Tall's personality change.

[JonMiller]

The problem is if he says they had no command and did not trespass then the moral law must not have been directly given yet.

So they have no need of a savior? That doesn't make sense...

They did trespass, you are forgetting that. I think you are misreading what Paul was saying.

He is refering to the Jewish Law here, and tresspasses of it. Not to the Moral Law, and trespasses of it.

JM

 

[tall73]

So they have no need of a savior? That doesn't make sense...

They did trespass, you are forgetting that. I think you are misreading what Paul was saying.

He is refering to the Jewish Law here, and tresspasses of it. Not to the Moral Law, and trespasses of it.

JM

Nope, look again.

A. They did need a Savior and experienced death.

B. They did not sin in the same way as Adam who trespassed.


Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

 

[JonMiller]

But they didn't sin?

But:
[bible]
20And the LORD said, "(U)The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. 21"I will (V)go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."
[\bible]


And:
[bible]
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that (D)every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6(E)The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was (F)grieved in His heart.
7The LORD said, "(G)I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for (H)I am sorry that I have made them."
8But (I)Noah (J)found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
9These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a (K)righteous man, (L)blameless in his time; Noah (M)walked with God.
10Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11Now the earth was (N)corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was (O)filled with violence.
12God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for (P)all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
13Then God said to Noah, "(Q)The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.
[/bible]

So either you are wrong, and are misunderstanding Paul. Or Paul is wrong, or Genesis is wrong, and the people between Adam and Moses didn't sin.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Note that Paul never says that the sin that the Jews did by transgressing the law given by Moses was like the transgression of Adam either. He is refering to Adam's trangression and being that which brought sin into the world.. just as by Christ's death sin is removed from the world. You can even see later in that very sentence, that he is comparing Adam and Christ, not comparing Adam and the Jews after Moses. He is not saying that it is because Adam was breaking a law of God, and the Jews were breaking a law of God.

This passage only makes sense, only fits in with the rest of the Bible, if you think about what law Paul would be talking about. And he would be talking about the specific law given to the Jews. He is not talking about the moral law.

JM

 

[tall73]

The point is taken however let's examine what is really at stake here. Some are saying since we were not "commanded" from creation to keep the Sabbath that we don't know if they did back then or not and if we don't know if it wasn't a part of the original plan then it was most likely a Mosiac law that was fulfilled at the cross. Am I getting close yet? I know that is where you are heading with this so let's just deal with those arguements right now, shall we?

Actually it is one piece in the whole debate, and I primarily mentioned it because of your question regarding whether sin is in the world, and its relation to law.

The only evidence to be considered is not whether it was a creation ordinance. But it is a big issue.

The first thing we need to understand is that you can't just take the Genesis account only and arive at what is required by God. Just like you can't take just one verse and build a doctrine on it you can't take one section of the Bible and invalidate the necessity of observing/obeying the Sabbath commandment.

If we take the Genesis 2:1-3 text and mesh it with Ex 20: 8-11 we start to get an idea of the Sabbath truth. Exodus points us back to Eden at the very beginning as to why the Sabbath needs to be remembered.

He points to God as creator and gives them a sign of their loyalty to Him. Note also as Free pointed out the Deut. version which points to Him as the Redeemer from Egyptian bondage.

But again, Exodus points back to God's resting. It doesn't say anything about a Sabbath starting in that time. Nor did man rest in Genesis, nor was there a command.

NOW the command was given to Israel based on God being the creator which was a sign of His authority over them in the covenant. The covenant is not one between equals, but has God as the Sovereign over them who requires obedience and homage. Part of that homage includes the covenant sign which is their recognition of Him as redeemer and creator.

But Exodus does not say there was a Sabbath rest commanded in Genesis.

Then we can take the text in Gen 26:5 that says Abraham kept God's commandments , laws and statutes. Last but not least Christ Himself said why the Sabbath was made.

You haven't shown that Abraham kept the Sabbath at all or shown where the commands given to him are spelled out.

Nor have you dealt with Paul's text saying that some from Adam's time did not sin by transgression--they did not break a direct command.

As to Christ's statement, as Ricker said you took it out of context:

Mar 2:23 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.
Mar 2:24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?"
Mar 2:25 And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:
Mar 2:26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?"
Mar 2:27 And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Mar 2:28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath."

Jesus is not teaching about the Sabbath being a creation ordinance but on the purpose of the Sabbath. God did not intend for it to be a curse so that slavish obedience to it trumped mercy.

Abraham was not "statuted" to do something. Abraham was not "lawed" to do something. Those two words indicate something in existence beyond the mere command to do something.

Indeed they do. And

A. were they given to everyone? If so then Paul's statement makes no sense.

B. were they the same as the Jewish law? That is up to you to prove.

C. Most likely they involved the ceremonial law which was already in place since Abraham offered sacrifice.

D. If you think Abraham kept the Sabbath then just show us the text.

Written on stone sure, but commandments in existence no way. You can't proove that there was no commandments of God that man was fully aware of before Horeb.

Jim,

A. We don't have to prove a negative. Paul was the one who said they died in a different way, not by transgression, though it was still sin. So if the moral law was in place for all men and they knew about it DIRECTLY (he concedes they had a conscience) then what do you think the text means?

B. If you think the Sabbath command was directly given, then SHOW WHERE IT WAS. You cannot.

Assuming your position and then saying we can't prove a negative is not the way to convince folks. You are the one who needs to find the Sabbath commandment.

Probably about the same thing as it does to the view that they knew God didn't want them to comit murder or adultery.

Actually there is where you are wrong. Gentiles all the time recognize the moral principles of not killing, stealing, etc. But they have not on any large scale across nations and time recognized the Sabbath innately. Why is that? Because the other were written on the heart and man knew them through the conscience. But that still does not show a direct command.

You can't keep the requirements of a law and be held accountable for it without the law existing.

Then why does Paul say you can?

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Not to my knowledge but does that fact make it inapplicable to mankind at that time?

I am not speaking here of the Sabbath command. I should have clarified. The command not to each from the tree--which was the trespass of Adam that is being discussed--was a DIRECT command. It didn't matter if it was written or not. That was my point. It doesn't matter if it is written. But you need to show a direct command.

There was a direct command to Adam. Paul says that those who came after him did not sin in the same way. They did not break the command as did Adam.

It was set aside for man's use because Christ Himself said this. You can't fixate on the fact that it wasn't commanded at creation as the final word as to whether it's still valid or not. Take the whole Bible brother.

God bless
Jim Larmore

So you now admit that it was not commanded at Creation? Alright. That is one step.

 

[JonMiller]

Romans 2:
[bible]
12For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, (AA)according to my gospel, (AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
[/bible]



One more shows what Paul is talking about. He is talking about the Jewish law. Not about the Moral law. He flat out says here that gentiles are under the moral law also. See verses 12, 14, and 15. Also, since we don't see the gentiles circumcizing eachother/etc (the important question with respect to the Jewish law in the early church), we observe that the law the gentiles must have written in their hearts (this isn't about Christians.. this is about all men, there aren't two laws... one for Christians and one for those who aren't) is in similar to the Jewish law. It seems reasonable from this that the Jewish law contains an implementation of the Moral law within it.


JM

 

[tall73]

But they didn't sin?

But:
[bible]
20And the LORD said, "(U)The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. 21"I will (V)go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."
[\bible]


And:
[bible]
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that (D)every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6(E)The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was (F)grieved in His heart.
7The LORD said, "(G)I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for (H)I am sorry that I have made them."
8But (I)Noah (J)found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
9These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a (K)righteous man, (L)blameless in his time; Noah (M)walked with God.
10Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11Now the earth was (N)corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was (O)filled with violence.
12God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for (P)all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
13Then God said to Noah, "(Q)The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.
[/bible]

So either you are wrong, and are misunderstanding Paul. Or Paul is wrong, or Genesis is wrong, and the people between Adam and Moses didn't sin.

JM

You missed it again.
THEY DID SIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They did not trespass in the same way as Adam by violating a direct command. Yet DEATH REIGNED in them anyway because the one transgression that brought sin into the world.


Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--
Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.


Now again the text says:

A. They did sin. All sinned.
B. Sin was in the world before the law--the Jewish law--was given.
C. Those who sinned did not sin "like the transgression of Adam." They did not transgress a direct command. It was still sin, however.

Sin is always sin. But it is made more clear by a direct command--which Adam had.

Now notice the later part:

Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

The law entered so that sin might be that much more offensive, that it would be seen as the evil it is.

 

[tall73]

Romans 2:
[bible]
12For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, (AA)according to my gospel, (AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
[/bible]



One more shows what Paul is talking about. He is talking about the Jewish law. Not about the Moral law. He flat out says here that gentiles are under the moral law also.

EXACTLY--now was it by DIRECT COMMAND? Or was it because it was in the heart:?

The text tells you which one. It was not a direct command. It was written in the heart.

See verses 12, 14, and 15. Also, since we don't see the gentiles circumcizing eachother/etc (the important question with respect to the Jewish law in the early church), we observe that the law the gentiles must have written in their hearts (this isn't about Christians.. this is about all men, there aren't two laws... one for Christians and one for those who aren't) is in similar to the Jewish law. It seems reasonable from this that the Jewish law contains an implementation of the Moral law within it.

Getting closer again.

A. Were the gentiles given a direct command? No. They were not. They had the law on their hearts through their conscience.

B. You note that gentiles do not spontaneously circumcise.

Now the next question is this: Cultures across all time and throughout many regions recognize such moral principles as not killing, not stealing, etc. They also recognize that there is a creator based on what He made :

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


That was the point of chapters 1-3 that ALL MEN are alike under sin. All are without excuse. Those who had the law were condemned by the law. Those without the law had a conscience and had the testimony of nature, and were condemned as well. All were in need of grace.

Now...back to the point...these cultures recognize moral principles but do we see evidence of gentile cultures across regions and time spontaneously keeping the Sabbath as a law written in their heart?

If so then why do we have to convince so many people?

 

[JonMiller]

Now again the text says:

A. They did sin. All sinned.

Yes, they all sinned. It was not that they were being punished for the sin of Adam. They were being punished for sin they weren't born with.

B. Sin was in the world before the law--the Jewish law--was given.

Exactly. This does not mean that they weren't under the Moral law.

C. Those who sinned did not sin "like the transgression of Adam". Transgression specifically refers to the violation of a command.

Where do you get this from? Where does it say that trasgression only refers to a violation of a command?

Additionally, why does it matter? What is different about what a Jew faced who broke the law (for example, the Jew who took stuff from the fall of Jericho) and the people of Sodom? Didn't they receive the same punishment?

The only thing special about Adam's sin (note that he wasn't killed for it right than), was that it introduced sin into the world. Nothing else was special about it. Just like nothing is special about the Jew who sinned, or the gentile who sinned.

It is still sin to break the Moral law or the Jewish law (which was just a specific implementation of the Moral law with ceremonial laws included that pointed to Christ).

JM

 

[tall73]

Note that Paul never says that the sin that the Jews did by transgressing the law given by Moses was like the transgression of Adam either. He is refering to Adam's trangression and being that which brought sin into the world..


just as by Christ's death sin is removed from the world. You can even see later in that very sentence, that he is comparing Adam and Christ, not comparing Adam and the Jews after Moses. He is not saying that it is because Adam was breaking a law of God, and the Jews were breaking a law of God.

The primary comparison of the passage is that with Adam and Christ. Adam transgressed and brought death TO ALL MEN.

Christ did not transgress and obeyed, bringing life to ALL MEN.

But now you have to ask if there is another comparison here:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression


There is a comparison to Adam and those who come after him. He sinned in one way--transgression of a direct command. They sinned in another way--without a direct command.

Both sinned. Both are guilty. In fact his whole point is that ADAM was the one who sinned and they received death as an inheritance.

Rom 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:


And just as Adam had this immense impact so Christ has an even bigger impact in reversing the whole situation.


Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

 

[JonMiller]

EXACTLY--now was it by DIRECT COMMAND? Or was it because it was in the heart:?

The text tells you which one. It was not a direct command. It was written in the heart.



Getting closer again.

A. Were the gentiles given a direct command? No. They were not. They had the law on their hearts through their conscience.

I don't see why the direct command is important. Yeah, we don't have any recorded implementation of the Moral law other than that given to the Jews in the OT (and it was given with the Ceremonial law). I don't see why that has to mean that there was never any other implementation given. Additionally, there seems to be no difference between those who were given a direct command and those who weren't.. so why do you keep bringing it up?

B. You note that gentiles do not spontaneously circumcise.

Now the next question is this: Cultures across all time and throughout many regions recognize such moral principles as not killing, not stealing, etc. They also recognize that there is a creator based on what He made :

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


That was the point of chapters 1-3 that ALL MEN are alike under sin. All are without excuse. Those who had the law were condemned by the law. Those without the law had a conscience and had the testimony of nature, and were condemned as well. All were in need of grace.

Those without the Jewish law were still condemned by the Moral law.

Now...back to the point...these cultures recognize moral principles but do we see evidence of gentile cultures across regions and time spontaneously keeping the Sabbath as a law written in their heart?

If so then why do we have to convince so many people?

Just because the Moral law is written in our hearts doesn't mean that we can observe the whole thing. And there are culturse that don't recognize that adultery is wrong, that don't recognize that theft is wrong, that don't recognize that murder is wrong.

Now most do, and so (even without the Jewish law) it is a pretty safe bet that they are part of the Moral law. But just because something isn't seen in a given culture doesn't mean that it isn't part of the Moral law.

To go further, just because something isn't seen in any culture doesn't mean that it isn't part of the Moral law. Now, of course, we do see the Sabbath in cultures (Jewish most obviously, but also a day of rest from work is desired in our own culture...). Finally, because it deals with God, rather than man, it is less likely to arrise in man's cultures.

Now, how can we determine what the Moral law is.. since our own senses are dull (Sin being intrinsic to our natures). Now, we can, and should, pray and ask God to lead us. This is the most important. However, we also have the Bible. Which contains within it a previous implementation of God's law (including His Moral law, he wouldn't give the Jews a law that opposed His Moral law). So we can also look to that for some ideas.

There we see the Sabbath (7th day Sabbath). Now, we can look at why were the Jews likely keeping it? Well, in the Bible it tells the Jews why they were to keep it. Exodus 20:
[bible]
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
[/bible]
They were to keep it as a reminder that the LORD is the Creator. Something that we are prone to forgetting in our day.

From there it is up to you whether the Sabbath is included in the Moral law or not. But the law still exists, it still does it's duty of convicting us of sin. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't sin. We couldn't sin.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

There is a comparison to Adam and those who come after him. He sinned in one way--transgression of a direct command. They sinned in another way--without a direct command.

Show me where there is any difference in consequence between a sin where a direct command was given and a sin where no direct command was given.

Both sinned. Both are guilty. In fact his whole point is that ADAM was the one who sinned and they received death as an inheritance.

That's not what genesis says. Genesis says that men between Moses and Adam were receiving the results of their transgressions.. not only the results of Adam's transgression. See my earlier two scriptures.

Rom 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:
And just as Adam had this immense impact so Christ has an even bigger impact in reversing the whole situation.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

True. And this is what Paul is talking about. Paul is not talking about people who haven't been given a direct command not trasngressing. Paul is not saying that anyone is not under the Moral law.

JM

 

[tall73]

Yes, they all sinned. It was not that they were being punished for the sin of Adam. They were being punished for sin they weren't born with.

Please explain this verse:

For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Adam by introducing sin assured the death of all.

But apart from that you also have to keep in mind Paul's overall point for this passage. He has in chapter 1-:3:20 convicted the whole world of sin. In chapter 3:21 he introduces the theme of salvation APART FROM LAW.

Why? Because all were under a law--either the Mosaic law, or the law of the conscience. Now why doesn't he just say that God gave Adam a moral law that all gentiles follow? Because He did NOT give a direct command. We never find one. If there was one then he would not need to spell out the one inherent in the conscience, written on the heart.

All were under a law--mosaic or conscience. But all were condemned by it. So now they needed something apart from law to save them--grace.

In chapter 5 he is looking at the implications of that grace.

Christ's salvation was for both those who sinned UNDER the mosaic law--and for those who did not sin by breaking a direct law--those under the law of the conscience.

Christ helps both groups. All were stuck because of Adam, and all were saved because of Christ.

For him to make that point he has to show that those who HAD NO DIRECT COMMAND were still guilty. That is what he is doing here. They had the law on the heart. They DID NOT have any direct command. But they were guilty, and needed a Savior. And Jesus was that Savior.

Exactly. This does not mean that they weren't under the Moral law.

A. you haven't shown they were.
B. He says they did not sin in the same way through transgression.
C. Why does he postulate the law of the conscience if there was a directly given moral law by God? It would make no sense.

Where do you get this from? Where does it say that trasgression only refers to a violation of a command?

The word itself contains the notion. I posted it earlier:


G3847
παράβασις
parabasis
par-ab'-as-is
From G3845; violation: - breaking, transgression.

Additionally, why does it matter? What is different about what a Jew faced who broke the law (for example, the Jew who took stuff from the fall of Jericho) and the people of Sodom? Didn't they receive the same punishment?

EXACTLY.

See the problem is we are isolating this from the context. Paul's point is that all alike are under sin. All are toast. The Jewish minority in the Roman church thought they were something because they had the law. Paul said no--it is not the one who has the law but the one who does the law that matters. And NO ONE DOES IT.

Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality.
Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Rom 2:17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God
Rom 2:18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law;
Rom 2:19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
Rom 2:20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--
Rom 2:21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal?
Rom 2:22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
Rom 2:23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.
Rom 2:24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

The only thing special about Adam's sin (note that he wasn't killed for it right than), was that it introduced sin into the world. Nothing else was special about it. Just like nothing is special about the Jew who sinned, or the gentile who sinned.

You have not yet grasped Paul's overall argument.

He was appealing to two groups that they are both condemned. He therefore needed to address two realities--those who have the law and those who don't. To do this he speaks of those who did not transgress--did not break the law. Sin was in the world .But it was not accounted as such.

The law, added later, pointed out the true severity of sin:

Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

It is still sin to break the Moral law or the Jewish law (which was just a specific implementation of the Moral law with ceremonial laws included that pointed to Christ).

JM

You must address this one issue--if there was a DIRECTLY GIVEN moral law that the Jewish ceremonial laws were added to where is it?

Why does Paul resort to the argument that it was the conscience if there was a given law?

 

[tall73]

M JONA

STOP POSTING! And i will too.

We are talking past each other.

Please read all my remaining posts. I will read yours.

Then we can talk.

The context of this whole passage is vastly important and we are now repeating ourselves because we are replying to every detail a few posts behind.

 

[JonMiller]

I have read all yours.

Where did I ever say that another implementation of the Moral law was given besides the implementation given to the Jews?

OK, where does it say that a transgression is only breaking a direct command? We still are commanded by our conscience.

JM

 

[StormyOne]

Accusations of proof texting are ok as long as you can back up what you are saying. To show this is proof texting and be credible about it you need to show that I have lifted these texts out of context and the context actually shows something totally different than what I have claimed.

I'lll be waiting to see what you guys come up with.

God bless
Jim Larmore

BTW AT that is chief not cheif

your post itself is the evidence... have you rightly interpreted the texts you posted? nope....

 

[tall73]

I have read all yours.

Where did I ever say that another implementation of the Moral law was given besides the implementation given to the Jews?

Then why are you saying the law was there?

Let's figure out where we are disagreeing.

A. Do you agree that the gentiles had the law of the conscience, written on their heart?

B. Do we agree that they had no DIRECT command in verbal or written form that mapped these out?

OK, where does it say that a transgression is only breaking a direct command? We still are commanded by our conscience.

JM

Again, it is inherent in the word that it is going against a command. Paul's whole point was that they did not have the law but they did still have a law in their conscience.


So...the issue I want to address before moving on is what do you see as Paul's argument in Romans 1-7?

What is the whole point? Because it is only in relation to the overall point that we can see what he is saying.

 

[djconklin]

have you rightly interpreted the texts you posted? nope....

Where's the evidence for the conclusion?

 

[JonMiller]

Then why are you saying the law was there?

Let's figure out where we are disagreeing.

Just because the Moral law wasn't given to everyone doesn't mean that they weren't convicted by it. Nor that they didn't break it.

A. Do you agree that the gentiles had the law of the conscience, written on their heart?

Yes. everyone does. I think that your 'law of conscience' is my 'Moral law'.

B. Do we agree that they had no DIRECT command in verbal or written form that mapped these out?

Not that I know of.

JM

 

[StormyOne]

Where's the evidence for the conclusion?

nice to see you too DJ and the same predictable question you ask... the proof is there for those who have eyes to see and minds to comprehend.....