Romans 5:12-19
- Thread starter Reformed1
- Start date
- Status
Irishcat922
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think they would say this passage is teaching infused righteousness, rather than imputed.
I figured that. But, I know that in Calvin's day, many Romish theologians did teach that Adam's sin was imputed, but to such an extent that they almost diminished inherent depravity. Which is why Calvin interpreted "all sinned" as "all became depraved." I just want to know if there is anywhere I can go that shows a Romish exposition of this text. I can't seem to find one.
Ok, I went to the Catholic Encyclopedia's website. It seems like they take these verses to teach the doctrine of original sin. I think Hodge and Murray refute that notion pretty well. I know a lot of Reformed folk take these verses to teach the doctrine of original sin, somewhat, as well too.
I don't see how, personally, you can take these verses to teach original sin. First, you must take "all sinned" as "all became corrupt" which doesn't really make sense. As Hodge says, the word can never mean "became corrupt." Second, Paul repeatedly affirms that we are condemned because of the one man's sin, not some inherent sinful nature. The only response I can think of an RC saying is, "well, we derive our sinful nature from Adam, therefore, you can say we are condemned because of his sin." But I think that pushes the argument back one step. The fact is, Paul never mentions an inherent sinful nature as the basis of our condemnation in these verses. Rather, he mentions the one man's sin that we all participated in, putatively, as the basis of our condemnation.
One thing that I thought was pretty intersting was a comment made by Hodge. He said that the Jews of that day taught the imputation of Adam's sin and Paul uses the same terminology they used in these verses. This is how the Jews would have understood Paul.
I don't see how, personally, you can take these verses to teach original sin. First, you must take "all sinned" as "all became corrupt" which doesn't really make sense. As Hodge says, the word can never mean "became corrupt." Second, Paul repeatedly affirms that we are condemned because of the one man's sin, not some inherent sinful nature. The only response I can think of an RC saying is, "well, we derive our sinful nature from Adam, therefore, you can say we are condemned because of his sin." But I think that pushes the argument back one step. The fact is, Paul never mentions an inherent sinful nature as the basis of our condemnation in these verses. Rather, he mentions the one man's sin that we all participated in, putatively, as the basis of our condemnation.
One thing that I thought was pretty intersting was a comment made by Hodge. He said that the Jews of that day taught the imputation of Adam's sin and Paul uses the same terminology they used in these verses. This is how the Jews would have understood Paul.
- Status
