ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[elected4ever]

It is a ridiculous idea that Jesus took upon Himself every act of sin such as adultery or any specific act of man. The sin spoken of here is not an act of sin. Jesus took upon Himself the condition called sin. Jesus could not die and remain united with God. Jesus took upon Himself what God the Father placed upon Him. Jesus was faithful even to the death on the cross. Jesus did the will of the Father.

Jesus never took upon Himself any act of sin committed by any man or committed by Himself. If he had then upon our acceptance of Christ then any act of sin would pass away and our body would never die as a result of sin and our body would today be as righteous as God Himself. Every act of man would be justified and we know that is not the case today. We die. We get sick and man suffers from the condition of being separated from God in the flesh to this day. That is why there is a resurrection. We must put on immortality. Our bodies must be transformed into that new and glorious body that we shall receive at the resurrection.

There must be a discernment between the flesh and the spirit. The flesh remains in a sinful state. It has been judged guilty by God and we have received the death penalty demanded by God. So our flesh will die. Our flesh is no longer subject to God. We have already received the death penalty. We now wait for the executioner.

When we were born we were born with a human spirit. That too has received the death penalty. Unlike the flesh, the spirit is eternal. It will exist forever unless it becomes relegated to the flesh and dies with the flesh. There is only one way that will happen. We must receive a New Spirit born of God. This new Spirit is born of God's seed and is in
effect the same as Jesus is today. It is Holy and without blame before God. The new spirit is life and not death. That is who we are now. God sees us as His children. born of His seed. We are indeed the righteousness of God, today. See yourself as God sees you and not as man sees you.

If you are indeed subject to the flesh then you are indeed will suffer the death penalty because you are yet in your sin.

If you have been born again then you are no longer subject to the flesh and are not subject to the flesh. You are not a sinner but the righteousness of God. Sin has no more clam on you.

 

[godrulz]

Sins are volitional, not 'things' that can be put on the body of Jesus like clothes. An act of murder or adultery ceases to exist after the fact. Future sins or distant sins are not literal 'things' that can be placed on the body of Jesus. The essence of His death was a substitute for the penalty of sin. It allowed God to demonstrate mercy and forgiveness without compromising His holiness, justice, and hatred of sin. The issue is more the death of Christ rather than trillions of individual wrong thoughts, actions, and motives.

 

[elected4ever]

Sins are volitional, not 'things' that can be put on the body of Jesus like clothes. An act of murder or adultery ceases to exist after the fact. Future sins or distant sins are not literal 'things' that can be placed on the body of Jesus. The essence of His death was a substitute for the penalty of sin. It allowed God to demonstrate mercy and forgiveness without compromising His holiness, justice, and hatred of sin. The issue is more the death of Christ rather than trillions of individual wrong thoughts, actions, and motives.

Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Is this verse addressing a condition or an act?

 

[themuzicman]

I don't think it is as strictly symbolic as you suggest. In fact, your position here puts all sorts of vital Pauline teachings into jeopardy.

Galatians 2:19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.​

Is this also symbolic or is this not clearly speaking of spiritual truths that are absolutely critical for the Christian to believe and understand if he is to live a life worthy of the calling of God?

Since Jesus Christ has a (risen) human nature, it simply isn't possible for Him toi LITERALLY live IN you, so the whole passage is clearly symbolic. Again, the law exposes those things that cause wrath, and faith in Christ brings out those things which portray Godly living.

Clearly Paul was not LITERALLY crucified with Christ, so, again, we have another symbolic meaning, whereby our lives, destined for death, were substituted (symbolically) for Christ's life on the cross, such that we ought to live Christlike lives now.

So, yes, this IS symbolic, albiet in a slightly different facet of this analogy.

Notice in the above passage that verse 20 is a repetition and expansion of the verse 19. Paul likens that which happened at the cross to that which happened to him through the law. The Tree of Calvary is a symbol of the law, as was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil thus the saying "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree".

"Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" applies to Christ, not to everyone, and does NOT refer to the TKGE.

Do you believe that Adam died spiritually when he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

No, I believe that God's intent was that Adam, Eve and all of creation would be eternally anihilated were they to sin, but in His love and mercy, God extended grace to creation, and delayed Adam's death and guided the course of history first through the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, and eventually into the final age, when all those who believe will receive eternal life, and creation will be restored.

So, no, spiritual death did not occur, and, in fact, Genesis has no such context to suggest that God or Adam or anyone at that time had spiritual death in mind.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.​

Do you believe that through Christ we have been reconciled with God?

​

Yes.

Romans 5:11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

What are these passages talking about if not spiritual life and death? We certainly have not yet been reconciled with God physically, what else is there but spiritually? And if we have been reconciled to God spiritually then how would that have been accomplished accept that Jesus suffered a spiritual separation from God the Father in our stead?

The passages talk about the death that came which was physical death resulting in eternal judgment.

The reconciliation harkens back to our becoming enemies of God, and while we were yet enemies, God sent His Son to die for us. Thus, when we believe, we were reconciled from being set against God to being sealed for adoption as sons.

Also, Jesus suffered relational forsakenness on the cross, because there was no justification for Him to die, and yet the Father did nothing to save Him. God delayed what should have been an immediate judgment for killing His son until the appointed time, thus forsaking Christ to die, rather than rescuing Him.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Philippians 2: 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. 5 Let the same mind be in you that was F10 in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross.​

If one connects the description of Jesus empting himself – not seeing equality with God as something to be grasped at – and the ‘forsaken by God’ statement from the cross it is entirely viable that Jesus not only ‘felt’ forsaken by God but was in fact actually forsaken: the omnipotent God had forsaken (in the sense that He would not rescue or deliver) the Son in the flesh (i.e. God’s self) from the act of summiting to the crucifixion at the hands of sinful men. Here we see love restraining power in such a way that God takes the greatest risk of all to redeem others without any guarantees that anyone would repent. What God in Christ did not, would not compromise was His love for lost humanity. God forsaking God’s self for others is the greatest act of love creation has witnessed. This is the example we are to follow. This is the mind set we are to have as well – the very mind of Christ.

When we feel forsaken we may in fact be ‘forsaken’ in the sense that God chooses not to rescue us from our dilemma in order to strengthen/perfect our faith and faith tested in such a way produces character that falls short in nothing. This I think is what is meant by such statements as:

Philippians 3: 10 "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, 11 if somehow I may arrive at the resurrection from the dead."​

The love, hope and faith we have in God and His grace is for us the reality that even in the midst of suffering we are never totally forsaken by Christ Jesus. He is present in immediate circumstances to sustain, comfort and strengthen if not to deliver from hardship. Hope in arriving at the resurrection from the dead changes everything and gives us the confidence we need to endure all things.

Philetus


​

 

[themuzicman]

First I want to be sure you all realize I wrote this!

I see no basis for Jesus Christ being forsaken by the Father while on the cross.

That doesn't mean the Son did not feel that way, though.

The cross had to happen after the Son talked to His Father when He was praying to the father about having the cup pass in Mat 26:39-42.

He said in Mat 26:42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”

He willingly gave Himself for us.

Bob Hill

Let me get this straight:

You think that while our Savior was dying on the cross, injustly suffering at the hands of the people He was sent to minister to, and God the Father, while allowing this injustice to occur so that mankind could be saved, Jesus thought it was important to express His feelings, even though they were incorrect?

How feminized have we become?

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Is this verse addressing a condition or an act?

Romans 1-3 shows that men are condemned for their acts of sin. This involves will, motive, intellect. As men sin, they form a nature. We are condemned for unbelief, disobedience, lawlessness, adultery, murder, selfishness, etc. We are not universally condemned just because Adam sinned. To be sure, we all follow in his footsteps...why do all fall short of the glory of God? ALL have sinned, not just Adam. We cannot blame it on Adam or the devil. We are all sinners because we sin. This is why we are condemned. The ultimate sin is to reject the person and work of Christ. The ultimate sin is not just being born with a genealogical link to the first man, Adam.

 

[elected4ever]

Let me get this straight:

You think that while our Savior was dying on the cross, injustly suffering at the hands of the people He was sent to minister to, and God the Father, while allowing this injustice to occur so that mankind could be saved, Jesus thought it was important to express His feelings, even though they were incorrect?

How feminized have we become?

Muz

You are missing the point. It was God the Father doing the sacrificing. Jesus was the sacrifice. It was the Father who placed the sin of the world upon Jesus but it was Jesus who bore the load. Need I also remind you that it was the Father who raise up Jesus. For some reason, abandonment does not fit.

 

[elected4ever]

Romans 1-3 shows that men are condemned for their acts of sin. This involves will, motive, intellect. As men sin, they form a nature. We are condemned for unbelief, disobedience, lawlessness, adultery, murder, selfishness, etc. We are not universally condemned just because Adam sinned. To be sure, we all follow in his footsteps...why do all fall short of the glory of God? ALL have sinned, not just Adam. We cannot blame it on Adam or the devil. We are all sinners because we sin. This is why we are condemned. The ultimate sin is to reject the person and work of Christ. The ultimate sin is not just being born with a genealogical link to the first man, Adam.

Romans 1: 3 does no such thing. It does not even remotely address the point. Just answer the question.

 

[themuzicman]

You are missing the point. It was God the Father doing the sacrificing. Jesus was the sacrifice. It was the Father who placed the sin of the world upon Jesus but it was Jesus who bore the load. Need I also remind you that it was the Father who raise up Jesus. For some reason, abandonment does not fit.

Is there a scriptural foundation for this?

Muz

 

[elected4ever]

Is there a scriptural foundation for this?

Muz

What? You have never read the scripture? Oh yea, you can just read music and the lyrics of a song. I expect to much out of you.

 

[themuzicman]

What? You have never read the scripture? Oh yea, you can just read music and the lyrics of a song. I expect to much out of you.

Is that a 'no'?

 

[Lighthouse]

Can God see something that is not there?

 

[Clete]

themuzicman,

I have no time for a thorough response at the moment but I just wanted to ask whether you had noticed that in defense of my position I have done little else but to simply quote the Scripture whereas you have offered no supportive texts of your own and spent a good chunk of your time explaining how the verses I have quoted do not mean what they seem to mean. I for one find that telling.

I'll respond directly to your last post as soon as time allows.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

themuzicman,

I have no time for a thorough response at the moment but I just wanted to ask whether you had noticed that in defense of my position I have done little else but to simply quote the Scripture whereas you have offered no supportive texts of your own and spent a good chunk of your time explaining how the verses I have quoted do not mean what they seem to mean. I for one find that telling.

I'll respond directly to your last post as soon as time allows.

Resting in Him,
Clete

What I've done is to point out how I exegete these texts. They only seem plain to you because you see them through your presuppositions.

Muz

 

[Clete]

What I've done is to point out how I exegete these texts. They only seem plain to you because you see them through your presuppositions.

Muz

My presuppositions? I'm simply reading the text and taking it for what it seems to be trying to communicate. To get to my position all that is necessary is that you read Paul's writings. There is no need to perform a bunch of theological gymnastics with it, just read it. Paul meant what he said and I haven't been given any reason yet to believe otherwise. Not that your position is entirely unreasonable but basically your argument boils down to, "What Paul teaches about spiritual life must be symbolic because otherwise my belief that spiritual death equates precisely to eternal damnation is false and I don't want for it to be false and so I choose to render symbolic everything in the Bible that seems to suggest otherwise." That's hardly a logically sound argument themuzicman!

If you want to convince me that your right on this you are going to have to give me something more concrete than "well that problem text is just symbolic". There are things in the Bible that are definitely symbolic and figurative but we have to have some objective means by which we determine when that is so. You are going to have to give me some Biblically sound principle upon which your belief that these passages are symbolic is based. You speak of exegesis but so far all you've demonstrated is isogesis. A sound hermeneutic requires well defined principles and rules that govern our interpretation of God's Word. We can't just go around making things say something other than what the plain meaning of the text seems to suggest because of a particular theological stance.

Would you agree that the plain reading of the passages I've quoted contradicts your position? If so, can you give me some Biblically sound reason; some underlying principle of Biblical hermeneutics that would require me to take these passages to mean something other than what they seem to mean? If not wouldn't it just be simpler to say that your idea about what it means to be spiritually dead is wrong?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

You are missing the point. It was God the Father doing the sacrificing. Jesus was the sacrifice. It was the Father who placed the sin of the world upon Jesus but it was Jesus who bore the load. Need I also remind you that it was the Father who raise up Jesus. For some reason, abandonment does not fit.

Yes it does ‘fit’. God in the flesh ‘abandoned’ himself unto death at the hands of sinful men – became flesh and took ‘it’ upon himself to be murdered among the guilty by the guilty in order to redeem them. He who knew no sin became sin for us. Or do you not know that Jesus was fully God AND fully man?

In relationships everything is not as black and white as you guys seem to want to make it. God raising Jesus up happened after the abandonment on the cross. It was for the sake of what lay ahead … after the cross … that the God/man submitted himself unto death. To say that God turned away or abandoned Jesus while Jesus was on the cross is not to say that God abandoned His plan of salvation any more than to say that because God allows heinous evil He abandons His overall purpose to eventually bring all things into submission to the lordship of Christ. Dying on the cross was the central component of salvation. There can be no resurrection without a death. Was Jesus raised?


Philetus

​

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Hi God_Is_Truth,


Involving unjust suffering, involving events similar to the ones that happened to John the Baptist.

Mark 9:12 Jesus replied, "… Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?”

It wasn't unjust at all. Jesus became sin and was rejected by God at that moment. Because of the sin, it was just, though he took it willingly.

This was predicted too, though:

John 13:18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.'

It was true that at that point, the scripture would be fulfilled. But, scripture also says it would be better for Judas to have never been born than to have fulfilled that scripture. So, we can reason that it wasn't God's will originally to have Judas betray Him, but He used it to support Jesus anyways.

Yet Jesus was not mistaken in his reading of Scripture, and maybe we could check some commentaries to start with, Alan Cole says Jesus associated the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 with both himself and John the Baptist. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary says this: “’They have done to him everything they wished’ is a reference to his treatment by Herod, i.e., his imprisonment and death. ‘Just as it is written about him’ refers to what the OT says about Elijah in his relationship to Ahab and Jezebel (cf. 1 Kings 19:1-2). Herod and Herodias were foreshadowed in Ahab and Jezebel. “

To be honest, I hate commentaries. Scripture is very easy to understand and commentaries seem to only raise controversy.

But this was in God’s plan, was it not?

To have his people reject Him? Certainly not.

Luke 13:7
"And he said to the vineyard-keeper, 'Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?'

Jesus expected to find fruit and was upset at not finding any in all of Israel.

And how can God foreknow this? Does everyone have a really free choice?

What was foreknown was that Jesus would suffer and be rejected. I explained above that people could have completely embraced him and yet still could fulfill these roles.

Mark 8:31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

Jesus doesn't speak about his being rejected by people until late in his ministry, which is worth pointing out. I completely agree that Jesus had to die and rise again, which is the only thing that "must" happen.

“Must” here is “it is necessary,” not "it is foreseen," Jesus' sacrifice and death at the hands of sinful men was necessary, and in the plan of God.

Only the death and resurrection period. The rest is not in the text.

But Peter is also talking about people long ago: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.” (2 Pt. 2:1).

2 Peter 2:5-6 ... if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…

2 Peter 2:15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness.

All those people had no excuse. Noah's people had their conscience, the false prophets were aware of the true ones etc. Job still stands apart.

That’s odd, what I thought I read was that God gave the law so that sin would increase…

The law didn't increase the sinning people did, but revealed just how far from God they actually were. And that is not a sin at all.

Romans 5
13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

I agree, unbelief, however, is a sin, and God caused this, binding people over to unbelief, in order to have mercy on them. For a reason!

No, God didn't cause their unbelief. What he had done in the past was overlook it and now he would do so no longer. Further, the means do not justify the ends and if God ever caused sin, he would not be perfectly righteous. It would not matter why he did it. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[kmoney]

Galatians 2:19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.​

Is this also symbolic or is this not clearly speaking of spiritual truths that are absolutely critical for the Christian to believe and understand if he is to live a life worthy of the calling of God?

Sorry to jump in here but I wanted to respond quickly to the above question you asked the_muz. Can't it be both? Are you denying that Paul's crucifixion with Christ was symbolic? It obviously isn't literal as Paul wasn't literally crucified. In my mind it must be figurative of something, but that doesn't mean it isn't a spiritual truth that Christians must understand. Maybe I am just missing part of this discussion since I am jumping in in the middle of it.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Michael: What I've done is to point out how I exegete these texts. They only seem plain to you because you see them through your presuppositions.

Clete: My presuppositions? I'm simply reading the text and taking it for what it seems to be trying to communicate. To get to my position all that is necessary is that you read Paul's writings.

Really, dear peoples, there are actually others who seek to interpret Scripture with integrity, and think their view is the best reading without compromising the evident sense.

I am not calling Job's statement blasphemous, I am calling your saying "God is the author of sin" blasphemous. Along with your calling God the one "water-hosing" the earth with evil blasphemous.

Yet you are not addressing my questions, and conclusions cannot do the work of arguments.

How then did God plan the cross, where he knew people would sin, and bring it about, without being an agent in that sinning happening?

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days…

Romans 5:20-21 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 11:32 For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.

Clearly God is the cause here, and these resulting sinful actions are in his plan.

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

Isaiah 10:16-17 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood! Isaiah Therefore, the Lord, the LORD Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors...

Jeremiah 30:14-15 All your allies have forgotten you; they care nothing for you. I have struck you as an enemy would and punished you as would the cruel, because your guilt is so great and your sins so many. Why do you cry out over your wound, your pain that has no cure? Because of your great guilt and many sins I have done these things to you.

You deny the words of scripture. GOD SAID SATAN DID IT but you insist on saying God did it because of some stretch of the words of Job?

Yet Scripture tells us directly who was the cause of what happened to Job:

Job 42:11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

Satan was an instrument in God's hand, as (quite sinful) Assyria was an instrument in God's hand above (Isa. 10:16).

Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.

Lee: Involving unjust suffering...

Mark 9:12 Jesus replied, "… Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?”

God_Is_Truth: It wasn't unjust at all. Jesus became sin and was rejected by God at that moment. Because of the sin, it was just, though he took it willingly.

Then why did Jesus pray “Father, forgive them”? Yes, it was just for God to punish sin, no, it was not just for people to crucify Jesus.

Lee: This was predicted too, though:

John 13:18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’

God_Is_Truth: … scripture also says it would be better for Judas to have never been born than to have fulfilled that scripture. So, we can reason that it wasn't God's will originally to have Judas betray Him, but He used it to support Jesus anyways.

But not “better if he had not be conceived,” so this need not prevent us from concluding the betrayal was not sinful. And how could a betrayal not be sinful, because it was a bad alternative?

But it need not even be a hopeless alternative.

GIT: To be honest, I hate commentaries. Scripture is very easy to understand and commentaries seem to only raise controversy.

How did you become an Open Theist, though, without examining people’s comments on Scripture? That’s what is done here, too, and people have (though remarkable it might seem!) even had good insights before TOL arrived. You’re missing a lot of treasures, I think.

[It was his plan] to have his people reject Him? Certainly not.

Luke 13:7
"And he said to the vineyard-keeper, 'Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?'

Jesus expected to find fruit and was upset at not finding any in all of Israel.

Yet Isaiah wrote that “he was despised and rejected,” and Jesus must have known of this, so his judgment (there is no indication he was in a fit of temper) was just for finding no fruit, but he also knew, I would conclude, what he would find.

Daniel 9:26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

What was foreknown was that Jesus would suffer and be rejected. I explained above that people could have completely embraced him and yet still could fulfill these roles.

But everyone cannot embrace Jesus, and still have him be rejected of men.

Only the death and resurrection period. The rest is not in the text.

But it is, in many places, most prominently, here:

Isaiah 53:8-9 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

This speaks clearly of injustice.

Why would anyone argue that it was not a sin to wound and kill the Son of God?

All those people had no excuse. Noah's people had their conscience, the false prophets were aware of the true ones etc. Job still stands apart.

But we were talking about where those who “blaspheme in matters they do not understand” (2 Peter) should have understood, and it is indeed a sin to blaspheme, even unintentionally, says Peter, and also Paul as well.

Lee: … what I thought I read was that God gave the law so that sin would increase …

GIT: The law didn't increase the sinning people did, but revealed just how far from God they actually were.

Yet the verse says the law was given to increase sin, and it does indeed carry out its purpose:

Romans 7:7-10 I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

GIT: And that is not a sin at all.

Romans 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Do you mean sin is not sinful if there is no law? Indeed it is, let’s read here too:

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command.

So the penalty implies the guilt, and sin is still sin, even when it is unknown by a direct commandment.

Romans 2:15 … since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

God didn't cause their unbelief. What he had done in the past was overlook it and now he would do so no longer.

How then is it we read “God has bound all over to disobedience”? This would not be overlooking sin at one time, and the death “because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12) would also indicate that sin was not being overlooked.

Blessings,
Lee