CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[foszoe]

You know what word isn't in the Bible?

Bible.

All means all, even in the Greek.

Define sin nature then.

It's what you are claiming to be present in the verses right or am I misunderstanding you?

Nature isn't there in any language that I know of.

 

[Alpo]

Well, it's troubling.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Define sin nature then.

It's what you are claiming to be present in the verses right or am I misunderstanding you?

Nature isn't there in any language that I know of.

See. That's the beauty of literal translation. Nothing needs explained. Scripture is clear.

Romans 3:23
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Over and over again. All have sin.

 

[foszoe]

See. That's the beauty of literal translation. Nothing needs explained. Scripture is clear.

Romans 3:23
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Over and over again. All have sin.

If it's clear why is the word nature not present?

Again I simply ask, define sin nature. Sin does not equal sin nature. If you think it does support that belief.

 

[Woobie]

I don't recall exactly who said what.

I do disagree with some of what I have read here.

These disagreements may be on terminology or more substantial.

A couple of examples.

There is no such thing as a sin nature. Properly understood but in simple language , nature is natural. Sin is not natural. God created everything is the message of Genesis creation narrative. God said everything was good or in the case of humans very good.

The KJV is not the definitive text. It didn't take until the 16th century to get it right.

The Church Fathers say the literal reading of scripture is the lowest level of understanding.

The diligent outsider must start with the early church and trace that body of believers to see if they still exist. Only then can one say no group still carries the torch.

It's fairly simple to do. Only 2 groups make the claim, Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

I think there is a certain amount of talking past one another. You are right. God created man in His own image. Now that would not possibly be sinful. So the first state of man is pure. But man is fallen, and now sinful by both his own actions and as a descendent of Adam. So if you don't like the term natural, I understand your point of view. But, if we believe the Bible, we at least must acknowledge that it is inherent, not just in our flesh, but our very souls.

While there are meanings beyond the literal, it must be understood literally before we can move on to the more complex, if you will. Bear with my poor choice of words, it's been a long day.

There is no requirement to recognize some lineage of the Church. The early churches founded across the Mediterranean were written to as independent, but as being young and ignorant, received instruction from the Apostles. There is no New Testament structure whatsoever for answering to intermediate authority, dead or alive. Certainly pastors are called, as to be a guide and caretaker. But not a leader, and certainly not an intermediary. "One mediator between God and man...." He is "the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls." Making a claim as the "True Church" does not legitimize that claim, no matter if it is made by 1 or 100. What does the Bible say? Certainly if there were a centralized church government, it would not be led by those directly controverting Christs instruction to "call no man Father."

 

[foszoe]

I think there is a certain amount of talking past one another. You are right. God created man in His own image. Now that would not possibly be sinful. So the first state of man is pure. But man is fallen, and now sinful by both his own actions and as a descendent of Adam. So if you don't like the term natural, I understand your point of view. But, if we believe the Bible, we at least must acknowledge that it is inherent, not just in our flesh, but our very souls.

Yes. We suffer consequences as the result of sin. Not only us but also all creation suffers. One consequence of the fall for humanity is death.

The point I am trying to make is simple. Sin Nature is not a biblical concept. It originates with St. Augustine and is more fully developed under Anselm in the west who was heavily influenced by feudal law. If you and I are peasant neighbors, and I steal your chicken, then in restitution, I must give you a chicken plus pay some fine. If you are the king and I steal your chicken, then because I, a lowly serf offended someone of a much higher state, I must suffer a much greater penalty, possibly even death. In western theology this sin or crime will become infinitely punishable because it is against an infinitely good being, God. This concept of a sin nature is passed then passed from the Roman Catholic Church into Protestant theology. It was not present in ancient Christianity where man was created and remains inherently good even if corrupted by sin. The image of God in man is preserved but definitely tarnished. It is the work of the Christian, through synergia with God’s grace or energies, to once again let the image of God shine through.

My approach to doctrine is also simple. It is the approach of St Vincent of Lerins who said, “we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.*“ So while the exposition of doctrine is a valid and worthy exercise when necessary, the development of doctrine is not.

What does that mean? In the east, the theological approach is apophatic, while in the west it becomes cataphatic. In other words, in the east, the general approach is to say what is not correct while in the west it is to generally say what is correct. You must not believe this vs you must believe this.

Western and Eastern approaches to sin are very different and it results in a lot of misunderstandings. We define sin it was originally defined, failing to be what you are called to be. The term was originally an archery term for missing the mark or bulls.* Most in the West tend to think of sin in a judicial context as described above, breaking a law. In the East, the approach is much more along the lines of sickness and disease. Sin is a cancer on mankind if you will. External, not natural but nevertheless a killer. Mankind is thus seen as in need of healing. If we look in the NT at the greek root sozo, we will find it is translated several different ways; saved, healed, made whole etc.

While there are meanings beyond the literal, it must be understood literally before we can move on to the more complex, if you will. Bear with my poor choice of words, it's been a long day.

*

I would affirm this statement.

There is no requirement to recognize some lineage of the Church.

It depends on how you mean requirement. If you mean that salvation comes by being the member of a specific church then I can affirm that. Most American Christians are products of the Reformation and as such don’t even know what the Orthodox teach but were rather reacting against the Latins.

The early churches founded across the Mediterranean were written to as independent, but as being young and ignorant, received instruction from the Apostles. There is no New Testament structure whatsoever for answering to intermediate authority, dead or alive.

In this it depends on what you mean by independent. Were they allowed to independently interpret Christian teaching? I would argue no.

What do you mean by intermediate? I can biblically show evidence supporting authority in the church but don’t want to go down that path without understanding more clearly what you are saying.

The bible teaches unity of believers and the dependence of each member of the body on other members. It would be very hard to demonstrate a doctrine of completely independent churches. I would maintain they can have independent administrative authority but must be united in doctrine. That is how the Orthodox Church is organized to this day. The role of the bishop is to administrate his local church(es). The role of the bishops is to preserve the teaching.

. So we start with a community of believers who hold a set of common beliefs then a disagreement arises, such as at Corinth. A council is held such as is described in Acts at Jerusalem and a declaration is made that you must not believe/do this.

Certainly pastors are called, as to be a guide and caretaker. But not a leader, and certainly not an intermediary. "One mediator between God and man...." He is "the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls." Making a claim as the "True Church" does not legitimize that claim, no matter if it is made by 1 or 100. What does the Bible say? Certainly if there were a centralized church government, it would not be led by those directly controverting Christs instruction to "call no man Father."

What do you mean by intermediary? Again whether or not I agree is based on what you mean by that term. People can and do act as intermediaries for each other and are instructed to do so in the bible as I understand the term.

Making a claim to be the True Church also does not delegitimize the claim.

There are also biblical texts about the responsibility of the pastor because of his leadership so I am not sure I understand you completely.

 

[ATM]

...God is NOT an ATM...

Are you sure?

What hands does He have to lift the chin of the downtrodden, but mine.

What feet does He have to carry the message, but mine?

How is His love expressed to my neighbor, but through mine?

 

[Jludo]

Are you sure?

What hands does He have to lift the chin of the downtrodden, but mine.

What feet does He have to carry the message, but mine?

How is His love expressed to my neighbor, but through mine?

I believe the point is, and ask anyone else here, that you aren't putting forth a good representation of what Christianity could/should be. Your conduct is strikingly more similar to what you'd read of the pharisees in the new testament than that of the conduct of Jesus. (in as much as I understand the new testament anyway) The way you've been conducting yourself dissuades me from engaging you, let alone taking into consideration of what you're saying. If that is your goal, to tell God you spread his word as abrasively and condescendingly as you could muster, then you're well on your way to accomplishing it.

 

[foszoe]

No the KJV is not the definitive text. That would be the Textus Receptus. The KJV is the preserved word for English speaking people.

If I make the Claim it is the Septuagint Greek for the Old and the Byzantine Majority Text for the new, how would you support the TR claim?

 

[foszoe]

Lucky, there's nothing in the Bible about needing "Church Fathers" to interpret scripture. Every saved believers is brought into the priesthood with Christ. If you're not using literal translation, then someone is perverting scripture with what they feel scripture is supposed to mean.

Philip and the Ethiopian.

I use several translations. My favorites are NKJV, NASB, and the AMP.

Depending on how you Define perversion, one could make the argument that all translations are a perversion.

One can definitely make the claim that no translation captures all the meaning in the original language which is why that's one of my first goto when a disagreement in meaning arises. It's also why the altar bible in an Orthodox Church has the original Greek parallel to the English translation

 

[ATM]

I believe the point is, and ask anyone else here, that you aren't putting forth a good representation of what Christianity could/should be.

Not at first glance, that’s for sure. Christianity as you imagine it 'could/should be' does not interest you, correct? So why would I pander to your uninteresting notions and whims?

I wouldn’t.

Your conduct is strikingly more similar to what you'd read of the pharisees in the new testament than that of the conduct of Jesus. (in as much as I understand the new testament anyway)

Well, you obviously don’t understand, so again, why would I pander to your limited and largely uninterested understanding of something I have actually devoted myself to contemplating and seeking to understand?

I wouldn’t.

The way you've been conducting yourself dissuades me from engaging you, let alone taking into consideration of what you're saying.

And yet, here you are …engaging me. How can you believe that you are dissuaded even as your own actions belie such a claim?
And, if you respond to this and continue a discussion, your claim above will only be further refuted.


I wonder, are you prepared to cede such a tiny point to me in order to continue? If not, just watch, be a part of the crowd. The main stage is reserved for those willing to engage.

If that is your goal, to tell God you spread his word as abrasively and condescendingly as you could muster, then you're well on your way to accomplishing it.

You cannot fathom my goals, for you cannot fathom my God. I am accomplishing something here, you simply lack the proper anchor by which to determine its nature. All you have at your disposal is the knowledge of good and evil. Without context, most things could be either or both.

You should have cleaned your plate, young man, there’s no Way you could understand or rightly divide Truth if you don’t understand Life.


I do look forward to more. You are on my list and in my sights.

 

[2A_Tom]

I say I can shock myself, put together a simple radio or repair a circuit yet God has yet to make his presence known to me. He may be self evident to you but not reveal himself to others, electricity is there regardless.

If I read an electronics manual and it said slaughtering women and children was ok in certain circumstances, I wouldn't devote my life to studying it further. My sense of morality is apparently independent of and contradictory to the Bible.

I apologize, I can not keep up with this thread, I am going to unsubscribe, I have to work and something that I said a day ago has lost its impact.

This thread, CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity, Has become a debate over whether God exists, as I can only suppose that it was designed to be.

All I have to add is that you (plural, thanks Fozoe) will certainly be "shocked".

 

[Jludo]

I apologize, I can not keep up with this thread, I am going to unsubscribe, I have to work and something that I said a day ago has lost its impact.

This thread, CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity, Has become a debate over whether God exists, as I can only suppose that it was designed to be.

All I have to add is that you (plural, thanks Fozoe) will certainly be "shocked".

Whatever happens I'll be surprised, there's no doubt about that.

 

[T.Lex]

Depending on how you Define perversion, one could make the argument that all translations are a perversion.

I think I said this way WAY upthread, but as someone who has actually tried to faithfully translate things between languages that have no common root, there are inherent inaccuracies in any translation. Sure, certain sentences can be accurately translated, but once you get to paragraph-length passages, the best you can hope for is to convey meaning.

For me, one of the miracles of the Bible is that meaning is able to be conveyed across centuries and languages. Sometimes that meaning must be discerned by a kind of interpretive triangulation, but it can be found.

For some people, that triangulation means using other languages and translations. For others, it means using different passages from the same translation. As long as the translators of any given version were internally consistent, I think that can be appropriate.

Like any other large, collaborative body of work, it is important not to isolate a few passages to try to capture the total meaning. That oversimplification is where the risk of translation inaccuracy looms large.

IMHO.

 

[Jludo]

I think I said this way WAY upthread, but as someone who has actually tried to faithfully translate things between languages that have no common root, there are inherent inaccuracies in any translation. Sure, certain sentences can be accurately translated, but once you get to paragraph-length passages, the best you can hope for is to convey meaning.

For me, one of the miracles of the Bible is that meaning is able to be conveyed across centuries and languages. Sometimes that meaning must be discerned by a kind of interpretive triangulation, but it can be found.

For some people, that triangulation means using other languages and translations. For others, it means using different passages from the same translation. As long as the translators of any given version were internally consistent, I think that can be appropriate.

Like any other large, collaborative body of work, it is important not to isolate a few passages to try to capture the total meaning. That oversimplification is where the risk of translation inaccuracy looms large.

IMHO.

Would we know the meaning has been the same across the centuries though? It's certainly not been used the same across the centuries.

 

[T.Lex]

Would we know the meaning has been the same across the centuries though? It's certainly not been used the same across the centuries.

We have a pretty good idea.

The written historical record goes back to before Christ. There are contemporaneous writings from which linguists can learn how words were used. It is really fascinating.

There are also lexical writings in the intervening centuries that compare and translate words.

That's where a good translation really needs to be internally consistent about what words are used, or be able to explain when a different word is used (footnotes/endnotes are important). IMHO, all of the major translations are "good" in this respect.

Really, the harder part is not textual, but contextual. Situations were different; traditions were different. It is kinda a Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra problem. The wedding feast, for example - wedding traditions are different now, so an explanation of what things were like then is important to understand those passages.

 

[indiucky]

Wow.

"Give me liberty or give me death" That's a quote. I don't need Patrick Henry to interpret that.

Yeah, but it would be cool to interview him and ask if he did a couple of shots of rum before he delivered that awesome speech..

 

[DragonGunner]

Here is a link to "Sin Nature"…..now is "sin nature" words found in the Bible….well maybe not. The English language is weak when it come to sometimes bringing the meaning of scriptures written in hebrew or greek or whatever. However I don't see where the word "sin nature" as used perverts or changes the context of what is being said…..If one does not like the word "nature" and prefers to use something else to describe what is being said have at it. What basically is being describe is sin and its effect. 27 Bible verses about The Sin Nature

 

[gregr]

Yes, that is YOUR understanding and the understanding of quite a few people, even Roman Catholics. However, one has only to go through the comments here to see that is not the understanding of many sects and many of the people here.

Yes, Satan seeks to confuse and confound as many as he can. Pick up a King James Bible, and read it cover to cover. Only then can you say you`ve seen the Truth.

 

[gregr]

Then what should I do with what GregR said in the last few pages? Hmmmm? He's a literalist. And he's not alone. From the perspective of an independent observer, one might think that the body IS divided and full of heretics.

Yes, let me be extremely clear, as THIS is the ONE thing I WILL not waiver on. The Bible IS the infallible, Inspired Holy Word of God. The Bible IS to be taken literally, and IS and HAS all authority over man, because it IS the Holy Word of God.

Yes, there is division in the church, and that IS of and from Satan. The father of lies LOVES chaos, and deceit, and confusion. There is however, still a way to sort through the confusion and find the Truth. Get a King James Bible, and read it cover to cover. Pray as you read for the Holy Spirit to open your mind to His Truth and wisdom. I challenge you to cry out to God, and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. You may be surprised at what would happen...