The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

I said "Yes, directly tied to the Gospel and original sin."
We die in Adam and we live in Christ.

mark kennedy said:

The problem is the clear message of the Gospel, in Adam all sinned:

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5:17-21)​

The baby is in need of salvation, definitely.

Click to expand...

According to any conservative position human life begins at conception. Do aborted fetuses go to hell, mark? Do embryos used in stem cell research have souls that go to hell, mark?

Does your theology make sense, mark?

mark kennedy said:

The problem is the clear message of the Gospel, in Adam all sinned:

Click to expand...

Where do you get that bit about 'in Adam all sinned'?

You keep describing it as 'the clear message of the Gospel' or 'The Scriptures are crystal clear'. Obviously it is pretty central to your theology here, but it isn't in any of the passages you quote. Where does it come form?

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5:17-21)​

The baby is in need of salvation, definitely.

Click to expand...

No, not in that passage either.

Suppose that a race of sentient aliens has a perfect, unblemished, unbroken relationship with God. Now suppose that one of those aliens discovers Earth, and comes into contact with sinful human culture.

It is exposed to the various temptations of human society. As it prays (given that it can relate to God sinlessly) God tells it not to give in to the sin that it sees in human society. However, it decides not to listen to God: it begins to sin, and continues to live a life of sin.

Of course, it would be a very interesting theological exercise in itself to determine if Jesus' atoning sacrifice could ever apply to it. But in this case the point is moot: the alien has no intent of returning to God. Having tasted sin, it decides that sin is better and more pleasing than a relationship with God, and it continues in sin until one fateful day, it dies.

The question is this: will the alien go to hell? And if so, why?

The alien has died in sin. Therefore, by God's righteous judgment, it has earned itself an eternity of separation from God. However (and this is the punchline) it is not descended from Adam. Therefore, an individual does not need to be descended from Adam to suffer punishment for sins.

Lest anyone think the "righteous alien" is just a kooky experiment designed to promote unorthodox theology, consider the following, very much orthodox, parallels:

1. Angels. Within conventional theology, angels are not only capable of sin, but have indeed sinned and fallen: Satan and his demonic hordes are seen precisely as angels who have chosen to rebel against God. Now Scripture is clear that fallen angels suffer punishment of varying kinds, ultimately including the same hell shared by sinners (Matthew 25:41; 2 Peter 2:4). They are precisely "righteous aliens" then who have sinned without ancestry in Adam; more strongly, temporally speaking, they have sinned even before Adam sinned, and perhaps even caused Adam to sin through temptation if one interprets Genesis 3 literally and historically.

2. Adam and Eve: they themselves were not descended from Adam (certainly not in the sense of birth and parenthood), and were created perfect if one interprets Genesis 1-3 literally, and still fell and sinned. They fit the profile of the "righteous aliens", except even more strongly: they came into a perfect world where there was no precedent of human sin to instruct them (again, in a literal interpretation - but this is a reductio ad absurdum, and I am justified to assume things in this argument that I don't believe in practice).

3. Ezekiel 18. There is no mention of Adam or descent from him in this passage.

The conclusion is that descent from Adam is not necessary for an individual to be punished for sin in God's eyes by eternal separation from God. Now, we know that a sinful human who dies in sin not receiving the sacrifice of Jesus is condemned to this eternal separation. Why might this judgment be necessary? We could posit two possibilities:

1. In parallel with the "righteous alien" thought experiment, the individual has sinned and suffers for his/her own sin.

2. In mark's theology, the individual is sinful in Adam and suffers the punishment for Adam's sin extended to himself.

Now these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, but they are mutually redundant. For on the one hand, the righteous alien did not need to be descended from Adam to suffer God's judgment; on the other hand, a sinner descended from Adam does not need to actually commit sin to suffer God's judgment, as mark has himself stated concerning babies. Therefore, to believe one renders the other theologically unnecessary, even though not necessarily untrue.

What is justification and sanctification in these two regimes? In the first regime, Christ dies to take our sin upon Himself, defeating the effects of our sin in His body and rendering our relationship to God whole again. In the second regime, Christ dies to take Adam's sin upon Himself, defeating the effects of his sin in His body.

Now Scripture proclaims that all Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). Therefore, one possible test for the Scripturality of a doctrine is: how profitable is it for instruction in righteousness?

In the first regime of righteousness, we suffer for our own sins. This regime is clearly profitable for instruction in righteousness. It recognizes firstly that he who does what is right is righteous (1 John 3:7). Because Christ has died to defeat our sin, for us to continue sinning would be to make mockery of Christ's sacrifice. The injunctions of Romans 6 against making licence of grace flow naturally from this. If it is our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water, then we can draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith (Hebrews 10:22). This is clearly profitable for instruction in righteousness.

But what of the second regime of righteousness? If our righteousness before God is determined by our relationship to Adam, without any correlation to our actual actions, then why should we bother to stop sinning? Indeed, when the children of Israel believed that "The fathers eat sour grapes, and their children's teeth are set on edge", did that not lead them into sin and licence (Ezekiel 18)? And if my being under Adam leads to condemnation, regardless of whether I actually sin, would not my being under Christ lead to salvation - again regardless of whether I actually sin? (Why should one imputation ignore my actual moral state and not the other?) If that is so, if my imputation bears no correlation to my actual behavior, why should I actually bother to stop sinning? And that leads to direct contradiction with many explicit Scriptural injunctions to stop sinning.

Thus we see that the first regime is clearly preferable to the second. Note also, again, that the first regime says nothing about the inevitability of sin. I suffer for my own sin even if it is inevitable that I sin. (If that seems unfair, consider that within the second regime I suffer for Adam's sin on account of being descended from Adam; I think my genetics are even more inescapable, and thus even more unjustly punished if they are, than my behavior and character!) Thus one can avoid Pelagianism and subscribe to the first regime. Indeed, one can even be a YEC and subscribe to the first regime: there was a real Adam and Eve who first ate a literal real fruit, and in doing so made us all people who would inevitably commit sin and die for our own sin.

Of course, the second regime is inextricably linked to the creationist story of origins: if there is no sinful Adam we can trace our ancestry to, then there is no sinful Adam within which we are all punished, and we should not be punished. But I have just shown anyway how theologically reprehensible the second regime is.

So we are left with the first regime of understanding judgment: we all die for our own sins. I said earlier that this understanding is compatible with creationism. But it is also compatible with evolution. For after all, we sin. God punishes sin. And Jesus rescues us from sin. That all happens whether or not we have descended from apes. All that is needed for the definition, recognition, and condemnation of sin is the reality of a relationship with God which can be broken by rebellion and disobedience. And on that I think we TEs have held forth long enough to make our views clear.

So what should we believe? The Scriptural view which makes us all sinners and calls us all to live godly lives in view of God's judgment? Or a view which would send babies to hell?

mark kennedy said:

The problem is the clear message of the Gospel, in Adam all sinned:

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5:17-21)​

The baby is in need of salvation, definitely.

Click to expand...

Apparently someone thinks Mark thinks he has all the answers to how that baby is saved or fails to be saved. Romans 6 confession?

I am kind of curious about that kind of an issue, but it is certainly nothing like a condition for sound theology. I will confess that I don't know how. I do know that the hypotheticals posed to make you look silly are themselves absurd.

shernren said:

According to any conservative position human life begins at conception. Do aborted fetuses go to hell, mark? Do embryos used in stem cell research have souls that go to hell, mark?

Does your theology make sense, mark?

Click to expand...

Must a theology answer these questions?

JOhn Knox thought so. I don't see why.

busterdog said:

Must a theology answer these questions?

JOhn Knox thought so. I don't see why.

Click to expand...

You're right that the eternal future of aborted fetuses is probably not a pivotal feature to ask of a theology. But the righteous alien gedanken-experiment raises far more important issues:

Which theology edifies more? Which hamartiology brings a more piercing interrogation of individual and societal sin? Which soteriology brings a more personally relevant and powerful recognition of Jesus' work?

busterdog said:

Apparently someone thinks Mark thinks he has all the answers to how that baby is saved or fails to be saved. Romans 6 confession?

I am kind of curious about that kind of an issue, but it is certainly nothing like a condition for sound theology. I will confess that I don't know how. I do know that the hypotheticals posed to make you look silly are themselves absurd.

Click to expand...

busterdog said:

Must a theology answer these questions?

JOhn Knox thought so. I don't see why.

Click to expand...

It is interesting that you did not come out with this defence when Mark was making his outrageous claims that 'if there is no original sin' then 'Christ died for nothing'.

However the question of what happened to babies is not a hypothetical in Mark's theology. Mark claims it is crystal clear from scripture we all sinned in Adam, (though in fact it come from church tradition rather than scripture). It is central to his theology that every human being sinned in Adam, so as long as a baby or unborn foetus is considered human, Mark's theology says they have sinned.

busterdog said:

Apparently someone thinks Mark thinks he has all the answers to how that baby is saved or fails to be saved. Romans 6 confession?

I am kind of curious about that kind of an issue, but it is certainly nothing like a condition for sound theology. I will confess that I don't know how. I do know that the hypotheticals posed to make you look silly are themselves absurd.

Click to expand...

Bugs Bunny as a metaphor for God? Obviously his name must come from the Slavic Бог 'Bog' meaning God.

shernren said:

You're right that the eternal future of aborted fetuses is probably not a pivotal feature to ask of a theology. But the righteous alien gedanken-experiment raises far more important issues:

Which theology edifies more? Which hamartiology brings a more piercing interrogation of individual and societal sin? Which soteriology brings a more personally relevant and powerful recognition of Jesus' work?

Click to expand...

Candidly, I don't use "making sense" or "makes more sense" primarly as a standard. So "edifies more" is to me a limited basis in any event. They are relevant, but not primary.

An number of scriptural issues:

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

I like it when the Word makes sense, but even when it doesn't, I believe it will in the future. I look for ways to have it make sense, but I look first at what it says, not whether it makes sense to me. Regardless of whether it edifies, it needs to be spoken, with faith that it will not return void.

busterdog said:

Candidly, I don't use "making sense" or "makes more sense" primarly as a standard. So "edifies more" is to me a limited basis in any event. They are relevant, but not primary.

An number of scriptural issues:

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

I like it when the Word makes sense, but even when it doesn't, I believe it will in the future. I look for ways to have it make sense, but I look first at what it says, not whether it makes sense to me. Regardless of whether it edifies, it needs to be spoken, with faith that it will not return void.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I think we are all well acquainted enough with you and your beliefs to know that "sense" is not really a criterion for you in ordering your mind.

But a theology making sense is one thing. A theology that does not edify? Nowhere in Scripture is theology proclaimed without some form of edifying application of it. Therefore, if a theology does not edify, what is it doing in our theological quiver? Can something which rightly comes from the Bible, which is all Scripture useful for teaching and correcting, not itself be edifying?

You claim to support Scripture. I have quoted Scripture after Scripture supporting the side opposite mark's in the "righteous alien" gedanken-experiment - which itself, really, is little more than a rehash of Ezekiel 18 - from authors all over the Bible, from testaments Old and New. All Mark has ever recently shown for his theology in this thread is a snippet from Romans 5, which doesn't even support his point, and which misses out a pivotal verse 12 which clearly states that all die because all sin.

How can he say his viewpoint is Scriptural? It doesn't proceed from all of Scripture - just a snippet - and it is contradicted by ideas that take in far more Scripture than he does. Oh, and it sends aborted fetuses to hell. (Shock value!)

Do you really think his viewpoint is Scriptural? I suspect you are doing nothing more than defending, in knee-jerk fashion, anything that attracts the ire of TEs, seeing as you yourself have presented nothing of substance that would defend or add to the flow of his logic.

busterdog said:

I like it when the Word makes sense, but even when it doesn't, I believe it will in the future. I look for ways to have it make sense, but I look first at what it says, not whether it makes sense to me. Regardless of whether it edifies, it needs to be spoken, with faith that it will not return void.

Click to expand...

Well, how about giving us your sense about the original hypothetical? Would Christ be dying for nothing if there were no original sin? Or would he be atoning for our sins?

What makes original sin a necessary basis for redemption? Isn't sin itself a sufficient basis?


Again, I am not repudiating the doctrine of original sin. I actually agree with it. But I am puzzled by the notion that an absence of original sin empties Christ's saving work of purpose.

What say you?

mark kennedy said:

Paul clearly teaches that it was the sin of one man that brought sin and death. That man was Adam:

Click to expand...

But no one was questioning that point. So why raise it? You are just beating around the bush and throwing up a lot of irrelevant material.

Can you try to stay on topic?

What practical difference does it make to soteriology if there is no original sin?

There is still sin. It is still a fact that all have sinned. All die because all sin.

Where in these premises does one find a basis for concluding that Christ died for nothing?

gluadys said:

Again, I am not repudiating the doctrine of original sin. I actually agree with it.

Click to expand...

I'm curious, how do you interpret "the doctrine of original sin", without a literal Adam? Is it something along the line of Reinhold Niebuhr's interpretation?

And what is the relationship between the "original sin" and "sin"?

Ooh, ooh, a reply from mark himself!

mark kennedy said:

Insults in the absence of reason are senseless and you are a prime example of that.

You don't even have a theology and you are certainly not interested in building up believers. Does God even exist in your philosophical theology or is God just an abstract concept to you.

That's a lie, I have posted extensive expositions of all related texts. You read them, ignored them and now pretend that you have never seen them.

You pretend to defend but you contradict the Scriptures and attack, rather then building up other peoples faith. Paul clearly teaches that it was the sin of one man that brought sin and death.

Click to expand...

I think it's hypocritical for you to accuse me of "insults in the absence of reason" (when busterdog has said himself that sense is not his primary criterion; I am merely creatively requoting his statement), and then turn around and accuse me of not having either theology or faith in God.

I think it's hypocritical for you to accuse me of ignoring and pretending to have never seen your posts on original sin when you yourself ignore and then pretend to have never seen my numerous posts concerning my positive beliefs in God, the inspiration of the Bible, and the creation of the world, all of which firmly repudiate your statements.

As it is, I think you have been the victim of an unfortunate accident here. Check your quotation, and check my post. You can see that my post was not edited, and yet the sentence you quote which has "All Mark has ever shown for his theology in this thread" instead has in my post "All Mark has ever recently shown for his theology in this thread". You indeed had the original version; I realized a moment after posting it that it was wrong. And so I added the "recently" a moment after and it did not show up as an edit. In fact, if I recall correctly, you have indeed not said anything recently in this thread about your theology other than from Romans 5. Am I not correct?

Furthermore, when asked to defend your theology of sin, you fall right back to Paul, not quoting any other New Testament theologian.

Whose sin, in Ezekiel 18, brings death?
Whose sin, in Romans 5:12, brings death?
Whose sin, in James 1:15, brings death?
Whose sin, in Hebrews 10:26-28, brings punishment?
Whose sin, in 1 John 2:12, is forgiven?
Whose life, in 1 John 3:7, makes a person righteous?

Is it Adam's?

You make a big spiel of bara in Genesis 1. Now look:

mark kennedy said:

Genesis

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created (bara-out of nothing) the heaven and the earth.​

1:21 And God created (bara-out of nothing) great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

1:27 So God created man (bara-out of nothing) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.​

TO CREATE

bârâ' (baw-raw' 1254 בּרא ), “to create, make.” This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can “create” in the sense implied by bârâ'.​

The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. ​

bârâ' is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as ‛âśâh, “to make” (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13), yâtsar, “to form” (Isa. 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13), and kun, “to establish.” A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa. 45:18: “For thus saith the Lord that created [bârâ'] the heavens; God himself that formed [yâtsar] the earth and made [‛âśâh] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bârâ'] it not in vain, he formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.” The technical meaning of bârâ' (to “create out of nothing”) may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym.​

Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17) man (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Ps. 89:47; Isa. 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa. 43:1; Mal. 2:10); a new thing (Jer. 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa. 4:5); north and south (Ps. 89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa. 45:8); speech (Isa. 57:19); darkness (Isa. 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps. 51:10) ​

A careful study of the passages where bârâ' occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. ​

Especially striking is the use of bârâ' in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God’s past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, He is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: “I have made [‛âśâh] the earth, and created [bârâ'] man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded” (Isa. 45:12). The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa. 44:12-20; 46:1-7), and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation (43:16-21; 65:17-25). (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)​

The Scriptures teach Adam was created (bara-out of nothing). Who would you have me believe; Moses, Luke and Paul, W.E. Vine or you?

Click to expand...

(emphasis in Vine added) Now, notice what Vine says about Isaiah 45:18. When more than one "creation verb" is applied to the same object by the same author, the technical meaning of bara may not apply. But what do we have in Genesis?Wait a minute, here we have both bara and asah applied to the entire universe! Does that mean, following Vine's principle, that the technical meaning of bara cannot apply here?


What about Adam? Is he safe from Vine's principle? Afraid not:

Ooh, here we have bara, asah, and yatsar applied all to man! When Vine saw that in Isaiah 45:18, he conceded that the technical sense of bara may not even apply there. So why should the technical sense of it apply to mankind?

Oddly enough, most TEs actually believe that God created the heavens and the earth ex nihilo and that He had supernatural input into the creation of humanity. So it's not us defeating your point. No, it's your own man Vine, and his own principle, and nothing more than that added to the pure and unadulterated word of God.

Really, I'm not asking you to believe me, or anyone else who posts here. I'm just asking you to believe W.E. Vine, Moses, Ezekiel, Paul, James, the author of Hebrews, and John. And quite frankly, I'd rather believe them than either myself or you. What do you think?

theIdi0t said:

I'm curious, how do you interpret "the doctrine of original sin", without a literal Adam? Is it something along the line of Reinhold Niebuhr's interpretation?

And what is the relationship between the "original sin" and "sin"?

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be it. I especially like this summary of Augustine's approach:


The fact that "we cannot seem to do anything about it" carries over into Calvin's doctrine of depravity. Our will is in bondage to sin and can only be liberated by God's grace.

Also pertinent is this summary of Niebuhr's analysis:



There is no "the " original sin. Original sin is not an act. It is a condition of human nature. Adam's sin was the first sin, not original sin.

In the absence of a literal Adam, the first sin was the first sin, whenever and by whomever it was commited. But the first sin was still not original sin.

Awareness that one has sinned is itself evidence that the condition of original sin exists.

To quote Niebuhr again


Bolding added.
This was the sin Adam and Eve committed even before they ate the apple. This is the origin of original sin in each and every one of us.

Ironically, in a way, I agree with Mark. We all sin in Adam. The difference is that I believe we all ARE Adam. It is not that the sin of a long-distant ancestor named Adam affects us. It is that our sins are Adam's sins, because Adam is us.

gluadys said:

There is no "the " original sin. Original sin is not an act. It is a condition of human nature. Adam's sin was the first sin, not original sin.

Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for enlightening me!

I only started reading Niebuhr recently, and I was having a tough time wrapping my head around his concept of Original sin. It seems much more clearer now.