Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Freedom to choose love outweighing evil...  Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
147 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3  4  5  6 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/16/2003 7:29 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Below are two articles on Pelagius. It would appear that Pelagius himself was actually more semi-Pelagian than Pelagian. I think I'm 7/8 Pelagian or at least 3/4.

http://www.biblical-theology.com/calvinism2/pelagius.htm

http://www.biblical-theology.com/calvinism2/pelagius2.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
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/16/2003 7:36 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
An interesting article called "Pelagius: To Demetrias"
www.brojed.org/pelagius.html
Back to Top
 

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
 
   Posted 6/16/2003 8:50 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I'm not a UNIVERsalist - i have those leanings - just as many on this board don't believe in a traditional hell.
Whatever you said, John, the truth remains that original sin is a tenet of the chirstian faith.
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/16/2003 11:58 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

I'm not a UNIVERsalist - i have those leanings - just as many on this board don't believe in a traditional hell.
Whatever you said, John, the truth remains that original sin is a tenet of the chirstian faith.



So you agree that all Eastern Orthodox Christians are not actually Christians, and you think that only Christianity as defined by Augustine is the real one? And you insist that to be a Christian one must believe unbaptized infants do not go to heaven? You agree that sin is a passed down generation to generation by the sex act, and that even married sex is by definition sinful? This is Augustine's perverted perspective.

I agree that the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is the majority opinion of Western Christians (Catholic or Protestant). You obviously don't know much about the Eastern branches of Christianity if you think Augustine's idea is a basic tenet of Christianity.




"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 6/16/2003 12:11 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
No, I'm obviously a moron. And, at this point am sick and tired of the discussion.
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/16/2003 12:11 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

God is not into cruel humor, He knew the law was unatainable for men, that's why they had Priests and sacrifice.



God was apparently not of the opinion that His Law was impossible for people to keep:

Deut. 30:11 Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” 14 No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart that you may do it.
15 See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. 16 If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God£ that I am commanding you today, by loving the LORD your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the LORD your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the LORD swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

quote:

Original sin is a cornerstone of CHISTianity, remove it and you remove the need for Christ, we should be able to do it on our own.


No one (not even Pelagius himself) has ever believed there ever could be a person apart from Christ who lived from birth to death without sinning (excepting very young children). If a person sins even once, they are in absolute need of the forgiving and justifying grace of Christ. If an infant dies, they enter heaven by the grace of God alone. Adam derived his very existence by the grace of God as well.




"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 6/16/2003 12:29 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
John, while I think that I agree with YOU, I do FEEL for RD. I'm not sure that you are disagreeing in anything that EITHER of you would hold most dear. Its just that having finite-length pages (and finite minds) makes keeping track of details and taxonomies to b, well, "fumbly." Right?

I think RD feels beat upon. I don't think RD believes you to have no-undrestanding of original-whatever. But I think RD also knows that you disagree where to put the emPHASIS on which sylLABles.

I wish you both well.


(What you both need is one of these--below)










Edited by - fred on 06/16/2003 5:30:06 PM
Back to Top
 

anewbeginning
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
 
   Posted 6/16/2003 5:30 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi Pow:

Sorry, I have a bad habit of jumping over long posts, though I did read your Murray quote after I posted. Interesting, but even if Psalm 51:5 is interpreted differently, the general thrust of original sin remains in other scriptures. Regardless, I remain convinced the vast majority of commentators favor the first interpretation.



Hi John:

You write:

"The idea of an "inherited sin nature" I find to be absolutely nonsensical."

Contrary to you, I find the idea of any human being capable of a "morally neutral" position non-sensical. How is one neutral to Good? What would one call this position? To be neutral to good is to be estranged from it. One is good, or one isn't.

You also wrote:

"God was apparently not of the opinion that His Law was impossible for people to keep:

Deut. 30:11..."

Well, I guess you could argue Moses didn't, as he was the speaker. But He wasn't refering to their ability, only to the simplicity of keeping covenant with God. That they could not use complexity or difficulty as an excuse for disobedience. Anyway, the entire Levitical system was God-given.

I suppose this discussion all began regarding the eternal destiny of children. I also have difficulty believing God to be a puniisher of those not yet able to sin. But I can't sacrifice Christian doctrine on the altar of human yearnings for an apparently more logical, if less realistic theology. I almost agree with Pelagius when he says "I don't know where they are, but I know where they are not."
We are not told specifically what ocurs, but I have faith that God is just, and fair, and even logical. I leave it in His hands. It's not necessary to take such a radical step away from orthodoxy.


Hi Laika:

You wrote:

" "In sin did my mother", ever consider the "mother" part of this verse? When Samuel came to Jesse for a replacement for Saul, and asked that ALL Jesse's sons be brought out, why was David left out?"


David also referred to his mother as "Your handmaiden" ("Your" reffering to God). It's curious that he would smear her here. Was he faulting her for his sin?

You wrote:

"How can He claim to have been tempted "as we are"? Either He was born a sinner like you claim we are, or we are born sinless like you claim He was. If we sin because we're sinners from birth, then He couldn't sin, being sinless from birth. He became like us in all respects. Do you believe Jesus could have sinned?"

Th purpose of His temptaions was to overcome. There was never doubt about the outcome. He became like us in all respects, save sin. We are like Him in very few repects, especially save sin.



You wrote:

"Original sin is a cornerstone of Calvinism. The only verses I've seen used to support it are Psalms 51:5 and Romans 5:12:"

How about Gen 8:21
or Leviticus 5:1-5 where the idea of sin unawares does not relieve guilt. Ephesians also has much to say about our "sin nature".

Perhaps you could give some proof texts regarding innocence.








Edited by - anewbeginning on 06/16/2003 10:33:28 PM
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/16/2003 7:37 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

John, while I think that I agree with YOU, I do FEEL for RD. I'm not sure that you are disagreeing in anything that EITHER of you would hold most dear. Its just that having finite-length pages (and finite minds) makes keeping track of details and taxonomies to b, well, "fumbly." Right?


I guess I don't get how we are *not* disagreeing.

quote:
I think RD feels beat upon.


I honestly have no idea why she would feel that way. So far it seems she has been the one accusing others of not being Christians. I certainly haven't done that. Because I find the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin to be totally absurd, illogical, and blasphemy against God's good character, I am somehow "beating" RD? How's that?

RD: "For the record," as you say, I have not intended to attack you personally. I am sorry if you have felt that way.






"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 06/17/2003 12:52:42 AM
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/16/2003 7:51 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
anew

Hi John:

You write:

"The idea of an "inherited sin nature" I find to be absolutely nonsensical."

Contrary to you, I find the idea of any human being capable of a "morally neutral" position non-sensical. How is one neutral to Good? What would one call this position? To be neutral to good is to be estranged from it. One is good, or one isn't.

...I suppose this discussion all began regarding the eternal destiny of children. I also have difficulty believing God to be a puniisher of those not yet able to sin.

John replies

The portion I have bolded above is all this discussion is about. Do you agree or not agree that infants are "not yet able to sin?" That's all my position says. To be morally neutral is to lack the ability to make moral choices. What moral choice of any kind or degree might an infant be able to make?

anew

You also wrote:

"God was apparently not of the opinion that His Law was impossible for people to keep:

Deut. 30:11..."

Well, I guess you could argue Moses didn't, as he was the speaker.

John

Moses was speaking as prophet/mouthpiece for God, this became Scripture, and therefore God was in fact speaking. We DO agree that the Bible is the word of God, don't we?

anew

...But I can't sacrifice Christian doctrine on the altar of human yearnings for an apparently more logical, if less realistic theology. I almost agree with Pelagius when he says "I don't know where they are, but I know where they are not."
We are not told specifically what ocurs, but I have faith that God is just, and fair, and even logical. I leave it in His hands. It's not necessary to take such a radical step away from orthodoxy.

John

Denial of Augustine's horrendous doctrine of Original Sin (whereby infants come into the world already under the wrath and condemnation of God, worthy of hell because of Adam's sin) is definitely not "sacrificing Christian doctrine," it is RESTORING it to it's original true teaching. It is a plain fact that Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin was unknown to the Christian church for nearly the entire first 400 years of its existence. What is really at stake here is one thing--moral responsibility. If all people are condemned to hell because of Adam's sin, how is God righteous, fair, just, or loving in any sense?

If, on the other hand, as Ezekiel 18 plainly states, "the son shall not bear the sin of the father," and "the soul that sinneth, it shall die," (each shall bear the responsibility for their OWN sins, not the sins of others) then God is completely just in all his dealings with mankind.

As to "propensity to sin," I have never denied that to be true of all people. That is the tendency to selfishness that is at the root of all sin. No one denies that, not Pelagius, Celestius, or anyone else.

In Ezekiel 18, God makes an overwhelming and clarifyingly convicting case against those who would blame their sinfulness on their fathers.




"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 06/17/2003 01:24:29 AM
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/16/2003 8:04 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

Well then, God's absolute intelligence is pretty poor! You're telling me that he waited until Noah to decide that he was sorry he made man? After Cain killed his brother? Why didn't he at that time say, hey, I screwed up, I'm sorry I started this human experiment. He waits until things get completely out o f hand, and then decides to destroy everythgin save Noah. (in the process killing several innocent babies and animals, etc.)



Hi RD,

I wanted to answer this one earlier, but got sidetracked. Anyway, OTheists like Dr. Boyd point out that the Bible reveals God is amazingly patient in his dealings with man, and does in fact seem to wait until things are beyond salvage when it comes to meting out judgment. (See also Gen. 15, where he says, "the sin of the Amorites is not yet full.")

This doesn't call into question His intelligence, though one might wonder about his wisdom if one did not take for granted that God granting humans significant free will by definition requires that He honor that free will by not violating it immediately upon its abuse.

As to the innocent babies:

1. In my view, they would go to heaven, being sinless.

2. I'm glad we agree on this fact.

God is slow to anger.




"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
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/16/2003 8:07 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
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."

...

1. "thinks the Bible is expressing a real truth" is just fine!!! The Bible is NOT presenting falsehood or deception.

2. But taked to mean (which appears how it was meant above) that "the Bible is expressing ... God's mind" presents a problem. One that history might question us on! How can WE know God's mind the way God knows his mind??? We can't.


One expresses one's mind to others how?



"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 06/17/2003 01:27:01 AM
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/16/2003 8:30 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

No, I'm obviously a moron.


RD,

I never called you a moron or meant to imply anything of the sort. You obviously are a very intelligent individual (the exact opposite of a moron). However, you do seem to be quite judgemental against those who do not nod "uh-huh" when Augustinian-Calvinian dogma is preached. It just seems strange to me that you can call everyone not a Christian who does not subscribe to the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin.

Anyway, it doesn't hurt my feelings in the least. I'm pretty used to having my Christianity called into question by determinists. Could it be any other way? :)




"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 6/17/2003 2:02 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Ah, here is a one-point place for me to begin a post. (Keep myself from becoming confused in a multi-contributor discussion--and hopefully not derail anyone else's contribution.) The one point is the salvation of newborns. Here's what you've said so far:

quote:
John Earp: As to the innocent babies: 1. In my view, they would go to heaven, being sinless.


anew: ...I suppose this discussion all began regarding the eternal destiny of children. I also have difficulty believing God to be a puniisher of those not yet able to sin.

John replies: The portion I have bolded above is all this discussion is about.



I'd like to add to the "tree" of your disussion by bringing in just one major "limb." Nothing scrubby--something major.

John Earp said, "As to the innocent babies. . .they would go to heaven, being sinless." I'd agree, but not necessarily for the reason John has in mind. If heaven is a "place" then his statement means one thing. But if "heaven" is being in God's presence and wanting to be there (versus being there and hating it because it denies your own warped reality that you yourself are lord--as with Lucifer's end of being unable to realize his ambitions) then the newborns will, I believe, be the eternal life of newborns. But it WOULD NOT BE SO had Christ not died on the cross and raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven. Not at all. Without Christ the Mediator they would have been as stuck in "sin" (inherited from Adam and Eve) as anyone else.

anew said, "...I suppose this discussion all began regarding the eternal destiny of children. I also have difficulty believing God to be a puniisher of those not yet able to sin." I want to grow my one "limb" off of what anew said: "regarding the eternal destiny of children" as per "a puniisher." I want to ask THIS question: WHAT/WHO PUNISHES? And I want to try answering that question by asking: WHO/WHAT/HOW/WHY "PAYS FOR" THIS PUNISHEMENT?

Our Eastern Orthodox brethren have an answer to this. My I share it? They say that who/what Christ "paid" for our sins was TO "reality itself." Here's from something an Orthodox seminary dean wrote that is from the OCA.org webpage:

quote:
Redemption -- "And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried." (Nicene Creed)

. . .

The sufferings and death of Christ in obedience to the Father reveals the super-abundant divine love of God for his creation. For when all was sinful, cursed, and dead, Christ became sin, a curse, and dead for us -- though he himself never ceased to be the righteousness and blessedness and life of God Himself. It is to this depth, of which lower and more base cannot be discovered or imagined, that Christ has humiliated himself "for us men and for our salvation." For being God, he became man; and being man, he became a slave; and being a slave, he became dead and not only dead, but dead on a cross. From this deepest degradation of God flows the eternal exaltation of man. This is the pivotal doctrine of the Orthodox Christian faith, expressed over and again in many ways throughout the history of the Orthodox Church. It is the doctrine of the atonement -- for we are made to be "at one" with God. It is the doctrine of redemption -- for we are redeemed, i.e., "bought with a price," the great price of the blood of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 6:20).

. . .


Jesus, the Perfect Image of Human Life

    In contemplating the saving and redeeming action of Christ, it has become traditional to emphasize three aspects which in reality are not divided, and cannot be; but which in theory (i.e., in the vision of Christ's being.and activity as the Saviour of the world) may be distinguished. The first of these three aspects of the redeeming work of Christ is the fact that Jesus saves mankind by providing the perfect image and example of human life as filled with the grace and power of God.



Jesus, the Reconciler of Man with God

    The second aspect of Christ's one, indivisible act of salvation of man and his world is the accomplishment of man's reconciliation with God the Father through the forgiveness of sins. This is the redemption and atonement strictly speaking, the release from sins, and the punishment due to sins; the being made "at one" with God.

      In Orthodox theology generally it can be said that the language of "payment" and "ransom" is rather understood as a metaphorical and symbolical way of saying that Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God. He "paid the price," not in some legalistic or juridical or economic meaning. He "paid the price" not to the devil whose rights over man were won by deceit and tyranny. He "paid the price" not to God the Father in the sense that God delights in His sufferings and received "satisfaction" from His creatures in Him. He "paid the price" rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He "paid the price" to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life (See Rom 5-8; Gal 2-4).

      By dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ cleansed the world from evil and sin. He defeated the devil "in his own territory" and on "his own terms." The "wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will -- and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity -- He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal. This is what the Church sings on the feast of the Resurrection, the New Passover in Christ, the new Paschal Lamb, who is risen from the dead:

        Christ is risen from the dead!
        Trampling down death by death!
        And upon those in the tombs bestowing life!
        (Easter Troparion)


      And this is how the Church prays at the divine liturgy of Saint Basil the Great:

        He was God before the ages, yet He appeared on earth and lived among men, becoming incarnate of a holy Virgin;

        He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being likened to the body of our lowliness, that He might liken us to the image of His Glory.

        For as by man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so it pleased Thine Only-begotten Son, who was in the bosom of Thee, the God and Father, who was born of a woman, the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, who was born under the law to condemn sin in His flesh, so that those who were dead in Adam might be made alive in Thy Christ Himself.

        He lived in this world and gave commandments of salvation; releasing us from the delusions of idolatry, He brought us to knowledge of Thee, the true God and Father. He obtained us for His own chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.

        Having cleansed us in water, and sanctified us with the Holy Spirit, He gave Himself as a ransom to death, in which we were held captive, sold under sin.

        Descending through the cross into Sheol -- that He might fill all things with Himself -- He loosed the pangs of death. He arose on the third day, having made for all flesh a path to the resurrection from the dead, since it was not possible for the Author of Life to be a victim of corruption.

        So He became the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep, the first-born of the dead, that He might be Himself truly the first in all things ...
        (Eucharistic Prayer of the Liturgy of St. Basil)



Jesus, the Destroyer of Death

    The third and final aspect of the saving and redeeming action of Christ, therefore, is the deepest and most comprehensive. It is the destruction of death by Christ's own death. It is the transformation of death itself into an act of life. It is the recreation of Sheol -- the spiritual condition of being dead -- into the paradise of God. Thus, in and through the death of Jesus Christ, death is made to die. In Him, who is the Resurrection and the Life, man cannot die, but lives forever with God.




(from above)

He "paid the price" rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He "paid the price" to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life (See Rom 5-8; Gal 2-4).



Edited by - fred on 06/17/2003 07:09:39 AM
Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 6/17/2003 2:48 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
anewbeginning
quote:

Hi Laika:

David also referred to his mother as "Your handmaiden" ("Your" reffering to God). It's curious that he would smear her here. Was he faulting her for his sin?



Did you read the articles PoW and John linked? David's mother was Jewish, a handmaiden of the Lord. NOT an insult. What sin did David commit when he was conceived?

quote:

Th purpose of His temptaions was to overcome. There was never doubt about the outcome. He became like us in all respects, save sin. We are like Him in very few repects, especially save sin.



Hebrews 4:15
"For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin."

He came to experience what we experience, as we experience it. Handicapping us with an inherited sinful nature while not taking on that nature Himself doesn't sound like being tempted in all things as we are. One has got to go.

quote:

How about Gen 8:21



Gen 8:21 "The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done."

Yep, at young ages (age of accountability) people start making bad choices. Where is "inherited sin" in this verse?

quote:

or Leviticus 5:"1 'Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.
2 'Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean cattle or a carcass of unclean swarming things, though it is hidden from him and he is unclean, then he will be guilty.
3 'Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort his uncleanness may be with which he becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty.
4 'Or if a person swears thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, in whatever matter a man may speak thoughtlessly with an oath, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty in one of these.
5 'So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned."



We still believe people sin. We just believe they sin because they choose to sin, not because they have sin imputed to them by God, at conception.

quote:
Ephesians also has much to say about our "sin nature".


Again, your choices become your habits and your habits become your nature. See Romans 1

Isaiah 1:
18 "Come now, and let us reason together,"
Says the LORD,
"Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool.
19 "If you consent and obey,
You will eat the best of the land;
20 "But if you refuse and rebel,
You will be devoured by the sword."
Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

God is speaking to sinners here. Calvin says that EVERY thought we have is sin-soaked and against God, how can these sinners reason with God? How can they "consent and obey"? If God commands it, don't you think the possibility is there to obey?

Romans 9:10 "And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls"

Someone who has not yet done anything good or bad is what? Morally neutral

We agree that humans have sinful natures, we just disagree on whether God imputes that nature to us or not.



Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 06/17/2003 07:56:05 AM
Back to Top
 

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
 
   Posted 6/17/2003 3:32 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Earp - don't put words in my mouth. I never "accused" anyone of not being a Christian - that's between the person and God. I simply stated the facts that original sin is one of the tenets of the Christian faith. You and everyone else is free to accept and deny whatever tenet you want. That doesn't mean you're not a CHristian. I was saying that it is a tenet b/c I've found on this Board many unorthodox things tossed around without any sense of the historicity of the CHristian faith.
Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 6/17/2003 3:49 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
ReasonableDoubt
quote:

Earp - don't put words in my mouth. I never "accused" anyone of not being a Christian - that's between the person and God. I simply stated the facts that original sin is one of the tenets of the Christian faith. You and everyone else is free to accept and deny whatever tenet you want. That doesn't mean you're not a CHristian. I was saying that it is a tenet b/c I've found on this Board many unorthodox things tossed around without any sense of the historicity of the CHristian faith.



I think John and PoW are showing that "original sin" is NOT a tenet of all branches of Christianity. NOT in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, NOT in Moral Government Christianity, NOT in Open View Christianity...

Yes, it *is* in Calvin/Augustinian Christianity and the Papist branch as well. They are showing the historical record to prove that rejection of "original sin" is NOT a new doctrine.

The links they posted on Pelagius, if read, will show that it was POLITICS that cast Pelagius as a heretic, NOT any refutation of his views.



Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?
Back to Top
 

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
 
   Posted 6/17/2003 4:28 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I got this from an Orthodox website:

By contrast, the Orthodox understanding is conveyed concisely in St Athanasius' treatise On the Incarnation (318 AD). When man (in the persons of Adam and Eve from whom we all derive our human nature) first sinned, he became separated from God. This separation from God is what Orthodox understand to be original sin and it has two consequences: First, separated from the source of all good, man becomes morally corrupt, with an innate tendency to sin; secondly, separated from the source of all Being, man begins to return to his original state, the nothing from which God created him. Corruption and death come into the world.

In other words, original sin in the Orthodox understanding is not a "stain" but an absence. And there is no need to figure out how Christ failed to inherit it along with His human nature from His mother, because the Incarnation itself is the end of the separation. In Himself, from the moment of Incarnation, Christ was both God and Man and therefore His Human Nature never experienced the separation from God which all other humans suffer since the sin in the Garden and which is original sin. Christ does not give us life and righteousness as things apart from Himself; Christ Himself is our life and righteousness.


I don't see that their conception of original sin differs from the Protestant one in many respects. Both differ from Catholicism - the doctrine of immaculate conception and its relation to Original sin - of course Protestants don't accept the doc. of immac. conception.
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/17/2003 4:51 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Good point, RD.

You also say--and I'd like to tag onto: "In Himself, from the moment of Incarnation, Christ was both God and Man and therefore His Human Nature never experienced the separation from God which all other humans suffer since the sin in the Garden and which is original sin." I'm a bad reader, and I was trying to find a place where you would recognize Christ's abandonment in His passion. I think you said it via negative where you say (underlined) "in Himself." "In Himslef" he was not separated. (We need to pause to say that His divinity NEVER was separated within the Trinity; put that to rest!) His humanity was not separated (not unwilling) at any time. But due to OUR SIN Christ experienced the spiritual separation that we read about in the gospel. (Interestingly he felt it humanly, did not experience it in His divinity; but as humanity was enhypostasized--made his own, not borrowed or put on like a man-suit, Christ REALLYm personally experienced hell!) Then in His death he "trampled down death."

quote:
Today Death groans and cries aloud,
Better for me had I not taken Mary's Son,
for He has come upon me and destroyed my power;
He has shattered the brazen gates .....


quote:
I entered the depths of the sea.

Hell opened its gullet and swallowed me down, and the fool puffed up his soul; but Christ came down and brought out my life, for he loves mankind.

Death was caught by death; for the One who was dead arose having granted me incorruption; the immortal appeared and proclaimed joy to the women.
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/17/2003 7:19 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi RD,

The following, from one of your posts in this thread, is what led me to conclude that you were saying those who deny the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin are not Christians:

quote:

For the record - it is fine to deny original sin if that's what you believe. But that is not Christianity- original sin is a tenet of the Christian faith, from Roman Catholicism to Arminianism to Calvinism and everything in between. Certainly along the way there were Charles Finneys who denied it - but he was not really a theologian - more of an evangelist - and at any rate the official position of the Christian faith accepts original sin.
I don't feel the need to quote verses trying to support this position - when there are myriad theological books out there explaining the doctrine and why it is a tenet of Christianity.



I'm having trouble seeing how you don't mean to say that in your opinion I am not a Christian, if your above statements reflect your real opinion. I was not intending to put words in your mouth.

Please also note that nowhere have I denied the pre-Augustinian majority view of original sin. We all sin like Adam did, by choosing to do so. Therefore we must also all choose to repent, believe, and persevere like Christ did in order to have eternal life. :

Rev. 2:21 He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

And no one will in fact choose the path of eternal life (repent and believe) nor will they ever persevere (overcome), except they be drawn, made righteous, and sustained by the prevenient, justifying, sanctifying, and glorifying grace of God.




"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 06/17/2003 1:03:28 PM
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/17/2003 7:38 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (NASB)

A very interesting point I think is that the above verses, if they do in fact teach that even babies are all born condemned by Adam's sin just as clearly teach universalism.




"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
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/17/2003 7:58 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
The following historical sketches are excerpts from a website that is currently being reconstructed.

New Haven Theology

A late stage of the New England theology that had originated in efforts of Jonathan Edwards to defend the spiritual reality of the first Great Awakening (ca. 1740). It was also a theology developed for the needs of the Second Great Awakening (ca. 1795-1830). It thus served as a bridge between the Calvinism that dominated American Christianity in the 1700s and the more Arminian theology that came to prevail in the nineteenth century. Timothy Dwight, grandson of Jonathan Edwards and president of Yale College from 1795 to 1817, laid the groundwork for the New Haven theology. Dwight's concern for revival led him to place more emphasis on the natural abilities of individuals to respond to the gospel than had Edwards. His efforts to provide a rational defense of Christianity led him to stress its reasonable character over the sense of wonder that had been so important for Edwards. Dwight's best pupil, Nathaniel William Taylor, carried the New Haven theology to its maturity. Taylor was the first professor at the new Yale Divinity School, where he came in 1822 after a successful pastorate in New Haven. Taylor regarded himself as the heir of the tradition of Jonathan Edwards, particularly as he combated the rising tide of Unitarianism in New England. His theology, however, departed from Edwards', especially in its beliefs about human nature. Most importantly, he argued in a famous phrase that people always had a "power to the contrary" when faced with the choice for God. He also contended, as Edwards' son, Jonathan Edwards, Jr.., had suggested, that human sinfulness arose from sinful acts, not from a sinful nature inherited from Adam. Everyone did in fact sin, Taylor believed, but this was not a result of God's action in predetermining human nature. More than other heirs of Edwards, Taylor also accepted the Scottish philosophy of common sense which also made much of innate human freedom and the power of individuals to shape their own destinies. The New Haven theology was a powerful engine for revival and reform in the first half of the nineteenth century, particularly through the work of Taylor's fellow Yale graduate, Lyman Beecher. Beecher and like-minded colleagues employed the principles of the New Haven theology to promote moral reform, to establish missions and educational institutions, and to win the frontier for Christianity. The New Haven theology arose out of the distinctive Calvinism of New England, but it came to represent, with Methodists, Disciples, and some Baptists, a contribution to the generally Arminian theology which dominated American Christian thought in the nineteenth century. (EVANGELICAL DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY By Walter A. Elwell © Copyright 1984, by Baker Book House Company.)

New School Theology -

New School Presbyterianism embodied mainstream evangelical Christianity in the middle decades of the nineteenth century. Its modified Calvinist theology, enthusiasm for revivalism, moral reform, and interdenominational cooperation were its most notable characteristics.

New School theology had its remote roots in the Calvinism of Jonathan Edwards, but its immediate predecessor was the New Haven Theology of Nathaniel Taylor, who advocated a theology of moral government. He synthesized moralistic elements from Scottish commonsense philosophy with reinterpretations of traditional Calvinism to construct a semi-Pelagian foundation for revivalism. Denying the imputation of Adam's sin and claiming that unregenerate man can respond to moral overtures, especially Christ's death, Taylor argued that men need not wait passively for the Holy Spirit to redeem them. His views reflected a long-standing American faith in human freedom.

While Old School leaders roundly attacked Taylor's theology, revivalists and ministers such as Charles G. Finney, Lyman Beecher, and Albert Barnes popularized it. Finney used Taylor's theology to redefine revivals as works which man can perform using means which God has provided. With such a theological basis he introduced his famous "new measures," such as referring to his hearers as "sinners" and calling them to sit on an "anxious bench" while they contemplated converting to Christ. New School Presbyterianism embodied mainstream evangelical Christianity in the middle decades of the nineteenth century. Its modified Calvinist theology, enthusiasm for revivalism, moral reform, and interdenominational cooperation were its most notable characteristics. (From EVANGELICAL DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY By Walter A. Elwell © Copyright 1984, by Baker Book House Company.)

Nathaniel W. Taylor - (1786 - 1858)

Founder of the New Haven Theology, he contributed to the rise of evangelical theology by modifying Calvinism, rendering it compatible with revivalism in the opening decades of the nineteenth century. He was born in 1786 in New Milford, Connecticut, into a family rich in both material things and religious heritage. Taylor entered Yale in 1800, but an eye ailment deferred his graduation until 1807. In 1822 Taylor was appointed Dwight Professor of Didactic Theology at Yale, where he taught until his death in 1858. Taylor was prompted to revise Calvinism by the increasing charges from Unitarians that Calvinistic determinism actually promoted immorality by denying human freedom. In response to these attacks he altered the Reformed doctrines of revelation, human depravity, God's sovereignty, Christ's atonement, and regeneration in order to harmonize Calvinist theology with actual revival practices. He accepted the...teaching of commonsense realism that reason provides not only proof of God's existence but also the first principles of morality that make man a free, moral agent. He insisted that men are lost but denied that Adam's sin was imputed to all men and that everyone inherits a sinful nature which causes one to sin. Even though a person sins, he has power to do otherwise, thus remaining morally responsible. God made man with a proper self-love, a natural desire for happiness, which motivates all choices. Taylor also reinterpreted Calvin's teaching on God's sovereignty by calling God a moral governor who rules, not by determining the destiny of all men through election, but rather by establishing a moral universe and judging its inhabitants. God promotes moral action by a system of means and ends in which man can respond to ethical appeals for repentance. He opposed the legal view of the atonement that stressed Christ's substitutionary death on the cross in the place of sinners to satisfy God's justice. Instead, God as benevolent moral governor sent Christ to die so that his death could be preached as a means to urge sinners to turn freely from their sin out of self-love and be converted. (From EVANGELICAL DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY edited by Walter Elwell © Copyright 1984, by Baker Book HouseCompany.)

Albert Barnes - (1798-1870)

One of the most influential American Presbyterian clergymen during the middle third of the nineteenth century and a central figure in the Old School-New School controversy that led to the 1837 denominational division. Born in Rome, New York, he graduated from Hamilton and Princeton. While serving his first charge in Morristown, New Jersey, he attracted attention because of an 1829 revival sermon entitled "The Way of Salvation," which denied the doctrine of original sin and insisted that man was a free moral agent who could choose for or against Christian salvation. (From EVANGELICAL DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY edited by Walter Elwell © Copyright 1984, by Baker Book HouseCompany.)





"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
 

anewbeginning
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
 
   Posted 6/18/2003 4:41 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi John:

Would you give me your perspective on how Adam's fall affected humanity, if at all. Did it influence creation in any way? Did it influence you or me in any way? If our nature is pure and neutral at birth, what causes all to sin? Is it theoretically possible for one to live sinlessly? Was Christ's death substitutionary or symbolic, or maybe inspirational? I just want to get a hold on your ideas. Thanks.



Edited by - anewbeginning on 06/18/2003 9:43:53 PM
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/18/2003 6:52 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi anew,

Thank you for your excellent questions. I will do my best to answer below.

You asked,

quote:

Would you give me your perspective on how Adam's fall affected humanity, if at all.



and,

quote:
Did it influence you or me in any way?


Adam's fall brought mortality (death) into the human race. This mortality unfailingly triggers self-seeking/selfishness (otherwise know of as sin). Adam's fall in fact greatly aggravated the subsequent human condition, through physical depravity (diseases, genetic defects and weaknesses), which in turn greatly increase the selfish impulses of all his progeny. Adam's fall also greatly affected all mankind by virtue of the bad influence that a sinful parent has on his/her children. This is also how I understand the "generational curse" concept--sins being "passed down" from generation to generation by influence of sinful examples of adults on children. As you might be able to tell from my above statements, I have no problem with the idea that Adam's sin gravely affected all his posterity. What I do have a problem with is the Augustinian notion that babies come into the world deserving hell (i.e., that Adam's sin is imputed to them through no fault of their own, and for Adam's sin they are condemned to hell before they even have a chance to choose right or wrong).

quote:
Did it influence creation in any way?


Yes, the Bible clearly states that the ground was cursed, man must work by the sweat of his brow, woman must have pain in childbearing, and must be subordinate to their husbands. Also there is enmity between the seed of the Serpent and the seed of the woman. (Which is a whole other discussion of typology and prophecy).

quote:

If our nature is pure and neutral at birth, what causes all to sin?


What I meant to say was that young children, until they reach an age of knowing good from evil, are by definition unable to make moral decisions. As I referred to above, I did not mean to say that they did not have a tendency to selfishness or self-seeking, just that they were by definition innocent until they reach the age at which they understand right from wrong. Self-seeking is the root cause of all sin, in my view.

quote:
Is it theoretically possible for one to live sinlessly?


From birth to death, theoretically yes, or else Jesus was not really human. Also, I do not know how else we can be truly responsible/guilty for sin if it is something we were born with and had no control over whatsoever. However, I do believe that because of all the above factors, all will choose to sin (please note the emphasis) when their personality is developed enough to know right from wrong. And this is because of selfish motivation.

quote:
Was Christ's death substitutionary or symbolic, or maybe inspirational? I just want to get a hold on your ideas. Thanks.


Though certainly there are symbolic and inspirational aspects to it, at its core Christ's death was substitutionary, in that it was a substitute FOR the penalty that we deserved--death and hell. That is, the atoning death of Christ is the means by which God can be just, and the justifier of him that has faith in Jesus. Christ's death satisfied the demands of justice in that now God is able to both uphold His holy and righteous Law, and forgive sinners who repent and place their faith/trust in the atonement. If God had provided no atonement, God could not have righteously forgiven without denying His own moral law. For God to deny his own Law would be sin.

I subscribe to the Moral Government/Grotian theory of the atonement, which has historically been the majority Arminian view as well.







"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
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/18/2003 7:33 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

I don't see that their conception of original sin differs from the Protestant one in many respects. Both differ from Catholicism - the doctrine of immaculate conception and its relation to Original sin - of course Protestants don't accept the doc. of immac. conception.



How it differs is that it:

1. Does not say children are born into the world already deserving hell because of Adam's sin (by imputation).

2. Does not confuse the physical (humanity) with the spiritual (sinful and/or righteous deeds).

The chief difference between East and West on this issue is that the West, under Augustine's influence, came to view Adam's sin as bringing condemnation and wrath upon all, even newborn infants, while the East came to view Adam's sin as bringing mortality and consequently selfishness upon all, but the choice to act or not act upon one's selfish impulses remains voluntary.




"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
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
147 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3  4  5  6 
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:23 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