If sin is not imputed without the law, how can some claim that babies and children die because Adam's sin is imputed to them?

[JimiSurvivor]

The sin of Adam, called original sin, was in no way passed down or imputed to the rest of the human race.

5th century heretic.
Pelagius.

——
Denying original sin is a common conclusion for heretical synergists who place man and his “free will” at the center of creation, rather than Christ as it should be.

When the most ancient theologians and apologists taught that mankind possessed the faculty of self-determination (also called also Free Will) they were not asserting that: "mankind EXALTED HIMSELF to be the CENTER of Creation in place of Christ its true King."
This statement, cited in both OT and NT (in context) is simply stating the position man had that God had GIVEN HIM. If it was given then it was not EARNED but was a gracious unearned gift, granted Him by God.

7You [i.e., God] have made him a little lower than the angels; (man is lower because he is made of flesh while angels are spirit)
Nevertheless (or despite this weakness): You (God) crowned him with glory and honor 8 and placed everything under his feet.”
Who exalted Man over creation? The Bible says God did.
When God subjected all things to him, He left nothing outside of his control.
Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. 9 But we see Jesus, who [as the SECOND Adam] was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
(Hebrews 2:7-9)
The position of being over all earthly creatures was originally possessed (albeit briefly) by Adam will be restored to Christ (as the Last Adam) when He returns and takes possession of the earth.

What I do not think you understand is that "Original Sin" is the belief that the GUILT of Adam's sin was TRANSFERRED to all His descendants including the unborn, as well as infants, children as well as those who are UNABLE to understand either evil or good: 19Yet you may ask, ‘Why shouldn’t the son bear the iniquity of his father?’ However, God says NO:

"Since the son has done what is just and right, carefully observing all My statutes, he will surely live. 20The soul who sins is the one who will die. A son will not bear the iniquity of his father, and a father will not bear the iniquity of his son. The righteousness of the righteous man will fall upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked man will fall upon him (Ezekiel 18:19-20)

The creator of the Doctrines of Grace, Augustine of Hippo, having once been a member of the Gnostic cult of Manichaeism imported his heterodox views into the Faith in a way that no Christian before him had ever done. In that system evil was not "disobedience to the Law" but a hereditary ESSENCE transmitted by sexual desire from one generation to another

 

[JimiSurvivor]

The Eastern Orthodox, unlike their Roman Catholic counterparts, have mixed feelings about Augustine. While they admire his early apologetic work they believe he deviated from the truth to a great degree and distorted the gospel. The Eastern Church still maintains a belief in FREEWILL and DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE rather than DETERMINISM and DIVINE DECREES. Words like Synergism were coined to throw like mud on anyone who believes mankind can make choices. What they forget is that for at least the first 400+ years this was the view of all Eastern Christians. It is a lot easier to hurl epitaphs and pile up wood up for the stake than to make a reasoned arguments for the truth. What they hope is that people will forget is that the Founders of the Reformed Church were mass murderers who tried to win the debate by slaughtering their opponents.

 

[sawdust]

Sorry, but I don't see how this ties in to the verses high-lighted in the OP.

Because I believe Paul is saying no-one's personal sin was imputed to them at birth, having no law to know the difference (v.13). We inherited a corruption that is in the flesh from Adam because he sinned and that leads to death.

A baby dies, not because their sin is imputed to them, but because Adam's sin has corrupted them. Therefore all die in Adam even when their own sin is not counted against them.

 

[bluejean_bible]

So, does that mean you don't have an explanation of the meaning of the highlighted verses in the OP?

Newborn infants are completely innocent.

Though I believe people are free to believe their god damns newborns from birth and imputes Adam's sin upon their children at birth.

That contradicts scripture and Jesus,but to each their own.
Matthew 18:3, "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Newborns, children , are not lost. They are sinless until they become accountable.

I would wonder at those who imagine newborns are born dead in sin. Do you all also ascribe to infant baptism?


This might help square away the debate from a biblical perspective.


https://bible.ca/interactive/salvation-20-infants-are-saved.htm

Lesson 20​

Infants Are Not Lost

We now turn our attention to another perversion of God's word and that is infants are born sinners and must be baptized in order to be saved. This contradicts God's word. In Ezekiel 18:20 we read, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor shall the father bear the guilt of the son." Here God is telling us that children do not inherit sin from their parents, grandparents, or any of their forefathers, all the way back to Adam. It says "The son shall not bear the guilt of the Father." Each person is responsible for his own sins. According to this verse, it is "The soul who sins shall die."" Does it say that the soul that inherits sin, it shall die? No. It says the soul who sins.

What is sin? I John 3:4 says, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness." We do not inherit sin; we commit sin; and we commit sin when we commit lawlessness. An infant has not broken any law of God and thus has not committed any sin.

An infant is completely innocent. Just as God says in Ezekiel 28:15, "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you." So we see that an infant is born perfect and without sin until he becomes of an accountable age and then begins to sin.

James 4:17 says, "Therefore to him who knows to do good, and does not do it, to him it is sin." This is the sin of omission. An infant does not know to do good and thus cannot sin. There are only two ways that man sins: by committing sin or we sin by omission. An infant cannot sin in either way and has no sin.

A little child is innocent and pure, as our Lord says in Matthew 18:3, "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Little children are not lost, but are safe until they become accountable.

One error leads to another. Men say that since infants have inherited the sin of Adam, that they must be baptized or they will be lost. This is also false. Infants are not suitable candidates for baptism, since they cannot believe. Our Lord says in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Here one of the prerequisites of being saved is to believe, which is impossible for an infant to do.

Also in Acts 8:36-37 the question was asked, "See here is water; what hinders me from being baptized?" And the answer is given in the next verse: "And Philip said, if you believe with all your heart you may." Here we see the condition that must be met before a person can be baptized is that he must believe with all his heart. Can an infant do this? No.

In Acts 2:38 (KJV) the apostle Peter told a group of people, who had asked what they should do, to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins." What is the requirement found here that we must do before we can be baptized? Repent. Can an infant repent? It would be absurd to think that an infant could believe or repent, but it is just as absurd to think that an innocent infant, who is without sin, must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, which he does not have.

Satan has many ways in fooling people into being lost. The lie that Satan tells here to people who have become accountable is that since you were baptized as an infant, you do not need to be baptized for the remission of your sins now that you have become accountable and responsible. Satan knows that infant baptism accomplishes nothing. He also knows, that when people who were baptized as an infant become accountable, that at that time they are lost. So who do you want to follow: God, or men who are being led by Satan?

Every person will follow one or the other. Again we have to make the choice as to who we follow.

 

[PaulThomson]

Newborn infants are completely innocent.

Though I believe people are free to believe their god damns newborns from birth and imputes Adam's sin upon their children at birth.

That contradicts scripture and Jesus,but to each their own.
Matthew 18:3, "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Newborns, children , are not lost. They are sinless until they become accountable.

I would wonder at those who imagine newborns are born dead in sin. Do you all also ascribe to infant baptism?


This might help square away the debate from a biblical perspective.


https://bible.ca/interactive/salvation-20-infants-are-saved.htm

Lesson 20​

Infants Are Not Lost

We now turn our attention to another perversion of God's word and that is infants are born sinners and must be baptized in order to be saved. This contradicts God's word. In Ezekiel 18:20 we read, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor shall the father bear the guilt of the son." Here God is telling us that children do not inherit sin from their parents, grandparents, or any of their forefathers, all the way back to Adam. It says "The son shall not bear the guilt of the Father." Each person is responsible for his own sins. According to this verse, it is "The soul who sins shall die."" Does it say that the soul that inherits sin, it shall die? No. It says the soul who sins.

What is sin? I John 3:4 says, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness." We do not inherit sin; we commit sin; and we commit sin when we commit lawlessness. An infant has not broken any law of God and thus has not committed any sin.

An infant is completely innocent. Just as God says in Ezekiel 28:15, "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you." So we see that an infant is born perfect and without sin until he becomes of an accountable age and then begins to sin.

James 4:17 says, "Therefore to him who knows to do good, and does not do it, to him it is sin." This is the sin of omission. An infant does not know to do good and thus cannot sin. There are only two ways that man sins: by committing sin or we sin by omission. An infant cannot sin in either way and has no sin.

A little child is innocent and pure, as our Lord says in Matthew 18:3, "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Little children are not lost, but are safe until they become accountable.

One error leads to another. Men say that since infants have inherited the sin of Adam, that they must be baptized or they will be lost. This is also false. Infants are not suitable candidates for baptism, since they cannot believe. Our Lord says in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Here one of the prerequisites of being saved is to believe, which is impossible for an infant to do.

Also in Acts 8:36-37 the question was asked, "See here is water; what hinders me from being baptized?" And the answer is given in the next verse: "And Philip said, if you believe with all your heart you may." Here we see the condition that must be met before a person can be baptized is that he must believe with all his heart. Can an infant do this? No.

In Acts 2:38 (KJV) the apostle Peter told a group of people, who had asked what they should do, to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins." What is the requirement found here that we must do before we can be baptized? Repent. Can an infant repent? It would be absurd to think that an infant could believe or repent, but it is just as absurd to think that an innocent infant, who is without sin, must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, which he does not have.

Satan has many ways in fooling people into being lost. The lie that Satan tells here to people who have become accountable is that since you were baptized as an infant, you do not need to be baptized for the remission of your sins now that you have become accountable and responsible. Satan knows that infant baptism accomplishes nothing. He also knows, that when people who were baptized as an infant become accountable, that at that time they are lost. So who do you want to follow: God, or men who are being led by Satan?

Every person will follow one or the other. Again we have to make the choice as to who we follow.

I agree with your conclusion. However, you did not use Romans 5:14-15 to get there, nor did you explain from those verses, what those verses are saying. which was the request made in the OP.

 

[bluejean_bible]

I agree with your conclusion. However, you did not use Romans 5:14-15 to get there, nor did you explain from those verses, what those verses are saying. which was the request made in the OP.

I thought I did that when I posted the observation of Jesus. Paul would not contradict him. And Paul made the observation of death's reign from Adam unto Moses.

Paul was a Pharisee. He knew God did not condemn unto death the unborn or newborns.

 

[Mem]

I've continued in thought over the question posed after leaving off reading this thread earlier.

Just as man is (righteously) appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment, so also Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him (Hebrews 9:27-8).
I inserted my own word "righteously" following the logic that if God appointed each man to die, then his (including the female he) death is a righteous judgment.
Then some research led to in finding that...
The word translated for "appointed" in the above verse occurs one other time in 2Timothy 4:8

From now on there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day, but to them also that love his appearing.

There are versions that substitute the word "destined" to translate this word apokeitai, so this was especially interesting to me as a possible significance which might have relevance in understanding predestination, a concept that, imo, may have actually been so misconstrued that it has a new "modernized' meaning. It's not that I can't be wrong about that, it's just that I'm reluctant to take anything but the truth for the gospel.

Using the word in the sense that it is commonly used, we could say, in this case, that "every man was predestined to die once, and then the judgment..." But that seems somewhat, what?, circular? redundant? idk what, it misses there, it doesn't fit.

I've yet to come to the 'righteousness', of everyone, including the otherwise innocent, dying. I've can barely even touch on it really, although it maybe should be apparent to me, it just isn't right now.

There were other thoughts generated by this consideration. Thoughts relating to 2Tim 4:8 of Jesus' (taking part in our) dying (appointed?) to bear sin and appearing again to bring salvation (raising those who eagerly await Him from the dead) and crowns of righteousness.

I don't know if any of this will help to work out the question of the OP, ultimately, but I didn't want to dismiss the thought for irrelevant and forget them altogether since there might be something there to come back to as this discussion progresses.

 

[PaulThomson]

I've continued in thought over the question posed after leaving off reading this thread earlier.

Just as man is (righteously) appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment, so also Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him (Hebrews 9:27-8).
I inserted my own word "righteously" following the logic that if God appointed each man to die, then his (including the female he) death is a righteous judgment.
Then some research led to in finding that...
The word translated for "appointed" in the above verse occurs one other time in 2Timothy 4:8

From now on there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day, but to them also that love his appearing.

There are versions that substitute the word "destined" to translate this word apokeitai, so this was especially interesting to me as a possible significance which might have relevance in understanding predestination, a concept that, imo, may have actually been so misconstrued that it has a new "modernized' meaning. It's not that I can't be wrong about that, it's just that I'm reluctant to take anything but the truth for the gospel.

Using the word in the sense that it is commonly used, we could say, in this case, that "every man was predestined to die once, and then the judgment..." But that seems somewhat, what?, circular? redundant? idk what, it misses there, it doesn't fit.

I've yet to come to the 'righteousness', of everyone, including the otherwise innocent, dying. I've can barely even touch on it really, although it maybe should be apparent to me, it just isn't right now.

There were other thoughts generated by this consideration. Thoughts relating to 2Tim 4:8 of Jesus' (taking part in our) dying (appointed?) to bear sin and appearing again to bring salvation (raising those who eagerly await Him from the dead) and crowns of righteousness.

I don't know if any of this will help to work out the question of the OP, ultimately, but I didn't want to dismiss the thought for irrelevant and forget them altogether since there might be something there to come back to as this discussion progresses.

That's a very good observation to make -

"I've yet to come to the 'righteousness', of everyone, including the otherwise innocent, dying. I've can barely even touch on it really, although it maybe should be apparent to me, it just isn't right now."

But I have some suggestions.

It seems like God created Adam to manage the earth as His representative and provided Adam with a very good world and a very good mission. The idea seems to have been that Adam and Eve would fulfil their mission by living in a trusting relationship with God and having recourse to God's advice and grow in their understanding of God and His ways through that ongoing trusting relationship., But God left them free to choose whether they would keep on trusting God and His advice or not. Adam and Eve were not inherently immortal, but there was a tree in the garden the fruit of which humans could eat to rejuvenate themselves in perpetuity.

Unfortunately man did not keep on trusting God, but listened to the devil's lies impugning God and diverged from the path of faith in God that would keep the planet harmonious. God realised that if the first humans would diverge from faith, their progeny were likely to do so as well. Two untrusting custodians of the planet could cause a lot of damage. A million untrusting progeny of these two could wreak disaster on the planet. And the possibility that all of these could continue to regenerate and never doe by eating from the tree of life compounded the damage. Humans would inflict damage and suffering on each other and the planet unceasingly. So, the wise and just thing to do was to remove access to the tree of life, so that any particular human could do only one lifetimes worth of damage. God set that natural lifespan at a limit of 1000 years.

Left to himself and choosing to trust God consistently, and barring some other creature murdering him, any one human could live for 1000 years, leave his body and wait in paradise for the promised seed of the woman to come to take his soul to heaven to await his resurrection among the just at the last day. It seems possible that Enoch may have succeeded in maintaining a faith relationship with God, and have been removed by God from the declining world early to spare him further suffering.

In this way, it was righteous that everyone be denied the rejuvenation of the tree of life and be given a limited life-span, with best case scenario, God simply taking the soul of the faithful early as deliverance from ongoing suffering, or worst case scenario, someone being slain accidentally or with malice of forethought. For God to plan or determine the cruel slaughter of Adam's progeny would be unrighteous, IMO. But I do not think that was God's plan. it was man's doing and/or the downstream consequences of man's doing.

 

[Jimbone]

I don't see how God allowing all humans to be born corrupt is just. Nor do I see how your post explains the wording of the verses high-lighted in the OP.

There's a LOT you don't see, it's hard seeing anything behind the walls of scripture you're hiding behind. What you can't see only God can show you, you can't "read" yourself into salvation. It's so very plain to me, the piece of all this you're missing, and I sincerely pray that God gives it to you. The part that "baffles" you is the Spirit. It's logical that you can not comprehend it because you don't know it. That's why these simple truths elude you and you keep painting yourself into these "mental corners" you just can't seem to see.

You obviously love God, and you're obviously being drawn to Him, but the fact these spiritual truths seem so far off from your understanding isn't a good sign. When you're made spiritually alive when you're born again, you see what you were missing, you now know first hand what we were born without. I'm sure my words will just seem like an attack and like I'm just trying to pass judgment on you about something that I can know nothing about, but I just know what it's like first hand to think I am "saved" but not be, and when I knew nothing of the Spirit in truth. Being a Christian is more than repeating a prayer with all my heart and practicing obedience to Him. There is a REAL LIFE spiritual resurrection and reconciling to God the Spirit that truly makes us all new. this is also how and why I say that anything good I do or good that people see in me, is really Him, He gets 100% of the credit for ANY and ALL the things good I do because I'd never do them if He hadn't transformed me. This is also true for every other Christian as well.

If this had taken place in your life you'd testify of it and you'd KNOW the difference in one who has been born again, and know why the newborn baby and every other person who has not been born again in Jesus, are in the same category. Does this change the loving, merciful, and saving nature of our God? Not in my mind, this God wouldn't send a baby who never had the chance for anything to hell, but they are forgiven through Jesus the exact same way we are.

For some reason people think saying that we are all born fallen means all babies go to hell. Again these lines of thought can only exist in the minds that have not been renewed in their rebirth, and are still in the dark spiritually.

You obviously read a lot of scripture and are pretty talented at presenting it well, I do not want to come across like I'm still debating you here. There were just some things I learned after I was born again that shocked me that I'd never even heard before, that I doubt I would have understood or cared about at the time anyway, but I do wish I'd heard before I was saved, when I only thought I was. I don't know, we disagree on things here, a lot, but I just felt this was worth sharing with you at the risk of coming off super arrogant and condescending. That is not the spirit I say these things to you in, I am just sharing it as food for thought and because I wish someone would have told me this before I was saved, and if you don't know what I mean when I say "spiritually resurrected", as in you don't KNOW when this happen to you, and you don't know it as the moment that the one true and only God open your eyes to Himself, then brother start seeking that truth, the truth of His Spirit and reconnecting to Him FOR REAL.

 

[BillyBob]

Newborns come into this world under the sin of Adam just as we all have, and it will continue that way until the end. Say it isn't so, it's not fair all you want – but His word tells a different story.
The good news is that God has always had a covenant people. This is why there has always been a remnant of those that belong to Him.
His remnant come into this world holy (set aside) and blameless, not by nature but under the covenant of grace, and they will be kept that way!
Yes they must repent, be brought to faith, baptized etc... And the Holy Spirit will, at His time of choosing, cause this to happen.

 

[JimiSurvivor]

Romans 5:14–15 (ESV)
14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if MANY died through one man’s trespass, MUCH MORE have the grace of God…

Who can really say they can untangle false doctrine others choose to live by?

Untangling false doctrine is the work of the Holy Spirit. I

Yes,it is worse when they seek to lead others into their falsehood. However, those grounded in the actual good news of Christ will not be led astray.

There are also people,I've met a few, who insist aborted,miscarried babies and newborns and toddlers, can go to Hell when they die at those tender stages of life.

I don't try to dissuade people who follow that satanic icon they manufacturer for themselves.

Because I can't change them. And unless holy Spirit enters in and leads their dead consciousness into the light of Christ they will stay that way to the day they die.

Though I do admit I pray they are sterile so as to not have children they think of in those ways.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mem]

That's a very good observation to make -

"I've yet to come to the 'righteousness', of everyone, including the otherwise innocent, dying. I've can barely even touch on it really, although it maybe should be apparent to me, it just isn't right now."

But I have some suggestions.

It seems like God created Adam to manage the earth as His representative and provided Adam with a very good world and a very good mission. The idea seems to have been that Adam and Eve would fulfil their mission by living in a trusting relationship with God and having recourse to God's advice and grow in their understanding of God and His ways through that ongoing trusting relationship., But God left them free to choose whether they would keep on trusting God and His advice or not. Adam and Eve were not inherently immortal, but there was a tree in the garden the fruit of which humans could eat to rejuvenate themselves in perpetuity.

Unfortunately man did not keep on trusting God, but listened to the devil's lies impugning God and diverged from the path of faith in God that would keep the planet harmonious. God realised that if the first humans would diverge from faith, their progeny were likely to do so as well. Two untrusting custodians of the planet could cause a lot of damage. A million untrusting progeny of these two could wreak disaster on the planet. And the possibility that all of these could continue to regenerate and never doe by eating from the tree of life compounded the damage. Humans would inflict damage and suffering on each other and the planet unceasingly. So, the wise and just thing to do was to remove access to the tree of life, so that any particular human could do only one lifetimes worth of damage. God set that natural lifespan at a limit of 1000 years.

Left to himself and choosing to trust God consistently, and barring some other creature murdering him, any one human could live for 1000 years, leave his body and wait in paradise for the promised seed of the woman to come to take his soul to heaven to await his resurrection among the just at the last day. It seems possible that Enoch may have succeeded in maintaining a faith relationship with God, and have been removed by God from the declining world early to spare him further suffering.

In this way, it was righteous that everyone be denied the rejuvenation of the tree of life and be given a limited life-span, with best case scenario, God simply taking the soul of the faithful early as deliverance from ongoing suffering, or worst case scenario, someone being slain accidentally or with malice of forethought. For God to plan or determine the cruel slaughter of Adam's progeny would be unrighteous, IMO. But I do not think that was God's plan. it was man's doing and/or the downstream consequences of man's doing.

You've articulated my thoughts better than I could ever think to... I was stranded for a few minutes trying to think of the word I wanted, "articulate." If we back up from the result, in the attempt to determine God's plan exactly, the consideration came once to me that what man was missing, entirely, at his, the first man's, initial creation was the Holy Spirit, dwelling within him, that is, as this is, now, apparent that this is crucial toward his eternal survival. As so, he has to be resurrected, not just physically, not just spiritually, but entirely, in order to reach the appointment of new life. And these that do reach that hope are those Jesus has taken up with Him out of the grave, all those that, not just died but, died with Him.

 

[Genez]

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, on the basis of which (eph' hOi) all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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 that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence 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.
Rom 5:16 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 offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17 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.)
Rom 5:18 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.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

If we assume that original sin is a thing, then Romans 5:13-14 would seem to be a lie. Original sin asserts that sin (the sin of Adam) is imputed to all, including those who lived between Adam and Moses. But Rom. 5:13-15 tells us that sin was not being imputed to anyone when there was no law, nevertheless all died when there was no law. So, the cause of their deaths cannot have been imputed sin, whether the sin of Adam or the sin/s of the person dying.
This text says that death for all Adam's progeny was imposed as a consequence of Adam's sin. It does not say Adam's sin was imputed to his progeny.

What does Paul mean by "had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's sin? He means that they had not knowingly broken a law specifically given to them by God. And there were many such sinners before the law: sinners who acted without faith in God, but did not know of the specific divine expectations they were transgressing against.
Adam is a type of Christ, in that the consequence of Adam's sin (death/mortality/limited life spans) was placed upon all his progeny without their being imputed with Adam's own sin; and the consequences of Jesus' righteousness, His resurrection from the dead , is placed on all His progeny (believers), or perhaps all His siblings (mankind) without His own righteousness being imputed to us/them.


So how do others deal with Romans 5:13-15?

Adam's sin is imputed for having simply a fallen nature at birth.
As they are born they could never stand before God in heaven.

 

[PaulThomson]

Adam's sin is imputed for having simply a fallen nature at birth.
As they are born they could never stand before God in heaven.

So, scripture directly states, "but sin is not imputed when there is no law," and yet you assert the exact opposite, "Adam's sin is imputed for having simply a fallen nature at birth."

That seems to me..... brazen.

 

[PaulThomson]

There's a LOT you don't see, it's hard seeing anything behind the walls of scripture you're hiding behind. What you can't see only God can show you, you can't "read" yourself into salvation. It's so very plain to me, the piece of all this you're missing, and I sincerely pray that God gives it to you. The part that "baffles" you is the Spirit. It's logical that you can not comprehend it because you don't know it. That's why these simple truths elude you and you keep painting yourself into these "mental corners" you just can't seem to see.

You obviously love God, and you're obviously being drawn to Him, but the fact these spiritual truths seem so far off from your understanding isn't a good sign. When you're made spiritually alive when you're born again, you see what you were missing, you now know first hand what we were born without. I'm sure my words will just seem like an attack and like I'm just trying to pass judgment on you about something that I can know nothing about, but I just know what it's like first hand to think I am "saved" but not be, and when I knew nothing of the Spirit in truth. Being a Christian is more than repeating a prayer with all my heart and practicing obedience to Him. There is a REAL LIFE spiritual resurrection and reconciling to God the Spirit that truly makes us all new. this is also how and why I say that anything good I do or good that people see in me, is really Him, He gets 100% of the credit for ANY and ALL the things good I do because I'd never do them if He hadn't transformed me. This is also true for every other Christian as well.

If this had taken place in your life you'd testify of it and you'd KNOW the difference in one who has been born again, and know why the newborn baby and every other person who has not been born again in Jesus, are in the same category. Does this change the loving, merciful, and saving nature of our God? Not in my mind, this God wouldn't send a baby who never had the chance for anything to hell, but they are forgiven through Jesus the exact same way we are.

For some reason people think saying that we are all born fallen means all babies go to hell. Again these lines of thought can only exist in the minds that have not been renewed in their rebirth, and are still in the dark spiritually.

You obviously read a lot of scripture and are pretty talented at presenting it well, I do not want to come across like I'm still debating you here. There were just some things I learned after I was born again that shocked me that I'd never even heard before, that I doubt I would have understood or cared about at the time anyway, but I do wish I'd heard before I was saved, when I only thought I was. I don't know, we disagree on things here, a lot, but I just felt this was worth sharing with you at the risk of coming off super arrogant and condescending. That is not the spirit I say these things to you in, I am just sharing it as food for thought and because I wish someone would have told me this before I was saved, and if you don't know what I mean when I say "spiritually resurrected", as in you don't KNOW when this happen to you, and you don't know it as the moment that the one true and only God open your eyes to Himself, then brother start seeking that truth, the truth of His Spirit and reconnecting to Him FOR REAL.

1Co 8:1 ... we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
1Co 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
1Co 8:3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

 

[DeanM]

We are all born tainted by original sin. We all suffer death because of this. I dont understand how anyone who has read scripture can deny this. Its plainly understandable and runs all through scripture, first mentioned in Genesis. It doesnt mean that when a baby dies he/she is doomed to hell it means we all die at some point.

 

[homwardbound]

Are you going to explain the meaning of the verses high-lighted in the OP?

If sin is not imputed without the law, how can some claim that babies and children die because Adam's sin is imputed to them?

Since, sin was not imputed without Law, then the Children live, no imputations (Death only came to flesh and still today is the same)
Now today in the risen Son, these Children still live seeing what is done by God for us all
Thanks

 

[homwardbound]

I'm sorry. Maybe I am too dense, but I just cannot see how what you posted here explains the meaning of the verses high-lighted in the OP.

Could you, please, try to tie it more closely to the text of the verses?

Maybe, you need to ask Father directly, Father being the one and only one good will teach truth as Daddy sees, to let each know or not yet, according to each person's motive in them. Thanks

 

[SomeDisciple]

There is a semantic nuance that could be potentially causing disagreement; specifically what people are meaning by "impute/imputed".

The KJV translates the Greek into "imputed" while others translate it into "charged"

But "imputed" also means "ascribed from" which attributes a cause for something- not necessarily with the the sense of a formal charge.

 

[Genez]

So, scripture directly states, "but sin is not imputed when there is no law," and yet you assert the exact opposite, "Adam's sin is imputed for having simply a fallen nature at birth."

That seems to me..... brazen.

Law = It's one thing to commit a sin without the law. No ramification.

It is another matter, being by nature what is opposed to God by DNA. = Fallen nature.

Without the Law, no man was punished for his sins.
Yet?
Without the Law, those who rejected the Lord were sent to Hell after they died.

No one goes to Hell for their sins. They go for their rejection of the drawing of God.