glorydaz
Well-known member
So much for theI added at the end of that...
I didn't see any xxx's and oooo's.
ECT The Most Misunderstood Passage in the Bible--Romans 5:12-18
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
I didn't see any xxx's and oooo's.
Try bifocals.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I said that theoretically a person can inherit eternal life by their works. After all, Paul wrote the following concerning how men will be judged according to their deeds or works alone:
"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life" (Ro.2:5-7).
Paul certainly believed that a man has the ability to inherit eternal life by his deeds or works. Here he says that it is the doers of the law who shall be justified:
"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).
If it was theoretically impossible for those under the law to be justified before God by law-keeping then it certainly would make no sense for Paul to say that "the doers of the law shall be justified." If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes"?:
"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes" (Ro.10:4; DBY).
Paul also speaks of the believing remnant out of national Israel and says that their election is of grace and therefore "it is no more of works":
"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:5-6).
If no one could theoretically be saved by "works" then why would Paul say that "it is no longer of works"?
All of this demonstrates that no one is born in a state of being that can be described as being spiritually dead. If a person is born spiritually dead then no amount of law-keeping could possibly bring eternal life and no amount of law-keeping could serve to justify a person before God. That is because once a person falls under the sentence of spiritual death then if he is ever going to be justified it must be by the pentalty being paid. He must be "justified by death," he must be "justified by blood" (Ro.5:9).
dodge
New member
Jhn 6:28
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jhn 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
No Paul does NOT believe anyone can be saved by works. For Paul to believe a man could be saved by works Paul would have been in conflict with what Jesus taught.
Jhn 6:28
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jhn 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Not "works" Jerry just "a" work i.e. faith !
Ephesians 2:8-10
That would be because Jesus fulfilled the law.
Jhn 6:28
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jhn 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
No it really does not ! It demonstrates that you are ignoring large portions of scripture. No amount of law keeping has EVER saved anyone. Only one man ever kept all of the law and they hung Him on a cross.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You overlook what the Lord Jesus taught at another place. Let us examine the following exchange between Him and a lawyer:
"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (Lk.10:25-28).
We can understand from this that the Lord Jesus told the lawyer that if he wanted to inherit eternal life then he should do the "works" which He mentioned. If it was impossible for the lawyer to inherit eternal life by doing those works then it is impossible that the Lord Jesus would have said, "This do and thou shalt live."
Man has the "ability" to inherit eternal life by his works but not the "will." At some point all men decide to go their own way instead of the LORD's way and as a result they sin. That explains why Paul wrote this:
"Therefore by the deeds of law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight...For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Ro.3:20,23).
Paul also wrote this:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).
We can understand that "all men" die spiritually when they sin. That means that before they sin "all men" were alive spiritually. Therefore, it is obvious that all men are born spiritually alive.
Shasta
Well-known member
There is a way to interpret the verses that does not lead to the untenable position that some people will from childhood continue to remain sinless. This view leads to the possibility of two classifications of people: one of which are sinners who need the forgiveness of the cross and another class which do not need forgiveness because they keep the law perfectly. This is precisely the idea the Apostle Paul tried to overthrow when he said all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Do you see any exceptions made to this all inclusive statement in the verse? Should we change the clear and all-inclusive some into the inclusive all in order to make it work in your idiosyncratic system?
There IS a judgment and our final entrance into eternal life is predicated upon if we have remained faithful until the end. Since this does not comport with your theology you have had to invent an entirely new class of people to whom this type of scripture applies - those who keep the law perfectly. The existence of such individuals removes your having to deal with these conditional "final salvation" scriptures such as the following:
""But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life" (Romans 2:5-7).
What you have not understood is that, while we are initially saved by faith, faith is inseparable from obedience and love. Also we must continue to abide in this relationship of faith, love and obedience until the end if we are to be saved.
There is a
1. INITIAL salvation in which we are attached to the Vine
2. ONGOING salvation in which we remain in connection the Vine (despite tests and trials) and a
3. FINAL salvation at which time it will be revealed whether we have continued to abide in the faith until the end.
The reward of this final stage is inheriting eternal life.
This is the way these scriptures were interpreted ever since the First Century. If you did not hold to relatively modern ideas of antinomian free grace which were not formulated until the last 400 years or so, you would not have to use such convoluted hermeneutics to interpret the Bible.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I said that in theory it is possible. Why cannot you understand that?
All you are doing is making a straw man so that you can knock it down.
Please address the words of the Lord Jesus at Luke 10:25-28.
Shasta
Well-known member
The trajectory of your error starts primarily with your novel interpretation of a single verse in Romans,
9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
(Romans 7:9)
You have assumed that if Paul "died" when he first experienced moral consciousness then he must have been "spiritually alive" before that, alive in the same way that a believer is made by the Holy Spirit when they are regenerated. From this misunderstanding you have inferred the broad sweeping and heterodox conclusions of Pelagianism - that every human being is alive in the Spirit from conception and have absolutely no inclination to sin. Of course, few would object to the proposition that people are not responsible for their actions before before the dawn of moral consciousness. However, saying that they are perfect spiritual beings is quite another matter.
Looking at the whole chapter of Romans 7 it becomes evident that Paul was NOT saying he was spiritually minded during his time of innocence, He was only saying that at that time there was no enmity between he and God. This could indeed be considered "life" but only in comparison to the spiritual state of sin and death that followed.
Romans 7 is Paul's depiction of his attempt to be an observant Jew under the Law. It was probably not so hard in the beginning. Many statutes of the Law apply only to outward practices which anyone with a degree of determination could do. His difficulty began when he ran across a particular command.
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” (Romans 7:7)
The commandment he found impossible to keep was "you will not covet." Note that Paul never says the Law MADE him sin only that he would not have known about the sin except through the Law. Unlike many requirements - keeping Sabbath, participating in Feast Days, eating kosher, "you shall not covet" spoke to the desires and motivations of the heart which Jesus said were evil (Matthew 15:18-19).
Covetousness is a general word applying to desiring just about anything that is forbidden by God. It encompasses such varied sins as envy, jealousy and lust. Again, though, it was not that this command caused him to covet. It simply identified his inner desires as being "covetous."
13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful (Matthew 7:13)
In short, through trying to keep the Law that sinwas shown to him . Now if he had been born of and led by the Spirit from infancy he would not have instinctively participated in anything that grieved the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:14). The Spirit of Truth would have led him to avoid that temptation even prior to his having to read about it in a Book.
However, Paul, not being born of the Spirit had to get the information about sin from studying the Bible. When he found he was unable to comply he did not "yield his members to the Spirit" but like any carnal man he attempted to fulfill the law in his flesh. This provides evidence that his thinking was carnal(John 16:13, 2 Corinthians 6-8)
Even when the righteous standard of the law revealed Paul's desires to be sin he still did not depart from them. In fact, these desires became even stronger, a struggle he eloquently describes in later verses of the same book Romans 7:15-19.
This does not sound like life in the Spirit as described in Romans 8:4-5.
After he became morally conscious, Paul experienced "spiritual death" for the first time. Before this, his covetous desires were still rooted in the carnal mind. God just did not hold it against him because of his ignorance.
9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
(Romans 7:9)
You have assumed that if Paul "died" when he first experienced moral consciousness then he must have been "spiritually alive" before that, alive in the same way that a believer is made by the Holy Spirit when they are regenerated. From this misunderstanding you have inferred the broad sweeping and heterodox conclusions of Pelagianism - that every human being is alive in the Spirit from conception and have absolutely no inclination to sin. Of course, few would object to the proposition that people are not responsible for their actions before before the dawn of moral consciousness. However, saying that they are perfect spiritual beings is quite another matter.
Looking at the whole chapter of Romans 7 it becomes evident that Paul was NOT saying he was spiritually minded during his time of innocence, He was only saying that at that time there was no enmity between he and God. This could indeed be considered "life" but only in comparison to the spiritual state of sin and death that followed.
Romans 7 is Paul's depiction of his attempt to be an observant Jew under the Law. It was probably not so hard in the beginning. Many statutes of the Law apply only to outward practices which anyone with a degree of determination could do. His difficulty began when he ran across a particular command.
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” (Romans 7:7)
The commandment he found impossible to keep was "you will not covet." Note that Paul never says the Law MADE him sin only that he would not have known about the sin except through the Law. Unlike many requirements - keeping Sabbath, participating in Feast Days, eating kosher, "you shall not covet" spoke to the desires and motivations of the heart which Jesus said were evil (Matthew 15:18-19).
Covetousness is a general word applying to desiring just about anything that is forbidden by God. It encompasses such varied sins as envy, jealousy and lust. Again, though, it was not that this command caused him to covet. It simply identified his inner desires as being "covetous."
13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful (Matthew 7:13)
In short, through trying to keep the Law that sinwas shown to him . Now if he had been born of and led by the Spirit from infancy he would not have instinctively participated in anything that grieved the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:14). The Spirit of Truth would have led him to avoid that temptation even prior to his having to read about it in a Book.
However, Paul, not being born of the Spirit had to get the information about sin from studying the Bible. When he found he was unable to comply he did not "yield his members to the Spirit" but like any carnal man he attempted to fulfill the law in his flesh. This provides evidence that his thinking was carnal(John 16:13, 2 Corinthians 6-8)
Even when the righteous standard of the law revealed Paul's desires to be sin he still did not depart from them. In fact, these desires became even stronger, a struggle he eloquently describes in later verses of the same book Romans 7:15-19.
This does not sound like life in the Spirit as described in Romans 8:4-5.
After he became morally conscious, Paul experienced "spiritual death" for the first time. Before this, his covetous desires were still rooted in the carnal mind. God just did not hold it against him because of his ignorance.
Last edited:
Shasta
Well-known member
"In theory" still means that it is possible. If you think it is practically impossible then it is up to you to qualify your doctrine.
I notice that you stop short of an important statement that sets this event in proper perspective. This statement is verse 29:
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
As good as this lawyer's intentions might have been his heart was not complete because he sought to limit the demands of God's love. Since the moral law reflects God's nature of justice, holiness and love, limiting the scope of His love is nothing less than an attempt to alter the perfect template and to set up a forged standard that is relative and human. Even if this man had attempted to love others as much as he loved himself he would have failed, since love is a fruit of God's Spirit.
6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? (2 Corinthians 3:6-7)
The letter of the law does not bring life. Jesus presented the perfect template knowing that the man could fulfill it only by a complete surrender to Him. The fact that the Truth is presented as an absolute demand does not mean God thinks unregenerate man can fulfill it. God demands certain things of us because of the way He is. He cannot alter his standards to "grade us on a curve"
Trying to follow the letter of the law and failing (as Paul did in Romans 7) is one way of learning that we need Him. This is how Paul learned that he was "carnal sold under sin." A person who knows they have been sold into slavery might seek redemption. People who still believe they can attain God's perfect standard of righteousness by their own efforts (even hypothetically) still do not see themselves as a slaves in need of redemption.
The challenge to follow the law perfectly is a good way of helping the self-righteous person see their need of God (Romans 7:10-12) This perfectly comports with Paul's statement in Romans 7 that the purpose of the law was not to make us righteous but to reveal our sin (Romans 3:20).
Shasta
Well-known member
It is up to you to answer objections to your invented doctrines. Claiming people are using straw men does nothing to explain anything.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Since you know so much why do you continue to run and hide from what Paul wrote at Romans 5:12?
Maybe that verse is not in your Bible?
Or perhaps you think Paul just made a mistake and you know more than he does?
Which one is it?
What "life" is Paul speaking of here?:
"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" (Ro.7:9-11).
Let me give you a hint:
"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (Lk.10:25-28).
Shasta
Well-known member
I commented on Romans 7 and on Lk.10:25-28 already. Obviously you did not bother to read my post.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You did not answer my question as to what "life" Paul is referring to here":
"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" (Ro.7:9-11).
Let me give you a hint. Here Paul speaks about how men will be judged according to their deeds or works:
"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile" (Ro.2:5-9).
Shasta
Well-known member
In Romans 7:9-11 Paul was speaking about the period of time prior to the advent of moral consciousness. It was "life" in the sense that he was not "dead in trespasses and sins." He was not speaking of the kind of Spiritual life he would receive later as a result of believing in Christ Jesus.
As I pointed out before (in the post you ignored) Paul's unholy desires reveal that even before he knew about it he was operating in a carnal mind. In fact, "when the law came" specifically the command not to covet it brought the knowledge that the desires he was experiencing were what the law calls coveting. The law did not MAKE Paul covetous. It was the means by which he came to know that his desires were wrong.
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” (Romans 7:7)
Unlike many requirements of the Law - keeping Sabbath, participating in Feast Days, eating kosher - "you shall not covet" spoke to the desires and motivations of the heart which Jesus said are evil (Matthew 15:18-19).
13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful (Romans 7:13)
When these desires were revealed to be wrong Paul still could not suppress them. Had he been a spirit-guided person the Holy Spirit would have led him to a deeper surrender and dependence and enabled him to overcome. As it was, he had no suh Resource and he did not repent of his self-willed religiosity until the Damascus Road.
Let me give YOU a hint about something.
"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile" (Romans 2:5-9).
Now Jerry, does this scripture say God will give to a certain class of perfectly righteous people according to their works? No, it says that is the basis on which EVERY man will be assessed. It does not fit with your theology because you believe eternal life is secured the FIRST time a person puts their faith in Christ. Really the first step of believing in Christ is supposed to be followed by a walk, or, if you will, once we are attached to the vine we must remain, abide and continue in the Vine. A branch that does not do so will end up being burned.
Instead of accepting this you have created a whole sub-race of perfect people who are able to walk so perfectly that they do not even need forgiveness but will be judged solely on the basis of their works. This is Pelagian perfectionsim at it worst.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Again, I warn readers, this is Jerry's M.O.
Tosses out unbiblical speculations and then demands readers prove him wrong.
Which they do, but he just asks again and again and again and again . . never accepting what he asks for again and again and again and again.
Shasta
Well-known member
No, he does not consider for a moment what others say. He sticks to his script
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So the "life" in the following verse is a life which is not dead in trespass and sins:
"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" (Ro.7:9-11).
From this we can understand that the commandment was ordained to a life free of trespasses and sins.
I do not run and hide from any verse like you do when Romans 5:12 is mentioned.
Run, Shasta, run!
Shasta
Well-known member
You have run away from all my posts, Jerry.
The English word “because” is actually two words in Greek epi and ho. Epi literally means “on” but, abstractly, it means “on the basis of” or “because”. The second word is the pronoun ho which is a pronoun and, like all pronouns, refers to an unnamed person or a thing. Together, the words mean either because of whom or because of which. These words are intended to identify the cause of an action or a state of being. In this verse, the action, the thing that “happens,” is sin…but “WHO” or “WHAT” is the CAUSE of the “sin”? Grammatically, the pronoun can only refer to one of two words, either Adam or Death.
Jerome when he translated the Greek into Latin translated the epi as "in" so that it read "all men sinned in Adam." This was why Augustine and, later, Calvin came up with the doctrine of legal imputation.
Further discussion on the translation of this passage can be found here:
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/14268/translation-of-romans-512
Western theologians, following Augustine, made the root cause of mankind’s sin Adam. The Reformers said that Adam’s guilt was legally imputed to his descendants. Theologians in the East never accepted this view but instead identified the root cause of sin as spiritual death which had passed upon all men because of man's loss of fellowship with God's Spirit (Genesis 2:17). There IS such a thing as individual sin but that does not explain the main intent of the passage which is to explain the universality of sin in the whole human race which is why we universally need a savior.
Viewing Romans 5:12 as a single verse in isolation of the context you have come to the conclusion that it means nothing more than “all men commit sins” (individually). Then, by convoluted hermeneutics you arrive at the contradictory conclusion that “all men do not sin” but that “most do” The exception to the "all men" are those few who remain in their "first estate" of spirituality since birth.
Still, the verse does not SAY “many men sin” or even that “most men sin” but ALL of them do. Thus the question of why all men inevitably sin (which Romans was written to answer) is shrouded once again in mystery. Having denied ancestral and original sin you have stripped the explanation from the text and reverted back to the simplistic idea that “most people do bad things.” Even Judaism was not as simplistic as this. Rabbis of the first century taught that Adam’s sin is connected to our own personal propensity to sin.
Your inability to see that the phrase Jesus used when speaking about the new birth to Nicodemus “that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit” was meant to distinguish between the first birth which is physical from the second which is spiritual has led you into this wild doctrinal goose chase. In fact, All men must be born again after the Spirit if they are to see the kingdom and if that is so then the natural birth is totally inadequate to make one ready for the coming world.
The NEW birth is an entirely new kind of SPIRITUAL birth not merely a recapitulation of the original NATURAL birth. The first Adam was a living SOUL. Only the Last was a life-GIVING Spirit. The first birth only imparts biological and psychological (soul) life. Only Christ can give spiritual life to the soul and, by the same indwelling Spirit, resurrection life to the body.
To say that men experience spiritual death because they individually sin is true as far as it goes but it ignores the wider question being addressed in the passage which is why ALL men sin. Instead of addressing this central theme you have DENIED that ALL men sin changing the text to say “many men sin but a few do not." The gospel flatly denies this (Romans 3:23)
What you end up with in your system is two classes of people. In one are those who have remained obedient since conception. In the other, are those who did not abide in their "immaculate conception" but through sin experienced their own personal Fall. The former group are judged on the basis of their works while the latter are not judged for any amount of sin they might engage in. So on one hand your doctrine spawns legalism and on the other antinomianism.
The English word “because” is actually two words in Greek epi and ho. Epi literally means “on” but, abstractly, it means “on the basis of” or “because”. The second word is the pronoun ho which is a pronoun and, like all pronouns, refers to an unnamed person or a thing. Together, the words mean either because of whom or because of which. These words are intended to identify the cause of an action or a state of being. In this verse, the action, the thing that “happens,” is sin…but “WHO” or “WHAT” is the CAUSE of the “sin”? Grammatically, the pronoun can only refer to one of two words, either Adam or Death.
Jerome when he translated the Greek into Latin translated the epi as "in" so that it read "all men sinned in Adam." This was why Augustine and, later, Calvin came up with the doctrine of legal imputation.
Further discussion on the translation of this passage can be found here:
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/14268/translation-of-romans-512
Western theologians, following Augustine, made the root cause of mankind’s sin Adam. The Reformers said that Adam’s guilt was legally imputed to his descendants. Theologians in the East never accepted this view but instead identified the root cause of sin as spiritual death which had passed upon all men because of man's loss of fellowship with God's Spirit (Genesis 2:17). There IS such a thing as individual sin but that does not explain the main intent of the passage which is to explain the universality of sin in the whole human race which is why we universally need a savior.
Viewing Romans 5:12 as a single verse in isolation of the context you have come to the conclusion that it means nothing more than “all men commit sins” (individually). Then, by convoluted hermeneutics you arrive at the contradictory conclusion that “all men do not sin” but that “most do” The exception to the "all men" are those few who remain in their "first estate" of spirituality since birth.
Still, the verse does not SAY “many men sin” or even that “most men sin” but ALL of them do. Thus the question of why all men inevitably sin (which Romans was written to answer) is shrouded once again in mystery. Having denied ancestral and original sin you have stripped the explanation from the text and reverted back to the simplistic idea that “most people do bad things.” Even Judaism was not as simplistic as this. Rabbis of the first century taught that Adam’s sin is connected to our own personal propensity to sin.
Your inability to see that the phrase Jesus used when speaking about the new birth to Nicodemus “that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit” was meant to distinguish between the first birth which is physical from the second which is spiritual has led you into this wild doctrinal goose chase. In fact, All men must be born again after the Spirit if they are to see the kingdom and if that is so then the natural birth is totally inadequate to make one ready for the coming world.
The NEW birth is an entirely new kind of SPIRITUAL birth not merely a recapitulation of the original NATURAL birth. The first Adam was a living SOUL. Only the Last was a life-GIVING Spirit. The first birth only imparts biological and psychological (soul) life. Only Christ can give spiritual life to the soul and, by the same indwelling Spirit, resurrection life to the body.
To say that men experience spiritual death because they individually sin is true as far as it goes but it ignores the wider question being addressed in the passage which is why ALL men sin. Instead of addressing this central theme you have DENIED that ALL men sin changing the text to say “many men sin but a few do not." The gospel flatly denies this (Romans 3:23)
What you end up with in your system is two classes of people. In one are those who have remained obedient since conception. In the other, are those who did not abide in their "immaculate conception" but through sin experienced their own personal Fall. The former group are judged on the basis of their works while the latter are not judged for any amount of sin they might engage in. So on one hand your doctrine spawns legalism and on the other antinomianism.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Good summary and accurate conclusion. Well said!