 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Freedom to choose love outweighing evil... | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/14/2003 11:23 AM (GMT -6) |   | I think it should be distinctly kept in mind that when we speak of free will, we are primarily referring to moral actions, not things like what kind of car we will buy, what kind of food we prefer, educational interests, etc.
It seems to me that a major facet of the OV is that humans have "say-so" with regard to that which they will be held accountable for before God some day; that is, good or evil choices, not morally neutral choices. It also should be noted that in Arminianism, as with the OV, human freedom is definitely limited. We can't will physically impossible things, we can't regenerate ourselves, we can't simply choose to do right by force of will. Arminians, Wesleyans, and Open Theists (at least those whose view were well thought out) have always stressed the prevenient grace (or drawing influence) of God, without which no one will or can ever choose rightly.
In classical theism (especially Augustinianism/Calvinism) it does not seem clear (to me at least) how anyone is really guilty of anything, as "everything that happens is God's will." If this is true, sin is God's will, God himself is the ultimate and original sinner, and condemns mankind to hell for that which they could in no wise avoid. In the Aug-Calv scenario, God commands man to do that which he absolutely cannot do--repent, live righteous and holy, have faith in God, etc. (I realize that many Calvinists will object to how I have depicted their system of belief; however, I do not see how they can get around the above if as they say, "everything that happens is God's will).
He loves me, he loves me not...
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/14/2003 4:26:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/14/2003 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | RD
I think my original point has been missed entirely. I'll try again - if you agree that there is no created being who is sinless (as the scriptures teach) - and there never will be one who is - what does that mean?
John
Angels (created beings) in heaven are sinless. Infants are by definition sinless. Sin is a transgression of the law. How can one transgress something when they can't even begin to understand it? Is being born a crime? If Augustine was correct, and unbaptized infants are worthy of damnation because of "original sin," how is it not true that God is the most impossible tyrant imaginable, and an infinitely greater criminal than Adolf Hitler? To whom much is given, much is required.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/14/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | | Wait - hold up - infants are by definition sinless? I've never heard that one before. In other words you completely do not believe in original sin? | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/14/2003 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Earp -Maybe now you can see where some of the Calvinist theologians were coming from. If infants are by definition sinless, they don't need grace. And if they die before they sin, then they are saved by their own works (of being sinless). And then that means that God is proven to be a liar, if he says that ALL have sinned and fallen short.
And you seem to concede that everyone needs God's grace in order to respond, or choose freely. That's a very Calvinist view. Luther said that the will is bounded by sin ("The Bondage of the Will") and cannot make a choice for God . It is only through God' s grace that anyone can make a choice for God.
It seems you agree with this? If so, the n I don't think you're an OV'er. :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/14/2003 11:59 AM (GMT -6) | | RD, there are at least two variations on "original sin": one that is really "original guilt" (Augustinian) and the other that is really "original mortality." (Greek speaking Fathers, and--might I add--the Apsostle Paul.  )
Here is a site that might have representatives of at least both of these views. (Someone in this discussion linked to that site.)
An article that I got a lot out of was: www.biblical-theology.com/originalsin/paul.htm It has the verbage:
quote:
The importance of a correct definition of original sin and its consequences can never be exaggerated. Any attempt to minimize its importance or alter its significance automatically entails either a weakening or even a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Church, sacraments and human destiny.
A proper approach to the New Testament teaching of St. Paul concerning original sin cannot be one-sided. It is incorrect, for example, to emphasize, in Romans 5:12, the phrase, eph'ho pantes hemarton, by trying to make it fit any certain system of thought concerning moral law and guilt without first establishing the importance of St. Paul's beliefs concerning the powers of Satan and the true situation not only of man, but of all creation. It is also wrong to deal with the problem of the transmission of original sin within the framework of dualistic anthropology while at the same time completely ignoring the Hebraic foundations of St. Paul's anthropology. Likewise, and attempt to interpret the Biblical doctrine of the fall in terms of a hedonistic philosophy of happiness is already doomed to failure because of its refusal to recognize not only the abnormality but, more important, the consequences of death and corruption.
A correct approach to the Pauline doctrine of original sin must take into consideration St. Paul's understanding of (1) the fallen state of creation, including the powers of Satan, death and corruption, (2) the justice of God and law, and (3) anthropology and the destiny of man and creation. These divisions are not meant to suggest that each topic is to be dealt with here in detail; rather, they shall be discussed only in the light of the main problem of original sin and its transmission according to St. Paul.
That author is Greek Orthodox, and a Theology professor in a Greek University. (He is definitely *not* Augustinian.)
THAT SAID... It is obvious that merely becasue one does not believe in one particular view that they do not accept "original sin" at all!
(For me, "original sin" is one of the reasons that I most firmly believe in an actual Adam and Eve.)
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/14/2003 5:03:30 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Wait - hold up - infants are by definition sinless? I've never heard that one before. In other words you completely do not believe in original sin?
I don't believe in the innovations of Augustine with regard to harmatiology. Arminians have always believed in the idea of an age of accountability. I believe all people are guilty because of their own sins, as is plainly depicted by Paul in Romans 1, 2, and 3. My views on this basically parallel the views of historic Eastern Orthodoxy (though I am not EO).
I find the following book, "Are Men Born Sinners?" to argue convincingly against the doctrine of Original Sin as invented by Augustine.
http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:09 PM (GMT -6) | | It's always been my understanding that yes, Arminians believe in the age of accountability, but that people who die before that age are saved by God's grace. That's the difference here. Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that it is Go'ds grace that saves everyone, Arminians believe that once a person is old enough to be accountable, they can choose to reject that grace.
What I hear OV'ers saying is that they are the ones freely choosing God (Pelagianism?) - and that God does not know what their decision will be until it is made. Furthermore, God cannot know that at the last second, someone who has previously chosen God would choose to reject him. There is no eternal security - since it is not God doing the saving, but rather the person deciding whether he wants to be saved or not. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John Earp
I don't believe in the innovations of Augustine with regard to harmatiology. Arminians have always believed in the idea of an age of accountability. I believe all people are guilty because of their own sins, as is plainly depicted by Paul in Romans 1, 2, and 3. My views on this basically parallel the views of historic Eastern Orthodoxy (though I am not EO).
Noting what I've read of EO: Not recognizing "inherited guilt" and "imputed righteousness" DOES NOT mean ignoring a very real and present problem. Sin and death reign. But that is what Christ's death AND resurrection came to address. Sin brought death, which leads to mre sin, etc.
And a second thing, even an innocent baby is still "dead in sin" due to the mortality of that original sin. (Same with your view, John?) EVERYONE needs the rebirth in Christ's death and resurrection. Everyone needs to be grafted on to the very "Life." Everyone needs the eternal life that is only found in the God-man, Jesus Christ. (And so the ascension is also so important.)
Whether or not the EO and John are the same as to an "age of innocence" I don't know. (Maybe they are.) But the destiny of an innocent is still death without Christ's own death.
So, bottom line, no one here is saying that anyone has eternal life by their own power. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Earp -Maybe now you can see where some of the Calvinist theologians were coming from. If infants are by definition sinless, they don't need grace. And if they die before they sin, then they are saved by their own works (of being sinless). And then that means that God is proven to be a liar, if he says that ALL have sinned and fallen short.
RD,
I think I have a good handle on Calvinism. I vehemently disagree with its fundamental premises.
As to the points you raise, in my understanding infants do not earn anything by "works," for they are morally neutral until they know good from evil. As to "all have sinned" in context Paul has been arguing from Rom. chs 1 through 3 that BOTH Jews and Greeks have sinned against the moral light they possessed, and that neither Jews nor Greeks can claim some kind of superior status with regard to God. It is so that every mouth may be stopped, and all may be declared guilty before God.
Isaiah 7:16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.
RD
And you seem to concede that everyone needs God's grace in order to respond, or choose freely. That's a very Calvinist view. Luther said that the will is bounded by sin ("The Bondage of the Will") and cannot make a choice for God . It is only through God' s grace that anyone can make a choice for God.
It seems you agree with this? If so, the n I don't think you're an OV'er. :)
John
Well, it seems to me that you haven't read very closely what Open Theists have published. In nearly every book published by OV theists in the past several years, the Wesleyan concept of prevenient grace is specifically referred to when OVT is accused of denying total depravity. The concept of prevenient grace allows Arminians to hold to BOTH total depravity AND significant human free will to choose for or against God. All published Open Theists I am aware of subscribe to the idea of prevenient grace. Where the Wesleyan concept differs from the Calvinistic one is that Wesleyans do not see prevenient grace as irresistible, whereas Calvinists do.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/14/2003 5:20:48 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Leila,
quote:
Can you, as an Open Theist, concede that is is possible that perhaps your choices to eat or think certain thoughts are not truly free; that your perception that you have a choice in such matters is just illusory; that your genetics, culture, upbringing, age, etc. are not just influencing factors with respect to these actions, but are in fact determining factors?
Heavens no. Can you concede such? Lets, again, put your question into a statement:
My choices of what I eat and think are not my choices at all but are illusions of choice. My genetics, culture, upbringing, age, etc., do not influence me, because if I have no choices in these matters, there are no influences; there are only determined factors [for "factors" we'll have to use another word: events].
Does this sound like reality and life as we live it? Is there any reason whatsoever to think that when I make a choice I'm not really making a choice? No. Now, can God (or anyone, for that matter) influence me? Yes. BUT that's not taking choice away, because I can, if I so choose, still choose to eat something different and do something differently than what I'm influenced to eat or do.
We are confined much less than we are free. This I said in my previous post (I believe it was). This does not mean that we are confined completely; influences or no influences. We are, indeed, free beings in many, many ways, but not in so many ways that the freedoms (of choice) we have out weigh the limitations and confinements in which we live. But in view of this, there's certainly no reason to jump over board and posit illusion in place of the freedoms we do have.
One of the very first things God presented before Adam was choice: to name the animals; to choose to eat or not eat of a tree's fruit; to walk where he would and eat what he would (except for that darned one tree!); to love God or not to love God; to obey God or not to obey God. Illusions? Not so!
Well, I'm off to listen to a lecture on World Views on another Web site!
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown
Edited by - Starkman on 06/14/2003 5:24:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | | Earp - OK, I"m sincerely trying to hear you out. So if OVers have the same view of grace as Arminians - then how is the OV theodicy any different than the Arminian one? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:26 PM (GMT -6) | | RD,
There's no specific theodicy of OVers. You'll find different perspectives about good and evil from Overs and the Arminians.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John
Angels (created beings) in heaven are sinless. Infants are by definition sinless. Sin is a transgression of the law. How can one transgress something when they can't even begin to understand it? Is being born a crime? If Augustine was correct, and unbaptized infants are worthy of damnation because of "original sin," how is it not true that God is the most impossible tyrant imaginable, and an infinitely greater criminal than Adolf Hitler? To whom much is given, much is required.
Read the quotes by St. Basil in the footnotes of: "The River of Fire"
quote:
quoting "The River of Fire"
Death was not inflicted upon us by God 13 We fell into it by our revolt. God is Life and Life is God. We revolted against God, we closed our gates to His life-giving grace. 14 "For as much as he departed from life", wrote Saint Basil, "by so much did he draw nearer to death. For God is Life, deprivation of life is death". 15 "God did not create death", continues Saint Basil, "but we brought it upon ourselves". "Not at all, however, did He hinder the dissolution... so that He would not make the infirmity immortal in us". 16 As Saint Irenaeus puts it: "Separation from God is death, separation from light is darkness... and it is not the light which brings upon them the punishment of blindness". 17
"Death", says Saint Maximus the Confessor, "is principally the separation from God, from which followed necessarily the death of the body. Life is principally He who said, 'I am the Life'".18 And why did death come upon the whole of humanity? Why did those who did not sin with Adam die as did Adam? Here is the reply of Saint Anastasius the Sinaite: "We became the inheritors of the curse in Adam. We were not punished as if we had disobeyed that divine commandment along with Adam; but because Adam became mortal, he transmitted sin to his posterity. We became mortal since we were born from a mortal".19 And Saint Gregory Palamas makes this point: "[God] did not say to Adam: return to whence thou wast taken; but He said to him: Earth thou art and unto the earth thou shall return.... He did not say: 'in whatsoever day ye shall eat of it, die!' but, 'in whatsoever day ye shall eat of it, ye shall surely die.' Nor did He afterwards say: 'return now unto the earth,' but He said, 'thou shalt return,' in this manner forewarning, justly permitting and not obstructing what shall come to pass". 20 We see that death did not come at the behest of God but as a consequence of Adam's severing his relations with the source of Life, by his disobedience; and God in His kindness did only warn him of it.
and...
quote:
In his discourse entitled That God is not the Cause of Evil, Saint Basil the Great writes the following: "But one may say, if God is not responsible for evil things, why is it said in the book of Esaias, 'I am He that prepared light and Who formed darkness, Who makes peace and Who creates evils' (45:7)." And again, "There came down evils from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem" (Mich. 1:12). And, "Shall there be evil in the city which the Lord hath not wrought?" (Amos 3:6). And in the great Ode of Moses, "Behold, I am and there is no god beside Me. I will slay, and I will make to live; I will smite, and I will heal" (Deut. 32:39). But none of these citations, to him who understands the deeper meaning of the Holy Scriptures, casts any blame on God, as if He were the cause of evils and their creator, for He Who said, "I am the One Who makes light and darkness," shows Himself as the Creator of the universe, not that He is the creator of any evil.... "He creates evils," that means, "He fashions them again and brings them to a betterment, so that they leave their evilness, to take on the nature of good." 35
As Saint Isaac the Syrian writes, "Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this" (Homily 83, p. 317).
Saint Basil in the same discourse 36 gives the explanation of these expressions of the Holy Scriptures: "It is because fear," says he, "edifies simpler people," and this is true not only for simple people but for all of us. After our fall, we need fear in order to do any profitable thing and any good to ourselves or to others. In order to understand the Holy Scriptures, say the Fathers, we must have in mind their purpose which is to save us, and to bring us little by little to an understanding of our Creator God and of our wretched condition.
But the same Holy Scriptures in other places explain to us more accurately who is the real cause of our evils. In Jeremias 2:17, 19 we read: "Hath not thy forsaking Me brought these things upon thee? saith the Lord thy God.... Thine apostasy shall chastise thee and thy wickedness shall reprove thee; know then, and see that thy forsaking Me hath been bitter to thee, saith the Lord thy God."
The Holy Scriptures speak our language, the language which we understand in our fallen state. As Saint Gregory the Theologian says, "For according to our own comprehension, we have given names from our own attributes to those of God." 37 And Saint John Damascene explains further that what in the Holy Scriptures "is said of God as if He had a body, is said symbolically... [it contains] some hidden meaning, which through things corresponding to our nature, teaches us things which exceed our nature." 38
and...
quote:
So we see that God punishes as long as there is hope for correction. After the Common Resurrection there is no question of any punishment from God. Hell is not a punishment from God but a self condemnation. As Saint Basil the Great says, "The evils in hell do not have God as their cause, but ourselves." 40
(sorry to 'bud in!') | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | | Starkman - hey - all determinism holds is that for every effect, there is a cause. Every choice, is caused. It doesn't deny choice. Again I'll risk saying that this seems to be a semantical confusion. Libertarianism means that each individual has a will which is outside the chain of causation. Determinism does not deny the will, but holds that the will is inside the chain of causation. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
And a second thing, even an innocent baby is still "dead in sin" due to the mortality of that original sin. (Same with your view, John?)
I don't agree that babies are "dead in sin." I think that is confusing the issue of sin with mortality. Sin is a transgression of the law. What law has an infant violated by being born? I don't see how one can be "dead in sins" without voluntarily sinning, nor how an infant can voluntarily sin. Why would Jesus say in reference to children, "of such is the kingdom of God" if they were in fact hell-deserving rebels against God and his holy law?
In the story of the Prodigal Son, the Father said his son was "dead" and "lost," while he was in rebellion, and that when he returned he was "alive again," and "found." Therefore it does not seem to me that Jesus would use the terms, "dead" and "lost" as if they were equivalent to Calvinism's "total moral inability" concept.
It seems to me much more agreeable with Scripture and Reason to think of total depravity as entered into voluntarily, as in, "he that commits sin is the slave of sin...but if the Son sets you free, you are free indeed."
I do agree that infants who die are saved by the GRACE of God. I also agree that no one has eternal life in himself but the Godhead.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | So Earp - how do you explain the Scripture where Paul says that b/c of Adams' sin - sin is unavoidable for everyone thereafter?
On your view, it seems that it is conceivable that there were, or will be, persons who are able to remain sinless, through their own will, unaffected by God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What I hear OV'ers saying is that they are the ones freely choosing God (Pelagianism?) - and that God does not know what their decision will be until it is made. Furthermore, God cannot know that at the last second, someone who has previously chosen God would choose to reject him. There is no eternal security - since it is not God doing the saving, but rather the person deciding whether he wants to be saved or not.
QUOTE: What I hear OV'ers saying is ... that God does not know what their decision will be until it is made.
Question: WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT WHEN YOU REMOVE THE PROPOSITION THAT A "DECISION" (Which strikes me as a kind of "work" in itself  ) is removed from the formula?  Seems very much like this is only cast in that form if you are looking at salvation as "imputation" of something, and as an abstraction that is later solidified. Make sense?
But, if as they said on WMBI (Moody Bible Institute) Radio, that we are BEING SAVED (also a good EO view) THEN this worry you have above just doesn't exist to be solved. (Good old WMBI!)
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:36 PM (GMT -6) | | RD, Okay, I see what you're saying. However ...
Determinism (from an Arminian perspective) tries to envoke choice but does so in an environment of that choice already having been known by God (almost wrote Tod!). The OVer says God doesn't know all the choices.
Now (and I'm not thinking this through as thoroughly as I wish I had the time to do so, so please bare with me), IN THIS CONTEXT a theodicy would address a) how God has decided to respond and initiate in regard to those known choices (Arminianism); or b) how God responds and initiates as the choices are being made (OV). None of these (as I see it, though, as I say, I'm not thinking through here) address the problem of evil regardless of these two camps; vis., does God allow evil; does God use evil; is God playing by rules that prohibit Him to intervene in some circumstances--issues that are prevelant regardless of the foreknowledge issue.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Earp - OK, I"m sincerely trying to hear you out. So if OVers have the same view of grace as Arminians - then how is the OV theodicy any different than the Arminian one?
I think the OV is better than the Arminian one because if God definitely knew all the evil that would transpire as a result of Adam's misuse of his free will, the scriptural assertion of God's loving character seems questionable at best. The OV thinks the Bible is expressing a real truth about God's mind when He says in Gen. 6 that "He was sorry that he had made man." The OV asks, "How can one be sorry for that which has been exhaustively settled for all eternity?" (Much less, absolutely controlled as in Augustinianism/Calvinism).
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:41 PM (GMT -6) | | John quotes PoW"
quote:
And a second thing, even an innocent baby is still "dead in sin" due to the mortality of that original sin. (Same with your view, John?)
And John responds: I don't agree that babies are "dead in sin." I think that is confusing the issue of sin with mortality. Sin is a transgression of the law. What law has an infant violated by being born? I don't see how one can be "dead in sins" without voluntarily sinning, nor how an infant can voluntarily sin. Why would Jesus say in reference to children, "of such is the kingdom of God" if they were in fact hell-deserving rebels against God and his holy law?
MY BAD!!! The verbage "dead in sin" is taken. I misspoke! I meant that even babies inherit mortality. And from everything else I wrote you can see that. I agree with you John, that they are not "hardened rebels." They are born without sin, but yet born with a problem nonetheless. And Christ is the answer to that problem. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
So Earp - how do you explain the Scripture where Paul says that b/c of Adams' sin - sin is unavoidable for everyone thereafter?
On your view, it seems that it is conceivable that there were, or will be, persons who are able to remain sinless, through their own will, unaffected by God.
I don't believe that the Bible teaches such a thing. Sin is a choice. I do believe that all mankind has been negatively affected towards sin by the example set by Adam and Eve, and that all will in fact sin upon reaching their own age of accountability.
Do you believe God sends any babies to hell?
As I alluded to earlier, I believe that infants are by definition sinless until they develop a sense of right and wrong, and that all people are accountable for the amount of moral light they possess.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | | OK Earp - I agree with what you're saying - how can God be sorry for something he knew the result of? Yes, that doesn't make much sense. But neither does saying that God had no idea what would happen as a result of his creation! B/c then doesn't it seem extremely negligent, if not reckless, to create- without knowing how much catastrophe one would be wreaking by virtue of that creation?
Neither reading seems ideal. the reason I choose to accept the traditional view is that the evidence seems to weigh in its favor - that the few verses that imply God is regretting things are anthropomorphic - vs. all the other verses that show that God does indeed know what he is doing. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:50 PM (GMT -6) | | I have to run, but I would like to recommend the following link:
http://twtministries.com/articles/11_born_sin/index.html
The articles at the above webpage accurately describe my own position with regard to the Augustinian concept of Original Sin.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Our nature at birth is not ontologically evil; it is only accompanied by something that corrupts it. This, a result, in an unknown manner that cannot be seen, measured or weighed, makes it very difficult to graps its (sin's) process at work.
A baby is equally influenced by and under the curse of this corruption. It's not a matter of "doing" something sinful to prove it. That the infant isn't able to express this in words or actions does not constitute enough reason to believe otherwise; for as soon as a baby or young child IS able, that child betrays the innocents we unrightfully attribute to him/her by speaking or displaying the wrong that is already there, not influenced or otherwise. And still, that child cannot intelligently communicate the whats and whys of it all. It must be taught NOT to do such-and such, taught NOT to say such and such. It was never taught to do or say those things which he/she ought not to have done.
"All have sinned" does not encompass only those who know they have sinned; that wasn't Paul's point. "There are none righteous" is not to communicate on behalf of only those who know this and can intelligently communicate with others about it. Paul's theology is in context to the dillema of mankind, not specific men. "Works" are not just things we do or say to earn something--the word works is much broader than that--but to make any and all contrasts to that of grace and mercy.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/14/2003 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | | | I too, have to run, but briefly, no, i do not believe infants are sent to hell. I tend to believe more towards a universalistic stance - whereby Christ is the one who saves humanity...I do not have my theology worked out yet, so can't state it succintly. But I believe God has a plan that is going according to plan, and that he does love all and will save all. | | Back to Top | | |
| 147 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:19 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|