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

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It looks like someone had the ability.
Job 1:1KJV There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.​

God seems to think Cain had the ability.
Gen. 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.​

There is a righteousness APART from the law. Rom 3:21
And thank goodness, because the law is not of faith Gal 3:12, and the just shall live by faith Gal 3:11.

Philippians 3:9 KJV
(9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Galatians 2:21 KJV
(21) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


And I love this one!

Galatians 3:21 KJV
(21) Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

Seems to be saying there is no law that could have brought life to anyone.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Imputation Revisited - 1 Cor. 15

Imputation Revisited - 1 Cor. 15

Okay, let's keep this easy cause that's how I roll. ;)

You put forth this idea that we "sin in Adam". I don't see that in Romans 5, but I see it here, and it isn't talking about sin at all. It's talking about physical death and the resurrection of the dead.
1 Cor. 1:21-22 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.​

I like it simple too. Let's start with correcting the citation above to 1 Cor. 15:21-22. ;)

Why is it that no one seems to be dealing with the symmetry of Paul's argument:

Paul in Romans 5 is not speaking about man's actual sin after Adam. For if every person contracts his own guilt by becoming a sinner by sinning, then one wonders why Paul bothers to form a comparison between Adam and Christ. Surely you do not intend to imply that we contract our own righteousness by being righteous? I hope not. The symmetry of Paul's comparison between fallen Adam's innate corruption and Our Lord innate righteousness, and the respective imputations of sin or righteousness upon man, is inescapable. Given what Paul has actually written, comparing Adam and Our Lord, it then follows that our innate and hereditary depravity and our Lord's innate and hereditary righteousness, imputed to us, is what is being referred to in Romans 5.

If we do not contract guilt by imputation, but instead become guilty by actually sinning, then we do not contract righteousness until we actually make ourselves righteous. This is the only conclusion of denial of the logical symmetry of Paul's argument, which is exactly why he formed the argument the way it was formed...including to illustrate the overlooked (in this thread) absurdity of assuming by just sinning more that grace will abound more in forgiveness. Yikes!

In the passage, 1 Cor. 15:21-22 Paul has moved from metaphor to typology, clarifying the point made in v. 20.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The fact that Paul introduces Adam into his argument without any clarifying explanation suggests that he assumes some knowledge of the biblical story found in Genesis 1–3. He may have taught it to them himself when he founded the church in Corinth. To be in Adam is to be part of the group which finds in Adam its representative and leader, which finds its identity and destiny in Adam and what he has brought about for his people. To be in Christ is to be part of the group which finds in Christ its representative and leader, which finds its identity and destiny in Christ and what he has brought about for his people.

All humans who have not yet found redemption through faith in Christ remain in Adam. Those who have entered into the promise of new life, the life of Christ, are in Christ, and will find that their initial experience of the newness of life was but a foretaste of the ultimate restoration of life that awaits them in the resurrection. The expressions in Adam and in Christ reinforce the idea of corporate solidarity that is found in the firstfruits metaphor (1 Cor. 15:20) as well. We are in Adam because he was our head and representative, and because we partake of his nature. And we are in Christ because He is our head and representative, and because we partake of His nature through the indwelling of his Spirit. In Paul’s two Adams scheme, Christ represents all those under the covenant of grace (the elect), but not the entire human race— those who are in Adam. This can be seen by the comparison between the effects of sin, and the effects of Christ’s resurrection. Adam represents the entire human race. Jesus represents all those given Him by the Father (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9; John 17:22; John 18:9). The two Adams stand in stark contrast to one another.

Paul’s use of the future tense—will be made alive—stresses the future, as-yet-unfulfilled aspect of Christ’s redeeming work, in keeping with where the argument is going in vv. 1 Cor: 15:23-28, where we are brought right to the ultimate consummation in which the reign of sin and death is completely demolished. The following verse, 1 Cor. 15:22, makes it clear that by “being made alive” Paul has in mind the resurrection since those who belong to him will be made alive (resurrected) “when he comes.”

As in Romans 5:12-21, Paul stresses the differences between Adam and Christ. The consequences of the resurrection of Christ (life for all) correspond antithetically to the consequences of Adam’s sin (death for all). The former has broken the power of the latter. Note that Paul is not teaching universalism (see 1 Cor. 1:18); the unqualified “all” of 1 Cor. 15:22 who will be made alive is clarified by 1 Cor. 15:23 with the phrase “those who belong to him.”

The fact that Christ, the firstfruits, has already been made alive clarifies that the new life of which Paul speaks is the resurrected life which has been the subject of this entire chapter. It also becomes evident that Paul is not concerned in this chapter with any resurrection of the unrighteous to judgment, but is fully focused on the question of the resurrection of the righteous, and of Christians in particular. Those who belong to Christ clarifies that not all the dead will enjoy the resurrection life Paul is describing here, but only those who are Christ’s (including the faithful people of God who died before Christ’s first coming). The expression also reinforces the idea of corporate solidarity that was already introduced with the firstfruits metaphor in 1 Cor. 15:20 and reiterated in the concept of “in Adam” and “in Christ” in 1 Cor. 15:22. Further, there is no suggestion that Christ would come to take his people away (as in dispensational rapture eschatology); the idea is that believers (and creation) will experience their ultimate renewal and glorification upon Christ’s return.

Clearly, as you noted, the 1 Cor. 15 passage is about bodily resurrection of those in Christ, but it is not divorced from passages elsewhere about those already resurrected in Christ, born-anew, right now, which explains the fact that Paul tells us elsewhere that we have been sealed by the Spirit (Romans 5, 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30) and that the Holy Spirit is the firstfruits (Rom. 8:23) and the first installment, deposit, down payment, (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:14) on what we are to experience once our redemption has been fully consummated. The veritable now, not yet often spoken of in Scripture.

Because of what Jesus has already done for us in conquering death and the grave, this establishes what is yet to come—that we too will be raised bodily from the dead on the last day. This is why Paul can speak of Christian believers as presently seated and raised with Christ in heavenly places. The first coming of Jesus Christ and his resurrection ensures that in the present age, every Christian believer is already raised with Christ. This is what we mean when we speak of the now/not yet distinction found throughout the New Testament. Because we are in Christ and already seen as seated with Him in heavenly places, we can be assured of the promise of the not yet—the resurrection of our bodies.

AMR
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Darn tootin' Tam! Who you think you are, reading God's mind by reading His Words! Why the noive of some people!
Speaking of GOD's mind ......
Adam would know good and evil, like GOD did.
So why would that be a bad thing to have to begin with??????
One would think that if man is supposed to strive to be more like GOD, think like GOD, and act like GOD, it would be a good thing.
 

dodge

New member
Then, by golly, he was just like us. His nature was exactly like ours. It wasn't a sinful nature, it was human nature....exactly as God intended us to be.

If Adam did not have a choice then God would be a liar because He told Adam not to, and if He knew Adam had no choice and had to disobey Him that would have made God dishonest, and that is wrong.

Adam being created by God was perfect until he made the choice to disobey God.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
There is a righteousness APART from the law. Rom 3:21
And thank goodness, because the law is not of faith Gal 3:12, and the just shall live by faith Gal 3:11.

Wow, thanks Tam for pointing that out regarding Rom. 3:21.....the examples of Job and Noah are two of the witnesses spoken of there. I hadn't thought of that. :)

Philippians 3:9 KJV
(9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Galatians 2:21 KJV
(21) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


And I love this one!

Galatians 3:21 KJV
(21) Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

Seems to be saying there is no law that could have brought life to anyone.

Exactly so. :thumb:
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Jerry,

My post above contains 4 links to well thought out discussions of the matter of original sin. One of those links even explains the view you are taking...that we are born morally neutral.

The subject is whether a person is dead spiritually because Adam's spiritual death has been imputed to him or whether a person dies spiritually as a result of his own sin. You said:

Romans 5:12 speaks to the spiritual, physical, and judicial death of man.

Since you admit that the verse is referring to at least a "spiritual death" then look at what is said there:

"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).​

Here can see that "spiritual" death passed to all men because all men have sinned. Since a man has to be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually then that means that all men are not spiritually dead until they sin.

They do not emerge from the womb spiritually dead.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Sorry, that last was meant for Glory, typed Tam in error. Was pointing out the stupidity of the comment immediately preceding mine.
 

dodge

New member
Speaking of GOD's mind ......
Adam would know good and evil, like GOD did.
So why would that be a bad thing to have to begin with??????
One would think that if man is supposed to strive to be more like GOD, think like GOD, and act like GOD, it would be a good thing.

This whole argument makes God out to be a liar:


Adam had no knowledge of evil until after he disobeyed God.

Gen 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

There is Holiness then there is good and evil. Adam walked in the presence of Holiness when he walked with God , which good and evil are not even hardly the same as Holiness.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
If we do not contract guilt by imputation, but instead become guilty by actually sinning, then we do not contract righteousness until we actually make ourselves righteous.

You obviously do not know the meaning of the word "guilty." If a person is not responsible or bear the culpability for a sin then he is not guilty:

Culpabiblity: "guilt or blame that is deserved; blameworthiness."

If it could be possible that the guilt of Adam could be imputed to anyone else then that person sure would not be "guilty" of Adam's sin. That person cannot be said to be "guilty" of Adam's sin becausethat person was not responsible for Adam's sin.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
The one man in question here is Adam. All are dead in Adam.

Okay, I went to the link, and here's what I see for proof texts.

"Evil from his youth" does not mean man is born in sin. When you look throughout scripture, you will see that "youth" is that distinct period of time that includes those who are old enough to choose between good and evil....even up to including such as "wife of his youth".

And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in
his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s
sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth;
neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have
done (Genesis 8:21).​

This is nothing more than poetic license - hyperbole. We see the same thing over and over...such as speaking lies from the womb, etc. I've given many examples of that before, but I'm sure you've seen them yourself.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
conceive me (Psalm 51:5).​

Yes, and we see the same thing here. Clearly none "go astray as soon as they are born, and they certainly are not "speaking lies".

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as
soon as they be born, speaking lies (Psalm 58:3).​

You simply cannot honestly build any kind of a doctrine on these types of verses. Just think what someone could do if doctrines were formed from such as this.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This whole argument makes God out to be a liar:
How so?
GOD has the knowledge of good and evil, so having that knowledge certainly isn't a bad thing.


Adam had no knowledge of evil until after he disobeyed God.
The tree was not just of the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of both good and evil.

Gen 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Sorry, that last was meant for Glory, typed Tam in error.

You should be.


Was pointing out the stupidity of the comment immediately preceding mine.

It was a question that went unanswered.

Tam gave it a shot.

Those prophets had faith toward Christ but were still ignorant of it.

1 Peter 1:11

“Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.”
 

dodge

New member
Tambora;4981813]How so?
GOD has the knowledge of good and evil, so having that knowledge certainly isn't a bad thing.

If God, and He did, told Adam to not eat knowing Adam had no choice that would make God a liar.

All knowledge good or evil is below Holiness !

The tree was not just of the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of both good and evil


Immaterial God commanded Adam to NOT eat off of that tree. Rationalization is what Eve did when she disobeyed God.

Gen 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam and Eve disobeyed God PERIOD and the result was mankind is born with a sin nature.

When a lion is born it drinks milk but eventually the lion will eat meat it is the lions NATURE.

Man is a sinner not because he sins he sins because he is sinner as ,George Affleck said.

Adam did die in the day he ate off of the tree. " A day unto God is a 1000 unto man and a 1000 years is but a day unto God. No man has ever lived a 1000 years so God was right.
 

Shasta

Well-known member
Yeah, as far as federal headship etc. I'm not as well versed. I suppose the disease/condition idea fits both original and ancestral?

Yes I think so. The difference between Ancestral and Original Sin is primarily the Reformed belief in legal imputation. In either theological view Adam is a causal agent bringing sin into the world and into humanity making sin inevitable. Both believe in the existence of a carnal nature
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
How so?
GOD has the knowledge of good and evil, so having that knowledge certainly isn't a bad thing.



The tree was not just of the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of both good and evil.

Gen 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Without knowledge who can be holy?
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I like it simple too. Let's start with correcting the citation above to 1 Cor. 15:21-22. ;)

Same thing. Paul is talking about physical death and resurrection from the dead. Nothing about sin being in Adam.

I honestly can not go on until this is addressed specifically.

Why is it that no one seems to be dealing with the symmetry of Paul's argument:



If we do not contract guilt by imputation, but instead become guilty by actually sinning, then we do not contract righteousness until we actually make ourselves righteous. This is the only conclusion of denial of the logical symmetry of Paul's argument, which is exactly why he formed the argument the way it was formed...including to illustrate the overlooked (in this thread) absurdity of assuming by just sinning more that grace will abound more in forgiveness. Yikes!

In the passage, 1 Cor. 15:21-22 Paul has moved from metaphor to typology, clarifying the point made in v. 20.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The fact that Paul introduces Adam into his argument without any clarifying explanation suggests that he assumes some knowledge of the biblical story found in Genesis 1–3. He may have taught it to them himself when he founded the church in Corinth. To be in Adam is to be part of the group which finds in Adam its representative and leader, which finds its identity and destiny in Adam and what he has brought about for his people. To be in Christ is to be part of the group which finds in Christ its representative and leader, which finds its identity and destiny in Christ and what he has brought about for his people.

The context alone clarifies what Paul is saying. "Slept" is physical death. Paul is not saying anything about sin or spiritual death. It certainly isn't true that all are IN Christ, it just means all will be resurrected, just as all face physical death because Adam'a sin brought death and suffering to us all. Proof - You don't need to be righteous to be resurrected.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
You could also be right and your spirit be wrong. When Jesus warned against calling people "raca" He was referring to the underlying sin of contempt which is what I see in your responses to Lon

Well then, your discernment is way off. I like Lon, but even Lon needs to be smacked down at times. It's actually called "tough love" in your neck of the woods.
 
Top