Question about original sin.

[Ouch]

Ouch, please beleive me when I say I am not trying to offend you or undermine you.

Of course I believe you!

From what I'm reading, your view of sin is one that has come up in the history of the Church very early on. It might be to your benefit to read up on Augustine vs Pelagius if you have not already.

A point well taken, as I had seen the name of Pelagius floating somewhere while I was researching earlier. I checked out several websites, and was able to find 6 main points that, although not actually written by Pelagius, are described as points "which clearly contain the quintessence of Pelagianism" according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I thought was a fair witness considering they argue against Pelagianism.

1. Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
I believe that it is possible for Adam to have died, had God chosen to restrict him from the tree of life. Note that I just say possible, obviously this can't be proven since Adam did, in fact, sin. But I believe he had the same physical body that I have.

2.Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
I would agree with this.

3. Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
I would again agree, I see no reason to say the human beings are different. I would say that our present situation is a bit different, since we're mortal and not in God's garden, but I see no reason to claim that we are essentially different in nature.

4.The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
I agree with the first part but the second part is slightly tricky. I believe that Christ's resurrection doesn't save a person until they believe in him and profess that belief, so the resurrection itself doesn't help me until I take hold of it.

5. The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
I disagree. The Law is the old guide, and Christ is the new guide, fulfilling the old guide and giving a better way.

6. Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.
Nah, doubt it. I disagree with this as well.

As far as why I believe all this I think I've explained it reasonably well in my posts. You can probably also tell that I might not hold to the Augustinian views on the issue (hehe, that's fairly obvious). This doesn't bother me, since I don't have any problem saying that Augustine could have been wrong on some things. I do appreciate your redirecting me to a relevant historical source though. Thanks for being patient with me.

 

[holyrokker]

Ok now back to imputed sin, wouldn't it now make sense that the first half of the passages I quoted in Romans would be talking about our imputed sin from Adam, when the second half of each of them is referring to our imputed righteousness from Christ?

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?

 

[tigersnare]

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?

Hopefully we will both realize from taking the chapter as a whole, Paul is not focusing on the numerical value of each. Because he starts, in verse 12 I believe, saying that because of Adam's sin death spread to all men. Which would have been evident to his audience as everyone they have know has or would die. In case you were trying to go that direction with this.....

Whom is sin imputed to? Everyone

Whom is rightousness imputed to? "those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness". aka Those whom believe on Christ.

 

[tigersnare]

This doesn't bother me, since I don't have any problem saying that Augustine could have been wrong on some things. I do appreciate your redirecting me to a relevant historical source though. Thanks for being patient with me.

Ok, I'm trying to be careful with my wording here as to not offend, because I would actually like to have this discussion with you.

1. Are you ok with subscribing to the major points of what has been condemmed as heresy repeatedly by the Catholic and early Protestant Church?


2. If man does have the possiblity to live sinless, how come not one has? (save Jesus)

3. How do you in particular deal with Romans 5:12-the end of the chapter?

 

[holyrokker]

Hopefully we will both realize from taking the chapter as a whole, Paul is not focusing on the numerical value of each. Because he starts, in verse 12 I believe, saying that because of Adam's sin death spread to all men. Which would have been evident to his audience as everyone they have know has or would die. In case you were trying to go that direction with this.....

Romas 5:12 "...death came to all men, because all sinned"

It doesn't say Adam's death spread to all men.

Whom is sin imputed to? Everyone

Whom is rightousness imputed to? "those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness". aka Those whom believe on Christ.

If you take this passage to mean that sin is imputed to everyone, why do you limited the gift of righteousness only to those who believe on Christ? The passage doesn't do that.

 

[tigersnare]

Romas 5:12 "...death came to all men, because all sinned"

It doesn't say Adam's death spread to all men.

Which is why I carefully said, because of Adam's sin, death spread to all men.

5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin....

Seems as though the result of Adam's sin was death, I don't think exegetically we could argue there would have been death had Adam not sinned.

If you take this passage to mean that sin is imputed to everyone, why do you limited the gift of righteousness only to those who believe on Christ? The passage doesn't do that.

Well let's look at verse 12. Because of Adam's sin, death entered the world. Death spread to all men, why? Because sin was spread to all men. "Because all sinned".

I think the passage (vs 17) does indeed limit the gift of righteousness to those who believe on Christ, and I'm sure you as well as I could provide many other passages outside of this chapter to support that only those who beleive on Christ recieve the gift.

5:17
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who recieve the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

I think this passage clearly puts conditions on one and not the other. Notice only those who recieve the gift will reign in life.
Clearly the reigning of life that results, comes in and through Christ.

 

[holyrokker]

Romas 5:12 does NOT say sin spread to all men. It does NOT say that all men sinned in Adam. it does NOT say Adam's sin was imputed to all men. It states the fact that ALL HAVE SINNED.

How can you read into it anything other than what it plainly states?

Your interpretation of verses 17-19 have it backwards. According to your interpretation, the sin of Adam has a greater effect than the sacrifice of Christ, since you believe that through Adam ALL of humanity is in bondage to sin, yet Christ's sacrifice only saves some.

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

It's obvious from other portions of Scripture that NOT everyone will be saved. But this portion of Romans 5 is drawing a comparison between Adam and Christ.

Again "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"

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.

 

[Ouch]

Ok, I'm trying to be careful with my wording here as to not offend, because I would actually like to have this discussion with you.

Not offended! Commence discussion...

1. Are you ok with subscribing to the major points of what has been condemmed as heresy repeatedly by the Catholic and early Protestant Church?

Yes. Yes I am.

2. If man does have the possiblity to live sinless, how come not one has? (save Jesus)

Because we have free will, and us humans can't seem to get it right 100% of the time. I think it emphasizes the point that only God is perfect.

3. How do you in particular deal with Romans 5:12-the end of the chapter?

Verse 12 seems to be saying that death entered this world because sin happened, and it was a man who sinned first. It also seems to say that death is the reward for all men because all sinned. I think the connection there is not between the one man's sin being for all, but death being the reward for all sin. That's all I get out of that verse. The next bit seems to be saying that it is possible to sin if you know God's law or if he hasn't specifically given one. So this seems to say that even if the sins of someone not knowing the law aren't taken into account (verse 13) they will still be subject to death (verse 14). Let me also look at verse 16. In it this quote is especially relevant: "The judgement followed one sin and brought condemnation..." It seems to me that the condemnation mentioned in this verse (and more universally aplied in verse 18) is death, because they are both equated with the reslut of the sin. Let us now look at verse 19:

"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."

If the first half of that sentence means that all men are born sinners, then the second half means that all men are born righteous. We know that all men are not born righteous, becuase if there were there would be no need to spread the gospel and baptize believers in Jesus' name. This is a valid comparison because of the way the sentence is constructed. We are sinners because we choose to sin, just as we are saved because we believe in the one sent to redeem us.

Did I make any sense?

 

[Ouch]

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.

Man, while I was typing my response I got beat to the punch! He even used the bold for emphasis! How funny is that? Props to you bud.

 

[tigersnare]

Romas 5:12 does NOT say sin spread to all men.

Granted, it does not explicitly say that, however, I don't believe exegtically is a hard thing to draw from the text.

One act by one man brought a consequence. The consequence spread to all men by the act of all following men, but you deny act spread to all men?

It does NOT say that all men sinned in Adam. it does NOT say Adam's sin was imputed to all men. It states the fact that ALL HAVE SINNED. How can you read into it anything other than what it plainly states?

I beg the same question, the context makes verse 12 blarringly clear.

vs 18
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men..

One transgression made all the world guilty before God.

Your interpretation of verses 17-19 have it backwards. According to your interpretation, the sin of Adam has a greater effect than the sacrifice of Christ, since you believe that through Adam ALL of humanity is in bondage to sin, yet Christ's sacrifice only saves some.Yet the text clearly states that the effect of Christ's sacrifice is GREATER than that of Adam's sin.

And I beleive you don't understand that the effect isn't "greater" in it's numerical value, but in the very nature of it's existance and then results.

vs 16
One transgression brought judgment and condemnation. Logically what does more trasngressions bring? More judgment and condemnation surely, but instead it brought a free gift, logically it makes no sense...That is it's "greater" effect.

vs 17
By the transgression of the one, death reigned. What would we expect to reign from the gift, that we have already established above to be "greater" than that which came through Adam, life right? But the gift is once again "greater" than what would have been great even by itself. We reign in life.

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.

Give Paul some credit, if his focus was on numbers he must have been really confused.
However, his audience would have clearly understood that everyone dies, therefore there being no question as to the extent to which Adam's sin effected mankind. And since no one can soundly argue universal salvation, this section does not force us to deal with your assertion.

 

[tigersnare]

Yes. Yes I am.

Why is this?

Because we have free will, and us humans can't seem to get it right 100% of the time. I think it emphasizes the point that only God is perfect.

Free will, I'm assuming you mean free as in absolutly zero inclination to either be sinful or be righteous. That would be a free will wouldn't it?

We are sinners because we choose to sin, just as we are saved because we believe in the one sent to redeem us.

But if you are going to be consistant in your logic you would have to say.

We are sinners because we choose to sin, we are righteous because we choose to be righteous. If being a sinner is a choice, so is being righteous, we no longer need imputed righteousness, we can do it all on our own.

But of course this is entirel unbiblical, so the position I'm assuming you will take is, you dont' have a problem with Christ representing all of mankind in one act of righteousness thereby making salvation possible by imputing his righteouness to believers, none being of our own, and making us justified before God and giving us life unto eternity.

But like the denounced men in the Church before you, the idea of Adam representing all of mankind in one act of sin thereby condeming everyone, making us slaves to our sinful nature and enemies of God, with absolutly no way to be saved by our own doing, seems to be unfair?

Did I make any sense?

Yes but I just since me and Holyrokker are going through those verses I'll not respond to yours, but you are free to jump in to his discussion with me.

 

[tigersnare]

I just want to let you both know I am really enjoying our discussion. It has got my nose in the scriptures and pushed me to really study the text. I hope through this we can all remeber we are truly family, and one day in glory we will have fellowship. Thank you both

 

[holyrokker]

I just want to let you both know I am really enjoying our discussion. It has got my nose in the scriptures and pushed me to really study the text. I hope through this we can all remeber we are truly family, and one day in glory we will have fellowship. Thank you both

Thank YOU. I enjoy fellowship with brothers who hold different opinions. I DETEST arguing with my brothers.

I still disagree, however, with your assessment of Romans 5

 

[Ouch]

Why is this?

Basically because I regard them more as scholars. Sometimes I believe what scholars say, and other times I disagree. I see no reason to bind myself to every one of their theories.

Free will, I'm assuming you mean free as in absolutly zero inclination to either be sinful or be righteous. That would be a free will wouldn't it?

We seem to have the freedom to do or choose whatever we want, yes.

But if you are going to be consistant in your logic you would have to say.

We are sinners because we choose to sin, we are righteous because we choose to be righteous. If being a sinner is a choice, so is being righteous, we no longer need imputed righteousness, we can do it all on our own.

But of course this is entirel unbiblical, so the position I'm assuming you will take is, you dont' have a problem with Christ representing all of mankind in one act of righteousness thereby making salvation possible by imputing his righteouness to believers, none being of our own, and making us justified before God and giving us life unto eternity.

I would never say we can do it all on our own. We choose to become righteous by accepting the gift of Christ's death on the cross. When Christ died he didn't make everyone instantly righteous, but he opened that avenue for everyone. So we have the choice to either accept Christ or to reject him. And if we reject him then we will not be considered righteous before God. So I think I am consistent in my logic.

But like the denounced men in the Church before you, the idea of Adam representing all of mankind in one act of sin thereby condeming everyone, making us slaves to our sinful nature and enemies of God, with absolutly no way to be saved by our own doing, seems to be unfair?

It doesn't just seem unfair, it seems like an unnecessary stretch outside of the Bible, to me. I can agree with holyrokker in that we view Romans 5 differently from the way you (I'm not ignoring the people who agree with you)are presenting it.

I appreciate the fellowship as well, and can attest that it has made me dig into God's Word more than I might have been otherwise.

 

[Bulldog]

I would never say we can do it all on our own. We choose to become righteous by accepting the gift of Christ's death on the cross. When Christ died he didn't make everyone instantly righteous, but he opened that avenue for everyone. So we have the choice to either accept Christ or to reject him. And if we reject him then we will not be considered righteous before God. So I think I am consistent in my logic.
It doesn't just seem unfair, it seems like an unnecessary stretch outside of the Bible, to me. I can agree with holyrokker in that we view Romans 5 differently from the way you (I'm not ignoring the people who agree with you)are presenting it.

From your perspective, what was the purpose of Christ's death on the cross?

 

[Ouch]

From your perspective, what was the purpose of Christ's death on the cross?

I'm glad you asked!

Hebrews 9:14-15 "How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"

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.

Acts 2:40 "With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, 'Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.'"

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.

 

[BBAS 64]

I'm glad you asked!

Hebrews 9:14-15 "How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"

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.

Acts 2:40 "With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, 'Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.'"

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.

Good day, Ouch

The olny problem with your use of hebrews is the passge says in verse:

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

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;

Heb 10:16 `This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, giving My laws on their hearts, and upon their minds I will write them,'


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

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[tigersnare]

Good day, Ouch

The olny problem with your use of hebrews is the passge says in verse:

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

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;

Heb 10:16 `This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, giving My laws on their hearts, and upon their minds I will write them,'


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

Peace to u,

Bill

As always, good point.

 

[jkotinek]

Heb 10:16 `This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, giving My laws on their hearts, and upon their minds I will write them,'


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

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

 

[BBAS 64]

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

Good day, Jkotinek

Gen 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,

Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

Gen 9:10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Gen 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

From the point of view of God the establishment of a soverigein promise of God.

Peace to u,

Bill