Another thought - The word "conscience" is used in the NT some 30 different times. Virtually none of these references are negatives for the idea of "conscience." All but four or five references are by Paul. I believe the conscience is made up of two characteristics: an emotional trigger (conviction related to feelings of guilt) and content. The content of the conscience is ALWAYS (accepted as ) a "good" thing. It may not be fully righteous or of revelatory origin, but the content of the conscience is always perceived by the person as not only good but importantly so. The content of the conscience may include that which is mythological but it will never include that which is universally thought of as evil. One might feel badly (the emotional trigger) that he stole his grandmother's saving from under the bed, but h
e will never feel badly for having NOT stolen the money. the conscience only works one way - for the good - whether perceived or actual.
In the avocation of pastoral counseling, I am giving attention to "rebooting" the conscience of gang members and the like......................a most interesting endeavor.
"Faith" effects the conscience and adds to its content. So much so that in Romans 14, I believe the closing verses of that chapter allow for the vegetarian to continue in his faith in spite of the fact that it has mythological content. If this brother violates his faith (hence, his conscience as well), he is condemned. He has violated his own person. Paul speaks of having a good conscience. Peter speaks of making a request for a good conscience in the act we call salvation (I Peter 3:21). Can it be said that "faith" is the content of "conscience" ???????? Tell me that I am not on to something really big here.
There can be no question that Adam and Eve had a conscience that told them eating the fruit was wrong. There was a part of them that did not want to commit this sin. The decision could not have been a casual one if for no other reason than this. The conscience can be rendered somewhat ineffective if the person "rationalize" away the content of the conscience before committing the sin. The sin of rebellion is an act against God and self. It is intentional and for no [good] reason. Most of us, if not all of us, have asked the question "Why am I doing this." The therapist will try to give a reason. I suggest that there is no reason other than curiosity . We have done the evil deed for no good reason. How ridiculous is that !!! This kind of sin takes
us down the path to NOWHERE. It serves no purpose and is self-destructive for that reason. That is what we get for our efforts at autonomy. Pretty stupid, isn't it?
Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:31:13 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ----- the chastening of the Lord -------
Perhaps "good" means "perfect" in the passage, but I am not aware of that. In Numbers 14:7 the promised land is described as " .........an exceedingly good land ..........."
Huh? The promised land -- after the fall -- is a good land ???!! So when the Jews possessed this land, that was the end of baldness and tooth decay??? I don't think so.
__________________________________________________________________________
The orthodox view of the fall tells me that when man sinned, this effected everything. I need a biblical argument for this ---------- an argument that goes beyond proof texting.
Whether the fall effected all things and introduced male pattern baldness into the human event or not - that is not so very important to me.
I have changed my thinking a bit about the fall. In the past, I have argued that the nature of man, his human nature, was the same before the fall as after the fall. The only thing different is that he finally committed a transgression of law. In so doing, I minimized the event.
I certainly believe that Adam was prideful and selfish before the fall. But none of this rises to the level of the transgression -------- and that, as I see it, is where I am going wrong, There is no addiction in view in this instance. Character sins are a part of our nature -- before the fall as after. The really big deal seen in the "fall" is the that, for the first time, man is making a decision to do something other than what he knows (WITHOUT DOUBT) to be righteous. The actual sin was no more important in this story than all that immediately preceded the violation. This was no impetuous sinning. It was a carefully thought out decision, was it not? It took some time. And in the end -- this is the record of the first ac
t of rebellion.
The contrast between the First Man Adam and the Second is the difference between rebellion and submission. With Adam, rebellion clearly changed his life and moved him away from God. Submission, contrition, brokenness -- these bring man back to God in (eis) the Living Christ of God.
Romans 5:12 tells us that that we all die because we all sin -- and the sin referenced is not the eating of the fruit but the sin of rebellion. And, because we are all complicite with Adam -- we cannot save ourselves. Christ did not share in that aspect of the human nature. Philip 2 tells us that it was humility that made Christ what he was. Humility, as a communal trait, cannot be rebellious. Rebellion/autonomy is the very opposite of humility/submission.
Incredible. I sat in a room in Jackson, Mississippi and listened to Billy T speak of this very thing and I missed it!!!! Measure twice -- cut once. That's me AND I MISSED IT.
Just now, for me to understand the extreme nature of the sin is to understand why Christ had to come. Part of my problem is that I have been a "New Testament" Christian for far too long a time.
this is one thing I do appreciate about Torrance. He is thoroughly convinced that Genesis One through Revelation 22 is be considered as a single accounting of God in history working for our place with Him. He would agree that you cannot know of Christ without understanding the nature of the fall. More than that, the gathering and continuance of Israel is critical to a full understanding of the revelation of God, Himself. Trinity is not something to be debated but accepted -- because in Trinity we have the very reason for Creation. And I could go on -- but I won't. Torrance gives me reason to be a bible thumper.
JD
