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

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
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.

Since you will not listen to her, perhaps you will listen to me. Where do you get the notion that Paul only says death reigned from Adam to Mosheh? His whole book of Romans, and indeed his whole use of 'Gospel' is built on the dire need (during his time and our time too) for salvation from the effects of the sin of Adam, to include our bondage to sin. Or if you mean by death, physical, temporal death, is it not obvious to all, including to Paul, that physical death has yet to cease being the norm?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
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.



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.
Seems to me that you are not only misrepresenting what @Clare73 is trying to say, but you are attributing purposes to her you know nothing about. She is more than aware, I'm sure, of the proscriptions against teaching abolishment of the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,001
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,792.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Since you will not listen to her, perhaps you will listen to me. Where do you get the notion that Paul only says death reigned from Adam to Mosheh? His whole book of Romans, and indeed his whole use of 'Gospel' is built on the dire need (during his time and our time too) for salvation from the effects of the sin of Adam, to include our bondage to sin. Or if you mean by death, physical, temporal death, is it not obvious to all, including to Paul, that physical death has yet to cease being the norm?

Is it me who will not listen to her or is it you and her that have not heard Paul? It is right there in the passage that was under discussion.

Romans 5:14 KJV
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

So I ask you the same: can you explain why Paul says that death only reigned from Adam unto Mosheh? What was it that happened in the time of Mosheh that causes Paul to say such a thing? Was it not the giving of the Torah? How is it that Paul doesn't say what you suggest? that death still reigned unto his day, or even until now, to this day?

In other words, why does Paul not say that death reigned from Adam unto the Messiah? Shouldn't that be more correct if the mainstream theology rendering the Torah obsolete is correct?

The point is this: death no longer reigns with the giving of the Torah, for those who understand its true purpose, and who walk in it accordingly and trust in Elohim for the mercy and grace which the Elders, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, omitted in their incorrect and carnal interpretations of the Torah.

The Torah is spiritual, just as Paul says in Romans 7:14a, and there is the way of walking in the Torah according to the Spirit, which is found in the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts: and there is also a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,001
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,792.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Seems to me that you are not only misrepresenting what @Clare73 is trying to say, but you are attributing purposes to her you know nothing about. She is more than aware, I'm sure, of the proscriptions against teaching abolishment of the law.

I would suggest that you catch up with some of her statements in other places, such as the other thread I just quoted her from in a previous post above, and find out what she actually says and believes about the Torah. She's made it quite clear on many occasions.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
So I ask you the same: can you explain why Paul says that death only reigned from Adam unto Mosheh? What was it that happened in the time of Mosheh that causes Paul to say such a thing? Was it not the giving of the Torah? How is it that Paul doesn't say what you suggest? that death still reigned unto his day, or even until now, to this day?
Answer my question first, that I asked you. What makes you think Paul says that only death reigned during that time period.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,001
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,792.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Answer my question first, that I asked you. What makes you think Paul says that only death reigned during that time period.

I just answered it for you. Here is my answer again: Paul says so because with the giving of the Torah death no longer reigned for those who truly understood and to this day understand its true purpose. This refers right back to what I originally said to Clare73. The Torah does much more than simply define sin for us. And as Paul also says, again, the Torah is our tutor or schoolmaster to/into/unto Messiah. One is not going to reach the point where the promise is received without first doing the will of Elohim, (Hebrews 10:35-39), and the will of Elohim is for us to cut off sin from ourselves and in our "members", (Romans 7, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8). This is part of what it means to use the law lawfully, (1 Timothy 1:7-11). And anyone who truly desires to do the will of the Father will no doubt come to understand the doctrine, (John 7:16-17).
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,614.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
Understood. . .I'm not expecting answers, I'm only presenting information, and feeling for you here.
Maybe the bits and pieces I present will jog something lose and open it up for you. . .and maybe not.
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.
As in "paid for" by faith's application of Christ's payment for all of one's sin.
Are we aware of all the sin we've committed to which Christ's payment is applied?
Do we have to be aware of it for him to pay for it?
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.
Not understanding how anything is overlooked in the application by faith of Christ's payment for anyone's sin.
Are you viewing sin as a matter of God's abhorence, to all of which man is not privy, or as a matter of his justice?
Abhorence is undefined, justice is codified.
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?
Does Paul intend they be covenantal law? Does he not clearly state in Romans 5:12-14 that they are not law?
Not being covenantal law (Genesis 2:17; Mosaic law), there was no death penalty attached to those commands at the time. Keeping in mind, however, that the death penalty from the get-go for all is due to Adam (Romans 5:18), not to their own sin.

If we are born condemned by Adam's (imputed) guilt (Romans 5:18, as we are made righteous by Christ's imputed righteousness--Romans 1:17, Romans 3:20-21), everything else is window dressing, because we are headed to the gallows no matter what--with or without our own sin accounted to us, if we don't trust on and believe in the blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25).
Because of Adam, our condemnation was in place before we ever sinned on our own. (Romans 5:18)
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?
One is covenant, and the other is not.
Is it Paul. . .or is it his revelation from Jesus Christ personally (Galatians 1:11-12) that does not consider, and his trip to the throne of God in the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1-8) that does not consider, and which "not considering" we are to receive and believe.
Would your question not really be, "why does God have two kinds of 'laws," covenantal under penalty of death (Genesis 2:17; Mosaic law), and non-covenantal carrying no penalty of death?
(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).
Or is it Jesus' reasoning revealed to Paul personally, or by the Holy Spirit?
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.
I'm not really seeing what your issue is there.
Would you share it with me when you get around to it?
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.
However, our conscience is to be in-formed (formed from within) by the word of God.
A conscience that is not informed by the word of God is referred to as "weak faith" in the NT, for its failure to form itself according to God's revelation (Romans 14:1-2) rather than according its personal notions not in agreement with that word.
And we are to accommodate those of "weak faith" by not scandalizing that faith.
But it is good for those of "weak faith" to strengthen their faith by receiving and believing NT apostolic teaching which informs it.

You also touch here on what conscience "has up til now condemned" and "misleading another."
However, to inform your brother of the apostolic teaching of the Christian faith is not excusing him from no longer regarding what he regards as sin, it is informing his "weak faith" (Romans 14:1-2) according to apostolic teaching that it may grow in truth and apprehension of the true faith.
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?
I'm not understanding why there would be an exception of any sin? All sin of the believer is paid for by faith in Christ's atonement, whether he is aware of that sin or not.
If I didn't know that eating bananas on Tuesday was sin, would God account sin to me for doing so?
If they didn't know it was sin to murder someone who had murdered their own, or to steal from someone in retaliation for their stealing from them, or to bear false witness against someone who was spreading lies about them, etc., would God account sin to them for doing so?
Sin against their conscience was their only "sin the world" (Romans 5:13), and did not Christ pay for it for those who believe in him?
(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.
It saved those who believe in him from permanent physical death and from eternal death (damnation).
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.
Is "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him" (Romans 4:8) just a formality, or is it a consequential actuality?
The issue is the innate enmity, not its actions.
Those between Adam and Moses were still God's enemies even though no personal sin was accounted to them. And that is the issue between God and man. You are born God's enemy, by nature an object of his wrath. (Ephesians 2:3)
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?
Yes, there is our condemnation due to Adam's imputed guilt which makes everything else pretty much irrelevant, because you can be condemned only once. any way.

We are letting the process of God imputing Adam's guilt to all mankind (Romans 5:18), which is the cause of everyone's sentence to eternal death, become confused with the consequences of personal sin in that process, which is just an add-on to our imputed guilt, where even the absence of personal sin would not alter our eternal destiny.
We are born condemned, by nature objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), whether me move a muscle, have a thought, or not.
Only those to whom God applies Christ's payment for sin are exempt from that condemnation.
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?
All of which pales in light of being born in condemnation (Romans 5:18) and by nature objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).
Also, I am wondering if other scripture, even if in Romans, confirms the point you make concerning the accounting of sins, pre-Sinai.
I'm not understanding why the exceedingly plain statements:
1) "sin is not reckoned (charged) when there is no law" (not being law), Romans 5:13,
2) those between Adam and Moses "did not sin like the transgression of Adam" (breaking a command), Romans 5:14,
must be stated more than once to be true.

I ask the same about God's predestination of "those he foreknew" (Romans 8:29) being stated anywhere else in Scripture?
And the objects of God's wrath by whom his power is made known for the sake of making the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy (Romans 9:22-23) being presented anywhere else in Scripture?
You were able to swallow those, which most cannot.

Hang in there, my dear brother!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,614.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
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.
Previously litigated. . .will not be relitigating it.

However, 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
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I would suggest that you catch up with some of her statements in other places, such as the other thread I just quoted her from in a previous post above, and find out what she actually says and believes about the Torah. She's made it quite clear on many occasions.
She has made it quite clear on many occasions that death has reigned from Adam to the present, but for Christ. That is my objection.

Perhaps you mean to say that she claims that sins were not accounted to those before Sinai.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,614.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This doesn't have anything to do with our discussion here about the purpose of the Torah.
It has everything to do with litigating the past.

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
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,001
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,792.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Previously litigated. . .will not be relitigating it.

However, 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

That post is from April 29 and yet you just edited it yesterday. I don't see any reason to bring the book you added there into this thread.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,001
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,792.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
She has made it quite clear on many occasions that death has reigned from Adam to the present, but for Christ. That is my objection.

Perhaps you mean to say that she claims that sins were not accounted to those before Sinai.

That's great, she rated your post with a like, showing that she agrees with your statement, that she has made it quite clear that she disagrees with Paul when he says death reigned from Adam to Mosheh. Moreover I can see now that you either have no answer for my question or are not going to answer it even though I have now answered it for you twice. Oh well, nice chatting. Goodbye.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,614.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That post is from April 29 and yet you just edited it yesterday. I don't see any reason to bring the book you added there into this thread.
The "book" I added yesterday was a title to part of the post, to make it more convenient to new readers.

And you don't have to bring that post into this thread, as you did my past posts from another thread,
you can address it in the thread in which it is posted.

We all know how to find it.
So let's see if you address it.
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,614.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's great, she rated your post with a like, showing that she agrees with your statement, that she has made it quite clear that she disagrees with Paul when he says death reigned from Adam to Mosheh.
And which assertion is the resting of my case. . .here in post #415,

as my case regarding Hebrews 8:13 was rested in post #415 in that thread.
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,001
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,792.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The book I added yesterday was a title to part of the post, to make it more convenient to new readers.

You don't have to bring it into this thread, as you did my past posts from another thread,
you can address it in the thread in which it is posted.

We all know how to find it.
.

And which assertion is the resting of my case. . .here in post #415,

as my case regarding Hebrews 8:13 was rested in post #415 in that thread.
.

You failed to acknowledge and address the fact that you have taken English translations, which have added words into the text that are not in the Greek text, and have built doctrine on premises based on those same statements, and then labeled your own understanding as "the NT apostolic teaching". That isn't correct, the truth is that it is merely your version of NT apostolic teaching, and your version requires the English translations which you put your trust in.

It's the same problem you have here where you take the words of Paul, saying that death reigned from Adam unto Mosheh, and change them in your filtering process to make them say that "death has reigned from Adam to the present, but for Christ", (as poster Mark Quayle stated above and you agreed with).

This is how it works with me if indeed you wish to understand what I believe:

Romans 5:14 KJV
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Romans 5:14 ASV
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

Clare73 remove-and-replace filtering process:

Romans 5:14
14 Nevertheless death has reigned from Adam to the present, but for Christ, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

And many other like things you do in your mind whether you realize it or not. No thanks, I'll stay with what is actually written in the NT apostolic teachings and do my best not to create my own privately held version.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,614.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You failed to acknowledge and address the fact that you have taken English translations, which have added words into the text that are not in the Greek text,
Previously litigated. . .will no be relitigating it.
 
Upvote 0

Icyspark

Active Member
Oct 2, 2020
276
218
Least coast
✟82,573.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Death is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23).
Law (specific commands) 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.

Thanks. . .however, sin is transgression of the law. (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)


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.

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).

Are you sure about that?

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

It's not about the death penalty itself. It's about its source or basis--God's particular response, or God's standing 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 was the punishment of wrong-doing where there was no specific law (commands), 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). That is the judgment with which Paul is dealing in Romans 5:12-14, not God's particular judgments. That judgment is the only cause of death for all mankind. (And the question: why did they die when there was no law?)

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).

No. . .as in the flood, that is an example of God's particular judgment on a situation 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 specific commands, as in the case of Adam.
So what commands (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 specific commands (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 a standing death penalty for transgression of the law, when there was neither law nor death penalty 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).


Hi Claire,

Before I proceed to address the specifics of this post I think I'll take a moment to reflect back what I'm understanding of your position. Please tell me if I'm understanding you correctly.

You seem to acknowledge that "sin is transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)" and that "Death is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23). Law (specific commands) carries the curse of death, as in the case of Adam." Then you go on to say that you are "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)." If I'm understanding you correctly, your position is that those living before the law was given to Moses were condemned as sinners by the imputation of Adam's guilt? So up until the time the law was given there were no transgressions upon which to determine any sin guilt other than the guilt of all those born of Adam? IOW, all people are determined guilty of sin by the mere fact of born and were condemned to die for something in which they had no part?

You say,
"God's particular judgment was the punishment of wrong-doing where there was no specific law (commands)..." What do you mean by "wrong-doing"? If there is no known basis upon which to determine right and wrong how can you suppose that God would punish His creatures for something which you seem to arbitrarily determine is "wrong-doing" if the people knew nothing of God's intentions for them?

I have lots more questions about your response but let's see if we can start with these.

Thanks and God bless!

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,614.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi Claire,

Before I proceed to address the specifics of this post I think I'll take a moment to reflect back what I'm understanding of your position. Please tell me if I'm understanding you correctly.
You seem to acknowledge that "sin is transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)" and that "Death is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23). Law (specific commands) carries the curse of death, as in the case of Adam." Then you go on to say that you are "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)." If I'm understanding you correctly, your position is that those living before the law was given to Moses were condemned as sinners by the imputation of Adam's guilt? So up until the time the law was given there were no transgressions upon which to determine any sin guilt other than the guilt of all those born of Adam? IOW
all people are determined guilty of sin by the mere fact of born and were condemned to die for something in which they had no part? You say
My compliments, you understand well. . .they are condemned for that in which they had no part and, likewise, they are saved and justified by that in which they had no part (Romans 5:18-19).
"God's particular judgment was the punishment of wrong-doing where there was no specific law (commands)..." What do you mean by "wrong-doing"? If there is no known basis upon which to determine right and wrong how can you suppose that God would punish His creatures for something which you seem to arbitrarily determine is "wrong-doing" if the people knew nothing of God's intentions for them?
They violated the law of their conscience (Romans 2:14-15) to which no death penalty was attached.
God himself, as distinct from the curse of the law, declared and exercised his particular judgment in their case.

I have lots more questions about your response but let's see if we can start with these.
Thanks and God bless!
But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0