God's Law and the Christian

[Eleanor]

I love that. Beautiful!

Needless to say, that is not of my own musing, but something I've learned in past research.

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.

I am in total agreement, the best I can say of it is eternal separation from God.
I distinguish among
natural death,
spiritual death, and
eternal death.

 

[Arial]

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).

Let me make clear that I am not disagreeing with you here, but rather that I don't know if I am. And I say that because I am finding it difficult to pinpoint precisely what you are saying. In the first part when you say law do you mean the Sinai covenant law only?

In the second part you say sin was so bad that the Sinai law was codified which is verified also in Gal. So that is what confuses me about what you mean by law in the first part. What do you mean by they did not transgress the law but that they sinned and only transgressing the Sinai law merits death? Does not all sin merit death?

I understand what you say that Paul is dealing with the Sinai law in those passages, but I disagree that he was not also dealing with more than the imputed sin of Adam. Thus the OP. God's very supremacy as eternal, self existent, perfectly righteous, Creator of all that is, including us, and His making us in His image and likeness, is a law unto itself. Not written law, but nevertheless, law. We are to be like Him in righteousness. Not a suggestion but an obligation, a command.

 

[Eleanor]

Let me make clear that I am not disagreeing with you here, but rather that I don't know if I am. And I say that because I am finding it difficult to pinpoint precisely what you are saying. In the first part when you say law do you mean the Sinai covenant law only?

I am speaking of law generically.
Paul's use of transgression in Ro 5:12-14 is taken from the Garden, and is limited to (any) given/stated law, of which there was none from Adam to Moses.

In the second part you say sin was so bad that the Sinai law was codified which is verified also in Gal. So that is what confuses me about what you mean by law in the first part. What do you mean by they did not transgress the law but that they sinned and only transgressing the Sinai law merits death?

We can thank Paul for the confusion.
While sin (harmartia) and transgression (parabasis, always a breach of given law meriting death, Ro 5:14, 1 Tim 2:14)
do not have the same meaning, Paul uses them interchangeably. (Thanks, guy!)

In Ro 5:12-14 Paul states
1) natural death is the result of "transgression," as distinct from "sin" (transgression being only violation of given/stated law; as in the Garden),
2) therefore, the sin (as distinct from transgression) from the time of Adam to Moses did not merit natural death (yet they all died, Ro 5:13).
3) Conclusion: their death was due to the imputation of Adam's transgression.
[which was the pattern for Christ's (Ro 5:14) righteousness likewise being imputed (Ro 4:1-11, 22-23, 5:18-19)].

Does not all sin merit death?

Not according to Paul in Ro 5:12-14.

I understand what you say that Paul is dealing with the Sinai law in those passages,

Paul is not dealing with the Sinai law, Sinai did not exist from Adam to Moses.
His reference point here is Garden of Eden law (Ge 2:17), for the sake of his demonstration.

but I disagree that he was not also dealing with more than the imputed sin of Adam.

The purpose of Ro 5:12-14 is simply to establish imputed sin of Adam, by demonstrating
there was no transgression (which merits death) by mankind to thereby cause their death between Adam and Moses
(necessarily implying that only transgression of given/stated law causes natural death),
yet all mankind died anyway,
his conclusion being that it was Adam's transgression imputed to them which caused their death.

[It is the answer to the seeming contradiction of "no law/no guilt of death, yet death nevertheless,"
demonstrating that though they were not guilty of death by transgression of given/stated law as in the Garden,
they were guilty by imputation of Adam's sin].

Thus the OP. God's very supremacy as eternal, self existent, perfectly righteous, Creator of all that is, including us, and His making us in His image and likeness, is a law unto itself. Not written law, but nevertheless, law. We are to be like Him in righteousness. Not a suggestion but an obligation, a command.

However, that fact is not Paul's argument in Ro 5:12-14.

 

[Arial]

We can thank Paul for the confusion.
While sin (harmartia) and transgression (parabasis, always a breach of given law meriting death, Ro 5:14, 1 Tim 2:14)
do not have the same meaning, Paul uses them interchangeably. (Thanks, guy!)

OK. I see what you mean. I think. I looked up the two Greek words. But then what does it mean when in verse 13 Paul says, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Is this where Paul is using them interchangeably and it should be "transgression is not counted where there is no law."? But sin is counted because it is a sin against God?

2) therefore, the sin (as distinct from transgression) from the time of Adam to Moses did not merit natural death (yet they all died, Ro 5:13).
3) Conclusion: their death was due to the imputation of Adam's transgression.

I can't help it! Even if the rest of what you are saying is true, and I think it is, I can't find a way out of hearing this as though it says even though all from Adam to Moses sinned, they weren't given the death sentence for those sins, but only for the imputation of Adam's transgression. Paul also says, no one has an excuse. And it makes it sound to me as though God dismissed all those pre Sinai sins, which is the same as forgiving them, or not taking them seriously.

And I suppose it does not matter whether I can see it as you do or not in the big picture. We both understand the imputation of Adam's sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. We at least got the message, right?

[It is the answer to the seeming contradiction of "no law/no guilt of death, yet death nevertheless,"
demonstrating that though they were not guilty of death by transgression of given/stated law as in the Garden,
they were guilty by imputation of Adam's sin].

Got it. They were guilty of sin but not transgression of a given law? And sin merits death. And the reason they all sinned is because in Adam, we are sinners. Paul really could have said it more clearly imo, and I take comfort in the fact that who was it---John or Peter or maybe James---who recognized this also. Not that they did not understand but that many found him difficult to understand at times. Could have something to do with all those compound sentences.

However, that fact is not Paul's argument in Ro 5:12-14.

No but it was earlier in Romans and I still maintain, and hopefully not out of stubborness or pride, that it can be seen also in Romans 5, even though it was not the specific argument he was putting forth.

 

[Eleanor]

OK. I see what you mean. I think. I looked up the two Greek words. But then what does it mean when in verse 13 Paul says, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Is this where Paul is using them interchangeably and it should be "transgression is not counted where there is no law."? But sin is counted because it is a sin against God?

Yes, you see what I mean.
In Ro 5:12-14, transgression (violation of given law) is not counted (there is no law to transgress) when there is no law.
Sin is counted, but evidently, it is not the cause of natural death.
Adam didn't just "sin," he transgressed, which resulted in natural death.

I can't help it! Even if the rest of what you are saying is true, and I think it is,

I understand. . .good reflex.

I can't find a way out of hearing this as though it says even though all from Adam to Moses sinned, they weren't given the death sentence for those sins,

Notice the distinction introduced in Ro 5:14 between "sinning" and "transgression:"
"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those not sinning like the transgression of Adam."

There is our distinction between "sin" and "transgression," where only transgression merits physical death.
That is not to say that "sin" does not merit punishment in the after life, only that it is not the cause of physical death.

but only for the imputation of Adam's transgression. Paul also says, no one has an excuse. And it makes it sound to me as though God dismissed all those pre Sinai sins, which is the same as forgiving them, or not taking them seriously.

However, if we stay with the text, it is not saying that.
It is saying only that those "sins" did not cause physical death because they were not "transgression" (which demonstrates imputation),
It is not saying that they will not be punished in the after life.

And I suppose it does not matter whether I can see it as you do or not in the big picture. We both understand the imputation of Adam's sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. We at least got the message, right?

But sometimes not getting the details correct, can impair correct understanding of the big picture, yes?

Got it. They were guilty of sin but not transgression of a given law? And sin merits death.

In Ro 5:12-14, not all sin merits physical death, but all sin does merit punishment in the after life.

And the reason they all sinned is because in Adam, we are sinners. Paul really could have said it more clearly imo,

Keeping in mind that Paul is distinguishing between sin (meriting punishment in the after life), and transgression (meriting both physical death and punishment in the after life).

and I take comfort in the fact that who was it---John or Peter or maybe James---who recognized this also. Not that they did not understand but that many found him difficult to understand at times. Could have something to do with all those compound sentences.

It was Peter who said Paul's "letters contain things difficult to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Pe 3:16).

Peter had to be thinking of Ro 5:12-14, Ro 9:16-24, 2 Co 5:1-8, Heb 3:7-4:11, Heb 7:11-19, for starters.

No but it was earlier in Romans and I still maintain, and hopefully not out of stubborness or pride, that it can be seen also in Romans 5, even though it was not the specific argument he was putting forth.

Yes, Ro 5:12-14 does not exclude all sin punished either on the cross or in the after life.

And I have every confidence that you will be able to see that
no exclusion of punishment for "sin" is expressed in Ro 5:12-14, that
it is only "transgression" (of given/stated law) that is the cause of physical death, as well as causing punishment in the after life.

 

[Arial]

Yes, you see what I mean.
In Ro 5:12-14, transgression (violation of given law) is not counted (there is no law to transgress) when there is no law.
Sin is counted, but evidently, it is not the cause of natural death.
Adam didn't just "sin," he transgressed, which resulted in natural death.

We die either way though. And sin is the reason. And either way, before Moses we did actually sin, even though we did not transgress a written law and personally I don't think God overlooks that, but the judgement may not be as severe. But I haven't finished your post, may you make a clarification.

There is our distinction between "sin" and "transgression," where only transgression merits physical death.
That is not to say that "sin" does not merit punishment in the after life, only that it is not the cause of physical death.

OK. Let me see if I can work that out in my head. Is the cause of physical death in that case, the natural changes brought about by Adam's sin, that cause every living thing to die? We were created mortal----able to die but not destined to die---and corruptible but not corrupt. We became corrupt through Adam, and that corruption also brought inevitable death. The very good became corrupted and the sentence for Adam's transgression was death came to all.

But sometimes not getting the details correct, can impair correct understanding of the big picture, yes?

Yes, but it depends of what the subject is. In this case, and I may be wrong, it would only the second time (the first being when I was two and thought I could get out the kitchen door even though a half feral tomcat that had it in for me, was standing between said door and me) but I suppose it is possible; in this case it simply gives a better understanding of what Paul is saying focused on the message of imputation Adam/Jesus. (If you are correct and I am willing even to concede that you very well may be.) But no pertinent truth is lost in not understanding that particular thing. What is understood is that Adam's sin is imputed to us and we are all sinners as a result and the soul that sins shall die. And we are all as His creatures bound to His unwritten law and all trespass against that law, and die, and face judgment. And the good news, as Paul tells us, is that just as this sin and sinfulness was imputed to us in Adam, just so Christ's righteousness is imputed to us through His person and work. He purchased us for Himself with His blood. And of course the imputation is applied by grace and through faith.

 

[Eleanor]

We die either way though. And sin is the reason. And either way, before Moses we did actually sin, even though we did not transgress a written law and personally I don't think God overlooks that, but the judgement may not be as severe. But I haven't finished your post, may you make a clarification.

OK. Let me see if I can work that out in my head. Is the cause of physical death in that case, the natural changes brought about by Adam's sin, that cause every living thing to die? We were created mortal----able to die but not destined to die

So would anyone have died if Adam hadn't sinned?
Would they all live forever?
If not, what would have caused death?

---and corruptible but not corrupt. We became corrupt through Adam, and that corruption also brought inevitable death. The very good became corrupted and the sentence for Adam's transgression was death came to all.

Yes, but it depends of what the subject is. In this case, and I may be wrong, it would only the second time (the first being when I was two and thought I could get out the kitchen door even though a half feral tomcat that had it in for me, was standing between said door and me)

Oh, wow!

but I suppose it is possible; in this case it simply gives a better understanding of what Paul is saying focused on the message of imputation Adam/Jesus. (If you are correct and I am willing even to concede that you very well may be.) But no pertinent truth is lost in not understanding that particular thing. What is understood is that Adam's sin is imputed to us

I kinda' think all NT apostolic teaching was given to us for a reason.

And Ro 5:12-18 is the only place in the NT where imputation of transgsresion is presented and so, in light of the two Adams and imputation of righteousness of the second Adam, understanding the imputation of the transgression of the first Adam may not be a bad thing, no?

and we are all sinners as a result and the soul that sins shall die. And we are all as His creatures bound to His unwritten law and all trespass against that law, and die, and face judgment. And the good news, as Paul tells us, is that just as this sin and sinfulness was imputed to us in Adam, just so Christ's righteousness is imputed to us through His person and work. He purchased us for Himself with His blood. And of course the imputation is applied by grace and through faith.

 

[Mr GLee]

We can thank Paul for the confusion.
While sin (harmartia) and transgression (parabasis, always a breach of given law meriting death, Ro 5:14, 1 Tim 2:14)
do not have the same meaning, Paul uses them interchangeably. (Thanks, guy!)

Thanks .I would offer

para as the basic, compare. . . parabasis

Romans 5:14 King James Version Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude( resemblance) Adam's transgression, who is the figure (parable or type ) him that was to come.

In that way every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour or lack of reward . The letter of the law kills. The law of faith heals.

 

[Arial]

So would anyone have died if Adam hadn't sinned?
Would they all live forever?
If not, what would have caused death?

One would assume they would live forever since the penalty for disobedience to the command was death. If death was already their destiny what was the purpose of the command. When they transgressed the command, they were put out of the garden and no longer had access to the tree of life.

They were mortal----able to die---but would not as long as they had access to the tree of life. What that would look like if they had not transgressed is something we do not know, and speculation cannot answer, and is irrelevant because it is not what happened, and God being sovereign was not intended to happen. It wasn't happenstance or a contingency to Him. There are however many truths that come out as the plan of redemption unfolds about that tree of life. Christ is that tree.

I kinda' think all NT apostolic teaching was given to us for a reason.

Well I do to, and usually serve more than just one purpose.

And Ro 5:12-18 is the only place in the NT where imputation of transgsresion is presented and so, in light of the two Adams and imputation of righteousness of the second Adam, understanding the imputation of the transgression of the first Adam may not be a bad thing, no?

I do understand imputation, both of them, even though I was slightly shifted in the meanings of terms, sin/transgression. I was simply using the general definition of transgression being sin---and it is---rather than the specific Greek words that were used. So what you are in essence saying is that we can't get the meaning of imputation correctly unless we correctly define sin and translation according to the Greek---which would leave most people out. It is a good thing to know, and I am grateful that you pointed it out. It does lend a better understanding of what appears to be contradictory ---that we all die because of sin but sin before Moses was not counted against us. My problem was not with understanding imputation---I have understood that for years, and years, and years. It was with what I just mentioned.

And my misunderstanding of that does not change the fact that sins are what Jesus is dealing with on the cross, as well as the imputed sin of Adam of necessity. And that as the OP is putting forth, all sins are transgressions against God's natural law of character, having made us to bear His image in all our ways, and was given to Adam and Eve in the form of giving them and their posterity dominion over the natural creation, and it does not have to be written to have its consequences. In Romans 5, Paul in explaining one thing, imputation, and why the Law was given and that prior to Moses, this natural law or moral law if you will, was an actual transgression against a stated law, and the law was meant to drive us to Christ.

We are not under the Law as Gentiles and never were. We were never given that Law. We are guilty in the same way they were guilty from Adam to Moses, but we have even less of an excuse because we are also taught about God and righteousness by the Law.

 

[makesends]

Eleanor said:
So would anyone have died if Adam hadn't sinned?
Would they all live forever?
If not, what would have caused death?

One would assume they would live forever since the penalty for disobedience to the command was death. If death was already their destiny what was the purpose of the command. When they transgressed the command, they were put out of the garden and no longer had access to the tree of life.

They were mortal----able to die---but would not as long as they had access to the tree of life. What that would look like if they had not transgressed is something we do not know, and speculation cannot answer, and is irrelevant because it is not what happened, and God being sovereign was not intended to happen. It wasn't happenstance or a contingency to Him. There are however many truths that come out as the plan of redemption unfolds about that tree of life. Christ is that tree.

....Just another one of my tangents here, and not exactly doctrinal in nature, but speculative: Physical death, I'm thinking, may be very much related to spiritual death, and so when God told Adam, "...surely die", he may have been referring to both, in that the physical/temporal will be "swallowed up" in the eternal— "...death is swallowed up in victory". That is, that physical death is only a (mathematically speaking) subset of eternal death. It is THESE temporal bodies that are raised incorruptible, transformed.

 

[Mr GLee]

One would assume they would live forever since the penalty for disobedience to the command was death. If death was already their destiny what was the purpose of the command. When they transgressed the command, they were put out of the garden and no longer had access to the tree of life.

They were mortal----able to die---but would not as long as they had access to the tree of life. What that would look like if they had not transgressed is something we do not know, and speculation cannot answer, and is irrelevant because it is not what happened, and God being sovereign was not intended to happen. It wasn't happenstance or a contingency to Him. There are however many truths that come out as the plan of redemption unfolds about that tree of life. Christ is that tree.

Well I do to, and usually serve more than just one purpose.

I do understand imputation, both of them, even though I was slightly shifted in the meanings of terms, sin/transgression. I was simply using the general definition of transgression being sin---and it is---rather than the specific Greek words that were used. So what you are in essence saying is that we can't get the meaning of imputation correctly unless we correctly define sin and translation according to the Greek---which would leave most people out. It is a good thing to know, and I am grateful that you pointed it out. It does lend a better understanding of what appears to be contradictory ---that we all die because of sin but sin before Moses was not counted against us. My problem was not with understanding imputation---I have understood that for years, and years, and years. It was with what I just mentioned.

And my misunderstanding of that does not change the fact that sins are what Jesus is dealing with on the cross, as well as the imputed sin of Adam of necessity. And that as the OP is putting forth, all sins are transgressions against God's natural law of character, having made us to bear His image in all our ways, and was given to Adam and Eve in the form of giving them and their posterity dominion over the natural creation, and it does not have to be written to have its consequences. In Romans 5, Paul in explaining one thing, imputation, and why the Law was given and that prior to Moses, this natural law or moral law if you will, was an actual transgression against a stated law, and the law was meant to drive us to Christ.

We are not under the Law as Gentiles and never were. We were never given that Law. We are guilty in the same way they were guilty from Adam to Moses, but we have even less of an excuse because we are also taught about God and righteousness by the Law.

I would offer the letter of the law scripture it Kills thou shall not or you will die. The unseen spirit heals . the just the letter the justifier the spirit of faith they must be mixed together they make one perfect law . The punishing school master "the letter"giving out congratulation.

The perfect law two working as one.

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

 

[Eleanor]

Thanks .I would offer

para as the basic, compare. . . parabasis

Yes, "para" (aside), a going aside, an overstepping, is used metaphorically to denote transgression (always of a breach of law);
e.g., Adam in Ro 5:14 and Eve in 1 Tim 2:14.

Romans 5:14 King James Version Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude( resemblance) Adam's transgression, who is the figure (parable or type ) him that was to come.

That is Paul's demonstration of imputation of Adam's transgression as the cause of physical death between Adam and Moses when mankind had not transgressed and merited death, because there was no given/stated law to transgress.

In that way every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour or lack of reward . The letter of the law kills. The law of faith heals.

However, Ro 5:12-14, demonstrating imputation of Adam's transgression, does not relate to 1 Co 3:12-15, regarding rewards for the work done by the saved.

 

[Arial]

Eleanor said:
So would anyone have died if Adam hadn't sinned?
Would they all live forever?
If not, what would have caused death?

....Just another one of my tangents here, and not exactly doctrinal in nature, but speculative: Physical death, I'm thinking, may be very much related to spiritual death, and so when God told Adam, "...surely die", he may have been referring to both, in that the physical/temporal will be "swallowed up" in the eternal— "...death is swallowed up in victory". That is, that physical death is only a (mathematically speaking) subset of eternal death. It is THESE temporal bodies that are raised incorruptible, transformed.

Certainly when they were forbidden access to the tree of life, they were removed from the source of life, and yet their bodies still had life far longer than ours do. And God did say "If you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will die." That would indicate to me that there was a death that was immediate, the death of very good, which had been corrupted once they ate what was forbidden. And that death was spiritual in nature. We were now purely in the flesh, a natural man, and the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. It is these spiritual things that have life and give life.

As an aside, this fact of the resurrection of our bodies of flesh as incorruptible and immortal is a beautiful picture of our being as a whole unit. Body and soul. We always are and always will be who we are, body and soul. We are more than just a soul in a body or a body with a soul.

 

[Eleanor]

One would assume they would live forever since the penalty for disobedience to the command was death. If death was already their destiny what was the purpose of the command. When they transgressed the command, they were put out of the garden and no longer had access to the tree of life.
They were mortal----able to die---but would not as long as they had access to the tree of life. What that would look like if they had not transgressed is something we do not know, and speculation cannot answer, and is irrelevant because it is not what happened, and God being sovereign was not intended to happen. It wasn't happenstance or a contingency to Him. There are however many truths that come out as the plan of redemption unfolds about that tree of life. Christ is that tree.
Well I do to, and usually serve more than just one purpose.
I do understand imputation, both of them, even though I was slightly shifted in the meanings of terms, sin/transgression. I was simply using the general definition of transgression being sin---and it is---rather than the specific Greek words that were used. So what you are in essence saying is that we can't get the meaning of imputation correctly unless we correctly define sin and translation according to the Greek---which would leave most people out. It is a good thing to know, and I am grateful that you pointed it out. It does lend a better understanding of what appears to be contradictory ---that we all die because of sin but sin before Moses was not counted against us. My problem was not with understanding imputation---I have understood that for years, and years, and years. It was with what I just mentioned.

Nice. . .

And my misunderstanding of that does not change the fact that sins are what Jesus is dealing with on the cross, as well as the imputed sin of Adam of necessity. And that as the OP is putting forth, all sins are transgressions against God's natural law of character, having made us to bear His image in all our ways, and was given to Adam and Eve in the form of giving them and their posterity dominion over the natural creation, and it does not have to be written to have its consequences.
In Romans 5, Paul in explaining one thing, imputation, and why the Law was given and that prior to Moses, this natural law or moral law if you will, was an actual transgression against a stated law, and the law was meant to drive us to Christ.

Keeping in mind that what "got them all killed" between Adam and Moses was not any natural or moral law in existence, but simply the imputation of Adam's sin with which they had nothing to do,

just as we have nothing to do with the imputation or Christ's righteousness, of which the imputation of Adam's sin was the pattern (Ro 5:14).

We are not under the Law as Gentiles and never were. We were never given that Law.
We are guilty in the same way they were guilty from Adam to Moses,

However, from Adam to Moses all mankind was guilty of the imputed transgression of Adam, which is why all mankind died, because all mankind was condemned (Ro 5:18).

There was no distinction then, nor is there later, between Jew and Gentile in the only regard that matters--death and condemnation.

but we have even less of an excuse because we are also taught about God and righteousness by the Law.

Actually, though not under the law, Gentiles were guilty by the imputation of Adam's transgression, as well as according to their conscience.

Keeping in mind there never was, and there is not, righteousness by the law (Ro 3:20), righteousness is only by faith (Ro 4:1-3, Gal 3:11), for the law was not given to make righteous, it was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).

 

[Arial]

Keeping in mind that what "got them all killed" between Adam and Moses was not any natural or moral law in existence, but simply the imputation of Adam's sin with which they had nothing to do,

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. I think that law existed because God exists.

Keeping in mind there never was, and there is not, righteousness by the law (Ro 3:20), righteousness is only by faith (Ro 4:1-3, Gal 3:11), for the law was not given to make righteous, it was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).

The law was teaching the Israelites who God is and what righteousness is. I am not saying that righteousness was attained by the law.

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor said:
So would anyone have died if Adam hadn't sinned?
Would they all live forever?
If not, what would have caused death?

....Just another one of my tangents here, and not exactly doctrinal in nature, but speculative: Physical death, I'm thinking, may be very much related to spiritual death, and so when God told Adam, "...surely die", he may have been referring to both,

Actually, quite doctrinal, when the Hebrews reads: "Dying, you shall die," which I see as meangng "dying (spiritually now), you shall die (physically later)."

in that the physical/temporal will be "swallowed up" in the eternal— "...death is swallowed up in victory". That is, that physical death is only a (mathematically speaking) subset of eternal death. It is THESE temporal bodies that are raised incorruptible, transformed.

 

[Eleanor]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. I think that law existed because God exists.

Would that not be a mute issue in relation to man's physical death, which is the result of the imputation of Adam's transgression and not the result of their own personal transgression of law, as Paul demonstrates in Ro 5:12-14?

The law was teaching the Israelites who God is and what righteousness is.

The NT frames it in terms of revealing sin (Ro 3:20), rather than making righteous.

Fun question:
Do you think the Mosaic law gave them to understand that God
1) is moral and punishes sin,
2) is not unclean by child birth, sexual intercourse, any bodiy discharge, skin disease; touching a mildewed garment or living in a mildewed house; touching or eating certain vultures, insects, animals, reptiles, rodents, caterpillars, worms, or touching their carcasses?

I am not saying that righteousness was attained by the law.

I know. . .

 

[Mr GLee]

That is Paul's demonstration of imputation of Adam's transgression as the cause of physical death between Adam and Moses when mankind had not transgressed and merited death, because there was no given/stated law to transgress.

The law was thou shall not or you will die. I think truth is truth even before God reveals it.It does not become true when we believe .We believe because it is true.

However, Ro 5:12-14, demonstrating imputation of Adam's transgression, does not relate to 1 Co 3:12-15, regarding rewards for the work done by the saved.

I can understand the 1 Corinthian 3 passage. prophets preach God alone does the teaching . If any man resists the teaching of Christ and the person is not moved to eternal life .the preach will not lose the reward of eternal life same reward every Christian receives freely


But I do not understand how that ties in with the Rpsm 5 verses?

1 Cororithian3: 12-15 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

 

[Eleanor]

The law was thou shall not or you will die. I think truth is truth even before God reveals it.It does not become true when we believe .We believe because it is true.
I can understand the 1 Corinthian 3 passage. prophets preach God alone does the teaching . If any man resists the teaching of Christ and the person is not moved to eternal life .the preach will not lose the reward of eternal life same reward every Christian receives freely
But I do not understand how that ties in with the Rpsm 5 verses?

I thought your following statement, from the last line of post #88, was referring to 1 Co 3:12-15:

"In that way every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour or lack of reward . The letter of the law kills. The law of faith heals."

so I addressed that passage.

1 Cororithian3: 12-15 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

 

[Mr GLee]

I thought your following statement, from the last line of post #88, was referring to 1 Co 3:12-15:

"In that way every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour or lack of reward . The letter of the law kills. The law of faith heals."

so I addressed that passage.

It seems to be saying the same thing .Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own .we do not receive the labor of another . Christ was crucified not the apostles If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire

Saved by the cleansing refining fire not of our own selves.