- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,390
- 519
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
We disagree on that. Again...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.
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.
You have "sin" in vs. 13 and "sin," more specifically in vs. 14, "breaking a command," which *you* are calling a "transgression"--Paul is not calling it that.
All sin, by definition, is a transgression. Paul would have no need to explain it as that. Paul is merely saying that Adam had sinned by "breaking a formal command," to not partake of the Tree of Knowledge.
Opposed to this was Paul's sense that following Adam's failure was a period of time between that and the giving of the Law of Moses in which such commands were not given. Paul does *not* specify that Adam's sin was a "transgression," different from any other sin other than the fact that it was committed against a specific command.
All sins are transgressions against God's word, But Adam's sin was committed against a formal, recognized Law. That was a specific kind of transgression, although all sins are examples of transgressions.
The only difference in Adam's particular transgression is that it was committed against a formal command. Paul does *not* say that the sins committed during the period following Adam's sin were *not* transgressions! Paul does *not* define "sin" as different than "transgressions." You are the one saying that--not Paul. Sorry I'm getting repetitive, but I need to make my argument perfectly clear.
No, of course not. Paul is saying that there was a death penalty throughout, from the time of Adam's Fall, through the period that followed, to the time of the Law of Moses. There never stopped being a death penalty, which God imposed upon Adam and upon all of the sons of Adam, once they had partaken of the Tree of Knowledge via Adam. Why are you saying there was *not* a death penalty?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).
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?
This is a misreading. Paul is *not* saying there was no death penalty. He is just saying that it is taking place without violation of, without transgression against, a formal command such as Adam had been faced with.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,
In other words, no formal law had to exist to condemn Man in order to impose the continuing death penalty upon Adam's offspring. The Law of Moses came not to reinstitute the death penalty, but to manifest to a much higher degree the sins for which men were dying. Making the sins clearer would make clearer the need for Christ to atone for sin in order to fix the problem of death.
I already addressed our different wording with respect to "imputation" or "transference" of the Sin Nature. I don't believe in a transference of Adam's guilt to his offspring, but only a transference of Adam's Sin Nature to his offspring. You don't have to agree. If you don't have anymore on this, we'll have to let it go.but rather of sin imputed to them. . .and which was the pattern for (Ro 5:14) righteousness imputed to them (Ro 4:22-24).
Your views are not necessarily God's views! I see an imputation of Christ's perfect record to our account. I don't see an imputation of Adam's guilt to our account.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 4:22-24, 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 4:22-24, 5:18-19) in just as (Adam). . .so also (Christ) (Ro 5:18-19)?
The Sin Nature was transferred hereditarily to Adam's offspring. The Righteous Nature of Christ was transferred by gift to God's children through the atonement of Christ. I don't prefer to call this "imputation" because it doesn't seem precise.
Again, I don't see Adam's guilt as either imputed or transferred to his offspring. I only see the *Sin Nature* transferred, though not imputed.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 4:22-24),
while none are by "transference."
Oh, I see--you view yourself as my teacher! Well, you know the Scriptures--the mountains and hills will be brought low, and the low places will be raised up, so that we all together will see the salvation of God. Meditate on that, sister. You're no better than me.It would be better that you stop now and give yourself to study of Ro 4-5 in the light of the Holy Spirit's illumination.
Last edited:
Upvote
0