What are our implications by "unresurrected flesh", as concerning the fallen / 'old man'?

[Eleanor]

I went through Scripture on this with a fine tooth comb.

There was more than just imputed sin and Scripture is quite clear.

Study Ro 5:12-19.

In Paul's usage in Ro 5, sin refers to disobedience of God's specific law/command where such law has penalty of death attached,
as in the command of the Garden and the commands of Sinai.

Where there is no law, there is no sin (Ro 5:13).
There being no law between Adam and Moses, there was no sin to charge against those between Adam and Moses.
The sin which caused their deaths was the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17),
which imputation of Adam's sin was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[Hazelelponi]

Study

I've studied it in multiple languages, not only one language.

Clearly, this is not an area we can find agreement in. I love you in Christ.

 

[David Lamb]

Study Ro 5:12-19.

In Paul's usage in Ro 5, sin refers to disobedience of God's specific law/command where such law has penalty of death attached,
as in the command of the Garden and the commands of Sinai.

Where there is no law, there is no sin (Ro 5:13).
There being no law between Adam and Moses, there was no sin to charge against those between Adam and Moses.
The sin which caused their deaths was the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17),
which imputation of Adam's sin was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

Yet in Romans 6 we read:

“For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Ro 6:20-23 NKJV)

The context there is of sin in general, not sins that had a specific law or commandment. Paul tells his reads that they were slaves of sin,but now are slaves of God.

 

[Eleanor]

Yet in Romans 6 we read:

“For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Ro 6:20-23 NKJV)

The context there is of sin in general, not sins that had a specific law or commandment. Paul tells his reads that they were slaves of sin,but now are slaves of God.

Yes. . .we are condemend by both the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:12-17), which includes new born infants, as well as our own actual sin.
God has locked up all mankind in sin so that he may have mercy on them (Ro 11:32).

In Ro 5:12-21, we have the contrast between Adam and Christ--Adam introduced sin and death into the world; Chris brought righteousness and life.

The hinge on which this turns is Ro 5:12-14.
V. 12 - "all sinned" is not a repetition of Ro 3:23. The context here shows that Adam's sin involved the rest of mankind in condemnation (vv. 18-19) and death (v. 15). We begin life with a sinful nature (Ge 8:21, Ps 51:5, 58;3, Eph 2:3), condemned already.

 

[Eleanor]

Yet in Romans 6 we read:

“For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Ro 6:20-23 NKJV)

The context there is of sin in general, not sins that had a specific law or commandment. Paul tells his reads that they were slaves of sin,but now are slaves of God.

Havin' a hard time here getting anyone to exegete Ro 5:12-19.

All I get are objections with no Biblical demonstrations supporting them.

 

[Eleanor]

I've studied it in multiple languages, not only one language.

Clearly, this is not an area we can find agreement in. I love you in Christ.

Feel free to exegete Ro 5:12-19 to demonstrate your understanding.

 

[makesends]

To interpose, here.

I meant to study this longer, but decided to go ahead and say: I've gone through this subject in private messaging with @Eleanor many months ago, and the biggest obstacle I found was in her delivery. Eleanor, please correct me if I don't put this right:

Eleanor is not saying that those between Adam and Moses did not sin —far from it. She is referring only to the principle of that verse (Rom 5:13) and its surrounding structure, to help bring out the point that Paul is making. It is only in regard to THAT VERSE in that those who are not given a command are not responsible to obey that command. She is not saying that they had been given no command, for which they are responsible, but that they are not responsible to obey those things they had not been commanded. Again, she is talking about the meaning of that verse alone.

She is saying that, as far as the point of the verse, and its larger implications in the context of the verse and Paul's argument, those between Adam and Moses are not responsible for Moses' law. Where they transgress it (not talking about conscience, here, nor perhaps any enjoinder or command that they may have had from God that we don't know about) their transgression is not counted against them.

—Again, where she says such things as, "Precisely what sin reigned, of which they were guilty between Adam and Moses when there was to law by which to charge sin against them?", she is referring to the principle of that verse and its implications in the context.
When she emphasizes the need to stick to the text, as opposed to drawing too quick a conclusion, she is talking about Paul's argument, and not about whether those between Adam and Moses actually sinned or not.

And again, if I'm getting you wrong, Eleanor, please correct me.

 

[Eleanor]

To interpose, here.

I meant to study this longer, but decided to go ahead and say: I've gone through this subject in private messaging with @Eleanor many months ago, and the biggest obstacle I found was in her delivery. Eleanor, please correct me if I don't put this right:

You're definitely right so far. . .

Eleanor is not saying that those between Adam and Moses did not sin —far from it. She is referring only to the principle of that verse (Rom 5:13) and its surrounding structure, to help bring out the point that Paul is making. It is only in regard to THAT VERSE in that those who are not given a command are not responsible to obey that command. She is not saying that they had been given no command, for which they are responsible, but that they are not responsible to obey those things they had not been commanded. Again, she is talking about the meaning of that verse alone.

She is saying that, as far as the point of the verse, and its larger implications in the context of the verse and Paul's argument, those between Adam and Moses are not responsible for Moses' law. Where they transgress it (not talking about conscience, here, nor perhaps any enjoinder or command that they may have had from God that we don't know about) their transgression is not counted against them.

—Again, where she says such things as, "Precisely what sin reigned, of which they were guilty between Adam and Moses when there was to law by which to charge sin against them?", she is referring to the principle of that verse and its implications in the context.
When she emphasizes the need to stick to the text, as opposed to drawing too quick a conclusion, she is talking about Paul's argument, and not about whether those between Adam and Moses actually sinned or not.

And again, if I'm getting you wrong, Eleanor, please correct me.

Thanks so much!

She is also claiming that Paul's argument is the truth of the matter; i.e., no sin was charged against them between Adam and Moses because there was no law with penalty (of death) to charge them with that would apply a penalty.
Yet, nevertheless, they were guilty of sin. . .i.e., the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16), and which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[Arial]

To interpose, here.

I meant to study this longer, but decided to go ahead and say: I've gone through this subject in private messaging with @Eleanor many months ago, and the biggest obstacle I found was in her delivery. Eleanor, please correct me if I don't put this right:

Eleanor is not saying that those between Adam and Moses did not sin —far from it. She is referring only to the principle of that verse (Rom 5:13) and its surrounding structure, to help bring out the point that Paul is making. It is only in regard to THAT VERSE in that those who are not given a command are not responsible to obey that command. She is not saying that they had been given no command, for which they are responsible, but that they are not responsible to obey those things they had not been commanded. Again, she is talking about the meaning of that verse alone.

She is saying that, as far as the point of the verse, and its larger implications in the context of the verse and Paul's argument, those between Adam and Moses are not responsible for Moses' law. Where they transgress it (not talking about conscience, here, nor perhaps any enjoinder or command that they may have had from God that we don't know about) their transgression is not counted against them.

—Again, where she says such things as, "Precisely what sin reigned, of which they were guilty between Adam and Moses when there was to law by which to charge sin against them?", she is referring to the principle of that verse and its implications in the context.
When she emphasizes the need to stick to the text, as opposed to drawing too quick a conclusion, she is talking about Paul's argument, and not about whether those between Adam and Moses actually sinned or not.

And again, if I'm getting you wrong, Eleanor, please correct me.

Then why not just say no one between Adam and Moses was held accountable BY the Mosaic Law. Instead of stressing again and again "Where there is no law there is no sin." That is automatically going to raise a disagreement, and the failure to ever see what the other person is saying and agree, @Eleanor believes the same thing, just saying it in a different (unclear) way---unless she doesn't agree. The continued fighting over it makes it look like she really is saying there was no sin but the imputed sin of Adam until the Law came. Which is incorrect. Sin is sin and all are accountable to God's law, he is The Law. Romans 1 makes it clear all have been sinning and come under judgement from the beginning because they know from what is visible that he exists and judges the earth and earthlings. Chapter 5 begins with the word "Therefore" connecting it to everything he had previously written. Exegeting the scriptures in question must begin by including all of that material.

 

[Josheb]

Precisely what sin reigned, of which they were guilty between Adam and Moses when there was to law by which to charge sin against them?

Humanity.

You haven't done it yet.

The facts in evidence prove otherwise.

 

[makesends]

You're definitely right so far. . .

Thanks so much!

She is also claiming that Paul's argument is the truth of the matter; i.e., no sin was charged against them between Adam and Moses because there was no law with penalty (of death) to charge them with that would apply a penalty.
Yet, nevertheless, they were guilty of sin. . .i.e., the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16), and which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

Then I must not have understood. Wasn't the fact of "disobedience results in death" established from the beginning? Those who did not have Moses' law —let's reduce that to the decalogue, since I think I read you referencing that, specifically— so, those who did not have the decalogue, but who nevertheless had at least conscience and knowledge of good vs. evil, though the decalogue as such was not counted against them, still trespassed conscience and any direct command —such commands as, for example, God gave Abram— no? I don't find Romans 5 saying that no sin at all, but Adam's imputed sin, was counted as sin. I feel like I'm missing something, now.

A couple of quick implications, against what I'm (at the moment) taking you to be saying:
1. A) If Adam's imputed sin is all that is actually —not just in the context of the 1st and 2nd Adam— is charged against any of them, what is the difference of punishment? Are they all equally doomed to a precisely equal level of torment in the LOF? B)And if their imputed sin is the same sin by which Adam sinned, is Adam's subsequent sin not punished?
2. More than that, if Adam sinned (which to me seems unavoidable), and if they sinned, was not that sin —IF indeed it is sin, though not held against them— is that sin unpunished, un-dealt with? Or was it, too, dealt with on the cross, since, as you seem to me to be saying, it was not put to their account.

While you are absolutely right that regardless of apparent implications, one must go with what the text says, the text does not stand alone, but obvious implications must be dealt with by the rest of Scripture. I took you to only be dealing with what the text says, and waiting to deal with implications for later, once Paul's point in that text are fully understood. But you seem to be going farther than that, as though the ungodliness and rebellion of those at enmity with God is merely animalistic, instinctive and not counted as sin. Something's not clicking here.

 

[Arial]

Precisely what sin reigned, of which they were guilty between Adam and Moses when there was to law by which to charge sin against them?

You haven't done it yet.

Murder. Worshiping other gods. Heck, God judged the whole creation and all but one family and an ark full of animals, because of the sin of the people. He judged the whole world and all the people because of Nimrod, confusing their language and scattering over the face of the earth. That is just three examples between Adam and Moses.

 

[Eleanor]

Then I must not have understood. Wasn't the fact of "disobedience results in death" established from the beginning with specific death penalty.n

Ro 5:12-14:

Just as sin entered the word through one man ---> Adam in Eden
and death through sin ---> all men die because of Adam's sin
and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned ---> does not refer to Ro 3:23 ("all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," but to Adam's sin involving the rest of mankind in condemnation (vv. 18-19) and death (v. 15); we begin life with a sinful nature
for before the law was given sin was is the world, but sin is not taken into account when there is no law ---> in the period when there was no (Mosaic) law, sin ("breaking a command," v. 14):15) was not charged against man (Ro 4:15). Death, however, continued to occur (v.14). Since death is the penalty of sin, people between Adam and Moses were involved in the sin of someone else, namely, Adam.
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. ---> Adam by his sin brought universal ruin on the human race. In this act he is the prototype (pattern) of Christ, who through one righteous act (v.18) brought universal blessing. The analogy is by contrast, one brought universal ruin, the other brought universal blessing (Ro 5:18-19). How did Christ bring universal blessing--through imputation of his righteousness. How did Adam bring universal ruin--through imputation of his sin (Ro 5:17).
That is the sin which was in the world from the time of Adam; i.e., imputation of Adam's sin.
That is the sin which caused the deaths of those between Adam and Moses when sin was not taken into account where there was no law by which to charge them with sin; i.e., imputation of Adam's sin.

Those who did not have Moses' law —let's reduce that to the decalogue, since I think I read you referencing that, specifically— so, those who did not have the decalogue, but who nevertheless had at least conscience and knowledge of good vs. evil, though the decalogue as such was not counted against them, still trespassed conscience and any direct command —such commands as, for example, God gave Abram— no? I don't find Romans 5 saying that no sin at all, but Adam's imputed sin, was counted as sin. I feel like I'm missing something, now.

A couple of quick implications, against what I'm (at the moment) taking you to be saying:
1. A) If Adam's imputed sin is all that is actually —not just in the context of the 1st and 2nd Adam— is charged against any of them, what is the difference of punishment? Are they all equally doomed to a precisely equal level of torment in the LOF? B)And if their imputed sin is the same sin by which Adam sinned, is Adam's subsequent sin not punished?
2. More than that, if Adam sinned (which to me seems unavoidable), and if they sinned, was not that sin —IF indeed it is sin, though not held against them— is that sin unpunished, un-dealt with? Or was it, too, dealt with on the cross, since, as you seem to me to be saying, it was not put to their account.

While you are absolutely right that regardless of apparent implications, one must go with what the text says, the text does not stand alone, but obvious implications must be dealt with by the rest of Scripture. I took you to only be dealing with what the text says, and waiting to deal with implications for later, once Paul's point in that text are fully understood. But you seem to be going farther than that, as though the ungodliness and rebellion of those at enmity with God is merely animalistic, instinctive and not counted as sin. Something's not clicking here.

 

[Eleanor]

Then I must not have understood.

Bottom line:

The sin man is guilty of right outa' the shute is the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19).

Everything else is in addition to that.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Then I must not have understood. Wasn't the fact of "disobedience results in death" established from the beginning with specific death penalty.

Ro 5:12-14:

Just as sin entered the word through one man ---> Adam in Eden
and death through sin ---> all men die because of Adam's sin
and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned ---> does not refer to Ro 3:23 ("all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," but to Adam's sin involving the rest of mankind in condemnation (vv. 18-19) and death (v. 15); we begin life with a sinful nature

Agreed. No problem so far, (though I must mention that the 'because' in "...because all sinned..." has not been proven to me to not mean something along the lines of "...in that all sinned...". But, the point is irrelevant to the argument anyway) —Paul (seems to me) is saying that the way death came to all men was by Adam's sin— thus, imputation. Agreed.

for before the law was given sin was is the world, but sin is not taken into account when there is no law ---> in the period when there was no (Mosaic) law, sin ("breaking a command," v. 14):15) was not charged against man (Ro 4:15). Death, however, continued to occur (v.14). Since death is the penalty of sin, people between Adam and Moses were involved in the sin of someone else, namely, Adam.
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. ---> Adam by his sin brought universal ruin on the human race. In this act he is the prototype (pattern) of Christ, who through one righteous act (v.18) brought universal blessing. The analogy is by contrast, one brought universal ruin, the other brought universal blessing (Ro 5:18-19). How did Christ bring universal blessing--through imputation of his righteousness. How did Adam bring universal ruin--through imputation of his sin (Ro 5:17).

Not sure if I'm hearing you or not. While I follow the parallel, where universal condemnation is through Adam, I don't see the verses showing Christ's substitution is universal-but-for-imputation. You call it a universal blessing, but stop short of calling it either substitution or forgiveness or atonement or justification or any of the other usual words dealing with Christ's death on the cross. Is sin not either dealt with there, or with the ultimate punishment upon the sinner?

That is the sin which was in the world from the time of Adam; i.e., imputation of Adam's sin.
That is the sin which caused the deaths of those between Adam and Moses when sin was not taken into account where there was no law by which to charge them with sin; i.e., imputation of Adam's sin.

13: To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.
14: Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Here's the problem. While I agree that Paul is talking about imputation, and while I agree that where the command is not given, it is not sin, there is no statement that their sins against commands other than the decalogue (etc Moses) were NONE of them held against those before Moses, but only that the erstwhile trespasses of the commands that had not yet been given to them (via Moses) were not accounted to them. I don't find it valid to take this to meaning that their actual transgressions were not against commandments, if their consciences, and, occasionally, preaching and other witnesses to the truth and, occasionally, actual direct commands from God himself.

But, like I said, I feel like something isn't quite adding up, like I'm missing something you once said before.

I'll give you a leg up, though —there is a certain truth in the notion that the two greatest commands sum up the law, thus, IMHO, those two greatest commands were valid, though not given except by common societal good, and by conscience, (and by the witness of nature and whatever else I have already mentioned), before Moses. Thus, since those two greatest commands were not specifically mentioned before Moses.... —lol, I'll let you go there. But that sounds like false equivalence to me. (Yes, I know—I'm the one who thought of it!)


Love you, precious sister.

 

[makesends]

Bottom line:

The sin man is guilty of right outa' the shute is the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19).

Everything else is in addition to that.

With that, I agree.

 

[David Lamb]

Havin' a hard time here getting anyone to exegete Ro 5:12-19.

All I get are objections with no Biblical demonstrations supporting them.

I would simply say that of course when Paul wrote Romans, he didn't divide it into chapters and verses, so what we call Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 forms part of the same letter. What he writes in Romans 6 is connected with Romans 5.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Feel free to exegete Ro 5:12-19 to demonstrate your understanding.

I had thought before doing that you might have responded to post 114 which I wrote, directly to you.

Post 114

@Eleanor

I share @Josheb 's concern that your statement, “sin did reign, and there was no sin,” appears contradictory, as sin must exist to reign, per Romans 5:14. Scripture affirms that both Adam’s imputed sin and personal sin contributed to death’s reign from Adam to Moses, aligning with the Reformed doctrine of universal sinfulness under the Covenant of Works and God’s justice, which we discussed regarding the cross (Rom. 3:26).

Romans 5:12 declares, “Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (ESV). The Greek eph’ hō pantes hēmarton (“because all sinned”) indicates that all individuals sinned, not merely that Adam’s sin was imputed. The aorist tense of hēmarton (sinned) suggests a collective act of sinning by humanity, implying personal culpability. Romans 5:14, which you and @Josheb discussed, states, “Death reigned… even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.” The Greek mē hamartēsantes epi tō homoiōmati (“not sinned in the likeness”) means their sins were not identical to Adam’s transgression (disobedience to a direct command, Gen. 2:17), but they still sinned, as death’s universal reign implies universal sinfulness. Romans 5:13 confirms, “Sin was in the world before the law” (Greek: hamartia de ēn en tō kosmō), showing sin’s presence, though not formally “counted” (ellogeitai) as transgression without the law.

Your argument that infants die due to Adam’s imputed sin (Rom. 5:17) is partly correct however, Psalm 51:5, “I was brought forth in iniquity” (Hebrew: chet, sin), and Ephesians 2:3, “by nature children of wrath” (Greek: phusei), reveal a corrupt nature inherited from Adam, which predisposes all to personal sin, even before the Mosaic Law. Romans 3:23, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (pantes hēmarton), underscores universal personal sinfulness, not just imputed guilt. As @Josheb noted, if some never sinned personally, they wouldn’t need a Savior, but Scripture teaches all require redemption due to both imputed and personal sin (Rom. 5:16, “many trespasses,” pollōn paraptōmatōn).

This connects to our discussion about God’s attributes and covenants. The cross, where justice and love meet (Rom. 5:8, Greek: agapē), satisfies God’s justice (tsedeq, Ps. 89:14) for all sin—imputed and personal—through Christ’s propitiation (hilastērion, Rom. 3:25). In covenantal terms, Adam’s sin (Covenant of Works) corrupts all, while Christ’s righteousness (Covenant of Grace) justifies the elect (Rom. 5:18–19, dikaiosunē). Calvin, in his Commentary on Romans (5:12), affirms, “All sinned, not only in Adam’s act but in their own corruptions.” Spurgeon echoed this, once stating, “We are condemned for Adam’s sin and our own” Your emphasis on imputation aligns with the Covenant of Grace, but personal sin’s reality ensures all stand guilty before God’s justice, necessitating Christ’s atonement.

Regarding our covenant discussion, your seven-covenant model, including two Abrahamic covenants, seems to diverge from the Reformed view of one Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12, 15, 17; berit) unified in Christ (Gal. 3:16).

Could you clarify how your imputation view (only Adam’s sin reigning) shapes your covenantal framework, or why you see Genesis 15 and 17 as separate covenants? This might help us explore how sin, imputation, and God’s redemptive plan interrelate, especially in light of Josheb’s point that sin’s reign requires sin’s existence.

However, I'm content leaving that aside and thank you for acknowledging personal sin (Post #124). I also regret my frustration (Post #120 and #122) and offer a brief exegesis of Romans 5:12-19, tying to the “unresurrected flesh,” to clarify my view.

Romans 5:12-19
Exegesis:

V. 12: “Sin came into the world through one man” (hamartia eisēlthen). Adam’s sin brought death, and “all sinned” (eph’ hō pantes hēmarton) includes imputed guilt (Romans 5:17, logizomai, “reckoned”) and personal sin, as hēmarton suggests collective sinning.

Romans 5 Calvin's Commentaries

V. 13-14: “Sin was in the world” (hamartia ēn en tō kosmō), but “not counted” (ellogeitai) without law. Death reigned over those “not sinning in the likeness of Adam” (mē hamartēsantes), meaning their sins differed from Adam’s (Genesis 2:17), yet they sinned via a corrupt nature (Psalm 51:5, chet). Romans 2:14-15 (suneidēsis, conscience) shows accountability (Genesis 4:7).

V. 15-19: Adam’s sin (paraptōma) imputes death, Christ’s righteousness (dikaiosunē) imputes life to the elect (v. 18), covering imputed and personal sins (Romans 5:16, pollōn paraptōmatōn).

“Unresurrected Flesh”: The fallen nature (Romans 6:6) from Adam (Ephesians 2:3, phusei) inclines sin, requiring Christ’s atonement (Romans 3:25, hilastērion) and sanctification (Galatians 5:22-23).

Spurgeon noted, “Christ’s cross slays the old man”

The Spurgeon Library | The Old Man Crucified

www.spurgeon.org

I see Romans 5:12 and Romans 2:14-15 showing personal sin with imputation and I’m content to rest here. Does this help to better outline my position?

 

[Eleanor]

Why do you want me to address yours following before you exegete Ro 5:12-14?

I share @Josheb 's concern that your statement, “sin did reign, and there was no sin,” appears contradictory, as sin must exist to reign,

That's the whole point.

Yes, there was no sin charged against those between Adam and Moses because there was no law to charge them, nevertheless, they were still guilty of sin anyway, as proven by their deaths.
Of what sin were they guilty when there was no law to sin against to cause their deaths (Ro 6:23)?

per Romans 5:14. Scripture affirms that both Adam’s imputed sin and personal sin contributed to death’s reign from Adam to Moses,

Yes, sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20), we do not inherit Adam's sin, it is imputed.
We inherit his sinful nature with its physical death.

Actually, Ro 5:14 states that "death reigned. . .over those who did not sin by breaking a law, as did Adam (who was a pattern of the one to come. . .pattern of what?).
Please exegete Ro 5:12-14.

aligning with the Reformed doctrine of universal sinfulness

It's more than universal sinfulness, it's universal personal guilt of sin itself, even of infants, by imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17), making us guilty of Adam's sin and subject to eternal damnation for that guilt.
God has shut up all men in sin (Ro 11:32) so that his mercy is their only hope.

under the Covenant of Works and God’s justice, which we discussed regarding the cross (Rom. 3:26).

Romans 5:12 declares, “Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (ESV). The Greek eph’ hō pantes hēmarton (“because all sinned”) indicates that all individuals sinned, not merely that Adam’s sin was imputed.

Not so. . .in context it refers to the sin of Adam imputed, which accounts/reckons one guilty of the crime,
just as imputed righteousness accounts one acquitted (justified, declared not guilty) of the crime (sin).

The aorist tense of hēmarton (sinned) suggests a collective act of sinning by humanity, implying personal culpability. Romans 5:14, which you and @Josheb discussed, states, “Death reigned… even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.” The Greek mē hamartēsantes epi tō homoiōmati (“not sinned in the likeness”) means their sins were not identical to Adam’s transgression (disobedience to a direct command, Gen. 2:17), but they still sinned, as death’s universal reign implies universal sinfulness. Romans 5:13 confirms, “Sin was in the world before the law” (Greek: hamartia de ēn en tō kosmō), showing sin’s presence, though not formally “counted” (ellogeitai) as transgression without the law.

All of which refers to the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16).

Your argument that infants die due to Adam’s imputed sin (Rom. 5:17) is partly correct however, Psalm 51:5, “I was brought forth in iniquity” (Hebrew: chet, sin),

David is referring to his personal conception. Check out the Biblical account and you will see the iniquity to which he is referring in which he was brought forth.

and Ephesians 2:3, “by nature children of wrath” (Greek: phusei), reveal a corrupt nature inherited from Adam, which predisposes all to personal sin,

But there is no actual personal sin of infants, only a predisposition, which is not actual personal guilt.
The actual guilt of all mankind, including infants, comes from the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16), which is reckoned as actual guilt.

even before the Mosaic Law. Romans 3:23, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (pantes hēmarton), underscores universal personal sinfulness, not just imputed guilt.

Imputed guilt is the same as incurred guilt in the Court of divine justice, which is why all have sinned (including infants).

As @Josheb noted, if some never sinned personally, they wouldn’t need a Savior, but Scripture teaches all require redemption due to both imputed and personal sin (Rom. 5:16, “many trespasses,” pollōn paraptōmatōn).

Imputed guilt requires the same penalty as incurred guilt. It's not just a game of nomenclature.

This connects to our discussion about God’s attributes and covenants. The cross, where justice and love meet (Rom. 5:8, Greek: agapē), satisfies God’s justice (tsedeq, Ps. 89:14) for all sin—imputed and personal—through Christ’s propitiation (hilastērion, Rom. 3:25). In covenantal terms, Adam’s sin (Covenant of Works) corrupts all, while Christ’s righteousness (Covenant of Grace) justifies the elect (Rom. 5:18–19, dikaiosunē). Calvin, in his Commentary on Romans (5:12), affirms, “All sinned, not only in Adam’s act but in their own corruptions.” Spurgeon echoed this, once stating, “We are condemned for Adam’s sin and our own” Your emphasis on imputation aligns with the Covenant of Grace, but personal sin’s reality ensures all stand guilty before God’s justice, necessitating Christ’s atonement.

Regarding our covenant discussion, your seven-covenant model, including two Abrahamic covenants, seems to diverge from the Reformed view of one Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12, 15, 17; berit) unified in Christ (Gal. 3:16).

The Biblical text presents seven separate covenants, five of them unconditional, and two of them conditional.

Ge 15 is unconditional, Ge 17 is conditional (Ge 17:9).

Could you clarify how your imputation view (only Adam’s sin reigning) shapes your covenantal framework, or why you see Genesis 15 and 17 as separate covenants? This might help us explore how sin, imputation, and God’s redemptive plan interrelate, especially in light of Josheb’s point that sin’s reign requires sin’s existence.

I don't have a "covenantal" framework other than conditional covenants were to teach the relationship between righteousness and eternal life, and the unconditional were to teach the nature of eternal life in Christ.
I have a Biblical framework for different covenants at different times with different immediate purposes, from never destroying the earth again to pure grace.

 

[Eleanor]

makesends said:
Then I must not have understood. Wasn't the fact of "disobedience results in death" established from the beginning with specific death penalty.
Agreed. No problem so far, (though I must mention that the 'because' in "...because all sinned..." has not been proven to me to not mean something along the lines of "...in that all sinned...". But, the point is irrelevant to the argument anyway) —Paul (seems to me) is saying that the way death came to all men was by Adam's sin— thus, imputation. Agreed.
Not sure if I'm hearing you or not. While I follow the parallel, where universal condemnation is through Adam,
I don't see the verses showing Christ's substitution is universal-but-for-imputation.

Understood in the context of all the NT:

universal condemnation to all those in Adam,
universal salvation to all those in Christ.

You call it a universal blessing, but stop short of calling it either substitution or forgiveness or atonement or justification or any of the other usual words dealing with Christ's death on the cross. Is sin not either dealt with there, or with the ultimate punishment upon the sinner?

Universal "blessing" covers all those bases.

13: To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.
14: Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
Here's the problem. While I agree that Paul is talking about imputation, and while I agree that where the command is not given, it is not sin, there is no statement that their sins against commands other than the decalogue (etc Moses) were NONE of them held against those before Moses, but only that the erstwhile trespasses of the commands that had not yet been given to them (via Moses) were not accounted to them. I don't find it valid to take this to meaning that their actual transgressions were not against commandments, if their consciences, and, occasionally, preaching and other witnesses to the truth and, occasionally, actual direct commands from God himself.

Apart from murder (Ge 9:6), nothing carried a death penalty until the Mosaic law.

The issue is law with penalty of death attached, as in the Garden, which such law did not exist until Moses, yet they all died.
That is the conundrum.
Those death-penalty laws are the only ones that can charge man with death, and there were no such laws between Adam and Moses, nevertheless, they all died.
Of what sin did they die?
Ro 5:17

But, like I said, I feel like something isn't quite adding up, like I'm missing something you once said before.

I'll give you a leg up, though —there is a certain truth in the notion that the two greatest commands sum up the law, thus, IMHO, those two greatest commands were valid, though not given except by common societal good, and by conscience, (and by the witness of nature and whatever else I have already mentioned), before Moses. Thus, since those two greatest commands were not specifically mentioned before Moses.... —lol, I'll let you go there. But that sounds like false equivalence to me. (Yes, I know—I'm the one who thought of it!)
View attachment 1115

Love you, precious sister.