Original Sin

[webdog]

russell55, what he ^ said

I would like to add that we are objects of God's wrath for rejecting Christ, what I believe Paul was trying to get at. This is something the gentiles did, and the same rejection of the jews will carry the same consequences.

I's say it means that we believers were by birth or by our origin objects of God's wrath even as unbelievers still are.

It's what the Bible says that matters. When comparing Bible to Bible, I dont' believe it is saying what you imply.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This is apples and oranges. In order to be charged with Christ's righteousness, His righteousness has to be personally applied to our OWN sin, not the sin of others. Does Christ's blood applied to me cover the sins of my father and mother? Adam?

It's not apples and oranges. It is the point of Romans 5:12-19. The "just as/so then" clauses teaches that we get righteousness the same way we get sin. Just as we became sinners in Adam, we become righteous in Christ.

I am not sure what you mean by "personally applied." The biblical term that is used most often is imputed ... that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

Just as we were declared to be guilty in Adam, so we are declared to be righteous in Christ.

(This is what I mean when I say your exegesis is flawed and inadequate.)

 

[Allan]

It's not apples and oranges. It is the point of Romans 5:12-19. The "just as/so then" clauses teaches that we get righteousness the same way we get sin. Just as we became sinners in Adam, we become righteous in Christ.

Yep, Adam chose and we must as well.

I am not sure what you mean by "personally applied." The biblical term that is used most often is imputed ... that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

You know exactly what he means. That unless you believe there is NO salvation imputed unto you.

Just as we were declared to be guilty in Adam, so we are declared to be righteous in Christ.

So then ALL babies and children that die Go to Hell, EVERY LAST ONE.
IF and I do mean IF we are all GUILTY in Adam. I know scripture states we are IN Adam meaing that we share his same nature. But that is what you would expect from exegesis though. But I find NO WHERE in scripture that says ALL men are guilty in Adam. Which is why we see scripture state "so by one man sin ENTERED into the world, So then by One Man... " Do you see 'where knowledge established both the fact and act of sin. Verse 14 establishes yet again that sin (even without the full knowledge of the OT Law) for a person to be accounted for sin they must be able to DO that sin. The mere fact those scriptures in Rom 5 speak consistantly that sin is born out and imputed (just as righteousness is) to the one who does them it would appear that proper exegesis stands without refute that No man is born guilty but that guilt is predicated on that persons actions in contrast with revealed Good. Their heart, conscience, and nature, and the Spirit Himself will bear them record so they will be without excuse.

Lastly Just as sin came due to individual action in the knowledge of sin so to is the righteousness of Christ aslo given on an individual and personal basis. This is why We see Christ calling out with the "whosoever wills...Who so is hungry ect
(

This is what I mean when I say your exegesis is flawed and inadequate

.) I think it is the other way around. but then again that is only if it is kept in context and not be subjected to pretext.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yep, Adam chose and we must as well.

In Romans 5, you do not see this teaching. In Romans 5, there are two heads .. Adam and Christ. And on those two people are treated the rest of humanity according to their relationship to him.

You know exactly what he means. That unless you believe there is NO salvation imputed unto you.

Actually I didn't know what he meant. That's why I said that. And salvation is not imputed to us. Salvation is given to us. It is righteousness that is imputed. (These words are important for a variety of reasons. They are not interchangeable.)

So then ALL babies and children that die Go to Hell, EVERY LAST ONE.

I don't believe so. I believe God makes a special dispensation for infants and mental incompetents.

IF and I do mean IF we are all GUILTY in Adam. I know scripture states we are IN Adam meaing that we share his same nature. But that is what you would expect from exegesis though. But I find NO WHERE in scripture that says ALL men are guilty in Adam.

First, Romans 5:18-19 are still there: So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

This clearly says that because of one man's sin we were made sinners and condemned, and in the same way, by one's man's righteousness we can be made righteous.

What do you think these verses mean?

The mere fact those scriptures in Rom 5 speak consistantly that sin is born out and imputed (just as righteousness is) to the one who does them it would appear that proper exegesis stands without refute that No man is born guilty but that guilt is predicated on that persons actions in contrast with revealed Good.

Think about what you have just said. You have just taught that righteousness comes just like sin (I agree) "to the one who does them" (I disagree). You are not saved by the righteousness you do. You are saved by the righteousness Christ did.

The whole point of Romans 5 is that you become sinful in the same way you become righteous. That is by imputation.

Lastly Just as sin came due to individual action in the knowledge of sin so to is the righteousness of Christ aslo given on an individual and personal basis.

But that is not what God says in Romans 5. He is not talking about "individual and personal" things, but about corporate ... In Adam all were sinners so that in Christ all are righteous. The key prhases are "in Christ" and "in Adam." All in Adam are sinners; all in Christ are righteous.

I think it is the other way around.

I have just easily demonstrated that you are incorrect. You are ignoring the words of the text and the context of the text in order to arrive at your predetermined conclusions.

The "just as/even so" comparisons explicitly rule out yoru conclusion. If we are treated as righteous withotu acts of righteousness, then we are also treated as sinful without acts of sin.

If, as you argue, we become sinners only through our own acts of sin, the according to romans 5, we can become righteous only through our own acts of righteousness. That is not only impossible; it spits in teh face of the grace of God.

 

[skypair]

In Romans 5, you do not see this teaching. In Romans 5, there are two heads .. Adam and Christ. And on those two people are treated the rest of humanity according to their relationship to him.

Yes, we ALL die PHYSICALLY in Adam; we ALL die SPIRITUALLY without Christ. Don't get that BACKWARDS, Larry. We don't all die spiritually in Adam and we don't all live physically in Christ. Infants die phyically on account of Adam. They don't die spiritually because Adam is not their "federal head" spiritually anyway!

I don't believe so. I believe God makes a special dispensation for infants and mental incompetents.

He doesn't have to make "special dispensation," Larry --- they are INNOCENT. Since when did God condemn the innocent??

First, Romans 5:18-19 are still there: "So then as through one transgression [KJV: "JUDGMENT" -- physical death] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of [SPIRITUAL] life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

This clearly says that because of one man's sin we were made sinners and condemned, and in the same way, by one's man's righteousness we can be made righteous.

There is a reason there are 2 verses that sound the same. The first tells about the physical vs the spiritual. The second talks about deciding between then two.

What do you think these verses mean?

... In Adam all were sinners so that in Christ all are righteous. The key prhases are "in Christ" and "in Adam." All in Adam are sinners; all in Christ are righteous.

ALL die phyically in Adam, right? ALL "in Christ" -- believers -- are righteous SPRITIUALLY. They are NOT righteous in actuallity -- not in their flesh they aren't, are they?

I have just easily demonstrated that you are incorrect. You are ignoring the words of the text and the context of the text in order to arrive at your predetermined conclusions.

Please, stick with Allan's argument and don't try to psychoanalyze him.

The "just as/even so" comparisons explicitly rule out yoru conclusion. If we are treated as righteous withotu acts of righteousness, then we are also treated as sinful without acts of sin.

This is error. We have to believe in Christ in order to have righteousness -- we DON'T have to believe in Adam to be sinners. Infants don't believe in either, BTW.

If, as you argue, we become sinners only through our own acts of sin, the according to romans 5, we can become righteous only through our own acts of righteousness. That is not only impossible; it spits in teh face of the grace of God.

Go check your logic, friend. It does not "pass muster" that if one then the other. Sin guilt requires and act -- so does righteousness. But they clearly don't require US to have our own righteousness.

I know -- you answered Allan too quickly. Just go back and think through what you said and what we said.

skypair

 

[russell55]

I would like to add that we are objects of God's wrath for rejecting Christ, what I believe Paul was trying to get at.

If that is what Paul is trying to get at, then why didn't he say it that way? Why did he say that we are objects of God's wrath by nature, which even you have defined as God's creation, the sin nature, or ethnic origin. (Actually, in regards to people, it has to do with what they were born as--what is constitutional to them.) If Paul's intent is to show that it's all about something people do that makes us an object of God's wrath, it seems odd that Paul would choose this word which has everything to do with how someone is born or what is in their very makeup, and nothing at all to do with someone's action. Doesn't it?

It's what the Bible says that matters.

Exactly. Things mean what they mean in context. In this context, Paul is saying that our problem is two-fold (at least):

1. in our actions
2. in our constitution or nature

and both things cause us to be objects of God's wrath.

And everyone--us and them, whether you make that Jews and Gentiles or believers and nonbelievers doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion, since either way, all people are in view--is (or was) an object of God's wrath by nature.

When comparing Bible to Bible, I dont' believe it is saying what you imply.

I can't remember implying anything.

So, where does it say that we are not, by nature (how we were born, in our constitution) objects of God's wrath. Where's the Bible text that, if true, says something that makes it impossible for Paul to have meant that we are by nature, origin, constitution objects of God's wrath.

One more question: You've already admitted that we have a sin nature, and that infants have a sin nature. Does God overlook that sin nature when he takes infants to heaven, and take them into God's presence just as they are, or are they glorified so that they have perfect spiritual bodies and a righteous nature?

Oh, and you never answered my original question, either, at least not in any way in which I can be sure of your answer. Are infants (jewish or gentile) included in that statement?

 

[The Archangel]

to all

At the risk of being a “Drive-by” poster, I thought I’d weigh-in on this matter of Original Sin. I have seen comments, some good, some bad, and some ridiculous. Unfortunately, many of us, myself included, like to “Proof-text” our own thoughts about how God should be. This can be seen in the entirety of the discussion relating to “Age of Accountability.” The Bible nowhere mentions age of accountability. I feel if I hear one more person, in discussion of the death of infants, children, etc., say “Age of Accountability,” I will slap them silly.

The bottom line is this: We must be true to the Scripture, not our own desires, wishes, or delusions.

Romans 5:12-14 states, 12 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. (ESV)


This text makes several key points.
1. Sin and Death came into the world through one man—Adam
2. Death spread to all men. Why? Because all sinned
3. Sin was in the world even though the law had not been given yet
4. Sin is not counted where there is no law

Here’s one problem: If the law had not been given yet, why would these people have died?

The people did not know what laws were broken, because no laws had been given. Those people should have been held “guiltless.” Yet, the Bible says they died as a result of sin.

This is quite a conundrum. Either man dies from his own sin (which the Romans passage seems to rule-out) or man dies because of Adam’s sin (which the Romans passage affirms.)

Before the law was given men were dying…why? Because they were held guilty for their own sin or because they were held guilty of Adam’s sin? Romans is plain—mankind was dying because of Adam’s sin.

Why do I say this? Because, as v. 14 shows, “Death reigned from Adam to Moses.” This is saying all those people between Adam and Moses died. That’s easy we know that. Why did they die? Because they were, in a sense, held guilty for Adam’s sin. They committed sins, but the sins were not counted against them because the law had not yet been given. Therefore, the only option left, from the text, is that they died as a result of Adam’s sin.

Death is the evidence of sin and that evidence, death, spread to all mankind because of Adam’s fall.

'Till later,

The Archangel

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, we ALL die PHYSICALLY in Adam; we ALL die SPIRITUALLY without Christ. Don't get that BACKWARDS, Larry. We don't all die spiritually in Adam and we don't all live physically in Christ. Infants die phyically on account of Adam. They don't die spiritually because Adam is not their "federal head" spiritually anyway!

There is no physical death without spiritual death.

He doesn't have to make "special dispensation," Larry --- they are INNOCENT.

Not according to David, Job, Solomon, and Paul.

First, Romans 5:18-19 are still there: "So then as through one transgression [KJV: "JUDGMENT" -- physical death] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of [SPIRITUAL] life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

I can’t help but notice you added a word. This is typical of your whole position. You can’t make it from Scripture, so you add words and meanings to find it.

There is a reason there are 2 verses that sound the same. The first tells about the physical vs the spiritual. The second talks about deciding between then two.

And where do you find this distinction? It isn’t in the text.

ALL die phyically in Adam, right?

No spiritually.

ALL "in Christ" -- believers -- are righteous SPRITIUALLY. They are NOT righteous in actuallity -- not in their flesh they aren't, are they?

Righteousness and evil are always spiritual. And righteousness in Christ is imputed, just as sin is. Remember, in Romans 5, sin and righteousness work the same way.

Please, stick with Allan's argument and don't try to psychoanalyze him.

I did. I showed it to be faulty by simply pointing out what the text says. Now you come in, and in order to help Allan, you add words to the text, and find distinctions that aren’t in the text. I reject that approach.

This is error. We have to believe in Christ in order to have righteousness -- we DON'T have to believe in Adam to be sinners.

But that’s not the context of Romans 5. the context of Romans 5 is how sin and righteousness work. Here again, you are ignoring the context and trying to bring in something not in the context. It is true that in order to have Christ’s righteousness we must believe, but how does that righteousness come to us? The same way that our guilt did.

Go check your logic, friend. It does not "pass muster" that if one then the other. Sin guilt requires and act -- so does righteousness. But they clearly don't require US to have our own righteousness.

It’s not my logic. It is God’s. And in the passage, sin and righteouness work the same way.

I know -- you answered Allan too quickly. Just go back and think through what you said and what we said.

I didn’t answer too quickly. I have been thinking about this for years. I have the added benefit of having studied and written on it. It helps to understand the issues.

 

[Allan]

Let me back up Pastor Larry and try this one more time if that is alright. Not to sway you to my view but to clarify my thoughts. I was trying to post without any sleep for a day and a half. Maybe that was my problem then again maybe my problem is I'm not reading the scriptures right either but I'm sure you will set me straight if not. :smilewinkgrin:

First a question to be anwered if you would please:
What is this special dispensation children have, please??
The only way a person goes to heaven is by faith or having no sin??
These are the only two means that God has given by which salvation comes. So how do children and babies go to be with the Father if they have never given forth faith but are born guilty of sin?

This question helps establish my point in Roms 5 but I believe this verse specifically identifies the reason children and mentally impaired people have not sin guilt but I confess with scripture we are born with a sin nature from which WE sin. I stated this scripture earlier with more elaboration on it if you wish to see it.

39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Of course there are others similar to it (like for those who know to do good and do it not to them is sin) but this verse explains it better I believe.
It is quite hard to go around that glaring scripture conserning who has sin and who doesn't. It doesn't say those who have heard the gospel for like it states in Romans that Nature, our conscience, our hearts all bear witness against us concerning the truths we have rejected in the most basic sense. It is the rejection of truth which is sin for by doing so you commit yourself to the opposit of it. But it is of NO DOUBT they to are saved by the blood of Jesus because though we are all sinners by or because of our nature we are judged not on our nature but SIN. However that sin nature must be irradicated because it is the REASON of our seperation from God, so God must still make alive that child/impared and that is done also because of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. I am assuming these are thing you already know of in general and is why I haven't listed scripture for each sentence.

With this in mind and looking at Rom 5, we first must remember this is about those people who see (or know good and evil) otherwise there in NO sin to be guilty of. The sin nature is that from which we naturally naturally manifest our lives and are lives are brought about by that which we have chosen to do. Agreed so far??

I will break here and post the Roms 5 piece on my following post.

 

[Allan]

Ok Pastor Larry, with your permission lets us try again.

First lets us keep in mind Pauls words in Rom 1 as we look at chapter 5:

Rom 1:18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

We see that the judgment of God is against those who knowing the truth rejected it. The scriptures ALWAYS stated the judgment of God (condemnation) is upon those who SIN and you can not sin unless you know the truth of what is good or right as it states in Rom 2:

Rom 2:2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

Keep this in mind because Paul continues this thought all the way through Romans. Now on to Rom 5.
Notice from the very first verse Paul is speaking of those who have believed and it was because of their belief they have been justified. (compare it with Rom 3:26)
Anyhoo...
Now wee that justifcation comes through belief:

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. and in that justification they are SAVED from Gods wrath.

What did they need justifying from, the sins they commited knowing full well it was wrong and commiting theses to that which was against truth - They rejected it. Please notice that up till now we have NEVER been told we are Judged TO Hell because we have a sin nature but because of the sins we commit does this judgment take effect. The sin nature itself IS THE judgment upon man THROUGH Adam for his disobedience and is the reason we are seperated from God and without life and light which are only in God. And we see that the death of Christ in the next verse reconciles us all back to God being seperated and Him coming back to life garentees those same - life. Now look at verse 11 because it is interesting that atonement is a seperate issue.

Rom 5:11 And not only [that], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Why are seperated. Simple - The death of Christ reconciled us back to God because we were away from God due to our sin nature and His life is the proof of that reconciliation. However ch. 11 tells that not only is the sin nature (which was the enemy of God) reconciled IN Christ ONLY, but not only that we have now recieved ATONEMENT in that same death. Atonement is for those sins commited in defience of the truth and against God. Remember that scripture tells us that with out the shedding of blood there IS NO Remission of SINS. So what we have in the death of Christ is a reconciling of the sin nature but ALSO if sins were commited an Atonement is also given. Two things have been done through the death of Christ. It made peace with God for those who have never sinned but hold forth the same sin nature that cause one TO sin yet have not themselves yet due to inability to do so, and atoned for the sins commited due to the sin by personal choice against God. One is a past judgment ended (from Adam) and the other is a future Judgment we have been redeemed from.

Rom 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:

So death (physical AND Spiritual passed upon all man for all have sinned. (did we all sin or is it that ALL in Adam share Adams sin? All in Adam share Adams sin - as we will see in 18 - therefore in that sharing all have sinned)

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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.

The similtude is the that Adam chose to sin and so death reigned in all and is why the verse states all have sinned EVEN those that had NOT sinned. Notice also it speaking of all men and individuals when is states even those who had not sinned.

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Jesus, like Adam chose to give to us grace through His death. Now there is a divsion again of the whole, many will not be saved and many will (in essense). Here we have again a breaking down of the whole into small groups which deal with individual as we will soon see. Moving on...

Rom 5:16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification.

This gift will not be given like Adams to all men through Him. But in the sense of a gift. One seperated man but this gift justifies. Now this is important since justification is only to those who have COMMITED sin by willing rejecting the truth.
Look back up through my post to see or heck just re-read Romans chapters 1-5. Justification are for those who have of themselves become unjustified before God.
Remember though - this justification isn't just set out to all Gods people but is given only by WHEN THEY BELIEVE

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Justification is through faith in the work of Jesus Christ.

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Here we see that besause of the choice of one man death (seperation and physical) came to us all. But to them which RECEIVED (present active participle - showing it was the subject is in fact the doer who doing the accepting), why is this important? Because like Adam man must chose to accept or reject truth.
Now This is not about Cal/Non-Cal because you can hold to either opinion and still come away that this bears the same truth from either side.

But still Sin is judged because we have commited them and therefore we need justification concerning those sins. But for those unable to they also have been reconciled to God.

 

[Aki]

What it does say is that their inherited sinful nature itself--whether they've actually knowingly committed sin or not--makes them objects of God's wrath. We are all, by nature--or how we were born, how we are constitutionally--objects of God's wrath.

in other words, the first reason for everyone's condemnation is not because of anyone's personal choice to disobey God. personal sin merely adds guilt, but condemnation has taken place before anyone can actually know how to make a choice. it's just too bad that judgement is usually described only to present those personal sins that got a man condmened, making it a point that it's because of them. but no point is mentioned that the start of condemnation has not been of their choice, at least on many that describe the basis of judging men that lead to condemnation.

 

[Allan]

I did in my last post.

 

[skypair]

Archangel

...

Romans 5:12-14 states, 12 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. (ESV)


This text makes several key points.
1. Sin and Death came into the world through one man—Adam
2. Death spread to all men. Why? Because all sinned
3. Sin was in the world even though the law had not been given yet
4. Sin is not counted where there is no law

Here’s one problem: If the law had not been given yet, why would these people have died?

One man committed sin -- all die PHYSICALLY on account of that regardless of whether they sinned or not. Some call it "blood poisoning" from the forbidden fruit. Know how your kids can inherit susceptibility to cancer, diabetes, etc? Same thing except with 100% inheritance.

There was no "law" -- 10 commandments, etc. -- to break but there was still sin against conscience and against God's commands. Each person died spiritually for his own sin but eveyone dies phyically only on account of the Adam's sin. Don't get the 2 confused.

Sin does not count SPIRITUALLY where there is no law/10 commandments but, as you know, God gave commands to Adam and his posterity (which all but Noah's 8 broke) and God gave "commands" by conscience which men are accountable for. They died spiritually for not obeying God's commands. They weren't guilty of Adam's sin, Archangel. That is not why they died -- neither spiritually nor bodily. Do you see that now? They disobeyed their own set of "laws" which God had given them just like Adam disobeyed the one "law" God gave him. When Paul uses "the law" in this passage, he is speaking of the law of Moses.

But infants have no "law" -- no "commands" nor conscience, right?

skypair

 

[skypair]

There is no physical death without spiritual death.
Not according to David, Job, Solomon, and Paul.

Not quite right. Where was David "go[ing] to see him" -- his dead infant son? Do you submit that David was going to go to hell? Or sheol and meant he would look across that great Luke 16 gulf and see his son? I don't think so. I think David had it right. His son would meet him in "Abraham's bosom," don't you? So David's infant son died but had not spiritual death or he would have gone to hades, right?

I can’t help but notice you added a word. This is typical of your whole position. You can’t make it from Scripture, so you add words and meanings to find it.

Some people would miss the meaning otherwise. Sorry you take exception. If you think we can just breeze through scripture without intepretting was kind of death is being spoken of, you'll have a hard time discerning any truth.

No [all die] spiritually [in Adam].

Your contention -- not true. Patently not true per Ezek 18:20 -- "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,..." How, with this in mind, does Adam's sin pass to us? And actually, you got more problems than that -- our fathers were bigger sinners than Adam was!

Righteousness and evil are always spiritual. And righteousness in Christ is imputed, just as sin is. Remember, in Romans 5, sin and righteousness work the same way.

Same way in opposite directions. What do you think about 5:19 -- "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,..." If you are correct, shouldn't the word be "all were made sinners?" Who do you suppose Paul was leaving out of that group? Infants and mentally handicapped, right?

It is true that in order to have Christ’s righteousness we must believe, but how does that righteousness come to us? The same way that our guilt did.

"Same way?" Must we believe in Adam to be sinners?? Or are you saying we must sin to be in Adam and must believe to be in Christ? I would agree with that.

It’s not my logic. It is God’s. And in the passage, sin and righteouness work the same way.

I still think I am missing something from your train of thought.

I didn’t answer too quickly. I have been thinking about this for years. I have the added benefit of having studied and written on it. It helps to understand the issues.

I don't doubt you have. But I'm not seeing it.

Where are you getting that sin guilt -- spiritual death -- passes father to son and not just physical death passing due to "chromosone damage," say?

Where are you getting that infants must, therefore, be condemned to hell. Or do you have a different salvation plan for them?

Why does the "no law" Paul talks about mean no commants of God to obey rather than no law of Moses?

skypair

 

[russell55]

in other words, the first reason for everyone's condemnation is not because of anyone's personal choice to disobey God. personal sin merely adds guilt, but condemnation has taken place before anyone can actually know how to make a choice. it's just too bad that judgement is usually described only to present those personal sins that got a man condmened, making it a point that it's because of them. but no point is mentioned that the start of condemnation has not been of their choice, at least on many that describe the basis of judging men that lead to condemnation.

Exactly right.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Not quite right. Where was David "go[ing] to see him" -- his dead infant son? Do you submit that David was going to go to hell? Or sheol and meant he would look across that great Luke 16 gulf and see his son? I don't think so. I think David had it right. His son would meet him in "Abraham's bosom," don't you? So David's infant son died but had not spiritual death or he would have gone to hades, right?

No, as I said, I think infants are spiritually dead because of the teaching of Scripture across both testaments. But I believe, based on this issue of David’s son largely, that God does treat infants and incompetents differently.

Some people would miss the meaning otherwise. Sorry you take exception. If you think we can just breeze through scripture without intepretting was kind of death is being spoken of, you'll have a hard time discerning any truth.

Or perhaps they would miss your meaning. The meaning of Scripture is pretty clear on this without your addition.

Your contention -- not true. Patently not true per Ezek 18:20 -- "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,..." How, with this in mind, does Adam's sin pass to us? And actually, you got more problems than that -- our fathers were bigger sinners than Adam was!

How does this make my contention not true? I think this is perfectly consistent with my contention.

Same way in opposite directions. What do you think about 5:19 -- "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,..." If you are correct, shouldn't the word be "all were made sinners?" Who do you suppose Paul was leaving out of that group? Infants and mentally handicapped, right?

No. I think “many” and “all” are used as rhetorical devices.

"Same way?" Must we believe in Adam to be sinners?? Or are you saying we must sin to be in Adam and must believe to be in Christ? I would agree with that.

No, again, it is talking about the modus operandi of sin and righteousness being imputatation rather than act.

Where are you getting that sin guilt -- spiritual death -- passes father to son and not just physical death passing due to "chromosone damage," say?

From passages in both the OT and NT that teach that babies are sinners from conception, and that Adam’s sin guilt is charged to all humanity that are in adam.

Where are you getting that infants must, therefore, be condemned to hell. Or do you have a different salvation plan for them?

As I said, I think God treats infants and incompetents differently.

Why does the "no law" Paul talks about mean no commants of God to obey rather than no law of Moses?

I think it means law of Moses. Before the Law of Moses, people still sinned.

 

[webdog]

If that is what Paul is trying to get at, then why didn't he say it that way? Why did he say that we are objects of God's wrath by nature, which even you have defined as God's creation, the sin nature, or ethnic origin.

He did, in a way they would understand. 2000 years later we add the understanding that we want to hold to, not the original point he was making.

(Actually, in regards to people, it has to do with what they were born as--what is constitutional to them.)

Has nothing to do with "constitution" as I showed per Galations 2:15.

If Paul's intent is to show that it's all about something people do that makes us an object of God's wrath, it seems odd that Paul would choose this word which has everything to do with how someone is born or what is in their very makeup, and nothing at all to do with someone's action. Doesn't it?

I don't find it odd at all. I guess there could be many things throughout Scripture that today we find "odd".

And everyone--us and them, whether you make that Jews and Gentiles or believers and nonbelievers doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion, since either way, all people are in view--is (or was) an object of God's wrath by nature.

To the context of that passage, being jew or gentile makes all of the difference. Just because you substitute constitution for race doesnt' make your postion valid.

So, where does it say that we are not, by nature (how we were born, in our constitution) objects of God's wrath. Where's the Bible text that, if true, says something that makes it impossible for Paul to have meant that we are by nature, origin, constitution objects of God's wrath.

Likewise, where is the Scripture stating that guilt is inherited, not nature?

One more question: You've already admitted that we have a sin nature, and that infants have a sin nature. Does God overlook that sin nature when he takes infants to heaven, and take them into God's presence just as they are, or are they glorified so that they have perfect spiritual bodies and a righteous nature?

I'll answer this question with a question. Does God overlook the sin natures of those "in Christ" and take them into God's presence just as they are, or are they glorified so that they have perfect spiritual bodies and a righteous nature?

 

[webdog]

But I believe, based on this issue of David’s son largely, that God does treat infants and incompetents differently.

...making God a respector of persons.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Allan,

Way too much to respond to here. I will make a few comments, and urge you to avail yourself of some of the excellent commentaries on Romans such as Moo, Murray, Schriener.

First a question to be anwered if you would please:
What is this special dispensation children have, please??

That God takes infants to heaven without conscious faith because they cannot exercise it. But they still have sin according to various passages. I base my view largely on the story of David’s son.

I don’t think your John 10 passage says at all what you want and need it to say. Your view contradicts too many other passages.

Agreed so far??

Nope, not at all. Sin is not conditioned on knowledge, but on conformity to God’s moral image.

I think your explanation of Romans 5 is very lacking, but I don’t have time to get into it. Again, I would recommend some of these great commentaries who interact with the text in a very detailed exegetical and theological way.

 

[Pastor Larry]

...making God a respector of persons.

Nope, not at all. God is not a respecter of persons, and this doesn't make him one.