Man's Sinful Nature

Rom 5:12 (NLT) When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam=3D92s sin
brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.
If man today is inherently evil, was he created inherently good or
inherently neutral?

IMO man is created "tabula rasa" and could choose to be righteous, but
that is a difficult path in a fallen world. Christ was tempted with
the same temptations and impulses we have, yet did not sin, since He
was human like us it is possible for us to choose that path too, He
seems to imply that we can and should. Yet we do not.
I do not think the evil is inherent in man, I think we choose it.

Daryl

shegeek72

2008-08-12 03:14:40 UTC

Post by d***@aol.com
Christ was tempted with
the same temptations and impulses we have, yet did not sin

[snip]

How do you know this? We only have a recounting of the last three
years of Christ's life and thus one cannot say for certainty that
Jesus didn't sin.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

Matthew Johnson

2008-08-14 23:25:17 UTC

Post by d***@aol.com
Christ was tempted with
the same temptations and impulses we have, yet did not sin

[snip]
How do you know this? We only have a recounting of the last three
years of Christ's life and thus one cannot say for certainty that
Jesus didn't sin.

What kind of person intrudes into a newsgroup whose topic is christianity, yet
insists on such a thoroughly non-christian epistemology?

Of COURSE we can know. As Augustine put it so well, we believe in order that we
might understand, not like with worldly sciences, where it is the other way
around.

We believe the Bible, this let us understand and KNOW that yes, Christ did not
sin.

Bob

2008-08-19 01:41:32 UTC

Post by shegeek72
How do you know this? We only have a recounting of the last three
years of Christ's life and thus one cannot say for certainty that
Jesus didn't sin.

Of COURSE we can know.
We believe the Bible, this let us understand and KNOW that yes, Christ di=

d not

Post by Matthew Johnson
sin.

Hogwash! You can BELIEVE that he did not sin, but you cannot KNOW
that he did not sin.

You fall into the trap of many by dwelling on the Godly side of Christ
while ignoring the manly side of him. His manly side had the same
desires and temptations as we all do. How far he drifted into those
temptations before pulling back is unknown. And how far is too far?
We know he felt the need to pray to the Father quite often, so why is
asking for forgiveness not a possibility?

If he spent his life on Earth as Godlike only, why did he even come?
He came to experience what we experience in order to understand our
need for forgiveness.

Read some of the apocrypha epistles and you get a feeling for what
Christs early life 'might' have been like as a human child. Some of
it was not nice. And before you start fuming about apocrypha
writings, I do know that the elder fathers rejected them because they
did not "fit the mold" of Christian beliefs. But that does not prove
them to be untrue.

Bob

DKleinecke

2008-08-19 01:41:33 UTC

Post by shegeek72
How do you know this? We only have a recounting of the last three
years of Christ's life and thus one cannot say for certainty that
Jesus didn't sin.

What kind of person intrudes into a newsgroup whose topic is christianity, yet
insists on such a thoroughly non-christian epistemology?

If I understand what you mean by epistemology (and I fear I may not)
you believe there is something called (or callable as) Christian
epistemology.

Wikipedia, for example, gives no hint that such a concept exists (or
that any other religious tradition has its own epistemology). Perhaps
you could give us a reference to some formulation of Christian
epistemology and summarize the formulation in a post to this group.

Granted that there is a Christian epistemology do its advocate also
advocate that no other kind of epistemology is suitable for discussing
Christianity?

Such a claim, if it were made, would seem noteworthy and subject to
the objection that it is intolerant and obsessed with doctrine.

And, of course, non-Christians of all ilks should be free to post on
SRC using any epistemology they choose to use.

Matthew Johnson

2008-08-20 01:58:36 UTC

Post by shegeek72
How do you know this? We only have a recounting of the last three
years of Christ's life and thus one cannot say for certainty that
Jesus didn't sin.

What kind of person intrudes into a newsgroup whose topic is
christianity, yet insists on such a thoroughly non-christian
epistemology?

Actually, it does give such a hint. You missed it. Perhaps you were
handicapped by your failure to understand what 'epistemology' is; it
is the branch of philosophy that concerns how we know things. As such,
it cannot help be relevant to the relationship between knowledge and
faith, even Christian faith.

One such hint is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_philosophy,
which lists John Frame as a "American Calvinist philosopher in
epistemology and ethics".

I'm sure there are more hints, but since Wikipedia is not such a good
source on this anyway, I am not going to search it for more. If you
are really interested, you should do it yourself -- instead of making
such false, brash and sweeping claims.

Post by DKleinecke
Perhaps you could give us a reference to some formulation of
Christian epistemology and summarize the formulation in a post to
this group.

Perhaps that would be a bad idea. There are too many of them;
"christian epistemology" describes a wide range of philosophies, not
just one. But
http://www.inquisition.ca/livre/fjt/philo/s002_TDM.htm#t3p4 would be a
good start.

Post by DKleinecke
Granted that there is a Christian epistemology do its advocate also
advocate that no other kind of epistemology is suitable for
discussing Christianity?

Some do, such as F. J. Thonnard and Jacques Mauritain. But again: it
is a range of epistemologies, not just one. Even the Thomists will
not, as a rule, reject the earlier Stoic/Neo-Platonist synthesis so
dear to Augustine.

But all agree that there are some epistemologies that are just
completely unsuitable for discussing Christianity -- such as Bren's,
which is really pseudo-Hindu, not Christian at all.

Post by DKleinecke
Such a claim, if it were made, would seem noteworthy and subject to
the objection that it is intolerant and obsessed with doctrine.

That is a peevish and ignorant suggestion. Not every "concern with
doctrine" is an "obsession with doctrine", despite your disingenuous
attempt to label it as one. Will you accuse Paul of this 'obsession'
too?

Post by DKleinecke
And, of course, non-Christians of all ilks should be free to post on
SRC using any epistemology they choose to use.

Then they had better be ready to face the criticism they so richly
deserve. The 'right' to post what is so foreign to the prevailing
ethos of a newsgroup also includes the right to criticize what is
posted, even to warn that the poster is resisting the benevolence of
God and storing up judgment for him/herself on the Last Day (Rom 2:5),
especially when, as here, the poster is enticing the gullible with a
counterfeit 'freedom', not at all related to the freedom Christ
purchased for us at the cost of His own blood.

Matthew Johnson

2008-08-20 01:58:36 UTC

Post by Bob

Post by shegeek72
How do you know this? We only have a recounting of the last three
years of Christ's life and thus one cannot say for certainty that
Jesus didn't sin.

Of COURSE we can know.
We believe the Bible, this let us understand and KNOW that yes, Christ di=

d not

Post by Matthew Johnson
sin.

Hogwash! You can BELIEVE that he did not sin, but you cannot KNOW
that he did not sin.

This is a false dichotomy.

Post by Bob
You fall into the trap of many by dwelling on the Godly side of Christ
while ignoring the manly side of him.

I fall into no such trap. It is you who fell into a trap, the trap of jumping to
conclusions based on what you did not understand.

Post by Bob
His manly side had the same
desires and temptations as we all do.

Now it is my turn to throw your own words back at you: according to your own
principles, as enunciated in your post, you cannot know this, you can only
believe it.

Now if you think you believe this based on the Bible, you are mistaken. There
are some desire that assault only those who have already fallen to other
temptations; Christ was never tempted by such desires.

Post by Bob
How far he drifted into those
temptations before pulling back is unknown. And how far is too far?
We know he felt the need to pray to the Father quite often, so why is
asking for forgiveness not a possibility?

Because He never did anything for which He needed to be forgiven. If He had,
then how could He be the pure, redeeming sacrifice?

Post by Bob
If he spent his life on Earth as Godlike only, why did he even come?

Why such a question? Surely you know the answer: He came to save us.

Post by Bob
He came to experience what we experience in order to understand our
need for forgiveness.

No, He already understood it. He did not need to experience it to understand it.
We need that, He never needed it.

Post by Bob
Read some of the apocrypha epistles and you get a feeling for what
Christs early life 'might' have been like as a human child.

Nope. There was a reason these were rejected.

[snip]

DKleinecke

2008-08-20 23:32:52 UTC

On Aug 19, 6:58 pm, Matthew Johnson <***@newsguy.org>
wrote:

A number of other things which I skip over and then

Post by DKleinecke
And, of course, non-Christians of all ilks should be free to post on
SRC using any epistemology they choose to use.

This is a very odd set of ideas. I do not detect any "prevailing
ethos" in this news group other than a common interest in
Christianity. One does not have to be a Christian to be interested in
Christianity.

That a poster is not a Christian would not be a respectable criticism
of the contents of their post.

In particular the last half of the paragraph I quoted seems to say
that you think this group is a missionary effort. Not so. There is no
present urgency to advance your personal opinions about salvation as
opposed to anyone else's.

The Muslim mirror of this group (soc.religion.islam) is filled with
posts by non-Muslims interested in Islam. I can remember only one
Muslim post to SRC - but there have been numerous atheists in the past
(none recently that I could detect).

As to epistemology I am gratified to see that you agree with me that
there is no Christian epistemology - only a number of epistemological
formulations advanced by Christian philosophers. I agree that
Wikipedia is not very reliable - but it is infinitely better than no
information at all.

Since there is no effective definition of Christian epistemology it
follows that we have no test to apply to determine whether or not a
particular epistemology is Christian.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-08-22 00:43:30 UTC

Post by Bob
You fall into the trap of many by dwelling on the Godly side of Christ
while ignoring the manly side of him. His manly side had the same
desires and temptations as we all do.

No, He did not. We are tempted from within. We have a fallen
nature. He did not inherit a fallen nature due to His virgin birth.

Post by Bob
How far he drifted into those
temptations before pulling back is unknown.

Your statement appears not to have any realization as to the
nature of inclination. Christ never experienced Rom 7. That
is purely the experience of a regenerated man. Christ had but
one inclination, that to please God, to do the will of Him who had
sent Him. There was no other inclination. On the other hand,
men have but one inclination prior to regeneration, that being
the inclination to serve self. We make ourselves the final
reference point. We are independent whereas the full gospel
record portrays Christ only as being in dependence upon
God.

Post by Bob
=A0And how far is too far?

You have an unbiblical, unregenerated view of the nature of man
and thus fail to understand Christ's human nature.

Post by Bob
We know he felt the need to pray to the Father quite often, so why is
asking for forgiveness not a possibility?

Because if He had had to ask for forgiveness of even one "slip",
then He too would have fallen even as Adam had. Christ was sent
in the *likeness* of sinful flesh. In that He fulfilled the Law
perfectly
and that His atoning death was successful in its effectualness, that
He was raised from the death, we know that there was no sin found
in Him. You really don't know your bible.

Post by Bob
If he spent his life on Earth as Godlike only, why did he even come?

Phil 2. He gave up His conscious use of His divine attributes.
Luke 2:52 He took on a human consciousness at the incarnation and
experienced not only physical growth, but growth in knowledge and
understanding chronologically. His life exemplified the life that man
was originally called to- to live dependently upon the will, the
leading
(Lk 4:1) and empowering of God (via the Spirit).

Post by Bob
He came to experience what we experience in order to understand our
need for forgiveness.

If that were true, then God would not be God for God is self-
sufficient
and in need of nothing. He stands outside of His creation. He
foreordained
all that would occur in "time" and decreed to be so. By this He
foreknows
all that will come to pass. He has no such pithy needs. Your view of
God is all too small.

Post by Bob
Read some of the apocrypha epistles

and you will be reading non-inspired imaginations of men.

Post by Bob
and you get a feeling for what
Christs early life 'might' have been like as a human child. =A0Some of
it was not nice. =A0And before you start fuming about apocrypha
writings, I do know that the elder fathers rejected them because they
did not "fit the mold" of Christian beliefs. =A0But that does not prove
them to be untrue.

They were rejected because the Spirit did not lead men to accept
them as His word. And if you had actually read them and were in
fact a true believer, you would easily recognize the spiritual
distinctiveness
of Scripture over such imaginative works of fiction.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-08-22 00:43:30 UTC

Post by shegeek72
How do you know this? We only have a recounting of the last three
years of Christ's life and thus one cannot say for certainty that
Jesus didn't sin.

What kind of person intrudes into a newsgroup whose topic is christiani=

ty, yet

insists on such a thoroughly non-christian epistemology?

If I understand what you mean by epistemology (and I fear I may not)
you believe there is something called (or callable as) Christian
epistemology.
Wikipedia, for example, gives no hint that such a concept exists (or
that any other religious tradition has its own epistemology). Perhaps
you =A0could give us a reference to some formulation of Christian
epistemology and summarize the formulation in a post to this group.
Granted that there is a Christian epistemology do its advocate also
advocate that no other kind of epistemology is suitable for discussing
Christianity?
Such a claim, if it were made, would seem noteworthy and subject to
the objection that it is intolerant and obsessed with doctrine.
And, of course, non-Christians of all ilks should be free to post on
SRC using any epistemology they choose to use.

I wished that the moderator had chimed in on this.

Yes, non-Christians are granted license to present their view points
here but it is not "free" because this is a moderated site. To freely
post you need to go to a non-moderated site.

But I think you have at least grasped something that many miss,
that being the underlying epistemological principles that most
presumed without ever actually know what theirs actually hold to
let alone why. But being a Christian NG, the biblical view of
God is the only true epistemology. We can know true truth,
to use Schaeffer's terminology, absolutely because He who
knows infinitely has revealed it. All other epistemologies begin
and remain on the ocean of relativity. For unless one knows
everything about everything exhaustively and absolutely, then
he never really knows anything truly. Take for instance man's
conscience. The regenerated man has a conscience that
judges himself according to God's judgment of him. Knowledge,
that is true knowledge, is always held in common with God.

In that you ventured to bring up epistemology, I would
seek to persuade you to read Cornileus VanTil's, "Christian
Theistic Ethics" wherein he notes various propositions of
epistemological truth in contrast to the Biblical one. Perhaps
then you might appreciate where you have errored in your
presuppositions concerning the true Christian doctrine
concerning truth and knowing.

------

[The groundrules for this group say that I can't discriminate based on
religious view. It's not totally free, but the limitations fall
equally on Christians and non-Christians. --clh]

Matthew Johnson

2008-08-25 03:09:38 UTC

Post by DKleinecke
A number of other things which I skip over and then

There is nothing wrong with skipping per se; often, it is necessary
for keeping focus. Usually, such a prominent note (of the skip) is not
even called for: others use "...", I use "[snip]".

Post by DKleinecke
And, of course, non-Christians of all ilks should be free to post on
SRC using any epistemology they choose to use.

This is a very odd set of ideas.

Nothing 'odd' about it. Perhaps this would be clear to you if you did
not insist on confusing Gnosticism and Christianity.

Post by DKleinecke
I do not detect any "prevailing ethos" in this news group other than
a common interest in Christianity.

That's ironic, because I don't even detect a "common interest IN
Christianity" in this NG. On the contrary: I see a great many ideas
that must be described not as 'interest', but as 'disinterest'.

Post by DKleinecke
One does not have to be a Christian to be interested in
Christianity.

True. But if your epistemology is non-christian, then what effect must
that have in your 'interest'? It will have an effect like the harsh
sun on the seeds that fell on rocky ground (Lk 8:13); it will turn it
into disinterest, even hostility as you fall away.

Post by DKleinecke
That a poster is not a Christian would not be a respectable criticism
of the contents of their post.

This is not unconditionally true. If, as happened in the case at hand,
the poster's content DOES rely on her claim to be Christian, then it
IS respectable criticism. Certainly more respectable than the
equivocation behind her claim to be Christian or to say Christian
things.

Post by DKleinecke
In particular the last half of the paragraph I quoted seems to say
that you think this group is a missionary effort.

You are trying to read between the lines, and doing it badly.

Post by DKleinecke
Not so. There is no present urgency to advance your personal opinions
about salvation as opposed to anyone else's.
The Muslim mirror of this group (soc.religion.islam) is filled with
posts by non-Muslims interested in Islam. I can remember only one
Muslim post to SRC

Then you have not been paying close attention. There have been many
more than that, especially since 9/11.

Post by DKleinecke
- but there have been numerous atheists in the past
(none recently that I could detect).
As to epistemology I am gratified to see that you agree with me that
there is no Christian epistemology - only a number of epistemological
formulations advanced by Christian philosophers.

But that isn't what I said! I said that there is no ONE "Christian
epistemology" but a RANGE of them. And I NEVER said that this range
was confined to "formulations advanced by Christian philosophers."

Do you really think, for example, that the epistemology of Aquinas and
that of Aristotle differ so much that you have to call them separate?

On the contrary: like Aquinas, most of these "Christian philosophers"
rely heavily on an epistemology originally advanced by non-Christians.

Post by DKleinecke
I agree that Wikipedia is not very reliable - but it is infinitely
better than no information at all.

Why do you keep making so many sweeping and false generalizations? It
is NOT "infinitely better than no information at all." On the
contrary: depending on many factors, some articles are good, some are
not, some are so misleading, it is better not to read them at all.

Post by DKleinecke
Since there is no effective definition of Christian epistemology it
follows that we have no test to apply to determine whether or not a
particular epistemology is Christian.

This is not true, nor does it follow from your premise. But of course,
if you can't see that it does not follow from your premise, of course
you will not understand when someone tries to explain to you what that
'test' might be, and what it _can_ accomplish.

If you want a serious discussion, Kleinecke, stop playing these
illogical word games.

DKleinecke

2008-08-25 03:09:39 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In that you ventured to bring up epistemology, I would
seek to persuade you to read Cornileus VanTil's, "Christian
Theistic Ethics" wherein he notes various propositions of
epistemological truth in contrast to the Biblical one. Perhaps
then you might appreciate where you have errored in your
presuppositions concerning the true Christian doctrine
concerning truth and knowing.

I am aware of VanTil. I do not consider his work a contribution to
epistemology. It is a work of Christian apologetics. And it is
apologetics for a flavor of Christianity I deplore.

I don't want to argue about epistemology. Moreover such an argument
would not belong here because it is not a part of Christianity.

Epistemology is prior to theology (of which Christianity is a
chapter). So, for that matter, is ontology. Both of them are
fundamental to human thought. But I am not impressed with the progress
philosophers have made in either field. I think we would do well to
ignore them. And we should not use the word "epistemology" as a club
with which to beat people over the head who disagree with us.

In terms of Christian discourse it is fair and proper to ask - what do
we know? But only if we agree on the meaning of "know" beforehand. In
my personal case I do not claim to know anything. There are, however,
numerous things I believe. I use "believe" to describe the situation
where I am aware that I might be wrong - but I am not about to waste
any time thinking about the consequences of an error. I believe (in
the same sense) that many people use "know" in the sense I use
"believe". I fear I do when I let my guard down.

For example: I believe God exists (subject to ontological
considerations that I do not want to discuss) because I have had
certain experiences. I am aware that I could be misunderstanding, or
even imagining, the experiences in question. But I have no interest in
exploring that possibility.

I believe the Bible exists as a text. I believe that various people
have read it in various ways and there is no consensus as to what it
means. There is no definition of Christianity because, according to my
belief, there is no agreement among people who call themselves
Christians. For the record, it is my belief that the religion based on
the Sermon on the Mount (and nothing else - all the rest is
commentary) is the religion properly called Christianity. I believe
that few people who call themselves Christians are in 100% agreement
with me on that.

For the record you might indicate to me where you think I erred in my
previous post.
As opposed, of course, to not sharing your personal beliefs.

shegeek72

2008-08-25 03:09:40 UTC

Post by Bob
You fall into the trap of many by dwelling on the Godly side of Christ
while ignoring the manly side of him. His manly side had the same
desires and temptations as we all do.

No, He did not. =A0We are tempted from within. =A0We have a fallen
nature. =A0He did not inherit a fallen nature due to His virgin birth.

The 'fallen' nature of man-womankind is controversial in some
churches. Do we really think the story of Adam & Eve happened
literally? That Eve (usually portrayed as a white woman, when in
actuality she would've been black) literally picked an apple from a
tree and offered it to Adam? If we are to believe the story literally,
then we must also believe that the earth is only 5000 yrs. old.

----

[I would point out that you can believe we live in a fallen world even
if you deny the literal accuracy of Genesis 1 and 2. --clh]

h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

2008-08-25 03:17:14 UTC

Post by DKleinecke
For the record, it is my belief that the religion based on
the Sermon on the Mount (and nothing else - all the rest is
commentary) is the religion properly called Christianity. I believe
that few people who call themselves Christians are in 100% agreement
with me on that.

I have some sympathy with this. I do think we should give priority to
Jesus' teaching. I treat Paul's authority as significantly less, and
later theological standards as useful, but in many ways specific to
the culture in which they were developed.

However when taking Jesus' teachings as normative, you do want to look
at them all. E.g. his concept of his own role in the Kingdom, and of
the significance of his death. People who focus on the Sermon on the
Mount are sometimes making limiting themselves to Jesus' moral
teachings. They are important, but not the whole story.

shegeek72

2008-08-26 00:29:32 UTC

Post by shegeek72
[I would point out that you can believe we live in a fallen world even
if you deny the literal accuracy of Genesis 1 and 2. --clh]

That may be true. However, there seems to be two broad category of
Christians: those who believe that Christianity's core message is love
and those who believe the former, but would add the caveat that God is
judgmental. If one falls into the latter category then I could
understand a belief in an inherent 'fallen' nature of humans. But if
one does not believe in a judgmental God they may realize an all-
loving God wouldn't create beings, made in God's image, that are born
'fallen.'
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

l***@hotmail.com

2008-08-26 00:29:32 UTC

You fall into the trap of many by dwelling on the Godly side of Chris=

while ignoring the manly side of him. His manly side had the same
desires and temptations as we all do.

No, He did not. =3DA0We are tempted from within. =3DA0We have a fallen
nature. =3DA0He did not inherit a fallen nature due to His virgin birth=

Post by shegeek72
The 'fallen' nature of man-womankind is controversial in some
churches.

Who cares? All is relative unless you have an absolute by which to
verify true reality. God gave to man just such an absolute, the Bible
in which the death of man is clearly taught.

Post by shegeek72
Do we really think the story of Adam & Eve happened
literally?

Why not? The counter to the Genesis record being historically
accurate,
is that it is a fiction within which man may weave his own version of
reality. i.e. man is set a drift on the ocean of relativity.

Also, anything but the literal understanding completely violates the
essential nature of God as revealed in Scripture. It also destroys
the biblical description of man being created after the image of God.

Evolution is really blasphemous for it requires death before sin. It
requires that life be determined by fate and therefore without true
meaning and purpose. It removes the uniqueness of man from
being distinct from all other life forms in the universe, something
quite contrary to biblical statements.

Post by shegeek72
That Eve (usually portrayed as a white woman,

Well it is obviously speculation then, is it not?

Post by shegeek72
when in
actuality she would've been black)

more speculation.

Post by shegeek72
literally picked an apple

speculation. It was some form of fruit.

Post by shegeek72
from a
tree and offered it to Adam? If we are to believe the story literally,
then we must also believe that the earth is only 5000 yrs. old.

So? Geologically there are no problems with that. In fact, there is
much more evidence for a young earth than an old. Earth hasn't
even reach radiometric equilibrium yet! It would take 30,000yrs for
earth's atmosphere to reach equilibrium and yet we measure twice
as much C-14 today than we did 10 years ago.

Post by shegeek72
=A0 ----
[I would point out that you can believe we live in a fallen world even
if you deny the literal accuracy of Genesis 1 and 2. --clh]

But if one does, then it makes no sense in the Biblical paradigm. As
mentioned above, the only other theory is that of evolution which
requires death before sin. So even on an allegorical level, it does
not make sense.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-08-26 00:29:32 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In that you ventured to bring up epistemology, I would
seek to persuade you to read Cornileus VanTil's, "Christian
Theistic Ethics" wherein he notes various propositions of
epistemological truth in contrast to the Biblical one. =A0Perhaps
then you might appreciate where you have errored in your
presuppositions concerning the true Christian doctrine
concerning truth and knowing.

I am aware of VanTil. I do not consider his work a contribution to
epistemology. It is a work of Christian apologetics. And it is
apologetics for a flavor of Christianity I deplore.

a presupposition in and of itself.

Post by DKleinecke
I don't want to argue about epistemology. Moreover such an argument
would not belong here because it is not a part of Christianity.

Oh, oh no! You're quite wrong about that. Epistemology is very much
part of Christian theology. Read Tennant's "Philosophical Theology."

Post by DKleinecke
Epistemology is prior to theology (of which Christianity is a
chapter).

No, again, your presuppositional slip is showing. Man was created in
God's image which infers an epistemological design even before man
was created. Also, just because the Judeao/Christian religion is
historically dated, that does not equal to say that it's truths do not
predate philosophy.

Post by DKleinecke
So, for that matter, is ontology. Both of them are
fundamental to human thought. But I am not impressed with the progress
philosophers have made in either field. I think we would do well to
ignore them. And we should not use the word "epistemology" as a club
with which to beat people over the head who disagree with us.

It is a "club" that few are even aware of. It is much the same with
presuppositions. But that doesn't dismiss it fundamental importance.
Everyone operates out of some epistemological scheme. But its just
that, like presuppositions, very few have ever investigated the funda-
mentals of their system of belief.

Post by DKleinecke
In terms of Christian discourse it is fair and proper to ask - what do
we know? But only if we agree on the meaning of "know" beforehand. In
my personal case I do not claim to know anything.

You are either pretending not to know or you are a liar! Everyone
lives as if they "know" something. You drive down the road "knowing"
the rules of the road. You confuse exhaustive knowledge with true
knowledge. We CAN know truly without knowing exhaustively. But
we can only know true truth if we have an infinite reference point.
Christianity has just such a reference point and it is not only
infinite,
it is Personal and revelatory.

Post by DKleinecke
There are, however,
numerous things I believe. I use "believe" to describe the situation
where I am aware that I might be wrong - but I am not about to waste
any time thinking about the consequences of an error. I believe (in
the same sense) that many people use "know" in the sense I use
"believe". I fear I do when I let my guard down.

Did we just go through this? To believe is to have a conviction which
is based upon authority vs being based upon reason. Augustine said
something like "we know what rests on reason, we believe what rests
on authority." That said, it still follows that an activity of reason
under-
lies all faith while an activity of faith underlies all knowledge.
For
reason in the final analysis rests on authority which is beyond
itself.
Therefore, belief is the primary condition of reason and not reason
being
the ultimate basis for belief. The consent of belief is by nature not
a free act of volition but rather it is in truth a forced consent so
determined by evidence. Belief is then the consent of the mind to
the reality of the evidence.

Post by DKleinecke
For example: I believe God exists (subject to ontological
considerations that I do not want to discuss) because I have had
certain experiences.

"experiences" are the worst evidentiary of all. They are wide open
to falsification. Just look at witness statements of the same event.

Post by DKleinecke
I am aware that I could be misunderstanding, or
even imagining, the experiences in question. But I have no interest in
exploring that possibility.

so your a mystic. You don't believe in "Truth" per se.

Post by DKleinecke
I believe the Bible exists as a text. I believe that various people
have read it in various ways and there is no consensus as to what it
means.

Oh, but you are wrong. The issue isn't consensus, the issue is
and remains to be, interpretive methodology. This is the whole point
of the opening chapters of Genesis. If you default to a non-literal
methodology, then you immediately relativize all that follows. The
Genesis record is The fundamental touchstone. You either believe
that God is propositional in His revelation, or you don't. If you
don't,
then you don't believe in the God of the Bible. After all, the God of
the bible created language. He created man after His own image,
part of which has to do with receptiveablity of revelation even though
all revelation is anthropomorphic in nature (by necessity). God
created man is such a way that man could understand who God is
and what He requires of him. "He is not a God of confusion, is He?"

Post by DKleinecke
There is no definition of Christianity because, according to my
belief, there is no agreement among people who call themselves
Christians.

There is a definition for Biblical Christianity and there are all the
rest. This is why epistemology and then hermeneutics is so
fundamental to the true understanding of true reality. After all,
idolatry is little more than giving a wrong answer to the question,
"What is God like." And incorrectly answering that question not
only falsifies one's theology, but it also means that one's reality
of life is false as well.

The SM is the rule of faith of the Kingdom Age, or the Millennial
reign of Christ on earth. This follows with the many OT descriptions
of that age. "Thy Kingdom come" is primarily, in context, a Jewish
prayer for the inheritance of the covenantial promises. But it is
equally true that it expresses the nature of God and is therefore
applicable to all ethically speaking. "Be ye perfect as your Father
in
heaven is perfect." That is the goal. That is the requirement of
those who stand outside of Christ and His perfect accomplishment
of God's requirements so expressed in both life and death. Here
we go into a discussion as to just what was accomplished by
Christ's atoning work.

Post by DKleinecke
For the record you might indicate to me where you think I erred in my
previous post.
As opposed, of course, to not sharing your personal beliefs.

I've never hid my personal belief system. I am a reformed protestant
who yet ascribes to the sola's. Soteriologically, I am of the
Augustine,
Calvin school of thought. Eschatologically, I am a dispensationalist.

As for where you erred, I honest don't recall. I'll have to reread
what
you wrote. That said, if indeed you have read VanTil, yes an
apologist of
the Christian faith, yet that said, a teacher of philosophy who has
had
numerous students have had world-wide audience and effect. Have
you ever read Francis Schaeffer? Os Guinness, though not a formal
student of VanTil, nevertheless holds to his presuppositional school
of apologetics.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-08-26 00:29:33 UTC

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

Why? If you actually believe Jn 1:1, then the Pauline writings are no
less authoritative than Christ's own statements. Read-letter
authoritarianism is really an expression of naivet=E9! Sorry, but it
is true. ALL of Scripture is inSpired. All of scripture is equally
authoritative and true. To treat Pauline theology "significantly less"
than Christ's is a misrepresentation of biblical revelation.

If one took your position and applied it consistently, especially
noting your comment as to "specific to the culture," then all of
Christ's testimony has NO application to the Church, for He came only
for the lost sheep of Israel. He came to fulfill the Law which was
only given to Israel. He rebuked the disciple when they wanted to
introduce some Gentiles to Him. He set His face to Jerusalem.
Contextually and culturally, Jesus was Israel's Messiah, not the
Gentiles.

I really don't understand learned people who either reject Paul and
think him a heretic or the lesser rejection which you apparently
evidence. It is really bad bibliology.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
However when taking Jesus' teachings as normative, you do want to look
at them all. E.g. his concept of his own role in the Kingdom, and of
the significance of his death. People who focus on the Sermon on the
Mount are sometimes making limiting themselves to Jesus' moral
teachings. They are important, but not the whole story.

DKleinecke

2008-08-26 00:29:33 UTC

It is my belief that we have no reliable information about either
Jesus' concept of his own role in the Kingdom or about the
significance of his death. I believe that it is most probable that he
never spoke to either question.

It is worth considering that Jesus may only have intended to be a
moral teacher. He might have been modeling himself on those wandering
Cynic philosophers that some theologians love to compare him to.

Those modern skeptics who doubt that Jesus ever existed seem to have
fallen into error because there is evidence for his life - primarily
in Josephus. All of that evidence associates him with his "brother"
James and a version of Christianity that is emphatically moral rather
than gnostic.

I forget who said it - Jesus expected the Kingdom of Heaven, but what
came instead was the Church. A little off center, but close to what I
mean.

d***@aol.com

2008-08-26 00:29:33 UTC

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

I have some sympathy with this. I do think we should give priority to
Jesus' teaching. I treat Paul's authority as significantly less, and
later theological standards as useful, but in many ways specific to
the culture in which they were developed.
However when taking Jesus' teachings as normative, you do want to look
at them all. E.g. his concept of his own role in the Kingdom, and of
the significance of his death. People who focus on the Sermon on the
Mount are sometimes making limiting themselves to Jesus' moral
teachings. They are important, but not the whole story.

Curious, I think I would find Christianity rather shallow and empty
without Paul. If Christ is not who Paul says He is, than I think I
would rather worship Paul's God than that of some odd Jewish rabbi
wondering around Galilee a couple of millenia ago. If Jesus was simply
a moral teacher, He was not an exceptional one, only if He is the
incarnate Son of God do His words acquire authority, and only if God
is the God of Grace Paul claims He is, is there any real hope for us.
In my own life, I am sure the God I deal with is the same that St.
Paul knew, ever gracious, ever loving, ever ready to forgive. It was
the knowledge of that God which spread across the world through the
heart of a simple tentmaker. It is the knowledge of, and experience
with, that God, that has touched and enriched my life beyond measure,
despite the fact that I merit nothing. If Paul provides only
commentary, it is surely the most wonderful and important commentary
the world has ever witnessed.

Daryl

Matthew Johnson

2008-08-27 03:09:58 UTC

In article <N7Isk.762$***@trnddc03>, ***@hotmail.com says...
[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Why? If you actually believe Jn 1:1, then the Pauline writings are no
less authoritative than Christ's own statements. Read-letter
authoritarianism is really an expression of naivet=E9! Sorry, but it
is true. ALL of Scripture is inSpired. All of scripture is equally
authoritative and true. To treat Pauline theology "significantly less"
than Christ's is a misrepresentation of biblical revelation.

But there is a big, gaping hole in your reasoning, Loren. You who insist on the
literal interpretation of Scripture everywhere, are departing from it here. How
so? Because when Paul wrote those words, 'Scripture' did NOT include Paul's own
letters. It did not even include the Gospels. It included only the Old
Testament, even including the Deuterocanonicals -- another fact you hide from.

[snip]

l***@hotmail.com

2008-08-27 03:09:59 UTC

It is my belief that we have no reliable information about either
Jesus' concept of his own role in the Kingdom or about the
significance of his death.

Surely you jest! Read the unanswerable "Works" by John Owen.
You can read a primer to that title in the recent publication titled,
"In My Place Condemned He Stood" by JI Packer & Mark Dever.
The doctrine concerning the significance of Christ death has been
known and taught by the earliest church fathers. There is a book
that details this to the Nth degree but I can't for the life of me
think of the title.

Another publication that would give you an answer to your
assumed position is "Death of Death in the Death of Christ."
Again, written by John Owen.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-08-27 03:09:59 UTC

Post by DKleinecke
I forget who said it - Jesus expected the Kingdom of Heaven, but what
came instead was the Church. A little off center, but close to what I
mean.

He didn't "expect" the Kingdom, He offered the Kingdom. However
when the Jewish religious leaders and thus Israel per se rejected His
offer, then the "Mystery Kingdom" was announced. Matt 12 is the
final offering of the Kingdom to Israel. Matt 13 then announces the
"mystery kingdom" or the Church Age, wherein salvation was to be
offered to Gentiles and it would be they who primarily populated that
economy. Mt 13:11

d***@aol.com

2008-08-27 03:10:00 UTC

Post by shegeek72
[I would point out that you can believe we live in a fallen world even
if you deny the literal accuracy of Genesis 1 and 2. --clh]

That may be true. However, there seems to be two broad category of
Christians: those who believe that Christianity's core message is love
and those who believe the former, but would add the caveat that God is
judgmental. If one falls into the latter category then I could
understand a belief in an inherent 'fallen' nature of humans. But if
one does not believe in a judgmental God they may realize an all-
loving God wouldn't create beings, made in God's image, that are born
'fallen.'
--
Tara's Transgender Resourceshttp://tarasresources.net
Metropolitan Community Churcheshttp://www.mccchurch.org

Depends on what you mean by "God's image," I tend to think that it
means we were given a spirit, that we have volition, that we are not
bound by compelling physical forces. As to the rest, we are not "born
fallen" (excuse me RC's, it is a quibble, but I don't accept original
sin) but are fallen by choice. We choose to sin, to distance ourselves
from God, we could, as Jesus showed us as a man, not sin, but we do.
God is far, very far, from being judgmental, but he is just and there
is judgment. We have to accept some part in our own creation, there
are boundries, but most of what we are is self made.

Daryl

d***@aol.com

2008-08-27 03:10:00 UTC

I think it highly doubtful that the apostles would be willing to
accept grisly death for the sake of some "moral teacher." As I have
said before, if that was all He was, He was a particularly stupid one.
I mean "love your enemies," "turn the other cheek" what on earth could
prompt a rational person to accept such a philosophy? It only has
authority if he was speaking as God incarnate, otherwise it is really
foolish. Certainly not something people would be willing to sacrifice
their lives, their families lives for.

Daryl

shegeek72

2008-08-27 23:46:39 UTC

Post by shegeek72
The 'fallen' nature of man-womankind is controversial in some
churches.

Who cares? =A0

Quite a few of us.

All is relative unless you have an absolute by which to
verify true reality.

How do you define 'true reality'? By a collection of copies of texts
passed down orally, interpreted, translated, dictated to scribes, the
meaning of missing and damaged portions decided by committees of
fallible humans or by modern science? And as quantum physics is
showing us reality may be a lot stranger than we think it is.

God gave to man just such an absolute, the Bible
in which the death of man is clearly taught.

The Bible can be interpreted in many ways. As I've said before, no one
has lock, stock and barrel on what everything in the Bible means.

Post by shegeek72
Do we really think the story of Adam & Eve happened
literally?

Why not? =A0The counter to the Genesis record being historically
accurate,
is that it is a fiction within which man may weave his own version of
reality. =A0i.e. man is set a drift on the ocean of relativity.

There is a third option: that Genesis is speaking metaphorically in
some sections.

Evolution is really blasphemous for it requires death before sin. =A0It
requires that life be determined by fate and therefore without true
meaning and purpose. =A0It removes the uniqueness of man from
being distinct from all other life forms in the universe, something
quite contrary to biblical statements.

We do not know that humans are unique in the universe. To know that
would require exploring other earth-like planets and we haven't even
begun to do that yet.

Post by shegeek72
=A0 That Eve (usually portrayed as a white woman,

Well it is obviously speculation then, is it not?

Every depiction of Eve I've seen, except for one, has portrayed her as
white.

Post by shegeek72
when in
actuality she would've been black)

more speculation.

Not at all. Scientists as almost certain that the first humans were
black and originated in Africa.

So? =A0Geologically there are no problems with that. =A0In fact, there is
much more evidence for a young earth than an old.

Then how do you account for rocks found that are 3.8 to 3.9 billion
years old (by several radiometric dating methods)? The vast majority
of scientists believe the earth is 4.55 billion years old (plus or
minus 1%) along with the rest of the solar system

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html =A0

Earth hasn't
even reach radiometric equilibrium yet! It would take 30,000yrs for
earth's atmosphere to reach equilibrium and yet we measure twice
as much C-14 today than we did 10 years ago.>

see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#magnetic
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

---

[I should note that this group is not appropriate for discussions
of the scientific merits of evolution. --clh]

l***@hotmail.com

2008-08-27 23:46:40 UTC

Post by shegeek72
[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Why? If you actually believe Jn 1:1, then the Pauline writings are no
less authoritative than Christ's own statements. Read-letter
authoritarianism is really an expression of naivet=3DE9! Sorry, but it
is true. ALL of Scripture is inSpired. All of scripture is equally
authoritative and true. To treat Pauline theology "significantly less"
than Christ's is a misrepresentation of biblical revelation.

But there is a big, gaping hole in your reasoning, Loren. You who insist =

on the

Post by shegeek72
literal interpretation of Scripture everywhere, are departing from it her=

e. How

Post by shegeek72
so? Because when Paul wrote those words, 'Scripture' did NOT include Paul=

's own

Post by shegeek72
letters. It did not even include the Gospels. It included only the Old
Testament, even including the Deuterocanonicals -- another fact you hide =

from.
You brought up this very same objection over in SRC-BS in
the thread concerning the meaning of "mountain." I answered you
there.

Here I will only reiterate that you seem to have a hard time to
just let things go. I see only two options here. Either you are
being deliberately obtuse (gee, why would anyone think that?)
or you are unlearned as to the facts of the matter. In that this
has been discussed countless times, the latter is not an option.

No one argues that you are widely read.
No one argues that you have a specific and particular
system of theology.
No one argues, that is anyone who has read your posts over
these past years, that you view theology as legal and cold
and devoid of the Spirit. You would rather contend than
seek the Truth. There is little flexibility or compassion
in your expression of the Gospel. You pursue to indoctrinate,
not introduce Christ and educate.

Personally, one side of me doesn't care. This is why I stopped
reading your posts, let alone replying to them. I got tired of
casting
pearls, so to speak. Yet there is another side of me that sighs
before the Throne and ponders my own heart as to its spiritual
sensitivity. When I teach, I'm not so interested that the student
knows the details so as to do well on the test as much as I am
interested in whether or not that individual pants after the truth.
We all fall short. No one and no system has a corner on true
reality. The axiom to win the battle but lose the war seems to
play in this in that one may (in his mind) win the debate but
turn off the opponent from having any further interest in learning
the deeper things of God, especially God Himself.

You KNOW the historic/grammatical method of interpretation
but you seek to dismiss its value and worth by overstating
it's real principles of interpretation. Like the childhood bully
who cuts you down in front of others thinking it to raise his
own status, often it seems that too often in these forums
such a methodology is employed. I don't see this is Christ's
own teaching methods.

Matthew Johnson

2008-09-02 01:44:09 UTC

Post by shegeek72
The 'fallen' nature of man-womankind is controversial in some
churches.

Who cares? =A0

Quite a few of us.

But you 'care' in the wrong way. Even if you doubt the historical
fall, there is no good reason to doubt the fallenness of Man. And
there is lots of good reason to believe it.

All is relative unless you have an absolute by which to
verify true reality.

How do you define 'true reality'?

Loren has never admitted how heavily he is under the influence of the
Scholastics, so I am not sure he would agree, but there is always the
classic Scholastic definition of 'truth' to answer this question:
adaequatio rei et intellectus.

Post by shegeek72
By a collection of copies of texts passed down orally, interpreted,
translated, dictated to scribes, the meaning of missing and damaged
portions decided by committees of fallible humans or by modern
science?

I doubt Loren would agree with that description of the textual
transmission problem. Good thing he doesn't have to agree to give it a
much better evaluation than you just did. There is no serious doubt
concerning the text of the relevant passages.

Post by shegeek72
And as quantum physics is showing us reality may be a lot stranger
than we think it is.

But not strange enough to justify what you say;)

God gave to man just such an absolute, the Bible in which the death
of man is clearly taught.

The Bible can be interpreted in many ways.

Any text can. But most of the "many ways" are simply wrong. You have
repeatedly demonstrated a severe inability to distinguish between the
right ways and the wrong ones.

Post by shegeek72
As I've said before, no one has lock, stock and barrel on what
everything in the Bible means.

I guess you weren't very convincing when you said that before, either;)

Post by shegeek72
Do we really think the story of Adam & Eve happened
literally?

There is a third option: that Genesis is speaking metaphorically in
some sections.

You haven't really addressed Loren's objection. He IS objecting to the
possibiliy of a 'third option'. Didn't you notice?

We do not know that humans are unique in the universe.

Sure, we do.

Post by shegeek72
To know that would require exploring other earth-like planets and we
haven't even begun to do that yet.

Not true. No such requirement is needed. All it takes is an
appreciation for the statistical physics involved: the chance of
another humanoid race evolving on one of these as yet undiscovered
planets is vanishingly small. So small, that it is with good reason
considered scientifically correct to consider it ZERO.

Post by shegeek72
=A0 That Eve (usually portrayed as a white woman,

Well it is obviously speculation then, is it not?

Every depiction of Eve I've seen, except for one, has portrayed her as
white.

Post by shegeek72
when in actuality she would've been black)

more speculation.

Not at all. Scientists as almost certain that the first humans were
black and originated in Africa.

Well now, you know it is unscientific to expect Southern Baptists to
accept this scientific conclusion, don't you?

So? =A0Geologically there are no problems with that. =A0In fact, there is
much more evidence for a young earth than an old.

Then how do you account for rocks found that are 3.8 to 3.9 billion
years old (by several radiometric dating methods)? The vast majority
of scientists believe the earth is 4.55 billion years old (plus or
minus 1%) along with the rest of the solar system
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html =A0

That's easy: Loren does not believe that radioactive decay is a
constant. But as the Moderator pointed out, this is getting off topic.

[snip]

Matthew Johnson

2008-09-02 01:44:10 UTC

In article <AHltk.989$***@trnddc01>, ***@hotmail.com says...
[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You brought up this very same objection over in SRC-BS in
the thread concerning the meaning of "mountain." I answered you
there.

I'll refute that one when NNTP propagation allows;)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Here I will only reiterate that you seem to have a hard time to
just let things go.

That is a pretty poor excuse for failing to offer a realistic rebuttal.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I see only two options here. Either you are
being deliberately obtuse

Well, you are wrong. Rather, the reason YOU see "only two options" is because it
is YOU who is being obtuse.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
(gee, why would anyone think that?)

Newsflash: a lot of regulars in this NG have noticed your own obtuseness, Loren.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Not that that has ever
stopped you yet.

[even further off-topic stuff snipped]

h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

2008-09-04 01:23:07 UTC

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I have some sympathy with this. I do think we should give priority to
Jesus' teaching. I treat Paul's authority as significantly less, and
later theological standards as useful, but in many ways specific to
the culture in which they were developed.

The following discussion doesn't seem to respond to this, but rather
the broader question of how we understand the nature and implications
of Original Sin without a literal Adam.

I did a little research on this and found a half dozen books
by "reformed" authors who advocate this same bent. I
think "bent" is an appropriate term.

As you may know, "Reformed" is a fairly broad tradition. My idea of
Reformed tends to be based on Calvin, not the later writers.

...

of things. John Murray's "The Imputation of Adam's Sin"
is really the last word on the issue. If you don't know
Latin, you will not glean nearly what you should out of
this 95 page thesis. He really explores the historical
record of imputation from the scriptures, through the
earliest fathers, into the RC error up to the mid 1900's.

I'm going to assume that what he is saying is consistent with the
positions you'll find from

http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&phrase=imputation

My understanding is roughly that of Calvin's,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.ix.vi.html

He understands the results of Adam's sin as being a corruption in our
nature. He specifically denies that it is a case of imputation in the
sense I think you mean.

In Rom 5, surely Paul can't have meant that the Adam's sin works
exactly like Christ's righteousness. Adam's sin spreads through
physical descent (although there is no clear agreement on the
mechanism), while Christ's righteousness is applied to us through
faith. I understand the similarity as being primarily in the result:
just as Adam spread sin to mankind, Christ spread redemption. Note
that a literal reading of this passage implies universalism.

I really wonder why some remain in the Presbyterian
Assembly when they recant its Confession, Catechisms,
and its historical theological distinctions.

The PCUSA uses a variety of Reformed confessions, not just
Westminster, and requires a fairly loose form of subscription. Of the
confessions in the Book of Confessions, the Westminster documents are
the only ones that seem to talk about imputation. The others either
don't say enough to be clear, or point more in the direction of
Calvin's thought.

I also found this error in Arminian writings and in semi-
Pelagic writings. Though I can't quote this or that
paragraph specifically, the semi-Pelagic writings give
a further explanation in this wandering because of its
failure to let go of the idea that man is still sovereign
in volitional choice, at least in regards to salvation.

I don't know Arminian theology well enough to comment.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-09-04 01:23:07 UTC

I did a little research on this and found a half dozen books
by "reformed" authors who advocate this same bent. I
think "bent" is an appropriate term.

My findings lead me to conclude that the underlying "bent"
that has birthed this heresy involves nothing less than the
doctrine of imputation. It seems that not all "reformed"
theologians have actually returned to the Biblical view
of things. John Murray's "The Imputation of Adam's Sin"
is really the last word on the issue. If you don't know
Latin, you will not glean nearly what you should out of
this 95 page thesis. He really explores the historical
record of imputation from the scriptures, through the
earliest fathers, into the RC error up to the mid 1900's.

I really wonder why some remain in the Presbyterian
Assembly when they recant its Confession, Catechisms,
and its historical theological distinctions.

I also found this error in Arminian writings and in semi-
Pelagic writings. Though I can't quote this or that
paragraph specifically, the semi-Pelagic writings give
a further explanation in this wandering because of its
failure to let go of the idea that man is still sovereign
in volitional choice, at least in regards to salvation.

Matthew Johnson

2008-08-05 03:09:15 UTC

Post by ethanthekiwi
Rom 5:12 (NLT) When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam=92s sin
brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

Please be aware that you are relying on a contentious translation of this verse.
The main point of contention is: how should the word NLT translates as 'for'
really be translated?

Ever since early on, Western commentators have commented on Rom 5:12 pretty much
as above, as 'for', but in the Greek East, a non causal phrase, "in that" has
long been preferred.

Think of what a difference this makes: try reading it as:

Rom 5:12 For this reason, just as through one man, sin entered the world, and
through sin death, so also death spread to all men, in that all have sinned.

Post by ethanthekiwi
If man today is inherently evil, was he created inherently good or
inherently neutral?

That is a big 'if'. Man's Fall does NOT mean that "man today is inherently
evil", despite what some Puritans say.

But that Man was not created evil is even easier to see: it was after Man was
created, before he fell, that Scripture says:

And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And
there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
(Gen 1:31 JPS)

Thus Man was created inherently good.

l***@hotmail.com

2008-08-14 23:25:17 UTC

Rom 5:12 (NLT) When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam=3D92s sin
brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

Please be aware that you are relying on a contentious translation of this=

verse.

The main point of contention is: how should the word NLT translates as 'f=

or'

really be translated?
Ever since early on, Western commentators have commented on Rom 5:12 pret=

ty much

as above, as 'for', but in the Greek East, a non causal phrase, "in that"=

has

long been preferred.

East did the Church a great service in its development of the doctrine
of the Trinity. But it is sad to note that it never grew beyond this
point. The doctrine of total depravity is so widely taught and
inferred throughout scripture that it is much like the case of the
existence of God -its an underlying presumption.

Rom 5:12 For this reason, just as through one man, sin entered the world,=

and

through sin death, so also death spread to all men, in that all have sinn=

ed.

If man today is inherently evil, was he created inherently good or
inherently neutral?

That is a big 'if'. Man's Fall does NOT mean that "man today is inherentl=

evil", despite what some Puritans say.

Ps. 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my
mother conceived me.

Sin isn't what we do. Sin is what we are. Sins are external
manifestations
of the already existing internal nature. We are "conceived" with but
a single
orientation -self i.e. sinful. "In that day you shall SURELY die."

Job 14:4 "Who can make the clean out of the unclean? No one!
Is. 48:8 "You have not heard, you have not known. Even from long ago
your ear has not been open, Because I knew that you would deal very
treacherously; And you have been called a rebel from birth.
Gen. 8:21 And the Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said
to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man,
for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never
again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

Look up "youth" in the Hebrew.

Ps. 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb;
These who speak lies go astray from birth.
Ps. 58:4
They have venom like the venom of a serpent;
Like a deaf cobra that stops up its ear,

A poisonous snake is poisonous even in the womb. It doesn't acquire
its
venom sometime after being birthed. The scriptural portrait is that
man is born
with sin. Ps 14 & Ps 53 are the only repetitive Ps which are quoted
by Paul
at the end of his segment in Rom (1:18-3:21) on universal condemnation
i.e. ALL sin.

But that Man was not created evil is even easier to see: it was after Man=

was

And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. =

And

there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
(Gen 1:31 JPS)
Thus Man was created inherently good.

=2E.. until "in Adam" all have sin.

1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be
made alive.

The proof that all men are sinner is that all men die physically.

Also, Rom 5 is not a parallel comparison, for all men are in Adam by
the flesh, but not all men are in Christ via regeneration.

Eph. 2:3 Among them we too ALL formerly lived in the lusts of our
flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were
by_nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Eph. 2:4 But God,

And here is the Gospel. "But God." It isn't "But God and man" let
alone, "But man." Man was as dead as was Lazarus. Lazarus didn't
bring his will and work along side of the grace of God to be
resurrected. Neither is it so in spiritual regeneration. "But God"
and God alone who by His sovereign election regenerates some and
passes over the rest.

"So then it does NOT depend on the man who wills or the man who
runs (salvation by works), but on God who wills to have mercy. . . So
then, He has mercy on whom He desires and He hardens whom He
desires." Rom 9:16, 18.

And man does not sin because he has been hardened, he is hardened
because he sins. Rom 1:24, 26, 28 "God gave them over."

Rom 3:9 ... for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are
ALL under sin.

Total depravity: all men are as bad as they need be to be under the
wrath of God.

=2E..being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved
us,
Eph. 2:5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive
together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

Gen. 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on
the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was ONLY
evil CONTINUALLY.

Man has but one inclination prior to regeneration -to serve self. He
is his own final reference point, final arbitrator as to what is right
and what is wrong, what is true and what is false. The is why, "But
God" is required.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Man cannot perceive the kingdom of God to turn to it in belief prior
to being
"born from above." "There is none who understands. There is none
who
seeks for God." If language has any meaning, these statements are
absolute
in their condemnation. "No, not one" is the final nail in the coffin.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is
born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

And if Nicodemus couldn't understand it the first time (which he
couldn't and didn't) Christ rephrased it. If the Spirit hasn't first
regenerated man, he has
no capacity of understanding by which to place his faith effectively
into. A
true object is required for faith to be effectual. Idolatry is simply
getting the
wrong answer to the question, "What is God like."

Pat H

2008-08-27 23:46:40 UTC