Featured 1 Corinthians 2:14 - How does God explain truth?

You do not have one word of scripture to support this. Romans chapter 5 is simply teaching that both Adam and Jesus set a "legal precedent" for certain actions. When a person sins as Adam sinned, they are imputed or "made a sinner" and the judgment of condemnation to death is passed upon them. Likewise, when a person trusts Christ to save them as Jesus trusted his Father to raise him from the dead, justification to life is imputed to that person.

Absolutely untrue, God is speaking of persons dying "IN" their sin. This means dying as a sinner for eternity.

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

This is not speaking of civil law, because it says if a man turns from sin he shall live. They did not let murderers go free or live because they supposedly repented. This is speaking of the eternal, not temporal.

Note how it says in verse 24 "IN his trespass" and "IN his sin" and "IN them" he shall die. This is speaking of dying as a lost sinner, just exactly as Jesus expressed in John chapter 8;

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Also, as Bob Ryan correctly pointed out, there was no death penalty in Israel for charging interest to fellow Jews. So, this is even more proof that this chapter is not speaking of civil law.

 

Romans 5:12 can be interpreted exactly as my position states. The aorist tense "all have sinned" is in direct reference to the statement that introduces that statement "for by one man sin entered the world and death by sin."

Scientifically, my position cannot possibly be denied as the whole of human nature was created in one Man Adam whereas Eve was taken from Adam. Thus the whole human nature existed and consisted in one physical form when Adam was created and when Adam acted the whole human nature acted.

Moreover, there is Biblical precedent in Hebrews 7 where the writer explicitly states that Aaron paid tithes to Melchichisdec when Abraham payed tithes to Melchizedec and the Biblical explanation was that he was still in the"loins" of Abraham and thus when Abraham acted so did his posterity still within his loins:

10

For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.​

This is the only logical reason why the predicted penalty "death" in Genesis 2:17 is INHERENT in human nature whenever and wherever it is reproduced in generation. Genesis 2:17 is the only law given by God to man prior to the giving of the law to Moses that could possibly account for just condemnation unto death for all men between Adam and Moses - Rom. 5:13

Finally, what is true with regard to all mankind born of Adam is not necessary true with all mankind born of Christ (Rom. 5:15-16). Hence, impartation is the principle with all mankind in regard to Adam due to natural generation whereas only imputation is the principle in regard to Christ in regard to supernatural generation.

You select some texts and ignore other texts in Ezekiel 18. Ezekiel 18:1-5 demonstrates this is being applied to the national civil courts in regard to both to capital punishment and non-capital punishment civil laws.

In regard to God's judgement day, no lost man will suffer in hell for the race sin as Christ removed that penalty (Jn. 1:29) so that all FALLEN lost men are judged "according to their own works." However, that does not deny that all men sinned as one inseparably human nature consisting in one man - Adam, and therefore it was not that any fallen man dies because of Adam's sin but because of their own sin which they actually participated in as one united human nature and will.

 

Can be???

Your position can be proved scientifically? Wow! I would like to see this.

This argument was simply to show the superiority of the priesthood of Melchisedec. The priesthood was passed down from father to son in the Levite priesthood. Therefore, Levi being a descendant of Abraham, (the father considered to be the superior), when Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec it proved his priesthood superior to the priesthood of Levi.

It doesn't mean that Levi paid actual tithes to Melchisedec.

And there your theory FAILS miserably. Why did Romans 5:13-14 only speak of men from Adam to Moses if Adam's sin extends to all men? FAIL.

Paul had said sin is not imputed when there is no law, but the death of men from Adam to Moses proves there was a law in the world. And what law was that? It was the law written on the hearts of men he had described in chapter 2. Paul also said these Gentiles "by nature" do the things contained in the law, which completely refutes Total Depravity.

If Paul was teaching Original Sin as you believe, then Paul should have included all men in verse 14, not men from Adam to Moses only. This proves your interpretation is error.

No, in Romans 5 Paul is simply showing a "legal precedent" which is well known in law. It establishes a consistent punishment for similar crimes that follow the original offense. Paul is showing that as the sentence of death is always passed to all men who sin as Adam did, likewise, righteousness is imputed to all men who believe on Jesus Christ as Jesus trusted his Father to raise him from the dead.

So, all men who sin are made "sinners" (a legal term like "felon") and condemned to death while righteousness is imputed to all who believe on Christ.

You do not read well, the first 5 verses discuss a proverb among the Jews that when the father eats sour grapes, the children's teeth are set on edge. This was actually a form of Original Sin the Jews believed in, and God is showing this proverb to be false. He says every man shall die for his own sin.

Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

If you think these verses support Original Sin, then you have a serious comprehension deficiency, these verses absolutely refute Original Sin.

Oh, now you suddenly want folks to be judged for their own sins.

Boy, you think you can just manipulate scripture any way you want don't you? :laugh:

 

Thank you for that admission

Ever raise animals for breeding? All dogs come from the first two dogs and even Evolution has admitted to a single original source of mankind or an Eve. Hence, the totality of any specie is existent in its first of kind. Generation weakens the specie and interbreeding in one limited line produces sickness and diseased. Science recognizes this principle of genetic source.

Of course it does not mean what it says, of course.

Quite the contrary, it proves that individual death must be accounted by the race violation of the Edenic law of Genesis 2:17. Hence all men did sin in Adam when Adam sinned as there can be no other law at no LATER time that can account for death between Adam and Moses. However, after Moses some could argue that death is a result of violating the Mosiac legistlation.

This verse is set forth to prove that sin entered the world by one man and death by that one sin and all sinned when He sinned. The only law given by God to man prior to Moses is Genesis 2:17 and that was in the garden violated by one man in whom the whole human race existed and consisted and acted as one man.

Quite the contrary, because later laws were given to men after Moses and only death between Adam and Moses can prove that death cannot be attributed to any other laws but Genesis 2:17

 

Again, you fail to notice the multiple question marks. That was not a confession. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

My grandfather used to raise and sell Bird-dogs, but honestly I don't know a whole lot about it. You can make some good money though.

Dogs are not really morally responsible creatures, I don't see how you can prove that sin is passed from one person to another by raising dogs.

It was an argument to prove the superiority of Melchesidec's priesthood.

If your theory is true, then Jesus sinned with Bathsheba when King David committed adultery with her, as Jesus was in his loins.

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Jesus was the fruit of King David's loins according to scripture. Therefore if your view is correct, then Jesus committed adultery with Bathsheba when David did so.

Isn't it something how false doctrine can come back and bite you in the rear end?

Nice try though.

What is "legistlation"?? You Calvinists not only redefine words, you make new ones up.

The rest is also pure baloney, if Paul were trying to show Original Sin here, he should have included all men ever born, not men from Adam to Moses only.

And note that Romans 5:14 actually says these men did not commit Adam's sin.

Rom 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.

This verse says these men "had not" sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, while you claim they actually committed Adam's transgression with him in his loins.

Boy, you just can't catch a break tonight can you?

Trouble is, this is all total error on your part.

Again, Romans 5:14 says these men did not sin after the similitude of Adam's sin, so there goes your argument.

Oh well, try twisting some other scriptures. I know you will.

 

I was giving it the most positive spin.

Your response is invalid for at least two reasons. First, Jesus is not included in "all men have sinnned." Second, the act of Abraham is positive without sin whereas your illustration is negative and involves sin and therefore can't be applied to Chrsit any more than Romans 5:12 can be applied to Christ. Christ's Father was not human and so in regard to sin he was not included in the loins of Adam in regard to sin because Adam was not His Father nor any other male in the line of Adam.

I apologize for the spelling it wrong "legistlation" instead of "legislation" which is a common word for "law." No other Law was given to man between Adam and Moses and so the only law that can be violated and bring the condemnation of death is Genesis 2:17. That proves indiviudal death can only be attributed to the racial act as one human nature acting in the person of Adam as Genesis 2:17 is the only revealed law, and only when human kind consisted and existed in Adam violating that law can death be attributed to individual humans after Gen. 2:17 but before Moses.

You are simply misunderstandng and thus misinterpreting this text. This text is designed to be an additional argument to support verse 13-14 that death can only be attributed to violation of the Genesis Law in Genesis 2:17 rather than any later law.

Note the words "even over them" which expresses an additional argument to prove the latter point of individual death between Adam and Moses. Infants do not commit individual willful sin as do adults and as did Adam but nevertheless die even before they have ability to willfully sin. Again, that proves that their death must be attributed to verse 12 and their joint participation as one human nature existent and consisting in one man's exercise of human will.

Look, if you can't accept what I have said, then our discussion will on digress to a negative character. I will stop responding with this post as I think even you will agree I have made my interpretations and positon very clear.

 

Well, putting a spin on things is definitely something you have much practice at.

Baloney. If Levi actually paid tithes in Abraham, then every man would be guilty of every sin of his father, and all his grandfathers back to Adam.

If your view is correct, Jesus would have been guilty of sinning in David's loins because scripture clearly says he was the fruit of David's loins. Read the NT, the most frequent name he was called by the people was "Son of David".

Mat 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

Just more false doctrine from Augustine.

Wrong. Romans 5:14 clearly says those men who died from Adam to Moses did not sin after the similitude of Adam's sin. Your theory of Original Sin says they actually committed the sin of eating the forbidden fruit with Adam, as they were in his loins.

And IF Paul were trying to teach Original Sin in Romans 5, then it would extend to ALL men, not just from Adam to Moses. The introduction of the law would not have changed a thing.

I love the way you ALWAYS presume your opponent is wrong and that you are right. How humble.

The men from Adam to Moses did not sin Adam's sin, we are directly told that. So, what other sin is there? There is the sin men commit without the law that Paul spoke of in Romans 2, the law written on every man's heart.

Pure double-talk.

Well, I am not going to sit back while you teach gross falsehoods to others. I will present evidence from scripture why you are in error.

It's not difficult to do at all, you make it VERY easy.

 

Thank you for your lively discussion. Your response has already digressed into personal cuts and accusations exactly as I predicted. You have presented your intepretation and I have presented mine. I am content to let the readers decide which is right for themselves. This is my final comment on this discussion for obvious reasons.

 

Great, I am satisfied to let readers decide for themselves as well. For once we agree.