God's Law and the Christian

[Eleanor]

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

The saved, in addition to salvation, also receive rewards for their works (1 Co 3:12-15).
If the work of the saved is of poor quality (false doctrine, insipid life), it will not stand the test of fire, will be destroyed, and they will receive no reward for their work. But they are still saved, by a narrow escape with much difficulty and danger (fire).

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

That fire does not save, it only tests the quality of our works.
We are saved only by faith.

Jesus' righteousness is accounted (imputed) to us through faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-3, 21-24, 5:18-19), not because of our own works.

Adam's sin is also accounted (imputed) to us by God, not because of our own sin (Ro 5:12-14, 18-19), while our own sin is also charged to us.

 

[Arial]

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?

I don't believe Paul is isolating the one from the other. Man is responsible to God, with or without a written Law. He is explaining and presenting the doctrine of imputation Adam/Christ but that does not mean that he is not also saying that all sinned because they are in Adam and met death because of it. The comparison using the written Law in his presentation is because Jesus was born after the Law was given, and was HImself under the Law. Therefore He did not transgress the written Law and He also did not sin against the unwritten law. He kept the written Law in letter and spirit. (Matt 23:23-28) He did this in order to fulfill all righteousness.

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

As I said, it teaches what righteousness is. We don't know if we are not told by the One who is righteous. It was not making any 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?

1. That is one aspect of many aspects if the Law.
2. An aspect of the Law that is "for their own good." They are not dealing with righteousness, but with wise living, and obedience, and the consequences of disobedience was not punitive. The Law is multifaceted. These things not dealing with righteousness that you mention, you will notice, are no longer requirements in the new covenant, and are said by the apostles are not required of Jew or Gentile believer. And another interesting thing is that there is no written Law in the new covenant and yet we are told to obey God's law. There is no Law because Jesus has fulfilled it both letter and spirit in our place, and His righteousness is counted as our own so Law cannot condemn us. Yet, we are required to be obedient to the unwritten law of righteousness,which we can only do, and never perfectly, because it is the fruit the Holy Spirit produces in us. Therefore, it is never our own righteousness.

 

[Eleanor]

I don't believe Paul is isolating the one from the other. Man is responsible to God, with or without a written Law.

However, in God's economy, man is not liable to the punishment of death unless he transgresses a given/stated law.
That is the economy revealed by Paul, who received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally (Gal 1:11-12).
That being the case, is that not to govern how we view it also?

Likewise revealed by Paul is that in God's economy we are guilty of Adam's transgression imputed to us.
We are condemned from the day we are born, "by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath," (Eph 2:3).
Our personal sin just adds more weight to our already-existing condemnation.
The real problem here for man is not his personal sin, for he was condemned before that ever occurred.
That being the case, is that not to govern how we view sin also?

Is to view sin any other way not somehow giving unregenerate man the power to mitigate or alter his sinful situation?

He is explaining and presenting the doctrine of imputation Adam/Christ but that does not mean that he is not also saying that all sinned because they are in Adam and met death because of it. The comparison using the written Law in his presentation is because Jesus was born after the Law was given, and was HImself under the Law. Therefore He did not transgress the written Law and He also did not sin against the unwritten law. He kept the written Law in letter and spirit. (Matt 23:23-28) He did this in order to fulfill all righteousness.
As I said, it teaches what righteousness is. We don't know if we are not told by the One who is righteous. It was not making any righteous.
1. That is one aspect of many aspects if the Law.
2. An aspect of the Law that is "for their own good." They are not dealing with righteousness, but with wise living, and obedience, and the consequences of disobedience was not punitive. The Law is multifaceted. These things not dealing with righteousness that you mention, you will notice, are no longer requirements in the new covenant, and are said by the apostles are not required of Jew or Gentile believer. And another interesting thing is that there is no written Law in the new covenant and yet we are told to obey God's law. There is no Law because Jesus has fulfilled it both letter and spirit in our place, and His righteousness is counted as our own so Law cannot condemn us. Yet, we are required to be obedient to the unwritten law of righteousness,which we can only do, and never perfectly, because it is the fruit the Holy Spirit produces in us. Therefore, it is never our own righteousness.

 

[Arial]

However, in God's economy, man is not liable to the punishment of death unless he transgresses a given/stated law.

You think so? I heartily disagree. The very I AM that I AM is a given stated law in my opinion.

 

[Eleanor]

You think so? I heartily disagree. The very I AM that I AM is a given stated law in my opinion.

Do you think Paul got it wrong?

 

[Arial]

Do you think Paul got it wrong?

No, I think you are somewhat misunderstanding Paul. That is what I think.

 

[Eleanor]

No, I think you are somewhat misunderstanding Paul. That is what I think.

You don' think Paul reveals the imputation of Adam's sin to all men?

 

[Arial]

You don' think Paul reveals the imputation of Adam's sin to all men?

Have I not said that he does several times? You are good at defending your positions. No need to resort to logical fallacies of this sort. Address what I actually say and we will do just fine.

 

[Eleanor]

Have I not said that he does several times? You are good at defending your positions. No need to resort to logical fallacies of this sort. Address what I actually say and we will do just fine.

Okay, we agree that Paul reveals imputation of Adam's transgression.

So where do you disagree with my understanding of Paul, in light of his argument in Ro 5:12-14, which is tightly constructed admitting of only one correct understanding that is consistent with his argument.

 

[Arial]

Okay, we agree that Paul reveals imputation of Adam's transgression.

So where do you disagree with my understanding of Paul, in light of his argument in Ro 5:12-14, which is tightly constructed admitting of only one correct understanding that is consistent with his argument.

Paul makes many arguments concerning many different things and addressing specific issues, in his writings. None of them contradict one another. I believe I do have a correct understanding of what he is stating in all of Romans, particularity what preceded chapter 5, as it is part of the same letter, that when written did not have chapter and verse divisions. All of it if taken together as a whole is one of the most profound and thorough statements of the complete gospel found in one place, along with our need of a Savior, who that Saviour is, and what is true because of what He did.

But to answer your question:

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.

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.

Whereas you say:

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.

 

[Arial]

@Eleanor
Reost #110
Romans chpater 5 begins with a "Therefore" connecting it to what was said in chapt. 4 Verse 12 begins with "therefore."
Verse 18 begins "therefore". Chapter 6 begins "What shall we say then?" Another form of therefore since what was just said, what are we to conclude (or not conclude as per his rhetorical question.) There are a lot of "therefores" in the book of Romans, setting the mass of his writing together link by link. That is one reason it is called the Roman road to salvation.

 

[Eleanor]

Paul makes many arguments concerning many different things and addressing specific issues, in his writings. None of them contradict one another. I believe I do have a correct understanding of what he is stating in all of Romans, particularity what preceded chapter 5, as it is part of the same letter, that when written did not have chapter and verse divisions. All of it if taken together as a whole is one of the most profound and thorough statements of the complete gospel found in one place, along with our need of a Savior, who that Saviour is, and what is true because of what He did.
But to answer your question: Whereas you say:
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.

So that is incorrect? That is not Paul's meaning in Ro 5:12-14?

I'm not understanding where I am in disagreement with the text there (Ro 5:12-14).

Of, if I am in agreement with the text there, then I'm not understanding where your disagreement with my agreement lies.

 

[Arial]

So that is incorrect? That is not Paul's meaning in Ro 5:12-14?

I'm not understanding where I am in disagreement with the text there (Ro 5:12-14).

Of, if I am in agreement with the text there, then I'm not understanding where your disagreement with my agreement lies.

To be honest, I think it is because we are talking about two different things. You are addressing imputation and I am addressing the holiness of God and humanities responsibility to bear His image in all our ways.

 

[Eleanor]

To be honest, I think it is because we are talking about two different things. You are addressing imputation and I am addressing the holiness of God and humanities responsibility to bear His image in all our ways.

That does indeed seem to be the case, although I don't see how that different point got into imputation of Ro 5:12-14.

Thanks.

 

[Arial]

That does indeed seem to be the case, although I don't see how that different point got into imputation of Ro 5:12-14.

Thanks.

Because I quoted it in the OP in relation to the pov of the OP, I imagine. And the fact that overall it does enter into what I said regarding man's created responsibility to God. It was just shorter that quoting all of Romans 1,2,3,4.

 

[Eleanor]

Because I quoted it in the OP in relation to the pov of the OP, I imagine. And the fact that overall it does enter into what I said regarding man's created responsibility to God. It was just shorter that quoting all of Romans 1,2,3,4.

Okay. . .Ro 5:12-14 of the OP, which treats only of imputation, was my subject.

Ro 1-3 establishes the unrighteousness of all mankind, Jew as well as Gentile.
Ro 4 presents the remedy for that unrighteousness; justification/righteousness by faith.
Ro 5 presents the fruits of that righteousness, and contrasts the imputation of Adam's sin with the imputation of Christ's righteousness.