Romans 5:12-19 and the source of sin and death in humanity

[JonC]

Since, per you, jesus has same nature as us, could he had sinned?

Could He? I don't know....that is philosophical and hypothetical. Like could God make a round square.

It's more a game than a question.

 

[Yeshua1]

Could He? I don't know....that is philosophical and hypothetical. Like could God make a round square.

It's more a game than a question.

Not really, for it would be logical that the ONLY difference between Him and us is that he choose never to sin, at least by your reasoning!
Mine is that Jesus never could, being both fully God and sinless humanity by nature!

 

[JonC]

You just placed on the junk pile classic Christian theology of the fall, and Pauline Justification!

How so? Exact doctrines of the Fall has been a debate within orthodox Christianity for centuries. I have not even discussed Pauline Justification.

 

[Yeshua1]

How so? Exact doctrines of the Fall has been a debate within orthodox Christianity for centuries. I have not even discussed Pauline Justification.

Original Sin, the Fall, and all of us being spiritual dead due to being affected directly by it you ignore...

 

[The Biblicist]

To clarify, I believe

- we are not sinners before we sin.

I have proven we are sinful (not sinners) in nature before we sin - no response by you to those posts yet.

We, like Adam, are not born spiritually alive without the need to be "in Christ".

We are born spiritually dead! Are saying Adam was created spiritually dead? Are you saying there was not at least mutable spiritual union between God and Adam? Are you saying his sin did not produce "death" in the sense of spiritual separation?

Please respond to the evidences provided in posts 135, 141 and 143 that proves mans human nature with regard to its moral apsect was changed due to sin and now he has a depraved moral nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

That would be a grammatical error. You don't say "it was for this reason I said..." and then give the reason... you say "it was for this reason I said..." and then repeat what you had previously stated. The reason is indicated in verse 64 for the reiteration in verse 65 of what was said in verse 44.

No, it is not a grammatical error. Note that he says "I SAID" ! What is he referring to? Verse 44 is what he is referring to and repeats it immediately in verse 65 after saying "Because I said." The "because" has reference to verse 44 and what he repeats is verse 44 exept he changed one word. He changes "draw" for "given." Are you following me? Why did he say what he said in verse 44? He said it because unbelieving man CANNOT COME to Him unless the Father does something found in the words "draw" and "given." What is that? It is what is necessary to change "cannot" to "can"! As they are in unbelief they CANNOT come to Christ in faith because the lack ABILITY to believe or come to Christ. So, what the Father does is change that INABILITY to come to ABILITY to come.

Why is he repeating what he said in verse 44? Because he is explaining why they continued in unbelieve BECAUSE the Father did not give the ABILITY to overcome the CANNOT or inability to come to Christ in faith.

It should be obvious your theory is wrong because Jesus plainly says that unbelief in man is something he is not able to overcome EXCEPT by divine intervening by the action of drawing/giving. But your theory says man is able to come to him and nothing prevents him and you cite Deut 30 to help prove your point.

 

[The Biblicist]

BTW Biblicist.. I noticed you haven't touched Deuteronomy 30 with a 10ft pole... and actually have actively and willingly declared you would ignore that evidence.

I didn't address it because it does not teach that unbelieving man has natural ability to believe in Christ. They have natural ability to believe in many other things but not in Christ as Jesus flatly denies unregenerate man "can come to me" without divine intervention.

In Deuteronomy he is addressing the nation a mixture of lost and saved. And he is not referring to personal faith in Christ as their Messiah but to the Law covenant established by Moses.

 

[The Biblicist]

We don't have to ask why... Jesus explicit said the reason they couldn't come was because of their unbelief in verse 64.

That is totally irrational as he is referencing what he "said' in verse 44 where he denies any unbeleiver is able to come to him in faith EXCEPT by divine intervention (draw/give). So, unbelief is Not the problem but INABILITY to come to Christ in belief is the problem. So, in verse 65 he simply repeats what he said in verse 44 providing the reason why those in verse 44 ARE STILL IN UNBELIEF. The Father never "gave" that ability to them to overcome unbelief.

Your theory denies the very need of the EXCEPTION CLAUSE.

 

[The Biblicist]

In summary, the moral nature of Adam did in fact change at the point he sinned BECAUSE "death" became part of his moral nature as that is exactly what "spiritual separation" is! Spiritual separation is being "without God" and thus without LIFE, LIGHT, LOVE and HOLINESS and these involve moral qualities that transform his moral nature from "upright" to sinful.

In order to escape my conclusions one must refuse to define "death" as spiritual separation from God.

In order to escape my conclusions one must refuse to define "spiritual separation" as inclusive of separation from LIFE, LOVE, LIGHT and HOLINESS of God.

In order to escape my conclusion one must refuse to define the unregenerate state as a STATE OR CONDITION of the human moral nature as DEAD, DARK, DEPRAVED AND UNHOLY.

In order to escape my conclusion one must refuse to accept Paul's characterization of the unregenerated CONDITION/STATE as described in Ephesians 4:18-19 and other similar scriptures.

IN ORDER TO DISPROVE ANY OF THE ABOVE ONE MUST PROVIDE PROOF/EVIDENCE THAT MY EVIDENCE FOR THIS IN POSTS #135; 141 AND 143 IS ERRONEOUS - GOOD LUCK!

 

[The Biblicist]

God's plan is not about restoring creation to it's original state. It is about bringing creation into an eternal existence through the Lord Jesus Christ.

"God is doing a new thing..."

Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

It's not about the first, it's about the last.

Physical creation was first.
Spiritual creation was second

The tree of knowledge was first
The tree of life was second

The law of Moses was first
The Law of Grace was second

Ishmael was first
Isaac was second

Esau was first
Jacob was second

Mennesah was first
Ephraim was second

Adam was first
Jesus was Last

God brought these clues throughout history. It wasn't about first creation, it's about the second and last creation in the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is all true! But has absolutely nothing to do with this debate on this thread as my position does not deny anything listed above.

 

[Gup20]

I didn't address it because it does not teach that unbelieving man has natural ability to believe in Christ. They have natural ability to believe in many other things but not in Christ as Jesus flatly denies unregenerate man "can come to me" without divine intervention.

In Deuteronomy he is addressing the nation a mixture of lost and saved. And he is not referring to personal faith in Christ as their Messiah but to the Law covenant established by Moses.

This is my favorite part of debating Calvinists on Deu 30. They always say what you said... but then I say that they are at odds with how Paul interprets Deuteronomy 30 when he quotes it in Romans 10:

Romans 10:5-11 (NASB) 5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." 8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

At this point most Calvinist’s cognitive dissonance is so high they scream that I’m not saved and vow to never respond to another post of mine. They can’t explain away Deuteronomy 30 as unrelated to salvation, so they are forced to either accept that it is taking about salvation by faith or ignore it completely. Which are you?

 

[Gup20]

That is totally irrational as he is referencing what he "said' in verse 44 where he denies any unbeleiver is able to come to him in faith EXCEPT by divine intervention (draw/give). So, unbelief is Not the problem but INABILITY to come to Christ in belief is the problem. So, in verse 65 he simply repeats what he said in verse 44 providing the reason why those in verse 44 ARE STILL IN UNBELIEF. The Father never "gave" that ability to them to overcome unbelief.

Your theory denies the very need of the EXCEPTION CLAUSE.

I prefer Jesus’ interpretation to verse 44 that they couldn’t come because of unbelief to your interpretation of verse 44. He is defining his statements from verse 44 in 64-65, not referring to them as the reason. He gives the reason for verse 44 in verse 64. He says in verse 65 (referencing verse 64) “for this reason I said [what I said in verse 44.]”

You are reading your own desires into the text, brother. The text in this case defines itself. We don’t need to interpret 44 because Jesus did so already in 64-65. Jesus himself says in 64-65 what was meant by 44. You are imposing your own Calvinistic interpretation of verse 44 upon God’s interpretation of verse 44 which is given in verses 64-65. You are imposing your interpretation here, not accepting the interpretation Jesus gives.

 

[InTheLight]

I think you need to reread our conversation carefully as you are mistaken. His claim is that pre-fallen human nature is no different than post-fallen human nature.

1a. Did pre-fall Adam have the capacity to sin? Yes.
1b. Was he a sinner before he sinned? No.

2a. Do humans, including infants, have a capacity to sin? Yes.
2b. Are humans sinners before they sin?

The answer to #2b seems to me to be the crux of this thread's discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to believe that all humans are sinners because Adam sinned, regardless of their age or whether or not they've committed sin. They are sinners, period, including a one day old baby.

I denied that. I asserted that post-fallen human nature has a sinful moral nature and I demonstrated that.

I don't think JonC would deny that post-fallen human nature has a sinful moral nature. I know I don't deny it.

His response is that prefallen adam's nature as created by God is characterized as "coming short of the mark" JUST AS post-fallen human nature. Meaning, that postfallen human nature is "coming short of the mark" no more than pre-fallen Adam.

Exactly what about Adam's nature changed post-fall? He had the capacity to sin before the fall and he had the capacity to sin after the fall.

Are you saying that A&E were the only humans in history that weren't sinners before they sinned?

 

[The Biblicist]

1a. Did pre-fall Adam have the capacity to sin? Yes.
1b. Was he a sinner before he sinned? No.

2a. Do humans, including infants, have a capacity to sin? Yes.
2b. Are humans sinners before they sin?

The answer to #2b seems to me to be the crux of this thread's discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to believe that all humans are sinners because Adam sinned, regardless of their age or whether or not they've committed sin. They are sinners, period, including a one day old baby.



I don't think JonC would deny that post-fallen human nature has a sinful moral nature. I know I don't deny it.



Exactly what about Adam's nature changed post-fall? He had the capacity to sin before the fall and he had the capacity to sin after the fall.

Are you saying that A&E were the only humans in history that weren't sinners before they sinned?

If you will examine Posts #135, 141 and 143 you will find my answers but in addition a defense for my answers concerning the fallen moral nature of man present at birth of all post-Adamic humans

 

[The Biblicist]

I prefer Jesus’ interpretation to verse 44 that they couldn’t come because of unbelief to your interpretation of verse 44. He is defining his statements from verse 44 in 64-65, not referring to them as the reason. He gives the reason for verse 44 in verse 64. He says in verse 65 (referencing verse 64) “for this reason I said [what I said in verse 44.]”

You are reading your own desires into the text, brother. The text in this case defines itself. We don’t need to interpret 44 because Jesus did so already in 64-65. Jesus himself says in 64-65 what was meant by 44. You are imposing your own Calvinistic interpretation of verse 44 upon God’s interpretation of verse 44 which is given in verses 64-65. You are imposing your interpretation here, not accepting the interpretation Jesus gives.

Brother, you response is simply irrational and completely eisgetical in nature.

First, there is no need for interpretation to his words as they are plainly stated, "no man" does not mean some men and not others. "can come" does not mean they can come. "except the father draw" denies plainly that unbelievers have ability to come to Christ by faith. Nothing hard here, nothing unclear, no hidden meanings.

If you can't follow that, then look at the prophets he cites in verse 45 and read what they say (Isa. 54:13 and Jer. 31:33-34) and you will plainly see that "draw" means the internal instruction in God's new covenant people that brings "all" without exception to faith.

In Verse 64 you are given an example of unbelievers who did not come to Christ in faith and Jesus simply reminds his audience the reason for their unbelief "from the beginning" is because they cannot come to Christ in faith unless IT (ability) is given unto them.

Can't make it any clearer brother! Your interpretation denies the very scriptures Jesus cites to explain what he means by "draw" and whom God draws. I know you don't like it but I did not write it or cite those Scriptuers - Jesus did.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is my favorite part of debating Calvinists on Deu 30. They always say what you said... but then I say that they are at odds with how Paul interprets Deuteronomy 30 when he quotes it in Romans 10:

Romans 10:5-11 (NASB) 5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." 8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

At this point most Calvinist’s cognitive dissonance is so high they scream that I’m not saved and vow to never respond to another post of mine. They can’t explain away Deuteronomy 30 as unrelated to salvation, so they are forced to either accept that it is taking about salvation by faith or ignore it completely. Which are you?

Just one question. Do you believe all men can come to Christ without any divine intervention? Jesus said plainly "NO man CAN come to me" except by a specific type of divine intervention - but your understanding and interpretation of Deuteronomy 30 and Romans 10 repudiate the words of Christ on the very subject we are discussing.

Your understanding of Romans 10 is to the exclusion of Romans 9 and 11 which contradict your interpretation. Responsibility is not the same as ability. God is not culpable for human inability as that is man's fault not God's. If you want to get into Romans 10 and see how your understanding holds up to proper exegesis then I am your man and we can do so in thread dedicated to that subject.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is my favorite part of debating Calvinists on Deu 30. They always say what you said... but then I say that they are at odds with how Paul interprets Deuteronomy 30 when he quotes it in Romans 10:

Romans 10:5-11 (NASB) 5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." 8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

At this point most Calvinist’s cognitive dissonance is so high they scream that I’m not saved and vow to never respond to another post of mine. They can’t explain away Deuteronomy 30 as unrelated to salvation, so they are forced to either accept that it is taking about salvation by faith or ignore it completely. Which are you?

First, you stop short in the text in Romans 10 where Paul deals with the origin of faith. Verses 17-18 deal with the origin of faith in man. Take a look at the Greek word translated "word" in verses 17 and 18. The heart that believeth is not the unregerate heart but the heart that undergoes the creation of faith within by divine fiat as described by Paul in 2 Cor. 4:6 and 1 Thes. 1:4-5. The Greek term translated "word" is Rhema and may mean "word of command" and faith comes by God's word of command as described in 2 Cor.4:6 but not by man's word of command as in Rom. 10:18.

This word of command is compared to God's speaking light into existence in Genesis 1:3 and constitutes what Jesus means by the word "draw" and "given" in John 6:44, 65.

 

[Gup20]

1a. Did pre-fall Adam have the capacity to sin? Yes.
1b. Was he a sinner before he sinned? No.

2a. Do humans, including infants, have a capacity to sin? Yes.
2b. Are humans sinners before they sin?

The answer to #2b seems to me to be the crux of this thread's discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to believe that all humans are sinners because Adam sinned, regardless of their age or whether or not they've committed sin. They are sinners, period, including a one day old baby.



I don't think JonC would deny that post-fallen human nature has a sinful moral nature. I know I don't deny it.



Exactly what about Adam's nature changed post-fall? He had the capacity to sin before the fall and he had the capacity to sin after the fall.

Are you saying that A&E were the only humans in history that weren't sinners before they sinned?

I agree with your explanation. I would say to 2b: No.

I would add, however, a caveat of 2b.i: but they are under Adam’s coporate judgement for sin -death - which is physical & spiritual separation from the God who is life... and that is a judgement that ALL men will come to deserve in that all have sinned (individually) and are therefore deserving of Adam’s corporate judgement. It wasn’t until Christ came & lived a sinless life & didn’t deserve that judgement that the corporate judgement was, for the first (and only) time in history UNJUST. This injustice necessitates a repeal of Adam’s corporate judgement in lieu of individual judgements. In the 2nd judgement, we can have Christ’s righteousness applied to our scorecard and thereby escape the 2nd death.

Acts 24:15
having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

John 5:28
“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Revelation 21:8
“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Daniel 12:1
Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

So Christ’s work resurrects each and every human being from Adam’s corporate judgment, but then they are judged as individuals (by Christ). Those who do not have Christ’s righteousness by faith in the gospel then have a second death and are thrown into the lake of Fire.

 

[Gup20]

First, you stop short in the text in Romans 10 where Paul deals with the origin of faith. Verses 17-18 deal with the origin of faith in man. Take a look at the Greek word translated "word" in verses 17 and 18. The heart that believeth is not the unregerate heart but the heart that undergoes the creation of faith within by divine fiat as described by Paul in 2 Cor. 4:6 and 1 Thes. 1:4-5. The Greek term translated "word" is Rhema and may mean "word of command" and faith comes by God's word of command as described in 2 Cor.4:6 but not by man's word of command as in Rom. 10:18.

This word of command is compared to God's speaking light into existence in Genesis 1:3 and constitutes what Jesus means by the word "draw" and "given" in John 6:44, 65.

Indeed, “the gospel” comes from God.... yet belief is volitional:

Galatians 3:6-9 (NASB) 6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

The “word” referred to in Romans 10:17 is not faith itself, it is “the gospel.” Look at the context:

Romans 10:15-17 (NASB) 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!" 16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

The “word of Christ” is the “gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ.” Believing good news or a report of good news doesn’t require regeneration.

 

[JonC]

I have proven we are sinful (not sinners) in nature before we sin - no response by you to those posts yet.

My response is that I understand you accept your "proof" as proof. As I have proven by my answer to you, I do not.

I am saying Adam was created "not in Christ" and would prove to need redemption.....just like us.