Saturday, August 26, 2006

Psalms 51:1-10 [+/-] show/hide
Psa 51:1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. 6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. 9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

David in this pray seeks to be cleansed of his sin. He had very specific sins in mind. These sins were ever before him.

Imagine if you will, one day you come across a man who seems very distraught. You ask him what has afflicted him. To which he says it is his conscience. He justs feels so bad having eaten from the tree. You ask him what tree? He replies the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He knew he wasn't suppose to eat from it. God told him not to. But he still did, and now he can't find where to receive forgiveness for eating from the tree for his sin is ever before him. Have you ever heard of such a situtation? Seems lunacy to me. This is what leads Calvinist, Roman Catholics, and Christ of Christ followers to paedobaptism. They have a two fold salvation. One in which Adam's sin is put away. The other for one's own personal sins.

Now consider verse 5. He was shapen in iniquity. Not his shape was iniquity. In sin did his mother conceive him. Did his mother have sin/iniquity? Was he shapen in her womb? So there would be a possibility that this means he was shapen in the womb of a mother who had sin. That he took shape in a womb of one with iniquity.
[+/-] show/hide

posted by Anonymous at Saturday, August 26, 2006 1 comments

1 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

David is not talking about his mother’s sin, he is talking about his sin. At risk of repeating my last comment, the statement is emphasizing his wickedness. He was even formed in iniquity. What would be the reason for pointing out his mother’s iniquity in a prayer of confession for his sin with Bathsheba? And even if he is referring to his mother’s sin, (which I’m not ready to concede) the context would indicate that it has a correlation to his sin.

Sorry, the illustration about the man and the tree conveyed nothing to me.

Sun Aug 27, 05:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Hide comments
Jeremiah 17:9-10 [+/-] show/hide
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? 10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

A couple verses that touch on this topic would be:
Pro 23:19 Hear thou, my son, and be wise, and guide thine heart in the way.
Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

The heart is so. It is deceitful, misleading. That is why we are to guide it and not follow it. We can make our own new hearts.

Verse 10 here in Jeremiah shows the point that this is not nature, but the way in which a man walks. Because God searches the hearts and gives to every man according to his ways, the fruit of his doings. Not Adam's ways and doings.
[+/-] show/hide

posted by Anonymous at Saturday, August 26, 2006 0 comments

Isaiah 48:1-10 [+/-] show/hide
Isa 48:1 Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness. 2 For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel; The LORD of hosts is his name. 3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I showed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass. 4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass; 5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I showed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them. 6 Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have showed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. 7 They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them. 8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb. 9 For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. 10 Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.


From the very beginning of the context you can tell he is speaking to Isreal. Then he says that God told them things from the beginning, before they came to pass. Because he knew they were obstinate and lest when he tell them they say "Behold, I knew them".

Verse 8 is really the one is question for those who use it for the sinful nature. First, the womb he is talking about is Eygpt. But even if it wasn't and it was a physical womb, it doesn't matter. Because God said he knew they would deal very theacherously. Then that they were called a transgressor from the womb. Because God knew it. This obviously has nothing to do with nature. And everything to do with him chosen them in the furnace of affliction (Eygpt), and telling them things then that He knew they would be and do thereafter.
[+/-] show/hide

posted by Anonymous at Saturday, August 26, 2006 0 comments

Psalms 58 [+/-] show/hide
Psa 58:1 To the chief Musician, Al-taschith, Michtam of David. Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? 2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. 3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. 4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; 5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely. 6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD. 7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces. 8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun. 9 Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath. 10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

There are a couple ways to take this context. First, that it is talking about the wicked that work wickedness. Second, that its talking about babies and human nature. People use verse 3 to support their doctrine. I would beg them to look at the context and see if their conscience couldbear them witness.

Verse two he talks about these sons of men with their heart working wickedness and with their hands doing violence. Verse three says they were estranged from the womb and go astray from their birth. Notice they were not sinners from the womb, but estranged. It's not a statement of nature, but of relationship. It seems that it would be a figure of speech to say they speak lies as soon as they were born. Much like if one was to say, you've do that all the time, you were doing that from the day you were born. But even if it was not, it doesn't show their nature, but rather just how early people begin willfully sinning.

Now David is praying about these wicked and asks God to break out their teeth. Ever seen a baby born with teeth? He prays that they melt away as a snail. Ever pour salt on a snail? It melts away. What baby are you going to pray that for? He says that God has bent his bow and will cut them in pieces with his arrows.

The righteous will see the vengence of the Lord and rejoice. Do you know anyone that would rejoice seeing these things happen to a week old? The righteous will wash their feet in their blood. If this context is talking about the nature of people from the womb it sounds much like abortionism to me.

Given the context, I'm come to find that this verse can't be use as a verse about babies, but rather about the wicked who work wickedness and violence.
[+/-] show/hide

posted by Anonymous at Saturday, August 26, 2006 3 comments

3 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

"Given the context, I'm come to find that this verse can't be use as a verse about babies, but rather about the wicked who work wickedness and violence.

First, that it is talking about the wicked that work wickedness. Second, that its talking about babies and human nature."

I think that you are misstating the position. Anyone will acknowledge that the chapter is speaking of the wicked; however the whole chapter doesn’t have to be a discourse on any given subject in order to make a statement relevant to it. For example the context of Isaiah 7 is Ahaz’s worry about an alliance that has been formed aganst him. God tells him not to worry about it. “…And Jehovah spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
Ask a sign of Jehovah your God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
But Ahaz said, I will not ask, nor will I tempt Jehovah.
And He said, Hear now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?
So, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel.”
The immediate contsxt has nothing to do with the coming Messiah, but v. 13 is obiously still relevant to the birth of Jesus.
So I assert that it is a chapter on the wickedness of the wicked with a statement that is relevant to the state of wicked man at and before birth.

Second, even if I took this chapter in to be about babies and human nature (which I don’t) I would still have to say that I disagree the assumed answer with the rhetorical question. Would I pray any of these things on a child? No, personally, I wouldn't. The Psalmist, however, was not so scrupulous. In Psalms 137 he said in regard to the Babylonians “happy is he that seizes thy little ones and dashes them against the stones” Not very gracious, if you ask me. And that is not the only rather harsh statement against children in the Bible.
Num 31:17 And now kill every male among the little ones,
Deu 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time and completely destroyed the men and the women and the little ones of every city. We left none to remain.
Zec 13:7 Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, and against the Man who is My companion, says Jehovah of Hosts; strike the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. And I will turn My hand on the little ones.
Now allow me to say that I don’t think that this is the whole council of God on the matter of children. “let all the little children come to me” and “and said, ‘Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.’ ” come immediately to mind, as well as many others. The whole issue I see as something of a paradox, but I think that it is well to acknowledge both sides or the issue.

Sun Aug 27, 02:35:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Sun Aug 27, 04:04:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

To which I would like to add for clarification: The statement about the wicked being estranged form the womb fits into the context, because he is using it to emphasize just how wicked these people really are. They’re so wicked they where born in wickedness. I wasn’t saying that it did not fit into the context, but that it did not define the context.

Sun Aug 27, 04:08:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Hide comments

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Nature - A Word Study on phusis (Strong's G5449) [+/-] show/hide
G5449 - φύσις – phusis - foo'-sis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).

Total KJV Occurrences: 14
nature, 10
Rom 1:26, Rom 2:14, Rom 2:27, Rom 11:24 (2), 1Co 11:14, Gal 2:15, Gal 4:8, Eph 2:3, 2Pe 1:4
natural, 2
Rom 11:21, Rom 11:24
kind, 1
Jam 3:7
mankind, 1
Jam 3:7 (2)

Thayer Definition:
1) nature
1a) the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature
1a) as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse
1b) as opposed what has been produced by the art of man: the natural branches, i.e. branches by the operation of nature
1b) birth, physical origin
1c) a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature
1d) the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: the natural strength, ferocity, and intractability of beasts
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G5453
Citing in TDNT: 9:251, 1283
[+/-] show/hide

posted by Anonymous at Thursday, August 24, 2006 0 comments

Flesh - A Word Study on sarx (Strong's G4561) [+/-] show/hide
G4561 - σάρξ - sarx

Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): - carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

Total KJV Occurrences: 150
flesh, 147
Mat 16:17, Mat 19:5-6 (2), Mat 24:22, Mat 26:41, Mar 10:8 (2), Mar 13:20, Mar 14:38, Luk 3:6, Luk 24:39, Joh 1:13-14 (2), Joh 3:6 (2), Joh 6:51-56 (6), Joh 6:63, Joh 8:15, Joh 17:2, Act 2:17, Act 2:26, Act 2:30-31 (2), Rom 1:3, Rom 2:28, Rom 3:20, Rom 4:1, Rom 6:19, Rom 7:5, Rom 7:18, Rom 7:25, Rom 8:1, Rom 8:3-5 (6), Rom 8:8-9 (2), Rom 8:12-13 (3), Rom 9:3, Rom 9:5, Rom 9:8, Rom 13:14 (2), 1Co 1:26, 1Co 1:29, 1Co 5:5, 1Co 6:16, 1Co 7:28, 1Co 10:18, 1Co 15:39 (4), 1Co 15:50, 2Co 1:17, 2Co 4:11, 2Co 5:16 (2), 2Co 7:1, 2Co 7:5, 2Co 10:2-3 (3), 2Co 11:18, 2Co 12:7, Gal 2:16 (2), Gal 2:20, Gal 3:3, Gal 4:13-14 (2), Gal 4:23, Gal 4:29, Gal 5:13, Gal 5:16-17 (3), Gal 5:19, Gal 5:24, Gal 6:8 (2), Gal 6:12-13 (2), Eph 2:3 (2), Eph 2:11 (2), Eph 2:15, Eph 5:29-31 (3), Eph 6:5, Eph 6:12, Phi 1:22, Phi 1:24, Phi 3:3-4 (3), Col 1:22, Col 1:24, Col 2:1, Col 2:5, Col 2:11, Col 2:13, Col 2:23, Col 3:22, 1Ti 3:16, Phm 1:16, Heb 2:14, Heb 5:7, Heb 9:13, Heb 10:20, Heb 12:9, Jam 5:3, 1Pe 1:24, 1Pe 3:18, 1Pe 3:21, 1Pe 4:1-2 (3), 1Pe 4:6, 2Pe 2:10, 2Pe 2:18, 1Jo 2:16, 1Jo 4:2-3 (2), 2Jo 1:7, Jud 1:7-8 (2), Jud 1:23, Rev 17:16, Rev 19:21
carnal, 2
Rom 8:7, Heb 9:10
carnally, 1
Rom 8:6

Thayer Definition:
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2) the body
2a) the body of a man
2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship
2b1) born of natural generation
2c) the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature”
2c1) without any suggestion of depravity
2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast
4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: probably from the base of G4563
Citing in TDNT: 7:98, 1000
[+/-] show/hide

posted by Anonymous at Thursday, August 24, 2006 0 comments

Ephesians 2:1-3 [+/-] show/hide
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
[+/-] show/hide

posted by Anonymous at Thursday, August 24, 2006 0 comments

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Romans 5 [+/-] show/hide
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. 6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. 12 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: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 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 that was to come. 15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offense 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 offense 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 offense 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.

Frequently used words or expressions in this chapter: much more (5), death (5), life (4), righteous(ness) (5), sin(ners, ned) (10). Surrounding context: previous chapter (4) justification by faith alone without works, next chapter (6) dead in Christ, alive to God, dead to sin, alive to righteousness.

What is Paul's purpose in writing to the Romans? Where does this chapter stand in the argument he has kept building on for the entire book? What previously established points does he use in this chapter that will shed light on where his argument progressing?

Just a few questions that helped me understand this chapter as well as the others. All comments and questions welcome.
[+/-] show/hide

posted by Anonymous at Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3 comments

3 Comments:

Blogger Robin said...

Elijah,
Okay, I'm not trying to set you up or point fingers or whatever, but I'd like a little clarification. Do you believe that you are currently walking in a state of sinlesness? I'm not arguing that you are or that you're not (since I don't know you), but I'm just wondering where you're coming from here.
Now, no one has brought him up yet, so I guess I'll do it now: From what I understand, Michael Pearl teaches this point of view and has stated that he has been living sinlessly for many years. I could be totally misunderstanding him, of course, and if I am please enlighten me. You've heard more of him than I have.

I guess what I'm asking is, is this idea of being "sinless from this day forward" theoretical or practical? And if it is practical, are you or anyone you personally know well actually acheiving this?

Wed Aug 23, 06:25:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Well, one again I have spent the time that I intended to spend working on a post or at least a comment I have spent on various rabbit trails (all of them good, but none of them where I intended to be.) I’m not too good at staying in one chapter for any length of time.

I would hotly debate what you where saying, except you haven’t said anything antiginositc or contreversial yet. However I’m sure that you are just building up your case and will state what curx of where you are going in due time.
I think that how we got started on all this was a discussion of original sin. I have heard it said, (and I think that I agree) that no thelogy discussion will get far if the parties involved don’t agree on the inplications of Adam’s sin. I guess I already stated my case of that subject for now.
I’m still studying on the relationship of Christians and sin, so I’m not going to say anything that I’ll have to take back. I can play walking Westminster Catechism if you like for the sake of a debate (it wouldn’t be the first time), but if you are really out to debate with and convince me of something I’ll have to defer a answer for a little longer. Sorry. (Couldn’t we just stay on radical depravity? I already know what I believe there: )

So do you believe that in is impossible for a Christian to sin or that is possible for a Christian to not sin? Would you define between (for lack of a better phrase) types or degrees of sin?
I would add this to the list words used often in Romans 5.

Paraptoma (3900)
1. to fall beside or near something
2. a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness
1. a sin, misdeed
King James Word Usage - Total: 23 trespass 9, offence 7, sin 3, fall 2, fault 2
Used eight times in Romans 5

I love Romans and read it fairly often, but I often find it somewhat grueling, and by the time I get through with Romans 11 I’m usually mentally exhausted. This is always a refreshing passage to read when I’m completely stumped trying to figure God out (okay so maybe that’s not precisely the context, but the principle still applies: )

O the depth of the riches both os the wisdom that knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! For who has known him, and who has become his counselor? Or who has first given to him that it shall re recompensed to him again? For of him, and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be the glory forever. Amen

(Rom 11:33-36)

I guess that I’m fascinated by the things that God does not spell out in black and white, his hidden things.

Fri Aug 25, 10:41:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

I think that it is accurate to say that the main emphasis of Romans 5 is to showcase the glory of the work of Christ justification. In fact, I think that it something of a shame that the emphasis of all of our discussions always ends with the negative aspects of what ever doctrine and texts we happen to be discussing. For example, the emphasis in Rom 9 and Eph 1 is the glory of God revealed in his chosen people, with his glory in justice dwelled on much less. I think that the same goes here. The main point is not that we sinned in Adam (although I think that it is clearly taught here) but that Christ is far superior to Adam. But I guess we agree on that, so there is nothing to debate there…

That said, here is my long response regarding the negative aspects of Romans 5:

I think that the statement that God forewent the immediate death of Adam and Eve by the death of a substitute is unfounded. There is nothing in the text that states that the animal that God killed to clothe Adam was any kind of substitute. God was specific when he said “in the day you eat of it you will surely die” I think that if he meant “You will die someday” he would not have stated that they would die on the day they ate it. Death has more than one face, the physical end of life being only one of them. We where dead in our trespasses and sins, not physically, but spiritually. Death is separation, and in the day Adam ate the fruit I believe that he did die just as God had told him he would, but not in the way that we would expect. I think that it is a scriptural conclusion that in a spiritual since Adam died on that very day.

Sin was in the world before the Mosiac Law, but without law sin in not imputed. But they still died. v 14 says they did not sin in the “likeness” or the “similitude” of the sin of Adam. As in, God said, “don’t eat the apple” and he did. Those between Adam and Moses did not have a list of “thou shalt nots”, therefore they did not break a known command like Adam did.
Similitude:
that which has been made after the likeness of something
1. a figure, image, likeness, representation
2. likeness i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity

Why did even those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam sinned die? “ Nevertheless” implies that there is another side to the equation than that which has so far been presented. So Paul is telling us basically this: “All that being said about sin not being imputed where there in no law being said, they still paid to penalty for sin, death.” How do you reconcile sin not being imputed with paying the penalty for sin? Both of these seemingly contradictory statements are true. Why? Because in Adam all sinned. Their individual sins where not counted, but there was enough to condemn them to death in Adam’s sin.

17 (...For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.


I have to admit, when I read v. 18, I was stumped. Not by the appearance that it taught universal atonement, but that it was looking something like universal salvation. The word for justification is Strongs 1347: the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to him abjuring to be righteous, justification. No two ways about it, if “all” here means every man without exception than everyone is righteous before God. Which is problematic, to say the least. I’ll quote from John Piper:
In verse 19 those who are "made righteous" are called "the many": "so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." In verse 18 those who have "justification of life" are "all men." "Through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." Who are these "all men"? Does it mean that every human being who is in Adam will also be justified so that no one will be lost and there is no such thing as eternal punishment for anyone? This is called universalism.
I don't think so, for several reasons.
1) Verse 17 speaks of "receiving" the gift of righteousness as though some do and some don't. Verse 17: "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ." That does not sound like everybody does receive it.
2) "Justification of life to all men" in Romans 5:18 does not mean all humans are justified, because Paul teaches clearly in this very book and elsewhere (2 Thessalonians 1:9) that there is eternal punishment and all humans are not justified. For example, in Romans 2:5 he says, "But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God," and then in verses 7 and 8 he contrasts this wrath with "eternal life" and so shows that it is eternal wrath, not temporary wrath. So there will be some who are not justified but come under the wrath of God forever and others who have eternal life.
3) "Justification of life to all men" in Romans 5:18 does not mean all humans are justified, because in all of Romans up until now justification is not automatic as if every human receives it, but it is "by faith." Romans 5:1, "Therefore, having been justified by faith . . ." Romans 3:28, ‘For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.’...”

The only consistently biblical way I see to read this verse is with this in mind: Here is the word “all” as defined by Strongs on Crosswalk.com:
individually
1. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2. collectively
1. some of all types

... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile...
The phrase “all men” is often used to clarify that Paul is speaking of all classes of men, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians, free and slave, male and female. The gospel is not limited to the Jews alone, but is for all men.

Are you still with me? We are still on v. 18 “Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life” “Well,” I’m sure you will say “if all doesn’t mean every single person, than where does that leave your argument that all sinned in Adam?”

The logic is not “The first all is every single person and the second is some form all kinds of people” rather the logic is this: The same word is used for “all” both times in this verse, so they must have the same strengths and weaknesses. In implications of “all” here must be inferred from the context and from the rest of scripture. So here we are: the all men that are justified are not each and every individual person (which is a scriptural conclusion). The “all” in the latter part of the verse (based on the context and other scripture) are all that walk the planet, from every tongue, tribe and nation that are in Christ. This leads us to define the “all” in the first part of the verse accordingly: they are all that walk planet from every tongue, tribe and nation that are in Adam, which is, of course, every single person. The result of the two treatments of the word all are the same, but the way of drawing the conclusion is different.

I think it significant that he started with Adam. What is the point, if the only sin that counts is those we commit literally? I think that Paul is stressing that in the same way as Christ is the second Adam. How? The doctrine is known as federal headship. We didn’t “do” anything to be part of Adam’s line and the consequences for his sin, neither did we do anything to merit being part of Christ’s line and the consequences for his righteousness. Adam’s sin was imputed to us because we are born in him according to the flesh, Christ’s righteousness in imputed to us because we are his born of him according to the Spirit. And what is ours Christ far surpasses what is ours in Adam.

You said “The free gift came upon all men unto justification of life? In the same verse, we have Adam's offense bring condemnation to all, so this all is obviously everyone. This goes very much against the L.”

One question. Who would you say that the “all” are that where judged for the offence of Adam? If you are using this to disprove limited atonement by saying that justification is granted to everyone you must take the part about Adam’s sin to mean every single person, which goes against your stance that all did not sin in Adam. You have to pick one. Either you grant that everyone on earth sinned and Adam and everyone in earth is justified in Christ, (which is universalism) or you take “all” to be less than all-inclusive.

Sat Oct 28, 10:53:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Hide comments