Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Discussions on creation beliefs within Christianity, and topics related to creation.
dayage
Valued Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:39 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by dayage »

I'm rewriting the first section. What a mess.

Jac,
I have shown the context of Romans 5. It only deals with the spiritual death of man, because only man sins. In Romans 8 sin-tainted man is the problem. Believers are awaiting the completion of our redemption (resurrection) and so is the creation. It has nothing to do with creation being redeemed. It is not fallen. It is awaiting our redemption.

Jac said,
Do remember that "Gospel" simply means "good news.
It is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (I Cor. 15:1-4). Go ahead; tell it to your dog, a tree, etc. It will not make one bit of difference. Creation will not be redeemed, it will be replaced.
DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by DannyM »

dayage wrote:Romans 8 is speaking about how our sinfulness effects creation, but as I stated it earlier, not as Jac suggests.
dayage,

What do you mean by creation? Do you mean human beings?
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia
dayage
Valued Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:39 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by dayage »

DannyM,

No, creation here means the environment of earth (agriculture "land" and animals), because that is what God put man in charge of. See my posts on page 11 and 12.

The unsaved (which is what your position would have to have creation be) will not be set free when we are resurrected.
DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by DannyM »

dayage wrote:DannyM,

No, creation here means the environment of earth (agriculture "land" and animals), because that is what God put man in charge of. See my posts on page 11 and 12.

The unsaved (which is what your position would have to have creation be) will not be set free when we are resurrected.
dayage,

I think creation here means humanity. Humanity yearns for something better, whether consciously or sub-consciously, than this life of pain, anguish and misery. Unless we are including the sub-human and inanimate creation in a figurative sense, then I cannot see how the creation groaning can mean anything other than the ages-old longings of humanity.
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by RickD »

DannyM wrote:
dayage wrote:DannyM,

No, creation here means the environment of earth (agriculture "land" and animals), because that is what God put man in charge of. See my posts on page 11 and 12.

The unsaved (which is what your position would have to have creation be) will not be set free when we are resurrected.
dayage,

I think creation here means humanity. Humanity yearns for something better, whether consciously or sub-consciously, than this life of pain, anguish and misery. Unless we are including the sub-human and inanimate creation in a figurative sense, then I cannot see how the creation groaning can mean anything other than the ages-old longings of humanity.
What real significance does it have if either of you are right? Either interpretation doesn't change anything, does it?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
dayage
Valued Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:39 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by dayage »

RickD,

I'm trying to make sure we are correctly interpreting scripture. We are also debating with Jac3510. Both of us differ greatly from Jac.

DannyM,

Romans 8:23 shows that there is a distinction between the redeemed and whatever "creation" means. Creation cannot mean ALL HUMANITY (Romans 8:22), because the redeemed are human yet shown not to be part of "creation" verse 23. Creation is something distinct from us. So, in your view creation must mean the lost.

If this were true, I would expect to see a contrast between "WE" and "THEY." We do not. Verse 21 "creation itself" singular. It seems to refer to a single concept/subject, not group of individuals.
Romans 8:23
And not only (no word here in the Greek), but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we
ourselves
groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
Please explain the meaning of verse 21in light of your view. If creation means the lost how are they set free?
Romans 8:21 (lost)
that/because the creation (lost) itself (themselves) also will be set free from its (their) slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
The words "creation" and "itself," in Greek, are singular, not plural.
DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by DannyM »

dayage wrote: Romans 8:23 shows that there is a distinction between the redeemed and whatever "creation" means. Creation cannot mean ALL HUMANITY (Romans 8:22), because the redeemed are human yet shown not to be part of "creation" verse 23. Creation is something distinct from us. So, in your view creation must mean the lost. If this were true, I would expect to see a contrast between "WE" and "THEY." We do not. Verse 21 "creation itself" singular. It seems to refer to a single concept/subject, not group of individuals.
dayage, in Rom. 8:23 Paul is saying that even we, as Christians who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly, along with the rest of creation. We may be justified, but there is no escaping the suffering and pain which has become mankind's lot. We groan in labour-pains as we await God's new world. "Creation" is talking of humanity; this is evident from the hope of emancipation from the "slavery of corruption" (Rom. 8:21), and the contrast in Rom. 8:23 between the creation and those possessing the "firstfruits of the Spirit."
dayage wrote:
Romans 8:23
And not only (no word here in the Greek), but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we
ourselves
groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
My point exactly.
dayage wrote:Please explain the meaning of verse 21in light of your view. If creation means the lost how are they set free?
Romans 8:21 (lost)
that/because the creation (lost) itself (themselves) also will be set free from its (their) slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
The words "creation" and "itself," in Greek, are singular, not plural.
[/quote]

Here is the proof of what creation Paul meant in these verses, the same being the creation which is in "the bondage of corruption," terminology which excludes both the sub-human and inanimate creations and points dramatically at humankind. The corruption here cannot fit animal or inanimate life. No animal, for example, could be thought of as being in the bondage of corruption, nor as having any prospect of ever getting out of it. I am not sure if Paul is saying here that the heathens themselves shall be set free from the bondage of corruption come the last push, so to speak, but what we can be left in no doubt about is that we, God's people, indwelt by the Spirit, find ourselves in our own mortal bodies part of this same creation, groaning in labour-pains as we await God's new world.

You need to explain to me in some kind of depth what you mean by creation; how can an inanimate creation fit with Paul's vivid discourse?
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by Jac3510 »

I'm going to give you a two part response here, Danny. The first is the important one, in that here I'll respond to your particular words. The second is less important, and you don't have to respond to it directly. I am simply a fan of addressing background issues as you go soas to keep things in perspective. That also, I think, helps us--and me especially--remember that they are having a conversation witth real people and not simply a debate with a faceless screen name.

On to your response, then:
Danny wrote:How am I contradicting paul? Sure, we are justified. But when do you think we bear the fruits of this justification? This is certainly where faith plays its part...
I've already set the contradiction in plain terms, Danny. Here it is again, only more concise:
  • since we have been justified through faith ~ Paul
    justification comes with the next lif ~ Dany
Paul says we are justified today. You say in this statement we are justified in the next life. Your clarification above confuses me. You admit we are justified now as you must, since Paul directly says it, but then you ponit to the fruit of justification. In the first place, my point had nothing to do with the fruit of justification. I have been speaking of justification itself. A thing and what comes from it are different. In the second place, justification is a judicial declaration of righteousness--assuming, of course for the sake of argument, the Protestant view against the Catholic and New Perspective's view. It is harly proper to speak of the "fruit" of justification. Are you referring to sanctification? Certainly, those are different, and yet I don't see how this helps you either with my argument (as I'm focusing on justification, as per your insistence on the context of 5:12 as being chapters three and four) or with your assertion that you are not contradicting Paul, for Paul still says we are sanctified now, and this would mean you are saying that sanctification comes in the next life.

You need to explain how your words as compared to Paul's above are not contradictory.
"The noun ktisis “creation,” “what is created,” or “creature” is used nineteen times in the NT...The term ktisis, “creation” refers to “every human
institutions/creation” once (1Pet 2:13)...In Mark 16:15 and Col 1:23, however, when the gospel is preached to “all creation,” the term describes humanity only, however, throughout the centuries of the Christian era."

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.or ... tament.pdf

I don't know if Ekkehardt Mueller is any good to you, but he does agree with you on Romans 8.
Did you even read my post before responding to it, Danny? with all due respect, I have already posted that information, and in more detail . . . and I didn't need to check out a word study ;).

Anyway, notice that he says ktisis refers to humanity in some verses. I have no problem wit that, but that is now what you or I have been arguing. Look at the discussion we have been having:
  • Tell me, to what is Paul referring by the word "creation"? ~ Jac
    ---
    Jac, I believe you are reading this entirely wrong. "Creation" here means "human beings". ~ Danny
    ---
    The word ktisis doesn't ever mean, "humanity," Danny. Now you are just going against all the standard lexicons. I'm sorry, but if to adopt your view, I have to make up a meaning for a word, I don't find it very appealing. ~ Jac
    ---
    the word "Ktisis" is used for "creation" here to describe humanity. So "Ktisis" CAN and HAS been used to describe human beings. ~ Danny
    ---
    No, I'm not wrong here. First of all, if ktisis does mean "human beings," why has no major translation rendered it that way? Are you telling me that every major translation is wrong? ~ Jac
I will take full responsibility for this confusion. I made a technical distinction between referent and meaning and did not tell you. My original question was the referent for ktisis, which I took, and still take, and insist it must be taken as, the creation generally. To this, you replied that ktisis means humanity, which it absolutely does not. However, I should have recognized that you were not making the technical distinction between meaning and referent. The proper response at that point would have been to point out the distinction and continue on with the discussion of reference.

Anyway, as it stands, ktisis does not mean "humanity." That is not in its semantic range. Look it up in any lexicon, Danny. The word can refer to humanity, but when it does, it is being done so figuratively, specifically, a metonymy. I would also point out that you seem to notice this yourself when your last response quoted above has you saying that ktisis describes humanity, which I would have no problem with. That is, after all, precisely why we use figures of speech--to emphasize some aspect of their character or bring out a broader meaning of some sort.
So in other words the context of these passages can go hang if it doesn't fit with your own preference...
Hardly. I expect more from you, my friend. The substance of our entire debate is just what the context for these passages is. Remember my basic argument. I am saying that Rom 5:12 is found in the context of a unit that deals with sanctification--chapters five through eight--that begin and end with references to the entirety of creation. I am arguing that Paul is describing man's redemption as directly related to the entire world's redemption. You don't see it that way, which is fine, that is why we discuss. But you cannot, as you do here, assume your view of the context as an argument against my view. That is a classic example of circular reasoning.

Look again at the point I am making and please offer me a substantive reply. Again, my point is that Mark in chapter sixteen of his Gospel and Paul in Col. 1 use ktisis as metonymyto refer to humanity. Why do they do this? Why do they use the word figuratively? What are they trying to emphasize? If they are only referring to humanity, why not use the word for humanity (anthropos)? The answer is easy enough. Recongizing that ktisis is a metonymy, Paul and Mark are emphasizing the fact that the Gospel is good not only for humanity, but for the entire creation. Yet the entire creation benefits through mankind's acceptance of the Gospel. That is exactly the point being made in those two verses with complete disregard for anything said in Romans. The fact that these verses serve as a theological backdrop and strengthen the argument I am making about Romans is simply a confirmation that my view is correct here--or at least, that it is on the right road.

If, then, you disagree with me, you have to show what Paul and Mark were intending the reader to see by using ktisis as a metonymy. What is the point they were trying to make in their respective passages, and then you must do the same in Rom 8.
From what I've read, "creation" can be used to mean mankind, whole creation, or can even be used in a figurative manner.
Hopefully the above will clarify your misunderstanding. "Creation" cannot MEAN mankind. It can be used figuratively to REFER to mankind. When it does, the standard rules of grammar apply. You must address the reason the figure of speech is being used. What is the author trying to emphasize given the nature of the figure--in this case, the metonymy.
This comes from a footnote in the Greek Diaglott:

"[Greek: Ktisis] (as used in Rom. 8:19,20,21, and 22), CREATION, has the same signification here as in Mark 16:15: "Proclaim the glad tidings to the whole creation," that is, "all mankind;" and also Col. 1:23, where a similar phrase occurs. That the brute and inanimate creation is not here spoken of, but mankind, is evident from the hope of emancipation from the "slavery of corruption" held out in the 21st verse, and the contrast introduced in the 23rd verse, between the [ktisis] and those possessing the "first fruit of the Spirit.""
The Emphatic Greek Diaglott, pg 531.

What I don't understand, Jac, is how you cannot see that "creation" here is referring to mankind. The creation waits in eager expectation. The creation was subjected to frustration. The creation will be liberated from its bondage. The creation has been groaning (like the pains of childbirth). The human metaphor should not be lost on you. Paul is also referring to that passionate desire of the human race for eternal life. You appear to be downgrading such longings for the "longings" of an inanimate and sub-human creation. Do you deny that there are deep and irrepressible longings in the human heart for something better than the poor years of agony and frustration on earth? All such agony and frustration is indeed an "expectation," looking to the revelation of the sons of God. But what you are telling me is that the inanimate creation is looking forward to the revelation of the sons of God, yes?
Now that we've distinguished between referent and meaning, I still insist that the referent for "creation" here is NOT mankind, but the entirety of creation. Put simply, Paul is not using ktisis figuratively. He is using it according to its normal usage.

As far as your questions go, no, I don't deny those things, but I don't limit them like you do to humanity. Paul is obviously anthropomorphizing all of creation here, but the point remains. The entire world longs to be free from the curse under which it has been placed. Surely you recongize that Satan is the god of this world (or do you take that to refer merely to the human race as well?). Surely you recognize that in the Millennium, there will be an abundance as we have never experienced before--or, better, that we have not experienced since Eden?

You ask me how I can't see it . . . the actual question is why that's all you can see. The answser is easy enough. Your theology doesn't allow for a cursed creation. If I adopt your theology, I am forced to adopt your readering of the text. It's not that I can't see your view, Danny. It is that I think it is inadequate for both the wording of the text and the broader theology that Paul was teaching. But if we are to ignore that theology for a minute, the very verse your reference appeals to for support is the one that proves it wrong:
  • Not only so but [ου μονον δε αλλα ], we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Look at the words in bold. Paul has just said that all of creation longs to see the revealation of the sons of God (that would be us in our redemption). Then he says but NOT ONLY so---and the word "but" there is the strongest disjunction in Greek. To paraphrase, Creation isn't the only thing longing for the revelation of the sons of God, but so do we! That proves that there is a distinction.

Everything lines up perfectly, Danny.
I disagree entirely.
Would you care to give an argument rather than a mere assertion? I have given you an extensive argument on the entire argument of Romans. Would you care to offer an alternative that takes into account the large body of evidence I have offered (i.e., the distribution of the words for death in 5-8, the meaning/referent of ktisis as compared to kosmos in 5:12, Paul's constant interest in the broader world, etc.).
Unless you are talking figuratively then I'm a little lost. Could you explain to me how the inanimate creation witnesses God's self-revelation...?

Jac, how many times do I need to tell you that I am not man-centred? I happen to think mankind is depraved; in fact, I think the dog is more deserving of eternal life than man is.
Danny, you can assert until you are blue in the face. But you must demostrate. How does talking about the depravity of man mean that your theology isn't man-centered? How does making a point about MANKIND prove that you aren't focused on MANKIND? I couldn't care less about who or what deserves of doesn't deserve salvation, because who does or doesn't deserve it isn't the point.

I don't know, then, how you can be lost. I don't know how to make my words any clearer. Tell me, would you have a problem with stones being witnesses? They are certainly inanimate creations, and yet they frequently serve in just that capacity in the OT (for only one example out of a great many, see Gen 31:44). The whole creation serves as a witness to God's glory, Danny. To WHOM is it a witness? GOD! Not us. Not man. Certainly, we can and do benefit from creation's witness to God, but it is all and to God, Danny.

We ourselves are a witness of God's self-revelation. We ourselves are a witness of His glory, all along with the rest of creation. We are a PART of that witness. We are not the totality of it. We are not separate from it. We are a part of it. The highest part, yes, but not separate from. I would strongly encourage you to rethink your theology generally, because like I said before, you are running the risk of making mankind a demi-god--one who stands above the rest of creation as somehow separate from it, as if all of that mere creation is for our benefit.
I don't disagree. Paul is talking about mankind, and of course mankind is part of a bigger picture.
So where in Romans, for you, does Paul refer to the bigger picture?
I remember that well, but the point you are making here assumes me to be man-centric just for stating the obvious fact that God's self-revelation is something which needs to be received. If we do not recognise, appreaciate and stand in awe of this then who else can? I think you are over-compensating, Jac, in an effort to make the text fit with your position. This is understandable.
It is received, Danny. By God. The One for whom it was intended. Do you not understand or believe that we are made for God's pleasure, and not He for ours? Do you really think God made this entire, giant universe just to reveal Himself to us--to a part of that creation? There you go separating us from that creation again . . .
"Because of this, sin entered the world." This isn't saying that sin affects every man; it is saying that sin merely entered the world. Cancer entered the world, but (God willing) I am not automatically given over to cancer. Paul THEN goes on to tell how "death came to all men, because all sinned."
Uhm . . . look at the words in bold, Danny. You are preaching my view of the text. But YOU insist that world there DOES refer to humanity. So, in YOUR rendering, it IS saying taht sin affects every man. Now you are just contradicting yourself! Debate over. Check-mate. It's done. You've just shown that you yourself implicitly recognize exactly what "the world" refers to when you aren't trying to read it through a theology.
No. What Paul is doing is telling his readers that THEY, too, sin. He is pointing out that, just as sin entred the world through one man, IN THIS WAY death came to ALL men because ALL sin. Paul is relating the incredible and awful truth that because of only one man's sin, a single solitary sin, death had passed upon the entire race of people. We are confronted with the impenetrable mystery of the fall of the human family. The old creation fell in Adam; the new creation stands eternally secure in Christ. And again, this all coincides with Paul's "theme" of the moment.
No, you have missed the point of the verse. The emphasis isn't on sin, Danny. It's on death. Paul is pointing out, not merely that they sin, but that they DIE. Why do they die? Given the fact that they were justified (Rom 3-4, the context you want to limit it to), why should they die?!?!?!? Paul's answer is simple: death is not only the judicial consequence of sin, but its natural consequence as well. Justification may have saved us from its judicial consequence, but we are still in this "body of death" (Rom 7).

And to what does he refer to make that point? The death of the world, which is evident all around us every day. He doesn't justify--he doesn't prove--that the world is dead or dying or decaying. He assumes it. It is the thing compared to. Further, he assumes that this death and decay entered the world through Adam's sin. He doesn't prove or justify that. He assumes it.

"Just like the whole world is dying because of Adam's sin, you are dying because of yours"

THAT is what Paul is saying in Rom 5:12. Again, you want it to say, "Just like all of humanity is dying because of Adam's sin, you are dying because of yours." That just doesn't make sense, Danny. There is no comparative. It's not even really clear what it would mean. It doesn't further the argument.
I don't understand you here, Jac. Sin entered the world. It did not TOUCH the world. A new born baby enters the world...
I don't even know what point you are trying to make here. Are you agreeing with me here that the "world" refers to the entirety of creation? Because, if so, again, check-mate, this debate is over. Are you changing your position now, that the kosmos of 5:12 refers to all of creation and not to humanity?
We have already agreed that Paul can be repetative, so why would you seek to interrupt the flow of his message? Paul does not fail to make the same point if his current message requires that that point be made.
It's one thing to be repetitive. It's another thing to be tautological. The former furthers the argument. The latter does not.

Anyway, which is it, Danny: does kosmos in 5:12 refer to humanity or the creation, because now you've used it both ways. Can't do that.
You ARE constraining yourself, Jac. You appear to need the passage to mean what you think it should mean. I just don't see it. You are creating a grammatical problem out of nothing. Because you are reading the passage incorrectly, you are seeing a problem that does not exist. At least that's my humble view.
I find it odd that you think I should NEED this passage to mean anything. It doesn't affect my theology one way or another to take it like you do. You, on the other hand, HAVE to take it this way to maintain your theology.

I'm not contrained by my theology on these verses. You are.

As far as the grammatical problem goes, you can ignore it, but it doesn't go away. This is just like the Calvinist who insists that the gift offered in Eph 2:8-10 is faith, which grammatically cannot be. Their theology forces them to ignore the grammar, just as yours is doing here. What you are going to have to face if you want to be honest with the text is that Paul uses two comparative particles to juxtapose two ideas, the former assumed and used as basis to explain and justify the latter. This makes them necessary different ideas, because you can't compare something to itself to explain it.
Jac, you are wrong. I feel the reverse is in play here. Either way, one of us is wrong. If someone can jump in and point me to what, if anything, I'm missing then I'd be grateful.
Really? What am I wrong about? Is it wrong that you HAVE to take these verses to refer to humanity to maintain your OEC? No, you must, because if they refer to creation broadly, you clearly have the doctrine of no death before the Fall. Is it wrong that you are contrained? No, because this is the only way your theology allows you to take it and maintain your theology. Is it wrong that I can take the passages either way and maintain YEC? No, because I can affirm that death entered mankind when Adam sinned without contradicting YEC.

Nothing I said is wrong, Danny. Everything is exactly correct. Are you merely asserting again that my interpretation of these is wrong? You have been asserting that throughout this thread. But where is your evidence? You ignore grammatical problems are don't distinguish between important linguistic terms like meaning and referent. You make the Bible man-centered and ignore the broader argument of Romans. You are constrained by your theology to take this passage a particular way--a way that does not fit into the book as a whole, howeve nicely it may fit into your theology.

A long time ago, you asked me what you could have possibly missed in the YEC argument. I've given you quite a lot. You've missed the purpose of the Bible, the point of Romans, and important linguistic distinctions and grammatical arguments, just to name a view. And in all of that, I've not seen the first argument as to why these verses SHOULD (not CAN) be taken as you would. I need an argument from you Danny, not merely an assertion that I am wrong.

------------------------------------------------

I'll post the second part later today or tomorrow. I just want to deal with a few background issues and put them on the record. I think this, though, is long enough for the time being.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by Jac3510 »

DA,

I don't want you to thin I am flat ignoring you. There is much you say that I agree with, as you recognize in nothing that your position splits Danny's and mine. But I cannot critique your position for reasons already stated. Until we can agree on terms for discussion--which at least Danny and I were able to do--there can be no discussion.

This is especially true with reference to your particular argument, because you, even more than Danny, are appealing to a broader theology. Since our disagreement is at that level, there is even less that we can say. But, again, I do want to note that I have read and do read your posts. I think it would do Danny and those who agree with his position some good to adopt your position, as I think it is much stronger--at least in the sense that it does not suffer from the grammatical problems I have repeatedly cited.

God bless
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
Canuckster1127
Old School
Posts: 5310
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ottawa, ON Canada

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by Canuckster1127 »

Justification and salvation according to Paul has both past, present and future. Attempting to isolate Romans 5:1 which uses a participle form and which clearly ties to the following concept of peace with God, isn't then independent of the thought that follows in Paul progression here.

"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." (Romans 5:9-10)

Paul's view of salvation was both positional in terms of the once and for all past declaration of justification (which uses words that tie to legal or court-house type imagery) and also a sense of current progression and future salvation.

You're focusing on one element to the exclusion of the other and not looking at the passage in it's totality in attempting to jump from 5:1 to 5:12 and missing the portion in between.

Your assertion, Jac and Paul's are not contradictory, so much as you're failing to take the full sense of what Paul is saying here and are limiting it to the sense that your argument requires.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by Jac3510 »

Canuckster1127 wrote:Justification and salvation according to Paul has both past, present and future. Attempting to isolate Romans 5:1 which uses a participle form and which clearly ties to the following concept of peace with God, isn't then independent of the thought that follows in Paul progression here.

"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." (Romans 5:9-10)

Paul's view of salvation was both positional in terms of the once and for all past declaration of justification (which uses words that tie to legal or court-house type imagery) and also a sense of current progression and future salvation.

You're focusing on one element to the exclusion of the other and not looking at the passage in it's totality in attempting to jump from 5:1 to 5:12 and missing the portion in between.

Your assertion, Jac and Paul's are not contradictory, so much as you're failing to take the full sense of what Paul is saying here and are limiting it to the sense that your argument requires.
Wrong. Justification is only a past event. Salvation as a whole has a past, present, and future aspect, but justification--at least if you hold to imputed rather than infused righteousness--is a single one time event.

Sanctification has a past aspect (positional sanctification) and a present aspect (progressive sanctification) and a future aspect (final sanctification). But the issue here is justification, not sanctification. Paul flatly says we have been justified. Danny says we will be justified. He has to reconcile those, because, as of now, he directly contradicts Scripture.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
Canuckster1127
Old School
Posts: 5310
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ottawa, ON Canada

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by Canuckster1127 »

I'm familiar with the outline as you've given it Jac and the more I look at and study Scripture the more I think the delineation is more an imposition upon the text. Paul doesn't use the terms quite as neatly and rigidly across all of his writings as what this structuring suggests. There's use of the terms in different passages that suggest Paul didn't have quite the same systematic understanding of how he himself used terms. The New Testament isn't as concerned about lining up with Greek Philosophy and Roman Law. These are understandings brought later and superimposed upon the text. I think the understanding of Justification as past, Sanctification as past and progressive and glorification as future doesn't hold up as Paul doesn't use these terms always exclusively and in terms of Salvation there's some elements of cross-over.

That makes some uncomfortable whose hermeneutic doesn't allow for any mystery or less than rigid application of the terms, but I'm becoming more comfortable with the fact that there are many seemingly contradictory elements within Scripture that are reconciled in Christ and not necessarily intended to be understood as later philosophies and systematics have arranged them. If Paul had wished to lay things out in the manner suggested, he could have easily done so.

An example would be the use of Glorification. Salvation future is glorification, but Ephesians 2:6 says we are already seated with Christ in the heavenly realms. Glorification is present and yet future; positional as well anticipated. The structure placed upon the scriptures to create unyielding internal validity is fine as far as it goes, but often that's something constructed externally and applied rather than drawn out internally.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by Jac3510 »

Sorry, Bart, but I simply cannot possibly disagree more strongly with you. Justification is a judicial decree--and event--and is strictly in the past in the life of the believer. There is no future aspect. I realize that you have certain scholars advocating "The New Perspective" on Paul that argue otherwise, but now you are striking at the very heart of the Gospel itself. I have said a million times that I don't think the OEC/YEC debate has any bearing on salvation, but the New Perspective does. Arguing that justification is a future event does. When you go down that road, you are going a road that redefines the Gospel in its very essence.

I'll stick with the Reformers on this, thank you very much. If you think they were wrong, then that is between you and them. Somebody has to be wrong, though. You and Luther can't both be right on this. Justification is either a completed, past action based on simple faith alone in Christ alone or something else. Wright and others have opted for "something else." I hardly believe that to maintain your OEC you have to, and so, to keep this on topic, I'm going to assume that Danny holds to the Protestant view of the Gospel. In that light, he has to explain how he hasn't contradicted Paul.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
Canuckster1127
Old School
Posts: 5310
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ottawa, ON Canada

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by Canuckster1127 »

I'm less concerned about the reformers than I am the Scriptures themselves. I gave you a scriptural example in terms of what I was speaking of. Perhaps you could address it instead of an appeal to authority from the 15th and 16th century?

My concern is that when you impose a hermeneutic upon the text that doesn't arise from the text itself, whether that is a Greek Philosophical Structure or a Roman Legal Interpretation, an appeal to natural reason etc., you then are creating a message that isn't found in the text itself when read and heard in the manner that the original audience was.

Perhaps we should start another thread however as this takes us away from the original post. I don't agree however that DannyM has misunderstood the intent of the passage here as the element he speaks of, as I noted earlier, immediately follows within the passage itself. That's far more telling to me.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Post by Jac3510 »

And my concern is that you are ignoring the plain meaning of the text. What the Reformers did was restore a literal hermeneutic to the text, which is exactly how it was intended to be read. If you reject that hermeneutic and replace it with one of your own postmodern fancy, then fine, but you are departing from any objective means by which we can possibly know what the Scripture says. Were I to adopt your view, I would go screaming back to the Catholic Church as fast as possible, because at least there, I would have someone to adjudicate between various interpretations.

As far as the verse you mentioned goes, I don't see what it has to do with anything. You argued that glorification has some present aspect. In the first place, it is an open question in what sense we are currently seated with Christ and what relationship that has with our glorification. Your equation of the two is merely an assertion. In the second place, I didn't deny that glorification has some present aspect. I said that justification was a past event. If you want to offer some verse that says justification happens in the next life, and then if we can agree on some sort of hermeneutic by which we can interpret, then I suppose we can have that conversation. Until then, I still assume that Danny holds to the traditional Protestant hermeneutic and the Gospel as Protestants understand it.

Further, within the context of this thread, I don't think this is a road that any of you want to go down. I am arguing why Rom 5:12 is best understood as referring to the entire world, and thus, that there was no animal death before the Fall. If the only ways to avoid the conclusion I've suggested are to change the Gospel from the way Protestants worldwide take it or to reject a literal hermeneutic, then that is quite an admission on your part. Now, I'm sure that Danny and most everyone else on this site believes that justification is a past event--a judicial declaration. For those who do--Danny first and foremost, since he is the one with whom I am directly conversing--the point you are making is moot. For those of us who agree that justification is a past event, as is traditionally understood, then Danny has to explain how his words don't contradict Paul.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
Post Reply