Romans 5:12 and Universalism: Applying My Take on Romans 5:12 to the Problem
Posted By MSH on August 24, 2009
I’m actually surprised at how brief this one turned out to be! (I’m sure you all are as well). Here’s the passage:
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 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 by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For 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. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Now, follow my thinking here:
5:12 – death (not guilt) passes to ALL humans
One man (Adam) = sin entered the world = death
5:15 – “the free gift is not like the trespass” – Paul sets up a contrast, but he’ll also be making comparisons.
5:15 If many died . . .
I take this to refer not to physical death, but the second death, which not all will suffer (see earlier posts on that)
. . . grace abounded to many – i.e., the ones not suffering the second death
Take the above to 5:16
5:16 – the one trespass brought condemnation (to many, not all), and so the free gift brought justification (to many, not all)
5:17 – by the one man’s sin, death reigned (not guilt), but that sin brought many under condemnation, and so how much more will those who receive grace (not all will, but many will)
To this point, things extend from my view in a pretty straghtforward way. Then Paul appears to throw a monkey wrench into it.
The toughest verses (for everyone) are the next two, because they use the “all” language on both sides of the equation. BUT (and this is critical) note that the “all” language used in verse 18 CHANGES BACK to the earlier “less than all” (i.e., the “many”) language in v. 19:
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
My take on vv. 18-19:
1. The one trespass put all humans under the condemnation of death (there’s the “all” – note that the condemnation in v. 18 is not specified or defined). It does NOT mean sinfulness since that is brought up in v. 19 in connection with the “many” – NOT in connection with the all.
2. Many of the all who are under the condemnation of death were made sinners (here’s v. 19 and Paul’s “many” – noting that Paul goes back to “many” language).
So that:
The one act of Adam that affected all actually led to a subset of many. All were put under the curse of death and, theoretically, all would sin; not all do, though, because they don’t all get to live. The many who do sin are then rightly called sinners.
* IN THEORY, THEN, the “all condition” COULD produce the same outcome for ALL, but the reality is that only MANY will “partake.”
3. The one man’s act of righteousness (here’s the Jesus part of v. 18) leads to justification and life for all humanity. How to avoid universalism here? (and it’s important since universalism is denied elsewhere in Romans 5 and many other places, Pauline and not). I think there are ways to parse this, using my view of Romans 5:12 as a starting point.
a. On one hand, the “life” part is easy, since it could refer to eternal life, which is actually shared by all (unless there is annihilation), the unsaved and the saved. But that’s a bit forced and doesn’t address the justification part. You’d have to redefine justification, which is also self-serving. Better . . .
b. One could simply apply what was said about the first Adam:
The one act of Jesus affects all IN THEORY but actually leads to a subset of many. All could have eternal life and justification, but not all do. Why take it this way? Because it resolves what looks like a contradiction in Paul. In verse 18 Paul says what Jesus did “leads to justification and life for all humanity” but then he turns around and limits it (creates a subset) in the next verse: “so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” My proposal has Paul make sense here and not appear schizophrenic.
*IN THEORY, THEN, the “all condition” COULD produce the same outcome for ALL, but the reality is that only MANY will “partake.”
The main contrastive point in all this, of course, is that of death vs. life being the outcome of what the two Adams did.
Comments
19 Responses to “Romans 5:12 and Universalism: Applying My Take on Romans 5:12 to the Problem”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
**sorry this post is so long..it’s a 3 A.M. ramble**
In light of your view of Rom 5:12, it seems the problem of sin has to do with the fact that it’s not about being born a sinner (inherited sin) as it’s iving with the aftermath of what it means to be ‘outside the garden’. Your view does some good things (puts the blame squarely on us; gets to the bottom of sinless Jesus, e.g.). However, it’s hard to think of an alternative that sufficiently explains our condition. Ok, so if we’re not born sinners…then we sin simply because we can? Or (theoretically) have no other choice…why? Is it the bondage of the will thing that Luther preached (ugh, Luther)?. What I”m trying to say is: if your position is, “if we live long enough we are going to sin because we lost what Adam had, the Manifest Presence of God In The Garden. That’s the curse of the fall” it still could be argued that God is still punishing us with ‘the ability to sin’ (inherited or not) and we can still end up laying blame at His feet (He didn’t have to take His presence outside the garden. Adam’s children were born innocent, why did they have to know of the story of sin at all…to tempt them to do the same? It could have died with Adam and Eve theoretically. But I see where if you can’t stop humans from sinning even in a perfect environment then it makes sense to put them ALL subject to death, to prevent them from continuing in their folly (in much the same way the tree of life was taken from Adam and Eve) as that still gives them time to repent and, through His grace, get a chance to beat the ‘whatever mechanism of sin’ exists in the world and live forever with Him once again.
And, wow, 3 am grammar is bad. First sentence should read: In light of your view of Rom 5:12, it seems the problem of sin has less to do with ‘being born a sinner’ and more to do with ‘living with the aftermath of ‘being outside the garden’. Thanks.
I like how you dunk universalism. Although it escapes me how you can admit that Adam’s one transgression brought the CONDEMNATION of death to all humanity and yet you deny that all humans are condemnable (“innocent” infants). You believe that the infant’s human nature makes it unclean so that it needs Christ, but you do not think that it deserves condemnation on that account–since condemnation is for guilty sinners (and according to you the infant is not guilty, nor a sinner). Yet would that not contradict what you say when you admit that by Adam’s one sin CONDEMNATION comes to ALL? Am I the only one that sees this as contradictory?
No this is not contradictory… the condemnation is “of death”… so what humans “inherited” was mortality, they die… so you can die as an infant without having sinned… that death came because Adam sinned… he passed death on to humanity… innocence that you are speaking of is “without sin”… so you can be an infant and innocent, yet still die, because Adam passed that on to all men… condemnation in this verse does not mean you are unrighteous before God… it just means something bad was passed on to you… that does not mean (necessarily) that you are bad or a sinner….
I’m not sure you are reading me correctly, as a lot of what you say in response is what I think, and the point of several of these posts – ? In all these posts I say the issue is mortality, but your responses don’t seem to catch that for some reason, in that they read like you’re positing that view as distinct from my post.
Since when does the condemnation of death come to those who do not deserve it?
I haven’t replied to this until now, for the reason I agree with you, good reason? maybe not.
How I point to this argument is by the (led) and (leads to).
The one man’s (Adam) act ‘led’ to death for all humanity.
The one man’s (Jesus) act ‘leads to’ justification and (Eternal) life.
I understand “led” as something that happen, is active and “leads to” something that can happen, act upon.
Both acts encompass all of humanity.
So Paul gives us a hard reading here with the ‘many’ and ‘all’. I have found people just don’t think past the “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”
And Paul says “the many were made sinners” leaving some not sinners – so, we have to ask the question – who isn’t a sinner or who hasn’t sinned but still under the penalty of sin (death) to reconcile this.
I think you intend to cover this soon so I will stop here.
Getting one to understand sin or not sin is a personal thing between each person and God.
Acting upon the one’s act to justification and life is a personal action between one person and God.
Enjoying this,
PK
@cwmyers007: all humans will die (barring deliverance at the eschaton).
@Jonnathan Molina: we’re born sinners (we will sin and cannot not sin), but we aren’t born guilty.
Mike, yes, all humans die, but that also means that all human are condemned, as Paul said, “by the offense of one man came condemnation upon all men” (Rom. 5:18). If a infants dies… that death is nothing short of condemnation. Your view must explain how the infant can be both innocent and yet condemnable.
Mike, Looking at your response to Jonathan Molina…..I thought you argued that we are NOT born sinners? (remember your dealing with Eph. 2:3 and Psalm 51:5). How is it that sinners can be innocent? This is contradictory. Sinners are condemned to death. It is scandalous (as was Christ’s crucifixion) to condemn innocents to death. In addition going back to your main contention…if you admit that we are born sinners, how do you not make Jesus born a sinner?
[...] Alan Bandy reflects on different interpretations of Rom 1:17 and Michael Heisler looks at what Rom 5:12 might say about universalism. And if you think Paul’s use of ioudaismos (usually “Judaism”) and euangellion [...]
@cwmyers007: Every human being is born with the propensity to sin and will sin, if allowed to live. Maybe I should just keep using that one phrase. I don’t spend any time comparing my phrases in posts; just don’t have that kind of time.
@cwmyers007: I just don’t have the time to keep repeating lines from other posts; this is already addressed.
Mike,
I get really confused when any teaching of Paul occurs. I look at him as the father of legalism, more than the title he normally is given, which is the “father of Christianity.” In my research, I stumbled upon this website. I don’t know about this fellows legitimacy, but he seems to have his info in order. I am posting the link in hopes that you will address this, as I have come to like your humility and honesty on the topics I ask. Is Paul really a contradiction to Jesus’ message?
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
Keep chipping up the babble,
Kevin
maybe; this is the sort of site/stuff that requires months of analysis and critique.
>>>…In verse 18 Paul says what Jesus did “leads to justification and life for all humanity”…
The problem is that this verse is mistranslated. The genitive is “justification OF life.” Paul says in chapter 3 that the purpose of Jesus’ death was not to justify men (because, as he says in chapter 8, “God is the justifier” of men) but rather to justify *God*:
Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his [God's] righteousness [despite winking at sin]: that he [God] might be just[ified], and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
The “Satisfaction Theory” has it all back-Assward.
The debt that had to be paid was God’s own debt:
Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine [to fulfill]; I will repay [my obligation to do so], saith the Lord.
So, God was not free to forgive, say Hitler, because he owed it to the Jews to avenge their blood. But by setting forth Jesus, he, in some sense, participated in victimization at the hands of the wicked, so when he forgives sin and forgoes punishment, he does so with honor, rather than with negligence. Hence John can say:
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
In other words, he is inclined to forgive and justified in doing so because he had set forth a propitiation for the sins of the whole lost world. This was the “justification of life for all men” needed in order to free God to loose the pains of death from those who [repent and] believe.
I hope that this comment being a year and a half after the last comment does not make it inapplicable. All the discussion about man’s sin/death problem, and your one answer being that it is possible for all men to be saved potentially by the death of Christ, makes me wonder how those who believe in double predestination deal with your view of the 5th chapter of Romans?
I don’t know – you’d have to ask them.