Can a person love without the Ten Commandments

[Man-ofGod]

Victor C:

SDA's are famous for "but", "however", etc.

Victor C:

Agreed.
But you are still trying to link a legal covenant to a "guide for good living", and that is not what codified law contained in a Suzerainty covenant is. The Mosaic covenant was issued with the stipulation to comply to it, or die. That is how Moses summarized it in Deuteronomy 30:16-20: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

I guess "SDA"'s are not the only ones who are famous for "buts". But don't feel bad Victor, it only means that one can not ignore one part of scripture but must look at all of scripture. With that said I knew we agree on something. On a side note its the first straight forward answer I got from you Victor, congrats on your candor

So to recap, our agreement is that real faith brings about action as per James 2:17-18. Faith first then action second not the other way around. For that would be the legalistic point of view. Action is nothing with out faith and faith is nothing with out action. Only though Christ can we ever hope for salvation and its through faith that we accomplish our works.

Now the confusion begins when we begin to define what the works actually are. This is the how of the equation. But Jesus tells us how in the sermon of the mount and GOD tells us how when he writes the laws in our hearts and mind.

I believe the law that he wrote in our hearts and our minds is the 10 commandments. Your theology falls short on defining what that law is.

To me its clear.

Jeremiah 31:33
"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

You agreed Victor that by faith, we follow and should follow in Jesus footsteps as per 1 John 2:4-6.

"4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did."

Well we know how Jesus walked don't we. Jesus never broken a single commandment. Now, I know that we could never walk in Jesus footsteps 100% of the way. Thats why only though Jesus can we be saved and this is why through Jesus can we hope to accomplish our works and Gods will. Jesus first, then comes the action of upholding Gods law or commandments.

 

[VictorC]

I guess "SDA"'s are not the only ones who are famous for "buts".

Point taken.

I believe the law that he wrote in our hearts and our minds is the 10 commandments. Your theology falls short on defining what that law is.

To me its clear.

Jeremiah 31:33
"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

The law written into us isn't from Sinai, and that is in the very previous verse from your quotation. The context of Hebrews 8, which quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34, calls that covenant from Sinai faulty in Hebrews 8:7, and verse 13 explains that the covenant from Sinai is old, decaying, and ready to vanish away.
It can't be the ten commandments that is written into our hearts and minds.

While you claim that my theology is shy of defining what the law is (it isn't; I have linked you to my work twice on the subject), you have performed a theological conclusion that is nullified by the immediate context.

Here's my post on the subject God replaces the schoolmaster:

I agree that torah conveys the meaning of 'instruction' with force equal to the definition of 'ordinance'. There is a passage from Jeremiah and Hebrews that I haven't seen you show consideration for:

Jeremiah 31:31-32
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD.
Hebrews 8:6-9
6 ¶ But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Jeremiah makes it clear that the new covenant would not be according to the one made at Sinai.
Hebrews makes the very same assertion when it quotes Jeremiah, and further qualifies the reason the new covenant wouldn't be according to Sinai stems from the covenant made at Sinai contained a fault, specifically, it wasn't complied with by the recipients of that covenant, and did not justify anyone.

By the exclusion of the covenant made at Sinai, this excludes the ten commandments from taking a part in the new covenant. This is the reason that <a member on CARM> started his presentation with the identification of precisely what the covenant made at Sinai was: the ten commandments, as Deuteronomy 4:13 and Exodus 34:27-28 define it to be.

Now, you and I agree that torah means instruction as well as law. Consider where Jeremiah and Hebrews are leading us to after exclusion of the ten commandments from the new covenant:

Jeremiah 31:33-34
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Hebrews 8:10-11
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

The end result of the new covenant written into our hearts and minds is to know God, with no more need for instruction. The law of the new covenant doesn't fit into the description of a written ordinance, as that causes you to know only the created ordinance, and not the Author of that ordinance.

What is this law written into us? After exclusion of the covenant from Sinai, the ten commandments, clues are presented that should lead you to recognize that it is describing the entrance of God Himself, and not a written ordinance.

Hebrews 10:15-16
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

The Spirit of God is written in the present tense of His ability to witness to each of us personally, and this description is addressed to those who are already new covenant recipients.

This is as Ezekiel 36:26-27 presents the same concept, only it doesn't use the torah as a cause to know God - it reverses the roles to using God's Spirit as the cause to know His judgments and statutes. The Hebrew terms used here are choq and mishpat, neither of which are equivelant to torah:

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

There isn't an inclusion of a covenant based on the ten commandments already labelled as 'faulty' in the new covenant. The new covenant is God's Spirit.

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Victor

 

[.chrys.]

I just had a crazy-cool thought: IN MY OPINION, the Ten Commandments serve as a list of symptoms for the very real "disease" of being afflicted with Christ!

 

[Man-ofGod]

Victor C:

The end result of the new covenant written into our hearts and minds is to know God, with no more need for instruction.

No more need for instruction because:


Jeremiah 31:33:

“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord. “I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.


Its in our hearts now.

Victor C:

What is this law written into us? After exclusion of the covenant from Sinai, the ten commandments, clues are presented that should lead you to recognize that it is describing the entrance of God Himself, and not a written ordinance.

Is the Spirit of God the law that the Bible speaks about. Hardly, god is not equal to the law but is creator of the law. The spirit will be how God writes the law in our hearts and minds. That is the meaning of


Ezekiel 36:27
"And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them"

Victor C:

Jeremiah makes it clear that the new covenant would not be according to the one made at Sinai.
Hebrews makes the very same assertion when it quotes Jeremiah, and further qualifies the reason the new covenant wouldn't be according to Sinai stems from the covenant made at Sinai contained a fault, specifically, it wasn't complied with by the recipients of that covenant, and did not justify anyone.

The contents of the promise did not change, just the way the promise is delivered. For example:

Let’s say I have a contract with the owner of ABC Company, Mr. ABC. This contract allowed me to obtain services that were offered by ABC Company but became NULL and VOID when I violated the companies policy which is outlined in the Terms of Service (TOS).

The contract is no longer binding to both parties because of the violation of one party. However, let say the owners son is my friend Mr. ABC Jr. My friend makes a new deal with me. He says that I am no longer bound by that old contract written on paper. “Because you know me, my father will forgive you for your violation and will allow you access ABC services.”

Now I know that the TOS did not change because it is company policy. But do you think I will violate the TOS now because I have received forgiveness. Not at all, I will respect my friend’s policy and respect his rules. I predict by doing this I will strengthen my relationship with my friend because I follow his fathers rules out of respect and love and not out of the legalistic aspect of his TOS.

Few things, for one if it was not for TOS I would not know what constituted a violation. Paul speaks about this concept when he writes in Roman 7:7:

"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

But under the new covenant, I have his TOS in my heart now; it’s in my heart because I know that willfully breaking that TOS is not saying much for me and Mr. ABC Juniors relationship. So the TOS still exist in this new promise, but I no longer need instruction for I take a proactive approach now to our relationship (willfully obeying the law), not a reactive approach ( obeying the law because I have to if I want to keep ABC services) which to me is the very definition of legalism.

Key Legend:
Mr. ABC = Godhead
Mr. ABC Jr. = Jesus
ABC Company = Heaven
TOS = 10 Commandments
Contract = old covenant

 

[k4c]

I just had a crazy-cool thought: IN MY OPINION, the Ten Commandments serve as a list of symptoms for the very real "disease" of being afflicted with Christ!

Amen...keeping the commandments is a symptom of salvation.

 

[VictorC]

No more need for instruction because:
Jeremiah 31:33:
“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord. “I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Its in our hearts now.

I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge the specification present in Jeremiah 31:32:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt...

Otherwise, your attempt to determine the "what" or "Who" that is written into our hearts and minds will not progress.

Is the Spirit of God the law that the Bible speaks about. Hardly, god is not equal to the law but is creator of the law. The spirit will be how God writes the law in our hearts and minds. That is the meaning of

Ezekiel 36:27
"And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them"

Yet you can see for yourself that the causitive element has been reversed, and here it is specific about Who is written into our very being.
Jeremiah isn't.
All he prophecies is that what is written into us isn't from the Mosaic covenant, and it causes us to know Him, and not the instructions anymore. Even you noted this distinction between the created and the Creator when you wrote "god is not equal to the law but is creator of the law".

You aren't going to know the Author of the law by reading the law, and it is this goal that is accomplished in Jeremiah's description that causes me to look beyond a codified ordinance.

The contents of the promise did not change, just the way the promise is delivered.

What promise?

For example:
...
Key Legend:
Mr. ABC = Godhead
Mr. ABC Jr. = Jesus
ABC Company = Heaven
TOS = 10 Commandments
Contract = old covenant

Here's where your analogy breaks down.
There are actually only three elements in your key instead of five, since "in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9) making the "Godhead" and "Jesus" one element.

More pertinent to this analysis is that the "10 commandments" is the very same thing as the "old covenant". It is this equivalence I believe you're avoiding, every time you cite Jeremiah 31:33 and refuse to include Jeremiah 31:32 with it. It is also telling that you have no comment to address the notable description and disposition of that old covenant from Sinai given in Hebrews 8: "fault - old - decayeth - waxeth old - vanish away" and the final death knell comes in Hebrews 10:9: "He taketh away the first", referring to the first covenant, which is the ten commandments.

Don't you think that's just a bit dishonest? These are omissions meant to change the nature of your conclusion, and impose your personal belief onto the Scriptures.

Victor

 

[mva1985]

Exodus 24
"3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." 4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.
He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the LORD. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey."



Jeremiah 31
31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD.
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people."



Notice the difference between the two?

 

[VictorC]

32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD.

Notice the difference between the two?

Certainly.
The law based on Israel's performance was broken, and a new one not based on it is the new covenant based on better promises - to Abraham, not Moses (Hebrews 6:13).

Hebrews 8:7
For if that first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hebrews 8:9
He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

The author of Hebrews distinguishes between these two covenants consistently, with the first being based on law, and the second based on His Spirit, and the blood propitiation that satisfied the law and fulfilled it, causing it to lose its jurisdiction over those purchased -redeemed- from the law.

Hebrews 10:28-29
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

The first covenant didn't know what mercy and forgiveness were.
It only knew blood atonement.

Victor

 

[k4c]

Certainly.
The law based on Israel's performance was broken, and a new one not based on it is the new covenant based on better promises - to Abraham, not Moses (Hebrews 6:13).

Hebrews 8:7
For if that first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hebrews 8:9
He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

The author of Hebrews distinguishes between these two covenants consistently, with the first being based on law, and the second based on His Spirit, and the blood propitiation that satisfied the law and fulfilled it, causing it to lose its jurisdiction over those purchased -redeemed- from the law.

Hebrews 10:28-29
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

The first covenant didn't know what mercy and forgiveness were.
It only knew blood atonement.

Victor

Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

We should have justice, mercy and faith without leaving the others undone.

 

[VictorC]

Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

We should have justice, mercy and faith without leaving the others undone.

We can either learn from the Word of God together, or we can fetch verses completely unrelated to this discussion and bash each other with them.

All right, here's my contribution for the day:

Ephesians 4:2-7
2 ¶ With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

 

[k4c]

We can either learn from the Word of God together, or we can fetch verses completely unrelated to this discussion and bash each other with them.

All right, here's my contribution for the day:

Ephesians 4:2-7
2 ¶ With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

I thought it was related...

Now how about you visit my other post and give me your thoughts.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7241983

 

[VictorC]

I thought it was related...

I think you were alone in those thoughts.

Now how about you visit my other post and give me your thoughts.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7241983

Before you can identify the change of times and laws that the fourth beast engages in, you need to first identify the fourth beast. This fourth beast is one of those that all arise in the future tense (Daniel 7:17), including the lion.
Daniel 7:1 times this vision during the last king of Babylon, and the lion rises in the future from the prophecy. Hence the lion isn't Babylon.
Daniel 7:7 describes the fourth beast as "diverse from all the beasts that [are] before it", as the YLT renders this passage. The English word 'before' is the Aramaic qodam that has a meaning just we use it in English:
1) before, in front of
1a) before
1b) from before

As used in this passage, there is a time when all of the beasts exist at the same time. This is reenforced in Revelation 13:1-2, where the fourth beast is described containing elements of the prior three.
Rome has no traits from Babylon.

These are contemporary governing powers, that exist right up to the return of Messiah. Those ten horns are rulers that have no kingdom (Revelation 17:12), meaning real estate, making this fourth governing beast indeed diverse from everything prior to it - it is a global governmental bureaucracy.
The United Nations is a government diverse from anything we've had before, and it does indeed have traits from the lion of England.

When evaluating models of eschatology, you need verify that the model doesn't violate another passages. Daniel 2 describes another progression of kingdoms, with the legs identified as Rome disintegrating into feet made of iron mixed with clay, and this is the state of the world when the rock from heaven breaks the image. Rome is finished and has broken up into the European nation states, and that will be the status quo when Christ returns.

The change of the times and laws is still an event in our future, in my opinion.
The best we can do is speculate on what they are.
But, if you attribute this to a pope from Rome, you have taken liberties against Daniel 2 in order to force Daniel 7 to read something it doesn't. But I'm sure that's precisely what you intend to do, in order to argue for a change in a sabbath ordinance that comes from a covenant that has been abolished. Hence I believe this response belongs here - there is no point in evaluating models of eschatology until the underlying theological foundations are dealt with. Building on error will just lead to more error, and before you know it will look like something Ellen White built.

I confess I'm not terribly interested in discussing a model while you continue to ignore the foundation you're erecting it on.

Victor

 

[mva1985]

Victor,

I WAS pointing out the difference in my reference to the Old and New Covenants in my reference to the two OT verses.

 

[VictorC]

Victor,

I WAS pointing out the difference in my reference to the Old and New Covenants in my reference to the two OT verses.

The difference was between compliance of the vassal in a Suzerainty Covenant, and adoption wherein sons and daughters are no longer treated like servants.

 

[Megadylan]

yes

 

[VictorC]

Can a person love without the Ten Commandments? Yes they can.

I know you're away taking care of children, but when you come back I wanted to notify you of a number of posts that haven't received attention from you:
Ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
the second answer
unworthy servants versus sons of the promise
build upon this foundation gold or wood/hay/stubble

 

[k4c]

I know you're away taking care of children, but when you come back I wanted to notify you of a number of posts that haven't received attention from you:
Ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
the second answer
unworthy servants versus sons of the promise
build upon this foundation gold or wood/hay/stubble

Hi I'm back, it's been a crazy week.

Regarding the law...

The argument with being under the law vs not being under the law always has to do with using the law as a means to salvation vs the fruit of salvation.

 

[VictorC]

Hi I'm back, it's been a crazy week.

Regarding the law...

The argument with being under the law vs not being under the law always has to do with using the law as a means to salvation vs the fruit of salvation.

There is no such argument within Scripture.
We are called the redeemed, because we were purchased out of the law, so that we could receive the promise made to Abraham.

Galatians 4:21-31 NKJV
21 ¶ Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar----
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children----
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband."
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

I just posted something on CARM this morning that addresses the core problem with the Adventist argument for the 10c's, and I will copy a small portion of the simple bottom line here:
let's make this simple: never ever at no time ever

Your intent in calling for the continuence of the Mosaic covenant is to argue that we need to observe a sabbath ordinance that God has already concluded everyone disobedient to, and He shed His blood in order to redeem His elect from it.

The Bible tells a story of reconciliation to God.
Adventism tells a story of reconciliation to the Mosaic covenant of the ten commandments, so that you can help vindicate God from the accusations of satan.
That Adventist story is nowhere to be found in Scripture.
You will never ever at no time ever be reconciled to a covenant that God Himself abolished.

Victor

 

[k4c]

There is no such argument within Scripture.
We are called the redeemed, because we were purchased out of the law, so that we could receive the promise made to Abraham.

Galatians 4:21-31 NKJV
21 ¶ Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar----
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children----
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband."
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

I just posted something on CARM this morning that addresses the core problem with the Adventist argument for the 10c's, and I will copy a small portion of the simple bottom line here:
let's make this simple: never ever at no time ever


Victor

Romans 6:14-15 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

 

[VictorC]

Romans 6:14-15 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

This just isn't relevent to my post, since Paul makes it clear that sin wasn't just the transgression of the law of Moses, since sin exists without the law (your quote above) and also existed before the law did:
Romans 5:
12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13: For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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.

I'm going to add the previous post to those you haven't answered or acknowledged:

Ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
the second answer
unworthy servants versus sons of the promise
build upon this foundation gold or wood/hay/stubble
cast out the slave woman and her children

Victor