We're in Romans 5, and no sooner has the Apostle said that Adam was a type of the coming one of the one who was to come, a Jewish way of referring to the Messiah, then he immediately launches into three verses whereby he shows how the two atoms, if you will, the first and the last atom, how they are distinct. I don't understand perfectly his psychology, but here's my guess. My guess is Paul felt unclean saying Adam was a type of Christ and just leaving at that, leaving it at that. Understand? So in three verses in a row, he shows how they are dissimilar, but they are not alike, and he does that for in 15 and 16 and in 17. I'll go quickly here because our real fruit is going to be reaped from verses 18 and 19. They are not alike in the effects that they bring upon their respective races, from their respective groups of people, but the gift is not like the trespass, for if the many died by the trespass of the one man, Adam, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ overflow to the many. So they are dissimilar in their effects. The one brought death, the other brought grace and the gift which is either justification that implies eternal life or eternal life that implies justification. So it's not hard to figure out that he's talking about bad things came through Adam, good things came through and that's very good things indeed. 16 draws a contrast between one sins and many sins and condemnation and justification. These two are biblical, exact opposites, condemnation over against justification. The one sin, many sins contrast is not scientific and exactly as we would do it, but we're not being creative here, we're receiving what Paul wrote and trying to understand it. Again, verse 16, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin. Don't get lost in the sauce here in the details. Understand, Adam is a type of Christ and the 14, but 14, but 15, they're not alike because death came through the one and life and grace came through the other. 16 again, but they're not alike. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin. The judgment followed one sin of Adam and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. Though the comparison is not perfect, the one sin is the sin Adam committed. The many sins aren't the sins of Christ committed. They're the sins that Christ atoned for. So he contrasted one in many. One got a sin of this Dutch in the first place. Christ's wonderful work takes care of many more than the one with me and then the contrast is evident between the condemnation that comes from Adam and the justification that comes from through Christ. They're not alike. They're not alike and then a third time, verse 17, they are not alike for if by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through the one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness, long sentences. We understand Peter's comment and second Peter three. Paul has some of the things in his letters hard to understand. This is vintage Paul right here. How much more will they reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ? Here the contrast is between two different reigns, reign of death, reflecting back up to 14 again, and the reign of life. Are you with me enough to follow the flow of his thought? Verse 12, he sets up the problem. How is the one sin of Adam related to the many who sinned? He breaks off his thought, doesn't complete his thought there and speak about Christ. Instead, he launches into a two verse explanation, it's clear to him in his own mind, it's not as clear to ours as to how Adam's sin resulted in death for people who didn't sin exactly in the same way Adam did. At the end of 14, he mentions that Adam is a type of Christ. He's an Old Testament prophecy in action, but because of the total thrust of the passage, speaking of Adam's sin and condemnation, again and again and again, he feels unclean and just leaving it at that. He can't just get away with that. It seems like he's sullying Christ's reputation, so instead he says, fundamentally, Adam is a type of Christ, but let me explain, they're not alike in every way. They're not alike in the effects they bring to the human race. They're not alike in the fact that one brought condemnation and the other brought justification. Oh, they're not alike. They instituted two different reigns, the reign of death, the terrible tyrant who barged his way into the Garden of Eden. It wasn't invited. And next thing you know, he's sitting on the throne. Adam and Eve aren't ruling over God's creation as they should. They've been pushed aside and here are these terrible tyrants sin and death are ruling. Oh, it's figurative, but it's powerful figurative language to speak of the terrible effects of Adam's sin. Having sufficiently discharged his duty to show the contrasts between the two Adams, he returns in 18, as a matter of fact, he goes in 18 to complete the thought he began up above in verse 12. Romans 5, 18, consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all people. So also there's the comparative phrase, the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all people. Okay, let's work with this one. Help fill in the blanks here if you will. What is the one trespass of Adam yield? According to 5, 18, we're not guessing here. Yes, Adams, one trespass, brings about condemnation for his race. Okay, obviously there's a certain parallelism of phraseology within 18 and its two parts and within 19 and its two parts, that if we pressed it, it's all, all, many, many. If we pressed it, the two versions would contradict each other. So obviously the terminology is not to be pressed. Okay, but this much is plain. The one trespass of the first Adam resulted in condemnation for all, for his race. What is opposite the trespass of Adam in verse 18? Christ's what? Christ's righteousness specifically, yes, one righteous act. So to use post-reformation reform terminology, this does not focus on the
active obedience of Christ, but his passive obedience. Terminology has lost its meaning to us today. We think passive, we think passivity. It's not what it means at all. It's from the Latin Paso, it has to do with suffering, with the passion of Christ. Who can I read defines? He talks about the law keeping obedience of Christ, his lifelong law keeping obedience and his obedience unto death. I've lost hookamas exact expression for that, but this is referring not to his lifelong obedience to the law. That's implied in this, that qualifies him to do this. When it says one, one deed of righteousness, one righteous deed, plainly it speaks of the cross, does it not? His suffering obedience, that might be hookamas expression. What is the result of Christ's one righteous act? Justification is the exact biblical opposite of condemnation. Here we have the two atoms and their effects upon the human race. Clear? Think with me now, because if whether you know it or not, you are, I'm leading you to my conclusions. I'm doing it from studying the Bible. If there's a fallacy up here, point it out. Okay? Is that not what verse 18 says? It's exactly what it says. One trespass resulted in condemnation. One righteous act resulted in justification. There is an underlying parallelism here that's unmistakable. It harkens back to the end of 14. Adam was the type of the one who was to come. Verse 19 reinforces the truth. We have vocabulary variation, but the same ideas. Four means something like, let me explain to you a little differently. Just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man, the many will be made righteous. I might have added that in 18, actually the parallelism is not perfect because we have an additional element on the positive side. Do you pick that up? Justification that leads to life. So if we, if we completed Paul's thought, we'd have one trespass bringing condemnation for all and that resulting in death, obviously. On the other side, we have all three elements. One righteous act, justification for all resulting in life. 19, you do it for me again. What is Adam's deed called here? It's not called trespass, it's called disobedience. The result of it is many were made sinners. Does it mean many and not all? Well, that needs to be determined. Obviously, he's not kind of dicking himself within the space of two verses. So here's what I'm trying to say. We can't use Romans 5, 18 as a proof text for the fact that everybody is condemned unless you want to say it's also a proof text for the fact that everybody justified and universalist do exactly that. It's one of their big proof passages. Universalism is the view that everybody will be saved in the end. A proponent of that view is called a universalist. It's a false view. They can make this verse work that way, but they can't make the whole Bible work that way. Over against Adam's disobedience is what? Christ's obedience. Over against the many being made sinners is... Yes, I know it's Mickey Mouse, ABC, but like I say, you just helped me reach my conclusion. Just say, your claim then is that your conclusions are based upon what Paul is saying. Exactly. Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary. That is my claim. Yes, as a matter of fact, let's go. Theologians just love charts. Along with big terminology, the charts keep us, you guessed it, employed. We like to be employed. Any questions on this? Paul now really gets down to brass tax and completes the incompleted comparison from verse 12. Now he finishes it out. Questions? Yes, first?
No, that's not. Here's the point. Here's my point. Martin Luther talked about working with the Bible and working with it carefully. He talked about maybe he does a Thanksgiving time. You have the nuts in the dish and the little things you can work with, the nuts to get them open and enjoy that kind of a thing around holiday season. Anyway, Luther must have because he likened to working with the Bible's hard places, to working with a nut. You know, he doesn't take a hammer and go, boom, you get mad, you know, you're walled out of whatever. Crush out. You can't eat anything. No, you pry it, you with me, you work around carefully. Some people enjoy it, some get frustrated, you know, and pick another one out that they can work with. Luther said, you'll work with it, you'll work with it, and then sometimes the nut falls open and reveals its choice meets within. I found, I thought I got real light and understood what was my hang-up was this. I was comparing all with many. It's just so easy to do that. And after a while I said, no, that's dumb. Obviously, I'm not to compare all with many or he'd be shooting himself in the foot two times, okay? Doesn't work. So I can't press the condemnation for all, unless I want to press by way of being fair and honest with the Bible, justification for all, I can't press many were made righteous and not all, because many were made sinners and not all, doesn't work. He'd be carnaging himself one verse after another. Instead, it's not many over against all, it's one and all, one and all, one and many, one and many. The meaning is the terms all and many are relative terms vis-à-vis the one, the ones, the two, okay, the one Adam and the second Adam. So to find the actual numbers, you can't just go by many or all because they contradict. You have to just go by the total import of the passage in all of scripture. In other words, it's showing the one Adam and the great effects he had on his race and the second Adam and the great effects he had on his race. It's all as opposed to one. It's many as opposed to one. So it's contrasting at the Adam's and their effects and not taking away with one hand what he just gave with the other one. So to find out how many are condemned, you've got to go to other scriptures and this passage as a whole. There's even a hint. The passage is utterly objective. It is entirely, entirely outside of us. I can't help but think of Henry's comment before. What do we do in terms of the first or the second Adam? In general, in this passage, we do zip. It's all done for us. One exception, verse 17 in the middle, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and so forth? How much more will they reign in life through Christ? One place it mentions receiving God's grace and eternal life. It's subjective in one place. Other than that, these two Adam stand on their own and they do their work. So there is a hint in an answer to Henry's question. So my handling of the all and the many is not to juxtapose them and make them a contrast one to the other. You have to end up hopeless contradiction. It's rather to see them as relative terms, talking about races of people. It could have said one trespass brought condemnation for all of Adam's race, for all of Adam's kin or people or something or descendants. No, it doesn't say it. It just says for all and likewise it uses that out same expression for Christ. So it's one over against all, one over against many but don't contrast the all and the many as if he's giving numbers. He's not. He's showing the effects of Adam of the two Adam's on their races. It's the best I can do. Think about it. Think about the purpose of the statements. In this passage, we have one more chart. We have two heads. The first Adam and to use the language of 1 Corinthians 15, the second man or the last Adam, we have different acts that are spoken of. We have verdicts that a holy God gives because of those acts and then we have results. What is Adam's act? What's it called in the passage? Number of different things. Transgression. Adam's act is called sin. Adam's act is called disobedience. Are we to see them as fine nuances and divisions and the description differences? I don't think so. I think they're pretty much, I would say there are fine nuances probably but not any big ones. I misspoke them in to go. They're basically pointing to his heinous crime of disobeying the Lord, his God, of thinking, questioning God's goodness, God's keeping something back from us and so forth. It's wicked. What is the work of Christ? That is exactly opposite the sin of Adam. You know the answer by now, it's his righteousness or his obedience. One act in each case. You say, man, what a passage. It gives the history, it gives the fate of the human race on these two people's shoulders. You know, is this fair of God to do it this way? I don't know, you ask him. God sets up the rules. I don't. And by the way, if you don't like representation on the one side, think about it a little bit before you throw it away. You certainly like representation on the other side because we are saved because of one man and what he did for us in the cross and the resurrection, okay? What do I have to do with that? Zip. It is true. I have to believe to be saved but I believe in what he did and nothing else and it saves me. We all know unsafe people who say to us, that's too easy. I'm not going to do it that way. I'm going to stand in my own two feet. If that's how it is, I'm going to miss out with terrible words. They give us, they make a shutter, don't they? The utter, the utter autonomy of the human sinner says something like that. Maybe we did in the past and God broke down our resistance. May he do it for others as well. What is the verdict? The only verdict a holy God can give in the light of sin, transgression or disobedience. Answer, guilty is a good answer, death is not a verdict, death is a result, condemnation, guilty, and the result of course is death. Think about it. What other verdict could God give? Okay, what modern man would say, let's say no problem. God loves everybody and nobody would be, he can't be man with anybody. Read three chapters of the Bible, three chapters of Romans. You can't miss the answer. Condemned, guilty, damned is the proper answer. What is the exact biblical opposite of condemnation? So you're really learning about justification before we get to that subject later on in this course. It is the verdict of a holy God. It is the only verdict he can give. I say it reverently in the light of the work of his son, for God to do anything else, but the clear right just to one who believes in Jesus is for God to deny himself. Understand? That's how wonderful the work of Christ is. It measures up perfectly. Romans three, it's a propitiation. It takes away God's wrath. That is the Son of God took our condemnation so the Father, if we believe in the Son, the Father can only give one verdict to anyone who runs to Christ for refuge and believes in Him. Our condemnation is paid. God doesn't engage in double jeopardy here. It's already paid. I believe I am forgiven or said positively when God looks at the perfect righteousness of His Son. He can only give one verdict. Righteous. He declares righteous everyone who believes in Him, of course, the outcome is life. Poe coals in this, if you will. Otherwise, you have just adopted the representative view in my own estimation. That's how much I think it is woven into the fabric of this passage. Can you quibble with the chart? I can't. I would like to know if it's wrong. I don't want to teach error, and I do try to distinguish between things that are clear and less clear, more or less clear in Scripture. Yes, yes, I said I don't, and I'm going to go into it immediately after I explain what these views are, which is our next task. We are on page 39. I want to make sure you understand each point. Do you understand what Pelagianism is? I think you do, okay? Adam was just a bad example. I want to go and spin our wheels where we need to spin them, okay? So we're going to make contact with some pavement and take off here. Our minionism, the discussion of original sin, is basically a Calvinist intramural debate. That John Wesley was very wise, and first of all, let me say John Wesley was very godly, and he preached the gospel, and I rejoice in that, okay? I'm setting up for a place to disagree with him, of course, here's what I'm saying here, but he was really clever. He was wise. He managed to affirm the doctrine of original sin and still end up with his free will theology. The way he did it was to say, all original sin is real, is actual, it's true. Original sin is a truth, there we go, and because of it, we are born corrupt, we're sinners, but here is the stroke of genius in Wesley's part. By virtue of the universal prevenient grace of God, these effects of original sin on the will of man, the effects are ameliorated. I need to do a little bit of definition here to give a couple different views of prevenient grace, two big views in the history of the Christian church, and of Christian theology. Prevenient means preceding grace. Remember the old King James version, first, Thessalonians four, those who are asleep will not prevent us who are alive, and all the mountain translations say, will not precede, same Latin root. Two views of preceding grace, of grace that comes before salvation. The Calvinist view, or maybe better the Augustinian view, it goes all the way back to Augustin, says that prevenient grace is particular. It's definite. It's limited, if you will, because it's efficacious. It accomplishes God's goal. It actually brings people to salvation. This is the Augustinian slash Calvinist view of prevenient grace. So John Wesley didn't make up the idea of prevenient grace. He changed the tradition before him by saying, and by the way, it's not nasty to call Wesley an Arminian, after James Arminius, who preceded him, Wesley named his own newspaper, the Arminian. So he identified, so we have Wesleyan Arminianism, as a modern and in many cases, Bible-believing theology, over against a Calvinist theology. Prevenient grace is universal. This is nowhere in the notes, and exactly that's why I'm slowly unfolding it. It's universal, and it is not efficacious. It goes to everyone. And here was Wesley's genius. He said, flowing from the cross of Christ, is universal preceding grace that nullifies the effects of sin. Not that people aren't born sinners. Not that we're not corrupt, but that our wills are set free by this grace. Do you see how he could have his cake and eat it too? He's got original sin. Yes, it's true. We fell in Adam. We're all corrupt because of that. But then with this appeal to a universal preceding grace, he could say, but the effects of original sin are nullified on the human will, especially, so that we are able to choose God. It fits into his theology beautifully. Thus, election means God foresees who would choose Christ and believe the gospel, and they're chosen. Christ died to make salvation possible for everyone, the whole deal. It fits. Do I agree with it? No, and I do not think it will hold up to a biblical study of the concept of grace, but that is beyond our purposes right now. So in effect, he's got a doctrine, although he technically has a doctrine of original sin at the end of the day, it's not that important. What important is how you use your free will. Understand? That's why I say, and I'm not being unfair to say that the doctrine of original sin really is a matter of Calvinist intramurals. Calvinists quibbling with Calvinists over what this really means. Yes, yes? Yes? Very good comment. Does this translate into practical terms into the Arminian denial of spiritual inability? Yes, and no, they could say by virtue of Adam's fall, we are spiritually unable to save ourselves, but appealing to universal pivini and grace, nullifying the effects of the fall on the will, we now have gracious ability, they call it, and they appeal in their own, this is not a Calvinist using nasty terms or something, they say we have ability, but they give credit for God to give forgiving it to us. Furthermore, whereas synergism, the notion of man and God working together for salvation is a dirty word in reform circles. Synergism is a very fine word in Arminian circles, but again, it is synergism enabled by grace. The question is, is this the view of grace the Bible presents? My answer is no, with all due respect, and even admiration for Wesley and his brother and their ministries, okay? Sincerely, I say that. Is this the Bible's view of the Christian of unsafe people's ability? No, it is not. In time permitting, we'll look at that probably next week at our present pace. It's an important matter to know what an unsafe person can do or cannot do to be saved. So, let's proceed with the Calvinist intramurals. I'll dismiss Pelagianism as no view of original sin at all, because it isn't, okay? I will pass by Arminianism because the way it spins out, it doesn't really concern original sin in the end, so we are now distinguishing and trying to differentiate between and evaluating the representative from natural headship views. Top of 41, natural headship is sometimes called realism or realistic headship. Oh, we love these big terms. Keep the old page x coming. I hear quote Millard Erickson from whom I have great respect. After theologian who calls himself moderately reformed, that's accurate. Who advocates, advocates this view? So here is this view by someone who holds it. This approach, he says I'm quoting, is related to the traditionalist view of the origin of the soul. You remember, I just said last time, know that creationism and traditionalism exist. I make no personal commitments to either one, because I don't think the Bible gives us enough data for us to make commitments. Erickson disagrees. He opts for traditionalism. This approach is related to the traditionalist view of the origin of the soul. According to which we receive our souls by transmission from our parents just as we do our physical natures. So we were present in germinal or seed form in our ancestors in a very real sense. Understand the word real realism comes from that. In a very real sense, we were there in Adam. His action was not merely that of one isolated individual, but of the entire human race. Although we were not there individually, very important concession. Although we were not there individually, we were nonetheless there. The human race sinned as a whole. Thus, there's nothing unfair or improper. Notice that expression about our receiving a corrupted nature and guilt from Adam. For we are receiving the just results of our sin. This is the view of Augustine end of quote. Do you understand realism? Understand it? By the way, let me get my diagram of the Calvinist intramurals up here. You didn't know we were having intramurals today. Always having intramurals in theology class. Here we go. We're on this side of a ledger right now. We'll get to representationalism or the representative view in a bit. Notice both the representative view and realism are Calvinist views, their headship views. Natural headship, federal headship. We'll do more when we contrast them, but let me critique. Let me criticize natural headship bottom of page 42. I will freely admit the strength of the concept of natural headship. Remember the quiz question? It is folly to deny that Adam is the natural head of the human race. He is plainly biblically. But that does not say that natural headship is the way to explain original sin. I don't think it is. But I affirm that he is the natural head of the human race. Weakness is because of the interest of time. If I didn't think these things were good, I wouldn't put them in the notes. But how can I say it? Because I personally think if you have two good arguments, you're foolish to give seven arguments, two good ones and five so-so ones. It's a mistake. Give your two good ones and leave it at that. If you got one good one, use your one good one. Don't weaken it. Understand? By giving weak ones in there. So I think they're all good, but I think one four and five are killers. So number one, notice Ericsson's comments about nothing in fair or improper, unfair or improper. The big problem with the representative view of original sin is that it looks, it seems unfair for God to blame us what Adam did. This is called the problem of alien guilt. Adam made me do it. That's not fair. Why should I be condemned for somebody else that did something that didn't even have anything to do with it? The problem of alien guilt plagues the representative view. All the other options within the umbrella of Calvinism are attempts to solve the problem of alien guilt. So that's the reason that realism exists. But watch this. See Ericsson claimed, so there is thus, there's nothing unfair or improper about our receiving a corrupted nature in guilt from Adam, for we are receiving the justice results of our sin. See what he says? That doesn't hold up to scrutiny in my estimation. Bottom of 42, although realism claims to better handle the problem of alien guilt than the representative view does. I'm looking for a bibliographic reference here to an article by S. Lewis Johnson. Here we go. Page 31, about eight lines down is my bibliographic citation. S. Lewis Johnson, Romans 512, an exercise in exegesis and theology in a book entitled New Dimensions and New Testament Study. I keep appealing to it. It's a great essay. I'm just utterly persuaded by it. And I have great appreciation for Dr. Johnson's work. He taught New Testament a Dallas Theological Seminary for 20-some years. He worked himself through doing detailed exegesis Bible study to a five point Calvinist position. He found himself persona non-grata at Dallas, which is the four point Calvinist institution. I mean, like the founder, the first president Luis Luis Barry Chaffer wrote strongly against particular or limited atonement strongly. And since Johnson was of a vocal sort, he got himself, I think they agreed for him to leave. I'd put it that way, okay. Greatly respected beloved man of God, went to Trinity Divinity School and for the last whatever it was, ten years or so his ministry taught theology. Not New Testament, worked from the Hebrew and Greek text extensively. I understand he's going to write his methodology book. I wish he would. I think he's still dispensational in some of those larger concerns. It would certainly be an improvement over the sole systematic text we have in that tradition, which is Luis Barry Chaffer's systematic theology book. Anyway, I really appreciate this essay by Johnson. He says it well, bottom of 42, even if we should grant that generic humanity, undifferentiated humanity, humanity in Adam's loins. Suppose we're saying in his seat, in his testicles, okay. Gradually then dispersed throughout the generations that came after him. Even if we should grant that generic humanity sinned in Adam, we would have no relief from the problem of an alien guilt. If punishment is to be vindicated, the act of sin must be one of conscious self-determination and personal criminality. Yet according to realism, when Adam ex-synned his posterity, his descendants, as individuals and persons did not exist, the act of Adam's sin, antidated, predated their personhood. I cannot see how this alleviates the problem of justice. One Iota, for how can we act before we are? I agree. It looks simplistic to me to say, oh, we really sinned in Adam. How are we in Adam? As a matter of fact, I've seen two variations of this. There's the spiritual view. I don't know how we were there, but the Bible says we were there, we were there. I get nervous about that. Do you believe in the pre-existence of souls? That's not a Christian doctrine. Origin believed in that. That's not a Christian, that's a Platonic doctrine, not a Christian one. Oh, no, I don't believe in that. In some undefined way, we were mystically present in the garden. Well, you define it for me, then I'll try to evaluate it. The other one is, we were seminally in Adam. We were in his seed as Ericsson. We were present in German or seed form in Adam. Okay, let's grant that in that he was the natural head of the human race. How does that get around alien guilt? We weren't there committing the act as persons because we didn't exist as persons. The notion of our being there in an undifferentiated way. In generic humanity, I don't think solves that problem a bit. It gives an illusion of solving it perhaps, but it does not hold up to careful scrutiny, at least in my estimation. Another telling criticism, bottom of 43, number four. The last clause of Romans 5, 14 seems to contradict realism. This clause asserts that death reigned, quote, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, end of quote, realism holds that all people without exception sinned as Adam did, since they were racially in him, Johnson explains. All have broken a definite and positive command. How could it be otherwise? They were in his loins. The same command Adam broke. Thus realism has no place for a different modus, a different way or manner of sinning it can have. Romans 5, 14 contradicts realism, even over those who did not sin in the way in the manner Adam did. Wait a minute, time out. Realism can't, that can't be true of realism. We sinned exactly as he did because we were really there in all that business. With me, contradicts the text. I'm not saying Romans 5, 13 and 14 are crystal clear in every regard. But that much seems clear. I told you earlier on. I was setting you up, go back and do the Bible study again. If you can show me wrong, I'm happy to retract. But I don't think you can. 5, Johnson contends rightly, I think, that realism has trouble with the Adam Christ parallel of Romans 5. Quote, just as human beings are justified for a righteousness that is not personally their own. You know what Martin Luther called it? And what the Protestant tradition has called it since Martin Luther? Alien righteousness, friends, I love alien righteousness. Luther said, the righteousness that saves us is not our own personal righteousness. It is an alien righteousness outside of us, belonging to another even Jesus Christ that is made over to our spiritual bank accounts. I love representation, not an Adam so much, but I love it in Christ. And I'm not crazy about alien guilt, but I am absolutely bonkers about alien righteousness. Guess what? Because of the parallelism here, I don't think I can have the one and not have the other. So if I rejoice in alien righteousness, I think I'm stuck with alien guilt. And we're not making up the rules of the game, we're trying to figure out with 2020 hindsight or maybe 20, 40 or 50 hindsight, what God did, just as men are justified for a righteousness which is not personally their own. So they were condemned for a sin which was not personally their own. Of course, it must be recognized that the analogy is not a complete one between the two atoms. But it does seem essential to Paul's point to maintain that the nature of the union between the two principles, atoms one and two, and their people is parallel. I agree. I think he's got them between a rock and a hard place. Realism thus looks good because frankly it's an embarrassment to say, Adam sinned and we're all condemned because of that. But I would suggest it's an embarrassment we should get used to living with. It is not the only answer as to why we are sinners. It is not even Paul's immediate answer. Why they're sinners is because they break God's laws in creation, the law in the heart, and the law given in the law of Moses, but it's his ultimate answer because he's protecting God's justice and making us upright in the first place. And he is showing, I believe, that he has a view of the history, of special revelation, that is nothing less than a representative view that focuses around the works of two atoms of two human beings. It seems to be the way God set it up. Comments or questions on realism and my rejection of the same. I'll say it again when I told you early on, I teach to persuade where I think the Bible is clear. I don't know between traditionism and creationism, so I don't pretend to know, I don't even try to persuade. I give you the notes so you know that stuff, okay? I think the Bible doesn't say. On this, I obviously think it's clear I'm teaching with conviction to persuade, but as always, I reserve your right to disagree with me. I respect your own conclusions. If you think the Bible teaches otherwise, you go with the Bible, okay? Because I'm going to answer to the Lord for my teaching and you're going to answer to the Lord for your believing, okay? But any questions or comments at this point before we take our second break. Yes, federal headship. These are views of original sin, okay? These are views of these verses, just as a result of one trespass was condemnation for all, for just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners. It's trying, give him credit for wrestling with difficult passages and trying to understand what Paul is saying. The main thing Paul is saying is, Hallelujah, Christ's righteousness gives us standing in acceptance before God, but in doing that, he draws these parallels, and this is the place that the Bible speaks of original sin. In other places, it implies a doctrine just like this, and we'll perhaps take a peek at those later. But for now, let us take a breaketh and come back at quarter after maybe, and we'll wrap up in a half an hour and be done.