CrimsonCatholic has made some interesting statements regarding original sin (OS) here. I appreciate his conversation b/c it is allowing me to work out a better understanding of the issue.I don't see any authority elsewhere in Scripture for the proposition that someone who has not committed actual sin was punished by damnation, so it seems to be a matter of speculative reasoning.
In one sense, you're right that the case where some guy was born with original sin but never sinned HIMSELF in life and came to be judged either yea or nay by God has come up in Scripture.
OTOH, does not Rom 5 have explicit statements regarding his guilt? I don't see you dealing with Rom 5 at all in this comment, though I've pointed it out as important a couple of times and stated some initial points in a previous comment in the same thread.
You say that Jesus suffers by substitution or by being a sin offering,
We might be missing each other here.
Jesus suffers because He's the substitute for the elect. He suffers really, physically, spiritually, etc. Hopefully that clears up any confusion.
The entire idea of a substitution or a sin offering is a metaphor; it is not literal, because the person who actually committed the sin is not being punished.
I am sorry, but this is a strange thing to say.
Substitution is not literal b/c the guy for whom the substitute is provided doesn't suffer? Isn't that the point of substitution? Why would the recipient of the benefit of substitution suffer? Why would that change anything about the nature of the suffering of the substitute?
they would entail Jesus being punished for actual sin, which is clearly absurd by both reason and Scripture, since He never actually sinned
Agreed that He never sinned.
But He suffered for **MY** actual sin and the actual sins of all.
Hence, the passages cannot be literal and must be figurative.
Leaving aside that I deny the premises above, if it must be figurative, what is it a figure of? What is the greater reality to which it points, as all symbols do?
To put any sort of actual evil within the nature would make God its author, which is impossible.
Actual evil within the SIN nature (that's to clarify)? Why would God be the author of that? Sin was performed by a fallen angel and then a human. It's a corruption of God-given goodness, not created by Him. Romans 7 (as I also mentioned earlier) describes how it's the "law within my members", struggling against the Spirit-controlled "law of my mind".
The only places in the Scripture which describe men as "guilty" or "sinful" or "condemned" are clearly analogical and not literal.
I'm questioning your arrival at that, so I guess we go there.
Besides, I'll reiterate that you're not even interacting with Rom 5 here.
Jesus doesn't literally become sinful,
You're just repeating a rebuttal to a point that I don't make.
He literally becomes a sin OFFERING. A literal substitute. The Lamb of God.
He doesn't literally suffer punishment, and He is not literally judged.
OK, so He doesn't *literally* die on the cross.
His passion and death is not *literally* painful. They're figurative.
Is our forgiveness of sin based on His non-literal death therefore non-literal as well?
there cannot be any changes in the relationship between them (the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, eternally loved by the Father, etc).
Fine and dandy, but the persons of the Trinity DO different things throughout history. The Holy Spirit now indwells all believers as opposed to what He did in the OT. The Spirit gave spectacular sign gifts to the church, which He didn't do before, and He's not doing the same thing in the same way right now. The Son became incarnate in real space and time. The Son died on the Cross. The Son now, and for eternity in the future, has and will have a physical body.
the Father judging the Son as a sinner
As a sin *offering*. This changes your entire point.
There is no question of wrath or judgment of the Son
I'd say the question is whether the PUNISHMENT for sin, the wrath of God, comes UPON Christ.
1 Pet 2:24 - He bore our sins
Heb 13:13 - bearing the disgrace He bore
Heb 9:28 - Christ bears the sins of many
John 3:36 - the wrath of God abides on the guy who doesn't believe, but somehow not on Jesus, Who substitutes in place of the sinner who does believe?
Same thing in Rom 2:5, Rom 3:5, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:8-10, Eph 2:2-5, Eph 5:6, Col 3:6, 1 Thess 1:10, 1 Thess 2:15-17, etc.
Rhology: Was the Cross God's Plan B?
Certainly, in the sense that evil is never intended directly but only accidentally and conditionally.
Wow. May I ask *when* God's hand and purpose predestined Christ's passion and crucifixion to occur? From eternity past? Or right after the fall?
Supralapsarian Calvinists deny this
And so do I.
There is no evidence to the contrary
Except Rom 5 et al.
The GHM derives its validity from the truths of natural reason, so using any conclusion of the GHM to deny natural reason is irrational.
This is a side note, as we both acknowledge. That said, I wasn't contrasting the GHM with "reason". I was contrasting it with heavy-handed and clumsy uses of the expression "literal interpretation".
But it's an insult to God to say that He is asking you to deny what is known by the same natural reason that He gave you.
For the sake of argument, I grant that here. But when one has good reason (ie, divine revelation DIRECTLY speaking to the topic) to think A and human "reason" says B, one has to go A. There's a reason why 1 Cor 1-3 was written.
And for the grand finale, I'll just put these words of CrimsonCatholic here in boldface. Or should I say baldface?
To put it another way, you don't need the Bible to do what God gave you a brain today. If you make reason dependent on the Bible, then you spurn God's greatest gift to man, the one on which the Bible itself depends.
Peace,
Posts
62 comments:
"To put it another way, you don't need the Bible to do what God gave you a brain today. If you make reason dependent on the Bible, then you spurn God's greatest gift to man, the one on which the Bible itself depends."
If what he means by "reason" is logic, then fine. However, if he's referring to autonomous philosophical rationalism, then he's begging the question in favor of the Thomistic view of original sin over against the Calvinistic view.
Under the Calvinistic view, not only has man's moral compass fallen, his noetic processes have been darkened as well. Man's reason can only come up with conclusions contrary to God's special revelation.
This is why Paul can say that man's autonomous philosophy (apart from God's special revelation) "never came to know God" (1 Cor. 1). That is why the cross is considered to be "foolishness" by the world. This is why God said that He would set aside the wisdom of the wise which literally translated from the Greek says, "...and the philosophy of the philosopher I will set aside."
Rhology,
I am sorry that I have been away for a couple of days.... I had a really busy weekend, my car went "ill" so I was free-timing with the mechanic Monday and Tuesday, and I had my bottom 2 wisdom teeth taken out last night (this was the 2nd attempt!!)... so... I have been pretty busy.
I think CC's point about reason is that you would need reason to understand the Bible in the first place. If God gave us no reason the Bible would be pointless.
The questions that you deemed "irrelevant" and (or) unclear, the ones you never answered in the other discussion had to do with CONVERSING with Catholics. I have a hard time seeing how they were unclear as they were asked NUMEROUS times and ended with"?" - but...
How would a question about conversing with Catholics be irrelevant in a conversation with Catholics.
If you do think that Catholics are either idiots, have reprobate minds, or both... it would seem unreasonable to converse with them on these things... I have yet to see how these things would be "irrelevant" WHILE IN A DISCUSSION WITH CATHOLICS, but... ;)
Much of your argument with CC seems to depend on a Reformed understanding of OS and penal substitutionary atonement.
Is it your position that God condemned/punished Jesus (who didn't sin) as if He did sin?
Is it your position that God justifies the wicked?
Doesn't God consider these things abominations?
If I am not getting you on the Atonement... please explain it to me.
BC
"He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous,Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD."
anonymous,
""He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous,Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.""
[First, I shall point out as a brief aside that "to justify" here means to declare righteous.]
Secondly, the Protestant doctrine of justification is one of eschatological justification. In other words, God looks at the repentant sinner as they will be at the Resurrection (in a glorified and sinless state). So, yes, He will only declare one righteous if one IS righteous. But that doesn't stop Him from declaring it now since our sin was legally imputed to Christ and His righteousness was legally imputed to us.
In order for us to be justified, Christ had to take the punishment of our sins literally upon Himself. This is why Paul calls the gospel "the righteousness of God" (i.e. God's actual righteousness in punishing sin). Our Judgment Day verdict and punishment was given to Him, and His Judgment Day verdict for a perfect life is given to us now in view of a later time when we will be actually righteous (i.e. Judgment Day).
So, we are *considered* to be perfectly righteous now even though we aren't at the moment. This is why Paul can say in Romans 4:5 that God "justifies the ungodly" (thus solving the contradiction between this verse and the one you cited).
"Is it your position that God condemned/punished Jesus (who didn't sin) as if He did sin?"
To quote Paul himself:
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." -2 Corinthians 5:21
S&S -
2 Cor 5:21 "to be a sin OFFERING on our behalf" is probably a better rendering, wouldn't you agree?
Hey ya'll...
I think an argument could be made that harmartia could be rightfully be translated as "sin-offering" in II Cor. 5:21...
SS... you say many things about the Protestant doctrine (is there only one?) of justification...
[First, I shall point out as a brief aside that "to justify" here means to declare righteous.]
It has to for your doctrine of justification to be correct, right? Just asking...
Secondly, the Protestant doctrine of justification is one of eschatological justification. In other words, God looks at the repentant sinner as they will be at the Resurrection (in a glorified and sinless state). So, yes, He will only declare one righteous if one IS righteous. But that doesn't stop Him from declaring it now since our sin was legally imputed to Christ and His righteousness was legally imputed to us.
Ok... I can see that this is what you believe, but does Scripture spell this out anywhere? God sees the elect as they will be but Christ as He was as the penal substitute at the time of the crucifixion, etc...
Our Judgment Day verdict and punishment was given to Him, and His Judgment Day verdict for a perfect life is given to us now in view of a later time when we will be actually righteous (i.e. Judgment Day).
Where is this spelled out in the Bible?
So, we are *considered* to be perfectly righteous now even though we aren't at the moment. This is why Paul can say in Romans 4:5 that God "justifies the ungodly" (thus solving the contradiction between this verse and the one you cited).
I don't see how the problem of Proverbs 17:15 is solved, but... ok...
If God is condemning/punishing Jesus (who is Righteous) then I think there is still a problem.
Did The Judge declare an innocent guilty? If so.. how is this not an abomination.
BC
Maybe SS should've said "the biblical doctrine of justification" rather than the "Protestant" one, you're right.
Yes, the forensic declaration of the guilty as sinner as innocent is the cornerstone of the biblical doctrine of justification.
Rom 4:6-8 spells it out, as you request.
1 Cor 15, among other places, expresses the new resurrection body given to the righteous in the Eschaton.
You're seeking recourse to Proverbs to deal with justification?
1) You're desperate; that gives me a sense of satisfaction actually.
2) Once the sinner is justified, God does not impute his sin to him, so he's 100% innocent, clothed in Christ's righteousness. So He couldn't very well go condemning Christ!
3) God punishes Jesus as a SUBSTITUTE for the guilty sinner.
It is helpful to recall the OT system of sacrifices and such as a parallel, as it's a type and shadow of Christ's substitutionary atonement.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology,
I wish you would stop acting like this...
Maybe SS should've said "the biblical doctrine of justification" rather than the "Protestant" one, you're right.
Ok... anyone on either side of this issue could say the same thing.
Yes, the forensic declaration of the guilty as sinner as innocent is the cornerstone of the biblical doctrine of justification.
What? I think your wording may be a bit muddled here...
Of course it could be my reading comprehension again...
Anyway... if you are saying that God the righteous Judge declares Christ to be guilty of sins He didn't commit and then punishes Him for them is the cornerstone of the Reformed doctrine of justification... then ok... I don't see "Reformed" as synonymous with "biblical" - I realize that you do, but I don't see it that way... anyway... my quotation of the Proverb was not done in the desperation that you have imputed to me... :)
The Proverb says something about the character of God and what He considers "abominable."
You say in the case of the justification of the "elect" He doesn't find it abominable... fine... but I am not desperate.
2) Once the sinner is justified, God does not impute his sin to him, so he's 100% innocent, clothed in Christ's righteousness. So He couldn't very well go condemning Christ!
He is at that minute or in the eschaton? SS seemed to go a different route here...
Do the elect still after the are legally declared 100% innocent of the things which they are guilty for? Is that sin imputed to the reprobate or continually to Christ or to whom? Why wasn't it always done that way instead of the courtroom cross?
3) God punishes Jesus as a SUBSTITUTE for the guilty sinner.
It is helpful to recall the OT system of sacrifices and such as a parallel, as it's a type and shadow of Christ's substitutionary atonement.
Which OT sacrifices? How do they relate exactly to this case...? Can you explain?
BC
Forgive my typing... I am on pain meds for the procedure I had done yesterday.
Hey,
God the righteous Judge declares Christ to be guilty of sins He didn't commit and then punishes Him for them is the cornerstone of the Reformed doctrine of justification
Exactly. Your comprehension is going very well. :-) Seriously, that's what we'd say.
in the case of the justification of the "elect" He doesn't find it abominable
Right, b/c their sins are NOT imputed to them, and Christ's righteousness IS.
He is at that minute or in the eschaton?
If I said sthg different than SS, it's my fault. I was trying to elucidate.
He sees us (justified sinners) AS WILL BE ACTUALISED in the Eschaton.
Do the elect still after the are legally declared 100% innocent of the things which they are guilty for?
I think you might've left out a verb or two - could you restate please?
Is that sin imputed to the reprobate or continually to Christ or to whom? Why wasn't it always done that way instead of the courtroom cross?
God imputes the unregenerate's own sin to them, of course. There's no substitute.
It's always been done that way.
Which OT sacrifices? How do they relate exactly to this case...? Can you explain?
I couldn't say it better than the book of Hebrews.
I am on pain meds for the procedure I had done yesterday.
Oh! I hope you're OK... man, you've got sand for blogging after surgery. You know, "minor surgery" is surgery done on someone else. ;-)
Don't overexert yourself here - we'll be here when you're better too. :-)
Peace,
Rhology
It seems that Rhology got there first, but...
"He is at that minute or in the eschaton? SS seemed to go a different route here..."
He sees us (legally) now as we will be (intrinsically) at the eschaton.
Saint and Sinner has described a construal of justification that is often named analytic or analytical: the sinner is declared righteous in anticipation of his future glorification. Some scholars believe that Luther espoused analytic justification. But the more classical Protestant construal is synthetic justification: sinners are declared righteous on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ. See the brief summary by Leithart.
Hmm, I don't see a huge difference. But that's just me.
"Saint and Sinner has described a construal of justification that is often named analytic or analytical: the sinner is declared righteous in anticipation of his future glorification. Some scholars believe that Luther espoused analytic justification. But the more classical Protestant construal is synthetic justification: sinners are declared righteous on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ."
First of all, I'm not seminary trained. So, I could be confusing issues.
However, I don't believe that the view that I stated before is incompatible with the imputed righteousness of Christ. I legally need Christ's righteousness for the immediate declaration by God given before the eschaton.
However, I believe that I'll have to study this issue a bit more.
The suggestion that the Father of Jesus Christ imputes the sin of Adam to humanity and eternally damns the morally inculpable violates the character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and is thus contrary to Holy Scripture. Tragically, St Augustine could not see this clearly and bequeathed to us his unholy doctrines of inherited guilt and infant damnation.
Natures do not sin; persons do. If God were to damn people because of the fallen natures they have inherited, he would be an immoral monster and unworthy of our worship and devotion.
Fortunately, most of the Western Church has purified itself of this element of St Augustine's thought. The Eastern Church never had this problem and has always found the idea of inherited guilt incomprehensible and morally unacceptable.
For my own reflections, click here.
"The suggestion that the Father of Jesus Christ imputes the sin of Adam to humanity and eternally damns the morally inculpable violates the character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and is thus contrary to Holy Scripture."
In the Pentateuch, God destroys entire families for the sins of their fathers. In Kings, God punishes the nation of Israel for the sins of its king, David.
Federal headship is an ancient near-Eastern concept that is taught in Scripture. Our Western (Greek-influenced) minds don't like it because it's foreign to us and seems unfair given our Greek-philosophical meta-ethics.
All died because all sinned. Infants die. The implications are clear.
Pontificator,
violates the character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ
that's begging the question, isn't it?
How does it violate it?
St Augustine could not see this clearly and bequeathed to us his unholy doctrines of inherited guilt and infant damnation
Wow, I've never realised the depth of anti-Augustinian thought present in some RCs today. Guess I have some things to learn.
Natures do not sin; persons do.
Right. The persons sin b/c of their sin nature. See Romans 6 and 7.
And they're condemned for both Adam's sin and their own sin - see Romans 5.
f God were to damn people because of the fallen natures they have inherited, he would be an immoral monster and unworthy of our worship and devotion.
This statement makes you sound like an atheist, certainly not someone committed to the ascendancy of the God you worship. Shall the pot say to the Potter "Why did you make me like this?"
(See? Non 5-pt Calvinists can cite Rom 9 too! ;-) )
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology,
All of it assumes you are interpreting St. Paul correctly...
Your statement to CC about the GHM of a biblical text being the last word... were you seriouly asking a Catholic that?
:)
BC
BC,
Your job is to make the argument that I *haven't* in fact understood Paul's meaning correctly.
What is your argument?
Rhology,
Yes... we are not to complain about our reprobation...
This statement makes you sound like an atheist, certainly not someone committed to the ascendancy of the God you worship. Shall the pot say to the Potter "Why did you make me like this?"
(See? Non 5-pt Calvinists can cite Rom 9 too! ;-) )
Well that stops the debate...
When you start answering my questions I will answer your's...
BC
I'm confused.
Many years ago at the Baptism of my husband's infant nephew (Catholic), the priest said the baptism removed original sin.
Likewise CCC 1263 states: "By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin...".
Why does original sin in an infant need to be forgiven if it was never inherited in the first place?
Carrie,
Because we need grace to see God... we aren't born with it.
BC
All died because all sinned. Infants die. The implications are clear.
CCC 1018 As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer "bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned".
So why do Catholics think infants die?
Because we need grace to see God... we aren't born with it.
I don't see how that is different for the infant than inherited guilt. If an person is born without grace, and grace is needed to "see God", then an infant is technically born condemned.
I realize you try to solve that problem with limbo, but I have yet to see a biblical defense of that idea.
Carrie,
Um...
I realize you try to solve that problem with limbo, but I have yet to see a biblical defense of that idea.
I have never tried that and I don't intend to...
We are in Adam (all mankind) we need to be in Christ to have eternal life.
"ara oun hos dia paraptoma heis eis pas anthropos eis katakrima kai houto dia dikaioma heis eis pas anthropos eis dikaiosis zoe." Romans 5:18
I quoted the whole verse, since the last time some here discussed this with me they only quoted it partially...
We are born into Adam... every human being... we need baptism to be born again into Christ...
The Greek above is interesting... as it makes clear "pas" is "condemned" (Adam) and it makes equally clear that "pas" is "justified."
The Catholic Church does not teach that we are guilty of committing Adam's sin...
We die a physical death as a result of Adam's sin... and it still comes to pass, but being reborn into Christ brings us justification.
Amen!!
I am on pain meds... I will look at how silly I sounded tomorrow.
BC
Carrie,
One more thing...
Your problem with babies dying in Catholic theology...
Babies must've actually sinned? Is that what you are saying?
Remember that Christ died too... did He sin?
If He did was He pure sin-offering?
BC
"Babies must've actually sinned? Is that what you are saying?
Remember that Christ died too... did He sin?"
He was punished for our sins as a perfect substitute, a roll He took upon Himself freely. We were crucified with Christ (if that isn't substitutionary atonement, I don't know what is). God saw us as we are and gave Christ our judgment day sentence. He saw us in Christ.
So, again, Romans 5:12:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so ***death spread to all men, because all sinned***-"
1. According to Rom. 5:12, anyone who dies, dies if and only if (inferred from the "all") they sinned. [Sin<-->Death]
2. Infants die. [Death]
3. Therefore, infants sinned. [C: Sin]
[If you can provide a reason why the if and only if isn't true, I'd like to know. Please keep in mind Rom. 5:12.]
Actual sin? No. The guilt of Adam's sin because he is their federal head? Yes.
Carrie,
Likewise CCC 1263 states: "By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin...".
Very good point. I am a bit buffled that Fr. Pontificator would deny Augustinian understanding of original sin wherein fact the RCC recognizes it in the rite of Baptism.
In fact in the RCC original sin is expunged such that what we do next in the are of lust/greed is now called concupiscence.
The EO never accepted Augustine's original sin though when convenient would quote him on 'theosis' like concepts.
LPC
Read my blog. Original sin is sufficiently disproven there.
WCF says "Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her, yet without sin."
Foolishness total and absolute! The Bible says "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15) These are to totally different statements. The Calvinists not-divines are saying that Jesus was born unable to sin, and Paul is saying that Jesus was able to sin, was in fact tempted to do so, yet did not do so.
Rhology and Carrie, I have already blogged at length on both original sin and limbo. I think you will find that most of the questions you have put to me have been answered in these postings.
Jonathan has already rightly pointed that words such as "guilt" and "punishment" need to be interpreted analogically, not literally, when speaking of original sin. As Pope John Paul II has written:
"Original sin in Adam’s descendants does not have the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which has been diverted from its supernatural end through the fault of the first parents. It is a 'sin of nature,' only analogically comparable to 'personal sin.'"
A deep matter of the gospel truly is at stake here. Who is God? The God revealed in Jesus Christ is a God whose love for humanity knows no bounds, no limits, no qualifications. God has fully committed himself to the salvation of sinners, every sinner, in Jesus Christ. He has forever united himself to human nature; he has taken upon himself our sins and borne them away; he has destroyed death and delivered us from the power of Satan. This is the good news that we take to the world. In Christ God's promises are yea and amen.
This isn't a matter of exegeting an individual text or two but rather of penetrating the whole of Scripture to God's self-revelation as Holy Trinity. The whole point of the Trinitarian doctrine is to establish and proclaim the shattering truth that God, in his own inner being and independently of his relations to his creatures, is a God of absolute love. He is a triune community of self-giving and mutual surrender. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
In light of the divine self-revelation, it is simply inconceivable that this God would damn unbaptized infants, just as it is inconceivable that he would arbitrarily predestine only a few for salvation and "pass over" the rest of the massa damnata. Fortunately, these false beliefs are no longer promulgated by most Christian Churches.
Dear friends, the gospel is good news. It is light and joy--and it intends every single human being, or it is no gospel at all. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me" (John 12:32).
Rhology suggests that I sound like an atheist. I had to chuckle. The Eastern Orthodox accuse Western Christianity of having created atheism by proclaiming the predestinating God of Augustine (see "River of Fire"). And they have a point. Better to disbelieve in God than believe in a God who arbitrarily loves and hates. Such a God cannot be loved, only feared.
SS,
Your logic is undeniable...
1. According to Rom. 5:12, anyone who dies, dies if and only if (inferred from the "all") they sinned. [Sin<-->Death]
2. Christ died. [Death]
3. Therefore, Christ sinned. [C: Sin]
Something about this sounds wrong (read: heretical) to me.
So does the "all" mean "all" really? Or does it mean from each and every tribe? I just thought I would ask.
Perhaps you would like to suggest that Christ inherited Adam's "sin nature?"
You logic merely "proves" that if someone dies they have sinned. It says nothing about the manner of death... just dying implies sin.
What good would a sinner do us on the cross?
Was sin incarnate offered as a sin-offering at Calvary?
BTW, what did you think of Romans 5:18? Did you know it's not the only verse in Scripture... nor even in the NT, nor even St. Paul's letters, nor even Romans that seems to deny some pretty foundational Reformed tenets?
BC
According to Rom. 5:12, anyone who dies, dies if and only if (inferred from the "all") they sinned. [Sin<-->Death]
To understand the thrust of Romans 5 you have to understand that some of it refers to physical death and some to spiritual death. That's why there is a division between all and many. That's why he can say in Christ all will be made alive and also just that many will be made alive. Many will be made spiritually alive, all will be made physically alive (resurrection). 1 Cor 15:21-22 also help us see that some of Romans 5 is about physical death and the resurrection, while Romans 7:9 helps us see that some refers to spiritual death and salvation.
Physical death is upon all men, even those who did not sin after the similitude of Adam, but spiritual death comes to all men because all have sinned. Unless you understand Romans 5 that way, you don't understand it at all.
BC,
I don't get you - you ask me to answer questions that either make no sense or that are nearly invisible.
Do you mean this?
Your statement to CC about the GHM of a biblical text being the last word... were you seriouly asking a Catholic that?
I have no idea what this means. I've missed your meaning before, but the pain meds you're on might be too much for me. I'll need elucidation.
And don't act so childish - if I didn't answer a question, point it out and then go ahead and answer questions posed to YOU. The readers are grown-ups - they can discern whose points are valid, who's evading, and which questions are worth answering.
And I'd like to bring y'all back to dealing with the TEXT in question.
Here's what I said recently over at CrimsonCatho's place.
---
As regards OS, let's take a look at Rom 5.
CrimsonCatholic earlier disparaged the idea that OS is a "sin nature," but I don't really see why that's not a workable term, especially given what will follow here and Paul's words throughout Rom 6 and 7.
Rom 5:16 - The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
What kind of judgment is this, to follow one sin (that of Adam) and yet extend to all men? To bring death to all men?
Rom 5:13 - 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
How did all men sin? In Adam; was he not our representative, our "federal head"?
Rom 5:14 - 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.
Rom 5:17 - For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
How does death reign in ALL men thru the trespass of the one?
Rom 5:18 - just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men
Why? B/c of what the individual member of the set of "all men" DID? No, thru the sin of Adam himself, as the prefigure of Christ.
CrimsonCatholic seems fond of saying things like:
you think evil is a substance that can inhere in nature but not grace. If anything, it appears the case should be completely reversed
The main reason to say that evil is inherited thru nature is b/c Rom 5 expresses that, AND compares it to Christ. His propitiation is able to save all men from all their sin if they will repent. But somehow the prefiguring, Adam's death, which makes Christ's propitiation necessary, is NOT all-encompassing?
Rom 5:19 - For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners
Is this not an expression of OS? We are made into sinNERS thru Adam's sin. All of us - we love to sin, yes. Not only that, we are made sinNERS *AND* receive the condemnation thru His death.
Why?
Rom 5:19 - so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
The bad news has to be bad so that the Good News can be so good.
---/---
I'd like to ask our opponents to start interacting with the text. EgoMakarios is of course invited to do so as well.
EgoMak said:
The Calvinists not-divines are saying that Jesus was born unable to sin, and Paul is saying that Jesus was able to sin, was in fact tempted to do so, yet did not do so.
Either way, He DID NOT sin (as we all agree here), so that's a bit beside the point.
To understand the thrust of Romans 5 you have to understand that some of it refers to physical death and some to spiritual death.
How, based on the text and context, do you know which is which?
Peace,
Rhology
Pontificator,
I read your post on original sin. thanks.
I didn't see, however, much interaction with the Romans 5 text. I empathise - sometimes I **wish** I'd written a post that would knock over an objection in a combox, but often it seems the post I wrote before is not quite precisely what's being discussed in the combox. It's frustrating, I know. (I'm being serious, please understand, not sarcastic.)
But I invite your thoughts on what I posted just above on Romans 5. That's fundamental.
This isn't a matter of exegeting an individual text or two but rather of penetrating the whole of Scripture
And we start by dealing with the central texts on the subject, like Romans 5.
it is simply inconceivable that this God would damn unbaptized infants
Question-begging assertion. Though I, as the father of a miscarried baby, deeply hope that infants are saved.
just as it is inconceivable that he would arbitrarily predestine only a few for salvation and "pass over" the rest of the massa damnata.
Ditto. Though I am not a 5-pt Calvinist, we must be open to change our traditions if Scripture teaches different.
these false beliefs are no longer promulgated by most Christian Churches.
Yet one more. I certainly don't recognise EOC or RCC as a Christian church.
Rhology suggests that I sound like an atheist.
B/c you're putting God in the dock.
"God, You're just too different than how I want You to be! How DARE You reveal Yourself to be other than I think You should be?"
I'll show you a dozen posts from atheists and blasphemers saying the same thing if you but ask.
The Eastern Orthodox accuse Western Christianity of having created atheism
And Franky Schaeffer accuses Western Xtianity of just about every evil ever conceived of.
If understanding the truth of God means that some will become atheists, so be it.
But I think anyone can see that this is a pathetic oversimplification.
Better to disbelieve in God than believe in a God who arbitrarily loves and hates.
Here you sound like an atheist again. I don't believe God hates people, but
1) He certainly loves some people more than others
2) if He did hate some people, it would be our job to say "Yes Lord, amen!" Which you seem unwilling to do. Such reverent talk, such an irreverent attitude!
BC,
I missed these comments. Sorry.
Perhaps you would like to suggest that Christ inherited Adam's "sin nature?"
Why would that follow? Christ was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, remember?
What good would a sinner do us on the cross?
nothing! Would you please stop repeating that? nobody here believes that, so you're wasting everyone's time.
Was sin incarnate offered as a sin-offering at Calvary?
God incarnate was offered as a sin offering at Calvary, as the substitute for sinners. This is at least the 3rd time we've said this.
Rom 5:18
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
What are you trying to say?
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology, I know that you think that Romans 5 supports your view of original sin, but I have to ask you, Are you a biblical exegete? Do you read Greek? What commentators, ancient and contemporary, have you read? What books on the history of the doctrine of original sin have you read?
I do not ask to be either rude or cute. I spent several month last year wading through Romans. I do not read Greek, so I was restricted to English translations, which also means that authentic exegesis of Paul is impossible for me, as it is for anyone who cannot read Paul in his original language. As I read through Paul's epistle, I also read several commentators: Cranfield (Reformed), Fitzmyer (Catholic), Wright (evangelical Anglican), Dunn (evangelical?), Achtemeier (Presbyterian), and Byrne (Catholic). These are some of the best Romans commentaries available. I also have Kasemann's commentary, but I find him impenetrable.
I have to admit that the project exhausted and confused me. I tried to approach the text with the question "What did Paul mean?" but I'm not sure if I was any clearer after I completed my project than before. What I do know is that historical exegetes disagree a heck of a lot, and I lack the competence to judge between them, though of course I have my opinions. But that's all I have--opinions. I am not an expert, and so I must rely on experts, yet even the experts disagree.
I tried to blog as I read through Romans, chapter by chapter, but I found the writing too much for me, probably because the project was just too much for me. And so I stopped blogging on Romans at chapter 3.
I will say this: just about all the commentators I read agree that Augustine's or Aquinas's or Trent's or Luther's or Calvin's views on original sin are not to be explicitly found in Paul. Indeed, it may even be problematic to speak of Paul having a "doctrine" of original sin at all. He most certainly does not have a doctrine of inherited guilt. This does not mean that later doctrinal developments are wrong, but it does mean that we must be cautious about identifying our views with Paul's. Paul is Paul.
Since both of us are non-experts, what does it mean for us to "debate" the meaning of a given biblical text? Is it simply a matter of pitting our favorite experts against each other? What does that accomplish? Or as Theo-Geek recently wrote: "There is no reason why one randomly picked expert should be better than another."
So if you are really interested in knowing what Paul means in Romans 5 when he talks about Adam and Christ, then I suggest that you take off your Calvinist spectacles, sit down with a bunch of commentaries, including several that do not belong to your confessional tradition, and just immerse yourself in Romans. And then let me know what you discover. I would be surprised if you do not have more questions afterwards than you do now.
[not sarcastic, please understand]
I'm glad to hear you did that, and I'll bet it was really cool.
It troubles me that you suggest, in the face of my asking some (I think) cogent questions about a 10-verse section of Romans 5, that I go get a bunch of commentaries and then come back.
No, I don't read Gk.
No, I'm not seminary trained.
But no, I don't think that this is necessarily one of those questions that can't be worked thru just by carefully working thru the text.
I've not based more than one point (if one at all) on the questionably-translated Gk expression you mentioned in your blogpost on OS. I've just asked some questions that, yes, I confess, I hope will make those who don't hold to OS here uncomfortable.
So, that's a fine suggestion, but it comes off as an abandoning of the thread. That's fine; it's just a thread. But it does say *sthg*; you're a priest!
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology,
I've just asked some questions that, yes, I confess, I hope will make those who don't hold to OS here uncomfortable.
Who doesn't believe in OS here?
Or do you mean your definition thereof?
The questions you repeatedly ignored had to do with with whether you thought Catholics were idiots (as per the your charge of illogical "flow" regarding the IC), have reprobate minds (that "cannot understand the things of God") or both. If so... would it be reasonable for you to try to reason with them?
I asked this (or something very like it) over and over and over again and you never answered it, then later made reference questions I asked that were either not clearly questions or "irrelevant." Fine. These are most certainly pertinent questions for a Reformed person discussing these matters (doctrinal/spiritual) with Catholic, but... I can't make you answer them.
I also don't have to answer you either, I guess, but... it's the medication. ;)
I enjoy your insults!! :)
Maybe that how the elect are supposed to treat the unregenerate (and possibly reprobate)?? ;)
Why would that follow? Christ was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, remember?
It flowed logically from SS's syllogism about babies and death from sin, remember?
I will help you...
SS said:
1. According to Rom. 5:12, anyone who dies, dies if and only if (inferred from the "all") they sinned. [Sin<-->Death]
2. Infants die. [Death]
3. Therefore, infants sinned. [C: Sin]
I responded:
1. According to Rom. 5:12, anyone who dies, dies if and only if (inferred from the "all") they sinned. [Sin<-->Death]
2. Christ died. [Death]
3. Therefore, Christ sinned. [C: Sin]
Now don't fault me for following the logic someone else laid out! That's just not fair!! :)
Ok so Jesus was not not "sin incarnate" on the cross, but, rather a spotless sin-offering that was judged guilty by God and crushed (re:killed, because He did die) to exact the payment of the debt of the sins of the elect?
We owed a "sin debt" of some manner to God? And Jesus paid it for us?
God sees the elect in their heavenly state at the cross... and sees Christ in His guilty of all sin state... the elect are judged righteous (but only legally, not ontologically until the eschaton) and sees Christ as legally guilty, but not actually guilty. Ok...
I don't see what you charge me with desperation when I cited Proverbs 17:15 when it seems to speak to this type of scenario...
Maybe you exclude on the cross from being an abomination (even though it seems to fit), but I don't know if I like that answer...
You see... if things about God's character are true only sometimes... why trust Him at all? He could make promises and not keep them. He could even promise not to not keep promises be a liar there too... Why trust such a being at all?
As far as Romans 5:18 goes...
Who is condemned? Why?
Who is "justified" (check the Greek there). Why?
I hope you are well... as for me... I am still flying high on my meds and look like a chipmunk.
BC
BC,
OK, look, apparently our styles of communication clash and frustrate the other.
I therefore thank you for repeating the question that you thought I was evading.
I honestly didn't think it worth responding to, and still don't. But b/c you keep prodding me about it, I'll answer.
had to do with with whether you thought Catholics were idiots (as per the your charge of illogical "flow" regarding the IC), have reprobate minds (that "cannot understand the things of God") or both. If so... would it be reasonable for you to try to reason with them?
1) Whether "Roman Catholics" are idiots is a dumb question. Some are, some are not, some are really really smart; the same is true for any group of people. This should be as obvious as can be.
2) Yes, I believe that convinced and educated RCs in general do have reprobate minds, being unregenerate, lacking the Gospel that saves.
3) Whether uneducated/traditional RCs in an RC country who don't know much about theology but do know that Jesus loves them and saves them is impossible to say. Very possible some of them have saving faith.
4) This is spoken to in part here and here.
5) I try to persuad you b/c the Bible teaches me to do so. Perhaps God will be merciful to you and use my words as a means to convict and illumine you.
Or do you mean your definition thereof?
Yes, I meant that, I was too clumsy with that. Was in a hurry.
It flowed logically from SS's syllogism about babies and death from sin, remember?
It doesn't make any sense, though.
Christ died *for a particular reason* b/c He delivered Himself up according to the eternal plan of God as a substitute, a sin offering, for sinners.
We owed a "sin debt" of some manner to God?
Yes, see Colossians 3:13-15.
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
the elect are judged righteous (but only legally, not ontologically until the eschaton) and sees Christ as legally guilty, but not actually guilty.
Yes, you're right so far.
I don't see what you charge me with desperation when I cited Proverbs 17:15 when it seems to speak to this type of scenario...
Because it's PROVERBS. The entire book is moral guidance, rules of thumb. Might as well seek liturgical statements of joy and thanksgiving in 1 Chronicles 1-12.
if things about God's character are true only sometimes... why trust Him at all?
What about what we've presented here makes God's character untrustworthy?
He could make promises and not keep them
What promises does our view make God break?
Who is condemned? Why?
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
-All men are condemned.
-B/c of the one trespass of Adam.
Who is "justified" (check the Greek there). Why?
-It is available to all men.
-B/c of Christ's obedience and sacrifice.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology,
Yes... our styles of communication frustrate one another.
I appreciate you taking the time (finally) to take a crack at my oft-asked questions! :)
1)Whether "Roman Catholics" are idiots is a dumb question. Some are, some are not, some are really really smart; the same is true for any group of people. This should be as obvious as can be."
It wasn't obvious to me because you were accusing Catholics of making terrible errors of simple logic that only idiots would make. That's the only reason I brought it up repeatedly.
2)Yes, I believe that convinced and educated RCs in general do have reprobate minds, being unregenerate, lacking the Gospel that saves.
Do you mean unregenerate minds? "Reprobate" bring visions of people who were always destined to glorify God by living lives of disobedience and ignore God's call to repentance (because He never gifted them with the grace they would need to repent in the first place) so He could "justly" punish in hell for eternity for living the lives He planned for them to live.
There would be no point in sharing the Gospel with someone who was a "reprobate," not in the sense I mean it anyway.
3) Whether uneducated/traditional RCs in an RC country who don't know much about theology but do know that Jesus loves them and saves them is impossible to say. Very possible some of them have saving faith.
I am not sure I get you here (maybe my ignorance and lack of reading comprehension means there is hope for me yet!!), but it's seems as you you are saying that dumb Catholics have the possibility of being saved, or that traditionally Catholics are dumb and therefore "traditional" Catholics have a possibility of being saved. ;)
5)I try to persuade you b/c the Bible teaches me to do so. Perhaps God will be merciful to you and use my words as a means to convict and illumine you.
He just might have made me dumb enough? ;) I am kidding, but what you have said could be taken that way.
I have no doubts at all about your sincerity.
To the rest of your post...
I am not convinced that the passage you quoted says the sin debt was owed to God... I can see how one might understand it that way though.
Because it's PROVERBS. The entire book is moral guidance, rules of thumb.
My whole point was about the MORALITY of condemning a righteous man and justifying a wicked one.
It still seems to me that if you are right about the penal substitution that God did EXACTLY with Jesus and the elect what He called an "abomination" in Proverbs.
What about what we've presented here makes God's character untrustworthy?
If God violates His own moral "rules of thumb" in one place... How could you trust Him not to in another?
Answer this question (irrespective of the Proverbs thing for the moment)...
Could you trust God if He was shown to have violated His own moral standards? Yes or no.
-All men are condemned.
-B/c of the one trespass of Adam.
Ok...
-It is available to all men.
-B/c of Christ's obedience and sacrifice.
Interesting that the passage doesn't seem to convey that.
Why isn't condemnation only "available" to all men in Christ?
Look at it again:
"ara oun hos dia paraptoma heis eis pas anthropos eis katakrima kai houto dia dikaioma heis eis pas anthropos eis dikaiosis zoe."
Can you tell me if what "pas anthropos" means each time those words are used in this passage?
I see nothing about "availability" of anything here... you seem to think that it's saying condemnation for all and justification being available to some.
That's not what the passages SAYS.
You made a huge deal about the definition of "works" *changing* when I tried to offer an explanation of Ephesians 2:8,9... You kept harping on THAT VERY passage about "where does THIS PASSAGE TEACH" etc...
Where does *this passage* teach *anything at all* about condemnation being for "pas anthropos" and justification being available to "pas anthropos?"
As far as SS's syllogism goes you have not shown me to have made a logical error...
It doesn't make any sense, though. Christ died *for a particular reason* b/c He delivered Himself up according to the eternal plan of God as a substitute, a sin offering, for sinners.
Read the syllogism again, Rhology.
It is MORE THAN CLEAR that SS's syllogism "proves" that death is a result of one's sinning. That someone dies if and only if they sinned.
Your bringing up Christ in this way "makes no sense" as the "reason" for death (according to SS's syllogism) is one's sin.
Read it again and show me where my error in logic is (based on SS's original syllogism).
As far as OS and the Atonement go... I don't have a theory that makes sense of EVERY SINGLE scripture reference and metaphor that is used in Scripture on the subject. I don't think anyone does, but I do know when I think some metaphors are being pressed to far to the (almost) exclusion of the others.
I am not super convinced that any of the major theories of the Atonement satisfy my mind, but I find the one that most of the Reformed ascribe to sickening, morally repugnant.
BC
"How, based on the text and context, do you know which is which?"
Based on the overall context of Scripture. Calvinists always want to isolate texts from the rest of Scripture and make them contradict the rest of Scripture. It's the only way that Calvinism can be accepted.
EgoMak,
Go ahead then and let us all know which are which. And tell us how you justify each. Thanks.
"Go ahead then and let us all know which are which. And tell us how you justify each. Thanks."
Stay tuned for another exciting episode of...
(Dah-da-DAHHHHHH)
Sola Scriptura Rides Again!
CAST:
The Lone Preacher .......Egomakarios
Judge Leroy Classact ....Rhology
Misunderstood Patsy .....Holly Bibble
Also featuring:
Anonymous windbag as the narrator (Hey now!)
Clever.
Don't forget the role that was never written b/c the actor never showed up:
The Correct Infallible Interpretation....played by NOBODY
'Course, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Just produce
1) the infallible RCC interpretation
2) how you know that it's infallible
3) how you know that the way you know it's infallible is infallible.
I'm laying 100-to-1 odds that the character won't even make a cameo.
Rhology,
I have to admit your last post was humorous!! :)
Don't forget the role that was never written b/c the actor never showed up: The Correct Infallible Interpretation....played by NOBODY
LOL!
It's funny that I could say that you seem to proudly play the part of the Correct Fallible Interpretation almost everyday!
In all seriousness... you see what I am getting at, right?
I hope to hear from you on my last comment soon, as you still need to address syllogisms and some exegesis.
BC
Well, I know what you're getting at, yes, and I thought your comment was funny too. :-) On that much we can agree!
The thing is, as we've expressed around here before, the RC has nothing better to offer, but many RCs like to act like they do.
Anyway, yes, I'll deal with your comment, but I'm not sure if it'll be before Monday. Hope you're feeling better by then and your cheeks are back to normal size.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology,
I am still not convinced that the Catholics commenting here are not breaking from historical Catholic beliefs on original sin.
Note what Trent says:
"1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
BTW, I did some research a month or two ago on Augustine's views on infant baptism and his influence on the Church but haven't had time to write it up. Hopefully I can get back to it soon since it fits in nicely with the discussion here.
Hey BC,
you were accusing Catholics of making terrible errors of simple logic that only idiots would make.
Idiots and those of reprobate mind often make the same type of logical error, especially on questions directly applicable to the biblical worldview.
"Reprobate" bring visions of people who were always destined to glorify God by living lives of disobedience
I use the terms interchangeably at this point b/c that convo doesn't interest me.
you are saying that dumb Catholics have the possibility of being saved
"Dumb" is your word, not mine.
Since RC doctrine is a false Gospel but shares the same holy text, an RC (by name) who is ignorant of many of the worst doctrines of the RCC but instead cleaves close to what the Bible says could be saved.
The closer one gets to RC doctrine, the farther from salvation.
I am not convinced that the passage you quoted says the sin debt was owed to God
Romans 5:10 - 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
Why do we need to be reconciled TO GOD?
Why so many biblical references to our being saved from the wrath of God?
My whole point was about the MORALITY of condemning a righteous man and justifying a wicked one.
Fine. It doesn't speak to the Atonement of Christ either way.
Christ offered HIMSELF as a sacrifice for sinners.
So, the wicked were condemned IN CHRIST'S BODY, in HIS SACRIFICE.
Proverbs is offering guidance to human rulers, but Christ is God Himself, offering Himself in love to justify His enemies and bring them into God's family.
If God violates His own moral "rules of thumb" in one place... How could you trust Him not to in another?
This is another example of terrible reasoning, and reasoning frequently performed by atheists.
God commands humans not to murder. Yet He commands the Israelites to destroy entire Canaanite communities. He Himself ends lives every day.
God commands humans not to steal. Yet He Himself deprives people of "their" possessions every day. There is a huge disconnect here, as should be obvious.
(I'm gonna see if you can figure this out before I spell it out.)
Could you trust God if He was shown to have violated His own moral standards? Yes or no.
The question is ridiculous - God's moral purity is foundational.
If Entity X were shown to have acted in an unholy manner, Entity X would not be the God of the Bible.
I asked you these questions above and you didn't even try to answer them:
What about what we've presented here makes God's character untrustworthy?
What promises does our view make God break?
Interesting that the passage doesn't seem to convey that.
...said he who hasn't even dealt with any of Romans 5 except his pet verse 18.
Why isn't condemnation only "available" to all men in Christ?
Condemnation thru Christ? that's not Rom 5, it's John 3 and 1 John.
Maybe you should rephrase your question.
Can you tell me if what "pas anthropos" means each time those words are used in this passage?
I don't read Greek, for starters. Obviously pas anthropos = all men.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
Not following you here. If 'availability' is not part of the idea here, then... what? Shall we become universalists in contradiction to numerous other psgs of Scr?
You made a huge deal about the definition of "works" *changing* when I tried to offer an explanation of Ephesians 2:8,9...
1) B/c you couldn't even begin to answer the question.
2) B/c I of course believe the rest of the Scr teaches the same thing.
3) B/c it's a fair grammatical point - why is the one "works" different from the other? Your response was basically, "I have no answer but Mother CHurch says it's not so it just COULDN'T be what you say!"
Where does *this passage* teach *anything at all* about condemnation being for "pas anthropos" and justification being available to "pas anthropos?"
Now you're changing the thrust of your question. All I can do is reprint the verse. Now I'm really puzzled.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
That someone dies if and only if they sinned.
Fine, and so all sinners die. All people die.
Except Christ died and the substitution will be applied to some people (the repentant).
You simply won't take the substitution into account. You're acting like our point is something else and not the substitution, and then, ignoring our central argument, you crow "Show me where I was wrong!"
I don't have a theory that makes sense of EVERY SINGLE scripture reference and metaphor that is used in Scripture on the subject
Bummer. I do, which is why I like being where I am.
You are, of course, invited over to the side that CAN make sense of them.
Why doesn't the fact that you can't account for what Scripture says bother you to a GREAT extent?
I don't think anyone does
I do.
I find the one that most of the Reformed ascribe to sickening, morally repugnant.
So you find the one that takes all of Scripture into account morally repugnant. OK.
1) You again act like an atheist.
2) If Scr teaches it, it's your responsibility to submit.
3) Where does the RCC Magisterium declare it as morally repugnant? Or is this just your private interp?
Peace,
Rhology
"The Correct Infallible Interpretation....played by NOBODY
...
I'm laying 100-to-1 odds that the character won't even make a cameo."
LOL! Rhology, you play that role just about every time you post. The thing is you play it ala Bart Simpson ("I didn't do it."). How much did you bet?
") Yes, I believe that convinced and educated RCs in general do have reprobate minds, being unregenerate, lacking the Gospel that saves."
Yuck! More of the same grek vomited up by Rhology.
Where is the mint-scented sawdust kept around here?
"So you find the one that takes all of Scripture into account morally repugnant. OK."
That isn't what he said, and you know it. More vomit from Rhology.
Um, yes it is what he said.
He said:
I find the one that most of the Reformed ascribe to sickening, morally repugnant.
"So you find the one that takes all of Scripture into account morally repugnant. OK."
Followed by
"That isn't what he said, and you know it. More vomit from Rhology.
Followed by:
Rhology said...
Um, yes it is what he said.
Followed by Rhoolgy quoting DA NOT saying he finds "the one that takes all of Scripture into account morally repugnant."
LOL!!!!
What planet are you visiting and can I get any of whatever you're breathing, please?
Rhology,
*sigh*
Idiots and those of reprobate mind often make the same type of logical error, especially on questions directly applicable to the biblical worldview.
But, of course, it's reasonable for you to converse with them about these things?
So far as I know the "reprobate" (according to my understanding of the brand of Reformed theology you are espousing) will never be saved, but...
What you will do is pretend I never made a distinction and treat me like an idiot with bad reading comprehension.
I use the terms interchangeably at this point b/c that convo doesn't interest me.
I can't even *begin* to imagine *why* that would be. ;)
Why do we need to be reconciled TO GOD? Why so many biblical references to our being saved from the wrath of God?
Wait a second, Rhology. I wasn't the one who quoted said passage as an example of where Scripture teaches we owe the sin debt to God.
Fine. It doesn't speak to the Atonement of Christ either way.
Did I say that it was speaking about the Atonement? No.
Check the Greek translation of that OT passage (LXX) and look at the Greek used. It's interesting to note the it applies so well with the metaphors you seem to like best when speaking of justification.
1)B/c you couldn't even begin to answer the question.
Flat out untrue. I gave you an answer you didn't like.
2) B/c I of course believe the rest of the Scr teaches the same thing.
What mainstream tradition doesn't believe that about their beliefs?
3) B/c it's a fair grammatical point - why is the one "works" different from the other? Your response was basically, "I have no answer but Mother CHurch says it's not so it just COULDN'T be what you say!"
Untrue. That was the response you forced upon me, and, I would imagine, on every other Catholic you have ever conversed with.
Now you're changing the thrust of your question. All I can do is reprint the verse. Now I'm really puzzled.
What change? I am just responding to your interpretation.
Fine, and so all sinners die. All people die. Except Christ died and the substitution will be applied to some people (the repentant).
Just admit the syllogism was bad, Rhology... is that so hard? It wasn't even your's to begin with. Can no Reformed person admit a mistake? Even if made by one of their co-religionists?
You simply won't take the substitution into account. You're acting like our point is something else and not the substitution, and then, ignoring our central argument, you crow "Show me where I was wrong!"
The syllogism doesn't take the substitution "into account" either... I can't believe you don't see that.
You seem to have defended the darned thing when I first disagreed with it.
Bummer. I do, which is why I like being where I am.
I disagree. I think you have one that plays some metaphors up and plays down the others. That's what *everyone else* does too. Can you not see that? All I am telling you that none of the satisfy me.
Why doesn't the fact that you can't account for what Scripture says bother you to a GREAT extent?
That's your estimation... I never said that.
I said that none of the major theories of the Atonement that are out there have satisfied me... nothing more.
So you find the one that takes all of Scripture into account morally repugnant. OK.
I didn't say that either. You sure do like to put words into people's mouths.
It is your assumption that you have all the answers, Rhology, not mine.
I am not sitting here going, "Rhology has all the answers... I just refuse to believe." Although I am sure that's what you "know" to be true.
1) You again act like an atheist.
Question the Reformed worldview and you are acting like an atheist. And the home crowd cheers as they see one of their favorite plays!!
2) If Scr teaches it, it's your responsibility to submit.
I can only submit if God wanted me to from eternity past. :)
3) Where does the RCC Magisterium declare it as morally repugnant? Or is this just your private interp?
Where did the Magisterium declare what specific thing morally repugnant, Rhology?
As far as your private interpretation bit... another cheer from the home crowd for another favorite play!! And you call my arguments "ridiculous."
I still have a problem with the Proverbs passage and the morality it teaches when looking at the Reformed doctrine of justification, but...
Your position is that the morality outlined in the Bible only applies to humans. I don't like it, but ok...
Some questions...
How do you know that YOU are "saved?" One of the elect.
Could you be wrong? Could God let you think you are saved only to destroy you to bring "glory" to Himself in the end?
If He could... from what I can tell about your understanding (that everything that God does is by definition "good") it would be "good." Do you agree?
BC
p.s.
I am getting sick of having my intelligence insulted, but maybe it's ok for the "elect" to berate the "reprobate" since their God does it too.
Idiots and those of reprobate mind often make the same type of logical error, especially on questions directly applicable to the biblical worldview.
Rhology just equated Catholics with idiots and reprobates; need any Catholic even converse with such folks who act like they're God's Gift to the World while condescendingly persecute those they incessantly look down as merely Romish reprobates?
End of story.
Hi there,
Anonymous blithered:
Rhology just equated Catholics with idiots and reprobates
I said:
Idiots and those of reprobate mind often make the same type of logical error
Looks like I'm equating the ERRORS, not the PERSONS.
If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you. Thankfully, you're just an anonymous poster posting a ridiculous cheap shot.
BC said:
But, of course, it's reasonable for you to converse with them about these things?
Yes, and I already explained why.
the "reprobate" (according to my understanding of the brand of Reformed theology you are espousing) will never be saved
And again, I already explained that I use the terms interchangeably, but you seem not to have taken that into account. Why not?
I am getting sick of having my intelligence insulted
1) Making the many mistakes you've made in this comment doesn't help.
2) I don't see where I've insulted your intelligence. Your arguments, yes, but not your intelligence.
3) And you're the one who keeps insisting that I should somehow stop talking to you just b/c you're of unregenerate mind. To me it just seems like a smokescreen to take up space while you DON'T interact with Romans 5.
I wasn't the one who quoted said passage as an example of where Scripture teaches we owe the sin debt to God.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Just answer the questions.
And while you're at it, please explain to whom, then, the "certificate of debt that stood against us with its legal demands" is owed. If it's of LEGAL demands, whose law was violated? Why would GOD forgive us our trespasses absent some kind of debt? Why would He have anything to do with it?
The syllogism doesn't take the substitution "into account" either
It sets up the substitutionary atonement. I don't think anyone was claiming it was the central argument for the SA.
I said that none of the major theories of the Atonement that are out there have satisfied me... nothing more.
Why not the Roman Catholic one? Are you or are you not a faithful Roman Catholic? If so, how can you in good conscience say that the Roman dogma does not "satisfy" you?
Question the Reformed worldview and you are acting like an atheist.
No, act like you have a better idea than God and you are.
**IF** I am espousing the biblical POV on this topic (which you have barely yet even to START proving otherwise) and *IF* you say this view is morally repugnant (which you do), I don't see how what I said is wrong.
I can only submit if God wanted me to from eternity past
Even the most Reformed of the posters/commenters here would not say that this excuses you from responsibility.
Where did the Magisterium declare what specific thing morally repugnant, Rhology?
The Reformed view of the Atonement, the one you find morally repugnant.
Is this a Magisterial thing supported by the RCC or is this just your private interpretation?
Your position is that the morality outlined in the Bible only applies to humans. I don't like it, but ok...
You think that somehow most of the moral law applies to *GOD*? Interesting.
Some questions...
...that are completely off topic. I don't have time for these right now. How about you deal with the arguments on the table.
And I note once again, you have barely even begun to scratch the surface of Romans 5.
Be fair - I went back and answered the questions you were bugging me to answer. Your turn.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology,
I am beginning to think that your tactic is to obfuscate and bully your way to an annoying type of control of a "dialog" (which is really more like a form of interrogation in your case) until the person (read: "reprobated" Romanists who make the same kinds of mistakes as idiots) with whom you are having the "dialog" (read: interrogation)get sick of this tactic and choose to opt out of the dialog (read: interrogation). When this happens you claim victory and show, once again, how the Word of God (read: a Reformed manner of read Scripture specific to you) has triumphed again, that the SS Romanist Tradition has (once again) broken against the rock of Scripture and sunk.
It really is annoying...
Yes, and I already explained why.
Yes, but it wasn't reasonable.
And again, I already explained that I use the terms interchangeably, but you seem not to have taken that into account. Why not?
You already explained your "private interpretation" of how you us the terms interchangeably.
[Yes, that is a ridiculous argument for me to use... just as it is a ridiculous argument for you do use.]
By the way, I mentioned why above, but you didn't seem to take that into account.
1) Making the many mistakes you've made in this comment doesn't help.
Which mistakes specifically?
In your last post you seem to have claimed that I switched emphasis on the Romans 5:18 point. I did no such thing, sir. It makes me think that you are reading my posts very carefully.
2) I don't see where I've insulted your intelligence. Your arguments, yes, but not your intelligence.
I guess you are being serious with this, but... it really is hard to believe.
You have mentioned my poor reading comprehension (more than once) during your interrogations, and have equated the errors of idiots and the errors of the reprobate... which, to me at least, seems to equate the cognitive processes behind the common errors you say you see between the two.
You interrogate people for answers who you think are reprobates (people who make the same reasoning errors as idiots)... all the while "knowing" that they can't have valid opinions on theology because they are not the Pope, and you call that reasonable... Do you not realize that this comes off as illogical and disingenuous?
3) And you're the one who keeps insisting that I should somehow stop talking to you just b/c you're of unregenerate mind.
Untrue. I have never insisted any such thing. I have been questioning how reasonable it is to "dialog" with people like me given what you yourself have said. You can see that those are two different things, right?
To me it just seems like a smokescreen to take up space while you DON'T interact with Romans 5.
Because I am just another Romanist who is scared to death of the Scriptures because I don't (because I have never read them) and can't (because I have a "reprobate" mind) understand the things of God, and I have no right to even read the things because Mama Roma has told me that I can't. I am a sheep, just not His sheep. I get it...
Yes, I'm aware of that. Just answer the questions. And while you're at it, please explain to whom, then, the "certificate of debt that stood against us with its legal demands" is owed.
I am not, nor have I ever, denied that there are certain metaphors in Scripture that lend themselves to the understanding that you have (though I am not sure they could reasonably be taken as far as you seem to have taken them), but... that being said there are other metaphors in Scripture about how the Atonement worked, what it was that Christ actually did.
I realize you don't care what the Early Fathers taught about much of anything, but I do.
If Christian doctrine is not part of an historical religion, it's a sham faith. History is integral to Christianity.
Why not the Roman Catholic one? Are you or are you not a faithful Roman Catholic?
Which is the "Roman" Catholic one, Rhology? Are you sure you understand it?
If so, how can you in good conscience say that the Roman dogma does not "satisfy" you?
There are elements to the Atonement that I must accept as a Catholic, yes... Which ones are they? Is there a particular Atonement theory that is Catholic dogma (to the exclusion of elements of other Atonement theories)? Do you know anything about these things?
No, act like you have a better idea than God and you are.
Continually conflating your interpretation of the Scriptures and what God "says" and thinks... *sigh*
I don't see how what I said is wrong.
I know... that's the sad part.
Even the most Reformed of the posters/commenters here would not say that this excuses you from responsibility.
Yeah, they just don't explain how that is logically possible. :)
It always brings joy to my cold, blackened, and reprobate "Roman" heart to see the Reformed point to "mystery" when they so often chastise "Romans" for it. :)
The Reformed view of the Atonement, the one you find morally repugnant. Is this a Magisterial thing supported by the RCC or is this just your private interpretation?
You are an expert in the Catholic teaching on private judgment (never you mind good argumentation)... that much anyone can see.
You think that somehow most of the moral law applies to *GOD*? Interesting.
Does God's moral law flow from His morality? Is God moral?
...that are completely off topic. I don't have time for these right now. How about you deal with the arguments on the table.
Yes, officer Rhology, you are in complete control of the interrogation.
Ask me a specific question in the next post about Romans 5.
BC
Hi BC,
Most of your post is bluster and worthless rhetoric.
I'm going to ask you one more time to start dealing with Romans 5 and then I'm going to start ignoring you. I don't have infinite time.
Yes, but it wasn't reasonable.
You never said how. How?
You already explained your "private interpretation" of how you us the terms interchangeably...[Yes, that is a ridiculous argument for me to use... just as it is a ridiculous argument for you do use.]
1) Good deal, we agree. It is a 100% silly argument.
2) But it's a stock argument from RC epologists. And I should think you have an obligation to show how your view is not a private interpretation but actually does match Magisterial dogma. Can you? If not, why not?
3) Given that we apparently agree that there's no infallible interpreter to bail us out of a question infallibly, we need to present arguments to figure out which position is right.
I guess you are being serious with this, but... it really is hard to believe.
OK.
You have mentioned my poor reading comprehension (more than once) during your interrogations
Those were b/c you were displaying poor reading comprehension. Had nothing to do with whether your mind is unregenerate or not.
seems to equate the cognitive processes behind the common errors you say you see between the two.
And what else did I say?
"When applicable to biblical questions". That is the fundamental qualifier.
You interrogate people
Talk about hyperbole!
This is a blog, BC. You're anonymous. This is not the end of the world. You don't have to be here, but you apparently think it's worth your time. I believe it is, for now. Given that, let's just focus on the arguments.
I have to be a little more aggressive when people hem and haw around questions fundamental to the conversation at hand.
I realize you don't care what the Early Fathers taught about much of anything, but I do.
1) I care a great deal, but they are not the final authority to which anyone must appeal.
2) Your gratuitous mention of the "Early Fathers" without any call to do so is a bit strange. You're just grasping at anythg with which you can discredit me, it appears.
Which is the "Roman" Catholic one, Rhology? Are you sure you understand it?...Is there a particular Atonement theory that is Catholic dogma (to the exclusion of elements of other Atonement theories)?
Instead of playing rhetorical games, step up to the plate, answer the questions, and then justify them.
Does God's moral law flow from His morality? Is God moral?
Are you really unfamiliar with the conventional answer to the Euthyphro dilemma?
It's funny you mention this. I'm in a conversation with an atheist at this very moment who brought up the *exact same* question. Case in point.
Ask me a specific question in the next post about Romans 5.
I already did so, and the comment was, incredibly, directed at you *specifically*.
This is your last chance before I bail out of this convo. I invite your input but I'm not going to wait forever for it.
Peace,
Rhology
"Most of your post is bluster and worthless rhetoric."
Pot calls the snowbank "black." Film at 11.
I said:
Idiots and those of reprobate mind often make the same type of logical error
Looks like I'm equating the ERRORS, not the PERSONS.
If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you. Thankfully, you're just an anonymous poster posting a ridiculous cheap shot.
Really?
That's not what the subject comments reveal.
Investigating the subject dialogue in its entirety would reveal that your reply (as well as that of the other anon who witlessly applauds your side without even a careful examination of the facts) wreaks of the same anti-Catholic slant that has been the case since the time of the Reformation.
Let not the Freudian slips in your comments betray your true self but, rather, admit your 'anti-Romanism' along with your witless Anon friend, and declare your hate of Rome and all that subscribe to its 'heresies' and 'false doctrines'.
However, if you would truly like to engage in a genuine discussion of the facts; I would first have you read about what the Teachings of the Catholic Church are actually about.
Yet, if you would rather behave in the same unintelligible manner as your Anon friend; then, by all means, act the part of the lemming and parrot the same anti-Catholic rants.
It just corroborates the fact that prejudiced folks as yourselves are very incapable of intelligent dialog.
I said:
Idiots and those of reprobate mind often make the same type of logical error
Looks like I'm equating the ERRORS, not the PERSONS.
If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you. Thankfully, you're just an anonymous poster posting a ridiculous cheap shot.
Really?
That's not what the subject comments reveal.
Investigating the subject dialogue in its entirety would reveal that your reply (as well as that of the other anon who witlessly applauds your side without even a careful examination of the facts) wreaks of the same anti-Catholic slant that has been the case since the time of the Reformation.
Let not the Freudian slips in your comments betray your true self but, rather, admit your 'anti-Romanism' along with your witless Anon friend, and declare your hate of Rome and all that subscribe to its 'heresies' and 'false doctrines'.
However, if you would truly like to engage in a genuine discussion of the facts; I would first have you read about what the Teachings of the Catholic Church are actually about.
Yet, if you would rather behave in the same unintelligible manner as your Anon friend; then, by all means, act the part of the lemming and parrot the same anti-Catholic rants.
It just corroborates the fact that prejudiced folks as yourselves are very incapable of intelligent dialog.
I think this might be of some use to Carrie:
This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
"404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."
Post a Comment