A Peculiar Kind of Gospel

Status
Not open for further replies.

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
It is an artificial, specious distinction to say that David was anointed and sanctified without being converted. He had a relationship with God, which is the nature of salvation. Salvation is not a physical change. One cannot be anointed and sanctified (set apart for God) without being in relationship with him. You create extrabiblical concepts to try to shore up a theology that does not allow for believers to do things contrary to God's moral law and will. I have never heard anyone doubt David's status before he sinned. The historical narrative would chronologically contradict this. David worshipped and served God with a heart after God, then he sinned, then he repented, then he continued in his former worship of God.
 

Batman

New member
Take Another Look

Take Another Look

Oops! It's amazing to me after proofreading a couple of times that I still didn't see that I had the wrong chapter. Oh well, at least it's in the right book.

Concerning Hebrews authorship, maybe someday I'll start a thread on that.

Concerning 1 John's audience, I believe he's writing to believers from the perspective of someone who's seen Jesus in the flesh to encourage them to continue in the faith.

The question is which translation of 1 John 5:18 is better. The NIV says:
"We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him."

The NLT and ESV have similar translations.

This can be interpreted either as saying a Christian won't sin at all or a Christian won't live a lifestyle of sin. I have to admit, it's not clear which interpretation to take based on this verse.

The problem we keep running into is what does "all" refer to. Does it mean both past and future sin/unrighteousness or just past sins? If the writer says that Jesus' sacrifice takes away all our sins, wouldn't the reader understand that based on their understanding of sacrifice? Since sacrifice was thought to be for past actions, wouldn't the writer need to clarify that "all" includes future sins? Let's not forget what Peter says in 2 Peter 1:
"5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Notice "past sins" in v. 9. BTW, Peter implies Christians can fall in v. 10.

Also, let me make this point again - If there is no law, sin is not known (not there is no sin). Paul says in Rom. 3:20:
"...through the law we become conscious of sin."
And in Romans 5:13:
"for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law."

I brought up the Gentiles b/c they sinned even though they didn't know the law.

Look at Rom 5:14 again. It doesn't say no one sinned. It says that those under the death penalty didn't sin like Adam did. In fact the NIV translates it to say they didn't sin by breaking a command (i.e. a known law such as "don't eat of that tree or you will die").

All the verses you mentioned concerning our freedom from sin can easily be interpreted to mean that we shouldn't sin, instead of we can't sin.

I never said David lost his relationship with God but it's possible. Only God knows for sure.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The present tense in Greek in I John is correctly translated as will not continue to sin habitually (present tense is usually a continuous tense...cf. imperfect vs aorist past tense). So, believers will not/should not sin, but it goes beyond the grammar to say that they literally cannot sin. There is a difference between an isolated lapse into sin with repentance and renewed obedience (believer), and a habitual, continual state of persistent, unrepentant sin (unbeliever). The Spirit inspired the grammar as much as the words. Our interpretation/exegesis must reflect grammatical issues or we are reading our own ideas back into the text (eisegesis).
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by godrulz

Judge not, lest you be judged. Take the board out of your eye before you take the toothpick out of someone else's eye.
What board?

And is it just me, or are you judging people, then telling others not to? Hypocrite!
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Re: Re: Re: Hebrews 10

Re: Re: Re: Hebrews 10

Originally posted by godrulz

Sin is lawlessness. Sin is a wrong moral choice. When someone broke the 10 commandments, their will and intellect was involved. Sin involves a volitional choice or we would not be accountable/responsible for breaking God's law. Deuteronomy talks about the Law of God in terms of volitional obedience/blessing or disobedience/cursing. The Bible does give other thoughts on the nature of sin. You are focusing on only one phrase that helps define the nature of sin.
Can you show me where the Bible says that sin is a wrong moral choice? I know where it says that sin is transgression of the law. Sin is about righteousness, not morality. And those in Christ are righteous, because he has made them righteous. And anyone who actually knows Christ will not leave Him.

You are stringing together ideas in a circular fashion to come up with wrong conclusions (like that it is impossible to apostasize).
No. What's happening is that you're not following. You have your preconcieved notions, and you allow them to blind you to what I'm saying. And they cause you to put words in my mouth.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

It is an artificial, specious distinction to say that David was anointed and sanctified without being converted. He had a relationship with God, which is the nature of salvation. Salvation is not a physical change.
Salvation is being saved, which means embracing the righteousness of God, of having it be your own. You can have a relationship with God, but if you are like the shallow ground, you will wither away before you embrace the saving truth. Rebirth is a proccess. I cannot identify for you the exact moment in a person't life when they go from wanting to dwell with God, to realizing God has already gave them all that they ask for. But it is real. When you finally understand, you pass from death to life. It is a proccess, and along the way, as you seek and seek, you stumble and fall, until you find yourself in the paradigm where God is all and in all. You stop judging, start forgiving, and in you heart, you know, as much as God does that you are His. Holy, pure, alive in Him. His Salvation.
Originally posted by godrulz

One cannot be anointed and sanctified (set apart for God) without being in relationship with him.
Sanctification comes before justification, just as the red sea crossing came before the promised land.
Originally posted by godrulz

You create extrabiblical concepts to try to shore up a theology that does not allow for believers to do things contrary to God's moral law and will.
You have never had a study from me on this topic, and so you think you can get away with bearing false witness against me? Swift. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by godrulz

I have never heard anyone doubt David's status before he sinned. The historical narrative would chronologically contradict this.
Talk about eisogesis! You read "david was a man after God's heart" you ASSUME that means that David was converted. It only means that David had a zeal for God, that he loved him, and that he sought always to be like him. David still thought, however, that his right actions were his righteousness. That is why he wasn't converted yet. He was still on the works bandwaggon, even though he loved God and sought him daily. Getting to the point of letting go of the works for righteousness is a growth proccess.
Originally posted by godrulz

David worshipped and served God with a heart after God, then he sinned, then he repented, then he continued in his former worship of God.
See above. David was different afterwards, he learned something that he took with him for the rest of his life.

Ps 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by lighthouse

What board?

And is it just me, or are you judging people, then telling others not to? Hypocrite!

Have I told you that I love you today?:p
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
By definition, someone who has a heart after God, worships and loves God with their whole hearts, submits to His authority, etc. is a believer and in relationship with God.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Re: Take Another Look

Re: Take Another Look

Originally posted by Batman

Concerning 1 John's audience, I believe he's writing to believers from the perspective of someone who's seen Jesus in the flesh to encourage them to continue in the faith.
1 John 1 is written to unbeleivers. I've already given you the verses that prove that. And chapter 2 switches to believers, which is why he wrote, "My little children..," It was to show that he was writing to someone other than who he wrote to in the first chapter.

The question is which translation of 1 John 5:18 is better. The NIV says:
"We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him."

The NLT and ESV have similar translations.

This can be interpreted either as saying a Christian won't sin at all or a Christian won't live a lifestyle of sin. I have to admit, it's not clear which interpretation to take based on this verse.
What is the definition of sin? If sin is transgression of the law, as is written in God's word, then those who are not under the law do not sin, because, "Apart from the law there is no transgression." That doesn't mean that those in Christ do not act immorally, in acts of submission to the flesh, but they do not liove that way, because Christ keeps them safe, and those acts are not counted against them. They will not suffer the wages of sin.

The problem we keep running into is what does "all" refer to. Does it mean both past and future sin/unrighteousness or just past sins? If the writer says that Jesus' sacrifice takes away all our sins, wouldn't the reader understand that based on their understanding of sacrifice? Since sacrifice was thought to be for past actions, wouldn't the writer need to clarify that "all" includes future sins?
Do I need to remind you what Paul wrote? The sacrifices of the Mosaic law did not work for forgiveness of sin. Christ's sacrifice did, because it was not an atonement, but a propitiation. And it was for all sin through all time. If it wasn't, then how could it have worked on your sins, which had not actually been committed yet?

Let's not forget what Peter says in 2 Peter 1:
"5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Notice "past sins" in v. 9. BTW, Peter implies Christians can fall in v. 10.
"But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins."
-2 Peter 1:9 [KJV]
Which version are you using?

And I never said that Christians can't fall. I said that those in Christ will not fall away.

Also, let me make this point again - If there is no law, sin is not known (not there is no sin). Paul says in Rom. 3:20:
"...through the law we become conscious of sin."
And in Romans 5:13:
"for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law."
It is not imputed to those who are not under the law. And apart from the law there is no transgression. Are your immoral acts counted against you? Are you going to die for them?

I brought up the Gentiles b/c they sinned even though they didn't know the law.
No. That verse says they knew the difference between right and wrong, and therefore had a law. They just didn't have the Mosaic law. But those in Christ are kept by Christ, and no law has any bearing upon them. This also shows that even though sin was in the world, before the Mosaic law, there was a law, because the difference between right and wrong was known. And Adam and Eve had a rule, which they broke. That was the first sin. So, what part of, "no rules, no transgression," do you not understand?

Look at Rom 5:14 again. It doesn't say no one sinned. It says that those under the death penalty didn't sin like Adam did. In fact the NIV translates it to say they didn't sin by breaking a command (i.e. a known law such as "don't eat of that tree or you will die").
So, you're saying they didn't know the difference between right and wrong? Are you saying they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil? Are you saying God held them accountable, even though they didn't know that they were acting wrongly?

All the verses you mentioned concerning our freedom from sin can easily be interpreted to mean that we shouldn't sin, instead of we can't sin.
Do you have any clue by what is meant by, "Christians can't sin"?

I never said David lost his relationship with God but it's possible. Only God knows for sure.
God will never leave us, or forsake us. And those who know Christ, intimately, will not leave Him. Understand?

Probably not.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by godrulz

The present tense in Greek in I John is correctly translated as will not continue to sin habitually (present tense is usually a continuous tense...cf. imperfect vs aorist past tense). So, believers will not/should not sin, but it goes beyond the grammar to say that they literally cannot sin. There is a difference between an isolated lapse into sin with repentance and renewed obedience (believer), and a habitual, continual state of persistent, unrepentant sin (unbeliever). The Spirit inspired the grammar as much as the words. Our interpretation/exegesis must reflect grammatical issues or we are reading our own ideas back into the text (eisegesis).
What is sin? What is the definition of sin? What are the wages of sin? Are we under a law, or under grace? When I say that a Christian can not sin, do I mean that they can't act immorally? Or do I mean that they aren't unrighteous?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by godrulz

By definition, someone who has a heart after God, worships and loves God with their whole hearts, submits to His authority, etc. is a believer and in relationship with God.
I'm not completely sure you understand what that means.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by lighthouse

What is sin? What is the definition of sin?
Sin is causing unecessary pain to others.

What are the wages of sin?
Since "wages" are what one expects to receive for a specific set of actions, the "wages of sin" are usually considered to be money, power, influence, pleasure, freedom, etc.

Or is this your "poetic" way of referring to the consequences of sin?

If so, then the ultimate consequence of sin is isolation from one's fellow humans. By continuing to cause pain to others you remove yourself more and more from humanity.

Are we under a law, or under grace?
Aren't Christians are under law; the two-fold law of love that Jesus of Nazareth summed up in the gospels?
:think:

When I say that a Christian can not sin, do I mean that they can't act immorally?
That, of course depends on how you define "sin", doesn't it, since morality is relative.

One man's moral action serving his deity may be another's atrocity...

Or do I mean that they aren't unrighteous?
Why don't you tell us what you mean instead of having us try to guess... :chuckle:
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

By definition, someone who has a heart after God, worships and loves God with their whole hearts, submits to His authority, etc. is a believer and in relationship with God.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

So as you can see, there is believing, and there is Believing!!






Are you SURE you have your believing all straight?
 
Last edited:

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I wasn't talking to you, but since you seem to like being a clown:

Originally posted by Zakath

Sin is causing unecessary pain to others.
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."
-1 John 3:4

Since "wages" are what one expects to receive for a specific set of actions, the "wages of sin" are usually considered to be money, power, influence, pleasure, freedom, etc.

Or is this your "poetic" way of referring to the consequences of sin?

If so, then the ultimate consequence of sin is isolation from one's fellow humans. By continuing to cause pain to others you remove yourself more and more from humanity.
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life throught Jesus Christ our Lord."
-Romans 6:23

Aren't Christians are under law; the two-fold law of love that Jesus of Nazareth summed up in the gospels?
:think:
"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."
-Romans 6:14

That, of course depends on how you define "sin", doesn't it, since morality is relative.
If one is going to call themselves a Christian, shouldn't they define sin as the Bible defines sin? Surely you would agree that if one is going to say they believe something, they should believe it. Right? And 1 John 3:4 [quoted above] gives a definition of sin. Adn it is the only time in the Bible that sin is defined.

One man's moral action serving his deity may be another's atrocity...
Which is why sin is not based on morality, but on righteousness.

Why don't you tell us what you mean instead of having us try to guess... :chuckle:
I've been over this. And all those who argue against have done is assume, instead of following along. Sin has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with righteousness. Those who are unrighteous are sinners, and they sin. Those who are righteous are not sinners, and do not sin. This does not mean that those who are righteous never act immorally. And that should be understood, since the righteousness they have isn't their own, anyway. It's Christ's. This is what the Bible says. And even though you do not agree with the Bible, at least you would agree that this is the conclusion it comes to? wouldn't you?
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by lighthouse

I wasn't talking to you...
It's a Web forum. Get over yourself. :rolleyes:

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."
-1 John 3:4

If one is going to call themselves a Christian, shouldn't they define sin as the Bible defines sin? Surely you would agree that if one is going to say they believe something, they should believe it. Right? And 1 John 3:4 [quoted above] gives a definition of sin. Adn it is the only time in the Bible that sin is defined.

I've been over this. And all those who argue against have done is assume, instead of following along. Sin has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with righteousness.
So that's how you define sin, eh? Transgressing or violating the law? What is "the law" in this context? Remember, you're citing First John, not the OT...

Bear with me a few questions longer while I clarify a few things; since I have no idea what your doctrinal background or current beliefs might be...

Which is why sin is not based on morality, but on righteousness.
How do you define "righteousness"?

How is what you term "the law" related to "righteousness"?

Those who are unrighteous are sinners, and they sin. Those who are righteous are not sinners, and do not sin.
So in your view, humans who are righteous cannot, by their nature, transgress the law?

This does not mean that those who are righteous never act immorally.
Are you trying to say that, if a human is righteous, he or she can act immorally without sinning?

:think:

And that should be understood, since the righteousness they have isn't their own, anyway. It's Christ's. This is what the Bible says. And even though you do not agree with the Bible, at least you would agree that this is the conclusion it comes to? wouldn't you?
So you're saying that the human is not really righteous, but only sort of righteous? Kind of "righteous by association"?
:think:

If so, what does that mean when it comes to behavior? If the human being isn't really righteous but just sort of righteous, then your entire argument seems to fall apart...
 

Batman

New member
Huh?

Huh?

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the John's audience.

As to the rest, I was somewhat confused by your response, such as,
"'But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.'
-2 Peter 1:9 [KJV]
Which version are you using?"

"Old", "Past", "Former" -- it doesn't matter which version you read they all say the same thing.

As to the rest, let me go at this a different way. In Rom. 5 12-13, Paul writes:
"12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world."

According to this, even those who did not have the law committed sin. In fact, they received the penalty or "wages" for sin -- death. However, Paul makes this strange statement next in v. 13:
"But sin is not taken into account when there is no law."

Since these guys didn't have the law, Paul says the sin wasn't imputed to them, even though he just stated they sinned. What the heck?!! He gives us a clue in the next verse:
"14Nevertheless, 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 was a pattern of the one to come."

Paul says they didn't sin by breaking a command, as in an audible or written command. So if sin is transgressing the law, how can these guys sin without the law and at the same time receive death but sin not be counted against them?

The answer -- we have 3 different but similar laws at work in this passage.

1. Adam's law - don't eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - penalty is death

2. OT (Israelite) law - 613 laws - several penalties (curses), including death

3. God's law - good and evil - penalty (wages) is death

Adam breaks the one command he received from God and received the penalty of death. His offspring continued to indulge in sin by breaking God's law and received the penalty of death; however, since the OT law had not be given yet, they didn't receive the other penalties found in the OT law.

Do Christians have a law they are supposed to follow once they are saved? Yes, for Paul tells us in Rom. 13:
"8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature."

We are to fullfill the law of love. If we disobey this law, is the immediate penalty death or exclusion from Christ? No. Unbelief is the only thing that can separate us from God. If we live a lifestyle of disobeying the law of love, we will eventually reach the point of unbelief. Also we can decide to not believe anymore, which is usually based on traumatic or hurtful events. It's not an excuse to no longer believe but I've seen it happen.
 

Lawless

New member
Quote Crow:


That is a term that is used around this place to describe those who agree with Bob Enyart.

Bob Enyart is now a pastor, and he has a radio show. In the past, he had a television show for several years. The best way I can explain what he's all about is let some of the things he's written and said speak for him.

The Plot <http://www.kgov.com/docs/ThePlot/ThePlotEnglish01.html>

Home Page <http://www.kgov.com/>

Sermon on Luke 22:63-65 and Crime <http://www.kgov.com/bel/2004/20041119-BEL232-24k.mp3> (audio)

Debate: Does God exist <http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7709>

He believes that salvation is by grace, not works. And he affirms OSAS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I see.........Now that you mentioned it, I've read a few of Pastor Enyart's post a while back. I just didn't put the two together. I am still reading a lot of these old post here at TOL, a lot of catching up here to do.......lol!

Thanks for the Info Crow! LOL.........The debate is a very interesting read!! I am in the fourth post now......Looks like Enyart 4.......Zakath 0
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Zakath

So that's how you define sin, eh? Transgressing or violating the law? What is "the law" in this context? Remember, you're citing First John, not the OT...
John was a Jew. Hew was referring to the Mosaic law. The one that appears in the OT.

Bear with me a few questions longer while I clarify a few things; since I have no idea what your doctrinal background or current beliefs might be...

How do you define "righteousness"?
Only God is righteous, by nature. It's hard to put a definition on it, that won't sound human. Humans, by nature are flawed. And this is why righteousness must be imputed from God. Righteousness is sinlessness, but to continue with that line of reasoning we would go right back to what sin is.

How is what you term "the law" related to "righteousness"?
The law points to the One who is righteous, but cannot work righteousness.
"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
-Galatians 2:21

"Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."
-Galatians 3:21

God imputed righteousness upon those who lived according to the law, before Christ. But Christ changed all of that.
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth."
-Romans 10:4

So in your view, humans who are righteous cannot, by their nature, transgress the law?
That's exactly what I'm saying. They have the very nature of God.

Are you trying to say that, if a human is righteous, he or she can act immorally without sinning?
Yes. That is what I'm saying.

:think:

So you're saying that the human is not really righteous, but only sort of righteous? Kind of "righteous by association"?
:think:
No. They are completely righteous. Not of their own works, though. It is by God, and God alone. He makes them righteous. He changes them from unrighteous to righteous.

If so, what does that mean when it comes to behavior? If the human being isn't really righteous but just sort of righteous, then your entire argument seems to fall apart...
They are completely righteous. So my argument still stands.

Morality and righteousness are two completely different things. They are mutually exclusive.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Re: Huh?

Re: Huh?

Originally posted by Batman

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the John's audience.
Agree to disagree on John's audience?! Did you not read the verses that clearly state he is talking to unbelievers?!

As to the rest, I was somewhat confused by your response, such as,
"'But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.'
-2 Peter 1:9 [KJV]
Which version are you using?"

"Old", "Past", "Former" -- it doesn't matter which version you read they all say the same thing.
If future sins are not forgiven, how did Christ's blood work for the sins you committed, after His blood was shed [all the sins you've committed]?

As to the rest, let me go at this a different way. In Rom. 5 12-13, Paul writes:
"12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world."

According to this, even those who did not have the law committed sin. In fact, they received the penalty or "wages" for sin -- death. However, Paul makes this strange statement next in v. 13:
"But sin is not taken into account when there is no law."
All of us have a conscience. Therefore, we know the difference between right and wrong. We have a law, of sorts. And anyone not under grace is under that law.

Since these guys didn't have the law, Paul says the sin wasn't imputed to them, even though he just stated they sinned. What the heck?!! He gives us a clue in the next verse:
"14Nevertheless, 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 was a pattern of the one to come."
Are you saying that Paul said they all lived forever? That they never died, because they didn't have the law? The wages of sin is death, and all of them died. Those who were justified live eternal life with the Father. Those who were not justified are dead. Got it yet?

Paul says they didn't sin by breaking a command, as in an audible or written command. So if sin is transgressing the law, how can these guys sin without the law and at the same time receive death but sin not be counted against them?
They had a law written on their hearts. They knew the difference between right and wrong.

The answer -- we have 3 different but similar laws at work in this passage.

1. Adam's law - don't eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - penalty is death

2. OT (Israelite) law - 613 laws - several penalties (curses), including death

3. God's law - good and evil - penalty (wages) is death

Adam breaks the one command he received from God and received the penalty of death. His offspring continued to indulge in sin by breaking God's law and received the penalty of death; however, since the OT law had not be given yet, they didn't receive the other penalties found in the OT law.
His children didn't eat off of the tree. No one did, after Adam and Eve had. So what laws were their children breaking?

Do Christians have a law they are supposed to follow once they are saved? Yes, for Paul tells us in Rom. 13:
"8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature."
Who keeps us in righteousness?

We are to fullfill the law of love. If we disobey this law, is the immediate penalty death or exclusion from Christ? No. Unbelief is the only thing that can separate us from God. If we live a lifestyle of disobeying the law of love, we will eventually reach the point of unbelief. Also we can decide to not believe anymore, which is usually based on traumatic or hurtful events. It's not an excuse to no longer believe but I've seen it happen.
No. Christ already fulfilled that law. And it is fulfilled in us, through Him. Not of ourselves. for if righteousness can be worked of ourselves, then Christ died in vain [Galatians 2:21].
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top