ok so i'm just experiencing hermenutics

[mlbb_drummer]

Right well, for the first time in my life, i have heard of this thing called hremanutics, in a seminar, i've started to read "living by the book" which i'm told is a good book for hermanutics, and study. anywyas, on a teen forum, people have been arguing about the age of accountability and weather sin is hereditory, personally i believe it is, and have posted many scriptures supporting it, as well as this quote from a theology book, 'understanding theology' by R.T. Kendall the whole world fell as a result of our first parents. 'Ro 5:12-13a' 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-for before the law was given, sin was in the world'
a) this means that all born after adam and eve, inhereted the condition of adam and eveas they were after the fall (not before).
1)Man has never been born as adam was-in his unfallen state.
2) he inherits Adam's death, shame, self-rightousness and fear.
b ) in a word we are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are born sinners.
1) Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. (psalm 58:3)
2)Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (psalm 51:5)

for me this seems sound doctrine and biblical, i mean can u guys help me or do you guys just not agree or what?

 

[daveleau]

What do you mean regarding Adam? Do you mean that Adam never existed as is written in the Bible or do you mean that man is not born pure as Adam?

Hermeneutics is nothing more than looking for the author's intended meaning of Scripture by the study of context, lexical aspects, historical situations regarding the stories and applying what is learned about the author's single intended meaning.

 

[ps139]

I think he is saying that Adam was made without sin, but since he sinned, we all come into the world subject to a sinful nature.

Drummer I think you are right on track with this.
When we are born we have not yet sinned, but we do have a sinful nature, and we need Jesus to "fix" that, to put it simply.

 

[daveleau]

I believe that we have all inherited the sinful nature from Adam and are all subject to sin. We are all born sinners because our parents sinned. The OT, as you have pointed out, does tell us that we inherit the sin of our parents. No one has been born without sin except for Jesus who was given to us directly from God in Mary. Without Jesus we are not set free from this sin. Whether children can be held accountable for this sin that they inherit, we do not know, because the Bible does not speak on this issue. Many believe that children are not held accountable until they reach a time when God deems them able to choose. This is what I believe and is a combination of the two camps (1- inherited sin/ 2- age of accountability). Hermeneutics is a great tool in exegeting what Scripture says. It is how we can tell a better interpretation of Scripture from a poorer interpretation.

Another good book on Hermeneutics from a conservative Christian standpoint is Dr. Virkler's "Hermeneutics". This was my textbook in my hermeneutics class and I thought it was very well written. It is written from a process standpoint, meaning that it sets up a series of things that we can do to get the author's intended meaning from Scripture.

 

[ClementofRome]

Right well, for the first time in my life, i have heard of this thing called hremanutics, in a seminar, i've started to read "living by the book" which i'm told is a good book for hermanutics, and study. anywyas, on a teen forum, people have been arguing about the age of accountability and weather sin is hereditory, personally i believe it is, and have posted many scriptures supporting it, as well as this quote from a theology book, 'understanding theology' by R.T. Kendall the whole world fell as a result of our first parents. 'Ro 5:12-13a' 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-for before the law was given, sin was in the world'
a) this means that all born after adam and eve, inhereted the condition of adam and eveas they were after the fall (not before).
1)Man has never been born as adam was-in his unfallen state.
2) he inherits Adam's death, shame, self-rightousness and fear.
b ) in a word we are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are born sinners.
1) Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. (psalm 58:3)
2)Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (psalm 51:5)

for me this seems sound doctrine and biblical, i mean can u guys help me or do you guys just not agree or what?

I am in complete agreement. Your hermeneutical skills are just fine ....dig, and dig deeply and your efforts will always produce much fruit.

 

[mlbb_drummer]

thanks for all that encouragement friends, it's good to know that what i've tried to research is correct doctrine, as i'm just starting out i guess i'll come back with some more questions later.

i'm hopefully gonna try to put into practice some of the stuff i've learned today, as i look at joshua 1:8. (coz that's what the book i'm reading tells me to do!) so i'll publish my results on this forum later, so hopefully you guys can give me a few pointers as you probably have alot more experience tan me

 

[n8_]

Drummer...

It seems like what you are trying to get a handle on is a classic issue of disagreement...

Seminal Headship VS. Federal Headship

And it sounds like your studies are leading you to the Seminal Headship view. Some people try to find a balance between the two and incorporate the 'best of both worlds.'

Personally, I am not convinced that the two posititions can be 'mixed.' Also, I hold to the Federal Headship view. John Murray does a wonderful job of explaining the Federal Headship view in his Romans commentary.

 

[Crazy Liz]

...and those aren't the only ways Christians interpret scripture. Original sin resulting in inherited guilt (whether passed down by seminal headship or federal headship) is held as a doctrine by most Western Christians (Catholic and protestant), but not by Eastern (Orthodox) Christians, Anabaptists, and a few other groups.

Keep on studying. You are in good company, even though we don't all agree.

 

[mlbb_drummer]

explain these tearms seminal headship and Federal headship, please....

from what i can gather it seems that God is a just judge, yeah?! also i know God will judge each according to their works, i mean this who issue of inhereted sin, i suppose, is related to where you stand on predestination (which i seem to be finding, that most theological debates are based around, or can be traced back to).

 

[Crazy Liz]

To the best of my understanding, they are both theories of how Adam's sin is attributed to other humans. Seminal headship means sin is genetically inherited. Federal headship means that Adam sinned in a representative capacity on behalf of all future humans.

Since I don't believe in either of these, I may have mischaracterized, so I hope someone will correct me if I did.

 

[ps139]

What do you believe on this Liz?

 

[Crazy Liz]

More in line with the Orthodox and Anabaptist views. We are all born mortal, but innocent. Death is a result of sin, but there is no inherited guilt, or "sin nature," or "stain of original sin." None of us avoids sin (if we live long enough), but children are born innocent.

 

[ps139]

More in line with the Orthodox and Anabaptist views. We are all born mortal, but innocent. Death is a result of sin, but there is no inherited guilt, or "sin nature," or "stain of original sin." None of us avoids sin (if we live long enough), but children are born innocent.

I see. Is there a term for that belief, like there is for the other two?

 

[filosofer]

None of us avoids sin (if we live long enough), but children are born innocent.

So, when did parents start teaching children to disobey?

Any Biblical evidence to support the view that "children are born innocent"?Maybe this one?

"For all over the age of accountability have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

 

[Crazy Liz]

So, when did parents start teaching children to disobey?

When did God teach Adam and Eve to disobey?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I see. Is there a term for that belief, like there is for the other two?

Not that I know of.

 

[herev]

Liz that's close enough for gov. work

 

[mlbb_drummer]

When did God teach Adam and Eve to disobey?

hey that's a good answer....lol never thought of that one, from my limited understanding, i believe that they fell as a result of temptation, when the serpent tempted them, now say for example, they resisted temptation, that means then that they would not be sinful and the world would be perfect... but then on the flipside of that, the fact is they fell when temptaion came to them, and as a result, they were sinful, now if two sinful beings create another being, as happened with cane and abel, they can't be pure beings because they are bron out of corruption. only Jesus could therefore be perfect because of the virgin birth.
Which leads me nicely to my other argument against the anabaptist thingy, what would be the point of the virgin birth, if we were all born sinless? or without a sin nature? i mean there would be no need for it. But the thing is that sin is passed down, from generation to generation...(psalm 51v5) and therefore if Jesus was not born of the Spirit, he could not save his people from his isns, because he'd be sinful. Yet Jesus was a perfect man, 100% man and 100% God, he was pure in every way! and therefore he must have been born of a virgin, otherwise the sin of his parents would have corrupted him.......hope everyone can see my line of thinking here .

 

[ps139]

hey that's a good answer....lol never thought of that one, from my limited understanding, i believe that they fell as a result of temptation, when the serpent tempted them, now say for example, they resisted temptation, that means then that they would not be sinful and the world would be perfect...

Well I wouldn't go that far... my guess is that Cain or Abel would have probably given into temptation... and if not them, then someone. If satan failed the first time in the garden he probably would have strengthened his attacks.

but then on the flipside of that, the fact is they fell when temptaion came to them, and as a result, they were sinful, now if two sinful beings create another being, as happened with cane and abel, they can't be pure beings because they are bron out of corruption. only Jesus could therefore be perfect because of the virgin birth.
Which leads me nicely to my other argument against the anabaptist thingy, what would be the point of the virgin birth, if we were all born sinless? or without a sin nature? i mean there would be no need for it. But the thing is that sin is passed down, from generation to generation...(psalm 51v5) and therefore if Jesus was not born of the Spirit, he could not save his people from his isns, because he'd be sinful. Yet Jesus was a perfect man, 100% man and 100% God, he was pure in every way! and therefore he must have been born of a virgin, otherwise the sin of his parents would have corrupted him.......hope everyone can see my line of thinking here .

Mlbb_drummer - what you describe here is a HUGE reason why Catholics believe God kept Mary free from sin.

 

[BigNorsk]

Since man fell through Adam all are born under sin. It is the reason why Christ had to be a virgin birth. Sin comes down through the fathers, not the mothers. If sin came through the mother, then Jesus would also be a sinner and all would be for nothing.

On top of the original sin from Adam, there are the covenants. The old testament covenant had the sins of the father carrying over to the 3rd or 4th generation, while the blessings carried on to the 1000th generation. In the new covenant, you are responsible for yourself, but there is still the original sin which preceeded those covenants.

Now we come to the age of accountability and the whole question of does original sin mean that the little children who die are doomed to an eternity in hell?

I believe the idea that very young children cannot believe to be weak. For instance, John the Baptist recognizes Mary the Mother of Jesus before John is even born. Are we then to think that John could not have believed in God until he was 7 or 8 or 13, or whatever the supposed age of accountability would be? The idea seems a bit weak to me. Also we have Jesus saying to let the little ones come to him and saying we all need to believe like little children. So if little children can't believe what would that mean? Believe like those who can't believe? We even have Jesus himself, if he was fully man (and the Bible teaches he was) then are we to conclude that Jesus couldn't believe in himself until he was old enough? Some people want to believe that Jesus was very different in how he developed, but then how do you handle the passages where we are taught Jesus was increasing in knowledge? (Luke 2:52)

So I would say the scriptures teach that we are all sinners including the very young, but even the very young are not excluded from believing and being saved. Much of the age of accountability school seems to me to come from the idea that the saved person needs to be able to transmit that to another person, so the tendency is to limit salvation to those mature enough to be able to explain it to someone else. I just don't find that idea to be scriptural.

Marv