E
Hi,
I consider myself a Christian even though Evangelical Christians claim that I'm not one, and apparently any form of critical thinking when it comes to the Bible is frowned upon by them. That's why I'm here, to see if people can please help me with questions instead of condemn me for asking them. I am reading the entire Bible for the first time from beginning to end, and currently I'm reading Romans. I am troubled by the following statements in Romans, chapter 5:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
In my opinion, this is in contradiction with Genesis. After all, even Paul is saying that a sin cannot be charged against anyone if there is no law, so how could Adam have sinned if he had no law? Besides, in Genesis 2, we find:
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Adam ate from the tree, but although he disobeyed God, how can this be called a sin when Adam did not know good and evil?
Back to Romans, chapter 5:
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
This is similar to what I already quoted, but it's just to show that I'm not taking anything out of context. I cannot find this concept of Adam's so-called "sin" being inherited by all generations in any previous books of the Bible. In the Old Testament, God constantly said that all you had to do was obey the Mosaic law and His people would be fine. In the Old Testament there were righteous people who were NOT condemned and did NOT die. For example, 2 Kings 2:11
So, Elijah was taken straight to heaven; how, then, can he be called a condemned sinner who died? And why wasn't the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross necessary for his salvation? Didn't God love David very much? How then would he be condemned and "die"? And what about Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31? Jesus indicates there that Abraham is happy in the afterlife, together with a man who is with him simply because he died in extreme poverty. This part from the parable is very telling as well:
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
Therefore, Jesus states that as long as you obey Moses and the Prophets (the law), you will not go to a place of torment, and instead you will live in a place of eternal comfort. There was no need in these examples for Jesus' death and resurrection in order to attain eternal life.
Finally, Paul keeps on calling the people "sinners" whose only hope of salvation is through Jesus Christ, even though my examples seem to indicate otherwise. And do Christian Evangelicals not think of themselves as sinners? Even embracing Jesus as our Lord and Savior and as God, they sin all the time. We all continue to sin and to commit crimes that were committed before the coming of Jesus Christ. All of this is very confusing to me. Thanks in advance for any help.
I consider myself a Christian even though Evangelical Christians claim that I'm not one, and apparently any form of critical thinking when it comes to the Bible is frowned upon by them. That's why I'm here, to see if people can please help me with questions instead of condemn me for asking them. I am reading the entire Bible for the first time from beginning to end, and currently I'm reading Romans. I am troubled by the following statements in Romans, chapter 5:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
In my opinion, this is in contradiction with Genesis. After all, even Paul is saying that a sin cannot be charged against anyone if there is no law, so how could Adam have sinned if he had no law? Besides, in Genesis 2, we find:
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Adam ate from the tree, but although he disobeyed God, how can this be called a sin when Adam did not know good and evil?
Back to Romans, chapter 5:
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
This is similar to what I already quoted, but it's just to show that I'm not taking anything out of context. I cannot find this concept of Adam's so-called "sin" being inherited by all generations in any previous books of the Bible. In the Old Testament, God constantly said that all you had to do was obey the Mosaic law and His people would be fine. In the Old Testament there were righteous people who were NOT condemned and did NOT die. For example, 2 Kings 2:11
So, Elijah was taken straight to heaven; how, then, can he be called a condemned sinner who died? And why wasn't the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross necessary for his salvation? Didn't God love David very much? How then would he be condemned and "die"? And what about Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31? Jesus indicates there that Abraham is happy in the afterlife, together with a man who is with him simply because he died in extreme poverty. This part from the parable is very telling as well:
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
Therefore, Jesus states that as long as you obey Moses and the Prophets (the law), you will not go to a place of torment, and instead you will live in a place of eternal comfort. There was no need in these examples for Jesus' death and resurrection in order to attain eternal life.
Finally, Paul keeps on calling the people "sinners" whose only hope of salvation is through Jesus Christ, even though my examples seem to indicate otherwise. And do Christian Evangelicals not think of themselves as sinners? Even embracing Jesus as our Lord and Savior and as God, they sin all the time. We all continue to sin and to commit crimes that were committed before the coming of Jesus Christ. All of this is very confusing to me. Thanks in advance for any help.
. No doubt.
