|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Purpledawn writes: We know the point of Paul's argument, but the creation story doesn't present mankind as constitutionally unholy. Paul's interpretation of the creation story see's man rendered constitutionally unholy. And rendering man constitutionally unholy is critical to the Christian argument. -
quote: What the Jews understood the creation stories to be isn't the issue, it's what Christianity (with Paul as expositor of our understanding) understands them to be. Paul pointing to this or that disobedient person doesn't quite explain the constitutional element of sin. For constitutional things you have to go back to the start and heart of the matter. -
The concept wasn't passed down from Paul. The lack of a creation story doesn't negate the teachings of Jesus or Paul. If sin a foundational issue, where else but to it's root do you go to illustrate it thus. So what a man crying out that he was "conceived in iniquity" if we don't know why that is so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
PD, I initially maybe misunderstood some of your post. I went back and made some corrections to these misreadings.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:David was praying for forgiveness. Exaggerating one's level of unworthiness is not uncommon. It isn't necessarily a statement of fact. Paul makes use of all these things whether they are fact or not. I still don't think it changes Paul's teachings. I realize it does make a difference for those who feel sin is part of the foundation. I don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
We know the point of Paul's argument, but the creation story doesn't present mankind as constitutionally unholy. The "creation story" shows God placing a protective angelic being of some sort with a menacing flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life. Before Adam's disobedience there was no such barrier.The account has Adam expelled from a paradise. Before Adam's disobedience there was no problem. The account shows Adam running off to hide from God.Previously they enjoyed a good fellowship. Something happened and now there is a need for reconciliation. Before Adam had no worry of death.After his sinning he knows that he is to die. And the Scripture repeats again and again that this and that descendant lived so long "and he died". Adam was innocent. Whether he was holy in that innocence I am not sure. But he was neutral and innocent until he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. From that point I am confident to say that he was unholy. He could not correspond to God any longer. Though still loved of God, he was driven away from Paradise, the tree of life, and he has to die. Paul at this point is not even a twinkle in his mother's eye.
Paul could still make his argument by using the songs and prophets as he did. The creation story isn't vital to his argument. Even before Jesus there was Biblical criticism and Jews who understood that the creation stories were legends, not fact. This is not a matter of what Jews knew and what Gentiles know. There is a word which trancends the Jewish word here. That is the word of God. You need the New Testament to get Genesis as it is relevant to the salvation of MAN. In fact Genesis in these early chapters is not about the creation of Jews. It is about the creation on HUMAN BEINGS first. When you get to Abraham then you can talk about the real roots of the Jews. The Bible starts with Adam and not Abraham. And the salvation through Abraham has as its goal to turn around and gain the created race. The called race is for the gaining of the created race. That is all God's promise to Abraham - that in him all the nations of the world would be blessed. That is God's word. Paul is no where around at this time.
Paul could have used any other disobedient person to contrast Christ. The concept wasn't passed down from Paul. The lack of a creation story doesn't negate the teachings of Jesus or Paul. Paul says that Adam was a type of the coming one. It is clear that there are TWO heads of humanity in history to Paul. There is Adam, the first man. And there is Christ the second Man or the last Adam. Using my imagination, perhaps if Adam had not sinned we would be in a Paradise talking about our great father Adam. As it is we who have been saved exalt Christ. And maybe if Adam is in the New Jerusalem we'll sit down with him and have a good talk with him. But the new Head of the new humanity which is the humanity with the life and nature of God Himself installed and imparted into their innermost being, is Jesus Christ. And I will repeat it in hope that one day your eyes will be opened - "The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) That man Jesus Christ became AVAILABLE to all people in the form of the life giving Holy Spirit. We cannot see Him. But He is a divine life imparting Spirit. And receiving Him He head us up into a new race of man. The comparison of Adam to Christ is crucial to a proper view of the purpose of God. Individual piety may not require so much. Some of us are interested in God's overall plan beside just being an individual spiritual person doing miscellaneous "good" things. We are interested in the habitation of God in spirit - the church.
" You shall see greater things than these. And He said, Truly, truly, I say to you, You shall see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. " (John 1:50b,51) Jesus was refering to Bethel - the House of God. That is the vision that Jacob saw in Genesis 28. A house set up on the earth where God lives. Paul spoke of this as the habitation of God in spirit -
" ... you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone. In whom all the building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; In whom you also are being built together into a habitation of God in spirit." (Eph. 2:19b-22) The matter of Christ as the Head of a new humanity is for the building of God into man. That is for a living and holy temple in which God and man are united in an "organic" union of life. For this vision seeing Christ as the second Man, the real Head and the last Adam is important.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
David was praying for forgiveness. Exaggerating one's level of unworthiness is not uncommon. It isn't necessarily a statement of fact. My point with "conceived in iniquity" was to illustrate the question begged. Conceived begs the question as to the situation that brought about the conception being so. It's a regression that must go back to the start. As Paul does.
Paul makes use of all these things whether they are fact or not. I still don't think it changes Paul's teachings. I realize it does make a difference for those who feel sin is part of the foundation. I don't. We were examining whether the A&E story is critical to Christian thinking. You can appreciate why it is: the good news is as good because it deals with bad news. The bad news is made as bad as it is because of mans very constitution. Anything less than constitutional sin is perhaps self-resolvable. The denial of this is critical to Christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
iano writes: We were examining whether the A&E story is critical to Christian thinking. You can appreciate why it is: the good news is as good because it deals with bad news. The bad news is made as bad as it is because of mans very constitution. Anything less than constitutional sin is perhaps self-resolvable. The denial of this is critical to Christianity. The Garden of Eden story is only important as a "Just so" story for the people of that time. It explains why we fear snakes, why childbirth seems more painful for women than it seemed at the time for other animals, why we farmed instead of just being foragers, why we wear clothes and why we create a society of morality an immorality as oppose to an amoral society. Original sin does not enter into the story at all and is unneeded.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Unfortunately believing in God or Jesus doesn't change man's constitution. That humans are capable of good and bad behavior is common among many of the creation stories. It's just observation put into a story. Even pagans could appreciate the comparison. Paul using Adam is a creative way to say that it has always been in our nature to sin. Without the creation story, Paul could still make the same argument. Not having Adam wouldn't change his argument, just his example. I agree the story is critical to some Christian thinking. As I said before, it depends on one's foundation. If one's foundation is based on the creation story, it is critical. If it isn't, not so critical. I don't believe it was critical to Paul in that his belief would have been affected. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Jar writes: Original sin does not enter into the story at all and is unneeded. If defining sin as human beings knowingly and wilfully disobeying God then the story does give us an account of the original sin. It presents us with the first two human beings knowingly and wilfully disobeying God. Afterall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
purpledawn writes: Unfortunately believing in God or Jesus doesn't change man's constitution. Fortunately, in God's eyes it does. The term is 'new creation'. Whatever about the whys and wherefores of the new creation sinning, his constitution is indeed changed.
That humans are capable of good and bad behavior is common among many of the creation stories. It's just observation put into a story. Even pagans could appreciate the comparison. Paul using Adam is a creative way to say that it has always been in our nature to sin. Without the creation story, Paul could still make the same argument. Not having Adam wouldn't change his argument, just his example. Without the Adam story Paul has no foundation to work back to in terms of the constitutionality of our sinfulness. And the constitutionality of our sin is central to the good news of the gospel he is in the process of presenting and explaining. If you suppose he has another potential explanation then perhaps you could suggest one? "It's in our nature" only kicks the can up the road. I mean, "it's our nature" doesn't explain anything.
I agree the story is critical to some Christian thinking. As I said before, it depends on one's foundation. If one's foundation is based on the creation story, it is critical. If it isn't, not so critical. I don't believe it was critical to Paul in that his belief would have been affected. It just so happens that he places this explanatory element into the book of explanation. You might suppose his including it a by-the-by but that doesn't really stack up - unless you are supposing Romans a by-the-by piece of work. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
S0orry but that is not in the story and in fact the story says just the opposite. Until after they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they were not capable of knowingly or willingly disobeying anyone.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Without the Adam story Paul has no foundation to work back to in terms of the constitutionality of our sinfulness. And the constitutionality of our sin is central to the good news of the gospel he is in the process of presenting and explaining. If you suppose he has another potential explanation then perhaps you could suggest one? He could've just used a different creation myth. You don't think the events described in the story of Adam and Eve actually happened, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: S0orry but that is not in the story and in fact the story says just the opposite. Until after they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they were not capable of knowingly or willingly disobeying anyone. God said not to eat. Disobedience is doing that which you are told not to do. Unless you figure that they didn't know that they had been told not to eat (Eve admits she had been told not to eat) I'm not sure what leg you hope to stand on here. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Catholic Scienstis writes: He could've just used a different creation myth. You don't think the events described in the story of Adam and Eve actually happened, do you? This presumes the story a myth. Paul doesn't given any hint that he thinks it is so I've no reason to suppose it other than true. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
This presume the story a myty. Paul doesn't given any hint that he thinks it is so I've no reason to suppose it other than true. The only reason you could have for supposing it other than true would be if Paul gave a hint that he thought it was? What about the fact that it couldn't have actually happened? And relying solely on Paul for reasons to suppose things as other than true is a little silly, consider all the untrue things that he fails to even mention... "Chocolate isn't dilicious"... I dunno, Paul didn't say that it was
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: The only reason you could have for supposing it other than true would be if Paul gave a hint that he thought it was? Correct. Whilst there is good external reason to suppose he isn't speaking of factual events I don't detect that from an internal reading. Then again, there are good external reasons to suppose God does exist at all. Paul's treatise on gospel mechanics is a sober stitching together of fact. Why would I suppose him suddenly inserting a mythical componant (which happens to work perfectly as far as gospel mechanics goes) to convey an idea for which no other working mechanism is posited?
What about the fact that it couldn't have actually happened? A fact? Perhaps you mean a scientific fact?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024