Is the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to his offspring (us)? Why or why not?
Is the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to his offspring (us)? Why or why not?
We have a sin nature ... we inherited from Adam & Eve ... that is it is more natural for us to sin than not too .... each of us are guilty for the sin we each commit and that includes Adam & Eve.
Is it a trick question ?What do you think about the question asked in the OP?
Yes and no. Adam, used in the story of the garden is synonymous with Mankind......and is not a Pronoun. Therefore mankind ate/is eating this fruit.....with includes you and me....therefore we now sit outside the garden trying to make our way back in...... In comes the redemption of Adam.Is the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to his offspring (us)? Why or why not?
Is the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to his offspring (us)? Why or why not?
Yes.Is the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to his offspring (us)? Why or why not?
Wouldn't this be a case supporting the notion that the sin of the first one man, does not affect all, since it is widely believed that the sacrifice of the One Man, in direct comparison, only affects a few?Yes.
Why? Romans 5 directly makes the comparison of imputed guilt with justification and imputed righteousness.
Romans 5: NASB
15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
The sin nature is... Why or why not is because he (Adam) was the original father of us all, until Christ came and made a way out, for those who take it, and take Him (Christ) as our new father in Him, or in God the Father, if we accept the adoption by Him (Christ and God) as His or Their sons...Is the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to his offspring (us)? Why or why not?
Now that we have our Bibles open we can continue from what I posted in Romans 5 previously:Wouldnt this be a case supporting the notion that the sin of the first one man, does not affect all, since it is widely believe that the sacrifice of one man, in direct comparison, only affects a few?
Now that we have our Bibles open we can continue from what I posted in Romans 5 previously:
18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
One man was sinless, and was still condemned by Adam's sin, so that it was all paid for on one condition, that those who would put their faith and trust in that Man, and have faith still, regardless or irregardless of their sin, in that person as their Savior from the condemnation that would come from being born in Adam, would or could be saved for eternal life, or life everlasting, or life eternal...I think he was referring to the next statement after the one you underlined, which says
"one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."
one transgression -> condemnation to "all men"
one act of righteousness -> justification of life to "all men"
one man's disobedience -> "the many" were made sinners
obedience of the One -> "the many" will be made righteous
The logic was "universalism is not orthodox doctrine, so what does Paul mean here by being emphatic and strongly equating the results of the two things". If "all men" here doesn't mean all will be saved as a result of Christ, what does "all men" mean when it comes to condemnation as a result of Adam?
To get more specific, does it truly mean (1) "all men are literally guilty because of Adam's sin - to the degree that if a man could be sinless, he would still be condemned because of Adam's sin" or (2) something else?
These are questions I struggle with too, OP.
Yes, if we read the previous 4 chapters, Paul indeed does not confirm universalism. What is certain is we are all born humans. What is certain is not everyone is born again. With that in mind the 'all' and 'many' make sense.I think he was referring to the next statement after the one you underlined, which says
"one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."
one transgression -> condemnation to "all men"
one act of righteousness -> justification of life to "all men"
one man's disobedience -> "the many" were made sinners
obedience of the One -> "the many" will be made righteous
The logic was "universalism is not orthodox doctrine, so what does Paul mean here by being emphatic and strongly equating the results of the two things". If "all men" here doesn't mean all will be saved as a result of Christ, what does "all men" mean when it comes to condemnation as a result of Adam?
To get more specific, does it truly mean (1) "all men are literally guilty because of Adam's sin - to the degree that if a man could be sinless, he would still be condemned because of Adam's sin" or (2) something else?
These are questions I struggle with too, OP.
I think when he uses the word "condemnation" that signifies guilt. Without the guilty charge there is no condemnation.No, we are not guilty of Adam's sin but we inherit the consequences.
Lets forget about universalism and just keep our bibles open.Yes, if we read the previous 4 chapters, Paul indeed does not confirm universalism. What is certain is we are all born humans. What is certain is not everyone is born again. With that in mind the 'all' and 'many' make sense.