Children are sinful

[Gailmegan]

Moira - you have raised some good questions.

 

The problem of evil and how it originated and what role God plays (free-will vs predestination, etc.) are things that even the most brilliant Christian scholars disagree on. As finite beings, who are limited in understanding, most of us (regardless of our faith) realize that there are many things in the world (besides religion) that we will never completely understand. Most Christians trust that God is good and far wiser than we are, and that one day (if we even still care) we will understand the hows and whys when it comes to the existence of evil.

 

As for the issue of the Bible's innerancy, most believers trust that God was sovereign in the transmission of the original autograph, but are willing to admit that scribes made some errors when copying. I even had a class in seminary where we looked at textual variants and based on many criteria determines which variant was most likely the original. Fortunately the vast majority of these scribal errors have no significant impact on the meaning of the text, so God did maintain the integrity of the message of the Bible.

[CAMom]

(and the 14 year old weighs in on the thread)

 

The bible is in itself a parable to teach people the morals of how to live their lives; so it doesn't matter how it is said, or by whom, as long as the morals get across...

 

It doesn't matter if Jesus was the actual son of God -- he could have been just a great guy -- it was what he was teaching -- because it is generally not a good idea to steal, it is generally not a good idea to commit adultery...

 

 

(from the mouths of babes, typed by mom)

 

Just wanted to say that Jesus couldn't have "been just a great guy." He claimed Himself to be the very Son of God.

 

So, he was either being truthful with that (and, thus, it does matter), He was a liar (which would disqualify him from being a great guy), or He was a nut (anyone who would claim to be God and actually wasn't would be considered crazy.

 

So, He either is who He claimed to be or He's not and should be discounted entirely.

[Jugglin'5]

 

I know that most Christians would not say their religion was dualistic like Manichaeism, so I don't get the Satan vs God thing as absolving God of responsibility. As I understand it, Satan is also part of God's creation. So if God is in control of all things, then God must be in control of this too? Allowing of course that being hands-off wouldn't mean that God wasn't in control, just choosing not to exercise power (but knowing the precise outcome because of omniscience). I just don't understand how, if God has all the power (which he does by definition), he doesn't also have all the sin.

 

 

I will just quote a piece of the Westminster Confession to give my answer:

 

3.1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

 

 

I freely admit that I have no idea how he makes that work. I also don't understand how an atom's nucleus holds together. But it does. Perhaps we will understand that one day. But there will always be something beyond our understanding because we are finite.

 

 

 

Epicurus' problem of evil is stated thus:

 

"Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

 

But why does evil/sin bother you? From your perspective, is there really such a thing? Who was more evil: Stalin, Hitler, or Torquemada? Why? I suspect you are not being serious anyway, and that this is a "gotcha" question straight from the handbook; but if I am wrong I will gladly reply again.

[Greta]

Thank you for your kind words, Erica. I have enjoyed conversations with you in the past, and I am enjoying this one too. You explain your perspective very well! So I hope it's clear that I'm not "arguing for the sake of arguing" here, and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I am "arguing" for the sake of understanding better, and simply because I enjoy these kinds of discussions. I think it's very important for people of different religions to be able to have these discussions -- not to "convert" anyone, but just to better understand, and through that understanding, to develop mutual respect.

 

However, if the Bible is not the true Word of God, then I don't think it makes any difference what *it says* that Jesus said or did. If it's accurate and true when it tells us about Jesus, then it's equally so when it conveys truth about Adam and Eve, Israel's flight from Egypt, Jonah, Daniel in the Lion's den, Paul's teaching on sexual morality, the doctrine in Romans, etc. If you reject any or all of those things as truth, then the parts of Jesus are in question also.

 

Hmm, I don't know. To me this seems a bit like throwing out the baby with the bath water. I don't have faith that the Bible's authorship was directed or inspired by God, but does that mean I have to disregard it entirely? Is there nothing of worth in it unless one already has that faith? To me, it is simply the work of people. And as such, there are parts of it that are good and wise and true (the Sermon on the Mount comes to mind), parts of it that are allegorical (the creation story), parts of it that are simply the historical records of a people (the "begats") and parts of it that really should, and I'm sorry that this probably will offend some, be discarded/ignored (the scriptures in Deuteronomy which advocate taking a rebellious child or a wife who didn't bleed on her wedding night to the edge of town and throwing stones at them until they are dead. When I read things like that, I most definitely do NOT come away thinking "inspired by God" but more like "the obvious human failings of ordinary people who are making a false claim that what they want is what God wants".)

 

But my point is.... if Jesus is just a character in a great myth *i.e. a story that did not actually happen but was created to convey a truth,* what difference does it make what the myth says he said or did?

 

For me, this is about the difference between spiritual or metaphysical truth, and literal or factual truth. I don't have to believe something is literally true in order to believe that it conveys a spiritual truth. This is not just something I feel about the Bible in particular, but about any and all religions' stories. I consider myself Buddhist. There is a story in Buddhism about Siddhartha Gautama (who later became the Buddha) being born painlessly from his mother's side rather than the usual way. I do not believe this story is literally, factually true (though other Buddhists probably do, I'm only speaking for myself here), but I believe it conveys a truth: that it was known even at his birth that he was destined to be someone different from any who had come before, someone who would change the world. I feel the same way about the story of Jesus being born of a virgin. I do not believe that to be literally true, I believe it's telling us, hey pay attention, this is someone amazing who is going to change the world.

 

I might as well say that I'm only interested in the teachings of Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, not Frodo or Sam or Sauron because he also has a better, higher character than most of the others in those books. But if he's not real, just like all the others, and just a character in a story, who really cares what he says or does in that story? Then it's really just the values of the writer who created him that are coming through, not anything spiritual or supernatural.

 

But if that writer is spiritually aware, and is tapped in to the supernatural, then even a purely fictional story can convey spiritual truth (imo, obviously). Even a fictional story which is grounded in spiritual truth can give us insights which are valuable beyond measure. (For the record, I do believe both the Buddha and Jesus to be real people who actually lived and walked the earth, not just fictional characters. So I'm not trying to equate the two.)

 

On the other hand if the Bible is more than a myth, then it is truth and is binding on our lives, whether it be about Jesus or any of the other teachings that are contained in the Bible. So if Jesus didn't mention a particular concept, that doesn't make it any more biblical, or any more true or trustworthy, because it is contained in God's Word, which is all inspired, all reliable and true.

 

I think I am going to have a hard time explaining my feelings about this without coming across as judgmental or offensive. Please bear with me, I am honestly trying. But this notion, which seems to be almost entirely accepted in modern Christianity, that one has to accept the truth of the entire Bible in order to be Christian, is one of the things that prevented me from turning to Christianity when I was "all done" with my angry atheist phase. I know evolution is a fact the same way I know gravity and atoms are facts, so I cannot accept Genesis as literal truth. I know that treating others with kindness is a moral imperative and that God, if any such being exists, is a being of pure and perfect love, so I cannot accept that God actually told his people to slaughter other nations, and even kill each other when they weren't behaving correctly. I absolutely cannot accept these things, so if I am told that I have to accept them in order to be Christian, I simply cannot be Christian.

 

But it seems strange to me, because I just don't understand why I should have to accept these things in order to accept Christ. Could a person not accept Christ as their savior, while still believing that the Bible is an imperfect and/or incomplete work created by fallible men? That it contains many spiritual truths, but also contains some errors and some omissions because it was written by imperfect people with limited knowledge? To me, this notion that the Bible is absolutely perfect and absolutely true and absolutely complete is making it into an idol. And it's ironic because idolatry is one of the things that the Bible condemns!

 

I really appreciate you trying to help me understand this Erica. And I certainly invite you to continue if you feel so inclined. But at this point you may view me as a "hopeless case" and wish to be done with this conversation. :001_smile: I have no problem with that. I don't think I'll ever really be able to fully wrap my brain around the idea that one has to accept the Bible in it's entirety in order to be Christian, so you will probably end up very frustrated trying to explain it to me.

 

Lastly, I'm sorry to the OP for taking this off on such a tangent. I would be happy to start a new thread if it's inappropriate to continue this discussion here.

[nmoira]

I suspect you are not being serious anyway' date=' and that this is a "gotcha" question straight from the handbook; but if I am wrong I will gladly reply again.[/quote']I don't have time to respond to the rest right now as I am soon going out for the day, but I choose to take other posters at face value unless evidence leads me to believe that this is not the case. You of course, are free to make different assumptions. I'm not so naive as to believe that centuries of theological thought can be adequately discussed on a discussion board in such a way as to "prove" anything.

 

Oh, and I must have missed getting "the handbook." :001_huh: Do they sell it at Amazon?

[Greta]

Carmen, thanks so much for pointing out those scriptures. I appreciate your help!

[Lovedtodeath]

You are welcome, and I appreciate your reply to me. :)

[Greta]

Just wanted to say that Jesus couldn't have "been just a great guy." He claimed Himself to be the very Son of God.

 

But some believe that we are all, every one of us, Sons and Daughters of God. :001_smile:

[mommaduck]

But some believe that we are all, every one of us, Sons and Daughters of God. :001_smile:

He did not claim to just be the Son of God, but claimed to be God as well. This is why he was tried for heresy.

[Greta]

He did not claim to just be the Son of God, but claimed to be God as well. This is why he was tried for heresy.

 

Well, I personally do not believe the Trinity Doctrine is Biblical, or is anything that Jesus actually taught or believed. But I also realize that these days, that is considered heresy. :) And since I've already taken the thread on one big tangent, I think I probably should not go there.

[Lovedtodeath]

He did not claim to just be the Son of God, but claimed to be God as well. This is why he was tried for heresy.

 

Actually, claiming to be the Son of God was heresy, as this was also a claim that the Roman Emperor made.

 

Well, I personally do not believe the Trinity Doctrine is Biblical, or is anything that Jesus actually taught or believed. But I also realize that these days, that is considered heresy. :) And since I've already taken the thread on one big tangent, I think I probably should not go there.

I agree with you as well as some of the scriptures I used previously and the Egyptian translation I was studying earlier. But, yeah, that is a big can of worms that causes contentions and arguments.

[Spy Car]

He did not claim to just be the Son of God, but claimed to be God as well. This is why he was tried for heresy.

 

And you wonder why people are confused on the issue of polytheism?

[Greta]

But, yeah, that is a big can of worms that causes contentions and arguments.

 

Ah, okay, thanks for the warning. I will definitely refrain from that conversation.

[Cheryl in NM]

I don't have time to respond to the rest right now as I am soon going out for the day, but I choose to take other posters at face value unless evidence leads me to believe that this is not the case. You of course, are free to make different assumptions. I'm not so naive as to believe that centuries of theological thought can be adequately discussed on a discussion board in such a way as to "prove" anything.

 

Oh, and I must have missed getting "the handbook." :001_huh: Do they sell it at Amazon?

 

FTR, I don't think anyone is trying to "solve" any theological discrepancies. I think we are all just giving our opinions and learning about others opinions. I've been impressed with how calm this thread has remained and I'd appreciate it if it stayed that way. It's a very interesting thread and I love the spirit of discussion going on right now.

[Spy Car]

Even the Apostle Paul struggled with these matters. It always makes me feel better that Paul shares how hard it is for him. In Romans 7 he writes:

 

15I do not know why I do the things I do. I do not do what I want to do. But I do the things I hate.

 

16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

 

17So now it is no longer I who do it, but my wrong ways in me.

 

18I know that no good thing lives in me. I mean, no good thing lives in my body. I want to do what is good, but I cannot do it.

 

19I do not do the good thing I want to do, but I do the wrong thing that I do not want to do.

 

20If I do the thing I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but the wrong thing in me that does it.

 

21So there is a law I find that it is at work in me. When I want to do what is right, I can only do what is wrong.

 

22In my own mind I am glad to obey the law of God.

 

23But I see that in my body there is another law fighting against the law in my mind. And that makes me like a prisoner to the law of wrong things in my body.

 

24I am a very sad man. Who will save me from this body that will make me die?

 

25Thank God for Jesus Christ our Lord who will do it! So this is the way it is. In my mind I am a slave to do the law of God, but in my body I am a slave to do the law of wrong things.

 

So if Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) is to be understood using his own self-description as a "slave to evil" and he admits his incapacity to do "good things", then isn't his credibility as an author in serious question?

 

The issue of Paul's "unreliability" is especially germane when his writings appear so often to directly contradict the teachings of Jesus.

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus". I know I have a very difficult time reading the words of Jesus in the Gospels (which often move me with their beauty) and then trying to reconsile those words with what Paul has written elsewhere.

 

To my mind the two don't line up.

 

Bill

[asta]

Just wanted to say that Jesus couldn't have "been just a great guy." He claimed Himself to be the very Son of God.

 

So, he was either being truthful with that (and, thus, it does matter), He was a liar (which would disqualify him from being a great guy), or He was a nut (anyone who would claim to be God and actually wasn't would be considered crazy.

 

So, He either is who He claimed to be or He's not and should be discounted entirely.

 

14 year old weighing in again:

 

"Why can't a nut have good ideas?"

 

e.g. Beethoven, Lincoln, Churchill et al.

 

Asta weighing in:

 

This is a serious question I have, not an attack: is the above phraseology an answer from a book?

 

I had another person, IRL, tell me that exact same thing when I made a comment (out of DS's earshot) about Jesus being "just a good guy" in a similar theological discussion.

 

Odd.

[Greta]

Asta weighing in:

 

This is a serious question I have, not an attack: is the above phraseology an answer from a book?

 

I had another person, IRL, tell me that exact same thing when I made a comment (out of DS's earshot) about Jesus being "just a good guy" in a similar theological discussion.

 

Odd.

 

I believe this is what C.S. Lewis argues in Mere Christianity???

[Spy Car]

My interior 14 year-old wants to know why Jesus couldn't be both a Son of God and a great guy?

[Jugglin'5]

14 year old weighing in again:

 

"Why can't a nut have good ideas?"

 

e.g. Beethoven, Lincoln, Churchill et al.

 

Asta weighing in:

 

This is a serious question I have, not an attack: is the above phraseology an answer from a book?

 

I had another person, IRL, tell me that exact same thing when I made a comment (out of DS's earshot) about Jesus being "just a good guy" in a similar theological discussion.

 

Odd.

It is Lewis' classic trilemma: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? His basic argument is that the "Jesus was a good moral teacher" statement doesn't hold water, because if He wasn't who He said He was, He was either a charlatan or a lunatic.

[CAMom]

14 year old weighing in again:

 

"Why can't a nut have good ideas?"

 

e.g. Beethoven, Lincoln, Churchill et al.

 

Asta weighing in:

 

This is a serious question I have, not an attack: is the above phraseology an answer from a book?

 

I had another person, IRL, tell me that exact same thing when I made a comment (out of DS's earshot) about Jesus being "just a good guy" in a similar theological discussion.

 

Odd.

 

No, the above phraseology is not from a book but it not unique to me although I had thought of it some time long ago and then have read about it in other sources.

 

I think CS Lewis says Jesus either had to be a Lunatic, a Liar, or who He said He was.

 

To the 14 yo;), I wouldn't follow or commit my life to someone who was a nut. Not that it doesn't happen but I wouldn't count a nut as a great teacher, one of perfect moral standing, etc. If he was a liar or a nut then His teachings wouldn't really be "good" since He would be a moral hypocrite.

Edited October 29, 2008 by CAMom

[Greta]

So if Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) is to be understood using his own self-description as a "slave to evil" and he admits his incapacity to do "good things", then isn't his credibility as an author in serious question?

 

The issue of Paul's "unreliability" is especially germane when his writings appear so often to directly contradict the teachings of Jesus.

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus". I know I have a very difficult time reading the words of Jesus in the Gospels (which often move me with their beauty) and then trying to reconsile those words with what Paul has written elsewhere.

 

To my mind the two don't line up.

 

Bill

 

:iagree: This is another good illustration of why I reject the argument that one has to accept the Bible in it's entirety.

 

I wasn't familiar with that Thomas Jefferson quote, though. Thanks for sharing.

[CAMom]

My interior 14 year-old wants to know why Jesus couldn't be both a Son of God and a great guy?

 

Actually, He claimed to be God (as MamaDuck stated) and anyone who claims to be God and isn't really wouldn't be someone whose moral teachings we would want to follow.:confused:

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Paul said the sin nature was in his body, his inner being, or mind, delighted in the law of God.

 

2Peter 3:15-16-

 

...our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures to their own destruction.

 

A couple of times Paul even distinguishes between commands that are from God and those that he personally suggests because they are expedient at the time.

 

I do think that historical perspective is necessary when reading the scriptures. There are great cultural differences that make some commands of Paul and the apostles for the people of those times seem inappropriate or silly for today. IMO the principles behind the commands are what are important to understand. The principles are universal and can be applied to all peoples in all times.

[Jugglin'5]

The Paul vs Jesus dichotomy is not there unless you only take selected passages of each. They both said that we are a slave to our natures (sheep vs goat, good vs evil). Horses want to eat grass, not bacon. Now, you can disagree with Jesus, and find Him offensive, but you can't make Him into some kind of peace, sweetness, and light Gandhi poster boy.

 

42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

[6packofun]

I agree.

 

And not to throw another fly into the ointment, but how does this affect the common question about what happens to babies who die? Does their sin nature but lack of sinful *action* and ability to choose (if one believes that's the application here) save them from or send them to hell?

 

I'm very curious how those who view their babies as actively sinning people tackle that question. Maybe their conclusion is same as those who feel that babies and very young children cannot be held to account for their lack of understanding, though?

Edited October 29, 2008 by 6packofun
..

[Jugglin'5]

I agree.

 

And not to throw another fly into the ointment, but how does this affect the common question about what happens to babies who die? Does their sin nature but lack of sinful *action* and ability to choose (if one believes that's the application here) save them from or send them to hell?

 

I'm very curious how those who view their babies as actively sinning people tackle that question. Maybe their conclusion is same as those who feel that babies and very young children cannot be held to account for their lack of understanding, though?

 

Well, I will just quote that mean old Paul and say, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression." Rom. 4:15

 

From that passage and other hints we are given, I believe that all infants are redeemed. But I can't prove it.:)

[CAMom]

I agree.

 

And not to throw another fly into the ointment, but how does this affect the common question about what happens to babies who die? Does their sin nature but lack of sinful *action* and ability to choose (if one believes that's the application here) save them from or send them to hell?

 

I'm very curious how those who view their babies as actively sinning people tackle that question. Maybe their conclusion is same as those who feel that babies and very young children cannot be held to account for their lack of understanding, though?

 

I'm going to answer this. But...I'm just giving the disclaimer that today is the 4th anniversary of my infant daughter's death. She was born full term (actually, she was 16 days late) and we were expecting a healthy baby. Shortly after her birth, she was diagnosed with a very rare heart defect. She spent 6 weeks in the hospital and died October 29, 2004--6 weeks, almost to the minute--from the time she was born.

 

So, I have lived this. This is not hypothetical to me.

 

I am 100% confident that my daughter resides in heaven. I know that she was a sinner because every human being ever born and ever to be born (with the exception of Christ) is a sinner. She never committed an actual sin. She didn't have the opportunity. She was a sinner because through Adam all were made sinners. That one trespass led to condemnation for all men. (Romans 5)

 

However, I do believe that God chooses to extend a special mercy to those who have no way of consciously knowing that they are sinners such as infants. I know He has the ability to save those who have not yet become capable of expressing their faith. King David spoke of his confidence of seeing his infant child in heaven. I also look to John the Baptist who, obviously was somehow conscious of Christ even from his mother's womb as he lept when he heard the sound of Mary's voice.

 

So, my daughter was born in sin (Psalm 51 also speaks to this) yet God, in His rich mercy, extended the benefit of the saving work of Christ on her behalf even though she could not consciously exercise faith in Him.

 

There is no way to the Father but through the Son and my daughter was no exception.

[Spy Car]

Well' date=' I will just quote that mean old Paul and say, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression." Rom. 4:15

 

From that passage and other hints we are given, I believe that all infants are redeemed. But I can't prove it.:)[/quote']

 

Here Paul appears to have it right.

 

We'd have to expand on the thought to say, without the capacity to differentiate between "good and evil" there is no "law" and therefore no capacity to "transgress".

 

Babies can't differentiate between "good and evil" so they can't transgress (or "sin").

[OnTheBrink]

I'm going to answer this. But...I'm just giving the disclaimer that today is the 4th anniversary of my infant daughter's death. She was born full term (actually, she was 16 days late) and we were expecting a healthy baby. Shortly after her birth, she was diagnosed with a very rare heart defect. She spent 6 weeks in the hospital and died October 29, 2004--6 weeks, almost to the minute--from the time she was born.

 

So, I have lived this. This is not hypothetical to me.

 

I am 100% confident that my daughter resides in heaven. I know that she was a sinner because every human being ever born and ever to be born (with the exception of Christ) is a sinner. She never committed an actual sin. She didn't have the opportunity. She was a sinner because through Adam all were made sinners. That one trespass led to condemnation for all men. (Romans 5)

 

However, I do believe that God chooses to extend a special mercy to those who have no way of consciously knowing that they are sinners such as infants. I know He has the ability to save those who have not yet become capable of expressing their faith. King David spoke of his confidence of seeing his infant child in heaven. I also look to John the Baptist who, obviously was somehow conscious of Christ even from his mother's womb as he lept when he heard the sound of Mary's voice.

 

So, my daughter was born in sin (Psalm 51 also speaks to this) yet God, in His rich mercy, extended the benefit of the saving work of Christ on her behalf even though she could not consciously exercise faith in Him.

 

There is no way to the Father but through the Son and my daughter was no exception.

 

I'm sorry for your loss and I agree with you 100%.

[Jugglin'5]

Here Paul appears to have it right.

 

We'd have to expand on the thought to say, without the capacity to differentiate between "good and evil" there is no "law" and therefore no capacity to "transgress".

 

Babies can't differentiate between "good and evil" so they can't transgress (or "sin").

 

I don't disagree. The Old Testament frequently uses the phrase "before they are old enough to know good from evil". But they still have a sin nature that will eventually manifest itself.:)

[Spy Car]

I'm also sorry for your loss CA Mom

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I don't disagree. The Old Testament frequently uses the phrase "before they are old enough to know good from evil". But they still have a sin nature that will eventually manifest itself.:)

 

See, we are getting pretty close to "common ground" :001_smile:

 

I'd modify the phraseology slightly to suggest that our nature is one that gains the capacity to distinguish "good from evil" and that we all at times fail to act only according to the "good".

 

Are we getting close?

 

Bill

[Erica in PA]

Thank you for the conversation, GretaLynne. I do think we are probably wading into waters too deep for this board's purpose, so I won't add too much more. I would like to say one thing regarding your post: I actually don't hold the view that one must accept the Bible in its entirety to be a Christian. I think there are many Christians who share my understanding. I believe that it could be possible to come to Christ, accept His payment on one's behalf, and decide to follow Him, while still believing that parts of Scripture are in question. According to my understanding of Scripture, one who did so *would* be in error, and not comprehending the truth on that issue, but they could still be considered a Christian. The Bible is really clear on how people can become right with God, can move from the state of a condemned sinner to a declared-innocent child of God, and perfect theology is not required in that process.

 

Anyway, good talking to you! Hope you have a great day!

 

Erica

[Greta]

Thanks again Erica. I appreciate your final comments. I would love to continue talking, but also was worried that my last post might have been too much, so I don't want to push it even more. So maybe I could PM you later with some questions? I really need to step away from the computer and get something else accomplished, though! :D So maybe another day?

 

Have a good one,

[Jugglin'5]

See, we are getting pretty close to "common ground" :001_smile:

 

I'd modify the phraseology slightly to suggest that our nature is one that gains the capacity to distinguish "good from evil" and that we all at times fail to act only according to the "good".

 

Are we getting close?

 

Bill

Well, I'm an Augustinian, not a Pelagian. I think if I am understanding you correctly, that you are Pelagian (that is, speaking in Christian categories). If you want to understand what I believe, here is an excellent short article:

 

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/augpelagius.html

 

The paragraphs that best summarizes my position are these:

 

Augustine's view of the Fall was opposed to both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. He said that mankind is a massa peccati, a "mess of sin," incapable of raising itself from spiritual death. For Augustine man can no more move or incline himself to God than an empty glass can fill itself. For Augustine the initial work of divine grace by which the soul is liberated from the bondage of sin is sovereign and operative. To be sure we cooperate with this grace, but only after the initial divine work of liberation.

Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses. He argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace.

 

And on this I believe Jesus and Paul are agreed. A horse does not want bacon, a wolf does not want oats. Our sin nature determines our desires, but they are OUR desires.

[Janna]

So if Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) is to be understood using his own self-description as a "slave to evil" and he admits his incapacity to do "good things", then isn't his credibility as an author in serious question?

 

The issue of Paul's "unreliability" is especially germane when his writings appear so often to directly contradict the teachings of Jesus.

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus". I know I have a very difficult time reading the words of Jesus in the Gospels (which often move me with their beauty) and then trying to reconsile those words with what Paul has written elsewhere.

 

To my mind the two don't line up.

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

I just thought I would jump in here to answer this from my perspective.

 

Personally, I don't find that Paul's writings can be called in to question simply because of his admittance that he's flawed. That's part of what has been discussed in this thread - the sin nature. Since we're all sinners (no one being perfect except Jesus), why would Paul's writings be any different than Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's, John's, Timothy's, Titus', Jame's etc...? Just because they didn't come right out and admit their flaws as Paul did, are their writings any more credible?

 

Most importantly, his writings do not contradict Jesus' teachings in the least. The point of Jesus even coming to earth, was to show that no one can be made perfect without his shed blood. He is the ultimate (and last) sacrifice needed to make atonement for the sins of the world, past, present and future. In the OT, an unblemished lamb was used for the Passover. In order for Jesus to be the final sacrifice needed for atonement, he needed to be unblemished - perfect. Thus, Jesus is called "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." (John 1:9) It was not so that we could try to live perfect lives here in earth. That only ends in utter frustration because we can't. Paul is saying that he is flawed, just like everyone else, but thanks be to Jesus who saves him from his sinful ways. The verses listed above (from Romans 7), are incomplete in thought if you do not read them in context and if you stop there. The point of Paul writing this was to show that the law (OT law listed in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) is what proves that we are sinful in nature. There is no way anyone can live completely by the law - it's just impossible. Which is why he says in Rom. 7:10 "I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death." If you keep reading into Chapter 8, Paul goes on to say "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the spirit of death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." (emphasis mine)

 

For me, it is encouraging to read about the struggles this man had. Certainly, if one were reading the Scriptures with the thought that the men who wrote them were perfect, then yes, it would be a blow to read Paul's "inconsistencies". But we're not to read them as if the authors were perfect. To me, it makes Paul even more credible because he's being honest. Most of Paul's writings stress how hard it is to live according to the Spirit. He likens it to a race that needs to be won. Races are hard. Races require endurance. It's also likened to a fight. Think of fights - they are between more than one person. It's the constant fight on earth between good and evil. A fight between living according to the spirit and living according to the flesh (sin nature). It's hard. Paul admits that. But he also shows how he continues to fight. He continues to run. And he exhorts us to do the same.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Janna

[beansprouts]

Deleted redundant post.

Edited October 29, 2008 by beansprouts

[beansprouts]

I feel similarly to you, asta. I read others' statements and realize that each person is sharing her own belief. I don't see a need to preface each statement with "We Catholics believe..." I am under no illusion that I am persuading anyone to my faith's way of thinking. I always think that I am sharing what is the belief in my faith...and I know it is not shared by many on this board.

 

I fully understood that you were sharing your belief, and I truly appreciate hearing your perspective. I don't agree with many of you, but I am learning something from all of you and I am glad that the discussion has been very open and civil.

 

BTW Unsinkable do you suppose it is a sin that I find your sig line to be hilarious?? :lol:

[Cheryl in NM]

Actually, He claimed to be God (as MamaDuck stated) and anyone who claims to be God and isn't really wouldn't be someone whose moral teachings we would want to follow.:confused:

 

The way I remember the scriptures, but can't put my hands on chapter and verse right now is that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, thus making him God. He did not claim outright to BE God. I've never seen in the Bible where Jesus claims to actually BE God.

[nmoira]

 

FTR, I don't think anyone is trying to "solve" any theological discrepancies. I think we are all just giving our opinions and learning about others opinions. I've been impressed with how calm this thread has remained and I'd appreciate it if it stayed that way. It's a very interesting thread and I love the spirit of discussion going on right now.

My comments were in response solely to another poster's supposition that I was trying to do pull some kind of "gotcha" trick and not meant as an insult to anyone posting in this thread. Please re-read my words in the context of the post I was responding to if you doubt me. I did not questing anyone's motives, but merely responded to someone who directly questioned mine.

[Jugglin'5]

My comments were in response solely to another poster's supposition that I was trying to do pull some kind of "gotcha" trick and not meant as an insult to anyone posting in this thread. Please re-read my words in the context of the post I was responding to if you doubt me. I did not questing anyone's motives, but merely responded to someone who directly questioned mine.

 

If I incorrectly suspected you of motives that were not in fact your own, then I certainly apologize.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

John 14:6- "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was, I am!" At this they picked up stones to stone him.

 

"I am" is what God called himself in the Old Testament. Blasphemy was a stoning offense.

 

John 10:30- "I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him.

 

John 10:33- We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you a mere man, claim to be God."

 

John chapter 14 has a lot more of the same kind of thing. In fact the whole book of John refers to Jesus's divinity often enough for it to be a main theme.

[nmoira]

I will just quote a piece of the Westminster Confession to give my answer:

 

3.1. God' date=' from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

 

 

I freely admit that I have no idea how he makes that work. I also don't understand how an atom's nucleus holds together. But it does. Perhaps we will understand that one day. But there will always be something beyond our understanding because we are finite.[/quote']It makes me feel better to know that it's as confusing as I think it is. :)

 

Epicurus' problem of evil is stated thus:

 

"Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

 

But why does evil/sin bother you? From your perspective, is there really such a thing? It doesn't bother me, but it speaks to the larger theme of the thread. If a child is born with sin, the state of the child is not worse than the state of God.

It doesn't bother me, but it speaks to the larger theme of the thread -- which is sin, not evil. God probably by definition would not have the capacity to commit a sin (for how could God sin against himself), but that doesn't mean that God cannot encompass or contain sin.... because God created beings with the ability to sin, and presumably with full knowledge that they would. In this case, if a child is born solely with original sin, the state of the child is not in a worse state of God (again, speaking only about sin). Maybe because I'm not looking at this from a Christian viewpoint it doesn't strike me as necessarily a bad or unacceptable thing?

 

Edited to add: this is undoubtedly convoluted and confusing because I simply don't possess the necessary vocabulary to explain my thoughts clearly on this matter.

Edited October 29, 2008 by nmoira

[nmoira]

If I incorrectly suspected you of motives that were not in fact your own' date=' then I certainly apologize.[/quote']Thank you, I accept. :) and I finally got a chance to respond to the rest of your post.

[Cheryl in NM]

My comments were in response solely to another poster's supposition that I was trying to do pull some kind of "gotcha" trick and not meant as an insult to anyone posting in this thread. Please re-read my words in the context of the post I was responding to if you doubt me. I did not questing anyone's motives, but merely responded to someone who directly questioned mine.

 

Moira

*deleted what I had as irrelevant.*

I was trying to help a situation de-escalate. We're just people sharing our viewpoints and it seemed to me that you were taking something personal that wasn't intended personal. I was just trying to point out that we were all just sharing out viewpoints. I know that I don't always convey exactly what I mean online and sometimes my posts are miscontrued. I was just trying to keep the thread friendly. Sorry if I offended you.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Cheryl in NM

[Lovedtodeath]

John 14:6- "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was, I am!" At this they picked up stones to stone him.

 

"I am" is what God called himself in the Old Testament. Blasphemy was a stoning offense.

 

John 10:30- "I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him.

 

John 10:33- We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you a mere man, claim to be God."

 

John chapter 14 has a lot more of the same kind of thing. In fact the whole book of John refers to Jesus's divinity often enough for it to be a main theme.

 

 

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase "I AM" is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’ Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’"

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:

1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.

1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

 

 

 

John 17 in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. 22 Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.

 

John 5:

 

On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.

 

 

 

19

Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: "Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing.

 

I know, I am not following my own advice. But I did wait for someone else to start it. I will not argue the point. If someone wants to know more about some other Scriptures that seem to apply then I will be glad to discuss it in PM.

 

 

 

 

[Spy Car]

Hi Bill,

 

I just thought I would jump in here to answer this from my perspective.

 

Personally, I don't find that Paul's writings can be called in to question simply because of his admittance that he's flawed. That's part of what has been discussed in this thread - the sin nature. Since we're all sinners (no one being perfect except Jesus), why would Paul's writings be any different than Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's, John's, Timothy's, Titus', Jame's etc...? Just because they didn't come right out and admit their flaws as Paul did, are their writings any more credible?

 

 

Thanks for jumping in Janna. Your answer speaks to a core of my question. If all the author's of scripture have sinful natures why should we accept any of their words?

 

Shouldn't the words and teachings of Jesus alone have authority, assuming he's quoted correctly in the Gosples (a big assumption given the sinful nature of his human scribes)?

 

In the OT, an unblemished lamb was used for the Passover. In order for Jesus to be the final sacrifice needed for atonement, he needed to be unblemished - perfect. Thus, Jesus is called "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." (John 1:9) It was not so that we could try to live perfect lives here in earth. That only ends in utter frustration because we can't.

 

I don't want to get to far afield, but I'll admit I've never understood the mechanism by which killing a sheep was a useful means of atoning for sinfulness or bad acts. Likewise I don't understand how murdering God (or the Son of God) expiates sin. To accept this we'd have to believe that by committing the worst imaginable act, killing God (or one component of the God Trinity) we are rewarded with salvation through an evil murder.

 

Wouldn't it be counter to any norm of justice to reward evil? Honest question.

 

Paul is saying that he is flawed, just like everyone else, but thanks be to Jesus who saves him from his sinful ways. The verses listed above (from Romans 7), are incomplete in thought if you do not read them in context and if you stop there. The point of Paul writing this was to show that the law (OT law listed in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) is what proves that we are sinful in nature. There is no way anyone can live completely by the law - it's just impossible.

 

I've studied the Jewish commentaries on the Adam And Eve story, and (without speaking for Judaism) they reject the concept of "original sin" as advanced by Paul. So there is plenty of "context" to suggest this interpretation is open to being questioned .

 

For me, it is encouraging to read about the struggles this man had. Certainly, if one were reading the Scriptures with the thought that the men who wrote them were perfect, then yes, it would be a blow to read Paul's "inconsistencies". But we're not to read them as if the authors were perfect. To me, it makes Paul even more credible because he's being honest. Most of Paul's writings stress how hard it is to live according to the Spirit. He likens it to a race that needs to be won. Races are hard. Races require endurance. It's also likened to a fight. Think of fights - they are between more than one person. It's the constant fight on earth between good and evil. A fight between living according to the spirit and living according to the flesh (sin nature). It's hard. Paul admits that. But he also shows how he continues to fight. He continues to run. And he exhorts us to do the same.

 

I'm completely sympathetic to the notion that in this life we all struggle between acting in accordance with what is good and what is evil, and that none of us are perfect.

 

Thank you for the conversation,

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Well' date=' I'm an Augustinian, not a Pelagian. I think if I am understanding you correctly, that you are Pelagian (that is, speaking in Christian categories). [/quote']

 

Thanks for the link. The Augustine vs Pelagius theological debate is not one I'm prepared to judge, but I certainly don't identify myself as a Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, or even a neo-Pelagian.

 

I'm just:

 

Bill (and do my best to reason things in my own [imperfect] mind)

[Jugglin'5]

Thanks for the link. The Augustine vs Pelagius theological debate is not one I'm prepared to judge, but I certainly don't identify myself as a Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, or even a neo-Pelagian.

 

I'm just:

 

Bill (and do my best to reason things in my own [imperfect] mind)

Yes, i certainly didn't think you identified yourself as "Bill, the non-Christian Pelagian".:D I just meant that IF you were a Christian, you'd probably come down on the Pelagian side of the debate.

[Spy Car]

Yes' date=' i certainly didn't think you identified yourself as "Bill, the non-Christian Pelagian".:D I just meant that [i']IF[/i] you were a Christian, you'd probably come down on the Pelagian side of the debate.

 

Perhaps. But from my admittedly limited understanding of these things many of those who follow a Reformed Christian theology would say the same thing about the vast majority of "Evangelical" Christians, correct?

 

Bill (who is on shaky ground on this point)