Bad theology springs from bible selectivity.

[GingerBeer]

If they had been sinless. They would not have aged or died.

Forgive me...

They were not sinless - Christ was sinless yet he died, though his death was an execution imposed upon him unjustly and wickedly.

 

[GingerBeer]

An interesting post! I have to admit I had fallen for the Romans passage and fell right into that so this is eye opening.

I'm interested to know your recommendations. For someone who is still new to the Word and has not read all books quite yet, and has trouble keeping it all in her head, how can one avoid falling into these traps and not know it? How can I avoid it?

The best way to avoid traps is to know of their existence and now that you know of their existence you have already taken the first step in avoiding them. The next step and the many more to follow involve becoming increasingly familiar with the scriptures and always being careful not to assume that somebody who sounds knowledgeable is necessarily telling the truth on every matter about which they speak. Check things out for yourself and be willing to receive instruction - always with a little bit of scepticism - while at the same exercising caution and checking the facts for yourself. It will be an arduous task but one worth undertaking and one which can always be taken up again if you lapse into assuming something to be true that later proves not to be true.

 

[GingerBeer]

Plus looking at ALL applicable scriptures from both testaments. For instance what do you do with this statement:?

Phil 3.5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Do you think Paul really counted himself as sinless (regarding the Law)? Paul said of himself

The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the foremost.
1 Timothy 1:15​

When Paul speak of himself as blameless in reference to the Law he is likely referring to his assiduous observance of the rules about separation, cleanliness, and so forth. He was not referring to himself as sinless because he knew himself to be egregiously wicked because "I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" 1 Corinthians 15:9 and Luke records

When they heard these things, they became enraged and ground their teeth at Stephen. But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 'Look,' he said, 'I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!' But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them.' When he had said this, he died.
Acts 7:54-60
And Saul approved of their killing him. That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria. Devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison.
Acts 8:1-3​

Have you looked carefully at the passage you quoted? It says

Finally, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is not troublesome to me, and for you it is a safeguard. Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh-- even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh. If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
Philippians 3:1-11​

Paul is not praising confidence in the flesh he is condemning it both in himself and in others. The words you made bold in your quote are intended to be scorned as wicked fleshly confidence that will end in condemnation unless repented of.

 

[aiki]

What Job repents of is not sin but of speaking without knowledge (we might call it ignorance but using ignorance without the implication that Job was deliberately and carelessly uninformed). The passage makes it clear that Job repents in a similar way to God's repentance mentioned in the scriptures.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.

I don't think your parallel here between Job and God is warranted. God's "repentance" is essentially a changing of His mind, an alteration of what He intended to do. Not because His initial course was in error, or badly thought out, but because He wanted to honor Moses' pleas on behalf of the Israelites. Job's repentance, on the other hand, is very different from God's. Like God, Job has a change of mind. But where God changed His mind because He thought to show grace and mercy to Moses' and His Chosen People, Job changed his mind because he was badly in error. So bad, in fact, that he repents in dust and ashes and characterizes himself as vile. This doesn't sound like someone merely changing their mind as God in Exodus 32:14. Job seems to be admitting wrongdoing, hence the dust and ashes and heavy criticism of himself. I don't see, then, the parallel your trying to draw between Job's repentance and God's. They appear to be quite different to me.

 

[GingerBeer]

I don't think your parallel here between Job and God is warranted. God's "repentance" is essentially a changing of His mind, an alteration of what He intended to do. Not because His initial course was in error, or badly thought out, but because He wanted to honor Moses' pleas on behalf of the Israelites. Job's repentance, on the other hand, is very different from God's. Like God, Job has a change of mind. But where God changed His mind because He thought to show grace and mercy to Moses' and His Chosen People, Job changed his mind because he was badly in error. So bad, in fact, that he repents in dust and ashes and characterizes himself as vile. This doesn't sound like someone merely changing their mind as God in Exodus 32:14. Job seems to be admitting wrongdoing, hence the dust and ashes and heavy criticism of himself. I don't see, then, the parallel your trying to draw between Job's repentance and God's. They appear to be quite different to me.

The only parallel I wanted to make was the use of the word "repent" to signify regret about something that is not a sin. Job regretted his words and God regretted his intention to obliterate Israel. Job was a man and not God so Job was capable of regrets regarding ignorant speech while God's regret is not like Job's because God is never ignorant and even though God regrets the intention to destroy Israel there is no suggestion that there was anything incomplete or ill chosen in God's intention. All we know is that God regretted it. We do not even really know what "regtret" in God truly signifies because the only kind of regret that human beings know is the kind we experience and our regrets never arise out of omniscience and omnipotence while God do.

 

[aiki]

The only parallel I wanted to make was the use of the word "repent" to signify regret about something that is not a sin. Job regretted his words and God regretted his intention to obliterate Israel.

No, God did not regret wanting to wipe out the Israelite people and start over with Moses. Where is that stated in Exodus 32? Regret implies that God felt badly about what He wanted/intended to do. But He didn't. God was entirely justified in what He was going to do to the "stiffnecked" Israelites. He altered His mind about it only because Moses pleaded with Him to do so, not because He realized that what He had wanted to do was wrong.

God is never ignorant and even though God regrets the intention to destroy Israel there is no suggestion that there was anything incomplete or ill chosen in God's intention.

Then "regret" is not the word to use to describe God's change of mind.

All we know is that God regretted it. We do not even really know what "regtret" in God truly signifies because the only kind of regret that human beings know is the kind we experience and our regrets never arise out of omniscience and omnipotence while God do.

This is all a bit of a distraction from the fact that Job was not a perfect man as you tried to assert. As Job's own words and actions demonstrate, he was no such thing.

 

[Hank77]

Do you dislike receiving an answer? Or is there something about the passage in Hebrews that troubles you?

Neither.
I'm not doing well in wording the question.

I do not believe all mankind sinned "in" Adam. But "because of" Adam's sin we all inherit death and a corrupted nature with the propensity to sin.

Rom 5:12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;

I don't believe in 'original sin' as Augustine taught it.

 

[GingerBeer]

No, God did not regret wanting to wipe out the Israelite people and start over with Moses. Where is that stated in Exodus 32?

In verse 14 of Exodus 14 you'll find this statement.

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people. Exodus 32:14​

It appears to be exactly what you asked for above.

Then "regret" is not the word to use to describe God's change of mind.

I used "regretted" rather than "repented" because repentance involves regret (and other things). Do you want to make a distinction between the words for a theological purpose? If so what is the purpose?

This is all a bit of a distraction from the fact that Job was not a perfect man as you tried to assert.

Jehovah is the one who asserted Job's perfection but God uses "perfect" of Job in a way that appears to differ from the way some in this thread want to use the word "perfect". I mention this because some appear to use perfect as if it were an incommunicable attribute of God while God uses it of a creature (specifically Job). Clearly since Jehovah said "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?" the word "perfect" cannot signify an incommunicable attribute of God; specifically "perfect" cannot mean "as perfect as God" and it can and does mean "as perfect as any man can be" or perhaps "as perfect as any creature can be".

​

 

[GingerBeer]

Neither.
I'm not doing well in wording the question.

I do not believe all mankind sinned "in" Adam. But "because of" Adam's sin we all inherit death and a corrupted nature with the propensity to sin.

Rom 5:12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;

I don't believe in 'original sin' as Augustine taught it.

I am not too concerned about Augustine in this thread. Original sin is also called ancestral sin. The meaning of the phrase "original sin" is not "the first sin" though it does in fact refer to that first sin and it does not mean "we all sinned by our own act and choice in Adam". What "original sin" does mean is that the consequences of sin are inherited by all of Adam's natural descendants because they were all "in his loins" (so to speak), the a similar way to which Levi was in the loins of Abraham when Abraham tithed to Melchizedek king of Salem. If you are reading Augustine's views on original sin and attributing what you've read in his works to my comments then you are mistaken. Augustine makes his own case for "original sin" and he will better answer your objections than I. My views are my own and I will not attribute them to Augustine. Nothing I have written says or implies that every human being chose to sin and performed the sinful act that Adam performed.

 

[Hank77]

This is all a bit of a distraction from the fact that Job was not a perfect man as you tried to assert. As Job's own words and actions demonstrate, he was no such thing.

God speaking to Job...
Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?
Job 40:9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
Job 40:10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.
......

Job 40:14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

Job was upright before God, the scripture speaks of all the righteous things that Job did. But God tells Job that unless he is like God he can't save himself, not matter how many righteous works that he may do he doesn't have the power to save himself. His own right hand cannot save him.

 

[Hank77]

Nothing I have written says or implies that every human being chose to sin and performed the sinful act that Adam performed.

Neither did Augustine. And yes I did think I heard his doctrine of original sin in one of your post and that is why I brought it up.
But whatever. Carry on with your lessons.

 

[Hammster]

o you think Paul really counted himself as sinless (regarding the Law)?

Blameless, not sinless. That's where your error lies. You insist they are the same.

 

[GingerBeer]

Blameless, not sinless.

I agree that blameless is not sinless. I have never asserted that they are the same. Job is said to be perfect and upright. Jesus is said to be sinless. Enoch is said to have pleased God. Each word has its own meaning. Each meaning is distinct.

You insist they are the same.

That is precisely what I do not assert. It appears to be what you think rather than what I've written. That explains why you've written what you have.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Saul the pharisee could faultlessly obey the legalistic/ levitical law( phil3:6) so he was blameless concerning it. But he could not faultlessly obey the moral law/ TC( rom7:7-11) so he was not blameless concerning that law

 

[Hammster]

I agree that blameless is not sinless. I have never asserted that they are the same. Ob is said to be perfect and upright. Jesus is said to be sinless. Enoch is said to have pleased God. Each word has its own meaning. Each meaning is distinct.

That is precisely what I do not assert. It appears to be what you think rather than what I've written. That explains why you've written what you have.

So you don't equate perfection with being blameless?

 

[GingerBeer]

Saul the pharisee could faultlessly obey the legalistic/ levitical law( phil3:6) so he was blameless concerning it.

Saul could no more obey the Law than you and Paul never thought that he did obey the Law. In fact Paul asserts that righteousness cannot come by obeying the Law.

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Romans 8:7-8
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me.
Romans 7:9-11​

 

[GingerBeer]

So you don't equate perfection with aimlessness?

I have no idea why you've mentioned aimlessness. Would you explain why it's come up in your post?

 

[Hammster]

I have no idea why you've mentioned aimlessness. Would you explain why it's come up in your post?

Darn autocorrect. Should be blameless.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Saul could no more obey the Law than you and Paul never thought that he did obey the Law. In fact Paul asserts that righteousness cannot come by obeying the Law.

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Romans 8:7-8
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me.
Romans 7:9-11​

The commandnent Paul is referring to in rom7:7-11 that was death to him was: Thou shalt not covet. One of the TC and part if what is referred to as the moral law
People who did not know God( many Pharisees) could faultlessly obey what is termed the legalistic law. For they cleaned the outside if the cup. But they could not and did not obey the moral law faultlessly, far from it, hence the cup remained unclean on the inside, full of wickedness, hypocrisy and everything unclean

 

[stuart lawrence]

If only legalistic law, not moral law existed, Jesus need not have died at Calvary