I'm going to give you a two part response here, Danny. The first is the important one, in that here I'll respond to your particular words. The second is less important, and you don't have to respond to it directly. I am simply a fan of addressing background issues as you go soas to keep things in perspective. That also, I think, helps us--and me especially--remember that they are having a conversation witth real people and not simply a debate with a faceless screen name.
On to your response, then:
Danny wrote:How am I contradicting paul? Sure, we are justified. But when do you think we bear the fruits of this justification? This is certainly where faith plays its part...
I've already set the contradiction in plain terms, Danny. Here it is again, only more concise:
- since we have been justified through faith ~ Paul
justification comes with the next lif ~ Dany
Paul says we are justified today. You say in this statement we are justified in the next life. Your clarification above confuses me. You admit we are justified now as you must, since Paul directly says it, but then you ponit to the fruit of justification. In the first place, my point had nothing to do with the fruit of justification. I have been speaking of justification itself. A thing and what comes from it are different. In the second place, justification is a judicial declaration of righteousness--assuming, of course for the sake of argument, the Protestant view against the Catholic and New Perspective's view. It is harly proper to speak of the "fruit" of justification. Are you referring to sanctification? Certainly, those are different, and yet I don't see how this helps you either with my argument (as I'm focusing on justification, as per your insistence on the context of 5:12 as being chapters three and four) or with your assertion that you are not contradicting Paul, for Paul still says we are sanctified now, and this would mean you are saying that sanctification comes in the next life.
You need to explain how your words as compared to Paul's above are not contradictory.
"The noun ktisis “creation,” “what is created,” or “creature” is used nineteen times in the NT...The term ktisis, “creation” refers to “every human
institutions/creation” once (1Pet 2:13)...In Mark 16:15 and Col 1:23, however, when the gospel is preached to “all creation,” the term describes humanity only, however, throughout the centuries of the Christian era."
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.or ... tament.pdf
I don't know if Ekkehardt Mueller is any good to you, but he does agree with you on Romans 8.
Did you even read my post before responding to it, Danny? with all due respect, I have already posted that information, and in more detail . . . and I didn't need to check out a word study
.
Anyway, notice that he says
ktisis refers to humanity in some verses. I have no problem wit that, but that is now what you or I have been arguing. Look at the discussion we have been having:
- Tell me, to what is Paul referring by the word "creation"? ~ Jac
---
Jac, I believe you are reading this entirely wrong. "Creation" here means "human beings". ~ Danny
---
The word ktisis doesn't ever mean, "humanity," Danny. Now you are just going against all the standard lexicons. I'm sorry, but if to adopt your view, I have to make up a meaning for a word, I don't find it very appealing. ~ Jac
---
the word "Ktisis" is used for "creation" here to describe humanity. So "Ktisis" CAN and HAS been used to describe human beings. ~ Danny
---
No, I'm not wrong here. First of all, if ktisis does mean "human beings," why has no major translation rendered it that way? Are you telling me that every major translation is wrong? ~ Jac
I will take full responsibility for this confusion. I made a technical distinction between referent and meaning and did not tell you. My original question was the
referent for
ktisis, which I took, and still take, and insist it must be taken as, the creation generally. To this, you replied that
ktisis means humanity, which it absolutely does not. However, I should have recognized that you were not making the technical distinction between meaning and referent. The proper response at that point would have been to point out the distinction and continue on with the discussion of reference.
Anyway, as it stands,
ktisis does not
mean "humanity." That is not in its semantic range. Look it up in any lexicon, Danny. The word can
refer to humanity, but when it does, it is being done so figuratively, specifically, a metonymy. I would also point out that you seem to notice this yourself when your last response quoted above has you saying that
ktisis describes humanity, which I would have no problem with. That is, after all, precisely why we use figures of speech--to emphasize some aspect of their character or bring out a broader meaning of some sort.
So in other words the context of these passages can go hang if it doesn't fit with your own preference...
Hardly. I expect more from you, my friend. The substance of our entire debate is just what the context for these passages
is. Remember my basic argument. I am saying that Rom 5:12 is found in the context of a unit that deals with sanctification--chapters five through eight--that begin and end with references to the entirety of creation. I am arguing that Paul is describing man's redemption as directly related to the entire world's redemption. You don't see it that way, which is fine, that is why we discuss. But you cannot, as you do here,
assume your view of the context as an argument against my view. That is a classic example of circular reasoning.
Look again at the point I am making and please offer me a substantive reply. Again, my point is that Mark in chapter sixteen of his Gospel and Paul in Col. 1 use
ktisis as metonymyto refer to humanity. Why do they do this? Why do they use the word figuratively? What are they trying to emphasize? If they are only referring to humanity, why not use the word for humanity (
anthropos)? The answer is easy enough. Recongizing that
ktisis is a metonymy, Paul and Mark are emphasizing the fact that the Gospel is good not only for humanity, but for the entire creation. Yet the entire creation benefits through mankind's acceptance of the Gospel. That is exactly the point being made in those two verses with complete disregard for anything said in Romans. The fact that these verses serve as a theological backdrop and strengthen the argument I am making about Romans is simply a confirmation that my view is correct here--or at least, that it is on the right road.
If, then, you disagree with me, you have to show what Paul and Mark were intending the reader to see by using
ktisis as a metonymy. What is the point they were trying to make in their respective passages, and then you must do the same in Rom 8.
From what I've read, "creation" can be used to mean mankind, whole creation, or can even be used in a figurative manner.
Hopefully the above will clarify your misunderstanding. "Creation" cannot MEAN mankind. It can be used figuratively to REFER to mankind. When it does, the standard rules of grammar apply. You must address the reason the figure of speech is being used. What is the author trying to emphasize given the nature of the figure--in this case, the metonymy.
This comes from a footnote in the Greek Diaglott:
"[Greek: Ktisis] (as used in Rom. 8:19,20,21, and 22), CREATION, has the same signification here as in Mark 16:15: "Proclaim the glad tidings to the whole creation," that is, "all mankind;" and also Col. 1:23, where a similar phrase occurs. That the brute and inanimate creation is not here spoken of, but mankind, is evident from the hope of emancipation from the "slavery of corruption" held out in the 21st verse, and the contrast introduced in the 23rd verse, between the [ktisis] and those possessing the "first fruit of the Spirit.""
The Emphatic Greek Diaglott, pg 531.
What I don't understand, Jac, is how you cannot see that "creation" here is referring to mankind. The creation waits in eager expectation. The creation was subjected to frustration. The creation will be liberated from its bondage. The creation has been groaning (like the pains of childbirth). The human metaphor should not be lost on you. Paul is also referring to that passionate desire of the human race for eternal life. You appear to be downgrading such longings for the "longings" of an inanimate and sub-human creation. Do you deny that there are deep and irrepressible longings in the human heart for something better than the poor years of agony and frustration on earth? All such agony and frustration is indeed an "expectation," looking to the revelation of the sons of God. But what you are telling me is that the inanimate creation is looking forward to the revelation of the sons of God, yes?
Now that we've distinguished between referent and meaning, I still insist that the referent for "creation" here is NOT mankind, but the entirety of creation. Put simply, Paul is not using
ktisis figuratively. He is using it according to its
normal usage.
As far as your questions go, no, I don't deny those things, but I don't limit them like you do to humanity. Paul is obviously anthropomorphizing all of creation here, but the point remains. The entire world longs to be free from the curse under which it has been placed. Surely you recongize that Satan is the god of this world (or do you take that to refer merely to the human race as well?). Surely you recognize that in the Millennium, there will be an abundance as we have never experienced before--or, better, that we have not experienced since Eden?
You ask me how I can't see it . . . the actual question is why that's all you can see. The answser is easy enough. Your theology doesn't allow for a cursed creation. If I adopt your theology, I am forced to adopt your readering of the text. It's not that I can't see your view, Danny. It is that I think it is inadequate for both the wording of the text and the broader theology that Paul was teaching. But if we are to ignore that theology for a minute, the very verse your reference appeals to for support is the one that proves it wrong:
- Not only so but [ου μονον δε αλλα ], we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Look at the words in bold. Paul has just said that all of creation longs to see the revealation of the sons of God (that would be us in our redemption). Then he says but NOT ONLY so---and the word "but" there is the strongest disjunction in Greek. To paraphrase, Creation isn't the only thing longing for the revelation of the sons of God, but so do we! That proves that there is a distinction.
Everything lines up perfectly, Danny.
I disagree entirely.
Would you care to give an argument rather than a mere assertion? I have given you an extensive argument on the entire argument of Romans. Would you care to offer an alternative that takes into account the large body of evidence I have offered (i.e., the distribution of the words for death in 5-8, the meaning/referent of
ktisis as compared to
kosmos in 5:12, Paul's constant interest in the broader world, etc.).
Unless you are talking figuratively then I'm a little lost. Could you explain to me how the inanimate creation witnesses God's self-revelation...?
Jac, how many times do I need to tell you that I am not man-centred? I happen to think mankind is depraved; in fact, I think the dog is more deserving of eternal life than man is.
Danny, you can assert until you are blue in the face. But you must demostrate. How does talking about the depravity of man mean that your theology isn't man-centered? How does making a point about MANKIND prove that you aren't focused on MANKIND? I couldn't care less about who or what deserves of doesn't deserve salvation,
because who does or doesn't deserve it isn't the point.
I don't know, then, how you can be lost. I don't know how to make my words any clearer. Tell me, would you have a problem with stones being witnesses? They are certainly inanimate creations, and yet they frequently serve in just that capacity in the OT (for only one example out of a great many, see Gen 31:44). The whole creation serves as a witness to God's glory, Danny. To WHOM is it a witness? GOD! Not us. Not man. Certainly, we can and do benefit from creation's witness to God, but it is all and to God, Danny.
We ourselves are a witness of God's self-revelation. We ourselves are a witness of His glory, all along with the rest of creation. We are a PART of that witness. We are not the totality of it. We are not separate from it. We are a part of it. The highest part, yes, but not separate from. I would strongly encourage you to rethink your theology generally, because like I said before, you are running the risk of making mankind a demi-god--one who stands above the rest of creation as somehow separate from it, as if all of that mere creation is for our benefit.
I don't disagree. Paul is talking about mankind, and of course mankind is part of a bigger picture.
So where in Romans, for you, does Paul refer to the bigger picture?
I remember that well, but the point you are making here assumes me to be man-centric just for stating the obvious fact that God's self-revelation is something which needs to be received. If we do not recognise, appreaciate and stand in awe of this then who else can? I think you are over-compensating, Jac, in an effort to make the text fit with your position. This is understandable.
It is received, Danny. By God. The One for whom it was intended. Do you not understand or believe that we are made for God's pleasure, and not He for ours? Do you really think God made this entire, giant universe just to reveal Himself to us--to a
part of that creation? There you go separating us from that creation again . . .
"Because of this, sin entered the world." This isn't saying that sin affects every man; it is saying that sin merely entered the world. Cancer entered the world, but (God willing) I am not automatically given over to cancer. Paul THEN goes on to tell how "death came to all men, because all sinned."
Uhm . . . look at the words in bold, Danny. You are preaching my view of the text. But YOU insist that
world there DOES refer to humanity. So, in YOUR rendering, it IS saying taht sin affects every man. Now you are just contradicting yourself! Debate over. Check-mate. It's done. You've just shown that you yourself implicitly recognize exactly what "the world" refers to when you aren't trying to read it through a theology.
No. What Paul is doing is telling his readers that THEY, too, sin. He is pointing out that, just as sin entred the world through one man, IN THIS WAY death came to ALL men because ALL sin. Paul is relating the incredible and awful truth that because of only one man's sin, a single solitary sin, death had passed upon the entire race of people. We are confronted with the impenetrable mystery of the fall of the human family. The old creation fell in Adam; the new creation stands eternally secure in Christ. And again, this all coincides with Paul's "theme" of the moment.
No, you have missed the point of the verse. The emphasis isn't on sin, Danny. It's on death. Paul is pointing out, not merely that they sin, but that they DIE. Why do they die? Given the fact that they were justified (Rom 3-4, the context you want to limit it to), why should they die?!?!?!? Paul's answer is simple: death is not only the judicial consequence of sin, but its natural consequence as well. Justification may have saved us from its judicial consequence, but we are still in this "body of death" (Rom 7).
And to what does he refer to make that point? The death of the
world, which is evident all around us every day. He doesn't justify--he doesn't prove--that the world is dead or dying or decaying. He assumes it. It is the thing compared to. Further, he assumes that this death and decay entered the world through Adam's sin. He doesn't prove or justify that. He assumes it.
"Just like the whole world is dying because of Adam's sin, you are dying because of yours"
THAT is what Paul is saying in Rom 5:12. Again, you want it to say, "Just like all of humanity is dying because of Adam's sin, you are dying because of yours." That just doesn't make sense, Danny. There is no comparative. It's not even really clear what it would mean. It doesn't further the argument.
I don't understand you here, Jac. Sin entered the world. It did not TOUCH the world. A new born baby enters the world...
I don't even know what point you are trying to make here. Are you agreeing with me here that the "world" refers to the entirety of creation? Because, if so, again, check-mate, this debate is over. Are you changing your position now, that the
kosmos of 5:12 refers to all of creation and not to humanity?
We have already agreed that Paul can be repetative, so why would you seek to interrupt the flow of his message? Paul does not fail to make the same point if his current message requires that that point be made.
It's one thing to be repetitive. It's another thing to be tautological. The former furthers the argument. The latter does not.
Anyway, which is it, Danny: does
kosmos in 5:12 refer to humanity or the creation, because now you've used it both ways. Can't do that.
You ARE constraining yourself, Jac. You appear to need the passage to mean what you think it should mean. I just don't see it. You are creating a grammatical problem out of nothing. Because you are reading the passage incorrectly, you are seeing a problem that does not exist. At least that's my humble view.
I find it odd that you think I should NEED this passage to mean anything. It doesn't affect my theology one way or another to take it like you do. You, on the other hand, HAVE to take it this way to maintain your theology.
I'm not contrained by my theology on these verses. You are.
As far as the grammatical problem goes, you can ignore it, but it doesn't go away. This is just like the Calvinist who insists that the gift offered in Eph 2:8-10 is faith, which grammatically cannot be. Their theology forces them to ignore the grammar, just as yours is doing here. What you are going to have to face if you want to be honest with the text is that Paul uses two comparative particles to juxtapose two ideas, the former assumed and used as basis to explain and justify the latter. This makes them necessary different ideas, because you can't compare something to itself to explain it.
Jac, you are wrong. I feel the reverse is in play here. Either way, one of us is wrong. If someone can jump in and point me to what, if anything, I'm missing then I'd be grateful.
Really? What am I wrong about? Is it wrong that you HAVE to take these verses to refer to humanity to maintain your OEC? No, you must, because if they refer to creation broadly, you clearly have the doctrine of no death before the Fall. Is it wrong that you are contrained? No, because this is the only way your theology allows you to take it and maintain your theology. Is it wrong that I can take the passages either way and maintain YEC? No, because I can affirm that death entered mankind when Adam sinned without contradicting YEC.
Nothing I said is wrong, Danny. Everything is exactly correct. Are you merely asserting again that my interpretation of these is wrong? You have been asserting that throughout this thread. But where is your evidence? You ignore grammatical problems are don't distinguish between important linguistic terms like meaning and referent. You make the Bible man-centered and ignore the broader argument of Romans. You are constrained by your theology to take this passage a particular way--a way that does not fit into the book as a whole, howeve nicely it may fit into your theology.
A long time ago, you asked me what you could have possibly missed in the YEC argument. I've given you quite a lot. You've missed the purpose of the Bible, the point of Romans, and important linguistic distinctions and grammatical arguments, just to name a view. And in all of that, I've not seen the first argument as to why these verses SHOULD (not CAN) be taken as you would. I need an argument from you Danny, not merely an assertion that I am wrong.
------------------------------------------------
I'll post the second part later today or tomorrow. I just want to deal with a few background issues and put them on the record. I think this, though, is long enough for the time being.