Original Sin??? #1

[Jacob_Elliott]

Agreed. But respecting a scholar is not worship. And if you knew me, you would know that I would challenge many a so-called "scholar".

That said, I myself have studied Romans 5:12-21 for many years. I have my own interpretation of this passage, that it is explaining that both Adam and Jesus were "legal precedents". Those who sin as Adam sin are judged "sinners" and condemned to death as Adam was. Adam was the first. Likewise, Jesus is the legal precedent for those who believe in God, as Jesus trusted his Father to raise him from the dead. Those who trust in Jesus are imputed righteous.

Now, that is MY view, and I doubt you would see that interpretation from many, but that is what I believe this passage is teaching.

I simply think (and agree) that Dr. MacGorman's reasoning and interpretation was solid and logical. It is a very strong and scholarly argument that Paul did not mention Adam even once in Romans 1:18-3:20 where the context was the sinfulness and lost condition of all men. Surely, if all men "died in Adam" as Original Sin teaches, Paul would have mentioned it, but he did not.

But I guess from now on when I encounter difficult scripture I should just send you a PM and you will give me an easy answer.

So in your view, hypothetically, an infant is born sinless, and if he lived to the age of 22 and did not sin he would go to heaven? Again, hypothetically. Honest question, not mocking.

 

[JamesL]

Amazing, a seminary professor that has taught Greek for over 50 years says Romans 5:12-21 is one of the most difficult and distorted passages in all scripture...

There are Greek professors in seminary representing just about every view imaginable. Paradigm has undoubtedly shaped the thinking of most of them, and they simply study to become more convinced of a doctrine they already had when they started learning Greek for themselves.

As for what Romans 5:12-21 means, it is not a section in Paul's letter. That's one of the biggest problems I have with men who continue to dice up scripture into sections, and thereby persuade others to abandon context and flow, focusing only on 10 verses.

The misunderstanding of these verses goes further back than Augustine.

I don't know whether to first state what Paul meant, then get to hammering out why and how these verses became so twisted, or to start with backdrop and lead into what Paul meant.

Which would you prefer?

 

[Amy.G]

Oh, I believe when Adam sinned he spiritually died. That is why God had to make skins from an animal to cover his sin, a figure of Christ who would die for man.

And why did God ban man from the tree of life?

But Romans 5:12 does not say all men died in Adam, it says death passed upon all men "for that all have sinned". This is speaking of personal sin.

Who is included in the "all"? Only adults who know the law? No. All. ALL have sinned. When Adam fell he plunged all of humanity into sin. That's why ALL need a Savior.

 

[convicted1]

Anothe thing...how can a sinless born baby or fetus in the womb die??

And why did God ban man from the tree of life?


Who is included in the "all"? Only adults who know the law? No. All. ALL have sinned. When Adam fell he plunged all of humanity into sin. That's why ALL need a Savior.

 

[Winman]

And why did God ban man from the tree of life?

Why do you ask? The scriptures tell us the reason.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

If man would have eaten of the tree of life, he would have lived forever as a sinner. This shows sin causes spiritual death, not physical, otherwise there would be no need to ban man from the tree of life. Correct?? If sin causes physical death, man would have died anyway.

Who is included in the "all"? Only adults who know the law? No. All. ALL have sinned. When Adam fell he plunged all of humanity into sin. That's why ALL need a Savior.

Not true at all, there are quite a few scriptures that show children do not know between good and evil and are therefore not accountable.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

God punished all the Jews who sinned in the wilderness and cursed them all to die. God did not punish their children and allowed them to enter the promised land, because they did not know between good and evil in that day.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Paul is clearly speaking here of learning the law as a young Jewish man. Jewish boys learn the law by their 13th birthday. In verse 7 Paul says he would not have known sin except for the law.

In Verse 9 Paul says he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. Sin has no power without law. Paul is obviously speaking of being spiritually alive, and spiritually dying, he could not possibly be saying he physically died.

This shows that when a man learns the law he becomes accountable.

But before he learned the law, Paul was ALIVE. This passage refutes Original Sin.

 

[Winman]

Anothe thing...how can a sinless born baby or fetus in the womb die??

Because sin causes spiritual death, not physical. God told Adam that he would die in "the day" that he ate the forbidden fruit.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

Did Adam physically die the day he ate the forbidden fruit? NO, he lived 930 years after sinning.

But Adam and Eve did spiritually die, and that is why God had to kill an animal and make skins to cover their sin, a figure of Jesus dying for our sins.

Futher, God had to send them out of the garden so they could not eat the tree of life.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Sin does not cause physical death, otherwise there was no need to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of life, they would have died anyway.

No, sin causes spiritual death. As a consequence of being chased out of the garden, all men physically die. This is why children die.

I also believe the tree of life heals physical corruption, as even in the new Jerusalem the tree of life will be used for healing.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

God cursed the ground when Adam sinned, this caused a corruption to pass upon all creation. It seems the tree of life had a way of healing this, this is why they could live forever.

But no where does God say that he cursed God's descendants so that they would be born sinners.

Do you really believe God would forget to mention such an important part of the curse?

 

[JamesL]

Because sin causes spiritual death, not physical.

It appears that I misunderstood you in a couple of previous posts, and I apologize. You appear to have a view very similar to mine. Good post.

Romans 1:18-28, in dealing with man's accountability, uses multiple phrases which shatter the notion that Adam's sin was transferred spiritually to all his descendants:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image....

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie....

26 ....for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind...


How could they have known God if they were born separated form Him? (verse 21)
How could they become futile if they were born that way? (v 21)
How could their hearts be darkened if they were born in darkness? (v 21)
How can someone become a fool if he's born a fool? (v 22)
There was clearly an exchange (v 23, 25, 26)
How could they acknowledge God "no longer" if they never did in the first place?

 

[Winman]

It appears that I misunderstood you in a couple of previous posts, and I apologize. You appear to have a view very similar to mine. Good post.

Romans 1:18-28, in dealing with man's accountability, uses multiple phrases which shatter the notion that Adam's sin was transferred spiritually to all his descendants:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image....

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie....

26 ....for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind...


How could they have known God if they were born separated form Him? (verse 21)
How could they become futile if they were born that way? (v 21)
How could their hearts be darkened if they were born in darkness? (v 21)
How can someone become a fool if he's born a fool? (v 22)
There was clearly an exchange (v 23, 25, 26)
How could they acknowledge God "no longer" if they never did in the first place?

I hope you are sincere here, because I am truly impressed. You see the same words in scripture that I always saw. Scripture said we have "become" unprofitable, showing we were not born that way. We have all "gone astray" and "out of the way", we all "fade as a leaf". All leaves start out green and alive.

Praise the Lord!

 

[JamesL]

I hope you are sincere here, because I am truly impressed. You see the same words in scripture that I always saw.
Praise the Lord!

I am absolutely sincere, and I am equally impressed by your thoughts on Romans 7:7-11

I have long recognized that Paul was explaining how he died spiritually when the law enticed him to sin with its prohibitions

Also, some time ago, I found it curious that David would have two conflicting thoughts about his conception:

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

Psalm 139:13-16
12 For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;

It was his physical body that was conceived, which was altogether brought forth in iniquity

Yet, it was his spirit, from God, which was fearfully and wonderfully made. He was knitted together in his mother's womb when God placed his spirit within him, as Zechariah:

12:1 - Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him

Which corresponds to what Solomon said about our death:

Ecclesiastes 12:7
then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.


The physical body is from the dust, and the spirit is from God who gave it.


I have no idea how someone could even think that Adam, with one sin, could corrupt someone else's spirit which comes from God

But even worse, this false doctrine of original sin has more far-reaching implications. If every physical descendant of Adam is born spiritually dead, then that would leave Christ spiritually dead. Either that, or Jesus was not made like us in all things, as is clearly stated in Hebrews

2:17 - Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God

4:15 - For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Made like us...tempted in all things, yet without sin. He is the only One who has ever overcome the flesh perfectly.

Much more available, too

 

[franklinmonroe]

And what is Original Sin? The teaching of Augustine, based on a flawed Latin text.

If God's command and consequences to Adam about the eating of the ToGE are not universal, then are we to umderstand the other commands (multiply, etc.) also to Adam only?

 

[Winman]

If God's command and consequences to Adam about the eating of the ToGE are not universal, then are we to umderstand the other commands (multiply, etc.) also to Adam only?

Have you eaten the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? That would be a real trick seeing how God chased man out of the garden and placed an angel to guard it.

This is why Romans 5:14 says men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude of Adam, it was impossible to do so.

 

[Winman]

I am absolutely sincere, and I am equally impressed by your thoughts on Romans 7:7-11

I have long recognized that Paul was explaining how he died spiritually when the law enticed him to sin with its prohibitions

Also, some time ago, I found it curious that David would have two conflicting thoughts about his conception:

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

Psalm 139:13-16
12 For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;

It was his physical body that was conceived, which was altogether brought forth in iniquity

Yet, it was his spirit, from God, which was fearfully and wonderfully made. He was knitted together in his mother's womb when God placed his spirit within him, as Zechariah:

12:1 - Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him

Which corresponds to what Solomon said about our death:

Ecclesiastes 12:7
then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.


The physical body is from the dust, and the spirit is from God who gave it.


I have no idea how someone could even think that Adam, with one sin, could corrupt someone else's spirit which comes from God

But even worse, this false doctrine of original sin has more far-reaching implications. If every physical descendant of Adam is born spiritually dead, then that would leave Christ spiritually dead. Either that, or Jesus was not made like us in all things, as is clearly stated in Hebrews

2:17 - Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God

4:15 - For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Made like us...tempted in all things, yet without sin. He is the only One who has ever overcome the flesh perfectly.

Much more available, too

Well, concerning Psa 51:5, there is some mystery concerning David's mother, whose name is never mentioned in scripture. David did not have the same mother as his brothers, they were tall and handsome, he was short and ruddy. David also had two sisters, their father was Nahash the Ammonite.

Nahash was still alive when David was a grown man, so either his mother was divorced from Nahash before she married Jesse, or she had relations with Nahash before Jesse.

It also might be possible David was conceived outside of marriage.

When Samuel came and asked Jesse to present all his sons, twice he failed to bring David. Only when Samuel insisted did he bring David forward. David was the "black sheep" in his family, probably because of his mother.

So, I believe David is simply saying he was conceived in iniquity, and he was ashamed of himself.

This scripture is certainly not teaching that all men are born sinners. That would actually be an excuse for David's sin with Bathsheba. This would be completely out of context in David's confession of sin in Psalm 51.

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe Dr. MacGowan makes a tremendous argument that in context Paul showed all men were sinners from Rom 1:18-3:20 because of personal sin without mentioning Adam as the cause. Therefore, Rom 5:12 cannot be teaching that men sinned "in Adam" as Augustine falsely interpreted from a known flawed Latin text.

Adam did bring sin into the world and we did acquire his sin nature but not his guilt.

 

[The Biblicist]

Have you eaten the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? That would be a real trick seeing how God chased man out of the garden and placed an angel to guard it.

This is why Romans 5:14 says men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude of Adam, it was impossible to do so.

Romans 5:14 does not mean this at all! The word "similitude" DOES NOT mean "exact same" as you force it to mean by your interpetations. You know it does not mean that and cannot possibly mean that as it is NEVER used that way in scripture nor does any Greek lexicon EVER provide that meaning - none, zilch, nada! So for you to insist it means "exact same" as you have repeatedly told us in the past is simply false. Provide any Greek Lexicon that says it means "exact same" and I will be quiet. If you can't provide it then please stop perverting the meaning of this word by saying it means "exact same."

Something that is a "likeness" by necessity refers to something other than the original and thus cannot be the "exact same." That is simple common sense.

His argument in verses 13-14 is to prove that no other violation of law but the violation of Genesis 2:17 is responsible for UNIVERSAL death between Adam and Moses. HE STOPS AT MOSES BECAUSE THE JEWS COULD CLAIM THAT VIOLATION OF THE MOSAIC LAW COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATH AFTER MOSES BUT CANNOT POSSIBLY CLAIM THAT PRIOR TO MOSES.

1. There can be no UNIVERSAL death where there is no sin and there can be no sin where there is no law UNIVERSALLY violated and there is NO MOASIC LAW to violate between Adam and Moses - v. 14. Hence, only the UNIVERSAL violation of Genesis 2:17 as necessarily inferred in verse 12a can be attributed to UNIVERSAL sin and death - "for all have sinned" (v. 12b).

2. Universal Violation of Genseis 2:17 by all men in Adam is the only possible explanation for UNIVERSAL death especiall of infants or those incapable of personal WILLFUL SIN which is THE LIKENESS of Adam's sin. Remember the contrast here is between human nature as one man in Genesis 2-3 and human nature individualized between Adam and Moses. The UNIVERSAL death of individualized human nature is being accounted for by the singular sin by the totality of human nature acting in one man - v. 12.

3. Violation of conscience cannot account for the death of infants still in the womb or any incapble of discernign personal right and wrong.

4. Universal death can only be accounted by universal violation of Genesis 2:17 when the TOTAL HUMAN NATURE existed and acted in unison as ONE MAN in violating Genesis 2:17 and so "by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men FOR ALL HAVE SINNED - Aorist tense puntillar completed action.

Your doctrine must deny the aorist tense verb in verse 12 and your doctrine must read "for death passed upon all men WHEN they SHALL sin." However, Paul's doctrine is that "all men sinned" already when one man sinned because total human nature existed and was represented by one man.

 

[prophet]

Agreed. But respecting a scholar is not worship. And if you knew me, you would know that I would challenge many a so-called "scholar".

That said, I myself have studied Romans 5:12-21 for many years. I have my own interpretation of this passage, that it is explaining that both Adam and Jesus were "legal precedents". Those who sin as Adam sin are judged "sinners" and condemned to death as Adam was. Adam was the first. Likewise, Jesus is the legal precedent for those who believe in God, as Jesus trusted his Father to raise him from the dead. Those who trust in Jesus are imputed righteous.

Now, that is MY view, and I doubt you would see that interpretation from many, but that is what I believe this passage is teaching.

I simply think (and agree) that Dr. MacGorman's reasoning and interpretation was solid and logical. It is a very strong and scholarly argument that Paul did not mention Adam even once in Romans 1:18-3:20 where the context was the sinfulness and lost condition of all men. Surely, if all men "died in Adam" as Original Sin teaches, Paul would have mentioned it, but he did not.

But I guess from now on when I encounter difficult scripture I should just send you a PM and you will give me an easy answer.

Sorry. PM my teacher (pray).
He it is that will guide you into all truth.

 

[Yeshua1]

And what is Original Sin? The teaching of Augustine, based on a flawed Latin text.

actually, basd upon jesus, and hammered home its full implications under Apsotle paul!

 

[Winman]

actually, basd upon jesus, and hammered home its full implications under Apsotle paul!

Note that Yeshua1 does not show one word of scripture to support his claims.

 

[Winman]

Sorry. PM my teacher (pray).
He it is that will guide you into all truth.

Well, if what your teacher says does not agree with scripture, then your teacher is not the Holy Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

Note that Yeshua1 does not show one word of scripture to support his claims.

I did in my last post. Your definition of "similitude" which is "exact same" cannot be justified and it is that false definition upon which your whole interpretation of Romans 5:12-14 hangs.

 

[Winman]

Romans 5:14 does not mean this at all! The word "similitude" DOES NOT mean "exact same" as you force it to mean by your interpetations. You know it does not mean that and cannot possibly mean that as it is NEVER used that way in scripture nor does any Greek lexicon EVER provide that meaning - none, zilch, nada! So for you to insist it means "exact same" as you have repeatedly told us in the past is simply false. Provide any Greek Lexicon that says it means "exact same" and I will be quiet. If you can't provide it then please stop perverting the meaning of this word by saying it means "exact same."

Similitude simply means "similar" or "like" look up the definition in any dictionary.

Men from Adam to Moses did not sin like Adam because they had no direct command as Adam did not to eat from the tree knowledge. And they could not possibly eat from this tree because man was banned from the garden.

Romans 5:14 refutes Original Sin. You believe that all men ever born sinned the same sin as Adam in his loins. That would absolutely be a similar or like sin as Adam committed. In addition, if Paul was trying to teach Original Sin, he would have said all men in vs. 14, not men from Adam to Moses only. Men after Moses did sin in a similar fashion as Moses because they had direct commands from God in the law.

Something that is a "likeness" by necessity refers to something other than the original and thus cannot be the "exact same." That is simple common sense.

Nobody buys your argument, it is bogus. Read any commentary.

After the similitude … - In the same way; in like manner. The expression “after the similitude” is an Hebraism, denoting in like manner, or as. The difference between their case and that of Adam was plainly that Adam had a revealed and positive law. They had not. They had only the law of nature, or of tradition. The giving of a law to Adam, and again to the world by Moses, were two great epochs between which no such event had occurred. The race wandered without revelation. The difference contemplated is not that Adam was an actual sinner, and that they had sinned only by imputation.

Again, nobody is buying your personal interpretation.

His argument in verses 13-14 is to prove that no other violation of law but the violation of Genesis 2:17 is responsible for UNIVERSAL death between Adam and Moses. HE STOPS AT MOSES BECAUSE THE JEWS COULD CLAIM THAT VIOLATION OF THE MOSAIC LAW COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATH AFTER MOSES BUT CANNOT POSSIBLY CLAIM THAT PRIOR TO MOSES.

You are refuting Original Sin. If Paul was trying to show Adam's sin caused death from Adam to Moses, it would also extend to all men after Moses. It is ridiculous to believe Paul would fail to say this if your view is correct.

1. There can be no UNIVERSAL death where there is no sin and there can be no sin where there is no law UNIVERSALLY violated and there is NO MOASIC LAW to violate between Adam and Moses - v. 14. Hence, only the UNIVERSAL violation of Genesis 2:17 as necessarily inferred in verse 12a can be attributed to UNIVERSAL sin and death - "for all have sinned" (v. 12b).

Paul had already explained in chapter 2 that men without written law die because they are a law to themselves and have broken the law written on their hearts.

2. Universal Violation of Genseis 2:17 by all men in Adam is the only possible explanation for UNIVERSAL death especiall of infants or those incapable of personal WILLFUL SIN which is THE LIKENESS of Adam's sin. Remember the contrast here is between human nature as one man in Genesis 2-3 and human nature individualized between Adam and Moses. The UNIVERSAL death of individualized human nature is being accounted for by the singular sin by the totality of human nature acting in one man - v. 12.

Totally ridiculous, Paul clearly said men without law died because they violated the law written on their hearts. Paul never once mentions Adam from Romans 1:18 to Romans 3:20 as Dr. MacGorman pointed out in the OP.

3. Violation of conscience cannot account for the death of infants still in the womb or any incapble of discernign personal right and wrong.

You are mistaking physical death for spiritual. Romans 1:18-3:20 and Romans 5:12-21 is about spiritual death, not physical. Look at the terms used, "sinned", "condemnation," "judgment", "offense", "justification", "righteousness", "imputed", etc... Every one of these terms is a legal term. Paul is clearly speaking of spiritual death, not physical in these chapters.

4. Universal death can only be accounted by universal violation of Genesis 2:17 when the TOTAL HUMAN NATURE existed and acted in unison as ONE MAN in violating Genesis 2:17 and so "by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men FOR ALL HAVE SINNED - Aorist tense puntillar completed action.

Again, completely false, Paul does not even mention Adam in Romans 1:18 through Romans 3;20, but repeatedly says men die because they have personally sinned.

Your view is EASILY refuted by correct interpretation of scripture.

Your doctrine must deny the aorist tense verb in verse 12 and your doctrine must read "for death passed upon all men WHEN they SHALL sin." However, Paul's doctrine is that "all men sinned" already when one man sinned because total human nature existed and was represented by one man.

No, you wrest scripture to try and prove Original Sin when it clearly refutes Original Sin. This is what Dr. MacGorman taught in the OP. He is correct, Paul repeatedly shows in Romans 1:18-3:20 that all men are sinners for personal sin, not Adam.

It is your view that wrests scripture and goes against scripture.