Adam's sin

Could you tell us what the debate is about over this mistranslation issue?

I am not exactly sure what there is to debate since we know Adam sinned and his sin has resulted in the woes of the human race down to this present day. We also know man is born with a sin nature.

So regardless of translation issues, our debate is whether man, within the context of his sin nature, can muster up enough "want to" to overcome the gigantic odds that are stacked against him from the moment of his conception.

Oh, and welcome back to this forum, Helen.

 

Well said Helen!

 

First of all I'm Primitive Baptist and not Calvinist... Original sin is biblical doctrine... Romans 5:[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:

Like I say to each his own... I shall sit on the sidelines and watch this discussion develop and maybe comment later... Brother Glen & Sister Charlotte

 

To all,

DISAGREE--big time! WHY?

Romans 5:12-14 (ESV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.


Notice: Death and sin came into the world through Adam. This is not in dispute. However, look at verse 13. Sin was not counted against anyone because there was no law. YET, the wages of sin--death--were still paid to humans.

Adam broke the only commandment that God gave him. That is sin, pure and simple. However, the people who were Adam's decendants, though they had no law to break or be guilty of breaking, still died.

What does this mean? It simply means that Adam's sin is punished in all of us. In what way? In that we all die.

This clearly shows the principle that we all are held guilty of Adam's sin.

Where else do we see a similar thing in the Bible? In Hebrews.

Hebrews 7:9-10 (ESV)
One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, [10] for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.


Here the author to the Hebrews is writing to show the great difference between the Melchizedek line of priests (of which Jesus is in) and the Levitical line of priests. How does the author do it? He says that Levi paid a tithe to Melchizedek. This showed the Melchizedekian priesthood to be superior to the Levitical priesthood.

But! How did Levi do this seeing that he was born of Jacob and Abraham did the tithe paying? It is because of the "In the loins of" principle. Levi, though he was not yet born, took part (maybe symbolically, maybe figuratively, BUT HE CERTAINLY DID PARTICIPATE) in the paying of tithes to Melchizedek.

We see here that the same principle of Adam to us applies. Levi was counted as doing something even though it was his Grandfather that did the act. Therefore, we see that we are held guilty for Adam's sin because, by the "In the loins of" principle, we were in Adam when Adam sinned.

Therefore, we are not only inheritors of Adam's now-fallen sin nature. But, we also inherit his guilty-ness. We have both a sin nature and a legaly guilty standing before God.

Furthermore, if this is not the case (the whole "In Adam" thing) how, then, can we be said to be "In Christ" when the Bible uses the same principle to discuss both situations?

I hope this helps.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

One question for you all to kick around... Since Eve sinned first... Why is not Eve considered the federal head?... Brother Glen & Sister Charlotte

 

Simple. Man is considered the head by God. He was first; Eve was his "Helper." Now, that doesn't mean that Eve was any less than Adam. It is simply a distinction of role, not importance.

All through scripture, Adam is always talked about in "Headship" language. Paul even says something quite supportive of this in 1 Timothy 2:13.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

1. No, as Adam already wrecked us as much as we can be wrecked spiritually. We can't be more spiritually dead than we already are at conception.

2. Because Adam had already sinned. We aren't saved by repenting and believing, by what we do. We are saved by Christ's finished work on behalf of His people. We needed a perfect sacrifice, without sin, to be sin on our behalf. This is what Christ did and His people are part of that.

 

It is unfortunate that you run to examples that do not deal with the scriptural data. However, I appreciate the response. I do have some questions for you based on your post.

This is confusing. Are you saying that death is not a punishment? How is death better than the alternative of living forever in the presence of God (the state before the fall)? OR is it that you think we were created in a sinful state and death is a "reward" or blessing?

If that is the case, then you must throw-out the passage that I quoted (and am going to quote again): Romans 5:12-14 (ESV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Why did people die if sin was not credited to their account?

There was no law between Adam and Moses. Even those who lived generations after Adam, and never knew him, died. Why?

This does not deal with the scriptural data. Our parents are never looked at as "The federal head of the human race."

Once man fell he could not climb the ladder again. It is like the genie had been let out of the bottle.

The work of "repenting" (although I think the phrase "Work of redemption" is much more appropriate) was done for us by Christ. We couldn't do it because of our sinfull, fallen humanity. Christ (the second Adam) had to do it for us.

Please answer my above questions. I look forward to your replies.

Blessings,

Archangel (How do you REALLY know that I am not????!)

 

Another question... If Adam KNEW what he was doing... Why did he eat of the forbidden fruit?... Brother Glen & Sister Charlotte

 

(KJV)
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:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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.

Vs 13 is, in my opinion, MUCH clearer in the KJV - Until the law, sin was in the world

plus the fact that even in YOUR translation, verse 12 clearly states "for ALL have sinned" -
so your argument that those between Adam and Moses were "sinless" but still died, is bogus.

 

I'm not sure if this is directed at me but I'm going to answer anyway.

I am not saying that there was no sin (even if I did say that--I misspoke). Obviously there was sin. After all, Adam sinned--Right? I did not intend to suppose that there was no sin in the world--only that sin was not counted against people (because there was no law).

The arguement is based on the part of the verse that follows: "Where there is no law, sin is not counted (Imputed in the KJV).

IF sin is not credited to anyone's account (Which v. 13 clearly states) how is it, then, that people die?

Simple, we are held guilty (in a legal/forensic sense) for Adam's sin.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

Actually, we quote Paul to verify it. After all, he is the one who said it.

To try to equate the biblical position with Roman Catholicism is only partially true. We do look at original sin in a similar way I suppose; but the solution for it is very different. Their solution is baptism; the biblical solution is imputed righteousness through faith in Christ.

The Bible doesn't agree with this at all. We are born into sin because of Adam's sin. It is called headship. If you are right about not being held accountable for sin that we did not commit, then how can you be held accountable for righteousness that you did not commit?

This is the question that you have never dealt with. The point of Romans 5 is about how we become righteous and the answer is, "The same way that we become sinners." If you became a sinner and are held accountable only by your own actions, then you become righteous and are held accountable (For reward of heaven) only by your own righteous. As I have repeatedly said, your understanding of this is faulty. You are a Pelagian and that position has been condemned by orthodox Christianity for 1600 years. Your position is convenient; it is just not biblical.

 

Larry. You called Helen a "Pelagian". Your view of justification is what I would call solafidian, which the word of God has never known, so remove the beam out of your own eye. You cannot find the notion of "imputed righteousness through faith IN Christ" (emphasis Harald). This is a Protestant heresy. The Particular Baptists did not believe this, but they believed as Paul taught, justification before God solely by the blood and obedience of Christ apart from anything in sinful man contributing or moving God to justify.


Harald

 

YOu made my day with this comment. The only thing Scripture has ever known is salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This has been the only orthodox doctrine. The "Solafidian" that you coined is known in theology as "Biblical Soteriology."

BTW, Helen is a Pelagian on this point.

Paul would have been surprised to find this out, as would have PEter, and Christ himself.

The particular baptists, though I count Glen and some others as friends, are wrong on this and we have been round and round about it. OUr final authority is Scripture and when Scripture teaches that we are justified by faith in our Lord JEsus Christ, we need to be simple enough to believe that. It is you who have left the Scriptures on this point.

Contrary to your mistaken notion, faith is not the contribution of man to salvation. MAn can contribute nothing to his salvation.

 

Larry. I did not refer to the Primitive Baptists of whom Glen is part. By Particular Baptists I referred chiefly to the Particular Baptists of England of the 17th and 18th centuries, men such as Kiffin, Knollys, Samuel Richardson, John Brine, John Gill. I should have said it from the start.

No Larry. I do not think that I and the Particular Baptists have left the Scripture. It is you and the majority of Protestants so called, and Evangelicals so called who have left.

My notion has never been that subjective faith contributes to man's salvation. Your view however seems to do so.

As for Helen and your labeling her Pelagian I don't want to dispute if the label is correct or not, but that you by your solafidian notion of justification have just as foul a soteriology as her, if indeed she be Pelagian, which is clearly heretical a system. I think some others would say Helen is closer to Arminianism than Pelagianism.


Well, I do not know the whole of your view of justification, but if you hold to Luther's view you're dead wrong. In his view subjective faith is somehow essential to justification before God. The orthodox doctrine of justification of the word of God teaches that subjective faith has nothing at all to do with justification before God. Justification of God's elect in His sight came to pass at the point in time when Christ Jesus said "it is finished" on the cross, and gave up His ghost. He threaded the winepress alone, subjective faith was not present, but He justified His people alone, apart from subjective faith, solely by His own blood and perfect obedience. This is the gloríous truth of Scripture which the orthodox Baptists have echoed. This finished justification of His people purchased subjective faith for them, and its purpose was not to be involved in imputation of righteousness to their persons. Imputation of righteousness according to the glorious Gospel of God was done by God the Judge, not "by faith alone in Christ alone", but "through faithfulness of Jesus Christ" (Romans 3:22, Gal. 2:16). "Being justified without a cause by His grace by means of the redemption, the one in Christ Jesus", Romans 3:24. Scripture testifies to Christ's preeminence in the justification of His people. "In order that as the sin reigned as king in the death, thus also the grace should reign through righteousness unto life eternal by Jesus Christ our Lord", Romans 5:21. Mark well, Larry, NOT "...reign through an act of faith unto life eternal...", but "through righteousness (of Christ)".


But I guess you can carp as much as you like against the word of God, but the word of the Lord stands fast.

Harald

 

My mistake. I misread it. I saw it the first time, and then misread it. My apologies.

We believe what orthodox Christianity has alwasy believed, that Rom 5:1 and a host of other passages are true. Paul is the one who said we were justified by faith in the LOrd JEsus Christ. YOur argument is with him, not me.

"Contributes to" is a prhase that neither I nor Scripture uses.

HOw can preachign the gospel of the apostle Paul be considered "foul"? He is the one who said it, not me. I simply repeat it as I am commanded to.

Not on this point, which is why I said "on this point, she is pelagian." An arminian admits of total depravity. She does not.

I have not carped against the word of God. I have merely said what it says. I really think this discussion is a stupid one because it has no real merit. Scripture clearly ascribes salvation AND justification to belief/faith. YOu want to call it a merit or a contribution. Scripture does not call it that neither will I. We are not arguing that faith contributes to or merits salvation. So that should solve the issue here.