The Times We Live in...

[Clare73]

Clare, here is a man (Albert Barns) who does know grammar and can get into the nitty gritty explaining what I was trying to explain to you about Romans 5:12. I know you will not agree with him but I thought you might like to know precisely what I believe:

And so. Thus. In this way it is to be accounted for that death has passed upon all men; to wit, because all men have sinned. As death followed sin in the first transgression, so it has in all; for all have sinned. There is a connexion 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 on all men.

Precisely.

Death passed upon. (dihlyen). Passed through; pervaded; spread over the whole race, as pestilence passes through, or pervades a nation. Thus death, with its train of woes, with its withering and blighting influence, has passed through the world, laying prostrate all before it.
Upon all men. Upon the race; all die.
For that (ef w). This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated. Elsner renders it, “on account of whom.” Doddridge, “unto which all have sinned.” The Latin Vulgate renders it, “in whom [Adam] all have sinned.” The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation fix this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc.

And this rendering (“in whom [Adam] all have sinned”) is sustained also by many other considerations. 1. If (w) be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death, as its antecedent, and not to man. But this would not make sense. 2. If this had been its meaning, the preposition (en) would have been used. See Note of Erasmus on the place.
3. It comports with the apostle’s argument to state a cause why all died, and
not to state that men sinned in Adam.

Which is precisely what Paul does state (Romans 5:12).
And which meaning above now does not comport with, "Where there is no law, there is no sin," (Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13). . . Barns has demonstrated nothing but wrestling the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16), refusing to take Scripture at its word. . .just as Moses Lead omitted the Biblical answer of Romans 9:20-21 to the question in Romans 9:18-19, substituting his own instead, which was contrary to the Scripture.​

Barns arrives at his conclusion by denying what Paul plainly states: In Adam all have sinned. (Romans 5:12)
How convenient. . . so that's their idea of hermeneutics--setting Scripture against itself in order that it not be set against their theology?
Wow!

He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would not account for that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see how that could be a cause.
4. As his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin is the transgression of the law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation "because all have sinned" meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favours that certainly as much as it does the other, it is to be preferred.

All have sinned. To sin is to transgress the law of God;

The basis of the difficulty Paul resolves in Romans 5:12-14, when there was no law, and so no sin.

to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam,

That is precisely what he explicitly states: "In Adam all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)

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;

He imputes the sin of Adam to them in the conclusion of his teaching: "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Romans 5:18), conveniently ignored here.

but simply affirms that all men have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all men are sinners. He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world.

That condition is stated in his conclusion in Romans 5:18: "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men."

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 men 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.

By no means does it meet the case.​

It misses (omits/overlooks/ignores/disregards/does not take into account) the heart of Paul's teaching, wherein sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), that heart being:​

Romans 4:15--where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin),

Romans 5:13--sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
​

Barn's (mis)understanding ("precisely what you believe") that man did sin between Adam and Moses is based on his omitting the above heart of Paul's teaching there.

They died between Adam and Moses because the guilt of Adam's sin was accounted to them: "The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Romans 5:18).

And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man,

Correct. . . Paul's design is to discuss accountability for/guilt of sin when men die (and death is caused by sin) who did not sin (Romans 5:14) because there was no law to sin against (Romans 5:13).

And as his design cannot be shown to be. . .about the character of infants,
the passage should be interpreted according to his design,

Which Barns does not do. Paul's design can be shown to be and is shown to be to address the problem of the punishment of sin (death) for transgression of the law (sin) between Adam and Moses when there is no law to transgress; i.e, no sin. (Romans 5:14)

and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference.

Far from "nothing," he says it all in the passsage's conclusion (Romans 5:18), which is where things are usually said.

I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that men sin in their own persons, sin themselves—as, indeed, how can they sin in any other way?—and that therefore they die.

If men 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?

The evidence is abundant. It is distinctly in:

1) the conclusion of his teaching: "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (Romans 5:18); i.e., mankind is born condemned. . .as well as in

2) we are "by nature (birth), objects of wrath." (Ephesians 2:3)
We are born with our nature.

The above shows distinctly that it is in the text , the evidence of such reference being in Romans 5:18; Ephesians 2:3, that we are born with Adam's sin. Not to mention

3) it being distinctly in his contrasting parallels between one act of the first Adam and one act of the second Adam (Christ)
resulting in contrasting conseqences of: condemnation of all men (including babies) in Adam/with justification of all men in Christ (Romans 5:18), and
made sinners/made righteous (men having nothing to do with either, Romans 5:19)
which is paralleling the imputation of Adam's guilt/sin to all those in Adam
and Christ's righteousness to all those in Christ.

Barns arrives at his conclusion by denying what Paul plainly states: "In Adam all have sinned," and by omitting Paul's conclusion to his teaching in Romans 5:18-19 where he states parallels of imputation of both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness:
"just as" Adam's condemnation is imputed to those of/in Adam,
"so also" Christ's justification is imputed to those of/in Christ (Romans 5:18),
and
"just as" those of/in Adam were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam,
"so also" those of/in Christ will be made righteous by the obedience of Christ (Romans 5:19).

It couldnt be more plain, and Barns couldn't be more wrong.​

 

[misput]

Precisely.
Which is precisely what Paul does state.
And which meaning above now does not comport with, "Where there is no law, there is no sin," (Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13). . . Barns has demonstrated nothing but wrestling the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16), refusing to take Scripture at its word. . .just as Moses Lead omitted the Biblical answer of Romans 9:20-21 to the question in Romans 9:18-19, substituting his own instead, which was contrary to the Scripture.​

Barns arrives at his conclusion by denying what Paul plainly states: In Adam all have sinned.
How convenient. . . so that's their idea of hermeneutics--setting Scripture against itself in order that it not be set against their theology?
Wow!

The basis of the difficulty Paul resolves in Romans 5:12-14, when there was no law, and so no sin.
That is precisely what he explicitly states: "In Adam all have sinned."
He imputes the sin of Adam to them in the conclusion of his teaching: "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Romans 5:18), conveniently ignored here.
That condition is stated in his conclusion in Romans 5:18: "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men."

By no means does it meet the case.​

It misses (omits/overlooks/ignores/disregards/does not take into account) the heart of Paul's teaching, wherein sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), that heart being:​

Romans 4:15--where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin),

Romans 5:13--sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
​

Barn's (mis)understanding ("precisely what you believe") that man did sin between Adam and Moses is based on his omitting the above heart of Paul's teaching there.

They died between Adam and Moses because the guilt of Adam's sin was accounted to them: "The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Romans 5:18).

Correct. . . Paul's design is to discuss accountability for/guilt of sin when men die (and death is caused by sin) who did not sin (Romans 5:14) because there was no law to sin against (Romans 5:13).
Which Barns does not do. Paul's design can be shown to be and is shown to be to address the problem of the punishment of sin (death) for transgression of the law (sin) between Adam and Moses when there is no law to transgress; i.e, no sin. (Romans 5:14)
Far from "nothing," he says it all in the passsage's conclusion (Romans 5:18), which is where things are usually said.
The evidence is abundant.
It is distinctly in the conclusion of his teaching: "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (Romans 5:18); i.e., mankind is born condemned, and that includes infants.

And it is distinctly in his contrasting parallels between one act of the first Adam and one act of the second Adam (Christ)
resulting in contrasting conseqences of condemnation/justification (Romans 5:18),
made sinners/made righteous (men having nothing to do with either, Romans 5:19)
which is paralleling the imputation of Adam's guilt/sin to those of/in Adam
and Christ's righteousness to those of/in Christ.

Barns arrives at his conclusion by denying what Paul plainly states: "In Adam all have sinned," and by omitting Paul's conclusion to his teaching in Romans 5:18-19 where he states parallels of imputation of both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness:
"just as" Adam's condemnation is imputed to those of/in Adam,
"so also" Christ's justification is imputed to those of/in Christ (Romans 5:18),
and
"just as" those of/in Adam were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam,
"so also" those of/in Christ will be made righteous by the obedience of Christ (Romans 5:19).

It couldnt be more plain, and Barns couldn't be more wrong.​

Even Calvin takes note that those who did not sin against the law did sin:Rom.4:15
Where there is no law, etc. This is the proof, by which he confirms what he had said; for it would have been difficult to see how God’s wrath is kindled against us through the law, unless it had been made more apparent. And the reason is, that as the knowledge of God’s justice is discovered by the law, the less excuse we have, and hence the more grievously we offend against God; for they who despise the known will of God, justly deserve to sustain a heavier punishment, than those who offend through ignorance.

But the Apostle speaks not of the mere transgression of what is right, from which no man is exempt; but he calls that a transgression, when man, having been taught what pleases and displeases God, knowingly and willfully passes over the boundaries fixed by God’s word; or, in other words, transgression here is not a mere act of sin, but a willful determination to violate what is right. {1} The particle, ou, where, which I take as an adverb, some consider to be a relative, of which; but the former reading is the most suitable, and the most commonly received. Whichever reading you may follow, the meaning will be the same, —that he who is not instructed by the written law, when he sins, is not guilty of so great a transgression, as he is who knowingly breaks and transgresses the law of God.

So the consensus I come to is, where there is no law there is no transgression of the law but there is still sin. This is obvious throughout scripture, especially in Rom. 1 & 2. Then we have in Ezek 18 where the Jews are crying sour grapes, that God is counting their fathers sins, Adam and so forth, against them. God assures them this is not the case. The worst problem I see with this debate is your not having the slightest inkling you may be wrong. You have explained you are like a great concert pianist/theologian. I don't know if you are familiar with Leonard Cohen, a popular song writer and musician but in one of his songs he sings "there's a mighty judgement coming but I may be wrong" referring to the rich vs the poor, I really respect that, it's so UN-phariseeic but that's ok I guess, God forgives all manner of sin.

 

[misput]

Clare "as in Adam all die" means just like Adam we all die, the same way, by disobedience or possibly in ignorance. I notice you leave off the word as. Why is that? The idea that sin is imputed to us is so ridiculous I am amazed anyone would even suggest it. We do an exceedingly great job of sinning on our own without it having to be credited to us. Oh, I remember you have this incredible orthodox christian doctrine that we are "conceived in inequity and born in sin" which you cannot figure out so it must be incorporated into the rest of your doctrine. Also the one where God cannot look upon sin and that is why He turned His back on Christ. Are you guilty of that one too? How about the one where Christ goes to hell, brought to us by the "Apostles creed"? That is my rant for tonight, thanks for listening.

 

[Clare73]

Even Calvin takes note that those who did not sin against the law did sin:Rom.4:15

And?
What does that have to do with the issue presented and addressed in Romans 5:12-21; i.e.,
Adam died because he transgressed God's specific command, which is sin.
What specific commnd did those from Adam to Moses transgress, as did Adam, which caused their deaths?

Your response here deals with neither the issue addressed by the teaching, nor its conclusion; i.e.,

Issue:
The wages of sin is death.
Sin is transgression of the law (specific commands).
Where there is no law, there is no sin.
There was no law from Adam to Moses.
Yet all died, even though they did not transgress the law (specific commands).
What sin (transgression of specific command) caused them to die?
The sin (transgression) of Adam.

Conclusion:
"The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Romans 5:18)

"just as" Adam's condemnation is accounted/imputed to those of/in Adam,
"so also" Christ's righteous is accounted/imputed to those of/in Christ (Romans 5:18),
and
"just as" those of/in Adam were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam,
"so also" those of/in Christ will be made righteous by the obedience of Christ (Romans 5:19).

On what authority do you not take God at his word in Romans 5:18-19, where
"just as" the sin of Adam is accounted/imputed to all those in Adam,
"so also" the righteousness of Jesus Christ is accounted/imputed to all those in Christ. . .as Abraham's righteousness was credited/imputed to him (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3)?

We will not be able to resolve any issue because we have different bases for God's truth.
I take God at his word, you do not, you allow yourself to deny what it plainly states.
That is a license for Biblical error, for rationalizing the text to set Scripture against itself so that it will not be set against one's theology.

I have chosen to take my attitude from Jesus.
Jesus believed all Scripture (the OT) was the "word of God" in every detail (Matthew 15:6; Luke 5:1, Luke 11:28; John 10:35).
He believed that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God, vested with the authority of God and backed by by power of God (Matthew 5:17-19).
To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law" (Scriptures) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17)

He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Matthew 4:4-10; John 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means..."
(Mark 12:24; Matthew 12:3-5, Matthew 19:4, Matthew 21:16, Matthew 21:42, Matthew 9:13).

Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God. He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Luke 4:17-21; Matthew 8:16-17, Matthew 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Luke 18:31; Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33-34; Matthew 26:24; Luke 22:37; Matthew 26:53-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Luke 24:44-47, Luke 24:25).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (John 5:39-40, John 5:46-47).

And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, Jesus thereby bore divine authoritative witness to it--Scripture is the word of God.
Belief in the authority and truth of the Scriptures was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

And that included the historical accounts:
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15),
Jonah and the whale (Matthew 12:39-40),
creation account as God's words, though they are the writer's words (Matthew 19:4-6),
murder of Abel (Matthew 23:35),
Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37-39),
burning bush and call of Moses (Mark 12:26),
Elijah and the provision for the widow (Luke 4:25-26),
Elisha and Naaman, the Syrian leper (Luke 4:27),
Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt (Luke 17:31-33).
plague of snakes and brazen serpent (John 3:14),
manna from heaven in the desert for 40 years (John 6:31, John 6:49),
Abraham (John 8:39-40),

According to Jesus, the Word of God was to be absolutely taken at its word.

You and your church should do the same.

 

[Clare73]

Clare "as in Adam all die" means just like Adam we all die, the same way, by disobedience or possibly in ignorance.
I notice you leave off the word as. Why is that?

I'm not discussing 1 Corinthians 15:22 and "as," I'm discussing
Romans 5:12-21, where "the result of one trespass is condemnation for all men."​

So with nothing more than a text I am not discussing, you think you have addressed my discussion of the multi-faceted teaching presented in Romans 5:12-21.​

Amateurish. . . at best.

The idea that sin is imputed to us is so ridiculous I am amazed anyone would even suggest it

Ew-w-w-w. . .fe-e-el the righteousness. . .revelling in human ignorance.​

We are "by nature (birth) objects of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3).
So how does that work, how did that happen? Born as objects of wrath.
You do the math. Hint: see Romans 5:12-21.

"The idea that sin is imputed to us is so ridiculous." Really?
Abraham is the model.

Righteousness was imputed (Gr: logizomai) to him through his faith (Romans 4:22).
That was not just for Abraham, but for us also, God imputes (Gr: logizomai) righteousness to us through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 4:23).
And that righteousness imputed to us which made us righteous because of the obedience of the one man, Jesus Christ

is paralleled with

that sin which made us sinners because of the disobedience of the one man, Adam (Romans 5:18-19).
The double parallels reveal that Adams' sin was imputed to us (just) as Christ's righteousness was imputed to us (Romans 4:23).

So ridiculous? . . I do not sit loosely to that kind of assault on the holy word of God (2 Timothy 3:16).
It does not come from the Holy Spirit, it comes from the human mind, preferring its own reasoning over God's expressly revealed truth.​

So. . .just how would you butcher:
"Therefore, God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us, for who resists his will?'
(translate: how can he blame us for not repenting if he actually hardens us so we can't repent?)
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?
'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?" '
(Isaiah 29:16, Isaiah 45:9)
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble use and some for common use (human waste vessels)?" (Romans 9:18-21).​

I take God at his word. . ."in Adam" means in Adam, not some poorly crafted substitute suitable to human fancy (not to mention "in Adam" is substantial to the teaching of Romans 5:12-21).​

Not taking God at his word just leaves no basis for resolving our differences.​

You once asked if I interpreted Scripture literally, to which I replied that I take Scripture at its word.
This is what I was talking about.
Not only is it is the only way to keep Scripture from contradicting itself, it's the only way to know God's truth, instead of man's idea of what God's truth has to be, acccording to man's wisdom and reasoning, failing to keep Isaiah 55:8-9 in mind: our ways are not God's ways.​

 

[misput]

And?

Let's go back to the beginning. Adam was created with a fleshly nature, this alone would cause him to sin and did play a part in his breaking a specific command but rest assured even without a specific command he would have sinned. Breaking a specific command is more damnable than sinning because of a fleshly nature and ignorance but either way sin is involved. This is what Paul is pointing out to those who knew the law, which includes us. Sinning without breaking a specific law is not sinning by breaking a law, "where there is no law there is no sin" but everyone sins because of a fleshly nature anyway, if they live long enough to know right from wrong. Consequently we all die physically but not Spiritually if we believe in God. This is my interpretation and it may be wrong, just as yours may be but you do not seem to be able to admit. You did not give any response on any of the other subjects i brought up. After you tear this post up, would you care to gnaw on one of those? : ) How about
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

I would like to see what you do with this and how it relates to the Apostles creed.

 

[SkyWriting]

He was created in body not as the first Adam was (fully grown) but went through gestation and child birth to be the [legal] heir of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David...

If we can imagine that Adam was say 20, when he was created
Then we can agree with an old earth as well.

 

[Clare73]

Let's go back to the beginning. Adam was created with a fleshly nature, this alone would cause him to sin

Wrong. . .

Adam was not created with a nature disposed to sin. He was created in the image of God--in righteousness, holiness and knowledge of him (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10). Like the second Adam, he was morally free in his will, he had no tendency (disposition) to desire the forbidden thing, as does unregenerate fallen man (Romans 7:8-11). Adam in his original state cannot be compared to fallen unregenerate man. You're talking apples (no pun intended) and oranges.

and did play a part in his breaking a specific command but rest assured even without a specific command he would have sinned. Breaking a specific command is more damnable than sinning because of a fleshly nature and ignorance but either way sin is involved. This is what Paul is pointing out to those who knew the law, which includes us. Sinning without breaking a specific law is not sinning by breaking a law, "where there is no law there is no sin" but everyone sins because of a fleshly nature anyway, if they live long enough to know right from wrong. Consequently we all die physically but not Spiritually if we believe in God.

This is my interpretation and it may be wrong, just as yours may be but you do not seem to be able to admit.

Empty puff claims mean nothing.
Mine will be Biblically wrong when you Biblically demonsrate that it is wrong, as I have demonstrated your errors in post #141, #144, #145 above. That's the way legitimate claims work.

You did not give any response on any of the other subjects i brought up. After you tear this post up, would you care to gnaw on one of those? : ) How about

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
I would like to see what you do with this and how it relates to the Apostles creed.

FIrst things first. . .when I see what you do with Romans 9:18-21.

I appreciate your desire to deflect from the subject of imputation of Adam's sin. But your deflection to a text of which basic terms ("spirits in prison") we have no sure knowledge from Scripture, is not analagous to Romans 5:12-21, where we do understand the terms ("imputation of righteousness") from Scripture (Romans 4:22-23), and which conclusion to the argument in 5:18-19 is clearly made based on those terms. 1 Peter 3:19-20 is nowhere near being analagous to Romans 5:18-21.

The NT teaches that we are born spiritually dead (Genesis 2:17; Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13) in unbelief and condemned to hell (John 3:18-19, John 3:36).
In Romans 5:12-21, Paul establishes our responsibility for this condemnation into whch we are born (Ephesians 2:3), where he uses two illustrations to show that man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression:

1) in vv. 12-14, Paul shows that even those who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Romans 4:15, Romans 5:18)
died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12)
of the sin ("sin was in the world," v.13) of Adam's transgression. . .because
that was the only sin that caused them to be guilty of death ("the wages of sin," Romans 6:23).
In vv. 15-16, Paul contrasts the trespass of Adam with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and then

2) in vv. 17-19, Paul parallels those contrasts (Adam's sin with Christ's righteousness).

Note that Paul states in v.18 that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass
just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.

Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1 Corinthians 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement)
in the two Adam's is of the same nature (1 Corinthians 15:22).
In the one man we were made sinners, just as in the one man we are made righteous.

Paul is drawing two clear parallels of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that
the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither of the two halves in each parallel (v.18, v.19) does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what men did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelisms would be destroyed.
This is
1) plain and clear explanation, denying none of the text of Romans 5:12-21 as stated. . . demonstrating that Adam's guilt is imputed to us just as (in the same way)
Christ's righeousness is imputed to us (in Romans 4:22-23), and

2) whose terms in Romans 5:18-19 are Biblically clear, and are in no way analagous to your red herring of 1 Peter 3:18, of whose terms we have no sure Biblical knowledge.

Romans 5:12-21 plainly teaches that man is responsible for (guilty of)
the sentence of condemnation into which he is born (Ephesians 2:3)
because of the guilt of Adam imputed to him.

 

[misput]

Wrong. . .

Adam was not created with a nature disposed to sin. He was created in the image of God--in righteousness, holiness and knowledge of him (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10). Like the second Adam, he was morally free in his will, he had no tendency (disposition) to desire the forbidden thing, as does unregenerate fallen man (Romans 7:8-11). Adam in his original state cannot be compared to fallen unregenerate man.

If Adam had no tendency to sin, why did he sin? Admitting I may be wrong may mean nothing to you but it does to me. All you have demonstrated to me is your willingness to attach meaning to scripture that is not there. I have looked carefully into all the scripture you have referenced and found no evidence of imputed sin. I can see that neither one of us is going to change our mind on this subject, so i am suggesting another subject, not suggesting the other subjects have anything directly to do with this one. One reason I think 1Peter 3 is interesting is because Peter said Paul said some things hard to be understood and then we have this from Peter, sort of ironic, don't you think? Whatever you want to do though, I just enjoy discussing these things.

 

[Clare73]

If Adam had no tendency to sin, why did he sin? Admitting I may be wrong may mean nothing to you but it does to me. All you have demonstrated to me is your willingness to attach meaning to scripture that is not there. I have looked carefully into all the scripture you have referenced and found no evidence of imputed sin.

You have not begun to address from the Scriptures the many explicit points that were made, and
without Biblical demonstration of such, your assertion of such is without Biblical merit.

 

[misput]

It's not about "looking into" a scripture, it's about understanding how they are used together in Biblical teaching by the NT penman.

OK, whatever you think. Where do you want to go from here, if any where?

 

[misput]

Why did you not answer my question about Adam sinning?

 

[Clare73]

Why did you not answer my question about Adam sinning?

What basis do we have for discussion?
You do not Biblically address the points of my response, and make painfully obvious spurious claims regarding such.

You are not discussing in good faith.

Adam had no pre-disposition to sin, no influence in his nature toward sin, toward desiring the forbidden.
Eve had to be deceived to create such a desire, and Adam, being not deceived, nor with a disposition toward the forbidden, loved the creature more than the Creator, chosing not to be deprived of her in her exile from the Garden.

This is Adam caught between two right and good things, Eve, with whom he was two-in-one-flesh by order of God, and obedience to God's command which would mean deprivement of her.
This is the second Adam caught between two good things, bread for life and the word of God for life, and making the choice for the word/will of God even when it meant deprivement for him.

 

[misput]

What basis do we have for discussion?
You do not Biblically address the points of my response, and make painfully obvious spurious claims regarding such.

You are not discussing in good faith.

Adam had no pre-disposition to sin, no influence in his nature toward sin, toward desiring the forbidden.
Eve had to be deceived to create such a desire, and Adam, being not deceived, nor with a disposition toward the forbidden, loved the creature more than the Creator, chosing not to be deprived of her in her exile from the Garden.

This is Adam caught between two right and good things, Eve, with whom he was two-in-one-flesh by order of God, and obedience to God's command which would mean deprivement of her.
This is the second Adam caught between two good things, bread for life and the word of God for life, and making the choice for the word/will of God even when it meant deprivement for him.

Empty puff claims mean nothing.
Mine will be Biblically wrong when you Biblically demonsrate that it is wrong, as I have demonstrated your errors in post #141, #144, #145 above. That's the way legitimate claims work.

FIrst things first. . .when I see what you do with Romans 9:18-21.

I appreciate your desire to deflect from the subject of imputation of Adam's sin. But your deflection to a text of which basic terms ("spirits in prison") we have no sure knowledge from Scripture, is not analagous to Romans 5:12-21, where we do understand the terms ("imputation of righteousness") from Scripture (Romans 4:22-23), and which conclusion to the argument in 5:18-19 is clearly made based on those terms. 1 Peter 3:19-20 is nowhere near being analagous to Romans 5:18-21.

The NT teaches that we are born spiritually dead (Genesis 2:17; Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13) in unbelief and condemned to hell (John 3:18-19, John 3:36).
In Romans 5:12-21, Paul establishes our responsibility for this condemnation into whch we are born (Ephesians 2:3), where he uses two illustrations to show that man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression:

1) in vv. 12-14, Paul shows that even those who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Romans 4:15, Romans 5:18)
died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12)
of the sin ("sin was in the world," v.13) of Adam's transgression. . .because
that was the only sin that caused them to be guilty of death ("the wages of sin," Romans 6:23).
In vv. 15-16, Paul contrasts the trespass of Adam with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and then

2) in vv. 17-19, Paul parallels those contrasts (Adam's sin with Christ's righteousness).

Note that Paul states in v.18 that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass
just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.

Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1 Corinthians 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement)
in the two Adam's is of the same nature (1 Corinthians 15:22).
In the one man we were made sinners, just as in the one man we are made righteous.

Paul is drawing two clear parallels of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that
the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither of the two halves in each parallel (v.18, v.19) does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what men did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelisms would be destroyed.
This is
1) plain and clear explanation, denying none of the text of Romans 5:12-21 as stated. . . demonstrating that Adam's guilt is imputed to us just as (in the same way)
Christ's righeousness is imputed to us (in Romans 4:22-23), and

2) whose terms in Romans 5:18-19 are Biblically clear, and are in no way analagous to your red herring of 1 Peter 3:18, of whose terms we have no sure Biblical knowledge.

Romans 5:12-21 plainly teaches that man is responsible for (guilty of)
the sentence of condemnation into which he is born (Ephesians 2:3)
because of the guilt of Adam imputed to him.

Why do you make excuses for Adam? God did not. If anything Adam as the head was more guilty than Eve. Not being deceived and disobeying anyway increased his guilt.

I am doing the best I can debating and assume you are too. We both seem to repeat ourselves and sometimes I do not see any point. Anyway, here is a quote from John Calvin, as orthodox christian as they get but you do not seem to respond to what he has to say either. You told me I should check with other more learned men and he is pretty high on my list even though I do not buy into the 5 points of his doctrine and especially the part he played in the murder of a man of his time. What do you think?

[See CALBOOK 05894]

14. And Adam was not deceived. He alludes to the punishment inflicted on the woman:

"Because thou hast obeyed the voice of the serpent, thou shalt be subject to the authority of thy husband, and thy desire shall be to him." {1} (#Ge 3:16).

Because she had given fatal advice, it was right that she should learn that she was under the power and will of another; and because she had drawn her husband aside from the command of God, it was right that she should be deprived of all liberty and placed under the yoke. Besides, the Apostle does not rest his argument entirely or absolutely on the cause of the transgression, but founds it on the sentence which was pronounced by God.

Yet it may be thought that these two statements are somewhat contradictory: that the subjection of the woman is the punishment of her transgression, and yet that it was imposed on her from the creation; for thence it will follow, that she was doomed to servitude before she sinned. I reply, there is nothing to hinder that the condition of obeying should be natural from the beginning, and that afterwards the accidental condition of serving should come into existence; so that the subjection was now less voluntary and agreeable than it had formerly been.

Again, this passage has given to some people an occasion for affirming that Adam did not fall by means of error, but that he was only overcome by the allurements of his wife. Accordingly, they think that the woman only was deceived by the wiles of the devil, to believe that she and her husband would be like the gods; But that Adam was not at all persuaded of this, but tasted the fruit in order to please his wife. But it is easy to refute this opinion; for, if Adam had not given credit to the falsehood of Satan, God would not have reproached him:

"Behold, Adam is become like one of us." (#Ge 3:22).

There are other reasons of which I say nothing; for there needs not a long refutation of an error which does not rest on any probable conjecture. By these words Paul does not mean that Adam was not entangled by the same deceitfulness of the devil, {2} but that the cause or source of the transgression proceeded from Eve.

 

[JohnD70X7]

If we can imagine that Adam was say 20, when he was created
Then we can agree with an old earth as well.

Sure, a 12 billion year old Earth on day one.

 

[Clare73]

Empty puff claims mean nothing.
Mine will be Biblically wrong when you Biblically demonsrate that it is wrong, as I have demonstrated your errors in post #141, #144, #145 above. That's the way legitimate claims work.

FIrst things first. . .when I see what you do with Romans 9:18-21.

I appreciate your desire to deflect from the subject of imputation of Adam's sin. But your deflection to a text of which basic terms ("spirits in prison") we have no sure knowledge from Scripture, is not analagous to Romans 5:12-21, where we do understand the terms ("imputation of righteousness") from Scripture (Romans 4:22-23), and which conclusion to the argument in 5:18-19 is clearly made based on those terms. 1 Peter 3:19-20 is nowhere near being analagous to Romans 5:18-21.

The NT teaches that we are born spiritually dead (Genesis 2:17; Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13) in unbelief and condemned to hell (John 3:18-19, John 3:36).
In Romans 5:12-21, Paul establishes our responsibility for this condemnation into whch we are born (Ephesians 2:3), where he uses two illustrations to show that man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression:

1) in vv. 12-14, Paul shows that even those who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Romans 4:15, Romans 5:18)
died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12)
of the sin ("sin was in the world," v.13) of Adam's transgression. . .because
that was the only sin that caused them to be guilty of death ("the wages of sin," Romans 6:23).
In vv. 15-16, Paul contrasts the trespass of Adam with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and then

2) in vv. 17-19, Paul parallels those contrasts (Adam's sin with Christ's righteousness).

Note that Paul states in v.18 that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass
just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.

Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1 Corinthians 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement)
in the two Adam's is of the same nature (1 Corinthians 15:22).
In the one man we were made sinners, just as in the one man we are made righteous.

Paul is drawing two clear parallels of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that
the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither of the two halves in each parallel (v.18, v.19) does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what men did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelisms would be destroyed.
This is
1) plain and clear explanation, denying none of the text of Romans 5:12-21 as stated. . . demonstrating that Adam's guilt is imputed to us just as (in the same way)
Christ's righeousness is imputed to us (in Romans 4:22-23), and

2) whose terms in Romans 5:18-19 are Biblically clear, and are in no way analagous to your red herring of 1 Peter 3:18, of whose terms we have no sure Biblical knowledge.

Romans 5:12-21 plainly teaches that man is responsible for (guilty of)
the sentence of condemnation into which he is born (Ephesians 2:3)
because of the guilt of Adam imputed to him.

Empty puff claims mean nothing.
Mine will be Biblically wrong when you Biblically demonsrate that it is wrong, as I have demonstrated your errors in post #141, #144, #145 above. That's the way legitimate claims work.

FIrst things first. . .when I see what you do with Romans 9:18-21.

I appreciate your desire to deflect from the subject of imputation of Adam's sin. But your deflection to a text of which basic terms ("spirits in prison") we have no sure knowledge from Scripture, is not analagous to Romans 5:12-21, where we do understand the terms ("imputation of righteousness") from Scripture (Romans 4:22-23), and which conclusion to the argument in 5:18-19 is clearly made based on those terms. 1 Peter 3:19-20 is nowhere near being analagous to Romans 5:18-21.

The NT teaches that we are born spiritually dead (Genesis 2:17; Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13) in unbelief and condemned to hell (John 3:18-19, John 3:36).
In Romans 5:12-21, Paul establishes our responsibility for this condemnation into whch we are born (Ephesians 2:3), where he uses two illustrations to show that man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression:

1) in vv. 12-14, Paul shows that even those who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Romans 4:15, Romans 5:18)
died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12)
of the sin ("sin was in the world," v.13) of Adam's transgression. . .because
that was the only sin that caused them to be guilty of death ("the wages of sin," Romans 6:23).
In vv. 15-16, Paul contrasts the trespass of Adam with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and then

2) in vv. 17-19, Paul parallels those contrasts (Adam's sin with Christ's righteousness).

Note that Paul states in v.18 that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass
just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.

Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1 Corinthians 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement)
in the two Adam's is of the same nature (1 Corinthians 15:22).
In the one man we were made sinners, just as in the one man we are made righteous.

Paul is drawing two clear parallels of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that
the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither of the two halves in each parallel (v.18, v.19) does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what men did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelisms would be destroyed.
This is
1) plain and clear explanation, denying none of the text of Romans 5:12-21 as stated. . . demonstrating that Adam's guilt is imputed to us just as (in the same way)
Christ's righeousness is imputed to us (in Romans 4:22-23), and

2) whose terms in Romans 5:18-19 are Biblically clear, and are in no way analagous to your red herring of 1 Peter 3:18, of whose terms we have no sure Biblical knowledge.

Romans 5:12-21 plainly teaches that man is responsible for (guilty of)
the sentence of condemnation into which he is born (Ephesians 2:3)
because of the guilt of Adam imputed to him.[/QUOTE]

Why do you make excuses for Adam? God did not. If anything Adam as the head was more guilty than Eve. Not being deceived and disobeying anyway increased his guilt.

I am doing the best I can debating and assume you are too. We both seem to repeat ourselves and sometimes I do not see any point. Anyway, here is a quote from John Calvin, as orthodox christian as they get but you do not seem to respond to what he has to say either. You told me I should check with other more learned men and he is pretty high on my list even though I do not buy into the 5 points of his doctrine and especially the part he played in the murder of a man of his time. What do you think?

[See CALBOOK 05894]

14. And Adam was not deceived. He alludes to the punishment inflicted on the woman:

"Because thou hast obeyed the voice of the serpent, thou shalt be subject to the authority of thy husband, and thy desire shall be to him." {1} (#Ge 3:16).

Because she had given fatal advice, it was right that she should learn that she was under the power and will of another; and because she had drawn her husband aside from the command of God, it was right that she should be deprived of all liberty and placed under the yoke. Besides, the Apostle does not rest his argument entirely or absolutely on the cause of the transgression, but founds it on the sentence which was pronounced by God.

Yet it may be thought that these two statements are somewhat contradictory: that the subjection of the woman is the punishment of her transgression, and yet that it was imposed on her from the creation; for thence it will follow, that she was doomed to servitude before she sinned. I reply, there is nothing to hinder that the condition of obeying should be natural from the beginning, and that afterwards the accidental condition of serving should come into existence; so that the subjection was now less voluntary and agreeable than it had formerly been.

Again, this passage has given to some people an occasion for affirming that Adam did not fall by means of error, but that he was only overcome by the allurements of his wife. Accordingly, they think that the woman only was deceived by the wiles of the devil, to believe that she and her husband would be like the gods; But that Adam was not at all persuaded of this, but tasted the fruit in order to please his wife. But it is easy to refute this opinion; for, if Adam had not given credit to the falsehood of Satan, God would not have reproached him:

"Behold, Adam is become like one of us." (#Ge 3:22).

There are other reasons of which I say nothing; for there needs not a long refutation of an error which does not rest on any probable conjecture. By these words Paul does not mean that Adam was not entangled by the same deceitfulness of the devil, {2} but that the cause or source of the transgression proceeded from Eve.[/QUOTE]

 

[Clare73]

Empty puff claims mean nothing.
Mine will be Biblically wrong when you Biblically demonsrate that it is wrong, as I have demonstrated your errors in post #141, #144, #145 above. That's the way legitimate claims work.

FIrst things first. . .when I see what you do with Romans 9:18-21.

I appreciate your desire to deflect from the subject of imputation of Adam's sin. But your deflection to a text of which basic terms ("spirits in prison") we have no sure knowledge from Scripture, is not analagous to Romans 5:12-21, where we do understand the terms ("imputation of righteousness") from Scripture (Romans 4:22-23), and which conclusion to the argument in 5:18-19 is clearly made based on those terms. 1 Peter 3:19-20 is nowhere near being analagous to Romans 5:18-21.

The NT teaches that we are born spiritually dead (Genesis 2:17; Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13) in unbelief and condemned to hell (John 3:18-19, John 3:36).
In Romans 5:12-21, Paul establishes our responsibility for this condemnation into whch we are born (Ephesians 2:3), where he uses two illustrations to show that man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression:

1) in vv. 12-14, Paul shows that even those who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Romans 4:15, Romans 5:18)
died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12)
of the sin ("sin was in the world," v.13) of Adam's transgression. . .because
that was the only sin that caused them to be guilty of death ("the wages of sin," Romans 6:23).
In vv. 15-16, Paul contrasts the trespass of Adam with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and then

2) in vv. 17-19, Paul parallels those contrasts (Adam's sin with Christ's righteousness).

Note that Paul states in v.18 that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass
just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.

Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1 Corinthians 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement)
in the two Adam's is of the same nature (1 Corinthians 15:22).
In the one man we were made sinners, just as in the one man we are made righteous.

Paul is drawing two clear parallels of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that
the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither of the two halves in each parallel (v.18, v.19) does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what men did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelisms would be destroyed.
This is
1) plain and clear explanation, denying none of the text of Romans 5:12-21 as stated. . . demonstrating that Adam's guilt is imputed to us just as (in the same way)
Christ's righeousness is imputed to us (in Romans 4:22-23), and

2) whose terms in Romans 5:18-19 are Biblically clear, and are in no way analagous to your red herring of 1 Peter 3:18, of whose terms we have no sure Biblical knowledge.

Romans 5:12-21 plainly teaches that man is responsible for (guilty of)
the sentence of condemnation into which he is born (Ephesians 2:3)
because of the guilt of Adam imputed to him.

Why do you make excuses for Adam? God did not. If anything Adam as the head was more guilty than Eve. Not being deceived and disobeying anyway increased his guilt.

The point of the discussion was not about guilt, no one denies Adam's guilt, the point was whether Adam was created in righteousness or with a disposition to sin.

I am doing the best I can debating and assume you are too. We both seem to repeat ourselves and sometimes I do not see any point. Anyway, here is a quote from John Calvin, as orthodox christian as they get but you do not seem to respond to what he has to say either. You told me I should check with other more learned men

Don't remember that, but that doesn't mean I didn't say it.

and he is pretty high on my list even though I do not buy into the 5 points of his doctrine and especially the part he played in the murder of a man of his time. What do you think?

It's been a while since I read anything of his. . .Book III of The Institutes was devotional reading for me.

[See CALBOOK 05894]

14. And Adam was not deceived. He alludes to the punishment inflicted on the woman:

"Because thou hast obeyed the voice of the serpent, thou shalt be subject to the authority of thy husband, and thy desire shall be to him." {1} (#Ge 3:16).

Because she had given fatal advice, it was right that she should learn that she was under the power and will of another; and because she had drawn her husband aside from the command of God, it was right that she should be deprived of all liberty and placed under the yoke. Besides, the Apostle does not rest his argument entirely or absolutely on the cause of the transgression, but founds it on the sentence which was pronounced by God.

Yet it may be thought that these two statements are somewhat contradictory: that the subjection of the woman is the punishment of her transgression, and yet that it was imposed on her from the creation; for thence it will follow, that she was doomed to servitude before she sinned. I reply, there is nothing to hinder that the condition of obeying should be natural from the beginning, and that afterwards the accidental condition of serving should come into existence; so that the subjection was now less voluntary and agreeable than it had formerly been.

Again, this passage has given to some people an occasion for affirming that Adam did not fall by means of error, but that he was only overcome by the allurements of his wife. Accordingly, they think that the woman only was deceived by the wiles of the devil, to believe that she and her husband would be like the gods; But

that Adam was not at all persuaded of this, but tasted the fruit in order to please his wife. But it is easy to refute this opinion; for, if Adam had not given credit to the falsehood of Satan, God would not have reproached him:
"Behold, Adam is become like one of us." (#Ge 3:22).

Don't see how that shows Adam was deceived.

There are other reasons of which I say nothing; for there needs not a long refutation of an error which does not rest on any probable conjecture. By these words Paul does not mean that Adam was not entangled by the same deceitfulness of the devil, {2} but that the cause or source of the transgression proceeded from Eve.

Interesting. . .I had thought for years that was the meaning of Paul's words, but it didn't seem to be the accepted view, and since the words could be understood in both ways, I changed my view.
It seems at the time, the accepted view was consistent with all related verses, so now I will look at them again. I suspect there was a Scriptural reason for changing my view. I will have to review it all again.

But none of it alters the fact that Adam sinned by transgression of the law, which is what is relevant to Romans 5:12-21.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure, a 12 billion year old Earth on day one.

There was no sun located until day four, so days and years were both undefined.
And a "day" is due to the radiation of the sun in one location causing a shadow on the other side.
So no point in trying to assign an age to anything.

 

[SkyWriting]

Paul never met Jesus.

 

[misput]

The point of the discussion was not about guilt, no one denies Adam's guilt, the point was whether Adam was created in righteousness or with a disposition to sin.

He was created in righteousness but he obviously had a fleshly nature which led him to sin, just as Christ was born with a fleshly nature which led Him to be tempted but He was able to resist because He was God in The flesh. We are born righteous also but our fleshly nature leads us to sin just as it did Adam. I will say it one more time, imputed sin is a contradiction of so much scripture I do not understand how anyone can believe it. A fleshly nature I can plainly see but born in sin, ridiculous. Your literalness has caused you to let Psalms 51 send you scurrying down a rabbit trail of misunderstanding : )

Don't see how that shows Adam was deceived.

Calvin: "By these words" (Adam was not deceived) "Paul does not mean that Adam was not entangled by the same deceitfulness of the devil, {2} but that the cause or source of the transgression proceeded from Eve". Instead you try to make Adam some kind of romeo for choosing his wife instead of God. Scripture teaches we must put Him first above father, mother, sister, etc.

But none of it alters the fact that Adam sinned by transgression of the law, which is what is relevant to Romans 5:12-21.

No one I know denies that Adam sinned by transgression of the law but one more time, I do not believe that his sin was imputed to anyone under the law or not under the law and most certainly not to babies. Ezek:18 is the death knell to that idea. (You did not get back to me on this, is that the good faith debating you mentioned?) Fleshly sinful nature, yes, sin absolutely not. If you must make Rom. 5 say different, have at it but I am not going there. Now are you going to repeat yourself again or do we plow some new ground? : )