Clare73
Blood-bought
- Jun 12, 2012
- 25,248
- 6,178
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Clare, here is a man (Albert Barns) who does know grammar and can get into the nitty gritty explaining what I was trying to explain to you about Romans 5:12. I know you will not agree with him but I thought you might like to know precisely what I believe:
Precisely.And so. Thus. In this way it is to be accounted for that death has passed upon all men; to wit, because all men have sinned. As death followed sin in the first transgression, so it has in all; for all have sinned. There is a connexion between death and sin which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin, And as all have sinned, so death has passed on all men.
Death passed upon. (dihlyen). Passed through; pervaded; spread over the whole race, as pestilence passes through, or pervades a nation. Thus death, with its train of woes, with its withering and blighting influence, has passed through the world, laying prostrate all before it.
Upon all men. Upon the race; all die.
For that (ef w). This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated. Elsner renders it, “on account of whom.” Doddridge, “unto which all have sinned.” The Latin Vulgate renders it, “in whom [Adam] all have sinned.” The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation fix this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc.
Which is precisely what Paul does state (Romans 5:12).And this rendering (“in whom [Adam] all have sinned”) is sustained also by many other considerations. 1. If (w) be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death, as its antecedent, and not to man. But this would not make sense. 2. If this had been its meaning, the preposition (en) would have been used. See Note of Erasmus on the place.
3. It comports with the apostle’s argument to state a cause why all died, and
not to state that men sinned in Adam.
And which meaning above now does not comport with, "Where there is no law, there is no sin," (Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13). . . Barns has demonstrated nothing but wrestling the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16), refusing to take Scripture at its word. . .just as Moses Lead omitted the Biblical answer of Romans 9:20-21 to the question in Romans 9:18-19, substituting his own instead, which was contrary to the Scripture.
Barns arrives at his conclusion by denying what Paul plainly states: In Adam all have sinned. (Romans 5:12)
How convenient. . . so that's their idea of hermeneutics--setting Scripture against itself in order that it not be set against their theology?
Wow!
How convenient. . . so that's their idea of hermeneutics--setting Scripture against itself in order that it not be set against their theology?
Wow!
He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would not account for that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see how that could be a cause.
4. As his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin is the transgression of the law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation "because all have sinned" meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favours that certainly as much as it does the other, it is to be preferred.
The basis of the difficulty Paul resolves in Romans 5:12-14, when there was no law, and so no sin.All have sinned. To sin is to transgress the law of God;
That is precisely what he explicitly states: "In Adam all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam,
He imputes the sin of Adam to them in the conclusion of his teaching: "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Romans 5:18), conveniently ignored here.or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here;
nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them;
That condition is stated in his conclusion in Romans 5:18: "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men."but simply affirms that all men have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all men are sinners. He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world.
By no means does it meet the case.He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact—that all men experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, “All have sinned.” This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case.
It misses (omits/overlooks/ignores/disregards/does not take into account) the heart of Paul's teaching, wherein sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), that heart being:
Romans 4:15--where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin),
Romans 5:13--sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
Barn's (mis)understanding ("precisely what you believe") that man did sin between Adam and Moses is based on his omitting the above heart of Paul's teaching there.Romans 5:13--sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
They died between Adam and Moses because the guilt of Adam's sin was accounted to them: "The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Romans 5:18).
Correct. . . Paul's design is to discuss accountability for/guilt of sin when men die (and death is caused by sin) who did not sin (Romans 5:14) because there was no law to sin against (Romans 5:13).And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man,
Which Barns does not do. Paul's design can be shown to be and is shown to be to address the problem of the punishment of sin (death) for transgression of the law (sin) between Adam and Moses when there is no law to transgress; i.e, no sin. (Romans 5:14)And as his design cannot be shown to be. . .about the character of infants,
the passage should be interpreted according to his design,
Far from "nothing," he says it all in the passsage's conclusion (Romans 5:18), which is where things are usually said.and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference.
I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that men sin in their own persons, sin themselves—as, indeed, how can they sin in any other way?—and that therefore they die.
The evidence is abundant. It is distinctly in:If men maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?
1) the conclusion of his teaching: "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (Romans 5:18); i.e., mankind is born condemned. . .as well as in
2) we are "by nature (birth), objects of wrath." (Ephesians 2:3)
We are born with our nature.
The above shows distinctly that it is in the text , the evidence of such reference being in Romans 5:18; Ephesians 2:3, that we are born with Adam's sin. Not to mention
3) it being distinctly in his contrasting parallels between one act of the first Adam and one act of the second Adam (Christ)
resulting in contrasting conseqences of: condemnation of all men (including babies) in Adam/with justification of all men in Christ (Romans 5:18), and
made sinners/made righteous (men having nothing to do with either, Romans 5:19)
which is paralleling the imputation of Adam's guilt/sin to all those in Adam
and Christ's righteousness to all those in Christ.
Barns arrives at his conclusion by denying what Paul plainly states: "In Adam all have sinned," and by omitting Paul's conclusion to his teaching in Romans 5:18-19 where he states parallels of imputation of both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness:
"just as" Adam's condemnation is imputed to those of/in Adam,
"so also" Christ's justification is imputed to those of/in Christ (Romans 5:18),
and
"just as" those of/in Adam were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam,
"so also" those of/in Christ will be made righteous by the obedience of Christ (Romans 5:19).
It couldnt be more plain, and Barns couldn't be more wrong.
Last edited:
Upvote
0