Romans 5 and original sin?

[holyrokker]

Ro 5:19 - "For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners. . ."

All men are made sinners through the disobedience of Adam, not through their own disobedience, which simply adds to it.

And let me remind you of 1) and 2) above, and how you must proceed if you want to show the NT does not present inherited guilt of Adam's sin.

You must being by demonstrating your assertions that

1) v. 18 does not allow for inheriting Adam's guilt and sin,

2) the notion comes from outside the text, and

3) the notion is inferred into the text.

Posturing is not exegesis.

Let's look at Romans 5:18-19 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousnes leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

To claim that Romans 5 is advocating inherited guilt and sin, it would also be advocating universal salvation.

And if you do not believe that Adam's sin is imputued to all mankind, then you must do more than just express your disagreement, you must show exegetically that Ro 5:12-21 does not purport what is presented above.

You are asking to prove a negative. Exegetically, Romans 5 does not teach the doctrine of original sin.

On the other hand, you've made a claim that you haven't proven from the text. To support your claim, you've introduced a concept that doesn't come from the text.

 

[Clare73]

Ro 5:19 - "For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners. . ."

All men are made sinners through the disobedience of Adam, not through their own disobedience, which simply adds to it.

And let me remind you of 1) and 2) above, and how you must proceed if you want to show the NT does not present inherited guilt of Adam's sin.

You must begin by demonstrating your assertions that

1) v. 18 does not allow for inheriting Adam's guilt and sin,

2) the notion comes from outside the text, and

3) the notion is inferred into the text.

Posturing is not exegesis.

Let's look at Romans 5:18-19 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousnes leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

To claim that Romans 5 is advocating inherited guilt and sin, it would also be advocating universal salvation.

If you are referring to "all" in Ro 5:19, in light of the whole counsel of God, the word has several meanings in its NT usage:
1) all mankind, without exception,
2) all Jews only,
3) all Gentiles only,
4) all believers only,
5) all non-believers only.
In light of the whole counsel fo God, its meaning in Ro 5:19 is 4).

There is no universal salvation in Ro 5:19.

Now demonstrate your three assertions above.

2) And if you do not believe that Adam's sin is imputued to all mankind, then you must do more than just express your disagreement, you must show exegetically that Ro 5:12-21 does not purport what is presented above.

You are asking to prove a negative. Exegetically, Romans 5 does not teach the doctrine of original sin.

No, I am asking you to provide a consistent and Biblical exegesis of Ro 5:12-21 that follows its argument to a logical conclusion of mankind is not guilty of Adam's sin.

On the other hand, you've made a claim that you haven't proven from the text. To support your claim,
you've introduced a concept that doesn't come from the text.

More posturing. . .

Provide the exegesis requested above, or your asssertion is without merit.

Q.E.D.

 

[jdbear]

You're welcome Clare. I can tell from your posts that you take time to study the whole passage, not just a verse or two and I appreciate that, although I disagree on your interpretation.

As you have said, death is caused by sin and sin is transgression of law. For this reason, the doctrine of original sin cannot be sustained, because a sinner is someone who actually transgresses the law. The proof for this is obvious throughout scripture. God only adjudicates people as sinners because of personal sin:

"Depart from Me, you cursed...for I was hungry and you gave Me no food..." JN.25:41-42

By Jesus' own words, people are condemned for their own sin. Paul agrees:

"But...all uncleanness...let it not even be named among you...for because of these things the wrath of God comes on the sons of disobedience." Eph.5:3,6

The way Paul worded Ro.5 should be interpreted on what the Bible says Gods reason for judgement and condemnation is, which is always, only and ever for personal sin. I could fill page after page with this truth, but I have no intention of insulting your intelligence.

On your second point, I disagree the Bible teaches people are born spiritually dead. I'm going to comment briefly on the scripture you cited.

Ge.2:17
...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
God didn't tell Adam that he would die on the same day he ate the fruit, but only that he would die.
Youngs translation says, "...dying you will die", meaning, Adam would begin to and eventually die. This passage has nothing to do with Adams posterity.

Eph.2:1
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Trespass and sin are both plural, following the natural flow into verse 2 which says, "wherein in time past you walked...". Paul is showing that people were dead because of how they acted.

Col.2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Again, "sins" is followed by "uncircumcision". We know the NT interpretation of circumcision is of heart (Ro.2:29). Therefore, being dead is the result of sins which proceed from ones own heart (or mind).

"I say to you, whoever looks at a woman to lust for her, commits adultery in his heart" Mt.5:28 (Ja.1:14-15 shows how sin is birthed through the mind.) Furthermore, my position is upheld by verse 14, which mentions the written law. Paul shows that we die for our own sin.

Jn.3:18b-19,36
This passage teaches people are condemned for not believing in Jesus, for not coming to the light. Loving darkness is the result of evil deeds (vs.19). People hide when they're doing something they know is wrong. Hating light (or exposure) occurs because of evil practice (vs.20). This text says nothing about people loving darkness because they're born that way, but because of shameful behavior. Jn.3 says God so loved the "world" (which is not the church) and that "whoever" believes is not condemned. It's clearly stated that God loved all sinners by sending Jesus and that people are condemned for not believing in Him, which means they can.

On the third point, I wouldn't call Adams transgression outright rebellion. The Bible says Adam wasn't deceived by Satan (1 Tim.2:14), so he had no selfish motive for disobeying. In any case, you said Adam lost eternal life when he rebelled and this is the point. Adam lost for disobedience and without exception, Gods word teaches we lose for our own disobedience.

Ro.5:12-21
Paul isn't teaching that people from Adam until Moses died without personal transgression. He's saying they had transgressions, but their transgressions weren't like Adams (verbal command from God). They did have conscience. The revelation Adam and Eve exposed themselves to were no doubt taught to their children (as all parents do) and it is biblical to say we can be (and in fact are) defiled by conscience. Since our first parents, sin has been "in the world" by the knowledge of good and evil. Jesus said out of the heart (mind) proceed evil thoughs which defile a person. (Mk.7:20-23). Jesus never taught that He views people sinful from birth or unclean from Adam, but for personal evil. A good example is the flood (between Adam and Moses). Why did judgement fall on them?

The parallel between Jesus and Adam
I reckon the point this way. The text says " free gift is of many offences....", so Paul isn't teaching we were stained with Adams sin, but our own. When Paul says things like, "through the offense of one, many are dead", he means Adam passed the knowledge he acquired to us, the same knowledge that killed him. Ro.7:8-11 Shows how the knowledge of good and evil leads to death.
"who will render to each person according to his deeds" Ro.2:6 (not for Adams deed.)

In the analogy of the Anthropos family, people who incur monetary debt in the manner you described do so willingly. By saying, "as long as", choice is involved and choice supports my beliefs about God.

Lk.11:48-51
I feel you're arguing against yourself using this chapter. Everything Jesus says to the teachers has to do with their own sin, which is the witness that they are like the ones who killed the prophets. Jesus uses the term "generation" (genea) in vs.50 as a metaphor of a group who are alike in character. Why does Jesus say they're alike? Is it because of how they behave, or because they are physically related to those who killed the prophets?

I don't know why you cited Ro.1:32, which speaks of people who "commit such things".

 

[jdbear]

holyrokker said,
To claim that Romans 5 is advocating inherited guilt and sin, it would also be advocating universal salvation.

Right. The parallel is that which has the ability to affect all mankind.

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men..." Titus 2:11

 

[enlightened1]

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.

 

[jdbear]

enlightened1 said,
We die today for the same reason Adam died ages ago, because we cannot eat the fruit from the Tree of Life.

"...death spread to all men, because all sinned." Ro.5:12

 

[enlightened1]

Let me quite blunt. If interpreted properly, the scriptures testify to the fact that Adam is the devil, and we are all his children, except for JESUS (whose Father is GOD, not Adam). To this end, and because the apple does not fall from the tree, we are all like our father (Adam). How else can all be condemned from birth? So, yes, original sin is fact, and we are all born with a corrupted nature.

 

[jdbear]

enlightened1 said,
Let me quite blunt. If interpreted properly, the scriptures testify to the fact that Adam is the devil, and we are all his children, except for JESUS (whose Father is GOD, not Adam)...

Except that Jesus is also the Son of man.

"... because he is the Son of man." Jn.5:27

Well, there goes the myth of original sin.

 

[enlightened1]

Except that Jesus is also the Son of man.

"... because he is the Son of man." Jn.5:27

Well, there goes the myth of original sin.

Some 6000+ years ago the LORD decreed that ALL should die a physical death, even before they were born. Now, since we were not born yet, how is it that the LORD righteously judged me a sinner and condemned me to death, even before I could sin? What I believe is that we lie because we are born liars, not that we are liars because we lie first. We will lie. Why?

 

[jdbear]

enlightened1 said,
Some 6000+ years ago the LORD decreed that ALL should die a physical death, even before they were born. Now, since we were not born yet, how is it that the LORD righteously judged me a sinner and condemned me to death, even before I could sin? What I believe is that we lie because we are born liars, not that we are liars because we lie first.

The Lord never decreed that everyone would die a physical death even before they they were born.
"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death..." Heb.11:5
We are liars because we tell lies. We're not murderers for the simple reason that we've never murdered anyone. Every instance in scripture where people are judged as sinners, it's because of what they themselves have done, not because of what someone else did.
"Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight, that Thou mightest be justified when Thou speakest and be clear when Thou judgest." Ps.51:4

enlightened1 said,
We will lie. Why?

We lie and do others sins because we fall into temptation.
"But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed." Ja.1:14

 

[abacabb3]

Jerusalem said,
Don't agree with any of this, as sin is a matter of knowledge. It's learned:
sin is the transgression of the law. 1 Jn.3:4
to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. Ja.4:17

Ideas aren't passed through genetics.

Proclivities arguably are, speaking scientifically.

The Scripture states that "through one transgression [the first sin that was committed by Adam and Eve], there resulted condemnation to all men" (Romans 5:18).

So, the Scripture is pretty clear. We are condemned because of an act we didn't commit, but because our forefather did. Now, the Scripture states that we are not guilty for the sins of our parents. So, how do we square Romans 5:18? Well, Romans 3:15 says that no one is righteous, so we don't need to bicker about "how about the people that never sinned," because they don't exist.

That means we are punished for our own sins. Romans 5:14 shows how this relates to Adam:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam."

So, even those who sinned apart from the Law, they still sinned, just not in Adam's likeness (for he broke a commandment.)

To me, the easiest reading is that we inherit a sinful nature, and it is this nature that puts us under God's condemnation. The Scripture does not permit readings that would tell us there are sinless people or anyone born not under condemnation. That might make some uncomfortable, but Romans 5:18 seems pretty specific that "all men" are under "condemnation."

 

[holyrokker]

Proclivities arguably are, speaking scientifically.

The Scripture states that "through one transgression [the first sin that was committed by Adam and Eve], there resulted condemnation to all men" (Romans 5:18).

So, the Scripture is pretty clear. We are condemned because of an act we didn't commit, but because our forefather did. Now, the Scripture states that we are not guilty for the sins of our parents. So, how do we square Romans 5:18? Well, Romans 3:15 says that no one is righteous, so we don't need to bicker about "how about the people that never sinned," because they don't exist.

That means we are punished for our own sins. Romans 5:14 shows how this relates to Adam:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam."

So, even those who sinned apart from the Law, they still sinned, just not in Adam's likeness (for he broke a commandment.)

To me, the easiest reading is that we inherit a sinful nature, and it is this nature that puts us under God's condemnation. The Scripture does not permit readings that would tell us there are sinless people or anyone born not under condemnation. That might make some uncomfortable, but Romans 5:18 seems pretty specific that "all men" are under "condemnation."

How do you justify that with the second half of verse 18; "so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people"

If all inherit a sinful nature because of Adam, do all also receive life because of Jesus?

 

[abacabb3]

How do you justify that with the second half of verse 18; "so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people"

If all inherit a sinful nature because of Adam, do all also receive life because of Jesus?

Yes, dependent upon people accessing that justification through faith, consistent with the other Scriptures. Christ paid for all men's sins for all time on the cross.

Come on guys, we're Christians, let's not play semantics, the Scripture is serious stuff.

The Scripture is clear. "There is no one righteous, not one." If you want to know why, Romans 5 tells us how it came to be.

 

[Ignatius21]

In discussing "original sin" and its consequences, it is also necessary to consider the 'origin of the soul' and whether or not man is born with a sinful nature. Aside from Scripture, experience itself tells us that man has a sinful nature, without exception. If we inherit a sinful nature, can this be indicated through scientific investigation? - Research into whether or not traits of character and personality are inherited have revealed surprising results that would appear to suggest that these traits are not just the results of social conditioning. There is scientific evidence to believe that traits can be passed on 'genetically'. (If you wish to read some of the findings, see the sub-heading: "Is the sinful nature in man inheritable?")

Back to Scripture: We can argue that the responsibility for the actual act of the first sin belonged to Adam, but that doesn't mean that the nature of mankind was not affected as a result.

‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous’ (Rom5:19, NKJ).

This verse (note "many" - not all) would appear to support the view that man inherits a sinful nature – a nature corrupted by and tending to sin. As a Christian, one should realize that man was not created this way, but acquired a corrupted nature as a result of acting sinfully – against God and against his innate conscience. David, in one of his psalms, wrote: ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me’ (Ps.51:5, NKJ). As a prayer of repentance, ‘hyperbole’ here would seem out of place. The obvious reading implies a confession of sinfulness of nature from birth. In another psalm, we find: ‘The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth’ (Ps.58:3, NASV). Now, of course, although one might perhaps claim the use of hyperbole in this verse – babies can’t speak lies from birth – the wickedness of nature implied would seem affirmed by medical research concluding that psychopaths are born with a nature inclining them to this disposition.

Regards,

J

I think you make some good points. Something I am still trying to get a better understanding of, is the real meaning of the term "nature" in these various theological discussions. It isn't and wasn't always used consistently. At the level of common discourse, it kind of means "how someone was born" or "how someone acts without any external pressure to do otherwise." So it's often said that so-and-so is "lazy by nature" or "athletic by nature." But in the nuanced theological language of the Church, it was much more precisely defined as "that which something is." It's virtually synonymous with "essence" or "substance." It's a more abstract concept, perhaps loosely comparable with a Platonic-style "form" or "ideal." Sort of like the blueprint for what something is.

At the first level, it's "natural" for humans to sin. But at the second, it's profoundly unnatural for humans to sin. Whatever human nature is, it was created that way by God. It is at this level that we are in the image of God. If Adam's nature became corrupted--i.e. changed from what it once was--then he became something other than human. And since the whole of Christianity hinges on the Incarnation, and the Incarnation hinges on Christ sharing exactly the same human nature as all of us, then either (a) Christ was something other than human, since he was without sin, and therefore salvation is impossible for us or (b) sin is not a part of human nature, and therefore our human nature is not sinful.

There's a tendency in much Christian thought on this topic, to restrict "sin" to "law breaking," as an entirely ethical matter. Everyone here seems to appreciate its broader status of "everything wrong with creation." Including (and I'd agree with this) genetic predispositions toward particular vices. And of course, mortality itself, as Hebrews says, we were held captive through fear of death.

Sin, therefore, is not natural but personal. It is the heart that is sinful beyond measure, it is in the heart of man that wickness is conceived. It is the heart of man that is compared to a tomb filled with dead men's bones. The heart is the center, the "core" of an individual, what the Greek calls the nous. The "heart/mind" since there's really no good English eqivalent.

I believe the Eastern Christian position (as best I can explain it) is that man's nature is what it always was...human. But every person is born into the corruption--spiritual, physical, genetic, etc. I once heard an Orthodox priest contrast this view with Luther's alleged statement, that "a human is a pile of dung, and a Christian is a pile of dung covered in snow."*** with "a human is a diamond, and a Christian is a diamond with the mud being scraped away."

*** Can anyone verify whether Luther actually said that??? ***

Anyway. What I don't believe, from either Scripture or historical theology, is that humans are born legally guilty and liable for Adam's individual sin. Humans are born mortal, fallen, and screwed up. They become guilty by actually sinning. This of course somewhat negates the classical Protestant notion of imputation, since if we aren't guilty by imputation, then neither are we acquitted by imputation.

 

[Ignatius21]

How do you justify that with the second half of verse 18; "so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people"

If all inherit a sinful nature because of Adam, do all also receive life because of Jesus?

Here is one of those places where people think the Orthodox are all high on incense (and maybe we are!), but our answer to that would be that Christ redeemed all humanity at the level of nature. Thus the Fathers can speak (sometimes, seemingly contradictory) of all humanity falling in Adam, and all humanity being raised with Christ...and of only those who persevere in faith being saved. Human nature didn't change--or else it wouldn't have been human anymore--but it did lose its "status" so to speak. Christ not only restored our status, but actually elevated it...and "status" isn't even a good word, because he didn't just raise our standing, he inseparably united God and Man in his own person.

All will be raised from the grave. Christ defeated death and freed humanity from death. All will be raised up in the presence of Christ. Those who are of faith, who are humble and receive Christ as their Lord, will experience a resurrection unto eternal joy. Those who live for the world, who reject Christ as Lord, will experience a resurrection unto eternal suffering.

Per my earlier post, I don't think it's proper--technically speaking anyway--to say that we inherit a sinful nature from Adam. We inherit the same human nature, but one that is covered over, or obscured, or twisted in every person by sin.

 

[Knee V]

Here is one of those places where people think the Orthodox are all high on incense (and maybe we are!), but our answer to that would be that Christ redeemed all humanity at the level of nature. Thus the Fathers can speak (sometimes, seemingly contradictory) of all humanity falling in Adam, and all humanity being raised with Christ...and of only those who persevere in faith being saved. Human nature didn't change--or else it wouldn't have been human anymore--but it did lose its "status" so to speak. Christ not only restored our status, but actually elevated it...and "status" isn't even a good word, because he didn't just raise our standing, he inseparably united God and Man in his own person.

All will be raised from the grave. Christ defeated death and freed humanity from death. All will be raised up in the presence of Christ. Those who are of faith, who are humble and receive Christ as their Lord, will experience a resurrection unto eternal joy. Those who live for the world, who reject Christ as Lord, will experience a resurrection unto eternal suffering.

Per my earlier post, I don't think it's proper--technically speaking anyway--to say that we inherit a sinful nature from Adam. We inherit the same human nature, but one that is covered over, or obscured, or twisted in every person by sin.

WRT "nature", I like to think of a clay bowl. The bowl is clay. If you drill a hole in the bottom of the bowl, the bowl is still clay; it is just damaged and cannot properly do what it is designed to do. Likewise we humans are human. We are damaged and cannot properly do on our own what we were designed to do, but we are still human, just as Christ is human and as our first parents were created human.

 

[Assyrian]

The problem is, in the story in the garden, Adam and Eve don't seem any different to the rest of us. God called them to obey his command, to love him and follow him, but the desires of their human nature wanted something different. Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. That is the same story as all of us. James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. It isn't a conflict between the call of God and our fallen nature, it is a conflict between God's call and our natural human desires that God has created and are good in themselves. There is nothing wrong in desiring good food, but God has called us higher, to do what is right and obey him, even when it conflicts with our natural desires. We do sometimes, but we all fail sooner or later, usually sooner. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God.

 

[Assyrian]

Proclivities arguably are, speaking scientifically.

The Scripture states that "through one transgression [the first sin that was committed by Adam and Eve], there resulted condemnation to all men" (Romans 5:18). So, the Scripture is pretty clear. We are condemned because of an act we didn't commit, but because our forefather did.

Shouldn't we read that in the context of verse 12? Death, the condemnation for the first sin, spread to all men because all sinned Rom 5:12? We are not condemned for another man's sin. God is not like that, he is just and he says he does not punish the sons for the sins of the fathers. Instead we share Adam's condemnation because we sin too.

Now, the Scripture states that we are not guilty for the sins of our parents. So, how do we square Romans 5:18? Well, Romans 3:15 says that no one is righteous, so we don't need to bicker about "how about the people that never sinned," because they don't exist.

That means we are punished for our own sins. Romans 5:14 shows how this relates to Adam:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam."

So, even those who sinned apart from the Law, they still sinned, just not in Adam's likeness (for he broke a commandment.)

To me, the easiest reading is that we inherit a sinful nature, and it is this nature that puts us under God's condemnation. The Scripture does not permit readings that would tell us there are sinless people or anyone born not under condemnation. That might make some uncomfortable, but Romans 5:18 seems pretty specific that "all men" are under "condemnation."

Actually in Romans 7 Paul says there was a time when he wasn't dead from sin, he was alive before he was old enough to understand the commandments it was only then that he sinned and died.

 

[hedrick]

I believe the Eastern Christian position (as best I can explain it) is that man's nature is what it always was...human. But every person is born into the corruption--spiritual, physical, genetic, etc. I once heard an Orthodox priest contrast this view with Luther's alleged statement, that "a human is a pile of dung, and a Christian is a pile of dung covered in snow."*** with "a human is a diamond, and a Christian is a diamond with the mud being scraped away."

*** Can anyone verify whether Luther actually said that??? ***

It appears not: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Has Martin Luther's "Snow-Covered Dunghill" Mystery-Legend Been Solved?!. But see Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Snow-Covered Dung-Heap - Luther / Langland / Chrysostom?. There's some suggestion that the source is Chrysostom.

Anyway. What I don't believe, from either Scripture or historical theology, is that humans are born legally guilty and liable for Adam's individual sin. Humans are born mortal, fallen, and screwed up. They become guilty by actually sinning. This of course somewhat negates the classical Protestant notion of imputation, since if we aren't guilty by imputation, then neither are we acquitted by imputation.

I'm not sure about the classical Protestant view. Calvin says we inherent a corrupted nature from Adam, but are not guilty of his sin. Calvin, however, saw sin as a condition of alienation from God, so that corruption is sinful.

In his commentary on Rom 5:17, Calvin says that the analogy does not mean that we are saved in exactly the same way as sin comes to us:

It may further be useful to notice here the difference between Christ and Adam, which the Apostle omitted, not because he deemed it of no importance, but unconnected with his present subject.

The first is, that by Adam’s sin we are not condemned through imputation alone, as though we were punished only for the sin of another; but we suffer his punishment, because we also ourselves are guilty; for as our nature is vitiated in him, it is regarded by God as having committed sin. But through the righteousness of Christ we are restored in a different way to salvation; for it is not said to be accepted for us, because it is in us, but because we possess Christ himself with all his blessings, as given to us through the bountiful kindness of the Father. Hence the gift of righteousness is not a quality with which God endows us, as some absurdly explain it, but a gratuitous imputation of righteousness; for the Apostle plainly declares what he understood by the
word grace.
..
while Adam has involved his whole race in condemnation; and the reason of this is indeed evident; for as the curse we derive from Adam is conveyed to us by nature, it is no wonder that it includes the whole mass; but that we may come to a participation of the grace of Christ, we must be ingrafted in him by faith. Hence, in order to partake of the miserable inheritance of sin, it is enough for thee to be man, for it dwells in flesh and blood; but in order to enjoy the righteousness of Christ it is necessary for thee to be a believer; for a participation of him is attained only by faith.

Calvin understands Paul as saying that Christ's righteousness applies to us because we participate in Christ through faith, while Adam's corruption applies to us because we are human. Paul doesn't actually make the contrast in Rom 5, but elsewhere in Romans it is clear that we participate in Christ through faith, so I think it's a reasonable understanding. After all, we aren't physical descendants of Christ, so our connection with him can't be the same as to Adam.

I note that Calvin believes that Jesus' obedience is given to us as we participate in faith. I would argue that the commonality in the analogy is not corresponding imputation, but corresponding participation, but the mode of participation is different: physical descent in one case and faith in the other. Calvin speaks of Christ's righteousness being imputed to us, but it is a result of our participation in Christ.

 

[abacabb3]

Shouldn't we read that in the context of verse 12? Death, the condemnation for the first sin, spread to all men because all sinned Rom 5:12? We are not condemned for another man's sin. God is not like that, he is just and he says he does not punish the sons for the sins of the fathers. Instead we share Adam's condemnation because we sin too.

Well, I agree that it is a moot point whether we are imputed Adam's individual sin or not, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, including babies in the womb.

We inherited Adam's sinful nature, and this proclivity to sin puts us under condemnation.

Actually in Romans 7 Paul says there was a time when he wasn't dead from sin, he was alive before he was old enough to understand the commandments it was only then that he sinned and died.

Yes, but you are misunderstanding something very clear: that those who sinned apart from the law died anyway, as made clear in Romans 5. Sin under the law or apart from the law, we still fall short. What Paul is speaking of is the fact that the Law actually increased his sinfulness, because he was aware of what he was doing but found himself incapable of not sinning.