Thought this might be helpful to the discussion of the "sinful nature." We in the RM need to take seriously what he says....only because what he said formed the basis and foundation of our movement.

For what it is worth...I think he hits the nail on the head. Here goes....from Alexander Campbell's...."The Christian System."

"In Adam, all have sinned; therefore "in Adam all die." Your nature, gentle reader, not your person, was in Adam when he put forth his hand to break the precept of Jehovah. You did not personally sin in that act; but your nature then in the person of your father, sinned against the Author of your existence. In the just judgment, therefore, of your heavenly Father, your nature sinned in Adam, and with him it is right, that all human beings should be born mortal, and that death should lord it over the whole race as he has done in innumerable instances even "over them that have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression;" i. e., by violating a positive law. Now it must be conceded, that what God can righteously and mercifully inflict upon a part of mankind, he may justly and mercifully inflict upon all; and therefore those that live one score or four score years on this earth, for the sin of their nature in Adam, might have been extinguished the first year as reasonably as those who have in perfect infancy perished from the earth. Death is expressly denominated by an Apostle, "the wages of sin." Now this reward of sin is at present inflicted upon at least one fourth of the human race who have never violated any law, or sinned personally by any act of their lives. According to the most accurate bills of mortality, from one third to one fourth of the whole progeny of man die in infancy, under two years, without the consciousness of good or evil. They are thus, innocent though they be, as respects actual and personal transgression, accounted as sinners by him who inflicts upon them the peculiar and appropriate wages of sin. This alarming and most strangely pregnant of all the facts in human history, proves that Adam was not only the common father, but the actual representative of all his children.

There is, therefore, a sin of our nature as well as personal transgression. Some inappositely call the sin of our nature our "original sin;" as if the sin of Adam was the personal offence of his children. True, indeed, it is, our nature was corrupted by the fall of Adam before it was transmitted to us; and hence that hereditary imbecility to do good, and that proneness to do evil, so universally apparent in all human beings. Let no man open his mouth against the transmission of a moral distemper, until he satisfactorily explain the fact--that the special characteristic vices of parents appear in their children as much as the color of their skin, their hair, or the contour of their faces. A disease in the moral constitution of a man is an clearly transmissible as any physical taint, if there be any truth in history, biography, or human observation.

Still, man, with all his hereditary imbecility, is not under an invincible necessity to sin. Greatly prone to evil, easily seduced into transgression, he may or may not yield to passion and seduction. Hence the differences we so often discover in the corruption and depravity of man. All inherit a fallen, consequently a sinful nature; though all are not equally depraved. Thus we find the degrees of sinfulness and depravity are very different in different persons. And although without the knowledge of God and his revealed will, without the interposition of a mediator, and without faith in him, "it is impossible to please God;" still, there are those who, while destitute of the knowledge and belief, are more noble and virtuous than others. Thus admits Luke when he says, "The Jews in Berea were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so. Therefore, many of them believed." Acts xvii. 11. But until man in his present preternatural state, believes the gospel report of his sins and submits to Jesus Christ as the only Mediator and Saviour of sinners, it is impossible for him to do any thing absolutely pleasing or acceptable to God.

Condemned to natural death, and greatly fallen and depraved in our whole moral constitution though we certainly are, in consequence of the sin of Adam; still, because of the interposition of the second Adam, none are punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, but those who actually and voluntarily sin against a dispensation of mercy under which they are placed: for this is "the condemnation of the world, that light has come into the world, and men choose darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil."

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Answers

Danny,

A. Campbell has expressed exactly what we were trying to say with our Statement of Faith. Wonder if E. Lee will have a problem with this?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Brother Danny:

As you know, I love Brother Alexander Campbell, as respect him highly for his works sake as one who was without question one of the Brightest lights in the Restoration movement. And I consider him to have been blessed with far greater intellectual and mental powers than I have shall ever possess. And that I would hesitate to hastily disagree with him. Especially before I was certain that I understood him. But, in this particular instance and well in a few other things I do very much disagree with him in what he says concerning this subject. And to do so does not indicate any lack of respect for him but rather is a demonstration of the very spirit that he would have encouraged himself. For it is Christ our Lord and the doctrine of Christ that we follow. Brother Campbell always placed the doctrine of Christ as superior than the opinions of men and so do I. And Brother Campbell has well stated his opinion on this subject but he has not proven from the scriptures that his opinion is the truth of God’s word concerning it. Now it is late at night and I must write briefly and get some rest. But I do disagree with some of the things here written by Brother Campbell on this subject inasmuch as he has not established by the use of God’s eternal word that such is the truth according to it. For there is not a single passage in the entire word of God that teaches that we inherit sin, nor that teaches that we inherit a “sinful” or “corrupted” human nature from our father Adam. I have been asking for scriptures to support the idea of the inheritance of a “sinful nature” as was expressed by Brother Davis’ Creed and have not been presented with any SCRIPTURES that prove it to be taught of God in his word. And while you know that I greatly appreciate and listen intently and with great interest to anything that the eminent and brilliant Alexander Campbell has to say on any subject. And will examine myself thoroughly for errors when I find myself at variance with such a great light among the saints of God. It is also true that even our greatest leaders without evidence from God’s word can persuade me. Even an “angel from heaven” that teaches anything contrary to the doctrine of Christ cannot persuade me without showing from God’s word that their teaching is true and in harmony with it. And I do not believe that even Brother Campbell established this position as true from the scriptures. And those who teach that we inherit a sinful nature, failing to prove from the word of God that it is true might cease upon this quotation from Brother Campbell as sufficient evidence of their claim because he is held in such high regard among us. But this is not sufficient evidence for Christians. For if anyone hopes to convince a Christian of the truthfulness of a doctrine he must show that the doctrine comes from Christ and not man. So, since I am a Christian and I am NOT a “Campbellite” this quotation is of little consequence in the discussion that we have been having concerning the Calvinism found in Brother Davis’ creed. So, I still wait for evidence from the word of God that man inherited a corrupted or sinful nature from Adam. And even though I disagree with Brother Campbell concerning some of what he says here I do not disagree with all that he has said. Nor have I disagreed with you entirely in this matter. And I know that you are not quoting Brother Campbell as if his authority will settle the matter apart from God’s word. But you know that I will not be convinced by anything short of the word of God. Quoting men whom we all know and highly respect from the restoration movement is unacceptable if it is done as an authority equal to the authority of Christ and the doctrine of Christ found in the inspired words of the New Testament.

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“A. Campbell has expressed exactly what we were trying to say with our Statement of Faith.”

Nonsense! It is obvious since you are completely unable to find support for your Creed in the scriptures that you should of necessity seek support for it from the words of Brother Campbell. Even Brother Campbell himself would repudiate doing such a thing! Even if Brother Campbell agreed with you entirely, which he most certainly does not, it would establish that your teaching is true according to the word of God, now would it? Now, if you can prove from the word of God that “all people are SINNERS BY NATURE AND BY CHOICE” then do so. For that position is not what Brother Campbell has stated in the quotation given above but even if it was the simple fact that he says it is of not consequence to me in the least. For we are not satisfied that something is true simply because Brother Campbell says it is true. But only if God says it. So, either show us from God’s word that your doctrine is true or despair of ever convincing us Christians of it! For we follow Christ and not Campbell or any other man.

Then you ask:

“Wonder if E. Lee will have a problem with this?”

You need not “wonder” any more. For E/ Lee has a problem with any doctrine that is contrary to and out of harmony with the doctrine of Christ and it matters not to him whether it is taught by A great Christian man as was Brother Campbell or one of lessor ability like Brother Davis. Quoting our great men to support that, which cannot be found in the scriptures is a practice that I abhor. And I strongly suggest that we turn to the word of God and see what it teaches. For men do err, including myself as much if not more than others. But I will not be corrected by the opinions of men. Only the word of God is my guide in these matters and I cannot find anywhere that it teaches that we inherit a sinful nature at all. And there is certainly no scripture that supports your creed, which says that all people are “sinners by nature and by choice”. I deny that any man is a sinner by nature. And you continue to ignore the questions that I have asked about the fact that Christ took upon himself our nature (the nature of man) (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2:5-8). Did he inherit a SINFUL corrupt nature from ADAM? Did he inherit sin from ADAM? Was Christ, who took on our nature a SINNER BY NATURE as your Creed teaches? For what ever our nature is Christ’s nature was from the very day he was born. For he was made “like us”. Was Christ therefore a sinner by nature even though he was not a sinner by choice? Now, why are you ignoring these questions which I have now asked you to answer three times?

So, Brother Campbell never said “all people are sinners by nature and by choice as you have said. But he has said that we inherit a sinful corrupted nature but he does not prove it from the word of God and therefore I must disagree with him concerning that matter. I therefore do very much disagree and will wait to see if anyone can show, from the word of God, that human nature is inherently sinful.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

E. Lee,

Scripture was posted under the "Statement of Faith" thread to assist you in coming to the truth. For some reason, you've chosen to ignore it.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“E. Lee, Scripture was posted under the "Statement of Faith" thread to assist you in coming to the truth. For some reason, you've chosen to ignore it.”

Now, I have responded regularly to your post in the thread entitled “Statement of Faith”. And you have ignored deliberately most of what I have said to you in response. As is demonstrated by the fact that I have asked you the questions found in my last post more than three times. Nevertheless, I have read the post to which you refer in your above remarks which you claim that I have “ignored for some reason”. When the truth is that I have show clearly that I have never ignored anything that you have siad as it is my habit to respond to every single word in the post to which I respond. I have simply not had time to respond to your last post to me in that thread because of my work and my taking the time to respond to your questions and comments in other post as well as questions posed to me from others beside yourself. But, I will now respond concerning the passage which you quote in that thread wherein you falsely claim that it teaches that “all people are sinners by NATURE and by Choice”. Even though the passage says not one single word concerning HOW we become sinners.

The verse which you claim talks about our “sinful nature” and supports your false notion that “all people are sinners by nature and by choice” is as follows:

“E. Lee, Perhaps the following passage will clear things up for you concerning the sinful nature: (Romans 5:12-21)”

I will respond more specifically to your every word in that that tread but here, as you are claiming to have given a scripture that supports your false doctrine I will simply discuss the passage to which you referred us in that thread.

Now, anyone reading Romans 5:12-21will not find the words “sinful nature” anywhere in it. Nor will they even find the subject of how we become sinners discussed in it. And for others you should notice that it says nothing whatsoever about anything that we inherited from Adam that is innate in our nature.

This passage is often misunderstood because the context is ignored. In this verse Paul takes up again his point that was made in Romans 5:12 which he qualified with the verses that are between verse 12 and verse 18. It would be helpful to read these verses: Romans 5:12-17 reads, “5:12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned_ 5:13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 5:15 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 and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 5:16 And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 5:17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ._ Then Verse 18 says: “Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.” This passage shows that Christ death brought for ALL men all that had been lost by Adam’s sin. Adam’s sin brought (1) Natural death upon all men without exception. (2) It brought spiritual death to all that continued in Sin. Spiritual Death did not come upon the human race as a result of Adam's sin but rather as a result of each man’s' personal sins. “The soul that sinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son but the soul that sinneth it shall die.” (Ezek.18:20). Christ death reversed the sentence of physical death that came upon the human race as a result of Adam’s sin. For all will be raised from the dead, therefore it brings a full pardon of Adam’s sin and it’s consequences upon the entire human race. For our Lord declared that “the hour cometh and now is that they that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth, they that have done good to the resurrection of life and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28,29). This is what is universal in this as well as all of the other passages that Brother Garrett cites. But this verse, as well as the others, says absolutely nothing about Christ granting automatically, at his death, the eternal salvation from the sins committed by the rest of us individually! Christ death brings the full pardon of Adam’s sin and hence all infants and irresponsible persons are sinless. It brings eternal life to all those who are free from Adam’s sins and have no personal sins of their own (If you can find such a person). It also brings the opportunity of forgiveness of personal sins committed by the rest of us through the gospel thus securing eternal life for all who are obedient to it. (Hebrews 5:8,9). In other words we now have a choice that we never had before. That choice is to repent and obey Christ in order to be forgiven of our sins (Acts 2:38; 3:19;Mark 16:16). This is why God grants to all that BELIEVE the “power to become sons of God” John1: 12.

Understanding this makes these passages fit in perfect harmony with the passages that indicate that some men will be lost eternally because of there own personal sins but none will be lost eternally because of Adam’s sin! For this passage, as well as all of the others do not teach unconditional universal salvation of all sinners at the moment that Christ died on the Cross. This passage is in the context of Paul contrasting and comparing the effects of Adam’s disobedience and sin with the effect of Christ_s obedience unto death. These passages teach a “universal”pardon of Adam’s sin. The only way that Adam’s sin could be universally pardoned is through the general resurrection of all men from the dead. This is clearly the teaching of this passage. Paul in this passage is giving both a comparison and a contrast between Adam and Christ. “For as in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive.” That is because of Adam we all face Physical death but because of Christ we have the hope of the resurrection. Now, notice that there is absolutely no difference between Adam’s nature before the fall and his nature after the fall. And, as I have asked before, did Adam become a sinner by NATURE? Is it even remotely taught in the word of God that Adam hade a “sinful nature” before he sinned? If he did not then he is at least one person who did not become a sinner BY NATURE. And Christ was not a sinner at all so he is yet another person who did not become a SINNER BY NATURE. Then how is it that Brother Davis’s Creed can be true when it states that ALL PEOPLE are sinners by NATURE and by choice?

All men can expect to be raised from the dead but only those who have been obedient to the gospel can be saved from the effects of the consequences of their own sins and expect to be raised to eternal life. (Heb. 5:8,9; 2 Thess. 1:9-11;Cor. 15:1-4). Do we all die spiritually because of Adam’s sin? No we do not. In fact there is not evidence whatsoever that anyone dies spiritually because of Adam’s sin. We all die physically because of his sin. For when God sent Adam out of the garden of Eden prevented all of mankind from having access to the tree of life “lest he should eat and LIVE FOREVER”. The one thing that changed was that God seperated man from the source of eternal physical life on this earth when he barred man from having access to the tree of life. Therefore, because of Adam’s sin we all look forwared to a certain grave for we also do not have access to the tree of life and therefore cannot eat of it and live forever. Thus, if we inherited anything at all we inherited a world deprived of access to the tree of life and are therefore condemned to face physical death. And through Christ obedience we have the remedy or release from the punishment of death that came upon all men because of Adam’s sin in that all men righteopus and unrighteous shall raise from the dead because of Christ.

Thus God has forgiven Adam through Christ and therefore all men will be raised from the dead, including Adam. All will be brought back to life. Whether they will live eternally or suffer eternally spiritually depends on whether they have been obedient to the Gospel. Therefore the gospel is GOOD NEWS that because of Christ death our father Adam has been forgiven and therefore all of us have been released from the “sting of death” and the “{victory of the grave”. But the contrast is that Christ goes further than merely removing the consequence of Adam's sin upon the race and forgives us also through the gospel. Take very close notice of verse 17! It says, “ If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.” It very plainly limits those who will “reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ” to those who “RECEIVE” the abundance of his grace. Now this excludes those who do not receive it. Therefore this individual eternal salvation is conditioned upon our receiving it. If we neglect or reject this salvation we will not “reign in Life through Christ. (Heb. 2:3,4).

So, Brother Davis, there is not a single word in this entire passage that even remotely indicates that we inherited anything in our innate nature that causes us to be sinners. And you have not show us one word in the verse that so teaches such. What we “inherited” if anything was a world under the curse of physical death because God removed the access to the tree of life as a consequence of Adam’s sin. And because Christ obeyed God in his dying For us God is reversing the punishment of physical death which came upon ALL men through Adam’s sin so that ALL men will be raised from the dead. Thus Adam’s transgression has been completely forgiven. But we die spiritually because of our own transgression which we commit by our own free will and choice and not by the force of anything innate or inherited from Adam or anyone else in our human nature.

Now, we ask that you respond to our arguments and the questions that we have asked of you now three times which you have deliberately ignored.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

E. Lee,

I respond to what I consider to be the relavent portions of your posts. Since most of them are not, I don't respond. You spend most of your time repeating yourself.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Lee.....

Your exegesis fails to account for Romans 5:19...(in fact...you stopped short by stopping at vs. 18).

5:19 states....."For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many WERE MADE SINNERS....."

It is obvious from this passage Lee....that much more than physical death is meant.

Next....you seem to be making a great deal out of the fact that the word "sinful nature" is not not used. I think that is thin ice. I know you believe the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity....however, the word Trinity is nowhere found in the Bible.

Now all that being said....I believe Barry to have explained himself enough to clear the air that he is not a Calvinist on this point. He believes that free will is very much a part of the nature of man. That is certainly a "non-Calvinist" position....would you not agree??

Again I reiterate.....exactly the nature of what we inherited from Adam will probably never be settled. Even Mr. Campbell's view in your opinion.....is faulty.

That being said.....there is one point on which we can all agree...including Mr. Campbell.

That is....whatever was lost in Adam.....was regained in Christ.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Brother Danny:

I have been quite busy lately but I want to take the tie to reply to you since I hold you in such high regard. I will begin by giving a quotation of Romans 5:12-22 and making a few comments about its meaning. I will also respond to only a portion of what you have said and will return later to speak to the rest of your post.

The passage is very accurately translated in the “oracles of God” translation as follows:

“12.--Wherefore, as sin entered into the world by one man, in whom all sinned, and by sin, death: thus death came upon all men. (For sin was in the world till the law: but sin is not imputed, when there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them who had not sinned, in the manner of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift: for if by the offence of the one, the many died; much more the favor of God, and the gift by favor, which is of the one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded to the many. And not as through one who sinned, is the free gift: for the sentence was from one to condemnation; but the free gift is from many offences to justification. For if by the offence of the one, death reigned by the one; much more shall they, who receive the abundance of favor, and of the gift of justification, reign in life, by the one--Jesus Christ.) Now, therefore, as through one offence, the sentence came upon all men to condemnation: so, also, by one act of obedience, the sentence came upon all men to justification of life. For as through the disobedience of one man, the many were constituted sinners; so by the obedience of the one, the many shall be constituted righteous. Moreover, the law supervened, that the offence might abound; but where sin abounded, favor superabounded--that as sin reigned by death, so, also, favor might reign by justification to eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:12-22 Oracles of God translation).

Now it is clear that Paul is speaking here to contrast Adam and Christ. And that at least two things came from them each that are contrasted. Through the former all men were “constituted sinners” and through the latter all men were “constituted righteous”. And through the former “death reigned” over all men and through the latter “life reigned” over all men. None of those who were “constituted sinners” because of Adam’s sins were actually sinners because of his sin just as none of those who were constituted righteous because of the obedience of Christ were actually righteous. But as it was just of God to condemn the entire human race to physical death because of the sin of Adam. And that he did so by removing access to the tree of life whereby men could “eat and live forever” as a punishment for Adam’s sin thus all men have no remedy for death. Just so through Christ all men who have died physically as a result of the punishment of Adam’s sin shall be raised from the dead because of the forgiveness of Adam’s sin by the obedience of Christ. Even Christ himself suffered death because of Adam’s sin and he was the first born from the dead showing that he had overcome punishment of Adam’s sin and removed the effect of its consequence for all men.

And there is simply nothing more to this. There is not a word in this passage that was intended to imply that there was any change in our natures resulting from Adam’s sin that would in some innate way make us sinners “by nature”.

And I repeat that, though you have given just notice to my questions and warned others of the dangers they point to, none have bothered to answer my questions concerning the fact that Christ took upon himself our very nature. And if all that possess human nature are MADE SINNERS by God because of Adam’s sin then Christ was also MADE A SINNER. For whatever is our nature was Christ nature while he was on this earth. And I would hope that none would conclude that since Christ took on our nature that God too MADE him A SINNER through some mystical change in human nature that was inherited from Adam. For if we all actually sinned in our physical father Adam then Christ actually sinned. And if we all inherited a corrupt nature from our physical father Adam then Christ also inherited the same corrupt nature for he also took upon him our very nature. (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2:5-8).

Now just why is it that none of you who think that all men have inherited sin from Adam have avoided answering my very pertinent and pointed question about Christ inheriting sin or being MADE A SINNER when he took upon himself our very nature as a human being? Is it because you want me to do all of the responding and answering of questions or is it because you do not want to admit that there just might be a point to seriously consider in this question? Or is it that you just do not have a good answer to this question. But I have asked it now four or five times. What is the problem? Why not give some kind of response to it? When I do not respond quickly enough to suit some they hasten to point out that I have not responded. But I can ask questions until I am “blue in the face” and they remain simply ignored. Why is that brethren? I know that my manner of speaking has alienated some of you but that is no excuse for just ignoring important questions, now is it?

Brother Danny:

You have accurately and correctly pointed to a very good question and one that deserves very much a serious and reasonable reply and I shall do my best to respond appropriately to it. You asked:

“Lee..... Your exegesis fails to account for Romans 5:19...(in fact...you stopped short by stopping at vs. 18). 5:19 states....."For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many WERE MADE SINNERS....." It is obvious from this passage Lee....that much more than physical death is meant.”

You are very correct in point to the fact that I “stopped short at verse 18”. And I can assure you, as the fact that I am known for writing lengthy post demonstrates, that I did not intentionally stop short. And I was not ignoring the verse because I see any conflict with what this verse says and my rejection of the false notion that we are “sinners by nature and by choice” as Brother Davis’ Creed asserts. Rather, I was writing from my desk at work and did not have the time to go into all that we should know about this verse and how it fits the argument made by Paul in this place. In fact, I wanted very much to talk about this verse for it holds a significant “key” to the understanding of the entire passage. My previous post was not intended to be a detailed “exegesis” of the passage but rather a response to the verses quoted by Brother Davis. He quoted through the 22nd verse of this chapter and I only had time to discuss through verse 18. And then I had to go back to work.

And the passage does, in most versions read as you have quoted it thus:

“5:19 states....."For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many WERE MADE SINNERS…”

But your assertion is not correct that:

“It is obvious from this passage Lee....that much more than physical death is meant.”

It is not as “obvious” as it might seem Brother Danny. I admit to you that on the surface it so appears but it is not quite so obvious for if such were its meaning it would make CHRIST HIMSELF a sinner. For Christ was among the “many” human beings that lived after the sin of Adam and that partook of the same nature as all of the rest of the “many” who were MADE SINNERS by God because of Adam’s sin. Therefore it is not quite obvious that the “many spoken of here were made to be ACTUAL SINNERS by some corruption in their inherent nature resulting from Adam’s sin now is it? For if such were true then Christ was possessed of the same corrupt nature and was also MADE A SINNER by it. But it is true that all men suffered the consequences of the punishment of Adam’s sin, which was that they no longer had the remedy for death that was provided in the Garden of Eden for man. For they had all been denied access to the tree of life from which man could “eat and live forever”. Therefore “death reigned over all men INCLUDING JESUS CHRIST who took upon himself the nature of man and was made in the likeness of man and was tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin. And who suffered death just as we all do. But his obedience ended this “reign of death” for all men including himself for he was the “firstborn from the dead” that all men would be raised from the dead as well as he. But they would not be raised because they inherited a “righteous and incorrupt nature from him. And the entire human race did not suddenly and mystically have any immediate change in their human nature as a result of his death. But they were made free from death. “Oh death where is thy victory?”. It has no more reigns over us for all men whether they are actually righteous or not will be raised from the dead. But not all will be raised to eternal life (John 5:28,29). For they will be punished after the resurrection for their personal sins unless they obey the gospel of Christ to obtain the forgiveness of them. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38).

Now, here are a few things to consider about this verse and what it actually says. This verse furnishes a reason for what is said in the 18th verse. For in that verse it is merely asserted that by one sin, on the one hand, the SENTENCE OF DEATH came upon all men to condemnation. And that by the righteous act of the one, on the other hand, the reversal of the sentence of death that was passed upon all men was achieved. SO that because of Adam’s sin man was deprived of access to the tree of life and therefore was condemned to die. And because of Christ’s obedience or righteousness all men will be raised from the dead so that they are no longer punished because of the consequences of Adam’s sin. But no reason is assigned for these assertions in verse 18. But verse 19 gives the reason for them.

It tells us that “the many were made sinners”. But this should be more properly and with less confuse translated as “the many were constituted sinners” rather than that they were ACTUALLY MADE SINNERS. The verb "kateestathesan” is here in this verse a very significant word; indeed it is the key that unlocks the meaning of the verse. It signifies to “set down, make, appoint, ordain, constitute.” These are its most common meanings and from them the word Constitute seems in this place to exactly express sense in which the word is used in this verse.

The verb is passive and means “were constituted”. Who were “constituted”? The “hoi polloi” the many. But the many did not constitute themselves; not by anything they ever did or thought. The act of constitution another’s, not theirs. They were constituted- by whom? The passage would appear to teach that it was by the disobedience of the one man. It reads, “ for as by the disobedience of one man the many were constituted…” But this is incorrect. The disobedience of the one did not “constitute the many” either as subject or agent. It was instead the means THROUGH which or the REASON WHY ANOTHER constituted them. Did Adam constitute them? Certianly not! For whoever constituted them sinners is also the one who constituted them just. This fact alone excludes Adam. God, then must have been the one to have constituted them sinners for there is no one else that could have done so.

But what did He “constitute” them? He “constituted” them “harmartoloi”, sinners. Now note carefully that the “many” were not sinners within and of themselves, or by any acts of theirs. Instead they were “constituted sinners”. WE cannot constitute him a sinner who is one by his own act. If he is a sinner by his own act, he is so independently of all acts of “constitution” Nor did God “constitute” the many sinners through, or because of, any acts of their own. He constituted them sinners through the disobedience of Adam. Before that disobedience they were not constituted sinners but after it they were. God must, then have constitute them sinners through, or by means of Adam’s sin, and because of it. This I believe to have been the fact. And, if so, it is the precise reason for saying they were constituted sinners. It is not said of Adam that he was “constituted” a sinner. Of course not for he was actually and in fact a sinner. And therefore could not be a “constituted” one. But at the instant of their being constituted his posterity was not sinners as he was. They had committed no sin, except as through him sinning for them. Therefore they were merely “constituted sinners” and not actual sinners. And nothing was done to human nature to corrupt it or in any way whatsoever to make anyone ACTUAL sinners simply by some mystical, and I might add completely imaginary, corrupt human nature! Nothing anywhere in this entire passage and its context even remotely implies that human nature itself was corrupted by Adam’s sin. Nor that anything was inherited by his posterity from him that would cause us to actually be guilty of sin or prone to sin any more than Adam himself was prone to sin before he actually disobeyed God. There is nothing in the entire word of God that would teach us that man’s nature was actually corrupted directly by Adam’s sin. Now as sin became prevalent surely many learned traits and behaviors may have mad sin more deceptive and obedience far more difficult but nothing in the innate nature of mans make up as a creature of God was “corrupted” by sin.

But God “constituted the “many” sinners. Now in what sense are we to take the word “harmatoloi”? Are we to take it as meaning actual sinners? Were the word “sinners” (harmartoloi) unqualified this view would be correct. But as it the case stands in this context it is not. The many “were constituted” sinners. The verb “katestathesan” itself qualifies the word. For example, when I say that the keyboard upon which I write was made, has the phrase “was made” no qualifying effect? It not only implies that the keyboard did not make itself; but it also excludes the idea of its being unmade or eternal. So when Paul says that the “many were constituted sinners. He implies that they did not make themselves sinners by their own actions. In so becoming they took no part. But rather they were merely “constituted” sinners. The truth is, the very object of choosing the verb used was to negative the notion of their being actual sinners and it effectively does just that. God constituted the many as sinners through Adam’s sin and because of it. But this was not done because of any guilt of their own, or with a view to it. The sole reason was Adam’s sin and the sole end was death.

Now just how did God “constituted them as sinners? He did so when he punished Adam by banishing him from the Garden of Eden and preventing him or any of his posterity from ever having access to the tree of life from which they had heretofore been able to “eat and live forever”. Thus all men from that very day forward were subject to death. They had no means to prevent it! And thus, though they had never sinned themselves but because they were the descendents of one who did. And if God had only allowed Adam to die and allowed his descendents to live forever his promise to Adam that he would die would have been over thrown by his living descendents. But because all men die, Adam has been punished as God promised. For not only did he die but all men after him have died and will die until Christ returns. And then death will lose its sting! And all who have died because of Adam’s sin shall be “made alive" because of Christ’s obedience. All men will be raised from the dead whether they are saints or sinners or Christians or evil. All men will be raised from the dead and when that happens the consequence of Adam’s sin is over forever! But this has nothing to say about the forgiveness of those who are actual sinners by their own acts of disobedience. For their consequences are spiritual death. And this is not taken away by the obedience of Christ. It is taken away by the sacrifice of Christ blood and our faithful response to the gospel in repentance and baptism FOR THE REMISSION OF THOSE SINS. (Acts 2:38).

Now, I am still very much convinced of the “touch of Calvinism” in Brother Davis’ Creed. For it is not the word of God that teaches that we are “sinners by nature”. But rather creeds like Brother Davis’ Creed which has come from the minds of men who have surely been influenced by Calvinism and it’s pernicious and deceptive doctrines to think that man is “by his nature a sinner. They just fail to realize that believing such makes Christ our Lord a “sinner by nature”. Now, All of us we “constituted sinners” because we suffer from the consequences of the punishment meted out to our father Adam. But we are not by nature but rather quite against nature sinners by choice and rebellion against God. We are not sinners by any other means. So, as in Adam all suffer physical death so in Christ shall all be raised from the dead. But no one suffers spiritual death because of Adam’s disobedience but rather because of their own. And none will obtain eternal life solely by and because of the “obedience of Christ” but rather by their own submission and obedience to Christ. (Romans 6:16-18; Heb. 5:8,9). All men will physically die because of Adam’s sin since God removed the tree of life from us as a punishment to Adam for his disobedience. And all men will be raised from the dead because of the resurrection of Christ. But none will die spiritually for any reason other than their own sins and none will live eternally for any other reason than their own choice to be obedient to the gospel of Christ.

Brother Danny, I have much more that I would like to say but it is late again and I must rest. But I must say that I cannot agree with you that Brother Davis’ has cleared himself of the charge of teaching Calvinism in his creed. But I am very happy top know that I can trust you to ever seek the truth and that, as always, when you question anything that I have said I always stop to reconsider. I do hope however that what I have written will at the very least give you and our readers some important things to consider. And that it will cause our readers to be more careful to notice those who abuse “Scriptural terms” by giving them a “Calvinistic sense” rather than accurately using scriptural terms to teach the intended sense of the doctrine of Christ. For there is no question in my mind that Brother Davis’ creed intends to go away from the truth on this matter as well as the matter of baptism being for the remission of sins. As well as several other truths from the doctrine of Christ which it is his intent to pervert and which he has sought to pervert in other threads in this forum.

So, I am watching such deceptive tactics and will not just let them slid by without notice. If I were having this discussion with one such as yourself whom I know to love the truth and ever seeks to teach it and obey it and contend earnestly for it my manner would be somewhat different. But this discussion has been with one who has proven himself to be opposed to the truth of the doctrine of Christ and I do not trust such a one and will not just accept his assertions as being well intentioned because of it. And this course of action I am taking will not change for any reason. Let the winds howl as they may that is the way it will be.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“E. Lee, I respond to what I consider to be the relevant portions of your posts. Since most of them are not, I don't respond. You spend most of your time repeating yourself.”

Well, you have said that before and it is as about as good as an excuse this time as the last time you said it! It is as pathetic when you make such excuses but it becomes almost hilarious when you repeat them! Ha!

But the truth is that you have not shown yourself to be a very competent judge of what is “relevant” to any of the discussion. It is quite obvious by your manner of “not responding” that you find arguments that you cannot answer quite irrelevant to the discussion. And you find all that you have to say, whether it makes any sense whatsoever, to be relevant. If something is not relevant to the discussion why not have the courage to simply say that it is not relevant and offer some good reason or evidence to support that claim? The reason you do not do this is because your judgement concerning what is relevant or not would then come under scrutiny and you cannot bear that now can you? The truth is that if you had any answer to the things I have said you would offer it up whether it were relevant to the subject or not. But our readers are taking very good notice of what you chose to ignore and their ability to discern whether something is relevant is far better than you give them credit. They are not easily deceived or mislead by such foolish tactics, Brother Davis.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

E. Lee,

You said: But our readers are taking very good notice of what you chose to ignore and their ability to discern whether something is relevant is far better than you give them credit.

If this is true, why does everyone except you agree with me (and the Bible, I might add) on this issue?

The fact of the matter is, you do not have a very good grasp of theology or scripture. I am not going to waste my time chasing you around every rabbit trail you choose to go down. If you think I'm running away from the argument, fine, I don't really care what you think about much of anything. My only hope is that you would actually search the scriptures and do some exegesis instead of continuing your much aligned practice of eisegesis.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Brother Davis you have said:

“If this is true, why does everyone except you agree with me (and the Bible, I might add) on this issue?”

Well, Brother Davis, it is not necessarily true that among our readers, which is whom I was speaking about, that every one of them agrees with you about this matter. And it is certain that the Bible does not agree with your position. And that is exactly what we have been discussing. I have asked you questions concerning how the Bible does not agree with your position and I have given reasons why but that is what you have chosen to consider “irrelevant”, now isn’t it?

Then you say:

“The fact of the matter is, you do not have a very good grasp of theology or scripture.”

Well if that is a fact what is the proof of it? Just because we do not agree with you is no evidence that we do not have a “good grasp” of the scriptures. And we could care less about having a “grasp” upon what is termed “theology” today. For it is today’s theology that is often contrary to the Scriptures.

Then you say:

“ I am not going to waste my time chasing you around every rabbit trail you choose to go down.”

You have shown that you are not willing to go down any trail with us whether it is a “rabbit trail” or the straight and narrow path of truth found in the doctrine of Christ. Your time is your business and we have not asked nor do we expect you to “waste” any of it. But if you are going to take the time to “start” a discussion then it only seems reasonable that you should be willing to engage those who disagree with you in some form of dialogue about your stated positions. But there is not requirement that you do so. Our readers are more than able to decipher the real reasons that you are avoiding certain portions of the dialogue. And you were so concerned when I had not responded promptly to the scripture that you had given for us to consider that I took the time to give you the response that you demanded so urgently. But we have asked you to respond in like manner to our arguments from the scriptures and now it is all a “waste of your time”. It is not a waste of your time to assert your position it is simply a “waste of your time” to defend it now isn’t it?

Then you say:

“ If you think I'm running away from the argument, fine, I don't really care what you think about much of anything.”

We do not expect that you should care what we think. We do however hope that you would care what we perceive that the word of God has to say about this subject. For if we fail to understand the truth of God’s word we can be mislead and deceived and go into egregious error. But according to your own admission you do not care if we are in error and self deceived, now do you? Even when we are asking you questions in order to give you the opportunity to correct us. But you do not care what we think which means that you do not care if we fail to understand what you are convinced it the truth of God’s word.

But whether you care about what we “think” is of no consequence to us. But you are the one who was trying to convince us to believe the things taught in your creed. And in order to convince us to accept such things you must be willing to answer our questions concerning how it appears that your doctrine is contrary to the teaching of God’s word. But now we see that you do not care whether we have answers to those questions or not. And the apparent reason that you do not care about this is because you cannot answer the questions. And we are therefore very much justified in perceiving that it is very likely that you are in fact running away from the argument.

We do however care very much whether you follow, believe and teach that which is according to the doctrine of Christ as we care about all men in the same way. And for that reason, because we are convinced that you are in error on this matter, seek to correct your error. And we seek also to be corrected by you if we are in error concerning it. But you do not care if we are in error or not, now do you? Now that does sound like you care more about yourself and how you are perceived concerning the argument than about the truth and whether others will understand it, believe it and obey it or not.

Then you say:

“My only hope is that you would actually search the scriptures and do some exegesis instead of continuing your much aligned practice of eisegesis.”

Now, if this were the truth you would be willing to lead us in such a “search of the scriptures” and help us with our “exegesis” so that we do not end up committing the error of eisegesis. You would do this by giving us some references to search and correcting our exegesis and proving to us that we are guilty of eisegesis instead so that we can learn what is right. And you would do this by answering our questions concerning the scriptures that you might offer and statements you might make concerning them. But the truth is such is not your “hope” in the least is it. For as you have said you do not care what we think. Therefore you are not even telling the truth here when you claim that your “only hope” is that we will search the scriptures, now is it?

And you only assert that we are practicing “eisegesis” instead of exegesis. But you do not ever make any attempt to prove that such is the case, now do you? And you have not even made an attempt at exegesis. All you have done is assume and assert. And you have demonstrated that you do not want to “prove” what you say is true. You merely want to assert it and be angry with those of us who do not accept your mere assertions because you offer no proof of their veracity.

Brethren:

Please notice that the questions that we have now asked several times remain unanswered by Brother Davis or anyone else for that matter. And we repeat them here asking you to keep them in mind when others claim that you are a SINNER BY NATURE. And that even Christ himself was a SINNER BY NATURE for he most assuredly took upon himself our very nature as a man. (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2:5-8). And if we inherited sin or even a sinful nature Christ, who took on our nature inherited it as well. Who with any intelligence can believe such nonsense?

But we repeat our questions again for those who care enough about “what we think and come to believe” to answer for us if they can. None have bothered to answer my questions concerning the fact that Christ took upon himself our very nature. (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2:5-8). And if all that possess human nature are MADE SINNERS by God because of Adam’s sin then Christ was also MADE A SINNER. For whatever is our nature was Christ nature while he was on this earth. And I would hope that none would conclude that since Christ took on our nature that God too MADE him A SINNER through some mystical change in human nature that was inherited from Adam. For if we all actually sinned in our physical father Adam then Christ actually sinned. And if we all inherited a corrupt nature from our physical father Adam then Christ also inherited the same corrupt nature for he also took upon him our very nature. (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2:5-8).

And we have asked before, did Adam become a sinner by NATURE? Is it even remotely taught in the word of God that Adam had a “sinful nature” before he sinned? If he did not then he is at least one person who did not become a sinner BY NATURE. And Christ was not a sinner at all so he is yet another person who did not become a SINNER BY NATURE. Then how is it that Brother Davis’ Creed can be true when it states that ALL PEOPLE are sinners by NATURE and by choice?

We have now asked several times for a passage of scripture that teaches we are “Sinners by nature” and thus far none have been presented that teaches such a doctrine. So we still wait for answers but it may be a futile wait since Brother Davis’ doesn’t care whether we learn the truth or not.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001