Original Sin, and its Essence

ttruscott

Well-known member
because all sinned
Yes, because we have all sinned, we are born into Adam's death.
The law reveals that everyone is in sin.
...another way of saying, all are sinners, none is righteous, not one but it doesn't say we got that sinfulness from Adam and not from our own free will decision to rebel against HIM.

It is blasphemy against HIS loving kindness, righteousness and justice to teach HE has us die in Adam without our ever making a free will decision to rebel sinfully.

Death is the wages of sin, not a natural consequence of life.
 

Nick M

Reconciled by the Cross
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yes, because we have all sinned, we are born into Adam's death.

...another way of saying, all are sinners, none is righteous, not one but it doesn't say we got that sinfulness from Adam and not from our own free will decision to rebel against HIM.

It is blasphemy against HIS loving kindness, righteousness and justice to teach HE has us die in Adam without our ever making a free will decision to rebel sinfully.

Death is the wages of sin, not a natural consequence of life.
Right. Paul covers all the angles in Romans 5.
 

Derf

Well-known member
It is blasphemy against HIS loving kindness, righteousness and justice to teach HE has us die in Adam without our ever making a free will decision to rebel sinfully.
Yet we are told "in Adam all die".
1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV — For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If that means what it appears to mean, death is guaranteed to all human beings who are "in Adam." So if one is not subject to death, then that one must not be "in Adam". Consider the case of a newborn. Is he "in Adam"? If so, then he is subject to death, possibly even within a few minutes of birth--I think we all agree that death often comes to those who have medical problems immediately after birth, yet they haven't sinned.

If such a one is not "in Adam", and he's not yet "in Christ", what state is he in? Does he need the salvation of Christ to live eternally? Surely he does.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Yet we are told "in Adam all die".
1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV — For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If that means what it appears to mean, death is guaranteed to all human beings who are "in Adam." So if one is not subject to death, then that one must not be "in Adam". Consider the case of a newborn. Is he "in Adam"? If so, then he is subject to death, possibly even within a few minutes of birth--I think we all agree that death often comes to those who have medical problems immediately after birth, yet they haven't sinned.

If such a one is not "in Adam", and he's not yet "in Christ", what state is he in? Does he need the salvation of Christ to live eternally? Surely he does.
I Corinthians 15 is not talking about physical life and death. Do you know of even one single person who has been made physically alive in Christ?
 

Derf

Well-known member
I Corinthians 15 is not talking about physical life and death.
Shall I quote it again? And I'll include the next verse to see if it helps.
1 Corinthians 15:22-23 KJV — For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


Do you know of even one single person who has been made physically alive in Christ?
If we're not talking about physical life and death, why does the passage speak of something in the future? Are you saying we aren't even spiritually alive in Christ yet, but must wait until Christ returns?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Derf,

The further I went into the following post, the more aware I became of not being certain about just what it is you're trying to argue here. I think it would be a good idea for you to articulate, as clearly as you can, just what it is you're arguing. What is it that you're disagreeing with ttruscott about and what alternative are you putting forward? It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that we are actually in agreement.

Shall I quote it again? And I'll include the next verse to see if it helps.
1 Corinthians 15:22-23 KJV — For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
What exactly is the point here? Have you not been made alive in Christ? I know I have?

If we're not talking about physical life and death, why does the passage speak of something in the future?
That is beside the point. Whether its future or not doesn't negate the fact that it's primarily a spiritual matter.

Are you saying we aren't even spiritually alive in Christ yet, but must wait until Christ returns?
NO! That's what it seems like you are saying!

To be clear, my previous post sort of overstated my position, which is my own fault for wanting to post something when I didn't have the time to make the point properly. Physical death is part of what is being spoken of in I Corinthians but only part. The issue of being saved is not primarily a physical issue but a spiritual one. Yes, we all die physically and yes, those who are saved will be physically resurrected but that is quite a separate issue from what you seem to be debating here and to the extent that it is talking about physical death, it seems the passage you are siting doesn't apply. Verse 12 gives the context of what Paul is saying....

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?


....which is a point that none of us here making! Paul himself states explicitly what my point is at the end of the chapter you are citing.....

44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
You might say then that all of this is yet future! Well, directly in context, it is, but to that extent it means that you've chosen the wrong proof text because it does not support YOUR position - at least as I understand it (I admit that your point is less than crystal clear to me. It seems either way I look at your position, your cited passage doesn't do that job you're asking of it.).

Are you arguing that infants are not 'in Adam' because they haven’t sinned personally? Or are you saying they are in Adam and thus spiritually dead, even without personal sin? I’m still unclear on what conclusion you’re trying to draw from the passage. The passage doesn’t address moral culpability, age of accountability, or the need for personal salvation prior to sin. In that context, it is ENTIRELY about physical death. Is that the point you're making? If so, how would that apply to ttruscott's statement....

"It is blasphemy against HIS loving kindness, righteousness and justice to teach HE has us die in Adam without our ever making a free will decision to rebel sinfully."​
...which is very decidedly about moral culpability?

It seems to me like the correct response to his point is to question his premise, not to accept it and try to explain it away, which is what it seems to me like you're doing.

If ttruescott were not on ignore and I were to respond to his statement, I would start by point out that he is assuming that dying ‘in Adam’ implies moral guilt. Scripture, however, presents it more as a consequence of being born into a fallen world. Babies who die aren’t being punished for personal sin, nor is God unjust for allowing them to die physically. Physical death is part of the natural order after Adam’s Fall (Genesis 3), not necessarily a moral judgment on each individual.

Additionally, if we demand that we must personally choose to sin in order to die ‘in Adam,’ do we also demand that we must personally do righteous deeds before we can live ‘in Christ’? Paul says, ‘as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’! It’s a representative framework, not just an individual one. Just as we inherit the consequence of Adam’s sin by being in him, we inherit the benefit of Christ’s righteousness by being in Him. The justice of being made alive in Christ works the same way; it’s not earned by us personally, but received through union with Him. It is Christ's death (both physically and spiritually) that provides the justice, not the death of children nor our righteousness.

And in response to ttruescott, as with you, I'd feel compelled to emphasize that this issue is not primarily about physical death, but about spiritual death. When Paul writes, "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," he is pointing to a reality with profound spiritual implications. The spiritual death that resulted from Adam's sin became universal, not because of inherited guilt, but because the effect cannot be greater than its cause. Just as Adam became spiritually dead (i.e. separated from God), so the race that came from him was likewise spiritually dead. However! Christ’s redemptive work at Calvary intervenes and restores spiritual life to all!

Romans 5:18 “Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.”​

Therefore, a person now only dies spiritually when they personally choose to sin. Physical death, meanwhile, remains the inherited consequence of Adam’s sin, because we - “in the flesh” - have not yet been redeemed (Romans 7:14–25). In short, physical death is inherited from Adam, but spiritual death results only from each individual’s own free choice to sin, not from Adam’s guilt.
 
Last edited:

ttruscott

Well-known member
Yet we are told "in Adam all die".
"in Adam all die" cannot replace the definition of death as the wages for sin...it must be seen as an addendum to the definition of death or we get into logical fallacies. Some cannot die in Adam without also being sinners since both are said to refer to death not "either or".

This actually supports the contention that only sinners are sown into Adam to bring all the sinful elect into one death in Christ.
 

Derf

Well-known member
"in Adam all die" cannot replace the definition of death as the wages for sin
Neither of those are definitions.
...it must be seen as an addendum to the definition of death or we get into logical fallacies. Some cannot die in Adam without also being sinners since both are said to refer to death not "either or".
The whole idea that people that are "in Adam" receive the wages of sin is a concept that needs to be wrestled with. The Levites paid tithe to Melchizedek while they were "in Abraham":
Hebrews 7:9-10 KJV — And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

And, in case you missed it, Levi was not in some holding place for souls at that time, but he was in Abraham's loins. This doesn't mean he was residing in Abraham's flesh somewhere, but that he only existed in so much as Abraham existed at that point, and when he began to exist, as a son of Jacob, he was a descendent of Abraham, as Jacob was.

In the same way that Levi paid tithes in Abraham, we could be said to have sinned in Adam.

This actually supports the contention that only sinners are sown into Adam to bring all the sinful elect into one death in Christ.
@Clete: this is the part that you need to understand about @ttruscott's position. He believes that souls were created prior to physical bodies, that those souls could choose to sin or not prior to being transferred into physical bodies, that some souls did and some dud not sin, prior to having physical bodies, and that the ones who receive death as their wages (not sure I've worded that last one correctly--Truscott can correct me).

But we know Adam wasn't a "soul" before his body was created, rather after he (his body) was formed from the dust, then God breathed into him (the body) the breath of life and he (the body) became a living soul. The text explicitly says that God formed man from the dust, calling him "man" while he was still inanimate.
[Gen 2:7 KJV] And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
@Clete: this is the part that you need to understand about @ttruscott's position. He believes that souls were created prior to physical bodies, that those souls could choose to sin or not prior to being transferred into physical bodies, that some souls did and some dud not sin, prior to having physical bodies, and that the ones who receive death as their wages (not sure I've worded that last one correctly--Truscott can correct me).

But we know Adam wasn't a "soul" before his body was created, rather after he (his body) was formed from the dust, then God breathed into him (the body) the breath of life and he (the body) became a living soul. The text explicitly says that God formed man from the dust, calling him "man" while was still inanimate.
Yes, ttruescott is a lunatic who seems to make his doctrine up as he goes along. He reads the back of a Froot Loops box and gets inspiration for the next Beavis and Butt-Head endorsed doctrine of "Christianity".
 

Derf

Well-known member
Derf,

The further I went into the following post, the more aware I became of not being certain about just what it is you're trying to argue here. I think it would be a good idea for you to articulate, as clearly as you can, just what it is you're arguing. What is it that you're disagreeing with ttruscott about and what alternative are you putting forward? It wouldn't surprise me it turns out that we are actually in agreement.
I think you're correct.
What exactly is the point here? Have you not been made alive in Christ? I know I have?
Yes, we both agree that we have, if we believe that He died and rose again. There are a bunch of side points that go along with that, but that is the basis for the gospel.
That is beside the point. Whether its future or not doesn't negate the fact that it's primarily a spiritual matter.
We might disagree here, but not in much substance.
NO! That's what it seems like you are saying!

To be clear, my previous post sort of overstated my position, which is my own fault for wanting to post something when I didn't have the time to make the point properly.
I appreciate that you relooked at it.
Physical death is part of what is being spoken of in I Corinthians but only part. The issue of being saved is not primarily a physical issue but a spiritual one.
I would agree were the death and resurrection of Christ not purely a physical phenomenon, because it points to our physical resurrection INTO something both physical and spiritual, according to 1 Corp 15.
Yes, we all die physically and yes, those who are saved will be physically resurrected but that is quite a separate issue from what you seem to be debating here and to the extent that it is talking about physical death, it seems the passage you are siting doesn't apply. Verse 12 gives the context of what Paul is saying....

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?


....which is a point that none of us here making! Paul himself states explicitly what my point is at the end of the chapter you are citing.....

44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​
Can we agree that "it" is talking about the physical body? And therefore when it is raised a spiritual body, the reference is to the physical resurrection?
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
You might say then that all of this is yet future! Well, directly in context, it is, but to that extent it means that you've chosen the wrong proof text because it does not support YOUR position - at least as I understand it (I admit that your point is less than crystal clear to me. It seems either way I look at your position, your cited passage doesn't do that job you're asking of it.).
My point was mainly to discuss why people who have not sinned are still affected by the penalty for sin, meaning death.
Are you arguing that infants are not 'in Adam' because they haven’t sinned personally?
No, they are all born descendants of Adam, and as such they are subject to death. Jesus appears to be an exception, probably because of the virgin birth. Yet He submitted Himself to death for our sakes.

But I was arguing against @ttruscott's position that sin occurred prior to physical existence.
Or are you saying they are in Adam and thus spiritually dead, even without personal sin?
All I'm saying at this point is that infants die (physically) because of Adam's sin. I think you agree with me here. We can discuss further what ramifications that brings. But you can't use the supposed fact that it is blasphemous that such has happened to argue against the actual fact that we experience death even if we don't sin.
I’m still unclear on what conclusion you’re trying to draw from the passage. The passage doesn’t address moral culpability, age of accountability, or the need for personal salvation prior to sin.
Right. That's why I think we can keep conclusions simple regarding that passage. Death, a penalty, resulted from Adam's sin, and it applies to all of Adam's descendants.
In that context, it is ENTIRELY about physical death. Is that the point you're making? If so, how would that apply to ttruscott's statement....

"It is blasphemy against HIS loving kindness, righteousness and justice to teach HE has us die in Adam without our ever making a free will decision to rebel sinfully."​
...which is very decidedly about moral culpability?
Death as used in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians is talking about the part that is corrected with Jesus' death and resurrection, which are both expressly about Jesus physical death (since Jesus didn't die spiritually), else the earlier portion, where we have no hope without the resurrection, is nonsensical.
It seems to me like the correct response to his point is to question his premise, not to accept it and try to explain it away, which is what it seems to me like you're doing.

If ttruescott were not on ignore and I were to respond to his statement, I would start by point out that he is assuming that dying ‘in Adam’ implies moral guilt. Scripture, however, presents it more as a consequence of being born into a fallen world. Babies who die aren’t being punished for personal sin, nor is God unjust for allowing them to die physically. Physical death is part of the natural order after Adam’s Fall (Genesis 3), not necessarily a moral judgment on each individual.
I think we part ways a bit here. Not because death is a moral judgment on each individual, but because it is a moral judgment on Adam that is applied to all that were in Adam, which is all of his descendants.
Additionally, if we demand that we must personally choose to sin in order to die ‘in Adam,’ do we also demand that we must personally do righteous deeds before we can live ‘in Christ’? Paul says, ‘as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’! It’s a representative framework, not just an individual one. Just as we inherit the consequence of Adam’s sin by being in him, we inherit the benefit of Christ’s righteousness by being in Him.
Agreed.
The justice of being made alive in Christ works the same way; it’s not earned by us personally, but received through union with Him. It is Christ's death (both physically and spiritually)
I might have made a mistake above suggesting Christ didn't die spiritually in your view, but the concept is strange to me.
that provides the justice, not the death of children nor our righteousness.
Correct.
And in response to ttruescott, as with you, I'd feel compelled to emphasize that this issue is not primarily about physical death, but about spiritual death.
Yes, I understand you read it that way. I tend to combine physical and spiritual death into a single thing--that there is no spirit of man without the body, and no functioning of man without the spirit. The spirit isn't a self-sufficient entity, and neither is the body. So if the spirit is dead, so is the body, and if the body is dead, there is no spirit.
When Paul writes, "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," he is pointing to a reality with profound spiritual implications. The spiritual death that resulted from Adam's sin became universal, not because of inherited guilt, but because the effect cannot be greater than its cause. Just as Adam became spiritually dead (i.e. separated from God), so the race that came from him was likewise spiritually dead.
Aren't you now arguing for infants being born spiritually dead? Aren't infants part of the race that came from Adam? Or are you saying "Like Adam became spiritually dead when he sinned, so the race that came from him becomes spiritually dead when the individual sins"? If that is the case, then how is it that Jesus fixes the spiritually dead problem we didn't inherit from Adam?
However! Christ’s redemptive work at Calvary intervenes and restores spiritual life to all!

Romans 5:18 “Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.”​

Therefore, a person now only dies spiritually when they personally choose to sin.
Pushing back here: Do persons who are in Christ die spiritually when they personally choose to sin?
Physical death, meanwhile, remains the inherited consequence of Adam’s sin, because we - “in the flesh” - have not yet been redeemed (Romans 7:14–25). In short, physical death is inherited from Adam, but spiritual death results only from each individual’s own free choice to sin, not from Adam’s guilt.
This is a problem with an unclear definition of "spiritual death" across the gamut of Christian thought, and possibly what you have stated above. But I agree that physical death is inherited from Adam, It is a punishment (wages of sin), and it is unclear why a punishment for Adam's sin is morally transferred to his descendants. I'm offering a solution to that problem. If physical death is Adam's punishment, amd Adam had no children before he sinned, then any children conceived after that sin bear the same penalty, since they were "in Adam" in the same way Levi was "in Abraham" when he tithed to Melchizedek. Levi had no choice whether he tithed to Melchizedek, but he reaped whatever reward might have come from it. We had no choice whether we sinned in Adam, but we reaped the penalty, which is (physical) death.
 
Top