Original Sin, I was wrong.

[holyrokker]

The statement from CARM

Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child.

isn't a biblical statement.

 

[OzSpen]

The statement from CARM isn't a biblical statement.

Please explain, otherwise your statement is only an assertion.

Oz

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Your statement seems to be controlled by your presuppositions.

Oh, good grief. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If someone doesn't agree with what your indoctrination has wrought, they're "controlled by presuppositions". Why don't you address the content of my post instead of superimposing your perceptions upon me?

What are your presuppositions about original sin and the fall into sin that influence your statement?

There are none. You have a presupposition that I have presuppositions... which is inane and obtuse.

Do you or do you not believe this statement from CARM?

Sincerely, Oz

I don't get my doctrine from generic statements like those on CARM. And you assume volumes without bothering to converse or even address my post.

I'm NOT Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian in the least.

Tell me, Oz... How does Original Sin correlate to the constitution of man? How does a sin nature specifically correspond to the spirit-soul-body of man?

You have no clue what I'm talking about or how to answer. That's the typical response. It didn't stop you from being adversarial and condescending, though.

 

[holyrokker]

Please explain, otherwise your statement is only an assertion.

Oz

What assertion? The assertion is the one made by CARM

Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child.

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates such a conclusion could be deductive.

 

[OzSpen]

Oh, good grief. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If someone doesn't agree with what your indoctrination has wrought, they're "controlled by presuppositions". Why don't you address the content of my post instead of superimposing your perceptions upon me?



There are none. You have a presupposition that I have presuppositions... which is inane and obtuse.



I don't get my doctrine from generic statements like those on CARM. And you assume volumes without bothering to converse or even address my post.

I'm NOT Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian in the least.

Tell me, Oz... How does Original Sin correlate to the constitution of man? How does a sin nature specifically correspond to the spirit-soul-body of man?

You have no clue what I'm talking about or how to answer. That's the typical response. It didn't stop you from being adversarial and condescending, though.

When you want to engage in decent conversation, I'm interested. But not when you respond like this.

Bye, Oz

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

When you want to engage in decent conversation, I'm interested. But not when you respond like this.

Bye, Oz

I'm fine either way. Your allegation of me having presuppositions was unwarranted and adversarial. So... backatcha.

(I notice you avoided the subject matter of my post, though.)

Bye.

 

[OzSpen]

What assertion? The assertion is the one made by CARM
There is nothing in the Bible that indicates such a conclusion could be deductive.

The Scriptures state:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man...." (Rom. 5:12a ESV).

It says "sin" and not "sins". This is not referring to concrete examples of sin but the habit of sin. Adam didn't set a bad example, but his one act of disobedience brought a change within humanity - unrighteousness within the heart/nature of human beings. The corrupting principle entered ever human being.

One of the results on our bodies is that human beings would "surely die" (Gen 2:17). 1 Cor. 15:22 says that "as in Adam all die", referring to physical death. Scriptures teach that part of the penalty of sin is physical death (see Gen. 3:19; Job 4:18-19; 14:1-4; Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:21f; 15:56; 2 Cor. 5:2, 4; 2 Tim. 1:10).

However, Rom. 5:12 states that "sin" (singular) entered the world (human race, environment, etc) through "one man" (Adam). We inherited it from our first parent, Adam.

Jesus agreed: "If you then, who are evil...." (Luke 11:13 ESV). Rom. 5:19 nails it:

For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous (ESV).

Oz

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This entire area of Theology has historically failed to delineate anything regarding the constitution of man. The questions remain... What was the comparative structural difference in man's spirit-soul-body because of the Edenic encounter with the serpent and the fruit-eating? What happened... EXACTLY?!

What are the details of the sin nature in relation to man's constitution? Be precise.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm fine either way. Your allegation of me having presuppositions was unwarranted and adversarial. So... backatcha.

(I notice you avoided the subject matter of my post, though.)

Bye.

I was not being adversarial at all. I was wanting to know your presuppositions that influence your decision to reject the orthodox doctrine of the sinful nature of human beings inherited from Adam.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

This entire area of Theology has historically failed to delineate anything regarding the constitution of man. The questions remain... What was the comparative structural difference in man's spirit-soul-body because of the Edenic encounter with the serpent and the fruit-eating? What happened... EXACTLY?!

What are the details of the sin nature in relation to man's constitution? Be precise.

I cannot be precise in my answer because you are not being precise in the kind of question you are asking. Are you asking: What were the effects of sin on the beings of Adam and Eve, and then on the entire human race as a result of Adam's sin?

Or, are you asking to know more about the internal workings of individual human beings and the impact of Adam's sin, more information than God has revealed? I will not go any further than what God has revealed in Scripture.

The Scriptures are my ultimate authority.

Oz

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I was not being adversarial at all. I was wanting to know your presuppositions that influence your decision to reject the orthodox doctrine of the sinful nature of human beings inherited from Adam.

Oz

Okay, fair enough.

It's not that I reject the overall truth of man being sinful by nature. It's that I reject Augustine's "what" as wholly inadequate for understanding the "how" and the "why". And I reject the extremes that Reformed doctrine has gone to, and the conceptual terminology used.

A practical understanding of how man's constitution was affected and altered at sin-onset is much preferable to a doctrine that doesn't address any of that. And Original Sin goes beyond scripture, offering conclusion and deduction by inference; much like orthodox Godhead doctrine.

Man cannot initiate or effect his own salvation, and no man is exempt from needing salvation. But there's a much better means of understanding the "how" and the "why" than the inadequate Original Sin doctrine from a lust-ridden Augustine.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I cannot be precise in my answer because you are not being precise in the kind of question you are asking. Are you asking: What were the effects of sin on the beings of Adam and Eve, and then on the entire human race as a result of Adam's sin?

Or, are you asking to know more about the internal workings of individual human beings and the impact of Adam's sin, more information than God has revealed? I will not go any further than what God has revealed in Scripture.

The Scriptures are my ultimate authority.

Oz

How do you deal with all the legal, ethical, and moral issues not directly handled in the inspired text, then? More things are excluded from the text than are included.

How, for instance, would you specifically determine abortion was/was not murder without having some view of when life begins prior to physical birth?

If you're Trinitarian, you've already gone beyond interpretation to inference by conclusion and deduction; but that's quite difficult for most to ever see or admit.

Original Sin is a huge part of Christian indoctrination. I'd just like to see believers have an actual understanding of the "why" and the "how" of sin in our members rather than just subscribing to a rote default doctrine given us by, in my opinion, one of the least credible early saints. (He was also the "grandfather of the Filioque", which ultimately brought the 1054 Schism.)


So... I'm asking... What specific affect did the Edenic serpent/fruit-eating encounter have on man's spirit, man's soul, and man's body? And how did it affect the internally-integrated workings of them relative to each other? How was this passed on from Adam and Eve if it was?

"What" is a "sin nature", and "where" is it in man's constitution? Was it an addition of a "something"? Was it a deletion of a "something"? Was it a modification of "something/s"?

How did sin affect Adam's soul in relation to his spirit and his body? How does sin affect man's soul in relation to his spirit and his body?

Why is it that sin and/or death entered through Adam if Eve, being deceived, was in the transgression?

Rather than an adamant declaration and adherance to a few conceptualized paragraphs of man's doctrine, I'd like to see someone answer more substantial questions that are about practical functionality. Adding Original Sin to a creed of faith is often no better than chanting verses to pledge a fraternity, just like most other formulated doctrines.

Is death physical, spiritual or both? Immediate or eventual? There are many internal questions within Original Sin as a doctrine, and various views on it.

I think it's inadequate and, thus, fallacious.

 

[OzSpen]

Okay, fair enough.

It's not that I reject the overall truth of man being sinful by nature. It's that I reject Augustine's "what" as wholly inadequate for understanding the "how" and the "why". And I reject the extremes that Reformed doctrine has gone to, and the conceptual terminology used.

A practical understanding of how man's constitution was affected and altered at sin-onset is much preferable to a doctrine that doesn't address any of that. And Original Sin goes beyond scripture, offering conclusion and deduction by inference; much like orthodox Godhead doctrine.

Man cannot initiate or effect his own salvation, and no man is exempt from needing salvation. But there's a much better means of understanding the "how" and the "why" than the inadequate Original Sin doctrine from a lust-ridden Augustine.

So, what is this better understanding of the "how" and "why" of contracting sin that is more adequate than the teaching of original sin?

Does your better understanding incorporate Eph. 2:3,

... we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind (ESV)?

Sincerely, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

How do you deal with all the legal, ethical, and moral issues not directly handled in the inspired text, then? More things are excluded from the text than are included.

How, for instance, would you specifically determine abortion was/was not murder without having some view of when life begins prior to physical birth?

If you're Trinitarian, you've already gone beyond interpretation to inference by conclusion and deduction; but that's quite difficult for most to ever see or admit.

Original Sin is a huge part of Christian indoctrination. I'd just like to see believers have an actual understanding of the "why" and the "how" of sin in our members rather than just subscribing to a rote default doctrine given us by, in my opinion, one of the least credible early saints. (He was also the "grandfather of the Filioque", which ultimately brought the 1054 Schism.)

So... I'm asking... What specific affect did the Edenic serpent/fruit-eating encounter have on man's spirit, man's soul, and man's body? And how did it affect the internally-integrated workings of them relative to each other?

"What" is a "sin nature", and "where" is it in man's constitution? Was it an addition of a "something"? Was it a deletion of a "something"? Was it a modification of "somethings"?

How did sin affect man's soul in relation to his spirit and his body?

Since I am a biblically convinced dichotomist regarding the nature of human beings, I will not engage with your last question as I'm on a different theological wavelength.

I do not have the time to engage with you in these various areas as I'm writing a PhD dissertation on a dimension of the historical Jesus and am deeply involved in analysis of data at the moment.

However, here is part of my understanding of "Abortion: A Christian perspective", in which I engaged with the biblical data and its application to the abortion debate today.

When dealing with the moral issues of today, the Scriptures give moral principles that apply to today, as I attempted to address in my public debate with Michael Moore, member of parliament from the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra) on a euthanasia bill that he was promoting. See: "Voluntary, Active Euthanasis: A Compassionate Solution to Those in Pain?"

There have been many Christian apologists, ethicists and theologians today and down through the centuries who have addressed many of the issues you raised. I'm biblically satisfied with the explanations in the systematic theologies and other publications of Wayne Grudem, Norman Geisler, Gordon Lewis & Bruce Demarest, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, Winfried Corduan, John W. Montgomery, etc.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Here's an example...

I hold that Calvinism and Arminianism is a false dichotomy.

Both "Total" Depravity and "Free" Will are fallacious if one looks at these according to man's constitution.

Is man's spirit depraved? Can that which is breathed of God and returns to Him be depraved? I contend not.

Is man's will free? Can man's will actually accomplish whatever it purposes and intends to do? I contend not.

These types of doctrines have created endless debate and division, when the appropriate thing to do would be to examine all things that are related to man's constitution... constitutionally!!

Man's will is boulema. God's will is thelema. The two are distinctly different, though similar. Understanding the differences is what's important.

And I'm not straddling a fence. I say rip the fence out and build a bridge of understanding for both sides.

Monergism and Synergism can be reconciled. Not to each other, but each to God by the Spirit and the Word... and thus, to each other.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So, what is this better understanding of the "how" and "why" of contracting sin that is more adequate than the teaching of original sin?

Amazingly, it's the understanding that can bridge between dichotomous and trichotomous views. Dichotomists are loathe to receive it, so it would likely be futile for me to present it.

Does your better understanding incorporate Eph. 2:3,

Sincerely, Oz

Absolutely, yes. But the "what" is virtually irrelevant without the "how", IMHO.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Since I am a biblically convinced dichotomist regarding the nature of human beings, I will not engage with your last question as I'm on a different theological wavelength.

But why? Are you so convinced you have the answers to all the mysteries of God and His creation of man that you've "tuned out" any other channel that might present more information for better decisions of conviction? I embrace both the dichotomous view and the trichotomous view in that only the logos can divide asunder between them. Nonetheless, they can be partitioned for distribution though they are virtually inseparable and indistinguishable.

I do not have the time to engage with you in these various areas as I'm writing a PhD dissertation on a dimension of the historical Jesus and am deeply involved in analysis of data at the moment.

Understood. God's blessings to you as you finish it.

However, here is part of my understanding of "Abortion: A Christian perspective", in which I engaged with the biblical data and its application to the abortion debate today.

Okay, I'll persuse it.

When dealing with the moral issues of today, the Scriptures give moral principles that apply to today, as I attempted to address in my public debate with Michael Moore, member of parliament from the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra) on a euthanasia bill that he was promoting. See: "Voluntary, Active Euthanasis: A Compassionate Solution to Those in Pain?"

There have been many Christian apologists, ethicists and theologians today and down through the centuries who have addressed many of the issues you raised. I'm biblically satisfied with the explanations in the systematic theologies and other publications of Wayne Grudem, Norman Geisler, Gordon Lewis & Bruce Demarest, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, Winfried Corduan, John W. Montgomery, etc.

Sincerely, Oz

And many before them, including Justin Martyr and the other Ante-Nicene Fathers. I've read every early writing extant, and I don't necessarily agree with all the ANFs and their many generations of successors to the present day. I certainly don't agree with all the above and their various distinct differences from each other.

My simple point was that Sola Scriptura was contextual in regards to Indulgences and other heinous practices of the institutional church. It obviously includes appealing to other sources of apologetics and hermeneutics, etc.

If you rigidly and adamantly contend man IS a soul and doesn't HAVE a soul, the opportunity for us to agree on sin's affects upon man's constitution will be diminished.

In any case, unless someone can outline the Edenic sin-onset's specific affects upon Adam and exactly how they are conferred to us, I will simply oppose the woefully inadequate default doctrine of Original Sin. I have little use for a generic "what" with no regard to pursuing a practical "how" and "why"; especially when it's just another cog in the indoctrination wheel of orthodoxy. It's Ideology over actual Theology. Default dogma. Religion. The death of the letter, not the life of the Spirit.

 

[OzSpen]

Pneuma,

In any case, unless someone can outline the Edenic sin-onset's specific affects upon Adam and exactly how they are conferred to us, I will simply oppose the woefully inadequate default doctrine of Original Sin. I have little use for a generic "what" with no regard to pursuing a practical "how" and "why"; especially when it's just another cog in the indoctrination wheel of orthodoxy. It's Ideology over actual Theology. Default dogma. Religion. The death of the letter, not the life of the Spirit.

What is your ultimate authority for comparing your conclusions on these matters?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Here's an example...

I hold that Calvinism and Arminianism is a false dichotomy.

Both "Total" Depravity and "Free" Will are fallacious if one looks at these according to man's constitution.

Is man's spirit depraved? Can that which is breathed of God and returns to Him be depraved? I contend not.

Is man's will free? Can man's will actually accomplish whatever it purposes and intends to do? I contend not.

These types of doctrines have created endless debate and division, when the appropriate thing to do would be to examine all things that are related to man's constitution... constitutionally!!

Man's will is boulema. God's will is thelema. The two are distinctly different, though similar. Understanding the differences is what's important.

And I'm not straddling a fence. I say rip the fence out and build a bridge of understanding for both sides.

Monergism and Synergism can be reconciled. Not to each other, but each to God by the Spirit and the Word... and thus, to each other.

Now you should understand my question about your presuppositions.

Oz

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Pneuma,

What is your ultimate authority for comparing your conclusions on these matters?

Oz

It seems you're probing to see if I do or do not consider scripture the preeminent source of authority for the Christian faith. I certainly do.

That said, every diametrically opposed pair of doctrines claims such authority. Every dichotomy, whether valid or false, has both sides appealing to interpretation directly from scripture.

I'm not talking about ignoring or minimizing scripture. I'm talking about setting aside a formulated doctrine of man and approaching the subject from another perspective within scripture.