Bible Study Help! What does this mean....

[PeterJens]

Paul is making an interesting point.
Sin is not counted as sin until the law defines something as sin.
Is the question being asked, did sin exist before the law, or does sin arise because of the law?
I would say it is like saying in a dark room with no light does anything exist in the room before the light is switched on?
It is the light that shows where everything is.

So is Paul actually saying anything deeper than this? I am not sure because the lostness of man causes him to sin and die, so sin appears to be a symtom of a state of being not its cause, except the cause of being born into sin was Adam.

Healing is by fixing our eyes on Jesus, seeing the very nature of God and its love that heals us, so healing is embedded in realisation and sight rather than just sin and forgiveness. Some seem so caught up in the mechanism they have not the real reality, so have a faith without relationship, salvation without love, redemption without transformation. We are forgiven because we see and love Jesus, having faith in Him and through Him, love expressed through the cross which is the atoning sacrifice, which eternally redeems us. Which is more real, the love or the action? Both are the same, they are linked, which is the power of knowing who Jesus is, and its eternal nature transcending our frailty and humanity to exalt us to become friends of our Lord and Saviour, God bless you

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Bob
Curses are not for the sake of God's people...or people in general.

We have brought curses upon ourselves, in one way or the other.

Then God lied when He said it was (Gen 3:17). That the way you want to play it??

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Do you think that when God created man and placed him in the garden that it was not done for His good pleasure for man to enjoy that which God created for him in the garden? God created everything for sustenance for man that he could enjoy that of what God created and provided for him. There was no such thing as idle hands being the devils workshop as man was not created with sin. God cursed Adam and Eve for their disobedience as now life passed unto death and man no longer had pleasure within the garden, but was cast out of it losing that close fellowship with God, Genesis Chapter 2-3. Adam's sin was disobedience which was then passed down to every generation as all fell short of the glory of the Lord. Not by Adams own sin that only he was held accountable for, but that sin had now entered into the world as many transgressed the law of life and death by partaking of the tree of good and evil.

Adam and Eve WERE NEVER CURSED - only two things were. It's in the Word. The creation was made subject to "vanity" (Romans 8:20). Man's nature never changed. Adam, Jesus, and ME all have/had the same "Human nature". There's only one "Human nature", and it's subject to temptation according to the process in James 1.

 

[tdidymas]

Adam and Eve WERE NEVER CURSED - only two things were. It's in the Word. The creation was made subject to "vanity" (Romans 8:20). Man's nature never changed. Adam, Jesus, and ME all have/had the same "Human nature". There's only one "Human nature", and it's subject to temptation according to the process in James 1.

Did God create Adam and Eve in the condition of spiritual death? No! And yet, all people are born spiritually dead and continue in spiritual death until they are regenerated, according to Eph. 2 et. al. Anyone not regenerated does not have the indwelling Spirit. So then, Adam's nature had to change after his fall from spiritual righteousness to spiritual unrighteousness, and everyone now is born into that same condition, proven by the fact that everyone sins. In Rom. 7, Paul says that we are "sold in bondage to sin." Therefore, since Jesus was not in bondage to sin, His human nature was not in the same condition as ours. My point is that the sinful nature in man is a bad condition of his human nature. Since Jesus was "separate from sinners," He was not inclined to sin as we are, though He was tempted.

 

[Quantrill]

Bingo!!
Thanks for wording it so well.
I agree with you 100%.

It seems to me the difficulty we've been having on a different thread is due to the fact that we conflate imputation with personal sin.

You've explained it perfectly


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tagging Quantrill ....
Hope he sees this post.

I did read it. And agree with much of it. But, of course, don't believe it goes far enough. And I don't want to start repeating what was already said in the James/Soteriology thread.

So, consider this. (Rom. 5) is the result of (Rom. 4). There Paul stated that all the blessings promised to Abraham are through faith and by imputation. (Rom. 4:3) "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

Later in (Rom. 4:22-24) Paul tells us "...Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe...."

Paul is saying the righteousness that is imputed, that results in a man's salvation, is the product of faith, not works. (Rom. 4:5) It is not our righteousness. It is the righteousness of God alone. It is the righteousness that Paul described in (Rom. 3:21) "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested..."

This is Paul's argument. The imputation of Adam's sin to the human race was introduced to further this argument. Adam becomes a figure, or a type of Christ. (Rom. 5:14) "...of Adams's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

Would you agree with this?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Could we argue that the first commandment, or law, of God was when he said to Adam, thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge?

Would Adam have been the cause of sin entering the world if God hadn't put the forbidden tree in the garden?

And that verse says death happened to us from Adam into Moses.
What about after Moses? Death eased?

Genesis is always s curious narrative if we consider God is Omniscient. And he tells us he predestined , foreordained, everything. Even our lives.

Would we know God were it not for the fall?
The fall gets a bad rap for what separated us ftkmGod. But we're it not for that would we know God?

Just like Judas. He gets a bad rap for pointing Jesus out to the temple guards with a kiss on the cheek. And this led to Jesus' trial and crucifixion, which saved the world.
But, would this have happened without Judas playing his part?

Yes, Adam was definitely under law.

Without a doubt, if God had not placed Adam under a law, Adam would not have been the cause of sin entering the world.

No, death did not ease after Moses. It continued. As it does today.

The rest of your questions center on God's plan for man eternally. And I believe all that occurred are the means for God to get what He wants. They are not an end, but are the means to an end. In other words, created man in paradise in a garden was a means to obtain what God wanted. Same with the fall of Adam. Same with Judas. etc. etc.

Quantrill

 

[JLB]

Yes, Adam was definitely under law.

Without a doubt, if God had not placed Adam under a law, Adam would not have been the cause of sin entering the world.

Agreed, and that law, is the law of sin and death.

 

[tdidymas]

I did read it. And agree with much of it. But, of course, don't believe it goes far enough. And I don't want to start repeating what was already said in the James/Soteriology thread.

So, consider this. (Rom. 5) is the result of (Rom. 4). There Paul stated that all the blessings promised to Abraham are through faith and by imputation. (Rom. 4:3) "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

Later in (Rom. 4:22-24) Paul tells us "...Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe...."

Paul is saying the righteousness that is imputed, that results in a man's salvation, is the product of faith, not works. (Rom. 4:5) It is not our righteousness. It is the righteousness of God alone. It is the righteousness that Paul described in (Rom. 3:21) "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested..."

This is Paul's argument. The imputation of Adam's sin to the human race was introduced to further this argument. Adam becomes a figure, or a type of Christ. (Rom. 5:14) "...of Adams's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

Would you agree with this?

Quantrill

I think the question is: Does God impute the specific sin of Adam to the human race? I don't think Paul actually said that.

1. I can certainly see that the effect of Adam's sin was that the human race was subjected to the condition of spiritual death, this is the way I read Rom. 5, and it seems to fit both the text and what is observed in reality. But I'm not sure that I can accept the idea that Adam's specific sin is imputed on his progeny. If you think so, can you explain?

2. I could accept Adam as a figure or representative of the human race in the fact of his sin bringing spiritual death to the human race, but not by imputation of a specific sin. I guess the question might be: what is the difference between inheriting a sinful condition, and having sin imputed to you?

Tks.

 

[tdidymas]

Agreed, and that law, is the law of sin and death.

Before his fall? Adam was only subject to the law (principle) of sin and death after his fall. Prior to that he was spiritually alive, no? The law (code) that he was under was "do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Would you agree with that?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Did God create Adam and Eve in the condition of spiritual death? No!

True. They Died Spiritually when they chose satan over God, and did what they were told not to.

And yet, all people are born spiritually dead and continue in spiritual death until they are regenerated,

That would be an assumption. Babies have no SIN - until they figure out how to, and DO IT like all humans do. SO are you using the Calvie version of "Regeneration" or the "Regeneration" = "Born Again" version that others use??

Adam's nature had to change after his fall from spiritual righteousness to spiritual unrighteousness.

Nope it didn't. Adam followed the "James process just the same as everybody else - drawn away of HIS OWN LUST, and enticed. And like everybody else he fell like a ton of bricks. Jesus was subjected to the exact SAME process as a human man, but DIDN'T let His lust conceive.

He was not inclined to sin as we are, though He was tempted.

If he "was not inclined (as a human) to SIN", then He WAS NOT tempted in every respect as we are.

 

[Quantrill]

Agreed, and that law, is the law of sin and death.

No, it was 'thou shalt not eat'.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

I think the question is: Does God impute the specific sin of Adam to the human race? I don't think Paul actually said that.

1. I can certainly see that the effect of Adam's sin was that the human race was subjected to the condition of spiritual death, this is the way I read Rom. 5, and it seems to fit both the text and what is observed in reality. But I'm not sure that I can accept the idea that Adam's specific sin is imputed on his progeny. If you think so, can you explain?

2. I could accept Adam as a figure or representative of the human race in the fact of his sin bringing spiritual death to the human race, but not by imputation of a specific sin. I guess the question might be: what is the difference between inheriting a sinful condition, and having sin imputed to you?

Tks.

Yes, I know what the question is. I have explained ad infinitum in James/Soteriology thread. You can read all about it there.

The imputation of God's righteousness is important for the reason I just gave. For it is accomplished the same way the sin of Adam is imputed.

Exactly! What is the difference? You want to say Adams sin brought spiritual death to the human race, but not by a specific sin. Well, what pray tell brought it? What was imputed? A fallen nature? So you're saying God imputed Adams fallen nature to his race, but not his sin. You can't have a fallen nature without sin. You can't have death unless you have sin.

(Rom. 4:8) "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Sin is imputed or not imputed.

Quantrill

 

[WIP]

Would we know God were it not for the fall?

I think the answer would be yes. After all, Adam knew God in a very personal way, right? Had he or none of us not rebelled as he/we did, we, his ancestors, would still be living in that very same relationship. As it is now, most do not know God. Oh, they know of Him but they do not know Him.

 

[tdidymas]

True. They Died Spiritually when they chose satan over God, and did what they were told not to.

Glad you agree

That would be an assumption. Babies have no SIN - until they figure out how to, and DO IT like all humans do. SO are you using the Calvie version of "Regeneration" or the "Regeneration" = "Born Again" version that others use??

1. Why do you think there is a difference between regeneration and born again?
2. Infants don't sin because they are innocent, not because they don't have the inclination. Children start sinning before they are even told not to do it, so people sin by nature, not just because they "figured it out."

Nope it didn't. Adam followed the "James process just the same as everybody else - drawn away of HIS OWN LUST, and enticed. And like everybody else he fell like a ton of bricks. Jesus was subjected to the exact SAME process as a human man, but DIDN'T let His lust conceive.

Let's follow the text of scripture. It says that Eve lusted after what the fruit could give her, even though she was deceived about it. Paul wrote that Adam was not deceived. He simply ate it knowing he was going against God's warning. To claim he lusted at that point is speculation, because the text doesn't say that. Paul distinguishes Adam's sin from common sins in Rom. 5:14. Since he was not deceived, then the lust of the flesh did not deceive him. Therefore, he sinned with his eyes wide open.

The difference between Jesus and Adam was that Jesus is divine, and therefore not able to sin, even though tempted in his human form, even to the point of sweating blood. Adam was able to sin, proven by the fact that he did. Anyone who claims Jesus was able to sin is speculating, because nowhere in the text of scripture does it say that. In Heb. it says He was "separate from sinners." He was also spotless, which in my book is uncorruptible.

If he "was not inclined (as a human) to SIN", then He WAS NOT tempted in every respect as we are.

Let's take a common case: addiction. On the scale of 0 to 10 in temptation, an alcoholic gets a 10. But Jesus drank alcohol, and had no inclination to get drunk, so his temptation level was 0. Jesus didn't have to wallow in alcoholism and become addicted in order for him to be tempted with alcoholism. So if you can call that "not tempted in every respect" as the alcoholic, then I think you imagine something that the scripture isn't saying. This is an example of Jesus not having any inclination to get drunk, but the alcoholic can't resist it.

Can you see the difference now between "inclined" and "not inclined"? People commit sins because they are inclined to do so by their fallen nature. But Jesus had no fallen nature since He was divine. He committed no sin because His nature was not inclined so.

 

[tdidymas]

Yes, I know what the question is. I have explained ad infinitum in James/Soteriology thread. You can read all about it there.

The imputation of God's righteousness is important for the reason I just gave. For it is accomplished the same way the sin of Adam is imputed.

Exactly! What is the difference? You want to say Adams sin brought spiritual death to the human race, but not by a specific sin. Well, what pray tell brought it? What was imputed? A fallen nature? So you're saying God imputed Adams fallen nature to his race, but not his sin. You can't have a fallen nature without sin. You can't have death unless you have sin.

(Rom. 4:8) "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Sin is imputed or not imputed.

Quantrill

I guess my problem is with the term "imputed." The text clearly says that righteousness is imputed to the one having faith in Christ, but does NOT say that sin was imputed to the human race. So, I'm making a distinction between the term "imputed" as opposed to what resulted from Adam's sin. The condition of sin in the human race resulted from Adam's sin, which is different than saying it was imputed.

But I think your usage of Rom. 4:8 might be skewed, because it is in context of sins already committed. Sin is imputed to the one not forgiven of sins he has already committed. That's not the same thing as saying that sin was imputed to the human race before anyone else sinned.

I can't find your James/Soteriology thread. Can you shoot me a link? But if I have to wade through hundreds of posts just to find the answer, I'm not going to do that.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

1. Why do you think there is a difference between regeneration and born again?

I don't, however, Calvinists present "Regeneration" as a "Step toward" being born again, but not actually getting saved. IOt's their theological "Work Around" for their Total Depravity concept.

2. Infants don't sin because they are innocent, not because they don't have the inclination. Children start sinning before they are even told not to do it, so people sin by nature, not just because they "figured it out."

SO is an "infant" still DEAD spiritually, and hell bound when they die prematurely??

Let's follow the text of scripture. It says that Eve lusted after what the fruit could give her, even though she was deceived about it. Paul wrote that Adam was not deceived. He simply ate it knowing he was going against God's warning. To claim he lusted at that point is speculation, because the text doesn't say that. Paul distinguishes Adam's sin from common sins in Rom. 5:14. Since he was not deceived, then the lust of the flesh did not deceive him. Therefore, he sinned with his eyes wide open.

Because of HIS LUST. Simple as that. Play "Word games" if you please.

Jesus had no fallen nature since He was divine. He committed no sin because His nature was not inclined so.

So, in fact HE WAS NOT tempted in every respect as WE ARE.

 

[GodsGrace]

I did read it. And agree with much of it. But, of course, don't believe it goes far enough. And I don't want to start repeating what was already said in the James/Soteriology thread.

So, consider this. (Rom. 5) is the result of (Rom. 4). There Paul stated that all the blessings promised to Abraham are through faith and by imputation. (Rom. 4:3) "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

Later in (Rom. 4:22-24) Paul tells us "...Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe...."

Paul is saying the righteousness that is imputed, that results in a man's salvation, is the product of faith, not works. (Rom. 4:5) It is not our righteousness. It is the righteousness of God alone. It is the righteousness that Paul described in (Rom. 3:21) "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested..."

This is Paul's argument. The imputation of Adam's sin to the human race was introduced to further this argument. Adam becomes a figure, or a type of Christ. (Rom. 5:14) "...of Adams's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

Would you agree with this?

Quantrill

I agree with all you've said except the part about Adam's sin being imputed to the entire human race due to federal headship.

If Romans 5:13 states very plainly that "SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHEN THERE IS NO LAW"....
then we must accept the fact that before The Law (Moses) sin was not imputed to man.

You had asked about Abraham and Levi when Levi was not even born yet.
I can't think of this as imputation, but it's not the subject so I won't spend too much time on this.

You also asked why I believe that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us and our sins are imputed to Him and I don't know if I ever answered you.

The reason is that we personally, did not CHOOSE to disobey God in the Garden.
It is through Adam that we are affected with his sin...(but not imputed with it).

Instead we CHOOSE to accept the free gift of Jesus which is for our salvation.
Our sins are actually (all sins - past present and future) imputed to Him...
He became sin for us...He who had no sin...
And we are imputed with His righteousness so that we can be declared right, justified, before God.
We are made right with God through Jesus....this is imputation. WE get credit for what HE did.
What HE did is reckoned to us.

We suffer the affects of Adam's sin, as tdidymas explained perfectly, better than I ever could.

The effect of Adam's disobedience of a direct command is that we are born with
the sin nature
the flesh
concupicsense
tendency toward sin
......
or whatever other word you care to use depending on what denomination you attend.

Each of us is only responsible for our own sins...
not for the sins of others.
Adam is a different person from us...he is responsible for HIS sinning.

BUT,,,,his sinning caused all of mankind to fall....

I don't know how this could be made more clear.


tdidymas
for_his_glory
JLB
PeterJens
Bob Carabbio
WIP
Chocolate Roadrunner
WalterandDebbie
Christ_empowered
Walpole
jasonc
Randy

(hope I got everyone)

 

[Quantrill]

I guess my problem is with the term "imputed." The text clearly says that righteousness is imputed to the one having faith in Christ, but does NOT say that sin was imputed to the human race. So, I'm making a distinction between the term "imputed" as opposed to what resulted from Adam's sin. The condition of sin in the human race resulted from Adam's sin, which is different than saying it was imputed.

But I think your usage of Rom. 4:8 might be skewed, because it is in context of sins already committed. Sin is imputed to the one not forgiven of sins he has already committed. That's not the same thing as saying that sin was imputed to the human race before anyone else sinned.

I can't find your James/Soteriology thread. Can you shoot me a link? But if I have to wade through hundreds of posts just to find the answer, I'm not going to do that.

Yes, that is your problem.

What text?

Your 'distinction' doesn't matter. What distinction does Scripture say.



No, if you want to find it, you can. If you don't want to, you won't. If you're that lazy to 'wade through' then don't participate.

Quantrill

 

[for_his_glory]

Could we argue that the first commandment, or law, of God was when he said to Adam, thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge?

Would Adam have been the cause of sin entering the world if God hadn't put the forbidden tree in the garden?

And that verse says death happened to us from Adam into Moses.
What about after Moses? Death eased?

Genesis is always s curious narrative if we consider God is Omniscient. And he tells us he predestined , foreordained, everything. Even our lives.

Would we know God were it not for the fall?
The fall gets a bad rap for what separated us ftkmGod. But we're it not for that would we know God?

Just like Judas. He gets a bad rap for pointing Jesus out to the temple guards with a kiss on the cheek. And this led to Jesus' trial and crucifixion, which saved the world.
But, would this have happened without Judas playing his part?

Hi Chocolate Roadrunner and welcome to CF.

It was the temptation of Satan that Adam fell in disobedience believing a lie over that which God told him not to do, not because God planted the tree of good and evil.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The word translated "evil" is from a Hebrew word kelalah that means adversary, affliction, calamity, distress and misery. This is what God has created and puts on those who He has cursed for their rebellion against Him so they know "I AM" in all sovereignty, Deuteronomy 27:11-26.

Exodus Chapter 7-11 is a witness of the "Great I AM" and what God brought forth in His affliction, calamity, distress and misery on those like Adam, Pharaoh, the Egyptians and all those who walk in disobedience. God gave Pharaoh and the Egyptians a chance to repent and turn back to Him, but they rejected God.

When people think of the law they are seeing the 613 Mosaic laws That Moses received on Mt, Sinai that were specifically written to the Jews as from Adam to Moses their was no such thing as a Jew or a Gentile. Abraham was the first to be called a Hebrew in Genesis 14:13.

Beginning with Genesis 2:16 the Babylonian Talmud listed six commandments given first to Adam and then again to Noah after the flood referred to as the Noahic laws.

Noahic Laws:
Not to worship idols.
Not to curse God.
To establish courts of justice.
Not to commit murder.
Not to commit adultery or sexual immorality.
Not to steal.
Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, that is your problem.

What text?

Your 'distinction' doesn't matter. What distinction does Scripture say.

My use of (Rom. 4:8) was used to show your false representation of a fallen nature being imputed without sin being imputed. Try again.

No, if you want to find it, you can. If you don't want to, you won't. If you're that lazy to 'wade through' then don't participate.

Quantrill

Romans 4:8 ?

Romans 4 is showing how faith saved even in the O.T.
Romans 4:5 the one who does not work, but believes ---- his FAITH is reckoned to him as righteousness.
Verse 6 Paul mentions David who also spoke of the blessings of men who are saved by faith and not by works.
Verse 7 We are blessed because our sins have been forgiven.
Verse 8 The Lord will not take into account the sins that have been forgiven.
Verse 9 continues with asking if the above blessings are only for the JEWS or also for the GENTILES.

IOW...Was Abraham made righteous by faith or by circumcision.

I don't see Romans 4:8 saying anything else....