God's Law and the Christian

[Arial]

How so?

All the law, not a detailed account of all the laws.

 

[Arial]

Was it just pagan religion or also the fact that men had been writing laws for many centuries before Moses? Or do these two things go hand in hand with one another?

Not relevant.

It is historically fascinating to see that men were writing laws well before the word "laws" is mentioned in Genesis.

Then, in the light of the NC, there is certainly more to consider re: early "law" but as I said in a previous post, it takes some careful textual analysis to learn things and the tendency to argue from silence is a good practice.

Not relevant.

 

[gdl]

Transgression is always a breach of law (Ro 5:14, 1 Tim 2:14).
No law = no breach of law = no transgression (Ro 4:15, 5:13).
The law was given to codify sin as transgression (Gal 3:19).
Violation of Ge 2:17 and the Mosaic code are transgression.

Thanks. A couple more questions if you will:

• Do you see the concept of "transgression" (I assume you're following the Greek - you've referenced most of the NC verses the word is used in) being applicable to Christians?
• What's a "trespass"?

You are understanding me correctly regarding Ge 2:17.

Informative. Thanks again.

 

[Arial]

Actually, this is not a good translation of that verse. Many other English translations correctly translate this per the Greek which says, "sin is lawlessness." If we use "transgression" we're going to lose detail which can end up misleading us.

When we start chasing lessons re: sin and law around the Text, for one thing, it can be crucial to know what is being translated.

The Hebrew Text for instance has 3 different words (that I recall) that we may see translated as sin and they all have a bit different nuance.

The Greek has different words for sin and things related to sin (e.g. trespass, transgression, et.al.) that we might see in English translated inconsistently.

So what? What does that have to do with the OP?

 

[Arial]

So, all that mankind has been dealing with from the beginning is acting against the moral law ("be like Me" law) in their conscience increasing to having seared consciences?

So, Cain killing Abel was simply his acting against his conscience?

The same goes for the entire generations in the era of the flood?

How does the fact that God spoke to men in those early days certainly and clearly up and through Moses. Did He teach and explain anything to them, or was it just their downloaded moral law in their conscience that was involved?

 

[gdl]

Grouping them is not adding or subtracting.

But among many it has led to doing just that. For example, the discussion on the other thread has been in part how Calvin uses the "moral law" meaning the Ten Commandments as the "whip" for lazy asses for Progressive Sanctification.

Could it be that we forget "he who loves has fulfilled the law"? (Ro 13:8)

Yes, and more.

 

[Eleanor]

So you are not saying that they did not sin, between Adam and Moses, but that they did not transgress the law, right?

Paul deals only with transgression of the law in Ro 5:12:14 because that is all that merits death.
They sinned, but they did not transgress law.

In fact, sin got so bad that God codified law (Sinai) in order to reveal it (Ro 3:20).

Are you saying then, that Adam's death sentence imputed to them is why they died, and they bear no penalty for their own SIN —"...to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."— or are you only saying that Romans 5:12-14 is not referencing that penalty, but only that of imputation?

The penalty under discussion in Paul is physical death, and that is the only penalty I am treating here.

God holds them personally guilty of (Adam's) transgression imputed to them. . .that imputed guilt thereby causing their death.
God also holds persons righteous by (Christ's) obedience paying the penalty for their guilt. . .that imputed righteousness giving them life.

Are you of the opinion that, in fact, the ungodliness and rebellion of those between Adam and Moses is not accounted to them, and they bear no penalty for it in the afterlife? Or are you only saying that Romans 5:12-14 is not referencing it?

I'm not thinking in terms of the after life, for Paul is speaking only in terms of natural death.

But in terms of the afterlife,
I'm thinking that since the gospel, it's about spiritual unbelief more than law breaking.
Could it be that law breaking pales in comparison to the magnitude of unbelief?
Could it be that condemnation is for spurning so great a salvation, and everything else is pretty much incidental?

What are you thinking?

 

[gdl]

Yes, though bound is not the word that should be used. That does not mean we obey it, but we are all obligated to our Creator as creatures He made. No one is exempt. That is why all transgressions meet the death penalty. And that is why we need a Redeemer.

All people are obligated to their Creator to obey His 10C. No one is exempt. All transgressions of the 10C meet the death penalty.

Adam died for transgressing the 10C and so did all men since Adam. And this death penalty for transgressing the 10C is still going on for those who do not accept/believe in their Redeemer. And for those who do believe in Him?

This is your understanding of the Text?

 

[Eleanor]

Thanks. A couple more questions if you will:

• Do you see the concept of "transgression" (I assume you're following the Greek - you've referenced most of the NC verses the word is used in) being applicable to Christians?

The issue in Ro 5:12-14 is natural death only, caused by transgression (as proof of the imputation of Adam's transgression to all mankind).
Paul's demonstration of imputed sin is not dealing with spiritual outcomes, it is dealing only with the cause of the natural death of all mankind; i.e., imputation of Adam's sin.

• What's a "trespass"?

Trespass would be equivalent to "sin," less grievous than transgression.
But as with "sin" and transgression, so with "trespass" and transgression, they are often used interchangeably in Paul.

 

[Eleanor]

But among many it has led to doing just that. For example, the discussion on the other thread has been in part how Calvin uses the "moral law" meaning the Ten Commandments as the "whip" for lazy asses for Progressive Sanctification.

Yes, and more.

Is that all he ever means by "moral law?"
Does he deny any other laws as "moral laws?"

If not, then he is not misrepresenting nor misusing "moral law."
He is simply using it in a specific way.

 

[gdl]

So what? What does that have to do with the OP?

Well, son, when we really study God's Law from His Word and we come to realize how much terminology is used in relationship to it, and how nuanced this language can be, especially since we're dealing with at least 2 ancient languages and have been attempting for millennia to translate and understand it correctly, some of us have come to the realization that the words God uses in His Text are meant to teach us what He wants us to know with a precision that can be lost in translation. When a Christian posts something from a verse of Scripture from a translation that is not only in disagreement with multiple other translations, but also with the original language God had His Text written in, some of us value knowing what is actually stated by God and assume it will be helpful to others who care what God says. For reasons such as these, legal terminology in the Bible is important to many Christians, as Law and law apparently are to you, and seems to fit quite well into a thread entitled "God's Law and the Christian".

I hope this helps.

Thank you for your question.

Re: the importance of the English word, "transgression" I refer you to some current discussion on this thread: Post #34

For reference purposes, I include the following to assist you in your endeavors to understand the language of 1John3:4. The word I pointed out to you is "anomia". You'll see that the more appropriate translation of the word is "lawlessness". By looking at several English translations other than the KJV, you'll see that this is the widely accepted meaning of the word. If you use "transgression" in your reading in the KJV you will soon find yourself assuming a consistency in terminology that is not there.

__________________________________
Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG)

[BDAG] ἀνομία
• ἀνομία, ας, ἡ (Eur., Hdt., Pre-Socr. et al.; pap, LXX, pseudepigr., Philo; Jos., Bell. 1, 493, Ant. 15, 348; Ar. 11, 7; Just., D. 14, 1; 18, 2; 24, 3; Ath., R. 71, 6; Mel., P. 68, 486; Orig., C. Cels. 6, 44, 31; Did., Gen. 44, 17)

1. state or condition of being disposed to what is lawless, lawlessness, opp. δικαιοσύνη (Hdt. 1, 96; X., Mem. 1, 2, 24 ἀνομίᾳ μᾶλλον ἢ δικαιοσύνῃ χρώμενοι) Ro 6:19a; 2 Cor 6:14; Dg 9:5; Hm 4, 1, 3; w. ὑπόκρισις Mt 23:28; oft. (as Ps 58:3) w. ἁμαρτία, w. which it is identified 1J 3:4: cp. 1 Cl 8:3; 18:3 (Ps 50:4; 30:19; 102:10); Hs 7:2. ἔργα τῆς ἀ. lawless deeds, which originate in a lawless frame of mind B 4:1; Hs 8, 10, 3. υἱοὶ τῆς ἀ. lawless pers., those who despise the law (cp. Ps 88:23) Hv 3, 6, 1; ApcPt 1:3; διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀ. AcPl Ha 2, 27. ἀ. characterizes this aeon as Satan’s domain, ending of Mk in the Freer ms. 2. ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀ. (v.l. ἁμαρτίας) of the Lawless One 2 Th 2:3 (regarded as transl. of Beliar by Bousset, D. Antichr. 1895, 86; s. also Ps 93:20 θρόνος ἀνομίας and cp. 1QH 5:36; but see BRigaux, Les Épîtres aux Thess. ’56, 656-67). μυστήριον τῆς ἀ. the secret of lawlessness, secret because (and as long as) the Antichrist has not made his appearance vs. 7 (cp. Genesis Apocryphon col. I, 2; JFitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the NT ’71, 103f, n. 9); on the ἀ. in the last days Mt 24:12; D 16:4. μέθυσμα ἀνομίας wanton drunkenness Hm 8:3. ἡ τῆς πλάνης ἀ. lawless deceit B 14:5. ὁ καιρὸς ὁ νῦν τῆς ἀ. the present time, when lawlessness reigns 18:2; cp. 15:7 (cp. TestDan 6:6). Of God μισεῖν ἀ. (Ps 44:8) Hb 1:9 (v.l. ἀδικίαν).

2. the product of a lawless disposition, a lawless deed Ro 6:19b. λυτρώσασθαι ἀπὸ πάσης ἀ. (Ps 129:8) redeem fr. all lawlessness, i.e. l. deeds Tit 2:14. ἐργάζεσθαι ἀ. (oft. LXX) Mt 7:23; Hm 10, 3, 2; ἐργάτης ἀ. 2 Cl 4:5; ἀ. ποιεῖν (Hos 6:9; Is 5:7 al.; TestDan 3:2; TestGad 2:5 v.l.; cp. πράττειν ἀ. Ar. 11, 7) Mt 13:41; 1J 3:4; 1 Cl 16:10 (Is 53:9); more specif. ἐν στόματι commit sin with the mouth B 10:8; λαλεῖν ἀ. κατά τινός 1 Cl 15:5 (Ps 34:19); ἁρπάζειν ἐν ἀ. seize lawlessly 10:4. Of Salome woe is me for my sin and unbelief! GJs 20:1 (not pap). Pl. lawless deeds, trangressions (POxy 1121, 20; Herm. Wr. 1, 23; oft. LXX; Just., D. 18, 2) Ro 4:7 (Ps 31:1); Hb 8:12 v.l.; 10:17; 1 Cl 16:5, 9 (Is 53:8); 18:5, 9 (Ps 50:7, 11); 50:6 (Ps 31:1); 60:1; B 5:2 (Is 53:5); Hv 2, 2, 2; 3, 6, 4; s 5, 5, 3. (In ms. tradition ἀ. is oft. interchanged w. synonyms; so Hb 1:9 [ἀδικία]; 2 Th 2:3 [ἁμαρτία]; 1 Cl 35:5 as v.l. for πονηρία.)—AcPl BMM recto 26 restored fr. POxy 1602, 27 [ἀν]ομίας (for this ἐπιθυμίας AcPl Ha 8, 20), cp. AcPlCor 2:11.—Dodd 76-81. DELG s.v. νέμω. M-M. TW.
__________________________________
Liddell-Scott, Greek Lexicon (Abridged)

[LS] ἀνομία
ἀνομία, Ion. -ίη, ἡ, (ἄνομος) lawlessness, Hdt., Eur., etc.
__________________________________
Louw-Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT

[LN] ἀνομία ας f lawlessness 88.139

 

[gdl]

Is that all he ever means by "moral law?"
Does he deny any other laws as "moral laws?"

If not, then he is not misrepresenting nor misusing "moral law."
He is simply using it in a specific way.

In the Chapter 7 under discussion, the way I read him, he seems to me to define his use of "the Moral Law" as "the Ten Commandments". Here is the link. I think you'll find that he alludes to the 10C as moral law in Ch.7 writing about the "finger of God" but explains it and better defines it as the 10C in Ch.8. Here's the link that shows some definition and the link to the online books is there.

From what I've read scanning through the linked books and from others who write about Calvin, what I've read concludes as I do that his "Moral Law" is the 10C which he carries back to creation as natural law.

The OP seems to agree with this as opposed to what I understood you to say re: the law and death penalty in the Garden. I'm sure @Arial will chime in if he disagrees with what I say about his view and OP.

The Ten Commandments contain all of God's moral law.

 

[makesends]

Paul deals only with transgression of the law in Ro 5:12:14 because that is all that merits death.

"The wages of sin is death" is not a reference to transgression of the law alone, is it?

They sinned, but they did not transgress law.

In fact, sin got so bad that God codified law (Sinai) in order to reveal it (Ro 3:20).

The penalty under discussion in Paul is physical death, and that is the only penalty I am treating here.

Right. That is what I was trying to establish.

God holds them personally guilty of (Adam's) transgression imputed to them. . .that imputed guilt thereby causing their death.
God also holds persons righteous by (Christ's) obedience paying the penalty for their guilt. . .that imputed righteousness giving them life.

I'm not thinking in terms of the after life, for Paul is speaking only in terms of natural death.

Ok, so you are not saying that Paul is saying that those between Adam and Moses had no inherited sin nature, nor that they had no individual 'sin debt' by their own acquisition, but only that Paul was drawing a contrast between that inherited nature vs what is imputed to them by God.

But in terms of the afterlife,
I'm thinking that since the gospel, it's about spiritual unbelief more than law breaking.
Could it be that law breaking pales in comparison to the magnitude of unbelief?
Could it be that condemnation is for spurning so great a salvation, and everything else is pretty much incidental?

What are you thinking?

In terms of the afterlife, I'm thinking everything a person does is judged according to the heart. Unbelief —that is, lack of salvific faith— is why they are condemned already, but their sin must be paid for, and that according to the heart of the sinner. THAT is the condemnation that has already (John 3:18) been made. The two are in lockstep, and each according to God's justice —not according to cold alignment with the written terms of punishments for government to follow.

 

[gdl]

The issue in Ro 5:12-14 is natural death only, caused by transgression (as proof of the imputation of Adam's transgression to all mankind).
Paul's demonstration of imputed sin is not dealing with spiritual outcomes, it is dealing only with the cause of the natural death of all mankind; i.e., imputation of Adam's sin.

I'm not sure this answers my question as I meant it, and it's probably not a fair question apart from more work on my part. There are a few Greek words I'd have to go through again to see if we were to agree on what I was looking at. So, I withdraw the question for now. Thanks for your answer.

Trespass would be equivalent to "sin," less grievous than transgression.
But as with "sin" and transgression, so with "trespass" and transgression, they are often used interchangeably in Paul.

Thanks. I too see what is translated as "trespass" (maybe not consistently translated) as having a different nuance than transgression. I'd have to look again at the interchangeable use, I don't recall them being used that way, but I do know they are both, along with a few others, related to sin.

 

[gdl]

In terms of the afterlife, I'm thinking everything a person does is judged according to the heart. Unbelief —that is, lack of salvific faith— is why they are condemned already, but their sin must be paid for, and that according to the heart of the sinner.

How would this apply to those pre-Christ? John3:18 is in the context of Christ having come into the world.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
In terms of the afterlife, I'm thinking everything a person does is judged according to the heart. Unbelief —that is, lack of salvific faith— is why they are condemned already, but their sin must be paid for, and that according to the heart of the sinner.

How would this apply to those pre-Christ? John3:18 is in the context of Christ having come into the world.

I'm not sure what you are asking, that I haven't already answered.

EVERYBODY falls under the principle that the wages of sin is death, and all (but Jesus) have sinned. This is default fact.

But we know that God is just —thorough and precise. If the clinical idiot, who is mostly instinctive like an animal, commits some particular sin and doesn't believe, his sin is not judged the same as the theologian who commits the same sin and doesn't believe, nor the railing murderous adversary of God's people who sins that same sin and doesn't believe. They none of them undergo equal torment in hell.

A believer, pre- or post-Christ, is saved from the consequences of his sin, but if a person doesn't believe, he is not saved. That principle doesn't comment on the degree of payment for sin. It is only a categorical condemnation vs salvation.

But the point in time at which Christ came into the world doesn't relieve those before Christ from any responsibility to whatever light they were given vs the judgement of those after Christ, nor is there any difference as to whether Adam's sin is imputed to them.

 

[Arial]

The OP seems to agree with this as opposed to what I understood you to say re: the law and death penalty in the Garden. I'm sure @Arial will chime in if he disagrees with what I say about his view and OP.

I am not a he I am a she.

 

[Arial]

Well, son, when we really study God's Law

I am no one's son. I am however someone's daughter and also a mother and probably old enough to be your mother.

Also a transgression is a violation of a law, principle, command or duty. Whereas lawless carries the definition of not being regulated by or based on law, or not restrained or controlled by law---unruly, illegal. I do not know why anyone would have difficulty with the word transgression and need it reduced to lawlessness in order to understand what sin is.

Other than one can say to themselves, "I don't see any written law of God against that, so I am not sinning." But transgress against God is a whole different story. That would not require a written law and it would require knowing God.

 

[Arial]

All people are obligated to their Creator to obey His 10C. No one is exempt. All transgressions of the 10C meet the death penalty.

Adam died for transgressing the 10C and so did all men since Adam. And this death penalty for transgressing the 10C is still going on for those who do not accept/believe in their Redeemer. And for those who do believe in Him?

This is your understanding of the Text?

NO. It is you not using your head for the sake of belittling and arguing. There is much more to the OP than the ten commandments. If you considered all of it you would see the foolishness of what you are doing.

 

[Arial]

But among many it has led to doing just that. For example, the discussion on the other thread has been in part how Calvin uses the "moral law" meaning the Ten Commandments as the "whip" for lazy asses for Progressive Sanctification.

That is not at all what he said, and you quoted that section from the Institutes yourself so you know better. He was speaking of the Law, not the ten commandments, never made a mention of moral law, never mentioned progressive sanctification. Every argument you present is a logical fallacy which shows a lack of critical thinking, no intention or desire for honest debate or learning or even teaching. It is more like trolling than anything else.