• 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.

The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

Is Adam being specially created and our first parent essential doctrine?

  • Yes, directly tied to the Gospel and original sin.

  • No, Adam is just a mythical symbol for humanity

  • Yes and No (elaborate at will)

  • Neither yes or not (suggest another alternative)


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Is that the standard definition of "gospel"? I Thought that Gospel refers specifically to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John...

Well, yea it does but in the larger sense the Gospel is Christ and Him crucified. Now there are four historical books that are referred to as the Gospels but that's because redemptive history culminated in those events.

I sometimes use the term 'gospel' to mean God's wonderful works in redemptive history as doctrine. You know what...I think Paul is the only one that actually uses the term 'gospel' in that way come to think of it.

At any rate, I was just using it interchangeably with sound doctrine.

Hope that clarifys it a little.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
I sometimes use the term 'gospel' to mean God's wonderful works in redemptive history as doctrine. You know what...I think Paul is the only one that actually uses the term 'gospel' in that way come to think of it.

At any rate, I was just using it interchangeably with sound doctrine.

Hope that clarifys it a little.

A little bit through the looking glass...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
A little bit through the looking glass...

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (ICor. 13:12)

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

The essential marks of difference between true narratives of facts and the creations of fiction, have already been adverted to. It may here be added that these attributes of truth are strikingly apparent throughout the gospel histories, and that the absence of all the others is equally remarkable. (Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf 1783-1853)​

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

The theology of this school was the first protest of the Germanic mind against the Judaism and formalism of the Byzantine and mediaeval Churches, -- the hollowness of science to which scholasticism had led, and the rottenness of society which a pompous hierarchy strove in vain to conceal, but had not the power nor the will to correct. ...Like the saint of Athens, however, they spoke plain truth to the people. To their disciples, and those who came to them for instruction, they exhibited the whole depth of that real Christian philosophy, which opens to the mind after all scholastic conventionalism has been thrown away, and the soul listens to the response which Christ's Gospel and God's creation find in a sincere heart and a self-sacrificing life (Theologia Germanica, author unknown, translated by MARTIN LUTHER)​

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

For as on the phenomena of the heavens many hypotheses may be constructed, so likewise (and more also) many various dogmas may be set up and established on the phenomena of philosophy. And in the plays of this philosophical theater you may observe the same thing which is found in the theater of the poets, that stories invented for the stage are more compact and elegant, and more as one would wish them to be, than true stories out of history. ( FRANCIS BACON, "The Idols of the Mind" From Novum Organum)

Why are we discussing Humpty Dumpty when there is eternal truth to be learned?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Learning eternal truth from either you or Humpty Dumpty... I do hope there's a third choice available. ;)

Oh my dear Lady Kate, I assure you there is a third option. Please, since you took the time to dig up this obsolete thread do me the courtesy of telling me why you held the interest for so long.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Humpty Dumpty. I am just wondering why this thread was of interest to you my dear.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There are only two things a person really has to understand in order to make sense of the Bible, Adam sinned and Christ arose, everything hinges on those two defining events. Scoffers and skeptics have abandoned their seemingly endless barrage of attacks on the resurrection, the only reason I can find for it being, that the New Testament is invulnerable as history given the standards of internal, external and bibliographical testing. The only other way for the skeptic and the scoffer to go is further back into the dimmer and darker past, as far as their vain imaginations can take them and logic will allow. The pagan clerics did not evolve out of, and certainly did not repent of their dark mysticism and secret arts; their mythographers simply changed the story. In pagan mythology it is the elementals that gave rise to the gods, in modern times the blind naturalistic elements are seen as the artificer of order out of chaos with progressive complexity guided by pragmatic survivability it's only guide, whether elements or elementals the principle remains the same. In Genesis one there is a hymn of praise to the Almighty who formed the worlds from nothing, brought light from the darkness and ordered the natural world by the counsel of His will. Light and darkness are divided, land and water are separated, the expanse of the water below is raised into the heavens above and everything is created in a week and it didn't take all week. Each of the six stages of creation was complete in a day and not one of them took all day. By sunset of the seventh day, all life and the first man was formed by divine fiat, complete in all it's vast array.

There is only one theory of evolution that has any relevance to me as a Christian and there is not one but a multitude of speculative scenarios their mythographers write endlessly. The only one that it has any bearing on my theology, apart from sin there is no need for a Savior and apart from Adam and Eve, our first parents, there is no original sin. It would appear that there is no need for me to look long and hard for ways to discount and discredit common ancestry with regards to human evolution from prehistoric apes, if anything modern science has made that all too easy. In their zeal to produce the evidence for our transitional common ancestor they failed to provide the fossil evidence of the common ancestors of our chimpanzee and gorilla cousins to compare hominid fossils to. All of the evidence, they will tell you, points to a transitional ape giving rise to the Homo lineage but they have failed to produce a single one for the apes of Asia and Africa during the same time period. That is simply because all the ape fossils are in natural history museums marked Homo XXX. The fact that all the evidence is our ancestor should be telling us something, no other alternative was ever entertained, every ape fossil turned up in Asia and Africa was automatically declared the missing link. If they couldn't find a suitable candidate from genuine fossil finds a fraud would suffice as evidence until they could dig up enough ape bones to become the idols of the theater of the mind, as Sir Francis Bacon called it." The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the human understanding, and have taken deep root therein, not only so beset men's minds that truth can hardly find entrance, but even after entrance is obtained, they will again in the very instauration of the sciences meet and trouble us, unless men being forewarned of the danger fortify themselves as far as may be against their assaults." (Aphorisms Concerning the Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man, "The Idols of the Mind" From Novum Organum)

The beginning of the annuls of the generations of mankind have been chronicled, the times and dates preserved within the limits of the language and calendars available in antiquity. Meticulously preserved and miraculously confirmed the Holy Bible has emerged from history to inform the candid and serious inquirer with regards to the genuine history of mankind:

"In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. "Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.' Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer." (Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf)

It's not complicated; you don't have to unravel the riddle of the worldly wise, it's so simple a child could understand. Do you as a Creationist believe in Christ because of Moses or do you believe in Creation because of Christ?

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (ICor.15:21,22)

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: (Romans 5:12)

Grab your Bible, put your theology brain cap on and let's compare TE to YEC as Christian doctrine. I have some good news for my fellow Creationists, the Bible is evidence, theology is science and if you have to choose between empirical knowledge and faith you are capable of grasping neither.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Just in case no one bothered to read the OP I thought I would include it into the strange re-introduction.

Enjoy! I will see you on the flip side.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
apart from sin there is no need for a Savior and apart from Adam and Eve, our first parents, there is no original sin.

Just as a matter of interest: so what if there is no original sin? (I am not saying this is the case, just wondering what the theological ramifications are.)

It is still the case that all have sinned.

So we still need redemption.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Just as a matter of interest: so what if there is no original sin? (I am not saying this is the case, just wondering what the theological ramifications are.)

Then Christ died for nothing.

It is still the case that all have sinned.

So we still need redemption.

Why would we all need it if that were not the case?
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The essential marks of difference between true narratives of facts and the creations of fiction, have already been adverted to. It may here be added that these attributes of truth are strikingly apparent throughout the gospel histories, and that the absence of all the others is equally remarkable. (Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf 1783-1853)
Simon Greenleaf was talking about the credibility of the writers of the four Gospels as witnesses testifying to the events of Jesus life. He was not talking about 'gospel' as Mark's view of redemptive history stretch back to Adam.

Anyway, what do Greenleaf's view on the reliability of eyewitness testimony have to do with Moses or Paul writing about Adam?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Mark, I think you're confusing original sin with sin in general.

Original sin. "Our first parents being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature were conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation." Adam was constituted by God the federal head and representative of all his posterity, as he was also their natural head, and therefore when he fell they fell with him (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22-45). His probation was their probation, and his fall their fall. Because of Adam's first sin all his posterity came into the world in a state of sin and condemnation, i.e.,
(1) a state of moral corruption, and
(2) of guilt, as having judicially imputed to them the guilt of Adam's first sin.

"Original sin" is frequently and properly used to denote only the moral corruption of their whole nature inherited by all men from Adam. This inherited moral corruption consists in,
(1) the loss of original righteousness; and
(2) the presence of a constant proneness to evil, which is the root and origin of all actual sin. It is called "sin" (Rom. 6:12, 14, 17; 7:5-17), the "flesh" (Gal. 5:17, 24), "lust" (James 1:14, 15), the "body of sin" (Rom. 6:6), "ignorance," "blindness of heart," "alienation from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18, 19). It influences and depraves the whole man, and its tendency is still downward to deeper and deeper corruption, there remaining no recuperative element in the soul. It is a total depravity, and it is also universally inherited by all the natural descendants of Adam (Rom. 3:10-23; 5:12-21; 8:7). Pelagians deny original sin, and regard man as by nature morally and spiritually well; semi-Pelagians regard him as morally sick; Augustinians, or, as they are also called, Calvinists, regard man as described above, spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1; 1 John 3:14).

The doctrine of original sin is proved,
(1.) From the fact of the universal sinfulness of men. "There is no man that sinneth not" (1 Kings 8:46; Isa. 53:6; Ps. 130:3; Rom. 3:19, 22, 23; Gal. 3:22).
(2.) From the total depravity of man. All men are declared to be destitute of any principle of spiritual life; man's apostasy from God is total and complete (Job 15:14-16; Gen. 6:5,6).
(3.) From its early manifestation (Ps. 58:3; Prov. 22:15).
(4.) It is proved also from the necessity, absolutely and universally, of regeneration (John 3:3; 2 Cor. 5:17).
(5.) From the universality of death (Rom. 5:12-20).

'Sin' from Eastons Bible Dictionary

By original sin (also called ancestral sin, hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin), when used as a theological term, is meant the fallen state of humanity. In the history of Christianity this condition has been characterized in ways ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency to something as drastic as total depravity. Western Christian tradition regards it as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from any actual sins that a person may or may not commit later. Eastern Christian Tradition too identifies original sin as physical and spiritual death, the spiritual death being the loss of "the grace of God, which quickened (the soul) with the higher and spiritual life"[1] Others see original sin also as the cause of actual sins: "a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matthew 7:17, NIV), although, in this view, original and actual sin may be difficult to distinguish

Original sin

St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, "Istoria del Concilio di Trento", vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a "privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception" (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls "justice" what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice.

We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin". This principle is developed by St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi).

Original Sin

I don't know what you think I am confused about, we all sinned in Adam so we all die in Adam.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I just like being quoted in context:

Just as a matter of interest: so what if there is no original sin? (I am not saying this is the case, just wondering what the theological ramifications are.)

I responded by saying 'then Christ died for nothing:

You think making atonement for our sins is nothing?

What I said was that if in Adam all did not sin then Christ died for nothing. In other words, no original sin and you have the same choice Adam did, life or death, sin or righteousness. The Scriptures are crystal clear that we have no choice because in Adam all sinned.



I don't understand the question. We do all need redemption because we have all sinned.

We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. We are born that way and only through the power of the Holy Spirit can we be redeemed.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
In other words, no original sin and you have the same choice Adam did, life or death, sin or righteousness.

Right, and I made it clear I was proposing a hypothetical, so defending the doctrine of original sin is not necessary. I am not disputing that.

What I am asking--hypothetically--is, what if there is no original sin? How does it change things?

We still have all sinned. We still need redemption. The atonement is still a valid work of Christ.

We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. We are born that way and only through the power of the Holy Spirit can we be redeemed.

Are you saying that Adam did not become a sinner when he sinned? Supposing we too were born as innocent as Adam. Why would our sins not make us sinners?
 
Upvote 0

Scotishfury09

G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life
Feb 27, 2007
625
28
38
Belton, Texas
✟23,427.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. We are born that way and only through the power of the Holy Spirit can we be redeemed.

At what age does an infant become a sinner? Is he a sinner before he is able to comprehend that he is sinning? Is the baby in need of salvation before then?

Maybe the problem lies in your understanding of hypothetical thinking?
 
Upvote 0

theIdi0t

Veteran
May 22, 2007
1,874
80
✟25,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
There are only two things a person really has to understand in order to make sense of the Bible, Adam sinned and Christ arose,

Correct on the second part, misguided on the first part.

It is "I've sinned" and Christ died and arose.

If one were to say, "Lord forgive me for Adam sinned", he has not repented. It's a useless notion, developed by those who deny God's purpose and meaning, as if life was not willed to be as it is. It is a theology designed to sell Grace for cheap.

According to your false doctrine, Christ's purpose and grace, was not God's will before time began (in opposition to 2 Timothy 1) but set because of the course of actions of Adam. And to you the crucial moment of history, is Christ death for a man who ate an apple, and not the inevitable conclusion of what he say he was sent for, to preach the Reign of God (Luke 4:43).

And yet those who developed a cheap grace, a weak faith, have come to the false conclusion that Christ was crucified, so we wouldn't have to, rather than seeing that true grace, the costly grace, is the way of the Cross, that to follow Christ is to be crucified with him.

And sin is not inherited by Adam (if it were so, who did Adam inherit sin from?). Cain would have still killed Abel, regardless of his father's action. Sin is the inescapable product of man's freedom.
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.

Rubbish. Nonsense that comes down in the Western tradition from Augustine, not from the Bible. We're sinners because we sin. The Eastern Orthodox are right about this one.

We don't become sinners because of some mythical bloke in the distant past.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
At what age does an infant become a sinner? Is he a sinner before he is able to comprehend that he is sinning? Is the baby in need of salvation before then?

Maybe the problem lies in your understanding of hypothetical thinking?

The problem is the clear message of the Gospel, in Adam all sinned:

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5:17-21)​

The baby is in need of salvation, definitely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: busterdog
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.