The Moral Law

[RandyPNW]

I know. . .but well done.
Just clearing up an important NT point of doctrine; i.e., imputation of the sin of Adam as well as the righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

For Paul in his statement that
1) sin existed between Adam and Moses (Ro 5:12) is not saying that God's law preceded the Mosaic law, for Paul states
2) but there was no law (specific command with death penalty attached as in the Garden, Ge 2:17) to sin against (transgress) between Adam and Moses (Ro 5:13),
and those two facts are the conundrum Paul is presenting. . .to demonstrate that
all mankind between Adam and Moses died, not because of their own transgression of law (of which there was no law to transgress as did Adam; i.e., specific command, "Thous shalt not," with death penalty attached),
but because of Adam's transgression of the law imputed to them. . .and which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for Christ's righteousness being imputed (Ro 4:1-11, 5:18-19) by faith. . .as righteousness was imputed to Abraham by faith (Ge 15:6).

Actually, sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20), it is imputed (Ro 5:12-14).
It is our sinful nature that is inherited.

Correct. . .sin has been around since before the Mosaic law,
and Paul's point in Ro 5:12:14 is that sin was around (Ro 5:12), even when there was no law to transgress as did Adam (Ro 5:14).

Well done!

Sin = missing the mark.
Transgression = knowing, willful, deliberate violation of the law, punishable by death, as in the Garden.

Not all sin is transgression (knowing, willful, deliberate violation of the line).
But all transgression is sin (missing the mark).

Yes, we agree on the definitions of Sin and Transgression. Sin is a willful corruption of God's Word. Transgression is a willful corruption of God's Law. As I see it, they are pretty much the same thing.

Paul seems to have indicated that there was no "law" prior to the Law of Moses. And yet it is stipulated, clearly, that there was Sin before the Law of Moses. So what did Paul mean by this?

I think there is resident in this a potential misunderstanding. Paul is not saying there is no "law" prior to the Law of Moses in the sense that standards did not exist prior to the Law of Moses. Plainly, God had put man on earth to live according to His word and according to the standards of living in His own image.

His word was supplemented by the command to "avoid the Tree of Knowledge." That is "law," and that is "God's word," or standard of conduct for man. Clearly, "law" in its general sense did preexist the Law of Moses.

So what did Paul mean when he said there was no Law to transgress prior to the Law of Moses? Quite simply he meant that God had not given the Law of Moses as a covenant that the nation could violate. Certainly, God's word to the consciences of every individual was already present in the world prior to the covenant made with Israel at Mt. Sinai.

The idea, I think, was that Israel could not violate a covenant of national blessing prior to there actually being a covenant made yet. So prior to this kind of covenant of promised fellowship between God and Mankind there was nothing to either promote it or negate it. It came, by necessity, to show God's continuing mandate to have fellowship with Him, beginning this process with Abraham and Israel.

It was ultimately important that God did have specific standards for Mankind, and communicated various conditions in order to sustain a relationship with Him. People may not have met God's standards before the Law, but it was not manifestly evident what those standards were after the Fall of Mankind. What Sin was had to be further clarified, although it was already somewhat self-evident.

Indeed, we are guilty of our own committed sin, as well as of Adam's imputed sin.

God has shut up all men in sin (imputation does that!) so that all must depend on his mercy (Ro 11:32).

I'm still not sure about the language you use of "imputation," with respect to Sin, and it is questionable to me because you stated, matter of fact, that mankind does not inherit Sin.

But you explain that we inherit a Sin Nature, as opposed to Sin, and I think that sounds reasonable the way you mean it. We do not inherit the guilt of the Sins of others. We inherit their vulnerability to Sin because a vulnerability has been opened up to poisonous knowledge that is to some extent irresistible. However, we can fight it and overcome it because "He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world."

I do believe, however, that we were born *in Sin.* What this means is that we have an inherent need to be cleansed of that Sin, whether it is a guilt associated with it or simply a vulnerability to it. If there is a guilt associated with it, and I think there is, then it is not that we're carrying the guilt of others, but rather, our own guilt, because the inclination towards Sin begins at birth. It is kind of a guilt by association with our Sin Nature.

 

[timothyu]

So what did Paul mean by this?

Man put mans' will ahead of God's will, the first sin in the Garden. All sin is formed from putting our will first which most often serves self rather than others. Quite simple. No wonder religion wants to confuse it, such a simple teaching, to create an institution complete with authorities. Free enterprise was alive and well even in Jesus's time. He challenged the Sanhedrin for institutionalizing themselves and Christianity followed suit. Blind leading the blind. No one took Jesus seriously as far as how we were to put Gods will first, not ours for gain. God's Kingdom/will was His only Gospel/good news.

 

[RandyPNW]

Man put mans' will ahead of God's will, the first sin in the Garden. All sin is formed from putting our will first which most often serves self rather than others. Quite simple. No wonder religion wants to confuse it, such a simple teaching, to create an institution complete with authorities. Free enterprise was alive and well even in Jesus's time. He challenged the Sanhedrin for institutionalizing themselves and Christianity followed suit. Blind leading the blind. No one took Jesus seriously as far as how we were to put Gods will first, not ours for gain. God's Kingdom/will was His only Gospel/good news.

Very clearly put. And well said. However, I don't believe "Free Enterprise" implies autonomy from God. Nor is "institutionalizing" political and economic systems necessarily opposed to God's Kingdom. We were created to be free, but to act in concert with God's Spirit simultaneously. There is an enormous amount of liberty in the realm of "acting in love."

 

[timothyu]

However, I don't believe "Free Enterprise" implies autonomy from God.

As long as our will which is self oriented doesn't override God's will which is not. Scripture was clear, especially among the Way, that others must be considered before self.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, we agree on the definitions of Sin and Transgression. Sin is a willful corruption of God's Word. Transgression is a willful corruption of God's Law. As I see it, they are pretty much the same thing.

Almost.
Sin is missing the mark, imperfection.
While transgression is willful violation of a specific command with death penalty, as in the Garden and in the Mosaic law.

Paul seems to have indicated that there was no "law" prior to the Law of Moses. And yet it is stipulated, clearly, that there was Sin before the Law of Moses. So what did Paul mean by this?

He was referring to the imputed sin of Adam of which we were all guilty, and which caused the deaths of those between Adam and Moses, when there was no law to transgress (violation of specific command).

I think there is resident in this a potential misunderstanding. Paul is not saying there is no "law" prior to the Law of Moses in the sense that standards did not exist prior to the Law of Moses. Plainly, God had put man on earth to live according to His word and according to the standards of living in His own image.

Correct.
Paul is saying there were no specific commands with death penalty attached as in the Garden (Ge 2:17) and the Mosaic law.
And that being the case, then there should have been no death in the time period. . .but there was.
That is the conundrum. . .by which he demonstrates that imputed sin was the cause of death in that time.

His word was supplemented by the command to "avoid the Tree of Knowledge." That is "law," and that is "God's word," or standard of conduct for man. Clearly, "law" in its general sense did preexist the Law of Moses.

What word was supplanted?
That command (Ge 2:17) was the only law of the Garden, and it had a death penalty.

So what did Paul mean when he said there was no Law to transgress prior to the Law of Moses?

He meant that between the fall and the Mosaic law, there was no specific command of God to violate and cause death, as did Adam in the Garden, and after Sinai.

Quite simply he meant that God had not given the Law of Moses as a covenant that the nation could violate. Certainly, God's word to the consciences of every individual was already present in the world prior to the covenant made with Israel at Mt. Sinai.

Remember, the issue in Ro 5:12-14 is death.

God attached no physical death penalty to violation of conscience.
(However, he has attached spiritual damnation to it for not obeying it perfectly, Ro 2:14-16).

The idea, I think, was that Israel could not violate a covenant of national blessing prior to there actually being a covenant made yet. So prior to this kind of covenant of promised fellowship between God and Mankind there was nothing to either promote it or negate it. It came, by necessity, to show God's continuing mandate to have fellowship with Him, beginning this process with Abraham and Israel.
It was ultimately important that God did have specific standards for Mankind, and communicated various conditions in order to sustain a relationship with Him. People may not have met God's standards before the Law, but it was not manifestly evident what those standards were after the Fall of Mankind. What Sin was had to be further clarified, although it was already somewhat self-evident.

I'm still not sure about the language you use of "imputation," with respect to Sin, and it is questionable to me because you stated, matter of fact, that mankind does not inherit Sin.

Correct. . .imputation is not inheritance through birth. It is by direct action of God, as is imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

But you explain that we inherit a Sin Nature, as opposed to Sin, and I think that sounds reasonable the way you mean it. We do not inherit the guilt of the Sins of others. We inherit their vulnerability to Sin because a vulnerability has been opened up to poisonous knowledge that is to some extent irresistible. However, we can fight it and overcome it because "He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world."

I do believe, however, that we were born *in Sin.* What this means is that we have an inherent need to be cleansed of that Sin, whether it is a guilt associated with it or simply a vulnerability to it. If there is a guilt associated with it, and I think there is, then it is not that we're carrying the guilt of others, but rather, our own guilt, because the inclination towards Sin begins at birth. It is kind of a guilt by association with our Sin Nature.

Well done, again.

The guilt by association is actually association with Adam's sin imputed to us just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to us (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[RandyPNW]

Almost.
Sin is missing the mark, imperfection.
While transgression is willful violation of a specific command with death penalty, as in the Garden and in the Mosaic law.

Well yes, there are nuanced differences between different words, but I still see Sin and Transgression as related, or virtual synonyms. We disagree there.

He was referring to the imputed sin of Adam of which we were all guilty, and which caused the deaths of those between Adam and Moses, when there was no law to transgress (violation of specific command).

Again, I see no basis for the "imputation" of Adam and Eve's sin upon their offspring. It was actual Sin, or a Sin Nature, that was conveyed to their offspring.

Of course, this is not physical DNA or chemistry. Rather, this is what I like to call a kind of "Spiritual DNA," in which a person is born with a proclivity to sin, which is really a necessary inclination to Sin to the effect that Sin is instantly being committed, no matter how light the offence.

The moment a baby cries he or she is infected with the sin of selfishness and self-righteous anger. It happens without premeditation. As such, there are greater and lesser sins. A child's sin would of course be lesser.

Correct.
Paul is saying there were no specific commands with death penalty attached as in the Garden (Ge 2:17) and the Mosaic law.
And that being the case, then there should have been no death in the time period. . .but there was.

I don't really agree with this either--sorry! Of course there was "law" as a general concept between the Garden of Eden and the Law of Moses! There was always the call upon Man to live in God's Image--this was clear-cut Law! It was not the Mosaic Law but it was Law.

Paul's argument was that prior to the Mosaic Law there was a lack of definition such that Sin was not properly being ajudicated. It had to be manifested through a more vivid, spelled-out picture of what right and wrong was.

Of course, in Eden before the Fall, this was not necessary because there was no real knowledge of evil, in the sense of doing evil and know what that is like. But after the Fall, the human conscience was still active, and God still spoke to the human conscience. Paul was, I think, arguing that death continued to reign because Sin was still there, even though it needed greater explanation.

God called out a people to demonstrate what Sin was in a world that had become so immersed in the knowledge of Sin that they didn't know what it even was, and died regardless. Israel was to demonstrate what righteousness was, so that those in Sin could escape it. And they, at the same time, were called to show that the Sin thus revealed in their nature had to find a means of grace through repentance from Sin.

Correct. . .imputation is not inheritance through birth. It is by direct action of God, as is imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

I don't know what this means. Usually, "imputation" is not, by definition, a direct correlation--it is an "imputation." When we have Christ's righteousness imputed to us, so as to make us blameless by his perfect record, there is no real correlation between Christ and ourselves except by the placement of His real Spirit within us. Our different records, between Christ's perfection and our imperfection, remain.

Regardless, I don't think our slight differences are of any great import. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will continue to think about some of the issues.

 

[timothyu]

The moment a baby cries he or she is infected with the sin of selfishness and self-righteous anger. It happens without premeditation. As such, there are greater and lesser sins. A child's sin would of course be lesser.

That's what happens when God creates a hybrid., part flesh part spirit. Either we become domesticated and follow the will of God, or we remain feral, or at least partly so and follow the will of man (like a tamed cat who occasionally bites) our fleshy instinctive nature.

 

[Clare73]

Well yes, there are nuanced differences between different words, but I still see Sin and Transgression as related, or virtual synonyms. We disagree there.
Again, I see no basis for the "imputation" of Adam and Eve's sin upon their offspring. It was actual Sin, or a Sin Nature, that was conveyed to their offspring.
Of course, this is not physical DNA or chemistry. Rather, this is what I like to call a kind of "Spiritual DNA," in which a person is born with a proclivity to sin, which is really a necessary inclination to Sin to the effect that Sin is instantly being committed, no matter how light the offence.

The moment a baby cries he or she is infected with the sin of selfishness and self-righteous anger. It happens without premeditation. As such, there are greater and lesser sins. A child's sin would of course be lesser.

I don't really agree with this either--sorry! Of course there was "law" as a general concept between the Garden of Eden and the Law of Moses! There was always the call upon Man to live in God's Image--this was clear-cut Law! It was not the Mosaic Law but it was Law.

Paul's argument was that prior to the Mosaic Law there was a lack of definition such that Sin was not properly being ajudicated. It had to be manifested through a more vivid, spelled-out picture of what right and wrong was.

Of course, in Eden before the Fall, this was not necessary because there was no real knowledge of evil, in the sense of doing evil and know what that is like. But after the Fall, the human conscience was still active, and God still spoke to the human conscience. Paul was, I think, arguing that death continued to reign because Sin was still there, even though it needed greater explanation.

God called out a people to demonstrate what Sin was in a world that had become so immersed in the knowledge of Sin that they didn't know what it even was, and died regardless. Israel was to demonstrate what righteousness was, so that those in Sin could escape it. And they, at the same time, were called to show that the Sin thus revealed in their nature had to find a means of grace through repentance from Sin.

I don't know what this means. Usually, "imputation" is not, by definition, a direct correlation--it is an "imputation." When we have Christ's righteousness imputed to us, so as to make us blameless by his perfect record, there is no real correlation between Christ and ourselves except by the placement of His real Spirit within us. Our different records, between Christ's perfection and our imperfection, remain.

Regardless, I don't think our slight differences are of any great import. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will continue to think about some of the issues.

Our differences are important in terms of doctrine (1 Tim 4:16).

Between sin and transgression is a matter of the Greek definitions and NT usage. Sin does not mean death, transgression does.

Between inheritance of sin nature (not of sin) and imputation of Adam's sin/guilt is the basis of all mankind's guilt of punishment at birth, not at his first offense.

Between "all sinned" (Ro 5:12) and "no one sinned as did Adam" (Ro 5:14) is the difference between sin and transgression (resulting in death).

Between sin nature and sin of transgression as the cause of death between Adam and Moses.

Between imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:18) and its pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[RandyPNW]

Our differences are important in terms of doctrine (1 Tim 4:16).

Suit yourself.

Between sin and transgression is a matter of the Greek definitions and NT usage. Sin does not mean death, transgression does.

Both Sin and Transgression results in death. I see no difference. Nobody is defining the word "Sin" as "death." Neither is the word "Transgression" defined as "death." So I don't understand your point?

I suppose you're just trying to convey what you think Romans 5 is teaching, that there is a gap between Adam and Moses in which nobody committed transgression because there was no law?

Between inheritance of sin nature (not of sin) and imputation of Adam's sin/guilt is the basis of all mankind's guilt of punishment at birth, not at his first offense.

I really can't make head nor tail out of this? To me we inherit a Sin Nature, yes. And it does make sense to me that we do not inherit somebody else's Sin. But I do believe we are *born in Sin.*

So I suppose you're saying that we inherit a Sin Nature from Adam because of the imputation of Adam's Sin to his offspring? If so, I don't use that language, and I don't really see that language. But perhaps it works for you?

My own view is that Adam commutes to his offspring his own spiritual DNA just as he commutes to his offspring his own physical DNA. I wouldn't say anything is "imputed," but if it works for you, fine.

Between "all sinned" (Ro 5:12) and "no one sinned as did Adam" (Ro 5:14) is the difference between sin and transgression (resulting in death).

I really think you're failing to understand the meaning of what Paul was saying. Paul is saying that Adam's offspring did not have commuted to them the guilt of Adam's Sin, even though his Sin Nature was in fact commuted to them.

Rom 5.13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Paul is saying that between the command God gave to Adam and the Law God gave to Moses there was no official set of rules by which Sin could be clearly determined. And he was saying that regardless, Sin was still taking place even without an official law of some kind, because the conscience was still answerable to God's verbal word to men.

Paul's point, then, is not that there was no word of guidance or "law," as such, but that there was no formal law by which Sin could be clarified in a world that had become inundated in the blindness of Sin. Having been opened, spiritually, to the knowledge of evil, men basically became blind without the help of God's word.

And that is why the Law was given to Moses, to set an example of truth in a single nation so that later all nations could be drawn to this light, after it had assumed its final form in Christ. Anyway, that's how I see it.

Between sin nature and sin of transgression as the cause of death between Adam and Moses.

Sorry, I can't see it that way. Sin Nature and Sin Transgression were both present between Adam and Moses. And that's why people died in that period. Perhaps I simply misunderstand you?

Between imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:18) and its pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

I understand the imputation of Christ's perfect record to us by grace, through the giving of Christ's Spirit to us. In receiving Christ spiritually, we are able to actually receive Christ as our perfection and as our eternal life without having to be perfect ourselves.

But I do not understand the imputation of Sin to us by Adam's Sin. It is true, however, that Adam's Sin Nature is commuted to his offspring by means of God's created order, the parents bestowing certain common elements upon their children.

It is not "imputed," but rather, conveyed. This involves a few technical distinctions, and I think we're going to have to use words that work for ourselves. individually?

In all honesty this is one of the most difficult statements of Paul that I've tried to understand throughout the years. And this is the only way I can understand it at present. Peter was really correct that at times Paul is difficult to understand. Somehow Paul seemed to see in Adam's transgression against the Command a picture of Christ who died under the Law to bring forgiveness and atonement for us.

But the point in our conversation is that between Adam and Moses, where there was no formal law, there was still Sin and Transgression, the "law" of that time not being formal, but strictly an operation of the conscience responding to God's verbal word to the human conscience. And so, Paul sees this period of time as evidence of a Sin Nature because death continued to reign even where it was not obvious that men were violate a technical command, such as God gave Adam or God gave Israel.

And the Sin Nature, during this period of time, clearly evidences both a Sin Nature and death, death being the consequence of a Sin Nature. The continuing presence of death indicated a continuing presence of a Sin Nature.

The Sin Nature is evident even without a technical body of Law or specific command because as Paul said, "Sin was in the world before the Law was given." And the definition of "Sin" is a violation of God's word, verbal and otherwise.

Paul was saying, I think, that Sin existed even without a formal body of law, such as Adam's command or Moses' Law. And it was evidenced not just by human rebellion against God's internal word at that time, but also by the continuing reality of death in their lives.

 

[Hawkins]

I guess the big picture is often missed.

God is to build a Heaven (which is the New Earth and New Heaven in the book of Revelation). Law is set up for the assessment of obedience of any entities with free will, including angels and humans. However the first lineage of humans (Adam and Eve) broke the Law and have to be driven out of God's realm (Eden is lying inside God's realm but not planet earth). For that matter humans on earth cannot get to what Law could mean, as virtually Law now is only reckoned by the angels.

God has to make use of its chosen people Israel to demonstrate what Law could mean to humans, such that they can understand what Grace could mean. That's the purpose of what Mosaic Law is in the perspective. That makes the term Law multi-fold. To the gentiles, yet another version of Law is written in our heart as our conscience. This gives another fold meaning of Law.

From the perspective of covenant then, "Law written to our heart as our conscience" is from the Noah covenant applicable to all mankind. We will be judged by this covenantal Law in the Final Judgment. Because the term Law is many-fold that even one can pass the Judgment of such a covenantal Law by no means says he can pass the Judgment of Law which is applicable to angels and humans alike, as covenants are aimed for humans only.

On the other hand, covenants have the effect of overlapping. The Noah covenant is born with us. When we are born the Noah covenant is bonded to us such that each of us is subject to a Judgment based on such a covenant. Then circumcision serves as a switch of covenant from the Noah covenant to a Jewish covenant such as the Mosaic covenant. The Jewish covenant is rather a series of covenants binding together for the different period of Jews starting from Abraham. The baptism signifies a switch to the New Covenant, from the Noah covenant for gentiles and Mosaic covenant for the Jews. By doing such a switch it by means says that the older covenant is forfeited. It's obsolete only when spoken in the perspective of Judgment. Say when you accepted Jesus by no means says that you don't need to follow your conscience to act, or you can sin at will. It says the older covenant is still in effect for you to follow. The New Covenant in effect will save you from where you failed to abide by Law (i.e., the covenantal one for only humans). It's however considered obsolete from the perspective that you are not judged by Law as at the first instance you broke it you are dead.

James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

As for the Jews, Paul ever urged Timothy to circumcise. It's because covenants overlap. A Jew still observes the Jewish laws to be called a Jew even after accepting Jesus. They have the privilege to be a gentile though if they choose to cease to observe the Jewish laws, that is, the Law of Mosaic covenant.

1 Timothy 1:9-10
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The original purpose of Law is for God to define what He hates, such that entities are evaluated before they can be qualified to enter Heaven. "sound doctrine" here points to the Law of a covenant and from the perspective of the Final Judgment. The Judgment of Law for both angels and humans is an objective judgment. Covenantal Judgment however is a subjective judgment made by the just and fair God who is Jesus Christ God the Son. The purpose of Law in the covenantal sense is to distinguish the righteous from the wicked, and thus for the punishment of the wicked. As humans as whole walking farther away from God, that is, even the righteous may failed the Law (covenantal sense) then a New Covenant must be in place serving the purpose of identifying the righteous (God's sheep) from the wicked.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, we agree on the definitions of Sin and Transgression.

Actually, we don't.

Sin is a willful corruption of God's Word. Transgression is a willful corruption of God's Law.
As I see it, they are pretty much the same thing.

Not in Scripture.

Suit yourself.

Both Sin and Transgression results in death.

Both do not result in death, which is why Adam's transgression is imputed to us, that God may lock up all men in transgression so that all must be subject to his mercy (Ro 11:32).

I see no difference.

Nobody is defining the word "Sin" as "death." Neither is the word "Transgression" defined as "death."
So I don't understand your point?

The difference is in Nu 15:24, 30 between unintentional and intentional sin, the former being forgivable, the latter not forgivable,
where unintentional sin requires sacrifice (Nu 15:24-26) and intentional sin (transgression of stated law) requires death (Nu 15:30-31).

As in the above, there is much to cover in your post, and I am going to leave the rest to you.

 

[RandyPNW]

Actually, we don't.

OK

Not in Scripture.

"Sin" and "Transgression" have word definitions. This doesn't require Scripture--just a Dictionary. Scripture provides context for these words. Then we can figure out if definition #1, 2 or 3 applies?

Both do not result in death, which is why Adam's transgression is imputed to us, that God may lock up all men in transgression so that all must be subject to his mercy (Ro 11:32).

Both Sin and Transgression result in Death, as I see it. To me, Sin is a Transgression against God's Word. It is breaking the Law of God, ie the generic Law of God--not just the Law of Moses.

The difference is in Nu 15:24, 30 between unintentional and intentional sin, the former being forgivable, the latter not forgivable,
where unintentional sin requires sacrifice (Nu 15:24-26) and intentional sin (transgression of stated law) requires death (Nu 15:30-31).

All sin under the Law required sacrifice. It's just that there were different prescriptions. For example, sacrifices were made for all Israel every morning and every evening, and did not even have to be brought by individuals. They were being covered for their Sin Nature all the time!

By "intentional Sin" Moses was talking about the Sin of rebellion against God, which did not have a prescription for reconciliation. How can you reconcile someone whose purpose in Sinning is to separate?

That's how I look at use of the term "intentional Sin"--it was something that couldn't be pardoned if there was no real intention to admit Sin and reconcile with God.

As in the above, there is much to cover in your post, and I am going to leave the rest to you.

It was an interesting subject to me because over many years I've asked these kinds of questions. And some of this is what I've had to conclude.

I'm not saying I have it down--just sharing my thoughts on the matter. If what I share doesn't help, that's okay. Take care....

 

[Soyeong]

Our salvation is not just from Sin but also from the Law as a system. That is transparently clear from Paul in Galatians.

In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from God's law, but to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in the redemption that Jesus secured for us through the cross (Acts 21:20).

Gal 3.2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

In Acts 5:32, the Spirit has been given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:1-3 denies that "works of the law" are part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore that phrase does not refer to obedience to God's law. In Romans 3:27-31, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works while he said that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-12.

The entire purpose of the Law, according to Paul, was to show Israel that man, apart from Christian redemption, could not achieve atonement for sin, apart from Christian Grace. This would amount to an effort by the "flesh" to obtain self-atonement, once Christ had already achieved that for which the Law had really come!

Nowhere does the Bible say that that is the entire purpose of the Mosaic Law or even that that is one of its purposes. God did not given His law as instruction for how to obtain self-atonement. God is trustworthy, therefore His instructions are also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to trust God is by obediently trusting in His instructions, while it is contradictory to think that obtain self-atonement by trusting in God's instructions.

The purpose of the Law was to get Israel to *live in Christ* once he had come. To remain in the Law would be to ignore God's final word on redemption. The Law was just a temporary word from God leading to His final word on redemption.

Indeed, the people of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to live in Christ and once we do that we should remain in him by continuing to obey it rather than reject him by returning to our lawlessness.

John said that Sin is the transgression of the Law, not at all meaning that transgressing the Law is solely the source of Sin. On the contrary, Paul argued that Sin preexisted the Law, meaning that God's Law preceded the Law of Moses.

Rom 5.12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given.

And Israel's Sin, as defined under the Law, was purely an example of what the whole Human Race does without the Law. We all transgress God's Law from the beginning, which was not the Law of Moses, but rather, the Law of living in God's Image.

Rom 3.19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact image of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), which he practiced by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so it is the Law of living in God's image. God's nature is eternal, sin is what is eternally contrary to God's nature, and the Mosaic Law is God's eternal instructions for how to distinguish between what is in accordance with or contrary to His nature. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so any laws that God has ever given for how to testify about His righteousness are eternal valid (Psalms 119:160). Sin can be in the world before the Mosaic Law was given because people could act in a way that was contrary to God's nature before they had been instructed laws to refrain from doing that. Moreover, Romans 5:13 means that there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the Mosaic Law was given, but rather it revealed wha has always been and will always be the way to do that.

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded without departing from it, so the Law of Moses was given by God and is thus the Law of God, which is why it is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

In Galatians 3:16-19, a new covenant does not nullify the promise of a covenant that has already been ratified, so it does not remove our need to obey the Mosaic Law in accordance with the promise.

The Law did liberate Israel from the curses that came down upon them when they failed under the Law. But they were still bound by the 613 commands or so of the Law. And Paul said that was a bondage that Christ now has freed us from in order to free us from its condemnation.


We are freed from both the Law and its condemnation when we choose to live in Christ now that he has come. We have no need to portray a need for redemption through the rituals of the Law when we have freedom from condemnation by living in Christ.

God does not put His people into bondage, but rather He frees us from bondage. In Psalms 119:142, the Law of Moses is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of the Mosaic Law that puts us in bondage while it is the truth that sets us free. Again, Christ did not free us from the Mosaic Law so that we could be free to do what is reveals to be sin, but rather he freed us from all lawlessness. While there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Romans 8:1), those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so Romans 8:1 is only speak about those who are walking in obedience to the Mosaic Law. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ because he gave himself to pay the penalty for our sin, which should make us want to go and sin no more, not consider ourselves free to do what God has revealed through His law to be sin.

Gal 6.12

Paul was a servant of God, so he should not be interpreted as teaching us to rebel against him, but rather he only spoke against become circumcise for incorrect purposes. In Acts 15:1, the were wanting to required all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect purpose.

Jesus warned that Pharisees would use the traditions of the Law as a self-effort to obtain Salvation in order to bind them in submission to themselves.

If God's law was given as instructions for how to earn our salvation through our own efforts and God does not want us to do that, then it follows that God therefore does not want to be obeyed, which is completely absurd, therefore God's law was not given as instructions for how to earn our salvation through our own efforts.

Laws do not achieve "spiritual submission" to Christ! They are just a tool of men to get us to conform to a tradition they themselves are hoping to establish.

The laws of God are not tools of men.

You are conflating OT and NT truth. Christ, under the Law, wanted Israel to be free from the bondage of sin in their lives, which is indeed a bondage when men do not rely upon the Spirit of God for their righteousness. There is a vacuum in our lives, and we must either turn to God's word in our conscience or to our own independent ways, which are enslaved to Sin.

The Mosaic Law is truth (Psalms 119:142) and Jesus embodied that truth by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to it (John 14:6), so truth does not change between the OT and the NT. Christ freed us from the law of sin so that we could be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.

Although Christ indeed wanted men to live properly under the Law while that system was still in effect, he also anticipated a time when men would no longer "worship in Jerusalem" or "at the temple." And so, Jesus promoted righteousness both while the Law remained in effect and after the cross would end all human efforts to be justified under the Law.

The Law was never designed to promote a "self-effort" at justifying one's self. Rather, it was designed to show the futility of that effort, by showing not just the need to live by God's Spirit but also to show that final redemption could only come by the perfect man, Jesus. We must live in him, and no longer under the Law, which was a temporary system.

Gal 3.19

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so none of them are temporary. Instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be temporary unless God is also temporary. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law, and in Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth, so obedience to it is the way to worship God in spirit and in truth.

The Mosaic Law was never given as a way of earning our justification even through perfect obedience and was never given to show the futility of trying to earn our justification. It doesn't even make sense to think that God gave a law for the purpose of showing us that we can earn our justification by obeying it. when He could have just never given it in the first place. There is no connection between obeying what God has instructed and earning our justification, but rather than has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of why we should obey God. According to 1 John 2:6, everyone who is in Christ is under the Mosaic Law. Christ did not go around telling people to stop repenting because God's law was temporary, but rather he came with the Gospel message calling for us to repent and return to obedience to the Mosaic Law.

That is a complete misrepresentation of Paul's words and theology, which clearly saw an "expiration date" on the Law of Moses, which was at the Cross where Jesus said, "It is finished."

Paul said in Romans 3:31 that our faith does no abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet instead of upholding by faith you seek to abolish it while accusing me of misrepresenting Paul's words?

In Titus 2:14, it describes what Jesus finished on the cross by saying that he gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what he finished through the cross.

Don't listen to Elijah, don't listen to Moses--just listen to Jesus.

The same God who gave the law to Moses also sent Jesus to fulfill the promise and bless us by teaching us to obey it, so there is no disagreement (Acts 3:25-26).

Unfortunately, you've been misled and need to get back to "Christ alone," if you have even ever been there! My interest is in your spiritual wholeness. And I want others to not be distracted by a "return to the Law" and to experience unbridled spiritual wholeness, as well.

Christ is the embodiment of God's word, so us embodying God's word through following his example of obedience to it is the way to have faith in him alone. It is contradictory to contrast God's word with God's word made flesh.

It was a spirituality problem, a spirituality vs. carnality problem--the need to be spiritually born again.

In Acts 5:32, the Spirit has been given to those who obey God. In John 16:13, the Spirit has the role of leading us in truth, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law, and in Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth. In John 16:8, the Spirit has the role of convicting us of sin, and in Romans 3:20, it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of sin. In Romans 8:4-14, those who are born again and walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have carnal minds who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Mosaic Law. In Galatians 5:19-23, everything listed as carnal works that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 30:6), and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Mosaic Law. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Mosaic Law are not born again.

Sin is not restricted to the Law--the Law was only given to Israel.

God's nature is eternal, sin is what is eternally against God's nature, and God's law is His eternal instructions for how to divide between which actions testify about or against His nature.

They went from being carnal, or living by their own will, to living in partnership with God, drawing exclusively upon His spirituality.

Partnership with God is in accordance with obeying His laws for how to do that.

The Law was a temporary system that was indeed "spiritual" and "according to God's word" as long as that system remained in effect and was not yet fulfilled. Once Christ fulfilled that system by replacing it with its eternal fulfillment, following the Law became a carnal system just like any pagan system.

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), not temporary. "To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known through His law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5:17-20, he then proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it as it should be. This has nothing to do with abolishing in and replacing it with a different system, especially because Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law is contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it in addition to warning against relaxing the least part of it. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the law of Christ, which again refers to correctly obeying it, but you do not consistently interpret that as replacing the Law of Christ with a different system. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that that Christ replaced the Mosaic Law with a different system or that one he had fulfilled it that obeying it became a carnal system like any pagan system. It will never be carnal to do things like help the poor or to refrain from commenting adultery, but rather carnal works are those done in disobedience to the Mosaic Law.

What the prophecy of the "new heart" really says, and the part that is significant, is that it says a brand *new* covenant would replace the previous covenant of Law...

Jer 31.31

You should not interpret Jeremiah 31:31 in a way that contradicts Jeremiah 31:33. Both the New Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant command against committing adultery, so saying that that the New Covenant is not like the Mosaic Covenant is not saying that they have nothing in common, but rather there are similarities and differences. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so following the Mosaic Law is not one of the ways that the New Covenant is not like the Mosaic Covenant.

Grace is not a return to the Law such as when people made an error under the Law and reconciled with God under prescription of the Law. Neither is Grace a restoration of the Law after that system has been destroyed.

God is gracious to us by teaching us to obey the Mosaic Law (Psalms 119:29, Exodus 33:13, Genesis 6:8-9, Romans 1:5, Titus 2:11-14). You have your own doctrine of grace apart from what the Bible teaches. Christ lived in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so we can't live in him while refusing to live in the way that he lived.

 

[Clare73]

OK

"Sin" and "Transgression" have word definitions. This doesn't require Scripture--just a Dictionary. Scripture provides context for these words. Then we can figure out if definition #1, 2 or 3 applies?

Their definitions are from the original languages as used in Scripture.
The Biblical meanings of sin and transgression and the consequences of each are seen in Nu 15:24-31.

 

[RandyPNW]

Their definitions are from the original languages as used in Scripture.
The Biblical meanings of sin and transgression and the consequences of each are seen in Nu 15:24-31.

That passage seems to deal with Sin Offerings and Unintentional Sins. I fail to see how this applies to the biblical definitions of "Sin" And "Transgression?"

As I said, I think "Intentional Sin" refers to the Sin of rebelling against the Lord. If someone consciously rejects God as their Lord, and goes their own way, there can be no forgiveness for them.

Heb 6.4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

The above passage is an example of Intentional Sin. When someone who has known and experienced Christ decides it's not what he or she wants, and turns back to the world, there remains no other source of forgiveness. Christ is the only source of Eternal Life. If one turns away from Christ, there is no other way for him to get Eternal Life.

Under the Law it was the same. If one intentionally turned away from God's Law after coming to witness God's power, miracles, and spiritual blessings, there will be no other place for him to find forgiveness and life, and no place for him to find spiritual blessings. There is one way, one truth, and one source of life--the Lord.

 

[Clare73]

That passage seems to deal with Sin Offerings and Unintentional Sins. I fail to see how this applies to the biblical definitions of "Sin" And "Transgression?"

The passage states the difference between unintentional missing the mark (sin) and intentional violation of God's express command (transgression), showing that the penalty for the intentional is death, as in the Garden, while no death penalty is affixed for the unintentional.

Ro 5:12-14 presents no transgression between Adam and Moses because there were no express commands of God punishable by death.
Yet they all died. . .because of the imputation to them of the sin of Adam, "who was a pattern (Ro 5:14) of the one to come," whose righteousness would likewise be imputed (Ro 3:22-23, 4:1-11, 5:18-19).

Of what could the sinful Adam possibly be a pattern of the righteous Christ?
Imputation.

Imputation of righteous and imputation of sin are paralleled in Ro 5:18-19.
Righteousness is imputed (Ro 3:22-24) " just as" sin is imputed (Ro 5:18).

 

[RandyPNW]

The passage states the difference between unintentional missing the mark (sin) and intentional violation of God's express command (transgression), showing that the penalty for the intentional is death, as in the Garden, while no death penalty is affixed for the unintentional.

Okay, I get that now. But I fail to see that the words "Sin" and "Transgression" are being specifically defined as different in this passage? The words "Intentional" and "Unintentional" are used, but not "Sins" and "Transgressions."

You seem to identify "Sin" with "Unintentional" and "Transgression" with "Intentional?" But this association isn't specifically stated, and thus are not being "defined" as such. In reality, this is how *you* define the terms "Sin" and "Transgression"--not the Bible.

Ro 5:12-14 presents no transgression between Adam and Moses because there were no express commands of God punishable by death.

Yes, I do understand your argument here, although I think that is a misrepresentation of what is actually being indicated. Paul, unfortunately, abbreviates a lot, though I don't blame him due to the volume of the information on the subject. He is saying that there was no specific "command" in the time between Adam's Command and Moses' Law.

But essentially, he is saying, I think, that there was no *formal command* by which it could be clearly determined what the transgression was. I don't believe he was saying that the general concept of "law" did not exist. On the contrary, he stated that "Sin" continued to exist at this time. And I would argue that Sin, by definition, indicates a transgression against God's law is taking place.

Note: The author of Hebrews makes this same kind of abbreviated statement when speaking of Melchizedek. He said there was no history for this man, indicating he symbolized Christ's eternal existence. But he was only saying that there was no "formal record" for Melchizedek's life, indicating not that he had no mortal existence, but rather, that the lack of any formal record makes him an apt symbol of Christ's eternal priesthood.

By implication, this suggests that Moses' Law came into being to formalize a greater body of Law, specifically for a nation, so that the nation could better clarify what God's internal law for Man is. It existed clearly in Adam's time, but it did not exist so clearly after Adam sinned. The knowledge of Evil obscured the knowledge of the Good such that Law had to be both given and magnified to clarify precisely what Man should be doing at a time that he wasn't doing it.

Yet they all died. . .because of the imputation to them of the sin of Adam, "who was a pattern (Ro 5:14) of the one to come," whose righteousness would likewise be imputed (Ro 4:1-11, 5:18-19).

To me, these are 2 distinctly different concepts.
1) Adam's Sin is imputed, you say, to his offspring. I wouldn't put it in these words, but I understand it to some degree.

Adam did communicate to his offspring his spiritual nature, which is the Sin Nature. This was, I think, a product of Man's creation, in which the parents communicate to their children certain qualities that precede the actual choices of the children. Like physical DNA, the parents communicate a spiritual DNA to their children, quite apart from their choice.

2) Adam was a pattern of Christ. Adam transgressed the command of God given specifically to him. This typified what Christ did to undo the effect of Adam's transgression.

Whereas Adam transgressed the Law, incurring guilt associated with the Sin Nature for all of his offspring, Christ did the opposite. He suffered the judgment of human violations against the Law so as to forgive all Sin and thus restore Man's relationship to God by grace.

The common element between Adam and Christ was God's Law, which separated God and Man for Adam but which bridged the gap between God and Man for Christ. The Law, I use, in the more general sense of "God's Eternal Word," as opposed to the technical application to the formal Law of Moses.

Clare, I don't claim to be "clear" on these matters. It's just how it best makes sense to me, based on what I'm reading. But you're welcome to describe it the best you understand it. You're welcome to do that. Thanks.

 

[Clare73]

Okay, I get that now.

One down. . .

But I fail to see that the words "Sin" and "Transgression" are being specifically defined as different in this passage? The words "Intentional" and "Unintentional" are used, but not "Sins" and "Transgressions."
You seem to identify "Sin" with "Unintentional" and "Transgression" with "Intentional?" But this association isn't specifically stated, and thus are not being "defined" as such. In reality, this is how *you* define the terms "Sin" and "Transgression"--not the Bible.

It is not me but Paul, in the Bible, who refers to the distinction as "sin" vs. "transgression" in Ro 5:14; i.e., "whose sin was not transgression," the penalty of transgression being death.
They committed no transgression "like the transgression of Adam" (Ro 5:14), yet they paid the penalty for transgression (Ge 2:17, natural death).

That is the conundrum Paul presents in Ro 5:12-14 which demonstrates that, though they themselves committed no transgression between Adam and Moses, nevertheless, they died of the guilt of Adam's transgression imputed to them, "who is a type of the one to come." (Ro 5:14)

The imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:18) is a type/pattern of the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

Yes, I do understand your argument here, although I think that is a misrepresentation of what is actually being indicated. Paul, unfortunately, abbreviates a lot, though I don't blame him due to the volume of the information on the subject. He is saying that there was no specific "command" in the time between Adam's Command and Moses' Law.
But essentially, he is saying, I think, that there was no *formal command* by which it could be clearly determined what the transgression was. I don't believe he was saying that the general concept of "law" did not exist.

Nor is that being claimed.
As on a small private island, there is no legislated law, but that does not mean the concept of law does not exist among them.

On the contrary, he stated that "Sin" continued to exist at this time.

Yes, sin existed during that time, for they were all guilty of the imputed sin of Adam, which is why they all died natural deaths, for the wages of sin (Ro 6:23).

And I would argue that Sin, by definition, indicates a transgression against God's law is taking place.
Note: The author of Hebrews makes this same kind of abbreviated statement when speaking of Melchizedek. He said there was no history for this man, indicating he symbolized Christ's eternal existence. But he was only saying that there was no "formal record" for Melchizedek's life, indicating not that he had no mortal existence, but rather, that the lack of any formal record makes him an apt symbol of Christ's eternal priesthood.
By implication, this suggests that Moses' Law came into being to formalize a greater body of Law, specifically for a nation, so that the nation could better clarify what God's internal law for Man is. It existed clearly in Adam's time,

Right about Melchizedek, but it doesn't imply anything about law in Adam's time.
There was only one law in the Garden, "Thou shalt not eat of it. And if you do, you die."
There was no other law in the Garden.
Man did not have a sinful nature and did not need law in the Garden to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).
After the Garden, no specific commands, "Thou shalt not," with death penalties, were given between Adam and Moses to be transgressed.

but it did not exist so clearly after Adam sinned. The knowledge of Evil obscured the knowledge of the Good such that Law had to be both given and magnified to clarify precisely what Man should be doing at a time that he wasn't doing it.

To me, these are 2 distinctly different concepts.
1) Adam's Sin is imputed, you say, to his offspring. I wouldn't put it in these words, but I understand it to some degree.

"Imputed" is God's word for accounting Christ's righteousness to us (Ro 3:22-24), which accounting is paralleled (Ro 5:18-19) with Adam's sin being accounted to us (Ro 5:18).

Adam did communicate to his offspring his spiritual nature, which is the Sin Nature. This was, I think, a product of Man's creation, in which the parents communicate to their children certain qualities that precede the actual choices of the children. Like physical DNA, the parents communicate a spiritual DNA to their children, quite apart from their choice.

Yes, man did inherit Adam's sinful nature (making us objects of wrath by nature, Eph 2:3). He did not inherit Adam's sin (Eze 18:20).
Adam's sin is imputed, as Christ's righteousness is imputed (Ro 3:22-24).

2) Adam was a pattern of Christ. Adam transgressed the command of God given specifically to him. This typified what Christ did to undo the effect of Adam's transgression.

However, a pattern/type is a form from which something is copied.
Transgression is not a copy (pattern/type) of obedience.
But the type/pattern in Ro 5:14 of Adam's imputation, is a pattern of Christ's imputation (Ro 4:1-11).

And those imputations of Adam and Christ are paralleled in Ro 5:18-19:
Just as Adam. . .so also (in the same manner) Christ. . .(Ro 5:18).
Just as Adam. . .so also (in the same manner) Christ. . .(Ro 5:19).
So how did Christ bring justification (Ro 5:18) and righteousness (Ro 5:19) to mankind?. . .It was by imputation (Ro 3:22-24).
Then, that is how Adam brought condemnation (Ro 5:18) and sin (Ro 5:19) to mankind. . .by imputation.
The parallels allow no other meaning than both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness are applied in the same manner, by imputation.

Whereas Adam transgressed the Law, incurring guilt associated with the Sin Nature for all of his offspring, Christ did the opposite. He suffered the judgment of human violations against the Law so as to forgive all Sin and thus restore Man's relationship to God by grace.
The common element between Adam and Christ was God's Law, which separated God and Man for Adam but which bridged the gap between God and Man for Christ. The Law, I use, in the more general sense of "God's Eternal Word," as opposed to the technical application to the formal Law of Moses.

Clare, I don't claim to be "clear" on these matters. It's just how it best makes sense to me, based on what I'm reading. But you're welcome to describe it the best you understand it. You're welcome to do that. Thanks.

Give some thought, concentration and study of the Scriptures in the Holy Spirit to the above. He will enlighten you.

 

[RandyPNW]

One down. . .

It is Paul in the Bible who refers to the distinction as "sin" vs. "transgression" in Ro 5:14; i.e., "whose sin was not transgression," the penalty of transgression being death.
They committed no transgression "like the transgression of Adam" (Ro 5:14), yet they paid the penalty for transgression (Ge 2:17, natural death).

That is Paul, and not a distinction the Law was making. Paul was speaking specifically to the occasion in which a person commits "transgression," or "sin, against a formal command. By definition, as I said, a "sin," or a "transgression," is by definition a violation against some kind of law, if even not some kind of formal command.

Paul was *not* distinguishing between "sin" and "transgression," but rather, between a transgression against a formal command and transgression against an informal command.

Rom 5.13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Paul is here clearly stating that "sin" existed in a time when there was no formal command "like" the one Adam transgressed. That means sin existed and was some kind of transgression--just not like the kind that Adam committed under a direct, formal command. The Law of Moses, and no formal set of rules, existed in the time between Adam's Fall and the giving of the Law of Moses to Israel.

That is the conundrum Paul presents which demonstrates that, though they themselves committed no transgression between Adam and Moses, nevertheless, they died of the guilt of Adam's transgression imputed to them, "who is a type of the one to come." (Ro 5:14)

It depends on what you mean by death under the "guilt of Adam?" Adam had his own guilt, and his offspring could *not* carry the guilt of his own sin! It is written in the Prophets that a man should not carry his parent's guilt, but should bear their own guilt for their own wrong-doing.

But yes, the consequences of Adam's wrong-doing, which was accompanied by his own guilt, had an effect upon his offspring. They were born with a Sin Nature, with a predilection towards sinning, with an inclination towards rebellion against God's word.

But as the Scriptures and God said: we can overcome this sin tendency--not perfectly, but we can "overcome" it. We just needed, as fallen people, to be cleansed from sin so that we may reign in heaven with Christ forever, after receiving immortal, sinless bodies.

And those imputations of Adam and Christ are paralleled in Ro 5:18-19: Just as Adam. . .so also (in the same manner) Christ. . . (Ro 5:18).
Just as Adam. . .so also (in the same manner) Christ. . .(Ro 5:19).
So how did Christ bring justification (Ro 5:18) and righteousness (Ro 5:19) to mankind?. . .It is by imputation (Ro 4:22-24).

I do see where you're coming from, and to some extent it is true. I just don't use the language of "imputation" with respect to Adam's guilt. It is rather, a transference of Sin Nature from Adam to all of his descendants.

But with Christ it is somewhat different. It is a transference of Christ himself, and his spiritual nature, to all those who put their faith in him.

Imputation is not the word I choose to use. But if that works for you, fine. To me, it is more than an "imputation"--it is an actual *transfer* of substance from one to the many, in both cases.

In the case of Adam, what is transferred is a Sin Nature, but not the guilt. In the case of Christ, it is a righteous nature, and not just an imputation of Christ's sinless record. It is Christ's *sinless record* that is imputed to us. But we certainly bear the consequences of Adam's failed record when we inherit his Sin Nature.

Give some thought, concentration and study of the Scriptures in the Holy Spirit to the above. He will enlighten you.

Clare, I get my enlightenment and revelations from God, and not always from brothers and sisters in the Lord. I will put things in words that I think best express what the Bible teaches us. You can do the same.

 

[Clare73]

That is Paul, and not a distinction the Law was making. Paul was speaking specifically to the occasion in which a person commits "transgression," or "sin, against a formal command. By definition, as I said, a "sin," or a "transgression," is by definition a violation against some kind of law, if even not some kind of formal command.

That is Paul, with the authority of Christ (Lk 10:16), applying the OT (the time between Adam and Moses) distinction between sin and transgression.

Paul was *not* distinguishing between "sin" and "transgression,"

You'll have to take that up with Paul because he said he was: "whose sin was not like the transgression of Adam." (Ro 5:14).

but rather, between a transgression against a formal command and transgression against an informal command.

Okay, let's go with that. . .their being no "formal" command with death penalty to transgress (Ro 5:13),
and their being only "informal" command without death penalty to transgress,
you say they died by transgressing the informal command without death penalty?

No, they died neither of transgression of a command with death penalty. . .of which there was none,
nor of transgression of a command without death penalty. . .which would be unjust,
but rather of sin imputed to them. . .and which was the pattern for (Ro 5:14) righteousness imputed to them (Ro 3:22-24).

Rom 5.13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
Paul is here clearly stating that "sin" existed in a time when there was no formal command "like" the one Adam transgressed.

And. . .they died when there was no formal command with death penalty.

Paul is presenting the imputed sin of Adam as causing their deaths.

That means sin existed and was some kind of transgression--just not like the kind that Adam committed under a direct, formal command. The Law of Moses, and no formal set of rules, existed in the time between Adam's Fall and the giving of the Law of Moses to Israel.
It depends on what you mean by death under the "guilt of Adam?" Adam had his own guilt, and his offspring could *not* carry the guilt of his own sin! It is written in the Prophets that a man should not carry his parent's guilt, but should bear their own guilt for their own wrong-doing.
But yes, the consequences of Adam's wrong-doing, which was accompanied by his own guilt, had an effect upon his offspring. They were born with a Sin Nature, with a predilection towards sinning, with an inclination towards rebellion against God's word.
But as the Scriptures and God said: we can overcome this sin tendency--not perfectly, but we can "overcome" it. We just needed, as fallen people, to be cleansed from sin so that we may reign in heaven with Christ forever, after receiving immortal, sinless bodies.

I do see where you're coming from, and to some extent it is true. I just don't use the language of "imputation" with respect to Adam's guilt.

So you prefer your notions rather than God's notions revealed by Paul in his clear parallel of the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 3:22-24, 5:18-19) just as Adam's sin (Ro 5:18-19). . .where Adam was the pattern of Christ's (Ro 5:14) imputation of righteousness (Ro 3:22-24, 5:18-19) in just as (Adam). . .so also (Christ) (Ro 5:18-19)?

It is rather, a transference of Sin Nature from Adam to all of his descendants.

Sin nature is by inheritance, guilt of Adam's sin is by imputation, as in its parallel (Ro 5:18-19) to Christ's righteousness (Ro 3:22-24),
while none are by "transference."

It would be better that you stop now and give yourself to study of Ro 3-5 in the light of the Holy Spirit's illumination.