holyrokker
Contributor
- Sep 4, 2004
- 9,390
- 1,750
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
isn't a biblical statement.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.
Your statement seems to be controlled by your presuppositions.
What are your presuppositions about original sin and the fall into sin that influence your statement?
What assertion? The assertion is the one made by CARMPlease explain, otherwise your statement is only an assertion.
Oz
There is nothing in the Bible that indicates such a conclusion could be deductive.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.
When you want to engage in decent conversation, I'm interested. But not when you respond like this.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
The Scriptures state:What assertion? The assertion is the one made by CARM
There is nothing in the Bible that indicates such a conclusion could be deductive.
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.Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man...." (Rom. 5:12a ESV).
OzFor 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).
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.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 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?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 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
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
So, what is this better understanding of the "how" and "why" of contracting sin that is more adequate than the teaching of original sin?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.
Sincerely, Oz... we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind (ESV)?
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.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?
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,
Sincerely, Oz
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
What is your ultimate authority for comparing your conclusions on these matters?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.
Now you should understand my question about your presuppositions.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.
Pneuma,
What is your ultimate authority for comparing your conclusions on these matters?
Oz
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?