5:13 For until the law, sin was in the world;
but sin is not charged when there is no law.
5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses,
even over those whose sins weren't like Adam's disobedience,
who is a foreshadowing of him who was to come.

For if by the trespass of the one the many died,
much more did the grace of God,
and the gift by the grace of the one man,
Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

for the judgment came by one to condemnation,
but the free gift came of many trespasses to justification.
5:17 For if by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one;
so much more will those who receive the abundance of grace
and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ.
5:18 So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned;
even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life.

5:19 For as through the one man's disobedience many were made sinners,
even so through the obedience of the one will many be made righteous.

Defenders of Augustinian theology - indeed Augustine himself - use only a few verses to defend such ideas. With respect to their IMPUTATION OF GUILT idea they rely heavily upon a misreading of Rom 5:12, in which they presume that "sin" is referring to guilt rather than the sinful nature, and the last phrase "because all sinned" to mean that all sinned in Adam rather than the idea that the committing of sin is so common it lends credence to the idea of human nature being sinful. To those of an Augustinian theology I exhort, "Don't blame your guilt on Adam. Blame it on yourself for sinning.Your sinning is your fault."

"for all have sinned" reminds me of  Paul's conclusion from Romans chapters 1-3 in which he concludes in Rom 3:23 that "all have sinned". The context in those early chapters references not Adam's sin, but rather people's actual behavior. So I don't take Rom 5:12 as meaning that all sinned in Adam thousands of years ago. (See below on the "Sinning in Adam" section for more elaboration)

Now for technical details which support the interpretation that what Paul is saying here is that
1. Adam's descendants inherited their sinful nature.
2. Their flesh dies because their flesh has a sinful nature.
3. The evidence that they have a sinful nature is because sinning is so common among them.

The word "because" in verse 12 "because all have sinned" is not the same word as "For" in verse 13. Some try to interpret the verse to say that all sinned in Adam, interpreting "because" as "in whom", proposing the "whom" to refer to Adam.  The word translated "because" is actually a combination of words "epi o", which in strongs numbers is <1909> "epi" which means upon (which is why skin is called the epidermis), and <3739> which is "which" or "whom". This combination of words shows up for example in:

 Mark 2:4 "And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed whereupon<1909> <3739> the sick of the palsy lay."

 2Cor 5:4 "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that <1909> <3739> we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

Secondly the translations "death passed upon all men" (kjv) or "death came to all men" (niv) neglect to translation the preposition "eis", which literally means "into". The word translated "passed upon" or "came to" is literally "passed through" like "passed through the sea" in 1Cor 10:1 or in Acts 19:21"when he had passed through <1330> Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem" But adding "eis" to it would be "pass through into".

Therefore you might literally translated the second phrase of Rom 5:12 as "and so death passed through into all men, upon which all have sinned:"

In this case the "which" may refer to death. If so we could understand this to mean that all sin upon the basis of the processes of death working within them. Or "which" could refer to that which death passes through. For the question  arises as to what death passed through to get into all men. The phase just prior to this one is "death through sin". Does "sin" in that phrase refer to everyone's particular acts of sin, or to Adam's sin in particular? My impression is that it is not referring to any particular act, but rather using the term "sin" to refer to the propensity of the human nature to commit acts of sin. "Sin" appears to refer to the fallen human nature. Paul uses "sin" in this sense in Romans 7. For example Romans 7:11"sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me."So there is a precedent in his writings in Romans whereby "sin" can refer to the sinful nature. Now going back to the last part of the verse we have:

"Therefore, just as the fallen human nature entered the world through one man, and death through that sinful nature, and so death passed through the fallen human nature into all men, upon which basis all have sinned."

What is the basis upon which Adam's descendants sin? The fallen human nature is the bed upon which people sin, just as in Mark 2:4 it speaks of the bed upon which the sick of the palsy lay. We lay upon a bed of nails which provokes us to sin. The bed of nails is Adam's fault, but Adam's descendants acting on their sinful nature is their fault. The processes of death and corruption pass through their fallen human nature.

vs 13
Keep in mind that this is the beginning of a "for" statement which is meant to explain verse 12.

The first "law" he mentions refers to the Law of Moses as verse 14 indicates. But the second "law" appears to be more the generalized concepts of right and wrong. He already mentioned the law of the conscience in Romans 2:14,15 "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,  since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." The first law is explicit and the second intuitive. Both make one accountable and violations of either impute sin to one's account. But if there are those who have neither of these laws, then such are reckoned innocent despite having a sinful nature.

vs 14
I understand to mean that Adam's sin was a direct and conscious violation of God's explicit command. But before the law of Moses did anyone really have explicit commands from God besides Adam? Thus this ties back into verse 13, saying that regardless of whether his descendants violate a direct and explicit command of God, they die nonetheless.

So his first point in his defense of the concepts of verse 12 is that death reigns through Adam in that all die regardless of whether they have sinned in the manner Adam did.

vs 15,16
These verses remind us that the analogy between Christ and Adam is not exact. Some may incorrectly try to draw exact parallels and end up in error. His point here is that the free gift is not like the trespass in that the effect of God's grace is much more than the effect of Adam's sin. For example sin does not cancel forgiveness, but forgiveness cancels sin, much like darkness cannot cancel light, but light can cancel darkness.

vs 17
And continuing on in this "much more" theme whereby physical death reigned over Adam's descendants, physical death is a one point in time event, whereas those who receive of the grace and gift of righteousness shall reign in life eternally.

vs 18
Here he is compressing alot of ideas together, namely that the outworking of Adam's sin ultimately led to the condemnation of all his descendants. But the ellipsis is implied in what he said previously, namely that:

But in 18 he's simply pointing to the two ends speaking of the ultimate effect and not the processes which led up to that effect.

So also by analogy one can speak of the ultimate effect of Christ's one righteous act bringing life to all men, without making reference to the processes by which all are brought into that life. For example this second makes no reference to putting faith in Christ. For since one could say that since Christ's death did not make everyone automatically righteous apart from their putting faith in Christ, so also Adam's sin did not make everyone automatically guilty either apart from their acting upon their sinful nature. So he is speaking by way of ellipsis drawing an analogy between the beginning and end, but not comparing the processes. Verse 19 can also be interpreted in this manner.

Another example of the "ellipsis" form of speech is found in Matthew 5:32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; ..." Does this mean that divorcing an innocent woman automatically makes her an adulteress? Certainly not! He is speaking by way of ellipsis. It is if she remarries to someone else that she becomes an adulteress. So also does Adam's sin automatically incur wrath upon all? Certainly not. He is speaking by way of ellipsis. It is when people sin that they incur wrath. The ellipsis must also be inferred for God to be acting judiciously. And God's judicial nature is one of the early theme's of this letter to the Romans.

vs 19
As I mentioned he's just referring to the cause and effect, but not to the intervening processes. The many were made into sinners through the process described above, which involves their willfully giving into the sinful nature. But because of Christ's obedience to the Father's will in which he submitted himself as the sacrifice lamb, many, namely those who receive the free gift of eternal life, will be made righteous. Here I am interpreting "sinners" and "righteous" not simply as positional concepts, but as people who behave sinfully and people who behave righteously.

Notice that when speaking of the righteousness he uses the future tense here and in verse 17. I take these to mean not simply our present justification or reconciliation which he spoke of in verse 11, but rather of the completion of our sanctification unto a perfect righteous behavior.

Some use the fact that "made" is actually most commonly used to refer to appointing someone to an office, which does not imply any correlation to one's behavior. They would interpret this to mean that people are reckoned sinners regardless of committing acts of sin, and people are reckoned righteous regardless of committing righteous acts.

Notice the Calvinist interpretation by John Gill, "the meaning of which is not, that they became sufferers for it, or subject to death on the account of it; the word used will not bear such a sense, but signifies men guilty of sin, and sometimes the worst and chief of sinners; besides, the apostle had expressed that before; add to this, that the sons of Adam could not be sufferers for his sin, or subject to death on account of it, if they were not made sinners by it, or involved in the guilt or it: and though the posterity of Adam are habitually sinners, that is, derive corrupt nature from Adam, yet this is not meant here; but that they are become guilty, through the imputation of his sin to them; for it is by the disobedience of another they are made sinners, which must be by the imputation of that disobedience to them; he sinned, and they sinned in him, when they had as yet no actual existence; which could be no other way, than by imputation, as he was reckoned and accounted their head and representative, and they reckoned and accounted in him, and so have sinned in him."

Such a scenario portrays God as unjust in that he would be reckoning sin to the account of those who actually haven't themselves committed sin. For speaking of judical execution the Bible says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16 While righteousness can be imputed through forgiveness and therefore criminals can be pardoned, yet sin cannot be imputed in the same manner. You cannot impute sin upon those who haven't themselves committed sin. This is a serious error in Calvinist theology. Ecc 7:29 "This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."

How does Calvin himself answer the obvious implication of his theology here that God unjustly condemns the innocent? In his commentary on Original Sin responding to the question he freely admits that such is a correct implication, but defending it he states, "The will of God is the supreme rule of righteousness, so that everything which he wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of his willing it. Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must answer, Because he pleased. But if you proceed farther to ask why he pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the will of God, and nothing such can be found." Which is simply to say that God is just by definition regardless of God's actual behavior. (Kind of smells like antinomianism) And not only so he proposes that there is no other explanation and that no one should even try to understand this further. This is not the kind of hermenuetic the Bible advocates, nor the kind of justice and holiness characteristic of God in the Bible. God is just and holy not simply by definition. God actually behaves in a way that really is just and holy, else He's a hypocrite, and even worse so for condemning hypocrisy. As such God cannot condemn the innocent. It is not in His nature to do so. Calvinists can argue that God can do whatever He damn well pleases, but they are not describing the God of the Bible.

Now if the question is what is it those Christians have in mind when they talk about sinning in Adam, there are a couple of different ideas. One idea is known as Traducianism "The belief that the soul is inherited from the parents along with the body." (The American Heritage Dictionary). This I feel is a heretical, cultic, unBiblical. It's reincarnation. If this were the case then we are responsible for the sins of our ancestors because we were them. Ours souls were their souls, much like the Hindu concept of reincarnation. But God says,"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16 This indicates that the children's sins are their own and not their parent's sins. So each will be held responsible for their own personal sin and not for the sins of their ancestors.

Besides Traducianism, the other idea is Guilt By Association. These Christians hold that God holds people responsible for things they have no control over if they are under a Federal head which is guilty. The idea is kind of that if the head of your group is guilty, therefore you are guilty even if you personally didn't do anything wrong. Guilt by Assocation has long been the basis for prejudice, racism, and bigotry. Furthermore these people will go on to justify such a concept in Romans 5 by saying that just as God has the right to reckon the guilty to be innocent through the forgiveness of sins, so also he has the right to reckon the innocent to be guilty likewise. But in fact God does not have that right. Just because He is gracious does not give Him the right to be unjust. But then some of these Christians will go on to disagree and say that God can do whatever He wants. He does injustice and commits sin but we are not allowed to reckon such actions to be unjust or sinful because He is God. But the Bible does not advocate this idea that God is just and holy only by definition and not by actual behavior.

Thus neither Traducianism nor Guilt by Association are Biblical concepts. Neither can be used to interpret this passage. So what are we left with? We are left with the idea that Adam's descendants are born innocent but experience the effects of Adam's sin as innocent victims, such as death and the temptations of the flesh. It's only when we give into these influences and sin is when we are reckoned guilty.

On the other hand, Christ may be likened to Adam in that the gift of eternal life became available through him as death became available through Adam. Only much more so. For death is temporary, but life is eternal. Consider the outcome of each. In Adam's case, the judgment found in Genesis 3:14-19 was the outcome. But in Christ's case, justification was the outcome in despite of people's sinfulness.

People are subject to physical death because of Adam's sin. But then again, those who receive God's grace - the gift of eternal life - will be the ones who rule in life, upon their resurrection from the dead, through Jesus Christ.

To summarize:

• The outcome of Adam's sin was physical death to all of his
• The outcome of Christ's one act of righteousness (his death on the cross) was justfication to all who receive it.
• Through Adam's disobedience, all of his were given a sinful nature
• Through Christ's obedience, all of his will be given a righteous nature.

It was added so that people might become aware of their sinfulness. But this was in order for God to also reveal his graciousness much more, to the end that as sin revealed it's dominance through physical death, so grace might reveal its dominance through the manner in which God has provided the gift of righteousness bring us eternal life through Jesus Christ.

• What relevance does Adam have to you personally?
• If Christians have been forgiven and justified, why do they still die?
• Are babies born innocent or guilty? Where do they go when they die?
• Why is it that people seem to be innately sinful?

There are only a few places in the New Testament where Adam was mentioned with any relevance. A few of these have to do with marriage and the proper role relationships of men and women. But concerning the effect that Adam had on the judgment of the human race, there are two main passages. Romans 5:12-21 and 1Cor 15:21,22,42-50 Allow me to present a thesis first followed by supporting arguments.

• Because Adam sinned, his descendants physically die.
• People are more than just physical beings,

they have a soul which is distinct from their flesh.
• The flesh and the soul are treated distinctly.
• The flesh may be reckoned guilty while the soul innocent.

And this is the state into which people are born.
• Sin dwells in the flesh. (Which is the "sinful nature" innate within people)
• The sinful nature was inherited from Adam
• The soul is reckoned guilty

when it makes a conscious decision to cooperate with the flesh in sinning.
• The soul which has not sinned is not subject to eternal death.

1Cor 15:22 "For as in Adam all are dying, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

1Cor 15 is dealing with the subject of physical death and physical resurrection
Rom 5:15 "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

Rom 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:"

1Th 5:23 "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

2Cor 5:6-9 "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him."

Rom 7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Here Paul is obviously referring to spiritual death, as he was physically alive when he made the statement.
Ec 7:29  "This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."

Rom 7:18-20 "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

Rom 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:"

Joh 9:41 "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."

Joh 15:22 "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin."

Knowledge of Adam is not necessary to gain eternal life, but rather to understand why sin is so innate in his descendants and why they die.

Their souls are forgiven and are not subject to eternal death. But their bodies have sin dwelling in them and so must die. But their bodies will be raised from the dead, free from sin (1Cor 15)

If they hadn't consciously committed a sin, they are not subject to eternal death. The problem is, how do you know when that occurs? How do you know at what age? In the womb even? Who knows? Thus, not much more can be said or applied concerning this question.

Simply because a sinful nature is inherited.