Christian Forums

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:21:05

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:29:13
It is a shame we all can't agree that God's Word is alone the final authority.

Even I will quibble with that statement.  God Himself is the final authority.

Indeed!

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:40:07
mllevaleur and broach:

I got a little grouchier than intended in my posts.  Sorry.  I'll blame it on the kidney stone (which has moved about an inch and a half today).  I mean, it couldn't just be that I get grouchy sometimes....

No problem.  You have been gracious and respectful in past discussions.

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:40:07
In the end, it's good to remember that we all worship the same God and trust in the same Savior.  Neither side should be lumped in with Muslims and pagans (to get back to the topic of the thread), no matter how tempting it is to do just that.

Absolutely...I have appreciated many here for being respectful and inquisitive, especially Lee Freeman.  I think that Mllevaleur has hit the mark by stating that she is not here to convince or change positions.  I can echo that as well.  However, as a Catholic, it gets pretty old when individuals constantly distort what Catholicism teaches.  I have no problems discussing, clarifying, or even debating doctrines and beliefs.  I just wish that people would actually have an idea what Catholicism actually teaches and an idea of what Catholics actually believe.

I think that Mllevaleur has done a brilliant job in tackling a variety of issues.  Her posts are thoughtful and quite insightful.  As a "new" Catholic, even I have learned much from her as well.

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto.
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper: et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 19:42:19

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:40:07
mllevaleur and broach:

I got a little grouchier than intended in my posts.  Sorry.  I'll blame it on the kidney stone (which has moved about an inch and a half today).  I mean, it couldn't just be that I get grouchy sometimes....

No problem.  You have been gracious and respectful in past discussions.

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:40:07
In the end, it's good to remember that we all worship the same God and trust in the same Savior.  Neither side should be lumped in with Muslims and pagans (to get back to the topic of the thread), no matter how tempting it is to do just that.

Absolutely...I have appreciated many here for being respectful and inquisitive, especially Lee Freeman.  I think that Mllevaleur has hit the mark by stating that she is not here to convince or change positions.  I can echo that as well.  However, as a Catholic, it gets pretty old when individuals constantly distort what Catholicism teaches.  I have no problems discussing, clarifying, or even debating doctrines and beliefs.  I just wish that people would actually have an idea what Catholicism actually teaches and an idea of what Catholics actually believe.

I think that Mllevaleur has done a brilliant job in tackling a variety of issues.  Her posts are thoughtful and quite insightful.  As a "new" Catholic, even I have learned much from her as well.

It is hard not to have a hard time figuring out what Catholicism teaches when the hordes of Catholics I come into contact are actually "Cafeteria" or "Easter & Christmas" Catholics.  You know, the Rudy Guiliani and John Kerry Catholics.

Quote from: Gary on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 19:48:15

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 19:42:19

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:40:07
mllevaleur and broach:

I got a little grouchier than intended in my posts.  Sorry.  I'll blame it on the kidney stone (which has moved about an inch and a half today).  I mean, it couldn't just be that I get grouchy sometimes....

No problem.  You have been gracious and respectful in past discussions.

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:40:07
In the end, it's good to remember that we all worship the same God and trust in the same Savior.  Neither side should be lumped in with Muslims and pagans (to get back to the topic of the thread), no matter how tempting it is to do just that.

Absolutely...I have appreciated many here for being respectful and inquisitive, especially Lee Freeman.  I think that Mllevaleur has hit the mark by stating that she is not here to convince or change positions.  I can echo that as well.  However, as a Catholic, it gets pretty old when individuals constantly distort what Catholicism teaches.  I have no problems discussing, clarifying, or even debating doctrines and beliefs.  I just wish that people would actually have an idea what Catholicism actually teaches and an idea of what Catholics actually believe.

I think that Mllevaleur has done a brilliant job in tackling a variety of issues.  Her posts are thoughtful and quite insightful.  As a "new" Catholic, even I have learned much from her as well.

It is hard not to have a hard time figuring out what Catholicism teaches when the hordes of Catholics I come into contact are actually "Cafeteria" or "Easter & Christmas" Catholics.  You know, the Rudy Guiliani and John Kerry Catholics.

LOL...you are so right Gary.  There are many "Cafeteria" and "Cultural" Catholics and one must love our "Chesters" (Christmas and Easter Catholics).  But then again, there are many "Cafeteria" Christians as well...pick and choose what you like and discard the rest.

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 19:53:05

Quote from: Gary on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 19:48:15

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 19:42:19

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:40:07
mllevaleur and broach:

I got a little grouchier than intended in my posts.  Sorry.  I'll blame it on the kidney stone (which has moved about an inch and a half today).  I mean, it couldn't just be that I get grouchy sometimes....

No problem.  You have been gracious and respectful in past discussions.

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:40:07
In the end, it's good to remember that we all worship the same God and trust in the same Savior.  Neither side should be lumped in with Muslims and pagans (to get back to the topic of the thread), no matter how tempting it is to do just that.

Absolutely...I have appreciated many here for being respectful and inquisitive, especially Lee Freeman.  I think that Mllevaleur has hit the mark by stating that she is not here to convince or change positions.  I can echo that as well.  However, as a Catholic, it gets pretty old when individuals constantly distort what Catholicism teaches.  I have no problems discussing, clarifying, or even debating doctrines and beliefs.  I just wish that people would actually have an idea what Catholicism actually teaches and an idea of what Catholics actually believe.

I think that Mllevaleur has done a brilliant job in tackling a variety of issues.  Her posts are thoughtful and quite insightful.  As a "new" Catholic, even I have learned much from her as well.

It is hard not to have a hard time figuring out what Catholicism teaches when the hordes of Catholics I come into contact are actually "Cafeteria" or "Easter & Christmas" Catholics.  You know, the Rudy Guiliani and John Kerry Catholics.

LOL...you are so right Gary.  There are many "Cafeteria" and "Cultural" Catholics and one must love our "Chesters" (Christmas and Easter Catholics).  But then again, there are many "Cafeteria" Christians as well...pick and choose what you like and discard the rest.

Of course.  Do you believe Priests should be choosier about who they let participate in Communion?

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:48:13

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:21:05

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:29:13
It is a shame we all can't agree that God's Word is alone the final authority.

Even I will quibble with that statement.  God Himself is the final authority.

Indeed!

So I guess God just gave us 66 books of inspired Scripture for nothing.

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 20:13:51

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:48:13

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:21:05

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:29:13
It is a shame we all can't agree that God's Word is alone the final authority.

Even I will quibble with that statement.  God Himself is the final authority.

Indeed!

So I guess God just gave us 66 books of inspired Scripture for nothing.

I see.  Either the Bible supercedes God's authority or it was given for nothing.  What a brilliant observation.

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 21:28:58

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 20:13:51

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:48:13

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:21:05

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:29:13
It is a shame we all can't agree that God's Word is alone the final authority.

Even I will quibble with that statement.  God Himself is the final authority.

Indeed!

So I guess God just gave us 66 books of inspired Scripture for nothing.

I see.  Either the Bible supercedes God's authority or it was given for nothing.  What a brilliant observation.

What I disagree with is suggesting Word of God is somehow is separate from God himself.

As if you can know one without the other.

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 20:13:51

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:48:13

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:21:05

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:29:13
It is a shame we all can't agree that God's Word is alone the final authority.

Even I will quibble with that statement.  God Himself is the final authority.

Indeed!

So I guess God just gave us 66 books of inspired Scripture for nothing.

I finally gave in and took a Lortab 10 an hour or so ago, so not all the words in this post may be in the right order, but let me try to tell you what this makes me think about....

I grew up in the Church of Christ.  No big shock.  When I was a teen, in the late seventies, things began to change a bit.  One of the big changes had to do with the way we considered God and the Bible. technically, there was no real change, but in terms of attitude, there was.

We were proud of being "people of the book".  You'd occasionally hear a preacher say, "If all the bibles in the world were destroyed, all you'd have to do would be to find a Church of Christ member, because they know the Bible."  We respected the Word of God, consumed it, regurgitated it.

But our attitudes didn't always show it.  We also had a reputation of being an argumentative, contentious people. People thought we were always looking for a fight.  I know we weren't really as bad as our reputation in this area or as good as our reputation in the other, but that's the general way things go.

I'm sure there were others who emphasized such things earlier, but in my neck of the woods, largely due to exposure to some teachers out west (such as Jim McGuiggan, mentioned elsewhere), the idea that, as important as the Bible was, it wasn't to be the center of our Christianity came to the forefront.  Christ should be the focus, not the Bible.  We were to worship Him and conform to Him.  The value of the Bible was that it was His word and told us about Him.

The most commonly heard illustration had to do with the man who wrote his family a series of letters while he was away, and came home to find his wife doting on the letters while ignoring him (I've messed this illustration up, but you get the gist).

I think what we went through as a body is an example of the real danger of letting the Bible supercede God.  If used properly, of course it won't.  But it can be misused, and we should be careful to remember the One who gives the Bible its value.


btw, Charles, I don't see you really having made this mistake.  I see you as being a practical person as far as putting things into action goes.  Many of us have done this to varying degrees, however.

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 21:39:29

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 21:28:58

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 20:13:51

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:48:13

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:21:05

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:29:13
It is a shame we all can't agree that God's Word is alone the final authority.

Even I will quibble with that statement.  God Himself is the final authority.

Indeed!

So I guess God just gave us 66 books of inspired Scripture for nothing.

I see.  Either the Bible supercedes God's authority or it was given for nothing.  What a brilliant observation.

What I disagree with is suggesting Word of God is somehow is separate from God himself.

As if you can know one without the other.

The Bible is not God, nor can He be contained within it, therefore it is separate from Him.

I have known many people who know the Bible, but do not know God, and according to Romans 1:18-20, it is possible to know God without access to a Bible.

QuoteFor the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

I think it is dangerous to ascribe to any created thing, including the Bible, anything that rightly belongs only to God.

Quote from: kensington on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:42:52
That's assuming that the Bible is the only authority that we have.

"He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood and His name is called, "The WORD of God" ... Revelation 19:13

Don't get me wrong... I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.  However, I don't believe the "word of God" in Revelation 19:13 is referring to the Bible. 

In that context, I believe John is speaking of none other than Christ Jesus.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 13:56:23

Quote from: DCR on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 12:57:47
I'm not sure how the doctrine of Immaculate Conception necessarily solves anything.  It only pushes the problem back one generation, IMO.

Didn't Mary also have her mother's (and in her case, even her father's) DNA?  If Mary needed to be kept sinless for Jesus.  Then, by that same reckoning, her parents would also have needed to be kept sinless for her... unless she was miraculously kept free of the sin of her parents... which God could have done for Christ, without doing this for Mary.

Of course, the whole problem is rather moot if you don't subscribe to the doctrine of original sin, anyway. 

*looks in mirror...checks that she's not invisible...checks that her posts are indeed appearing...scratches head*



If you'll read my last couple posts, I believe that's what I was trying to explain. ;-) Perhaps I wasn't clear enough...

I do owe you an apology as I didn't completely read through your posts where you addressed the points I raised (before I raised them, actually).  It is good to see that you have thought some of this through before, though.

Quote from: Gary on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 19:48:15

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 19:42:19

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:40:07
mllevaleur and broach:

I got a little grouchier than intended in my posts.  Sorry.  I'll blame it on the kidney stone (which has moved about an inch and a half today).  I mean, it couldn't just be that I get grouchy sometimes....

No problem.  You have been gracious and respectful in past discussions.

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:40:07
In the end, it's good to remember that we all worship the same God and trust in the same Savior.  Neither side should be lumped in with Muslims and pagans (to get back to the topic of the thread), no matter how tempting it is to do just that.

Absolutely...I have appreciated many here for being respectful and inquisitive, especially Lee Freeman.  I think that Mllevaleur has hit the mark by stating that she is not here to convince or change positions.  I can echo that as well.  However, as a Catholic, it gets pretty old when individuals constantly distort what Catholicism teaches.  I have no problems discussing, clarifying, or even debating doctrines and beliefs.  I just wish that people would actually have an idea what Catholicism actually teaches and an idea of what Catholics actually believe.

I think that Mllevaleur has done a brilliant job in tackling a variety of issues.  Her posts are thoughtful and quite insightful.  As a "new" Catholic, even I have learned much from her as well.

It is hard not to have a hard time figuring out what Catholicism teaches when the hordes of Catholics I come into contact are actually "Cafeteria" or "Easter & Christmas" Catholics.  You know, the Rudy Guiliani and John Kerry Catholics.

That's certainly understandable! The good thing, though, is the catechism and other easily accessible documents are usually pretty clear about the teachings and certainly trustworthy.   I know several non-Catholics who are much more knowledgeable than many Catholics, because they've taken the time to try to understand Catholic teaching. Coming myself from a CoC background, where it was really difficult to "pin down" certain beliefs (because I was often told "just read the Bible, that's all you need" without further explanation), I find it's quite a relief to be able to have a readily available source that explains Catholic beliefs in detail.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 17:46:37

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:29:13
It is a shame we all can't agree that God's Word is alone the final authority.

Oh I certainly agree with that! I just have a different definition of what God's Word is than you do...according to my beliefs, God gave us His Word both Orally and in Scripture. 

I sense that most of us at times define the "word of God" more narrowly than how this phrase is used in Scripture.

The "Word of God" isn't necessarily limited to that leatherbound compilation of canonized Scriptures found between Genesis 1 and Revelation 22 (even though all Scripture is God-breathed and is itself the word of God).  But, the fullness of the Word isn't completely contained there.

The Word of God can be anything from God's prophetic message... to His personal interaction with man in the flesh, in the person of Jesus Christ.

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God..." (John 1:1)

Quote from: DCR on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 22:41:16

Quote from: kensington on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:42:52
That's assuming that the Bible is the only authority that we have.

"He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood and His name is called, "The WORD of God" ... Revelation 19:13

Don't get me wrong... I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.  However, I don't believe the "word of God" in Revelation 19:13 is referring to the Bible. 

In that context, I believe John is speaking of none other than Christ Jesus.

I believe you misunderstood what I said...  He is what He has spoken. His given word is truth. There is no lie, and you can know Him by knowing His word. I am not confused on terminolgy. I know what that passage means... and I believe it. 

He is the "WORD of God".

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 21:39:57

I think what we went through as a body is an example of the real danger of letting the Bible supercede God.  If used properly, of course it won't.  But it can be misused, and we should be careful to remember the One who gives the Bible its value.

I couldn't agree more. After attending my first mass, I was suddenly struck by how bible-centered our worship was growing up (at least in the CoC where I was raised.) The focus of the service was the sermon, the architecture usually pointed toward the pulpit, I even attended a church once where there was a stained glass window front and center of a bible. In comparison...at mass I saw people kneeling in front of the Eucharist, what they believed to be Christ, the architecture pointed towards the altar where Christ became present, the mass was arranged so that it pointed to Christ himself in the Eucharist as the highest point and focus, and while I know some don't agree with imagery, it at least made more sense to me to have a figure of Christ front and center rather than a Bible. It really shook me up and made me question whether I practiced Bibliolatry or not (albeit unintentionally).

Quote from: DCR on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 22:41:16

Quote from: kensington on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:42:52
That's assuming that the Bible is the only authority that we have.

"He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood and His name is called, "The WORD of God" ... Revelation 19:13

Don't get me wrong... I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.  However, I don't believe the "word of God" in Revelation 19:13 is referring to the Bible. 

In that context, I believe John is speaking of none other than Christ Jesus.

That's my understanding as well. 

Quote from: DCR on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 22:45:23

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 13:56:23

Quote from: DCR on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 12:57:47
I'm not sure how the doctrine of Immaculate Conception necessarily solves anything.  It only pushes the problem back one generation, IMO.

Didn't Mary also have her mother's (and in her case, even her father's) DNA?  If Mary needed to be kept sinless for Jesus.  Then, by that same reckoning, her parents would also have needed to be kept sinless for her... unless she was miraculously kept free of the sin of her parents... which God could have done for Christ, without doing this for Mary.

Of course, the whole problem is rather moot if you don't subscribe to the doctrine of original sin, anyway. 

*looks in mirror...checks that she's not invisible...checks that her posts are indeed appearing...scratches head*



If you'll read my last couple posts, I believe that's what I was trying to explain. ;-) Perhaps I wasn't clear enough...

I do owe you an apology as I didn't completely read through your posts where you addressed the points I raised (before I raised them, actually).  It is good to see that you have thought some of this through before, though.

Well, and I know I can be a bit verbose, lol, which makes it hard to skim! I'm working on brevity! 

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 21:28:58

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 20:13:51

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:48:13

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 18:21:05

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:29:13
It is a shame we all can't agree that God's Word is alone the final authority.

Even I will quibble with that statement.  God Himself is the final authority.

Indeed!

So I guess God just gave us 66 books of inspired Scripture for nothing.

I see.  Either the Bible supercedes God's authority or it was given for nothing.  What a brilliant observation.

He's not saying that the Word supercedes God's authority, he's saying that God's authority has been expressed through the Word of God.

Yeah.

Who is the expert on fly fishing, the guy who wrote the book after 20 successful years up to his butt in trout streams, or the $17.95 pile of sheets of paper covered with soybean ink?

Quote...and while I know some don't agree with imagery, it at least made more sense to me to have a figure of Christ front and center rather than a Bible. It really shook me up and made me question whether I practiced Bibliolatry or not (albeit unintentionally).

Same here.  It's quite liberating.

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 21:39:57btw, Charles, I don't see you really having made this mistake.  I see you as being a practical person as far as putting things into action goes.  Many of us have done this to varying degrees, however.

I think your the only person thats knows my name in here. I feel I've been found out!

Quote from: CSloan on Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 09:26:11

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 21:39:57btw, Charles, I don't see you really having made this mistake.  I see you as being a practical person as far as putting things into action goes.  Many of us have done this to varying degrees, however.

I think your the only person thats knows my name in here. I feel I've been found out!

Didn't you used to sign your posts with your name?  I may be wrong, but I thought it was common knowledge.  If it isn't, I'll stop using it.

Quote from: marc on Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 10:44:24

Quote from: CSloan on Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 09:26:11

Quote from: marc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 21:39:57btw, Charles, I don't see you really having made this mistake.  I see you as being a practical person as far as putting things into action goes.  Many of us have done this to varying degrees, however.

I think your the only person thats knows my name in here. I feel I've been found out!

Didn't you used to sign your posts with your name?  I may be wrong, but I thought it was common knowledge.  If it isn't, I'll stop using it.

I'm just kidding, you know I might have signed my posts that way but I dont remember.

Its funny you remember stuff like that, cause that had to be over 2 years ago.

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:12:43

Quote from: Volkmar on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 15:47:18

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 15:24:39
Volkmar,

Look at Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So much for that.

;o)  Let's go back to English grammer 101...

"for that" refers back to what?  Well, it refers back to all of the idea expressed in the preceeding part of the sentence--by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin and because of that sin and death has been passed on to all men.  (Women never sin, so they are excluded from this..  ;o)  )

Notice Young's literal;

Quote12because 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;

We sin because Adam sinned.  That is "original sin".

V

Volkmar,

You are missing the point of the text because you are trying to make is support a false concept. The doctrine of original sin states that because of Adam's sin, sin passed to all men [inherited]. The passage clearly states that because of Adam's sin came into the world and death passed onto all men because of their personal sin(s).

Now notice the last part of the passage, which closes the thought. "for that all have sinned." Death passed to all men because all have sinned [personal responablity]. It doesn't get more plain than that.

Ok, I'll continue to beat this dead horse for one reason...you think that you follow the Bible ONLY as authoritative but fail to realize that your "take" on the Bible is influenced by certain presuppositions rooted in a hermaneutical tradition which may or may not be correct.

The presupposition that you have relative to this subject is that a person is a sinner ONLY because they themselves have committed sin.  It is certainly true that "all have sinned and fallen short" and "there is none righteous, not even one".  But, your reasoning relative to the passages I cited falls short because of your traditional presuppositions.  This is indicated by how you paraphrased vs. 12;

Quote
The passage clearly states that because of Adam's sin came into the world and death passed onto all men because of their personal sin(s).

"Personal sin(s)" is interpretive.

Again, notice Young's literal;

Quote12because 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;

Quoting again with emphasis added;

Quote12because 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;

My paraphrase;

Through one man's sin, death and sin came into the world, and, because of that all men are dead sinners.

Conclusions;
1.  All men die.
2.  All men begin life as "spiritually dead" because all men are descended from spiritually dead     
     Adam.
3.  "Spiritually dead" = "separate from God" = "sinner".
4.  All men sin because they are sinners by their fallen nature. 

Also, "the death DID pass through" in the same sense that "all DID sin"...past tense.

"For that" refers to Adam's sin and death.  For that we all are dead sinners.

By virtue of being "in Adam" all die (and thus are sinners), whereas by Grace being "in Christ" all are alive (and thus not "reckoned" as sinners).


Catholics don't have it all right in their tradition; but neither do they have it ALL wrong.


V


(spelking edit)

Volkmar,

You seem to believe the catholic doctrine of original sin, I do not.

Emboldening passages, underlining them, and making them red isn't going to change that. But I'm not following a hermeneutic, I'm just reading the passage. Your "paraphrase" fits a hermeneutic by definition.

Try just looking at the passage without predispositions.

So whatever the Biblical interpreters wrote down on paper, you believe it without question.  No need for research, no need for context.  Is that what you're  saying?

Quote from: don has a plan on Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 12:15:41
So whatever the Biblical interpreters wrote down on paper, you believe it without question.  No need for research, no need for context.  Is that what you're  saying?

They are translators, not interpreters.

Your suggestion that I'm against context or research is just an attempt at a strawman.

Rom 5:12  Sin came into the world through one person, and death came through sin. So death spread to everyone, because everyone sinned. (GWT)
Rom 5:12  Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--(KJV)

I don't find Adam's name in verse 12 of Romans. In plain language it says, because of man's sin death entered the world. We all die because we all sin. Each person will be judged, or forgiven, because of their sin, not Adam's sin.

I posted verses and a question to you before.

FTL

QuoteYour suggestion that I'm against context or research is just an attempt at a strawman.

Nope.  No strawman fallacy here.

Here's what you wrote:

QuoteEmboldening passages, underlining them, and making them red isn't going to change that. But I'm not following a hermeneutic, I'm just reading the passage. Your "paraphrase" fits a hermeneutic by definition.

Try just looking at the passage without predispositions.

You seem to have your own predisposition -- that being that the Bible is literally true as written and interpreted, or, in your words, "translated".

Quote from: CSloan on Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 11:44:41
Volkmar,

You seem to believe the catholic doctrine of original sin, I do not.

Emboldening passages, underlining them, and making them red isn't going to change that. But I'm not following a hermeneutic, I'm just reading the passage. Your "paraphrase" fits a hermeneutic by definition.

Try just looking at the passage without predispositions.

Catholic doctrine?  Yes.  But a Biblical doctrine before Catholics "denominated", so to speak.

Everyone comes to understanding based upon some hermeneutical methodology.  Even you.

V

Quote from: Harold on Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 13:00:05
Rom 5:12  Sin came into the world through one person, and death came through sin. So death spread to everyone, because everyone sinned. (GWT)
Rom 5:12  Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--(KJV)

I don't find Adam's name in verse 12 of Romans. In plain language it says, because of man's sin death entered the world. We all die because we all sin. Each person will be judged, or forgiven, because of their sin, not Adam's sin.

I posted verses and a question to you before.

FTL

Context. 

The ID for "one man"/"one person" (what translation you using anyway?  "One person"??)  is in vss. 12-14...Adam.  Vs. 15 also is clearly talking about "the one man"--definite article--not indefinite as in "a man".

Also, in I Cor. 15:21-22 Paul uses a similar construction with the same idea.  And perhaps Paul is a little clearer there...21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

"In Adam", our natural state, we all are dead.  We all sin and die because Adam first sinned and died.  Adam is our father of sin.  All die, physically, because Adam is our father.  All are born physically dead because Adam is our father.

At the same time it is true that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." (II Cor. 5:10)

God is just in brining His wrath upon us because in our nature (Adam's) we are at odds (emnity-enemies)with God (Rom. 3:5-8).  This emnity with God continues until God calls us to "be His people" by His grace through faith in His Son...until we are a new creature in Christ , a transformation that is from God (II Cor. 5:16-21).

V

(I look back at your earlier post, Harold.  Must have missed the questions.)

Quote from: Harold on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:30:30

QuoteWe sin because Adam sinned.  That is "original sin".

So then why did Adam sin?

Because he thought he knew best what was in his own interest?  Because he failed to trust God to look out for his best interest?  It looks like the serpent put a seed of doubt in their minds about God's motives.  What do you think?

The interesting thing to me is that Adam and Eve FREELY chose to sin...out of a totally free-of-sin will and nature.  Whereas you and I "in Adam" choose to follow our sinful nature and sin.

Quote from: Harold on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 16:30:30

Jer 31:30  But each person will die for his own sin. Whoever eats sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge. (GWT)

Not Adam's sin.

Eze 18:20  The person who sins will die. A son will not be punished for his father's sins, and a father will not be punished for his son's sins. The righteousness of the righteous person will be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be his own.

Not Adam's. Adam is the father of us all.

FTL

True.  You and I are responsible for our own sins, not Adam's.  Have you personally know anybody who never sins?

"No more will this proverb be said in Israel, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge."

Translation;  "Dang, you know we're just chips-off-the-old-block.  We ain't responsible, man.  Caint hep arselfs."

V

Quote from: marc on Tue Aug 14, 2007 - 14:27:29
I split this off because I'm always interested in Chick Tract discussions.  They bring out strong emotions on both sides.  For me, they take me back to my childhood, sitting in a doctor's waiting room reading these tracts that drew me in for the same reason that I liked Poe and scary stories and horror comics. 

The second I discover Chick Tracks in a professional office is the second I leave.  I will not tolerate Jack's hate pamphlets for a moment, and certainly wouldn't allow a dentist to work in my mouth after I found out he read that garbage.

Yes, this IS how I really feel :)

blessings

Quote from: ravenlorre on Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 21:00:12

Quote from: marc on Tue Aug 14, 2007 - 14:27:29
I split this off because I'm always interested in Chick Tract discussions.  They bring out strong emotions on both sides.  For me, they take me back to my childhood, sitting in a doctor's waiting room reading these tracts that drew me in for the same reason that I liked Poe and scary stories and horror comics. 

The second I discover Chick Tracks in a professional office is the second I leave.  I will not tolerate Jack's hate pamphlets for a moment, and certainly wouldn't allow a dentist to work in my mouth after I found out he read that garbage.

Yes, this IS how I really feel :)

blessings

Since you never introduced yourself, I might as well ask; are you a Christian?