# About sin..



## hobbs27 (Jan 6, 2017)

Every once in a while someone makes a point that really sets me back.  I read such an article last night and I'm investigating more today,  but here's what really got me.  The majority of the time when the word sin is read in the NT,  it is in the form of a noun. 

No big deal?  Think about it, that changes a lot of how we think of sin,...Maybe Jesus has removed sin from the world.. Maybe the noun sin was Adams original sin.. Maybe The Sin is no more? 

"The Greek word for sin, ἁμαρτία, is one of the most common found in the New Testament. From it comes the formal name for the doctrine of sin, Hamartiology. The noun form occurs 174 times in the New Testament, with the adjective, ἁμαρτωλός, next in number with 47 instances. The verb, ἁμαρτάνω, occurs 44 times, and the other forms are found only four times or less. The large number of instances makes it the most important word for sin in the New Testament."


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 6, 2017)

What a sin! So why does this "sets you back?"


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 6, 2017)

gordon 2 said:


> What a sin! So why does this "sets you back?"



well.. The implications of such sin.  If instead of speaking about our transgressions... More times than not sin is The sin... Original sin.. Adams sin. 

That one sin Jesus came to take out of the world?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 6, 2017)

And there is no sin in the world today?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 6, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> well.. The implications of such sin.  If instead of speaking about our transgressions... More times than not sin is The sin... Original sin.. Adams sin.
> 
> That one sin Jesus came to take out of the world?



So are you saying that all the times sin is a noun in scripture that it means "original sin"? That's what the greek noun word for sin means, original sin?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 6, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> And there is no sin in the world today?



??? I'm not following...


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 6, 2017)

http://www.anewdaydawning.com/blog-1/2017/1/4/does-sin-exist-anymore


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 6, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> http://www.anewdaydawning.com/blog-1/2017/1/4/does-sin-exist-anymore



Ok... so the mention of AD 70 is like a fresh divet on a previously well groomed golf course...  It is distracting... a test of my perseverance to finish the essay.

Otherwise, the essay seems a little to left field of Eurika moments. Sin, sins. When I think of sin I think of its antonym love. From one original sin a geometric progression(Fractal perhaps) of sins and life stressers abound. From the origin of love, the type of types, a geometric progression of positive life experiences abounds.


 Jesus came to take away original sin or the curse of it?

I don't know, I don't have the brain power of a insurance company lawyer, or a criminal lawyer or any lawyer. But the whole thing here reads like a money back guarantee to work or "money back" of some off the counter arthritic pain product that guarantees  you'll never get your money back if you claim for it satisfaction guaranteed everything be equal barring restrictions in some states.

Ok now seriously. Despite the fun some knowledge of linguisitics might give someone. What does the encounter of Jesus do to a convert in real time, boots on the ground? Does not the HS point to what is divinely good and what is not so worldly good? The HS removes the curse of a heart and mind formed from original sin and fashions it on a course set forth by the original creative love of God.

So linguistics aside, which can bring a lawyer to say "Sin in the world ain't no more!" , the last time I checked with God he told me that The Sin is still animating my foul language,  my hateful thinking and brutish acts in our world--even when I try to do things for good reasons. ( Just ask my wife.)

Or I'll admit it, it's over my head... and it seems odd to me that God would want someone to teach in his name in this way. But hey, maybe it's over my ...  ah... something....


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 6, 2017)

Simple task,  I plan on looking into more.  Is your foul language,  hateful thinking,  and brutish acts REALLY Biblically defined as sin,  or is that something man has invented?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 6, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Simple task,  I plan on looking into more.  Is your foul language,  hateful thinking,  and brutish acts REALLY Biblically defined as sin,  or is that something man has invented?



Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself... and...that's it... there's not and.

 Anything or event that injures the love one can have for God or that love one can experience from God  or  of a neighbor is a sin. It just happens that the original type is original sin--a curse. Maybe?

Who should I believe defines sin, God who speaks life into my life and the life of the church or from a man's new ideas of how to interpret scripture's new found meaning regards sin and what Jesus was "really about"?

I think for people of faith sin has had a steady definition since the fall. No? If yes, it is people of faith who were inspired to write scripture. So the definition of sin in scripture must be consistent for the faithful and not defined by scripture but by faith or the very relationship a human being can have with God.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 6, 2017)

gordon 2 said:


> Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself... and...that's it... there's not and.
> 
> Anything or event that injures the love one can have for God or that love one can experience from God  or  of a neighbor is a sin. It just happens that the original type is original sin--a curse. Maybe?
> 
> ...




And this is where we differ. Not saying that your way is inferior at all,  I'm just not wired that way.  I know without doubt,  and no doubt whatsoever has entered my mind or my heart in a very long time that the God of the Bible is true!  

 I also know some things in the Bible are not as they seem,  I know from the many teachings of the many denominations that man has made a mess of some things. The he11 doctrine is a perfect example. 

 I am just beginning this exploration as to what truly defines sin in the NT.. I have often wondered this though. Without law there is no imputed sin. Without imputed sin there is no death... Christ is eternal life.. That's a very promising equation.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 6, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> And this is where we differ. Not saying that your way is inferior at all,  I'm just not wired that way.  I know without doubt,  and no doubt whatsoever has entered my mind or my heart in a very long time that the God of the Bible is true!
> 
> I also know some things in the Bible are not as they seem,  I know from the many teachings of the many denominations that man has made a mess of some things. The he11 doctrine is a perfect example.
> 
> I am just beginning this exploration as to what truly defines sin in the NT.. I have often wondered this though. Without law there is no imputed sin. Without imputed sin there is no death... Christ is eternal life.. That's a very promising equation.




This is the way I "read" scripture:


Moses said "Don't send me, I stutter..." and double tapped danced on a place of water. Mary said Ok. Moses had sinned and feared. Mary had no sin and loved. As Christians we are still, many of us, like Moses and few of us are like Mary---. So I suppose if you have to get a definition of sin from scripture you could look at Moses and then look at Mary.


In this way you would avoid all the clumsy interpretations...set up by others in your " understand box".


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 6, 2017)

Sin is disobedience to Gods commands.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 6, 2017)

Without law what is God's commands?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 6, 2017)

My God is not a commander in my relationship with Him. A commander is a pistol a little shorter than my standard 1911.

 My God is a lover, a councilor, and very lively like....

So sin is something that gets me to forget what I just said... or take Him for "granted."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2017)

The list of sins in Paul's letters were verbs. 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2017)

Now if you are saying that since Christ died for our sins does that mean sin is no more?

Galatians 5:18-20
18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; 20idolatry and sorcery; hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions,21and envy; drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The age old argument is "can Christians still sin or do they still sin but they just aren't added to their slate?"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2017)

Colossians 3:5
4When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory. 5Put to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry. 6Because of these, the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience. 

I thought the components of our earthly nature, verbs, was sin?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Without law what is God's commands?



So without the Law being in existence, there can be no more sin?

Wouldn't one have to believe in Jesus to escape the Law? Otherwise one is trying to save himself by works. When one tries to save himself by works, he is living by the Law.
Live by the Law, die by the Law.

I think the Law is still there if one wants to try and live by it. The only alternative is Jesus.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 6, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> So without the Law being in existence, there can be no more sin?
> 
> Wouldn't one have to believe in Jesus to escape the Law? Otherwise one is trying to save himself by works. When one tries to save himself by works, he is living by the Law.
> Live by the Law, die by the Law.
> ...




Here's my thought... and it's not conclusive. 

Adam was the first man brought into relationship with God. There were others. Probably many generations of others,  but it was Adam that sin entered the world.. Because Adam broke the covenant between him and God. 

Adams lineage paid for this all the way down to Jesus which took that curse away.. Took sin out of the world. 

Now man enters the covenant of grace with God and is covered by Jesus... Or man does not enter covenant and is just like those outside the garden before.. That surely did bad things,  but none had sinned.


----------



## welderguy (Jan 6, 2017)

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Here's my thought... and it's not conclusive.
> 
> Adam was the first man brought into relationship with God. There were others. Probably many generations of others,  but it was Adam that sin entered the world.. Because Adam broke the covenant between him and God.
> 
> ...



There are so many thoughts that enter my head. First is "man enters the covenant of grace." So things were different than before this dispensation of grace? I don't know, I'm just asking, learning.

"Man does not enter covenant and is like those outside the garden."
Would that be like the Gentiles that God didn't love before? They were outside the garden or not in covenant with God?

Romans 9:25
Concerning the Gentiles, God says in the prophecy of Hosea, "Those who were not my people, I will now call my people. And I will love those whom I did not love before."

The Gentiles who were strangers "at that time"

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Now getting back to your thoughts, regardless there was a group that were strangers to the covenants. They did bad things but since they had no covenant, they weren't considered sins.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Now man enters the covenant of grace with God and is covered by Jesus... Or man does not enter covenant and is just like those outside the garden before.. That surely did bad things,  but none had sinned.



OK, where does that leave the individuals outside the covenant that have never sinned?
The ones outside the garden that never had a covenant with God? No Law, no sin. 
Is there a genetic lineage that have everlasting life without needing Jesus for salvation? Never having made a covenant with God? Strangers to the covenants of promises?  Without God and without hope until the Remnant of Jews were elected and the rest hardened?

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Romans 11:25-26
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove godlessness from Jacob.

The people not of the lineage of Adam, having never sinned, do they have everlasting life?  Why would the death of Christ change their destiny as they never had a covenant? They were without sin..

Now using this line of thinking, even if we are all from Adam, did all the men the old times have a covenant with God? If not were we strangers to the covenants of promise until Christ came?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2017)

Putting it all together for the big picture to obtain everlasting life;

There were people who were in covenant with God. They had the Law. Without the Law there is no sin.

There were people who were strangers to that covenant. Now did that give them eternal salvation? I don't think so even if they didn't sin because they weren't under the Law. Even if they didn't come from Adam. They were still strangers to the Covenant or Promises which included grace.
They were still without hope and without God. They still needed the blinding of the Jews to allow them to be grafted in.
They had to be grafted in to Israel.

That is where grace comes in. They were grafted in by God's grace and not elected by works. 

This is some sort of a parallel that coincides with Christ dying on the Cross. God picking a remnant and hardening the others. God predestining the event to make sure his Son is killed. This had to happen so that salvation could be offered to the Gentiles. The ones not within covenant with God under the Law. 

It's quite deep and involved when you think about it.The Law was just to show that we could never keep it. A covenant  with one nation set up to fail as a way to bring in the rest of the world that was apart from God and without hope. Very complex way of doing this. Dispensations, I see no way around them. Gentiles not gaining salvation before the grafting? Why is this worse than Gentiles not gaining salvation by missionaries not reaching them or by God not electing them? Who really thinks Christianity is fair under man's standards? 

The Gentiles had to be grafted into Israel to gain the covenant of promises. 

Romans 11:29-32
29For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, 31so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you.
32For God has consigned all men to disobedience, so that He may have mercy on them all. 

We as Gentiles had to experience disobedience like the Jews experienced in order to receive God's mercy. We received mercy through their disobedience. So maybe before then we were without sin as we were not under the Law.

Being grafted in, placed us under the Law which made way for our disobedience. Our disobedience allowed God to then show us mercy. The grafting in allowed us to be a part of the covenants of promises which included mercy and grace.

If someone else has a better understanding of Romans 9-11, I'd love to hear it. I think we had to become under the Law to receive the covenant of Promises that Israel was promised. We had to become adopted Jews in order to experience disobedience in order to receive mercy through grace.

This was God's plan from before time, complex as it may be. Why so complex?

Romans 11:33
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!

We had to become under the Law to experience sin. To become disobedient to receive mercy. Maybe that is somewhat related to what Hobbs is talking about. Regardless of being here by way of Adam, we weren't all within the covenant of promises until after Christ came. If we weren't all under the Covenant of promise to receive salvation, then we had to be brought into the group that was.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2017)

welderguy said:


> 1 John 1:8-10
> 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
> 
> 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
> ...



1 John 3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

or

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Is 1 John 1:8-10 perhaps before we become a Christian and 1 John 3:9 after our effectual calling? Isn't our effectual calling also our confession of sins? We are confessing that we, in the past, have sinned.

I've always been taught that as Christians we continue to sin but I've also heard some reformed believers say that after our effectual calling, we no longer sin. Meaning that if Christ died for our sins, how can we possibly sin? If Christ cleansed us from all unrighteousness?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 7, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> 1 John 3:9
> No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.
> 
> or
> ...




And.. If a saved man cannot sin.. He cannot lose salvation due to sin.  De facto once saved always saved.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 7, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Here's my thought... and it's not conclusive.
> 
> Adam was the first man brought into relationship with God. There were others. Probably many generations of others,  but it was Adam that sin entered the world.. Because Adam broke the covenant between him and God.
> 
> ...



That surely did bad things, but none had sinned?

Does not scripture  say that all sin.   Roman 5:13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

It is not charged against anyone's account by man! Basically there is no accounting--by man-- to what is possible by sin. There are no limits to sin, no bounds. Even man's most wise appointed judges are corrupted.

In other words in a fallen world the standards of what is good and not so good is all over the place or relative precisely because the world is fallen! What is a sin and what is  a lesser sin is all over the place.

The law sets a standard template to judge sin in the world. It is the rule by which prisoners of wrath ( sinners) exist by breaking it, skirting it, or in following it.

What Christ has done  is to provide for the trashing of this prison system and setting its convicts  free--- from convict to convert.

Paul says now converts judge to build up and not tare down. They forgive instead of condemning. They judge and sentence from the perspective of mercy, of grace, of charity to build up with an eye to righteousness and not rubbing out those captured by evil and transgression. 

 Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

God's wrath has not ended with Jesus--simply because sin has not ended.  What we are saved of is the forever
prison of wrath if we cleave to faith which we received at the foot of the cross due God's grace.

Does not Paul say that people who say of themselves they are believers and yet continue boast and continue in sin, ( in the case of sexual immorality of a man married to his father's wife) that he/they should be given over to Satan and wrath? I take from this that the sinner was a convert, knew God, knew of the new life and yet said, "Ha! I cannot sin! what you call my sin is my faithful charity. Ha! We love each other with genuine love. Ha!"

The problem is that some saints just don't want to repent of some sins... So saints still sin from my reading of Paul. And not only do they sin they can be cast back into the prisons of wrath from which they came from for their sin.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 7, 2017)

Gordon,  Eve ate first... Why did sin enter through Adam?


----------



## welderguy (Jan 7, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> And.. If a saved man cannot sin.. He cannot lose salvation due to sin.  De facto once saved always saved.



I think it's very important to realize, we can and do still sin. But ,not only the past sins but also our future sins, were put on Jesus. He bore them all in His body. In fact, He was actually "made" sin for us that we would be "made" the righteousness of God.

2 Corinthians 5:21

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 7, 2017)

welderguy said:


> I think it's very important to realize, we can and do still sin. But ,not only the past sins but also our future sins, were put on Jesus. He bore them all in His body. In fact, He was actually "made" sin for us that we would be "made" the righteousness of God.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 5:21
> 
> 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.




There's no sin to charge saved men with,  right?

 So, do you think it's a fair comparison to a law that may be on the books today,  but no one enforces?  
 Or is it more like a law that is on the books,  but outdated?


----------



## welderguy (Jan 7, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> There's no sin to charge saved men with,  right?
> 
> So, do you think it's a fair comparison to a law that may be on the books today,  but no one enforces?
> Or is it more like a law that is on the books,  but outdated?



I think it's more accurate to say, there is sin but all charges have been placed on Him. That's grace.

Also, I think the law has not been done away with, but rather has been fulfilled. Big difference.Don't you think?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 7, 2017)

welderguy said:


> I think it's more accurate to say, there is sin but all charges have been placed on Him. That's grace.
> 
> Also, I think the law has not been done away with, but rather has been fulfilled. Big difference.Don't you think?



 So literally there is sin,  but we pay nothing for it,  because it is on Christ? 

As for law done away or fulfilled,  I don't think there's any difference in the outcome.  It has no effect on us in the NT.


----------



## Israel (Jan 7, 2017)

I am told the remedy is far greater than the illness ever was.
Yet, I dare not diminish the severity of the illness lest I diminish the value of its remedy. So, it almost seems I am left in a quandary as to this balance. If I even slightly (or lightly) dismiss the one, so as to appear in favor of the other..."Christ's righteousness is far greater than the power of sin..." (which I am convinced is true) I find something "experientially".
Christ's righteousness (if I believe what I see) is so far exceeding above what I "had" seen, as though I had never seen anything. (not that I find shame here...I am not). But as touching what is now revealed, there also comes an "Of course!" it was always there...to be seen to be known...even (I often find) right there in the scripture...spoken by Jesus Himself...how could this be missed?

Here is where cause and effect come rightly into dispute. I don't know just because I have an effect...that my judgment in relationship to cause is correct. I could be linking two things entirely erroneously in my understanding. But what I "sense" at those times, what takes place as a sort of inner dialogue is something like "This is said so plainly by Jesus (as I see now, in whatever circumstance) that to have not seen it testifies in some sense to the very power of sin's deceitfulness to keep hidden what is (now) so obvious". 

In other words..."that fall" was also a lot greater in scope and magnitude and impact upon the soul, than previously understood. How great was the blindness it brought! To so miss even the plain things so stated by Jesus!

So that is in itself a kinda quandary. Yes, the righteousness is always greater...but man oh man, the deceitfulness of sin is nothing to be laughed at. (Or...is it?)

Now, like I said, I could be as wrong about this as anything else I have discovered to be ignorant about! Maybe all our eyes are as wide open as they are to be "should be" at anytime, and it is simply the Spirit's good pleasure to always surprise us! And to go a step further, could it be sin itself, lying...so as to cause me to think it still has power to hide (and here a sober mind might understand)...for if sin can convince me it is "my sin" that hides any revelation of truth...it's just a short step to thinking "if someone else doesn't see this thing...it must be because of 'their' sin". And one can become quite judgmental in that, I suppose.

So, I really don't know. I can easily find where sin is mentioned as both fully conquered, taken away, but also "If any man sin..." (as written to believers)....we have an advocate with the Father.

Likewise, I think Paul wrote experientially of a seeming conundrum 

"But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid."

I read that this way...according to what I have seen. There is a path to follow, and in the attempts to stay on it I have learned a thing. I cannot deny the experience of discovering "man, I didn't know how rotten I was till I got on here!" Oh, sure, I thought "I sinned"...but I had no concept of how absolutely corrupt I am from floor to roof. So, it almost becomes a thing started in a sort of distant and misty hope...after travelled a while suddenly becomes desperately needed "I really and truly do need to be saved! HELLLLP!" Does this mean "the way" caused me to be a sinner? God forbid. But the way sure had a period of almost abysmal hopelessness to it (for me at least). Obviously can't say everyone trods here, but it seems to have been a preface to knowing this in a greater certainty:

But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead:

Cause that's what it felt like, all futility, all hopelessness, all inability to continue. Just "shoot me now". And though I say that now, (sounds light hearted, doesn't it?) under so great a burden, at the time it was not anything but an earnest cry.


So, I think I shall place my flag here: I am absolutely free to acknowledge any sin and fault I see in myself, without any expectation that any other "must" do likewise...all others may actually be about the will of God in perfection and obedience. I may be last part of the last part of a clean up crew.

Yes, I may see fault, I may see a sin, and I may even point it out. But I do not ever know till the Lord appears whether I have seen anything at all as I ought. For the sin I may think I am pointing out in another is really just the shadow of my plank. 

And yet, that does not also mean that specks aren't elsewhere, too.


----------



## welderguy (Jan 7, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> So literally there is sin,  but we pay nothing for it,  because it is on Christ?
> 
> As for law done away or fulfilled,  I don't think there's any difference in the outcome.  It has no effect on us in the NT.



When we sin, we are condemned by the law, not God.
Our conscience still feels the judgement of the law in our hearts.

Also, when we sin, there is chastening from God. But don't confuse that as being condemnation. It is always done in love, not wrath.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Here's my thought... and it's not conclusive.
> 
> Adam was the first man brought into relationship with God. There were others. Probably many generations of others,  but it was Adam that sin entered the world.. Because Adam broke the covenant between him and God.
> 
> ...



How do you view these others that were not of the lineage of Adam? They were not under the Law. How did they gain salvation or were they like the Gentiles, without hope and without God?

Did they even have souls? Was Adam the first man to have a soul?

Regardless that group, the others, were all wiped out in the flood. From that point to Abraham there was no covenant except the Adamic Covenant. 

The first big covenant was between God and Abraham. We can trace the lineage of Jesus to Abraham and this covenant.

Now that leaves a lot of folks on the earth at that time that were Gentiles, without God and without hope. Does that mean they were without sin? 

I realize you are looking at sin from the New Covenant forward but should we look at sin before then as it pertained to individuals not in covenant with God?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2017)

Quotes;
"Now man enters the covenant of grace with God and is covered by Jesus... Or man does not enter covenant and is just like those outside the garden before.. That surely did bad things, but none had sinned."

"I am just beginning this exploration as to what truly defines sin in the NT.. I have often wondered this though. Without law there is no imputed sin. Without imputed sin there is no death... Christ is eternal life.. That's a very promising equation."

Quotes above from Hobbs.

What I'm seeing is that grace came later for many folks. "Now man enters the covenant of grace." (I'll add Jesus took away sin. If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.)

"Without law there is no imputed sin." (I'll add that Christ died for all sin, the Law was full filled or did away with. I don't see what difference the outcome is either.)

Did a covenant of grace come about later, that allowed those not in covenant with God, to be grafted in to that covenant? Perhaps the covenant of promise which is grace. To become disobedient so that God could have mercy on them?

Think about it. They were not under the Law. Without the Law, they couldn't sin. They had to come into covenant with God to become disobedient so that God could have mercy on them.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 7, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> How do you view these others that were not of the lineage of Adam? They were not under the Law. How did they gain salvation or were they like the Gentiles, without hope and without God?
> 
> Did they even have souls? Was Adam the first man to have a soul?
> 
> ...




There's a correlation between sin and death. 
We know the wages of sin is death,  and we know death reigned from Adam to Moses ( entire Old Testament) 

Now that grace reigns man has eternal life.. No sin to charge us with,  no death penalty to pay. 

Now I'll say something unpopular (imagine me of all people)  
 I think most of this relationship with God deals with life on Earth.. Sure we have an after life,  but in covenant with God in the old Testament brought blessings upon Israel.. In covenant with God in the New Testament brings blessings upon the individuals. 

Of those that never entered in the old covenant, they too faced judgment,  those of the New covenant... I don't know,  perhaps John 3 covers this best?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> There's a correlation between sin and death.
> We know the wages of sin is death,  and we know death reigned from Adam to Moses ( entire Old Testament)
> 
> Now that grace reigns man has eternal life.. No sin to charge us with,  no death penalty to pay.
> ...



"Now that grace reigns man has eternal life." 
  Everyone?

Covenants with God are only for blessings on the earth and not for salvation, interesting. So when the Gentiles were grafted in, it was to receive the covenant of promises which was just earthly blessings?

What about eternal life before grace reigned?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 7, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> "Now that grace reigns man has eternal life."
> Everyone?
> 
> Covenants with God are only for blessings on the earth and not for salvation, interesting. So when the Gentiles were grafted in, it was to receive the covenant of promises which was just earthly blessings?
> ...



everyone in covenant. 

I didn't say (only)  , but I think a vast majority of the text is speaking of life here.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 7, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Gordon,  Eve ate first... Why did sin enter through Adam?


 Sin is sin... Adam and Eve are one remember? So half of man was out of kilter. So when mama is out of balance well .... happy wife.... happy life don't apply.

 Were the German people who fervently supported their Nazi leaders and their Reich solutions complicit in their sin(s) even if they were innocent of committing the actual solutions?

Did God tell Eve only to lay off the fruit?

In any case I'm always suspicious of Eve being superstitious and Adam thinking that she'll eventually come around and he sort of humors her... to his own peril...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> everyone in covenant.
> 
> I didn't say (only)  , but I think a vast majority of the text is speaking of life here.



OK, I was a bit confused. I thought you were saying covenants with God were just for earthly blessings. Now that grace reigns we have everlasting life separate from a covenant with God.

I thought you were saying they were two different things. One a covenant for earthly things and two everlasting life from grace outside of a covenant with God.

Then if I understand you correctly, one must still be in a covenant with God to receive salvation? Either the covenant of Law or the covenant of grace?

Now that there is no covenant of Law, one must accept the covenant of grace that God offers to receive everlasting life and earthy blessings?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2017)

Realizing though that being in the covenant of Law never gave salvation. It was only given to show the need of the covenant of grace.

Romans 11:30-32
Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, 31so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you. 32For God has consigned all men to disobedience, so that He may have mercy on them all.

Romans 11:15
For since their rejection meant that God offered salvation to the rest of the world, their acceptance will be even more wonderful. It will be life for those who were dead!

It's all somehow interconnected.


----------



## Israel (Jan 7, 2017)

gordon 2 said:


> Sin is sin... Adam and Eve are one remember? So half of man was out of kilter. So when mama is out of balance well .... happy wife.... happy life don't apply.
> 
> Were the German people who fervently supported their Nazi leaders and their Reich solutions complicit in their sin(s) even if they were innocent of committing the actual solutions?
> 
> ...



I am not seeking to split hairs...but the command was given to Adam, just prior to Eve's creation. 

I am also not seeking to establish some sort of doctrine here, either, but I do see a lesson. I believe he (Adam) was responsible...or honored and privileged, depending upon a view...to teach Eve of all God had given him in instruction. But specifically he knew (should he have would he have, "intuitively"?) she was not to be followed, but if anything, led, as she was creature, just as himself. Creature "come later" if need be, and of him, surely, but creature, nonetheless.

I am sure we could go into parallels/distinctions between Adam and his "bone of his bones" and Jesus Christ. Both in teaching, and demonstration of obedience as showing He was "under" the same.

A man not given to allowing his own soul to be taught in obedience will surely be shown a thing by his own wife (and some...even to salvation)...some to something far more shameful and painful. (not that there is anything shameful in salvation)


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 7, 2017)

Israel said:


> I am not seeking to split hairs...but the command was given to Adam, just prior to Eve's creation.
> 
> I am also not seeking to establish some sort of doctrine here, either, but I do see a lesson. I believe he (Adam) was responsible...or honored and privileged, depending upon a view...to teach Eve of all God had given him in instruction. But specifically he knew (should he have would he have, "intuitively"?) she was not to be followed, but if anything, led, as she was creature, just as himself. Creature "come later" if need be, and of him, surely, but creature, nonetheless.
> 
> I am sure we could go into parallels/distinctions between Adam and his "bone of his bones" and Jesus Christ. Both in teaching, and demonstration of obedience as showing He was "under" the same.



Thanks I did not know this about Adam being told only.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 7, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Realizing though that being in the covenant of Law never gave salvation. It was only given to show the need of the covenant of grace.
> 
> Romans 11:30-32
> Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, 31so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you. 32For God has consigned all men to disobedience, so that He may have mercy on them all.
> ...



Yep.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 7, 2017)

Israel said:


> I am not seeking to split hairs...but the command was given to Adam, just prior to Eve's creation.
> 
> I am also not seeking to establish some sort of doctrine here, either, but I do see a lesson. I believe he (Adam) was responsible...or honored and privileged, depending upon a view...to teach Eve of all God had given him in instruction. But specifically he knew (should he have would he have, "intuitively"?) she was not to be followed, but if anything, led, as she was creature, just as himself. Creature "come later" if need be, and of him, surely, but creature, nonetheless.
> 
> ...



Thank you,  and since you don't won't to go further into it,  I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## welderguy (Jan 7, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> There's a correlation between sin and death.
> We know the wages of sin is death,  and we know death reigned from Adam to Moses ( entire Old Testament)
> 
> Now that grace reigns man has eternal life.. No sin to charge us with,  no death penalty to pay.
> ...



James speaks about this death from sin.

James 1:14-15
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

This death is a condemnation by the law. And those who have been delivered from the law of sin and death are saved.

And BTW, I think that which you describe as unpopular is the concept of walking in the kingdom. It's a subject I am very interested in, but difficult to discuss, it seems.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 8, 2017)

When I read Psalm 121 I read of an ancient man of faith not unlike a man of faith today. It is as he also chooses the highest estate of his  world in his prayer, an Israel of security, as we chose the heavenly in ours. In Israel the state of his individual soul is secured by faith as it is secured in us by everything that rises and falls to and from heaven. God gives both to man, Israel to one and heaven to the other that they trust in Him and His faithfulness as to promises.


----------

