dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

---

He keeps asking the same question over and over, hence my question back to him. He's asked and it's been answered. I apologize for my frustration. This is not a difficult concept. Some people just want to make things difficult. Complex. But it's not.

---

Again, with all due respect disagree. The Orthodox Church does not believe in total depravity. And they can base their views on Scripture also. And Zobel is Orthodox.

---

Total depravity of man is a tenant that I believe in. Mankind proves that point daily. Scripture does too.

Jeremiah 17:9 ESV
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Psalm 51:5 ESV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

DEAD. Not sick, dead.

1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Genesis 6:5 ESV
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Romans 3:10-11 ESV
As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Men have fought and died over these issues. To be a little bit disrespectful in making a point, is no vice. Especially when it is a salvation issue. A core belief. A necessity for sound doctrine.

---

And do you believe it is Christ like to fight and kill over theology issues?

---

Fight for, yes. Kill, no, that was for the orthodox Catholic church to do. In which they were quite efficient.

Preaching to the choir, brother. I never said man was good of his own accord - "God made men upright, but they have sought out many schemes." But that's not the point.

The issue isn't "is man sinful?" or "have all sinned?" The answer to that is yes. Easy peasy.

The question is the degree to which the image of God was damaged in the fall. You are suggesting that there is nothing good in humanity. That is, that the human nature, what makes humans what they are, was wholly corrupted and was only restored at the Cross.

This isn't supportable by the text. Man was made good by God; man's nature was damaged. But not completely. Men retain the capacity to choose to obey, to choose to respond to God - even before God's Spirit was poured out and dwelled in us as a temple. The Spirit of God came and went from people in the OT; the New Covenant is that it dwells in us. And yet, before this, before this regeneration but after the fall, men were righteous by choice, choosing to do what is right in the sight of God, choosing to walk with the Lord. Not of their own goodness, but from His.

If her nature was wholly corrupted by sin, then what He was in his human nature was 0.0% unlike hers. He was made like us in every way except sin. If there was nothing good left, there was nothing for Him to take. He took 100% of humanity minus whatever was sinful. If 100% corrupt and sinful there's 0% left. Whatever He was, then, would not be whatever she was. This cannot be. I don't care if you need to hedge and say we're only 99 44/100% corrupt. It can't be 100%.

Zobel said:

---

Preaching to the choir, brother. I never said man was good of his own accord - "God made men upright, but they have sought out many schemes." But that's not the point.

The issue isn't "is man sinful?" or "have all sinned?" The answer to that is yes. Easy peasy.

The question is the degree to which the image of God was damaged in the fall. You are suggesting that there is nothing good in humanity. That is, that the human nature, what makes humans what they are, was wholly corrupted and was only restored at the Cross.

This isn't supportable by the text. Man was made good by God; man's nature was damaged. But not completely. Men retain the capacity to choose to obey, to choose to respond to God - even before God's Spirit was poured out and dwelled in us as a temple. The Spirit of God came and went from people in the OT; the New Covenant is that it dwells in us. And yet, before this, before this regeneration but after the fall, men were righteous by choice, choosing to do what is right in the sight of God, choosing to walk with the Lord. Not of their own goodness, but from His.

If her nature was wholly corrupted by sin, then what He was in his human nature was 0.0% unlike hers. He was made like us in every way except sin. If there was nothing good left, there was nothing for Him to take. He took 100% of humanity minus whatever was sinful. If 100% corrupt and sinful there's 0% left. Whatever He was, then, would not be whatever she was. This cannot be. I don't care if you need to hedge and say we're only 99 44/100% corrupt. It can't be 100%.

---

I do understand completely where you were coming from. I just have no faith in it. Mankind has evil thoughts continually, no one seeks after God. That alone lets me know there is nothing good in mankind. No redeemable qualities, everything is vanity, a chasing after the wind.

Doubt me, fine. But it's not my words. The scriptures say men were righteous! I gave you a list. The Lord Himself said it, both in the OT and from the mouth of Jesus Christ.

If you believe something because of what one scripture seems to say, but that directly contradicts another scripture, the problem is in your understanding.

The Lord became like us in every way. You say He became like us in no way whatsoever. If what you say is true, humanity is not redeemed.

Zobel said:

---

Doubt me, fine. But it's not my words. The scriptures say men were righteous! I gave you a list. The Lord Himself said it, both in the OT and from the mouth of Jesus Christ.

If you believe something because of what one scripture seems to say, but that directly contradicts another scripture, the problem is in your understanding.

The Lord became like us in every way. You say He became like us in no way whatsoever. If what you say is true, humanity is not redeemed.

---

I literally gave quite a few scriptures that prove my point. Not just one or two. And there are more, I just didn't list them. Jesus became like mankind, being tempted in every way, yet without sin.

Again, righteousness is nothing that mankind has in itself inherently. Righteousness is bestowed by God. Abraham believed God, and it was "credited" to him as righteousness.

The primary difference between our viewpoints, is that you believe mankind is sick, or ill. I believe we are dead in our trespasses until Christ brings us to life. That's what born again is. You must be born again. It's a 180 difference from being unregenerate. For some, they think it's gradual, but for me personally, it was like a light switch was turned on.

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

---

He keeps asking the same question over and over, hence my question back to him. He's asked and it's been answered. I apologize for my frustration. This is not a difficult concept. Some people just want to make things difficult. Complex. But it's not.

---

Again, with all due respect disagree. The Orthodox Church does not believe in total depravity. And they can base their views on Scripture also. And Zobel is Orthodox.

---

Total depravity of man is a tenant that I believe in. Mankind proves that point daily. Scripture does too.

Jeremiah 17:9 ESV
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Psalm 51:5 ESV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

DEAD. Not sick, dead.

1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Genesis 6:5 ESV
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Romans 3:10-11 ESV
As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Men have fought and died over these issues. To be a little bit disrespectful in making a point, is no vice. Especially when it is a salvation issue. A core belief. A necessity for sound doctrine.

---

And do you believe it is Christ like to fight and kill over theology issues?

---

Fight for, yes. Kill, no, that was for the orthodox Catholic church to do. In which they were quite efficient.

---

I am not Catholic. They were not the only ones killing people with different theologies.

Forgive, but you gave scriptures that said all men are sinful. They don't say that man's nature was wholly corrupted. There is a difference.

Quote:

---

Again, righteousness is nothing that mankind has in itself inherently. Righteousness is bestowed by God.

---

But you could replace "righteousness" with nearly anything and both statements are true. Mankind owes God for existence itself, and everything that encompasses. What is ours inherently? Only sin.

And this is the key. Because we were created by God with a certain nature, meaning what we are, what makes us what we are - human and not something else - we were created fundamentally good. Our nature is fundamentally good, because it came from God. Sin is foreign to this nature, it is not from God. If sin corrupts the nature wholly, there is no longer a remnant of the nature we were created to begin with. If that is true, then we are consequently no longer human. We are something else. When something's nature changes, a thing no longer is what it was.

If man was corrupted wholly he was no longer man. And this non-humanity, corrupted by non-being (as opposed to Life, Existence itself - the name for the Lord in the LXX is "He who Is" or "The Existing One") cannot be assumed by the Lord. Non-being cannot be mixed with being - what fellowship can light have with darkness? Therefore if we accept that the Lord took His human nature from the Theotokos - or indeed became Man in a way that signifies us, you and me - something in our nature remained Good, to some extent. Else there was nothing to redeem, and whatever we may be we are not human if He is human.

This is the fundamental confession of the Incarnation, that He was made Man. He was made what we are, He came to us. We celebrate the Three Holy Youths in Daniel because the Angel of the Lord - there were four men in the furnace, and one like the Son of God. He came into the furnace with us. He became what we are so that we might become what He is.

There is no scripture, not one, which says that the nature of man was wholly corrupted in the fall. And, the fact that the saints and prophets of the scriptures before the Incarnation are said to have been righteous, just, upright, and pleasing to God shows for a fact that men had the capacity to respond to God's grace. Before the Incarnation. Before the Cross. Before the Grave, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the pouring out of the Spirit. Therefore, man's nature before these events was not wholly lost. It simply cannot be.

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

---

He keeps asking the same question over and over, hence my question back to him. He's asked and it's been answered. I apologize for my frustration. This is not a difficult concept. Some people just want to make things difficult. Complex. But it's not.

---

Again, with all due respect disagree. The Orthodox Church does not believe in total depravity. And they can base their views on Scripture also. And Zobel is Orthodox.

---

Total depravity of man is a tenant that I believe in. Mankind proves that point daily. Scripture does too.

Jeremiah 17:9 ESV
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Psalm 51:5 ESV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

DEAD. Not sick, dead.

1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Genesis 6:5 ESV
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Romans 3:10-11 ESV
As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Men have fought and died over these issues. To be a little bit disrespectful in making a point, is no vice. Especially when it is a salvation issue. A core belief. A necessity for sound doctrine.

---

And do you believe it is Christ like to fight and kill over theology issues?

---

Fight for, yes. Kill, no, that was for the orthodox Catholic church to do. In which they were quite efficient.

---

I am not Catholic. They were not the only ones killing people with different theologies.

---

yah, the Jews were even commanded to do it.

And so did Calvin.

Quote:

---

That's perfectly fine. Works righteousness, and believing that there is any good in humanity is a little too much for me.

---

But even if you're right and I'm wrong, your very worldview means there is nothing you or I can do to change it. That's a lot of time and effort to put into a task in which you cannot succeed by definition.

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

---

He keeps asking the same question over and over, hence my question back to him. He's asked and it's been answered. I apologize for my frustration. This is not a difficult concept. Some people just want to make things difficult. Complex. But it's not.

---

Again, with all due respect disagree. The Orthodox Church does not believe in total depravity. And they can base their views on Scripture also. And Zobel is Orthodox.

---

Total depravity of man is a tenant that I believe in. Mankind proves that point daily. Scripture does too.

Jeremiah 17:9 ESV
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Psalm 51:5 ESV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

DEAD. Not sick, dead.

1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Genesis 6:5 ESV
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Romans 3:10-11 ESV
As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Men have fought and died over these issues. To be a little bit disrespectful in making a point, is no vice. Especially when it is a salvation issue. A core belief. A necessity for sound doctrine.

---

And do you believe it is Christ like to fight and kill over theology issues?

---

Fight for, yes. Kill, no, that was for the orthodox Catholic church to do. In which they were quite efficient.

---

I am not Catholic. They were not the only ones killing people with different theologies.

---

Historically, in "Christendom", they were the overwhelming force of killing the opposition. It really wasn't close.

Zobel said:

---

Forgive, but you gave scriptures that said all men are sinful. They don't say that man's nature was wholly corrupted. There is a difference.

Quote:

---

Again, righteousness is nothing that mankind has in itself inherently. Righteousness is bestowed by God.

---

But you could replace "righteousness" with nearly anything and both statements are true. Mankind owes God for existence itself, and everything that encompasses. What is ours inherently? Only sin.

And this is the key. Because we were created by God with a certain nature, meaning what we are, what makes us what we are - human and not something else - we were created fundamentally good. Our nature is fundamentally good, because it came from God. Sin is foreign to this nature, it is not from God. If sin corrupts the nature wholly, there is no longer a remnant of the nature we were created to begin with. If that is true, then we are consequently no longer human. We are something else. When something's nature changes, a thing no longer is what it was.

If man was corrupted wholly he was no longer man. And this non-humanity, corrupted by non-being (as opposed to Life, Existence itself - the name for the Lord in the LXX is "He who Is" or "The Existing One") cannot be assumed by the Lord. Non-being cannot be mixed with being - what fellowship can light have with darkness? Therefore if we accept that the Lord took His human nature from the Theotokos - or indeed became Man in a way that signifies us, you and me - something in our nature remained Good, to some extent. Else there was nothing to redeem, and whatever we may be we are not human if He is human.

This is the fundamental confession of the Incarnation, that He was made Man. He was made what we are, He came to us. We celebrate the Three Holy Youths in Daniel because the Angel of the Lord - there were four men in the furnace, and one like the Son of God. He came into the furnace with us. He became what we are so that we might become what He is.

There is no scripture, not one, which says that the nature of man was wholly corrupted in the fall. And, the fact that the saints and prophets of the scriptures before the Incarnation are said to have been righteous, just, upright, and pleasing to God shows for a fact that men had the capacity to respond to God's grace. Before the Incarnation. Before the Cross. Before the Grave, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the pouring out of the Spirit. Therefore, man's nature before these events was not wholly lost. It simply cannot be.

---

Again, this is where we disagree. We will probably never agree. You're straining gnats, and swallowing camels. Man is evil. To say that he is not, would constitute that he has the capability of keeping the law. If he can do some of it, he can do all of it. It is impossible, because man is depraved.

Well, seeing as historically "in Christendom" they were the overwhelming majority of Christians I'm not sure that's saying much. It is a fact that the vast majority of crimes in history were committed by humans.

dermdoc said:

---

And so did Calvin.

---

Myth.

https://www.crossway.org/articles/5-myths-about-john-calvin/

Zobel said:

---

Well, seeing as historically "in Christendom" they were the overwhelming majority of Christians I'm not sure that's saying much. It is a fact that the vast majority of crimes in history were committed by humans.

---

In context, you know I'm talking about religious killings. Inside "Christendom".

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Forgive, but you gave scriptures that said all men are sinful. They don't say that man's nature was wholly corrupted. There is a difference.

Quote:

---

Again, righteousness is nothing that mankind has in itself inherently. Righteousness is bestowed by God.

---

But you could replace "righteousness" with nearly anything and both statements are true. Mankind owes God for existence itself, and everything that encompasses. What is ours inherently? Only sin.

And this is the key. Because we were created by God with a certain nature, meaning what we are, what makes us what we are - human and not something else - we were created fundamentally good. Our nature is fundamentally good, because it came from God. Sin is foreign to this nature, it is not from God. If sin corrupts the nature wholly, there is no longer a remnant of the nature we were created to begin with. If that is true, then we are consequently no longer human. We are something else. When something's nature changes, a thing no longer is what it was.

If man was corrupted wholly he was no longer man. And this non-humanity, corrupted by non-being (as opposed to Life, Existence itself - the name for the Lord in the LXX is "He who Is" or "The Existing One") cannot be assumed by the Lord. Non-being cannot be mixed with being - what fellowship can light have with darkness? Therefore if we accept that the Lord took His human nature from the Theotokos - or indeed became Man in a way that signifies us, you and me - something in our nature remained Good, to some extent. Else there was nothing to redeem, and whatever we may be we are not human if He is human.

This is the fundamental confession of the Incarnation, that He was made Man. He was made what we are, He came to us. We celebrate the Three Holy Youths in Daniel because the Angel of the Lord - there were four men in the furnace, and one like the Son of God. He came into the furnace with us. He became what we are so that we might become what He is.

There is no scripture, not one, which says that the nature of man was wholly corrupted in the fall. And, the fact that the saints and prophets of the scriptures before the Incarnation are said to have been righteous, just, upright, and pleasing to God shows for a fact that men had the capacity to respond to God's grace. Before the Incarnation. Before the Cross. Before the Grave, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the pouring out of the Spirit. Therefore, man's nature before these events was not wholly lost. It simply cannot be.

---

Again, this is where we disagree. We will probably never agree. You're straining gnats, and swallowing camels. Man is evil. To say that he is not, would constitute that he has the capability of keeping the law. If he can do some of it, he can do all of it. It is impossible, because man is depraved.

---

I agree with that.

Quote:

---

Again, this is where we disagree. We will probably never agree. You're straining gnats, and swallowing camels. Man is evil. To say that he is not, would constitute that he has the capability of keeping the law. If he can do some of it, he can do all of it. It is impossible, because man is depraved.

---

Of course man can keep the Law. The Lord says "this commandment I give you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." (Deuteronomy 30:11).

The Lord says David did several times (1 Kings 11:38, 1 Kings 14:8). Zechariah and Elizabeth were "righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and decrees of the Lord. (Luke 1:6)


St Paul says he did it - "as to righteousness in the law, faultless." (1 Philippians 3:6).

Part of keeping the Law included what to do when you sinned. A person keeping the Law doesn't mean a person was sinless. The Law does not save, and was never meant to save.

Your last sentence is objectively false according to the scriptures.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Again, this is where we disagree. We will probably never agree. You're straining gnats, and swallowing camels. Man is evil. To say that he is not, would constitute that he has the capability of keeping the law. If he can do some of it, he can do all of it. It is impossible, because man is depraved.

---

Of course man can keep the Law. The Lord says "this commandment I give you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." (Deuteronomy 30:11).

The Lord says David did several times (1 Kings 11:38, 1 Kings 14:8). Zechariah and Elizabeth were "righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and decrees of the Lord. (Luke 1:6)


St Paul says he did it - "as to righteousness in the law, faultless." (1 Philippians 3:6).

Part of keeping the Law included what to do when you sinned. A person keeping the Law doesn't mean a person was sinless. The Law does not save, and was never meant to save.

Your last sentence is objectively false according to the scriptures.

---

You were saying?

"Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins."
Ecclesiastes 7:20 ESV

Paul was not blameless, he killed Christians. Paul was an incredibly sinful man, and admitted it. And if he were blameless to the law, why did he die? Sin is death, sin was the beginning of death in mankind. Without sin, you would live.

If Christ died for all, all are ungodly.
"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly."
Romans 5:6 ESV

We eagerly await the "hope" of righteousness. It is not inherent.
"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness."
Galatians 5:4-5 ESV

The law, weakened by the flesh. If you are flesh, you were obviously too weakened to follow the law.
"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
Romans 8:3-4 ESV

Even if we could, but we cannot because the flesh does not submit to God's law, it isn't pleasing to God anyway.

"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
Romans 8:7-8 ESV

When I witness to others, I ask them, "have you ever lied", "have you ever stolen", "have you ever looked at a woman with lust", "have you ever blasphemed in the name of God"?
I have yet to meet anybody who has kept any of it. And as you know, if you break one law, you've broken them all. No, there is no one good, no not one. Jesus was the only one who could, and did fulfill the law.

"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:20 ESV

And we all know where Jesus said the Pharisees and scribes were destined eternally.

My friend I believe you've missed it. Again, if two scriptures seem to contradict, the problem is with your understanding.

Let's look at two things.


One - can anyone follow the Law? We must say Yes. The Lord says yes. I gave you those scriptures that say people did. You agree with this right? Or are you saying St Paul is a liar? I'm not sure I understand.


Second, does following the Law save you? This is clearly answered "no." St Paul says, the Law was never meant to save, and keeping the Law does not save you. In other words, even keeping the Law perfectly would not save you from sin and death, and this was never the purpose of the Law to begin with.

(Your exegesis of "flesh" misses St Paul's point and turns it tautological. Flesh doesn't mean body - he uses different words to talk about our physical forms vs sinful worldly things, body and flesh. Flesh is the opposite of Spirit. So, of course the things opposed to the Spirit can't please God. But our bodies are not necessarily Flesh. That sentence doesn't mean those with bodies can't please God, because the next two verses go on to talk about how we, in our bodies, with the Spirit, can please God.)

Quote:

---

Jesus was the only one who could, and did fulfill the law.

---

I think you've got to make a distinction between "fulfill" and "keep". St Paul kept the Law, as did the Prophet David. The Lord Jesus fulfilled the Law, as in, kept it to overflowing, filled it to the brim and more.

So. The Law can't save. It was given to reveal sin. But it can be kept. Even keeping it, you will die as did David and all the rest who kept the Law in faith, because of sin.

"No one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin. But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law."

It is not Christ's mere fulfillment of the Law which grants us salvation. It was the one act of righteousness, and obedience, says St Paul. And in another place, it was not even only the death of Christ that did it, but that He was raised to life for our justification. It's not like a challenge, where the person to keep the Law will instantly, poof, win the prize of eternal salvation. And the entire discourse St Paul has about denying salvation of the Law has nothing to do with someone being able to keep it. There were parts of the Law that presuppose sin in order to keep! Part of the Torah was what to do when you sinned. So a sinner can keep the Law, of course.

Unless, of course, you think those verses that say people were blameless toward the Law are false, or wrong.

All that being said. The inability for humans to achieve perfection or sinlessness - their inability to avoid transgression or sin - does not prove that they are wholly corrupt.

And I agree with that also.

The one thing I do not agree with is that this is salvific.

And I can get along a lot better with Calvinism than Calvinists.

Zobel said:

---

My friend I believe you've missed it. Again, if two scriptures seem to contradict, the problem is with your understanding.

Let's look at two things.


One - can anyone follow the Law? We must say Yes. The Lord says yes. I gave you those scriptures that say people did. You agree with this right? Or are you saying St Paul is a liar? I'm not sure I understand.


Second, does following the Law save you? This is clearly answered "no." St Paul says, the Law was never meant to save, and keeping the Law does not save you. In other words, even keeping the Law perfectly would not save you from sin and death, and this was never the purpose of the Law to begin with.

(Your exegesis of "flesh" misses St Paul's point and turns it tautological. Flesh doesn't mean body - he uses different words to talk about our physical forms vs sinful worldly things, body and flesh. Flesh is the opposite of Spirit. So, of course the things opposed to the Spirit can't please God. But our bodies are not necessarily Flesh. That sentence doesn't mean those with bodies can't please God, because the next two verses go on to talk about how we, in our bodies, with the Spirit, can please God.)

Quote:

---

Jesus was the only one who could, and did fulfill the law.

---

I think you've got to make a distinction between "fulfill" and "keep". St Paul kept the Law, as did the Prophet David. The Lord Jesus fulfilled the Law, as in, kept it to overflowing, filled it to the brim and more.

So. The Law can't save. It was given to reveal sin. But it can be kept. Even keeping it, you will die as did David and all the rest who kept the Law in faith, because of sin.

"No one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin. But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law."

It is not Christ's mere fulfillment of the Law which grants us salvation. It was the one act of righteousness, and obedience, says St Paul. And in another place, it was not even only the death of Christ that did it, but that He was raised to life for our justification. It's not like a challenge, where the person to keep the Law will instantly, poof, win the prize of eternal salvation. And the entire discourse St Paul has about denying salvation of the Law has nothing to do with someone being able to keep it. There were parts of the Law that presuppose sin in order to keep! Part of the Torah was what to do when you sinned. So a sinner can keep the Law, of course.

Unless, of course, you think those verses that say people were blameless toward the Law are false, or wrong.

All that being said. The inability for humans to achieve perfection or sinlessness - their inability to avoid transgression or sin - does not prove that they are wholly corrupt.

---

In order for the law to be fulfilled, it has to be kept constantly. That's impossible for any human who has ever lived, save for one. If you are unable to keep even one facet of the law, all of it is broken. Therefore, wholly corrupt. Again, you're making this way too difficult. You're straining that gnat to prove a point that is clearly untenable given the history of the world. There is no one who has ever kept the law except for Christ. Not even Paul.

"Sin" means transgression of the law.

"For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me."
Romans 7:14-20 ESV

You can parse the term "flesh" any way you want, but it means flesh. Flesh and blood, humanity.

Quote:

---

If you are unable to keep even one facet of the law, all of it is broken. Therefore, wholly corrupt

---

LOL. Seriously? That's not an argument any more than saying - I got one drop of water on me, therefore, wholly soaked.

But again, you say fulfilled, I say keep. There is a difference.

Quote:

---

"Sin" means transgression of the law.

---

No. Sin came before the Torah. Transgression comes from knowledge. The Law was given so that sin might become transgression. This is a key teaching of St Paul: "Where there is no law, there is no transgression."

Quote:

---

You can parse the term "flesh" any way you want, but it means flesh. Flesh and blood, humanity.

---

Nah big, St Paul ain't like that. He uses it differently.You need to be real careful with St Paul because sometimes he makes very sharp distinctions by the use of articles or minor variances in words to talk about different things. Some examples are

dead vs the dead (the dead in general vs almost always the faithful dead in Christ)
sin vs sins (as in, the power of sin in general, vs our particular own sins)
flesh vs the flesh (meat, which is what the word means, vs worldliness)

St John makes the distinction between flesh and "the flesh" also in the same way.

Look at this sentence:

For when we lived according to the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, bearing fruit for death. But now, having died to what bound us, we have been released from the law, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

First, note well the difference between the flesh (sarx) and our bodies (soma). Second, we don't become disembodied when we no longer live to the flesh. The opposite of living to the flesh is not living t some kind of immaterial life, but living to the Spirit.

Or in another place, St Paul makes a difference between himself, and his flesh (i.e., himself, and the sinful part of himself) when he says "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh" and again "So then, with my mind I serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."

If you take your point, you have to say that somehow our bodies are evil. This is an ancient heresy, all kinds of gnositics taught this. Our bodies are not evil, because "the flesh" is not synonymous with "body" or "humanity" in the writing of St Paul. St Paul speaks of the physical existence of ourselves positively by using body - he says to offer our bodies as our rational worship in Romans 12. Our body is a temple of the Spirit and our resurrection will also involve a body (1 Cor 15 covers this in detail).

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

If you are unable to keep even one facet of the law, all of it is broken. Therefore, wholly corrupt

---

LOL. Seriously? That's not an argument any more than saying - I got one drop of water on me, therefore, wholly soaked.

But again, you say fulfilled, I say keep. There is a difference.

Quote:

---

"Sin" means transgression of the law.

---

No. Sin came before the Torah. Transgression comes from knowledge. The Law was given so that sin might become transgression. This is a key teaching of St Paul: "Where there is no law, there is no transgression."

Quote:

---

You can parse the term "flesh" any way you want, but it means flesh. Flesh and blood, humanity.

---

Nah big, St Paul ain't like that. He uses it differently.You need to be real careful with St Paul because sometimes he makes very sharp distinctions by the use of articles or minor variances in words to talk about different things. Some examples are

dead vs the dead (the dead in general vs almost always the faithful dead in Christ)
sin vs sins (as in, the power of sin in general, vs our particular own sins)
flesh vs the flesh (meat, which is what the word means, vs worldliness)

St John makes the distinction between flesh and "the flesh" also in the same way.

Look at this sentence:

For when we lived according to the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, bearing fruit for death. But now, having died to what bound us, we have been released from the law, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

First, note well the difference between the flesh (sarx) and our bodies (soma). Second, we don't become disembodied when we no longer live to the flesh. The opposite of living to the flesh is not living t some kind of immaterial life, but living to the Spirit.

Or in another place, St Paul makes a difference between himself, and his flesh (i.e., himself, and the sinful part of himself) when he says "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh" and again "So then, with my mind I serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."

If you take your point, you have to say that somehow our bodies are evil. This is an ancient heresy, all kinds of gnositics taught this. Our bodies are not evil, because "the flesh" is not synonymous with "body" or "humanity" in the writing of St Paul. St Paul speaks of the physical existence of ourselves positively by using body - he says to offer our bodies as our rational worship in Romans 12. Our body is a temple of the Spirit and our resurrection will also involve a body (1 Cor 15 covers this in detail).

---

Everything you quoted is a distinction between regenerate, and unregenerate human beings. Regenerate human beings are born again. Born-again people live by the spirit. We are no longer under law. Every other human being on the planet is under law. There is only one way to overcome being under the law, and that is being born again. There is no other way. You seem to think that there is, but there's not. You are either under law, or under grace living by the spirit.

You're either a child of God, or child of the devil. Whether it's one sin in your life, or 1 billion. You are corrupted. Would you drink a gallon of water if you knew there was a drop a fecal matter in it? One sin corrupts the entire human. That one sin sends of person to hell for all eternity. But we know it is impossible for anybody to have only committed one sin. Maybe one sin every minute or two.

You keep referring to "Saint" Paul as if he is superior to anybody else in the body of Christ. I am every bit as much a saint as Paul. Everyone in the body of Christ is a saint. The pope (nor any other human for that matter), doesn't decide that.

Man, I have no idea what we're talking about any more. It just seems like you throw some assertions out, maybe we agree, maybe we don't, but if we don't you move on to new ones. It's kinda getting muddled.

Most of what you say I agree with. The only point I'm making is: the human nature is not wholly corrupted by sin - not completely - because then we'd no longer be human. That's all.

Quote:

---

You keep referring to "Saint" Paul as if he is superior to anybody else in the body of Christ. I am every bit as much a saint as Paul. Everyone in the body of Christ is a saint. The pope (nor any other human for that matter), doesn't decide that.

---

This sounds like "everything I don't like is Catholic"

(And, even though you don't like me, I am not Roman Catholic)

americathegreat1492 said:

---

The commandment to love your neighbor makes no sense in light of this wholly corrupted ontology. What is there to love in your neighbor but evil? How could one even be able to love if one is totally corrupted?

---

Just like Jesus before we became his, he loved us. We are to be like him, in love our neighbor. Though we were yet sinners, he still loved us, and we have no excuse but to be like him. In other words, he loved us even though we were evil, we should do the same.

Zobel said:

---

Man, I have no idea what we're talking about any more. It just seems like you throw some assertions out, maybe we agree, maybe we don't, but if we don't you move on to new ones. It's kinda getting muddled.

Most of what you say I agree with. The only point I'm making is: the human nature is not wholly corrupted by sin - not completely - because then we'd no longer be human. That's all.

Quote:

---

You keep referring to "Saint" Paul as if he is superior to anybody else in the body of Christ. I am every bit as much a saint as Paul. Everyone in the body of Christ is a saint. The pope (nor any other human for that matter), doesn't decide that.

---

This sounds like "everything I don't like is Catholic"

(And, even though you don't like me, I am not Roman Catholic)

---

I don't dislike you at all. You are at least knowledgeable, and searching. Admirable qualities. I just don't know if we would call each other "brother" yet. Hopefully someday.

But we are told to hate what is evil, not love it.

Zobel said:

---

But we are told to hate what is evil, not love it.

---

WHAT not WHO.

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

---

He keeps asking the same question over and over, hence my question back to him. He's asked and it's been answered. I apologize for my frustration. This is not a difficult concept. Some people just want to make things difficult. Complex. But it's not.

---

Again, with all due respect disagree. The Orthodox Church does not believe in total depravity. And they can base their views on Scripture also. And Zobel is Orthodox.

---

Total depravity of man is a tenant that I believe in. Mankind proves that point daily. Scripture does too.

Jeremiah 17:9 ESV
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Psalm 51:5 ESV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

DEAD. Not sick, dead.

1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Genesis 6:5 ESV
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Romans 3:10-11 ESV
As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Men have fought and died over these issues. To be a little bit disrespectful in making a point, is no vice. Especially when it is a salvation issue. A core belief. A necessity for sound doctrine.

---

And do you believe it is Christ like to fight and kill over theology issues?

---

Fight for, yes. Kill, no, that was for the orthodox Catholic church to do. In which they were quite efficient.

---

I am not Catholic. They were not the only ones killing people with different theologies.

---

Thanks Doc...I know the Catholic Church is always the go to bad guy for some. And of course you're right, the bloodshed, both literal and figurative,has been done by many over time. And unfortunately often done under the guise of being in Christ's name.

I mean, if human nature is wholly corrupted and purely evil, the human being is as well. Anyway the article what / who is not in the Greek. It says abhorring / hating the evil. This could be translated as the evil one just as much as evil in general, just like the Lord's Prayer. Same phrase, in fact.

Zobel said:

---

I mean, if human nature is wholly corrupted and purely evil, the human being is as well. Anyway the article what / who is not in the Greek. It says abhorring / hating the evil. This could be translated as the evil one just as much as evil in general, just like the Lord's Prayer. Same phrase, in fact.

---

It says cling to that which is good, and hate what is evil. Behavioral evil. We are to keep ourselves from it. In context, it's talking about sin. Not human beings. Otherwise, it would have said hate who is evil. It clearly does not say that.

That's what I'm telling you, the what/who is not part of the text. Its inferred.

If you read it literally, it says (Let) love (be) unfeigned: hating evil, cleaving to good.


https://biblehub.com/text/romans/12-9.htm

This exact same phrase is translated as "expel the evil person out from among you" in 1 Cor 5:13. "the evil person" is the same two words but person is not there (nor is it in Deuteronomy, it simply says "the evil"). Same as 1 John 2:13 - "I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one". The word "one" isn't there. Just "the evil (one)."

It's the same in the Lord's prayer - "deliver us from (the) evil (one)" which is why some traditions use "from the evil one" and some traditions simply say "from evil".

It's even the same a few phrases later in 12:21 - do no be overcome by "(the) evil" but overcome with "(the) good" "(the) evil." Greek is weird and word order is not as significant as it is in English, you denote the subject and object differently... they also use definite articles differently than we do sometimes.

At any rate there is no way to say "this means what and not who". It simply says to hate evil, in a general sense.

Zobel said:

---

That's what I'm telling you, the what/who is not part of the text. Its inferred.

If you read it literally, it says (Let) love (be) unfeigned: hating evil, cleaving to good.


https://biblehub.com/text/romans/12-9.htm

This exact same phrase is translated as "expel the evil person out from among you" in 1 Cor 5:13. "the evil person" is the same two words but person is not there (nor is it in Deuteronomy, it simply says "the evil"). Same as 1 John 2:13 - "I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one". The word "one" isn't there. Just "the evil (one)."

It's the same in the Lord's prayer - "deliver us from (the) evil (one)" which is why some traditions use "from the evil one" and some traditions simply say "from evil".

It's even the same a few phrases later in 12:21 - do no be overcome by "(the) evil" but overcome with "(the) good" "(the) evil." Greek is weird and word order is not as significant as it is in English, you denote the subject and object differently... they also use definite articles differently than we do sometimes.

At any rate there is no way to say "this means what and not who". It simply says to hate evil, in a general sense.

---

Once again, you are making this WAY too complicated. Keep on straining those gnats.