The Moral Law

[RandyPNW]

That is Paul, with the authority of Christ (Lk 10:16), applying the OT (the time between Adam and Moses) distinction between sin and transgression.

We disagree on that. Again...

Rom 5.13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

You have "sin" in vs. 13 and "sin," more specifically in vs. 14, "breaking a command," which *you* are calling a "transgression"--Paul is not calling it that.

All sin, by definition, is a transgression. Paul would have no need to explain it as that. Paul is merely saying that Adam had sinned by "breaking a formal command," to not partake of the Tree of Knowledge.

Opposed to this was Paul's sense that following Adam's failure was a period of time between that and the giving of the Law of Moses in which such commands were not given. Paul does *not* specify that Adam's sin was a "transgression," different from any other sin other than the fact that it was committed against a specific command.

All sins are transgressions against God's word, But Adam's sin was committed against a formal, recognized Law. That was a specific kind of transgression, although all sins are examples of transgressions.

The only difference in Adam's particular transgression is that it was committed against a formal command. Paul does *not* say that the sins committed during the period following Adam's sin were *not* transgressions! Paul does *not* define "sin" as different than "transgressions." You are the one saying that--not Paul. Sorry I'm getting repetitive, but I need to make my argument perfectly clear.

You'll have to take that up with Paul because he said he was: "whose sin was not like the transgression of Adam." (Ro 5:14).

Okay, let's go with that. . .their being no "formal" command with death penalty to transgress (Ro 5:13),
and their being only "informal" command without death penalty to transgress,
you say they died by transgressing the informal command without death penalty?

No, of course not. Paul is saying that there was a death penalty throughout, from the time of Adam's Fall, through the period that followed, to the time of the Law of Moses. There never stopped being a death penalty, which God imposed upon Adam and upon all of the sons of Adam, once they had partaken of the Tree of Knowledge via Adam. Why are you saying there was *not* a death penalty?

No, they died neither of transgression of a command with death penalty. . .of which there was none,
nor of transgression of a command without death penalty. . .which would be unjust,

This is a misreading. Paul is *not* saying there was no death penalty. He is just saying that it is taking place without violation of, without transgression against, a formal command such as Adam had been faced with.

In other words, no formal law had to exist to condemn Man in order to impose the continuing death penalty upon Adam's offspring. The Law of Moses came not to reinstitute the death penalty, but to manifest to a much higher degree the sins for which men were dying. Making the sins clearer would make clearer the need for Christ to atone for sin in order to fix the problem of death.

but rather of sin imputed to them. . .and which was the pattern for (Ro 5:14) righteousness imputed to them (Ro 4:22-24).

I already addressed our different wording with respect to "imputation" or "transference" of the Sin Nature. I don't believe in a transference of Adam's guilt to his offspring, but only a transference of Adam's Sin Nature to his offspring. You don't have to agree. If you don't have anymore on this, we'll have to let it go.

So you prefer your notions rather than God's notions revealed by Paul in his clear parallel of the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 4:22-24, 5:18-19) just as Adam's sin (Ro 5:18-19). . .where Adam was the pattern of Christ's (Ro 5:14) imputation of righteousness (Ro 4:22-24, 5:18-19) in just as (Adam). . .so also (Christ) (Ro 5:18-19)?

Your views are not necessarily God's views! I see an imputation of Christ's perfect record to our account. I don't see an imputation of Adam's guilt to our account.

The Sin Nature was transferred hereditarily to Adam's offspring. The Righteous Nature of Christ was transferred by gift to God's children through the atonement of Christ. I don't prefer to call this "imputation" because it doesn't seem precise.

Sin nature is by inheritance, guilt of Adam's sin is by imputation, as in its parallel (Ro 5:18-19) to Christ's righteousness (Ro 4:22-24),
while none are by "transference."

Again, I don't see Adam's guilt as either imputed or transferred to his offspring. I only see the *Sin Nature* transferred, though not imputed.

It would be better that you stop now and give yourself to study of Ro 4-5 in the light of the Holy Spirit's illumination.

Oh, I see--you view yourself as my teacher! Well, you know the Scriptures--the mountains and hills will be brought low, and the low places will be raised up, so that we all together will see the salvation of God. Meditate on that, sister. You're no better than me.

 

[Clare73]

Your views are not necessarily God's views! I see an imputation of Christ's perfect record to our account. I don't see an imputation of Adam's guilt to our account.

It is the necessary meaning of the contrasting parallels of Christ's righteousness with Adam's sin, both applied to mankind in Ro 5:18-19:

Just as (Adam's sin). . .so also (Christ's righteousness), where we know Christ's righteousness is imputed (Ro 3:22-24), thereby its contrasting parallel of Adam's sin is also imputed.

 

[RandyPNW]

It is the necessary meaning of the contrasting parallels of Christ's righteousness with Adam's sin, both applied to mankind in Ro 5:18-19:

Just as (Adam's sin). . .so also (Christ's righteousness), where we know Christ's righteousness is imputed (Ro 4:22-24), thereby its contrasting parallel of Adam's sin is also imputed.

Do you understand the distinction I've been trying to make between the transfer of Adam's Sin Nature to his offspring and your claim that Adam's "guilt" is imputed to his offspring? I've repeated this regularly, and you don't seem to touch on that point precisely? Are you saying that the "judgment that has come to all men through Adam" is equal to the "guilt" of Adam, as if his "guilt" has been passed onto, or imputed to, all men?

If so, we just have to disagree, and leave it to God to determine whether this is correct. We don't seem to be able to move one another away from our particular position? Here, Paul makes it unmistakably clear that "judgment" has been passed on from Adam's Sin to the sins of all men. But does that necessarily mean that Adam's "guilt" has been passed on from him to his offspring? I don't think so.

In fact, the passage seems to say just the opposite, that Adam's sin is his own, that it is "one man's offense," merely impacting others, not as if it is their offenses too, but that his "one offense" has impacted future generations in terms of "judgment."

And I've added to that that Adam's Sin has caused the "Sin Nature" to be transferred on to future generations, a direct cause of this judgment. That is the implication of the passage, that Sin causes death, and that the 1st Sin leads to the Sin Nature in all, leading to their death, as well. So, it really boils down to how we view this verse....

Rom 5.18 Consequently, just as one trespass [and not the trespass of others] resulted in condemnation [and not guilt] for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man [and not the disobedience of all people] the many were made sinners [and received a Sin Nature], so also through the obedience of the one man [and not the obedience of all people] the many will be made righteous.

(The words with the brackets are not part of the quote, but my added comments.) This is why Paul contrasts and distinguishes between Adam and Christ, because in Adam the Sin Nature is transferred because there is collective guilt, all having their own sins that they are responsible for. But in Christ Righteousness is transferred to others when the merit is exclusively belonging to Christ.

The real question here seems to be: Does the "condemnation" or judgment for all people, which has been passed down to them from Adam, mean that "guilt" has been transferred or imputed upon all people from Adam to his offspring?

I don't think so. This is what separates the effect of Adam's sin from the effect of Christ's righteousness--all men are held accountable for their own sins, whereas in Christ the sins of all men are not being held to account.

I think that the judgment that has come down upon all of mankind as a result of Adam's Sin indicates that condemnation has come down upon Adam's offspring as a result of their own sins, but not judgment for the one sin of Adam. It appears to be a semantics issue.

One man's own guilt has resulted in the guilt that exclusively belongs to others who have inherited a like sinful nature. Each is responsible for his own sin. Guilt belongs only to those who themselves commit sins.

 

[Clare73]

Do you understand the distinction I've been trying to make between the transfer of Adam's Sin Nature to his offspring and your claim that Adam's "guilt" is imputed to his offspring?

They are two entirely different things, the former (by inheritance) without guilt and not punishable in itself, and
the latter (by imputation) with guilt and punishable in itself.

I've repeated this regularly, and you don't seem to touch on that point precisely? Are you saying that the "judgment that has come to all men through Adam" is equal to the "guilt" of Adam, as if his "guilt" has been passed onto, or imputed to, all men?

Ro 5:18-19 states that Christ's righteousness is imputed (accounted) to us in the same way that Adam's sin is imputed (accounted) to us:

"Just as (Adam's sin). . .so also (Christ's righteousness)" is paralleling (which locks in the manner/way as being the same for) the two contrasting outcomes; i.e., guilt/sin and righteousness by the

one act of (the first) Adam (disobedience in the Garden) and the
one act of (the last/second Adam) Christ (obedience on the cross),
(see 1 Co 15:45 for the two Adam's)

the act of each Adam being imputed (accounted) in the same way/manner to man, resulting in man's

guilt and punishment (physical death, Ro 6:23) through (the first) Adam, and
righteousness (forensic) through (the second Adam) Christ.

 

[RandyPNW]

They are two entirely different things, the former (by inheritance) without guilt and not punishable in itself, and
the latter with guilt and punishable in itself.

Ro 5:18-19 states that Christ's righteousness is imputed (accounted) to us in the same way that Adam's sin is imputed (accounted) to us:

Actually no--not in the way you suggest. Paul makes a point of stating that there are differences...

Rom 5.15 But the gift is not like the trespass.

....For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Paul is going to lengths to explain that though there is a parallel track here between Adam's Sin and Christ's Justification, they are *not* the same! They are to be clearly distinguished. And you are not recognizing that.

One man's guilt for breaking a specific command does not translate into the guilt of many for breaking that one man's trespass. Rather, one man's trespass against a specific command caused his Sin Nature to be transferred to others so that when they manifest their own sins, their own sins lead to death.

As such, it can be said that Adam's Sin led to the judgment of all men, but not that all share equal blame. It is only because all bear Adam's Sin Nature that they display their own Sin and guilt. All inherit Adam's Sin Nature, and in displaying their own sins they bear their own guilt.

And so, it can be said that Adam's own Sin led to the condemnation of all men, not because they committed his sin, but only because in inheriting his nature they unavoidably committed their own sins.

The big difference between Adam's impact upon mankind and Christ's impact upon mankind is, as Paul said, due to the difference between the transference of Adam's Sin Nature and the impartation of Christ's grace. Guilt is *not* imparted from Adam to his offspring, though the Sin Nature is. But in Christ's case, Christ's own righteousness is being imparted to others, transferring to them a new nature, but one that they are not being held responsible for earning.

The Law requires that men earn their own fate, and this ends up in universal condemnation. The Grace of Christ does not require that men earn their own fate with the exception that they have to agree to have Christ's flawless righteousness imputed to them by the free gift of his Spirit to us.

 

[Clare73]

Actually no--not in the way you suggest. Paul makes a point of stating that there are differences...

Rom 5.15 But the gift is not like the trespass.

....For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin:

What result of one man's sin (which is not inherited, Eze 18:20) is being presented in Ro 5:15-19?
It is the result of God's imputing (accounting) that one man's sin to mankind.
What gift of God is being presented in Ro 5:5-19?
It is the gift of God imputing that one man's righteousness to mankind.

Paul is going to lengths to explain that though there is a parallel track here between Adam's Sin and Christ's Justification, they are *not* the same! They are to be clearly distinguished.

Precisely. . .

Paul in Ro 5:18-19 is contrasting the parallel imputations (accounting, crediting, reckoning) of Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness to mankind in their contrasting outcomes, which are absolutely *not* the same, they are exact opposites!

The comparison (v.16 ) of the gift of God and the result of one man's sin in Ro 5:15-17 is to show that God's grace (in justification) is infinitely greater for good than Adam's sin (in disobedience) is for evil, for God's grace is always infinitely greater than evil.

 

[timothyu]

God once gave a certain people a land to call their own IF they but put His will ahead of their own. With Jesus He upped the game and offers a Kingdom to those of the world who do the same.

 

[Clare73]

God once gave a certain people a land to call their own IF they but put His will ahead of their own. With Jesus He upped the game and offers a Kingdom to those of the world who do the same.

Jesus said the kingdom of God is here now (Lk 11:20, Mt 12:28),
it is not of this world (Jn 18:36),
it is of the spiritual world, invisible and within (Lk 17:20-21) the hearts where he reigns and rules.

It being everlasting (Lk 1:33) and never ending (Da 2:44), there is no other kingdom of God to come.

 

[timothyu]

there is no other kingdom of God to come.

Right, we are either of the Kingdom and putting His will ahead of our own, OR we are of the world, still putting our will ahead of Him and most often, others.

 

[RandyPNW]

What result of one man's sin (which is not inherited, Eze 18:20) is being presented in Ro 5:15-19?
It is the result of God's imputing (accounting) that one man's sin to mankind.

The result of Adam's sin is that judgment came upon all men. But it is precisely because the Sin Nature was *inherited* from Adam that all men come under this judgment.

How then did Adam play a role in this judgment coming upon all men if men themselves incur this judgment? It is because Adam is the originator of the Sin Nature which all men inherit.

Therefore, Adam is responsible as the origin of the Sin Nature. But men are responsible for what they do with this Sin Nature. They are responsible not for the sin that Adam committed, but only for the sins that they commit.

What gift of God is being presented in Ro 5:5-19?
It is the gift of God imputing that one man's righteousness to mankind.

It is not righteous deeds that are imputed by Christ to Christians. Rather, it is his *righteous record* that is imputed as a replacement for our flawed record, which all men have.

Otherwise, we could not continue to have the spiritual life that God in His grace has given to fallen men. His grace would ultimately have been withdrawn if Christ had not come and made atonement for our sins, providing a path for eternal life through the acceptance of God's means of atonement.

Just as Israel was called upon to look upon the bronze serpent in the wilderness to get healed, so Christians have had to look upon Christ as the means of their atonement. He is the exclusive basis for human forgiveness unto Eternal Life.

Putting our faith in him opens the door to continuous life with God for all eternity. And it provides the means of righteousness that benefits from Christ's own flawless record without depending on our own flawed performance.

Precisely. . .

Paul in Ro 5:18-19 is contrasting the parallel imputations (accounting) of Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness to mankind in their contrasting outcomes, which are absolutely *not* the same, they are exact opposites!

Again, I don't like to use the word "imputation" with respect to Adam's heritage. They became sinners--sin was not merely "imputed" to them.

The comparison (v.16 ) of the gift of God and the result of one man's sin in Ro 5:15-17 is to show that God's grace (in justification) is infinitely greater for good than Adam's sin (in disobedience) is for evil, for God's grace is always infinitely greater than evil.

Yes, but I think Paul was talking about the difference between inheriting the Sin Nature, meriting judgment and having Christ's Righteous Nature transferred to us, apart from our merit. The Sin Nature involves meriting judgment, and Christ's Righteous Nature does not, since it is a Free Gift.

Paul was, in Rom 5, merely stating that mankind has merited judgment differently from one epoch to another. In Adam's day, he merited judgment by transgressing the command to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. In the time following, which some call "The Age of Conscience," mankind merited judgment by committing sins against their conscience. And in the age of the Law of Moses, Israel transgressed the Law and merited judgment in that way.

In sum, in all ages men were sinners and merited judgment. By contrast men can receive Eternal Life through Christ and not merit judgment at all. Christ is the 2nd Adam through whom we do not have to merit any eternal judgment, because merit no longer plays a role in the Free Gift of Life.

 

[timothyu]

Were not Adam and Eve sinners prior to the tree of Knowledge? They just weren't aware of it until they fell, causing them to take advantage of it.

 

[RandyPNW]

Were not Adam and Eve sinners prior to the tree of Knowledge? They just weren't aware of it until they fell, causing them to take advantage of it.

No, Adam and Even had no knowledge of Evil, ie no sense of what it was to be sinners, prior to disobeying God. They had a relationship with God, and yet it was not yet made eternal.

They had not yet partaken of the Tree of Life, which was a choice of an eternal relationship with God. It was a choice to be in compliance with God's word forever. They had not yet done that before they chose to learn what it's like to make decisions apart from God's interest.

Once they had chosen to disobey God's word, to live in part apart from what God wanted, they became sinners. And the Sin Nature that came to exist within their soul was conveyed to all future generations as by a "spiritual DNA."

All future generations would grow up with the knowledge of evil, ie with the knowledge of what it is to feel a compulsion to resist God's will, to go one's own way. This inclination towards sin leads inexorably to sinning itself, such that all people now now what it's like to be active sinners.

 

[timothyu]

Wonder why people see walking around naked today as immoral or sinful yet A&E did it. It didn't become sinful until A&E took it upon themselves to decide it was so. They were oblivious to their own 'sins' prior to that.

 

[timothyu]

Adam and Eve at one point put their will ahead of the will of God and the entire Bible from that point on is God telling us to reject such thinking and go back to putting His will first, rather than focusing on self we should focus on others... and not just to lay blame as man does (including as Adam and Eve did)

 

[RandyPNW]

Wonder why people see walking around naked today as immoral or sinful yet A&E did it. It didn't become sinful until A&E took it upon themselves to decide it was so. They were oblivious to their own 'sins' prior to that.

The knowledge of evil is something God did not want Adam to have. Once they chose to have it, however, they couldn't look at anything without wanting it in the wrong way. I'm not even talking about sexual desire--rather, I'm talking about wanting things for ourselves without any sense of what the Lord wants. Independent judgment invites carnal thinking.

Once the knowledge of evil had come into our minds, the normal feelings of sexual desire, leading especially to reproduction, could run amok. Anything that looks desirable, including apples and other fruit, can be wanted without any sense of gratitude to God. It is ours simply because we can take it. This was a knowledge we were never meant to have. I hope you'll understand?

Some things invite illicit covetousness more than others. With the propensity to want things the wrong way, it was a wise thing to not run around naked.

 

[RandyPNW]

The strange ideas about Adam and Chavah (Eve) in this thread are not from the Bible at all. The errors likely are not limited to Adam and Chavah either -
what school embraces or teaches these ideas in this thread ?

1 Tim 1.8-11 is the passage I based my points on. It doesn't require a school of theology to interpret it. It says what it says without too much thinking. Why you don't get that I don't know? Perhaps you are referring to other comments made in this thread?

The basic idea is that the 1st generation Church only had the Law of Moses and the OT as their Scriptures. The NT got written over time, and also took awhile to be accepted formally as Scriptures.

So there are people today who would drive us back to observing the Law of Moses, whether they are legalists or Messianic Jews who get too legalistic in their Jewish holiday traditions. And Paul here in this passage explains that he does not encourage looking to the Law in a legalistic way, but only in a moral way.

God's word has always been moral even as the covenants changed. So we can always look to the moral values present in either the OT or the NT Scriptures. I hope that helps?

 

[RandyPNW]

Adam and Eve at one point put their will ahead of the will of God and the entire Bible from that point on is God telling us to reject such thinking and go back to putting His will first, rather than focusing on self we should focus on others... and not just to lay blame as man does (including as Adam and Eve did)

This is so true, Timothy! God has been showing me the last couple of years that all He wants is a personal relationship with us all the time. He wants us to walk with Him in everything we go through, good times and bad times.

When we consult God in everything we do, and thank Him for every good thing He gives us, we please Him--I'm sure of that. So fellowship is God's major thing for us, fellowship with Him and with others who are like-minded.

If we put this relationship with God 1st, we'll gain wisdom, and be more inclined towards righteous living. And that will put us in good standing with the Lord, both now and in the age to come.

Our partnership with the Lord is very much as you described it, being willing to forego our own will at times, for God or for others, so that we remain servants. It is when we insist on our own way that we cause fights and create ill will.

 

[timothyu]

If we put this relationship with God 1st, we'll gain wisdom, and be more inclined towards righteous living. And that will put us in good standing with the Lord, both now and in the age to come.

It allows Him to work through us again.

 

[Clare73]

The result of Adam's sin is that judgment came upon all men. But it is precisely because the Sin Nature was *inherited* from Adam that all men come under this judgment.

There is no guilt for one's inherited fallen nature (Eze 18:20), there is guilt for one's personal sin committed due to one's fallen nature.
There is no personal guilt of sin to infants. There is guilt of Adam's sin imputed to all mankind (Ro 5:18-19).

How then did Adam play a role in this judgment coming upon all men if men themselves incur this judgment? It is because Adam is the originator of the Sin Nature which all men inherit.
Therefore, Adam is responsible as the origin of the Sin Nature. But men are responsible for what they do with this Sin Nature. They are responsible not for the sin that Adam committed, but only for the sins that they commit.
It is not righteous deeds that are imputed by Christ to Christians. Rather, it is his *righteous record* that is imputed as a replacement for our flawed record, which all men have.
Otherwise, we could not continue to have the spiritual life that God in His grace has given to fallen men. His grace would ultimately have been withdrawn if Christ had not come and made atonement for our sins, providing a path for eternal life through the acceptance of God's means of atonement.
Just as Israel was called upon to look upon the bronze serpent in the wilderness to get healed, so Christians have had to look upon Christ as the means of their atonement. He is the exclusive basis for human forgiveness unto Eternal Life.
Putting our faith in him opens the door to continuous life with God for all eternity. And it provides the means of righteousness that benefits from Christ's own flawless record without depending on our own flawed performance.
Again, I don't like to use the word "imputation" with respect to Adam's heritage. They became sinners--sin was not merely "imputed" to them.
Yes, but I think Paul was talking about the difference between inheriting the Sin Nature, meriting judgment and having Christ's Righteous Nature transferred to us, apart from our merit. The Sin Nature involves meriting judgment, and Christ's Righteous Nature does not, since it is a Free Gift.
Paul was, in Rom 5, merely stating that mankind has merited judgment differently from one epoch to another. In Adam's day, he merited judgment by transgressing the command to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. In the time following, which some call "The Age of Conscience," mankind merited judgment by committing sins against their conscience. And in the age of the Law of Moses, Israel transgressed the Law and merited judgment in that way.
In sum, in all ages men were sinners and merited judgment. By contrast men can receive Eternal Life through Christ and not merit judgment at all. Christ is the 2nd Adam through whom we do not have to merit any eternal judgment, because merit no longer plays a role in the Free Gift of Life.

Ro 5:18-19:

So also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life to all (in contrast to one) men (by imputation, Ro 3:22-24),
just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (by imputation. . .so also justification/righteousness is by imputation).

So also, through the obedience of the one man the many (in contrast to the one) will be made righteous (by imputation, Ro 3:22-24),
just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many (in contrast to the one) were made sinners (by imputation. . . so also made
righteous by imputation).

The guilt/sin imputed at man's beginning is removed by the justification/righteousness imputed at man's belief.

 

[RandyPNW]

There is no guilt for one's inherited fallen nature (Eze 18:20), there is guilt for one's personal sin committed due to one's fallen nature.
There is no personal guilt of sin to infants. There is guilt of Adam's sin imputed to all mankind (Ro 5:18-19).

Yes, we agree on this! Thank you.

So also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life to all (in contrast to one) men (by imputation, Ro 4:22-24),
just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (by imputation. . .so also justification/righteousness is by imputation).

We agree on some of this also. I just don't agree that the "result of one trespass was condemnation for all men by imputation." What you said above is correct, that "guilt" is not transferred from Adam to his offspring. Guilt is carried by the party who commits the transgression.

So "guilt" is not imputed to Adam's offspring. Rather, the Sin Nature is *transferred* to his offspring view spiritual inheritance. And then, when the offspring have inherited this Sin Inclination they will commit their own sins and incur their own guilt.

So also, through the obedience of the one man the many (in contrast to the one) will be made righteous (by imputation, Ro 4:22-24),just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many (in contrast to the one) were made sinners (by imputation. . . so also made righteous by imputation).

I see solid but limited agreement. It's always good to remind ourselves of the things we agree on. The areas of darkness where our beliefs are a little murky can be set aside until God can straighten all of us out.