What are our implications by "unresurrected flesh", as concerning the fallen / 'old man'?

[Eleanor]

How do you reconcile what you are saying with what Romans 5:14 actually states?

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

How could sin reign if there is no sin?

Note that the text does not state "there was no sin."

Rather, the text states, "no sin in the likeness of the offense of Adam;" i.e., disobedience to a command.

The sin of the death "which reigned" between Adam and Moses, when there was no law to charge sin against them, was not like the offense of Adam, whose offense was disobedience to God's command.

The death "which reigned" was the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17), which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

Yet all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. These verses state the condemnation was brought to bear on all, not Adam's sin. The comparison is Jesus, who alone was perfect. His righteousness is imputed, not his perfection or sinlessness.

Which does not contradict Ro 5:12-17.

Infants do not sin. . .why do they die?
Fallen nature does not condemn. . .only sin condemns.

That is not what the verse states.

You've just contradicted yourself and, again, misrepresented what God's word states,

For your accusation to have Biblical merit, you must Biblically demonstrate my error regarding Ro 5:17 and its application in Ro 5:18-19, where Christ's righteousness is imputed to us just as Adam's sin is imputed (Ro 5:17) to us.

creating a conflict with the fact all have sinned and sin reigned.

The only conflict is with your misunderstanding.

I find your handling of scripture, the logic of your case, and the position reached seriously flawed.

That saw cuts both ways.
The resolution is found only in Biblical demonstration of my error.
Perhaps you should consult some good commentaries.

How do you reconcile what you are saying with what Romans 5:14 actually states?

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Precisely. . .sin did reign, and there was no sin.

Those are the facts you get to reconcile, not deny.

The sin that reigned from Adam to Moses, when there was no law to sin against, was not any sin in the likeness of Adam (i.e., disobedience), for there was no law to disobey, and where there is no law, there is no sin (Ro 5:13).
So what sin reigned?
It was the imputed sin of Adm (Ro 5:17, 12-16), which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

Deal with the texts.

How could sin reign if there is no sin?

The imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17) reigned (Ro 5:12-14) from Adam to Moses when there was no law to sin against yet they all died without personally sinning against any law.

Yet all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. These verses state the condemnation was brought to bear on all, not Adam's sin.

What sin have infants sinned?
Why do they die?
They die because the sin of Adam is imputed to them (Ro 5:17, 12-16), which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness in Ro 5:18-19.

Deal with the texts.

The comparison is Jesus, who alone was perfect. His righteousness is imputed,

Precisely. . .

That is not what the verse states.
You've just contradicted yourself and, again, misrepresented what God's word states, creating a conflict with the fact all have sinned and sin reigned.
I find your handling of scripture, the logic of your case, and the position reached seriously flawed.

I find your arguments not based in the Scriptural texts of Ro 5:14, Ro 5:17, Ro 5:18-19.

 

[Eleanor]

I would certainly disagree with this point, actually. Holiness, as defined by Scripture, is not merely determined by what is just, but by God's intrinsic "otherness" - His separateness from sin and all that is unclean, from all that is not in His perfect nature. The crowning glory of God's holiness is displayed in the person and work of Jesus Christ (John 17:4)
From Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology he notes:
"The holiness of God. God’s holiness is first of all that divine perfection by which He is absolutely distinct from all His creatures, and exalted above them in infinite majesty. Exodus 15:11; Isaiah 57:15. But it denotes in the second place that He is free from all moral impurity or sin, and is therefore morally perfect. In the presence of the holy God man is deeply conscious of his sin, Job 34:10; Isaiah 6:5; Habakkuk 1:13."

The purpose of holiness is to glorify God by reflecting His perfect character, In Christ, we see the full revelation of God's holiness, where His justice and mercy meet perfectly (Romans 3:26). To glorify God is to manifest His holiness through our lives, displaying His "otherness" to the world in all we do, thus becoming living reflections of Christ.

God commands His people to be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16, Leviticus 11:44), which means to be set apart for His purposes and to reflect His purity. Holiness is not about aligning with notions of justice alone, but about embodying the distinctiveness of God's nature. As believers, we are called to live as vessels of honor, set apart for sacred use, much like the consecrated vessels in the Temple (2 Timothy 2:21)

Here's a link to the Greek: Strong's Greek: 40. ἅγιος (hagios) -- Holy, sacred, set apart

I have hyperlinked a few of the verses as well as the systematic theology in case you wanted some ease in looking at a couple verses, but I didn't hyperlink every verse I used.

I still can't believe you do all this on an i-phone.

Yes, God is holy; i.e., set apart from sin.

Justice and righteousness (holiness) are the foundation of his throne (Dt 32:4, Ps 89:14).

 

[Eleanor]

God is not governed by anything. He is perfect within himself and in all his attributes equally active all the time. IOW he never contradicts himself, never ebbs and flows in any of his attributes. Righteousness does not tell him what justice is or the other way around. Justice does not tell him what love is or what righteousness is, or any of his other attributes. (Don't forget the omni's.) Justice does not tell him what is the correct response or action in a situational way.

God just IS. He can never be other than what he is.

And yet, without the payment to justice by Jesus of the penalty for sin, we would not be forgiven.

 

[Hazelelponi]

m not a "covenant theology" Christian. . .I am a Biblical Christian, basing my beliefs on what is actually stated/presented in Scripture, who is in agreement with Reformed theology, and who sees seven covenants presented in Scripture, including two covenants with Abraham (Ge 9:8-17), 15:9-21), the Old Covenant (of works) and the New Covenant (of grace), the others being with Noah (Ge 9:8-17), Phinehas (Nu 25:10-31), and David (2 Sa 7:5-16, Ps 89:28, 33-34).

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your desire to stay close to Scripture.

First, while justice and righteousness are indeed foundational to God’s rule (Deut. 32:4; Ps. 89:14), Scripture never teaches that justice is the supreme trait governing all others. Rather, all of God's attributes—justice, mercy, love, holiness—are perfectly united in His nature. “The LORD is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works” (Psalm 145:17, ESV). No attribute governs another; they all harmonize perfectly in every act of God, especially at the cross (Romans 3:26).

Second, saying that God's love "had to pay sin’s penalty to justice" risks suggesting that justice exists above God or controls His actions. In my view of Scripture it is God’s own holy nature that requires justice, and it was His love that provided the means to satisfy it. “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8, ESV). The cross is where love and justice meet—not where one submits to the other.

Lastly, regarding covenants: if you affirm the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants - especially distinguishing between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace - you’re already operating within a covenantal framework. That’s precisely what Reformed covenant theology articulates. “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20, ESV). Genesis 9, however, is God's covenant with Noah and creation—not Abraham. The Abrahamic covenant begins in Genesis 12 and is confirmed in chapters 15 and 17 I believe.

 

[Eleanor]

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your desire to stay close to Scripture.

First, while justice and righteousness are indeed foundational to God’s rule (Deut. 32:4; Ps. 89:14), Scripture never teaches that justice is the supreme trait governing all others. Rather, all of God's attributes—justice, mercy, love, holiness—are perfectly united in His nature. “The LORD is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works” (Psalm 145:17, ESV). No attribute governs another; they all harmonize perfectly in every act of God, especially at the cross (Romans 3:26).

Second, saying that God's love "had to pay sin’s penalty to justice" risks suggesting that justice exists above God or controls His actions.

God's nature does govern his actions, and his mercy is in agreement with his justice, which is why Jesus had to die if our sin was to be forgiven. His justice had to be satisfied.

In my view of Scripture it is God’s own holy nature that requires justice, and it was His love that provided the means to satisfy it.

So we agree that God's justice had to be satisfied in order for our sin to be forgiven (sin debt cancelled) by his love and we not be subject to his justice for that sin.

“But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8, ESV). The cross is where love and justice meet—not where one submits to the other.

Lastly, regarding covenants: if you affirm the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants - especially distinguishing between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace - you’re already operating within a covenantal framework. That’s precisely what Reformed covenant theology articulates. “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20, ESV). Genesis 9, however, is God's covenant with Noah and creation—not Abraham. The Abrahamic covenant begins in Genesis 12 and is confirmed in chapters 15 and 17 I believe.

Oop! . . .good catch! I meant Ge 17.

 

[Arial]

And yet, without the payment to justice by Jesus of the penalty for sin, we would not be forgiven.

True. Because God IS just. The substitutionary atonement made a place for mercy without justice against sin being compromised. Jesus made propitiation.

 

[Eleanor]

True. Because God IS just. The substitutionary atonement made a place for mercy without justice against sin being compromised. Jesus made propitiation.

So did not his love have to satisfy the requirements of his justice?

 

[Arial]

The imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17) reigned (Ro 5:12-14) from Adam to Moses when there was no law to sin against yet they all died without personally sinning against any law.

The imputed sin of Adam means that all his progeny became a sinful being----which is sin. A sinful being can't dwell with God. It needs cleansed. It is not a written legal code that is the measure of what is sin or not. All sin is against God and punishable by death. And babies do sin if you want to get technical about it. They come out squalling and demanding (I love them anyway!) thinking not of their neighbor , of their mother and father who they are to honor, or of God, but only of themselves. And so goes much of childhood. I am not saying they are accountable for that, that is a different topic and humans can only conjecture on the matter anyway. And even if there is an age of accountability, all do sin and are not dying for just the imputed sins of Adam, but for their own sins as well.

The Mosaic Law and its commands was serving a specific purpose, and you know what that is, so I won't tell you what you already know. But the Law was a progression of the plan of redemption, each stage moving forward to the next. It was not a dividing line between imputed sin and actual sin. That is not what Paul is saying.

 

[Arial]

So did not his love have to satisfy the requirements of his justice?

There is no justice without love, and no love without justice. Justice is love, and love is justice. One attribute never sits beneath any other attribute. It is perfectly harmonious, and unified, always. Ironically, God's love is the flame behind his wrath. As his his justice.(And wrath is not an attribute of God.)

 

[Eleanor]

There is no justice without love,

So God loves his enemies; i.e., those condemned to eternal punishment (wrath) by his justice at the Judgment are loved?
God's justice consigns to eternal punishment those whom he loves?

and no love without justice. Justice is love, and love is justice. One attribute never sits beneath any other attribute.

It's not about heirarchy, it's about equivalency.
His attributes are not equivalent in themselves.

It is perfectly harmonious, and unified, always. Ironically, God's love is the flame behind his wrath.

Poetic, but not Biblical.
With love like that, who needs enemies?

As his his justice.(And wrath is not an attribute of God.)

Wrath is the expression of his justice.

Human theology is loosing its mooring to Scripture.

 

[Arial]

So God loves his enemies; i.e., those condemned to eternal punishment (wrath) by his justice at the Judgment are loved?
God's justice consigns to eternal punishment those whom he loves?

I don't know where you are getting that idea from? God doesn't love his enemies because his enemies are rebellious against him, their creator. God loves his covenant people, those he has redeemed. Love does not love evil. Justice in God meets evil with wrath. Just like a loving father defends his children by NOT loving those who seek to destroy them. The enemies of his children meet that fathers wrath. Now magnify that into the eternal God as far as the finite mind is able to do so.

It's not about heirarchy, it's about equivalency.
His attributes are not equivalent in themselves.

His attributes are equivalent within and with each other.

Poetic, but not Biblical.
With love like that, who needs enemies?

What isn't biblical about it. Perhaps you don't know what I mean?

Wrath is the expression of his justice.

Wrath is also the expression of his love.

Human theology is loosing its mooring to Scripture.

I expect that is not quite what you meant as only humans engage in theology. There is such a thing as theology of the human (theological anthropology), but it is the study of humanity from a theological perspective, What it means to be human in relation to God.