Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Discussions about the Bible, and any issues raised by Scripture.
DBowling
Senior Member
Posts: 596
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby DBowling » Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:47 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
And Rich Deem clearly believes that the death described in Romans 5:12 does not include plant and animal death.

No, Rich in that article says, "The chapter has nothing to do with animals or the creation." This is not the same as saying that Romans 5:12 excludes all death.

Quoting Rich
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (Romans 5:12)

The verse itself makes it clear that death through sin spread to all men, because of sin. Animals do not sin, so, to apply the verse to animal death is completely taking it out-of-context.

Do you agree with this statement by Rich?

In Christ
Last edited by DBowling on Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8565
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby Kurieuo » Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:51 pm

DBowling wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
DBowling wrote:[
I agree 100% with the statement that "death is a consequence of sin"
But that is different from the statement that "all death is a result of sin"
"all death" would include all of the following
human spiritual death
human physical death
animal death
plant death
And Rich Deem clearly believes that the death described in Romans 5:12 does not include plant and animal death.

It's only a problem if one sees the sole reason for "death" as a punishment. Rich argues that it would be unjust for animals and the rest of creation to be punished for mankind's sin. I agree. But, here is a false dichotomy: Either you accept that death is a punishment for sin, or you accept that death is a good and natural part of creation.

I think there is a third option...
Physical death is a good and natural part of the 'present good creation' which as you pointed out in a post above...
Any frustration of the creation was "because of Him who subjected it" for some good reason...


But the 'present good creation' is not the end of the story. And what may be good and natural for God's purposes in the present creation is not necessarily good and natural for God's perfected creation in the eternal state.
In the eternal state we see heaven and earth coming together, and it is the coming together of heaven and earth that finally frees God's good creation from it's bondage to decay, making it perfect and complete.

And I think the Garden of Eden was a preview of of sorts for the New Heaven/New Earth eternal state.

In Christ

I can agree with all that, but do believe a new heavens and earth will replace the ones we have. What such will be, is anyone's guess. Some believe in a physical world, others spiritualise such. I just know the Lord of all creation is on the other side and that's enough for me so long as He will be there.

I'm also glad you picked up on that point (what you quoted) of mine, because I tried to be purposeful in the way I worded it to make the point clear that God also had greater reasons for such "frustration" (whatever we say "frustration" consists of), knowing humanity would fall. Yes, death is a punishment to us, but it is also a natural consequence of what happens when we don't have God in our life. This is represented in our physical world, but is a mere token of the more important spiritual world which is everlasting.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

DBowling
Senior Member
Posts: 596
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby DBowling » Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:53 pm

RickD wrote:When sin "entered" into the world, is it meaning entered for the first time, or does it not make that distinction?

I think the clear implication of "entered" is that sin entered into the world for the first time.

Now, just as context tells us that the "death" being described is "human death" that same context tells us that the "sin" being described is "human sin".

In Christ

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8565
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby Kurieuo » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:21 pm

DBowling wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
And Rich Deem clearly believes that the death described in Romans 5:12 does not include plant and animal death.

No, Rich in that article says, "The chapter has nothing to do with animals or the creation." This is not the same as saying that Romans 5:12 excludes all death.

Quoting Rich
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (Romans 5:12)

The verse itself makes it clear that death through sin spread to all men, because of sin. Animals do not sin, so, to apply the verse to animal death is completely taking it out-of-context.

Do you agree with this statement by Rich?

I believe it is kind of strawmanish to be honest. The first part of verse isn't being directly applied by YECs to "animal death", but rather they would more argue that it doesn't exclude animal death in its statement as plainly read.

I think it best to take Romans 5:12a as a general statement of "sin in the world, and death through sin", before Paul then hones in on Christ-Adam and our relationship to both. This general statement is what YECs take when they then overlay their position of creation to draw out their point that death came into the world post-Fall to all of creation (which doesn't follow as the only conclusion).

The main part I disagree with is what I see as a false dichotomy. Animals do not sin sure (as far as we're aware), but one can still apply the first part of the verse to include animal death (in the "death" per se) without thinking animals sin. So at best, it just requires a counter response by YECs, which I'm sure they could come up with.

As for what I believe, God knowing man would sin had another reason for death in His plan of redemption (as we just discussed). Had we not sinned, God would have done things differently. Therefore, due to God's foreknowledge, He created the world as He did (with death) due to our sin. So it is quite true that "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin."

A more difficult reading for me would be something like "by one man sin and death entered into the world" -- since such combines both "sin and death" together, rather than separating the two. Since both "sin" and "death" would be together, it's more difficult to argue that God had another reason for death as one would also need to argue that God had a direct plan for sin (the two come together). What I'm getting at becomes more clear if we consider Romans 8:20. If creation was subjected to frustration "and sin" by God's will, then this is clearly harder to explain (since none of us I hope would say sin was by God's express will).
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

DBowling
Senior Member
Posts: 596
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby DBowling » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:49 pm

Kurieuo wrote:As for what I believe, God knowing man would sin had another reason for death in His plan of redemption (as we just discussed). Had we not sinned, God would have done things differently. Therefore, due to God's foreknowledge, He created the world as He did (with death) due to our sin. So it is quite true that "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin."

Let me offer another possibility...
From John 9
As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him

As Jesus points out in John 9, there are reasons for pain and suffering that are not the result of sin.

James 1:2-4 speaks directly to the role that pain and suffering play in the maturation and completion of our relationship with God.
2 My brothers and sisters,[b] whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; 4 and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing.


So I think a Scriptural argument can be made that the role of physical death, pain and suffering in this present world is not limited to punishment or the consequences of sin. I think Scripture also teaches that physical death, pain, and suffering in this present world are a significant contributor to the growth and maturation of our relationship with God.

What would have happened if Adam had not sinned?
I don't know for sure that was even a real possibility.
However, if we are playing "what if", I would guess that God would have expanded on what he started in the Garden of Eden to eventually encompass the whole globe and thus bring about the New Heaven/New Earth and an end to the bondage of creation to decay a lot sooner.

In Christ

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby Jac3510 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:28 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Depends on the force of "entered into the world." I see all of 5-8 as a unit, so I see something very universal in Paul's mind. In that view, it's less about whether or not any part of creation had ever sinned before, but about how the creation itself was subjected to frustration and death through sin. So whether there was any sin before that (i.e., Satan's sin), Paul's point seems to be that this is how the world itself became infected with sin.

Any frustration of the creation was "because of Him who subjected it" for some good reason, which is so the creation could enter the glorious liberty of the Children of God (those who are in Christ Romans 8:16).

This frustration in Romans 8:20, if one believes it is "death", cannot be "through sin" as in Romans 5:12; it is through God's will. Therefore the frustration cannot just be "death through sin", unless one makes God complicit with sin too. There is also a purpose here as to why such frustration exists, because it aligns with God's ultimate plan, which surrounded God's redemptive plan.

As just a side note, I'll remind you of something you pointed out to me. Paul spoke of "sin" in personal terms. Ergo, the world didn't become infected with sin per se, but rather Sin entered into the world. Saying "with sin" seems to carry more of a certain lens. Small point perhaps, I don't know. Seems relevant to state.

Suffice it to say that I think you have a translation problem here. Without getting into details, put a lowercase "h" on that "Him." I think you're also missing the logical connections Paul is making. Let me write it out this way:

    The creation eagerly waits the revelation of the Sons of God
      having been subjected to vanity
        not of its own choice
        but because of the one who subjected it
      in hope that
        the creation itself would be delivered from the bondage of corruption
This is easier to do on real paper, but I'm trying to illustrate somewhat visually the underlying logical connectors in Greek. It should be easy enough to see in English, too. Let's walk through that just a bit.

I. The creation awaits. Fine, that's easy. That's the big idea that governs the next two verses.
Ia. It awaits because it was subjected. That makes good logical sense. The rest of the verses quoted talk about that subjection.
Ia1. That subjection was not of its own will. That is, it did not subject itself to whatever it is we are talking about (but obviously negative, whatever it is)
Ia2. Second, that subjection was rather by the will of the one who subjected it, in this case, Adam
Ib. Now Paul picks back up on the idea of waiting. We saw it awaits because it was subjected. Now we see it awaits in hope.
Ib1. The hope it is waiting for is that it, itself, will be delivered from corruption. That's the thing it is currently subjected to.

Now there's lots of really good theology here, but the point is that the entire world is under a corruption it was not before, and that not by its own choice (so note the personification) but rather because of Adam's choice. But just like human beings are currently in bondage to corruption and are looking forward to liberation and freedom and glorification, the creation awaits our freedom because, just as our our corruption is what broad about the corruption of the world, so our liberation will bring about the liberation of the world. And you can see how that ties in rather easily back with 5:12 in particular and with the entire flow of this whole unit, which is dealing entirely with the notions of life and death.

Perhaps that is sufficient to address some of your concerns?
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8565
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby Kurieuo » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:25 pm

The "him" verses "Him", many translations use an upper "H". I think this is the most important difference between us and where everything hinges. Convince me this is Adam and I'll need to rethink matters, but let me offer up some reasons for believing this is God.

As I see it, creation would include Adam, therefore unless he is subjugating himself too. Yet, Adam had no choice in the matter of the actual subjection of creation, I'm sure he would have much preferred no such subjection to vanity, to not have to work the ground and like. Such was not Adam's will, so much as a part of God's planned will in dealing with sin.

Reading "God" into the passage, is also a more neutral interpretation as I see it.

Furthermore, I see support for such reading elsewhere in Scripture. For example Isaiah 24:1-6 reads:
    1 Behold, the Lord lays the earth waste, devastates it, distorts its surface and scatters its inhabitants. 2 And the people will be like the priest, the servant like his master, the maid like her mistress, the buyer like the seller, the lender like the borrower, the creditor like the debtor. 3 The earth will be completely laid waste and completely despoiled, for the Lord has spoken this word. 4 The earth mourns and withers, the world fades and withers, the exalted of the people of the earth fade away. 5 The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant. 6 Therefore, a curse devours the earth, and those who live in it are held guilty. Therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men are left.
In Genesis 3:17-19 we also read God's judgement and punishment:
    17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
    Cursed is the ground because of you;
    In toil you will eat of it
    All the days of your life.
    18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
    And you will eat the plants of the field;
    19 By the sweat of your face
    You will eat bread,
    Till you return to the ground,
    Because from it you were taken;
    For you are dust,
    And to dust you shall return.”
We can surely see the correlation between God in these passages and Romans 8:20 with God who subjected creation to vanity. God is ultimately responsible for this, it's ultimately God's laws and rules and plan. Nothing moves except God allows such. Adam had no power to subjugate creation, which he himself is also part of. He certainly wouldn't have done so in the hope of delivering it from corruption. Such a sovereign plan and power belongs to God only as I see it.

Yes, much is due to sin, Adam's sin, our own sin, but the world was also created according to God's sovereign plan before the beginning of time to restore us in relationship with Himself. We see that with Christ who was destined prior to creation. And then, such results in all creation finally being freed from such bondage too in God's plan, the temporary creation which is passing, was created with the premise that we would sin and require redemption.

To speculate on what the world would be like had we not sinned or if sin wasn't an issue, then I expect our whole world may have been created a paradise, rather than simply having an area called Garden of Eden where the Lord had fellowship with Adam and took care of him until cast out. Adam and this paradise was a taste of what could be (perhaps just as much for creation as well as man and woman). Had there been no issue of sin to deal with, no one turning against God, then I expect the world would have been created a permanent paradise all over -- like perhaps the new creation will be.

As a side, do you know why many modern translations of Romans 8 have "the creation" for ktisis rather than "the creature" like the KJV renders? I think such language can also heavily influence our understanding of this passage.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8565
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby Kurieuo » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:43 pm

Philip wrote:
K: Now some things should be said about "death" itself, since I'm sure Heiser doesn't like death being a consequence of sin. Scripturally, there is no way around it, all death is a result of sin.


Heiser DOES confirm that death and sin are ultimately the consequence of sin, and specifically because of Adam rebellious and sinful decision to partake of the forbidden fruit. But as to HOW that was applied to us, Heiser says is due to what was removed post Adam's sin:

“Adam’s fall affected all humanity by depriving all humans forever more of the conditions under which they could abide with God in a state of non-sinfulness.

“After the Fall humans were destined to die, and not only that, they were “on their own” when it came to living in righteousness, a pre-condition for living with God. Adam and Eve met that condition before the fall; they did not need redemption until they sinned.

“His (God's) presence maintained this state, and they were in his presence. I think I would be on safe ground in saying that evangelical theologians across the board, rightly wanting God to get credit for Adam and Eve’s sinless state before the Fall, chalk it up (at least in part) to God’s superintending influence and presence in Eden. God was the chief reason they remained in pre-fall sinlessness. Once humans were removed from that, forget it. After the fall, human beings were left to their own efforts and in a hostile environment-the earth outside Eden. They would inevitably and invariably fail and be unable to save themselves.

I agree with Heiser here, but then go much further believing that all death is due to sin. That's territory where many OECs (of which you know I am), wouldn't go. Yet, hopefully you can see in my exchanges with DBowling my own reasons for why I believe this, and how such is still compatible with an OEC position.

I'll really need to spend time reading Heiser, but between posting what I do, and work, I'd like to set aside time to read over him. I'm sure I'll agree with much. Two pages I quickly read, I didn't strongly disagree with anything. So then, responding to Jac who had picked over it I thought would create a more interesting platform to respond to.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby Jac3510 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:39 am

Kurieuo wrote:The "him" verses "Him", many translations use an upper "H". I think this is the most important difference between us and where everything hinges. Convince me this is Adam and I'll need to rethink matters, but let me offer up some reasons for believing this is God.

Sure,I'll do so as I offer responses to why you think "God" is better understood to be the subject.

As I see it, creation would include Adam, therefore unless he is subjugating himself too. Yet, Adam had no choice in the matter of the actual subjection of creation, I'm sure he would have much preferred no such subjection to vanity, to not have to work the ground and like. Such was not Adam's will, so much as a part of God's planned will in dealing with sin.

Two things here. First, creation certainly includes Adam, but I'm sure you can appreciate talking about creation as distinct from mankind, and so Adam in particular. And that distinction is evident in the very passage. It's saying that all of creation is eagerly awaiting the liberation of the sons of God, in context, the glorification of Christians in the resurrection. But clearly Christians--human beings--are part of the creation.

Second, it doesn't say that the creation is was subjected by Adam's will or choice as if it were something Adam wanted to do. I think, in fact, that's a large problem with the idea that God is one who doing the subjecting. The verse says nothing of desire. It is speaking of consequences. The personification should be obvious. The creation itself doesn't have a will. So what is Paul getting at when he says that the creation wasn't subjected "willingly" to corruption. It's a clear picture, clear to me anyway, that it was reduced by something else to that vanity. There was nothing in creation itself to bring about this corruption. So the only two things that could bring about that corruption would be either God or Adam, where the latter, while part of creation, is understood as distinct from and over creation. So no one's desires, Adam's or God's, enters the pictures. The question is only who or what was the factor that introduced the corruption in question.

Reading "God" into the passage, is also a more neutral interpretation as I see it.

I don't see anything neutral about it. I find it a very theologically loaded interpretation. But even grant that, it doesn't matter what's more neutral. It matters what Paul meant.

Furthermore, I see support for such reading elsewhere in Scripture. For example Isaiah 24:1-6 reads:
    1 Behold, the Lord lays the earth waste, devastates it, distorts its surface and scatters its inhabitants. 2 And the people will be like the priest, the servant like his master, the maid like her mistress, the buyer like the seller, the lender like the borrower, the creditor like the debtor. 3 The earth will be completely laid waste and completely despoiled, for the Lord has spoken this word. 4 The earth mourns and withers, the world fades and withers, the exalted of the people of the earth fade away. 5 The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant. 6 Therefore, a curse devours the earth, and those who live in it are held guilty. Therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men are left.
In Genesis 3:17-19 we also read God's judgement and punishment:
    17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
    Cursed is the ground because of you;
    In toil you will eat of it
    All the days of your life.
    18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
    And you will eat the plants of the field;
    19 By the sweat of your face
    You will eat bread,
    Till you return to the ground,
    Because from it you were taken;
    For you are dust,
    And to dust you shall return.”

So the laying waste of the earth in Isaiah isn't talking about subjecting it to vanity. It's poetic description of the coming judgment of sin on the nation of Israel. It's just an entirely inappropriate analogy. But even if it were appropriate, it wouldn't matter, because this is still predicated on the idea of desire, which is just completely foreign to the Rom 8 passage. If Rom 8:20 had said, "not by its own desire, but by the desire of the one who subjected it" then you'd have a stronger case--not airtight, because you could argue that it was the results of Adam's desire that subjected it, but much stronger nonetheless. But as it is, again, you have nothing of desire in the passage. You have only willful submission, which is best understood as I described it above. So the whole issue of dealing with sin just doesn't enter into the interpretation of the passage. In other words, this isn't about what God wanted to do in order to deal with sin. It's about what happened to the world because of Adam's sin.

The Genesis passage, on the other hand, is very relevant and I think is exactly what Paul was thinking of. Notice, again, we don't have anything here about God's desires, per se. We have mere consequences. Yes, you could argue that God did what He wanted, but that's a bit of a tautology, isn't it? God doesn't do anything He doesn't want to do. It's not like God is compelled to do anything. But more important is the phrase "because of you." Rom 8:20 is very much recalling the language of Gen 3:17, I think. The ground was cursed because of you. The creation was subjected to vanity not because of itself but because of him. Who is the "him" -- the parallel is much more clearly about Adam, I think.

We can surely see the correlation between God in these passages and Romans 8:20 with God who subjected creation to vanity. God is ultimately responsible for this, it's ultimately God's laws and rules and plan. Nothing moves except God allows such. Adam had no power to subjugate creation, which he himself is also part of. He certainly wouldn't have done so in the hope of delivering it from corruption. Such a sovereign plan and power belongs to God only as I see it.

Yes, but again, that's a tautological point. Nothing does anything without God. The same argument could be applied to Adam's sin or the serpent's lie. And Adam certainly did have the power to subjugate creation to vanity and corruption. He was to rule over it. In sinning, he brought sin into the world, remember?

Next, you have a problem with "in the hope of delivering it from corruption." I admit here and now that if "in the hope" modifies "subjugates" then you have to take this as referring to God and not Adam. But I think we have very, very strong reasons for rejecting that. If you look back at my previous attempt at a visual layout of the passage, I don't think "in hope" modifies "subjugated" but rather "eagerly awaits." I really wish I could show you this is Greek. It doesn't prove the point, but I think my reading is more natural (as opposed to more neutral).

You know, what . . . I'm going to try anyway. Ignore this point if you like, and I won't feel dismissed. It really isn't fair to try to ask you to critique this kind of analysis. But all the same, I'm sharing my own reasons for why I take it the way I do. So here's the verse:

    η γαρ αποκαραδοκια της κτισεως την αποκαλυψιν των υιων του θεου απεκδεχεται

    τη γαρ ματαιοτητι η κτισις υπεταγη

    ουχ εκουσα αλλα δια τον υποταξαντα

    επ ελπιδι
Look at the two words I've bolded. Your English translations renders these together to say, "For the creation eagerly awaits . ." The first bolded word has the idea of "with great expectation." The last bolded word the verb "to await." So a wooden translation would be:

    For with eagerness the creation the revelation of the sons of God awaits
Now that's obviously bad English. That's just not the way we speak. But that phrasing is important for a better understanding of the verse. Because in Greek, word order doesn't matter. Any word can go pretty much anywhere in a sentence (with some exceptions I won't bore you with). The placement of the words, then, doesn't tell you the grammatical function like it does in English (i.e, "The cat bit the dog" is a very different sentence than "The dog bit the cat"). Instead, the placement of words tells you something about their relation to each other in terms of emphasis and logical connection.

Looking at it that way, we see the emphasis of the verse is the eagerness with which the creation awaits. Again, lots of personification there. It's as if the world is in pain, hurting, and anxiously awaiting relief at the earliest possible second. And what is it waiting for? The revelation (or the revealing, which we see in context is the glorification) of the sons of God. That is, OUR salvation results in creation's salvation. (And all of that, by the way, is a great way to sum up the entire argument of Rom 5-8!). And then Paul puts the verb at the very end of the sentence.

Now, it isn't because the verb is unimportant. It's because it brings it closer--literally closer, as in fewer words between them--to the clauses that modify that verb. So we come to the word "awaits" and immediately come on a modifer

    τη γαρ ματαιοτητι η κτισις υπεταγη
Woodenly translated, "for to vanity the creation was subjected." The bolded word here ("gar") is an explanatory word. It tells us that the clause the follows explains what it is connected to. So it is answering the question, "Why is it waiting"? Not why it it waiting eagerly--that's in the context, but here, very clearly, why is it waiting at all? And the answer is, "the creation was subjected to vanity." Stated positively, creation is waiting to be delivered from the corruption that was foisted upon it. Fine, that's easy. We then come to the next clause

    ουχ εκουσα αλλα δια τον υποταξαντα
Woodenly, "not willingly, but rather because of the one subjecting." If you look back at the second bolded word just above (υπεταγη, was subjected) -- I'd say that's what this clause modifies. It tells you about the subjugation. This was not done of its own doing. Creation didn't willfully subject itself. "But rather" (αλλα) because of another. All this helps us understand the waiting. If it subjected itself, perhaps we could expect it to cease subjecting whenever it likes. But it can't, because to introduce an analogy, creation was captured. It was infected. And now, it is waiting on its deliverance from this corruption that has it.

That brings us to the phrase beginning "in hope," (επ ελπιδι). Unfortunately, the verse divides the sentences at this point. But there's no reason for it. English is just fine here. It says, "in hope that the creation will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."

So the question: does this phrase modify "subjecting" or something else? I think it goes back to "waiting." First, I think that reading is MUCH more natural. Do you subject in hope or do you wait in hope, especially when that waiting is described as waiting earnestly and with great expectation? Yes, you could, in theory, subject something in hope. But hopefulness and waiting, especially when the waiting is for deliverance, is a much easier fit. Second, it further explains the placement of the verb "waiting" where it does. Let me write the whole thing out in wooden English and perhaps you can see the clarity of it:

    For with eagerness the creation the revelation of the sons of God awaits , since to vanity the creation was subjected not willingly but rather because of the one subjecting it, in hope that the creation will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God
I hope, then, that's just self evident. But there are other reasons to prefer understanding. Does it make sense to say that God "hopes"? I don't think that's theology that Paul is trying to teach here. He is going to spend the next few chapters highlighting God's sovereignty. He doesn't hope! And still less does God subject creation to corruption, and still less does He does so in some hope of redemption. Sure, you could make a theological case for understanding that language, but it isn't very Paul like. It's much more Paul like to say that the creation suffered corruption and now God is sovereignly and absolutely bringing redemption, and so creation awaits that redemption, and that redemption begins by making righteous the very instrument that brought corruption (mankind) and this by becoming a man himself! See how Rom 5-8 all ties together and provides a perfect commentary on Gen 1-3? It is truly beautiful.

Yes, much is due to sin, Adam's sin, our own sin, but the world was also created according to God's sovereign plan before the beginning of time to restore us in relationship with Himself. We see that with Christ who was destined prior to creation. And then, such results in all creation finally being freed from such bondage too in God's plan, the temporary creation which is passing, was created with the premise that we would sin and require redemption.

But is the temporary creation which is passing created that way initially? The passing is the corruption it is looking for redemption from. This is just a MAJOR difference in the theology of YEC vs OEC. Without worrying about science or issues of inerrancy, this is one of the reasons I just find OEC less and less valid of a position. The theology is just wrong. The original creation was pictured good, not temporary and passing. The entire story of the Bible is that something is wrong, and that it is wrong because Adam sinned and we keep sinning. And yes, God always had a plan. That's how sovereign He is. And yes, the new creation will be far superior to this one in every way. That's just how sovereign God is. But we don't say that God created the world subject to decay anymore than we say that Jesus was incarnated sinful. That's just bad theology.

To speculate on what the world would be like had we not sinned or if sin wasn't an issue, then I expect our whole world may have been created a paradise, rather than simply having an area called Garden of Eden where the Lord had fellowship with Adam and took care of him until cast out. Adam and this paradise was a taste of what could be (perhaps just as much for creation as well as man and woman). Had there been no issue of sin to deal with, no one turning against God, then I expect the world would have been created a permanent paradise all over -- like perhaps the new creation will be.

I think that's probably close to the truth. But that the rest of the world wasn't created "paradise" doesn't mean it was subject to decay and looking eagerly for redemption. It just means it was uncultivated, and that it was the work of mankind to do what God had started to do in the Garden. In that sense, we would be cocreators with Him. Gen 1-2 is all about bringing order out of chaos. And Adam gets to be a part of that by expanding the garden, so to speak, over the whole world. But instead of doing that, he brought disorder into the world! He subjected it, not to order, but to disorder! And now the world seeks to be redeemed. And how? Fittingly, by the work of a Second Adam, the One who brings order to the disorder and ultimately brings a new creation.

As a side, do you know why many modern translations of Romans 8 have "the creation" for ktisis rather than "the creature" like the KJV renders? I think such language can also heavily influence our understanding of this passage.

Because "creation" is just a better translation. Would you consider translating Mark 10:6 as "from the beginning of creatures"? What about Rom 1:20? Finally, in this same context, Rom 8:22 -- it wouldn't make sense to say, "the whole creature groans . . ." Even the KJV recognized that didn't work. So we translate it, properly, as "creation."
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
bbyrd009
BANNED
Posts: 546
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:48 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Ft Myers, FL

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby bbyrd009 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:54 am

Kurieuo wrote:
bbyrd009 wrote:"Who told you that you were naked?" God's initial response to the Fall, points to a human's problem, imo.

Scripturally, there is no way around it, all death is a result of sin.
nice, K. I'm sure you meant "spiritual death" here, right. All spiritual death. The other being irrelevant.

All death.
ah. Why do believers still physically die then, do you think? Why do animals and plants die? They don't sin.
"Creation is continuous, and never stops."

User avatar
bbyrd009
BANNED
Posts: 546
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:48 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Ft Myers, FL

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby bbyrd009 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:03 am

ha snap, and just like that, i am sucked into a convo about sin and death lol. Spiritual death is the only death relevant to God; while physical death preoccupies the minds of...well, lost people, with all due respect. Death cult people. People seven times worse off than they were before. People who will assure you that Paul was waiting for his physical death to be with Jesus in heaven, which in their minds is somewhere else, and somewhen else. This is "the blind leading the blind."
"Creation is continuous, and never stops."

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8565
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby Kurieuo » Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:32 pm

Jac3510 wrote:
Reading "God" into the passage, is also a more neutral interpretation as I see it.

I don't see anything neutral about it. I find it a very theologically loaded interpretation. But even grant that, it doesn't matter what's more neutral. It matters what Paul meant.

To just flesh this point out, and it was really passing. I'd actually expected this one would require greater detail, so wrote more last night but waited until you responded.

What do I mean by reading "God" into the passage, is also a more neutral interpretation as I see it? This doesn't mean it is right or correct, but translating such as Adam does have a YEC leaning, which at least raises a small red flag that perhaps Paul's words being made into something unintended, to fit a certain belief, pre-existing position and mould. On the other hand, reading "God" can be more easily accommodated by either (though I've not actually yet tried to read it your way through an OEC lens, it does seem it might be more difficult).

It's just important to be aware to our bias, and over recent years I've also done the same with Day-Age, and found that actually, the author probably didn't have in mind a more scientific accounting. It doesn't mean such an interpretation overlaying science to the Genesis 1 creation is necessarily inappropriate, but it does mean that chances are the author never really intended their own words to be read a certain way. Whatever correlations are drawn from their words to science, fine... but what we say they actually meant by their words, well everyone needs to be more careful.

I dare say more often than not, many interpreting Scriptures don't stop where Scripture stops, but continue drawing this and that conclusion because they don't like cliff hangers. I think, in fact, Scripture leaves us more often "hanging" and there is a certain honesty I feel in embracing that. It also keeps discussions interesting when one person decides to stop hanging on that cliff, and starts adamantly claiming "this is what is meant". Then another person lets go of the cliff edge to refute, "no, you're understanding it wrong, this is what it means!" At least both sides are engaged and interested in knowledge surrounding God. So they discuss and debate it out kind of like what we often doing. Perhaps it's purposeful on God's part, to keep us engaged and focused on Him? Only God knows.


You also raised the point that reading the one as Adam is more natural to Romans 8:20. Really, I think seeing this as "God" as the one doing the subjugating more naturally flowing within the immediate text.

When Paul mentions Adam elsewhere, he is very deliberate and purposeful in naming him. Just take a look at Romans 5 or 1 Cor 15:21-22. Paul is always very detailed and careful with his words to ensure no misunderstanding. He'll often provide whole introductory paragraphs (or chapters) before digging into a topic. Yet, nowhere in Romans 7 is Adam given mention, so it would seem to me abrupt to now have him in mind without having named him. God and Christ however are mention over and over, so they more naturally fit with the flow. Why did Paul not feel a need to identify specifically "who" is in mind? Because in the immediate context prior, and after, God is already given much mention.

Further, Paul's thoughts have moved on from Adam and trying to justify our being saved in Christ using such comparisons, to dealing with why we still suffer if we're made right in Christ and free from the law of sin and death. To such, Paul responds that we will be delivered from bondage, all creation will! That our present sufferings will be nothing compared to what awaits us as children of God. And Paul thinks through a number of other issues on similar lines of questions.

In any case, I'll get to your other responses later. I'll need to read and digest what you wrote more carefully.


Just another quick question here though. God pronounced the punishment upon Adam, and carried through with such right? Certainly Adam couldn't transform creation, such changes may have been as a consequence of his sin, but the sin itself didn't do the changing. It's like if my child does something wrong, and I smack him in the bum which makes it red. It was his "choice" to do something wrong, but doubtful his choice to receive a smack. The punishment was carried out by myself. Similarly, I've always seen that God was ultimately the one following through on the consequences. Yet, I get the feeling in what you say (I'm not sure), that you actually believe Adam had a more direct involvement. ???
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby Jac3510 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:22 pm

I'll hold off making many comments until you respond to my other points. I don't want to overload or distract. But I will make three very quick points you can respond to as you like:

1. There's no way to maintain that the name "Adam" must be specifically mentioned in order to see him as the subject of any verb. There is just no such grammatical, linguistic, or even stylistic rule. The question is only what the passage means. By extension, that's like making an appeal to "the divine passive." There's just no such rule.

2. It's never permissible in translation to adopt a particular view because it is more accomodating to a range of views. The question is, and can only be, what does the text mean. If you want to argue that the text is ambiguous and that both views are equally defensible, that's fine. But my argument is that one view is not only more defensible, but the other view is not defensible. That has absolutely nothing to do with how OEC or YEC relate, and to dismiss it as such (intentionally or not) is merely poisoning the well.

3. Your continued discussion about God being the source of the judgment is entirely theological. But we simply cannot allow our theological commitments to interfere with the interpretation of the text. Exegesis comes before theology. The question is who the "him" is (or, because the word "him" isn't even in the Greek, actually, who is the implied subject of the active verb "the one who subjugated it"--and that implied verb is directly related to "because of"). It's very obvious to me that the implied subject--the one who subjugated creation to bondage, was Adam and not God, and thus my extended argument to that end. We can work out the theological issues you raise after we figure out what the text says.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

DBowling
Senior Member
Posts: 596
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby DBowling » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:00 am

Kurieuo wrote: Really, I think seeing this as "God" as the one doing the subjugating more naturally flowing within the immediate text.

I agree with you on this...

As you point out there is nothing in the immediate text or context that points to Adam.
And I see two indicators in the text that point to God as the subjugator.
1. As you pointed out, the text points out that creation was not subjugated by its own choice, and Adam is a part of creation.
2. The subjugator subjugated creation in hope of eventual liberation.
Adam's role in the fall involved sin and disobedience... not hope.
It is God who provides the hope of deliverance of mankind through the work of Jesus, and the deliverance of creation with the New Heaven/New Earth.

I think the metaphor that Paul uses for the groaning of creation in Romans 8:22 is interesting and telling.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Paul equates the 'groaning of creation' with the 'pains of childbirth'.
This is consistent with the position that the 'present good creation' is (and always has been) a temporary situation that will eventually give birth to the perfect New Heaven/New Earth when all creation will be liberated from its bondage to decay.

In Christ

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Romans 5:12, Inheriting Adam's Sin, Fate of Babies, Etc.

Postby Jac3510 » Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:17 am

I do want to briefly add to my comment above, as I mentioned but glossed over it in my longer comments, that the "because of" really is, I think, the lynch pin in all this. There's entirely too much emphasis put on the "the one who subjugated it." The words before that--"because of"--are really important. This really is a causal word. This word does not denote agency or will but rather consequences. It's like when someone says, "It's my fault. That happened because of me." There are words in Greek (and English, for that matter) to denote agency. This one (dia in the accusative) isn't one of them. It denotes results or consequences. For a very brief discussion of this, see pp 101-102 of this Greek Syntax. Dana and Mantey is an old one and uses an outdated case system. It certainly doesn't include any insights from modern linguistics, but it's still an excellent reference and is regularly referred to by critical commentaries.

Point is, this makes the idea that God is the one who subjected much more unnatural and difficult to maintain and lines up much more nicely with taking "in hope" in the way I described it in my longer comments.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.


Return to “The Bible and Scripture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest