Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Paul's Teachings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    You reminded me of an important point that I had forgotten: Cross correlating the related texts adds depth to basic statements.
    One of my favourite examples:
    Joe: Jesus said "He who is not for us is against us."
    Ralph: No he didn't, he said, "He who is not against us is for us."
    Texts: he said both.
    Not exactly the same thing, but one of my favorite passages is Prov. 26:4-5, which, aside from being fun to ponder in general, is probably a passage most of us should work harder to keep in mind when participating here.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

      Not exactly the same thing, but one of my favorite passages is Prov. 26:4-5, which, aside from being fun to ponder in general, is probably a passage most of us should work harder to keep in mind when participating here.
      It is indeed an interesting text. I've often heard it said that it means that a person should not respond to (idiotic, inflammatory, profane etc) comments by unbelievers/heretics. I'm fairly sure it means "don't adopt their tactics."
      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        On the topic of "sinners versus righteous", Paul makes it crystal clear that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." So, yes, while it was Jesus' mission to call sinners to him and not the righteous, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that there is no one who is so righteous that he doesn't need redemption.
        Paul's opponent is saying Jews are better than Gentiles, that all the gentiles are evil and that Jews righteous and supernaturally protected from sin. Paul's argues back against that specific thesis. Paul's view, expressed vigourously and repeatedly in Romans 2:6-16 is that there are righteous Jewish individuals and righteous gentile individuals and sinful Jewish individuals and sinful Gentile individuals, and that whether one is a Jew or Gentile doesn't have any relevance. In the passage you quote, Paul has just cited specific historical instances from the OT of specific groups of gentiles at specific times being labelled unrighteous and specific groups of Jews at specific times being labelled unrighteous. Paul draws the conclusion that no people group has supernatural protection from falling into sinfulness - "[some individuals in] all [people groups] have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

        To repeat a point I made earlier: If you read Paul's statement the way you are trying to read it, that all individual humans in history were sinners, then he is butchering his own proof-texts because they are all citations of passages that contrast historical groups of righteous and sinful people, and thus his argument would be disproven by the very texts he is citing since every one of them attests the historical existence of righteous people and asserts that not everyone is sinful like the group being labelled sinners.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
          Paul's opponent is saying Jews are better than Gentiles, that all the gentiles are evil and that Jews righteous and supernaturally protected from sin. Paul's argues back against that specific thesis. Paul's view, expressed vigourously and repeatedly in Romans 2:6-16 is that there are righteous Jewish individuals and righteous gentile individuals and sinful Jewish individuals and sinful Gentile individuals, and that whether one is a Jew or Gentile doesn't have any relevance. In the passage you quote, Paul has just cited specific historical instances from the OT of specific groups of gentiles at specific times being labelled unrighteous and specific groups of Jews at specific times being labelled unrighteous. Paul draws the conclusion that no people group has supernatural protection from falling into sinfulness - "[some individuals in] all [people groups] have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

          To repeat a point I made earlier: If you read Paul's statement the way you are trying to read it, that all individual humans in history were sinners, then he is butchering his own proof-texts because they are all citations of passages that contrast historical groups of righteous and sinful people, and thus his argument would be disproven by the very texts he is citing since every one of them attests the historical existence of righteous people and asserts that not everyone is sinful like the group being labelled sinners.
          Of course Paul is not contradicting Jewish scripture. He was an expert in the law and understood both the historical and theological context, so when he wrote that "all have sinned", he knew exactly what he was talking about. Naturally, everybody is free to take their chances in the hopes of sliding into heaven by being just righteous enough to offset a lifetime of sins, but that's such a slim bet that I can't imagine why anybody would want to gamble their eternal fate on it.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #20
            I would appreciate it if people responding on this thread would refrain from insulting each other. Please be civil.
            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              He was an expert in the law and understood both the historical and theological context, so when he wrote that "all have sinned", he knew exactly what he was talking about.
              Right, so he can't have had the meaning you propose because it would contradict the historical and theological context he knew all about. Therefore Paul's meaning must have been in harmony with that, like the meaning I suggested.

              Naturally, everybody is free to take their chances in the hopes of sliding into heaven by being just righteous enough to offset a lifetime of sins,
              As discussed previously, the NT continues to endorse the standard Jewish idiom of "repentance and forgiveness". God is a loving father, not a legalistic lawyer, and if his prodigal child repents of past wrongs and starts doing right, he is glad and has no interest any longer in the past wrongs. They stop counting or being relevant.

              Again I like how Origen describes it:

              Origen, Commentary on Romans (Scheck translation vol 1):
              2.1.2-3 “By common acknowledgement a good man ought not be punished, nor should an evil one obtain good things. Therefore, if, for instance, someone has done evil at some time, it is certain that he was evil at that time when he was doing evil things. However, suppose he, repenting of his past deeds, reforms his mind toward good things, behaves well, speaks well, thinks well, and turns his will toward the good. Is it not clear to you that he who does these things is a good man who deserves to receive good things? In like manner if someone should convert from good to evil, he shall no longer be judged as the good man he was and is no longer, but as the evil man that he is. You see, deeds pass away, whether good or evil... Accordingly it shall be unjust to punish a good mind for evils committed or to reward an evil mind for good deeds..... How will it be just to condemn a pious soul for ungodliness, or a just soul for injustice, or a soul practicing moderation for excess?”

              So it is not a matter of being righteous enough to offset past wrongs, since the option is there to zero the the record at any time. All one need do is change one's character and be righteous in the present, then the past is irrelevant.

              but that's such a slim bet that I can't imagine why anybody would want to gamble their eternal fate on it.
              Is this like Pascal's Wager applied to theology? It doesn't work at all, because one could simply say the opposite - that if you rely on your belief in Jesus getting you to heaven in the absence of any actual righteousness on your part, that that is a slim bet and you shouldn't gamble your eternal fate on it (not to mention James 2:19-20 says it won't work).

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                Right, so he can't have had the meaning you propose because it would contradict the historical and theological context he knew all about. Therefore Paul's meaning must have been in harmony with that, like the meaning I suggested.

                As discussed previously, the NT continues to endorse the standard Jewish idiom of "repentance and forgiveness". God is a loving father, not a legalistic lawyer, and if his prodigal child repents of past wrongs and starts doing right, he is glad and has no interest any longer in the past wrongs. They stop counting or being relevant.
                Correct. The critical point is missed however, that the repentant person needs to return to the father.

                Again I like how Origen describes it:

                So it is not a matter of being righteous enough to offset past wrongs, since the option is there to zero the record at any time. All one need do is change one's character and be righteous in the present, then the past is irrelevant.
                In our world, there are some sins for which no amount of good deeds - no matter how solid or long lasting the repentance - will cancel pass misdeeds. For some misdeeds there is no statute of limitations - murder for example. However, it can happen that the ruler of a country might take the good life that had been led since the offence and grant a pardon. Origen was writing with underlying precepts in mind that there is no statute of limitations for any sin, and that repentance involves turning to God for pardon.

                if you rely on your belief in Jesus getting you to heaven in the absence of any actual righteousness on your part, that that is NOT EVEN a slim bet and you shouldn't gamble your eternal fate on it (not to mention James 2:19-20 says it won't work).
                Any claim to believe in someone without believing what they say is false. Jesus made it clear enough that TANSTAAFL applies.
                Last edited by tabibito; 09-15-2021, 04:06 PM.
                sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Right, so he can't have had the meaning you propose because it would contradict the historical and theological context he knew all about. Therefore Paul's meaning must have been in harmony with that, like the meaning I suggested.

                  As discussed previously, the NT continues to endorse the standard Jewish idiom of "repentance and forgiveness". God is a loving father, not a legalistic lawyer, and if his prodigal child repents of past wrongs and starts doing right, he is glad and has no interest any longer in the past wrongs. They stop counting or being relevant.

                  Again I like how Origen describes it:

                  Origen, Commentary on Romans (Scheck translation vol 1):
                  2.1.2-3 “By common acknowledgement a good man ought not be punished, nor should an evil one obtain good things. Therefore, if, for instance, someone has done evil at some time, it is certain that he was evil at that time when he was doing evil things. However, suppose he, repenting of his past deeds, reforms his mind toward good things, behaves well, speaks well, thinks well, and turns his will toward the good. Is it not clear to you that he who does these things is a good man who deserves to receive good things? In like manner if someone should convert from good to evil, he shall no longer be judged as the good man he was and is no longer, but as the evil man that he is. You see, deeds pass away, whether good or evil... Accordingly it shall be unjust to punish a good mind for evils committed or to reward an evil mind for good deeds..... How will it be just to condemn a pious soul for ungodliness, or a just soul for injustice, or a soul practicing moderation for excess?”

                  So it is not a matter of being righteous enough to offset past wrongs, since the option is there to zero the the record at any time. All one need do is change one's character and be righteous in the present, then the past is irrelevant.

                  Is this like Pascal's Wager applied to theology? It doesn't work at all, because one could simply say the opposite - that if you rely on your belief in Jesus getting you to heaven in the absence of any actual righteousness on your part, that that is a slim bet and you shouldn't gamble your eternal fate on it (not to mention James 2:19-20 says it won't work).
                  On the last point, if someone thinks he's a Christian, but he doesn't feel compelled to live righteously, then he needs to take a long, hard look at himself, because chances are good he's really not a Christian. As Jesus said:

                  Scripture Verse: John 15

                  I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

                  © Copyright Original Source


                  So back to Paul, you claim that one's past deeds will not be judged, but Paul says otherwise;

                  Scripture Verse: Romans 2

                  He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seekinga and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

                  © Copyright Original Source


                  Scripture Verse: 2 Corinthians 5

                  We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

                  © Copyright Original Source


                  This echoes what is written in the Old Testament:

                  Scripture Verse: Ecclesiastes 12

                  The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

                  © Copyright Original Source


                  and the teachings of Jesus:

                  Scripture Verse: Matthew 12

                  I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

                  © Copyright Original Source


                  This all seems to contradict your doctrine of "good enough" salvation.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    NorrinRadd

                    Originally posted by Tabibito
                    True enough - ει τις επισκοπης ορεγεται - doesn't necessarily indicate a man. So - do Payne and Bartlett provide any examples to back their claims of an idiomatic expression? If not, what you have is a bare assertion. If it is an idiomatic expression, it will find use in other writings, which they should refer to in support of their claims.
                    Originally posted by NorrinRadd
                    Fair enough.

                    Here Payne summarizes several pages' worth of material from his book:
                    Originally posted by NorrinRadd

                    Overseer requirements in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1

                    Does Paul require that all overseers be men?
                    By no means.

                    Actually, Paul encourages every believer to aspire to be an overseer: “Here is a trustworthy saying: Anyone who aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task” (1 Tim 3:1). In Greek, “anyone” is a gender-inclusive word,


                    True enough. There have been comments claiming that τις (tis) is restricted to males based on the grammatical gender of the word, but they have proven incorrect. There was a time when was misled by those comments, but I lost track of the thread where the facts were pointed out – so I retract my earlier claim here.

                    implying an open door to women as well as men.


                    There is no implication either way.

                    Would Paul encourage women to desire an office that is forbidden to them? Paul makes it clear that “anyone” is his continuing subject by reiterating “anyone” in verse 5 and identifying “anyone” as the subject of the parallel list for overseer qualifications in Titus 1:6. Contrary to most translations, there is not a single masculine pronoun in any of the church leader qualifications in 1 Tim 3:1–13 or Titus 1:5–9.28


                    This argument goes to the core of the matter. Paul had in fact endorsed the role of women as elders, and even named one, Junia, as an apostle. Nothing in Paul’s writing, nor anywhere else in the Bible, indicates the possibility of apostles first and second class.

                    What about overseers being a “husband of one wife” in 1 Tim 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6, which in Greek is literally, “man of one woman”?


                    The proper application of a pronoun is driven by the associated noun – in this case “man.” As I said previously, Paul is addressing the issue of a man who aspires to a position of responsibility. He does not address the issue of women who aspire to positions of responsibility. Taking this as an implicit prohibition on women in such positions is off topic. By way of analogy,
                    “Men attending this function must wear tuxedoes” does not mean that women may not attend the function. It simply addresses a specific requirement on men, and it would be entirely surprising if women attended whilst wearing tuxedoes (well, in the mid twentieth century and earlier, anyway.)







                    This text does not say merely “man” but “man of one woman”; the whole phrase must be understood together as an idiom. Some insist on extracting one word, namely, “man,” and arbitrarily isolating it from its context as a new requirement that every overseer be a “man.”


                    It says, “husband of one wife.” Both words have dual meaning, but when they are paired like this there is no ambiguity. “Man of one woman” is not valid for the context: the idiom is “husband of one wife.”

                    Most scholars, including hierarchist scholars, understand “man of one woman” to exclude polygamists or sexually unfaithful men from being overseers.


                    Quite so. And in this statement, there is implicit acknowledgement that “husband of one wife” is correct.

                    Nevertheless, some insist that the passage also excludes women. Reading a double meaning into this idiomatic phrase, both an exclusion of polygamists and a universal requirement that overseers be men, is unwarranted and would make nonsense of most of Paul’s other multi-word requirements for overseers.


                    No argument from me – the complaint is fully justified.

                    Must all overseers have their “own household” with slaves and multiple “children” old enough to “believe” and be in subjection “with all gravity”?


                    No mention of slaves in the relevant section.

                    Furthermore, since 1 Tim 3:11 identifies qualifications for women deacons, the same expression, “man of one woman,” in the requirements for deacons in 3:12 must not exclude women. Thus, reading into “man of one woman” a requirement that overseers be male is arbitrary and unwarranted.


                    Possible but unlikely – the requirement could just as easily be directed to a leader’s wife, which would mean that the ability to choose a decent spouse is important.

                    It is simply Greek convention to use grammatically masculine forms when referring to groups of people including men and women.


                    True.

                    One excellent pastor-professor who affirms patriarchy argues that it is common throughout the Bible for prohibitions addressing men also to apply to women. He states, “As is widely recognized, . . . [i]n the absence of other constraints, norms which utilize male-oriented terminology ought to be construed, in general, as including both sexes in their purview.”32 Jesus’s interpretation of Deut 24 in Mark 10:12 confirms this. The principle of monogamy conveyed by “man of one woman” applies equally to men and women just as “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Exod 20:17) applies equally to a husband or wife coveting a neighbor’s spouse. Thus, the most accurate and literal translation of “man of one woman” is “monogamous” since it best conveys the Greek convention’s inclusive meaning of masculine forms, and since this is the natural meaning of this idiom in verse 12.


                    Not, “the words prove something” but “the conventions show.” THAT is an impressive argument. The conventions show that a requirement on men is equally (or correlatively, as appropriate) applicable to women (and vice versa) without any need to specify the particulars.
                    Last edited by tabibito; 09-16-2021, 05:39 AM.
                    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by eider, 10-24-2021, 12:23 AM
                    193 responses
                    795 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post tabibito  
                    Started by seer, 10-20-2021, 07:50 AM
                    32 responses
                    195 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post seer
                    by seer
                     
                    Started by Juvenal, 10-13-2021, 08:41 AM
                    19 responses
                    120 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post mossrose  
                    Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 06:32 PM
                    9 responses
                    83 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Machinist  
                    Started by lee_merrill, 10-08-2021, 06:03 PM
                    5 responses
                    46 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post rogue06
                    by rogue06
                     
                    Working...
                    X