Question about original sin.

[jkotinek]

How many people does it take?

 

[Reformationist]

Romans 5:16-19
"The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For 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."

To whom is the sin of Adam imputed and to whom is the righteousness of Christ imputed?

This is why it is important to have a proper understanding of the representative headship of both the first and second Adam. The results of Adam's disobedience were imputed unto all whom he represented, i.e., everyone who is born of the seed of a man, Adam's progeny. The results of Christ's obedience were imputed to those whom He represented, i.e., believers, those made alive in Christ by the monergistic work of God.

The "all men" is limited by "all whom they represent before God." Christ is not the representative of those who never come to faith.

To further expound on this we must consider that this passage states, "also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." We must ask, what does it mean to be justified unto life? Do all men receive this justification before God? The answer to this latter question is clearly "no." "Justification" is a pronouncement by God, the Judge, that we are just in His eyes. This is seen by acknowledging that this justification "brings life." Of course, this is speaking of eternal life, not the life we live here on earth. Unless we profess universalism, or the idea that God's Word lies, we cannot responsibly state that this "justification which brings life" has been extended to all mankind.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Yet the text clearly states that the effect of Christ's sacrifice is GREATER than that of Adam's sin.

It is greater, but this is not a reference to the numerical value of Christ's sacrifice vs. Adam's disobedience. We need to understand that the value of Christ sacrifice is greater because it appeases the justifiable wrath of God against the iniquity of man, achieving on their behalf much greater blessing than was wrought destruction by the trespass of the first Adam.

IF this passage teaches universal sin and death through Adam, it also HAS to teach universal salvation. You can't pick one without the other.

Of course you can because the qualifier is for whom each representative stood or fell. In the case of Adam it was all mankind. In the case of Christ is was those whom the Father had given Him.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Christ died on this cross as the only sacrifice that would cleanse the sins of all humanity. He died on the cross to give us a way to heaven if we could have faith in him as our savior.

There is nothing in Scripture that makes this claim. Christ did not come to "give us a way to Heaven." He came to save. The question is, was He 100% successful in saving all whom He attempted to save or did He fail in saving some for whose sins He atoned.

We have the choice of whether or not to believe, and so in that way we "save ourselves." However we could do nothing if not for the power of Jesus' gift.

The choice we make to believe isn't what saves us. If not for the efficacy of Christ's appeasing sacrifice our belief is worthless to us. What saves us is the work of Christ on our behalf. You are simply making faith into a meritorious work upon which God rewards us for the proper response. If not for the work of God in taking out our heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh we would never believe. Additionally, God's work of regeneration is not uncertain. All whom He gives to the Son come to Him and are preserved. The ordo salutis isn't "He calls us all and if we respond then we are rewarded with eternal life." It's that all whom God foreknows He predestines. All whom He predestines He calls. All He calls He justifies. All He justifies He glorifies." The short and sweet of it is simply that all whom the Lord predestines unto eternal life will be glorified. It isn't that these people are more astute or more humble. It's that God accomplishes His divine will in the lives of His creation, without fail.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

What is a covenant, and what does it take to make one?

A covenant is an agreement between the greater and the lesser. The substance of a covenant normally follows a pattern. The greater tells the lesser what he expects of them and tells them what he will give in return for their fealty and obedience. The thing to note here is that there is no requirement for the greater to concede anything to the lesser. He has every right to make demands without any expectation on the part of the lesser for anything in return.

In the case of the covenants that God makes with His people, He tells them what He expects of them and tells them what He will do for them. He demands and deserves our fealty and worship and obedience and, mercifully, promises to bless us.

One of the most distinct and substantial differences between God and man is that God is a covenant Keeper and man is a covenant breaker.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

How many people does it take?

It depends on the covenant. In the covenant of works the parties involved were the Godhead and all of humanity, in the form and representation of Adam of course.

The covenant of grace, on the other hand, was established between the members of the Godhead.

God bless

 

[Ouch]

You seem to advocate that He obtained nothing and is waiting for an other action to take place. who is the us here?

If we contuine to read the next chapter;



He says He will write not that he will ask if he can, or make a offer to do so

Looking at the entire body of the new testament, and not just certain quotes, we have to combine everything we learn. There are places that say Jesus gained us our salvation. However, there are other places that say we must obey him, and we must follow him. So we put that together and see that once we believe in his name and follow him, then we can take part in his salvation. That doesn't seem like I'm advocating the works of man, it seems like grace that in the simple act of believing in Christ we are saved from all our screwing up, for eternity. I believe in God's grace, and I know there is nothing I could have ever done to earn it, I just don't think everyone gets it. If everyone receives it, what point is there in being a Christian? Or following God's will?

 

[holyrokker]

This is why it is important to have a proper understanding of the representative headship of both the first and second Adam. The results of Adam's disobedience were imputed unto all whom he represented, i.e., everyone who is born of the seed of a man, Adam's progeny. The results of Christ's obedience were imputed to those whom He represented, i.e., believers, those made alive in Christ by the monergistic work of God.

The "all men" is limited by "all whom they represent before God." Christ is not the representative of those who never come to faith.

To further expound on this we must consider that this passage states, "also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." We must ask, what does it mean to be justified unto life? Do all men receive this justification before God? The answer to this latter question is clearly "no." "Justification" is a pronouncement by God, the Judge, that we are just in His eyes. This is seen by acknowledging that this justification "brings life." Of course, this is speaking of eternal life, not the life we live here on earth. Unless we profess universalism, or the idea that God's Word lies, we cannot responsibly state that this "justification which brings life" has been extended to all mankind.

God bless

But the Bible doesn't say this. You have to accept your assertion to be true before you can read it into the passage. It can't be read from the passage.

 

[Reformationist]

But the Bible doesn't say this.

Doesn't say what? Could you tell me where I err and give me an accurate understanding of the passages I'm misinterpreting?

You have to accept your assertion to be true before you can read it into the passage. It can't be read from the passage.

Really? The federal headship view of the Fall and Christ's atonement is one of the dominant positions in Christianity so I'm not sure where you're getting your position against it.

God bless

 

[holyrokker]

The results of Adam's disobedience were imputed unto all whom he represented, i.e., everyone who is born of the seed of a man, Adam's progeny. The results of Christ's obedience were imputed to those whom He represented, i.e., believers, those made alive in Christ by the monergistic work of God.

You are qualifying the words of Scripture. The Bible doesn't say "to all whom he respresented"

The "all men" is limited by "all whom they represent before God." Christ is not the representative of those who never come to faith.

Again - The Scriptures say "all" not "all whom they represent before God"

To further expound on this we must consider that this passage states, "also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." We must ask, what does it mean to be justified unto life? Do all men receive this justification before God? The answer to this latter question is clearly "no." "Justification" is a pronouncement by God, the Judge, that we are just in His eyes. This is seen by acknowledging that this justification "brings life." Of course, this is speaking of eternal life, not the life we live here on earth. Unless we profess universalism, or the idea that God's Word lies, we cannot responsibly state that this "justification which brings life" has been extended to all mankind.

God bless

I agree with this assessment Paul can't mean universal justification here.
But if he isn't teaching universal justification as a result of one act, he can't be teaching universal condemnation through one act.

Romans 5:16 The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

 

[Reformationist]

You are qualifying the words of Scripture. The Bible doesn't say "to all whom he respresented"
Again - The Scriptures say "all" not "all whom they represent before God"

Come on holyrokker. Substitutionary atonement is a hallmark of Christianity. This inference is most certainly implied. For instance, let's say that you, I, and eight of our friends go to the movies. I am first in line and go to the window to buy a ticket and, after I do, I turn to you and say, "Go on inside. I paid for everyone." Now, does that mean I paid for every single person who is going to go to the movies or does it mean, despite the fact that I didn't say so, that I paid for everyone in my group? Romans 5 relays the same message. The text clearly implies this very thing and, unless we espouse either universalism or that Jesus failed to accomplish the purpose for which He died, it is the only thing that can be logically inferred from this passage. Look at the text:

Romans 5:18
Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

Now look at what this passage says. It says, through one man's offense, i.e., Adam, acting as representative before God for his progeny, judgement came to all men. Now, unless you espouse a Pelagian view of the Fall you and I agree that all mankind, by virtue of the sin of Adam, are guilty before God. Then the passage says that "one Man's righteous act," i.e., Christ's sacrifice, "the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life." Now, here's where it is clearly stated that the scope of Christ's work must be limited. What is "justification of life?" The Christian concept of justification means more than the manner in which we often use the word "justify." We may say something like, "He was justified in doing that" and simply mean "He had an acceptable reason for doing that." Even in our secular manner of using the word we cannot escape the correlation between "justification" and "acceptibility." So, it shouldn't be too hard to understand that biblical justification relates to the Fall, wherein all men came under judgement. However, biblical justification, like the Fall, is also a forensic transaction. Just as we are guilty before God for the transgression of Adam, the obedience of Christ is also meritoriously imputed to someone. Now, our job should be to figure out who that "someone" is. Let's first look at what biblical justification is. The word used for "justification" is dikaiosis which means, "the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to Him." So, as you can see, this is a forensic justification, meaning that God makes a declaration that man is free from guilt and acceptable to Him.

I agree with this assessment Paul can't mean universal justification here.

My apologies. I should have read your entire post before presenting my position.

But if he isn't teaching universal justification as a result of one act, he can't be teaching universal condemnation through one act.

Again, it's an issue of representation. Unless we wish to deny the universality of original sin in the constituent nature of fallen man we cannot accurately state that universal condemnation has not been imputed to the progeny of Adam. It is inaccurate to isolate pas anthropos and assume that because this inclusive term is used in regard to both the work of Adam and Christ that they must refer to the same people. As I said, the results of their respective work is qualified by whom they represent.

God bless

 

[holyrokker]

OK - Here's the problem I have with your view of Romans 5:12 and following. I don't see how we can say that Adam's sin is directly imputed to all mankind simply by birth into the human race.
To say that this passage implies that Adam directly represented all of mankind, but Christ only represents those who will be saved is inconsistant.
I think it's better to say that Adam represents all who would sin just as Christ represents all who would be saved.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that there is anyone (other than Jesus) who can live on this earth who wouldn't sin. But I believe that everyone is guilty of sin, not because of Adam's choice, but do to each individual's choices.

I don't think Original Sin is necessary to explain that everyone sins.

In John 3:6 Jesus said

Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

How can anyone live a spiritual life without the Spirit of God? It is only natural that someone apart from the Spirit of God will live to please the flesh. There is no need to born with a sin nature. The absence of the Holy Spirit is enough to result in a life of sin.

 

[verismo]

So...in what way, in that view, did Adam bring us death? (1 Cor. 15:21)

Seems to that there in 1 Cor, we see that Adam brought death (a spiritual state) upon us all, and Christ will bring resurrection to us all...but there comes the qualifier in 1 Cor: only in the proper order. Christ first, then only those who belong to Him. So, it is universal on both sides, but the resurrection is conditional to those who believe in Him.

 

[Ouch]

So...in what way, in that view, did Adam bring us death? (1 Cor. 15:21)

Seems to that there in 1 Cor, we see that Adam brought death (a spiritual state) upon us all, and Christ will bring resurrection to us all...but there comes the qualifier in 1 Cor: only in the proper order. Christ first, then only those who belong to Him. So, it is universal on both sides, but the resurrection is conditional to those who believe in Him.

We die because God took away the privilege of living forever, because "the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever" (Gen. 3:22). It is true that Adam caused us to lose this privilege, but it doesn't seem like a spiritual state so much as an actual, physical reality.

 

[Reformationist]

OK - Here's the problem I have with your view of Romans 5:12 and following. I don't see how we can say that Adam's sin is directly imputed to all mankind simply by birth into the human race.
To say that this passage implies that Adam directly represented all of mankind, but Christ only represents those who will be saved is inconsistant.
I think it's better to say that Adam represents all who would sin just as Christ represents all who would be saved.

Even if we say it that way it changes nothing with regard to who they represented. Additionally, it seems as if you're implying that Adam's representation of those "who would sin" is established by their actual sin. This is contrary to what the Gospel clearly says. Romans 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." You see, the result of Adam's sin was death to all because, in Adam, all sinned. Now, you can either view this as some do that we were all guilty before God because of a seminal connection with Adam or because he served as a God appointed representative for his progeny but it makes no difference. The passage doesn't say, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all would sin." Also, it is more than just an issue of representation. It's an issue of justifiable imputation. For God to impute unto Adam's progeny the moral repercussions of Adam's sin, i.e., death, then either all did sin in Adam or all were guilty before God because of Adam's role as their representative. Either way, imputation is a clearly taught fact of Romans 5. If we deny the truth of imputation in condemnation then our entire Christian foundation of salvation which is built upon the imputation of Christ's righteousness falls to the wayside. This is the very meaning of Luther's controversial view of fallen man, i.e., simul iustus et peccator, simultaneously just and sinner. By virtue of the imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith, the sinner is justified before God and reckoned righteous though he remains, in deed, a sinner. This is not a call to antinomianism. It is merely an acknowledgement of the universality of abiding sin.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that there is anyone (other than Jesus) who can live on this earth who wouldn't sin. But I believe that everyone is guilty of sin, not because of Adam's choice, but do to each individual's choices.

I agree that sin is universal and I agree that we are each guilty before God of actual sin. What I disagree with is the idea that the effects of Adam's sin were limited to Adam alone. One of the vital concepts that must be recognized in the fallen human nature is that fallen man has a sin nature. The result of this is the acknowledgement that we are not sinners because we sin, but rather, we sin because we are sinners. The idea that Adam's sin affected Adam alone was condemned as heresy 1500 years ago.

I don't think Original Sin is necessary to explain that everyone sins.

Then why does everyone sin?

In John 3:6 Jesus said
How can anyone live a spiritual life without the Spirit of God? It is only natural that someone apart from the Spirit of God will live to please the flesh. There is no need to born with a sin nature. The absence of the Holy Spirit is enough to result in a life of sin.

You're making a distinction without a cause. To live according to the flesh means to live sinfully. If this choice to live according to the flesh is not prompted by an inherent sin nature then what can explain the universality of sin?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Seems to that there in 1 Cor, we see that Adam brought death (a spiritual state) upon us all, and Christ will bring resurrection to us all...but there comes the qualifier in 1 Cor: only in the proper order. Christ first, then only those who belong to Him.

I'm confused. How can you say that the resurrection be universal but limited to "only those who belong to Him?" That's a contradiction.

So, it is universal on both sides, but the resurrection is conditional to those who believe in Him.

And how do we meet that condition?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

We die because God took away the privilege of living forever, because "the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever" (Gen. 3:22). It is true that Adam caused us to lose this privilege, but it doesn't seem like a spiritual state so much as an actual, physical reality.

So your position is that the effects of the Fall are only physical, not spiritual as well?

God bless

 

[verismo]

I'm confused. How can you say that the resurrection be universal but limited to "only those who belong to Him?" That's a contradiction.


And how do we meet that condition?

Thanks,
God bless

Well, I didn't: Paul did:

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.​

​

So, are you asking me how we become Christ's? Surely not.​

​

Did I say it was universal? "Us all"? i.e. Christians.​

​

Peace in him.​

​

​

 

[Ouch]

So your position is that the effects of the Fall are only physical, not spiritual as well?

Yes, I would say that when Adam sinned, one of the consequences for that sin was physical death. The consequences are delineated in Genesis chapter 3, and they do not mention spiritual implications. I don't believe it is necessary to add any spiritual implications. Romans 5:16 is meant to give the image of a court judgement and sentence (not my opinion, but the scholar Frederick Danker). Now, I would say the sentence for the sin was death, and I am encouraged in that assessment (me personally) by Paul's mention of death in the next verse.

Why does there have to be a spiritual consequence from Adam's sin? Where is a Bible verse that plainly states this?

 

[Reformationist]

Well, I didn't: Paul did:

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.​

​

​

I don't see how you think this implies universal, but limited, resurrection. I feel strange even saying that. That's like me telling you to point to the square circle. Either the resurrection was universal or it wasn't. What might help us if we examine the passage exegetically, apply proper grammatical rules to this passage, toss in a good old dose of logic and go from there.​

​

So, the first part of the passage says, "For as in Adam all die." Okay. Do all die in Adam? Absolutely. No problems there. Moving on, "even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Are all made alive in Christ? Ooops. Clearly not. So, when we read verse 23, which says, "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming" we can clearly see that the the "all who shall be made alive" is qualified by "they that are Christ's."​

​

So, are you asking me how we become Christ's? Surely not.

​

No. You said there were conditions we must meet to be resurrected with Christ. I'm just asking you how we meet those conditions.​

​

Did I say it was universal? "Us all"? i.e. Christians.

Peace in him.​

​

​

Okay. Now I'm totally confused. First you say it's universal now you say it's only Christians. ​

​

Sorry for the confusion. Maybe you could clear it up for me.​

​

God bless​