|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature and the fall of man | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Reverend, you guys are talking about terms you do not understand. First off, the doctrine of total depravity can mean beleiving just that only God's grace draws someone to believing or all the way to beleiving unregenerate man is not capable of moral acts. That's a massive range for that one doctrinal idea alone. what in gods name are you talking about?! since when did it all become subjective randman, i thought it all was objective with you guys!, anyway where can i find a so called range on this? post some evidence for your claims
Original Sin is also an idea existing within a certain range. You guys seem completely unaware of that, and of the range among people that hold to Original Sin. how about something to back this up?, i've read paul and anyone else on this doctrine and there is no "range" as you call it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
That is not original sin..
That is you trying to project a concept that doesn't fit on another concept. What part of "Jews do not believe in Original Sin" in that very same article don't you understand. Do you know what 'Sin' is in the Jewish religion? What is the literal translatoin of 'sin'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Ramoss, the article is inaccurate. The Jewish concept of sin is disobedience to the Law, but within Judaism, there is reconginition that man has a tendency and capacity for sin and so the position is really no different than the Arminian position which holds to Original Sin but not the Calvinistic version of total depravity.
The problem is you are quoting some web-site as if it is authoritative when it isn/t.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Look, I am talking very basic stuff with you, and you are acting like you never heard it. It's like someone that doesn't recognize there is a difference between the terms, analogous and homologous in an evolution debate. It's really not my fault you don't know a minimal amount of theology in this area.
Here are some links to various theologians or schools of theology that might be helpful. some historic documents relating to the Reformed tradition Augsburg confession
Article II: Of Original Sin. Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost. They Condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason. The Augsburg Confession from the 39 Articles
IX. Of originall or birth sinne. Originall sinne standeth not in the folowing of Adam (as the Pelagians do vaynely talke) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of euery man, that naturally is engendred of the ofspring of Adam, whereby man is very farre gone from originall ryghteousnes, and is of his owne nature enclined to euyll, so that the fleshe lusteth alwayes contrary to the spirite, and therefore in euery person borne into this worlde, it deserueth Gods wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remayne, yea in them that are regenerated, whereby the luste of the fleshe called in Greke fronema sarkos (whiche some do expoune, the wisedome, some sensualitie, some the desyre of the fleshe) is not subject to the lawe of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that beleue and are baptized: yet the Apostle doth confesse that concupiscence and luste hath of it selfe the nature of synne. he Thirty-Nine Articles (1572) from The Belgic Confession
Article 15: The Doctrine of Original Sin We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race.It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring. Nevertheless, it is not imputed to God's children for their condemnation but is forgiven by his grace and mercy-- not to put them to sleep but so that the awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long to be set free from the "body of this death."^30 Therefore we reject the error of the Pelagians who say that this sin is nothing else than a matter of imitation. The Belgic Confession Ok, let's look at Arminianism which from an outsider's perspective is Calvinistic and Reformed as well, but which deviates from some of the more pronounced versions of Calvinism. from the wika, always to be taken with a grain of salt though
Free Will with Partial Depravity: Freedom of will is man's natural state, not a spiritual gift - and thus free will was not lost in the Fall, .... As John Wesley stated more forcefully, humans were in fact totally corrupted by original sin, but God's prevenient grace allowed free will to operate. Contra the Calvinist view of depravity which denies universal prevenient grace and moral ability to turn to Christ. One of the articles of the Arminians which Reformed theologigians condemned as heresy because Reformed theology states Christ only died for the elect's sins not the sins of the whole world.
Article 2 That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” 403 Forbidden
A reaction from Reformed theologians.
The system of doctrine known as Arminianism is heresy. It is an offshoot from Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. It has been adversely affecting the church and its doctrine for over 250 years. Men like Finney and Wesley, being the charismatic personalities they were, propagated the doctrine and resurrected the Pelagian error from the pit of hell once again to persecute the church of Christ. 403 Forbidden
Note the references to Wesley who clearly states he believes in Original Sin, but since the Arminian version is not the same as the Reformed version, the Reformed camp says there are heretics, or used to (some obviously still do). But either way, both camps hold to Original Sin, and in many respects both are Calvinistic. Note also the references to Pelagius who had a big dispute with Augustine, and was consequently misrepresented imo, being branded a heretic falsely. http://www.brojed.org/pelagius.html#Text Just so you know, in general, I think the heretic thing in the Church is wrongheaded. I think Pelagius did overemphasize free will, but to call him a heretic is over-reaching and to call for persecution as Augustine did is completely against the Spirit of Christ, imo. This message has been edited by randman, 12-30-2005 12:36 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
I don't know what relevence any of that had with what I was asking randman, you didn't show one thing that shows there is a "range" of anything within the doctrine of orginal sin, other than you making it up.
what is your point? that is a common thing with religious beliefs, none of them will agree with the other that is nothing new, I'm wondering if you ever took a class on religion or religions before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
look at any website written by anyone who is jewish and discussing jewish doctrine, when they answer the question if they believe in a fall or orginal sin they will say no we do not believe the fall as christians do or believe in orginal sin!
just go query any number of sites answering questions about jewish doctrine they will say this
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Look, if you can't see there is within one subset of Christianity, the heirs of Calvinism, in Reformed theologians and Arminian theologians and preachers like Wesley, there is no hope for you.
Both hold to the doctrine of Original Sin, but one condemning the other version as heretical. From some of the sites you guys have quoted, it appears some sites think the doctrine of Original Sin only refers to the most extreme forms of it. Clearly, within the idea of Original Sin, there are camps with different emphases on free will, depravity, and election. If you take some time to educate yourself on that, you will be more able to at least understand what is and what isn't within the scope of "Original Sin."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Reverend, first off many of those Jewish sites are reacting to the Augustinian and Reformed versions of Original Sin, especially as historically Judaism was persecuted by Roman Catholicism and so sometimes "the Christian" concept of Original Sin to them is pretty much an extremist version of it.
But if you actually know what Original Sin refers to, then it's pretty clear within Judiasm, there are similar beliefs, namely that Adam's sin did cause a lessening of mankind's state. So to say Judaism does not hold to any form of Original Sin is actually wrong, but not surprising Jewish sites would say that. One of the problems is some groups hold to the concept of Original Sin in the sense of God holding the sin against people. Arminius and others reacted to that, and advanced an idea that although Original Sin is there, only the actions of individuals are held against them, which is more in line with Judaism, but it's still a form of the doctrine of Original Sin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 779 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
I don't know if that story is a literally true one, but it certainly is a true one. And it works in reverse today. Jesus became the curse and was put to death thus putting to death the curse. So we no longer have to bear the effects of the curse if we trust in His sacrifice. And I mean that literally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
ok then give me a real answer then in your own words without any sort of word hashing or use of changing what other people say, what is the doctrine of original sin in christianity then?
if its not man is sinful from birth, because of what adam did and we are condemmed to hell then what is it? This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 12-30-2005 04:29 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
In Judaism, Adam and Eve's 'Fall' (xian concept) was not the first time that a human disobeyed God, so how can you shoe-horn the Xian concept of original sin into a faith that it has no place in?
Brian. This message has been edited by Brian, 12-30-2005 04:45 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
that is the common useage of it, what church are you going to that has some ligher version of it? I'm just not really understanding what you are saying. Not history, not doctrines, not paul, not augustine.. you
Go ask a jewish person what they think, or are you just going to mind read everyone and say "yep they only are attacking the reformed version" come on, if many rabbis say their religion doesn't include original sin, i'd think they would be more knowledgeable than any of us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
what is the doctrine of original sin in christianity then? Rev, To be semantically hip I suggest you recognize that there exists variations in Christian doctrine. I would guess it best to ask Randman what his interpretation is as that I would think be the definition he knows best and should be able to defend in depth. The sorry state of religious semantics may be what led Wittgenstein to write, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." Try and get a functional definition of "sinful" and "sin", and what the abstraction "perfection" refers to. They are as far as I can tell relative referents that speakers employ to a number of ends. I suspect the function of all this is a way to psychologically sooth a sense of suffering by a mental picture of a happier future supported by an extensive social network of the church. "I can be reassured my desires will be met because all these people tell me they believe they will." Once an individual has invested in this reassurance to the degree the religion they subscribe to uses literal textual interpretations then science may be perceived as a threat to that believer's happiness. The rationality of science is thus a threat to fundamentalist muslims as well as christians but also to UFO believers, etc. The OP for this thread stated the problem in either/or terms which set a tone of black and white but there is a lot of variations in this problem and the solutions that humans have proposed. I know of no instances of an extra human i.e. divine being writing anything at all let alone a solution to this percieved problem. I know that at various times and places human has said things they claimed they received from extra human sources. Often they may sincerely believe that but every thing I've seen indicates the origin was from human brains. But human brains often seem to really go for these sorts of claims. Fall or no fall it's clear to me that humans are often irrational. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I'm a bit confused by your personification of nature since there is no conscious thought behind the process from an evolutionary viewpoint. Anomalies happen. I don't see any evil intent behind them. This makes perfect sense, if there is no God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
This I offer to you as a third approach to your dilemma. Look to the source of consciousness not to the play of manifestation for meaning. Hi, Ifen. Haven't heard from you in a while. The world might be a "dream," but the suffering is real.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024