Pitchback
What I deny is that we get in Adam unconditionally. If a person reads carefully, the first thing this passage tells you is that all those persons from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude of the same transgression as Adam.
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 clearly says these persons did not sin after the similitude of Adam's sin, but that seems to go right over your head.
Well what the Bible says concerning this topic seems to indeed go over one of our heads.
If Adam's sin was imputed to us, then we would be guilty of Adam's very sin, it would be just as if we had committed Adam's exact sin ourselves. You don't get it, but this verse is completely refuting your view.
Strawman argument, I did not say Adam's sin was imputed to us, and specifically said we are not guilty of Adam's sin. This verse is consistent with my view, and please do not change the subject, you deny that the many were made, past tense, sinners. That is my view.
The reason men die was already explained by Paul in chapter 2. There Paul explained that men without the law shall perish without the law because they have the law written on their hearts.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )
Your problem is that you pull chapter 5 out of context, Paul has already explained why those men from Adam to Moses who had not the law died. He doesn't even mention Adam here.
I see lots of effort to evade the topic. If a person is condemned already, can he or she not be further condemned by sinning, by doing what they know is wrong, by treating others differently than they want to be treated? Of course.
Besides all of this, God himself clearly said that the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father or vice versa.
Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
You constantly criticize others for shoddy study, while you misinterpret a vague and difficult verse to understand, while completely ignoring scripture that directly deals with the subject of whether sin is imputed to the son from his father. This scripture in Ezekiel is clear as a bell and unmistakeable, but you completely ignore it.
Shoddy.
I have addressed each and every one of these so called problems several times before. You just recycle the same argument which denies that the many were made sinners.
We have two passages concerning the sins of the Father. One, God "visits" the sins of the Father on subsequent generations. This does not mean God punishes the subsequent generations for the sins of the Father, it means the Father's sins have consequences that affect others. Adam's sin had the consequence of being separated from God, and thus all his descendents, the many, were made sinners. This is rather basic, Winman.
