guys, i know this has been discussed already, but let me push it a little further (or again):
Rom 5:13-14
For until the law sin was in the world. Although not explicitely, this denotes that where there is no law, there can be no sin. more than that, it also said that though there was not the law yet, there existed sin. this can mean one of two things:
1. the mosaic law, which is the one being referred here, isn't actually just the law. there are other laws that existed, whereby when disobeyed, results to sinning. it's as if it is said that "until the mosaic law, sin already existed because there are already some disobdience of another law or a set of laws". on the other hand, it could mean,
2. even without any law, there is already sin. it's existing, though no disobedience has been done because there has not been laid down rules to obey.
both these interpretations stands on their own rights, until we consider the next phrase.
but sin is not imputed when there is no law. the keyword here is "but". it suggests that there is something which is somewhat contradicting yet still there, existing. when there is no law, there is no sin. true. but the word "but" connects this part of the verse to: "until the law sin was in the world". therefore, judging from the context, it should be concluded that between the two choices above, it is the second which is correct. that is, sin was present even though there was no disobedience by anyone who were present before the law. again, there is sin, though there is no disobedience.
this is further proven by the proceeding passage:
this next passage comes to give stronger arguments:
for if there had been a law given which could have given life... this portion suggests that there is a need to gain life (or salvation) even without the law. but then the law was given even though it cannot save. but still the same, there is a need for salvation even without personal disobedience of anyone against a law. thus, everyone gets condemned even when there is no law. this proves for the better the case that there is something which gets everyone condemned that is not his own sin(s).
that would be Adam's! in it's simplest form, it is stated this way:
the imputed sin once more - to those against it
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Aki, May 12, 2003.
Page 1 of 2
-
Law merely identifies that which is sin. Therefore that which law identifies after the law exists, was sin before the law existed.
Cain slew Able before God gave Moses the Law "thou shalt not kill", a Law that makes no other declaration. So, Cain's killing of Able was sin without the existance of Law.
The same applies for Adam's disobedience of God. The Command (law) was thou shalt not eat of the trees in the center of the Garden lest ye surely die. Adam disobeyed God's Command. The result is that man now sins in spite of the law and its penalties. -
-
I'm sure that it is not wise to isolate on verse 13 only, when the Context is verses 12-21.
I do agree that sin is not attributed with consequences where there is no law. However, if an act that subsequent law says is Sin, is committed before the law, it is no less sin.
Let me add that "sin nature" is not sufficient grounds for conviction of sin not committed. -
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
For sake of discussion, could it be the meaning of Romans 5.13 is that while sin (individual) is not imputed, yet that original sin, according to vs. 12 entered into the world, and death by sin; then so death passed upon all men; it is this original sin that is sufficient were men to not add to this, that is sufficient to condemn men.
Just some thoughts.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas Eaton -
If Adam and Eve had had a child prior to sinning by disobeying God. Would the child have a sin nature?
I say, YES! Adam had a sin nature before he sinned, or he would not have sinned, and that nature would have been passed to any children Adam and Eve had. -
-
Bro. Dallas Eaton -
Where there is no law there is no sin. You can not violate a command that does not exist.
God warned Cain of the SIN of hate and murder.
God speaks of Abraham saying that he would "OBEY my laws, my commandments and my statutes" (Gen 26) using the same terms that He used with the Jews.
MOSES is the author of the Genesis and Exodus documents and so in Genesis Moses seems to assume that the reader will have opportunity to see the terms defined later.
For example in Genesis 7 he tells us about a distinction between clean and unclean animals that God makes at the flood - but we do not see it "defined" until Lev 11. However we can be certain that the animals that came in by sevens in Genesis 7 were eactly those that God identifies in Lev 11.
God's "Word" is LAW - and it defines sin. Eve sinned when she ate of the forbidden fruit. God's WORD said that this was sin. To eliminate the possibility of sin - you must first eliminate the Word of God.
As John states in 1John 4 "SIN is violation of the Law of God". To abolish God's Law is to abolish His Word. So Christ states "I did not come to ABOLISH but to FULFILL".
And Paul claims in Romans 3:31 that in Christ we ESTABLISH the Law of God.
In Christ,
Bob -
Then in my poor understanding, if there is no sin where there is no commandment, but that God's Word is LAW, then the breaking of the Word of God is the breaking of the LAW of God. Which was what Adam did. He fell and in so doing he broke all the law of God, though he was defying only one command of God.
Bro. Dallas Eaton -
True enough.
As James says of the Exodus 20 set of 10 AND of the Deut 6:5 - Lev 19:18 pair "He who is guilty of one is guilty of all". James 2:10
James does not argue "He who stumbles in one part should freely break them all after all who on earth can be obedient to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So come fellas lets all rebell with glee for we will not live and act as though we are to be judged by any law whatsoever".
In Christ,
Bob -
i'm not very sure where you guys are going, but i saw (or recently saw) a sin committed prior to the law, which suggests laws existing then. this is proven in this passage:
-
-
That is not what that passage says, and nowhere in the Bible are people condemned just because of the nature. All over, it is the works of sin that are condemned, and all the nature does is lead us to sin, and only in that indirect sense does it condemn.
-
The meaning of Ps. 51:5 is clear. Whether we are aware of it or not, whether we acknowledge it or not, we are sinful from the time of conception.
-
-
-
Being around a number of infants of late, I can assure you that they are not communing about what sin they are going to do next. They are however conscious of those around them, and they do seek close intimacy with their mother. The closeness of someone other than their mother is often not "satisfying" to them. Neither is "activity", such as being picked up in a fashion they are unaccustomed to, very comforting. When conditions are "right" or "comfortable" for them they are usually contented and you see it in their demeanor.
Being Sinners? Not in the least!
Having a sin nature? Absolutely! -
The Law of God is eternal even as God is eternal.
Bro. Dallas Eaton -
:rolleyes:
Page 1 of 2