Why are We Totally Depraved?

[Iconoclast]

#18:Are we all concerned in our first parents' disobedience? Yes. By one man sin entered the world, Rom 5:12. Is our nature tainted with the filth of that sin? Yes.

I have a problem with the idea that it was because of Adam's choice that we are all totally depraved. I don't think it comes down to his choice. What is strange is, that Genesis talks a lot about Eve's choice, saying that when she saw that the fruit was good for food, was able to make men wise etc that she decided to eat it. So it really elaborates on her choice. But it does not elaborate on Adam's choice at the time at all. Why are we not talking about Eve's sin being the cause of, "The Fall"? If the Bible is placing the blame on Adam, when he wasn't even the first one who sinned, then it must mean it was inevitable that Eve would sin simply because of the fact that she was created from Adam. So, this would imply that Adam was already fallen before he even sinned. And this would coincide with my understanding, that sin is inevitable just by being in the flesh.

It is a wrong conclusion because Adam was the head of His wife.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

What is strange is, that Genesis talks a lot about Eve's choice, saying that when she saw that the fruit was good for food, was able to make men wise etc that she decided to eat it. So it really elaborates on her

She was deceived by satan...this is why God does not have any woman preachers....but Adam was not decieved....he rebelled.

 

[Mark_13]

OK, I was thinking that God had instructed both Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit. But possibly he only told Adam that, and then Adam conveyed that to Eve, so that would explain possibly why she was not as morally culpable. But she affirms to the Serpent that God did forbid it, and actually the Serpent confirms that God forbade it. But it talks about how the fruit was pleasing to the eye and good for food, and so forth, and she was overcome by that, "The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life", as its described in the gospels I think. But once again, why all the talk in the Bible about "through one man sin entered the world" when Adam wasn't even the first one who sinned. It implies to me it was inevitable that Eve would sin, because she was created from Adam.

 

[Iconoclast]

OK, I was thinking that God had instructed both Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit. But possibly he only told Adam that, and then Adam conveyed that to Eve, so that would explain possibly why she was not as morally culpable. But she affirms to the Serpent that God did forbid it, and actually the Serpent confirms that God forbade it. But it talks about how the fruit was pleasing to the eye and good for food, and so forth, and she was overcome by that, "The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life", as its described in the gospels I think. But once again, why all the talk in the Bible about "through one man sin entered the world" when Adam wasn't even the first one who sinned. It implies to me it was inevitable that Eve would sin, because she was created from Adam.

Because the gospel is based on it!
15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

 

[convicted1]

Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—


Seems clear to me. You can argue the how and why, but it is what it is.

Death entered in because of sin. Adam ushered in death because of his rebellion.

 

[Mark_13]

... I just throw this out there about the Cathars briefly, because I think we can't just demonize every theological position, but try to sift through them and find the wheat...

This post contains many false ideas that are a danger to your soul.
While you can read about some of these groups, there are much more solid things to read than gnostic heresies...you will not find truth there.
The devil was not involved in creation...gen 1;31

I just felt compelled to get up to speed personally on the subject of Gnosticism, seeing as every Southern Baptist preacher has to allude to it knowingly at some point, as if they are truly personally familiar with it.

That book I mentioned is not really the best - basically following a TV series previously produced by the author.

But several interesting things about Gnosticism: It grew directly out of the concept of "The priesthood of the believer" in that all of us can ostensibly go directly to God through the Holy Spirit. And a lot of the gnostic writings were never meant to be taken literally, but instead were conceptualized as spiritual utterances, and highly personal, tapping into some aspect of the divine as the spirit conveyed it to the writer. And all of this multitude of writings by different people who perceived of themselves as Christians started to converge on certain ideas, regarding the evil of the flesh, which actually is an orthodox idea, as Paul himself talks about it, talking about flesh and blood not inherting the kingdom of God and so forth.

And actually, the whole authoritarian structure of the Roman Catholic church grew out of an alarmed reaction to gnostic thinking in the first few centuries after the resurrection of Christ. And its interesting that even after the early church successfully stamped it out that it crops up a thousand years later in the form of Catharism, which once again the Roman Catholic church is virulently opposed to.

But you look at the things that Cathars rejected regarding Roman Catholicism, and some of them are the same things that we as Southern Baptists would oppose. For example the Cathars were deeply offended by all the Roman Catholic imagery and veneration of the sufferings of Christ, all that iconography of him being tortured and tormented on the cross. The Cathars were much more oriented towards his resurrection, his transcending this physical world. They also personalized salvation, saying it had to do with the individual, and not some authority structure eminating from Rome, an authority structure based on worldly wealth and power and enforced by the sword.

Otoh, some of the Cathar's ideas had direct parallels to what we would term eastern pantheism, e.g. vegetarianism, not wanting to consume or kill animals, as it might be some soul still in the process of transcending this physical world but not yet arrived. And actually, in that age it was the wealthy who ate meat anyway, it being an extreme rarity among the peasants. But the doctrinal arguments against the Cathars by the Catholics would be perceived today as absolutely orthodox and correct, but when the Cathars were not ready to go away, that's when the burnings and persecutions started.

So anyway, I have often contemplated starting a discussion thread on Gnosticism, but perhaps its a subject for mature believers to become informed of on their own.

-------------------------

There's a lot of deeply disturbing things about Gnosticism though - the parts of it that could be characterized as "Hermetic" basically has diverged into the occult, which is after all an attempt by man to tap into the divine. Proceed at your own risk.

 

[InTheLight]

She was deceived by satan...this is why God does not have any woman preachers....

Oh my.......

 

[HeirofSalvation]

OK, I was thinking that God had instructed both Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit. But possibly he only told Adam that, and then Adam conveyed that to Eve, so that would explain possibly why she was not as morally culpable. But she affirms to the Serpent that God did forbid it, and actually the Serpent confirms that God forbade it. But it talks about how the fruit was pleasing to the eye and good for food, and so forth, and she was overcome by that, "The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life", as its described in the gospels I think. But once again, why all the talk in the Bible about "through one man sin entered the world" when Adam wasn't even the first one who sinned. It implies to me it was inevitable that Eve would sin, because she was created from Adam.

Mark: you have a lot of good truths here mixed I think with some misunderstandings. The brief order of things is this:

OK, I was thinking that God had instructed both Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit. But possibly he only told Adam that, and then Adam conveyed that to Eve, so that would explain possibly why she was not as morally culpable.

This is accurate I think, you will note in Genesis this subtle turn of phrase when speaking to the serpent: Eve said: "But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." God however, did not say this! he only said not to eat of it. Most likely, you are correct, that Adam only heard this and passed it on to Eve, Adam possibly adding the command not to touch either. But this, I think, needs a little more clarification:

Serpent confirms that God forbade it.

Sort of, but what the serpent is really up to here is questioning God's commands more than affirming them, he says: "Yea, hath God said?.."this is doubly effective if Eve heard this second hand. The Serpent, Having sowed the seeds of doubt, then counters with this in vs.4 "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: " Hence, the new testament rightly clarifies that Adam is to blame because as Icon pointed out: 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. What is important to note is that Eve was indeed tricked, but Adam (not deceived) sinned willfully thus Eve's sin was in many ways of ignorance, Adam's of rebellion. Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

I love your insight here:

But it talks about how the fruit was pleasing to the eye and good for food, and so forth, and she was overcome by that, "The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life",

I agree wholeheartedly!!:thumbs::smilewinkgrin: All sin might fit into 1 or more of these 3 categories, and in this one sin, all 3 categories were included, the fall was, in that respect total.

It implies to me it was inevitable that Eve would sin, because she was created from Adam

I cannot agree here, Adam was innocent at the point of his creation, and subsequently also Eve, remember, it is only after the fall that man is now inherently corrupt.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

:

Originally Posted by Iconoclast
She was deceived by satan...this is why God does not have any woman preachers....

Oh my.......

Icon is absolutely correct... the context of the passage is this:
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.


1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.


1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

I do not often accuse Icon of accurately contextualizing and exegeting the Scriptures (ask him), but what he said here is absolutely and inarguably correct, and in perfect context.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

:




Icon is absolutely correct... the context of the passage is this:
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.


1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.


1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

I do not often accuse Icon of accurately contextualizing and exegeting the Scriptures (ask him), but what he said here is absolutely and inarguably correct, and in perfect context.

Inarguably?

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Inarguably?

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

Yes, inarguably, (and I read this article, in a forum on the topic you posted before I even joined the board). I am aware that there are those who "kick against the pricks" But that was sheer quoting of Scripture and in context on Icon's part. When one says "inarguably" they do not usually mean that none would be foolish enough to attempt it (Napoleon did invade Russia from the West after all). They mean that no one can come up with a plausible, coherent, and valid counter-argument. This article is no different.

 

[Mark_13]

HeirofSalvation [27]:

I won't quote you here just for brevity, so hopefully it won't be confusing, some of it is in response to Iconoclast actually.

I first heard a pastor say very convincingly that Eve adding to God's command by saying He told them to not even touch the fruit exemplifies how we tend to make God's commands more burdensome than they actually are. Sounds good to me. But then I subsequently heard another pastor say that it was clear that Adam for the sake of safety had added an additional restriction to Eve to not even touch the fruit which was a wise thing for Adam to do. That's sounds good too. So which interpretation is correct. I suspect the one coming from your own pastor. I'll throw another interpretation into the mix. When God confronts Adam and Eve after the fact, after they both hid from him, he doesn't imply at all that Eve hadn't heard it first hand from Him and so was less culpable. Maybe God himself had told her previously not to touch it, who knows. I don't think my conjecture there is any less valid than the previous two interpretations.

... Adam was innocent at the point of his creation, and subsequently also Eve, remember, it is only after the fall that man is now inherently corrupt.

My original contention was that possibly Adam was corrupt before the offense, by virtue of being human. I know what the orthodoxy here is. My point isn't refuted by just reiterating the orthodoxy. But my reasoning was that animals certainly sin, commit violence, steal, etc. I am reminded of the fact that our national symbol, the bald eagle, that majestic bird, is an insufferable thief. Bald eagles are constantly stealing fish from each other. And if man is not off the hook for sinning without cognizance of it, then why should the animals be. Don't misunderstand me. I'm just saying that what animals do has to qualify as sin. Its everywhere. Look at a troop of baboons. Every human vice is in evidence. Covetousness, cruelty, lack of mercy, lust, rage, etc. And animals I don't believe needed to "fall" spiritually to start sinning. It just comes natural to them. So, it seems inevitable that man would sin as well. It was inevitable, unless it took God by surprise. But also, I pointed out that if Paul continually blames Adam for mankind's fall, and yet it was Eve who sinned first, then it implies there was something corrupt in Adam from whom Eve was created. Now this may all be wrong. And its tentative on my part. But that's my argument.

Maybe some pastors blame animals sinning on Adam too. Well, we know from Paul that it was God's will for the creation to fall:

(Rom 8:20-21) For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

And on the subject of Eve, I saw someone once say that Paul describes her in I Timothy 2 as "transgressing" which in their mind was in a different category from intentional sin. But I just now looked at Romans 5, and there as well it describes what Adam did as "transgression". And its hard for me to see what Eve did as being less severe in any sense than what Adam did. She asserted dogmatically to the serpent, No God said we cannot even touch that fruit, and the serpent doesn't contradict her on this. What he does do is entice her into knowing, outright rebellion against God.

But as far as Romans 5 in which Paul deals at length with Adam, I would submit tentatively that in that patriarchal world, it was natural for him to give Adam corporate culpability for both himself and his wife, but actually when Paul talks about the sin of "one" repeatedly in that passage, he may very well have Eve's transgression in mind.

I also have to say, I am somewhat puzzled by Paul's emphasis on Eve being deceived in II Timothy. It was Eve's own rationalization to God on being confronted to say, "Oh, it was the serpent who deceived me". Adam had his own rationalization, blaming his sin on Eve. Eve was enticed into outright rebellion in my book. Maybe God is letting Eve's judgment of her own actions stand, as an act of mercy: "OK, Eve, you were 'deceived' then. That's the judgment I'll go with."

But anyway, thanks for the feedback.

 

[Iconoclast]

Since nobody has posted a creed I thought I'd do it.
Lots of good stuff in the Catechism

Rob

Westminster Confession of Faith.​

CHAPTER VI.
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.​

I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.Gen. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.Rom. 11:32.

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, Gen. 3:6–8; Eccl. 7:29; Rom. 3:23 and so became dead in sin, Gen. 2:17; Eph. 2:1 and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. Tit. 1:15; Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:10–18.

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; Gen. 1:27–28; 2:16–17; Acts 17:26; Rom. 5:12, 15–19; 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45, 49. and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. Ps. 51:5; Gen. 5:3; Job 14:4; 15:14

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, Rom. 5:6; 8:7; 7:18; Col 1:21 and wholly inclined to all evil, Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–12.do proceed all actual transgressions. James 1:14–15; Eph. 2:2–3; Matt. 15:19

Very nice.....the historic faith:applause::applause::applause:

 

[Iconoclast]

#18:Are we all concerned in our first parents' disobedience? Yes. By one man sin entered the world, Rom 5:12. Is our nature tainted with the filth of that sin? Yes.

I have a problem with the idea that it was because of Adam's choice that we are all totally depraved. I don't think it comes down to his choice.


Marke .....do you have a problem with everyone Jesus represents gets saved??? Romans 5:12-21 is foundational to understand the gspel..if you miss it, you miss the gospel...

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18Therefore 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.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

.............................

 

[convicted1]

Adam's corruption preceded his act of sin. A choice to disobey can only proceed from a corrupt heart.

Sin is what corrupts. So then Adam apparently sinned before the sin in the Garden. What corrupted Adam's heart then?

 

[Mark_13]

#18:Are we all concerned in our first parents' disobedience? Yes. By one man sin entered the world, Rom 5:12. Is our nature tainted with the filth of that sin? Yes.

I have a problem with the idea that it was because of Adam's choice that we are all totally depraved. I don't think it comes down to his choice.


Marke .....do you have a problem with everyone Jesus represents gets saved??? Romans 5:12-21 is foundational to understand the gspel..if you miss it, you miss the gospel...

.............................

To be honest with you, I don't know what you're driving at. To be honest, I'm not even sure what Paul is driving at. If most Christians were honest, I think they would admit that don't understand the vast majority of what Paul is driving at anywhere in Romans. Hopefully Paul understands what he's saying. It took me a long time to realize I didn't really understand Romans. I don't know if his comparison of Christ to Adam here is just his own, only for purposes of illustration, or what.

Let me just start going through the passage in detail:


(Rom 5:12) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

So, to repeat myself, why is Paul's discourse utterly oblivious to Eve's role in all this, as elaborated in detail in the Genesis account. Genesis describes in detail the nature of her rebellion, and Adam's transgression is only described very tersely in Genesis. So why in Paul's reconception of it, the man is all important. Is it just so he can draw this parallel he want to make with Christ? And furthermore, he says above the death spread to all men as a result of Adam's sin. What about women? Did Eve's sin just spread to the women or what? If all this emphasis on men is just a byproduct of Paul's culture, does that mean we as well go along for the ride?

(Rom 5:13) for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

OK - Sin is not "imputed" without the law. Was the command God gave to Adam and Eve not a "law"? And did Adam and Eve not pay a price for violation of that law? What is the purpose of Paul's random aside here? It just seems like some out of left field commentary, detracting from any point he's making, but even the main point is obscure.

(Rom 5:14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

What was the likeness of the offense of Adam that Paul is alluding to? If there is some particular attribute of Adam's offense he has in mind, why wouldn't he say what that attribute is? Are we supposed to read his mind? One could think of an infinite number of ways in which Adam's sin was either like or unlike other people's sins that came after him. When the Children of Israel saw miracle after miracle and still repeatedly rebelled against God explicit commands, wasn't that like Adam's sin, sort of? What is Paul driving at? But anway, this verse completely undermines the previous one that said sin is not imputed without the law, by observing that death reigned as a result of Adam's sin. So Paul undermines his obscure points from one verse to the next. What sort of argument is this he's making?

And also, he says Adam is a "type" of Christ - does he mean just in his own discourse, or in some eternal sense. Why not spell out the way in which Adam was intended to be the first Christ, instead of some obscure passing reference.

(Rom 5:15) But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

I don't know why, but I'm reminded of this thing they did on Sesame Street eons ago, a song about being like and not alike: "One of these things is not like the other...One of these things just doesn't belong... Can you find it?" And it has a picture of a trike, a bicycle, a wagon, and an an armadillo." But anyway, I can think of an equally valid and equally obscure way in which the thing Paul says his referents are not alike in, they are in fact actually alike. Just think about it for a minute. You have one act by one person (Adam and Christ alternatively) having repercussions for many many people. So they're alike in that sense. or Unlike. Your choice.

It seems that Paul continues this same like-unalike line of discourse for the next several verses. And then we're back to the concept of only men being relevant:

(Rom 5:18) So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

One could excuse Paul for following the cultural norms of only referencing men, but Genesis doesn't do that. Eve plays and absolutely central role in the fall of mankind (now I'm doing it). When Paul's cultural bias causes him to be oblivious to absolutely pertenant details of the Genesis account, how can we overlook it?

(Rom 5:20) The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

In Romans 2 Paul talks about the Gentiles who don't have a written law still have their own conscience which is essentially telling them the same thing. He says in Romans 1, that there are all sorts of testaments to God and his divine law in nature totally apart from the law of the Hebrews. But even so, this idea that the Hebraic Law was introduced specifically so transgression would increase, as if transgression doesn't really exist without a written law. Who can make sense of this?

Iconoclast, if you really truly understand all this, I salute you. Maybe you can enlighten me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sin is what corrupts. So then Adam apparently sinned before the sin in the Garden. What corrupted Adam's heart then?

'Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren' (James 1:3-16).

Adam was created sinless but able to sin (Lat. posse peccare). He was tempted by Satan (being with Eve when she was tempted- Gen 3:6c) and drawn into sin by his desires.

Steve

 

[Winman]

Sin is what corrupts. So then Adam apparently sinned before the sin in the Garden. What corrupted Adam's heart then?

Here is what Calvin said;

4. They again object, Were not men predestinated by the ordination of God to that corruption which is now held forth as the cause of condemnation? If so, when they perish in their corruptions they do nothing else than suffer punishment for that calamity, into which, by the predestination of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his posterity headlong with him. Is not he, therefore, unjust in thus cruelly mocking his creatures? I admit that by the will of God all the sons of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness in which they are now involved; and this is just what I said at the first, that we must always return to the mere pleasure of the divine will, the cause of which is hidden in himself. But it does not forthwith follow that God lies open to this charge. For we will answer with Paul in these words, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me 2229thus? Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” (Rom. 9:20, 21). They will deny that the justice of God is thus truly defended, and will allege that we seek an evasion, such as those are wont to employ who have no good excuse. For what more seems to be said here than just that the power of God is such as cannot be hindered, so that he can do whatsoever he pleases? But it is far otherwise. For what stronger reason can be given than when we are ordered to reflect who God is? How could he who is the Judge of the world commit any unrighteousness? If it properly belongs to the nature of God to do judgment, he must naturally love justice and abhor injustice. Wherefore, the Apostle did not, as if he had been caught in a difficulty, have recourse to evasion; he only intimated that the procedure of divine justice is too high to be scanned by human measure, or comprehended by the feebleness of human intellect. The Apostle, indeed, confesses that in the divine judgments there is a depth in which all the minds of men must be engulfed if they attempt to penetrate into it. But he also shows how unbecoming it is to reduce the works of God to such a law as that we can presume to condemn them the moment they accord not with our reason. There is a well-known saying of Solomon (which, however, few properly understand), “The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool and rewardeth transgressors,” (Prov. 26:10). For he is speaking of the greatness of God, whose pleasure it is to inflict punishment on fools and transgressors though he is not pleased to bestow his Spirit upon them. It is a monstrous infatuation in men to seek to subject that which has no bounds to the little measure of their reason. Paul gives the name of elect to the angels who maintained their integrity. If their steadfastness was owing to the good pleasure of God, the revolt of the others proves that they were abandoned.501501 French, “Si leur constance er fermeté a eté fondee au bon plasir de Dieu, la revolte des diables monstre qu’ils n’ont pas eté retenus, mais plustost delaisse;”—if their constancy and firmness was founded on the good pleasure of God, the revolt of the devils shows that they were not restrained, but rather abandoned. Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.

Calvin taught that Adam (and mankind) fell because God predestined and ordained it. Man became corrupt because God ordained it according to Calvin.

Calvin taught that men have no right to question this, even if it does not accord with their God-given sense of reason. To support this he quotes Roman 9:20-21

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

The problem with Calvin's view is that he pulls this scripture out of context. Paul was clearly referring to Jeremiah chapter 18;

Jer 18:
1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

Paul was clearly referring to Jer 18:6 when he spoke of God as a potter having the power over the clump of clay.

But Jeremiah was not saying God "unconditionally" chooses to honor some men and destroy others. In verses 7-10 Jeremiah says that if a nation God has spoken of to pull down and pluck up repents and turns from their evil, then God will repent of the evil he had spoken toward them. God also said that if there be a nation he had spoken of to build up and plant, if that nation sins and will not obey him, he will repent of the good he had spoken toward them.

So, Calvin completely misinterprets and misrepresents what Paul said in Romans 9 and what Jeremiah said in Jeremiah 18. God does not unconditonally choose to honor some men while choosing to reprobate others, it is conditional upon their obedience to God.

 

[Iconoclast]

To be honest with you, I don't know what you're driving at. To be honest, I'm not even sure what Paul is driving at. If most Christians were honest, I think they would admit that don't understand the vast majority of what Paul is driving at anywhere in Romans. Hopefully Paul understands what he's saying. It took me a long time to realize I didn't really understand Romans. I don't know if his comparison of Christ to Adam here is just his own, only for purposes of illustration, or what.

Let me just start going through the passage in detail:


(Rom 5:12) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

So, to repeat myself, why is Paul's discourse utterly oblivious to Eve's role in all this, as elaborated in detail in the Genesis account. Genesis describes in detail the nature of her rebellion, and Adam's transgression is only described very tersely in Genesis. So why in Paul's reconception of it, the man is all important. Is it just so he can draw this parallel he want to make with Christ? And furthermore, he says above the death spread to all men as a result of Adam's sin. What about women? Did Eve's sin just spread to the women or what? If all this emphasis on men is just a byproduct of Paul's culture, does that mean we as well go along for the ride?

(Rom 5:13) for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

OK - Sin is not "imputed" without the law. Was the command God gave to Adam and Eve not a "law"? And did Adam and Eve not pay a price for violation of that law? What is the purpose of Paul's random aside here? It just seems like some out of left field commentary, detracting from any point he's making, but even the main point is obscure.

(Rom 5:14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

What was the likeness of the offense of Adam that Paul is alluding to? If there is some particular attribute of Adam's offense he has in mind, why wouldn't he say what that attribute is? Are we supposed to read his mind? One could think of an infinite number of ways in which Adam's sin was either like or unlike other people's sins that came after him. When the Children of Israel saw miracle after miracle and still repeatedly rebelled against God explicit commands, wasn't that like Adam's sin, sort of? What is Paul driving at? But anway, this verse completely undermines the previous one that said sin is not imputed without the law, by observing that death reigned as a result of Adam's sin. So Paul undermines his obscure points from one verse to the next. What sort of argument is this he's making?

And also, he says Adam is a "type" of Christ - does he mean just in his own discourse, or in some eternal sense. Why not spell out the way in which Adam was intended to be the first Christ, instead of some obscure passing reference.

(Rom 5:15) But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

I don't know why, but I'm reminded of this thing they did on Sesame Street eons ago, a song about being like and not alike: "One of these things is not like the other...One of these things just doesn't belong... Can you find it?" And it has a picture of a trike, a bicycle, a wagon, and an an armadillo." But anyway, I can think of an equally valid and equally obscure way in which the thing Paul says his referents are not alike in, they are in fact actually alike. Just think about it for a minute. You have one act by one person (Adam and Christ alternatively) having repercussions for many many people. So they're alike in that sense. or Unlike. Your choice.

It seems that Paul continues this same like-unalike line of discourse for the next several verses. And then we're back to the concept of only men being relevant:

(Rom 5:18) So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

One could excuse Paul for following the cultural norms of only referencing men, but Genesis doesn't do that. Eve plays and absolutely central role in the fall of mankind (now I'm doing it). When Paul's cultural bias causes him to be oblivious to absolutely pertenant details of the Genesis account, how can we overlook it?

(Rom 5:20) The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,


Iconoclast, if you really truly understand all this, I salute you. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Marc,

We are all meant to understand Romans...all of it. Romans is a strong book doctrinally....but 1 step at a time. Marc...we are all learning...and I have studied romans for years, but there is so much in there we will continue to learn if we are teachable.

If you do not mind, I would like to offer one caution;

Hopefully Paul understands what he's saying.

One could excuse Paul for following the cultural norms of only referencing men, but Genesis doesn't do that

So why in Paul's reconception of it

why is Paul's discourse utterly oblivious to Eve's role in all this, as elaborated in detail in the Genesis account.

When we read scripture ,It is God given....The Spirit had these men write what he wanted them to. it is not pauls random thoughts,or cultural.
It is God given instruction.The Spirit highlights for us what we need.

And also, he says Adam is a "type" of Christ - does he mean just in his own discourse, or in some eternal sense. Why not spell out the way in which Adam was intended to be the first Christ, instead of some obscure passing reference.

He means it as a mian teaching of the gospel....we remain dead in adam....or we have new life in Christ...the last adam......

two representative men....death/life

20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive

Here Paul by the Spirit makes it very clear....

45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

www.sermonaudio.com has many good sermons on this....keep reading 1 cor 15...then go back and see if you understand this better..
Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof
1._____ Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
( Genesis 2:16, 17; Genesis 3:12,13; 2 Corinthians 11:3 )
2._____ Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
( Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12, etc; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-19 )

3._____ They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.
( Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Psalms 51:5; Job 14:4; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 6:20 Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Thessalonians 1:10 )

4._____ From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
( Romans 8:7; Colossians 1:21; James 1:14, 15; Matthew 15:19 )

5._____ The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
( Romans 7:18,23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8; Romans 7:23-25; Galatians 5:17 )


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Iconoclast]

(Rom 5:14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

What was the likeness of the offense of Adam that Paul is alluding to? If there is some particular attribute of Adam's offense he has in mind, why wouldn't he say what that attribute is?

We sinned and died when adam sinned...we do not have to personally commit the same exact sin...be cause in him we sinned and died...we commit plenty of our own sins because we are born in adam.....

His sin has been given to all men

Jesus righteousness has been given to all men who are born of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

Rom 5:12) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

So, to repeat myself, why is Paul's discourse utterly oblivious to Eve's role in all this, as elaborated in detail in the Genesis account. Genesis describes in detail the nature of her rebellion, and Adam's transgression is only described very tersely in Genesis. So why in Paul's reconception of it, the man is all important. Is it just so he can draw this parallel he want to make with Christ? And furthermore, he says above the death spread to all men as a result of Adam's sin. What about women? Did Eve's sin just spread to the women or what? If all this emphasis on men is just a byproduct of Paul's culture, does that mean we as well go along for the ride?

Adam was the head...not Eve.....she is part of the story...but not the main focus

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

The bible is about redemption of the church...not cultural issues primarily.