Romans 5:12 - the only possible view

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Because it is an indisputable fact of Scripture that God obligated fallen man to do what they were unable to do - keep His Law - and yet justly condemned them as sinners under the penalty of death, there is no other possible interpretation of Romans 5:12-15 that can justify the condemnation for inaibilty than the interpretation all mankind existed and consisted in one human nature acting in unison within ONE MAN - Adam. Mankind or the totality of human nature existed in the unfallen state of ability to keep God's law in Genesis 2:17 and freely and response-ably forfeited that ability and fell into a state of INABILITY due to their own choice to sin. Thus, God can justly demand what fallen man cannot do and condemn them justly as sinners worthy of death.

1. The only law revealed to mankind from Genesis to Moses is the Law in Genesis 2:17. Thus death of all who lived between Adam and Moses can only be attributed to the violation of Genesis 2:17 proving that "all men" existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN violating Genesis 2:17. - vv. 13-14a

2. The fact that all who do not individually willfully choose to sin but yet suffer death (infants, mentally impaired) prove that total humanity existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN violating Genesis 2:17 - v. 14b

 

[Skandelon]

Because it is an indisputable fact of Scripture that God obligated fallen man to do what they were unable to do - keep His Law - and yet justly condemned them as sinners

"Abraham believed and God credit to HIM as righteousness."

Why wasn't Abraham condemned? Wasn't he born under Adam too?

Was Abraham effectually/irresistibly called (as Calvinism presumes) or was he 'responsible' (able to respond) as we believe? That is our point of contention here, because if what WE believe is true then the idea of inability ONLY EXISTS in the Calvinistic worldview.

Biblicist, please listen and understand...You have to beg the question (presume true the very point up for debate) for this argument of yours to have any meat. In other words, you have to presume the foundational premise of Calvinism is true in order for this argument to be true. That is question begging at is very worst.

 

[The Biblicist]

"Abraham believed and God credit to HIM as righteousness."

Why wasn't Abraham condemned? Wasn't he born under Adam too

Why did Abraham need to be JUSTIFIED? Why did Abraham need the gospel preached to him?

Tell me, why does anyone need salvation? According to your logic there is no condemnation and if no condemnation, no need for justificaiton or salvation. Your reasoning is irrational.

 

[Skandelon]

Why did Abraham need to be JUSTIFIED? Why did Abraham need the gospel preached to him?

Tell me, why does anyone need salvation?

Because they are bound over to disobedience. They are sinners in need of savior. They need atonement.

According to your logic there is no condemnation and if no condemnation, no need for justificaiton or salvation. Your reasoning is irrational.

I agreed with Paul who wrote, "God has bound all men over to disobedience..." Do all men need salvation if they have all been bound over to disobedience? Of course they do.

So, what is the difference in our views? I affirm the second half of that sentence and you don't.

..."so He might show mercy to all men." He could have condemned all men to hell, but INSTEAD he shows them mercy, thus HE chose not to hold them accountable for something they could not control. IN fact, he goes on to reveal that they were never meant to actually fulfill it in the first place. The purpose of the law wasn't to be fulfilled by men, but to point them to their need of mercy....WHICH HE PROVIDES TO ALL.

 

[The Biblicist]

Because they are bound over to disobedience. They are sinners in need of savior. They need atonement.

Justification is only necessary if you have been CONDEMNED ALREADY - period! Salvation is only necessy if you have ALREADY BEEN CONDEMNED UNDER SIN!

Mercy by it definition is only for those JUSTLY CONDEMNED.

Your reasonings are irrational, unbiblical and self-contradictory.

 

[Skandelon]

Was Abraham effectually/irresistibly called (as Calvinism presumes) or was he 'responsible' (able to respond) as we believe? That is our point of contention here, because if what WE believe is true then the idea of inability ONLY EXISTS in the Calvinistic worldview.

Biblicist, please listen and understand...You have to beg the question (presume true the very point up for debate) for this argument of yours to have any meat. In other words, you have to presume the foundational premise of Calvinism is true in order for this argument to be true. That is question begging at is very worst.

I agreed with Paul who wrote, "God has bound all men over to disobedience..." Do all men need salvation if they have all been bound over to disobedience? Of course they do.

So, what is the difference in our views? I affirm the second half of that sentence and you don't.

..."so He might show mercy to all men." He could have condemned all men to hell, but INSTEAD he shows them mercy, thus HE chose not to hold them accountable for something they could not control. IN fact, he goes on to reveal that they were never meant to actually fulfill it in the first place. The purpose of the law wasn't to be fulfilled by men, but to point them to their need of mercy....WHICH HE PROVIDES TO ALL.

The strongest points of one's arguments are not typically reflected in the points addressed, but the points ignored....

 

[The Biblicist]

The strongest points of one's arguments are not typically reflected in the points addressed, but the points ignored....

Amen, and that is precisely the whole grounds of your arguments! You ignore that condemnation is an accomplished fact but rather you SKIP it and jump to a POST-DEFACTO salvation in order to repudiate the very basis salvaiton is necessary and every reader on this forum can clearly see that.

 

[Skandelon]

condemnation is an accomplished fact

Again I ask... My neighbor is an unbeliever. Is he already condemned and without hope of being saved?

He has hope of salvation, which means it is not a done deal. That is decided at judgement. He stands condemned because of his unbelief, but if he is able to respond to the gospel in faith then God has provided him the ability to accomplish that which He demands.

 

[Skandelon]

Let me approach this another way. Prior to Abraham being justified was he condemned? Was his condemnation an accomplished fact, done with, unable to be altered in anyway? If not, you have no argument. If so, what happened at the point he was justified?

"Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness."

It sounds like you need to define what you mean by 'condemned already.'

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me approach this another way. Prior to Abraham being justified was he condemned? '

It is almost unbelievable that you would even stoop to this level or rationality. You must be very desperate!

1. Is there any need for salvation of the sinless?

2. Is there any need to preach the gospel to the sinless - Gal. 3:5-6

3. If no one is condemned as a sinner under the law why is there any need to justify anyone?

4. Is there any need to IMPUTE righteousness to the righteous?

5. If no one is condemned by the law as sinners then how could there be any danger of death or hell?

If these questions don't expose the foolishness of your question then pray tell what can?

 

[Skandelon]

I think if you define what you mean by condemned, as I requested on the other thread, we won't continue to talk past each other on this point. We both confirm that God bound all men over to disobedience and thus we all need mercy, we just don't both agree that God provides mercy to all people and thus the disconnect. I'll confine my comments on this topic to that thread.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think if you define what you mean by condemned, as I requested on the other thread, we won't continue to talk past each other on this point. We both confirm that God bound all men over to disobedience and thus we all need mercy, we just don't both agree that God provides mercy to all people and thus the disconnect. I'll confine my comments on this topic to that thread.

Your options are false and intentionally designed by you to prove your preconcieved false notions. I think if you read my response you will see that.

 

[Yeshua1]

Because they are bound over to disobedience. They are sinners in need of savior. They need atonement.




I agreed with Paul who wrote, "God has bound all men over to disobedience..." Do all men need salvation if they have all been bound over to disobedience? Of course they do.

So, what is the difference in our views? I affirm the second half of that sentence and you don't.

..."so He might show mercy to all men." He could have condemned all men to hell, but INSTEAD he shows them mercy, thus HE chose not to hold them accountable for something they could not control. IN fact, he goes on to reveal that they were never meant to actually fulfill it in the first place. The purpose of the law wasn't to be fulfilled by men, but to point them to their need of mercy....WHICH HE PROVIDES TO ALL.

Did Jesus or ANY Apsotle EVER state that we are now reconciled back to God, that we are no longer under judgement/condemnation BEFORE we received jesus as Lord/Saviour, as you seem to hold?

 

[Skandelon]

Did Jesus or ANY Apsotle EVER state that we are now reconciled back to God, that we are no longer under judgement/condemnation BEFORE we received jesus as Lord/Saviour, as you seem to hold?

I don't hold to that...

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't hold to that...

So how do you understand the truth that "God was reconciling Himself to the world thru cross of Christ?"

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Because it is an indisputable fact of Scripture that God obligated fallen man to do what they were unable to do - keep His Law - and yet justly condemned them as sinners under the penalty of death, there is no other possible interpretation of Romans 5:12-15 that can justify the condemnation for inaibilty than the interpretation all mankind existed and consisted in one human nature acting in unison within ONE MAN - Adam. Mankind or the totality of human nature existed in the unfallen state of ability to keep God's law in Genesis 2:17 and freely and response-ably forfeited that ability and fell into a state of INABILITY due to their own choice to sin. Thus, God can justly demand what fallen man cannot do and condemn them justly as sinners worthy of death.

1. The only law revealed to mankind from Genesis to Moses is the Law in Genesis 2:17. Thus death of all who lived between Adam and Moses can only be attributed to the violation of Genesis 2:17 proving that "all men" existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN violating Genesis 2:17. - vv. 13-14a

2. The fact that all who do not individually willfully choose to sin but yet suffer death (infants, mentally impaired) prove that total humanity existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN violating Genesis 2:17 - v. 14b

Back to the OP! Again, this is the only possible interpretation that can justify God obligating fallen man to keep the law knowing fallen man had no ability to keep it and yet condemn him! None can deny that God DID that and is DOING that and NONE have any grounds for justification that action other than this interpretation of Romans 5:12-14

 

[Skandelon]

Back to the OP! Again, this is the only possible interpretation that can justify God obligating fallen man to keep the law knowing fallen man had no ability to keep it and yet condemn him!

But HE DOESN'T condemn them finally...instead he shows them all mercy. Yes, he binds them all over to disobedience...I'm affirming that. He is sending them 'on their way to hell,' and is perfectly just to send them there, but HE PROVIDES A WAY OF ESCAPE...A WAY TO ATTAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS....A WAY TO FULFILL THE LAW....

You know what that way is but you don't want to talk about it because it turns your bad new of Total INABILITY into good news of HOPE FOR ALL MEN, and we can't have that!

 

[The Biblicist]

But HE DOESN'T condemn them finally

It never has been an issue of "final" condemnation in hell! The reality which you are ignoring and/or trying to deny is what God has already done and is doing BEFORE salvation is even a consideration.

He has already exposed their total inability by obligating them to do what He knows they cannot do and yet justly condemning them as sinners proving they have ALREADY come short. That is why they are in need of salvation because of what the law has proven already!

No future salvation can undo this already done fact! No rationalization from a post-defacto salvation can reverse, undo, change what the law has already proved to be true - they are in a state of total inability to submit to God's Law and that is why salvation must be SUPERNATURAL rather than natural.

...instead he shows them all mercy.

That is absolutely false! Only the elect does He actually show mercy as mercy is not condemning them justly to hell and the non-elect are condemned to hell. Romans 11:25-34 has to do with the elect Jews and gentiles not those who go to hell.

Yes, he binds them all over to disobedience...I'm affirming that. He is sending them 'on their way to hell,' and is perfectly just to send them there, but HE PROVIDES A WAY OF ESCAPE...A WAY TO ATTAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS....A WAY TO FULFILL THE LAW....

Wrong again! only the elect escape, attain righteousness and fulfill the law "in Christ" and being "in Christ" is by a CREATIVE ACT - Eph. 2:10

You know what that way is but you don't want to talk about it because it turns your bad new of Total INABILITY into good news of HOPE FOR ALL MEN, and we can't have that!

The gospel DECLARES that way but does not OBTAIN that way and neither "can" the fallen nature of man obatain that way! It is obtained only by THE CREATIVE POWER of God directly applied to the heart of men.

 

[Winman]

Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Because it is an indisputable fact of Scripture that God obligated fallen man to do what they were unable to do - keep His Law - and yet justly condemned them as sinners under the penalty of death, there is no other possible interpretation of Romans 5:12-15 that can justify the condemnation for inaibilty than the interpretation all mankind existed and consisted in one human nature acting in unison within ONE MAN - Adam. Mankind or the totality of human nature existed in the unfallen state of ability to keep God's law in Genesis 2:17 and freely and response-ably forfeited that ability and fell into a state of INABILITY due to their own choice to sin. Thus, God can justly demand what fallen man cannot do and condemn them justly as sinners worthy of death.

1. The only law revealed to mankind from Genesis to Moses is the Law in Genesis 2:17. Thus death of all who lived between Adam and Moses can only be attributed to the violation of Genesis 2:17 proving that "all men" existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN violating Genesis 2:17. - vv. 13-14a

2. The fact that all who do not individually willfully choose to sin but yet suffer death (infants, mentally impaired) prove that total humanity existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN violating Genesis 2:17 - v. 14b

Total baloney.

#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.

The reason men from Adam to Moses died is because they broke the law written on a man's heart that Paul described in Romans 2;

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
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:
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; )

This passage explains that men without the law perish without the law because they have broken the law written on their hearts. This is why men from Adam to Moses who did not have a written law died.

The fact that only men from Adam to Moses are mentioned proves this passage is not teaching Original Sin.

#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.

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Because it is an indisputable fact of Scripture that God obligated fallen man to do what they were unable to do - keep His Law - and yet justly condemned them as sinners under the penalty of death, there is no other possible interpretation of Romans 5:12-15 that can justify the condemnation for inaibilty

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.

than the interpretation all mankind existed and consisted in one human nature acting in unison within ONE MAN - Adam.

Adam the Voodoo Doll.

Mankind or the totality of human nature existed in the unfallen state of ability to keep God's law in Genesis 2:17 and freely and response-ably forfeited that ability and fell into a state of INABILITY due to their own choice to sin. Thus, God can justly demand what fallen man cannot do and condemn them justly as sinners worthy of death.

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.

1. The only law revealed to mankind from Genesis to Moses is the Law in Genesis 2:17. Thus death of all who lived between Adam and Moses can only be attributed to the violation of Genesis 2:17 proving that "all men" existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN violating Genesis 2:17. - vv. 13-14a

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.

2. The fact that all who do not individually willfully choose to sin but yet suffer death (infants, mentally impaired) prove that total humanity existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN violating Genesis 2:17 - v. 14b

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

Absurd.