How Messed Up Are People?

[Tree of Life]

Or, it means still the same thing, i.e. our body.

That would be a very indelicate way to handle Scripture and would lead to several contradictions.

 

[Albion]

Yes I believe the Bible teaches this. If any human could, in theory, obey the Law then they would be justified by their works. But this does not at all imply that humans are existentially able to do this. Sin has totally disabled them, even though the theory remains.

I agree, so which of the three answers reflects that POV?

 

[trophy33]

If our bodies incline us to sin, then that starts at birth before we even have consciousness of our actions. We begin saying "yes" to our flesh from the moment we cry at the first discomfort of our first breath.

To whom is little given, only a little is expected in return. I think that small children, mentally disabled and similar will have much lighter judgement.

 

[Tree of Life]

I agree, so which of the three answers reflects that POV?

That would be a separate question. The OP refers to existential ability and not theoretical ability.

 

[trophy33]

That would be a very indelicate way to handle Scripture and would lead to several contradictions.

What contradictions?

 

[Tree of Life]

What contradictions?

Paul in Romans 8:9 says to converted sinners that they are no longer in the flesh. If "flesh" always means "body" then this would be very strange.

 

[Foxfyre]

A lot of the debate about salvation, justification, faith, and good works comes back to this question. Everyone knows that people have a sin problem, but how far down does it go? How badly has sin affected the human race? The traditional responses have been...

1. Totally Messed Up - This was the view of Augustine contra Pelagius. Pelagius taught that sin was not an inherited condition of mankind, but a personal choice. Everyone was born neutral with the freedom to choose either good or evil. Everyone had the natural, God-given ability to be good. Therefore, salvation came as a result of our own efforts to be good. Contrary to this, Augustine taught that sin has totally messed people up and apart from God's grace there is no hope for salvation. Calvin followed Augustine and taught that God must regenerate a person in order for them to respond to him.
   
   
2. Partly Messed Up - The Old Catholic church initially adopted Augustine's view but later drifted into a form of semi-Pelagianism. The Roman Catholic church's position today is that sin has sort of messed up people, but not completely. All people have the ability to respond to God and so salvation is a result of God's grace, but also man's spontaneous response. God and man work together for a person to be saved. This also has become the Arminian view.
   
   
3. Not Messed Up - This is the view of Pelagius (as described above) and many liberal Christians today. There is no original sin and sin is not an inherited condition. It's perfectly normal for humans to be imperfect and God does not expect perfection from us (liberal Christianity). OR God does demand that we be good and we do have this power within us. Therefore we are saved through tapping into our own inner goodness and being the people we know we can be (Pelagius and also some liberals).

What do you say?

I think the Bible clearly expresses the concept that all have sinned, all have fallen short of perfection which in this case would be described as sinless. Beginning with Adam and Eve we see sin corrupting the individual, and then with Cain and Abel the family, and with Noah the community, and with the Tower of Babel the whole world.

I believe each of us is born innocent of sin but all are subject to the consequences of sin that is knowingly or unknowingly committed. That would be consequences of our own sin that we will inevitably commit because none of us are born perfect. And that would be consequences of the sin of others we encounter in life, and the consequences of the sin of all that have gone before us that results in wrong or evil thoughts and actions, that has corrupted civilizations that we are born into, that has spoiled God's perfect creation by fouling the water, air, soil. We now have genetic defects, cancers, and all manner of ailments that most likely would not exist had sin not entered the world.

So yes, we are all messed up in some way and we are all in need of God's grace and redemption from sin. I think God's grace must be very powerful in that humankind has survived at all considering how much sin it has introduced into the world.

 

[RDKirk]

Jesus had a body like ours and grew up in our world. Do you believe he had sinful inclinations?

I would say that Jesus was born with a fully functioning spirit that controlled His body from birth onward.

We are born with "comatose" spirits, leaving our minds at the mercy of loudly yowling bodies...until our spirits are quickened in salvation. At that point, a new Christian has to go through a lifetime of "spiritual therapy" to gain control of the body that had been ruling him since birth.

 

[trophy33]

Paul in Romans 8:9 says to converted sinners that they are no longer in the flesh. If "flesh" always means "body" then this would be very strange.

I do not think that the proper handling of this verse is to say "sarx does not mean flesh".

I think Paul is saying that who is born of Spirit does not live according to flesh, i.e. "is not in flesh", its a metaphorical shortage, so frequent with Paul. Similarly, to live according to Spirit is called "living in Spirit".

 

[RDKirk]

Yuck! Go away gnosticism!

You keep using that word. That word does not mean what you think it means.

 

[Tree of Life]

You keep using that word. That word does not mean what you think it means.

The word "yuck"?

 

[RDKirk]

To whom is little given, only a little is expected in return. I think that small children, mentally disabled and similar will have much lighter judgement.

Yes.

My reading of scripture--including the verse you alluded to--indicates that God's judgment takes a person's knowledge of Him into consideration.

And also that God is biased toward salvation.

So an infant is under God's grace because it is absolutely ignorant, not because it has any innate innocence until some arbitrary age.

 

[RDKirk]

The word "yuck"?

Gnosticism. I don't think you actually understand what a gnostic is. Kind of like people who see someone wearing a uniform and cry, "Fascist!"

 

[Tree of Life]

Gnosticism. I don't think you actually understand what a gnostic is. Kind of like people who see someone wearing a uniform and cry, "Fascist!"

I think that I understand gnosticism fairly well. We had to study it quite a bit in seminary.

 

[trophy33]

My reading of scripture--including the verse you alluded to--indicates that God's judgment takes a person's knowledge of Him into consideration.

Agreed.

So an infant is under God's grace because it is absolutely ignorant, not because it has any innate innocence until some arbitrary age.

Hmmm... do you think that for example a 1 month old child can be "guilty" of something in some normal meaning?

 

[John 1720]

A lot of the debate about salvation, justification, faith, and good works comes back to this question. Everyone knows that people have a sin problem, but how far down does it go? How badly has sin affected the human race? The traditional responses have been...

1. Totally Messed Up - This was the view of Augustine contra Pelagius. Pelagius taught that sin was not an inherited condition of mankind, but a personal choice. Everyone was born neutral with the freedom to choose either good or evil. Everyone had the natural, God-given ability to be good. Therefore, salvation came as a result of our own efforts to be good. Contrary to this, Augustine taught that sin has totally messed people up and apart from God's grace there is no hope for salvation. Calvin followed Augustine and taught that God must regenerate a person in order for them to respond to him.
   
   
2. Partly Messed Up - The Old Catholic church initially adopted Augustine's view but later drifted into a form of semi-Pelagianism. The Roman Catholic church's position today is that sin has sort of messed up people, but not completely. All people have the ability to respond to God and so salvation is a result of God's grace, but also man's spontaneous response. God and man work together for a person to be saved. This also has become the Arminian view.
   
   
3. Not Messed Up - This is the view of Pelagius (as described above) and many liberal Christians today. There is no original sin and sin is not an inherited condition. It's perfectly normal for humans to be imperfect and God does not expect perfection from us (liberal Christianity). OR God does demand that we be good and we do have this power within us. Therefore we are saved through tapping into our own inner goodness and being the people we know we can be (Pelagius and also some liberals).

What do you say?

I think Jesus said it best, "We must be reborn from above". We need a new nature and only 'God with us', the abiding Christ through the Holy Spirit can give that to us.

 

[RDKirk]

I think that I understand gnosticism fairly well. We had to study it quite a bit in seminary.

Then why are you using it wrong?

 

[Tree of Life]

Then why are you using it wrong?

I aint.

 

[RDKirk]

Agreed.



Hmmm... do you think that for example a 1 month old child can be "guilty" of something in some normal meaning?

The infant is categorically a "sinner" because it is fully obedient to the desires of its body. What the flesh demands, the baby seeks to provide it without question. The baby is slave to its flesh rather than to God--which is why it is categorically a sinner.

When I say "under God's grace," I'm not saying that one is "not guilty." The necessity of grace presumes the presence of guilt. Innocent people need no grace.

 

[RDKirk]

I aint.

But you declare someone a "gnostic" like people who see someone wearing a uniform and cry, "Fascist!"

So, no, I don't think you know what the word means because you use it wrong.

It apparently doesn't matter that you went to school, because you still use the word wrong.