The Immaculate Conception Error

Magenta · Nov 17, 2015

I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind
and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Romans 7:23

BradC · Nov 17, 2015

For all those who have a problem believing in original sin I would like you to consider the following passage...

Rom 7:14-24

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Paul made it very clear, and there is no poetry or figurative language being used here, that when he did those things that he hated and were evil which was in his flesh as a law of sin in his members, he said it was NO MORE I THAT DO IT but SIN THAT DWELLETH IN HIM (v.17, 20). Paul blamed SIN, a law of sin bringing him into captivity as a body of death he was in need of being delivered from (v.23,24). Paul had no problem knowing and seeing his own body the law of sin and death that was in his members and was warring and in conflict against the law of his mind. He knew that law of sin intimately as was described in the above verses.

We must remember what Paul said in (Rom 5:17-21)...

17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
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.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The offence of one and his disobedience in (v.18 & 19) can mean no one other than Adam and 400 years later the law entered so that the offence might abound making sin abound much more (v.20).

Cassian · Nov 17, 2015

BradC said:

For all those who have a problem believing in original sin I would like you to consider the following passage...

Rom 7:14-24

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Paul made it very clear, and there is no poetry or figurative language being used here, that when he did those things that he hated and were evil which was in his flesh as a law of sin in his members, he said it was NO MORE I THAT DO IT but SIN THAT DWELLETH IN HIM (v.17, 20). Paul blamed SIN, a law of sin bringing him into captivity as a body of death he was in need of being delivered from (v.23,24). Paul had no problem knowing and seeing his own body the law of sin and death that was in his members and was warring and in conflict against the law of his mind. He knew that law of sin intimately as was described in the above verses.

We must remember what Paul said in (Rom 5:17-21)...

17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
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.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The offence of one and his disobedience in (v.18 & 19) can mean no one other than Adam and 400 years later the law entered so that the offence might abound making sin abound much more (v.20).

Read the citations you posted. In NONE of them do we see sin, or a sin nature being inherited. Paul puts it all on death. It always life as the answer. Vs 17 clearly states "the condemnation of death", Paul calls it the body of death. In I Cor 15:56 he clearly states that the sting of death is sin.

epostle · Nov 17, 2015

Cassian said:

Sin causes death, not the other way around.

I'm sorry I can't fit a treatise on the development of doctrine on a bumper sticker. Obviously you completely reject my brief definition, or you ignored it.

C.S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.

(God in the Dock, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1970, 44-47)

The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church's bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture ("progressive revelation"). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions - not always so "biblical" - which preclude development for fear of "excess."

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!

John Calvin is known for his confusion over spiritual death and physical death, or is selective on what he means by "death".

So what. It was a theological speculation, not a doctrine of the Church. If you have a beef with the Early Church Fathers, attack their general consensus on anything without looking like a cult follower.

Then show Augustine's exegesis of Romans 5:12 so that we are not led "astray". BTW, he was teaching in opposition to the Pelagians. That wouldn't be you, would it?

Gen. 2:17 - the day you eat of that tree, you shall die. Adam and Eve ate of the tree, and they spiritually died. Some Protestant communities ignore or deny the reality of original sin. But if there is no original sin, then we do not need a Savior either. The horrors of our world testify to the reality of original sin.

Gen. 3:14-19 - God's punishment for eating of the tree was cursing satan, increasing women's pain in childbirth, and condemning man to toil and labor for his whole life.

Job 14:1,4 - man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? All humans are afflicted with original sin, and this includes babies as well. This is why the Catholic Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years.

Psalm 51:5 - I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. We have inherited Adam's sin from the moment of our conception. This is why babies need baptism – to wash away the original sin inherited from Adam and Eve.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came into the world through one man, Adam, and death came through this sin. This sin affects all people, men and women, babies and adults. Through the merits of Jesus Christ, we have the sacrament of baptism to wash away the sin that came through Adam.

Rom. 5:14 - death reigned from Adam to Moses, born from Adam's original sin. This is a mystery we do not fully understand, but we must all acknowledge our propensity toward evil and our need of God.

Rom. 5:16 - the judgment following one single trespass brought condemnation for all. This means all have inherited the sin of Adam, and all must be washed clean of this sin in the waters of baptism.

Rom. 5:19 - by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. Original sin is passed on as part of the human condition, and only God in the flesh could atone for our sins by the eternal sacrifice of Himself. Through this sacrifice, God has re-opened the doors to heaven, and through baptism, we are once again made children of God.

1 Cor. 15:21 - for by one man came death. In Adam, all die. In Christ, the new Adam, all now may live.

Eph. 2:1-3 - we were all dead through sin and all lived in the passions of our flesh until Christ came to save us.

It is impossible for the Church to adopt or invent doctrines. They come from the deposit of faith and must be clarified, usually to deal with heresies. But never changed in essence. The essence of the doctrine of Original Sin is scriptural, and has already been proven to be taught in Christianity before the Bible came into fruition.

[TABLE="width: 550"]
[TR]
[TD]THE COUNCIL OF TRENT[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Session V - Celebrated on the seventeenth day of June, 1546 under Pope Paul III[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Decree Concerning Original Sin

footnotes:

1. Heb. 11:6.
2. Eph. 4:14.
3. Gen. 3:1 ff.; Apoc. 12:9; 20:2.
4. Gen. 2:17.
5. Heb. 2:14.
6. Cf. II Synod of Orange (529), c. I. Denzinger, no. 174.
7. See 1 Cor. 15:21 f.; II Synod of Orange, c.2. Ibid., no. 175.
8. Rom. 5:12.
9. See 1 Tim. 2:5.
10. See 1 Cor. 1:30.
11. Acts 4:12.
12. John 1:29.
13. Gal. 3:27.
14. Acts 2:38.
15. Rom. 5:12.
16. C.153, D.IV de cons.
17. John 3:5.
18. Rom. 6:4; C.13, D.IV de cons.
19. Rom. 8:1.
20. Eph. 4:22, 24; Col. 3:9f.
21. Rom. 8:17.
22. See II Tim. 2:5.
23. Rom. 6-8; Col. 3.
24. Cc. 1, 2, Extrav. comm., De reliq. et venerat. sanct., III, 12.

What?? Scripture in the Council of Trent?? Who knew?!?!

The doctrine of original sin as interpreted by Augustine was affirmed by the Protestant Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both Luther and Calvin agreed that humans inherit guilt from the sin of Adam and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.

The term "Ancestral Sin" was hijacked from the Orthodox Church and rendered unrecognizable by post-reformist churches. Thus, it's a straw man argument.

Another Protestant preconception.

I make no such claim. If I have to re-quote myself to make you stop putting words where there are none, then you are not capable of forum discussion.

Then we don't need a savior.

The Catholic Church has not separated from anybody, people have separated themselves from the Church - big difference.

Cassian · Nov 17, 2015

epostle,

not for us. That ONLY was the case for Adam relative to physical deqth. We cannot die physically twice. The phrase, for the wages of sin is death Rom 6:23, is speaking about spiritual death, not physical death. We know that because eternal life is the solution.
You can rant all you need to about "development". It is NOT scriptural, anymore than sola scriptura is scriptural. It is the logical rationalization for all the changes made over the last 1000 years.

and you are just as confused as noted above. But why the emphasis on John Calvin, he is as wrong as the RCC. They both adopted the erronous theory of Original Sin as developed by Augustine.

I don't have a beef with the early Church Fathers since they all disagree with you except Augustine and some later western theologians such as Anselm, Assisi, Aquinas etc.

They are both wrong. Including Augustine idea of total depravity which is given birth in this discourse as well.

Why should I give you the exegesis of Rom 5:12 that Augustine developed when it is all over this thread in spades.

the sin itself was spiritual death, but the condemnation of that sin was death, physical death. Gen 3:19 spells that out explicitly.

Protestants unfortunately through the reformers bought into the erroneous theory of Augustine's Original Sin. You are as confused as they are regarding what constitutes the fall.

Indirectly it does. But it is the death that directly affects every human being as that is specifically that is inherited, our mortal nature.

Mortality is passed on, but the sin is all ours. Our primary problem is not sin, but death. Christ came to defeat death as well. He was Incarnated with our human nature for the express purpose of dying as we do, but they being raised thus giving us and the world life. Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:12-22 and others.

I cannot believe that the RCC has gone so far from their roots.

Wehre is sin here, where is a sin nature mentioned? This whole context of I Cor 15:12-22 is all about the resurrection and that by rising from death, defeating death, physical death, Christ gave life to the world. Every text supports death as our problem, as what is inherited NOT sin or guilt or a sin nature. These concepts ONLY exist in the false narrative of the theory of Original Sin.

You're better off quoting the verse because your paraphrase makes it a false unscriptural statement.

Sound just like any Protestant. Scripture can be made to say anything. You have already acknowledged that with the concept of "development" which is the RCC sola scriptura. Both are unscriptural. The RCC has devised and adopted a lot of new innovative dogmas.

and not a single one supports the theory of Original Sin. They are interpreted to support the theory. That was all false doctrine developers do, same for Infallibility of the Pope, Papacy, Purgatory, and others.

It is quite obvious where the Protestants got their idea and method of interpretation.

I have stated this several times already but this surely does not help your cause. Both Calvin and Luther were Augustinians, why would they not accept all of his teachings.

Maybe for you and reformists churchs, but not the Orthodox Church. She still holds to the original understanding of the fall. She was not led astray as did the RCC and Protestants.

So now you need to reject historical facts too? Specifically the date is 1854. Granted it had some development prior to it but it does not go any further back than few centuries. You will find no early Church Father who either mentions such a term or uses the definition of the term. The whole concept is based on the theory of Original Sin as first developed by Augustine.

We all need a Savior for the two things He accomplished in His Atonement - death/resurrection granting life, and a sacrifice for sin. Two texts says it all, Heb 2:9 and I John2:2

so the RCC keeps saying but historical records say otherwise. It is analogous in saying the Northern states separated from the Southern States in the American Civil war.
You need to do a much better study of historical theology from the beginning and Church History as well.

onlinebuddy · Nov 18, 2015

BradC said:

Those who make dogma solely based on Romans 7, forget to read Romans 8, which is the conclusion of the matter.

Romans 8: 1-2.
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

Romans 8:5-8
5Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

Romans 8:12-13
12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it.13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

Romans 7 talks about:
-the unspiritual person (Ro 7:14), sold as a slave to sin
-the person who desires (just desires) to do good, but actually deliberately does evil, and that too continuously (Ro 7:19)
- the person who has given the reins of his life to sin(v20) as sin (that he commits) lives in him
- a double minded person(Ro 7:25)
-the person who lives according to the flesh (Ro 8:5)
-the person who has his mind set on what the flesh desires(Ro 8:5)
-the person who does not submit to God's law (Ro 8:7)
- the person who lives in the realm of the flesh (Ro 8:8).
- the person who is lost (Ro 8:13)

The conclusion is in chapter 8, which talks about:
- the person who is in Christ(the one who has repented) is set free by the Law of the Spirit (Ro 8:2)
- they will not be condemned (Ro 8:1)
- they live according to the Spirit (Ro 8:5)(this does not happen automatically)
-they are obligated to the Spirit and obey the Spirit
- they have put to death the misdeeds of the body (repented) (Ro 8:13)
-they are saved (Ro 8:13)

It is our responsibility to live according to the Spirit. It does not happen automatically.

This means that those who live according to the flesh (v5) are living in sin. Their mind is set on the desires of the flesh, and therefore they "do not submit to God's law." They have not repented. The Romans 7 episode happens if you let your life loose expecting everything to happen automatically. That was Paul's past (Ro 8:12). (All men of God, in their humility, talked about themselves as being the worst of sinners.) It does not characterize the converted Paul at all.

So brethren, let us focus on Romans 8 rather than Romans 7. Romans 7 weakens. Romans 8 strengthens. Romans 7 gives us an excuse to sin. Romans 8 shows us our responsibility to fight against sin. Whether we win or lose in that fight is not important. Christ has already given us victory. Not that we are saved by our efforts. We are saved by grace and grace only. Sin nature or no sin nature; the end of the matter is that we are all obligated to Christ and are instructed not to give the devil a foothold in our lives.

valiant · Nov 18, 2015

onlinebuddy said:

you dodged it each time with me.

well when you are dealing with an eel that is what you have to do,

you see what I mean about an eel? Only a an eel or a fool would say that because many is used twice in a sentence it must refer to the same people. 'Many' is a vague word that has to be interpreted in context. Clearly in the first instance the 'many' is contrasted with the one and is referring to what Paul has been speaking about, the whole human race.

But your slipperiness does not help your case. Even if 'many' are made sinners by Adam's disobedience that means that the many are either imputed with Adam's sin, or are themselves made sinners because in some way tainted by Adam's sin.

So stop dodging. Which is it?

onlinebuddy · Nov 18, 2015

Now that your argument is getting weaker, and your core beliefs are being challenged, you have begun name calling. Doesn't help!
I have never dodged your question. As someone else has pointed out on this thread, both your options are wrong.

I never said many refers to the same people. I said many does not mean all. Many means many. Let us not misinterpret.

Many is not a vague word. Come on! I thought you could do better than that. And who gets to interpret the context? Your church that taught you the false doctrine of OS?

It's your perception that people are slippery.

No sir! None are made sinners by Adam's disobedience, and none are imputed! I have never agreed that many are made sinners. You are partly frustrated, partly angry and fully biased. That's why my words are not clear to you.
My point was that your church says "all" are made sinners; then how come Paul says "many"? Many is not equal to all. Therefore Paul is not talking about original sin here. If at all anyone (many or all) is counted as a sinner, it is because of their own act of breaking the commandments of God, and not because of someone else's sin.

valiant · Nov 18, 2015

onlinebuddy said:

you have dodged it three times.

When it is a contrast between 'one' and 'many', in a context where ALL are being spoken of 'many' is simply contrast with the ONE. It means 'a large number', and the context indicates that that large number is ALL. But wriggle on LOL

Not in this case for it means a large number in contrast with one man. And the large number in fact refers to ALL. But in many contexts 'many' is a vague word. You should check up on your English.

Each individual.

Scripture taught me the fact of original sin, not any church.

Yes people like you.

!

So Paul is wrong? And the Scriptures are wrong? It figures. For the Scripture is quite clear, 'by one man's disobedience many were made sinners.' So that must either mean that the sin was imputed or imparted.

No but Paul did.

I am certainly frustrated by your unwillingness to answer the question, and then by your slipperiness. But I never get angry. To become angry in a debate is folly.

No church is in authority over me. Scripture is my authority.

Possibly your grasp of English is not good enough to recognise that when 'one' is contrasted with 'many' it is a mathematical thing. It is not defining the many which in this case means all but one.

Of course it can be equal to all but one.

See you deny the obvious. By Adam's disobedience many were made sinners. That can only mean that his disobedience is applied to the many, or that he in some way passed it on to the many. Any other interpretation is a get out.

That is the opposite of what Paul says. By Adam's disobedience many were made sinners. It is either imputed or imparted. No other interpretation is possible.

Your waffle simply shows that you have no answer.

BradC · Nov 18, 2015

onlinebuddy said:

We have been addressing original sin, which our Lord was not born with but we are. This should not be difficult for the believer to understand. (Rom 7) is by far not the only passage of scripture available to establish original sin but it is a very powerful one with a synopsis that reveals the whole truth. (Rom 8) answers the question of (Rom 7:24) as to how we are delivered from this body of sin and death that fulfills the lusts of the flesh as mentioned in (Gal 5:16). The cross has crucified the flesh and the lust thereof (Gal 5:24) positionally and we have been given the Spirit to walk in to keep from fulfilling the lusts of the flesh experientially. It is either the fruit of the Spirit or the works of the flesh and they are contrary one to the other.

If we were not conceived in original sin through the offence of Adam, one man, then it would be possible for one man, other than Christ, to be born without sin and live without sin. Some of you believe that a child is born and remains without sin until the age of accountability. What happens at this point? Does the child get tempted and is drawn away of his own lust as in (James 1:14)? If the child had his own lust, where did that lust come from and why would it be his own unless it was already in his flesh? Did Eve get tempted by the serpent in the garden and was she drawn away of her own lust and enticed? When this lust was conceived, did it bring forth sin and when finished bring forth death? We could rationalize this way of thinking very easily and make the case against original sin being passed on. We could say it is not fair of God to have sin pass upon all men and accuse God of not being fair to give us a chance to not sin. Some of you think God did just that, but we sinned anyways.

Eve did not learn how to sin, she was deceived through words and through gazing upon the fruit of the T of K. Before that event she never had a thought, imagination or consideration outside of what God had spoke to her in the cool of the day and through her husband Adam (Gen 2:25). When she listened to a stranger's voice (the serpent) those words conceived something in her heart and mind that drew her to partake of that fruit and to give to her husband. Her husband was not deceived, he did so willingly. Because he was created first, the sin of Adam and the nature of Adam's sin entered into him psychologically, physiologically and biologically effecting his very seed. They were commanded previously by God to be fruitful and multiply. He and his wife had not conceived before this event. The seed of the woman refers not her seed from Adam, for the woman has no seed, but that of the man who carries seed through copulation. After the fall, Adam's seed was passed on to his offspring through copulation with his wife Eve. This is what (Rom 5) speaks to in (v.12-21) as being passed on. This seed and genealogy would lead to Christ being born of a woman through the immaculate conception of the Holy Spirit and not the copulation of a man.

Footnote: When sin was not imputed from Adam to Moses because there was no law, as soon as the law came, sin was imputed all the way back to Adam because death was reigning continually (v.14,17). Death could not reign without sin being charged. The same way that the death of Christ on the cross was made prospective (looking ahead), when the law was given God imputed all sin retrospective (looking back) from Moses back to Adam, so all have sinned being passed on from Adam to the present and the cross deals with all of it.

Roberth · Nov 18, 2015

valiant said:

Because of Adam's transgression his humanity became a slave to the love of self. Adam's children (us) share in his humanity. That's why we are born slaves to sin. By Adam's sin we were made sinners in the sense we all share his fallen life.

onlinebuddy · Nov 18, 2015

valiant said:

you have dodged it three times.
[/COLOR][/FONT]

When it is a contrast between 'one' and 'many', in a context where ALL are being spoken of 'many' is simply contrast with the ONE. It means 'a large number', and the context indicates that that large number is ALL. But wriggle on LOL

Not in this case for it means a large number in contrast with one man. And the large number in fact refers to ALL. But in many contexts 'many' is a vague word. You should check up on your English.

Each individual.

Scripture taught me the fact of original sin, not any church.

Yes people like you.

!

So Paul is wrong? And the Scriptures are wrong? It figures. For the Scripture is quite clear, 'by one man's disobedience many were made sinners.' So that must either mean that the sin was imputed or imparted.

No but Paul did.

I am certainly frustrated by your unwillingness to answer the question, and then by your slipperiness. But I never get angry. To become angry in a debate is folly.

No church is in authority over me. Scripture is my authority.

Possibly your grasp of English is not good enough to recognise that when 'one' is contrasted with 'many' it is a mathematical thing. It is not defining the many which in this case means all but one.

Of course it can be equal to all but one.

See you deny the obvious. By Adam's disobedience many were made sinners. That can only mean that his disobedience is applied to the many, or that he in some way passed it on to the many. Any other interpretation is a get out.

That is the opposite of what Paul says. By Adam's disobedience many were made sinners. It is either imputed or imparted. No other interpretation is possible.

Your waffle simply shows that you have no answer.

Romans 5:19
[SUP]19[/SUP]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
Can you tell me the meaning of "many will be made righteous"

Vdp · Nov 18, 2015

We inherit the sin nature from Adam because Adam sinned. We have been forgives for all our sins by the Blood of Jesus shed for us on the Cross.

We can still sin and we can be forgiven of that sin if we confess it to Jesus. We cannot in my opinion be forgiven of our sins by confessing our sins to a Catholic Priest.

Because of our sin nature no one is righteous. All of us, even Mary, have sinned.

AngelFrog · Nov 18, 2015

KenAllan said:

It's antichrist.

valiant · Nov 18, 2015

onlinebuddy said:

Very simple, it means that ALL who come to Christ will experience the effect of His righteousness upon their lives. His obedience will be imputed to us and imparted to us, just as Adam's disobedience was imputed and imparted to us. As 1 Peter 1.2 says, we are sanctified by the Spirit unto the obedience of Jesus Christ and the sprinkling of His blood..

BradC · Nov 18, 2015

onlinebuddy said:

Through the obedience of the Son to the Farther in his relentless pursuit to the cross, the just for the unjust, and by taking away the sin of the world, those who believe in their heart unto righteous become righteous. He became sin, who knew no sin that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

onlinebuddy · Nov 18, 2015

valiant said:

So you agree, that the "many" who were made righteous does not mean ALL mankind, right? It just means ALL who come to Christ (and not all mankind)

Now notice the words "Just as.......so also" These words are use to make a comparison, giving equal weightage to both concepts that are compared.

The comparison is between:
a) how Adam's disobedience affects many negatively,
and
b) how Christ's obedience affects many positively.

You say that in part a) "many" means ALL mankind (I disagree)
but in part b) "many" does not mean all mankind but means "ALL who come to Christ" (I agree)

There is disparity in your interpretation since you are interpreting scripture based on your preconceived notions, and not with an open mind. You thus make a logical and grammatical error.

If "many" means ALL mankind in part a)
"many" should similarly mean ALL mankind in part b)

If "many" means MANY in part a)
"many" should also mean MANY (the same) in part b)

onlinebuddy · Nov 18, 2015

BradC said:

I appreciate that answer!
Now please let me know, how many will become the righteousness of God as per Rom 5:19? The "many" who believe, and not the entire mankind, right?

Similarly, how many will be made sinners due to Adam's disobedience? many or all?

Cassian · Nov 18, 2015

valiant said:

The topic at hand and the contexts of Rom 5:12-18 or I Cor 15:12-22 and others have nothing to do with believers specifically. It has all to do with Christ's atonement. Christ reconciled the world to God, II Cor 5:18-19, Col 1:15-20.

Your confusion over the use of "many" is merely pointing out that all it took is one sin for Adam to be condemned to death, and that by inheriting death many became sinners. Then the contrast for Christ is saying the same thing. One act of righteousness many will be made righteous.

Some of you are stumbling over the word, "righteous". It means to be put into a correct relationship. It is NOT referring to believers in the least.

BradC · Nov 18, 2015

onlinebuddy said:

You are leaving out (Rom 5:18) because what Christ did on the cross was for all men, for all have sinned through Adam and he finished the work so that all men could be justified. God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come unto repentance. All have sinned and come short through Adam's transgression even before they had done any good or evil. Sin is in the heart and the heart is deceitful and wicked and out of the heart proceed the issues of life. It may seem to be unfair on God's part but we were all conceived in sin through Adam. It was passed on and we had no say in the matter. Our part is to agree with God and admit it. God's part is to give us grace and justify us from all sin through the cross. This is the way it is and has always been and neither you or I can change that. Either you believe that or you don't and that is called the sin of unbelief.

The Immaculate Conception Error

Senior Member

BradC

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

BradC

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

BradC

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

BradC

Guest