He will sever the wicked from among the just

[sojourner]

If that's true then so too are others here.

Of course they are. A lot of people don't know the difference between exegesis and apologetics.

What I've noticed is that while you criticize others "interpretive apologetics" you rarely if ever demonstrate your own knowledge of the texts. You simply discount other peoples.

"What you notice" has encompassed -- what -- about a month? I've been here since 2006. I'm quite comfortable with my level of biblical knowledge. What would you like to know more about?

It is not a universal Christian view to state that all humans are inherently flawed and sinful creatures?

No. It's more of a universal statement to say that "all human beings do sin." But not all Xtians believe that we are "inherently sinful."

I have yet to meet one who didn't believe that.

There are quite a few just on this forum.

And if we didn't need Jesus then what would be the point if being a good person was enough?

"Need Jesus" for what?

 

[sojourner]

You're right, we didn't inherit original sin (inherited sin) from Eve. We inherited from Adam. Romans 5:12.
And there was no free will in the garden. The tree that was forbidden Adam and Eve was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Gnosis). It's fruit would make Adam and Eve like unto God. To have knowledge (gnosis) of good and evil. Therefore, they didn't possess the intellect to comprehend the ultimatum God ascribed to that particular tree when he commanded them not to eat of it. The didn't know what, "don't" meant, because they didn't have the capacity to understand what good (compliance) and evil(non-compliance) were. They were innocent as newborn babies.

If you told a newborn baby not to touch something and they did, would you evict them from your house forever? And lay curse upon all babies they'd have in future because they touched something you told them not to, once?
Scripture says thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
But God, being omniscient, planted the one tree that would condemn man kind for eternity in what can not be paradise when it contained a fruited tree bearing fruit of evil upon it.

Where was the forgiveness? For the newborn humans. God empowered that fruit to alter the innocent consciousness of the first born. And then his decree condemned them and us for all time that he, being omniscient, not only see's coming. But predestined before he created the world that would contain that garden.

I think this is a rather shallow interpretation of the Genesis myth, which, again, is more apologetic and eisegetic in nature than it is exegetic. I don't see where you've taken under consideration the origins of the story, or the particular theology of the writers. You appear to be applying modern theology to an ancient and foreign text. The fruit of the tree wasn't "evil." Your concept of "original sin" is modern, as compared to the date of the story in question.

 

[sojourner]

I think that could be better interpreted to mean “in the end, there will be the saved and the unsaved.”

That's not quite correct for Matthew. Matthew isn't so concerned about the "end times" or the "afterlife" as he is what's going on right now. Matthew's use of these "polar opposites" of sheep/goats, wheat/weeds, etc., is to say that the church contains both, and that it's not our job to try to figure out which is which right now.

 

[Thief]

That's not quite correct for Matthew. Matthew isn't so concerned about the "end times" or the "afterlife" as he is what's going on right now. Matthew's use of these "polar opposites" of sheep/goats, wheat/weeds, etc., is to say that the church contains both, and that it's not our job to try to figure out which is which right now.

Right now is good.

But I don't believe we keep company with the many.
The few will have privilege among the few.

The many will likely be turned loose to fend for themselves.

 

[Apple Sugar]

I think this is a rather shallow interpretation of the Genesis myth, which, again, is more apologetic and eisegetic in nature than it is exegetic. I don't see where you've taken under consideration the origins of the story, or the particular theology of the writers. You appear to be applying modern theology to an ancient and foreign text. The fruit of the tree wasn't "evil." Your concept of "original sin" is modern, as compared to the date of the story in question.

And again you criticize someone's opinion of text without demonstrating any knowledge to the contrary. Further, you completely misrepresent what I said.

 

[outhouse]

And again you criticize someone's opinion of text without demonstrating any knowledge to the contrary. Further, you completely misrepresent what I said.

Your low hanging fruit here, it is easy to refute your every word.

Its not worth the time and we see you coming and going, we have had this same exact debate ad nauseam with many apologist who lack a basic historical understanding of the OT.


He is actually being nice and trying to somewhat get you on the right track by pointing out your errors.

 

[s2a]

One more thing:
he didn't say: he will sever the non-believers from among the believers

so a wicked person can be either believer or not believer

I am absolutely sure that the majority of Atheists will be saved

What a relief.

 

[Estro Felino]

"Mankind is split in two: there are the just and there are the wicked."
I think that could be better interpreted to mean “in the end, there will be the saved and the unsaved.” Otherwise it may conjure up many who consider themselves to be among "the just" because they have prayer or done thus and so and may be fooling themselves. And those who think of themselves as wicked may not consider it worth trying. Both great error.

Thoughts are not sins. Actions are. If you think of killing a person, without doing it, you are not sinning. Because there is a huge difference between thinking something and putting it into action.
There is sin if you harm other people. The more you harm your neighbor, the more unforgivable the sin will be.
so ...what I mean by wicked? I mean a person who willingly and maliciously harm other people, and they are proud of it.

And why you think it to be absolutely incoherent for a Christian to assume there is no evil within him makes no sense to me.None of us are pure or holy.

Those who say that....they are a bit impure inside and think that all the people of the world are like them. That's my personal belief.
I do believe that lots of people are pure inside. That is...they are so filled with love, that evil cannot enter their souls.
Psychologists have stated, that by analyzing Paul's writings, we must assume that his personality was almost bipolar. His soul was certainly full of negative feelings: but I do admire his strength of will in trying to repress them.

Most of the “saved” will have their (my) sinful ways burned away as gold is made pure through fire. Purgatory.

Of course. But only the just will deserve either Purgatory or Paradise. The just who will directly go to Paradise are the ones who don't need purification.
But they are just: it means that they have never hurt anyone.
The wicked are the ones who did hurt people in their lives.

 

[Nada]

well...speak for yourself. How do you know that any person in this world is a sinner? Are you omniscient?

I agree, more or less. But I prefer to say that those who repent and decide not to sin any more....well...they will be saved.


I don't agree. Life is sufficiently long to realize what our mistakes are, and so we can decide to stop sinning. By using our strength of will.
You can say that some people have strength of will, and others don't....I agree on that.
But we all have freewill

I don't understand your comments.You say you disagree and how do I know we are sinners? Then you say," I agree, more or less. But I prefer to say that those who repent and decide not to sin any more....well...they will be saved."

Confusing......

 

[outhouse]

That's what Mary said to a woman she appeared to

:biglaugh:

Oh ya that is credible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't understand your comments.You say you disagree and how do I know we are sinners? Then you say," I agree, more or less. But I prefer to say that those who repent and decide not to sin any more....well...they will be saved."

Confusing......

Honestly...how can one read Augustine's assumptions and consider they are logically true?

 

[Nada]

Honestly...how can one read Augustine's assumptions and consider they are logically true?

Augustinianism? No..... A lot of these views have nothing to do with true Christianity.Like infant baptism.That's a no no.

 

[Estro Felino]

Augustinianism? No..... A lot of these views have nothing to do with true Christianity.Like infant baptism.That's a no no.

well...I wouldn't agree with infant baptism either.
Sacraments help us understand the significance of being a Christian. That's why I believe they are useful...but are not magical rituals of course.
Free will is the only means that will lead us to salvation. Not certainly magical formulas and holy water.

 

[Nada]

well...I wouldn't agree with infant baptism either.
Sacraments help us understand the significance of being a Christian. That's why I believe they are useful...but are not magical rituals of course.
Free will is the only means that will lead us to salvation. Not certainly magical formulas and holy water.

Wow! 10 days later.....