The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

[Paul365]

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".

 

[busterdog]

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".

And since you don't know which Mark was referring to, why don't you ask before you diss him?

 

[Paul365]

Dear busterdog, I admit that I don't get the purpose of your remarks. If you have nothing substantial to add, then why don't you let Mark himself answer the question?

 

[shernren]

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?

Guess who else the Scriptures call the "sons of God"?

"I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'
But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."
(Psalms 82:6-7 NIV)

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
(John 1:12-13 NIV)

All humanity both unrighteous and righteous. Sure makes Adam feel unique, doesn't it?

This isn't semantics - this is Scripture.

There is nothing in Scripture that prevents Adam from possessing non-human parentage.

 

[shernren]

No, it says through 'dia' the offense of one man.

Paul: Hey God.
God: Hey. What's up?
Paul: I just finished another section of Romans. Want to read it?
God: You do know that I'm inspiring every word of this, right?
Paul: Oh.
God: Never mind, you've got a long way more before you write that. Let Me see ...
Paul: What do you think?
God: Nice. But I see you keep using the phrase "through Adam".
Paul: Yes. And?
God: Well, I think it would be a lot more accurate for you to say "in Adam".
Paul: Oh! Lord, forgive me! Let me go over it again and correct it -
God: Never mind. I can afford to wait until the Vulgate to fix that ...
Paul: Vul - what?
God: Forget it. Just stick with "through".
Paul: Even though I wrote before "in Adam", to the Corinthians a few years back?
God: Sure thing. Let's be a bit sneaky this time, shall we?
Paul: Doesn't sound like You to do that, God.

=========

If Paul intended "in Adam", could he not have written "in Adam"?

 

[Assyrian]

Again absolutely no reference to all sinned in Adam.

Through one man's sin means the same thing, that man was Adam.

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?

You are taking that out of context, there is a logical progression.

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.

"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)

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.

Because when the law came sin was 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.

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 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.

I know the difference between figurative language and allegory.

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".

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.

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.

But your biggest problem by far is that none of your quotes say we all sinned in Adam.

No, it says through 'dia' the offense of one man.

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'?

That is a lie,

Would this be the sort of language Mallon was talking about earlier?

you have the text right in front of you are you deny the clear meaning.

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.

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.

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.

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 Sin​

Do you ever take anyone in context?

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.

Then all sinned in Adam fails. It isn't in scripture.

Not if you get the clear meaning of Romans 5 twisted.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Simply stop claiming the bible teaches something it never says, or show us where the bible teaches it. Until you do that it is clear you are simply reading 'all sinned in Adam' into Romans 5 as an eisegetic interpretation based on a human tradition that dates back to Augustine and his Latin mistranslation.

Paul did not teach a flat earth but he did teach a literal Adam.

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.

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.

I addressed that claim back in post 375 which you seem to have bypassed http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41917394&postcount=357

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.

As ever, you claim to have shown the exegesis, but you never do.

Paul is crystal clear and denying it won't change that as much as you would like for it to.

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.

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.

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.

As for Paul believing in a literal Adam, I don't know about that one when all his discussions of seem to be making an allegorical interpretation of him. But again, the issue isn't a literal Adam and Eve. Many TEs believe in a literal Adam and Eve. The issue here is your claim all sinned in Adam which is completely unsupported by Paul, even if you took his discussion in Romans 5 literally, which would be a mistake because he is comparing Adam figuratively with Christ.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

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 kennedy]

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'.

You just repeated the same thing in other words and said it wasn't the same thing.

Why make up meanings of scripture to justify your theology when you can read what Paul says and base you theology on that?

Which is it, am I making up the meaning or am I taking them too literally?

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.

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.

First of all you logical progression is three verses taken out of context. 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. 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).​

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)​

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.

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:

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

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))​

Death through the sin of the first Adam, you can't get a figurative interpretation no matter how desperately you want to.

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)​

Why don't you look at an exegetical of Romans 5:12

I’m Fallen and I Can’t Get Up
(An Exegetical on Romans 5:12-19)

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'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.

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.

You have shown nothing of the sort, you just keep repeating it in direct contradiction of the passage itself.

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)​

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 Adam’s 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 Bloomfield’s Greek Testament, “are considered guilty in the sight of God on account of Adam’s 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)​

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.

Moreover, the other rendering “because all have sinned personally,” is inconsistent with fact. (Barnes Commentary)​

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 like primary sources and you don't have any, you just keep forcing an interpretation based on false notions.

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.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that the literal Adam is a prefigure of the literal 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.

The literal Sarah was used as an allegory for the law.

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".

The literal Adam is used as a prefigure of Christ with some differences noted by the Apostle Paul.

You completely miss my point. Figurative language does not preclude a literal event behind the figurative interpetation.

It does not exclude it either, in fact, it includes it since they are not mutually exclusive.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'?

It says it repeatedly:

"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).​

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'.

Adam is always used as a proper name in the New Testament, 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​

 

[Calminian]

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.

There's a part of me that believes you really do know the difference, but are just being quarrelsome—maybe a sign you're losing ground on the intellectual battle.

 

[gluadys]

Scripture does speak authoritatively, but that doesn't mean it speaks about everything.

I am making no reference to what scripture is silent on. It is not silent on cosmology, although that is seldom, if ever, a principal focus. But if it always speaks authoritatively, then those references are authoritative, no?

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.

Go ahead, I'll not be offended. The best way to get at the root of something is to go back to the basics. In fact, I don't know the basics of inerrancy, as I was never taught that doctrine and have never subscribed to it. So basics are probably the best place to begin in order to clear up fundamental misunderstandings.

 

[chaoschristian]

Just for reference: The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

Seems to be the standard.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just for reference: The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

Seems to be the standard.

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?

 

[chaoschristian]

I reject the Chicago statement. Article I sorta sums up why: it's starts off denying a vital essense of scripture.

I'm just providing it as a basis for discussing standards of inerrancy for Gluadys and Calminian, that's all.

 

[Assyrian]

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?

Except for Augustinian traditions about original sin?

 

[Assyrian]

You just repeated the same thing in other words and said it wasn't the same thing.

We were looking at 'through ones man's sin'
The first three were more or less the same:
'as a result of one mans sin',
'because of one mans sin' or
'by means of one man's sin'.
However they are completely different from:
'inside one man when he sinned'.
I don't really know how you can honestly claim 'inside one man when he sinned' means the same as the others.

Which is it, am I making up the meaning or am I taking them too literally?

There is nothing in the bible that can be taken literally to mean we all sinned in Adam.

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.

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.

So do you have any scripture that say we all sinned in Adam? You think it is foundational to the Gospel, 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?

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.

First of all you logical progression is three verses taken out of context.

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.

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.

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;

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.

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).

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.

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)

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.

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:

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.

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

No argument with Barnes there.

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))

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.

Death through the sin of the first Adam, you can't get a figurative interpretation no matter how desperately you want to.

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. And even if you take Adam literally, you have to ask if the death was literal. After all a literal interpetation of Genesis leaves you with Adam being told he would die on the day he ate the fruit and he did not actually die the day he ate it. And even if you take Adam literally, and the death that came through his sin literally, there is still no basis to claim 'all sinned in Adam'.

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)

No reference to 'all sinning in Adam', though I believe Wesley did follow that tradition too.

Why don't you look at an exegetical of Romans 5:12

I have.

I’m Fallen and I Can’t Get Up
(An Exegetical on Romans 5:12-19)

The reason death spread into all men is because all sinned. "Sinned"(h{marton) is also emphasizing a past completed action, but rather than stressing the beginning of the action, it stresses the event as a whole and affirms that it happened—simply, "all sinned."7 All men having sinned must include more than Adam and Eve. This is a reference to the human race as a whole. The clear implication is that these three verbs, "entered. . . spread. . . sinned,"8 all occurred in the past, at the same time, in the sin of the one man, Adam. I’m Fallen and I Can’t Get Up ​

Silliest excuse to drag the 'all sinned in Adam' doctrine in I have come across yet. Three aorists happening in the past does not mean they happened at the same time.

1Cor 10:2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3 and all ate the same spiritual food,
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink.
Gal 1:16 I did not immediately consult with anyone;
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem.

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.

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.

Continued in next post...

 

[Assyrian]

...continued

You have shown nothing of the sort, you just keep repeating it in direct contradiction of the passage itself.

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.

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)
​

Nope, no reference to all sinned in Adam in either of those.

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 Adam’s 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 Bloomfield’s Greek Testament, "are considered guilty in the sight of God on account of Adam’s 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)
​

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.

You can find Barnes' original uncorrected work here:
http://www.archive.org/details/notesonepistleto00barniala


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?​

I like primary sources and you don't have any, you just keep forcing an interpretation based on false notions.

Given that I was quoting Romans 5:14 and you say nothing to contradict my point, I will consider the point conceded.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that the literal Adam is a prefigure of the literal Christ.

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.

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.

You completely miss my point. Figurative language does not preclude a literal event behind the figurative interpetation.

It does not exclude it either, in fact, it includes it since they are not mutually exclusive.

And you are still missing the point

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.

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.

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.

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.

If Adam is being describe as a figure of Christ, as Paul tells us, then the descriptions are figurative.

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'?

It says it repeatedly:

"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).​

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?

 

[gluadys]

Just for reference: The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

Seems to be the standard.

Thanks.

I think this will be worth a new thread.

 

[Assyrian]

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'.

Adam is always used as a proper name in the New Testament,

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.

And as we have seen, the first time Adam is referred to as a name, it is God's name for the people he created Gen 5:2. In Gen 6:6&7 God speaks of the flood blotting out 'Adam whom I have created'. Again in Genesis Adam and a reference to the creation of Adam, meant people. If the name Adam is used figuratively for the human race back in Genesis, a simple reference Adam in Genesis in the NT does not mean it is being used literally, especially from Paul uses Adam figuratively himself so often.

except when the person Adam prefigures Christ:

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.

What does that leave?

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
​

We have seen how Luke prefixes his genealogy with 'supposed', so there is no basis there for believing in a literal Adam, who wasn't God's biological son anyway, which is what a literal genealogy would imply. So where does the NT say Adam was our first parent, and are the verses that tell us Adam was 'specially created'?
In a previous post you also mentioned:

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.

The context is Paul teaching on the relationship between man and woman, or depending on how you translate it husband and wife.
1Tim 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

It is that 'for' that should have tipped you off. Paul is using Adam and Eve as an allegorical lesson, not about Christ this time but about husband and wife, an allegory that goes way back to Gen 2:24.

Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.


The fact that Paul is using Adam and Eve as an allegorical lesson about men and women makes much more sense of the last verse about the woman being 'saved through childbirth' which really make people jump through hoops if they try to interpret it literally.

Paul makes another reference to Eve in 2Cor 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. Again Paul is using the story allegorically. Eve being deceived is taken as a figure of the danger faced by the church being led astray.

I can understand how a literalist, who interprets Genesis literally could come to the NT and assume everywhere it mentions 'Adam' it is referring to their interpetation of Genesis. But we now know that Adam was frequently used figuratively. Even your Holman quote tells you that. You can't simply go on assuming 'the New Testament always speaks of Adam as or first parent' every time it mentions him.

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.

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.

It might not be what Paul is speaking about here, but Paul does say he is speaking figuratively in the passage, and he does use one man figuratively, so you cannot put too much reliance on a literal interpetation of what he is saying here and claim Paul is explicitly talking about one individual.

 

[mark kennedy]

There is nothing in the bible that can be taken literally to mean we all sinned in Adam

.
Romans 3:25 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 (διά - A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through) the forbearance of God;

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through (δι&#945 ́our Lord Jesus Christ.

"Through (δι&#945 one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Rm 5:12).

Where does Paul say we sinned in Adam?

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).

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)

That verse is not talking about sinning, it is talking about dying,

"Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Rm 5:12).

and it is not something that happened when Adam sinned, Paul uses the present tense.

Paul uses a proper name, if you have a point from the declination of the noun let's hear it.

So do you have any scripture that say we all sinned in Adam?

Yes:

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)

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).​

Do you care what the Scriptures say, because you never appeal to the testimony of Scripture, you just argue against a literal interpretation. Nothing else, only that.

why doesn't scripture say anything about it?

Why do you keep denying the clear meaning of the text? You said the original sin doctrine was based on a bad translation, that is false. You say person named 'Adam' is a figure of mankind and that is false. Then you pretend that you have made an actual argument because you simply repeated the same false notion again and again as if that were a sound exegesis and that is false.

Indeed, false notions have taken deep root.

Why do you have to keep dragging up verses that say nothing of the sort?

Verses, dictionary definitions, commentaries and exegetical treatments of the texts. I keep bringing it up because I am trying to uproot your grievous distortion of the clear meaning of the text with no substantive support.

Why do you claim 'these are Paul's words when he says nothing of the sort?

Because I know you are just chanting with absolutely no care or concern for the Scriptures. So I bring out the meaning from Calvin, Wesley, Barnes, Strong and as many resources as it takes to show your false notion for what it is. It is an a priori assumption applied to the Scriptures just as it is to the evidence in the Natural world.

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.

Your talking in circles most of the time and then you run off on a tangent. We are not talking about the meaning of 'day' we are talking about sin and death.

By Romans 3:23 Paul has launched into a full scale declaration of the gospel

The first two and a half chapters are a fundamental part of 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.

He doesn't use Abraham as a figure of Christ, he doesn't use David as a figure of Christ. He certainly does not say that sin came through them.

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.

No it's not, it's the way the first Adam (proper name of the literal man) prefigures Christ (proper name of the literal man)

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.

Death reigned from Adam to Moses, it was imputed by the law, that's how.

No, it is exactly what Paul tells us. Death did spread to all men on the basis we find throughout scripture, because all 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.” Prof. Stewart

"This is quite contrary to the acknowledged force of καὶ οὕτως kai houtōs, and besides, entirely destroys the connection which the apostle wishes to establish between the sin of the one man, and the penal evil, or death, that is in the world." Barnes

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.

Adam is a proper name, used figuratively only as a comparison to Christ, not as to the historicity of Adam. In other words, you have turned the expression 'Figure of Christ' to mean 'figure of speech' which is a false notion that has taken deep root.

Where does it say the sin of Adam was imputed by the Mosaic law?

I would think you knew this passage by now:

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)​

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 would be the law of conscience and the law of Moses respectively. Sometimes described as the lesser and greater lights of revelation demonstrating that 'all have sinned'. All have gone astray and Paul makes it clear that it was the transgression of Adam that brought death. That sin was imputed with the further revelation from the Mosaic law but the curse of the law, namely death, reigned from Adam to Moses. Both Adam and Moses, it should be noted, are proper names.

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.

First of all you have not shown that it was based on the Latin, showed how it would have been different if he used the Greek, or made any logical connection. You just keep saying it with no substantive support. Your statement here is just false.

And you have never show it in scripture.

That is a lie.

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.

The only thing you have done is repeat the same erroneous statements. You have directly contradicted the Scriptures and distorted the clear meaning of the apostle Paul. I am not going to sit here and let you pretend that you have done any honest scholarship when clearly you have ignored every scholarly resource that has been quoted, cited and linked.

No argument with Barnes there.

No comment, no confidence and certainly no argument here or elsewhere.

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.

Deeply ingrained in dictionaries, commentaries and exegetical works of Protestant Reformers and early church fathers. This isn't about original sin, because if it were the Scriptural basis would have dismissed Augustine's argument as anecdotal by now. This is about Adam as the first human, specially created as a divine fiat. That is all it's about and everyone in this theater knows it.

Paul says nothing of the sort.

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)
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).

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.

Keep reading:

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 Adam’s sin. All die through him, because in him all have sinned.​

You will notice immediately that this agrees with what I have been saying all along in spite of your incessant objections.

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.

I am astonished that you are so determined to distort these proof texts without a shred of supporting scholarship. It is intellectual suicide for anyone but an evolutionist who opposes creationism. I have seen this again and again in their treatment of the scientific literature but it is especially wrong when this disingenuous approach is applied to Scripture.

As for figurative interpetation of Rom 5, you keep forgetting Paul said this was a figurative interpetation of Adam.

No he didn't, he said:

5:14 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.​

When, therefore, the apostle says that all men sinned in Adam, it is in accordance not only with the nature of the case, but with the scriptural usage, to understand him to mean that we are regarded and treated as sinners on his account...It is almost universally conceded that this 12th verse contains the first member of a comparison which, in vs 18,19, is resumed and carried out. But in those verses it is distinctly taught that judgment came on all men on account of the offence of one man. This is therefore is Paul's own interpretation of what he meant when he said, 'all sinned'. They sinned in Adam. His sin was regarded as theirs. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans by Dr. Charles Hodge​

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

Barnes is one of many but clearly Barnes recognizes that Paul is coming from a literal interpretation of Genesis 3:6-7. Denying that this was Paul's interpretation does damage to the text.

By one man ... - By means of one man; by the crime of one man. His act was the occasion of the introduction of all sin into all the world. The apostle here refers to the well known historical fact Gen 3:6-7, without any explanation of the mode or cause, of this. He adduced it as a fact that was well known; and evidently meant to speak of it not for the purpose of explaining the mode, or even of making this the leading or prominent topic in the discussion. (Barne's Commentary)​

Nope, no reference to all sinned in Adam in either of those.

It's just like distortions of the scientific literature, you just keep pointing out the facts.

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).​

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.

Ok, so your solution to Romans 5:12 is to deny the clear meaning of the text. You claim that Augustine mistranslated it from the Latin even though it was written in Koine Greek. Then when you are faced with sound exegesis for the original, dictionaries, commentaries and various other sources you just ignore them or claim they are mistaken.

No substantive reason for this mind you, just you claiming Barnes is mistaken.

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?​

You have abandoned Christian theology over your philosophical a priori assumptions. Had theology been of the slightest concern you would not have abandoned one of the most important theological questions involved.

This is one of the most important questions in Theology, and according to the answer we may be prepared to give, in the affirmative or negative, will be almost the entire complexion of our religious views. If the question be resolved in the affirmative, then what Adam did must be held as done by us, and the imputation of his guilt would seem to follow as a necessary consequence.
1. That Adam sustained the character of representative of the human race; in other words, that he was the federal as well as natural head of his descendants, is obvious from the circumstances of the history in the book of Genesis. (Barnes)​

Given that I was quoting Romans 5:14 and you say nothing to contradict my point, I will consider the point conceded.

I refuted your point a dozen different ways. You on the other hand have yet to make a point, you just keep saying the same thing over and over and pretend that is an argument. You have abandoned the text and all Christian scholarship on the subject. You abandoned it in favor of an a priori assumption that Adam was a fictional character in a religious poem.

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.

Classic projection, Paul is saying Adam (the literal Adam) prefigures Christ. That is it, there is no need for a presupposition unless you intend to undermine the clear meaning of the text.

And you are still missing the point

You are not making any point, you just keep chanting the mantra of the TE, 'It's all figurative'.

The point that you are failing to get to grips with is that even if Adam is literal,

First Paul is clearly taking Adam literally, there is not question about that. You have twisted Paul's using Adam as a figure of Christ into Adam was a figure of speech. By the same token you could render Christ a figure of speech and frankly, it's a gross distortion.

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.

You can say someone is as dumb as a box of rocks without meaning to say that they are rocks. Hagar was a literal person, Jesus was a literal person and Adam was a literal person. You are trying to blend the historical narrative with the figurative language and painting it all as figurative. No one with the slightest discernment would make that mistake.

If Adam is being describe as a figure of Christ, as Paul tells us, then the descriptions are figurative.

The figurative description is Adam applied to Christ, not vise versa. Christ is the second Adam, not the second mankind, but the second federal head. Just as the sin of Adam brought death on all of us and was imputed by the law of Moses, In Christ all are made alive and righteousness is imputed by faith.

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?

VERSE 12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, etc. The force of δια τοῦτο, wherefore, has already been pointed out, when speaking of the connection of this passage with the preceding: 'It follows, from what has been said of the method of justification that as by one man all became sinners so by one are all constituted righteous.' This passage, therefore, is the summation of all that has gone before As (ὥσπε&#961, obviously indicates a comparison or parallel. There is however no corresponding clause beginning with so, to complete the sentence. Examples of similar incomplete comparisons may be found in Matthew 25:14, with ὥσπερ, and in 1 Timothy 1:3, with καθώς. It is however so obvious that the illustration begun in this verse is resumed, and fully stated in vers. 18, 19, that the vast majority of commentators agree that we must seek in those verses the clause which answers to this verse. The other explanations are unnecessary or unsatisfactory....

...By one man sin entered into the world, διά εἷς ἄνθρωπος. These words clearly declare a causal relation between the one man, Adam, and the entrance of sin into the world. Benecke, who has revived the doctrine of the preexistence of souls, supposes that Adam was the leader of the spirits who in the preexistent state sinned, and were condemned to be born as men. Adam was therefore the cause of sin entering into the world, because he was the author of this ante-mundane apostasy. The Pelagian theory is, that Adam was the mere occasional cause of men becoming sinners. He was the first sinner, and others followed his example. Or, according to another form of the same general idea, his sin was the occasion of God's giving men up to sin. There was no real connection, either natural or judicial, between Adam's sin and the sinfulness of his posterity; but God determined that if the first man sinned, all other men should. This was a divine constitution, without there being any causal connection between the two events. Others again say that Adam was the efficient cause of the sinfulness of his race. He deteriorated either physically or morally the nature which he transmitted to his posterity. He was therefore, in the same sense, the cause of the sinfulness of the race, that a father who impairs his constitution is the cause of the feebleness of his children. Others push this idea one step farther, and say that Adam was the race. He was not only a man, but man. The whole race was in him, so that his act was the act of humanity. It was as much and as truly ours as his. Others say that the causal relation expressed by these words is that which exists between sin and punishment. It was the judicial cause or reason. All these views must come up at every step in the interpretation of this whole passage, for the explanation of each particular clause must be determined by the nature of the relation which is assumed to exist between Adam and his posterity. All that need be said here is, that the choice between these several explanations is not determined by the mere meaning of the words. All they assert is, that Adam was the cause of all men becoming sinners; but whether he was the occasional, the efficient, or, so to speak, the judicial cause, can only be determined by the nature of the case, the analogy of Scripture, and the context. One thing is clear - Adam was the cause of sin in a sense analogous to that in which Christ is the cause of righteousness.​

ROMANS CHAPTER 5:12-21

You have abandoned the text for your philosophical a priori assumptions.