Guilty without the law? "homegrown" theology part two

In case you guys were wondering where part one of this post is, I have to confess that it doesn't exist. My post entitled Heresy? Is what I consider to be part one. In that post I gave my reconciliation of sovereignty and free will, a subject I may revisit to expand soon. But this morning I engaged in my second piece of what I consider "homegrown" theology, that is, that I have developed an idea independent of reading other men to establish a significant theological concept. Of note, this is probably wrong, and likely heretical, as is my reconcilation of sovereignty and responsibility. However, I'm going to keep theologicizing. (A homegrown word? I think so!)

A few weeks ago I read a verse that sent me into a theological tizzy. This is a very scary, albeit not too rare occurance. Well here is what got my started. (All verses are NKJV.)

John 9:41 "41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains."

And I thought, what in the world does it mean to have no sin. I connected this (or actually it may have been Dash that connected it, I don't remember) to Romans 5:13-14

"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 those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."

These verses illustrate the same concept, that those who do not have access to the law (spiritual blindness) do not have sin imputed to them.

But Romans 3 states clearly that all men are sinners.

So what am I to do?

That night, at VFC two weeks ago, talking to Plew, the best explanation we could come up with is that John 9:41 must be constrained to the context of verse 39, which says:

"39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”

So the talk of the blind in verse 41 is refferring not to people without sin but that could be without sin, because of why Christ had come. This did not explain Romans 5, and it was suggested that perhaps Paul is quoting an opposing argument. I wasn't too sure about this part, but the interpretation of John 9 seemed good.

Ok, moving forward. This morning I was in John 15 in my Qtime and I hit verses 22-24.

22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father.

This caused me to wonder. The explanation for the same statement in John 9 doesn't seem to hold here. They would have had no sin had Jesus not come and taught them. I then thought of a specific passage in Romans 3, namely verses 19-20

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Notice, the knowledge of sin is from the law, and the law says things only to those who are under the law. However, all the world is guilty. What makes them guilty?

This issue is talked about in two other places in Romans. First Romans 2:12-13

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified

And again Romans 7:7-12 (only partially quoted here)

8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

Ok, so I have quoted a whole bunch of scripture. Here are two things we can say.

1. Sin is not imputed, or counted outside of the law. This is what those two passages in John say, this is Romans 5, and it is clear in Romans 2, 3 & 7 that sin is of a different nature without the law.

2. Those who don't have the law still die. Romans 5 makes this clear. It is also insinuated in the Romans 2 &3 passages.

3. Obedience to the law is required for salvation. Romans 2 says this, Romans 3 does, it is also elsewhere in scripture.

So now we have a question, what does it mean not to have sin imputed? They still die.

This prompts another question, "Is all condemnation equal?" This answer may be a surprise, but I believe the biblical answer is no. This is Luke 10:11-12

11 ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’ 12 But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city.

If it can be more tolerable there must be a difference in condemnation. There are other passages that point to this, I even quoted some this morning, but I honestly can't remember. But, we are aware that God issues rewards in heaven. Should we then assume that hell is a flat scale?

Also, I am led to another conclusion. Righteousness must not consist merely in an abscense of sin, or these we are discussing would be saved. Rather it must be a positive odebience to the law. Perfectly obeying its commandments or following the manner described in Romans 2:15 for those not under the law. Both are impossible, and that is why we need the positive righteousness of Christ in addition to a mere cleansing of our sin.

I hope that makes sense. The other possible explanation I see for these verses is that they are presenting a hypothetical situation that is never true. I don't think that this is likely because it is mentioned too much. People who are not under the law or not under teaching having no guilt would not be continually referenced if they did not exist.

So, that's my take on it. Am I a heretic? This is homegrown theology, please judge this for yourselves. I am no authority, and am wrong quite often.

-Paul