BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Just Bible => Topic started by: IMINXTC on December 11, 2021, 01:48:23 AM
-
Considering the rationale behind such institutions as infant baptism for the removal of "original sin," per example, one cannot but warily suspect the formation of doctrines - devised after the NT, Apostolic era - intended to define and classify elements of the human condition since the fall.
I will attempt to merge and touch on these related topics and invite all insight in the upcoming thread.
What does the Bible actually say?
Work in progress. Chill.
Merry Christmas! Stephen
-
I was reading Feser recently, and what he had to write some 10 years ago is relevant to the larger discussions we've been having http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html?m=1.
-
Considering the rationale behind such institutions as infant baptism for the removal of "original sin," per example, one cannot but warily suspect the formation of doctrines - devised after the NT, Apostolic era - intended to define and classify elements of the human condition since the fall.
I will attempt to merge and touch on these related topics and invite all insight in the upcoming thread.
What does the Bible actually say?
Work in progress. Chill.
Merry Christmas! Stephen
It's a good subject, which you know we've been addressing lately. Thanks.
I was raised a Lutheran and was infant baptized. Since I was raised in a Christian family, it was felt by Lutherans in general that a family should not wait to raise a child a Christian until they "come of age." You think?
So what this really means is that Infant Baptism isn't really biblical baptism. It is really Infant Dedication, which I think is perfectly legitimate. Baptism was given for people who had been living a sinful life, and not for babies just starting out in life. My thoughts only....
-
I was reading Feser recently, and what he had to write some 10 years ago is relevant to the larger discussions we've been having http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html?m=1.
Well, to be honest I sort of scooted through this, but found it very interesting. Thanks for that. There is a lot there I can identify with, with respect to my own position.
As I've said from the start, I do not argue a Sin Nature from a biological point of view--I do not argue for a Sin Gene. But I do argue for a Sin Nature from the pov of a Spiritual Inheritance. Your reference argues this as a Supernatural endowment that is lacking in those who choose to disobey God. But I would argue it as a Natural endowment springing from a Supernatural Choice--we choose either for or against the Supernatural God.
And the end is similar, I think, to how your reference describes it in "Hell." People are not roasted over ovens, but rather, they lose their supernatural benefits in fellowship with God, and are tormented by this loss. However, they still enjoy the blessings of Natural Creation to some degree--they are tormented, but not tortured. They regret, but they can still serve God in more menial ways.
After all, when we punish people in this world, we don't confine or whip them forever. But God does follow through with a complete separation with people who have chosen to go the non-Supernatural way.
They are "whipped," but this is a temporary infliction. The suffering is the loss of all of their possessions and presence in God's paradise--it is not the torture of being burned continuously for all eternity.
God would have to be a monster to do that, and the Scriptures portray Him as good and kind--not a monster. The torment is the thought of a final separation from paradise, and the reduction of blessing that entails.
But it is a temporary "whipping," which is how Jesus seemed to describe it, as "few or many beatings." It does not last forever. The "eternal punishment" is the eternal separation, which even the Jews practiced in their relationship with pagan neighbors. But allow me to return to Sin Nature.
Just from the letter of James today I saw good arguments for a Sin Nature. Let me briefly share these.
First, let me start with the reference Paul makes to "nature," and they show how James uses this same argument in arguing for a natural judgmentalism were all have. James seems to argue that we are born with these qualities, which seems to jibe with Paul's statement about our good and bad natures.
James 4.11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?
Romans 2.14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Note how James argues that there is only one legitimate judge, namely God. This delegitimizes the entire human race as judges, unless they act in concert with God. And why? It is, as Paul argues, a matter of human nature, which sometimes accuses men, when they don't repent, because Sin is upon their hearts and consciences, ie within their nature.
For other references to James' assumption that we have this sinful bent, or "nature," I would add these just for interest....
1) James 1.14 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.
2) James 1.19 My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20 because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. 21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
3) James 1. 23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.
4) James 2.12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful.
5) James 3.2 We all stumble in many ways.
6) James 3.6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.
7) James 4.1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?
8. James 4.5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? 6 But he gives us more grace.
-
Well, to be honest I sort of scooted through this, but found it very interesting. Thanks for that. There is a lot there I can identify with, with respect to my own position.
As I've said from the start, I do not argue a Sin Nature from a biological point of view--I do not argue for a Sin Gene. But I do argue for a Sin Nature from the pov of a Spiritual Inheritance. Your reference argues this as a Supernatural endowment that is lacking in those who choose to disobey God. But I would argue it as a Natural endowment springing from a Supernatural Choice--we choose either for or against the Supernatural God.
I do wonder, though, if your view falls within the caricature Feser calls out. If we make some changes...
Many people seem to think that the doctrine of original sin says something like this: Adam and Eve were originally made for the eternal bliss of Heaven, but because they ate a piece of fruit they were told not to, they came to merit instead eternal torture at the hands of demons sticking pitchforks into them as they roast over hellfire. Though Adam and Eve’s descendents had no part in their fruit-stealing, they are going to be held accountable for it anyway, and merit the same eternal torture (demons, pitchforks, hellfire and all). For [Sin is transmitted from generation to generation by the word of God], which will automatically transfer them into the custody of the pitchfork-carrying demons straightaway upon death unless God somehow supernaturally removes it. For some reason, though, this [theology is beyond contentious], and its [truth] must be taken on faith.
There are two aspects to the caricature:
1) The transmitted sin gene
2) Torture at the hands of demonic actors
If we swap out 'sin gene' for 'sin nature as a spiritual inheritance' then we arrive at much the same view.
Feser, on the other hand, argues that original sin entails as privation of God's supernatural gift. In this case, 'supernatural' refers to God creating humanity, and giving Adam and Eve "a good that went above or beyond what our nature required us to have". In other words, postlapsarian humanity is humanity as God created us, but without His supernatural gift. Original sin doesn't entail a corrupted nature, but, as mentioned, a privation of God-given goods. The loss of the beatific vision specifically.
Given what you've written over the last little while, it's difficult to see how this meshes with your own view unless you drop the notion of an ontic sin nature, which you go on to argue for below.
And the end is similar, I think, to how your reference describes it in "Hell." People are not roasted over ovens, but rather, they lose their supernatural benefits in fellowship with God, and are tormented by this loss. However, they still enjoy the blessings of Natural Creation to some degree--they are tormented, but not tortured. They regret, but they can still serve God in more menial ways.
After all, when we punish people in this world, we don't confine or whip them forever. But God does follow through with a complete separation with people who have chosen to go the non-Supernatural way.
They are "whipped," but this is a temporary infliction. The suffering is the loss of all of their possessions and presence in God's paradise--it is not the torture of being burned continuously for all eternity.
God would have to be a monster to do that, and the Scriptures portray Him as good and kind--not a monster. The torment is the thought of a final separation from paradise, and the reduction of blessing that entails.
But it is a temporary "whipping," which is how Jesus seemed to describe it, as "few or many beatings." It does not last forever. The "eternal punishment" is the eternal separation, which even the Jews practiced in their relationship with pagan neighbors. But allow me to return to Sin Nature.
Yes, I have a similar notion of Hell.
Just from the letter of James today I saw good arguments for a Sin Nature. Let me briefly share these.
First, let me start with the reference Paul makes to "nature," and they show how James uses this same argument in arguing for a natural judgmentalism were all have. James seems to argue that we are born with these qualities, which seems to jibe with Paul's statement about our good and bad natures.
James 4.11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?
Romans 2.14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Note how James argues that there is only one legitimate judge, namely God. This delegitimizes the entire human race as judges, unless they act in concert with God. And why? It is, as Paul argues, a matter of human nature, which sometimes accuses men, when they don't repent, because Sin is upon their hearts and consciences, ie within their nature.
For other references to James' assumption that we have this sinful bent, or "nature," I would add these just for interest....
1) James 1.14 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.
2) James 1.19 My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20 because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. 21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
3) James 1. 23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.
4) James 2.12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful.
5) James 3.2 We all stumble in many ways.
6) James 3.6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.
7) James 4.1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?
8. James 4.5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? 6 But he gives us more grace.
Okay, but how does this support the idea that Adam's sin corrupted human nature? This fits with what Feser is saying, but I'm struggling to see how it fits in with what you've been saying, because Feser isn't arguing for a corrupted nature. Here's Feser's relevant bit, which fits in quite well with James:
As with other creatures, nature provides human beings with what they need in order to realize these goods, at least in a general way. For example, we need food, and nature is set up in such a way that we can acquire it – by hunting and gathering, through basic farming, and also by the more sophisticated agricultural methods and economic institutions familiar from modern life, which our natural rational capacities have made possible. We need knowledge of God, and philosophical investigation gives us such knowledge. But as with other creatures, while nature provides the means to our ends, she doesn’t guarantee that every one of us will in fact realize those ends. Due to misfortune, some of us sometimes go hungry. Due to intellectual error and the complexity of the philosophical issues, some of us sometimes fail properly to understand the main arguments for God’s existence, or mix all sorts of errors into whatever knowledge of God we do have. Due to the weaknesses of our wills, we also fall into moral error. And when moral and intellectual errors multiply throughout a culture, the resulting general social environment may make it difficult for a given individual living within it to avoid more numerous and more serious moral and intellectual errors than he otherwise would have been prone to. (Modern Western society provides a good example, insofar as the secularist portion of it is much farther from understanding the basic truths of natural theology and natural law than perhaps any other culture ever has been. I have explored the contingent historical and philosophical reasons for this elsewhere.)
So, human beings in their natural state have only a limited capacity to realize the ends their nature requires them to pursue in order that they might flourish. They have the raw materials needed for this pursuit, but the finitude of their intellectual, moral, and material endowments entails that there is no guarantee that each and every individual human being will in fact realize the ends in question, or realize them perfectly when they do realize them at all. Nature has granted us what it “owes” us given what we need in order to flourish as the kind of creatures we are, but no more than that. This is the situation Adam, Eve, and their descendants would have been in had God left the human race in its purely natural state.
-
As I've said from the start, I do not argue a Sin Nature from a biological point of view--I do not argue for a Sin Gene. But I do argue for a Sin Nature from the pov of a Spiritual Inheritance.
I do wonder, though, if your view falls within the caricature Feser calls out. If we make some changes...
To be clear, I'm arguing for a "spiritual inheritance" that is transferred via *human spirituality.* We were created both spirit and body. Both are material substances, in the sense that both a real substances.
Spirit is sometimes posited as something immaterial, and I wish to avoid that sense of the word. Yes, "spirit" material is different that physical material. But it is nonetheless part of the human substance, just a Deity has a non-physical substance that unites the 3 Persons of the Trinity. God is a real substance, and not merely the absence of physical substance.
Many people seem to think that the doctrine of original sin says something like this: Adam and Eve were originally made for the eternal bliss of Heaven, but because they ate a piece of fruit they were told not to, they came to merit instead eternal torture at the hands of demons sticking pitchforks into them as they roast over hellfire. Though Adam and Eve’s descendents had no part in their fruit-stealing, they are going to be held accountable for it anyway, and merit the same eternal torture (demons, pitchforks, hellfire and all). For [Sin is transmitted from generation to generation by the word of God], which will automatically transfer them into the custody of the pitchfork-carrying demons straightaway upon death unless God somehow supernaturally removes it. For some reason, though, this [theology is beyond contentious], and its [truth] must be taken on faith.
There are two aspects to the caricature:
1) The transmitted sin gene
2) Torture at the hands of demonic actors
If we swap out 'sin gene' for 'sin nature as a spiritual inheritance' then we arrive at much the same view.
I don't believe "spiritual inheritance" is the equivalent of the "sin gene" in order to compare. You could do this except that Feser begins by defining "spiritual inheritance" very different from how I define it. He seems to define it as the absence of physical substance, and therefore, something "Supernatural" and something that can be cancelled without impugning God's character in designing human nature.
This renders Man's choice to remain strictly "Natural" free of God's original design, and not guilty of producing a "Sin Gene" impacting future generations that did not originally Sin. But I believe God did in fact make future generations vulnerable to the first sin, even though they did not themselves commit that sin. They were made to be possible victims not just of the consequences of the 1st Man, but also to the inheritance of a Sin Nature.
Having a Sin Nature does not, however, immediately consign them to Hell. Rather, it means they've inherited an unclean condition that God in advanced planned to provide cleansing for. It may seem wrong to inherit a Nature that sins. However, it is what it is. We remain free to choose against the sins that we incline towards. And even though we are dirtied even by bad thoughts, we can still choose not to act on those thoughts.
Feser, on the other hand, argues that original sin entails as privation of God's supernatural gift. In this case, 'supernatural' refers to God creating humanity, and giving Adam and Eve "a good that went above or beyond what our nature required us to have". In other words, postlapsarian humanity is humanity as God created us, but without His supernatural gift. Original sin doesn't entail a corrupted nature, but, as mentioned, a privation of God-given goods. The loss of the beatific vision specifically.
Yes, I believe we weren't made to be strictly Natural with an option to pursue the Supernatural God. Rather, we were made to add, of necessity, this Supernatural element to our Natural creation. We were given a spiritual nature that requires the supernatural nature of God to exhibit God's image, for which we were created.
The choice to remain Natural was not just a dismissal of a Supernatural option, but more, the corruption of our created nature. It immediately transferred us from pure creation to impure creation, with a corrupted spiritual nature that inclines against God's word, while still knowing we were created to do good.
And this is the crossroads we all live at, to choose against our inclination to disobey God's word. Crossing our will we throw all kinds of tantrums. ;)
Yes, I have a similar notion of Hell.
I'm so happy you've thought through this! So many just default to what they think is Christian orthodoxy. This has actually had much more of a history to it than many think. And I think we're on good ground in our positions.
Just from the letter of James today I saw good arguments for a Sin Nature. Let me briefly share these.
Okay, but how does this support the idea that Adam's sin corrupted human nature? This fits with what Feser is saying, but I'm struggling to see how it fits in with what you've been saying, because Feser isn't arguing for a corrupted nature. Here's Feser's relevant bit, which fits in quite well with James:...
Yes, I read it, and found it very interesting. Thanks again. I'm working on trying to answer you better. My quotes from James is assuming the existence of a corrupted *spiritual* nature, as in the "human spirit," which is as transferrable from human to descendant, as DNA is.
-
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth
For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof:
so how is it possible for sin to be trasmitted unto all creation, n wonder christ had to shed and clense us in his blood.
-
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth
For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof:
so how is it possible for sin to be trasmitted unto all creation, n wonder christ had to shed and clense us in his blood.
My view, which is already being discussed, is that the human spirit has the capacity for inheritance transfer. When Adam's spirit was poisoned in the garden, his spiritual inheritance was picked up by his descendants--not by physical DNA but by some kind of transfer from Adam's human spirit to his descendants' human spirits.
The blood is merely representative of energized physicality. Without the blood our physical beings die. Christ cleansed us by spiritual transfer, from his human spirit to our human spirits. His perfection had life in his blood that had not been contaminated by sin. Thus, his death was undeserved, and is able to transfer to us, spiritually, unworthiness of death, as well.
-
Any scripture at all to suggest such a thing?
-
The blood is merely representative of energized physicality. Without the blood our physical beings die. Christ cleansed us by spiritual transfer, from his human spirit to our human spirits. His perfection had life in his blood that had not be contaminated by sin. Thus, his death was undeserved, and is able to transfer to us, spiritually, unworthiness of death, as well.
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
-
Any scripture at all to suggest such a thing?
What, that we are spirit beings, and not just material flesh?
Gen 2.7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
That life is in the blood is just common sense. When someone bleeds out, they die. The blood carries oxygen, along with nutrition, to the brain, and the brain needs that to live. And so yes, life is in the blood.
That the human spirit transfers sin from generation to generation, we read the following:
Gen 5.3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
We carry characteristics, DNA, that are passed on to our children. Science knows that, and the Bible knew it. The traits of sin, not just by environment but also by heredity, are carried in the same way.
Num 14.18 ‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.’
How do we benefit from the human Jesus, who we know already is a combination of human spirit and human body?
Rom 5.9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
We know that Christ has given us of his Spirit, not just bequeathing upon us God's forgiveness and virtue, but also his own spiritual characteristics as a human.
Eph 4.15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.
We benefit from what Jesus did as a man, who as a man suffered our abuses, and as a man was then able to forgive our offences.
Rom 5.17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
For me these things are not absolutely clear. But I think they're worth thinking about and considering.
-
The "original sin," which is not a Biblical term, belongs logically to Adam, the initiator of the fall.
While we know that every human child born will subsequently die as a result of the fall, scripturally his/her death is associated with Adam's sin, not sin particularly committed by the child. Adam's sin, the original sin, destined all of Adam's offspring to death.
So, historically and logically, original sin is that sin which separated man from God - Adam's sin.
The notion and tradition that infant Baptism will reverse that sentence for the assumed guilty infant is erronous, confusing and uneccessary.
My grandmother lived out her days in guilty agony, being told by clerics that her son, who died as an infant, would spend eternity in "Limbo," because she had failed to get him to the "sacrament" on time
So, an important, initial question: Is every human guilty with sin before actually having commited sin?
-
The "original sin," which is not a Biblical term, belongs logically to Adam, the initiator of the fall.
While we know that every human child born will subsequently die as a result of the fall, scripturally his/her death is associated with Adam's sin, not sin particularly committed by the child. Adam's sin, the original sin, destined all of Adam's offspring to death.
So, historically and logically, original sin is that sin which separated man from God - Adam's sin.
The notion and tradition that infant Baptism will reverse that sentence for the assumed guilty infant is erronous, confusing and uneccessary.
My grandmother lived out her days in guilty agony, being told by clerics that her son, who died as an infant, would spend eternity in "Limbo," because she had failed to get him to the "sacrament" on time
So, an important, initial question: Is every human guilty with sin before actually having commited sin?
First, allow me to give my sympathy to you for what your Grandma went through. It's outrageous for someone to make that kind of judgment, which has only do with external ceremonial performance.
Second, I don't believe Infant Baptism is real biblical baptism. Real biblical baptism is the expression of a sinner that he or she is turning from a life of sin to embrace Christ as the way, truth, and life. Infant Baptism, to me, is a form of Child Dedication. The parents are promising to raise the child in the faith.
Finally, to answer your question, guilt by itself implies have committed conscious wrong. But Sin, in my view, is a contaminant that does indeed preclude one from obtaining Eternal Life apart from the grace of Christ.
Sin is both a conscious act and a contaminant that induces us to commit sins, for which we are indeed guilty in various degrees.
So sin is an attachment to humanity that necessarily leads to acts of sin. It is a contaminant that inclines towards rebellion against God's word.
We are born with this contagion, whether we are stillborn or suffer a serious mental disability. There are extenuating circumstances that mitigate our actions at times. But we all have the Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it.
-
To be clear, I'm arguing for a "spiritual inheritance" that is transferred via *human spirituality.* We were created both spirit and body. Both are material substances, in the sense that both a real substances.
Spirit is sometimes posited as something immaterial, and I wish to avoid that sense of the word. Yes, "spirit" material is different that physical material. But it is nonetheless part of the human substance, just a Deity has a non-physical substance that unites the 3 Persons of the Trinity. God is a real substance, and not merely the absence of physical substance.
Did I write something to make you think I thought you had something else in mind?
I don't believe "spiritual inheritance" is the equivalent of the "sin gene" in order to compare. You could do this except that Feser begins by defining "spiritual inheritance" very different from how I define it. He seems to define it as the absence of physical substance, and therefore, something "Supernatural" and something that can be cancelled without impugning God's character in designing human nature.
Feser doesn't define 'spiritual inheritance' in the post I linked to. What he does define is 'supernatural' as it relates to God's supernatural gift (the beatific vision), which I provided the definition of in my previous reply. This isn't properly thought of as the 'absence of physical substance', or at least, we wouldn't say 'Adam and Eve walked and talked with God, but it's so strange there was an absence of physical substance, right?'.
The comparison is made between the inheritance of sin that another committed, whether that inheritance is passed by a physical sin gene or a spiritual something-or-other. He makes this point in the analogy of the landowner:
Similarly, we inherit the penalty of original sin, not in the sense that we’ve got some “original sin gene” alongside genes for eye color and tooth enamel, but rather in the sense that the offer of the supernatural gifts was made to the human race as a whole through their first parent acting as their representative. Inheriting this penalty from Adam is more like inheriting your father’s name or bank account than it is like inheriting his looks or his temperament. And there is no more injustice in this inheritance than there is in the landowner’s not planting a vineyard for Mr. and Mrs. Adams’ descendants.
Or, if we adjust this to the view you're presenting:
Similarly, we inherit the penalty of original sin, not in the sense that we’ve got some [spiritually inherited original sin nature] alongside [our original human nature], but rather in the sense that the offer of the supernatural gifts was made to the human race as a whole through their first parent acting as their representative. Inheriting this penalty from Adam is more like inheriting your father’s name or bank account than it is like inheriting his looks or his temperament. And there is no more injustice in this inheritance than there is in the landowner’s not planting a vineyard for Mr. and Mrs. Adams’ descendants.
So, it's not the mechanism of transmission that matters as much as it is this idea that some stain, or corrupted nature, is being transmitted instead of the more proper idea that original sin results in a privation of God's gift to humanity that humanity was not owed.
This renders Man's choice to remain strictly "Natural" free of God's original design, and not guilty of producing a "Sin Gene" impacting future generations that did not originally Sin. But I believe God did in fact make future generations vulnerable to the first sin, even though they did not themselves commit that sin. They were made to be possible victims not just of the consequences of the 1st Man, but also to the inheritance of a Sin Nature.
You're saying much more than that. You're saying that God determined, or partially determined, or saved 144,000 or some other number of elect while leaving the rest to Satan, and so on.
But what does it mean to say that 'God did in fact make future generations vulnerable to the first sin'? Specifically, God did in fact make? This is a new claim. Is this concordant with your other claim that the spiritual inheritance is passed by the Word, i.e., God engages in double-predestination via the Word who made future generations (following Adam) vulnerable to the first sin?
Having a Sin Nature does not, however, immediately consign them to Hell. Rather, it means they've inherited an unclean condition that God in advanced planned to provide cleansing for. It may seem wrong to inherit a Nature that sins. However, it is what it is. We remain free to choose against the sins that we incline towards. And even though we are dirtied even by bad thoughts, we can still choose not to act on those thoughts.
Yes. This is a caricature in Feser's view as the introduce of a 'sin nature' in humanity would result in an alteration to the 'ends' of their nature:
So, human beings in their natural state have only a limited capacity to realize the ends their nature requires them to pursue in order that they might flourish.
If a sin nature corrupts this end, then no, humanity is quite compelled to sin, albeit humanity would not be compelled to commit this-or-that sin. Again, we can return to Feser's outline of a caricature to see that this idea of an inherited nature (physical or spiritual) falls within it.
Yes, I believe we weren't made to be strictly Natural with an option to pursue the Supernatural God. Rather, we were made to add, of necessity, this Supernatural element to our Natural creation. We were given a spiritual nature that requires the supernatural nature of God to exhibit God's image, for which we were created.
The choice to remain Natural was not just a dismissal of a Supernatural option, but more, the corruption of our created nature. It immediately transferred us from pure creation to impure creation, with a corrupted spiritual nature that inclines against God's word, while still knowing we were created to do good.
And this is the crossroads we all live at, to choose against our inclination to disobey God's word. Crossing our will we throw all kinds of tantrums. ;)
Unfortunately, this idea of a corrupted nature is not found in Scripture.
I'm so happy you've thought through this! So many just default to what they think is Christian orthodoxy. This has actually had much more of a history to it than many think. And I think we're on good ground in our positions.
This may surprise you, but I've thought through many things.
Well, keep in mind I said similar, not the same. I found Lewis' discussions of hell fascinating, and so I lean heavily on him.
Yes, I read it, and found it very interesting. Thanks again. I'm working on trying to answer you better. My quotes from James is assuming the existence of a corrupted *spiritual* nature, as in the "human spirit," which is as transferrable from human to descendant, as DNA is.
Transferred by the Word, you have said. But you're importing this assumption into the text. You've decided upon the idea of a sin nature, and so any discussion of the ills of human beings must be explicable by that nature, even if a given text doesn't discuss it -- it must be assumed. James assumes no such nature.
-
How many threads is this being discussed in? Geez.
-
How many threads is this being discussed in? Geez.
Hmm.... four altogether? Although actively only in two I believe.
-
The "original sin," which is not a Biblical term, belongs logically to Adam, the initiator of the fall.
While we know that every human child born will subsequently die as a result of the fall, scripturally his/her death is associated with Adam's sin, not sin particularly committed by the child. Adam's sin, the original sin, destined all of Adam's offspring to death.
So, historically and logically, original sin is that sin which separated man from God - Adam's sin.
The notion and tradition that infant Baptism will reverse that sentence for the assumed guilty infant is erronous, confusing and uneccessary.
My grandmother lived out her days in guilty agony, being told by clerics that her son, who died as an infant, would spend eternity in "Limbo," because she had failed to get him to the "sacrament" on time
So, an important, initial question: Is every human guilty with sin before actually having commited sin?
First, allow me to give my sympathy to you for what your Grandma went through. It's outrageous for someone to make that kind of judgment, which has only do with external ceremonial performance.
Second, I don't believe Infant Baptism is real biblical baptism. Real biblical baptism is the expression of a sinner that he or she is turning from a life of sin to embrace Christ as the way, truth, and life. Infant Baptism, to me, is a form of Child Dedication. The parents are promising to raise the child in the faith.
Finally, to answer your question, guilt by itself implies have committed conscious wrong. But Sin, in my view, is a contaminant that does indeed preclude one from obtaining Eternal Life apart from the grace of Christ.
Sin is both a conscious act and a contaminant that induces us to commit sins, for which we are indeed guilty in various degrees.
So sin is an attachment to humanity that necessarily leads to acts of sin. It is a contaminant that inclines towards rebellion against God's word.
We are born with this contagion, whether we are stillborn or suffer a serious mental disability. There are extenuating circumstances that mitigate our actions at times. But we all have the Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it.
So the answer is “yes, you believe the child dying in infancy is eternally iabsent from the presence of God.”
King David was such an idiot.
-
Finally, to answer your question, guilt by itself implies have committed conscious wrong. But Sin, in my view, is a contaminant that does indeed preclude one from obtaining Eternal Life apart from the grace of Christ.
Sin is both a conscious act and a contaminant that induces us to commit sins, for which we are indeed guilty in various degrees.
So sin is an attachment to humanity that necessarily leads to acts of sin. It is a contaminant that inclines towards rebellion against God's word.
We are born with this contagion, whether we are stillborn or suffer a serious mental disability. There are extenuating circumstances that mitigate our actions at times. But we all have the Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it.
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Heb 9:27
Repeating an earlier point: An infant is destined to die, because of the fall of Adam, but is then destined to stand in judgement where he or she will give an accounting for sins committed. What you infer is that a child will answer for sins not committed, but rather, imputed by "contagion."
So you appear to subscribe to an historically popular theology that not only pronounces the innocent guilty but destines them to suffer eternal punishment - for existing.
Let's go...
-
Finally, to answer your question, guilt by itself implies have committed conscious wrong. But Sin, in my view, is a contaminant that does indeed preclude one from obtaining Eternal Life apart from the grace of Christ.
Sin is both a conscious act and a contaminant that induces us to commit sins, for which we are indeed guilty in various degrees.
So sin is an attachment to humanity that necessarily leads to acts of sin. It is a contaminant that inclines towards rebellion against God's word.
We are born with this contagion, whether we are stillborn or suffer a serious mental disability. There are extenuating circumstances that mitigate our actions at times. But we all have the Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it.
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Heb 9:27
Repeating an earlier point: An infant is destined to die, because of the fall of Adam, but is then destined to stand in judgement where he or she will give an accounting for sins committed. What you infer is that a child will answer for sins not committed, but rather, imputed by "contagion."
So you appear to subscribe to an historically popular theology that not only pronounces the innocent guilty but destines them to suffer eternal punishment - for existing.
Let's go...
You make a good point, and I remain open. Thanks for the input. The contagion that must remain outside of the pearly gates is something that apart from a resurrection to immortality will lead to sin. So the question is, are babies who are born with the contagion and yet have not sinned going to be resurrected to immortality?
How does one qualify for the resurrection to immortality, by being guiltless or by qualifying to have their contagion removed? If a baby is born that God never planned, by His word, to be born, are they still qualified, by His word, to experience a resurrection to immortality?
I don't think so, which is why I have the position that I do. I do think that those who are not allowed into Heaven, who have not yet done anything wrong, will not be punished for things they haven't done. They will enter into eternity with a negative disposition towards being under God's word. And so, they will be punished for their attitude after entering into the afterlife. But I do believe their punishment will be very light.
But I hear ya...
-
Where oh where is the scripural basis for your claims?
-
So, it's not the mechanism of transmission that matters as much as it is this idea that some stain, or corrupted nature, is being transmitted instead of the more proper idea that original sin results in a privation of God's gift to humanity that humanity was not owed.
What is the "privation of God's gift to humanity?" Feser is suggesting that the lack of a supernatural gift results in a state of free will in which human weakness *always* results in sinful acts? This, to me, is little different from the "contagion of sin" I've been speaking about, aka the Sin Nature.
When we are born in sin, we have, as the Jews say, a Sin tendency, or an immediate reaction against God's word, before capitulating to obedience, if indeed we go that far. An inclination towards sin always results in sinful behavior, and as such is viewed by myself as a "contagion" of sorts. It is disallowed from Heaven. It is an "uncleanness," even before it results in sinful acts.
Incidentally, I do agree with you that "Sin" itself suggests acts of sin. But Sin Nature is kept out of heaven, I believe, to prevent the unavoidable sin that will result from one who has the Sin Inclination.
You're saying much more than that. You're saying that God determined, or partially determined, or saved 144,000 or some other number of elect while leaving the rest to Satan, and so on.
1st, it cannot be 144,000 since God determined, by His word, to create a world filled with people who live in His image. So yes, God determined X number of people who will fulfill this role, both throughout history and at the end of history. "The earth will be filled with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea."
This, I believe, was God's original word. And to be true to His word, God must accomplish this despite the fact He built Free Will into the equation. The free will of men will succeed or fail to limited degrees, but X number of people *must* freely choose to live in God's image throughout the world.
Those not originally planned, but who result from Man running wild apart from obedience to God's word will produce a multitude of people who vie with those created to live in God's image. They will freely choose to fill the world apart from living in God's image, and under the rule of His word. They were not created by His word, and thus will not be interested in living by His word.
Being created to do good, all men can freely choose to do good or ordinarily do choose to do good, to some degree. But living in God's image requires a complete commitment to being under the rule of God's word. And the people of this world, not created as a direct result of man living in obedience to God's word, will not submit to living under God's rule all the time.
Okay, this is my theoretical position. I'm not being dogmatic about it. But I came to this conclusion back in the mid 70s, and soon began to recognize significant differences between one kind of person and another. I refer to those whose hearts were drawn to God's word as "children of God." And those tending to reject being under God's word *all the time* I call "children of this world." My terms, but derived from Scriptures. I apply the terms based on premonition of where these people will end up based on how I see them now.
Unfortunately, this idea of a corrupted nature is not found in Scripture.
Well, I submitted a comparison between Paul's view of judgment in Romans 2.12-15 with James' view of the same. Paul referred to it as a "nature."
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Granted, this is not a satisfactory proof text for a Sin Nature. It appears to prove our human nature was created to want to serve God. But it also assumes that despite this good nature we end up regretting the sins we invariably do commit. Combined with a good nature it appears it is also in this nature to have regrets? A good nature that intends to do good but invariably fails at times I would call a "Sin Nature."
This appears as if Paul indicates that all men have a conscience, acknowledging God's Law, to some degree, and yet of necessity commit sins for which they have regrets. James in nearly every chapter of his letter appears to assume we have this nature that inclines towards sin. And it appears that his assumption is that all do sin. I refer to this as a "Sin Nature," as do many theologians.
"Sin Nature" is a contagion that of necessity leads to acts of sin. It is indeed in a state lacking the supernatural lift that God intended Man to have, or what Feser referred to as "privation." But Man was intended, by his nature, to draw upon and to choose to live by that supernatural lift. As such, those left without that supernatural lift have, I believe, a corrupted nature.
-
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;" RM 2:14,15
Here we have the unchurched gentiles, by nature, obeying the law or things required by the law.
Far from a "sin nature," we have the elements of God's law imprinted on the heart and conscience. Men can and will, by individual choice, obey or disobey what the conscience dictates.
Furthermore, it is a conscious reaction to the Gospel that brings men to repentance and salvation in Christ, as opposed to some ludicrous notion of predetermination.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" RM1:20
"Sin nature" does not equate with conscience. And conscience is often a tormented realm somewhat pacified by brutish unbelief.
-
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;" RM 2:14,15
Here we have the unchurched gentiles, by nature, obeying the law or things required by the law.
Far from a "sin nature," we have the elements of God's law imprinted on the heart and conscience. Men can and will, by individual choice, obey or disobey what the conscience dictates.
Furthermore, it is a conscious reaction to the Gospel that brings men to repentance and salvation in Christ, as opposed to some ludicrous notion of predetermination.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" RM1:20
"Sin nature" does not equate with conscience. And conscience is often a tormented realm somewhat pacified by brutish unbelief.
You're just telling me what I've already told you. The fact that there is a conscience and there is guilt tells me that the nature of Man is necessarily defiled by his failure to live by that good that he knows to do. That is what I call a "Sin Nature."
-
No, you have been insisting that "sin-nature" is inherited - a "contagion" bequeathed to mankind.
Your shape-shifting stance prevents or avoids reasonable discussion and smacks of non-orthodox influences - hard to nail down, exactly, but not grounded in Scripture.
-
What is the "privation of God's gift to humanity?" Feser is suggesting that the lack of a supernatural gift results in a state of free will in which human weakness *always* results in sinful acts? This, to me, is little different from the "contagion of sin" I've been speaking about, aka the Sin Nature.
Did you read what Feser said?
God's gift to Adam and Eve, which they were not owed, was the beatific vision, which was, he wrote:
a direct, “face to face” knowledge of the divine essence which far transcends the very limited knowledge of God we can have through natural reason, and which would entail unsurpassable bliss of a kind we could never attain given our natural powers
The privation of this gift resulted in humanity falling back into its "merely natural state" separated from the (supernatural) gifts of God. We were, in other words, placed under the limitations of our nature, and those were limitations that direct access to God had removed.
Thus, Feser is suggesting, in accordance with the Thomistic/Scholastic view of original sin, that sin happens when individuals pursue their natural ends, which they cannot properly pursue apart from God. It's not because of a sin nature or contagion, but because our nature as it was created does not have access to everything it needs.
When we are born in sin, we have, as the Jews say, a Sin tendency, or an immediate reaction against God's word, before capitulating to obedience, if indeed we go that far. An inclination towards sin always results in sinful behavior, and as such is viewed by myself as a "contagion" of sorts. It is disallowed from Heaven. It is an "uncleanness," even before it results in sinful acts.
It depends where you're quoting in Judaism, but Judaism posits two inclinations: the inclination to sin and the inclination to do good. Is this a 'contagion' though, or the natural state of human nature, separated from God's presence?
Incidentally, I do agree with you that "Sin" itself suggests acts of sin. But Sin Nature is kept out of heaven, I believe, to prevent the unavoidable sin that will result from one who has the Sin Inclination.
Sure, I just don't think 'sin nature' is necessary, an explanation, or found in Scripture as suggested in these various discussions.
1st, it cannot be 144,000 since God determined, by His word, to create a world filled with people who live in His image. So yes, God determined X number of people who will fulfill this role, both throughout history and at the end of history. "The earth will be filled with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea."
This, I believe, was God's original word. And to be true to His word, God must accomplish this despite the fact He built Free Will into the equation. The free will of men will succeed or fail to limited degrees, but X number of people *must* freely choose to live in God's image throughout the world.
Those not originally planned, but who result from Man running wild apart from obedience to God's word will produce a multitude of people who vie with those created to live in God's image. They will freely choose to fill the world apart from living in God's image, and under the rule of His word. They were not created by His word, and thus will not be interested in living by His word.
Being created to do good, all men can freely choose to do good or ordinarily do choose to do good, to some degree. But living in God's image requires a complete commitment to being under the rule of God's word. And the people of this world, not created as a direct result of man living in obedience to God's word, will not submit to living under God's rule all the time.
Okay, this is my theoretical position. I'm not being dogmatic about it. But I came to this conclusion back in the mid 70s, and soon began to recognize significant differences between one kind of person and another. I refer to those whose hearts were drawn to God's word as "children of God." And those tending to reject being under God's word *all the time* I call "children of this world." My terms, but derived from Scriptures. I apply the terms based on premonition of where these people will end up based on how I see them now.
Right, so you're saying more than what you said you were saying.
Well, I submitted a comparison between Paul's view of judgment in Romans 2.12-15 with James' view of the same. Paul referred to it as a "nature."
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Granted, this is not a satisfactory proof text for a Sin Nature. It appears to prove our human nature was created to want to serve God. But it also assumes that despite this good nature we end up regretting the sins we invariably do commit. Combined with a good nature it appears it is also in this nature to have regrets? A good nature that intends to do good but invariably fails at times I would call a "Sin Nature."
This appears as if Paul indicates that all men have a conscience, acknowledging God's Law, to some degree, and yet of necessity commit sins for which they have regrets. James in nearly every chapter of his letter appears to assume we have this nature that inclines towards sin. And it appears that his assumption is that all do sin. I refer to this as a "Sin Nature," as do many theologians.
"Sin Nature" is a contagion that of necessity leads to acts of sin. It is indeed in a state lacking the supernatural lift that God intended Man to have, or what Feser referred to as "privation." But Man was intended, by his nature, to draw upon and to choose to live by that supernatural lift. As such, those left without that supernatural lift have, I believe, a corrupted nature.
See, you go from Scripture --> sin nature isn't necessarily in here --> sin nature exists. But why are we getting a 'sin nature' out of Paul or James when they wouldn't have believed in such themselves, and the human inclination to sin can be explained in other ways that are attested to in Scripture?
-
What is the "privation of God's gift to humanity?" Feser is suggesting that the lack of a supernatural gift results in a state of free will in which human weakness *always* results in sinful acts? This, to me, is little different from the "contagion of sin" I've been speaking about, aka the Sin Nature.
Did you read what Feser said?
God's gift to Adam and Eve, which they were not owed, was the beatific vision, which was, he wrote:
a direct, “face to face” knowledge of the divine essence which far transcends the very limited knowledge of God we can have through natural reason, and which would entail unsurpassable bliss of a kind we could never attain given our natural powers
The privation of this gift resulted in humanity falling back into its "merely natural state" separated from the (supernatural) gifts of God. We were, in other words, placed under the limitations of our nature, and those were limitations that direct access to God had removed.
Thus, Feser is suggesting, in accordance with the Thomistic/Scholastic view of original sin, that sin happens when individuals pursue their natural ends, which they cannot properly pursue apart from God. It's not because of a sin nature or contagion, but because our nature as it was created does not have access to everything it needs.
That's exactly what I was referring to. Yes, I got it the 1st time. I'm explaining that Feser's notion of the Natural State of Man, having lost the Supernatural relationship with God, is little different from the "Sin Nature" I advocate. It is a Sin Tendency, or a Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it. Without a relationship with God, which is what I think the Tree of Life represented, Man does not fulfill what his Human Nature was designed to evolve into.
It depends where you're quoting in Judaism, but Judaism posits two inclinations: the inclination to sin and the inclination to do good. Is this a 'contagion' though, or the natural state of human nature, separated from God's presence?
That's the whole point I'm driving at. My sense of a "contagion" is little different from Feser's sense of the Natural State of Man, separated from the Supernatural Aid of God. Apart from God's Help, Man tends towards Sin. He invariably sins, and is in effect "unclean," and disqualified from Heaven.
Sure, I just don't think 'sin nature' is necessary, an explanation, or found in Scripture as suggested in these various discussions.
You can use any language that you, as the speaker, wish to use. But if the logical outcome of your point is that Man, of necessity, sins, then how is that any different from the language of a Sin Nature that I use?
God did not make Man to sin. But He made him with the capacity to have a Sin Nature, once he chose to ignore the Tree of Life, which Feser is calling the Natural Life, separated from the Supernatural Aid of God. Failing that, Man invariably sins, not having the Supernatural Help he needs to not sin.
Right, so you're saying more than what you said you were saying.
Yes, I always anticipate having to roll this out over time. I've been sharing this with only a few over some years, and I've held the core of these beliefs since the late 70s. I know that most will not want to hear it, but I also believe that some will recognize some truth in it. I pick and choose who I share with.
See, you go from Scripture --> sin nature isn't necessarily in here --> sin nature exists. But why are we getting a 'sin nature' out of Paul or James when they wouldn't have believed in such themselves, and the human inclination to sin can be explained in other ways that are attested to in Scripture?
Yes, it isn't quite to the point in the Scriptures I share. Things aren't always described Scripturally as we, outside of Judaism, like to analyze and describe them. The Trinity is a good example. You have to find words to express what you think the Scriptures are saying. Just quoting the Scriptures isn't always enough to answer our specific questions.
So yes, this is speculation. And these are Scriptures that sort of dance around the subject. I'm just giving you some things that suggest an underlying sense of a Sin Nature to me. Thanks for listening.
-
No, you have been insisting that "sin-nature" is inherited - a "contagion" bequeathed to mankind.
Your shape-shifting stance prevents or avoids reasonable discussion and smacks of non-orthodox influences - hard to nail down, exactly, but not grounded in Scripture.
I see more personal animosity than argument here. Yes, to me the Sin Nature is inherited as a human spirituality descending from Adam to his descendants and from parents to children. It means they inherit a condition that is universally true, which is why I suggest it is a corrupted Human Nature. If it is *always* true, then to me it is a "Nature."
The problem may be when people think that children are inheriting sins from the parents, which wouldn't be true, I agree, because sins are actions. But the Sin Nature is a condition, or a "contagion" as I've called it, because it always sets up the the results in which someone will sin, if a person is conscious and mentally stable.
That is why I think all men with this "Sin Nature" are excluded from Heaven apart from Christian redemption. Out New Christian Nature excuses us for our Fallen Condition on the basis we choose to trade one for the other.
We are forgiven on the basis that we repent not just of the acts of sin, but more, because we choose to have a new Nature that alone is an acceptable replacement for a Nature that causes sin. We repent both of our acts of our sin, and also of the fallen condition that Adam passed on to us.
-
OK, so now "conscious" and "mentally stable" are additional conditions which much be met before "sin nature" attaches?
Sorry, bro, but I'm having trouble tracking the moving target.
What about those that are neither "conscious" or "mentally stable?"
What about infants?
-
OK, so now "conscious" and "mentally stable" are additional conditions which much be met before "sin nature" attaches?
Sorry, bro, but I'm having trouble tracking the moving target.
What about those that are neither "conscious" or "mentally stable?"
What about infants?
This isn't a "moving target." I've held to these beliefs for a *long time.* I'm not making them up as I go along. I just can't explain every element at one time. I'm arguing for life as I experience it based on my speculations about divine Predestination. I'm open to your truth, if you have better ideas?
To answer your question, I'm saying that we've *all* inherited the Sin Nature--infants, the mentally deficient, the unconscious, etc. We all have the Sin Inclination, having a human spirituality that has been defiled since Adam, and which we were all born with.
This doesn't mean we are guilty of sins Adam committed--only that we find ourselves in a condition in which we, of necessity, will sin, because we have a fallen nature that gravitates towards rejection of God's word. Actually, as Athanasius said, we have both good and bad natures, one inclining towards God's image, as we were created to do, and the other inclining towards sin, due to our inheriting Adams rebellious human nature.
The condition is disqualified from heaven, regardless of conscious sin. God's word is what determines *who* with this condition will find mercy. Those whose inclination towards obeying God's word is stronger than the inclination towards disobeying God's word will, I believe, get into Heaven. Those who, quite frankly, choose against wanting God in their life, will not get Heaven.
Heaven is God, as I understand it. It isn't just having things. It is having God. Those who don't like God won't have Him and won't have Heaven. Having a fallen Human Nature doesn't keep us out of Heaven. It is choosing against our redemption from that fallen Human Nature that keeps us out of Heaven.
And this is so because our fallen Human Nature is disqualified form Heaven because it generates acts of sin. Unless the Nature itself is dealt with, and not just individual sins, we are not really repenting, and we are not truly choosing God as our Lord.
-
I see more personal animosity than argument here.
No animosity intended at all.
But the Sin Nature is a condition, or a "contagion" as I've called it, because it always sets up the the results in which someone will sin, if a person is conscious and mentally stable.
Respectfully, sin is not the only option to choose from and men choose out of free will.
We are forgiven on the basis that we repent not just of the acts of sin, but more, because we choose to have a new Nature that alone is an acceptable replacement for a Nature that causes sin. We repent both of our acts of our sin, and also of the fallen condition that Adam passed on to us.
Again, respectfully, we are forgiven by believing in the blood of Christ. The new life is imparted to us at the cross.
It is freely given. Yes, we have repented of dead works and seek to live the new life. The basis of our forgiveness is Christ alone.
Seeing as our concern here is to establish what the Bible actually says, speculation should be in light of contextual scripture. That is not always easy,
-
No animosity intended at all.
Respectfully, sin is not the only option to choose from and men choose out of free will.
Thanks, I agree. We have free will to do many different kinds of good. We're God's children--not slaves. The choice to sin was not, I believe, what God wished for us to choose, but it was still an option.
Having chosen that, Adam passed on consequences to his descendants. We all agree on that. Some call it "death," and some, like myself, call it the "Sin Nature."
We are forgiven on the basis that we repent not just of the acts of sin, but more, because we choose to have a new Nature that alone is an acceptable replacement for a Nature that causes sin. We repent both of our acts of our sin, and also of the fallen condition that Adam passed on to us.
Again, respectfully, we are forgiven by believing in the blood of Christ. The new life is imparted to us at the cross.
It is freely given. Yes, we have repented of dead works and seek to live the new life. The basis of our forgiveness is Christ alone.
Seeing as our concern here is to establish what the Bible actually says, speculation should be in light of contextual scripture. That is not always easy,
I agree--the Bible dictates doctrine, but speculation is just that: speculation. I find nothing wrong with speculating, as long as we have some basis in Scripture. I'm certainly not being dogmatic about anything here!
I agree that Christ is the basis of our Salvation, and that we can freely choose for it. I only believe that some gravitate towards Christ, and some do not. It is not just a gravitation towards wants and needs, but more a gravitation towards Christ himself that saves.
Thanks for your comments.
-
That's exactly what I was referring to. Yes, I got it the 1st time. I'm explaining that Feser's notion of the Natural State of Man, having lost the Supernatural relationship with God, is little different from the "Sin Nature" I advocate. It is a Sin Tendency, or a Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it. Without a relationship with God, which is what I think the Tree of Life represented, Man does not fulfill what his Human Nature was designed to evolve into.
Feser's is a very different explanation than what you've written thus far. Feser argues for the privation of a gift, which is external. You've been arguing for sin as an ontologically corruptive force, or contagion, and an act, or nature or spiritual inheritance distributed by the Word, and so forth. Feser isn't saying any of these things. It's hardly a little different unless you've changed your mind?
That's the whole point I'm driving at. My sense of a "contagion" is little different from Feser's sense of the Natural State of Man, separated from the Supernatural Aid of God. Apart from God's Help, Man tends towards Sin. He invariably sins, and is in effect "unclean," and disqualified from Heaven.
Well, then it's not a contagion if you think you're saying the same thing as Feser. It also makes me wonder why you've argued against the idea this whole time when I argued it (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=167.msg3066#msg3066) before mentioning Feser.
You can use any language that you, as the speaker, wish to use. But if the logical outcome of your point is that Man, of necessity, sins, then how is that any different from the language of a Sin Nature that I use?
I can't use any language I want if I want to state my claims accurately.
As for the difference, have you read what you've written? We all agree that everybody sins, but what's been under debate is the explanation for why. The explanation you and I have given has varied wildly. If you now think that we're of a similar viewpoint, then how do you bridge the gap between what you said previously and what you're saying now?
God did not make Man to sin. But He made him with the capacity to have a Sin Nature, once he chose to ignore the Tree of Life, which Feser is calling the Natural Life, separated from the Supernatural Aid of God. Failing that, Man invariably sins, not having the Supernatural Help he needs to not sin.
So what, this whole time you've been using words in ways that no one else uses?
-
That's exactly what I was referring to. Yes, I got it the 1st time. I'm explaining that Feser's notion of the Natural State of Man, having lost the Supernatural relationship with God, is little different from the "Sin Nature" I advocate. It is a Sin Tendency, or a Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it. Without a relationship with God, which is what I think the Tree of Life represented, Man does not fulfill what his Human Nature was designed to evolve into.
Feser's is a very different explanation than what you've written thus far. Feser argues for the privation of a gift, which is external. You've been arguing for sin as an ontologically corruptive force, or contagion, and an act, or nature or spiritual inheritance distributed by the Word, and so forth. Feser isn't saying any of these things. It's hardly a little different unless you've changed your mind?
No, I haven't changed my mind. I explained why I thought there was "little difference." What is a big difference to you is the fact that Feser is deliberately avoiding language suggesting an "ontic Sin Nature." ;) To me, this is incidental, because in effect what he is arguing is, I think, a Sin Nature. A Sin Inclination is, I think, a Sin Nature.
The Jewish view is similar, calling it a Sin Inclination, but not a Sin Nature. Where I might bend somewhat is in the notion that I've agreed with you that Sin is itself Actions--not the Contagion itself perhaps. The Sin Contagion is a state of privation, as Feser said, but it is, I believe, a "Contagion!" It is a state of privation, induced by an act of Sin--Adam's Sin, such that this deprived state ultimately must sin.
Therefore, I continue to see this Privation as a Contagion, or as an Uncleanness, since it was caused by sin and leads to sin. It was caused, however, by the sin of Adam and Eve. Those who contract the Contagion, ie Adam's descendants, ultimately must sin, since they've inherited the Contagion.
That's the whole point I'm driving at. My sense of a "contagion" is little different from Feser's sense of the Natural State of Man, separated from the Supernatural Aid of God. Apart from God's Help, Man tends towards Sin. He invariably sins, and is in effect "unclean," and disqualified from Heaven.
Well, then it's not a contagion if you think you're saying the same thing as Feser. It also makes me wonder why you've argued against the idea this whole time when I argued it (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=167.msg3066#msg3066) before mentioning Feser.
Rather, you've been using Feser to argue against my position, and I've just been trying to compare what he said with what I'm saying. The positions are different, since he denies the "contagion." But in effect Man sins 100% of the time--that argues for a "contagion" to me.
No, obviously I'm not arguing the same thing as Feser. There is "little difference" in the outcome, whether it is called a state of "privation" or a "contagion." The ultimate result 100% of the time are acts of sin.
-
No, I haven't changed my mind. I explained why I thought there was "little difference." What is a big difference to you is the fact that Feser is deliberately avoiding language suggesting an "ontic Sin Nature." ;) To me, this is incidental, because in effect what he is arguing is, I think, a Sin Nature. A Sin Inclination is, I think, a Sin Nature.
Feser isn't merely avoiding language. We've been discussing why people sin. The points of difference are the discussion, which you're now flattening because the result is, in effect, the same (you say). That's confusing; "people sin" was always in view. That's never been under dispute.
The Jewish view is similar, calling it a Sin Inclination, but not a Sin Nature... The Sin Contagion is a state of privation, as Feser said, but it is, I believe, a "Contagion!" It is a state of privation, induced by an act of Sin--Adam's Sin, such that this deprived state ultimately must sin.
Therefore, I continue to see this Privation as a Contagion, or as an Uncleanness, since it was caused by sin and leads to sin. It was caused, however, by the sin of Adam and Eve. Those who contract the Contagion, ie Adam's descendants, ultimately must sin, since they've inherited the Contagion.
A privation and contagion are two different things. If you don't mean two different things, then maybe it's worth using language that accurately describes the view you're trying to outline? Is what you're talking about the privation of a gift, or a contagion in the form of corruption? Is it a privation that leads to a corruption of nature? Feser is only talking about privation and nature, which isn't corrupted. This 'contagion' language doesn't fit his view, and possibly not yours either.
Rather, you've been using Feser to argue against my position, and I've just been trying to compare what he said with what I'm saying. The positions are different, since he denies the "contagion." But in effect Man sins 100% of the time--that argues for a "contagion" to me.
It seems to me that we've been discussing Feser's view. If I've been using it against your position, it's only in the capacity of outlining how Feser's view is different from your own.
I don't think people sin 100% of the time. What do you mean by this?
No, obviously I'm not arguing the same thing as Feser. There is "little difference" in the outcome, whether it is called a state of "privation" or a "contagion." The ultimate result 100% of the time are acts of sin.
Just having a whole 'nother discussion over there huh? :)
-
No, I haven't changed my mind. I explained why I thought there was "little difference." What is a big difference to you is the fact that Feser is deliberately avoiding language suggesting an "ontic Sin Nature." ;) To me, this is incidental, because in effect what he is arguing is, I think, a Sin Nature. A Sin Inclination is, I think, a Sin Nature.
Feser isn't merely avoiding language. We've been discussing why people sin. The points of difference are the discussion, which you're now flatting because the result is, in effect, the same (you say). That's confusing; "people sin" was always in view. That's never been under dispute.
The Jewish view is similar, calling it a Sin Inclination, but not a Sin Nature... The Sin Contagion is a state of privation, as Feser said, but it is, I believe, a "Contagion!" It is a state of privation, induced by an act of Sin--Adam's Sin, such that this deprived state ultimately must sin.
Therefore, I continue to see this Privation as a Contagion, or as an Uncleanness, since it was caused by sin and leads to sin. It was caused, however, by the sin of Adam and Eve. Those who contract the Contagion, ie Adam's descendants, ultimately must sin, since they've inherited the Contagion.
A privation and contagion are two different things. If you don't mean two different things, then maybe it's worth using language that accurately describes the view you're trying to outline? Is what you're talking about the privation of a gift, or a contagion in the form of corruption? Is it a privation that leads to a corruption of nature? Feser is only talking about privation and nature, which isn't corrupted. This 'contagion' language doesn't fit his view, and possibly not yours either.
Rather, you've been using Feser to argue against my position, and I've just been trying to compare what he said with what I'm saying. The positions are different, since he denies the "contagion." But in effect Man sins 100% of the time--that argues for a "contagion" to me.
It seems to me that we've been discussing Feser's view. If I've been using it against your position, it's only in the capacity of outlining how Feser's view is different from your own.
I don't think people sin 100% of the time. What do you mean by this?
No, obviously I'm not arguing the same thing as Feser. There is "little difference" in the outcome, whether it is called a state of "privation" or a "contagion." The ultimate result 100% of the time are acts of sin.
Just having a whole 'nother discussion over there huh? :)
Yes, you seem to be using Feser's position to discredit my theory--I know you share with him a denial of the Sin Nature.
What I mean about 100% acts of sin will result from mankind after the Fall is just that--every human being who you say is deprived the supernatural help of God commits acts of sin. That results from what I think is the "contagion" of sin, and not simply from being deprived help in resisting temptation.
To be deprived help in this sense is a disability--a contagion, and not a good nature operating under "privation." A perfect person can be deprived water, and die from thirst, and yet not turn to sin. And a perfect person with a good nature who is denied assistance in resisting sin can still resist sin, in my opinion.
The implication you have is that people require supernatural help to avoid sin. I don't believe Adam and Eve needed that help in the garden. All they had to do was choose the Tree of Life to escape the test of the Tree of Knowledge.
-
Adam walked with God in the garden and God spoke directly with him amidst the bliss of a sinless, deathless paradise.
Mankind was driven from Eden into this cursed world and marked for death.
One can barely begin to comprehend what Adam left behind, but this is fallen man's lot: a sin-sickened realm harassed and decieved by devils as Satan himself prowls the ranks of the masses.
It's a tough place to live sinlessly, and none have, save Christ.
But men, as opposed to being plagued with a sin nature, are compelled to choose from among options, as was Adam.
What many percieve as a liability is the absense of what Adam knew and experienced before the fall. But it was not sufficient to keep Adam from falling.
Men will freely choose, as did Adam.
This should serve to highlight the immense dignity imparted to mankind - The power to choose, freely.
-
Yes, you seem to be using Feser's position to discredit my theory--I know you share with him a denial of the Sin Nature.
That's not my intent. My intent was to show that a denial of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin is not unusual, and that there are other views that are equally historically attested. It was, after all, presented in a reply to IMINXTC in reply to the question, "What does the Bible actually say?".
In any case, my understanding of original sin is Thomistic, pace Augustine.
What I mean about 100% acts of sin will result from mankind after the Fall is just that--every human being who you say is deprived the supernatural help of God commits acts of sin. That results from what I think is the "contagion" of sin, and not simply from being deprived help in resisting temptation.
Gotcha. That's not "But in effect Man sins 100% of the time". It's that it's inevitable that someone will sin (with one exception), not that someone sins 100% of the time. I get what you're saying, though.
To be deprived help in this sense is a disability--a contagion, and not a good nature operating under "privation." A perfect person can be deprived water, and die from thirst, and yet not turn to sin. And a perfect person with a good nature who is denied assistance in resisting sin can still resist sin, in my opinion.
Okay? Again, 'contagion' doesn't seem to fit what you're describing.
The implication you have is that people require supernatural help to avoid sin. I don't believe Adam and Eve needed that help in the garden. All they had to do was choose the Tree of Life to escape the test of the Tree of Knowledge.
And did they choose the tree of life?
-
That's not my intent. My intent was to show that a denial of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin is not unusual, and that there are other views that are equally historically attested. It was, after all, presented in a reply to IMINXTC in reply to the question, "What does the Bible actually say?".
I'm sure I don't agree with Augustine on everything either. But belief in a Sin Nature is nearly universal in Christianity.
Col 3.5 5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
The literal Greek translation is a little different than this, but this is how Christians scholars tend to view it. It may indicate we have "earthly bodily members."
In any case, my understanding of original sin is Thomistic, pace Augustine.
Thomas Aquinas was pretty dry in his theology, and perhaps more intellectual than revelational. I respect him, but wouldn't count him representative of typical Christian views.
The fact is, a good many great Christian leaders had aberrant beliefs. This is the cost of being "apart from the crowd." And I respect that. But we still have to sort of rein them in, due to the fact that their greatest qualities must have excised from them some of these questionable beliefs.
For example, Origen had some weird beliefs about our preexistence. The Catholic Church had a weird belief about Transubstantiation. Luther had a sort of fatalistic predeterminism. Calvin believed the lost were predestined to be lost. Wesley believed God didn't predestine an elect number of people.
We could go on. But as I understand it, most Christians in history believed in a Sin Nature, regardless of how it is being described. I think that even Thomas Aquinas was expressing Sin Nature using a description that he was more comfortable with.
What I mean about 100% acts of sin will result from mankind after the Fall is just that--every human being who you say is deprived the supernatural help of God commits acts of sin. That results from what I think is the "contagion" of sin, and not simply from being deprived help in resisting temptation.
Gotcha. That's not "But in effect Man sins 100% of the time". It's that it's inevitable that someone will sin (with one exception), not that someone sins 100% of the time. I get what you're saying, though.
No, it's inevitable that we choose acts of sin because we have a Sinful Nature. I don't argue fatalistic predetermination, remember?
To be deprived help in this sense is a disability--a contagion, and not a good nature operating under "privation." A perfect person can be deprived water, and die from thirst, and yet not turn to sin. And a perfect person with a good nature who is denied assistance in resisting sin can still resist sin, in my opinion.
Okay? Again, 'contagion' doesn't seem to fit what you're describing.
How can one admit that 100% of mankind chooses to sin if Man is not struck with a universal contagion? You either argue that it is a limited contagion or not a contagion at all.
In this case, you would be able to isolate the negative choices to a certain environment. But we get these choices to sin in *all* environments, which is roughly the equivalent of the worst kind of plague imaginable!
The implication you have is that people require supernatural help to avoid sin. I don't believe Adam and Eve needed that help in the garden. All they had to do was choose the Tree of Life to escape the test of the Tree of Knowledge.
And did they choose the tree of life?
Adam and Even could've indeed chosen for the Tree of Life and avoided falling into a state of independent mindedness. Of course, since both of them chose to sin, that also was 100% choice to sin. However, that was when there were only two people. And they were both in proximity of one another, and thus under added duress.
It was not a contagion that they received from a preceding generation. If anything it was a contagion contracted from Satan himself, by accepting his lies.
I don't think sin was a contagion from the beginning. But listening to Satan opened the door to this spiritual virus. And it has indeed spread throughout the human race, not by DNA but by a kind of "spiritual DNA." We are all wayward, we all tend to challenge God's word, and we all choose to make bad decisions at times of weakness.
-
I'm sure I don't agree with Augustine on everything either. But belief in a Sin Nature is nearly universal in Christianity.
Col 3.5 5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
The literal Greek translation is a little different than this, but this is how Christians scholars tend to view it. It may indicate we have "earthly bodily members."
Belief in original sin and its consequences, however both are understood, is near-universal. Belief in a sin nature, in the truest sense of the word 'nature', is not remotely universal. Colossians 3 talks about an 'earthly nature', or, whatever it is in our nature that 'belongs to the earth'. But it doesn't tell us to put to death our 'sin nature'. If that's how we understand 'sin nature', then in this sense it becomes technical language, and not a description of contagion, corruption, and so forth.
Thomas Aquinas was pretty dry in his theology, and perhaps more intellectual than revelational. I respect him, but wouldn't count him representative of typical Christian views.
I don't doubt that he's not representative in the groups of people you might associate with, but he's quite representative of a great many Christians. Like Augustine, Aquinas is one of those people who permeates theology.
The fact is, a good many great Christian leaders had aberrant beliefs. This is the cost of being "apart from the crowd." And I respect that. But we still have to sort of rein them in, due to the fact that their greatest qualities must have excised from them some of these questionable beliefs.
No one has perfect beliefs; everyone believes something considered 'aberrant' by someone.
I think that even Thomas Aquinas was expressing Sin Nature using a description that he was more comfortable with.
Implying that he would have used different language if he wasn't uncomfortable with it? This is a strange claim. Aquinas used the language he used because he presumably thought it best described what he believed. I don't take issue with Augustine's notion of sin nature merely because of discomfort.
No, it's inevitable that we choose acts of sin because we have a Sinful Nature. I don't argue fatalistic predetermination, remember?
This is arguing for the sake of arguing. We weren't talking about sin nature, but the phrasing of the claim "But in effect Man sins 100% of the time", which isn't accurate.
How can one admit that 100% of mankind chooses to sin if Man is not struck with a universal contagion? You either argue that it is a limited contagion or not a contagion at all.
It's not an admission, it's an affirmation. Sin nature is not required to explain why people sin (Adam and Eve sinned in the direct presence of God, of all places!).
Adam and Even could've indeed chosen for the Tree of Life and avoided falling into a state of independent mindedness. Of course, since both of them chose to sin, that also was 100% choice to sin. However, that was when there were only two people. And they were both in proximity of one another, and thus under added duress.
It was not a contagion that they received from a preceding generation. If anything it was a contagion contracted from Satan himself, by accepting his lies.
I don't think sin was a contagion from the beginning. But listening to Satan opened the door to this spiritual virus. And it has indeed spread throughout the human race, not by DNA but by a kind of "spiritual DNA." We are all wayward, we all tend to challenge God's word, and we all choose to make bad decisions at times of weakness.
So no, they didn't choose the tree of life.
-
Col 3.5 5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
The literal Greek translation is a little different than this, but this is how Christians scholars tend to view it. It may indicate we have "earthly bodily members."
Belief in original sin and its consequences, however both are understood, is near-universal. Belief in a sin nature, in the truest sense of the word 'nature', is not remotely universal. Colossians 3 talks about an 'earthly nature', or, whatever it is in our nature that 'belongs to the earth'. But it doesn't tell us to put to death our 'sin nature'. If that's how we understand 'sin nature', then in this sense it becomes technical language, and not a description of contagion, corruption, and so forth.
I think Aquinas referred to "privation" because Paul refers to what is "earthly," which is the world that has been separated from God's blessing. I wouldn't say God is gone from the earth--only that His *blessing* has been removed from the earth, leaving it cursed and desolate.
A "nature" we cannot get rid of when we have it. To put it to death would be to completely excise it from our being, which we aren't able to do, in my opinion. We have, I believe, a Sin Nature, which is a permanent feature of our physical being until we are resurrected to immortality.
Like the desolated, cursed earth we are a desolated humanity. We are not only deprived of divine blessings, but we also produce the "thorns," or deeds, of a Sin Nature.
The thing we are to "put to death" is the reliance we may have on this independent earthly nature. The terminology, "put to death," has reference to Christ putting his entire physical being to death in order to redeem us from the contamination sin has infected our beings with.
Sin, as a contagion, resides within our physical being, and in order to be forgiven this existence, Christ had to completely put his own physical being to death, providing for us a perfect sacrifice.
He was already perfect, but in dying for us he provided a perfect sacrifice that we required. We required access to a spiritual life that had had the association with its physical being completely removed, thereby leaving any guilt associated with the body also removed.
We had to choose to live in his sacrifice, which was a complete dismissal of our physical being in its state of having a Sin Nature. It was a choice, and obviously not an actual physical death.
In relying on Christ's help, we still have a Sin Nature, and are still weak, infected, and commit sins. But we are able to access virtues that come from Christ, cleansing us in him.
We are constantly putting to death our body in our identification with Christ, and so obtain both virtue and cleansing from him spiritually. Anyway, that's how I see it.
Like Augustine, Aquinas is one of those people who permeates theology.
I think he was important in the age of Scholasticism, when the Catholic Church had to find a solid recourse to Scriptural Truth, just as the Protestants later relied on Sola Scriptura. His reason was based more on the assumption of Scriptural veracity than on philosophical argument, as I understand it. He attempted to dictate Scriptural truth by Natural Reason, which Modern Philosophy has largely disproven.
I think Aquinas set up Luther's reliance on Scripture, abandoning any attempt to prove it by Natural Reason. This was an appeal to divine revelation as the basis of truth. And I do credit Aquinas for indirectly accomplishing this.
No one has perfect beliefs; everyone believes something considered 'aberrant' by someone.
You think? ;)
I think that even Thomas Aquinas was expressing Sin Nature using a description that he was more comfortable with.
Implying that he would have used different language if he wasn't uncomfortable with it? This is a strange claim. Aquinas used the language he used because he presumably thought it best described what he believed. I don't take issue with Augustine's notion of sin nature merely because of discomfort.
There is no other reason I can see for denying a Sin Nature other than being uncomfortable with the idea God imposed the necessity of Sinning on future generations who had not committed the Original Sin! Explaining this as a "Privation" is an escape hatch for the claim that God is unfair to Adam's posterity.
We weren't talking about sin nature, but the phrasing of the claim "But in effect Man sins 100% of the time", which isn't accurate.
You need context for that statement. It sounds like I was saying a person continuously indulges in theft, murder, and adultery! ;)
Obviously, that's not what I was saying. I meant to say that everybody, without exception, sins. We all choose to sin, whether in greater or lesser measure.
Even the Christian who lives a saintly life battles sin every day in lesser ways. The idea is to reduce sin in our lives by choosing to embrace the power of Christ's spiritual life. This significantly reduces sin in display in our lives, and also awards us with Eternal Life.
Sin nature is not required to explain why people sin (Adam and Eve sinned in the direct presence of God, of all places!).
I disagree in a way. Even though Satan himself did not originally have a Sin Nature, the idea of a Sin Nature was predicated in God's gift to Satan to choose for or against obedience to God's word. So, the idea of a Sin Nature was there even before Satan was actually guilty of sin.
And it was Satan's own Sin Nature that bedeviled Adam and Eve, their acquiring from Satan his own Sin Nature. They didn't acquire Satan's own sin, but only his Sin Nature. That's why, I believe, Adam's children produce both kinds, those who sin like the Devil and those who reconsider after having been duped, returning to God's original word of creation.
-
There is no other reason I can see for denying a Sin Nature other than being uncomfortable with the idea God imposed the necessity of Sinning on future generations who had not committed the Original Sin! Explaining this as a "Privation" is an escape hatch for the claim that God is unfair to Adam's posterity.
If you can't see any other reason than discomfort, then how deeply are you looking? If you take this attitude towards views that don't align with your own, then how might this risk contaminating the intellectual integrity of your interactions with those other views?
Here's a good reason that doesn't come down to discomfort: sin nature, as you've explained it, is not taught in Scripture. At least, that's the claim. There's no deeper psychological meaning, no discomfort that's being avoided.
You need context for that statement. It sounds like I was saying a person continuously indulges in theft, murder, and adultery! ;)
Obviously, that's not what I was saying. I meant to say that everybody, without exception, sins. We all choose to sin, whether in greater or lesser measure.
I thought so, that's why I asked.
-
There is no other reason I can see for denying a Sin Nature other than being uncomfortable with the idea God imposed the necessity of Sinning on future generations who had not committed the Original Sin! Explaining this as a "Privation" is an escape hatch for the claim that God is unfair to Adam's posterity.
If you can't see any other reason than discomfort, then how deeply are you looking? If you take this attitude towards views that don't align with your own, then how might this risk contaminating the intellectual integrity of your interactions with those other views?
Here's a good reason that doesn't come down to discomfort: sin nature, as you've explained it, is not taught in Scripture. At least, that's the claim. There's no deeper psychological meaning, no discomfort that's being avoided.
Sorry, that's all I have for now. Yes, there is no Sin Nature Theology that I can locate in the NT Scriptures. But then again, there is no Trinitarian Theology that I can locate there either!
I have no better explanation for what Christians universally call the "fallen condition of Man," stemming from the original sin. One calls it "privation," and another calls it a "Sin Nature."
I prefer the latter because it best explains my own struggles with sin. I do not find that I wish to sin, but like Paul, I find sin within me--something we're born with, prodding me to do what is against my sense to do.
Rom 7.So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Paul referred to our weakened, sin-infected bodies as the "flesh." It is indeed in a state of privation. But I don't believe it is neutral and unstained, simply lacking God's assistance.
Rather, I believe it is actually "cursed," just as the ground was cursed and less responsive to cultivation and farming. Even if Man wants to do good, and he does, he finds himself fighting against our natural reliance upon God to do so. We have a bent against God's assistance and word.
I don't feel I have a complete handle on what I believe. But this is the best I can do for now.
-
Sorry, that's all I have for now. Yes, there is no Sin Nature Theology that I can locate in the NT Scriptures. But then again, there is no Trinitarian Theology that I can locate there either!
Confusing phrasing, but I know what you mean. Thanks for engaging.
-
RabbiKnife asked for scripture and exegesis for this topic. Is there any chance either of those might be forthcoming? This is a very poor and invalid treatment of Hamartiology.
I’d like to join the convo somehow, but it’d be like trying to jump on a merry-go-round already spinning at 84mph with some guy still pushing it to go faster. I don’t want to risk tetanus from the rusty bars with it spinning at this speed. LOL.
-
BTW… Does the PNW in RandyPNW stand for Pacific North West?
-
RabbiKnife asked for scripture and exegesis for this topic. Is there any chance either of those might be forthcoming? This is a very poor and invalid treatment of Hamartiology.
I’d like to join the convo somehow, but it’d be like trying to jump on a merry-go-round already spinning at 84mph with some guy still pushing it to go faster. I don’t want to risk tetanus from the rusty bars with it spinning at this speed. LOL.
Feel free to start from the start. All the speculation has been speculated.
-
BTW… Does the PNW in RandyPNW stand for Pacific North West?
Yes, but I've been on the other side of the world, and the same God here is the same God there. Truth is universal, and arguing is also universal. Please join the conversation! ;)
-
RabbiKnife asked for scripture and exegesis for this topic. Is there any chance either of those might be forthcoming? This is a very poor and invalid treatment of Hamartiology.
I’d like to join the convo somehow, but it’d be like trying to jump on a merry-go-round already spinning at 84mph with some guy still pushing it to go faster. I don’t want to risk tetanus from the rusty bars with it spinning at this speed. LOL.
Feel free to start from the start. All the speculation has been speculated.
At this point, I think it would be much more benefitical to just post a thorough summary treatise on Hamartiology, Ponerology, and Thanatology; but I can make a few clarifying points.
The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.
Sin is hamartia. It comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share/part/place) indicating sin is “the missing share, part, or place”. It’s a privation. As a noun, it’s a somethinglessness rather than a something. It’s only something like a hole or void is a something. So the point about whether it’s a privation or a contagion is a huge point. Sin is the former.
In Greek, hamartia is anarthrous. This means the term in its singular form is primarily referring to the state of being and condition. SinnING is the verb (hamartano), and the resulting acts are sinS (hamartemata). Hamartema/ta (singular and plural) are utilized in the text only 4 times, so the scriptural references to sin are virtually always to the state of being and condition. And this state/condition is devoid of the original share, part, and place (estate) that man originally had in creation.
The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.
During the propagation of a human soul in conception as procreation, the nature of man is dependent upon the qualitative existence of the hypostasis which underlies the ousia and all else. If this hypostasis is not vivified by faith (which is an hypostasis), then spiritual life is not the foundation of human existence. This is the plight of all mankind. We are given physical life while conceived in spiritual death. If not resurrected unto spiritual life in Christ during physical life, then physical death means everlasting spiritual death.
There are a lot of lexical technical details, but I’ve tried to make this conversational in a lexcial manner instead. The guilt for Adam and Eve is not rooted in the action they did. It’s rooted in what that action did TO them internally. It abrogated the constant communion with God that is spiritual life (zoe). And in that day they died. They died spiritually and ensured their physical death. It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.
-
At this point, I think it would be much more benefitical to just post a thorough summary treatise on Hamartiology, Ponerology, and Thanatology; but I can make a few clarifying points.
The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.
Sin is hamartia. It comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share/part/place) indicating sin is “the missing share, part, or place”. It’s a privation. As a noun, it’s a somethinglessness rather than a something. It’s only something like a hole or void is a something. So the point about whether it’s a privation or a contagion is a huge point. Sin is the former.
Good point. But word origins or word breakdowns are sometimes worthless inasmuch as words in their component parts mean something different separated as they might put together. Now if we don't put the parts together and retain them separately like "apart from normal," then you would have a point. But when joined together, they may or may not mean what they would mean separated.
Even the sense "apart from normal" may mean "deprived from normal" and also mean "abnormal," which could be a contagion. Something that spreads, would you agree, is a contagion? If so, why did Jesus refer to sin as a leaven that leavens the whole lump?
And why is sin depicted as mold under the Law, which spreads (if indeed it is so depicted). A person with leprosy is considered "unclean" until the spreading is completed. Then it is a matter of how one behaves once his contagion is complete and it is no longer contagious.
I don't believe sin spreads like a physical disease, such as bacteria or a virus. But it does spread generationally, and excessive exposure to it risks getting the "disease."
It is, however, a spiritual disease, and describing that is beyond me. That being said, I don'[t know how the word "disease" may be literally applied to sin in the Bible except inferentially?
In Greek, hamartia is anarthrous. This means the term in its singular form is primarily referring to the state of being and condition. SinnING is the verb (hamartano), and the resulting acts are sinS (hamartemata). Hamartema/ta (singular and plural) are utilized in the text only 4 times, so the scriptural references to sin are virtually always to the state of being and condition. And this state/condition is devoid of the original share, part, and place (estate) that man originally had in creation.
The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.
Actually, couldn't we say that Israel had the Law, together with its righteous standards, and still had something "missing?"
During the propagation of a human soul in conception as procreation, the nature of man is dependent upon the qualitative existence of the hypostasis which underlies the ousia and all else. If this hypostasis is not vivified by faith (which is an hypostasis), then spiritual life is not the foundation of human existence. This is the plight of all mankind. We are given physical life while conceived in spiritual death. If not resurrected unto spiritual life in Christ during physical life, then physical death means everlasting spiritual death.
I believe we are in a state of death, but not obviously *dead.* We are not, therefore, spiritually dead at birth, since we are not dead at all at birth (unless stillborn). The term "spiritual death" refers, I think, to the idea that we are only in intermittent contact with God, due to the sin contagion. And this keeps us from moving beyond physical death. Therefore, we are "spiritually dead," ie destined to die and be separated from God in paradise.
In other words, sin a contagion that inclines towards rebelling against God's word. That inclination to rebel passes down from Adam to *all* human beings, save Christ. This is why I call it a contagion, because it spreads, almost without exception through the generations from Adam.
It is not being passed on down as in a baton in a race. It is being passed on unconsciously, just like the brain and the heart are active apart from our managing them. And if it causes something bad, or can be considered a "curse," then I would define it as a spiritual contagion or disease.
What we are deprived of is a clean relationship with God, in which we are free from internal duress to rebel against God's word. In that sense yes, I think it is a privation. But because it is passed on down, it becomes ontologically true of all men, not by choice but by unconscious transmission. It is therefore a spiritual disease. Man stopped being clean man and became, by evolution, unclean man.
There are a lot of lexical technical details, but I’ve tried to make this conversational in a lexcial manner instead.
I get this regularly from my brother, who is also a "lexical" guy. ;) He confesses that he's much more into the language than into the theology. And I agree--the language is very important.
The guilt for Adam and Eve is not rooted in the action they did. It’s rooted in what that action did TO them internally. It abrogated the constant communion with God that is spiritual life (zoe). And in that day they died. They died spiritually and ensured their physical death. It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.
Well, that's certainly logical, but not really how I would phrase it. But then again, I'm not sure how I'd phrase it. ;) I don't believe "faith gives life to the substance of our being." Lacking faith does mean we may be "spiritually dead," but it doesn't mean that with faith we stop being fallen Man.
When gaining faith we still have a Sin Nature, or an inclination to rebel against God's word. We're unclean in our fallen nature, but made clean in our new nature, which is made possible by faith.
Thanks for your ideas. I'm thinking about them...
-
At this point, I think it would be much more benefitical to just post a thorough summary treatise on Hamartiology, Ponerology, and Thanatology; but I can make a few clarifying points.
Those things do seem to be a start. Out of curiosity, why choose the words hamartiology, ponerology, and thanatology over the more obvious sin, evil, and death? A summary treatise on sin, evil, and death in ~421 words, no less.
The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.
Sin is hamartia. It comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share/part/place) indicating sin is “the missing share, part, or place”. It’s a privation. As a noun, it’s a somethinglessness rather than a something. It’s only something like a hole or void is a something. So the point about whether it’s a privation or a contagion is a huge point. Sin is the former.
In Greek, hamartia is anarthrous. This means the term in its singular form is primarily referring to the state of being and condition. SinnING is the verb (hamartano), and the resulting acts are sinS (hamartemata). Hamartema/ta (singular and plural) are utilized in the text only 4 times, so the scriptural references to sin are virtually always to the state of being and condition. And this state/condition is devoid of the original share, part, and place (estate) that man originally had in creation.
The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.
During the propagation of a human soul in conception as procreation, the nature of man is dependent upon the qualitative existence of the hypostasis which underlies the ousia and all else. If this hypostasis is not vivified by faith (which is an hypostasis), then spiritual life is not the foundation of human existence. This is the plight of all mankind. We are given physical life while conceived in spiritual death. If not resurrected unto spiritual life in Christ during physical life, then physical death means everlasting spiritual death.
There are a lot of lexical technical details, but I’ve tried to make this conversational in a lexcial manner instead. The guilt for Adam and Eve is not rooted in the action they did. It’s rooted in what that action did TO them internally. It abrogated the constant communion with God that is spiritual life (zoe). And in that day they died. They died spiritually and ensured their physical death. It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.
Early in the thread, I linked to a discussion from Dr Feser regarding original sin as entailing the privation of God's gift(s) (beatific vision, and others). The above seems to be along these lines, but are there any differences between that view and yours? Perhaps pertaining to vivification?
I think Randy has been using 'contagion' language since the '70s, so best of luck.
-
At this point, I think it would be much more benefitical to just post a thorough summary treatise on Hamartiology, Ponerology, and Thanatology; but I can make a few clarifying points.
The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.
Sin is hamartia. It comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share/part/place) indicating sin is “the missing share, part, or place”. It’s a privation. As a noun, it’s a somethinglessness rather than a something. It’s only something like a hole or void is a something. So the point about whether it’s a privation or a contagion is a huge point. Sin is the former.
Good point. But word origins or word breakdowns are sometimes worthless inasmuch as words in their component parts mean something different separated as they might put together. Now if we don't put the parts together and retain them separately like "apart from normal," then you would have a point. But when joined together, they may or may not mean what they would mean separated.
Even the sense "apart from normal" may mean "deprived from normal" and also mean "abnormal," which could be a contagion. Something that spreads, would you agree, is a contagion? If so, why did Jesus refer to sin as a leaven that leavens the whole lump?
And why is sin depicted as mold under the Law, which spreads (if indeed it is so depicted). A person with leprosy is considered "unclean" until the spreading is completed. Then it is a matter of how one behaves once his contagion is complete and it is no longer contagious.
I don't believe sin spreads like a physical disease, such as bacteria or a virus. But it does spread generationally, and excessive exposure to it risks getting the "disease."
It is, however, a spiritual disease, and describing that is beyond me. That being said, I don'[t know how the word "disease" may be literally applied to sin in the Bible except inferentially?
In Greek, hamartia is anarthrous. This means the term in its singular form is primarily referring to the state of being and condition. SinnING is the verb (hamartano), and the resulting acts are sinS (hamartemata). Hamartema/ta (singular and plural) are utilized in the text only 4 times, so the scriptural references to sin are virtually always to the state of being and condition. And this state/condition is devoid of the original share, part, and place (estate) that man originally had in creation.
The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.
Actually, couldn't we say that Israel had the Law, together with its righteous standards, and still had something "missing?"
During the propagation of a human soul in conception as procreation, the nature of man is dependent upon the qualitative existence of the hypostasis which underlies the ousia and all else. If this hypostasis is not vivified by faith (which is an hypostasis), then spiritual life is not the foundation of human existence. This is the plight of all mankind. We are given physical life while conceived in spiritual death. If not resurrected unto spiritual life in Christ during physical life, then physical death means everlasting spiritual death.
I believe we are in a state of death, but not obviously *dead.* We are not, therefore, spiritually dead at birth, since we are not dead at all at birth (unless stillborn). The term "spiritual death" refers, I think, to the idea that we are only in intermittent contact with God, due to the sin contagion. And this keeps us from moving beyond physical death. Therefore, we are "spiritually dead," ie destined to die and be separated from God in paradise.
In other words, sin a contagion that inclines towards rebelling against God's word. That inclination to rebel passes down from Adam to *all* human beings, save Christ. This is why I call it a contagion, because it spreads, almost without exception through the generations from Adam.
It is not being passed on down as in a baton in a race. It is being passed on unconsciously, just like the brain and the heart are active apart from our managing them. And if it causes something bad, or can be considered a "curse," then I would define it as a spiritual contagion or disease.
What we are deprived of is a clean relationship with God, in which we are free from internal duress to rebel against God's word. In that sense yes, I think it is a privation. But because it is passed on down, it becomes ontologically true of all men, not by choice but by unconscious transmission. It is therefore a spiritual disease. Man stopped being clean man and became, by evolution, unclean man.
There are a lot of lexical technical details, but I’ve tried to make this conversational in a lexcial manner instead.
I get this regularly from my brother, who is also a "lexical" guy. ;) He confesses that he's much more into the language than into the theology. And I agree--the language is very important.
The guilt for Adam and Eve is not rooted in the action they did. It’s rooted in what that action did TO them internally. It abrogated the constant communion with God that is spiritual life (zoe). And in that day they died. They died spiritually and ensured their physical death. It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.
Well, that's certainly logical, but not really how I would phrase it. But then again, I'm not sure how I'd phrase it. ;) I don't believe "faith gives life to the substance of our being." Lacking faith does mean we may be "spiritually dead," but it doesn't mean that with faith we stop being fallen Man.
When gaining faith we still have a Sin Nature, or an inclination to rebel against God's word. We're unclean in our fallen nature, but made clean in our new nature, which is made possible by faith.
Thanks for your ideas. I'm thinking about them...
You and I are at very different places in how we deal with theological topics, which is why I initially didn’t want to respond here.
I was answering the general questions in accord with historical, exegetical, and systematic theology using lexical definitions as the foundation. You seem to be just internally reasoning your way through this. I don’t really have these kinds of conversations. I prefer the objective over the subjective, and the concrete over conjecture. These questions have been answered for a very long time. No need to rehash them from a blank foundation upward. Hamartia indeed means exactly what I posted, so I’m not sure what other clarity you’ll be able to receive.
-
At this point, I think it would be much more benefitical to just post a thorough summary treatise on Hamartiology, Ponerology, and Thanatology; but I can make a few clarifying points.
Those things do seem to be a start. Out of curiosity, why choose the words hamartiology, ponerology, and thanatology over the more obvious sin, evil, and death? A summary treatise on sin, evil, and death in ~421 words, no less.
Habit, I suppose. Sometimes it would serve to sort out those who do and don’t know what those areas of doctrine are. For example, if someone doesn’t know what a Theodicy is, I doubt they can really provide a decent apologetic that includes evil.
The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.
Sin is hamartia. It comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share/part/place) indicating sin is “the missing share, part, or place”. It’s a privation. As a noun, it’s a somethinglessness rather than a something. It’s only something like a hole or void is a something. So the point about whether it’s a privation or a contagion is a huge point. Sin is the former.
In Greek, hamartia is anarthrous. This means the term in its singular form is primarily referring to the state of being and condition. SinnING is the verb (hamartano), and the resulting acts are sinS (hamartemata). Hamartema/ta (singular and plural) are utilized in the text only 4 times, so the scriptural references to sin are virtually always to the state of being and condition. And this state/condition is devoid of the original share, part, and place (estate) that man originally had in creation.
The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.
During the propagation of a human soul in conception as procreation, the nature of man is dependent upon the qualitative existence of the hypostasis which underlies the ousia and all else. If this hypostasis is not vivified by faith (which is an hypostasis), then spiritual life is not the foundation of human existence. This is the plight of all mankind. We are given physical life while conceived in spiritual death. If not resurrected unto spiritual life in Christ during physical life, then physical death means everlasting spiritual death.
There are a lot of lexical technical details, but I’ve tried to make this conversational in a lexcial manner instead. The guilt for Adam and Eve is not rooted in the action they did. It’s rooted in what that action did TO them internally. It abrogated the constant communion with God that is spiritual life (zoe). And in that day they died. They died spiritually and ensured their physical death. It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.
Early in the thread, I linked to a discussion from Dr Feser regarding original sin as entailing the privation of God's gift(s) (beatific vision, and others). The above seems to be along these lines, but are there any differences between that view and yours? Perhaps pertaining to vivification?
I think Randy has been using 'contagion' language since the '70s, so best of luck.
I don’t know about Feser. I’ll have to go read the article to answer.
Yes, I didn’t really post to convince Randy. I posted to answer the questions. It’s been a while since I’ve been on a forum, so I’ve reverted to teaching mode rather than debate/argue/convince mode.
-
I think Randy has been using 'contagion' language since the '70s, so best of luck.
No, I've not had to argue sin as a "privation." So I haven't had to resort to the language of "contagion." If your insinuation is that I'm hard-headed and stuck in my ways, I wouldn't agree. I've had a life-time of change. But as soon as I refine my message, I teach it as if I've always believed it. ;)
-
The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.
Theology often falls short. The core problem remains to be that scripture does not confirm a sin nature.
The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.
Okay. Something is missing in man's fallen state. Where is the scripture that indicates a sin nature?
It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.
(emphasis mine).
Technical wording notwithstanding, this thread has yet to produce a scriptural basis for a sin nature in fallen man.
-
Technical wording notwithstanding, this thread has yet to produce a scriptural basis for a sin nature in fallen man.
Rom 7.8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting.... 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do... 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me... 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature... So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
The fact that "fallen man" reproduces "fallen children" indicates a kind of spiritual heredity. It doesn't have to be spelled out in language that we prefer. But in effect, it seems to indicate there is a Sin Nature passed on from generation to generation. It is not just lack of God's presence in our lives from generation to generation, although I think that is true also. What keeps God at a distance is, I think, our contamination with sin, our uncleanness. And even though we can experience redemption through Christ, and receive a new nature, we continue to have the old sinful nature. And that is apparent because we continue to sin even after God comes into our lives, giving us spiritual rebirth.
-
I sin because I like it.
More than I like not sinning.
I like me more than I like God.
We are working on that.
-
The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.
Theology often falls short. The core problem remains to be that scripture does not confirm a sin nature.
The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.
Okay. Something is missing in man's fallen state. Where is the scripture that indicates a sin nature?
It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.
(emphasis mine).
Technical wording notwithstanding, this thread has yet to produce a scriptural basis for a sin nature in fallen man.
Lengthy diatribes of subjective opinion notwithstanding, you have yet to define “nature” (physis) and establish what man’s nature even is. It’s in the lexicography and the systematic application of other lexicography. The Patristics and theologians and linguists of the last 2 millennia haven’t been wrong.
-
I sin because I like it.
More than I like not sinning.
I like me more than I like God.
We are working on that.
Well said! ;) It isn't really funny, but it's strange that we want to do things contrary to our conscience and contrary to our reborn nature. We truly need to learn to put the revelation of God's love above what appears to us to look desirable. That's the issue as I see it.
-
My spirit is reborn, my nature remains as Adam’s was in the garden
I’m responsible for my decisions
-
I sin because I like it.
More than I like not sinning.
I like me more than I like God.
We are working on that.
Well said! ;) It isn't really funny, but it's strange that we want to do things contrary to our conscience and contrary to our reborn nature. We truly need to learn to put the revelation of God's love above what appears to us to look desirable. That's the issue as I see it.
Would you please provide scripture that indicates our nature is reborn?
-
Would you please provide scripture that indicates our nature is reborn?
I'm assuming that you take issue with the word "nature." So you may not accept the plain language here, as it refers to our "Sin Nature?"
Rom 7.14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
What this says *to me* is that the human nature remains intact, but is actually changed. It evolves, through the influence of sin in and with us, to become a "slave to sin," a condition not just of privation, but one of contamination by an evil influence.
We as slaves to sin then incline to rebel against God's word. And it is our duty, as Christians, to internalize God's nature by making a complete commitment to Him, so that then the Holy Spirit is also in and with us, influencing us to do good.
Whether you want to call the Sin Nature an ontological change in who we are, or whether you want to call our Reborn Nature simply God dwelling in and with us is your choice. I believe we are reborn, as Peter says:
1 Peter 1.23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
-
Would you please provide scripture that indicates our nature is reborn?
I'm assuming that you take issue with the word "nature." So you may not accept the plain language here, as it refers to our "Sin Nature?"
Rom 7.14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
What this says *to me* is that the human nature remains intact, but is actually changed. It evolves, through the influence of sin in and with us, to become a "slave to sin," a condition not just of privation, but one of contamination by an evil influence.
We as slaves to sin then incline to rebel against God's word. And it is our duty, as Christians, to internalize God's nature by making a complete commitment to Him, so that then the Holy Spirit is also in and with us, influencing us to do good.
Whether you want to call the Sin Nature an ontological change in who we are, or whether you want to call our Reborn Nature simply God dwelling in and with us is your choice. I believe we are reborn, as Peter says:
1 Peter 1.23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
The core problem, as I’ve said about several things, is that you don’t know what the nature (physis) is. And you won’t and can’t define it and give an account of its functionality.
All you’ve provided above would actually be lexically contrary to your position. Again, the Patristics dealt with all of this over 1.5 millennia ago. The nature is not born again.
I don’t even know that I can continue conversing with you without rebuking you as a scoffer. Brother, please. Consider that you are wrong to some degree about literally everything. You need to read some confessional material and Patristic clarification. Your personal interpretations are really bad.
-
Scripturally, the only thing I inherited from Adam is death. The Bible is silent concerning a sin-nature as something bequeathed by the progenitor of the human race.
The NT, as cited earlier in the thread, does elaborate on the human condition as something that is dominated by the cravings of the mortal body, which in no way regards the presence or demands of God, as sin is a deliberate and conscious disobedience of God's will.
The "nature" of fallen, mortal flesh is one of obvious self determination, often involving degrees of perversion of God's natural order, akin to a thoughtless entity that easily goes awry, like an unthinking animal blessed with almost unimaginable potential.
Human nature is void of open recognition of God in His sovereignty, and is blind concerning that which is spiritual.
The Apostle describes this darkness as progressive and subsequent to men's deliberate rejection of the presence and knowledge of God.
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves..." Rm 1:21-25
The human race is, to a very large degree, lost, by consent. By choice.
-
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.[/i]
1 Peter 1.23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
The core problem, as I’ve said about several things, is that you don’t know what the nature (physis) is. And you won’t and can’t define it and give an account of its functionality.
All you’ve provided above would actually be lexically contrary to your position. Again, the Patristics dealt with all of this over 1.5 millennia ago. The nature is not born again.
I don’t even know that I can continue conversing with you without rebuking you as a scoffer. Brother, please. Consider that you are wrong to some degree about literally everything. You need to read some confessional material and Patristic clarification. Your personal interpretations are really bad.
You asked me about a reborn nature, and you argue over the definition of the word "nature!" I just quoted you a Scripture, brother! If you don't like the Scripture, I guess you don't like Scriptures?
The sad thing is that you insult me and don't provide a single example of what the "bad language" is that I use. As far as I can tell, you just don't like it because you don't agree with it.
You've made yourself the voice of authority on what is "orthodox language," which is self-aggrandizing. I've been in church, and have been through confirmation in the Lutheran Church growing up. I feel I have a pretty good grasp of what "orthodox language" is, at least from a Protestant point of view. For 16 or 17 years I repeated the Creeds!
This is pure assertion from you as to what you *think* is "bad." Well, I think your analysis lacks any explanation, and trying to convince me to think otherwise without explanation is an exercise in futility on your part.
In fact, your emphasis on the "lexical approach" betrays a serious weakness in your approach towards biblical interpretation. And so I question the way you understand theology, as well.
When it becomes to the etymological root fallacy, which seems to be what you're doing, I can't sign onto that. Proving theology from component parts of words doesn't work, and is not a reliable way of interpreting the Bible and formulating theology.
Go ahead and try to insult my posts. But if you really hope to convince me of anything, you'll have to explain your own weaknesses. And you'll most certainly have to explain what it is you're complaining about, in terms of the language I use!
-
The Patristics and theologians and linguists of the last 2 millennia haven’t been wrong.
Uh Oh! There it is.
-
The Patristics and theologians and linguists of the last 2 millennia haven’t been wrong.
Uh Oh! There it is.
Hard to calculate the enormous delusions placed on the historical faith by high-horse scholasticism decreeing the guilt of babies and the urgent need for their Baptisms, per one example of getting it wrong. For millennia.
-
The church fathers, like all who follow, are no more righteous nor wise than we are today. They were neither inspired nor infallible. The councils themselves were neither.
While we do indeed stand in their historic shadows, ancient existence and group consensus are nit the end of inquiry.
Otherwise the entire Protestant reformation is in error.
-
The church fathers, like all who follow, are no more righteous nor wise than we are today. They were neither inspired nor infallible. The councils themselves were neither.
While we do indeed stand in their historic shadows, ancient existence and group consensus are nit the end of inquiry.
Otherwise the entire Protestant reformation is in error.
Good to see that someone is cognizant of the truth. Only one thing is certain. Those church fathers are a lot worse than us because they planted the seeds that are controlling millions of people in the so-called church of today in these last days.
They came out of the truth being so close to the Apostles teachings, and therefore must have been massively corrupt themselves to promulgate the falsehoods that have led most people that name Christ as their master, into bondage in these last days.
Truly one must discard all the foundations that they have been taught and approach the bible and God, praying for grace to be set free from the teachings and traditions of man, so that they can come in spirit and truth before the God of our salvation.
-
Careful.
You are reading way too much in
Nit all of the ECF and the councils were bad
All I was saying is that none of them were infallible
There is tremendous truth to be learned from our forefathers in the faith
-
Good to see that someone is cognizant of the truth. Only one thing is certain. Those church fathers are a lot worse than us because they planted the seeds that are controlling millions of people in the so-called church of today in these last days.
They came out of the truth being so close to the Apostles teachings, and therefore must have been massively corrupt themselves to promulgate the falsehoods that have led most people that name Christ as their master, into bondage in these last days.
Truly one must discard all the foundations that they have been taught and approach the bible and God, praying for grace to be set free from the teachings and traditions of man, so that they can come in spirit and truth before the God of our salvation.
I'll make you a deal, Pablo.
You can say these things if you can provide a reasoned, logical, coherent argument in favour of the view.
Or, you can refrain from saying these things, and if you don't, then you can spread these falsehoods somewhere else.
If you want to make the argument, take it to Contro. Otherwise, no more of this idiocy.
-
The church fathers, like all who follow, are no more righteous nor wise than we are today. They were neither inspired nor infallible. The councils themselves were neither.
While we do indeed stand in their historic shadows, ancient existence and group consensus are nit the end of inquiry.
Otherwise the entire Protestant reformation is in error.
Wow, you claim the Church Fathers were not inspired? And you think we Christians today are equally uninspired? The Church Councils were uninspired?
I do agree that neither the Apostles nor the Church Fathers were better than we can be today. But to deny experienced and tested Church leaders like that as if they were so much chaff seems a bit off to me?
-
The Patristics and theologians and linguists of the last 2 millennia haven’t been wrong.
Uh Oh! There it is.
Hard to calculate the enormous delusions placed on the historical faith by high-horse scholasticism decreeing the guilt of babies and the urgent need for their Baptisms, per one example of getting it wrong. For millenia.
I don't see baptizing babies as a bad thing, anymore than committing to parenting our children in the Lord is a bad thing. Now, using sacraments as a tool of cleansing is another thing entirely, and was the entire reason the Lutheran Reformation came about. You can't use carnal tools to cleanse the soul. Baptisms, Communion, and Priestly Confessions cannot cleanse the soul--only true repentance and faith in Christ can.
I have a great appreciation for Scholastics, who tried to use reason to produce dogma that is comprehensible to the human mind. I think they were pursuing the good of mankind, and using the Gospel to do it.
However, I agree that dry doctrine doesn't do much better than empty rituals of the Church, because external cleansing of the vessel doesn't clean up inside of the vessel. There is always room for reform, in past Christian contributions as well as in the works of our own lives. I just don't wish to throw out the baby with the bath water.
-
The Apostles were inspired (there were 12). And they clearly warned us about some of the doctrines of men which would follow.
-
The Apostles were inspired (there were 12). And they clearly warned us about some of the doctrines of men which would follow.
True. And even the best of them sometimes made some awful errors. We only have one perfect man, Christ. We all need to be scrutinized, and helped with our failures. Sadly, some people prefer using a sword to "fix things," rather than a scalpel to heal. I'm not referring to you. You make a good point.
-
The Apostles were inspired (there were 12). And they clearly warned us about some of the doctrines of men which would follow.
True. And even the best of them sometimes made some awful errors. We only have one perfect man, Christ. We all need to be scrutinized, and helped with our failures. Sadly, some people prefer using a sword to "fix things," rather than a scalpel to heal. I'm not referring to you. You make a good point.
Apostolic authority, as set forth and finalized in the NT is without error. No other so-called authority, outside of NT scripture can be reqarded as inspired.
-
The church fathers, like all who follow, are no more righteous nor wise than we are today. They were neither inspired nor infallible. The councils themselves were neither.
I was not intimating anything to the contrary. There is no Magisterium, but there is a Ministerium of core doctrines and their overall framework and categories that were well addressed by the Ante-Nicene Fathers in particular. Though in general the Believers of the early church were no more righteous or wise than we are today, I certainly haven’t met any Polycarp or Basil equivalents in modernity. Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.
My point was that they dealt with negative theology well. So when I see some rogue trying to innovate and insist the Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of God in creation (strong implications of createdness, whether celestial or terrestrial, i.e. Arianism or Unitarianism) or forms of God (strong implications of modality, therefore Sabellianism), and that it’s their own intellectuality that needs to be satisfied by used of terms, then I’m going to reference the vocabulary of the Patristics (specifically the Cappadocian and Chalcedonian terminology against such heresies).
I wasn’t speaking of inerrancy or infallibility and canonical inspiraton of any humans or of any council. But I’m also not going to endorse the mini-popery of individual false concepts any more than the Papacy. It’s not a free-for-all to avoid lexicography and rehash that which has already been eliminated and/or established as core doctrine.
While we do indeed stand in their historic shadows, ancient existence and group consensus are nit the end of inquiry.
Aristotelian Teleology shouldn’t be employed, either. The newer something is doesn’t mean it’s better or more correct. I’ll take the consensus of Patristics over some random guy on a forum using aberrant language when he doesn’t even adhere to anything like Original Sin or authentic Trinity doctrine terminology while aligning himself with heresy and heretics.
I think he may mean well in his own way, but have you read his posts? You seem to be a theologically sound kind of guy. You even posted the Lutheran Satire video about Modalism, so it isn’t just me, right?
Otherwise the entire Protestant reformation is in error.
Are you contending the Protestant reformation is not in error? Thel landscape of doctrinal diversity would disagree. There isn’t homogenous consensus anywhere between the many groups. (And I’m not speaking in terms of the tired trope of there being 40k denominations, because there aren’t. But there are a number of distinct “trees” of theology that aren’t in agreement.)
Yes, the Reformation needed to happen because of the corruption of the Roman Church, but that doesn’t automatically throw Ante-Nicene doctrinal formulation under the bus. I’d give anything to be as astute as the Cappadocians or Chrysostom or Athanasius. If you know any modern counterparts, I’d like to meet them and read their writings.
-
Careful.
You are reading way too much in
Nit all of the ECF and the councils were bad
All I was saying is that none of them were infallible
There is tremendous truth to be learned from our forefathers in the faith
This is what I was saying. Why rehash terminology that has already been addressed ad infinitum for centuries before Rome was in schism?
-
The church fathers, like all who follow, are no more righteous nor wise than we are today. They were neither inspired nor infallible. The councils themselves were neither.
I was not intimating anything to the contrary. There is no Magisterium, but there is a Ministerium of core doctrines and their overall framework and categories that were well addressed by the Ante-Nicene Fathers in particular. Though in general the Believers of the early church were no more righteous or wise than we are today, I certainly haven’t met any Polycarp or Basil equivalents in modernity. Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.
My point was that they dealt with negative theology well. So when I see some rogue trying to innovate and insist the Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of God in creation (strong implications of createdness, whether celestial or terrestrial, i.e. Arianism or Unitarianism) or forms of God (strong implications of modality, therefore Sabellianism), and that it’s their own intellectuality that needs to be satisfied by used of terms, then I’m going to reference the vocabulary of the Patristics (specifically the Cappadocian and Chalcedonian terminology against such heresies).
I wasn’t speaking of inerrancy or infallibility and canonical inspiraton of any humans or of any council. But I’m also not going to endorse the mini-popery of individual false concepts any more than the Papacy. It’s not a free-for-all to avoid lexicography and rehash that which has already been eliminated and/or established as core doctrine.
While we do indeed stand in their historic shadows, ancient existence and group consensus are nit the end of inquiry.
Aristotelian Teleology shouldn’t be employed, either. The newer something is doesn’t mean it’s better or more correct. I’ll take the consensus of Patristics over some random guy on a forum using aberrant language when he doesn’t even adhere to anything like Original Sin or authentic Trinity doctrine terminology while aligning himself with heresy and heretics.
I think he may mean well in his own way, but have you read his posts? You seem to be a theologically sound kind of guy. You even posted the Lutheran Satire video about Modalism, so it isn’t just me, right?
Otherwise the entire Protestant reformation is in error.
Are you contending the Protestant reformation is not in error? Thel landscape of doctrinal diversity would disagree. There isn’t homogenous consensus anywhere between the many groups. (And I’m not speaking in terms of the tired trope of there being 40k denominations, because there aren’t. But there are a number of distinct “trees” of theology that aren’t in agreement.)
Yes, the Reformation needed to happen because of the corruption of the Roman Church, but that doesn’t automatically throw Ante-Nicene doctrinal formulation under the bus. I’d give anything to be as astute as the Cappadocians or Chrysostom or Athanasius. If you know any modern counterparts, I’d like to meet them and read their writings.
Brother, you don't seem to understand what I've said about the Trinity or Original Sin. None of it is heterodox, though I use my own language of infinite/finite realities. The idea of 3 Persons and 1 Substance is at the heart of everything I've said to *explain* how I distinguish between the 3 Persons of the Trinity--so I'm not modalistic.
This isn't just an effort at trying to be original. I was in a modalistic cult for a short time, and found myself forced into trying to understand the problem of modalism vs. the Trinity. I tried to discuss this with Christian Research Institute in S. CA a long time ago.
My view of Original Sin is not "weird" because I believe sin is a contagion. Most of what you say is simply throwing your lot in with the Cappadocians. Fine, I like them too! But you've not pointed out one single thing that is heterodox about my beliefs.
-
I was not intimating anything to the contrary. There is no Magisterium, but there is a Ministerium of core doctrines and their overall framework and categories that were well addressed by the Ante-Nicene Fathers in particular. Though in general the Believers of the early church were no more righteous or wise than we are today, I certainly haven’t met any Polycarp or Basil equivalents in modernity. Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.
Leaving legends aside, together with "hero-worship," I do feel gratitude for the Church Fathers who had to express apostolic doctrine in the context of the Roman world. I understand there were differences between Latin expressions and Greek expressions, which caused differences of perspective.
I understand a school in Alexandria may prefer to emphasize one thing, whereas a school in Syria may prefer to emphasize another thing. But just to translate biblical language into the language of their own vicinity was noble and important for the future of the Church. I don't have a great "bird's eye" view of it all, as you seem to have. But this is what I've read over the years.
My point was that they dealt with negative theology well. So when I see some rogue trying to innovate and insist the Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of God in creation (strong implications of createdness, whether celestial or terrestrial, i.e. Arianism or Unitarianism) or forms of God (strong implications of modality, therefore Sabellianism), and that it’s their own intellectuality that needs to be satisfied by used of terms, then I’m going to reference the vocabulary of the Patristics (specifically the Cappadocian and Chalcedonian terminology against such heresies).
The Church Fathers had to deal with "negative issues" because there were always those who wished to eliminate the part of the Gospel in which a spiritual change is required. And so, there was the effort to turn the doctrine of internal faith into a doctrine of ritual and ceremony. Works displaced Faith.
Translating this into Christology a true believer would have to insist that Christ was real human flesh, as opposed to Docetism. Just as Christ was real God and real Man, we must be truly transformed, spiritually.
I certainly don't subscribe to Modalism or to Arianism. Christ has to be full God and full Man, indicating that God can actually transform us as men for real. If we know Jesus was divine we can believe we can also be spiritually transformed to be like he is--participants in the divine nature. We do not share in his Deity, but we participate in his divine virtues.
So yes, the Trinitarians were dealing with the problems of removing the reality of Christ's human nature as it expressed real divine virtue. This in turn called upon followers to express the same virtue in their own lives, and not just engage in Christian observances.
This is just the way I look at the Doctrine of the Trinity and other doctrines, as a way of perceiving our own need to be spiritually transformed. I've discovered that many of the heresies in Christian history were an attempt to go back to a pagan view of knowledge that denies supernatural revelation. And this is what is needed to be spiritually transformed.
I think he may mean well in his own way, but have you read his posts? You seem to be a theologically sound kind of guy. You even posted the Lutheran Satire video about Modalism, so it isn’t just me, right?
Are you speaking of my posts? I loved the Lutheran Satire video about Modalism. But that doesn't say a thing that I don't agree with.
Are you contending the Protestant reformation is not in error? Thel landscape of doctrinal diversity would disagree. There isn’t homogenous consensus anywhere between the many groups. (And I’m not speaking in terms of the tired trope of there being 40k denominations, because there aren’t. But there are a number of distinct “trees” of theology that aren’t in agreement.)
Your love for the Church Fathers should recommend that there is, in fact, a near-universal unifying doctrine that all genuine church denominations adhere to. It's called the Creeds, even with the few differences involved.
It is, by the way, a misconception to think that different denominations must mean doctrinal differences or rigid divisions. Quite often denominations evolved due to the political order that existed in the area where a church family grew.
Differences between denominations were like differences between siblings. However, denominational differences sometimes became carnal and in fact evil, just like any other institution can become corrupt at times.
I agree that the Reformation was needed to correct Catholic errors just like any church denomination needs, after some time, reform. Over time institutions age and take on errors that need to be corrected. Otherwise, they will become monsters or just die on the vine.
-
Brother, you don't seem to understand what I've said about the Trinity or Original Sin. None of it is heterodox, though I use my own language of infinite/finite realities. The idea of 3 Persons and 1 Substance is at the heart of everything I've said to *explain* how I distinguish between the 3 Persons of the Trinity--so I'm not modalistic.
Weren't we just discussing, in another thread, your view that (1) theophanies are potential instances of God inhabiting the world in such a way that 'Trinity' is the best language of the councils, but those men were human, fallible, and so there's more to God than just '1 + 1 +1 = 1' (the bad maths you presented)? Isn't it also the case that (2) you believe original sin entails a spiritual contagion that condemns the babies God didn't plan for to hell, as those children are children of Satan?
While you affirm orthodoxy you express heterodoxy in these things.
-
Though in general the Believers of the early church were no more righteous or wise than we are today, I certainly haven’t met any Polycarp or Basil equivalents in modernity. Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.
Here we will differ. First, I don't believe that Polycarp was inflammable any more than I believe he was infallible or that I believe in Our Lady of Fatima or Lourdes or Jesus in an IHOP Pancake. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of Polycarps and Basils and Joes and Suzies and Freds have walked the earth since Polycarp, and walk the earth today, being just as faithful, just as fruitful, just as faithful stewards of the particular individual stewardship that God has entrusted to them as Polycarp was to the stewardship entrusted to him. Same, same, absolutely no qualitative difference. Polycarp probably didn't wear britches, but if he would have, he would have put them on one leg at a time just like everyone else. Same goes for Peter, Paul, John, and the other "Big A" apostles. They themselves were absolutely no different than you or I, but their writings encapsulated in the NT canon are inspired, while at the same time every thing they wrote was not. Every single believer from the first to the last is a priest before God, with the same Spirit, the same calling, the same task. Overemphasis of the ECF, as honorable as they were, serves no purpose.
Are you contending the Protestant reformation is not in error? The landscape of doctrinal diversity would disagree. There isn’t homogenous consensus anywhere between the many groups. (And I’m not speaking in terms of the tired trope of there being 40k denominations, because there aren’t. But there are a number of distinct “trees” of theology that aren’t in agreement.)
Yes, the Reformation needed to happen because of the corruption of the Roman Church, but that doesn’t automatically throw Ante-Nicene doctrinal formulation under the bus. I’d give anything to be as astute as the Cappadocians or Chrysostom or Athanasius. If you know any modern counterparts, I’d like to meet them and read their writings.
The existence of Doctrinal Diversity does not necessitate a conclusion that the Reformation was in error. Unfortunately, many -- including myself, at times -- take the tradition of faithful men [even when they may be wrong in some parts] and turn the tradition -- the living faith of dead men, into traditionalism, the dead faith of living men. History has concreted error with the passage of time.
"Not in error?" That begs the question. EVERY human endeavor to examine and explain the mystery of God and the Church is, at least in part, in error. For pity sake, even Peter struggled to understand Paul. It is not a matter of whether a movement "is in error," but, to the contrary, it is a question of whether a particular movement or event or human or council was endeavoring toward faithful stewardship to the light given to them. So, yes, I contend that the Protestant reformation was not in error, or said a better way, a proper spiritual and intellectual struggle, for it was both a protest against the evils of the RCC and an attempt to reform/correct/abolish the most egregious of the offenses of the RCC.
It was a returning to the practice of the Berean church, nothing more, nothing less. It was no more in error than any other time any Berean believer today hears a preacher say "GOD says..." and then slaughter the Scripture through eisegesis and says, "NO, preacher, you are wrong... the Emperor has no clothes." Along the way, some pretty good doctrine was examined and clarified; however, like all human endeavors, the reformers (like those of us who follow now and like the ECF who went on before) are all human and we all err to some degree or the other. The best we can do, individually or corporately, is to explain the mystery of God prefaced with "at my present level of understanding."
If you reject "modern" conservative theologians and apologists simply because they are modern, then a bias toward the ECF will keep you from appreciating their contributions. We all see through a glass darkly, for the present. We are all the Five Blind Men of Hindustan examining the elephant.
No one historical group, nor any single man or woman, living or dead, has a corner on the truth market, or on the ways in which God can communicate His truth an any particular individual.
I'm a language guy. Language is about communication, and demanding that we use certain words because someone else used certain words is just trying to smash a square peg into a round hole. While I appreciate historic specificity in language (lexicography, if you will), I also appreciate the fact that the examination of that lexicography in today's world is necessary. The ECF did not use Latin exclusively; they also wrote in Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, and Coptic. So even within the ECF is a historical use of language that did not survive the ECF, thus "de-enriching" the language. Demanding a lexicography that is limited to a particular strain prevents us from the texture, flavor, and complexity of the entire topic. ( For example, I have a friend that had to learn Coptic in order to help evaluate one of the earliest known texts of Mark, a copy in Coptic. Talk about dead languages... He was also able to debunk the most recent "Gospel of Thomas" in Coptic, as in, in less than 3 minutes, the Coptic was so bad.) The point is that while we can and do gain great insight from the ECF and their lexicography, seeking to understand and explain that lexicography outside of a restricted vocabulary is both acceptable and often required, as let's face it, even "our lexicon" of the ECF is a translated text of a language that no one has spoken in commerce in a millenia or more.
And no, it's not "just you." Randy PNW and I differ on a great many issues, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as he struggles with his faith, even as I struggle with mine. And yes, his language is less than precise at times, which can be said of all of us.
I don't have any problem "calling him out," if necessary, but I'm also not Holy Spirit, Jr.
-
I'm reminded of that poor student who referred to 'Polycrap' throughout an entire paper.
The question of a modern "counterpart" to Gregory, Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, etc., is interesting. Pastorally, I'm sure there are plenty of counterparts, and academically too. We have our Kierkegaards and Kreefts and our Wrights and our Platingas, our Barths and Metzgers, etc. I very much doubt anyone at the time the ECFs, Cappadocians, etc., were alive, knew those individuals were going to be well known 2,000 years hence. The trick for us, then, is trying to determine the same for people who don't have the luxury of having been dead for millennia or two.
In other words, I'm not sure that it's a fair question.
As for martyrdom and miracles, I've heard my fair share from missionaries. I know of one family whose home was invaded by gunmen, and while they were waiting to die, the gunmen left having apparently not noticed them. It wasn't because they hid well. It's a lot harder to stand out in a world of 8+ billion people.
-
Though in general the Believers of the early church were no more righteous or wise than we are today, I certainly haven’t met any Polycarp or Basil equivalents in modernity. Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.
Here we will differ. First, I don't believe that Polycarp was inflammable any more than I believe he was infallible or that I believe in Our Lady of Fatima or Lourdes or Jesus in an IHOP Pancake. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of Polycarps and Basils and Joes and Suzies and Freds have walked the earth since Polycarp, and walk the earth today, being just as faithful, just as fruitful, just as faithful stewards of the particular individual stewardship that God has entrusted to them as Polycarp was to the stewardship entrusted to him. Same, same, absolutely no qualitative difference. Polycarp probably didn't wear britches, but if he would have, he would have put them on one leg at a time just like everyone else. Same goes for Peter, Paul, John, and the other "Big A" apostles. They themselves were absolutely no different than you or I, but their writings encapsulated in the NT canon are inspired, while at the same time every thing they wrote was not. Every single believer from the first to the last is a priest before God, with the same Spirit, the same calling, the same task. Overemphasis of the ECF, as honorable as they were, serves no purpose.
We definitely differ, especially if you’re saying the ancient historical accounts of miracles and martyrdom are somehow fictional or embellished. I don’t see the modern western landscape of Christianity as anything compared to the more ancient world and the ECFs. I’m not saying we aren’t positionally the same before God; but I’ve never seen or read anything from anyone in modernity that would compare to the Cappadocians.
This isn’t to deny that we’re all priests with the same Spirit and calling, but to compare the distractions and inidivdualism of today with those who studied at the feet of the Apostles and those who came afterward. The paragons of today are no comparison, in my experience. I barely see authentically pious men in pulpits, much less in pews. Sports fans and workaholics, yes. Faithful Believers? Not so much. This assessment starts with myself, BTW. And it’s not about what’s available, it’s about what is actually realized.
Are you contending the Protestant reformation is not in error? The landscape of doctrinal diversity would disagree. There isn’t homogenous consensus anywhere between the many groups. (And I’m not speaking in terms of the tired trope of there being 40k denominations, because there aren’t. But there are a number of distinct “trees” of theology that aren’t in agreement.)
Yes, the Reformation needed to happen because of the corruption of the Roman Church, but that doesn’t automatically throw Ante-Nicene doctrinal formulation under the bus. I’d give anything to be as astute as the Cappadocians or Chrysostom or Athanasius. If you know any modern counterparts, I’d like to meet them and read their writings.
The existence of Doctrinal Diversity does not necessitate a conclusion that the Reformation was in error. Unfortunately, many -- including myself, at times -- take the tradition of faithful men [even when they may be wrong in some parts] and turn the tradition -- the living faith of dead men, into traditionalism, the dead faith of living men. History has concreted error with the passage of time.
"Not in error?" That begs the question. EVERY human endeavor to examine and explain the mystery of God and the Church is, at least in part, in error. For pity sake, even Peter struggled to understand Paul. It is not a matter of whether a movement "is in error," but, to the contrary, it is a question of whether a particular movement or event or human or council was endeavoring toward faithful stewardship to the light given to them. So, yes, I contend that the Protestant reformation was not in error, or said a better way, a proper spiritual and intellectual struggle, for it was both a protest against the evils of the RCC and an attempt to reform/correct/abolish the most egregious of the offenses of the RCC.
It was a returning to the practice of the Berean church, nothing more, nothing less. It was no more in error than any other time any Berean believer today hears a preacher say "GOD says..." and then slaughter the Scripture through eisegesis and says, "NO, preacher, you are wrong... the Emperor has no clothes." Along the way, some pretty good doctrine was examined and clarified; however, like all human endeavors, the reformers (like those of us who follow now and like the ECF who went on before) are all human and we all err to some degree or the other. The best we can do, individually or corporately, is to explain the mystery of God prefaced with "at my present level of understanding."
If you reject "modern" conservative theologians and apologists simply because they are modern, then a bias toward the ECF will keep you from appreciating their contributions. We all see through a glass darkly, for the present. We are all the Five Blind Men of Hindustan examining the elephant.
No one historical group, nor any single man or woman, living or dead, has a corner on the truth market, or on the ways in which God can communicate His truth an any particular individual.
I'm a language guy. Language is about communication, and demanding that we use certain words because someone else used certain words is just trying to smash a square peg into a round hole. While I appreciate historic specificity in language (lexicography, if you will), I also appreciate the fact that the examination of that lexicography in today's world is necessary. The ECF did not use Latin exclusively; they also wrote in Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, and Coptic. So even within the ECF is a historical use of language that did not survive the ECF, thus "de-enriching" the language. Demanding a lexicography that is limited to a particular strain prevents us from the texture, flavor, and complexity of the entire topic. ( For example, I have a friend that had to learn Coptic in order to help evaluate one of the earliest known texts of Mark, a copy in Coptic. Talk about dead languages... He was also able to debunk the most recent "Gospel of Thomas" in Coptic, as in, in less than 3 minutes, the Coptic was so bad.) The point is that while we can and do gain great insight from the ECF and their lexicography, seeking to understand and explain that lexicography outside of a restricted vocabulary is both acceptable and often required, as let's face it, even "our lexicon" of the ECF is a translated text of a language that no one has spoken in commerce in a millenia or more.
And no, it's not "just you." Randy PNW and I differ on a great many issues, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as he struggles with his faith, even as I struggle with mine. And yes, his language is less than precise at times, which can be said of all of us.
I don't have any problem "calling him out," if necessary, but I'm also not Holy Spirit, Jr.
Well… When someone says things like “the Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of God in creation” or “the Son and Holy Spirit are forms of God”, I’m likely going to dismiss them as at least neophytes, at best. The point is that there’s too much historical negative theology to omit heresy for anyone to engage in usage of such terminology. Christology is not to be taken lightly. But in the Modernist and Post-Modernist world of Perspectivism and dozens of other -isms, vanity is usually the driving force and not sincerity. Not always, but most often.
I think I’ll stick with more orthodox terminology and valid lexicography. It has been vital to me maturing beyond my own temptation to make theology all about me and my subjective opinions or preferences. I’d rather yield to the text for all it means than create a new vocabulary to force doctrine to mean what I think it should mean.
We’re probably not all that far removed from agreement in reality. I just prefer well-established and attested terminology and despise modernity, particularly in myself. So I sure don’t trust other Modernists bent on their individualism to be the litmus test for scriptural truth.
-
I'm reminded of that poor student who referred to 'Polycrap' throughout an entire paper.
The question of a modern "counterpart" to Gregory, Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, etc., is interesting. Pastorally, I'm sure there are plenty of counterparts, and academically too. We have our Kierkegaards and Kreefts and our Wrights and our Platingas, our Barths and Metzgers, etc. I very much doubt anyone at the time the ECFs, Cappadocians, etc., were alive, knew those individuals were going to be well known 2,000 years hence. The trick for us, then, is trying to determine the same for people who don't have the luxury of having been dead for millennia or two.
In other words, I'm not sure that it's a fair question.
Have you read things like Gregory of Nyssa’s works on terms like noema, etc.? I see nothing and no one in the last half millennia that compares to such writings. Higher context languages result in thought that is much more expressive. As a linguist, I’ve found English to be one of the most restrictive points in understanding things beyond a baseline. But maybe my criteria is somewhat specialized because I rigorously pursue a more Philological foundation for thought and speech than others. I don’t personally think that’s a failing in this world of vaguery and dilution from Materialism, etc.
As for martyrdom and miracles, I've heard my fair share from missionaries. I know of one family whose home was invaded by gunmen, and while they were waiting to die, the gunmen left having apparently not noticed them. It wasn't because they hid well. It's a lot harder to stand out in a world of 8+ billion people.
Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church. God has done many miraculous things by, in, and through His people.
-
Have you read things like Gregory of Nyssa’s works on terms like noema, etc.? I see nothing and no one in the last half millennia that compares to such writings. Higher context languages result in thought that is much more expressive. As a linguist, I’ve found English to be one of the most restrictive points in understanding things beyond a baseline. But maybe my criteria is somewhat specialized because I rigorously pursue a more Philological foundation for thought and speech than others. I don’t personally think that’s a failing in this world of vaguery and dilution from Materialism, etc.
Maybe? I'm more familiar with the term through Husserl. Which of the Nyssen's work did you have in mind?
Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church. God has done many miraculous things by, in, and through His people.
I'm not claiming that the family performed a miracle, but that God is as capable of hiding a family in plain view as He is of ensuring that flames bring no harm where they otherwise would. To what you were saying:
...Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.
I don't think the details of Polycarp's martyrdom somehow elevate him, any more than the family I know ought to be elevated. It's not the person, but the God who works through them. I would suspect that if one hasn't heard of miracles like the ones that happened during Polycarp's execution, then that's not because God has stopped acting in the world in those ways.
-
Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church.
And sometimes miracles happen, too.
-
Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church.
And sometimes miracles happen, too.
"Hoc est enim corpus meum."
-
Gadzunheit.
-
Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church.
And sometimes miracles happen, too.
"Hoc est enim corpus meum."
Your haruspicy is duly noted, Captain Divination.
-
Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church.
And sometimes miracles happen, too.
As a language guy, I thought you’d appreciate the vocab rather than have disdain for it. ???
-
Oh, I fear that you mistake my antisesquipedalianism for disdain when nothing could be further from reality; however, as this is a public forum, I try to write for the great unwashed and government school indoctrinated dumb masses.
I’m already impressed with my own brilliance!!
Alas, in my line of work, if I can’t explain the ridiculously complex to a sixth grader, I’m toast.
So my default is pedantic simple English; I have even , if late, been accused of being “simplistic.”
🤭
-
Have you read things like Gregory of Nyssa’s works on terms like noema, etc.? I see nothing and no one in the last half millennia that compares to such writings. Higher context languages result in thought that is much more expressive. As a linguist, I’ve found English to be one of the most restrictive points in understanding things beyond a baseline. But maybe my criteria is somewhat specialized because I rigorously pursue a more Philological foundation for thought and speech than others. I don’t personally think that’s a failing in this world of vaguery and dilution from Materialism, etc.
Maybe? I'm more familiar with the term through Husserl. Which of the Nyssen's work did you have in mind?
Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church. God has done many miraculous things by, in, and through His people.
I'm not claiming that the family performed a miracle, but that God is as capable of hiding a family in plain view as He is of ensuring that flames bring no harm where they otherwise would. To what you were saying:
...Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.
I don't think the details of Polycarp's martyrdom somehow elevate him, any more than the family I know ought to be elevated. It's not the person, but the God who works through them. I would suspect that if one hasn't heard of miracles like the ones that happened during Polycarp's execution, then that's not because God has stopped acting in the world in those ways.
Husserl? Interesting. I don’t meet many who are familiar with Husserl. Gregory’s “Contraeunomium Vol. 2” in particular for nous and its epi- variants. It’s amazing (and he’s considered the “least” of the Cappadocians).
I’d insist there are many cases wherein it is the ontology of the Believer rather than intervening economy from God when the threat of death is present. I definitely elevate great men of God for their faith over those who are nominal pew-sitters. Honor to whom honor.
-
Oh, I fear that you mistake my antisesquipedalianism for disdain when nothing could be further from reality; however, as this is a public forum, I try to write for the great unwashed and government school indoctrinated dumb masses.
I’m already impressed with my own brilliance!!
Alas, in my line of work, if I can’t explain the ridiculously complex to a sixth grader, I’m toast.
So my default is pedantic simple English; I have even , if late, been accused of being “simplistic.”
🤭
Yeah, well there are like 10 people (a generous estimate) active on this forum, and it looks like you and Athanasius are the only rational and orthodox among those few, so I wasn’t really considering “the masses”. LOL.
The requirement for explaining things to 6th graders is not something I adhere to. Imagine a world where all expression was the lowest common denominator for elementary school attendees being bombarded with CRT and Social Justice. We don’t have grade schoolers running industrial manufacturing facilities. We shouldn’t have theological expression at the Kindergarten-plus level as the default.
I wish I’d been taught the minutiae of theological terminology when I was young. But nooooooo…. I just got Late Great Planet Earth sensationalism and blood moons, because eschatology has to drive everyone’s jacked up hermeneutical world as we wait for a Dispensational secret rapture. ROFLOL.
-
But, the ontology of the believer is never about inherent power or position or purpose but always a direct and sole result of the believer’s position and purpose IN Christ. Life and death are non-events to God in the grand scheme of things, and whether a believer is miraculously saved or martyred brings exactly the same glory to God. Believers are just vessels, jars of clay, cracked pots containing the glory and power of God within the economy of God.
No believer is ontologically superior to any other , otherwise, we need to decide who is higher on the food chain, the guy in the fiery furnace of the dead guy with cannibal arrows sticking out of him and served as an appetizer.
-
But, the ontology of the believer is never about inherent power or position or purpose but always a direct and sole result of the believer’s position and purpose IN Christ. Life and death are non-events to God in the grand scheme of things, and whether a believer is miraculously saved or martyred brings exactly the same glory to God. Believers are just vessels, jars of clay, cracked pots containing the glory and power of God within the economy of God.
No believer is ontologically superior to any other , otherwise, we need to decide who is higher on the food chain, the guy in the fiery furnace of the dead guy with cannibal arrows sticking out of him and served as an appetizer.
I’m not proposing a superiority/inferiority paradigm. I’m saying I’m no St. Basil. That isn’t a faithless statement. Being and becoming is the Christian life. Though there is a proleptic already/not yet, there are certainly those who are more spiritually mature than others. It isn’t a measurement within soteriology. We’re all born from above. And if we’re all to come to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, there are differences in the “coming to”.
-
Oh, I fear that you mistake my antisesquipedalianism for disdain when nothing could be further from reality; however, as this is a public forum, I try to write for the great unwashed and government school indoctrinated dumb masses.
I’m already impressed with my own brilliance!!
Alas, in my line of work, if I can’t explain the ridiculously complex to a sixth grader, I’m toast.
So my default is pedantic simple English; I have even , if late, been accused of being “simplistic.”
🤭
Yeah, well there are like 10 people (a generous estimate) active on this forum, and it looks like you and Athanasius are the only rational and orthodox among those few, so I wasn’t really considering “the masses”. LOL.
The requirement for explaining things to 6th graders is not something I adhere to. Imagine a world where all expression was the lowest common denominator for elementary school attendees being bombarded with CRT and Social Justice. We don’t have grade schoolers running industrial manufacturing facilities. We shouldn’t have theological expression at the Kindergarten-plus level as the default.
I wish I’d been taught the minutiae of theological terminology when I was young. But nooooooo…. I just got Late Great Planet Earth sensationalism and blood moons, because eschatology has to drive everyone’s jacked up hermeneutical world as we wait for a Dispensational secret rapture. ROFLOL.
I’ll see your four blood moons and raise you old Christian church camp specialties like the “movie” “Like A Thief In the Night” and “A Distant Thunder”… [Lets all sing along around the Friday night bonfire… ‘There’s no time to change your mind, the Son has come and you’ve been left behind”
Sorry. I digress. Unfortunately, we are missionaries to a nation of functionally uneducated, irrational, emotive theological dwarfs. When we go to the Anek or Dao in New Guinea, we have to learn their language and culture in order to communicate the Gospel. Sadly, we have reached the point in the post-Modern post-Christian USA where we must learn cross- cultural mission techniques in order to reach those in our own churches with theological truths. I certainly appreciate the specificity of historic theological language, but alas, for most of our daily audience, using a word even as relatively simple as “ontological” or “soteriology” or even “sanctification” is like saying “third law of thermodynamics” to a naked guy wearing a gourd over his twig and berries not for cover but for decoration.
The lowest common denominator is here; we have to start there to have any hope of understanding and eventual clarity and specificity.
-
Oh, I fear that you mistake my antisesquipedalianism for disdain when nothing could be further from reality; however, as this is a public forum, I try to write for the great unwashed and government school indoctrinated dumb masses.
I’m already impressed with my own brilliance!!
Alas, in my line of work, if I can’t explain the ridiculously complex to a sixth grader, I’m toast.
So my default is pedantic simple English; I have even , if late, been accused of being “simplistic.”
🤭
Yeah, well there are like 10 people (a generous estimate) active on this forum, and it looks like you and Athanasius are the only rational and orthodox among those few, so I wasn’t really considering “the masses”. LOL.
The requirement for explaining things to 6th graders is not something I adhere to. Imagine a world where all expression was the lowest common denominator for elementary school attendees being bombarded with CRT and Social Justice. We don’t have grade schoolers running industrial manufacturing facilities. We shouldn’t have theological expression at the Kindergarten-plus level as the default.
I wish I’d been taught the minutiae of theological terminology when I was young. But nooooooo…. I just got Late Great Planet Earth sensationalism and blood moons, because eschatology has to drive everyone’s jacked up hermeneutical world as we wait for a Dispensational secret rapture. ROFLOL.
I’ll see your four blood moons and raise you old Christian church camp specialties like the “movie” “Like A Thief In the Night” and “A Distant Thunder”… [Lets all sing along around the Friday night bonfire… ‘There’s no time to change your mind, the Son has come and you’ve been left behind”
Sorry. I digress. Unfortunately, we are missionaries to a nation of functionally uneducated, irrational, emotive theological dwarfs. When we go to the Anek or Dao in New Guinea, we have to learn their language and culture in order to communicate the Gospel. Sadly, we have reached the point in the post-Modern post-Christian USA where we must learn cross- cultural mission techniques in order to reach those in our own churches with theological truths. I certainly appreciate the specificity of historic theological language, but alas, for most of our daily audience, using a word even as relatively simple as “ontological” or “soteriology” or even “sanctification” is like saying “third law of thermodynamics” to a naked guy wearing a gourd over his twig and berries not for cover but for decoration.
The lowest common denominator is here; we have to start there to have any hope of understanding and eventual clarity and specificity.
Oh, I had to watch those movies several times myself. It was an annual ritual of some kind. And pass out those Chick tracts with doomsday gospel fully illustrated. Abysmal.
I spend my days teaching others in a “come up hither” manner, challenging them to rise out of the mediocrity and equipping them to do so. I’ll take a dozen of those dedicated to that over cities full of church entertainment in the pulpits. I would probably contend there is a lot more rebrobation and apostasy in the modern western church than you. Maybe I’m too pessimistic. But I don’t think a bunch of moderns walking around with elementary level theological understanding are representative of the Christian faith. I’m concerned that the lowest common denominator leaves them lost without Christ and ignorant of that fact because they or someone else on their behalf “did something” that makes them saved.
-
My personal estimate is that at least 50% of the ordained deacons and probably 70% of the average Sunday morning crowd may someday say “but Lord, we went to Sunday School in your name and left Chick tracts on top of the toilet paper dispenser at the restaurant in your name…”
That pessimistic enough for you? I have, after all, the spiritual gift of cynicism.
While. yes, we must try to train a remnant to train others, the spiritual blind still need shepherds…
Which is why the Body is not just an eye or just an ear…
Alas, I must leave for now.
Have to do something that leads to the acquisition of that which belongs to Caesar
-
My personal estimate is that at least 50% of the ordained deacons and probably 70% of the average Sunday morning crowd may someday say “but Lord, we went to Sunday School in your name and left Chick tracts on top of the toilet paper dispenser at the restaurant in your name…”
That pessimistic enough for you? I have, after all, the spiritual gift of cynicism.
While. yes, we must try to train a remnant to train others, the spiritual blind still need shepherds…
Which is why the Body is not just an eye or just an ear…
Alas, I must leave for now.
Have to do something that leads to the acquisition of that which belongs to Caesar
Fair enough. You are as cynical as I.
Godspeed to you in this corrupt world. Tell Caesar I said “Hey”.
-
Oh, I fear that you mistake my antisesquipedalianism for disdain when nothing could be further from reality; however, as this is a public forum, I try to write for the great unwashed and government school indoctrinated dumb masses.
I’m already impressed with my own brilliance!!
Alas, in my line of work, if I can’t explain the ridiculously complex to a sixth grader, I’m toast.
So my default is pedantic simple English; I have even , if late, been accused of being “simplistic.”
🤭
Reminder: as I recall, I suggested your approach to something was "too simplistic." That is not to be confused with accusing you of being "simple-minded!" ;)
Please recognize the difference!
I don't remember actually what it was that I thought you were approaching too simplistically--perhaps I was even wrong about it. But in my defense I've long had to deal with people who defend theological formulas, without really understanding them.
To defend the Trinitarian formula, for example, it is as I see it an effort at defending a lifeless construction that makes logical sense, whether it confers faith on someone or not. If a person without faith argues for the Trinity, they are arguing for the construction, but not for anything of worth.
For that reason I feel the need to put things in fresh new words for my own benefit and hopefully for others, and hope I don't lose the original orthodoxy in the process. For what it's worth, I enjoy your posts--very thoughtful, and I agree with many of them.
-
Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.
She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.
-
I spend my days teaching others in a “come up hither” manner, challenging them to rise out of the mediocrity and equipping them to do so. I’ll take a dozen of those dedicated to that over cities full of church entertainment in the pulpits. I would probably contend there is a lot more rebrobation and apostasy in the modern western church than you. Maybe I’m too pessimistic. But I don’t think a bunch of moderns walking around with elementary level theological understanding are representative of the Christian faith. I’m concerned that the lowest common denominator leaves them lost without Christ and ignorant of that fact because they or someone else on their behalf “did something” that makes them saved.
Perhaps you are called to the dedicated that 'come up hither', while others are called to the mediocre Danish masses who don't quite know that they don't quite know what they believe in, except that they faith in Jesus - and faith is a terribly difficult thing.
-
Godspeed to you in this corrupt world. Tell Caesar I said “Hey”.
Caesar said "Hey," back.
And he said to tell you that you've got some stuff, and he would like to have more than his fair share.
He'll send a friend to pick it up.
-
Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.
She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
-
I spend my days teaching others in a “come up hither” manner, challenging them to rise out of the mediocrity and equipping them to do so. I’ll take a dozen of those dedicated to that over cities full of church entertainment in the pulpits. I would probably contend there is a lot more rebrobation and apostasy in the modern western church than you. Maybe I’m too pessimistic. But I don’t think a bunch of moderns walking around with elementary level theological understanding are representative of the Christian faith. I’m concerned that the lowest common denominator leaves them lost without Christ and ignorant of that fact because they or someone else on their behalf “did something” that makes them saved.
Perhaps you are called to the dedicated that 'come up hither', while others are called to the mediocre Danish masses who don't quite know that they don't quite know what they believe in, except that they faith in Jesus - and faith is a terribly difficult thing.
Both are exactly true. I’ve resigned myself to the fact that I’m called to labor in a different field for the harvest than others. My perspective comes from that weighty call as I watch everyone presume faith is a verb when it’s a noun. Faith will always be a struggle for everyone if they never realize it’s a noun and stop presuming faith is believING. The same is true for repentance and sin. Repentance isn’t repentING and sin isn’t sinnING.
Even the most simple can understand this if taught. Those who are never taught will likely never know. Greek anarthrous nouns are a cruel master to English speakers and their epistemology. But few want to listen to anything except what they think they already know. Life would be so much easier if such things were foundational teaching instead of general second-hand concepts alone. Sigh.
-
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.
It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:
- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust
Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?
If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.
We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.
-
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.
It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:
- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust
Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?
If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.
We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.
When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.
I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.
I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.
-
See you on the corner of Gloryland Way and River of Life Blvd, bro.
Just don't get LeftBehindTM
:o
Feel free to reach out anytime. Enjoyed the reparte.
Shalom.
-
See you on the corner of Gloryland Way and River of Life Blvd, bro.
Just don't get LeftBehindTM
:o
Feel free to reach out anytime. Enjoyed the reparte.
Shalom.
I promise not to get left behind in judgment with the dizzy Dispies. I’ll Fly Away to Just Over in the Gloryland and In the Sweet By and By.
I guess I don’t have to delete my account, so I can still drop in occasionally if I’m not perceived as a douchebag at those times. I suppose I’m grumpier in my old age. Or maybe I see the “tolerance” of the Left and don’t want to be too Ecumenistic (which probably makes me incompatible with forums).
-
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.
It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:
- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust
Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?
If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.
We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.
I had a few straggling responses to return. I’ll idle myself now. Have a Happy 2020-TOO. (A little clot shot joke.)
-
Oh, you'll probably (still) be a douchebag, but hey, you know?
:o (Did I type that out loud?)
Like my Dad used to ask me, "Son, between you and Jesus, 7 million years from now, will it matter?" If then answer is "no," then it don't matter now...
Peace.
-
Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.
She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.
This is why I see Sin as a disease, and not strictly as good or bad. If Sin was always to be visited with death and torment, then we would all be in a lot of hurt. But the baby born in sin is treated as such by God. They are born in uncleanness, but God deals with them appropriately, as a physician cares for one with a disease.
-
Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.
She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
I love the sentiment here. The only thing I *might* disagree with is the idea that sin isn't imputed to the sinner when there is no consciousness of sin. There has to be a law with humanity simply because we all have a conscience. The introduction of a more explicit "law" is not required to have a conscience.
I think Paul was speaking of the fact people were not held accountable to the Law of Moses before it was even given. But they were still held accountable for their sin.
Obviously, if their being "accountable" means simply that they have the "disease," and they are mindless children, then they are held accountable only for being born in a "condition," and not responsible for committing any but the slightest of sins, if any at all.
I say that because the passage indicates people still die well before Israel obtained the Law of Moses. And we know all people die before they reach any supposed "age of accountability." They die from a "disease," and not from personal responsibility.
They still needed to be rescued by the atonement of Christ. Whether they are separated from paradise or not after death, due to their sin, is a matter of your view on predestination, I suppose.
If a child is the fruit of parents, or ancestors, who have settled on a spirit of rebellion, then the child likely would be an apple that falls close to the tree. The child would be born with the inclination to follow suit.
But having done no wrong, the child may enter into a place, upon death, outside of paradise, with perhaps zero "stripes." It's purely speculative to me, and had to give my two cents. I'm open on the issue of Predestination, although I call myself a "Calvinist." And I do have a reason for this.
-
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.
It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:
- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust
Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?
If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.
We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.
When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.
I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.
I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.
Brother, for what it's worth, I appreciate and have been reading your comments. The *only* problem I have is that you make little effort to be kind with those who may not be as smart as you. If you drive away all those who are inquiring or need to learn, simply because they're not as smart as you, what have you accomplished? James would speak to that when he said don't put the poor man at your feet.
But if you truly do belong at a higher echelon, then by all means go there. It may be where you're dying to be. I know that although I've presided over children's Bible Studies, I much prefer grownups.
And if I don't think we're going anywhere, I do get bored. So yes, don't go out angry--just follow your best inclinations.
Just realize that IQ is not equal to spirituality. I presume you already know this, but I want you to know I do wish to have some educated comments. Other forums don't always have this.
I strongly disagree with your sense that all who do not follow your favored orthodox formulations are not orthodox. If those who came up with the orthodox formulas were treated the same way, none of them would've ever been able to come up with an acceptable formula.
And quite frankly, those who did work hard on coming up with a consistent language were often controversial, as I understand it. So visiting the language in a fresh way, without trying to overturn the orthodox formula, is to be invited, in my view--not ridiculed and bashed as "unorthodox."
Saying this does not mean I wish you to leave! Your choice. I think all forums that are moderated will proscribe rude behavior. I was on a semi-Christian, semi-Jewish unmoderated forum for 10 years--I can handle the heat. But this is a specifically *Christian* forum that is moderated.
-
Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.
She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
I love the sentiment here. The only thing I *might* disagree with is the idea that sin isn't imputed to the sinner when there is no consciousness of sin. There has to be a law with humanity simply because we all have a conscience. The introduction of a more explicit "law" is not required to have a conscience.
I think Paul was speaking of the fact people were not held accountable to the Law of Moses before it was even given. But they were still held accountable for their sin.
Obviously, if their being "accountable" means simply that they have the "disease," and they are mindless children, then they are held accountable only for being born in a "condition," and not responsible for committing any but the slightest of sins, if any at all.
I say that because the passage indicates people still die well before Israel obtained the Law of Moses. And we know all people die before they reach any supposed "age of accountability." They die from a "disease," and not from personal responsibility.
They still needed to be rescued by the atonement of Christ. Whether they are separated from paradise or not after death, due to their sin, is a matter of your view on predestination, I suppose.
If a child is the fruit of parents, or ancestors, who have settled on a spirit of rebellion, then the child likely would be an apple that falls close to the tree. The child would be born with the inclination to follow suit.
But having done no wrong, the child may enter into a place, upon death, outside of paradise, with perhaps zero "stripes." It's purely speculative to me, and had to give my two cents. I'm open on the issue of Predestination, although I call myself a "Calvinist." And I do have a reason for this.
So when does a child experience or express or interface with "conscience"
-
When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.
I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.
I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.
No, well, treating theological discourse as if it were maths, and your interlocutors as if they're part of the theologically illiterate masses isn't the best strategy (even if it were true). The academy is great but there's something to be said for knowing how to relate to others. Regardless, your frustration was palpable.
We just aren't impressed by big words that ruin the prose.
-
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.
It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:
- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust
Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?
If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.
We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.
When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.
I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.
I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.
Brother, for what it's worth, I appreciate and have been reading your comments. The *only* problem I have is that you make little effort to be kind with those who may not be as smart as you. If you drive away all those who are inquiring or need to learn, simply because they're not as smart as you, what have you accomplished? James would speak to that when he said don't put the poor man at your feet.
But if you truly do belong at a higher echelon, then by all means go there. It may be where you're dying to be. I know that although I've presided over children's Bible Studies, I much prefer grownups.
And if I don't think we're going anywhere, I do get bored. So yes, don't go out angry--just follow your best inclinations.
Just realize that IQ is not equal to spirituality. I presume you already know this, but I want you to know I do wish to have some educated comments. Other forums don't always have this.
I strongly disagree with your sense that all who do not follow your favored orthodox formulations are not orthodox. If those who came up with the orthodox formulas were treated the same way, none of them would've ever been able to come up with an acceptable formula.
And quite frankly, those who did work hard on coming up with a consistent language were often controversial, as I understand it. So visiting the language in a fresh way, without trying to overturn the orthodox formula, is to be invited, in my view--not ridiculed and bashed as "unorthodox."
Saying this does not mean I wish you to leave! Your choice. I think all forums that are moderated will proscribe rude behavior. I was on a semi-Christian, semi-Jewish unmoderated forum for 10 years--I can handle the heat. But this is a specifically *Christian* forum that is moderated.
Well… I don’t think you’re honestly seeking or inquiring. The appearance to me is that you’re just externalizing all your own meanderings of thought and expression. That’s simply not how theology is “done” and it leads quickly and unerringly to prelest (a term it would be edifying for anyone to know if you’d care to look it up).
As for my presence here, I simply prefer a more orthodox setting and venue. I didn’t know BF would be this varied in doctrinal diversity.
I’m recognizing my limitations. I don’t have a good sense of when my biting sarcasm combines with my high-context writing to become personal and offensive or inappropriate. I’m in a personal circle where I don’t have to worry about it and I’m understood and respected by those around me. On a forum, everyone’s just an conglomeration of everyone else’s perceptions. I don’t ever mean things as personally as they’re expressed. But that’s the nature of written communication and it’s exaggerated by many factors coming and going.
I don’t see anything for me to be here for. Everyone already has their own views and that’s how this forum (and many others) function. I prefer a teaching setting because that’s what I do. Entertaining all personal interpretations is just not my gig. I thought I might find a return to forum activity a good thing. It’s simply not for me; or at least not now.
In the end, I’m not very compatible with a Christian outlook that is devoid of understanding the English language’s limitations and having a basic comprehension of Greek anarthrous nouns and why that’s so crucial.
Sorry this was so windy, but having unblocked you to read your farewell post I though it decent to respond. Enjoy the PNW. I’m headed for Florida later this year. No more winters for me.
-
When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.
I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.
I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.
No, well, treating theological discourse as if it were maths, and your interlocutors as if they're part of the theologically illiterate masses isn't the best strategy (even if it were true). The academy is great but there's something to be said for knowing how to relate to others. Regardless, your frustration was palpable.
We just aren't impressed by big words that ruin the prose.
Yeah, I’m probably not going to be able to get out of teaching mode and deal with such diversity of doctrines. I’ve figured that out. Sorry for that.
-
Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.
She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
I love the sentiment here. The only thing I *might* disagree with is the idea that sin isn't imputed to the sinner when there is no consciousness of sin. There has to be a law with humanity simply because we all have a conscience. The introduction of a more explicit "law" is not required to have a conscience.
I think Paul was speaking of the fact people were not held accountable to the Law of Moses before it was even given. But they were still held accountable for their sin.
Obviously, if their being "accountable" means simply that they have the "disease," and they are mindless children, then they are held accountable only for being born in a "condition," and not responsible for committing any but the slightest of sins, if any at all.
I say that because the passage indicates people still die well before Israel obtained the Law of Moses. And we know all people die before they reach any supposed "age of accountability." They die from a "disease," and not from personal responsibility.
They still needed to be rescued by the atonement of Christ. Whether they are separated from paradise or not after death, due to their sin, is a matter of your view on predestination, I suppose.
If a child is the fruit of parents, or ancestors, who have settled on a spirit of rebellion, then the child likely would be an apple that falls close to the tree. The child would be born with the inclination to follow suit.
But having done no wrong, the child may enter into a place, upon death, outside of paradise, with perhaps zero "stripes." It's purely speculative to me, and had to give my two cents. I'm open on the issue of Predestination, although I call myself a "Calvinist." And I do have a reason for this.
So when does a child experience or express or interface with "conscience"
This answer would require a long lexical diatribe that you guys find distasteful and arrogant, or whatever (I’m not really sure). The one thing I’d say is that you’re looking for a child to accomplish a verb rather than understanding that everything is a noun.
Thanks for your discourse. Don’t let Caesar gig you for too much, and watch out for those Dispies. :)
-
Well… I don’t think you’re honestly seeking or inquiring. The appearance to me is that you’re just externalizing all your own meanderings of thought and expression. That’s simply not how theology is “done” and it leads quickly and unerringly to prelest (a term it would be edifying for anyone to know if you’d care to look it up).
I'm glad you said "I don't think...," because that would be judgmental, right? To declare someone is *deliberately* avoiding the truth is a judgment, and I don't believe I'm doing that.
Of course, I would defend myself as honest and willing to grow. But I already know this to be true from an extensive history in walking with the Lord and being on forums. I've evolved a great deal, spiritually and in my views. I've certainly changed my views a lot, particularly because I couldn't understand things when I was less mature, and also because a favorite subject of mine is prophecy. I found that you'll get nowhere in prophecy if you aren't willing to be corrected over time. ;)
As for my presence here, I simply prefer a more orthodox setting and venue. I didn’t know BF would be this varied in doctrinal diversity.
Too bad. I think you'd have a lot to contribute because of your intelligence and knowledge, as well as your ability to communicate. But it is critical to be able to endure diversity. This is largely a ministry to fellow believers or even to wannabe believers who think they're believers. You have to be willing to minister to all kinds here. It isn't even always a matter of resolving every issue--more, it's a matter of communicating love and truth to believers to help them stand in troubled times. To do that requires addressing a whole host of problems, sometimes not even knowing what lies beneath the issues being discussed.
But maybe God has called you to a more nuanced conversation. In this case, you probably will get bored. So if you leave, I wish you the best. But I wish I could convince you to stay. You certainly can contribute if you're willing to put up with tests to your sense of "orthodoxy."
I’m recognizing my limitations. I don’t have a good sense of when my biting sarcasm combines with my high-context writing to become personal and offensive or inappropriate. I’m in a personal circle where I don’t have to worry about it and I’m understood and respected by those around me. On a forum, everyone’s just an conglomeration of everyone else’s perceptions. I don’t ever mean things as personally as they’re expressed. But that’s the nature of written communication and it’s exaggerated by many factors coming and going.
I can accept that. You just need to say it. To call someone an "idiot," and then just blow it off as "my bad" doesn't really make it on forums. ;) You have to take the time to insert an emoticon or two. You have to *tell someone* not to take the "you're an idiot" part too seriously. ;)
I don’t see anything for me to be here for. Everyone already has their own views and that’s how this forum (and many others) function. I prefer a teaching setting because that’s what I do. Entertaining all personal interpretations is just not my gig. I thought I might find a return to forum activity a good thing. It’s simply not for me; or at least not now.
Well please come back. I don't want to be one of the reasons you're leaving. Regardless of what you think, I learn something from everyone who knows God and His word. Even in the midst of disagreeing with you, I obtain something from one or two of your insights.
Sorry this was so windy, but having unblocked you to read your farewell post I though it decent to respond. Enjoy the PNW. I’m headed for Florida later this year. No more winters for me.
I do appreciate the kind explanation. I love the PNW but hate the liberal atmosphere. I've been looking at houses in Florida too--the Tampa area as well as the panhandle. I have friends down there. The weather is very appealing right now, since we just got over a dump of snow. Wish you well, and God bless.
-
So when does a child experience or express or interface with "conscience"
Good question. For a fact I recall when a tiny tot my blanket was taken away. And my parents insisted on taking my blanket away. I had been eating my blanket out of nervousness.
And I threw a loud fit to the point I felt inwardly embarrassed, because I knew I was "acting." I knew they had a reason to take my shredded blanket away.
I have a distinct memory of that moment. Yes, I had a sensitive conscience from infancy. Where the sense of conscience begins, I suppose, is from the beginning, though very undeveloped.
I suppose it was at around four, or five years old that I first entered into Sunday School on my own, without my parents. I distinctly remember the pride of joining my child-peers in our own meeting time.
And I also distinctly remember hearing the song sung by all the children, "Jesus loves me this I know." I remember feeling kind of excited about that! :) I'm neither bragging nor complaining--just saying. You decide when the conscience is "expressed?"
-
The privation of this gift resulted in humanity falling back into its "merely natural state" separated from the (supernatural) gifts of God. We were, in other words, placed under the limitations of our nature, and those were limitations that direct access to God had removed.
This still does not answer the question, why did God decided that the rest of human kind (not taking part in the sin of A&E) would fall into its "merely natural state".
-
The privation of this gift resulted in humanity falling back into its "merely natural state" separated from the (supernatural) gifts of God. We were, in other words, placed under the limitations of our nature, and those were limitations that direct access to God had removed.
This still does not answer the question, why did God decided that the rest of human kind (not taking part in the sin of A&E) would fall into its "merely natural state".
Because in disobeying God Adam and Eve removed themselves, and the whole of humanity consequently, from God's presence; or, as a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience God removed humanity from His presence.
While their nature didn't change, the parameters of Adam's and Eve's world changed, insofar as their understanding of 'good and evil' developed, then evolved, imperfectly. To say nothing of their realisation of shame, guilt, embarrassment, regret. Genesis 3 as the origin of all negative emotion, basically. And humanity is a social species, made to be in relationship with God, each other, creation. I don't see how it would be possible to, say, remove Adam and Eve from the garden, but then allow their children in until they too, sinned, and so on, and so on.
When they sinned, they choose for all of us. At least we're granted the mercy of never knowing exactly what we lost, but I guess we're also cursed with ever-reaching for it. Of course, we'll get it back and more.
-
Yep, standard view.
And it is as it is.
And yet I don't understand that the punishment of A&E is also the punishment for their children, grand children, eventually you, me and everyone who lived.
Ez 18:20 - The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
It's our standard too, we don't blame / punish children for the sins of the parents.
Contrary to this is Exodus 20:5 - You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.
It's all a bit confusing, don't you think so too?
-
Yep, standard view.
And it is as it is.
And yet I don't understand that the punishment of A&E is also the punishment for their children, grand children, eventually you, me and everyone who lived.
Ez 18:20 - The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
It's our standard too, we don't blame / punish children for the sins of the parents.
Contrary to this is Exodus 20:5 - You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.
It's all a bit confusing, don't you think so too?
I see it as a natural consequence, rather than a punishment, which is often artificial in that it doesn't naturally follow the event. So, just as future generations have to live with the earth in whatever state we pass it on to them...