Hey folks, just a few minutes to post, then I'm out. I apologize for not taking the time to read my post over or take proper care with grammar or spelling but I am pressed for time.
I wrote, “The Eastern Orthodox Tradition denies the biblical teaching concerning sin.”
Not true. Our understanding is based on an entirely different understanding (i.e. interpretation) of the Sacred Scriptures than Western thought. I do not mean to come off as rude, but if anything, I found when I was studying the Apostolic and Ancient faith that it is Western thought which is out of line with Scripture. I was appalled to find out how fast and loose Calvinists played with the original Greek in order to maintain their doctrine of forensic justification, for instance.
Cardinal Newman believed that as well. He mentioned that to look into church history is to cease to be Protestant. I have read church history and disagree. I am no scholar but disagree with the Eastern and Roman view of history. Where you see “the Church” I see “the State Church” ruled by secular society. I’ve posted numerous times but the whole Iconoclast Controversy is a perfect example of secular authority dictating to the State Church what to believe. The issue with the Greek is a fairly simple one: the Greek church has impregnated the language with Greek philosophy.
I don’t believe you are being rude and I hope you don’t think I am.
I wrote, “It has been stated that mankind’s natural inclination is good and to do good deeds. This runs contrary to scripture.”
No it doesn't. Calvinists have yet to show one verse which shows us that the image of God was effaced from mankind's nature.
I thought you were Reformed? We do not deny that the image of God remains jsut that it has been effaced. We believe it was marred. That every thought is weighed down by sin.
Adam’s sin leads to death (Gen. 2:16-17) and this death passed onto all men (Rom. 5:12). The result was also spiritual death which means we must be revived by the Spirit, regenerated from a state of death unto life (Eph. 2:1-3 Col. 2:13).
First grave ontological error. The West approaches sin as if sin is passed from generation to generation by sexual reproduction. This was Augustine's error, and by the time his teaching reached Constantinople and the fathers of the Church reacted in horror to it, it had already taken root. The Eastern Fathers saw sin and its effects in a different light, a distortion of our natures rather than the idea of being "dead."
And that’s the rub isn’t it…Augustine, affirmed in the West, denied in the East. Much of the misunderstanding the East is due to the lack of ability to read Augustine. He was not given a fair shake and why would he be? There were two sides of the Empire jockeying for political influence and religious power. The State Church in the East, now Eastern Orthodox, would not give Augustine a fair reading. I quoted scripture that referenced our spiritual state as “dead.”
I wrote, “In Psalm 51:5 David confesses to being a sinner from conception onward and wicked from birth (Psalm 58:3).”
That is David's confession. It is dishonest to try to impose that upon all mankind. And it doesn't fit other Scriptures, which Calvinists conveniently ignore:
Abel is called "righteous."
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
David’s confession is a truism. To isolate one quote from the rest of the evidence is to disallow scripture to give us it’s true meaning. Why was Abel called “righteous?” His offering was made by faith. Instead of isolating a passage use the holy scriptures to gives us the meaning.
“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” Hebrews 11
Not only that, but the Scriptures speak constantly of men and women who are righteous. How is this possible under the Calvinist paradigm that all are "depraved sinners?" It is only possible by ignoring texts that don't jive with your chosen understanding of man, sin, and God.
Why are they called “righteous?” Hebrews 11 tells us it’s “by faith” one is declared righteous. Faith in God that He has provided for them the way of salvation that is what is in sight.
I posted, “The heart of all men is evil from youth (Gen. 8:21)”
Not what it says, sir! Perhaps you would do well to take off your presuppositional glasses and read what is actually said there:
Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart
is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Imagination is not the same as ontological state. From our youth we are assailed by temptation and evil thoughts, but that does not mean that the heart itself is ontologically evil. It is, in Eastern thought, inclined to evil by the effects of sin, but it is not evil itself.
I know it is easier to use unbiblical philosophical categories but as I have already mentioned, the weight of scripture supports the presupposition you claim I have,
my argument takes more than one verse Sir to grasp. If you continue to isolate the verses out of the greater context, the context of scripture, you’ll miss the point. The void in understanding will be filled with
the imagination of mankind which is evil. From whence does the imagination of man commence? The ontological error belongs to you. Reference a Bible dictionary and see that “imagination” is speaking of the shaping of a thought, which is evil…
I quote, “…and filled with evil (Ecc. 9:3). To claim that our natural inclination is to do good denies the biblical teaching about the deceitfulness of the heart (Jer. 17:9) from which all of our evil acts flow (
Mark 7:21-23). Mankind loves darkness (
John 3:19) and is set against God from the beginning (Rom. 8:7-8). The unregenerate person cannot discern spiritual things and the Gospel, faith, love to God is spiritual (1 Cor. 2:14).”
There is no such thing as "regenerate" or "unregenerate." Another Calvinist fantasy which comes from an utter lack of proper study of the Bible.
And I would ask that you support your accusation with more than opinion.
The Spirit Gives New Birth/Regenerates the Sinner
Deuteronomy 30:6;
Ezekiel 11:19;
Ezekiel 36:26-27;
John 1:12-13;
John 3:3-8;
John 5:21;
2 Corinthians 5:17-18;
Galatians 6:15;
Ephesians 2:5;
Ephesians 2:10;
Colossians 2:13;
Titus 3:5;
1 Peter 1:3;
1 Peter 1:23;
1 John 5:4.
The Spirit Reveals the Secrets of God/Fallen Man Cannot Grasp Them
Matthew 11:25-27;
Matthew 13:10-11;
Matthew 13:16;
Matthew 16:15-17;
Luke 8:10;
Luke 10:21;
John 6:37;
John 6:44-45;
John 6:64-65;
John 10:3-6;
John 10:16;
John 10:26-29;
1 Corinthians 2:14;
Ephesians 1:17-18.
The Spirit Gives Faith and Repentance/Sinful Man Cannot aid in His Salvation
Acts 5:31;
Acts 11:18;
Acts 13:48;
Acts 16:14;
Acts 18:27;
Ephesians 2:8-9;
Philippians 1:29;
2 Timothy 2:25-26.
The Spirit Effectually Calls/Dead in Sin Man Must be Called Specially By the Spirit
Romans 1:6-7;
Romans 8:30;
Romans 9:23-24;
1 Corinthians 1:1-2;
1 Corinthians 1:9;
1 Corinthians 1:23-31;
Galatians 1:15-16;
Ephesians 4:4;
2 Timothy 1:9;
Hebrews 9:15;
Jude 1:1;
1 Peter 1:15;
1 Peter 2:9;
1 Peter 5:10;
2 Peter 1:3;
Revelation 17:14
The Greek word in Scripture is "regeneration" (palinogenesis) and is found only twice in the NT. It is NOT an anthropological word. Do you see the root "genesis" there? In both instances, it has do to with the re-genesising of the cosmos. It describes Christ's work of starting a New Covenant with a new genesis which began at the Cross. (palino=again, genesis=creation). Christ is the Last Adam (1 Corin 15:45) who has "again created" the cosmos and God's creation by His work on the Cross. Calvinists are a braggy bunch who act like they are the hoi poloi of biblical interpretation, but when I actually look at their work, they should be deeply embarrassed for not finding things that the average Joe SixPack Stupid (which is me) finds with diligent study.
Mr. SixPack, I will answer with some snark to match you.
What I find deeply embarrassing is the utter contempt for the biblical concept of regeneration and the commitment to an exegetical fallacy you and other Easterners make. The concept is biblical as I have demonstrated above. Re-creation, regeneration from trespasses and sin, the concept is there. The “braggy bunch” make claims such as, “The Church has simply been the Church, since the times of the ones mentioned in Scripture, some of which still exist.” ( @
~Anastasia~ ) and refuse to admit their opinions could actually be wrong. Instead of looking like the Apostolic church in all it’s simplicity they look like a Byzantine Court with pomp and ceremony found nowhere in the earliest record: the
Scripture. Instead of being the church mentioned in scripture they are a relic of a State Church, a fallen empire…with the persecutors, namely Islam and Communionism, causing them to turn into themselves and putrefy.
Me, “This is due the natural hardness of heart and dark understanding we are born with (Eph. 4:17-19 Eph 5:8)”
Again, reading into the text that which you wish to prove. The text of Ephesians does not say that there is natural darkness and hardness of heart. What it does say is that Gentiles have had their understanding darkened. Scripture elsewhere states that when we are reproved and choose evil, we harden our hearts against the truth, much like what Pharaoh did. You are trying to make a case from silence.
Silence? Humm…I’ll re-post some scripture I have already posted for those reading this thread since Joe didn’t take the time to read them. It is written out so you can click for easy reference, read it for yourselves.
Genesis 2:16-17;
Psalm 51:5;
Psalm 58:3;
John 3:5-7;
Romans 5:12;
Ephesians 2:1-3;
Colossians 2:13
Genesis 6:5;
Genesis 8:21;
Ecclesiastes 9:3;
Jeremiah 17:9;
Mark 7:21-23;
John 3:19;
Romans 8:7-8;
1 Corinthians 2:14;
Ephesians 4:17-19;
Ephesians 5:8;
Titus 1:15.
John 8:34;
John 8:44;
Romans 6:20;
Ephesians 2:1-2;
2 Timothy 2:25-26;
Titus 3:3;
1 John 3:10;
1 John 5:19
1 Kings 8:46;
2 Chronicles 6:36;
Job 15:14-16;
Psalm 130:3;
Psalm 143:2;
Proverbs 20:9;
Ecclesiastes 7:20;
Ecclesiastes 7:29;
Isaiah 53:6;
Isaiah 64:6;
Romans 3:9-12;
James 3:2;
James 3:8;
1 John 1:8;
1 John 1:10
Job 14:4;
Jeremiah 23:13;
Matthew 7:16-18;
Matthew 12:33;
John 6:44;
John 6:65;
Romans 11:35-36;
1 Corinthians 2:14;
1 Corinthians 4:7;
2 Corinthians 3:5
I posted, “proving that unbelievers minds and consciences are corrupt and evil (
Titus 1:15).”
They are evil because they have chosen evil, not because of some ontological corruption which has made them evil.
Right, and they didn’t have a choice, it was a Law. Romans 7:21 No matter how you spin it the Law of sin binds the sinner. To suggest man is essentially “good” is to walk in the spirit of world, it is the same Gospel
Oprah and Dr. Phil preach.
Me again, “Those who are not believers do the will of the Devil (
John 8:44) and follow his wicked ways (Eph 2:1-2). They have been taken by the Devil (2 Tim. 2:25-26) and are his children (
1 John 3:10) for the whole world is in the power of the evil one (
1 John 5:19).
The natural inclination of mankind is to sin (Roman 6:20) for we are slaves to sin (
John 8:34) and to sinful lusts (
Titus 3:3). This is true for all the Sons of Adam (2 Chro. 6:36), mankind is under the power of sin (Rom. 3:9-12) and unable to restrain our passions (
James 3:2, 6, 8). A bad tree cannot forth good fruit (Matt. 7:16-18) or make it more acceptable. (Matt. 12:33) It must be recognized that we are not sufficient in ourselves (2 Cor. 5:5) to come to Christ, to perform acceptable works, and we differ only because of Christ (1 Cor. 4:7). One offence of the Law makes us guilty of breaking the entire Law and since we are wicked from conception (Psa. 58:3) we must acknowledge our utter wickedness before God. As you can see the Bible disagrees with the Traditional view taught in Eastern Orthodoxy.”
I've said enough and I have things to do. When I return, suppose you answer me this question (I think I know the answer you will give already, and it is wrong, but I want to hear it from your lips)
Don’t get me wrong
I do appreciate your responses. I really don’t have a lot of time for prolonged posts either but I will make try to make time to defend the very heart of the Gospel. I'm not defending a church or ecclesiastical hierarchy but the Gospel itself.
How does God constantly speak of "the righteous" when all men are only evil, utterly depraved, and corrupt? How does Jesus call Abel "righteous" when according to Calvinist doctrine, Abel was an utterly depraved sinner? The same for Zacharias and Elizabeth? Such does not bode well for Calvinist teaching.
I have answered this above; “by faith” people are considered righteous and this is not due to something inherent in them, it is due to Jesus Christ alone.
Now, you did state that you attended a PCA church, but you seem to have misunderstood the doctrine of total depravity or better put man’s inability. It seems you are creating a strawman from the world “depravity.” To help out the reader of this thread I’ll quote the popular teacher R. C. Sproul who explains what is meant by depravity:
“…total depravity does not mean
utter depravity. We often use the
term total as a synonym for
utter or for
completely, so the notion of total depravity conjures up the idea that every human being is as bad as that person could possibly be. You might think of an archfiend of history such as Adolf Hitler and say there was absolutely no redeeming virtue in the man, but I suspect that he had some affection for his mother. As wicked as Hitler was, we can still conceive of ways in which he could have been even more wicked than he actually was. So the idea of
total in total depravity doesn’t mean that all human beings are as wicked as they can possibly be. It means that the fall was so serious that it affects the whole person. The fallenness that captures and grips our human nature affects our bodies; that’s why we become ill and die. It affects our minds and our thinking; we still have the capacity to think, but the Bible says the mind has become darkened and weakened. The will of man is no longer in its pristine state of moral power. The will, according to the New Testament, is now in bondage. We are enslaved to the evil impulses and desires of our hearts. The body, the mind, the will, the spirit—indeed, the whole person—have been infected by the power of sin.
I like to replace the term
total depravity with my favorite designation, which is
radical corruption. Ironically, the word
radical has its roots in the Latin word for “root,” which is
radix, and it can be translated
root or
core. The term
radical has to do with something that permeates to the core of a thing. It’s not something that is tangential or superficial, lying on the surface. The Reformed view is that the effects of the fall extend or penetrate to the core of our being. Even the English word
core actually comes from the Latin word
cor, which means “heart.” That is, our sin is something that comes from our hearts. In biblical terms, that means it’s from the core or very center of our existence.
So what is required for us to be conformed to the image of Christ is not simply some small adjustments or behavioral modifications, but nothing less than renovation from the inside. We need to be regenerated, to be made over again, to be quickened by the power of the Spirit. The only way in which a person can escape this radical situation is by the Holy Spirit’s changing the core, the heart. However, even that change does not instantly vanquish sin. The complete elimination of sin awaits our glorification in heaven.”
PS.....it is not the Bible you are quoting. It is the Calvinist interpretation. I always find it interesting to see two Protestants going at it with each other over some arcane point of doctrine, each claiming "the Bible says....." to defend themselves and each condemning the other.
I understand that is your view, however, your using a traditionalist understanding. One that is layered with a philosophical tradition that cannot be supported from our earliest record:
the Scriptures.
@ArmyMatt I don’t mean to ignore you Matt but I think I’ve posted enough already. hehe
Yours in Christ who saves to the uttermost!
j
