ECT The Most Misunderstood Passage in the Bible--Romans 5:12-18

[Shasta]

So, I notice you have to add things to those verses in order for them to make any kind of sense to you. Like that "ongoing cleansing" and that ongoing forgiveness. Then you change commits sin to "practices sin as a lifestyle". Paul tells us we are perfect (complete) IN CHRIST JESUS. Is that what John is talking about? No, he is not talking about being created IN CHRIST JESUS and being filled with the Holy Spirit. Is he?

I did not add a thing to 1 John 1:7-9. I simply brought out is the sense of the Greek verbs that are already there. It is easy enough to find that information if you were really interested.

Your scriptures were talking about being saved, that is, the first encounter with God. Other scriptures deal with how we walk subsequently

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I have no problem with Romans 5:12 being about spiritual death but you are wrong about man being born spiritually alive.

I am glad to see that you finally realize that the "death" in "bold" in the following verse is speaking about "spiritual death":

"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" (Ro.5:12).​

You do realize that before someone can die spiritually they must first be alive spiritually, don't you? So when do you think a person becomes spiritually alive before he sins?

That which is born of the flesh is flesh means physical life gives rise to physical life.
Nicodemus had experienced that

That which is born of the spirit is spirit means that the Spirit is the One that gives birth to spiritual life.

Jesus divided the different births in this way to show Nicodemus that there was an experience he lacked.

Earlier you realized that when the Lord Jesus spoke of being "born again" He was referring to a person being born again spiritually:

Obviously Jesus was not telling him to be born again physically because that wasimpossible. However he could be born again SPIRITUALLY when the promise of the Spirit came.

The Lord spoke of two births, one of the flesh and one of the Spirit. So His words in regard to being "born again" MUST refer to one of those two births. And it is obvious that the reference is not in regard to being born again in the flesh. Instead, it must refer to being born again spiritually.

So it becomes clear that Nicodemus was previously born of the Spirit. When do you think that happened?

Nicodemus could not have received that birth yet because it was not possible until after the work of the cross had cleansed the human spirit. This is why the first time anyone was born of the Spirit was after the resurrection (John 20:22)

What about these people to whom the Lord Jesus makes reference?:

"And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err" (Mk.12:26-27).​

In what sense are those men alive now? And since only those who are born again of the Spirit can enter the kingdom then are you saying that neither Abraham, Isaac or Jacob will enter the kingdom?

 

[Lon]

What you said about Romans 5:12 made no sense either time.

Fair enough:
We can make one of two observations and it depends on our respective suppositions what we come away with, here is mine:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin [noun] came into the world through one man, and death through sin[noun], and so death spread to all men because all sinned[verb].

"...death through sin..." It is a noun and a condition, thus, because of our condition [noun] we sin [verb]. Aids is a condition. The condition leads to disease due to the inability of the body to fight off infection. We yet say those suffering and dying, are dying of Aids.

Similarly, 'sins' [action] is the condition of a sin nature[noun/adjective]. The Lord Jesus Christ said it is what is 'inside' a man that causes him to be impure. James tells us out of the same mouths, come blessing and cursing, etc.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Fair enough:
We can make one of two observations and it depends on our respective suppositions what we come away with, here is mine:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin [noun] came into the world through one man, and death through sin[noun], and so death spread to all men because all sinned[verb].

"...death through sin..." It is a noun and a condition, thus, because of our condition [noun] we sin [verb]. Aids is a condition. The condition leads to disease due to the inability of the body to fight off infection. We yet say those suffering and dying, are dying of Aids.

That is not what Paul is saying. Instead, the reason all men die is BECAUSE all men sin":

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—" (NIV).​

"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—" (NASB).​

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—" (NKJV).​

"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-" (RSV).​

To quote just a few...

 

[Lon]

That is not what Paul is saying. Instead, the reason all men die is BECAUSE all men sin":

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—" (NIV).​

"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—" (NASB).​

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—" (NKJV).​

"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-" (RSV).​

To quote just a few...

Sorry, Jerry, you'll never understand then. I couldn't be clearer 'why' I disagree with you, and not this scripture. At least you can understand this: I disagree with you, not the scripture. In Him -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

I disagree with you, not the scripture. In Him -Lon

I'm right and you're wrong.....where have I heard those words before? :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

I did not add a thing to 1 John 1:7-9. I simply brought out is the sense of the Greek verbs that are already there. It is easy enough to find that information if you were really interested.

Your scriptures were talking about being saved, that is, the first encounter with God. Other scriptures deal with how we walk subsequently

Yeah, I know what you were doing. You're claiming those who practice sin are worse than those who merely commit sin, all because the words sound better.

 

[Lon]

I'm right and you're wrong.....where have I heard those words before? :chuckle:

I think you are taking it further than it was intended. He wasn't understanding what I was saying. The short is that. Orthodoxy (not big O but for starting sentences), should never be shunned just to be shunned. Such is what every cult that ever started, does. They challenge a whole council and more often than not councils of thousands of godly men who come together, with years of study, reading their bibles, faithfully serving (pastors), and discuss scriptures. Thus Dordt wasn't just five old stodgy guys. The RC WAS orthodox and godly in the beginning. etc.

You too, are reading the ECF's. That's good too. The short, imo, is that we MUST have very very very good reason for discounting anything they say. For instance: MAD, though newer by systematic, seeks confirmation in the ECF and in the councils as well. So does OT, and both must in order to be orthodox. They are and will always be the marked difference between orthodox and cult. There is no way any of us can escape such. It necessarily follows. For me, belonging to a cult, I'd want to be incredibly sure before I adopted the cult label. It is no little thing and has forever-after repercussions. No one of us could escape that.

 

[Lon]

For your prayer, and I think for the thread a video:

Would appreciate your prayers for his family as well as the children in the cancer center who were his friends as well as going through their own cancer struggles.

 

[glorydaz]

Now that you have expressed a belief in the reliability of the ECF perhaps you should accept their unanimous active teaching against the concept of unconditional eternal security

Just pointing out that we are not alone in believing sin is not passed down through Adam, but rather is a result of sin entering the world. I'm not interested in "relying" on what other men have taught. There would be no need to read the Bible if we could depend on others, would there?

 

[Nang]

You are claiming that the first Adam was born as the head for all of mankind when he was born in the flesh, but Christ was not head of all mankind when he was born in the flesh.
Are you claiming that Adam retained his headship of all mankind even after he fell?
We don't see Adam ruling or judging any of his offspring, and he lived 930 years.
Adam was still alive when Noah's father lived (8 generations from Adam), but died before Noah was born.
How did Adam express his "headship" of all mankind?

Federal Headship is representative and organic in nature. It can be likened to the definition of a "genus."

Adam's headship was temporal but historically remains through procreation. He is head of the human race.

Christ as Federal Head of His church proves to be an eternal representation of all His spiritual offspring. (Romans 8:29)

 

[glorydaz]

I think you are taking it further than it was intended. He wasn't understanding what I was saying. The short is that. Orthodoxy (not big O but for starting sentences), should never be shunned just to be shunned. Such is what every cult that ever started, does. They challenge a whole council and more often than not councils of thousands of godly men who come together, with years of study, reading their bibles, faithfully serving (pastors), and discuss scriptures. Thus Dordt wasn't just five old stodgy guys. The RC WAS orthodox and godly in the beginning. etc.

You too, are reading the ECF's. That's good too. The short, imo, is that we MUST have very very very good reason for discounting anything they say. For instance: MAD, though newer by systematic, seeks confirmation in the ECF and in the councils as well. So does OT, and both must in order to be orthodox. They are and will always be the marked difference between orthodox and cult. There is no way any of us can escape such. It necessarily follows. For me, belonging to a cult, I'd want to be incredibly sure before I adopted the cult label. It is no little thing and has forever-after repercussions. No one of us could escape that.

Sorry, Lon. I have had my fill looking for the truth from anywhere other than the Bible. I'm not a babe in the wood, as you might think. I give everyone a fair hearing, but I refuse to fall for this idea that we must look to the past to find the truth. I've learned that accepting certain verses for proof is unwise, when they absolutely do not say what is being claimed when taken in context. I could give you a list of what you've presented yourself. I can read those same verses off many a website claiming to be proof texts. But when I read them in context, and other portions of scripture that refute them, I see they do not say what is being claimed. I have seen it too many times to fall for this plea of yours to look deeper into what others may claim.

I spent years in New Testament style assemblies with elders and wonderful teachers....and where various people would get up and share from the Scriptures what God was showing them as they searched the Scriptures. It was not a cult by any definition, so don't even go there. It was real and alive, not some dead study of what others had learned from their studies.

Yes, there have been many Godly men over the years, but they had nothing on believers today. We are all taught by the same Spirit and we all have the same written word of God close at hand. We don't need degrees to understand and expound on the scriptures. That's nothing more than a lack of faith. If you see something from the word, present it so it can be discussed, as Jerry has. Don't be throwing volumes of other opinions and creeds at him and expect them to have any credence.

 

[glorydaz]

Federal Headship is representative and organic in nature. It can be likened to the definition of a "genus."

Adam's headship was temporal but historically remains through procreation. He is head of the human race.

Christ as Federal Head of His church proves to be an eternal representation of all His spiritual offspring. (Romans 8:29)

There ya go....a perfect example of man's understanding. Where are the verses that say what you claim?

 

[dodge]

For your prayer, and I think for the thread a video:

Would appreciate your prayers for his family as well as the children in the cancer center who were his friends as well as going through their own cancer struggles.

Will do. Sad to see babies with cancer ! I believe all things work together for good to those that love God.

 

[Lon]

Sorry, Lon. I have had my fill looking for the truth from anywhere other than the Bible. I'm not a babe in the wood, as you might think. I give everyone a fair hearing, but I refuse to fall for this idea that we must look to the past to find the truth. I've learned that accepting certain verses for proof is unwise, when they absolutely do not say what is being claimed when taken in context. I could give you a list of what you've presented yourself. I can read those same verses off many a website claiming to be proof texts. But when I read them in context, and other portions of scripture that refute them, I see they do not say what is being claimed. I have seen it too many times to fall for this plea of yours to look deeper into what others may claim.

I think I've shown very well, I'm willing to listen to outside ideas, but they must sync with scripture. Whatever your context, you agreed with Jerry and I don't see that as part of the text or context. Either the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed the only way to the Father, or we can figure this all out on our own and don't need Him. This is specifically 1) why sinless doctrine was considered against scripture and 2) why even those who 'used' to espouse it gave it up too!

I spent years in New Testament style assemblies with elders and wonderful teachers....and where various people would get up and share from the Scriptures what God was showing them as they searched the Scriptures. It was not a cult by any definition, so don't even go there. It was real and alive, not some dead study of what others had learned from their studies.

Okay, it will take you longer then, like some of the others who held this view. They all gave it up. There has been no resurgence, except Mormons, wholesale by any church that names the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Such removes Him from worship.

Heresy (or doctrine) begets further heresy (or doctrine). Where there is smoke, there is fire. I never take that lightly. I am unique with my take on Hebrews. MAD, surely sees the book as to Hebrews, but read its warnings differently than I. I am extremely careful to always say I'm "outside" the camp on this one. I don't want anybody following me down the same hole unless they do as our Lord and Savior says, and count the cost. There are costs for going against the whole church. We must take those consequences, up to, and including disfellowship with orthodox congregations. Only my devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ would or could produce such a thing in me. I love that body

Yes, there have been many Godly men over the years, but they had nothing on believers today. We are all taught by the same Spirit and we all have the same written word of God close at hand. We don't need degrees to understand and expound on the scriptures. That's nothing more than a lack of faith. If you see something from the word, present it so it can be discussed, as Jerry has. Don't be throwing volumes of other opinions and creeds at him and expect them to have any credence.

I disagree. Greek is of incredible help and worth. Only one studied is capable. It is akin to the difference between black/white and color television. You are better able, if you have the education. We are foolish, if we raise ourselves beyond the hard study of another. I do believe it accessible, fully, but yet in black and whites.

As far as my involvement in thread, I've given the one scripture that I believe ends the discussion: Either the Lord Jesus Christ is the Only Way to the Father, or He is not. We don't have any convenience, imho, to second guess that clear scripture. If we are born innocent, and children like my nephew make it on their own laurels, then Jesus' words to me, seem to be challenged and negated, outright. It is exactly this clear to me. You will have to talk with the Lord about this because my mind, was made up regarding the matter. Is it damnable heresy? :idunno: I think it a harsh rebuke of the Lord Jesus' words: "No Lord Jesus, you are not the ONLY way!" It may be a strawman in your mind, but I can't see past the problematic of it. I do not at all, think you or Tam, or Jerry meaning to do it. I just believe that clarity points that direction and it was why it was labelled heresy so long ago. It wasn't just an idea spun on the bench of the old codgers, imho. I think it 'scripturally' offensive/problematic.

You don't. I understand that, but such must be directly dealt with or it simply remains that you 3 embrace a heresy and the rest of the church will move on without you over the matter. You'd have to deal compassionately and in great depth of very clear scripture representation and such has never been produced thought it was adamantly attempted so long ago. You 3 aren't the only passionate ones, the Pelagians were very committed. As I said, scripturally, even they gave it up. It isn't just history, but the passions and reasoning of those involved in that history, thus to not know it, is to repeat it today. However much you and I talk about such things, we still have to deal with scripture and our responsibility for our own selves before our Lord and Savior. I believe we have to do that at some point. Our only capable job, I believe, is to present (plant) and pray (water). I pray the Lord will guide us from here, mutually. If there is fallow ground, He will have to do His work there too. Only God could move either of us from our respective corners. It must be Him, else there is no hope in even what we have discussed already.

Just my thoughts and historical orthodox perspective, given in what I hope is seen with respect, though disagreement. In Our Lord Jesus Christ -Lon

 

[Shasta]

Our spirit is "quickened"...not re-created. Eph. 2:1KJV

Notice we were dead in trespasses and sins....not in the sin of Adam.

I do not believe we are guilty for Adam's sin, okay?

There are more ways of describing what God does in the human spirit than quickening (which means give life to). Here was the scripture I was referring to.

26"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes
(Ezekiel 36:26-27)

Here God said he would give us a new (human spirit) as well as give us the Holy Spirit. Making something anew is a little stronger expression than simply restoring it to a previous state of innocence.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Sorry, Jerry, you'll never understand then. I couldn't be clearer 'why' I disagree with you, and not this scripture. At least you can understand this: I disagree with you, not the scripture. In Him -Lon

Let us look at the verse again and then compare it with the meaning you put upon it:

"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" (Ro.5:12).​

It is impossible to look at this verse with a straight faith and say that it teaching that it is "because of our condition we sin":

"...death through sin..." It is a noun and a condition, thus, because of our condition [noun] we sin [verb].

You twist the meaning of that verse so badly that your interpretation of it does not even come close to resembling what it is actually saying. Not by a country mile!

 

[Shasta]

Sound grudging? I am sincere. I don't like beating issues to death but I do like reading to death. I've read the ECF's too. It all came to a head with Pelagius and Augustine, and both of us, all of us, capable of reading there. At this point, I'm praying that scriptures mold us into His image and that none of us harden but are molded by it. In Him, but a planter/waterer -Lon

The battle between Pelagius did not affect the Eastern Church, neither did Augustine. He was a Latin theologian who was not in the Eastern theological tradition. The ECFs did not believe the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to mankind. They did believe the Fall had made man liable to sin. At the same time they believed that man had a free will and even retained the Image of God although it was was marred by what happened.

I am saying this because people keep accusing me of believing in Original Sin and it clouds the conversation. I do not hold to Original Sin but to "Ancestral Sin." The difference was stated clearly in an article I read today.

All early church fathers, except St. Augustine, never taught a doctrine of ”Original Sin”, but always maintained that mankind has a “liability to sin”, which is known as the Ancestral Sin (Προπατορικό αμάρτημα). The doctrine of an ‘Ancestral Sin’ says that after Adam’s fall, human nature became liable to sinning. In other words, humans inherited not Adam’s sin itself, but his sinful nature. According to the fathers teachings, this what St. Paul means by saying “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned”
https://ibbarsoum.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/original-sin/

By sinful nature they did not mean a corrupted essence that necessitates actions. That was a Gnostic idea. Very often, it seems, doctrines are formed in reaction to some error or extreme, real or perceived. Once the lines are drawn people are driven to extreme intractable positions and can no longer objectively divide the scriptures. Everything must support ones particular view.

 

[Shasta]

Sound grudging? I am sincere. I don't like beating issues to death but I do like reading to death. I've read the ECF's too. It all came to a head with Pelagius and Augustine, and both of us, all of us, capable of reading there. At this point, I'm praying that scriptures mold us into His image and that none of us harden but are molded by it. In Him, but a planter/waterer -Lon

Nobody is probably more sincere than you, Lon

 

[Lon]

Let us look at the verse again and then compare it with the meaning you put upon it:

"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" (Ro.5:12).​

It is impossible to look at this verse with a straight faith and say that it teaching that it is "because of our condition we sin":



You twist the meaning of that verse so badly that your interpretation of it does not even come close to resembling what it is actually saying. Not by a country mile!

Yes it does, despite your protest. As I said, you read your presupposition into it. Of course you think it is opposite. The whole church agrees with me, not with you. That means I'm not the only one. Appeal to authority. Game show television has revealed to all of us that the majority is almost always right. Did you know that? The whole church believes my take on this verse. It doesn't matter the accusation after that unless you could prove it, to all of us. That's the task before you, not your accusatory, because it is flimsy at best according to 1) evidence 2) sync with context (which I gave prior) 3) and by the numbers of people who disagree with you and 4) it syncs better with all of scriptural revelation, including John 14:6 If what you believe is true, the Lord Jesus Christ would have to say that verse a different way. You'd have to correct Him because you cannot believe it. It is either literally true, or it is not. "If" what the Lord Jesus Christ said was true, 'then' your doctrine cannot be true.