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

[glorydaz]

It seems that you and Jerry's conversation can be summed up as ...... Adam did not know good from evil till after he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
As alluded to with him being naked both before and after, but it wasn't till after that he was ashamed of his nakedness.

Sounds about right to me, with the word "know" to be an experiential knowing. It's what Paul is explaining in Romans 7:8-9 when he says, 'But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

When Paul says, "when the commandment came," he is talking about when the conviction hit him as he experienced "coveting" and felt guilt over it. His conscience responded with guilt, as it was meant to do.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Maybe a Random member, or somebody who knows what he is up to can have him check out the thread. Regarding Romans 5:19. I don't think anything of it. Many is a word indicating plural. 18 tells me that all are condemned because Adam listened to his wife instead of God. And all are offered the free gift of life because of one's actions.

I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Interplanner]

It seems like it is Gen 3 that is the most misunderstood in this discussion; it keeps coming back to the Hebrew for 'knowing' which I have understood to be 'determine' not 'experience' it. So God was accusing Adam of taking on that role.

 

[Tambora]

Adam knew not to sin by disobeying the commands of God. Adam was warned of doing wrong and dying as a result. If Adam had not been put under the Law of God, you could come to your conclusion, but that was not the case.

There was no command or law concerning Adam's nakedness.
And thus, Adam did not see his nakedness as shameful in need of covering.
Before he ate of the fruit he didn't see being naked as shameful.
Since there was no law or command concerning nakedness, he had no knowledge of it being shameful until after he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and his eyes were opened and he saw his nakedness as shameful.

How could not have knowledge of his nakedness as shameful before he ate the fruit, unless something about that fruit revealed to him the shame of it?

 

[Shasta]

Adam knew not to sin by disobeying the commands of God. Adam was warned of doing wrong and dying as a result. If Adam had not been put under the Law of God, you could come to your conclusion, but that was not the case.

I agree with the point you have made here that Adam was given a law and warned of the consequences. The knowledge of good AND evil was an experiential kind of knowledge. Adam and Eve had this kind of knowledge after the fall because they partook of evil.

The angels too would have known from their creation about their duty to God - that God was Supreme and was to be supremely honored and obeyed. They like Adam and Eve were sinless in that they had no experience of evil, that is, until Satan and his minions rebelled. God does not make sentient creatures who are utterly devoid of an awareness of right and wrong.

 

[Interplanner]

The hebrew for knowing, there in the Gen 3 passage, is 'to determine.' See F. Schaeffer and those he refers to in GENESIS IN SPACE AND TIME

 

[Tambora]

Sounds about right to me, with the word "know" to be an experiential knowing. It's what Paul is explaining in Romans 7:8-9 when he says, 'But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

When Paul says, "when the commandment came," he is talking about when the conviction hit him as he experienced "coveting" and felt guilt over it. His conscience responded with guilt, as it was meant to do.

Let's keep going with that and see what the logical conclusion will be, no matter how dumb some of the questions might sound.

The fruit that Adam ate was from the tree of knowledge of good AND evil.
People tend to focus on the evil part, but the fruit also imparted the knowledge of GOOD also.

This would seem to imply that Adam did not formally have the knowledge that made one capable of recognizing good from evil. In other words, saw everything as neutral morally. And is why he had no inclination to cover his nakedness before that.
And is why the fruit, by all appearances, looked 'good' for consumption.

One could certainly put it together in that way for it to seem reasonable.

But we probably need to keep going for a final conclusion.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Because they are dead, for that, they all sinned. It doesn't need to be explained, only believed.

Why didn't you answer my question? Again, what kind of "death" is being referred to in this verse in "bold":

"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).​

I do not think that the "death" in that verse is referring to a "physical" death because all of Adam's descendants die physically is because no one has access to the very thing which allowed mortal man to live forever--the tree of life:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life" (Gen.3:22-24).​

So Adam was responsible for the fact that all men are ordained to die physically. But what "death" is being referred to here in "bold"?:

"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).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for(because of) that(one man having sinned) all have sinned"

What "death" is being spoken of in "bold"?

 

[Shasta]

There was no command or law concerning Adam's nakedness.
And thus, Adam did not see his nakedness as shameful in need of covering.
Before he ate of the fruit he didn't see being naked as shameful.
Since there was no law or command concerning nakedness, he had no knowledge of it being shameful until after he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and his eyes were opened and he saw his nakedness as shameful.

How could not have knowledge of his nakedness as shameful before he ate the fruit, unless something about that fruit revealed to him the shame of it?

There is a difference between guilt and shame.

 

[Lon]

Without a doubt Romans 5:12-18 is the most misunderstood passages of the New Testament

This is my only disagreement outright with you: I think it is Hebrews 6

Therefore we can understand that if sin is not imputed into anyone's account then there would be no spiritual death. Therefore, we can understand that Adam's sin of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil resulted in all of his descendants having a knowledge of law. And when his descendants sinned against that law they died spiritually.

A good study. I believe you are correct, Romans 5 is dealing with a legal death. He has been coming at the need for a Savior from all directions. His whole discussion is about our holistic need from holistic deaths. Romans 1 moral death, Romans 3 Spiritual death, Romans 8 physical death. Romans 5 is the legal sentence of death. We are holistically dead, not merely one or the other. We are born under physical curse. We are born under moral curse that is death. We are born with 'no one seeking God' and 'no one doing good' and 'no not one' to silence any argument by his own pen stroke. Romans 3:23 tells us not only all have sinned, but all men have fallen short of the glory of God. When we come to Romans 5, we are legally restricted to death as well. He is not expounding any kind of life apart from the Law. Our death is indeed holistic. -Lon

 

[Tambora]

There is a difference between guilt and shame.

Right. Adam couldn't be guilty of being created naked. He had no control of that.
And he couldn't be guilty of disobedience because there was no command or law saying his nakedness was shameful and needed to be covered.

But suddenly he has knowledge that his nakedness is shameful, even though he had no control of it and there was no command or law saying it was shameful to be naked.

Bear in mind, it is the same nakedness (that he had no part of creating) before and after he ate.
And there was no restriction to be naked.
So what made it shameful only after he ate of the tree?

No matter which word you place in there, the fact still remains that he had no knowledge his nakedness was shameful until after he ate of the tree of knowledge.

 

[glorydaz]

Good points. But what about this?

Romans 5:19KJV
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

What about it?

Well, if by one man's disobedience "many were made sinners" (involuntarily according to original sin), how is that by the obedience of one would many be made righteous (involuntarity - as the comparison would insist). That sounds like universal salvation to me.

 

[daqq]

Well, if by one man's disobedience "many were made sinners" (involuntarily according to original sin), how is that by the obedience of one would many be made righteous (involuntarity - as the comparison would insist). That sounds like universal salvation to me.

Lol, it essentially is, but apparently not if you do not wish to admit it so that you can keep the part you like and still condemn others to hell for not agreeing with your view.

 

[glorydaz]

Because they are dead, for that, they all sinned. It doesn't need to be explained, only believed.

But where does it say men are born dead as original sin insists?

 

[glorydaz]

Yep - by the ONE man's sin - THE sin - as by him THE death entered THE world (MEN, as in John 1's "the world knew him not").

I guess we could read every single verse in scripture like that. :chuckle:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

A good study. I believe you are correct, Romans 5 is dealing with a legal death.

This is what I said and this is the same thing with which you agree:

And when his descendants sinned against that law they died spiritually.​

So you agree with me that it is a person's own sin that results in spiritual death.

That truth directly contradicts what we read in the Westminster Confession of Faith:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/3).​

According to this the spiritual death experienced by Adam and Eve was conveyed to all their posterity by original generation. But now you recognize that the spiritual death of men happens because of their own sin and not because the spiritual death of Adam and Eve is conveyed to them.

At least you are beginning to see the truth that Calvinism is wrong about how spiritual death comes to men.

 

[glorydaz]

Maybe a Random member, or somebody who knows what he is up to can have him check out the thread. Regarding Romans 5:19. I don't think anything of it. Many is a word indicating plural. 18 tells me that all are condemned because Adam listened to his wife instead of God. And all are offered the free gift of life because of one's actions.

I don't think so.

This topic of original sin reminds me of what the Calvinists try to pull off, when they claim God saves a select few and damns the others to hell. In order to swallow the idea that God would saddle all men with ADAM'S sin, one would have to question the very righteousness and justice of God. Man would have a perfect reason for claiming he can't help being sinful. He could legitimately claim he was born a homesexual, for instance. If men are born sinners then God shouldn't expect anything from any of us. But, He does. And He's created us with everything we need to know Him built right into us. Which is why we are without excuse. Inheriting Adam's sin is about as Calvinistic as it comes.

What can we do by nature? Well, we can do the things contained in the law.

Romans 2:14KJV 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:​

Rather, we were fearfully and wonderfully made....I think this verse says it well.

Ec. 7:29KJV
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.​

 

[glorydaz]

Adam knew not to sin by disobeying the commands of God. Adam was warned of doing wrong and dying as a result. If Adam had not been put under the Law of God, you could come to your conclusion, but that was not the case.

Being warned not to touch a hot stove is not the same as actually touching it.

 

[glorydaz]

It seems like it is Gen 3 that is the most misunderstood in this discussion; it keeps coming back to the Hebrew for 'knowing' which I have understood to be 'determine' not 'experience' it. So God was accusing Adam of taking on that role.

So knowing your wife is to "determine" her?