So you admit that there is a difference between a temptation and a temptation so engaged that it is a sin. Clarity is good.Being tempted is not a sin. Jesus was tempted. But to desire to sin is a sin. Jesus never desired to sin. Justified people do desire to sin.
So you admit that there is a difference between a temptation and a temptation so engaged that it is a sin. Clarity is good.
I think you have drifted a bit from that. I'm not the first to ask for a clarification of terms.See post #1.
Respectfully I think that's blowing smoke.When Jesus was tempted he was tempted externally by the devil. When we are tempted we are tempted internally by sinful desires. Jesus was not tempted internally as we are.
You know what Newman said about learning your history?Let me correct myself. I mistook Orange to be a later counsel than it was. I need to read up on it more.
Like the existence of God and the Trinity maybe?No worries. There are certainly many things in Orange that are consistent with Reformed theology.
I think more than that, but I am sure you have your opinion on that. I think some aspects of Reformed theology are very close to Thomist Predestination.Like the existence of God and the Trinity maybe?
This is interesting. Do you hold that concupiscence is sin worthy of punishment?When Jesus was tempted he was tempted externally by the devil. When we are tempted we are tempted internally by sinful desires. Jesus was not tempted internally as we are.
Well, we can affirm about 3.5 of 5 in TULIP. Way better than the average Protestant.I think more than that, but I am sure you have your opinion on that. I think some aspects of Reformed theology are very close to Thomist Predestination.
No. Not at all. It is an EFFECT of original sin, common to us all, and not sin in itself. It's like a habit. The habit itself is not a sin but it leads you to sin. You sinned when you did what you did to start the habit. Still having the habit is not sinful. Not fighting the habit is sinful. Indulging the habit is sinful.This is interesting. Do you hold that concupiscence is sin worthy of punishment?
The doctrine of imputation does not rely on these words from Romans 5, although they do bear witness to it. The doctrine of imputation is supported by the whole covenantal framework of Scripture with federal covenant headship, covenant blessings, and covenant curses. There are many places in Scripture which testify to it and it also has much historical pedigree.
Eusebius, Eusebius, mmm... is that the same Eusebius that got in trouble for embracing heresy?Check out what Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea said concerning our sins being imputed to Christ -
“Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.” He then stated, “And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.”
Well there are multiple Eusebii, but this particular one was the condemner of Athanasius, condemned himself rightly as an Arian, never made a saint for that reason, but a pretty good historian. Just because he pontificated on a matter of theology means zero.Eusebius, Eusebius, mmm... is that the same Eusebius that got in trouble for embracing heresy?
The same is true with Adam's sin. The guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all who are "in Adam" (credited to their account). So all who are in Adam are guilty by virtue of his sin.
This is not an orthodox view. Death, sin, and legal guilt are all interrelated. 1 Corinthians 15:56 says - "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law." This is to say that we die because of the legal penalty due to us because of sin. "The wages of sin is death". People are mortal because Adam's guilt is imputed to them as their federal, covenant head. Romans 5:15 says that many died through the one man's trespass.
No, your view is not the Orthodox view. believe me, I know ;-)
orthodox/ˈɔ:θədɒks/
▶adjective
→ orthodoxlyadverb
- Following orconforming to the traditional orgenerally accepted rules orbeliefs of areligion,philosophy, orpractice:Burke's views were orthodox in histime |orthodoxmedical treatment |orthodoxHindus .
•(of aperson) notindependent-minded;conventional andunoriginal:arelatively orthodoxartist .
- Ofthe ordinary orusual type;normal:theyavoided orthodoxjazz venues .
- (usually Orthodox )relating toOrthodox Judaism:Orthodox Jewish boys |everyone Iknew wasOrthodox .
- (usually Orthodox )relating to the Orthodox Church.
– originlate Middle English: fromGreek orthodoxos(probably via ecclesiastical Latin), fromorthos‘straight orright’ +doxa‘opinion’.
I think you have drifted a bit from that. I'm not the first to ask for a clarification of terms.
Respectfully I think that's blowing smoke.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?