ECT The Most Misunderstood Passage in the Bible--Romans 5:12-18

[glorydaz]

Our spirit is never dead.

It just needs to be convinced it in and of itself is not righteous.

We need to learn to be still.

Can you do that on yer own?

I usually try to put "dead" in quotes because it isn't actually "dead".


I have plenty of time to be still, but when I come on the forum, I like to exchange ideas. Don't you?

 

[Lon]

You sound a bit grudging. Perhaps you have some things to learn, and you don't think you need to learn anything. Personally, I learned a lot today...like how the early church fathers rejected the idea of sin being passed down through Adam. :think:

Sound grudging? I am sincere. I don't like beating issues to death but I do like reading to death. I've read the ECF's too. It all came to a head with Pelagius and Augustine, and both of us, all of us, capable of reading there. At this point, I'm praying that scriptures mold us into His image and that none of us harden but are molded by it. In Him, but a planter/waterer -Lon

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I was born dead to God but alive to the world, the flesh and Satan


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Me too.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I usually try to put "dead" in quotes because it isn't actually "dead".


I have plenty of time to be still, but when I come on the forum, I like to exchange ideas. Don't you?

I agree with Jerry up to a point/ but there is individuality and humanity in general.

Jerry seems to get it.

God is no respecter of persons.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Jerry said this....

Of course Romans 5:12 is speaking about "spiritual" death. Just as Adam died spiritually as a result of his sin so also his descendants die spiritually when they sin. The Bible declares that the LORD is not a respecter of persons (Ro.2:11) so the LORD will not treat mankind in a different way than he treated Adam.

Jesus frees us from guilt. lain:

 

[glorydaz]

Sound grudging? I am sincere. I don't like beating issues to death but I do like reading to death. I've read the ECF's too. It all came to a head with Pelagius and Augustine, and both of us, all of us, capable of reading there. At this point, I'm praying that scriptures mold us into His image and that none of us harden but are molded by it. In Him, but a planter/waterer -Lon

It's easy to be hardened when we have believed a particular doctrine for a long time.

It helps, though, when we're actually able to discuss the verses rather than label those we don't agree with.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It's easy to be hardened when we have believed a particular doctrine for a long time.

It helps, though, when we're actually able to discuss the verses rather than label those we don't agree with.

KJ21
For we dare not number ourselves, or compare ourselves, with some who commend themselves. For in measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, they are not wise.


But let us take the sting out.

Jesus is still preached.

 

[Shasta]

[Nang;4979920]Neither Augustine nor Calvin taught that the imputation of guilt upon the offspring of Adam resulted in the corruption of the human nature. The corruption of the human nature caused by Adam's original sin of disobedience, triggered the imputation of guilt and sentence.

Augustine taught that the soul was corrupted in an organic sense because of the presence of concupiscence (sexual desire) which he believed to be the root of sin. The way he interpreted Romans 5:12 was based on a faulty Latin translation that said all men sinned IN Adam organically. Calvin who was an Augustinian groupie adopted these ideas and expanded them giving a legal spin to them so that, rather than Adam being the organic progenitor of the human race he became a "Legal Representative" the guilt of whose sin was imputed or "set to the account" of every one of his descendants. Whether this guilt caused the corruption or the innate pollution caused us to sin is not a question I can answer. Really it does not make any difference since, on this theory either variable was a sufficient cause for our inevitable sinful behavior.

I reject the legal imputation idea because I think there is inadequate textual grounds for it. It is just an inference designed to explain the universality of sin. It is by no means the only explanation. The RCC followed Augustine's teaching making "Original Sin" some inherited pollution or guilt. The Eastern Church following the Greek fathers never accepted Original Sin as understood by Latin theologians like Augustine. The Reformers, being influenced mostly by Augustine followed suit.

It seems to me that for any model to work it must explain why all men inevitably become sinners who need deliverance. Jerry has been trying to develop a theory which holds that children are born full of the Spirit. Not only does this violate what Jesus taught about the radical difference between natural and spiritual birth - "that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit" - it introduces the idea that humans are essentially born in an unfallen state. If they are then wouldn't it always be possible that SOMEbody SOMEtime or another will not make the choice Adam and Eve made? If that happened then those individuals would be sinless and would not need to be regenerated. Hence we end up with Pelagianism.

Agreed . . as legal imputation of righteousness and promise of everlasting life would not be just when rendered to sinners apart from the obedience and cross work of Jesus Christ.

The first Adam produced the grounds for legal imputation of guilt and death sentence. The last Adam, Jesus Christ, produced the grounds for legal imputation of righteousness and everlasting life.

This is why comprehension of the Federal Headship of both Adams is vital to understanding the justice of God in both instances.

Who made Adam the Federal Head? Where does the scripture even use that term? Holding children to be guilty for the personal sins of their parent is not just, not even by God's standards. On the other hand, if a parent breaks the law and takes illegal drugs the consequences might be some sort of damage to their children's brains. Such a situation would impose all kinds of dysfunctionality and might actually result in bad behavior in their children. An example of this is Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Whether the child himself was the origin of the original sin does not change the effect his parents sins have had on his life. This is not imputed guilt but natural consequences. It is more like how the Eastern Church has always seen it.

There is a reason why Jesus had to be virgin-born.

Indeed. I would be interested if you would expand on this truth.

Simply this. The Holy Spirit no longer indwelled humanity after the Fall. They had soul-life and physical-life but not Spiritual-life. The whole point of the cross was to restore this close communion with God through a new (Spiritual) birth. By this means the Holy Spirit could be once more united to man's spirit.

If Christ had not been born of a virgin he would have been in the same shape as all other people. He could not have been a perfect sacrifice because He would have become a sinner like all men inevitably do. Because he was through Mary related to the human race He could represent us. However as an unfallen Son of God He could also represent God. Thus he was the perfect mediator.

He was also a ransom to pay the consequences of sin on our behalf. I do not believe this ransom was paid to God. The Bible says the Devil (who had the power of death) is the one who crucified Jesus. In that act and in the subsequent resurrection Jesus broke the power of death, the Devil and sin.

Agreed, although being Reformed, I do not believe regeneration is optional. This miracle of resurrection can only be willed and performed by the Holy Spirit. It is God's option as to whom He bestows His Spirit.[/QUOTE]

 

[Shasta]

You keep making assumptions. I'm speaking for [MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION] in a way now... but you keep asserting that a human being that is "Spiritually Alive" is capable of "Moral Perfection". This is not the truth. We have the Genesis 3 account to affirm this. The point of what Jerry is saying is that we ALL FALL SHORT of HIS GLORY (The Son... or Flesh... or Body... or One of the Three of the TriUnity)... and even so as we are "born spiritually alive". This means that you are now employing a faulty loop of assumption or "false assertion" towards Jerry with your words.

Please jerk me up and correct me if I have misrepresented you [MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION] .

I do not think we understand how essential the Holy Spirit is in helping us be like Christ. The only one who can be like Christ IS Christ, but if He lives in us through the Spirit we can bear all the characteristics Paul lists in Galatians. It is certain we cannot make a list of those characteristics and succeed in obtaining them through our own self-effort. We can obey but we need Someone within to yield our members TO if we are to be like Christ. If we rely on unaided self-effort we have essentially gone back to a NT version of the Law and the fruit will be spoiled by pervasive self-righteousness. Every time I have met someone who claims to be without any sin I always smell the aroma of self-righteousness. The one thing self-effort can never reproduce is humility.

Practically speaking it is obvious that children though innocent are not full of the Spirit. They simply do not act that way. Nor do the scriptures affirm that we are born with spiritual life. However we are born with life (lit "breath') of the soul and body.

 

[Shasta]

So even though man is the image of God he is born spiritually dead?:

"For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man" (1 Cor.11:7).​

You seem to present the "image of God" as something we either possess or do not possess whereas the picture is somewhat more complex. For instance, mankind reflects God's image by his mere design because he possesses sentience, rationality and conscience. This does not mean we reflects the totality of God's character or even that we reflect His character at all. Even a sunken shipwreck may reflect the structure of its original design.

The Eastern view is not that man has completely and utterly lost the Image but rather that the image has become marred. Even Christians who have the Holy Spirit are not immediately brought into perfect congruity to God's image just because they have been converted. We have to be brought into the image progressively through the work of the Spirit:

…17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed INTO His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
(2 Corinthians 3:18)

This transformation begins when we first receive the Holy Spirit but not before.

 

[Shasta]

In the same discourse the Lord Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be "born again." Since He was not referring to being born again physically then it is evident that He was speaking about being "born again of the Spirit."

That means that all people are born of the Spirit when they are conceived and therefore all people emerge from the womb spiritually alive.

Obviously Jesus was not telling him to be born again physically because that wasimpossible. However he could be born again SPIRITUALLY when the promise of the Spirit came.

What do you think Jesus meant when He said "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is born of the spirit is spirit" if He was not saying the first birth was after the flesh and the re-birth was after the spirit?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Obviously Jesus was not telling him to be born again physically because that wasimpossible. However he could be born again SPIRITUALLY when the promise of the Spirit came.

Yes, a man must be born AGAIN spiritually. The word "again" means "another time, once more." That can only mean that previously Nicodemus must have already been born of the Spirit. So when do you think that Nicodemus was born of the Spirit the first time?

What do you think Jesus meant when He said "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is born of the spirit is spirit" if He was not saying the first birth was after the flesh and the re-birth was after the spirit?

He was telling Nicodemus that the birth to which a person must be "born again" was not in regard to a physical birth but one which is of the Spirit.

The second verse (Ro.5:12) is speaking of physical death.

"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" (Ro.5:12).​

It is impossible that the "death" here is speaking about "physical" death. Men do not die physically because they sin. Instead, they die that way because the no longer have access to the very thing which would allow them to live for ever, the tree of life (Gen.3:22-24). Because of that all men are destined to die physically (Heb.9:27) and therefore they do not die physcially because they sin.

Of course Romans 5:12 is speaking about "spiritual" death. Just as Adam died spiritually as a result of his sin so also his descendants die spiritually when they sin. The Bible declares that the LORD is not a respecter of persons (Ro.2:11) so the LORD will not treat mankind in a different way than he treated Adam.

Since men die spiritually as a result of their own sin then it becomes obvious that a man has to be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually. Therefore, no one is born dead spiritually.

 

[Shasta]

This isn't a new doctrine of Jerry's. He and I have both been saying this for a long time. I'm sure it's a shock, but we are not alone. The early church fathers believed no such doctrine as original sin. There are quotes from them everywhere. Here's the first one I found when I looked under early church fathers. We see the same later with people like Finney. Google this stuff...it's out there. This attacking the messenger is getting really old. :nono:

The ECF did not have a consensus view of the Fall and its effects on humanity. What they agreed on was in large measure a denial of the Gnostic view that most of mankind were hopelessly corrupt because of their polluted essence and were unable to make moral/spiritual choices. They always affirmed free will and because of this they denied that anyone was born either wicked or good because of a corrupt essence or because they were made to be that way. In this they denied Augustine's view. They also did not hold to Calvin's addition of "legal imputation of guilt" which would have been anathema to them. At the same time it would not be true to say they saw no connection between the Fall and the current sinfulness of the human race.

...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning.
Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3)

Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom Man was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On account of his transgression Man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation.
Tertullian (c. 200 AD) - The Testimony of the Soul 3:2

Augustine was unaware of what his predecessors had written because he spoke Latin and not Greek. He complained that he had not learned because his Greek tutor had not treated him very well. Calvin was an Augustinian but did not like any of the ECF except John Chrysostom.

Now that you have expressed a belief in the reliability of the ECF perhaps you should accept their unanimous active teaching against the concept of unconditional eternal security

 

[Nang]

Who made Adam the Federal Head?

God ordained and declared Christ the head of His church.

Holy Scripture teaches there are two "Adams." If the last Adam (Christ) is head of His
spiritual offspring, then in principle the first Adam is head of his physical offspring. If the two had not been contrasted in Scripture, then the first would not have been a type of the last. Since the first Adam is a type of Jesus Christ, who is a federal head of the Church, then the same truth and office would apply in type to the first Adam.

Where does the scripture even use that term?

It doesn't. It is a theological term used to teach an overarching principle and Truth . . like as the words "Trinity" and "Triune" are used to define and reveal the overarching principle and Truth of the Godhead.

Holding children to be guilty for the personal sins of their parent is not just, not even by God's standards.

Agreed.

On the other hand, if a parent breaks the law and takes illegal drugs the consequences might be some sort of damage to their children's brains. Such a situation would impose all kinds of dysfunctionality and might actually result in bad behavior in their children. An example of this is Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Whether the child himself was the origin of the original sin does not change the effect his parents sins have had on his life. This is not imputed guilt but natural consequences. It is more like how the Eastern Church has always seen it.

There is a factor missing in your argument that goes beyond natural consequences: Satan's deception of Eve that led to Adam's disobedience, and the resultant curse and enslavement to Satan that occurred according to God's prophetic warning in Genesis 2:16-17, 3:14-19

Through fear of death (the ordained sentence against sin), all creation has been cursed, and held captive and controlled by Satan. This is very reason for the incarnation and High Priesthood of Christ. To free His church from this bondage. Hebrews 2:9-18; Galatians 3:10-14

Simply this. The Holy Spirit no longer indwelled humanity after the Fall. They had soul-life and physical-life but not Spiritual-life. The whole point of the cross was to restore this close communion with God through a new (Spiritual) birth. By this means the Holy Spirit could be once more united to man's spirit.

A couple of points here, where I differ. First, I believe there was always a remnant that found salvation prior to the incarnation of Christ. There was the lineage of Abel to Noah of godly souls that called on the name of the Lord (which required regeneration and the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit . . and then Job, Abraham's lineage; Moses, King David, the prophets, etc.

I am not sure it is correct to claim that the Holy Spirit "unites" with the human spirit, but rather reveals His presence as indwelling the bodily temples of redeemed men/women. Why? The word used to describe this indwelling is "abide." e.g. John 15:4 Does that word mean "unite" in the Greek? I do not know . . .

If Christ had not been born of a virgin he would have been in the same shape as all other people. He could not have been a perfect sacrifice because He would have become a sinner like all men inevitably do. Because he was through Mary related to the human race He could represent us. However as an unfallen Son of God He could also represent God. Thus he was the perfect mediator.

Amen!

He was also a ransom to pay the consequences of sin on our behalf. I do not believe this ransom was paid to God. The Bible says the Devil (who had the power of death) is the one who crucified Jesus. In that act and in the subsequent resurrection Jesus broke the power of death, the Devil and sin.

Agreed, but I see the ransom as a debt owed to God, not the devil.

Christ's sacrifice indeed broke and freed souls from the power of death, as I touched on above, but I believe the ransom or debt of sin was paid by Christ on the cross, offering Himself, for Himself as representative of His church, in the offices of both Savior and High Priest. IOW's God paid God the price to redeem His church. I Peter 1:18-19; Acts 20:28

 

[Interplanner]

There is a big difference between having sin imputed to you and actually being the worst of humanity. Likewise there is the same difference between having Christ's righteousness imputed to you and actually being the best.

Imputation/crediting/accouted is not about your current actions; it is an account; it is about your debt.

 

[Nang]

There is a big difference between having sin imputed to you and actually being the worst of humanity. Likewise there is the same difference between having Christ's righteousness imputed to you and actually being the best.

Imputation/crediting/accouted is not about your current actions; it is an account; it is about your debt.

Yes, the first imputation of Adam's guilt, legally recorded the debt of a death, for breaking God's Law.

The imputation of Christ's righteousness, legally and forever removed that debt owed God, because Christ paid it on behalf of His own.

 

[Tambora]

God ordained and declared Christ the head of His church.

Holy Scripture teaches there are two "Adams." If the last Adam (Christ) is head of His
spiritual offspring, then in principle the first Adam is head of his physical offspring. If the two had not been contrasted in Scripture, then the first would not have been a type of the last. Since the first Adam is a type of Jesus Christ, who is a federal head of the Church, then the same truth and office would apply in type to the first Adam.

You are claiming that the first Adam was born as the head for all of mankind when he was born in the flesh, but Christ was not head of all mankind when he was born in the flesh.
Are you claiming that Adam retained his headship of all mankind even after he fell?
We don't see Adam ruling or judging any of his offspring, and he lived 930 years.
Adam was still alive when Noah's father lived (8 generations from Adam), but died before Noah was born.
How did Adam express his "headship" of all mankind?

 

[Shasta]

[Jerry Shugart;4980714]Yes, a man must be born AGAIN spiritually. The word "again" means "another time, once more." That can only mean that previously Nicodemus must have already been born of the Spirit. So when do you think that Nicodemus was born of the Spirit the first time?

Nicodemus already had been born of the flesh. He did not need to repeat that. He did need another birth more accurately another kind of birth which he had not yet received - being born of the Spirit. Nicodemus could not have received that birth yet because it was not possible until after the work of the cross had cleansed the human spirit. This is why the first time anyone was born of the Spirit was after the resurrection (John 20:22)

He was telling Nicodemus that the birth to which a person must be "born again" was not in regard to a physical birth but one which is of the Spirit.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh means physical life gives rise to physical life.
Nicodemus had experienced that

That which is born of the spirit is spirit means that the Spirit is the One that gives birth to spiritual life.

Jesus divided the different births in this way to show Nicodemus that there was an experience he lacked.

"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" (Ro.5:12).​

It is impossible that the "death" here is speaking about "physical" death. Men do not die physically because they sin. Instead, they die that way because the no longer have access to the very thing which would allow them to live for ever, the tree of life (Gen.3:22-24). Because of that all men are destined to die physically (Heb.9:27) and therefore they do not die physcially because they sin.

Of course Romans 5:12 is speaking about "spiritual" death. Just as Adam died spiritually as a result of his sin so also his descendants die spiritually when they sin. The Bible declares that the LORD is not a respecter of persons (Ro.2:11) so the LORD will not treat mankind in a different way than he treated Adam.

Since men die spiritually as a result of their own sin then it becomes obvious that a man has to be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually. Therefore, no one is born dead spiritually.

I have no problem with Romans 5:12 being about spiritual death but you are wrong about man being born spiritually alive. Later, however, I will present evidence that this entire doctrine of yours which is based essentially on a misinterpretation of a single verse in Romans 7 is incorrect. BTW your doctrine is Pelagian so you might as well admit it.

 

[Shasta]

So when Jesus said we needed to become like little children, he was a Pelagian? :jawdrop:

I have already explained in what way I think Jesus said we are to be like children. Rather than take that into account you have manufactured a simplistic straw man to serve as your argument. I can construct straw men too. I could say, for example, that you believe Christians should behave like children in EVERY way.

Your position would be demonstrable if these spirit-birthed spirit-filled children were unselfish, temperate, patient (etc) However for anyone to make that claim would be idealistic to the point of fantasy. For someone who has had experience working with children it is just ignoring experience.

The word nature is "fusis" It means a pattern of behavior which arises of its own accord. Try leaving children alone and see what kind of character arises of its own accord. No, we adults must train up children to exhibit virtue. Those qualities do not arise naturally "of their own accord."

 

[Shasta]

Then you don't see what I see. Why am I not surprised? We see kids differently, too.

I related what I observed. You are just stating an opinion without an observation