Philosophy and Christian Theology (My title)

Book | 1992 | Gordan Spykman

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thank you so very much for the passage!

[Religion Moderator]

Stop trying to start a flame war.

[xzins]

It is NOT a contradiction for me SINCE I do NOT hold to a "total inability" view. The total inability view from which many operate reconciles the verses by going totally in the direction of absolutely no residual image of God within a fallen human being. This makes it impossible for them ever, at any time, to recognize the existence and the truth of the law of God.

On a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being "absolute total ability to completely and satisfactorily respond to the LAW-BASED demands of God on their lives", and 0 being total inability to ever understand or respond in any way God's LAW-BASED demands," where do different groups stand?

The total inabilitists score a ZERO.

The Coelestians probably come in at about a 7.

Pelagius scores about a 5.

I probably come in at about a 2 or 3. I think mothers generally know to care for their babies with love, I think artists and politicians can understand the difference between order and chaos, I think individuals understand the difference between my property and their property, I think people sense the existence of God through His imprint on His creation, and I think the conscience God has put within us does exalt more positive than more negative behavior, and I certainly don't believe that each individual human being achieves ultimate depravity.

Additionally, Alamo-girl's point about the context of Ro 3:11 is significant. If I understand her correctly, she is saying that everyone is found to be a lawbreaker, and, therefore, is not righteous in the sight of God, and in need of a Savior. I agree with that. I don't think that "original sin" is the same as "total inability" and "ultimate depravity." My view is not that anyone is righteous under the law; my view is that there is more ability admitted to by the Bible than the "total inabilitist/ultimate depravitists" accept.

[xzins]

Dr. E, I don't wish to put words in your mouth. I asked you to define divine spark as you understood it. You used an illustration of a baloon and said that God can fill us with His Holy Spirit and inflate the baloon.

Then you make the point that some teach the baloon can inflate itself.

I understand your definition of the divine spark, then, to be "false spirituality that supposedly inflates the baloon." Without the illustration, the application would indicate that "divine spark" equals "false spirituality."

Is that a correct understanding of you?

[Alamo-Girl]

Well said. Thank you so much for your excellent post! Additionally, Alamo-girl's point about the context of Ro 3:11 is significant. If I understand her correctly, she is saying that everyone is found to be a lawbreaker, and, therefore, is not righteous in the sight of God, and in need of a Savior.

Indeed, that is the context as I have received Romans 3:11! Noone can earn redemption - be "good enough" - even those to whom the Law was given. So whether it be those under the Law or those who never received the Law, it all comes down to His mercy and compassion, which reaches broadly according to His own will. That is compatible with Romans 3, Romans 2 and Acts 17.

[CCWoody]

***For explanation, I have quoted Scripture which has offended you. Those Scriptures and my statements are clearly recorded in this thread. I retract nothing.***

Alamo-Girl, you seem like a bright girl. So, I have a few questions:

#1. Why are you now accusing me of being offended by the Scripture, when I made it clear that I am offended by your false accusation against me? Scripture does not offend me. So, why are you accusing me of yet another crime against God?

#2. Hiding behind the excuse of "I have quoted Scripture" to claim that is not a judgement is pretty flimsey. How would you appreciate it if I merely hid behind the excuse of "I had quoted Scripture" when my every response to you was:

"Get thee behind me Satan!"

Don't you see how my choice of scripture is clearly making an accusation against you? Obviously, when wrongly used, Scripture can be a pretty mean dagger.

For claiming to not judge "any being" you have now a second time passed a judgement on me by claiming that Scripture has offended me. I think you know that is not the case and I'd appreciate an actual explaination for your accusations against me and not excuses. It is the Christian thing to do.

Thanks,
Woody.

[xzins]

Thank you, AG. All are found to be lawbreakers and in need of mercy.

[lockeliberty]

It is NOT a contradiction for me SINCE I do NOT hold to a "total inability" view.

I think that is an important first step, Xzins, to admit that you allow your theology to interpret the Scripture instead of letting Scripture interpret Scripture. How does your theology reconstruct these verses:

11 Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; 12 that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.

[Jean Chauvin]

"All are found to be lawbreakers and in need of mercy."

Even babies who die in infancy?

Jean

[xzins]

to admit that you allow your theology to interpret the Scripture instead of letting Scripture interpret Scripture

That is an illogical conclusion. Fix it and I'll respond. Don't and I see no basis for a discussion.

[xzins]

Only in the sense of original sin/inherited sin nature. This will suffice. We've discussed the culpability of infants many times before and I don't intend to go into it again. Babies go to heaven.

[lockeliberty]

That is an illogical conclusion. Fix it and I'll respond.

Well, I don't believe it is illogical but rather self evident. However, since I like to see the reconstruction, I'll add this:

IMO

There, now please begin with the reconstruction.

[xzins]

What do you want reconstructed?

I see those verses literally.

If you see a contradiction then tell me what you think it is???

[Jean Chauvin]

You said "all" are "lawbreakers".

Are babies who die in infancy "lawbreakers"?

Jean

[lockeliberty]

I see those verses literally.

Hey, me too! However, it doesn't seem to fit within your theology of pre-Christ gentiles. Did pre-Christ gentiles have total inability?

"...strangers to the covenants of promise, no hope and without God in the world."

[xzins]

I'll refer you to my #205. It fits there. That was the point of that discussion, imo. Besides, the midianites were considered gentiles, weren't they?

[lockeliberty]

The false premise in #205.

****The total inability view from which many operate reconciles the verses by going totally in the direction of absolutely no residual image of God within a fallen human being.****

As has been pointed out in this thread, the total inability is not from a premise of a complete destruction of Imago Dei.

It seems you need to re-work your premise.

[xzins]

Are you a total inabilitist? If so, then what do you think about the image of God?