Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Because it is an indisputable fact of Scripture that God obligated fallen man to do what they were unable to do - keep His Law - and yet justly condemned them as sinners under the penalty of death, there is no other possible interpretation of Romans 5:12-15 that can justify the condemnation for inaibilty than the interpretation all mankind existed and consisted in one human nature acting in unison within ONE MAN - Adam. Mankind or the totality of human nature existed in the unfallen state of ability to keep God's law in Genesis 2:17 and freely and response-ably forfeited that ability and fell into a state of INABILITY due to their own choice to sin. Thus, God can justly demand what fallen man cannot do and condemn them justly as sinners worthy of death.
1. The only law revealed to mankind from Genesis to Moses is the Law in Genesis 2:17. Thus death of all who lived between Adam and Moses can only be attributed to the violation of Genesis 2:17 proving that "all men" existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN violating Genesis 2:17. - vv. 13-14a
2. The fact that all who do not individually willfully choose to sin but yet suffer death (infants, mentally impaired) prove that total humanity existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN violating Genesis 2:17 - v. 14b
Romans 5:12 - the only possible view
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by The Biblicist, Dec 19, 2013.
Page 1 of 5
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Why wasn't Abraham condemned? Wasn't he born under Adam too?
Was Abraham effectually/irresistibly called (as Calvinism presumes) or was he 'responsible' (able to respond) as we believe? That is our point of contention here, because if what WE believe is true then the idea of inability ONLY EXISTS in the Calvinistic worldview.
Biblicist, please listen and understand...You have to beg the question (presume true the very point up for debate) for this argument of yours to have any meat. In other words, you have to presume the foundational premise of Calvinism is true in order for this argument to be true. That is question begging at is very worst. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Tell me, why does anyone need salvation? According to your logic there is no condemnation and if no condemnation, no need for justificaiton or salvation. Your reasoning is irrational. -
So, what is the difference in our views? I affirm the second half of that sentence and you don't.
..."so He might show mercy to all men." He could have condemned all men to hell, but INSTEAD he shows them mercy, thus HE chose not to hold them accountable for something they could not control. IN fact, he goes on to reveal that they were never meant to actually fulfill it in the first place. The purpose of the law wasn't to be fulfilled by men, but to point them to their need of mercy....WHICH HE PROVIDES TO ALL. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Mercy by it definition is only for those JUSTLY CONDEMNED.
Your reasonings are irrational, unbiblical and self-contradictory. -
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
He has hope of salvation, which means it is not a done deal. That is decided at judgement. He stands condemned because of his unbelief, but if he is able to respond to the gospel in faith then God has provided him the ability to accomplish that which He demands. -
Let me approach this another way. Prior to Abraham being justified was he condemned? Was his condemnation an accomplished fact, done with, unable to be altered in anyway? If not, you have no argument. If so, what happened at the point he was justified?
"Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness."
It sounds like you need to define what you mean by 'condemned already.' -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
1. Is there any need for salvation of the sinless?
2. Is there any need to preach the gospel to the sinless - Gal. 3:5-6
3. If no one is condemned as a sinner under the law why is there any need to justify anyone?
4. Is there any need to IMPUTE righteousness to the righteous?
5. If no one is condemned by the law as sinners then how could there be any danger of death or hell?
If these questions don't expose the foolishness of your question then pray tell what can? -
I think if you define what you mean by condemned, as I requested on the other thread, we won't continue to talk past each other on this point. We both confirm that God bound all men over to disobedience and thus we all need mercy, we just don't both agree that God provides mercy to all people and thus the disconnect. I'll confine my comments on this topic to that thread.
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
You know what that way is but you don't want to talk about it because it turns your bad new of Total INABILITY into good news of HOPE FOR ALL MEN, and we can't have that! -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
He has already exposed their total inability by obligating them to do what He knows they cannot do and yet justly condemning them as sinners proving they have ALREADY come short. That is why they are in need of salvation because of what the law has proven already!
No future salvation can undo this already done fact! No rationalization from a post-defacto salvation can reverse, undo, change what the law has already proved to be true - they are in a state of total inability to submit to God's Law and that is why salvation must be SUPERNATURAL rather than natural.
-
#1 is wrong, because verse 14 tells us men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude of Adam's sin. If your view was correct, they would have been guilty of committing Adam's exact sin.
The reason men from Adam to Moses died is because they broke the law written on a man's heart that Paul described in Romans 2;
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in 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 the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )
This passage explains that men without the law perish without the law because they have broken the law written on their hearts. This is why men from Adam to Moses who did not have a written law died.
The fact that only men from Adam to Moses are mentioned proves this passage is not teaching Original Sin.
#2 is wrong, when Adam sinned God banned men from the tree of life, so all men die as a CONSEQUENCE of Adam's sin. It is like a bus going off a cliff, all the passengers on the bus die as a consequence of the driver being drunk, but they are not guilty of being drunk themselves.
Animals also die as a consequence of Adam's sin and they cannot sin, neither was Adam their Federal head, which shows your view is error. -
Page 1 of 5