Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

[gb93433]

Is that a difficult concept to comprehend?
Before that time, the Bible explicitly says that Adam had not know evil.

You have to understand what it meant to "know" in Hebrew culture. Just because I do not know something does not mean it does not exist. Life does not revolve around my understanding which is finite and but God who is infinite.Once I understood how Jews thought it is easy. The hard part is getting past our own culture and mindset to understand another.

God's love is beyond our comprehension does that mean it does not exist?

 

[DHK]

You have to understand what it meant to "know" in Hebrew culture. Just because I do not know something does not mean it does not exist. Life does not revolve around my understanding which is finite and but God who is infinite.Once I understood how Jews thought it is easy. The hard part is getting past our own culture and mindset to understand another.

God's love is beyond our comprehension does that mean it does not exist?

I think the answer is very simple. For some reason you want to be very philosophical. I don't want to go there.

 

[The Biblicist]

You have to understand what it meant to "know" in Hebrew culture. Just because I do not know something does not mean it does not exist. Life does not revolve around my understanding which is finite and but God who is infinite.Once I understood how Jews thought it is easy. The hard part is getting past our own culture and mindset to understand another.

God's love is beyond our comprehension does that mean it does not exist?

So, what you are really asking is when did God know ABOUT sin? God has always known ABOUT sin. Man knew ABOUT sin before he sinned?

However, that is a different question than WHEN did sin originate. Sin originated WHEN God's law was violated. Romans 5:12 tells you precisely WHEN sin entered into this world. Isaian tells you precisely WHEN sin was found in Lucifer.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: He was made in the likeness of man born with a human nature, being perfect man without a sin nature, but having a human nature. His sin nature was nullified by the virgin birth.

HP: Speaking of not desiring to get philosophical. You cannot get more philosophical than your comments here. It is one thing to get philosophical but backing it with truth clearly recognizable from other truths, and quite another to do what you do here and just make it up without proof or collaboration from any other truth or well established principles.

 

[gb93433]

I think the answer is very simple. For some reason you want to be very philosophical. I don't want to go there.

It is quite simple once you get past the "what does it mean to me" way of interpreting. It is hardly philosophical. If you were to make that claim then you would be saying Judaism is philosophical. It is simmply a different midset that Americans think in a Greek mindset. Even in America if you were to ever teach a Bible class with some Chinese present you will have to explain the Bible in terms of what they understand and how they think. If you do not they you will not be able to communicate with them very well. It is obvious if you were to study Hebrew and Greek with the say the Koreans. You will find they will have an easier time learning Hebrew than Greek.

 

[gb93433]

HP: Speaking of not desiring to get philosophical. You cannot get more philosophical than your comments here. It is one thing to get philosophical but backing it with truth clearly recognizable from other truths, and quite another to do what you do here and just make it up without proof or collaboration from any other truth or well established principles.

Isn't that called nonsense?

For a long time in a Bible study I would present a doctrine logically using verses from the Bible and then stop. Some would realize that it was not biblical but it was logical but they could not understand why something was wrong. The point was that they did not have enough knowledge to know how to interpret the passage I used but the words fit what I presented and disagreed with other words in scripture and what they had been taught.

 

[gb93433]

So, what you are really asking is when did God know ABOUT sin?

No. God has always known ABOUT sin. Man knew ABOUT sin before he sinned? [/quote] My question is what is the origin of evil? Some would contend that God created everything but when it comes to evil they take a different route and say that it started with Satan because they are unable to say that evil originated with God. Did not God create Satan? If evil originated with Satan then how did evil get there because Satan is not the Creator. What did he ever create in Creation?

However, that is a different question than WHEN did sin originate. Sin originated WHEN God's law was violated. Romans 5:12 tells you precisely WHEN sin entered into this world. Isaian tells you precisely WHEN sin was found in Lucifer.

My point is not about when it entered in the world and through whom but what is the origin of evil (its point of origin--its source). God is not limited to the world. Did He not precede Satan? Since evil entered Satan did it not have to come from somewhere else to enter him? Otherwise it would seem that he created it and he is not the Creator. What did Satan ever create? Would it not be true to state that everything that is, came From God?

 

[DHK]

HP: Speaking of not desiring to get philosophical. You cannot get more philosophical than your comments here. It is one thing to get philosophical but backing it with truth clearly recognizable from other truths, and quite another to do what you do here and just make it up without proof or collaboration from any other truth or well established principles.

There is nothing philosophical about original sin; and nothing philosophical about the depravity of man. In recent months we have had a few threads dedicated to solely to these topics. I have presented my view backed up with many Scriptures, a solid Biblical view.
The denial of both of these views is an age old heresy called Pelagianism which you hold to. There is nothing philosophical here. Either you accept the truth of the Bible or you reject it and hold a view outside of orthodox Christianity which has been considered heresy down throughout the ages. Where is the philosophy?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, post one solitary Scripture that states all men are born in sin, just one.

 

[DHK]

DHK, post one solitary Scripture that states all men are born in sin, just one.

Psalm 51:5. If David admitted that he was born in sin, then that would apply to the entire human race.

Psalm 58:3: If David stated that children are born wicked from their womb, then all are born with a sin nature.

Jeremiah 13:23: The teaching here is that just as an Ethiopian has black skin from birth, and a leopard spots from birth, so do you have a sin nature from birth for you cannot do good.

Also Rom.5:12-19; 3:9-12

 

[The Biblicist]

DHK, post one solitary Scripture that states all men are born in sin, just one.

Jn. 14:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job 14:1 ¶ Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.....4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Is. 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

Psa. 53:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.


No amount of scripture can open the eyes of a spiritually blinded man. God has to do that.

 

[gb93433]

Psalm 51:5. If David admitted that he was born in sin, then that would apply to the entire human race.

Psalm 58:3: If David stated that children are born wicked from their womb, then all are born with a sin nature.

Ps. 51 is a lament. Therefore it must be interpreted as a lament. If I were to go with your reasoning then you are confronted with the doctrine of original sin. If I were to go with your reasoning then Ps. 74:1 teaches that God rejects His people. Later in Ps. 51:8 then God would have broken his bones.

If one were to listen to people who were close to someone who died you might hear some strange theology. In their state of mind they are not teaching doctrine but are lamenting or grieving.

Psalm 58:3 is directed to the wicked leaders.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Psalm 51:5. If David admitted that he was born in sin, then that would apply to the entire human race.

HP: Lets give you far more benefit of doubt as to what David said than what you deserve. Lets say David says he was born in sin. Tell us how that in any way states or implies that sin is as you philosophize and claim that sin as 'original sin,' and then show how it could be extrapolated to be the case for every other human when the Scripture itself David speaks only of himself in the first person.

DHK, you need reality check. You say that Scripture says that all men are born in sin. In your post you say "if". You admit that it does not actually say what you say it does when you say 'if.' It is sheer conjecture to try and make what one says of themselves applicable to all others. Besides there are many solid reasons why David was not claiming even himself being born in original sin period. It is unfounded Augustinian/pagan philosophy driving your position, not Scripture. You have not shown by one solitary text where Scripture claims all are born in original sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Every proof text Biblicist posts has been soundly refuted many times. Even the most elementary fair-minded examination of the context of any one of those passages shows clearly no such principle of original sin was stated or implied. One has to realize though that context means nothing to one totally unwilling to fairly examine the text.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

17ο δε ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο
He and said to him? Why Me you call good? No one(is) good except one
θεος ει δε θελεις εισελθειν εις την ζωην τηρησον τας εντολας
you desire to enter into life, keep the commands.


Something the still bothers me about this text itself in the King James version, is that it is always been my understanding that if something is added to the text it would be put in italics. The above text is from the text of Stephanus, often called the TR as I understand it. The word 'God' is not found in verse 17 in the Greek as far as I can tell. Yet in the King James version it is placed in the text yet not in italics. What am I not understanding about italics and the use of italics in the King James version? Why did they not italicize the word 'God' in verse 17 if they were going to insert it into a text in which the word 'God,' as far as I can see, was not in the Greek itself?

 

[The Biblicist]

Every proof text Biblicist posts has been soundly refuted many times. .

That is a total falsehood and you know it! Your interpretative views of all these texts has been thoroughly exposed as complete eisgesis without a leg to stand on.

The absolute proof that all infants are born with a sin nature is the fact that infants are subject to death and no human being can be justly subject to the death without first being justly condemned for sin as death is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23). The whole human nature existed and was contained within Adam and acted when Adam acted and that is precisely why Paul said "by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE many BE DEAD" rather than what your theory would require Paul to say "by MANY MEN'S OFFENCES many be dead."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If I'm not mistaken, it would appear that there is a difference of opinion.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[The Biblicist]

If I'm not mistaken, it would appear that there is a difference of opinion.:smilewinkgrin:

No, The scripture does not support your opinion:laugh:

 

[DHK]

Ps. 51 is a lament. Therefore it must be interpreted as a lament. If I were to go with your reasoning then you are confronted with the doctrine of original sin. If I were to go with your reasoning then Ps. 74:1 teaches that God rejects His people. Later in Ps. 51:8 then God would have broken his bones.

Psalm 51 is a psalm of repentance, David repenting over his sin, and in that verse in particular he looks deep into the depths of his own soul realizing that he was born a sinful creature.

If one were to listen to people who were close to someone who died you might hear some strange theology. In their state of mind they are not teaching doctrine but are lamenting or grieving.

David was not just anyone. He was a man after God's own heart. What he wrote was inspired of God. It was rational, not irrational. The rational student of Scripture can study it and understand what David was saying.

Psalm 58:3 is directed to the wicked leaders.

And what were you before you were saved? Righteous??

 

[DHK]

HP: Lets give you far more benefit of doubt as to what David said than what you deserve. Lets say David says he was born in sin. Tell us how that in any way states or implies that sin is as you philosophize and claim that sin as 'original sin,' and then show how it could be extrapolated to be the case for every other human when the Scripture itself David speaks only of himself in the first person.

It is simple. If David was born in sin, then we all are. Why would David be an exception? The same type of reasoning is used here:

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
--There are no exceptions. Why would there be any exceptions concerning David's sin which will bring both death and judgment.

DHK, you need reality check. You say that Scripture says that all men are born in sin. In your post you say "if". You admit that it does not actually say what you say it does when you say 'if.' It is sheer conjecture to try and make what one says of themselves applicable to all others. Besides there are many solid reasons why David was not claiming even himself being born in original sin period. It is unfounded Augustinian/pagan philosophy driving your position, not Scripture. You have not shown by one solitary text where Scripture claims all are born in original sin.

I don't follow you. All men are born in sin. All men have a sin nature. All men are depraved, have a depraved nature. There is no if, and or but, about it. It is a fact. What point are you trying to make here. IF you are confused, have I made myself clear?

This has nothing to do with Augustinianism. It has been shown to you before how Original Sin and depravity of man was believed before Augustine. In fact the Apostle Paul believed it and expressed it very clearly.