Is The Punishment for Sin Death?

This thread is in response to the following YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZrAtTfskso&list=PLHjVR-mjXyvH0JUij49wuNmkg4lUBnM6R&index=25&ab_channel=IdolKiller

The thread is only tangentially related to the YouTube video. So watching the video will not benefit the reader one way or the other.

This a discussion between 5 persons about whether the punishment for sin is death.

1. @kisstheson9519
The punishment for sin is death. Isn’t it simply understood that Jesus conquered death and through Him, we have victory over the punishment of sin?

2. @IdolKiller –> @kisstheson9519
Death was a MERCY God enacted upon man, to limit his suffering and provide means of redemption. Though there are specific sins so grave death is a penalty enacted upon the guilty as a mercy to the living.

3. @kisstheson9519 –> @IdolKiller
The punishment for sin is death and we are able to conquer death through Christ.
James 1:15
“Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

1 John 4:9
“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.”

4. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @kisstheson9519
I am interested in this claim that the punishment for sin is death. Can you provide a verse or two that would help a biblically ignorant person to understand this claim to be true?

@Dizerner –> @ChristPlusZero.org
The soul that sins shall die

5. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @Dizerner
Thanks for your response. I agree that Ezekiel 18:4 (to which you refer) is indeed a punishment. But this verse does not appear to support the idea that each and every sin deserves death which is usually what is meant when someone says “the punishment for sin is death.” Ezekiel 18 refers to a sinner’s UNTIMELY death on account of his unfazed and utter disloyalty to God’s law. Such death is an execution and not mere mortality. This is seen when the same chapter speaks of a repentant sinner who does not die. Ezekiel 18:4, then, serves to show that the generic penalty for sin cannot be death (at least not the one mentioned in Ezekiel). Is there another verse you can provide that supports your initial claim?

6. @kisstheson9519 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
Forgive me, I misspoke.
The payment for sin is death which is a payment that no one can afford, so technically it can be considered a punishment 😉

James 1:15 – Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Romans 5:12 – Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

7. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @kisstheson9519
I think we can all agree that whatever James 1:15 means, it cannot mean that the punishment for sin is death. Otherwise, the Scriptures would not speak of a sin that is not unto death (1 John 5:17). The mere fact that there are several sins in the Bible that do not require UNTIMELY death is a testament to the fact that the generic penalty for sin is not death. Hence, it seems that so far, the popular premise that “the punishment for sin is death” is unproven. Else, are there other passages that serve to bolster this premise?

8. @Dizerner –> @ChristPlusZero.org
Well you are doing a LOT of personal interpreting, and that needs to be acknowledged.
We have “in the day you eat of it you shall die” for the very first sin that brought a fallen state and according to Romans 5, was the entrance of all sin into the world. We have “the wages of sin is death,” and this is a metaphorical use of wages as what something deserves. We have “dead in trespasses and sins,” and the concept of death always associated with judgment and sin in hundreds of passages. And this death is not just physical death, or everyone would pay for their sins by merely dying and afterwards be worthy of heaven, but we have “the second death” which shows the consequence and idea of death is spiritual, and means the anger of God against all unrighteousness, that the Law brings wrath, as Romans says.

Now you want to say only “big” sins deserve death it seems, and we need to turn to James where it says one sin breaks the entire Law, and we read in the Law that God shall avenge and punish all who violate it, for as Paul tells us the Law locks up all under sin that righteousness and life might only come as a gift of grace through faith, and this is why the Law only brings a curse for a people who cannot ever measure up to its perfection (and no we don’t say the Law is “bad,” this is a misrepresentation, we say the Law curses because WE are bad).

Your last point is a bit of a conflation, you point out that repentance can allay the consequence of death, and try to deduce from that, that it means the sin didn’t deserve death just because God didn’t hand it out to those who repent. This is a non sequitur, for God can have means to allay a just penalty for the repentant without violating the justice and consequence of his Law, by providing a means of atonement, propitiation, expiation, or the ideas these words attempt to encapsulate and this channel seems to hate and fight so much as the enemies of the Cross they display themselves to be, as legalists and self-righteous moralists who deny humanity’s utter incapacity and sin so clearly laid out for us in Scripture, and our desperate need for God to grant us mercy and grace on a basis of holiness and justice that does not violate his Law or devalue his holiness. So Jesus takes the death the repentant deserve, thus being able to grant them pardon on a basis that does not violate God’s Law, which shall never be violated, as Christ himself emphatically declared.

9. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @Dizerner
You say I am doing “personal interpreting.” What are you doing? Aren’t we all doing the same? Don’t we all hope that our interpretation is being led by the Spirit? Do you have a monopoly on non-personal interpretations? None of the several verses you have cited (Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:1) require the conclusion that “the punishment for sin is death.” That is my short answer. My long answer is, why don’t you produce a syllogism from any one of the verses you have cited that shows how it leads to the good and necessary consequence of your premise? That shouldn’t be to hard to do if you are right. For example, in Romans 6:23, Sin is a master who is paying his servant the wages of death. What has that to do with your claim that the punishment for each sin is death? Does indwelling-Sin now determine the punishment for each sin? Do you not realize that the word sin is polysemous and that it does NOT refer to lawbreaking in Romans 6:23?

Your response includes a lot of “bait” that I am deliberately trying to avoid so that we can stay on topic. By bait, I mean that your response contains several claims that I consider irrelevant and/or fallacious (e.g. equivocation via conflation of the 1st and 2nd death, the needless spiritualizing of Eph 2:1, the conjecture that Gen 2:17 is a punishment, your misapprehension of James 2:10-11, your anticipatory and needless defense of arguments that I am not making, etc.). Trying to address each claim would prompt a very large response which I am trying to avoid.

I am not trying to say that big sins deserve death, that is what the Bible is saying.

Or else, if each sin truly warrants death as its punishment, then what was the purpose of the varying retributions or restitutions which God discriminately assigned to various offenses in the Mosaic Law? For instance, according to God’s law, was justice not served when the ox thief who was caught with the stolen merchandise in hand restored twice the stolen goods to the original owner (Exodus 21:1; 22:4)? did he still have to die? Or, for the destitute thief who was consequently and rightly sold as a slave (Exodus 22:3), was there anything lacking in his punishment which would require such a one to still suffer death? Or, when the brother of the deceased refused to fulfill the requirements of the Levirate law (in Deuteronomy 25:5-10) was his punishment death? Are we not to consider these infractions of God’s law as sin? And what about the logical implications of the “eye for an eye” principle (a.k.a. Lex talionis, Latin: the law of retaliation) which is found in the following verses of the Mosaic law: Exodus 21:22-25; Leviticus 24:19; Deuteronomy 19:21? Indeed, there is a biblical principle of proportional justice conveyed by such verses which reveal how God’s mind works as it pertains to divine jurisprudence. Such principles compel the reader to esteem a punishment’s degree in proportion to the sin’s egregiousness. Of course, the sin’s egregiousness is something that we leave for God to decide as He has already done in the case of the Mosaic Law.

I did not conflate on my last point. I am simply drawing your attention to how God uses the word die. Your entire response here might have been avoided if you had simply read Ezekiel 18:21 which I will now quote:

Ezek 18:21 – But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Again, my point (which you apparently missed the first time) is that the verse which YOU provided does not show that the punishment for each sin is death. Both persons in Ezekiel (the unrepentant person and the repentant person) are still sinners. By virtue of their indwelling sin (i.e., their sin nature) both the repentant and the unrepentant person (in Ezekiel 18:21), just like you and I, will invariably continue to sin each day, and God knows this. What determines whether each will live or die is not whether they have committed a single sin (as your view would require). Whether one should live or die, according to Ezekiel 18 is based upon one’s stance toward God (i.e., commitment to do wrong or right). One’s disposition towards God is what makes one worthy of death or life in Ezekiel 18, not the committing of a single sin. Therefore the verse you cited DOES NOT show that each sin deserves the punishment of death.

I was hoping to deal with one verse at a time and to not veer off into an endless debate. Perhaps your can choose the one verse among the ones you have mentioned that you feel presents the strongest case for your claim that the punishment for (each) sin is death. My position is that the Bible presents the punishment for sins in a differential manner. Some sins require death while others do not. That is what the verses that I have provided demonstrate.

10. @kisstheson9519 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
Good morning!
Is getting fined for a traffic violation a punishment?
I think it is.
I don’t want to pay a fine.

The way I see 1 John 5 could be that John is speaking about sins that get the death penalty under the law of the land. But all sin brings forth death according to God’s law.

James 1:15
“Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”
Romans 6
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

11. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @kisstheson9519
Good evening!
I am not sure why you are bring up the idea of punishment and fines (since I believe in both). However, as long as we are arbitrarily adding unsolicited context to 1 John 5:17 then I would like to propose that John is speaking about the law of the land of Kentucky. I have been there often and I am quite fond of the place. No, I do not believe that is how exegeting the text works. 1 John 5:17, then seems to destroy any idea that every sin deserves death as a punishment. Or else, does breaking the Levirate law (in Deuteronomy 25:5-10) bring forth death?

Instead of merely quoting James 1:15, how about you show how the death that is brought forth is a punishment from God? I think that would be helpful since the verse is absent regarding that very important point. Also show why James 1:15 must be referring to sin (as an unlawful action) and not sin (as an actor ~ Romans 7:20).

Romans 5:12 is an enthymeme. “All have sinned” because all have inherited indwelling-sin. Indwelling sin (i.e., sin in the flesh) is the cause of human mortality (cf. Romans 8:5 – the body is dead because of sin). That is why aborted infants who have never sinned on their own are capable of death. Incidentally, unless one realizes that Romans 5:12 is an enthymeme, one can’t make sense of the riddle which Paul presents in the next two verses. If one does not disambiguate sin, one cannot properly understand the book of Romans.

Romans 5:21 does not say that each sin deserves the punishment of death. It only rightly says that indwelling-sin has reigned unto death (which is self evident).

12. @fredarroyo7429 –> @kisstheson9519
Paul spoke of natural laws and positive laws.

An example of a natural law is gravity.
If you jump off a building you will fall.
It isn’t penal in nature. It is cause and effect. You reap you sow. You throw a ball up it will come down . In this way I can see that death is not a punishment. You sin and you die.

In contrast you have a positive law. In which is breaking a command . Don’t be late for example. The result is up to the discretion of the law giver. A boss may say don’t be late. The result is a punishment you get fired . It is negotiable. The law giver can say even though you are late you won’t get fired today, but it is not like a natural law, where the result is not negotiable.

13. @kisstheson9519 –> @fredarroyo7429
“In this way I can see that death is not a punishment. You sin and you die.”

The wage of sin is death.
A wage is a punishment.
You lie, you die, you believe a lie, you die. Just as Adam and Eve swallowed a lie and they died. The “Boss” said, If you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall surely die”… they did eat, therefore death passed upon them and onto their children. It’s a negative. The lawgiver can then say, I will give the knowledge of the way to pass from death to life and all you have to do is come 😁…the result is positive.

Jesus was not punished because He did not sin, Jesus laid down His life for sinners so that we may live by the faith of Him.

14. @fredarroyo7429 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
I mean I get what warren (i.e., IdolKiller) says. But I feel like it is a punishment as well because God gave Adam a command that said do not eat of the fruit of the tree for if you do surely you will die.

That seems like a punishment . Though it could also be a merciful thing

15. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @fredarroyo7429
Right. But theologians for the most part have merely assumed from Genesis 2:17 that death (i.e., human mortality) answers to Adam’s disobedience. The text does not explicitly say this. The only penalty God imposes upon Adam for disobedience is the cursing of the ground (Genesis 3:17). Genesis 3:19 must seem strange to those who adhere to the traditional stance. For in that verse, Adam’s mortality, unlike the ground-curse, is not pronounced, but merely taken for granted. In order to get the Garden of Eden right, one needs to be able to answer certain questions: Was Genesis 2:17 a threat of divine retaliation for law-breaking? Or, was it merely a warning that the forbidden fruit harbored sinister and undesirable side effects? In Genesis 3:19, when God told Adam: “unto dust shalt thou return”, was God enforcing the justice that His law demanded? Or, was He merely reminding Adam of what happens when one chooses to drink the hemlock? If I told you “on the day that you step on that live wire, you will surely be electrocuted” would you treat the resulting electrocution that occurs upon disobedience as a penalty or, as the side effects of stepping on to a livewire? Obviously the latter. Moreover, it turns out that there are all sorts of theological problems and absurdities which occur once you take death as a penalty in the Creation narrative. Ironically, many of the problems that theologians have spent centuries trying to solve ultimately arise from an incorrect reading of Genesis 1-3.

16. @fredarroyo7429 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
I definitely see your point. I can see how the case could be made that mortality is merely a result of sin as opposed to a punishment for sin.

But what do you do with this verse that makes it appear that what resulted from Adams disobedience was not merely a side effect like falling when you jump off a swing but a punishment for the disobedience .

Romans 5:16

Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

17. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @fredarroyo7429
Good question. So, first lets clarify. Adam DID incur a divine penalty (i.e., the cursing of the earth/ground, etc.). So the curse, being a form of condemnation, could serve as Romans 5:16’s referent. My earlier point was that human mortality does not appear to be a divine penalty but merely the result of consuming deadly fruit. Now on to Romans 5:16-18:

(16) And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. (17) For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) (18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

According to Albert Barnes: “Romans 5:12-21 has been usually regarded as the most difficult part of the New Testament.” [To this] I would add that the inspired wording of Romans 5:16 is somewhat obscure. Barnes summarizes it in the following sentence:

“The condemnation which came from the sin of Adam was the result of one offence. The work of Christ was to deliver from many offences.”

So, Romans 5:16-18 asserts that Adam’s sin somehow brings condemnation upon all men [i.e., by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation]. Is this condemnation referring to human mortality as a divine penalty for Adam’s sin? I don’t think so for the reasons already stated. I do think this is referring to the condemnation of the law.

Adam’s sin > introduces indwelling-sin into our world (Romans 5:12) > which makes us sinners (Psalms 51:5) > which brings upon us the law’s condemnation (Romans 3:19) > and the law’s condemnation is the administration of death (2 Corinthians 3:6-9).

BTW, though the law administers death, it does not follow that the penalty for (every) sin is death. Many have wrongly surmised that the penalty of the law is death, which they take to mean that even the least sin deserves death.

So the condemnation that rests upon all men is derived from the law. For Romans 3:19 says “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that EVERY mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty (i.e., subjected to judgment and condemnation) before God.”

Moreover, “the letter [i.e., the law] killeth … [because it is] … the ministration of death, [that was] written and engraven in stones … [it is] … the ministration of condemnation.” (2 Corinthians 3:6-9)

Hence, the difference is that, rather than God condemning all men to human mortality as the divine response to Adam’s one offence; the condemnation upon all men arises from the fact that all men are born sinners and that the law administers death to anyone who happens to be a sinner. So the law is against sinners (Colossians 2:14). But God did not make us sinners (as the traditional view would necessarily entail). Adam did, when he disobeyed God. I believe indwelling-sin & mortality was the poison of the forbidden fruit.

18. @kisstheson9519 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
“But God did not make us sinners (as the traditional view would necessarily entail). Adam did, when he disobeyed God.”

I say neither of them made us sinners.
We make ourselves sinners.
All we inherited from Adam was death.
Sin entered the world by Adam, hence we are born in (a world of) sin that we all contribute to.
To blame anyone else for our own sin is what I believe to be the greatest sin. All we need to do is let the law make us GUILTY which is what Israel would not do.

19. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @kisstheson9519
Well then your argument is with Romans 5:19 -> “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” So clearly we were made sinners by Adam’s transgression. To say otherwise is to militate against Scripture.

20. @kisstheson9519 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
“I agree that Ezekiel 18:4 (to which you refer) is indeed a punishment. But this verse does not appear to support the idea that each and every sin deserves death “

When did I refer to this verse?
Anyway, death has passed upon all men because we are made after Adam’s own image. Also, I believe that all sin is as any sin, none are less deserving.

James 2:10
“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is GUILTY of all.”

Romans 3
“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become GUILTY before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For ALL HAVE SINNED, and COME SHORT of the glory of God;”

Romans 5:12
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

21. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @kisstheson9519
Those comments were directed toward the person with the handle @Dizerner

That person’s prior comments which spurred my response seem to have been deleted or to have mysteriously disappeared [deleted in YouTube but restored here]. Are you both @Dizerner and @kisstheson9519? If so why did you remove your prior comments? To do so removes context and doesn’t seem right.

22. @kisstheson9519 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
No…I am only KISStheSON. I don’t have any secret accounts. I was just inspired by your comments to Dizerner.

23. @kisstheson9519 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
Is a wage a punishment?

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners…”

The scripture says, “…FOR all have sinned” which means that you might want to consider that it is by following in one’s footsteps that many are made sinners, just as by turning from sin unto God through the faith of Christ many are made righteous.” We can learn in James that a person doesn’t sin until after lust has been conceived.

James 1 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Sin babies are conceived after being drawn away and enticed. So clearly we were MADE sinners by committing the same transgression as Adam which is that he was drawn away and enticed by what the serpent fed Him via Eve, which was a big fat lie “to make one wise”.

Genesis 3:6 “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be DESIRED to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and DID EAT, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he DID EAT.”

24. @fredarroyo7429 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
ut how we were made sinners by Adams disobedience is not explicit .

It is in no way to be assumed that Adams disobedience was the DIRECT cause of our being made sinners .

Adams transgression resulted in a world with a cursed ground and human mortality.

A world with a cursed ground and human mortality brings overwhelming temptation to mankind.

Overwhelming temptation results in all men choosing to sin and become sinners.

We can say all men became sinners because of their choice, but if Adam never sinned then they wouldn’t have became sinners, therefore in that way we can say Adams sin made them sinners .

An example would be
“The stock market made me a rich man”

Now the stock markets existence isn NOT the direct cause of me becoming a rich man

The stock market allows for Apple to publicly offer their stocks for ppl to invest and buy.

Buying apples stock at a certain time and selling it at another time brings a huge return on your investment.

Getting a huge return on your investment makes someone a rich man.

We can say this man became rich because of their choice to invest at the right time , but if the stock market didn’t exist they would have never became rich, therefore we can also say that the stock market made them a rich man.

25. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @kisstheson9519
You asked: “Is a wage a punishment?”

Not according to the dictionary.

26. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @kisstheson9519
I am sorry but you seem to keep “moving the goal posts.” Has Romans 5:19 convinced you yet that we were made sinners by Adam’s transgression? If not why? Moreover, I have already dealt with the verses that you provide in the previous posts which you have clearly seen since you are quoting from them. What do you have to say about what I have already said regarding James 1:15? Have you disambiguated sin yet in that verse?

And again, how does an aborted infant sin? Does Romans 5:12 exclude infants? This is why theologians speak about the sin nature. Whether it sounds pleasant or not, the scriptural truth is that each child of Adam has a biological commitment to sin (i.e. indwelling-sin a.k.a. sin-in-the-flesh). It is in our DNA. Obviously each person who lives long enough will invariably break God’s law, but the truth remains that we are already sinners before committing our first unlawful act.

Indwelling-sin is our master and we are slaves to indwelling-sin (Romans 7:25). In Romans 7:20, indwelling-sin is blamed for causing the Apostle Paul to sin involuntarily.

So to recap: We are born with indwelling-sin, and this makes us sinners. Indwelling sin came into this world (and then into Adam) when Adam ate the evil forbidden fruit.

BTW, did you say “Sin babies are … enticed?” (that sounds a bit wacky like Alfred Kinsey’s research) Hopefully, you don’t really mean that. 🙂

27. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @fredarroyo7429
You said: “how we were made sinners by Adams disobedience is not explicit”

I appreciate your reply but I must completely disagree. It is quite explicit in Psalms 51:5 –> Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

So, according to Scripture we are born sinners.

It turns out that the term sin (H2403) is ambiguous in Scripture. In its very first biblical occurrence, sin is a malevolent ACTOR (i.e., a flesh-indwelling entity) who is crouching at Cain’s proverbial door (Genesis 4:7). In sin’s second biblical occurrence, it represents the grievous ACTS of Sodom and Gomorrah’s inhabitants (Genesis 18:20). So it turns out that the term sin can refer to either an bad ACT or a bad ACTOR. Hence, in order to properly disambiguate sin’s meaning in the Bible, the reader will need to decide (in each verse) which meaning of sin is in play.

Because of this, it turns out that there are two ways to become a sinner: by performing an unlawful ACT or by possessing indwelling-sin a.k.a. “the sin nature” a.k.a. the bad ACTOR.

Now, the Bible clearly says that when you and I were born we were already sinners (Psalms 51:5). But how? Did you break God’s law as a new born baby? Not likely. Yet each human is already a sinner at birth. In fact, if at birth you were not yet a sinner, you would be impervious to death (Romans 5:12). For Romans 5:12 links sin and death. But how did you become a sinner? The doctrine of original sin (which I reject) says that the entire human race sinned at the same time when Adam sinned. But this popular idea is clearly wrong since Romans 5:14 tells us that those who came after Adam (but before Moses) sinned differently than Adam. So again, how did we become sinners at conception? Through biological inheritance.

It turns out that each descendant of Adam and Eve has inherited the trait of being immoral because indwelling-sin is innately part of the the human flesh (Psalms 51:5). Because such immorality manifests itself as an innate impulse which inclines a person’s heart towards sinfulness, theologians have coined this insidious trait the “sin nature.” Since our heredity unavoidably propagates whatever evil was acquired from the forbidden fruit, we are, in a sense, “born to be wild” and “bad to the bone.” Though Adam and Eve were created neither mortal (Genesis 2:17) nor immoral (Genesis 1:31; Ecclesiastes 7:9), all of that changed when Adam’s inaugural act of disobedience unleashed the “law of sin and death” upon both him and his descendants (Romans 8:2). The Law of Sin and Death pertains to the poisonous calamity which emerged from the forbidden fruit. This two-fold law (or principle) accounts for how mankind became both innately immoral and mortal. The Law of Sin informs us that when Adam consumed the forbidden fruit, an evil entity called Sin (a.k.a. the sin nature) irremediably became part of his bodily constitution (Romans 7:20-23). This law also suggests that Adam, through his flesh, genetically (and thus perennially) imparts this indwelling-sin to all of his descendants (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12).

One of Romans 7:20-21’s take-home messages is that, since “sin…dwelleth in me…evil is present with me.” Because of sayings like this it has become clear that it was indwelling-sin which endowed Adam and his descendants with the knowledge of Evil―just as the forbidden tree’s name had promised (Genesis 3:7,11). It is also clear that this indwelling-sin is the agent responsible for implementing a gradual biological death (i.e., the Law of Death) within Adam’s body (Genesis 5:5; Romans 7:13; 8:10). Therefore, from verses like Romans 7:23-24 which blame indwelling-sin for man’s “body of death” or Romans 8:10 which tell us that “the body is dead because of [indwelling] sin” we can surmise that the death of which God warned Adam in Genesis 2:17 was not capital punishment but a poison-induced mortality, and that this mortality is ultimately enforced by the plague of indwelling-sin. The bodily corruption that ends in death is the work of indwelling-sin. As Adam’s descendants, we all inherit Adam’s biology. Therefore, the Law of Sin working in mankind makes us innate sinners, while the Law of Death makes us innately mortal.

Does this make sense? Or have I lost you?

28. @kisstheson9519 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
Are you actually going to bring a dictionary into this argument?

A wage is a negative according to the scripture verse, as opposed to a gift that is positive. The wage that we receive as a reward for our wrongdoing is DEATH.

Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Wages of sin = death The gift through Jesus Christ= life

John 5:24 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is PASSED FROM DEATH unto life.”

Proverbs 8:36 “But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.” “Me” = The wisdom of God

29. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @kisstheson9519
You asked: “Are you actually going to bring a dictionary into this argument?”

How else do you propose that we come about the meaning of words? Charades? So then we need a dictionary, or if you prefer, a biblical lexicon that pertains to the biblical language in question.

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries define Romans 6:23’s wages (Greek: opsōnion) as: “rations for a soldier, that is, (by extension) his stipend or pay: – wages.”

So again, you asked: “Is a wage a punishment?” The answer is still clearly no. The two words are not even remotely close to being synonyms. No one would call their paycheck a punishment. Even those who are grossly underpaid would still see any sort of compensation as a kind of blessing. After all, something is better than nothing. A wage is meant to provide monetary compensation for services provided. On the other hand, a punishment is something (usually unpleasant) that someone is made to undergo to compensate for a wrongdoing.

As this pertains to Romans 6:23 (which I have already dealt with), the verse is not saying that wages in general are negative. That would clearly be an absurdity. No, Romans 6:23 is saying that if Sin is your master, it can only pay you wages in terms of death. The idea then being that we should not want to be the slaves of sin due to the worthless compensation that Sin provides.

It turns out that Galatians 6:8 reflects Romans 6:23’s idea in different wording. Indeed, the TSK treats both verses as parallels. Hence, [in Galatians 6:8] we have yet another chance at understanding what Paul means in Romans [6:23]:

“For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”

Using your logic, we would be forced into thinking that reaping in general is a negative thing. But that is not what either Romans 6:23 or Galatians 6:8 is saying.

If the term “flesh” in Galatians 6:8 refers to sin-in-the-flesh (and it does) then to “reap corruption” from the flesh (i.e., indwelling-sin) is akin to receiving “wages of death” from Master Sin. So, as the flesh in Galatians 6:8 represents indwelling-sin, so also does “sin” in Romans 6:23 refer particularly to indwelling-sin. Indwelling-sin is not an abstraction (like the sin we commit), it is a real flesh-indwelling entity (think personage if you would like). That is why Romans 6:23 could never refer to sin as an abstraction (which your view requires). So, while I do believe that the ultimate consequence of sin is death (i.e., corruption), by “sin” I am not referring to an unlawful ACT but to a flesh-indwelling ACTOR, and by “consequence” I am not referring to a penalty but to an inherited, innate, poison-induced inevitability.

So, indwelling-sin is our master, and we are the slaves. As slaves, the compensation that indwelling-sin will reward us with is death, and according to Romans 7:25, our service to sin is somewhat unavoidable. Do you now have a GERMANE answer for this Romans 6:23 response (or any of my prior)?

And just so we are clear, none of the inspired but irrelevant verses that you have mentioned thus far require the proposition that EACH SIN merits death as a punishment. So we are back to square one.

It would help if you would actually engage with any of the comments mentioned thus far instead of bypassing each response. After all, this can’t go on for ever.

So please go back to the comments where I listed several sins that do not require death as the penalty and try explaining to me why those verses don’t really mean what they so clearly seem to be saying.

In case you are wondering, what I would ultimately argue from this seemingly pedantic discourse is that, if death is not the penalty for sin (and it clearly isn’t), then PSA loses one of its main arguments (i.e., that Jesus had to die on the cross because death is the penalty for sin).

Thanks for bearing with these long responses.

30. @fredarroyo7429 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
Do you have a more clear passage that shows we are “ born in sin “.?

“Shapen in iniquity”
“In sin my mother conceived me”

Is not clear at all that these phrases without a doubt means “ David was born in sin “‘

The phrase “ indwelling sin” is in itself ambiguous. Sin is an abstraction, hard to imagine it is a substance. It’s not clear that God saying “sin is at the door” is anything more than an illustration that Cain was going to give in and sin.

You said “ Humans inherit a trait of being immoral”

That is called influence . Evil influences get passed down. If I see my mom be a drunk, I be influenced to to drink and then I become a drunk also.

I fail to see a substantiation of a “ sin infused biology “ in which you claim is “ passed down genetically” . Like what is that in reality?

Biological composition is amoral .

Is it that we have the ability to sin?

Adam had the ability to sin , but Adam wasn’t born a sinner.

Is it that we have to sin?

If we sin by necessity than we don’t have free will and that lodges a host of other problem.

Is it a spirit that we inherit?

Spirits are not genetically transferred.

Could you please substantiate exactly what it is we receive that makes us born sinners other than using more ambiguous language to double down that we do have this “ thing” that I’m unsure you are talking about to begin with

31. @fredarroyo7429 –> @ChristPlusZero.org
This is what I mean by explaining that this “ thing “ or “ sin nature” by ambiguous language.

You said “ such immorality manifest itself as an innate impulse which inclines a persons heart towards sinfulness.”

This is just begging the question .

By saying sin nature is an “ innate impulse to do evil “ is using the concept in the definition.

Sin nature is the nature (innate impulse ) to sin( do evil)

It feels like you aren’t stating anything substantial . Just using the claim as evidence to support that which you are trying to prove . What is this?

32. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @fredarroyo7429

You mentioned: Do you have a more clear passage that shows we are “ born in sin “.?

I will try to give more details about Psalm 51:5 in a later reply. But for now, the following will have to do.

If you meditate upon the verse, you will find that it could not be more clear that being “shapen in iniquity” is the strongest language the Bible could use to convince the reader of this truth (i.e. sin-in-the-flesh”). Otherwise, what do you think it means? After all, the act of procreation is not necessarily sin[full]. The term shapen has to do with the creation of the body, the flesh.

In a prior response to you I mentioned the following:
One of Romans 7:20-21’s take-home messages is that, since “sin…dwelleth in me…evil is present with me.” (KJV)

Did you read that verse in its entirety? How can “sin that dwelleth in me” (Romans 7:20) be an abstraction? How can the term “body of sin”‘ (Romans 6:6) be an abstraction? How can the term “sin-in-the-flesh” (Romans 8:3) be an abstraction? These are all straight from the Bible. I did not make up these terms. Are these terms ambiguous?

If I said: “blood dwelleth in me”, “body of blood”, “blood in the flesh,” no one would doubt what is meant. Why is it so hard for you to take the Bible seriously when it uses these expressions about sin? There are several reasons for the conclusion of indwelling-sin. These are just but a few. But these few should have sufficed. I am surprised that your are questioning the language of Scripture at this junction. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your critical thinking thus far (especially in this area), but isn’t this language [already] belaboring?

Again, the term “sin” has two meanings in Scripture, one is an abstraction (i.e., lawbreaking) and the other a flesh-dwelling entity (i.e., sin-in-the-flesh aka indwelling-sin aka body-of-sin aka the-flesh, etc.).

In Romans 7:20-21 Paul said “it is no more I that do it.” Then who is doing it? An abstraction? Is it not indwelling-sin?

I urge you to re-read Romans 6 through Romans 7 and everywhere you see the word sin, ask yourself if the term “lawbreaking” (its synonym) works for that verse.

The idea of indwelling-sin is probably the most belabored truth in the Bible. (more to come…)

33. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @fredarroyo7429

You claimed I was “begging the question” (i.e., to merely restate what I should be trying to prove) because I said “such immorality manifest itself as an innate impulse which inclines a persons heart towards sinfulness”

You also said “By saying sin nature is an “innate impulse to do evil“ is using the concept in the definition.” [Begging the Question]

But I was not putting forth an argument, I was merely defining the term “sin nature.” All definitions are essentially circular. For example, A woman is an adult female and an adult female is a woman. Perhaps you are confused about what the Question-begging fallacy entails.

Moreover, I did not come up with the term “sin nature”; that is a term invented and used by theologians to describe the reality that our natural bodies contain something evil within that compels us to sin. Whatever this thing is, it is not said to reside in our soul or in our spirit, but in our flesh. This is why I referred to it as indwelling-sin. Paul calls it “sin that dwells in me” (Romans 7:20). I am perfectly fine with refraining from using the term “sin nature” if that helps us to advance this discussion. Feel free to stick to the biblical terms I suggested earlier: “sin that dwelleth in me” (Romans 7:20), “body of sin” (Romans 6:6), “sin-in-the-flesh” (Romans 8:3), “sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3), etc.

So, I was not begging the question. “Indwelling-sin…manifests itself as an innate impulse which inclines a person’s heart towards sinfulness.” Corroborating my claim, Romans 7:21 says “I find this law, that when I wish to do the right thing, that evil is present with me (EMTV)” So again, Romans 7:20-21’s take-home message is that, since “sin…dwells in me…evil is present with me.” So don’t blame me, I did not make this indwelling-sin stuff up.

You asked: “Do you have a more clear passage [than Psalms 51:5] that shows we are ‘born in sin’?”

As I stated earlier, it is hard to explain hereditary indwelling-sin any more clearly than David does in Psalms 51:5. So you can’t just dismiss the verse as unclear. At the very least continue to grapple with it.

However, I do think that the most compelling case for indwelling-sin in the Bible (besides Romans Chapters 6 & 7) is in the Mosaic Law’s notion that uncleanness is a sin (Leviticus 15:31, Numbers 19:13, 20, Ezekiel 36:17 etc.). It is important to remember that (committed) sin [H2403] is defined as “to miss a mark or a way (TWOT).” So in the Bible, uncleanness is deemed missing the mark, it is considered a sin. Once you can allow yourself to accept that truth, and once you realize that involuntary bodily actions such as defecating (Deuteronomy 23:13-14), ejaculating (Leviticus 15:16) and childbirth (Leviticus 12:2-6) all render a person unclean, then you begin to realize that our natural constitution (i.e. our flesh) unavoidably renders us sinners.

For example, the sinful acts which are meant by Deuteronomy 23:9’s “a wicked thing” are later defined in verses 10-13 to include any involuntarily achieved uncleanness of the body. Within Deuteronomy 23:10 we find the Hebrew word qâreh [H7137] which is a “noun [denoting] an occurrence beyond human control, the nocturnal emission polluting a man whether it is seminal or diarrheic.” Despite the ambiguity in qâreh concerning which kind of emission (i.e. seminal or diarrheic) is meant, because both types are expressly designated as uncleanness elsewhere in the Scriptures (Leviticus 15:16, Deuteronomy 23:13-14), there is sufficient warrant for concluding that the activity of Deuteronomy 23:10, though occurring involuntarily, is sinful. Exhibiting the disorder to achieve sin without even trying makes us wretched men indeed (Romans 7:24).

So, the fact that the Law of Moses considered unclean practically everything that proceeded forth from the human body, lends weight to the idea that indwelling-sin is the ultimate defiler. Again, even the act of childbirth rendered the newborn’s mother unclean for a period of no less than 7 days for males and twice that for females (Leviticus 12:2-6). That such uncleanness required the remediation of sacrifice also underscores that uncleanness is sinful. So if uncleanness is indeed a sin as the Bible clearly indicates, then the fact that humans cannot help being unclean (at least in certain circumstances) points to indwelling-sin’s autonomy and the unavoidability of the human to be anything other than a sinner. Perhaps this is part of what Paul means by the Romans 7:18 declaration that “in [our] flesh dwells no good thing.”

Regarding Psalm 51:5 as a suitable proof-text for indwelling-sin, my view is not novel. From this verse, perhaps the greatest Bible expositor, Albert Barnes (1798-1870), concludes “that people are born with a propensity to sin.” To John P. Lange (1802-1884), another formidable expositor, Psalm 51:5 refers to “inborn sinfulness…transmitted from parents to children, by means of natural propagation, so that they are infected with sin from their mother’s womb.” Johann Keil (1807-1888) & Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) write “David here confesses his hereditary sin as the root of his actual sin…the fact of hereditary sin is here [Psalms 51:5] more distinctly expressed than in any other passage in the Old Testament.”

It bears mentioning that I am NOT referring to original sin (to which some of the aforementioned expositors may ascribe). According to McClintock’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature:

“[Original sin] is frequently used in a twofold sense, to denote the imputation of Adam’s first sin to his posterity, and also that native depravity which we have derived by inheritance from our first parents.”

I generally agree with this second sense of “original sin” but certainly not the first. The indwelling-sin that is hereditarily transmitted from parent to child (being a biological transference) is NOT imputed and does NOT confer guilt upon the child.

34. @ChristPlusZero.org –> @fredarroyo7429

You also said: “It is in no way to be assumed that Adams disobedience was the DIRECT cause of our being made sinners”

Adam disobediently ate the forbidden fruit. Now, whatever poison was in the forbidden fruit is apparently the direct cause of our being born sinners. Earlier you mentioned a distinction between “positive laws” and “laws of nature,” a view which I also affirm. Therefore, I would say that it was a “law of nature” that those who consumed the forbidden fruit would be infected with indwelling-sin. If you can allow yourself to accept that, within the Bible, the term sin has two meanings, from there, my point would be that in Romans 5:12 Paul is not talking about the entrance of mere law-breaking or disobedience. He is not talking about the entrance of sin as an abstraction. When Paul asserts that “Sin entered into the world” through Adam, based upon the implications of his conclusion that “[all die because] all have sinned,” one gets the impression that he is talking about the entrance of something a lot more dreadful than mere disobedience. This conclusion is of course confirmed in the next two verses where Paul presents a riddle that the reader can only resolve by treating Romans 5:12′ “sin” as indwelling-sin.

Romans 5:14 clearly indicates that the earth’s inhabitants living during the period of Adam to Moses were still considered sinners though they sinned differently from Adam (i.e. they “had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression”). Therefore, if everyone who lived between Adam and Moses sinned in a different manner than Adam, then it is highly unlikely that the “all have sinned” in verse 12 is referring to our culpability in Adam’s Edenic transgression (original sin). This conclusion becomes more evident after reading verse 13 which seems to indicate that, for those who lived between the time of Adam and Moses (i.e. “when there [was] no law”), though they were still considered sinners (i.e. “sin was in the world…death reigned”), yet they were not guilty of the kind of sin which results from law-breaking (i.e. because “sin in not imputed when there is no law”). The intriguing thing here is that they were already deemed sinners even though there was no law yet given to break.

So then, the riddle which emerges from verses 13 & 14 (of Romans 5) is: how was sin in the world during the period between Adam and Moses and how was death reigning during that same period if the absence of divine law precludes imputed sin? Why did God consider those who lived between Adam and Moses sinners if they had no imputed sin? Now, if you reply (as “Federal Headship”/”Original Sin” proponents do) by saying that they all sinned when Adam sinned, then you end up saying that they sinned by breaking the law which contradicts verses 13 and 14 which say otherwise (i.e. they “had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression”). Hence, the dilemma for the “Federal Headship” advocates is that if Adam’s sin was imputed to all because “Adam’s act of sin was considered by God to be the act of all people” then why do verses 13 and 14 instead point to sinners who are without imputed sin? The answer to the riddle, of course, is that they had indwelling-sin. That is why earlier, I called Romans 5:12 an enthymeme (i.e. an incomplete argument, or an argument with shortcuts). Of course, we all speak in enthymemes because they are an indispensable and unavoidable part of human speech.

Remembering that the term sin in Scripture is ambiguous, here is Romans 5:12:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (KJV)

Proposition 1 [Provided]: [Indwelling] Sin entered the world through one man (Adam).
Proposition 2 [Provided]: Death came into the world through [Indwelling] sin.
Proposition 3 [Missing]: All who have indwelling-sin ARE those who have already sinned.
Proposition 4 [Provided]: All humans have [already] sinned.
Conclusion [Provided]: All humans who have [already] sinned ARE those who will die.

The missing premise is: “All who have indwelling-sin ARE those who have already sinned.” The idea of indwelling sin is purposefully omitted but is essential to understanding the conclusion.