I have been interacting with an Arminian recently who asserts, among many other things, that Rom. 5 especially verse 12 does not teach the Reformed teaching of Original Guilt through the imputation of Adam's sin to us sinners. While I have addressed his eisegesis in the meta in that post, I would like here to present a brief positive exegesis of Rom. 5: 12-19 and show that the plain interpretation of Scripture do teach the doctrines of Imputation of sin and Original Guilt.
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned — for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom. 5:12-19)
A striking feature, and in fact, the important thing to notice in this passage is the parallelism made between Adam and Christ, as they are compared and contrasted in many different ways. The end of verse 14 in fact informs us that the parallelism made is one of typology — Adam as the type and Christ ("who was to come") the antitype.
The entire passage therefore is governed by the concept of typology. Adam therefore is or did something which is then compared or contrasted with how Christ is or did that same thing. Whatever the interpretation of the text is, failure to read it as typology would render the interpretation necessarily errant.
The passage starts off with the mention of death coming into the world because of sin. Breaking this sentence in verse 12 down into logical form, we would have the following argumentation:
Premise 1: Sin entered the world through one man
Premise 2: Death comes with sin
Premise 3: All sinned
Conclusion: Death came to all men
Expanding the argument:
Premise 2: The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23)/ Death comes with sin
Implicit premise 1a: Sinlessness merit eternal life (cf Gal. 3:12, Rom. 2:6-7,11)
Intermediate conclusion 1a: If and only if sin is real, then death must occur.Premise 1: Sin entered the world through one man
Intermediate conclusion 1b: If and only if sin entered the world through one man, then death must occur.Implicit premise 1c: If sin entered the world through one man, then all have sinned
Intermediate conclusion 1c: If and only if all have sinned, then death must have came to all men.
Premise 3: All sinned
Conclusion: Death came to all men
The argument as follows is valid and sound, which shows us the force of Paul's argumentation in verse 12. Paul is saying that all have sinned, and therefore all men die. Yet even here the fact of the "one man" in which sin entered the world came into focus. According to Scripture therefore, sin entered the world through that "one man" resulting in the fact that all of us die because sin has entered the world of our existence.
Verse 13 is a short digression into the relationship between sin and the law, stating that the law did not create sin since sin was already present before the giving of the law (the Ten Commandments and the laws at Sinai). Rather, the law showed sin to be sin (so that it becomes counted as sin), echoing Paul's later teaching in this regard as seen in Rom. 7: 8-10.
In verse 15, the parallelism starts to be mentioned and contrasted. Adam's sin ("one man's trespass") caused many men to die, whereas in Jesus Christ, the "free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ" abounded for many [unto life]. Verse 16 makes it even more explicit that the original sin of Adam was in Paul's mind, since it is through that ONE sin that condemnation follows, and death came which reigned in all of us (v. 17a). In Jesus Christ however, his free gift "follow[ed] many trespasses" (thus noting the fact that it is not because of men's righteousness that the gift was given) which brought justification. In verse 17b, Jesus Christ is the one who through His grace and His free gift cause those in Him to have life.
The contrast is thus formed as follows:
| Adam | Christ |
| One trespass | One gift |
| Brought condemnation | Being justified |
| Death | Life |
It must be here noted that all men are considered to be under the federal headship of either of these two heads. Adam brought death to many through his trespass, while Christ brought life to many through His free gift.
Rom. 5:18 continues the line of thought in the previous section. Adam brought condemnation and death to all men through his trespass, while Christ brought justification and life to all men through His righteousness. This modifies the chart as follows:
| Person: | Adam | Christ |
| Act: | One trespass | One gift of righteousness |
| Meritorious cause: | Sin | Righteousness |
| Legal status: | Condemnation | Justification |
| Result: | Death | Life |
Verse 19 in Rom. 5 sums up the teaching of federal headship in the entire passage, by contrasting what we get by being in Adam, and being in Christ. Adam's original sin caused the many to be made sinners. Conversely, Christ's obedience caused the many to be made righteous. The parallelism is remarkable, and show forth the contrasts the two heads bring to those under them.
There are a few outstanding issue to be sorted out here, which we shall do now.
The first issue is the use of "many" and "all" in the passage. Just because the word "all" is used does not mean that all men everywhere are saved by Christ, neither does that necessarily mean that "all" men are sinners just because the quantifier "all" is used. Rather, the word "all", just like the word "many", is used as a quantitative modifier of the class they are describing. The Scriptures therefore do not teach Universalism based upon some sophomoric misinterpretation of the Greek word panta and its derivatives as used in this passage.
All men are sinners, not because the word "all" is used to modify "men", but because "all men" belong to the class of being "in Adam". The fact that we have all died proves that to be the case. Contrary to Arminian thought which states that we die solely because we actually sin, the Scriptures even in verse 12 itself teaches that sin and death entered the world through Adam (not separately through us), while verse 15 explicitly states that we first died in Adam even before committing any actual sin. Adam's "one trespass" caused our deaths because all of us have sinned in Adam as our federal head. While actual sins do cause death, a fact which the Arminians do admit, Adam's sin caused our death even before any one of us have committed any actual sins.
We all sin in Adam as our federal head, and therefore we all possess this Original guilt. Adam's sin is thus imputed to us, or considered to our account. Likewise, following the parallelism, Christ is the new federal head for all true Christians who are in Him (εν χριστω). Christ's righteousness is imputed to us and therefore we have His righteousness as ours.
As a parallelism, the manner in which the two are compared and contrasted must be the same. Therefore, a change in the mode of the transmission of Adam's sin would necessitate a change in the mode of the transmission of Christ's righteousness. The Arminians change the transmission of Adam's sin into purely a genetic transmission of a sinful nature. For the parallelism to hold, they must likewise consistently admit that the transmission of Christ's righteousness is a actual giving process, which is the process of infusion. In infusion, Christ's righteousness is not credited to men, but truly and ontologically given to men such that they are actually righteous. It is here that we can see the error of Romanism and semi-Pelagianism come to the fore. Embrace of the Arminian heresy with its attendant error of the denial of original guilt would cause original sin to be merely a sinful nature, which should make Christ's righteousness to believers an infused or actual righteousness, and there we go back to the faith-and-works religion of Romanism. After all, if you are actually righteous, then you must act righteous (works) otherwise you are not in Christ and thus not saved. Justification in such a system as Rome's is therefore through faith and good works, otherwise euphemistically stated as "a living faith" or "faith which works through love".
Rom. 5:12-19 therefore teaches 1) the federal headships of Adam and Christ, 2) Original guilt, 3) the imputation of Adam's sin to his seed, and 4) the imputation of Christ's righteousness to his seed. A denial of Original guilt, when interpreted in the light of the parallelism of Rom. 5:12-19, would necessarily result in the embrace of the heresy of infused righteousness and such would further necessitate a denial of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. It is no wonder therefore that the Synod of Dordt spoke for the Church of Jesus Christ in denouncing the heresy of Arminianism in her Canons, seeing the pelagianizing tendencies within her false teachings. Historically, the person of Remonstrant theologian Conrad Vorstius (who apostatized into Soccinianism — a form of incipient universalism at best) is more than sufficient to prove such tendencies inherent within Arminianism itself.
ADD: For the exegesis of Rom. 5:12 :
The preposition "so" indicate that whatever comes after is a conclusion from what comes before, while the word "because" indicates that whatever comes after this preposition is a premise for the one that comes before that prepostion. Therefore, the agument would be as follows:
Therefore, just as (P1) "sin came into the world through one man", and (P2) "death through sin", and so (C) "death spread to all men" because (P3) "all sinned". (Rom. 5:12)
37 comments:
PR,
Better attempt than you made on the other thread, but still falls short.
Verse 16 makes it even more explicit that the original sin of Adam was in Paul's mind, since it is through that ONE sin that condemnation follows, and death came which reigned in all of us (v. 17a).
Yes, in that his one sin produced a cascade of more sins by which men are condemned. Noticeably absent is any indication of inherited guilt.
All men are sinners, not because the word "all" is used to modify "men", but because "all men" belong to the class of being "in Adam".
...
We all sin in Adam as our federal head, and therefore we all possess this Original guilt.
And where exactly is Adam stated to be our 'federal head' in a hamartological sense before we actually join him in committing sin?
Contrary to Arminian thought which states that we die solely because we actually sin, the Scriptures even in verse 12 itself teaches that sin and death entered the world through Adam (not separately through us)....
'Entered' implies initial introduction, which is only done once. Our incurring guilt through our own sin would therefore square with this passage perfectly.
...while verse 15 explicitly states that we first died in Adam even before committing any actual sin.
This is eisegesis on your part, "For if by the one man's offense many died" doesn't imply that our death was derived strictly from Adam's sin, nor that we died without committing sin. Since our own sin (for which we are condemned) results from our sinful natures, which is a result of Adam's sin, then our spiritual death must necessarily have come by his one offense.
Adam's "one trespass" caused our deaths because all of us have sinned in Adam as our federal head.
...
While actual sins do cause death, a fact which the Arminians do admit, Adam's sin caused our death even before any one of us have committed any actual sins.
Again, where in the passage is this stated? Where does it unequivocally indicate that we've automatically 'sinned' in Adam before we've actually committed any sin? That's simply an eisegetical insertion.
(cont.)
(cont.)
Therefore, a change in the mode of the transmission of Adam's sin would necessitate a change in the mode of the transmission of Christ's righteousness.
I have no problem with the idea of someone being made a partaker in the guilt of Adam for participating in sin as he did. Christ Himself spoke of men being accountable for the blood of the prophets due to the approval of their forefathers' deeds (Luke 11:46-51). The imputation of guilt, however, was conditioned upon their participation. If you're appealing to tight parallelism, the conditionality of Adam's guilt and Christ's righteousness would logically hold through the parallel: We have the righteousness of Christ on condition of faith, just as we have the death and condemnation of Adam on condition of committing sin.
Thus, Romans 5:12-19 says absolutely nothing about Adam being our federal head prior to our commission of sin, and nothing about his sin being imputed to us apart from us joining his rebellion, consigning the concept of 'original guilt' to unjustifiable mythology. Additionally, since we do die spiritually, yet we don't pre-exist prior to conception, then it's logically impossible that we died in Adam before we existed, since what's not alive can't die. If we were automatically spiritually dead just by being his descendants, we could not 'die' because we'd have never actually have had life to begin with, contrary to the plain indications of scripture that we die spiritually.
After all, if you are actually righteous, then you must act righteous (works) otherwise you are not in Christ and thus not saved. Justification in such a system as Rome's is therefore through faith and good works, otherwise euphemistically stated as "a living faith" or "faith which works through love".
Um...yeah. God declares us righteous, yet also works in us to sanctify us, good works are thus the outworking of saving faith. One who says he knows Christ but doesn't do what He says is a liar. Have you never read that faith that doesn't work can't save anyone?
in that his one sin produced a cascade of more sins by which men are condemned
Where is that stated in the text? Nowhere! The verse reads:
For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation.
NOT
For the judgment following the cascade of many sins brought about by one trespass brought condemnation.
And where exactly is Adam stated to be our 'federal head' in a hamartological sense before we actually join him in committing sin
See above. The entire passage just oozes with the concept of federal headship. And we DO NOT "join [Adam] in committing sin" - that is a straw man. His sin is imputed to us, not that we actually did that sin.
Our incurring guilt through our own sin would therefore square with this passage
The relevant verse and passage did not mention ANYTHING about our own sins. Read it again, this time in verse 18:
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, ...
NOT
Therefore, as the sins of all men incurred because of that one trespass led to condemnation for all men, ...
Since our own sin (for which we are condemned) results from our sinful natures, which is a result of Adam's sin, then our spiritual death must necessarily have come by his one offense.
Where in the text is this taught? Read again verse 15
For if many died through one man's trespass
NOT
For if many died through their own sins caused by one man's trespass
[cont]
[cont]
Where does it unequivocally indicate that we've automatically 'sinned' in Adam before we've actually committed any sin? That's simply an eisegetical insertion
The plain teachings of Rom. 5 teach it. It is your eisegetical insertion of "actual sins caused by that one trespass" into the verses that make you blind to the plain teachings of Scripture.
If you're appealing to tight parallelism, the conditionality of Adam's guilt and Christ's righteousness would logically hold through the parallel: We have the righteousness of Christ on condition of faith, just as we have the death and condemnation of Adam on condition of committing sin.
And I deny both. Faith is not a condition in the strict sence of the term. You are smuggling in your Arminian premise as fact when it is not. Faith is a gift and a mere passive instrument in salvation, NOT a condition. In other words, we are not save because we have faith; we are saved through being given faith.
Romans 5:12-19 says absolutely nothing about Adam being our federal head prior to our commission of sin, and nothing about his sin being imputed to us apart from us joining his rebellion, consigning the concept of 'original guilt' to unjustifiable mythology
As I have shown, you are the one who is reading foreign concepts into the text of Scripture where they don't exist.
Additionally, since we do die spiritually, yet we don't pre-exist prior to conception, then it's logically impossible that we died in Adam before we existed, since what's not alive can't die
You don't even understand the concept of covenent, do you? Speaking of temporal sense, I wonder how you deal with the aorist tenses in Rom. 8:29.
If we were automatically spiritually dead just by being his descendants, we could not 'die' because we'd have never actually have had life to begin with, contrary to the plain indications of scripture that we die spiritually
*Sigh*. Are stillborn babies dead? Do they die at all?
God declares us righteous, yet also works in us to sanctify us, good works are thus the outworking of saving faith. One who says he knows Christ but doesn't do what He says is a liar. Have you never read that faith that doesn't work can't save anyone?
You are confusing justification and sanctfication. In case you have not realized that yet, the topic of dicussion in Rom. 5:12-19 IS justification. Unless you want to go back to semi-Pelagianism and jettison even what little Arminianisn you have, you would do better to distinguish them from each other. Even Arminius did not profess justification by faith and works! So can we get back to the topic? How are we "made righteous" in Christ?
PR,
Where is that stated in the text? Nowhere!
It's plainly indicated in the immediate context a few verses prior, "death spread to all men, because all sinned."
The entire passage just oozes with the concept of federal headship.
How?
And we DO NOT "join [Adam] in committing sin" - that is a straw man. ...
Note on logic: a 'straw man' is by definition a caricature-laden attack on another's position, not an explanation of one's own. But if you're certain I'm committing some fallacy here, care to explain?
The relevant verse and passage did not mention ANYTHING about our own sins.
Nor need it, since it was already established in verse 12 that men die spiritually through actively sinning.
> Since our own sin (for which we are condemned) results from our sinful natures, which is a result of Adam's sin, then our spiritual death must necessarily have come by his one offense.
Where in the text is this taught?
It's quite easy to derive syllogistically from the statements,
P1 All died spiritually because all committed sin (vs 12b)
P2 Sin was introduced into the world because of Adam's sin (vs 12a)
C1/P3 Therefore all sin we commit is a result of Adam's sin
C2 Therefore all spiritual death comes by Adam's sin
It is your eisegetical insertion of "actual sins caused by that one trespass" into the verses that make you blind to the plain teachings of Scripture.
As shown above, the logic soundly fits the scriptural record. As far as the sins being actual sins, that's pretty well-settled by the voice of the word 'sinned' (vs 12), which is active rather than passive, meaning that it refers to sin performed by the subject[s], not imputed to passive ones.
Faith is not a condition in the strict sence of the term. ... In other words, we are not save because we have faith; we are saved through being given faith.
Regardless of whether faith is a gift in that it's granted by God that we may believe, or whether God irresistibly confers it upon us, the fact remains that salvation is by grace through faith, and thus faith is a necessary condition for salvation, as there is no salvation apart from faith. That clarified, my point was that both Adam's condemnation and Christ's righteousness both have their necessary conditions: Adam's through wicked works, and Christ's through faith.
> Additionally, since we do die spiritually, yet we don't pre-exist prior to conception, then it's logically impossible that we died in Adam before we existed, since what's not alive can't die
You don't even understand the concept of covenent, do you?
Of course I do. Would you kindly address the issue?
*Sigh*. Are stillborn babies dead? Do they die at all?
Yes, of course they die, because they're alive in the womb before being born -that's the very basis for the church's universal stance against abortion. What does that have to do with the fact of what's never been alive, by definition, can't die?
You are confusing justification and sanctfication.
No, I'm not; nor do I believe in justification by 'faith and works,' but good works as an outworking of saving faith (i.e. corollary, not cause), as I plainly stated.
How are we "made righteous" in Christ?
God imputes the righteousness of Christ to those who believe.
J.C:
It's plainly indicated in the immediate context a few verses prior, "death spread to all men, because all sinned."
So can I surmise that your "exegesis" consist of using your interpretation of verse 12 as a lens to color the interpretation of the other verses? Whatever happened to the process of reading verses IN CONTEXT?
Regardless, your reasoning is totally off. Rom. 5:13 starts with the word "for" or in Greek γαρ. Similarly, verse 14 starts with the word "yet" or in Greek αλλα, both of which propositions distinguish the proposition in verse 12 with the propositions in verse 13 and 14 etc. They are of course linked, but the linkage but be examined individually, NOT just assume that verse 12 (even if we accept your interpretation) defines the entirety of verses 13-19.
But if you're certain I'm committing some fallacy here, care to explain
Original sin is imputed, not infused. We are counted/credited as having sinned in Adam, not that we actually "physically" "join him in sinning" somehow.
Nor need it, since it was already established in verse 12 that men die spiritually through actively sinning
That is a false interpretation of verse 12, and it is eisegesis of the worst magnitude to use verse 12to define the entire passage.
[cont]
[cont]
P1 All died spiritually because all committed sin (vs 12b)
P2 Sin was introduced into the world because of Adam's sin (vs 12a)
C1/P3 Therefore all sin we commit is a result of Adam's sin
C2 Therefore all spiritual death comes by Adam's sin
Wow, you did not even bother to arrange the argument properly. The death spoken of here is just death, not merely spiritual death! Where on earth did you get the idea of spiritual death from? It is NOT in the text! Are we suppose that Jesus died spiritually in verse 6? Do you really want to go in that direction anyway (to say that Jesus died spiritually)?
Your argument is not even logically valid! Your so-called P3/C1 doesn't flow from your premises, even if we grant the truth of P1 (which is false since no mention is made of spiritual death in verse 12!)
As shown above, the logic soundly fits the scriptural record
If the above argument is your standard of logical reasoning, then we can discount them.
As far as the sins being actual sins, that's pretty well-settled by the voice of the word 'sinned' (vs 12), which is active rather than passive, meaning that it refers to sin performed by the subject[s], not imputed to passive ones.
Same refutation as that found in the previous comment. The proposition in verse 12 are not the same as those in verse 13-19, thus the same or similar word "sinned" in verse 12 can be used differently in verses 13-19. Regardless, we do not even need to go there, for the words used are different - sin vs transgression, or in Greek άμαρτια and παραπτωματι, thus the nuances in the nouns/verbs themselves are different, which invalidate the entire eisegetical usage of verse 12 to re-interpret versew 13-19.
[cont]
thus faith is a necessary condition for salvation
It is a condition in that sense, but not in the strict sense.
That clarified, my point was that both Adam's condemnation and Christ's righteousness both have their necessary conditions: Adam's through wicked works, and Christ's through faith
No. Adam's condemnation was brought about because of sin, while Christ's righteousness was brough about because Christ IS inherently righteous and does righteousness as His own nature.
If you are however talking about the descedents of Adam and followers of Christ, then that is another story altogether, which you have not elucidated properly.
Also take note that the concept of faith DOES NOT even enter into the passage of Rom. 5:12-19! The contrast as I have shown is between Adam's one trepass and Christ's righteousness, not Adam's (or our) sins and our faith!
Would you kindly address the issue?
Which part of imputation do you NOT understand? Imputation does not require the members to exist at any period of time! In fact, it is an indeterminate application to whoever is under the federal headship of the covenant head.
What does that have to do with the fact of what's never been alive, by definition, can't die?
We were alive in Adam, and then we all died in Adam, and all this is done through imputation. So your reasoning is flawed.
God imputes the righteousness of Christ to those who believe
You did not follow the parallelism. If God imputes the righteousness of Christ to those who believe, then God also imputes the sin of Adam to all his descedents the human race. But that you specifically deny. You cannot have your cake and eat it too!
PR,
So can I surmise that your "exegesis" consist of using your interpretation of verse 12 as a lens to color the interpretation of the other verses? Whatever happened to the process of reading verses IN CONTEXT?
If we're understanding how spiritual death is incurred, then it's only reasonable to reference the portion that explicitly states how it is done. Has it ever occurred to you that letting scripture interpret itself is contextual reading?
...NOT just assume that verse 12 (even if we accept your interpretation) defines the entirety of verses 13-19.
...
...and it is eisegesis of the worst magnitude to use verse 12to define the entire passage.
I never said verse 12 defines the rest of the passage (else the rest of the passage would be redundant), it simply indicates how men die spiritually -- by sinning -- which cannot be ignored as it's also a part of the context (and grammatically, part of the same exposition).
Original sin is imputed, not infused. We are counted/credited as having sinned in Adam....
That's not demonstrating fallacy, it's simply re-asserting your contention. But the Bible doesn't say we fall only because we're credited as sinning, but that we've fallen short because we actually have sinned.
That is a false interpretation of verse 12
How?
Wow, you did not even bother to arrange the argument properly.
How is it improper? How exactly does the conclusion not follow?
The death spoken of here is just death, not merely spiritual death!
You're again ignoring context, the death spoken of here is directly correlated to condemnation,
But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift [is] not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. (Rom 5:15-16)
> As far as the sins being actual sins, that's pretty well-settled by the voice of the word 'sinned' (vs 12), which is active rather than passive, meaning that it refers to sin performed by the subject[s], not imputed to passive ones.
The proposition in verse 12 are not the same as those in verse 13-19
Which has no bearing on the fact that vs 12 still establishes how people incur spiritual death: by committing sin. (also unequivocally established in the broader context with Romans 3:23 - also of active voice).
...thus the nuances in the nouns/verbs themselves are different, which invalidate the entire eisegetical usage of verse 12 to re-interpret versew 13-19.
You're confusing 'context' with 'eisegesis.' It's the apex of acontextual absurdity to divorce the clear statement, "death passed upon all men because all have sinned," and insist that the 7 verses immediately following actually mean "death came to all not because all sinned, but because only one sinned," instead of the non-contradictory solution, that death came to all because all have sinned due to corruption of our nature by one man's sin.
(cont)
(cont)
If you are however talking about the descedents of Adam and followers of Christ, then that is another story altogether, which you have not elucidated properly.
I was obviously speaking about imputation of both to men, as the preceding contents of the selfsame paragraph rather lucidly imply. Seems your inability/unwillingness to grasp context is also a hindrance to even regular discussion...
If God imputes the righteousness of Christ to those who believe, then God also imputes the sin of Adam to all his descedents the human race.
And so if the imputation of Christ's righteousness is not 'automatic,' but rather through faith, then on what basis do you assume that imputation of Adam's guilt is automatic?
The contrast as I have shown is between Adam's one trepass and Christ's righteousness, not Adam's (or our) sins and our faith!
The contrast is concerned with the 'what,' not the 'how;' the latter is established by the immediate and broader contexts, as I've shown. To say, "we die through Adam" doesn't imply that sinning isn't necessary, any more than saying "we're justified through Christ" would indicate that faith isn't necessary.
Imputation does not require the members to exist at any period of time! In fact, it is an indeterminate application to whoever is under the federal headship of the covenant head.
...
We were alive in Adam, and then we all died in Adam, and all this is done through imputation.
Exactly where in the Bible does it talk about imputation of guilt to non-existent persons? Additionally, scripture speaks of spiritually dying temporally.
If we're understanding how spiritual death is incurred, then it's only reasonable to reference the portion that explicitly states how it is done
That commits the fallacy of circular reasoning, or petitio principii. You assume that the whole passage is talking about spiritual death (when it is NOT anyway), and re-interpret the text accordingly.
I never said verse 12 defines the rest of the passage (else the rest of the passage would be redundant), it simply indicates how men die spiritually -- by sinning -- which cannot be ignored as it's also a part of the context (and grammatically, part of the same exposition).
The theme of the passage is NOT talking about spiritual death! The concept does not even appear here, JUST death. Pure eisegesis from you!
But the Bible doesn't say we fall only because we're credited as sinning, but that we've fallen short because we actually have sinned
Straw man. Of course the Bible "doesn't say we fall only because we're credited as sinning". The Bible teaches however that we die because Adam's sin is imputed to us. Do you even understand what you are seeking to refute?
How? [interpretation of v.12]
I find it especially revealing that you DO NOT even bother interacting with the syllogism I have put up on verse 12, which shows forth the logical structure of the argument beautifully. Yours on the other hand is invalid argumentation.
You're again ignoring context, the death spoken of here is directly correlated to condemnation
You are the one ignoring context! Physical death also is part of the judgment for sin, as the Bible in Gen. 3 and Rom. 7 teaches us. Condemnation in the OT focuses more on the aspect of physical death (although the spiritual is also included).
The death in Rom. 5 is just death, both physical and spiritual. You are the ne who is importing an alien concept of pure spiritual death into the passage when it is not so stated.
I ask you again: Does verse 6 talks about Christ's spiritual death? I save you the trouble of answering. NO, the idea itself is an abomination! The entire context of Rom. 5 is just talking about death in general, not your alien idea of only spiritual death!
You're confusing 'context' with 'eisegesis.' It's the apex of acontextual absurdity to divorce the clear statement, "death passed upon all men because all have sinned," and insist that the 7 verses immediately following actually mean "death came to all not because all sinned, but because only one sinned," instead of the non-contradictory solution, that death came to all because all have sinned due to corruption of our nature by one man's sin.
Of couse, NO ONE is suggesting to interpret verse 12 using verses 13-19; the proposition in verse 12 can independently stand on its own! Your 'big argument' on that is a total straw man, and shows you have no idea how to do proper exegesis. I have already shown you the role of the Greek prepositions in distinguishing the different propositions in the passage, but you persistently insist on ignoring them!
I was obviously speaking about imputation of both to men, as the preceding contents of the selfsame paragraph rather lucidly imply.
You cannot even grasp the parallelism. Where in the entire passage of Rom. 5:13-19 is faith stated as being imputed to us? NOWHERE! Even better, just how many times is the word "faith" used in Rom. 5:12-19? ZERO! Christ's righteousness is the one that is imputed, not faith.
In fact, that is one of the heresies that Classical Arminianism believes in: that of making faith imputed to Christians as righteousness instead of God's righteousness imputed to us as our righteousness.
And so if the imputation of Christ's righteousness is not 'automatic,' but rather through faith, then on what basis do you assume that imputation of Adam's guilt is automatic
Again, you insist in making faith a condition when it is NOT! Imputation of Christ's righteousness is "automatic" to Christ's people the elect through the instrument (NOT condition) of faith. Adam's guilt is "automatically" imputed to his people (his descendents) through [the instrument of] nature.
The contrast is concerned with the 'what,' not the 'how
And WHERE exactly is faith mentioned in Rom. 5:12-19? The insertion of the word "faith" where none exists is a sure mark of eisegesis.
Exactly where in the Bible does it talk about imputation of guilt to non-existent persons
That question is a ridiculous question. Since you want to posit such nonsense even when I specifically said that imputation is indeterminate - applying to the "whoever", I'll ask you three similar and just as inane questions:
Where in the Bible does it talk about imputation of righteousness to non-existant people? Where in the Bible does it talk about Jesus dying on the cross for non-existant people? How can Jesus be said to die for you when you do not even exist yet 200 years ago?
Additionally, scripture speaks of spiritually dying temporally
I assume you mean "spiritual death" Regardless, even if that was so, so what? Verses and passage are to be read in context, not use one idea expressed in one verse to interpret another verse acontextually. Just because spiritual death is biblical does not mean that Rom. 5:12-19 is talking about it!
Your 1-D hermeneutics when applied to James 2 would be very interesting. Presumably, since we know Scripture teaches Justification by Faith Alone, therefore there is nothing we can really learn from Jas 2. In fact, James would be a "straw epistle" since how can it contradict the truth of Justification by Faith Alone. After all, Jas 2: 24 says that "we are not justified by faith alone"!
PR,
You are the one ignoring context! Physical death also is part of the judgment for sin, as the Bible in Gen. 3 and Rom. 7 teaches us.
Which doesn't make it the subject of the passage here. Incurring physical death does not require that someone sin, only live in a world tainted by sin (as Christ suffered physical death, yet was without sin). Spiritual death, on the other hand, proceeds from commission of sin; hence Christ did not die spiritually.
The Bible teaches however that we die because Adam's sin is imputed to us.
That's the same concept as having it credited to us.
I ask you again: Does verse 6 talks about Christ's spiritual death?
Of course not, but fallen men and Christ are hardly comparable in that sense. When speaking of sinful man's death in chapter 5 and on through the middle of chapter 6, it's quite evident that it's speaking spiritually (as well as metaphorically, such as our deadness to sin).
I have already shown you the role of the Greek prepositions in distinguishing the different propositions in the passage, but you persistently insist on ignoring them!
...conveniently ignoring that verse 12 is grammatically a part of the context for its following passages, since the conjunction gar ties it into the proceeding text.
Where in the entire passage of Rom. 5:13-19 is faith stated as being imputed to us? NOWHERE!
What are you talking about? I didn't imply faith was imputed to us. I was talking about sin and righteousness. Try reading contextually, it really helps.
>...on what basis do you assume that imputation of Adam's guilt is automatic
Imputation of Christ's righteousness is "automatic" to Christ's people the elect through the instrument (NOT condition) of faith. Adam's guilt is "automatically" imputed to his people (his descendents) through [the instrument of] nature.
Instruments that are necessary prior to a phenomenon are conditions. Further establishing your disanalogy, nature is inherent, faith isn't (it's not 'automatic' of being with us from conception). Nowhere in scripture states that guilt is imputed strictly through 'nature,' but through sinning.
> ...does it talk about imputation of guilt to non-existent persons?
That question is a ridiculous question.
Can you explain why you imagine it's ridiculous?
And WHERE exactly is faith mentioned in Rom. 5:12-19? The insertion of the word "faith" where none exists is a sure mark of eisegesis.
I never said it was. You must be really desperate to try and put words into my mouth.
(cont)
[since you keep blindly insisting that I can't form syllogisms]
Your so-called P3/C1 doesn't flow from your premises
Do you really need spoon-feeding that badly? Since all die through committing sin (P1) and sin was introduced by Adam (P2), then all the sin that is committed by all as specified in P1 is a result of Adam sinning, since it was he who introduced it per P2 (C1/P3), therefore all the spiritual death that results from us sinning is a result of his sin (C2). So exactly how does the reasoning here not follow, or are you just trying to make up logic as you along as well?
That commits the fallacy of circular reasoning... You assume that the whole passage is talking about spiritual death (when it is NOT anyway)
I've substantiated my claim from 5:15-16, not circular logic.
I find it especially revealing that you DO NOT even bother interacting with the syllogism I have put up on verse 12, which shows forth the logical structure of the argument beautifully.
Because it doesn't establish anything about inherited guilt, and hence is itself somewhat off-topic. Though your posturing is again evident, since it's quite plain to see that I interacted quite in-depth with your explanation in the very first post here!
> But the Bible doesn't say we fall only because we're credited as sinning, but that we've fallen short because we actually have sinned
Straw man.
...
Your 'big argument' on that is a total straw man, and shows you have no idea how to do proper exegesis.
Even after I explained it in detail, you still can't grasp what a strawman is?? Sorry, your grasping at straws doesn't count.
Yours on the other hand is invalid argumentation.
...
Of course the Bible "doesn't say we fall only because we're credited as sinning".
That was the term you used>; I quote: "We are counted/credited as having sinned in Adam...." You're trying to lecture me about logic when you can't even keep up with your own statements?
Of couse, NO ONE is suggesting to interpret verse 12 using verses 13-19; the proposition in verse 12 can independently stand on its own!
Then it's established that men die because they commit sin. By law of non-contradiction, to say that the proceeding verses mean that men die apart from committing sin is inescapably a fallacy. A concept isn't true in one passage only to magically become untrue in the next: A plainly stated fact in one portion must hold in our interpretation of all others.
Verses and passage are to be read in context, not use one idea expressed in one verse to interpret another verse acontextually.
Using ideas that scripture plainly states to interpret other passages is, by definition, the polar opposite of 'acontextual.' It's a little thing called 'systematic theology,' you know, forming a consistent interpretation with harmonization of established principles.
> Additionally, scripture speaks of spiritually dying temporally
...even if that was so, so what?
Since spiritual death is equivalent to having guilt imputed, then that would negate the concept of inherited guilt entirely. So going by Paul's own words in Romans,
"But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. ...For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me." (Rom 7:8-9, 11)
If Paul was alive once, yet was killed by sin through the law (obviously not with physical death by that point), then he cannot have been conceived already dead.
Which doesn't make it the subject of the passage here. Incurring physical death does not require that someone sin, only live in a world tainted by sin
WRONG! It requires that Adam sinned. Or do you believe that physical death is not a consequence of the Fall?
(as Christ suffered physical death, yet was without sin)
Christ suffered physical death because he died on the behalf of Christians. Otherwise, Jesus need not have died.
Spiritual death, on the other hand, proceeds from commission of sin
No, it results from being a child of Adam by nature. Even Arminius believe that babies are born spiritually dead, though it is through an inherited sinful nature.
Christ did not die spiritually
Of course he did not. But if you consistently read "spiritual death" into Rom. 5 everywhere the word "death" is mentioned, then that is your logical conclusion for Rom. 5:6!
Of course not, but fallen men and Christ are hardly comparable in that sense.
Irrelevant. The issue is one of hermeneutics. You are the one consistently interpreting "death" as "spiritual death", so that is your only logical conclusion.
conveniently ignoring that verse 12 is grammatically a part of the context for its following passages, since the conjunction gar ties it into the proceeding text.
Have you been reading the previous comments? I have already addressed this. The preposition γαρ in verse 13 ties proposiion together, NOT make them one single proposition.
Instruments that are necessary prior to a phenomenon are conditions
Which part of "strict conditions" do you not understand? The way you define "condition", breathing and eating are 'conditions' for staying alive.
Further establishing your disanalogy, nature is inherent, faith isn't (it's not 'automatic' of being with us from conception).
You are presupposing that sin is passed down through inheritance. I deny that! In fact, if sin is indeed passed down through inheritance, then why isn't Christ partially sinful since the egg that is fertilized came from Mary, a sinful woman?
Just because a person is genetically born from Adam does not make him sinful, as Christ is NOT sinful. Nature as the instrument is necessary but not sufficient for someone to have original sin. Rather, being under the federal headship of Adam is the determining factor.
Since all die through committing sin (P1) and sin was introduced by Adam (P2), then all the sin that is committed by all as specified in P1 is a result of Adam sinning, since it was he who introduced it per P2 (C1/P3), therefore all the spiritual death that results from us sinning is a result of his sin (C2).
First, you changed the premises. Your P1 originally states: "All died spiritually because all committed sin". Now you are saying that "all die through committing sin". The two ARE different.
MUST I teach you how to do logical syllogisms? For example, your original P1 is acutally two propositions having a premise and a conclusion. The word "because" shows that the sentence is actually two propositions: P'1: "all committed sin" and Intermediate conclusion IC'1: "all die spiritually".
Ditto for your original P2 which is actually two propositions, which is similarly changed from your original construction.
As it is, your new P1 is far from being a premise but more of a conclusion.
Let me help you here. Rom. 5:12 states:
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Rom. 5:12)
The preposition "so" indicate that whatever comes after is a conclusion from what comes before, while the word "because" indicates that whatever comes after this preposition is a premise for the one that comes before that prepostion. Therefore, the agument would be as follows:
Therefore, just as (P1) "sin came into the world through one man", and (P2) "death through sin", and so (C) "death spread to all men" because (P3) "all sinned".
Rearranging it, we have:
P1: Sin came into the world through one man
P2 Death entered the world through sin
P3: All sinned
C: Death spread to all men
Now work with this, instead of your incoherent argument. Expand on it to show HOW exactly these premises can work together to give rise to the conclusion.
That was the term you used>; I quote: "We are counted/credited as having sinned in Adam...." You're trying to lecture me about logic when you can't even keep up with your own statements?
LOL, your logic failed. The statements "We are counted/'credited as having sinned in Adam" is NOT even similar to the statement "we fall only because we're credited as sinning". Where in the former sentence is any mention of a causal relation between "credited as sinning" and "falling into sin" found? In fact, the former statement did not even metioned the concept of "falling into sin".
Then it's established that men die because they commit sin.
No one is disputing that.
By law of non-contradiction, to say that the proceeding verses mean that men die apart from committing sin is inescapably a fallacy
What law of non-contradiction? The contradiction only exists in your head. Verse 12 teaches that men die because they sin, but it DOES NOT teach that men die ONLY because they commit actual sin.
Using ideas that scripture plainly states to interpret other passages is, by definition, the polar opposite of 'acontextual.' It's a little thing called 'systematic theology,' you know, forming a consistent interpretation with harmonization of established principles.
Wrong. Systematic theology is to arrange and harmonized the doctrines of Scripture together, NOT to use one Scriptural doctrine to deny another doctrine through redefining the plain teaching of the verses under consideration.
Since spiritual death is equivalent to having guilt imputed
You have not established this at all. In fact, you have collapsed separate categories which have their own rich meanings into one incoherent mess. Where in Scripture is "spiritual death is equivalent to having guilt imputed"?
[cont]
"But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. ...For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me." (Rom 7:8-9, 11)
If Paul was alive once, yet was killed by sin through the law (obviously not with physical death by that point), then he cannot have been conceived already dead.
The very mark of eisegesis is to go to other texts with an entirely different conntext to re-interpret the main text which in this case is Rom. 5:12-19. Rom. 7:8-9 is talking about Paul and the interplay between law and sin.
Look at the context, especially verse 7
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. (Rom. 7:7-12)
Notice verse 7. The issue here is about knowing what sin is. When verse 8 continues saying that "apart from the law, sin lies dead", what it means is that without the law, sin is not seen to be sin and thus it is non-existent in the person's knowledge. When Paul continues in verse 8 saying he is alive apart from the law, he means that he is alive (with respects to the law of sin) apart from the law of which he is ignorant of.
Verse 13 hammers the final nail in your eisegesis of Rom. 7, as follows:
It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure (Rom.; 7:13b)
In order that "sin might be shown to be sin", the law awaken sinners to the realization that they are sinners which thus make them recognze their state of spiritual death. Previously, they were "alive" with respects to sin in the sense that they thought they were good and on the way to heaven.
PR,
> ...only live in a world tainted by sin
WRONG! It requires that Adam sinned.
(?) ...didn't you read what I wrote? You don't think Adam's sin is what tainted the world?
But if you consistently read "spiritual death" into Rom. 5 everywhere the word "death" is mentioned, then that is your logical conclusion for Rom. 5:6!
...
You are the one consistently interpreting "death" as "spiritual death"
Which I wasn't doing. Thank-you for demonstrating an actual straw-man fallacy for us.
The preposition ... in verse 13 ties proposiion together, NOT make them one single proposition.
I didn't say it made them one proposition, I said it makes it part of the context.
if sin is indeed passed down through inheritance, then why isn't Christ partially sinful...?
Because sin comes through our father, and Christ's Father is God.
Your P1 originally states: "All died spiritually because all committed sin". Now you are saying that "all die through committing sin". The two ARE different.
No relevant difference in this context.
For example, your original P1 is acutally two propositions having a premise and a conclusion.
You didn't even realize that logical constructs can be nested?? Never take a job making circuit boards.
Rearranging it, we have...C: Death spread to all men
How can you 'reconstruct' a syllogism without even trying to make the point I was discussing? The point was that, "all spiritual death comes by Adam's sin," your inept attemt to rearrange it doesn't even include Adam. Try understanding logic before you attempt to teach it.
The statements "We are counted/'credited as having sinned in Adam" is NOT even similar to the statement "we fall only because we're credited as sinning". Where in the former sentence is any mention of a causal relation between "credited as sinning" and "falling into sin" found?
Since our fall proceeding from sin isn't in dispute, this obvious fact need not be stated explicitly for logical equivalence when speaking of sin being credited. Try reading contextually, in addition to keeping up with your own terminology.
What law of non-contradiction?
The law of non-contradiction is fairly well-known....
Verse 12 teaches that men die because they sin, but it DOES NOT teach...
Which doesn't address the issue that trying to make Adam's sin the direct cause of our spiritual death is a fallacy....
Where in Scripture is "spiritual death is equivalent to having guilt imputed"?
Since the guilt is for sin, then, "death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" conveys the concept, since all who are spiritually dead are guilty of sin and vice-versa.
In order that "sin might be shown to be sin", the law awaken sinners to the realization that they are sinners which thus make them recognze their state of spiritual death.
And there's where you contradict the scriptures: it does not state that the sin through the law merely made him "recognize their state of spiritual death," but that it killed him.
For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. (Romans 7:11)
(cont)
On the issue of death as it pertains to us in Romans 5:12,
P1 Some men sinned, yet never died physically (Elijah, Enoch)
P2 Christ died physically, yet never sinned
C1 Physical death and sin are not necessarily correlated
P3 Romans 5:12 does positively correlate sin to death ("all died because all sinned")
P4 Physical death and sin are not necessarily related (C1)
C2 Since physical death is not necessarily correlated with sin, the 'death' Rom 5:12 refers to is spiritual death
P5 'All sinned' is of active voice in Romans 5:12
P6 Verbs of active voice refer to actions performed by the subject, not upon them
C3 The sinning in Romans 5:12 refers to actual sins committed
P7 Rom 5:12 refers to is spiritual death (C2)
P8 The sinning in Romans 5:12 refers to actual sins committed (C3)
C4 Thus, men incur spiritual death for actual sins they commit, rather than strictly by Adam's sin
> Using ideas that scripture plainly states to interpret other passages is, by definition, the polar opposite of 'acontextual.' It's a little thing called 'systematic theology,' you know, forming a consistent interpretation with harmonization of established principles.
Wrong. Systematic theology is to arrange and harmonized the doctrines of Scripture together, NOT to use one Scriptural doctrine to deny another doctrine through redefining the plain teaching of the verses under consideration.
From a simple reading of what I wrote above, I clearly stated nothing about 'redefining the plain teaching' of anything in scripture, but rather that we should use what it plainly teaches to interpret it. It's quite uncalled for that you resort to such dishonesty.
J.C.
Still trying to buck all of church history I see. Just a couple of observations “all sinned” is in the active, but it is also in the aorist tense. Not only that, but it is in the simple historical tense which expresses a momentary action in past time. It does not mean have sinned or are likely to sin.
Also, the continuation of verse 12 is to be found in verses 18 & 19. We can clearly see that the apostle was showing us that it was Adam’s sin that is the cause of death. Surely we all agree that the passage in question deals with imputed righteousness? If so, then it is clear that the apostle is using a comparison here- we have imputed righteousness and imputed sin.
As for “death” in verse 12, surely you can see that it is not just spiritual death but also physical death that the apostle has in view, especially if we look to verse 13 & 14.
The use of Romans 7 has rightly been refuted, but I urge you to consider what your interpretation of Romans 7 would mean if carried to its logical conclusion.
I will leave you with some words from Whitby, who no doubt you know is as Arminian as Arminian gets.
“…the apostle expressly teaches that this death, this condemnation to death, did not come on us because of the sin of all, but only because of the sin of one person, that is, of that one Adam…”
Grace & Peace
J.C.:
>For example, your original P1 is acutally two propositions having a premise and a conclusion.
You didn't even realize that logical constructs can be nested?? Never take a job making circuit boards
Forget it. You obviously do not know anything about logic, all your posturing aside. This is made worse by your claiming that "All died spiritually because all committed sin" is the same proposition as "all die through committing sin". No wonder you are an Arminian as you are so irrational.
Try understanding logic before you attempt to teach it.
-_-"" . Did you even take a class in philosophical logic before? I aced mine.
your inept attemt to rearrange it doesn't even include Adam
Of couese, since verse 12 did not mention Adam... Oh nevermind, why bother?!
And there's where you contradict the scriptures: it does not state that the sin through the law merely made him "recognize their state of spiritual death," but that it killed him
Oh yes, someobody was talking about context....
Nevermind, your idionsyncretic eisegesis of Rom. 7 makes me suspect you are not even an Arminian, but a Pelagian. Without the law, sin was ontologically dead? I guess those who have not heard the law are all sinless and automatically go to heaven [/s]
[cont]
P1 Some men sinned, yet never died physically (Elijah, Enoch)
P2 Christ died physically, yet never sinned
C1 Physical death and sin are not necessarily correlated
All of which are not even found in verse 12.
Besides which, all of these are exceptions (Talk about exceptions being used to prove the norm!). Christ's death was becaus he was imputed sin and thus he died being considered as a sinner. But of course you deny imputed sin, right?
P3 Romans 5:12 does positively correlate sin to death ("all died because all sinned")
I thought we were discussing what Rom. 5:12 teaches? Oh, nevermind, you weren't exegeting Rom. 5:12, just constructing your own system out of the air.
C2 Since physical death is not necessarily correlated with sin, the 'death' Rom 5:12 refers to is spiritual death
Wow, talk about eisegesis. Turning the teaching of Rom. 5:12 on its own head!
P6 Verbs of active voice refer to actions performed by the subject, not upon them
You seem totally incapable of understanding what imputation means. When Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity, it means that they are considered JUST AS IF they have actually sinned even though they physically have not.
Mitch:
thanks.
Mitch, still ignoring context I see. All is of limited scope, therefore the aorist tense doesn't indicate sin committed by all humanity, as people don't sin before they're even born.
Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad... (Rom 9:11a)
Additionally, 13-14 indicates nothing pertaining strictly to physical death.
PR,
This is made worse by your claiming...
Which is only stating the claim, and calling it 'irrational,' not refuting it.
Forget it. You obviously do not know anything about logic
...
Did you even take a class in philosophical logic before? I aced mine.
This from a guy who keeps confusing explanation of my own position with a 'strawman?' I'd demand my money back.
Of couese, since verse 12 did not mention Adam...
You weren't arranging vs 12, you were trying to rearrange my argument.
Oh yes, someobody was talking about context....
Which you fail to establish for your eisegesis.
[Concerning my argument about Enoch and Elijah proving non-correlation between spiritual and physical death]
All of which are not even found in verse 12.
Nor need they be, facts are facts regardless of where they're found, and scriptural facts are all in harmony. Exceptions show that there's no necessary correlation between the two, which is the point I was making.
When Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity, it means that they are considered JUST AS IF they have actually sinned even though they physically have not.
Something that is imputed to someone without their action is done so with an actually passive subject. E.g. in Heb 7:9, Levi's having paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham was passive.
From your other thread at http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2010/01/heresy-of-classical-arminianism.html
JCT: So, I'm sorry, who exactly was lying?
PR: You, of course! You say that you are not defending Arminius, yet you claim that these devious and manipulative Remonstrants....
We'll see who the liar is: Where exactly did I say that I was 'not defending Arminius?' The only 2 times I mentioned him were when I stated,
I'm not a disciple of Arminius, I just happen to agree with him on some points.
I was discussing Dordt, not Arminius.
I clearly said nothing of the sort, yet you say I'm lying because you claim that made a statement to that effect.
You also don't even address the issue of your dishonest handling of my statement concerning systematic theology.
So who's the liar here?
J.C.
First, I mentioned the aorist because you tried to use the active to prop-up your view. I simply pointed out that this is also an aorist simple historical tense. When it comes to people sinning before being born I would just point you to what has already been said about imputation.
What you said here may help shed some more light on the subject
Something that is imputed to someone without their action is done so with an actually passive subject. E.g. in Heb 7:9, Levi's having paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham was passive.
Remember what I said that verse 12 is followed by 18 and 19, so let us look at that
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… Therefore, as by the offense 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. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Notice that were made sinners and be made righteous both are passive. Notice that the Apostle clearly tells us that it was because of one man’s disobedience that many were made sinners. Of course this should be no surprise because it is also through the obedience of one that many will be made righteous.
It is clear that your view does not stand in accordance with Scripture and you would be wise to repent.
Last thing, you write
Additionally, 13-14 indicates nothing pertaining strictly to physical death.
What do you think the Apostle is trying to show here? How would the people reading the letter understand Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses? Surely you see that physical death is in view here.
Grace & Peace
Mitch,
"I mentioned the aorist because you tried to use the active to prop-up your view."
'Active' is a voice, not a tense. You also fail to address the scope.
When it comes to people sinning before being born I would just point you to what has already been said about imputation.
But imputation is not the commission of an act, 'sinned' in verse 12 is active, thus denoting actual commission.
"Notice that were made sinners and be made righteous both are passive...Notice that the Apostle clearly tells us that it was because of one man’s disobedience that many were made sinners."
There is a passive element to our becoming sinners in that Adam passed his nature on to us (which drives our becoming sinners), this doesn't negate the fact that our individual falls are through us actively sinning (5:12, 3:23). Sorry, that "scripture cancellation method" you're employing simply won't work. The scriptural view thus accounts for both voices, whereas you simply ignore the active aspect entirely.
"How would the people reading the letter understand Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses?"
Spiritual death, see arguments presented above.
"It is clear that your view does not stand in accordance with Scripture and you would be wise to repent."
If you can't even deal with any of the specifics in my arguments from chapter 7 etc, please spare me the pomposity.
J.C.
I never said that active is a tense, if I did please forgive me, but the aorist tense in both 3:23 and 5:12 are simple historical. Meaning that the Apostle was saying that ALL men at a particular point in time in the past sinned. Yet how could he state that if your view is correct. Surely there were some who had not “become” sinners. Yet he clearly says that at a point in the PAST all sinned, not will sin.
Imputation is not the commission of an act, but it’s the reckoning to ones account. Imputation does not have to be actively done by each individual, if that were true then you would not need imputation:)
Take Christ, he was made sin but that doesn’t mean that he actively sinned. Instead sin was reckoned to his account and he was treated as if he actually was a sinner.
Also, verse 19 clearly says that were made sinners not would become sinners, that is your eisegesis. It clearly states that through the disobedience of one we were reckoned sinners. We were counted as sinners by that one mans disobedience. I notice you never talk of or mention the parallel that is being presented here. We are counted as righteous because of the obedience of one.
I suppose next you want to dupe people into believing that it is their active righteousness that saves them. Yet if we let your logic go to its natural conclusion that is exactly what it leads too.
You really fail to grasp what imputation means. As for dealing with your “specific’ argument from chapter 7, that has already been shown to be in serious error. Perhaps you do not see that either since you are having such a hard time understanding imputation.
When it comes to death in verse 12 I fail to see how it can be taken as strictly spiritual since that would be hard to prove. Yet if death means physical death then the people would clearly know that that was true, for they know that all die and there wasn’t anyone walking around from the time between Adam and Moses.
Grace & Peace
Mitch,
"...the Apostle was saying that ALL men at a particular point in time in the past sinned. Yet how could he state that if your view is correct. Surely there were some who had not “become” sinners."
I indicated it twice and you missed it: "the aorist tense doesn't indicate sin committed by all humanity." The scope is people of faculties enough to sin, not every human throughout history without exception.
"Imputation is not the commission of an act, but it’s the reckoning to ones account."
Yes, but the sin by which we fall is an act (and denoted by active voice). That's what I've been driving at.
"...says that were made sinners not would become sinners...."
Already addressed.
It clearly states that through the disobedience of one we were reckoned sinners.
I agree that it's through that act that we're reckoned sinners, in that it spread sin to us. Where you err is that it doesn't state through that one act of disobedience alone.
"We are counted as righteous because of the obedience of one."
Both are conditional. Righteousness in Christ is conditioned upon faith, just as being a sinner in Adam is conditioned upon commission of sin.
"I suppose next you want to dupe people into believing that it is their active righteousness that saves them. Yet if we let your logic go to its natural conclusion that is exactly what it leads too."
Wow, you really are quite the slanderer aren't you? I already addressed this parallel above with logic that leads nowhere near such an idea.
"You really fail to grasp what imputation means."
Really? What proof can you cite that I don't know what it means? If you can't demonstrate this, then your statement stands as just more of your unchristian slander.
"...your “specific’ argument from chapter 7, that has already been shown to be in serious error."
Incorrect, no substantial rebuttal was given to it.
"When it comes to death in verse 12 I fail to see how it can be taken as strictly spiritual...."
Because there isn't a necessary correlation between sin and physical death.
"...there wasn’t anyone walking around from the time between Adam and Moses."
Not walking around per se, but do you then believe that Enoch in fact died? If not, do you believe he was sinless?
J.C.
I indicated it twice and you missed it: "the aorist tense doesn't indicate sin committed by all humanity." The scope is people of faculties enough to sin, not every human throughout history without exception.
Sheer eisegesis, but I will make a note that all does not mean all. Also you do not even attempt to understand that it’s a simple historical tense.
Yes, but the sin by which we fall is an act (and denoted by active voice). That's what I've been driving at.
Yes sin is an act, unfortunately for you the Apostle says
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners
Already addressed.
Yes by reading something into the text that is not there.
I agree that it's through that act that we're reckoned sinners, in that it spread sin to us. Where you err is that it doesn't state through that one act of disobedience alone.
I see the problem; the bible you are reading does not have verse 19 in it. For the verse clearly states that through the disobedience, singular here, we were made sinners, passively I might remind you.
Both are conditional. Righteousness in Christ is conditioned upon faith, just as being a sinner in Adam is conditioned upon commission of sin.
So all does not mean all and now you see conditional clauses where there aren’t any.
Because there isn't a necessary correlation between sin and physical death.
I see, so Christ did not pay the penalty for sin. WOW!
Not walking around per se, but do you then believe that Enoch in fact died? If not, do you believe he was sinless?
At this moment I believe that Enoch did die.
Grace & Peace
J.C.
When it comes to what your view would entail let me show you the logic.
You would have a babe in Christ believe that the disobedience of Adam was the cause of mankind becoming sinful and that it is on the basis of these sins that condemnation follows. Now in order to be consistent the second part would then mean that the obedience of Christ was the cause of mankind becoming obedient or holy and on the basis of our obedience justification follows.
The sentence structure, context and comparison would demand that interpretation.
Not that it matters, but the view that has been put forth by Daniel here is in accordance with the vast majority of Christendom throughout the ages.
If you cannot see how Daniel demolished your weak use of chapter 7 then I would encourage you to read it again. The violence that you do to the text is astounding. Tell me when do you think Saul “died”? Up to and until the road experience he thought of himself as a righteous Jew who no one could bring a charge against. He was of the belief that he was justified and righteous. The view you hold is un-biblical.
Now this is not slandering you or being un-christian, it is done with patience and meekness in the hope that the Lord grant you repentance and opens your eyes to this heretical view.
Grace & Peace
Mitch,
"...in accordance with the vast majority of Christendom..."
I'll settle with "in accordance with the Bible," thanks.
"Tell me when do you think Saul “died”?"
When he understood God's law.
"He was of the belief that he was justified and righteous."
He didn't say "he recognized that he died," but that he actually died. Hel understood the law long before his conversion, and by that incurred spiritual death. "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
"Yes sin is an act, unfortunately for you the Apostle says For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners"
You miss the point: we personally fall short of the glory of God by committing our own sin. "For all have sinned [active voice], and come short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), which was a result of the one man's sin.
"...by reading something into the text that is not there."
Sin being something we actively commit plainly well is in there.
I agree that it's through that act that we're reckoned sinners, in that it spread sin to us. Where you err is that it doesn't state through that one act of disobedience alone.
"For the verse clearly states that through the disobedience, singular here, we were made sinners, passively I might remind you."
Ah, but a statement of a singular doesn't necessarily preclude multiple in the same context. Jesus riding on a donkey doesn't imply there wasn't a second, nor does one sin in Romans 5 preclude our individual sins in Romans 3. As I indicated, we are sinners due to both active and passive factors; so my scriptural view takes both voices into account, while your proof-text-based tradition attempts to nullify one scripture with another.
"So all does not mean all and now you see conditional clauses where there aren’t any."
More of your sophistry. The term 'all' often carries contextual limits. And taking scripture into its context, we do fall by committing sin (Rom 3:23 cited above), and we are justified by faith in Christ (Rom 4:5).
"...in order to be consistent the second part would then mean that the obedience of Christ was the cause of mankind becoming obedient or holy and on the basis of our obedience justification follows."
That's an absurd leap of logic, since I only stated that both were conditionally imputed, not that both happened through exactly the same kind of mechanism. Looks like your reading far too much into certain statements affects more than your view of scripture.
"I see, so Christ did not pay the penalty for sin. WOW!"
(?) How you would connect the ideas of all sinners not necessarily incurring physical death and mitigation of Christ's sacrificial death is beyond me. Or were you explaining your own beliefs?
Now this is not slandering you or being un-christian...
You implied my reasoning was leading into some heretical direction that's neither necessary to it nor indicated by myself. That's called 'slander.'
...you do not even attempt to understand that it’s a simple historical tense.
Of course I recognize the tense. You're just making things up again.
"...in the hope that the Lord grant you repentance and opens your eyes to this heretical view."
You made my day.
"Blessed are you when they ... say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake."
Given the display you typically put on, it's a rather good sign that you consider my beliefs heretical. :D
The point you keep stumbling at is that Adam's sin is the remote cause of our fall, our own sins are the proximate cause. 'All sinned' in vs 12 is something actively committed by the subject(s), not passively conferred as unconditional imputation entails.
@Mitch:
actually, I don't know how productive it is to engage J.C., but feel free to continue. He does not even understand logical argumentation, and cannot engage in serious exegesis of the text of Scripture. His views on this subject, as you can see from his eisegesis of Rom. 7, tend towards pure Pelagianism.
J.C.
You are not a very honest person when it comes to your insinuations about me and about these verses. You use verse 12 as the only verse and when other verses get pointed too you just run back to verse 12, “Its active, its active”.
What you do not accept is that it is active, but it’s also in the aorist tense. By being in the aorist tense it does not mean do sin or are accustomed to sin. It is a simple historical tense which expresses momentary action in past time. So a more literal interpretation would be All sinned through or by one man.
Also, verse 12 is the first part of the comparison that the Apostle is making and the second part being verses 18 & 19. So we should let the Apostle interpret verse 12 or let scripture interpret scripture. We are blessed that we know what the Apostle was saying and meant in verse 12 by verses 18 & 19. In those verses it is clear that he was saying that one man’s sin brought judgment and condemnation.
BTW, what is the point of saying the argument that the Apostle was making is that we all die because we sin? It makes no sense, but if he were saying that we die because of another than it all falls into place because then he would have to justify and argue for that which is of course what he does here.
The inspired writer goes on to say in verses 15, 16 & 17 that one sin brought judgment and condemnation, but that Christ not only saves us from that one but also from the many. He is showing the superiority of Christ here. He is telling us that the judgment that Christ saves us from is far superior to the condemnation that Adam brought on us. The view you hold completely obliterates that contrast.
We are told that the penalty for sin is death; your view makes that purely spiritual death. So when we are told that Christ paid the penalty for sin you would have to say that Christ died spiritually. Wait, this would only be true if you were consistent and honest. Both of which you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not.
So only people who understand God’s law die, well then please stop explaining it to people who do not understand it.
Also, you can shout till your blue in the face that it’s an absurd leap of logic, but please note that the context and sentence structure all demand that interpretation. The problem is that you see how that would go directly against the text and the testimony of scripture so you just shout nonsense and hope that people are deceived.
The point you keep stumbling at is that Adam's sin is the remote cause of our fall, our own sins are the proximate cause. 'All sinned' in vs 12 is something actively committed by the subject(s), not passively conferred as unconditional imputation entails.
Where you err is not letting the Apostle himself interpret verse 12 which is what he does in verses 18 & 19. It is there that you find the passive that you just want to skip over.
Daniel, thanks and I agree with all you said. Keep up the good work and God bless.
PR, are you talking about the kind of 'logic' in which my own views are somehow 'strawmen?' ;)
Mitch,
"You are not a very honest person when it comes to your insinuations about me and about these verses."
You fill my day with blessings yet again. Let's examine your statements to determine the veracity of these claims.
"We are told that the penalty for sin is death; your view makes that purely spiritual death."
Wrong. I was only addressing how 'death' as it relates to human sinfulness is used in this passage.
"So only people who understand God’s law die, well then please stop explaining it to people who do not understand it."
Did you somehow miss Romans 2:14-16?
"...the judgment that Christ saves us from is far superior to the condemnation that Adam brought on us. The view you hold completely obliterates that contrast."
You just assert without evidence. What utter nonsense.
"What you do not accept is that it is active, but it’s also in the aorist tense."
This is clearly a lie. I do freely acknowledge that it's aorist, and thus 'momentary action in past time, and noted "The scope is people of faculties enough to sin, not every human throughout history without exception."
"...so you just shout nonsense and hope that people are deceived."
This is plainly another lie, since I don't wish for anyone to be deceived.
"It is there that you find the passive that you just want to skip over."
This is again, a lie, since I did acknowledge the passive element here; recall that I stated, "There is a passive element to our becoming sinners in that Adam passed his nature on to us...."
Frankly, this whole "you believe [contested view], therefore you must also believe [misapplied logic similar to that of said view]" apologetic isn't just easily defeated and overly simplistic, it's also borderline dishonest, and exceptionally arrogant and rude. Though it's no surprise that you're pulling out the desperate "you're being dishonest" card without warrant, since your arguments simply can't match what the scriptures indicate:
P1 Active voice verbs denote action actually committed by the subject, not something imputed/accounted to a passive subject
P2 According to scripture we fall by our actively sinning (Rom 3:23, 5:12)
C1 Therefore our individual fall is a result of our active, individual sin
P3 The Bible does cite Adam's sin in our becoming sinners and falling short of God's glory
P4 The mention of only one sin being the cause in a context doesn't necessarily preclude other sins from being involved
C2 Therefore it's not necessary that Adam's sin be the sole cause of our individual fall
P5 Per C2, Adam's sin is a cause, but not necessarily the only cause of our spiritual deaths
P6 Per C1, we fall due to our individual sin
C3 Therefore it's correct to say that we're made sinners because of Adam's sin ("the many were made sinners"), yet fall by our own sin ("as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned")
P7 All men does mean every one within a contextual scope
P8 As noted in C2, Rom 5:12 using 'all sinned' is active (denoting sin actually committed)
C4 The scope of Rom 5:12 then can only involve people with capability to commit sin
P9 Per C4, the 'all sinned' refers to those with capability to commit sin
P10 The tense is aorist, and thus historical
C5 The idea expressed then is that all who can sin have done so (true in Paul's time and ours)
Thus, my view accounts for both the passive voice in vs 18-19 & the aorist tense in vs 12.
J.C.:
It has become evident that you know nothing of logic neither of Scripture, and with regards to your position of sin i.e Rom. 7, tend towards Pelagianim. Mitch is of course welcome to attempt to get to you, but as for me, I am out of this monologue. In fact, I encourage all people to stop wasting their time trying to convince you.
J.C.
You do lie and all who read can see it for themselves. You make death mean spiritual death and when logic dictate that you then must hold that view throughout you say some gibberish about how it only relates to human sinfulness.
So we were talking about Saul/Paul and you bring up gentiles. Another lie, your view does not hold-up when confronted with scripture. You are a liar and distorter of truth.
Assert without evidence, I see. Never mind that verses 15,16 and 17 say that. I forgot you do not like what scripture says, please forgive my use of scripture.
You either lie or are just ignorant of the simple historical aorist tense. Seeing your track record I will go with the first. The scope of the simple historical aorist tense is not referencing people of the faculties to sin. It is presented as a historical fact of the past and your view does not account for that, not can it because it is a lie.
Again where is the argument if all that is being said is that we all die by committing individual sin? Do you think that was up for debate?
You lie when you say you don’t want people to be deceived because that is all you are trying to do here.
You either lie or are just ignorant of the use of the passive here and given your track record I will again go with the first. The verse does not say that Adam passes his nature unto us; it clearly says that through one man’s disobedience/sin we were made sinners.
As for your use of Romans 3:23 I would point out again that while it is active it is also in the simple historical aorist. So the sinning in both this verse and chapter 5 verse 12 is presented as an historical fact of the past. Your view does not account for this. You are like a first year Greek student who thinks that the active voice settles it all. Forget context and what the argument is and if all else fails just lie.
You have repeatedly shown yourself to be a liar and incapable of understanding even the simplest of concepts. I feel that the only good thing that has come from this is that your view has been openly shown to be heretical so as not to deceive a babe in Christ.
I agree with Daniel that this now will only be a waste of time. So go ahead and post another comment that distorts abuses and misuses scripture in your futile attempt to spread this nonsense. As I have stated your view has been exposed for the dung that it is and all believers will see it.
PR,
"...you know nothing of logic neither of Scripture"
Not even dignifying such commentary, in reference to what we discussed previously, I queried a very educated 5-point Reformed theologian friend of mine, and he confirms that Total Depravity is an aspect of the Reformed view of Original Sin, but is distinct from racial guit.
Mitch,
"You make death mean spiritual death and when logic dictate that you then must hold that view throughout you say some gibberish about how it only relates to human sinfulness."
Your inability/unwillingness to understand what I'm writing isn't an argument.
"Never mind that verses 15,16 and 17 say that."
I was talking about your assertion that my view, "obliterates that contrast."
"The scope of the simple historical aorist tense is not referencing people of the faculties to sin."
Not the tense, the context of the passage, as I showed from there being no necessary correlation between sin and physical death.
"...where is the argument if all that is being said is that we all die by committing individual sin?"
Covered in C1, above.
"...it clearly says that through one man’s disobedience/sin we were made sinners."
Which is accomplished by Adam, since we're made sinners by Adam through the passing on his nature to us, while also becoming sinners through our own actions by acting upon said nature. So as pointed out, my view does account for the passive element in our fall, while yours mitigates the active entirely.
"It is presented as a historical fact of the past..."
...
As for your use of Romans 3:23 I would point out again that while it is active it is also in the simple historical aorist.
Agreed, which my view accounts for given the contextual scope (see C5 above). Since your counter is little more than re-assertion, I believe that I've thoroughly demonstrated the validity of scriptural doctrine. The weakness in your apologetic is also demonstrated in your complete meltdown into a flurry of unwarranted accusations that I'm lying:
"...if all else fails just lie. ...You have repeatedly shown yourself to be a liar...You lie when you say you don’t want people to be deceived because that is all you are trying to do here. ...your view [is] a lie."
The claims become so wild that they degenerate into sheer incoherency: "So we were talking about Saul/Paul and you bring up gentiles. Another lie..."
(?) How would bringing up Gentiles in a discussion about Paul be a lie? That doesn't even make sense. I've argued my views pretty thoroughly here, and am convinced of them by the scriptures. So for you to truthfully conclude that I'm 'lying,' you'd need knowledge that I'm willfully claiming what I know to be false, to which I personally happen to know I'm not. Since you're making claim against another person based upon knowledge that you can't possess or even reasonably infer, that's plainly a violation of the command against bearing false witness.
In contrast, your accusations aside, I don't consider you to be a heretic or liar because you disagree with me. I think Christians can have some honest differences of opinion on these issues. I'm sorry you apparently don't feel the same.
Post a Comment