Clete's POTD! 02-21-2006

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
First a little context...

In response to being blown off by Jim Hilston...
themuzicman said:
If you can't comprehend someting, it's better to ask questions than to insult the person speaking.

Michael

Hilston said:
You determined the kind of response you would get from me when you chose to blow smoke instead of engage the discussion. The only appropriate reply was insult. Poseurs are asking to be insulted. This is biblical. You should check it out. The Bible is full of this sort of language.

Next.

themuzicman said:
So, engaging Romans 7 from an epistimological and ethical perspective, rather than an ontological one, is invalid?

Hilston said:
What do you mean?

And then the muzicman prestented this explaination, which is just flat out brilliant!

Originally post by themuzicman

In metaphysics, there are three major categories:

1) Ontological, which deals with the state of being.

2) Epistimological which deals with knowing.

3) Ethical, which deals with actions.


Many reformed folk that I engage tend to read Paul's use of flesh and spirit and sin and such as ontological, or related to the state of one's being, as though the fall made some kind of "being level" change to the created nature of man, and that regeneration somehow undoes part of the ontological change. Now, one of the major questions that arise from this positioni is this: "Who had the power to change man's creating being from 'good' to 'evil', and did that being do so?" I think the answers are obviousl and problematic.

However, if we look at the problem of sin from an epistomological perspective that results in an ethical problem, then there's a different way to look at flesh, spirit, sin, salvation and such, that seems to fit how the bible reads more clearly.

Let's go back to the garden. What was the tree called? The tree of the KNOWLEDGE{/i] of good and evil. Does that sound like an ontological or epistimological reference? (Epistimological, of course.) Thus, upon eating of the tree, their eyes were opened (again epistimological), and they knew good and evil (still epistimological.) This was a major shift in their worldview, since they now knew good and evil, knew selfishness and separation from God, and were going to be judged by it, and a major ethical issue. Their works (sin) had condemned them to death.

Worse yet, our knowledge of good and evil causes a huge conflit within us, wanting to justify ourselves by doing good, and yet condemning ourselves when we do evil. (See Romans 2 for Paul's discussion of Gentiles who do not have the law.)

Fast foward to Paul. "Sin" within Paul is the old worldview of selfishness and sin, knowing good and evil, the one that he does not wish any longer to be, where as upon our salvation, faith presents us with a worldview that is not dominated by condemnation for sin and right and wrong, but by love for God and love for others. This is the good he wishes to do, but "sin, the old worldview, is what he does.

The other option for Romans 7 (and I think this is somewhat in question among scholars) is that Paul is still referring to the unregenerate man in this part of Romans 7, and the struggle between the knowledge of good and the desire to do evil is what is described, and then resolved in 8:1. Either way, the epistimological and ethical route makes a lot more sense.

Still doubt me? Fast forward to Romans 12:1. "Therefore, brothers, in view of God's mercy, do not be conformed any longer to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Both terms are very epistimological, the first being the thinking of the world, the second the transformation of the epistimological organ that God provided for us. Look at verse 2: "then you will know what the will of God is..." Transformation of the mind bring about knowledge of God's will, and epistimological change, which then can result in good ethical change.

Now, what is our salvation? No, it's not knowledge. Our salvation is the result of the propitiating sacrifice Christ made on the cross. We must place our faith in Him to receive salvation. Then, as a result of our faith, that new worldview can begin to take hold in our lives, which is what Paul is addressing in Romans (probably) 7 and 12.

Michael


Outstanding! :first:

Post 2017
 

elohiym

New member
Sozo said:
Salvation is Ontological
Ditto.

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
That point is debatable. The fact remains that his post is excellently thought out and well presented. Whether he's right or wrong is another issue, if indeed his point had anything to do with salvation to begin with.

The point I'm making with the POTD is that his comments had about 20 tons more substance than Jim could have imagined was possible, which just goes to demonstrates that we should be inclined more to give people the benefit of the doubt before jumping into what we will later call Biblical insults.
 

Sozo

New member
I see, so what's important, in your estimation, is the ability to debate effectively even if you don't tell the truth?
 

koban

New member
Sozo said:
I see, so what's important, in your estimation, is the ability to debate effectively even if you don't tell the truth?


Do you see falsehoods in themuzicman's argument?


If so, address them.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Sozo said:
I see, so what's important, in your estimation, is the ability to debate effectively even if you don't tell the truth?
This is a debate forum you knuckle head. :hammer::duh:

TOL wouldn't last too long if everyone sucked at presenting their position, whether they were right or not.
 

Sozo

New member
Their "eyes were opened" because they had died. Their being had changed (Ontological) at the moment they ate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top