"This is clearly seen..." This statement is ridiculous. How can something be "clearly seen" by an unproven, unbiblical, unreferenced, unsubstantiated "fact." You may as well have said "This is clearly seen because of my imagination."
You only dig your own hole deeper. Yes, both men acted as representatives for "many." One lead to justification, one lead to condemnation. The difference is with Adam there was
1 sin to condemnation and in Christ there is justification for
many sins.
I reject what you've said because it's unbiblical. You believe, contrary to scripture, that sin is passed from generation to generation all the way back to Adam and original sin. But Romans 5:12 clearly says that it is
death that is passed, not sin. This is supported by Ezekiel 18.
The point, my friend, is that IF we all have a sin nature, and IF we all get that sin nature as an inheritance from Adam because sin (not death) is passed, then any covering for Adam's sin would effectively eliminate the sin that was passed, and that sin would cease to be passed because it would have been covered by the blood of Jesus. If Adam's sin were forgiven, then it could no longer be passed. We wouldn't inherit a sin nature (in that faulty point of view) because that sin would have been forgiven. You have - once again - effectively destroyed your entire theological position.
You can't say that Adam's representative sin is passed, and then say that if that representative sin were forgiven, that the redemption would not also be passed. If one is true, the other MUST be true. If Adam's representative sin is passed, then the forgiveness of that sin would also be passed. And if it is true that the forgiveness for Adam's sin is passed, then it destroys the idea that sin is passed, or that we inherit a sin nature from Adam because Adam's representative sin would have been forgiven.
If that's true (which is isn't), then Adam's sin would cease to be representative as well. Adam committed only 1 sin in his life - he ate the fruit. If this 1 sin was representative, then forgiveness for that 1 sin would also be representative. But Romans 5 says the free gift of grace is for many sins, not 1 sin.
The word MORAL does not appear in either of the passages you listed. Furthermore I see nothing about infants in either passage. You make this up as you go, don't you!
I do find it interesting, however, that 2 Corinthians 3 is all about the two covenants - faith and the law - and effect of righteousness on a person.
Romans 5 doesn't make that distinction. It says "death" it doesn't say "spiritual death". As a matter of fact, if you limit Romans 5 to spiritual death, you may undermine the very gospel itself.
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
If you believe this context refers only to Christ dying spiritually, then you and I may have far less common footing to stand on that I supposed. Do you believe that Christ's death and resurrection was only spiritual and that he didn't die physically? Do you believe he only spilled spiritual blood for us?
So you think that Adam died spiritually prior to being judged by God, prior to God pronouncing the curse? I wonder how he spoke with God in the garden if he was spiritually dead when God asked him where he was and why he was hiding.
All have sinned means each individual has committed his own sin. It doesn't mean that we all committed Adam's sin.
The onus is upon you to produce scripture to substantiate your claim that says that the sin nature is passed. Furthermore it is upon you to substantiate your implication that sin is passed through the father's genes.