Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hmm.Oh come now. We all know that the sand in sendimentary strata is older than fossil in the strata. Don't pretend Mark is ignorant. Make the obvious distinction and then move on.
Hmm.
I do not know how familiar you are with sediment dating methods, but varve chronology, luminescence dating, or magnetostratigraphy use various physical effects to determine the time when the strata formed. This is the time the fossil was embedded. It has nothing to do with the age of "the sand".
Yes it does, the New Testament affirms the literal meaning of Genesis in no uncertain terms. Where the New Testament speaks of the Genesis accounts it speaks of them as literal, factual history.Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)Notice the genealogy ends there? Were you unaware of this or do you have some semantical trick that gets you out of the clear meaning here?
No, it says through 'dia' the offense of one man.
Through one man's sin means the same thing, that man was Adam.Again absolutely no reference to all sinned in Adam.
You are taking that out of context, there is a logical progression.
Sorry, where does Barnes say all sinned in Adam?"Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Rm 5:12)."By the one man’s offense many died" (Rm 5:15)."Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation" (5:18)."By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (5:19).Verse 19 begins the explanation
"In doing this, the apostle admits, as an undoubted and well-understood fact:
1. That sin came into the world by one man, and death as the consequence. Rom 5:12.
2. That death had passed on all; even on those who had not the light of revelation, and the express commands of God, Rom 5:13-14.
3. That Adam was the figure, the type of him that was to come; that there was some sort of analogy or resemblance between the results of his act and the results of the work of Christ. That analogy consisted in the fact that the effects of his doings did not terminate on himself, but extended to numberless other persons, and that it was thus with the work of Christ, Rom_5:14. But he shows,
4. That there were very material and important differences in the two cases. There was not a perfect parallelism. The effects of the work of Christ were far more than simply to counteract the evil introduced by the sin of Adam. The differences between the effect of his act and the work of Christ are these.(1) The sin of Adam led to condemnation. The work of Christ has an opposite tendency, Rom_5:15.(2) The condemnation which came from the sin of Adam was the result of one offence. The work of Christ was to deliver from many offences, Rom_5:16.(3) The work of Christ was far more abundant and overflowing in its influence. It extended deeper and further. It was more than a compensation for the evils of the fall, Rom 5:17.5. As the act of Adam threw its influence over all people to secure their condemnation, so the work of Christ was suited to affect all people, Jews and Gentiles, in bringing them into a state by which they might be delivered from the fall, and restored to the favor of God. It was in itself adapted to produce far more and greater benefits than the crime of Adam had done evil; and was thus a glorious plan, just suited to meet the actual condition of a world of sin; and to repair the evils which apostasy had introduced. It had thus the evidence that it originated in the benevolence of God, and that it was adapted to the human condition, Rom_5:18-21.
(Barnes Commentary)
Sin does not have to be imputed to people to die from it. That is why death reigned from Adam to Moses. There was no law to keep an account of what sins are committed, but people still sinned, read Genesis, and they died because they sinned, as Paul said in verse 12, death spread to all men because all sinned. Look at verse 14 Death reigned over those whose sinning... In other words they still sinned.Because when the law came sin was imputed.
It is not an allegory, you are twisting the actual meaning. Adam, the literal Adam, is a figure of Christ. Sarah, the literal historical Sarah, us used a figure. What is ridiculas is that you have so much free reign in you hermeneutics to make anything you don't like a figure of speech.
I know the difference between figurative language and allegory.
You completely miss my point. Figurative language does not preclude a literal event behind the figurative interpetation.Figurative language is often used of literal people. Adam, is a figure of Christ, that does not make him a figure of speech.
Now you are trying to make figurative language mutually exclusive with a literal interpretation. When the children of Israel passed through the water of the Red Sea that was an actual event. Paul speaks of that as 'baptism' which is both literal and figurative at the same time.
Is this you conceding that the bible does not say we all sinned in Adam? Or is this some sort of hand waving rebuttal pretending that 'through the sin of one men' means 'we all sinned in Adam'?No, it says through 'dia' the offense of one man.But your biggest problem by far is that none of your quotes say we all sinned in Adam.
Would this be the sort of language Mallon was talking about earlier?That is a lie,
I have the plain text and it says nothing about all sinned in Adam, there isn't the slightest hint, and no one ever though of it before Augustine and the bad translation into Latin.you have the text right in front of you are you deny the clear meaning.
There is nothing to rewrite. Paul did not say we all sinned in Adam. Never mentioned it. Not a word. If it was there in the text you would have mentioned it instead of trying to pretend that 'through' means 'in' a passage that doesn't even say we sinned through Adam.Your interpretation is really just an attempt to rewrite Paul. It did not start with Augustine, it started with Paul and only became a formal doctrine with the rise of the Pelagian heresy.
I really don't know what this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia about Pelagianism and bad Pelagian arguments has to do with our discussion of Paul. Somehow you are trying to argue all sinned in Adam predates Augustine who gave is the doctrine and actually goes back to Paul. But the passage doesn't say anything like that, any more than the verses you try to reinterpret in Romans do.After some time the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death...[edited for character limit]...but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism. Original SinDo you ever take anyone in context?
Death spread to all men because all sinned is pretty clear. So far you haven't even given me the smallest hint in Romans 5 which even suggests we all sinned in Adam. How can I get the clear meaning of Romans 5 twisted when nothing in it hints we sinned in him?Not if you get the clear meaning of Romans 5 twisted.Then all sinned in Adam fails. It isn't in scripture.
Paul does say 'by one man'. He does not say 'in one man'. He does not say 'in one man all sinned' or 'by one man all sinned'. The only going around in circles is your claiming scripture says something it never says, and me pointing out that it simply does not say it.I'm through watching you talk this in circles. That is simply not true, Paul says 'by one man' and that man he names as 'Adam'. Denying it tells us nothing about Romans but it speaks volumes for TE.Well there is certainly no doubt all sinned in Adam has been handed down and continues as a Church tradition. What you have yet to show is that it is a biblical doctrine.
Paul? This was in reply to your claim about the early church being 'creationist'. And again you miss the point. My point was that the early church's attitude to science was fundamentally different to modern creationists.Paul did not teach a flat earth but he did teach a literal Adam.
In, through, by, it's all used in the same way. Take a look at the first three chapters of Ephesians and see how many time 'in Christ' or it's equivalent is used. Paul mentions Adam in Romans 5 because he is addressing a group of Christians who were largely Jewish. Obviously, they held to a literal Adam in the first century as well.
As ever, you claim to have shown the exegesis, but you never do.What I have is the clear meaning of a positive proof text with supporting proof texts in perfect agreement. What you have is arbitrary and selective interpretation and random hermeneutics where anything you don't like is rendered figurative.
If Paul was crystal clear you would be able to show where he said or even hinted we all sinned in Adam. It's not there. It is just a tradition of men read into scripture and you cannot show it anywhere in scripture.Paul is crystal clear and denying it won't change that as much as you would like for it to.
I have never denied the early church believed in a literal Adam, so I don't see the point in quoting Chrysostome and Justin Martyr to back up a point I never challenged.t was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: “Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!” Blood and Water From His Side - St. John Chrysostom (344–407)and know that your own oracle, when asked by some one to utter a hymn of praise to the Almighty God, in the middle of the hymn spoke thus, "Who formed the first of men, and called him Adam." (JUSTIN'S HORTATORY ADDRESS TO THE GREEKS))I have repeated to you, in various ways; in order that, when the event should take place, it might be known as the operation of the power and will of the Maker of all things; just as Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs, and as all living beings were created in the beginning by the word of God.( Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew)This is about origins and there is no question that the early church believed in a literal Adam and Eve, that Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve, specially created and the transgression of Adam brought sin and death to us all.
Any reference for these claims? Where does the New Testament say Adam was 'specially created', presumably 'specially created' is different from the 'created' we find in 'all things were created through him' Col 1:16.It says that Adam was specially created and the New Testament always speaks of Adam as or first parent. It does mean the same thing and this is not an isolated text.
No it doesn't. Clearly Paul was talking about Adam, whether figuratively or literally. But 'through ones man's sin' means 'as a result of one mans sin', 'because of one mans sin' or 'by means of one man's sin'. It simply does not mean 'inside one man when he sinned'.
Why make up meanings of scripture to justify your theology when you can read what Paul says and base you theology on that?
Sure there is, the same logical progress we see in the rest of scripture Rom 6:23 the wages of sin is death.
Ezek 18:4 the soul who sins shall die.
Rom 5:12 death spread to all men because all sinned.
Of course while you don't say what the 'logical progression' is, just claim that there is one, what I presume you are talking about is the logic that starts from the premise 'all sinned in Adam'. But that is not a scriptural logic it is an Augustinian one. All sinned in Adam was Augustine's idea base on a mistranslation of Romans 5:12.
And from the standpoint of scripture it is a faulty premise. The bible never says 'all sinned in Adam'. Let's stick to biblical logical progressions.
It is interesting you seem to accuse me of taking Romans 5:12 out of context because of a logic based on a mistranslation of this very phrase.
Sorry, where does Barnes say all sinned in Adam?
Anyway from what I have read Barnes rejected the all sinned in Adam interpretation of Romans 5:12 as well as the idea of Adam's sin being imputed.
Sin does not have to be imputed to people to die from it. That is why death reigned from Adam to Moses. There was no law to keep an account of what sins are committed, but people still sinned, read Genesis, and they died because they sinned, as Paul said in verse 12, death spread to all men because all sinned. Look at verse 14 Death reigned over those whose sinning... In other words they still sinned.
Actually verse 14 completely contradicts your 'all sinned in Adam' doctrine. Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. If everyone sinned in Adam, if we shared in and are guilty of his original sin, then that includes all the people before Moses. But Paul says their sin was not like the transgression of Adam. Sorry Mark they did not sin in Adam. Neither did we.
I think it is reasonable hermeneutics to understand a passage as a figurative comparison when the author tells us he is looking at Adam as a figure of Christ.
You claim to know the difference, and use that claim as if it were some sort of rebuttal. Yet you don't actually say what the difference between figurative and allegorical is. In fact you have just said Paul used Sarah as a figure. Paul called it an allegory.
Even when Paul tells you his comparison of Adam and Christ is figurative, you prefer to stick to you opinion because you "know the difference between figurative language and allegory".
You completely miss my point. Figurative language does not preclude a literal event behind the figurative interpetation.
What you can't do is take the figurative interpretation of the literal event and take figurative description literally too. The Israelites weren't literally baptised into Moses. It was a literal escape though a divided sea and under a cloud. Calling it a baptism isn't literal it is figurative. Just like saying Christ was a rock that followed them around. Moses gave the Israelites water from a rock, he did not literally whack Jesus with a stick.
Even if Adam is literal and Pal believed Adam was literal, his comparison of Adam and Christ in Romans 5 is figurative. You cannot take a figurative comparison and interpret it literally. It is as meaningless as thinking Jesus was a wandering rock or that Sarah was literal a mountain and our mother.
Is this you conceding that the bible does not say we all sinned in Adam? Or is this some sort of hand waving rebuttal pretending that 'through the sin of one men' means 'we all sinned in Adam'?
Any reference for these claims? Where does the New Testament say Adam was 'specially created', presumably 'specially created' is different from the 'created' we find in 'all things were created through him' Col 1:16.
Where does the NT say Adam was our first parent? If you can't even give the reference how can we discuss what it might mean? You do mention a few quotations in you previous post, but none of them say 'specially created' or 'first parent'.
Mark said specifically that he believed the scriptures where they spoke "authoritatively and clearly". My understanding of inerrancy is that scripture always speaks authoritatively, even on matters that are peripheral to the main point of the passage.
Scripture does speak authoritatively, but that doesn't mean it speaks about everything.
See, this is so basic, I just am not sure how to dialog with you. If I take you back to basic basic thinking I'll sound very condescending, but I don't know how else to handle you.
Except for Augustinian traditions about original sin?Well, we can talk about that.
Article I.
We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.So excluding tradition and other human sources appeals to me. Your thoughts?
We were looking at 'through ones man's sin'You just repeated the same thing in other words and said it wasn't the same thing.
There is nothing in the bible that can be taken literally to mean we all sinned in Adam.Which is it, am I making up the meaning or am I taking them too literally?
Where does Paul say we sinned in Adam? That verse is not talking about sinning, it is talking about dying, and it is not something that happened when Adam sinned, Paul uses the present tense. We all die in Adam. So it is the wrong verb, dying not sinning, it happens at the wrong time, now continuous, not once in the past when Adam sinned, and given that it presupposes a meaning of 'Adam' that we are all in now, rather than was once in Eden, it is figurative not historical.For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Cor 15:21)
There are Paul's words, I noticed you have no Scriptural support for your position.
I would have though that 'sin results in death' was a principle found throughout scripture from the very first 'on the day you eat of it you shall surely die', rather than being verses taken out of context.First of all you logical progression is three verses taken out of context.Sure there is, the same logical progress we see in the rest of scripture
Rom 6:23 the wages of sin is death.
Ezek 18:4 the soul who sins shall die.
Rom 5:12 death spread to all men because all sinned.
By Romans 3:23 Paul has launched into a full scale declaration of the gospel Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;The logical progression in Romans 2 1/2 chapters of the miserable character of mankind. In the middle of chapter three Paul inserts a 'but now' and chapters three and four begin to discuss the life of faith giving Old Testament examples.
It's odd seeing the other half of the verses clipped off isn't it. But that is Paul's purpose here in the passage, as he tells us in verse 14, he is using the story of Adam figuratively to tell us about Christ. When you clipped the verses you missed out the important bit, Paul's point in the passage. It is a figurative illustration telling us about Jesus.Then in chapter 5 there is a logical progression:
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: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)
"Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Rm 5:12).
"By the one man’s offense many died" (Rm 5:15).
"Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation" (5:18).
"By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (5:19).
Where does it say the sin of Adam was imputed by the Mosaic law? People answer for their own sins under the law. Don't forget the Paul was happily discussing Jews under the law and Gentiles who were not under the law back in back in Romans 2&3.Then Paul speaking of being under grace says we either are slave to sin, or slaves to righteousness in chapter 6. Then chapter 7 tells us of the wretched state we find ourselves because of the curse, because of the sin of Adam which was imputed by the Mosiac law.
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses (5:13)
That is why the problem came when Augustine used a Latin translation, as I have shown you. I have shown you where Augustine got the doctrine. He is the earliest record we have of it, even you admit no one discussed it before Pelagius became an issue. And you have never show it in scripture.No it wasn't, you have never supported that bogas statement with anything substantive. I have repeatedly shown you detailed expositions of the original. Maybe you will have to look at it a couple of times to get it but here we go again. Romans was not written in Latin, the original is Koine Greek:
No argument with Barnes there.Proceeding the 5:12 passage is Paul's Justification by Faith doctrine. Something Rome has never really gotten a handle on. Bear in mind the Reformation was based on the doctrine of Justification by faith alone:
The plain and obvious design of the passage is this, to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification by faith. The apostle had shown,
(1) That that doctrine produced peace, Rom 5:1.
(2) That it produces joy in the prospect of future glory, Rom 5:2.
(3) That it sustained the soul in afflictions;
(a) by the regular tendency of afflictions under the gospel, Rom 5:3-4; and,
(b) by the fact that the Holy Spirit was imparted to the believer.
(4) That this doctrine rendered it certain that we should be saved, because Christ had died for us, Rom 5:6; because this was the highest expression of love, Rom 5:7-8; and because if we had been reconciled when thus alienated, we should be saved now that we are the friends of God, Rom 5:9-10.
(Barnes Commentary)
This is not a difficult passage to understand in the original
Of course Jameson thrown in a "all sinned," that is, in that one man's first sin without so much as a by you leave. As I said this doctrine of Augustine is deeply ingrained in tradition. Paul says nothing of the sort.Ro 5:12-21. Comparison and Contrast between Adam and Christ in Their Relation to the Human Family.
(This profound and most weighty section has occasioned an immense deal of critical and theological discussion, in which every point, and almost every clause, has been contested. We can here but set down what appears to us to be the only tenable view of it as a whole and of its successive clauses, with some slight indication of the grounds of our judgment).
Wherefore—that is, Things being so; referring back to the whole preceding argument.
as by one man—Adam.
sin—considered here in its guilt, criminality, penal desert.
entered into the world, and death by sin—as the penalty of sin.
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned—rather, "all sinned," that is, in that one man's first sin. Thus death reaches every individual of the human family, as the penalty due to himself. (So, in substance, Bengel, Hodge, Philippi). Here we should have expected the apostle to finish his sentence, in some such way as this: "Even so, by one man righteousness has entered into the world, and life by righteousness." But, instead of this, we have a digression, extending to five verses, to illustrate the important statement of Ro 5:12; and it is only at Ro 5:18 that the comparison is resumed and finished. (Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible by Jamieson, Robert (1802-1880))
You speak very confidently of what other people can or cannot do. I for one am astonished at your ability to claim passages mean things other than they actually say. And you are interpreting them literally.Death through the sin of the first Adam, you can't get a figurative interpretation no matter how desperately you want to.
No reference to 'all sinning in Adam', though I believe Wesley did follow that tradition too.And as death through the sin of the first Adam reigned even over them who had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression; so through the righteousness of Christ, even those who have not obeyed, after the likeness of his obedience, shall reign in life." (Wesley Study Notes)
I have.Why don't you look at an exegetical of Romans 5:12
So far you have completely failed to show 'all died in Adam' in Romans 5, literally interpreted or not. I do not believe there is any mention of it in Genesis 3 either.It's not a premise, it's a literal interpretation of Romans 5 and Genesis 3. I'm not the one who has abandoned the Scriptures here.
If you could show all sinned in Adam in the passage that argument might hold some weight, even if you could show it based on a literal interpetation of the passage, but you haven't and you can't.mark kennedy said:You have shown nothing of the sort, you just keep repeating it in direct contradiction of the passage itself.
Nope, no reference to all sinned in Adam in either of those.Sorry, where does Barnes say all sinned in Adam?That sin came into the world by one man, and death as the consequence. Rom 5:12...
... So that the plan of justification met all the evils of sin, and was adapted to remove them; sin and its consequences as flowing from Adam; sin and its consequences when there was no written revelation; and sin and its consequences under the light and terrors of the Law. (Barnes Commentary)
I have a copy of Barnes like that too. The problem is it come with loads of extra notes where the editor disagrees with what Barnes was saying. Look at the paragraph above that where the writer says:Anyway from what I have read Barnes rejected the all sinned in Adam interpretation of Romans 5:12 as well as the idea of Adam's sin being imputed.
He did nothing of the sort:
The last clause "for that all have sinned," is to be regarded as explanatory of the sentiment, that death passed on all, in consequence of the sin of the one man. Some have translated ἐφ ̓ ᾧ eph' hō, in whom; and this, indeed, would assign the only just reason, why all are visited with penal evil on account of Adams sin. All die through him, because in him all have sinned. But the translation is objectionable, on account of the distance of the antecedent. However, the common rendering gives precisely the same sense, "for that," or "because that" all have sinned, that is, according to an explanation in Bloomfields Greek Testament, "are considered guilty in the sight of God on account of Adams fall. Thus, the expression may be considered equivalent to ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν hamartōloi katestathēsan at Rom 5:19." There can be no doubt that ἡμαρτον hēmarton does bear this sense, Gen 44:32; Gen 43:9. Moreover, the other rendering "because all have sinned personally," is inconsistent with fact. Infants have not sinned in this way, therefore, according to this view, their death is left unaccounted for, and so is all that evil comprehended in the term "death," that comes upon us antecedent to actual sin. See the supplementary note. (Barnes Commentary)
Moreover, the other rendering "because all have sinned personally," is inconsistent with fact. (Barnes Commentary)
Given that I was quoting Romans 5:14 and you say nothing to contradict my point, I will consider the point conceded.I like primary sources and you don't have any, you just keep forcing an interpretation based on false notions.
More a presupposition you bring in to the passage. If Paul tells he is describing Adam as a figure of Christ, the only reason to conclude Adam was a literal person to start with, is if you already think Adam was literal.I think it is reasonable to conclude that the literal Adam is a prefigure of the literal Christ.
The literal Sarah was used as an allegory for the law.
The literal Adam is used as a prefigure of Christ with some differences noted by the Apostle Paul.
It does not exclude it either, in fact, it includes it since they are not mutually exclusive.You completely miss my point. Figurative language does not preclude a literal event behind the figurative interpetation.
The point that you are failing to get to grips with is that even if Adam is literal, you can't take the descriptions in Romans 5 of Adam's sin and its consequences as a literal historical facts because Adam and his sin is being described figuratively to tell us about Christ. By the one mans offense many died is as literal as Hagar being a mountain, or Jesus being a wandering rock following the Israelites after they were baptised into Moses.You can use figurative language and still be describing literal persons and events. Paul says Adam is a figure of Christ that does not make Adam a figure of speech. You can't squeeze that meaning from that context.What you can't do is take the figurative interpretation of the literal event and take figurative description literally too. The Israelites weren't literally baptised into Moses. It was a literal escape though a divided sea and under a cloud. Calling it a baptism isn't literal it is figurative. Just like saying Christ was a rock that followed them around. Moses gave the Israelites water from a rock, he did not literally whack Jesus with a stick.
That interpretation does not exist, you are just saying it over and over with no rational basis for it. The literal Adam was used as a figure of Christ because in Adam all die and sin was imputed by the law of Moses. Conversely In Christ righteousness is imputed.
And none of these say we all sinned in Adam. Why do you keep repeating them as if they do? Do you have anything to back up this claim?It says it repeatedly:Is this you conceding that the bible does not say we all sinned in Adam? Or is this some sort of hand waving rebuttal pretending that 'through the sin of one men' means 'we all sinned in Adam'?
"Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Rm 5:12)."By the one mans offense many died" (Rm 5:15)."Through one mans offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation" (5:18)."By one mans disobedience many were made sinners" (5:19).
Proper names does not mean literal. Ask Lazarus. Rahab was a proper name. It was the name of the prostitute in Jericho, it was also a proper name God called Egypt. Isaiah 30:7 Egypt's help is worthless and empty; therefore I have called her "Rahab who sits still." Proper name, figurative meaning.Adam is always used as a proper name in the New Testament,Any reference for these claims? Where does the New Testament say Adam was 'specially created', presumably 'specially created' is different from the 'created' we find in 'all things were created through him' Col 1:16.
Where does the NT say Adam was our first parent? If you can't even give the reference how can we discuss what it might mean? You do mention a few quotations in you previous post, but none of them say 'specially created' or 'first parent'.
Then you are kind of cutting down on the possible literal uses of Adam in the NT aren't you. This excludes Romans 5 where Adam is seen as 'a figure of the one who is to come' and 1Cor 15 when Christ is the second Adam. We have also seen how 1Cor 15:22 describes an 'Adam' everyone is still part of now: For as in Adam all die.except when the person Adam prefigures Christ:
In the New Testament, Adam is used as a proper name, clearly referring to our ancestral parents. Jesus' genealogy is traced back to Adam (Luke 3:38). However, the most important New Testament usage treats Jesus as a second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), where the word is used as a symbol. Furthermore, Paul in a similar manner treats Adam as a type of Christ (Romans 5:14). As the first Adam brought death into the world, the second Adam brought life and righteousness (Romans 5:15-19). Holman Bible Dictionary Adam and Eve
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1 Tim 2:13)That is straight up and flat out coming right out and saying it and you are sitting there straight up, flat out denying it.
Of course with Paul speaking figuratively, you really do need to watch what 'one man' εις ανθρωπος can mean to first century Rabbi speaking in allegory. Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace. Same Greek words. One man, but including all the Jews and Gentles reconciled in Christ, just as he spoke of everyone in the world being 'in Adam' and dying in Adam in 1Cor 15:22, only this 'one man' is the second man, the last Adam, Christ 1Cor 15:45&47.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: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)By one man sin and death entered the world, not two, not ten but one. That is one sin, one man and he is named explicitly, his name was Adam.
.There is nothing in the bible that can be taken literally to mean we all sinned in Adam
Where does Paul say we sinned in Adam?
That verse is not talking about sinning, it is talking about dying,
and it is not something that happened when Adam sinned, Paul uses the present tense.
So do you have any scripture that say we all sinned in Adam?
why doesn't scripture say anything about it?
Why do you have to keep dragging up verses that say nothing of the sort?
Why do you claim 'these are Paul's words when he says nothing of the sort?
I would have though that 'sin results in death' was a principle found throughout scripture from the very first 'on the day you eat of it you shall surely die', rather than being verses taken out of context.
By Romans 3:23 Paul has launched into a full scale declaration of the gospel
Don't underestimate Paul's tendency to say the same thing over and over again with different illustrations. Rom 5:12 on is another illustration of the same gospel he was preaching chapter 3 using Adam as a figurative comparison to Christ.
It's odd seeing the other half of the verses clipped off isn't it. But that is Paul's purpose here in the passage, as he tells us in verse 14, he is using the story of Adam figuratively to tell us about Christ. When you clipped the verses you missed out the important bit, Paul's point in the passage. It is a figurative illustration telling us about Jesus.
How is this a logical progression if we are made sinners in verse 18, yet death was reigning in verse 17 and had already spread to all men in verse 12? Not only that, in verse 12 it had spread to all men because all sinned. Yet your logical progression has people made sinners in verse 19.
No, it is exactly what Paul tells us. Death did spread to all men on the basis we find throughout scripture, because all sinned.
And Paul was using the Genesis story and the spread of death to all men because they all sin, as a figurative illustration of Christ's work.
Where does it say the sin of Adam was imputed by the Mosaic law?
People answer for their own sins under the law. Don't forget the Paul was happily discussing Jews under the law and Gentiles who were not under the law back in back in Romans 2&3.
Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
The people who lived before Moses were no different from the Gentile in his day who hadn't heard God's law. If they sin without the law they perish without the law.
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.
That is why the problem came when Augustine used a Latin translation, as I have shown you. I have shown you where Augustine got the doctrine. He is the earliest record we have of it, even you admit no one discussed it before Pelagius became an issue.
And you have never show it in scripture.
Sorry Mark, the substantive evidence is on my side. I have shown you the historical origin of the doctrine, you have presented nothing other then claiming verses say things they plainly do not.
No argument with Barnes there.
Of course Jameson thrown in a "all sinned," that is, in that one man's first sin without so much as a by you leave. As I said this doctrine of Augustine is deeply ingrained in tradition.
Paul says nothing of the sort.
Incidentally Barnes whom you quoted before completely disagrees with this interpetation:
All have sinned - To sin is to transgress the Law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all people have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all people are sinners, He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world.
You speak very confidently of what other people can or cannot do. I for one am astonished at your ability to claim passages mean things other than they actually say. And you are interpreting them literally.
As for figurative interpetation of Rom 5, you keep forgetting Paul said this was a figurative interpetation of Adam.
If you could show all sinned in Adam in the passage that argument might hold some weight, even if you could show it based on a literal interpetation of the passage, but you haven't and you can't.
Nope, no reference to all sinned in Adam in either of those.
I have a copy of Barnes like that too. The problem is it come with loads of extra notes where the editor disagrees with what Barnes was saying. Look at the paragraph above that where the writer says:
It will not do to render "and so" by "in like manner," as Prof. Stewart does, and then explain with our author, "there is a connection between death and sin. which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin."'Our author' is Barnes and the quotation given quoting Barnes himself from a few paragraph's up.
And so - Thus. In this way it is to be accounted for that death has passed upon all people, to wit, because all people have sinned. As death followed sin in the first transgression, so it has in all; for all have sinned. There is a connection between death and sin which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin. And as all have sinned, so death has passed upon all people.The writer of these notes is quoting Barnes himself and trying to correct what he perceives as Barnes' theological mistakes.
What Barnes said, and the busy note writer in our commentaries was disagreeing with was:All have sinned - To sin is to transgress the Law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all people have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all people are sinners, He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact - that all people experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, "All have sinned." This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that people sin in their own persons, sin themselves - as, indeed, how can they sin in an other way? - and that therefore they die. If people maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?
Given that I was quoting Romans 5:14 and you say nothing to contradict my point, I will consider the point conceded.
More a presupposition you bring in to the passage. If Paul tells he is describing Adam as a figure of Christ, the only reason to conclude Adam was a literal person to start with, is if you already think Adam was literal.
And you are still missing the point
The point that you are failing to get to grips with is that even if Adam is literal,
you can't take the descriptions in Romans 5 of Adam's sin and its consequences as a literal historical facts because Adam and his sin is being described figuratively to tell us about Christ. By the one man’s offense many died is as literal as Hagar being a mountain, or Jesus being a wandering rock following the Israelites after they were baptised into Moses.
If Adam is being describe as a figure of Christ, as Paul tells us, then the descriptions are figurative.
And none of these say we all sinned in Adam. Why do you keep repeating them as if they do? Do you have anything to back up this claim?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?