Romans 5: 18-19 question

[Mark Noo]

I did not go to church as a child.

All the sermons I have heard have been by Calvinists. So I had not traditions to overcome and all I have heard salvation, grace, and election in nearly every sermon.

The other thing I have heard is that you have to deal with the text. Always exegesis, don’t use isegesis. I have also been told not to ignore scripture that pertains to a subject just because I don’t like it (so a duty to candor).

So when I asked how Adam could damn all mankind and Christ could only save a selected few. I did not get a response.

If our fate was known before the foundations of the world, did Adam’s sin not really effect everyone. Were they always condemned. Adam really did not choose to transgress. He acted out a script? What about Romans 5 18-19 and other passages

Paul uses Adam to show how one man damned us and one man, Christ, saved us.

Romans 5: 18-19 (NASB)

So 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. For 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

………….

If Adam had the capacity to damn everyone, whey didn’t Christ have the capacity to save everyone. It seems like Adam has more spiritual power. We know that cannot be.

How do I figure this out? Should I be confused by this? What am I missing?

THank you for considering this question

Edit:
This is one sentence.
So 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.

I doubt that "all" would have two different meanings in the same sentence. Certainly not with a careful writer like Paul and the precision of the Koine Greek used in the Bible.

I have heard the "all doesn't always mean all" argument and agreed with the logic. But not in the same sentence. That is too much.

BTW: I believe in election soteriology. I just cannot explain this Adam v. Christ problem.

 

[TurtleAnne]

How do you personally define free will?

Is it a matter of being in control of everything, or being in control of just one's self?

Being in control of just one's self means having the ability to play a part, but it does not come with omnipotence or control of everything else.

Existence is just way more complex than that, I guess.

It is like the grey between having total control and omnipotence, and being mindlessly forced through something. The grey where one would say, "I chose to do this, but it was because (things they could not control)."

(things they could not control) involves a whole lot of God's will and work, and our personal free will is only a tiny part.

But tiny things can be significant, in the eye of the beholder. Especially when the beholder is God.

 

[Mark Noo]

How do you personally define free will?

Is it a matter of being in control of everything, or being in control of just one's self?

Being in control of just one's self means having the ability to play a part, but it does not come with omnipotence or control of everything else.

Existence is just way more complex than that, I guess.

It is like the grey between having total control and omnipotence, and being mindlessly forced through something. The grey where one would say, "I chose to do this, but it was because (things they could not control)."

(things they could not control) involves a whole lot of God's will and work, and our personal free will is only a tiny part.

But tiny things can be significant, in the eye of the beholder. Especially when the beholder is God.

I don't get the connection. But I was confused to start with.
I do not believe in free will. I am a soft determinist.

(Christianity, if I understand correctly, sometimes equates this with Compatibilism).

Although I have only heard compatibilism used to explain how my or anyone's sinful actions can further God's plans.

Soft determinism means I think I have choices but those choices have causes.
As an example. I never just walk to the store. I walk to the store because I don't have a car. Or because I need the exercise. Or because I like to pick the blackberries that are on the way there and I cannot do it from my car. But I always do something because of something else.

So I am goaded along. God, however, is restrained only by his character. He can do nothing out of character but anything else is possible for him. So, God knows what a lie is but he cannot tell one. Our Father cannot change his mind. This type of thing. Otherwise he can
Psalm 115:3
But our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases.

I think humans merely respond to stimuli for various reasons.
..............
I'm sorry. Do you mean do I think I choose God by my freewill. No I am not an Arminian. Although because of the nature of the Spirit when he quickens us I think most of us start out as Arminians. More specifically, believing we chose God.

 

[hedrick]

I checked 3 critical commentaries on Romans. None believed that this passage implies universalism. Two saw in terms of Jews and Gentiles. The issue in Romans isn't the salvation of individuals, but the inclusion of all nations.

However the third commentary (from James Dunn) made an interesting suggestion. Paul sees Jesus as creating a new people. Clearly those who are in Christ are not condemned with Adam. Perhaps those who aren't in Christ are part of the old people. That would give us symmetry, since Adam didn't bring condemnation to all either.

In effect, the lost don't count. Jesus created a new people. The lost are remnants of Adam, and not part of the new world where all are saved.

It's also possible that Paul envisions that by the end, everyone will be saved. Not everyone who ever lived but everyone alive then. You certainly get the impression that he hoped all Jews would be grafted back in.

 

[twin1954]

I did not go to church as a child.

All the sermons I have heard have been by Calvinists. So I had not traditions to overcome and all I have heard salvation, grace, and election in nearly every sermon.

The other thing I have heard is that you have to deal with the text. Always exegesis, don’t use isegesis. I have also been told not to ignore scripture that pertains to a subject just because I don’t like it (so a duty to candor).

So when I asked how Adam could damn all mankind and Christ could only save a selected few. I did not get a response.

If our fate was known before the foundations of the world, did Adam’s sin not really effect everyone. Were they always condemned. Adam really did not choose to transgress. He acted out a script? What about Romans 5 18-19 and other passages

Paul uses Adam to show how one man damned us and one man, Christ, saved us.

Romans 5: 18-19 (NASB)

So 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. For 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

………….

If Adam had the capacity to damn everyone, whey didn’t Christ have the capacity to save everyone. It seems like Adam has more spiritual power. We know that cannot be.

How do I figure this out? Should I be confused by this? What am I missing?

THank you for considering this question

Edit:
This is one sentence.
So 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.

I doubt that "all" would have two different meanings in the same sentence. Certainly not with a careful writer like Paul and the precision of the Koine Greek used in the Bible.

I have heard the "all doesn't always mean all" argument and agreed with the logic. But not in the same sentence. That is too much.

BTW: I believe in election soteriology. I just cannot explain this Adam v. Christ problem.

The answer to your question is actually very simple. Look up federal Headship. Both Adam and Christ Jesus stood as representative heads of all that were in them. Adam, as the federal head of all of the human race plunged us all into sin and damnation. When he sinned we all sinned in him.

(Rom 5:18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

(Rom 5:19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

A clear example is found in Heb. 7:9-10.

(Heb 7:9) And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

(Heb 7:10) For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Levi paid tithes in his father Abraham, great grandfather actually, and shoes us how we are said to do something in those of whom we are born from.

When Adam sinned, as our head and representative, we sinned. It is just as though we had done it ourselves.

In exactly the same manner that we sinned in Adam by natural generation, we come from his loins, we are made righteous by spiritual generation in Christ. What He did we did in Him. He is called the last Adam in 1Cor. 15:45.

(1Co 15:22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


(1Co 15:45) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

(1Co 15:46) Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

The "all" in all of these passages simply refer to all those who are in their Federal Heads. All of Adam's seed became sinners when he sinned and all of Christ's seed are become righteous by Christ's righteousness.

I hope that helps you, twin.

Postscript: You might want to look at how the government of the US is patterned according to representation. When a Congressman or Senator votes he does so as the representative of all in his district or state. When he acts we act in him. It is as though we had voted ourselves.