- Feb 15, 2013
- 8,824
- 6,252
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
That would be a very indelicate way to handle Scripture and would lead to several contradictions.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Or, it means still the same thing, i.e. our body.
I agree, so which of the three answers reflects that POV?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.
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.
I agree, so which of the three answers reflects that POV?
What contradictions?
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...
What do you say?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
Jesus had a body like ours and grew up in our world. Do you believe he had sinful inclinations?
I do not think that the proper handling of this verse is to say "sarx does not mean flesh".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.
Yuck! Go away gnosticism!
The word "yuck"?You keep using that word. That word does not mean what you think it means.
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.
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!"
Agreed.My reading of scripture--including the verse you alluded to--indicates that God's judgment takes a person's knowledge of Him into consideration.
So an infant is under God's grace because it is absolutely ignorant, not because it has any innate innocence until some arbitrary age.
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.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...
What do you say?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
I think that I understand gnosticism fairly well. We had to study it quite a bit in seminary.
I aint.Then why are you using it wrong?
Agreed.
Hmmm... do you think that for example a 1 month old child can be "guilty" of something in some normal meaning?
I aint.
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?