Sin entered through Adam and not Eve? [Archive]

View Full Version : Sin entered through Adam and not Eve?

WhiterThanSnow

06-29-2006, 01:19 AM

I am curious why the New Testament states that sin entered through Adam, yet Eve was the first one to take a bite. Does anyone know why?

snowfloater

06-29-2006, 03:20 AM

Im curious, where was Adam when the snake talked her into eating the fruit?

Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
This seems to say Adam was with her the whole time! I seem to remember something in the New Testament about Adam knowing Eve had been duped and still eating anyway. Ill try to find the scripture later.
Snowfloater

jr2443

06-29-2006, 03:57 AM

This is called "imputed sin."

In Gods economy, we are charged with the sin of Adam because we were in his loins when he sinned. This may sound crude but it's how God works. You see, before I was born I was in my fathers loins, and before he was born he was in his fathers loins, which means I was in my Granpa's loins before I was born. If we keep going back to the garden of Eden we discover that we were all in Adam when he sinned. Accordingly, we are all guilty for the sin he committed. Thus, all men that are born from Adam, are held guilty of his sin.
Well then why didn't the sin come from the women? Evidently that's just not how Gods economy works. Our sin nature comes from our fathers not out mothers. Let's take a look at a few passages.

Romans 5:12-16 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

1 Peter 1:18 "...you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers..."

Ex 34:7 "He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

1 Cor 15:21-22 "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." Notice how even pysical death is imputed to all of us because of Adam.

The good news is that when we are born again, we are given a new nature and a new Father (God)!! The word that Peter uses in this passage for 'seed' is the greek word 'sperma.' "...for you have been born again not of seed(sperma) which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God." Peter's comparing our physical birth (from our fathers seed,) to our spiritual birth (from God's seed.) Rememer the sowing of the seed parable from Jesus? That's the word of God. The word of God is the seed that is planted in us, that causes us to become born again. We really are children of God! That's why the Bible says that we are no longer in Adam, but in Christ. And don't forget the Holy Spirit that comes into our hearts to recieve the word of God. "Lydia...was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." Acts 16:14

I hope this helps!!!

Another great passage that supports this is Hebrews 7:1-10, the story of Melchizedek!

In Christ, (No pun intended)
Don

jr2443

06-29-2006, 04:14 AM

Before someone asks,

Yes, the women were in Adam also, thus they are also guilty. :) It's just that the charge of sin isn't carried through them to their kids, (their husband does that part.)
That's why Jesus couldn't have a physical father, (so he wouldn't have the guilt of Adam.) Remember... He was born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary.

God's got it all figured out!!!!!! :)

charlesj

06-29-2006, 07:18 AM

I am curious why the New Testament states that sin entered through Adam, yet Eve was the first one to take a bite. Does anyone know why?

Hello WhiterThanSnow:

Original sin is a teaching that started with John Calvin just as once saved always saved and a bunch of other doctrines.
I don't inherit my dads sin(s) or anyone elses. I wasn't BORN in sin as most teach.

Deuteronomy 1:34-39. The Israelites could not enter the promised land because of sin but their children could.

Ecclesiastes 7:29. God made man upright. He is not depraved when born. Rather, he is without sin.

Isaiah 59:1-8. Your sins and iniquities, not someone else's, separate you from God. Verses three through eight list some specific sins -- murder, lying, acting violently, running toward evil, etc. Could a newborn baby have done these things?

Ezekiel 18:5-20. A righteous son is not guilty of his wicked father's sins and a righteous father is not guilty of the sins of his wicked son. The conclusion in verse 20 is too obvious to miss: "The soul who sins shall die."

Matthew 18:1-5. If we are to be as little children and if Total Hereditary Depravity is true, we need to be more like sinners. Total Hereditary Depravity is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus about the nature of children. If one believes the Calvinist and his denominational creeds, when Jesus demands people to become as little children, they must be: "Wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body" and "By nature children of wrath."

Romans 7:9-11. Rather than being born spiritually dead, the apostle Paul was born spiritually alive. We become spiritually dead because of our own sins not sins we inherit from our ancestors. Death came to all because all sinned.

(Rom. 5:12) You become "dead through your trespasses." (Col. 2:13)

1 Corinthians 14:20. "In malice be babes." If babes are totally depraved, why would the apostle Paul encourage anyone to be like them?

1 John 3:4. Those who believe in inherited sin do not even understand the very nature of sin. One is a sinner because he commits sin by violating the standard of conduct God has given to guide him.

your servant in Messiah, Yahshua
charlesj

larry

06-29-2006, 08:02 AM

Adam is interrupted "Man." Sin entered the world through man; Adam and Eve.

Strong's topics says concerning the word ADAM - Red, a Babylonian word, the generic name for man, having the same meaning in the Hebrew and the Assyrian languages. It was the name given to the first man, whose creation, fall, and subsequent history and that of his descendants are detailed in the first book of Moses #Genesis 1:27- Genesis 5:32 "God created man [Heb., Adam] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

I was born with a nature that can do nothing but sin. I must be born of the new nature of Christ (the second ADAM)

Though a unknowing child does not consciously commit acts of sin, they have the nature that can do nothing but sin. You do not have to teach a child to lie and steal; they have the nature of Adam (sin). They were born in sin (that sinful nature) and shapen in inequity. Not until they become aware of it are they held accountable for it. i.e. - After David's child that was taken from him in 2 Samuel 12: 21-23.

"21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.

22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." David is saying here that his child was with God, and he was going there too. If the child was judged for his nature only, David could not have said that. When that child consciously sins then it is judged and held accountable.

When Jesus told those that they must be as children, He was referring to their faith or trust. You don't have to prove to them some exaggeration you told like you're the most qualified at something; they just believe you, and that is the way we must come to God; believe what He says and then He will show you the proof.

In Jesus' name - Larry

charlesj

06-29-2006, 08:23 AM

larry

06-29-2006, 10:32 AM

Dear Charlesj, I did not say a baby would go to hell when it dies. As with David's child. It died and was with God (At that time in Abraham's bosom before Christ rose) where David knew He would go also; the child could not return to David, but he could go to it. A child is only held accountable and judged guilty when it knowingly transgresses and we refer to that time as coming to the age of knowledge (that's a concept, not scripture for all those so quick to point things like that out). I believe that to be applied to anyone so retarded also they cannot seemingly know God, though if you haven't read it, please read my thread "Dummy Walker" posted 6/15/06 a few pages back on the "Chat Board". God has ways of reaching the unreachable, and He is righteous and could never judge you for something you were not guilty of. Even those that that have their own law are only judged by their own law, but with the nature they have, they break it also. Nature itself shows them that God is, so that they are without excuse.

With the nature we are born with, there is none good, or that seeks after God. We all sin and come short of the glory of God, and must have a savior. We are not held accountable for our nature, but sin we yield to with that nature. We wre not born like Christ who could not sin. I hope this cleared up my understanding of this subject.

No brother Charlesj, I didn't specifically work at the main P.O. in Denver because they had several maintenance people of their own too, but I had charge of several portions of maintenance there, and approximately 220 offices statewide. I worked there many times but had 22 people to do most of the work, and since I was able to have my druther's, I'd druther have them do it than me. LOL. I believe the main office you are referring to was a large white building that reverted back to Federal judges and courts.

Love you brother in Jesus' name - larry

Rufus

06-29-2006, 11:46 AM

I am curious why the New Testament states that sin entered through Adam, yet Eve was the first one to take a bite. Does anyone know why?

Man was created for God and woman was created for man. It was by one man that sin entered into the world as Eve was a part of man and was in submission to Adam.

"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:" - Romans 5:12

Eve was guilty of being deceived and transgressing in that deception. Adam was not deceived, yet he still ate the fruit. If he wasn't deceived then he knew what he was doing. Adam was guilty of rebelling against the Word of God.

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." - 1 Timothy 2:12-14

There is a temporal hierarchy that the world attempts to deny when they deny the differences in the genders and deny the hierarchy that God established. This hierarchy goes God-Man-Woman. The woman is the glory of man and the man is the glory of God. I would suggest that conversely, the woman can be the shame of Man and Man the shame of God.

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." - 1 Corinthians 11:7

Eve was accountable to Adam and Adam to God. Adam was responsible for sin entering into the world.

mhusoy

06-29-2006, 06:32 PM

I am curious why the New Testament states that sin entered through Adam, yet Eve was the first one to take a bite. Does anyone know why?

Hey WhiterThanSnow :)

It says that sin entered through Adam, yes: (Rom 5:12). But still, you're right when you say that Eve took the first bite: (Gen 3:6). And Paul mentions it too: (1 Tim 2:14). But the main point is not which of them became the first sinner, the point is that the curse of sin, that lead to death, came into the world, and has affected humans ever since: (Gen 3:17-19, Rom 5:14, 1 Cor 15:56, Jam 1:15).

But through faith in Jesus Christ we're free from sin, and under grace instead: (Rom 5:21, 6:23). God who loves us expressed His love for us in a special way:

Rom 5:8: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

1 John 4:10: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."

God's love and blessings for you sister!

your brother in Christ

Magnus

SemperReformanda

06-29-2006, 08:41 PM

Original Sin started with Calvin???

You might wanna double check your sources before making such claims :(

In the sixth century (529 AD) the Council of Orange was convened to address the heresies being taught by a man named Pelagius at the time. Their conclusions were listed in 25 "cannons" and a brief summary. The first two cannons and the summary state:
"
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

Calvin wasnt born until 1509 almost one thousand years after the "calvinists" at the council of orange affirmed that original sin was biblical.

SemperReformanda

06-29-2006, 10:17 PM

Hello WhiterThanSnow:

Original sin is a teaching that started with John Calvin just as once saved always saved and a bunch of other doctrines.
I don't inherit my dads sin(s) or anyone elses. I wasn't BORN in sin as most teach.

Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time [that] thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

even futher back we were concieved in sin.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Deuteronomy 1:34-39. The Israelites could not enter the promised land because of sin but their children could.

Yes God reserves the right to show mercy when He pleases as He did with their children in order that He might fulfill his purpose, and His promises (i.e. in this specific instance to Abraham that his children would possess canaan.) and Glorify His name. Simply because He showed mercy in this case doesnt mean that they couldnt be held accountable.

Remeber prior to Moses's objection God was willing to destroy ALL of Isreal and start over with Moses. He seemed to think the children were able to be held accountable then for their parents sins.

Remember Achan's family? ALL his family was killed for his sin.
Jos 7:24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
Jos 7:25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.
Jos 7:26 And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.

And prior to that even many other Isrealites were killed for Achans sin. The community was held responsible for one mans sin.
Jos 7:1 But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel.
"the Children of Isreal committed a trespass.. because Achan sinned"

Ecclesiastes 7:29. God made man upright. He is not depraved when born. Rather, he is without sin.

Yes God created man good. When God created man prior to Eden, He was good. But we are talking about after creation, once Adam sinned. And scripture teaches that no longer (because of Adams sin) is man naturally good.

Ezekiel 18:5-20. A righteous son is not guilty of his wicked father's sins and a righteous father is not guilty of the sins of his wicked son. The conclusion in verse 20 is too obvious to miss: "The soul who sins shall die."

note that he says WHEN the son is righteous then he will not die for the sin of the father "Eze 18:19 "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live.

As you pointed out "a RIGHTEOUS son is not guilty of his wicked father's sins". key word: righteous. That is the very thing that the doctrine of imputed/original sin teaches. When we are made righteous (only by Grace through faith in the work of Christ) we are no longer guilty of Adam's Sin.

"The conclusion in verse 20 is too obvious to miss: "The soul who sins shall die." Again this is in agreement with the doctrine of original sin as taught in Romans 5. Sin entered the world through one man [adam] and when adam sinned ALL ofus sinned. (5:12) You and I are guilty of sinning because you and I sinned when adam sinned. Thats the doctrine of original sin. God counts us as having sinned with adam when we were in adam. Similar to how He counted Levi (Abraham's great grandson) as having paid a tithe when Abraham gave a tithe to Melchisidec.

Hbr 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
Hbr 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Remember this happened way before Levi's grandfather was even born. Yet Levi paid a tithe when Abraham (his great grandfather) tithed (Gen 14)

Read through Rom 5 :) Note especially vs13-15. Thats Pauls very arguement! He says sin is not counte/imputed where there is no actual law to transgress. So why are have all these people from Adam to Moses who had no actual law to transgress dead? Because they transgressed a law when Adam disobeyed God.

that is the whole point. All have sinned in Adam. All who are in Christ are righteous. not because they have done anything righteous, except for what we are counted as having done in Christ. :)

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence 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.
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.

Hey I will try to help with the rest of your texts later. I have to get going to dinner now and then after that i've much to do. But I dont want you to think I thought them unimportant! Just a LOT to respond to :)

charlesj

06-30-2006, 09:43 AM

jr2443

06-30-2006, 11:31 AM

Good stuff!!!!!

In Christ,
Don

jr2443

06-30-2006, 11:35 AM

Strongs says what?

God got the name for Adam from the Babylonians?

Ummmm, Adam was the first person on this earth.... how could God have gotten the name "Adam" from the Babylonians if they didn't even exist yet?

jr2443

06-30-2006, 11:40 AM

Rufus

06-30-2006, 01:44 PM

I totally respect you answer!!!!

You're the first Christian that I have meet that has had the guts to address the issue of hierarchy in Gods economy! Especially with 1 Cor 11... I totally agree with your literal interpretion of that!!! What church do you go to? Do they teach the same biblical principles?

May the Lord Bless you for taking His Word seriously and literally!
In Christ,
Don

Thank you for your kind words Don. It is indeed my desire to take the Word of God literally and seriously.

What church do you go to? Do they teach the same biblical principles?

I don't go to church. If there was a church that preached Biblical principles and the whole counsel of God I would likely go. However, to the best of my discernment, most of them have "Ichabod" written above their doors.

charlesj

06-30-2006, 05:20 PM

Thank you for your kind words Don. It is indeed my desire to take the Word of God literally and seriously.

I don't go to church. If there was a church that preached Biblical principles and the whole counsel of God I would likely go. However, to the best of my discernment, most of them have "Ichabod" written above their doors.

Hello Rufus:
I'd like to invite you:

http://www.bible.ca/bible.htm

After you are at this site, click on assembly locations and put your zip code in for a location near you.

We are NOT a denomination, not Protestant or Catholic, autonomous, and follow the Bible ONLY. We have no creeds, only the Bible. No other group is over us, nor are we over any other group. Our eldership oversees our group and we have a minister and deacons.
Also, we are in the "restoration" movement, that is, restoring our group as close as the first century assembly as possible.

I can understand your frustration, I've been there.

May the Lord be with you,
your servant in Messiah, Yahshua
charlesj

Kimberly

06-30-2006, 08:25 PM

I believe that in some cases the word "Adam" represents mankind in general and not necessarily the "Adam" in the garden

jr2443

07-01-2006, 05:39 AM

jr2443

07-01-2006, 05:46 AM

Good Stuff!!!

I appreciate the in-depth info!

In Christ,
Don

jr2443

07-01-2006, 06:05 AM

I noticed that you gave your interpretation of a lot of passages, but failed to find any passages that said we are born innocent.

The Bible clearly teaches that we were born sinners.

How do you dodge these clear passages?

Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time [that] thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Rom Ch.5:12-16, 1 Cor 15:20-22 (Why does it say in Adam), 1 Peter 1:18, Ex 34:7

In Christ (Not Adam,)
Don

jr2443

07-01-2006, 06:33 AM

With all do respect, that's actually inccorect.

Every time that Adam is mentioned in the Bible, it is in the context of...
1. a reference to the specific sin that he committed
2. in the context of a genealogy
3. followed by the words "the first man"
4. or used in Genesis while Adam was still alive

Therefore it is clear that the writters of the Bible were specifically speaking of the Adam from the garden of Eden.

charlesj

07-01-2006, 11:45 AM

CharlesJ,

The site that you just recommended, teaches that we have to be dunked in water in order to go to heaven.

I would sudgest not recommending that site.

Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..."
The Gospel + Faith = Salvation

1 Cor 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..."
Then obviously baptism is not a part of the gospel!

Gal 1:8-9 "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"
Teaching faith plus baptism, is not the gospel.

Hello Don:

Not too long ago an author wrote a book on baptism called The Water that Divides. The title is appropriate given today’s religious climate with some people talking as if it were the most important thing in the Bible and others who think it should be carried out but if it isn’t there’s no great loss. Some dismiss it altogether as not worthy of discussion. Some insist that baptism is part of God’s bringing the sinner into saving union with Christ (I am one of those who believe that) and others that it’s an ordinance you attend to after you have entered Christ but if you don’t attend to it there’s no great loss. In light of the New Testament and 2,000 years of church history this is an astonishing stance for believers in the Christ to take.

Some think because salvation is altogether by God’s generous grace (and it certainly is!) that baptism can safely be ignored. They don’t get this from the New Testament, which strenuously and tirelessly proclaims that salvation is altogether of the gracious God and still calls all nations to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 29:19 and see Acts 2:38, 19:5 and 22:16).

Some think because salvation is entirely by grace that baptism can’t be part of the coming to Christ to be saved. But the New Testament insists that salvation is entirely by God’s grace and it still says to people who want to be saved, “Be baptized!” for the forgiveness or washing away of sins and it still insists that baptism initiates the trusting and penitent sinner into the Christ (Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27).

There is no need to and it is profoundly false to make baptism all-important (only God is all-important) but the New Testament offers no such dilemma. Baptism’s importance is no more and no less than the New Testament shows it to be. Anxious to prove their point some people talk of nothing else but baptism and that’s tragic. The New Testament talks about it easily and often but it doesn’t make it the be-all or end-all of proclamation or even the sinner’s response. It doesn’t apologize for calling people to submit to it who want to belong to Christ but then it didn’t need to. Those who wanted to find peace with Christ asked what to do, they were told and they did it and everyone rejoiced in the saving grace of a generous and forgiving Lord.

Part of the reason there is no heavy stress on baptism in the New Testament is because nobody ever dreamed of arguing about it. If people didn’t argue about it today we could talk about it and call for it as part of the coming to Christ as easily and naturally as they did in the New Testament. I confess it irks me more than a little to hear baptism stressed to the point almost of tedium. But it annoys me a bit also to hear people dismiss God’s command and wonder why others talk about it so much. If there was more humble submission to an explicit command of God that the New Testament relates to forgiveness, salvation and union with Christ maybe we’d hear less going on and on about baptism.

It should make us ponder our belief and practice when a gentleman understandably feels the need to write a book on baptism called The Water that Divides when in point of fact Paul saw it in a precisely opposite way. He saw it as water that unites. In Galatians 3:26-27 he assures the Galatians that they were all children of God by faith because (for, the Greek gar) when they were baptized they entered by faith into Christ and clothed themselves with Christ so that there was no longer anything to divide them. The distinctions that were used to keep them apart, sexism, racism, elitism had all been neutralized in Yahshua.

So, in Paul’s teaching, and he knew more about grace and God’s generosity than anyone before or since, baptism didn’t divide, it protested everything that did divide us one from another. The man or woman, girl or boy that by faith is baptized into the reconciling Christ defies all those social and ethical differences that work to keep us apart. We can imagine what it felt like to Paul when he personally on one of those perhaps rare occasions baptized someone into Christ. Looking at it with his eyes, God at that moment, via Paul and the person now coming to Christ, was once more denouncing all that keeps humans apart from him and from one another. When he baptized someone into Christ Paul was tearing down partitions and rehearsing the truth that in Christ walls stronger than granite were destroyed.

He could have said that without mentioning baptism (he said it in other places without mentioning baptism) but the fact is that he mentioned baptism here! The Bible and life teaches us that our life with God is inlaid with many rites and actions that we don’t fully understand. And there’s something fearfully high-handed about puny little preachers whose life is a vapor and whose learning is fragmentary at best urging people to pay little or no attention to God’s word on this matter. I’d urge anyone who wants to give their life to Christ or anyone who has loved the Christ always but hasn’t yet been baptized as the New Testament lays it out to prayerfully reflect on the scriptures about this matter of baptism and act accordingly.

I’m acquainted with a godly man that has loved the Lord for many years. He has not submitted to a believer’s baptism and in fact has said he doesn’t need to. Speaking of that fine man a writer said, “Can you imagine anyone saying he needed to be baptized?” The writer’s response was that this lovely man didn’t need to do it. I think this is a silly thing to say and I think it is high-handed, especially in light of Matthew 5:19, because Matthew 28:19 gives no one the right to refuse.

I’m acquainted with a godly, prayerful and God-centered man in the New Testament who received God’s personal word of approval. God sent him a preacher who would inform him how he could come to God in and through Yahshua. The preacher began to speak and God interrupted the proceedings by sending the Holy Spirit on the man and his whole family. If there was ever a man who didn’t need to be baptized there we have him. But that’s not how Peter saw it. He commanded Cornelius to be baptized in the name of the Christ and he insisted that it was Cornelius’ privilege as well as due response. The whole story’s in Acts 10 and into 11.

How dare we say to God-loving and Christ-believing people that they don’t need to be baptized in his name? Who do we think we are? God?

I’ve made the point on a number of occasions that in the NT people were called to be baptized to take on them the name of Yahshua and so be saved. That being the case that’s what we should be teaching and practicing.

A reader wonders if Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn’t exclude baptism since baptism is a "work" and we aren’t saved by works.
(Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.)

Ephesians 2:8-9 was written by a man that the risen Christ had just confronted. That same man, now a penitent believer, was told to be baptized and have his sins washed away (yes!—Acts 22:16).
That’s the man who wrote Ephesians 2:8-9 so how could Ephesians 2:8-9 exclude baptism on the grounds that it is some "work" that undermined grace? That makes no sense.

Ephesians 2:8-9 was written by the man that started the Ephesian church (Acts 19:1-5). He met Ephesian believers, learned that they knew nothing of the Holy Spirit that was given by the exalted Messiah and his question is: "What were you baptized unto?" Because their understanding of the gospel was profoundly lacking he re-baptized these people. That’s the man who later wrote Ephesians 2:8-9 to that very church. And would he write something that excludes baptism because it undermines grace? That makes no sense.
Not only was he baptized to have his sins washed away, he re-baptized people to bring them into Yahshua the Christ.
Believer’s baptism is the confession of trust in and commitment to Yahshua the Christ that in the NT brought a person into living and saving union with Yahshua. It is a believer’s declaration that Yahshua died, was raised again and has been glorified. It isn’t optional! It comes straight from God. Some of us bend over backwards to avoid it. Why don’t we simply bend before God and obey it?

Your servant in Messiah Yahshua,
charlesj

Wendell

07-01-2006, 09:46 PM

Very Good answer rufus...and I think this is the one whiter than snow is looking for... Eve was deceived, but Adam was not... He deliberately listened to his wife and rebelled against the clear command of God, to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil... I believe that if Adam had refused to eat the fruit, the fall would not have taken place. His correct action was to rebuke the serpent, and correct his wife, and obey God... The fact that sin came into the world is adams responsibility and adams alone... The bible is clear about that... Your comments about the fact that Eve is under the headship, or rule of her husband are absolutely appropriate.... This is a concept that runs through the bible from genesis to revelation... God does not change, nor does his word.....:-)

blue

jr2443

07-02-2006, 04:00 AM

Hey CharlesJ,

You said,
Some dismiss it altogether as not worthy of discussion. Some insist that baptism is part of God’s bringing the sinner into saving union with Christ (I am one of those who believe that) and others that it’s an ordinance you attend to after you have entered Christ but if you don’t attend to it there’s no great loss. In light of the New Testament and 2,000 years of church history this is an astonishing stance for believers in the Christ to take.

I think that your entire argument is based on the frustration that people only have these 3 views. May I sudgest that some people have other views? I understand baptizm to be an ordinance you attend to after you have entered Christ (like you said some believe,) BUT I DO NOT THINK "if you don’t attend to it there’s no great loss."
WHAT?!! Who says that? We're commanded to be baptized! Why would I not do something that God tells me to do? Just like, why would I not do the other things that He commands....... love my neighbor as myslef, have joy, be sexually pure, take the Lords supper, do not steal, do not forsake the assembly. If I do these things (or not do them,) then I am disobeying God and thus sinning. But I am by no means saved by believing plus taking the Lords supper or believing pluss having joy. These things will follow salvation not give me salvation.

The passages that you refered to from Pauls epistles were all written to Christians, so it is safe for Paul to say that they had been baptized. Just as it was safe for him to say that "we do not walk according to the flesh..." Now, is it possible for one of the Roman Christians to have been walking according to the flesh? I think so, just as it is possible for us to walk in the flesh, but its not a general characteristic of a christian. Likewise, I think Paul was simply idnetlfying a common characterisitic of the christians in Rome. "...so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Rom 8:4) Now does not walking in the flesh save them? No, beleiving in Jesus saves them.
"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Now does baptism save them? (Rom 6:3) No, believing in Jesus saves them.

charlesj

07-02-2006, 08:52 AM

Don said,
“…. But I am by no means saved by believing plus taking the Lords supper or believing pluss having joy. These things will follow salvation not give me salvation. …”

Hello Don:

None of these (Lord’s supper, having joy, etc) have anything to do with salvation, nor is mentioned as a commandment from the Lord FOR SALVATION.

The Lord did say (charlesj didn’t say it):

Mark 16:16 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Here in Mark 16:16 you have a conjunction “and.” The Holy Spirit does NOT say “he that is saved and baptized…”, but “He that believeth and is batptized…”

Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Here in Acts 2:38 the Holy Spirit says that baptism is “for the pardon of sins”… charlesj didn’t say this!

Paul, in Romans 6 tells us baptism is a burial. Here Paul is speaking to Christians that have done this:

Romans 6:3-4 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

When one is raised from the dead (baptism) they are raised to “walk in newness of life.” (born again). To emulate the death, burial and resurrection, one must be “buried WITH the Messiah.” Baptism takes you back in time and you are buried WITH Christ and raised with Him.

And then in a few verses later Paul, through the Holy Spirit, says:

Romans 6:17-18 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

In these verses Paul tells you a little more what baptism does. When one “obeys from the heart” ….”that form” of doctirine, they are then made FREE FROM SIN and they become servants of righteous.

This word “FORM” here in the Greek is “TUPOS.” Tupos means “mark or mold” in the Greek. So, when they obey that “mold” of doctrine (the doctrine Paul just discussed in the previous verses, 3,4ff) they are then made free from sins and become servants of righteous. You know what a "mold" is. If you take a "mold" you can make a "look-alike, a pattern." Everytime one obeys "that mold of doctrine" you have a CHRISTIAN! If one obeys the "mold of doctrine in Africa or San Antonio Texas or anyplace in the world, you have a CHRISTIAN! (Hebrews 8:5,in KJV, uses "tupos" again and translates it "pattern"... take a look, this is the idea of "tupos.")

1 Peter 3:21 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Peter, through the Holy Spirit, tell us that “baptism” now saves us (not the water, but baptism). The Greek for figure here is “antitupos” which is where we get out English word “antitype.” The flood and the ark that saved Noah and his family was a “type”, but the real thing today, the antitype, is baptism according to the Holy Spirit.

charlesj didn’t say these things, argue with the Holy Spirit..

Your servant in Messiah, Yahshua
Charlesj

Kimberly

07-02-2006, 03:26 PM

In Job 31:33 I understand the passage to refer to "men" and "Adam" as the same.

charlesj

07-02-2006, 05:31 PM

In Job 31:33 I understand the passage to refer to "men" and "Adam" as the same.

Hello Kimberly:
With a good concordance you can easily prove what you are saying.

In the creation account the context speaks of one man. This "one" man brought sin and death into the world (Ro 5:12)

But, in other palces, "adam" sometimes is used to represent men or man.

Just don't go to the International airport in the Garden of Eden to the restroom marked "adam,"(men) yours would be "ishshah "(woman) ....lol

your servanit in Messiah, Yahshua
charlesj

WhiterThanSnow

07-04-2006, 05:07 AM

Well, thanks for all of the input. I am still dissecting your responses. I am always so excited to read what people reply and I truley thank you for taking the time. From what I have read it is still unclear to me why sin did not enter through Eve; I'm not finished with this topic yet though. :) Thanks again!

jr2443

07-05-2006, 02:14 AM

charlesj

07-05-2006, 05:04 PM

Please explain this passage

Romans 5:12-16 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Jesus) But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, (it looks like he's talking about indiviuals.... that's what the word one means.) abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

How do you avoid the fact that sin came from Adam?
This passage is obviously talking about the one Adam from the garden, and it clearly explains that sin came from him.
I can understand you not liking imputed sin, but how do you avoid such clear passages?

Hello Don:
I have put my answers in BLUE to your questions (or statements)etc.

Romans 5:12-16 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Jesus)

1. Yes sin entered the world through one man
2. But it is DEATH (Physical Death) passed to all
3. Not SIN, that because even to those who did no sin like Adam did died (like babies or the mentally handicapped.)
4. the word translated "imputed" does not mean transferred (inherited) it means reckoned / an accounting term
5. The bible clearly states that neither sin nor Righteousness are transferable

(Ezekiel 18:20) "The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him". (ASV)

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died,

Note that again it is the transgression of one (Adam) that caused the many to die (all but about 2 Enoch & Elijah) death to all in general passed... not an inherited sin
much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, (it looks like he's talking about individuals.... that's what the word one means.) abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

Calvinism believes that because you have inherited a sinful nature from Adam that you must be irresistibly (without your choice) infused with the righteousness of Christ in order to be justified...

Rather, all mankind was made available to sin through Adam (sin was in the world) and all mankind is made available to justification in Christ (forgiveness is now in the world) I choose to follow Adam by sinning And I choose to follow Christ by an "Obedient Faith" Note how Romans begins & ends

(Romans 1:5) "through whom we received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith among all the nations, for his name's sake;" (ASV)

(Romans 16:25-27) "Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith: to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen." (ASV)

How does faith come? some irresisatle force? NO! By hearing the gospel!

(Romans 10:11-18) "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things! But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth, And their words unto the ends of the world." (ASV)

(Romans 1:15-17) "So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith." (ASV)

Why would God save someone against their will, before his power to save (the gospel not an insuperable force) could produce a saving faith? don't tell me that he is so depraved that he cannot hear the truth you cannot make that stick... (and you know it!)

This is a comparison, what the many lost in Adam, the many regain in Christ. Are the "many" everybody? if so, then Calvin's limited atonement is out the window

How do you avoid the fact that sin came from Adam?
This passage is obviously talking about the one Adam from the garden, and it clearly explains that sin came from him.
I can understand you not liking imputed sin, but how do you avoid such clear passages?

By not adding Augustine and his whacked out Gnostic background to the text. Calvin didn't question the bishop of Hippo he just swallowed it all

Your servant in Messiah, Yahshua
charlesj

jr2443

07-06-2006, 05:44 AM

Who's Calvin?

Let's stick to the Bible not men.

Not one of the passages that you referenced, (Rom 1, Rom 10, Rom 16) disproved that God chose to give us the faith to believe. All these passages do, is prove that we are saved by faith...... I agree with that. The argument is not if we are saved by faith or not, the argument is where does the faith come from.

You said...
1. Yes sin entered the world through one man I agree

2. But it is DEATH (Physical Death) passed to all
Not only physical death

3. Not SIN, that because even to those who did no sin like Adam did died (like babies or the mentally handicapped.) I think you missed the meaning of the words like Adam did...it doesn't sudgest that babies and handicapped are innocent. It implies that not all people sinned like Adam did (as direct disobedience to a command.) It's not saying that not everyone sinned. The preceeding passage (vs. 12) had already said, "all sinned." Now if verse 12 said "all have sinned," would that include babies and the mentally handicapped? Yes. Otherwise ALL doesn't mean ALL.

4. the word translated "imputed" does not mean transferred (inherited) it means reckoned / an accounting term. Yes you're right. But Paul's not saying that Adams sin was not put on their account, he's saying that the sin the poeple (in between Adam and Moses) commited was not charged to their account, because there was no law. "... sin is not imputed when there is no law. He's prooving that their own sins were not charged to them before the Mosaic Law came. So without having a way to judge them (apart from Adams sin) your view has to believe that all people before the Mosaic Law go to heaven, because God didn't impute their own sins to them. But I beleive they are still charged with the sin of Adam.

5. The bible clearly states that neither sin nor Righteousness are transferable Your referece to Ezekial 18:20 was a reference to the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 24:16, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." Both of these passages are saying that man can not substitute judgement. The problem with trying to put God under mans law, is God is greater than the Mosaic Law, and is not under the law/rules of man. The Bible tells us not to kill. Now can God kill? Of course He can! He can kill whoever he wants! For who can judge Him? Correspondenlty God can charge me with anything he wants!!!

Rom 10:32 "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all."

For who makes the handicapped anyway? Is it not the Lord? (Ex 4:11) "The LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?"

Back to Romans 5
Vs. 19 -For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Here is another example of God using the same type of economy. Its a story from the Old Testament that shows that a persons descendants were credited with what their forefather did.

Heb7:1
"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. 3Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. 4Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. 5And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. 6But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. 7But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

gripson

07-06-2006, 06:12 AM

The Command that he should not eat the fruit is given straight face to face to Adam and He should not have eaten the fruit when Eve gave that to him and the New Testament says Eve was decieved but Adam wishful to do sin and so it is true.

jr2443

07-06-2006, 09:54 AM

1. Please explain why the last part doesn't say and is baptized.
Mark 16:16 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. You could put anything in there. If you believe and go to church you'll be saved. If you believe and take communion you will be saved. If you believe and hop on one foot you will be saved. But if you believe not, you shall be damned.

2. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ "for" the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The english word "for" means "because of" or "in order to obtain." An example of "for" meaning "because of" is... "You need to see a doctor for (because of) that cough." An example of for meaning "in order to obtain" is... "You need to work out for (in order to obtain) big muscles." So which one does Peter mean in Acts 2:38? Well unless we're psychic, we can't figure out with on this verse alone. We need another passage where the same speaker (Peter) and author (Luke) is talking about salvation and baptism. So Lets look at Acts 10:43. Peter is telling the gospel to a bunch of Jews and in the speach he says "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." And then Peter says, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have (past tense) received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" You see, they got saved and then got baptized! Not vice-versa. So we now know that in Acts 2:38 Peter meant baptism for (because of) the forgiveness of sins. You know as well as I do, even in the greek the word "eis" (for) is used interchangably with "in order to obtain" or "because of."

3. I already explained Rom 6.

4. 1 Peter 3:20-21 "...patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but (this is what saves you) an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."
Peter again says that it's not the water baptism that saves us, it's our appeal to God for the forgiveness of sins.

Samson

07-06-2006, 05:45 PM

I am curious why the New Testament states that sin entered through Adam, yet Eve was the first one to take a bite. Does anyone know why?

In Genesis , the bible says that Adam was with Eve when she ate from the tree So since God wanted man to be a spiritual leader Adam should have stepped up and told her not to be tempted and eat from the tree

Instead she convinced him to eat from the tree also

This is what I think, Samson

Samson

07-06-2006, 05:48 PM

[QUOTE=Samson]In Genesis , the bible says that Adam was with Eve when she ate from the tree So since God wanted man to be a spiritual leader Adam should have stepped up and told her not to be tempted and eat from the tree

Instead she convinced him to eat from the tree also

This is what I think, Samson

I hope this helps you

SemperReformanda

07-06-2006, 11:42 PM

To whom was the command given?

where was eve when it was given?

Who was responsible to see that mankind was obedient to God?

WhiterThanSnow

07-07-2006, 09:08 PM

Thank you for simplifying things Semper. :)

blackdragon108

07-07-2006, 11:25 PM

okay guys I have a personal question about baptism.
I as some other believe it is part of the steps in coming to Christ, even Jesus sent people to be baptised, Did he not send Paul? trust me I have poor recall.

anyhow my question was, about if I should get baptised again, and I'm hung up on a technicality, see I got baptised about 20 years ago, thinkingthat was what I wanted and I was going to begin my walk with God, needless to say I turned away or fell away pretty quick..but now I can see that I have truly made the turn and I feel, the commitment and the faith I really didn't have before ( hindsight is great isn't it), but since now is a more realistic turn to Christ and giving my self over, do I need to get baptised again? Sorry if this is foolish..I even think part of me knew back then that I wasn't ready or I was just uncomfortable with the scene, since was in front of the whole congregation, it was a funtamentalist Church and alot of what they did I did not agree with..I am pretty quiet and shy about myself and my relationship with God, I would rather one true Christian, baptise me, with bottled water, after I proclaim my belief in Jesus and ask for forgiveness of my sins

god'schild219

07-09-2006, 02:47 PM

Adam is the head of the family and he takes on all responsibilities with his wife by him being the leader. Adam was the one who legally had the right to make that call and he let his wife persuade and influence him even though he had a direct command not to eat from that tree, so Adam was at fault.

charlesj

07-09-2006, 09:41 PM

Hello Don:

Sorryfor the delay in answering. I was "on the beach." (Mustang Island, Texas)
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/spdest/findadest/parks/mustang_island/

It's always good to get away and vacation a little. We have a travel trailer and love it. Icing on the cake, I met some ol' timer Marines and we got to exchange stories. I was in duing peace time, but I do have some war stories as I tried to start two wars (but failed). lol My commander in Chief now is the LORD!!

Who's Calvin? The man who systemized a belief that you embrace

Let's stick to the Bible not men. Good Idea can you divorce yourself from Calvins Tulip?

Not one of the passages that you referenced, (Rom 1, Rom 10, Rom 16) disproved that God chose to give us the faith to believe. All these passages do, is prove that we are saved by faith...... I agree with that. The argument is not if we are saved by faith or not, the argument is where does the faith come from.

Romans 10: 17 says that it comes from hearing the word of Christ (God calling through the gospel preached by the apostles) Note

(2 Thessalonians 2:14) whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (ASV) Can the power of God to save be resisted? Yes The called are those who WILL YIELD not those who are forced to yield
and

(1 Corinthians 1:18-25) For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nought. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe. Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, (those who will yield to the message) both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (ASV)

God does not just call a heaven list he calls all, and whosever will may come...

(Romans 10:1-17) Brethren, my heart's desire and my supplication to God is for them, that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
(A zeal for God but are not saved? because they cannot - "because they are so depraved in their nature that they are spiritually dead"? or because they WILL NOT because of ignorance of the new & living way and the desire to do it their own way? which is bible and which is Calvin?)
For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby. But the righteousness which is of faith saith thus, Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down:) or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (That is, to bring Christ up from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, (who is the word nigh "available to? everyone, even Paul's beloved lost Jewish brethren? or a predetermined list that cannot be added to or diminished from? which is Calvin which is the bible?
in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach: because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. does whosoever really mean everybody may if THEY choose to How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent? (who are the ones that preach and who are the ones that are sent? is it human messengers? or some other force? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things! But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. (ASV) you said that Romans 10 didn't answer the question of "where does faith come from" I said the message preached there is no evidence of some overpowering enlightening force apart from the message preached.... unless you Listen to Calvin

(Revelation 22:14-21) Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and my enter in by the gates into the city. Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright, the morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, Come. And he that is athirst, let him come: he that will, let him take the water of life freely. (Does this really mean whoever wants to or not?) I testify unto every man that heareth the words (the word of the Lord speaks both positively and negatively "accept the gift & don't tamper with my message" of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints. Amen. (ASV) God punishes those who CHOOSE to tamper with his word & Blesses those who CHOOSE to come... God has left The CHOICE IN the hands of mankind that is why he calls us to choose
(Joshua 24:14-15) Now therefore fear Jehovah, and serve him in sincerity and in truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt; and serve ye Jehovah. And if it seem evil unto you to serve Jehovah, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah. (ASV)
(1 Kings 18:21) And Elijah came near unto all the people, and said, How long go ye limping between the two sides? if Jehovah be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. (ASV)
Good and evil always stand side by side & we are ask to choose! Were the people of Joshua's day or Elijah's day any different in nature than we are? if God asks us to choose based on the evidence and then either makes it impossible for some to see the evidence... or gives to some an advantage (irresistible grace) then he has made our choice moot, and is not sincere when he asks us to choose
You said...
1. Yes sin entered the world through one man I agree

2. But it is DEATH (Physical Death) passed to all
Not only physical death Well, that is an assumption isn't it?
3. Not SIN, that because even to those who did no sin like Adam did died (like babies or the mentally handicapped.) I think you missed the meaning of the words like Adam did...it doesn't suggest that babies and handicapped are innocent. It implies that not all people sinned like Adam did (as direct disobedience to a command.) isn't sin missing the mark, disobedience (and isn't disobedience a violation of a command?)
1Jo 3:4 Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness
1Jo 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
Ro 4:15 for the law worketh wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression.
There must be a law for there to be violation of law... one cannot sin without a "mark to miss" - right?
So "direct command", does that mean - who the command is directed toward? if so, is not that the law that is directed to those who are under it (obligated to it)
By the inherited sin of Adam, I guess must mean, that we are amenable to the specific law given to Adam "don't touch or eat the fruit..." is that what you are saying? if not, then how can we bear the guilt of sin from a law that we were not under... for example, was it a sin for Jews to eat Pork? Yes? what about gentiles? were they under (obligated to) that law?

the theory you espouse is the transferring of the guilt of one man's violation under a law that we could not have kept because there is no circumstance that is applicable to us. The issue is consequences not guilt. I can see that we suffer consequences because of what Adam & Eve did - such as, pain in child bearing for the woman and working by the sweat of our brow and physical death... these are human consequences but I deny that the bible teaches that we inherit guilt. you may say that the reason we sin is because our nature was corrupted AFTER Adam sinned. Well, could any one have sinned faster than Adam did? He sinned the first time that he was tempted and he only had one restriction... Adams nature seems to be more corrupt (susceptible to sin) before he sinned than yours & mine... my point is that again this is old Gnostic (Augustinian) all flesh is Evil propaganda. Adam had more advantages then we did but he still sinned! He chose to sin... We like him are faced with the same choice. It is the moral despot Augustine that cries "I can't help but sin I inherited my spiritually dead nature from Adam" Part of the gospel requirement is to repent of OUR OWN SINS not the sins of others. Both of us are guilty on the basis of our choices Just as Adam was guilty of his own. yes my sin may impact others as far as consequences... example - the drunk driver who kills a newborn in a car crash, that is a consequence of the sins of another but the baby is not guilty of the sin of the drunk... I know that you can understand this

It's not saying that not everyone sinned. The preceding passage (vs. 12) had already said, "all sinned." Now if verse 12 said "all have sinned," would that include babies and the mentally handicapped? Yes. Otherwise ALL doesn't mean ALL.

Could there be a time when one was not under Law? if so then one would not have a "mark to miss" (at that time)
(Romans 7:7-11) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me. (ASV)

When was Paul alive apart from the law? does "alive" contrast with "dead in sin" in this passage? if so then there was a time when he was not dead in sin... when could that have been? When he was a small child? Calvin says (through Augustine) that unborn & newborn babies are consigned to hell if they die without being baptized

4. the word translated "imputed" does not mean transferred (inherited) it means reckoned / an accounting term. Yes you're right. But Paul's not saying that Adams sin was not put on their account, he's saying that the sin the people (in between Adam and Moses) committed was not charged to their account, because there was no law. "... sin is not imputed when there is no law. He's proving that their own sins were not charged to them before the Mosaic Law came. So without having a way to judge them (apart from Adams sin) your view has to believe that all people before the Mosaic Law go to heaven, because God didn't impute their own sins to them. But I believe they are still charged with the sin of Adam.

Very clever but No! they did not die because they were charged with Adams sin with Adams sin but with the consequences of his sin. Just as women still had pain in child bearing this is a far cry from proving spiritual death through Adam.

Do you think that "charging of the account of sin" may have reference to the way that it was done under the law of Moses? between Adam & Moses sin was not charged the same way, not that they were not charged at all. Remember the flood & Sodom, we need to keep in mind that in the book of Romans Paul is dealing with the arguments that the Jews may put forward. against the gospel & for the law of Moses . for example in chapter 4 we find that the promise is predates & superior to LAW because law can only condemn, it cannot save. People did sin from Adam to Moses therefore there was a law, (they could not sin without a law) but it was not reckoned according to the Mosaical law.

5. The bible clearly states that neither sin nor Righteousness are transferable Your reference to Ezekiel 18:20 was a reference to the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 24:16, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." Both of these passages are saying that man can not substitute judgment. The problem with trying to put God under mans law, is God is greater than the Mosaic Law, and is not under the law/rules of man. The Bible tells us not to kill. Now can God kill? Of course He can! He can kill whoever he wants! For who can judge Him? Correspondenlty God can charge me with anything he wants!!!

who gave the law of Moses? Does God "kill" like he prohibits in the law of Moses? NO! Thou shalt not kill, is better rendered "Thou shalt not murder" Is God a murderer when he takes a life? You know what the penalty in the law of Moses for murder is don't you? it is the JUDGMENT of death. Judgment of death is levied against the guilty not the innocent. in the Ezekiel passage it is not talking about what men do but what God will do to the Guilty read the entire text God restores those who turn from evil and judges those who turn to evil regardless of what their forefathers did.God deals with each one on the basis of their own personal choices

Rom 10:32 "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all."

you mean 11:32 what is meant by "all" in this context and most of the book of Romans remember we are looking for Paul's point not Calvin's. "All" can be used of all of a particular group or a combination of groups for example (Jim Fred & john went to the fair, all had a good time) Now who is the all limited to? right Jim, Fred & John - in this context as well as others Paul uses the word "all" in the sense of two groups (Jew & Gentile) note

(Romans 3:9) "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin;" (ASV)

(Romans 3:22-24) even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (ASV)

the point is with the law of Moses & without the law Moses (Jew & Gentile) all have fallen short... again this is to answer the Jew who rested on his participation in the covenant of Moses in 11:32 the point is that those who continue to stand in the faith of Christ can obtain mercy. I am not disputing that responsible people (of an age to know right or wrong have not sinned but I am pointing out that the guilty in this passage refers to those who can choose

If all people are automatically sinners because of Adam (without any choice) as you propose, then this passage must mean that the same number have mercy without any choice I deny that assertion

- as a side note - you may notice that there is no such thing as once saved always saved (impossibility of apostasy or perseverance of the saints) in chapter 11 braches can be broken off removed if they don't continue to be faithful note -

(Romans 11:19-24) Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (ASV)

For who makes the handicapped anyway? Is it not the Lord? (Ex 4:11) "The LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?"

Here is another principle (2 Corinthians 8:12) For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according as a man hath, not according as he hath not. (ASV)
God's judgment, according to the principle, is according to our ability & capacity. The fact is that in Ex.3- 4 Moses had the ability to do what God commanded him but was making excuses for not doing it. God was assuring him that he would be with Moses and that he was able to deliver the Israelites from Egypt) how does this impact our discussion? it actually works better for me than for you.

Back to Romans 5
Vs. 19 -For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. again the many is how many... and how were they MADE? I would say they were made available to sin in Adam & made available to Salvation in Christ
will all be saved? No Is salvation available to all? YES Are all that have ever lived sinners? No (Babies mentally handicapped) Are All that can choose available to Sin? Yes - all Jews & All Gentiles

Here is another example of God using the same type of economy. Its a story from the Old Testament that shows that a persons descendants were credited with what their forefather did.

Heb7:1
"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. 3Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. 4Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. 5And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. 6But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. 7But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

This is (what is styled) a fountain-head argument and it does resemble the argument in Romans 5 but maybe if you notice the point in Hebrews 7 then your conclusions in Romans 5 will be helped Too

again two types of priesthood Arronic & melchizedekan which is superior ?

Well melchizedeck was greater than Abraham, note that anything that came from Abraham (arronic priesthood through Levi) is inferior to anything that came from Melchezideck (high priesthood of Christ)
(Psalms 110:4) Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek. (ASV)

so what is the point? The Jew would say -

(John 8:31-33) Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed him, If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered unto him, We are Abraham's seed, and have never yet been in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? (ASV)

They could choose the way of Abraham or the Way of Melchisedek (by choosing Christ)

Today we can choose the way of Adam or The way of Christ

One way leads to Judgment the other to eternal Life. Yes humans are participants in long standing custom of Adams way but the message of Christ says that you can choose a new way if you want to.

Paul's point in the entire context of Rom 5 is "what ever is lost in Adams way (order) is abundantly restored in The way (order) of Christ

your servant in Messiah, Yahshua
charlesj

WhiterThanSnow

07-09-2006, 11:57 PM

Indeed it is blueheron32. Thank you both :)