question of imputation

[RandyPNW]

The imputation (Ro 5:17) of Adam's sin of law-breaking, which caused the deaths of all those between Adam and Moses when there was no law to condemn them, is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

Are you unfamiliar with the law Adam broke, "Thou shalt not eat of it."

See post #93 above. I said, " Cain *knew* that he had broken God's inherent law in the Word that Man live in God's own Image and Likeness."

And post #89 above. I said, "And even more, later God told Adam to manage the Garden while avoiding the tree of knowledge (of good and evil). That is clearly "law!" "

Yes, I'm obviously familiar with this "Law of Conscience," as I term it.

 

[Dan Perez]

There is no "imputation" of grace.

When a person repents of his sins, believes, and is baptized as commanded by Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:18-20, he is cleansed of all his sins by the blood of Jesus, and then he receives the Holy Spirit as his guarantee of righteousness. The person will remain righteous for as long as the Holy Spirit dwells within his soul. 2 Corinthians 1:22

Mark 16:16a He who believes and is baptized will be saved;

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed (baptized), but you were sanctified (cleansed of all your sins), but you were justified (made righteous) in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

And you quote Matt 28: 19 that says BAPTIZING them , and Greek word for WATER // HUDOR is NOT in the Greek TEXT ??

Just asking ??

dan p

 

[bling]

I was just giving you an example of God's giving a Good Nature to people. I believe God created Man in His image, with a Good Nature. And even though we've obtained an Independent Nature, we are still being offered a Good Nature, if we completely commit to His Word.

I did not see the example fitting what I was talking about. I see us all starting out as babies with similar “natures” to Adam and Eve prior to sinning. Our “nature” does not change, but after we are mature adults all can gain the indwelling Holy Spirit and Godly type Love (be born again).

This Independent Nature is by definition a Sepration from God's Word, being inclined against cooperating with God in it. It does not necessarily recommend dependency upon God, since many who "go their own way" continue to "go their own way." They see absolutely no need to depend upon God or to take His commands seriously.

I agree Adam and Eve in their own minds (autonomous free will beings) did not “feel” dependent solely on God and further they had become codependent on each other.

The eating of the fruit was an act of selfishness and a lacking of Godly type Love, which you might be describing as “independence”.

Actually the Bible does indicate that Adam and Eve sinned out of a determination to violate God's strict rules. God had mandated that they not eat of the Tree of Knowledge, but they determined to ignore this demand. They may not have wanted to truly separate from God, but in choosing to disobey His Word that's precisely what they did, and that's precisely what made them acquire a Sin Nature.

This gets us into a longer discussion of their sins.

• Where did Eve get the idea that they could not even touch the fruit?
• Since Adam came and lived for a while without Eve, was Adam taught about the tree and left to convey the exact true message to Eve or did God speak to Eve directly?
• Adam and Eve were both made “very good” (most likely as good as made beings could be made), but Eve was not just another Adam with different plumbing, since she was made for Adam. Eve was made for Adam so she would be happy with Adam and Adam could not be happier with anyone else, but they would be very different, to compliment each other. How were they different?
• 1 Tim. 2: 3 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. A lot is made of the fact “Adam was with Eve”, but the Hebrew word translated “with” less than half the time means “in close proximity” and conveys the idea of the opposite of being against. Adam and Eve had been together long enough to become codependent on each other (they were perfectly matched.) “With” can also mean sexually with each other. If Adam was at the tree with Eve not deceived by satan, than he is allowing Eve to commit suicide and not even speaking up.
• After eating Eve gave the fruit to Adam, but with what words? Gen. 3: 12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” If Adam had become codependent with Eve and felt he could not live without her than he would want to go with her even in death.
• From the fact Adam was to rule over Eve also suggests, Adam sinned out of a greater love for Eve than he had for God at the time.

People sin for what they can get, more than out of being rebellious toward their God, but it can be rebellious sin.

Eve did not sin because she wanted to violate God’s rules, but because she lusted after knowledge she could not have.

I think Eve rationalized away God's command, thinking it was not wrong *to her* to pursue her own interests, whether it was knowledge, or some capacity that God was holding back from her. At any rate, she hung out down by the "bad tree" simply because she was not yet placing her trust and dependency on God. Either that, or Satan had already reached out to her mind from a distance, tempting her.

So she was not boldly determined to violate God’s strict rules?

God said it was to create a mortal image of Himself in Christ, and then, to provide for him many brethren. Our minds are programmed to think only so far. We cannot see behind the programming. I'm sure God didn't "feel alone all by Himself in some infinite space!"

What drives a totally unselfish Being to create other beings, unless it was for their sake, He created them. God had the power and Love, so He makes being He can shower with gifts they can truly appreciate, the greatest gift being, to be like He is, be like God. But what is God like and how can God create a being to become like an uncreated being, best described as Love itself? Godly type Love is not a knee jerk reaction, but a free will choice. God cannot create an uncreated being and He cannot create His unconditional, unselfish sacrificial Love in a being, without allowing that Love to be conditional (somehow part of a truly free will choice, with other likely alternatives [which can be found on earth]).

Of course it was possible that Adam and Eve never sin from the start. But once infected with a Sin Nature whatever Good Nature we've obtained from God is necessarily marred by the continuing presence of our Independent Sin Nature. As long as we live in our fallen mortal bodies, we are legally subjected to what we have willfully given them over to. Even in the presence of Grace we have to yield to a flawed presentation of Christ's Righteousness.

OK, I see the problem.

With my limited knowledge of human nature (the nature Adam and Eve had), I could have told God, Adam and Eve will eventually sin, even with only one way to sin.

The reason being: They could not be created with a robotic/instinctive Godly type Love. You must Love first to do anything right (1 Cor. 13:1-3). If you Love, you have the power to obey.

Adam and Eve prior to sinning had no reason to humble themselves before God and accept God’s gifts as pure undeserved charity, for they had done nothing wrong, and God does have a responsibility to them. Adam and Eve could be proud of their behavior and not be humble which is not easy or needed.

It is both giving to us and trying to get from us.

God’s Love for us is totally unconditional, so He is not trying to “get something from us” for it will not change who God is,( if the prodigal son does not return it does not change who the Father is), but the return of the son pleases the father, for the son changed. God is not doing it so he can be happy with those who change, but so we can be happy with the change. God is happy with whom, God is, so He is not dependent on us.

If we humbly accept as pure charity all God has given us, we will automatically Love much (Luke 7), but that is not needed for God to be God and Love us.

Being "forgiven much sin" does not render equal those who live in sin and those who live in righteousness. It is saying that once a sinner repents he or she obtains equal footing with those who live in righteousness. Even moreso, those forgiven much have a greater appreciation for God's mercy. For those who've sinned, and repented, they enjoy God's glory in mercy. Those who have lived consistently in righteousness enjoy God's glory in faithfulness and in perseverence. Both produce great love for God, but they are different kinds of love, equally blessed. It's just that the righteous can learn from those who've received mercy and appreciate God's great love.

I do not know these people you talk of who: “have lived consistently in righteousness enjoy God's glory in faithfulness and in perseverance.”

I grow up in the church and thought of myself as, “Living consistently in righteousness…”, but at 26 I found some who were really “living consistently in righteousness.”

For many years, I experienced and believed Christianity had no real down side. It was a happy, easy and rewarding life, everyone should jump in. It was a fun easy life for me and I had a great resume and wanted to add prison Bible teaching.

I use to teach “we (Christians) all sin lots of times especially lusting and cannot keep from it, but we are constantly being washed by the blood of Christ, so we are without sin in that case.” That was before I met a group of Christians that risked death for themselves and others by sinning, just any sign of not doing what Christ would be doing in that moment could result in being beaten to death. Here is what happened:

I got thrown into (volunteered to substitute teach) with the youth (13-21 age) prisoners program teaching Bible (one hour on Sunday morning to a group of 14 with three other Christians teaching groups of 14) and I was teaching three groups of “Christians”. The first group were guys (“going to school”, it is called), they start out causing trouble and getting thrown in the tank. Then they start increasingly attending the Bible services, carrying their Bible, being nice, eventually being baptized and saying they are Christian. By the time the parole board meets, they have this glowing report showing continued improvement tied to their increased spirituality and are released. These guys still carry weapons, are members of a gang, and every prisoner knows they just “went to school” to get out. The second group were converted before they went to prison (granny conversions), but on their first day they are seen watching raunchy TV, hanging with a loss group, laughing at off colored jokes, they were not always talking about Jesus and were not trying to convert others. On their first day in prison the snitches see this, the snitches talk to the Bulls who then approach these “Christians” saying: “you are not a Christian” (doing everything Christ would do) and make them a slave (often sexual) or at best a gang member. They still come to Bible study on Sunday, so they can tell Granny (who visits them Sunday afternoon) what they learned, but they are slaves (sometimes sexually) to some bull. The third group is fanatical, they stick close to each other, they: study, pray, witness to everyone, and avoid even a hint of insincerity that the snitches could see. They carry no weapons, but step between those that are being beaten especially persecuted. This group had grown over the last 3 years from just a couple of guys to now 42, but it came at a high price. Each convert had on the day he was baptized, given up the protection of his gang membership, turned over his weapons along with all his possessions (the gang owns everything including them), they were beaten if not by the gang they left, then by other gangs looking for payback and then they were watched constantly looking for any sign the snitches might interpret as weakness (anything less than what Christ would do in the situation, would result in a beating and it could lead to death). There is absolutely no privacy and these Christians never wanted to be found alone. They slept in barracks where at least one stayed awake all night praying over the others, so they could sleep without the fear of being smashed in the head in the middle of the night. These guys believed and counted on power from the Holy Spirit, I did not know existed. They come battered and bruised each week hungry for some real meaningful Christ like lesson that goes beyond their group study of 40+hours that week on the same subject, which I could not provide. They mostly helped me with my poor example of Christianity and lack of knowledge and lack of wisdom. They mentored me even though they were only Christian for a few months, but I was a poor disciple and could not keep up with them. I don’t know if I could go through what they went through.

I wouldn't quite put it in those terms, that Christ was tortured to help us in our objective. Christ was tortured to become an atonement for sin on God's behalf. It was necessary for God to express His willingness to forgive our sins *in the flesh.*

Atonement is a huge topic, but you can think about this to begin with:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper, but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay satan.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible or nothing?

Answer me this:

When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If the nonbeliever accepts Jesus Christ and Him crucified, there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is held out of the Kingdom by this nonbeliever. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

Christ is the ransom payment for all, but the kidnapper can accept or reject the payment. If the kidnapper rejects this unbelievable huge payment, the payers of the ransom are going to be upset with that kidnapper.

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.

I don't think Sin is logical. Rejecting God's Kingdom is not logical. But Pride is, in itself, at least consistent with itself. It does not want to submit to authority. Men reject God's gift because there is a price tag--one must submit to the God who created us. He has the Builder's Manual.

People do not go around thinking about heaven and hell consequences, but see the immediate pleasures of sin.

. This does for others things that no other charity can do--it gives them Eternal Hope. And we can say we played a part in that.

Most nonbelievers are burdened by the words and things they have done which have hurt others. They seek help and if they look to God will find God and the only answer.

Eternal life is way off in the future to them, but solving their problem they are having right now is what they want.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I'm obviously familiar with this "Law of Conscience," as I term it.

"Thou shalt not eat of it" was not a law of conscience. It was a law of command.

The breaking of that law was the fall of Adam, the guilt of which sin is imputed to all those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19),
which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[RandyPNW]

"Thou shalt not eat of it" was not a law of conscience. It was a law of command.

I don't see a conflict here? A command is what is heard in the conscience!

The breaking of that law was the fall of Adam, the guilt of which sin is imputed to all those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19),
which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

I don't think "guilt" can be passed on from the guilty party to an innocent party. God extends the "punishment," or the consequences, of the guilty to affect the innocent in the line of fire.

Jer 32.18 You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the parents’ sins into the laps of their children after them. Great and mighty God, whose name is the Lord Almighty.

But God does not extend "guilt" in this way. He does, however, extend *consequences* or there would be no outcome for human behavior, postive or negative.

The breaking of that law was the fall of Adam, the guilt of which sin is imputed to all those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19),
which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

Again, you do not quote the passage, but instead make reference to it which, in my version, does not contain the word "imputed." The *guilt* is not to be passed down from the guilty party to the innocent party. Jesus may bear the punishment as if he was guilty, and do this for our sakes to forgive us our sins. But Jesus was *never* guilty of our sins!

Guilt cannot be passed from the guilty to the iinnocent, from guilty parents to innocent children, from guilty Adam and Eve to guilty descendants.

Deut 24.16 Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.

Eze 18.20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

Please note the word "credited" in this last passage. No guilt is being credited to Adam's children due to Adam's guilt. It is against the Scriptures. What is credited is righteousness to the righteous, and sin to the sinners.

In the case of Christian redemption, Christ credits his righteousness to righteous Abraham, because it really is his righteousness. But that righteousness is cut off due to the record of human sin.

Nevertheless, Christ continues to credit Abraham with righteousness--the righteousness of Faith. And so he extends that righteousness to eternity as an award given by Grace. It is not earned eiither by Abraham or by the Christian.

 

[RandyPNW]

I did not see the example fitting what I was talking about. I see us all starting out as babies with similar “natures” to Adam and Eve prior to sinning. Our “nature” does not change, but after we are mature adults all can gain the indwelling Holy Spirit and Godly type Love (be born again).

Yes, questions like these can come from all kinds of different angles, and I'm unsure of the direction you're going at times? I certainly agree that we were all born with a human nature, and that the Rebirth is a gift that comes form hearing and responding in obedience to the Christian Gospel. I was just stating that the human nature we are all born with has a Sin Nature as well as a Good Nature, designed in God's Image. The presence of Sin corrupts our Good Nature.

I agree Adam and Eve in their own minds (autonomous free will beings) did not “feel” dependent solely on God and further they had become codependent on each other.

Yep.

The eating of the fruit was an act of selfishness and a lacking of Godly type Love, which you might be describing as “independence”.

Yep.

This gets us into a longer discussion of their sins.

• Where did Eve get the idea that they could not even touch the fruit?

I think Eve drew that conclusion from the basic prohibition not to eat of it. She could've touched the fruit, but why do that? She was prohibited from touching the fruit in such a way as to pick it from the tree and eat it.

• Since Adam came and lived for a while without Eve, was Adam taught about the tree and left to convey the exact true message to Eve or did God speak to Eve directly?

I don't know that much time lapsed from Eve's sin to Adam's sin? We know that how?

• Adam and Eve were both made “very good” (most likely as good as made beings could be made), but Eve was not just another Adam with different plumbing, since she was made for Adam. Eve was made for Adam so she would be happy with Adam and Adam could not be happier with anyone else, but they would be very different, to compliment each other. How were they different?

In the end we become genderless, so I'm not sure it matters. You've described some of the differences.

• 1 Tim. 2: 3 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. A lot is made of the fact “Adam was with Eve”, but the Hebrew word translated “with” less than half the time means “in close proximity” and conveys the idea of the opposite of being against. Adam and Eve had been together long enough to become codependent on each other (they were perfectly matched.) “With” can also mean sexually with each other. If Adam was at the tree with Eve not deceived by satan, than he is allowing Eve to commit suicide and not even speaking up.

I have to admire your attention to detail here. I just don't find it relevant personally, although perhaps interesting.

• After eating Eve gave the fruit to Adam, but with what words? Gen. 3: 12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” If Adam had become codependent with Eve and felt he could not live without her than he would want to go with her even in death.

Yes, co-dependance. To the death. The act of utter selfishness to give up God's gift to him in order to please his own interests.

• From the fact Adam was to rule over Eve also suggests, Adam sinned out of a greater love for Eve than he had for God at the time.

Exactly!

People sin for what they can get, more than out of being rebellious toward their God, but it can be rebellious sin.

To me, any sin is a form of rebellion against God's Word which is always present in our conscience.

Eve did not sin because she wanted to violate God’s rules, but because she lusted after knowledge she could not have.

I agree.

So she was not boldly determined to violate God’s strict rules?

Yes and no. She violated God's rules intentionally out of some kind of rationalization or self-justification. But she did not bring herself to face the fact she was dissing God and rebelling against His authority. Most likely, she thought God would consent to her "rebellion" out of His inherent "kindness."

To Eve God may have been a "Sugar Daddy." What woman turns to a Sugar Daddy out of hostility towards him? She wants, or covets, something from him!

What drives a totally unselfish Being to create other beings, unless it was for their sake, He created them.

I don't believe rules of selfishness/unselfishness apply to God. His form of "selfishness" is good for all of us. Doing things for Himself also does things for us, out of His benevolence. He does not have to exclude His own interests in order to do things for us. But He certainly did put Himself on the fire in order to bless us when he put His Son on the Cross.

God had the power and Love, so He makes being He can shower with gifts they can truly appreciate, the greatest gift being, to be like He is, be like God. But what is God like and how can God create a being to become like an uncreated being, best described as Love itself?

I don't think that's what God meant by "creating us in His own Image." It is not creating us with Divine attributes, but rather, giving us a similtude of abilities, including reason, love, creativity, etc.

Godly type Love is not a knee jerk reaction, but a free will choice. God cannot create an uncreated being and He cannot create His unconditional, unselfish sacrificial Love in a being, without allowing that Love to be conditional (somehow part of a truly free will choice, with other likely alternatives [which can be found on earth]).

Yes, we are "like God" in the matter of free choice.

OK, I see the problem.

With my limited knowledge of human nature (the nature Adam and Eve had), I could have told God, Adam and Eve will eventually sin, even with only one way to sin.

People had an option, to obey God's Word and to fulfill their destiny to be "like God," or to rebel against that Word, becoming Sinners.

Adam and Eve prior to sinning had no reason to humble themselves before God and accept God’s gifts as pure undeserved charity, for they had done nothing wrong, and God does have a responsibility to them.

Sure they did. Adam and Eve had the built-in responsibility of being thankful to their Creator for their existence and for attributes that are good and beneficial to themselves. They simply chose to put coveted interests ahead of God's Word.

God’s Love for us is totally unconditional, so He is not trying to “get something from us” for it will not change who God is...

Of course God is interested in "getting something from us!" He bult His mandates into our creation, and expects a "harvest" from what He sowed into our creation.

,( if the prodigal son does not return it does not change who the Father is), but the return of the son pleases the father, for the son changed. God is not doing it so he can be happy with those who change, but so we can be happy with the change. God is happy with whom, God is, so He is not dependent on us.

God is not dependent on the choices we make, it is true. However, His good pleasure extends to those who fulfill His mission, and His displeasure extends to those who do harm to His image. He created mankind to reflect His positive attributes. Doing otherwise is a misrepresentation of who He is, although the administration of His justice corrects any misconceptions.

I do not know these people you talk of who: “have lived consistently in righteousness enjoy God's glory in faithfulness and in perseverance.”

Many Christians have remained "in the fold" throughout their lives. Even those who have occasionally "fallen off the cart," who get back on, can be viewed as spending a lifetime in righteousness. They don't know the depths of love in having been born and lived in paganism, and then be forgiven for all of the wayward activities that entailed.

I was thinking today about Hosea and Sampson. In both cases God led them to marry people who may have had some goodness that made them attractive to these men of God. But God knew they would be weak and a heartbreak to their husbands. Why then did God cause it to be?

I think it is because Jesus said that those who are forgiven much love much. When men marry wayward women who are not all bad they have to face the fact they were complicit in the failure. Certainly Sampson was!

So in the process of paying a heavy price for this waywardness there comes to be a tremendous appreciation for God's forgiveness and grace. Certainly King David found this to be true!

The elder brother of the Prodigal Son could've learned something from his wayward younger brother. Certainly the father appreciated the younger son's desperation to return to him! That's something the elder son clearly didn't appreciate!

 

[RandyPNW]

I got thrown into (volunteered to substitute teach) with the youth (13-21 age) prisoners program teaching Bible (one hour on Sunday morning to a group of 14 with three other Christians teaching groups of 14) and I was teaching three groups of “Christians”.

Wow, that is difficult to hear! You put yourself down below the Christian prisoners, but how many of them will visit a prison after they get out? We don't really know--they are in a captive environment. You are not!

Atonement is a huge topic, but you can think about this to begin with:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?

Clearly, Satan and his hordes are the kidnappers, although we are responsible for making our own bad choices despite the duress. Satan would use the Law of God against us Christians because we are imperfect. Angels seem to stand guard and protect the holy God from any incursions by sinful agents, just as the cherubim stood guard at Eden's gate after Adam and Eve sinned.

However, God did not pay ransom to Satan. Rather, He bought us from His own criminal justice system which temporarily assigned us, by angels, to the "purgatory" of an atonement-less reality. Actually, there were signs of temporary atonement along the way, such as Isaac's replacement with a lamb on the altar and the many animal sacrifices under the Law of Moses.

I guess you could say that God was paying our ransom to Himself!

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.

Yes, God is, however, the One who put in place a system in which free agents can sin and make others victims of their own crimes. He is not responsible for the kidnapping, but for working out the justice that evolved within His own chosen system.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper, but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay satan.

I agree. Wrong to pay Satan anything whatsoever.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible or nothing?

See above.

Answer me this:

When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If the nonbeliever accepts Jesus Christ and Him crucified, there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is held out of the Kingdom by this nonbeliever. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

See above. Duress is applied by sinful angelic agents who bring out of us what our choices are. Since it is duress and coming from outside of us, I think God understands and is patient while we determine what our final choice will be.

So we can be complicit with Satan, our kidnapper. We may choose, like him, to join in his rebellion against God's Word on behalf of our own independent judgment and lifestyle.

At any rate, nobody should pay off a kidnapper! They are criminals and should not be rewarded for their evil deed.

People do not go around thinking about heaven and hell consequences, but see the immediate pleasures of sin.

Most nonbelievers are burdened by the words and things they have done which have hurt others. They seek help and if they look to God will find God and the only answer.

This is, for me, one and the same thing. To be bothered in our conscience by what we do to others is to be concerned about our eternal judgment. How do we want to be viewed in the eternal stretch of time? What do we want engraved on our tombstones?

Eternal life is way off in the future to them, but solving their problem they are having right now is what they want.

Yes, the biggest issues are more immediate. But they all end in our relationship to God and to His Word. It is an appeal to our conscience.

 

[tdidymas]

What is the sin that condemned men and caused their death between Adam and Moses when there was no law and therefore no sin was charged against them (Ro 5:12-14)?

It was the sin of Adam imputed to them, which imputation was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousnes (Ro 5:18-19).

You cannot say there was no law from Adam to Moses, because Cain was punished for murder, the world drowned in a flood, and the Noahic covenant included laws, including capital punishment. Therefore, in that statement of Paul, he had to be talking about the Mosaic covenant. But where there really is no law is in infants and young children before they know right and wrong. So your theory falls flat. I need an exegesis that proves the theory, not merely prooftexts with assertions.

I'm asking a sincere question. Please read my original reply here:

question of imputation

There is no "imputation" of grace. When a person repents of his sins, believes, and is baptized as commanded by Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:18-20, he is cleansed of all his sins by the blood of Jesus, and then he receives the Holy Spirit as his guarantee of righteousness. The person will remain...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Clare73]

I don't see a conflict here? A command is what is heard in the conscience!

That's too loose and imprecise to pass Scriptural muster.

I don't think "guilt" can be passed on from the guilty party to an innocent party.

Then of what sin did they all die between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against and cause their deaths (Ro 5:12-14)?
Of what was the sinful Adam the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the righteous Christ?

They died of the sin of Adam imputed to all those of Adam (Ro 5:12), which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

God extends the "punishment," or the consequences, of the guilty to affect the innocent in the line of fire.

Yet, righteousness (as well as guilt) can be passed on from the innocent (guilty) party to the guilty (innocent) party (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-5).

See Ro 5:18-19.

Jer 32.18 You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the parents’ sins into the laps of their children after them. Great and mighty God, whose name is the Lord Almighty.

But God does not extend "guilt" in this way.

And you know this, how?

See 2 Co 5:21.

He does, however, extend *consequences* or there would be no outcome for human behavior, postive or negative.

Again, you do not quote the passage, but instead make reference to it which, in my version, does not contain the word "imputed." The *guilt* is not to be passed down from the guilty party to the innocent party. Jesus may bear the punishment as if he was guilty, and do this for our sakes to forgive us our sins. But Jesus was *never* guilty of our sins!

Our guilt was imputed to Jesus just as his righteousness is imputed to us (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[Clare73]

You cannot say there was no law from Adam to Moses, because Cain was punished for murder, the world drowned in a flood, and the Noahic covenant included laws, including capital punishment.

Redemption began with Abraham. . .not before, during which time from Abraham to Moses there was no given law to sin against and, therefore, no personal sin was charged against anyone (Ro 5:12-14).

Yet, they all died because of sin.

What sin was charged against them. . .which was also the pattern for Christ (Ro 5:14)?

 

[RandyPNW]

That's too loose and imprecise to pass Scriptural muster.

Clare, Scripture Doctrine relies upon the precise use of language, and not the other way around. Scripture Doctrine, however, can be explained in many different ways. There is no "exact terminology" that must be used, since different people use different synonyms and examples to say the same basic things.

Common Sense is not something we have to have prescribed by Doctrinal Mandate, although it is there and assumed. It is "common sense" that God's commands are understood in the human conscience--it does not require being on the list of "required biblical beliefs!"

Then of what sin did they all die between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against and cause their deaths (Ro 5:12-14)?
Of what was the sinful Adam the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the righteous Christ?

When Paul said there was "no law," he was speaking of the formal structure of a legal system, such as existed under the Law of Moses. People were subject to God's Word, which spoke to our conscience.

That Word existed from the moment we were created in God's Image. We had to have been born with a sense of what God is like? Clearly, Cain knew it was inappropriate, or "unlike God," to murder his brother.

The people in the days before the Flood clearly had a sense that they were "abusive" to one another in society, taking things and hurting others? They just didn't have a formal set of laws banning such behavior. They obviously didn't care to have a more "inspired" set of moral commands. That would've limited what they viewed as the "norms" of society.

The Law of Moses, before it existed, was prefigured in laws of the conscience, though this was not reflected in an "inspired" set of laws, or in a "redemptive" set of laws. The Law, by contrast was based upon the assumption that God still accepted righteous people who were lawful, despite their imperfections and sins. And clearly, God had continued to accept Adam and Eve even after their sin, with the assumption that they could still act in a lawful way.

And so, from the very beginning, at the point of Adam's sin, there was both law and hope of redemption. There just wasn't any formal set of laws that gave rise to the hope of redemption yet.

People died regardless because they were still legally defined as sinners disqualified from the Tree of Life. This is, I think, Paul's point.

He was pointing out that death was evidence that we were still guilty of lawlessness even at a time before the Law gave rise to the hope of redemption in the face of sins that were more formally spelled out in Israel.

They died of the sin of Adam imputed to all those of Adam (Ro 5:12), which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

Yet, righteousness (as well as guilt) can be passed on from the innocent (guilty) party to the guilty (innocent) party (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-5).

See Ro 5:18-19.

And you know this, how?

See 2 Co 5:21.

Our guilt was imputed to Jesus just as his righteousness is imputed to us (Ro 5:18-19).

I find it interesting that today I saw where John Darby rejected "imputation" as I do. So I'm not alone in my rejection of "imputation," although I can accept what it's trying to say. It's a subtle distinction--the word just falls short for me.

Guilt cannot be passed on, whether it involves descendants who are born with a Sin Nature or Christ who "bore" our sins. Guilt is retained by those who commit the sin. Each person has his or her own guilt. Common sense.

Righteousness also is owned by the persosn who is establishing his or her own record. That record cannot be passed on to another.

By contrast, "righteousness" can be expressed as a "spiritual virtue" that is transmitted from God to His People. The Holy Spirit is the carrier of this virtue and we simply put it into motion in our lives by following its impetus.

Receiving God's Word and obeying it is the vehicle of transmission from God's virtue to us. But the record of perfection held by Christ cannot be passed on to us. Our record is that of a flawed righteousness, even though we "partake" of Christ's virtue.

 

[Clare73]

Clare, Scripture Doctrine relies upon the precise use of language, and not the other way around. Scripture Doctrine, however, can be explained in many different ways. There is no "exact terminology" that must be used, since different people use different synonyms and examples to say the same basic things.

Nope. . .no end run around or improvement upon Biblical texts.

 

[RandyPNW]

Nope. . .no end run around or improvement upon Biblical texts.

I had to re-write my post--please re-read. I made way too many errors. But my point in this initial statement was this. Scripture does not tell us precisely how to describe its beliefs, as long as logically it expresses the same things. Unless we understand language 1st we cannot even express biblical doctrines.

Therefore, doctrine does not teach us language. But we must know language in order to express biblical truths. The Bible teaches us what "truths" must be taught. It does not teach us language in order to pass on the essential truths.

"Conscience," therefore, falls outside the jurisdiction or concerns of biblical truths. It is something we understand in our language as a universal human experience. We feel satisfaction or guilt over our behaviors. We do not need the Bible to inform us of that.

The relationship between God's living Word and our conscience is self-evident. Searching for biblical support is an exercise in futility.

 

[Clare73]

I had to re-write my post--please re-read. I made way too many errors. But my point in this initial statement was this. Scripture does not tell us precisely how to describe its beliefs, as long as logically it expresses the same things. Unless we understand language 1st we cannot even express biblical doctrines.

Therefore, doctrine does not teach us language.

Strawman. . .

But we must know language in order to express biblical truths. The Bible teaches us what "truths" must be taught. It does not teach us language in order to pass on the essential truths.

How's that for meeting yourself coming back?

 

[RandyPNW]

Strawman. . .

How's that for meeting yourself coming back?

You were saying that the "law of conscience" is not acceptable biblical verbiage, did you not? How can you not see that the Bible does not need to teach the truth of the "law of conscience?" It doesn't teach us many things about human experience that we naturally understand and have no need to have repeated to us. It doesn't need to explain what pablum is, does it? Does that make "pablum" unbiblical?

The part that I wanted to "re-write" followed this point.

 

[Clare73]

You were saying that the "law of conscience" is not acceptable biblical verbiage, did you not? How can you not see that
the Bible does not need to teach the truth of the "law of conscience?"

Nevertheless, it does just that (Ro 2:14-15).

 

[RandyPNW]

Nevertheless, it does just that (Ro 2:14-15).

Yes, I know. So now you're disproving what you claimed was "unbiblical?"

You admit that the Law of Conscience is taught in the Bible, but have already denied that the command "do not eat" in the Garden was "only a command, and not the Law of Conscience." How is this consistent or logical?

As I said, we would define the Law of Conscience as God's commands given and received in our conscience. It does not require a formal law to receive God's *living Word.*

God's spoken Law to our conscience preexisted the Law of Moses. Even some tradition of Law was formalized before the written Law of Moses was written in formal covenant form.

Paul was not, therefore, declaring that no Law at all preexisted the Law of Moses. Sin could not be explained unless some kind of Law from God is violated.

In context Paul was saying that *formal Law* as in a coded written Law, in covenant form, had not yet been introduced, even as people were still dying because of their Sinful Nature. God's Word spoken to our conscience always existed.

And it's this that we call the "Law of Conscience." Its primary form is representted in the creation of Man "after God's image and likeness." It is our conscience that recognizes what that is.

 

[tdidymas]

Redemption began with Abraham. . .not before, during which time from Abraham to Moses there was no given law to sin against and, therefore, no personal sin was charged against anyone (Ro 5:12-14).

You are implying that Abel was not redeemed. I think not.

Yet, they all died because of sin.

Correct, they died physically because of the principle of sin in their members (Rom. 8:10). But you cannot say that they all were spiritually dead, since some were spiritually alive, including Abel, Enoch, and Noah among others.

What sin was charged against them. . .which was also the pattern for Christ (Ro 5:14)?

The sinful nature caused them to die (Rom. 8:10). But anyone who sinned, only their own sin was charged against them (Ezek. 18:20). No one can say that infants who die had sinned, and it is unreasonable to claim that infants who die go to hell.

So why aren't you exegeting scripture like I asked? All you're doing is presenting a few pet prooftexts that don't prove anything. It looks to me like you've swallowed conjecture hook, line, and sinker, and are merely parroting what you've been told. If you keep doing the same and don't provide a link to a real exegesis, then I'll just have to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I know. So now you're disproving what you claimed was "unbiblical?"

You admit that the Law of Conscience is taught in the Bible, but have already denied that the command "do not eat" in the Garden was "only a command, and not the Law of Conscience." How is this consistent or logical?

Evidently, you don't understand the point of Ro 2 concerning the law and its condemnation of all men.

 

[Clare73]

You are implying that Abel was not redeemed. I think not.

I am stating that God's plan of redemption in Christ began with Abraham.

Correct, they died physically because of the principle of sin in their members (Rom. 8:10). But you cannot say that they all were spiritually dead, since some were spiritually alive, including Abel, Enoch, and Noah among others.

They were all born spiritually dead, as is all mankind, in which spiritual death they remain until regenerated into eternal life by the sovereign (as unaccountable as the wind, Jn 3:6-8) new birth of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5).

The sinful nature caused them to die (Rom. 8:10).

We are not condemned because of our sinful nature which we inherit.
We are condemned by the sin counted against us.

But anyone who sinned, only their own sin was charged against them (Ezek. 18:20).

They do not inherit their father's sin.

The sin of Adam is imputed to them (Ro 5:17, 18, 19).

No one can say that infants who die had sinned, and it is unreasonable to claim that infants who die go to hell.

Then you don't believe Ro 5:17, where Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind.

So why aren't you exegeting scripture like I asked?

Oversight. . .which would you like me to exegete?

I'll start with Ro 5:12-14, which boils down to:

Death is caused by sin (Ro 6:23).
Where there is no sin, there is no death.
Where there is no law, sin is not taken into account (Ro 5:13); i.e., there is no sin, therefore, there is no death.
There was no law between Adam and Moses, yet all died.
Of what sin did they all die?
They died of the sin of Adam imputed to all those of Adam (Ro 5:12-14, 17), which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to all those of Christ, and where those imputations of both sin and righteousness are then paralleled in Ro 5:18-19.