Original Sin

[Esaias]

"To interpret the phrase "made sinners" to mean that men are born sinners and become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by receiving a sinful nature from Adam, is a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage; for this passage not only says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made righteous" by the obedience of Christ, and that the free gift of life "came upon all men" by Christ Jesus. So, for the advocates of the doctrine of original sin to arbitrarily give to the phrases "made sinners" and "came upon all men" the meaning of physical force and physical necessity when these phrases refer to Adam's sin, without giving the same meaning to them when they they refer to Christ's righteousness, is once again an example of a forced and inconsistent interpretation dictated by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"To interpret the phrase "made sinners" to mean that men are born sinners and become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by receiving a sinful nature from Adam, is a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage; for this passage not only says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made righteous" by the obedience of Christ, and that the free gift of life "came upon all men" by Christ Jesus. So, for the advocates of the doctrine of original sin to arbitrarily give to the phrases "made sinners" and "came upon all men" the meaning of physical force and physical necessity when these phrases refer to Adam's sin, without giving the same meaning to them when they they refer to Christ's righteousness, is once again an example of a forced and inconsistent interpretation dictated by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin."

But who said it was a SIN NATURE? That's my issue. To say Adam made us sinners is not to necessarily say he gave us a sin nature. Again, it's position, not activity.

Christ made us righteous. Is that a position or activity?

Christ's work in making us righteous is the polar opposite, and actually more than opposite, to what Adam did according to Romans 5.

That is not reading anything into it. It is taking it from the writing. how can we read into the picture anything after reading what Adam did is outdone by what Christ did in making us righteous?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But who said it was a SIN NATURE? That's my issue. To say Adam made us sinners is not to necessarily say he gave us a sin nature. Again, it's position, not activity.

Christ made us righteous. Is that a position or activity?

Christ's work in making us righteous is the polar opposite, and actually more than opposite, to what Adam did according to Romans 5.

That is not reading anything into it. It is taking it from the writing. how can we read into the picture anything after reading what Adam did is outdone by what Christ did in making us righteous?

So if I understand you, Adam made us sinners - not in "deed", and not "in nature", but "positionally"?

This means that all Adam's descendants are condemned... because of Adam's sin. It seems to contradict the principle that every man shall bear his own sin.

Further it would seem to imply that the cross dealt with our "position" in Adam and not our actual personal sins? Please explain how this plays out?

Also, it implies that all who die as infants are lost because "age of accountability" is irrelevant, since it is about being "in Adam" which means being descended from Adam?

Is this not a case of God condemning an entire family to eternal death simply because they are related to the transgressor?


Finally, how was Christ "not in Adam" if he is the Son of Adam/Man?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So if I understand you, Adam made us sinners - not in "deed", and not "in nature", but "positionally"?

This means that all Adam's descendants are condemned... because of Adam's sin. It seems to contradict the principle that every man shall bear his own sin.

Whatever it does, we have to still learn what Paul stated in Romans 5, and that is my argument -- what Romans 5 said.

Further it would seem to imply that the cross dealt with our "position" in Adam and not our actual personal sins? Please explain how this plays out?

Again, I am not dealing right now with how that plays out. I am just asking what Paul said in Romans 5. First we get what Paul was saying and work out any implications after the fact.

Rom 5:12-19 KJV 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: (13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Death came on all the world and even upon people who did not commit Adam's sin. But Adam's sin still affected them to render them worthy of death.

(15) But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.

Here is where we get to the contrasting. We read that the offence of Adam is not to be compared equally to the work of Jesus.

For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

After stating there is no equal comparison between Adam and Christ, we read the reasons. Adam's offence caused MANY to die, but the grace of God is not equal in balancing that, but far more weightier because the gift of God ABOUNDED greater than Adam's effect, because one man Jesus caused the grace of God to come upon many. In other words, it not only matched Adam's negative effect, but went further and grace forgave many,

(16) And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

Another comparison above shows inequality again, saying while one man sinned whose single OFFENCE brought judgment by that single man, the free gift (which we learn is righteousness) dealt with MANY OFFENCES. Compare one offence to many offences. And God took many offences and justified us.

(17) For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Death was ONE entity that ruled due to Adam's sin. But MANY OF US RULE IN THE SPIRIT NOW DURING OUR LIVES because of the gift of righteousness.

(18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

And here is where I made my point that I am awaiting a response for. IF ADAM MADE US ALL SINNERS by his single disobedience that none of us committed, then JESUS MADE US RIGHTEOUS BY THE FREE GIFT OF IT THAT HE GAVE TO US.

So, let's reverse that. If Adam did not make us all sinners, then Jesus DID NOT MAKE US ALL RIGHTEOUS. One demands the other according to Paul's context. That means that since Adam's sin did not make us sinners, causing it to be that Jesus did not make us righteous, then we have to make ourselves righteous. And that means salvation by works.

And THAT is the detail everyone's been skirting. THAT is what I need to chat about before my mind can be changed, because I cannot see context allowing us to make any other conclusion.

Forget the implications for a moment. Forget how we must work that. What did Paul say? Did he say Adam's sin made us sinners as much as Christ's obedience made us righteous or not?

Now, the concept of universal salvation has been taken from a twisted reading of all of this, so don't even go there with me. Universalism is simply the result of a uneducated reading of the context, and inability to follow context properly.

So, once again, we'll work it out after. But we have to start with the proper context of this chapter.

You are skirting that context, and saying it cannot be so, regardless of what Paul actually did write, because you cannot agree with the implications you feel it demands. But who said you are getting the proper implications, anyway? But whatever the case, we have to deal with that AFTER we get what Paul said.

It's like you're saying Paul CANNOT be saying what we think, because the implications are wrong. Again, I think you're mistaken about the implications, but that still does not give us license to not study the context and exegete the passage in Romans 5 and learn what it is saying BEFORE we work it out.