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

[JonShaff]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

Exactly!!!

The error some seem to hold is what ANE religion sought to effect - a return to "Eden". The difference God breathed into that world by virtue of the Hebrew religion and then the New Covenant is the New Creation. We are reconciled not by a recipitulation but by a rebirth. Creation itself will be made anew.

Jesus is not "Adam restored" but the "Last Adam", the "Firstborn".

 

[JonShaff]

Exactly!!!

The error some seem to hold is what ANE religion sought to effect - a return to "Eden". The difference God breathed into that world by virtue of the Hebrew religion and then the New Covenant is the New Creation. We are reconciled not by a recipitulation but by a rebirth. Creation itself will be made anew.

Jesus is not "Adam restored" but the "Last Adam", the "Firstborn".

Amen. Which is better, the First covenant or the Last covenant?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4:15 PM Pacific.

 

[Gup20]

My friend, John 6:64 states the condition of unbelief while John 6:65 states the reason they are in that condition. Your theory makes no sense to say they are in unbelief because they are in unbelief!!

Brother, you are incorrect. It says in verse 65 "For this reason I said that no one can come to me unless granted by the Father". The reason given in verse 64 is unbelief. It does not say "they are in unbelief because they are in unbelief" ... rather... it says "they have not been granted permission by the father to come to be because of their unbelief." If your interpretation were correct it would say:

Jhn 6:64-65 BIBLICIST
64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can believe"

see what it actuallly says:

Jhn 6:64-65 NASB
64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
​

I think you are having trouble seeing past your own interpretation of the passage to understand how I'm presenting it.

They are in unbelief because Jesus said the Father never "gave" them what is included in the meaning of "draw" in verse 44. In verse 44 they CANNOT COME TO ME unless the Father draws them, thus giving that ability, and in verse 65 Jesus plainly says the Father never "gave" them the ability to come to him in saving faith and that is why they remained in unbelief - just that simple and clear.

Verse 44 doesn't tell us WHY they cannot come, but rather states a fact THAT they cannot come. Verse 64-65 clearly tells us WHY Jesus said that in verse 44. "For this reason (verse 64) I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father (verse 44)."

I'm sorry, but the text simply cannot be interpreted in that way because it is explicitly interpreted in the opposite way by Jesus in verse 64-65.

Moreover, the prophets (plural) cited by Christ in John 6:45 prove that drawing is not universal but is restricted to the covenant elect people as he is citing Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 which refer to "thy children" under the new covenant (Jer. 31:33-34; Heb. 8:10-13). Those drawn/taught by God "ALL" without exception come to know God as savior (Jer.31:33-34) "from the least of them to the greatest".

This refers to the drawing of those qualified under the covenant, but says nothing to how one qualifies to be in the covenant. In fact, having the same faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ that Abraham had is how one qualifies to be in the covenant. This is why Calvin and Arminius were both so very wrong... they both thought faith DIRECTLY qualified one for righteousness. It does not. Faith qualifies a person for human adoption into kinship with Abraham... then those who are descendants of Abraham qualify for the covenant and inherit Christ's righteousness which was given to Abraham in Genesis 15:5-6.

Gal 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.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
​

 

[InTheLight]

Please explain to us how God could create all things and pronounce them as "good" and yet create Adam a sinner (harmatia) when Solomon says God created man "upright"??

Taking the definition of sin "come short of the glory of God" how can that be a basis for just condemnation as demanded by the context in Romans 3:9-23 and yet God pronounce that to be "good" since you believe Adam was created with a sinful nature or nature that comes short of the glory of God. How can harmatia be condemned and yet God call it "good"???

It seems you are building your entire case against JonC on "harmatia" existing before Adam sinned and the idea that JonC said God created Adam as "harmatia". You also assert that JonC is saying Adam was created with a sinful nature.

Nowhere in this thread do I see this.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are mistaken.

I am not saying harmatia was "good" or a part of created nature (hence your inability to quote me saying it was).

I am saying harmatia in terms of man's nature never existed. We have a human nature. We need a spiritual nature. It is not a flaw but God's own design.

You quoted Romans 3:23 to back up your claim that human nature prior to the fall "misses the mark" in keeping with your quote of Rom. 3:23 "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Here was my question that you attempted to answer:

"You have not answered my question. Are we sinners BEFORE we commit any disobedience on our part. And if so, what constitutes us being viewed as sinners? What law did we break to constitute us as sinners as sin is the violation of the law." - Biblicist

Here is your direct reply:

"Do we have a nature that "misses the mark"? Yes, absolutely. We are just like Adam prior to the Fall.
Will we be carried away by our own lusts and sin, just like Adam did? Yes, absolutely.

Just like Adam, our sins are manifestations of our nature" - Jon c

You are responding directly to my question "are we sinners BEFORE we commit any disobedience on our part" Your direct response was "Do we have A NATURE THAT "MISSES THE MARK"? YES. WE ARE JUST LIKE ADAM PRIOR TO THE FALL."

You are plainly saying that post-fallen men have the very same nature as Adam prior to his fall and that is "a nature that "misses the mark"? YES, ABSOLUTELY"

Then you solidify that answer by going on to say "JUST LIKE ADAM, our sins are MANIFESTATIONS OF OUR NATURE" meaning his prefallen nature is precisely like post-fallen human nature.

Everyone on this forum knows that "missing the mark" is a definition of SIN and you claim the prefallen Adam was by nature sinful in nature or by nature "missing the mark."

 

[Gup20]

Amen. Which is better, the First covenant or the Last covenant?

It's funny because the covenant of faith (the 2nd covenant) came 430 years before the covenant of The Law (the 1st covenant). But faith was never in full effect until after Christ performed his work.

Gal 3:13-18 NASB
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"-- 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is [only] a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [referring] to many, but [rather] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

Gen 15:5-6 KJV
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.​

Here we see God tells Abraham about Jesus (according to Gal 3:16), and when Abraham believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Gal 3:8,16), God makes him righteous. Then God RATIFIES this covenant with Abraham in the latter half of Genesis 15:

Gen 15:17-18 NASB
17 It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, [there appeared] a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:
​

THis is how covenants were ratified in those days... you split animals in half and walked between the halves with fire signifying that this is what would be done to anyone who breaks the covenant.

So the covenant of FAITH came 430 years before the Law of Moses.... so take special note of what Galatians 3:15 says - once a covenant has been ratified, no one can set it aside or add conditions to it. Since The Law came 430 years AFTER the covenant of faith, the Law of Moses does not amend or add conditions to the covenant of faith. Therefore, the covenant of faith is APART FROM and OUTSIDE OF The Law of Moses. Therefore there is no theological legitimacy to works-based salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Brother, you are incorrect. It says in verse 65 "For this reason I said that no one can come to me unless granted by the Father". The reason given in verse 64 is unbelief. It does not say "they are in unbelief because they are in unbelief" ... rather... it says "they have not been granted permission by the father to come to be because of their unbelief." If your interpretation were correct it would say:

​

No! "this reason" immediately follows and is clearly stated for why they were in the state of unbelief - "I said that no man CAN COME to me UNLESS given by the Father."

Why is it that "NO MAN CAN COME TO ME"? Do you understand the question? All men are already in unbelief and he is saying ALL UNBELIEVERS are unable to come to me in faith EXCEPT the father draw them. The reason they don't come is because they are not able. If the father does not draw them they CANNOT COME TO ME.

 

[The Biblicist]

It seems you are building your entire case against JonC on "harmatia" existing before Adam sinned and the idea that JonC said God created Adam as "harmatia". You also assert that JonC is saying Adam was created with a sinful nature.

Nowhere in this thread do I see this.

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

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.

This was his direct response to my question to show me sin existed prior to the fall.

 

[JonShaff]

It's funny because the covenant of faith (the 2nd covenant) came 430 years before the covenant of The Law (the 1st covenant). But faith was never in full effect until after Christ performed his work.

Gal 3:13-18 NASB
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"-- 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is [only] a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [referring] to many, but [rather] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

Gen 15:5-6 KJV
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.​

Here we see God tells Abraham about Jesus (according to Gal 3:16), and when Abraham believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Gal 3:8,16), God makes him righteous. Then God RATIFIES this covenant with Abraham in the latter half of Genesis 15:

Gen 15:17-18 NASB
17 It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, [there appeared] a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:
​

THis is how covenants were ratified in those days... you split animals in half and walked between the halves with fire signifying that this is what would be done to anyone who breaks the covenant.

So the covenant of FAITH came 430 years before the Law of Moses.... so take special note of what Galatians 3:15 says - once a covenant has been ratified, no one can set it aside or add conditions to it. Since The Law came 430 years AFTER the covenant of faith, the Law of Moses does not amend or add conditions to the covenant of faith. Therefore, the covenant of faith is APART FROM and OUTSIDE OF The Law of Moses. Therefore there is no theological legitimacy to works-based salvation.

Yes! Christ is before all, yet He came on the scene last. His covenant, promise, work, inheritance was a reality before everything, yet in time and space it came second and last.

Just as Jacob received the firstborn promise, although he was second, Christ was always the promised purpose even though He came as the Last.

 

[The Biblicist]

But faith was never in full effect until after Christ performed his work.

absolutely and completely false and none of your texts say that. You are reading that in the texts. In fact, they say the very opposite.

Gal 3:13-18

NASB
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"-- 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is [only] a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [referring] to many, but [rather] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

Gen 15:5-6 KJV
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

The promise of the Spirit has always been preached as it is part of the gospel preached since the foundation of the world (Acts 10:43; Isa. 53; etc.). His point is that the Law which occurred in about 1500 B.C. did not invalidate the promise given to Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:15) and preached by all the prophets beginning with Abel (Acts 10:43) and only "ratified" with Abraham about 2000 B.C. and remained to be preached under Moses (Heb. 4:2) is the gospel of the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 12:20) and only gospel ever preached.​

Gen 15:17-18 NASB
17 It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, [there appeared] a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:
​

This gospel was preached and received by faith from Genesis to the first coming of Christ and the law only served to show they were sinners and unable to justify themselves by works but led them to faith in Christ.

The cross only legally ratified the promise but never kept God from applying it by faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

Exactly!!!

The error some seem to hold is what ANE religion sought to effect - a return to "Eden". The difference God breathed into that world by virtue of the Hebrew religion and then the New Covenant is the New Creation. We are reconciled not by a recipitulation but by a rebirth. Creation itself will be made anew.

Jesus is not "Adam restored" but the "Last Adam", the "Firstborn".

Jon, it seems that you consistently employ the same debate tactic when you can't give an answer. You simply wait until that thread is buried so far in the past that no one can recall and then you can paraphrase it to your advantage any way you like.

Such is the case for the evidence I placed before that proves there was a change in the MORAL NATURE of man by the fall. Those posts are posts #135, 141 and 143.

Are you going to wait until this thread is also closed????

 

[Yeshua1]

It seems you are building your entire case against JonC on "harmatia" existing before Adam sinned and the idea that JonC said God created Adam as "harmatia". You also assert that JonC is saying Adam was created with a sinful nature.

Nowhere in this thread do I see this.

Adam before he fell was not sinning against God, and started to, and kept on after the fall, so clearly changed his nature!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

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.

This was his direct response to my question to show me sin existed prior to the fall.

Jon C needs to hold as he does in this area, due to him seeing Jesus born with same nature as we all now have, with him never choosing to sin the difference!

 

[Gup20]

No! "this reason" immediately follows and is clearly stated for why they were in the state of unbelief - "I said that no man CAN COME to me UNLESS given by the Father."

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.

Why is it that "NO MAN CAN COME TO ME"? Do you understand the question? All men are already in unbelief and he is saying ALL UNBELIEVERS are unable to come to me in faith EXCEPT the father draw them. The reason they don't come is because they are not able. If the father does not draw them they CANNOT COME TO ME.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly!!!

The error some seem to hold is what ANE religion sought to effect - a return to "Eden". The difference God breathed into that world by virtue of the Hebrew religion and then the New Covenant is the New Creation. We are reconciled not by a recipitulation but by a rebirth. Creation itself will be made anew.

Jesus is not "Adam restored" but the "Last Adam", the "Firstborn".

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

 

[Gup20]

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.

 

[JonC]

You quoted Romans 3:23 to back up your claim that human nature prior to the fall "misses the mark" in keeping with your quote of Rom. 3:23 "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Here was my question that you attempted to answer:

"You have not answered my question. Are we sinners BEFORE we commit any disobedience on our part. And if so, what constitutes us being viewed as sinners? What law did we break to constitute us as sinners as sin is the violation of the law." - Biblicist

Here is your direct reply:

"Do we have a nature that "misses the mark"? Yes, absolutely. We are just like Adam prior to the Fall.
Will we be carried away by our own lusts and sin, just like Adam did? Yes, absolutely.

Just like Adam, our sins are manifestations of our nature" - Jon c

You are responding directly to my question "are we sinners BEFORE we commit any disobedience on our part" Your direct response was "Do we have A NATURE THAT "MISSES THE MARK"? YES. WE ARE JUST LIKE ADAM PRIOR TO THE FALL."

You are plainly saying that post-fallen men have the very same nature as Adam prior to his fall and that is "a nature that "misses the mark"? YES, ABSOLUTELY"

Then you solidify that answer by going on to say "JUST LIKE ADAM, our sins are MANIFESTATIONS OF OUR NATURE" meaning his prefallen nature is precisely like post-fallen human nature.

Everyone on this forum knows that "missing the mark" is a definition of SIN and you claim the prefallen Adam was by nature sinful in nature or by nature "missing the mark."

To clarify, I believe

- we are not sinners before we sin.
- we are born of the flesh
- Adam was not a sinner before he sinned
- Adam was created in the flesh
- God dod not create man with a "sin nature"
- God created man with a human nature

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

 

[Yeshua1]

To clarify, I believe

- we are not sinners before we sin.
- we are born of the flesh
- Adam was not a sinner before he sinned
- Adam was created in the flesh
- God dod not create man with a "sin nature"
- God created man with a human nature

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

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