Romans 5:12 - the only possible view

[The Biblicist]

You are correct, this chapter is both comparing and contrasting one work of Adam to one work of Christ.

What Paul is explaining in chapter 5 is that both Adam and Jesus are being used as a LEGAL PRECEDENT.

Not true! your theory demands that the obedience of Christ is merely the legal precedence by which individuals are to be justified by their own works just as Adam's disobedience is legal precedence to be condemned due to their own sins.

Hence, your interpretation denies the substitutionary atonement of Christ and imputed righteousness and justification by faith.

Moreover, your definition of sin "comes short" of the Biblical definition as sin has its root in heart motive as God looks upon the heart and the ONLY motive that is not sin is the motive to thinks, say and do all things for THE GLORY OF GOD and "all have come short of the glory of God"

Infants and children are driven by SELF-Centered motives and it is easy to see as they must be trained to do what is right as doing wrong needs no training and the untrained child is an abyss of selishness.

No human comes into this world with the RIGHT MOTIVE and thus all are born SINFUL by their very motive behind all they think, say and do.

 

[Skandelon]

It never has been an issue of "final" condemnation in hell!

What do you mean? ITS ALL ABOUT THAT! Salvation is from an eternal hell and separation from God. I thought it was a given that we are born sinful and in need of a savior who is on our way to hell. We are talking about SALVATION...that is what soteriology is all about.

He has already exposed their total inability

Total inability to do what? Inability to fulfill the law or the inability trust in Christ for that? You seem to think the first proves the second.

No future salvation can undo this already done fact!

What? Grace can't undo man's coming short of the law? I'm not understanding why you say this.

No rationalization from a post-defacto salvation

What do you mean by post-defacto salvation? There has always been only ONE way to be saved.

That is absolutely false! Only the elect does He actually show mercy as mercy is not condemning them justly to hell and the non-elect are condemned to hell.

That right there is the point you are presuming is true in order to make your 'total inability' argument (which is question begging). If we are right and God does show mercy to all men, then your argument has not grounds on which to stand, because then he would never condemn men to hell for something they have no control over. They all stand 'without excuse' just as Paul taught.

The gospel DECLARES that way but does not OBTAIN that way and neither "can" the fallen nature of man obatain that way! It is obtained only by THE CREATIVE POWER of God directly applied to the heart of men.

Well that is the point up for debate. Restating it again and again doesn't make it so.

 

[Winman]

Not true! your theory demands that the obedience of Christ is merely the legal precedence by which individuals are to be justified by their own works just as Adam's disobedience is legal precedence to be condemned due to their own sins.

False, believing is not a work. Faith is always contrasted to works in the scriptures. It is Calvinism that falsely teaches that faith is a work.

Hence, your interpretation denies the substitutionary atonement of Christ and imputed righteousness and justification by faith.

Baloney.

Moreover, your definition of sin "comes short" of the Biblical definition as sin has its root in heart motive as God looks upon the heart and the ONLY motive that is not sin is the motive to thinks, say and do all things for THE GLORY OF GOD and "all have come short of the glory of God"

Infants and children are driven by SELF-Centered motives and it is easy to see as they must be trained to do what is right as doing wrong needs no training and the untrained child is an abyss of selishness.

No human comes into this world with the RIGHT MOTIVE and thus all are born SINFUL by their very motive behind all they think, say and do.

You are so messed up I don't know where to begin.

Your view makes excuse for sin plain and simple.

Nobody HAS to sin. If you told a lie, nobody put a gun to your head, you lied because you chose to lie. You could have told the truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

What do you mean? ITS ALL ABOUT THAT!

They shall call his name Jesus for he shall "save his people FROM HELL"????? No! hell is but a consequence of the REAL problem that salvation is designed to deliver man from - "FROM THEIR SINS"! There would be no hell if there were no sin and sin is what violates God's Law and thus hell is one of many other consequences of sin (sickness, death, war, hate, etc.).

Total inability to do what? Inability

Inability to be subject to the law of God (Rom. 8:7) and this is why all "in the flesh CANNOT please God" and "without faith it is impossible to PLEASE God" and all are born as unbelievers into this world and thus are "condemned already".

Inability to be subject to the Law/commandments of God is not a matter of pick and choose which one but all as they all are based upon the very same principle - love, which the fallen man is completely void of, as his "heart" is incapable of love for love "is of God" and requires a "new heart." The commands of the gospel are no different than any other commands of God - they require one to be "subject" or submission" and the fallen nature does not have that abiltiy - Rom. 8:7-8

What? Grace can't undo man's coming short of the law? I'm not understanding why you say this.

The need of salvation by grace is admission that man has ALREADY failed to keep the law, already demonstrated complete inability to be righteous. Hence, it is not IN FALLEN MAN the ability to do this.

What do you mean by post-defacto salvation? There has always been only ONE way to be saved.

That means that LATER salvation by grace cannot repudiate or deny what the Law has already proven that man is totally incapabile of obeying God's commandments or else salvation by grace is not necessary if man inherently has power to obey God's commandments, regardless what commandment one may speak of - the ten commandments or the gospel commandments.

 

[The Biblicist]

False, believing is not a work. Faith is always contrasted to works in the scriptures. It is Calvinism that falsely teaches that faith is a work.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The text says NOTHING about "faith" but places in direct contrast to Adam's "disobedience" the "obedience" of Christ as the contrasting ACTIONS. If Adam's "disobedience" supplies only legal precedence to judge sinful actions by many unto death and condemnation then Christ's "obedience" supplies only legal precedence for the RIGHT actions of many unto life and justification.

The contrast is between one man's "disobedience" versus one man's "obedience" not between one man's disobedience versus justification by faith as your irrational logic attempts to read into Romans 5:12-19.

Nobody HAS to sin. If you told a lie, nobody put a gun to your head, you lied because you chose to lie. You could have told the truth.

You have no clue to the Biblical definition or understand of sin and that is why you espouse such unbiblical views. God looks upon the heart because the heart contains the MOTIVE that determines whether attitudes, words and actions are RIGHT and ACCEPTABLE in God' sight and the only RIGHT motive is in whatsoever you think say and do DO ALL FOR THE GLORY OF GOD and that proper motive is MISSING in infants, children as will all "in the flesh" and that is why they are born sinful BY NATURE as the heart they are born with is not a good heart and their SELFISH attitudes and actions are so obvious that one must be willfully blind not to see that.

 

[Winman]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The text says NOTHING about "faith" but places in direct contrast to Adam's "disobedience" the "obedience" of Christ as the contrasting ACTIONS. If Adam's "disobedience" supplies only legal precedence to judge sinful actions by many unto death and condemnation then Christ's "obedience" supplies only legal precedence for the RIGHT actions of many unto life and justification.

The contrast is between one man's "disobedience" versus one man's "obedience" not between one man's disobedience versus justification by faith as your irrational logic attempts to read into Romans 5:12-19.

Yes, Romans 5 is contrasting Adam's disobedience to Jesus's obedience. I agree 100%.

But Romans 5 is also explaining that Adam and Jesus each set a legal precedent for those who committed similar acts.

For those that sinned like Adam, the judgment or condemnation to death is passed upon them.

For those that believe on Jesus, as Jesus believed his Father, righteousness is imputed to those persons.

You have no clue to the Biblical definition or understand of sin and that is why you espouse such unbiblical views. God looks upon the heart because the heart contains the MOTIVE that determines whether attitudes, words and actions are RIGHT and ACCEPTABLE in God' sight and the only RIGHT motive is in whatsoever you think say and do DO ALL FOR THE GLORY OF GOD and that proper motive is MISSING in infants, children as will all "in the flesh" and that is why they are born sinful BY NATURE as the heart they are born with is not a good heart and their SELFISH attitudes and actions are so obvious that one must be willfully blind not to see that.

OK, I will show you what the Bible says.

1 Jhn3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sin is breaking one of God's laws. A baby cannot sin because a baby does not know the law.

This is what Paul is explaining in Romans 7;

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. 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.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Paul did not KNOW what sin was until he learned the law. Paul did not know it was a sin to lust until he learned the commandment, Thou shalt not covet. Without the law, sin is DEAD, it has no power, no authority over you. Sin cannot condemn you until you know the law.

Paul says he was spiritually alive until the commandment came. This is when he learned the law as all Jewish men do before their 13th birthday. This knowledge made him accountable. His knowledge of the law convicted him as a sinner and he spiritually died.

Paul had thought the law leads to life, but sin deceived him and used the law to spiritually kill him.

Sin is not imputed when there is no law. Babies cannot understand the law and so are not imputed sinners.

 

[The Biblicist]

For those that sinned like Adam, the judgment or condemnation to death is passed upon them.

For those that believe on Jesus, as Jesus believed his Father, righteousness is imputed to those persons.

Notice the obvious contradiction in your comparison! If you were consistent you would have said:

"For those that SINNED LIKE ADAM, the judgement or condemnation to death is passed upon them. For those who OBEYED LIKE CHRIST, the justification and life is passed upon them."

However, that would teach justification by works wouldn't it! But that is exactly what your idea demands. Your idea must not make the contrast between one man's "disobedience" versus "obedience" but you must omit the word "obedience" from your comparison to avoid teaching justification by works but that is what you logic requires.

OK, I will show you what the Bible says.

1 Jhn3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Do you really beleive that this one verse fully explains the doctrine of sin??? No wonder you don't know what sin is. Sin is not merely willful transgression but it is also the omission of what God demands or coming short (Rom. 3:23) but the root of commission and omission has to do with the MOTIVE of the heart (1 Cor. 10:31; Rom. 14:21). God LOOKS UPON THE HEART as the heart motive is one primary factor that determines whether attitudes, words and actions are sinful or righteous in God's sight as everything coming from man originates out of the heart. The second primary factor is whether the attitude, words and actions conform to God's revealed will - the Scriptures.

The very same selfish heart that defines sinfulness of all attitudes, words and actions in the sight of God for all who are "in the flesh" is the very same heart they are born with in the womb and which quickly manifests that selfishness as soon as they are born and only gets more evident every day they live.

 

[Skandelon]

The need of salvation by grace is admission that man has ALREADY failed to keep the law, already demonstrated complete inability to be righteous. Hence, it is not IN FALLEN MAN the ability to do this.

I could not agree more.

Now read my signature line again and see my rebuttal.

Here we go round the mulberry bush the mulberry bush the mulberry bush...all the live long day. :1_grouphug:

 

[Winman]

Notice the obvious contradiction in your comparison! If you were consistent you would have said:

"For those that SINNED LIKE ADAM, the judgement or condemnation to death is passed upon them. For those who OBEYED LIKE CHRIST, the justification and life is passed upon them."

However, that would teach justification by works wouldn't it! But that is exactly what your idea demands. Your idea must not make the contrast between one man's "disobedience" versus "obedience" but you must omit the word "obedience" from your comparison to avoid teaching justification by works but that is what you logic requires.

The scriptures do say men have "obeyed" the gospel!

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

That form of doctrine delivered you is the gospel. Believing the gospel is obeying it.

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Note that not obeying the gospel is synonymous with not believing it.

Do you really beleive that this one verse fully explains the doctrine of sin??? No wonder you don't know what sin is. Sin is not merely willful transgression but it is also the omission of what God demands or coming short (Rom. 3:23) but the root of commission and omission has to do with the MOTIVE of the heart (1 Cor. 10:31; Rom. 14:21). God LOOKS UPON THE HEART as the heart motive is one primary factor that determines whether attitudes, words and actions are sinful or righteous in God's sight as everything coming from man originates out of the heart. The second primary factor is whether the attitude, words and actions conform to God's revealed will - the Scriptures.

Sin can be omission. If you know to do something and do not do it, it is sin.

The very same selfish heart that defines sinfulness of all attitudes, words and actions in the sight of God for all who are "in the flesh" is the very same heart they are born with in the womb and which quickly manifests that selfishness as soon as they are born and only gets more evident every day they live.

No one is a sinner until they learn the law, for without the law sin is DEAD. It has no power, no authority.

An analogy; In the mid 60's college kids especially started using LSD. It was a very harmful drug that led to mental illness and even suicide in some persons.

But there was absolutely nothing the law could do to stop it, there were no laws against it's use.

So, laws had to be made that prohibited the sale or use of LSD. Now the law had power and authority to arrest these persons.

And this is where legal precedent comes in, whatever sentence those first persons arrested for LSD were given, the court followed these guidelines. That is what a legal precedent is. It is to establish a fair and equal consistency in punishment.

So, as Adam was judged a sinner and and given the death sentence, all men who likewise sinned were given the death sentence. Those who obeyed or believed the gospel were imputed righteous. This is legal precedent.

But you must be aware of the law to be accountable. Without the law, sin is dead.

 

[The Biblicist]

I could not agree more.

Now read my signature line again and see my rebuttal.

Here we go round the mulberry bush the mulberry bush the mulberry bush...all the live long day. :1_grouphug:

What you are failing to grasp is that this inability is defined in relationship to God's Law/commandments and confrontation with the law proves its existence is fundemental to the the proper understanding of the fallen nature of man, which does not change with simply giving man another commandment (repent and believe) from God.

This is why God must CREATE something new in man as the inherent fallen nature does not and will not cooperate or else no CREATIVE work would be necessary!

This is why redeemed man still has the fallen nature which is still completely and entirely operating by "the law of sin" which is enmity against God and is not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be.

Your whole system denies these fundementals and if your system had any truth it would not need any creative act of God producing a NEW MAN or a NEW heart. All of thes NEW things as CREATIONS of God repudiates your whole system and logic.

 

[Skandelon]

What you are failing to grasp is that this inability is defined in relationship to God's Law/commandments and confrontation with the law proves its existence is fundemental to the the proper understanding of the fallen nature of man, which does not change with simply giving man another commandment (repent and believe) from God.

And here in lies the problem. You equate the revelation of Law with the revelation of Grace, period. End of discussion.

Sorry, but until you can acknowledge the CLEAR and OBVIOUS Biblical distinction between LAW and GRACE we have no foundation on which to continue our discussions.

 

[Skandelon]

God's Command: "Be perfect on every point of the law. Never sin, ever ever ever."

God's Appeal: "Come unto me all who are weak and heavy laden and I will give you rest."

Anyone who can't recognize the difference in those two cannot be reasoned with on this matter IMHO.

 

[The Biblicist]

And here in lies the problem. You equate the revelation of Law with the revelation of Grace, period. End of discussion.

The revelation of Law and grace are by the same mode of expression - COMMAND - "repent and beleive" are much a COMMAND as any one of the ten commandments. You are presuming that inherent inability to be SUBJECT to command of Law has changed somehow or has been removed in regard to command of the gospel of grace and you have not a single text of scripture to support such position.

Sorry, but until you can acknowledge the CLEAR and OBVIOUS Biblical distinction between LAW and GRACE we have no foundation on which to continue our discussions.

That is absurd! You know fully well I make a clear distinction between law and grace and this accusation is not merely false but insultive.

The issue is not the difference between them but the similiarity by which they are expressed to fallen man - BY COMMAND. Repent and believe are commands and found in the imperative mode. The fallen nature is incapable to be "subject to the law/command of God. You can see this in any child, just command him not to do this or that and he will either violate it or walk as close to the line as possible showing his heart has already violated it.

 

[Skandelon]

The revelation of Law and grace are by the same mode of expression - COMMAND - "repent and beleive" are much a COMMAND

And you honestly can't see the CLEAR distinction between the 'command' to follow every jot and tittle of the entire mosiac law and God's 'command' to those who have reached the end to come to him for healing and rest? Really?

Why do you think Paul refers to it as an 'appeal' and an 'offer.' Why do you think Paul calls what he did in evangelism as 'persuasive' and 'provoking?' Why did Jesus use an illustration of sending out an "invitation?" He didn't send out a command to go to the wedding feast, but an invitation. Sure there is an element of 'command' or 'calling' but there is so much more.

And just look at the nature of what they are being asked to do. Compare what they are being asked to do. The law is asking them to be perfect, without any mistakes at all. The gospel is asking those who realize they can't be perfect to admit it and ask for help.

How could anyone equate the two?

 

[Skandelon]

God's Command: "Be perfect on every point of the law. Never sin, ever ever ever."

God's Appeal: "Come unto me all who are weak and heavy laden and I will give you rest."

Anyone who can't recognize the difference in those two cannot be reasoned with on this matter IMHO.

I stand by this....

 

[The Biblicist]

And you honestly can't see the CLEAR distinction between the 'command' to follow every jot and tittle of the entire mosiac law and God's 'command' to those who have reached the end to come to him for healing and rest? Really?

Be honest now and answer this question objectively. Does Romans 8:7 define individual differences in the contents of a law/command or is defiance to law/command the real issue being expressed?

Why do you think Paul refers to it as an 'appeal' and an 'offer.' Why do you think Paul calls what he did a 'persuasive' and 'provoking?' Why did Jesus use an illustration of sending out an "invitation?" He didn't send out a command to go to the wedding feast, but an invitation. Sure there is an element of 'command' or 'calling' but there is so much more.

I can go back into the Old Testament and find the exact same appeals, persuasive langauge, pleas to obey God's law and you know it! I can find the same approach to the Law of God in the gospels when Christ dealt with the rich young ruler or the pharisee and the greatest commandments.

The gospel is asking those who realize they can't be perfect to admit it and ask for help.

The gospel does not "ask" anything! It delcares what Christ has done and calls sinners to "obey the gospel" by repenting and believing.

 

[Skandelon]

Be honest now and answer this question objectively. Does Romans 8:7 define individual differences in the contents of a law/command or is defiance to law/command the real issue being expressed?

I don't understand the question. I see verse 7 speaking of men's inability to submit to God's law. I see nothing about grace, gospel, or man's inabilities when God appeals for us to repent of breaking the law.

I can go back into the Old Testament and find the exact same appeals, persuasive langauge, pleas to obey God's law and you know it!

Yet, even at that time what was the means for salvation?

"Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness."

It wasn't about their ability to keep the whole law, it was about their faith and trust in God even when they failed to do so. Thus, pointing to appeals to keep the law doesn't help you, it only further strengthen my case. Why? Because their inability to keep the law points them to the appeal of grace. One carries an impossible burden while the other is the means to have the burden lifted. Why on earth would the inability of the first negate the ability of the second? You put the overwhelming burden of the first onto the second as as well! You make what is good about the goodnews equally burdensome and bad.

I can find the same approach to the Law of God in the gospels when Christ dealt with the rich young ruler or the pharisee and the greatest commandments.

For WHAT PURPOSE? Was the command to obey the law given for the purpose of attaining righteousness? yes or no?

This discussion will non continue until you answer yes or no to that question.

 

[Skandelon]

God's Command: "Be perfect on every point of the law. Never sin, ever ever ever." <---given to show the need

God's Appeal: "Come unto me all who are weak and heavy laden and I will give you rest." <---given to meet that need

Anyone who can't recognize the difference in those two cannot be reasoned with on this matter IMHO.

I remain firmly committed to this...

 

[Winman]

Romans 8:7 does teach that when a man is carnally minded he cannot obey the law of God.

Biblicist believes we are commanded to obey the gospel, which makes it a law, therefore a man cannot obey it.

But scripture shows unregenerate men without the Spirit can understand and obey the gospel.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter told these Jews to repent and believe the gospel (for only believers are baptized) and afterward they would receive the Holy Spirit. This shows unregenerate men can believe the gospel.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question implies that he believed unregenerate men could believe the gospel, and that afterward they would receive the Holy Ghost.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question here demands the answer YES, proving that Paul believed unregenerate men could believe the gospel, and that if they did they would receive the Holy Spirit.

All of these verses show that Biblicist's personal interpretation of Romans 8:7 is error. It cannot be teaching that unregenerate men without the Holy Spirit are unable to obey and believe the gospel.

Romans 8:7 is simply saying that while a man is "carnally minded" he cannot obey the laws of God. But it is not teaching that unregenerate man is always "carnally minded". Unregenerate men can be spiritually minded if they choose to do so.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

The disciples did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit when Jesus spoke this. This proves that men can be spiritually minded. It also teaches that the flesh exerts a great influence over the man and makes it very difficult for man to be spiritually minded.

Cornelius was not saved, and he did not have the Spirit, but he was not carnally minded, the scriptures say he was "devout"

Acts 2:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Biblicist is trying to teach that unregenerate men are always carnally minded, but the scriptures show unregenerate men can be spiritually minded to a degree.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't understand the question. I see verse 7 speaking of men's inability to submit to God's law. I see nothing about grace, gospel, or man's inabilities when God appeals for us to repent of breaking the law.

My point is very simple. The problem presented in Romans 8:7 is not concerning the CONTENTS of any given command, whether the contents is of a civil, ceremonial, moral or repentant or something to believe" but the phrase "is not subject to the law of God" is descriptive of the reaction of fallen man regardless of what may or may not be the content of the command.

You were attempting to make a distinction based upon content between law and grace but Romans 8:7 has nothing to do with any content of a command but how the fallen nature reacts to ANY COMMAND coming from God.

Again, you cannot deny that repent and believe are commands, they are found in the imperative mode. You cannot deny that appeals and persuasive langauge is used consistently throughout the Old Testament and even in gospels concerning obedience to the law. So your contrast between law and grace in view of Romans 8:7-8 is false and misleading as Romans 8:7 has no reference to what the CONTENT of the command may be but rather the inherent attitude toward ANY COMMAND originating from God.

"Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness."

This kind of response makes any rational discussion impossible. The post-defato experience of salvation does not deny inherent total depravity. You quote this as though it is proof against inherent depravity when it says nothing - zero - zilch about the issue of debate. Again you are presuming your position to be true when the text does not even remotely provide any evidence for you. I can just as easily presume that God effectually called him by grace as you can use it to deny it.

It wasn't about their ability to keep the whole law, it was about their faith

Again, those "in the flesh CANNOT PLEASE GOD" and the minimual requirement to please God is coming to him by faith (Heb. 11:6). If faith is the minimal requirement to please God then those "in the flesh" do not have that ability as they "cannot please God". Again you are PRESUMING your view into arguments you first need to prove.

Thus, pointing to appeals to keep the law doesn't help you, it only further my case. Why? Because their inability to keep the law points them to the appeal of grace.

You imagine the very same inability manifested in UNWILLINGNESS to obey the Law has somehow disappeared in regard to equal appeals to come to God another way, when the root issue is that "none seeketh after God" due to that inherent depraved condition regardless of the appeal and pursausion.

One carries an impossible burden while the other is the means to have the burden lifted.

True! But what you are failing to grasp is the DESIRE, THIRST, HUNGER, and LOVE for light and HATRED for sin that must first occur before any such appeal is even an appeal. Here is where you system is dead and buried because the fallen nature manifested toward the law STILL EXISTS when confronted with the gospel and it "IS" enmity against God which can never be defined as LOVE or desire for God or to please God - Rom. 8:7 - and this is Pauls explanation why all "in the flesh CANNOT what? PLEASE God. Do you understand what is required to have a disposition to PLEASE anyone????

Why on earth would the inability of the first negate the ability of the second?

.

I don't want to come across insultive or degrading but you are sending out your rational ability to think on a vacation when saying what you say above. To any rational mind, the attitude of enmity against anyone would be equal to anything coming from that person whether law or grace and espeically grace since that kind of mindset DENIES they are sinners, guilty or worthy of death but sees themselves as gods (Rom. 1:21-23) and as good as anyone (Rom. 2:1-5; 17-25). So the command to repent is more insultive and offensive than the command to obey. Why? Because if someone hates you and manifests that by violating every law coming from you do you really think that offering them mercy and grace will endear you to them or make them even hate you more for speaking down to them? Try your logic with someone who hates you and tell them you will forgive them for things they deny they are guilty of and see what response you get.