|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2008 21:24:56 GMT -5
Most of us have doctrines that we believe in that fall into two categories. And most on this message board have some kind of opinion on Original Sin. Do you believe that the doctrine of Original Sin is an "Essential" doctrine? In other words, if someone didn't believe in it, would you consider them a heretic or outside of orthodoxy? VOTE ABOVE
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 7, 2008 22:48:57 GMT -5
Oh yeah, and explain why WITH SCRIPTURES...for that is ALL that matters
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2008 11:37:12 GMT -5
It can't be an essential doctrine for "orthodoxy" because so much of the Early Church never taught it.
It's only an "essential" to Calvinism, because that is the premise of Calvinism. Without original sin, or total depravity, all of Calvinism falls apart.
And if it is an essential, why don't we ever see Jesus teaching it?
Augustine's doctrine of "original sin" is semi-Gnosticism, certainly not an essential.
If a person says that Jesus didn't come in the flesh, the Apostle said that they are an antichrist.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 8, 2008 13:29:47 GMT -5
Wow...three people have said yes, but not one has offered an explanation. It is probably just people sneaking over to here from the Fishin Fools message board. One of the problems that I see is in the defining of "Orthodox." Too many people think that the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Synod of Dort define what is Orthodox and what isn't. Or people will define "Orthodox" by what the majority of the visible Church believes. Both of those definitions of "Orthodox" beg the question. If were were to go by the writings of men, common sense should tell us that we should go back to as close to the Apostles as is possible. And if we did that, we would find, as Jesse stated, that the ECFs did NOT believe in this doctrine at all. BUT, I don't even think that is the standard that we should be using. I think that we should be using the Bible. Come let us reason together brethren and see that the doctrine of Original Sin is NOT even Biblical, let alone "Essential" or "Orthodox." If I were to categorize it at all, I would call it HERETICAL...
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 8, 2008 14:12:18 GMT -5
Wow...three people have said yes, but not one has offered an explanation. It is probably just people sneaking over to here from the Fishin Fools message board. One of the problems that I see is in the defining of "Orthodox." Too many people think that the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Synod of Dort define what is Orthodox and what isn't. Or people will define "Orthodox" by what the majority of the visible Church believes. Both of those definitions of "Orthodox" beg the question. If were were to go by the writings of men, common sense should tell us that we should go back to as close to the Apostles as is possible. And if we did that, we would find, as Jesse stated, that the ECFs did NOT believe in this doctrine at all. BUT, I don't even think that is the standard that we should be using. I think that we should be using the Bible. Come let us reason together brethren and see that the doctrine of Original Sin is NOT even Biblical, let alone "Essential" or "Orthodox." If I were to categorize it at all, I would call it HERETICAL... I haven't voted, but do you consider Tertullian to be an ECF? Chapter XLI.— Notwithstanding the Depravity of Man’s Soul by Original Sin, There is Yet Left a Basis Whereon Divine Grace Can Work for Its Recovery by Spiritual Regeneration.There is, then, besides the evil which supervenes on the soul from the intervention of the evil spirit, an antecedent, and in a certain sense natural, evil which arises from its corrupt origin. For, as we have said before, the corruption of our nature is another nature having a god and father of its own, namely the author of (that) corruption. Still there is a portion of good in the soul, of that original, divine, and genuine good, which is its proper nature. For that which is derived from God is rather obscured than extinguished. It can be obscured, indeed, because it is not God; extinguished, however, it cannot be, because it comes from God. As therefore light, when intercepted by an opaque body, still remains, although it is not apparent, by reason of the interposition of so dense a body; so likewise the good in the soul, being weighed down by the evil, is, owing to the obscuring character thereof, either not seen at all, its light being wholly hidden, or else only a stray beam is there visible where it struggles through by an accidental outlet. Thus some men are very bad, and some very good; but yet the souls of all form but one genus: even in the worst there is something good, and in the best 221there is something bad. For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God. Thus the divinity of the soul bursts forth in prophetic forecasts in consequence of its primeval good; and being conscious of its origin, it bears testimony to God (its author) in exclamations such as: Good God! God knows! and Good-bye! Just as no soul is without sin, so neither is any soul without seeds of good. Therefore, when the soul embraces the faith, being renewed in its second birth by water and the power from above, then the veil of its former corruption being taken away, it beholds the light in all its brightness. It is also taken up (in its second birth) by the Holy Spirit, just as in its first birth it is embraced by the unholy spirit. The flesh follows the soul now wedded to the Spirit, as a part of the bridal portion—no longer the servant of the soul, but of the Spirit. O happy marriage, if in it there is committed no violation of the nuptial vow! www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.xi.xli.html
|
|
|
Post by pete777 on Apr 8, 2008 14:32:11 GMT -5
Brothers,
ORIGINAL SIN is a concept brought into quasi-christianity by the ROman Catholic Church! It is false because we are born as eternal salves of sin. It is not just the fact that we are responsible for Adam's sin! That being the case we can never be forgiven, if Adam did not repent of that sin! Do you see the logic!
Not only that, the doctrine teaches we are perpetual salves to sin! A licence to live in sin! THerefore, we need a doctrinal teaching or "ANOTHER GOSPEL," that allows us to live in sin and still be saved. Note the two point deception of the Catholic Church! The Papacy teaches that since we are born perpetual sinners, we need a saviour that was not completely man, but had the unfallen nature of ADAM, in order to save us. THey teach that since Jesus was not really like us, He is not our only mediator. Therefore, we need earthly mediators (wicked Roman Catholic priest system) to fill in the gap of where Jesus came short of being a man like us!
THis heresy get me upset every time I expose it! It is so blasphemous! THe doctrine of original sin states we will never reach perfection in the flesh, so why try. DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW! Live in sin and have a good time, and come to the confessional and tell all to the "papa" and he will forgive you of you "no-no's." Then go and do it all over again and it just does not matter. That is why the priests rape little boys and are immoral to the core! Sin with them is no big deal! Just do it and come and say some rosery beads and pray at the stations of the cross, and go do it again! And Again! And Again! And again! Right up until Jesus comes!
This is the system of ANTICHRIST! It is the Babylonian system of iniquity! It is the MYSTERY OF INIQUITY! THat is why the Catholic Church says it can change the law of God and why most protestants follow that changed law! It does not matter when you have the attitude that God has to obey you! That is wickedness! The Biblical definition of blasphemy is a man that claims to forgive sins! Jesus was God and a man, therefore, He could forgive sins! The Jews did not know this, that Jesus was not just a man, but GOD ALMIGHTY! They accused him of blasphemy, because only GOD can forgive sins! So therefore, the Pope is committing blasphemy because he claims to forgive sins!
Mark 2:7-10
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) KJV.
If you believe in original sin, and you follow where the doctrine leads, then you are following the Papal system of error, and will in the end believe that it is okay to live in known sin, and then you will need a doctrine that can allow you to enjoy your sin for a season. You will then be forced back into the Catholic net, and into the confessional, to sin, repent, sin repent, sin repent, sin repent, sin repent, but never have victory! You will need a Saviour that did not have the same flesh as us, and you will need a earthly priest to make intercession for you. And then you will need Mary, because she is (blasphemously called) the MOTHER OF GOD! She will mediate for you! Even though she is dead in the grave, you will need to believe the lie of Satan in the garden of Eden that says you do not die but live on! Thus, you can pray to the dead and they will help you out! But the dead are as GOd said, they are dead! And when you get a visit from a dead loved one (not knowing it is a demon) that looks and talks just like you old pappy, or grammy, you will believe an extra-biblical source and in the end fall inline with the Papal system of iniquity!
ORIGINAL SIN IS JUST THAT THE ORIGINAL LIE THAT SATAN TOLD EVE! You can live in sin and be just fine! YOu will not die either! Just believe the lie of Satan and all is yours, sin sin sin sin sin sins sin sins!
Pete
|
|
|
Post by pete777 on Apr 8, 2008 14:38:57 GMT -5
Original sin is a Roman Catholic false doctrine!
Pete
|
|
truth2liberty
Junior Member
?God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.?
Posts: 65
|
Post by truth2liberty on Apr 8, 2008 14:42:19 GMT -5
Jonathan Edwards thought the doctrine of original sin was important, and so he said in his preface to his book on the doctrine. "I look on the doctrine as of great importance; which everybody will doubtless own it is, if it be true. For, if the case be such indeed, that all mankind are by nature in a state of total ruin, both with respect to the moral evil they are subjects of, and the afflictive evil they are exposed t, the one as the consequence and punishment of the other, then doubtless the great salvation by Christ stands in direct relation to this ruin, as the remedy to the disease; and the whole gospel or doctrine of salvation, must suppose it; and all real belief, or true notion of that gospel, must be built upon it. Therefore, as I think the doctrine is most certainly both true and important, I hope, my attempting a vindication of it, will be candidly interpreted, and that what I have done towards its defense, will be impartially considered, by all that will give themselves the trouble to read the ensuing discourse." (pg 103 in the Yale ed.) Note how Edwards argues the doctrine’s importance here; it is in its connection to the gospel. To abandon the doctrine of original sin, he argues, would necessarily result in a parallel abandonment of the doctrine of the cross. The Great Christian Doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN Defended; Evidences of it's Truth produced, And Arguments to the Contrary answered By Jonathan Edwards www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/jonathanedwards/original_sin.shtml
|
|
truth2liberty
Junior Member
?God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.?
Posts: 65
|
Post by truth2liberty on Apr 8, 2008 14:50:44 GMT -5
G. K. Chesterton once noted that "Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved," (Orthodoxy, chap. 2). He saw original sin as the one Christian doctrine that is empirically verifiable and validated by 3500 years of human history.
|
|
truth2liberty
Junior Member
?God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.?
Posts: 65
|
Post by truth2liberty on Apr 8, 2008 15:10:17 GMT -5
I will state Boldly to ALL Pelagian pit vipers, "Only Jesus Christ was born without sin!"
|
|
truth2liberty
Junior Member
?God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.?
Posts: 65
|
Post by truth2liberty on Apr 8, 2008 15:21:46 GMT -5
Pelagianism in its pure form was first articulated by the man for whom it is named, a fourth century British monk. Pelagius engaged in a fierce debate with St. Augustine, a debate provoked by Pelagius' reaction to Augustine's prayer: "Command what thou will, and grant what thou dost command." Pelagius insisted that moral obligation necessarily implies moral ability. If God requires men to live perfect lives then men must have the ability to live perfect lives. This led Pelagius to his wholesale denial of original sin. He insisted that Adam's fall affected Adam alone; there is no such thing as an inherited fallen nature that afflicts humanity. He further claimed grace is not necessary for salvation; that man is able to be saved by his works apart from the assistance of grace. Grace may facilitate obedience, but it is not a necessary condition for it.
Augustine triumphed in his struggle with Pelagius whose views were consequently condemned by the church. In condemning Pelagianism as heresy the church strongly affirmed the doctrine of original sin. In Augustine's view this entailed the notion that though fallen man still has a free will in the sense that he retains the faculty of choosing, the will is fallen and enslaved by sin to such an extent that man does not have moral liberty. He cannot not sin.
R.C. Sproul
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2008 15:25:59 GMT -5
DID JESUS HAVE ORIGINAL SIN?
Some have suggested that Christ was born of a virgin to avoid the reception of “original sin.” To them, sin is not a choice to transgress known Law (Jas. 4:17; 1 Jn. 3:4), sin is some abstract entity which lodges itself behind a person’s will, so that the will is necessitated to commit what they call “actual sin.” They reason that since Christ did not commit any actual sins, Christ must not have any original sin inside of Him, and that must be because He was born of a virgin.
However, scripture nowhere states that the reason of His virgin birth was to avoid inheriting original sin. This again is prejudicial conjecture, a “connecting the dots” out of bias. Rather, the bible says Christ was born of a virgin as a sign (Isa. 7:14), and simply because God was His Father. It was not because some sort of sin stuff was hereditary, in the blood or in any other inherited part.
The lusts of the flesh that we inherit are temptations (James 1:14) but they are not sin themselves. Eve herself was tempted by her flesh (Gen. 3:6). But these passions are not a sin or are sinful. Rather, these lusts tempt us to sin and tempt us to become sinful. (James 1:15) All sin is of the heart or of the will (Matt. 15:19) but temptation is of the flesh or lusts (Rom. 7:13, Jas. 1:14).
The same God who formed Christ in the womb also formed each individual in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Isa. 49:5; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 139:13-14; Ecc. 7:29). Scripture says that Christ was made human, partook of the same flesh and blood that we have (Heb. 2:14), and was made in all points like we are made (Heb. 2:17), so He was tempted in all points like we are (Heb. 2:15). The same lusts that we inherit that tempt us to sin Christ Himself received and so He was tempted to sin. (Matt. 4:1-11) Christ received the same type of body as those who use their bodies for sin, yet Christ condemned using the body for sin by not sinning (Rom. 8:3). There is nothing sinful in and of itself in the human body, it is simply an “instrument” that can be used by free will (yielded) as an “instrument of righteousness” or as an “instrument of unrighteousness” (Rom. 6:13).
Because the Gnostic's said that the flesh was sinful and not an instrument that could be used either way, they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. So anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is an Antichrist (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7).
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2008 15:27:20 GMT -5
IS ORIGINAL SIN EVEN BIBLICAL?
GOD, MAN, AND NATURE
God is the author of our nature, that is, God is the author of our constitution (Isa. 49:5; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 139:13-14; Ecc. 7:29), so He forms each of us in the womb in His image (Gen. 1:26-27, 9:6, Jas 3:9). Therefore we are all created with a free will and a conscience like God has. Since God created us capable of moral action, capable of forming moral character, we are subjects of His Moral Government, designed to be governed by Him.
The word nature can be used to describe a man’s God given constitution (Rom 1:26, 1:31, 2:14, 2:27; 2 Tim 3:3) or the word nature can mean a man’s chosen character, custom, habit, or manner of life (Jer. 13:23; Acts 26:4; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2-3; Gal 2:15; 2 Tim 3:10; 2 Pet 1:4).
While God is the author of our metaphysical constitution, each man is the author or self-originator of their moral character (Ecc. 7:29; Matt. 12:34-35, 15:19; Mk. 7:21-22; Lk. 6:45). Men deliberately choose to be sinners (Gen. 6:12, Exo. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9, Ps. 14:2-3, Isa. 53:6, Ecc. 7:29 Zep. 3:7, Rom. 3:23) so they are responsible and accountable for being sinners, since it is their own fault, it is their own free will choice to sin
ORIGINAL SIN vs. FULL COUNSEL OF GOD'S WORD
1. Children do not inherit the guilt or sin of the parent: Deut. 24:16,2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Jer. 31:29-30, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20
2. Sinners are separated from God for their own sin: Isa. 59:2; Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; Rom. 7:9, Col. 2:13
3. Responsibility is limited to or exactly proportionate to ability: Deut. 6:5, Deut. 10:12, Deut. 30:6, Matt. 22:37, Mk. 12:30, Lk. 10:27, 1 Cor. 10:13
4. Accountability is limited to or exactly proportionate to knowledge: Matt. 11:21-22, Lk. 12:47-48, Lk. 23:34, Jn. 9:41, Jn. 15:22, Rom. 4:15, Rom. 5:13, Jas. 4:17, Jn. 19:11, Matt. 23:14, Mk.12:40, Lk. 20:47, Jas. 3:1, Matt. 10:15, Matt. 11:24, Mk. 6:11, Lk. 10:12, Lk. 10:14, Heb. 10:26, 2 Pet. 2:21
5. Through Adams leading, influence, and example men choose to become sinners: Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:19
6. Someone’s leading, influence, or example can cause others to choose to sin: 1 Kng. 14:16; 15:26, 30, 34; 16:13, 26; 21:22; 22:52; 2 Kng. 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 21:11, 16; 23:15, Neh. 13:26, Jer. 32:35, Isa. 3:12, Matt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Lk. 17:2, 1 Cor. 8:9, Heb. 4:11
7. Sinners are accountable for their own sin alone: Deut. 24:16, 2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20, Matt. 16:27, 2 Cor. 5:10, 2 Cor. 11:15, 1 Pet. 1:17, Rev. 22:12 8. Men are not born dead in sins, they become dead in sins [“dead in sin” means morally depraved and relationally separated from God] when they voluntarily choose to sin: Isa. 59:2, Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:14, Rom. 7:9, Rom. 7:11, Col. 2:13.
9. All men have voluntarily chosen to become sinners: Gen. 6:12, Ex. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9, Ps. 14:2-3, Isa. 53:6, Ecc. 7:29, Rom. 3:23. Each individual originates their own sin: Matt. 12:35, Lk. 6:45
10. Infant children are morally innocent (2 Kng. 21:16; 24:4; Joel 3:19) and have not yet “done anything” morally “good or evil” (Rom. 9:11) until the age of accountability, which is the age of reason, when they know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), and choose to do wrong (Jas. 4:17).
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2008 15:28:23 GMT -5
WHAT ABOUT THE FEW SCRIPTURES THAT ARE USED TO "PROVE" THIS DOCTRINE?[/u]
Exo. 20:5 is used to prove original sin. But this says the iniquities of the parent is visited upon the children only until the third and forth generation. It then stops. This cannot be talking about punishment or accountability, since the Bible elsewhere says children do not bear the sin of their parent (Deut. 24:16, 2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Jer. 31:29-30, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20). And hermeneutics says that one unclear passage cannot contradict multiple clear passages. What does Exo. 20:5 mean then? It would seem to me that it's talking about how the sins of the parent will effect their offspring, up to three or four generations, so that alcoholism (etc) may run in the family. But it doesn't last to all generations.
Ps. 51:5 is used to prove original sin. But this is eisegesis and not exegesis. If we are to use exegesis, we can only conclude that David's mother conceived David in sin, she conceived him in some sort of sin. It could have been adultery, which would explain why David was the embarrassment of the family. Using exegetics, this scripture is only talking about David and his mother and not Adam and all mankind.
Ps. 58:3 is used to prove original sin. But this is a poet Psalm. And Psalms use hyperbole and exaggeration's. This passage is clearly that, since it says that children go forth speaking lies after they are born. This is poetic and not literal, since children cannot speak or talk immediately after birth. The poetic meaning of this passage seems clear, the first sin children usually learn is lying.
Isa. 48:8 is talking about Israel, not any individual. And it says that they were called a sinner from the womb, not that they were a sinner from the womb. (Use good hermeneutics and exegesis). I could call them righteous from the womb but that doesn't mean that they are. Calling something as something, and it actually being something, are very different.
Job 25:4 is Bildad speaking, not God or Job. Remember, Job's friends were wrong on a lot of things they were saying. Taking Bildads words as inspired would be like taken Satan's words as inspired just because his words are recorded in Genesis. Remember, Job was a perfect man Job 1:1, even God said so Job 1:8. And Job answered his friend Bildad in chapter 26 and said that Bildad was wrong. If sinners gave birth to sinners, then Christians give birth to Christians, the righteous give birth to righteous children. But good and evil are voluntary choices. While our fallen body is hereditary, sin is moral not physical.
Rom. 5:12-21 is used to prove original sin. But this passage of scripture says that all are spiritually dead because all have sinned (vs. 12) and that their specific sin is different from the sin of Adam (vs. 14). But because of Adam's transgression, we have all become sinners, because Adam's sin has provided the occasion of our sin, but not the cause of our sin. Sin is not propagated through imputation (Deut. 24:16,2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Jer. 31:29-30, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20). The Bible says sin is propagated through imitation (1 Kng. 14:16; 15:26, 30, 34; 16:13, 26; 21:22; 22:52; 2 Kng. 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 21:11, 16; 23:15, Neh. 13:26, Jer. 32:35, Isa. 3:12, Matt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Lk. 17:2, Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:14, Rom. 5:19, 1 Cor. 8:9, Heb. 4:11).
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2008 15:29:28 GMT -5
It seems to me that in order to believe in original sin, you have to believe in a semi-Deism and a Semi-Gnosticism.
Semi-Deism: Deism says that God is distant, not active in the present Creation, that God created the world and then left it on it's own. Original sin says that God made Adam good, but that God is not actively creating individuals anymore, then we inherit original sin through "natural generation" from Adam. But if we understand that God is the one forming each individual in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Isa. 27:11, 43:7, 49:5; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 31:15, 35:10), and didn't just create Adam, then we'd have to say that God creates us sinners if we believe in original sin.
Semi-Gnosticism: Gnosticism said that the Old Testament god created us with a sinful nature that was incapable of anything good. Gnosticism denied that we had a free will and said that sin was physical instead of a choice. Original sin says that because of Adam, God took away our free will and God replaced it with a sinful nature incapable of any good. And original sin (as taught by Augustine) said that our nature is itself sinful, so sin is not a choice but sin is a substance.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2008 15:31:50 GMT -5
DOES MORAL OBLIGATION SURPASS MORAL ABILITY?
Within the Moral Government of God, all men are held accountable according to their knowledge, no more or less (Matt. 10:15, Matt. 11:21-22, Matt. 11:24, Matt. 23:14, Mk. 6:11, Mk. 12:40, Lk. 10:12, Lk. 10:14, Lk. 12:47-48, Lk. 20:47, Lk. 23:34, Jn. 9:41, Jn. 15:22, Jn. 19:11, Rom. 1:18-20, Rom. 4:15, Rom. 5:13, Jas. 4:17, Jas. 3:1, Heb. 10:26, 2 Pet. 2:21). And God has given light to every man, so all men have moral knowledge (Jn. 1:9; Acts 17:30; Rom. 1:18-21, 2:14-15; Titus 2:11-12), after they reach the age of accountability when they know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16; Jas. 4:17), so that all men are accountable and without excuse since they have moral knowledge (Jn. 9:41, 15:22; Rom. 1:18-21, 2:14-15).
And the extent of man’s moral obligation is the extent of man’s moral ability, no more or less (Deut. 6:5, Deut. 10:12, Deut. 30:6, Matt. 22:37, Mk. 12:30, Lk. 10:27, 1 Cor. 10:13). However large or small your ability is, you must love God with all of it. So God’s Laws are not impossible (Job 34:23; Matt. 11:30; 1 Cor. 10:13; 1 Jn. 5:3) but are reasonable, just, holy and good (Rom. 7:12, 7:16; 1 Tim. 1:8). God appeals to the free will or natural ability of sinners (the grace of creation), calling them to not sin or to turn themselves from their sin (Gen. 4:6-7, Deut. 30:19, Josh. 24:15, Isa. 1:16-20, Isa. 55:6-7, Hos. 10:12, Jer. 21:8, Eze. 18:30-32, Jer. 18:11, Jer. 26:13; Eze. 20:7-8; Acts 2:40, Acts 17:30, Rom. 6:17, 2 Cor. 7:1, 2 Tim. 2:21, Jas. 4:7-10, 1 Pet. 1:22, Rev. 22:17). So God calls all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30-31) and God rightly blames them if they do not repent (Matt. 11:20, Matt. 23:37, Mk. 6:6, Lk. 7:30, 13:34, 14:17-18, 19:14, 19:27, Jn. 5:40, Rev. 2:21). The only thing that keeps men back from God is their own unwillingness, not any inability (Eze. 20:7-8; Matt. 11:20-21, Matt. 23:37, Mk. 6:6, 7:30, 13:34, 14:17-18, 19:14, 19:27, Jn. 5:40, Rev. 2:21).
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 8, 2008 17:20:52 GMT -5
truth2liberty...you have just proved my point even more! You have quoted no Scriptures, only what men have said about it. Original Sin is the Doctrine of Men...NOT God. And, uh oh, he used the "P" Word. The Pelagian Boogie Man is out of the closet. I guess you have won now, huh? ;D In all serious now, let's look at some of the things you have said: This is fallacious reasoning. People don't need Jesus because they were forced to sin by some sin stuff inside of them or because of something their great-great-great granpappy did. They need Jesus because of their own Willful Rebellion to God! By the way, I like how selective you are in your quotes. You quoted from three 5 Point Calvinists. I wonder why they believe in it. If they didn't, their whole system would fall apart. Oooh! That's a new one. "Pelagian Pit Viper"? Haha, Jesse, have you ever this one before? I guess I still like it better then Augustinian Semi-Gnostic. ;D Anyway, just a little fun. I don't mean that in a mean way and I hope you didn't either. If you did, then that was just down right rude. I would agree with you that Jesus had no sin. But the question I have for you then is what do you do with these Scriptures (for that is all that matters...not the quotes of men): • Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” • Hebrews 2:14 says, “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.” • Hebrews 2:17-18 says, “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.” • 2 John 7 says, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” I look forward to your answers...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 8, 2008 17:27:05 GMT -5
Pelagius engaged in a fierce debate with St. Augustine, a debate provoked by Pelagius' reaction to Augustine's prayer: "Command what thou will, and grant what thou dost command." Pelagius insisted that moral obligation necessarily implies moral ability. If God requires men to live perfect lives then men must have the ability to live perfect lives. This led Pelagius to his wholesale denial of original sin. He insisted that Adam's fall affected Adam alone; there is no such thing as an inherited fallen nature that afflicts humanity. He further claimed grace is not necessary for salvation; that man is able to be saved by his works apart from the assistance of grace. Grace may facilitate obedience, but it is not a necessary condition for it. Augustine triumphed in his struggle with Pelagius whose views were consequently condemned by the church. In condemning Pelagianism as heresy the church strongly affirmed the doctrine of original sin. In Augustine's view this entailed the notion that though fallen man still has a free will in the sense that he retains the faculty of choosing, the will is fallen and enslaved by sin to such an extent that man does not have moral liberty. He cannot not sin. R.C. Sproul I hope that you realize that much of what R.C. Sproul says here is a LIE. I admonish you to check out what Pelagius believed from the "horse's mouth": libraryoftheology.com/pelagianismwritings.html
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 8, 2008 17:32:15 GMT -5
Wow...three people have said yes, but not one has offered an explanation. It is probably just people sneaking over to here from the Fishin Fools message board. One of the problems that I see is in the defining of "Orthodox." Too many people think that the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Synod of Dort define what is Orthodox and what isn't. Or people will define "Orthodox" by what the majority of the visible Church believes. Both of those definitions of "Orthodox" beg the question. If were were to go by the writings of men, common sense should tell us that we should go back to as close to the Apostles as is possible. And if we did that, we would find, as Jesse stated, that the ECFs did NOT believe in this doctrine at all. BUT, I don't even think that is the standard that we should be using. I think that we should be using the Bible. Come let us reason together brethren and see that the doctrine of Original Sin is NOT even Biblical, let alone "Essential" or "Orthodox." If I were to categorize it at all, I would call it HERETICAL... I haven't voted, but do you consider Tertullian to be an ECF? Chapter XLI.— Notwithstanding the Depravity of Man’s Soul by Original Sin, There is Yet Left a Basis Whereon Divine Grace Can Work for Its Recovery by Spiritual Regeneration.There is, then, besides the evil which supervenes on the soul from the intervention of the evil spirit, an antecedent, and in a certain sense natural, evil which arises from its corrupt origin. For, as we have said before, the corruption of our nature is another nature having a god and father of its own, namely the author of (that) corruption. Still there is a portion of good in the soul, of that original, divine, and genuine good, which is its proper nature. For that which is derived from God is rather obscured than extinguished. It can be obscured, indeed, because it is not God; extinguished, however, it cannot be, because it comes from God. As therefore light, when intercepted by an opaque body, still remains, although it is not apparent, by reason of the interposition of so dense a body; so likewise the good in the soul, being weighed down by the evil, is, owing to the obscuring character thereof, either not seen at all, its light being wholly hidden, or else only a stray beam is there visible where it struggles through by an accidental outlet. Thus some men are very bad, and some very good; but yet the souls of all form but one genus: even in the worst there is something good, and in the best 221there is something bad. For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God. Thus the divinity of the soul bursts forth in prophetic forecasts in consequence of its primeval good; and being conscious of its origin, it bears testimony to God (its author) in exclamations such as: Good God! God knows! and Good-bye! Just as no soul is without sin, so neither is any soul without seeds of good. Therefore, when the soul embraces the faith, being renewed in its second birth by water and the power from above, then the veil of its former corruption being taken away, it beholds the light in all its brightness. It is also taken up (in its second birth) by the Holy Spirit, just as in its first birth it is embraced by the unholy spirit. The flesh follows the soul now wedded to the Spirit, as a part of the bridal portion—no longer the servant of the soul, but of the Spirit. O happy marriage, if in it there is committed no violation of the nuptial vow! www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.xi.xli.htmlHey Josh. Yeah, I would definitely consider Tertullian to be an ECF. He seems to be talking more about the concept of a corrupt "flesh" instead of a "sinful nature." That there is something within man that tempts him to sin not makes him sin. This I would agree with. Either way, though, as I said in my original post...let's go to Scripture...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2008 18:14:45 GMT -5
Original sin needs to be defined. Whenever a doctrine is going to be discussed, it must first be defined.
WHAT ORIGINAL SIN IS NOT:
- It is not that we inherit a fallen body from Adam that tempts us, biases us, or inclines us to sin. This is true, that we have a fallen body because of Adam, but this is not the doctrine of original sin.
WHAT ORIGINAL SIN IS:
- That you are accountable for Adam's sin. Babies deserve hell for Adam's sin. That Adam's sin was your own sin because you were in Adam's loins, because you were his semen.
- That you inherit a substance that is sinful (a sinful nature) which is a sin itself. The lusts of the flesh are not merely temptations, but are sins themselves, and you deserve hell for inherited these lusts of the flesh.
VOTING:
Now that original sin has been defined and clarified, please place your vote.
|
|