Question

yedida · Oct 18, 2011

visionary said:
To be successful in manipulation, one must not reveal the evidence of deception.

Ain't that the truth?
The RCC was well on it's way to power waaaay prior to it's "official coming-out party." It was just wiating to spring into place. It can be seen throughout the letters that they allowed to remain intact. Power makes no distinction in religion - it corrupts any who weld it wrongly.

Lulav · Oct 18, 2011

edit>

Let me just leave with a little story. A friend of my husbands told him of how they came knocking on his door to collect his 'tithes'. They insisted that he pay them and coercion was well within their repertoire.

In the course of time, however, as the Church expanded and various institutions arose, it became necessary to make laws which would insure the proper and permanent support of the clergy.

Catholic tithes were collected on pain of prolonged suffering in purgatory. The church had convinced everyone that if they didn't pay, they would suffer in the afterlife.

Do I need to go into a lesson on indulgences or Martin Luther and his 95thesis? I'm sure I don't.

yedida · Oct 18, 2011

<edit>

Regarding the Catholic "tithes," I, too, can add a story. I worked for a call center in a city that has catholic churches on every other corner, in other words, a lot of 'em. I answered for several. During the 8 years I answered for these, there were a number of instances that a parent would call all in a tizzy because they'd received letters stating that the neglecting of the tithes would result (or had resulted) in their child's withdrawal from (what I gathered was something akin to the ) Dean's List, or the Gifted List. I never understood this, but I thought it was horrible that a child's grade seemed to be dependent upon timely paid tithes of the parents! And this was happening at 3 different churches.

Tishri1 · Oct 19, 2011

I couldnt read all the thread but did anyone bring up the separation between God and man that happened when Adam sinned...IMO that could be a bit of what original sin was about and how Yeshua died to buy us back into that relationship as sons again

ContraMundum · Oct 20, 2011

visionary said:
My faith is in God knowing whose are His. No human name or claim it is going to change it.

What has that got to do with this? Of course God knows who are His...that's a given.

What's with all these quasi-spiritual throw-away lines lately, Vis?

visionary · Oct 20, 2011

ContraMundum said:
What has that got to do with this? Of course God knows who are His...that's a given.

What's with all these quasi-spiritual throw-away lines lately, Vis?

Keeping it simple...

Gxg (G²) · Oct 20, 2011

Is it really essential that one not believe in original sin in order to follow the Messiah in what he noted?

Lulav · Oct 20, 2011

Yeshua made it simple, he said that the TRUE worshipers of his father, would be worshiping in:

Spirit and in Truth.

Why?

for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks......................

visionary · Oct 20, 2011

Easy G (G²);58805561 said:
Is it really essential that one not believe in original sin in order to follow the Messiah in what he noted?

How does original sin change the perception of sin itself? That says a lot of how original sin affects the believers in their relationship with God. Undo burdens and all... Burdens of original sin

Lulav · Oct 20, 2011

<edit>

If it is so good then why didn't our ancestors believe this, nor our family today? This is new, on the timeline of history.

Moses was given the story of creation and wrote it down 3,500+ years ago. So for 1,500 years, Israel has been clueless?

Original sin doctrine came about through gentiles.

So which of these is 'fact' and not theory of men?

1. The Augustinian Theory. This is also called the Theory of Adam's Natural Headship and the Realistic Theory. This theory was formulated by Augustine in the fifth century A.D. The Augustinian Theory affirms that, by virtue of organic unity, the whole human race existed in Adam at the time of his transgression. It says that Adam's will was the will of the species, so that in Adam's free act, the will of the race revolted against God, and the nature of the race corrupted itself. All men existed as one moral person in Adam, so that in Adam's sin we sinned, we corrupted ourselves, and we brought guilt and merited condemnation upon ourselves.

2. The Federal Theory. This theory is also called the Theory of Condemnation by Covenant and the Immediate Imputation Theory. It had its origin with Cocceius in the 17th century A.D. According to this theory, God made a covenant with Adam, agreeing to bestow upon all his descendants eternal life for his obedience, but making the penalty for his disobedience to be the condemnation of all his descendants. Since our legal representative or federal head did sin, God imputes his sin, guilt, and condemnation to all his descendants. It was thought that this theory was necessary because of the problem in the Augustinian Theory of accounting for the non-imputation of the subsequent sins of Adam and less remote ancestors for if real existence in Adam explained our responsibility for his first sin, why should not real existence in Adam and in subsequent ancestors make us guilty for those sins, too?

Or

3. The Theory of Mediate Imputation. This theory is also called the Theory of Condemnation for Depravity. This is the theory formulated by Placeus in the 17th century A.D. Placeus originally denied that Adam's sin was in any way imputed to his posterity. But when his first view was condemned by the Synod of the French Reformed Church in 1644, he published this later view. According to this view, all men are born with a depraved nature and are guilty and condemnable for that nature. They are not viewed as being guilty because of the sin of Adam, as in the Federal Theory. Instead it is the corrupted nature which they inherit from Adam that is sufficient cause and legal ground for God to condemn them.

??????

Original sin

Alan Jacobs introduces us to the world of original sin, which he describes as not only a profound idea but a necessary one. As GK Chesterton explains: "Only with original sin can we at once pity the beggar and distrust the king."

Ever since Augustine, the church has taught the doctrine of original sin, which is the idea that we are not born innocent, but as babes we are corrupt, guilty, and worthy of condemnation.

Perhaps no Christian doctrine is more controversial; perhaps none is more consequential.

So how did something so germane to our souls not come about until the Gentile Church age?

Why wasn't this doctrine espoused by the original 12?

Gxg (G²) · Oct 20, 2011

visionary said:
How does original sin change the perception of sin itself? That says a lot of how original sin affects the believers in their relationship with God. Undo burdens and all... Burdens of original sin

There are many differing dynamics with original sin that can indeed be difficult to deal with, though I don't see where the subject of original sin needs to necessarily cause one to feel burdened---especially if one understands the proper definition of it. For the way that many see it, all are impacted by the consquences of Adam's sin...but not all will automatically pay the FULL penalty that He did simply because he was the Father, as everyone gives their own account to the Lord regardless of some of the other struggles that came into our world because of Adam.

Of course, depending on one's view of the nature of the Atonement, many differing concepts can be within view. My own leaning is toward what's known as the Christus Victor view--and for more on that:

Also, the folks from the ministry of "Internet Monk" did some excellent series on the subject of original sin..especially as it concerns the issue of what that really looked like, how that is often misunderstood, and even the issues that others have brought up on whether or not Adam was even the first man. For more:

Thanks for the article, by the way, that you gave out....

ContraMundum · Oct 20, 2011

Lulav said:
If it is so good then why didn't our ancestors believe this, nor our family today?

The Bible teaches it. Old and New Testaments. That's enough for me. I care not for modern Jewish rejections of scripture.

Why wasn't this doctrine espoused by the original 12?

It was. I have already shown that.

ContraMundum · Oct 20, 2011

visionary said:
Keeping it simple...

Okie dokie.

visionary · Oct 20, 2011

On the contrary, If unbaptized children have interior sorrow after death, they will grieve either for their sin or for their punishment. If for their sin, since they cannot be further cleansed from that sin, their sorrow will lead them to despair. Now sorrow of this kind in the damned is the worm of conscience. Therefore these children will have the worm of conscience, and consequently theirs would not be the mildest punishment, as Augustine says it is [See 1, "On the contrary"]. If, on the other hand, they grieve for their punishment, it follows, since their punishment is justly inflicted by God, that their will opposes itself to divine justice, and thus would be actually inordinate, which is not to be granted. Therefore they will feel no sorrow.

This isn't the truth... it depicts a very mean God.

yedida · Oct 20, 2011

visionary said:
This isn't the truth... it depicts a very mean God.

And a ridiculous scenario. Indeed, a very mean God.

aniello · Oct 20, 2011

"On the contrary, If unbaptized children have interior sorrow after death, they will grieve either for their sin or for their punishment. If for their sin, since they cannot be further cleansed from that sin, their sorrow will lead them to despair. Now sorrow of this kind in the damned is the worm of conscience. Therefore these children will have the worm of conscience, and consequently theirs would not be the mildest punishment, as Augustine says it is [See 1, "On the contrary"]. If, on the other hand, they grieve for their punishment, it follows, since their punishment is justly inflicted by God, that their will opposes itself to divine justice, and thus would be actually inordinate, which is not to be granted. Therefore they will feel no sorrow. "

Viz replied: " This isn't the truth... it depicts a very mean God. "

Viz, please, where did the above quote come from? Thanks.

aniello

ContraMundum · Oct 20, 2011

yedida said:
And a ridiculous scenario. Indeed, a very mean God.

Lots of different propositions have come out the discussion of sin in the history of God's people. Not all of them "fly" all that well for my mind either.

However, the bottom line of the doctrine of sin is what all who claim to be orthodox have in common, despite differences over theories about its outcome.

In a nutshell, original sin is really about what Tishri already said: the separation of man from God, and man's deep rooted sin nature as a result of that. I have no idea why Lulav and Vis are so against this very simple and easily proven doctrine.

As long as one holds to that, one believes in Original Sin. Very easy. Lots of theories can pop up after the fact, and within the boundaries of orthodoxy we allow one to think and let think on these things. When one denies the core doctrine, one begins to take the path that man is his own saviour, but that is a topic for another thread.

visionary · Oct 20, 2011

aniello said:
"On the contrary, If unbaptized children have interior sorrow after death, they will grieve either for their sin or for their punishment. If for their sin, since they cannot be further cleansed from that sin, their sorrow will lead them to despair. Now sorrow of this kind in the damned is the worm of conscience. Therefore these children will have the worm of conscience, and consequently theirs would not be the mildest punishment, as Augustine says it is [See 1, "On the contrary"]. If, on the other hand, they grieve for their punishment, it follows, since their punishment is justly inflicted by God, that their will opposes itself to divine justice, and thus would be actually inordinate, which is not to be granted. Therefore they will feel no sorrow. "

Viz replied: " This isn't the truth... it depicts a very mean God. "

Viz, please, where did the above quote come from? Thanks.

aniello

same link as my earlier post.. SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The quality of those souls who depart this life with original sin only (Appendix I, Q. 1)

Gxg (G²) · Oct 20, 2011

ContraMundum said:
Man was created in God's image, a free agent. Man fell, and the image of God within him is seriously and fatally damaged. He is inclined to sin, and that continually. He can't make himself holy or restore the image of God he lost by his own works or power. Without God's gracious intervention he can not change or be made holy or get rid of his inclination to sin, nor does he want to without God first drawing him.

Thank the Lord for grace...and that grace is a person known as Christ (John 1)

Gxg (G²) · Oct 20, 2011

ContraMundum said:
Lots of different propositions have come out the discussion of sin in the history of God's people. Not all of them "fly" all that well for my mind either.

However, the bottom line of the doctrine of sin is what all who claim to be orthodox have in common, despite differences over theories about its outcome.

In a nutshell, original sin is really about what Tishri already said: the separation of man from God, and man's deep rooted sin nature as a result of that.

I think the apostle John summed it up well, as it concerns the reason why the Lord appeared:

1 John 3:7-9

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devils work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because Gods seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God

What the Lord came to do was to destroy the work of the evil one, enabling all to come to Him and live as He called them to without the PROPENSITY to sin being something that is binding upon those changed with the new nature (Ephesians 4, Colossians 3, Romans 6, Romans 13:13-14, etc) in place that those trusting in Him can now walk in.

Question

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

Y'shua is His Name

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

Well-Known Member

Messianic Jewish Christian

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Y'shua is His Name

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Y'shua is His Name

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Messianic Jewish Christian

Messianic Jewish Christian

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

aniello

Guest

Messianic Jewish Christian

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency