Romans 7:9 and Original Sin

[holyrokker]

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.

Well said!

As I've tried to say before - if "original sin" is inherited - that would make it a physical (genetic) problem. Why would Jesus die for a physical problem? He has NO trouble healing physical disabililties.
Sin is NOT a problem of the body - it is a problem of the will.
Now - Romans tells us that we become slaves to whichever master we submit ourselves to - whether to sin or to righteousness. Once we submit ourselves to sin we are slaves to it. We cannot free ourselves. And everyone outside of Christ is a slave to sin because "all have sinned". It doesn't say "because all are born with original sin" or "all are born with a sin nature" - it says "all have sinned" - an act - not a disease.

 

[tigersnare]

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.

Why is there a need for the father to be mentioned? His mother became pregnant with him, obviously with the seed of this father.

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.

Why is it NOT ENOUGH? David was born of a man and a women, hence Adam's sin being passed down to him. Jesus was born of the spirit of God, and a woman, "surely you see a constrast here!". Besides, could not the sovereign God of the universe intervene and create Jesus sinless when he stitched him in Mary's woom if the need existed?(Which I don't think it did, because Jesus was not born of a man and women)

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.

So fictional, that the Church as a whole has believed and taught this a form of this doctrine(original sin) since the beginning. I guess your biblical scholarship on the subject exceeds those of Aquantis, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.

 

[tigersnare]

Well said!

As I've tried to say before - if "original sin" is inherited - that would make it a physical (genetic) problem.

No it wouldn't, it is still a spiritual problem.

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the traspasses and sins in once you once walked......were by NATURE children of wrath. What NATURE would that be?

Sin is NOT a problem of the body - it is a problem of the will.
Now - Romans tells us that we become slaves to whichever master we submit ourselves to - whether to sin or to righteousness.

How come no man ever in the history of the world, born of a man and women has chosen to submit themselves to righteouness. You would think out of the multi billions, even one would have been rigthteous from the start. But no, not even one. And you are going to still say that there isn't an inherit problem with man????

Once we submit ourselves to sin we are slaves to it. We cannot free ourselves. And everyone outside of Christ is a slave to sin because "all have sinned". It doesn't say "because all are born with original sin" or "all are born with a sin nature" - it says "all have sinned" - an act - not a disease.

The question is, why have all sinned, how come no one seeks for God, how come no one does good? Why are we all by NATURE children of Wrath?

"By nature" would seem to take precidence over any future or past actions. To say we sinned first then became "by nature" children of wrath would be illogical.

 

[holyrokker]

There are several interesting observations that can be made in connection with Ephesians 2:1 and following.



First, note that Paul plainly declares that spiritual death is the consequence of “your trespasses and sins” (ASV). Note the word your. This emphasizes personal sin. We are not spiritually dead as a result of Adam’s transgression.

Second, in verse 3 Paul affirms that all of us “were ... children of wrath.” The verb emetha (“were”) is an imperfect tense form. The imperfect tense describes continuity of action as viewed in the past. Thus, here it depicts the habitual style of life which had characterized these saints prior to their conversion. Had the apostle intended to convey the notion of inherited sinfulness at the time of their birth, he easily could have expressed that idea by saying, “you became by birth children of wrath.”

Third, it is also significant that the verb is in the middle voice in the Greek Testament. The middle voice is employed to suggest the subject’s personal involvement in the action of the verb. The language therefore stresses that the sinful condition of the Ephesians had been their individual responsibility. Hence, combining the imperfect tense and middle voice aspects of the verb, we might paraphrase the passage thusly: “...you kept on making yourselves children of wrath.”

Fourth, the Greek word phusei, rendered “nature” in our common versions, can denote “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” the term can be understood of a “native mode of thinking, feeling, acting” on the part of those who are “unenlightened by the influence of divine truth”. Clearly, these people, by habitual practice, had become worthy of divine wrath.

Thus, the Ephesians, in their unregenerate state, had become, by long practice of sin, deserving of the wrath of God. These thoughts are consistent with the immediate context and with the tenor of the Bible as a whole.

Fifth, it is worthy of note that if this passage teaches that babies are born totally depraved, one would have to infer necessarily that infants who die in that condition are lost since they are clearly designated as “children of wrath”. Yet, this is a conclusion that even denominationalists are loath to accept.

 

[tigersnare]

There are several interesting observations that can be made in connection with Ephesians 2:1 and following.



First, note that Paul plainly declares that spiritual death is the consequence of “your trespasses and sins” (ASV). Note the word your. This emphasizes personal sin. We are not spiritually dead as a result of Adam’s transgression.

Second, in verse 3 Paul affirms that all of us “were ... children of wrath.” The verb emetha (“were”) is an imperfect tense form. The imperfect tense describes continuity of action as viewed in the past. Thus, here it depicts the habitual style of life which had characterized these saints prior to their conversion. Had the apostle intended to convey the notion of inherited sinfulness at the time of their birth, he easily could have expressed that idea by saying, “you became by birth children of wrath.”

Third, it is also significant that the verb is in the middle voice in the Greek Testament. The middle voice is employed to suggest the subject’s personal involvement in the action of the verb. The language therefore stresses that the sinful condition of the Ephesians had been their individual responsibility. Hence, combining the imperfect tense and middle voice aspects of the verb, we might paraphrase the passage thusly: “...you kept on making yourselves children of wrath.”

Fourth, the Greek word phusei, rendered “nature” in our common versions, can denote “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” the term can be understood of a “native mode of thinking, feeling, acting” on the part of those who are “unenlightened by the influence of divine truth”. Clearly, these people, by habitual practice, had become worthy of divine wrath.

Thus, the Ephesians, in their unregenerate state, had become, by long practice of sin, deserving of the wrath of God. These thoughts are consistent with the immediate context and with the tenor of the Bible as a whole.

Fifth, it is worthy of note that if this passage teaches that babies are born totally depraved, one would have to infer necessarily that infants who die in that condition are lost since they are clearly designated as “children of wrath”. Yet, this is a conclusion that even denominationalists are loath to accept.

What are your creditials as for as translating the greek language?

 

[JohnJones]

So fictional, that the Church as a whole has believed and taught this a form of this doctrine(original sin) since the beginning. I guess your biblical scholarship on the subject exceeds those of Aquantis, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.

Not from the beginning, only from Augustine on, same as Purgatory! (Well actually Purgatory the concept started with Tertullian but Augustine gave it the name and popularized it by cleaning it up a bit.) As for Aquanis, his theology is a laugh. Luther contradicted himself saying that baptism saves because of faith which is necessary to it and then in the same treatise that those who are baptized without faith are saved too, so his theology is totally unreliable. Calvin just copied off of Augustine, who even after he converted to Roman Catholicism was still partially a Manichean at heart, which is why he propagated the false doctrine of Purgatory and created the false doctrine of inherited original sin.

 

[holyrokker]

What are your creditials as for as translating the greek language?

My "credentials" really aren't all that important. I have a degree in linguistics, and I've finished one year of seminary level New Testament Greek. So I'm no expert in Greek. But there are several good resources:

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Thayer (1958)

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Edward Robinson (1855)

An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek by C. F. D. Moule (1953)

Grammar of New Testament Greek by G. B. Wiener (1882)


My view of this topic is not just a matter of my own personal opinion or what I want to believe. I've spent more than 20 years trying to come to a balanced view based on what I see in the Scriptures.

 

[tigersnare]

Not from the beginning, only from Augustine on, same as Purgatory! (Well actually Purgatory the concept started with Tertullian but Augustine gave it the name and popularized it by cleaning it up a bit.) As for Aquanis, his theology is a laugh. Luther contradicted himself saying that baptism saves because of faith which is necessary to it and then in the same treatise that those who are baptized without faith are saved too, so his theology is totally unreliable. Calvin just copied off of Augustine, who even after he converted to Roman Catholicism was still partially a Manichean at heart, which is why he propagated the false doctrine of Purgatory and created the false doctrine of inherited original sin.

So instead you cling to the theology of Pelagius, the most famous heritic of the early Church....?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, almost as thought they were writing for our conversation.

". In our own times this charge has been reiterated by several critics and historians of dogma who have been influenced by the fact that before his conversion St. Augustine was a Manichaean. They do not identify Manichaeism with the doctrine of original sin, but they say that St. Augustine, with the remains of his former Manichaean prejudices, created the doctrine of original sin unknown before his time. It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians."

 

[macsdad]

Abraham, David, Elijah. These men were spiritually alive. They were in a relationship with God. Sin was not being imputed to them. David and Elijah because provision had been made on the basis of a future fulfillment of the sacrificial system through Christ. Abraham, as Romans establishes, was in a right relationship with God by faith before the Law (and circumcision and Judaistic prejudice) and is a model for understanding how we in Christ are righteous apart from law.

Further, Adam's sin brought a condition of death upon the creation into which we were born. His sin need not be imputed to us for us to experience its consequence. Were I to have access to the Tree of Life in the Garden I could live forever yet I do not have it precisely because he lost it. However, it has been restored in Christ. I now have access to the source of life and the presence of God through Jesus Christ.

 

[Colossians]

holyrokker,

We are not spiritually dead as a result of Adam’s transgression.
Yes we are: "in Adam all die" 1 Cor 15:22.
You need to understand the biblical principle of lineage: just as all in Abraham paid tithes to Melchizadek, being in his loins at the time, so too we who were in Adam's loins were partakers of his disobedience.

That Paul says we were dead in our personal sins, is not to relate the cause of death, but the result: sins ensue because we were dead, confirming such death.

 

[holyrokker]

holyrokker,

We are not spiritually dead as a result of Adam’s transgression.
Yes we are: "in Adam all die" 1 Cor 15:22.
.

You're only quoting a portion of that sentence. The very sentence you are referencing goes on to say that "all will be made alive in Christ"
Does that mean EVERYONE will be saved? It's the completion of the thought that you quoted. IF what you quoted means that everyone is automatically dead as a direct result of Adam, then the second half of that sentence has to mean that all (the very ones who died in Adam) are automatically alive as a direct result of Christ.

 

[tigersnare]

You're only quoting a portion of that sentence. The very sentence you are referencing goes on to say that "all will be made alive in Christ"
Does that mean EVERYONE will be saved? It's the completion of the thought that you quoted. IF what you quoted means that everyone is automatically dead as a direct result of Adam, then the second half of that sentence has to mean that all (the very ones who died in Adam) are automatically alive as a direct result of Christ.

So let's flip this on it's head. Clearly this verse does not mean EVERYONE will be saved. But it certainly tells us some will be saved, perhaps everyone who is elect.

So does it certainly tell us IN Adam some die, perhaps the non-elect?

 

[holyrokker]

So let's flip this on it's head. Clearly this verse does not mean EVERYONE will be saved. But it certainly tells us some will be saved, perhaps everyone who is elect.

So does it certainly tell us IN Adam some die, perhaps the non-elect?

So, if it is clear that not everyone will be saved, then this verse can't be saying that everyone died in Adam. It can't be used to support the notion of Adam's guilt being imputed to all.

Now what you are proposing in your statement is that SOME actually DIDN'T sin in Adam. Are you prepared to say that there are SOME who were born with "original sin" and some without it?

 

[tigersnare]

So, if it is clear that not everyone will be saved, then this verse can't be saying that everyone died in Adam. It can't be used to support the notion of Adam's guilt being imputed to all.

Now what you are proposing in your statement is that SOME actually DIDN'T sin in Adam. Are you prepared to say that there are SOME who were born with "original sin" and some without it?

No I'm not prepared to say that. Paul is talking to the elect in the Church at Corinth, I think he is saying in Adam, they all died, in Christ they were all given life. It is clear that not All are alive in Christ, but it is true still that verse 21 "for as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead".

I think these two verses can't be seperated. Death came by Adam, resurrection came by Christ. Ovbiously not all men are chosen to recieve the grace of ressurrection, but I think the scripture seem to say that all recieved the sin of Adam. If that is a double standard to some, so be it.

 

[holyrokker]

I think he is saying in Adam, they all died, in Christ they were all given life. It is clear that not All are alive in Christ, but it is true still that verse 21 "for as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead".

I think these two verses can't be seperated. Death came by Adam, resurrection came by Christ. Ovbiously not all men are chosen to recieve the grace of ressurrection, but I think the scripture seem to say that all recieved the sin of Adam. If that is a double standard to some, so be it.

But how can we interpret the same passage using two differnet standards?

One of these two scenarios is all that we can interpret.
A) All died as a direct result of Adams sin and ALL are resurrected to new life as a direct result of Christ's resurrection

B)Adam's sin is the occasion for death and Christ is the occasion for life.

Paul isn't talking about two different groups of people - the "elect" and the non-elect.

He's talking about humanity in general.

 

[tigersnare]

But how can we interpret the same passage using two differnet standards?

Simply by using other scriptures to shed light and help us interpret this one.

 

[holyrokker]

Simply by using other scriptures to shed light and help us interpret this one.

Such as?

 

[Colossians]

holyrokker,

We are not spiritually dead as a result of Adam’s transgression.
Yes we are: "in Adam all die" 1 Cor 15:22.
You're only quoting a portion of that sentence. The very sentence you are referencing goes on to say that "all will be made alive in Christ"
Does that mean EVERYONE will be saved? IF what you quoted means that everyone is automatically dead as a direct result of Adam, then the second half of that sentence has to mean that all (the very ones who died in Adam) are automatically alive as a direct result of Christ.
You miss the locative aspect. It says that all IN Adam die, and so correspondingly that all IN Christ shall be made alive. You have twisted the semantic to mean that all WILL BE IN Christ. It doesn’t say this: it says all WHO ARE IN Christ shall be made alive.
So the teaching is that the state one receives is imparted from him in whom you reside: the parent delineates the child.

 

[holyrokker]

holyrokker,

We are not spiritually dead as a result of Adam’s transgression.
Yes we are: "in Adam all die" 1 Cor 15:22.
You're only quoting a portion of that sentence. The very sentence you are referencing goes on to say that "all will be made alive in Christ"
Does that mean EVERYONE will be saved? IF what you quoted means that everyone is automatically dead as a direct result of Adam, then the second half of that sentence has to mean that all (the very ones who died in Adam) are automatically alive as a direct result of Christ.
You miss the locative aspect. It says that all IN Adam die, and so correspondingly that all IN Christ shall be made alive. You have twisted the semantic to mean that all WILL BE IN Christ. It doesn’t say this: it says all WHO ARE IN Christ shall be made alive.
So the teaching is that the state one receives is imparted from him in whom you reside: the parent delineates the child.

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"

This is the full sentence in question.

What am I missing here? Is ALL of mankind included in the first group (in Adam)? If so, is it a different "ALL" who will be made alive in Christ? How can you say that the "all" in the first phrase doesn't include the same "all" in the second phrase?

 

[In Christ Forever]

But how can we interpret the same passage using two differnet standards?

One of these two scenarios is all that we can interpret.
A) All died as a direct result of Adams sin and ALL are resurrected to new life as a direct result of Christ's resurrection
B)Adam's sin is the occasion for death and Christ is the occasion for life.

Paul isn't talking about two different groups of people - the "elect" and the non-elect.

He's talking about humanity in general.

That was pretty interesting. In my study of revelation, I came across this verse that confused me. In revelation 13, it shows the beast making ALL receive the mark!! So does that means one can refuse it, which it unlikely as it shows those that receive it will die. So apparently those who have the mark of "adam" will die, and those sealed in Christ will be made alive. I just thought this was intereting.

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"

Why does this say from Adam to Moses only?

romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Revelation 13:16 He causes/makes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives [his] mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 "he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God,