Olivet Discourse revisited

[Randy Kluth]

And you have beliefs that are Partial Preterist but you often strongly object to being called that, claiming name calling so you are being hypocritical here especially when being a PP is not considered official heresy but you are charging the other person with heresy. No one calls you a PP to insult you either and yes, I always know there are some differences between you and some PP's. Doesn't change anything.

It amazes me that I have to constantly repeat the same arguments here! Again, a position is determined by its prominent, defining characteristics. With Pelagianism, it is the denial of original sin. Our brother also denies Original Sin. Therefore, he is a kind of Pelagian.

It is not the same as saying, Mormons believe in Jesus. I believe in Jesus. Therefore, I'm a Mormon. Believing in Jesus is not the defining characteristic of Mormonism, distinguishing it from other Christian communions.

With respect to Partial Preterism, that belief system is defined by its own peculiar characteristic, which is to view most Bible prophecies as having already been fulfilled, including typically "future" prophecies that most Christians believe are future prophecies. For example, most Christians believe that the Antichrist has yet to come, and that the book of Revelation has yet to be fulfilled and is a future prophecy.

But Partial Preterists, like all Preterists, believe that the vast amount of the book of Revelation *has already been fulfilled.* Partial Preterism also has the prominent belief that most all of the Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled. However, that does not distinguish it from other Christian belief systems that believe the same, and yet do not agree that most all of that Discourse has been fulfilled.

I am *not* a Partial Preterist simply because I agree that much of the Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled. I believe, like the Church Fathers, that the Olivet Discourse was historically fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. Since that is not the predominant position of Partial Preterism, separating it from other positions, the belief that this prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD cannot be said to be, by definition, Partial Preterism!

1) I believe most of the book of Revelation has yet to be fulfilled in the future, in the 3.5 year reign of Antichrist.
2) I believe that a significant, though small, portion of the Olivet Discourse was not fulfilled in 70 AD. That event led to the Jewish Diaspora, which encompasses *the entire NT era!* That is *still being fulfilled!*

If you reject this, it's your problem--not mine. Don't state it to me again, or you will get the same answer.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ezekial 18:20 refutes inherited sin.
This idea that we inherit someone else's sins come from Augustine not Jesus or the apostles.

No, it existed before Augustine, not the least of which was the Apostle Paul. In fact the entire Law of Moses is predicated upon the idea that men would sin, unavoidably, and always required sacrifices of atonement.

It is one step beyond to say that they are predisposed to sin by a fallen spiritual nature, inherited from fallen parents. Both Jews and Christians generally agree that mankind has a predisposition towards sinning. That means something exists naturally in the bent of men, determining that they go in that direction.

It is not enough, in my opinion, to just say that the Devil is going to win in every case. Obviously, if all men sin, they have a natural inclination towards sin.

Clement of Alexandria mentioned the inheritance of sin. Origen seemed to imply something similar. Augustine simply codified what had already been assumed. It was known that men had a predisposition towards sin. It only remained to define how that nature was transmitted from Adam to us all.

In today's science we know about physical or chemical DNA. It is not a big deal for Christians, who understand that we are spiritual beings, to identify Spiritual DNA as the cause of our tendency towards sin.

Modelling sin cannot alone explain how children replicate the sins of their parents. I know of adopted children, a brother and sister, who grew up in a good family with natural children. The natural children did well. The adopted children both did poorly.

The doctrine of Original sin/Inherited sin began with Augustine was then adopted by the Catholic church later popularized by John Calvin who was a follower of Augustine's teachings.

Since you are convinced you are born a wicked reprobate who only desires to sin against God because that is the nature God gave you.
You are a Russelite, the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses also teach Original Sin/ inherited sinful nature.

I'm neither a JW nor do I believe what you said I believe. I do not believe in Total Depravity, as defined by TULIP. We have a good nature, created as part of our original creation in the image of God. But due to Adam's sin our good nature has been corrupted, creating in us simultaneously a depraved nature--we want to live independent of God's word. We resist God's will.

Totally depraved people hate God and detest doing His will. I believe that there is good in Man that wants to do God's will.

If our independent bent is too strong, we will utterly reject God's word, making us more depraved and possibly totally depraved. I don't believe we are all totally depraved either at birth or even as adult pagans.

It is only those who determine, absolutely, to push paganism in the face of divine revelation who show total depravity. As well, people can appear as totally depraved when they completely give up on restraining the dark tendencies of their flesh.

You are falsely accusing me of following a man I dont believe in.

No, I'm not saying you're literally following him, as if he is in your house, nor even if you are reading a book of his. I'm saying you're a Pelagian as it is defined, namely the belief that Original Sin does not exist. I can just as easily say that the denial of Original Sin is deemed heretical by the Church. Your own position, let alone the position of Pelagius, is deemed heretical by the historic Church.

I'm just making a point. I dont believe this.
But I do believe you are following the false doctrines of men like Calvin.

I'm not fully a Calvinist, but I do like Calvin. I am Predestinarian. I believe God chose a set number of people to be Saved from the beginning. Satan interfered and Man cooperated with him. The result is that Satan used the multiplication of men to create unplanned children of rebellion for his own ends.

It is a negative spiritual creation, attempting to duplicate what God was doing. Satan tries to copy God, but it always turn out to be evil. It always ends up being bad fruit. "If the tree is evil...."

There is not ONE manuscript that uses the term sinful nature as meaning inherited a sinful inborn nature from Adam.
The NIV inserts it into verses that don't even have the word NATURE let alone sinful nature!!!
It is not the word of God.

Paul taught Original Sin using the language that the NIV responsibly translated. It is no different in any other version. They all agree, no matter what English words are used. For Paul, the "flesh" represents the corrupt tendencies that exist within us, which we must overcome.

I've already told you, verses that use the word nature as a negative referring to the carnal flesh is not teaching INNATELY born that way. It is something that develops as a habit. Greek affirms this definition.

Yet that is not what Paul taught. He taught that death descended from Adam and is inherited by all men "because all men sin." How can it be said that all men die when they haven't even sinned yet? It is only because they all have the nature of spiritual sin, causing them to sin in their carnal nature.

But we can choose to live by a spiritual nature as a free gift from Christ. They can do that by accepting Christian Salvation. And all men can resist sin by their own good nature, even if they still must die due to their own inevitable sinning.

No it is not. Babies are not wicked little devils. "Vipers in diapers" as reformed sects refer to children.

I don't refer to children as such, however.

Nature can be carnal or righteous as I have proven with the nature of the gentiles who were not saved!

What did you hope to prove by stating that Gentiles can remain unsaved? Of course, people were created good and can choose to do good or evil. And they will sin because the Sin Nature is innately in them.

Questions Orginal sin advocates cannot answer with scripture
Explain why Adam's sin is transferred to us and not Eve's sin?

No sense answering from Scripture since it is not given in Scripture that only Adam's sin is transferred. In the Law, every woman giving birth is viewed as unclean, requiring a ceremony of purification.

Explain why Adam sinned when he did not have a inborn sinful nature?

Simple. Satan tempted Eve to sin even before she had an inborn sinful nature. Cooperating with Satan, however, Eve ingested a bent towards sin, and her good nature was corrupted.

She thereafter inclined after her own desires, apart from God's desires, lusting after what her eyes saw and what her appetites craved. Those desires had to be fought after that event. Cain was told that sin is knocking at his door, but he must overcome it.

You claim Paul and everyone else desires to sin because we are born this way.
Then why did Adam desire to sin against God without a sinful nature?
Give a scriptural answer.

In the Scriptural account, Satan lied and gave God a bad reputation. Adam was deceived into adopting Satan's cravings against God's will. He was led to want something for himself, as if what God wanted was going to deny his "rights" to have something good.

Adam was thus tricked. But Adam's willing choice to participate in "lust" made him guilty of sin. He chose to prefer his own choices against the will of God, thus corrupting his previously-clean nature. He did not create the temptation, but he chose to capitulate to it.

 

[Timtofly]

If you reject this, it's your problem--not mine. Don't state it to me again, or you will get the same answer.

The Orthodox church accepted a lot of heresy and called it doctrine. That does not change the fact, they are still heretical views against Scripture.

Humans are not heretics when the very doctrine of Scripture they are defending goes against the heretical doctrine of the Orthodox church.

The term Orthodox does not mean free of heresy. It just means that a heretical teaching has been accepted by the church, because the majority claimed a heretical view was true. Which is the very definition of an apostate church even one that calls themselves Orthodox.

The whole Reformation was considered heretical by the Orthodox church, no? Only those teaching the Word of God instead of human opinion and understanding are free of heresy. Many times theology introduces error, instead of removing error.

This is Scripture:

Romans 5:19

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

And Paul uses three different Greek words in this chapter, not just one word translated 3 different ways. There is the word for sin. There is the word for transgression/offense. And the last word used is disobedience.

Prior to Adam's disobedience, there was no death, no sin, and no disobedience. Eve did not disobey God, Adam disobeyed God. You can argue that point all day and not get anywhere, because that is the whole argument around original sin that theologians argued over to get the church to form a doctrine in the first place.

You can't define Adam as having the original sin and at the same time say Eve sinned and was a sinner before Adam disobeyed God.

One can look at it this way and declare sin was the punishment. But that was not an original state. Death was that original state. Sin was just living out the natural death state apart from God's direct relationship. God no longer communicated with Adam and Eve. Not even Seth, at least not until Enos was born, because that name inferred calling out to God. Nor did we see the result of that calling out to God for several more generations. Enoch was more than likely the first of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, God called back to.

Even Paul said between Adam and Moses there was no law to break, nor was sin imputed to Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

So Adam's disobedience was different than even the sin that his disobedience caused. Adam directly disobeyed God in a direct command given to Adam, even before Eve existed in a human body.

There were other sons of God all over the earth besides Adam, but only Adam was given the direct command that only Adam could disobey. Paul says that Adam's disobedience was only unique to Adam as Adam was the type of the one to come.

Thus:

"For if by one man's offence, death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ."

Death was the original punishment, and it was Adam's dead corruptible flesh that passed sin to every offspring. Especially when the other offspring of the sons of God hundreds of years later procreated with Adam's dead corruptible flesh. That is how the offspring of those relationships became corrupted.

So saying, Adam did the original sin, is the word "original". Adam did not pass on a sin nature, Adam passed on death itself. It does not matter what a person does to never "sin". Death will still happen. Sin is the bondage and punishment of being in dead corruptible flesh. That is why we are to submit to the Will of the Holy Spirit, and crucify the flesh daily. Not because a sacrifice is necessary, but because we are still under the bondage of sin as part of death, which was Adam's direct punishment for disobeying God's one command.

Adam did not sin, because there was no sin prior to Adam's unique disobedience. The heretical view is just looking at sin and ignoring that Adam did physically die, the instant he disobeyed. That is the same view, Satan decieved Eve with. Going against God's Word was the first deception and heretical doctrine held by Eve, listening to Satan. This is what Augustine changed.

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

The true term would be the original disobedience. Because these verses were a contrast between Adam's disobedience and the Obedience of Jesus Christ. The contrast was that one act made all sinners, and one act made all righteous.

Literally Paul said many not all. Adam did not make the sons of God turn into sinners, only those born in Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Jesus did not have to redeem the sons of God, as they were not under the punishment of death. At least up until their offspring were born into that dead corruptible flesh when some procreated with Adam's offspring. But that was a thousand years later when Noah lived for 500 years before the Flood. Off the top of my head, from Adam's disobedience until the Flood was about 1600 years. Abraham lived about 400 years after the Flood. Then it was about another 600 years until Moses and the Law.

One can say that is human nature as that is the philosophical argument. But even Paul said death still reigned, even though there was no law to impute sin.

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

Some may want to even argue extra biblically there were the noahide laws. But strictly from God's perspective all are dead, and that makes us all sinners who constantly sin.

The biggest controversy is that theology highlights the sin, but fails to convey that Adam literally physically died. His soul left God's permanent incorruptible physical body, and entered the new dead corruptible flesh, that cannot communicate nor enjoy a relationship with God. They paint the picture that Adam was innocent, and that in dying he would eventually physically die. Well Jesus physically died once. He has not been continually dying for the last 1993 years and then all of a sudden will physically die. The heresy is destroying the literal type set in Adam in the Garden as the only one who could disobey God. And that Adam did indeed physically die. The new body of death is the "living in" and performing sin. This is whitewashed into the all are by nature sinners view. No, all are in dead corruptible flesh. That flesh does not know God. That flesh has to be crucified daily whether we sin or not.

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

Every person is free to obey God and attempt to live without sinning. But it is a daily confession, that each individual makes, not another human advocate set up to enrich the church coffers. This is how God sees our attempts at righteousness.

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

Even good morals cannot change the fact we are in dead corruptible flesh. Even keeping the whole law, did not help that young rich man.

"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions."

Jesus told him what he needed to do, but keeping the law was easier than trusting Jesus and doing that one thing Jesus asked him to do.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Orthodox church accepted a lot of heresy and called it doctrine. That does not change the fact, they are still heretical views against Scripture.

I was speaking w/ ewq on his claim that I'm Partial Preterist. That is not an heretical position regardless.

Humans are not heretics when the very doctrine of Scripture they are defending goes against the heretical doctrine of the Orthodox church.

Of course we're not here speaking of the Orthodox Communion, whether Greek or Russian. Rather, we're speaking of doctrinal orthodoxy, which generally looks back to the historic Christian creeds of the early centuries. They had to do with Christology, Trinitarianism, and Soteriology for the most part.

Yes, the different communions fought and argued over some hair-splitting differences that may have been more "language" issues--different communions spoke different languages. As the Greek New Testament was translated into Latin, different words accrued different meanings.

Difficult doctrines, such as the Trinity, had trouble finding words that in all languages meant the same things. Some differences seem to me to be peripheral, or simply defending the position of a particular region. Some differences were likely more important.

And yet, Christians do not have to agree on everything. Real problems should ultimately be worked out over time, if the Christianity is sincere. Orthodoxy governs against a return to universally-condemned positions that challenged the essential Gospel.

And Paul uses three different Greek words in this chapter, not just one word translated 3 different ways. There is the word for sin. There is the word for transgression/offense. And the last word used is disobedience.

3 different words do not imply basic differences. There could be slight variations. Hebrew often uses parallelism not to differentiate meanings of synonyms, but rather, to embellish or to confirm their meaning. For example, "I love your law, Lord, I rejoice in your word." The "law" and the "word" are here used synonymously, to amplify the law of God and to better confirm what it is. It is God's word of command.

Prior to Adam's disobedience, there was no death, no sin, and no disobedience. Eve did not disobey God, Adam disobeyed God.

I don't agree with that. Both Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Both were told not to eat the forbidden fruit. Both man and woman knew they were not supposed to eat it.

You can argue that point all day and not get anywhere, because that is the whole argument around original sin that theologians argued over to get the church to form a doctrine in the first place.

You can't define Adam as having the original sin and at the same time say Eve sinned and was a sinner before Adam disobeyed God.

One can look at it this way and declare sin was the punishment. But that was not an original state. Death was that original state. Sin was just living out the natural death state apart from God's direct relationship. God no longer communicated with Adam and Eve. Not even Seth, at least not until Enos was born, because that name inferred calling out to God. Nor did we see the result of that calling out to God for several more generations. Enoch was more than likely the first of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, God called back to.

I think you're making a ton of assumptions here. And it's terribly confusing. I suggest that Adam and Eve were sinless and innocent in the beginning. They both sinned, and knew they were sinning. God did not stop communicating with them--He continued to communicate with them through Grace.

The result of their choice to sin was death. People would not continue to die if they did not inherit sin from their parents. Since people do inherit the Sin Nature from their parents, they die as their parents must. That's why all people die because all sin. And they all sin because they get it from their parents before them.

God would never have condemned all of mankind unless He determined that Adam and Eve would bear children of sin. He would not put to death people who had not sinned, unless of course we're speaking of Christ.

Even Paul said between Adam and Moses there was no law to break, nor was sin imputed to Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

So Adam's disobedience was different than even the sin that his disobedience caused. Adam directly disobeyed God in a direct command given to Adam, even before Eve existed in a human body.

I don't know where you get this stuff? It's not in the Bible!

There were other sons of God all over the earth besides Adam, but only Adam was given the direct command that only Adam could disobey. Paul says that Adam's disobedience was only unique to Adam as Adam was the type of the one to come.

I don't know where you get this stuff? I'll have to look at the rest tomorrow....

 

[Timtofly]

I don't agree with that. Both Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Both were told not to eat the forbidden fruit. Both man and woman knew they were not supposed to eat it.

And that would be a doctrine you formed outside of Scripture.

 

[Randy Kluth]

And that would be a doctrine you formed outside of Scripture.

Gen 3.2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

This indicates just what I said, that both Adam and Eve *knew* that it would be a sin to eat the forbidden fruit.

 

[Timtofly]

God would never have condemned all of mankind unless He determined that Adam and Eve would bear children of sin. He would not put to death people who had not sinned, unless of course we're speaking of Christ.

And this is philosophical reasoning like Satan did with Eve.

You are making a condition that God would never do something.

It was the physical body of death that was passed down to every generation after that.

Seth was now in Adam's dead image. Seth was not a son of God in God's image.

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;.. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"

The point was that Adam was in the image of God a son of God. When he disobeyed, he was no longer a son of God in God's image. It was the dead corruptible flesh that was passed down from generation to generation. The nature of that dead image is the human reasoning, that humans default to. Many here only see that human nature because they deny humans are the sons of God, and give that birthright to the angels.

In this state of death, no one can have eternal life, until the second birth. While sin leads to death, as offspring of Adam we are already dead. Not by nature, but by remaining in this state of death, continually. Even at the GWT in Revelation 20, all there are still called the dead. That was their condition since conception. They rejected the Covenant with God allowing them the second birth.

 

[Timtofly]

Gen 3.2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

This indicates just what I said, that both Adam and Eve *knew* that it would be a sin to eat the forbidden fruit.

No, Eve formed her own doctrine aside from the literal command. That command was given to Adam, not to Eve.

A literalist would point out Eve was talking to Satan. Even Satan could not eat that fruit then. No one knew what sin was. It was unknown until they actually ate the fruit. You are saying they had the knowledge of the fruit, even without eating the fruit. They did not even know what death was. Part of obedience is having faith in God, without knowing all the facts.

Did Satan know what sin and death was?

Did Satan even have a clue what would happen? Satan just wanted people to disobey God. But no one knew what death was as no one had experienced death at that point. We know what eternal life is, but humanity has experienced eternal life. We don't know enough about the LOF, because no one has experienced the LOF. We have just read about it. And hardly any thing about it, except humans go there eventually.