Through one man, sin entered the world.

[JIM]

• Death came to all men through sin because all sinned.

That is NOT what it says. That is speculation; and very bad speculation at that.

 

[Josheb]

“Sin spread” ???
Doesn't it say “death spread”?

I sure it says death spread because all sinned.
I’m certain it does not say sin spread because all die.

Am I wrong?

Rom 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—

Re-read Posts 188, 189 and 193 again, in their entirety, and follow the line of reasoning by which that statement was made. And PLEASE do not quote mine my posts a third time.


The verse, Romans 5:12 states, "death spread to all men" BUT that verse is NOT the only verse in the entire Bible that speaks to what happened at that specific moment when Adam disobeyed God and thereafter. The problem is one of proof-texting, or the practice of taking one single verse and acting like it defines everything in the entire Bible on any one subject (in this case, the subject of sin's spread). Except on this occasion, it's not even a whole verse that is being abused; it's half a verse! I laid out the rationale by which it can justly be said, "sin spread to all men," and I am not repeating those posts again because 1) they're too long and 2) no one should have to repeat anything in a text-based medium. I did not claim the verse stated sin spread. I claimed it is reasonably, rationally, exegetically justifiable to say sin spread, and sin spread because of one man's disobedience. I provided the scriptures each step of the way and did not make any one verse say anything other than what it states. If death spread and death came through sin then it is logically tenable (and I would argue necessary) that sin spread, too. The alternative would be that sin entered the world at one and only fixed point (Eden) and death spread outward from that one, sole, single, solitary, lone fixed point of entrance. Death spread but sin did not. Not only is that not what scripture elsewhere teaches, that would also create a plethora of other problems theologically (like the adulteration of Eden and it still being that way). Reason is our friend (Isa. 1:18) . My post says sin spread, I meant it to say sin spread, and I am sticking to that position until someone proves death spread without sin also spreading and can explain how the world can be sinful without sin having spread...... because the verse states, "Because of this, just as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, because all sinned."

You're not wrong about the verse. You are wrong about my post.

 

[Arial]

It seems I have to clarify this over and over again. You keep misrepresenting what I say by conveniently leaving out the MAJOR point of the LAW.

You paraphrase my claim of Adam having been created with sinful flesh as if the LAW has nothing to do with it. You again failed to mention it.
If you’re going to state my claim, I sure would appreciate you getting it right.

Adam’s flesh became sinful with the introduction of the law.

Thank you

“It is because you don’t understand my words”

What do you mean by the introduction of the law?

How does law make the flesh sinful. Did the introduction of law give to Adam's flesh something that God did not create it with? Or was it the breaking of the law that did that?

There was an awful lot in my post that you failed to deal with.

 

[Josheb]

Death came to all men through sin because all men sinned.

That is NOT what it says. That is speculation; and very bad speculation at that.

Well, let's take a look at the text.

Romans 5:10-21
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. 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 — for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 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. 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. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 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. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

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.
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
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
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.
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.

• Sin entered into the world
• Death [also] entered through sin
• And so death spread
• And so death through sin spread to all men
• And so death through sin spread to all men because all sinned.

That is in fact what the verse says. A man who does not sin is not dead in transgression. He is physically mortal, but NOT transgressionally dead (or sinful). Sin and death go hand in hand (Rom. 6:23). There are no people who sin and do not bring upon themselves transgressional death when they sin. Likewise, there are no people who are transgressionally dead who have not sinned. The two states never exist apart from one another. Death came to all men through sin because all sinned. I could also say, "Death came to all men through sin because all men are sinful." Both statements are true, not mutually exclusive of one another. ALL of it, including the ensuing condemnation and the making of many being made sinners, is predicated upon one man. It's isn't just sin and death that are predicated upon Adam's act. Sin, death, condemnation, and the making of many sinners are all predicated on Adam's act.


We sin because we're sinful and we're sinful because we sin. It's not one or the other, but both.

 

[JIM]

Well, let's take a look at the text.

Romans 5:10-21
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. 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 — for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 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. 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. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 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. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

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.
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
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
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.
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.

• Sin entered into the world
• Death [also] entered through sin
• And so death spread
• And so death through sin spread to all men
• And so death through sin spread to all men because all sinned.

That is in fact what the verse says. A man who does not sin is not dead in transgression. He is physically mortal, but NOT transgressionally dead (or sinful). Sin and death go hand in hand (Rom. 6:23). There are no people who sin and do not bring upon themselves transgressional death when they sin. Likewise, there are no people who are transgressionally dead who have not sinned. The two states never exist apart from one another. Death came to all men through sin because all sinned. I could also say, "Death came to all men through sin because all men are sinful." Both statements are true, not mutually exclusive of one another.


We sin because we're sinful and we're sinful because we sin. It's not one or the other, but both.

But it does not say that death spread to all men because Adam sinned. It says that death spread to all men because all men sinned. And by the way that is not physical death that is being discussed there. The death due to trespasses and sins entered the world through one man and that death entered the world through one man. Death spread to all men because all sinned.

 

[JIM]

We sin because we're sinful and we're sinful because we sin. It's not one or the other, but both.

No! No! No! It is not both. If we sinned because we were sinful, then it must have been God who made us sinful and that simple did not happen.

We become sinful when (and because) we sin.

 

[Josheb]

But it does not say that death spread to all men because Adam sinned. It says that death spread to all men because all men sinned. And by the way that is not physical death that is being discussed there. The death due to trespasses and sins entered the world through one man and that death entered the world through one man. Death spread to all men because all sinned.

Look at Post 202. That post is YOUR post. That post has one sentence quoted from me, and one sentence written by you in response.

The word "Adam" does not appear anywhere in that post.

 

[Arial]

Just really poor translation/interpretation.

The same old same, same old non-argument for not believing that the Bible is actually saying what it means.

The very idea of anything but man waiting "with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God", is truly bazaar. Similarly for the creation being "subjected to futility not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God", is nothing short of abject lacking in reality. It isn't rational in any sense of metaphor.

I guess we can discount a great deal of the Bible as being poorly translated.
"You are the salt of the earth...."
"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser"
"I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
"Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, 'Here we are'?"
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in.
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Job 38-41

And the final and eternal destination at the second coming of Christ will be the new earth and heaven following the complete destruction of the present one.

It will still be earth, God's creation. I don't know what your point is.

 

[Josheb]

No! No! No! It is not both.

Yes! Yes! Yes! It is both!

If we sinned because we were sinful, then it must have been God who made us sinful and that simple did not happen.

Nope. God made us good and sinless. Adam brought sin into the world and with sin came death and sin and death have corrupted EVERYTHING in the world, including the humans living in it. We're not sinful because God made us that way and NOTHING I have EVER posted should ever be remotely construed to say any such thing. We're not sinful because God made us that way, we're sinful because the entrance of sin into the world made us that way. We sin because we can (1 Cor. 15:42). We sin because we're sinful (like leaven working through the whole dough). We're sinful because we sin.

We become sinful when (and because) we sin.

.....and we sinned because we're sinful (as a consequence of sin having entered the world and corrupted EVERYTHING therein).

 

[Josheb]

And by the way that is not physical death that is being discussed there. The death due to trespasses and sins entered the world through one man and that death entered the world through one man.

Ugh. There must be a half-dozen posts of mine in this thread (and thousands of them in this forum) saying the exact same thing. Move on.

 

[Josheb]

It says that death spread to all men because all men sinned.

And, according to the Romans 5 text, why did all men sin?

 

[LeviR]

Re-read Posts 188, 189 and 193 again, in their entirety, and follow the line of reasoning by which that statement was made. And PLEASE do not quote mine my posts a third time.


The verse, Romans 5:12 states, "death spread to all men" BUT that verse is NOT the only verse in the entire Bible that speaks to what happened at that specific moment when Adam disobeyed God and thereafter. The problem is one of proof-texting, or the practice of taking one single verse and acting like it defines everything in the entire Bible on any one subject (in this case, the subject of sin's spread). Except on this occasion, it's not even a whole verse that is being abused; it's half a verse! I laid out the rationale by which it can justly be said, "sin spread to all men," and I am not repeating those posts again because 1) they're too long and 2) no one should have to repeat anything in a text-based medium. I did not claim the verse stated sin spread. I claimed it is reasonably, rationally, exegetically justifiable to say sin spread, and sin spread because of one man's disobedience. I provided the scriptures each step of the way and did not make any one verse say anything other than what it states. If death spread and death came through sin then it is logically tenable (and I would argue necessary) that sin spread, too. The alternative would be that sin entered the world at one and only fixed point (Eden) and death spread outward from that one, sole, single, solitary, lone fixed point of entrance. Death spread but sin did not. Not only is that not what scripture elsewhere teaches, that would also create a plethora of other problems theologically (like the adulteration of Eden and it still being that way). Reason is our friend (Isa. 1:18) . My post says sin spread, I meant it to say sin spread, and I am sticking to that position until someone proves death spread without sin also spreading and can explain how the world can be sinful without sin having spread...... because the verse states, "Because of this, just as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, because all sinned."

You're not wrong about the verse. You are wrong about my post.

I would agree that the sin in the flesh spread, but not the actual sin of Adam.
The actual action of eating the fruit, which was sin, did not spread. The death is what actually spread from his actual sin.
The nature of man, which is sinful, also spread.
Our death does not come from our own sin, it comes from Adam’s sin.

 

[Arial]

If no law exist, there is no law to break. Do you understand that?

God's law always exists. Do you understand that? God's law is impliciit as part of his very being as Creator and God. Law is don'ts but ls also do"s.

To not eat of the tree was a command of God. It was therefore forbidden to eat of it. It was a LAW. Do you understand that?
Just like “thou shall not covet” is a law.

I never denied that and you better tone down your rhetoric.

 

[Josheb]

I would agree that the sin in the flesh spread, but not the actual sin of Adam.

I might agree, too, BUT that agreement is entirely dependent upon how sin is defined.

Too many Christians lack a whole-scripture definition of sin and, therefore, lack a full understanding of what happened when Adam disobeyed God.

The actual action of eating the fruit, which was sin, did not spread.

I agree, but it wasn't the fruit that was the problem. It is the act of disobedience and its consequences that spread (and most do not correctly understand what are those consequences).

The death is what actually spread from his actual sin.

Yes, that is true BUT there's no "only" in Romans 5:12. Death isn't the only thing that spread.

The nature of man, which is sinful, also spread.

Yep. We then have TWO spreading conditions, death and a nature that is sinful, resulting from one man's act of disobedience. I, personally, do not like the phrase "sinful nature" because I can't find it stated in scripture (unless a dynamic translation is used). I prefer "flesh" because "flesh" is the scriptural term. Adam was once sinless and then he became sinful. His flesh was once good and sinless but then - through his act of disobedience - his flesh became sinful. Some here deny the premise of "sinful flesh" (I do not recall whether you are one of them) but scriptures like Romans 7:5 and 8:3 make it clear the flesh is sinful. Sinful flesh spread. A propensity to sin spread. A number of other things spread but the list would make this post ten times longer.

There's another reason for using "sinful flesh" instead of "sinful nature" or "sin nature." Sinful flesh helps discriminate between what existed prior to Genesis 3:6-7 and what happened thereafter, but it also helps us understand there is a very real, physical, biological aspect to sin, and that aspect is often denied in these debates. It's an odd denial because most folks will agree the corruption of the world due to sin's entrance caused diseases to occur, but they refuse to acknowledge a disease that is inherited from one human to another human is evidence of sin's physical transmission. Only in the last few decades have we discovered the very real and over substantial physical effects of trauma on the brain and other parts of the body. Simply put (for now), trauma changes the brain.

And nothing in human history has been more traumatic to any individual than Genesis 3:6-7.

In that moment Adam (and Eve) went from being good, unashamed, and sinless to the exact opposite of all three. It was traumatizing. We now also know that changes in the brain effect changes in other areas of the body, and all of this happens at a cellular level...... including the gametes (reproductive cells). When the ECFs got together to debate this they had a rudimentary understanding of disease and included that knowledge in their reasoning, but they took a largely theological (philosophical) approach to hamartiology. We now KNOW the physiology is a very real and very substantive component of what happened. It's not all cosmology, psychology, and sociology (which is what most Christians argue without calling it that).

Whatever measure is used the simple fact is that Adam and Eve were changed that day and the change made them corrupt. They were no longer perfect; they were imperfect.

Perfection CANNOT come from imperfection. God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to make it so humans reproduced physically (sexually) and that necessarily entails the combination of cells from imperfect people - cells that contain a record of the trauma - in every single offspring. Whether they act on it or not is irrelevant. When God sees the creature what he sees is someone damaged at the cellular level, someone in whom is contained the chromosomal inheritance of the once sinless Adam and Eve who became sinful.

Our death does not come from our own sin, it comes from Adam’s sin.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

As I have repeatedly said, we are sinful because we sin and we sin because we're sinful. Even if someone were born sinless and good then the minute they sinned they'd be dead in transgression. It would be their death by their act. It could stand alone apart from anything inherited or imputed from Adam. Many Christians (incorrectly) think that's the way it is. We have each killed ourselves and we'd have done that even without Adam, but the fact is ALSO that Adam killed us all AND we've killed ourselves.

The two are not mutually exclusive conditions.

If there'd been one sinless person, then it would be possible to come to God through Christ without Christ having to pay for sins. Two sinless people, ten sinless people, a hundred, thousands of sinless people make Jesus's propitiatory death unnecessary. That is an entirely different Christianity. Everyone should, therefore, understand there are very real and very substantive theological consequences resulting from volitionalism; consequences so substantive they would change Christianity in its entirety.

Adam disobeyed God, and by his disobedience he became sinful. Not only did he, personally, become sinful, but sin entered the world, not just Adam. With sin's entrance came the death of transgression and sin corrupts everything it touches because it is the antithesis of God. Sin is the antithesis of righteousness. Sin is the antithesis of faith. Sin is the antithesis of holiness (separateness for sacred purpose). Sin is the antithesis of obedience and faithfulness. God is the thesis. Sin is the antithesis. The antithesis reigned the moment Adam disobeyed God. Scripture states sin reigned from the time of Adam until Moses but that statement should not be construed to mean sin stopped reigning once the Law was given. Sin, the antithesis of everything of God continued to reign until Christ was given. The only thing sin did not reign over is God. God alone is sovereign over sin. Christ came and defeated sin, and he defeated death. Apart from him sin still reigns in sinful flesh. The antithesis reigns in sinful flesh. Adam let that guy "sin" into the world, and he's been a bull in the proverbial China chop ever since. The entire world changed and everything - including every human ever born into it - was likewise changed.

Sinless man was going to die one way or another simply because he was made mortal and needed the tree of life to live. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and there's no way to the Father by by Jesus.

Sinful man is already dead. Sinful man is dead in sin and plods through life with his lungs breathing air and his heart pumping blood in what appears to him to be life but he is really nothing more than an animated corpse plodding through what he delusionally imagines is a life, plodding toward his physical death where he will die dead. He'll physically die, already dead in sin. Every cell in his body will bear the marks of sin and while he cannot see it, God can. God does not need to look at the record of any man's actions to measure the man. God can see the defilement all over, the corruption and stench of transgressional death all about the man, inside and out.

When God lost Adam, God lost all humanity.*

Imperfection CANNOT procreate perfection.

Adam might have been able to pay for Eve, one life for another, but that still would have cost God the entire human race. Adam might have been stand in the gap for Eve and lost himself, but there is no way he could pay God back for the loss of all humanity.


Using ONLY Romans 5:12 to define what happened makes for bad theology. Defining sin ONLY by 1 John 3:4 makes for bad theology.



















* Or, more accurately, when Adam lost Ada, Adam also lost all humanity. He took all humanity from God with his single act of disobedience. Sin entered the world, and sin corrupts everything it can. The entire creation was subjected to futility and held in bondage. How could Adam possibly give God back an uncorrupted world? How could he possibly chase sin out of the world and hand to God a world that had never seen even a hint of sin? He couldn't. No one can. It is impossible. Hence the need for the Son of God.
.

 

[LeviR]

I might agree, too, BUT that agreement is entirely dependent upon how sin is defined.

Too many Christians lack a whole-scripture definition of sin and, therefore, lack a full understanding of what happened when Adam disobeyed God.

I agree, but it wasn't the fruit that was the problem. It is the act of disobedience and its consequences that spread (and most do not correctly understand what are those consequences).

Yes, that is true BUT there's no "only" in Romans 5:12. Death isn't the only thing that spread.

Yep. We then have TWO spreading conditions, death and a nature that is sinful, resulting from one man's act of disobedience. I, personally, do not like the phrase "sinful nature" because I can't find it stated in scripture (unless a dynamic translation is used). I prefer "flesh" because "flesh" is the scriptural term. Adam was once sinless and then he became sinful. His flesh was once good and sinless but then - through his act of disobedience - his flesh became sinful. Some here deny the premise of "sinful flesh" (I do not recall whether you are one of them) but scriptures like Romans 7:5 and 8:3 make it clear the flesh is sinful. Sinful flesh spread. A propensity to sin spread. A number of other things spread but the list would make this post ten times longer.

There's another reason for using "sinful flesh" instead of "sinful nature" or "sin nature." Sinful flesh helps discriminate between what existed prior to Genesis 3:6-7 and what happened thereafter, but it also helps us understand there is a very real, physical, biological aspect to sin, and that aspect is often denied in these debates. It's an odd denial because most folks will agree the corruption of the world due to sin's entrance caused diseases to occur, but they refuse to acknowledge a disease that is inherited from one human to another human is evidence of sin's physical transmission. Only in the last few decades have we discovered the very real and over substantial physical effects of trauma on the brain and other parts of the body. Simply put (for now), trauma changes the brain.

And nothing in human history has been more traumatic to any individual than Genesis 3:6-7.

In that moment Adam (and Eve) went from being good, unashamed, and sinless to the exact opposite of all three. It was traumatizing. We now also know that changes in the brain effect changes in other areas of the body, and all of this happens at a cellular level...... including the gametes (reproductive cells). When the ECFs got together to debate this they had a rudimentary understanding of disease and included that knowledge in their reasoning, but they took a largely theological (philosophical) approach to hamartiology. We now KNOW the physiology is a very real and very substantive component of what happened. It's not all cosmology, psychology, and sociology (which is what most Christians argue without calling it that).

Whatever measure is used the simple fact is that Adam and Eve were changed that day and the change made them corrupt. They were no longer perfect; they were imperfect.

Perfection CANNOT come from imperfection. God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to make it so humans reproduced physically (sexually) and that necessarily entails the combination of cells from imperfect people - cells that contain a record of the trauma - in every single offspring. Whether they act on it or not is irrelevant. When God sees the creature what he sees is someone damaged at the cellular level, someone in whom is contained the chromosomal inheritance of the once sinless Adam and Eve who became sinful.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

As I have repeatedly said, we are sinful because we sin and we sin because we're sinful. Even if someone were born sinless and good then the minute they sinned they'd be dead in transgression. It would be their death by their act. It could stand alone apart from anything inherited or imputed from Adam. Many Christians (incorrectly) think that's the way it is. We have each killed ourselves and we'd have done that even without Adam, but the fact is ALSO that Adam killed us all AND we've killed ourselves.

The two are not mutually exclusive conditions.

If there'd been one sinless person, then it would be possible to come to God through Christ without Christ having to pay for sins. Two sinless people, ten sinless people, a hundred, thousands of sinless people make Jesus's propitiatory death unnecessary. That is an entirely different Christianity. Everyone should, therefore, understand there are very real and very substantive theological consequences resulting from volitionalism; consequences so substantive they would change Christianity in its entirety.

Adam disobeyed God, and by his disobedience he became sinful. Not only did he, personally, become sinful, but sin entered the world, not just Adam. With sin's entrance came the death of transgression and sin corrupts everything it touches because it is the antithesis of God. Sin is the antithesis of righteousness. Sin is the antithesis of faith. Sin is the antithesis of holiness (separateness for sacred purpose). Sin is the antithesis of obedience and faithfulness. God is the thesis. Sin is the antithesis. The antithesis reigned the moment Adam disobeyed God. Scripture states sin reigned from the time of Adam until Moses but that statement should not be construed to mean sin stopped reigning once the Law was given. Sin, the antithesis of everything of God continued to reign until Christ was given. The only thing sin did not reign over is God. God alone is sovereign over sin. Christ came and defeated sin, and he defeated death. Apart from him sin still reigns in sinful flesh. The antithesis reigns in sinful flesh. Adam let that guy "sin" into the world, and he's been a bull in the proverbial China chop ever since. The entire world changed and everything - including every human ever born into it - was likewise changed.

Sinless man was going to die one way or another simply because he was made mortal and needed the tree of life to live. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and there's no way to the Father by by Jesus.

Sinful man is already dead. Sinful man is dead in sin and plods through life with his lungs breathing air and his heart pumping blood in what appears to him to be life but he is really nothing more than an animated corpse plodding through what he delusionally imagines is a life, plodding toward his physical death where he will die dead. He'll physically die, already dead in sin. Every cell in his body will bear the marks of sin and while he cannot see it, God can. God does not need to look at the record of any man's actions to measure the man. God can see the defilement all over, the corruption and stench of transgressional death all about the man, inside and out.

When God lost Adam, God lost all humanity.*

Imperfection CANNOT procreate perfection.

Adam might have been able to pay for Eve, one life for another, but that still would have cost God the entire human race. Adam might have been stand in the gap for Eve and lost himself, but there is no way he could pay God back for the loss of all humanity.


Using ONLY Romans 5:12 to define what happened makes for bad theology. Defining sin ONLY by 1 John 3:4 makes for bad theology.



















* Or, more accurately, when Adam lost Ada, Adam also lost all humanity. He took all humanity from God with his single act of disobedience. Sin entered the world, and sin corrupts everything it can. The entire creation was subjected to futility and held in bondage. How could Adam possibly give God back an uncorrupted world? How could he possibly chase sin out of the world and hand to God a world that had never seen even a hint of sin? He couldn't. No one can. It is impossible. Hence the need for the Son of God.
.

I’m pasting this comment I made in post #214:

“All I’m saying is that God created Adam flesh and blood man. He then gave Adam a command to not eat of the tree. Adam could not have sinned if God did not give that command to Adam. It was therefore the giving of the command that made Adam’s flesh sinful.”

This is what I believe. It was the command(law) to not eat which made Adam’s flesh sinful.
Does that make sense to you. It sure does to me.

 

[Josheb]

I’m pasting this comment I made in post #214:

“All I’m saying is that God created Adam flesh and blood man. He then gave Adam a command to not eat of the tree. Adam could not have sinned if God did not give that command to Adam. It was therefore the giving of the command that made Adam’s flesh sinful.”

That is a false cause fallacy. The prohibitive nature of the command made the disobedience sinful. It did not make Adam disobey. Neither did it make Adam disobedient. Adam made Adam disobey. Adam made Adam disobedient. Adam did both knowingly. Paul explains this when he says he would not have known what coveting was were it not for the command making covetousness known. He'd have still been covetous; he just would not have known he was that way. It's like when someone eats too much pie or shellfish. Eating too much of either in a single sitting can make a person sick, but not necessarily because there's some sign stating, "Don't eat pie," or "Don't eat shellfish." Too much of either does not work with human physiology. It makes a person sick. It makes a person sick because the human physiology cannot tolerate the "overdose." The same kind of dynamic exists in the moral and spiritual sense. A person cannot go around violating the design specifications of the Creator and not be adversely affected (whether God tells us what the design specs are ahead of time or not).

In the case of the first act of disobedience, it's the matter of faithfulness that is at work. Adam was supposed to be faithful with faithfulness. It has nothing to do with the kiwi or the command. The command simply makes known one arena of faithfulness. This is why it is critically important to correctly understand what Paul is saying when he says Adam's "act of disobedience" is the problem. It wasn't the eating of the forbiddent kiwi that was the first act of disobedience. It was the failing to rule and subdue. It was the failure to obey the affirmative blessing command, not the failure to obey the prohibitive restricting command that got him into trouble. Had Adam ruled and subdued the serpent and himself, he'd have never even considered taking the kiwi from his wife to eat.

This is what I believe.

Much of what I've read I can commend, but some of it I cannot.

It was the command(law) to not eat which made Adam’s flesh sinful. Does that make sense to you. It sure does to me.

I hope you now see the flaw in that argument. The command made the sin known. It did not make the sin happen.

 

[LeviR]

That is a false cause fallacy. The prohibitive nature of the command made the disobedience sinful. It did not make Adam disobey. Neither did it make Adam disobedient. Adam made Adam disobey. Adam made Adam disobedient. Adam did both knowingly. Paul explains this when he says he would not have known what coveting was were it not for the command making covetousness known. He'd have still been covetous; he just would not have known he was that way. It's like when someone eats too much pie or shellfish. Eating too much of either in a single sitting can make a person sick, but not necessarily because there's some sign stating, "Don't eat pie," or "Don't eat shellfish." Too much of either does not work with human physiology. It makes a person sick. It makes a person sick because the human physiology cannot tolerate the "overdose." The same kind of dynamic exists in the moral and spiritual sense. A person cannot go around violating the design specifications of the Creator and not be adversely affected (whether God tells us what the design specs are ahead of time or not).

In the case of the first act of disobedience, it's the matter of faithfulness that is at work. Adam was supposed to be faithful with faithfulness. It has nothing to do with the kiwi or the command. The command simply makes known one arena of faithfulness. This is why it is critically important to correctly understand what Paul is saying when he says Adam's "act of disobedience" is the problem. It wasn't the eating of the forbiddent kiwi that was the first act of disobedience. It was the failing to rule and subdue. It was the failure to obey the affirmative blessing command, not the failure to obey the prohibitive restricting command that got him into trouble. Had Adam ruled and subdued the serpent and himself, he'd have never even considered taking the kiwi from his wife to eat.

Much of what I've read I can commend, but some of it I cannot.

I hope you now see the flaw in that argument. The command made the sin known. It did not make the sin happen.

I’m not suggesting the command MADE Adam disobey. I’m saying it was his flesh nature that caused him to disobey.

James 1:13-15 speaks of how we sin. We are first led away and enticed by our own desires. Then those desires gives birth to sin, and when sin is complete it brings death.

I believe this is how Adam sinned and brought death to us all.
But some say this passage did not apply to Adam. I strongly disagree.

 

[LeviR]

.

 

[JIM]

And, according to the Romans 5 text, why did all men sin?

It doesn't say why all men sinned. It only says that they did.

 

[JIM]

It will still be earth, God's creation. I don't know what your point is.

2Pe_3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.