Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:44 pm

Romans 2:1-16, and particularly Romans 2:13 would appear to put your assertion into question. What you call traditional (and by that term you are placing emphasis upon your tradition rather than a purely Biblical appeal) in my opinion strips the idea of justification of the fullness in the sense that Paul uses it.

N.T. Wright has some strong thoughts in this area. If you wish to reject what he says because he doesn't match with your traditional view, that's your perogative of course. What you appear to wish to prejoratively cast off with your assessment of "postmodern" however, is hardly an accurate use of the word, but then there are many who when you toss that word out respond fearfully and with little real thought and assessment. The assigning of the word "postmodern" in that way is something of a theological bogeyman and code word used to frighten people away from looking at something. In this realm, postmodernism has nothing to do with it in the proper use of that word.

For any others who would like to take a look at this area beyond the narrow confines of "protestant tradition" (again a very interesting use of the term for someone adhering to a professed sola scriptura position) here are some links to some material. I haven't completely determined where I'm falling on all of this as I do hold to faith alone as the means to salvation. I'm questioning and re-examining some of it however and not afraid to ask some questions about it. Wright and Piper have been having a pretty heady conversation in this area in particular. It reminds me a little of the back and forth that used to take place between Swindoll and MacArthure back in the late 80's.

It does seem to me that there is some legitimacy to the question as to whether the traditional protestant interpretations of the early chapters in Romans (although there is scholarly tracing back even as far as Augustine and Aquinas on the matter) jumps rather presumptively from Romans 1 directly to Romans 3:21 without giving much credance to Romans 2:1 - 3:20 and particularly Rom 2:13 which does indeed use the term justification in a future sense which calls into question the claim that it is past only. Often times systematic theology is more a question of chosing which passages to give weight too and which passages to ignore or to attempt to nullify. That, in my opinion is evidence of the superimposing of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law (to name just two) and the use of systematic thinking which wrests the text out of its own natural progression. Paul knew what he was doing and what he was saying when he wrote Romans and it all ties into the message he intended.

http://www.hornes.org/theologia/rich-lu ... -on-romans

You might want to google Piper on this as well to see some of his responses.

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:49 am

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Jac, I'm sorry you are having so much difficulty in understanding me. Yes we are justified. I see this as merely a stage, ending in future justification. Yes we are justified, but you seem to imagine this to be a be all, end all type of thing. Do you somehow imagine you are now special? Is the "hard work" over for you? Are you sitting pretty, fully justified, fully saved, guaranteed your place in the big room? If you have a resounding Yes to all these, then who is really the man-centred one here?

Jac3510 wrote:
"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.

Okay. Surely I have been mistaken in failing to distinguish referent from meaning. You don't need to take responsibility for me, Jac; I'm a big boy and need to find my own way through my mistakes. I am saying that Paul is REFERRING to humanity with "ktisis" in Romans 8:19,20,21,22. I feel I have been quite specific on this point. You need to show me how the sub-human and inanimate creation can find itself in bondage to slavery; you need to show me how the sub-human and inanimate creation can "feel" frustration at all this.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Where I have obviously messed up is by saying creation "can mean" humanity, instead of creation "can refer to" humanity. Ktisis can mean a thing created and therefore can be used to refer to humanity...which I believe is what Paul does.

Jac3510 wrote:
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.

That was a little joke, Jac... I am not assuming anything; I'm looking at the context of what we are discussing and giving you my take on it. That's it. And the context screams out Humanity, Mankind, Humankind, Future Glory, Faith, Christ, Grace, Slavery, Holy Spirit, Patience...None of this is referring to the inanimate and sub-human creation, except when speaking of the future glory.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

I have no idea why Paul is using ktisis instead of anthropos. I'm sure creation does "benefit" in some poetic way, if you wish to look at it like that. I believe you are placing unwarranted emphasis on the sub-human and inanimate creations. I have given you substantive replies already to no avail. Paul is vividly describing the longings of humanity for something better. Go back and read me again if you do not "get" what I am saying. I challenge you to show me in detail, and not just rhetoric, how the sub-human and inanimate creations "groan" as in the pains of childbirth; I need you to show me how these creations can be "liberated" from bondage to decay- how these creations can be thought of as being in the bondage of corruption, let alone as having any prospect of ever being freed from this? How can this physically happen? I just need to be shown this then perhaps I can get on board with this line of thinking. I'd also have to look at Paul's vivid language in an entirely different manner, downgraded from the no-nonsense to the rather obscure.

Jac3510 wrote:"[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?

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?[/quote]

Again, I need to be shown why Paul would do this. I recognise the future glory isn't JUST about us, but I still need to be shown how inanimate creation and the brute creation are what Paul is addressing; why? How can these be thought to be in any kind of slavery?

Jac3510 wrote: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.

I've already addressed this. The whole creation here refers to all of mankind. "We" refers to those of us who already have the firstfruits. Paul is clear on this. The longings of creation refers to all of mankind. Even the atheist longs for something more, something better. we, God's people, have the firstfruits of the Spirit. But even "we ourselves" groan inwardly as we wait for our adoption as sons... The distinction you talk of is that of the whole creation groaning and EVEN WE OURSELVES, who have the firstfruits...

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Ah so you don't think I am man-centred by nature, just that my "theology" is man-centred? If you mean that because Paul is talking of mankind then I am following from what I am reading then fair enough. If I am man-centred, then it is only because Paul is talking of mankind.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

I know about the numerous OT references to inanimate creation. This I believe is all poetic. Inanimate creation cannot participate in the act of witnessing God's glory. Again, all you need to do is show me how this makes any sense other than poetically.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Yet again, can you show me how inanimate creation can witness God's self-revelation? In Exodus 33:18, Moses said to God, "Show me Your glory." God's response in Exodus 34:6-7 is one of the most important theological texts in Scripture, because it is the only place where God actually described Himself, listing His own attributes. I just ask you how inanimate creation witnesses these attributes? Poetically, yes. But humanity are the only ones who really witness this. You're creating a false dilemma, Jac: because I say it how I see it I am all of a sudden making man a demi-god? You are merely asserting that I am man-centred, then making with ease a connection to demi-gods. I'd be impressed if it wasn't such a blatant form of setting up your own argument in order to smash it home. Babe Ruth it aint

Above you admit man is the highest part of creation. Then you accuse me of separating mankind from the rest of creation. And of saying that creation is for our benefit. First, I agree that we are the highest part of creation. Second, I've never separated the two. Third, I've never said that creation is for our benefit. So to sum up on this, you actually agree with me, while creating, and placing me in, two false positions; this is very cute. I say Paul is predominantly dealing with the glory of Christ's resurrection and justification by faith in his epistle to the Romans. THAT is how I see Romans. So, because that is how I see it, I am man-centred? Okay. Then because of THIS I am guilty of making man into a demi-god? Wow. What a hugely rational jump there, Jac! Waydda go there bro!

Jac3510 wrote:
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?

The big picture of Romans: Resurrection; Glory; Faith/Justification; Things to come; Reconciling Israel to God; Resurrection; Resurrection; Resurrection ...

Jac3510 wrote:
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 . . .

Sure I believe that we are made FOR God and not He for us.

Jac3510 wrote:
"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.

Huh? First off I didn't realise we were in competition; second, what is it about what I'm saying that you cannot grasp? If you think the debate is over then whoopee for you, Jac. Honestly, I'm very happy for you.

Jac3510 wrote:
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).

I haven't missed the point of the verse, Jac. If you would only read back my quote above you'll see I clearly say that "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." We have the fall, DEATH, and resurrection; three of the main themes of Paul's letter.

Jac3510 wrote: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"

No he does not. What is evident to you is very unclear to me. I'm more than happy for you to believe the above; but please don't tell me that this is what Romans 5:12 is saying. The passage is dealing with mankind alone. Just as sin entered the world through one man, and the death of mankind through his sin, in this way death came to all men, because all sin. Can't you see that Paul moves from saying sin entered the world through one man's sin, identifies that man will die through his sin, and affirms that ALL men sin so ALL men die? What is it about this that you can't see, Jac?

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Nope. You are plainly missing what I'm saying. Please read above and ask for further clarification if you need it. However, I will say that I have repeated this about four times now, and you still won't see it.

Jac3510 wrote:
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?

Why one or the other? Sin entered into the world. Where is the confusion here? Only mankind can sin; only mankind dies because of sin. Sin still entered the world, but sin only affects mankind. Am I really so hard to understand on this? Are you seriously taking "sin entered the world" to mean that sin entered, touched, affected & killed the world? I am saying that sin entered into the world, into space and time if you like, and it affects, i.e. has TOUCHED mankind only. What is the difficulty here, Jac? I was never seeking to you use kosmos here as humanity. Is that what you have been thinking?

Jac3510 wrote:
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.

Like I said, there is no tautology in play here.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

No. You've failed to even recognise what I'm saying. I really want you to "get" me before you continue with me. If it's down to me being unclear again then I apologise, but you need to get me right before we carry on...

Jac3510 wrote:
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.

Jac, I don't need anything. I'm reading the passage within the context- not only the IMMEDIATE context, but the context of Romans. I've been very careful to put aside my position to read the context first and foremost.

Jac3510 wrote:I'm not contrained by my theology on these verses. You are.

I have to disagree. Your theology drips from your posts at times, Jac.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

I really don't care if you call me a Cambodian Calvinist with a hint of Luxembourgean Lutherism to his theology, or anything else you care to mention; I do not have a particular theology right now- come back to me in ten years perhaps!

Jac3510 wrote:
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.

You keep telling me what I must take so and so to mean about such and such regarding the broader part of this and that... What you are again doing is saying that, because I am OEC, I am taking the passage as referring to mankind. Yes? Well, I am completely overwhelmed here! I mean, I am blown away by that piece of reasoning, Jac. You're stating my worldview, then saying that I am taking my position because of my worldview. Yes? You know what this is, don't you Jac? Are you saying to me that the ONLY reason I am arguing what I am arguing is because I HAVE TO according to my worldview? If so then can you see how fallacious such a line is? You have just very crassly put yourself into a win-win position.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

I've shown you time and again how you are wrong according to how I have read Romans. Are you seriously asking me for an argument when I have given you many already on this very topic? I have shown your, ahem, grammatical problem to be nothing of the sort. If you do not like my answer, and continue to convince yourself of this "problem", then crack on. Your argument goes a little like this: You see a grammatical problem. I disagree with you. I show you how I feel you to be wrong on this. You insist you are right. I again try to show you you are wrong. You finally throw your hands up and say that everything you have told me is exactly correct. We might as well have not had the discussions. Why? Hey, because you are right anyway! Rather than agree to differ, you tell yourself that you are right anyway. You have merely validated your own premise by way of telling yourself that you have validated your own premise. You've also misunderstood much of my take on Romans 5:12. We need you to aquaint yourself with my exact take on this- admittedly I have created some confusion all on my own- before we continue.

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:50 am

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Jac, I'm sorry you are having so much difficulty in understanding me. Yes we are justified. I see this as merely a stage, ending in future justification. Yes we are justified, but you seem to imagine this to be a be all, end all type of thing. Do you somehow imagine you are now special? Is the "hard work" over for you? Are you sitting pretty, fully justified, fully saved, guaranteed your place in the big room? If you have a resounding Yes to all these, then who is really the man-centred one here?

Jac3510 wrote:
"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.

Okay. Surely I have been mistaken in failing to distinguish referent from meaning. You don't need to take responsibility for me, Jac; I'm a big boy and need to find my own way through my mistakes. I am saying that Paul is REFERRING to humanity with "ktisis" in Romans 8:19,20,21,22. I feel I have been quite specific on this point. You need to show me how the sub-human and inanimate creation can find itself in bondage to slavery; you need to show me how the sub-human and inanimate creation can "feel" frustration at all this.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Where I have obviously messed up is by saying creation "can mean" humanity, instead of creation "can refer to" humanity. Ktisis can mean a thing created and therefore can be used to refer to humanity...which I believe is what Paul does.

Jac3510 wrote:
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.

That was a little joke, Jac... I am not assuming anything; I'm looking at the context of what we are discussing and giving you my take on it. That's it. And the context screams out Humanity, Mankind, Humankind, Future Glory, Faith, Christ, Grace, Slavery, Holy Spirit, Patience...None of this is referring to the inanimate and sub-human creation, except when speaking of the future glory.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

I have no idea why Paul is using ktisis instead of anthropos. I'm sure creation does "benefit" in some poetic way, if you wish to look at it like that. I believe you are placing unwarranted emphasis on the sub-human and inanimate creations. I have given you substantive replies already to no avail. Paul is vividly describing the longings of humanity for something better. Go back and read me again if you do not "get" what I am saying. I challenge you to show me in detail, and not just rhetoric, how the sub-human and inanimate creations "groan" as in the pains of childbirth; I need you to show me how these creations can be "liberated" from bondage to decay- how these creations can be thought of as being in the bondage of corruption, let alone as having any prospect of ever being freed from this? How can this physically happen? I just need to be shown this then perhaps I can get on board with this line of thinking. I'd also have to look at Paul's vivid language in an entirely different manner, downgraded from the no-nonsense to the rather obscure.

Jac3510 wrote: 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?

Again, I need to be shown why Paul would do this. I recognise the future glory isn't JUST about us, but I still need to be shown how inanimate creation and the brute creation are what Paul is addressing; why? How can these be thought to be in any kind of slavery?

Jac3510 wrote: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.

I've already addressed this. The whole creation here refers to all of mankind. "We" refers to those of us who already have the firstfruits. Paul is clear on this. The longings of creation refers to all of mankind. Even the atheist longs for something more, something better. we, God's people, have the firstfruits of the Spirit. But even "we ourselves" groan inwardly as we wait for our adoption as sons... The distinction you talk of is that of the whole creation groaning and EVEN WE OURSELVES, who have the firstfruits...

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Ah so you don't think I am man-centred by nature, just that my "theology" is man-centred? If you mean that because Paul is talking of mankind then I am following from what I am reading then fair enough. If I am man-centred, then it is only because Paul is talking of mankind.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

I know about the numerous OT references to inanimate creation. This I believe is all poetic. Inanimate creation cannot participate in the act of witnessing God's glory. Again, all you need to do is show me how this makes any sense other than poetically.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Yet again, can you show me how inanimate creation can witness God's self-revelation? In Exodus 33:18, Moses said to God, "Show me Your glory." God's response in Exodus 34:6-7 is one of the most important theological texts in Scripture, because it is the only place where God actually described Himself, listing His own attributes. I just ask you how inanimate creation witnesses these attributes? Poetically, yes. But humanity are the only ones who really witness this. You're creating a false dilemma, Jac: because I say it how I see it I am all of a sudden making man a demi-god? You are merely asserting that I am man-centred, then making with ease a connection to demi-gods. I'd be impressed if it wasn't such a blatant form of setting up your own argument in order to smash it home. Babe Ruth it aint

Above you admit man is the highest part of creation. Then you accuse me of separating mankind from the rest of creation. And of saying that creation is for our benefit. First, I agree that we are the highest part of creation. Second, I've never separated the two. Third, I've never said that creation is for our benefit. So to sum up on this, you actually agree with me, while creating, and placing me in, two false positions; this is very cute. I say Paul is predominantly dealing with the glory of Christ's resurrection and justification by faith in his epistle to the Romans. THAT is how I see Romans. So, because that is how I see it, I am man-centred? Okay. Then because of THIS I am guilty of making man into a demi-god? Wow. What a hugely rational jump there, Jac! Waydda go there bro!

Jac3510 wrote:
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?

The big picture of Romans: Resurrection; Glory; Faith/Justification; Things to come; Reconciling Israel to God; Resurrection; Resurrection; Resurrection;...

Jac3510 wrote:
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 . . .

Sure I believe that we are made FOR God and not He for us.

Jac3510 wrote:
"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.

Huh? First off I didn't realise we were in competition; secondly, what is it about what I'm saying that you cannot grasp? If you think the debate is over then whoopee for you, Jac. Honestly, I'm very happy for you.

Jac3510 wrote:
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).

I haven't missed the point of the verse, Jac. If you would only read back my quote above you'll see I clearly say that "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." We have the fall, DEATH, and resurrection; three of the main themes of Paul's letter.

Jac3510 wrote: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"

No he does not. What is evident to you is very unclear to me. I'm more than happy for you to believe the above; but please don't tell me that this is what Romans 5:12 is saying. The passage is dealing with mankind alone. Just as sin entered the world through one man, and the death of mankind through his sin, in this way death came to all men, because all sin. Can't you see that Paul moves from saying sin entered the world through one man's sin, identifies that man will die through his sin, and affirms that ALL men sin so ALL men die? What is it about this that you can't see, Jac?

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Nope. You are plainly missing what I'm saying. Please read above and ask for further clarification if you need it. However, I will say that I have repeated this about four times now, and you still won't see it.

Jac3510 wrote:
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?

Why one or the other? Sin entered into the world. Where is the confusion here? Only mankind can sin; only mankind dies because of sin. Sin still entered the world, but sin only affects mankind. Am I really so hard to understand on this? Are you seriously taking "sin entered the world" to mean that sin entered, touched, affected & killed the world? I am saying that sin entered into the world, into space and time if you like, and it affects, i.e. has TOUCHED mankind only. What is the difficulty here, Jac? I was never seeking to you use kosmos here as humanity. Is that what you have been thinking?

Jac3510 wrote:
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.

Like I said, there is no tautology in play here.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

No. You've failed to even recognise what I'm saying. I really want you to "get" me before you continue with me. If it's down to me being unclear again then I apologise, but you need to get me right before we carry on...

Jac3510 wrote:
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.

Jac, I don't need anything. I'm reading the passage within the context- not only the IMMEDIATE context, but the context of Romans. I've been very careful to put aside my position to read the context first and foremost.

Jac3510 wrote:I'm not contrained by my theology on these verses. You are.

I have to disagree. Your theology drips from your posts at times, Jac.

Jac3510 wrote: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.

I really don't care if you call me a Cambodian Calvinist with a hint of Luxembourgean Lutherism to his theology or anything else you care to mention; I do not have a particular theology right now- come back to me in ten years perhaps!

Jac3510 wrote:
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.

You keep telling me what I must take so and so to mean about such and such regarding the broader part of this and that... What you are again doing is saying that, because I am OEC, I am taking the passage as referring to mankind. Yes? Well, I am completely overwhelmed here! I mean, I am blown away by that piece of reasoning, Jac. You're stating my worldview, then saying that I am taking my position because of my worldview. Yes? You know what this is, don't you Jac? Are you saying to me that the ONLY reason I am arguing what I am arguing is because I HAVE TO according to my worldview? If so then can you see how fallacious such a line is? You have just very crassly put yourself into a win-win position.

Jac3510 wrote: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've shown you time and again how you are wrong according to how I have read Romans. Are you seriously asking me for an argument when I have given you many already on this very topic? I have shown your, ahem, grammatical problem to be nothing of the sort. If you do not like my answer, and continue to convince yourself of this "problem", then crack on. Your argument goes a little like this: You see a grammatical problem. I disagree with you. I show you how I feel you to be wrong on this. You insist you are right. I again try to show you you are wrong. You finally throw your hands up and say that everything you have told me is exactly correct. We might as well have not had the discussions. Why? Hey, because you are right anyway! Rather than agree to differ, you tell yourself that you are right anyway. You have merely validated your own premise by way of telling yourself that you have validated your own premise. You've also misunderstood much of my take on Romans 5:12. We need you to aquaint yourself with my exact take on this- admittedly I have created some confusion all on my own- before we continue.

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:04 am

Jac, What a mess!! Please ignore my first post- read the last post.
-
-

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:29 pm

DannyM wrote:Jac, What a mess!! Please ignore my first post- read the last post.
-
-

Hi Danny - just checking you know how to delete posts if needed?

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:11 am

Kurieuo wrote:
DannyM wrote:Jac, What a mess!! Please ignore my first post- read the last post.
-
-
Hi Danny - just checking you know how to delete posts if needed?

I thought I knew ... I can't seem to delete now ...

DannyM · Post by **DannyM** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:24 am

Oh right so I'm guessing the delete option is there only immediately after post has gone up. Hey hum. Jac can read both of my posts and choose to demolish whichever one he so desires ...

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:48 am

Danny wrote:Jac, I'm sorry you are having so much difficulty in understanding me. Yes we are justified. I see this as merely a stage, ending in future justification. Yes we are justified, but you seem to imagine this to be a be all, end all type of thing. Do you somehow imagine you are now special? Is the "hard work" over for you? Are you sitting pretty, fully justified, fully saved, guaranteed your place in the big room? If you have a resounding Yes to all these, then who is really the man-centred one here?

On justification,
1. Can you point me to a single verse in Scripture that speaks of a future justification?
2. Since Paul declarse that we have been justified--in a perfect tense, no less--how can you say that there is still yet a future justification?
3. Do you deny that justification is a judicial decree? If so, then on what basis do you define the word, and if not, then how, again, can you say that there can be a future decree? That would be like expecting a judge to declare a person "not guilty" fifty years after he was already declared not guilty!

On eternal security,
1. Yes, justification is a "be all, end all type of thing." It's called the Good News for a reaon, Danny.
2. Do I imagine I am special? No more and no less than the fact that I am created in God's image, fallen, and yet redeemed and saved by the work of Jesus Christ.
3. Is the "hard work" over for me? Absolutely! Must I remind you that works of NO BEARING on salvation? Do you think salvation requires hard work, Danny, because I have a few Scriptures that say otherwise . . . Eph 2:8-10 comes to mind . . . this is true even sanctifation. We live our lives by faith, not by works.
4. Am I "sitting pretty"? If you are referring to the guarantee of salvation, yes sir!!!
5. Am I "fully justified"? Since it is impossible to be partially justified--justification being, as it is, an either/or state, then yes, I am most certainly fully justified. That is, after all, what Paul says in the verse under discussion . . . "having been justified" . . .
6. Am I "fully saved"? Absolutely! So much so, that Paul can speak of my glorification, which is yet future, as past tense. If you are referring to "salvation" in the broadest sense to include the redemption of my body, then I am still awaiting that part of my salvation. If you are referring to "salvation" in the Southern Baptist sense of the word ("You gotta get saved, brother!"), then absolutely, I am fully saved!
7. Am I "guaranteed" my "place in the big room?" Yes, sir, I am. Thank God for it.

If you think it makes me man-centered to say that God "sent His one and only Son, so that whosever believes in Him should not perish, but has everlasting life," then I plead guilty. Of course, it's hard to see how such a statement is man-centered, since it is completely and totally the work of God!

Where I accuse you of being man-centered is not in your soteriology, Danny. Now, if you want to come back and say that we aren't guaranteed our salvation, then I most certainly will level the charge there as well, because now you have made your salvation dependent on your works rather than God's. Where I do accuse you of being man-centered is in your general reading of Scripture, and of Romans in particular, as if the Bible is primarily about us, our salvation, and our relationship with God.

I never got to offer that second post, Danny, but here is where some of that material becomes important. It isn't that your OEC has any impact on your salvation. It doesn't. But it appears that you have adopted a reading of Scripture--which I believe to be anthropocentric--that causes you to read certain verses in a light that leads to OEC, Rom 5:12 and 8:19ff specifically. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your entire hermeneutic, my friend, because as of right now, you are dangerously close to denying the Gospel.

We are either saved--completely and totally--by faith alone in Christ alone or we are not. Either we our works play no part and it is all of God or they play some part and it is up to us. Either the Bible is about us or God. If your theology makes the Bible about us, and by extension our salvation about us, and thus our salvation dependent on us, I think you have much bigger problems with Paul than his use of the words kosmos and ktisis.

Okay. Surely I have been mistaken in failing to distinguish referent from meaning. You don't need to take responsibility for me, Jac; I'm a big boy and need to find my own way through my mistakes. I am saying that Paul is REFERRING to humanity with "ktisis" in Romans 8:19,20,21,22. I feel I have been quite specific on this point. You need to show me how the sub-human and inanimate creation can find itself in bondage to slavery; you need to show me how the sub-human and inanimate creation can "feel" frustration at all this.

I already did. Let me quote myself:

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

Now, let me jump out of order in your post, for you responded this by saying:

I know about the numerous OT references to inanimate creation. This I believe is all poetic. Inanimate creation cannot participate in the act of witnessing God's glory. Again, all you need to do is show me how this makes any sense other than poetically.

Do you really think that Gen 31:44 is poetry? Let me quote it for you along with its context:

Laban answered Jacob, "The women are my daughters, the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks. All you see is mine. Yet what can I do today about these daughters of mine, or about the children they have borne? Come now, let's make a covenant, you and I, and let it serve as a witness between us." So Jacob took a stone and set it up as a pillar. He said to his relatives, "Gather some stones." So they took stones and piled them in a heap, and they ate there by the heap. Laban called it Jegar Sahadutha, and Jacob called it Galeed. (Gen. 31:43-47, NIV)

I don't see any poetry there, do you? What I do see is a figure of speech--an anthropomorphism. So, a few questions:

1. Do you recognize that Gen 31:43-47 is prose?
2. Do you recognize that inanimate creation is used as a witness in this prose?
3. Do you recognize that Rom 8 is prose?
4. Then why cannot inanimate creation be used as a witness in this prose?

Do remember, Danny, that Paul, first and foremost, was a OT theologian. You yourself rightly pointed to the "numerous OT references to inanimate creation." If you know about them, how much more did Paul? While you and I are conditioned to think in a Greek, and New Testament at that, mindset, Paul had a Hebrew, Old Testament mindset. Should that not be heavily considered when looking at his words?

In any case, I've provided a very solid answer to your question. In exactly the same way inanimate creation "observed" the acts of men and God in the OT, so in the same way, inanimate creation will observe the acts of men and God in the last days.

Now, in light of the biblical evidence I have cited, what evidence do you have that Paul did was NOT referring the whole creation, which is what the words he used mean and normally refer to. In other words, since you are taking the words in an abnormal, though not necessarily unprecedented, way, what warrant do you provide for not only taking them in this manner, but for ignoring the theological and contextual precedent for actually taking them in the normal way?

Where I have obviously messed up is by saying creation "can mean" humanity, instead of creation "can refer to" humanity. Ktisis can mean a thing created and therefore can be used to refer to humanity...which I believe is what Paul does.

Fine, but you are failing to see the point I am making. In acknowledging that creation only refers to humanity, you are obligated to explain why Paul used this figure of speech. If Paul had merely wanted to refer to humanity for humanity's sake, there is a word that means humanity--namely, anthropos. Why, then, does he use the figure? Why the metonymy? My view takes this into account. That is, my view takes the text seriously. It seems to me that yours ignores it.

That was a little joke, Jac... I am not assuming anything; I'm looking at the context of what we are discussing and giving you my take on it. That's it. And the context screams out Humanity, Mankind, Humankind, Future Glory, Faith, Christ, Grace, Slavery, Holy Spirit, Patience...None of this is referring to the inanimate and sub-human creation, except when speaking of the future glory.

The last clause confuses me . . . "except when speaking of future glory." Correct me if I am wrong, but on your view, inanimate creation is not even spoken with regards to the future glory, because you take that as ALSO referring to humanity.

I must say, your trick for making the context all about humanity strikes me as circular, my friend. You take the normal words used to refer to the entirety of creation--or at least of the earth as a whole--translate them as "humanity," and then point at them as evidence that the context is humanity! That's an odd methodology . . .

I have no idea why Paul is using ktisis instead of anthropos. I'm sure creation does "benefit" in some poetic way, if you wish to look at it like that. I believe you are placing unwarranted emphasis on the sub-human and inanimate creations. I have given you substantive replies already to no avail. Paul is vividly describing the longings of humanity for something better. Go back and read me again if you do not "get" what I am saying. I challenge you to show me in detail, and not just rhetoric, how the sub-human and inanimate creations "groan" as in the pains of childbirth; I need you to show me how these creations can be "liberated" from bondage to decay- how these creations can be thought of as being in the bondage of corruption, let alone as having any prospect of ever being freed from this? How can this physically happen? I just need to be shown this then perhaps I can get on board with this line of thinking. I'd also have to look at Paul's vivid language in an entirely different manner, downgraded from the no-nonsense to the rather obscure.

Would you care to point me to those substantive replies, because all I've seen are assertions that the words can refer to humanity (which isn't under debate), that the context of the discussion is humanity (which is a circular argument, since that is what is under discussion), and that inanimate creation can't be described in human terms, which I have twice demonstrated is not true.

But, I will oblige you further on the last point. Let me offer you a two ways that creation will be liberated from bondage and decay:

1. From the curse of Adam. God says, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field" (Gen 3:17b-18, NIV). There, God flatly declares the earth cursed. It does you no good to try to make this a curse on Eden, since God kicked Adam out of the garden and he would no longer work it, anyway. It cannot refer to the rest of creation having already been cursed, for the ground was cursed because of Adam--and it was created before Adam, in your view, long before Adam. So, logically, it must refer to the curse on all of creation after Adam's fall. This curse will be lifted when man is glorified, just as it was initially subjected to the curse at man's fall.

2. From Jacob's prophecy of Jesus: "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his. He will tether his donkey to a vine, his colt to the choicest branch; he will wash his garments in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes" (Gen 49:10-11, NIV). Here is a little appreciated prophecy that speaks of the curse being lifted from creation. First, notice the phrase "until he comes to whom it belongs." Leave it to the NIV to obscure the text in its desire for good English. A better rending is "Until Shiloh comes," with Shiloh coming--as I'm sure you can see--from Shilom, meaning not merely "peace" but referring to prosperity and happiness. The Messiah is depicted as the one who brings restoration and prosperity. Now, notice that Shiloh will "tether his donkey to a vine, his colt to the choicest branch." Tell me, Danny . . . what grows on a vine? Grapes, yes? And what would happen if you were to tie your donkey up to a vine--indeed, up to the best branch on the vine that had the biggest and best grapes. What would happen? Answer: the donkey would eat it!

What on earth is Jacob talking about?!? It is simple. Jacob is referring to the massive prosperity that comes with Shiloh (which explains why he refers to Him by that name). The picture is of the grapes being so big, and the vine being so plentiful, that you could tie a growing donkey up to it and not worry, because no matter how much it ate, there would be ample left ofter.

But this presents a question--did and do vines grow today that way? Do they provide that much fruit? So much that you can afford to wash your clothes in wine? Of course not. So what must happen for that to take place? Creation has to change in such a way that it will produce vines from which wine pours like a waterfall.

So here you have two places in which creation will change as a direct result of the return of Jesus and the glorification of man. I could go on, but space is limited, as these posts have already gotten very long as it is . . . the point, Danny, is merely this: creation will be freed when the curse upon it is lifted, and then it will grow and sprout as it was originally intended, with an abundance that we today cannot begin to imagine. In the meantime, your inability to account for Paul's usage of the figure of speech is telling evidence against your position. One that cannot account for all the data is not a very strong one.

Again, I need to be shown why Paul would do this. I recognise the future glory isn't JUST about us, but I still need to be shown how inanimate creation and the brute creation are what Paul is addressing; why? How can these be thought to be in any kind of slavery?

Paul is "doing" this because he is explaining how creation will be restored when Jesus comes back.

I can understand your confusion. It appears your entire problem is that you don't believe creation was cursed. That's why I asked at the beginning of our conversation if you think Paul's theology is important here. Paul wrote from the background of someonw who believed in a cursed creation. In Rom 5:12a, he assumes it, and uses that assumption as a basis for explaining human death's relationship to sin. Note, again, the comparative "just as". Paul assues whatever he is speaking of in 5:12a is known and understood broadly. He, and his readers, gets this idea of the bondage of creation to death and decay via Adam's sin from the OT, as demonstrated above. He assumes it again in 8:19ff. He speaks of creation being in labor pains. Again, I ask, when was it put into labor pains? What is created in such pain? All this happened at the Fall. If, though, you reject the entire premise, then you will be required, by your theology, to look for a different interpretation, regardless of if you can handle all the data I've presented--i.e., linguistic, historical, theological, contextual evidence, etc.

I've already addressed this. The whole creation here refers to all of mankind. "We" refers to those of us who already have the firstfruits. Paul is clear on this. The longings of creation refers to all of mankind. Even the atheist longs for something more, something better. we, God's people, have the firstfruits of the Spirit. But even "we ourselves" groan inwardly as we wait for our adoption as sons... The distinction you talk of is that of the whole creation groaning and EVEN WE OURSELVES, who have the firstfruits...

Danny, you aren't interacting with my argument. I demonstrated how your assertion is wrong. You are, AGAIN, ignoring the grammar of the text. Look at your own emphasized words. You have translated the words wrong. The text does NOT say "even" we ourselves. It says "BUT we ourselves," and the word "but" there is the strongest disjunctive possible. To say "even" would require kai--the word here is alla, lit., "but" or "nevertheless."

Your second problem is that you are ignoring the words "not only." Look, if I say to you, "I have this, not only that," then how many things do I have? At least two. Why? Because "not only" sets me over and against something else already in discussion. Read the verse again:

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but 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. (Rom 8:22-23, NIV)

The second have--we ourselves--are set AGAINST the first part, the whole creation. NOT ONLY the whole creation groans, BUT we ourselve ALSO groan.

Paul cannot be more explicit here. The grammar is against you in every way, Danny. We are not the creation in verse 22. The grammar explicitly forbids it. Since that is the case, it is up to you to figure out how the whole creation can be groaning and looking for liberation. When was it subjected to the curse, Danny? When was it put into bondage and death, Danny? I've given you the OT answer. Paul refers to it in Rom 5:12. It happened when Adam fell.

Ah so you don't think I am man-centred by nature, just that my "theology" is man-centred? If you mean that because Paul is talking of mankind then I am following from what I am reading then fair enough. If I am man-centred, then it is only because Paul is talking of mankind.

Paul isn't man-centered. Your interpretation of Paul is man-centered. Mine is not, which is evidence in favor of my view and against yours.

Yet again, can you show me how inanimate creation can witness God's self-revelation? In Exodus 33:18, Moses said to God, "Show me Your glory." God's response in Exodus 34:6-7 is one of the most important theological texts in Scripture, because it is the only place where God actually described Himself, listing His own attributes. I just ask you how inanimate creation witnesses these attributes? Poetically, yes. But humanity are the only ones who really witness this. You're creating a false dilemma, Jac: because I say it how I see it I am all of a sudden making man a demi-god? You are merely asserting that I am man-centred, then making with ease a connection to demi-gods. I'd be impressed if it wasn't such a blatant form of setting up your own argument in order to smash it home. Babe Ruth it aint

Above you admit man is the highest part of creation. Then you accuse me of separating mankind from the rest of creation. And of saying that creation is for our benefit. First, I agree that we are the highest part of creation. Second, I've never separated the two. Third, I've never said that creation is for our benefit. So to sum up on this, you actually agree with me, while creating, and placing me in, two false positions; this is very cute. I say Paul is predominantly dealing with the glory of Christ's resurrection and justification by faith in his epistle to the Romans. THAT is how I see Romans. So, because that is how I see it, I am man-centred? Okay. Then because of THIS I am guilty of making man into a demi-god? Wow. What a hugely rational jump there, Jac! Waydda go there bro!

Since I've already answered the question in the first quoted paragraph, let me respond directly to the second. I made the initial demi-god comment on page twelve, and the points I made there are the ones I was reiterating, So rather than state them a THIRD time, let me just quote myself:

[ist]God created everything for His enjoyment. As to who witnesses His self-revelation, the whole of creation does, and at the highest level, that means intelligent beings, including men and angels. In any case, I still find your idea that the whole reason God created was so that He could have a relationship with us to be man-centered. God created for Himself, not for us. We are a part of His creation. The highest part, no doubt. The part in His image, no doubt. But you seem to have this idea that mankind is something of a demi-god . . . that below us is creation, above us is God, and we are somewhere in the middle, separate from that creation. Danny, do you not realize that we were made in the same creation-week (however you define it, be it six solar days or six periods of time) as all the rest of creation? We are a PART of it, dude.[/list]
Your problem, Danny, is that you are making US the intended witnesses of God's revelation through creation. But that creates a HUGE problem for you. WE ARE A PART OF CREATION. Is creation, then, a witness to itself? Or is all of creation a witness to only a particular part of itself, as all of creation were created for the benefit of another part of creation? That's illogical. If you want to make mankind the intended witness of God's self-revelation, then you must separate man from creation--you must place him essentially above the rest of creation, which I call making him a demi-god.

You've done exactly this. You only have three logical choices:

1. Creation is a witness for and to God (my view)
2. Creation is a witness for and to a separate humanity (which makes him a demi-god)
3. Creation is a witness for and to itself or for and to some part of itself (which is illogical)

Like I already said, I'd strongly encourage you rethink your position, because you are either making an invalid statement (that creation is a witness to itself) or man a demi-god.

The big picture of Romans: Resurrection; Glory; Faith/Justification; Things to come; Reconciling Israel to God; Resurrection; Resurrection; Resurrection;...

Ah huh . . . and who is resurrected, glorified, justified through faith, and reconciled to God? Oh, yes . . . mankind. So, for you, the bigger picture is all that relates to mankind?

Yup. Still seems anthropocentric.

Sure I believe that we are made FOR God and not He for us.

Then stop asserting that God's self-revelation is for us. All is for Him, Danny.

Huh? First off I didn't realise we were in competition; secondly, what is it about what I'm saying that you cannot grasp? If you think the debate is over then whoopee for you, Jac. Honestly, I'm very happy for you

We aren't in competition, but we do have different views. You can't have it both ways. You said, "This isn't saying that sin affects every man; it is saying that sin merely entered the world." But you can't say this, because your entire argument is based on the fact that Rom 5:12 is not referring to world, but to mankind. You are contradicting yourself, Danny.

I haven't missed the point of the verse, Jac. If you would only read back my quote above you'll see I clearly say that "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." We have the fall, DEATH, and resurrection; three of the main themes of Paul's letter.

But if men are justified, then why do they still die for their sin? Your initial answer has been that we aren't really justified . . . that we'll be justified in the future. That contradicts Paul. He says that we have been justified.

Let me give you a hint, since I don't think you see the point I have been trying to make for three pages now. We are talking about 5:12. Look at 5:13:

for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. (NIV)

Do you see the second sentence there? Paul is raising the issue I am. Where there is no law, there is no sin. Yet before Moses, there was no Law, and Christians have been justified and are no longer under law . . . how, then, could there be sin for which we die (which, by the way, leads to the question in Rom 6:1. It all fits nicely when you get the emphasis right, my friend)?!? In fact, Paul is appealing to an earlier comment he made in Rom 4:15:

And where there is no law there is no transgression (NIV).

So your view has a problem. If the believer is justified and his sins are no longer held against him, then on what basis to believers suffer and die? This is all the more problematic if we are no longer under the Law, which Paul takes pains to demonstrate is the case. So tell me, Danny, in your view, since we are justified and no longer under the Law, for what do we die, since Paul expressly declares that where there is no law there is no transgression, and where there is no law, sin is not imputed to the man?

No he does not. What is evident to you is very unclear to me. I'm more than happy for you to believe the above; but please don't tell me that this is what Romans 5:12 is saying. The passage is dealing with mankind alone. Just as sin entered the world through one man, and the death of mankind through his sin, in this way death came to all men, because all sin. Can't you see that Paul moves from saying sin entered the world through one man's sin, identifies that man will die through his sin, and affirms that ALL men sin so ALL men die? What is it about this that you can't see, Jac?

I can see it perfectly well, Danny. The issue isn't what I can't see. It's what you can't. Because what I see, and what you can't seem to, is that your view makes Paul's statement a mere tautology, a meaningless repetition and a logically fallacious argument. What you can't see is the context of the unit in which this entire discussion is placed. What you can't see is that the grammar forbids you from taking it to refer to all humanity just as it does in Rom. 8:19ff. What you can't see is that Paul is making a broader argument that goes through 5:21 that explains how men die compared to how we live if not by the law.

Until you start dealing with the evidence, while you are certainly free to believe whatever you want to believe, you have no warrant for your position, and still less does anyone have warrant for accepting it. If the only reason to believe it should be taken as you say it does is that your theology requires it, even though it denies and contradicts the textual evidence provided, then it seems to me a much better option is to rethink your theology.

Nope. You are plainly missing what I'm saying. Please read above and ask for further clarification if you need it. However, I will say that I have repeated this about four times now, and you still won't see it.

Fine. Then put Rom 5:12 in a simple paraphrase for me so that I am capable of seeing it. Your repeated questioning of my intellectual capacities have forced me to conclude that I must be an idiot, so I humbly request you put it in the simplest of terms so that I will finally be able to see what it is you mean.

"Just like all of humanity is dying because of Adam's sin, you are dying because of yours." That is my representation of your translation. Please provide your own so that I can see where I have misunderstood you.

Why one or the other? Sin entered into the world. Where is the confusion here? Only mankind can sin; only mankind dies because of sin. Sin still entered the world, but sin only affects mankind. Am I really so hard to understand on this? Are you seriously taking "sin entered the world" to mean that sin entered, touched, affected & killed the world? I am saying that sin entered into the world, into space and time if you like, and it affects, i.e. has TOUCHED mankind only. What is the difficulty here, Jac? I was never seeking to you use kosmos here as humanity. Is that what you have been thinking?

You have never been seeking to use kosmos as referring to humanity? REALLY?!?!? Wait, so then tell me where these word of yours could possibly mean:

By the sin of Adam. Sin entered into the world. The world of mankind is meant here for sure.

So let me ask you plainly: what does the word kosmos mean and to what does it refer (please note, again, that these are two separate question) in this verse?

Like I said, there is no tautology in play here.

I can't respond until you tell me whether you kosmos means humanity, as you said before, or whether it refers to the whole creation, as you recently implied.

No. You've failed to even recognise what I'm saying. I really want you to "get" me before you continue with me. If it's down to me being unclear again then I apologise, but you need to get me right before we carry on...

Yes, I agree. It does us no good for me to argue with a position you don't hold. What I don't understand is how you could say that kosmos means humanity, and now, you are saying you never said that.

Jac, I don't need anything. I'm reading the passage within the context- not only the IMMEDIATE context, but the context of Romans. I've been very careful to put aside my position to read the context first and foremost.

Then I look forward to how you answer the linguistic, historical, and theological points I have raised out of Romans that directly affect how we understand the context.

I have to disagree. Your theology drips from your posts at times, Jac.

No. Theology drips from my posts, because Romans is a theological book. Every theological statement and assumption I have made comes out of Romans or its immediate background. Unlike you, however, I can take the passage exactly like you do and not change my theology. You are constrained by your theology to take it the way you do. My theology makes no such demands.

I don't fault you or anyone for setting up a theological background to Romans. To deny that one exists is both stupid and absurd. I don't even fault you for your theology constraining your interpretation. All I am saying is that when your theology is keep you from accepting a view that better explains the evidence and forces you to make theological statements at odds with the rest of Scripture (i.e., that we aren't yet really justified, that we aren't guaranteed salvation, that we are the intended recipients of the revelation of God's glory, etc.), then you should seriously reconsider your theology so that you can embrace the right view of the text--or, at worst, another view.

I really don't care if you call me a Cambodian Calvinist with a hint of Luxembourgean Lutherism to his theology or anything else you care to mention; I do not have a particular theology right now- come back to me in ten years perhaps!

OEC is a particular theology. Whether or not you have systematized it is neither here nor there. If you really want to hold to your statement that you are looking at the text apart from your preconceptions, then you need to consider the grammatical arguments I've put forward, because right now, you are just ignoring plain grammar. Your problem isn't really interpretive so much as it is factual.

You keep telling me what I must take so and so to mean about such and such regarding the broader part of this and that... What you are again doing is saying that, because I am OEC, I am taking the passage as referring to mankind. Yes? Well, I am completely overwhelmed here! I mean, I am blown away by that piece of reasoning, Jac. You're stating my worldview, then saying that I am taking my position because of my worldview. Yes? You know what this is, don't you Jac? Are you saying to me that the ONLY reason I am arguing what I am arguing is because I HAVE TO according to my worldview? If so then can you see how fallacious such a line is? You have just very crassly put yourself into a win-win position.

It is only a win-win for me if I am using it as a basis to prove your view is wrong. I have never said that the fact that your worldview forces you to take the passage in a certain way makes your view of the passage wrong. What I have said is that the fact that your worldview forces you to take a certain view of the passage makes your interpretation of that passage suspect on hermeneutical grounds. In short, you are demonstrating good old fashioned eisogesis. You come to the text with certain theological assumptions that must be met.

Now, if the text actually teaches what you want it to mean, then fine. Good for you. The problem I have is that the evidence against your view is overwhelming. If you were not committed to OEC, I have little doubt that you would drop this interpretation you are attempting in a second.

I've shown you time and again how you are wrong according to how I have read Romans. Are you seriously asking me for an argument when I have given you many already on this very topic? I have shown your, ahem, grammatical problem to be nothing of the sort. If you do not like my answer, and continue to convince yourself of this "problem", then crack on. Your argument goes a little like this: You see a grammatical problem. I disagree with you. I show you how I feel you to be wrong on this. You insist you are right. I again try to show you you are wrong. You finally throw your hands up and say that everything you have told me is exactly correct. We might as well have not had the discussions. Why? Hey, because you are right anyway! Rather than agree to differ, you tell yourself that you are right anyway. You have merely validated your own premise by way of telling yourself that you have validated your own premise. You've also misunderstood much of my take on Romans 5:12. We need you to aquaint yourself with my exact take on this- admittedly I have created some confusion all on my own- before we continue.

Danny, your answers to the grammatical problem presented are non-answers, because you have never answered the fundamental questions. I have asked repeatedly what the comparison is to, and you repeatedly deny there is a comparsion and argue that it is merely a tautology (even though you then go back and contradict yourself by saying you don't hold that kosmos refers to humanity after all). That's just to name one issue.

Now, I 100% agree that I need to understand your position, because if you don't take kosmos to refer to humanity, even though you repeatedly said you do, then obviously, I have misunderstood you. Usually, I try to take the blame for such misunderstandings, but I don't see how I could in this case. It seems to me that you were either deeply confused earlier in the thread, that you have changed your position, or that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. I have no idea what you think anymore. I have no idea what your position is anymore, at least, with respect to Rom 5:12 as it relates to kosmos. So . . . I'm most definitely looking forward to some . . . ahh . . . clarification on that.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:53 am

Canuckster1127 wrote:Romans 2:1-16, and particularly Romans 2:13 would appear to put your assertion into question. What you call traditional (and by that term you are placing emphasis upon your tradition rather than a purely Biblical appeal) in my opinion strips the idea of justification of the fullness in the sense that Paul uses it.

N.T. Wright has some strong thoughts in this area. If you wish to reject what he says because he doesn't match with your traditional view, that's your perogative of course. What you appear to wish to prejoratively cast off with your assessment of "postmodern" however, is hardly an accurate use of the word, but then there are many who when you toss that word out respond fearfully and with little real thought and assessment. The assigning of the word "postmodern" in that way is something of a theological bogeyman and code word used to frighten people away from looking at something. In this realm, postmodernism has nothing to do with it in the proper use of that word.

For any others who would like to take a look at this area beyond the narrow confines of "protestant tradition" (again a very interesting use of the term for someone adhering to a professed sola scriptura position) here are some links to some material. I haven't completely determined where I'm falling on all of this as I do hold to faith alone as the means to salvation. I'm questioning and re-examining some of it however and not afraid to ask some questions about it. Wright and Piper have been having a pretty heady conversation in this area in particular. It reminds me a little of the back and forth that used to take place between Swindoll and MacArthure back in the late 80's.

It does seem to me that there is some legitimacy to the question as to whether the traditional protestant interpretations of the early chapters in Romans (although there is scholarly tracing back even as far as Augustine and Aquinas on the matter) jumps rather presumptively from Romans 1 directly to Romans 3:21 without giving much credance to Romans 2:1 - 3:20 and particularly Rom 2:13 which does indeed use the term justification in a future sense which calls into question the claim that it is past only. Often times systematic theology is more a question of chosing which passages to give weight too and which passages to ignore or to attempt to nullify. That, in my opinion is evidence of the superimposing of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law (to name just two) and the use of systematic thinking which wrests the text out of its own natural progression. Paul knew what he was doing and what he was saying when he wrote Romans and it all ties into the message he intended.

http://www.hornes.org/theologia/rich-lu ... -on-romans

You might want to google Piper on this as well to see some of his responses.

And this is exactly why I find Wright's hermeneutic so dangerous. He preaches a false gospel. There is no bones about that. Anyone who takes Rom 2:13 as a reference to what we must do to be justified teaches a works-based salvation, period.

The New Perspective is heresy of the highest order, Bart. If that is what you have to invoke to maintain your OEC, then more power to you. I don't think that Danny or most people on this site, however, need to do the same. I give them, along with Ross, Deem, and other major OEC advocates more credit than that.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:00 am

Those are pronouncements from on high Jac, not interaction. You're not addressing the material nor are you addressing Romans 2:13. That's fine if you simply wish to declare something heresy. I'm not sure I by it completely either. However, I've not invoked Wright to support OEC. That's your assertion and a rather unfair one at that. Even surprising given your virulent reactions to having something like that done to you.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:18 am

Yes, they are pronouncements, because this thread is not on the validity of the New Perspective. I am 100% willing to concede that if someone adopts that hermeneutic, they can be day-age or anything else they can possibly want to be. With that said, that does not mean it is not interaction. Since I flatly reject the NP and its hermeneutic, I flatly reject that interpretation of Rom 2:13. If the method goes, so goes its interpretation. Now, what I am saying, in context of THIS thread, is that Danny doesn't hold to the NP (that I know of), and therefore, any appeal to it has no impact on the discussion we were having.

Do remember that your comment on his and my conversation centered on the my claiming that he was contradicting Paul in claiming that we are not yet justified or that justification has a future aspect. You replied by arguing that salvation has a past, present, and future aspect, which I did not disagree with and pointed out that my argument is that justification is only past tense. You then replied arguing that Rom 2:13 challenges that, which is only true according to the NP. You also referred people to Wright, even though you said you are still questioning the issue. Finally, I didn't say that you DID hold to NP. I said that if that is what you have to do, then more power to you. I never said that you have adopted the NP. I said that the hermeneutic you are employing rejects the literal method and is postmodern, which it is. I said that the Gospel according to the NP is heresy. Whether or not you decide to follow Wright and others on the NP to their version of the Gospel is between you and God. I never said you did.

In any case, when you say ""N.T. Wright has some strong thoughts in this [viz, on how to interpret Rom 2:13] area," it's hard for you to argue that you aren't appelaing to Wright's views on this. I hope you recognize how wrong he is and get away from his hermeneutic as fast as possible. I hope you decide to embrace the literal method. But if not, that, as I said, is up to you, and in any case, has no bearing on our conversation in this thread.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:31 am

You asked for a verse in which justification is in a future sense. Romans 2:13 is such a verse and calls your assertion into questions. That is scripture and it answers your challenge. Do you have a response or should I assume that thinking that Paul had a future sense in mind here is heresy?

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:46 am

Rom 2:13 doesn't give a future sense of justification anymore than Acts 16:31 gives the future sense of salvation. It gives the requirements for justification. If you do this, that will happen. It would be no different than saying, "if you believe in Jesus, you will be justified" (cf. Rom 3:20). That doesn't mean justification has a future aspect. It means that it hasn't happened in my life yet.

Paul isn't saying anything different from Jesus. If a person were to live a perfect life and keep the Law, they would be justified. No one can do it, though, and that is why salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. NP advocates who argue that we are empowered to do the works that lead to justification are teaching a works-based, and thus false, gospel. In fact, any view of Rom 2:13 that says that we, today, must do the works of the law to be justified is teaching a works-based, and thus false, gospel.

So, as I have repeatedly said, unless Danny can show a verse that gives a future aspect to justification, he is contradicting Paul.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:41 pm

I'm not so sure. I understand the need to diminish the clear verb tense that is here in order to make it fit the presupposed systematic doctrine being applied. That's an external factor however and possibly read into the text rather than pulled out. The passage however is pretty clear and is pointing to something future on the assumption that works are present and will reflect the past decision.

To me this is an instance in which Scriptures gives seemingly contradictory messages that are reconciled in the person on Jesus Christ.

Present justification by faith doesn't necessarily precisely equal future justification with works in the mix nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Present justification anticipates future justification it would appear. It might also indicate that Paul is not using the word as narrowly as future reformed theologians have presumed.

I understand too that classic reformed theology sees this passage as part of Paul's condemnation of any works based righteousness. It doesn't follow however that faith based justification precludes any future sense of justification which presumes works as a fruit.

This has been a constant argument throughout church history. Maybe we should be asking what Paul was thinking when he used the word justification. If he was not intending the word to be used in any context other than present (on the basis of faith on a past work of Christ) then it begs the question as to why he would use it in this manner, clearly in a future tense in this passage, if that would confuse the issue.

What if the focus for Paul in Justification is on the person of Christ rather than the mechanistic, systematic application of Greek Philosophy and Roman law by his followers centuries in the future? That might be something worth looking at.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:48 pm

Present justification by faith doesn't necessarily precisely equal future justification with works in the mix nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Present justification anticipates future justification it would appear. It might also indicate that Paul is not using the word as narrowly as future reformed theologians have presumed.

There is no such thing as future justification if works. First, if there were, it would be spoken of elsewhere. It is not. Reformed theologians are exactly correct in seeing Paul as condemning the idea that any man is justified by works, as Rom 3:20 makes explicitly clear. Rom 2:13 is simply a part of that argument. Second, again, any view that mixes justification with works is a false gospel.

I'm sorry if you feel this is all a matter of pronoucement. I am absolutely against the notion that justification includes works in any shape, form, or fashion. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is the foundation of Christian doctrine, based, as it is, in the Penal Substitution of the Cross (which, by the way, it is all the rage to deny in NP circles).

I have heard many people say you shouldn't base any doctrine on one verse in Scripture. This would be a good example of that.

Evidence for God from Science

Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...

Re: Carnivorous animals before the fall...