Romans 5:12 - the only possible view

[The Biblicist]

He condemns them neither for their ability or inability at all. He condemns them each and every one for their own sins, and those of no other.

Adam the Voodoo Doll.

Sympathetic magic. Get out of the Dark Ages. Your eternally existent soul-ghost, will, essence, spirit what-have-you was not presently a partaker concurrent with Adam in eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

No, they are condemned because they did have law and they willfully broke it. It was the Law written upon man's hearts vs. the Law written on clay tablets that Moses codified to the Hebrews. The Law that Paul belabored for an entire chapter to demonstrate the existence of 3 and 4 chapters earlier.

One Law they did NOT HAVE is some command not to eat of any particular tree. They weren't aware of that rule, there was no garden to get to that tree (at least after the flood)...and there were angels guarding that tree in that garden such that they couldn't have eaten of that tree even if they'd wanted to.

Rom 1: 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
.....vs. 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.
...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;
... 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God
Rom 2:14
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

It had nothing to do with the tree or Adam's eating the fruit in vicarious representation of men...it has to do with men breaking the Law which existed from the time of Adam up to the point of Moses. Which includes all the sins Paul mentions in chapters 1 and 2 of Romans. It's so much more simple than all of these ethereal machinations which Calvinism is binding Theology to.

Animals, then, and the whole of creation, was willfully sinning and partaking of Adam's act of sympathetic magic for they also die.

Absurd.

Not worthy of a response

 

[The Biblicist]

#1 is wrong, because verse 14 tells us men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude of Adam's sin. If your view was correct, they would have been guilty of committing Adam's exact sin.

Verses 13-14 are given to reinforce the statement in verse 12 about how sin came into the world through one man. Your response offers no such reinforcement.

However, death between Adam and Moses explained by one man's sin of Genesus 2;17 provides reinforcement for verse 12 and the repetitious "by one man" in verses 17-19. Furthermore, the death of infants and all incapable of personal willful sin provides reinforcement that sin came into the world by one man's sin in verse 12.

2 is wrong, when Adam sinned God banned men from the tree of life, so all men die as a CONSEQUENCE of Adam's sin. It is like a bus going off a cliff, all the passengers on the bus die as a consequence of the driver being drunk, but they are not guilty of being drunk themselves.

If this is the reason then Paul is being irresponsible not to specfically say so as he is dealing specifically how sin and death came upon all men and yet he never mentiones your idea. What he gives as the reason is Adam's violation of Genesis 2:17 or by "one man's sin".

Animals also die as a consequence of Adam's sin and they cannot sin, neither was Adam their Federal head, which shows your view is error.

Adam was the appointed king over this world and with his violation of Genesus 2:17 both the animate and inaminate kingdom he ruled over was subjected to sin, death of animate creatures and first and second laws of thermodymics in inanimate things.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Not worthy of a response

Incapable of a cogent response you mean? Yes, 'tis true.

 

[The Biblicist]

Incapable of a cogent response you mean? Yes, 'tis true.

No, that is not the case; Your post is filled with so much ridicule that it does deserve any response.

 

[Inspector Javert]

No, that is not the case; Your post is filled with so much ridicule that it does deserve any response.

It is the case:
Yes, I greatly ridiculed the positions which were absurd...but also offered a much more Scriptural explanation of Paul's meaning in chapter 5....

You are hiding behind the "ridicule" portion to escape the more Biblical response to your misunderstanding and eisegesis of Romans 5.

I ridicule preposterous ideas sometimes. So do you.
Personal guilt by some form of personal participation in Adam's vicarious sinning is a preposterous and antiquated heresy best left to ridicule and being left on the ash-heap of other ancient medieval heresies.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is the case:
Yes, I greatly ridiculed the positions which were absurd...but also offered a much more Scriptural explanation of Paul's meaning in chapter 5....

The use of ridicule only reveals arrogance and that does not promote any civil discussion;

You are hiding behind the "ridicule" portion to escape the more Biblical response to your misunderstanding and eisegesis of Romans 5.

If there is one thing I am not guilty of is hiding and everyone on this forum knows that. I am more confrontational with arguments than many on this forum. Some of your objections were answered in my post to Winman.

I ridicule preposterous ideas sometimes. So do you.

I used to do that. But I don't think you will find that in my posts since I came back on.

Personal guilt by some form of personal participation in Adam's vicarious sinning is a preposterous and antiquated heresy best left to ridicule and being left on the ash-heap of other ancient medieval heresies.

The scriptures clearly teach it and it is the only interpretation that can justify God obigated fallen man to keep what he is unable to keep and yet condemning him for failure to keep. No post-defacto salvation can invalidate what has already been established as any post-defacto salvation only proves it has been established already or there is no need for salvation at all as man can be his own savior.

 

[The Biblicist]

He condemns them neither for their ability or inability at all. He condemns them each and every one for their own sins, and those of no other.

You are completely missing the point. He does in fact obligate INDIVIDUALS to do what He knows they are incapable of doing - keeping the Law without violation. That is the fact of scripture. He furthemore justly condemns them for their individual violation of His Law. My interpretation of Romans 5:12-19 is the only possible interpretation that can justify God demanding from individual fallen man what they are incapable of doing and yet condemning them as sinners.

No, they are condemned because they did have law and they willfully broke it.

Note the end reference point is Moses and so He is referring to LAW PUBLICLY REVEALED DIRECTLY FROM GOD TO MEN or else there is no point in making Moses the final reference point becuase LAW OF CONSCIENCE did not end with Moses. Genesis 2:17 and Exodus 20 are PUBLICLY REVEALED LAW directly from God to man. Furthermore, the fact that no public revealed law from God to man between Adam and Moses reinforces that sin and death entered the world by ONE MAN not many men many times as your position demands. If sin enters through offended conscience he could have said that but instead he repetitively gives the cause as the ACTION by "ONE MAN" not by many men and many sins as your doctrine demands.

One Law they did NOT HAVE is some command not to eat of any particular tree. They weren't aware of that rule, there was no garden to get to that tree (at least after the flood)...and there were angels guarding that tree in that garden such that they couldn't have eaten of that tree even if they'd wanted to.

If failure to eat of a certain tree or inability to obtain access to a certain tree were the cause then Romans 5:12 should have stated that was the real problem instead of the actions (rather than non-action) by "ONE MAN." If your idea was valid we should not have the repititous "by one man" from Romans 5:12 onward as the repeated explanation.

12 Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:
15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded to many.
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 offenses to justification.
17 For if by one man’s offense 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.)
18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came on all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came on all men to justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The repetitious explanation for the cause of death, sin, condemnation, judgement is inexcusable if the real reason for death and sin is individual based rather than federal based.

It had nothing to do with the tree or Adam's eating the fruit in vicarious representation of men...it has to do with men breaking the Law which existed from the time of Adam up to the point of Moses.

If that were the case then Paul should have said so when he was explicitly dealing with the cause in Romans 5:12-19 rather than vainly and repititously repeating that the ACTION by "one man" was the cause. If that were the case then why stop at Moses since law of conscience is universal up to present time while the law of Moses has been abolished (Col. 2:14-16) as a covenant and that was what was established by Moses - Law covenant between God and Israel not between God and Men, so the making Moses the ending point does not support your theory. Moses is the next time in human history where God directly revealed law to men. The first time is in the garden in Genesis 2:17. That fact reinforces the argument that it was by ONE MAN sin and death came into the world and is "passed" on to his progenity through natural generation.

Animals, then, and the whole of creation, was willfully sinning and partaking of Adam's act of sympathetic magic for they also die.

Adam's entire kingdom including the INAMINATE part was directly affected by his sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are completely missing the point. He does in fact obligate INDIVIDUALS to do what He knows they are incapable of doing - keeping the Law without violation. That is the fact of scripture. He furthemore justly condemns them for their individual violation of His Law. My interpretation of Romans 5:12-19 is the only possible interpretation that can justify God demanding from individual fallen man what they are incapable of doing and yet condemning them as sinners.




Note the end reference point is Moses and so He is referring to LAW PUBLICLY REVEALED DIRECTLY FROM GOD TO MEN or else there is no point in making Moses the final reference point becuase LAW OF CONSCIENCE did not end with Moses. Genesis 2:17 and Exodus 20 are PUBLICLY REVEALED LAW directly from God to man. Furthermore, the fact that no public revealed law from God to man between Adam and Moses reinforces that sin and death entered the world by ONE MAN not many men many times as your position demands. If sin enters through offended conscience he could have said that but instead he repetitively gives the cause as the ACTION by "ONE MAN" not by many men and many sins as your doctrine demands.




If failure to eat of a certain tree or inability to obtain access to a certain tree were the cause then Romans 5:12 should have stated that was the real problem instead of the actions (rather than non-action) by "ONE MAN." If your idea was valid we should not have the repititous "by one man" from Romans 5:12 onward as the repeated explanation.




If that were the case then Paul should have said so when he was explicitly dealing with the cause in Romans 5:12-19 rather than vainly and repititously repeating that the ACTION by "one man" was the cause. If that were the case then why stop at Moses since law of conscience is universal up to present time while the law of Moses has been abolished (Col. 2:14-16) as a covenant and that was what was established by Moses - Law covenant between God and Israel not between God and Men, so the making Moses the ending point does not support your theory. Moses is the next time in human history where God directly revealed law to men. The first time is in the garden in Genesis 2:17. That fact reinforces the argument that it was by ONE MAN sin and death came into the world and is "passed" on to his progenity through natural generation.




Adam's entire kingdom including the INAMINATE part was directly affected by his sin.

Those who oppose my interpretation of Romans have one serious problem that characterizes all their theories. Romans 5:12, 17-19 explicitly traces the entrance and passage of sin and death to men to be the ACTION by ONE MAN rather than individual actions or indivdual violation of conscience, or lack of ability by individuals to access the tree of life, or ect.

12 Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:
15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded to many.
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 offenses to justification.
17 For if by one man’s offense 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.)
18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came on all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came on all men to justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

If sin, death, judgement is the direct and immediate result of individual violation of conscience, or their own sins, or failure to access the tree of life then it is inexcusable that Paul attributes such things repeatedly due to "one man's disobedience" WITHOUT SO MUCH AS EVEN THE MENTION OF ANY OF THESE THINGS THAT MY OPPONENTS CLAIM TO BE THE REAL CAUSE OF DEATH, SIN AND JUDGEMENT IN THE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I used to do that. But I don't think you will find that in my posts since I came back on.

I will say this:

I have noticed (and I am sure I am not the only one), that you have at minimum attempted to engage others as reasonably, non-confrontationally and irenically as you can, and I commend you for it. :wavey:

You have tried very hard to be positive, rational and fair. I do not think that has passed us by unawares. :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

I will say this:

I have noticed (and I am sure I am not the only one), that you have at minimum attempted to engage others as reasonably, non-confrontationally and irenically as you can, and I commend you for it. :wavey:

You have tried very hard to be positive, rational and fair. I do not think that has passed us by unawares. :thumbs:

Thank you.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Those who oppose my interpretation of Romans have one serious problem that characterizes all their theories. Romans 5:12, 17-19 explicitly traces the entrance and passage of sin and death to men to be the ACTION by ONE MAN rather than individual actions or indivdual violation of conscience, or lack of ability by individuals to access the tree of life, or ect.

That's all true, and no one denies that. I don't think we have made ourselves as clear as we might. Decidedly, all DEATH, and Sin itself entered due to one man's action as you said. Sin is now already in the world, and the curse of a sin-sick world took only the actions of Adam to sufficiently curse all of creation.

But that is not the same thing as to say that all individuals are personal participants in Adam's particular transgression. That is not so, and the Scriptures do not teach it.

You did not transgress God's Law when Adam ate of the tree, neither did I. You transgressed God's Law when YOU willfully sinned. There wasn't a thing in the world wrong with that tree. It wasn't poison. What mattered was Adam's willful choice to disobey.....he did so, just as we ALL do. But that does not make us co-participants. Scripture does not demand that we believe that. It doesn't teach it.

 

[The Biblicist]

But that is not the same thing as to say that all individuals are personal participants in Adam's particular transgression. That is not so, and the Scriptures do not teach it.

Why is it that Paul does not even mention any of the reasons Arminians give but repetitously repeats over and over that it is the ACTION of disobedience BY ONE MAN that is the cause of the condemnation, death and judgement of MANY rather than individual sins of many or lack of access to the tree of life by many, etc.??????

Secondly, in the summary verse (Rom. 5:12) which is further defended and expanded (Rom. 5:13-19) it states in the Aorist tense that all men have already sinned as a completed action and then reinforces this by explicitly stating the death and condemnation OF MANY is not due to the Sins plural of many BUTto the singular sin of ONE MAN which directly contradicts every reason you give!!!!!

Thirdly, my interpretation is the only possible basis to justify God for demanding of fallen man what He knew and clearly stated they were unable to do and yet condemn them as sinners - coming short of what the law demands. The only possible grounds for justly condemning those unable to keep an obligation is if they already freely forfeited that ability "BY ONE MAN" wherein existed and consisted the whole human nature acting in unison in ONE MAN freely forfeiting the prefallen state of ability to obey God by sin thus falling into A STATE OF TOTAL INABILITY and therefore responsible for their inability to keep God's Law.

, neither did I. You transgressed God's Law when YOU willfully sinned. There wasn't a thing in the world wrong with that tree. It wasn't poison. What mattered was Adam's willful choice to disobey.....he did so, just as we ALL do. But that does not make us co-participants. Scripture does not demand that we believe that. It doesn't teach it.

Then it is completely inexcusable that Paul would place the blame on ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE for the sins of many, the death of many and the condemenation of many and NOT EVEN MENTION YOUR REASONS not even once! That makes no sense at all if your reasons are the real reasons for individual death. Your reasons cannot explain the death of infants and those mentally incapable why they should be subject to death but the existence of the total human nature consisting in, and acting in one man does explain this (Rom. 5:12,14b). The death of men in the distinct time period between Adam and Moses does not aid the law of conscience theory as conscience exists both before and after the Mosaic law covenant but it does support that death of indivduals must be traced to the violation of the public law given directly from God to men in Genesis 2:17 as the only other publicly delivered law directly given from God to men is Exodus 20.

The weakness of your position is that Paul NEVER EVEN MENTIONS ANY OF YOUR REASONS as the cause of sin, death and judgement of INDIVIDUALS but repetitively claims such is the results of ONE MANS ACTION rather than many men's actions.

 

[Winman]

Those who oppose my interpretation of Romans have one serious problem that characterizes all their theories. Romans 5:12, 17-19 explicitly traces the entrance and passage of sin and death to men to be the ACTION by ONE MAN rather than individual actions or indivdual violation of conscience, or lack of ability by individuals to access the tree of life, or ect.

12 Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:
15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded to many.
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 offenses to justification.
17 For if by one man’s offense 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.)
18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came on all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came on all men to justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

If sin, death, judgement is the direct and immediate result of individual violation of conscience, or their own sins, or failure to access the tree of life then it is inexcusable that Paul attributes such things repeatedly due to "one man's disobedience" WITHOUT SO MUCH AS EVEN THE MENTION OF ANY OF THESE THINGS THAT MY OPPONENTS CLAIM TO BE THE REAL CAUSE OF DEATH, SIN AND JUDGEMENT IN THE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS.

You are correct, this chapter is both comparing and contrasting one work of Adam to one work of Christ.

What Paul is explaining in chapter 5 is that both Adam and Jesus are being used as a LEGAL PRECEDENT.

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. ..

A legal precedent is how the law maintains consistency. It is like punishment for like violation, lawbreakers are treated fairly and the same.

This is what Paul is saying in Romans 5. Because of Adam, whenever one transgresses God's law, he is judged a "sinner". This is a legal term, like the word "felon".

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Because of Adam, every person who transgresses God's law is made or judged a sinner. Also to every man who sins as Adam did is condemned to death exactly as Adam was.

Jesus is the same and the opposite. When a person believes on Jesus for salvation, they are imputed righteous, just as Jesus was righteous when he trusted God and died for our sins.

Chapter 5 is not teaching Original Sin, it is not saying Adam's sin passed on all men as your falsely teach. God said the son SHALL NOT BEAR the iniquity of his father.

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

You are completely missing the point. He does in fact obligate INDIVIDUALS to do what He knows they are incapable of doing -

I am not missing it in the least.....and B.T.W. you continually assume I have a problem with God holding man responsible for failure to do what he is incapable of doing. I have no problem with that. Few people (if any) who disagree with you have a problem with that idea....

I think perhaps Calvinist polemic has taught you that we have a problem with that idea. We don't.

keeping the Law without violation. That is the fact of scripture.

Yeah, we all know actually....I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise. You truly don't understand your opposition very well I think.

He furthemore justly condemns them for their individual violation of His Law.

Yes, so.

My interpretation of Romans 5:12-19 is the only possible interpretation that can justify God demanding from individual fallen man what they are incapable of doing and yet condemning them as sinners.

I don't think God needs any justification whatsoever.....it's bound in his nature.

As the heretical and Pelagianistic C.S. Lewis brilliantly said "Perfect love cannot be reconciled to an un-lovely object" <----(That's us). Instead, the un-lovely must be perfected first before perfect Love is even capable of reconciling to it.

Your opponents do not, and never have sweated God condemning man for failing to be perfect. It is bound in his nature to be incapable of reconciling himself to it.

Your opponents don't debate that. Calvinist Polemic has taught you that they do.

Note the end reference point is Moses and so He is referring to LAW PUBLICLY REVEALED DIRECTLY FROM GOD TO MEN

Nature and man's conscience and the invisible things of God are according to Paul a VERY PUBLICALLY REVEALED LAW DIRECTLY FROM GOD. That's the whole point of the first two chapters.

or else there is no point in making Moses the final reference point becuase LAW OF CONSCIENCE did not end with Moses

.
The point in making Moses the final reference is because there is written codified law. But the law reigning from Adam to Moses is not the revelation of command not to eat of the tree....it's man's innate knowledge of right and wrong.....It continues, of course, because even post-Moses, men are still rightly condemned by their own consciences. God did not post the Law on the internet.

Furthermore, the fact that no public revealed law from God

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
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.

to man between Adam and Moses reinforces that sin and death entered the world by ONE MAN not many men many times as your position demands.

Sin and death entered the world once and only once and by only one man.....That has never been debated.

You are repeating this in order to insist on something else entirely:
Namely:
That all individuals are condemned individually by their inexplicable co-participation in Adam's sin. That is an entirely different idea all-together. You can't boot-strap them together.

That's bait-and-switch.

If sin enters through offended conscience he could have said that but instead he repetitively gives the cause as the ACTION by "ONE MAN" not by many men and many sins as your doctrine demands.
If failure to eat of a certain tree or inability to obtain access to a certain tree were the cause then Romans 5:12 should have stated that was the real problem instead of the actions (rather than non-action) by "ONE MAN."

Explaining the condemnation of individuals and their guilt simply wasn't Paul's purpose. He was driving at different points altogether.

The repetitious explanation for the cause of death, sin, condemnation, judgement is inexcusable if the real reason for death and sin is individual based rather than federal based.

Not if it wasn't Paul's intention to describe the nuts and bolts of Hamartiology and individual guilt and condemnation altogether....

He was juxtaposing Adam vs. Christ. That's why he continually repeated the comparison. Paul already accomplished that 3-and-a-half chapters ago. He wasn't commenting on individual condemnation or justification.

 

[Winman]

Then it is completely inexcusable that Paul would place the blame on ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE for the sins of many, the death of many and the condemenation of many and NOT EVEN MENTION YOUR REASONS not even once! That makes no sense at all if your reasons are the real reasons for individual death. Your reasons cannot explain the death of infants and those mentally incapable why they should be subject to death but the existence of the total human nature consisting in, and acting in one man does explain this (Rom. 5:12,14b). The death of men in the distinct time period between Adam and Moses does not aid the law of conscience theory as conscience exists both before and after the Mosaic law covenant but it does support that death of indivduals must be traced to the violation of the public law given directly from God to men in Genesis 2:17 as the only other publicly delivered law directly given from God to men is Exodus 20.

Paul is not blaming Adam for the sins of others, he is simply saying Adam introduced sin into the world, and that death came by sin, therefore death passes on all men, because they have likewise sinned.

This is "legal precedent", it is treating men consistently for the same crime. Adam's judgment and condemnation to death was used as the basis or precedent to punish those who came after him who sinned as he did. Everyone after Adam was judged or "made" a sinner, and the sentence of "death" was passed to them, just as it was for Adam.

Likewise, when one believes on Jesus, they are imputed righteous, just as Jesus was righteous when he trusted his Father to raise him from the dead.

Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Jesus trusted his Father when he placed his soul in God's hands and then allowed himself to die.

When we trust Jesus to save us as Jesus trusted his Father, we are imputed righteous. Jesus was the "legal precedent" for those who trust God.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Paul is not blaming Adam for the sins of others, he is simply saying Adam introduced sin into the world, and that death came by sin, therefore death passes on all men, because they have likewise sinned.

This is "legal precedent", it is treating men consistently for the same crime. Adam's judgment and condemnation to death was used as the basis or precedent to punish those who came after him who sinned as he did. Everyone after Adam was judged or "made" a sinner, and the sentence of "death" was passed to them, just as it was for Adam.

Likewise, when one believes on Jesus, they are imputed righteous, just as Jesus was righteous when he trusted his Father to raise him from the dead.

Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Jesus trusted his Father when he placed his soul in God's hands and then allowed himself to die.

When we trust Jesus to save us as Jesus trusted his Father, we are imputed righteous. Jesus was the "legal precedent" for those who trust God.

:thumbs::thumbsING DING DING!!!!:jesus::jesus:

 

[Winman]

I do not agree with Inspector Javert in believing God punishes men for something they are not able to do.

Each law CAN be obeyed. I do not have to lie or steal, or commit any sin, I am always able to do what is right.

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

The scriptures show John the Baptist's parents were very godly people, it says they "walked" in "all" the commandments and ordinances "blameless".

So men are able to obey the law, therefore God is just to condemn all men to death when they sin.

 

[Winman]

:thumbs::thumbsING DING DING!!!!:jesus::jesus:

Yes, Paul is explaining that Adam and Jesus are the model or "legal precedent" for those who do like acts after them.

For his sin, Adam was judged or made a sinner and condemned to death. When we sin, we are judged or made a sinner and condemned to death.

Jesus was judged righteous when he trusted his Father and died on the cross. When we trust Jesus to save us we are imputed righteous.

This is what Paul is teaching in Romans 5.

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."[1] Common law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies), and regulatory law (regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies).

 

[Inspector Javert]

I do not agree with Inspector Javert in believing God punishes men for something they are not able to do.

They were not capable of having never sinned. They did not exist sinlessly.

Each law CAN be obeyed.

Not at all times by all people without error. Perfection is impossible.

I do not have to lie or steal, or commit any sin, I am always able to do what is right.

In every individual case, yes, you are incapable of a lifetime of living sinlessly.

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless

.
The "ORDINANCES" are critical:
The "ordinances" were those laws which atonened for their sin...
They were "righteous" because God imparted righteousness to them through the sacrifices and atonement available to imperfect persons in the O.T.....Not because they were without wrong-doing.

It was "righteousness" which was imparted by blood sacrifice of the perfect lamb...just as ours is imparted through the same thing.

The scriptures show John the Baptist's parents were very godly people, it says they "walked" in "all" the commandments and ordinances "blameless".

As a Priest....John's daddy made atoning sacrifices, and was therefore "blameless".

So men are able to obey the law,

They are not capable of perfection.

therefore God is just to condemn all men to death when they sin.

Yes.

 

[Winman]

They were not capable of having never sinned. They did not exist sinlessly.

Individually, each law can be obeyed. I have lied probably many hundreds or thousands of times, but I didn't HAVE to. I could have told the truth each time. Nobody held a gun to my head.

Not at all times by all people without error. Perfection is impossible.

I understand what you are saying and agree, but on an individual case, a man can always choose to do what is right.

In every individual case, yes, you are incapable of a lifetime of living sinlessly.

Again, on an individual case I can always obey the law. Overall, I cannot. But it is not lack of ability, it is lack of obedience.
.

The "ORDINANCES" are critical:
The "ordinances" were those laws which atonened for their sin...
They were "righteous" because God imparted righteousness to them through the sacrifices and atonement available to imperfect persons in the O.T.....Not because they were without wrong-doing.

Yes, they had to give sin offerings, I was quite aware of that.

It was "righteousness" which was imparted by blood sacrifice of the perfect lamb...just as ours is imparted through the same thing.

As a Priest....John's daddy made atoning sacrifices, and was therefore "blameless".

They are not capable of perfection.

Yes.

I fully realized that Zacharias and Elisabeth had to give sin offerings. I am not saying they lived their whole lives without sinning.

But each law on an individual case can be obeyed at the time. No one ever HAS to sin.

It is like baseball, no hitter has ever batted 1.000, but in theory, it is entirely possible for them to do so.

You could get a rookie who goes 4 for 4 in his first game, gets injured and never plays again. He batted 1.000 for his career.

We are able to obey any law at the given moment, so God is just in condemning us when we sin.