The Similtude of Adam's transgression

[Winman]

There is no other way to say it, you are being completely dishonest. No Greek Lexicon will define "similitude" as "exact same." That is pure dishonesty on your part. However, you are forced to be dishonest as that is the only way your interpretation can be supported.

That is YOUR argument, not mine. I agree with the text, that men from Adam to Moses did not have a direct command from God as Adam did, so they could not possibly sin in the similitude of Adam's sin.

You on the other hand believe that every man who was ever conceived or will be conceived were right there in the garden with Adam eating the forbidden fruit with him. That would be sinning in the "similitude" or similar fashion as Adam. You are trying to play word games, nobody is fooled.

That is precisely what he does say in Romans 5:12 - "all have sinned" - Aorist tense completed punctilar action. He does not say "death passed upon all men who SHALL sin" as your position demands. He does not say "death passed upon all men who MIGHT sin." But all mankind has already sinned punctilliar action and verses 13-14 prove that by unanswerable arguments. Romans 5:15-19 reassert it plainly that by "one man's disobedience MANY BE DEAD" not by "many men's sins many be dead" as your position demands.

Nope, if Paul was teaching Original Sin, then he would have said ALL MEN, not just men from Adam to Moses. You do believe ALL MEN died "in Adam" when he sinned in the garden don't you? The fact Paul mentions only men from Adam to Moses proves he is not talking about Original Sin.

Yes, the same penalty (death) is applied to all men who sin as Adam sinned. Likewise, all who trust Jesus as Jesus trusted his Father are imputed righteous.

You cannot apply Adam's sin UNCONDITIONALLY to all men, and not also apply Jesus's act of obedience UNCONDITIONALLY to all men. This would teach Universalism, which we all know is error. Therefore, men must sin CONDITIONALLY as Adam sinned to be condemned to death, as men are CONDITIONALLY imputed righteous when they believe on Jesus.

Oh, I know what you will say, all men sinned conditionally with Adam in the garden, but that is impossible, Romans 5:13-14 is telling us men from Adam to Moses had no direct command as Adam did. They CANNOT sin Adam's sin in the garden as you falsely teach. And again, if Paul was teaching OS, he would have said ALL MEN, not men from Adam to Moses only. You can't get around it.

Romans 5:12 demands Genesis 2:17 is in view
Romans 5:13-14 demands Gensis 2:17 is in view
Romans 5:15-19 demands Genesis 2:17 is in view

Romans 2:17 has nothing to do with subject we are discussing, it is Romans 2:12-15 that refutes your view of Romans 5:12-14.

Romans 2:12-15 does not say men without law die for Adam's sin, it says they die because they offend the law written on their hearts. This proves your interpretation of Romans 5:12-14 is error!

Stop and think. Paul does not say men without law die because of Adam in Romans 2, he says they die because they break the law on their heart. Paul does not so much as mention Adam in Romans 2. This shows the men from Adam to Moses in Romans 5 died because they broke the law written on their hearts, not because of Adam. Romans 2 does not say men broke Adam's law in the garden with him.

THERE IS NO MENTION, NO INFERENCE of Romans 2:14-15 or conscience - NONE, ZILICH, NADA!

Romans 5 doesn't have to say that, Paul has already taught that men without law die because they break the law on their heart, not because of Adam's sin in the garden.

You are being stubborn, but it won't work. Your view is refuted by Romans 2.

YOu don't get it! By this restriction between Adam and Moses he proves that no other law can attribute universal death but Genesis 2:17 as there is no other law that YOU can find between Genesis and Exodus that explains universal death as its violation. If Paul had gone beyond Moses the Jews could have claimed the Mosaic Law was responsible for universal sin to support their belief that justification of all men is through the Mosaic Law.

LOL, it is you that doesn't get it. Paul taught in Romans 2 that men without law die because they violate the law written on their hearts, NOT because of Original Sin. Romans 2 absolutely refutes Original Sin.

Adam and Eve consisted of the whole human nature - total humanity - as anyone knows all other humans are generational derived. So yes, the whole human race existed in Adam when he sinned.

Pure superstition with not one word of scripture to support it.

The readers can plainly see you are using dishonest tactics and intentionally ignoring clear undeniable evidence that Genesis 2:17 is necessarily inferred in Romans 5:12 and 15-19 by the repeated "by one man's disobedience."

No sense continuing this conversation until you can at least be honest with the evidence.

Whenever someone refutes you (which is often) you always claim they are dishonest. You are a big baby who can't stand to be corrected. Wah!!! Wah!!!

 

[Skandelon]

Yes or no, is God going to render to each of us according to our works?

And don't dare try to broad brush me as a heretic.

Reply to the text at hand.

Revealing.

So, do you think your own view is heretical? I don't get why you just don't admit what you have attempted to defend. You must believe that men are justified by some type of works because you quoted a text which says, "the doers of the law shall be justified," and you go on to say, "The one is 'works' to obtain merit, the other is 'works' done naturally." So, I simply ask you if you believe man is justified by ANY type of works?

Are you now not willing to come right out and affirm your defense of this interpretation by admitting that you believe men are justified by "the natural works they are irresistibly made to do?"

How is that not a fair assessment of your position?

 

[kyredneck]

We're all going to be judged by our works Skandelon, that is made sooo immensely clear from the scriptures.

What's the matter? Does it worry you?

 

[Skandelon]

Yea, use those 'hypotheticals' to explain it away. The text doesn't fit your mold so you're forced to this act of desperation.

Sad.

That quote above about being a possible "hypothetical" was directly from John Gill's commentaries. Can we be objective about this? None of our SYSTEMS support the concept that men are justified by works, regardless of what KIND OF WORKS you suppose they are. You have missed the point Paul is attempting to make, that is clear.

 

[Skandelon]

We're all going to be judged by our works Skandelon, that is made sooo immensely clear from the scriptures.

What's the matter? Does it worry you?

Why would it worry me? I'm no longer under law, but under grace. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Those judged by the law are those who choose to remain under its yoke.

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

 

[Skandelon]

Are you now not willing to come right out and affirm your defense of this interpretation by admitting that you believe men are justified by "the natural works they are irresistibly made to do?"

How is that not a fair assessment of your position?

Again, how is that not a fair assessment of your position?

 

[kyredneck]

Why would it worry me? I'm no longer under law, but under grace. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Those judged by the law are those who choose to remain under its yoke.

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Nothing in the Ro 2 text disputes that. I'm not disputing it. It doesn't change the fact that every human being that's ever lived will be judged by their works.

 

[Skandelon]

Gill writes:

Adam, in his state of innocence, was a perfect doer of the law; he sinning, and all his posterity in him, none of them are righteous, but all pass under a sentence of condemnation. The best of men, even believers in Christ, are not without sin in themselves; and when any of the saints are said to be perfect, it must be understood in a comparative sense, or as they are considered in Christ. There never was but one since Adam, and that is Christ, who has fulfilled, or could perfectly fulfil the law; the thing is impossible and impracticable for fallen man: hence these words must be understood either hypothetically, thus, not the hearers of the law, but if there were any perfect doers of it, they would be justified before God; or else of such persons who are considered in Christ, by whom the whole perfect righteousness of the law is fulfilled in them, and who may be reckoned as perfect doers of it in him, their substitute, surety, and representative.

In either case, Gill is not affirming "works" justify the man...

 

[Skandelon]

Nothing in the Ro 2 text disputes that. I'm not disputing it. It doesn't change the fact that every human being that's ever lived will be judged by their works.

Their works or God's works? Just to be clear...

 

[Protestant]

I personally do not believe they committed any sin.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

You can read, how much sin does this verse say Jacob and Esau committed in their mother's womb? Please answer that question.

If this was the only verse in Scripture dealing with the subject of the imputation of Adam's sin upon the entire human race ('original sin'), I would agree that we should take the Scripture in question literally as you interpret it.

However, when interpreting this verse in light of the whole counsel of God, comparing Scripture with Scripture, (not to mention the argument Paul is making in Romans 5 for imputation, both bad in Adam and good in Christ), we discover a very different interpretation.......one which we have been preaching without ceasing.

Be that as it may, let us for a moment entertain your interpretation.

Let us assume they are sinless, as you believe.

Into what moral state were they born?

Have they the original righteousness in which Adam was created?

If that be the case, then they were born 'good.'

If they were born 'good' (i.e., righteous) then it would be a very cruel and malevolent God to hate Esau who was born 'good', yet did nothing bad to deserve His hatred.

If, on the other hand, they were born unrighteous, then we could understand a holy God hating unrighteousness.

However, we may not understand a holy God loving an unrighteous human who had done nothing good to merit righteousness....which is the case of Jacob.

But, of course, that is the very nature of sovereign grace: loving that which is not deserving of love, all according to the good pleasure of God alone.

Either the babies were born righteous or unrighteous.

There is no middle ground. No semi-righteousness nor semi-unrighteousness.

So which is it?

Please cite Scripture to prove your cause.

 

[Protestant]

All men (and babies) die as a consequence of Adam's sin.

Yet, in your post # 22, you stated:

Every man dies for his own personal sin.

Which is it?

Please use Scripture to prove your cause.

 

[Winman]

Have you forgotten election is "unconditional" in Calvinism? In Calvinism, God loved Jacob without condition, and he hated Esau without condition, it has nothing to do with being good or bad. It is complete mystery why God loved Jacob and hated Esau in Calvinism.

Romans 9:11 refutes Original Sin, because it says Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. But according to Biblicist, both Jacob and Esau, and you, and me, and all men ever born were in the garden with Adam picking that forbidden fruit off the tree of knowledge and actually taking a bite of it.

Paul must have forgotten that Jacob and Esau ate the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. :laugh:

 

[quantumfaith]

If this was the only verse in Scripture dealing with the subject of the imputation of Adam's sin upon the entire human race ('original sin'), I would agree that we should take the Scripture in question literally as you interpret it.

However, when interpreting this verse in light of the whole counsel of God, comparing Scripture with Scripture, (not to mention the argument Paul is making in Romans 5 for imputation, both bad in Adam and good in Christ), we discover a very different interpretation.......one which we have been preaching without ceasing.

Be that as it may, let us for a moment entertain your interpretation.

Let us assume they are sinless, as you believe.

Into what moral state were they born?

Have they the original righteousness in which Adam was created?

If that be the case, then they were born 'good.'

If they were born 'good' (i.e., righteous) then it would be a very cruel and malevolent God to hate Esau who was born 'good', yet did nothing bad to deserve His hatred.

If, on the other hand, they were born unrighteous, then we could understand a holy God hating unrighteousness.

However, we may not understand a holy God loving an unrighteous human who had done nothing good to merit righteousness....which is the case of Jacob.

But, of course, that is the very nature of sovereign grace: loving that which is not deserving of love, all according to the good pleasure of God alone.

Either the babies were born righteous or unrighteous.

There is no middle ground. No semi-righteousness nor semi-unrighteousness.

So which is it?

Please cite Scripture to prove your cause.

I commend you for the manner of your disagreement with WM here. Is Paul quoting Malachi when he says "It is written Jacob I have loved and Esau I hated."?

 

[kyredneck]

Their works or God's works? Just to be clear...

The text is quite clear. Man, you've really got a problem with this, don't you?

...in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek: Ro 2

 

[The Biblicist]

That is YOUR argument, not mine. I agree with the text, that men from Adam to Moses did not have a direct command from God as Adam did, so they could not possibly sin in the similitude of Adam's sin.

You on the other hand believe that every man who was ever conceived or will be conceived were right there in the garden with Adam eating the forbidden fruit with him. That would be sinning in the "similitude" or similar fashion as Adam. You are trying to play word games, nobody is fooled.

Again, the whole argument revolves around the meaning and application of the term "similitude."

1. It is never used in Scripture to mean the "exact same" thing but rather something that is "SIMILAR" or a shared LIKENESS found in the original.

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there rises another priest,

The greek term translated "another" is "heteros" meaning one different in kind and so this "another priest" that "rises" is not the EXACT SAME but nevertheless shares a common likeness.

Jas 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Man is made in the "similitude" of God. He is not God but shares a common LIKENESS with God as he is made in the "image" of God.

2. However, your whole argument hinges on demanding that "similtude" means the EXACT SAME THING rather than something SIMILAR but not exact. Hence, you draw the conclusion that "similitude" in this instance means the Adamic sin when in fact it does not and cannot mean that because of the very meaning of the term "similitude" and the way it is consistently used throughout scripture. It refers to something "similar" to the exact same original but not the exact same thing.

3. Hence, Paul is not denying they shared in the exact same sin, nor is he denying they existed as one common indivisible human nature when Adam sinned.

4. He is now considering "even those" living between Adam and Moses as distinct individuals from Adam who do not share something in common that is LIKE Adam's transgression but nevertheless share with Adam the exact same "death" which comes by sin "death by sin."

5. What they do not share in common with Adam is the ability to sin WILLFULLY. There is a whole set of humanity of infants and mentally impaired that suffer death who as distinct individuals living after Adam CANNOT willfully choose to sin but nevertheless die.

6. The words "even those" demand a special select type of human beings living between Adam and Moses are being selected for special reference in regard to the universal reign of death. Even your interpretation that death is due to violation of conscience exempts this same special group of persons as dying infants have no ability to willfully violate conscience. So either way you go THE ONLY POSSIBLE distinction that exists within post-adamic posterity in regard to "death by sin" are those capable of willful sin as in the case of Adam and those incapable of willful sin as in the case of dying infants and mentally impaired - THERE IS NTHER POSSIBLE DISTINCTION in regard to the universality of death and the words "even those" as a special select group cannot possibly be any other human beings but dying infants and mentaly impaired or those who do not share in common with Adam's trangression the likeness of WILLFUL sin but death is passed upon them.

7. Since the verse before has said death comes by sin or "death by sin" then what law could dying infants AS INDIVIDUALS possibly could have violated? Not the law of conscience! Not the Law of Moses as that law did not exist between Adam and Moses. There is no law they could have violated AS INDIVIDUALS. The only possible explanation for sharing in death which is "by sin" is that they existed previous to their individual births in one human nature in one man - "for by one man sin entered the world and death by sin."

CONCLUSION: The only possible way to avoid my conclusion is either to (1) keep demanding "similtude" means "exact same"; and/or (2) deny the explanation given in verse 12 that death comes by sin "death by sin".

Nope, if Paul was teaching Original Sin, then he would have said ALL MEN, not just men from Adam to Moses.

Here is the second leg of your position. However, what you are ignoring is that the repetitious "by one man" in regard to sin has Genesis 2:17 in view and no other law. The violation of no other law can explain "death by sin" in Adam's case. No other law is possible to explain that in Rom. 5:15-19 it is by this ONE SIN "many be dead" and by this ONE SIN many "be made sinners" and by this ONE SIN judgement came upon all rather than individual sins of many.

The violation of no other law can explain universal death for those living prior to "the Law" given to Moses, especially the death of infants and mentally impaired. The Law of conscience cannot explain death of infants. The Law of conscience is nowhere revealed or can be found between Genesis and Exodus as the explanation for universal DEATH.

Now in direct response to you objection, why merely to Moses? With Moses there is given explicit broad laws that carry the death penalty. Paul limited it between Adam and Moses because if he had not the Jews would insist that universal death must be attributed to violation of the Law of Moses and therefore universal justification is by keeping the Law of Moses.

Furthermore, if Paul wanted to prove that "by one man's disobedience" is the cause that MANY "be dead", and MANY "be made sinners", and judgement come upon MANY, because all men actually "sinned" (Rom. 5:12) when Adam sinned (because all men existed and consisted in one human nature in Adam), and thus "all in Adam die", then there is no better way to prove that it is the violation of Genesis 2:17 that brought universal death than to limit the evidence prior to Moses. This eliminates "the Law" of Moses from consideration while the death of infants eliminates the violation of conscience from consideration. Hence, no better argument is possible to prove that point.

You cannot apply Adam's sin UNCONDITIONALLY to all men, and not also apply Jesus's act of obedience UNCONDITIONALLY to all men. This would teach Universalism....

In response to this objection:

1. Paul explicitly says that Adam is a type of Christ - v. 14

2. However, there is not an exact parallelism in all partarticulars - vv. 15-17

3. The descendents of Adam arrive by NATURAL birth but that is not true of the decendants of Christ. The benefits of Christ must be received by the "gift of grace" (v. 17 "those that receive") and thus by SUPERNATURAL birth. Hence, not all in Adam are all in Christ. Jesus teaches the same thing "what is born of flesh is flesh but what is born of Spirit is spirit" and Paul "For we are His workmanship CREATED IN Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:8-10).

4. So the text and overall context provides for dissimilarities that avoid universalism.

Romans 2:12-15 does not say men without law die for Adam's sin, it says they die because they offend the law written on their hearts. This proves your interpretation of Romans 5:12-14 is error!

Romans 2:12-13 says nothing about the conscience. Romans 2:14-15 says nothing about death. Romans 2:12-17 speaks only of the provision for just consideration to be judged and says nothing about any verdicts. Moreover, Romans 2:12-14 has no application to "even those" or the death of infants or mentally impaired who have died. Universal death inclusive of dying infants prior to Moses has no other justification according to the principle of "death by sin" (Rom. 5:12) apart from violation of Genesis 2:17.

 

[kyredneck]

Actually, I think it is referring to those who were not aware of the law of God, but instead who sinned against their conscience (as Romans 1-3 explain). It appears Van is making that same argument...

Oooohhhhh, I see, it's all about conscience! You hold to that popular and totally inadequate approach to explain away Ro 2. Conscience.

15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, Ro 9

Kinda like your totally inadequate approach to explain away Ro 9. Too much 'God involvement' to fit your mold, it just can't be, it has to be explained away.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, the whole argument revolves around the meaning and application of the term "similitude."

1. It is never used in Scripture to mean the "exact same" thing but rather something that is "SIMILAR" or a shared LIKENESS found in the original.

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there rises another priest,

The greek term translated "another" is "heteros" meaning one different in kind and so this "another priest" that "rises" is not the EXACT SAME but nevertheless shares a common likeness.

Jas 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Man is made in the "similitude" of God. He is not God but shares a common LIKENESS with God as he is made in the "image" of God.

2. However, your whole argument hinges on demanding that "similtude" means the EXACT SAME THING rather than something SIMILAR but not exact. Hence, you draw the conclusion that "similitude" in this instance means the Adamic sin when in fact it does not and cannot mean that because of the very meaning of the term "similitude" and the way it is consistently used throughout scripture. It refers to something "similar" to the exact same original but not the exact same thing.

3. Hence, Paul is not denying they shared in the exact same sin, nor is he denying they existed as one common indivisible human nature when Adam sinned.

4. He is now considering "even those" living between Adam and Moses as distinct individuals from Adam who do not share something in common that is LIKE Adam's transgression but nevertheless share with Adam the exact same "death" which comes by sin "death by sin."

5. What they do not share in common with Adam is the ability to sin WILLFULLY. There is a whole set of humanity of infants and mentally impaired that suffer death who as distinct individuals living after Adam CANNOT willfully choose to sin but nevertheless die.

6. The words "even those" demand a special select type of human beings living between Adam and Moses are being selected for special reference in regard to the universal reign of death. Even your interpretation that death is due to violation of conscience exempts this same special group of persons as dying infants have no ability to willfully violate conscience. So either way you go THE ONLY POSSIBLE distinction that exists within post-adamic posterity in regard to "death by sin" are those capable of willful sin as in the case of Adam and those incapable of willful sin as in the case of dying infants and mentally impaired - THERE IS NTHER POSSIBLE DISTINCTION in regard to the universality of death and the words "even those" as a special select group cannot possibly be any other human beings but dying infants and mentaly impaired or those who do not share in common with Adam's trangression the likeness of WILLFUL sin but death is passed upon them.

7. Since the verse before has said death comes by sin or "death by sin" then what law could dying infants AS INDIVIDUALS possibly could have violated? Not the law of conscience! Not the Law of Moses as that law did not exist between Adam and Moses. There is no law they could have violated AS INDIVIDUALS. The only possible explanation for sharing in death which is "by sin" is that they existed previous to their individual births in one human nature in one man - "for by one man sin entered the world and death by sin."

CONCLUSION: The only possible way to avoid my conclusion is either to (1) keep demanding "similtude" means "exact same"; and/or (2) deny the explanation given in verse 12 that death comes by sin "death by sin".








Here is the second leg of your position. However, what you are ignoring is that the repetitious "by one man" in regard to sin has Genesis 2:17 in view and no other law. The violation of no other law can explain "death by sin" in Adam's case. No other law is possible to explain that in Rom. 5:15-19 it is by this ONE SIN "many be dead" and by this ONE SIN many "be made sinners" and by this ONE SIN judgement came upon all rather than individual sins of many.

The violation of no other law can explain universal death for those living prior to "the Law" given to Moses, especially the death of infants and mentally impaired. The Law of conscience cannot explain death of infants. The Law of conscience is nowhere revealed or can be found between Genesis and Exodus as the explanation for universal DEATH.

Now in direct response to you objection, why merely to Moses? With Moses there is given explicit broad laws that carry the death penalty. Paul limited it between Adam and Moses because if he had not the Jews would insist that universal death must be attributed to violation of the Law of Moses and therefore universal justification is by keeping the Law of Moses.

Furthermore, if Paul wanted to prove that "by one man's disobedience" is the cause that MANY "be dead", and MANY "be made sinners", and judgement come upon MANY, because all men actually "sinned" (Rom. 5:12) when Adam sinned (because all men existed and consisted in one human nature in Adam), and thus "all in Adam die", then there is no better way to prove that it is the violation of Genesis 2:17 that brought universal death than to limit the evidence prior to Moses. This eliminates "the Law" of Moses from consideration while the death of infants eliminates the violation of conscience from consideration. Hence, no better argument is possible to prove that point.





In response to this objection:

1. Paul explicitly says that Adam is a type of Christ - v. 14

2. However, there is not an exact parallelism in all partarticulars - vv. 15-17

3. The descendents of Adam arrive by NATURAL birth but that is not true of the decendants of Christ. The benefits of Christ must be received by the "gift of grace" (v. 17 "those that receive") and thus by SUPERNATURAL birth. Hence, not all in Adam are all in Christ. Jesus teaches the same thing "what is born of flesh is flesh but what is born of Spirit is spirit" and Paul "For we are His workmanship CREATED IN Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:8-10).

4. So the text and overall context provides for dissimilarities that avoid universalism.




Romans 2:12-13 says nothing about the conscience. Romans 2:14-15 says nothing about death. Romans 2:12-17 speaks only of the provision for just consideration to be judged and says nothing about any verdicts. Moreover, Romans 2:12-14 has no application to "even those" or the death of infants or mentally impaired who have died. Universal death inclusive of dying infants prior to Moses has no other justification according to the principle of "death by sin" (Rom. 5:12) apart from violation of Genesis 2:17.

I don't want Paul's argument to get lost in this discussion:

1. "By one man sin entered the world and death by sin" - Death is the direct result of sin and one man's sin.

2. "death has passed upon all men for all have sinned" - Aorist tense completed action pointing to one point in time. Not "all who shall sin" or "might sin."

3. Since death is "by sin" where there is no law there can be no sin - Hence, violation of some law must be attributed to justify universal death before the Law of Moses had been given.

4. This same law must justify the death of those incapable of willful sin

5. This same law must justify why "MANY be dead" due to one man's violation of it.

6. This same law must justify why "Judgement" comes upon many by one man's violation of it.

7. This same law must justify why "MANY BE MADE SINNERS" by one man's disobedience of it.

No such law can attribute the justification of universal death due to one man's disobedience of it except for the violation of Genesis 2:17.

CONCLUSION: The only possible way my oppoents can get around my conclusion is (1) continue to wrongly define "similitude" as the "exact same" thing; (2) deny the opening assertion of "death by sin" and attribute death to something other than sin. (3) Claim that dying infants and mentally impaired suffer death due to violation of conscience; (4) Deny that Genesis 2:17 is the only possible law which is in view in regard to "one man's sin" and thus the basis for "many" being dead, made sinners and for judgement coming upon many and claim it is the law of conscience instead. (5) Deny that the whole of human nature existed and consisted in one man in the Garden.

 

[Winman]

CONCLUSION: The only possible way my oppoents can get around my conclusion is (1) continue to wrongly define "similitude" as the "exact same" thing; (2) deny the opening assertion of "death by sin" and attribute death to something other than sin. (3) Claim that dying infants and mentally impaired suffer death due to violation of conscience; (4) Deny that Genesis 2:17 is the only possible law which is in view in regard to "one man's sin" and thus the basis for "many" being dead, made sinners and for judgement coming upon many and claim it is the law of conscience instead.

Pure baloney and nothing but word games, trying to redefine the word "similitude".

If all men sinned in the garden with Adam, then they would have sinned in the "similitude" of Adam. Romans 5:13-14 refutes Biblicist's view and shows men DID NOT sin in the garden with Adam.

After the similitude ... - In the same way; in like manner. The expression "after the similitude" is an Hebraism, denoting in like manner, or as. The difference between their case and that of Adam was plainly that Adam had a revealed and positive law. They had not. They had only the law of nature, or of tradition. The giving of a law to Adam, and again to the world by Moses, were two great epochs between which no such event had occurred. The race wandered without revelation. The difference contemplated is not that Adam was an actual sinner, and that they had sinned only by imputation. For,

Albert Barnes correctly tells us that men from Adam to Moses did not sin in a like manner as Adam. Adam had a direct command from God not to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. Men after Adam until Moses had no law from God. Paul's argument is that their death proves they were under some law, but not the law Adam was under. They were under the law of "nature", or the law "written on the heart" that Paul had explained in Romans chapter 2.

Romans 5:14 actually refutes Biblicist's view and proves that men did not sin in the garden with Adam as Biblicist falsely teaches.

Romans 2:12-15 also proves Biblicist's view error;

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; )

Romans 2:12 refutes Biblicist's view because it speaks of men "without law" who perished "without law". This would be impossible if Biblicist's view were correct, because according to Biblicist, every man that was ever born was in the garden with Adam and participated in his sin. Adam had a direct command or law from God, likewise, if all men were in the garden with Adam, then all men ever born would have had Adam's "law" the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge. But Paul clearly speaks of men "without law" in Romans 2:12-15.

Romans 9:11 refutes Biblicist's view;

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Romans 9:11 directly tells us that Jacob and Esau had done no "evil" or sin in their mothers womb, but according to Biblicist, Romans 5:12 is teaching that all men sinned in Adam, that all men directly participated in Adam's sin in the garden. Romans 9:11 proves men did not sin in the garden with Adam.

Romans 7 refutes Biblicist's view as well;

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Here Paul says he was alive "without the law once". But according to Biblicist, all men were in the garden with Adam and had the law not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

All of these many scriptures clearly and easily refutes Biblicist's view.

In Romans 7 Paul is speaking of learning the law as a young Jewish man. He had already told us he would not have known what sin was except the law had taught him (vs. 7). He would not have known lust except the law had said, "Thou shalt not covet". So Paul is clearly speaking of when he first learned the commandments.

Paul said he was alive at this time, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and he "died". This MUST be speaking of spiritual death, as it is impossible that Paul was saying he physically died. This refutes Biblicist's view. According to Biblicist, all men are spiritually dead even before they are conceived in their mother's womb because they sinned with Adam in the garden, actually eating the forbidden fruit as Adam did.

Original Sin is error.

 

[kyredneck]

....Works done by the 'help of the Spirit (not irresistible help, just enabling help), do not justify a man according to our system.

It's not just 'help'. It's a total heart change where the children of promise DO BY NATURE the things of the law. Are you able to make the connection here?

Compare:

....the doers of the law shall be justified: (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2:13,14,15

With:

..work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. Phil 2:12,13

Are you saying that in your system that Works done by the irresistible help of the Spirit does justify a man?

The 'heart change' of regeneration, i.e. the circumcision of the heart, the law written upon the heart, is that which is irresistible. Man is totally 100% passive in the birth from above.

I'm just trying to understand your perspective because not all Reformed scholars take Romans 2 in the way you appear to...

Reformed scholars are uninspired men and no one has a corner on the truth. It's funny you used Gill, because I KNOW you don't hold to the 'immediate regeneration' of the Particular Baptists (as I said, you must be getting desperate), Gill simply misses the mark with this passage.

 

[kyredneck]

...You must believe that men are justified by some type of works because you quoted a text which says, "the doers of the law shall be justified,"....

Yea I quoted that, and I've no qualms quoting other such texts from Romans:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

Do you see any sort of glaring contradiction in the above? Or is it simply that you desire to elevate one of those above all others?