1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompOn the contrary, if you truly understood Christ's message, then you would plainly see how Paul's message is no different. And vice versa.
Alle, die geschrieben wurden, nachdem Christ lang tot war und Paul trafen nie wirklich den Mann.Es ist in der direkten Opposition zu, welchem Christ auf dem Thema und sagte, wenn Sie wirklich versuchten zu verstehen, wünschen Sie Christ sagte, Ihnen würde veranschlagen ihn anstelle von diesem usurper Paul.
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasOkay, this is a better place for this discussion.
...The great danger, the great stumbling block of many Jews and Christians, is in believing that salvation is attained by works alone. But God declares people righteous because of faith, not works. Faith upholds the law, but seeking to fulfill the law without faith in Jesus Christ is doomed to failure. One must strive to fulfill the law on the basis of rather than by "patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality."
But the question arises: who really obeys the law? What kind of person, whether Jew or Gentile, actually lives a righteous life, blameless before God?
Once again, this implies to me a requirement of perfection. In the context of the other verses (e.g., 2:12, 14-15) this implies that the gentiles who keep the law nevertheless do not do so sufficiently to be blameless. Only perfection is “good enough.” Only perfection was ever good enough. Therefore imperfect human beings—whatever the source of that imperfection—stand condemned from birth.
For the sake of this discussion, we can call that imperfection “original sin.”
Now, God is willing to forgive that imperfection, and the sins we perform on account of it, so long as one has faith in Jesus as the Christ (God incarnate, who himself offers a sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, in conventional Trinitarian theology as LJ outlined it). Faith is the requirement.
(1) Whence faith?
(a) If faith is a choice one makes, then it may well be that one cannot make it just because one’s inherent imperfection prevents it. Original sin inhibits our ability to choose faith as surely as it inhibits our ability to choose any other good. It surely inhibits our ability to even see the choice as a reasonable or necessary one.
If that is the case, then God’s sacrifice has not in fact undone the effects of original sin. One is still on one’s own to overcome the effects of sin sufficiently to choose faith.
(b) If faith itself is not something we can attain to ourselves, but is itself a gift of God, then upon whom does God choose to bestow this gift? Everyone? A few? [I raise this question because of your changed position on double-predestination—a view that some, however, do hold.]
And once faith is bestowed, if it has the epistemic character that you have ascribed to it, surely then one sees clearly enough to not reject it, since one would have at that point no doubts whatsoever about the outcome. Unless the faith bestowed is not itself perfect.
(2) In either case above, what constitutes sufficient faith? Must one have perfect faith? Faith “the size of a mustard seed”? (And what does that mean exactly?) Can one cry out in desperation to a God that one may not have sufficient faith to ever believe in with surety?
One can replace the question, “When is good, good enough?”* with “When is faith, faith enough?”
* That is from the title of a book by Rabbi Harold Kushner, by the way.
Now, frankly, I think God’s holiness entails the ability to forgive and heal imperfection and sinfulness wholly and completely and freely; I think that God’s very essence being agape, from which God’s holiness derives, means that God is willing to accomplish such healing. That is, I do not see God’s holiness as compatible with any unwillingness to heal. I think it is certainly perverse to see God’s holiness as entailing both (i) a perfect intolerance of imperfection, and at the same time (ii) an unwillingness to simply heal it in human beings. However, Western strict theologies of justification have pretty consistently refused to consider sin/imperfection as a matter for healing rather than punishment or pardon. And that is the source of a lot of these dilemmas (compounded by the latter-day doctrine of sola scriptura).
____________________________________
Following on LJ’s contribution above, I want to offer this reductio for consideration, since I think it illustrates the dilemma inherent in strict theologies of justification, that (following Augustine apparently) equate original inherited sin with original inherited guilt—
(1) As a result of the “fall,” Adam acquired an ontological “sin nature” (original sin).
(2) This ontological sinfulness (and the guilt that merits just punishment) is inherited by all subsequent humans (via procreation?).
(3) This ontological sinfulness is assumed by Christ (2 Cor. 5:21) and destroyed (Rom. 6:6), or removed (Heb. 9:26); [see also John 1:29, Rom. 6:22, Rom. 8:2, and 2 Cor. 5:21].
(4) Humans still inherit and bear this ontological sinfulness, and are born under condemnation.
This means that, ontologically and existentially nothing has changed for the human condition; ontologically and existentially, nothing has been destroyed or removed, or healed. The only change is that God has declared he will forgive it all anyway, but only for those who are first able to overcome their own sinfulness sufficiently to be able to choose faith. The old law has merely been replaced by a new one, without any indication that people are now less inhibited by original sin, and hence more able to obey the new one than the old.
Lest anyone assume that I am blaming God here, I am not: I am blaming a particular theological model, and its God-concept, for “paltry-fying” the whole affair, to the point where such a reductio can still be stated. I think some of it, for some people, is likely because they want to hold onto some final vestige of self-righteousness, tied to their having freely chosen to faith not necessarily consciously; and I'm certainly not saying that's the case for everyone).
You have a whole background on my approach to this from our prior debate. Here I will only add that, if the parable of the Good Samaritan were told today, under this model, God (the Samaritan) would not have helped the man in the ditch until he became conscious enough to ask for it, and God would’ve hung around the inn afterward to make sure that the injured man was sufficiently grateful...
EDIT: I am quite willing to drop the notion of being “condemned from birth” in the face of an argument that original sin is just the inherent condition that leads us, inescapably, to actually sin—the latter being the actual source of guilt. The rest of my argument still stands.
Originally posted by epiphinehasHören Sie hier, sagte Christ was er sagte, Paul einwerfen dann unterschiedliches etwas, das ist die Tatsache, Jack. Tun Sie Sie denken wirklich, daß Sie ein Christ, der Christ folgt, Brunnen sind, möglicherweise, das Sie ein Pauline sind, das Paul folgt.
On the contrary, if you truly understood Christ's message, then you would plainly see how Paul's message is no different. And vice versa.
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdPaul gives three separate instances where faith justifies men:
Okay, this is a better place for this discussion.
[b]But the question arises: who really obeys the law? What kind of person, whether Jew or Gentile, actually lives a righteous life, blameless before God?
Once again, this implies to me a requirement of perfection. In the context of the other verses (e.g., 2:12, 14-15) this implies that the gentiles , to actually sin—the latter being the actual source of guilt. The rest of my argument holds.[/b]
(1) Through faithful obedience to God: "Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name" (Rom. 1:4-5). "For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16).
(2) Through God's faithfulness: "What advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true" (Rom. 3:1-4).
(3) Through Christ's faithfulness: "But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ ... He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:21-22, 25-26).
i.e....
(1) Some Christians and Jews are justified by their faithful obedience
(2) Some unfaithful Jews are justified by God's faithfulness, despite themselves, apart from the law, because they are Jews*
(3) Some Christians are justified by Christ's faithfulness, despite themselves, apart from the law, because of their faith in Christ*
*These two exceptions mirror what Jesus spoke of in Matthew 20, i.e. the "laborers in the vineyard" parable. At the end of Matthew 19, the disciples ask Christ, "'Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?' Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life. BUT many who are first will be last, and the last will be first." (Matthew 19:27-30). Jesus then immediately goes on to relate the "laborers in the vineyard" parable in order to drive home His point, that even those who do not have works shall be justified by their faith in Jesus Christ, despite themselves -- for God's glory ("...to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous" ... "Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true" ). God can and will justify sinful people on the day of judgment because of their faith alone, but, as Paul warns, it is nevertheless folly to say, "Let us do evil so that good may come" and "Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?" To those who justify themselves with such rationale, Paul says, "their condemnation is deserved."
----------------------------------------
If faith is a choice one makes, then it may well be that one cannot make it just because one’s inherent imperfection prevents it.
The only instance, biblically speaking, where a sinner is no longer capable of turning from their sinful ways by faith, is by blaspheming the Holy Spirit. In all other instances, the word of God gives no indication that "original sin" can prevent a person from choosing faithful repentance in any way. Sinners naturally wish to "suppress the truth" (Rom. 1:18), but they do so according to their own free will; their culpability stemming from a willful acquiescence to temptation, i.e. a conscious rejection of the truth. As Paul says, before God's eyes everyone is without excuse, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" (Rom. 1:19). How has He shown it to them? Through His Spirit. God's Spirit strives with all sinners, so that everyone is without excuse, "Then the Lord said, My Spirit shall not forever dwell and strive with man, for he also is flesh" (Genesis 6:3).
So I would amend your post with this, under the header, "Whence faith?"
(c) Faith is a choice provided by the ever-present Spirit of God to all, so that all are capable of choosing faith no matter how sinful they are.
-------------------------------
In either case above, what constitutes sufficient faith? Must one have perfect faith? Faith “the size of a mustard seed”? (And what does that mean exactly?) Can one cry out in desperation to a God that one may not have sufficient faith to ever believe in with surety? One can replace the question, “When is good, good enough?”* with “When is faith, faith enough?”
I think faith is what it is. If I asked Christ in person if he would heal my daughter, and Christ said to me, "do you believe that I can do this?" What would I honestly say to Him in my heart? Probably, "I don't know how you can, but I trust that if you say you can, then you can and will. My rational mind is jaded and faithless, but nevertheless I trust YOU, Jesus." Trust in Christ is the key, regardless of doubts. Either one has it, or one doesn't, though the strength of that trust may vary by degrees. God's faithfulness is meant to strengthen trust in Him, so you would probably hear Jesus respond to me by saying, "I can, and I will. Go, your faith has healed your daughter."
I'd have to study that subject more in depth, but that's my take on it for the moment.
2 edits
Originally posted by frogstompI've heard the same thing from ahosyney, no1marauder, rwingett, as well as yourself, frogstomp. Sorry, I still don't buy it.
Hören Sie hier, sagte Christ was er sagte, Paul einwerfen dann unterschiedliches etwas, das ist die Tatsache, Jack. Tun Sie Sie denken wirklich, daß Sie ein Christ, der Christ folgt, Brunnen sind, möglicherweise, das Sie ein Pauline sind, das Paul folgt.
It's interesting, though, that the most outspoken people against Paul's legitimacy are those who don't believe in Jesus Christ.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'd have to study that subject more in depth, but that's my take on it for the moment.
Paul gives three separate instances where faith justifies men:
(1) Through faithful obedience to God: "Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name" (Rom. 1:4-5). "For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation but that's my take on it for the moment.
Yeah—this could turn into one of our long, brain-draining affairs. (Not sure I’ve fully recovered from the last one! 😉 )
Faith is a choice provided by the ever-present Spirit of God to all, so that all are capable of choosing faith no matter how sinful they are.
A few questions:
(1) Is your claim here that that is the one decision in which our ability is not impeded in any way by original sin? From either seeing the choice clearly, or being able to make it?
(2) What if the "suppression of truth" that you refer to is unconscious, so that the person is not consciously aware that's what they are doing? Or do you think that is psychologically not possible?
(3) If someone yesterday died without ever having been informed of the choice, what happens to them?
(4) If someone died yesterday, either (a) to whom the information was given, but articulated badly, or (b) even if the information was communicated clearly, but their cultural conditioning (perhaps in another religion, perhaps otherwise) prevents them from fully understanding and accepting it—what happens to them?
[I am reminded here of a cartoon I once saw, wherein a Christian missionary is standing before the members of some primal tribe, and, as he shuts the “big book”, says: “There. You’ve heard the word of God, so you’re no longer pagans—you’re heathens now!”]
Originally posted by epiphinehasYes, I find that interesting as well.
I've heard the same thing from ahosyney, no1marauder, rwingett, as well as yourself, frogstomp. Sorry, I still don't buy it.
It's interesting, though, that the most outspoken people against Paul's legitimacy are those who don't believe in Jesus Christ.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdeah—this could turn into one of our long, brain-draining affairs. (Not sure I’ve fully recovered from the last one! 😉 )
I'd have to study that subject more in depth, but that's my take on it for the moment.
Yeah—this could turn into one of our long, brain-draining affairs. (Not sure I’ve fully recovered from the last one! 😉 )
Faith is a choice provided by the ever-present Spirit of God to all, so that all are capable of choosing faith no matter how sinful t re. You’ve heard the word of God, so you’re no longer pagans—you’re heathens now!”]
Yes, let's observe some moderation this time around. 🙂
(1) Is your claim here that that is the one decision in which our ability is not impeded in any way by original sin? From either seeing the choice clearly, or being able to make it?
I believe that is borne out by scripture, yes.
(2) What if the "suppression of truth" that you refer to is unconscious, so that the person is not consciously aware that's what they are doing? Or do you think that is psychologically not possible?
It's hard to say. It seems to me that the unconscious aspect of the decision making process is almost entirely based in the lower brain, operating on the level of appetite, desire, equilibrium, etc. The conscious aspect of the brain can be unconsciously motivated by the lower brain, but the conscious aspect of the brain can also become aware of its unconscious motivations and therefore choose to actively engage in self-denial. Paul says that sinners suppress the truth by their wickedness; that is, through sinning; sin being the acquiescence to temptation (in this case, acquiescence to unconscious motivation at the expense of truth). Scripture claims that God's Spirit witnesses to all people (dwells and strives with them), and therefore leaves everyone without excuse on the day of judgment. Therefore, based on scripture it can be said that the conscious mind, at certain unnumbered undefined points throughout its duration, is given sufficient knowledge of God in order to be responsible for either choosing faithful obedience or choosing to ignore God through acquiescence to temptation (the lusts of the flesh).
(3) If someone yesterday died without ever having been informed of the choice, what happens to them?
God only knows. There seems to be some scriptural indications that Christ witnesses in spirit to all those who have never known God's law or heard of Jesus Christ, in order that God may be the judge of both the living and the dead.
(4) If someone died yesterday, either (a) to whom the information was given, but articulated badly
Again, God only knows. It is possible that even if the information was articulated badly, that the Holy Spirit nevertheless prompted that person in some way; either to believe in Christ right then and there, or at least investigate the subject further. It is also possible, I guess, that a person can be saved even though whoever witnessed to them articulated the gospel badly.
or (b) even if the information was communicated clearly, but their cultural conditioning (perhaps in another religion, perhaps otherwise) prevents them from fully understanding and accepting it—what happens to them?
Without a doubt, they will not be saved. I can think of no biblical instance where outright rejection of Jesus Christ, for whatever reason, is said to be 'forgivable'. In fact, quite the opposite.
Originally posted by epiphinehasIch habe nicht gesagt, daß Paul der gesetzmaßige Führer der Religion, die Sie folgen jedoch keiner Religion, die Richtlinien Pauls für Rettung über Christs Selbst nimmt, sollte benannt werden Paulianity und nicht Christentum war, weil es nicht ist.
I've heard the same thing from ahosyney, no1marauder, rwingett, as well as yourself, frogstomp. Sorry, I still don't buy it.
It's interesting, though, that the most outspoken people against Paul's legitimacy are those who don't believe in Jesus Christ.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI'm not sure about the "wrested the keys of hell and death from Satan" part. What I am aware of is that God the Father raised Jesus from the grave. Perhaps you are right, but I can't think of any scriptural evidence for support of that claim.
God made us to have communion with him. He gave us all free will with which we could either choose to serve him or reject him. We have all chosen to reject his love, which brings spiritual death upon us (because sin cannot be in the presence of God). In his infinite love and mercy though, God made a way to redeem us from our helpless state. He sent his ...[text shortened]... rs us only his love and fellowship.
Isn't that essentially your guy's position, KJ and epi?
Also, I believe scripture is clear that God offers much more than just "his love and fellowship" to the believer. For instance, he offers the power to overcome sin, as well as spiritual gifts, and the answering of prayers said in Christ's name, eternal life, a life of significance, God's favor, peace, joy, etc.
What intellectual conflict caused you to leave the faith?
Originally posted by frogstompWould you mind continuing this discussion in English? My German to English translator is too shoddy to be able to decipher your arguments clearly. I've been making rough guesses up until now.
Ich habe nicht gesagt, daß Paul der gesetzmaßige Führer der Religion, die Sie folgen jedoch keiner Religion, die Richtlinien Pauls für Rettung über Christs Selbst nimmt, sollte benannt werden Paulianity und nicht Christentum war, weil es nicht ist.
Originally posted by epiphinehasEven though it looks a lot like German, it doesn't make much sense if you read it as German. I think he's speaking in tongues.
Would you mind continuing this discussion in English? My German to English translator is too shoddy to be able to decipher your arguments clearly. I've been making rough guesses up until now.