In Romans 5: 12-21, Paul explains how Jesus' redemtive acts on our behalf supersede the effects of original sin resulting from Adam's choice to disobey God. This Sunday 1/30/05 our discussion will focus on trying to understand the doctrine and effects of original sin, with a view towards having a better understanding of the present status of our fallen world. We will also try to reach a better understanding of God's purposes for this world given that he allowed us to fall, the penalties He imposed on this world, and the remedy He has provided through Christ. I look forward to seeing you all.
1) In the first 11 verses of Ch 5, Paul speaks of the fact that we have peace with God and can rejoice because of our justification by faith in God, a reconciliation made possible through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
In verses 12-14 Paul begins to further his exposition of the effects that Christ's redemptive acts of crucifixion and resurrection have on our lives by comparing our redemption through Christ with the disobedient act of Adam and its catastrophic effects. The first thing we must do in reading this section of the epistle is discuss the circumstances surrounding the fall and its effects.
--In Rom 3: 23, Paul tells us that all have sinned in that we have disobeyed God and missed the mark of His holiness. In Rom 5: 12we are told that all sinned as a result of the act of Adam. Think about the account of the fall. What were the key mistakes that Adam made that led him and his wife into sin? Calvin states that we have an innate and hereditary depravity because of the fall. What do you think he means by this?
--In Rom 5:13, Paul establishes that sin existed in the world prior to God's presentation of the law. Does this indicate that some actions are inherently evil regardless of whether there is a concrete law in place to condemn them? If so, what is the importance of this fact?
--Paul also says in 5: 13-14, that sin is not taken into account where there is no law. Yet he notes that death reigned over all those who did not sin by breaking a command. Why does death reign on those who do not sin by breaking a command? Wesley viewed this passage as refering to infants, while Calvin says it refers to those who lived before the law was given. Who do you agree with, Wesley, Calvin, both or neither?
2) In verse 15, Paul tells us that the gift of salvation through faith in Christ is dissimilar from Adam's trespass in that Christ's gift exceeds the death that resulted from Adam's sin. Paul then gives a logical proof in verse 16, saying that the judgment arising from Adam's sin followed only one disobedient act, while the God's gift of Christ followed many sins from all who had lived or were living at that point. Therefore the gift is wider in scope than than Adam's act. As Wesley says, these two points are brought together in verse 17 to reiterate the point that God's grace supercedes the damage wrought by Adam's sin and the fall of man.
--In a sermon on verse 15, Wesley attempted to give an answer to the question of whether God's punishment of all mankind because of Adam's sin is just, and whether God should have prevented the fall from occuring. Wesley's defense is that the fall ends up being good for mankind because without it, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement on our behalf and we would not have as full an understanding of God's grace. As a result, Wesley claims we can have more holiness and happiness on earth than we otherwise could have been, and that we will be happier in heaven as a result. Do you agree? If so, why so; if not, why not?
--Calvin says succinctly that we do not receive the punishment of death because Adam sinned, but rather that his sin is the cause of our sin. We earn it, in other words. Do you agree? Begin to think about the extent of our depravity because of original sin, as it should inform your answer to this question.
3) In verses 18-19 Paul reiterates his point that just as death reigns and all of Adam's progeny are made sinners through his sin, through the obedience of Christ in accepting his role as savior many will be made righteous.
4) In verse 20, we read that the law was put into place by God so that the trespass of it might increase, but that where sin increased grace increased all the more, being brought to its fullness in the life and actions of Jesus.
--What does Paul mean when he says that the law was enacted so that the trespass might increase? Wesley states that while it is the consequence of the law that sin increases, that was not its design. Do you agree? Why? Calvin states that a reason for this was to make man aware of his hopeless situation and the necessity of a savior. Can you think of any additional or alternative reasons God may have enacted the law?
5) The final verse of the chapter concludes Paul's thought from verse 20, and tells us that grace reigns through reghteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The statement that grace reigns through righteousness is the key thing to notice here, as it sets up the transition into chapter 6, where Paul will give us a more in depth treatment of the importance of righteousness in the Chrsitian life.
--
7 comments:
Hello all
As I noted this a.m., I could use some help with verses 18,19 from this week's lesson.
"All are made sinners"; ok, so far. "Many (presumably "some" or even "few"?) are made righteous".
God knew what was going to happen with Adam, with sinful man, let it all happen, knowing many (as in, most) would perish, spiritually, eternally.
Yes, no, maybe, we'll never know?
se
Romans 5:18...one trespass was condemnation for ALL men, so also the result of one act of righeousness was justification that brings life for ALL men. Greek/English dictionary uses the same Greek word for ALL in these two cases.
Romans 5:19...disobedience of the one man the MANY were made sinners, so through the obedience of the one man the MANY will be made righteous. Again, MANY is the same word in Greek in both instances.
My question is perhaps just too nit picky and I'm off track, which is why I'm asking for your help with this.
In 5:18, Jesus' act "brought life to all men". This can't mean "saved all men", so does it mean His act gave mankind the CHANCE to have salvation? or does "life" refer to something besides salvation?
In 5:19, MANY has one meaning in Greek. But it's my understanding that ALL were made sinners, not "many" and in addition to this, I thought that some, even just a few, were made righteous. Or again, does this mean that His act gave mankind the potential for righteousness? Again, I see "many" having two different meanings in this verse, although the Greek says there is only one meaning.
se
Susan,
With regard to your first comment on whether God knew that Adam would fall and what the results would be, I think you are correct that he did know what would happen. This has to be the case if God's omniscience includes the knowledge of future events. I think that it does, so it follows that he knew Adam would fall. An interesting question is "why didn't God intervene?" That one is truly unknowable in my opinion. Possibly, it is because God created us to freely choose to love Him, and thus it was not part of his purposes to intervene every time we chose not to do so. But that is pure conjecture, worth the price you paid for this amateur theology!
Regarding your second comment/question, I think there are at least two possibilities. One is what you mentioned, that Adam's sin means death for everyone, while Christ's atonement offers life to all who will accept it. This is what a Methodist would believe, and it is what I believe. It also is in line with the idea that God's purpose for us is to be in a loving relationship with his creation whereby the creation desires to love Him, and is not compelled without the ability to refuse. A Calvinist wouldn't believe that Christ offers atonement to everyone, and perhaps would say that Paul was not being precise with his language and that he used the same word in two different senses. There may be more interpretations, and anyone can pitch in if they think of one.
Concerning the comment "a Calvinist wouldn't believe that Christ offers his atonement to everyone". Wouldn't Calvin (or Augustin or Luther) say that it is offered to everyone? But, since man is dead in his sin, he cannot become alive by his own power to then accept Christ. How can someoone who's "dead" and an enemy of God, all of a sudden want to follow God without some work of God being done first? Wouldn't that mean that the crucial element of salvation would be a "work" of man and not of God?
With regard to what a Calvinist believes, let me say that Calvinists probably have a wide array of beliefs. My point is this. The "L" in the TULIP of Calvinist doctrine means limited atonement. Since it is solely by God's perogative that a person becomes a Christian, His grace is only imputed to a select few. That decision, naturally, cannot be based on anything that we have merited. I suppose that one could say that God offers the atonement to all, but that no one is able to accept it. However, this strikes me as being too clever by half. Like saying you will pay $1 million to any fully blind person who could read a non-braile book.
As for the crucial element of salvation being done by man, I think most Calvinists overplay their hand here a bit and make a straw man out of some Arminian teaching. The crucial element of salvation is God's death and resurrection. We have nothing to do with that. God then must call a person to obey Him, and it is only at that point that a person may choose to submit to God and accept the gift of salvation. I compare it to a man who is drowning in the ocean and is about to go under, when a rescue team gets a helicopter, searches him out, and holds a hand out to pull him from the water. I suppose it is possible to say that the drowning man accomplished the key act of salvation by taking the rescuers hand and being pulled to safety, but it would take a silly and arrogant person to do so. Yes, I suppose the drowning man had something to do with his salvation: he accepted the help that was given him. But all the work is done by the rescuer.
Hi, James - You mention limited atonement as being a Calvinist doctrine, however, don’t all orthodox Christians believe in limited atonement? The Bible repeatedly tells us that many will perish while only a certain number will receive grace (salvation). God knows, and orthodox Christians believe He knows, who these will be from before creation. Isn’t the question whether God chooses or man chooses?
My original question centered around the ability of man, dead in sin and hostile to God, being able to choose or to take the hand of his rescuer, as you put it. If he is able to, the crucial and determining factor of his salvation is dependent on man, not God. I think both Jesus and Paul dispute man’s ability to do this. Jesus tells his disciples in John 6:65, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” In Verse 44 He said that “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”. Earlier in John he tells Nicodemus that he has to be born again before he can see or enter the kingdom of God, i.e., “regeneration” has to occur first. One of Paul’s mentions in Ephesians 2 is, “God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions”. Even more to the point, Paul continues, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast”.
Hasn’t your drowning man, according to Jesus and Paul, died and gone to the bottom before the rescuer arrives? Doesn’t the rescuer (God) pick up his corpse from the bottom and give him life? Thanks, Tom E.
James – I re-read your last comment and you downplayed the choice to accept the gift of salvation as “crucial”. It seems to me that a man will either roast in hell or live in paradise based on that “choice”. Therefore I still think it is crucial, and am so far persuaded it must be a good work of God, not a good work of someone "dead in transgressions". Thanks, Tom E.
Post a Comment