God's Law and the Christian

[Arial]

I will distinguish between the Mosaic covenant Law and the implicit law of God by capitalizing law when I mean the Mosaic covenant law.

Did the law of God exist from the beginning, long before even the ten commandments were given, and were people aware of it? His moral law is given in the ten commandments, which I will get to in a moment.

What is His moral law and how long has it existed? At least as long as sin has existed for we find in Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:12-14 that statement made by Paul directly. "Where no law is, there is no transgression." And yet all are under the indictment of sin. And sin is transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4) So the moral law is "be like God." It is for our good in keeping us from evil, to enjoy life fully, preserve us for good. Without moral law man could not exist and there would be no safe place for man. Whatever is not in God, should not be in us.

The moral law was given to Adam orally in the Garden of Eden. They were created in His image and likeness so they knew His character. They passed this knowledge to their offspring.

God wrote this law in the hearts of all humans. (Romans 2:15) This is our conscience.

That this is true and always has been, therefore the moral law of God has always existed and still does and always will, is seen in Abraham long before the written Law or even the Ten Commandments were given (1 Sam 13:13; 1 Kings 13:21) We see it also in Joseph in the episode with Potiphar's wife when she tempted him to commit adultery in Genesis 39 when he says in verse 9 "No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?"

By the time of Moses and Sinai the people had been corrupted during their slavery in Egypt and were under the influence of that pagan religion. So God wrote the Ten Commandments and ultimately the Mosaic Covenant Law. (Gal 3:15-22)

The Ten Commandments contain all of God's moral law. It is God's character written so that it may be comprehended. The first four define our responsibility to our Creator, the last six are the foundation of all human civil law. And they are all within the Sinai Law as a legal contract spelled out in Law and blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience.

In conclusion the Christian is bound to the moral law of God as are all people. Not to the Mosaic covenant Law as a legal document of Law. And the moral law is not the means of salvation, but the keeping of it is the result of the finished work of Christ and the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer. We are sanctified by Him through the reading and understanding of the scriptures, and submitting to it more and more. Being transformed into the image of Christ, which will never reach perfection in our earthly life, but increases. And Jesus in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension has conquered the power of sin to condemn us because we are in Him, and the power of death to hold us, as Jesus took their just punishment on the cross in our place, and we too, in due time, will be resurrected to life eternal. (Romans 6:1-5)

That is what is so superior about the New Covenant over the Old Covenant. The new does what the old could only tell us about and drive us to Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant.

 

[makesends]

I will distinguish between the Mosaic covenant Law and the implicit law of God by capitalizing law when I mean the Mosaic covenant law.

Did the law of God exist from the beginning, long before even the ten commandments were given, and were people aware of it? His moral law is given in the ten commandments, which I will get to in a moment.

What is His moral law and how long has it existed? At least as long as sin has existed for we find in Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:12-14 that statement made by Paul directly. "Where no law is, there is no transgression." And yet all are under the indictment of sin. And sin is transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4) So the moral law is "be like God." It is for our good in keeping us from evil, to enjoy life fully, preserve us for good. Without moral law man could not exist and there would be no safe place for man. Whatever is not in God, should not be in us.

The moral law was given to Adam orally in the Garden of Eden. They were created in His image and likeness so they knew His character. They passed this knowledge to their offspring.

God wrote this law in the hearts of all humans. (Romans 2:15) This is our conscience.

That this is true and always has been, therefore the moral law of God has always existed and still does and always will, is seen in Abraham long before the written Law or even the Ten Commandments were given (1 Sam 13:13; 1 Kings 13:21) We see it also in Joseph in the episode with Potiphar's wife when she tempted him to commit adultery in Genesis 39 when he says in verse 9 "No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?"

By the time of Moses and Sinai the people had been corrupted during their slavery in Egypt and were under the influence of that pagan religion. So God wrote the Ten Commandments and ultimately the Mosaic Covenant Law. (Gal 3:15-22)

The Ten Commandments contain all of God's moral law. It is God's character written so that it may be comprehended. The first four define our responsibility to our Creator, the last six are the foundation of all human civil law. And they are all within the Sinai Law as a legal contract spelled out in Law and blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience.

In conclusion the Christian is bound to the moral law of God as are all people. Not to the Mosaic covenant Law as a legal document of Law. And the moral law is not the means of salvation, but the keeping of it is the result of the finished work of Christ and the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer. We are sanctified by Him through the reading and understanding of the scriptures, and submitting to it more and more. Being transformed into the image of Christ, which will never reach perfection in our earthly life, but increases. And Jesus in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension has conquered the power of sin to condemn us because we are in Him, and the power of death to hold us, as Jesus took their just punishment on the cross in our place, and we too, in due time, will be resurrected to life eternal. (Romans 6:1-5)

That is what is so superior about the New Covenant over the Old Covenant. The new does what the old could only tell us about and drive us to Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant.

Between this you say, and @Eleanor 's insistence on the fact that the sin of individuals, pre-Law, is literally not counted against them, (and please notice, I do not say here that she means that they did not sin, and Eleanor has affirmed, that she does not mean that they did not sin, but only that it is not counted against them), I am overwhelmed at the mercy and forbearance of God —not just with his patience in "putting up with" the continuing sin of the reprobate, instead of immediately 'squishing them down to a greasy spot on the pavement'— but with his repeated, constant, and not holding anything against us, 'absorbing' of our sin. I know, in my theology, that what we will do against him is as much already covered by his sacrifice as the things we are already forgiven for, but when I find in myself such outrageous horror as my own ungodliness is, I wonder how he can continue to put up with me. I beg him to change me, to make me sick of my sin, and he does so, yet I still rebel; even while I am thanking him for his gracious forgiveness, already I find my mind plotting my next selfish act. My sorrow is overwhelming, and I fear I will go mad with the conflict, yet he continues to give more grace, and keep me, and show me lesson upon lesson, at HIS expense! Oh God, it hurts!

To KNOW that he planned this from the beginning, to know that his heel was indeed bruised, his immutability apparently compromised: The claim of some that what many of us here believe contradicts the LOVE of God, is worse than laughable.

 

[Arial]

Between this you say, and @Eleanor 's insistence on the fact that the sin of individuals, pre-Law, is literally not counted against them, (and please notice, I do not say here that she means that they did not sin, and Eleanor has affirmed, that she does not mean that they did not sin, but only that it is not counted against them),

Those passages in Rom 4,5, and 2 are saying the opposite of sins not being counted against them. And they of course are not saying that they did not sin. Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. Here Paul is making the comparison of violating God's moral law, if you will, and and the Jews who are under the Mosaic law, both equally guilty, and equally judged. One is judged by the Law, the other by the law.

Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned---for sin indeed was in the world before the Law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no Law.

All are condemned to death because of sin even before the Law, because the moral, character law of God is always in effect. He is Creator we are creature. In the above passages, those before the Mosaic Law was given were condemned, just not condemned by the Mosaic covenant Law, which is a legal document, with legal consequences for breaking that Law. And though that Law contained all the moral law of God, and was conditioned of God being their God, at the base of it were the conditions for keeping the land. It was a land grant covenant.

 

[makesends]

Those passages in Rom 4,5, and 2 are saying the opposite of sins not being counted against them. And they of course are not saying that they did not sin. Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. Here Paul is making the comparison of violating God's moral law, if you will, and and the Jews who are under the Mosaic law, both equally guilty, and equally judged. One is judged by the Law, the other by the law.

Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned---for sin indeed was in the world before the Law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no Law.

All are condemned to death because of sin even before the Law, because the moral, character law of God is always in effect. He is Creator we are creature. In the above passages, those before the Mosaic Law was given were condemned, just not condemned by the Mosaic covenant Law, which is a legal document, with legal consequences for breaking that Law. And though that Law contained all the moral law of God, and was conditioned of God being their God, at the base of it were the conditions for keeping the land. It was a land grant covenant.

I can't answer for @Eleanor , but it seems to me that she is saying the sin against the Mosaic Law is what is not accounted to them —not that no sin is accounted to them. They are, for example, accountable for sin against the conscience.

 

[Eleanor]

Those passages in Rom 4,5, and 2 are saying the opposite of sins not being counted against them.

Agreed. . .the issue is in what way.

And they of course are not saying that they did not sin

The issue in Ro 5:12-14 is accountable guilt/death by transgression of the law, the cause of all personal guilt/death.

Transgression of law (= death) requires there be 1) law with 2) death penalty, as in the Garden (Ge 2:17),
and which there was not between Adam and Moses, yet all died.
Therein is the conundrum Paul establishes to demonstrate imputation of Adam's sin, and
whereby Adam became a pattern for Christ (Ro 5:14, in his imputation of righteousness).

Ro 5:12-14 is stating that no sin was counted against those (i.e., death) between Adam and Moses because there was no law to transgress to make them guilty of death, yet they all died.

Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. Here Paul is making the comparison of violating God's moral law, if you will, and and the Jews who are under the Mosaic law, both equally guilty, and equally judged. One is judged by the Law, the other by the law.
Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned---for sin indeed was in the world before the Law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no Law.

All are condemned to death because of sin even before the Law, because the moral, character law of God is always in effect.

Yes, all died, but according to NT apostolic teaching, it was not about God's character, but about their guilt of death, even when there was no law condemning them to death, as in the Garden and after Moses.

Let's get some perspective on Ro 1-5:
Romans 1:18-3:20 is dealing with the unrighteousness of all mankind.
Ro 3:21-5:21 is dealing with imputed righteousness (justification).

In Ro 2:12 (of the section on unrighteousness), Paul is dealing with the nature of guilt on judgment day (Ro 2:16) as judged by
God's principles of judgment (i.e., according to truth, 2:2; or deeds, 2:6-11; or personal light, 2:12-15) employed on that day,
the guilt of the Jews being by the law of God (Ro 2:12-13) and
the guilt of the Gentiles being by the law of their conscience (Ro 2:14-15), therefore, all mankind being guilty of condemnation (Ro 3:9).

However, in Ro 5:12-14 (of the section on imputed righteousness), Paul is dealing with the death of man by sin between Adam and Moses when sin was not accounted to man, as part of Paul's demonstration of the imputed sin/guilt of Adam being the cause of their death during that time.

The character of God is not a direct factor in this demonstration, and is not inferred in any way.

Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned---for sin indeed was in the world before the Law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no Law.

All are condemned to death because of sin even before the Law, because the moral, character law of God is always in effect.

However, that is not Paul's meaning in Ro 5:12-14.
He is contrasting no sin accounted, and death due to sin accounted (by imputation of Adam's sin), at the same time between Adam and Moses..

He is Creator we are creature. In the above passages, those before the Mosaic Law was given were condemned, just not condemned by the Mosaic covenant Law, which is a legal document, with legal consequences for breaking that Law. And though that Law contained all the moral law of God, and was conditioned of God being their God, at the base of it were the conditions for keeping the land. It was a land grant covenant.

Actually, the land grant covenant is unconditional, there are no conditions for keeping it in force until it is filfilled.
The land grant was fulfilled under Solomon, and the promise of return to the land was fulfilled under Ezra and Nehemiah, when the walls were rebuilt, the Temple was rebuilt and the people re-dedicated themselves to God with great joy and celebration which could be heard from afar.
The promise of an "everlasting possession" (Ge 17:8, 48:4) is fulfilled in the heavenly land (Heb 11:13-16).

Their is no existing promise of land to Israel.
The only destiny of Israel is to be grafted back into the one olive tree of Gods people IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).

All mankind, Gentile and Jew, are on the same footing with God--admission to God's kingdom (which is spiritual--Jn 8:36, Lk 17:20-21, here now--Lk 11:20, Mt 12;:28, and everlasting--Lk 1:33) is only through salvation by faith in and trust on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin and reconciliation with God.

 

[Eleanor]

I can't answer for @Eleanor , but it seems to me that she is saying the sin against the Mosaic Law is what is not accounted to them —not that no sin is accounted to them. They are, for example, accountable for sin against the conscience.

Of course it has to be a little more complicated than that.

Sin against the conscience is not transgression of God's commands, and is not a factor of sin in Ro 5:12-14.

The only factor of sin in Paul's argument of Ro 5:12-14 is specific commands, which transgression thereof results in death, as in the Garden (Ge 2:17)--his point of comparison.

There being no such law with death penalty between Adam and Moses, there was no transgression to count against them resulting in death, as there was in the case of Adam (Ro 5:14).
Yet they all died of sin.

And don't forget! . . .you are my official spokesman.

 

[makesends]

Of course it has to be a little more complicated than that.

Sin against the conscience is not transgression of God's commands, and is not a factor of sin in Ro 5:12-14.

The only factor of sin in Paul's argument of Ro 5:12-14 is specific commands, which transgression thereof results in death, as in the Garden (Ge 2:17)--his point of comparison.

There being no such law with death penalty between Adam and Moses, there was no transgression to count against them resulting in death, as there was in the case of Adam (Ro 5:14).
Yet they all died of sin.

And don't forget! . . .you are my official spokesman.

Just to pick at the scab a bit: Sin against conscience is not necessarily sin against God, as I take you to be saying, and even "...to him who knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin." can be taken to mean that it is only sin to his thinking and conscience, and not actually sin against God. (Which take, I disagree with, to a degree: After all, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin".)

But yes, I agree that isn't what Romans 5:12-14 was about. And THERE, is where I asked you, (and to which you ably responded), a good while ago now, what you meant vs what your words sounded like, and apparently is where many have decided you are mistaken (or worse). They have stubbed their toes on your words.

Anyhow, being her official spokesman, I say that @Eleanor does not mean that they actually did no sin, between Adam and Moses.

But I don't mean to derail the OP.

 

[Arial]

Ro 5:12-14 is stating that no sin was counted against those (i.e., death) between Adam and Moses because there was no law to transgress to make them guilty of death, yet they all died.

I don't disagree with everything you said meaning I agree mostly but in this I want to add my two cents and my perspective.

The penalty for sin is death. That is why all died. And an argument can be made that it is the imputed death of Adam that brought their death, and that is indeed why they sinned. And I agree it is the point Paul is making.

But if you consider Romans 1 and 2 and 3, we see we have no excuse, whether there is a written law or not. God is God and transgressing His moral law is sinning against Him. All lawlessness is sin. How can God not count sin against us, even if there is no written Law. It may be that I am not understanding it right but that is the way I see it for now.

Non Jewish believers never had the written law and are condemned without the Law. Did that only happen after the Law was given to Israel or even later, after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ?

 

[makesends]

I don't disagree with everything you said meaning I agree mostly but in this I want to add my two cents and my perspective.

The penalty for sin is death. That is why all died. And an argument can be made that it is the imputed death of Adam that brought their death, and that is indeed why they sinned. And I agree it is the point Paul is making.

But if you consider Romans 1 and 2 and 3, we see we have no excuse, whether there is a written law or not. God is God and transgressing His moral law is sinning against Him. All lawlessness is sin. How can God not count sin against us, even if there is no written Law. It may be that I am not understanding it right but that is the way I see it for now.

Non Jewish believers never had the written law and are condemned without the Law. Did that only happen after the Law was given to Israel or even later, after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ?

@Eleanor does not dispute that they indeed died because of sin. She is only referring to the hard Ro 5:12-14 argument that Paul is making. She well knows they sinned, and would argue against any that would claim that they did not rebel against their Maker, as would Paul argue.

 

[Arial]

@Eleanor does not dispute that they indeed died because of sin. She is only referring to the hard Ro 5:12-14 argument that Paul is making. She well knows they sinned, and would argue against any that would claim that they did not rebel against their Maker, as would Paul argue.

That is not what I was disputing. I know she is not saying they did not sin.

 

[Soyeong]

I will distinguish between the Mosaic covenant Law and the implicit law of God by capitalizing law when I mean the Mosaic covenant law.

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded without departing from it, so all of the Law of Moses was given by God and is thus the Law of God, which is also why the Law of Moses is directly referred to as being the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

Did the law of God exist from the beginning, long before even the ten commandments were given, and were people aware of it? His moral law is given in the ten commandments, which I will get to in a moment.

What is His moral law and how long has it existed? At least as long as sin has existed for we find in Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:12-14 that statement made by Paul directly. "Where no law is, there is no transgression." And yet all are under the indictment of sin. And sin is transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4) So the moral law is "be like God." It is for our good in keeping us from evil, to enjoy life fully, preserve us for good. Without moral law man could not exist and there would be no safe place for man. Whatever is not in God, should not be in us.

The moral law was given to Adam orally in the Garden of Eden. They were created in His image and likeness so they knew His character. They passed this knowledge to their offspring.

God wrote this law in the hearts of all humans. (Romans 2:15) This is our conscience.

God's nature is eternal, sin is what is contrary to God's nature or character, so it is also eternal, and God's laws are His instructions for how to divide between what is in accordance with or contrary to His nature or character, or in other words, for how to "be like God", which is why all of His righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160), so everything commanded in the Law of Moses has existed from the beginning and people were able to sin before it had been given because people were able to act in a way that was contrary to God's nature before they had been instructions to refrain from doing that.

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, therefore all of the laws that God has given are inherently moral laws. Likewise, morality is based on God's nature and all of God's laws were given to divide between what is in accordance with or contrary to His nature, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. If a particular action was not in accordance with or contrary to God's nature, then God would have no motivation to command it or to command against it or to command something that we can be acting morally while disobeying. There is certainly no example in the Bible of disobedience to any of God's laws being considered to be moral and I do not see any justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God, so you have no basis for arbitrarily deciding that some of God's commands are not moral laws.

That this is true and always has been, therefore the moral law of God has always existed and still does and always will, is seen in Abraham long before the written Law or even the Ten Commandments were given (1 Sam 13:13; 1 Kings 13:21) We see it also in Joseph in the episode with Potiphar's wife when she tempted him to commit adultery in Genesis 39 when he says in verse 9 "No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?"

By the time of Moses and Sinai the people had been corrupted during their slavery in Egypt and were under the influence of that pagan religion. So God wrote the Ten Commandments and ultimately the Mosaic Covenant Law. (Gal 3:15-22).

In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would walk in His way by doing righteousness and justice that the Lord may bring to Him all that He has promised, and in 1 Kings 2:1-3, God taught how to walk in His way through the Law of Moses, so both Abraham and Moses walked in God's way in obedience to it. In Genesis 4:7, God told Cain that sin was crouching at the door and that he must master it, which implies that he already knew what sin is and that he must have already been given laws in that regard, which included him being judged in accordance with the laws that would be given later in Deuteronomy 19 in regard to how to handle someone who commits accidental manslaughter. Likewise, in Genesis 7:2, Noah was told what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to tell the difference, and in 8:20, he knew to offer a clean animal, so God's eternal moral laws are not limited to just ten of His commandments.

The Ten Commandments contain all of God's moral law. It is God's character written so that it may be comprehended. The first four define our responsibility to our Creator, the last six are the foundation of all human civil law. And they are all within the Sinai Law as a legal contract spelled out in Law and blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience.

If you think that the Ten Commandments contain all of God's mora law, then do you think that it is moral to commit rape, kidnapping, or favoritism, or to disobey the greatest two commandments? In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, such as refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so do you deny that holiness is part of God's character?

In conclusion the Christian is bound to the moral law of God as are all people. Not to the Mosaic covenant Law as a legal document of Law. And the moral law is not the means of salvation, but the keeping of it is the result of the finished work of Christ and the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer. We are sanctified by Him through the reading and understanding of the scriptures, and submitting to it more and more. Being transformed into the image of Christ, which will never reach perfection in our earthly life, but increases. And Jesus in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension has conquered the power of sin to condemn us because we are in Him, and the power of death to hold us, as Jesus took their just punishment on the cross in our place, and we too, in due time, will be resurrected to life eternal. (Romans 6:1-5)

That is what is so superior about the New Covenant over the Old Covenant. The new does what the old could only tell us about and drive us to Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant.

What motivation did God have to include commands in the Mosaic Covenant that were not part of His moral law? Every legislator gives laws according to what they think ought to be done, so for you to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when he gave those laws, which is also claiming to have greater moral knowledge than God. Living in obedience to God's law is intrinsically part of the gift of Jesus saving us from not living in obedience to it. Christ is the exact image of God's nature, which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to the Law of Moses, so it is contradictory to what to be transformed into the image of Christ while not wanting to obey the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses leads us to Christ because it teaches us how to know him through acting in accordance with His nature. In Jeremiah 31:33, it directs states that the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, and the Torah is the Law of Moses.

 

[Arial]

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, therefore all of the laws that God has given are inherently moral laws. Likewise, morality is based on God's nature and all of God's laws were given to divide between what is in accordance with or contrary to His nature, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. If a particular action was not in accordance with or contrary to God's nature, then God would have no motivation to command it or to command against it or to command something that we can be acting morally while disobeying. There is certainly no example in the Bible of disobedience to any of God's laws being considered to be moral and I do not see any justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God, so you have no basis for arbitrarily deciding that some of God's commands are not moral laws.

You are really just splitting hairs, for I have not said otherwise. There is a distinction however between the legal code of a legal written document such as the Mosaic covenant Law is, and the morality, or character of God that we as His creatures and servants are to imitate as His image bearers. And though what you say above is in large part true, I know already that you consider the Mosaic covenant law to be the standard of our obedience, in letter as well as spirit. And yet I would venture to say do not keep it as it is written in many aspects.

For example take the commands to stone adulterers, the specific commands associated with the feasts and festivals, those specific commands for the seventh day rest, the commands for Jubilee or the seventh year rest of the land and many more. Do they teach what is considered moral civic behavior? Do they teach obedience to God? Do they teach wisdom? Do they teach how to live and thrive in this fallen world? Absolutely. And those things are eternal. The legal document of the Mosaic Law is not. As Hebrews tells us. It has become obsolete because the new and superior covenant has been ratified in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.

If you think that the Ten Commandments contain all of God's mora law, then do you think that it is moral to commit rape, kidnapping, or favoritism, or to disobey the greatest two commandments? In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, such as refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so do you deny that holiness is part of God's character?

Obviously you did not understand what I was saying. If you keep the first four perfectly you will automatically be keeping the rest. Jesus went so far as to say all the commandments are summed up in the first two. (Matt 22:37-40) The Law and the Prophets in that scripture meaning the entire OT. It is in the Mosaic covenant Law that these thing are spelled out, fleshed out, for our instruction in righteousness, a righteousness we would not know if He did not do that. And they are presented as laws and the penal result of disobedience.

What motivation did God have to include commands in the Mosaic Covenant that were not part of His moral law?

Do the dietary laws for example, contain a moral code? If so what is it? Or is it wisdom. Do the feasts and festival contain a moral code or are they set in place that the Israelites never forget what God has done for them---the Israelites. Our Exodus, the believers Exodus, from bondage is our deliverance by Christ from the curse the Mosaic Law brought upon us (Gal 3)and from the power of sin and death over us. Headed for the heavenly, spiritual promised land, rather than the land of Canaan. True rest. Complete deliverance. This is what we remember and celebrate now.

Every legislator gives laws according to what they think ought to be done, so for you to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when he gave those laws, which is also claiming to have greater moral knowledge than God.

No it is not. And I am not saying they are not moral, I am saying that they are not teaching morality but something else.

. Living in obedience to God's law is intrinsically part of the gift of Jesus saving us from not living in obedience to it. Christ is the exact image of God's nature, which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to the Law of Moses, so it is contradictory to what to be transformed into the image of Christ while not wanting to obey the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses leads us to Christ because it teaches us how to know him through acting in accordance with His nature. In Jeremiah 31:33, it directs states that the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, and the Torah is the Law of Moses.

Yes living in obedience to God's law is the gift of Jesus saving us. But there is a distinction between Mosaic covenant Law and the whole law of God which is His character. The Law was a tutor. Do you think we are now under a Law that we were never under? And that our salvation now depends on keeping that Law perfectly as outlined in the legal document? How are you doing with that? Jesus kept it, in letter and in spirit, perfectly. We could never do that---that was the point of His coming and doing it, to fulfill all righteousness, and dying the death of a sinner in our place, that we might be counted as righteous in His righteousness. That is what destroys the power of the Law and law, to condemn us. And it is because it can't condemn us and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit in us, that we are able to become obedient to God, not Law.The Holy Spirit is now our teacher, not the Law.

 

[Eleanor]

 

[Eleanor]

I don't disagree with everything you said meaning I agree mostly but in this I want to add my two cents and my perspective.

The penalty for sin is death. That is why all died. And an argument can be made that it is the imputed death of Adam that brought their death, and that is indeed why they sinned. And I agree it is the point Paul is making.

But if you consider Romans 1 and 2 and 3, we see we have no excuse, whether there is a written law or not.

Now that we have all tied everything in knots, let's hope they can be untied.

Actually, it's only "we have no excuse if we don't know the law that is written," and to which we are thereby accountable.
No one is accountable to a law that does not exist, that is not given (written).
And there was no such law between Adam and Moses to which anyone was accountable (Ro 5:12-14).
So that to hold anyone between Adam and Moses guilty according to conscience leads to the contra-Biblical conclusion that
from Adam to Moses the Gentiles are held accountable for "sin" while the patriarchs are specifically not held accountable (Ro 5:12-14).

God is God and transgressing His moral law is sinning against Him. All lawlessness is sin.

However, the only law from God between Adam and Moses was "Thou shalt not eat of it." (Ge 2:17)
That one law did not exist naturally in Adam's conscience. He knew nothing of law until God spoke it.
Nor were there any other laws existing naturally in Adam's conscience for him to transgress.
We have no basis for assuming that law not yet given by God was, nevertheless, written on the human conscience.

How can God not count sin against us, even if there is no written Law. It may be that I am not understanding it right but that is the way I see it for now.

I know you are not asking "how" in the sense of his ability, but in the sense of according to the teaching of Ro 1-3 that all are accountable.
So let's sort out Ro 1-3 and Ro 5 regarding accountability of all.

In Paul's treatment of unrighteousness in Ro 1-3, he is presenting it in terms of Gentiles and Jews, which distinction did not exist prior to Abraham. Paul is dealing with post-Moses, not pre-Moses in Ro 1-3 when there were no Jews nor Gentiles, just mankind.
Paul demonstrates that after the giving of the Mosaic law, all mankind was made unrighteous.

So. . .Paul having established from (post-Mosaic) perspective of righteousness by law keeping, that all Gentiles are unrighteous (Ro 1:18-32),
he then establishes the unrighteousness of all Jews (Ro 2:1-3:8), thereby locking up all post-Mosaic mankind in sin (Ro 3:9-20).
So Ro 1-3 treats accountability as accountable to given (written) law, which applies only to Adam and post Sinai, when there was law.

Then we have no law:
Ro 4:15 - where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin).
Ro 5:13 - sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

Now Paul is dealing with pre-Moses, the time between Adam and Moses, when there was no accountability to given (written) law (Ro 4:15, 5:13).

That non-accountability is the very principle upon which Paul bases his demonstration of the imputed sin of Adam in Ro 5:12-14 as being the cause of death for all mankind between Adam and Moses, who were not accountable to law and,
therefore, did not transgress as did Adam (Ro 5:14); i.e. against given (written) law with death penalty (Ge 2:17). . .yet they died anyway.

So. . .
in Ro 1-3 unrighteousness is due to deeds, one of the three principles of God's judgment (truth, deeds, personal light, Ro 2:1-16).
And according to deeds, which are based on given law, men are unrighteous, with, or without, knowledge of that written law, they being condemned either by the law or by their conscience.
Ro 1-3 locks up men in sin by their deeds, according to law, or conscience.
But Ro 1-3 does not lock up in sin those who did not sin by deeds when there was no law forbidding any deeds, as between Adam and Moses.
Nor does it lock up infants and children in sin.

(Houston, we have a problem!)

Then. . .
in Ro 5, as part of a demonstration, we have another means of man's unrighteousness, not based on personal deeds, as in Ro 1-3,
but based on imputation of Adam's sin,
(--which imputation of sin is the pattern for Christ's--Ro 5:14--righteousness being imputed to men, Ro 4:1-11, 22-24--),
by which all are unrighteous, no exclusions, by the imputation of Adam's sin, including infants and children, which is why
all died between Adam and Moses when no sin (against conscience, law or otherwise) was counted against them to cause their death.

So in Ro 1-3, Paul is presenting post-Moses sin of mankind due to accountability to God's given law,
while in Ro 5, Paul is presenting pre-Moses sin of all mankind when there was no accountability to God's given law, because no law was given. . .so
God can count sin against us, even when there is no written law, because God also counts against us Adam's sin imputed to us (Ro 5:18)..

It may be that I am not understanding it right but that is the way I see it for no

Non Jewish believers never had the written law and are condemned without the Law.
Did that only happen after the Law was given to Israel or even later, after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ?

Yes. . .Guilt by deeds (Ro 2:6-11)
(against law) began with Adam's transgression of the law in the Garden (Ge 2:17),
(against law) was suspended from Adam to Moses (Ro 5:12-14 (there being no forbidden deeds given),
(against law) was reinstated with the Mosaic law,
(against conscience) began for the Gentiles with the law of Moses, occurring only after the Law was given, and there being

guilt by imputation of Adam's sin (demonstrated in Ro 5:12-14)
for all between Adam and Moses (Ro 5:18-19)
(--which imputation of Adam's sin was the pattern for Christ's--Ro 5:14--righteousness being imputed, Ro 4:1-11, 22-24--)
causing the death of all between Adam and Moses when there was no personal guilt by deeds to cause their death.

 

[Arial]

Actually, it's only "we have no excuse if we don't know the law that is written," and to which we are thereby accountable.
No one is accountable to a law that does not exist, that is not given (written).

Not accountable to Law but always accountable to God, every man woman and child ever. As Romans 1 and 2 tell us.

However, the only law from God between Adam and Moses was "Thou shalt not eat of it." (Ge 2:17)

There is evidence in the scriptures that I presented in the OP that suggests this is not the case. Abraham is said to obey all of God's commandments.Joseph knew that adultery was sin against God. And that is just two examples.

We have no basis for assuming that law not yet given by God was, nevertheless, written on the human conscience.

I address that in the OP. I am not sure you have read it. As to being no law, there was no written Law, no legal document of Law.

 

[Eleanor]

Just to pick at the scab a bit: Sin against conscience is not necessarily sin against God, as I take you to be saying, and even "...to him who knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin." can be taken to mean that it is only sin to his thinking and conscience, and not actually sin against God. (Which take, I disagree with, to a degree: After all, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin".)

Clare73 said:

"Sin against the conscience is not transgression of God's commands, and is not a factor of sin in Ro 5:12-14."

Yes, sin against conscience is sin against God.

Paul distinguishes between "sin" and "transgression" (violation of specific command with death penalty).
Sin is "missing the mark" and is not subject to death penalty.
Transgression is "knowing, deliberate, willful violation of an express command" and is punishable by death.
However, Paul often uses "sin" for "transgression," causing no small amount of difficulty.
So I will indicate his meaning sin as "transgression" with SIN.

Paul bases his case of "no law, no SIN" (Ro 4:15, 5:13) between Adam and Moses on there being no command to transgress.
Paul's definition of SIN between Adam and Moses is transgression of given law, as in the Garden.
Paul's parameter for SIN in Ro 5:12-14 requires given law, as in the Garden, which is the reference point he is patterning for SIN between Adam and Moses.
There was no guilt of SIN between Adam and Moses (Ro 5:12-14) because there was no law to transgress according to the manner of Adam in the Garden (Ro 5:14).

No guilt of SIN between Adam and Moses is revealed fact by the apostle Paul (who received his doctrine from Jesus Christ personally, Gal 1:11-12).

So. . .surely the Gentiles weren't held guilty of SIN by their conscience (Ro 2:14-15) between Abraham and Joseph, when no law had been given, and yet the patriarchs were not guilty of SIN during that time (Ro 4:15, 5:12-14).

But yes, I agree that isn't what Romans 5:12-14 was about. And THERE, is where I asked you, (and to which you ably responded), a good while ago now, what you meant vs what your words sounded like, and apparently is where many have decided you are mistaken (or worse). They have stubbed their toes on your words.

Anyhow, being her official spokesman, I say that @Eleanor does not mean that they actually did no sin, between Adam and Moses.

But I don't mean to derail the OP.

"Sin" and "transgression" having different meanings in Paul.

 

[Eleanor]

Not accountable to Law but always accountable to God, every man woman and child ever. As Romans 1 and 2 tell us.

Which accountability is based on given law, which there was not between Adam and Moses

There is evidence in the scriptures that I presented in the OP that suggests this is not the case. Abraham is said to obey all of God's commandments.Joseph knew that adultery was sin against God. And that is just two examples.

The Pentateuch was penned by Moses after the covenant at Sinai, and he uses the language (Ge 26:5) that strictly applied to that covenant (Lev 26:14-15, 46, Dt 11:11) to emphasize to Israel that their father Abraham had been obedient to God's will in his time and that they must follow his example if they were to receive the covenant promises.

There was no given law of God which made Joseph guilty of transgression, which is Paul's point regarding the time between Adam and Moses.

I address that in the OP. I am not sure you have read it. As to being no law, there was no written Law, no legal document of Law.

From the OP:

"What is His moral law and how long has it existed? At least as long as sin has existed for we find in Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:12-14 that statement made by Paul directly. "Where no law is, there is no transgression." And yet all are under the indictment of sin. And sin is transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)"

All sin is not transgression.
Transgression is violation of law with a death penalty.
All can be under the indictment of sin without being guilty of transgression subject to death penalty.

No one was guilty of transgression between Adam and Moses, because there was no law with death penalty to transgress, yet all died. . . because of Adam's transgression imputed to them (Ro 5:18),
which imputation of Adam's transgression was the pattern for Christ's (Ro 5:14) righteousness being imputed to us (Ro 4:1-11, 22-23).

 

[makesends]

The wages of sin is death. Is that not, ANY sin?

 

[makesends]

Clare73 said:

"Sin against the conscience is not transgression of God's commands, and is not a factor of sin in Ro 5:12-14."

Yes, sin against conscience is sin against God.

Paul distinguishes between "sin" and "transgression" (violation of specific command with death penalty).
Sin is "missing the mark" and is not subject to death penalty.
Transgression is "knowing, deliberate, willful violation of an express command" and is punishable by death.
However, Paul often uses "sin" for "transgression," causing no small amount of difficulty.
So I will indicate his meaning sin as "transgression" with SIN.

Paul bases his case of "no law, no SIN" (Ro 4:15, 5:13) between Adam and Moses on there being no command to transgress.
Paul's definition of SIN between Adam and Moses is transgression of given law, as in the Garden.
Paul's parameter for SIN in Ro 5:12-14 requires given law, as in the Garden, which is the reference point he is patterning for SIN between Adam and Moses.
There was no guilt of SIN between Adam and Moses (Ro 5:12-14) because there was no law to transgress according to the manner of Adam in the Garden (Ro 5:14).

No guilt of SIN between Adam and Moses is revealed fact by the apostle Paul (who received his doctrine from Jesus Christ personally, Gal 1:11-12).

So. . .surely the Gentiles weren't held guilty of SIN by their conscience (Ro 2:14-15) between Abraham and Joseph, when no law had been given, and yet the patriarchs were not guilty of SIN during that time (Ro 4:15, 5:12-14).

"Sin" and "transgression" having different meanings in Paul.

Ok. I'm puzzled, but I'll leave it alone for awhile.

 

[gdl]

Clare73 said