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?

[Mouse_Cheeks]

are you talking about the same census, supposing Satan commanded David to take it, as though there is no evil in the heart of any man?

James says we are tempted when our own evil desires are enticed, not when the enemy implants something foreign into us.

I'm talking about 1 Chronicles 21

 

[posthuman]

"our bodies begin to die immediately after being born."

That is not true.


That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

God was made flesh and dwelt among us .

i did not say that the only sinless human to ever walk this earth after the fall - - Jesus Christ - - began to physically die as soon as He was born.

in fact i contend that He, unlike all of us, did not.

but as for your contention, you need only examine your own hairbrush to discover your own body is dying. it is irrefutable that every physical body apart from that of Christ ((and of Adam and Woman before they sinned)) is in a state of death and decay.

my question is why is all of physical life on earth dying if nothing was inherited from Adam?
this whole planet is one massive graveyard. even the plastic phone or computer you are typing to me on right now is made of dead dinosaurs and plants.

why?

 

[Mouse_Cheeks]

This answer depends nds on whether you presume the Tree of Life is intended to be an antidote for sin that did not exist in the world.

a line of inquiry you should pursue is why Adam spent hours sewing fig life aves and hiding instead of going directly to this Tree of Life, when he knew death was i him, and why God prevented him later from doing so after giving him time in which he could have.

• was Adam an idiot
• is God malicious

I realize now you aren't actually able to discuss the Bible.

Thanks.

 

[posthuman]

I'm talking about 1 Chronicles 21

thanks, i had forgotten this

1 Chronicles 21:1​

Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. ​

​

my point about James 1 stands:

James 1:14​

But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.​

David could not have been moved by Satan to sin if there was no corruption in David's own heart.
James doesn't say 'everyone except David' he says 'each one' - - likewise Christ could bot be tempted, but was tested,and found pure.

 

[posthuman]

I realize now you aren't actually able to discuss the Bible.

Thanks.

your frustration comes from a lack of preparation.

 

[posthuman]

I realize now you aren't actually able to discuss the Bible.

Thanks.

because i am discussing the Bible you believe i am unable to. that's rich

welcome to the BDF by the way.

i have been here a looong time. i'll wait.

 

[posthuman]

You can't actually answer my question .

OK

Sie irren sich.

Sie hatten gefragt:

If Adam wasn't predestined to sin,why was there a tree of life planted in the same garden where the forbidden tree was rooted in its middle?


And how could sin enter this world if sin didn't pre-exist the world?

so i asked you if you believe Romans 5:12 or not, because the topic of whether the tree of life exists only to heal death or not immediately preceded this step of our conversation.

clearly the existence of sin preceded the fall of Woman and subsequent fall of Adam. Satan was in sin, lying about God and deceiving Woman in Genes 3:1-5

you must decide where in the timeline you believe the fall of Satan lies. i will tell you, and am prepared to defend it, that this occurs between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2

as for predestination?
i have an 11-foot pole, sure. i will touch it. but is it germaine?

you think i am unable to answer a question because i pointed out other questions must first be addressed, yet i for your sake answered now - - so we have remaining now these questions in front of you, that i already posed and will further delve:

• is Adam stupid? why does he take his wife and spend hours sewing leaves together ((why figs?)) instead of going directly to the tree of life, if the purpose of the tree of life is exactly to remedy the situation he finds himself and his beloved in?
• is God malicious? if the express purpose of the tree of life is to save mankind from sin and death, why does He set a guard of flaming sword and cherub over it to prevent Adam and the one whose name is now called Eve from accessing it, even after accepting their confessions, shedding blood to atone for them and cover them by His own handiwork, and proclaiming the gospel of the Lamb of God to them? is God doing good to them by securing the way to the tree of life or doing evil to them? what then does this say about the true purpose of that Tree?

 

[posthuman]

I realize now you aren't actually able to discuss the Bible.

Thanks.

you sure about that...?

scale of 1-10...?

 

[Gideon300]

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?

As always, we need to know what the scriptures say about the subject in total, not cherry pick one scripture to make a point. It is stated in psalm 51:5 that David was born in trespass and sin. How could David sin as a newborn? The same accusation was leveled against Jesus, John 9:34. Ephesians 2:1 and Colossians 2:13 state that people are dead in sin until they are born again.

We do not die as a result of committing a sin. We die because death is lodged in us as a result of Adam's disobedience, 1 Corinthians 15:22.

Adam's death was not physical. He lived nearly 1,000 years. But it is obvious that there was a separation between God and Adam after Adam disobeyed. God did not reject Adam. Adam hid from God. And this is true of all mankind. You do not have to teach a child to rebel. It's in its nature.

Romans 2 states how those without the law still sin and come under God's judgement. No one is born knowing the law. All are born dead in trespass and sin.

I do not believe that those who die in infancy are rejected by God. There is an age of responsibility when people know the difference between good and evil. Up until then, God accepts the innocent because of the sacrifice of Jesus.

 

[Gideon300]

If Adam wasn't predestined to sin,why was there a tree of life planted in the same garden where the forbidden tree was rooted in its middle?


And how could sin enter this world if sin didn't pre-exist the world?

Sin did preexist Adam and Eve. Satan sinned first. Many, me included, believe in the pre-Adamic creation theory. This proposes that Satan, as Lucifer, ruled God's creation and that he rebelled. Jesus said that He saw Satan fall like lightning. That obviously happened before His incarnation as the Messiah. "Lucifer", the light bearer became Satan, God's adversary.

God created Adam and Eve neutral, neither good nor evil. God was not interested in puppets. He sought beings like Himself, who would freely choose to be His family. Adam was called a son of God. Not so Adam's descendants. It is not possible to choose if there are no options. God gave Adam the opportunity to choose by placing two opposing trees in Eden. God knew what Adam would choose, but that does not mean God is responsible. Vladimir Putin is responsible for the Ukraine war, not the people who predicted it would happen.

 

[posthuman]

So as to your question,

“what about the sins of David being visited on the whole nation, as in the matter of the census?”

although it touches on the idea of corporate culpability, I don’t see how it follows logically from my comments.

I’m not suggesting this is your viewpoint, however often when debating the subject of generational curses, many people will use this and similar passages to support the idea of innocent children inheriting a curse or generational sins from their ancestors. Commonly the reasoning goes something like:

“You see? Just as the whole nation suffered from the sins of the king, so can children suffer by inheriting curses or sins from their ancestors.”

We need to avoid the tendency to inappropriately homogenate all indirect suffering as a premise to construct arguments to support the fad doctrine of generational curses or sins. Again, I’m not saying this is your underlying argument. These subjects are quite nuanced, and we have to look at each within its context.

Your question is interesting but addresses a different subject. In the case of the census, clearly, there was corporate punishment and at first glance seemingly only initiated by one person. In the Rebellion, there is explicit language stating that the children were innocent. The children had to endure the punishment inflicted upon their parents, but it was not directed at them. Eventually they walked into the promise land. Delayed, but not denied.

I wonder in the case of the census if the corporate punishment was a result of corporate guilt due to the populace asking for a king in the first place, and I am hypothesizing about this. In asking for a king, it seems it was a move away from trusting in God towards trusting in common human machinations i.e. a king that can be seen, heard, and touched. That was a sin prophesied by Moses, yet the Lord worked within it. They opted for a king instead of maintaining greater trust in God. Perhaps as a result they shared guilt by extension.

Maybe there is a correlation with the catalyst of the Rebellion. While recounting their history, Moses quotes the Lord:

“See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.”

Deut 1:8

It appears that Israel took a position of, “We would like to see what we are getting into for ourselves before committing, and this after the Lord said, “See, I have given you the land.” Moses said:

“You have reached the hill country of the Amorites, which the Lord our God is giving us. See, the Lord your God has given you the land. Go up and take possession of it as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, told you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.”

Deut 1:20-21

Moses said go, they said, not so fast:

“Then all of you came to me and said, “Let us send men ahead to spy out the land for us and bring back a report about the route we are to take and the towns we will come to.””

Deut 1:22

Had the people not requested spys, 10 would not have returned with an evil report. They wanted to see for themselves if what God said was true. While the spies confirmed the land flowed with milk and honey, they managed to emphasize potential dangers which generated a wave of fear leading to more sin. Corporate lack of trust led to corporate sin resulting in corporate punishment.

Since humans are predisposed to trust in the seen rather than the unseen, it seems logical that the people could have supported David’s error. Perhaps the general public sinned in their hearts by wanting to assess their apparent national strength along with David versus trusting in the Lord. Again, I am hypothesizing. However, it was readily apparent to Joab that David’s command was a sin, so why would we assume the rest of the nation did not recognize this as well? Did Joab sin by obeying David? Did Israel sin by participating? Clearly, David was willing to accept all the guilt and claimed that it was all his; it may have been. However, based upon precedent, and that David’s command was recognized to be sinful by at least one person, I don’t know that we are in the position to conclude that many if not most of the general public did not share some guilt.

It seems a concession that the Lord allowed the spies to go into the land, indicated by Him directing Moses how to and how many.

“The Lord said to Moses, “Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites.From each ancestral tribe send one of its leaders.”

So at the Lord’s command Moses sent them out from the Desert of Paran. All of them were leaders of the Israelites.”

Num 13:1-3

Perhaps it was the Lord’s intention all along to send out spies but when considering Deuteronomy chapter one, it appears that He commanded Moses how to carry out His concession to the people. The idea of sending out spies appears to be initiated by the people.

forgive me it my not be so much a response to you as what occurs to me after reading what you have to add.

as i understand - - tho that's necessarily foggy and i have had very little time for months now - - it isn't really 'generational curse' being dicussed here so much as an inheritance of the death and decay that are the direct product of sin, because of the fall of the first Adam, who had federal headship over all living things on earth.

in that respect, i pointed to David and the census as an example of a man with headship over a nation, whose sin had consequence for that nation.

it is not by accident Christ is called The Last Adam - - rather, it is in the context of the apostle giving us this very argument, that as death and sin entered and spread to all ((wholly apart from the law, a secondary topic)) through the first Adam, in the same way life and righteousness are inherited by all who are in Christ.

the argument is made here, how can stillborn and infants be guilty of sin? no disagreement on my part. yet they still die, and death is the wage of sin not of innocence. so there is a connection to Adam #1 despite a physical life that terminates before any physical expression of unrighteousness.

i would that we would consider the antithesis in our Beloved, the Last Adam: that the life and righteousness we enjoy are not products of ourselves, but ascribed to us by His Life and His Righteousness. we inherit these good things by faith, not by progeny - but they are not by our works not by our genetic makeup: we are largely Gentile, and among us are Jews also!

what then is the argument of Romans 5, really? it it not that all die because of one Adam, but because of another Adam - that is, Christ Jesus, all have been given an offer of Life eternal?

 

[Gideon300]

"our bodies begin to die immediately after being born."

That is not true.


That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

God was made flesh and dwelt among us .

We are born dead in trespass and sin. Our bodies eventually die. It's only a matter of time. That's why believers are given a new, incorruptible body. That is because we inherit the fallen nature of Adam. Lord Jesus did not trace His ancestry to Adam. His Father in human terms is God. Lord Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. His physical body was not subject to sin and death. But for the cross, Lord Jesus would still be with us. But His body would not be the glorified body that He had after His resurrection.

 

[Mouse_Cheeks]

Sin did preexist Adam and Eve. Satan sinned first. Many, me included, believe in the pre-Adamic creation theory. This proposes that Satan, as Lucifer, ruled God's creation and that he rebelled. Jesus said that He saw Satan fall like lightning. That obviously happened before His incarnation as the Messiah. "Lucifer", the light bearer became Satan, God's adversary.

God created Adam and Eve neutral, neither good nor evil. God was not interested in puppets. He sought beings like Himself, who would freely choose to be His family. Adam was called a son of God. Not so Adam's descendants. It is not possible to choose if there are no options. God gave Adam the opportunity to choose by placing two opposing trees in Eden. God knew what Adam would choose, but that does not mean God is responsible. Vladimir Putin is responsible for the Ukraine war, not the people who predicted it would happen.

Does God know good and evil?

Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God.

After God created them and all things he gazed upon it all and judged it very good.

Adam and Eve,we know,did not know good and evil,right or wrong. They were suppose to stay that way.

Or,were they?

Jesus was the Lamb slain before
the creation of the world.

 

[posthuman]

Adam's death was not physical. He lived nearly 1,000 years.

i would say it's both spiritual and physical - that he began to physically die the moment he sinned ((as it was written, "dying" you shall die - - indicating a progression, a process over time))

the spiritual is immediate, but the immediacy of the physical takes time to manifest: a period of time that evidently has accelerated over history, looking at the length of years man lived in the Biblical record becoming shorter and shorter until the present age.

 

[posthuman]

Adam and Eve,we know,did not know good and evil,right or wrong. They were suppose to stay that way.

how did they know whether it was good to obey God or not?

 

[posthuman]

God created Adam and Eve neutral, neither good nor evil. God was not interested in puppets. He sought beings like Himself, who would freely choose to be His family. Adam was called a son of God. Not so Adam's descendants. It is not possible to choose if there are no options. God gave Adam the opportunity to choose by placing two opposing trees in Eden. God knew what Adam would choose, but that does not mean God is responsible. Vladimir Putin is responsible for the Ukraine war, not the people who predicted it would happen.

a careful examination of Satan's deception of Woman reveals much subtle inference about the connection between free will and life, or, we might say, true existence

in a way, he convinced her that she doesn't truly have life unless she openly chooses to reject God.

it's lies of course. but the subtext of his argument.

 

[posthuman]

But His body would not be the glorified body that He had after His resurrection.

there is still the transfiguration, and in John 10:39, He walked right through a crowd of people actively trying to grab Him. to me that's even more amazing than walking through a wall into the upper room.

i'm not personally completely convinced His sinless, physical body held any more power or capability after His resurrection than it did before - - but we, who were sewn corruptible, will rise incorruptible, amen!!

 

[posthuman]

how did i know this was my wonderful purple sister before i even looked

 

[posthuman]

They were suppose to stay that way.

Or,were they?

Jesus was the Lamb slain before
the creation of the world.

you are asking whether omniscient foreknowledge is causation?

ima say no.
no, it is not.

 

[FaithMan]

Awful lot of supposition when the scripture is clear that the plague which killed thousands of Israelites was because of David's sin in taking the census.

for sure "all have sinned and are worthy of death" - - you can always find a reason to accuse if that's what you look for.

but David - the federal head of the nation - sinned, and the man of God gave him three choices for how the nation would suffer because of it. there really isn't a way to deny that.

I didn't deny it. This is your second reaction to one of my posts that doesn't seem to follow logically.