Romans 7:9 and Original Sin

[JohnJones]

(Rom 7:9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

There was a time in Paul's life when the Law did not yet apply to him and he was therefore not yet a sinner. He was not born a hell-damned sinner, as Calvinism teaches, but was born pure and innocent from sin - that is at least sin was not imputed to him, because "sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Rom 5:13) and at this time he was "alive without the Law." So, we find first that we are born sinless, and live for a time apart from the Law, having no sin imputed to us. Then, when we are old enough to know the difference between good and evil (Isa 7:16 "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good...") the Law begins to apply to us, and we sin, and we die as a result because that sin which we comitted is now imputed to us.

 

[nobdysfool]

Oh, how they hate Calvinism! Man does not like to be told that he is a sinner, that he is depraved and reprobate apart from God's Grace. So he invents all sorts of ideas to try to take back for himself control over his own life, in defiance of the Soveregnty of God. He wants to believe that Adam's sin did not affect him in any way.

You're promoting the heresy of Pelagius, JohnJones. Pelagius and Cassian.

Those who do not learn from (Church) History are doomed to repeat it....

 

[JohnJones]

I didn't say that Paul was not a sinner. I said that he was born pure in the sense that sin was not imputed to him yet, sin not being imputed until the Law began to apply to him. If he was born a sinner, that is with sin already imputed to him, how is it that he was alive without the law? If your position were correct he could not be alive without the law and then die spiritually later, as he says he did, but he must have been born dead, which contradicts what he says. Does he say he was born dead? No. Therefore your position is not possible. (Rom 7:9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. This verse must indicate AT THE LEAST a deferment of imputation of sins until some age of accountableness is reached. Otherwise Paul didn't have any idea what he was talking about. I suppose he should have read Augustine's theology before attempting to write part of the Bible, eh? But that'd be kinda hard since he lived BEFORE Augustine. It's quite obvious that he is referring to his bar mitzvah, the time when he became a "son of the commandment," that is the age at which he began to be held accountable to the Law of Moses. Prior to that time, sin was not imputable because "sin is not imputed when there is no law."

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Since we use the same verses in context as one biblical proof of the concept of original sin, there are obviously other ways to read the same text. IMO our interpretation fits better with the rest of the Bible, but that is just me.

And it goes way off post but lets don't start taking it as a given that St Augustine contradicts St Paul and supports Calvin. It might sit well with some to think so, but this thinking is in error.

 

[Colossians]

JohnJones,

There was a time in Paul's life when the Law did not yet apply to him and he was therefore not yet a sinner. He was not born a hell-damned sinner, as Calvinism teaches, but was born pure and innocent from sin - that is at least sin was not imputed to him, because "sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Rom 5:13) and at this time he was "alive without the Law."
You are mistaken: Paul speaks here as it were from the mouth of Adam. Verse 11 then follows on as it were from the mouth of Eve.
It speaks not of Paul specifically except for the fact that it has generic application to him, as it does to all, for all inherited the knowledge of good and evil, being in Adam's loins when he received such knowledge.

Further, the belief that Adam and Eve were created righteous is false: they were created in a state of unratified sin, which they soon ratified by virtue of the law's being placed over them, for it is written: "the strength of sin is the law".

 

[JohnJones]

Adam and Eve were created negatively righteous, not positively righteous. (That means they were not righteous by doing good but by having not done evil.)

 

[AndOne]

All that the verses are addressing is that Paul was unaware of sin until the Law came. The passage should be read in its entire context through the end of the chapter in verse 25. Verses 17-25 specifically address the sinful nature - which is the very reason that he cannot keep the law. The law makes man aware of his sinfull nature - it does not mean that the sinful nature didn't exist before he was aware of it.

Think about it logically from another perspective. The law did not exist until Moses - however the world was destroyed in the flood (which occured before Moses) - for what if not sin? Based on the logic of the original post - no one sinned from the time of Adam until Moses - because the law had not yet been given. This simply is not the case and is an illogical conclusion from the ONE verse sighted.

 

[Reformationist]

(Rom 7:9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

There was a time in Paul's life when the Law did not yet apply to him and he was therefore not yet a sinner. He was not born a hell-damned sinner, as Calvinism teaches, but was born pure and innocent from sin - that is at least sin was not imputed to him, because "sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Rom 5:13) and at this time he was "alive without the Law." So, we find first that we are born sinless, and live for a time apart from the Law, having no sin imputed to us. Then, when we are old enough to know the difference between good and evil (Isa 7:16 "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good...") the Law begins to apply to us, and we sin, and we die as a result because that sin which we comitted is now imputed to us.

Paul is not saying that he was alive spiritually. He is saying that he was alive in his own estimation. Paul knew the law and knew that law promised life for obedience. This made Him realize that keeping the law was required. Trying to obey it made him realize that inwardly, in the desires of his heart, he was constantly breaking the law even before he knew it, and when he saw what he was doing he could not stop it. Thus, Paul writes that sin, the anti-God, anti-law driving force within him, "deceived me, and ...killed me" (v. 11). He became convinced that spiritually he was lifeless and lost.

God bless

 

[Colossians]

JohnJones,

Adam and Eve were created negatively righteous, not positively righteous.
This is creative, but that is about all.
There is no such thing as "negative righteousness". All you are doing here is theorising in order to make your understanding fit what occured.

Instead, you must realise that if Adam and Eve had in fact been created as sinners, the result would have been no different: they would have eaten of the tree. Thus they were created as sinners, for there is otherwise no advantage in being made righteous.

Only God is righteous. Adam was not God. (This is a fundamental which most miss.)

 

[Colossians]

Reformationist,

Paul is not saying that he was alive spiritually. He is saying that he was alive in his own estimation. Paul knew the law and knew that law promised life for obedience. This made Him realize that keeping the law was required.
Paul is not speaking of his own life, but as it were through the mouths of Adam (7:9) and Eve (7:11). The account describes life in the lack of the knowledge of good and evil as being "alive" because such a life was unencumbered with conscience.
God then brought a law over those two who enjoyed such freedom, and because just a few verses earlier in Romans 7 we are told that "the motions of sin .. were [(invoked)] by the law", sin transpired, and spiritual death ensued.

All scripture is to be approached from what is known as "the law of first mention":
When it speaks of "he that is born of God", it is to be understood primarily through a view of Him who is the first born of God: Christ.
When is speaks of Israel, it is to be understood primarily through a view of Him who was first called "Israel": Jacob.
When it speaks of man, it is to be understood primarily through a view of Him who was first called "man": Adam. (Which is why Paul speaks of the first Adam and the second Adam.)

Before Paul was taught the law, he was nonetheless under the law, being born of woman, and was therefore in receipt of the knowledge of good and evil, which had therefore already killed him. (This is the experience of the Gentiles, who though having not the law, are pricked in their conscience. See Rm 2:14,15.)
The passage is not therefore speaking of Paul's coming into a knowledge of the Jewish law through education, but generically to all man (for all men are born of woman and are therefore born under the law), and he uses Adam's experience as the descriptor. For all men who were ever to be born, were in Adam's loins, in the garden.

 

[Peter]

What is this doing in "Christian History"? No one has offered any proof that their view is the one held from the very beginning. Please show your historical proof texts. Anything from the Ante-Nicean or Nicean Fathers would be most helpful. Thank you.

Peace



Peter

 

[JohnJones]

The law makes man aware of his sinfull nature - it does not mean that the sinful nature didn't exist before he was aware of it.

(Rom 7:9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

He does not say "I THOUGHT I was alive without the law" but says "I WAS alive without the law." This is not merely a case of not realizing that he was spiritually dead and then realizing it - he was spiritually alive then he spiritually died.

Think about it logically from another perspective. The law did not exist until Moses - however the world was destroyed in the flood (which occured before Moses) - for what if not sin?

There was a Law given prior to Moses obviously, howbeit not written. You will notice the patriarchs obeying/disobeying many of the same things as are found in the law such as leviritical marriage for one example. There was a law, very similar, yet with some differences.
BUT you are missing the biggest point - it is not that sin does not exist without the law but that sin is not imputed without the law. (Rom 5:13) Even if you cannot accept the idea that Paul was born sinless, you must admit that sin was not imputed to him when he was born, but at some later time in life because he says "I was alive without the law once." He is obviously referring to his bar mitzvah, when he became a "son of the commandment" (which is the meaning of the phrase bar mitzvah). Until that time the Law did not apply to him, so sin was not imputed to him, whether he had any to be imputed or not being inconsequential since it could not yet be imputed anyway, not until the Law came to him.

 

[Colossians]

JohnJones,

He does not say "I THOUGHT I was alive without the law" but says "I WAS alive without the law." This is not merely a case of not realizing that he was spiritually dead and then realizing it - he was spiritually alive then he spiritually died.
It is not possible for this "alive" to mean "spiritually alive", for that which is spiritually alive is righteous, and cannot therefore be subsequently brought under the law, for "the law was not made for a righteous man".
Moreover, the scripture tells us that the motions of sin are by the law, thus revealing that the law is only over that which it can invoke to sin. That is its utility - to illuminate even more sharply our state outside of Christ.

So then, from this fundamental basis, we see that the "alive" Paul spoke of as it were through the mouth of Adam (and all men by extrapolation) was in fact an unawareness of his true state: he was unencumbered by conscience.

God knew his state however, and purposely planted Satan in the garden to assist with bringing such to light. The law was then brought upon Adam, which gave his sin (autonomy from God) its strength ("the strength of sin is the law"), and Adam died, coming into a knowledge of the true state of things.

 

[JohnJones]

JohnJones,

He does not say "I THOUGHT I was alive without the law" but says "I WAS alive without the law." This is not merely a case of not realizing that he was spiritually dead and then realizing it - he was spiritually alive then he spiritually died.
It is not possible for this "alive" to mean "spiritually alive", for that which is spiritually alive is righteous, and cannot therefore be subsequently brought under the law, for "the law was not made for a righteous man".

(Gal 3:19 KJV) Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The Law was added because of transgressions, but how could there be transgressions without the Law? There could not be! So then, what is he saying? The Law always governed man's actions, but was not always being imputed. So, even when men transgressed the Law, those transgressions were not imputed as transgressions till the Law was "added" -- added to what? To imputableness. So then, even when Paul was "alive apart from the Law," even when he was still spiritually alive, he transgressed the Law, but the Law having not been added to his imputableness, those transgressions were not imputed until the Law was added to him.

 

[holyrokker]

Johnjones --

It's interesting to note that sin is not imputed where there is no law. (I don't accept the notion of "original sin" myself)

What about Romans 2:14-15 in regards to the Law
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."

Do you think this qualifies for being charged with guilt since those without the Law are a law for themselves? Those who apart from the law acknowledge their guilt.

 

[Colossians]

JohnJones,


(Gal 3:19 KJV) Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
The Law was added because of transgressions, but how could there be transgressions without the Law?
You quote a scripture that tells you there were transgressions that preceded the law, but you don’t accept it, as you show below. But consider how that Cain knew he was guilty of Adam’s blood, centuries before the law was given.



There could not be!
There were: that is what Gal 3:19 says. And it is what Rom 5:14 implies: sin was present, but not of the similtude of Adam’s sin – that is, not that which knowingly disobeyed a commandment.
At this point you should refer to some OT passages about the law: for starters, Leviticus 4:13,14,22,23, 5:15. You will note that transgression preceded the awareness of transgression.


The Law always governed man's actions, but was not always being imputed.
This is correct (Rom 5:13).
And it still is not imputed to the Gentiles, because they have not the law. The only sin that is imputed to them, is the one they are born in: the transgression of Adam: the receipt of the knowledge of good and evil as opposed to the receipt of the life that is in Christ. It is that sin which will send them away for eternity.
Nevertheless, other varying degrees of sin which they commit will judge themselves in the presence of God, for they are, as Paul says, “a law unto themselves”.



So, even when men transgressed the Law, those transgressions were not imputed as transgressions till the Law was "added" -- added to what? To imputableness.
You mistake the old English “added” for “added to”. It means simply “introduced to the scheme of things”, not that it was added to anything.



So then, even when Paul was "alive apart from the Law," even when he was still spiritually alive, he transgressed the Law, ...
Again, one can only be spiritually alive if one is in Christ. Romans 7 does not speak of being spiritually alive, but simply “alive”. It refers to life in the absence of the knowledge of good and evil (conscience), and is spoken as it were from the mouth of Adam.

The passage of Romans does not concern the giving of the law as does Galations 3:19. It concerns the power of the law to cause sin. Sin is invoked by the law.
That those who existed before the law was given in writing, nevertheless sinned (Rom 5:13), attests to the fact that the law was present in their minds to cause such, for “the [(only)] strength of sin is the law”.
Without the law then, not only is it the case that sin is not imputed, sin does not even occur. That it occurred before the law was given in writing, tells us that it was present in their minds in the form of the knowledge of good and evil, thus empowering sin to transact.


God bless.

 

[JohnJones]

Romans 7 does not speak of being spiritually alive, but simply “alive”.

So you think that Paul meant "I was physically alive without the Law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died physically." -- How was he writing this if he was physically dead? Obviously he is speaking spiritually "I was alive spiritually without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died spiritually."

 

[Colossians]

JohnJones,

So you think that Paul meant "I was physically alive without the Law once
You need to consider more thoughtfully what I write: it appears you may be glossing over things, or at least forgetting them. I have repeatedly underscored the fact that Romans 7's "alive" means to be unencumbered with conscience.

I might be good here to define the concepts:
1. "Spiritually alive" does not mean that your spirit is moving and living. It means that you have a relationship with God.
2. Romans 7's "alive" does not refer to "spiritually alive", but to a life which 'feels' alive: a life free of a guilty conscience.

So when the commandment came over Adam ("do not eat of the tree") this resulted in his receiving of the knowledge of his actual state (his eyes were opened), and he was from then on heavy laden with conscience. This is what Paul speaks of in Romans 7.

Further, it would be good to hear your thoughts on the rest of my post.

 

[JohnJones]

I have repeatedly underscored the fact that Romans 7's "alive" means to be unencumbered with conscience.

In other words, you refuse to accept that he was actually alive in some way and then actually died. To you he was always dead, but was just too stupid to realize it for a while. And it doesn't matter at all to you that he says "I was alive, then I died" rather than "I thought I was alive but then found out I wasn't." No matter what he says, you are going to read it as "I thought" because you think that's what he should have written - well, it aint what he wrote, so get over it.

 

[Colossians]

JohnJones,

You have not properly considered my previous post, and have avoided acknowledging the points from the post before that, which provide for you a relatively comprehensive teaching of the state of things as regards the law.