• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A bit about Adam and Eve.

Jarthur001

Active Member
Allan said:
Even Paul was a dispensationalist for he spoke of dispensations.
My post was not to defend this view nor to deny it.


This is not true. I have knowledge of evolution but that does not necessitate that I believe it. Knowledge is merely having information about something and having at the very least a basic understanding of that information.

Allan,

this will be hard to address in a short post. What you KNOW is based on what you believe is true and you have reasons to justified that in your mind. ALWAYS!!!

You are using the word believe in light of faith.

You speak of evolution above.

Your knowledge of evolution is that it is false. You therefore believe it is false. You believe it based on the truth that you know and justifiy it with truth as you know truth. This maybe the Bible, or many other things. This is what knowledge is.

If you would like to start a thread on this subject, I would be glad to join.
 

Allan

Active Member
Jarthur001 said:
Hello Allan,

A verse to support other ages would be nice. :)
Some kind of scriptural support of your view would be nice as well. :) What you posted earlier has nothing to do with an 'age of accountability' and you know it. Secondly my post implies there is not specific age regarding 'accountablility' since it differs with each person.

The Ex 30:14-16 passage you give in first excludes all women, children, and old men (over 60). Secondly this is actually tax for the temple. Thirdly it is an unofficail way to number the strength of Isreal because an actual census was forbidden.

What you gave can be referred to as an 'age of service' whereby those reaching this age they can serve most anywhere.

It is the age of taxation as shown above. It is the age in which a man was to enlist for war (if there was one or for the army - Num 1:3) . It was the age when Levite priests could enter service (1 Chr. 23: 24, 27; Ex 3:8), but their were also other ages at which a Levite could minister such as 25 and 30 (Num. 4: 3; Num. 8: 23-26)

Yet one could get married before the age of 20 (typically for men the age of 13 and women 12). They could have children before the age of 20. They were resposible for their wife and children (even the vows they made) before the age of 20. They owned land and worked before the age of 20. There were many things that they could do before the age of 20 in which they were resposible or accountable including sacrifices and offerings made on the behalf of them and or their family as well. But there were certain social and religious functions they could not do till the age of 20.

It is not an 'age of accountability' but an better seen as an 'age of service'.

Nowhere does scripture even allude to the age of 20 as being an age of accountability.

Allan, Are you saying this verse is saying that those that are "blind" to the things of God have no sin?
No, that is what you are saying.

The passage is clearly stating that if you do not know of sin (blind) then sin is not imputed against you (you have no sin). But if you know what is sin then that sin is imputed against you (thus it 'remains'). This isn't saying you have no sin since the later part of the verse states "your sin remains", but that the sin is not imputed against you till you know of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
Jarthur001 said:
Allan,

What you KNOW is based on what you believe is true and you have reasons to justified that in your mind. ALWAYS!!!
Again I disagree. What we believe is based on what you know and have chosen to agree with. ALWAYS!!!!
You are using the word believe in light of faith.
No, I wasn't.

Your knowledge of evolution is that it is false. You therefore believe it is false. You believe it based on the truth that you know and justifiy it with truth as you know truth. This maybe the Bible, or many other things. This is what knowledge is.
Knowledge, whether through study or experience is simply information (or a collection of data or facts) that we have at the very least a basic understanding of regardless of whether we recieve it in the positive or negitive sense. This has been and is still my contention.

Knowledge of itself does not determine that or what a person believes but what one chooses to agree with regarding the knowledge they possess is what one is said to believe. example: evolution and creationism. I have knowledge regarding both but it is my choice of which knowledge I will agree with that afixes my belief to a certain designation or view. The more knowledge we have of a thing give us better information or data to evaluate it as truth or not to each person. Thus 'I believe' based upon what I have choosen to be true regarding the knowledge that I currently possess and act or think accordingly.
You believe it based on the truth that you know and justifiy it with truth as you know truth. This maybe the Bible, or many other things. This is what knowledge is.
I still had to take the information from another source and decide to agree with it or not in order for me to use 'that' to justify other things I agree with as truth. Belief is a choice :)

If you would like to start a thread on this subject, I would be glad to join.
I thought this is what your thread is about ?? :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
PK said:
Are you saying children are born without a sin nature?

Define sin nature for me. Thanks in advance.

I believe that a child is born without sin ... that is they have never sinned and will not sin until they reach the age where intellectually they know right from wrong and willfully do wrong.

Now being human born without sin they have the potential to live sinless lives ... but none of us ever do that. Also, being human they have the potential to sin, and we all manage to do that.

I believe most on the board believe that Jesus was both totally human and totally God. But he never sinned. If someone believe that Christ could neve sin, then that means they do not believe he was human.

Blessings to all.
 

Allan

Active Member
Crabtownboy said:
Now being human born without sin they have the potential to live sinless lives ... but none of us ever do that.
Please explain why not. Thanks in advance. :thumbs:
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Allan said:
Please explain why not. Thanks in advance. :thumbs:

It is simply a potentical that will always be unfulfilled by we humans. If there is no sin at birth, and I believe there is not, then the potential is there. But, alas, we humans do sin ... and by the word sin I mean we are not always perfect as God is perfect. There is always potential until that potential is negated. I guess it is a philosophical topic to discuss and not a practical one.

Here is an analogy, knowing that all analogies always have weak points:

I come up to bat for the first time in a game. I have the potential to hit a home run, but do not. So, that potential is unfilled. I also have the potential to strike out and if I do strike out I have fulfilled that potential.
 

Allan

Active Member
Crabtownboy said:
It is simply a potentical that will always be unfulfilled by we humans. If there is no sin at birth, and I believe there is not, then the potential is there. But, alas, we humans do sin ... and by the word sin I mean we are not always perfect as God is perfect. There is always potential until that potential is negated. I guess it is a philosophical topic to discuss and not a practical one.

Here is an analogy, knowing that all analogies always have weak points:

I come up to bat for the first time in a game. I have the potential to hit a home run, but do not. So, that potential is unfilled. I also have the potential to strike out and if I do strike out I have fulfilled that potential.
Thank your responce however that doesn't answer my question.

Why is it that no human has ever not sinned if it is a potential possiblity.

If we use your batting analogy, then at some point in time someone would hit a home run. That is just a fact and it is verifiable. But no person since fall of man (born of man and woman) has ever not sinned and that is verifiable as well.

I believe however,that it is a practical topic because of it's scriptural support and verifiable proofs and therefore not just a philosophical notion.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Allan said:
Thank your responce however that doesn't answer my question.

Why is it that no human has ever not sinned if it is a potential possiblity.

Well, that is a good question and I am sure there are many with ready answers and there are others with questions. And it is a question I have not given a lot of though to or mulled over very much. But, let's see ...........

Humans, as far as I know, are the only creatures, animals, whatever you want to call us, are the only ones who have the mental capability to know the difference between right and wrong. That is, as far as I know, they are the only being capable of initiating and completing an action knowing it is wrong. And one of the first rules of nature, if not the first one, is self-preservation and/or self-atisfaction, all of us put ourself ahead of others and often this is sin .... sin being defined as falling short of the perfection of God. Why is this a sin, putting ourself first? Because there are times when putting ourself first harms another person in some way or another. The harm may be from stealing something that belongs to that person. It may be as simple as hurting their feelings. But we all do it, and thus we all sin.

Do we inherit this attribute? I am not sure. It is an interesting idea and one to debate, but I do not see it as particularly important topic. I am sure there are others who disagree with me here.
 

Allan

Active Member
Crabtownboy said:
Do we inherit this attribute? I am not sure. It is an interesting idea and one to debate, but I do not see it as particularly important topic. I am sure there are others who disagree with me here.
I think it would depend on the topic though it is one of the central ideas in most systematic theologies.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Allan said:
I think it would depend on the topic though it is one of the central ideas in most systematic theologies.

Never having been a semarian I probably will show much ignorance here. But that is all right. :laugh: I can see this topic would have to be addressed in the building of a system of theology ... if that is what systematic theology means.

I say to me it is unimportant in that I feel my primary task as a Christian is living the Christ-like life today and in showing Christ in my life to those I meet regardless of who they are. I guess I lean toward the practical in that regard, but being practical is also very much a part of the culture I grew up in in the Shenandoah Valley, of VA.

Almost forgot, how do you see the verses in the Bible that talk about life beginning with the first breath in the context of this thread?
 

skypair

Active Member
Jarthur001 said:
Why did God not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge of good and evil?

If eating gave them this knowledge, what did they have before eating?
It didn't give them knowledge. They had knowledge but only of "good." They received knowledge of "evil" when they disobeyed.

skypair
 

Hawkins

New Member
Actually, i tried to jump back to history and asked an ancient man and he said that he's afraid of lightning so much, because he thought that lightning comes from God when He's angry, so in the end actually he's afraid of God.

The other day, I came to a mordern man and he said that with his knowledge he's afraid of nothing, he made joke on the ancient man that how stupid he was to be afraied of lightning. And he believes in nothing but himself because anything considered to be not "scientific" must be superstitious and shall be ignored. And judging from his knowledge of good and evil, he said that, "your God is too cruel to even send people to hell, He's not a good God". "It's not scientific anyway...you know, I am a busy man and have no time to chat with you about your God." he continued to rant about things like that, in a judging position and even to judge God.


Sometimes I think to myself, are we capable of handling our knowledge or not?

The modern man shouts again, "Nuke them, nuke them". Now I shout back at him, "Hey, don't you understand that you ate too much from the Tree of Knowledge that you failed to find the Tree of Life, this way, you are going to die your second death".

Aparantly, he has no clue what I am talking about, no matter how knowledgable he thinks he is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hawkins said:
The modern man shouts again, "Nuke them, nuke them". Now I shout back at him, "Hey, don't you understand that you ate too much from the Tree of Knowledge that you failed to find the Tree of Life, this way, you are going to die your second death".

Aparantly, he has no clue what I am talking about, no matter how knowledgable he thinks he is.

I worked with a fellow years ago who often said, 'Just as the dinosaur over specialized in size and became extinct man has over specialized in gray matter and this will lead to his extinction. And, the insects will not miss us at all.
 

Hawkins

New Member
Crabtownboy said:
I worked with a fellow years ago who often said, 'Just as the dinosaur over specialized in size and became extinct man has over specialized in gray matter and this will lead to his extinction. And, the insects will not miss us at all.

I think that I have to agree with him. :praying:
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Allan said:
Some kind of scriptural support of your view would be nice as well. :)
twas given, it would seen you are in denial.


What you posted earlier has nothing to do with an 'age of accountability' and you know it.
See what I mean. :)
I asked for age of accountability verses because the phase is a myth. AOA is always brought up but can never be supported other than with smoke and mirrors. If you have a AOA the verse I posted must be included.

Mankind sins before the age of 20. Mankind sins before the age of 12. No matter what age you place on AOA it does not work out for ya.

As of last Dec. I am now a grand father. I have been though this before with my 3 girls. We don't have to teach kids to sin, they just do it. Its part of all mankind. I had to train and train and train all day each day for my girls to be good, and still they would sin at times. Just at the age of 5 mouths my little grand baby shows signs of this. Is it sin? I have no idea, for I am not God, but if not sin now within a few months it will be.

I recall the 1st time I saw the sin nature in my own 1st child. She was walking, but could hardly talk. She would reach for things laid out on the coffee table and when I said no she got mad. She tried to force her way and I had to repeat my NO! and slap her hand. She later came back and saw the same things on the table and stopped and looked at me and then quickly touched one object and took off the other way.

They look before she touched showed me she understood right and wrong. Right then I knew I had a little sinner on my hands. Her will caused her to sin. That is why I cannot understand all the honor free-willers want to give mans will. Mans will does not help him, it hurts him for it is bent on sinning.

Secondly my post implies there is not specific age regarding 'accountablility' since it differs with each person.
There is also no Bible verse to back your view.

The Ex 30:14-16 passage you give in first excludes all women, children, and old men (over 60).
I picked this passage because it does show accountablility and it is based on age but it has nothing to do with sin now does it? Verses like this is what you get when talking about AOA, but they do not address sin. So if you or any other point to verse like this of a younger age, you must also take this verse that deals with a law of a nation and not sin. I agree it does not prove it.

Secondly this is actually tax for the temple.
Its much like our age of 18. Its when we become responsible to part of the law of a nation. It has nothing to do with sin.

Thirdly it is an unofficail way to number the strength of Isreal because an actual census was forbidden.
Which was part of a law of a nation and has nothing to do with sin

It is the age of taxation as shown above. It is the age in which a man was to enlist for war (if there was one or for the army - Num 1:3) .
Which was part of a law of a nation and has nothing to do with sin

It was the age when Levite priests could enter service (1 Chr. 23: 24, 27; Ex 3:8), but their were also other ages at which a Levite could minister such as 25 and 30 (Num. 4: 3; Num. 8: 23-26)
Which was part of a law of a nation and has nothing to do with sin

Yet one could get married before the age of 20 (typically for men the age of 13 and women 12).
Which was part of a law of a nation and has nothing to do with sin

They could have children before the age of 20.
REALLY? :)
That is not a law nor a AOA, but natual.


They were resposible for their wife and children (even the vows they made) before the age of 20.
By law? What about sin?

They owned land and worked before the age of 20.
Nothing to do with AOA as in knowing right or wrong.


There were many things that they could do before the age of 20 in which they were resposible or accountable including sacrifices and offerings made on the behalf of them and or their family as well. But there were certain social and religious functions they could not do till the age of 20.
Yawn

It is not an 'age of accountability' but an better seen as an 'age of service'.

Nowhere does scripture even allude to the age of 20 as being an age of accountability
.
You mean other then the passage I gave? My point should be understood by now. AOA as many teach it as to SIN is not backed in the Bible. The only thing you will find is verse like I posted, which can be said to be AOA passages, and in away they are, but it has nothing to do with sin. Other then Deu 1 which says....

39And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

But this has been shown to mean 19 year olds and below.


No, that is what you are saying.
I said noting but asked what in the world you mean.

On post 13
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1234406&postcount=13

You posted...
Jhn 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
This illistrates that the biblical view concerning the age of accountablility.

I only asked this fore better understanding of your view...
Allan, Are you saying this verse is saying that those that are "blind" to the things of God have no sin?


The passage is clearly stating that if you do not know of sin (blind) then sin is not imputed against you (you have no sin).
If a person murders and does not know it is a sin, then its not a sin? Is this what you think the passage is saying? If this is the case, would it not be better for mankind if we did not tell them of God and the Bible so they would not sin?

BTW...there is a better meaning of this passage that most would hold.


But if you know what is sin then that sin is imputed against you (thus it 'remains').
Only if you KNOW what is sin.

I know a man that is hooked on porn, but sees nothing wrong with it, for it hurts no one. I told him lusting was a sin and he had never heard that before. Was it a sin to him just as the moment I told him it was a sin, or was it a sin the day before and he just did not know it?

This isn't saying you have no sin since the later part of the verse states "your sin remains", but that the sin is not imputed against you till you know of it.
9 Who can say, "I have made my heart pure;
I am clean from my sin"?

10 Unequal weights and unequal measures
are both alike an abomination to the LORD.

11Even a child makes himself known by his acts,
by whether his conduct is pure and upright
.

BTW...this passage that deals with sin also addesses age groups. maybe AOA??

Does this count? :)
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
skypair said:
It didn't give them knowledge. They had knowledge but only of "good." They received knowledge of "evil" when they disobeyed.

skypair
aaaaaw ok

The Bible made a mistake and added the word good but really didn't mean it. Now I understand.

Or maybe God was trying to trick us.
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Hawkins said:
Actually, i tried to jump back to history and asked an ancient man and he said that he's afraid of lightning so much, because he thought that lightning comes from God when He's angry, so in the end actually he's afraid of God.

The other day, I came to a mordern man and he said that with his knowledge he's afraid of nothing, he made joke on the ancient man that how stupid he was to be afraied of lightning. And he believes in nothing but himself because anything considered to be not "scientific" must be superstitious and shall be ignored. And judging from his knowledge of good and evil, he said that, "your God is too cruel to even send people to hell, He's not a good God". "It's not scientific anyway...you know, I am a busy man and have no time to chat with you about your God." he continued to rant about things like that, in a judging position and even to judge God.


Sometimes I think to myself, are we capable of handling our knowledge or not?

The modern man shouts again, "Nuke them, nuke them". Now I shout back at him, "Hey, don't you understand that you ate too much from the Tree of Knowledge that you failed to find the Tree of Life, this way, you are going to die your second death".

Aparantly, he has no clue what I am talking about, no matter how knowledgable he thinks he is.

I think you are getting to the point of the OP. :)
 

skypair

Active Member
jArthur,

Mankind sins before the age of 20. Mankind sins before the age of 12. No matter what age you place on AOA it does not work out for ya.
Its not sin until we are accountable: "Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Rom 7:7-9

So at the point at which you realize that your sinful acts are trespasses against God, you then are guilty and accountable under the law. AoA is NOT a specific age. That girls mature earlier than boys demonstrates this on a different level.

skypair
 

skypair

Active Member
Jarthur001 said:
The Bible made a mistake and added the word good but really didn't mean it. Now I understand.

Or maybe God was trying to trick us.
See, there's your problem, Ja. You basically want to say that Adam was not "good" when God created him -- but God said he was. And apparently you want to say he didn't know "good" -- had to get that from the tree as well -- despite his intimate relationship with God!

Then you want to say that infants today "know evil" and are sinners from the womb.

You seem to have no grasp that the KNOWLEDGE of sin/evil -- either in Adam or in us -- changes our spiritual lives eternally like Ezek 18:20 says: "The soul that sinneth, it shall surely die." You want to say that Paul was dead when he actually stated that he was "alive without [knowing] the law once" for we "know not sin but by the law." Rom 7:7-9

The only thing you CAN reject this with is the "doctrines of men," Ja. Doctrines like "total depravity," "sin nature," original sin," etc. NONE of which is found in scripture and ALL of which were fabricated to snare the unwitting.

Her will caused her to sin. That is why I cannot understand all the honor free-willers want to give mans will.
Because you don't give man credit that maybe he will choose one day to do right and not only wrong all his existence. If that little grandaughter came to the table, looked at you, looked at the object, and left, she would have demonstrated for you the knowledge of good and evil and of repentance to your will. Indeed, that is what you hope will happen when she knows what sin is, right?

skypair
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jarthur001

Active Member
skypair said:
jArthur,

Its not sin until we are accountable: "Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Rom 7:7-9

So at the point at which you realize that your sinful acts are trespasses against God, you then are guilty and accountable under the law. AoA is NOT a specific age. That girls mature earlier than boys demonstrates this on a different level.

skypair
Sky, that is just poor understanding of the text. There is a lot to add but I'm busy now, so I'll just post Piper...

Up through chapter 5 of Romans, Paul makes a case for the justification of the ungodly by grace through faith alone apart from works of the law. In other words, he shows that, because of what Christ did as God's obedient suffering servant, ungodly sinners may have peace with God by grace alone through faith alone apart from the works of the law. Romans 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."

Now by the end of chapter 5 Paul is in trouble with some of his listeners because of what he says about grace and law. He's in trouble about grace, because he says it justifies the ungodly and so he seems to open the door to license and lawlessness. And he's in trouble about law, because he seems to say that keeping the law it is not necessary for justification and because the law even joins hands with sin to defeat its own demands.

So in chapter 6 (6:1-7:6) Paul defends grace. And in chapter 7 (7:7-25) he defends law.

Grace Is the Base of Lifelong Warfare against Sin

How does he defend grace? Well, the accusation is that if we are justified by grace through faith alone, then we may as well say, "Let's sin that grace may abound" (6:1). Or: "Let's sin because we are not under law but under grace" (6:15). Paul's answer in chapter 6 is this: No, justification by grace through faith does not lead to more sinning. On the contrary, it is the only sure and hopeful base of operations from which the fight against sin can be launched.

All the bombers that go out to drop bombs on the strongholds of sin remaining in our lives take off from the runway of justification by faith alone.

The missiles that we shoot against the incoming attack of temptation are launched from the base of justification by faith alone.

The whole lifelong triumphant offensive called "operation sanctification" – by which we wage war against all the remaining corruption in our lives – is sustained by the supply line of the Spirit that comes from the secure, unassailable home-base of justification by faith alone. And it will be a successful operation – but only because of the unassailable home base.

In other words, Paul's defense of grace in chapter 6 is that this justification by grace through faith alone never leads to a life of increased sinning, but becomes the secure, unassailable, triumphant base for the lifelong warfare against sin in our lives. That's his defense of grace: Sin will not have dominion over you.

The Law Exposes Sin

What then is his defense of the law? Well, the accusation is that Paul makes the law out to be sin because not only is it not necessary to keep the law to get right with God – that happens through faith alone – but the law seems to arouse sin and become the partner of sin in defeating its own demands (5:20; 7:5). His defense begins in Romans 7:7, and that's where we started last week.

The only point we made from this verse last week is that it is important and good for us to know our sin and that we don't have to experiment with sinning to know our sin.

Now today we go one step further in understanding Paul's defense of the law in Romans 7:7-8. Let's read it:

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "you shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.

His argument here is that the law is not sin, because it makes us know sin. It exposes sin as sin. In the process, sin may flare up even more than before it was exposed (that's what verse 8 says), but that does not make the one who exposes it sinful.

Most of you have experienced this if you care about helping others fight sin. You see some sin in a person's life whom you care about. You humble yourself as Galatians 6:1 says you should and admit that you have your own sinful faults. You take the log out of your own eye the way Jesus says you should (Matthew 7:3-5). Then, after much prayer, you go meekly and confront your friend about this sin. And sometimes the very sin you are seeking to help him overcome flares up all the more and you get blamed for the flare up. And you feel unjustly blamed.

So it is with the law. The law, Paul says, is unjustly blamed as sinful when its exposure of sin as sin results in a flare up of more sin. The law is not to be blamed or accused as sinful. Verse 8 says, "Sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind." Sin is the culprit. Sin is to be blamed. The law pushed its hot button. But that is not sin.

How Does the Law Help Us Know Our Sin?

So let's ask today, How does the law help us know our sin? I ask this because I want to benefit as much as possible from the good purposes of the law. I don't want to miss this blessing. I don't want you to. I expect that it will be a painful blessing – to be exposed by the law as a sinner, but we saw last week that this is all good for us. Exploratory surgeries, biopsies, diagnoses, treatment – these may all be painful, but they are all good for us in the hand of a skilled physician. And God is the most skilled physician.

So how does the law help us know our sinful condition? Notice I ask about our "sinful condition," not our "sins." I do this because of something that you can see in verse 8: "But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind." Sin produced coveting. Wait, I thought coveting was sin. But in Paul's mind there is something beneath the sin of coveting, which is producing coveting. And that something he calls sin. He treats it like a power – almost like a person. It looks for opportunities – it will even look in God's holy law – and then uses those opportunities to produces sins like covetousness.

That deeper thing that produces sins is what I am calling our "sinful condition." You could call it our depravity. You could call it our fallenness. Believers could call it our "remaining corruption." Paul simply calls it sin. But he makes it clear that it is deeper and more pervasive and productive than the sins that it produces, like covetousness.

This sinful condition is what we need to get to know. And according to verse 7, we get to know it by knowing what it produces and how the law exposes that. "I would not have come to know sin [my sinful condition] except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting [which is what this sinful condition produces, according to verse 8] if the Law had not said, "you shall not covet." So we get to know sin – our deep sinful condition – by getting to know the sins that our sinful condition produces. And we get to know those sins and that connection with sin through the law.

Now how does it work? How does the law show us our sinful condition and what it really is?
 
Top