|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 4, 2011 18:43:16 GMT -5
It helped me to realize that there are two different topics here. Whether or not every person has sinned is a different topic from whether anyone actually has to sin.
Free will makes it possible for everyone to be good or bad. That means it is possible for everyone to be good or to be bad. But even if everyone has sinned, that could never mean that anyone had to.
When science experiments produce the same results over and over again, scientists say there is probably some physical law making it happen. But free will is not like the laws of nature. We can't say there must be some law regarding moral choices (like original sin) just because of the statistics.
Imagine if everyone had always been good like Jesus Christ. It would not be right to say that everyone was born righteous just because they all obeyed God. Likewise, we are not born sinful, even if everyone has actually made evil choices. It is two different questions.
The context of Rom 3 "all have sinned" has to do with whether Jews are better than Gentiles. It doesn't seem necessary to take it to be about every single individual that ever lived. I think a lot of similar passages are often taken out of context, or too literally. But, like I said, it is truly possible that every single person had sinned when these passages were written. And I don't see how it could be proven if someone had lived a holy life.
I think it is more important that the bible does not say that everyone will sin (future tense).
For a while I worried it did say that in 1st John ("If we say we have not sinned"). But I think the context of that passage may just be about people who lie when they have in fact done wrong.
I think the devil probably uses the doctrine of original sin, and the idea that sin is unavoidable, to discourage good people and to comfort bad people, the goal being to make everyone bad. Some people might be more comfortable with the idea of original sin because then they are not so bad after all, they couldn't help it. Other people are probably just being taught it and don't know any better.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 3, 2011 19:55:18 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply Ben. I think I'm where you're at. I understand the nature of the atonement and how it substitutes the penalty but I'm trying to understand a bit more about the heavenly and earthly government so that I can explain it in a more appropriate fashion. I believe it's a bit difficult to explain, without going into great detail, how God can forgive us of the eternal consequences of a sin and yet explain why he will still proceed to punish us in this life for that same sin. I read an article written somewhere, though I cannot remember where, that touched on four different types of forgiveness. (Wish I could remember where I read it.) However, concerning Heb. 12:5 the answer that I gave was that the chastisement, or punishment, which the Lord sends upon his children is to "reprove" them. Thus, the child of God who sins, can be punished in order to procure the restoration of his character. However, I might go a bit further to say that when the child of God sincerely repents and confesses his sin that the punishment ceases even though the existing chain of consequences may continue. After all, Heb. 12 says that he deals with us "as sons" and Luke 15:11-32 demonstrates how the Father deals with his children that have repented and who seek to restore their lives. What do you think? Sorry to leave you hanging for so long. I still don't understand this topic well enough to say much about it. I think if someone understood the purpose of our governments and could compare/contrast that with the purpose of judgment day, then they could see why it could be necessary for a man to submit to mortal punishment even though he had faith that God would pardon him on judgment day. If someone understood this topic, then I think they could explain eternal judgment in a way that was very easy to understand.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 26, 2011 9:38:56 GMT -5
Hi biblesays,
Double jeopardy is irrelevant to the idea of an atonement because an atonement is not punishment. Atonement is rather a substitute or replacement for punishment. Punishment is when the penalty of the law is executed upon the one who broke the law, the transgressor. The atoning sacrifice is not "punished" by definition. A sacrifice is sacrificed but not punished. Atonement allows for punishment to be conditionally set aside.
To say that the Lord was punished in our place could be used as a metaphoric way of describing His atoning suffering and death. But He was not literally punished. So any man can certainly be punished for his sins in the end if he does not meet the conditions of pardon. It is not double jeopardy.
The chastisement referred to in Hebrews 12 was "for [their] profit, that [they] might be partakers of His holiness". But the lake of fire is not for the profit and sanctification of transgressors.
I don't understand the relationship between the government of heaven and the governments of the earth. It sure seems that we can deserve mortal punishments even though we have been pardoned from eternal punishment. But I don't understand this well enough to explain it.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 25, 2011 12:30:39 GMT -5
"the purpose of Jesus using this way of speaking about OT Scripture 'being fulfilled' seems to be going beyond what you concluded concerning Peter and his use of this Jewish technique" Hi rbarnes, I had a similar thought before when I read this passage. But if you think of the prediction of betrayal as a separate thing from the reference to scripture then it seems to become more simple. It is like the prediction of betrayal is the content (verse 21) of the Lord's message and the reference to scripture is a means of presentation (verse 18). The content is surely delivered in order to help verify the Lord's claim to be from God (verse 19). But the dramatic presentation of this content (referencing a parallel scripture) is not necessarily the main focus of the explanation in verse 19. It could be that verification of His identity was the purpose of delivering the content of the message even if the particular mode of presentation was not indispensable in accomplishing this purpose. L. D. McCabe offered the following alternate translations: "John xiii, 18, ... would read, if our English idiom be substituted for that of the Hebrew, 'I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen; but thus is the Scripture fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.' And John xvii, 12, would read, 'Those thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost save the son of perdition. Thus the Scripture is fulfilled [or, again, illustrated). Let his days be few, and let another take his office.'" Also, the parallel is so strikingly literal (verse 30) that I can't help but expect an element of God's providential government acting behind the scenes - not forcing anyone to be bad or good, but turning for good what others meant for evil. However, if this event had never occurred, none of us would think there is an unfulfilled prediction in the Psalms - and of course it would have been infinitely better.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 15, 2011 15:21:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 4, 2011 15:27:56 GMT -5
Billy Hibbard. He grew up Calvinist and was gonna kill himself when he was 12 years old 'cause he figured it was the most noble course of action given the two possible destinies he might have. When he was older he became open theist, grew a slight mullet, and joined the Methodist traveling preachers here in New England. One time a bunch of Presbyterian determinists tried to jump him because they didn't like his holiness preaching. That was in the town I work in, 1700's. He fought in one of the early American battles.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 4, 2011 15:22:42 GMT -5
So there's this bank in town called Sovereign Bank right? And I need to open an account. So I walk in and say to the lady, I says to her, "Lady, with all of my heart I would like to open an account this very day." And she looks me right in-between the eyeballs and says "NO!" and I fell back onto the floor.
Now the janitor was kind enough to lift me to my feet and, after brushing the dust off my jacket, he says to me, he says, "Look, we have to open the account FOR you."
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 26, 2010 20:47:42 GMT -5
When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 8, 2010 19:09:18 GMT -5
Kenosis is about temporarily setting aside certain aspects or attributes, but not ceasing to have access to them indefinitely. Whatever you want to call it, this is exciting, it sounds like we agree. We both believe Jesus was divine before he became a man. We both believe Jesus became a man. We both believe he was without certain former attributes for at least some amount of time. We both believe he remained God in identity. If I remember correctly, Justin said the Father and the "other God" are distinct in number. Here it is, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things—numerically, I mean ..." ~ Justin I think Justin is correct to call Jesus "another God" who is "numerically distinct" from God above all. We could discuss the trinity idea in a another thread if you want. It sounds like you think Jesus had different attributes than the Father had, at least for a time. That is the only thing for which I was contending. Some people, because of the Trinity idea, think that Jesus remained in heaven, trinitarianly conjoined to the Father, while his human body was walking around on the earth. I think it is important for us to be clear on Jesus being a real 100% man, like us "in every respect".
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 6, 2010 21:47:00 GMT -5
Justin Martyr wrote this about Jesus: "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them." (Dialogue with Trypho) This is a bit off topic but you can see it is related to your apparent Trinitarian objection to Jesus becoming purely human in nature. I can see how Trinitarianism could make it seem impossible for the incarnation to be an actual change. My understanding about Jesus is more along the lines of Justin's quote there.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 6, 2010 14:15:45 GMT -5
You are saying in essence that Jesus is not God, or at least was not God during His incarnation. ... Until you understand that Jesus is God, and that He has never not been God, you will not understand ... I didn't mean to imply that Jesus was not God. A distinction should be made between one's identity (who) and one's nature or attributes (what). When considering the incarnation, a distinction should be made between 'who' Jesus was and 'what' Jesus was. Before the Incarnation: Jesus was God. That is both 'who' he was, his identity, and also 'what' he was, his nature/form/attributes. After the Incarnation: Jesus became a man. He did not become someone else. 'Who' he was stayed the same. His identity as God stayed the same. But 'what' he was changed. His attributes/form/nature changed. Formerly Jesus had the power and knowledge to create the heavens and the earth. When he was born he didn't have enough power or knowledge to sit up straight. After the incarnation, Jesus was both God and man in this sense. God (identity) and man (nature). God (who) and man (what).
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 6, 2010 11:37:55 GMT -5
Jesus was, is and has always been fully God Jesus was not omnipotent, omniscient, or immortal after becoming a man. He could rightly be called God because of his identity, in my opinion. But he definitely did not retain what we generally think of as the attributes of God. I was talking about Jesus' nature, not his relationships. Jesus' nature could not be both mortal and immortal, omnipotent and weak, omniscient and growing in wisdom, etc. Those concepts are mutually exclusive. Jesus was in the form of God prior to becoming a man. When he became a man he became like us in every way. We do not possess omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, etc. Therefore, when Jesus became like us in every way, he did not possess these things either. Jesus had glory with the Father being in the form of God from the beginning. When Jesus became a baby human he no longer had the same form nor the former glory. This has to do with rules rather than natural necessity. It is one thing to say it was proper for Jesus to become the leader of the resurrection. It is another thing to say that human mortality necessitates the incarnation in such a way that immortality "could not otherwise be" granted. Maybe we basically agree immortality "could not otherwise be" granted in the sense that Jesus leading the resurrection was the only way God saw as being proper. But you said "God does not do away with the nature of man by warding off death (then we would be as Satan and the demons)" Why devils/demons rather than angels/gods? This statement makes it seem like you think God was incapable of granting immortality apart from the incarnation of the Lord. I don't see any reason to think that.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 4, 2010 16:00:59 GMT -5
I agree with this. It seems that Jesus changed from divine form to human form. He was still God (God's son) in identity but his nature was now completely human. After becoming a human, his nature was no more divine than our nature is divine. He was exactly like us in every way as Hebrews says. His nature was 100% human, his identity was still the creator of the world, the son of God.
The Lord's nature was fully human. He was not divine in his nature while here on the earth but became fully human. His nature was not 100% man + 100% God. His nature was 100% human. His identity was still the same divine creator, the son of God. In that sense he remained God, but not in the 200% sense of having "two natures" and all that confusion.
These all describe the unity of more than one person. The incarnation was a change of a single person, not a unity of more than one person. Jesus did not unite with a human person. He actually became one.
I saw that but it still seems to lack an explanation.
Is the idea that we inherited mortality as a result of Adam's sin? There is no indication that Adam was non-mortal prior to his sin. In fact, he seemed to need the tree of life in order to prevent death. That would make him mortal. If so, mortality is a result of creation, not sin. The part you bolded doesn't explain any more than the part I first quoted. It's like the person was saying death could not be "warded off" because we are mortal. But death would only need to be warded off if we were mortal. So how is that an explanation?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 3, 2010 19:54:37 GMT -5
Yes, He is the son of Adam A sinful nature was not passed from Adam to all men, but because of Adam's sin, death passed upon all men and that is why all sin. See Romans 5:12 To be dead is to not know God. Jesus did not sin because He knew God his Father. All other men sin because they do not know God. Romans 5:12 says death passed upon all men because they sinned. Not only is that simple, it's also fair and universally known (Rom 1:32). If Adamic "death" causes sin then we have an excuse for our sins. Sin is avoidable, not inevitable. People are not so estranged from God that they cannot avoid sin:"[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men ... that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:26-28) People know God exists:"they knew God" (Rom 1:21) "God hath shewed it unto them" (Rom 1:19) "clearly seen, being understood" (Rom 1:20) "manifest in them" (Rom 1:19) "God in their knowledge" (Rom 1:28) This is what people know about God:"the truth" (Rom 1:18) "the truth of God" (Rom 1:25) "that which may be known of God" (Rom 1:19) "the invisible things of him" (Rom 1:20) "his eternal power and Godhead" (Rom 1:20) "the glory of the uncorruptible God" (Rom 1:22) "the Creator" (Rom 1:25) People know about our glorious, powerful, eternal, hidden, incorruptible Creator.
People know God is morally good:"knowing the judgment of God" (Rom 1:32) God's law is written in our heart/conscience:"the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15) "their conscience also bearing witness" (Rom 2:15) "their thoughts the mean while accusing" (Rom 2:15) People have no excuse (I can't help it, I didn't know, It's too hard, etc):"they are without excuse" (Rom 1:20): "we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them" (Rom 2:2)
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 3, 2010 19:29:10 GMT -5
Menno Simons (whom Mennonites are named after) taught that Jesus' body was primarily from heaven. Jesus said he was the bread from heaven and that the bread he would give is his flesh. If I remember correctly, Menno taught that sin was inherited through the man's seed. I think he had to wiggle around the verses that say Jesus was of the seed of David, Abraham, etc. Menno fought admirably against the reformers' OSAS ideas, but apparently never questioned the sinful flesh idea. Hopefully he was blessed to discover the truth after death. I think the heavenly flesh idea was the best he could do while retaining the sinful flesh premise. For all I know he could be 50% correct about Jesus' body being from heaven... The Bible just doesn't seem to explain the incarnation in 'scientific' detail.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 3, 2010 19:17:19 GMT -5
a human joined to God (Jesus) I think the Bible teaches that that Jesus became a human, not that he joined to a human. If you meant 'joined to God' in the sense that he loved God then I agree. But if you mean Jesus joined to a human then I think that is incorrect. That doesn't make sense to me. The part that says "this could not otherwise be done than by the life which is according to nature being united to that which had received the corruption". Why would it be true?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Oct 1, 2010 17:27:27 GMT -5
I think we could say figuratively that Christ died in our place and figuratively bore our sin. Sin said "God doesn't matter, neighbor doesn't matter, only I matter" - so God needed to provide a counteracting influence to this destructive lie. Eternity in hell says "Jokes on you. God does matter, neighbor does matter." So we ought to suffer in hell as a counteractive influence against our sins. But God gave Jesus up to suffering as the counteractive influence instead of us. His suffering is not identical to what our suffering should have been. But he suffered instead of us. He bore the suffering needed to counteract the lie of sin when we deserve to bear that suffering.
If God was not obligated to provide this counteractive influence then it seems like he would just pardon everyone because he is so merciful. I think God would be willing to lay down his own honor to pardon all sinners. But if God doesn't provide a counteracting influence against sin then it would make it seem like he said "ok, I don't matter, your neighbor doesn't matter, just be selfish, whatever" - I don't think God is concerned about getting his payment or whatever. He is just ruling with mercy and justice. Justice because he provided the counteracting influence to sin. Mercy because he provided the influence at his own expense.
Does that fit with your understanding at all?
I've been wondering about the OT sacrifices also. Ministry of condemnation. Reminder of sins. Could not forgive sins. Purifying of the flesh (not conscience). Shadow. Tutor.
Some sacrifices were for post-partem bleeding and stuff like that right? It's not even a sin.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Sept 18, 2010 12:56:37 GMT -5
Romans:5:12 says: Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that (because of that) all have sinned. All have sinned because death passed upon all men. Your reasons for rejecting " because all sinned" are not logical. The causative effect of Adam's sin is defined as being figurative of following Adam's example. Passages which occur after the defining passage (v12) do not need to restate the meaning in order to avoid contradiction. By assuming the "because all sinned" meaning and then immediately forgetting this meaning when interpreting the surrounding passages, you fail to test the interpretation for coherence and end up with the same Rudolf Bultmann obscurity. Second, the fact that we earn our own condemnation does not imply that we earn the offer of pardon. Paul explains that the analogy is not perfect. He explains that the effect of Christ is greater than the effect of Adam rather than a perfect parallel. If the offense of Adam oil-spilled onto all men apart from their own choice, but the righteousness of Christ only touches those who believe, then the offense of one is greater than the free gift.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Sept 18, 2010 11:11:33 GMT -5
because we are all born dead spiritually ... we sin. We are not responsible for being spirtually dead In other words, Adam made us dead and being dead made us sin. This blames our sins on a death caused by Adam. The Bible says "refuse profane and old wives' fables" and "Honor your father and your mother".
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Sept 17, 2010 19:33:52 GMT -5
The bit about temptation being an opportunity to develop good moral character has been very helpful to me. I've often had the idea that when temptation came that something was wrong with me. Now I feel like temptation can be a blessing, an opportunity to overcome and to please God. This was like a missing puzzle piece that I was looking for. I don't have to be insecure and discouraged in the face of temptation.
Learning that my nature was not sinful helped me with this quite a bit because how can you overcome when you are always a sinner. Then learning that God did not by any chance foreknow I would end up in hell helped a lot also because failure could always be over the horizon. But now even temptation itself can be a blessing. It makes Romans 8 seem truly possible. Like that which is good does not need to be made death to me.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Sept 17, 2010 19:18:00 GMT -5
This seems to blame our sins on some type of death inherited from Adam?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 30, 2010 22:04:46 GMT -5
When you asked BenJoseph about various world religions he responded by saying; “I don't know much about... But if I did... I could consider whether someone could possibly believe it in good conscience.” There's a number of things that stick out here. #1. It is implied that man has the authority to decide which religions a man can believe in with a “good conscience” and still go to heaven.Not decide. The issue is innocent ignorance and to what extent someone can be involuntarily ignorant. My points were not about other religions but about the human beings who are in them. [/color][/quote]It sure sounds like I was saying that. I would only clarify that there may be me many religions or aspects of different religions that would be impossible to practice with a good conscience because of common sense. For example, I don't think atheism can be practiced in good conscience. Acts 10:1-2 says "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always." Acts 10:35 says "he that feareth [God], and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Did Cornelius fear God and work righteousness before he was baptized? I think the issue is whether the law of love requires more than all of our ability or not. You seem to imply that it does.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 29, 2010 21:00:13 GMT -5
Could God be 3D instead of like a giant invisible cloud that overlaps everything?I don't think so but I also don't think he's an invisible cloud that overlaps everything. This is interesting though. If one supposes that God is 3D and then he is literally omnipresent then one would expect to see God when he puts on those goofy looking glasses at the movie theater. Could God have a spirit-body? Why or why not? Why? But we still pray here on earth too. Is it possible that spiritual beings are relaying information to heaven about the Church? Withholding knowledge seems kind of awkward. I've heard of that idea before though. Is it a result of trying to reconcile the traditional doctrine of omniscience with the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 29, 2010 20:44:10 GMT -5
Then how was He begotten . . back then? I don't understand the question. Begotten seems like a vague word to me. Could you explain what you are asking? If I knew what you meant by "begotten" then I could try to answer whether Jesus was "begotten back then".
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 28, 2010 19:53:00 GMT -5
"seem to imply"; "maybe a single cell in size"? What kind of mindset is that for one who wishes to discuss Jesus Christ, be He man or God or both? I was in a mindset of total awe thinking about the incarnation. Did you disagree with something? I asked that because I didn't understand your question about my mindset.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 27, 2010 16:12:27 GMT -5
"seem to imply"; "maybe a single cell in size"? What kind of mindset is that for one who wishes to discuss Jesus Christ, be He man or God or both? I was in a mindset of total awe thinking about the incarnation. Did you disagree with something? Are you really seventy something years old? haha, nice one To me it sounds like either 1) there were two God's, one greater than the other, or 2) The word was not personal like in Christadelphianism, or 3) the verse contradicts itself and is trinitarian I don't think he was called Jesus at that time. But to answer your question Jesus had no mother back then.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 27, 2010 13:07:46 GMT -5
Jesus is not omnipresent. Can you sort that out in your anti-Trinitarian thinking? This is my take on it so far. The non-omnipresent Father sent his non-omnipresent Son to earth, he came down (literally moved down in a non-omnipresent way) from heaven and changed from a non-omnipresent divine being into an even more non-omnipresent little baby (maybe a single cell in size at first? totally microscopic and divine.) who grew into a normal man. Col 2:9 says all the fullness of deity lived bodily in him. That seems to imply that no aspect of his former nature was omnipresent or still in heaven with the Father. Eventually he ascended (up) again to his non-omnipresent God in heaven (up, sky, space, etc.). And - Heb 1:8 - God said to his son "Your throne O God is forever" which is basically two Gods according to the psalm he is quoting, though I think we usually call the Father God and Jesus the Lord. Even Jesus calls the Father his God because the Father is the ultimate God over all, even though his Son is also our God.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 27, 2010 9:12:33 GMT -5
In attempting to look into this sort of thing, we must always remember that "Unity"; the desire of Jesus' prayer in John 17, with Him and the Father would be achieved by us who Love Him. Amen! I believe the unity of God and Christ is a unity of love and not like the Trinitarian spiritually conjoined triplets idea. Jesus was totally abandoned to the Father and the Father would give anything for Jesus as well. You mean these seven spirits are so totally devoted to the will of the Father that it is like having the Father with us? Do you believe the Holy Spirit is actually seven different spirits?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 27, 2010 9:03:23 GMT -5
"There is no such thing as sinful blood." Then why did Jesus' have to be of sinless seed? There's no such thing as sinful seed either. Sin is not physical, it is moral - a choice not a substance. Because everything was made for Jesus in the first place? The answer to this question cannot change the fact that sin is a choice and choices are not inheritable. Probably. I've never thought systematically about it, just different thoughts here and there.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 27, 2010 0:14:39 GMT -5
Any thoughts about the seven spirits who send a greeting through John in the Revelation?
I've heard people say it is seven aspects of a single being - the holy spirit - and quote from Isaiah or somewhere. I always thought that was a stretch considering they send grace and peace along with the Father and the Lord Jesus.
I just looked it up in Revelation, they are represented by seven lamps before the throne (illuminating the throne? shedding light on God so-to-speak?). They are also the seven eyes of the slain Lamb sent out into all the earth (sounds kinda like the holy spirit). They are lights before the throne and the lambs eyes in the earth. They may also be distinct from the seven stars. Jesus says he has both the seven spirits and the seven stars. I'm not really sure what's going on there.
|
|