BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Eschatology => Topic started by: col on October 26, 2021, 05:55:48 AM
-
Now just who are they?
Dan 11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
Dan 11:41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
Dan 11:42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
Dan 11:43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
Dan 11:44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
Dan 11:45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
Col
-
Seleucid was the king of the North.
Ptolemy was the king of the South.
Two generals of the 4 that divided Alexander the Great's empire when he "died suddenly but not in battle."
Pretty amazing prophesy, fulfilled in real time years after Daniel prophesied.
-
Seleucid was the king of the North.
Ptolemy was the king of the South.
Two generals of the 4 that divided Alexander the Great's empire when he "died suddenly but not in battle."
Pretty amazing prophesy, fulfilled in real time years after Daniel prophesied.
I'm assuming that you're Jewish (by ethnic inheritance), since you use the name "rabbi?" If so, it must concern you that the Jewish leaders in the past determined to exclude Daniel from the Prophets?
I'm hardly antiSemitic, but I do find evidence that the Jewish leadership at times turned away from the truth, and indicated that in their theology and determinations. On the other hand, I do agree with you that Daniel's prophecies are amazing.
It's for this reason that liberal Christians are unable to view Daniel as a real person in the time before these things were fulfilled. Daniel not only saw the breakup of Alexander's Empire into 4 parts, including Syria and Egypt, but he also foresaw the capricious role Antiochus 4 would play, to be followed by the the 4th Beast, Rome.
-
Perhaps people are not aware of this verse--
Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
Also--
Isa 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
Isa 19:2 And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.
Isa 19:3 And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.
Isa 19:4 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts.
It looks to me that the King of the south will be overrun by the King of the North--
Joe 2:2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
Joe 2:3 A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.
Joe 2:4 The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.
Joe 2:5 Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.
Joe 2:6 Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.
as per-Rev 9:13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
Rev 9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
Rev 9:15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
Rev 9:16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.
Rev 9:17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
Rev 9:18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
Rev 9:19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.
Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
Rev 9:21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
Looks like the enddays king of the south extends all the way to the USA and friends--
Rev 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
Rev 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Rev 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Col
-
Seleucid was the king of the North.
Ptolemy was the king of the South.
Two generals of the 4 that divided Alexander the Great's empire when he "died suddenly but not in battle."
Pretty amazing prophesy, fulfilled in real time years after Daniel prophesied.
I'm assuming that you're Jewish (by ethnic inheritance), since you use the name "rabbi?" If so, it must concern you that the Jewish leaders in the past determined to exclude Daniel from the Prophets?
I'm hardly antiSemitic, but I do find evidence that the Jewish leadership at times turned away from the truth, and indicated that in their theology and determinations. On the other hand, I do agree with you that Daniel's prophecies are amazing.
It's for this reason that liberal Christians are unable to view Daniel as a real person in the time before these things were fulfilled. Daniel not only saw the breakup of Alexander's Empire into 4 parts, including Syria and Egypt, but he also foresaw the capricious role Antiochus 4 would play, to be followed by the the 4th Beast, Rome.
Ummm, no, I'm not Jewish.
-
Perhaps people are not aware of this verse--
Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
Also--
Isa 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
Isa 19:2 And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.
Isa 19:3 And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.
Isa 19:4 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts.
It looks to me that the King of the south will be overrun by the King of the North--
Joe 2:2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
Joe 2:3 A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.
Joe 2:4 The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.
Joe 2:5 Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.
Joe 2:6 Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.
as per-Rev 9:13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
Rev 9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
Rev 9:15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
Rev 9:16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.
Rev 9:17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
Rev 9:18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
Rev 9:19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.
Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
Rev 9:21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
Looks like the enddays king of the south extends all the way to the USA and friends--
Rev 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
Rev 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Rev 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Col
Hate to disappoint you, but the USA is not any where in Scripture.
-
Seleucid was the king of the North.
Ptolemy was the king of the South.
Two generals of the 4 that divided Alexander the Great's empire when he "died suddenly but not in battle."
Pretty amazing prophesy, fulfilled in real time years after Daniel prophesied.
I'm assuming that you're Jewish (by ethnic inheritance), since you use the name "rabbi?" If so, it must concern you that the Jewish leaders in the past determined to exclude Daniel from the Prophets?
I'm hardly antiSemitic, but I do find evidence that the Jewish leadership at times turned away from the truth, and indicated that in their theology and determinations. On the other hand, I do agree with you that Daniel's prophecies are amazing.
It's for this reason that liberal Christians are unable to view Daniel as a real person in the time before these things were fulfilled. Daniel not only saw the breakup of Alexander's Empire into 4 parts, including Syria and Egypt, but he also foresaw the capricious role Antiochus 4 would play, to be followed by the the 4th Beast, Rome.
Ummm, no, I'm not Jewish.
It's a bit misleading to use the title "rabbi," don't you think? Curious--why rabbi-knife? Don't mean to be critical--lots of liberty in Christ. ;)
-
Why the screen name police? Why the initial assumption that a brother in Christ (or sister in Christ) is being intentionally misleading? Do you often assume the worst possible explanation about people you don't know? I see that trend a lot, unfortunately.
The term "RabbiKnife" is the perfect appellation if you know anything about me, which you don't, which I also don't feel the need to explain to the interwebz.
It is a takeoff on a childhood nickname, actually.
But, oy vey! The assumptions, nu?
Where is my old pal Fenris when I need backup?
-
Perhaps people are not aware of this verse--
Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
Also--
Isa 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
Isa 19:2 And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.
Isa 19:3 And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.
Isa 19:4 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts.
It looks to me that the King of the south will be overrun by the King of the North--
Joe 2:2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
Joe 2:3 A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.
Joe 2:4 The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.
Joe 2:5 Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.
Joe 2:6 Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.
as per-Rev 9:13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
Rev 9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
Rev 9:15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
Rev 9:16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.
Rev 9:17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
Rev 9:18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
Rev 9:19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.
Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
Rev 9:21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
Looks like the enddays king of the south extends all the way to the USA and friends--
Rev 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
Rev 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Rev 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Col
Hate to disappoint you, but the USA is not any where in Scripture.
No??
Rev 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
Rev 18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
Rev 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
-
Why the screen name police? Why the initial assumption that a brother in Christ (or sister in Christ) is being intentionally misleading? Do you often assume the worst possible explanation about people you don't know? I see that trend a lot, unfortunately.
The term "RabbiKnife" is the perfect appellation if you know anything about me, which you don't, which I also don't feel the need to explain to the interwebz.
It is a takeoff on a childhood nickname, actually.
But, oy vey! The assumptions, nu?
Where is my old pal Fenris when I need backup?
Thanks for the explanation...I think.
-
It always made me think of a rabbit knife for some weird reason.
-
It's a bit misleading to use the title "rabbi," don't you think? Curious--why rabbi-knife? Don't mean to be critical--lots of liberty in Christ. ;)
Bored? It's no more misleading than my calling myself Athanasius.
-
It's a bit misleading to use the title "rabbi," don't you think? Curious--why rabbi-knife? Don't mean to be critical--lots of liberty in Christ. ;)
Bored? It's no more misleading than my calling myself Athanasius.
I honestly thought the brother was Jewish for quite a while because he had used a Jewish title. I granted him the "Christian liberty" to use that title, even if it did confuse me. I'm not interested in any more conversation about this because it's bad spirited.
-
I honestly thought the brother was Jewish for quite a while because he had used a Jewish title. I granted him the "Christian liberty" to use that title, even if it did confuse me. I'm not interested in any more conversation about this because it's bad spirited.
It's cool, it's cool. I get that. People sometimes confuse me for a woman, or for being 1600 or so years old.
-
I honestly thought the brother was Jewish for quite a while because he had used a Jewish title. I granted him the "Christian liberty" to use that title, even if it did confuse me. I'm not interested in any more conversation about this because it's bad spirited.
It's cool, it's cool. I get that. People sometimes confuse me for a woman, or for being 1600 or so years old.
I don't get that easily confused! ;) lol!
-
I honestly thought the brother was Jewish for quite a while because he had used a Jewish title. I granted him the "Christian liberty" to use that title, even if it did confuse me. I'm not interested in any more conversation about this because it's bad spirited.
It's cool, it's cool. I get that. People sometimes confuse me for a woman, or for being 1600 or so years old.
I don't get that easily confused! ;) lol!
You haven't heard me on the phone. ;)
-
I honestly thought the brother was Jewish for quite a while because he had used a Jewish title. I granted him the "Christian liberty" to use that title, even if it did confuse me. I'm not interested in any more conversation about this because it's bad spirited.
It's cool, it's cool. I get that. People sometimes confuse me for a woman, or for being 1600 or so years old.
I don't get that easily confused! ;) lol!
You haven't heard me on the phone. ;)
You must be the same Athanasius I debated with about the Trinity? If so, yes, I may confuse you with someone else. ;)
-
I honestly thought the brother was Jewish for quite a while because he had used a Jewish title. I granted him the "Christian liberty" to use that title, even if it did confuse me. I'm not interested in any more conversation about this because it's bad spirited.
It's cool, it's cool. I get that. People sometimes confuse me for a woman, or for being 1600 or so years old.
I don't get that easily confused! ;) lol!
You haven't heard me on the phone. ;)
You must be the same Athanasius I debated with about the Trinity? If so, yes, I may confuse you with someone else. ;)
Arius, is that you, after all this time? Maximus and I were just talking about you, although to be fair, Maximus doesn't say much these days.
(But for real, I don't recall if we debated the trinity on any particular forum. BF banned me ages ago for knowing Christian theology, so if it was there that was probably too long ago.)
-
I honestly thought the brother was Jewish for quite a while because he had used a Jewish title. I granted him the "Christian liberty" to use that title, even if it did confuse me. I'm not interested in any more conversation about this because it's bad spirited.
It's cool, it's cool. I get that. People sometimes confuse me for a woman, or for being 1600 or so years old.
I don't get that easily confused! ;) lol!
You haven't heard me on the phone. ;)
You must be the same Athanasius I debated with about the Trinity? If so, yes, I may confuse you with someone else. ;)
Arius, is that you, after all this time? Maximus and I were just talking about you, although to be fair, Maximus doesn't say much these days.
(But for real, I don't recall if we debated the trinity on any particular forum. BF banned me ages ago for knowing Christian theology, so if it was there that was probably too long ago.)
We weren't discussing Arianism, but rather, the heterodoxy of my belief in the finite character of God's word. I have long believed that God's word originates from an infinite source in God but appears within creation in finite form. God's word, to be understood by Man, must appear in finite form. This may have appeared to you as "unorthodox." Or at least, the Church Fathers would've denied that God's word was, in any way, "finite?"
If BF banned you I find that sad. Losing you would "dumb down" the forum, in my view. I don't know that you said anything worthy of being banned.
I was put on "coffee break" a couple of times, but simply moved forward. The guy who silenced me for appearing "anti-Semitic" himself quit as a moderator. I certainly did no such thing!
And another guy who silenced me for doing and saying something I didn't do just ignored my complaint. He accused me of violating a prohibition on discussing the annihilation of the wicked, relegating my comments to the "controversial" section.
I had simply been discussing the nature of the eternal punishment of the wicked, which I don't believe consists of "burning human flesh." I believe the eternal punishment of the wicked consists of being *separated* from the close, intimate presence of God, allowing for both "many stripes" and "few stripes."
It's an imperfect world. If we want to adjudicate every issue, we'd never get anything said or done. You think? Nice to hear from someone above some of these trivial matters of attitude. If I myself appear petty in bringing all of this forward, I apologize to all concerned.
-
We weren't discussing Arianism, but rather, the heterodoxy of my belief in the finite character of God's word. I have long believed that God's word originates from an infinite source in God but appears within creation in finite form. God's word, to be understood by Man, must appear in finite form. This may have appeared to you as "unorthodox." Or at least, the Church Fathers would've denied that God's word was, in any way, "finite?"
Ah, that must have been someone else, then. From the sounds of it, I probably wouldn't use 'infinite' or 'finite' as it's being used here. 'Sufficient' or something along those lines would be more likely, but whoever it was tarnishing the name 'Athanasius' -- tsk tsk. Hmm.
If BF banned you I find that sad. Losing you would "dumb down" the forum, in my view. I don't know that you said anything worthy of being banned.
I was kicked off the mod team and coffee'd - if I recall correctly - for a while after they banned apothanein_kerdos and found out that I told him and Markedward about what had gone down behind the scenes. I was then banned some more after going against PP, Jennifer, and all the prophetic nonsense that happened. I was banned some more after viciously arguing with episkopos. For good measure I was coffee'd and banned some more for being a meany to amazzin and refusing to play by TheRookie's idea of reality. And then I was banned some more for some reason I don't quite remember, within the last year or so, which I think was again related to episkopos or some nonsense. The ban prior to that was a looonnngggg one where I more or less told the leadership team where to shove their faux Christlike attitudes. Or at least, some of them. I don't think I ever said a bad thing about Slug, and I don't just say that because he's here. ELT over there changed substantially and for the worst, and I'm convinced that there was a cult-like attitude at the top that brought things down. Was it David Taylor who said something to that effect? Hmm.
I'm pretty sure the most recent ban, prior to their prophesied self-destruction, had to do with having too much fun with my replies. And like, I don't even drink coffee. Also, I wasn't allowed to post in the 'women at the well' which was totally lame. Biology is so inconvenient.
(Were they still doing points-based post warnings? I had a few that I wore with pride, from Brother Mark and some others.)
Oh, and when Ikester referred to me as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" following my refusal to rule out God's potential use of 'evolutionary processes'. That was the highlight of my time over here. He'd be all over thinking how right he was if he knew about me now. I wonder how often he argued with itinerant :thinking:
I had simply been discussing the nature of the eternal punishment of the wicked, which I don't believe consists of "burning human flesh." I believe the eternal punishment of the wicked consists of being *separated* from the close, intimate presence of God, allowing for both "many stripes" and "few stripes."
Hell as separation is the view I tend to take, myself, although I also add in things like, "the agony of knowing you aren't as you know you ought to be, knowing you had the chance, and never being able to be as you ought to be". A kind of dysphoria that drives one to insanity. I'm not sure that Lewis was wrong, either, in his view that hell was such that after enough time had passed, those in hell ceased to be human.
I guess that latter view would get Controversialised.
-
From what I hear from you, I would *never* ban you. But then again, I started many years ago with alt.messianic in Usenet on an unmoderated forum. I did that for about 10 years and 10,000+ posts. ;) You have my vote for "most interesting poster!" ;)
I truly hope, now that I've gone out on a limb, that you are fully orthodox in your doctrine! Creative, free thinking is sorely needed, however.
randy
-
From what I hear from you, I would *never* ban you. But then again, I started many years ago with alt.messianic in Usenet on an unmoderated forum. I did that for about 10 years and 10,000+ posts. ;) You have my vote for "most interesting poster!" ;)
I truly hope, now that I've gone out on a limb, that you are fully orthodox in your doctrine! Creative, free thinking is sorely needed, however.
randy
I have my quirks around one or two things, but I'm about as doctrinally orthodox as they come. Those one or two things aren't necessarily insignificant :S
-
What are those "one or two things?" I'm just curious! ;)
-
What are those "one or two things?" I'm just curious! ;)
I think Augustine was sorely mistaken in his reading of Romans and particular doctrinal formulation of the transmission of original sin as ontologically impacting on human nature. Meaning, I don't view the sin of Adam and Eve as corrupting human nature. Rather, we possess exactly the same nature God created humanity with, but just as they were able to sin in God's presence, we sin all the more in our state of separation from God in what still seems to be 'the wilderness'.
I also think we're morally imperfect, and that avoids any of the usual Pelagian/semi-Pelegian accusations that without ontic corruption a human could live a perfect life and 'earn' salvation. Either way, this makes me a bad Calvinist.
The other thing doesn't concern a historical theological position, and maybe I'll say more on that some other time.
-
I think Augustine was sorely mistaken in his reading of Romans and particular doctrinal formulation of the transmission of original sin as ontologically impacting on human nature. Meaning, I don't view the sin of Adam and Eve as corrupting human nature. Rather, we possess exactly the same nature God created humanity with, but just as they were able to sin in God's presence, we sin all the more in our state of separation from God in what still seems to be 'the wilderness'.
I'm not sure I'm clear on that, but thanks for answering. I personally believe we have the same human nature we were created with. But I believe both our physical and our spiritual "DNA" were impacted. We have an inclination towards evil, which simply refers to wanting to do something apart from doing it with God. We want to go our own way, and disregard God's word that created us and directs us. Even after accepting Christ into our lives, we continue to feel propelled towards things we lust after, or covet for ourselves.
I'm not clear how, if we are sinless in our human nature, we are still "out in the wilderness?" I'm sure I don't follow you, but it certainly has me curious.
I also think we're morally imperfect, and that avoids any of the usual Pelagian/semi-Pelegian accusations that without ontic corruption a human could live a perfect life and 'earn' salvation. Either way, this makes me a bad Calvinist.
Are you saying we're "morally imperfect" not by human nature, nor by a sin nature, but only because over time, we're bound to fail at least once? The danger of Pelagianism is that it voids the necessity that we always walk in concert with the Spirit of God. It involves human works uninspired by Christ. To walk in moral perfection is to walk constantly in the word of God, and Pelagians/Semi-Pelagians, as much as they are right that Mankind can do good, do not acknowledge the problem of a constant transition, back and forth, between acting by conscience and acting by selfish will.
The other thing doesn't concern a historical theological position, and maybe I'll say more on that some other time.
I enjoy creative descriptions, but I can't say I follow yours. But thanks for trying.
-
I'm not sure I'm clear on that, but thanks for answering. I personally believe we have the same human nature we were created with. But I believe both our physical and our spiritual "DNA" were impacted. We have an inclination towards evil, which simply refers to wanting to do something apart from doing it with God. We want to go our own way, and disregard God's word that created us and directs us. Even after accepting Christ into our lives, we continue to feel propelled towards things we lust after, or covet for ourselves.
Yes, I think we were created this way yet God still called us good. To be clear, I don't think we were created with the propensity to disobey God over/against a propensity to obey God, but that there had to be the possibility for disobedience for there to be the genuine possibility of obedience such that the latter could be meaningly held in distinction to the former. That is, my choosing obedience or disobedience relative to the other isn't an arbitrary act of will, but either a failure to engage with myself or the picking up of my cross, as it were, in a considered and conscious decision to obey.
I'm not clear how, if we are sinless in our human nature, we are still "out in the wilderness?" I'm sure I don't follow you, but it certainly has me curious.
I wouldn't apply moral categories to human nature specifically in either case. I wouldn't call human nature 'good' and I wouldn't call human nature 'sinful' or 'sinless'. Human nature is just human nature, and the whole human as described by God in Genesis is 'good'. Either way, we're in the wilderness by virtue of the fact that we aren't in the Garden as a consequence of Adam and Eve getting themselves, and every human that followed, kicked out.
I don't think we're born in a pristine, sinless state that might imply perfection or deserving. We're born, like Adam and Eve, as moral agents who have yet to actualise a possibility, and it's only until that possibility is actualised that we can then talk about a person being righteous or sinful. Of course, the possibility that everyone actualises save Jesus is that of sinful disobedience, and the very fact that this is possible speaks to our - God created - imperfection, rather than our perfection in some ontological sense as most people mean it. (That is, Adam and Eve were perfect in that they were exactly as God intended them to be, not that they had perfect qualities).
I also don't see, in Scripture, the suggestion that humanity was ontologically corrupted by sin as a consequence of the fall. This of course means that I have no recourse to, "it's in my nature" when I sin in this or that way. When I sin, I am wholly responsible and was genuinely free to do the opposite.
Are you saying we're "morally imperfect" not by human nature, nor by a sin nature, but only because over time, we're bound to fail at least once?
You could use 'human nature' here if you wanted, but my view primarily is that because we have the capacity to sin, we're morally imperfect. A morally perfect being wouldn't have the capacity to sin. So, it's not that we're "bound to fail", it's more that we aren't yet who and what we should be. There's a reason we'll receive glorified bodies, after all. I've got hopes for mine :fingers-crossed:.
The danger of Pelagianism is that it voids the necessity that we always walk in concert with the Spirit of God. It involves human works uninspired by Christ. To walk in moral perfection is to walk constantly in the word of God, and Pelagians/Semi-Pelagians, as much as they are right that Mankind can do good, do not acknowledge the problem of a constant transition, back and forth, between acting by conscience and acting by selfish will.
I strongly doubt even Pelagius himself would have suggested that a person could walk in righteousness uninspired by Christ and/or inconsonant with the Spirit of God. Humans were created to be in relationship with each other, and with God. As I mentioned earlier, separation from God is nothing inconsequential.
I enjoy creative descriptions, but I can't say I follow yours. But thanks for trying.
That's how it goes sometimes. :) The second thing is far more polarising, but I wouldn't want to distract from the above at this point anyway.
-
I appreciate the explanation, which I do find interesting and thoughtful. I won't engage in a criticism of your view to any great extent, since you're just offering what I asked from you. I appreciate your being free with your ideas.
I might suggest, just in passing, that your sense of a fixed human nature, seemingly denying a Sin Nature, is based on the assumption that a perfect being cannot sin. Man, in his original creation, cannot lose who he essentially is, simply because he made a mistake.
But I find that Man, in his perfection, did precisely that--went from being a perfect being to being a sinful being. Sin, for me, is a tarnishing of our original being, primarily spiritual, but with physical effects. It is placing ourselves outside of the scope of perfect alignment with God's word, which is where we remain to this day--even with redemption!
And so, in sinning, Man became a different being than he was originally created to be, tending to want things outside of the scope of God's word, and then passing that down through the generations to all others, who inherit this fallen spiritual inheritance. He did not stop being who he was, but he did become something different.
Just my view. At the same time, I do find it important to state what you seem to be stating, that we do not forfeit essential elements that Man was originally created with. We do not lose our ability to do good.
There is a difference between saying the good we do qualifies as an eternal work, and saying that the good we do has no value. All men can do good works of value for God and for themselves.
Obtaining eternal value for our good works is, however, a different thing, and has to do with embracing not just God's works but more, God Himself. Your sense of Man's continuing freedom to do good is, I feel, the most important part of your view, if I understand you correctly?
I have a similar burden, having spent a lifetime around people who believe in the Total Depravity of Man. I might sign onto this with reservations, because I do think that even if we cannot do good and earn salvation we can all certainly do good.
Thanks again!
-
I appreciate the explanation, which I do find interesting and thoughtful. I won't engage in a criticism of your view to any great extent, since you're just offering what I asked from you. I appreciate your being free with your ideas.
If you're up for it, feel free to criticise away.
I might suggest, just in passing, that your sense of a fixed human nature, seemingly denying a Sin Nature, is based on the assumption that a perfect being cannot sin. Man, in his original creation, cannot lose who he essentially is, simply because he made a mistake.
A perfect being cannot sin by definition, or else the being in question would not be perfect by virtue of the fact that sin is a defect. God (the Father), for example, cannot sin, or else, by definition, we are not talking about God.
But I find that Man, in his perfection, did precisely that--went from being a perfect being to being a sinful being. Sin, for me, is a tarnishing of our original being, primarily spiritual, but with physical effects. It is placing ourselves outside of the scope of perfect alignment with God's word, which is where we remain to this day--even with redemption!
Scripture doesn't suggest that sin was ontologically tarnishing in this sense of an original sin corrupting human nature, so I think the task there is to demonstrate where this idea can be found in Scripture. It can certainly be found in Augustine and many Christian theological traditions since Augustine, but I also think this is one of those areas where an accepted teaching is accepted because to question it is to be accused of heterodoxy or worse. Original sin as a corrupting force is as accepted as Trinitarianism is, but just like Trinititarianism, I doubt most people could go into detail about what is meant by, and what the implications of original sin are.
I'm not saying, by the way, that sin is incapable of orienting our being should we consistently engage in sin. But that's not so different from pointing out that our actions affect ourselves, and brain plasticity is interesting. The life we lead, and all that.
And so, in sinning, Man became a different being than he was originally created to be, tending to want things outside of the scope of God's word, and then passing that down through the generations to all others, who inherit this fallen spiritual inheritance. He did not stop being who he was, but he did become something different.
Which I take to be circumstantial, like the curses in Genesis 3, rather than ontological.
Just my view. At the same time, I do find it important to state what you seem to be stating, that we do not forfeit essential elements that Man was originally created with. We do not lose our ability to do good.
There is a difference between saying the good we do qualifies as an eternal work, and saying that the good we do has no value. All men can do good works of value for God and for themselves.
Obtaining eternal value for our good works is, however, a different thing, and has to do with embracing not just God's works but more, God Himself. Your sense of Man's continuing freedom to do good is, I feel, the most important part of your view, if I understand you correctly?
Yes, if I get what you're saying.
I have a similar burden, having spent a lifetime around people who believe in the Total Depravity of Man. I might sign onto this with reservations, because I do think that even if we cannot do good and earn salvation we can all certainly do good.
Thanks again!
I'm not sure I've met someone who thinks total depravity means that humanity is utterly depraved and unable to do otherwise good things. Interesting. It sounds like the something that belongs to the sort of people who'd throw Romans 1 at me
-
I might suggest, just in passing, that your sense of a fixed human nature, seemingly denying a Sin Nature, is based on the assumption that a perfect being cannot sin. Man, in his original creation, cannot lose who he essentially is, simply because he made a mistake.
A perfect being cannot sin by definition, or else the being in question would not be perfect by virtue of the fact that sin is a defect. God (the Father), for example, cannot sin, or else, by definition, we are not talking about God.
Yes, I saw where you were going with that. It's like a truism--a perfect Man cannot be anything but a perfect Man--otherwise, he ceases to be a Man. However, I see a Man that sins as a "flawed Man," who has become something different. He remains a Man, but now an "imperfect Man." The sin nature now embedded in him taints his heart, his will, his desires. He tends towards rebellion against God's word.
I speak from experience. I always have to fight against the propensity to do my own thing. I have pride, and resist someone telling me to do things their way. That's why I get into arguments with my wife--we both want our own way! ;)
Scripture doesn't suggest that sin was ontologically tarnishing in this sense of an original sin corrupting human nature, so I think the task there is to demonstrate where this idea can be found in Scripture. It can certainly be found in Augustine and many Christian theological traditions since Augustine, but I also think this is one of those areas where an accepted teaching is accepted because to question it is to be accused of heterodoxy or worse. Original sin as a corrupting force is as accepted as Trinitarianism is, but just like Trinititarianism, I doubt most people could go into detail about what is meant by, and what the implications of original sin are.
All true. I, however, don't think much about rehashing formulas unless that actually make sense to me and prove true in my own experience. Historically, Scholasticism became dead wood in the late Middle Ages. And in the Protestant World, each Protestant group seemed to have to come up with a creed of their own. We should be able to agree on some essentials, but there's always going to be something added.
I've worked out my own understanding of the Trinity, and I've tried to work out my beliefs on virtually all of the important theological issues. I hold to "Imperfect Man" simply because it's true to life for me. Man has not lost what makes him "Man." But he doesn't have to be "Perfect Man" to be "Man," in my view. There does seem to be something that poisoned his spirit, rendering him oriented towards rebellion, and yet capable of rectifying this to some degree.
I'm not sure the Bible describes anything more than the fact that Man is indeed flawed. And Israel's worship under the Law required all men to be covered by sacrifices and blood, regardless of what good or bad they had done. This was, I think, an assumption of a flawed *Nature.*
I have a similar burden, having spent a lifetime around people who believe in the Total Depravity of Man. I might sign onto this with reservations, because I do think that even if we cannot do good and earn salvation we can all certainly do good.
I'm not sure I've met someone who thinks total depravity means that humanity is utterly depraved and unable to do otherwise good things. Interesting. It sounds like the something that belongs to the sort of people who'd throw Romans 1 at me
Yes, I knew you'd see it that way. But it requires more explanation. I'm not a card-carrying "tulip" person. ;) I believe in "Total Depravity" only in the sense that we have a Sin Nature and cannot avoid sinning. This is something that can be mitigated, but not completely fixed without a New Creation, ie the resurrection.
But I do *not* believe in Total Depravity in the Calvinist sense that people cannot even seek God or seek to do good without corrupt motives. I don't believe people have to be regenerated as Christians to want to do good or to seek to be saved.
Luther actually believed in a form of Predestination in which a person *cannot* pursue God apart from God's grace. In a sense that goes without saying. Everything we do requires God's grace.
But that isn't the way Luther meant it. He meant that we cannot as unbelievers seek Christian salvation apart from God's preemptive revelation and goading. We need to be convicted and pressed, even against our carnal wishes.
Some of this is like hair-splitting because yes, Christ is involved in *everything we do!* But non-Christians can indeed pursue Christian salvation, and do so. And non-Christians do pursue unselfish good deeds without having to be Christians. That is the point I wish to make here.
-
Yes, I saw where you were going with that. It's like a truism--a perfect Man cannot be anything but a perfect Man--otherwise, he ceases to be a Man. However, I see a Man that sins as a "flawed Man," who has become something different. He remains a Man, but now an "imperfect Man." The sin nature now embedded in him taints his heart, his will, his desires. He tends towards rebellion against God's word.
I speak from experience. I always have to fight against the propensity to do my own thing. I have pride, and resist someone telling me to do things their way. That's why I get into arguments with my wife--we both want our own way! ;)
I'm saying that humanity wasn't created with qualitative perfection. You have your idea of a "flawed Man", where I offer a humanity that exists outside of the relationships we were intended to exist within, and this has had a supremely disordering effect in no small part because it's removed us from the very things that act to ground our existence. So, there is still no 'sin nature' as some ontic reality as the result of the fall. Nor is there a need for one to explain the sin, evil and depravity of humanity. Adam and Eve presumably had no such nature prior to their first sin - or at least, they weren't corrupted by - yet they sinned all the same.
It's an ordering and explanatory issue:
- Adam and Eve sin
- Human nature is corrupted
But Adam and Eve sinned. I think what we've received in Augustine is this idea that the whole of humanity was re-oriented as a result of Adam and Eve's sin, and this idea requires the transmission of a sin nature (through sex, of course, which Augustine ruined for a great many people). But it doesn't explain the first sin, and the hesitancy of Augustine to suggest anything else wasn't entirely divorced from his going against Pelagius.
All true. I, however, don't think much about rehashing formulas unless that actually make sense to me and prove true in my own experience. Historically, Scholasticism became dead wood in the late Middle Ages. And in the Protestant World, each Protestant group seemed to have to come up with a creed of their own. We should be able to agree on some essentials, but there's always going to be something added.
I've worked out my own understanding of the Trinity, and I've tried to work out my beliefs on virtually all of the important theological issues. I hold to "Imperfect Man" simply because it's true to life for me. Man has not lost what makes him "Man." But he doesn't have to be "Perfect Man" to be "Man," in my view. There does seem to be something that poisoned his spirit, rendering him oriented towards rebellion, and yet capable of rectifying this to some degree.
I'm not sure the Bible describes anything more than the fact that Man is indeed flawed. And Israel's worship under the Law required all men to be covered by sacrifices and blood, regardless of what good or bad they had done. This was, I think, an assumption of a flawed *Nature.*
I think we're all informed by our experience. But, I'm saying that humanity is imperfect by virtue of our creation and not because of corruption so that last bit would fit within that.
What are your thoughts, then, on Adam and Eve's sin prior to the fall?
-
I think the idea of "perfection," i.e., sinless perfection, which certainly wasn't the result for A&E, is simply not found in Scripture. The idea of a "perfect" creation goes beyond the text. God called man... and all of creation... "good," not "perfect." "Perfection," as the term is used in description of or in contract with Augustinian "sin nature," implies a qualitative difference.
Were Adam and Eve cursed because of their sin? Absolutely, but nothing in that text says that, "oh, and by the way, you are now ontologically different that you were before your sin, and oh, even more by the way, your children will be different ontologically than you were 14 minutes ago."
Adam and Eve had the ability to sin. They did sin. We don't believe that babies sin, yet some claim that babies are "sinners", then we make up exceptions to "all sinners need salvation" by our semantics of "special grace" or "age of accountability" or "babies are safe, but not saved."
All of that theological kibuki theatre is unnecessary unless we promote the doctrine of original sin.
I'm not a proponent of sinless perfection at all. I have myself as by prime example. I'm all grace, all the time, only, period, end of discussion.
But I don't think we have to create a new class of human to get to that point.
And let's please not discuss Enoch.
:)
-
Yes, I saw where you were going with that. It's like a truism--a perfect Man cannot be anything but a perfect Man--otherwise, he ceases to be a Man. However, I see a Man that sins as a "flawed Man," who has become something different. He remains a Man, but now an "imperfect Man." The sin nature now embedded in him taints his heart, his will, his desires. He tends towards rebellion against God's word.
I speak from experience. I always have to fight against the propensity to do my own thing. I have pride, and resist someone telling me to do things their way. That's why I get into arguments with my wife--we both want our own way! ;)
I'm saying that humanity wasn't created with qualitative perfection. You have your idea of a "flawed Man", where I offer a humanity that exists outside of the relationships we were intended to exist within, and this has had a supremely disordering effect in no small part because it's removed us from the very things that act to ground our existence. So, there is still no 'sin nature' as some ontic reality as the result of the fall. Nor is there a need for one to explain the sin, evil and depravity of humanity. Adam and Eve presumably had no such nature prior to their first sin - or at least, they weren't corrupted by - yet they sinned all the same.
It's an ordering and explanatory issue:
- Adam and Eve sin
- Human nature is corrupted
But Adam and Eve sinned. I think what we've received in Augustine is this idea that the whole of humanity was re-oriented as a result of Adam and Eve's sin, and this idea requires the transmission of a sin nature (through sex, of course, which Augustine ruined for a great many people). But it doesn't explain the first sin, and the hesitancy of Augustine to suggest anything else wasn't entirely divorced from his going against Pelagius.
All true. I, however, don't think much about rehashing formulas unless that actually make sense to me and prove true in my own experience. Historically, Scholasticism became dead wood in the late Middle Ages. And in the Protestant World, each Protestant group seemed to have to come up with a creed of their own. We should be able to agree on some essentials, but there's always going to be something added.
I've worked out my own understanding of the Trinity, and I've tried to work out my beliefs on virtually all of the important theological issues. I hold to "Imperfect Man" simply because it's true to life for me. Man has not lost what makes him "Man." But he doesn't have to be "Perfect Man" to be "Man," in my view. There does seem to be something that poisoned his spirit, rendering him oriented towards rebellion, and yet capable of rectifying this to some degree.
I'm not sure the Bible describes anything more than the fact that Man is indeed flawed. And Israel's worship under the Law required all men to be covered by sacrifices and blood, regardless of what good or bad they had done. This was, I think, an assumption of a flawed *Nature.*
I think we're all informed by our experience. But, I'm saying that humanity is imperfect by virtue of our creation and not because of corruption so that last bit would fit within that.
What are your thoughts, then, on Adam and Eve's sin prior to the fall?
It's a great matter to consider! What kind of "perfection" did Adam and Eve enjoy before they took from the Tree of Life, which at any rate, they failed to take from?
My view is similar to yours only in the sense that they did not have *Christian perfection yet--you call it an "imperfect creation?" And by this, you mean not a sinful humanity, but one that remained, as yet, imperfect in performance?
Adam and Eve, in my view, did not yet have *eternal life,* because they had not yet taken from the Tree of Life. I would compare this to drinking a magic potent of a sort, in which a person is transformed spiritually, and not just by passing a test with 100%.
When Adam and Eve sinned, they chose to disbelieve God's word, and instead accepted Satan's lie, giving them what they desired and coveted--independence and self-autonomy. We were designed, I believe, to live in harmony with God's word, making our own decisions and yet making decisions only in consultation with God's Spirit and word.
So when Adam and Eve drank the cup of poison from Satan, they became what they lusted after, which was separation from God and His word. They were transformed spiritually.
I wouldn't at all call this a physical inheritance passed on through sex, though there are certainly physical consequences, including death. Rather, this is a spiritual inheritance passed on through sex. The sex passes on a *spiritual inheritance,* which is what sin is--a transformation to something spiritually degrading us from our original pristine state.
I agree that the original status of Man, therefore, was not perfection as in a spiritual transformation into immortality and sinlessness. Man was clearly capable of sinning, having been created in a temporal state of existence. This put them in the class of trying to become perfect on a scale of 100% performance. The real intention, however, was for Man to choose to eat from the Tree of Life, in my opinion. 100% performance merely kept them to the status quo until they made this decision.
But as I said, the Tree of Life indicated a need for a spiritual transformation, which could not be obtained by sustaining a 100% performance. Ultimately, Man would fail if he did not eat from the Tree of Life, because in rejecting that spiritual transformation he was choosing to remain in a place of indecision, being tempted by Satan.
I don't know if I'm adequately addressing our issues, but I'm trying. Part of the problem may be the words we're choosing to use to describe the conditions Man was in before the Fall and after the Fall.
-
I think the idea of "perfection," i.e., sinless perfection, which certainly wasn't the result for A&E, is simply not found in Scripture. The idea of a "perfect" creation goes beyond the text. God called man... and all of creation... "good," not "perfect." "Perfection," as the term is used in description of or in contract with Augustinian "sin nature," implies a qualitative difference.
Were Adam and Eve cursed because of their sin? Absolutely, but nothing in that text says that, "oh, and by the way, you are now ontologically different that you were before your sin, and oh, even more by the way, your children will be different ontologically than you were 14 minutes ago."
Adam and Eve had the ability to sin. They did sin. We don't believe that babies sin, yet some claim that babies are "sinners", then we make up exceptions to "all sinners need salvation" by our semantics of "special grace" or "age of accountability" or "babies are safe, but not saved."
All of that theological kibuki theatre is unnecessary unless we promote the doctrine of original sin.
I'm not a proponent of sinless perfection at all. I have myself as by prime example. I'm all grace, all the time, only, period, end of discussion.
But I don't think we have to create a new class of human to get to that point.
And let's please not discuss Enoch.
:)
Interesting set of statements! I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I would add my own thoughts to things we agree on. I agree that we're both sinful and in need of grace regularly! ;) And I think the Bible is less clear on the ontological state of Man both before the Fall and after the Fall.
In my view, it simply is referred to having been sinless and good, and afterwards, sinful and yet still created to be good. As I just told Athanasius, our brother, my sense of Adam and Eve before the Fall is as sinless, and yet perfect only in the sense of not having yet proven to be 100% on record sinless until a final decision is made about the Tree of Life.
In other words, before the Fall man is not yet perfect as in spiritually transformed, but only perfect in a temporal sense, not yet having made a decision, and still capable of making the wrong decision and batting less than a thousand.
Once, however, Man ate from the Tree of Knowledge, which was an act of rebellion, the spiritual condition of Man changed. He remained created good, and still could do good, but he could not undo his less than 100% record.
Even worse, he had obtained a spiritual existence that was poisonous, always tending to resist divine control over his life. So Man went from an unproven track record to a transformative spiritual experience, the opposite of which God intended him to do with respect to the Tree of Life.
If Man had chosen immediately to eat from the Tree of Life, he would've maintained his 100% track record, but more importantly, would've chosen the transformative spiritual experience that would've guaranteed his immortality, or "perfection." So Man's original condition was "perfect" only in a temporal sense, and not yet in a spiritual sense. And after the Fall, he lost his perfect track record, and no longer batted a thousand.
But God's grace extends to us a spiritual quality that now, through Christ, guarantees our ultimate perfection, spiritually, as well as endows us currently with a down payment on this spiritual inheritance. We are already made perfect in Christ, who in heaven stands in for us with his perfect track record, and continues to dispense to us his spiritual riches, despite our sinful condition and flawed track record. As Christians we've already "drunk from the cup of God's salvation," even though we remain in a state of having a fallen human nature.
-
It's a great matter to consider! What kind of "perfection" did Adam and Eve enjoy before they took from the Tree of Life, which at any rate, they failed to take from?
It seems to me, at the very least, that they enjoyed creation as God intended it to be.
My view is similar to yours only in the sense that they did not have *Christian perfection yet--you call it an "imperfect creation?" And by this, you mean not a sinful humanity, but one that remained, as yet, imperfect in performance?
By imperfect I mean, imperfect in quality. That is, pace Butler, I don't think perfection is performative. Oh wait, she was talking about something else entirely...
But yeah, I don't have in mind a 'perfect record', as it were. Nor do I think I want to go in that direction because what I think God is looking for is faithfulness, not a perfect track record, and if we go for the latter then I suspect we'll fail at the former.
Adam and Eve, in my view, did not yet have *eternal life,* because they had not yet taken from the Tree of Life. I would compare this to drinking a magic potent of a sort, in which a person is transformed spiritually, and not just by passing a test with 100%.
When Adam and Eve sinned, they chose to disbelieve God's word, and instead accepted Satan's lie, giving them what they desired and coveted--independence and self-autonomy. We were designed, I believe, to live in harmony with God's word, making our own decisions and yet making decisions only in consultation with God's Spirit and word.
So when Adam and Eve drank the cup of poison from Satan, they became what they lusted after, which was separation from God and His word. They were transformed spiritually.
Okay, but how did Adam and Eve make this poor decision prior to being (spiritually?) transformed. There has to be a moment, be it ever so quick, where Adam and Eve chose to sin from a place of sinlessness, and if they can do that, then so can we, and an ontic corruption is not required.
I wouldn't at all call this a physical inheritance passed on through sex, though there are certainly physical consequences, including death. Rather, this is a spiritual inheritance passed on through sex. The sex passes on a *spiritual inheritance,* which is what sin is--a transformation to something spiritually degrading us from our original pristine state.
See, Augustine's ruined sex for everyone.
I think this view only really works well when we hold that the body and spirit are distinct parts of a person that can be separated, rather than as two parts of a person that are inseparable. But if a human is a synthesis of the finite and infinite, of the physical and the spiritual, then does the experience of her existence exist in the relation of these things relating? And if so, can it be said that a person properly exists as a person if she is one or the other, but not both? That is if she is half of the relation but not the full relation? Or rather, if there is no relation at all?
Or to jump out of Kierkegaard's brain for a minute: where does Scripture suggest that sex propagates sin nature spiritually but not physically? This was guesswork on Augustine's part, and I don't think anyone can do anything but guess, because Scripture doesn't tell us. How is a sin nature passed down? It's not, there's no need for it.
I agree that the original status of Man, therefore, was not perfection as in a spiritual transformation into immortality and sinlessness. Man was clearly capable of sinning, having been created in a temporal state of existence. This put them in the class of trying to become perfect on a scale of 100% performance. The real intention, however, was for Man to choose to eat from the Tree of Life, in my opinion. 100% performance merely kept them to the status quo until they made this decision.
As an aside, I don't think the tree of life was a tree with actual, eternal-life-granting fruit. It's an excellent literary device, much like the tree of knowledge, but I don't take them that concretely myself.
I don't know if I'm adequately addressing our issues, but I'm trying. Part of the problem may be the words we're choosing to use to describe the conditions Man was in before the Fall and after the Fall.
Indeed.
-
By imperfect I mean, imperfect in quality. That is, pace Butler, I don't think perfection is performative. Oh wait, she was talking about something else entirely...
But yeah, I don't have in mind a 'perfect record', as it were. Nor do I think I want to go in that direction because what I think God is looking for is faithfulness, not a perfect track record, and if we go for the latter then I suspect we'll fail at the former.
Yes, that was one of the points I wished to make. God was concerned with sin, but that was not His ultimate concern. His ultimate concern was getting done what His word had promised, the creation of men in His image. That wasn't going to be thwarted--not even by human sin and rebellion.
So God's big concern was the thing that guaranteed He would get what He wanted from Man. And the innocent state of Man before the Fall did not guarantee the performance of the thing from Man He wanted. The only thing that could guarantee that was eating from the Tree of Life.
Okay, but how did Adam and Eve make this poor decision prior to being (spiritually?) transformed. There has to be a moment, be it ever so quick, where Adam and Eve chose to sin from a place of sinlessness, and if they can do that, then so can we, and an ontic corruption is not required.
I see no need for a "quick decision." I do not assume, in advance, that a human state of innocence needs to sort of be primed and pumped in order to get out of a state of innocence.
Humans, in a state of innocence and sinlessness, are not "blank slates," but are nevertheless open to input from outside of their pristine environment. Anytime a devil walks in and tempts them, they can consider their options.
Adam and Eve simply chose not to believe the "warning label," maybe even more so having been in a somewhat "naïve" environment, with no reason to believe they would be deceived.
I talked with my wife today about this, and came to an interesting consideration. God never *commanded* Man to eat of the Tree of Life, but suggested he had freedom to choose to eat from any of the trees of the garden, save that of the Tree of knowledge.
What this means is that God deliberately left it open to Man to choose for or against His ways. He did not have to eat from the Tree of Life, and by choosing not to do so would condemn himself to ultimately be tempted and fail.
See, Augustine's ruined sex for everyone.
Yes, despite Augustine's brilliant mind, truth is in the category of faith--not purely intellect. God gives us information, and we choose to believe it or not. Not everything Augustine believed was likely correct, particularly because he came "late to the party." He did not grow up a believer.
I do believe sex is the element by which God determines what and when to pass on a spiritual inheritance, both good and bad. We are all the product of sex originating from Adam and Eve, and thus God chooses to pass on their fallen spiritual nature to all of us, their children.
But this isn't a chemical process like DNA is. Rather, it is processed by God's word itself, and determined as a consequence for parental behavior, as if affects the children. DNA is certainly passed on, to show the impact of parent influence on their children. But in the same way, a spiritual inheritance is passed on, as well.
For example, an alcoholic may pass on certain biological conditions that makes the children equally vulnerable to drug and alcohol dependence, depending on the same conditions existing. But beyond the physical and mental traits, I think there is also a spiritual trait that can be passed on, causing children to aim towards alcoholism, apart from biological factors, even though children can also fight this tendency.
Though the above is purely theoretical, by my experience it is true of sin in general, that we all inherit from Adam and from our more immediate parents a tendency towards their very same sins, regardless of there being different biological factors. The tendency to resist God's word is always there, and often the same kind of resistance that existed in our more immediate parents is in us, as well.
It's interesting that sometimes godly parents have rebellious children, which they cannot control due to free will. But God retains their godly characteristics in a spiritual inheritance that often appears later in their grandchildren or great grandchildren.
I think this view only really works well when we hold that the body and spirit are distinct parts of a person that can be separated, rather than as two parts of a person that are inseparable. But if a human is a synthesis of the finite and infinite, of the physical and the spiritual, then does the experience of her existence exist in the relation of these things relating? And if so, can it be said that a person properly exists as a person if she is one or the other, but not both? That is if she is half of the relation but not the full relation? Or rather, if there is no relation at all?
I don't think the "spiritual" necessarily equates to the "infinite." We are indeed a hybrid, consisting of both spiritual and physical elements. The soul is spiritual, whereas the body is physical. The mind is sort of the junction between them, the mind being capable of autonomous thought as well as being capable of receiving transcendent divine revelation. Greek thought seemed to deny this was even possible, and so we have all these questions about what can or cannot be.
Or to jump out of Kierkegaard's brain for a minute: where does Scripture suggest that sex propagates sin nature spiritually but not physically? This was guesswork on Augustine's part, and I don't think anyone can do anything but guess, because Scripture doesn't tell us. How is a sin nature passed down? It's not, there's no need for it.
Yes, but I'm giving you my thoughts about it above, because that's all we have to work with--our own considered thoughts, informed by our ability (or not) to hear from God.
As an aside, I don't think the tree of life was a tree with actual, eternal-life-granting fruit. It's an excellent literary device, much like the tree of knowledge, but I don't take them that concretely myself.
I think it had to be an actual tree, but like you suggest, it being a tree is not the essential thing. It was the obedience, or disobedience, surrounding them that determined the important role in all this.
Choosing for eternal life brought a spiritual transformation, disallowing further rebellion against God's word. It was to be the final union between God and man, eternally.
Though that failed in the choice in the garden Man made to separate from God in his decision-making we can still eat from the Tree of Life, so to speak, by accepting Christ. Having what I believe to be a Sin Nature does not prevent us from simultaneously eating from the Tree of Life, and receiving a new spirit that certifies our eternal relationship with God.
In an innocent, pre-existent state before the Fall, man was sinless and innocent, but not yet fulfilled. He needed to eat from the Tree of Life, which he *was not* commanded to do! It was left to him to be able to go against his innocent condition.
And this determined his *nature*--not his sinlessness, nor his innocence, but rather, his ability to choose for or against God's word. That his nature was his personal volition, to be able to make decisions for himself, to choose whatever good he wanted to do, or to choose whether to do good at all!
Choosing against God's word could not, however, undo God's will. Though some would fall forever, and never choose union with God, some would find repentance the path back to the Tree of Life.
Sorry if this isn't very satisfying. A very interesting conversation to me, personally!
-
I see no need for a "quick decision." I do not assume, in advance, that a human state of innocence needs to sort of be primed and pumped in order to get out of a state of innocence.
Humans, in a state of innocence and sinlessness, are not "blank slates," but are nevertheless open to input from outside of their pristine environment. Anytime a devil walks in and tempts them, they can consider their options.
Adam and Eve simply chose not to believe the "warning label," maybe even more so having been in a somewhat "naïve" environment, with no reason to believe they would be deceived.
I talked with my wife today about this, and came to an interesting consideration. God never *commanded* Man to eat of the Tree of Life, but suggested he had freedom to choose to eat from any of the trees of the garden, save that of the Tree of knowledge.
What this means is that God deliberately left it open to Man to choose for or against His ways. He did not have to eat from the Tree of Life, and by choosing not to do so would condemn himself to ultimately be tempted and fail.
Right, so Adam and Eve sinned prior to any supposed corruption of their nature, spiritual or otherwise.
What we have, then, is an issue, and it's the question: what question is the notion of ontic corruption, or a distinct 'sin nature', answering? Is it an answer to Scripture? Is it an answer to a question particular to Augustine? Is it an answer to Pelagius, and more about contradicting Pelagius than teaching what's in scripture? Is it an answer derived from a poor translation of a text, and so, is framed relative to the wrong question?
I'd suggest that Augustine's answer is predicated on a misunderstanding of Romans, in service against what was understood to be the danger of Pelagius' view. I think we have other explanations with the same explanatory power that also avoid funny little things like, 'how did Adam and Eve sin without a sin nature?' or 'is everyone a sinner deserving of hell or does God make exceptions for cute babies? I mean, evil abhorrent spawns of humanity?'.
I don't think people realise just how scary they are, and Christians especially don't realise this because they fall back on some nebulous 'sin nature' as the force behind all their sin. The reality is much worse for them -- the sin because they choose it, because they don't care about the 'warning label' in the moment. They don't sin because they're corrupted.
I do believe sex is the element by which God determines what and when to pass on a spiritual inheritance, both good and bad. We are all the product of sex originating from Adam and Eve, and thus God chooses to pass on their fallen spiritual nature to all of us, their children.
But this isn't a chemical process like DNA is. Rather, it is processed by God's word itself, and determined as a consequence for parental behavior, as if affects the children. DNA is certainly passed on, to show the impact of parent influence on their children. But in the same way, a spiritual inheritance is passed on, as well.
I don't follow what you're trying to convey. What does "it is processed by God's word itself" mean? How exactly does God "pass on a spiritual inheritance" when He insisted the procreative process -- surely that takes care of things, no intervention required? My view also avoids notions like God passing on corrupted spiritual natures as explanations for people's sin.
For example, an alcoholic may pass on certain biological conditions that makes the children equally vulnerable to drug and alcohol dependence, depending on the same conditions existing. But beyond the physical and mental traits, I think there is also a spiritual trait that can be passed on, causing children to aim towards alcoholism, apart from biological factors, even though children can also fight this tendency.
Though the above is purely theoretical, by my experience it is true of sin in general, that we all inherit from Adam and from our more immediate parents a tendency towards their very same sins, regardless of there being different biological factors. The tendency to resist God's word is always there, and often the same kind of resistance that existed in our more immediate parents is in us, as well.
In the old world, we'd call this inheritance of the father's sin. I think I must reject the view for that reason.
It's interesting that sometimes godly parents have rebellious children, which they cannot control due to free will. But God retains their godly characteristics in a spiritual inheritance that often appears later in their grandchildren or great grandchildren.
It's interesting but it's complicated, highly theoretical, not supported in Scripture explanation when there are more elegant, less troublesome alternatives.
Choosing for eternal life brought a spiritual transformation, disallowing further rebellion against God's word. It was to be the final union between God and man, eternally.
I'd consider a spiritual transformation in the sense of (1) altering their position before God and (2) impacting on their self-understanding in light of the realisation of their guilt, regret, anxiety, etc. I don't think it was an ontological transformation of the spirit.
In an innocent, pre-existent state before the Fall, man was sinless and innocent, but not yet fulfilled. He needed to eat from the Tree of Life, which he *was not* commanded to do! It was left to him to be able to go against his innocent condition.
What do you say humanity wasn't fulfilled? Augustine had us as immortal at the time, for what his view is worth.
And this determined his *nature*--not his sinlessness, nor his innocence, but rather, his ability to choose for or against God's word. That his nature was his personal volition, to be able to make decisions for himself, to choose whatever good he wanted to do, or to choose whether to do good at all!
Are you suggesting that God didn't create humanity with a nature, but waited until the fall before giving them a nature?
Sorry if this isn't very satisfying. A very interesting conversation to me, personally!
Interesting is good. :)
-
Right, so Adam and Eve sinned prior to any supposed corruption of their nature, spiritual or otherwise.
Yes. In my view, there is no other explanation. It would be like saying water cannot be contaminated by pouring toxins into a glass of water. The human will can indeed be contaminated by introducing deception and malice.
I understand your argument, that a benevolent will would not seriously entertain a malicious option. But apparently that's what we read happened.
I would only say that Adam and Eve, in their state of innocence, were not purely "benevolent," but more, in the arena of "innocence," open to influence. They were created to be good, but had not yet fully decided to remain good.
What we have, then, is an issue, and it's the question: what question is the notion of ontic corruption, or a distinct 'sin nature', answering? Is it an answer to Scripture? Is it an answer to a question particular to Augustine? Is it an answer to Pelagius, and more about contradicting Pelagius than teaching what's in scripture? Is it an answer derived from a poor translation of a text, and so, is framed relative to the wrong question?
I understand. All of those questions are valid and can play a role in this discussion. For me, the biggest question involves what you call "ontic corruption." What makes my view consistent for me is the possible notion of a primitive innocence, followed by the need for a new condition, adding permanence to the innate goodness of Man.
Innocence had to be followed by eating of the Tree of Life, which brought permanence to Man's goodness. It involves Man's choice to go beyond being created good, and beyond his innocence, to actually choosing for permanence in the good.
To do that he had to become something different and something new. He had to be "born from above," to choose to remain in fellowship with God forever. For this to happen he had to ingest something, to ingest the fruit of the Tree of Life, and so become something more, something decidedly spiritual and permanently bonded with God.
Obviously, it was not the fruit, nor the food itself, that should bring about any spiritual transformation. Rather, it should be the choice to do something--even in the material world--that brings Man's will into conformity with God's Spirit through obeying His word or by choosing to conform with His word.
To be born of water, ie natural childbirth, is one thing, but to be born from above is another thing entirely. One is the natural state of existence in the primeval age of innocence. The primeval status of Man was as yet undecided, although existing in a pristine environment.
But the goal, for God, was not that Man should be commanded to do the right thing and so be coerced to become good forever, but rather, that Man should choose for himself to do the right thing and so be aligned with God forever. So the ultimate status of Man was predetermined, or foreordained, to become "fixed" as Man, born anew from above, so that a final decision is arrived at. The primeval state was undetermined, and the goal was Man's final choice to become fixed as such.
I'd suggest that Augustine's answer is predicated on a misunderstanding of Romans, in service against what was understood to be the danger of Pelagius' view. I think we have other explanations with the same explanatory power that also avoid funny little things like, 'how did Adam and Eve sin without a sin nature?' or 'is everyone a sinner deserving of hell or does God make exceptions for cute babies? I mean, evil abhorrent spawns of humanity?'.
The matter of Augustine and Pelagius may have to do, at some level, with how much genuine good Man can do outside of a fixed relationship with God. Man was created, I believe, to be able to choose to do good, Christian or not. Non-Christians can definitely choose to do good. Even Cain, "child of the Devil," could choose to do genuine good, according to God in the account in Genesis.
So even if Pelagius was right that Man can do genuine good, apart from a continuous, determined relationship with God, then the issue concerns the question as to how important it was for Man to be born again? If he can do good without being born again, why the need to be born again?
I would assert that choosing to be born again is the equivalent of choosing not just to do good, but to *be good.* It is the choice for a nature, not just in an equivocal, undecided state of innocence, but more, for an existence continuously reliant upon God for doing good.
The point is for Man to choose to be good continually, rather than just sporadically or periodically. To "be good" requires that one adopt a nature of wanting to do good--not just do good when it is convenient for selfish motives.
Even the non-Christian, to do good, must depend on God, whether conscious of it or not. Goodness flows from God to all men willing to live by their informed conscience (though consciences can be perverted or seared).
To be born again is to add to the choice to do good the choice to *be good,* to adopt a nature in which God is resident in *everything* the person does, indeed a choice for God's continual dwelling with us.
We shouldn't just want to do good periodically, to have God assist us in doing good whenever we so desire. Rather, we should want God to in a sense "dwell in our conscience," informing us *all the time* of the good we should do, and then enabling us to make use of His virtues.
I don't think people realise just how scary they are, and Christians especially don't realise this because they fall back on some nebulous 'sin nature' as the force behind all their sin. The reality is much worse for them -- the sin because they choose it, because they don't care about the 'warning label' in the moment. They don't sin because they're corrupted.
I agree that the choice to do wrong should not be "excused" by falling back on anything short of taking responsibility. "Sin Nature," however, is not "nebulas" to me--it is the character I exhibit all the time, every day, because I personally recognize my tendencies. I'm an irritating person, and there is no shortage of those who remind me of this, or at least hint at it.
I don't follow what you're trying to convey. What does "it is processed by God's word itself" mean? How exactly does God "pass on a spiritual inheritance" when He insisted the procreative process -- surely that takes care of things, no intervention required? My view also avoids notions like God passing on corrupted spiritual natures as explanations for people's sin.
What I'm trying to say is that I don't believe the "spiritual DNA" is passed on, mechanically, like "physical DNA" is. Our physical inheritance is directly passed on from parents to children by cause and effect through a physical means. Spiritual inheritances are passed on from parents to children by God, apart from any material process, cause and effect.
God simply "assigns" inheritances from parents to children--it is part of his creative prerogative, determined by laws His own word has created. This is part of His creation of Mankind, and His plan for them in reproduction, in filling the world with people. The children take on the characteristics of the parents, both physically and spiritually, without sacrificing their free choices.
As such, people inherit the original mandate that was given to Adam and Eve so as to fulfill God's plan for them to fill the earth in God's image. If the parents and the children live as they should, in God's image, they fulfill God's plan and are blessed. But if the same do not cooperate with God's word, the same ungodly tendencies persist and may even get worse.
The Sin Nature does not prevent God's plan for Man from continuing, but it does mean that there is no escape from the inheritance of resistance to God's word. All men display this kind of disobedience, even if they also display a willingness to cooperate with God's word, and even more, to have God reside within them on a continuous basis.
In the old world, we'd call this inheritance of the father's sin. I think I must reject the view for that reason.
It's not the same thing as mandating that children produce the same sins as the parents. Rather, it's a mandate that the children find themselves with a corrupted will. There is at birth the tendency to resist God's word in making choices. Even in a state of innocence, children reveal their resistance to God's word. They are angry when they don't get their way.
But God also designed a reward system in which the obedience of the parent improves the condition of the child, and the disobedience of the parent does harm to the child. We all inherit certain virtues and disabilities from our parents, though this does not impose upon us anything to the loss of our own free choices.
We inherit conditions, but are not forced to make our parents' same choices! It is, for example, an honor to inherit a poor condition from a parent and then to choose to not be deterred in doing good despite it.
I'd consider a spiritual transformation in the sense of (1) altering their position before God and (2) impacting on their self-understanding in light of the realisation of their guilt, regret, anxiety, etc. I don't think it was an ontological transformation of the spirit.
When God comes to reside in us, after we've made the choice to have Him there forever, we do feel transformed. Many reborn Christians have referred to this transformation. When we choose to have God abide in us all the time, we feel His permanent residence with us!
Every act of goodness, in a sense, may appear "transformative," because we are taking upon ourselves the choice to align with heavenly virtues, as opposed to purely selfish interests. But to choose God's virtue *all the time* causes us to feel transformed as in obtaining an entirely new nature. We are putting on "heavenly clothing" as a permanent gift.
I believe God wanted Adam and Eve to thus be transformed even before they sinned, or perhaps evolved and completed. And this would've happened, I think, if they had chosen immediately to eat of the Tree of Life.
That would've been the equivalent of choosing to imbibe and to ingest God's presence internally forever--not just to temporally have God's help to do some good on a temporary basis. Our purpose, again, was, I think, to evolve to a final state of determination, to *become good.* The evolution is from a created state of being made good to a self-determined state to act out that good in an eternal way.
What do you say humanity wasn't fulfilled? Augustine had us as immortal at the time, for what his view is worth.
I can't speak for Augustine. It really depends on what he meant by "immortal." Our NT sense of "immortality" has to do with a transformative experience at the resurrection, ie our glorification.
Adam and Eve, were, as I said, in a state of innocence, I believe. They were not "immortal" in the sense of having taken of the Tree of Life, and having God indwell in them forever. They hadn't yet chosen to permanently "become good." Though they had been made good, they were designed to choose to "become good" permanently, which was not yet true in their original state of existence.
Are you suggesting that God didn't create humanity with a nature, but waited until the fall before giving them a nature?
No. God wanted them to transcend their original earthly nature to put on an eternal heavenly nature. It was the choice they were created for, I believe, though this is entirely theoretical.
Interesting is good. :)
I think so! (I've had to make numerous editions to this post, so be aware. I'm trying to ensure the language I use is comparable to the biblical language.)
-
Yes. In my view, there is no other explanation. It would be like saying water cannot be contaminated by pouring toxins into a glass of water. The human will can indeed be contaminated by introducing deception and malice.
So you're arguing that... while Adam and Eve were capable of sinning prior to any supposed corruption of their nature, this did in fact corrupt them regardless, and every human to follow?
Where is that in Scripture, again?
I understand your argument, that a benevolent will would not seriously entertain a malicious option. But apparently that's what we read happened.
That's not what I'm arguing.
I would only say that Adam and Eve, in their state of innocence, were not purely "benevolent," but more, in the arena of "innocence," open to influence. They were created to be good, but had not yet fully decided to remain good.
I would use the term 'morally neutral'. They had potential that was not actualised until they chose.
r me, the biggest question involves what you call "ontic corruption." What makes my view consistent for me is the possible notion of a primitive innocence, followed by the need for a new condition, adding permanence to the innate goodness of Man.
So you think sin is a necessary condition for permanence vis-a-vis the introduction of a renewed creation?
Innocence had to be followed by eating of the Tree of Life, which brought permanence to Man's goodness. It involves Man's choice to go beyond being created good, and beyond his innocence, to actually choosing for permanence in the good.
I think you're confusing God's utterance that His creation is good, and the idea that humanity was created morally good. So, innocence isn't something to celebrate, but to overcome, in either direction. Overcoming innocence implies a growing knowledge of God: is that a knowledge given by revelation or taken through disobedience? Adam and Eve chose the latter.
To do that he had to become something different and something new. He had to be "born from above," to choose to remain in fellowship with God forever. For this to happen he had to ingest something, to ingest the fruit of the Tree of Life, and so become something more, something decidedly spiritual and permanently bonded with God.
Jesus talks about faith and we go on talking about magic mushrooms. The answer is faith, not some magical spiritual object.
Obviously, it was not the fruit, nor the food itself, that should bring about any spiritual transformation. Rather, it should be the choice to do something--even in the material world--that brings Man's will into conformity with God's Spirit through obeying His word or by choosing to conform with His word.
Uh, yes... but this thing and the thing you said above aren't consonant with each other.
To be born of water, ie natural childbirth, is one thing, but to be born from above is another thing entirely. One is the natural state of existence in the primeval age of innocence. The primeval status of Man was as yet undecided, although existing in a pristine environment.
So, so close to one of those many gnosticisms.
But the goal, for God, was not that Man should be commanded to do the right thing and so be coerced to become good forever, but rather, that Man should choose for himself to do the right thing and so be aligned with God forever. So the ultimate status of Man was predetermined, or foreordained, to become "fixed" as Man, born anew from above, so that a final decision is arrived at. The primeval state was undetermined, and the goal was Man's final choice to become fixed as such.
Yes, God does have a plan.
The matter of Augustine and Pelagius may have to do, at some level, with how much genuine good Man can do outside of a fixed relationship with God. Man was created, I believe, to be able to choose to do good, Christian or not. Non-Christians can definitely choose to do good. Even Cain, "child of the Devil," could choose to do genuine good, according to God in the account in Genesis.
So even if Pelagius was right that Man can do genuine good, apart from a continuous, determined relationship with God, then the issue concerns the question as to how important it was for Man to be born again? If he can do good without being born again, why the need to be born again?
Did Pelagius say that?
I would assert that choosing to be born again is the equivalent of choosing not just to do good, but to *be good.* It is the choice for a nature, not just in an equivocal, undecided state of innocence, but more, for an existence continuously reliant upon God for doing good.
You would assert, yes.
The point is for Man to choose to be good continually, rather than just sporadically or periodically. To "be good" requires that one adopt a nature of wanting to do good--not just do good when it is convenient for selfish motives.
Right, and I'm suggesting that Scripture teaches we were created with exactly such a nature that wasn't corrupted.
To be born again is to add to the choice to do good the choice to *be good,* to adopt a nature in which God is resident in *everything* the person does, indeed a choice for God's continual dwelling with us.
Would you then say of yourself that are now good, and don't merely do good?
We shouldn't just want to do good periodically, to have God assist us in doing good whenever we so desire. Rather, we should want God to in a sense "dwell in our conscience," informing us *all the time* of the good we should do, and then enabling us to make use of His virtues.
But if you're arguing for a change in nature this wouldn't be a problem. Natures are serious things.
I agree that the choice to do wrong should not be "excused" by falling back on anything short of taking responsibility. "Sin Nature," however, is not "nebulas" to me--it is the character I exhibit all the time, every day, because I personally recognize my tendencies. I'm an irritating person, and there is no shortage of those who remind me of this, or at least hint at it.
It's a good thing being irritating isn't sinful. But if you do have a corrupted human nature, which you call a sin nature, then you really couldn't help it. Or maybe you have a good, renewed nature in Christ? But then why would you say you have a sin nature?
What I'm trying to say is that I don't believe the "spiritual DNA" is passed on, mechanically, like "physical DNA" is. Our physical inheritance is directly passed on from parents to children by cause and effect through a physical means. Spiritual inheritances are passed on from parents to children by God, apart from any material process, cause and effect.
God simply "assigns" inheritances from parents to children--it is part of his creative prerogative, determined by laws His own word has created. This is part of His creation of Mankind, and His plan for them in reproduction, in filling the world with people. The children take on the characteristics of the parents, both physically and spiritually, without sacrificing their free choices.
What Scripture are you appealing to for this view?
As such, people inherit the original mandate that was given to Adam and Eve so as to fulfill God's plan for them to fill the earth in God's image. If the parents and the children live as they should, in God's image, they fulfill God's plan and are blessed. But if the same do not cooperate with God's word, the same ungodly tendencies persist and may even get worse.
The children inherit the sin of their parents is what this means.
It's not the same thing as mandating that children produce the same sins as the parents. Rather, it's a mandate that the children find themselves with a corrupted will. There is at birth the tendency to resist God's word in making choices. Even in a state of innocence, children reveal their resistance to God's word. They are angry when they don't get their way.
Children reveal their resistance to putting on pants, too. What you're suggesting is that God actively passes on corrupted human natures. Where is that in Scripture?
But God also designed a reward system in which the obedience of the parent improves the condition of the child, and the disobedience of the parent does harm to the child. We all inherit certain virtues and disabilities from our parents, though this does not impose upon us anything to the loss of our own free choices.
No, He didn't. What you're suggesting here is an overly worded version of "person suffers because sin".
We inherit conditions, but are not forced to make our parents' same choices! It is, for example, an honor to inherit a poor condition from a parent and then to choose to not be deterred in doing good despite it.
No, it's not an honour. It's a burden. I'm sure you didn't mean it, but this is the worst kind of navel-gazing theological position.
When God comes to reside in us, after we've made the choice to have Him there forever, we do feel transformed. Many reborn Christians have referred to this transformation. When we choose to have God abide in us all the time, we feel His permanent residence with us!
Uh, what does this have to do with Adam and Eve's choice, which is what we were talking about?
Every act of goodness, in a sense, may appear "transformative," because we are taking upon ourselves the choice to align with heavenly virtues, as opposed to purely selfish interests. But to choose God's virtue *all the time* causes us to feel transformed as in obtaining an entirely new nature. We are putting on "heavenly clothing" as a permanent gift.
I'm sitting here wondering if you realise just how significant nature is.
I believe God wanted Adam and Eve to thus be transformed even before they sinned, or perhaps evolved and completed. And this would've happened, I think, if they had chosen immediately to eat of the Tree of Life.
It seems to me to have been one choice of likely many, and many more. I broadly agree on the larger, ultimate goal, but I don't think this would have been a choose-right-and-be-set circumstance.
That would've been the equivalent of choosing to imbibe and to ingest God's presence internally forever--not just to temporally have God's help to do some good on a temporary basis. Our purpose, again, was, I think, to evolve to a final state of determination, to *become good.* The evolution is from a created state of being made good to a self-determined state to act out that good in an eternal way.
So, so wordy.
Is there anything to suggest that prior to sinning, Adam and Eve were only doing good on a temporary basis, or something like that?
I can't speak for Augustine. It really depends on what he meant by "immortal." Our NT sense of "immortality" has to do with a transformative experience at the resurrection, ie our glorification.
Adam and Eve, were, as I said, in a state of innocence, I believe. They were not "immortal" in the sense of having taken of the Tree of Life, and having God indwell in them forever. They hadn't yet chosen to permanently "become good." Though they had been made good, they were designed to choose to "become good" permanently, which was not yet true in their original state of existence.
Immortal as in, how everyone understands the word: "living forever". Augustine believed humanity was created to live forever, but lost its immortality upon sinning. Is that the view you take?
No. God wanted them to transcend their original earthly nature to put on an eternal heavenly nature. It was the choice they were created for, I believe, though this is entirely theoretical.
Heyyyy :claps: we got to some Gnosticism in the end :claps: some would call that heresy, not just theoretical.
I think so! (I've had to make numerous editions to this post, so be aware. I'm trying to ensure the language I use is comparable to the biblical language.)
Actually it was incredibly wordy, confusing, and I have no idea how the majority of the view expressed is in any way supported by Scripture.
-
I don't remember if Pelagius said that "Man can do genuine good, apart from a continuous, determined relationship with God", but Jesus sure did.
Just sayin'.
-
I don't remember if Pelagius said that "Man can do genuine good, apart from a continuous, determined relationship with God", but Jesus sure did.
Just sayin'.
Yes, I've thought about the problem of free will for a long time. After all, Luther wrote in "The Bondage of the Will" that nobody can do good except by Divine impulse. Though I was raised a Lutheran, and am not now, I respectfully disagree with Luther.
I believe unbelievers are people who sometimes obey God's word and sometimes don't. They don't have to be conscious of what they're responding to within themselves.
They aren't delegitimized for the Kingdom of God based on their inability to do good, but for their failure to embrace the *nature* of Christ, which is to choose for a nature of deference to Christ in place of making independent choices.
To be clear, God would never have failed to accomplish His goal with Man by his making a single bad choice. By His kind nature God chose, in advance, to be willing to forgive human indiscretions.
His purpose, therefore, was to provide a way of showing the way to success through a repentance acknowledging the error of independent judgment. People have been given genuine free will, but not to act outside of the Spirit of God's love.
People can still have freedom when acting in conjunction with God if they keep God's Spirit and input in mind. As long as they have been given freedom in advance, they can choose to eat "from any tree of the garden," except the one forbidden by God.
You can know you have freedom to choose between several opportunities when each choice is done "in God's love." At times, though, God determines what choice He wants us to make. Whether we make the wrong choice or not, God determines what the possible outcomes will be.
-
So you're arguing that... while Adam and Eve were capable of sinning prior to any supposed corruption of their nature, this did in fact corrupt them regardless, and every human to follow?
Where is that in Scripture, again?
Rom 3.9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.
Rom 5.12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.
So you think sin is a necessary condition for permanence vis-a-vis the introduction of a renewed creation?
No, I believe God did not *want* Man to sin to start with! He wanted Man, I think, to verify what God wanted him to do, to obey Him and to choose to live forever in that obedience. God wasn't going to make that decision for him.
Innocence had to be followed by eating of the Tree of Life, which brought permanence to Man's goodness. It involves Man's choice to go beyond being created good, and beyond his innocence, to actually choosing for permanence in the good.
I think you're confusing God's utterance that His creation is good, and the idea that humanity was created morally good. So, innocence isn't something to celebrate, but to overcome, in either direction. Overcoming innocence implies a growing knowledge of God: is that a knowledge given by revelation or taken through disobedience? Adam and Eve chose the latter.
As you state your position, it sounds similar to mine. I believe, like you, that innocence was not God's ultimate objective. Man was innocent until he decided for the Tree of Life or for the Tree of Knowledge. If he chose life, he was choosing as God hoped, that Man would want a permanent nature to want to live in eternal obedience, to be in eternal fellowship with God, to consult with God over everything.
But to choose for the Tree of Knowledge was to be compromised, to choose to live independent of God, to sometimes choose to obey and at other times to choose to disobey.
God only wanted people who would be with Him on everything always, without compromise. He wanted choice for a permanent nature of good, not the choice to live independent of Him. God wanted, after the Fall, a kind of redemption that was initiated by choice for a new spiritual nature, born of Christ.
Jesus talks about faith and we go on talking about magic mushrooms. The answer is faith, not some magical spiritual object.
Jesus came up with the "eat my flesh" analogy. Jesus seemed to relish throwing off those who wanted to over-literalize his comments. People who do that aren't serious.
Did Pelagius say that?
At this point I'm only discussing the idea of Man's universal ability to do authentic "good." Can unbelievers subconsciously "obey God?" I believe so.
So the idea of Salvation is not simply to obey God, but more importantly, to choose for a nature that wishes to live in obedience to God all the time, and not just do good occasionally or intermittently.
Right, and I'm suggesting that Scripture teaches we were created with exactly such a nature that wasn't corrupted.
Yes, I believe Man was created uncorrupted.
Would you then say of yourself that are now good, and don't merely do good?
Yes, I am good. God made me good, and He gave me a new spiritual nature--one that does not wish to sin. I'm talking about how God sees our choice to live by His new nature. He sees us as "good" for doing that, and rewards us with Eternal Life.
This is not saying I'm not bad in an entirely different sense. We're talking about how God sees us spiritually, rather than how we fare against Christ's perfect record!
It's a good thing being irritating isn't sinful. But if you do have a corrupted human nature, which you call a sin nature, then you really couldn't help it. Or maybe you have a good, renewed nature in Christ? But then why would you say you have a sin nature?
I have a godly nature--one that seeks God all the time, since it has come to dwell in me. But I also have a Sin Nature, which is a corrupted human nature. DNA is physically transmitted through the generations. But the Sin Nature is spiritually transmitted through the generations.
It is evident that Sin also impacts our physical nature inasmuch as we see DNA transmitting errors, along with good qualities, from generation to generation. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about DNA and chemistry. But I believe Sin is a spiritual nature transmitted from generation to generation, including Satan's original rebellion of choosing to live independently of God's word, and also including the sins of our ancestors.
God simply "assigns" inheritances from parents to children--it is part of his creative prerogative, determined by laws His own word has created. This is part of His creation of Mankind, and His plan for them in reproduction, in filling the world with people. The children take on the characteristics of the parents, both physically and spiritually, without sacrificing their free choices.
What Scripture are you appealing to for this view?
Gen 5.3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
But God also designed a reward system in which the obedience of the parent improves the condition of the child, and the disobedience of the parent does harm to the child. We all inherit certain virtues and disabilities from our parents, though this does not impose upon us anything to the loss of our own free choices.
No, He didn't. What you're suggesting here is an overly worded version of "person suffers because sin".
No, I said what I said. We inherit DNA errors, and when we disobey God's word there are "spiritual mutations," for lack of a better word. The way we choose to live may come back to haunt us, and will haunt our children, as well.
This is why, I think, those who sin may suffer judgment to the 3rd generation, or even more. In the same way, the obedient may pass their blessings on to a thousand generations! Exo 20.5-6.
We inherit conditions, but are not forced to make our parents' same choices! It is, for example, an honor to inherit a poor condition from a parent and then to choose to not be deterred in doing good despite it.
No, it's not an honour. It's a burden. I'm sure you didn't mean it, but this is the worst kind of navel-gazing theological position.
I don't think you understand what I meant. I'm not saying it's an honor to inherit a physical or mental deficit of any kind! We all do, and rightfully feel angry to some degree.
But what I'm saying is that after inheriting these things from parents who made bad choices, it is an honor to go on, forgiving those who want it, and refusing to let bitterness cripple us from living a loving, joyful, righteous life. This brings great honor to God.
Of course, if you're unable to do that, I can understand it. I've personally experienced great bitterness in my own life. And I always have to overcome it. It's a regular discipline, and it's a choice I must make.
So, so wordy.
Sorry about that. In choosing for the "Tree of Life" we are choosing for a new nature in Christ, which is the opposite of choosing to live an independent life, sometimes choosing to obey and at other times choosing to disobey. To choose a "nature" is to decide that living in relationship with God all the time is right, and that living independently is wrong.
Is there anything to suggest that prior to sinning, Adam and Eve were only doing good on a temporary basis, or something like that?
The whole setup in the garden of Eden was by historical example a temporary setup. Man was set to choose for the Tree of Life or for the Tree of Knowledge. This suggested that doing good, ie eating from other trees of the garden were only temporary forms of "doing good," until they ultimately decided for or against an eternal nature of righteousness.
Of course, we know they didn't choose for that, but instead chose for the Tree of Knowledge, which was only a setback for some, but an eternal setback for others. After falling, mankind could still choose for an eternal righteous nature of living with God. But it would this time come not by a Tree, but only by the Cross. (Note: The Tree of Life was a naturally living tree, like our natural existence. And the Cross is a dead tree, representing the need for resurrection from the dead.)
Immortal as in, how everyone understands the word: "living forever". Augustine believed humanity was created to live forever, but lost its immortality upon sinning. Is that the view you take?
Augustine, I'm sure, had his own context, and I'd have to go back and look at how he used the term. I feel confident he didn't see things exactly as I see them--I have the advantage of hindsight, recognizing the difficulty in expressing "immortality" in two senses, one as eternal existence, and the other as eternal life.
Words mean what they mean *as the author intends to use those words.* My technical application of "immortality" here, as Augustine apparently meant it, is "eternal existence.' Man was created in the image of God with eternal existence, and we haven't lost that.
When Man sinned, his death was a physical death, but not a cessation of existence. Neither is the "2nd Death" cessation of existence. Instead it is loss of eternal life after physical death.
The object in the Garden was for Man to take of the Tree of Life. Then he would add to his eternal existence "immortality," which I'm using in the technical sense for Eternal Life.
No. God wanted them to transcend their original earthly nature to put on an eternal heavenly nature. It was the choice they were created for, I believe, though this is entirely theoretical.
Heyyyy :claps: we got to some Gnosticism in the end :claps: some would call that heresy, not just theoretical.
Yea, it kind of sounds like that, but.....no! ;) Haven't you read:
2 Cor 4.7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us...10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body.
Col 3. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
Actually it was incredibly wordy, confusing, and I have no idea how the majority of the view expressed is in any way supported by Scripture.
If you got nothing out of it, I hope somebody did.
-
Rom 3.9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.
Rom 5.12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.
You're going to need to expand on where you see ontic corruption taught in either of these.
No, I believe God did not *want* Man to sin to start with! He wanted Man, I think, to verify what God wanted him to do, to obey Him and to choose to live forever in that obedience. God wasn't going to make that decision for him.
If God engages in partial determinism, then why not rig this situation such that Adam and Eve authentically choose obedience?
As you state your position, it sounds similar to mine. I believe, like you, that innocence was not God's ultimate objective. Man was innocent until he decided for the Tree of Life or for the Tree of Knowledge. If he chose life, he was choosing as God hoped, that Man would want a permanent nature to want to live in eternal obedience, to be in eternal fellowship with God, to consult with God over everything.
I don't view the trees as an either/or, though. The account posits a restriction, with a choice to obey/disobey, and not a choice between the two trees. For all we know, God's plan was for Adam and Eve to eat from both trees in His own timing, in keeping with the language of the account.
Jesus came up with the "eat my flesh" analogy. Jesus seemed to relish throwing off those who wanted to over-literalize his comments. People who do that aren't serious.
Yeah, but you're mixing the metaphor: Adam and Eve had to ingest something, not the fruit or food itself, but the choice that brings conformity between God's spirit and humanity's will. I'm all for waxing poetic, but this pretty meh.
So the idea of Salvation is not simply to obey God, but more importantly, to choose for a nature that wishes to live in obedience to God all the time, and not just do good occasionally or intermittently.
In other words, what's important is faith?
Yes, I believe Man was created uncorrupted.
I'm also saying that this nature hasn't been corrupted. To this day it is is exactly as it was created.
Yes, I am good. God made me good, and He gave me a new spiritual nature--one that does not wish to sin. I'm talking about how God sees our choice to live by His new nature. He sees us as "good" for doing that, and rewards us with Eternal Life.
This is not saying I'm not bad in an entirely different sense. We're talking about how God sees us spiritually, rather than how we fare against Christ's perfect record!
Is there a difference between God seeing you as good through the lens of Jesus' sacrifice, and you being good insofar as your daily actions, thoughts, etc., are concerned? Jesus didn't accept the words of the man who called Him good, and He was without sin, so is an appeal to how God sees us appropriate when answering an ontological question about our very being? If you have a good nature, and have chosen to do good, then why do you do continue to do evil?
For my part, I am not good. I am one police tour in Poland away from utter monstrous depravity.
I have a godly nature--one that seeks God all the time, since it has come to dwell in me. But I also have a Sin Nature, which is a corrupted human nature. DNA is physically transmitted through the generations. But the Sin Nature is spiritually transmitted through the generations.
I see, so Jesus had a human nature and a divine nature, and you think Christians have their own hypostatic union: a godly nature and a sin nature?
But I believe Sin is a spiritual nature transmitted from generation to generation...
You just don't know how, but don't want to pin the transmission on sex as Augustine did?
Gen 5.3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
How does this teach that God assigns inheritances? Seth was always going to be Adam's son, in Adam's likeness and image, which by extension, is in God's image.
No, I said what I said. We inherit DNA errors, and when we disobey God's word there are "spiritual mutations," for lack of a better word. The way we choose to live may come back to haunt us, and will haunt our children, as well.
But what does that mean? What's a spiritual mutation? What does it look like? Is God involved in generating mutated spiritual natures and placing them in babies?
This is why, I think, those who sin may suffer judgment to the 3rd generation, or even more. In the same way, the obedient may pass their blessings on to a thousand generations! Exo 20.5-6.
Is Exodus 20 teaching judgment, or that children in homes that practice idolatry will likely continue to practice idolatry? I - and a great many others - very much doubt this is teaching judgment, or a literal thousand generations.
I don't think you understand what I meant. I'm not saying it's an honor to inherit a physical or mental deficit of any kind! We all do, and rightfully feel angry to some degree.
But what I'm saying is that after inheriting these things from parents who made bad choices, it is an honor to go on, forgiving those who want it, and refusing to let bitterness cripple us from living a loving, joyful, righteous life. This brings great honor to God.
Of course, if you're unable to do that, I can understand it. I've personally experienced great bitterness in my own life. And I always have to overcome it. It's a regular discipline, and it's a choice I must make.
I got that. It's not an honor.
Sorry about that. In choosing for the "Tree of Life" we are choosing for a new nature in Christ, which is the opposite of choosing to live an independent life, sometimes choosing to obey and at other times choosing to disobey. To choose a "nature" is to decide that living in relationship with God all the time is right, and that living independently is wrong.
Faith, then?
The whole setup in the garden of Eden was by historical example a temporary setup. Man was set to choose for the Tree of Life or for the Tree of Knowledge. This suggested that doing good, ie eating from other trees of the garden were only temporary forms of "doing good," until they ultimately decided for or against an eternal nature of righteousness.
But the implication of the account is that had Adam and Eve obeyed, they would have continued to live in the garden. It's not like their obedience was temporary, and there's nothing to suggest the garden was temporary, so... is it that their innocence was temporary, rather than their acting out of faith (different than merely doing good)?
The object in the Garden was for Man to take of the Tree of Life. Then he would add to his eternal existence "immortality," which I'm using in the technical sense for Eternal Life.
Right, so you don't think that humanity was created immortal, but mortal, with the possibility of immortality.
Yea, it kind of sounds like that, but.....no! ;) Haven't you read:
2 Cor 4.7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us...10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body.
Col 3. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
I have, have you? What you said is not what Paul is saying.
-
Now just who are they?
Dan 11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
Dan 11:41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
Dan 11:42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
Dan 11:43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
Dan 11:44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
Dan 11:45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
Col
the only kings of a north and south the bible speak is the kingdom of isreal so i would say they are future kings of israel. divided in two parts 10/2. ummmm did you ever wonderer who the 10 kings where. notice a total of 12 in rev 13 so it appears the king of the south, second beast with the two horns who is claiming to be god and marries the woman prevails between the two.
-
You're going to need to expand on where you see ontic corruption taught in either of these.
Actually, I'd like you to explain why you think Scriptures do *not* teach ontic corruption? That is, how is it *not* teaching corruption when we're told we are born in sin? We're told we have a sin nature.
If God engages in partial determinism, then why not rig this situation such that Adam and Eve authentically choose obedience?
That could've happened except that God created the angels with a different type of choices. Satan's decision to spread his rebellion against God's word to Man interfered with the normal progress of obedience in Man. It's called "duress." And God obligated Himself to allow Satan to sin, and Man to fail under this duress. This was, I believe, the mitigating factor in God's allowing Man to be redeemed.
I don't view the trees as an either/or, though. The account posits a restriction, with a choice to obey/disobey, and not a choice between the two trees. For all we know, God's plan was for Adam and Eve to eat from both trees in His own timing, in keeping with the language of the account.
The Tree of Knowledge was verboten, period. Man's being barred from the Tree of Life indicates God's disappointment that Man had not immediately made that choice. I do believe it was a choice between trees, and in the proper order. Redemption allows a reversal of the order for those originally predestined to do so. Those who were not predestined are the product of independent human choice, along with the infection of Satan's rebellion. They are called, properly, "children of Satan."
In other words, what's important is faith?
If faith alone was the object, James would not have dismissed the shallow use of the same. Faith must have the proper object. And so, faith must be directed to God petitioning not just for an occasional act of obedience, but rather, for a new nature always wanting to remain in compliance.
I'm also saying that this nature hasn't been corrupted. To this day it is is exactly as it was created.
The original design of human nature is what it is, corrupted or not. We remain "human," as you seem to be suggesting. But we're corrupted people, not ceasing to be people, but becoming flawed people.
Is there a difference between God seeing you as good through the lens of Jesus' sacrifice, and you being good insofar as your daily actions, thoughts, etc., are concerned?
Of course. That's the nature of forgiveness. You look past the bad and see the redeeming qualities in a person, if indeed they are there. God's standard is in seeing a choice for a new nature, and that nature must therefore be truly in evidence.
For my part, I am not good. I am one police tour in Poland away from utter monstrous depravity.
I appreciate your honesty and your humility, but talking with you I truly don't see you as anywhere close to Hell. ;)
I see, so Jesus had a human nature and a divine nature, and you think Christians have their own hypostatic union: a godly nature and a sin nature?
Of course, a hypostatic union is something different, uniting two different substances by an infinite divine substance. I'm not confusing godly and sin natures--just showing how one is redemptive, while the other needs redemption.
You just don't know how, but don't want to pin the transmission on sex as Augustine did?
Sin is transmitted from generation to generation by the word of God, which selects what gets transmitted based on the consequences of sinful or righteous choices. God also determines and effects, by His word, the selection of DNA from parent to child. One is a spiritual inheritance, and the other is a physical inheritance.
How does this teach that God assigns inheritances? Seth was always going to be Adam's son, in Adam's likeness and image, which by extension, is in God's image.
It is obvious to us all that we are created with chromosomes from both parents, and as such, produce different versions based on our parents' genetic makeup. The fact God determined this is evident inasmuch as God produced children like the parents in the same way that He produced children like Himself. This is both material and spiritual inheritance.
The fact that Seth *replaced* the loss of Abel indicates a choice *against* the replication of Cain. It suggests God is operating in an intelligent way, using human reproduction, to achieve a particular condition, leading to a replacement of Abel's behavior.
But what does that mean? What's a spiritual mutation? What does it look like? Is God involved in generating mutated spiritual natures and placing them in babies?
Look at the difference between Adam and Cain, and you will see evidence of a "spiritual mutation." New conditions present an opportunity for Cain to choose for something bad apart from duress. It is his wish to sin without pressure to do so. Adam was not like that.
But the implication of the account is that had Adam and Eve obeyed, they would have continued to live in the garden. It's not like their obedience was temporary, and there's nothing to suggest the garden was temporary, so... is it that their innocence was temporary, rather than their acting out of faith (different than merely doing good)?
What was temporary was Adam's condition of having eternal existence without having eternal life. God meant for that condition to be temporary because He wished for them to eat of the Tree of Life, and thereby obtain Eternal Life. Once we have Eternal Life, we have more than eternal existence, and have what the Bible calls "immortality."
Right, so you don't think that humanity was created immortal, but mortal, with the possibility of immortality.
Leave it to you to make complex what otherwise is quite simple! ;) Again, there are two ways to use "immortal," as "eternal existence," or as "eternal life." Eternal existence is not the same as eternal life, and therefore is a temporary condition, relative to eternal life, until one chooses for or against eternal life.
Let's not confuse the two different applications of the word "immortal." I don't have to argue how Augustine framed it or used the word. It is the one presently speaking who defines how he is using the word "immortal." And I have no problem using "immortal" as a synonym for "eternal existence" as long as in context I'm making it plain that that is how I'm using the word.
Ordinarily, I use the word "immortal" as synonymous with our resurrection to eternal life. That is also how I think the Bible uses the word.
-
Actually, I'd like you to explain why you think Scriptures do *not* teach ontic corruption? That is, how is it *not* teaching corruption when we're told we are born in sin? We're told we have a sin nature.
I can't show you what's not there. I don't think these verses teach ontic corruption because I don't see that in the text. In the case of Romans 5:12, I see Paul teaching that sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience, and all humanity thus suffers death and separate as a consequence, but where's the ontic corruption? In the case of Augustine's reading, for example, that corruption is implied in his understanding that all humanity was present "in Adam" when Adam sinned. But that's clearly a misreading.
In Romans 3:9 we read only that "all are under the power of sin" with respect to Paul's argument that Jews do not have an advantage over gentiles, and that gentiles aren't disadvantaged relative to Jews. But even if we consider all the way to v20 I'm not seeing anything to suggest ontic corruption.
As far as I can see you're importing an ontic 'sin nature' into the text, based on an Augustinian misreading that doesn't apply to modern translations of Romans 5:12 specifically. Ontic corruption is not required for anything Paul writes in Romans.
That could've happened except that God created the angels with a different type of choices. Satan's decision to spread his rebellion against God's word to Man interfered with the normal progress of obedience in Man. It's called "duress." And God obligated Himself to allow Satan to sin, and Man to fail under this duress. This was, I believe, the mitigating factor in God's allowing Man to be redeemed.
Why didn't God engage in partial determinism with all of the angels too? What is gained by allowing, in your view, God's original plan to go awry?
The Tree of Knowledge was verboten, period. Man's being barred from the Tree of Life indicates God's disappointment that Man had not immediately made that choice. I do believe it was a choice between trees, and in the proper order. Redemption allows a reversal of the order for those originally predestined to do so. Those who were not predestined are the product of independent human choice, along with the infection of Satan's rebellion. They are called, properly, "children of Satan."
Oh, so you believe that God actively predestines people to hell and damnation? Where is this in Scripture?
If faith alone was the object, James would not have dismissed the shallow use of the same. Faith must have the proper object. And so, faith must be directed to God petitioning not just for an occasional act of obedience, but rather, for a new nature always wanting to remain in compliance.
Yes, I meant faith, not the modern idea of faith as mere intellectual assent in the existence of X. Faith, the thing that orders one's entire life with reference to the thing believed in, because, in the case of God, one cannot have faith in God and continue to live in a way that denies God. Which goes along quite well with James.
What I'm hinting at is that you're glossing over faith to talk about 'doing good'.
The original design of human nature is what it is, corrupted or not. We remain "human," as you seem to be suggesting. But we're corrupted people, not ceasing to be people, but becoming flawed people.
If our nature is corrupted then we're less-than-human. So, if we're less-than-human, and Jesus, not possessing a sinful nature, is properly fully human, then how analogous was His earthly experience to ours such that He can claim to understand what we go through?
Of course. That's the nature of forgiveness. You look past the bad and see the redeeming qualities in a person, if indeed they are there. God's standard is in seeing a choice for a new nature, and that nature must therefore be truly in evidence.
I appreciate your honesty and your humility, but talking with you I truly don't see you as anywhere close to Hell. ;)
I hope not, but that's up to God. And, I acknowledge that I'm covered by the blood of Christ. But for me? my being as I am today? I have no purchase on the word 'good' if not even Jesus did while He walked the earth.
Of course, a hypostatic union is something different, uniting two different substances by an infinite divine substance. I'm not confusing godly and sin natures--just showing how one is redemptive, while the other needs redemption.
But you're suggesting that humans have two natures: a godly and a sin nature. How does that work if it's not a hypostatic union? Why does more than one nature exist at all?
Sin is transmitted from generation to generation by the word of God, which selects what gets transmitted based on the consequences of sinful or righteous choices. God also determines and effects, by His word, the selection of DNA from parent to child. One is a spiritual inheritance, and the other is a physical inheritance.
I'm assuming that by 'word of God' you mean Jesus, but you have word with a lower-case 'w', so what exactly do you mean?
It is obvious to us all that we are created with chromosomes from both parents, and as such, produce different versions based on our parents' genetic makeup. The fact God determined this is evident inasmuch as God produced children like the parents in the same way that He produced children like Himself. This is both material and spiritual inheritance.
Uh huh... and?
The fact that Seth *replaced* the loss of Abel indicates a choice *against* the replication of Cain. It suggests God is operating in an intelligent way, using human reproduction, to achieve a particular condition, leading to a replacement of Abel's behavior.
How in the world are you getting this out of Genesis 5:3?
Look at the difference between Adam and Cain, and you will see evidence of a "spiritual mutation." New conditions present an opportunity for Cain to choose for something bad apart from duress. It is his wish to sin without pressure to do so. Adam was not like that.
How about, Adam and Eve weren't awesome parents and Cain found himself in the wilderness, separate from God, etc. etc. Why are we jumping to 'spiritual mutations' when there are plenty of immediate, sensible explanations?
What was temporary was Adam's condition of having eternal existence without having eternal life. God meant for that condition to be temporary because He wished for them to eat of the Tree of Life, and thereby obtain Eternal Life. Once we have Eternal Life, we have more than eternal existence, and have what the Bible calls "immortality."
I see. So on that we'll point we'll have to disagree over this idea of "one and done immortality".
Leave it to you to make complex what otherwise is quite simple! ;) Again, there are two ways to use "immortal," as "eternal existence," or as "eternal life." Eternal existence is not the same as eternal life, and therefore is a temporary condition, relative to eternal life, until one chooses for or against eternal life.
Let's not confuse the two different applications of the word "immortal." I don't have to argue how Augustine framed it or used the word. It is the one presently speaking who defines how he is using the word "immortal." And I have no problem using "immortal" as a synonym for "eternal existence" as long as in context I'm making it plain that that is how I'm using the word.
Ordinarily, I use the word "immortal" as synonymous with our resurrection to eternal life. That is also how I think the Bible uses the word.
...and I'm complicated. You clarified what I just said in 6 words: 'mortal with the possibility of immortality'. If you want to use special definitions then go for it, but don't suggest anyone else is being complicated in joining you for the ride. Your terms are all confused.
By the way, 'eternal' typically implies no beginning or end (in distinction to something that is 'temporal'), whereas 'immortal' implies a beginning with no end (im-mortal; not mortal).
-
In the case of Augustine's reading, for example, that corruption is implied in his understanding that all humanity was present "in Adam" when Adam sinned. But that's clearly a misreading.
Actually, I agree with Augustine. I don't see this as "clearly" otherwise.
Why didn't God engage in partial determinism with all of the angels too? What is gained by allowing, in your view, God's original plan to go awry?
Call it "artistic license?" God designed His own drama. If there ever was to be "sin," someone had to begin it without duress. The desire to break from divine authority had to somehow come from within. But after Satan's rebellion, Man was chosen by God to be subject to duress in his choice-making. That way, if he fell, God could fall back on the redemptive process to complete His original pre-determined goal of filling the world with people in His image.
Those who, like Satan, continued to find reason to rebel from within, and not strictly from duress, could choose to follow Satan in his choice to rebel. Thus, the place of destruction formed for Satan could also be used to imprison human followers.
It's quite a play. But it appears to be real.
Oh, so you believe that God actively predestines people to hell and damnation? Where is this in Scripture?
No, that's pure Calvinism. I'm only partly Calvinistic. Calvin believed in double predestination. I believe in free choice. Man's choices determine who are born outside of God's original plan. The children thus born still have free choices, but are drawn to the objective of their birth in rebellion against God.
If our nature is corrupted then we're less-than-human.
A rotten apple doesn't become less than an apple!
I hope not, but that's up to God. And, I acknowledge that I'm covered by the blood of Christ. But for me? my being as I am today? I have no purchase on the word 'good' if not even Jesus did while He walked the earth.
I think you misunderstand the reference. Jesus was "playing" the man, in a sense. He was binding him, theologically, to the idea that only God is good. The corollary to this is, in order for *us* to be truly good we must maintain a constant connection to God. If we think we can walk independent of God and do good, we're falling short of the true standard, which requires that we continue in the good by living in dependence upon God's word.
But you're suggesting that humans have two natures: a godly and a sin nature. How does that work if it's not a hypostatic union? Why does more than one nature exist at all?
The nature of redemption is dependent on the idea that Man, who walks in liberty can either make free choices before assuming a sin nature or can make free choices after assuming a sin nature. The Sin Nature establishes human liberty in a state of *independence from God,* or walking outside of dependence on God's word.
I believe the natural bent of Man after the Fall is self-determination before capitulating to God's word. In the history of the Christian world, the entire bent of philosophy has been looking to one's self first, to see if God exists, rather than looking through divine revelation to find meaning in the world. See Descartes, empiricism, existentialism, eg.
It reminds me of the story of the philosophers who climbed the mountain of self-exploration until upon reaching the summit they found some theologians who had long accepted God. Truth comes by God's self-revelation, and not strictly by human investigation. Have you read any of Francis Schaeffer?
Sin is transmitted from generation to generation by the word of God, which selects what gets transmitted based on the consequences of sinful or righteous choices. God also determines and effects, by His word, the selection of DNA from parent to child. One is a spiritual inheritance, and the other is a physical inheritance.
I'm assuming that by 'word of God' you mean Jesus, but you have word with a lower-case 'w', so what exactly do you mean?
The "word of God" is distinct from Jesus, since it preexisted Jesus' human form. Jesus, as a divine Being, preceded his human revelation. So it can be said that Jesus pre-existed his human form as the Word of God.
The "word" is God's communication, period. One way that He communicates to Man is by assuming a human form, whether in pre-incarnate theophanies or by showing Himself in Jesus.
How in the world are you getting this out of Genesis 5:3?
Kind of like the way Mendel got a physical inheritance out of scientific analysis? ;)
If you connect physical inheritances with the biblical portrait of a human sin nature, you will get this. But if you don't posit a Sin Nature, then you deny what Jews saw as the Sin Tendency. We are rebellious and independent of God's word from the start, from birth. All Israel required mitigation for sin, regardless of age or deed.
This is all about inheriting a rebellious nature from Adam, once he had chosen to live independent of God's word. Children continue to be born in his image, and yet now, that image is tarnished, and children, born in his image, are born in a sin image, having inherited both a physical and a spiritual legacy.
How about, Adam and Eve weren't awesome parents and Cain found himself in the wilderness, separate from God, etc. etc. Why are we jumping to 'spiritual mutations' when there are plenty of immediate, sensible explanations?
Cain exhibited something that warranted a biblical author calling him a "child of Satan." These are children who determine to live independent of God even after knowing that they've been misled by the Deceiver.
I see. So on that we'll point we'll have to disagree over this idea of "one and done immortality".
I don't have a problem with honest disagreement.
...and I'm complicated. You clarified what I just said in 6 words: 'mortal with the possibility of immortality'. If you want to use special definitions then go for it, but don't suggest anyone else is being complicated in joining you for the ride. Your terms are all confused.
There's nothing complicated, in my mind, about having more than one definition for a word. Webster's uses them all the time.
immortal: endless existence except when eating of the Tree of Knowledge--then it ceases to be "endless"
immortal: obtaining eternal life at the resurrection--this can never be severed
By the way, 'eternal' typically implies no beginning or end (in distinction to something that is 'temporal'), whereas 'immortal' implies a beginning with no end (im-mortal; not mortal).
As I said, words mean what they mean depending on how the author is using the terms. The context determines how the word is being used.
-
Actually, I agree with Augustine. I don't see this as "clearly" otherwise.
Augustine's misunderstanding is built on the Vulgate's translation of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, which didn't properly distinguish between 'in whom' and 'in which' when it came to ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. In the Vulgate we end up with in quo omnes peccaverunt, which translates to the familiar:
...in whom all have sinned.
But you can read the Greek for yourself (my emphasis added):
Romans 5:12 Διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι᾿ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ᾿ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον·
It seems to me that Augustine was mistaken, and the Vulgate's rendering of Romans 5:12 was less than ideal. Better:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—"
The -- is another translational difficulty. Did Paul lose his train of thought?
That said, where we do see ontic corruption even in Augustine's reading? If we assume that all humanity was somehow present in Adam at the fall, and guilty along with him, then how do we get from there to ontic corruption?
Call it "artistic license?" God designed His own drama. If there ever was to be "sin," someone had to begin it without duress. The desire to break from divine authority had to somehow come from within. But after Satan's rebellion, Man was chosen by God to be subject to duress in his choice-making. That way, if he fell, God could fall back on the redemptive process to complete His original pre-determined goal of filling the world with people in His image.
Those who, like Satan, continued to find reason to rebel from within, and not strictly from duress, could choose to follow Satan in his choice to rebel. Thus, the place of destruction formed for Satan could also be used to imprison human followers.
It's quite a play. But it appears to be real.
But why is sin necessary at all? Your view argues for partial determinism, so why can't God simply set up creation such that all beings are 'partially determined' to freely choose faith? Is "artistic license" a good response to related questions, like, "why do I have cancer?"
Well you see, God designed his own drama, and so on and so forth, and that's why you have cancer. Artistic license is cruel and sadistic.
No, that's pure Calvinism. I'm only partly Calvinistic. Calvin believed in double predestination. I believe in free choice. Man's choices determine who are born outside of God's original plan. The children thus born still have free choices, but are drawn to the objective of their birth in rebellion against God.
What does this mean, then, if not double predestination?
"Those who were not predestined are the product of independent human choice, along with the infection of Satan's rebellion. They are called, properly, "children of Satan."
If God predestines some for salvation and not others, then those others are actively predestined as well.
A rotten apple doesn't become less than an apple!
Rotting is to an apple as disease is to a human. What rotting is not comparable to, however, is ontic corruption. What you're talking about is a changing of or alternation to fundamental human nature. A being whose nature has been altered is no longer the same being. Ontically corrupted humanity =/= prelapsarian humanity. We look the same but we aren't, if we take to Augustine's view.
I think you misunderstand the reference. Jesus was "playing" the man...
...no I get that. I'm making the same rhetorical point.
The nature of redemption is dependent on the idea that Man, who walks in liberty can either make free choices before assuming a sin nature or can make free choices after assuming a sin nature. The Sin Nature establishes human liberty in a state of *independence from God,* or walking outside of dependence on God's word.
I believe the natural bent of Man after the Fall is self-determination before capitulating to God's word. In the history of the Christian world, the entire bent of philosophy has been looking to one's self first, to see if God exists, rather than looking through divine revelation to find meaning in the world. See Descartes, empiricism, existentialism, eg.
It reminds me of the story of the philosophers who climbed the mountain of self-exploration until upon reaching the summit they found some theologians who had long accepted God. Truth comes by God's self-revelation, and not strictly by human investigation. Have you read any of Francis Schaeffer?
I think if Francis Schaeffer were alive to read this response to my question he would have flown you to Switzerland just so you could hear his laments in person. But don't worry, because after a few minutes of lamenting I'd slap him for mishandling Kierkegaard as badly as he did in How Should We Then Live?.
So yes, I've read Schaffer. :)
The "word of God" is distinct from Jesus, since it preexisted Jesus' human form. Jesus, as a divine Being, preceded his human revelation. So it can be said that Jesus pre-existed his human form as the Word of God.
The "word" is God's communication, period. One way that He communicates to Man is by assuming a human form, whether in pre-incarnate theophanies or by showing Himself in Jesus.
Yo, what?
Kind of like the way Mendel got a physical inheritance out of scientific analysis? ;)
If you connect physical inheritances with the biblical portrait of a human sin nature, you will get this. But if you don't posit a Sin Nature, then you deny what Jews saw as the Sin Tendency. We are rebellious and independent of God's word from the start, from birth. All Israel required mitigation for sin, regardless of age or deed.
This is all about inheriting a rebellious nature from Adam, once he had chosen to live independent of God's word. Children continue to be born in his image, and yet now, that image is tarnished, and children, born in his image, are born in a sin image, having inherited both a physical and a spiritual legacy.
No, I asked how you arrived at your conclusion about Cain. Is this an explanation for it, and I'm simply not well read enough on the alchemical astrological sciences?
...Judaism rejects the idea of a 'sin nature' so I don't know how you're connecting the dots.
Cain exhibited something that warranted a biblical author calling him a "child of Satan." These are children who determine to live independent of God even after knowing that they've been misled by the Deceiver.
"A biblical author" and no reference... what? Do you mean 1 John 3 or something else? How does the reply above or 1 John 3 support the idea of a 'spiritual mutation'?
There's nothing complicated, in my mind, about having more than one definition for a word. Webster's uses them all the time.
immortal: endless existence except when eating of the Tree of Knowledge--then it ceases to be "endless"
immortal: obtaining eternal life at the resurrection--this can never be severed
...why not just use two words like everyone else does?
As I said, words mean what they mean depending on how the author is using the terms. The context determines how the word is being used.
The was I be no there you dude hey banana.
Author's intention and context, amirite?
-
Augustine's misunderstanding is built on the Vulgate's translation of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, which didn't properly distinguish between 'in whom' and 'in which' when it came to ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. In the Vulgate we end up with in quo omnes peccaverunt, which translates to the familiar:
...in whom all have sinned.
I agree with Augustine not because he got the Greek correct, but because I agree with his belief that the Bible assumes a Sin Nature that all of mankind is born with. My Greek Interlinear reads "inasmuch as" with respect to ἐφ᾿ ᾧ.
I agree that Paul's argument can be read incorrectly and have something read into it that isn't there. But that doesn't mean that there is no underlying assumption when it is everywhere assumed throughout Scriptures.
But why is sin necessary at all? Your view argues for partial determinism, so why can't God simply set up creation such that all beings are 'partially determined' to freely choose faith?
I answered that.
1) Partial Determinism is dependent on God determining what is absolutely determined and what is left up to free choice. 2) The angels could choose apart from duress. And in order to preserve God's word for Man part had to be determined despite the possible choice for sin.
God did in fact determine faith for those originally determined to be His people. The addition of people as a product of Man acting outside of God's will does not allow God to pre-determine their faith.
On the contrary, their inclination is towards rebellion against God's word, since they are the products of that rebellion. It is a predictable free choice that they will make.
What is not determined is how much good and how much bad someone who rebels will do. The good that they do will mitigate some of their punishment and choice to act apart from God's good will.
Well you see, God designed his own drama, and so on and so forth, and that's why you have cancer. Artistic license is cruel and sadistic.
God prepared cancer as a consequence of Man acting outside of His word.
What does this mean, then, if not double predestination?
I do ally with Calvinism. But I don't believe God determines people to reject Eternal Life. Indirectly, I suppose one could say in effect He does by setting the ground rules for the human consequence of rebelling against His word.
Man has produced children of disobedience, in which some will incline towards his original calling and some will incline against God's word. It is, I agree, predictable, and as such, looks entirely determined. In a Free Choice sense, I suppose one could call it that.
The point is that God absolutely determined a set number of people to fill His world. The addition of people due to Man's rebellion cannot alter that number.
But those who do not gravitate towards Salvation nevertheless have free will, and freely choose in the direction they gravitate towards. Furthermore, they determine, by free choice, how much they choose to obey God, and so mitigate their punishment for choosing to live independent of God's word.
Rotting is to an apple as disease is to a human. What rotting is not comparable to, however, is ontic corruption. What you're talking about is a changing of or alternation to fundamental human nature. A being whose nature has been altered is no longer the same being. Ontically corrupted humanity =/= prelapsarian humanity. We look the same but we aren't, if we take to Augustine's view.
You are the one arguing for defining Man's nature so as to exclude a Sin Nature--I'm not. Once Man has sinned, then that is what he has become--a Sinner.
I think if Francis Schaeffer were alive to read this response to my question he would have flown you to Switzerland just so you could hear his laments in person. But don't worry, because after a few minutes of lamenting I'd slap him for mishandling Kierkegaard as badly as he did in How Should We Then Live?.
So yes, I've read Schaffer. :)
I wouldn't be as harsh on Kierkegaard as Schaeffer was either. But I was referring to how Schaeffer places revelation ahead of understanding.
Yo, what?
You asked why I referred to God's word without a capital "W." And so, I told you. Don't you understand what I said?
God's word is His vehicle of communication, just like it is ours. Only, He can create things with His word, whereas we might tell someone to make us something.
Since God's word is also His own Person, He can form, through His word, into a human being who expresses His person. And that's what He did in OT theophanies, and also what he did in producing Christ.
Just for interest I would suggest that God is potentially much more than a Trinity, on the basis of what I just said. God can create an infinite number of expressions of His person. He didn't have to stop with producing only Christ! ;)
No, I asked how you arrived at your conclusion about Cain. Is this an explanation for it, and I'm simply not well read enough on the alchemical astrological sciences?
Yes, you're not well acquainted! ;) And I'm glad you're not.
My argument for Cain was the language in describing him as a "child of the Devil." And he is used as the archetype for one who rebels against God's word, not just temporarily, but as a life choice leading into eternity.
He chose to be Lost, separated form God forever, determined to live by his own independent choices and grumbling about God wanting control over his life and not being happy with what he thought were benign or perfectly good choices. Murder was the result of his "innocent" choices.
...Judaism rejects the idea of a 'sin nature' so I don't know how you're connecting the dots.
My understanding was they reject anything remotely connected to Christian Theology, and a supposed "Sin Nature" in that sense. But as I understand it, many of them have described something similar as a "Sin Inclination."
"A biblical author" and no reference... what? Do you mean 1 John 3 or something else? How does the reply above or 1 John 3 support the idea of a 'spiritual mutation'?
Yes, the Apostle John. I'm answering your question about how Cain is depicted biblically, or how biblical authors understood someone who not only sinned on occasion, but settled on a Sin Nature.
We all gravitate towards a Sin Nature because we are *born with it.* Women giving birth under the Law had to go through cleansing ceremonies. It wasn't just about the uncleanness of blood, but more, about the uncleanness of sin.
Jesus made a big deal by suggesting that food passing through our stomachs are not what makes us spiritually unclean, but rather, the thoughts that go through our head. Jesus is here suggesting we all have a Sin Nature, the moment evil passes through our minds, and we latch onto it. We do collect evil thoughts, and can dispose of them or indulge them. But it does give us a sense of vulnerability to it, right?
And our thoughts are the product not just of cold reasoning, but more a consultation of the heart, in connection with what the eyes see, etc. We gravitate towards wanting what we see, as opposed to consulting with God or with others as to whether they want the same thing before us.
Author's intention and context, amirite?
Of course, if you can't communicate it properly, then the author's intention won't be known. Ubecha
-
I agree with Augustine not because he got the Greek correct, but because I agree with his belief that the Bible assumes a Sin Nature that all of mankind is born with. My Greek Interlinear reads "inasmuch as" with respect to ἐφ᾿ ᾧ.
I agree that Paul's argument can be read incorrectly and have something read into it that isn't there. But that doesn't mean that there is no underlying assumption when it is everywhere assumed throughout Scriptures.
It seems that your answer to the question "where is ontic corruption in Romans 5:12" is to assert that in fact, "the Bible assumes a Sin Nature". This is not an answer to the question of where we read ontic corruption in Romans 5:12. So is it there, or are you reading it into the text from our post-Augustinian perspective? If it's there, where is it? If it's not there, is it possible that 'sin nature' is better understood as something else, maybe like how it's understood in Thomistic/Scholastic schools of thought?
I answered that.
1) Partial Determinism is dependent on God determining what is absolutely determined and what is left up to free choice. 2) The angels could choose apart from duress. And in order to preserve God's word for Man part had to be determined despite the possible choice for sin.
God did in fact determine faith for those originally determined to be His people. The addition of people as a product of Man acting outside of God's will does not allow God to pre-determine their faith.
On the contrary, their inclination is towards rebellion against God's word, since they are the products of that rebellion. It is a predictable free choice that they will make.
What is not determined is how much good and how much bad someone who rebels will do. The good that they do will mitigate some of their punishment and choice to act apart from God's good will.
This isn't an answer, it's circular. The answer seems to be that God didn't orient all of creation to faith because more babies showed up than God was expecting. So, the answer must be "because God didn't know". What other answer is there?
God prepared cancer as a consequence of Man acting outside of His word.
You think... God created cancer?
I do ally with Calvinism. But I don't believe God determines people to reject Eternal Life. Indirectly, I suppose one could say in effect He does by setting the ground rules for the human consequence of rebelling against His word.
Yes, it's double predestination indirectly, which is still double predestination if the other bit is direct/active.
Man has produced children of disobedience, in which some will incline towards his original calling and some will incline against God's word. It is, I agree, predictable, and as such, looks entirely determined. In a Free Choice sense, I suppose one could call it that.
The point is that God absolutely determined a set number of people to fill His world. The addition of people due to Man's rebellion cannot alter that number.
So like, He determined to save 144,000 and then screw the rest?
But those who do not gravitate towards Salvation nevertheless have free will, and freely choose in the direction they gravitate towards. Furthermore, they determine, by free choice, how much they choose to obey God, and so mitigate their punishment for choosing to live independent of God's word.
Oh okay, so Dante now.
You are the one arguing for defining Man's nature so as to exclude a Sin Nature--I'm not. Once Man has sinned, then that is what he has become--a Sinner.
I'm rejecting the notion that sin introduced ontic corruption into humanity. You haven't shown it in Scripture so far. You've only told me that Scripture assumes it, but this isn't clear.
You asked why I referred to God's word without a capital "W." And so, I told you. Don't you understand what I said?
God's word is His vehicle of communication, just like it is ours. Only, He can create things with His word, whereas we might tell someone to make us something.
Since God's word is also His own Person, He can form, through His word, into a human being who expresses His person. And that's what He did in OT theophanies, and also what he did in producing Christ.
Just for interest I would suggest that God is potentially much more than a Trinity, on the basis of what I just said. God can create an infinite number of expressions of His person. He didn't have to stop with producing only Christ! ;)
Yeah, I got what you said. An expression of a person is an analogy for modalism, and if you're suggesting more than a Trinity then that's clearly heterodox, or you're favourite word, heresy. What you seem to be saying is that God can express Himself any way He wishes. So no Trinity at all, but a Modal God. Are you sure you left that cult way back when?
Yes, you're not well acquainted! ;) And I'm glad you're not.
My argument for Cain was the language in describing him as a "child of the Devil." And he is used as the archetype for one who rebels against God's word, not just temporarily, but as a life choice leading into eternity.
He chose to be Lost, separated form God forever, determined to live by his own independent choices and grumbling about God wanting control over his life and not being happy with what he thought were benign or perfectly good choices. Murder was the result of his "innocent" choices.
Yeah, I read Jung instead. Right, so it's not an explanation at all for what you said.
My understanding was they reject anything remotely connected to Christian Theology, and a supposed "Sin Nature" in that sense. But as I understand it, many of them have described something similar as a "Sin Inclination."
It's too bad they didn't come up with the concept, apparently clear in Scripture, over those few thousand years they had on Christians. So, a bad connection then on your part.
Yes, the Apostle John. I'm answering your question about how Cain is depicted biblically, or how biblical authors understood someone who not only sinned on occasion, but settled on a Sin Nature.
We all gravitate towards a Sin Nature because we are *born with it.* Women giving birth under the Law had to go through cleansing ceremonies. It wasn't just about the uncleanness of blood, but more, about the uncleanness of sin.
Jesus made a big deal by suggesting that food passing through our stomachs are not what makes us spiritually unclean, but rather, the thoughts that go through our head. Jesus is here suggesting we all have a Sin Nature, the moment evil passes through our minds, and we latch onto it. We do collect evil thoughts, and can dispose of them or indulge them. But it does give us a sense of vulnerability to it, right?
And our thoughts are the product not just of cold reasoning, but more a consultation of the heart, in connection with what the eyes see, etc. We gravitate towards wanting what we see, as opposed to consulting with God or with others as to whether they want the same thing before us.
Again, this is an explanation that assumes the sin nature it attempts to demonstrate. Is there anything in the text that attests to a sin nature and not 'just', say, the misdirection of the will towards ungodly ends?
Of course, if you can't communicate it properly, then the author's intention won't be known. Ubecha
Exactly.
-
If it's not there, is it possible that 'sin nature' is better understood as something else, maybe like how it's understood in Thomistic/Scholastic schools of thought?
Again, the Sin Nature is assumed, logically, in Rom 5.12. It is logically demanded, but not spelled out. To argue Augustine or Thomas Aquinas requires that we argue from the perspective of Greek philosophical assumptions, which can end us in a quagmire.
We don't have to go that far. The Bible assumes Man is a spiritual being, like God Himself, that he is made in God's character, being a moral agent with choice. And having made a choice against God's word in the garden, he became something different, which we call being "endowed with a Sin Nature." Man's nature changed without Man ceasing to be Man and without him ceasing to have his original calling.
Since Jesus pointed out that sin is not physical, but spiritual, and from the heart, we know that the Sin Nature is a spiritual quality in Man that corrupts his thoughts. We are born with it, even though we still know our original calling--perhaps subconsciously. And we can still do good. Having a Sin Nature, we can overcome it with greater enlightenment in our intellectual darkness.
This isn't an answer, it's circular. The answer seems to be that God didn't orient all of creation to faith because more babies showed up than God was expecting. So, the answer must be "because God didn't know". What other answer is there?
It's an answer *for me,* because it explains how things only seemed to get out of God's control.
You think... God created cancer?
I not only think it--I know it. God created everything that exists, good and evil. What He originally wanted is a different thing.
So like, He determined to save 144,000 and then screw the rest?
Leave the 144,000 out--that confuses things. We can use the real number. God wanted X number of people to *fill the world.* Only God knows X, but we know it must fill the world.
The excess babies originate from natural creative human processes that God gave to Man, for reproduction. The fact that Man compromised his spiritual nature, adopting a Sin Nature, was not God's idea, but Man's idea.
The choice of these "excess children" to choose for a life of independence from God follows from the spiritual nature of their parents to rebel, whereas God did not ever choose them to come into being in the first place. God simply is following through on the creative processes He gave to Man, and Satan is using that to obtain a following.
Yeah, I got what you said. An expression of a person is an analogy for modalism...
I came up with my own view in opposition to the modalism of the cult I was leaving! ;) The rest of your false characterization about my beliefs I'll omit for now. No, I'm not heterodox in my view of the Trinity. I've given you the Scriptural basis for a Sin Nature that is now part of Man's spiritual makeup. It is apparently insufficient for you, but it does help me. As in many things, I am open to correction.
-
I don't assume anything, and Romans 5 is far from either an explicit statement or inference of it.
Adam did not have a "sin nature," yet he clearly sinned.
"Sin nature" is not logically demanded anywhere, and in fact, is clearly contraindicated in the creation narrative itself.
-
Adam did not have a "sin nature," yet he clearly sinned.
"Sin nature" is not logically demanded anywhere, and in fact, is clearly contraindicated in the creation narrative itself.
Pastors pounding "you have a sin nature" into the minds of congregants weekly. Sad. Debilitating.
-
I don't assume anything, and Romans 5 is far from either an explicit statement or inference of it.
Adam did not have a "sin nature," yet he clearly sinned.
"Sin nature" is not logically demanded anywhere, and in fact, is clearly contraindicated in the creation narrative itself.
I couldn't disagree more. Adam didn't have to have a Sin Nature to sin. But those born after the Fall had to sin because they had a Sin Nature.
Rom 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.
What Paul is saying is that sin existed as a spiritual reality resident in Man even without an official record of what Sin was. It's just that the Law was given to clarify what Sin was so that mankind would be judged for remaining in it, when there is an option to leave it.
Since it is in us, we can depart from living in Sin, even if we can't expunge it from our being. The fact that we are told to "overcome" Sin indicates it is always with us, as part of our makeup since the Fall.
-
those born after the Fall had to sin because they had a Sin Nature.
emphasis mine.
This is just one of many such sweeping statements you have made without any careful scriptural foundation.
Seeing how this is a Bible forum, I would adjure you to Biblically establish just where it is that men after the fall "had to sin," and do you grasp the significance of such a revolutionary teaching?
Actually, my sin is on me because I acted out of free will, just like Adam.
-
I couldn't disagree more. Adam didn't have to have a Sin Nature to sin. But those born after the Fall had to sin because they had a Sin Nature.
Rom 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.
What Paul is saying is that sin existed as a spiritual reality resident in Man even without an official record of what Sin was. It's just that the Law was given to clarify what Sin was so that mankind would be judged for remaining in it, when there is an option to leave it.
Since it is in us, we can depart from living in Sin, even if we can't expunge it from our being. The fact that we are told to "overcome" Sin indicates it is always with us, as part of our makeup since the Fall.
What does verse 14 say?
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
If Paul is arguing for an ontic corruption, sin nature, etc., then it's odd to write "even over those who did not sin by breaking a command". Why should that matter if everyone after Adam possessed a sin nature? It's because Paul isn't writing ontology in this portion of Romans. When in v13 he says that sin is in the world, he means exactly what a Jew would have meant by that: sin instantiated by people, missing the mark in their faith, behaviours, etc. People sinned though they weren't aware of it. God doesn't judge people over what they don't know.
But what should it matter if God doesn't judge people over what they don't know if those very same people have sin natures that condemn them? Paul, like the good Jew that he was, did not teach that people had an ontic sin nature. That we're told to 'overcome' sin indicates that we always have the choice in how we act and how we live. It does not indicate any kind of nature or makeup of humanity.
-
I couldn't disagree more. Adam didn't have to have a Sin Nature to sin. But those born after the Fall had to sin because they had a Sin Nature.
Rom 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.
What Paul is saying is that sin existed as a spiritual reality resident in Man even without an official record of what Sin was. It's just that the Law was given to clarify what Sin was so that mankind would be judged for remaining in it, when there is an option to leave it.
Since it is in us, we can depart from living in Sin, even if we can't expunge it from our being. The fact that we are told to "overcome" Sin indicates it is always with us, as part of our makeup since the Fall.
What does verse 14 say?
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
If Paul is arguing for an ontic corruption, sin nature, etc., then it's odd to write "even over those who did not sin by breaking a command". Why should that matter if everyone after Adam possessed a sin nature? It's because Paul isn't writing ontology in this portion of Romans. When in v13 he says that sin is in the world, he means exactly what a Jew would have meant by that: sin instantiated by people, missing the mark in their faith, behaviours, etc. People sinned though they weren't aware of it. God doesn't judge people over what they don't know.
But what should it matter if God doesn't judge people over what they don't know if those very same people have sin natures that condemn them? Paul, like the good Jew that he was, did not teach that people had an ontic sin nature. That we're told to 'overcome' sin indicates that we always have the choice in how we act and how we live. It does not indicate any kind of nature or makeup of humanity.
Verse 14 indicates that Sin was a spiritual inheritance Man had, even without knowing the details of what Sin was. It began as an attitude of rebellion against God's word in the garden of Eden, and was then passed on down to future generations.
Sin required the Law of Moses in order to clarify to a nation what exactly God wanted, so that they could understand how to oppose this inner urge to rebel. They had to be told to resist anger and murder, covetousness and theft.
Sin was already in them, and they were already being judged. But God wanted to teach the nations how to be in covenant with Himself, and so they had to know the basis of this covenant relationship. They had to know what Sin actually was in order to overcome it. In a practical sense, they had to be told certain behaviors were indicative of sin and should be avoided.
Just as judgment of sin continued without a full knowledge of what Sin was, so did death continue without people knowing, in detail, was Sin was. Sin, judgment, and death all continued before Israel even had the Law.
But God wanted Israel to know the kinds of things that bring on judgment and death so that they could avoid them, to some degree. A covenant relationship could be had even in their imperfection simply by living an overcomer's life, resisting the inner sin, and choosing to walk in the likeness of God.
And they only had to add to this knowledge of God and obedience an involvement in the ceremonies representing what repentance was and what it would mean for God to forgive them their Sin. Thus the Law brought about a greater understanding of the cost of forgiveness, both to God and to ourselves. And we continue to pay that cost by bearing our own Sin and the need to continually overcome it.
-
Verse 14 indicates that Sin was a spiritual inheritance Man had, even without knowing the details of what Sin was. It began as an attitude of rebellion against God's word in the garden of Eden, and was then passed on down to future generations.
Sin required the Law of Moses in order to clarify to a nation what exactly God wanted, so that they could understand how to oppose this inner urge to rebel. They had to be told to resist anger and murder, covetousness and theft.
Sin was already in them, and they were already being judged. But God wanted to teach the nations how to be in covenant with Himself, and so they had to know the basis of this covenant relationship. They had to know what Sin actually was in order to overcome it. In a practical sense, they had to be told certain behaviors were indicative of sin and should be avoided.
Just as judgment of sin continued without a full knowledge of what Sin was, so did death continue without people knowing, in detail, was Sin was. Sin, judgment, and death all continued before Israel even had the Law.
But God wanted Israel to know the kinds of things that bring on judgment and death so that they could avoid them, to some degree. A covenant relationship could be had even in their imperfection simply by living an overcomer's life, resisting the inner sin, and choosing to walk in the likeness of God.
And they only had to add to this knowledge of God and obedience an involvement in the ceremonies representing what repentance was and what it would mean for God to forgive them their Sin. Thus the Law brought about a greater understanding of the cost of forgiveness, both to God and to ourselves. And we continue to pay that cost by bearing our own Sin and the need to continually overcome it.
Verse 14 indicates that we live with the consequences of Adam's sin insofar as Paul is contrasting death in Adam with life in Christ. What we inherit is a broken relationship with God, with creation, with each other. Death. We aren't beneficiaries of the same grace given to Adam and Eve in the garden at their creation.
Verse 14 does not indicate that we possess some kind of corrupted nature as a result of Adam's sin in Genesis 3. Neither does verse 12, or verse 13, or any of the discussion in Romans 5, which isn't ontological.
When you say "Sin was already in them, and they were already being judged" you go against Paul. Paul is clear in v13 that no one is judged for sin they commit in ignorance. He also says that this doesn't nullify the consequences of Adam's sin, which is death. So, people who aren't judged still die because through Adam's disobedience death entered into the world. Paul isn't talking about death as judgment for sin committed in ignorance, but death as a consequence of Adam's sin.
It's ludicrous, of course, to suggest that only with the giving of the Law did people learn that murder and theft were wrong. People already knew this; the ancients weren't idiots. What they didn't know was that these wrongs extended beyond morality. It's not simply morally wrong to murder someone, it's a sin against God. It's not just a value that's being violated, but a relationship. We don't relate to an abstract moral order, but being.
But again, in all of this there's no hint of a corrupted human nature. This is humanity separated from God. If Adam could sin in the Garden, then how much more can we sin in the wilderness? Quite a lot more, it seems.
-
Verse 14 indicates that we live with the consequences of Adam's sin insofar as Paul is contrasting death in Adam with life in Christ. What we inherit is a broken relationship with God, with creation, with each other. Death. We aren't beneficiaries of the same grace given to Adam and Eve in the garden at their creation.
Verse 14 does not indicate that we possess some kind of corrupted nature as a result of Adam's sin in Genesis 3. Neither does verse 12, or verse 13, or any of the discussion in Romans 5, which isn't ontological.
The exact opposite is true. Vs. 14 teaches that all men have the exact same nature as Adam had after he had indulged in Sin, even though they didn't commit the initial act of rebellion against God's word that Adam committed. How else could all men be in this predicament if they had not sinned as Adam had? Do you think each individual human being partakes of the Tree of Knowledge? If not, then the insinuation is that we have all inherited Adam's sinful nature.
In the same way we inherit our parents' DNA all men inherit a Sin Nature from Adam and Eve. However, DNA is a physical inheritance, whereas a Sin Nature is a spiritual inheritance. Both are real.
If you speak of a "broken relationship with God," then you are not merely speaking of the common mortal lot of humanity, but more, of the cause that brings this about, which is a Sin Nature. Individual Sins would have to be committed before one could be called "mortal."
Rom 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. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
This is inherited, ontological Sin! It is not just an act, which certainly wouldn't be true of anybody not yet born. Rather, it is an inherited quality, anticipated on behalf of all future generations until the resurrection, the re-creation of our human nature to be sinless by nature.
When you say "Sin was already in them, and they were already being judged" you go against Paul. Paul is clear in v13 that no one is judged for sin they commit in ignorance. He also says that this doesn't nullify the consequences of Adam's sin, which is death. So, people who aren't judged still die because through Adam's disobedience death entered into the world. Paul isn't talking about death as judgment for sin committed in ignorance, but death as a consequence of Adam's sin.
Nobody dies simply because Adam died! They die because like Adam they allow Sin to either enter within them or they indulge in the Sin that is already within them as a tempting force. Death continues in mankind because all of mankind is cursed with a Sin Nature.
I don't believe Paul said people are not judged without a law informing them of what Sin is. On the contrary, Paul was arguing that they were judged even before the Law came, because Sin existed in them whether they fully understood what it was or not. They weren't being specifically judged under the Law, but they were being judged nonetheless, eg by suffering death.
It's ludicrous, of course, to suggest that only with the giving of the Law did people learn that murder and theft were wrong. People already knew this; the ancients weren't idiots. What they didn't know was that these wrongs extended beyond morality. It's not simply morally wrong to murder someone, it's a sin against God. It's not just a value that's being violated, but a relationship. We don't relate to an abstract moral order, but being.
Of course. This illustrates my point, that Paul was referring to a judgment that God wished to bring along with greater understanding. And God did this so that Israel would also know how to live in covenant relationship with God by overcoming this Sin inclination.
Sin was already there. But God wanted Israel to have a greater understanding of it so as to sufficiently avoid it and thereby remain in covenant relationship with God.
But again, in all of this there's no hint of a corrupted human nature. This is humanity separated from God. If Adam could sin in the Garden, then how much more can we sin in the wilderness? Quite a lot more, it seems.
You're really standing outside of centuries of belief. But I suppose you must live by your own faith? I believe in a Sin Nature because I experience its temptations every day, and I sure don't invite it in!
-
The exact opposite is true. Vs. 14 teaches that all men have the exact same nature as Adam had after he had indulged in Sin, even though they didn't commit the initial act of rebellion against God's word that Adam committed. How else could all men be in this predicament if they had not sinned as Adam had? Do you think each individual human being partakes of the Tree of Knowledge? If not, then the insinuation is that we have all inherited Adam's sinful nature.
As Paul wrote: we're in the predicament we're in because we all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, death (even when we're ignorant of sin). Further, we all sin just like Adam and Eve sinned. But this is the emphasis: act. The emphasis is not being. Paul is not insinuating that we've inherited Adam's sinful nature. What we've inherited is death, broken relationships, the withdrawing of God's grace in the way that we had it in the garden, and so forth.
In the same way we inherit our parents' DNA all men inherit a Sin Nature from Adam and Eve. However, DNA is a physical inheritance, whereas a Sin Nature is a spiritual inheritance. Both are real.
So you keep saying.
If you speak of a "broken relationship with God," then you are not merely speaking of the common mortal lot of humanity, but more, of the cause that brings this about, which is a Sin Nature. Individual Sins would have to be committed before one could be called "mortal."
The cause that brought about our broken relationship with God was Adam's sin and the consequent withdrawing of God/expulsion of humanity from God's presence. Everyone is mortal by virtue of the fact that humanity was created mortal. So, if you think individual sins are required then that's something to answer in your own view, not mine.
Rom 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. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
This is inherited, ontological Sin! It is not just an act, which certainly wouldn't be true of anybody not yet born. Rather, it is an inherited quality, anticipated on behalf of all future generations until the resurrection, the re-creation of our human nature to be sinless by nature.
Paul, the Jewish scholar that he was, isn't arguing for an ontological sin nature. What he has in view is sin-as-act. For example, Adam's sins (lack of faith, disobedience, etc.) were in the world before the law was given. Death reigns as a consequence of Adam's sin. This is external to human being. It's a consequence of our expulsion from God's presence of the privation of the grace(s) we had in the garden.
Nobody dies simply because Adam died!
Everybody dies because through Adam death entered into the world.
They die because like Adam they allow Sin to either enter within them or they indulge in the Sin that is already within them as a tempting force. Death continues in mankind because all of mankind is cursed with a Sin Nature.
Well, like Adam we all sin, but Paul isn't positing an ontological sin nature in saying that.
I don't believe Paul said people are not judged without a law informing them of what Sin is. On the contrary, Paul was arguing that they were judged even before the Law came, because Sin existed in them whether they fully understood what it was or not. They weren't being specifically judged under the Law, but they were being judged nonetheless, eg by suffering death.
Paul said what he said:
"sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law."
You know my view, so you'll need to account for this in your own view. He was not saying:
"sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law, except when it comes to death."
You're really standing outside of centuries of belief. But I suppose you must live by your own faith? I believe in a Sin Nature because I experience its temptations every day, and I sure don't invite it in!
You've disqualified yourself from appealing to centuries of belief until you apply that own standard to your view concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.
With that said, I don't in fact stand outside centuries of belief. My view is in line with the Thomistic/Scholastic conception of original sin. That view isn't in line with the Calvinist understanding, so as far as Calvinism is concerned I'm heterodox or worse on this matter. I don't care much for Calvin though so that doesn't bother me.
You experience temptations, just as Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, experienced temptation. You didn't invite it, but there it is, and sometimes it talks to you. No sin nature required, just agency. Or, I mean, I guess in your view it's all either determined or partially determined and God invited it in on your behalf.
-
As Paul wrote: we're in the predicament we're in because we all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, death (even when we're ignorant of sin). Further, we all sin just like Adam and Eve sinned. But this is the emphasis: act. The emphasis is not being. Paul is not insinuating that we've inherited Adam's sinful nature. What we've inherited is death, broken relationships, the withdrawing of God's grace in the way that we had it in the garden, and so forth.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. You think Sin is purely actions people decide to take. So you're assuming that every single person is innocent and dies in that innocence without having to Sin?
The cause that brought about our broken relationship with God was Adam's sin and the consequent withdrawing of God/expulsion of humanity from God's presence. Everyone is mortal by virtue of the fact that humanity was created mortal. So, if you think individual sins are required then that's something to answer in your own view, not mine.
You have to answer the question as to why people are bequeathed the condition of death when they are not guilty of sin? As for my own defense of the position, the Bible says that the "wages of sin are death." That means, death is earned by sinful actions. And since we all die, the implication is that we all have a Sin Nature, prompting us to sin, in lesser or greater measures.
Our salvation is not in not sinning. Rather, it is in overcoming sin by choosing a lifestyle that rejects sin. We choose Christ as our life, and by default reject a life in which sin overcomes us.
Well, like Adam we all sin, but Paul isn't positing an ontological sin nature in saying that.
That is for me a meaningless statement, a claim without justification. Adam sinned, so we all choose to sin? That doesn't follow unless we all have a Sin Nature guaranteeing that we *will* sin. Yes, sin is an action, but it is guaranteed to take place because of our corrupted *nature.*
Paul said what he said:
"sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law."
You know my view, so you'll need to account for this in your own view. He was not saying:
"sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law, except when it comes to death."
I'm trying to get you to reconsider your view. The passage, to me, suggests that the Law was not designed to judge men who otherwise would not be judged. On the contrary, well before the Law the Flood judged the world at that time.
You've disqualified yourself from appealing to centuries of belief until you apply that own standard to your view concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.
Not at all. There aren't centuries of orthodoxy that oppose many-multiple personalities of God in theory! ;) On the contrary, defending the Trinity for 20 some centuries guarantees that we have a right to define an omnipotent God in mortal terms without limitation (ie in finite terms that we as humans can understand).
With that said, I don't in fact stand outside centuries of belief. My view is in line with the Thomistic/Scholastic conception of original sin. That view isn't in line with the Calvinist understanding, so as far as Calvinism is concerned I'm heterodox or worse on this matter. I don't care much for Calvin though so that doesn't bother me.
Yes, I can see where you stand on this. To me, it makes little difference if you think we don't have a Sin Nature and yet Sin, or if I think that we have a Sin Nature and therefore Sin. The point is, we all Sin and require Christian redemption, right?
I'm not even comparing your view to heresy or heterodoxy--I'm just honestly discussing what I think the Bible teaches. If it isn't completely clear on this subject for you or for me or for others, we all have different backgrounds. We'll work through it, hopefully.
For me, the only way I can explain my compulsion to sin is by reference to a Sin Nature. If you don't, I have a difficult time understanding that. You willfully sin without feeling any internal rise in pride, lust, greed or covetousness? You don't get angry except that someone outside of yourself makes you angry? I can only blame myself for failure, and yet console myself that I've been born with this "disability" called Sin. I can overcome it, but it isn't pleasant having it taint everything I do, rendering me "contaminated."
You experience temptations, just as Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, experienced temptation. You didn't invite it, but there it is, and sometimes it talks to you. No sin nature required, just agency. Or, I mean, I guess in your view it's all either determined or partially determined and God invited it in on your behalf.
I don't think Adam and Eve had Sin within themselves, until they capitulated to the temptation. On the other hand, everybody after the Fall has sin generated within them from birth.
You can claim it's external forces acting upon us to generate Sin within us, but I really think we have to admit that nothing can *make us Sin,* except ourselves. If Satan tempts us, we can ignore it unlike Adam and Eve.
But the fact we fail *every time* indicates that this isn't just a matter of ignoring Satanic temptations or not. Surely someone would successfully ignore Satan's temptations and not Sin?
But this isn't what we find. We find that we *all* capitulate, meaning that if Adam and Eve were not initially weak, we are now. We've inherited a weakness, however you want to describe it. Even more than a weakness, it leaves us feeling guilty and flawed in *everything* we do!
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree?
-
Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. You think Sin is purely actions people decide to take. So you're assuming that every single person is innocent and dies in that innocence without having to Sin?
I'm not assuming that, no. It doesn't follow from what I'm saying either.
I think sin is act, yes, and I don't think human nature was corrupted through Adam's sin. I also think that all humanity suffers the consequences of Adam's sin, and our expulsion from God's presence is not insignificant in its impact on the orientation of our being, effect on our will, and so forth.
You have to answer the question as to why people are bequeathed the condition of death when they are not guilty of sin?
I already have. Death is a consequence of Adam's sin that impacts all humanity, and all humanity sins. I don't know where you're getting this idea that I think no one is guilty of sin, from.
As for my own defense of the position, the Bible says that the "wages of sin are death." That means, death is earned by sinful actions. And since we all die, the implication is that we all have a Sin Nature, prompting us to sin, in lesser or greater measures.
Where does that implication come from? If the wages of sin are death, and everyone sins, and everyone dies, then where does a sin nature come in? Adam sinned without a sin nature.
Our salvation is not in not sinning. Rather, it is in overcoming sin by choosing a lifestyle that rejects sin. We choose Christ as our life, and by default reject a life in which sin overcomes us.
Our salvation is by grace through faith. Striving to live a life that honours Christ is part of the life of faith. But, our salvation is not in our own overcoming sin.
That is for me a meaningless statement, a claim without justification. Adam sinned, so we all choose to sin? That doesn't follow unless we all have a Sin Nature guaranteeing that we *will* sin. Yes, sin is an action, but it is guaranteed to take place because of our corrupted *nature.*
This doesn't require a sin nature, no. We sin because we choose to sin. Why do we choose to sin if we don't have a sin nature? Why did Adam choose to sin, lacking a sin nature himself? There's your answer (to say nothing of sin in ignorance).
What differentiates us from Adam is our position in the world and before God, and this has no small impact on our being, which was not meant to exist out of relation with God.
I'm trying to get you to reconsider your view. The passage, to me, suggests that the Law was not designed to judge men who otherwise would not be judged. On the contrary, well before the Law the Flood judged the world at that time.
I know. I don't find your view compelling.
Not at all. There aren't centuries of orthodoxy that oppose many-multiple personalities of God in theory! ;) On the contrary, defending the Trinity for 20 some centuries guarantees that we have a right to define an omnipotent God in mortal terms without limitation (ie in finite terms that we as humans can understand).
Yes, there is, and it's called the doctrine of the Trinity. Your appeal to councils against others, that you then deny yourself, is hypocritical.
Yes, I can see where you stand on this. To me, it makes little difference if you think we don't have a Sin Nature and yet Sin, or if I think that we have a Sin Nature and therefore Sin. The point is, we all Sin and require Christian redemption, right?
It seems to me that we shouldn't believe things that are false.
For me, the only way I can explain my compulsion to sin is by reference to a Sin Nature. If you don't, I have a difficult time understanding that. You willfully sin without feeling any internal rise in pride, lust, greed or covetousness? You don't get angry except that someone outside of yourself makes you angry? I can only blame myself for failure, and yet console myself that I've been born with this "disability" called Sin. I can overcome it, but it isn't pleasant having it taint everything I do, rendering me "contaminated."
That's the thing: it's your nature, you can't overcome it. You can blame yourself though with some relief. I myself am wholly responsible. There is no appeal to 'my nature made me do it'.
I don't know what you're trying to suggest, though. What's led you to think that I think someone would sin 'without feeling any internal rise in pride, lust, greed' and so on?
You can claim it's external forces acting upon us to generate Sin within us, but I really think we have to admit that nothing can *make us Sin,* except ourselves. If Satan tempts us, we can ignore it unlike Adam and Eve.
If you have a sin nature then that compels you to sin. I don't think we have a sin nature and we sin anyway. We all fail our temptations.
But the fact we fail *every time* indicates that this isn't just a matter of ignoring Satanic temptations or not. Surely someone would successfully ignore Satan's temptations and not Sin?
Sure, and then they fail when presented with some other temptation.
But this isn't what we find. We find that we *all* capitulate, meaning that if Adam and Eve were not initially weak, we are now. We've inherited a weakness, however you want to describe it. Even more than a weakness, it leaves us feeling guilty and flawed in *everything* we do!
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree?
You may if you like.
-
If "human" = sin nature (ontologically) and,
If "sin nature" = actual sinful acts are impossible to avoid, and
If "engaging in sinful acts" = actual existence and identification as sinner in opposition to and in open defiance to God's holiness,
then it must follow that
Jesus is not human,
and it likewise must follow that Jesus is an insufficient sacrifice, an insufficient propitiation, an insufficient savior, an insufficient high priest, and a false Messiah.
-
I'm not assuming that, no. It doesn't follow from what I'm saying either.
If the Scriptures indicate death is the consequence of sin, it does follow that *all* those who die sinned. You're not explaining how Adam's sin caused all of his descendants to die before they even sin!
To just say that death is the inheritance of Man, and not Sin, is to say that people die as part of the punishment of Adam. That part does make sense in isolation, because Adam may have flipped the switch to turn the temperature to freezing, and we will all die, regardless of the fact we did not turn the switch.
However, this does not explain why Adam's ancestors are punished for what Adam alone did? And it doesn't explain why *all* of his descendants capitulate to Sin, as Adam did?
If they did not inherit a Sin Nature, surely one or two of us would choose not to Sin? But if we have all inherited a Sin Nature, we can be redeemed and still have a Sin Nature that we do not completely expunge from us, but rather, choose to resist and overcome.
Let's say Adam drank a concoction filled with bacteria and viruses. Then he gave birth, through Eve, to children who did not contract any of the diseases that Adam himself contracted. They did not inherit a Disease Nature.
But let's say that Adam died from his diseases, and that his descendants also died as if from those same diseases, even though they had not contracted those diseases causing death. Does that make any sense? I don't think so.
You seem to be implying that all of Adam's descendants died without this "Disease Nature," and yet 100% chose to sin like Adam without having any predilection to do so. This just doesn't make sense to me! A Sin Nature would explain it better, in my opinion.
I think sin is act, yes, and I don't think human nature was corrupted through Adam's sin. I also think that all humanity suffers the consequences of Adam's sin, and our expulsion from God's presence is not insignificant in its impact on the orientation of our being, effect on our will, and so forth.
Adam sinned without a sin nature.
That is an irrelevant fact to me. The fact Adam did not require a Sin Nature to sin does not mean his descendants did not require a Sin Nature to sin, if indeed there is no indication any of them did not sin.
If there had been two Adams, and one chose to sin without a Sin Nature and the other chose not to sin without a Sin Nature, it would've been clear that either Adam did not have to sin. No Sin Nature imposed that upon them.
But when *every* descendant of Adam chooses to sin, I can hardly conclude that there wasn't something imposing its will on all of them to make them all sin!
-
I'm trying to get you to reconsider your view. The passage, to me, suggests that the Law was not designed to judge men who otherwise would not be judged. On the contrary, well before the Law the Flood judged the world at that time.
I know. I don't find your view compelling.
That's hardly a basis for disagreement if you can't answer the pertinent questions. Again, people were judged by the Flood well before there was a Law. Your interpretation of the following passage does not explain that:
Rom 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.
I'm saying that this passage describes how God used the Law of Moses to explain *why* He was punishing sin even when those people did not have a full understanding of what sin was. It is not saying they had no understanding, nor is it denying that they were being punished for what they did know. It's just stating a general principle, that God's punishment is directed to people who consciously sin.
Not at all. There aren't centuries of orthodoxy that oppose many-multiple personalities of God in theory! ;) On the contrary, defending the Trinity for 20 some centuries guarantees that we have a right to define an omnipotent God in mortal terms without limitation (ie in finite terms that we as humans can understand).
Yes, there is, and it's called the doctrine of the Trinity. Your appeal to councils against others, that you then deny yourself, is hypocritical.
You didn't address the statements I made in any detail. You're just making an over-arching judgment without considering what my defense was. No sense discussing it then.
Again, Trinitarian orthodoxy does not preclude belief that God can appear in more personalities. It only establishes that there were 3 distinct personalities of God in the Bible who are the same God. Reference to theophanies were simply considered irrelevant, since they were temporary in appearance.
Yes, I can see where you stand on this. To me, it makes little difference if you think we don't have a Sin Nature and yet Sin, or if I think that we have a Sin Nature and therefore Sin. The point is, we all Sin and require Christian redemption, right?
It seems to me that we shouldn't believe things that are false.
Yes, we can agree on that point! ;)
But if you're to be practical-minded and "irenic," as many good Christians in history have been, you'll concede that it is necessary to "agree to disagree" on many peripheral points. But if you want to argue that peripheral points are matters of "hypocrisy," you'll just keep adding fuel to the fire.
That's the thing: it's your nature, you can't overcome it. You can blame yourself though with some relief. I myself am wholly responsible. There is no appeal to 'my nature made me do it'.
You're arguing what we're trying to determine is necessary. In my view, it hasn't been decided, between us, that a Sin Nature cannot be "overcome." You seem to be arguing that we would have to stop being human if we have a Sin Nature?
But I'm arguing that though a Sin Nature forces us to have a predilection to choosing sin, we don't always have to act upon our unclean thoughts. We invariably do sin in these lesser matters of unclean thoughts. But that doesn't mean I have to take out a knife and kill you in my rage that you dare challenge my opinions!
I don't know what you're trying to suggest, though. What's led you to think that I think someone would sin 'without feeling any internal rise in pride, lust, greed' and so on?
You are claiming we don't have a Sin Nature. Satan imposed Sin on Adam without any Sin yet in Adam. Adam generated the Sin within himself before he had any "uncleanness."
But when we sin, as descendants of Adam, we have a certain "uncleanness" about ourselves, even before Sin is presented to us by Satan or by anyone else. We have *guilt,* because it is already resident within us before we capitulate to any temptations.
We are born with it, and it doesn't even have to be presented to us from without, from external forces. The pride of sin is already in us such that even innocuous information can be presented to our minds, and we will turn that into something prideful.
You seem predisposed to reject whatever I present to you. Is that because I nearly *always* give you bad information, or because you're by nature disagreeable?
I think we all have a predisposition towards being disagreeable. A Sin Nature explains why we all tend towards being disagreeable. It is our job to resist and to overcome this "disagreeability!" ;)
-
If the Scriptures indicate death is the consequence of sin, it does follow that *all* those who die sinned. You're not explaining how Adam's sin caused all of his descendants to die before they even sin!
...I have, so again, everyone dies regardless of whether they've sinned or not because death is a consequence of Adam's sin, and it's a consequence we all suffer. It's a consequence just like the other curses of Genesis 3 are a consequence. I'm not sure what isn't clear so you'll have to clarify your question if this isn't doing it for you.
To just say that death is the inheritance of Man, and not Sin, is to say that people die as part of the punishment of Adam. That part does make sense in isolation, because Adam may have flipped the switch to turn the temperature to freezing, and we will all die, regardless of the fact we did not turn the switch.
I'm saying that a sinful nature is not an inheritance. I'm also saying that death is a consequence, not a punishment. It was a consequence for Adam as well (a consequence of being expelled from the Garden and God's presence). So along with this, I don't think 'punishment' is the right way to conceive of the consequences of Adam's disobedience. No punishment is necessary in light of the natural consequences that follow.
However, this does not explain why Adam's ancestors are punished for what Adam alone did? And it doesn't explain why *all* of his descendants capitulate to Sin, as Adam did?
Again, consequence, no punishment. And, we all sin because we're free to make choices, just like Adam was free to make choices. We sin all the more because we're removed from God's presence, which properly orients and grounds our being.
If they did not inherit a Sin Nature, surely one or two of us would choose not to Sin?
There's a difference between choosing to refrain from sin, and refraining from sin. Plenty of people have chosen not to sin and still sin, so apparently, it's easier said than done. Are you perfect in all your intentions? Do you love your neighbours as yourself? Your enemies? Do you love God fully and with your whole being every moment of every day? Sin nature isn't required to explain why people sin. Refraining from sin is nigh impossible.
But if we have all inherited a Sin Nature, we can be redeemed and still have a Sin Nature that we do not completely expunge from us, but rather, choose to resist and overcome.
We're still in need of redemption even if we didn't inherit a sin nature.
Let's say Adam drank a concoction filled with bacteria and viruses. Then he gave birth, through Eve, to children who did not contract any of the diseases that Adam himself contracted. They did not inherit a Disease Nature.
But let's say that Adam died from his diseases, and that his descendants also died as if from those same diseases, even though they had not contracted those diseases causing death. Does that make any sense? I don't think so.
I agree. This example doesn't make any sense.
You seem to be implying that all of Adam's descendants died without this "Disease Nature," and yet 100% chose to sin like Adam without having any predilection to do so. This just doesn't make sense to me! A Sin Nature would explain it better, in my opinion.
I'm not implying anything. I'm outright stating that Scripture doesn't teach the existence of a sin nature. In Kierkegaard's time, people thought faith was easy. In the view you're espousing, you seem to think not sinning is easy. It's not. The standard isn't attainable. Oh hello, Jesus...
That is an irrelevant fact to me. The fact Adam did not require a Sin Nature to sin does not mean his descendants did not require a Sin Nature to sin, if indeed there is no indication any of them did not sin.
You might want to check your logic circuits because that's exactly what it means. It means that a sin nature isn't necessary for sin to happen.
If there had been two Adams, and one chose to sin without a Sin Nature and the other chose not to sin without a Sin Nature, it would've been clear that either Adam did not have to sin. No Sin Nature imposed that upon them.
But when *every* descendant of Adam chooses to sin, I can hardly conclude that there wasn't something imposing its will on all of them to make them all sin!
...As I said, the curses of Genesis 3 and our expulsion from the Garden and God's presence were not insigificant. This had an immense impact on our being, our will, and so forth. You seem to be replying with the assumption that I deny Augustine's idea of a sin nature, and thus, think that people are free to choose to sin or not and weren't affected by the fall. As I said, I'm not Pelegian. The fall absolutely affected humanity. It just didn't affect it as Augustine taught.
My view also doesn't destroy sex in the process, which is a nice positive over Augustine's. I guess he had to justify his past hedonism somehow.
-
That's hardly a basis for disagreement if you can't answer the pertinent questions.
I think this is confused. It's one thing for me to fail to be persuaded by another view, and another for me to not have answers for myself, or for another person, that are as of yet satisfactory. To be clear, I find my answers satisfactory, but you do not. I don't find your answers compelling, in other words.
Again, people were judged by the Flood well before there was a Law. Your interpretation of the following passage does not explain that:
Rom 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.
This is the first time you've brought up Noah so it's unsurprising that I haven't given a view on it. My understanding would be that God acted because it was still the fact that humanity, save Noah and his family, were grievously sinful. Sin isn't ignored just because of ignorance. However, it's still the case that "sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law".
I'm saying that this passage describes how God used the Law of Moses to explain *why* He was punishing sin even when those people did not have a full understanding of what sin was. It is not saying they had no understanding, nor is it denying that they were being punished for what they did know. It's just stating a general principle, that God's punishment is directed to people who consciously sin.
Yes, I got that.
You didn't address the statements I made in any detail. You're just making an over-arching judgment without considering what my defense was. No sense discussing it then.
Again, Trinitarian orthodoxy does not preclude belief that God can appear in more personalities. It only establishes that there were 3 distinct personalities of God in the Bible who are the same God. Reference to theophanies were simply considered irrelevant, since they were temporary in appearance.
Detail, lol. If it helps I'll borrow from Aquinas and say what I just said, but more verbosely.
Objection One: "There aren't centuries of orthodoxy that oppose many-multiple personalities of God in theory!"
I answer that, the doctrine of the Trinity is itself opposed to the many-multiple personalities view of God in theory in name and content, namely, the affirmation of Biblical teaching that the Godhead is triune, that is, compromised of three Persons, revealed, who instantiate the divine substance. Affirmed by the most sainted Athanasius at Nicaea, the council of Chalcedon, the Cappacodian fathers, of whom was the wonder Gregory of Nazianzus and onwards.
Objection Two: "defending the Trinity for 20 some centuries guarantees that we have a right to define an omnipotent God in mortal terms without limitation (ie in finite terms that we as humans can understand)"
I answer that, this is a ridiculous misreading of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine, which is formed in light of and in explicit relation to the revelation of God to His Church, precludes speculation on the part of finite, mortal creatures who ought not to speak of God what God has not spoken of Himself.
Err, and it's Person, not Personality.
Yes, we can agree on that point! ;)
But if you're to be practical-minded and "irenic," as many good Christians in history have been, you'll concede that it is necessary to "agree to disagree" on many peripheral points. But if you want to argue that peripheral points are matters of "hypocrisy," you'll just keep adding fuel to the fire.
Don't engage in hypocrisy, then. If you go after the Christology of someone else, a Christology that was settled in councils such as the ones you now denigrate as formed and informed by mere men, then afford yourself the same criticism. You go against the councils in your view, thus your view is not orthodox.
I'm not very good at being irenic. Gregory and I have something in common, although he was clearly the better orator.
You're arguing what we're trying to determine is necessary. In my view, it hasn't been decided, between us, that a Sin Nature cannot be "overcome." You seem to be arguing that we would have to stop being human if we have a Sin Nature?
That's how nature works, yes. If humanity is created with a certain nature, and that nature is corrupted, then we can only talk properly of corrupted humanity from that point going forward. Corrupted humanity is different from prelapsarian humanity.
But I'm arguing that though a Sin Nature forces us to have a predilection to choosing sin, we don't always have to act upon our unclean thoughts. We invariably do sin in these lesser matters of unclean thoughts. But that doesn't mean I have to take out a knife and kill you in my rage that you dare challenge my opinions!
The principle is that a sin nature compels you to sin, not that it compels you to commit particular sins.
You are claiming we don't have a Sin Nature. Satan imposed Sin on Adam without any Sin yet in Adam. Adam generated the Sin within himself before he had any "uncleanness."
But when we sin, as descendants of Adam, we have a certain "uncleanness" about ourselves, even before Sin is presented to us by Satan or by anyone else. We have *guilt,* because it is already resident within us before we capitulate to any temptations.
We are born with it, and it doesn't even have to be presented to us from without, from external forces. The pride of sin is already in us such that even innocuous information can be presented to our minds, and we will turn that into something prideful.
Yes, I'm claiming that this isn't taught in Scripture. Augustine was wrong on this one.
You seem predisposed to reject whatever I present to you. Is that because I nearly *always* give you bad information, or because you're by nature disagreeable?
This might blow your mind, but... I agree with a lot of people on a lot of things. We disagree on this subject because I don't find your viewpoint compelling. Theology is a serious thing, as I'm sure you know. It's serious for me. Contending with the faith is deeply existential. Theology is that thing that keeps me from staring into the abyss. It's no joke. It's a point of serious personal study and education.
I think we all have a predisposition towards being disagreeable. A Sin Nature explains why we all tend towards being disagreeable. It is our job to resist and to overcome this "disagreeability!" ;)
There's nothing sinful about a genuine disagreement or the refusal to agree to disagree on significant matters. You're free not to continue if that's your wish, but I'm happy to continue discussing. If we do, I'm also happy to continue holding you to task for things like the hypocrisy concerning councils. Feel free to do the same if you see fit.
-
...I have, so again, everyone dies regardless of whether they've sinned or not because death is a consequence of Adam's sin, and it's a consequence we all suffer. It's a consequence just like the other curses of Genesis 3 are a consequence. I'm not sure what isn't clear so you'll have to clarify your question if this isn't doing it for you.
I'm saying that a sinful nature is not an inheritance. I'm also saying that death is a consequence, not a punishment. It was a consequence for Adam as well (a consequence of being expelled from the Garden and God's presence). So along with this, I don't think 'punishment' is the right way to conceive of the consequences of Adam's disobedience. No punishment is necessary in light of the natural consequences that follow.
Again, consequence, no punishment. And, we all sin because we're free to make choices, just like Adam was free to make choices. We sin all the more because we're removed from God's presence, which properly orients and grounds our being.
There's a difference between choosing to refrain from sin, and refraining from sin. Plenty of people have chosen not to sin and still sin, so apparently, it's easier said than done. Are you perfect in all your intentions? Do you love your neighbours as yourself? Your enemies? Do you love God fully and with your whole being every moment of every day? Sin nature isn't required to explain why people sin. Refraining from sin is nigh impossible.
We're still in need of redemption even if we didn't inherit a sin nature.
I'm not implying anything. I'm outright stating that Scripture doesn't teach the existence of a sin nature. In Kierkegaard's time, people thought faith was easy. In the view you're espousing, you seem to think not sinning is easy. It's not. The standard isn't attainable. Oh hello, Jesus...
You might want to check your logic circuits because that's exactly what it means. It means that a sin nature isn't necessary for sin to happen.
...As I said, the curses of Genesis 3 and our expulsion from the Garden and God's presence were not insigificant. This had an immense impact on our being, our will, and so forth. You seem to be replying with the assumption that I deny Augustine's idea of a sin nature, and thus, think that people are free to choose to sin or not and weren't affected by the fall. As I said, I'm not Pelegian. The fall absolutely affected humanity. It just didn't affect it as Augustine taught.
My view also doesn't destroy sex in the process, which is a nice positive over Augustine's. I guess he had to justify his past hedonism somehow.
I'm not focused primarily on arguing Augustine's pov--we may agree on some points and disagree on others. But I do believe a Sin Nature explains what you seem to think is a 100% guarantee all men will sin without a Sin Nature, just because they are farther removed from God as the ground of their existence.
I do think that Death is both a punishment and a consequence of sin. Paul taught that the *wages* of sin are death. That is the equivalent of a punishment. Not only that, but God has used death all through the Scriptures in "punishing" sinners with death.
At least I understand your position, and you understand mine. I'll leave it at that unless some stones have yet to be turned over?
-
If "human" = sin nature (ontologically) and,
I don't agree with the original premise here that human = sin nature. Original human = sinless human nature. Fallen human = sinful human nature.
I believe the nature of Man changed. His condition changed, and thus what it means to be "human" changed, as well. We remain human, with our original calling, despite our Fall, because God exercises His will without fail and because He has factored into our creation the possibility of redemption.
In fact God has factored into the creation of Man the necessity of redemption, since with the possibility of our Fall He must reconcile that Fall with the truthfulness of His word. He has created human fulfillment as a necessity, as a verification that He is truthful.
-
OK, Jesus then. Post Adam. Adam is in his genealogy.
Born of a woman, a human with, in your view, a "sin nature."
Jesus was 100% human, I hope you agree with this.
In your Christology, does Jesus have a "sin nature" as a human that default from birth made him a sinner?
Easy question.
-
But I do believe a Sin Nature explains what you seem to think is a 100% guarantee all men will sin without a Sin Nature, just because they are farther removed from God as the ground of their existence.
The explanation you've received from Augustine, which is why he's the focus. And yes, he suggested it based on a poor reading of Romans 5:12. It does purport to explain why people are compelled to sin following Adam's disobedience, but it's not an explanation founded in a proper exegesis of Scripture, and it's not an explanation that accounts for Adam and Eve, and those are the salient points.
Sin nature is an unnecessary addition.
I do think that Death is both a punishment and a consequence of sin. Paul taught that the *wages* of sin are death. That is the equivalent of a punishment. Not only that, but God has used death all through the Scriptures in "punishing" sinners with death.
The distinction is that a consequence follows directly from the act, while punishment is enacted relative to the act but doesn't follow directly from it. Death is a consequence of sin because it removed us from God's presence, from the tree of life, and without those things, we 'naturally' die. God wasn't saying "if you disobey me I'll kill you and every human to ever live as punishment". He was saying, "If you disobey me this is what will happen as a consequence". It's parenting 101.
-
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb 9:27
Two distinct actions:
Death.
Judgment.
-
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb 9:27
Two distinct actions:
Death.
Judgment.
I'm sure you recognize that there is a different between temporal judgments and eternal judgment?
-
The explanation you've received from Augustine, which is why he's the focus.
I believe the sense of a Sin Nature precedes Augustine--just different terminology. It's the same with the Trinity. The concept preceded the specific terminology of the Trinity, but the same truth preceded it, biblically.
So I'm not interested in Augustine, along with all of his theology--only with the specific thing that he called "Sin Nature." This concept of "Ancestral Sin," or "Generational Sin," utilized language that you describe as "inheriting the consequence of death." But what was really meant was that the contagion of sin was being transmitted by inheritance from Adam to his descendants.
I do understand that some believe that Augustine's "Original Sin" language is different than how it was understood before his time. Though he may have put a slightly different language to it, I think that in effect he *helped* explain the biblical concept better for those who had not been clear on it earlier.
So no, I'm not addressing Augustine, and so getting wrapped up in *everything* he taught. Nor am I strictly addressing the language he used to express this. I'm referencing the Bible in my arguments, primarily, along with my own personal experience with Sin.
And yes, he suggested it based on a poor reading of Romans 5:12. It does purport to explain why people are compelled to sin following Adam's disobedience, but it's not an explanation founded in a proper exegesis of Scripture, and it's not an explanation that accounts for Adam and Eve, and those are the salient points.
Sin nature is an unnecessary addition.
I already addressed this. And again, I'm not just addressing Augustine, nor any mistakes he may have made. His errors do not change the biblical and human realities in regard to what I'm saying.
-
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb 9:27
Two distinct actions:
Death.
Judgment.
I'm sure you recognize that there is a different between temporal judgments and eternal judgment?
No need. Death has become the destiny of all men, thanks to Adam.
Judgment for sin is a separate issue.
-
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb 9:27
Two distinct actions:
Death.
Judgment.
I'm sure you recognize that there is a different between temporal judgments and eternal judgment?
No need. Death has become the destiny of all men, thanks to Adam.
Judgment for sin is a seperate issue.
Perhaps then I failed to recognize what you were inferring by your statement? If so, I apologize.
You're right--the consequence of death and judgment for sin can be dealt with separately. But I continue to insist that death blends with judgment when it is viewed as a punishment for sin.
Rom 6.23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Rom 5.12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.
Sin was a punishment visited upon us all for *our own sins,* just as death was a punishment visited upon Adam for *his own sin.*
Sin is a punishment, and not just a consequence. Therefore, judgment and death are related. Would anyone dare to claim that death is not a punishment when the Law of Moses specifically assigned death as a punishment for people who willfully and completely committed themselves to certain, specific sins?
-
OK, Jesus then. Post Adam. Adam is in his genealogy.
Born of a woman, a human with, in your view, a "sin nature."
Jesus was 100% human, I hope you agree with this.
In your Christology, does Jesus have a "sin nature" as a human that default from birth made him a sinner?
Easy question.
Your statements seem to be predicated on some kind of strawman argument. Nobody is saying Jesus wasn't 100% sinless. We all agree with that. His not having a Sin Nature does not make him less than human. Those people who have a Sin Nature, ie the rest of us, aren't less than human either.
Whether having a Sin Nature or not, we all remain human. Those who have a Sin Nature are *corrupted human beings,* but not corrupted humans in the sense of losing some of their humanity.
-
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb 9:27
Two distinct actions:
Death.
Judgment.
I'm sure you recognize that there is a different between temporal judgments and eternal judgment?
No need. Death has become the destiny of all men, thanks to Adam.
Judgment for sin is a seperate issue.
Perhaps then I failed to recognize what you were inferring by your statement? If so, I apologize.
You're right--the consequence of death and judgment for sin can be dealt with separately. But I continue to insist that death blends with judgment when it is viewed as a punishment for sin.
Rom 6.23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Rom 5.12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.
Sin was a punishment visited upon us all for *our own sins,* just as death was a punishment visited upon Adam for *his own sin.*
Sin is a punishment, and not just a consequence. Therefore, judgment and death are related. Would anyone dare to claim that death is not a punishment when the Law of Moses specifically assigned death as a punishment for people who willfully and completely committed themselves to certain, specific sins?
My points are that death(1) is coming for all men, yet each man will account for his personal sin at the judgement(2). Death, for the unredeemed, is irreversible, certain and set in motion from the day of birth. Judgement for sin, however, is based upon choices the individual deliberately makes in his short lifetime. He is not judged for something he has no control over - God is just.
While there are myriads of circumstances, processes and motives leading men to sin, and by which they will be judged, a so-called "sin-nature" implies that men are inherently determined to sin no matter what the circumstances as if that were all they are capable of doing.
Furthermore, a man compelled by such a nature cannot be considered free-willed in any sense of the term, and can not be held completely responsible for all his actions, which are his natural inclinations.
The end result of much of what you argue for here in these forums is a God who sets man up for failure and predetermines his actions and, thus, his damnation.
"Sin Nature" is a human construct not found in scripture and pregnant with delusive, false and confusing implications.
But you waver and run all over a theological map not supported by "contextual" scripture - not a wit.
God is just.
-
OK, Jesus then. Post Adam. Adam is in his genealogy.
Born of a woman, a human with, in your view, a "sin nature."
Jesus was 100% human, I hope you agree with this.
In your Christology, does Jesus have a "sin nature" as a human that default from birth made him a sinner?
Easy question.
Your statements seem to be predicated on some kind of strawman argument. Nobody is saying Jesus wasn't 100% sinless. We all agree with that. His not having a Sin Nature does not make him less than human. Those people who have a Sin Nature, ie the rest of us, aren't less than human either.
Whether having a Sin Nature or not, we all remain human. Those who have a Sin Nature are *corrupted human beings,* but not corrupted humans in the sense of losing some of their humanity.
His argument isn't predicated on the idea that Jesus was anything other than sinless. That's exactly the point, that Jesus was sinless, despite being born of Mary who had, according to the theology you prescribe to, a sin nature that, according to the theology you prescribe to, is the spiritual inheritance of all humanity, and thus, must also be the spiritual inheritance of Jesus as well.
Thus, the conflict: Jesus is sinless, but also born into a race of creatures who are said to be corrupted in their very nature, by inheritance, by sin. How are these two doctrinal positions reconciled?
What's the reconciliation, and where is it found in Scripture?
-
The virgin birth would be the answer, however, I've never seen a proper explanation of why a sin nature only passes through the father.
Does that mean that only men have this sin nature?
I know, it's pretty much the same question Athanasius asked but it strikes right to the heart of it.
-
The virgin birth would be the answer, however, I've never seen a proper explanation of why a sin nature only passes through the father.
Does that mean that only men have this sin nature?
I know, it's pretty much the same question Athanasius asked but it strikes right to the heart of it.
There's no reason to think that sin nature passes through only the father except perhaps bad metaphysics or ancient misogyny (or would that be misandry I wonder, ha, who am I kidding!). Well, it could be a more modern kind of misogyny and bad metaphysic too https://carm.org/about-jesus/why-wasnt-jesus-born-with-original-sin/:
Jesus received His human nature from Mary, but He received His divine nature through God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus is both God and man. He was sinless, had no original sin, and was both fully God and fully man.
Every time I read this line of thinking I nearly spill my drink. The problem is that the Scriptural argument is filtered through the lens of Augustine (at times vigorously denied). Assume an Augustinian sin nature, then import a bit of concupiscence, et voila. This is problematic for a doctrine that is significantly philosophical in expression. What's also problematic, in the case of Carm, is the confusing inclusion of federal headship and lack of connection between this and the corruption of human nature. In other words, sin nature is assumed on the basis of federal headship, when federal headship necessitates no such thing.
What Randy's answer will be, in keeping with his earlier posts, is that God withheld humanity's inherited sin nature - a spiritual inheritance - from Jesus, and this doesn't really matter insofar as it differentiates Jesus' earthly experience from ours because it doesn't constitute a meaningful ontological difference between prelapsarian and postlapsarian humanity.
However, the metaphysical gymnastics both views require is something I find entirely uncompelling.
A more serious answer would be the Catholic answer, which is Mary's Immaculate Conception. At least the Catholic's understood Aristotle well enough to know how to talk about nature.
-
I agree. I'm hoping Randy seriously considers the question and how he can possibly explain it in accordance with scriptures in context.
As I wrote, I've never seen a proper explanation of the doctrine.
-
His argument isn't predicated on the idea that Jesus was anything other than sinless.
RK is perfectly competent to argue for himself. I know what he said and what he meant.
That's exactly the point, that Jesus was sinless, despite being born of Mary who had, according to the theology you prescribe to, a sin nature that, according to the theology you prescribe to, is the spiritual inheritance of all humanity, and thus, must also be the spiritual inheritance of Jesus as well.
No, I obviously don't subscribe to a theology like that. As I said, both sinless Jesus and sinful humanity are equally *human.* Having a Sin Nature or not having a Sin Nature does not make one less human. Acquiring a Sin Nature does, however, remove humanity from one class of being and move us into a new class of being. I do understand the argument, brother.
What's the reconciliation, and where is it found in Scripture?
I utilize the Scriptures I've already referrred to in Romans. Adam sinned and suffered the consequence, and punishment, of death. In the same way, all of humanity sins and dies. We have all inherited not just the consequence of death, but also the punishment of death for our own sins.
It is the absolute declaration of Scriptures that this is so without exception--every human being will die for his own sin. The implication is clear to me that we are therefore born with a sin nature--not that we are coerced to sin by repeated external attempts to get us to fail.
The redemptive ceremonies under the Law confirm this, that all Israel had to be ceremonially cleansed, including women giving birth. The lesson does appear to be a matter of interpreting symbolism and reading between the lines.
So I then revert to personal experience to understand it. And I do see sin latent and potent within me, and in everybody else. I see an inborn pride and resistance to those who cross us, and direct us against our will.
I see hostility erupt, almost irrationally. We are flawed and sinful, and require redemption--even at a very young age, and, I think, including birth. I deal with sin in myself every day. It confirms for me what I think Scriptures are saying.
-
The virgin birth would be the answer, however, I've never seen a proper explanation of why a sin nature only passes through the father.
Does that mean that only men have this sin nature?
I know, it's pretty much the same question Athanasius asked but it strikes right to the heart of it.
I also heard that Jesus bypassed the Sin Infection by avoiding having a human father. But as I've been saying, I don't believe this "Sin Infection" is DNA, physical, or "ontological," except in the sense that Humanity became "Sinful Humanity."
I believe, rather, that the "Sin Disease" is a spiritual inheritance, passed on by the word of God, from Adam to his descendants. God made it so that Man passes his traits down through his children. If Man had obeyed God, and had eaten of the Tree of Life, the children would likewise have inherited Eternal Life and Eternal Virtue.
But the story is that Satan subverted Man's gifts, and enabled Man to not only disobey but create children of Satan who inherit Satan's spiritual nature of rebellion against God's word. Some people inherit Adam's characteristic of wanting to repent and return to God, and so become children of God. Other children inherit Satan's characteristic of remaining aloof from God and stray from the path of God's word.
The "contamination" created by human sex was therefore not just a matter of DNA transmission, but more, God's curse upon the works of Man. What men and women do, sexually, is a work that cannot produce the perfect Christ. The birth of Jesus had to be the work of God apart from human sexuality.
-
RK is perfectly competent to argue for himself. I know what he said and what he meant.
Yes, but I've become incessantly chatty within the last six months and your assessment betrayed a misunderstanding of what was being said.
No, I obviously don't subscribe to a theology like that. As I said, both sinless Jesus and sinful humanity are equally *human.* Having a Sin Nature or not having a Sin Nature does not make one less human. Acquiring a Sin Nature does, however, remove humanity from one class of being and move us into a new class of being. I do understand the argument, brother.
It's not obvious that you don't subscribe to a theology like that I outlined, which was consistent with everything you've written at the time of writing. I'm not sure how your now stated view is different from what I outlined (this reply, and your next reply to Redeemed). Is there a difference? Maybe in the area of Augustinian human sexuality?
-
The virgin birth would be the answer, however, I've never seen a proper explanation of why a sin nature only passes through the father.
Does that mean that only men have this sin nature?
I know, it's pretty much the same question Athanasius asked but it strikes right to the heart of it.
I also heard that Jesus bypassed the Sin Infection by avoiding having a human father. But as I've been saying, I don't believe this "Sin Infection" is DNA, physical, or "ontological," except in the sense that Humanity became "Sinful Humanity."
I believe, rather,
And what scriptures, in context, do have to support this belief that some are born God's children and so can repent and believe in Christ/God and some Satan's who inherently won't or can't because of Sin Nature?
-
The virgin birth would be the answer, however, I've never seen a proper explanation of why a sin nature only passes through the father.
Does that mean that only men have this sin nature?
I know, it's pretty much the same question Athanasius asked but it strikes right to the heart of it.
I also heard that Jesus bypassed the Sin Infection by avoiding having a human father. But as I've been saying, I don't believe this "Sin Infection" is DNA, physical, or "ontological," except in the sense that Humanity became "Sinful Humanity."
I believe, rather,
And what scriptures, in context, do have to support this belief that some are born God's children and so can repent and believe in Christ/God and some Satan's who inherently won't or can't because of Sin Nature?
The classic reference for Predestination is from Romans 9.
-
The classic reference for Predestination is from Romans 9.
That's not what I asked. I specifically asked for scriptures detailing some being able to repent and become a child of God and some being Satan's children and so are not able to repent and become a child of God.
Just writing "Romans 9" doesn't cut it. You should be able to lay it out and show it here with clear scriptures in context.
-
And thus we return to foreknowledge
-
And thus we return to foreknowledge
Exactly. I firmly believe in Predestination. That is what the passage teaches, in my opinion.
-
The classic reference for Predestination is from Romans 9.
That's not what I asked. I specifically asked for scriptures detailing some being able to repent and become a child of God and some being Satan's children and so are not able to repent and become a child of God.
Just writing "Romans 9" doesn't cut it. You should be able to lay it out and show it here with clear scriptures in context.
I have been explaining it, though you apparently haven't heard it. One claims he hasn't heard enough, and another claims he's heard it too much! oy vey
I'll try to explain to you personally. Rom 9 indicates that God predetermined a certain number of select children who will prevail and do His original will.
Rom 9.6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring...
12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Jesus indicates the same...
John 8.42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
-
I have been explaining it, though you apparently haven't heard it. One claims he hasn't heard enough, and another claims he's heard it too much! oy very
lol, you've been stating not explaining.
I'll try to explain to you personally. Rom 9 indicates that God predetermined a certain number of select children who will prevail and do His original will.
Rom 9.6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring...
12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Jesus indicates the same...
John 8.42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
The question isn't whether God predestines, but (1) how does predestination function, i.e., groups, individuals, and so forth, and (2) where is it taught in Scripture that "God predetermined a certain number of select children" and "Some people inherit Adam's characteristic of wanting to repent and return to God, and so become children of God. Other children inherit Satan's characteristic of remaining aloof from God and stray from the path of God's word."
You're conflating all these questions with each other. It's no wonder you're exhausted!
Look at the broader context of Romans 9; Paul isn't discussing individual predestination or personal salvation but is outlining the broader salvific activity of God as it relates to Israel, Gentiles, and so forth. In John 8, Jesus simply isn't laying out a soteriological framework, no more than He's suggesting Peter is a damned child of Satan in Matthew 16. Neither offers support to the view that God selected X number of children for salvation, but sin resulted in very many more babies than God intended and those babies are left to instantiate some Satanic ideal outside of God's graces
-
Athan nailed it straight in. You still haven't shown what you've claimed with scriptures in context by the way.
And if you can't do it then your statements are akin to dust in the wind.
-
Cue “Kansas” here.
-
Didn't think of it at the time but now the song is stuck in my head.
Good thing I really like it, eh? ;D
-
:o
-
The question isn't whether God predestines, but (1) how does predestination function, i.e., groups, individuals, and so forth, and (2) where is it taught in Scripture that "God predetermined a certain number of select children" and "Some people inherit Adam's characteristic of wanting to repent and return to God, and so become children of God. Other children inherit Satan's characteristic of remaining aloof from God and stray from the path of God's word."
I've answered most questions, but your complaints consist of: all assertion, and no explanation, and all conflation, and no distinction. So I'll leave it at that.
Not everything I believe that is based on the Bible is clearly spelled out theologically in the Bible. For example, when God says He will fill the world with people, He doesn't tell us the exact number of people. When He says He has numbered all of His people, He doesn't tell us which ones.
And when He tells us His word is true, He doesn't have to tell us it will require that the promised number of people He foreknew in the world must come to pass. He just expects us to draw that conclusion.
Psalm 147.4 He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.
Isa 40.
25 “To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.
Jer 23. 4 I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,” declares the Lord.
Rom 8.29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
Look at the broader context of Romans 9; Paul isn't discussing individual predestination or personal salvation but is outlining the broader salvific activity of God as it relates to Israel, Gentiles, and so forth. In John 8, Jesus simply isn't laying out a soteriological framework, no more than He's suggesting Peter is a damned child of Satan in Matthew 16. Neither offers support to the view that God selected X number of children for salvation, but sin resulted in very many more babies than God intended and those babies are left to instantiate some Satanic ideal outside of God's graces
I have reasons for everything I believe, but I don't claim to know it all. As I said, some of what I'm doing here is speculation. If you don't think there's any rationale to it, then we simply have a difference of perspective.
-
I have reasons for everything I believe, but I don't claim to know it all. As I said, some of what I'm doing here is speculation. If you don't think there's any rationale to it, then we simply have a difference of perspective.
What you seem to offer is a speculation smorgasbord where one can simply create his own variety of the faith without the need for established scriptural evidence, as opposed to bits and pieces of texts taken completely out of context.
Bible delving. Lone wolf theology.
-
I've answered most questions, but your complaints consist of: all assertion, and no explanation, and all conflation, and no distinction. So I'll leave it at that.
Yes, because the theology you're presenting exists only at the surface as far as I can tell. You fall back on 'speculation' when pushed, given the framework you're suggesting I don't think speculation is the thing to fall back on.
Not everything I believe that is based on the Bible is clearly spelled out theologically in the Bible. For example, when God says He will fill the world with people, He doesn't tell us the exact number of people. When He says He has numbered all of His people, He doesn't tell us which ones.
What question are you trying to answer? What's unsatisfactory about the idea that God fills the world with people and He's counted/counting all of them. What question does this kind of answer not address? Are you trying to determine an exact number of elect, or something?
I have reasons for everything I believe, but I don't claim to know it all. As I said, some of what I'm doing here is speculation. If you don't think there's any rationale to it, then we simply have a difference of perspective.
I've never claimed that you didn't have a rationale behind your beliefs. I've claimed that your beliefs, even if speculative, aren't properly grounded in Scripture.
-
Yes, because the theology you're presenting exists only at the surface as far as I can tell. You fall back on 'speculation' when pushed, given the framework you're suggesting I don't think speculation is the thing to fall back on.
When pushed?? I've *always* referred to these arguments as "speculative!"
Not everything I believe that is based on the Bible is clearly spelled out theologically in the Bible. For example, when God says He will fill the world with people, He doesn't tell us the exact number of people. When He says He has numbered all of His people, He doesn't tell us which ones.
What question are you trying to answer? What's unsatisfactory about the idea that God fills the world with people and He's counted/counting all of them. What question does this kind of answer not address? Are you trying to determine an exact number of elect, or something?
You have expressed a lot of dissatisfaction with assertions I've made. But the assertions must be made before providing evidence for my speculations. A major tenet of my theory is that God has a set number of "elect." And when you claim this is without merit I have to try to prove it from Scriptures, which is what I was doing.
I've never claimed that you didn't have a rationale behind your beliefs. I've claimed that your beliefs, even if speculative, aren't properly grounded in Scripture.
Again, this is all speculative. I'm sharing what I think--not what I know. You can judge for yourself, as to whether my conclusions are grounded or not. I have no problem with that. I share in order to get feedback as well as to try to help others answer the same questions I've had. And I've spent many years asking these questions--they interest me.
-
I have reasons for everything I believe, but I don't claim to know it all. As I said, some of what I'm doing here is speculation. If you don't think there's any rationale to it, then we simply have a difference of perspective.
What you seem to offer is a speculation smorgasbord where one can simply create his own variety of the faith without the need for established scriptural evidence, as opposed to bits and pieces of texts taken completely out of context.
Bible delving. Lone wolf theology.
Instead of criticizing, try theorizing. We don't always have to state things as if their required dogma!
-
But isn't it our purpose and priority here to confirm the integrity of the Bible and affirm what it actually says?
"... Rightly dividing the word of truth." 2Tm2:15b
-
But isn't it our purpose and priority here to confirm the integrity of the Bible and affirm what it actually says?
"... Rightly dividing the word of truth." 2Tm2:15b
Yes, I can see your concern here, if that's how you were looking at it. I pointedly said that I was indulging in a little speculation. So I don't want you to think I'm being dogmatic on these matters, which is simply doing a little theorizing to explain some questions I've long had in my life.
These are real issues I've had to face with both family and friends. Some are saved, some will be saved, and some never will be saved. I'm trying to figure out how to view them from God's point of view.
But yes, I believe the Holy Spirit can be very clear when He wants to be. Scriptures are explicit in matters of essential doctrine. We agree on that, I should think?
-
When pushed?? I've *always* referred to these arguments as "speculative!"
Sure, but responsible theological speculation is informed by Scripture. By when pushed, I mean the request to provide the Scriptural foundations for the speculation such that those foundations could reasonably be read in such a way so as to support speculation in the given direction. So, for example, it's not unreasonable to suggest that God might have a certain number of elect in mind that He predestined, foreordained, etc. What isn't as reasonable is the idea that there are babies born that God didn't plan for and so they are left on their own. That's the sort of speculation that isn't informed by Scripture as far as I can tell, and that raises serious questions about the character of God (well, for any view of God that doesn't have Him intensely hating humanity.)
You have expressed a lot of dissatisfaction with assertions I've made. But the assertions must be made before providing evidence for my speculations. A major tenet of my theory is that God has a set number of "elect." And when you claim this is without merit I have to try to prove it from Scriptures, which is what I was doing.
As far as God saving a certain number of elect individuals, isn't that just standard Calvinism?
Again, this is all speculative. I'm sharing what I think--not what I know. You can judge for yourself, as to whether my conclusions are grounded or not. I have no problem with that. I share in order to get feedback as well as to try to help others answer the same questions I've had. And I've spent many years asking these questions--they interest me.
Right, which is something that's interesting to me. You've mentioned a few times now that this is something you've thought about for 50 or so years, but where's the info dump, for lack of a better term? What's the big, grand, outline?
-
Sure, but responsible theological speculation is informed by Scripture. By when pushed, I mean the request to provide the Scriptural foundations for the speculation such that those foundations could reasonably be read in such a way so as to support speculation in the given direction. So, for example, it's not unreasonable to suggest that God might have a certain number of elect in mind that He predestined, foreordained, etc. What isn't as reasonable is the idea that there are babies born that God didn't plan for and so they are left on their own. That's the sort of speculation that isn't informed by Scripture as far as I can tell, and that raises serious questions about the character of God (well, for any view of God that doesn't have Him intensely hating humanity.)
I think it's reasonable to assume that what God's word says must be done, and that what God doesn't say does not belong to Him? I know it leaves an uncomfortable feeling, and I feel it too. But I learned a long time ago to defer to God things that are within His domain. The best we can do is try to figure them out.
A major tenet of my theory is that God has a set number of "elect." And when you claim this is without merit I have to try to prove it from Scriptures, which is what I was doing.
As far as God saving a certain number of elect individuals, isn't that just standard Calvinism?
[/QUOTE]
I consider myself a Calvinist. I try to dig a little deeper for explanations to things that Calvinism hasn't helped me with. This isn't just trying to come up with a consistent theology or intellectual explanation--rather, it's a matter of looking at real life around me, meeting people, and trying to explain their hardness of heart, or not, with respect to God's word.
Right, which is something that's interesting to me. You've mentioned a few times now that this is something you've thought about for 50 or so years, but where's the info dump, for lack of a better term? What's the big, grand, outline?
Not like that. I grew up a nominal Christian, and got more serious about Christianity in my later teens. As I evolved from repetitious liturgies and perfunctory performances, I came to feel that God has a compassionate answer for everything.
And yet, people I knew didn't respond to the call to Eternal Life. And that intrigued me, and disappointed me greatly. Back in the 60s and 70s people thought in idealistic terms, and believed we could all just "love one another." We could build "one world." But every generation ultimately ends up in wars, and we find ourselves trying to explain Why?
I developed my beliefs as I contemplated biblical theology listening to Walter Martin on his radio program, "The Bible Answerman." Before that I was a determined opponent of Calvinist types of beliefs, even though the denomination I was raised up in was Lutheran and originated modern Predestination.
It turned me off to think people believed some were predestinated to damnation. I don't believe precisely that now, even though I'm somewhat Calvinistic. I believe that when people are not the product of God's original word, by no fault of God, people reproduce and produce children who are not the product of God's word. And they show this by their indifference to God's word, or by their open hostility to God's word. They incline towards wanting complete independence from God, cooperating with God only when they wish to do so.
After listening to Walter Martin, I converted to Predestination in the Lutheran/Calvinist mold. And I read Luther's "Bondage of the Will," and felt that Erasmus was more correct than Luther--even though I didn't really like Erasmus.
Anyway, I just sort of filled in the blanks in my own mind as I went along. Nobody really wants to talk about these things. When I find someone wiling to discuss them, I'm pleased about that!
You've heard pretty much all I really say on the subject, rolled out a little at a time. I believe God's word determined the set number of people on the planet to be "saved." Man disobeyed God's word, determining to have an independent way of life, making choices apart from consulting with the Lord, apart from partnering with the Lord.
And the result has affected human spirituality, which is passed on to future generations in a corrupted state of nature, just like DNA is passed on and passes on the same characteristics. The fallen, independent bent of Adam has been passed on to all future humans born out of this mix of independence and Man's original created nature.
I would've developed a better way of sharing this, more concisely and with more precision, if more people were interested and if they weren't often so hostile to it. Perhaps if others were more courageous about addressing it, they would've helped me to improve it, correct it, or disprove it entirely? Thanks for weighing in yourself.
-
I think it's reasonable to assume that what God's word says must be done, and that what God doesn't say does not belong to Him? I know it leaves an uncomfortable feeling, and I feel it too. But I learned a long time ago to defer to God things that are within His domain. The best we can do is try to figure them out.
And so, you can only speculate? I don't follow. If that is what you're saying, then that's not a reply to what I said.
I consider myself a Calvinist. I try to dig a little deeper for explanations to things that Calvinism hasn't helped me with. This isn't just trying to come up with a consistent theology or intellectual explanation--rather, it's a matter of looking at real life around me, meeting people, and trying to explain their hardness of heart, or not, with respect to God's word.
Okay, but aren't you just repeating Calvinism's answer?
Not like that. I grew up a nominal Christian, and got more serious about Christianity in my later teens. As I evolved from repetitious liturgies and perfunctory performances, I came to feel that God has a compassionate answer for everything.
And yet, people I knew didn't respond to the call to Eternal Life. And that intrigued me, and disappointed me greatly. Back in the 60s and 70s people thought in idealistic terms, and believed we could all just "love one another." We could build "one world." But every generation ultimately ends up in wars, and we find ourselves trying to explain Why?
I developed my beliefs as I contemplated biblical theology listening to Walter Martin on his radio program, "The Bible Answerman." Before that I was a determined opponent of Calvinist types of beliefs, even though the denomination I was raised up in was Lutheran and originated modern Predestination.
It turned me off to think people believed some were predestinated to damnation. I don't believe precisely that now, even though I'm somewhat Calvinistic. I believe that when people are not the product of God's original word, by no fault of God, people reproduce and produce children who are not the product of God's word. And they show this by their indifference to God's word, or by their open hostility to God's word. They incline towards wanting complete independence from God, cooperating with God only when they wish to do so.
After listening to Walter Martin, I converted to Predestination in the Lutheran/Calvinist mold. And I read Luther's "Bondage of the Will," and felt that Erasmus was more correct than Luther--even though I didn't really like Erasmus.
Anyway, I just sort of filled in the blanks in my own mind as I went along. Nobody really wants to talk about these things. When I find someone wiling to discuss them, I'm pleased about that!
You've heard pretty much all I really say on the subject, rolled out a little at a time. I believe God's word determined the set number of people on the planet to be "saved." Man disobeyed God's word, determining to have an independent way of life, making choices apart from consulting with the Lord, apart from partnering with the Lord.
And the result has affected human spirituality, which is passed on to future generations in a corrupted state of nature, just like DNA is passed on and passes on the same characteristics. The fallen, independent bent of Adam has been passed on to all future humans born out of this mix of independence and Man's original created nature.
I would've developed a better way of sharing this, more concisely and with more precision, if more people were interested and if they weren't often so hostile to it. Perhaps if others were more courageous about addressing it, they would've helped me to improve it, correct it, or disprove it entirely? Thanks for weighing in yourself.
Right. I think a few more discussions would have done you some good in terms of developing this view. Have you used our various discussions as an opportunity to improve your view?
-
I don’t think it necessarily follows that “what God doesn’t say doesn’t belong to Him”
Scripture doesn’t necessarily tell all that God says
-
I would've developed a better way of sharing this, more concisely and with more precision, if more people were interested and if they weren't often so hostile to it. Perhaps if others were more courageous about addressing it, they would've helped me to improve it, correct it, or disprove it entirely? Thanks for weighing in yourself.
I didn't quote your entire post because, why waste space? This should do though.
I find this incredibly interesting as it is pretty much the opposite of the way I and most of the Christians I converse with operate.
I and others turn to the scriptures first to see what God has to say about something and then bounce our understanding of what we think is revealed off of others to "get to the bottom of the truth."
I don't think that any doctrines etc are above questioning if the questioning is based upon or motivated by developing a better understanding. Questions lead to a better understanding and are essential to learning and growing.
The answers to the questions must be rooted in Scripture though.
-
I don’t think it necessarily follows that “what God doesn’t say doesn’t belong to Him”
Scripture doesn’t necessarily tell all that God says
It's impossible for us mortals to know *all* that God says! ;) That doesn't mean we can't identify what is true and what is false, with respect to God's word. Obviously, what He says must happen must happen. What He doesn't say obviously does not have the support of the Creator behind it, and the results will show up accordingly.
If God predetermined to have X number of people fill the earth and express His image, and they have free choice, they may initially fail, but ultimately, God will redeem the situation, and there will be X number of people filling the earth with God's image. If Man uses his free will to operate in the creative capacities he was given to reproduce, but does not rely on God's word in his life, the result will be the reproduction of children who are disinclined to follow God's word, who are "turned off" by the idea of expressing God's image completely in all the earth.
They most certainly will have inherited some characteristics associated with the 1st Man, created in the image of God. They will choose to do some good, to express God as their creator. But they will also choose to follow Adam's wish to make choices independent of God's word. And they will wish to remain outside of the plan of redemption, and reject being among the X number of people chosen to be redeemed and returned to the original glory they were called to.
For this reason, I believe all of mankind has this problem with independent judgment, and incline towards rebellion against God's word. But inasmuch as God's word is true, He will still have X number of people saved through His redemption process.
And we will also see those outside of those X number of people who not only incline towards rebellion, but who also wish to continue doing good sometimes and at other times rebelling against God. But they don't wish to be numbered with the X number of people chosen by God to fill the earth with His glory.
Instead, they dislike that glory, because it represents redemption that leads to a complete turnabout, rather than continue on the course of independent judgment.
-
I would've developed a better way of sharing this, more concisely and with more precision, if more people were interested and if they weren't often so hostile to it. Perhaps if others were more courageous about addressing it, they would've helped me to improve it, correct it, or disprove it entirely? Thanks for weighing in yourself.
I didn't quote your entire post because, why waste space? This should do though.
I find this incredibly interesting as it is pretty much the opposite of the way I and most of the Christians I converse with operate.
I and others turn to the scriptures first to see what God has to say about something and then bounce our understanding of what we think is revealed off of others to "get to the bottom of the truth."
I don't think that any doctrines etc are above questioning if the questioning is based upon or motivated by developing a better understanding. Questions lead to a better understanding and are essential to learning and growing.
The answers to the questions must be rooted in Scripture though.
Thanks brother. I can always tell when a brother or sister is a "child of God." It isn't even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing on various beliefs. Much more, it is a common love for our Creator, and the wish to serve Him always. :)
-
Now just who are they?
Dan 11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
Dan 11:41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
Dan 11:42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
Dan 11:43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
Dan 11:44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
Dan 11:45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
Col
the only 2 biblically would be the two houses of israel. though at the end 4 counterfeit kings north, south, east, west(four beasts of satan) shall rule the earth with the a king in control. notice the first beast of rev has 10 and the second has 2 horns both become one
-
Looks like the enddays king of the south extends all the way to the USA and friends--
Rev 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
Rev 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Rev 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Col
Hate to disappoint you, but the USA is not any where in Scripture.
No??
Rev 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
Rev 18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
Rev 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
USA is not neither a great nor a small city, your speculations, imaginations, presumptions, and conjectures, and your own opinion have nothing to do with Scriptures you have posted trying to make True what is not true, trying to make sweet, what is bitter.
-
I’ll repeat it clearly
The united state of America is not in scripture, especially not in the book of revelation
Your dispensationalism theology tells you it is without any basis in fact or text whatsoever
-
It seems pretty common fare amongst commentaries, Christian and otherwise, that the four kingdoms are Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. This is not a prophecy of some far future event, for us it is already in the distant past.
-
It seems pretty common fare amongst commentaries, Christian and otherwise, that the four kingdoms are Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. This is not a prophecy of some far future event, for us it is already in the distant past.
I agree with the spirit of what you're trying to say. To read back into ancient prophecies certain future events is an exercise in futility in many cases. To fasten the "666" label to political leaders we don't like is in this genre, in my opinion.
And I agree that the US is not specifically designated in biblical prophecy. There was no US in the time the prophecies were written, nor do they anticipate that there will be a US (that I know of).
However, in my particular eschatology, I interpret the 4th Beast of Daniel 7 to be Roman Civilization, advancing into European Civilization. And this would, of course, include the US. As you most likely feel, I'm hoping the US does not commit to any form of European Anti-Semitism or Anti-Christianity, which is what I think the 4th Beast represents.
-
...I'm hoping the US does not commit to any form of European Anti-Semitism or Anti-Christianity, which is what I think the 4th Beast represents.
If the question were posed in the 1930s upon hearing of Hitler's genocide and the US' deportation or refusal to let Jews into the country, what would you have thought then? Never mind the US' treatment at the time of Japanese Americans, those who are same-sex attracted, secret government experimentation on the poor and minority groups, etc.? These things taken together seem very much to be anti-Christian if by anti-Christian we mean contrary to the teaching of Christ.
So why not go all the way with your view? It wouldn't be hard to argue that the US already fits the description.
-
Or maybe, just maybe, the Apocalypse is historical until the last two chapters at best, and perhaps those two chapters describe the spiritual reality of what has already occurred in the heavenlies, and we await only the consummation of the age.
-
I agree with the spirit of what you're trying to say. To read back into ancient prophecies certain future events is an exercise in futility in many cases.
I think (And RK would agree with me) that too many times people take an ancient prophecy, already fulfilled long ago, and somehow try to make it apply to some future event. The four kingdoms is a great example, as I mentioned above. Or prophecy of the desolation of Judah, already fulfilled in 586BC but "Israel must be punished" so it is made to refer to some future punishment. Of course this means ignoring all the prophecies of the redemption of Zion, which is now spiritualized and made to refer to something else.
And the core, all this hand wringing and worry seems to me to portray a distinct lack of trust in God. God loves us and is going to look out for us, so "let not your heart be troubled".
-
OK, glad I had just swallowed that coffee...
When my dear orthodox Jewish retired NY LEO studying rabbinically friend quotes Jesus to Christians, in context, I engaging in, to quote the KJV 1611, "spew[ing] out of my mouth."
OK, that was legendary. A quote to John 14 and the promise of God's provision for eternity, no less!!!
https://giphy.com/clips/AC-GIPHY-6bJaVXMavwUTGZHFzf
-
When my dear orthodox Jewish retired NY LEO studying rabbinically friend quotes Jesus to Christians, in context, I engaging in, to quote the KJV 1611, "spew[ing] out of my mouth."
OK, that was legendary. A quote to John 14 and the promise of God's provision for eternity, no less!!!
Thank you for the compliment. We aim to please :)
-
I’ll repeat it clearly
The united state of America is not in scripture, especially not in the book of revelation
Your dispensationalism theology tells you it is without any basis in fact or text whatsoever
you are correct. however the truth appears to be what one believes so if all the world beileves nyc in babylon then when nyc is destryed in the near future then the world will think it is babylon. just as satan wants......
-
you are correct. however the truth appears to be what one believes so if all the world beileves nyc in babylon then when nyc is destryed in the near future then the world will think it is babylon. just as satan wants......
'The world' does not and is not going to believe NYC is Babylon.
Hold up, wait a minute, why is NYC going to be destroyed in the near future?
-
The remake of Sex and the City: Part Deux.
Mic drop.
God is, after all, just, nu?
-
...I'm hoping the US does not commit to any form of European Anti-Semitism or Anti-Christianity, which is what I think the 4th Beast represents.
If the question were posed in the 1930s upon hearing of Hitler's genocide and the US' deportation or refusal to let Jews into the country, what would you have thought then? Never mind the US' treatment at the time of Japanese Americans, those who are same-sex attracted, secret government experimentation on the poor and minority groups, etc.? These things taken together seem very much to be anti-Christian if by anti-Christian we mean contrary to the teaching of Christ.
So why not go all the way with your view? It wouldn't be hard to argue that the US already fits the description.
I hesitate to place a definitive definition on an ancient prophecy because I could be wrong. I suggest that it is logical to assume that *all* of European Civilization fits into the category of the "4th Beast" in some ways.
It's important, I feel, to recognize that 2 streams of thought are involved in this, and both are true.
1) Jesus said the political Kingdom of God on earth would be taken from Israel and given to others. I believe the "others" were the Roman Kingdom. So this particular stream is evangelical, and amounts to a repeat among Gentile nations the same thing that had already taken place with Israel.
2) The other stream of thought involves the OT notion that the world is Israel's enemies. And that doesn't change even with the Christianization of the Roman Empire. Rome still remained corrupt, and Rome still fell.
Nonetheless, Roman Civilization continued through Britain and Gaul, and then through Germany in the West. In the East it continued for a thousand years in the Byzantine Empire. The fall of both Eastern and Western sections of the original Roman Empire does not preclude the continuity of what I call "Roman Civilization." I equate Roman Civilization with "European Civilization." And yes, that would include America, as well as countries formerly belonging to the Soviet Empire.
Since I don't know exactly how this 4th Beast will shape out, I can only rely on Daniel's account and on the account in Revelation, which says that this will be 10 nations and 7 kings. Since this comes from Dan 2 and the two "feet" of the great image, I assume that the two feet represent the Eastern and Western sections of the Roman Empire. This means we should probably include both Russia and the U.S.
As patriotic as I am, and as much as I love the US, I have little trouble criticizing it, and I have for decades. A long time ago, while studying these things, I realized there was a difference between biblical standards and democratic standards. Studying the history of philosophy in Europe, as opposed to Christian theology, one can easily see that liberal thought is not Christian thought.
I realized I had been raised up with the typical liberal education and taught to believe that "many gods" is as "godly" as belief in "one God." That is the democratic standard, that all religions should be accepted as equal. And this is not Christian.
So I'm not surprised in the least that my country has engaged in lots of ungodly activities. And we're inundated by a lot of this liberal philosophy now going to seed. It's revealing its roots in an actual hostility to Christianity. As Voltaire referred to Christianity as "the accursed thing," so now we have celebrities cursing the "Christian Right."
-
The other stream of thought involves the OT notion that the world is Israel's enemies.
What makes you say this?
-
The other stream of thought involves the OT notion that the world is Israel's enemies.
What makes you say this?
The confusion may be between the language used in the Jewish Scriptures and NT language. In the NT Scriptures the "world" describes the general state of the world at large. Some of it may sometimes turn to goodness, but there is always the inclination towards the evil and oppression of the innocent, as well as persecution of the righteous.
The "world," therefore, is opposed to what God has promised to Israel, to Christianity, and to the peoples of the world. By that I mean that nations, as they turn to or remain in violence will ultimately oppose things God has promised His people.
The UN at first accepted the State of Israel in 1948, although this was done with reservations, due to the complaints of the Palestinians. But there has been a regular condemnation of Israel from within the UN and a virtual consensus on this condemnation of "Jewish settlement and expansion."
It is really like saying, "We agree you should live, but reject an environment in which you can practice your own religion--you must compromise with a majority of Moslems until you are democratically delegitimized or overtaken by the Muslim world."
Compare this modern reality for this Jewish People in Israel with the description of the pagan world in the Jewish Scriptures. It is, I think, the same.
-
The "world," therefore, is opposed to what God has promised to Israel, to Christianity, and to the peoples of the world. By that I mean that nations, as they turn to or remain in violence will ultimately oppose things God has promised His people.
It's fine if you wish to believe this, but you claim it's an "OT notion" and I'm aware of nothing of the sort.
It is really like saying, "We agree you should live, but reject an environment in which you can practice your own religion--you must compromise with a majority of Moslems until you are democratically delegitimized or overtaken by the Muslim world."
This is simply another way of saying "antisemitism", and that's fine. But that's also a choice that people make, to choose hate over love (or at least, coexistence). It doesn't have to be this way.
Compare this modern reality for this Jewish People in Israel with the description of the pagan world in the Jewish Scriptures. It is, I think, the same.
Todays world is very different. Christians are not pagans, and neither are Muslims for that matter.
-
The "world," therefore, is opposed to what God has promised to Israel, to Christianity, and to the peoples of the world. By that I mean that nations, as they turn to or remain in violence will ultimately oppose things God has promised His people.
It's fine if you wish to believe this, but you claim it's an "OT notion" and I'm aware of nothing of the sort.
Yes, I can see that you don't know the things in the Jewish Bible I'm referring to. Israel was forbidden from intermarrying with foreigners. In NT lingo, that is "the world." It refers to the pagan world that we are not to intermix with. What does Christ have to do with Baal. Do not join yourselves to prostitutes. What do you have in common with idols? This is NT language that is based on the OT concept of separation between God's People and pagan peoples. Some kings suffered shipwreck for allying even with fellow Hebrew kings who were hopelessly compromised with paganism and idolatry.
-
you are correct. however the truth appears to be what one believes so if all the world beileves nyc in babylon then when nyc is destryed in the near future then the world will think it is babylon. just as satan wants......
'The world' does not and is not going to believe NYC is Babylon.
the unsaved world may there are even many saved believe it too.
Hold up, wait a minute, why is NYC going to be destroyed in the near future?
well nyc is in the world which is made a wilderness
-
the unsaved world may there are even many saved believe it too.
They may? Theology has to account for the world, and this is a theology that doesn't. If you think the unsaved world views or may view, NYC as Babylon, then that's a whole load of justification that just isn't there.
We don't live in a world of 'if the world believes nyc in babylon'. Does it? If it doesn't, it's time to reconsider one's conjecture.
-
Yes, I can see that you don't know the things in the Jewish Bible I'm referring to. Israel was forbidden from intermarrying with foreigners. In NT lingo, that is "the world."
I know the Jewish bible very well, thank you very much. Just because Jews aren't permitted to intermarry doesn't mean that we are opposed to the world, or that the world is opposed to us. The Jewish mission is to be "a kingdom of priests," and to whom do priests minister? Lay people. The nations of the world. Our mission is to be in the world and carry out God's laws, and so to transform it into a place of holiness.
-
Yes, I can see that you don't know the things in the Jewish Bible I'm referring to. Israel was forbidden from intermarrying with foreigners. In NT lingo, that is "the world."
I know the Jewish bible very well, thank you very much.
Snippy, are we? ;) You probably know the NT Scriptures better than many Christians do? What you know from your Bible is the Jewish view of your Bible. It doesn't mean that I, as a Christian, don't know the Jewish Bible from a Christian point of view--I certainly do, and probably know it better than many Jews do.
But I can understand the defensiveness. I wouldn't like the NT Scriptures played with by Jews either. For that matter, I don't like how liberal Christians play with it! But I'll never accuse them of not knowing it. Many of them know it better than many Evangelical or Conservative Christians do.
Just because Jews aren't permitted to intermarry doesn't mean that we are opposed to the world, or that the world is opposed to us.
On the contrary, if you believe, inherently, that it is dangerous and wrong to intermarry with them, it means precisely that, that they are bad for you. The world is no man's land, an ungodly atmosphere toxic for Jewish men and women. You might be able to do business with them, and even befriend them. But they are not to become business partners or trusted associates--at best, peace partners, if possible.
The Jewish mission is to be "a kingdom of priests," and to whom do priests minister? Lay people. The nations of the world. Our mission is to be in the world and carry out God's laws, and so to transform it into a place of holiness.
I think that's a twist on the concept of priesthood. Yes, Israel is a light to the nations, setting an example of God's word to the world. But a clear line of demarcation was drawn for religious purposes. And that shouldn't be ignored.
If the world does not have the right God and the right religion, then it remains a dangerous field. That's what I'm saying, that those who are your friends today may be your enemies tomorrow. What keeps people on a sane track if not devotion to the one true God?
-
You probably know the NT Scriptures better than many Christians do?
Sadly, that's actually been my observation, yeah.
What you know from your Bible is the Jewish view of your Bible. It doesn't mean that I, as a Christian, don't know the Jewish Bible from a Christian point of view--I certainly do, and probably know it better than many Jews do.
That hasn't been my observation, no.
But I can understand the defensiveness.
I'm not defensive. I simply don't appreciate people acting as though I don't know what's in my own bible. For some reason, many Christians think that Jews don't know what's in our own bible, because if we did we would somehow accept Christianity as being correct.
I wouldn't like the NT Scriptures played with by Jews either.
I don't tend to "play with" NT scripture. I will quote it verbatim sometimes though.
On the contrary, if you believe, inherently, that it is dangerous and wrong to intermarry with them, it means precisely that, that they are bad for you.
Um yeah, no, that's not why. Thanks for your input though.
The world is no man's land, an ungodly atmosphere toxic for Jewish men and women.
The world is place that Jewish men and women are supposed to enter into and so transform into a Godly place.
You might be able to do business with them, and even befriend them. But they are not to become business partners or trusted associates--at best, peace partners, if possible.
And you know this how? My closest friends are actually not Jews, but I guess I should break off those friendships pronto because some rando on the internet schooled me in Judaism.
I think that's a twist on the concept of priesthood.
Keep these coming. Every line and I see how much less you know about Judaism. Pretty close to zero at this point.
If the world does not have the right God and the right religion, then it remains a dangerous field.
According to who? Judaism was never meant to be a mass religion. The whole world was never meant to be Jewish.
-
Snippy, are we? ;) You probably know the NT Scriptures better than many Christians do? What you know from your Bible is the Jewish view of your Bible. It doesn't mean that I, as a Christian, don't know the Jewish Bible from a Christian point of view--I certainly do, and probably know it better than many Jews do.
But I can understand the defensiveness.
Let's have a reset on the approach to the conversation in this thread. Fenris isn't being snippy or defensive, and gaslighting isn't cool. Let's pretend we all know what we're talking about, and have good reasons for believing what we believe. There's no need to start arguing who knows what portions of the Bible better.
-
Snippy, are we? ;) You probably know the NT Scriptures better than many Christians do? What you know from your Bible is the Jewish view of your Bible. It doesn't mean that I, as a Christian, don't know the Jewish Bible from a Christian point of view--I certainly do, and probably know it better than many Jews do.
But I can understand the defensiveness.
Let's have a reset on the approach to the conversation in this thread. Fenris isn't being snippy or defensive, and gaslighting isn't cool. Let's pretend we all know what we're talking about, and have good reasons for believing what we believe. There's no need to start arguing who knows what portions of the Bible better.
Then I don't know how to reply to his responses? He apparently is claiming I'm trying to school him in Judaism, which is patently untrue. I think I should be able to respond to that false charge, which is why I'm doing it here while trying to respect your "rules."
Jews and Christians look at the same Bible in a very different way. And I find that interesting.
That was my whole point, that some in each of our religions follow the Jewish interpretation or the Christian interpretation without any regard for what is really said in the Scriptures. And that's because they are not very knowledgeable of the Scriptures.
Others, who know the Scriptures, both Jew and Christian, read the same Scriptures and continue to insert their own interpretation is the proper view. Though they actually know the Scriptures well, this does not definitively determine what interpretation should be applied to the same Scriptures.
Jews claim that since it is *their Scriptures* that their interpretation holds more weight than the Christian view. They fail to recognize that many Jews have converted to Christianity and that Christianity is itself produced by Jews who became Christians, ie the apostles.
But if this kind of dialogue is endangering civility, then I'll be only too happy to let it go here and now, and turn to a specific portion of Scripture. I would only suggest that Fenris' claim that we as Christians interpret the Bible wrong because it is a "Jewish Bible" lacks credibility.
-
I'm not defensive. I simply don't appreciate people acting as though I don't know what's in my own bible. For some reason, many Christians think that Jews don't know what's in our own bible, because if we did we would somehow accept Christianity as being correct.
I'm going to try to "reset" the tone of this conversation, because I agree with the admin--it's getting overheated. Let me just reassure you that I don't believe I know the Jewish version of the Bible well. I don't believe I know that near as well as you do.
I know the Scriptures, OT and NT, pretty well, though, and do have a different interpretation than Jews do. I don't think it's ignorance on anybody's part necessarily. The same Scriptures can be read by educated people and get different interpretations.
But let's turn the corner on any argument about who knows what better, okay? That was never my intention regardless. I don't believe the Jewish view lacks scholarship or credibility, as a legitimate religious alternative to the Christian version. I just disagree based on my own experience with God.
On the contrary, if you believe, inherently, that it is dangerous and wrong to intermarry with them, it means precisely that, that they are bad for you.
Um yeah, no, that's not why. Thanks for your input though.
I want to assure you that I'm here suggesting what the ideal Jewish interpretation "should be," based on my Christian understanding. I'm not telling you what "Jews believe" about this!
I'm a "holiness" Christian--there are more ecumenical Christian brands. As a holiness Christian I based my relationship with the non-Christian world on the same Scriptures that you use and perhaps interpret differently. I've been reading out of Deuteronomy--the 1st 10 chapters or so--about the need to separate from the pagans, ie not to intermarry with them, not to adopt their pagan ways, etc. And it is on that basis that I derive my own need not to over-fraternize with non-Christians in terms of marriage, business, etc.
A good example of compromise in the "Jewish Bible" is the story of Johoshaphat (1 Kings 22) who was a good king, faithful to God. The problem is, he carried "brotherhood" too far when he joined forces with the King of Israel in the north, who was compromised by paganism (2 Chron 20.37).
The world is no man's land, an ungodly atmosphere toxic for Jewish men and women.
The world is place that Jewish men and women are supposed to enter into and so transform into a Godly place.
As a Christian I believe, as you do, that moral people living under the laws of God should be a witness to the world, to hopefully change some of them. I do not believe all will change, even though all can change.
As such, I am not an isolationist Christian--just separated for the purpose of holiness, not wanting to agree with the message ungodly people bring. The more moral someone in the pagan world is, the easier it is to get close to him or her. But I strongly believe in peace agreements, or truces, which should be the goal of all groups, no matter what their religion is.
You might be able to do business with them, and even befriend them. But they are not to become business partners or trusted associates--at best, peace partners, if possible.
And you know this how? My closest friends are actually not Jews, but I guess I should break off those friendships pronto because some rando on the internet schooled me in Judaism.
No, I do appreciate your friendship with Christians, including me, if I haven't thrown you too far off already? I also have friends from work, from places I go, from business transactions, etc. But I would distinguish this from more personal associations.
I think that's a twist on the concept of priesthood.
Keep these coming. Every line and I see how much less you know about Judaism. Pretty close to zero at this point.
I would repeat--I don't wish to suggest I'm describing "Judaism," as you know it. I'm describing how I, as a Christian, believe that original Judaism was in ancient times, or how I think it should've been practiced. Do you understand the difference?
-
I'm going to try to "reset" the tone of this conversation, because I agree with the admin--it's getting overheated. Let me just reassure you that I don't believe I know the Jewish version of the Bible well. I don't believe I know that near as well as you do.
I know the Scriptures, OT and NT, pretty well, though, and do have a different interpretation than Jews do. I don't think it's ignorance on anybody's part necessarily. The same Scriptures can be read by educated people and get different interpretations.
OK, fair enough.
But let's turn the corner on any argument about who knows what better, okay? That was never my intention regardless. I don't believe the Jewish view lacks scholarship or credibility, as a legitimate religious alternative to the Christian version. I just disagree based on my own experience with God.
Okay.
I want to assure you that I'm here suggesting what the ideal Jewish interpretation "should be," based on my Christian understanding. I'm not telling you what "Jews believe" about this!
I'm a "holiness" Christian--there are more ecumenical Christian brands. As a holiness Christian I based my relationship with the non-Christian world on the same Scriptures that you use and perhaps interpret differently. I've been reading out of Deuteronomy--the 1st 10 chapters or so--about the need to separate from the pagans, ie not to intermarry with them, not to adopt their pagan ways, etc. And it is on that basis that I derive my own need not to over-fraternize with non-Christians in terms of marriage, business, etc.
Okay, so now here's the thing. The bible was written a long time ago. At that point in time, the world was divided into two groups of people: Jews, and idol worshippers. And that was it. Now of course one couldn't fraternize with idol worshippers or become their business partners or best friends. It was just that they worshipped idols. Their whole value system was horrible.
How does that pertain to us today? The world is a very different place now. Just because someone isn't Jewish today doesn't mean they're an idol worshipper with bad values. Today we have Christians and yes, Muslims too, who are fellow monotheists and who have adopted the bible's values. Because of that, the rules about idol worshippers (what you refer to as "pagans") does not apply to them.
Judaism is not a fossilized relic, trapped in time three millennia ago. It's intellectually vigorous and dynamic. Jewish law and philosophy have adapted to the modern era because the world is a changed place. If you don't understand this then you can't claim to understand Judaism. I've mentioned this before, many Christians sole knowledge of Judaism comes from the NT. Dude, it was written two thousand years ago. I don't find it especially accurate in explaining Judaism (but if you do, that's fine) but you have to remember that Judaism has changed in the last two thousand years. One of the reasons that I hang around here is because I want to be a source of information for people who want to understand Judaism, just as many of you here are a source of information for helping me understand Christianity.
As a Christian I believe, as you do, that moral people living under the laws of God should be a witness to the world, to hopefully change some of them.
Hopefully. But even if we don't, we still have to ability to go to those profane places in the world and sanctify them, make them holy through our actions.
As such, I am not an isolationist Christian--just separated for the purpose of holiness, not wanting to agree with the message ungodly people bring. The more moral someone in the pagan world is, the easier it is to get close to him or her. But I strongly believe in peace agreements, or truces, which should be the goal of all groups, no matter what their religion is.
I do not feel that I'm "at war" with other religions that some "peace treaty" is necessary. There's nothing wrong with working with those of another faith to a common goal.
No, I do appreciate your friendship with Christians, including me, if I haven't thrown you too far off already? I also have friends from work, from places I go, from business transactions, etc. But I would distinguish this from more personal associations.
Ok, you can. But I don't feel obligated to.
I would repeat--I don't wish to suggest I'm describing "Judaism," as you know it. I'm describing how I, as a Christian, believe that original Judaism was in ancient times, or how I think it should've been practiced. Do you understand the difference?
Yes. And as I've said, Judaism has adapted to the modern world.
-
No, I do appreciate your friendship with Christians, including me, if I haven't thrown you too far off already?
I just want to address this point, specifically. Not just to you but to anyone else reading this.
I try not to take anything that gets said too personally. I realize that I am in a place with some very different beliefs from my own, and I accept that. I also know that some Christians have grown up hearing some pretty ridiculous ideas about Jews, and I accept that too. I'm not getting angry or sad at anyone for saying anything, no matter how odd or peculiar it may be. The truly off the wall postings (like "Jews worship the devil") just makes me realize that such a person is not worth conversating with, and I tune that person out.
-
Okay, so now here's the thing. The bible was written a long time ago. At that point in time, the world was divided into two groups of people: Jews, and idol worshippers. And that was it. Now of course one couldn't fraternize with idol worshippers or become their business partners or best friends. It was just that they worshipped idols. Their whole value system was horrible.
How does that pertain to us today? The world is a very different place now. Just because someone isn't Jewish today doesn't mean they're an idol worshipper with bad values. Today we have Christians and yes, Muslims too, who are fellow monotheists and who have adopted the bible's values. Because of that, the rules about idol worshippers (what you refer to as "pagans") does not apply to them.
Judaism is not a fossilized relic, trapped in time three millennia ago. It's intellectually vigorous and dynamic. Jewish law and philosophy have adapted to the modern era because the world is a changed place. If you don't understand this then you can't claim to understand Judaism. I've mentioned this before, many Christians sole knowledge of Judaism comes from the NT. Dude, it was written two thousand years ago. I don't find it especially accurate in explaining Judaism (but if you do, that's fine) but you have to remember that Judaism has changed in the last two thousand years. One of the reasons that I hang around here is because I want to be a source of information for people who want to understand Judaism, just as many of you here are a source of information for helping me understand Christianity.
I still don't think you understand my point, which is that I'm *not* trying to present "the Jewish view." I'm trying to present *my Christian view* of what I think Judaism originally was and was intended to be. How you view Judaism from where you are in Judaism today, and how you think Judaism always was, is *your point of view*--not mine.
I'm not trying to tell you what your own personal religion is. I'm trying to tell you what I, as a Christian, believe Judaism should've become, which it did *not* become. I believe, obviously, that Judaism should've become Christianity. And I believe Christianity is the true successor of Judaism, just as Islam believes it is the true successor of both Judaism and Christianity.
I do agree that we have 3 major monotheistic faiths, and that the world has changed from the original Jewish binary view, Hebrew monotheists and pagan outsiders.
I also think you are naive if you think Jews should trust "the modern world," including forms of monotheism that do not truly conform to divine law. Even Christians and Muslims cannot be trusted if they do not have a theology that properly synchronizes them with God's Spirit, or if they do not "practice what they preach."
I would repeat--I don't wish to suggest I'm describing "Judaism," as you know it. I'm describing how I, as a Christian, believe that original Judaism was in ancient times, or how I think it should've been practiced. Do you understand the difference?
Yes. And as I've said, Judaism has adapted to the modern world.
I understand that's your position. But my position is to describe how I see the Bible being interpreted properly or not--I'm not describing Judaism as Judaism today sees it, nor how Judaism has seen it since the time of Jesus.
I'm describing how I think, as a Christian, Judaism was meant to be originally and even how it should be today. Jews do not have a monopoly on how Judaism should be viewed.
You may have an inside and more-experienced view of what Judaism is, and I don't pretend to know that with any precision. But I have every right to judge, based on the Christian Bible, how I think the Jewish Bible--the OT--should be interpreted, and thus, what Judaism should've become.
The best you can do, as a Jew, is describe how Jews believe their own faith legitimately represents biblical faith. They can say what Jews believe today, and how they think Jews should believe today. But they cannot maintain the exclusive view of how Jews *should* be practicing Judaism today. That depends on one's particular religious perspective.
That is a matter of one's own personal belief. And I, as a Christian, have every right to decide whether I think Judaism today or yesterday conforms to true biblical faith.
This is not dictating to you, as a Jew, what you believe or what Judaism believes. Rather, this is me, as a Christian, telling you whether I think, based on your own Bible, that you are properly following that Bible or not.
-
No, I do appreciate your friendship with Christians, including me, if I haven't thrown you too far off already?
I just want to address this point, specifically. Not just to you but to anyone else reading this.
I try not to take anything that gets said too personally. I realize that I am in a place with some very different beliefs from my own, and I accept that. I also know that some Christians have grown up hearing some pretty ridiculous ideas about Jews, and I accept that too. I'm not getting angry or sad at anyone for saying anything, no matter how odd or peculiar it may be. The truly off the wall postings (like "Jews worship the devil") just makes me realize that such a person is not worth conversating with, and I tune that person out.
You need not address this to me, however. And I'm not sure why you do? I've never said Jews worship the Devil. My position, as a Christian, is that Jews worship the true God, but fail to recognize that Jesus is His unique Son and Messiah of the Jews.
Does this affect Jewish worship negatively? I believe it does. But I'm certainly not saying that Jews are of the Devil or worship the Devil. On the contrary, I believe they worship the one true God, albeit in a short-sighted and weakened way.
I find acceptance of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah valuable, which may be explained as the addition of NT Scriptures to the Jewish Scriptures. It is the life of Jesus, complete with his all-encompassing expression of forgiveness for human sin, in particular for the sin of doing harm to the thing he represented.
To ignore this does hurt you, I think. But it does not keep you from worshiping the one true God. Even though we do not agree on this, it is a strong basis for humane relations and social acceptance.
-
The idea is to churn out seemingly endless volumes of multi- colored and highlighted, out of context scripture verses (as if quantity of verbosity somehow proves the point), fashioned as ranting weapons against a particular group in God's name, as in "God's word is God."
A regular feature of the Internet, alongside that of non-scriptural rambling, another waste of time.
-
I still don't think you understand my point, which is that I'm *not* trying to present "the Jewish view." I'm trying to present *my Christian view* of what I think Judaism originally was and was intended to be.
And here I thought we were making progress.
HOW do you think you know "what Judaism was originally intended to be"? You've already admitted that I know my bible better than you do. On the other hand, if your knowledge of Judaism comes from YOUR bible, then it's 1)Very outdated and 2)Not correct anyway. The NT presents how first century Christians viewed Judaism- not how first century Judaism actually was.
I'm not trying to tell you what your own personal religion is. I'm trying to tell you what I, as a Christian, believe Judaism should've become, which it did *not* become.
Which is not your place, as a Christian, to decide. Stay in your lane.
I also think you are naive if you think Jews should trust "the modern world,"
I happen to be Jewish. Who are you to tell me what Jews do and don't trust? Seriously?
including forms of monotheism that do not truly conform to divine law. Even Christians and Muslims cannot be trusted if they do not have a theology that properly synchronizes them with God's Spirit
Who are you to tell me who Jews should and shouldn't trust? You're quite arrogant.
I'm describing how I think, as a Christian, Judaism was meant to be originally and even how it should be today. Jews do not have a monopoly on how Judaism should be viewed.
It's not for people outside of a religion to decide what that religion should or shouldn't be. I can't believe I have to tell you this.
That is a matter of one's own personal belief. And I, as a Christian, have every right to decide whether I think Judaism today or yesterday conforms to true biblical faith.
And I think you're smug and arrogant to even suggest such a thing. By what right?
I've read the NT and so I think that Christians should believe such and such. Sounds ridiculous, no? It's not OK when you do it either.
-
The idea is to churn out seemingly endless volumes of multi- colored and highlighted, out of context scripture verses (as if quantity of verbosity somehow proves the point), fashioned as ranting weapons against a particular group in God's name, as in "God's word is God."
Yeah seems to be everywhere in some form or another.
-
You need not address this to me, however. And I'm not sure why you do? I've never said Jews worship the Devil.
I wasn't talking about you.
-
You need not address this to me, however. And I'm not sure why you do? I've never said Jews worship the Devil.
I wasn't talking about you.
Yea, that especially needs clarification since on the other thread you said that I'm trying to teach you about Judaism. I'm trying to tell you what I believe Judaism *should be* teaching, based on my view of its Bible. It's also my Bible.