Romans 7:9 and Original Sin

[nobdysfool]

(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.



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.

All of mankind was present in Adam WHEN he sinned. God imputed Adam's sin to Adam, and pronounced Judgment on it. Seminally, ALL are in Adam BY BIRTH, and that which is true of Adam is also true of all of his progeny. God created all that is in the world which is alive to reproduce each after its own kind. Adam, upon becoming a sinner, could not sire offspring that were not sinners. If Eve had birthed a child before their sin, that child would only be innocent in the same way as they were before they sinned, because righteousness had not been imputed to Adam, nor did he possess a native righteousness, but only innocence.

Paul was not born sinless, because he was *in Adam* when Adam sinned, and became what Adam became because of sin: a sinner. Every offspring of Adam, and every subsequent generation, was and is born a sinner by nature. Man is not a sinner because he sins, he sins because he is a sinner.

What you are actually claiming, without actually saying it, is that you believe that YOU were born sinless. What you claim for Paul is what you by inferrence claim for yourself.

 

[JohnJones]

What you are actually claiming, without actually saying it, is that you believe that YOU were born sinless.

Nope. I'm saying that sin is not imputed right off. There is a period in time where regardless of whether a person is or is not a sinner, God does not consider them one (he does not impute that sin to them). Thus, Paul was alive without the law, but as soon as the law came that sin was imputed, and he died.

 

[Colossians]

JohnJ,

Romans 7 tells us "I was alive", not spiritually alive. To be alive, was simply an unawareness of being dead.
It then tells us that when the commandment came, "sin revived", and not "sin came into being". In other words, sin was already present, lying dormant. It just took the law to wake it up.
That sin was already present confirms that Adam's "alive" was not "alive unto God", but rather: "I didn't have a conscience which told me I was dead".

Further you need to realise that one cannot be spiritually alive, then dead, then alive again. Such is the fundamental reason why the "I was alive .. then I died" does not mean "I was alive unto God, then I died".

You also need to understand the meaning of the Psalmist's words: "I was shapen in iniquity", referring to his being formed in the womb as a sinner, and the complementary passage in 1 Cor 7, where it says that children born of unbelievers are unclean to God.

Lastly, you need to understand the teaching that all flesh, including Gentiles, are born under the law, because they are born of woman. It is being under the law which kills; it is not necessary to be also in (the knowledge of ) the law, as was the Jew.

 

[visionary]

How about an example of how one thinks one way, then when convicted sees it in a new light, becomes spiritual alive in understanding of the "spirit of the law"?

John 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Here we have a group that were "righteous in their own eyes" and then the spirit convicts them and they see that they are condemned by the very law they thought they knew.

 

[holyrokker]

All of mankind was present in Adam WHEN he sinned. God imputed Adam's sin to Adam, and pronounced Judgment on it. Seminally, ALL are in Adam BY BIRTH

What is your Biblical source of this?

 

[tigersnare]

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

Excellent Post!!! This is ringing so true in my life right now with dealings with others. They seem to have no appreciation for Church history, nor brilliant biblical scholarship for the last 1400 years.

 

[tigersnare]

Nope. I'm saying that sin is not imputed right off. There is a period in time where regardless of whether a person is or is not a sinner, God does not consider them one (he does not impute that sin to them). Thus, Paul was alive without the law, but as soon as the law came that sin was imputed, and he died.

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding that verse. It just wouldn't jive with the rest of scripture. Here is David talking about the nature of sin

Psalm 51:5

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother concieve me."

David seems to understand that from birth he was guilty and condemed, but probably much like Paul is expressing, he did not understand that until later.

 

[tigersnare]

Nope. I'm saying that sin is not imputed right off. There is a period in time where regardless of whether a person is or is not a sinner, God does not consider them one (he does not impute that sin to them). Thus, Paul was alive without the law, but as soon as the law came that sin was imputed, and he died.

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding that verse. It just wouldn't jive with the rest of scripture. Here is David talking about the nature of sin

Psalm 51:5

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother concieve me."

David seems to understand that from birth he was guilty and condemed.

 

[JohnJones]

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding that verse. It just wouldn't jive with the rest of scripture. Here is David talking about the nature of sin

Psalm 51:5

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother concieve me."

David seems to understand that from birth he was guilty and condemed, but probably much like Paul is expressing, he did not understand that until later.

The theory of original sin that Protestants hold to states: Jesus was born of a woman only so that he would not contract original sin, it being only possible for original sin to be passed throuh the male of the species. If David is really talking about original sin, why does he says "in sin did my mother concieve me"? His statement completely contradicts the theory of original sin, seeing that if he is referring to original sin, he is stating that it is passed exclusively by the female of the species. Obviously he is not talking about original sin.

 

[tigersnare]

The theory of original sin that Protestants hold to states: Jesus was born of a woman only so that he would not contract original sin, it being only possible for original sin to be passed throuh the male of the species.

Didn't realize this was a "theory".

If David is really talking about original sin, why does he says "in sin did my mother concieve me"?

Webster-Inflected Form(s): con·ceived; con·ceiv·ing
1 a : to become pregnant with (young)

I don't understand what the problem is here...

His statement completely contradicts the theory of original sin, seeing that if he is referring to original sin, he is stating that it is passed exclusively by the female of the species. Obviously he is not talking about original sin.

Not following your logic at all.

 

[holyrokker]

Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10)
The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the `circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within himself.

 

[tigersnare]

Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10)
The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the `circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within himself.

Hmm, I shall have to study up on this. It's always instresting when people go back to the root language and start talking about tenses, idioms, past/present forms ect....over my head, no seminary education here, I just read the english.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself can chime in. Nevertheless, original sin does not hinge on this one verse, it was just an example. Apparently a weak one.

Here is another.

Psalm 58:3
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies".

But if you will, to make this more subjective, think of putting a few 2 year old children in a crib with 1 toy. Should show that sin nature shining through and this would be much ealier than Pauls bar mitsvah. (spelling?)

 

[holyrokker]

But if you will, to make this more subjective, think of putting a few 2 year old children in a crib with 1 toy. Should show that sin nature shining through and this would be much ealier than Pauls bar mitsvah. (spelling?)

That's assuming a sin nature.

 

[holyrokker]

Here is another.

Psalm 58:3
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies".

I'm not sure that's a good "prooftext" for original sin. The Psalm finishes by talking about the righteous
10 The righteous will be glad when they are avenged,
when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 Then men will say,
"Surely the righteous still are rewarded;
surely there is a God who judges the earth."

If everyone is born wicked - where did these righteous ones come from?
It seems that these same wicked ones in verse 3 are the same wicked ones being judged in verses 10 and 11.

So - if the wicked are born that way - are the righteous born righteous?

 

[JohnJones]

His statement completely contradicts the theory of original sin, seeing that if he is referring to original sin, he is stating that it is passed exclusively by the female of the species. Obviously he is not talking about original sin.

Not following your logic at all.

I'll try to make it simpler. There are two versions of the Original Sin theory, the Catholic theory and the Calvinist theory.

The Calvinist theory of Original Sin

The theory stated: Original Sin can only be passed by men. It was for this reason that Jesus was born of Mary only. If he had had a human father, he would have contracted Original Sin, so he was born of a virgin to avoid catching Original Sin.

The theory refuted: The proof text for Original Sin is Psalm 51:5. That verse, if it teaches Original Sin at all (which it does not), teaches that Original Sin is passed by mothers not fathers--"in sin my MOTHER conceived me." So, Jesus' being born of a virgin mother would NOT keep him from catching Original Sin, because Original Sin is passed by mothers not fathers. Obviously this is NOT the reason for the virgin birth, and it is a major flaw in the Calvinist theory of Original Sin which robs it of its only proof text.

The Catholic theory of Original Sin

Theory stated: Original sin can be passed by any human parent, father or mother. Therefore, in order to keep from contracting Original Sin, Christ had his mother Immaculately Conceived without Original Sin so that he could then be conceived by her without catching Original Sin. (We know Prots will point out that David makes his mother to be the one that passed Original Sin to him in Psalm 51:5, so unlike the Calvinists we avoid that difficulty by saying that Jesus' bypassed Original Sin by making his mother bypass Original Sin, rather than saying that his being born of woman only was sufficient to this task.)

Theory refuted: Why would Christ cause his mother to be conceived without Original Sin just so he could be conceived without Original Sin? Couldn't he cause himself to be conceived without it just as well as he could cause her to be conceived without it? Yes, he could. BTW, this virtual admission that Psalm 51:5 makes the mother the passer of Original Sin (if it speaks of Original Sin at all, which it doesn't) is proof enough that there is no proof for Original Sin.

 

[JohnJones]

So - if the wicked are born that way - are the righteous born righteous?

Some have used Psa 58:3 to prove that all people are born sinners, ignoring Job 31:18 which could prove that some people are born righteous. Observe:

Psalm 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

Job 31:18 "For from my youth he [the fatherless, vs 17] was brought up with me, as with a father [I being like a father to him], and I have guided her [the widow, vs 16] from my mother's womb;"

Do these passages teach that some are born in Original Sin and others in Original Righteousness? that some come right out of the womb lying, cursing, and swearing, while other come out of the womb and immediately begin to support the fatherless and the widows? or are these passages hyperbolic?

 

[tigersnare]

The theory refuted: The proof text for Original Sin is Psalm 51:5. That verse, if it teaches Original Sin at all (which it does not), teaches that Original Sin is passed by mothers not fathers--"in sin my MOTHER conceived me."

Is it just me or is the logic here completely rediculous?

Main Entry: con·ceive
Pronunciation: k&n-'sEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·ceived; con·ceiv·ing
1 a : to become pregnant with (young)

Of course his MOTHER conceived him in sin, his father very well could not have conveived him could he.

 

[tigersnare]

Some have used Psa 58:3 to prove that all people are born sinners, ignoring Job 31:18 which could prove that some people are born righteous. Observe:

Job 31:18 "For from my youth he [the fatherless, vs 17] was brought up with me, as with a father [I being like a father to him], and I have guided her [the widow, vs 16] from my mother's womb;"

Just because someone does nice things or moral things does not make them Righteous before God. In fact Paul tells us such things are "rubbish" when it comes to Justification.

The text does not say he is holy, blamless, or righteous before God, and you would have to to a whole lot of reading into it to come to that conclusion IMO.

 

[JohnJones]

Just because someone does nice things or moral things does not make them Righteous before God. In fact Paul tells us such things are "rubbish" when it comes to Justification.

The text does not say he is holy, blamless, or righteous before God, and you would have to to a whole lot of reading into it to come to that conclusion IMO.

I didn't say doing nice things makes one righteouss, but surely you are not telling me that you don't see a contrast in these two verses??? One guy is born lying from the womb and another is born supporting the fatherless and the widow from the womb? Surely you see a contrast there! Now, if you want to say both passages are hyperbolic, ok, (and I did ask that question, "or are these passages hyperbolic?") but you can't continue to tout original sin in face of that.

 

[JohnJones]

Is it just me or is the logic here completely rediculous?

Main Entry: con·ceive
Pronunciation: k&n-'sEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·ceived; con·ceiv·ing
1 a : to become pregnant with (young)

Of course his MOTHER conceived him in sin, his father very well could not have conveived him could he.

Here's the point: "In sin my mother conceived me" -- as you point out, only the mother can conceive, and the father is not mentioned at all. Well, did not Jesus' mother conceive him? Yes. So if David's mother conceived David in sin, why would Jesus' mother not conceive Jesus in sin? The virgin birth is NOT ENOUGH to guard Jesus against original sin if original sin really exists at all - nay, but something else must be done to safegaurd him from it. The Catholics have the answer: IF Mary were conceived without it then she couldn't have it, so she couldn't conceive Jesus in it. Now, how ludicrous is that! It makes more sense and is more honest to just admit that inheritance of original sin is a fictional concept.