Romans 5:12-19 and the source of sin and death in humanity

[The Biblicist]

This post is merely an introduction to the subject stated in the heading. My position is thus stated as follows:

I believe Paul repudiates the idea that sin and death of post-Adamic human beings has for its source or cause their own individual sins. That sin, condemnation, judgement and death have their source and cause in one man (Adam) and in one act by that one man so that sin and death is "passed" down to all other human beings through procreation wherein like begets like, so that they are born into this world in a state of spiritual separation from God, thus, they are conceived in their mother's womb "without God" thus without spiritual life, light, love or holiness (Eph. 4:28) condemned already and the irrefutable proof is death JUSTLY reigns over them from the point of conception forward.

Furthermore, I believe Paul repudiates the idea that there is no moral difference between pre-fallen Adam and post-fallen Adam with regard to his moral condition or nature but sin spiritually separated Adam from God so that his post-fallen state or condition was a state/condition of spiritual death, darkness, depravity and enmity toward God, thus needing rebirth which is the restoration of the moral image of God (Eph. 2:10a; 4:24; Col. 3:10; Tit. 3:5) bringing man back into spiritual union with God, thus in union with life, light, love and holiness which previous to new birth he was without, and thus spiritually dead, in darkness, enmity and depravity.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Bible clearly and explicity and repeatedly teaches that God's being is the source of all life, light, love and holiness as the Bible declares God IS light, and God IS love, and God IS holy and God IS the fountain or source of life. I believe these truths are common knowledge to anyone who reads the scriptures and I don't need to offer proof texts, but if necessary will be more than happy to provide.

Hence, to be "without God" is to be without spiritual life, light, love, and holiness which constitute a spiritual sinful condition (thus a sin nature) that can only be reversed by new birth which is a creative act by God that brings a person into spiritual union with God and thus in union with LIFE, LIGHT, LOVE and HOLINESS. New birth restores the moral "image" of God in man (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) so that he is enabled to do "good" works - Eph. 2:10. Prior to new birth he has never been able to do "good" works in God's sight as "there is none good, no, not one" in the sight of God prior to new birth.

The Adamic sin brought sin into the world (Rom. 5:12) and "death" by sin so that "death" passed upon all mankind. Death is first and foremost - spiritual separation from God which results in physical death and ultimately eternal death or separation spirit soul and body from God in Gehenna. Hence, death is first a spiritual condition being "without God" or spiritual separation from God. That condition is what constitutes being a sinner BY NATURE (death, darkness, enmity, depravity) which exists at conception.

 

[The Biblicist]

Now, for the evidence to support my declarations:

1. Sin and death entered this world by one man and one act by this one man:

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


2. Post-adamic plural sins by post-adamic mankind was not the source of death, condemnation in post-adamic humans.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

How did "many" become sinners? ANSWER: "by one man's disobedience many became sinners"

How did "many" become dead? ANSWER: "through the offence of be many be dead"

How did "many" become condemned? ANSWER: "by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation"

What is the cause of "death" reign over many? ANSWER: "by one man's offence death reigned" and "by one man sin entered the world and death by sin"

Paul is thoroughly repudiating the idea that death and condemnation in all other men has it cause in their own individual sins. He does not say the "by men's disobedience many became sinners". He does not say "through the offences of many that many be dead". He does not say the "offences of many judgement came many." However, this is the conclusion that all who deny my position are forced to embrace.

 

[JonC]

Romans 5:12-14
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all 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 until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

I contend that Romans 5:12-14 stands in opposition to the idea that our human nature is anything but ontological to mankind. The desires of the flesh, in and of themselves, do not constitute sin. Our nature, in and of itself, does not constitute sin. But just as through Adam sin entered the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned.

I also contend that Jesus response to Nicodemus negates the interpretation that this spiritual birth is a "rebirth" for mankind in the sense it restores man to an ontological condition humanity previously experienced prior to Adam's transgression. Instead I believe what is accomplished is a reconciliation (a relationship between God and man restored).

For me the issue is not that we are born into sin. I believe that we do have a nature that necessitates the rebirth. The issue is whether or not this is a nature restricted to mankind post-Fall or common to mankind in toto. I believe the latter.

 

[JonC]

Now, for the evidence to support my declarations:

1. Sin and death entered this world by one man and one act by this one man:

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

Agreed.

2. Post-adamic plural sins by post-adamic mankind was not the source of death, condemnation in post-adamic humans.

If by "source" you mean that sin and death entered the world through Adam's transgression and death spread to all men because all have sinned, then I agree.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

How did "many" become sinners? ANSWER: "by one man's disobedience many became sinners"

How did "many" become dead? ANSWER: "through the offence of be many be dead"

How did "many" become condemned? ANSWER: "by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation"

What is the cause of "death" reign over many? ANSWER: "by one man's offence death reigned" and "by one man sin entered the world and death by sin"

Agreed.

 

[JonC]

I think that the difference may be that old argument about "in Adam". This is an argument that is within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy (trying to prevent the thread from devolving into insults). It could be an interesting discussion.

 

[The Biblicist]

If by "source" you mean that sin and death entered the world through Adam's transgression and death spread to all men because all have sinned, then I agree.
Agreed.

If you mean by "death spread to all men because of their own individual sins" then I don't agree as the following context repeatedly and consistently repudiates that idea.

much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

How did "many" become sinners? ANSWER: "by one man's disobedience many became sinners"

How did "many" become dead? ANSWER: "through the offence of be many be dead"

How did "many" become condemned? ANSWER: "by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation"

What is the cause of "death" reign over many? ANSWER: "by one man's offence death reigned" and "by one man sin entered the world and death by sin"

Paul is thoroughly repudiating the idea that death and condemnation in all other men has it cause in their own individual sins. He does not say the "by men's disobedience many became sinners". He does not say "through the offences of many that many be dead". He does not say the "offences of many judgement came many." However, this is the conclusion that all who deny my position are forced to embrace.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think that the difference may be that old argument about "in Adam". This is an argument that is within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy (trying to prevent the thread from devolving into insults). It could be an interesting discussion.

Perhaps another thread as we don't want to stray from the immediate subject which I believe is about how and why sin and death occur in post-adamic mankind.

 

[JonC]

If you mean by "death spread to all men because of their own individual sins" then I don't agree as the following context repeatedly and consistently repudiates that idea.

much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

How did "many" become sinners? ANSWER: "by one man's disobedience many became sinners"

How did "many" become dead? ANSWER: "through the offence of be many be dead"

How did "many" become condemned? ANSWER: "by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation"

What is the cause of "death" reign over many? ANSWER: "by one man's offence death reigned" and "by one man sin entered the world and death by sin"

Paul is thoroughly repudiating the idea that death and condemnation in all other men has it cause in their own individual sins. He does not say the "by men's disobedience many became sinners". He does not say "through the offences of many that many be dead". He does not say the "offences of many judgement came many." However, this is the conclusion that all who deny my position are forced to embrace.

I believe the text is dealing with mankind. Adam is a representative of man. Jesus is a representative of man.

If you mean that we are born under condemnation and into sin then I agree. If you mean we are born having sinned then I disagree.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you believe post-adamic became sinners by their own sinful actions or do you agree with Paul that "by one man's disobedience many became sinners"?

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe the text is dealing with mankind. Adam is a representative of man. Jesus is a representative of man.

This the crux of your error in how you perceive both, but you are really defending your view of the latter by attempting to conform the former to your latter view. However, I am not going down that alley way yet.

If you mean that we are born under condemnation and into sin then I agree. If you mean we are born having sinned then I disagree.

Again, Do you believe post-adamic became sinners by their own sinful actions or do you agree with Paul that "by one man's disobedience many became sinners"?

 

[JonC]

Do you believe post-adamic became sinners by their own sinful actions or do you agree with Paul that "by one man's disobedience many became sinners"?

Yes, I agree with Paul (I am wondering why you don't )

Both. I believe that Paul knew that because of Adam's transgression death and sin spread to all men because all have sinned. I don't think that we have to westernize Paul and divide the statement into segments (Adam sinned, man's nature changed in such a way as to constitute sin, because of this we sin).

I believe that Paul is speaking of the "last Adam" and the reconciliation through Him. He therefore is rightly considering Adam to be the representative of all men, just as Christ is the representative of all "new men".

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, I agree with Paul (I am wondering why you don't )

Both. I believe that Paul knew that because of Adam's transgression death and sin spread to all men because all have sinned. I don't think that we have to westernize Paul and divide the statement into segments (Adam sinned, man's nature changed in such a way as to constitute sin, because of this we sin).

I believe that Paul is speaking of the "last Adam" and the reconciliation through Him. He therefore is rightly considering Adam to be the representative of all men, just as Christ is the representative of all "new men".

You have not answered my question. Are we sinners BEFORE we commit any disobedience on our part. And if so, what constitutes us being viewed as sinners? What law did we break to constitute us as sinners as sin is the violation of the law.

Paul is thoroughly repudiating the idea that death and condemnation in all other men has it cause in their own individual sins. He does not say the "by men's disobedience many became sinners". He does not say "through the offences of many that many be dead". He does not say the "offences of many judgement came many." However, this is the conclusion that all who deny my position are forced to embrace.

What Law did we violate that justly condemns us as "sinners" BEFORE we personally committed any act of disobedience?

 

[JonC]

or do you agree with Paul

"pause"

This is a fallacy I was hoping we could avoid. I think that a discussion is to be had (one that has engaged Christians for centuries, so probably no agreement to be had).

I am getting ready to head out. If we are going to resort to ".....or do you agree with Paul", ".... or do you agree with Scripture", "....my bible says", etc then I'm not interested. I believe you are better than that type of "arguing" and can look to the actual disagreement without going all tribal.

So my recommendation is to leave off the junk (to include "....so you disagree with Orthodox Christianity"...."heresy".....and the like) and deal with Scripture and the actual argument.

If we can do that then I will engage the topic (although I don't know how much until next week). If not, then that is fine as well.

Deal?

 

[JonC]

You have not answered my question. Are we sinners BEFORE we commit any disobedience on our part. And if so, what constitutes us being viewed as sinners? What law did we break to constitute us as sinners as sin is the violation of the law.

Do we have a nature that "misses the mark"? Yes, absolutely. We are just like Adam prior to the Fall.
Will we be carried away by our own lusts and sin, just like Adam did? Yes, absolutely.

Just like Adam, our sins are manifestations of our nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do we have a nature that "misses the mark"? Yes, absolutely. We are just like Adam prior to the Fall.

Again, you are avoiding my question. The Greek word translated "sinners" (Rom. 5:19) is from harmatia and harmatia is "the transgression of the law" (1 Jn. 3:6). 1 Jn 3:6 provides the definition of harmatia. Romans 3:23 does not provide any definition but only tells us what it is inclusive of - coming short of God's glory - or holiness which the law defines. Again, what law did we violate to condemn us as "sinners" (harmatia) which would prove or show we come short of the glory of God BEFORE we even came out of our mothers womb? Again, what law did Adam violate before eating of the forbidden tree to condemn him as a "sinner"? What violation of God's law shows he comes short of the glory of God before he ate of the forbidden tree.

 

[The Biblicist]

"pause"

This is a fallacy I was hoping we could avoid. I think that a discussion is to be had (one that has engaged Christians for centuries, so probably no agreement to be had).

I am getting ready to head out. If we are going to resort to ".....or do you agree with Paul", ".... or do you agree with Scripture", "....my bible says", etc then I'm not interested. I believe you are better than that type of "arguing" and can look to the actual disagreement without going all tribal.

So my recommendation is to leave off the junk (to include "....so you disagree with Orthodox Christianity"...."heresy".....and the like) and deal with Scripture and the actual argument.

If we can do that then I will engage the topic (although I don't know how much until next week). If not, then that is fine as well.

Deal?

Deal!

 

[The Biblicist]

Please explain to us how God could create all things and pronounce them as "good" and yet create Adam a sinner (harmatia) when Solomon says God created man "upright"??

Taking the definition of sin "come short of the glory of God" how can that be a basis for just condemnation as demanded by the context in Romans 3:9-23 and yet God pronounce that to be "good" since you believe Adam was created with a sinful nature or nature that comes short of the glory of God. How can harmatia be condemned and yet God call it "good"???

 

[JonC]

Again, you are avoiding my question. The Greek word translated "sinners" (Rom. 5:19) is from harmatia and harmatia is "the transgression of the law" (1 Jn. 3:6). 1 Jn 3:6 provides the definition of harmatia. Romans 3:23 does not provide any definition but only tells us what it is inclusive of - coming short of God's glory - or holiness which the law defines. Again, what law did we violate to condemn us as "sinners" (harmatia) which would prove or show we come short of the glory of God BEFORE we even came out of our mothers womb? Again, what law did Adam violate before eating of the forbidden tree to condemn him as a "sinner"? What violation of God's law shows he comes short of the glory of God before he ate of the forbidden tree.

What transgression shows any man comes up short of God's command prior to the transgression itself?

It is an assumption that Adam's pre-sin state (his nature) was any different from his post sin state (nature). Adam's nature (that he possessed desires of the flesh) were evident in the temptation. Adam gave into temptation and sinned. This had consequences.

But sin then is sin now. Adam disobeyed God with the same nature he had when created. No scripture presents Adam as dying spiritually in order to sin. The idea it was possible for Adam to remain sineless is hypothetical (and a theory I do not hold).

 

[JonC]

Please explain to us how God could create all things and pronounce them as "good" and yet create Adam a sinner (harmatia) when Solomon says God created man "upright"??

Taking the definition of sin "come short of the glory of God" how can that be a basis for just condemnation as demanded by the context in Romans 3:9-23 and yet God pronounce that to be "good" since you believe Adam was created with a sinful nature or nature that comes short of the glory of God. How can harmatia be condemned and yet God call it "good"???

Adam was good until he wasn't. No need to read more into it than Scripture provides. Adam sinned.

The difference may be how we use "good". Obviously this is not in a moral context as God prounced all of creation "good". I believe here it is in accordance to God's plan and design.

Years ago I had a very good dog. Then he bit me and became a bad dog. The dog did not actually change (it was always a Calvinist....just didn't know it. ).