|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 2, 2008 10:10:43 GMT -5
If original sin is true:
- Sin is not the fault of each individual sinner
- If sin is not the fault of the sinner, the sinner does not deserve hell
- If the sinner does not deserve hell, the sinner does not need the atonement of Jesus Christ
Deliberate criminals need forgiveness through a blood atonement, but disabled cripples do not need pardon at all. A sinner needs pardon for his sin because his sin is his own fault.
|
|
|
Post by Evan Schaible on Sept 2, 2008 19:55:10 GMT -5
Jesse,
I do not want to engage to much in a debate concerning these thins, but I trust that we can both keep the discussion lowly and appropriate.
Let me examine your points if I may.
1. If original sin is true than sin is not the fault of each individual sinner.
This would only be true if original sin were the cause of sin, as some Augustinians have purported. So I would be forced, as a Calvinist or Augustinian to concede this point. However, that argument only holds true to the false interpretation of the doctrine of original sin. The doctrine does not mean an inability, else it would corrupt God as well as the sinner because God would be sending men to hell for something they could only but do. This I admit is utterly rediculous.
However what if I were to say that a man can overcome the inward propensity towards sin? This therefore would nullify that first point as if a man cannot overcome the propensity to sin than cannot be held accountable.
2. AMEN.
3. AMEN.
But could you rebut my examination of your first point. If your first premise is wrong than the syllogism kind of falls apart. So maybe you could examine the scriptural doctrine of original sin as well as the false understanding of Calvin, Augustine, and Luther.
Thanks Brother.
- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 2, 2008 22:09:06 GMT -5
If we inherit temptation that influences us to sin, but does not force us to sin, then sin is still our fault because it is still our choice.
But if we inherit sin, and this sin causes us to sin, then sin is not our fault is it our misfortune.
Sin is a choice. It cannot be inherited. But a corrupted flesh can be inherited. This corrupted flesh is not sin, this corrupted flesh is temptation. We do not have to obey it, that is our free will choice.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Sept 2, 2008 23:33:21 GMT -5
If original sin is true: - Sin is not the fault of each individual sinner - If sin is not the fault of the sinner, the sinner does not deserve hell - If the sinner does not deserve hell, the sinner does not need the atonement of Jesus Christ Deliberate criminals need forgiveness through a blood atonement, but disabled cripples do not need pardon at all. A sinner needs pardon for his sin because his sin is his own fault. I am curious. What is your working definition of "original sin"? You have been very clear in your viewpoint that because of Adam’s fall, all of his descendants inherit physical depravity which inclines them, influences them, and tempts them to sin. Do you believe that, as part of our human natures, we inherit anything else, aside from physical flesh?
|
|
|
Post by Evan Schaible on Sept 3, 2008 4:22:46 GMT -5
If we inherit temptation that influences us to sin, but does not force us to sin, then sin is still our fault because it is still our choice. But if we inherit sin, and this sin causes us to sin, then sin is not our fault is it our misfortune. Sin is a choice. It cannot be inherited. But a corrupted flesh can be inherited. This corrupted flesh is not sin, this corrupted flesh is temptation. We do not have to obey it, that is our free will choice. This is quite agreeable. I do however hold that when scripture talks about the flesh in the context of our discussion it is not speaking of physical skin (that is Gnostic teaching), but rather a spiritual and moral propensity toward sin that does not cause us to sin, but severely aggravates and biases our choice regarding actual sin. This is not God given, but rather the corporate result of the fall and Adam's transgression. It does not necessitate sin, but simply gives an un-sanctified man a great deal of problems when trying to resist temptation. This again is spiritual and moral, not the actual and physical skin. I thank that Lord for sanctification that eradicates this filthy old nature and replaces it with a new nature. Praise the Lord. - Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 7:57:30 GMT -5
If man is born, without the ability to obey the moral law, then man is not at fault for his disobedience. If God should require me to fly to mars by flapping my arms, but I am not able to do this, it is not my fault because I do not have the ability to do it.
All men are born with a free will and are therefore born with the ability to obey God. God's law is not impossible, God is not a tyrant. Sinners deserve hell for disobeying God when it was in their power to obey Him.
Disobedience is not misfortune. Disobedience is misconduct.
Sinners are not disabled cripples, sinners are deliberate criminals.
Sinners are at fault for their sin because their sin is their own free choice. They are sinners by choice:
“And God looked upon the earth and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” Gen. 6:12
“…they have corrupted themselves” Exo. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9
“The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no not one.” Ps. 14:2-3
“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way…” Isa. 53:6 “God hath made man upright: but they have sought out many inventions.” Ecc. 7:29
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 8:09:37 GMT -5
Here is a video where I preached about how human nature condemns sin and rejects sin, but sinners corrupt themselves and choose it anyways. I explain how sin is a misuse or abuse of human nature.
SINNERS ABUSE HUMAN NATURE
PLEASE IGNORE THE GOOGLE ADD NEXT TO THE VIDEO
===========================
Consider also these points from an outline I made:
III. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HUMAN NATURE (Rom. 1:26; 1:31; 1 Cor. 6:9; 2 Tim. 3:3; Jude 1:7):
“Those who are unwilling to correct their own way of life appear to want to correct nature itself instead.” Pelagius (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 39, published by The Boydell Press).
“Obedience [and disobedience] results from a decision of the mind, not the substance of the body.” Pelagius (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 90, published by The Boydell Press)
1. God is the author of our metaphysical nature (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 95:6; 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:8-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3).
-----A. Our metaphysical nature is fallen (physical depravity) but not sinful (moral depravity).
-----------(1.) God creates some with physical depravities and deformities (Ex. 4:11). But it is not sinful to be born blind, deaf, or lame. This is physical, not moral depravity.
-----------(2.) God has subjected human nature to physical death (Gen. 3:22-24; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). Being subjected to death is a physical depravity, not a moral depravity. Infants, animals, and even Jesus Christ were subjected to physical death, yet these are sinless.
-----------(3.) Physical depravity is hereditary (Gen. 1:21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 38-39; Heb. 2:14) but moral depravity is not hereditary (Deut. 24:16; 2 Kng. 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4; Eze. 18:2-4, 19-20; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6, 8-9; 9:11; 2 Cor. 5:10; 11:15; Jas. 4:17; Rev. 22:12). Moral depravity is developed by moral choices.
-----------(4.) Infants may be born “drug babies”, that is, their bodies have an unnatural craving for drugs. The infant inherits temptation, not sin. It is a blemish upon his metaphysical constitution, but not a blemish upon his moral character.
-----------(5.) The body in and of itself is amoral. It is good or bad depending on how free will decide to use it (Rom. 6:13, 19; 12:1; 1 Thes. 4:4, 5:23; 1 Tim. 2:8). Flesh, blood, bones, skin, are all amoral just like rocks, sticks, dirt, etc are. In fact, God made us out of the dirt (Gen. 2:7). Our bodies are only as sinful as dirt is sinful, and dirt is not sinful. You could use a rock in an evil way, but the rock itself is not evil. You could use your body in an evil way, but your body itself is not sinful. Sin is not physical. Sin is a choice of the heart.
-----------(6.) Jesus had the same flesh and blood that we have (Rom. 8:3 with Php. 2:7-8; Heb. 2:14, 16-18 with 4:15; Rom. 1:3 with 2 Tim. 2:8).
-----------(7.) The Gnostic heretics denied Jesus came in the flesh (1 Jn. 4:3; 2 Jn. 1:7) because they said the physical body was in and of itself sinful.
-----------(8.) When the Bible says that Jesus was made in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) it simply means he was “made in the likeness of men” (Php. 2:7-8). “Flesh” is a term used for men in the Bible (Gen. 6:12; Matt. 16:17; Gal. 1:16).
-----B. We are still wonderfully made (Ps. 139:14).
-----------(1.) The functionality and intricate complications of the body are amazing and awesome to contemplate. If our bodies, natures, or constitutions were totally depraved, we wouldn’t be able to think, feel, decide, walk, talk, smell, see, digest, or reproduce.
-----------(2.) The moral and intellectual abilities God has given mankind is wonderful (Gen. 4:6-7; Isa. 1:18). We have the ability to think, feel, and decide the same way God does (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6; Jas 3:9).
-----C. We are still made upright (Ecc. 7:29). Our developed constitution inclines us towards obedience to God’s moral law.
-----------(1.) Because of our constitutional conscience.
-----------(2.) Because of the physical destructiveness of many sins.
-----D. We are still made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; Jas 3:9).
-----------(1.) We are free moral beings like God is, with a free will, emotions, and intelligence.
“Man in his spiritual essence is a tiny replica of the great God and possesses in finite miniature the abilities and qualifies of being that God possesses in His infinite realm.” Gordon Olson (The Moral Government of God, pg 22).
2. Homosexuality is condemned by our God given nature or constitution (Rom. 2:14-15).
“Sin is never natural. It is horribly un-natural. Sin is never ‘human’. It is horribly in-human. Sin creates remorse, guilt, and shame; every time a man feels these three witnesses in his soul, they tell him sin is not natural. Even the simple lie-detector can tell us this. The whole body reacts adversely when a man sins… God never planned sin for man. It is the most un-natural thing in the moral Universe… Do not dare say sin is ‘natural’! God hates sin with perfect hatred; He loves humanity.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78).
“The nature we are born with teaches us to reject evil and choose good…. Men must go against their nature to sin.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 6-7).
-----A. We are so constituted by God that our conscience condemns sin (Rom. 2:14-15).
-----B. Sin is always contrary to our reason, so it is unreasonable (Ecc. 9:3; Mat. 7:26; Rom. 7:16, 22, 25).
Gordon Olson said, “Rebellion against the kind and loving God is… madness.” (The Entrance of Sin into the World, pg. 21).
3. Homosexuality is against our God given nature or design (Rom. 1:26-27; 1:31; 1 Cor. 6:9; 2 Tim. 3:3; Jude 1:7)
-----A. The body or human nature has a natural design and function.
-----------(1.) You have to corrupt your nature to enjoy cigarettes. Your mind, tastes, and lungs naturally reject it.
-----------(2.) You have to corrupt your nature to enjoy alcohol. Your mind, tastes, and stomach naturally reject it.
-----------(3.) Homosexuality is a state that a person degenerates into (Romans 1:18-32). They are abusing their natures, misusing their bodies (1 Cor. 6:9).
-----------(4.) In this sense, a corrupt nature is the effect of our sin, not the cause of our sin.
-----B. God had a purpose or intention in creation (Gen. 6:5-6).
-----------(1.) The will of God is to have a sinless universe (Gen. 17:1; Deut. 18:13; 1 Chro. 28:9; 2 Chro. 19:9; Ps. 4:4; Isa. 1:16; Matt. 5:48; Jn. 5:14; 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:31; 2 Cor. 13:11; Eph. 4:26-28; 1 Tim. 5:7; Rev. 3:2).
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Sept 3, 2008 8:27:06 GMT -5
Before I respond to the points you've enumerated above, I am still unclear about your position regarding the second question in my previous post...
Do we inherit anything besides our physical natures (i.e. our bodies) as part of our human natures?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 8:32:40 GMT -5
By "nature" I mean constitution. It is the structure, composition, or makeup of humanity. Human nature and the human constitution are the same thing.
Human nature, or constitution, is spirit - soul - body. We inherit a spirit, a soul, and a body. That is human nature.
Human nature also consists in intelligence, sensibilities, and free will. That is the constitution of our personality.
Within the intelligence there is also intuition, reason, conscience, etc.
Within the sensibilities there is touch, taste, sight, smell, and emotions.
All these things make up human nature.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Sept 3, 2008 8:42:06 GMT -5
By "nature" I mean constitution. It is the structure, composition, or makeup of humanity. Human nature and the human constitution are the same thing. Human nature, or constitution, is spirit - soul - body. We inherit a spirit, a soul, and a body. That is human nature. Human nature also consists in intelligence, sensibilities, and free will. That is the constitution of our personality. Within the intelligence there is also intuition, reason, conscience, etc. Within the sensibilities there is touch, taste, sight, smell, and emotions. All these things make up human nature. So, in your opinion, was any part of human nature affected by Adam's "fall" aside from the bodily component?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 9:13:28 GMT -5
1. Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. This changed human nature. Now the eyes of mankind have been opened, we inherit a moral conscience. We reach an age of accountability, when we know good from evil. And then we choose to do evil. Adam has put us into the position where we have all chosen to be sinners.
2. Adam was removed from the Garden and the tree of life. This resulted in the deterioration of mankind's physical nature. Now humanity does not have access to the tree of life. In consequence of Adam's sin, we all physically die.
In essence, Adam's sin resulted in mankind receiving or inheriting a moral conscience and also physical death. These are the changes in human nature that Adam's eating has resulted in.
|
|
|
Post by mattmisk on Sept 3, 2008 9:33:08 GMT -5
Jesse,
I have two simple questions:
1. Why does every man that reaches any significant age sin?
2. If it is unfair for Adam's sin to corrupt part of his children's nature, how is it fair for his sin to corrupt their bodies and the world they live in?
Matt
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Sept 3, 2008 9:55:02 GMT -5
1. Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. This changed human nature. Now the eyes of mankind have been opened, we inherit a moral conscience. We reach an age of accountability, when we know good from evil. And then we choose to do evil. Adam has put us into the position where we have all chosen to be sinners. 2. Adam was removed from the Garden and the tree of life. This resulted in the deterioration of mankind's physical nature. Now humanity does not have access to the tree of life. In consequence of Adam's sin, we all physically die. In essence, Adam's sin resulted in mankind receiving or inheriting a moral conscience and also physical death. These are the changes in human nature that Adam's eating has resulted in. From your booklet entitled Free Will & Conscience, you state that "God has given all men the gift of free will and the gift of conscience so that man can choose to have the same moral character God chooses to have." 1. How do you reconcile this statement with your above statement that man inherits a moral conscience due to Adam eating from the tree of knowledge? 2. Is the conscience that we inherit a corrupted conscience? You state elsewhere that young children do not have a fully developed conscience. 3. Is the conscience they recieve at "the age of accountability" a direct grace from God or is it possible that they may recieve a corrupted conscience?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 10:30:13 GMT -5
Matt,
It would be unfair or unjust for an individual to deserve hell for something they didn't do, and it would be unfair or unjust for man to be punished for disobedience if obedience was impossible.
It would be just for a person to deserve hell for their own sinful choices, it would be just for a man to be punished for violating a law that could have been kept. . All men sin for the same reason Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and 1/3 of the angels sin. They set up their own self-gratification as the supreme pursuit or ultimate intention of their life, and in consequence of this motive of their heart, they break the law of God and rebel against His reign.
The devil appeals to our natural desires to tempt us to gratify these desires in a forbidden way. This is what Satan did to Eve in the garden. Sin is a unlawful gratification of some type of desire, either the lust of the eye, lust of the flesh, or the pride of life.
Regarding Adam changing our nature, we are victims of this. A drug baby who inherits a corrupt nature because of the sin of the parent is a victim. We inherit physical death from Adam, not because we are criminals, but because we are victims. Infants who die in infancy are victims, not sinners.
Frank,
God created us, obviously, with the capacity to know good from evil. But in the beginning, God did not give us this knowledge. Maybe He would have allowed them to eat from the tree of knowledge later on. This was a possibility some in the Early Church considered. I don't know. I do believe God wanted man to be a moral being, and therefore God wanted us to eventually have moral knowledge. Babies arrive at this knowledge once they mature. Possible Adam and Eve, who were mere babes sort of speak, would have also been allowed to eat once they matured. God wanted us to be made in His image. And it wasn't until after we ate that God said, "man has become like one of us". Eventually, I think God wanted us to know good from evil. But not before it's proper time.
Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. Nevertheless, it is still God who is the author of our nature. God forms us in the womb. If a person is born blind, it is because God created them as such. If a person is born deaf, it is because God created them as such. This is what God told Moses at the burning bush. "And the Lord said unto him, who has made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11
It is GOD who removed us from the tree of life. You could say that we physically die either because Adam sinned or because God removed Adam from the tree of life. Both are true.
It is GOD who forms our nature in the womb and who gives light to every man who comes into the world. You could say that it is because Adam ate from the tree, or you could say it is because God forms us in the womb. Both are true.
But one thing is sure, a conscience (knowledge of good and evil) is a part of human 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 show the work of the law written in their hearts, their CONSCIENCE also bearing witness... Rom. 2:14-15
The conscience that we receive is not corrupt until we ourselves corrupt it. The Bible says that through our own sin, our understanding is darkened, our conscience becomes seared. This is not the natural state of man at birth, this is a degenerate state which men enter into through their own sin.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 16:21:21 GMT -5
I'd like to bring this thread back to the original topic or issue. Each individual is the cause of their own sin. That is why each individual is responsible and accountable for their own sin. There is nothing back of their will which necessitates their sin. Sinners do not sin because they inherit a nature which necessitates sin. Here is an article I wrote called "The Relation of the Nature and the Will": openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=articles&action=display&thread=1876It explains how our nature is an influence upon our will, but not a causation. Our nature (constitutional conscience) tells us to reject sin, but we sin anyways. Therefore, our nature is an influence but not a causation. Your intelligence (including conscience) and your sensibilities (feelings, lusts) do not force you to do anything, but they can be influences upon your will.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 6, 2008 8:32:18 GMT -5
Here is the way I see it:
- If sinners need Jesus, sinners deserve hell - If sinners deserve hell, their sin must be their own fault - If their sin is their own fault, it must be their own choice - If their sin is their own fault/choice, it cannot be because of their involuntary birth
Sinners deserve hell and consequently need Jesus, not for their birth, but for their choices.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Sept 6, 2008 14:38:21 GMT -5
Here is the way I see it: - If sinners need Jesus, sinners deserve hell - If sinners deserve hell, their sin must be their own fault - If their sin is their own fault, it must be their own choice - If their sin is their own fault/choice, it cannot be because of their involuntary birth Sinners deserve hell and consequently need Jesus, not for their birth, but for their choices. I am not convinced by this 4-step logic proof, and I believe you run the risk of appearing flippant to those whom you are trying to convince. Neither am I convinced that your working definition of original sin does justice to the nature of the debate. If your only goal is to convince five-point Calvinists that the doctrine of "total depravity" is mistaken, I can maybe understand your approach. But do not forget that there is more than a millenium of elucidation regarding the doctrine of original sin before John Calvin, some of which predates even Augustine. While the western church laid emphasis on guilt as the main characteristic of original sin, the Greek and eastern tradition emphasized the aspect of punishment. The different approaches are not mutually exclusive, but merely differ in emphasis. Consider the following passage from John Chrysostom's homily on Romans 5:19. Chrysostom acknowledges the mystery of the condemnation and punishment that we inherit because of Adam without attempting to give a mechanistic understanding of its transmission. "What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offense of one, many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word sinners mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam's death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large. But the question now is, for what purpose was this done? But this he does not go on to add: for it contributed nothing to his present object. For it is against a Jew that the contest is, who doubted and made scorn of the righteousness by One. And for this reason after showing that the punishment too was brought in by one upon all, the reason why this was so he has not added. For he is not for superfluities, but keeps merely to what is necessary. For this is what the principles of disputation did not oblige him to say any more than the Jew; and therefore he leaves it unsolved. But if any of you were to enquire with a view to learn, we should give this answer: That we are so far from taking any harm from this death and condemnation , if we be sober-minded, that we are the gainers even by having become mortal, first, because it is not an immortal body in which we sin; secondly, because we get numberless grounds for being religious. For to be moderate, and to be temperate, and to be subdued, and to keep ourselves clear of all wickedness, is what death by its presence and by its being expected persuades us to. But following with these, or rather even before these, it has introduced other greater blessings besides. For it is from hence that the crowns of the martyrs come, and the rewards of the Apostles. Thus was Abel justified, thus was Abraham, in having slain his son, thus was John, who for Christ's sake was taken off, thus were the Three Children, thus was Daniel. For if we be so minded, not death only, but even the devil himself will be unable to hurt us. And besides there is this also to be said, that immortality awaits us, and after having been chastened a little while, we shall enjoy the blessings to come without fear, being as if in a sort of school in the present life, under instruction by means of disease, tribulation, temptations, and poverty, and the other apparent evils, with a view to our becoming fit for the reception of the blessings of the world to come."
|
|
|
Post by William the Sinner on Sept 10, 2008 10:29:53 GMT -5
Frank, nice quote, but I can’t see how it really does anything to solve this. Only that Chrysostom refrained from doing so himself. However, this issue of Original Sin has tremendous bearing on whether we can logically preach repentance because men are criminals or illogically and inconsistently because they are really victims. Original sin has made the Gospel appear unnecessarily illogical, indefensible and stupid to the inquierer. I don't think Jesse's syllogism bad or incoherent. The quote just does nothing to dismantle it or diminish it in any way. What was the purpose of the quote? Perhaps I am missing something here.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Sept 11, 2008 19:53:55 GMT -5
Frank, nice quote, but I can’t see how it really does anything to solve this. Only that Chrysostom refrained from doing so himself. However, this issue of Original Sin has tremendous bearing on whether we can logically preach repentance because men are criminals or illogically and inconsistently because they are really victims. Original sin has made the Gospel appear unnecessarily illogical, indefensible and stupid to the inquierer. I don't think Jesse's syllogism bad or incoherent. The quote just does nothing to dismantle it or diminish it in any way. What was the purpose of the quote? Perhaps I am missing something here. The purpose of the quote from Chrysostom was several-fold. I wanted to establish the fact that Chrysostom clearly recognizes the difference between Adam’s progeny being subject to mortality vs. the condemnation and liability to punishment that they receive due to Adam’s sin. He recognizes the plain reading of Scripture that by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners (Roman 5:19). Chrysostom recognizes that the apostle is not speaking merely of Adam’s “moral influence”, but that he is speaking of a fundamental change within human nature that has occurred because of Adam’s disobedience thereby making all subsequent generations subject to condemnation and punishment. With the fact of an inherited human condition from Adam firmly established, Chrysostom is quick to point out that the Apostle Paul does not explain why this ancestral condemnation has occurred, but he offers his own speculation as to the reasons (see the quotation from my previous post). And so I think the quote offers an additional (and more subtle) counterpoint to the logic argument presented by Jesse above – namely to his second point: If sinners deserve hell, their sin must be their own faultIf it be a matter of “deserving”, Jesse may have a point, but you must admit that no man or child can possibly stand before God and declare that he “deserves” anything for we did not create ourselves, and our lives are certainly not our own. Chrysostom recognizes the mystery of our liability to punishment, but rather than give a complete mechanistic understanding of the transmission of the condition we inherit from Adam, he emphasizes the superabundance of grace that is available to us in Christ. It is not a matter of grace being the flip-side of condemnation. There is no comparison! And so do I agree with the Westminster definition of “original sin”? No, I do not. I do not believe that due to Adam’s sin we have been made “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good.” But I certainly recognize the liability to punishment and the condition that I have inherited. Did I “deserve” such an inheritance? I don’t know. Did I even “deserve” to be born? I think Chrysostom would argue that these are the wrong questions to be asking.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 11, 2008 20:48:46 GMT -5
Here is a good quote on the issue:
"If man is in fault for his sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is; but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers - of our intellect, our sensibility, our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature. If you will observe, you will find that God has given no law prescribing what sort of nature and constitutional powers we should have. He has given no law on these points, the transgression of which, if given, might somewhat resemble the definition of sin. But now since there is no law about nature, nature cannot be a transgression.... man's nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all.." Charles G. Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, pg 78-79, published by Truth in Heart)
|
|