Bible Defense

[TonyC]

Re: The Bible, A Form Of Law

The Bible, in pure form, is like our Constitution. It is a way to control the masses with written law and explain the unknown.

Question; Why is there no mention of dinosaurs' in the Bible scriptures?

Answer; Man did not know of the dinosaur’s existence when the authors wrote the Bible. Only present knowledge can appear in written form.

Answer: The word "dinosaur" wasn't invented until 1842, while the Bible was translated into English around 1600 (almost 250 years earlier!) One hardly could expect to find a word in a book published before the word even came into existence. Likewise, we wouldn't expect translation into a word that did not exist.

The animal, though, DID EXIST, and was written about.

Look in the book of Job at God's description of "behemoth."

In the 40th chapter:
v15 "Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
v16 " See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
v17 "He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
v18 "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.
v19 "He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
v20 "Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.
v21 "He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.
v22 "The lotus trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him.
v23 "Indeed the river may rage, Yet he is not disturbed; He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,
v24 "Though he takes it in his eyes, Or one pierces his nose with a snare."


The word has been translated as "water-ox" or "hippopotamus" or "Nile-horse", but such translations are incompatible with the entire description. Notice verse 17 - - "he moves his tail like a cedar." What animal do you know of that has a tail like a TREE? And not just any tree, but a CEDAR tree - - quite a sizeable tail, wouldn't you say?

It certainly fits the descriptions that we have been able to develop of what we NOW can call dinosaurs (we can call them that because the word has now been invented). By the way, Chapter 41 of Job goes on to describe sea creatures and dragons, as well (41:18 "His sneezings flash forth light..." v19 "Out of his mouth go burning lights; Sparks of fire shoot out." v20 "Smoke goes out of his nostrils, As from a boiling pot and burning rushes." v21 "His breath kindles coals, And a flame goes out of his mouth.")

Indeed, even before we knew of Dinosaurs and dragons and Sea creatures, their creator knew, and wrote about them by inspiration through Job - - who, by the way, lived at about the same time as Abraham, some 2400 years after creation, and a mere 2300 years (roughly) B.C.

 

[Timebuilder]

Actually there is scripture that supports man's knowlege of dinosaurs.

If you want to do a lot of reading about this there is a book out by Duane Gish called Dinosaurs by Design, ISBN 0-89051-165-9.

The word "dinosaur" was coined in the 1840's, long after the translation of our Bible.

That said, a two creatures were described in Job.

One, called "behemoth" is in Job 40:15-24

"15 "Look now at the behemoth, F60 which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox. 16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles. 17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. 18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron. 19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword. 20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there. 21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh. 22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him. 23 Indeed the river may rage, Yet he is not disturbed; He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth, 24 Though he takes it in his eyes, Or one pierces his nose with a snare."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:
F60: A large animal, exact identity unknown



Not long after this mention is another called Leviathan, in Job 41

1 "Can you draw out Leviathan F61 with a hook, Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower? 2 Can you put a reed through his nose, Or pierce his jaw with a hook? 3 Will he make many supplications to you? Will he speak softly to you? 4 Will he make a covenant with you? Will you take him as a servant forever? 5 Will you play with him as with a bird, Or will you leash him for your maidens? 6 Will your companions make a banquet F62 of him? Will they apportion him among the merchants? 7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons, Or his head with fishing spears? 8 Lay your hand on him; Remember the battle-- Never do it again! 9 Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false; Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him? 10 No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up. Who then is able to stand against Me?

11 Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him? Everything under heaven is Mine. 12 "I will not conceal F63 his limbs, His mighty power, or his graceful proportions. 13 Who can remove his outer coat? Who can approach him with a double bridle? 14 Who can open the doors of his face, With his terrible teeth all around? 15 His rows of scales are his pride, Shut up tightly as with a seal; 16 One is so near another That no air can come between them; 17 They are joined one to another, They stick together and cannot be parted. 18 His sneezings flash forth light, And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 19 Out of his mouth go burning lights; Sparks of fire shoot out. 20 Smoke goes out of his nostrils, As from a boiling pot and burning rushes. 21 His breath kindles coals, And a flame goes out of his mouth. 22 Strength dwells in his neck, And sorrow dances before him. 23 The folds of his flesh are joined together; They are firm on him and cannot be moved. 24 His heart is as hard as stone, Even as hard as the lower millstone. 25 When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid; Because of his crashings they are beside F64 themselves. 26 Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; Nor does spear, dart, or javelin. 27 He regards iron as straw, And bronze as rotten wood. 28 The arrow cannot make him flee; Slingstones become like stubble to him. 29 Darts are regarded as straw; He laughs at the threat of javelins. 30 His undersides are like sharp potsherds; He spreads pointed marks in the mire. 31 He makes the deep boil like a pot; He makes the sea like a pot of ointment. 32 He leaves a shining wake behind him; One would think the deep had white hair. 33 On earth there is nothing like him, Which is made without fear. 34 He beholds every high thing; He is king over all the children of pride."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:
F61: A large sea creature, exact identity unknown
F62: Or bargain over him
F63: Literally keep silent about
F64: Or purify themselves

Now Leviathan sounds very much like a dragon, doesn't he? Can you believe this? " 18 His sneezings flash forth light, And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 19 Out of his mouth go burning lights; Sparks of fire shoot out. 20 Smoke goes out of his nostrils, As from a boiling pot and burning rushes. 21 His breath kindles coals, And a flame goes out of his mouth."

We know of one creature today who mixes chemicals to produce an explosion of hot gasses, around 212 degrees F. It is the Bombardier Beetle.

So, the short answer is that there were indeed creatures in the Bible who we call by other names. Behemoth sounds much like a Brontosuarus from its description, and Leviathan like what we call a "dragon". Scientists are still puzzling over the skull features of skeletal remains of some dinosaurs that could be the mixing chambers for chemicals to cause a pyrotechnic effect from the mouth and nostrils.

 

[Timebuilder]

Ah, I see both Tony and myself were writing.

Well done!

 

[CFI'er]

Not to argue the point but the description sounds like Crocodiles, living in the Nile.

What ever happened to the search for the Ark? Wasn't it located on the boarder of Turkey? Get NASA or other gov'nmt agency to use modern tech to locate this Bibical artifact.

 

[TonyC]

Original Sin & Total Depravity - again

Tony, I have the Systematic Theology by Grudem which is from an Evangelical perspective with his chapter on sin which covers this issue. The commonly referred Original Sin, can be thought of in two ways, one: inherited guilt, or two: inherited corruption.

So there is a Biblical principle that Paul brings forth best that equates sin as coming into the world or originating with one man. He puts physical death as a mark that each of us carries the stigma of this 'original sin' with us. As a kind of shorthand for an attribute that is inherited, to use this wording saves time. I agree with the idea of inherited corruption as the best way I can think of it as being transferred to us. This has the advantage of being inline with generational curses and what David writes about his sin nature from before his birth.

I have the Bible, inspired by God, given for our instruction.

The prophet Ezekial refuted a false proverb used by the children of Israel, to wit, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge."

beginning in chapter 18, verse 3:
"As I live," says the Lord God, "you shall no longer use the proverb in Israel.

v4 "Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die."


We could stop here using your use of the word "sin" or "sins" and conclude that the father and the son both die, because all sin. Fortunately, we have the remainder of the chapter to clarify the matter.

v5 "But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right (verses 6 through 8 expound on what is lawful and right)
v9 "If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully -- He is just; He shall surely live!" Says the Lord God.

God says he shall live - - God said the soul who sins dies. If "sins" means someone who has breathed, and been assigned the sin of Adam by the mere act of breathing, his demise in inconsistent with the proclamation of God in Ezekial 18:9.

For a further discussion of heredity and the guilt passed on from sin, we can continue in Ezekial 18:

v10 "If he begets a son who is a robber Or a shedder of blood, Who does any of these things" (v11-12 continue describing abominable behaviors)
v13 "If he has exacted usury Or taken increase -- Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall surely be upon him."

The righteous life of the father does not justify the abominable behavior of the son. The son shall die, because of the sins of the son alone. His fate is directly linked to his OWN acts, and are clearly distinct from those of his father.

If there be any doubt remaining, God continues this instruction with yet another example.

v14 "If, however, he begets a son who sees all the sins which his father has done, And considers but does not do likewise;
v15 "Who has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor's wife;
v16 "Has not oppressed anyone, Nor withheld a pledge, Nor robbed by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing;
v17 "Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor And not received usury or increase, But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes -- He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live!"

allow me to repeat that last phrase:
He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live!"

v18 "As for his father, Because he cruelly oppressed, Robbed his brother by violence, And did what is not good among his people, Behold he shall die for his iniquity."

The concept is repeated and rephrased now several times to remove all doubt about the teaching of God.

v19 "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?' Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live."

I can't say it any more clearly than THIS:
v20 "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

I encourage you to read the remainder of the chapter (my fingers are a bit tired ) I'll just leave a couple more verses for you here.

v24 "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die." [Emph. added]

v26 "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies."

To return to the subject of children once more, I ask you to consider Christ's teaching about children and His church. Matthew, Mark, and Luke recount the scene where Christ's apostles were attempting to prevent people from bringing their young children to Christ so that He could touch them. He rebuked the apostles and instructed them "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17] Now, Christ explains that the kingdom of heaven, His church, the body of believers that he was to give His life to redeem, consists of people like children.

Now, I ask you. If children are darkened by the sin of Adam, if they are condemned to die outside the law, if they require a special type of judgment to determine their fate should they die before attaining the knowledge to obey God, can we surmise that Christ's kingdom is made up by condemned sinners just like children?

I submit that such is not the case. Inasmuch as children are free from sin, uncondemned, and innocent, so are the members of Christ's kingdom, that is, those penitent believers whose sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ

 

[Super 80]

Not to argue the point but the description sounds like Crocodiles, living in the Nile. What ever happened to the search for the Ark?

Well, to argue the point of dinosaurs, the animal in Job 40:15-24 is not a crocodile. Some have suggested that this is a hippopotamus but the description does not match exactly. The word the Bible uses here is behemoth which comes from the Hebrew behemot. I would suggest that while this animal is certainly large, there is considerable latitude in the verse for what God may be referring to. You cannot rule out some other type of unknown animal to man at this point, and the matter is still in debate in religious circles.

Tony stated it correctly, dinosaur is a very recent addition to our vocabulary and literally means ‘terrible lizard.’ The Bible uses leviathan to convey the Hebrew liwyatan. While reminiscent of the Nile crocodile, it also is used for great sea creatures and is mentioned along with monsters such as the tannin in Psalm 74:13-14. The word can also mean serpent.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
The word appears as a literal animal, a figure for Egypt, and a figure for sinful mankind in general (Isa 27:1).

However, the point here is that just because the Bible does not refer to what we would consider dinosaurs outright, or even from the description given to you in Job, which my commentaries list as probably being a crocodile, it still does not refute the Bible.

What you are doing is saying, because we don't get the whole truth from the Bible, is that it isn't true. That is some of the cultural baggage you are carrying with you when you impose the standards of our modern legal system with its 'truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' on a culture that does not ascribe to that level of proof.

An "error" (as you might put it) of omission, is not an error of commission. Just because the Bible doesn't list dinosaurs explicitly, doesn't mean they didn't exist. Likewise, the Bible does not include amphibians in its Genesis account doesn't mean that they don't exist either.

Now as to Noah's ark, there is an anomaly in Turkey that has been examined and bears every mark of being man-made. In addition, there is a higher than normal carbon and iron content in the immediate confines of a symmetrical boat shape in the soil. It has been mapped out with sonar and appears to follow the dimensions given in the Bible allowing for some splaying of the wreckage as it deteriorated as has been the case of other ancient ships found buried in the earth. The Turkish government recognizes the site, and has protected it since.

It has been featured in Life magazine and on national television. Why it is not trumpeted more by the secular press is not too much of a wonder. I suggest you do a Google search under the name of Wyatt and look for an archaeological website to initiate your own investigation. I have two videos on it, and it is most impressive.

 

[Super 80]

Tony,

I do not refute that Ezekiel 18 establishes individual responsibility for every person's soul.

The example of Abraham who was declared righteous by God before he was circumcised or even had the Law is a point in case; he was declared righteous because of faith.

Likewise, those before Christ like Ezekiel's example that follow the Law, can be saved too. <Here is what I am editing out: "Their heart is probably inclined towards God as well."> I am going to say their heart is inclined towards the Lord as in contrast to those that uphold the Law but are like cups cleaned on the outside but full of filth within. While we cannot always tell the difference, God is just and He can.

Expositor's Bible Commentary on Ezekiel 18
c. The explanation of the principle (18:19-32)

19-24 Having stated the basic principle of individual responsibility in vv. 14 and illustrated it in vv. 5-18, Ezekiel then elaborated aspects of this principle. The discussion was initiated by the exiles' rhetorical question: "Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?" (v. 19a). God answered the question by a series of subprinciples. First, whenever anyone--even the son of an unrighteous man--lived righteously according to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, he would live physically and ultimately eternally (v. 20a). Second, the unrighteous sinner who disobeyed God's righteous way for living revealed in the law would die physically and ultimately eternally (v. 20a). Third, a son would not bear the penalty for a father's sins, nor would a father bear the punishment for his son's sins (v. 20b). Fourth, a righteous person lived because of his righteousness (cf. Lev 18:5), but the wicked would die because of his sin (v. 20c; Deut 30:17-18). Fifth, a wicked person could live physically and ultimately eternally if he trusted in the Messiah, if he would turn from his sinful rebellion and obey the righteous commandments. His past sins would not be remembered because of his righteous acts by which he now lived (vv. 21-22). Only God's marvelous grace had kept that wicked person from dying previously. Sixth God did not rejoice when a wicked man died. Rather, God was delighted when a wicked man turned to him in obedience and lived (v. 23; cf. v. 31; 2 Peter 3:9). Sinful mankind normally sees judgment as God's delight. Nothing could be further from God's desire, else he would not have sent his only Son to be judged on the cross for the sin of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). Finally, there was never a time or place where the righteous man, who had trusted in the Messiah, could feel free to sin; for if he turned away from living by God's righteous stipulations and sinned, then he too would surely die physically (but not eternally) (v. 24). He would die because of his unfaithfulness to God and the unrighteous acts he did. God never condones sin nor grants anyone a license to disobey his holy commands.

Now as to the children the passage you quoted in the Gospel, this does not mean to impute that they are free from sin as you suggest. You will have to show some logical construct to support your claim. Here is the Expositor's Bible Commentary of the New Testament on the passage in Matthew:

2. Blessing little children (19:13-15)

13 "Then" is ambiguous (see on 2:7). Children in Jesus' day were often brought to rabbis and elders to be blessed, customarily by placing hands on them (cf. Gen 48:14; Num 27:18; Acts 6:6; 13:3; cf. Matt 9:18, 20; Mark 10:16). The disciples "rebuked them" (lit.): both the context and the synoptic parallels show that "them" refers, not to the children, but to "those who brought them" (NIV).
Why did the disciples stoop to this rebuke? Perhaps they were annoyed that Jesus was being delayed on his journey to Jerusalem; perhaps they felt they were being interrupted in their important discussion. Although children in Judaism of the time were deeply cherished, they were thought in some ways to be negligible members of society: their place was to learn, to be respectful, to listen. But two deeper insights suggest themselves: (1) the preceding pericope (vv. 3-12) implicitly stresses the sanctity of the family, and vv. 13-15 continue by saying something important about children; and (2) in 18:1-9 children serve as models for humility, patterns for Jesus' "little ones"; yet Jesus' disciples, his "little ones," show little humility here.

14-15 Jesus does not want the little children prevented from coming to him (v. 14), not because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, but because the kingdom of heaven belongs to those like them (so also Mark and Luke, stressing childlike faith): Jesus receives them because they are an excellent object lesson in the kind of humility and faith he finds acceptable.

 

[Timebuilder]

Not to argue the point but the description sounds like Crocodiles, living in the Nile.

Job 40:17 says

"17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit."

Now he isn't moving his tail like a cornstalk or a sheaf of wheat, he is moving his tail like a tree which commonly "...possesses an imposing trunk that may attain a height of 120 feet and a diameter of 9 feet." 1

That would have to be one really big crock to have a tail that moved like such a tree.




1(http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2587/cedar.html)

 

[TonyC]

Tony,

I do not refute that Ezekiel 18 establishes individual responsibility for every person's soul.

The example of Abraham who was declared righteous by God before he was circumcised or even had the Law is a point in case; he was declared righteous because of faith.

Likewise, those before Christ like Ezekiel's example that follow the Law, can be saved too. Their heart is probably inclined towards God as well.

Absent the lengthy copy/paste from the commentary, I don't understand your objection to the teaching of Ezekiel, that is, "The son shall not bear the guilt of the father." (EZ 18:20). If such is the case - - I take it to be so, since it is the inspired word of God - - then I cannot possibly bear the guilt of Adam.

Now, about the Commentary. I'm all in favor of consulting commentaries to try to gain insight into the meaning of passages, but we must always be careful to not fall into the trap of taking a MAN's OPINION to carry the same weight as the inspired word.

For example. There is a doctrine that holds that once a man is saved, he is always saved. He can never fall from the grace of God, no matter what he does, no matter how evil, no matter how abominable. Ezekiel 18:24 and 26 clearly teach that such a man will surely die. The "die" used in these verses is the same "die" used in verses 4, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 28, and 31. Why then, does the author of this commentary feel it necessary to include a parenthetical note about the "die" in verse 24 that would distinguish the death in all of the other verses from a eternal death? Because to do so would admit that the principle that "once saved, always saved" is false. Making this parenthetical note preserves the fallacious belief. Such is not an objective commentary, and as such should not be relied upon for matters of doctrine.

I believe you are intelligent enough to read Ezekiel 18 on your own and draw a correct conclusion, provided you are reading with an open heart.

Now as to the children the passage you quoted in the Gospel, this does not mean to impute that they are free from sin as you suggest. You will have to show some logical construct to support your claim. Here is the Expositor's Bible Commentary of the New Testament on the passage in Matthew:

You ask for "some logical construct" and then quote the "Expositor's Bible Commentary of the New Testament." This writing of man determines that the qualities Christ was referring to were faith and humility. Fine. Although faith and humility are not mentioned in the text, or in the preceding or succeeding text, I can understand how they might make that guess. And in fact, that might be EXACTLY why Christ made the remark that he did.

I'll repeat the argument that I made, though, and try to help you see the logical construct of it. Jesus says that the kingdom of heaven is composed of people such as the children. We know from other passages that the kingdom of heaven is His church, the sanctified believers whom he died to redeem. As members of His body, we have received forgiveness for our sins - - they were washed away by His blood, blotted out, forgotten as if we had never sinned. As such, members of His kingdom are in a covenant relationship with God - - privileged to call him "Father." We can only enjoy that relationship because we are not separated from God by sin. No sin. It is continually washed away.

The sinless relationship is significant in connection with the children, for if the children are sinful, - - ummmm, self-oriented - - creatures, then how could Christ possibly proclaim that His kingdom is made up of such sinful creatures, even if they ARE humble... and faithful?

I'm not copying and pasting from some commentary here. I have some dictionaries and concordances to help with word meanings, but I don't think we need to rely on some doctrinally-biased interpretation of Ezekiel to see the clear meaning. God didn't intend such confusion.

Edited to fix formatting error

 

[Super 80]

Tony,

I am not here to cause a division among brothers. There are different schools of theology, different doctrines of Churches and different interpretations. I am quite comfortable that every man is individually responsible for his own sin, and yet at the same time there is an inherited quality to sin that we all have.

I am not sure that the righteousness of Ezekiel is the same thing as the Salvation of Christ. I'll study this and we can split hairs on it later if you like. Right now, my first reaction is differentiate actions from belief. Paul talks about casting out a person who was sinning that would not stop so his body would perish and his soul still saved. So I think you're going to have to revisit the whole of the Bible before making a doctrinal statement on Ezekiel as applying to us as well.

I think the Old Testament is better thought of as expressing the covenant relationship between God and Israel. This is also why Jesus talked about putting new wine in a new wineskin as an allusion to the New Covenant He was making with us. Again, professing with your mouth and believing with your heart that Jesus is Lord becomes the test since Christ. If sinning after that puts you in jeopardy of hellfire, then some of the other verses in the Bible have to be thrown out and I don't think that is necessary. Again actions versus faith. The Pharisees had one and Abraham had the other.

However, I still think you're making a lot more of being childlike versus saying children are pure and free of sin. Likewise, a systematic review of the Bible doesn't support a view that children are innocent. If you want to think that way though, have at it. I just prefer to take the Bible at face value when the language is plain enough and to take it whole and not throw out parts that are too difficult or put me at unease.

 

[Super 80]

From Grudem's Systematic Theology on the Nature of Sin:

What Happens When a Christian Sins?

a. Our Legal Standing Before God Is Unchanged: Though this subject could be treated later in relation to adoption or sanctification within the Christian life, it is quite appropriate to treat it at this point.

When a Christian sins, his or her legal standing before God is unchanged. He or she is still forgiven, for "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). Salvation is not based on our merits but is a free gift of God (Rom. 6:23), and Christ's death certainly paid for all our sins--past, present, and future--Christ died "for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3), without distinction. In theological terms, we still keep our "justification." (below, [24:24])

Moreover, we are still children of God and we still retain our membership in God's family. In the same epistle in which John says, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth in not in us" (1 John 1:8), he also reminds his readers, "Beloved, we are God's children now" (1 John 3:2). The fact that we have sin remaining in our lives does not mean that we lose our status as God's children. In theological terms, we keep our "adoption." (below, [24:25])

b. Our Fellowship With God Is Disrupted and Our Christian Life Is Damaged: When we sin, even though God does not cease to love us, he is displeased with us. (Even among human beings, it is possible to love someone and be displeased with that person at the same time, as any parent will attest, or any wife, or any husband.) Paul tells us that it is possible for Christians to "grieve the Holy Spirit of God" (Eph. 4:30); when we sin, we cause him sorrow and he is displeased with us. The author of Hebrews reminds us that "the Lord disciplines him whom he loves" (Heb. 12:6, quoting Prov. 3:11-12), and that "the Father of spirits ... disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness" (Heb. 12:9-10). When we disobey, God the Father is grieved, much as an earthly father is grieved with his children's disobedience, and he disciplines us. A similar theme is found in Revelation 3, where the risen Christ speaks from heaven to the church of Laodicea, saying, "Those whom I love I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent" (Rev. 3:19). Here again love and reproof of sin are connected in the same statement. Thus, the New Testament attests to the displeasure of all three members of the Trinity when Christians sin. (See also Isa. 59:1-2; 1 John 3:21.)

The Westminster Confession of Faith wisely says, concerning Christians,

Although they never can fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance. (chap. 11, sec. 5)

Hebrews 12, together with many historical examples in Scripture, shows that God's fatherly displeasure often leads to discipline in our Christian lives: "He disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness" (Heb. 12:10). Regarding the need for regular confession and repentance of sin, Jesus reminds us that we are to pray each day, "Forgive us our sins, as we also have forgiven those who sin against us" (Matt. 6:12, author's translation; cf. 1 John 1:9).

When we sin as Christians, it is not only our personal relationship with God that is disrupted. Our Christian life and fruitfulness in ministry are also damaged. Jesus warns us, "As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me" (John 15:4). When we stray from fellowship with Christ because of sin in our lives, we diminish the degree to which we are abiding in Christ.

The New Testament writers frequently speak of the destructive consequences of sin in the lives of believers. In fact, many sections of the epistles are taken up with rebuking and discouraging Christians from sin that they are committing. Paul says that if Christians yield themselves to sin, they increasingly become "slaves" of sin (Rom. 6:16), whereas God wants Christians to progress upward on a path of ever-increasing righteousness in life. If our goal is to grow in increasing fullness of life until the day we die and pass into the presence of God in heaven, to sin is to do an about-face and begin to walk downhill away from the goal of likeness to God; it is to go in a direction that "leads to death" (Rom. 6:16) and eternal separation from God, the direction from which we were rescued when we became Christians. (below, [24:26])

Peter says that sinful desires that remain in our hearts "wage war against your soul" (1 Peter 2:11)--the military language correctly translates Peter's expression and conveys the imagery that sinful desires within us are like soldiers in a battle and their target is our spiritual well-being. To give in to such sinful desires, to nurture and cherish them in our hearts, is to give food, shelter, and welcome to the enemy's troops. If we yield to the desires that "wage war" against our souls, we will inevitably feel some loss of spiritual strength, some diminution of spiritual power, some loss of effectiveness in the work of God's kingdom.

Moreover, when we sin as Christians we suffer a loss of heavenly reward. A person who has built on the work of the church not with gold, silver, and precious stones, but with "wood, hay, stubble" (1 Cor. 3:12) will have his work "burned up" on the day of judgment and "he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor. 3:15). Paul realizes that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body" (2 Cor. 5:10). Paul implies that there are degrees of reward in heaven, (below, [24:27]) and that sin has negative consequences in terms of loss of heavenly reward.

c. The Danger of "Unconverted Evangelicals": While a genuine Christian who sins does not lose his or her justification or adoption before God (see above), there needs to be a clear warning that mere association with an evangelical church and outward conformity to accepted "Christian" patterns of behavior does not guarantee salvation. Particularly in societies and cultures where it is easy (or even expected) for people to profess to be Christians, there is a real possibility that some will associate with the church who are not genuinely born again. If such people then become more and more disobedient to Christ in their pattern of life, they should not be lulled into complacency by assurances that they still have justification or adoption in God's family. A consistent pattern of disobedience to Christ coupled with a lack of the elements of the fruit of the Holy Spirit such as love, joy, peace, and so forth (see Gal. 5:22-23) is a warning signal that the person is probably not a true Christian inwardly, that there probably has been no genuine heart-faith from the beginning and no regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus warns that he will say to some who have prophesied, cast out demons, and done many mighty works in his name, "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers" (Matt. 7:23). And John tells us that "he who says "I know him' but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:4; here John speaks of a persistent pattern of life). A long-term pattern of increasing disobedience to Christ should be taken as evidence to doubt that the person in question is really a Christian at all.

 

[TonyC]

I am not sure that the righteousness of Ezekiel is the same thing as the Salvation of Christ.

I did not say anything about the righteousness of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel said that God said:

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

This does not fit with the concept that Adam's sin is passed down to every man that draws air into his lungs.



Furthermore, Ezekiel said that God said:

"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die."

This is incompatible with the concept that once one becomes a Christian, he can never turn away from God and lose his salvation.


I don't have to throw ANY of the Bible out to reach those conclusions. I do have to throw out Grudem's Systematic Theology and The Westminster Confession of Faith, but I feel comfortable sticking to scripture.

You have to throw Ezekiel out to reach your conclusions.

 

[TonyC]

If sinning after that puts you in jeopardy of hellfire, then some of the other verses in the Bible have to be thrown out and I don't think that is necessary.

In my haste to answer and go to bed, I overlooked the very important concept you touched on here. I'm not saying that sinning after being saved puts one in jeapordy of hellfire. In fact, we all by definition sin, even after we decide to obey Christ. Our state, though, is one whereby the blood of Christ continually cleanses us of our sins, our shortcomings, our failures to hit the mark. However, if one were to turn away from God after having put Him on, he is characterized as worse than if he had never known God. The comparison is made to a dog that returns to his vomit. Such a person, who once knowing God, turns his back on God and returns to a life of iniquity will not enjoy salvation. He shall, as Ezekiel describes, surely die.


G'night.

 

[Timebuilder]

I feel compelled to point out that much in the Old Testament was set aside under the New Covenant. Some groups don't make that distinction, and the admonishment to use head coverings is a good example that comes to mind. The interpretation of Ezekiel 18 is an accurate understanding of the meaning of the passage, I am certain. It is clear, but it is just as much a part of the Old Covenant as salvation by righteousness and adherance to The Law.

The New Covenant changes the plan of salvation to acceptance of the Messiah as the only way. Further, we have Romans, 3:23 which brings the question of sin to the forefront as being a condition of everyone. "All."

So, while Ezikiel 18 was in force, we had rules for the sacrifice of animals, headcoverings, and a host of other requirements for the righteous man of God.

Under the New Covenant, we are given a new plan because of our abject failure to meet the requirements of the old plan. Now it is clarified for us that there is a difference between a father's sin being paid by a son and the sin that we have because of Adam, which led to the condition and admonishment that "all have sinned."

 

[Super 80]

I did not say anything about the righteousness of Ezekiel.

This is not a winner take all debate. I am not saying you are wrong. I am making a fine distinction between individual responsibility for our sin versus our inherent sin nature. Plus, if you want to make a statement that this passage negates the theological concept of original sin, then you have to reconcile that to the other teachings in the Epistles.

Second, we have a miscommunication. I am not talking about Ezekiel's righteousness I'm talking about the righteousness mentioned in Ezekiel as a principle. This righteousness is tied strictly to acts. So under the covenant relation of the Law as established by God--and it is the Law the sets the stage for the need for the Messiah (because under the Law there never is a complete washing of sin one time for all time)--the criteria for judgment is how you obey the Law.

This does not fit with the concept that Adam's sin is passed down to every man that draws air into his lungs.

But Paul taught this about the nature of sin:

RO 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-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

1CO 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

I don’t know how to explain that sin entered the world through one man any clearer than that. David seems to think so too.

PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Now if sin didn’t enter the world through Adam, then Paul is wrong. And if we are not born in sin, then David is wrong. Is Ezekiel wrong then? NO.

Now if a person turns away from the Law, as a heart issue, was his heart truly inclined towards God? I am not talking about someone who slips up, and neither do I think that is the point of Ezekiel's passage, but someone whose feet literally lead them to do evil. I think this person's true character has come out.

Now if a person turns away from evil into righteousness, that is they obey the Law, and what is the Law? First to love God, then we are to love their neighbor as themselves. Then that person has had a change of heart as well. And their deeds reflect that. But Ezekiel is talking strictly about deeds as an indicator of the measure of a person's heart so that they will be counted as among the righteous.

Ezekiel concentrates on the external signs to judge. Jesus taught this same concept with the fruit being indicative of the type of tree so you and I can discern what type of tree a person is. What you say and do shows where your heart is as well. James says this same concept in a reverse sort of way, he said that a faith without works is dead. This is a fanciful way of saying true faith will be evidenced by what you do and say. Now we're back to the fruit on the tree and righteous acts.

But Ezekiel does not deal with the elemental level of sin, but with the outward signs that people can discern if a person is righteous or wicked. Ezekiel is saying that each of us is individually responsible for our own actions. We will all be judged righteous and wicked alike.

EZE 24:14 " `I the LORD have spoken. The time has come for me to act. I will not hold back; I will not have pity, nor will I relent. You will be judged according to your conduct and your actions, declares the Sovereign LORD.' "

HEB 12:23You have come to God, the judge of all men,

1PE 4:5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

So Tony, while you may not accept that through Adam sin entered the world and affects us even from the time we are conceived, I accept that while God may punish me for the sins of my fathers as I have quoted previously from Exodus and Deuteronomy going back three and four generations, and with the example I gave out of Jeremiah 16:10-13 in the same vein; I do not have to answer for their sin: just my own. For that, I choose to wash my garments clean in the blood of the Lamb so I may worship God face to face.

 

[Super 80]

This is incompatible with the concept that once one becomes a Christian, he can never turn away from God and lose his salvation.

But what do we do with the brother that is trapped in sin? Here is what Paul said about sexual immorality that was occurring inside the Corinthian Church:

1CO 5:5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

The implication here is that by the excommunication, this man might repent of his immoral relationship with his stepmother. In the Epistles there are warnings against immoral behavior. If you have a person in the Church that does not repent, then they are to be excluded. This is reaffirmed in Ephesians 5:3 and 7:

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people...Therefore do not be partners with them.

This is different than saying they are saved and then regress, because their actions and words show that their tree is rotten at its core (see previous post). So in this case, we have a person that does righteousness at first, but like in Ezekiel's example does wickedness and won't stop. That is a heart issue.

But let's look at a person that is struggling with sin. This verse was a comfort to me and my brother by a different mother and father. We both were struggling with sin issues in our lives and dealing with the guilt we felt.

HEB 12:4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons:

"My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,

HEB 12:6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves,
and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."

HEB 12:7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.

And have you not read Daniel where it says:

DAN 11:35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

Getting tripped up and sinning does not remove you from God's salvation. This is what I read in this. This is not the same as saying you can be immoral, and do all kinds of wickedness in the name of Christ. Paul literally rants about this:

RO 6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means!

Salvation is a heart felt submission to God that only Jesus can save you.

RO 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

There's that heart issue again.

So when Jesus says, JN 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. That means that continual sin cannot separate you from Christ because then you could extract yourself from God's hand. This is a fine distinction from someone who professes faith, but is not growing compared to one that mouths the words and yet abounds in wickedness.

So as Grudem makes the distinction between how sin disrupts our fellowship with God, and merely professing faith while indulging in immoral and idolatry in all its forms, so to do I make the distinction between not being able to lose your salvation because of sin in your life, which we all struggle with, and someone's false profession of faith and continued wickedness.

Now that is how I am thinking this through. You are free to accept or reject my study. But the Bible verses are still there. I invite anyone to study them and apply a right interpretation to them that deals with the difference between sin and outright immorality. Because since we all have sin issues in our lives, which is why we pray for God to keep us from temptation, that by itself is not enough to separate us from Jesus when we confess Jesus is Lord with our mouth and believe it in our heart. But there are others that are not sincere, and for them, they have another fate.

 

[Super 80]

I'm not saying that sinning after being saved puts one in jeapordy of hellfire. In fact, we all by definition sin, even after we decide to obey Christ. Our state, though, is one whereby the blood of Christ continually cleanses us of our sins, our shortcomings, our failures to hit the mark. However, if one were to turn away from God after having put Him on, he is characterized as worse than if he had never known God. The comparison is made to a dog that returns to his vomit. Such a person, who once knowing God, turns his back on God and returns to a life of iniquity will not enjoy salvation. He shall, as Ezekiel describes, surely die.

I think we're in perfect agreement here Tony. It is late, and I did want to expound upon this bit that we have been discussing, and now I'm really tired too. Goodnight.

 

[wms]

As mentioned by Tony C the blood of Jesus Christ His Son (continually) cleanseth us of our sin, 1 Jn 1:7. There is not danger of a believer losing his salvation. If this is suspected then it is likely this person was never saved. But he still can be.

This doesn't mean believers don't sin (1 John 1:8), but that all our past and future sins have been washed away, and long before we feel the guilt for them and ask forgiveness, Jesus has been before his father interceding for us, "And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous", 1 Jn 2:1. We can never be kicked out of the Universal Church, but we can be kicked out of the local church (eklesia) 1 Corr 5:10-13. Note in that passage that with the exception of fornication these are not one-time sins, but a continuation in sin which is cause to question even the salvation of the believer, as John wrote in 1 John 2:3-5.

The hope in excommunication is reformation, hoping the individual is truly saved, and will have remorse for his actions and repent, 1 Corr 5:5" for the destruction of the flesh that his soul would be saved." In this case there would be restoration to the local church as was the case with the man S80 mentioned. As soon as it was known that he had reformed he was received back into the fellowship of the church; 2Corr 2:1-11, "lest he would be swallowed up with much sorrow."

This has to do with the faithful, who may be restored. but there are those who believe the truth and still reject, Hebrews 6:4-6, which is the apostate. For these there is no hope. They are the ones Jesus said were guilty of the only unforgiveable sin, blasphemy of the Spirit.

We don't have the gift of knowing a person's heart, this is reserved for God alone. The angels and the devils don't even have that priviledge, but presume the condition of our hearts based on our behavior. Peter did not have this gift but was given the knowledge of the person, Mat 16:19b, "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, etc." As for us, the Gospel is preached to all and the work is completed by God Himself.

 

[TonyC]

RO 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-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Which translation of the Bible are you using here? I can't find one in my house that says "did not sin by breaking a command."

 

[Super 80]

Which translation of the Bible are you using here? I can't find one in my house that says "did not sin by breaking a command."

That is the New International Version which uses a dynamic equivalent translation.

Here is the American Standard Version:

12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:-- 13 for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

The King James Version:

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: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

And the New American Standard Version which has perhaps the best formal translation, that is word for word:

12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

I think the idea expressed in the NASB that "death spread to all men" is also in keeping with the idea of original sin as I was trying to express it: that is as an inherited quality which can be broken down to either inherited guilt, or an inherited nature; the latter of which I prefer in my particular thinking.

The NIV does take a more liberal wording, but the intent which is the focus of a dynamic equivalent translation is not too terribly different than the other wordings. Adam's offence was to break a direct command, while others did not do that -that is break an explicit command either because they didn't know the Law, or lived before the Law was given: they still sinned.

I think the thing you have to address is how sin is spread or passed or came to all men (depending on which translation you favor) for you to answer how the idea for original sin as a theological principle came about. I think the ideas Paul is putting agree with what David wrote when you conceptualize sin as an inherited quality.

Now you don't have to accept this principle of theology. It is after all, just a principle born out of the study by men about God. It does though, answer how Paul and David can be reconciled to each other. It does not, though, have direct support in the Bible. That is why it is a principle of man's study of God.

However, neither can I find any direct support for babies being born pure and free of sin. In fact, what David writes directly refutes that notion. Further, I have given a reasoned response for a quality of children that is desirous of us to come to faith in Jesus by and that is humility. After all, it's pretty hard to be arrogant and boastful when you hardly come up to a man's waist as a child.