# Is any man damned with death eternal, solely on account of the sin of Adam?



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2011)

How would you answer this question? 

Especially to one who hates Calvinism.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 23, 2011)

Well it would have to be a child rather than a man, wouldn't it? An extremely young child. By the time someone's a man he's committed many actual transgressions.

The sin of Adam is our sin. Just because we might not know how that can be the case, doesn't mean that Adam's sin is not ours.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 23, 2011)

Even if you were born morally upright, as Adam was, you would still go to hell because of Adam's sin on your behalf. Hard truth, but must be swallowed with faith in God's righteousness.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 23, 2011)

I'd just say, "All of them. Every last man, woman, and child. It's called Original Sin, and its been a staple of Christian theology (as articulated) since the 5th Century."

Rom.5:12 "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:"

The last phrase does not "qualify" the previous phrase, by attributing the death to the fact that all after have now sinned too. The fact stated is that death passed upon all men, because the one man condemned everyone by his sin. "For that" is literally, "upon which," and the causative goes forward not back. "For which cause (sin being in the world, and death-sentence passed to all men) all men have now sinned." That may be taken in either sense: 1) All men are considered to have sinned in their father Adam; or 2) all men have demonstrated the justice of their condemnation by proving themselves sinners.

The argument fits into Paul's overall structure, in that he is demonstrating that men are condemned by virtue of their connection to the sin of one man. And likewise, the redeemed are saved by virtue of their connection to the righteousness of one man.

Unless the person challenging you believes that there's something "wrong" or "unfair" about _*any man being saved with everlasting life solely on account of the righteousness of Christ*_, he cannot consistently express hostility to the principle of Original Sin, and federal condemnation in Adam.


----------



## KMK (Nov 23, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Unless the person challenging you believes that there's something "wrong" or "unfair" about any man being saved with everlasting life solely on account of the righteousness of Christ, he cannot consistently express hostility to the principle of Original Sin, and federal condemnation in Adam.



I think it is important to maintain Paul's parallel for this reason. Throughout this section of chapter 5 Paul emphasizes the correlation between the headship of Adam in regards to imputed sin and the headship of Christ in regards to imputed righteousness. We run into trouble when we try to preach/teach one without the other.


----------



## Hilasmos (Nov 23, 2011)

Continuing in Romans 5 you could make another argument based on v.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."

If we are talking about infants, they would be an example of those "whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam," and yet they died. That is, they were not given a law that they willingly transgressed, and yet deith reigns over them proving their guilt from v.12.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 23, 2011)

If they are a protestant I would just bring up the word imputation.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2011)

They wouldn't know the word...


----------



## Tim (Nov 23, 2011)

But "credited to one's account" would work, wouldn't it?


----------



## FedByRavens (Nov 23, 2011)

As soon as an infant comes out of the womb, it's crying. Studies have shown that children express deceit very shortly after birth by crying when there is no obvious reason for them too. As soon as they're old enough to react with other children they are stealing, fighting, and lying. I like what Paul Washer said "People don't go to hell simply because they sin, they go because all they've ever done is sin." A human in every phase of maturity has different measures of wickedness. The other day i was meditating on the account we have of Jesus saying "It's not what goes in a mans mouth that defiles him, but what comes out." What if somebody brought you a cake, and it had no covering on it. As you go to walk away you say" i need to get some foil over this so no dirt gets in it" and you hear them whisper under their breath "Don't worry about any dirt getting in the cake, worry about the dirt that comes out of the cake." All of a sudden you would realize that there is no possible way for an outside source to defile the cake, the cake is as defiled as it could possibly get.


----------



## Skyler (Nov 23, 2011)

FedByRavens said:


> Studies have shown that children express deceit very shortly after birth by crying when there is no obvious reason for them too.



Um, hello... they've just been thrust into a cold, scary world without so much as a "by your leave." What's not to cry about?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2011)

Tim said:


> But "credited to one's account" would work, wouldn't it?



Got any non-financial analogies?


----------



## Weston Stoler (Nov 23, 2011)

If he doesn't believe in OS then he is probably a church of Christ. Are they? 
Or are they just unknowledgeable people?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2011)

Just unknowledgeable.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 23, 2011)

You don't have to teach a child to lie. You have to teach them to be correct. We are born broken now. And it is still our fault. It is quite presumptive to believe we would fair better than Adam the first. All of the heavens are unclean before him. Nothing in and of itself is pure. The moment we become independent spirited we fail. The only good is in God. He is the source of what is pure and good. And that source, because of what it is, came and took the punishment for us. Every man is damned who is independent and doesn't rely and depend wholly upon God. Self sufficiency is pride and it kills. 

I would just read Romans 1 and ask what this person believed about this text. 



> (Rom 1:18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
> 
> (Rom 1:19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
> 
> ...



If they have a problem with fairness then I would point out that Christ taking our punishment and making us look right before God isn't fair either. It is justice performed on behalf of another.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> They wouldn't know the word...



Then perhaps you could teach them about imputation and substitution the way it was taught in the OT - via the animal sacrifices.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > They wouldn't know the word...
> ...




Hey, yes, thanks...I HAVE been doing that but not as explicitly as I could be doing. Hmm.....


----------



## JP Wallace (Nov 24, 2011)

Ruben = spot on target. Israel knew nothing about imputation, sacrifices taught them, one could even argue from the 'covering of Adam and Eve'. We just cannot understand fully the Gospel without the OT background. Think also about how important the sinlessness of Christ is, he is the sin offering (pure and spotless as opposed to sinful like us), he is the scapegoat (bearing away our sin), his righteousness is that which restores fellowship broken in Adam as it is accounted as ours, and he is the exemplar of what we shall be in eternity (souls of just men made perfect Heb 12).


----------

