 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
lifeseeker77
Big Goldfish
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 69
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: Who could sin "after the similitude of Adam's sin...&qu |
 |
|
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.
After meditating on this text and those related to it, I'm inclined to believe that this text is NOT suggesting that some of the "all" who died, sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression and others did not.
Rather, I am persuaded that this text emphasizes that all after Adam sinned NOT after the similitude of Adam's sin and all died just the same. Adam's sin was unique in that he, and only he, had access to the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and only he had the specific instruction from God (law, it could be argued) prohibiting him from eating of that fruiit. Likewise only Adam had a cognizant recollection of committing that "original" sin.
While I believe this is true in the context in which it is presented, I also believe in the context of Heb 7:9,10
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.
In this context we can affirm that every descendant of Adam directly participated in Adam's sin. In other words, our participation in Adam's sin is not by imputation but by direct commission. Nevertheless, we have no subjective recollection of this truth and that is the distinction made in Rom 5.
If "...by the law is the knowledge of sin..." was the commandment forbidding Adam from eating of the fruit also a law? In what way can we make the distinction between the knowledge of sin that comes that commandment to Adam and/or other commandments from God or even from conscience before the Mosaic law?
I'd appreciate any insight on these principles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2672
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Under the law there are two primary sacrifices, one for the sins we know about and the other for the "condition" of sin for the fallen situation we find ourselves in.
In other words it is for , in effect Adam's sin.
Both were done away with after the crucifixion.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifeseeker77
Big Goldfish
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: the sin after the similitude of Adam's sin |
|
|
So can anyone or has anyone other than Adam sinned "after the similitude of Adam's sin"?
If so, how? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2852
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: the sin after the similitude of Adam's sin |
|
|
Mayhap a Pelagianist has landed?
| lifeseeker77 wrote: | | So can anyone or has anyone, other than Adam, sinned "after the similitude of Adam's sin"? |
Of course not. In that there no longer exists a fruit which one could eat, how would it be possible for ANY of the children of Adam to sin in the same manner as (similitude) he had?
| lifeseeker77 wrote: | | I'd appreciate any insight on these principles. |
This speaks to the question; does each and every man have to commit a sin in order to be considered a sinner? Is the Christian message Aristotelian, in that one must sin before one can be said to be a sinner (having not been one beforehand)? Or is the Christian message Platonist, in that one sins because one is born a Sinner?
When we read, Rom 6:23 KJV “For the wages of sin is death;” does it mean death is the wages of sinning and hence death is an individual judgment of God meted out individually upon each and every person at the first sin that person commits?
Or is death the wages of Adam’s sin, meaning that death is now a condition of the cosmos beget by Adam? Since everyone dies, are we all being punished for the sin act of Adam? Did the Fall of Adam result in God’s having to change the fundamental underpinnings of the physical laws of the universe resulting in the phenomenon we call death and is this death then indiscriminately imposed upon everyone (and everything) by the mere fact that they are born into this cosmos (including those who haven’t sinned such as the proverbial three day old infant)?
Or did Adam trigger an undesired biological process, in essence, poisoning himself and his progeny with an enzyme from the fruit resulting in a rather unfortunate genetic expression that leads to all kinds of deaths? (Is such death a condition inside of you, rather than outside in the cosmos imposed upon you?) From my studies, Sin is both a cognitive and metabolic defect genetically inherited.
For whatever it’s worth, the book of Romans is not well written.
Yehu
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifeseeker77
Big Goldfish
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:39 am Post subject: Thanks for input |
|
|
Yehushuan...yes, I was aware that those particulars of Adam's sin could not possibly be replicated. I was just wondering if there was other aspects that had escaped my attention that would render others capable of "sinning after the similitude of Adam's sin".
Scripture says that sin was not imputed before the law. Since imputation in every other context is always from God to man I assume the same here. The only sense I can see an Aristotlean interpretation is by contending that you can't call a sinner one God hasn't imputed sin to.
The broader and more literal context I believe is that the sin is understood to be present but not accounted by God, which is consistent with the Platonic perspective.
The difference with imputation of sin from Adam and the imputation of righteousness from Jesus Christ is that we were organically involved in the original sin of Adam as surely as Levi payed tithes in Abraham. We do not have that organic connection with the righteousness of Jesus which is imputed to us. So sin is truly wages while righteousness (eternal life) is in every sense a gift. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifeseeker77
Big Goldfish
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 45DegreesN- Thank you for bringing into focus the conscious and unconscious sin offering in the Old Testament and how both are fulfilled and covered by Jesus sacrifice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2672
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
The other requirement for "Adam's " sin was an intimate knowledge of God which no one one Earth at this time has.
Prior to the sin, Adam "walked and talked with God in the Garden." This means that Adam had a peculiar unique knowledge that we dont and cannot have.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifeseeker77
Big Goldfish
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
45DegreeN...yes that is true. The only thing that throws me is the wording of the phrase...
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.
In most usages "even over them" would imply two objects...one to whom the subsequent descriptive phrase applies and one to whom it does not. Furthermore it implies that object to whom the phrase "had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" applies is the minority while the majority is those who had sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression".
Maybe that is what Yehushuan alluded to when he opined that Romans was written badly. According to the most popular interpretation it seems the verse should have been written something like this.
Though none had sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, nevertheless death reigned over all from Adam to Moses.
Let me say quickly that I do not embrace a belief that the scriptures were written or translated wrongly or poorly. In my experience, when things don't quite add up it is not scripture, but my understanding that is lacking.
So what I am probing for here is that yet unrealized component that will bring cohesion to my understanding.
[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2852
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lifeseeker77 wrote: | | I do not embrace a belief that the scriptures were written or translated wrongly or poorly. |
So each translation is adequate even when they contradict?
And what of the Greek manuscript variations where differences in a word here or there dramatically change the theological import of the passage?
Yehu
PS: I like your rendering, but can only wish I had the time to rip into the Greek right now.
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 848
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Rom 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him who was to come. |
The "nevertheless" refers back to the preceding verse clause that states a clear reference point for this discussion. Which point is...'sin is not imputed where there is no law.'
This is the doctrine of scripture that a careless reader might think exempts many people of guiltiness under law.
Which is why the nevertheless is used to bring such a thinker to a quick halt lest the reasoner wander away into foolishness.
The question being..."If sin can't be imputed to me unless I'm under the law, then how can people who weren't notably under any such law be found to be guilty of sin?"
It's a fair question with an answer that is not be avoided.
Now you said...
| Quote: | | ...I am persuaded that this text emphasizes that all after Adam sinned NOT after the similitude of Adam's sin and all died just the same. |
Please note that "similitude" doesn't mean "identical".
Read every other use of the word "similitude" in the scriptures and you'll see what similitude means.
In this context it simply means that there were people who lived without an established law in the time period between Adam and Moses. The time frame of "Adam to Moses" is chosen because that is the time period during which the false assumption (which is quickly negated by the "nevertheless" clause) might be thought to apply. Which it doesn't.
Well, why didn't it apply?
The answer was given in the previous verse.
The answer is, "...until the law sin was in the world."
Keep in mind that..."...the judgment was by one to condemnation..." (note: "one" refers specifically to the "one sin" that Adam committed)
That is, there was ..."one offence" and "one offender"; Adam.
And, verse 19 states that the..."one man's disobedience...made sinners".
So, this scripture is saying that from Adam to Moses, there were sinners in the world (all men as a matter of fact). Therefore, they were worthy of condemnation.
But, there's was not a condemnation based on any "similitude" to Adam's transgression. The lack of "similitude" to Adam, being simply that they, unlike Adam, were not under an law that openly defined exactly what their "disobedience/s" was/were.
Nevertheless, they were guilty of sin. Why? Because, Adam "made" them sinners. Like father, like son. Truth is brought to light when the light shines, not before.
Can anybody get out from under the condemnation by use of ignorance?
The answer is obviously NO, since all have died due to their personal guilt.
| Quote: | | Adam's sin was unique in that he, and only he, had access to the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and only he had the specific instruction from God (law, it could be argued) prohibiting him from eating of that fruiit. |
We have all born the fruit of the knowledge Adam gained for us. And we all bear the guilt of sin. And, thus, all who are in the flesh of Adam die. Before and after Moses.
Before Moses all died because they were sinners.
After Moses and until Jesus Christ all died because they were sinners.
After Jesus only unbelievers must die.
BTW...the real reason for the condemnation of the wicked is unbelief.
| Quote: | | Likewise only Adam had a cognizant recollection of committing that "original" sin. |
Every man testifies to his own sin.
| Quote: | | 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, we were in Adam's.
Therefore, we are all sinners from the heart and must be born again, of God, so as to escape it.
| Quote: | | "...by the law is the knowledge of sin..." was the commandment forbidding Adam from eating of the fruit also a law? |
Yes. It is proven by the statement that Adam was..."disobedient".
| Quote: | | In what way can we make the distinction between the knowledge of sin that comes that commandment to Adam and/or other commandments from God or even from conscience before the Mosaic law? |
The law is itself that which makes the distinction. Which is why God sent it into a world of sinners who thought that they were such good people.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifeseeker77
Big Goldfish
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yehushuan wrote: | | lifeseeker77 wrote: | | I do not embrace a belief that the scriptures were written or translated wrongly or poorly. |
So each translation is adequate even when they contradict?
And what of the Greek manuscript variations where differences in a word here or there dramatically change the theological import of the passage?
Yehu. |
Thanks, Yehu for your thoughtful commentaries. I responded to your comment but whether I mistakenly posted it privately to you or another area of the board, I know not. Perhaps I unwittingly deleted it. If it doesn't appear I will redo it.
Marcus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifeseeker77
Big Goldfish
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your comment was helpful, Joman, and the insight on "similitude" well stated.
If the definition for the word "impute" is consistent, whether it is for righteousness or sin, then I conclude that the subject doing the "accounting" is God and the object is man. The fact that man is cognizant or "imputes" sin or righteousness to himself is secondary.
God not imputing sin indicates to me that the individual was sinless in God's eyes. If not, how could it be said that God didn't impute sin to him?
Can death (condemnation) be act on an individual independent of whether God imputes sin unto him?
Can we say that it is NOT the individual that God imputes sin to, but Adam and the individual is condemned in Adam without consideration of that individual's sins (especially when there was no law)?
This would be the inverse of having righteousness imputed to those in Christ. In other words, it is not me that God sees but Christ through whom I have righteousness imputed by gift without consideration of my own righteousnesses (or sins).
1Cor15:22 As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."
Rom 4:15 ...for where no law is there is no transgression.
Isn't it all about the relationship with God, through communion of Holy Spirit that distinguishes between what is Spirit and letter (law)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifeseeker77
Big Goldfish
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yehushuan wrote: | | lifeseeker77 wrote: | | I do not embrace a belief that the scriptures were written or translated wrongly or poorly. |
So each translation is adequate even when they contradict?
And what of the Greek manuscript variations where differences in a word here or there dramatically change the theological import of the passage?
Yehu
PS: I like your rendering, but can only wish I had the time to rip into the Greek right now. |
Yehu…it would be subjective to assess at what point original language “dramatically changes” or blatantly “contradicts”. I would allow (without compromising my belief in inerrancy) that original languages, translations, and even paraphrases can provide detail, clarity, focus and amplification of truth, to the degree that what was previously obscure is clarified. If however the original language or different translation results in a dramatic change or contradiction, I contend that there is an error in understanding.
I recently called into a radio talk show in the LA area to comment on their topic of discussion related to basic salvation (it would be digression to specify). My contention was that the message they were propagating was inconsistent with the examples that are clearly and repeatedly demonstrated in scripture. They acknowledged that it did indeed appear so only because the English translation contradicted what was in the original Greek text. So if because of faulty translation, this part of my Bible concerning fundamental doctrine is in error, then that means I can no longer have confidence in any part of my Bible. My only means to truth then is to study the scriptures in Greek. If that is beyond my intellectual or academic capacity, then I am dependent upon some other learned person to tell me “what the Bible really says”.
I don’t believe God has allowed His Word to be so corrupted that studying Greek or having academic prowess would be a prerequisite for apprehending fundamental truth. I understand that much compelling evidence can be presented to argue that my position is simple and foolish.
It seems evident to me (I assume proof texts are not needed) that God has promised to preserve His Word. He also makes clear that reception of the kingdom of God is not dependent upon one’s scholarship, high intelligence, or knowledge of languages, but upon faith like a child.
There is a line beyond which I cease to be subject to God’s Word and make God’s Word subject to my semantics. For each person that begins with where we draw the line of inerrancy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
