Featured The Similtude of Adam's transgression

Where in the text is A LAW even mentioned? It's NOT a law, it's THE LAW:

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
11 for there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God,
18 and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
19 and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth;
21 thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?
23 thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written.
25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.
26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?
27 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?

As I said, Semi-Pelagian and Calvinist alike refuse to recognize the plain gist of the context.

 

Baloney, verse 12 says death passed upon all men, FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED. Every man dies for his own personal sin.

It was Augustine that used a flawed Latin text that said "in whom" in verse 12 which he interpreted to mean "in Adam". Scholars have admitted that Augustine was in error.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/original.html

Verse 12 clearly says all men die for their own personal sin. Adam was simply the precedent for all who followed him, all that sinned were "made" or imputed sinners, and the death penalty passed on them. Likewise, Jesus was the precedent for all those who believe, and righteousness is imputed to those who believe on God as Jesus did.

 

1st Question: What personal sin did deceased infants and toddlers commit?

2nd Question: To what purpose is the second death, if men die for their own personal sin in the first death?

Please use Scripture to prove your cause.

 

I personally do not believe they committed any sin.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

You can read, how much sin does this verse say Jacob and Esau committed in their mother's womb? Please answer that question.

All men (and babies) die as a consequence of Adam's sin. After this they stand before the judgment seat to be judged for what they have done in their body.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Note that men are judged for what they (he) have done, not Adam.

I seriously doubt I could prove anything to you, your mind is already made up.

 

Didn't your parents teach you never to pat yourself on the back? Claiming that your interpretations of scripture are irrefutable does not make it so. You have vastly overrated your own abilities.

Verses 13 and 14 tell us that men from Adam to Moses died for some other reason than Adam's sin.

First of all, if they died from Original Sin, then Paul should have said ALL MEN and not men from Adam to Moses only. This seems to go right over your head.

Second, it directly says they did not sin the same kind of sin as Adam, but you are claiming they sinned the exact same kind of sin as Adam. You are claiming that all men since Adam picked that forbidden fruit off the tree of knowledge and took a bite. You believe YOU took a bite, you believe I took a bite. But scripture says men from Adam to Moses did not sin a similar sin as Adam. This also seems to go right over your head.

 

I know I'm kicking your you-know-what when you accuse me of being dishonest, that is what you always do.

You are making the ridiculous argument that Paul is saying men from Adam to Moses sinned the exact sin as Adam by saying they did not sin after the "similitude" of Adam. Talk about being desperate, that is asinine. Paul could simply say that men from Adam to Moses sinned Adam's sin in him.

Again, if Paul is trying to show that all men sinned in Adam as you believe, then he would not have restricted it to Adam to Moses only, it would apply to all men. The very fact that Paul says men from Adam to Moses only absolutely refutes your view. You just don't get it.

You believe YOU are guilty of Original Sin don't you? You believe everyone here at BB is guilty of Original Sin don't you? You believe we were ALL there in the garden with Adam, picking that forbidden fruit off the tree of knowledge and taking a bite don't you?

If so, then why would Paul stop at Moses? He wouldn't. If Paul was trying to teach Original Sin, then he would say it applied to ALL MEN and not just men from Adam to Moses.

Your problem is that you try to wrest scripture to agree with Calvinism. The problem is that Calvinism is error. You can't do it, it won't work.

 

Both of them are saying the same thing, don't you agree?

 

Absolutely not. The one is 'works' to obtain merit, the other is 'works' done naturally, by nature of the heart born from above that has the law written upon it. As different as night and day.

 

Huh? So you affirm justification by works? I'm not following?

 

I believe your take of Paul's teaching in Romans 2 is in err:

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law ; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Is Paul's point to say that there ARE 'doers of the law?' Or is his point to say their aren't any actual doers of the law, save one, who is the Christ. And that all, Jew and Gentile, those under the law and those under conscience, all fall short of the 'doing,' and thus NON are Righteous according to their 'doing' (The LAW), even those not under the Jewish law!

 

Once again:

"The one is 'works' to obtain merit, the other is 'works' done naturally, by nature of the heart born from above that has the law written upon it. As different as night and day."

Why can't you follow that? Do you also have a problem following the preceding passages?:

...the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works Ro 2:5,6

 

Just answer my question. Do you believe men are justified by works? You can qualify that by adding the word 'natural' if that makes you feel better, but as your argument stands you have man being justified by his 'natural works.' That may be a direct result of God's irresistible grace that one does do WORKS (in your system), but it doesn't change the fact that justification is obtained by works.

Do you understand my point?

Works done by the 'help of the Spirit (not irresistible help, just enabling help), do not justify a man according to our system.

Are you saying that in your system that Works done by the irresistible help of the Spirit does justify a man?

I'm just trying to understand your perspective because not all Reformed scholars take Romans 2 in the way you appear to...

 

Egad Skandelon, read the text!

5.....the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
13....the doers of the law shall be justified Ro 2

How much plainer can Paul present it? Are your presuppositions so strong that you can't see it?

 

Its a simple yes or no question Kyredneck and the fact that you refuse to answer reveals the err of your interpretation.

YES OR NO? Do you believe men are justified by works of any kind?

 

Yes or no, is God going to render to each of us according to our works?

And don't dare try to broad brush me as a heretic.

Reply to the text at hand.

 

I just read through several commentaries, from both sides of this debate, on this verse.

They appear to agree with my assessment of this passage, which is:

Paul was answering the objection about Gentiles being condemned for breaking a law that they were never given. He does this by establishing that they had general revelation and a conscience (law written on their hearts), so Gentiles have no excuse. They are no Gentiles who have been perfect doers of the law of conscience, just as there have been no Jews who have been perfect doers of the revealed Law of God in the OT.

Verse 13 is a hypothetical supposition saying to the effect, "If there were any perfect doers of it, they would be justified before God," but clearly there are not any among the Gentiles, just as there aren't any among the Jews...both groups are equally guilty of NOT being doers of the law. That is Paul's clear point in this passage, even according to commentaries from your own perspective.

 

Yea, use those 'hypotheticals' to explain it away. The text doesn't fit your mold so you're forced to this act of desperation.

Sad.