The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.

[Artfuldodger]

Romans 5:20
Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

If law relates to sin and God made the Law, did he not create sin by giving us the Law?
If not why was the law increased to make sin increase? It seems like the Law was given to show us grace. Without God's law, sin would not exist.

It's almost like the whole Old Testament was God's plan to show us that we needed salvation in the form of His son, Jesus.

 

[Israel]

Romans 5:20
Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

If law relates to sin and God made the Law, did he not create sin by giving us the Law?
If not why was the law increased to make sin increase? It seems like the Law was given to show us grace. Without God's law, sin would not exist.

It's almost like the whole Old Testament was God's plan to show us that we needed salvation in the form of His son, Jesus.

The law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Do you receive this?

If so, do you then receive that "a" or "the" carnal man cannot receive the things of God? Oh, it is not that he cannot read the words, nor even hear them if read to him...BUT...that they will be entirely not understood with any understanding at all. In truth, completely misunderstood, misconstrued as to purpose and intent, assigned all and every bit of wrong comprehension flesh musters against spirit.

This is where Paul agreed the law is good, and holy and righteous...but...the defect is not in the law, but in the flesh that cannot receive it (them).

The law is not evil...but good.

And man, being so perverse in understanding (if given God's grace to see) is caused to see "the sickness of the flesh is so great that even a 'good' thing becomes death to it."

Can you bear a stupid analogy?

"Doctor" said the man, "what is causing the tumor to grow?"

"Well" said the doctor, "actually, at its base and most fundamental means, its the food you are eating and drinking. It's growing by the nutrients you take in."

"Wait", says the man, "food is not evil, but good...how can you say that"

"The particular illness you have" said the doctor "is such that even good things are turned to a malignant use, because of the illness".

"Wait!" again said the man, "are you saying I should stop eating?"

"Oh", said the doctor, "I couldn't do that for then you would die"


"But I'm dying either way! If I eat, I die, if I don't eat I die!"

"Yes" says the doctor, "it's an extremely serious condition"


But how does sin get multiplied, or is shown exceedingly sinful?
Even by a "good" thing?

"It's an extremely serious condition".

And in the fullness of time...

"The appointment is for now to be manifest what, and who, is life indeed. Ready or not..."I am".

A "new" man.

Only the new man can see and understand the goodness of the law, it's holiness, righteousness. And only by that new man (who is Christ) is the old man put to death in all his blindness...to even "taking his stand upon the law" as a show of having such a good thing to testify of "his goodness" (the sickness).

Ya ever meet a cop? Ya ever meet "John law?" who, because he thinks he knows the law...is even to be "keeper of it" is himself above it? As though he is the embodiment of it? Ya ever watch a cop perjure himself on the witness stand, because he now has to justify his arrest of you for being "what he doesn't like" and being so provoked by what he despises he couldn't help himself...but now in court dare not admit that. For that is...illegal.

And perhaps just as likely one may meet an honest one...in court. One willing or made able to "tell on himself".

Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy;

The law...upon which the High Priest believed he stood to declare Jesus as blasphemous had no idea the peculiar work that was being done (how could he?). Time for a new High Priest...for in rending his clothes, he himself stood as one breaking the law...so he was not only unfit to judge another...but manifestly showing all his own understanding in corruption and dedicated to it, (corruption), death, and all malignancy. In his own "respect" to the law.


Oh, but this is too severe.

It's a very serious condition.

Such that even the very presence of the physician provokes it to death.

And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes; (Lev 21:10)

"Oh, my! See what you have made me do? You are so wrong you made me rend my clothes!"

As wrong as that is in toto, it is far more what? Wonderful? Spectacular?...Incredible? That the One who didn't cause it would take all the blame/wrath of it due! Talk about how "bad" sin is! Oh, yes, it's a very serious condition! But...does it at all compare to the work of that One? Does it?

Which is more abounding...in truth?

If a man follow Christ he will often find himself in blame. "You know, you're just about making me lose my religion!" Or my temper, or my patience, or my "goodness".

"Oh, my! See what you have made me do? You are so wrong I was forced to rend my clothes!"

Oh, for the love of Christ...don't stop.

BTW, I am convinced the gold nugget of what GEM said here:

Yes, along with a man's desire to point it out.

Is to be found.

A thing that provokes should never be confused as the thing that causes. And the law is perfect to its work.

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

 

[tell sackett]

The law gives the knowledge of the hopelessness(?), the wickedness(?), pick your word of our sin.

The law is good when it is used lawfully.

Sin abounded in the garden.

 

[Artfuldodger]

The law gives the knowledge of the hopelessness(?), the wickedness(?), pick your word of our sin.

The law is good when it is used lawfully.

Sin abounded in the garden.

The law in the form of God's decree was also present in the garden. Otherwise there would have been no sin to increase so that grace could abound even more.

 

[tell sackett]

The law in the form of God's decree was also present in the garden. Otherwise there would have been no sin to increase so that grace could abound even more.

So, help me out here. Are you taking the position that Adam and Eve sinned because God told them not to? Or that it was God’s purpose for them to sin so He could show grace?

 

[Artfuldodger]

So, help me out here. Are you taking the position that Adam and Eve sinned because God told them not to? Or that it was God’s purpose for them to sin so He could show grace?

Well I used to thing the first, but now I'm leaning towards the latter.
"for where no law is, there is no transgression."

 

[Spotlite]

Well I used to thing the first, but now I'm leaning towards the latter.
"for where no law is, there is no transgression."

Think of it this way - if there is no law, is there anything to transgress against?

 

[Spotlite]

The law in the form of God's decree was also present in the garden. Otherwise there would have been no sin to increase so that grace could abound even more.

So, help me out here. Are you taking the position that Adam and Eve sinned because God told them not to? Or that it was God’s purpose for them to sin so He could show grace?

I don’t want to interfere but I’m just curious about something that’s being asked.

Art - based on your position and the follow up question from mr sackett……”God’s purpose for them to sin so He could show grace”

This is similar to something I recently asked - “Everything was very good. Why would God sick the dog on you so He can save you from the dog” when it could have stayed very good without the dog to begin with.

My opinion is God knew He’d give man a choice, and because of that He knew man would fall and needed redemption. He didn’t want any to perish but He didn’t want a shotgun wedding, either. I’d rather my wife love me because of what I am to her instead me holding her hostage and making her “love” me.

Since there is a law, there’s going to be transgressions. Since there’s transgressions, there’s a need for grace. If there’s no fall of man there’s no need for grace or law - it’s all still very good.

Hope I didn’t throw the convo off but just something I wanted to ask since it’s being touched on,

 

[gordon 2]

Romans 9 :31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.

..................

It would seem that it is sure possible to abuse the law and attain unrighteousness.

When the law is sought to attain righteousness by faith it seems that it is a law that does not bring about sin... as it cannot.

The idea that the law must bring about sin is not so. The law combined with faith became a nurture or is of purpose to nurture.

So the directive to not eat of the forbidden fruit is a nurture in a relationship of faith. The sin was to forsake the relation which took a bit of convincing or work.

God's glory is perhaps sufficient in who he is in the relationship with man as opposed to what he does or does not do.

 

[tell sackett]

Well I used to thing the first, but now I'm leaning towards the latter.
"for where no law is, there is no transgression."

So God caused man to sin?

 

[gemcgrew]

So God caused man to sin?

Christ is coming.

 

[Artfuldodger]

So God caused man to sin?

He either caused or foresaw, It really matters not to me. Either way, the Lamb was crucified before the world was created.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Romans 7:9
Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

 

[tell sackett]

Keep reading

 

[gordon 2]

Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

There was a law for Abraham yet because he believed God...

How about when the law becomes a commandment because we would itch to break it as a rule, or we chose to simply not believe it and so sin springs to life and we die to righteousness, but when the law is an object or a council-advisory we believe, Even though we sin, because we believe God and the law, we do not die.

All sin but it is possible to use the law specifically to sin. Example: "Thou shall not kill. vs Thou shall have no other God's before me." can be turned into this kind of belief:


"You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

Paul was hunting Christians as a Pharisee under this doctrine. The law in this case causes him to sin because the law was ill applied. I caused Paul, a man with compassion, to do what he did not want to do--- and that was to get someone killed. And having sufficient consciousness to know guilt it in fact killed Paul's spiritual life as it was intended to be.

So when man plays with the commandments fighting one aspect of the law against another as lawyers and politicians do for their clients or "for the people" or for himself or themselves, we-they are putting someone or something before God or we are breaking the first commandment. When we use the commandments as law and laws and we play the judges and the accused of how to apply them instead of praying by them... we might have problems.

There is belief of sin unto death for John the Apostle. I suspect Paul was of the same camp. It was the grieving of the Holy Spirit and law is misapplied to such an extent that man feels himself justified to the opposite of its intent, which intent is to free man and keep him free from spiritual bondage, then the Commandments produce sin and not because God wills it, but because man want's a place in God's fight with man. But man is not to fight from this place because from it he shall surely die.

God gives all a place to fight from through our Lord Jesus and Jesus does not form his lines on the Law and so sure we march from a braver place. We walk by faith. Man often gets himself out of this way. Which is not God's will for man.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Keep reading

Romans 7:13
Did that which is good, then, become death to me? Certainly not! But in order that sin might be exposed as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

The Law was good and sin was bad.

I get that, but still without the Law, there would be no death from sin. Adam didn't sin until after God gave him a law. "do not eat from this tree." Adam's death came from breaking God's law.

 

[Artfuldodger]

There was sin in the world before the Law of Moses. Most of these verses are really related to that Law. Yet Romans 5 tells us sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.
That being the Law of Moses or at least that us what I think Paul is talking about.

 

[tell sackett]

Death reigned from Adam to Moses

 

[Artfuldodger]

Death reigned from Adam to Moses

Even for those who did not disobey a commandment of God. They were dying from the Law that Adam broke.
So Romans 5:13 does not mean that people did not sin. They did. But they did not break the Law of Moses, for it had not yet been given, nor did they break any written or spoken Law of God, for none had yet been given. But Paul’s point in the surrounding context is that these people still died, because sin and death passed down to all people from Adam (Rom 5:14).
This does not mean that people didn't sin during that period but keep in mind that babies died during that period but not from their own sin.

 

[Israel]

We cannot reason from Adam to God.

Either reason is given to us in Christ to even begin to understand Adam and Christ and thence relationship to God, or we shall forever be putting the cart before the horse.

We read the story. Jesus Christ to us is either a "part" of the story or He is, as He must, come to be for every believer the whole of the story. Even beginning, all through middle, and end. Christ is reason (logos) for all a man might be given to see (even as once afar off), begin to understand through relationship in Him, and even as promised approach in any fullness of this promise:

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:


"and they (the scriptures) are that which testify of me...but..."

Christ alone...is key.

As with all things spiritual there seems a paradox, but we discover it is rather to God's delight to uncover mysteries.

"Sanctify the Lord in your (our) heart(s)"

Set Him apart. Recognize Him as wholly "other" to you. Have all respect as to His otherliness from all men especially one's self. Seek to be untangled from all casual relation to Him in all assumption and presumption.

And count this prayer as no less salvation to you than any "other" thing Christ is, and does.

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.



And find how joined to Him, in Him, one is.

This is God's work, and it is marvelous in our eyes.