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

daq said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wrong again; the 'like' rating does not mean 'agree'. In fact, there is an 'agree' rating for that. I have often liked something someone said, but did not agree.

MQ had said:
"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."

Clare73 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Of course, —Paid for by Christ, all of it.

And, of course not, —We are nowhere near able to be aware of all our sin, nor all of what Christ paid. And that, not only in specificity of each event and its legal background, and causes, but in the absolute horror of what sin, and each sin, entailed, and therefore, in what Christ undertook on our behalf! This necessarily, to my mind, MUST include the rebellion behind the sin. (My parents, when I was a child, were [rightly] as sure to correct the obvious rebellious attitude behind my disobedience, tantrum or sulk, as they were to correct the deed or words that came of it.)

MQ:
"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."

Clare73 said:

Not understanding how anything is overlooked in the application by faith of Christ's payment for anyone's sin.

Click to expand...

Right. But I'm referring to pre-Sinai. I'm saying that it seems to me like, if the sins of those pre-Sinai are not accounted to them, then also, Christ need not pay for them —or am I missing something? After all, they were both 1. at enmity with God, (as a result of Adam's sin), and 2. disobedient in committing deeds according to that propensity all sinful flesh has.

Post Sinai, rather obviously, 1 and 2 are taken care of by Christ's sacrifice. To my mind, pre-Sinai, 1 and 2 are also taken care of by Christ's sacrifice, but {if, as Paul seems to say, their sin was not (notice I did not say sin "is not" as Paul does) accounted to them, then it seems reasonable to say that their sin was not paid for, nor even can be considered sin}. I just cannot, at this point, swallow {that}. (Pardon the brackets—I'm trying to avoid confusion as to what my objection is). Are not those deeds they committed described as sin and disobedience in many different places and ways throughout the whole Bible? Is so, why, if it is not accounted to them?

I'm writing this detail down here so I don't forget to address it —does it not say in Romans 2:15 that the law is written in their hearts, as also in Romans 1 that they are (and I think, were also pre-Sinai) without excuse? Also, it does say, "those who sin apart from the law..." implying that indeed it is, or was (?), sin, though not because of Sinai.

(This is funny to me, and pardon the interruption, but I find myself wondering, since my eyes don't work well together when I am tired, if reasoning is better by using the left or the right eye!)

MQ:
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?

Clare73 said:

Does Paul intend they be law? Does he not clearly state in Romans 5:12-14 that he does not intend they be law?
Likewise, was there an explicit death penalty attached to those commands at the time, or are we just assuming such? 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).

Click to expand...

All that makes sense to me, as I read it, except that I still have misgivings about whether in Romans 5:14 Paul actually applies the principle he uses rhetorically (if 'rhetorical' is his use —it may not be merely rhetorical, as you have insisted it is not) to sins pre-Sinai. My mind also objects, too, because, as I mentioned above, Romans 2:15 says they had law written on their hearts. The thought comes to me, also, that it may be relevant what is said in James 1:14, 15 that sin when it has fully grown results in death. Or is that only spiritual death? Only physical? I don't know. (I'm saying, if as a pervasive principle, sin grown results in death, does that not apply to sin pre-Sinai? Is this principle part of the death promised to Adam? As you may have noticed, while I see an obvious difference between the one penalty for sin (natural death by Adam's sin) and the other for sins (the wages of sin(s)), I have a hard time separating them. They may not be all of a lump, but they are of the same nature, and, to my mind at least, always bear the same penalty.

To sum, I still think Paul is saying that those pre-Sinai are not responsible to Moses' law, (even if they are responsible to the law written on their heart); and, no matter how much I would like to agree with you, I can't yet wrap my mind around the notion that it is possible for God to remain just if he merely forgives, or merely fails to account, rebellion against himself without payment made. In fact, that has been one of my best accusations against Islam, that God is not merely merciful, to forgive, but that sin cannot be merely overlooked, but that sacrifice must be made, or the sin remains.

Clare73 said:

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).

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.

Click to expand...

Hi Clare73,

Ok then, let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start

In Genesis 4 Cain's offering is rejected and Cain is dejected. God comes to talk to Cain and makes these comments which are antithetical to your premise that before Moses sin is merely "the imputation of Adam's guilt."


Now here's the interesting part. In my response to expos4ever and my interpretation of Romans 5:13 you suggested that I was implying that Paul got it wrong. expos4ever says that Romans 5:13 is "unambiguous" and that is not "possible to reconcile what Paul says in Romans 5 with the view that 'sin = lawlessness in the 10 commandment sense.'" But now we'll if you and expos4ever are willing to let Genesis 4:7 read in its normative sense or if you both--based on a predetermined outcome--are predisposed to reject the normative reading and do the thing you are accusing me of doing.

You claim that the only sin before Moses is "the imputation of Adam's guilt." If that's the case, then what in the world is God talking about here? How is it that He is concerned about Adam's guilt "crouching at the door, eager to control" Cain? How in the world is Cain supposed to "subdue" what you identify as "the imputation of Adam's guilt"? How is Cain supposed to "master" this imposed guilt with which he had no part? And do you really want us to believe that God is suggesting "Adam's guilt" has anything to do with what God is insisting needs to be overcome? Or rather, is not this part of the narrative God's attempt to redirect Cain away from his desire to murder his brother?

This entire narrative is hard on your expressed paradigm. There are no preliminaries supplied to the narrative of Cain's and Abel's offerings. We are not told about the sacrificial system or the need to create an altar. Yet, BOoM, it just pops into the story and the reader is left to deduce certain facts from what is revealed. God indicates that doing "what is right" will lead to acceptance. If Cain doesn't do what is right then it results in sin. I'd say this is not some nebulous "imputation of Adam's guilt" but an actual transgression of the revealed will of God. Cain knew murdering his brother was a sin. God intervened and directed him to "DO what is right," implying that Cain knew the difference between right (not murdering) versus wrong (murdering).

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Clare, I'm sorry for the delay in sending this. Among other problems, it is long and took time and care in answering. I hope the fact I answered later posts from you earlier than this one doesn't confuse anyone.

MQ had said:
"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."

Clare73 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Of course, —Paid for by Christ, all of it.

And, of course not, —We are nowhere near able to be aware of all our sin, nor all of what Christ paid. And that, not only in specificity of each event and its legal background, and causes, but in the absolute horror of what sin, and each sin, entailed, and therefore, in what Christ undertook on our behalf! This necessarily, to my mind, MUST include the rebellion behind the sin. (My parents, when I was a child, were [rightly] as sure to correct the obvious rebellious attitude behind my disobedience, tantrum or sulk, as they were to correct the deed or words that came of it.)

MQ:
"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."

Clare73 said:

Not understanding how anything is overlooked in the application by faith of Christ's payment for anyone's sin.

Click to expand...

Right. But I'm referring to pre-Sinai. I'm saying that it seems to me like, if the sins of those pre-Sinai are not accounted to them, then also, Christ need not pay for them —or am I missing something? After all, they were both 1. at enmity with God, (as a result of Adam's sin), and 2. disobedient in committing deeds according to that propensity all sinful flesh has.

Post Sinai, rather obviously, 1 and 2 are taken care of by Christ's sacrifice. To my mind, pre-Sinai, 1 and 2 are also taken care of by Christ's sacrifice, but {if, as Paul seems to say, their sin was not (notice I did not say sin "is not" as Paul does) accounted to them, then it seems reasonable to say that their sin was not paid for, nor even can be considered sin}. I just cannot, at this point, swallow {that}. (Pardon the brackets—I'm trying to avoid confusion as to what my objection is). Are not those deeds they committed described as sin and disobedience in many different places and ways throughout the whole Bible? Is so, why, if it is not accounted to them?

I'm writing this detail down here so I don't forget to address it —does it not say in Romans 2:15 that the law is written in their hearts, as also in Romans 1 that they are (and I think, were also pre-Sinai) without excuse? Also, it does say, "those who sin apart from the law..." implying that indeed it is, or was(?), sin, though not because of Sinai.

(This is funny to me, and pardon the interruption, but I find myself wondering, since my eyes don't work well together when I am tired, if reasoning is better by using the left or the right eye!)

MQ:
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?

Clare73 said:

Does Paul intend they be law? Does he not clearly state in Romans 5:12-14 that he does not intend they be law?
Likewise, was there an explicit death penalty attached to those commands at the time, or are we just assuming such? 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).

Click to expand...

All that makes sense to me, as I read it, except that I still have misgivings about whether in Romans 5:14 Paul actually applies the principle he uses rhetorically (if 'rhetorical' is his use —it may not be merely rhetorical, as you have insisted it is not) to sins pre-Sinai. My mind also objects, too, because, as I mentioned above, Romans 2:15 says they had law written on their hearts. The thought comes to me, also, that it may be relevant what is said in James 1:14, 15 that sin when it has fully grown results in death. Or is that only spiritual death? Only physical? I don't know. (I'm saying, if as a pervasive principle, sin grown results in death, does that not apply to sin pre-Sinai? Is this principle part of the death promised to Adam? As you may have noticed, while I see an obvious difference between the one penalty for sin (natural death by Adam's sin) and the other for sins (the wages of sin(s)), I have a hard time separating them. They may not be all of a lump, but they are of the same nature, and, to my mind at least, always bear the same penalty. I.e. none are simply overlooked.

To sum, I still think Paul is saying that those pre-Sinai are not responsible to Moses' law, (even if they are responsible to the law written on their heart); and, no matter how much I would like to agree with you, I can't yet wrap my mind around the notion that it is possible for God to remain just, if he merely forgives, or merely fails to account, rebellion against himself without payment made. In fact, that has been one of my best accusations against Islam, that God is not merely merciful, to forgive, but that sin cannot be simply overlooked, but that sacrifice must be made, or the sin remains.

Clare73 said:

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

Click to expand...

No. To my mind it, correctly assuming that sins against command (law) and the sinfulness of a fallen nature (Adam) are not of a lump, refers to the fact that Adam's sin produced death, even apart from the law. In fact, it seems to affirm my concept that the sins pre-Sinai were of the same nature as the sins post-Sinai, in that while they were not against Moses' command, for those who did not have Moses' command, they were against the law in the heart (Romans 2:15); and like disobedience of Moses law is different from Adam's sin, so is disobedience of the law written on the heart different from Adam's sin.


As for the NIV, "did not sin by breaking a command", the interlinear seems to be saying only that the penalty (death) for Adam's sin applied to those between Adam to Moses, though they did not commit Adam's sin. It doesn't seem to deal with the question of whether they did or did not sin according to any law. But the translations sound to me like it is only saying that those between Adam and Moses did not sin against Moses' law.

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

Clare73 said:

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

Click to expand...

I don't see him making a distinction between the nature of the two, but merely a distinction as to whether their disobedience is against Moses' law, or against earlier commands/ principles/ laws in the heart (Rom 2:15)

Clare73 said:

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

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

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

Click to expand...

In other words, show positive reasons why it Romans 5:12-14 can't mean what you think it does, instead of negative reasons why it can't mean that, I should look for a cohesive and reasonable Biblical use of the passage. Okay, good idea. I will try. But not on this post —it has already run too long.

daq said:

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.

Click to expand...

This same Paul, in this same Romans, under the inspiration of the same Spirit of God, who gave him the same words to say, also said the Law (Torah) brought condemnation.

And you mistake mainstream theology. The Torah is not obsolete, but weak, defining and exposing sin instead of providing a remedy for sin, as some had, previous to Paul's writing, supposed it to provide. Again, @Clare73 and I are both more than aware of the NT proscriptions against teaching contrary to Torah as opposed to promoting the Torah, and of other passages where the Torah is said to be fulfilled, not deleted. As I remember, God does not in Scripture use the words, nor the notion, that the Torah is obsolete, but only the old Covenant, nor do we.

Mark Quayle said:

Clare, I'm sorry for the delay in sending this. Among other problems, it is long and took time and care in answering. I hope the fact I answered later posts from you earlier than
this one doesn't confuse anyone.

Click to expand...

#1
It neither confuses nor offends me. . .I have only appreciation for all your work here.

And we won't talk about how much time the following took.
But I have much hope that something will eventually unlock this to you.
And if not. . .then it won't, and that won't change anything with me.

MQ had said:
"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."

Click to expand...

Of course, —Paid for by Christ, all of it.
And, of course not, —We are nowhere near able to be aware of all our sin, nor all of what Christ paid. And that, not only in specificity of each event and its legal background, and causes, but in the absolute horror of what sin, and each sin, entailed, and therefore, in what Christ undertook on our behalf! This necessarily, to my mind, MUST include the rebellion behind the sin. (My parents, when I was a child, were [rightly] as sure to correct the obvious rebellious attitude behind my disobedience, tantrum or sulk, as they were to correct the deed or words that came of it.)
MQ:
"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."

Click to expand...

Right. But I'm referring to pre-Sinai. I'm saying that it seems to me like, if the sins of those pre-Sinai are not accounted to them, then also, Christ need not pay for them—or am I missing something? After all, they were both 1. at enmity with God, (as a result of Adam's sin), and 2. disobedient in committing deeds according to that propensity all sinful flesh has.

Click to expand...

#2
Yes, something is being overlooked here.

Does not "disobedient" require a command which one disobeys?
All sin may not be disobedience but, in justice, disobedience is all that man is accountable for.
Only disobedience is accountable sin which must be paid for.

KNOT UNTIED:

What is missing and being over looked here is the notion and principle of justice by which God accounts sin to man, as distinct from commission of sin by man.
Only accountable sin must be paid for. Christ paid for our accountable sin, not for our sin nature.

Post Sinai, rather obviously, 1 and 2 are taken care of by Christ's sacrifice. To my mind, pre-Sinai, 1 and 2 are also taken care of by Christ's sacrifice, but {if, as Paul seems to say, their sin was not (notice I did not say sin "is not" as Paul does) accounted to them, then it seems reasonable to say that their sin was not paid for, nor even can be considered sin}.

Click to expand...

#3
Pretty much.

I just cannot, at this point, swallow {that}. (Pardon the brackets—I'm trying to avoid confusion as to what my objection is). Are not those deeds they committed described as sin and disobedience in many different places and ways throughout the whole Bible?
Is so, why, if it is not accounted to them?

Click to expand...

Good job on the formatting, it is very clear.
#4
The death penalty is Paul's focus in Romans 5:12-14, because he is explaining why those between Adam and Moses died when there was no covenantal death penalty in operation. It is not accounted to them as violation of covenantal law which carries the death penalty.

And let's not dismiss the fact that Paul's teaching:
"where there is no law, there is no transgression. . .sin is not taken into account when there is no law
. . .those between Adam and Moses did not sin by breaking a command."
(Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13, Romans 5:14)
is authoritative for the church.

I'm writing this detail down here so I don't forget to address it —does it not say in Romans 2:15 that the law is written in their hearts,

Click to expand...

#5
Oh, dear. . .
Written on their hearts before the new covenant, is not the same as written on their hearts in the new covenant.
"Written on their hearts" before the new covenant is the conscience, a natural phenomenon of creation in all humans, and which does not alter their fallen nature.
Whereas "written on the heart" in the new covenant is a Holy Spirit phenomenon, affecting the disposition of the believer, giving him a heart to obey, which is not given to unbelievers.

as also in Romans 1 that they are (and I think, were also pre-Sinai) without excuse?

Click to expand...

#6
Romans 1:18-21 is in particular reference to idolatry (which is spiritual whoredom), in spite of God's authoritative (accountable to) natural revelation from the creation itself of God's existence, as well as of his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--so that they are without excuse for not glorifying him and giving thanks to him as God, and
Romans 1:22-32 is God's judgment on that spiritual whoredom by giving them over to the shameful, unnatural and perverted sexual immorality of homosexualtiy (NIV), to a depraved mind, and to every kind of wickedness and sin. . .i.e., judging (punishing) their sin with sin (eye for eye)--punishing their unnatural (contrary to natural revelation) spiritual whoredom (idolatry) with unnatural sexual immorality, depravity and wickedness.

Also, it does say, "those who sin apart from the law..." implying that indeed it is, or was (?), sin, though not because of Sinai.

Click to expand...

#7
Yes, Romans 2:12 is referring to a violation of their conscience, which was God's law for them.

(This is funny to me, and pardon the interruption, but I find myself wondering, since my eyes don't work well together when I am tired, if reasoning is better by using the left or the right eye!)

Click to expand...

#8
It's funny to me, too!

"MQ:
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?"

Click to expand...

All that makes sense to me, as I read it, except that I still have misgivings about whether in Romans 5:14 Paul actually applies the principle he uses rhetorically (if 'rhetorical' is his use —it may not be merely rhetorical, as you have insisted it is not) to sins pre-Sinai.

Click to expand...

#9
KNOT UNTIED:

The doctrine of the two Adam's (1 Corinthians 15:2-23, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49) needs to be in place to understand Paul's following demonstration.

First of all, Paul is not using the principle of Romans 5:14 rhetorically, for that makes no sense.
Why even bring it up if he is not presenting it as reality and the basis for his demonstration?
The principle that they did not sin between Adam and Moses is essential to Paul's demonstration of Adam as a pattern of Christ (Romans 5:14), they being the two Adam's of contrasting imputations--where the first Adam's guilt was imputed to all those born of the first Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), and the second Adam's righteousness is imputed (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22) to all those born of the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:48), thereby making Adam "a pattern of the one to come;" (Romans 5:14) i.e., (sinful) Adam is a pattern for Christ! (Seems backwards, which maybe is why you're having difficulty with the whole concept.)

Take away the actual imputation of Adam's guilt to man (1 Corinthians 15:22), and Adam is not a pattern of Christ (Romans 5:14); i.e., in the imputation of the second Adam's righteousness to man (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22). . .as in the OT where righteousness was imputed to Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

My mind also objects, too, because, as I mentioned above,
Romans 2:15 says they had law written on their hearts.

Click to expand...

#10
However, Romans 2:15 is irrelevant to Paul's demonstration of no guilt of sin between Adam and Moses.

For the issue in Romans 5:12-14 is disobedience in the manner of Adam's transgression (Romans 5:14), which was to a covenantal law of God (as in the Mosaic covenantal law, which laws in both cases carried the death penalty for disobedience).
This is the fact on which Paul bases his demonstration that man did not sin between Adam and Moses (though Adam and Israel did sin because they were under covenantal law)--man did not sin in the manner of Adam's transgression; (Romans 5:14) i.e., against covenantal law carrying a death penalty, because there was no covenant in force.
The law written on their hearts (i.e., the law of their conscience) has no bearing on Paul's demonstration of no guilt of sin between Adam and Moses based on lack of covenantal law.

And as a side note: do you not agree we should be keeping in mind that we are not dealing with just some theologian's notions here, but with the authoritative teaching of Christ's apostle to the church, which is to be received and believed?

The thought comes to me, also, that it may be relevant what is said in James 1:14, 15 that sin when it has fully grown results in death.

Click to expand...

#11
Yes, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), both physical and spiritual, as with Adam--"dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)." (Genesis 2:17)

Or is that only spiritual death? Only physical? I don't know. (I'm saying, if as a pervasive principle, sin grown results in death, does that not apply to sin pre-Sinai? Is this principle part of the death promised to Adam? As you may have noticed, while I see an obvious difference between the one penalty for sin (natural death by Adam's sin) and the other for sins (the wages of sin(s), I have a hard time separating them. They may not be all of a lump, but they are of the same nature, and, to my mind at least, always bear the same penalty.

Click to expand...

#12
However, both roads are the same road, made of two "guilt" roads come together, the road of personal guilt feeding into the road of imputed guilt in a single road to the destination--death, the joining of them allowing for no other destination of all mankind, no matter how innocent one may appear.

To sum, I still think Paul is saying that those pre-Sinai are not responsible to Moses' law, (even if they are responsible to the law written on their heart);

Click to expand...

#13
They are not responsible to any covenantal law whose penalty is death because none existed from Adam to Moses.
And keeping in mind "witten on their heart" in Romans 2:15 there refers to the natural conscience of the OT, not to the spiritually regenerated heart of the NT.

and, no matter how much I would like to agree with you, I can't yet wrap my mind around the notion that it is possible for God to remain just if he merely forgives, or merely fails to account, rebellion against himself without payment made. In fact, that has been one of my best accusations against Islam, that God is not merely merciful, to forgive, but that sin cannot be merely overlooked, but that sacrifice must be made, or the sin remains.

Click to expand...

#14
For the purpose of his demonstration, Paul is dealing only with guilt of sin due to violation of covenantal law whose penalty is death.
He is not dealing with sin against the conscience which does not carry the physical death penalty, and which was the only sin in the world between Adam and Moses.
His point is that all died between Adam and Moses even when there was no covenantal law with its death penalty in force.
We can draw no conclusions regarding sin against conscience from Romans 5:12-14, which he does not deal with there.

Mark Quayle said:

Wrong again; the 'like' rating does not mean 'agree'. In fact, there is an 'agree' rating for that. I have often liked something someone said, but did not agree.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, where is the disagree rating here?
Oh well.

Mark Quayle said:

This same Paul, in this same Romans, under the inspiration of the same Spirit of God, who gave him the same words to say, also said the Law (Torah) brought condemnation.

And you mistake mainstream theology. The Torah is not obsolete, but weak, defining and exposing sin instead of providing a remedy for sin, as some had, previous to Paul's writing, supposed it to provide. Again, @Clare73 and I are both more than aware of the NT proscriptions against teaching contrary to Torah as opposed to promoting the Torah, and of other passages where the Torah is said to be fulfilled, not deleted. As I remember, God does not in Scripture use the words, nor the notion, that the Torah is obsolete, but only the old Covenant, nor do we.

Click to expand...

And I am well aware of how those of your mindset think that making a distinction between covenant and Torah somehow gets you off the hook for what you teach and believe. This is the same mistake Clare73 makes in the other thread she keeps linking to and trying to get me to respond to. If you pick and choose translators that insert words into the text then of course you end up with what you wish to believe: that doesn't make it the truth.

Mark Quayle said:

No. To my mind it, correctly assuming that sins against command (law) and the sinfulness of a fallen nature (Adam) are not of a lump, refers to the fact that Adam's sin produced death, even apart from the law. In fact, it seems to affirm my concept that the sins pre-Sinai were of the same nature as the sins post-Sinai, in that while they were not against Moses' command, for those who did not have Moses' command, they were against the law in the heart (Romans 2:15); and like disobedience of Moses law is different from Adam's sin, so is disobedience of the law written on the heart different from Adam's sin.

Click to expand...

However, Paul equates Adam's sin against God's command with
man's sin against Moses' law, both being transgressions of (covenantal) law (Romans 5:14).

As for the NIV, "did not sin by breaking a command", the interlinear seems to be saying only that the penalty (death) for Adam's sin applied to those between Adam to Moses, though they did not commit Adam's sin. It doesn't seem to deal with the question of whether they did or did not sin according to any law. But the translations sound to me like it is only saying that those between Adam and Moses did not sin against Moses' law.

Click to expand...

The interlinear of Romans 5:14 is: "death reigned from Adam until Moses even over the (ones) not sinning on the likeness of the transgression of Adam"
The "likeness of the transgression of Adam" means by breaking a specific command (covenantal law).

Keeping in mind that Paul is treating of the two Adam's (1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49) here, showing that the first Adam is the pattern (Romans 5:14) for the second Adam, in relation to sin and its remedy, and paralleling the two Adams in Romans 5:12-19, on his way

to demonstrating

what guilt caused the physical death of all between Adam and Moses when there was no covenantal law in force, whose sentence was physical death, as there was in the Garden,

in his contrast
of the first Adam with the second Adam (Romans 5:15-17), culminating in the contrasting parallels between the two in Romans 5:18-19, where
Adam's guilt is imputed by birth to all those born of (the first) Adam (Romans 5:18), and
Christ's righteousness is imputed by faith (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22) to all those born of (the second Adam) Christ,
just as it was imputed to Abraham by faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3),

and wherein
he is using the time between Adam and Moses, when there was no covenantal law, to demonstrate that even when there was no covenantal law to sin against and, therefore, man did not incur a death penalty, mankind still died due to sin (Romans 5:12-14), because all death is due only to sin (Romans 6:23), which is

the "dilemma"
he poses. . .to demonstrate man died because of some sin not personally his own; i.e., the imputed sin of the first Adam to all mankind (Romans 5:18), it being the first half of both his contrasting parallels between the two Adams (Romans 5:18-19),

wherein the second half of those two parallels is the imputed righteousness of the second Adam, Jesus Christ (in justification, Romans 3:21-22, Romans 3:28).

MQ: While I can see that Paul in his discourse is referring to Sinai,
I don't see that the principle itself neglects earlier commands of God,
I don't see him making a distinction between the nature of the two, but merely a distinction as to whether their disobedience is against Moses' law, or against earlier commands/ principles/ laws in the heart (Rom 2:15)

Click to expand...

He makes a clear distinction between the nature of the two--one is violation of covenantal law carrying the death penalty, and the other is not.
It does not neglect earlier commands of God, they are not the issue.
The issue is law carrying a death penalty; i.e., covenantal law, which earlier commands did not.

And keeping in mind there that the "heart" in Romans 2:15 is the conscience,
not the obedient heart enabled by the Holy Spirit promised in the new covenant, on which the law is written.

daq said:

Hmmm, where is the disagree rating here?
Oh well.

Click to expand...

Expressing disagreement requires the time and thought of a reasoned response, not just the click of a button.

daq said:

And I am well aware of how those of your mindset think that making a distinction between covenant and Torah somehow gets you off the hook for what you teach and believe. This is the same mistake Clare73 makes in the other thread she keeps linking to and trying to get me to respond to.

Click to expand...

Oh, wow. . .just wow.

That post has nothing to do with the Torah and everything to do with 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 to a "new covenant," with the error of your charge regarding Luke 22:20 and Hebrews 8:13 being exhaustively demonstrated therein, the following link:

Galatians 3 - shows New Covenant Gospel is before Sinai

Case is rested. . .

Clare73 said:

That requires the time and thought of a reasoned response.

Click to expand...

If indeed I was "wrong again", as he said, surely you would have refuted what I said about it: but you did not.

daq said:

If indeed I was "wrong again", as he said, surely you would have refuted what I said about it: but you did not.

Click to expand...

You're hittin' on three cylinders. . .

Clare73 said:

Oh, wow. . .just wow.

That post has nothing to do with the Torah and everything to do with 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," with the error of your charge regarding Luke 22:20 and Hebrews 8:13 being exhaustively demonstrdated therein.

Galatians 3 - shows New Covenant Gospel is before Sinai

Case rested. . .

Click to expand...

Ephesians 6:2-3 KJV
2 Honour thy father and mother; ( which is the first commandment with promise; )
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

This promise is expounded further in the Torah, that your days may be multiplied...as the days of the heavens upon the earth.

One who counts his or her mother as obsolete cannot receive this promise: for they have dishonored their own mother. Now therefore, again, try removing the indoctrination filter and read Galatians 4 for what it says, and follow the pointers Paul gives by way of the passages which he references and quotes in that passage.

Remember also that Paul is not a cherry-picker: he intends the background contexts in the things to which he refers and quotes. It is necessary to go back into the womb of your mother and relearn everything. If Nicodemus the Teacher of Yisrael can swallow his pride and do it, and if Paul the Pharisee of Pharisees can swallow his pride and do it, then surely you can do it too. And remember, the Torah is spiritual according to Paul, (Romans 7:14).

daq said:

Ephesians 6:2-3 KJV
2 Honour thy father and mother; ( which is the first commandment with promise; )
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

This promise is expounded further in the Torah, that your days may be multiplied...as the days of the heavens upon the earth.

One who counts his or her mother as obsolete cannot receive this promise: for they have dishonored their own mother. Now therefore, again, try removing the indoctrination filter and read Galatians 4 for what it says, and follow the pointers Paul gives by way of the passages which he references and quotes in that passage.

Remember also that Paul is not a cherry-picker: he intends the background contexts in the things to which he refers and quotes. It is necessary to go back into the womb of your mother and relearn everything. If Nicodemus the Teacher of Yisrael can swallow his pride and do it, and if Paul the Pharisee of Pharisees can swallow his pride and do it, then surely you can do it too. And remember, the Torah is spiritual according to Paul, (Romans 7:14).

Click to expand...

Previously litigated. . .will not be relitigating it.

daq said:

Hmmm, where is the disagree rating here?
Oh well.

Click to expand...

Haha! Well, then, let's lobby for a few more, such as, 'dislike' and 'violently disagree' and 'that stinks' and 'loser' and 'hopeless'. In for a penny, in for a pound.

daq said:

And I am well aware of how those of your mindset think that making a distinction between covenant and Torah somehow gets you off the hook for what you teach and believe. This is the same mistake Clare73 makes in the other thread she keeps linking to and trying to get me to respond to. If you pick and choose translators that insert words into the text then of course you end up with what you wish to believe: that doesn't make it the truth.

Click to expand...

If you think Covenant and Torah are the same thing, you'd best explain Hebrews 8:13. Because if you don't then you are on the wrong side of this.

Mark Quayle said:

If you think Covenant and Torah are the same thing, you'd best explain Hebrews 8:13. Because if you don't then you are on the wrong side of this.

Click to expand...

My position has been explained in quite a few places already on this particular board, not the least of which would be the thread Clare73 keeps citing. So then, if you think that I do not understand the difference between the Torah and the two ways of viewing the Covenant, you do not understand what I believe.

Those who continue to hold on to the natural-physical minded Pharisaic Sadducaic view of the Covenant have Hagar for their covenant-mother: for Hagar was an Egyptian, and Paul uses this analogy not only because it comes from the Torah but because it is taught in the Prophets. Egypt represents the flesh, and therefore, those who view the covenant according to the physical and natural walk according to the flesh and cannot please Elohim because they still do not understand or believe that the Torah is spiritual just as Paul says.

Below are just some of the background passages for Paul's midrash in Galatians 4:22-31.

Genesis 16, (Hagar was an Egyptian, Genesis 16:1), Ezekiel 16, (O Egypt, "great of flesh", Ezekiel 16:26), Isaiah 1, (rulers of Sodom, Isaiah 1:10), Revelation 11, (the great city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, Revelation 11:8), Isaiah 54:1-3, (Isaiah 54:1 is quoted in Galatians 4:27).

Perhaps it would also be of some help to post the final Isaiah passage cited above which Paul quotes from in Galatians 4:27, and as I said to Clare73, remember that Paul is not a cherry-picker: he clearly believes and intends the surrounding context when he quotes from a passage, otherwise he would be stealing from the scripture and inventing his own private doctrine.

Isaiah 54:1-3 KJV
1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. [Galatians 4:27]
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

Ah yes, Yerushalem of above, my mother, (mother covenant, Galatians 4:24-26), just as Paul teaches by the Spirit, and herein also she is likened to the Torah Tabernacle of Elohim, clearly revealed in the language of the Prophet making mention of the tent, the curtains, the cords, and the tent stakes: and who would refuse to see this and at least believe what Paul teaches in these supernal things?

In the Testimony of the Messiah, in the Gospel accounts, the Covenant has been renewed, and Hagar is no more, at least no more for me: for my former covenant with death has been disannulled, (Isaiah 28:14-22), through the new Way in the new Spirit of the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts, which renews the Covenant for anyone willing to see, hear, believe, and do accordingly. And even this new Spirit was foretold in the Prophet Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 11:19-21, Ezekiel 36:24-27).

Sarah and Hagar are both in the same Torah: it all depends on how you hear what you hear, and how you see what you see, as to whether your mother is Yerushalem of above or Hagar the Egyptian.

Matthew 10:34-39, (Micah 7:5-6, Exodus 32:25-29, Deuteronomy 13:6), Luke 12:51-53.

The one having an ear, let him hear: the one having two ears, let him buy a sword. Chop, chop.

Mark Quayle said:

Haha! Well, then, let's lobby for a few more, such as, 'dislike' and 'violently disagree' and 'that stinks' and 'loser' and 'hopeless'. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, the optimistic/rainbow rating apparently communicates this, though I'm sure that was not the original intent. Using it can be considered goading, I was surprised to learn a while back.

Leaf473 said:

Oddly enough, the optimistic/rainbow rating apparently communicates this, though I'm sure that was not the original intent. Using it can be considered goading, I was surprised to learn a while back.

Click to expand...

I got reprimanded for using the laugh, when I disagreed rather easily with someone. What they said elicited a laugh from me, so that is what I put, but.....
oh well....