God's Law and the Christian

[makesends]

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

Well, possibly @gdl was only exclaiming, like Burt Reynolds (I think it was), to nobody in particular, "Well, son!" —merely an interjection. (Not saying I'm right. To me, too, it was out of place and came across as domineering and arrogant.)

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.

Depending on what you mean by "knowing God", I disagree. Those to whom the Gospel has not been preached are nevertheless responsible to believe. (Though, true, Romans 1 says they knew God but repress the knowledge of God, but if that is what you are referring to then why bring it up?)

 

[Arial]

Well, possibly @gdl was only exclaiming, like Burt Reynolds (I think it was), to nobody in particular, "Well, son!" —merely an interjection. (Not saying I'm right. To me, too, it was out of place and came across as domineering and arrogant.)

Depending on what you mean by "knowing God", I disagree. Those to whom the Gospel has not been preached are nevertheless responsible to believe. (Though, true, Romans 1 says they knew God but repress the knowledge of God, but if that is what you are referring to then why bring it up?)

@gdl has called me"he" before.

I bring it up to point out to show our culpability. Creation itself shows us enough to acknowledge who He is. When I say to know when one transgresses against God they would need to know Him it relates to knowing and recognizing transgressions from our knowledge of God that we get from His self revelation in the scriptures---all of them, including the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Arial]

@Rufus @gdl
For those who cannot understand what is meant by the ten commandments representing the moral law of God, and are unable to see how this is so, and how and why it is spelled out in the Mosaic covenant. Deut 5:6-12 which is a reiteration of what was given in Ex 20.
1. I am the Lord you God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.

Moses himself fleshes this out in Deut 6:4-5 and is what Jesus quoted when asked which was the greatest commandment "Hear o Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."
What does that mean? Love Him perfectly and all the time as only Jesus did. Loving Him with all our heart, strength , and soul is shown in our obedience to Him, all the time and with all our strength and heart and soul. If we do that we will:
2. Have no other gods before Him.
3. We will not misuse His name.
4. We will observe the sabbath in it's spiritual intent, finding our true rest in Christ. (Hebrews 4) In the Mosaic covenant Law it was a reminder of their delivery from Egypt .(Deut 5:12-15) This covers our duty to God. The following six are out due to society and one another.

If we love the Lord with all our heart, and all our soul, and all our strength we will:
5. Honor our father and mother, as the Lord our God commanded us, so that we may live long and that it may go well with us.
6. We will not murder.
7. We will not commit adultery.
8. We will not steal.
9. We will not give false testimony against anyone.
10 We will not covet our neighbor's wife, or set our desire on our neighbor's house or land, or anything that belongs to our neighbor.

How are these things in the laws of the Mosaic covenant Law that define their meaning through legal stipulations? Deut 12-26 and Lev.

Moral

1
a
: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL
moral judgments

b
: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
a moral poem

c
: conforming to a standard of right behavior

 

[gdl]

I am not a he I am a she.

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

Pardon me miss. Makes sense actually. Doubtful on the age issue though and you could have fooled me. I thought you were a pup! Or is puppy more appropriate for a she? Nice that you're actually willing to acknowledge gender, or is it sex, or is it???? Who can tell these days?

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.

Using your definitions above maybe we can ponder that He may have said "sin is lawlessness" instead of "sin is transgression of law" (per Arial per KJV) because all sin is not violation of law or not accounted when there is not law. Maybe that correlates to no law then no transgression.

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.

So, how much of the 603 underlying the 10 has God always obligated men to in His "be like Me" "Moral Law" or "law" that you have followed others in dividing from the Mosaic Law Covenant? If you were to comprehensively explain and define what the "be like Me" Law or law includes what would you tell us, or what would you have us read, or would you tell us we need to live to your old age and then it will all become clear?

 

[gdl]

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.

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.

I think you figured out quite well what I was asking, and you also answered it well. Having seen some, or much, of your writing, I had an expectation you'd answer with reason.

What caught my eye was your "I'm thinking...Unbelief...faith" statement. IMO you're touching on the solution to all of this very, very old debate about law, which with "torah" is at root really not what the "nomos" oriented think of when they think "law".

 

[gdl]

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.

If you'd like to go through what he said line by line as I started to do, let's do so. Until then, please accept that you're simply not my authority on anything.

I'd suggest you first scan through the 3 books and find where he defines what he means by "moral law". You can see that I only posted 2.7.12 and the heading for 2.8 to pick up some definition, so if you think I missed something important in his definitions or explanations, please feel free to point it out to me. I acknowledge I did not sit and read the entire volume. I did wonder why he gives definition to "Moral Law" in Ch.8 after he uses the phrase several times in Ch.7. I also looked around to see what a few adherents say he means by the phrase. They seemed to say what he says in the beginning of Ch.8.

Maybe @makesends would like to join in since he likes what you say.

Here's the link. We can shift over there if you prefer.

 

[gdl]

Well, possibly @gdl was only exclaiming, like Burt Reynolds (I think it was), to nobody in particular, "Well, son!" —merely an interjection. (Not saying I'm right. To me, too, it was out of place and came across as domineering and arrogant.)

Not that it really matters, but it was admittedly sarcastic to respond in kind. At only 40 posts in on this site, we have a fun history already. I'd advise that no attention be directed to it. I just flagged you on #66.

 

[Eleanor]

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

In treating of God's commutative justice in Ro 6,
Paul's antithesis, of slavery to righteousness vs. slavery to sin of Ro 6,
where, in God's commutative justice the former leads to eternal life and the latter leads to eternal death,
he breaks his symmetry of antithesis in commutative justice with wages of sin vs. gift of eternal life,
in order to teach here that in regard to this commutative justice, we merit nothing from God,
that eternal life is the gift of God and not wages earned by the Christian,
the point being that death is the wages of sin.

Likewise, in the light of Ro 5:12-14 on imputation of Adam's transgression causing the death of all mankind,
in light of Ro 6:23 being a treatment of wages vs. gift, and
in light of the fact that "sin" and "transgression" are used interchangeably in Paul,
I understand Ro 6:23 to be stating "The wages of transgression is (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.

We are not guilty simply by the fact of our inherited fallen nature. We are personally guilty only by the sin we commit because of that fallen nature.

In this discussion of Ro 5:12-14, I'm referring to the distinction which Paul makes regarding the cause of natural death;
where it is only by personal transgression of given law, it has no other cause.

[There was no personal transgression of given law between Adam and Moses, yet they all died.
They all died of the transgression of Adam imputed to them (Ro 5:18). . .which was the pattern for Christ's (Ro 5:14) righteousness also imputed to us.]

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 ship has already sailed, hasn't it (Jer 17:9-10)? (The judgment of the heart has already been made in the heavenly Court.)

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.

Actually, I haven't given much thought to the condemned in the after life, and so I'm not much in a position to opine on it.

 

[Arial]

If you'd like to go through what he said line by line as I started to do, let's do so. Until then, please accept that you're simply not my authority on anything.

I'd suggest you first scan through the 3 books and find where he defines what he means by "moral law". You can see that I only posted 2.7.12 and the heading for 2.8 to pick up some definition, so if you think I missed something important in his definitions or explanations, please feel free to point it out to me. I acknowledge I did not sit and read the entire volume. I did wonder why he gives definition to "Moral Law" in Ch.8 after he uses the phrase several times in Ch.7. I also looked around to see what a few adherents say he means by the phrase. They seemed to say what he says in the beginning of Ch.8.

Maybe @makesends would like to join in since he likes what you say.

Here's the link. We can shift over there if you prefer.

You will need to start your own thread to do that, rather than take over this one.

 

[gdl]

@Rufus @gdl
For those who cannot understand what is meant by the ten commandments representing the moral law of God, and are unable to see how this is so, and how and why it is spelled out in the Mosaic covenant. Deut 5:6-12 which is a reiteration of what was given in Ex 20.
1. I am the Lord you God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.

Moses himself fleshes this out in Deut 6:4-5 and is what Jesus quoted when asked which was the greatest commandment "Hear o Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."
What does that mean? Love Him perfectly and all the time as only Jesus did. Loving Him with all our heart, strength , and soul is shown in our obedience to Him, all the time and with all our strength and heart and soul. If we do that we will:
2. Have no other gods before Him.
3. We will not misuse His name.
4. We will observe the sabbath in it's spiritual intent, finding our true rest in Christ. (Hebrews 4) In the Mosaic covenant Law it was a reminder of their delivery from Egypt .(Deut 5:12-15) This covers our duty to God. The following six are out due to society and one another.

If we love the Lord with all our heart, and all our soul, and all our strength we will:
5. Honor our father and mother, as the Lord our God commanded us, so that we may live long and that it may go well with us.
6. We will not murder.
7. We will not commit adultery.
8. We will not steal.
9. We will not give false testimony against anyone.
10 We will not covet our neighbor's wife, or set our desire on our neighbor's house or land, or anything that belongs to our neighbor.

How are these things in the laws of the Mosaic covenant Law that define their meaning through legal stipulations? Deut 12-26 and Lev.

Moral

1
a
: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL
moral judgments

b
: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
a moral poem

c
: conforming to a standard of right behavior

Speaking for myself, none of the above explanation is necessary, but thanks for the effort. When I say none of the above, I'm also including why this is referred to as moral law and what "moral" means.

I am familiar with the conceptual divisions in law and the various theories about laws prior to Moses. I'm also familiar with what the NC Writings say about Mosaic Law & the Christian, some of the various interpretations of the word "law", and with the phrase "the Law of Christ" in the NC, etc. I've actually been looking at biblical law for about 3 decades and have read many books and articles about it. I have many ongoing word studies of legal language in the Text and see a lot of inconsistent translation of some of these words. I'd appreciate it if you'd back down from your thinking you are teaching me anything other than explaining your thinking when asked to clarify or explain something you write. If I learn anything meaningful here, I'll realize it and will admit it.

You've posted an OP. You actually suggested in another thread that I come here and read your OP, which I did. In getting to know you I find value in asking questions to give you opportunity to explain yourself so I can better understand you and limit ways I may misunderstand you and do the all too familiar putting of words in your mouth.

FWIW, I carried this moral law concept myself. I've studied it and researched it in the Text for many years. It's difficult not to notice some of the moral matters in various places in Genesis. It's difficult to read over Gen26:5. It's difficult not to notice God mention "sin" when talking to Cain. It's also difficult to not realize God's perfect character and what He desires and will have of His creation. And so on... Where I see the concept, I also see problems with the concept.

Also, FWIW, you're going to be very hard pressed to teach me of the importance of obedience to God.

Lastly, for now, Ms. Arial, if you were to consider readjusting your language of using words like "cannot understand" and "unable to see" as if you're talking to stupid children, you might find discussions a bit more productive. This doesn't mean you'll find agreement with your theological positions, many to most of which are not your own, but, sadly, that's theology.

 

[Arial]

Pardon me miss. Makes sense actually. Doubtful on the age issue though and you could have fooled me. I thought you were a pup! Or is puppy more appropriate for a she? Nice that you're actually willing to acknowledge gender, or is it sex, or is it???? Who can tell these days?

Funny that. I took you for a 23 year old newly converted boy who thought they already knew everything and qualified as a teacher.

Using your definitions above maybe we can ponder that He may have said "sin is lawlessness" instead of "sin is transgression of law" (per Arial per KJV) because all sin is not violation of law or not accounted when there is not law. Maybe that correlates to no law then no transgression.

They aren't my definitions. They are Webster's. And it sounds like you are looking for loopholes to sin in make this gigantic mountain out of a mole hill. Notice I said it sounds like, not that you were. The other option might be that you think it makes you sound really smart and it sounds more like a 23 year old new convert trying to give the impressions that he is smart.

Examples of transgression used in the Bible.

Ps 51:3
New International Version
For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.

New Living Translation
For I recognize my rebellion; it haunts me day and night.

English Standard Version
For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.

Lawlessness:
New Living Translation
Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God.
Berean Literal Bible
Everyone committing sin also commits lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

King James Bible
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

There is absolutely nothing to ponder. Sin is transgression against God. Lawlessness is transgression against God. Lawlessness is sin. Transgression is sin. There are not degrees. If you break the law by stealing but you do not murder, you have broken the whole law. All sin is contrary to the law of God and that does not mean only the Mosaic Law.

So, how much of the 603 underlying the 10 has God always obligated men to in His "be like Me" "Moral Law" or "law" that you have followed others in dividing from the Mosaic Law Covenant? If you were to comprehensively explain and define what the "be like Me" Law or law includes what would you tell us, or what would you have us read, or would you tell us we need to live to your old age and then it will all become clear?

I suggest you read the Bible if you want to know what God is like. It starts in Gen. 1:1.

Have you read the forum rules? There is one in there that ban jerks and I would interpret that as a donkey's rear. So don't treat old women differently than you would your own mother (hopefully if you obey the commandment concerning parents). And don't go around mocking them and making fun of them because you think it is cool. It isn't cool. It is disgusting and revealing. You have transgressed against God.

 

[gdl]

You will need to start your own thread to do that, rather than take over this one.

You apparently missed how I offered to move that discussion to the other thread where it's already part of the discussion you are already involved in. Here's a link to your post from yesterday.

I don't see you doing any successful refuting of what you and @Rufus have discussed about this section of Calvin so far.

 

[Arial]

You apparently missed how I offered to move that discussion to the other thread where it's already part of the discussion you are already involved in. Here's a link to your post from yesterday.

I don't see you doing any successful refuting of what you and @Rufus have discussed about this section of Calvin so far.

I do not care what you do and don't see. It is irrelevant to me. I posted at the link that that will be removed because it does not belong in that thread and neither did our entire 3-way conversation. And it doesn't belong here either. Start your own thread and put it there. You cannot just take over threads and make them all about what you want to talk about and evidently you only have one topic.

 

[Arial]

Speaking for myself, none of the above explanation is necessary, but thanks for the effort. When I say none of the above, I'm also including why this is referred to as moral law and what "moral" means.

Then why do you keep asking the same question about the ten commandments and moral law and how the commandments are the moral law and all the rest of the things you keep going over and over like you just can't understand it. Arguing against it? Hmmmm? WHy?

I am familiar with the conceptual divisions in law and the various theories about laws prior to Moses. I'm also familiar with what the NC Writings say about Mosaic Law & the Christian, some of the various interpretations of the word "law", and with the phrase "the Law of Christ" in the NC, etc. I've actually been looking at biblical law for about 3 decades and have read many books and articles about it. I have many ongoing word studies of legal language in the Text and see a lot of inconsistent translation of some of these words. I'd appreciate it if you'd back down from your thinking you are teaching me anything other than explaining your thinking when asked to clarify or explain something you write. If I learn anything meaningful here, I'll realize it and will admit it.

That is quite a lot of self aggrandizement for one who debates and converses as one who has not yet reached thirty.

You've posted an OP. You actually suggested in another thread that I come here and read your OP, which I did. In getting to know you I find value in asking questions to give you opportunity to explain yourself so I can better understand you and limit ways I may misunderstand you and do the all too familiar putting of words in your mouth.

Bull hockey. I don't believe that for a minute. I suspect you are trolling.

FWIW,

I don't know what that means. I don't speak the abbreviated language of teenagers. I am not that lazy. I use words.

Lastly, for now, Ms. Arial, if you were to consider readjusting your language of using words like "cannot understand" and "unable to see" as if you're talking to stupid children, you might find discussions a bit more productive. This doesn't mean you'll find agreement with your theological positions, many to most of which are not your own, but, sadly, that's theology.

Lastly Mr. or Ms or Mrs. gdl worry about your own wording and approach and take the plank out of your eye.

 

[gdl]

Funny that. I took you for a 23 year old newly converted boy who thought they already knew everything and qualified as a teacher.

Mutual mistakes I guess.

FWIW, a couple decades ago after Seminary I was ordained to pastor and teach after leaving a career as being unimportant to me any longer and chose to do some teaching requested of me for 15-20 years during some periods of extensive self-study. My focus in Seminary was mainly Greek exegesis.

How about you, old girl, what's your background?

They aren't my definitions. They are Webster's. And it sounds like you are looking for loopholes to sin in make this gigantic mountain out of a mole hill. Notice I said it sounds like, not that you were. The other option might be that you think it makes you sound really smart and it sounds more like a 23 year old new convert trying to give the impressions that he is smart.

A little too literal here. I'll try to readjust how I speak to you so not to confuse you. By "your definitions" I meant the ones you had chosen to post. I didn't think you were making it up.

I'm one of the last ones to be looking for loopholes re: sin vs. obedience to my Lord God and Creator. I redeem most of my time sitting at His feet trying to understand Him accurately in Spirt in His Word and love Him as He wills to be loved.

I did notice how you hedged your statement, Thanks. But the fact that you might (my hedge) consider His choice of words in His Text to be comparable to me making a "gigantic mountain out of a mole hill" would speak of you not me. In 2Tim2:15 for example the command to the young pastor included "rightly dividing the word of truth" (NKJ) which in essence can mean to interpret and teach it correctly. The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot change His words and expect to accomplish this. Every word at minimum is important. You likely recall what Jesus said about the importance of even the smallest parts of letters in the law (Matt5:18). FWIW, I try to pay very close attention to what He says and re: law we're already dealing with many translational issues as it is. Clearing up simple ones is an easy start. You shouldn't take it personally if I point out something to you.

Once again, please back off from the remainder of your comments. You think I'm trying to sound smart, and I think you're trying to be authoritative. You've also been quite ridiculous with the alter-ego stuff.

 

[Arial]

FWIW, a couple decades ago after Seminary I was ordained to pastor and teach after leaving a career as being unimportant to me any longer and chose to do some teaching requested of me for 15-20 years during some periods of extensive self-study. My focus in Seminary was mainly Greek exegesis.

How about you, old girl, what's your background?

A little too literal here. I'll try to readjust how I speak to you so not to confuse you. By "your definitions" I meant the ones you had chosen to post. I didn't think you were making it up.

I'm one of the last ones to be looking for loopholes re: sin vs. obedience to my Lord God and Creator. I redeem most of my time sitting at His feet trying to understand Him accurately in Spirt in His Word and love Him as He wills to be loved.

All completely off topic. The OP is not about you. And it is not about me.

I did notice how you hedged your statement, Thanks. But the fact that you might (my hedge) consider His choice of words in His Text to be comparable to me making a "gigantic mountain out of a mole hill" would speak of you not me

Off topic. And it is not His choice of words no matter how you think that might lend authority to what you say----it is you leaning on your own understanding and telling me that you know what His choice of words was---and translated into English no less----and the fact that there is no mountain and not even a molehill between the meaning of transgressions and lawlessness.

In 2Tim2:15 for example the command to the young pastor included "rightly dividing the word of truth" (NKJ) which in essence can mean to interpret and teach it correctly.

In essence?! Can mean?! It is what it means. Literally, cut a straight furrow---an agricultural reference. Make sure there are no contradictions within the whole counsel of God when you interpret a scripture.

The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot change His words and expect to accomplish this.

Who changed His words? You would be a lot better off if you would stop thinking more highly of yourself than you ought and thinking that the way in which you say things shows your intelligence. It doesn't. It is obvious that is what you are trying to do. Present a persona.

You think I'm trying to sound smart,

You said it before I did. Freudian slip? But listen gdl. I cannot make you stop posting to me in this thread or in any thread but I really wish you would do both of those things.

 

[Arial]

So, you actually most clearly initiated the topic were involved in the conversation, likely copied and pasted from my post to use the data for your own discussion on the topic, and now after my suggesting we move over there and carry on that conversation are deciding it doesn't belong there and shutting it down.

Classic.

You are having the same conversation here that you were there. Not a single new thing. Anymore off topic posts like this one with false accusations or any off topic will be deleted. What is so wrong with starting your own thread?

 

[gdl]

Moving on.

So, on topic: God's Law and the Christian. Where were we?

Transgression is sin. Not all sin is transgression. Is lawlessness different than transgression?

Is the Christian under the Ten Commandments and whatever may pertain to the "be like Me (God)" law? Is the pagan? Will this be a factor in the judgment?

Has @makesends mentioned some thinking about faith that may be important to any discussion about law especially about God's Law and the Christian?

 

[Arial]

Transgression is sin. Not all sin is transgression. Is lawlessness different than transgression?

Give me an example of a transgression that is not a sin. ll transgression is lawlessness and all lawlessness is transgression. Tell me how one can transgress against God and it not me a sin?

Is the Christian under the Ten Commandments and whatever may pertain to the "be like Me (God)" law? Is the pagan? Will this be a factor in the judgment?

We are under God. Every man, woman, and child He creates. He is King. He is God.

Has @makesends mentioned some thinking about faith that may be important to any discussion about law especially about God's Law and the Christian?

Usually once you enter a conversation, everyone else leaves it. I wonder why? I'm going to leave it too unless you straighten up and contribute something besides nonsense and arguing and personal insults.

 

[makesends]

In treating of God's commutative justice in Ro 6,
Paul's antithesis, of slavery to righteousness vs. slavery to sin of Ro 6,
where, in God's commutative justice the former leads to eternal life and the latter leads to eternal death,
he breaks his symmetry of antithesis in commutative justice with wages of sin vs. gift of eternal life,
in order to teach here that in regard to this commutative justice, we merit nothing from God,
that eternal life is the gift of God and not wages earned by the Christian,
the point being that death is the wages of sin.

I love that. Beautiful!

Likewise, in the light of Ro 5:12-14 on imputation of Adam's transgression causing the death of all mankind,
in light of Ro 6:23 being a treatment of wages vs. gift, and
in light of the fact that "sin" and "transgression" are used interchangeably in Paul,
I understand Ro 6:23 to be stating "The wages of transgression is (natural) death."

We are not guilty simply by the fact of our inherited fallen nature. We are personally guilty only by the sin we commit because of that fallen nature.

In this discussion of Ro 5:12-14, I'm referring to the distinction which Paul makes regarding the cause of natural death;
where it is only by personal transgression of given law, it has no other cause.

[There was no personal transgression of given law between Adam and Moses, yet they all died.
They all died of the transgression of Adam imputed to them (Ro 5:18). . .which was the pattern for Christ's (Ro 5:14) righteousness also imputed to us.]

That ship has already sailed, hasn't it (Jer 17:9-10)? (The judgment of the heart has already been made in the heavenly Court.)

Actually, I haven't given much thought to the condemned in the after life, and so I'm not much in a position to opine on it.

For what it may be worth, I think there's something to the notion of "eternal death", that our temporal notion of death (lacking a lot of knowledge of what 'existence' and 'life' are, not to mention knowledge of what 'sin' is) doesn't see.