Original Sin?

[~Anastasia~]

I agree with your statements here. Not 100% sure how what I said disagrees with your comments, but I readily admit I struggle with how to explain it properly

Oh, no, you didn't disagree. I agree that it's very tricky to explain.

Prevenient grace .... discussed with the understanding of grace being the Energies of God ... gets a little mind-bending is all.

I'm just slipping back and forth between mindsets in trying to understand everyone.

Please forgive me, I did not express myself well.

 

[All4Christ]

Oh, no, you didn't disagree. I agree that it's very tricky to explain.

Prevenient grace .... discussed with the understanding of grace being the Energies of God ... gets a little mind-bending is all.

I'm just slipping back and forth between mindsets in trying to understand everyone.

Please forgive me, I did not express myself well.

Believe me, I had to write and rewrite it while trying to slip back to my old mindset and back to the Orthodox understanding. Trying to explain them simultaneously is very difficult...like you said - mind-bending.

 

[All4Christ]

Oh, no, you didn't disagree. I agree that it's very tricky to explain.

Prevenient grace .... discussed with the understanding of grace being the Energies of God ... gets a little mind-bending is all.

I'm just slipping back and forth between mindsets in trying to understand everyone.

Please forgive me, I did not express myself well.

And yes - Grace is one of those words where we may mean something totally different than what many other communities mean whey they say Grace.

 

[St_Worm2]

I can appreciate your explanation, and I'm not disagreeing exactly ... but I am re-reading it with the understanding that grace is the Energies of God Himself ....

And that circles back around to what Hedrick said earlier -- mentioning some level of goodness in non-Christians. I have seen that (and goodness in children) and wondered at it when I was under strong Calvinist teaching. But I believe Orthodoxy is correct in that there is potential for goodness in all of us, and that God's grace can work even in those that don't know Him, and every instance of good is a result of God's grace. He is not stingy with Himself, but reaches out to whoever will respond in any way. Of course, we do not say this does or does not mean salvation -- merely that God's grace enables goodness in any person.

I'm not sure if anyone has missed that while Orthodoxy rejects Original Sin, we do so because of certain teachings associated with it, and instead speak of Ancestral Sin. So generally, we have certain ideas in common. I think very little of Christianity rejects the idea of sin in Genesis.

Hi Anastasia/All4Christ, I like what Orthodoxwiki has to say:

Grace is the very energies of God himself. The Orthodox Church believes that through the Trinitarian ministry of the Holy Spirit these energies are mediated to mankind. That is, how God acts in forgiving and spiritual healing. Grace is the working of God himself, not a created substance of any kind that can be treated like a commodity.

This takes any confusion out of what is meant by the "Energies of God" (at least for me ). IOW, God's grace isn't some kind of "stuff" that God gives us, it's Him working/acting/choosing on our behalf, and choosing, in this case, to give us something that we have neither earned nor deserve.

Also, what we Calvinists call "Total Depravity" does not mean "Utter Depravity". It's not that those who are non-Christians cannot do good things, they do "good things" all the time, in fact (just like Christians do), rather, it means that they neither can nor will choose to come to faith in God .. e.g. Romans 3:10-12 cf 1 Corinthians 2:14 apart from the gracious and mighty work that He must do in their hearts first .. e.g. Ezekiel 36:26; John 3:3.

Arminians call this type of grace, Prevenient Grace, (grace that comes before), and they believe God bestows it upon all, where Calvinists believe that it is a gift that God gives to His elect alone (because we believe that those who receive it WILL come to faith).

I believe the RCC believes this kind of "prevenient" grace is given through water baptism.

In Christ,
David

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hi Anastasia/All4Christ, I like what Orthodoxwiki has to say:

​

This takes any confusion out of what is meant by the "Energies of God" (at least for me ). IOW, God's grace isn't some kind of "stuff" that God gives us, it's Him working/acting/choosing on our behalf, and choosing, in this case, to give us something that we have neither earned nor deserve.

Also, what we Calvinists call "Total Depravity" does not mean "Utter Depravity". It's not that those who are non-Christians cannot do good things, they do "good things" all the time, in fact (just like Christians do), rather, it means that they neither can nor will choose to come to faith in God .. e.g. Romans 3:10-12 cf 1 Corinthians 2:14 apart from the gracious and mighty work that He must do in their hearts first .. e.g. Ezekiel 36:26; John 3:3.

Arminians call this type of grace, Prevenient Grace, (grace that comes before), and they believe God bestows it upon all, where Calvinists believe that it is a gift that God gives to His elect alone (because we believe that those who receive it WILL come to faith because of it).

I believe the RCC believes this kind of grace is given through water baptism.

In Christ,
David

Thank you, David.

This is kind of difficult (for me at least) to perfectly conceptualize. I think if we are honest, those things that deal with God Himself ARE difficult to perfectly conceptualize.

This is not a perfect example, but some Orthodox priests will say, by way of explanation, that Grace IS the Holy Spirit. Now, really, of course, the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity, but if Grace is the uncreated energy of God, God as we experience Him, the only way in which we can know Him (since His Essence is unknowable) ... then because the Holy Spirit is the primary way God interacts with us, at least at this time, it isn't completely inaccurate.

Grace is not something God can bestow upon us, or give us, unless we understand that He is giving us Himself. Oh - I think I'm making a mess of it. I just wanted to underscore that grace IS God Himself, in a sense (though not His Essence). It's too wonderful for me, as they say.

And I thank you for explaining Calvinism vs. Arminianism in regard to these things. I'm looking for commonalities, and distinctions. TBH, I sometimes hear Calvinists say what you did, that it does not mean utter depravity, and I understand in the theological terms you have described. I guess I fall back sometimes to what some say (and unfortunately, I was taught myself at times) that it really DOES mean "total" depravity. I remember my mother pulling me out of a church when I was about 10 years old because she came to visit and the pastor said babies cried because they were born in sin and were sinful.


I have to ask though ... as a Calvinist, given what you've said, does that mean that you would say that God does not interact in any way, or bestow any of His energies at all, on the un-elect? I guess that's just inconceivable to me. I can imagine that some may be so hardened, and so set to reject God, and He of course would know, and might refrain from them so as not to increase their culpability in rejecting Him further. But I just can't imagine Him blithely ignoring a segment of humanity. Maybe that's not how you see it either, so I would hope to understand what you think? Thank you!

 

[St_Worm2]

... as a Calvinist, given what you've said, does that mean that you would say that God does not interact in any way, or bestow any of His energies at all, on the un-elect? I guess that's just inconceivable to me. I can imagine that some may be so hardened, and so set to reject God, and He of course would know, and might refrain from them so as not to increase their culpability in rejecting Him further. But I just can't imagine Him blithely ignoring a segment of humanity. Maybe that's not how you see it either, so I would hope to understand what you think? Thank you!

Oh no, I would never say that. God is "the Savior of all men, especially of believers" .. 1 Tim 4:10. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous .. Matt 5:45.

And I believe He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked .. Ezek 33:11, and desires that all men would repent and come to saving faith in Him .. Jn 3:16; 1 Tim 2:4 .. but NONE do (be they Jew or Greek).

Romans 3
9 ....Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written,
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”​

The Bible says that all of us, in our natural, fallen state .. 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1-3, will refuse to believe in God and be lost, but we also believe that God will make sure that doesn't happen, that He has chosen to save a "remnant" from among us to be His Son's promised "bride"

There are a couple of things that I've gotta do before bedtime. If I can't come back and finish this explanation tonight, I will do so tomorrow afternoon/evening (Dv).

Thanks!

--David

“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and ..
of all that He has given Me I lose nothing,
but raise it up on the last day"
John 6:37-40
(excerpt)​

 

[hedrick]

I have to ask though ... as a Calvinist, given what you've said, does that mean that you would say that God does not interact in any way, or bestow any of His energies at all, on the un-elect? I guess that's just inconceivable to me. I can imagine that some may be so hardened, and so set to reject God, and He of course would know, and might refrain from them so as not to increase their culpability in rejecting Him further. But I just can't imagine Him blithely ignoring a segment of humanity. Maybe that's not how you see it either, so I would hope to understand what you think? Thank you!

The classical Calvinist position is that God restrains evil, in order to make the world an acceptable place to live.

Here's an answer from a conservative Presbyterian Church to the question of whether God loves everyone. Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The answer is, in some sense yes, but he doesn't love the unelect in the same way as the elect. The posting cites several places where the NT says God loves even the unthankful and evil

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP: "Original Sin?"

Origin andHistory of the Doctrine of Original Sin

THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

What is original sin?

What is original sin? | carm

There has been much debate over the nature of the sin of Adam and how it affected mankind. Pelagius taught that Adam's sin influenced the human race only as a bad example and that all people are born in the same state as Adam was before his fall. Augustine taught that men inherit natural corruption from Adam.

13 Reasons why the Original Sin Doctrine is FALSE

THIRTEEN REASONS WHY THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN IS FALSE

The "doctrine of original sin" is false because:
1. It makes sin a misfortune and a calamity rather than a crime.
2. It makes the sinner deserve pity and compassion rather than blame for his sins.
3. It excuses the sinner.
4. It makes God responsible for sin.
5. It dishonors God. It makes him arbitrary, cruel, and unjust.
6. It causes ministers to wink at and excuse sin.
7. It begets complacency and a low standard of religion among Christians.
8. It is a stumbling-block to the unsaved.
9. It makes Jesus a sinner or it must deny his humanity.
10. It contradicts the Bible.
11. It "adds to" and "takes from" the Bible. God warns against this in Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18, 19.
12. It begets false doctrines and false interpretations of the Scriptures.
13. It is ridiculous, absurd, and unreasonable. It contradicts the necessary and irresistible affirmations of every man's consciousness and reason, which is something that no true doctrine of the Word of God could do.

 

[St_Worm2]

THIRTEEN REASONS WHY THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN IS FALSE

The "doctrine of original sin" is false because:
1. It makes sin a misfortune and a calamity rather than a crime.
2. It makes the sinner deserve pity and compassion rather than blame for his sins.
3. It excuses the sinner.
4. It makes God responsible for sin.
5. It dishonors God. It makes him arbitrary, cruel, and unjust.
6. It causes ministers to wink at and excuse sin.
7. It begets complacency and a low standard of religion among Christians.
8. It is a stumbling-block to the unsaved.
9. It makes Jesus a sinner or it must deny his humanity.
10. It contradicts the Bible.
11. It "adds to" and "takes from" the Bible. God warns against this in Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18, 19.
12. It begets false doctrines and false interpretations of the Scriptures.
13. It is ridiculous, absurd, and unreasonable. It contradicts the necessary and irresistible affirmations of every man's consciousness and reason, which is something that no true doctrine of the Word of God could do.

Each and every point is, at best, a misunderstanding of what OS teaches, and all the conclusions reached by the author of the list, are wrong.

Yours and His,
David

 

[Ron Gurley]

Post #49: "...all the conclusions reached by the author of the list, are wrong."

In your OPINION, are all the links on Post #48 "wrong" also??

 

[gordonhooker]

Each and every point is, at best, a misunderstanding of what OS teaches, and all the conclusions reached by the author of the list, are wrong.

Yours and His,
David

I totally agree with you David...

The amount of people I have come across over the years that misuse the context of these two Bible references is beyond me... it either points to deliberate misuse of scripture or ignorance of the content of the Bible, to cherry pick to try and make the Bible say want they want it to say.

"11. It "adds to" and "takes from" the Bible. God warns against this in Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18, 19."

Even the newest of people beginning serious Bible study soon know what the Biblical canon is and when they were first decided on.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Jesus was a man. He was born of a woman. He was the seed of Abraham, the offspring of David, descended from Adam. Matt. 1:1, Rom. 1:3, Heb. 2:16, Rev. 22:16. The humanity of Christ is fully and unequivocably taught in the Bible, and to teach the doctrine that (ALL) men are born sinners is to teach the blasphemy that "the man Christ Jesus" was born a sinner.

REF: 13 Reasons why the Original Sin Doctrine is FALSE

 

[Ron Gurley]

Does the Bible speak of the "Immaculate Conception"? Does it speak of (ritual water) "infant baptism" for the remission of "original sin"? Does it speak of "Limbo"? Does it talk about an "inborn sin nature" or an "Adamic sin nature"? Does it mention "original sin" or "actual sin," making a distinction between the two? No. None of these doctrines and none of these terms can be found in the Bible. They are all inventions of men and additions to the Bible.

REF: see prior cited link!

The doctrine of "original sin" is ALSO an "invention of men and addition to the Bible."

Therefore: it can ONLY be a doctrine of RCC "Tradition" and/or "Magisterium"!!

 

[Ron Gurley]

e. The doctrine of a physical, passive regeneration.

Believing, as the advocates of "original sin" do, that moral depravity is constitutional in nature, they must believe in a physical and passive regeneration, in order to be consistent. Regeneration, according to this school, is a change in the constitutional nature of man. It is a change wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit, in which the sinner is wholly passive, and in which new and holy susceptibilities, dispositions, tastes, and appetites are implanted or created in the soul.

The problem with this is that no such physical or passive regeneration is taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that the work which the Holy Spirit does in the sinner is moral rather than physical. It is a work of moral suasion, of divine teaching and illumination, of convicting and reproving of sin. John 6:44-45, John 16:8, James 1:18, John 15:3, I Peter 1:22-23. The Bible teaches that the sinner cannot be passive in regeneration, but he must respond to the voice of God. He must repent and make to himself "a new heart and a new spirit." Ez. 18:30-32.

The Bible teaches that regeneration is the work of both God and man: (1) The work of God: Titus 3:5, James 1:18, I John 3:9, John 3:5, John 6:44-45; (2) The work of the sinner himself: Ez. 18:31, I Peter 1:22, James 4:7-8, Acts 3:19, James 1:21, Jer. 4:14; (3) The work of men who preach the Word of God: I Cor. 4:15, Fil. 1:10, James 5:19-20, Prov. 11:30, Dan. 12:3, Mark 1:17, I Cor. 9:22; and (4) The work of the Word of God: I Cor. 4:15, James 1:18, James 1:21, I Peter 1:23.

There is no passive physical change in the sinner when he becomes a saint. The Bible teaches that regeneration is an active, cooperative, moral change, and not a passive physical change

13 Reasons why the Original Sin Doctrine is FALSE

 

[St_Worm2]

In your OPINION, are all the links on Post #48 "wrong" also??

Hi Ron, my post and my comments above were in regard to the list you posited alone.

 

[St_Worm2]

Jesus was a man. He was born of a woman. He was the seed of Abraham, the offspring of David, descended from Adam. Matt. 1:1, Rom. 1:3, Heb. 2:16, Rev. 22:16. The humanity of Christ is fully and unequivocably taught in the Bible, and to teach the doctrine that (ALL) men are born sinners is to teach the blasphemy that "the man Christ Jesus" was born a sinner.

REF: 13 Reasons why the Original Sin Doctrine is FALSE

Question: What does every man, woman and child have that the Lord Jesus does not have?
Answer: Two human parents.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Ron, God made man upright .. e.g. Ecclesiastes 7:29, in His very image, in fact .. e.g. Genesis 1:26-27, yet ALL men/women fall short of the glory of God .. Romans 3:23, because ALL of us have chosen to disobey Him. We are all sinners in need of a Savior.

Why?

If each one of us is born without a fallen, sinful nature (as you seem to believe), how do we account for the universality of sin? (It is our race's most common trait)

Thanks!

--David

Ephesians 2
1 You were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. ​

 

[~Anastasia~]

Does the Bible speak of the "Immaculate Conception"? Does it speak of (ritual water) "infant baptism" for the remission of "original sin"? Does it speak of "Limbo"? Does it talk about an "inborn sin nature" or an "Adamic sin nature"? Does it mention "original sin" or "actual sin," making a distinction between the two? No. None of these doctrines and none of these terms can be found in the Bible. They are all inventions of men and additions to the Bible.

REF: see prior cited link!

The doctrine of "original sin" is ALSO an "invention of men and addition to the Bible."

Therefore: it can ONLY be a doctrine of RCC "Tradition" and/or "Magisterium"!!

As a Senior Ambassador of Christian Forums, I am asking you ...

PLEASE READ THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY.

YOUR POSTS ARE FREQUENTLY IN VIOLATION.

I am not Roman Catholic either, and do not believe in Limbo, the Immaculate Conception, Original Sin. But the purpose of TT is NOT to debate who is wrong or right, and it most certainly is not to argue against any recognized Tradition.

As stated in the SOP, you are free to do so in General Theology. You are NOT free to do so here. Please abide by CF's forum rules. If you have any problems understanding what is allowed or have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Otherwise, please abide by the SOP. Thank you.

 

[Ron Gurley]

All mankind, including A&E, are given 2 spiritual gifts at birth:
1. "free will" to CHOOSE...accept or reject God's CALL
2."sin nature":
= the natural-born innate capacity and inclination to do / not do those things that can in no way
commend Man and his "works" to God...TURN from God and toward self.
This natural tendency is SPIRITUALLY changed by the SALVATION / REDEMPTION EVENT, BUT it still rears its ugly head in the BODY / SOUL combo ("flesh") during the SANCTIFICATION PROCESS.

 

[tdidymas]

What kind of death is being referred to in "bold" in this verse?:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).

Thanks!

As you can see in these many posts, this question is difficult to answer for most Christians. Sometimes it is difficult to discern which kind of death the apostle is referring to, as which law, which flesh, etc. Many of these terms are used both literally and figuratively, and sometimes in the same context.

I believe that the apostle is referring to spiritual death here, as the primary definition. "The wages of sin is death..." which obviously means spiritual death, since we all are physically alive when reading this statement. Other places where spiritual death is referred to obviously are Eph. 2:1 "you were dead in your trespasses and sins..." and 1 John 3:14 "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death."

Where it gets sticky is the Gen. passage of scripture that Rom. 5:12 is referencing. God said to Adam "in the day you eat of it you shall surely die" (forbidden fruit). Notice he doesn't say "you'll begin to die" or "you'll die within 1000 years" or anything like that. Such additions to the text are put in to justify the interpretation that God is talking about physical death. But instead he says "in the day you eat..." and the literal interpretation demands that we believe Adam and Eve died a spiritual death that same day they ate the forbidden fruit. Evidence of it is that they became ashamed, afraid, "knew they were naked," hid from God, and God cursed the ground. All that same day. We also could surmise that God cast them out of the garden that same day.

So then, physical death is merely a natural and inevitable result of spiritual death. "The body is dead because of sin" (Rom. 8:10) indicates that even as Christians we will physically die because sin still resides in the body. Some cult doctrines claim that if we have enough faith, we could keep ourselves from dying, but such is a fallacy and an obvious confusion between physical and spiritual life. Physical eternal life doesn't come to us until the resurrection.

So when we see that God is really talking about spiritual death in Gen. 2, it will be easy to see that Paul is talking about spiritual death in Rom. 5. At the same time, we acknowledge that there is a connection between spiritual and physical death in that context.
TD