• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Original Sin??? #1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Winman

Active Member
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.

This argument is laughable it is so bad.

Barnes Notes said:
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. For,

(1)The expression “to sin by imputation” is unintelligible, and conveys no idea.

(2)The apostle makes no such distinction, and conveys no such idea.

(3)His very object is different. It is to show that they were actual sinners; that they transgressed law; and the proof of this is that they died.

(4)It is utterly absurd to suppose that people from the time of Adam to Moses were sinners only by imputation. All history is against it; nor is there the slightest ground of plausibility in such a supposition.


Albert Barnes correctly shows that Romans 5:14 argues against Original Sin because it says men from Adam to Moses did not sin in a similar or like way as Adam.

Your argument is that they sinned in EXACTLY the same way as Adam. You can't get any more similar than that.

Your argument is plain foolish and nobody is buying it. Give it up. You are obviously playing word games.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This argument is laughable it is so bad.

Can't you respond without ridicule?



Albert Barnes

Barnes is not a Greek Lexicon! Barnes is just as sinful man. The Greek term translated "similtude" is NEVER defined by ANY GREEK AUTHORITY as "exact same." I dare anyone on this forum to produce any Greek Lexicon that gives that definition. Even Barnes does not give that as an acceptable definition.

However, your WHOLE interpretation of Romans 5:12-14 hangs on this false definition.
 

Winman

Active Member
Can't you respond without ridicule?

Not really, because it is obvious you are being very stubborn and obstinate, and it is also obvious you are trying to play word games. Paul says that men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin like Adam. Adam sinned against a direct command, men from Adam to Moses sinned against the law written on their hearts. Paul is not saying they sinned "in Adam", else they would have sinned in EXACTLY the same manner as Adam. You can't get any more similar than exact.

And again, if Paul were trying to prove Original Sin in Romans 5:14 as you suggest, then it would apply to ALL MEN, not men from Adam to Moses only.

You are just being stubborn and trying to wrest scripture, it won't work, and nobody with a lick of common sense is going to buy your fallacious argument.


Barnes is not a Greek Lexicon! Barnes is just as sinful man. The Greek term translated "similtude" is NEVER defined by ANY GREEK AUTHORITY as "exact same." I dare anyone on this forum to produce any Greek Lexicon that gives that definition. Even Barnes does not give that as an acceptable definition.

However, your WHOLE interpretation of Romans 5:12-14 hangs on this false definition.

It is you that is playing with the word similitude, give it up man, you are being pathetic.

Barnes simply interpreted this passage honestly. And I am sure he understood the definition of similitude better than you.

Again, Dr. MacGorman says that any interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 that contradicts Romans 1:18-3:20 cannot be correct. In these scriptures Paul repeatedly shows men die for personal sin and not Adam. Adam is not mentioned once.

It was Augustine with a flawed Latin text that misinterpreted Romans 5, and many still are deceived by this serious error to this day.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Not really, because it is obvious you are being very stubborn and obstinate......It is you that is playing with the word similitude, give it up man, you are being pathetic.

Arminians (Wiman, Van, Rev) allowed to get away this kind of degradation of others on this forum but if I or another Calvnistic person use any language similar then we are called "unchristian" and given warnings. Where is the Squire? Where is Skandelon? Where are those forum police?


I am accused of playing "word games" when it is Winman demanding a definition that no Greek Lexicon known to man will confirm. Even Barnes will not support the definition of "exact same" and yet Winman's whole interpretation is dependent upon that.

Neithe will Winman's interpretation explain the death of infants but the interpretation of "likeness" in the sense of WILLFL sin does explain the death of infants in a way that perfectly fits the repeated "by one man" from verse 12 through verse 19.
 

Winman

Active Member
Arminians (Wiman, Van, Rev) allowed to get away this kind of degradation of others on this forum but if I or another Calvnistic person use any language similar then we are called "unchristian" and given warnings. Where is the Squire? Where is Skandelon? Where are those forum police?


I am accused of playing "word games" when it is Winman demanding a definition that no Greek Lexicon known to man will confirm. Even Barnes will not support the definition of "exact same" and yet Winman's whole interpretation is dependent upon that.

Neithe will Winman's interpretation explain the death of infants but the interpretation of "likeness" in the sense of WILLFL sin does explain the death of infants in a way that perfectly fits the repeated "by one man" from verse 12 through verse 19.


This is pure baloney, show where I have even once in this thread debated about the definition of the word "similitude". You can't do it, because I have not debated over it's definition. Similitude simply means similar, or in like manner.

If a man is guilty of Original Sin, then he has sinned in the similitude of Adam. He has sinned in a similar manner as Adam. In fact, he has sinned EXACTLY like Adam if men are guilty of Original Sin.

Romans 5:14 says men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin in a similar manner as Adam. Therefore, they could not have committed Original Sin. Romans 5:14 utterly refutes that all men sinned in Adam's loins when he sinned. They did not sin in the same manner or likeness of Adam.

Men from Adam to Moses committed all sorts of sins. They lied, they stole, they murdered, they committed adultery. But one thing they did not do is eat from the tree of knowledge, and they did not sin against a direct command given from God as Adam did. This is what Romans 5:14 is saying.

So why did they die? Because they sinned against the law written on their heart, just as Paul explained in Romans chapter 2.
 
Because sin causes spiritual death, not physical. God told Adam that he would die in "the day" that he ate the forbidden fruit.
Sin brought in both physical and spiritual dearh, Brother Wes. When they sinned, God drove them from the Garden, and the Tree of Life, lest they eat and live forever. When they ate, they ushered in death for us all...we suffer death due to their rebellion...

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.

Exactly. Yet he brought death to all of us through no fault of our own. We suffer the consequences of their wickedness.

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.

No disagreement here, Brother Wes. :thumbs:

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:

No disagreement here,either. :thumbs:

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.

Sin brought death, period, Brother Wes. Unless they had sinned,nothing would have stopped them from the Tree of Life. They would have never died because sin brings death.

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

Again, sin brought both physical and spiritual death......

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.

You're taking the dispensational approach to this, whereas I am an amill, but this is a wee bit above my paygrade. Revelation is a very deep book, and I can't swim...LOL

But I have tended to see this as more of a reference to Jesus, than anything else...

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.

The Tree of Life is a symbol of Jesus and after they sinned, all mankind was cutoff from access to that Tree. That's why we're born with a sinful nature. We were born w/o access to it.

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?

I have given the best detailed response I can. Blessings....
 

franklinmonroe

Active Member
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.
I'm very sorry, but I don't understand how this response answered my question. Could you try again? I'd really like to know.
 
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.

One correction, Brother Wes...God did that to the Tree of Life and not the Tree of Knowledge...
 

Winman

Active Member
Sin brought in both physical and spiritual dearh, Brother Wes. When they sinned, God drove them from the Garden, and the Tree of Life, lest they eat and live forever. When they ate, they ushered in death for us all...we suffer death due to their rebellion...

Sin itself did not cause their physical death, because they could have eaten the tree of life and lived forever as sinners. Isn't that what the scripture says?

They and we die as a consequence of sin because man was sent out of the garden. That is actually a blessing, as physical death is man's greatest incentive to come to God.

Exactly. Yet he brought death to all of us through no fault of our own. We suffer the consequences of their wickedness.

We physically die because of Adam's sin, we spiritually die for our own sin.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Paul was spiritually alive until he learned the law. When he learned the law he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died. He did not spiritually die because of Adam, he died for his own sin. He was not born dead in sin, and he did not spiritually die because of Adam's sin.

No disagreement here, Brother Wes. :thumbs:

Yes, sin caused their spiritual death that day. They did not physically die until over 900 years later.

No disagreement here,either. :thumbs:

Correct, they could have lived forever as sinners. If sin causes physical death, then eating the tree of life would not have helped them.

Sin brought death, period, Brother Wes. Unless they had sinned,nothing would have stopped them from the Tree of Life. They would have never died because sin brings death.

Sin brings spiritual death.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Romans 9:11 shows that babies have not sinned in the womb. Do babies physically die? YES. Therefore sin does not cause physical death.

Again, sin brought both physical and spiritual death......

We die physically as a consequence of sin. It is like a drunk bus driver driving off a cliff, all his passengers die as a consequence of his sin, but they did not participate in his sin and are not guilty of his sin.

You're taking the dispensational approach to this, whereas I am an amill, but this is a wee bit above my paygrade. Revelation is a very deep book, and I can't swim...LOL

Well, Revelation says the leaves of the tree are for healing. What is dispensational about that? Many medicines are made from leaves.

But I have tended to see this as more of a reference to Jesus, than anything else...

Well, I agree, we will have to wait until we fully understand these things. But Revelation does suggest that the leaves of the tree of life have physical healing powers. Perhaps they prevent aging and disease??

The Tree of Life is a symbol of Jesus and after they sinned, all mankind was cutoff from access to that Tree. That's why we're born with a sinful nature. We were born w/o access to it.

Eating the tree of life would not give you a good nature, that is why God chased Adam and Eve out of the garden. It would prevent you from physically dying.

It was the innocent animal that was slain to make coats that covered them that was a figure of Jesus.

I have given the best detailed response I can. Blessings....

Thank you, this was a good post for me too. :thumbs:
 
Brother Wes, you posted this:

Correct, they could have lived forever as sinners.

Howso? Once they sinned, they were procluded from the Tree of Life. The one source of eternal life was taken from them.
 

Winman

Active Member
Brother Wes, you posted this:

Howso? Once they sinned, they were procluded from the Tree of Life. The one source of eternal life was taken from them.

God himself said that if they ate of the tree of life they would live forever. So sin would not have caused their physical death. God had to send them out of the garden to cause their physical death.

If sin causes physical death, then eating the tree of life would be useless to save them, they would die anyway. Isn't that true?

And again, Romans 9:11 shows babies have not sinned in the womb.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Paul said Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. This shows babies are not sinners. Do babies die in the womb? Yes, millions, if not billions of babies have died in the womb. Sin did not cause their physical death, Paul shows babies have not sinned.

And Paul refutes Original Sin as well. If Jacob and Esau were in Adam's loins and sinned in the garden when Adam sinned, then it would be error to say they had done no evil in Romans 9:11, but that is exactly what Paul says.

You will get folks that say Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec in Abraham's loins to prove Original Sin.

Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

This verse is not actually teaching that Levi was in Abraham's loins and literally paid tithes to Melchisedec. If so, this would prove that not only are we guilty of Adam's first sin, but EVERY sin he committed, and EVERY SIN of all of our grandfathers up until our father. We would literally be guilty of millions of sins our ancestors committed.

No, the writer of Hebrews is just showing the superior priesthood of Jesus, as he was in the order of Melchisedec. Levi was a son or descendant of Abraham. The father is superior to the son. So when Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, it proved Melchisedec and Jesus were superior to the priesthood of Levi. That is all this scripture is teaching, it is not teaching that we all sinned or even did good things in our father's loins. This scripture does not support Original Sin whatsoever.

But... if we actually do commit real sin in our father's loins when they sin, then Paul could not have said that Jacob and Esau had done no evil.

So, Romans 9:11 utterly refutes Original Sin and that we all sinned with Adam.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
This quote summarizes it all;

Originally Posted by Dr. J. W. MacGorman

"No interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 that obscures or refutes the plain teaching of Romans 1:18 to 3:20 can be correct. Is it not interesting that Paul managed to demonstrate the guiltiness of all men in this earlier passage without any reference to Adam?”

Romans 5:12-21 does not obscure or refute the plain teaching of Romans 1:18 to 3:20. Rather Romans 5:12-21 simply gives us the root cause of the behavior of those described in Romans 1:18-3:21!
 
God himself said that if they ate of the tree of life they would live forever. So sin would not have caused their physical death. God had to send them out of the garden to cause their physical death.

If sin causes physical death, then eating the tree of life would be useless to save them, they would die anyway. Isn't that true?

And again, Romans 9:11 shows babies have not sinned in the womb.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Paul said Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. This shows babies are not sinners. Do babies die in the womb? Yes, millions, if not billions of babies have died in the womb. Sin did not cause their physical death, Paul shows babies have not sinned.

And Paul refutes Original Sin as well. If Jacob and Esau were in Adam's loins and sinned in the garden when Adam sinned, then it would be error to say they had done no evil in Romans 9:11, but that is exactly what Paul says.

You will get folks that say Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec in Abraham's loins to prove Original Sin.

Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

This verse is not actually teaching that Levi was in Abraham's loins and literally paid tithes to Melchisedec. If so, this would prove that not only are we guilty of Adam's first sin, but EVERY sin he committed, and EVERY SIN of all of our grandfathers up until our father. We would literally be guilty of millions of sins our ancestors committed.

No, the writer of Hebrews is just showing the superior priesthood of Jesus, as he was in the order of Melchisedec. Levi was a son or descendant of Abraham. The father is superior to the son. So when Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, it proved Melchisedec and Jesus were superior to the priesthood of Levi. That is all this scripture is teaching, it is not teaching that we all sinned or even did good things in our father's loins. This scripture does not support Original Sin whatsoever.

But... if we actually do commit real sin in our father's loins when they sin, then Paul could not have said that Jacob and Esau had done no evil.

So, Romans 9:11 utterly refutes Original Sin and that we all sinned with Adam.

Brother Wes, their sin caused God to "toss" them outta the Garden, and subsequently, access to the Tree of Life. If they had not have sinned, they would have lived forever, having nothing from procluding them access to it.
 

Winman

Active Member
Brother Wes, their sin caused God to "toss" them outta the Garden, and subsequently, access to the Tree of Life. If they had not have sinned, they would have lived forever, having nothing from procluding them access to it.

I understand, but sin does not directly cause physical death. It was because Adam and Eve were chased out of the garden that they died 900 years later.

Again, babies have not sinned, Paul directly tells you this in Romans 9:11. But millions of babies physically die. Therefore sin did not cause their physical death.

They die as a consequence of Adam's sin, just as an innocent person might die as the result or consequence of a drunk driver.

If sin caused physical death, eating from the tree of life would not prevent you from physically dying.

Why can't you understand that?
 
I understand, but sin does not directly cause physical death. It was because Adam and Eve were chased out of the garden that they died 900 years later.

Again, babies have not sinned, Paul directly tells you this in Romans 9:11. But millions of babies physically die. Therefore sin did not cause their physical death.

They die as a consequence of Adam's sin, just as an innocent person might die as the result or consequence of a drunk driver.

If sin caused physical death, eating from the tree of life would not prevent you from physically dying.

Why can't you understand that?

Adam's sin put himself and all mankind at enmity with God. We were born in the same "separated from God" state, and He, in His graciousness, chose to redeem us by having Jesus die for us. Without their rebellion in the Garden, death would not be here to this day . They were in communion with God, and no one can die in communion with Him through His Son...
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I understand, but sin does not directly cause physical death. It was because Adam and Eve were chased out of the garden that they died 900 years later.

Scripture disagrees with you!

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:
 

Winman

Active Member
Scripture disagrees with you!

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:

Again, read this chapter carefully and it is obvious Romans 5 is speaking of spiritual death, not physical. Look at all the terms used;

Sinners, reconciled, enemies, atonement, condemnation, judgment, transgression, offense, grace, gift, righteousness, grace, justification, free gift, etc...

These are all legal terms. Romans 5 is not speaking of physical death.

Now go to 1 Corinthians chapter 15 and you will see it is speaking of physical death, it speaks about the body and corruption, being buried, being sowed, being raised, flesh of men, beasts, fishes, and birds, etc... These are terms about the physical body and physical death.

So Romans 5 is not teaching that babies die because Adam's sin passed on them as Augustine falsely interpreted from a KNOWN flawed Latin text (see the OP).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top