Dispensationalism: the Key to Bible Prophecy (part 1)

By Cris D. Putnam
DISPENSTION-History-chartArguably from the inception of the church (although lost under Romanism), dispensationalism has been and still is the key to biblical prophecy. Since its recovery in the nineteenth century there have been three major versions: classic (Darby, Larkin and Scofield), revised (Walvoord, Pentecost, Chafer, and Towns), and progressive (Bock, Blaising, Feinberg and Saucy) dispensationalism. All divide history based on God’s covenants as successive revelations in the progression of God’s redemptive program and sustain a premillennial futurist interpretation of prophecy. As a founding member of the revised school, Charles Ryrie emphasized three elements: 1) Distinction between church and Israel;[i] 2) Philosophy of History;[ii] 3) Literal interpretation of scripture.[iii] He offers strong and compelling arguments against covenant theology which is the system of theology that centers on two contrived covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.[iv] It typically dismisses God’s actual covenant promises to Israel and argues that most all of prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. While I’m largely in agreement with Ryrie that covenant theology is an artificial system lacking biblical support, I do think progressive dispensationalists make some good points.

Concerning point one, I strongly disagree with supercessionism (that the church has entirely superseded Israel or replacement theology). I believe God will fulfill His Old Testament promises as they were understood, not in the decontextualized manner applied to the Church found in Roman Catholicism and unfortunately most of evangelical covenant theology. In this sense, the reformers stopped short. God made specific promises to the descendants of Jacob and David concerning their ancestral line, the land and political sovereignty. Only the Mosaic covenant was conditional. The Abrahamic (Gen 12) and Davidic (2 Sam. 7) were unconditional and everlasting. The Davidic is often overlooked:

“And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’(2 Sa 7:10–17 cf. 1 Chron. 17)

Like the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant was irrevocable—“established forever” and despite innumerable acts of unfaithfulness on Israel’s part, God will be absolutely faithful. The Davidic covenant promises to Israel a political, religious, visible earthly kingdom, and God personally guaranteed that it would endure forever and that all nations would be blessed through it, based on His faithfulness.

“I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him, so that my hand shall be established with him; my arm also shall strengthen him. The enemy shall not outwit him; the wicked shall not humble him. I will crush his foes before him and strike down those who hate him. My faithfulness and my steadfast love shall be with him, and in my name shall his horn be exalted. I will set his hand on the sea and his right hand on the rivers. He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens. If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my rules, if they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes, but I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips. Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His offspring shall endure forever, his throne as long as the sun before me. Like the moon it shall be established forever, a faithful witness in the skies.” Selah( Ps 89:20–37)

God spoke through the original inspired author who certainly did not have an ethereal metaphorical Israel in mind when he composed those words. David understood the promises in a matter of fact manner. I have never read a supercessionist reply to these passages that did not cast God in the role of a prankster who deceived David.

Paul writes in Romans that Gentiles are grafted into Israel. This implies God’s chosen people includes the church as well as a remnant of ethnic Israel, now and especially at the Second Coming (Rom 11:26-27, Zec 12:10). While the distinction applies in this current dispensation due to Israel’s supernatural blinding (Rom 11:25; 2 Cor 3:14; Mat 23:39), I believe we merge into one people at Christ’s return. Thus, I commend the holistic view described by Bock and Blaising, “God will save humankind in its ethnic and national plurality. But, He will bless it with the same salvation given to all without distinction; the same, not only in justification and regeneration, but also in sanctification by the indwelling Holy Spirit.”[v] It seems unlikely that ethnicity will much matter upon Christ’s return to rule from Jerusalem.


Next week part two picks up with the dispensational philosophy of history.

[i] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1995), 148.

[ii] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 20.

[iii] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 102.

[iv] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 32.

[v] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), 47.


Book Review: Learning Theology With The Church Fathers

Christian theology was largely developed out of necessity in response to heresy. Accordingly, it makes sense to study it in light of the major debates and contexts in which it was formulated. Learning Theology with the Church Fathers by Christopher Hall takes just that approach by combing patristics and theology. While the book is not an exhaustive treatment of either subject, it is a sampling from the formation of the principle divisions in systematic theology.  It is one leg of an introductory series of three; the other two are Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers and Worshipping with the Church Fathers. Hall is a member of the Episcopal Church (Anglican) and is chancellor of Eastern University in Pennsylvania.[1] His theological leanings seem to lean slightly toward the liberal and some of his ideas might spark controversy in conservative Baptist circles. This presentation will first give a broad overview and summary of the book, and then it will offer several key points of analysis. The first point of analysis is the importance of language, which naturally leads to an analysis of some problematic terms. Finally, God’s providence will be discussed in terms of an eschatological theodicy. The paper will attempt to show that the book is a valuable survey of patristic thought and the language and terminology which formed the major doctrines of classical Christianity.

Brief Summary

First, Hall lists four key criteria as to how the term Church father is defined: Antiquity (A.D. 96- 750), holiness of life, orthodoxy, and ecclesiastical approval.[2] The value of a study like this is supported by his discussion of the concept of hermeneutical proximity. The early Fathers were closer to the time of the New Testament’s composition, hence their worldview and language was closer to that of its authors. It follows that this proximity in thought gives them some advantage in exegesis. As modern students know, considerable effort in exegesis is devoted to Bible backgrounds or understanding the authors’ context. Whereas we must reconstruct context through historical investigation, the Fathers were still within recent memory of that context to a large degree. Some modern scholars would do well to consider that.

The book takes a topical approach as it moves through major doctrinal areas. It is important to note that foundational to all Patristic theology is the Nicene Creed and a substantial portion of all subsequent debate reflects back to it. Accordingly, the second chapter’s focus is Christology seen through the Arian controversy and subsequent debate between Athanasius and Arius. A principle term in this debate was “Father.” Hall chooses to focus on the deity of Christ yet he takes an unexpected side excursion which will be addressed in the critical interaction section. He then turns to the trinity which highlights the question of theological language in its discussion of homoousios and its alternates. Gregory of Nazianus’ theological orations and Augustine’s writings serve as an excursion through the early Trinitarian issues. Nazianus’ crucial hermeneutical principle was that all language implying the son was begotten or made refers to his incarnation not his ontology.[3] Augustine’s formulation is perhaps the most coherent in theology and is well placed in this chapter. The book moves back to Christology and then to Pneumatology.

Cyril of Alexandria serves as the guide through a discussion of Christ’s dual natures. Framed against his debate with Nestorius the pertinent issues are revealed. Hall gives fair treatment to both sides of the debate and it seems that Nestorius was a victim of his own personality as much as his ideas. Basil’s work, On the Holy Spirit, is the vehicle for the discussion of the Holy Spirit. It highlights issues of grammar and language as well as delineating the boundaries of human reason. The book progresses to soteriology and God’s providence.

Chapter six on sin, grace and the human condition is discussed first through the thought of Irenaeus and then in terms of the debate between Augustine and Pelagius two centuries later. Irenaeus’ thought seems strangely close to that of Pelagius yet Hall explains why this is an oversimplification. Chapter seven begins an examination of God’s providence through the lens of John Chrysostom’s On Providence. The term proairesis is discussed as human freedom of choice or intention. Chrysostom is a giant of a figure in Christian intellectualism. His formulation of the Christian philosopher still seems relevant in a modern context. The book addresses bibliology, ecclesiology and eschatology in the final three chapters.

While biblical interpretation and language issues are crucial to the discussion of every issue and father in the book, chapter nine on the scriptures focuses on the thought of a single father, Irenaeus. Crucial questions addressing the claims of Gnostics, apostolic revelation, hermeneutics and the coherence of Old and New Testaments are addressed. The chapter on ecclesiology ponders issues of church membership, authority, sacraments and heresy. Hall examines these issues through the thought of three different fathers: Irenaeus, Cyprian and Augustine. The final chapter identified here as eschatological focuses on the concept of resurrection. The connection between Jesus resurrection and the hope of the believer is framed through the thought of the apostolic fathers, apologists, the work of Athenagoras and finally Augustine. In the end, Hall concludes that although today we only see as through “a glass darkly” through the theology of the church fathers we get a glimpse of God’s glory.

Critical interaction

An idea the book accentuated particularly well was that often the great debates were centered on the use of language and how theological terms are defined. Hall uses a quote by P.C. Hanson which is especially helpful as an apologetic for theology, “The theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself.”[4] The issue of language and terminology is fundamental to theology and has collateral impact on future doctrines. For instance, the issue of Christ’s natures centers on a term describing Mary, theotokos, meaning “God bearer.” While the issue was overtly the divinity of Christ, it seems odd in that it puts the focus on Mary rather than Christ. Perhaps this sort of language contributes to later errors in Roman Catholic theology such as Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary? Regardless, the way theologians use language is of the utmost importance.

Hall frames the discussion of the Arian controversy in the terms “Father” and “Son” which takes an unexpected turn toward why the term “Father” is problematic for modern abuse victims. One can readily understand that the title is problematic for people in ways that are not immediately obvious from an academic perspective. Of serious concern is that this issue is particularly pertinent to modern feminist theologies and with those who advocate acceptance of active homosexuals into the church. Hall seems somewhat sympathetic albeit from a pastoral perspective. He discusses the negative connotations the word “Father” can carry for abuse victims. Hall concludes, “I also think Athanasius would emphasize that words such as Father and Son are models that the Scripture uses to describe relationships that are in reality indescribable or ineffable.”[5] Does this mean modern translators are free to dispense with them? Of course, these issues are often thornier than we first realize. Still yet, the biblical terms should be retained just as used in inspired inerrant scripture. Radical feminists and homosexual advocates adopt a stance based on this sort of issue that is against the inspiration and authority of scripture and that is irreconcilably inconsistent with the historic Christian faith.[6] God’s three persons are ubiquitously represented as male in scripture. Hall makes a valid point in that one should be sensitive yet there is indeed a place to hold theological ground as well. Even so, it is important to recognize how context clarifies language.

Context frames the discussion of how, at first reading, Irenaeus’ concept of human choice seems surprisingly like that of Pelagius. However, Hall argues that it only seems that way because of our retrospective view. While this is a valid point, it still seems that Irenaeus’ view gives too much credit to man’s ability. Even so, Irenaeus is not in debate with Pelagius rather Gnostics who deny any goodness in creation and believe that man is utterly incapable to responding to God. In contrast, Pelagius was on the polar opposite of the spectrum and Hall argues the debate with Augustine must be understood in a different context. It also seems fair to credit Pelagius with Hall for viewing the inherent goodness of creation by God as the vehicle in which man was free to choose the good. Thus, it seems to be commonly held over simplification to accuse Pelagius of teaching that man could do this solely of his own accord because he indeed credited the initial good to God. Even so, Pelagius thinks the original sin only affected the human race in the way of a bad example whereas Augustine sees it as an inherited sin nature.  The Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 5:18ff is decidedly in favor of Augustine. One’s thinking should be so molded by scripture rather than sentiment.

In the discussion of Chrysostom‘s concept of the Christian philosopher, it is argued that one whose thinking has been molded by the Gospel will reserve judgment on outward appearances of divine injustice. This argument has some force because all too often the “problem of evil” is presented as a defeater for God’s providence. Yet, as in the life of Joseph, what is meant for evil can ultimately be used by God for good (Gen 50:20). Still yet, it seems misguided to assume that one can always derive a “greater good” by moral calculus. It requires faith and patience. Hall frames Chrysostom‘s  thinking as, “They [Christians] will understand that the events of this life in themselves are indifferent matters and take on the character of good or evil according to our response to them.”[7] This seems wise as one cannot dictate one’s circumstances but can choose how to respond to them. In his discussion of God’s love, Hall makes an apt analogy between Chrysostom’s thought and that of C.S. Lewis who argues that people define love incorrectly in terms of happiness. A common canard of the skeptic is “Because we see so much suffering, God either does not exist or he does not love.”  Yet, the skeptic’s argument is short sighted and selfish. Chrysostom reminds us that not only has God taken on suffering himself in the incarnation but that we are all still in process. God’s love must be viewed in terms of the end goal not the moment. Ultimately, God’s providence is incomprehensible and human reason is drastically over estimated by most. In fact, it is argued that the problem of suffering and providence is derived by a misuse of reason. Hall offers, “We must also remember that God often acts providentially in light of long term goals, goals often not discernible or apparent in the context of this life alone.”[8] In pursuit of a theodicy, the greater good is more than often eschatological.

There is no doctrine more central to the Gospel and yet more scoffed at by liberal theologians than the bodily resurrection. While liberals will allow for a spiritualized version they seldom side with Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 where he unequivocally argues for a literal bodily resurrection of Jesus and for believers upon his Parousia (1 Cor 15:12 ff).  Hall quotes Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp who all held to a physical resurrection. Yet, we learn that the objections of modern liberals are nothing new. The classical Greco-Roman mindset favored a spiritual resurrection as well. In sharp relief, Polycarp did not mince words labeling those who deny physical resurrection as “the first born of Satan.”[9] Justin makes an astonishingly prescient argument from the concept of human seed that it is possible to form the whole person.[10] Of course, modern science has shown that DNA in fact holds a complete record for each person’s body and it now seems quite reasonable to think that God has that record at his disposal. Athenagoras even addresses the issue of a person whom has been entirely consumed by a shark by appealing to God’s inexhaustible knowledge and power. He presents an amazingly cogent argument that seems quite feasible given today’s knowledge of biology. Theophilus of Antioch concurs that given the trustworthiness of God, we can rest assured the he will reconstitute body and soul at the resurrection. Augustine agrees arguing that, “All parts of the body are already latent in the seed, although a number of them are still lacking even at birth, the teeth, for instance, and other such details.”[11] Long before the discovery of DNA, the fathers saw the potential in God’s design.

The fathers are also in wide agreement on the ethical necessity of the resurrection. For ultimate justice, there must be a judgment and for it to meaningful all parties must be accounted for at the trial.  As the contemporary philosopher William Lane Craig has argued, life is indeed absurd without God. He writes, “With no hope of immortality, man’s life leads only to the grave. His life is but a spark in the infinite blackness, a spark that appears, flickers, and dies forever.”[12] Athenagoras continues the train of thought, “It is necessary that such a man [made up of body and soul] should be held accountable for all his deeds and receive reward and punishment because of them.”[13] Similarly, Augustine points to Daniel 12:1-2 and argues that the veracity of either blessing or damnation necessitates a resurrected state.[14] Indeed, divine justice in terms of the classical Christian faith is contingent upon bodily resurrection. The apostle Paul left no doubts, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Co 15:14).  As Craig concludes and the church fathers agreed, life is absurd without God.


This paper offered a summary and analysis of Christopher A. Hall’s Learning Theology with the Church Fathers. After offering a brief summary, the paper sought to illustrate the value of the book by showing how the author framed the formation of the principle doctrines of the church in light of patristic debates and their use of language. The relationship between these points was shown. Criticism was offered in that the author’s theological leanings seem somewhat sympathetic toward theological liberalism. However, overall his treatment was even handed and in line with traditional evangelicalism. The book succeeds in what it set out to do. It is not represented as an exhaustive treatment of theology or patristic thought, rather an introductory survey. In the end, it seems that these points support the idea that the book a valuable addition to the students’ library.


[1] “Dr. Chris Hall Installed as First Chancellor,” Eastern University http://www.eastern.edu/news/releases/2008/chris_hall_chancellor_090308.html (accessed 6/16/2011).

[2] Christopher A. Hall, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers, Kindle Edition (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002),  Kindle Location 142.

[3] Ibid, Kindle Location 740.

[4] Ibid, Kindle Locations 589-590.

[5] Ibid, Kindle Locations 502-503.

[6]  N. Hoggard-Creegan “Feminist Theology,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 447.

[7] Hall, Learning Theology, Kindle Locations 2113-2114.

[8] Ibid, Kindle Locations 2254-2255.

[9] Polycarp, The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, 7.

[10] Hall, Learning Theology, Kindle Locations 3216-3217.

[11] Augustine, City of God, 22.14.

[12]  William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith : Christian Truth and Apologetics, Rev. ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1994), 57.

[13] Hall, Learning Theology, Kindle Locations 3279-3280.

[14] Ibid, Kindle Location 3299.


Blogging With Kenny

Ken Klein sent me a reply today asking me to apologize for my video commentary to his heretical teaching on original sin. The issue is that Ken denies the orthodox biblical doctrine of original sin, as the clips in the video evidence. He opposes the clear teaching of the Apostle Paul and I called him on it. Now he is threatening to sick his attorney’s on me.  Ken’s posts are indented in block quotes, my responses are marked Logos:


****Due the length of Ken’s post and the fact that he basically defends his use of elohim for a plurality of angelic beings, something I never disputed, it is linked here.  ****

I am impressed to say for the sake of a laying a foundation:  Jesus is my Lord and Savior.  Jesus Christ is the common denominator that gives union to all believers even through their are differences of view points.  Yes, I believe in the Trinity and I do embrace an insight on that subject.

It is unfortunate that you have not done due diligence on who I am before trying to assassinate my character.  I would ask you to take down the video because it violates copyright laws, youtube policies, and includes slanderous accusations as to my motives and character.

I forgive you.



Sorry but this does not address the issue that sin entered the world through Adam, through one man not because we are fallen angels working off past rebellion. Paul makes that crystal clear.  You don’t have a biblical leg to stand on.



Expected a more thoughtful response from someone who calls themselves Logos.



I was brief, I am really busy at the seminary this week. I don’t see how any of this addresses the real issue. I made it clear in the video: http://www.logosapologia.org/?p=206.  I am familiar with the Divine Council concept and have studied the work of Dr Michael Heiser, so the idea of little ‘g’ gods is nothing new. That was never my problem with your theology. It’s that you blatanly mocked the doctrine of original sin Ken.


According to Genesis 1–2, Adam and Eve were created with complete innocence. They had no evil in their natures or their environment. They “were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25 nasb), and they did not yet know “good and evil” (3:5). In short, they were not only guiltless of any sin but also innocent of sin.

Further, the very temptation to “be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5) implies they did not know evil before they fell. Indeed, when they ate the forbidden fruit, “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves” (3:7). According to the New Testament, by disobedience Adam and Eve became sinful (Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:14) and brought condemnation on themselves and their posterity: “The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men” (Rom. 5:18).3 Before this, they were flawless.

Source: Geisler, Norman L.: Systematic Theology, Volume Three: Sin, Salvation. Minneapolis, MN : Bethany House Publishers, 2004, S. 17

In your video it wasn’t Adam’s sin. No, you said that wasn’t fair of God. Your words Ken, “It’s not fair!”  So you created this new revelation that it was our sin as as pre-incarnate angels? You are directly contradicting the Apostle Paul’s teaching.  That’s what I was responding to Ken, it was clear enough. You do not have the authority to “correct” Paul because you don’t think it’s fair, Ken.

As far as taking down the video look into : Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.



Consider the very scripture you brought up to support your interpretive doctrine of “Original Sin”.  If sin had to enter through Adam, then sin had to already be in existence, and by definition cannot be original.  For something that doesn’t exist cannot enter.

“By the way it was Eve that sinned according to Timothy.  So how did sin enter through Adam?”

We are not mocking the terrible nature of sin, but rather how the current and traditional Christian doctrine of sin is such a feeble representation of the magnitude of sin.  And the way it is represented, makes God out to look like a cruel rather than loving God.

His very nature is maligned by the poorly interpreted doctrine that you hold to.


P.S. I’m very aware of “fair usage laws” as a film producer and you aren’t in alignment with those laws.  If you still refuse to take it down then you will hear from my attorney.


This was the  point where I decided to take it public. I will stand on the Fair Use provision. Ken is threatening me with his attorney. I am clearly using clips of his video for criticism and commentary which is the very reason the fair use provision was enacted. You tube isn’t too sympathetic about false DMCA’s being filed.  But what is really important is exposing Ken’s false teaching and bad theology.


Ken: Consider the very scripture you brought up to support your interpretive doctrine of “Original Sin”.  If sin had to enter through Adam, then sin had to already be in existence, and by definition cannot be original.  For something that doesn’t exist cannot enter.



This is really your argument? Sin is a metaphysical bogeyman that pre-existed Adam. Seriously? Sin means disobedience to God’s standard. It was original to humanity, Adam being the first human. Due to that, today we have an inherited sin nature but as Dr Geisler pointed out in the entry above there was a state of innocence in the original creation.  This is not an interpretative matter Ken. You teach that all of humanity sinned as pre-incarnate angels and we are here on earth working off our error by our own righteous choice. That is wrong on many levels. It qualifies as heresy and it is the duty of apologists to refute such error. The Bible explicitly says that one transgression led to the condemnation for all men.

“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. ” (Romans 5:18–19, ESV)

How do you explain this scripture Ken?

Ken: “By the way it was Eve that sinned according to Timothy.  So how did sin enter through Adam?”

According to Timothy? Sorry Ken but the Apostle Paul (the same guy that wrote “by one man’s disobedience”) wrote 1st Timothy.  I suppose you are referring to “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ” (1 Timothy 2:13–14, ESV) Paul’s point here is that Eve was deceived by the Serpent. Adam was not deceived, he knew better. Adam willfully chose to disobey. A man is the spiritual leader of his household by God’s design and when God inquired (Gen 3:9) he called Adam’s name. That’s the distinction Paul was making. This is really basic biblical theology Ken. You should know better.

Ken: We are not mocking the terrible nature of sin, but rather how the current and traditional Christian doctrine of sin is such a feeble representation of the magnitude of sin.  And the way it is represented, makes God out to look like a cruel rather than loving God.

His very nature is maligned by the poorly interpreted doctrine that you hold to.

It’s not just the “current and traditional” doctrine. It’s the apostolic teaching. It’s at the core of Biblical Christianity. It’s a non negotiable. Ken, I believe God’s revealed truth in holy scripture, “as one trespass led to condemnation for all men,” it is not an interpretive matter. You either believe the Bible or you do not. It’s a matter of submission to Biblical authority. You said that you don’t think it was fair that you inherited Adam’s sin. Ken you are the one maligning God’s character with, “It’s not fair”.  Actually, it’s really not fair that Jesus died for me. So I am glad it’s not fair. If it was really fair, I would go to hell.  No Ken, I didn’t choose to work off my pre-incarnate angelic transgressions. God was merciful. Ken you simply reject the clear teaching of scripture and have manufactured a new revelation to “correct” it. It’s nothing new. So did Joseph Smith, Alice Bailey, Mary Baker Eddy, David Koresh and Muhammad.  That’s what cults do Ken.