What is Death?

[The Biblicist]

1. Death came into the world by one man and passed from that one to all men for all die - Rom. 5:12

2. That one man - Adam - died in the day he ate of the forbbiden fruit - Gen. 2:16 - but did not physially die for another 900 plus years.

3. Ephesians 2:1 teaches that spiritual death precedes physical death as the Ephesians were physically alive but were made alive - quickened - in some other way than physically. Hence, Adam died spiritually in the day he ate followed by physical death.

4. The wages of sin is death - Rom. 6:23 - death in its fullest sense - spiritual, physical, eternal

5. Spiritual death is SEPARATION spiritually from God or "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18) and thus spiritual life is spiritual union with God.

6. All sinners are spritually dead = spiritually separated from God regardless if they live before or after the cross.

7. Death = spiritual separation from God which results in physical separation from the human spirit which results in eternal separation from God spirit, soul and body = second death.

Hence, the first death has to do with the present temporal (spritual and physical) while the second death has to do with eternity.

 

[Winman]

1. Death came into the world by one man and passed from that one to all men for all die - Rom. 5:12

The way you have stated this is misleading, you are making it appear that death unconditionally passed on all men. That is not what Romans 5:12 says or teaches.

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.

Verse 12 tells us that death passed upon all men "for that all have sinned". Men do not spiritually die because of Adam, they die because they have committed their own personal sin.

Verse 13 confirms this, it was impossible for men from Adam to Moses to sin, because there was only one commandment, not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was impossible for any man to break this one commandment, therefore men could not sin.

Verse 14 confirms this and says men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude of Adam's sin. Indeed, it is impossible that they could.

So, why did men from Adam to Moses die? Paul had already explained in chapter 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; )

Paul here explains that men without the written law shall perish without the written law. Why? Because they have the law written on their hearts and they have a conscience. All men instinctively know it is wrong to lie, steal, or kill, even without a law. This is why men from Adam to Moses died spiritually.

Paul also shows this in Romans chapter 7.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
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.

In verse 7 Paul explains that it is the law that taught him what sin is. So, Paul is speaking of the time when he learned the law.

In verse 9 Paul explains that he was spiritually alive until he learned the law. Once he learned the law he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died. Paul could not be speaking of physical death here.

Verses 10 and 11 further confirm that Paul was spiritually alive until he learned the law and was convicted of his sin. He said he found the law which he thought would bring life brought death to him, and that sin took occasion by the law and by it SLEW him. You have to be alive to die, you have to be alive to be slain.

The scriptures DO NOT teach we are born spiritually dead, they teach that once we learn the law we become accountable and then at that time when we knowingly and willingly sin we spiritually die.

 

[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.

Verse 12 tells us that death passed upon all men "for that all have sinned". Men do not spiritually die because of Adam, they die because they have committed their own personal sin.

infants and mentally impaired die and therefore they do not die because they committed their own personal sin. They die due to death being passed from Adam to them.

Verse 13 confirms this, it was impossible for men from Adam to Moses to sin, because there was only one commandment, not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was impossible for any man to break this one commandment, therefore men could not sin.

He is saying the very opposite. He is proving that personal sin is not the cause of their death. There was no manifest law or covenant of law in the world between Adam and Moses and so death cannot be attributed to personal sin becuase there can be no personal sin where there is no law to personally violate.

Verse 14 confirms this and says men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude of Adam's sin. Indeed, it is impossible that they could.

Paul distinguishes Adam's sin from Eve's sin in 1 Tim. 2:12 as his was knowingly and willful while Eve's sin was due to ignorance and deception. Paul is developing his argument why sins of personal nature are not the cause of personal death. (1) No personal law to violate therefore no personal sin can be charged and thus death is not a consquence of personal sins. (2) Personal willful sin is not the cause of personal death because those who do not willfully sin still die like Eve, infants, mentally impared.

Your position ignores and violates the whole argument that follows that is by "ONE MAN'S OFFENCE" that death and condemnation came upon ALL MEN.

 

[Winman]

infants and mentally impaired die and therefore they do not die because they committed their own personal sin. They die due to death being passed from Adam to them.

All men physically die because God chased man out of the garden and barred him from the tree of life. If Adam and Eve would have eaten of the tree they would have lived FOREVER PHYSICALLY, thus proving sin does not cause physical death. Think about it.

He is saying the very opposite. He is proving that personal sin is not the cause of their death. There was no manifest law or covenant of law in the world between Adam and Moses and so death cannot be attributed to personal sin becuase there can be no personal sin where there is no law to personally violate.

No, Paul is saying they die despite not sinning as Adam did. If Adam's sin was imputed to them as you falsely teach (which also violates God's command in Ezekiel 18:20) then they would have been guilty of the EXACT sin as Adam. Again, think about it.

The reason men from Adam to Moses (note it is not speaking of ALL men throughout all ages), died is because they violated the law written on their hearts and conscience. We are clearly shown than men knew what sin is long before the law of Moses in scripture.

Paul distinguishes Adam's sin from Eve's sin in 1 Tim. 2:12 as his was knowingly and willful while Eve's sin was due to ignorance and deception. Paul is developing his argument why sins of personal nature are not the cause of personal death. (1) No personal law to violate therefore no personal sin can be charged and thus death is not a consquence of personal sins. (2) Personal willful sin is not the cause of personal death because those who do not willfully sin still die like Eve, infants, mentally impared.

Blah, blah, blah, Paul had just said he would not know sin except that the law told him not to covet. Paul is talking of the time in his life when he learned the law and discovered what things are sin.

Then Paul says he was alive (which must mean spiritually) before the commandment came. He cannot be speaking of when the law was written, it was written 1500 years before he was born. No, Paul is speaking of being spiritually alive until he learned the law. Once he learned the law he was convicted by it for his sin and spiritually died.

Your position ignores and violates the whole argument that follows that is by "ONE MAN'S OFFENCE" that death and condemnation came upon ALL MEN.

This is laughable, you do not even realize you are READING YOUR PRESUPPOSITION into scripture here. You are assuming your presupposition is correct, when that is the issue under debate.

Wow.

 

[Yeshua1]

The way you have stated this is misleading, you are making it appear that death unconditionally passed on all men. That is not what Romans 5:12 says or teaches.

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.

Verse 12 tells us that death passed upon all men "for that all have sinned". Men do not spiritually die because of Adam, they die because they have committed their own personal sin.

Verse 13 confirms this, it was impossible for men from Adam to Moses to sin, because there was only one commandment, not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was impossible for any man to break this one commandment, therefore men could not sin.

Verse 14 confirms this and says men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude of Adam's sin. Indeed, it is impossible that they could.

So, why did men from Adam to Moses die? Paul had already explained in chapter 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; )

Paul here explains that men without the written law shall perish without the written law. Why? Because they have the law written on their hearts and they have a conscience. All men instinctively know it is wrong to lie, steal, or kill, even without a law. This is why men from Adam to Moses died spiritually.

Paul also shows this in Romans chapter 7.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
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.

In verse 7 Paul explains that it is the law that taught him what sin is. So, Paul is speaking of the time when he learned the law.

In verse 9 Paul explains that he was spiritually alive until he learned the law. Once he learned the law he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died. Paul could not be speaking of physical death here.

Verses 10 and 11 further confirm that Paul was spiritually alive until he learned the law and was convicted of his sin. He said he found the law which he thought would bring life brought death to him, and that sin took occasion by the law and by it SLEW him. You have to be alive to die, you have to be alive to be slain.

The scriptures DO NOT teach we are born spiritually dead, they teach that once we learn the law we become accountable and then at that time when we knowingly and willingly sin we spiritually die.

When Adam sinned, fell, God cursed all his creation, specifically mankind, and from that time forward, ALL humans to be born afterwards, EXCEPT for jesus would be born In Adam, with cursing of both spiritual and physical death pronounced upon them, ONLY Jesus exempted from that!

 

[The Biblicist]

All men physically die because God chased man out of the garden and barred him from the tree of life.

Think about this. There is no scripture that says all men die because Adam was chased out of the garden - that is your own imagination at work. Romans 5:12 states why all men die - death is "passed" to all men due to one man's sin. That is the central argument of this whole narrative "by one man's offence" many be dead, many be condemned, etc.

No, Paul is saying they die despite not sinning as Adam did. If Adam's sin was imputed to them as you falsely teach (which also violates God's command in Ezekiel 18:20) then they would have been guilty of the EXACT sin as Adam. Again, think about it.

Again, your thesis contradicts the repetitive theme of the entire context - "by one man.....many be." Second, the text means just what it says, no personal individual sin accounts for death but Adam's. There was no revealed law that humans violated between Adam and Moses and so there can be individual personal violation be charged. Thus death came through "one man's offence" so that "many be dead." So simple, so solid from the context.

The reason men from Adam to Moses (note it is not speaking of ALL men throughout all ages), died is because they violated the law written on their hearts and conscience. We are clearly shown than men knew what sin is long before the law of Moses in scripture.

That is not what the text says and that is NOT true as infants die and mentally disabled die and not as a result of violation of conscience.

Blah, blah, blah,

that sums up the basis of your doctrine perfectly. Thank you!

 

[Winman]

Think about this. There is no scripture that says all men die because Adam was chased out of the garden - that is your own imagination at work. Romans 5:12 states why all men die - death is "passed" to all men due to one man's sin. That is the central argument of this whole narrative "by one man's offence" many be dead, many be condemned, etc.

You don't get it, if sin caused physical death, then there was no reason for God to chase Adam and Eve out of the garden and put an angel to guard the tree of life, they would have died anyway. Duh.

Again, your thesis contradicts the repetitive theme of the entire context - "by one man.....many be." Second, the text means just what it says, no personal individual sin accounts for death but Adam's. There was no revealed law that humans violated between Adam and Moses and so there can be individual personal violation be charged. Thus death came through "one man's offence" so that "many be dead." So simple, so solid from the context.

Verses 13 and 14 tell us that men from Adam to Moses (no mention of any other men besides these) DID NOT sin after the similitude or likeness of Adam's sin. If Adam's sin was imputed to them as you falsely teach, they would have been guilty of committing Adam's EXACT sin. It would be just as if they had committed the sin themselves, in fact, that is what you teach, that they committed this sin because they were in Adam's loins.

That is not what the text says and that is NOT true as infants die and mentally disabled die and not as a result of violation of conscience.

Infants die as a CONSEQUENCE of Adam's sin. It is like a drunk bus driver driving off a cliff, all his passengers die as a consequence of his sin, but none of them is guilty of committing his sin. When God chased Adam and Eve out of the garden and put an angel to guard the tree of life, all men are prevented from eating of this tree and living forever.

that sums up the basis of your doctrine perfectly. Thank you!

You are welcome.

 

[The Biblicist]

You don't get it, if sin caused physical death, then there was no reason for God to chase Adam and Eve out of the garden and put an angel to guard the tree of life, they would have died anyway. Duh.

You don't get it, if he had not have chased them away from the tree of life they would have been allowed to live physically eternally in a state of spiritual death! Duh!

Verses 13 and 14 tell us that men from Adam to Moses (no mention of any other men besides these) DID NOT sin after the similitude or likeness of Adam's sin. If Adam's sin was imputed to them as you falsely teach, they would have been guilty of committing Adam's EXACT sin. It would be just as if they had committed the sin themselves, in fact, that is what you teach, that they committed this sin because they were in Adam's loins.

You are missing the whole contextual development of his argument. He is setting forth reasons why death originated with the sin of Adam and death was "passed" down from Adam to all of the human race and not because of INDIVIDUAL sins. He repitively says "by one man's offence many be...." dead, condemned...etc.

1. Therefore you cannot attribute death to individual tresspassing of God's Law because there was no manifest law given between Adam and Moses and infants died so you cannot blame it on individual action at all.

2. Infant death and death of mentally incapacitated cannot be attributed to violation of conscience, violation of revealed law as they are incapable of willful violation which is the how Adam sinned.

This is so clear, so simple. What you must do is ignore the whole argument and cut it in peices and pit it against itself to make your false doctrine stand.

 

[Winman]

You don't get it, if he had not have chased them away from the tree of life they would have been allowed to live physically eternally in a state of spiritual death! Duh!

EXACTLY!! That is what I have been trying to tell you. This proves that sin does not cause physical death, else eating the tree of life would change nothing, they would still die.

You are missing the whole contextual development of his argument. He is setting forth reasons why death originated with the sin of Adam and death was "passed" down from Adam to all of the human race and not because of INDIVIDUAL sins. He repitively says "by one man's offence many be...." dead, condemned...etc.

No, he is explaining why men without the law died spiritually. His listeners already know and understand that men die spiritually because they have broken Moses law. How in the world did Adam break Moses' law??

He has already explained in chapter 2 that men without the law perish without the law. Why? Because of Adam's sin?? NO! Because they have the law written on their hearts and conscience.

Here in chapter 2 was the perfect place for Paul to tell us that men without the law died because of Adam's sin. Did Paul say that? NO, Paul explained they perish because they have the unwritten law on their hearts.

You are refuted right there.

1. Therefore you cannot attribute death to individual tresspassing of God's Law because there was no manifest law given between Adam and Moses and infants died so you cannot blame it on individual action at all.

You don't get it, they perished because they broke the law written on their hearts. There was no law of Moses yet. Did Paul say they perished because of Adam? NO!

2. Infant death and death of mentally incapacitated cannot be attributed to violation of conscience, violation of revealed law as they are incapable of willful violation which is the how Adam sinned.

Again, you don't get it, infants die because all men are barred from the tree of life. The tree of life obviously can counter any effects of sin, this is why God prevented Adam and Eve from eating of this tree.

This is so clear, so simple. What you must do is ignore the whole argument and cut it in peices and pit it against itself to make your false doctrine stand.

You don't get it, all the scriptures in Romans 5 are both parallel and a contrast. What is true for one side of a verse must be true for the other.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

If by Adam's sin death (it says judgment) unconditionally came upon all men, then likewise by Jesus's act of righteousness did the free gift UNCONDITIONALLY come upon all men. But we know the free gift is not unconditional, we must have faith the way Jesus had faith when he commended (trusted) his spirit into his Father's hands on the cross and died.

Likewise, we must willingly and knowingly sin like Adam did for the judgment to come upon us.

You cannot alter the argument Paul is making, he is applying the exact same conditions to each half of each verse. As being imputed righteous is conditional upon trusting in Jesus, so is condemnation conditional upon sinning as Adam sinned.

 

[The Biblicist]

EXACTLY!! That is what I have been trying to tell you. This proves that sin does not cause physical death, else eating the tree of life would change nothing, they would still die.

No, they were dying physically upon eating the tree, corruption had already begun in their physical nature. Death was at work. They were kept from eating the tree of life as that would have stopped corruption and kept them physically alive in a spiritual dead state.

Genesis 2:16 proves this in the literal Hebrew. "dying thou shalt surely die" is the literal rendering proving that death or the priniciple of corruption began at the very moment they ate of the tree.

No, he is explaining why men without the law died spiritually.

He is not speaking about spiritual death but physical death. They were born spiritually dead just as all humans are born spiritually dead - separated from God. There is no MIDDLE ground between spiritual death and spiritual life! None are born spiritually alive or in spiritual union with God. All are born spiritually dead because of sin in Adam and that is why they must be "born again" because spiritual death comes with the first birth.

 

[The Biblicist]

He has already explained in chapter 2

Chapter two explains why humans are individually sinners whereas chapter five explains how they are corporately sinners as a race. You don't find in chapter two "by one man's offence many were made......."! Why? Because chapter two is about individual sins not sin as a race.

Again, you don't get it, infants die because all men are barred from the tree of life. The tree of life obviously can counter any effects of sin, this is why God prevented Adam and Eve from eating of this tree.

You totaly ignore the contextual argument developed so clearly in the context - completely blind to it. Physical Death had begun in Adam at the precise point he ate and the Hebrew text plainly states it "DYING they shall surely die"!

The whole context from Romans 5:12 to Romans 5:19 is about the consequence of one man's offence that brought death, condemnation and judgement upon all men, whereas, Romans 2 is about individual sins in addition to the conseuqences of Adam.

You don't get it, all the scriptures in Romans 5 are both parallel and a contrast. What is true for one side of a verse must be true for the other.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

EXACTLY! Two representative men and nothing about individual sin and indivdiual cosequences. All "in Adam die" but "all in Christ" are made alive and this passage is referring to the first Adam and the "last Adam" in their representative capacities.

If by Adam's sin death (it says judgment) unconditionally came upon all men, then likewise by Jesus's act of righteousness did the free gift UNCONDITIONALLY come upon all men. But we know the free gift is not unconditional, we must have faith the way Jesus had faith when he commended (trusted) his spirit into his Father's hands on the cross and died.

Not so, it is unconditional because justification is conditioned only upon the representative life and death of one man - Jesus Christ and is "by grace" and grace is not conditioned upon men's merits.

 

[The Biblicist]

Chapter two explains why humans are individually sinners whereas chapter five explains how they are corporately sinners as a race. You don't find in chapter two "by one man's offence many were made......."! Why? Because chapter two is about individual sins not sin as a race.


You totaly ignore the contextual argument developed so clearly in the context - completely blind to it. Physical Death had begun in Adam at the precise point he ate and the Hebrew text plainly states it "DYING they shall surely die"!

The whole context from Romans 5:12 to Romans 5:19 is about the consequence of one man's offence that brought death, condemnation and judgement upon all men, whereas, Romans 2 is about individual sins in addition to the conseuqences of Adam.


EXACTLY! Two representative men and nothing about individual sin and indivdiual cosequences. All "in Adam die" but "all in Christ" are made alive and this passage is referring to the first Adam and the "last Adam" in their representative capacities.

Not so, it is unconditional because justification is conditioned only upon the representative life and death of one man - Jesus Christ and is "by grace" and grace is not conditioned upon men's merits.

Romans 5:12 tells how death came into this world and how it comes to every human - it is "passed". Thus death in its fullest meaning originated with one man and one man's offence. It does not originate with anyone else in the human race - no one! What is passed to all other men is both spiritual and physical death as the principle of corruption is in the human anatomy at birth. Physical death or the principle of corruption is inseparable from spiritual death and it is spiritual death with the principle of corruption that is "passed" from Adam to all humanity through generation. The human embroy in the womb has the principle of corruption within it before birth due to spiritual separation from God and thus can die IN THE WOMB and OUT OF THE WOMB.

Romans 5:13-14 is a logical argument to defend the assertion in verse 12

Romans 5:15-19 reinforces that argument by repetively asserting it is due to "one man's offence".

Romans 2 says nothing about how "death" originates among humans - nothing! Instead it declares how individual sins originate with individuals. There is no "by one man" repetition in Romans 2.

 

[Winman]

Chapter two explains why humans are individually sinners whereas chapter five explains how they are corporately sinners as a race. You don't find in chapter two "by one man's offence many were made......."! Why? Because chapter two is about individual sins not sin as a race.

Baloney. Here was the perfect place for Paul to explain why men without law perished, and Paul did not so much as mention Adam. Paul explained that men without the law perished because they were a law unto themselves and had the law written on their heart and conscience.

You simply don't like the fact that this passage completely refutes your view of Romans 5. In Romans 5 Paul is speaking of Adam introducing judgment and condemnation into the world by sin. When we follow Adam's example and sin, then the judgment and condemnation passes on us. When we believe as Jesus trusted his father, then righteousness is imputed to us. Neither are unconditional.

You totaly ignore the contextual argument developed so clearly in the context - completely blind to it. Physical Death had begun in Adam at the precise point he ate and the Hebrew text plainly states it "DYING they shall surely die"!

No, physical death began when God said;

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

And how did God guarantee that Adam would return to the dust? God barred Adam (and all his posterity) from the tree of life and set an angel to guard it. If Adam had eaten of the tree of life he would have PHYSICALLY lived forever. Thus, sin itself is not why men physically die, it is being barred from the tree of life that guarantees men will physically die.

Obviously the tree of life has a healing quality that counters corruption, this is shown in Rev 22:2;

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Even in the New Jerusalem it seems men will need healing. It seems that atrophy is natural, and that this tree counters it. Because we are barred from the tree of life, atrophy and degeneration occur in our bodies. Even babies are subject to this and can physically die. Perhaps if man were able to eat of the tree of life it would prevent this atrophy and degeneration and no infants would be conceived diseased or stillborn.

The whole context from Romans 5:12 to Romans 5:19 is about the consequence of one man's offence that brought death, condemnation and judgement upon all men, whereas, Romans 2 is about individual sins in addition to the conseuqences of Adam.

Yes, but where you err is that you are not applying the same conditions to both sides of each verse which you MUST do. You apply Adam's judgment and death UNCONDITIONALLY to all men, while you apply righteousness through Christ CONDITIONALLY. This is not the form of argument Paul is using here, he is applying the same conditions to BOTH SIDES of each verse. Thus, if righteousness is CONDITIONALLY applied to us (and it is), then death must also be CONDITIONAL (and it is). Romans 2 confirms this, we have already been told that men without the law die because they are a law unto themselves, Adam was not so much as mentioned by Paul.

It is you that is ignoring and denying Romans 2:12-15 which completely destroys your view.

EXACTLY! Two representative men and nothing about individual sin and indivdiual cosequences. All "in Adam die" but "all in Christ" are made alive and this passage is referring to the first Adam and the "last Adam" in their representative capacities.

First of all, no mention of being "in Adam" is shown here, that term is used only once in all of scripture (1 Cor 15:22), and is speaking of physical death, the entire 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians is concerning the resurrection of our physical bodies. You can't go there and pull one verse and then apply it to Romans chapter 5!

Adam was our first example. It is like this: We say that because of Karl Marx many men were made communists. Is that because we were born communists? No, but when men follow his example and teaching they become communists. Or, we say that because of Charles Darwin many men were made athiests or evolutionists. Is this because we inherited these beliefs through natural birth? No, it is because men followed his beliefs and teachings.

Likewise, when men follow Adam's example and willingly and knowingly sin, then spiritual death, judgment, and condemnation passes upon them.

When we trust God as Jesus trusted his father and died on the cross, trusting that God would raise him up, then righteousness is imputed to us.

Not so, it is unconditional because justification is conditioned only upon the representative life and death of one man - Jesus Christ and is "by grace" and grace is not conditioned upon men's merits.

Baloney, justification is conditioned on faith. Even Calvinists and Reformed folks teach that you must believe to be justified. It is completely conditional.

You simply change the rules at your whim to make your doctrine work. Of course, you MUST do this because your doctrine is not scriptural.

 

[The Biblicist]

Baloney. Here was the perfect place for Paul to explain why men without law perished, and Paul did not so much as mention Adam.

Romans 2 is about the origin of individual sins and the consequences of eternal judgement not the origin of death in the life of man. Romans 2 is not about the origin of death and no amount of ridicule ("baloney") or rationalization can change that. You are simply wrong!

Romans 5 introduces the origin of death and it is not by being cut off from any tree - that is your imagination at work. Physical Death and corruption originate at the very point of spiritual death as spiritual death inherently invovles physical corruption. You are simply wrong.

Paul explained that men without the law perished because they were a law unto themselves and had the law written on their heart and conscience.

Wrong! Nothing about physical corruption is even considered in regard to conscience. The origin of individual sins is the subject not the origin of physical death and no amount of rationalization can change that contextual fact.

You simply don't like the fact that this passage completely refutes your view of Romans 5.

This passage does not say ONE WORD to support your fictious intepretation that it refers to the origin of death! Not one word!

Romans 5 Paul is speaking of Adam introducing judgment and condemnation into the world by sin.

Wrong! It is about introducing the origin of DEATH into the World (v.12) which is the cause of these consequences "condemnation" and "judgement". You reverse cause and effects to suit yourself and indeed completely omit the cause (v.12) becuase it contradicts and exposes your false doctrine.

You are perverting God's Word by your rash hands. You interpret Romans 2 exactly opposite of its subject (eternal judgement for personal sins) as you interpret Romans 5 exactly opposite of its subject (origin of death).

No, physical death began when God said;

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Again, you pervert God's Word by your rash hands. This is a POST-fall condemnation after they had already SPIRITUALLY DIED and the priniciple of corruption was already at work in them "DYING that shalt surely die."

And how did God guarantee that Adam would return to the dust? God barred Adam (and all his posterity) from the tree of life and set an angel to guard it. If Adam had eaten of the tree of life he would have PHYSICALLY lived forever. Thus, sin itself is not why men physically die, it is being barred from the tree of life that guarantees men will physically die.

Again, you pervert God's Word by your rash hands. Eating the tree of life would arrest the principle of corruption already at work in them ("DYING thou shalt surely die") so that they would remain physically alive as spiritually dead. The principle of corruption/death was already working in them BEFORE God barred them from the tree of life as Genesis 2:16 proves and exposes and condemns your interpetation as heresy.

Obviously the tree of life has a healing quality that counters corruption, this is shown in Rev 22:2;

Thank you for your admission of error! That is exactly what it would have done to the fallen Adam and Eve who were already "DYING thou shalt surely die" it would have countered the corruption already at work within them.

Secondly, those in Revelation 22:2 have glorified resurrected bodies incapable of physical corruption. The nations are already "saved" (Rev. 21:24) and glorified, as this occurs AFTER the resurrection and AFTER the Great White Seat judgement and AFTER death is destroyed forever (Rev. 20).

Instead the tree of life in the New Jerusalem provides "leaves" for the "saved nations" to cover their shame as the Adam and Eve attempted to use "leaves" to cover their shame in the garden. Purely symbolic.

Even in the New Jerusalem it seems men will need healing. It seems that atrophy is natural, and that this tree counters it.

Wrong! Death has already been cast in the lake of fire and destroyed (Rev.20) and this occurs AFTER a new heaven and earth has been created WITHOUT SIN and WITHOUT DEATH (Rev.21) and is merely symbolic of that fact.

First of all, no mention of being "in Adam" is shown here, that term is used only once in all of scripture (1 Cor 15:22), and is speaking of physical death, the entire 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians is concerning the resurrection of our physical bodies. You can't go there and pull one verse and then apply it to Romans chapter 5!

Wrong! Death is the subject of both chapters and in both chapters Adam and Christ are contrasted in regard to death and in both chapters they are presented as representative men for "many....all" and thus in contrast with each other as representative heads - first Adam versus "Last Adam." Hence, "ALL in Adam die" and that is precisely the message of Romans 5:12-19/1 Cor.15:44-50 and "ALL in Christ live" and that is precisely the message of Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor. 15:44-51. You have to be blind in both eyes not to see the precise parallel between these two chapters between Adam and the Last Adam with death and life.

Adam was our first example. It is like this: We say that because of Karl Marx many men were made communists. Is that because we were born communists? No, but when men follow his example and teaching they become communists. Or, we say that because of Charles Darwin many men were made athiests or evolutionists. Is this because we inherited these beliefs through natural birth? No, it is because men followed his beliefs and teachings.

What a rediculous and heretical analogy!!! We are not "made" righteous by Christ's example but through BIRTH and UNION with Christ. Likewise, we are "made" sinners through BIRth AND UNION with Adam. Death (spiritual and physical) is "passed" through BIRTH and UNION with Adam



[/QUOTE]Baloney, justification is conditioned on faith. Even Calvinists and Reformed folks teach that you must believe to be justified. It is completely conditional. [/QUOTE]

Baloney! Justification is THROUGH faith which is a gift of God's grace and the fruit of regeneration (Rom. 3:24-26; Eph. 2:8).

 

[The Biblicist]

Romans 2 is about the origin of individual sins and the consequences of eternal judgement not the origin of death in the life of man. Romans 2 is not about the origin of death and no amount of ridicule ("baloney") or rationalization can change that. You are simply wrong!

Romans 5 introduces the origin of death and it is not by being cut off from any tree - that is your imagination at work. Physical Death and corruption originate at the very point of spiritual death as spiritual death inherently invovles physical corruption. You are simply wrong.

Nowhere in Romans 2 does it ever deal with the origin of death! Nowhere!

Nowhere does the Bible originate physical death with separation from the tree of life - nowhere.

Genesis 2;16 demands that the process of "DYING thou shalt surely die" began in the garden at the precise moment of disobedience.

The curse of returning to dust did not occur until AFTER the fall not before it.

 

[Winman]

Again, blah, blah, blah, you read your presuppositions into the text when they are not there.

Here is what Albert Barnes said concerning Romans 5:12

All have sinned - To sin is to transgress the Law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all people have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all people are sinners, He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact - that all people experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, "All have sinned." This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that people sin in their own persons, sin themselves - as, indeed, how can they sin in an other way? - and that therefore they die. If people maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?

I like Albert Barnes. He was a Calvinist, but a very honest man who did not read presuppositions into scripture. He called a spade a spade. He tells us that this passage is not teaching Original Sin, it is not teaching that Adam's sin and death was imputed to men. Paul is simply saying that Adam introduced sin into the world, and that sin brought death, therefore death passed upon all men because all men have personally sinned. It is that simple.

It is you that is reading into this passage what is not said.

Barnes asks an interesting question, he asks how any man can sin except in a personal manner. How can one man sin for another? It is impossible. But more than this, it would be unjust to punish one man for the sins of another. Men do not punish a child for the sins of their father, are men more just than God? Absurd.

Besides this, God himself tells us that all men die for their own sin, the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father or vice versa. This is plain and unmistakeable, and proves your interpretation to be error. God is just, God never punishes one man for the sins of another.

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.

Abraham knew better than you, Abraham knew that God did not destroy the righteous for the sake of the wicked.

Gen 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

God does not condemn little babies who died never sinning with Adam's sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

I like Albert Barnes. He was a Calvinist,

Of couse you like anyone who agrees with your nonsense! Barnes is wrong and he is wrong precisely for the same reason you are wrong. He interpretes verse 12 by isolating it from the rest of the context. Verse 12 establishes a causual relationship between "one man's offence" and the consequences upon the rest of the human race and that cause and effect relationship is repeated over and over again in verses 15-19 so that even a blind man should be able to see it. Both you and Barnes ignore this overall contextual fact.


Like Van, when you cannot deal with the evidence, you denegrate it or ignore it. What I have stated in previous posts still stands.

Barnes asks an interesting question, he asks how any man can sin except in a personal manner. How can one man sin for another? It is impossible.

Let's ask the parallel question "how any man can do righteousness except in a personal manner. How can one man be righteous for another?" Thus the imputed righteousness of Christ is thrown under the bus.

But more than this, it would be unjust to punish one man for the sins of another. Men do not punish a child for the sins of their father, are men more just than God? Absurd.

This rationalization does away with the cross and penal substitutionary atonement. How can one man die for the sins of others? Your false teaching repudiates the gospel of Jesus Christ at its very heart - the good news of substitutionary satisfaction through one man obedience for many - 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 4:23-5:1.

Besides this, God himself tells us that all men die for their own sin, the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father or vice versa. This is plain and unmistakeable, and proves your interpretation to be error. God is just, God never punishes one man for the sins of another.

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.

This passage has been dealt so many times in our past discussions it is amazing you still are so blind and keep repeating it. The principle set forth in this passage has nothing to do with representative men (first and last Adam) but with POST FALLEN mankind as INDIVIDUALS and their individual sins. Every man will give an account of his own sins on judgement day. Those "in Christ" will give an account for rewards in heaven while those outside of Christ will give an account for eternal punishment. Those "in Christ" will not come into eternal condemnation (Jn. 5:24) because of "one man's obedience" imputed to them through faith.

Abraham knew better than you, Abraham knew that God did not destroy the righteous for the sake of the wicked.

Gen 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

God does not condemn little babies who died never sinning with Adam's sin.

There is a vast difference between final condemnation of infants who die and temporal condemnation due to the sin of Adam. The fact they are subject to death clearly proves they are united to Adam in his representative capacity or else they never would die as death entered the world through one man and from that one man it is "passed" to all men. If your position were true death would not be "passed" to anyone but only obtained exactly as it was with Adam as a result of his own individual sin. Yet infants die without individual sin. - case closed.

 

[The Biblicist]

how any man can sin except in a personal manner. How can one man sin for another? It is impossible.

Both Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor. 15:40-46 set forth Adam and the Last Adam as men who acted in representative capacity for others. This is so clear and repeated so many times "by one man.... many" that one must be blind not to see it.

Adam in the garden was placed in a position to be tested and while in that position of testing he not only acted as a represented for "all" of humanity but the totality of human nature "all" actually existed in him and thus when put in the position of testing "all" humanity acted with him. When he sinned the whole race sinned as he was the whole of human nature in its best condition. Just as the individual pages in one book so all of individual humanity existed in one man and when that man was placed in the position of testing the whole book with all of its individual pages acted as that one book or one man consisted of the totality and best of humanity that could be tested by God.

Significantly, Adam's position of representation was restricted to the area of testing in the garden and not to his fallen condition, as the fallen condition is the consequence of failing that testing.

So, it is not that Adam was tested "for" others or that Adam sinned "for" others but in reality the whole of human nature actually existed in Adam when he was tested and the whole of human nature sinned when he sinned, thus "all HAVE sinned" (aorist tense) and that is why all die and why death is "passed" to all man and thus even infants die becaue "all have sinned" when Adam sinned.

However, it is equally true that Adam acted "for" those he represented just as Christ acted "for" those he represented and the whole doctrine of substitutionary satisfaction for sin and righteousness rests upon this representative "for." To deny representation by Adam for many is to deny representation by Christ for many.

Christ stood in the place before God for all he represented. Imputed righteousness is not imparted righteousness but it is the rightoues of another Person legally transferred to those who are in their own person "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) and sinful (Rom. 6:6-8).

 

[Winman]

Both Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor. 15:40-46 set forth Adam and the Last Adam as men who acted in representative capacity for others. This is so clear and repeated so many times "by one man.... many" that one must be blind not to see it.

Adam in the garden was placed in a position to be tested and while in that position of testing he not only acted as a represented for "all" of humanity but the totality of human nature "all" actually existed in him and thus when put in the position of testing "all" humanity acted with him. When he sinned the whole race sinned as he was the whole of human nature in its best condition. Just as the individual pages in one book so all of individual humanity existed in one man and when that man was placed in the position of testing the whole book with all of its individual pages acted as that one book or one man consisted of the totality and best of humanity that could be tested by God.

Significantly, Adam's position of representation was restricted to the area of testing in the garden and not to his fallen condition, as the fallen condition is the consequence of failing that testing.

So, it is not that Adam was tested "for" others or that Adam sinned "for" others but in reality the whole of human nature actually existed in Adam when he was tested and the whole of human nature sinned when he sinned, thus "all HAVE sinned" (aorist tense) and that is why all die and why death is "passed" to all man and thus even infants die becaue "all have sinned" when Adam sinned.

However, it is equally true that Adam acted "for" those he represented just as Christ acted "for" those he represented and the whole doctrine of substitutionary satisfaction for sin and righteousness rests upon this representative "for." To deny representation by Adam for many is to deny representation by Christ for many.

Christ stood in the place before God for all he represented. Imputed righteousness is not imparted righteousness but it is the rightoues of another Person legally transferred to those who are in their own person "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) and sinful (Rom. 6:6-8).

Pure bunk, and many men who believe in Original Sin do not agree with this view.

There is another sobering fact that should be of interest to every Christian who has ever been an adherent of the doctrine of original sin. The theologians themselves, who advocate the doctrine of original sin, prove conclusively that it is false. For instance, those theologians who advocate the Realistic Theory (the Augustinian Theory) prove conclusively that the Federal and Mediate Imputation Theories are unscriptural and false. On the other hand, those theologians who advocate the Federal Theory prove just as conclusively that the Realistic and Mediate Imputation Theories are unscriptural and false. Each theologian, in his turn, proves all the other theories to be false.

Hodge is an advocate of the Federal theory of original sin. His arguments show conclusively that the Realistic Theory is false:

The realistic theory cannot be admitted. The assumption that we acted thousands of years before we were born, so as to be personally responsible for such act, is a monstrous assumption. It is, as Baur says, an unthinkable proposition; that is, one to which no intelligible meaning can be attached...We did not then exist. We had no being before our existence in this world; and that we should have acted before we existed is an absolute impossibility...The doctrine, therefore, which supposes that we are personally guilty of the sin of Adam on the ground that we were the agents of that act, that our will and reason were so exercised in that action as to make us personally responsible for it and for its consequences, is absolutely inconceivable.

Berkhof is also an advocate of the Federal Theory. These are some of his arguments against the Realistic Theory:

...(3) It does not explain why Adam's descendants are held responsible for his first sin only, and not for his later sins, nor for the sins of all the generations of forefathers that followed Adam. (4) Neither does it give an answer to the important question, why Christ was not held responsible for the actual commission of sin in Adam, for he certainly shared the same human nature, the nature that actually sinned in Adam.

And,

If in Adam human nature as a whole sinned, and that sin was therefore the actual sin of every part of that human nature, then the conclusion cannot be escaped that the human nature of Christ was also sinful and guilty because it had actually sinned in Adam.

Now A. H. Strong, who advocates the theory which the above theologians have rejected, in his turn, rejects the Federal Theory which they advocate:

...It impugns the justice of God by implying: (a) that God holds men responsible for the violation of a covenant which they had no part in establishing...We not only never authorized Adam to make such a covenant, but there is no evidence that he ever made one at all. It is not even certain that Adam knew he should have posterity... (b) that upon the basis of this covenant God accounts men as sinners who are not sinners... (c) That, after accounting men to be sinners who are not sinners, God makes them sinners by immediately creating each human soul with a corrupt nature such as will correspond to his decree. This is not only to assume a false view of the origin of the soul, but also to make God directly the author of sin...

Hodge himself, although he is an advocate of the Federal Theory of original sin, still admits that it is somewhat difficult to reconcile his view with the justice and goodness of God:

It may be difficult to reconcile the doctrine of innate evil dispositions with the justice and goodness of God, but that is a difficulty which does not pertain to this subject. A malignant being is an evil being, if endowed with reason, whether he was so made or so born. And a benevolent rational being is good in the universal judgment of men, whether he was created or so born. We admit that it is repugnant to our moral judgments that God should create an evil being; or that any being should be born in a state of sin, unless his being so born is the consequence of a just judgment.

All the above theologians reject the Mediate Imputation Theory. Strong says:

Since the origination of this corrupt nature cannot be charged to the account of man, man's inheritance of it must be regarded in the light of an arbitrary divine infliction a conclusion which reflects upon the justice of God. Man is not only condemned for a sinfulness of which God is the author, but is condemned without any real probation...

Sheldon, who rejects all three of these theories makes this comment on the Mediate Imputation Theory:

An evil which is matter of pure inheritance cannot rationally be made the ground of the moral reprobation of the person inheriting. To him it is calamity, and more properly calls for compassion than for condemnation...If it is irrational cruelty to blame one for a bodily deficit which was thus given, rather than acquired by personal misconduct, it is, in like manner, gross injustice to blame one for a spiritual deficit which was imposed outright and in no part was acquired.

From this, we see that the dogma of original sin is proven false by its very advocates...

The fact is, there are several theories of Original Sin, and theologians do not agree on which theory is correct, all have serious problems.

The real truth is, is that all of these theories is false. God himself said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of his son, but all men shall die for their own personal sin.

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.

If you are unable to see that it would be completely unjust for a man to die for a sin he never committed, then you are beyond being reasoned with. God is reasonable and just, God said every man shall die for his OWN sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

Pure bunk, and many men who believe in Original Sin do not agree with this view.

So right interpertation is determined by whose who rather than Biblical interperation?

There are two obvious facts that neither you nor all the theologions you want to flee to can overturn:

1. Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 clearly present Christ as the "Second Adam" in contrast to the first Adam as REPRESENTATIVE men.

2. The testing of Adam in this representative capacity cannot be in his FALLEN condition as the fall is not only clear evidence of failing a previous test but the fallen nature can no longer serve as an objective basis for any kind of representative testing.