Adam's Sin Yields Death for All
Romans 5:12-14 · Bob Eckel · Jul 2, 2006
Romans (2005-07), No. 38
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/48262355145395

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Alright, Romans 5, 12-14. Let's lead in and read from Romans 5, 1-11. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. by whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations, also knowing that tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope.

And hope maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who is given unto us. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly, for scarcely for a righteous man will one die, yet perhaps for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commended His love towards us that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more than, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were yet enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only so, but we also join God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation." All right.

Romans 5.12. King James is going to give you three versions here for a couple of reasons. King James says, just as though one man sinned and entered into the world, death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. Now the ILG is really relevant here, because there are articles before many of the nouns in this particular text, and these take on substantial significance. See if we can get this pointer to work here. There it is, okay. I'm going to turn these lights off up here. This switch, right over here. Okay, that helps out a little bit. Okay, the ILG.

Therefore, as through one man, the sin, not a sin, not many sins, the sin, into the world entered. And through the sin, the death. Also, so to all men, the death passed, inasmuch as the all sinned." Now, interesting, I mean, even in the ILG, when you look at the translation, they leave the articles out. They simply say therefore as through one man sin into the world entered and through sin death also so to all men death passed in as much as all sin.

So that's the way it reads if you just take the ILG and you look at it. But the articles are there and there are five of them in the verse that I think bring increasing significance to the verse. And then the Amplified is kind of nice. The Amplified is not a direct translation, but more of a paraphrase, and I like it much better than the Living Bible. Therefore, sin came into the world through one man, and death is a result of sin. So death spread to all men. Parenthesis, no one being able to stop it or to escape its power, because all men sinned.

So that kind of gives you three versions of a text that's really critically important. Now, I call this kind of the first principle of identification. We talk about identification a lot around here, but there are basically two types of identification. There's this form of identification and one that verse 14 at the end of this morning's lesson will come to. So let's focus in on this first principle of identification. If you will, this could be redefined the headship of Adam. So when we think of identification, we think of headships. And if we're thinking about two types of identification, there's the first principle, which is the Adam headship. And then, of course, there's the second principle, which is the Christ headship.

And that, for all those I trust in this room, is one in which we all share and believe. So this comes from kind of the concept that's based on the fact that the world system seems to think that man's basically good, don't they? I mean, we've discussed that before in this class, but carry on a dialogue with anybody that you interact with on a world basis and what would be their comment? I mean, is man basically good or basically bad? And I'm not even sure the term basically is worth putting in, but is man good or is man bad? What would the world say?

Well, what about these things that happen like rape and murder and burglary and lying and all these things? Well, what's that all about then? Circumstances, environment, you know, they're a victim. They're home life, you know, they didn't have a choice. Well, what about somebody who has a chronic behavioral problem then that's manifested in the same way? Is that just circumstances then too or is that what might we call that? Let's say somebody lies continuously and they think it's perfectly acceptable. I mean, what's that? Is that just circumstances? That's something more than that. What would the world system call that?

You'd say they call it evil? They might if they were a little bit more informed. How about the term habit? Would habit be okay? Kind of get into a habit of doing things some way. Man's basically good, though. I mean, good things come out of most of us a lot, but this is kind of a habit. Let's just try to cure the habit and get our local psychologist to get involved. All right, but this headship of Adam doesn't really give man any credit at all. And it says that we're identified into a headship where man is not basically good. All right.

So as Jay Vernon so often says, wherever there's a therefore, what's it there for? So I kind of paraphrase that. Why is the wherefore therefore? OK, so what does the wherefore relate to? Do you think, as Schofield does, as this relates back to Romans 3, 19 through 23, and you don't have to turn there, but you all know the text, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the buildup of the first three chapters of Romans. Or in fact, does this relate importantly, as the Robertson word pictures would identify with the text that precedes it? You know, I think it could relate to both. I mean, Romans kind of is a platform that's being built on a platform, and so ultimately we can't dismiss anything that precedes this, and it's not really that important to know whether it simply is a response to the reconciliation that verse 10 or 11 alludes to, or whether in fact it relates to for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Whoops. So sin, it says in the verse, sin entered into the world. This is aorist active. So isn't it kind of interesting if we think about sin entering into the world. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world. So by one man is Adam, and we'll clearly identify him as such. But then sin entered into the world. It didn't say sin passively. I mean, it wasn't like Adam's initial transgression then resulted in just kind of him being made sin. It says it entered into the world. Where did it come from? Hal and I talked about this for a long time yesterday. Did God place sin in man? How did this get enacted? Is this Satan? Did Satan put... Did God allow Satan to take...

First of all, let's define Adam. What was Adam's condition before the temptation? Innocent. How would you define innocent? He wasn't righteous. Correct. He was just innocent. So what does innocent mean? So maybe in his character, I'm sorry, maybe in his character was sin, but he was just innocent because he didn't have temptations or he wasn't being tested or have temptations in front of him that the sin was allowed to be manifested because he was innocent.

What was the environment that he lived in? I mean, Eve was around too, right? So, how do you envision Adam and Eve hanging out in the garden before the original sin? I mean, what kind of behavior was this? Was there no kind of self-serving nature of either one of them? They were fellowshipping with God. All right.

So, there was a communication, and that was really part of the initial sin, wasn't it? That they didn't believe God for what He revealed. And by the way, although we bleed into that in terms of relationship in this first principle of identification, we weren't there. So we don't have the sense that Adam did in terms of what it meant to fellowship with God the Father from the very beginning. So think about this. If sin was placed because of Adam's transgression, Eve's transgression initially, we could blame Adam for letting Eve make the decision.

But anyway, all that aside, we don't want to get into that today. Sin entered the world. But the Bible is never clear on what the process really is. Hal and I discussed this for a half hour yesterday in terms of by what process did sin enter into the world? And by the way, it wasn't entering into Adam. It's entering into the world system. I have that, I think, in a subsequent note here.

But anyway, the process by which sin entered, I don't think we really have to... I'm very comfortable that God allowed Satan to... Satan was the one who tempted, correct? So, at least in Adam's innocence, which was no longer present, that maybe God, first of all, it says that he really gave Satan pretty much free reign, free will, and perhaps through that, just generosity on God's part in terms of his defined role for Satan, that Satan was the active ingredient here in terms of placing the sin nature in mankind. But I think this is fun to ponder, and I really worked hard on trying to get you a specific answer to this, but whatever, by an active process, Adam's transgression resulted in sin being placed in all of mankind. All of mankind.

We're going to look at that more carefully in a second. And how is this a contrast for comparison? If we turn to Hebrews 3, 18 and 19, and to whom swore he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believe not. So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. And let's look at that in a little bit more detail. And through this sin came death. And what kind of death? All right, so let's look at this whole issue of what type of death, because the result of Adam's transgression is death.

So in Genesis 3.15 sets the stage for what we're learning about here today.

And there it says, Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. So God's you know, stipulated unequivocally, don't go there.

All right? And here's, you know, the story being further revealed. And the serpent said to the woman, you'll surely not die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Pretty solicitous, isn't it?

Now, physical death. Now, we know from from the text that death could take on two different forms. It could be physical death, spiritual death, or both. I mean, we really want to carefully try to dissect this. So as we proceed down into Genesis 3, verse 19, "...and the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread, till thou return unto the ground, for out of it wast thou taken, for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." That certainly doesn't speak of spiritual death, does it? So, in this original sin, God connects Adam's transgression with physical death, unequivocally, in a verse that follows very shortly. So, physical death is at least part of this.

Psalms 146.6.

His breath goeth forth, he returns to the earth, in that very day his thoughts perish. Now, the thoughts perish, you could read more into that than we need to, but the idea here is as our breath goes forth, meaning done, we return to the earth. By the way, anybody have any comments, feel free to interject. Don't have to raise your hand.

And what about spiritual death? And later in this chapter, and by the way, a parenthetical section of the chapter, I think it's important to recognize that in verses 13, which will begin shortly today, through the end of 17, is a parenthesis. And I think that that's relevant. So verse 17 says, for by one man's offense, death reigned by one, much more than those who receive abundance of grace and gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. So that speaks to spiritual death. Okay, by one man's offense, that's the event here that we're discussing today, this first principle of identification, is not only that sin entered into the world's system, that physical death would result, which it has, but in fact that spiritual death would also result.

Romans 5.21, that is, sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness and into eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. So we see this contrast between physical death and spiritual death, and that physical death results in the end of the physical existence. We do return to the dust, to the ground, from which we've come. But yet the hope is in the fact that our spiritual death, there's a solution for.

Also, so all men through death passed, and as much as they all sinned, the all sinned. Past is journeying through, and I think for the most part, this passage is not dealing with spiritual death as much as it is physical death. Now that's an opinion, but it's well supported by a number of fine commentaries, including Schaeffer. That physical death is really the topic before us here, not spiritual death. But keep in mind, Adam's original transgression was as much the source of our spiritual death as it was the source of our physical death. So what does it mean that we all sinned?

What's this deal? What kind of a deal is this? I mean, was I there to keep Eve from eating from the tree? If you're a woman, if you're Eve, you weren't there. What's the deal here? All have sinned. Is that the Catholic's original sin idea? Because we are identified with Adam. All. It could be individually and or collectively. You've already said that sin entered the world, right? After the sin. So it entered all of his descendants that were descended from Adam. All right. We're all identified with Adam.

But is that fair? I mean, if you talk to somebody who's an unbeliever, who's approaching this from an intellectual perspective, he or she would say, this ain't fair. What's the deal here? Don't group me with these people. Well, it's not about these people, it's about the one person, right? Let's look at this a little bit more in detail.

Schaeffer says it's not that man became sinful. Interestingly, Schaeffer says that in kind of a unique perspective. The assertion is that all sinned at one time and under the same circumstances. And remember, that's individually and collectively, the all, the entire world, the history of all of mankind. Schaeffer says, sinned at the same time Adam did and under the same circumstances. But this isn't personal sin. Okay, let's cut through this a little bit more. Have sinned, and again the question I posed before, have we? Were we there and really sinned at the time of Adam's transgression?

No, but this is the whole process that's theologically termed imputation. So what's imputation mean? Let's think about defining the word. If you will, the first principle of identification is imputation. And what's the idea of the imputation? It's transferability. It's the effect of an event where the outcome involves the transference of that event to someone else. That could be in legal terms, Danny, you're a lawyer, so let's now look at this in a little bit more detail.

If we look at the spiritual death, just as an example, therefore, it's by the offense of one, judgment and condemnation came upon all men. That could be physical also. For it's by one man's disobedience that many were made sinners. the many, meaning all. Note again that verses 13 through 17 in Romans 5 is in parentheses, which means if you look at that, at the end of verse 12 it says, and so death passed upon all men, for all had sinned. And then if you go down to the next place where there's not parentheses, therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came unto all men. So that's why it's important to kind of note that the verses in 13 through 17 really are parenthetical.

And then here's the question again, is that fair? And what about verse 13? We're going to look at it in a second. But verse 13 says, for until the law, sin was in the whole world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. So, I mean, it's saying there that imputation is qualified. It requires a law. So this seems like an internal contradiction.

Let's cut through this a little bit. So here's kind of a little diagram that Peter kind of helped me generate this morning. So if we put the sin nature at the center of the stage, which is the first principle of identification, the fact that sin nature is something we all have, and it's something we're identified with.

And we look at Adam, and then we look at genealogy, and we look then at me, you, all of us. So how do we see the arrows flowing in this relationship? You would agree that Adam's sin affects our genealogy as much as it does us, right? And so the idea of identification is that our parents, their parents, and on down the line to the beginning of time relate to Adam. So all of mankind really fits in by the imputation process into Adam's original transgression.

I'm not saying it's fair. That's what the Bible teaches. And our genealogy donates something to us. Remember in the Psalms it says, in sin did my mother conceive me? That doesn't mean she was a prostitute. It means the principle of sin is transferred in the human element from generation to generation. Everybody with me on that?

By birth, we inherit a sin nature. And that's why, in a sense, if God says at conception we in fact have been given this nature, then that is another defense of why abortion is wrong. I mean, God has looked at us already being an individual at the time of conception. And so, therefore, taking the life of a young fetus, if you will, person, who's unborn, is murder. And look at this.

Now, what the text says is that for the genealogy, by the way, that arrow doesn't go in the backward direction. We don't give birth to our parents. So the genealogy is the constant flow of genetic material which is ingrained in our genome that we have a sin nature. Now, I'm not sure that we can find a gene for the sin nature. I always looked at the immaculate conception as God's DNA being dominant. Here was Mary's DNA, which was flawed, if you will, and God's DNA and God's genes were all dominant, so that Jesus Christ was a perfect son of God and God-man.

So we've got this Adam and Nathan going in both directions. What the text says, again, is that we're for as by one man sinnered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men for all have sinned, or all sinned. So we can say again, that's not fair, but what the text says is that we participated in Adam's sin. Let's take a look at that in a little bit more detail. Actually, I thought that I had something else there. But anyway, so I think the concept is that Adam was the one that sinned, but we were identified with that as if we individually contributed to that sin. Doesn't seem likely, but that's really the way the text should be interpreted. Verse 13 then. Parenthesis.

For until the law, sin was in the world. But until the law, sin was in the world. But sin is not imputed when there is no law. Let's look now in more detail at this. The ILG, for until for law, sin was in the world. Sin is not reckoned not being law. So this would seem to say that if the law, since the law really is really what judges man of his sin, that before the law, if you will, what law, and here I think we're talking about the Mosaic law, then sin really could not be imputed. In other words, this whole inheritance of the sin nature, presumably then, isn't appropriate in the absence of the law. But let's dissect this a little bit more. Not reckoned is present. So the present tense was that the imputation of sin now really requires a law system. And by whom?

So again, does this mean that before the law that man's not responsible? And then you think, well, what about infants and the mentally impaired who are not in a position to really interpret law, the legal system of living a righteous life? Are they in fact spared from the imputation of the sin nature?

No, I think the one thing that splash from just your observation is physical death is evidenced by the imputation of sin on all of mankind. So in a sense, if the verse reflects physical death as the outcome of Adam's sin, that even though before the law was given, the Mosaic law, there was death. And infants and mentally impaired people die physically. So we've got to believe that in the absence of the law, that the imputation of sin according to the message of the law can't be imputed in the same manner. But the principle of the sin carries out in observation that physical deaths occur.

And now Romans 2.12-16 and Genesis 6.5-8 give us another perspective that the spiritual shortcomings were also there in the absence of the law. And we know after the garden that basically Adam's genealogy was in fact you know, the first principle of identification. That spiritual deprivation also resulted from that before the law was given. So Romans 2, 12 through 16, we reviewed that when we studied that before, that in the absence of the law, man is still sinful.

But let's look at Genesis 6, 5 through 8, because I think it puts it in closer context historically. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagining of thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord repented that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart."

Is that anything short of imputation of sin on mankind, even though the law had not been given? So, what do you think that means then in verse 13? For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. How do we... It's because man has to see some kind of a standard in order to understand that he's sinned. And without the law, there wasn't a bar there.

But God gave them the bar when he gave them the Mosaic Law, even though they were sinning all the time up until that point. And maybe their conscience would reveal that they were certainly doing things that were wrong. What do we think of in terms of the law being our yardstick? Are we living under the Mosaic Law today? No. Why not? Because we're under grace now. But at the time, they didn't have grace. Okay, so then how do we interpret the law then? What was the purpose of the law? To reveal the sin. Alright, and God says here that he was sorry he'd made man, put him on the earth. Was there no ability of man to know that he was falling short of God's glory?

Obviously not. But apparently there was. Noah was declared a righteous man. Okay, so there was some comparative activity going on even back then. Of course, we know Noah was a sinner also, right? So how can the outcome of sin not be imputed? How should we interpret that? Because again, physical death would be an evidence that at least that outcome of all having sinned was being evidenced.

They were certainly living a lot longer than we were. Let's turn to Galatians 3, 10 through 13 together here. We can take a look at that. Roger, will you read that, please? For as many are the works of the law are under the curse. Now that no one is justified by the law before God is evident. For the righteous man shall live by faith. However, the law is not a faith. On the contrary, he who practices them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. In order that in Christ Jesus the blessings of Abraham might come to Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Okay, so therefore what's the purpose of the law? It's to convict, is it not? It's a set of God's standards. Now, let's look at this in context, and this is really maybe subject to a lot of discussion. One could interpret without law is the refusal to be controlled. In other words, think about when we apply law systems to anything. God's law could never be kept, and it was there to convict. All right, but let's say we have no law system. We have laws in our government. God has established government purposefully to keep mankind under control because of the sin nature, actually. And that, of course, is a result of the events in early Genesis. But if, in fact, there's no law system, we're under self-will, are we not? So what's self-will like? How would you define self-will? Is self-will pleasing to God? Let's go back to Romans 2 for a second. I think it just might be worthy to take a look at those verses to kind of revisit where we've been before. Romans 2, chapter 2, verses 12 through 16. For as many as have sinned without law, okay, no law, they'll also perish without law. And as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.

For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. And of course there are none that do the law, right? For when the Gentiles who have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law are law unto themselves, if you will, self-will, right? who share the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. So in a sense the self-will run life in the absence of the law is still guilty before God. God would not impute sin on someone without the law based on the standards of the law. and the standards of the law were articulated 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

And think of Adam's first transgression. This was not simply, in a sense it was self-will, but it was different than ultimately the thing that God established on Mount Sinai. And what's different about it? Well, because Mount Sinai is very similar to what God dealt with in terms of a principle with Adam.

Adam's violation was a willful violation of a direct command from a revealed God. And although God interacted with many other, quote, early Old Testament saints like Abraham through, you know, through angels and other means, ultimately the written law is very much like the revealed law that Adam saw. So the imputation of the law system is really God directly dealing with Adam saying, don't eat of that tree. And the Ten Commandments and beyond, if the Nation of Israel's interpretation is correct, was God's specific instructions to convict man of sin. But yet, the imputation of that principle of ignoring the revealed God, either by the written document and or directly communicating with Adam, still does not leave man irresponsible.

You grasp kind of where I'm coming from, so the imputation of the law system is not really there for those who were before the law or who were not in the garden dealing with God, but yet the results of Adam's sin really ultimately prevailed in terms of physical and spiritual death. So I think that that's a way we can look at this verse about indicating that the outcome of Adam's transgression that we relate to, let me go back just a second, I think we want to go back one more slide. So here, this relationship resulted not only in physical death and spiritual death, even though it was not imputed by the law system.

All right, verse 14, New American Standard. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses. I mean, in a sense, verse 14 is helping us understand this a little bit better. Even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of him that was to come. Again, the sin of Adam was a direct violation of God-commuted information to Adam directly, just like the Mosaic Law was directly communicated by God. Notice it says, Death reigned from Adam till Moses. By the way, then the Mosaic Law was given. Even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam. So the sin nature was placed, and although they didn't sin like Adam, not sinning directly to a revealed God who had spoken truth unto them, the nature was still there, and the outcome was physical and spiritual death.

So the Bible is not contradictory. We just need to read it carefully in terms of how to interpret it. The ILG says, but reign the death from Adam until Moses, even over the ones not sinning on the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one coming. And again, the Moses reference really, again, substantiates the importance of the Mosaic law as the principle of the law system.

I think it's important to realize that this death reigned, and by the way, in context, this means reigns as king. This is not just all it reigned, you know, it's kind of like it's around there and you have to kind of acknowledge it. No, this death reigned as a king in individuals who lived between the period of Adam and Moses. And that death was physical death and it was spiritual death both.

OK, had not sinned, errors of active. So what type of figure of him was to come? Well, this, if you will, is the second principle of identification, or the second or last atom. Let's look at this in a few verses, and I chose these out of 1 Corinthians 15, because this is where this is really so nicely exemplified. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Second principle of identification, the second or last Adam.

1 Corinthians 15.45, and so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. When you think of soulish, we think of earthly existence. When you think of spirit, we think of something eternal. 49, and as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

First Adam, second Adam. First Adam born into sin with the result of physical and spiritual death. The second Adam being born in spirit, who in fact positions us in heavenly places and sustains us eternally in that location. Different principles, both necessary in terms of identification truths, the first and second principles. And then verse 47, the first man or the first principle of identification is Adam of the earth, earthy, and the second man is the Lord from heaven.

And again, that very much relates to the origins and it very much relates to the present life and certainly relates as well to the future. The earthy returns to the earth. The heavenly is there now and will be there forevermore. Two different natures, two different sources of headship, two different identification truths.

So a little time for discussion. Who was to come, by the way, is a single Greek word, melo, which is in the present active tense, which means who was to come. So the question here is, haven't you asked numerous times why God chose to accomplish his purposes in this way? Back to the concept, is this fair? What are your thoughts? What makes something fair? Think of fairness, you think of everybody being treated similarly. That's an earthly principle of fairness, is it not? I'd say I'm treated well.

Well, it is interesting that the Lord didn't say sin entered when the serpent was slithering around the garden or something. Sin entered when man disbelieved. And it does seem a little bit unfair that that's passed down in a genetic sort of way. It's not like God put in the gene unbelief, or at least we haven't identified that. So yeah, it seems a little unfair in that nobody had a chance at that point that sin entered. Okay. And the world system would clearly say that, what did I do? So what would be your answer to the world system?

You're having a conversation with somebody who you're told, you know, very up front, you're a sinner and you need the Lord Jesus Christ. I mean, you wouldn't communicate it quite that way, but I mean, the issue is that that's the topic. And I said, well, I don't believe that. That's not fair. that Adam's original transgression should be passed down to me. What would be your response to that? Just because it's not fair doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. Well, there's no question about that.

But what's our response to someone who says it's unfair that ultimately the Adam nature has been inherited and there are consequences to that? I can think of maybe a couple of ways we might respond. There could be many more. The first is, is the outcome evident?

What did God say in verse 12 was the result of Adam's transgression or sin? All sin. What's the outcome? All sin. All sin. Then what's the outcome of that? Death. Death. Okay. So is anyone in this world system going to deny that death is the outcome for all of us? All right.

That doesn't win the argument because, I mean, physical death, as far as we can tell, at this point in time, we have no solution for it, right? Maybe medicine is advancing and ultimately we're going to add 5 to 20 years on life expectancy over the next 50 years if all our understanding about the aging process really becomes as prophetically sound as it seems to be. But nevertheless, death is obvious. Physical death is obvious. So that consequence would prove God true, would it not? Now, they were not going to accept that, but anyway, that would certainly be evidence that that is true.

But then the issue of how would you portray the spiritual death aspect of Adam's early sin to a non-believer you're having a conversation with? If they think man's basically good, we're starting off really with the wrong agenda, but yet you're... If man is basically good, then you don't need to say it. Okay. So let me be clear what you're saying. So is free will good or bad then?

I mean, it's obviously good God created it that way. Well, He created it, but in fact, if man is basically sinful, that would take him away from God. So, I think the second answer might be this, you know, even though man is basically good from your persuasion, who is God? And what are God's attributes? So in a sense, painting this contrast between God as perfectly righteous, holy, just, glorifying, creative, ultimately puts man on a different platform. So in a sense, that spiritual death reflects God's nature versus man's nature.

You've not won the argument. But at least that's one place that I think that that could take you in terms of a conversation. Other thoughts, Carol? But all through scripture there are examples of God maybe in a position that looks unfair worldly. And then man turns to God and there's a cycle and then God forgives and sheds his grace all the way through scripture. And that's the second answer.

What has God demanded of us as being identified with Adam? What has he asked of us? to acknowledge that you have sinned, and then ask for forgiveness. Alright, and where is that forgiveness sourced? Through Jesus Christ. Alright, so what act does that require? Belief. Alright, God has asked us to believe. So the responsibility that God has placed on man as a result of Adam's sin in the garden is really just to believe that this is true.

And I think that those two steps of dealing with the unbelieving world obviously aren't automatically successful. But yet, these are principles by which, ultimately, we might be able to interact with the world system. And ultimately, in many people's mind, it's the life that portrays the Lord Jesus Christ that gets their attention more than the spoken word. So that's where our walk becomes so critically important. Not that we try harder, but we believe more. So the efforts of trying really ultimately become disappointing because we fail ourselves. But ultimately believing more that the life of the Lord Jesus Christ lives out in the believer is ultimately a life that portrays the light under darkness by his grace and by the power of the Spirit in our life.

And isn't it at the end of 6? What should we say there? God forbid. Yeah, beginning of... Yeah, we've got plenty of teaching ahead there, Mark. Yeah. Who should deliver me from the power of this over-wretched man that I am? Right. So I'm going to leave this with you as an important thing to consider. This issue, is this fair? And why did you do it this way?

In my opinion, it's a question we need to quit asking. Because if our belief is founded in the truth of who we are in the Lord Jesus Christ and except the fact that we have had our sins forgiven and we're buried with him in baptism unto death and risen with him in newness of life, this question becomes obsolete and unnecessary to be asked. You know, if you're still asking it, that's OK. But ultimately, this is a question that those who rest in faith have no longer the need to ask. Is it fair? No. We are saved by grace, and the only response that's needed from us is to say, I believe. OK. Let's close in prayer.

Father, we're thankful for your word, and I don't I don't know whether we've crossed the fullness of this passage, but there's no question that the importance of seeing that what happened so many years ago in the Garden, really, is a process by which we were identified with. We weren't there with Adam, and we weren't in a position to respond the way he did. But positionally in Adam, we, in fact, would have responded the same way. So we, as he, are guilty by identification.

And we're thankful that the second principle of identification in the Lord Jesus Christ is a life in which we've been ingrained and lived by faith by the great grace you share with us each and every day. We're thankful for the word, its truth, and its application to our daily lives. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen.