Sin

[Huguenot]

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Is there a question?

 

[2thePoint]

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Don't know if there's a question, but allow me to vent a little:

In Genesis 3 God pronounces curses on the serpent, Adam, and Eve. Nowhere is there any mention of a curse on man’s soul or spirit, but only on the physical world. Certainly if man's spirit had "died" we should see it clearly stated in the account of the Fall. Such an important change in man’s condition would surely be made plain, but it is conspicuous by its absence. That God and man were spiritually separated is evidenced by Adam and Eve’s attempt to hide from God after "their eyes were opened", and later when God banished them from Eden. But there is no mention of the alleged "death" of man’s spirit. Calvinism likes to point out that the dead cannot do anything, but it follows that neither can the dead reproduce! How can the spiritually dead create more dead spirits?

Now back to Romans, verses 12-21, which is most used to support "original sin" as meaning the spiritual death of all mankind. We see this progression of events referring back to Genesis:

1. Through Adam came sin
2. Through sin came death
3. All people sinned, so death spread to all people

Yet verse 14 says that death reigned even over those who DID NOT SIN in the same way as Adam. Verse 15 says that "many DIED through the transgression of the one man". Died in what way? Does it say that our spirits died, or does it refer to the Genesis account of the curse God pronounced on the physical world? Even if it meant our spirits died, then Calvinism must explain how already dead spirits can die again! In other words, for Adam’s sin to cause the death of our spirits, then our spirits would have to have been ALIVE before we were even created!

Verse 17 continues about the reign of death, but verse 18 speaks of the "condemnation" of "many". (This, by the way, points out Calvinism’s redefinition of terms to suit its theology. In John where they claim "all" really means "many", here they claim "many" really means "all"!) Verses 18-19 contrast "many" with "the one". If the phrase "many were made sinners" means "all", then also "many will be made righteous" means "all". Calvinism can’t have its cake and eat it too: if all were made sinners, then all were made righteous.

How to resolve this dilemma? Condemnation is a legal term, as is justification. That condemnation, that legal separation, is what comes to us all SPIRITUALLY through sin. Why spiritually? Because the physical cannot be subject to legality; the physical cannot obey or disobey.

 

[Huguenot]

Is there a question?

To be honest I can't remember

 

[Huguenot]

If the phrase "many were made sinners" means "all", then also "many will be made righteous" means "all". Calvinism can’t have its cake and eat it too: if all were made sinners, then all were made righteous.

The word 'many' is a very good one here.

Many = lots of people and can include all.

Many = lots of people but need not include all.

Paul's logic is that sin produces death...all humans die...therefore all humans are sinful.

 

[holyrokker]

The word 'many' is a very good one here.

Many = lots of people and can include all.

Many = lots of people but need not include all.

Paul's logic is that sin produces death...all humans die...therefore all humans are sinful.

If "many" in the first clause means "lots of people" - then it has to mean the same thing in the second clause.
If it means "all" in the first clause - it has to mean "all" in the second clause.

It can't mean "all" in one clause and not "all" in the next. The word has to have the same meaning in both clauses because both clauses are talking about the same group of people and how they are affected by Adam and Christ, respectively

 

[2thePoint]

The word 'many' is a very good one here.

Many = lots of people and can include all.

Many = lots of people but need not include all.

Paul's logic is that sin produces death...all humans die...therefore all humans are sinful.

Why the two different definitions? If the first is true, "many can include all", then why is the second even necessary? Instead, for both, your definition would be "many = lots of people and can include all but does not need to include all". Now apply both in the verse, and as holyrokker has also said, you'll see the point I was driving at.

 

[Huguenot]

Why the two different definitions? If the first is true, "many can include all", then why is the second even necessary? Instead, for both, your definition would be "many = lots of people and can include all but does not need to include all". Now apply both in the verse, and as holyrokker has also said, you'll see the point I was driving at.

So are everyone sinners? Yes.

Are all made rightous? No.

 

[2thePoint]

So are everyone sinners? Yes.

Are all made rightous? No.

That's my point: you're picking and choosing meanings, not by context, but by a priori assumption. Justify your statement that many has two different meanings from the context.