Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Go figure. . .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.
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."
Genesis 4:7
"You will be accepted if you do what is right. But if you refuse to do what is right, then watch out! Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master."
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?
Not when you realize we've got apples and oranges here (and the apples aren't the oranges). . .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.
Actually, the reader is told precisely what the problem was--lack of faith (Hebrews 11:4-5)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.
The issue in Romans 5:12-14 is the death penalty by disobedience "in the manner of Adam's transgression;" i.e., violation of the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17: "If you do this. . .I will do that," where "that" was the death penalty.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).
AMEN!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."
Genesis 4:7
"You will be accepted if you do what is right. But if you refuse to do what is right, then watch out! Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master."
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
AMEN!Great post! I have not really been following this thread for a while but good post on the origin of sin and law. Thanks for sharing. Sorry if it seems to be ignored by many here. I posted something similar that was also ignored showing sin and law in Genesis. Anyhow, I am sure it is appreciated by those who want to know what the scriptures teach on this topic.
Yeah, I really don't like it. . .Hi LoveGodsWord,
Bless you! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and encouragement.
Yes, I've been doing apologetics long enough to realize the person I'm addressing isn't always the person who will benefit most from what I write.
As an aside, does anyone else have difficulty with the constant ad switching? Tonight has been particularly bad in disrupting my attempts to type.
God bless!
But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
It’s worth paying the $10.00 to not see the ads.Hi LoveGodsWord,
Bless you! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and encouragement.
Yes, I've been doing apologetics long enough to realize the person I'm addressing isn't always the person who will benefit most from what I write.
As an aside, does anyone else have difficulty with the constant ad switching? Tonight has been particularly bad in disrupting my attempts to type.
God bless!
But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
As an aside, does anyone else have difficulty with the constant ad switching? Tonight has been particularly bad in disrupting my attempts to type.
God bless!
But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
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.
Not when you realize we've got apples and oranges here (and the apples aren't the oranges). . .
1) legal guilt by which one is condemned (Adam's sin imputed), and
2) operation of sinful nature inclining to sin (apart from Adam's guilt imputed).
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.
Actually, the reader is told precisely what the problem was--lack of faith (Hebrews 11:4-5)
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).
The issue in Romans 5:12-14 is the death penalty by disobedience "in the manner of Adam's transgression;" i.e., to a specific command carrying the death penalty.
Are there any commands from God specifically carrying the death penalty in the Can and Abel account?
If not, would that account be relevant to Paul's teaching in Romans 5:12-14?
Those commands have been replaced.
Romans 13:9
Jeremiah 31:31-34
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
The issue in Romans 5:12-14 is the death penalty by disobedience "in the manner of Adam's transgression;" i.e., violation of the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17: "If you do this. . .I will do that," where "that" was the death penalty.Hi Claire,
It appears that now that you're confronted with a text which contradicts your premise of "the imputation of Adam's guilt" as being the sole sin identification pre Moses that you're attempting to hedge your previously stated position.
The issue in Romans 5:12-14 is the death penalty by disobedience "in the manner of Adam's transgression;" i.e., violation of the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17: "If you do this. . .I will do that," where "that" was the death penalty.
Are there any covenantal laws carrying the death penalty in the Cain and Abel account?
If not, would that account be relevant to Paul's teaching in Romans 5:12-14?
My paradigm is Romans 5:12-14, where the sin that condemns all mankind is the imputed guilt of Adam for violating the covenantal law of Genesis 2:17, which imputation of guilt to all mankind was not revealed until the NT (Romans 5:18).
God's issue with Cain in Genesis is not his eternal destiny, but his favor with God at the time, and is not relevant to Romans 5:12-14, regarding imputation of Adam's guilt to all mankind.
I was thinking you should explain Paul's error in Romans 5:12-14 causing it to "conflict" with the Cain and Abel narrative.Hi Claire,
Your response doesn't address anything specifically from the Cain and Abel narrative. The application of your premise of "the imputation of Adam's guilt" doesn't explain Genesis 4:6, 7
I was thinking you should explain Paul's error in Romans 5:12-14 causing it to "conflict" with the Cain and Abel narrative.
I don't see it as "harmonizing," I see it as modifying and altering until it becomes something different.Hi Clare73,
I already harmonized Paul's statement in Romans 5:12-14 in the first post to which you responded to me on this thread.
Romans 13:9 is referring to the Ten Commandments. And keeping the commandments of God IS love.I think Romans 13:9 is best understood looking at two things that come just before and just after it:
The person who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the law.
Love is the fulfillment of the law.
I don't think this is saying Keep every commandment in the law while loving. It's saying that the person who loves has already kept them.
Oh, well... It looks like we see Romans 13 differently.Romans 13:9 is referring to the Ten Commandments. And keeping the commandments of God IS love.
For this is the love of God that we keep His commandments. 1 John 5:3
Love is fulfilled when we keep the commandments, not break them. The Ten Commandments has always been about love and who God’s shows mercy to when we keep love Him and keep His commandments Exodus 20:6. It’s a consistent theme throughout scripture that we keep His commandments.
A command is not the same thing as a commandment. Paul is quoting from the Ten Commandments as clearly shown, which came in a unit of Ten. Exodus 20, Exodus 34:28 and love is fulfilled we keep the commandments of God.Oh, well... It looks like we see Romans 13 differently.
I see this phrase:
"and whatever other commandments there are..."
Leviticus 27 These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel on Mount Sinai.
Yes, he quotes from the ten commandments and then goes on to say "and whatever other commandments there are..."A command is not the same thing as a commandment. Paul is quoting from the Ten Commandments as clearly shown, which came in a unit of Ten. Exodus 20, Exodus 34:28 and love is fulfilled we keep the commandments of God.
I noticed that too as he did not quote ALL of the Ten Commandments only some of them.Yes, he quotes from the ten commandments and then goes on to say "and whatever other commandments there are..."
The book of Leviticus is the commandments that God gave to Israel at Sinai. I think there are other commandments, too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?