Bad theology springs from bible selectivity.

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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
I think it would be more accurate to say that wicked Pharisees (such as Saul) fancied themselves to be scrupulously obedient to the law. They fancied themselves to be good and godly but they were not. Jesus said of them
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
Matthew 23:27​
Being a "blameless" pharisee is no more and no less than being a hypocrite. Any Pharisee who was humble before God knew that he was a sinner and would be more like the publican that Jesus mentioned
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!'
Luke 18:13​
Saul was not like that, he was not humble. When he became Paul the Christian he recognised just how dreadful his previous "righteousness" was.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So you don't equate perfection with being blameless?
I do equate the two in the case of Job because Job 1:8 is translated both as "perfect and upright" as well as "blameless and upright" in the English bibles I have to hand. The translators do not make a sharp distinction between the two English words since they use both words to translate the single Hebrew word used in that verse.
 
Upvote 0

stuart lawrence

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2015
10,527
1,606
65
✟70,925.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think it would be more accurate to say that wicked Pharisees (such as Saul) fancied themselves to be scrupulously obedient to the law. They fancied themselves to be good and godly but they were not. Jesus said of them
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
Matthew 23:27​
Being a "blameless" pharisee is no more and no less than being a hypocrite. Any Pharisee who was humble before God knew that he was a sinner and would be more like the publican that Jesus mentioned
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!'
Luke 18:13​
Saul was not like that, he was not humble. When he became Paul the Christian he recognised just how dreadful his previous "righteousness" was.
You are failing to recognise the difference between legalistic and moral law.
Pharisees who did not love God could faultlessly/ blamelessly avoid eating the Levitical unclean foods. They could faultlessly observe religious feast days. They could perfectly and without fault trim their beards. They could faultlessly obey not cutting their bodies. They could faultlessly obey not turning to mediums, spiritisms, etc, etc, etc. They could do all of that blamelessly, which is obeying legalistic law. What they could not do was obey the moral law.
Reflect on the difference
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,192
25,222
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,729,008.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I do equate the two in the case of Job because Job 1:8 is translated both as "perfect and upright" as well as "blameless and upright" in the English bibles I have to hand. The translators do not make a sharp distinction between the two English words since they use both words to translate the single Hebrew word used in that verse.
So I was correct when I said

Blameless, not sinless. That's where your error lies. You insist they are the same.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So I was correct when I said
You were correct to say "blameless is not sinless" and I agreed with that. You are incorrect when you say "You insist they are the same." and I stated that before.
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.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,192
25,222
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,729,008.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
You were correct to say "blameless is not sinless" and I agreed with that. You are incorrect when you say "You insist they are the same." and I stated that before.
So was Job sinless?
 
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Site Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
An example of bad theology springing from selective bible reading follows:
Bad theology:
Every single individual human being has sinned (EXCLUDING original sin).​
Selective bible reading:
as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave, they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood, in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they do not know." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:10-20​
Antidote to selective bible reading:
Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:17-21

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
Hebrews 11:5-6

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil.
Job 1:1
...
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. The LORD said to Satan, "Whence have you come?" Satan answered the LORD, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?" Then Satan answered the LORD, "Does Job fear God for nought? Hast thou not put a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? Thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But put forth thy hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will curse thee to thy face." And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand." So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
Job 1:6-12​
Bad theology can be countered but first it must be recognised for what it is and then the antidote can be administered. Jesus knew no sin so it is both bad theology and bad hermeneutics to interpret the passage from Romans (which quotes a psalm) as teaching that every single individual who has ever lived has sinned. It ought to be noted that original sin does in fact implicate all the natural children of Eve and Adam but the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ excludes him from the category of "natural children of Eve and Adam" inasmuch as his Father is God. And the idea that all (excluding Christ) are implicated in original sin does not imply that all have committed sins themselves. Infants who die in infancy or who die before birth have committed no sins even though original sin implicates them. And since God himself testifies that Job was blameless & upright (more accurately "perfect and upright") it appears that the only one who accuses Job of sin is Satan. Yet some who adhere to bad theology follow the thinking of Satan and accuse Job of sin on the basis of the passage in the psalms that is quoted in Romans. Enoch is also accused of sin yet God says he was pleased with Enoch and "took him". "Took him" implying that God received Enoch into heaven without Enoch ever dying. What sins can Enoch be accused of if God himself received him?

Other examples of Bad Theology springing from selective reading of scripture can easily be cited. The example given above is one that ought to be obvious to any who read scripture more fully and with their wits and eyes fully operative.

Bad Theology: Forming broad and sweeping theological systems based on the lives of 2 men.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So was Job sinless?
Why do you say that "Job was sinless". God asserts that Job was "perfect and upright" and I agree with Job. God did not say "Job is sinless". In fact Job was implicated in original sin just as you and I are. One cannot be sinless and yet implicated in original sin. But one can be "perfect and upright" in one's own conduct even if one is implicated in original sin and Job is said to be exactly that (perfect and upright) by God.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Bad Theology: Forming broad and sweeping theological systems based on the lives of 2 men.
It would be bad theology to build a system of theology on the lives of Enoch and Job (the two men you are probably referring to in your post). Jesus is a third man mentioned in the original post for this thread. The mention of Jesus, Enoch, and Job in the original post was as a counter example for a theology that asserts that each and every man is a sinner by his own volition and by his own actions.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,192
25,222
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,729,008.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Why do you say that "Job was sinless". God asserts that Job was "perfect and upright" and I agree with Job. God did not say "Job is sinless". In fact Job was implicated in original sin just as you and I are. One cannot be sinless and yet implicated in original sin. But one can be "perfect and upright" in one's own conduct even if one is implicated in original sin and Job is said to be exactly that (perfect and upright) by God.
I never said Job was sinless. I asked if he was. You say he wasn't.

So bringing this up

And Job had an excellent report from God.
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and turned away from evil.
Job 1:1
And The LORD said to Satan, Have you considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that fears God, and turns away from evil.
Job 1:8How does your theology account for these men who God was pleased with and spoke of as perfect and turning away from evil?

was pointless.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Site Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
It would be bad theology to build a system of theology on the lives of Enoch and Job (the two men you are probably referring to in your post). Jesus is a third man mentioned in the original post for this thread. The mention of Jesus, Enoch, and Job in the original post was as a counter example for a theology that asserts that each and every man is a sinner by his own volition and by his own actions.

If there were even one man, with the exception of Christ, who lived his entire life without sin of commission or omission, then Christ would not have needed to die. He could have been spared the cross.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If there were even one man, with the exception of Christ, who lived his entire life without sin of commission or omission, then Christ would not have needed to die. He could have been spared the cross.
What you've written is not the truth. There are countless men and women who died in infancy many before they were born who did no sin of commission or omission. Therefore the proposition in your post is absurdly erroneous; specifically there are many men and women, the afore mentioned infants, who lived their entire lives without any sins of commission or omission nevertheless Christ did die for them all.
 
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Site Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
What you've written is not the truth. There are countless men and women who died in infancy many before they were born who did no sin of commission or omission. Therefore the proposition in your post is absurdly erroneous; specifically there are many men and women, the afore mentioned infants, who lived their entire lives without any sins of commission or omission nevertheless Christ did die for them all.

If even one man were able to live a sinless life, loving God and neighbor perfectly, every day for his entire life, then Christ's death was superfluous because salvation could be obtained without Christ.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If even one man were able to live a sinless life, loving God and neighbor perfectly, every day for his entire life, then Christ's death was superfluous because salvation could be obtained without Christ.
Unborn infants and infants that die in their infancy have no sins even though they are implicated in original sin and hence need a saviour.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Site Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,948
1,725
38
London
Visit site
✟403,021.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
In general I agree with the OP in that we can't cherry pick some verses whilst ignoring others.

However, at least in the Lutheran tradition, we understand Scripture to talk about two kinds of righteousnesses; coram deo et coram mundo. That is, before God and before man. Of course Scripture never uses this term, but it does speak in this way when it in some places asserts that someone are "blamless" and in other places that "no one are righteous - not even one". Simply explained, it's possible to be righteous before men, but not in the eyes of God according to our own natural strength or efforts. It's written, "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness". That is a righteousness that comes from God, not of ourselves, but is apprehended by faith, which is the work of the Holy Spirit in us.

So when Scripture talks about people being righteous, we have to be careful not to take it to mean a righteousness that we produce, independently of faith. Salvation comes entirely from God and there is no other name under heaven that saves, but the name of Jesus Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GingerBeer
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In general I agree with the OP in that we can't cherry pick some verses whilst ignoring others.

However, at least in the Lutheran tradition, we understand Scripture to talk about two kinds of righteousnesses; coram deo et coram mundo. That is, before God and before man. Of course Scripture never uses this term, but it does speak in this way when it in some places asserts that someone are "blamless" and in other places that "no one are righteous - not even one". Simply explained, it's possible to be righteous before men, but not in the eyes of God according to our own natural strength or efforts. It's written, "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness". That is a righteousness that comes from God, not of ourselves, but is apprehended by faith, which is the work of the Holy Spirit in us.

So when Scripture talks about people being righteous, we have to be careful not to take it to mean a righteousness that we produce, independently of faith. Salvation comes entirely from God and there is no other name under heaven that saves, but the name of Jesus Christ.
God himself said of Job "there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil" so it appears to be "righteousness before God" that is described since it is God who says Job is perfect and upright. How would that fit in the two categories that Lutheran tradition posits?
 
Upvote 0