The man of Romans 7

[Robert]

 

...if I am sinning in the sense of which John is speaking, then I am of the devil; if I'm not, than I'm not.  That's simple logic.  

And what sense is that?

[Robert]

This is problematic.  If we believe that Christ took our fallen nature, then this argument would apply to Him as well, and, by the same logic, He would be a sinner.  So it cannot be the case that our being a sinner is derived from our nature, unless we wish to argue that Christ did not take a sinful nature. 

"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.: [EGW]

Jesus as God remained 100% Deity, but as our corporate head ("the last Adam") He "took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature" (EGW).  Notice that it wasn't His nature that He assumed, it was "our nature".  He assumed the fallen race, indwelt with sin, in order to legally redeem it.

Likewise the Holy Spirit can dwell in the sinner without being contaminated because it's not the Spirit's nature, it is ours.  And "yes" having a sinful nature makes you a sinner.  The very fact that you have "the law of sin" or "indwelling sin" in you disqualifies you for heaven.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

"And "yes" having a sinful nature makes you a sinner.  The very fact that you have "the law of sin" or "indwelling sin" in you disqualifies you for heaven.

Rom 7:16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 

17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 

18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 

19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 

20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

 

 

1 Cor 15:50 "I declare to you, brothers, that flesh (Sarx) and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable..."

[Robert]

I agree with this, but if I had written it, it seems like you would have called it "perfectionism" and "legalism".  So why the change?

What have we been talking about if not condoning known sin?  What is it that you are disagreeing with? 

Condoning sin doesn't in anyway mean you haven't sinned or continue to fall short of God's agape. It means that when you knowingly sin and are convicted, that you refuse to repent of that sin.  Besetting sins are sins of repetition, they aren't practiced sins.  The issue is when God's Spirit convicts you of sin do you repent or do you justify the sin? If the latter you are on a road that will eventually lead to apostasy.  

A good example (because it's a current issue) is condoning homosexual acts. A Christian who has homosexual tendencies might fall into sin again and again. When this believer falls into sin God's Spirit will direct Him to Christ for forgiveness. If He refuses to acknowledge his failure and justifies it (like stating "God made me this way") he is walking on a slippery slope that ends in apostasy.  That process of "condoning" or "justifying sin" starts a process of hardening one's heart.  If we can't acknowledge our sins we are in effect stating that "we have no sin".  1 John 1:8 states that if say we aren't sinners then we don't need Christ's imputed & imparted righteousness and that we stand deceived. 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

Me:The Spirit is more powerful than the flesh.  If we submit to the Spirit, then we will experience what Paul writes about in Romans 8 (also Galatians 5).  If the flesh overrides the Spirit, that (besides being illogical; surely God is more powerful than our flesh) would be not good news at all (it would be "another gospel"). 

Robert:You make sanctification the means of justification.  This is subtle legalism and it is "another gospel".  

There's no argument here.  Just an empty accusation.  What did I write here do you disagree with, and why?  I asserted three things:

1.The Spirit is more powerful than the flesh.

2.If we submit to the Spirit, then we will experience Romans 8.

3.If the flesh were strong than the Spirit, this would be bad news.

Which of these these assertions do you disagree with, and why? 

[pnattmbtc]

And what sense is that?

Read the post.  I explained in what sense in the post, but quoting the rest of what John wrote (the context!)

[pnattmbtc]

Robert: And "yes" having a sinful nature makes you a sinner.  The very fact that you have "the law of sin" or "indwelling sin" in you disqualifies you for heaven.

This is the doctrine of original sin.  By the same logic (logic which has been used for hundreds of years), Christ, if He took our sinful nature, could not be our Savior, because He would be a sinner.  This argument is used today.  It is refuted by rejecting the premise.

If our simply having a sinful nature made us sinners, regardless of whether or not we transgressed the law, then we could never commit even one righteous act, even with Christ's help, even submitting perfectly to His will.  We would be sinning all the time, just as much as if we committed a sinful act.

Also, how could Christ ever stop His mediatorial work?  If our simply having a sinful nature makes us sinners, and everything we do is sin, then at no point could Christ ever stop His mediatorial work, and, using traditional language, take off His priestly robes to put on kingly robes. 

Edited June 29, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[pnattmbtc]

Condoning sin doesn't in anyway mean you haven't sinned or continue to fall short of God's agape. It means that when you knowingly sin and are convicted, that you refuse to repent of that sin.  Besetting sins are sins of repetition, they aren't practiced sins.  The issue is when God's Spirit convicts you of sin do you repent or do you justify the sin? If the latter you are on a road that will eventually lead to apostasy.  

A good example (because it's a current issue) is condoning homosexual acts. A Christian who has homosexual tendencies might fall into sin again and again. When this believer falls into sin God's Spirit will direct Him to Christ for forgiveness. If He refuses to acknowledge his failure and justifies it (like stating "God made me this way") he is walking on a slippery slope that ends in apostasy.  That process of "condoning" or "justifying sin" starts a process of hardening one's heart.  If we can't acknowledge our sins we are in effect stating that "we have no sin".  1 John 1:8 states that if say we aren't sinners then we don't need Christ's imputed & imparted righteousness and that we stand deceived. 

I have the same question I asked before.  Why isn't this legalism?  Why, when someone else says the same thing as this, do you call it "legalism", "perfectionism", "another gospel", etc., but when you say it, you don't?

[Robert]

If we submit to the Spirit, then we will experience Romans 8.

That "if" is because the human element is envolved...That's why all "fall short" of God's agape.

[Robert]

This is the doctrine of original sin.  By the same logic (logic which has been used for hundreds of years), Christ, if He took our sinful nature, could not be our Savior, because He would be a sinner.  This argument is used today.  It is refuted by rejecting the premise.

If our simply having a sinful nature made us sinners, regardless of whether or not we transgressed the law, then we could never commit even one righteous act, even with Christ's help, even submitting perfectly to His will.  We would be sinning all the time, just as much as if we committed a sinful act.

Also, how could Christ ever stop His mediatorial work?  If our simply having a sinful nature makes us sinners, and everything we do is sin, then at no point could Christ ever stop His mediatorial work, and, using traditional language, take off His priestly robes to put on kingly robes. 

Wow...By these questions you show you do not understand the gospel....I'll clarify later

[Robert]

I have the same question I asked before.  Why isn't this legalism?  Why, when someone else says the same thing as this, do you call it "legalism", "perfectionism", "another gospel", etc., but when you say it, you don't?

Because what I said isn't fulfilling the law.  Forgiveness and repentance is because we fail to keep the law.  The law is not in the business of forgiveness. 

[Robert]

Me: And "yes" having a sinful nature makes you a sinner.  The very fact that you have "the law of sin" or "indwelling sin" in you disqualifies you for heaven. 

This is the doctrine of original sin.  By the same logic (logic which has been used for hundreds of years), Christ, if He took our sinful nature, could not be our Savior, because He would be a sinner.  This argument is used today.

No, original sin means that I am guilty of Adam's sin.  That is heresy and it should be called "original guilt"!  

What Paul taught (see Romans 5:12) is that because I share Adam's fallen life I am condemned (not guilty).  Having a nature that is bent-to-self (or "flesh" as you like to call it) disqualifies me for heaven.  The law demands not only perfect obedience, it demands justice (the 2nd death) for failure to keep it and lastly it demands a sinless state (that is, free from indwelling sin).

Christ took upon His Deity OUR (not His) fallen, corporate life.  That life stands condemned, not because it sinned Adam's sin, but because that life shares Adam's fallen humanity indwelt with sin. 

Again, God's law requires three things:

1] Perfect obedience

2] Justice or the 2nd death

3] Perfect nature

Edited June 30, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

If our simply having a sinful nature made us sinners, regardless of whether or not we transgressed the law, then we could never commit even one righteous act, even with Christ's help, even submitting perfectly to His will.  We would be sinning all the time, just as much as if we committed a sinful act.Havi

Having a sinful nature doesn't make you a transgressor (breaking a known law), it makes you "bent-to-self" and and unfit for heaven. Since our fallen humanity is born without God's Spirit we naturally, from birth, sin.  That's why David said, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Ps 51:5 Notice David didn't say that He was born a transgressor.  To be a transgressor requires a knowledge of the law. David was sinful because his fallen nature and mind were in harmony.

Christ, as God, took upon His Deity OUR fallen life, indwelt by sin; thus becoming what He was not by Divine right, the Son of Man.  As the Son of Man Christ, as God, assumed a condemned humanity because of indwelling iniquity (our bent), but since He was born as we are born again, His mind never was controlled by "the flesh" (sin nature) that He assumed.  From birth His mind was controlled by the Spirit of God and therefore He never sinned, not even by a thought. But because He, as the Son of Man, assumed our corporate life, indwelt by sin (iniquity) that life had to die (i.e, take the curse.).

At the resurrection our old life stayed in the grave.  In place of it Christ, as God, was raised with a glorified humanity, free from indwelling sin.  Hence Christ's life answers all the demands of God's law.  In Him we are complete.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

Robert:Wow...By these questions you show you do not understand the gospel....I'll clarify later

Wow.  By this response, you show you do not understand the gospel.  I'll clarify later.

Seriously, a little humility would be in order.  What makes you think you understand the gospel?

I was gone for a week, visiting the GC conference for a few days.  it was hot, as expected, but not as hot as it could have been.  Thanks for your posts.  Looking forward to getting back into trying to understand the Robert mind-set. 

[pnattmbtc]

Me:This is the doctrine of original sin.  By the same logic (logic which has been used for hundreds of years), Christ, if He took our sinful nature, could not be our Savior, because He would be a sinner.  This argument is used today.

Robert:No, original sin means that I am guilty of Adam's sin.  That is heresy and it should be called "original guilt"!

Original sin is what I wrote.  Quoting from the Catholic encylocpedia:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common...

Robert: What Paul taught (see Romans 5:12) is that because I share Adam's fallen life I am condemned (not guilty).  Having a nature that is bent-to-self (or "flesh" as you like to call it) disqualifies me for heaven.  The law demands not only perfect obedience, it demands justice (the 2nd death) for failure to keep it and lastly it demands a sinless state (that is, free from indwelling sin).

Christ took upon His Deity OUR (not His) fallen, corporate life.  That life stands condemned, not because it sinned Adam's sin, but because that life shares Adam's fallen humanity indwelt with sin. 

Again, God's law requires three things:

1] Perfect obedience

2] Justice or the 2nd death

3] Perfect nature

 

You are speaking of "life" and "law" as if these were things that could stand by themselves, like a sentient being, but they're not.  They are references to things which sentient beings have or create.  To speak in sentences which make sense, we need to be clear what we're talking talking about.  First consider "life".

A "life" refers to acts a living person does.  A "life" cannot stand condemened, becuase it isn't a thing which exists of itself.  A person can stand condemned, or justified.  So when you write that "I am condemned (not guilty)" that's something which can make sense, but if you say "that life stands condemned", that can't make sense, because lives don't have a standing; people do.

If what you meant by saying that we are condmened by what Adam did, not guilty, that we suffer the consequences of his action, I would agree with this, and agree that Paul was speaking along these lines.  Paul's argument is that Adam's actions have a negative impact upon the whole human race, and Paul is contrasting that with the impact that Christ's actions has ("much more").

Similarly speaking of the law's requiring three things suffers from the same problem of considering the law as if it were a sentient being.  A law represents the will of its creator or creators.  In the case of the law of God, the law of God represents the will of God.  To say that law requires three things can only make sense if this phrase means that God requires three things.  So what you're really saying is that God requires:

1)Perfect obedience

2)Justice of the 2nd death

3)Perfect nature

and the way you phrase these things, makes it sound as if you perceive these as arbitrary requirements, meaning you believe this is just the way things are because God said so, or something like that.  I don't see anything in what you're writing that speaks of any logic behind these "requirements".  That is, why would God require perfect obedience?  Why would God require a second death?  It seems to make more sense to view these thins as descriptions of reality rather than "requirements".

By the way, I'm aware that Ellen White uses phrases speaking of the requirements of the law, but taken in context, her meaning is along the lines of what I'm explaining.  For example, the chapter "It Is Finished" in "The Desire of Ages" explains these things in great detail.  For example, the second death is explained as not an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, but the result of the choices that the wicked have made in separating themselves from God, who alone is the source of life.

Also you write that having a sinful nature makes you sinner, but this again suffers from the point I brought out previously, which is this would apply to Christ just as well, given He took our nature.  The fact that Christ also had a divine nature of His own wouldn't counter the fact that Christ, in becoming a human being with the nature that human beings had at the time He came, would, by your logic, have become a sinner.

Let's flesh this out a bit.  What does it mean to have a sinful nature, or sinful flesh?  What is this referring to?  This is referring to what Adam passed to his offspring as the result of his fall.  How would this have happened?  There's only one way possible, and that's the Adam (and Eve's) DNA.  So when we say we have a fallen human nature, or fallen flesh, we mean that the have DNA which has come from fallen Adam.  Now if having that DNA makes us a sinner, then it would have made Christ a sinner (assuming Christ accepted that same DNA; i.e. Christ took a sinful human nature) for the same reason it would make us a sinner.  The fact that Christ was also divine wouldn't change the impact that DNA would have on his humanity.

[Robert]

What makes you think you understand the gospel?

His name is the Apostle Paul.  If you read him, without preconceived ideas, you'll arrive at the gospel.

[Robert]

A "life" cannot stand condemned because it isn't a thing which exists of itself.  A person can stand condemned, or justified.

Rom 5:12 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....

Sinned where?  Answer: "in Adam"! 

All didn't transgress in Adam because transgression requires volition and that pertains to individuals.  Verse 13 states this emphatically:

13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses (where the law was given), even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.....

In other words the human race between Adam and Moses were dying, not because of transgression, but because they shared Adam's life indwelt with sin.

That's the reason of your first death.

The 2nd death is where the law condemns the persistent unbeliever because he has ultimately rejected the gospel.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

I have the same question I asked before.  Why isn't this legalism?  Why, when someone else says the same thing as this, do you call it "legalism", "perfectionism", "another gospel", etc., but when you say it, you don't?

Because what I said isn't fulfilling the law.  Forgiveness and repentance is because we fail to keep the law.  The law is not in the business of forgiveness. 

 Whatever you call it, it's saying the same thing, as far as I can tell.  You're saying that a person cannot willingly practice known sin, right?  Why not?

By the way, you say "the law is not in the business of forgiveness", again I would point out that the law is not a sentient being; it's not in the business of anything.  It represents the mind of God, and God is in the business of forgiveness.  What the law requires is what God requires, and we can be sure that God's forgiveness will take care of God's requirements.

What makes you think you understand the gospel?

His name is the Apostle Paul.  If you read him, without preconceived ideas, you'll arrive at the gospel.

Wouldn't it help to know what Paul's ideas were?  That is, know something about Paul's culture, the problems he faced, the issues he was addressing, the mindset of the people he was addressing, etc.?

Also when you say "without preconceived ideas", that would be impossible, since you cannot separate who you read something from who you are.  The best you can do is to be open to new ideas and willing to accept them, as well as discard old ideas, if that's where the evidence leads. 

Robert: His name is the Apostle Paul.  If you read him, without preconceived ideas, you'll arrive at the gospel.

One other thing this made me think is, how about, "His name is Jesus.  If you read Him without preconceived ideas, you'll arrive at the Gospel."  I believe this to be the case, and that Paul didn't preach a different Gospel than what Jesus taught, and further Paul would have been horrified at the thought that Jesus didn't preach the Gospel, or that he (Paul) was teaching a different Gospel than Jesus taught. 

[Robert]

 

 ... you say "the law is not in the business of forgiveness", again I would point out that the law is not a sentient being; it's not in the business of anything.  It represents the mind of God, and God is in the business of forgiveness.  

Paul:  

Gal 3:10 All who rely on the works of the law (salvation by one's performance) are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 

11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The just by faith shall live." 

12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things (the demands of the law) will by them live." 

 

 

 

So either life comes by

 

1] Your law performance 

or

 

2] Your faith in Christ.

 

 

Under law you must continue to do everything written in the Book of the law (the Pentateuch) in order to obtain eternal life.  Under grace you obtain eternal life by faith.  

 

 

Paul uses the phrase "the law" not "the mind of God" or any such thing....The law is not God.  Yes, "agape" love is the basis of His law.  It's how the universe must work, but if not "the law" demands the death of the transgressor.

 

 

 

God has answered (legally fulfilled) the law in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man.  That's the gospel

 

Edited July 6, 2015 by Robert

[LifeHiscost]

 

 

God has answered (legally fulfilled) the law in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man.  That's the gospel

 

Agreed! Now we have this in which to keep our focus.

15For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.....John 13
 

11Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.....Hebrews 4
 

13I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.....Philippians 4

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

 

[pnattmbtc]

Rom 5:12 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....

Sinned where?  Answer: "in Adam"! 

All didn't transgress in Adam because transgression requires volition and that pertains to individuals.  Verse 13 states this emphatically:

13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses (where the law was given), even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.....

In other words the human race between Adam and Moses were dying, not because of transgression, but because they shared Adam's life indwelt with sin.

That's the reason of your first death.

 

What you're saying here, in these last two sentences, doesn't make sense.  The penulimate sentence is implying that it's possible people could die the first death because they have transgressed, but this doesn't make sense.  People don't die because they sin, but because of being moral.  Everybody knows that.

When you say, "but because they shared Adam's life indwelt with sin", this doesn't appear to mean anything.  We die because we are mortal.  We have bodies that age and get sick and die.  We are descendants of Adam, and, as such, receive the consequences of his choice, by means of the laws of heredity; that's why we die.

The 2nd death is where the law condemns the persistent unbeliever because he has ultimately rejected the gospel.

This strikes me as a strange way of putting this.  The problem isn't with the law, but with what the person is doing. Because the persistent unbeliever ultimate rejects the Gospel, he separates himself from God, and so, of course, dies.  It wouldn't matter if the law existed or not for this to happen; if you choose to be separated from God, you cannot live.  How could you?

Think of it this way.  The principle of living for self is a principle which is not life-sustaining, nor can it be life-sustaining.  The law testifies to this fact, but it's a fact regardless of that testimony.

 

Edited July 6, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[pnattmbtc]

Robert: So either life comes by 1] Your law performance or 2] Your faith in Christ.  Under law you must continue to do everything written in the Book of the law (the Pentateuch) in order to obtain eternal life.  

 Under grace you obtain eternal life by faith.   
 Paul uses the phrase "the law" not "the mind of God" or any such thing....The law is not God.  
 

 
 

 This is my point.  The law is not God, but you write about it is if it were, as if the law were alive.

 Robert: Yes, "agape" love is the basis of His law.  It's how the universe must work, but if not "the law" demands the death of the transgressor.

 What does "if not 'the law' demands the death of the transgressor" mean?

Robert: God has answered (legally fulfilled) the law in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man.  That's the gospel.

This is rather dry, and as has been pointed out by someone else, not relational.  The Gospel is "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

[Robert]

 

When you say, "but because they shared Adam's life indwelt with sin", this doesn't appear to mean anything.  We die because we are mortal.  

That's because you apparently cannot accept Paul's own words.  We are mortal because we have indwelling sin.  Got it?

 

The problem isn't with the law, but with what the person is doing.

 

There you go again.  You are arguing with Paul, not me.  Paul tells believers that they were "delivered from the law" having "died to the law in the body of Christ".  Why?  To be under law and a sinner means death.  If you can't comprehend that then there's no use going on.....

 This is rather dry....The Gospel is "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

No, love is the reason there was a gospel.  The gospel is what I stated! Although it's dry to you, it's unconditional good news to sinners, but to the self-righteousness it's dry....

Edited July 6, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

Me:When you say, "but because they shared Adam's life indwelt with sin", this doesn't appear to mean anything.  We die because we are mortal.  

Robert:That's because you apparently cannot accept Paul's own words.  We are mortal because we have indwelling sin.  Got it?

Paul says nothing remotely like "we experience the first death because we share Adam's life indwelt with sin."  As I explained at length, this doesn't even make sense.  As I explained, a "life" is not an entity which stands on its own.  That we share Adam's life doesn't even mean anything; one has to guess what you're trying to communicate.  The only thing that I can think of that makes sense is that we are Adam's ancestors, and because of his fall, by the law of heredity, we are mortal.  Do you have something else in mind?  But to say that you are saying the words of Paul when you say, "we suffer the first death because we share Adam's condemned life" isn't even remotely close to Paul's words.

Me:The problem isn't with the law, but with what the person is doing.

Robert:There you go again.  You are arguing with Paul, not me.

No, not Paul, but you.  Paul explicitly says the problem is not the law, as clearly as possible, in Romans 7:13.  You did not address the argument at all.  It's clear as can be that the problem that needs to be solved is the problem of sin, which involves us.  What is the problem, and how does God solve it?  The problem is that cause separates us from God by causing us to view God in a way that He is not, resulting in our unbelief, and hatred of God.  The solution is the revelation of God's character through Christ.

The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. (DA 22)

 

Robert: Paul tells believers that they were "delivered from the law" having "died to the law in the body of Christ".  Why?  To be under law and a sinner means death.  If you can't comprehend that then there's no use going on.....

If you would be less ad hominem and more present clear arguments, that would be better.  Just because a person doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't comprehend.

A large part of our differences has to do with how we view what the problem to be.  You appear to see the problem of sin as a legal problem, which is to be solved by dealing with the legal issue.  I view the problem as one involving a misunderstanding of God's character, which problem is solved by revelation.

 

 Robert: God has answered (legally fulfilled) the law in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man.  That's the gospel.

Me:This is rather dry....The Gospel is "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Robert:No, love is the reason there was a gospel.  The gospel is what I stated! Although it's dry to you, it's unconditional good news to sinners, but to the self-righteousness it's dry....

 The Gospel is not what you stated, but what Christ stated.

In the interview with Nicodemus, Jesus unfolded the plan of salvation, and His mission to the world. In none of His subsequent discourses did He explain so fully, step by step, the work necessary to be done in the hearts of all who would inherit the kingdom of heaven. (DA 176)

Weakness in your position are:

1.You do not perceive that Christ preached the Gospel.

2.You do not perceive that Paul preached the same Gospel that Christ preached. 

[Robert]

Paul says nothing remotely like "we experience the first death because we share Adam's life indwelt with sin."

Then I would have to say you aren't reading Romans 5:12-14

Let's look at what David said concerning himself:

Ps 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth,...."

Then he reaches back further:

"sinful from the time my mother conceived me"

Sinful from when?  When his mother "conceived" him.

What are you at conception?  Not an individual, no identity, just cells. Yet David said the moment he was conceived he was sinful.  How?  Because the biological life that he received from his mother was already sinful. That sinfulness came from Adam.  Here's proof:

Ps 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. 14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

David was made from where?  The earth?  Who was made from the dust of the ground?  Right, Adam.  So when God made Adam He made the human race.  So David received from Adam a life that had sinned and was indwelt by sin (our bent).  Hence at conception he was sinful.

 Acts 17:26 ..."He (God) made of one (Adam) every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth...."

Edited July 7, 2015 by Robert