Have problems with atonement theology? [Archive]

ollie

March 8th 2003, 12:43 PM

03-05-2003 @ 07:30 PM
ACFaith.Com:

Actually, I am with you on that one. So I will say this: God does not hold mankind responsible for Adam's sin. Guilt is not transferrable in such a way. If all humans are actually different individual people we cannot be judged on the sin of someone else in which we had no active role whatsoever. We are guilty of our own sin, not Adam's. To suggest otherwise is foolery.

Vinnie
Are you confusing Calvin's thoughts on "Total Depravity" with his thoughts on "Atonement"?

In the "Westminster Confession": "Man by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will of any spiritual good accompaning salvation...is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto."

This is the Calvinistic doctrine, of "TOTAL HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY", which says that the sin of Adam and Eve is imputed to every human being.

The word of God refutes Calvin's doctrine.

Behavior is chosen not inherited.

" But your iniquities have seperated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that he will not hear God.
Isaiah 59:2

" Men and brethren "what shall we do?"
Acts 2:37
" Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 2:38
" Then they that gladly received his word were baptized;...."
Acts 2:41

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Ezekiel 18:20

Sin is not inherited, but committed.

"Limited Atonement"

This point centers around the question:
Who did Christ die for? Was His blood shed for a limited number of predestined people or, did He taste of death for all men?

Calvinism say: " Christs redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary sacrifice of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners....,"

The Bible refutes this:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
Hebrews 2:9

"And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
1 John 2:2

Christ died for all men, not selected men , but not all men will choose Christ .

Bubba

March 8th 2003, 05:04 PM

I'd like to see an actual debate on this one. I for one think that it is time to re-examine a whole bunch of what we have believed traditionally as the church.

Bubba

Andrew

March 8th 2003, 10:59 PM

JP has an article on atonement:
http://www.tektonics.org/atonedefense.html

Ishmael

March 8th 2003, 11:00 PM

03-08-2003 @ 10:40 AM
ACFaith.Com:

How might you go about refuting it?

I guess you will have to find that out in the debate. But be assured you will be refuted soundly.

Ishmael

March 8th 2003, 11:05 PM

Dear Ollie:

You left out a verse.

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

ACFaith.Com

March 9th 2003, 02:06 AM

I don't really have much of an interest in formally debating this because it will turn into a debate over evolution, inerrancy, and historicity if I am involved. That is why I asked you what I did. Our foundational views might be different and that may prevent the type of debate you are looking for.

But if anyone wants to see my views on why I reject original sin they can be found here:

http://www.acfaith.com/originalsin.html

Fee free to argue against my reasons. Those five are why I reject the doctrine of original sin.

Vinnie

Ishmael

March 9th 2003, 03:49 AM

03-09-2003 @ 12:06 AM
ACFaith.Com:

I don't really have much of an interest in formally debating this because it will turn into a debate over evolution, inerrancy, and historicity if I am involved. That is why I asked you what I did. Our foundational views might be different and that may prevent the type of debate you are looking for.

But if anyone wants to see my views on why I reject original sin they can be found here:

http://www.acfaith.com/originalsin.html

Fee free to argue against my reasons. Those five are why I reject the doctrine of original sin.

Vinnie

This "article" of yours is nothing but liberal pulp. No wonder you won't formally debate your "position."

And it won't turn into a debate of "evolution, inerrancy, and historicity" on my side. It will simply be an exegesis of Scripture. Perhaps that is your problem with the doctrine of originial sin, you just don't believe the Bible?

Ishmael

March 9th 2003, 03:55 AM

ACFaith.com is insane:

Five Reasons For Accepting Original Sin:

[1] The nightly news empirically demonstrates the fallen state of humanity over and over again.

[2] The Bible teaches it.

[3] Jesus accepted it. Adam passage

[4] Jesus' death loses its purpose without original sin.

[5] Without the fall God is responsible for evil and cannot be all good.

I will not be launching a full-scale assault against these arguments. Some of these issues deserve their own special treatment but unless time permits me to do so my brief comments here will have to suffice:

First, the nightly news does not establish the authenticity of this abstract theological concept teaching the imputation of guilt or sin nature any more than the nightly news affirms the absence of a loving omnipotent God. The latter is how most non-theists would interpret the nightly news but Christians can at least affirm that the nightly news demonstrates the sinfulness of humanity and our need for atonement. But that is not equivalent to demonstrating original sin.

Second, arguments two and three commit the non sequitur fallacy as their appealed authority cannot be demonstrated to be fully substantial on this. Even if the authority is granted it cannot be demonstrated that Jesus accepted the doctrine of original sin (despite his reference to Adam and Eve on marriage). I will also offer some exegetical issues with original sin in objection number four below.

Third, the notion that Jesus died so that people might be reconciled to God is not dependent upon the factuality of the doctrine of original sin.

Finally, if a literal garden story is required to maintain that God is all good for Christians then the Christian faith is in serious trouble. It would go beyond the scope of this paper for me to comment on the problem of evil though. That will be done on my site in the future sometime. For now it will suffice to point out that even if original sin solves this moral difficulty, it raises its own set. With that being said we now turn to five difficulties preventing me from accepting the doctrine of original sin.

(obviously he doesn't accept the Bible as Sole Scripturas, unfortuneate.)

Scripture reference for this "Refutation"?

Normally when people deal with the opposition they provide defenses that would stand up to an initial reading. Your "arguments" are out-of-hand discarded because they are nothing more than opinion. Perhaps you should study and try again?

ACFaith.Com

March 9th 2003, 04:13 AM

When you refute the findings of modern science and find historical evidence for the Genesis myth let me know. Then I'll debate the issue with you.

Vinnie

ACFaith.Com

March 9th 2003, 04:21 AM

03-09-2003 @ 07:55 AM
Calvinist:

ACFaith.com is insane:

(obviously he doesn't accept the Bible as Sole Scripturas, unfortuneate.)

Scripture reference for this "Refutation"?

Normally when people deal with the opposition they provide defenses that would stand up to an initial reading. Your "arguments" are out-of-hand discarded because they are nothing more than opinion. Perhaps you should study and try again?

No I do not accept sola scripture. Do you now understand why I did not want to debate you ?We would have to debate 3,000 different issues before the topic of original sin could finally be discussed.

I mentioned those five for the sake of fairness. I went through them fast. It was not my goal to enter into a long debate over them. The meat of my paper lies in my 5 reasons for rejecting original sin. That is where you need to focus if you want to critique my paper.

Normally when people deal with the opposition they provide defenses that would stand up to an initial reading. Your "arguments" are out-of-hand discarded because they are nothing more than opinion. Perhaps you should study and try again?

Perhaps you should study more and, again, come back when you have overthrown the findings of modern scientists and have found historical evidence that the Genesis myth is true. I won't hold my breath though.

Vinnie

Ishmael

March 9th 2003, 04:26 AM

No, it's fine. I thought you might be a blow hard liberal with some axe to grind and low and behold I am right. There is plenty of material available which refutes your unethical and spurious "Scholarship" on Genesis.

But Genesis isn't the only source of the Doctrine of Original Sin. Therefore, I am willing to debate you on the issue without using the book of Genesis? How is that to you?

ollie

March 11th 2003, 09:52 PM

03-09-2003 @ 03:05 AM
Calvinist:

Dear Ollie:

You left out a verse.

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
Not only that one but also verse 13 and 14.

That is another verse that refutes Calvin's "Total Depravity" interpretation, but it must be in context with verse 13 and 14.

"Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way DEATH CAME TO ALL MEN, (not sin, but death) because [b]all sinned." NIV ( not because of Adam's sin but their sin, committed sin not inherited.).

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Romans 5:12 KJV

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 KJV.
It is not inherited but something done by all!

Sin entered the world through Adam and death by this sin. It is this death that comes to all men not the sin. And death comes to all because all sinned. Romans 3:23

"for before the law was given sin was in the world. But SIN IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, (IMPUTED), WHEN THERE IS NO LAW." NIV. (how can sin be inherited from Adam and imputed to all men when God does not impute it?

"Sin is committed transgression of the law" and the law had not been given yet. 1 John 3:4.

"Never the less 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 was a pattern of the one to come." NIV.
Here we are told that one has to break a command to be in sin as did Adam. Not inherit it!
Also death reigned over the ones who did not sin. Now if sin is inherited how could there be sinless ones. It is death that comes on all men through Adam's sin, not sin itself.

Thanks,
Ollie

Ishmael

March 11th 2003, 10:14 PM

Psalm 51
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Ooops... guess you forgot about this one....

ACFaith.Com

March 11th 2003, 10:30 PM

03-12-2003 @ 02:14 AM
Calvinist:

Psalm 51
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Ooops... guess you forgot about this one....

How can you be so sure that teaches the doctrine of original sin? I briefly touched on this in my paper:

"Psalm 51:5 say, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Is this an affirmation of original sin by David? Or more likely, does the text indicate "that sinfulness is very deeply rooted in human life and pervasive throughout the human story, generation after generation" (Garrett). I see it as highlighting the universality of sin."

Vinnie

Ishmael

March 11th 2003, 10:32 PM

03-11-2003 @ 07:52 PM
ollie:

Not only that one but also verse 13 and 14.

That is another verse that refutes Calvin's "Total Depravity" interpretation, but it must be in context with verse 13 and 14.

"Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way DEATH CAME TO ALL MEN, (not sin, but death) because [b]all sinned." NIV ( not because of Adam's sin but their sin, committed sin not inherited.).

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Romans 5:12 KJV

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 KJV.
It is not inherited but something done by all!

Sin entered the world through Adam and death by this sin. It is this death that comes to all men not the sin. And death comes to all because all sinned. Romans 3:23

"for before the law was given sin was in the world. But SIN IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, (IMPUTED), WHEN THERE IS NO LAW." NIV. (how can sin be inherited from Adam and imputed to all men when God does not impute it?

"Sin is committed transgression of the law" and the law had not been given yet. 1 John 3:4.

"Never the less 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 was a pattern of the one to come." NIV.
Here we are told that one has to break a command to be in sin as did Adam. Not inherit it!
Also death reigned over the ones who did not sin. Now if sin is inherited how could there be sinless ones. It is death that comes on all men through Adam's sin, not sin itself.

Thanks,
Ollie

Interesting twist. So if you never sin do you die?

And why do we have to sin? The bible teaches that all sin, as you pointed out above.

Ishmael

March 11th 2003, 10:34 PM

03-11-2003 @ 08:30 PM
ACFaith.Com:

How can you be so sure that teaches the doctrine of original sin? I briefly touched on this in my paper:

"Psalm 51:5 say, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Is this an affirmation of original sin by David? Or more likely, does the text indicate "that sinfulness is very deeply rooted in human life and pervasive throughout the human story, generation after generation" (Garrett). I see it as highlighting the universality of sin."

Vinnie

Okay without getting into a formal debate and closely examining that verse I will give you that. But what about this passage?

Psalm 58
3 Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

ollie

March 11th 2003, 10:45 PM

03-12-2003 @ 02:14 AM
Calvinist:

Psalm 51
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Ooops... guess you forgot about this one....
If this is addressed at Ollie.

Put it all in context.

"Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my Mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5 KJV.

His Mother conceived him in sin and therefore he thought he was shapen in iniquity. It would seem that his Mother was doing something in violation to God when she conceived David and David thought he was shapen in iniquity, (sin), because of it.
I do not see the connection to the "Total Depravity" theory.

David at this time was having his affair with Bathsheba and his heart was feeling Godly sorrow for his sin and Psalm 51 is a prayer to God for spiritual cleansing.

Ishmael

March 11th 2003, 10:45 PM

I just forgot that you don't accept Sola Scripturas as the standard for doctrine. So I will just agree to disagree with you ACFaith.

Let Ollie answer from a position of orthodox belief in the true Truth of the Word of God.

Ishmael

March 11th 2003, 10:50 PM

03-11-2003 @ 08:45 PM
ollie:

If this is addressed at Ollie.

You are using Bible verses to contradict Bible verses.

Put it all in context.

"Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my Mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5 KJV.

His Mother conceived him in sin and therefore he thought he was shapen in iniquity. It would seem that his Mother was doing something in violation to God when she conceived David and David thought he was shapen in iniquity, (sin), because of it.
I do not see the connection to the "Total Depravity" theory.

David at this time was having his affair with Bathsheba and his heart was feeling Godly sorrow for his sin and Psalm 51 is a prayer to God for spiritual cleansing.

I am not using Bible verses to contradict Bible verses. I am using the whole counsel of God to contradict false doctrine based on a few pet verses that have been misinterpreted. There is no contradiction in God's Word.

David's mother concieved him in "sin"? Are you saying she was sining when he was conceived? You will have explain this to me. No, I don't think so.

No doubt that David's prayer was a prayer for cleansing, but it is also an admission of who is is before God. Sinful from birth. It's a simple admission of his life-long guilt which has come to a head with his present evil deeds in regards to adultery and murder.

Ishmael

March 11th 2003, 11:00 PM

Dear Ollie:

Are you going to answer my question with reference to your doctrine? And, I want you to consider this verse from Psalms as well:

Psalm 58
3 Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

ACFaith.Com

March 11th 2003, 11:01 PM

03-12-2003 @ 02:34 AM
Calvinist:

Okay without getting into a formal debate and closely examining that verse I will give you that. But what about this passage?

Psalm 58
3 Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

You can continue your debate with ollie but I'll answer this since it was addressed to me:

It says the same thing, "that sinfulness is very deeply rooted in human life and pervasive throughout the human story, generation after generation".

Also here is the NiV Study Guide's (can't dismiss them as liberal pulp can you?) intro to Psalms:

Niv study Bible introduces the theology of Psalms: "The Psalter is for the most part a book of prayer and praise. It speaks to God in prayer and it speaks of God in praise--also in professions of faith and trust. Although occasionally didactic (instructional) in form and purpose (teaching the way of godliness), the Psalter is not a catechism of doctrine. Its "theology" is therefore not abstract or systematic but confessional and doxological."

Even if this wasn't a Psalm I'd say the same thing though. I put together a bunch of verses speaking of the universal nature of sin:

Digging a little deeper, lets look at some more texts. The Old Testament speaks more about the universality of sin than about the fall.

Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

This does not teach original sin because Noah, as we all know, found favor in God's eyes. Verse 9 says "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." The point is not an imputation of sin nature, but of the universality of human sin.

Genesis 8:21 "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood."

Texts such this one imply the universality of sin. But this is not the same as the doctrine of original sin. Other texts would include 1 Kings 8:46, Isa 56:3, Isa 64:6, Jer 13:23, Job 14:14, Job 15:14, Proverbs 20:9, Eccl 7:20, Ps 14:3, Ps 36:1-4, Ps 53:1-3, Ps 143:2, Luke 11:13, Rom 3:9, 22-33 which quotes Ps 14:1-2, Eph 2:3, 1 John 1:8, 10, 1 John 5:19 and more.

Also, calls for repentance demonstrate the universality of sin. See Acts 17:30, 2 Pet 3:9, John 3:5, Rom 5:12 etc. There is evidence of the universality of sin outside the Bible as well. The nightly news mentioned earlier, consciousness of guilt is another and the widespread occurrences of sacrifices in the history of religion which included sacrifices for sin.

Original sin should not be confused with the universality of sin. They can be very close and even intertwined depending on how you view them but an affirmation of the universality of sin is not the same thing as an affirmation of original sin. Likewise, a denial or original sin is not the same thing as a denial of the universality of sin or the human need of atonement.

Vinnie

wienerdog

March 11th 2003, 11:01 PM

I would just like to point out that the concept of corporate responsibility is biblical. I personally don't understand it, but I suspect that's because the society in which I live is radically individualistic.

Ishmael

March 11th 2003, 11:17 PM

03-11-2003 @ 09:01 PM
ACFaith.Com:

You can continue your debate with ollie but I'll answer this since it was addressed to me:

It says the same thing, "that sinfulness is very deeply rooted in human life and pervasive throughout the human story, generation after generation".

Also here is the NiV Study Guide's (can't dismiss them as liberal pulp can you?) intro to Psalms:

Even if this wasn't a Psalm I'd say the same thing though. I put together a bunch of verses speaking of the universal nature of sin:

Vinnie

I read your whole post here and I think I will say again that I we are going to have to agree to disagree on Doctrine of Orginal Sin. You seem to have a philosophical problem with the plain reading of God's word-- as do many.

Nevertheless,The true biblical foundation for Original sin is found in the story and doctrine of the Fall of Man and is merely illustrated by the very many verse which are "confessional" (as the NIV study Bible notes, you say) of the truth that people carry the guilt of Adam from birth because he is our federal head. Confessional statements ARE statements of commonly held belief and in the case of David's confession, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my Mother conceive me," we have a case-in-point.

The verses you point out merely serve to illustrate the fact that "all are sinners" -- universally true from birth, or even before. And confessionally held by the ancient Hebrews and the Reformed Church.

ACFaith.Com

March 12th 2003, 12:02 AM

Calvinist, this brings us back to my earlier point:

How can you be so sure that teaches the doctrine of original sin? I briefly touched on this in my paper:

"Psalm 51:5 say, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Is this an affirmation of original sin by David? Or more likely, does the text indicate "that sinfulness is very deeply rooted in human life and pervasive throughout the human story, generation after generation" (Garrett). I see it as highlighting the universality of sin."

On what grounds do you expect anyone to accept your interpretation of scripture? Exegetically, your interpretation of Psalm 51:5 is not axiomatic. You granted that as well.

In your follow uop here you are assuming the Bible teaches original sin on the basis of your prior (misinformed?) belief and then reading it back into various verses that probably talk about the universal nature of sin rather than the abstract theological doctrine of original sin held by Augustine centuries later who actually misread Romans 5:12 (see my paper for more info on this).

You are not letting the Bible speak on its own but reading into it a tradition that you accept. The Bible may very well teach the doctrine of original sin. If so I would disagree with it because of the five problems I outlined. But it still remains that you seem to be going about this "proof-texting" of original sin in the wrong way. You are back-reading a doctrine into these texts rather than getting the doctrine from the texts. Meaining, you are exegeting everything as if it supports original sin because you accept the doctrine.

Vinnie

Blake Reas

March 12th 2003, 12:54 AM

Therefore just as sinentered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way DEATH CAME TO ALL MEN, (not sin, but death) because all sinned."

Just as SIN ENTERED the world THROUGH ONE MAN, AND DEATH THROUGH SIN....... Sin precedes death, therefore men die because of Sin you left out part of the verse.
:bonk:

Also it says "in this way Death came to all men, In what way?
Through sin.
I think Calvinist's question about do you die if you do not sin, actually makes a lot of sense because if we could be sinless would we die? Paul does say that the reason we die is because of sin does he not?

Also what do you do about these passages:
But the free gift is not like the transgression.For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (Romans 5:15)

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.(Romans 5:18)
So if Adam's sin was not imputed to us then how is Christ Grace imputed to us? Your argument if true disrupts the argument of Chapter 5!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake Reas

Also I have a quote from a leading Pauline Scholar Thomas Schreiner. After explaining the interpretations by Augustine etc. which Schreiner rejects he still comes to the conclusion of sin being passed down.

The weakness of the interpretations presented above indicate that another explanation of Romans 5:13-14 is necessary. I understand Romans 5:12 to say that "on the basis of death" (eph ho) all people have sinned individually and personally[1]. That is, the reason all people sin individually is that they enter the world spirtually dead, and they enter the world spiritually dead becasue they are descendants of Adam. Some might object that Paul can scarsely say that sin si the result of death since he usually teaches death is the consequence of sin[2] (Romans 6:23). There is no need, however for and either or here. Believers experience death becasue of personal sin, and yet it is Paul's understanding of death is rooted in the Genesis narrative (which you reject)[3], for Adam is warned that he will die in the very day he eats from the forbidden tree. And yet when we read the narrative we see that Adam did not immediately die- at least he and Eve dide not drop dead the moment they ate of the fruit. Nonetheless, they died int he sense that their relationship with God was severed upon eating. Death is fundamentally and ultimatley seperation from God. What Paul teaches in Romans 5:12 is that all people sin because they enter the world spiritually dead, seperated from God(total depravity).

Also your comments on 13-14 will be addressed here:
Romans 5:13-14 explains how it is that people could be judged for sin before the law was enunciated. Paul remarks that sin committed before the Mosaic law was established is not technically reckoned as sin. There was not a technical register of sin; sin was present, just like heat and cold are present whetere we have a thermometor or no. But one could not, in a sense, measure sin before the giving of the law. People who sinned in the interval between Adam and Moses should be distinguished from Adam in that they did not violate a revealed commandment. Paul was not, however claiming that those who lived between Adam and Moses were not held responsible for their sin. He merely remakrs that their sin could not be measured as sin without the violation of written commands. Such people were still sinners--as the text says, "sinwas in the world until the law" (Romans 5:13)- and they died because of their sin. "Death reigned from Adam to until Moses" (Romans 5:14). Paul has already informed his readers that death is the consequence of sin, and here he observes that this principle holds true even for those who lacked the law. Death reighned over those living between Adam and Moses becasue these peopl personally sinned.

Also if sin was not imputed through Adam through as in OS then is Christ salvation imputed to us? That is the clear argument of Romans 5

Footnotes

[1]Schreiner quotes the same article by Fitzmyer you do
i think: THe consecutive meaning of eph ho in NTS 39.
[2] You chide people for not taking scripture in context but it seems to me that everywhere else Paul says that the reason for death is sin!
[3] I could really careless if you reject Genesis. Paul did not and if we are going to argue what is taught in scripture we must take it as a whole. Paul understood Genesis 1-3 to be historical. If you did not know we have to keep with the Authoral intent of the Author. Paul's authoral intent definetely took Genesis to be historical if you don't

An added note, in the first century mediteranean world people where collectivist where as in today's society we are individualistic. Paul would have seen NO problem with the coporate guilt through Adam. This not only strengthens the fact that we are blamed for Adam's sin but for you to reject it goes against what the First Century reader would have thought. Check out any thing by Molina, Roghbaug or anyone else in the context group.

ollie

March 12th 2003, 07:15 AM

03-12-2003 @ 02:32 AM
Calvinist:

Interesting twist. So if you never sin do you die?
That was answered in the previous post. Romans 5:14 answers that question.

And why do we have to sin?
Adam and Eve sinned because they believed a lie of the devil. " Eat and you will not die". This lie led them in to disobedience to God's command, "Do not eat". So sin enterd in, and as a result death to all men.

The bible teaches that all sin, as you pointed out above.
Yes.

Ishmael

March 12th 2003, 09:36 AM

03-11-2003 @ 10:02 PM
ACFaith.Com:
Calvinist, this brings us back to my earlier point:

On what grounds do you expect anyone to accept your interpretation of scripture? Exegetically, your interpretation of Psalm 51:5 is not axiomatic. You granted that as well.

Of course it's not, but within the context of many passages that teach that "sin" came into man from Adam I know that Psam 51:5 is true according to the regular language of the text. You have to understand the whole bible to understand true doctrine. You can't pick and choose what you like and cast out the rest. Agustine was a masterfull exegete in this regard.

In your follow uop here you are assuming the Bible teaches original sin on the basis of your prior (misinformed?) belief and then reading it back into various verses that probably talk about the universal nature of sin rather than the abstract theological doctrine of original sin held by Augustine centuries later who actually misread Romans 5:12 (see my paper for more info on this).

You are not letting the Bible speak on its own but reading into it a tradition that you accept. The Bible may very well teach the doctrine of original sin. If so I would disagree with it because of the five problems I outlined. But it still remains that you seem to be going about this "proof-texting" of original sin in the wrong way. You are back-reading a doctrine into these texts rather than getting the doctrine from the texts. Meaining, you are exegeting everything as if it supports original sin because you accept the doctrine.

Bull. My doctrine is orthodox and excrutiatingly biblical. I am assuming the Doctrine because the Bible conclusively lays it out for us.

And I could say the same: that your hermeneutic is "not orgininal sin"-- you assume too much based on that last post. Or I could say that your liberalism has corrupted the way you, and many scholars that you follow, in your interpretation of the Bible.

Blake Reas

March 12th 2003, 04:38 PM

:hi: Is this discussion over? Just wondering!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

Ishmael

March 12th 2003, 05:53 PM

I'm still game.

ollie

March 12th 2003, 10:03 PM

03-12-2003 @ 02:50 AM
Calvinist:

[quote]I am not using Bible verses to contradict Bible verses.
This was posted in my confusion with another reply. I apologize for it. I deleted it in my previous reply.
I am using the whole counsel of God to contradict false doctrine based on a few pet verses that have been misinterpreted.
Just the Bible and nothing but. I agree
There is no contradiction in God's Word.
I agree here also.

David's mother concieved him in "sin"? Are you saying she was sining when he was conceived? You will have explain this to me. No, I don't think so.
It is telling me: "and in sin did my mother conceive me." Whose sin can the mother be in but her own? David was conceived in it.
Was the mother in a sinful state at conception or was the conception somehow a sinful act? Because of it David thought he was shapen in iniquity. How do you think this substantiates inherited sin from Adam?

No doubt that David's prayer was a prayer for cleansing, but it is also an admission of who is is before God. Sinful from birth. It's a simple admission of his life-long guilt which has come to a head with his present evil deeds in regards to adultery and murder.
It doen't say to me that David is sinful from birth, but was "shapen in iniquity." Due to being conceived by his mother in sin.

Ishmael

March 12th 2003, 10:12 PM

Dear Ollie:

I guess the best defense of your doctrine is opinion... Your first post did look promising though it was in error too (read Blake Reas' post on the Romans verse). Thanks for your time, I hope you come to understand the whole truth of God's word as you study it. God Bless.

ollie

March 12th 2003, 10:17 PM

03-12-2003 @ 02:45 AM
Calvinist:

[quote]I just forgot that you don't accept Sola Scripturas as the standard for doctrine. So I will just agree to disagree with you ACFaith.

Let Ollie answer from a position of orthodox belief in the true Truth of the Word of God.

What was the question? "Problems with atonement?"
Somehow the thread changed to " Total Depravity".

Ishmael

March 12th 2003, 10:23 PM

Have problems with atonement theology?

Post them here :)

Vinnie

The discussion fits here according the invite to post problems with atonement theology. But open a new thread if you like.

ollie

March 12th 2003, 10:40 PM

03-12-2003 @ 03:00 AM
Calvinist:

Dear Ollie:

[quote]Are you going to answer my question with reference to your doctrine?
I don't have a doctrine. It is God's through His son Jesus Christ. What was your question? Would you mind if I ask you to post it again. I'll try to answer it promptly. Thank you.

And, I want you to consider this verse from Psalms as well:

Psalm 58
3 Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." KJV

Is this verse telling us:
The wicked are profane at birth. The wicked go astray as soon as they are born. This is not telling me that the wicked have Adam's sin on them, but that they go astray themselves starting from their birth.

Ishmael

March 12th 2003, 10:43 PM

03-12-2003 @ 08:40 PM
ollie:

I don't have a doctrine. It is God's through His son Jesus Christ. What was your question? Would you mind if I ask you to post it again. I'll try to answer it promptly. Thank you.

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." KJV

Is this verse telling us:
The wicked are profane at birth. The wicked go astray as soon as they are born. This is not telling me that the wicked have Adam's sin on them, but that they go astray themselves starting from their birth.

How do you account for a baby's wickedness? Do the wicked start sinning upon birth and become sinful... but they were sinless upon first birth and slap of the doctors hand?

ACFaith.Com

March 12th 2003, 11:08 PM

How do you account for a baby's wickedness?

What wickedness is there in a baby? ? :huh:
Vinnie

Ishmael

March 12th 2003, 11:35 PM

03-12-2003 @ 09:08 PM
ACFaith.Com:

What wickedness is there in a baby? ? :huh:
Vinnie

I account for it in the universal fall of man. But the question was directed to Ollie in response to this:

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." KJV
Is this verse telling us:
The wicked are profane at birth. The wicked go astray as soon as they are born. This is not telling me that the wicked have Adam's sin on them, but that they go astray themselves starting from their birth.

By "wicked" I mean estranged from God and guilty of the first rebellion along with the whole human race. Our common curse is the curse of sin and death. I do not mean to say that babies are "Wicked" in the sense of an adult criminal, for instance.

ACFaith.Com

March 12th 2003, 11:49 PM

By "wicked" I mean estranged from God and guilty of the first rebellion along with the whole human race.

See ethical objection number one in my original sin paper:

It is unethical to hold someone responsible for the sins of another person. Suppose there is a single father who has a son and a daughter. One night he has to leave them home alone. Before leaving them he tells them that they can eat whatever they want in the fridge except for any of the fruit as that is reserved for the making of a fruit basket to give to someone as a present the following morning. When the man leaves the house the daughter, overcome with temptation, eats a piece of fruit and she gives some to her brother who is there with her and they eat it and disobey their father together.

The father comes home later that night and is greatly disappointed that they disobeyed him. Because of their disobedience he grounds both of them. They are punished accordingly.

On what grounds could this man later punish and/or hold responsible and/or find guilty his grandchildren and even his great grandchildren on account of the willful disobedience of his son and daughter that night? There aren't any valid grounds for this sort of behavior. It would be highly unethical and quite insane of this man to punish or hold his children's descendents responsible on account of his children's sin.

Such an action would defy moral sensibilities as guilt hardly seems like a transferable commodity. As Abraham asked in Genesis 18 "Shall not the Lord and Judge of all the earth do right?"

Your thoughts?

Vinnie

ACFaith.Com

March 12th 2003, 11:51 PM

I do not mean to say that babies are "Wicked" in the sense of an adult criminal, for instance.

Why not? Both are seen as deserving of hell aren't they? They are "equally" guilty in God's eyes in that respect so who cares if they "appear to be wicked" in different senses to us?

Vinnie

Blake Reas

March 13th 2003, 01:55 AM

Hey guys I hope you did not forget the post that I posted a while back. I think Calvinist made the point for you guys to go back and read it. I would really like to be in this conversation but until you answer my post I am going to have the assumption that you concede defeat.

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

ACFaith.Com

March 13th 2003, 02:22 AM

Me? Paul may very well teach the imputation of guilt. There are some exegetical issues that I raised and that others have raised (that I quoted) but I think the difficulties are resolved if we say Paul wasn't a modern and believed two things we would consider to be contradictory. My exegetical issues were not given under the rubric of inerrancy or infallibility. As I said, I thought Paul was arguing backwards from empirical observations in his world just as the Genesis author. I am convinced that neither one tell us anything new about human origins. That was part of my exegetical dispute. We may simply have a different hermeneutic and have to agree to disagree regarding exegesis here. I would also agree that some may put an overemphasis on Romans 5 and ignore Paul in Roma 1:18-3:21. Sin is the purpose of the latter whereas the superabundant grace of Christ is the chief topic of Romans 5 is it not?

Vinnie

Blake Reas

March 13th 2003, 02:46 AM

03-13-2003 @ 06:22 AM
ACFaith.Com:

Me? Paul may very well teach the imputation of guilt. There are some exegetical issues that I raised and that others have raised (that I quoted) but I think the difficulties are resolved if we say Paul wasn't a modern and believed two things we would consider to be contradictory. My exegetical issues were not given under the rubric of inerrancy or infallibility. As I said, I thought Paul was arguing backwards from empirical observations in his world just as the Genesis author. I am convinced that neither one tell us anything new about human origins. That was part of my exegetical dispute. We may simply have a different hermeneutic and have to agree to disagree regarding exegesis here. I would also agree that some may put an overemphasis on Romans 5 and ignore Paul in Roma 1:18-3:21. Sin is the purpose of the latter whereas the superabundant grace of Christ is the chief topic of Romans 5 is it not?

Vinnie

Vinnie,
Thanks for your reply! Yes Romans 5 is about the imputation of righteousness through Christ. The point I was making was that Paul uses the argument like a two edged sword. Adam sinned and we are guilty and his guilt, sin, and death are imputed to us and the only way we can be saved is for Christ's Righteousness to be imputed to us. I guess we could say Christ's Imputation would be The New Original Righteousness!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

Blake Reas

March 13th 2003, 03:33 AM

Romans 8
8:20
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
8:21
that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
8:22
For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
8:23
And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for {our} adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
8:24
For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he {already} sees?
8:25
But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
8:26
In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for {us} with groanings too deep for words;
8:27
and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to {the will of} God.
8:28
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called R395 according to {His} purpose.
8:29
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

Vinnie,
Why was the creation subjected to futility? I can help you hear because of Him who subjected it!(Romans 8:20) So your complaints about God blaming Adam for sin are at best wishful thinking. Because not only does God blame us for Adam's sin he also caused the creation to be subjected to futility! Will you reject this verse also?

Also I have a question how you would interpret John 6:44

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and Iwill raise him up on the last day.
also
John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Pretty clear teaching on Total Depravity!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

ACFaith.Com

March 13th 2003, 04:21 AM

First off, we need to back up and define how "creation" can be subjected to anything. "Creation" is not a personal agent that can literally be subjected to something like a human being. Paul may have thought that creation could actually be subject to sin and death (which are not things themselves but an act or state) or a curse. If he did then I would simply call a spade a spade and say that he was entirely mistaken. "Creation" cannot be be literally subjected to anything any more than my ice cream cone which melted can be said to be subjected to the suns light.

What exactly are rocks, and oceans and planets and stars subjected to? For humans its pretty easy to answer. I've never understood how an inanimate object can be "subjected to something" in this sense?

Until "creation" can be defined and properly understood to actually be "subjected" to something as if it was a personal agent I have to conclude all such talk is meaningless. I have to start with definitions when I debate. Since saying "creation is subjected to x" is virtually meaningless to me so I need to understand and define this before I can actually discuss the issue.

I'll go the metaphor route if you want though. But once we do I'll just say Paul is probably speaking of the universal nature of sin (which he clearly talks about in Romans!) and you'll say original sin and so on.

For my understanding of the sayings material in GJohn see this article that I wrote on the subject.
http://www.acfaith.com/gjohn.html

And, can anyone address my view that the imputation of guilt is unethical? That is, without saying "the bible teaches this and since God does it it can't be unethical." Anyone is free to hold to that response but I am not interested in it.

Vinnie

Blake Reas

March 13th 2003, 04:25 AM

03-13-2003 @ 08:21 AM
ACFaith.Com:

First off, we need to back up and define how "creation" can be subjected to anything. "Creation" is not a personal agent that can literally be subjected to something like a human being. Paul may have thought that creation could actually be subject to sin and death (which are not things themselves but an act or state) or a curse. If he did then I would simply call a spade a spade and say that he was entirely mistaken. "Creation" cannot be be literally subjected to anything any more than my ice cream cone which melted can be said to be subjected to the suns light.

What exactly are rocks, and oceans and planets and stars subjected to? For humans its pretty easy to answer. I've never understood how an inanimate object can be "subjected to something" in this sense?

Until "creation" can be defined and properly understood to actually be "subjected" to something as if it was a personal agent I have to conclude all such talk is meaningless. I have to start with definitions when I debate. Since saying "creation is subjected to x" is virtually meaningless to me so I need to understand and define this before I can actually discuss the issue.

I'll go the metaphor route if you want though. But once we do I'll just say Paul is probably speaking of the universal nature of sin (which he clearly talks about in Romans!) and you'll say original sin and so on.

For my understanding of the sayings material in GJohn see this article that I wrote on the subject.
http://www.acfaith.com/gjohn.html

And, can anyone address my view that the imputation of guilt is unethical? That is, without saying "the bible teaches this and since God does it it can't be unethical." Anyone is free to hold to that response but I am not interested in it.

Vinnie

If God created the Universe perfect he can subject it to DECAY can he not? Thanks for your discussion it is appreciated.

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

ACFaith.Com

March 13th 2003, 05:00 AM

Paul is talking about entropy and thermodynamics? How can a rock be subjected to death, decay, sin etc??

Who said the universe was perfect when it was created and what is meant by perfect? The account I read said it was "good".

Heres a small argument I encountered a long time ago:

God is perfect.
That which God creates is not God.
That which is not God is less than God.
That which is less than God is less than perfect.

The flaws with it?

Obviously one may be that God is being itself. But if this is true then did God subject himself to decay? Did God curse himself? Is God an entity "who lives out there" outside the dimensions of our universe? Or maybe another route is to try and define "perfect."

What exactly is said to have changed about the universe as a result of the sin and Adam and Eve. One day everything was good and the next creation is cursed and is groaning and all that. What exactly happened from one day to the next. This goes back to my prior question. How is the universe or creation subjected to something like this as if it was a personal agent?

These comments touch on objection number five in my paper. I may just have to add something on Romans 8 as well now.

Vinnie

Blake Reas

March 13th 2003, 02:11 PM

03-13-2003 @ 09:00 AM
ACFaith.Com:

Paul is talking about entropy and thermodynamics? How can a rock be subjected to death, decay, sin etc??

Who said the universe was perfect when it was created and what is meant by perfect? The account I read said it was "good".

Heres a small argument I encountered a long time ago:

God is perfect.
That which God creates is not God.
That which is not God is less than God.
That which is less than God is less than perfect.

The flaws with it?

Obviously one may be that God is being itself. But if this is true then did God subject himself to decay? Did God curse himself? Is God an entity "who lives out there" outside the dimensions of our universe? Or maybe another route is to try and define "perfect."

What exactly is said to have changed about the universe as a result of the sin and Adam and Eve. One day everything was good and the next creation is cursed and is groaning and all that. What exactly happened from one day to the next. This goes back to my prior question. How is the universe or creation subjected to something like this as if it was a personal agent?

These comments touch on objection number five in my paper. I may just have to add something on Romans 8 as well now.

Vinnie

So God could not create and object or a world that would be perfect? Yes the world was subjected to pain and suffering if you read scripture you would notice that when Christ comes back he will re-establish this time of Bliss (perfection) when he will wipe all of the tears from their eyes. God is perfect in his being and a living being he is infinite in his attributes. Also could God not create a perfect circle? His creation was"good" which in effect meant it was exactly the way he wanted it. When Adam fell that image fell man became sinful and the world was subjected to futility. This is when pain and suffering came into the world as a Punishment for Adam's sin. With sin came death came, correct? I do think that when it says the world was subjected to futility it had some idea of Thermodynamics, but I also believe in inerrancy so this is our sticking point :bawl:

God is transcendent over his creation and is also imminent, I do not feel like getting into Tillich if that is what you are trying to bring out. Also how would you judge God about being unethical for judging us for Adam's sin? That sounds absurd to me because you have not standard by which to judge him except maybe your own subjective opinion.

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake Reas

ACFaith.Com

March 13th 2003, 02:20 PM

Some basic scientific knowledge. that I'd like to let you know of:

The entire creation is like 99.999999999999999999 percent empty space isn't it? I forget the exact number but even our bodies are mostly empty space. This fact is taught in high school.

Here is a statement from Gerald Schroeder's third book, The Hidden Face of God (p.4):

"If we could scale the center of an atom, the nucleus, up to four inches, the surrounding electron cloud would extend to four miles away and essentially all the breach between would be marvelously empty. The solidarity of iron is actually 99.9999999999999 percent startingly vacuous space made to feel solid by ethereal fields of force having no material reality at all."

I wrote a piece on cosmology and theology where I touchedo n the size of the universe and things like that and the existence of God:

The sun is the closest star to us. We already mentioned its distance above but what is the second closest star? Though we can't see it with the naked eye, Proxima Centauri is our closest celestial neighbor past the sun. It is roughly 4.3 light years from us. Using rough figures we get 25,560,000,000,000 miles. That is roughly 26 trillion miles. How long would it take to drive to Proxima Centauri at 60 miles per hour? Roughly 48,630,137 years. It would take fifty million years to drive to the closest star outside our sun!

The galaxy our solar system calls home is roughly 100,000 light years in length which is equivalent to 600,000,000,000,000,000 miles! That's 600 quadrillion miles! That number is everything but understandable to us yet the galaxy itself is minuscule in comparison to the universe as a whole. It finds itself amidst billions if not trillions of other galaxies all containing billions of stars. Yet, despite the enormous number of stars, comets, planets etc., the vast majority of the universe is space which is dark, cold and empty. One thing that dwarfs the size of galaxies is the empty lifeless space in between them.

The universe itself spans at least 15 billion light years. Remember that one light year is 6,000,000,000,000 miles. Multiply that number by 15,000,000,000 and we get a rough estimate of the number of miles the universe covers. 90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles! It is unimaginably large and that's not the half of it! The universe is getting bigger as we speak. The universe is expanding and some newer theories are actually advocating the view that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating! It's growing at a larger and larger rate.

The vast majority of the universe is nothing but empty space.

I have to again ask, what did God subject to decay? Did he somehow decide to curse empty space and ethereal fields? How are empty space, atoms and force fields subjected to something as if they were personal beings?

This might helpt to give some background of where I am coming from. The universe is inanimate. It cannot be subjected to things like this.

Blake Reas

March 13th 2003, 02:27 PM

03-13-2003 @ 06:20 PM
ACFaith.Com:

Some basic scientific knowledge. that I'd like to let you know of:

The entire creation is like 99.999999999999999999 percent empty space isn't it? I forget the exact number but even our bodies are mostly empty space. This fact is taught in high school.

Here is a statement from Gerald Schroeder's third book, The Hidden Face of God (p.4):

"If we could scale the center of an atom, the nucleus, up to four inches, the surrounding electron cloud would extend to four miles away and essentially all the breach between would be marvelously empty. The solidarity of iron is actually 99.9999999999999 percent startingly vacuous space made to feel solid by ethereal fields of force having no material reality at all."

I wrote a piece on cosmology and theology where I touchedo n the size of the universe and things like that and the existence of God:

The vast majority of the universe is nothing but empty space.

I have to again ask, what did God subject to decay? Did he somehow decide to curse empty space and ethereal fields? How are empty space, atoms and force fields subjected to something as if they were personal beings?

This might helpt to give some background of where I am coming from. The universe is inanimate. It cannot be subjected to things like this.

Hmmmm..... Actually I am more interested in Biblical studies but I will take a shot in the dark anyway. Why couldn't God subject that .00000000000001 (exaggeration) percent of creation to deacay? Also it appears to me that the Universe is something becasue something is here! If you deny this you may need to check into a looney bin. I think I will see if Jaltus can answer your question better.
You would not be changing the subject from Biblical things to science would you?:brow: I do not think that we where discussing science but biblical interpretation, Sorry!
By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake Reas

ACFaith.Com

March 13th 2003, 02:49 PM

Hmmmm..... Actually I am more interested in Biblical studies but I will take a shot in the dark anyway.

And this is another reason why I didn't want to formally debate this issue with anyone. I was going to incorporate a bunch of things from different fields and would not be treating the Bible under the assumed rubric of inerrancy.

Why couldn't God subject that .00000000000001 (exaggeration) percent of creation to deacay?

Actually, the empty space is creation itself. God cannot just subject atoms to decay and nothing else. The entire universe--including all its empty space-- is by definition "creation". So if God subjected all of creation to decay then naturally he must have subjected the fabric of space-time as well ;)

Also it appears to me that the Universe is something becasue something is here!

Agreed. Empty space is something rather than nothin. But I asked you to define decay? What happened one day to the next in the garden of eden? The text also says that it is in bondage doesn't it? When you define decay maybe I will understand how empty space is subject to this decay? Until then Paul's spiritual view of the decay of atoms, empty space and ethereal fields will remain meaningless to me. I do not understand what he or you mean by "the universe is subject to decay".

To use Paul's own words, how is empty space , ethereal fields, and other inanimate objects subject to frustration?

How do these things moan and groan?

Are these metaphors? As i said, I'll go the metaphor route. To what do these metaphors point?

If you deny this you may need to check into a looney bin. I think I will see if Jaltus can answer your question better.

I await further insight on the issue.

You would not be changing the subject from Biblical things to science would you? I do not think that we where discussing science but biblical interpretation, Sorry!

Science actually is all about exploring and learning about creation. When talking about the state of creation or the universe how could we not bring science in? If Paul didn't mention the whole universe being subject to decay (whether Paul actually knew of the empty space or the size of the stars is very debatable as well). What exactly was "creation" to Paul? ;-) The earth and the sky?

Again, Paul viewed spiritual realities in a different sense than do many moderns. Atoms cannot be subjected to frustration. The frustration of empty space and decay in the spiritual sense Paul suggests must be taken completely metaphorically or dismissed as nonsense in light of recent scientific advances.

The thermodynamic understanding of "entropy" which is not what Paul meant anyways, was not a result of the fall. That process was around long before the mythical garden of eden despite what some yecs might tell you ;)

Vinnie

ACFaith.Com

March 13th 2003, 03:12 PM

So God could not create and object or a world that would be perfect?

That appears to be what the argument suggests. Feel free to critique it. i'd define perfect first though (you introduced the term).

Yes the world was subjected to pain and suffering if you

People are subject to pain and suffering. Inanimate objects, empty space and force fields are not. Plain and simple. Its a category mistaked to think a single atom is subject toliteral pain and suffering. Personal agents are subject to such things.

read scripture you would notice that when Christ comes back he will re-establish this time of Bliss (perfection) when he will wipe all of the tears from their eyes.

What time of bliss? I asked you repeatedly to explain how the universe changed as a result of Adam and Eve's sin? Science says it didn't. Maybe you are a young earth creationist? Do you think the earth is 6,000 years old? Do you concede that nature was red in tooth and claw for hundreds of millions if not a biliion or so years?

God is perfect in his being and a living being he is infinite in his attributes.

Infinite in a qualititave rather than a quantitative one, correct?

Also could God not create a perfect circle?

I would have to answer no. There is no such thing as a "perfect circle". Look at a cd. It looks like a perfect circlee but at the molecular level its not. In light of quantum indeterminacy and HUP how could one ever measure let alone construct a perfect circle of something?

A circle is an absttract concept that we define using math and such. Talk of an absolutelte perfect circle seems like talk of a round square.

His creation was"good" which in effect meant it was exactly the way he wanted it.

Is that how you define perfect? I thought you were using it in a different sense?

When Adam fell that image fell man became sinful and the world was subjected to futility. This is when pain and suffering came into the world as a Punishment for Adam's sin.

Death (physical at least) and suffering were in existence for hundreds of millions of years.

With sin came death came, correct?

You can make a case for spiritual death but certainly none can be made for physical death being the result of sin.

I do think that when it says the world was subjected to futility it had some idea of Thermodynamics, but I also believe in inerrancy so this is our sticking point

As I already noted, thermodynamics weren't non-existent before them mythical garden of eden so this fails on all counts. Not to mention the sheer eisegesis done by reading a descriptiuon of thermodynamics back into the bible.

God is transcendent over his creation and is also imminent, I do not feel like getting into Tillich if that is what you are trying to bring out.

You introduced the term perfect so I took the bait and ran with it.

Also how would you judge God about being unethical for judging us for Adam's sin?

I am not judging God, I am judging a mistaken view of God. It is common sense that people are to be "punished for what they choose to do" not for "what others choose to do". Ask any judge or poilice officer. Is God really that disconnected from reality? Saying otherwise moves thoughts of God into the realm of meaninglessness. Guilt is not a transferrable commoddity.

Explain my difficulty. If you do something wrong how then could I hold somebody else wrong for that crime?

That sounds absurd to me because you have not standard by which to judge him except maybe your own subjective opinion.

What is absurd to me is that you believe God does something so terrible and unethical ;)

What, do you think Dt 24:16 is not common knowledge? "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Of course it is. That is how crime and punishment and sin and punishment work. Imagine a judge sending a whole family to jail because one person in it did something bad? Its absurd and I don't know how anyone can think God does this.

Vinnie

Blake Reas

March 13th 2003, 03:15 PM

03-13-2003 @ 06:49 PM
ACFaith.Com:

And this is another reason why I didn't want to formally debate this issue with anyone. I was going to incorporate a bunch of things from different fields and would not be treating the Bible under the assumed rubric of inerrancy.

Actually, the empty space is creation itself. God cannot just subject atoms to decay and nothing else. The entire universe--including all its empty space-- is by definition "creation". So if God subjected all of creation to decay then naturally he must have subjected the fabric of space-time as well ;)

Agreed. Empty space is something rather than nothin. But I asked you to define decay? What happened one day to the next in the garden of eden? The text also says that it is in bondage doesn't it? When you define decay maybe I will understand how empty space is subject to this decay? Until then Paul's spiritual view of the decay of atoms, empty space and ethereal fields will remain meaningless to me. I do not understand what he or you mean by "the universe is subject to decay".

To use Paul's own words, how is empty space , ethereal fields, and other inanimate objects subject to frustration?

How do these things moan and groan?

Are these metaphors? As i said, I'll go the metaphor route. To what do these metaphors point?

I await further insight on the issue.

Science actually is all about exploring and learning about creation. When talking about the state of creation or the universe how could we not bring science in? If Paul didn't mention the whole universe being subject to decay (whether Paul actually knew of the empty space or the size of the stars is very debatable as well). What exactly was "creation" to Paul? ;-) The earth and the sky?

Again, Paul viewed spiritual realities in a different sense than do many moderns. Atoms cannot be subjected to frustration. The frustration of empty space and decay in the spiritual sense Paul suggests must be taken completely metaphorically or dismissed as nonsense in light of recent scientific advances.

The thermodynamic understanding of "entropy" which is not what Paul meant anyways, was not a result of the fall. That process was around long before the mythical garden of eden despite what some yecs might tell you ;)

Vinnie
I agree that groaning and moaning is a methaphor to all of Creation being subjected to running down as in the Law of Thermdynamics. I can see that we really do not get anywhere so if you want to keep the discussion going we can but I do not have a problem with acknowledging our differences.:cheers:

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

ACFaith.Com

March 13th 2003, 03:30 PM

Until you can demonstrate that Paul was talking about thermodynamics.....

Also, as I saidd, this doesn't work because the universe has been like this for billions of years now.

But if you want to agree to disagree i'll salute :cheers: and wait and see if someone with difficulties with atonement theology posts.

Bubba, are you still following???

Vinnie

Blake Reas

March 13th 2003, 03:43 PM

03-13-2003 @ 07:30 PM
ACFaith.Com:

Until you can demonstrate that Paul was talking about thermodynamics.....

Also, as I saidd, this doesn't work because the universe has been like this for billions of years now.

But if you want to agree to disagree i'll salute :cheers: and wait and see if someone with difficulties with atonement theology posts.

Bubba, are you still following???

Vinnie

I sais earlier that Paul was thinking of something like that. I do not think he was thinking of equations etc.
Talk to you later
Blake

ACFaith.Com

March 14th 2003, 12:30 AM

I sais earlier that Paul was thinking of something like that.

Dubious exegesis. Reading "something like thermodynamics" into" Romans is called eisegesis. Paul was wrong if he thought that anyways. The sin of Adam and Eve did not modify the universe to incoporate the thermodynaimic processes that we've discovered and described. This is the whole point of objection three in my paper. Science has overturned a literal garden story.

later,
Vinnie

ollie

March 14th 2003, 02:22 PM

God and His Christ and His inspired word or Calvin, Augustine, and other men's uninspired opinions of God's word. Which will it be?

ACFaith.Com

March 19th 2003, 02:49 AM

As best as I can tell original sin ties in directly with penal substitution so this is relevant:

Ten Difficulties With Penal Substitution
http://www.acfaith.com/penal.html

Instead of making evident the significance of Jesus' death on the cross, the PS model of atonement raises insurmountable difficulties and distorts the image of God.

Vinnie

Woman

March 19th 2003, 05:27 AM

Heres a small argument I encountered a long time ago:

God is perfect.
That which God creates is not God.
That which is not God is less than God.
That which is less than God is less than perfect.

The flaws with it?

Premise number one? "God is perfect?"

Are there accepted definitions for both "God" and "perfect?"

Is this supposed to be a given or something which God teaches? Is the sentiment "I am without flaw, incapable of wrong and cannot be improved upon" found somewhere in the Bible?

Socrates

March 24th 2003, 08:03 AM

Inauthentic Worldy Faith spruiked:Heres a small argument I encountered a long time ago:

God is perfect.
That which God creates is not God.
That which is not God is less than God.
That which is less than God is less than perfect.

The flaws with it?Woman replied:
Premise number one? "God is perfect?"No, the ambiguity in the word "perfect". For an argument to be sound, words must be used in the same way in both the premise(s) and conclusion. But I don't expect sound logic from the likes of IWF, who desperately wants to reject God's Word and come to God in his own way, like his spiritual forefather Cain.

The perfection in God is total -- God is perfectly good, perfectly just, perfectly holy. And in theology, it also refers to His perfect knowledge and perfect power, and His omnipresence.

While God created everything "very good" (Genesis 1:31), and indeed this means without actual evil or death in the world, they were still creatures. Thus they did not have God's omnipotence and omniscience. And while they had no actual evil, they were created with the power of contrary choice, i.e. the ability to go against their nature. So this was a sort of "perfection" in that God created them as the way He knew would be the best way to the best world. This includes His foreknowledge of the Fall.

Woman:Is this supposed to be a given or something which God teaches? Is the sentiment "I am without flaw, incapable of wrong and cannot be improved upon" found somewhere in the Bible?It can be logically deduced, e.g. from the Psalms, what Jesus said in Matthew 5:48: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect", Habakkuk 1:13 "Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong."

ACFaith.Com

March 24th 2003, 01:05 PM

Socrates

March 24th 2003, 09:18 PM

"Inauthentic Worldy Faith spruiked"

"But I don't expect sound logic from the likes of IWF, who desperately wants to reject God's Word and come to God in his own way, like his spiritual forefather Cain."

Mods? Was that necessary?I think so. It's obvious that his faith comes from compromise with the world and rejection of the true authentic faith "once delivered to all the saints" (Jude 3) in the Bible. "Spruiked" is a legitimate Australian term, probably from German spruechen.

And about Cain, it seems clear that Adam and Eve, based on Genesis 3:21 where God sacrificed an animal to replace the clothes of fig leaves they had made themselves, taught their offspring that God could be approached only by blood sacrifice. Abel approached God this way, with the best lambs he could offer, while Cain came his own way, bringing vegetable offerings. Ever since then, people are in two groups -- Abel's, coming to God His way (although He came to us first); and Cain's, who reject the simplicity of God's way and make up their own way.