Annihilationism is taught in the bible

[JIM]

But Paul’s argument is not to establish any laws before Moses other than that given to Adam, for he is proving representation and imputation, not the doctrine of a corrupt nature.

Paul is very definitely claiming that law existed before God gave the Law to Moses. That is the point (Rom 2:14-15). That is Paul's argument.

 

[CherubRam]

Hobie, I agree with not debating to win but to test each others doctrine~you come and post a whirlwind of scriptures, many of which I would agree with, yet you also take shots at a precious truth taught in the scriptures concerning ONCE LOVED ALWAYS LOVED ~ which you and others prefer to go after "once saved always saved"~which does seemly gives your false teaching a little support since the words save/saved/salvation are used in different senses in the scriptures ~ one which does teach that we can lose a certain salvation that we possess as believers yet not lose our souls in the lake of fire. This is what I truly want to discuss with you.

I do not think you are more busy than me~so a little time may be very useful for others to read and help them to be more convince of the truth or error. This is why we are here~ and for no other reason~there's certainly is no glory to be had, since we will never see the folks we are taking to, it is all about helping our brothers in the faith and helping ourselves as well.

Hebrews 10:26
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,...

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Yup - it's called "Theology".

Every Christian has a theology. The word Theology means "God - Theos" and "Logy" study of".

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Hebrews 10:26
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,...

Many have exegeted and commented on Hebrews 10 and 6 and explained that it is not talking about saved people. If you believe the Bible is inerrant and contains no contradictions then you have to explain the Hebrews passages in the light of the other Biblical passages that state very clearly that when a person is saved they cannot be lost after that. Otherwise, you don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

 

[Eleanor]

Greetings Eleanor,

Again we are not far apart~We both agree on the contrasting parallel that is presented in (Romans 5:18-19). The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity and the obedience and righteousness of Jesus to those whom he was a surety for.

Eleanor, there was a law before Moses' law~it was given to Adam by God who was our representative before God.

Red, why do you allow yourself to set the NT word of God and Paul against themselves in Ro 5:12-14?
Do you not realize the first rule of a correct hermeneutic is that it does not set Scripture against itself?
If you can't interpret a passage without setting Scripture against itself, is it not better to simply say you don't know how to explain it, than to
set God against himself in his own word?

In your post (quoted in my post #66), you state that the doctrine of imputed sin is clearly contained in the verses (Ro 5:12-14).
Impute = to account, to credit, to reckon, to assign to someone.
So let's parse that out.

Paul begins his presentation of the imputation of Adam's sin to mankind with a contrast between Eden and post-Eden, in terms of God's law.
In Eden, law with a death penalty attached was given to Adam (Ge 3;17), which law he disobeyed and therefore suffered spiritual death, later followed by physical death.

However, after Eden, no law with death penalty attached was given, until Moses.
Therefore, no personal sin (with death penalty attached as in Eden) was accounted to anyone between Adam and Moses.
But, nevertheless, such sin was in the world, because they all died between Adam and Moses, which death is due only to sin (Ro 6:23), as was Adam's (Ro 5:14).

So if no personal sin against law (with death penalty attached as in Eden) was accounted to them to cause their death, of what sin did they die?
They died of the sin of (the first) Adam imputed to them, which was the pattern (Ro 5:14)
of our justification through faith by the righteousness of (the second Adam) Christ imputed to us (Ro 5:18-19, 4:1-11).

So on what authority do you maintain that, contrary to Ro 5:12-14, there was law post-Eden between Adam and Moses, just as there was in Eden?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Every Christian has a theology. The word Theology means "God - Theos" and "Logy" study of".

And ALL God's Chilluns gots theys own versions.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

... [H]umans die FOR THEIR OWN SINS, and not the sins or their ancestors. I inherited NOTHING from Adam except the SAME HUMAN NATURE that he was created with.

Bottom line: People are born INNOCENT, and inherit NOTHING from Adam, other that the SAME human nature he was created with.

Oh! Hi there, Pelagius! Haven't seen you in over 1,600 years. I regret to inform you, though, that the entire Western church still condemns your view as heresy. So, good luck with that.

 

[JIM]

Oh! Hi there, Pelagius! Haven't seen you in over 1,600 years. I regret to inform you, though, that the entire Western church still condemns your view as heresy. So, good luck with that.

Do you really think that God stuck you with a dead spirit when you came into this world? And that spirit was dead because Adam sinned?

 

[Red Baker]

Jim and Eleanor~

Paul is very definitely claiming that law existed before God gave the Law to Moses. That is the point (Rom 2:14-15). That is Paul's argument.

Red, why do you allow yourself to set the NT word of God and Paul against themselves in Ro 5:12-14?.......So on what authority do you maintain that, contrary to Ro 5:12-14, there was law post-Eden between Adam and Moses, just as there was in Eden?So, here both Jim and Eleanor accused me of not faithfully considering all of God's word, to which I say I'm convinced that I have, and I know our disagreements lays at the door of both of Jim and Eleanor.

This will take a three posts I think~ Part one ( Jim is having an open heart surgery today please remember him....he's 84 and seemly of a very sound mind and good health overall. )

First to Jim~Jim, I know well Romans 2:14,15 and considered those scriptures when I was posting. My main purpose when posting was to show the doctrine of imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity just as I said:

"But Paul’s argument is not to establish any laws before Moses other than that given to Adam, for he is proving representation and imputation......" Before Moses"...meaning.....post-Eden between Adam and Moses.

Now concerning Romans 2:14,15~let us go back to verse 12.

Verse 12~For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in (or under) law shall be judged by the law.​

Here Paul explains the equality of the judgment, both with respect to the Gentiles and the Jews. Without law, that is, a written law; for none are without law, as the Apostle immediately afterwards shows. The Gentiles had not received the written law; they had, however, sinned, and they shall perish ~ that is to say, be condemned ~ without that law. The Jews had received the written law; they had also sinned, they will be judged ~ that is to say condemned ~ by that law; for in the next verse Paul declares that only the doers of the law shall be justified; and consequently, as condemnation stands opposed to justification, they who are not doers of it will be condemned. In one word, the Divine justice will only regard the sins of men; and wherever these are found, it will condemn the sinner. The Gentiles shall perish without law. They will perish, though they are not to be judged by the written law. It is alleged by some, that although the Apostle’s language shows that all the Gentiles are guilty before God, yet it does not imply that they will be condemned; for that they may he guilty, yet be saved by mercy through Jesus Christ. But the language of the Apostle entirely precludes the possibility of such a supposition. It is not said that they who have sinned without law are guilty without law, but that they shall ‘perish without law.’ The language, then, does not merely assert their guilt, but clearly asserts their condemnation. They shall perish.

No criticism can make this expression consistent with the salvation of the Gentiles who know not God. They will be condemned by the work of the law written in their hearts. Many are inclined to think that the condemnation of the heathen is peculiarly hard; but it is equally just, and not more severe, than the punishment of those who have sinned against revelation. They will not be Judged by the light which they had not, nor punished so severely as they who resisted that light.

Verse 13~For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.​

For not the hearers of the law~It will be in vain, therefore, for the Jew to say, I am a hearer of the law, I attend on its services, I belong to the covenant of God, who has given me His testimonies. On all these accounts, being a transgressor, as he is, he must be condemned. The presence of the article before the word law in both the clauses of this verse, which is wanting in the preceding verse, shows that the reference is here to the Jews under the written law.

The doers of the law shall be justified ~ By this we must understand an exact obedience to the law to be intended, which can defend itself against that declaration, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.’ For it is not the same with the judgment of the law as with that of grace. The Gospel indeed requires of us a perfect obedience to its commands, yet it not only provides for believers’ pardon of the sins committed before their calling, but of those also which they afterwards commit. But the judgment of the law admits of no indulgence to those who are under it; it demands a full and perfect personal observance of all its requirements — a patient continuance in well-doing, without the least deviation, or the smallest speck of sin; and when it does not find this state of perfection, condemns the man. But did not the law itself contain expiations for sin? and consequently, shall not the judgment which will be passed according to the law, be accompanied with grace and indulgence through the benefit of these expiations? The legal expiations had no virtue in themselves; but inasmuch as they were figures of the expiation made by Jesus Christ, they directed men to His sacrifice. But as they belonged to the temporal or carnal covenant, they neither expiated nor could expiate any but typical sins, that is to say, uncleanness of the flesh, Hebrews 9:13, which were not real sins, but only external pollutions. Thus, as far as regarded the legal sacrifices, all real sins remained on the conscience, Hebrews 10:1, for from these the law did not in the smallest degree discharge; whence it follows that the judgment, according to the law, to those who are under it, will be a strict judgment according to law, which pardons nothing. The word justified occurs here for the first time in this Epistle, and being introduced in connection with the general judgment, means being declared just or righteous by a judicial sentence.

Verse 14~For when the gentiles, which have not a law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not a law, are a law unto themselves.​

For~this verse has no connection with, or dependence whatever on, the foregoing, as is generally supposed, but connects with the first clause of verse 12, which it explains.
Together with the following verse, it supplies the answer to the objection that might be made to what is contained in the beginning of that verse, namely, that God cannot justly condemn the Gentiles, since He has not given them a law. To this the Apostle here replies, that though they have not an external and written law, as that which God gave to the Israelites, they have, however, the law of the conscience, which is sufficient to establish the justice of their condemnation. This is the meaning of that proposition, having not a law, are a law unto themselves; and of that other, which show the work of the law written in their hearts; by which he also establishes the justice of what he had said in the 12th verse, that as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law. He proves it in two ways: 1st, Because they do naturally the things that the law requires, which shows that they have a law in themselves, since they sometimes act according to its rule; 2nd, He proves it by their not being devoid of a conscience, since, according to its decisions, they accuse or excuse one another. This evidently shows that they have a law, the work of which is written in their hearts, by which they discern the difference between right and wrong — what is just, and what is unjust. How else can unrighteous men be good judges, law makers, etc.?

They who have not a law, — that is, an externally written law, — do by nature the things contained in the law. It could not be the Apostle’s intention to assert that the heathens in general, or that any one of them, kept the law written in the heart, when the contrary had been proved in the preceding chapter; but they did certain things, though imperfectly, commanded by the law, which proved that they had, by their original constitution, a discernment of the difference between right and wrong.

They did nothing, however, in the manner which the law required, that is, from the only motive that makes an action good, namely, a spirit of obedience, and of love to God. God governs the world in this way. He rules the actions of men and beasts by the instincts and affections which He has implanted in them. Every good action that men perform by nature, they do by their constitution, not from respect to the authority of God.

That the Pagans do many things that, as to the outward act, are agreeable to the law of God, is obviously true, and should not be denied.

That they do anything acceptable to God is not true, and is not here asserted.

​

 

[Red Baker]

Paul is very definitely claiming that law existed before God gave the Law to Moses. That is the point (Rom 2:14-15). That is Paul's argument.

Part two to Jim...​

Verse 15~Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.​

The work of the law. — We have here a distinction between the law itself, and the work of the law. The work of the law is the thing that the law doeth, ~ that is, what it teaches about actions, as good or bad. This work, or business, or office of the law, is to teach what is right or wrong. This, in some measure, is taught by the light of nature in the heart of every man.

There remains, then, in all men, to a "certain degree", a discernment of what the law requires, designated here the work of the law; the performance or neglect of which is followed by the approbation or disapprobation of the conscience. It has no relation to the authority of the lawgiver, as the principle of the law itself; but solely to the distinction between actions, as right or wrong in themselves, and the hope of escaping future punishment, or of obtaining future reward. The love and the reverential fear of God, which are the true principles of obedience, have been effaced from the mind; but a degree of knowledge of His justice, and the consciousness that the violations of His law deserve and will be followed by punishment, have been retained.

Written in their hearts ~This is an allusion to the law written by the finger of God upon tables of stone, and afterwards recorded in the Scriptures. The great principles of this law were communicated to man in his creation, and much of it remains with him in his fallen state. This natural light of the understanding is called the law written in the heart, because it is imprinted on the mind by the Author of creation, and is God’s work as much as the writing on the tables of stone. Conscience witnessing together ~ together with the law written in the heart. But it may be asked, Are not these two things the same? They are not. They are different principles. Light, or knowledge of duty, is one thing, and conscience is another. Knowledge shows what is right ~ the conscience approves of it, and condemns the contrary. We might suppose a being to have the knowledge of duty, without the principle that approves of it, and blames the transgression.

Their thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or else excusing between one another. — Not alternately, nor in turn. Their reasonings (not thoughts) between one another, condemning, or else defending. What is the object of their condemnation or defense? Not themselves, but one another; that is, those between whom the reasonings take place. The reference evidently is to the fact that, in all places, in all ages, men are continually, in their mutual intercourse, blaming or excusing human conduct. This supposes a standard of reference, ~ a knowledge of right and wrong. No man could accuse and condemn another, if there were not some standard of right and wrong; and no man could defend an action without a similar standard. This is obviously the meaning of the Apostle. To these ideas of right and wrong are naturally joined the idea of God, who is the sovereign Judge of the world, and that of rewards and punishments, which will follow either good or bad actions. These ideas do not fail to present themselves to the sinner, and inspire fear and inquietude. But as, on the other hand, self-love and corruption reign in the heart, these come to his support, and strive, by vain reasonings, to defend or to extenuate the sin. The Gentiles, then, however depraved, lost, and abandoned, and however destitute of the aid of the written law, are, notwithstanding, a law to themselves, having the law written in their hearts. They have still sufficient light to discern between good and evil, virtue and vice, honesty and dishonesty; and their conscience enables them sufficiently to make that distinction, whether before committing sin, or in the commission of it, or after they have committed it. Besides this, remorse on account of their crimes reminds them that there is a God, a Judge before whom they must appear to render account to Him of their actions. They are, then, a law to themselves; they have the work of the law written in their hearts.

That the knowledge of the revealed law of God has not been preserved in every nation, is, however, entirely to be attributed to human depravity; and if it was restored to one nation for the benefit of others, it must be ascribed to the goodness of God. The law of God, and the revelation respecting the Messiah, had been delivered to all men after the flood by Noah, who was a preacher of the everlasting righteousness, 2 Peter 2:5, which was to be brought in, to answer the demands of that law. But all the nations of the earth had lost the remembrance of it, not liking to retain God in their knowledge. God again discovered it to the Jews in that written revelation with which they were favored. If it he asked, Why was the law vouchsafed in this manner to that nation and not also to the Gentiles? Paul explains this mystery, ch. 11: It is sufficient then to say that God has willed to make known, by this abandonment, how great and dreadful was the fall of the human race, and by that means one day to magnify the glory of the grace which He purposed to bestow on men by Jesus Christ. He willed to leave a great part of men a prey to Satan, to show how great is His abhorrence of sin, and how great was the wrath which our disobedience had kindled against the world. But why did He not also abandon the Jews? Because He chose to leave some ray of hope in the world, and it pleased Him to lay the foundation of redemption by His Son.

But why was the greater part abandoned? Because then was the time of Divine wrath and justices and sin must be allowed to abound that grace might super abound. Why, in fine, choose the nation of the Jews rather than any other nation? Because, without any further reason, it was the sovereign good pleasure of God.

Next to address Eleanor...

 

[JIM]

Red,
To all of that. What you fail to understand is that there is law and then there is the law of Moses. In not understanding that simple truth, so much of what you have said there is just wrong.

Rom 1:32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

God's decree is law. It is not the law of Moses, even if that decree is contained withing the law of Moses. It is because they know God's decree and do not obey that decree that they deserve to be punished. They deserved to be punished because they have sinned; they do not deserve to be punished because Adam sinned.

Your entire argument above is invalid because you do not understand that. You can write page after page of response, but so long as you fail to understand that very simple, straightforward, biblical truth, you will be wrong. And in believing that God would punish anyone other than Adam for Adam's sin is wrong.

And by the way that death that they deserve is spiritual death, not physical death.

 

[JIM]

Jim is having an open heart surgery today please remember him

Tomorrow. And thank you dear friend for keeping me in your thoughts.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Tomorrow. And thank you dear friend for keeping me in your thoughts.

Then you will get one of those little souvenir heart pillows for your post-surgery use to protect your stitches. We've got one of those around our house too. May God give skill and precision to your doctors, and strength for you to recuperate quickly afterwards. God bless!

 

[Eleanor]

Tomorrow. And thank you dear friend for keeping me in your thoughts.

Then you will get one of those little souvenir heart pillows for your post-surgery use to protect your stitches. We've got one of those around our house too. May God give skill and precision to your doctors, and strength for you to recuperate quickly afterwards. God bless!

Amen!

(We likewise have one.)

 

[Red Baker]

Red,
To all of that. What you fail to understand is that there is law and then there is the law of Moses. In not understanding that simple truth, so much of what you have said there is just wrong.

Rom 1:32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

God's decree is law. It is not the law of Moses, even if that decree is contained withing the law of Moses. It is because they know God's decree and do not obey that decree that they deserve to be punished. They deserved to be punished because they have sinned; they do not deserve to be punished because Adam sinned.

Your entire argument above is invalid because you do not understand that. You can write page after page of response, but so long as you fail to understand that very simple, straightforward, biblical truth, you will be wrong. And in believing that God would punish anyone other than Adam for Adam's sin is wrong.

Jim, I hesitate even answering you since you need to rest before your surgery tomorrow~so, just a word or two.

I know very well there was a law before the law of Moses, which the law of Moses truly is just a expansion of that law, and God's law is exceeding broad (Psalms 119:96~" I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad. ) yet summed up into ten commandments." Even though we know that what is recorded for us concerning what God commanded Adam~Adam in his wisdom, which was created after the image of God KNEW MORE than just one simple commandment. I believe he knew the fulness of those ten commandment. Outside of Jesus Christ, Adam was the wisest spiritual man that ever lived~thinking more before his fall

And by the way that death that they deserve is spiritual death, not physical death.

My friend~it was both! Spiritual first~the very second he sinned, physical later~much later than we live. I believe Adam in his natural wisdom had a understanding of what to eat for longevity~natural herbs my friend~they lost that knowledge after the flood and almost totally lost it after God scattered the people all over the earth into separate tribes and languages~to where we are now.

And in believing that God would punish anyone other than Adam for Adam's sin is wrong.

Jim, it is the most righteous manner in which God could have given flesh and blood the opportunity to live by keeping God's commandments. He chose Adam to be our federal head and representative before his law, who was created after God's image, without a sin nature, and gave him knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, that was not corrupted with/by sin. He willed Adam to be our head in that glorious state in which Adam was created. If Adam in that glorious, good state ( that's God called it ) sinned, which we believe he done immediately when God left them to themselves without providing help for Adam and his wife~then it is impossible for us who possesses Adam's fallen nature which is at enmity against God~it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be!

Jim, if you have a hard time with this doctrine of imputation of sin, then you must ask yourself do I really comprehend the gospel of Jesus Christ concerning imputation of Christ's righteousness to us without works ~ purely based on God's will and purpose and his free grace to us through Jesus Christ.

The Lord be with you tomorrow~my #2 daughter is now in surgery with a lesson problem but a major one~she's 52, much younger than you.

3 Resurrections know her~Destini..........think of predestination ~ Remember her in prayer as well.

 

[3 Resurrections]

3 Resurrections know her~Destini..........think of predestination ~ Remember her in prayer as well.

Yes, I do remember her Red. Somehow our own children's medical issues stress us more than our own, don't they? Praying for God's swift healing for her too...

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Do you really think that God stuck you with a dead spirit when you came into this world? And that spirit was dead because Adam sinned?

No. I think Adam stuck me with a dead spirit, insofar as I was "sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Ps 51:5), wherein "sinful" is to be understood as "a covenant-breaker" (emphasizing the idea that all human beings are born in a state of sin and separation from God). We all come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief, itself a sin, man remains there. We exist in death; only in Christ do we move to life. We exist in darkness; only in Christ do we move to light. We exist under God's wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist in condemnation; only in Christ are we justified.

Note: In other words, "I was a covenant-breaker at birth, a covenant-breaker from the time my mother conceived me."

 

[JIM]

No. I think Adam stuck me with a dead spirit, insofar as I was "sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Ps 51:5), wherein "sinful" is to be understood as "a covenant-breaker" (emphasizing the idea that all human beings are born in a state of sin and separation from God). We all come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief, itself a sin, man remains there. We exist in death; only in Christ do we move to life. We exist in darkness; only in Christ do we move to light. We exist under God's wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist in condemnation; only in Christ are we justified.

Note: In other words, "I was a covenant-breaker at birth, a covenant-breaker from the time my mother conceived me."

(ESV) Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

(KJV) Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

The first part of that sentence, "was brought forth", is passive and describes circumstances concerning the actions of the parents. The second is active and identifies the sense and the actions of the mother. Neither is a description of the condition of the author. That anyone uses that particular verse to establish original sin is actually quite silly.

 

[Red Baker]

Red, why do you allow yourself to set the NT word of God and Paul against themselves in Ro 5:12-14?
Do you not realize the first rule of a correct hermeneutic is that it does not set Scripture against itself?
If you can't interpret a passage without setting Scripture against itself, is it not better to simply say you don't know how to explain it, than to
set God against himself in his own word?

I do understand ~ thank you Miss Eleanor ~ while I can appreciate your zeal Miss Jael, please hold back your nail before we can reasoning together, then afterward, if you still believe I deserve the nail then use your discretion.

In your post (quoted in my post #66), you state that the doctrine of imputed sin is clearly contained in the verses (Ro 5:12-14).
Impute = to account, to credit, to reckon, to assign to someone.
So let's parse that out.

Paul begins his presentation of the imputation of Adam's sin to mankind with a contrast between Eden and post-Eden, in terms of God's law.
In Eden, law with a death penalty attached was given to Adam (Ge 3;17), which law he disobeyed and therefore suffered spiritual death, later followed by physical death.

Agreed

However, after Eden, no law with death penalty attached was given, until Moses.

Are you 100% sure of that Eleanor? Then please address these scriptures:

Genesis 9:5,6~"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Eleanor, I would not think you are part of the Death Penalty Action group, but would use Genesis 9: 5,6 showing God's law concerning the death penalty. Is not Genesis 9:5,6 a law, or just a suggestion? You and I both know it is a law.

Just as I said to Jim:

I know very well there was a law before the law of Moses, which the law of Moses truly is just a expansion of that law, and God's law is exceeding broad (Psalms 119:96~" I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad. ) yet summed up into ten commandments." Even though we know that what is recorded for us concerning what God commanded Adam~Adam in his wisdom, which was created after the image of God KNEW MORE than just one simple commandment. I believe he knew the fulness of those ten commandment. Outside of Jesus Christ, Adam was the wisest spiritual man that ever lived~thinking more before his fall

However, after Eden, no law with death penalty attached was given, until Moses.

Are you still holding to that position? And, have you drop you nail and hammer?

But, nevertheless, such sin was in the world, because they all died between Adam and Moses, which death is due only to sin (Ro 6:23), as was Adam's (Ro 5:14)..............................They died of the sin of (the first) Adam imputed to them, which was the pattern (Ro 5:14)
of our justification through faith by the righteousness of (the second Adam) Christ imputed to us (Ro 5:18-19, 4:1-11).

Agreed.

So on what authority do you maintain that, contrary to Ro 5:12-14, there was law post-Eden between Adam and Moses, just as there was in Eden?

Upon the authority of God's word.

It is very true that Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity based on Adam's disobedience. But, the law given to Adam, and also, written on man's heart at creation was in essence the same law written on two tables of stones and given to Israel by Moses. Man has never truly been without a law.

 

[JIM]

Jim, I hesitate even answering you since you need to rest before your surgery tomorrow~so, just a word or two.

I woke up early in anticipation of today's events. I need something to do for a bit to keep my mind from spending too much time imagining what is coming.

My friend~it was both! Spiritual first~the very second he sinned, physical later~much later than we live.

The fact that God placed the tree of life in the Garden proves that Adam was created as a mortal being.

Jim, if you have a hard time with this doctrine of imputation of sin,

I have no problem understanding imputation of sin. To impute is to attribute, to ascribe. Sin is imputed, is ascribed, to one who has disobeyed God. I have no problem with that. You do something wrong, you are ascribed blame. I do have a problem with the Calvinist view that God would lay the blame for Adam's disobedience at anyone else's feet. God is a just God and there is no justice in blaming one for the sins of another.

He chose Adam to be our federal head and representative .....

Again with that federal head nonsense, another one of those Calvinist constructions ginned up to support a non-biblical concept.