Romans 5 and original sin?

[abacabb3]

I agree that there is no such thing in the Bible as "age of accountability".

Likewise, there is no such thing in the Bible as an inherited sin nature.

Again, the Scripture is very clear, and I already quoted this to you:

Through one man sin entered the world

and death through sin

and thus death spread to all men

because all have sinned


If sin does not come from what Adam did, the preceding verse does not even make sense. If death comes from sin and through one man sin entered the world, it is not disputable that we die and we sin, because what Adam did made sin enter the world.

Whether we are literally imputed the guilt of Adam's sin or we inherit the proclivity of sin from Adam, the point is the fact that all humans have sin (which the Bible does explicitly state "there is NO ONE righteous") because of Adam.

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. (Romans 5:18)

The text does not lend us another possible reading.

 

[abacabb3]

Did God create Adam with a sinful nature?

I don't know because the Scripture does not say, but being that God created satan and created a way to redeem people before the foundations of the world were set, Adam sinned and God allowed it, implicitly even endorsing it in some ways.

Are we all made in God's image?

Yes, but we are not the perfect relfection of his being as Christ is (Hebrews 1)

 

[abacabb3]

The bible distinguishes between children who don't understand right and wrong and adults who do.

But nothing about an age of accountability.

Because who in their right mind back then would have thought babies guilty of things they did without any idea of right or wrong.

Arguably, neither were Adam and Eve, they didn't know they committed evil until they eat the fruit when they hid.

It was only when the doctrine of Original Sin was dreamt up in the fifth century that people came up with the ides of babies being sinful.

Babies not being sinful is not declared in Scripture, while the opposite is true in psalms 51 and 57.

Where does the Bible have an exception for babies. As long as the bible says "death came to all men," "all have sinned," without an explicit reference saying babies are an exception, I don't see why we should invent an exception.

 

[Assyrian]

But nothing about an age of accountability.

Arguably, neither were Adam and Eve, they didn't know they committed evil until they eat the fruit when they hid.

You are not dealing with my point about how verses like Deuteronomy could have been understood by the people they were written for.

Babies not being sinful is not declared in Scripture, while the opposite is true in psalms 51 and 57.

Psalm 51 is very popular for supporting Original Sin but it doesn't do that at all. Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. It is David's parents whose sin he is talking about here. It is the same as Elijah's lament 1Kings 19:4 I am no better than my fathers.

I presume the other psalm you are referring to is 58? Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
4 They have venom like the venom of a serpent, like the deaf adder that stops its ear, You need to understand the way the bible uses hyperbole. Do you really think babies are born able to talk? Or is it only babies born talking who have a venomous bite who are born sinful?

Where does the Bible have an exception for babies. As long as the bible says "death came to all men," "all have sinned," without an explicit reference saying babies are an exception, I don't see why we should invent an exception.

And we need to understand how Paul's readers would have understood those verses. It would not have crossed their minds he was talking about babies. Like I said you need to distinguish between how you read those verse from the perspective of Original Sin and how they would have been understood in the 1st century, four hundred years before the church came up with the doctrine that babies are evil.

 

[holyrokker]

Again, the Scripture is very clear, and I already quoted this to you:

Through one man sin entered the world

and death through sin

and thus death spread to all men

because all have sinned


.

Yes, it is very clear that sin entered the world through one man, but it is a huge leap, that has no support in Scripture, to say that humanity inherits sin as a result. That is simply not stated in the passage that you continue to reference. For some reason you are reaching a conclusion that plainly is not taught in Scripture.

The implication of inherited sin is that it is a genetic defect. It removes sin from the realm of moral accountability. It makes God a monster for holding humanity guilty of a genetic malady, for which we bear no blame.

But sin is not a genetic defect. The Bible clearly holds individuals morally responsible. Each of us must give account to God; not for what Adam did, but for our own transgressions.

 

[abacabb3]

Yes, it is very clear that sin entered the world through one man, but it is a huge leap, that has no support in Scripture, to say that humanity inherits sin as a result.

If you notice, if you look at my argument narrowly, I don't make the claim that I know whether Adam's sin is imputed or Adam's sinful inclinations, all I know is that death spread to all men because of Adam's sinful act and sin spread to all men because of Adam's sinful act.

So while we may not know if guilt is imputed (similar to how Christ's righteousness is imputed) or if an inescapable inclination is inherited, here's what we do know from the discussion in Romans 5:12-18

1. "All have sinned" (Romans 5:12)
2. "through one man sin entered the world" (5:12)
3. "death [comes] through sin" (5:12)
4. "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam" (5:14)
5. "by the one man’s offense many died" (5:15)
6. "For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation" (5:16)
7. "For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one" (5:17)
8. "through one man’s offense judgment came to all men" (5:18)
9. "by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (5:19)

The Scripture says clearly that Adam's sin has had a very real effect on the human race. I may not know every detail, but I know as a result I am a sinner and under God's condemnation. I am not a sinner, nor condemned, apart from what Adam did. The Bible does not lend us an understanding that we can be apart from these things apart from Adam.

So, the burden of proof is on those who reject that Adam's sin has no effect on other people, because the Scripture does not lend us that interpretation.

"For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:5-8)

Apart from Christ we by nature "cannot please God." In fact the carnal mind is at "enmity against God."

All humans, not born again, are carnally minded. the Bible does not say people become carnally minded. They ARE carnally minded. Romans 5 gives us a good explanation as to why.

 

[abacabb3]

You are not dealing with my point about how verses like Deuteronomy could have been understood by the people they were written for...You need to understand the way the bible uses hyperbole.

Okay, so when the bible says something that disproves your position it exaggerates, but when the Scripture says the children not knowing good or bad (which arguably they are fully aware of before 2 years of age) you exaggerate that this applies to all children universally.

1. Adam and Eve didn't know good and evil, but still sinned.
2. Deut 1 is referring to the children not being culpable for the sins of their parents, resulting in being stuck in the wilderness for 40 years.

Again, no "age of accountability," the Scripture that places all men are under condemnation has no age qualifications aside from the ones people make up in thin air.

 

[Assyrian]

Okay, so when the bible says something that disproves your position it exaggerates, but when the Scripture says the children not knowing good or bad (which arguably they are fully aware of before 2 years of age) you exaggerate that this applies to all children universally.

Matt 23:24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! Do you believe the Pharisees actually swallowed camels? To understand the bible you need to understand the different ways it can speak to us. Jesus called them vipers too. Matt 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Did he mean they were actual snakes? Perhaps they could swallow the camels by dislocating their jaws. You haven't answered if you think the babies in Psalm 58 really could talk the minute they were born and if they really had venomous bite or if Original Sin only applies to babies that can talk from birth.

1. Adam and Eve didn't know good and evil, but still sinned.

You brough that up before but you didn't answer my reply:

Adam and Eve knew they shouldn't eat the fruit. They didn't have the knowledge and guilt that comes with the personal experience of sinning, but they knew what they should and shouldn't do. The children in Deuteronomy had no knowledge of good or evil Deut 1:39.
​

2. Deut 1 is referring to the children not being culpable for the sins of their parents, resulting in being stuck in the wilderness for 40 years.

There is certainly the principle of children no being punished for their parent's sin at work here too, but the verse also tells us young children have no knowledge of good or evil Deut 1:39,

Again, no "age of accountability," the Scripture that places all men are under condemnation has no age qualifications aside from the ones people make up in thin air.

You still aren't dealing with my point about how people at the time would have understood those passages, and how the passages seem different to you because you are reading them through the filter of 5th century Original Sin doctrine. But Paul wrote to people who didn't believe children were sinful, not to people who believed Original Sin. Isn't it strange you have to believe in Original Sin to think Paul is teaching Original Sin in those passages?

 

[abacabb3]

Did he mean they were actual snakes? Perhaps they could swallow the camels by dislocating their jaws.

Again, rhetorical arguments doesn't substantiate your view which has no basis in Scripture at all.

They didn't have the knowledge and guilt that comes with the personal experience of sinning, but they knew what they should and shouldn't do.

Why the distinction? Even in Deut 1:39, all it says that the children have "no knowledge of good and evil." It doesn't say the children are righteous, neutral or anything else. We already shown that sin can exist where knowledge of good and evil doesn't. That's all deut 1:39 refers to, hence to read an age of accountability into it is a total innovation.

You still aren't dealing with my point about how people at the time would have understood those passages

When I buld my time machine, i will let you know first hand. I don't say this to be a jerk, but you cannot invent what people thought to justify a theology that there is no explicit Scriptural support for.

 

[Assyrian]

Again, rhetorical arguments doesn't substantiate your view which has no basis in Scripture at all.

So you cannot address my point.

Why the distinction? Even in Deut 1:39, all it says that the children have "no knowledge of good and evil." It doesn't say the children are righteous, neutral or anything else. We already shown that sin can exist where knowledge of good and evil doesn't. That's all deut 1:39 refers to, hence to read an age of accountability into it is a total innovation.

You need to show sin can exist without any knowledge of good and evil. You mentioned people sinning unwittingly, but that refers to adults how entered into a covenant to obey all its precepts. We have seen people outside the law being judged by whether they followed what they knew in their consciences, which means they were old enough to understand. Your only evidence from scripture turns out to babies who are born talking through their snake fangs.

When I buld my time machine, i will let you know first hand. I don't say this to be a jerk, but you cannot invent what people thought to justify a theology that there is no explicit Scriptural support for.

I agree, we can only try to understand how people in an ancient culture would have understood a passage, but trying is a whole lot better than simply reading the passage though the filter our own presuppositions and doctrines. Besides, with the age of accountability we know the conclusions the Jews came to about it. Not only that, as I said, Paul was writing to people who held these views and said nothing to change them, in fact he described himself the same way in Romans 7, that he didn't sin and die until he understood what the commandment meant.

 

[abacabb3]

So you cannot address my point.

It's not a point, it's not based on Scripture, I can devise nice sounding logical ideas but without Scriptural support they are worthless.

You need to show sin can exist without any knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3, they did not know good and evil until they ate from the tree.

I agree, we can only try to understand how people in an ancient culture would have understood a passage, but trying is a whole lot better than simply reading the passage though the filter our own presuppositions and doctrines. Besides, with the age of accountability we know the conclusions the Jews came to about it.

Again, we are out of Scripture. Rabbinic Judaism is not a real religion, jsut because Muslims or Buddhists teach something it doesn't mean it holds any weight. Scripture holds weight and Scripture says that sin entered the world through Adam, and all have sinned.

So, whatever "through" means we can debate, but to ignore out right is incorrect and discredits any position that does not integrate the statement into the theology.

 

[Assyrian]

It's not a point, it's not based on Scripture, I can devise nice sounding logical ideas but without Scriptural support they are worthless.

I was discussing scripture and the different ways God speaks to us through his word. You have no answer.

Genesis 3, they did not know good and evil until they ate from the tree.

Did they know they weren't supposed to eat the fruit or didn't they?

Again, we are out of Scripture. Rabbinic Judaism is not a real religion, jsut because Muslims or Buddhists teach something it doesn't mean it holds any weight.

Paul was writing to Jews and Synagogue taught Gentiles, we need to understand the context he was writing in, to understand what he was saying properly, and not assume he was writing to 21st century Christians who have been taught the fifth century tradition of Original Sin. Your presuppositions distort your understanding of scripture, you need to recognise that before if you want to avoid reading things into scripture that aren't there.

Scripture holds weight and Scripture says that sin entered the world through Adam, and all have sinned.

So, whatever "through" means we can debate, but to ignore out right is incorrect and discredits any position that does not integrate the statement into the theology.

I don't ignore it, I just haven't discussed it with you. There was no sin in the world before the first sin. But Paul only says sin entered the world through one man. He doesn't say sin spread through the world through him. What he says spread through the human race is death, and he says it spread because all men sinned Rom 5:12. It is each man's own sin that brings the curse of death to him.

 

[abacabb3]

I was discussing scripture and the different ways God speaks to us through his word. You have no answer.

No, I am just not answering to theoreticals not based on Scripture. Where is the age of accountability on Scripture.

Did they know they weren't supposed to eat the fruit or didn't they?

Did they definitively know good or evil? The Scripture does not say that. In fact Gen 3:4-5 says the serpent said, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

So, they were not like God knowing good and evil yet, until eating of the apple.

So, they committed evil, but not knowing what they have have done in a profound way.

Paul was writing to Jews and Synagogue taught Gentiles, we need to understand the context he was writing in, to understand what he was saying properly, and not assume he was writing to 21st century Christians who have been taught the fifth century tradition of Original Sin.

You are aware that he taught against a lot of then contemporary Jewish teachings, right? Furthermore, there are difficulties understanding then contemporary jewish teachings as they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and often contradicted one another.

There was no sin in the world before the first sin. But Paul only says sin entered the world through one man. He doesn't say sin spread through the world through him.

No, Romans 5:12 in exact words, but using a parallelism debunks that:

through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

I am not trained in logic, but here's an illustration of the above:
A then B therefore B' then A'

Paul is obviously employing logic. One man made sin, sin causes death, death spreads to all men, because all men sinned.

Well, where did death spread ("dieÑrxomai", not a mistranslation, the term literally means to travel from one area to another) from? Obviously, "through the one man" in which "sin entered the world."


In my mind, being that this is so abundantly clear in Romans 5:12 I ask that you seriously reread the Scripture here, taking away your own preconceived notions of fairness. Just read what it says and don't read into more than what it says. Then respond, please.

I don't want to go off on tangents. We have already seen that your chronology of when Adam and Eve knew good and evil is off, by evidence in Scripture. If you doubt that through Adam all were made sinners, then we need to read Romans 5:12 and perhaps the paragraph as a whole for context, and come up with a reasonable interpretation of what it plainly says without extrapolating all this other stuff that is not there.

 

[Assyrian]

No, I am just not answering to theoreticals not based on Scripture. Where is the age of accountability on Scripture.

What we were looking at here was looking at Psalm 58 and your unwillingness to accept scripture can speak to us in hyperbole, Jesus didn't mean the Pharisees really swallowed camels, and babies aren't actually born talking or with poison fangs. You weren't able to answer.

Did they definitively know good or evil? The Scripture does not say that. In fact Gen 3:4-5 says the serpent said, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

So, they were not like God knowing good and evil yet, until eating of the apple.

So, they committed evil, but not knowing what they have have done in a profound way.

I have already said that when you commit the act you know is wrong you get a much deeper understanding of what guilt and sin are. Adam and Eve knew they should not eat the fruit before they sinned. They knew it was wrong. The children in Deuteronomy had no knowledge of good and evil.

You are aware that he taught against a lot of then contemporary Jewish teachings, right? Furthermore, there are difficulties understanding then contemporary jewish teachings as they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and often contradicted one another.

Yes, Paul certainly taught against some contemporary Jewish views, he supported others like the Pharisees belief in angels spirits and the resurrection Acts 23:8. But isn't it surprising Paul never taught against the age of accountability when it so clearly contradicts Original Sin, in fact he even believed children are free from sin himself, as we have seen from Romans 7

No, Romans 5:12 in exact words, but using a parallelism debunks that:

through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

I am not trained in logic, but here's an illustration of the above:
A then B therefore B' then A'

Paul is obviously employing logic. One man made sin, sin causes death, death spreads to all men, because all men sinned.

You say you are debunking me, but you just agreed with what I said. What you were trying show was that Adam's sin affects us, instead of us being affected by death the same way as Adam because we sin too.

Well, where did death spread ("dieÑrxomai", not a mistranslation, the term literally means to travel from one area to another) from? Obviously, "through the one man" in which "sin entered the world."

Paul is not looking at the from where, he is looking at the how and why. He does not say we get our death through Adam, he says we get it the same way as Adam, because we all sin too, so also death spread to all people because all sinned Rom 5:12. Death spread through the human race not like a contagion passed from one person to the other, but in discrete steps as each person sins and dies.

In my mind, being that this is so abundantly clear in Romans 5:12 I ask that you seriously reread the Scripture here, taking away your own preconceived notions of fairness. Just read what it says and don't read into more than what it says. Then respond, please.

Don't knock our ideas of fairness, if something seems unjust then maybe it actually is. It should at least send us back to the scriptures to see if what we have been told it teaches is true. It is just as possible our traditions have been warped by medieval ideas of fairness. You also need to look at these passages with out preconceived ideas like Original Sin and infant depravity.

I don't want to go off on tangents. We have already seen that your chronology of when Adam and Eve knew good and evil is off, by evidence in Scripture. If you doubt that through Adam all were made sinners, then we need to read Romans 5:12 and perhaps the paragraph as a whole for context, and come up with a reasonable interpretation of what it plainly says without extrapolating all this other stuff that is not there.

I have read it in context. It does say Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, the word made, kathistemi, does not mean transforming from one thing to another, but giving people an official designation like appointing someone steward or ordaining them bishop. Or it can mean dragging someone before a magistrate. Adam's sin and condemnation declares everyone else who sins as sinners and subject to death too.

 

[daviddub]

We die today for the same reason Adam died ages ago, because we cannot eat the fruit from the Tree of Life. The death promised by the Commandment was a spiritual death, not a physical one, since Adam did not die for many years after he first sinned. But once Adam was driven from the Garden, we all lost access to the Tree of Life, so death is inevitable.

The way of the tree of life was not lost, it was kept...as the scripture declares. Gen 3:24
Adam was not cast out so as to lose the way of the tree of life, but so as to find it again.
And God spoke thus to Adam's son Cain, "if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" Long before Abraham (Promise), Moses (law) or Christ (gospel) the way was declared to Cain, that is gospel.

 

[daviddub]

I don't know if this has been said, but I've never heard it given in these discussions before. If a child is born in sin, then why does Jesus tell us to become as a little child? Let me anticipate the way many construe this scripture (Mt 18:1-9), and let Jesus' own instruction on how to do this rebuke that construction. The construction I've always and ever heard from any man on this verse is that he was speaking about the faith of a child.

However he said nothing of their faith (per se) in the whole context but he said this: "3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! 8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. "
So then, the way to become like the little children (in the sense that Jesus meant(not common construction)) whose angels behold the face of His father, is to pluck out the offending eye and cut off the offending hand. This is as if Christ had plainly quoted let the wicked forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts Is 55:7 and let him return to the LORD. That is the way to become as a child in the sense that he spoke it, which is purity. Thus he says in another place blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. Seeing that Jesus' estimation of the little children is purity, so that their angels always behold the Father's face, which man is it whose estimation is a sinful nature?

Again the commandent is pure enlightening the eyes (Ps 19), by which they see God, by which Abraham saw God, Enoch, Adam (before he fell), Joshua, The prophets, John, etc. Purity always enables to see God.

 

[Tractor1]

Romans 5:13-14
Sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam...

Proponents of original sin claim "sin is not imputed" means God doesn't hold people responsible for committing sin if there is no law, so those who lived between Adam and Moses died because of inherited sin, but Romans 2 defeats this error:

Romans 2:14-15
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them.

Paul is clearly teaching that people are guilty or innocent based on what they know to be wrong or right.

Romans 5:13-14 means people were committing sins (sin was in the world), even though it wasn't called sin (sin is not counted where there is no law.) People from Adam to Moses died without law (without direct command from God) unlike the transgression of Adam.

In man's relation to God, Scripture presents three major imputations: (a) the Adamic sin to the human race, (b) the sin of man to the Substitute, (c) and the righteouusness of God to the believer. These imputations may be either real or judicial.

The imputation that is real is the accounting to one that which was previously his, while judicial is an accounting to one that which was not previously his. Although some disagree, in the case of the imputation of Adam's intitial sin to each member of his race (except Christ), the former definition should be used (real).

(Romans 5:12-21) is one of the most theological contexts in the Bible. It's mainly an exposition of the primary declaration put forth in verse (12), therefore, it follows that a right interpretation of verse (12) is very crucial. In order to do so, it's important to see that the one initial sin of Adam (original sin) is the main subject. This sin is the source of two different lines of influence. One is the transmitted sin nature which is received mediately from generation to generation, but our objective is to trace the other line which is that of imputed sin. This line is the only reason assigned by Scipture for the imposition of physical death upon the race. It has to do with guilt and its penalty is imposed on each member of the race immediately (directly) from Adam.

The Bible's answer to why each of us is subject to physical death is that we each had our share in the sin that injured Adam and caused him to die physically. Physical death isn't an inheritance or infection which parents pass on to their children. It's a penalty for our joint action with Adam in his disobedience.

Adam contained the race in himself in a way that isn't true of any other, but a most telling Scripture passage bearing on the fact of federal headship concerns Abraham. Look at (Hebrews 7:9-10). It not only implies headship, but declares that the offspring is divinely accounted as having acted in the federal head. "And as I so say, Levi also, who received tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him." No one would claim that Levi consciously or purposefully paid tithes, yet God declares that he did. Such is divine estimation. Likewise, no one would claim that each member of the race consciously or purposefully sinned in Adam; yet God does.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[holyrokker]

In man's relation to God, Scripture presents three major imputations: (a) the Adamic sin to the human race, (b) the sin of man to the Substitute, (c) and the righteouusness of God to the believer. These imputations may be either real or judicial.

Really? Where does Scripture present these three "imputations"? I find them only in the teachings for Calvin and his disciples.

 

[Tractor1]

Really? Where does Scripture present these three "imputations"? I find them only in the teachings for Calvin and his disciples.

Regarding Adam's sin being imputed to the human race ( Romans 5:12-21 ) is the central passage. In verse 12 it's declared that death is the penalty for all men because they have sinned. This doesn't refer to the fact that all men sin in their daily experience since the verb is in the aorist tense. It denotes an action completed in the past. That being, all men sinned along with Adam, thereby bringing the penalty of death upon themselves. To clarify, Paul points out how all died in the period between Adam and Moses, or before the Mosaic Law was given, and also how all irresponsible persons such as infants died although they had never sinned willfully. This is the one case of real imputation.

In subsequent posts I will answer your questions regarding judicial imputations.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[holyrokker]

Yes, Romans 5:12 uses the aorist tense when it says "all sinned". Specifically, it is in the active voice and indicative mood.

Such usage doesn't necessarily tie an action to a particular time or event in the past. It can be used as a general term as meaning some time before this present moment.

The fact that the verb is in an aorist tense doesn't necessarily mean that all men sinned "with" Adam.

It is also logically inconsistent to say that we all sinned "with" Adam, because we all did not exist alongside Adam, so the meaning of "all sinned" really can't be used to say "all sinned with Adam."

Therefore, based on Romans 5:12, there is no biblical, grammatical, or logical reason to claim that Adam's sin and/or guilt is imputed to us.

Paul points out that all people die regardless of the Law, because sin is not a transgression of the written law. Earlier Paul made that clear that even the Gentiles are guilty because when they sin, it is not against the Mosaic Law, but against the law of God written on their consciences.

Yes, infants die although they do not sin willfully. But is Paul referring to physical death in Romans 5, or a spiritual death; a separation for God?