Crypto2015 : Your last post did not answer important questions you were asked that allow us to discuss nuances. Your quote (Romans 3:23) "all have sin..." is irrelevant and incorrect to the context since you've told us new born infants do NOT have sin nor do they sin as newborns. (and I agree with you on this specific point).
1) INFANTS HAVE NO MORAL CULPABILITY
Clear Asked in post # 51 "
Crypto2015 - Why is it, (do you think), that infants are not morally culpable? What is it, about an infant that prevents them from being morally culpable?
2) THE DAWNING OF MORAL CULPABILITY AND THE FIRST SIN OF LIFE
Clear Asked in post # 51
Crypto2015 :
I agree with you that an infant without any moral competency does not sin and thus, cannot be justly punished. When he dies, he goes where the sinless go. However, to tease out the finer nuances of your religious theory, What about a small child who just reaches a bit of moral competence and he steals a piece of gum from his mother’s purse. Does that child deserve the rage of God and eternal punishment in hell for this single sin of taking a piece of gum? "
The point in this example is that this is the first and only sin this young child has, so far, been morally competent enough to recognize as “wrong”, he has not yet committed the multitude of other moral transgressions that typically occur as one ages. He has, so far, only done this one thing wrong. Is he worthy of rage and hell fire for eternity for taking this piece of gum?
3) SPECIFIC MORAL CULPABILITY FOR SPECIFIC MORAL PRINCIPLES
Regarding Crypto2015s’ personal interpretation of Romans 2:12-16 as it refers to specific moral culpability
"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:12-16)
4) Crypto2015 said (post #52) : “
In my opinion when Paul uses the word "perish" in the phrase "For all who have sinned without the law also perish without the law", he is talking about spiritual death (i.e., condemnation to hell).
Firstly, in the greek there is no definite article to the word “law” in this greek sentence (and there are no known significant greek variants with an article in any greek text). Thus, the sentence (vs 12) should read :
For as many as have sinned without (a) law, will perish (die) without (a) law (“…Ανομως απολουνται”)
5) Regarding Crypto2015s' personal interpretation of “perish” as “condemnation in hell”
You are interpreting “απολουνται” or “perish” to mean “condemnation in hell”. However, no other use of this form of this word in the new Testament means “condemnation in hell”. Your reasoning does not justify the change in meaning.
For example, when απολουνται is used in Matt 26:52 referring to those who will “
…perish by the sword…” (…
εν μαχαιρη απολουνται) the meaning is physical death and NOT “condemned to hell”. In hebrews 1:11, referring to the earth and the heavens, the term απολουνται, : “
They will perish… (αυτοι απολουνται…) means a physical perishing / dissolving / returning to chaos. απολουνται, in this sentence, does not mean that the earth and heavens are “condemned to hell”. Even when the term is used in Luke 5:37 when the “
bottles will perish…” (οι ασκοι απολουνται), the term refers to an actual physical loss. The bottles are not “condemned to hell”. Thus, in all other uses of this specific word in the N.Testament, it is used for a physical dissolving or physical perishing or physical death or physical loss.
Other than to support your ideology, why not allow the word “perish” to mean “perish” rather than “condemnation in hell”?
Your supportive data and reasoning are not helpful to your re-interpretation of Romans 2:12. For examples :
6) Crypto2015 said : “
If the word "perish" referred only to physical death, the sentence would be a ridiculous truism. “
If “perish” as “death” forms a “truism”, then this actually
supports leaving “perish” to mean “perish” rather than to change the meaning to “condemned to hell”. Other than that it does not fit your ideology, why would “perishing” without law be “ridiculous” such that it necessitates changing it’s meaning? (
especially since most individuals in history DID die without knowledge of a Jewish or Christian law...) Why not allow that the ancients historical ideology and their interpretations are different than yours and the word “perish” means “perish” (and not “condemned to hell”)?
7) Crypto2015 said : “
Furthermore, it is evident that he is talking about spiritual death because he immediately goes on to say "and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law", which obviously refers to Judgement Day. “
If you are referring to temporal order, your suggested re-interpretation is less rational than the original sentences. For example, the current sentence has a temporal order of
first, living, 2)
then dying (perishing) and
then 3) judgment. Your order of first 1) living, 2)
then "condemnation in hell" and
then 3) judgment. This is not as logical as the original sentence. This is another reason you should consider leaving the word “perish” with its original meaning of “perish”.
8) Crypto2015 said : “
The paragraph expounds the idea that those who have never heard the Law of Moses have no excuse for their sins because God has written a code of law on the heart of each and every human being. “
Why not look at the sentences
before verse 12 for a theme. For examples, The first verse speaks of mans judgment versus comparisons to God's judgment. Vs 9 speaks of
“every soul”… “both of Jew and of Greek” vs 10 speaks of
honour and peace to everyone that works…. Vs 11 speaks of there being “
no partiality with God”. That is, why not allow the theme of
justice in judgment for every individual be a theme of verse 12 rather than your suggestion taken from later explanatory verses?
9) Crypto2015 said : “
This code of law, which theologians call natural law, allows us to know right from wrong, even if we have never heard of Moses, Jesus, or the Bible. For instance, even a person that has grown up completely alone in a desert island knows that it is wrong to smash babies' heads against a rock. Those who never heard about the Christian God will be judged in accordance with this natural code of law. “
I very much agree with this basic point you are suggesting that God judges at least partly, according to the "natural code of law" . If one’s “natural code” or conscience is a basis for Gods' judgment, then why would a non-christian who follows their conscience be “condemned to hell”?
This is where the “Catholic nuance” starts to become important and wise. Thus,
I asked you if a child who steals a piece of gum, (but who’s conscience bothers him for this first and only sin), deserve the rage of God and eternal punishment in hell for this single sin of taking a piece of gum? Or, does the young child deserve something less? If God judges the young child by the “natural law” (as you described it) or "conscience", then what will be the small child’s fate that a just and loving God would render to the naughty young child who steals a piece of gum?
Crypto2015 replied in post #59 : "
God cannot ignore the sin of the boy that stole the piece of gum because God is perfectly just and therefore cannot overlook sin. Even that trivial sin is, when judged by God's standards, bad enough to condemn the boy to hell."
Crypto2015, Other than telling us you believe the the young child who steals a piece of gum justly deserves to be condemned to hell, you still have not answered the other points that allow us to examine finer points of judgment in your theory.
Am I correct that you feel that this young boy who commits only the sin of taking a piece of gum from his mom's purse and then dies, having committed only this one transgression, deserves the rage of a God who will punish this "gum heist" with eternal condemnation to hell?"
Now, this (say 12 month old...) who takes the gum dies, and has never been given the opportunity by God to be exposed to Christianity (having been born in either a time or a place where Jesus is unknown). Is this 12 month old infant doomed to an eternal hell for taking a piece of gum and not accepting Jesus before death?
These are nuances. I would much rather you consider these carefully before simply and reflexively offering an irrelevant scripture to readers. I will be gone on a short vacation and may not have internet (we'll see what hotel I end up in). Take your time and think about the questions I am asking regarding just judgment and your personal interpretation of Romans that you offered to readers.
In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good.
Clear
ειτζεισιω
