the imputed sin once more - to those against it

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.

 

Adam was created in an original righteousness, possessing a will that was truly free from the influence of sin; in his choice to join the woman he chose by this untainted will to sin against God; if Adam and Eve had parented children prior to the fall, each child in question would then have had to have followed Adam's disobedience in order to have been given the sin nature.

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

 

Yes, original sin is sufficient to condemn men. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5 We are in bondage to sin from the womb.

 

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.

 

Realizing that conception is the very beginning point of new life by the joining of issue from the female receiver and issue from the male donor, that is followed by a gestation period for humans of nine months, do you mean 'Sin FULL'? Or, do you mean 'possessing a sin nature'? Can you identify for us a typical "in the womb" sin? Can you describe for us the law that makes the "in the womb sin" a sin? In the absence of Law sin is not defined.

 

Scientists have detected fetal brain activity as early as 9 weeks after conception. The unborn child does think. And the imagination of the thoughts of his heart is evil continually. Can I identify specific sins? No. But scripture makes it abundantly clear the unborn child is not innocent.

 

Scientists have detected fetal brain activity as early as 9 weeks after conception. The unborn child does think. And the imagination of the thoughts of his heart is evil continually. Can I identify specific sins? No. But scripture makes it abundantly clear the unborn child is not innocent. </font>[/QUOTE]"Brain activity" does not imply thought, just as breathing does not require thought but is controlled by the brain, there is brain activity that is the result of life itself and not necessarily activity unto higher consciousness.

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

 

Boy, that just explains everything!