IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?

[expos4ever]

Is the God of the Bible arbitrary? Iow, does God punish people for things they knew nothing about?

Of course not, but scripture shows clearly that the Law of Moses, and in particular the 10 commandments, are not the only means by which knowledge of right and wrong are communicated to human beings:

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Note the reference to "since the creation" - long before the 10 commandments were given.

Not sure whether we are disagreeing about this.

 

[Clare73]

"until the law sin was in the world..." You can't say sin was in the world if there was nothing which identified what was God's will (i.e., His law).

Death is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23).
Covenantal law carries the curse of death, as in the case of Adam.

Can you not say "sin was in the world" if everyone between Adam and Moses died?
Death is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23).
Sin is the only reason we die.

Hi Clare73,

You might want to reread my comments. I've placed them above for your convenience.

Thanks. . .however, sin is transgression of the law, which is covenantal (1 John 3:4)

So what are you not understanding about Paul's statements:
"Where there is no law there is no sin (transgression)." (Romans 4:15)

Again, you might want to reread my questions (also included above)

Our difference here is that my understanding of God's will and ways is not based on human reasoning about God, but on the word of God in the Scriptures.

because if you were to answer them I'd think you'd answer your own question.

I have no question. . .I am dealing with Paul's doctrine which he received from Jesus Christ personally (Galatians 2:11-12) regarding the imputation of Adam's guilt to all those born of (the first) Adam (Romans 5:18), and the imputation by faith of Christ's righteousness (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22) to all those born of (the second Adam) Jesus Christ, just as God's righteousness was imputed by faith to Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

Not to be snarky, but I'd think if you were biblically informed

Are you sure about that?

Careful there. . .make your words sweet. . .in case you have to eat them.

that a question about a death penalty being "attached at that time" would seem unnecessary. That said, the issue of the flood looms large in my mind. Unless you wish to believe that God arbitrarily drowned all but 8 of the antediluvian world then
one would have to conclude that a death penalty was imposed

It's not about the death penalty itself. It's about death's source or basis--God's particular response, or God's covenantal law with a death penalty attached. Paul is using the latter.
Paul defines sin here specifically as transgression of the law, so that where there is no law, there is no sin.
That is the meaning he uses, and with which we must deal in Romans 5:12-14 regarding the time between Adam and Moses, when they all died with no law to sin against.

God's particular judgment in an individual case was the punishment of wrong-doing where there was no covenantal law, as in the time between Adam and Moses. There is much testimony to the acts of that particular judgment in the OT.
But with, or without, his particular judgment, all still died as the result of their guilt of sin (Romans 6:23). It is that judgment with which Paul is dealing in Romans 5:12-14, not God's particular judgments in individual cases. That judgment is the only cause of death for all mankind. (And of the question: why did they die when there was no law?)

and that the people knew the difference between what it meant to be righteous and blameless and what it meant to be wicked, evil and corrupt. Words have meaning. They don't just pop up into the narrative undefined.

Not only do words have meaning, they also reveal, when correctly understood in the light of all Scripture, God's will and plan, as in Romans 5:12-19, regarding the two Adams, where all those born of the first Adam are condemned (Romans 5:18), while all those born of the second Adam are redeemed from that condemnation due to the first Adam (Romans 5:18-19).

Then too, what about Sodom and Gomorrah? Only three people were spared from the destruction of these cities. Is that not also an example of a death penalty imposed?

No. . .as in the flood, that is an example of God's particular judgment in an individual case intolerable to him. They would all have eventually died without the flood.
That is the death penalty with which Paul is dealing, and which is due only to breaking God's covenantal law, as in the case of Adam.
So what covenantal laws did they break between Adam and Moses when there were none?

You have not demonstrated that God's specific will was given to mankind between Adam and Moses by covenantal law (which always carry a death penalty), which penalty is the cause of the death with which Paul is dealing in Romans 5:12-14.
You have not demonstrated they died between Adam and Moses because of transgression of a covenantal law, when there was none in force.

However, the law that was in force was, "Death is the wages of sin." (Romans 6:23)
Therefore, according to that law, they died because they were guilty of sin.
What sin? There was no law to sin against?

They were guilty of the imputed sin of Adam (Romans 5:18), just as
we are righteous by faith (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22) with the imputed righteousness of Christ (Romans 5:18-19), as Abraham was righteous by faith with the imputed righteous of God (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not to be snarky, but I'd think if you were biblically informed that a question about a death penalty being "attached at that time" would seem unnecessary. That said, the issue of the flood looms large in my mind. Unless you wish to believe that God arbitrarily drowned all but 8 of the antediluvian world then one would have to conclude that a death penalty was imposed

What has that to say against the argument @Clare73 is making? She already correctly said the death penalty was imposed at the fall of Adam. Is death by old age any different a penalty than death by drowning? Death. One thing.

I'm a long way yet, from convinced that there was no sin before Sinai, other than Adam's disobedience. But, even ignoring other reasons your argument doesn't work, you're not at all hindering her argument here.

 

[Clare73]

What has that to say against the argument @Clare73 is making? She already correctly said the death penalty was imposed at the fall of Adam. Is death by old age any different a penalty than death by drowning? Death. One thing.

I'm a long way yet, from convinced that there was no sin before Sinai, other than Adam's disobedience.

Don't forget Romans 5:13: "sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law." They were "not guilty" between Adam and Moses, for there was no law to prosecute against them.
They were guilty, however, of the sin of Adam imputed to them by birth (Romans 5:18),
as the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed by the new birth (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22).

But, even ignoring other reasons your argument doesn't work, you're not at all hindering her argument here.

 

[daq]

Don't forget Romans 5:13: "sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law." They were "not guilty" between Adam and Moses, for there was no law to prosecute against them.

Your argument appears to be merely proving the necessity of the giving of the Torah. Otherwise Paul would not have said that death reigned from Adam to Mosheh. One who has been taught that the Torah only reveals what sin is will have a difficult time seeing this.

Death reigned from Adam to Mosheh, Romans 5:14. Care to explain what happened in the time of Mosheh and why Paul states this to be the case in his argument? The Torah does much more than just tell us what is sin.

Moreover Genesis 3 is full of metaphorical language, a tree of life, a talking serpent, a tree of the knowledge of good and evil: understanding these metaphors goes a long way toward understanding Paul's argument in Romans 5. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil metaphor, and the commandment not to eat of it, is a simplistic metaphorical way to speak of a whole set of laws written on the heart of all mankind, (compare Romans 2:12-16).

The first time a youth knowingly and willfully sins against his or her own conscience, the same has partaken of the metaphorical tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and is condemned by his or her own thoughts, their own conscience bearing witness against them. The remedy for this includes both the Torah and the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Don't forget Romans 5:13: "sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law." They were "not guilty" between Adam and Moses, for there was no law to prosecute against them.
They were guilty, however, of the sin of Adam imputed to them by birth (Romans 5:18),
as the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed by the new birth (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22).

Sounds like you are saying that sin is simply not accounted to them if it was not against the law —not that they weren't possessing of a virile sin nature at enmity with God, nor even, perhaps that it was not sin to disobey conscience or specific personal or corporal occasional commands by God or principles God taught them, but that God did not assess that disobedience and enmity as sin.

Something of that question doesn't sit well with me, (not that it matters whit, how it sits with me, haha), but I'm finding it hard to accept that the same nature for which modern unregenerate man is at enmity with God, is any different than the nature of ancient unregenerate man. I suppose it is possible that question is irrelevant to the point, I'm not sure yet. But much of my vocabulary and thought behind the nature of sin and the purity of God has been with little distinction as to the Hebraic Law vs. God's command regardless of when where or how. To my mind, if one knows better than to do something, but does it anyway, to him it is sin. I am not at all convinced that God's command is not also law, as Paul intends.

While I can see that Paul in his discourse is referring to Sinai, I don't see that the principle itself neglects earlier commands of God, such as I mentioned before, or indeed even sins against conscience. But I do not want to add to God's Word. What other places besides Paul's mentions in Romans are there, that deal with this? Surely you can agree, the fact that Paul in Romans doesn't specifically attribute law to any other law/command, doesn't mean they aren't also included. But true, lacking evidence they ARE included, we can't simply assume they are. But Paul uses other words besides law; though I'm not sure that is relevant, it's just a thought.

 

[Clare73]

Your argument appears to be merely proving the necessity of the giving of the Torah.

I'm not proving anything.
I am explaining Paul's reasoning in Romans 5:12-14, concluding in Romans 5:18, with the imputation of Adam's guilt to all mankind.

Otherwise Paul would not have said that death reigned from Adam to Mosheh. One who has been taught that the Torah only reveals what sin is will have a difficult time seeing this.

Death reigned from Adam to Mosheh, Romans 5:14. Care to explain what happened in the time of Mosheh and why Paul states this to be the case in his argument? The Torah does much more than just tell us what is sin.

I don't think it can be made any clearer than what I've stated: all between Adam and Moses died because of their imputed guilt of Adam. (Romans 5:18)

What happened in the time of Moses?
The old covenant law and sacrifices were given to reveal sin, the impossibility of righteousness by law-keeping, and the remedy for the law's penalty of disobeying it.

Why Paul states this to be the case?
To show that righteousness is not by law-keeping.

Torah does much more than just tell us what sin is.
The point in the statement, "the law was given to reveal sin" is: it was not given for righteousness, for no one can be made righteous by law-keeping (Galatians 3:10).
Rather the old covenant law was given to reveal sin and to reveal the impossibility of it making anyone righteous, thereby making it weak and useless (Hebrews 7:18), it not being able to make right those who sinned against it, nor to give them the power to keep it.
Something better was needed. . .and provided--the new covenant, which gave both the remedy for disobeying God, as well as the power to obey God.

Moreover Genesis 3 is full of metaphorical language, a tree of life, a talking serpent, a tree of the knowledge of good and evil: understanding these metaphors goes a long way toward understanding Paul's argument in Romans 5. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil metaphor, and the commandment not to eat of it, is a simplistic metaphorical way to speak of a whole set of laws written on the heart of all mankind,

Those would be your personal interpretations, enjoying no NT support of which I am aware.
Please feel free to furnish such.

(compare Romans 2:12-16),

Romans 2:12-16 is about the principle upon which God will judge at the final judgment (Romans 2:16).
All those under the law of Moses will be judged by the law of Moses, and found unrighteous (will perish, v.12) because no one can keep it to God's standard.
All those apart from the law will be judged by the law of conscience, and likewise found unrighteous (will perish) because they did not perfectly obey their conscience.
No one on earth will be found righteous by law-keeping (Romans 3:9-10) at the final judgment, because no one can keep the law to God's standard. (Galatians 3:10)

The first time a youth knowingly and willfully sins against his or her own conscience, the same has partaken of the metaphorical tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and is condemned by his or her own thoughts, their own conscience bearing witness against them. The remedy for this includes both the Torah and the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts.

The law does not and cannot remedy the penalty for sin, it can only condemn to death for sin.
The only remedy the law provided was the sacrifices, pointing to Christ, whose death is the only NT remedy for the law's death penalty on sin.

 

[Clare73]

Sounds like you are saying that sin is simply not accounted to them if it was not against the law —not that they weren't possessing of a virile sin nature at enmity with God, nor even, perhaps that it was not sin to disobey conscience or specific personal or corporal occasional commands by God or principles God taught them, but that God did not assess that disobedience and enmity as sin.

Per-xactly. . .

Something of that question doesn't sit well with me, (not that it matters whit, how it sits with me, haha), but I'm finding it hard to accept that the same nature for which modern unregenerate man is at enmity with God, is any different than the nature of ancient unregenerate man. I suppose it is possible that question is irrelevant to the point, I'm not sure yet.

Can it not be that all you say is true, but has no bearing on God not counting it against them because there was no covenantal law in force requiring the death penalty?

But much of my vocabulary and thought behind the nature of sin and the purity of God has been with little distinction as to the Hebraic Law vs. God's command regardless of when where or how. To my mind, if one knows better than to do something, but does it anyway, to him it is sin.

Is the issue whether it is actually sin nor not, or is the issue whether it is counted against one or not. Sin was in the world, but it was not counted against them (Romans 5:13).
"Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count against him." (Romans 4:8; Psalms 32:1-2)

I am not at all convinced that God's command is not also law, as Paul intends.

I'm liking the way you hold to what you understand until it is truly unseated for you, occasioning a thorough examination of the text.

Paul states that all died "from Adam to Moses, even those whose sins were not like Adam's transgression,"
(NIV: did not sin by breaking a command). (Romans 5:14)
Does Paul's distinction there not answer your question regarding all God's commands being law, and covenantal law at that, for his "commands" are part of covenants (Genesis 2:17; the Mosaic law).

While I can see that Paul in his discourse is referring to Sinai,
I don't see that the principle itself neglects earlier commands of God,

Except that Paul makes a distinction between them in v.14, between
the nature of Adam's transgression (breaking a command) and
the nature of the sin of everyone from Adam to Moses (against conscience),
thereby showing the two are different.

such as I mentioned before, or indeed even sins against conscience. But I do not want to add to God's Word. What other places besides Paul's mentions in Romans are there, that deal with this? Surely you can agree, the fact that Paul in Romans doesn't specifically attribute law to any other law/command, doesn't mean they aren't also included.

I see his distinction in v.14 between the nature of Adam's transgression and the nature of sin from Adam to Moses as not allowing it.

But true, lacking evidence they ARE included, we can't simply assume they are.

I see Paul as specifically excluding them in his distinction between them.

But Paul uses other words besides law; though I'm not sure that is relevant,
it's just a thought.

Perhaps it would help you to sort it out if you provided an explanation of Paul's meaning in
Romans 5:12-14 which includes accounting for:
1) sin was in the world, but
2) sin is not counted (reckoned) when there is no law (v.13),
3) all died from Adam to Moses even though their sin was not like Adam's transgression--of a
command (v.14),
4) Paul's point in vv. 12-14?

If you can make all that work in some other coherent explanation of Romans 5:12-14, you've definitely got my attention!

(No need to say to you. . .but assuming all in agreement with Scripture.)

 

[daq]

I'm not proving anything.
I am explaining Paul's reasoning in Romans 5:12-14, concluding in Romans 5:18, with the imputation of Adam's guilt to all mankind.

I don't think it can be made any clearer than what I've stated: all between Adam and Moses died because of their imputed guilt of Adam. (Romans 5:18)

What happened in the time of Moses?
The old covenant law and sacrifices were given to reveal sin and the remedy for the law's penalty of disobeying it.

Why Paul states this to be the case?
Because the old covenant law and its penalty are divine fact and will.

Torah does much more than just tell us what sin is.
The point in the statement, "the law was given to reveal sin" is: it was not given for righteousness, for no one can be made righteous by law-keeping (Galatians 3:10).
Rather the old covenant law was given to reveal sin and to reveal the impossibility of it making anyone righteous, thereby making it weak and useless (Hebrews 7:18), it not being able to make right those who sinned against it, nor to give them the power to keep it.
Something better was needed. . .and provided--the new covenant, which gave both the remedy for disobeying God, as well as the power to obey God.

Those would be your personal interpretations, enjoying no NT support of which I am aware.
Please feel free to furnish such.

Romans 2:12-16 is about the principle upon which God will judge at the final judgment (Romans 2:16).
All those under the law of Moses will be judged by the law of Moses, and found unrighteous (will perish, v.12) because no one can keep it to God's standard.
All those apart from the law will be judged by the law of conscience, and likewise found unrighteous (will perish) because they did not perfectly obey their conscience.
No one on earth will be found righteous by law-keeping (Romans 3:9-10) at the final judgment, because no one can keep the law to God's standard. (Galatians 3:10)

The law does not and cannot remedy the penalty for sin, it can only condemn to death for sin.
The only remedy the law provided was the sacrifices, pointing to Christ, whose death is the only NT remedy for the law's death penalty on sin.

So, no answer for the question why Paul only says death reigned from Adam until Mosheh, (the giving of Torah), just as I thought. And just as I said, one who has been taught incorrect things concerning the whole meaning and reason for the Torah will have a difficult time seeing and understanding Paul's argument. Too many statements from Paul have now been ignored and sidelined by you in our conversations. Goodbye.

 

[Clare73]

So, no answer for the question why Paul only says death reigned from Adam until Mosheh,

Wrong. . .

Paul says that death reigned for all men (Romans 5:12), which includes those from Moses to Christ.
It falls to you to explain why he states both.

Let me know when you need help.

(the giving of Torah), just as I thought. And just as I said, one who has been taught incorrect things concerning the whole meaning and reason for the Torah will have a difficult time seeing and understanding Paul's argument. Too many statements
from Paul have now been ignored and sidelined by you in our conversations.

1) You have presented nothing from me which is incorrect according to NT apostolic teaching,
2) nor have you demonstrated any error regarding Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-14,
3) and more importantly, you have not Biblically addressed any of the points I presented.

Biblical assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

Q.E.D.

 

[daq]

Let me know when you need help.

Let me know when you decide to stop making false statements about others to protect your paradigm.

Those would be your personal interpretations, enjoying no NT support of which I am aware.

Of course you are unaware: you filter out what you wish not to accept. You've been shown the truth from the writings of Paul on multiple occasions. Just because you filter out what you wish not to believe does not mean the evidence has not been presented to you from his own words and manifold other scripture texts.

 

[Clare73]

Let me know when you decide to stop making false statements about others to protect your paradigm.
Of course you are unaware: you filter out what you wish not to accept.
You've been shown the truth from the writings of Paul on multiple occasions.

You've presented nothing from Paul that supports your assertions.

Just because you filter out what you wish not to believe does not mean the evidence has not been presented to you from his own words and manifold other scripture texts.

Assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

Present what you have demonstrated to me from Paul.

 

[daq]

Assertion without demonstration is without merit.

The same applies to your own statement because the demonstrations have already been presented in multiple places on this board. One of those places would be where you were quoted Romans 7, and especially Romans 7:24-25, and proceeded to throw Paul under the bus so that you might deny what he says in that passage concerning the flesh, that with the flesh he serves, (an ellipsis), the law of sin.

You counted that statement as speaking of some undefined law in his members and said that he is not speaking of the Torah. No doubt this is because you need to invent a way to escape the obvious meaning of what he says about serving the torah-teaching of sin, (and death, Romans 8:2 is still the same passage regardless of the man-made chapter break). And in so doing you receive the due reward in your doctrine.

 

[Clare73]

The same applies to your own statement because the demonstrations have already been presented in multiple places on this board.

Speaking of "this board"-- feel free to address my following linked post, to which you never responded, regarding your charge of supposed alterations to Galatians 3:17 and Luke 20:20 demonstrating that Hebrews 8:13 refers to a "renewal of the law" rather than the "new covenant."

Galatians 3 - shows New Covenant Gospel is before Sinai

One of those places would be where you were quoted Romans 7, and especially Romans 7:24-25, and proceeded to throw Paul under the bus so that you might deny what he says in that passage concerning the flesh, that with the flesh he serves, (an ellipsis), the law of sin.

Assertions are not demonstrations.

You counted that statement as speaking of some undefined law in his members and said that he is not speaking of the Torah. No doubt this is because you need to invent a way to escape the obvious meaning of what he says about serving the torah-teaching of sin, (and death, Romans 8:2 is still the same passage regardless of the man-made chapter break). And in so doing you receive the due reward in your doctrine.

Assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

 

[daq]

Assertions are not demonstrations.

Assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

Is it a bad memory or just a selective memory?

Romans 7:22-25 KJV
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

The final statement here is an obvious ellipsis, the ellipsis being, of course, I myself serve.

So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh I myself serve the law of sin.

By claiming that the "law of sin" here is an undefined law working in his members you are indeed throwing Paul under the bus because it is tantamount to saying that he serves sin when it comes to the flesh. Your dogma turns Paul into a hypocrite because he boldly speaks against such things.

Romans 8:12-13 KJV
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Colossians 3:5-7 KJV
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon [epi - concerning] the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

Paul says that he serves the torah-teaching of sin, (and death), to mortify or put to death the flesh and sin which dwells in the flesh, (Romans 7). Torah means instruction, teaching, and Paul sometimes uses the Greek word nomos in the same way as torah is used in Hebrew. Misunderstanding or ignoring this fact causes much confusion in mainstream theology.

Horeb is of above, the Torah of Elohim: Sinai is of below, the torah-teaching of sin and death, to put to death those things concerning the flesh and of below which cause a separation between us and our Creator.

You cannot get to where you need to be if you say that the Torah has been rendered obsolete because it contains the instruction and principles for taking up your own stake or cross and crucifying the old man sin nature. Therefore, as I said to you at the start here: the Torah does much more than just tell us what sin is.

Am I saying this brings salvation? No, of course not, but regardless, it is the will of Elohim for us to cut off sin: which if one believes and does, Elohim Himself gives the life, ("I kill, and I make alive"). One does not get to the point of receiving the promise without first doing the will of Elohim, Hebrews 10:36, (and that whole passage has also been quoted and explained to you elsewhere, and you filtered out what is written there also).

Therefore Paul also says that the Torah has become our tutor or schoolmaster into Messiah, which if one ignores, so as to maintain an anti-Torah paradigm bias, the due reward is revealed in the false doctrines that are strewn across the land.

 

[Clare73]

Is it a bad memory or just a selective memory?
Romans 7:22-25 KJV
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
The final statement here is an obvious ellipsis, the ellipsis being, of course, I myself serve.
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh I myself serve the law of sin.

By claiming that the "law of sin"

Yes, that is what the NT shows regarding Paul's use of "the law of sin."

here is an undefined law working in his members you are indeed throwing Paul under the bus because it is tantamount to saying that he serves sin when it comes to the flesh. Your dogma turns Paul into a hypocrite because he boldly speaks against such things.

Have you read Romans 7:21-25?

Romans 8:12-13 KJV
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Colossians 3:5-7 KJV
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon [epi - concerning] the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

Paul says that he serves the torah-teaching of sin, (and death), to mortify or put to death the flesh and sin which dwells in the flesh, (Romans 7). Torah means instruction, teaching, and Paul sometimes uses the Greek word nomos in the same way as torah is used in Hebrew. Misunderstanding or ignoring this fact causes much confusion in mainstream theology.

Horeb is of above, the Torah of Elohim: Sinai is of below, the torah-teaching of sin and death, to put to death those things concerning the flesh and of below which cause a separation between us and our Creator.

You cannot get to where you need to be if you say that the Torah has been rendered obsolete because it contains the instruction and principles for taking up your own stake or cross and crucifying the old man sin nature. Therefore, as I said to you at the start here: the Torah does much more than just tell us what sin is.

Am I saying this brings salvation? No, of course not, but regardless, it is the will of Elohim for us to cut off sin: which if one believes and does, Elohim Himself gives the life, ("I kill, and I make alive"). One does not get to the point of receiving the promise without first doing the will of Elohim, Hebrews 10:36, (and that whole passage has also been quoted and explained to you elsewhere, and you filtered out what is written there also).

Therefore Paul also says that the Torah has become our tutor or schoolmaster into Messiah, which if one ignores, so as to maintain an anti-Torah paradigm bias, the due reward is revealed in the false doctrines that are strewn across the land.

And likewise feel free to address my following linked post, to which you never responded,
regarding your charge of supposed alterations in Galatians 3:17 and Luke 20:20
demonstrating that Hebrews 8:13 refers to a "renewal of the law," rather than the "new covenant."

Galatians 3 - shows New Covenant Gospel is before Sinai

 

[daq]

Where is this claim of mine?

Are you now denying that you have said and taught such things? I know we discussed this not too long ago, but in that discussion some posts ended up getting deleted, so maybe that discussion has been deleted or maybe it is somewhere in another board like Controversial Theology: but I know that you and I have discussed this, and I know what I said and what I quoted from the scripture, and I know how you responded. However now, when I search for specific terms linked to that discussion, I see that it also comes up in other places where you have said the same things to other people. There are several other posts which follow this linked post:
Which Law Paul?

In fact I guess I may as well quote these things here so that I do not end up being falsely accused of making false accusations, (otherwise I would not see any reason to rehash this with you because it isn't my problem if you cannot remember what you have said and taught in the recent past).

The "law of God" in Romans 7:4 is the written code, and
"the law of my mind" in Romans 7:21-25 is an inner force/desire within Paul.

In Paul's usage in Romans 7:21-25, the "law of sin" and "the law of my mind" are forces operating within him toward either sin or the law of God. The "law of his mind" is a force drawing him to the law of God, it is not the law of God,
but in Romans 7:4 it is the law of God; i.e., the written code..

The "law of sin" was a power or force operating within him just as the "law of my mind" was a power or force operating within him, the two powers or forces being in conflict. Neither of these "laws" refers to the written code of God's Mosaic law.

And his fuller explanation is a presentation of the existing powers or forces within him which are driving his behavior, which principles he calls "laws," like we call the force of gravity, the "law of gravity."

The desire to sin, he calls "the law of sin," and the desire to obey God, he calls "the law of my mind," which are two powers or forces operating within him in conflict with one another.

Absolutely wrong, and just as I said, you make Paul out to be serving sin when it comes to his flesh because the passage actually contains a blatant and obvious ellipsis which translators choose not to render into the text even thought they do so in many other cases and instances where there is no need to uphold an anti-Torah bias. Paul says that with the flesh he serves the law of sin: your reinterpretation of the statement makes him out to be saying that he serves sin when it comes to his flesh.

 

[Clare73]

Are you now denying that you have said and taught such things?

No, I am affirming that is what the NT shows regarding Paul's use of "the law of sin."
Paul refers to the operation of sin in us as the "law of sin, just as
we refer to the operation of gravity on earth as the "law of gravity."

Paul says that with the flesh he serves the law of sin: your reinterpretation of the statement makes him out to be saying that he serves sin when it comes to his flesh.

Read it again. . ."desire" and "serve" are not the same thing.

Previously litigated, will not be relitigating it.

If you want to litigate the past, feel free to address my following linked post, to which you never responded, regarding your charge of supposed alterations in Galatians 3:17 and Luke 20:20 demonstrating that Hebrews 8:13 refers to a "renewal of the law," rather than the "new covenant."

Galatians 3 - shows New Covenant Gospel is before Sinai

 

[Mark Quayle]

Per-xactly. . .

Can it not be that all you say is true, but has no bearing on God not counting it against them because there was no legislated law in force with the death penalty attached?

Is the issue whether it is actually sin nor not, or is the issue whether it is counted against one or not.
"Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count against him." (Romans 4:8; Psalms 32:1-2)

I'm liking the way you hold to what you understand until it is truly unseated for you, occasioning a thorough examination of the text.

Paul states that all died "from Adam to Moses, even those whose sins were not like Adam's transgression,"
(NIV: did not sin by breaking a command). (Romans 5:14)
Does Paul's distinction there not answer your question regarding all God's commands also being law?

Except that Paul makes a distinction between them in v.14, between
the nature of Adam's transgression and
the nature of the sin of everyone from Adam to Moses,
thereby showing the two are different.

I see his distinction in v.14 between the nature of Adam's transgression and the nature of sin from Adam to Moses as not allowing it.

I see Paul as specifically excluding them in his distinction between them.

Perhaps it would help you to sort it out if you provided an explanation of Paul's meaning in
Romans 5:12-14 which includes accounting for:
1) sin was in the world, but
2) sin is not counted (reckoned) when there is no law (v.13),
3) all died from Adam to Moses even though their sin was not like Adam's transgression--of a
command (v.14),
4) Paul's point in vv. 12-14?

If you can make all that work in some other coherent explanation of Romans 5:12-14, you've definitely got my attention!

(No need to say to you. . .but assuming all in agreement with Scripture.)

Thank you for your kind words. And thank you for your patience and effort on my behalf. As usual, I will have to digest your post(s) to feel like I have done it (them) justice. So, of course, I can't fully answer it (them) now either.

Can it not be that all you say is true, but has no bearing on God not counting it against them because there was no legislated law in force with the death penalty attached?

Aye, there's the rub.

All along, for many years, I've been arguing that what sin actually is, (i.e. opposition or rebellion to Omnipotent God), must be made right. If my conception of those words has value as a notion, then there must be an accounting because of God's justice— that he would not be just to merely overlook sin, has been my claim.

Lol, I get fringe thoughts trying to gain access to my head that Christ paid for all those sins pre-Sinai, so God doesn't count them! But that doesn't fit Romans at all, except for the mention alone that God doesn't count them.

As usual with me on reading Romans again, a hundred other things crowd my mind —how much more now, with the question unanswered for me concerning this 'legality', actual blame by God toward those who actually did sin, but without the law! The equation seems to be lacking a few things, mainly: 1) How is their conscience, their individual and/or corporate commands by God, whether for individual occasions or for general policy, and (to my mind, anyway) any deed, thought, or mindset stemming from their enmity to God, not also law as Paul intends, though not formal? Or, 2) from the negative of #1, Why does Paul not consider any deed that is by enmity with God an equal monstrosity as any deed done in rebellion to formal law? (Btw, for whoever might be reading this, I understand that God wrote Paul's words, but I say 'Paul' because the format is Paul's reasoning).

I mean to say, I see Paul directly answering my definitions, in his discourse, particularly in vss 13 and 14, but not explaining away my questions —perhaps I should say, my instincts concerning the nature of sin and what Christ accomplished on the cross.

You may be surprised, or you may identify with, my linking this whole thing, with rather some consternation to be overcome, with what God judges as sin, so differently from what man does, for eg: To one, to eat pork is monstrous 7 ways from Sabbath, but to another, 'do not call impure what God has made clean'. I feel like for this subject alone (if not for the sake of the question at hand), I need to be very careful how I think, and not adopt a blanket mindset that excuses me from what conscience has up til now condemned, or what might mislead another believer for me to even express wrongly.

I see also, another implication, that is painful to me to dwell on: That if these sins were not counted against them, nor did Christ die to pay for those sins, did Christ then, for the souls pre-Sinai, die only to redeem them from Adam's sin? (After all, Adam's curse was placed on everyone subsequent to Adam, because all die, but that is not all it is, nor did Christ's death save anyone from physical death. Adam's curse also resulted in the soul's innate enmity against God, and while I understand that is part and parcel with every sin post Adam, I have a hard time seeing Christ's payment having nothing to do with the results of that enmity for a certain group, because of a formality. Yes, I know it is not a mere formality, but that is where the schism in my instincts shows its ugly tear). Is there no condemnation, besides temporal consequences, for those who disobeyed God apart from the formal law?

And, then, nowadays, for the person at enmity with God, who is unaware of the Sinai law, is their sin not actually accounted for, and if subsequently regenerated, are those sins not actually paid by Christ, since they were (presumeably) not counted against them to begin with?

Also, I am wondering if other scripture, even if in Romans, confirms the point you make concerning the accounting of sins, pre-Sinai.

 

[daq]

No, I am affirming that is what the NT shows regarding Paul's use of "the law of sin."

Many of those even of your own mindset would disagree with you because they are realistic enough to understand that the "law of sin" in Romans 7:25 is the same "law of sin and death" in Romans 8:2, knowing that the mere insertion of a man-made chapter break into the text does not mean it is suddenly a different passage and topic.

The majority of mainstream Christianity would surely agree that "the law of sin and death" speaks of the Torah: but you would have us believe that it speaks not of the Torah but of "a force" at work within Paul which you imagine that he calls a law. You don't have any scripture evidence that your reinterpretation of what he says is supported in the scripture, including his own writings, which refute your reinterpretation of his words.

Likewise, feel free to address my following linked post, to which you never responded, regarding your charge of alterations in some NT texts demonstrating that Hebrews 8:13 refers to a "renewal of the law," rather than the "new covenant."

Galatians 3 - shows New Covenant Gospel is before Sinai

This doesn't have anything to do with our discussion here about the purpose of the Torah. Again, the purpose of the Torah is much more than simply defining sin for us. To relegate the Torah to such a simplistic purpose and meaning only allows the one who believes such a thing to then turn and say, as so many do, that it has become obsolete because they don't need the Torah to tell them what sin is. In other words it's just another straw-man argument people use to abolish or set aside the Torah-Instruction-Word of the Father.