King of the North and King of the South.

[Athanasius]

I honestly thought the brother was Jewish for quite a while because he had used a Jewish title. I granted him the "Christian liberty" to use that title, even if it did confuse me. I'm not interested in any more conversation about this because it's bad spirited.

It's cool, it's cool. I get that. People sometimes confuse me for a woman, or for being 1600 or so years old.

I don't get that easily confused! lol!

You haven't heard me on the phone.

[RandyPNW]

I honestly thought the brother was Jewish for quite a while because he had used a Jewish title. I granted him the "Christian liberty" to use that title, even if it did confuse me. I'm not interested in any more conversation about this because it's bad spirited.

It's cool, it's cool. I get that. People sometimes confuse me for a woman, or for being 1600 or so years old.

I don't get that easily confused! lol!

You haven't heard me on the phone.

You must be the same Athanasius I debated with about the Trinity? If so, yes, I may confuse you with someone else.

[Athanasius]

I honestly thought the brother was Jewish for quite a while because he had used a Jewish title. I granted him the "Christian liberty" to use that title, even if it did confuse me. I'm not interested in any more conversation about this because it's bad spirited.

It's cool, it's cool. I get that. People sometimes confuse me for a woman, or for being 1600 or so years old.

I don't get that easily confused! lol!

You haven't heard me on the phone.

You must be the same Athanasius I debated with about the Trinity? If so, yes, I may confuse you with someone else.

Arius, is that you, after all this time? Maximus and I were just talking about you, although to be fair, Maximus doesn't say much these days.

(But for real, I don't recall if we debated the trinity on any particular forum. BF banned me ages ago for knowing Christian theology, so if it was there that was probably too long ago.)

[RandyPNW]

I honestly thought the brother was Jewish for quite a while because he had used a Jewish title. I granted him the "Christian liberty" to use that title, even if it did confuse me. I'm not interested in any more conversation about this because it's bad spirited.

It's cool, it's cool. I get that. People sometimes confuse me for a woman, or for being 1600 or so years old.

I don't get that easily confused! lol!

You haven't heard me on the phone.

You must be the same Athanasius I debated with about the Trinity? If so, yes, I may confuse you with someone else.

Arius, is that you, after all this time? Maximus and I were just talking about you, although to be fair, Maximus doesn't say much these days.

(But for real, I don't recall if we debated the trinity on any particular forum. BF banned me ages ago for knowing Christian theology, so if it was there that was probably too long ago.)

We weren't discussing Arianism, but rather, the heterodoxy of my belief in the finite character of God's word. I have long believed that God's word originates from an infinite source in God but appears within creation in finite form. God's word, to be understood by Man, must appear in finite form. This may have appeared to you as "unorthodox." Or at least, the Church Fathers would've denied that God's word was, in any way, "finite?"

If BF banned you I find that sad. Losing you would "dumb down" the forum, in my view. I don't know that you said anything worthy of being banned.

I was put on "coffee break" a couple of times, but simply moved forward. The guy who silenced me for appearing "anti-Semitic" himself quit as a moderator. I certainly did no such thing!

And another guy who silenced me for doing and saying something I didn't do just ignored my complaint. He accused me of violating a prohibition on discussing the annihilation of the wicked, relegating my comments to the "controversial" section.

I had simply been discussing the nature of the eternal punishment of the wicked, which I don't believe consists of "burning human flesh." I believe the eternal punishment of the wicked consists of being *separated* from the close, intimate presence of God, allowing for both "many stripes" and "few stripes."

It's an imperfect world. If we want to adjudicate every issue, we'd never get anything said or done. You think? Nice to hear from someone above some of these trivial matters of attitude. If I myself appear petty in bringing all of this forward, I apologize to all concerned.

[Athanasius]

We weren't discussing Arianism, but rather, the heterodoxy of my belief in the finite character of God's word. I have long believed that God's word originates from an infinite source in God but appears within creation in finite form. God's word, to be understood by Man, must appear in finite form. This may have appeared to you as "unorthodox." Or at least, the Church Fathers would've denied that God's word was, in any way, "finite?"

Ah, that must have been someone else, then. From the sounds of it, I probably wouldn't use 'infinite' or 'finite' as it's being used here. 'Sufficient' or something along those lines would be more likely, but whoever it was tarnishing the name 'Athanasius' -- tsk tsk. Hmm.

If BF banned you I find that sad. Losing you would "dumb down" the forum, in my view. I don't know that you said anything worthy of being banned.

I was kicked off the mod team and coffee'd - if I recall correctly - for a while after they banned apothanein_kerdos and found out that I told him and Markedward about what had gone down behind the scenes. I was then banned some more after going against PP, Jennifer, and all the prophetic nonsense that happened. I was banned some more after viciously arguing with episkopos. For good measure I was coffee'd and banned some more for being a meany to amazzin and refusing to play by TheRookie's idea of reality. And then I was banned some more for some reason I don't quite remember, within the last year or so, which I think was again related to episkopos or some nonsense. The ban prior to that was a looonnngggg one where I more or less told the leadership team where to shove their faux Christlike attitudes. Or at least, some of them. I don't think I ever said a bad thing about Slug, and I don't just say that because he's here. ELT over there changed substantially and for the worst, and I'm convinced that there was a cult-like attitude at the top that brought things down. Was it David Taylor who said something to that effect? Hmm.

I'm pretty sure the most recent ban, prior to their prophesied self-destruction, had to do with having too much fun with my replies. And like, I don't even drink coffee. Also, I wasn't allowed to post in the 'women at the well' which was totally lame. Biology is so inconvenient.

(Were they still doing points-based post warnings? I had a few that I wore with pride, from Brother Mark and some others.)

Oh, and when Ikester referred to me as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" following my refusal to rule out God's potential use of 'evolutionary processes'. That was the highlight of my time over here. He'd be all over thinking how right he was if he knew about me now. I wonder how often he argued with itinerant :thinking:

I had simply been discussing the nature of the eternal punishment of the wicked, which I don't believe consists of "burning human flesh." I believe the eternal punishment of the wicked consists of being *separated* from the close, intimate presence of God, allowing for both "many stripes" and "few stripes."

Hell as separation is the view I tend to take, myself, although I also add in things like, "the agony of knowing you aren't as you know you ought to be, knowing you had the chance, and never being able to be as you ought to be". A kind of dysphoria that drives one to insanity. I'm not sure that Lewis was wrong, either, in his view that hell was such that after enough time had passed, those in hell ceased to be human.

I guess that latter view would get Controversialised.

[RandyPNW]

From what I hear from you, I would *never* ban you. But then again, I started many years ago with alt.messianic in Usenet on an unmoderated forum. I did that for about 10 years and 10,000+ posts. You have my vote for "most interesting poster!"

I truly hope, now that I've gone out on a limb, that you are fully orthodox in your doctrine! Creative, free thinking is sorely needed, however.
randy

[Athanasius]

From what I hear from you, I would *never* ban you. But then again, I started many years ago with alt.messianic in Usenet on an unmoderated forum. I did that for about 10 years and 10,000+ posts. You have my vote for "most interesting poster!"

I truly hope, now that I've gone out on a limb, that you are fully orthodox in your doctrine! Creative, free thinking is sorely needed, however.
randy

I have my quirks around one or two things, but I'm about as doctrinally orthodox as they come. Those one or two things aren't necessarily insignificant :S

[RandyPNW]

What are those "one or two things?" I'm just curious!

[Athanasius]

What are those "one or two things?" I'm just curious!

I think Augustine was sorely mistaken in his reading of Romans and particular doctrinal formulation of the transmission of original sin as ontologically impacting on human nature. Meaning, I don't view the sin of Adam and Eve as corrupting human nature. Rather, we possess exactly the same nature God created humanity with, but just as they were able to sin in God's presence, we sin all the more in our state of separation from God in what still seems to be 'the wilderness'.

I also think we're morally imperfect, and that avoids any of the usual Pelagian/semi-Pelegian accusations that without ontic corruption a human could live a perfect life and 'earn' salvation. Either way, this makes me a bad Calvinist.

The other thing doesn't concern a historical theological position, and maybe I'll say more on that some other time.

[RandyPNW]

I think Augustine was sorely mistaken in his reading of Romans and particular doctrinal formulation of the transmission of original sin as ontologically impacting on human nature. Meaning, I don't view the sin of Adam and Eve as corrupting human nature. Rather, we possess exactly the same nature God created humanity with, but just as they were able to sin in God's presence, we sin all the more in our state of separation from God in what still seems to be 'the wilderness'.

I'm not sure I'm clear on that, but thanks for answering. I personally believe we have the same human nature we were created with. But I believe both our physical and our spiritual "DNA" were impacted. We have an inclination towards evil, which simply refers to wanting to do something apart from doing it with God. We want to go our own way, and disregard God's word that created us and directs us. Even after accepting Christ into our lives, we continue to feel propelled towards things we lust after, or covet for ourselves.

I'm not clear how, if we are sinless in our human nature, we are still "out in the wilderness?" I'm sure I don't follow you, but it certainly has me curious.

I also think we're morally imperfect, and that avoids any of the usual Pelagian/semi-Pelegian accusations that without ontic corruption a human could live a perfect life and 'earn' salvation. Either way, this makes me a bad Calvinist.

Are you saying we're "morally imperfect" not by human nature, nor by a sin nature, but only because over time, we're bound to fail at least once? The danger of Pelagianism is that it voids the necessity that we always walk in concert with the Spirit of God. It involves human works uninspired by Christ. To walk in moral perfection is to walk constantly in the word of God, and Pelagians/Semi-Pelagians, as much as they are right that Mankind can do good, do not acknowledge the problem of a constant transition, back and forth, between acting by conscience and acting by selfish will.

The other thing doesn't concern a historical theological position, and maybe I'll say more on that some other time.

I enjoy creative descriptions, but I can't say I follow yours. But thanks for trying.

[Athanasius]

I'm not sure I'm clear on that, but thanks for answering. I personally believe we have the same human nature we were created with. But I believe both our physical and our spiritual "DNA" were impacted. We have an inclination towards evil, which simply refers to wanting to do something apart from doing it with God. We want to go our own way, and disregard God's word that created us and directs us. Even after accepting Christ into our lives, we continue to feel propelled towards things we lust after, or covet for ourselves.

Yes, I think we were created this way yet God still called us good. To be clear, I don't think we were created with the propensity to disobey God over/against a propensity to obey God, but that there had to be the possibility for disobedience for there to be the genuine possibility of obedience such that the latter could be meaningly held in distinction to the former. That is, my choosing obedience or disobedience relative to the other isn't an arbitrary act of will, but either a failure to engage with myself or the picking up of my cross, as it were, in a considered and conscious decision to obey.

I'm not clear how, if we are sinless in our human nature, we are still "out in the wilderness?" I'm sure I don't follow you, but it certainly has me curious.

I wouldn't apply moral categories to human nature specifically in either case. I wouldn't call human nature 'good' and I wouldn't call human nature 'sinful' or 'sinless'. Human nature is just human nature, and the whole human as described by God in Genesis is 'good'. Either way, we're in the wilderness by virtue of the fact that we aren't in the Garden as a consequence of Adam and Eve getting themselves, and every human that followed, kicked out.

I don't think we're born in a pristine, sinless state that might imply perfection or deserving. We're born, like Adam and Eve, as moral agents who have yet to actualise a possibility, and it's only until that possibility is actualised that we can then talk about a person being righteous or sinful. Of course, the possibility that everyone actualises save Jesus is that of sinful disobedience, and the very fact that this is possible speaks to our - God created - imperfection, rather than our perfection in some ontological sense as most people mean it. (That is, Adam and Eve were perfect in that they were exactly as God intended them to be, not that they had perfect qualities).

I also don't see, in Scripture, the suggestion that humanity was ontologically corrupted by sin as a consequence of the fall. This of course means that I have no recourse to, "it's in my nature" when I sin in this or that way. When I sin, I am wholly responsible and was genuinely free to do the opposite.

Are you saying we're "morally imperfect" not by human nature, nor by a sin nature, but only because over time, we're bound to fail at least once?

You could use 'human nature' here if you wanted, but my view primarily is that because we have the capacity to sin, we're morally imperfect. A morally perfect being wouldn't have the capacity to sin. So, it's not that we're "bound to fail", it's more that we aren't yet who and what we should be. There's a reason we'll receive glorified bodies, after all. I've got hopes for mine :fingers-crossed:.

The danger of Pelagianism is that it voids the necessity that we always walk in concert with the Spirit of God. It involves human works uninspired by Christ. To walk in moral perfection is to walk constantly in the word of God, and Pelagians/Semi-Pelagians, as much as they are right that Mankind can do good, do not acknowledge the problem of a constant transition, back and forth, between acting by conscience and acting by selfish will.

I strongly doubt even Pelagius himself would have suggested that a person could walk in righteousness uninspired by Christ and/or inconsonant with the Spirit of God. Humans were created to be in relationship with each other, and with God. As I mentioned earlier, separation from God is nothing inconsequential.

I enjoy creative descriptions, but I can't say I follow yours. But thanks for trying.

That's how it goes sometimes. The second thing is far more polarising, but I wouldn't want to distract from the above at this point anyway.

[RandyPNW]

I appreciate the explanation, which I do find interesting and thoughtful. I won't engage in a criticism of your view to any great extent, since you're just offering what I asked from you. I appreciate your being free with your ideas.

I might suggest, just in passing, that your sense of a fixed human nature, seemingly denying a Sin Nature, is based on the assumption that a perfect being cannot sin. Man, in his original creation, cannot lose who he essentially is, simply because he made a mistake.

But I find that Man, in his perfection, did precisely that--went from being a perfect being to being a sinful being. Sin, for me, is a tarnishing of our original being, primarily spiritual, but with physical effects. It is placing ourselves outside of the scope of perfect alignment with God's word, which is where we remain to this day--even with redemption!

And so, in sinning, Man became a different being than he was originally created to be, tending to want things outside of the scope of God's word, and then passing that down through the generations to all others, who inherit this fallen spiritual inheritance. He did not stop being who he was, but he did become something different.

Just my view. At the same time, I do find it important to state what you seem to be stating, that we do not forfeit essential elements that Man was originally created with. We do not lose our ability to do good.

There is a difference between saying the good we do qualifies as an eternal work, and saying that the good we do has no value. All men can do good works of value for God and for themselves.

Obtaining eternal value for our good works is, however, a different thing, and has to do with embracing not just God's works but more, God Himself. Your sense of Man's continuing freedom to do good is, I feel, the most important part of your view, if I understand you correctly?

I have a similar burden, having spent a lifetime around people who believe in the Total Depravity of Man. I might sign onto this with reservations, because I do think that even if we cannot do good and earn salvation we can all certainly do good.

Thanks again!

[Athanasius]

I appreciate the explanation, which I do find interesting and thoughtful. I won't engage in a criticism of your view to any great extent, since you're just offering what I asked from you. I appreciate your being free with your ideas.

If you're up for it, feel free to criticise away.

I might suggest, just in passing, that your sense of a fixed human nature, seemingly denying a Sin Nature, is based on the assumption that a perfect being cannot sin. Man, in his original creation, cannot lose who he essentially is, simply because he made a mistake.

A perfect being cannot sin by definition, or else the being in question would not be perfect by virtue of the fact that sin is a defect. God (the Father), for example, cannot sin, or else, by definition, we are not talking about God.

But I find that Man, in his perfection, did precisely that--went from being a perfect being to being a sinful being. Sin, for me, is a tarnishing of our original being, primarily spiritual, but with physical effects. It is placing ourselves outside of the scope of perfect alignment with God's word, which is where we remain to this day--even with redemption!

Scripture doesn't suggest that sin was ontologically tarnishing in this sense of an original sin corrupting human nature, so I think the task there is to demonstrate where this idea can be found in Scripture. It can certainly be found in Augustine and many Christian theological traditions since Augustine, but I also think this is one of those areas where an accepted teaching is accepted because to question it is to be accused of heterodoxy or worse. Original sin as a corrupting force is as accepted as Trinitarianism is, but just like Trinititarianism, I doubt most people could go into detail about what is meant by, and what the implications of original sin are.

I'm not saying, by the way, that sin is incapable of orienting our being should we consistently engage in sin. But that's not so different from pointing out that our actions affect ourselves, and brain plasticity is interesting. The life we lead, and all that.

And so, in sinning, Man became a different being than he was originally created to be, tending to want things outside of the scope of God's word, and then passing that down through the generations to all others, who inherit this fallen spiritual inheritance. He did not stop being who he was, but he did become something different.

Which I take to be circumstantial, like the curses in Genesis 3, rather than ontological.

Just my view. At the same time, I do find it important to state what you seem to be stating, that we do not forfeit essential elements that Man was originally created with. We do not lose our ability to do good.

There is a difference between saying the good we do qualifies as an eternal work, and saying that the good we do has no value. All men can do good works of value for God and for themselves.

Obtaining eternal value for our good works is, however, a different thing, and has to do with embracing not just God's works but more, God Himself. Your sense of Man's continuing freedom to do good is, I feel, the most important part of your view, if I understand you correctly?

Yes, if I get what you're saying.

I have a similar burden, having spent a lifetime around people who believe in the Total Depravity of Man. I might sign onto this with reservations, because I do think that even if we cannot do good and earn salvation we can all certainly do good.

Thanks again!

I'm not sure I've met someone who thinks total depravity means that humanity is utterly depraved and unable to do otherwise good things. Interesting. It sounds like the something that belongs to the sort of people who'd throw Romans 1 at me

[RandyPNW]

I might suggest, just in passing, that your sense of a fixed human nature, seemingly denying a Sin Nature, is based on the assumption that a perfect being cannot sin. Man, in his original creation, cannot lose who he essentially is, simply because he made a mistake.

A perfect being cannot sin by definition, or else the being in question would not be perfect by virtue of the fact that sin is a defect. God (the Father), for example, cannot sin, or else, by definition, we are not talking about God.

Yes, I saw where you were going with that. It's like a truism--a perfect Man cannot be anything but a perfect Man--otherwise, he ceases to be a Man. However, I see a Man that sins as a "flawed Man," who has become something different. He remains a Man, but now an "imperfect Man." The sin nature now embedded in him taints his heart, his will, his desires. He tends towards rebellion against God's word.

I speak from experience. I always have to fight against the propensity to do my own thing. I have pride, and resist someone telling me to do things their way. That's why I get into arguments with my wife--we both want our own way!

Scripture doesn't suggest that sin was ontologically tarnishing in this sense of an original sin corrupting human nature, so I think the task there is to demonstrate where this idea can be found in Scripture. It can certainly be found in Augustine and many Christian theological traditions since Augustine, but I also think this is one of those areas where an accepted teaching is accepted because to question it is to be accused of heterodoxy or worse. Original sin as a corrupting force is as accepted as Trinitarianism is, but just like Trinititarianism, I doubt most people could go into detail about what is meant by, and what the implications of original sin are.

All true. I, however, don't think much about rehashing formulas unless that actually make sense to me and prove true in my own experience. Historically, Scholasticism became dead wood in the late Middle Ages. And in the Protestant World, each Protestant group seemed to have to come up with a creed of their own. We should be able to agree on some essentials, but there's always going to be something added.

I've worked out my own understanding of the Trinity, and I've tried to work out my beliefs on virtually all of the important theological issues. I hold to "Imperfect Man" simply because it's true to life for me. Man has not lost what makes him "Man." But he doesn't have to be "Perfect Man" to be "Man," in my view. There does seem to be something that poisoned his spirit, rendering him oriented towards rebellion, and yet capable of rectifying this to some degree.

I'm not sure the Bible describes anything more than the fact that Man is indeed flawed. And Israel's worship under the Law required all men to be covered by sacrifices and blood, regardless of what good or bad they had done. This was, I think, an assumption of a flawed *Nature.*

I have a similar burden, having spent a lifetime around people who believe in the Total Depravity of Man. I might sign onto this with reservations, because I do think that even if we cannot do good and earn salvation we can all certainly do good.

I'm not sure I've met someone who thinks total depravity means that humanity is utterly depraved and unable to do otherwise good things. Interesting. It sounds like the something that belongs to the sort of people who'd throw Romans 1 at me

Yes, I knew you'd see it that way. But it requires more explanation. I'm not a card-carrying "tulip" person. I believe in "Total Depravity" only in the sense that we have a Sin Nature and cannot avoid sinning. This is something that can be mitigated, but not completely fixed without a New Creation, ie the resurrection.

But I do *not* believe in Total Depravity in the Calvinist sense that people cannot even seek God or seek to do good without corrupt motives. I don't believe people have to be regenerated as Christians to want to do good or to seek to be saved.

Luther actually believed in a form of Predestination in which a person *cannot* pursue God apart  from God's grace. In a sense that goes without saying. Everything we do requires God's grace.

But that isn't the way Luther meant it. He meant that we cannot as unbelievers seek Christian salvation apart from God's preemptive revelation and goading. We need to be convicted and pressed, even against our carnal wishes.

Some of this is like hair-splitting because yes, Christ is involved in *everything we do!* But non-Christians can indeed pursue Christian salvation, and do so. And non-Christians do pursue unselfish good deeds without having to be Christians. That is the point I wish to make here.

[Athanasius]

Yes, I saw where you were going with that. It's like a truism--a perfect Man cannot be anything but a perfect Man--otherwise, he ceases to be a Man. However, I see a Man that sins as a "flawed Man," who has become something different. He remains a Man, but now an "imperfect Man." The sin nature now embedded in him taints his heart, his will, his desires. He tends towards rebellion against God's word.

I speak from experience. I always have to fight against the propensity to do my own thing. I have pride, and resist someone telling me to do things their way. That's why I get into arguments with my wife--we both want our own way!

I'm saying that humanity wasn't created with qualitative perfection. You have your idea of a "flawed Man", where I offer a humanity that exists outside of the relationships we were intended to exist within, and this has had a supremely disordering effect in no small part because it's removed us from the very things that act to ground our existence. So, there is still no 'sin nature' as some ontic reality as the result of the fall. Nor is there a need for one to explain the sin, evil and depravity of humanity. Adam and Eve presumably had no such nature prior to their first sin - or at least, they weren't corrupted by - yet they sinned all the same.

It's an ordering and explanatory issue:

- Adam and Eve sin
- Human nature is corrupted

But Adam and Eve sinned. I think what we've received in Augustine is this idea that the whole of humanity was re-oriented as a result of Adam and Eve's sin, and this idea requires the transmission of a sin nature (through sex, of course, which Augustine ruined for a great many people). But it doesn't explain the first sin, and the hesitancy of Augustine to suggest anything else wasn't entirely divorced from his going against Pelagius.

All true. I, however, don't think much about rehashing formulas unless that actually make sense to me and prove true in my own experience. Historically, Scholasticism became dead wood in the late Middle Ages. And in the Protestant World, each Protestant group seemed to have to come up with a creed of their own. We should be able to agree on some essentials, but there's always going to be something added.

I've worked out my own understanding of the Trinity, and I've tried to work out my beliefs on virtually all of the important theological issues. I hold to "Imperfect Man" simply because it's true to life for me. Man has not lost what makes him "Man." But he doesn't have to be "Perfect Man" to be "Man," in my view. There does seem to be something that poisoned his spirit, rendering him oriented towards rebellion, and yet capable of rectifying this to some degree.

I'm not sure the Bible describes anything more than the fact that Man is indeed flawed. And Israel's worship under the Law required all men to be covered by sacrifices and blood, regardless of what good or bad they had done. This was, I think, an assumption of a flawed *Nature.*

I think we're all informed by our experience. But, I'm saying that humanity is imperfect by virtue of our creation and not because of corruption so that last bit would fit within that.

What are your thoughts, then, on Adam and Eve's sin prior to the fall?