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

[Josheb]

The moral principles underlying the laws are still true, of course; but, the principle upon which we are to live our lives is not legal obligations (law) but grace-through-faith; not legal statutes but being led by the Holy Spirit, God working in us to will and to do of his good pleasure.

I completely agree..... and to tie it back to the op, the epistolary is filled with admonitions against the works of flesh that were written to the saints (like Galatians 5) instead of the kind of works God has planned for us to perform as He creates us in Christ (Ephesians 2:10).

 

[David1701]

And @Eleanor is right, I shouldn't have been upset and I'm sorry @David1701 for speaking when I was upset. I shouldn't have.

That's alright, Hazel, I'm not angry with you. I understand that you want to please the Lord and that you don't want professing Christians to think that they can live sinfully, without repercussions (no experienced Christian will think that...).

There are two main errors that need to be avoided, in this area: legalism and licence to sin. They are about equally dangerous.

 

[David1701]

Yes . It's the law, from one end of Scripture to the other.

I wasn't the one who started throwing people out of Christianity, all I did was assume the issue was with the use of the word law and not with the law itself. The law is beautiful and holy and of God.

The issue is neither with the use of the word "law", nor with the law itself; the issue is with misuse of the law (it's not for the righteous to live by).

Many Christian's lives have been ruined by legalism. It produces one of two things - either a proud, "I'm living up to the law's standards.", or, a despairing (but honest), "I can't keep the law's standards. Am I even saved?".

I was once invited to a Seventh Day Adventist service, many years ago. I'd not been to one before; so I went, partly out of curiosity. The preacher that Saturday was not the normal pastor, but some kind of regional superintendent. He spent the entire sermon preaching law, and how you had to "get right under it, to understand it properly" (they have a particular emphasis on obedience to the fourth commandment, which is why their services are on a Saturday). I couldn't believe my ears! It was horrendous.

He came round, shaking people's hands, after the service. When he reached me, I refused to shake his hand and said, "I'm sorry but I can't shake your hand. You just preached the works of the law.". He was visibly shaken and nervously moved on to the next person.

Once he had passed, several members of the congregation came to speak to me, making excuses as to why they attended that meeting (couldn't go anywhere on a Sunday, etc.) and saying that he wasn't their normal preacher. They knew...

 

[Hazelelponi]

That's alright, Hazel, I'm not angry with you. I understand that you want to please the Lord and that you don't want professing Christians to think that they can live sinfully, without repercussions (no experienced Christian will think that...).

There are two main errors that need to be avoided, in this area: legalism and licence to sin. They are about equally dangerous.

There's not another word but law for the law .. It's called the law. It's not called the gym or the picnic table or the zoo.

I'm not dancing because someone has a hang up.

We either love God or we don't. Call it what you like and if God sends me to hell for loving Him I'll let you know.

Until then, I'm following the laws of God the best I can because God saved me to do good works, and my Bible tells me God loves His law and calls living this way good.

I've unwatched the thread because you have no idea how wrong it is to tell Christians they are going to be beholden to more than 600 laws and go to hell in the end because they dared to even try to love love God.or any of His other points of moral interest.

This isn't a silly game to play on the Internet to me. God matters. He's actually real and I don't think he cares to send me to hell for trying my best to follow Him. .. it's why Christ died - so that we could without fear...

He took the curse, ended the ceremonial and dietary laws added by men and took us back to God's law in Spirit and in Truth - and made sure we knew it wasn't a game even though He took what was due us.

 

[Hazelelponi]

rong it is to tell Christians they are going to be beholden to more than 600 laws and go to hell in the end because they dared to even try to love love God.or any of His other points of moral interest.

This isn't a silly game to play on the Internet to me. God matters. He's actually real and I don't think he cares to send me to hell for trying my best to follow Him. .. it's why Christ died - so that we could without fear...

He took the curse, ended the ceremonial and dietary laws added by men and took us back to God's law in Spirit and in Truth - and made sure we knew it wasn't a game even though He took what was due u

And of course this is simply my reading of Scripture though I have always been under the impression Christian scholars seem to agree on these points.

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong I guess.

 

[David Lamb]

The Bible says that the law came in 400 years after God's covenant with Abraham; so, no, circumcision was not law, until it was added to the law, more than 400 years later.

Gal. 3:15-25 (KJV)
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

That's true if we regard God's law as being only the Ten Commandments. Was circumcision commanded by God to Abraham? Yes:

“"This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; "and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. "He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. "He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” (Ge 17:10-13 NKJV)

Later in Genesis circumcision is stated to be a command of God:

“Then Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him.” (Ge 21:4 NKJV)

 

[Josheb]

There's not another word but law for the law .. It's called the law. It's not called the gym or the picnic table or the zoo.

rotflmbo!

This is true. I don't even think Moses had a gym or picnic table. He did have a zoo of crazy Hebrews but that's not the measure of anything .

 

[David1701]

That's true if we regard God's law as being only the Ten Commandments. Was circumcision commanded by God to Abraham? Yes:

“"This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; "and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. "He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. "He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” (Ge 17:10-13 NKJV)

Later in Genesis circumcision is stated to be a command of God:

“Then Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him.” (Ge 21:4 NKJV)

God's law started with the ten commandments (there was no "God's law" until then). The law came more than four hundred years after God's covenant with Abraham.

Commands do not equal law.

 

[David1701]

There's not another word but law for the law .. It's called the law. It's not called the gym or the picnic table or the zoo.

What does that have to do with anything?

I'm not dancing because someone has a hang up.

What you insultingly call a "hang up" is a regard for the word of God and, ironically, his commands.

We either love God or we don't. Call it what you like and if God sends me to hell for loving Him I'll let you know.

Your desire to be under law is NOTHING to do with loving God!!

Gal. 4:21-26 (KJV)
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

If you desire to be under the law, then you desire to be in bondage. We are told to cast out the bondwoman and her son. Is that what you want?

Until then, I'm following the laws of God the best I can because God saved me to do good works, and my Bible tells me God loves His law and calls living this way good.

Gal. 5:18 (WEB) But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

I've unwatched the thread because you have no idea how wrong it is to tell Christians they are going to be beholden to more than 600 laws and go to hell in the end because they dared to even try to love love God.or any of His other points of moral interest.

You have that back-to-front! You have no idea how wrong it is to tell God that you want to be under law, but, you are going to pick and choose which of the 613 laws you are willing to be under. You want to limit it to ten (likely not even the fourth commandment, so that's down to nine). How dare you try to dictate to the Lord which of his laws you are willing to be under! If you want to be under law, then you're under all of it.

This isn't a silly game to play on the Internet to me.

No, it's not a game. It's becoming more and more serious, as you redouble your efforts to support legalism and try to mix it in with the gospel.

God matters. He's actually real and I don't think he cares to send me to hell for trying my best to follow Him. .. it's why Christ died - so that we could without fear...

"Trying my best to follow Him." is works righteousness (legalism). Christ died to free his people from that. We are saved by grace through faith, not by works of the law.

He took the curse, ended the ceremonial and dietary laws added by men and took us back to God's law in Spirit and in Truth...

What you dismissively call "ceremonial and dietary law added by men" are part of the inspired word of God. Those laws were NOT added by men, they were given by God and it is not your prerogative to label them as merely "ceremonial and dietary", as if these labels exonerated you from any responsibility to obey them (since you want to be under law).

Don't fool yourself; if you want to be under law, then Christ's sacrifice does not profit you at all. In that case, you will still be under the curse of the law.

Are you sure that you want to be under law?

 

[Josheb]

God's law started with the ten commandments (there was no "God's law" until then). The law came more than four hundred years after God's covenant with Abraham.

Commands do not equal law.

Good morning @David1701,

Is Galatians 3:17 to be read as "law" or "Law"?

Generically speaking, the word "law" simply means a rule or system of rules that regulate behavior. Specifically speaking, the capital "L" "Law" is a reference to the specific set of rules handed to Moses at Sinai.

God's law started with the ten commandments (there was no "God's law" until then). The law came more than four hundred years after God's covenant with Abraham.

That is incorrect. The Law of Moses started at Sinai, not ALL of God's law. Galatians 3:17 is a bad verse to justify your position because doing so implies there was a time when there no law existed, a time when God had no rules or system of rules by which behavior could be measured or regulated.

Are we to understand you to be saying there was a time in creation where no law(s) existed at all?

Commands do not equal law.

Oh? Do please make that case and prove that position. If Adam and Eve had not eaten the forbidden kiwi that command would have stood as a rule restricting all of A&E's progeny and all subsequent generations from eating the fruit from the tree in the middle of the Garden. When coupled with the command to be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it that would necessarily entail the planting of many, many, many, many, many fruit-bearing trees - from which anyone could have eaten their fruit while still having to avoid eating the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden. In other words, a system of rules governing behavior is established by those two commands (one of which is affirmative and the other of which is prohibitive). I am also curious how a "law" could exist apart from commands .

So, please do make the case for holding commands do not equal law.

Do you consider "the law of sin and death" not to have existed prior to Sinai?

 

[David1701]

Is Galatians 3:17 to be read as "law" or "Law"?

Generically speaking, the word "law" simply means a rule or system of rules that regulate behavior. Specifically speaking, the capital "L" "Law" is a reference to the specific set of rules handed to Moses at Sinai.

I know what "law" means. I also know that we do not have to give it a capital letter, for it to refer to God's law.

Gal. 5:18 (WEB) But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

See - this refers to God's law and there's no capital letter.

Are we to understand you to be saying there was a time in creation where no law(s) existed at all?

I'll treat that question with the respect it deserves. ...

Oh? Do please make that case and prove that position. If Adam and Eve had not eaten the forbidden kiwi that command would have stood as a rule restricting all of A&E's progeny and all subsequent generations from eating the fruit from the tree in the middle of the Garden. When coupled with the command to be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it that would necessarily entail the planting of many, many, many, many, many fruit-bearing trees - from which anyone could have eaten their fruit while still having to avoid eating the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden. In other words, a system of rules governing behavior is established by those two commands (one of which is affirmative and the other of which is prohibitive). I am also curious how a "law" could exist apart from commands .

So, please do make the case for holding commands do not equal law.

God commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh. Does that mean that everyone has to go to Nineveh? No, of course not. It was not a law.

Just because laws contain commands does not mean that all commands are part of law.

Do you consider "the law of sin and death" not to have existed prior to Sinai?

Since the "law of sin and death" refers to the Mosaic law, then, no, it did not exist prior to Sinai.

Rom. 8:1-4 (WEB)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who don’t walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.
3 For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh;
4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[Arial]

If cooler heads do not prevail, the thread will need to be temporarily closed. It has evolved into a plethora of rules violations. The way I see it, it has become an argument over nothing but some interpreting law one way and the other another way. I am pretty sure no one involved in the conversation thinks we are under the Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant, or any other written Law as a covenant stipulation. I am pretty sure no one involved in the conversation believes that a child of God should not be obedient to their Father in all he commands as to the the way they live and conduct themselves within society. Disobedience will not condemn us as the Mosaic covenant did because Jesus has met the full righteousness of that law, including all the moral commands given in the Ten Commandments, and his righteousness is imputed to the believer.

Obedience and sanctification are the work of the Holy Spirit in us.

As to the Ten Commandments, if the first is kept, and it always exists, because we are his creatures, created in his image and likeness, the rest will be kept also. If we are at times not keeping the first, some of the others as to morals, will slide too. But it will not condemn us to death and hell. Jesus bore the curse of the Mosaic Law and removed it from us.

The thread has devolved into some interpreting "to be under the law" one way and the other a different way. If each party makes their usage clear, that will resolve the argument and agreement on the matter will be brought to light. There is a difference in being subject to God, under him, as our creator, and being bound by a legal document (Mosaic Covenant Law) with its stipulations and penalties for disobedience attached.

Christ came to free us from that legality and make us legally justified in him, and that is what he did on the cross.

 

[Josheb]

I know what "law" means. I also know that we do not have to give it a capital letter, for it to refer to God's law.

Gal. 5:18 (WEB) But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

See - this refers to God's law and there's no capital letter.


I'll treat that question with the respect it deserves. ...

God commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh. Does that mean that everyone has to go to Nineveh? No, of course not. It was not a law.

Just because laws contain commands does not mean that all commands are part of law.

So.....


No rational or scripturally sound answers to my questions.

Since the "law of sin and death" refers to the Mosaic law, then, no, it did not exist prior to Sinai.

Rom. 8:1-4 (WEB)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who don’t walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.
3 For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh;
4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Which would necessarily mean no one was dead in sin prior to Sinai and, therefore, no one living prior to Sinai had any need of salvation from sin.

There have always been laws. There have always been laws from God governing all of creation, including human conduct and humanity's individual and collective end. There has never been a single fraction of a moment in creation in which laws - God's laws - did not exist. To say the laws of God did not begin until Sinai is irrational, both scripturally and logically. The simple fact of scripture is sin kills. Sin kills whether there is a law to account for any given act or not because the one, single, solitary, sole, simple, blunt rule that governs them all is if a person sins then s/he dies. That is the law.

That is exactly what happened to the first humans God made, and it happened millennia before the Law was given to Moses at Sinai.

I'll treat that question with the respect it deserves. ...

The question deserves an explanatory answer and it was just avoided.

God commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh. Does that mean that everyone has to go to Nineveh? No, of course not. It was not a law.

Red herring. No one has remotely suggested anyone by Jonah had to go to Ninevah (literally or figuratively). And, yes, that command was a law for Jonah. The law governing the command is the law of obedience. If Jonah does not obey a command of God's then he has disobeyed God and thereby sinned (transgressed) against God. The wage of sin is death (apart from faith in Christ).

It is a law.

Just because laws contain commands does not mean that all commands are part of law.

LOL! Re-read that statement again. What you've just said is what a law contains are not part of that law. You have, once again, contradicted yourself. This position (the law of God did not exist prior to Sinai) is proving both contradictory to scripture's precedents and contradictory to itself.

Since the "law of sin and death" refers to the Mosaic law, then, no, it did not exist prior to Sinai.

Rom. 8:1-4 (WEB)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who don’t walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.
3 For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh;
4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

No mention of Moses or Sinai whatsoever. Why do read into that passage something it clearly does not state? Why do that when sin reigned (and killed) long before Sinai?

 

[Eleanor]

Good morning @David1701,
Is Galatians 3:17 to be read as "law" or "Law"?
Generically speaking, the word "law" simply means a rule or system of rules that regulate behavior. Specifically speaking, the capital "L" "Law" is a reference to the specific set of rules handed to Moses at Sinai.

That is incorrect. The Law of Moses started at Sinai, not ALL of God's law. Galatians 3:17 is a bad verse to justify your position because doing so
implies there was a time when there no law existed, a time when God had no rules or system of rules by which behavior could be measured or regulated.
Are we to understand you to be saying there was a time in creation where no law(s) existed at all?

Oh? Do please make that case and prove that position.

There was no law between Adam and Moses, which is the whole point of Ro 5:12-18; i.e., they died even when there was no law by which to charge them with sin (Ro 5:12-14).
So what sin caused their deaths?
(The imputed sin of Adam to those of Adam, Ro 5:17, 12-16, which was the pattern, Ro 5:14, for the imputed righteousness of Christ to those of Christ, Ro 5:18-19).

If Adam and Eve had not eaten the forbidden kiwi that command would have stood as a rule restricting all of A&E's progeny and all subsequent generations from eating the fruit from the tree in the middle of the Garden. When coupled with the command to be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it that would necessarily entail the planting of many, many, many, many, many fruit-bearing trees - from which anyone could have eaten their fruit while still having to avoid eating the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden. In other words, a system of rules governing behavior is established by those two commands (one of which is affirmative and the other of which is prohibitive). I am also curious how a "law" could exist apart from commands .

So, please do make the case for holding commands do not equal law.

In the NT, the usage of Law usually refers to the Decalogue.

Do you consider "the law of sin and death" not to have existed prior to Sinai?

It existed in Eden.

 

[Eleanor]

There's not another word but law for the law .. It's called the law. It's not called the gym or the picnic table or the zoo.
I'm not dancing because someone has a hang up.
We either love God or we don't. Call it what you like and if God sends me to hell for loving Him I'll let you know.
Until then, I'm following the laws of God the best I can because God saved me to do good works, and my Bible tells me God loves His law and calls living this way good.

I've unwatched the thread because you have no idea how wrong it is to tell Christians they are going to be beholden to more than 600 laws and go to hell in the end because they dared to even try to love love God.or any of His other points of moral interest.
This isn't a silly game to play on the Internet to me. God matters. He's actually real and I don't think he cares to send me to hell for trying my best to follow Him. .. it's why Christ died - so that we could without fear...
He took the curse, ended the ceremonial and dietary laws added by men

Actually, the ceremonial and dietary laws were from God (Lev 11-15, 21-25), and are now abolished (Heb 8:13).

and took us back to God's law in Spirit and in Truth - and made sure we knew it wasn't a game even though He took what was due us.

 

[Eleanor]

God's law started with the ten commandments (there was no "God's law" until then). The law came more than four hundred years after God's covenant with Abraham.

Commands do not equal law.

Law carries with it penalty for disobedience.

 

[Josheb]

There was no law between Adam and Moses....................

It [the law of sin and death] existed in Eden.

You have just contradicted yourself.

If the law of sin and death existed in Eden, then there was a law between Adam and Moses. If you sin then you die. That rule, that law, applied to Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Cain's wife, Enoch, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech, Adah, Zillah, Jabal, Jubal, Zillah, Tubal-cain, Naamah and everyone else who ever lived. If that is not the case then none of those people were dead in sin and none of them, therefore, needed to be saved from sin and death. If the law of sin and death did/does not apply to anyone living between Adam and Moses then Romans 3:23 is not applicable to any of them. Neither is Romans 6:23. The "all" of Romans 3:23 does not and cannot mean all people who have ever lived.


This idea the Law Maker did not make any law prior to Sinai is absurd on its face because the only alternative is a Law Maker making a lawless creation (and then later changing it).

 

[Hazelelponi]

Actually, the ceremonial and dietary laws were from God (Lev 11-15, 21-25), and are now abolished (Heb 8:13).

I couldn't find the right word at the time.

Jesus said laws were added by men, that's erased, the rest fulfilled in Christ by ending the Temple worship and everything else related to ceremonies and types and shadows that pointed to Christ (fulfilled in Him) leaving us one dietary law (bread and the cup) the royal laws, and the baptism.

I think that's generally it. Everything added God decreed. Christ fulfilled all, bringing us into the New Covenant now with our salvation secured.

The adding was allowed for transgressions I believe, due to their own sin. (the fence around the law).

 

[Eleanor]

So.....
No rational or scripturally sound answers to my questions
Which would necessarily mean no one was dead in sin prior to Sinai and, therefore, no one living prior to Sinai had any need of salvation from sin.

Yes, if that were the whole story. . .but no, for that is not the whole story.

"The wages of sin is death." (Ro 6:23)
"Where there is no law, there is no sin" (Ro 5:13) and, therefore, no death.
There was no law between Adam and Moses by which they could be charged with sin, yet all died (Ro 5:14). . .Oops!
So what sin (Ro 5:12) caused their deaths?

Their deaths were caused by the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17) to those of Adam, which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousness of Christ to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

There have always been laws. There have always been laws from God governing all of creation, including human conduct and humanity's individual and collective end. There has never been a single fraction of a moment in creation in which laws - God's laws - did not exist. To say the laws of God did not begin until Sinai is irrational, both scripturally and logically. The simple fact of scripture is sin kills. Sin kills whether there is a law to account for any given act or not because the one, single, solitary, sole, simple, blunt rule that governs them all is if a person sins then s/he dies. That is the law.

That is exactly what happened to the first humans God made, and it happened millennia before the Law was given to Moses at Sinai.

It also happened to infants who did not sin. . .Adam's sin was imputed to them (Ro 5:17).
Sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20), Adam's sin is imputed.

The question deserves an explanatory answer and it was just avoided.
Red herring. No one has remotely suggested anyone by Jonah had to go to Ninevah (literally or figuratively). And, yes, that command was a law for Jonah. The law governing the command is the law of obedience. If Jonah does not obey a command of God's then he has disobeyed God and thereby sinned (transgressed) against God. The wage of sin is death (apart from faith in Christ).
It is a law.
LOL! Re-read that statement again. What you've just said is what a law contains are not part of that law. You have, once again, contradicted yourself. This position (the law of God did not exist prior to Sinai) is proving both contradictory to scripture's precedents and contradictory to itself.
No mention of Moses or Sinai whatsoever. Why do read into that passage something it clearly does not state? Why do that when sin reigned (and killed) long before Sinai?

 

[Eleanor]

You have just contradicted yourself.

If the law of sin and death existed in Eden, then there was a law between Adam and Moses.

Who's contradicting themselves?

The law of sin and death requires a law to sin against in order for death.
There was no law between Adam and Moses to sin against.

One more time. . .when the NT uses the word "Law," it is usually referring to the Decalogue with its penalty of death attached for violation.

If you sin then you die. That rule, that law, applied to Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Cain's wife, Enoch, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech, Adah, Zillah, Jabal, Jubal, Zillah, Tubal-cain, Naamah and everyone else who ever lived. If that is not the case then none of those people were dead in sin and none of them, therefore, needed to be saved from sin and death. If the law of sin and death did/does not apply to anyone living between Adam and Moses then Romans 3:23 is not applicable to any of them. Neither is Romans 6:23. The "all" of Romans 3:23 does not and cannot mean all people who have ever lived.
This idea the Law Maker did not make any law prior to Sinai is absurd on its face because the only alternative is a Law Maker making a lawless creation (and then later changing it).

I note your human reasoning in overturning the word of God in Ro 5:13.

Have you forgotten the law is written on the human conscience, by which conscience those who do not have the law will be judged (Ro 2:14-15)?