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

[The Biblicist]

What transgression shows any man comes up short of God's command prior to the transgression itself?

It is an assumption that Adam's pre-sin state (his nature) was any different from his post sin state (nature). Adam's nature (that he possessed desires of the flesh) were evident in the temptation. Adam gave into temptation and sinned. This had consequences.

But sin then is sin now. Adam disobeyed God with the same nature he had when created. No scripture presents Adam as dying spiritually in order to sin. The idea it was possible for Adam to remain sineless is hypothetical (and a theory I do not hold).

You are still skirting and refusing to directly answer my question. If Adam was created in a state of harmatia which the Bible never defines as "good" but always condemns as evil then how could God claim he created Adam "good." Harmatia by biblical definition is transgression of law. You are attempting to redefine harmatia without a shed of Biblical support. Coming short of the glory of God is the basis for condemnation in Scripture in every instance but you are READING INTO the pre-fallen state a harmatia condition that you are attempting to define as something other than evil and something other than violation of God's law.

So again, what harmatia (transgression of God's law which = coming short of the glory of God) existed prior to the fall? What harmatia (transgression of God's law which is equal to coming short of the glory of God) occurred prior to coming out of the womb by man?

Please dont respond with non-Biblical illustrations as they are worthless. Show me in scripture where harmatia is EVER considered "good" and God created man "good" and in an "upright" condition from which he fell when he violated God's tree law.

 

[The Biblicist]

Adam was good until he wasn't. No need to read more into it than Scripture provides. Adam sinned.

The difference may be how we use "good". Obviously this is not in a moral context as God prounced all of creation "good". I believe here it is in accordance to God's plan and design.

But you are attempting to defend his prefallen state as harmatia which is the direct product of God's creation and is "good." "Good" includes the moral condition of volitional rational creatures as well as the non-moral state of animate and animal creation. It is all inclusive as nothing from God's hands can be evil but harmatia is ALWAYS and in EVERY instance in creature regarded as evil and just grounds for condemnation.

So again, what harmatia occurred in prefallen Adam or post Adamic man that they can be described as harmatia before committing any acts of disobedience?

 

[JonC]

But you are attempting to defend his prefallen state as harmatia which is the direct product of God's creation and is "good." "Good" includes the moral condition of volitional rational creatures as well as the non-moral state of animate and animal creation. It is all inclusive as nothing from God's hands can be evil but harmatia is ALWAYS and in EVERY instance in creature regarded as evil and just grounds for condemnation.

So again, what harmatia occurred in prefallen Adam or post Adamic man that they can be described as harmatia before committing any acts of disobedience?

Not at all. I am defending all of creation as being created as God intended. I don't think Adam changed God's design.

 

[loDebar]

How did Eve sin before Adam without this sin nature?

 

[The Biblicist]

Adam was good until he wasn't. No need to read more into it than Scripture provides. Adam sinned.

But you are claming "good" is inclusive of harmatia when not a single use of harmatia defines or describes it as "good". You are claiming Adam was "harmatia" prior to eating the singular act of disobedience Paul refers to in Romans 5:12.

So again, I ask for evidence that harmatia existed prior to the one act of disobedience by Adam or any acts of disobedience by us?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Adam was good until he wasn't. No need to read more into it than Scripture provides. Adam sinned.

Do you consider that Adam needed to be born again before he could see or enter the kingdom of God?
That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Since you appear to believe that Adam had a sinful nature from birth,do you believe that he was born of the flesh? Please cite Genesis 1:26-27 in your reply.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not at all. I am defending all of creation as being created as God intended. I don't think Adam changed God's design.

Why not stop avoiding the direct questions and directly answer them as I have repeated them now for at least four different times and you never directly address the questions, never directly address the conclusions of your arguments.

Again, show us harmatia existed prior to the one act of disobedence by Adam that Paul refers to repeated in Romans 5:12-19. Show us harmatia is synonmous with "good" anywhere in scripture. Show us where harmatia is not transgression of the law of God. Please don't continue making unsubstantiated assertions but give evidence.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you consider that Adam needed to be born again before he could see or enter the kingdom of God?
That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Since you appear to believe that Adam had a sinful nature from birth,do you believe that he was born of the flesh? Please cite Genesis 1:26-27 in your reply.

Why should I answer any of your questions, especially questions that change the subject and divert from the questions when you continue to refuse to address directly and refuse to offer proof for your unsubstantiated repeated assertions that harmatia is harmonious with "good."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Why should I answer any of your questions, especially questions that change the subject and divert from the questions when you continue to refuse to address directly and refuse to offer proof for your unsubstantiated repeated assertions that harmatia is harmonious with "good."

I was asking @JonC, not you.

 

[The Biblicist]

How did Eve sin before Adam without this sin nature?

That is like asking how could Adam sin without a sin nature. Adam not Eve stood as the representative of mankind and the sin nature was transferred through Adam not Eve. this is precisely why Christ did not have a MALE seed but was produced of the female seed because the female does not pass on the sin nature even though she has a sin nature.

However, why don't you attempt to answer the questions I have repeated over and over and no one has dared to attempt to answer.

 

[JonC]

Do you consider that Adam needed to be born again before he could see or enter the kingdom of God?
That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Since you appear to believe that Adam had a sinful nature from birth,do you believe that he was born of the flesh? Please cite Genesis 1:26-27 in your reply.

Yes. I believe even Adam needed a Savior. I believe Creation was accomplished for God and not man.

Genesis 1 is no issue. I would lean on John 3.

 

[The Biblicist]

I was asking @JonC, not you.

Sorry, jon and I were going back and forth and I failed to see it was you. my apologies.

As you can see, I cannot get jon to give a direct answer or to offer any evidence for his assertions to my questions.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. I believe even Adam needed a Savior. I believe Creation was accomplished for God and not man.

So you believe that Adam was created needing to be born again? What does that say about God's 'very good' creation? The world before the creation of man was merely 'good' (Genesis 1:21 etc.); after man's creation it was 'very good.' Man's creation actually improved it.

Genesis 1 is no issue. I would lean on John 3.

Why is Genesis 1:26-27 no issue?

 

[The Biblicist]

Gotta leave and go to town. Be back later on today.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry, jon and I were going back and forth and I failed to see it was you. my apologies.

As you can see, I cannot get jon to give a direct answer or to offer any evidence for his assertions to my questions.

No problem! Easy to do.

 

[Yeshua1]

This post is merely an introduction to the subject stated in the heading. My position is thus stated as follows:

I believe Paul repudiates the idea that sin and death of post-Adamic human beings has for its source or cause their own individual sins. That sin, condemnation, judgement and death have their source and cause in one man (Adam) and in one act by that one man so that sin and death is "passed" down to all other human beings through procreation wherein like begets like, so that they are born into this world in a state of spiritual separation from God, thus, they are conceived in their mother's womb "without God" thus without spiritual life, light, love or holiness (Eph. 4:28) condemned already and the irrefutable proof is death JUSTLY reigns over them from the point of conception forward.

Furthermore, I believe Paul repudiates the idea that there is no moral difference between pre-fallen Adam and post-fallen Adam with regard to his moral condition or nature but sin spiritually separated Adam from God so that his post-fallen state or condition was a state/condition of spiritual death, darkness, depravity and enmity toward God, thus needing rebirth which is the restoration of the moral image of God (Eph. 2:10a; 4:24; Col. 3:10; Tit. 3:5) bringing man back into spiritual union with God, thus in union with life, light, love and holiness which previous to new birth he was without, and thus spiritually dead, in darkness, enmity and depravity.

All of us, save for Jesus due to His Virgin Birth, sinned in Adam, and as such, all of us are born spiritual dead state, with fallen sin natures, and Jesus Himself was NOT born in that same state and condition, for he was without a sin nature, but had always a sinless one!

 

[loDebar]

That is like asking how could Adam sin without a sin nature. Adam not Eve stood as the representative of mankind and the sin nature was transferred through Adam not Eve. this is precisely why Christ did not have a MALE seed but was produced of the female seed because the female does not pass on the sin nature even though she has a sin nature.

However, why don't you attempt to answer the questions I have repeated over and over and no one has dared to attempt to answer.

I cannot discern a question. maybe use Bold fronts

your premises are wrong.
you are capable of sin without Adam.
Sin did not begin with Adam. but through him sin affected the physical world. but sin is spiritual not physical.

Your fail to read all Paul was saying,.. by one sin affects all who sin and also by one Salvation can affect all as well.

Are all men saved? Can all men be saved? same as sin. We participate in the system of sin that Adam started, but we are not without choices to participate. but we were condemned (sinners) already

Eze 18:19
Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
Eze 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

[Yeshua1]

I cannot discern a question. maybe use Bold fronts

your premises are wrong.
you are capable of sin without Adam.
Sin did not begin with Adam. but through him sin affected the physical world. but sin is spiritual not physical.

Your fail to read all Paul was saying,.. by one sin affects all who sin and also by one Salvation can affect all as well.

Are all men saved? Can all men be saved? same as sin. We participate in the system of sin that Adam started, but we are not without choices to participate. but we were condemned (sinners) already

Eze 18:19
Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
Eze 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

We are born affected in this sin state due to Adam and the fall!

 

[Yeshua1]

So you believe that Adam was created needing to be born again? What does that say about God's 'very good' creation? The world before the creation of man was merely 'good' (Genesis 1:21 etc.); after man's creation it was 'very good.' Man's creation actually improved it.

Why is Genesis 1:26-27 no issue?

Adam was under the Covenant of Works before he fell, so at that time of creation, he did not need a mediator, but all after Him would !

 

[JonC]

So you believe that Adam was created needing to be born again? What does that say about God's 'very good' creation? The world before the creation of man was merely 'good' (Genesis 1:21 etc.); after man's creation it was 'very good.' Man's creation actually improved it.

Why is Genesis 1:26-27 no issue?

What it says is that Creation was as God willed (decreed....acording to Gos design.....His plan).

I believe even here God purposed a Savior. I believe Christ the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. So I believe this "rebirth" in Christ and our redemption original to God's purposes.

I do not believe "good" in the Genesis account of creation to mean "moral".