Is the Adamic sin imputed?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Scott_Bushey, Oct 21, 2002.

  1. Scott_Bushey

    Scott_Bushey
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is the sin of father Adam imputed or does man just *inherit* the sin nature?
     
  2. Music Man

    Music Man
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the sin of Adam was also imputed to all who are his offspring, just as the righteousness of Christ is imputed to all of us who believe. (Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 1:30)

    Chris
     
  3. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually, it doesn't really matter, since Christ paid for ALL sin on the cross. All sin is atoned for.

    Thus, what we are left with is inherited sin nature, as per Genesis 8:21.
     
  4. Music Man

    Music Man
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Boy, Helen, I sure didn't mean to start all of this! [​IMG] But it sure has been interesting, hasn't it? :D )

    OK. Why wasn't the sin of rejecting Christ paid for by Christ?

    Chris

    (PS- one bad thing about the name Chris, I don't know how many times I have meant to type Chris and I type Christ, and vice versa [​IMG] I did that in this post and had to change it. :D )

    [ October 21, 2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Music Man ]
     
  5. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Interesting question Scott that I have not thought of before, but according to the time period between Genesis 1: [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    And Genesis 5: [3] And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:... Does it really matter that our sin nature was inherited from Adam or imputed? I really don't know but since you stirred up our pure minds I will check it out!... Brother Glen [​IMG]
     
  6. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    You crack me up, Glen...

    OK, Chris -- yes, many times I have typed the name of my son with that 't' on the end of it and had to go back and correct it. I always feel guilty, do you?

    At any rate, the sin of rejecting Christ is the one sin that cannot be forgiven. It is the sin against the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the truth. Since forgiveness is through Christ, and through Him only, then if you reject Him you have also rejected the very forgiveness you need.
     
  7. weeping prophet

    weeping prophet
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2002
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe it is acutally imputed to us, by our fathers. Hence, the importance of the Virgin birth. Blessing,WP
     
  8. Scott_Bushey

    Scott_Bushey
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen writes:
    Actually, it doesn't really matter, since Christ paid for ALL sin on the cross. All sin is atoned for.

    Scott inquires (again):
    Why is not everyone going to Heaven then? Possibly, Heaven will be empty?

    Rom 5:18 says that it is more than a nature:

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

    Helen,
    the above follows with the fact that in the same way Adam's sin has been passed down (imputed), so will the *obedience* of Christ pass down (and Impute) righteousness to His people. I ask you, are we made fully righteous to the father or is it only a *RIGHTEOUS NATURE*? The above scripture contrasts the two truths in the same context.

    1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

    Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

    Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

    This is not a RIGHTEOUS NATURE, we are truly righteous......God now see's us through His son and the righteousness of Christ is imparted.

    Also Helen, Why did Christ say Himself that had come to save:
    "Many" (not all), "His people" (from their sin).

    *In the early days of Israel, was Gods gift of grace available to "all" people? I.e. Egypt?

    Was Esau ever a candidate?

    Also:
    What about before the cross? Your implication implies that men today are saved in some different fashion than in OT times? Hebrews ch 11 differs w/ your idea.

    [ October 21, 2002, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
     
  9. Scott_Bushey

    Scott_Bushey
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Glenn,
    Let me clearify........
    Imputed sin is the foundational idea embedded within the doctrine of total depravity. Men are born "stained". Not just born with a nature bent toward sin. They come into the world sinners. Otherwise, men would not be sinners until having sinned, having entertained the sin nature.

    Imputation is the viral load of the disease coming into our blood.......

    Sin nature is nothing until one executes the breakng of a law of God.

    As David had stated, brought forth in iniquity".
    Job, "Can a clean thing come from the unclean?"

    [ October 21, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
     
  10. weeping prophet

    weeping prophet
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2002
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point Scott, I have been questioned on this belief, by many of the Roman Catholics on this site. God Bless, WP
     
  11. Music Man

    Music Man
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    :D Yes, I do!

    But in Matthew 12 and Luke 12, when Jesus speaks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, he makes a distinction between that and speaking a word against Christ. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, but speaking against Christ is forgivable. Your interpretation of what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is does not hold up.

    Respectfully,
    Chris
     
  12. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh dear, Scott, and I was going to take a quick nap before the kids got home...

    Because so many reject Christ.

    Hardly. And quit being snide.

    I'm not disagreeing with that! We wouldn't have needed our sins to be forgiven if we weren't all sinners!

    Adam's sin was Adam's sin. My sins are mine. I have quite enough of my own, thank you, and I might add that double wages are never paid for one thing. Adam earned death. I also have. But he did not earn it FOR me, despite the fact that his actions passed a sin nature onto me. Each man's sins are his own. Adam started the whole thing (actually, Eve did...), thus causing sin nature to be present in every human being that has ever lived, but his sins were his own, not mine. And everyone seems to say "Adam's sin" as though he only sinned once in his entire life! I am not aware of any evidence for that. If he sinned even one more time, then why are his sinS not claimed to be passed down to us?

    I was given a new nature when I was born again. This one no longer tends toward evil, but rather tends toward good. It is God's gift to me. But it is not a righteous nature; it is only a nature that wants to be. All my righteousness is in Jesus Christ and Him only.

    Don't push the analogy between Adam and Christ any further than Paul does. Adam was a creation. Christ is the creator. Their works are NOT equal even though juxtaposed.

    And I personally declare to you under no uncertain terms that any good I do is not me, but Christ working in me and that all righteousness is His. As I am transformed, bit by bit, into His image, then His righteousness may also be reflected in me, but that is all it is -- a reflection.

    Exactly. And, first of all, what Abraham believed was that he would be the ancestor of the Messiah, as Paul explains, and this was because of something to do with the stars in the sky. Secondly, the righteousness was exactly the same for him as me, only I know the name of the Promise and Abraham knew, at that time, only the promise. This is why Hebrews 11:39-40 tells us Abraham and the OT faithful were not made complete until together with us. It is not that we are so special, but rather that we have the knowledge of the history of what happened which they could not have at the time. We know of the fulfillment of that glorious Promise.

    You are the one who called it a righteous nature. I simply have a nature that wants to be!

    That's the effect. The desire was for all.

    Yes. As a matter of fact, there were a number of Egyptians who left with the Israelites.

    Yes. But he, like so many, rejected the truth, thus earning the enmity of God Himself.

    I don't know where you get that idea! I have stated in posts and exchanges with you in the past few days that I know all are saved by Christ and only by Christ. So this accusation, or semi-accusation has now become a straw man. Please discard it.
     
  13. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Well Scott the only thing I can say is I'm a totally depraved believer... Is that the mother of oxymorons or what?... I don't believe I said that?... Brother Glen :eek:
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm afraid I don't understand, Helen. :confused: Are you saying if I ever rejected Christ before I repented and believed, then I cannot be saved because I would have committed a sin that cannot be forgiven?

    You appear to be saying that none of us who hear the gospel can be saved unless we repented and believed the first time we heard of the free offer of salvation in Christ Jesus.

    Can you help me out? Surely, that is not what you mean. :confused:
     
  15. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    God is much more gracious and patient than that, and I think you know that! Just like Paul indicates in Romans 1, it is that continual rejection of the truth that is the thing.

    I think we all have had experiences in our past when we deliberately rejected what we knew was right and true. But there are those who not only start that way, but end up that way. Their rejection of Christ is final and definitive and long-practiced.
     
  16. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Chris, I understand your objection to what I was saying, but let me explain a little more what I mean and maybe you will not disagree so strongly, at least!

    There are many caracatures of Christ. The Jesus of Mormonism is NOT the Jesus we worship, for instance. My father was raised in a high Episcopalian church where they 'owned' the first row pew and Sundays were a social obligation at the core. If you were inspired by the sermon or the music, great, but it was of utmost importance that you were there in that pew no matter! So the Jesus he heard about was a little different than the Jesus you and I know I think! And my dad rejected that. Why? Because he wanted the truth!

    I think many people are the same. They reject the Jesus they have been told about, and some of them very rightly do so! I have been in some churches that seem to preach an entirely different Savior than the one who saved me!

    But the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of TRUTH. And He presents the real Christ, one way or another, which He also did for my father. It was not until a day or two before his death that my father finally realized that the truth really was Jesus, and at that point he accepted and embraced our Lord with joy I had never seen in him before.

    Sometimes there is a great difference between what we perceive and what the truth is. Or between what we are told and what the truth is.

    And so Jesus did not say anything about blasphemy against Himself. He knew He would be misunderstood. He knew false Christs would come and go and usurp His name. But the Spirit of truth will always be the Spirit of truth -- and as HE reveals the true Christ to those who want to know the truth, then misconceptions disappear.

    But for those who have seen at least some of the truth (Romans 1) and reject it, and go on rejecting it, preferring a lie, then what is there left for them but hell?
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for clearing that up, Helen. [​IMG]

    1)Two further points of clarification, if you please. It appears that you are saying that Christ did not pay for all of the sins of any person, since you say He did not pay for the sin after "x" number of times of refusing to repent and believe. Is this correct?

    2)If the above is correct, then is this method of viewing Christ's atonement as not being complete how you attempt to logically believe in universal(unlimited) atonement and substitutionary atonement simultaneously?

    Thanks for your input. [​IMG]

    [ October 21, 2002, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
     
  18. Scott_Bushey

    Scott_Bushey
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen writes:
    Don't push the analogy between Adam and Christ any further than Paul does. Adam was a creation. Christ is the creator. Their works are NOT equal even though juxtaposed.

    But Helen,
    The scripture reference the two along the same lines in many references. You just refuse to accept the fact that Christ (The second Adam) is in the same context as the first Adam; both having *imputed* characteristics to their lineage.
    And as important, the (full) humanity of Christ. That is Pauls point, both Adam and Christ were flesh and blood; no less than men. Christ would have had to be to meet the requirements. It was not God sacrificing Himself at the cross, it was a man; God incarnate!

    There is no way to disconnect the exegesis of Romans 5:19.
    For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners , so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

    1) One mans disobedience = Many made sinners
    2) Obedience of one = Many made righteous

    Sinners: Greek/harmartolos (Strongs# 268)
    Defined as "Exposed to the punishment of sin".

    ~Sin natures do not necessarily imply *sinning*.
    ~Sin natures do not necessarily deserve *punishment* for their nature.

    The term harmartolos denotes that the sinner is subject directly to punishment for the sin.

    Verses using the same Greek word:

    Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners(harmartolos) to repentance.

    Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners (harmartolos). But wisdom is justified of her children.

    Luke 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners (harmartolos), and eateth with them.

    Luke 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners (harmartolos) also do even the same.

    John 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners (harmartolos): but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

    Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners (harmartolos), Christ died for us.

    Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners (harmartolos) of the Gentiles,
    Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
    Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners (harmartolos), is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

    1 Tim 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
    1 Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners (harmartolos), for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

    Helen, there is no way to misinterpret what Paul is saying. We were made harmartolos due to Father Adam....in the same way, we were made righteous by Christs imputation of righteousness!

    Even though I have exegeted the scripture accurately and have presented many historical figuires agreeing, i.e Charles Hodge, Dr. Robert Reymond, Matthew Henry, you disregard them as unimportant. You don't even consider them by acknowledging the refrences in your replies.

    The obvious cannot be discredited.......Spurgeon once said, "I'd rather defend a roaring lion, the scriptures can defend themselves".

    So be it!

    [ October 21, 2002, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
     
  19. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ken, I don't think it's a matter of "times". It's a matter of God knowing the heart. He does know how things are going to end up, but sin -- rejection of Him -- must reach its full measure: in a society, or in a life, nothing seems to be left half-done. We will be finished works by Him, and those who have rejected Him will also be 'finished' works in their direction. I'm not going to try to define where God draws the line. I do know, however, that Christ's atonement for all sin. Not because of us, but because of HIM. Even hell is not enough 'atonement' for insults to God. It really isn't. Only God could take care of all of it. I don't think He left any insults against Himself standing where we are concerned. All that will be left for so many is not their sins, plural, but their sin, singular, of rejection -- the one sin that could not be forgiven.

    ==========

    Scott, I am not going to argue with other authors and theologians. No one is perfect, first of all, and secondly, we are discussing God and the Bible, and that is something we both can do on our own, having read the Bible and having been born again in Christ.

    You say you have exegeted correctly. I don't think you have. We both can dig up a zillion others who have written to support each of us. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in what the Bible says.

    Paul uses an analogy between Adam and Christ, but it must, by the nature of Christ, be very limited.

    This I know: that my own nature is not righteous; that I am being transformed into the image of Christ as a progressive thing; and that as long as I am in Christ, when I am seen and judged, it is Christ that will be seen and I am safe.

    "Imputed" and words that most of the lay folk here don't know are not really words I want to use. I am in Christ. My life is hid, as Paul says, in Him. I know my new nature desires righteousness but is not righteous itself.

    I also know my old nature desired evil, but was not the personification of evil itself.

    I know that in both conditions I could go against my nature. In the old nature, I was expected to by my parents, teachers, friends, and the law! In my new nature, it is a shameful thing when I go against it, and that is sin which I do try to bring before God whenever He shows me I did it again so that the relationship between Him and me will not be strained but will be close again.

    I am incredibly grateful to God for what He has done in my life. You see, He did not just undo the Adamic damage, by giving me a new nature, but He has come into my life to mature and change me Himself, so that the goal will not be missed. I will end up being exactly what He wants me to be: a reflection of Himself, and that includes His righteousness.

    But I know it is not my own.
     
  20. Scott_Bushey

    Scott_Bushey
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen,
    Whether you like it or not, the scriptures I present prove the position. Sin is imputed. Babies are not sinless. The Greek is not misleading. There is no way to misinterpret what Pauls meaning was based upon in the exegete. Did you even give it a second thought?

    You have opinion Helen. Scripture is not opinion; it does have an intended meaning, one you refuse to accept. Your opinion is more important to you.

    [ October 21, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...