand how sin came into the world, we don’t have a correct understanding of how Christ’s provision is the only sufficient provision for the sin that came into the world through Adam. So God didn’t just put this here as, well, people who like to study details that aren’t that important they can study it. Quite frankly, that’s where the evangelical church has gone, you get little talks where you take a verse out and you talk about it and you give some interesting illustrations and family stories. And then we all go home and say, you know, that was good! What did you learn? I talked to somebody, been in a church, he just left an evangelical church, they were there 15 years. You know, we really didn’t learn anything. What in the world were you doing there for 15 years? You are a really slow learner, it took you 15 years, raising your kids there, and we really weren’t learning anything. It was just Bible talks that were more application, and we’ll take this verse and then we can talk about it and illustrate it, and on we go. I listened to a sermon recently from a pastor in a church and he used the verse, but when it was all said and done, I wasn’t sure what that particularly had to do with the verse. What I did like is he spoke for over 50 minutes. So I like that it’s moving that way but you can talk about the Bible alot, but until you get into the details like this, you’re not really learning and developing a foundation.

My goal, I’ve shared this with you before, I see myself as your commentary. People think, you know, do I understand how sermons should be structured; I do, I was taught that. I’ve shared this pronoun, proposition, 3 balance point, then a summary conclusion. I had to do that to pass homiletics. But I began to look and say, what kind of commentaries do I use to learn what’s in this book of the Bible? What will help me with this passage? And I said, well, that’s what I really see myself doing, studying the passage and then becoming a commentary for you, to walk you through the details. The goal is when we’re done with Romans you know Romans for yourself. So you have to go through the details and that’s why we do it together.

I’m trying to control myself. Marilyn reminds me, you know, you don’t have to give a sermon on every answer. Just answer the question, so I give her the sermon on Monday. I say, oh let’s drive together and talk, which means I will get it all off my chest. I get half off my chest up and then half off on the way back. We had a good talk.

Question: When God calls the believer to ministry of service He gifts us and gives spiritual gift to serve where He calls us. Does the believer’s talent or ability have anything to do with it? He doesn’t choose us because we have certain talents or ability to serve, granted. He gives us a spiritual gift and we must work to develop our spiritual gift.

Answer: I think that’s correct, a gift is different than a talent. Now the gift of serving, people can use their talents obviously. So I don’t know that there is a gift of music. I’m proof of that but, you know, people are musically talented but that can become a way of serving too. Some of those gifts it’s hard to tell, but the gift of serving is an important gift, because there are people that have that, they’re just there, involved in meeting the needs that are done and that helps the body go. But I think the specific gift, like a teacher, just because a person teaches in school or college or something like that doesn’t mean they’ll have the gift of teaching the word, that would be separate. Sometimes a person might have, I guess, certain of the things that go together, but gifts are distinct. So I don’t think they are the same as a talent. Part of it is when we become part of the body then as we grow and become older we look for ways how could I be used in this body. Over time we come to realize. Sometimes the Lord gives you a burden for an area. I was not a person to be up in front of people, I had never been up in front of people, but I was convinced God had called me to be a pastor and gifted me to do that. I was going to then if he gifted me, I would learn to do it, but all through high school and that I was not one who was ever up in front a class or did things like that. Even then when I went to college, it was not until I was assigned to go and teach a kids’ Bible study, a backyard kind of club, that I ever got up in front of anybody. Then I learned you’re either not gifted for this or you’re going to have to learn to do it a lot better. So I think it can be there, a desire, an interest, a desire in and of itself, a desire there should be then supported by evidence, evidence ultimately to the body that you’re gifted in that area. Going to seminary doesn’t gift you to be a pastor or a teacher but it may be a help if you are gifted to do it better. But to summarize, a gift if different than a talent.

Let me recommend a couple books. If you are interested in the issue of the atonement because some of you listen to John MacArthur. John MacArthur has moved from being unlimited in the atonement to being limited atonement. He has too many reformed friends, in my view. A good book if you want to read something that is readable is by Robert Lightner, “The Death Christ Died,” another book like it is by Norman Douty, but either one of those. You don’t want to jump into something and you think, oh man, I don’t think I even know what he’s talking about. So he’ll talk about the atonement, so if you are interested in that.

A little more detailed is by Allan, “The Atonement,” a very good work done more recent. He did another book and if you just want something to set on your shelf, it fits. For those of you who are teachers or really get into studying, this is a fun book. Marilyn reminds me not everybody has the same idea is fun, but as you do. But this gives you the history of the extent of the atonement. So you can go all the way back to the beginning of history and he takes each individual and gives you the dates, and quotes from them to show whether they were limited or unlimited atonement. He makes clear limited atonement is a much later development. Then if you want to find out where someone like John MacArthur is you can get into the back (I’m not picking on MacArthur but I know most of you know him) and look up his name and then go to the pages and he’ll tell you where John MacArthur is and give you quotes. He’ll give you the quotes from the early time of John’s ministry where he solidly was telling people the death of Christ was for everyone but then how he has changed over time. He’ll do that, you can find many names that have written and so on, in here. And what is very helpful then, he does an extensive critique of a very modern book, “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her” which is sort of replaced John Owen’s “Death of Death” as the go-to book for those who believe in limited atonement. He critiques that book and breaks down. Some prominent men you know like John Piper has a chapter in that book. Well, you can go in here, you can just look up Piper’s name and you’ll find out where he appears in here. He does a critique of where he is not only not biblical, he’s not logical in the position he holds. So if you really want to get in to something else, I think you can get this book down in Sound Words now. Don’t buy it just for a doorstop but if you want to impress people, see all the papers I put in, I put those in so it will look like I really have been in here.

So if you’re interested in the atonement, a side issue, but it does come out in Romans 5. Romans 5 is one of their passages and you will find out they will say “many” here means “all,” but “many” here doesn’t mean “all” because if you make “many” mean many or all in all the passages then you’ll believe He died for all people. So that can’t be, so it has to be … And you realize, you have to be careful because they’ll say it so quickly and so smoothly you miss it. There’s two ways the word “many” is used in this passage, this was in MacArthur’s, “The many is used two different ways referring to all people and referring to just the elect.” But wait a minute, wait a minute, I understand you said that but you haven’t offered any proof to that. Well, the proof is Christ could only have died for the elect. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, you are assuming what you have to prove. Alright.

Question: Do you think having a Bible study with a Catholic who doesn’t seem to know much about the Bible would be wrong to do? Say you are leading the Bible study.

Answer: I would say it’s great! I would get something like a confraternity edition of the Bible which is the Roman Catholic translation but it’s a very good translation. I used to keep several of them so if I was witnessing to Catholics or someone. But I think a Bible study would be great whether they are Roman Catholic, liberal Protestant, whatever. That’s a good way to start. Just say, you know, you’re interested in the Bible, I’m interested in the Bible, let’s go through the gospel of John. For a Catholic I would take the obstacle out because I don’t want to get into your Bible is a Protestant and might not be the same as mine. I say let’s use yours. Then I always take it and open it up in the front of that Bible, they’ll say it has the imprimatur, the approval of the Pope and the approving bishops and so on. So they see this is an authorized Catholic version but it’s a good translation. Now when you’re going to that study you’ll want to read and maybe compare it with your New American Standard just so you don’t get confused, but it’s an accurate translation, and preferably without footnotes. So you’d probably be better not to take footnotes, too, because you don’t want to get into debates over the footnotes over what his Bible says and your Bible says. Let’s just take our Bible. So I had the confraternity edition. I’d go to the Catholic bookstore and buy them, downtown here in Lincoln. Yeah, that’d be great.

Question: Does that version have the apocrypha in it?

Answer: I don’t believe it does but you know, I wouldn’t get into a debate over that. I’d pick a book, I’d say we can’t do it all at once, let’s look at the gospel of John or the book of Romans, probably want to start with a book like that. The gospel is easy, like the gospel of John, Romans has a lot of theology. And I would be careful that I don’t get in to mire him down in details. One thing I’d do, I’d take a pad, have some paper there, and if questions come up and you don’t want to mire down there, say let’s just write that down and see if the answer comes up as we move along. Otherwise you could get hung up on a point and you don’t want to derail the study so we can’t go on. Say, you know, that’s probably an area where we have disagreement, we can come back to it. Let’s make a list of these kind of questions so we go on and, you know, start to build. Because what you want to do is give them an opportunity to have the Word work in their heart and mind. I think a good way to do it with anybody. Yeah, I think that would be great, you could do it with two or three people. Now be careful, I talk to you about theological things and some of those things you might not be interested in because you study a different way. I want to be careful, the purpose of this is for the unbeliever, I want to keep him in the word so I want to not overwhelm him with my knowledge. I wouldn’t want to start out and say, you know, the Greek word for this is this. So that sort of resolves it for us, no, we’re not going to talk about that. It helped me when we were in China a number of years ago. We had an older missionary who had been in China before the revolution took it over and she was driven out. She knew Mandarin but when we went in she wouldn’t use that language because she said they’ll identify me as a former missionary and then we’ll be tracked everywhere. So she’s sitting here and she knows what everybody’s saying, all the people around her are Chinese, but she acted just like she was an English person, like us. That’s a good thing, keep your knowledge down and more like we’re going through the book of John together. Let’s see what God says, I want to be open to it, you want to be open to it, let’s just take it for what it says. Yeah, I think it’s a great idea.

Alright, let’s have a word of prayer. Thank you, Lord, for Your grace. Thank you for Your word. Thank you that Your word is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword. And Lord we want to share this word at every opportunity, and in every way, in every situation. I pray You open our eyes to opportunities and open doors of opportunity to discuss the word with contacts, people of all kinds of backgrounds, Lord, they have all one need. The truth that You have revealed in Your Son. We pray You will give us many opportunities in even the days of the week before us, bless that week, may our testimony be strong in our conduct and in our words as we represent You. We pray in Christ’s name, amen.