Common Fall of Humanity?

[Brandan Kraft]

In the thread that dealt with Marc Carpenter and his outside the camp theology, Bob wrote the following:

The doctrine of the common fall of humanity in Adam (both elect and reprobate) is sacred dogma in the history of Protestantism. Nonetheless, I believe it is patently unbiblical. The only passages in scripture on the representation of Adam are in Paul (Rom. 5 and I Cor. 15). The issue is the context of Adam’s representation in the matter of spiritual death. Is Paul speaking exclusively of the new humanity in Christ, that was once lost in Adam? Or is he speaking of all biological descendants of Adam? I believe it is the former. Especially in I Cor. 15, the ‘dead in Adam’ are exclusively the elect or the new humanity. Paul here does not even speak of the reprobate and their resurrection of damnation, though he certainly does elsewhere. When he asserts that ‘in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive"--he is proving the resurrection of the just. They will be raised to a new material humanity in Christ. The reprobate are not in view at all.

The guilt of the damned is that of devils who cannot possibly be saved--not of formerly guilty saints. Satans have no need of salvation. As far as worthiness of judgment is concerned, the saints are fully deserving of God’s wrath due to sin. However, the difference is that their guilt has the potential of reversal in Christ. The guilt of Satan does not.

No creature may be proposed to need that which is tangibly impossible to experience. Even so, it is absurd to propose that the devil and his children need salvation. They are created in eternal sin, beyond the possibility of regeneration.

The doctrine of a common fall leads inevitably to the heresy of universal atonement. In fact, it unwittingly teaches a universal atonement that is sufficient to save all men lost in Adam. In the ‘common fall’ view, the only event that keeps the atonement from actually saving all men is this: an infralapsarian ‘passing over’ by God of those who might have been saved. This false dogma is what kept me in a form of universal atonement for years. Although I believed that the atonement was ineffective for the non-elect, I nonetheless believed that it reversed the immediate imputation of Adam’s sin. So I thought the non-elect would be lost due to personal sin only. By definition, this theory of immediate imputation is corporate and not merely individual. The ‘universal’ view of immediate imputation is that Adam represented both elect and non-elect in his sin (according to the universal view of Rom. 5:17-19). Inconsistent interpretation on major matters always leads to false doctrine. Logically, a person might easily go one step further into a ‘sovereign grace’ universalism!

I've been chewing on this for a while now, and I have to agree with Bob here. I asked you Bob about this a couple months ago regarding Adam being the common ancestor of all men which you believed to be true.

I recently found myself arguing the doctrine of limited atonement with an free willer here at work, and in defense of his teaching, he referred to Romans 5 to prove that ALL MEN universally are sinners in Adam and therefore Christ must have died for all men. I then asked him why then all men are not saved, and of course his response was the typical, "not all exercise faith." Essentially his system is a system of salvation dependent upon the faith of the individual, but what really got me thinking was that the traditional Calvinist response would be even more convoluted than the Arminian doctrine. The Arminian misses the entire Gospel, for sure, but the Calvinist is inconsistent in his treatment of all men. The Calvinist of course compensates by saying the all in Christ are only the elect.

I've come up with a chart that explains all of the views concerning the imputation of Adam's sin...

System - Adam's Sin Imputed to - Christ's Righteousness Imputed to

1. Arminianism - ALL MEN UNIVERSALLY - ALL MEN UNIVERSALLY
2. Calvinism - ALL MEN UNIVERSALLY - ONLY THE ELECT
3. Bob's View - ONLY THE ELECT - ONLY THE ELECT

The Arminian in this case is more consistent than the classic calvinist.

At any rate, I'd like to open this topic up for debate... No arminians please! I want to see the defense made for position 2 and 3. Right now I have to side with 3.

Brandan

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

Wow. Heavy topic. I would love to try and contribute but I have some questions.

Could you elaborate on the 'children of the devil' being created in eternal sin? I understand this to the degree of them being fitted for destruction, but don't understand the concept how they would be "created in eternal sin".

And...

Does this knowledge of Adam being the spiritual representative of the fallen elect helps us to establish an identity before God, and assist our understanding of the need of the redemption provided for us? Whereas the account of creation from wisdom & all men biologically originating from one man is 100% truth, yet is complete lunacy to the darkened minds of the reprobate. Does this ultimately results in their profession that to them God is nonexistent and His Word is a lie which is the basis of their eternal sin?

I guess what I'm trying to understand is how this all laid out and how it fits together...

[Skeuos Eleos]

Same goes for me Brandan - except I didn't have to 'chew' for as long.

My take on Romans 5:12-21 is that it is comparing 'like' with 'like'. Verses 15-21 all contain a contrast:
15a free gift vs. transgression
15b "by the transgression of one, many died" vs. "much more did the Grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many"
16 one transgression -> judgement -> condemnation vs. many transgressions -> free gift -> justification (nb. "->" = 'leads to')
17 By the transgression of the one, death reigned vs. "those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."
18 one transgression -> condemnation to all men vs. one act of righteousness -> justification of life to all men
19 one man's disobedience -> many were made sinners vs. obedience of the One -> many will be made righteous
20 Law came in so that transgression would increase vs. but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more!
21 sin reigned in death, vs. "grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. "

So many contrasting statements one after the other - it just does not make sense to say that the two sides are not balanced against each other.

Futhermore, the context prior to verses 12 to 21 is clearly addressing believers so ... I'm in camp 3 too but I am interested to see this explored in more detail.

Martin

[Brandan Kraft]

For more insight into Bob's view (with which I totally agree), go to this page: http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=564

[Eileen]

Is this the breakdown of what you are saying then???:

The elect are created in sin that is forgivable in Christ before the foundation of the world? (They would be the only ones actually in Adam as they are the only ones actually in Christ)

The reprobate are created in sin that is unforgivable, i.e., 'eternal sin' before the foundation of the world? (They are actually related to Satan)

1. Is there any difference in the actual sin committed? or
2. Is the difference in the decree of God alone?

I've always been taught and have believed camp #2 but have never studied it any further than the normative teaching. Interesting!!!

[Eileen]

One more question please.

Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness......27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him"

In this view (camp 3) would this logically have to be speaking of Adam (Eve) only and not man in general? If not then it would be speaking of the reprobate too and they wouldn't be created in the image of God (in camp 3), right?

Or am I way off base here and not understanding the basic thrust of the ideas presented?

[doctr_of_grace]

Ok guys forgive me because I am a bit slow hahaha. As I have earlier stated I am not all that smart. I struggled through Philosophy classes at University and I am still challenged . So there goes the theory that "calvinism" is for the smart people hahaha.

Anyways .... I am not sure I get what is being said by Bill or what exactly that Brandan is agreeing with. I will of course read the link that Brandan posted. But, I must admit I have had trouble reconciling that "all" men are cursed but "all" men are not redeemed in light of other passages usage of "all". I had never put it out like you did Brandan ie the inconsistancy of the "calvinist" view.

Martin said:
"15b "by the transgression of one, many died" vs. "much more did the Grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many"
19 one man's disobedience -> many were made sinners vs. obedience of the One -> many will be made righteous"

So is the issue with the word "many"? Sorry if this should be obvious. Just want to make sure .

Thanks ......... Jan

PS Martin it was great seeing you last night in chat!!!

[Ian Potts]

Given what it says in Romans 5:13-14: “but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression…” I think there should really be more than the three options that Brandan has listed.

(Why? Because there is a difference between sin being imputed, and death – and sin – actually passing upon all men [however that is understood]. Is death imputed – reckoned to – or do people really die? The imputation of sin to a person / reckoning it to him is more to do with law, hence sin is not imputed where there is no law. Yet sin itself, and the consequence of sin -death - is still there, even when there is no law…

So I don’t think the reference to Adam’s sin being imputed in all three options covers the meaning properly….However if I read the three options as referring to Adam’s sin ‘passing’ to men then I’d hold to option #2.)

I have read Bob’s thoughts above along with some of his comments in other threads related to this matter and I have to admit that I have felt somewhat uncomfortable about his viewpoint (#3). I believe that scripture teaches #2 (albeit sin is not just imputed to all men…). Bob’s position seems to be a reaction against the perceived inconsistencies in the traditional interpretations of passages such as Romans 5, and an attempt to provide an understanding which fits more consistently with that passage.

Nevertheless I don’t think that is necessary. I believe Romans 5 can be understood quite clearly in a manner consistent with #2 ie. Adam’s sin passing to ALL men, and all Christ’s offspring being justified. Let’s look briefly at that passage:-

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

What does verse 12 say? “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”

Does that not clearly state that sin entered into the world by one man (Adam)? That except for Adam’s fall sin was not in the world? That death entered by sin and death passed upon all men? Is this passing of death upon all men not universal to all men, both elect and reprobate? Are not all men physical descendants of Adam, and is it not true of ALL men that “all have sinned”?

If we limit this verse to only the elect then what of the reprobate? Did death not pass from Adam to them also? Are they not descendants of Adam? Is their sin not essentially the same as the elect’s? Is #3 implying that sin entered the world by Adam but that ‘another’ sin entered into the reprobate? Are there verses in the Bible which distinguish that…? Does not Psalm 51 apply to ALL men where it says in verse 5: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me"?


What of passages such as Ephesians 1:3 "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others"? Does this not say that the elect were just as others were in the flesh? Of the same sinful nature?

1 Corinthians 6 also springs to mind:-

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

I think the passage in Romans 5 needs to be understood as comparing two men, Adam and Christ (the last Adam) with their respective offspring. Understood in that light the ‘all’ on each side simply regards all those ‘in’ Adam (all his offspring) with all those ‘in’ Christ (all His offspring). The ‘all’ on each side of the comparison isn’t regarding the exact same individuals on each side. The comparison is between Adam and ALL his offspring with Christ and all His offspring. So obviously ALL of Christ’s offspring are ALSO descendants of Adam physically, but not all of Adam’s offspring are descendants of Christ. Hence in Romans 9 where Paul speaks of election he makes a similar comparison between the children of the flesh and the children of promise with regard to physical Israel and Spiritual Israel and in 9:6-7 he states “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called”.

Now in Romans 9 we read that Isaac had two children, Jacob and Esau. God loved Jacob but hated Esau. Jacob was a child of promise but Esau was not. Jacob was a vessel of mercy but Esau was a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction. And yet BOTH were children of Isaac, both were still physically his children in the flesh, both would die in the flesh, and both were also physical descendants of Adam, by whom sin entered the world and death by sin and death passed upon all men for that all have sinned. Both were born sinners, and yet one was a child of promise, a descendant of the Last Adam, Jesus Christ. So what made that difference - what made Jacob to differ from Esau?

“(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that called)” Romans 9:11

Election made the difference, God’s calling, God’s choosing. Jacob was a child of promise. When Jacob and Esau were born there was no difference between them – both were sinful descendants of Adam. Both had death in them. But Jacob was called, chosen, loved of God, and was also a descendant of Christ by promise. The fact that one was a vessel of mercy and the other a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction doesn’t mean that they started off differently in their flesh, as if one’s sin was different to the other. In all fleshly respects, and with regard to sin and death in their bodies and souls they were the same. The difference was that one was chosen before His birth to be brought to faith in Christ at God’s appointed time – to be born AGAIN because of the promise.

So back to chapter 5. As I said the comparisons are between two men, Adam and Christ, and their two respective offspring, all and many referring to the all and many in Adam, and the all and many in Christ respectively. The ‘all’ and ‘many’ on each side of the comparisons do not refer to the exact same people on each side. What is true of Adam’s offspring is true of Christ’s, but what is true of Christ’s is not true of ALL of Adam’s offspring. And the passage doesn’t infer that it is. Some of the comparisons are:-

“For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many.” 5:15

“For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)” 5:17

Notice in verse 17 how a difference is made between each side of the comparison. Death reigned by one, on Adam’s side. Righteousness reigns in life by one on Christ’s side. But the comparison doesn’t rest there as though both sides are equal, referring to the very same individuals. No, the right hand side of the comparison is qualified with “they which received abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness”. Not all do. Not all of Adam’s side in this comparison receive that grace and gift. But all on Christ’s side do. Hence the comparisons are between all in Adam and all in Christ, but not all in Adam ARE in Christ, for not all receive this grace and the gift. This is important to notice I think.

“Therefore as by one offence judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by one righteousness the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Romans 5:18

(I have rendered that using the margin reading from the KJV which I believe conveys the Greek more accurately).

The ‘all men’ on the left is the all men in Adam. The ‘all men’ on the right is the all men in Christ. They aren’t the same ‘all men’ and this is made clear from the preceding verse (17) which speaks of those who receive the gift of righteousness. That is ALL those in Christ, but NOT all those in Adam.

In verse 19 the phrasing switches to ‘many’ on each side rather than ‘all’. Yet the application is the same – many in Adam, and many in Christ. But not all in Adam are in Christ. Just as they are “not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Romans 9:6.

I think when Romans 5 is understood clearly as regarding two men with two respective offspring the difficulties in reconciling the ‘alls’ and ‘manys’ on each side go away. Obviously the Arminian would treat ‘all men’ on each side as both referring to all descendants of Adam. Yet it is clear that not ‘all men’ descended from Adam are also saved or are children of promise. Hence the passage cannot mean that. The #3 interpretation of the passage however simply goes the other way. Taking ‘all men’ who have justification of life (5:18) to refer only to the elect, the ‘all men’ on Adam’s side is restricted to the elect also. Yet I don’t believe that is the correct way to approach the passage either because it is very clear that what is true of the elect in 5:12 is also true of the reprobate. ALL (elect and reprobate) are descendants of Adam, and all have death in them.

Yet if we read the passage as regarding Adam and ALL his offspring in comparison with Christ and ALL his offspring then there are no contradictions with the text. To me that is the clear meaning of the passage. I think I would need to hear further thoughts in defence of #3 to be convinced that way.

With regard to 1 Corinthians 15 :22 “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” I think a better argument can be made in the context of this chapter that ‘all die’ here refers to those elect in Adam (though I don’t necessarily think it does mean that). However it is much harder to show that from Romans 5 given what is said in verse 12 and also verse 17 for example.

Well, that’s my thoughts. I’ll be interested to read how others view these passages and to hear more of Bob’s arguments for his position. I can see the logic in the #3 position but I'm really not sure... nevertheless you may convince me yet!

Ian

[Ian Potts]

Sorry to double post but the more I consider the thinking behind #3 the more uneasy I become about it...

..The 'problems' it seeks to solve just don't seem to be solved by it.

1 Corinthians 4:7 asks:-
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"


What makes the elect differ from the reprobate? Their faith? Well, yes, they have faith but that isn't of themselves. The death of Christ? Absolutely, but not just that. The election of God before the foundations of the world? Yes.

God chose a people before they were born. Before Adam was created. Before he fell and before sin entered the world. In the fulness of time Christ died for that elected people, and in time the Spirit regenerates them and brings them to faith in Christ and His finished work. THAT is what makes them to differ from the reprobate.

But by nature, before regeneration they are the same as the reprobate in their experience. They are both sinners, both dead in trespasses and sins. But the elect's sins were taken away, paid for, by Christ at the cross.

It isn't that the elect had fallen into some sort of sin (in Adam) which was reversible, unlike the reprobate's. The reprobates sin is 'unreversible' simply because God hasn't elected him to salvation and Christ hasn't atoned for his sin. Not because his sin nature differs to the elects. We are all physical descendants of Adam, we are all sinners alike.

But only the elect are spiritual descendants of the Last Adam,of Christ, chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, and only they have their sin atoned for, judged, punished, in Christ. The reprobate, who sins just like the elect did, has to pay for his sin in hell. Not because it is some 'eternal sin' but because he wasn't elected by God and Christ didn't atone for his sin as his substitute, and so as a consequence, left to himself in sin, he wilfully and happily rebels against God, rejecting the truth and despising Christ. Hence God justly punishes him. But without God's sovereign electing grace the elect too would be in just such a state.

It is the fact that the elect are chosen in Christ, justified by Christ, and born of the Spirit, that makes them differ from the reprobate. Their being IN Christ. The last Adam. Not their being in the earthly first Adam, as though the reprobate weren't. It is to the glory of the LAST ADAM, Christ, that the elect are saved, not because they were the only ones who were 'spiritually' in the first Adam in his fall.

The idea that #3 presents a view of election whereas #2 presents 'selection' is wrong. God's election is before the foundation of the world in both cases - not conditioned upon faith or a foreknowledge of it or anything. The same objections against #2 could be placed on #3 eg. Out of those PHYSICAL descendants of Adam some would have had to be chosen by God to be elect and some reprobate. That is the same in either case. So quite what does #3 solve??

Puzzled, Ian.

[Mickey]

Originally posted by

Eileen
One more question please.

Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness......27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him"

In this view (camp 3) would this logically have to be speaking of Adam (Eve) only and not man in general? If not then it would be speaking of the reprobate too and they wouldn't be created in the image of God (in camp 3), right?

Or am I way off base here and not understanding the basic thrust of the ideas presented?

I guess you would have to start with what does that mean to be created in the image of God.

We obviously do not possess any of the attributes of God (as He does), but we are created for an endless state. Could that be what it means to be created in Gods image?

Mike

[Brandan Kraft]

I've heard some say it means rational thought...

[Mickey]

Well this world is really hurting right about now then...

[Vantilian]

I guess you would have to start with what does that mean to be created in the image of God.

We obviously do not possess any of the attributes of God (as He does), but we are created for an endless state. Could that be what it means to be created in Gods image?

Mike

I have also believed in the past that being created in the image of God was to be created with rational thought. I recommend Meredith Kline's book Images of the Spirit to maybe further knowledge of the Image of God, whether he is right or not. He discusses the progression of the Theophanic Glory Cloud throughout Scripture and applies it to the Image of God. "As Genesis 2:7 pictures it, the Spirit-Archetype actively fathered his human ectype. Image of God and son of God are thus twin concepts. This reading of that event in terms of a father-son model and the conceptual bond of the image and son ideas are put beyond doubt by the record of the birth of Seth in Genesis 5:1-3. There, a restatement of Adam's creation in the likeness of God is juxtaposed to a statement that Adam begat a son in his own likeness. Unmistakably, the father-son relationship of Adam and Seth is presented as a proper analogue for understanding the Creator-man relationship and clearly man's likeness to the Creator-Spirit is thus identified as the likeness of a son derived from his father."

I don't know how this fits into the whole scheme but it may throw out another possibility as to the relationship between God and the reprobate at least. Sorry about only having a short exerpt from the text, it would obviously be understood much better in light of reading the whole text.

[Ivor Thomas]

Number 3 is my position, the Elect are elect in Christ in eternity, and the reprobate are reprobated in eternity, before their creation and before sin.Ephesian 1;4:``According as He has chosen us in Him before the founding of the world.' Adam being Elect fell, all the Elect in him fell. If one says the Reprobate fell in adam? `what did they fall from?, the Reprobate where introduced to the effects and consequences of Adams fall, and so recieved the sentence of sin and death unto damnation. But only the Elect had a spiritual standing, that they fell from in Adam . Ivor Thomas..

[Eileen]

The answer to the question of being created in the 'image of God' is going to have to lay in how we approach the fall and how we approach if all are fallen in Adam and what state Adam was before the fall. My thinking process is not totally in gear, so hope I can make sense of what I am thinking.

The Heidelbeg says: "Did God create man thus wicked and perverse?

No, but God created man good and after His own image, that is, in righteousness and true holiness, that he might rightly know God his creator, heartily love Him and live with Him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him.

And the further explanantion is the image of God is an eternal spirit nature having personality, which includes a mind, affections, and a will. Having this image of God, Adam as created could "live with God in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him".

So........ Camp 2 would say the above is true, all are created the same in Adam, Adam fell and all fell with him and only the elect are in Christ, by God's choice alone.

Would Camp 3 say that only the elect are created with God's image as stated above as only the elect will heartily love God, live with Him in eternal blessedness, etc??? Or perhaps Camp 3 would have a totally different idea of what being created in the image of God means. Help!!

You know, this has far reaching thoughts, it would affect many of our beliefs, not just the one. Much food for thought and material for study for sure.

Anyway, just a few thoughts, probably doesn't make sense to you all as the mind is turning this around and around to glean understanding.....slow process for me

[Brandan Kraft]

Bob - where are you?

[tomas1]

Although I lean heavily toward number three I have reservations for instance scripture hints that we can know who the “phantom humans” are.
1st John 5:16If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for those who sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death. I don't say that he should make a request concerning this. 5:17All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

If number three is correct how do we treat a reprobate once we identify him? Since he is not truly human are we still to love him. Like Eileen says this is a big doctrine and will affect many other areas of our lives

[Brandan Kraft]

If you accept #3, it eliminates any room in your system of theology for common grace and the "well-meant" offer of the Gospel and duty-faith..

[doctr_of_grace]

If you accept #3, it eliminates any room in your system of theology for common grace and the "well-meant" offer of the Gospel and duty-faith..

Is that why most (not all) ppl that believe in common grace and "well meant" offer are infralapsarians?



I read the link Brandan posted and appreciate the simplistic definitions of each camp.



Eileen ... you and I are alike ... this is really giving me some brain cramps. I have been part of the category #2 group since my conversion and really never consider that the reprobate are indeed "elected" to eternal hell fire. The 3rd camp seems much more fatalistic and definitely you would be accused of holding to "double" predestination (whatever that term means) .

[Skeuos Eleos]

Well I haven't really seen anyone address the contexts of Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15 which are both clearly addressing believers and both are making contrasts which would not make sense to me if they were not balanced, ie. if the 'many' on one side isn't the same 'many' on the other side.

Perhaps the key to this is not about the nature of being made in God's image but the meaning of the words 'dead' and 'death' in these chapters? Do they really mean physical death? ... or perhaps they are referring to spiritual death??? The sins of God's Elect separate them from God - that is why we need to be reconciled to God. The reprobate, on the other hand, cannot be reconciled to somewhere they have never been nor were ever intended to be.

Consider Adam, he was told that if he ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil he would surely die - but he didn't die a physical death did he. Those who say that this is referring to the physical death that he experienced later when he was 900 and odd years old must deal with the fact that Adam had not been allowed to eat of the tree of life - his physical body was not fitted for eternal life - thus he was going to die anyway. Therefore, I believe the curse was spiritual death, separation from God.

So, if the death being referred to is spiritual death - then, yes, only the elect experience that spiritual death in Adam, whereas the reprobate are "twice dead", "sons of damnation", made from the same 'lump' for that very purpose, pre-determined by God in eternity past.

I believe that the sins of the elect and the sins of the reprobate are different. As Tomas says I think there are a few clues although we can never be entirely sure - except perhaps for infamous perpetrators of genocide - but I think the differences will become clear when we enter Glory. The natures of the elect and the reprobate are different. Eph 1:3 doesn't say that we were children of wrath but that we were by nature children of wrath - I take this to mean that the elect are different from the true children of wrath who were made for that very purpose. The elect have a sin nature that means that they look like children of wrath for a time.

Just some hurried thoughts - happy to be shown where I'm going wrong.

Martin