Cosmic Treason (January 2007)

From Gospel Translations

Revision as of 21:23, 2 March 2009 (view source) Amy (Talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Current revision as of 17:52, 3 November 2010 (view source) Pcain (Talk | contribs) m (Protected "Cosmic Treason (January 2007)" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))
(5 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{info|الخيانة الكونية (2007))}}<br>	+	{{info}}The question, “What is sin?” is raised in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The answer provided to this catechetical question is simply this: “Sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God.”
-	<createbox><div style="direction: rtl;"></createbox><br>	+	Let us examine some of the elements of this catechetical response. In the first instance, sin is identified as some kind of want or lack. In the middle ages, Christian theologians tried to define evil or sin in terms of privation (''privatio'') or negation (''negatio''). In these terms, evil or sin was defined by its lack of conformity to goodness. The negative terminology associated with sin may be seen in biblical words such as '''''dis'''''<i>obedience</i>, ''god'''less'''ness'', or '''''im'''''<i>morality</i>. In all of these terms, we see the negative being stressed. Further illustrations would include words such as ''dishonor'', ''antichrist'', and others.
-	" ماهي الخطيئة؟" سؤال أثير في كتاب التعليم المسيحي القصير ويستمنستر. الجواب على هذا السؤال العقائدي المسيحي هو ببساطة ما يلي: " الخطيئة هي اي نقص في الطاعة او خرق لناموس الله."	+	However, to gain a complete view of sin, we have to see that it involves more than a negation of the good, or more than a simple lack of virtue. We may be inclined to think that sin, if defined exclusively in negative terms, is merely an illusion. But the ravages of sin point dramatically to the reality of its power, which reality can never be explained away by appeals to illusion. The reformers added to the idea of ''privatio'' the notion of actuality or activity, so that evil is therefore seen in the phrase, “''privatio actuosa''.” This stresses the active character of sin. In the catechism, sin is defined not only as a want of conformity but an act of transgression, an action that involves an overstepping or violation of a standard.
-	<br>دعونا نختبر بعض مقومات هذه الردود العقائدية المسيحية. للوهلة الاولى, تُعرف الخطيئة على انها نوعاً من الحاجة او الفقدان. في العصور الوسطى, حاول اللاهوتيون المسيحيون ان يعرفوا مصطلح الشرير (الشيطان) او الخطيئة ضمن مفهموم الحرمان او النكران. بناءاً على هذه المصطلحات, صار تعريف الشرير او الخطيئة على انها عدم طاعة الخير. ونرى ان هناك مصطلحات سلبية اخرى مرتبطة بالخطيئة موجودة في الكتاب المقدس مثل العصيان و الالحاد والفجور. في جميع هذه المصطلحات, نرى التشديد على الوجود السلبي. وهناك المزيد من التوضيحات التي تشمل كلمات مثل عار و أضداد المسيح وغيرها.	+	In order to grasp the meaning of sin, we cannot define it apart from its relationship to law. It is God’s law that determines what sin is. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul, particularly in Romans, labors the point that there is an inseparable relationship between sin and death and between sin and law. The simple formula is this: No sin equals no death. No law equals no sin. The apostle argues that where there is no law, there is no sin, and where there is no sin, there is no death. This rests upon the premise that death invades the human experience as an act of divine judgment for sin. It is the soul who sins that dies. However, without law there can be no sin. Death cannot enter into the human experience until first God’s law is revealed. It is for this reason that the apostle argues that the moral law was in effect before God gave Israel the Mosaic code. The argument rests upon the premise that death was in the world before Sinai, that death reigned from Adam to Moses. This can only mean that God’s moral law was given to His creatures long before the tablets of stone were delivered to the nation of Israel.
-	للحصول على صورة كاملة عن الخطيئة يجب علينا ان ننظر اليها على انها اكثر من مجرد نكران للخير او انعدام الفضيلة. . فمن الممكن ان نميل الى الاعتقاد بان الخطيئة ,في حالة حصرمعناها بمصطلحات سلبية, هي مجرد وهم. لكن ويلات الخطيئة تشير بشكل كبير الى حقيقة قوتها, حيث انه لايمكن اقصاء مفهوم الواقع بمناشدة الوهم. اضاف المصلحون الى فكرة الحرمان /العوز مفهوم الواقعية او الفعالية, هكذا يُصور الشرير في هذه العبارة "الحرمان – الفعال". ويؤكد هذا على الطبيعة الفعالة او المؤثرة للخطيئة . في مفهوم العيقدة المسيحية, لا تُعرف الخطيئة على انها مجرد انعدام الطاعة بل انها فعل الانتهاك. الذي يتضمن تجاوزاً او اعتداءً للمعايير الطبيعية.	+	This gives some credence to Immanuel Kant’s assertion of a universal moral imperative that he called the ''categorical imperative'', which is found in the conscience of every sentient person. Since it is God’s law that defines the nature of sin, we are left to face the dreadful consequences of our disobedience to that law. What the sinner requires in order to be rescued from the punitive aspects of this law is what Solomon Stoddard called a righteousness of the Law. Just as sin is defined by a lack of conformity to the Law, or transgression of the Law, the only antidote for that transgression is obedience to the Law. If we possess such obedience to the Law of God, we are in no danger of the judgment of God.
-	<br>لكي نستوعب مفهوم الخطيئة علينا ان نوضح معناها ضمن اطار علاقتها بالناموس. انه ناموس الخالق الذي يحدد ماهي الخطيئة. في العهد الجديد,بالتحديد في الرسالة الى اهل رومية, اجتهد بولص الرسول في الاشارة الى ان هناك علاقة لاتنفصل بين الخطيئة والموت وببين الخطيئة والناموس.. المعادلة البسيطة هي: لا خطيئة تساوي لا موت. لا ناموس يساوي لا خطيئة. من هذا المنطلق يجادل الرسول بولص انه بدون الناموس لاتوجد خطيئة و عدم وجود الخطيئة يلغي وجود الموت. يستند هذا الافتراض على ان الموت يداهم التجربة الانسانية نتيجة لحكم الله على الخطيئة. ان الروح الخاطئة هي التي تهلك. لكن بدون الناموس لايمكن ان توجد الخطيئة. لايمكن للموت ان يدخل التجربة الانسانية قبل ان يُكشف عن ناموس الله اولا. هذا هو السبب في جدال الرسول بولص, ان الناموس الاخلاقي كان نافذ المفعول قبل ان يعطي الله اسرائيل الوصايا المحفورة على الرخام. يستند هذا الجدال على الافتراض ان الموت كان موجود في العالم قبل سيناء, الموت كان سائدا من وقت ابراهيم الى موسى. هذا يعنى شئ واحد ان الناموس الاخلاقي للخالق كان قد أُعطي لمخلوقاته بوقت طويل قبل تسليم اللوائح الحجرية الى قوم اسرائيل .	+	Solomon Stoddard, the grandfather of Jonathan Edwards, wrote in his book, ''The Righteousness of Christ'', the following summation of the value of the righteousness of the Law: “It is sufficient for us if we have the righteousness of the law. There is no danger of our miscarrying if we have that righteousness. The security of the angels in Heaven is that they have the righteousness of the law, and it is a sufficient security for us if we have the righteousness of the law. If we have the righteousness of the law, then we are not liable to the curse of the law. We are not threatened by the law; justice is not provoked with us; the condemnation of the law can take no hold upon us; the law has nothing to object against our salvation. The soul that has the righteousness of the law is out of the reach of the threatenings of the law. Where the demand of the law is answered, the law finds no fault. The law curses only for lack of perfect obedience. Yea, moreover, where there is the righteousness of the law, God has bound himself to give eternal life. Such persons are heirs of life, according to the promise of the law. The law declared them heirs of life, Galatians 3:12, ‘The man that doth them, shall live in them’” (''The Righteousness of Christ'', p. 25).
-	هذا يعطي شئ من المصداقية لاثبات امانويل كانت عن الحتمية الاخلاقية الشاملة والتي اسماها الحتمية القاطعة الموجودة في ضمير كل شخص حساس. بما ان ناموس الله هو الذي يحدد طبيعة الخطيئة فنحن متروكون لمواجهة العواقب الرهيبة لعصياننا على الناموس. ماذا يحتاج الخطاءة لانقاذهم من الجوانب العقابية لهذا القانون الذي دعاه سولمن ستادرد عدالة الناموس: حيث تُعرف الخطيئة على انها فقدان الطاعة للناموس او انتهاك الناموس, اصبح الشافي الوحيد لهذا الانتهاك هو طاعة ناموس الله حيث لانكون في خطر من حكم الله.	+	The only righteousness that meets the requirements of the Law is the righteousness of Christ. It is only by imputation of that righteousness that the sinner can ever possess the righteousness of the Law. This is critical for our understanding in this day where the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is so widely under attack. If we abandon the notion of the righteousness of Christ, we have no hope, because the Law is never negotiated by God. As long as the Law exists, we are exposed to its judgment unless our sin is covered by the righteousness of the Law. The only covering that we can possess of that righteousness is that which comes to us from the active obedience of Christ, who Himself fulfilled every jot and tittle of the Law. His fulfilling of the Law in Himself is a vicarious activity by which He achieves the reward that comes with such obedience. He does this not for Himself but for His people. It is the background of this imputed righteousness, this rescue from the condemnation of the Law, this salvation from the ravages of sin that is the backdrop for the Christian’s sanctification, in which we are to mortify that sin that remains in us, since Christ has died for our sin.
-		+	[[Category:Top_priority]]
-	<br>كتب سولمن ستادرد ,جد جونثن ادورد في كتابه بِر المسيح, الخلاصة التالية عن اهمية البرفي الناموس: "يكفي اذا كان لدينا بر الناموس. لن يكون هناك خطر في اخفاقنا اذا كنا نملك البر. حصانة الملائكة في السماء هي برهم في الناموس, وحصانتا تكون كافية لو عندنا بر الناموس. اذا كان عندنا بر الناموس حينها لن نكون مسؤولون عن لعنة الناموس. نحن لسنا مهددين بالناموس؛ العدالة لا يثار غضبها معنا؛ لا تستطيع دينونة الناموس ان تلقي قبضتها علينا؛ الناموس ليس له ان يعترض ضد خلاصنا. النفس التي تملك بر الناموس هي بعيدة عن تهديدات الناموس. عندما يستجاب طلب الناموس حينها لن يجد الناموس أي خطأ. الناموس يلعن فقط العصيان وعدم الطاعة الكاملة. و علاوة على ذلك,حيث يكون بر الناموس يكون الله ملزماً لاعطاء الحياة الابدية. هؤلاء هم ورثة الحياة حسب وعد الناموس. الناموس اعلنهم ورثة الحياة غل. 3:12 "الانسان الذي سيفعلها سيحيا بها" (بر المسيح صفحة 25).	+
-		+
-	البر الوحيد الذي يلبي متطلبات الناموس هو بر المسيح .واستناداالى ذلك البر وحده يمكن للخطأة ان يحصلوا على بر الناموس. هذا مهم جدا في فهمنا هذا اليوم حيث ان الاستناد الى بر المسيح يقع تحت وطئة هجوم واسع جداً. اذا تخلينا عن مفهوم بر المسيح فلن يكون لدينا أي رجاء لان الله لا يساوم بالناموس. مادام الناموس موجود فنحن تحت حكمه الا اذا كانت خطايانا محصنة ببر الناموس. الحصان الوحيد الذي يمكن ان نحصل عليه من ذلك البر هو طاعة المسيح بفاعلية, الذي اتتم كل تلميحة صغيرة و كبيرة في الناموس. اتتمامه للناموس في ذاته هو فعل قام به نيابة عن الاخرين وحصل على العطية نتيجة لطاعته. لم يفعل هذا من اجل نفسه بل من اجل شعبه. ان خلفية هذا البر التحرير من دينونة الناموس و العنصر الاساس للقدسية المسيحية هو الخلاص من اثار دمار الخطيئة و قهر تلك الخطيئة المتأصلة فينا منذ ان مات المسيح من اجل خطايانا.<br>	+
-		+
-	[[Category:Top_priority|&lt;/div&gt;<br>]]	+

---

Current revision as of 17:52, 3 November 2010

The question, “What is sin?” is raised in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The answer provided to this catechetical question is simply this: “Sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God.”

Let us examine some of the elements of this catechetical response. In the first instance, sin is identified as some kind of want or lack. In the middle ages, Christian theologians tried to define evil or sin in terms of privation (privatio) or negation (negatio). In these terms, evil or sin was defined by its lack of conformity to goodness. The negative terminology associated with sin may be seen in biblical words such as disobedience, godlessness, or immorality. In all of these terms, we see the negative being stressed. Further illustrations would include words such as dishonor, antichrist, and others.

However, to gain a complete view of sin, we have to see that it involves more than a negation of the good, or more than a simple lack of virtue. We may be inclined to think that sin, if defined exclusively in negative terms, is merely an illusion. But the ravages of sin point dramatically to the reality of its power, which reality can never be explained away by appeals to illusion. The reformers added to the idea of privatio the notion of actuality or activity, so that evil is therefore seen in the phrase, “privatio actuosa.” This stresses the active character of sin. In the catechism, sin is defined not only as a want of conformity but an act of transgression, an action that involves an overstepping or violation of a standard.

In order to grasp the meaning of sin, we cannot define it apart from its relationship to law. It is God’s law that determines what sin is. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul, particularly in Romans, labors the point that there is an inseparable relationship between sin and death and between sin and law. The simple formula is this: No sin equals no death. No law equals no sin. The apostle argues that where there is no law, there is no sin, and where there is no sin, there is no death. This rests upon the premise that death invades the human experience as an act of divine judgment for sin. It is the soul who sins that dies. However, without law there can be no sin. Death cannot enter into the human experience until first God’s law is revealed. It is for this reason that the apostle argues that the moral law was in effect before God gave Israel the Mosaic code. The argument rests upon the premise that death was in the world before Sinai, that death reigned from Adam to Moses. This can only mean that God’s moral law was given to His creatures long before the tablets of stone were delivered to the nation of Israel.

This gives some credence to Immanuel Kant’s assertion of a universal moral imperative that he called the categorical imperative, which is found in the conscience of every sentient person. Since it is God’s law that defines the nature of sin, we are left to face the dreadful consequences of our disobedience to that law. What the sinner requires in order to be rescued from the punitive aspects of this law is what Solomon Stoddard called a righteousness of the Law. Just as sin is defined by a lack of conformity to the Law, or transgression of the Law, the only antidote for that transgression is obedience to the Law. If we possess such obedience to the Law of God, we are in no danger of the judgment of God.

Solomon Stoddard, the grandfather of Jonathan Edwards, wrote in his book, The Righteousness of Christ, the following summation of the value of the righteousness of the Law: “It is sufficient for us if we have the righteousness of the law. There is no danger of our miscarrying if we have that righteousness. The security of the angels in Heaven is that they have the righteousness of the law, and it is a sufficient security for us if we have the righteousness of the law. If we have the righteousness of the law, then we are not liable to the curse of the law. We are not threatened by the law; justice is not provoked with us; the condemnation of the law can take no hold upon us; the law has nothing to object against our salvation. The soul that has the righteousness of the law is out of the reach of the threatenings of the law. Where the demand of the law is answered, the law finds no fault. The law curses only for lack of perfect obedience. Yea, moreover, where there is the righteousness of the law, God has bound himself to give eternal life. Such persons are heirs of life, according to the promise of the law. The law declared them heirs of life, Galatians 3:12, ‘The man that doth them, shall live in them’” (The Righteousness of Christ, p. 25).

The only righteousness that meets the requirements of the Law is the righteousness of Christ. It is only by imputation of that righteousness that the sinner can ever possess the righteousness of the Law. This is critical for our understanding in this day where the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is so widely under attack. If we abandon the notion of the righteousness of Christ, we have no hope, because the Law is never negotiated by God. As long as the Law exists, we are exposed to its judgment unless our sin is covered by the righteousness of the Law. The only covering that we can possess of that righteousness is that which comes to us from the active obedience of Christ, who Himself fulfilled every jot and tittle of the Law. His fulfilling of the Law in Himself is a vicarious activity by which He achieves the reward that comes with such obedience. He does this not for Himself but for His people. It is the background of this imputed righteousness, this rescue from the condemnation of the Law, this salvation from the ravages of sin that is the backdrop for the Christian’s sanctification, in which we are to mortify that sin that remains in us, since Christ has died for our sin.