Looking for a theology expert!!!

[philadiddle]

There's a small group that's started up in my church and we are discussing apologetics. Right now we are on the topic of c&e. I'm the only TE there so i have to defend myself on my own, while several other ppl agree on YEC and can stick up for each other. When it comes to theology i've just started getting deep into it but there's a few things i need help on. I was wondering what TEs out there would let me fire a few PMs at them every now and then.

1 thing that came up today is about foundation. It seems to me we view foundation in a different way. The YECs need to have a literal foundation for the rest of the bible to build off of. For example, if there was no literal fall, then other theology crumbles. I see it differently, the meaning behind the story of original sin is what's foundational. Any thoughts?

 

[HSetterfield]

What do you see as "the meaning behind the story of original sin"?

 

[philadiddle]

i'll have to think it through some more to really answer that. that's a good question, makes me think and now i have to research more

 

[Tinker Grey]

The wikipedia article on original sin is helpful on understanding a wide range of Christian (and a little on Jewish as well) beliefs and understandings on the topic.

The Truth of the story of Adam and Eve was phrased this way by Rob Bell in Velvet Elvis: " ... not only because it happened, but because it happens."

Except for "because it happened", I agree with that statement. The importance is not in some unnecessary (though logical, in its own way) doctrine about how Man came to need to be saved, but rather that we each need God's saving grace. Whether or not Adam and Eve existed, I need to be saved.

The need for a "literal" foundation is so far removed from my thinking, I am at a loss. Do I really need a literalist foundation to understand that Jesus is "literally" the door? (Hint: It's not literal! -- preaching to the choir, I know [I wonder if there is a P2TC smiley]).) Do we need to need a literalist foundation to understand what a literal death on the cross was like? Obviously, I don't think so.

HTH

 

[HSetterfield]

Then evidently Paul was wrong in Romans 5:12 --
"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..."

In fact, poor deluded Paul, he goes on and on about how sin and death trace back to one man:

"But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the man! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

Now there is a problem here. Paul is tracing all sin back to one man, Adam (mentioned by name in the earlier section of that chapter). If this is allegorical, then so is salvation through Christ, for the two are inextricably tied in this passage.

That is one reason you will hear many Christians state, and truly I think, that Genesis is the foundation for the rest of the Bible.

 

[Assyrian]

I think if you talk about the story of original sin you have already lost half the battle. The bible doesn't mention 'original sin'.

 

[HSetterfield]

Well, if sin entered the world through one man and his one sin, that seems pretty original to me!

The Bible never uses the word "Trinity" either, but that concept is clearly expressed by Christ and Paul as well.

Original sin is the term we use now for Adam's sin.

 

[Assyrian]

Well, if sin entered the world through one man and his one sin, that seems pretty original to me!

If the story is literal, but Paul seems to spend a lot of time treating it allegorically.

The Bible never uses the word "Trinity" either, but that concept is clearly expressed by Christ and Paul as well.

Original sin is the term we use now for Adam's sin.

Unfortunately it also includes a whole lot of theological baggage, including the assumption that the story is literal. I grew up a Catholic and original sin was the guilt passed down to me from Adam that I was born with that had to be washed away in baptism. If you want to use the term original sin because it is traditional why not use all its traditional Catholic meaning?

Now there is a problem here. Paul is tracing all sin back to one man, Adam (mentioned by name in the earlier section of that chapter).

Except that Paul has it the other way around. Rom 5:12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. We don't sin because of Adam, we share in the death described in Genesis 3 because we sin.

If this is allegorical, then so is salvation through Christ, for the two are inextricably tied in this passage.

That doesn't follow. Jesus compared himself to 'the Good Shepherd', it doesn't mean there had be be an actual Good Shepherd or Jesus didn't exist either.

Paul is comparing Adam and Jesus on an allegorical level Rom 5:14 Adam... who is a figure of him who was to come. There is no problem in one side of an allegorical description being purely allegorical. Sometimes historical figures are allegorized, but not every allegory is also literal. The bible is full of non factual allegories and figurative pictures, from a slain lamb of God to seven headed monsters.

 

[HSetterfield]

Well, Assyrian, I can see why you object to some things, because of your Catholic background.

The biblical concept of original sin, when you read the entire Bible, is quite different, however. We read, for instance, in Ezekiel, that no one is held responsible for another's sin, but each man for his own.

So we do not have guilt for Adam's sin. However, just like a syphalitic mother can cause her innocent child to be born blind, we were born with the effects of Adam's sin -- our own sin natures. Baptism cannot wash that away. Only being born again in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit can change who we are inside.

But I am curious now, since you feel that Paul is stating things allegorically, where do you draw the line? He ties Adam's sin with Jesus' salvation, both by one man, as he states so clearly. Why should one be other than allegorical if the other is allegorical?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The biblical concept of original sin, when you read the entire Bible, is quite different, however. We read, for instance, in Ezekiel, that no one is held responsible for another's sin, but each man for his own.

So we do not have guilt for Adam's sin.

no, this is not necessarily the Biblical concept of original sin" but rather your or possibly your denomination or church's interpretation of the meaning of original sin. interestingly it is not the most common Protestant viewpoint, which is that both the guilt and penalty for Adam's sin is imputed to all humanity.

there is a short couple of paragraphs on the issue at: http://www.desiringgod.org/Resource...ference_between_original_sin_and_imputed_sin/ which express the most common Protestant ideas, which are also those of the Reformation and the reformers of that time.

afaik, the first theologians to express the idea that we are not guilty, or do not share in the guilt of Adam's sin are the New Haven theologians of the 1830's. there is a short defense of this position at:
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-ezekiel-18-19-32.htm
please note that this essay refers as well directly to Ezekiel, as does the comment i am replying to. i suspect that both these two people represent a similiar church's doctrine.

there is a good historical essay on the rise of the New Haven theology at: http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/new_haven_theology.htm*


so, your expression is NOT the Biblical conception of original sin but rather a specific interpretive community's idea of what original sin is. It would be much better if you wrote "i believe that the Bible teaches" or "it appears to me that the Bible says" or such qualifiers so that people are aware that you realize that your interpretation is not the only one that has been proposed in the history of the church, nor is it even the majority view of Protestants as opposed to either the RC or Orthodox POV.

notes:
*

"4. The subject may assist us in making a right explanation of original sin." The explanation however is very vague, and amounts to this, that "the Scriptures intend not to teach, that men are individually the subjects of sin, by imputation of guilt; or, by vitiosity of constitution, previous to moral and accountable action, or separate from such action. We are led, therefore, to the conclusion that, although man may be so affected, at his origin, in his constitution, as to render certain his commencing moral agency in sinful action, yet, that nothing can with truth be called his original sin, but his first moral choice or preference being evil; which original determination of will, or moral purpose, operates, in addition to his original susceptibilities, as a ground of his succeeding acts being sinful."

this is a very early expression of this idea that we do not inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, if anyone is aware of earlier or antecedent theologians teaching this i would be glad to learn of them and to get it into my notes. thanks for your help.

 

[gluadys]

Original sin is the term we use now for Adam's sin.

It is how many modern fundamentalists use the term, but it is not how original sin has been understood historically in the church.

While I don't agree entirely with Catholic doctrine on this point, it is closer to the historic understanding of what original sin is.

Original sin is not an event. It is not equivalent to the first sinful act.

Original sin is a condition. It is part of the human condition that affects every human.

Thanks to Augustine, the belief that this condition was inherited biologically, just like eye colour or blood type, was a belief long held by the church. But now that we know more about biological inheritance, we know this cannot be so.

Adam, as an historic individual committing a historic sin, is only necessary if original sin is a biological inheritance. But it is not, and cannot be a biological inheritance.

So it makes perfect sense to see Adam as representative of every human being (which is what the term "adam" means in Hebrew) and the story of the fall as a pictorial representation of each and every one of us.

This even fits with Paul's words in Romans, for he did not translate "adam" from the Hebrew into Greek. He transliterated it; i.e. he simply used the Hebrew word and spelled it out in Greek letters.

But he is using the term just as allegorically as he would have in Hebrew. Since Christ came, we can be Adam-humans or Christ-humans. We can remain in the condition of the one person: the Adam-human, or we can be redeemed from that condition which includes original sin and becomes another person--the Christ-human. As long as we are "in Adam" i.e. in the sinful condition of a human being conditioned by a world of sin, we are in need of salvation. We are saved when we become "in Christ" who is another Adam.

 

[HSetterfield]

rmwilliamsll, I have a really weird suggestion. Instead of looking at what everyone else says about the Bible and what it means, let's actually look at what the Bible says.

Turn to Ezekiel 18, please

"The soul who sins is the one who will die.
...Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share in the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share in the guilt of the father, nor will the father share in the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."


Might I humbly suggest that the Bible itself is the antecedent of any of the theologians?

 

[HSetterfield]

gluadys, that is fine to say that Paul referred to Adam specifically when he actually meant men generally, but what on earth are you then going to do with

"But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the man! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

from Romans 5?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

rmwilliamsll, I have a really weird suggestion. Instead of looking at what everyone else says about the Bible and what it means, let's actually look at what the Bible says.

Turn to Ezekiel 18, please

"The soul who sins is the one who will die.
...Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share in the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share in the guilt of the father, nor will the father share in the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."


Might I humbly suggest that the Bible itself is the antecedent of any of the theologians?

this is talking about father and son relationships, not Adam to humanity. It is an expansion on the idea that everyone pays for their own sins.


curiously in the very next message you quote Romans 5 with the doctrine of federal headship which is the key to Adam's position as the representative head of the human race.

rmwilliamsll, I have a really weird suggestion. Instead of looking at what everyone else says about the Bible and what it means, let's actually look at what the Bible says.

this is actually a veiled ad hominem, hinting that i do not actually look at the Bible, as opposed to yourself who only uses the Bible to construct your ideas.

but that is fine, i think it an inappropriate way for Christians to argue, but i am aware that not everyone shares this viewpoint.

however, i would again point out that you continue to state your opinions and your interpretations of the Scripture in such a way that it appears that you do not see any difference between what you believe and what God knows.

this close identification of one's viewpoint and that of God is expected of someone like the Pope however i find someone who discusses these matters in an online website is probably not in as direct contact with God as is the Pope and the various other prophets who claim to speak in God's name, such as the Prophet and Seer of the LDS, or the Watchtower Society etc. I'd suggest that your marvelous prophetic gifts in that you know exactly what verses mean without any reference to theologians before, or to community's of interpretation etc is being wasted on people such as myself here, you really ought to be communicating on a much higher level with the other pontifs who share your gifts and infallible insight.

As for me, i am more than comfortable in expressing things as my opinion, and quoting those who know more than i do, and realizing that i am wrong on a number of things (if i knew what they were i would change them, that is one reason to be here, to learn). i commonly preface almost everything with "here is what X says", or "there is this POV in this denomination" or etc. trying to do justice to the whole range of Christian interpretations of these verses. i do so because God has not gifted me with your knowledge of the true and essential meaning of these texts and i must try to research and understand what others say about them, before even attempting to interpret them myself.

But then again, i am painfully aware that my intepretation of what the Bible says is not necessarily exactly and precisely what God intends us to understand concerning it, in fact, i am sure that it is faulty and i am expressing merely my opinion.

 

[Tinker Grey]

gluadys,

I appreciate your comments here ... as always.

I am curious, tho', why you can say that we know that sin cannot be inherited. Can you elaborate? If you think it necessary, I'd read a thread if you start it. (This is a quest for informaton, not for debate.)

Thanks

 

[gluadys]

gluadys, that is fine to say that Paul referred to Adam specifically when he actually meant men generally, but what on earth are you then going to do with

"But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the man! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

from Romans 5?

As was pointed out earlier, this is not referring to the transmission of sin, but to the consequence of judgment and condemnation which, as Paul also points out, passed on to all because all had sinned. Not because an individual named Adam sinned, but because all sinned.

None of us inherited condemnation; we earned it by our own sin. None of us inherits justification; we receive it as a gift of God's grace.

In regard to the first we show ourselves to be one person: an Adam person. In regard to the second we are made another person: a Christ-person.

 

[HSetterfield]

rmwilliamsll --there was no ad hominem intended and I apologize if it seemed that way. Your references were all to theologians. I wanted to get back to the Bible itself.


Tinker Grey -- sin is disobedience, by definition. Each person obeys or disobeys on his or her own. I cannot disobey for my children, and they cannot disobey for me. Sin nature has come down to us from Adam, guaranteeing that each of us will sin, but our sins are our own, not his.

gluadys -- yes, all sinned. But Paul makes a very clear statement that sin entered the world through ONE man. That is the point to be made here -- that there was one literal man who commited the first literal sin and the Bible tells us who that was and what the sin was.

And I certainly agree with the rest of your last post!

 

[gluadys]

gluadys -- yes, all sinned. But Paul makes a very clear statement that sin entered the world through ONE man. That is the point to be made here -- that there was one literal man who commited the first literal sin and the Bible tells us who that was and what the sin was.

And I certainly agree with the rest of your last post!

Paul does not say the "one man" was a literal man. That is your interpretation of his words. How do you know Paul would agree with you?

 

[HSetterfield]

Paul does not say the "one man" was a literal man. That is your interpretation of his words. How do you know Paul would agree with you?

Well, he contrasts the one man who brought sin into the world with the one Man who reversed it. If Adam was not one man, then Jesus wasn't either.

But the gift is not like the trespass [please note 'trespass' is singular there]. For if the many died by the trespass [singular] of the one man [singular], how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of one man [singular], Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the [note the definite article there, meaning 'one'] one man's [singular] sin: The judgment followed one sin [note the singular there] and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. for if, by the trespass [singular] of the [definite article] one man [singular], death reigned through that one man [singular], how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man [singular], Jesus Christ.

So you see, I don't think it is a matter of Paul agreeing with me, but of whether you think HE is telling the truth or not! Do YOU agree with HIM?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Tinker Grey -- sin is disobedience, by definition. Each person obeys or disobeys on his or her own. I cannot disobey for my children, and they cannot disobey for me. Sin nature has come down to us from Adam, guaranteeing that each of us will sin, but our sins are our own, not his.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

You say Adam existed and therefore we sin and therefore we need salvation.

I say Adam didn't exist and yet we sin and therefore we need salvation.

Manifestly, one's belief about Adam has no bearing on one's belief that we each need salvation.