PDA

View Full Version : Those who deny imputed sin



reformedct
Jan 10th 2009, 06:19 PM
How do you interpret

Romans 5:19?

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.

If we are made righteous on Christs account, why is it so hard to believe we are made unrighteous on Adams account?

the Greek word for "made" there means "caused to be". Not only did death spread, but we were made sinners. I would like to see how you deny imputed sin?

ScottJohnson
Jan 10th 2009, 06:30 PM
How do you interpret

Romans 5:19?

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.

If we are made righteous on Christs account, why is it so hard to believe we are made unrighteous on Adams account?

the Greek word for "made" there means "caused to be". Not only did death spread, but we were made sinners. I would like to see how you deny imputed sin?
Who is it exactly that denies that we are all sinners?

ScottJohnson
Jan 10th 2009, 06:41 PM
Though it was because of the fall that we have a sin nature, I don't think that it was Adam that imputed sin into our nature as a contrast to the way that Christ imputed righteousness into those that believed in Him. Adams motives were selfish, not unlike our own. I'm sure that in his actions he did not fore see the damage he was doing to his posterity. Christ's imputation of righteousness on the other hand, was totally selfless and intentional.

reformedct
Jan 10th 2009, 07:17 PM
Though it was because of the fall that we have a sin nature, I don't think that it was Adam that imputed sin into our nature as a contrast to the way that Christ imputed righteousness into those that believed in Him. Adams motives were selfish, not unlike our own. I'm sure that in his actions he did not fore see the damage he was doing to his posterity. Christ's imputation of righteousness on the other hand, was totally selfless and intentional.

i agree with the selfish aspect of what your saying here. What i was getting at is that some people do not believe we are born sinners but that we only become sinners once we sin. I was getting at the effect of sin and judgement of God. If we were made sinners by Adam then how can we be born sinless? that would mean that we were not made sinners. Thats what i was trying to get at

Sirus
Jan 10th 2009, 09:48 PM
How do you interpret

Romans 5:19?

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.

If we are made righteous on Christs account, why is it so hard to believe we are made unrighteous on Adams account?

the Greek word for "made" there means "caused to be". Not only did death spread, but we were made sinners. I would like to see how you deny imputed sin?Made does not mean caused to be. Made means designated/ordained’ or appointed to a position. It does not mean created with a thing or disease called sin, to be inherently born with and guilty of another’s sin. Still, the English/modern definition of the word ‘made’ is how most read and understand that verse. Reading the original language and intent of the original author with other scripture through the holistic method of interpretation is very enlightening! It says Adam’s sin brought death -separated us from the tree of life and changed mans relationship with God, appointing us to a position, causing all men to physically die and sin their own sin (Rom 5:12, Eze 18).
Here is how ‘made’ in Rom 5:19 is used in the Greek in Scripture. The nature of the person made is not changed as a result of being made.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Mat 24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

Luk 12:14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

Act 7:10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.

Act 7:27 But he that did his neighbor wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?

Act 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

Moreover (v20) I would point out ‘much more’ is found five times from v9 to v20, and you should go read about how ‘much more’ the spiritual man-life giving spirit-Christ image affected man over how the natural-earthy-soul man Adam image affected man! ;) Jesus didn’t come just to restore what Adam lost, but to obtain a far greater inheritance through righteousness than Adam ever had.

I would love to see just one verse about imputed sin from one man to another. Just one.

BadDog
Jan 11th 2009, 01:51 AM
How do you interpret

Romans 5:19?

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.

If we are made righteous on Christs account, why is it so hard to believe we are made unrighteous on Adams account?

the Greek word for "made" there means "caused to be". Not only did death spread, but we were made sinners. I would like to see how you deny imputed sin?
The Greek word there is καθίστημι - meaning "to place, put, set, appoint, declare, make." I don't know about the idea of "cause to be." The idea is that because of one man's sin we were all placed in the category of sinners and the same is true as a result of Christ's obedience. We were changed as a result of Adam and Eve. We are now "sinners." Meaning that we have a very strong tendency to sin.

Romans 5:12 says

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned.

Ultimately the reason we are all condemned is because we all sin. True, we have a sin nature as a result of Adam's sin. I am not disputing your contention that sin is "imputed" to us, but what does it mean to say sin is "imputed?" Charles Ryrie refers to "inherited sin," but that does not mean that Adam's sin is our sin. I do not sin because Adam's sin was considered to be my sin and added to my ledger... I sin because it's my nature to sin. I sin, and I am judged for my own sin.

True, we are "born sinners," meaning we do not need to be taught to lie or be selfish - comes naturally. But we are judged for our own sin, not Adam's sin.

I guess the question here is if we could possibly NOT sin, would we be condemned anyway, due to imputed sin? Theologians differ here... I say that we would not be condemned if we did not sin. (Romans 5:12) Of course, it is academic... since we do all sin.

BD

Brother Mark
Jan 11th 2009, 01:57 AM
I sin because it's my nature to sin.

Right. But that nature came from Adam. That's the point I think. We sin, because sin is in us. Later, when we are saved, we do righteous works because righteousness is now in us.

If we weren't condemned because of sin in Adam, then we couldn't be saved because of righteousness in Christ.

The Parson
Jan 11th 2009, 02:07 AM
To take it a step further, Jesus said those that don't believe are condemned already. John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Where else would that condemnation have come from? It came from the iniquity inherent to everyone that comes from the womb... Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

BadDog
Jan 11th 2009, 04:11 AM
Right. But that nature came from Adam. That's the point I think. We sin, because sin is in us. Later, when we are saved, we do righteous works because righteousness is now in us.

If we weren't condemned because of sin in Adam, then we couldn't be saved because of righteousness in Christ.Yes, our tendency to sin is a result of Adam. We "inherited" this tendency from Adam.

We sin because our nature is flawed. I'm not sure what you mean by "sin is in us." Guess I'm not sure if I agree or not.

BTW, this is a good thread, because this is something that people don't talk about anymore.

BD

holyrokker
Jan 11th 2009, 04:27 AM
Romans 5:19
"For as by the one manís disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one manís obedience the many will be made righteous."

To claim that this passage is a theological statement affirming that everyone is a condemened sinner due to Adam, the claim would also have to be made that everyone will be made righteous because of Christ.

Each clause in the passage contains the same subject: "the many".

holyrokker
Jan 11th 2009, 04:30 AM
By the way - I don't "deny imputed sin"; I simply affirm that the doctrine isn't Biblical.

Sirus
Jan 11th 2009, 05:09 AM
True, we have a sin nature as a result of Adam's sin. I am not disputing your contention that sin is "imputed" to us, but what does it mean to say sin is "imputed?" Charles Ryrie refers to "inherited sin," but that does not mean that Adam's sin is our sin. I do not sin because Adam's sin was considered to be my sin and added to my ledger... I sin because it's my nature to sin. I sin, and I am judged for my own sin.

True, we are "born sinners," meaning we do not need to be taught to lie or be selfish - comes naturally. But we are judged for our own sin, not Adam's sin.

I guess the question here is if we could possibly NOT sin, would we be condemned anyway, due to imputed sin? Theologians differ here... I say that we would not be condemned if we did not sin. (Romans 5:12) Of course, it is academic... since we do all sin.

BDHow did what Adam did ensure you would have a sin nature? Why does sin come naturally? Is it because of something you have, or is it because something is missing? You don't seem to be of the mindset that an infant is deserving of damnation. So, why does the infant grow into sin and follow the course and god of this world and follow the lusts of the flesh to ultimately taint every part of their being with sin so they do have nature of sin and end up targets of Gods wrath? Adam had flesh and lusts just as we do. But what did both the first and last Adam have that we are not born with? That's right. An unveiled relationship with God. First man failed, the second man didn't. Pretty simple, eh?

There was a change in relationship not a change in nature. There is no scriptural support for a change in nature. If there was a change in nature it would not be possible to not sin and all would be condemned even before birth. Since you don't see that as a possibility how is it you have a sin nature?

It doesn't make any sense to say like Charles Ryrie 'inherited' but not really inherited.

Sirus
Jan 11th 2009, 05:11 AM
To take it a step further, Jesus said those that don't believe are condemned already. John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Where else would that condemnation have come from? It came from the iniquity inherent to everyone that comes from the womb... Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.ummm ......their own sin?

Oh and David being brought forth in iniquity and his mother being yet in her sin has little to do with his nature and a lot to do with his environment.

The Parson
Jan 11th 2009, 09:16 PM
ummm ......their own sin?

Oh and David being brought forth in iniquity and his mother being yet in her sin has little to do with his nature and a lot to do with his environment.Sirus, he says he was shapen in iniquity, not brought forth in iniquity.

reformedct
Jan 11th 2009, 09:24 PM
So do you guys think it would be more accurate to say we have a fallen nature that causes us to sin rather than a sin nature? imo i think fallen nature and sinful nature are kind of synonomous. Would it be possible for Adam and Eve to give birth to a sinless baby after the fall?

I hate to sound silly but isnt the biggest sin not believing in God and His word, namely His Son? Are babies born believing in Jesus? no right? The Bible says he who does not believe is condemned already, so arent we condemned from birth either way?

Sirus
Jan 11th 2009, 09:46 PM
Sirus, he says he was shapen in iniquity, not brought forth in iniquity.Would that be like shaping clay or something? No.

(ASV) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

(ESV) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

(LITV) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

(YLT) Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

Sirus
Jan 11th 2009, 09:52 PM
So do you guys think it would be more accurate to say we have a fallen nature that causes us to sin rather than a sin nature? imo i think fallen nature and sinful nature are kind of synonomous. Would it be possible for Adam and Eve to give birth to a sinless baby after the fall?Those two would be synonymous, and neither are right. No one has yet identified this change in nature that can be passed on. All new born infants are sinless. They haven't sinned.




I hate to sound silly but isnt the biggest sin not believing in God and His word, namely His Son? Are babies born believing in Jesus? no right? The Bible says he who does not believe is condemned already, so arent we condemned from birth either way?Job says man comes as a flower. Romans says we know God and through sin our hearts are darkened. Isaiah says to us a child is born and before this Messiah would know to refuse evil and choose good......

BroRog
Jan 11th 2009, 10:00 PM
How do you interpret

Romans 5:19?

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.

If we are made righteous on Christs account, why is it so hard to believe we are made unrighteous on Adams account?

the Greek word for "made" there means "caused to be". Not only did death spread, but we were made sinners. I would like to see how you deny imputed sin?

I believe the Greek word here for "make" also has the connotation of "declare" or "show to be", which make sense of Paul's statement. It isn't as if Adam's sinful act caused ME to be a sinner. Rather, Adam's sinful act demonstrated that mankind in general are sinners, of which I am included in that set.

reformedct
Jan 11th 2009, 10:36 PM
Those two would be synonymous, and neither are right. No one has yet identified this change in nature that can be passed on. All new born infants are sinless. They haven't sinned.


Job says man comes as a flower. Romans says we know God and through sin our hearts are darkened. Isaiah says to us a child is born and before this Messiah would know to refuse evil and choose good......

so how are we condemned if we have no sin at all?

also, even if we arent born in sin, how long does it take for a baby to sin lol.

reformedct
Jan 11th 2009, 10:37 PM
Would that be like shaping clay or something? No.

(ASV) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

(ESV) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

(LITV) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

(YLT) Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

how do you know he was talking about his environment? where does the Bible say that?

holyrokker
Jan 11th 2009, 10:38 PM
We are born physical beings. We do not have a spiritual life at birth.

Jesus said:
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

When we are born, it is natural to follow the urges of the body. These natural desires aren't inherently sinful - simply physical life. (Animals share these same physical desires)

By the time we develop our sense of right and wrong, and the ability to make moral decisions, we are already committed to following our natural inclinations.

Jesus was different in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and was born with a spiritual connection to the Father. The Holy Spirit was directing Him from the beginning.

holyrokker
Jan 11th 2009, 10:41 PM
so how are we condemned if we have no sin at all?

The condemnation is that we are born with sin in us - the condenmnation is that we actually do sin.

uric3
Jan 11th 2009, 10:41 PM
Ezk 18:19-21 "19Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21But 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."


I think this passage should be noted since it clearly states that sin won't pass on to your children.. so I don't think we inherit sin in anyway... as stated before I think since we have free will and choice we have nature to allow sin in our lives. Obviously as humans we all sin and fall short of the glory of God... its not the sin of another that condemns us but our own sin. Therefore I think children are safe...

reformedct
Jan 11th 2009, 10:56 PM
Ezk 18:19-21 "19Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21But 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."


I think this passage should be noted since it clearly states that sin won't pass on to your children.. so I don't think we inherit sin in anyway... as stated before I think since we have free will and choice we have nature to allow sin in our lives. Obviously as humans we all sin and fall short of the glory of God... its not the sin of another that condemns us but our own sin. Therefore I think children are safe...

Good verse. However this is confusing to me because the Bible does say in Romans that through one mans sin condemnation spread to many. Seems to say the opposite there?

Brother Mark
Jan 11th 2009, 11:06 PM
I believe the Greek word here for "make" also has the connotation of "declare" or "show to be", which make sense of Paul's statement. It isn't as if Adam's sinful act caused ME to be a sinner. Rather, Adam's sinful act demonstrated that mankind in general are sinners, of which I am included in that set.

The problem is, that if Adam's act doesn't make us sinners, then Jesus act can't make us righteous. If through our authority we cannot be guilty, then neither can be innocent through our authority.

crawfish
Jan 11th 2009, 11:07 PM
Good verse. However this is confusing to me because the Bible does say in Romans that through one mans sin condemnation spread to many. Seems to say the opposite there?

I see the verse as meaning that the fall opened us up to the opportunity for sin. This would seem to fill the metaphor Paul is making more closely; while Adam introduced our opportunity to sin, Christ introduces our opportunity to gain salvation. After Adam's choice to sin, we found ourselves spiritually dead. With Christ's sacrifice, we can now gain eternal life.

holyrokker
Jan 11th 2009, 11:15 PM
The problem is, that if Adam's act doesn't make us sinners, then Jesus act can't make us righteous. If through our authority we cannot be guilty, then neither can be innocent through our authority.
I'm going to quote myself from a previous post:
Romans 5:19
"For as by the one manís disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one manís obedience the many will be made righteous."

To claim that this passage is a theological statement affirming that everyone is a condemened sinner due to Adam, the claim would also have to be made that everyone will be made righteous because of Christ.

Each clause in the passage contains the same subject: "the many".

Brother Mark
Jan 11th 2009, 11:18 PM
I'm going to quote myself from a previous post:

It's just a statement of authority. Bind the strongman and then you can pilfer his house. Adam, as the head condemned us all. Jesus, as the head, can save all who come into Him. It's a biblical principle. All those in Christ are righteous because of Christ. All those in Adam are sinners because of Adam.

reformedct
Jan 11th 2009, 11:19 PM
I see the verse as meaning that the fall opened us up to the opportunity for sin. This would seem to fill the metaphor Paul is making more closely; while Adam introduced our opportunity to sin, Christ introduces our opportunity to gain salvation. After Adam's choice to sin, we found ourselves spiritually dead. With Christ's sacrifice, we can now gain eternal life.

thanks for your view. The only problem i find is that the Bible says through one mans sin condemnation spread to all. I understand what you are saying but the Bible doesnt say they were open to the possibility but that it actually did. Not saying your view is wrong just saying i dont really see Scripture saying that. this is a very very interesting subject. As far as Ezekiel, the Bible also says that the sins of those after Adam was not like the first tresspass. That means that Adams sin was different than just our everyday sin in some way. I belive Ezekiel is showing how we are all guilty of our own individual sin, but i dont know if that nullifies the original sin of Adam.

Also, as far as being born sinful, i have yet to meet a baby that completely honored and obeyed their parents? seems like babies are naturally defiant and difficult. As soon as they are old to "know good and evil", they sin. Did they just choose it? or is something in their nature fallen?

holyrokker
Jan 11th 2009, 11:29 PM
It's just a statement of authority. Bind the strongman and then you can pilfer his house. Adam, as the head condemned us all. Jesus, as the head, can save all who come into Him. It's a biblical principle. All those in Christ are righteous because of Christ. All those in Adam are sinners because of Adam.
EXACTLY! The passage does not say that everyone is born a sinner due to Adam.

Brother Mark
Jan 11th 2009, 11:36 PM
EXACTLY! The passage does not say that everyone is born a sinner due to Adam.

All who are born are born into Adam. Those who are born again, are born into Christ and are now dead to what they were in Adam.

crawfish
Jan 11th 2009, 11:41 PM
thanks for your view. The only problem i find is that the Bible says through one mans sin condemnation spread to all. I understand what you are saying but the Bible doesnt say they were open to the possibility but that it actually did. Not saying your view is wrong just saying i dont really see Scripture saying that. this is a very very interesting subject. As far as Ezekiel, the Bible also says that the sins of those after Adam was not like the first tresspass. That means that Adams sin was different than just our everyday sin in some way. I belive Ezekiel is showing how we are all guilty of our own individual sin, but i dont know if that nullifies the original sin of Adam.

I see Paul as creating a metaphor here; not between Adam and Christ, but between Adam's fall and Christ's sacrifice. As with any metaphor, it is important to determine what metaphor can mean and what it cannot. For instance, I do not believe that death in this case can refer to Adam's physical death (or the absence of such before the fall), because life in Christ obviously cannot refer to an absence of death in our physical life. As such, Christ's sacrifice does not guarantee us salvation; it affords us the grace that we might accept salvation. To match, Adam's sin also must not guarantee us death; it refers to the separation from God that makes sin possible. Pre-fall, God was personal and close; post-Fall, God separated Himself from men. Christ's sacrifice opened the door again for a personal relationship with God through Christ.

Condemnation spread to all, in my view, not because some automatic sin has been assigned to us from birth, but because there is now a separation between us and God. The Law offered a strict path with which an Israelite could achieve a one-way connection to God; Christ offers us a personal relationship through grace.

holyrokker
Jan 11th 2009, 11:43 PM
All who are born are born into Adam. Those who are born again, are born into Christ and are now dead to what they were in Adam.
But that doesn't fit what the passage says: 19For 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.

To claim that "the many" in the first means everyone, it has to mean everyone in the second clause. If everyone is "born in Adam", then everyone is also born into Christ.

holyrokker
Jan 11th 2009, 11:44 PM
thanks for your view. The only problem i find is that the Bible says through one mans sin condemnation spread to all. Unfortunately, you aren’t looking at the full context of that passage:
15But 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. 16And 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. 17For 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.
18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For 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. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Also, as far as being born sinful, i have yet to meet a baby that completely honored and obeyed their parents? seems like babies are naturally defiant and difficult. As soon as they are old to "know good and evil", they sin. Did they just choose it? or is something in their nature fallen?

Quoting myself, again:
"When we are born, it is natural to follow the urges of the body. These natural desires aren't inherently sinful - simply physical life.

By the time we develop our sense of right and wrong, and the ability to make moral decisions, we are already committed to following our natural inclinations.

Jesus was different in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and was born with a spiritual connection to the Father. The Holy Spirit was directing Him from the beginning."

Brother Mark
Jan 11th 2009, 11:50 PM
But that doesn't fit what the passage says: 19</SPAN>For as by the one manís disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one manís obedience the many will be made righteous.

To claim that "the many" in the first means everyone, it has to mean everyone in the second clause. If everyone is "born in Adam", then everyone is also born into Christ.



Not really. There are plenty of other passages that fully explain the same thing.

Adam would have never died had he not eaten of the fruit. Mankind today sins at a very young age. Because, as Paul taught in Romans 7, sin is in us. It's not necessarily our sins that are the issue. It is the sin from which our sins spring. Sin is in us at birth because we are in Adam. That sin manifest itself at a very early age.

When one moves into Christ, we are dead to sin and it loses it's power over us. But we still often submit our bodies to sin.

We are not all given the same exact chance that Adam was. Because Adam sinned, we all die. Not because we sin, but because Adam sinned. We sin and are judged for our sins too.

holyrokker
Jan 11th 2009, 11:55 PM
A Mankind today sins at a very young age. Because, as Paul taught in Romans 7, sin is in us. It's not necessarily our sins that are the issue. It is the sin from which our sins spring. Sin is in us at birth because we are in Adam. That sin manifest itself at a very early age.

Romans 7 does not say that sin is in us at birth. It does not say that we are "in Adam" at birth.

No place in the Bible does it say that we have sin within us at birth.

reformedct
Jan 11th 2009, 11:57 PM
Unfortunately, you arenít looking at the full context of that passage:
15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one manís trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one manís sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one manís 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.
18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one manís disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one manís obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.



Quoting myself, again:
"When we are born, it is natural to follow the urges of the body. These natural desires aren't inherently sinful - simply physical life.

By the time we develop our sense of right and wrong, and the ability to make moral decisions, we are already committed to following our natural inclinations.

Jesus was different in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and was born with a spiritual connection to the Father. The Holy Spirit was directing Him from the beginning."


Although i agree the many as used in the many will be made righteous doesnt mean all, because not all will choose christ, i do not see why it does not mean all when refferring to Adam, because we are already descndants of Adam. We dont choose to be born in Adam, we already are. The only man not born in Adam was Jesus, which is why He is the last Adam. Jesus says we must be born again. We are already born in the first Adam, now we must be born in the second adam, no?

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 12:01 AM
Although i agree the many as used in the many will be made righteous doesnt mean all, because not all will choose christ, i do not see why it does not mean all when refferring to Adam, because we are already descndants of Adam. We dont choose to be born in Adam, we already are. The only man not born in Adam was Jesus, which is why He is the last Adam.
It's a literary construction called "parallelism": The two clauses contain the same subject - both subjects are the same.

If you don't believe me, ask an English teacher. ;)

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 12:04 AM
It's a literary construction called "parallelism": The two clauses contain the same subject - both subjects are the same.


i dont know about parrallelism but i do know that we are all born in Adam. Is it possible to be born in Adam and not be condemned?

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 12:07 AM
i do know that we are all born in Adam.
Really? How do you know that? It isn't found in the Bible. Are you presuming it's true?
i dont know about parrallelism Like I said - ask an English teacher if you don't trust me.

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 12:12 AM
Really? How do you know that? It isn't found in the Bible. Are you presuming it's true?Like I said - ask an English teacher if you don't trust me.

hmmm... so you are saying that, at least in theory, it is possible that a human being can be born, and never sin (in theory) and go to heaven w/o needing Jesus blood, because he never sinned (in theory at least)

You are saying that at least in theory, there is a possibility for every newborn to live a sinless life and not need Jesus. Because Jesus said whoever commits sin is a slave. However if a person never commits sin they wont be a slave right? so that would mean that it is possible to get to heaven without Jesus

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 12:14 AM
hmmm... so you are saying that, at least in theory, it is possible that a human being can be born, and never sin (in theory) and go to heaven w/o needing Jesus blood, because he never sinned (in theory at least)

You are saying that at least in theory, there is a possibility for every newborn to live a sinless life and not need Jesus. Because Jesus said whoever commits sin is a slave. However if a person never commits sin they wont be a slave right? so that would mean that it is possible to get to heaven without Jesus
Did I say that? Scroll through my posts and see if I've said that. You won't find it anywhere.

Brother Mark
Jan 12th 2009, 12:15 AM
Romans 7 does not say that sin is in us at birth. It does not say that we are "in Adam" at birth.

No place in the Bible does it say that we have sin within us at birth.

Yet, it says that we are all condemned in Adam; not because of our sin, but Adam's.

Do with it as you will. I don't think we will agree. ;)

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 12:16 AM
Did I say that? Scroll through my posts and see if I've said that. You won't find it anywhere.


lol im just saying, if we are not imputed with sin, then there is a possibillity to live a sinless life right?

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 12:16 AM
hmmm... so you are saying that, at least in theory, it is possible that a human being can be born, and never sin (in theory) and go to heaven w/o needing Jesus blood, because he never sinned (in theory at least)

You are saying that at least in theory, there is a possibility for every newborn to live a sinless life and not need Jesus. Because Jesus said whoever commits sin is a slave. However if a person never commits sin they wont be a slave right? so that would mean that it is possible to get to heaven without Jesus
Actually - One human being WAS in fact, born who never sinned. His name was (and still is) Jesus.


We are born physical beings. We do not have a spiritual life at birth.

Jesus said:


That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
When we are born, it is natural to follow the urges of the body. These natural desires aren't inherently sinful - simply physical life. (Animals share these same physical desires)

By the time we develop our sense of right and wrong, and the ability to make moral decisions, we are already committed to following our natural inclinations.

Jesus was different in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and was born with a spiritual connection to the Father. The Holy Spirit was directing Him from the beginning.

Brother Mark
Jan 12th 2009, 12:17 AM
Actually - One human being WAS in fact, born who never sinned. His name was (and still is) Jesus.

We are born physical beings. We do not have a spiritual life at birth.

Sure we do. It's just not alive to God. But we are born with a spirit, but a dead one. That's why people can communicate in the spirit world before they are saved. But when we are born again, our spirit is alive to God instead of being dead to him.

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 12:19 AM
lol im just saying, if we are not imputed with sin, then there is a possibillity to live a sinless life right?I'm not saying that. The Bible doesn't say it either. (The Bible also doesn't say that we are imputed with sin.)

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 12:20 AM
Actually - One human being WAS in fact, born who never sinned. His name was (and still is) Jesus.

If the natural desires arent sinful, and we naturally do what our natural desires are, why do we sin? If our nature is not inherently sinful, and we follow it, how do we end up in sin? shouldnt we simply end up neutral as our nature is?

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 12:21 AM
Actually - One human being WAS in fact, born who never sinned. His name was (and still is) Jesus.

If the natural desires arent sinful, and we naturally do what our natural desires are, why do we sin? If our nature is not inherently sinful, and we follow it, how do we end up in sin? shouldnt we simply end up neutral as our nature is?

also, Jesus is also the Son of God. He was concieved by the Holy SPirit. I was concieved by a man.

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 12:21 AM
We are born physical beings. We do not have a spiritual life at birth.


Sure we do. It's just not alive to God. But we are born with a spirit, but a dead one. That's why people can communicate in the spirit world before they are saved. But when we are born again, our spirit is alive to God instead of being dead to him.
I didn't say that we are born without a spirit. Please read my post more carefully.

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 12:22 AM
I'm not saying that. The Bible doesn't say it either. (The Bible also doesn't say that we are imputed with sin.)


If we arent imputed with sin (born sinless)

Then there is a time where we are free from the slavery of sin, because commiting sin is what gets you enslaved right? So if we are born sinless, is there not a possibility to remain sinless? If there is no possibility to remain sinless, what does that say about us?

Brother Mark
Jan 12th 2009, 12:23 AM
I didn't say that we are born without a spirit. Please read my post more carefully.

I read it. We do have a spiritual life at birth. It's just not necessarily a godly spiritual life. ;) That's why I explained it the way I did.

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 12:23 AM
If the natural desires arent sinful, and we naturally do what our natural desires are, why do we sin?
Quoting myself again:
By the time we develop our sense of right and wrong, and the ability to make moral decisions, we are already committed to following our natural inclinations.

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 12:29 AM
Quoting myself again:

yes i see. But if our natural inclinations are not inherently bad, and we follow them, then why do we end up in sin. In fact, if our natural inclination is neutral, then sin would be against our nature right? But if we are following our natural inlinations we will remain nuetral right?

i dont see how

a)our nature is inherently neutral

b) we follow our natural inclinations

c) by following our natural inclinations we end up in sin?????? shouldnt we end up neutral?

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 12:29 AM
If we arent imputed with sin (born sinless)


But the Bible doesn't say that we are imputed with sin or guilt. It doesn't say that we are born with sin within us.

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 12:36 AM
But the Bible doesn't say that we are imputed with sin or guilt. It doesn't say that we are born with sin within us.

i see what you are saying. Im just saying according to your interpretation, there is a possibility that someone can get to heaven without Jesus. Christ died for the ungodly. But since we are born without guilt, there is a possibility to maintain that guiltlessness, which means there is a possibility to not need Christ's remission of sins, seeing that it is possible to have no sin, thats all im saying

if we are born sinless, there is a chance to remain sinless, if there is a chance to remain sinless, there is a chance that remission of sin is not necessary, if there is a chance that remission of sin is not necessary, there is a chance that the blood of Christ is not necessary

if there is NO chance to remain sinless, then we are slaves to sin

BroRog
Jan 12th 2009, 12:37 AM
The problem is, that if Adam's act doesn't make us sinners, then Jesus act can't make us righteous. If through our authority we cannot be guilty, then neither can be innocent through our authority.

Yes. That's also correct. Jesus didn't make us righteous.

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 12:38 AM
yes i see. But if our natural inclinations are not inherently bad, and we follow them, then why do we end up in sin. In fact, if our natural inclination is neutral, then sin would be against our nature right? But if we are following our natural inlinations we will remain nuetral right?

i dont see how

a)our nature is inherently neutral

b) we follow our natural inclinations

c) by following our natural inclinations we end up in sin?????? shouldnt we end up neutral?
James 1:14-15 "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."

By the way - the word translated "desire" is also used in the following:

Matthew 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.

Mark 3:13 And he went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him.

Luke 22:15 And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.

John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 12:40 AM
Yes. That's also correct. Jesus didn't make us righteous.

hmm. so what is the righteousness that comes from God? and what does it mean by thru Him we may be made the righteousness of God?

Brother Mark
Jan 12th 2009, 12:41 AM
Yes. That's also correct. Jesus didn't make us righteous.

Actually he did. I am righteous. As it says in 1 Cor 5:21, I am as righteous as God because I have His righteousness. I got Adam's sin because he was the head of the human race. But thank God, I get Jesus righteousness because he is the head of the family.

BroRog
Jan 12th 2009, 12:41 AM
hmm. so what is the righteousness that comes from God? and what does it mean by thru Him we may be made the righteousness of God?

I need to know the context. What passage do you have in mind?

BroRog
Jan 12th 2009, 12:45 AM
Actually he did. I am righteous. As it says in 1 Cor 5:21, I am as righteous as God because I have His righteousness. I got Adam's sin because he was the head of the human race. But thank God, I get Jesus righteousness because he is the head of the family.

Oh good. A passage. :) oops. Are you sure there are 21 verses in chapter 5?

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 12:46 AM
i see what you are saying. Im just saying according to your interpretation, there is a possibility that someone can get to heaven without Jesus. Christ died for the ungodly. But since we are born without guilt, there is a possibility to maintain that guiltlessness, which means there is a possibility to not need Christ's remission of sins, seeing that it is possible to have no sin, thats all im saying

if we are born sinless, there is a chance to remain sinless, if there is a chance to remain sinless, there is a chance that remission of sin is not necessary, if there is a chance that remission of sin is not necessary, there is a chance that the blood of Christ is not necessary

if there is NO chance to remain sinless, then we are slaves to sin

Would Jesus somehow be insulted if (please note my use of IF) someone went through life without sinning?

How would that bring dishonor to His name?

Isn't that what He wants for us? - to be free from sin?

Brother Mark
Jan 12th 2009, 12:47 AM
Oh good. A passage. :) oops. Are you sure there are 21 verses in chapter 5?

It's second Corinthians. here's the passage...


21He made Him who (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%205:21;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28899A))knew no sin to be (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%205:21;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28899B))sin on our behalf, so that we might become the (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%205:21;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28899C))righteousness of God in Him.

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 12:54 AM
Would Jesus somehow be insulted if (please note my use of IF) someone went through life without sinning?

How would that bring dishonor to His name?

Isn't that what He wants for us? - to be free from sin?

i didnt say it would insult him, im just saying according to your interpretation there is another way besides Jesus to get to heaven thats all

also, if we have no sin, it is possible to never die, for the wages of sin is death, but if we have no sin it is possible to live forever. No sin, no death right?

also i saw the verse you used about desire. If it is our desire that CAUSES us to sin, then we must say that God has hardwired us to sin. Because if everyone has a neutral desire that ends up sinning when tempted, we are hardwired with a component that ends up birthing sin

BroRog
Jan 12th 2009, 12:56 AM
It's second Corinthians. here's the passage...


21He made Him who (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%205:21;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28899A))knew no sin to be (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%205:21;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28899B))sin on our behalf, so that we might become the (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%205:21;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28899C))righteousness of God in Him.

I read the subjunctive mood here as a future hope, not a present reality. Isn't that right?

Brother Mark
Jan 12th 2009, 12:58 AM
I read the subjunctive mood here as a future hope, not a present reality. Isn't that right?

There are many other verses related to the same thing. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. The righteous man shall live by faith. And so on. There are many scriptures that say we are righteous. 2 Cor 5:21 just happens to be my favorite on the subject.

BroRog
Jan 12th 2009, 01:00 AM
Would Jesus somehow be insulted if (please note my use of IF) someone went through life without sinning?

How would that bring dishonor to His name?

Isn't that what He wants for us? - to be free from sin?

Well, if we read two chapters later in 2 Corinthians 7, from which Brother Mark pointed out, says that very same thing.

2 Cor. 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 01:11 AM
Well, if we read two chapters later in 2 Corinthians 7, from which Brother Mark pointed out, says that very same thing.

2 Cor. 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.


cleanse ourselves doesnt mean we forgive ourselves and cleanse ourselves of our sin. there is the righteousness of God that we share in Christ, and there are works of righteousness which we do. The works of righteousness that we do are not good enough for us to no longer need the righteousness from God.

We have peace with God in Christ. If it is based on our own righteousness, everytime we slip God would be furious. So throughout the day everytime we are not perfect we would be unsaved. we could be saved at breakfast, lost at lunch, saved at dinner, lost at bedtime

When Joshua stood in front of the angel of the Lord in Zechariah, did he simply clean his clothes? No, he took off Joshuas clothes and clothed him in His own clothes. God doesnt just clean up our filthy rags. He gives us new garments that are His own

BroRog
Jan 12th 2009, 01:18 AM
There are many other verses related to the same thing. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. The righteous man shall live by faith. And so on. There are many scriptures that say we are righteous. 2 Cor 5:21 just happens to be my favorite on the subject.

That's why I asked about the passage and the context. :)

The Greeks used the same word for "right" as they did for "just". And so the actual distinction must come from the context. For instance, when it says that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as "righteousness", the idea here is that God declared Abraham to be "in right relationship to him", which we normally translate "justified."

In English, the suffix "-ness" indicates "in the state of" and so the term "righteousness" refers to a state of being without sin, morally pure. However, in English we have no term that indicates "the state of being just", i.e. justifiedness, the state of being free from the obligation for penalty.

Thus, when we read the term "righteousness" in the English translation, we are always needing to ask ourselves whether the author means: 1. in a state of being morally pure, or 2. in the state of being free from obligation for penalty, which are two different concepts.

I think the term "make" in Romans 5:19 should read "declared" instead because the term "righteous" is more akin to the term "justification" in verse 18, which means that we have been declared "justified" in the same way God declared Abraham "justified", i.e. freed from the obligation for penalty.

Now maybe I spoke too soon and that is how you understood it too.

Sirus
Jan 12th 2009, 01:58 AM
so how are we condemned if we have no sin at all?That's the whole problem. Condemnation, didn't I say this in this thread already?
This word for condemnation in Romans 5 is found another time in chapter 5 and once in chapter 8. That's it. It means judgment. So now read the judgment passed down to Adam after he sinned. Physical death. Which is what Romans 5 says passes on all men. Why? Just like Adam we are mortal and do not have the tree of life. Do you see an imaginary spiritual death or a change in Adam's nature in Genesis 3 anywhere?

Sirus
Jan 12th 2009, 02:01 AM
how do you know he was talking about his environment? where does the Bible say that?From cover to cover, imputed sin, generational sin, change in nature, whatever, is not found. What is found is a veil between man and God as a result of our own sin. That veil was done away in Christ.

Sirus
Jan 12th 2009, 02:03 AM
The condemnation is that we are born with sin in us - the condenmnation is that we actually do sin.No, the condemnation is death. Death reigned from Adam to Moses. It says it right there in Romans 5. Is sin a thing?

Sirus
Jan 12th 2009, 02:04 AM
That's the whole problem. Condemnation, didn't I say this in this thread already?
This word for condemnation in Romans 5 is found another time in chapter 5 and once in chapter 8. That's it. It means judgment. So now read the judgment passed down to Adam after he sinned? Physical death. Which is what Romans 5 says passes on all men. Why? Just like Adam we are mortal and do not have the tree of life. Do you see an imaginary spiritual death or a change in Adam's nature in Genesis 3 anywhere?Oh, and where in Genesis 3 is the judgment eternal damnation?

Sirus
Jan 12th 2009, 02:06 AM
The problem is, that if Adam's act doesn't make us sinners, then Jesus act can't make us righteous. If through our authority we cannot be guilty, then neither can be innocent through our authority.Answered this already. Here

Moreover (v20) I would point out Ďmuch moreí is found five times from v9 to v20, and you should go read about how Ďmuch moreí the spiritual man-life giving spirit-Christ image affected man over how the natural-earthy-soul man Adam image affected man! ;) Jesus didnít come just to restore what Adam lost, but to obtain a far greater inheritance through righteousness than Adam ever had.

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 02:08 AM
The condemnation is that we are born with sin in us - the condenmnation is that we actually do sin.


No, the condemnation is death. Death reign from Adam to Moses. It says it right there in Romans 5. Is sin a thing?

OOPS - thanks for pointing out my typing error. I meant to say "The condemnation isn't that we are born with sin."

Obviously, the Bible clearly does not teach the doctrine of "born sinful".

God bless you Sirius!

Sirus
Jan 12th 2009, 02:09 AM
It's a literary construction called "parallelism": The two clauses contain the same subject - both subjects are the same.

If you don't believe me, ask an English teacher. ;)Well again the parallelism breaks down because ....moreover, much more etc....

Moreover (v20) I would point out Ďmuch moreí is found five times from v9 to v20, and you should go read about how Ďmuch moreí the spiritual man-life giving spirit-Christ image affected man over how the natural-earthy-soul man Adam image affected man! ;) Jesus didnít come just to restore what Adam lost, but to obtain a far greater inheritance through righteousness than Adam ever had.

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 02:11 AM
Answered this already. Here

Moreover (v20) I would point out Ďmuch moreí is found five times from v9 to v20, and you should go read about how Ďmuch moreí the spiritual man-life giving spirit-Christ image affected man over how the natural-earthy-soul man Adam image affected man! ;) Jesus didnít come just to restore what Adam lost, but to obtain a far greater inheritance through righteousness than Adam ever had.
AMEN! - Thank you for the reminder!

The Parson
Jan 12th 2009, 02:12 AM
Would that be like shaping clay or something? No.

(ASV) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

(ESV) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

(LITV) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

(YLT) Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.What a pity. I can't really answer you unless I start a version debate which I do not intend to do.

reformedct
Jan 12th 2009, 02:20 AM
AMEN! - Thank you for the reminder!

Not trying to be picky but you havent answered my response to your verse about sin being birthed through our desires. If sin is birthed simply because we are tempted by our desires, that means that we are hardwired with a component that causes us to sin. We have no ability to always obey because God has given us a thing called desire and when we are tempted sin is birthed? That means we are all slaves to our desires right? If we are slaves to our desires, and our desires birth sin, then Adam had no choice BUT to sin, because God gave him desires that would automatially/eventually make him give birth to sin

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 02:42 AM
Not trying to be picky but you havent answered my response to your verse about sin being birthed through our desires. If sin is birthed simply because we are tempted by our desires, that means that we are hardwired with a component that causes us to sin. We have no ability to always obey because God has given us a thing called desire and when we are tempted sin is birthed? That means we are all slaves to our desires right? If we are slaves to our desires, and our desires birth sin, then Adam had no choice BUT to sin, because God gave him desires that would automatially/eventually make him give birth to sin
We begin life unconnected to God. Like Jesus said "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."
We begin doing what comes naturally - when we are hungry, we seek to fill that hunger; when frightened we seek comfort, etc.
We are unaware of anything else.
By the time we begin to become aware of "right and wrong", we are already accustomed to self-gratification. When the idea of saying "no" to self-gratification confronts us, it's foreign and we give in to our own desires instead.

Sirus
Jan 12th 2009, 04:22 AM
yes i see. But if our natural inclinations are not inherently bad, and we follow them, then why do we end up in sin. In fact, if our natural inclination is neutral, then sin would be against our nature right? But if we are following our natural inlinations we will remain nuetral right?

i dont see how

a)our nature is inherently neutral

b) we follow our natural inclinations

c) by following our natural inclinations we end up in sin?????? shouldnt we end up neutral?holyrokker has done well, but may I add....

Our desires at birth are given by God. They can be directed towards God and used as God intended or we can use them contrary to how God intended. What do you think babes will do? Since we are not born with an intimate relationship with God, far more often than not we use them contrary to how God intended. The God given desire is then used to sin. Acting contrary to our nature and/or using the desire contrary to God's intentions is sin. You can easily see this in Romans 1. We are slaves because we are not in relationship with God not because of our nature. It's not because of something we have but rather because of what we don't have, God.

This is why I have said many times that what changed with Adam was a change in relationship not a change in nature.

Now, having said all that I have said in this thread I could say much more but the fact remains, no one can provide scripture for this supposed change in Adam's nature much less explain how it is passed to Adam's descendants.

holyrokker
Jan 12th 2009, 04:44 AM
Our desires at birth are given by God. They can be directed towards God and used as God intended or we can use them contrary to how God intended. What do you think babes will do? Since we are not born with an intimate relationship with God, far more often than not we use them contrary to how God intended. The God given desire is then used to sin. Acting contrary to our nature and/or using the desire contrary to God's intentions is sin. You can easily see this in Romans 1. We are slaves because we are not in relationship with God not because of our nature. It's not because of something we have but rather because of what we don't have, God.

This is why I have said many times that what changed with Adam was a change in relationship not a change in nature.


Very well stated! I agree with everything you've said here.