Select Page

Believe it or not, I try to refrain from releasing too much heresy on my blog. Not all of my private musings are necessary for my readers to know.

But some stones are too important to be left unturned.

There’s an interesting guy I follow on Twitter named Michael Foster.  In his bio, he states that he’s a “presbyterian pastor with a special interest in ecclesiology and sexuality.”

And he’s definitely a red pill guy. So it’s refreshing to see a pastor who’s not shaming men or dishing out useless advice on masculinity.

Anyhow, being the disagreeable guy I am, I couldn’t help but take issue with a couple claims he made in a recent Twitter thread. Below are a couple snippets of our conversation:

Michael has made 3 claims I wish to address:

  1. “The fall, as spelled out in Gen. 3, has wrecked havoc on inter-sexual dynamics.”
  2. “Romans 5 makes it clear that the entire nature of man was corrupted which would include sexual.”
  3. We don’t need point #1 to explicitly stated. Romans 5 explains Genesis 3.

My contention to point #1 is simple. Here’s a list of the things that were changed according to the text of Genesis 3:

  • Knowledge of good and evil (3:5)
  • Shame over their bodies (3:7)
  • Curse on the serpent (3:14)
  • Increased pain for the woman (3:16)
  • Curse on the ground (3:17)
  • Aging and death (3:22)

Also, the woman’s desire for the man, and the man’s authority over her were emphasized, or possibly introduced for the first time (though there is no warrant for asserting this was a new addition to man and woman’s nature.)

Read the text carefully for yourself and check.

So there is nothing in the text of Genesis 3 that shows either the sexual nature of mankind or the “inter-sexual dynamics” becoming corrupt.

So what about Romans 5?

I’m assuming Michael is referring to Romans 5:18-19:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

The first term in question here is “resulted” (eis).

The HELPS lexicon in the Discovery Bible (which was endorsed by J.I. Packer, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul… so you know it’s legit), sheds some light on this term:

But even without the help of our fancy lexicon, we can deduce the meaning by simply looking at how it’s commonly used in a concordance. (The italicized words are translated from eis):

So we can see that the word eis has nothing to with the nature of something. It has to do with a trajectory towards a particular end.

One sin penetrated the world and set the human race on a trajectory that resulted in condemnation to all men.

One act of righteousness penetrated the world and resulted in justification of life to all men.

And with that context, we reach the key statement in question:

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners

The key term is “made” (kathistémi):

This definition is confirmed by the usage:

“Appointed sinners” or “constituted sinners” may be a more clear translation.

So Adam’s sin was the catalyst. Man acquired knowledge of evil. And from there, the sins of man multiplied on top of each other until all mankind was “made” or “appointed” sinners.

We see this theme play out all through Scripture. God never condemns a people until they reach full corruption (c.f. Gen 15:16; Ex 34:6-7)

Finally, God’s warning to Cain tells us much about the nature of sin:

And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (Gen 4:7)

So we see that sin is not an integral part of man’s nature. Rather, it is something that man chooses to do.

Choices become habits. Habits become culture. Eventually “all men” become sinners.

But now we live in the era of grace… where, through the one righteous act of Christ, there is justification of life to all men.

If I have made any errors interpreting the texts, please let me know. I have reached out to Michael for his response as well.

My final “call to action” is this:

Let us interpret God’s Word plainly, by what the text itself says, rather than relying on traditions or theological concepts not explicitly found in the Scriptures.