The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

[Assyrian]

Here is a something that doesn't seem to fit with the original sin doctrine, not just the 'we all sinned in Adam and share Adam's guilt', but the more general, human nature changed in the fall, Adam was capable of not sinning but we have a fallen sin nature as a result of his transgression.

All Adam was asked to do was a simple don't touch the kumquats, a very simple instruction to live by. He failed.

Yet commands like that are found in the world today, the kosher don't eat pork, or the Polynesian taboo, don't enter the sacred grove. And many people keep these commands all their lives. Of course there are loads of other ways where they do end up going against what they know in their conscience and sin. But this is comparing Adam and the human race today on the simple basis of a comparison with the command Adam was given. Remember that was all Adam was commanded and he did not keep it.

So Adam failed a simple taboo law, many Jews and Polynesians keep equivalent laws. How can we say these Jews and Polynesians have a fallen and corrupt nature that Adam didn't? I think the message of Genesis is that human beings aren't capable of living moral and holy lives, not that they once were but changed.

 

[chaoschristian]

Didn't Adam's transgression show he had the possible option of sin too?

Anything I say may be wonky because I'm trying to see this from the perspective of a historical Adam while trying to argue from the perspective of a literary Adam.

I think I've just managed to confuse myself .

Truly and wholeheartedly I see the Genesis account as a narrative of the nature of God, the nature of man (kind) and the nature of the relationship between God and man.

I've got to be carefule, because I could accidentally lend credence to the concept that the 'pre-fall' creation was perfect and that subsequent to Adam (and Eve's!) actions the nature of creation and man especially changed in some fundemental physical way.

I don't believe in it like that at all, which will no doubt give Mark all sorts of excited heeby-jeebies.

 

[PaladinValer]

I don't think Mark has agreed with any of my six points, Shernren, though I did mean them for fellow TEs to reply to.

I am curious, however, whether if he agrees if saying "yes" to all six constitutes an acceptance of the "Biblical Gospel" (for whatever that might mean). Mark, instead of treating me as a so-called "troll" (a false title at that), why don't to answer those questions asked of you by Mel, Shernren, and myself?

Otherwise, I will simply take any non-answer as a silent omission of retraction of your original position.

 

[busterdog]

Actually, we could say this not only of sin, but of all human actions good and bad. Nothing we choose to do is divorced from inheritance and circumstances, whether it is cheating on a tax return or donating to a food bank.

But so long as we are held personally responsible for what we do and/or given personal credit for what we do, the action, at some level, is our own.

Bingo.

 

[Assyrian]

Anything I say may be wonky because I'm trying to see this from the perspective of a historical Adam while trying to argue from the perspective of a literary Adam.

I think I've just managed to confuse myself .

Truly and wholeheartedly I see the Genesis account as a narrative of the nature of God, the nature of man (kind) and the nature of the relationship between God and man.

I've got to be carefule, because I could accidentally lend credence to the concept that the 'pre-fall' creation was perfect and that subsequent to Adam (and Eve's!) actions the nature of creation and man especially changed in some fundemental physical way.

I don't believe in it like that at all, which will no doubt give Mark all sorts of excited heeby-jeebies.

That makes more sense. Thanks CC.

 

[busterdog]

There are different ways of looking at this 'inheritance.'

Mark seems to me to be advocating for a physical and direct biological inheritance from Adam to all of humanity. That's why Adam's special creation is so important to him, that's why the literal veracity of the geneologies is so important to him, and that's why adamantly denying certain aspects of evolutionary theory are so important to him.

Some sin is a response to genetic problems. Greed is a response to scarcity, at times. It is not a necessary cause. One can imagine other ways in which a physical inheritance is part of our problem.

I have heard references to Noah's genetic purity as one explanation for Biblical concepts. It seems something is happening there, but it is certainly more "mythic" than historical to the extent that no one seems to understand it real well.

The Bible is also pretty clear that a legal relationship is involved, though the exact workings there are murky as well to our way of thinking. Satan clearly has an authority over Job, for example, in a legal sense. He is the "god of this world" and the "prince of the power of the air", both terms being fraught with meaning. They are easily dismissed if you "metaphor" makes it maleable for you. But, that doesn't do it justice either.

I think it remains a partial mystery why Jesus even had the right to make a sacrifice "once for all." That points right back to the legitimacy of Mark's point. But, the boundaries are unclear for the legal relationship and the process by which Jesus takes authority here to redeem humanity (as Boaz redeems Ruth and the inheritance of Naomi). But it certainly seems to exist to Mark and I.

But there's at least one other way of looking at it apart from that. That Adam's transgression made possible the option of sin, and that our own sins are ours and ours alone, that we do not bear the sin of Adam, since not one of us save Adam is Adam, but that there is also no way to escape or choose differently from sin as there is no way to escape or choose differently from being human while being only human. Sin is part of the human narrative from which no human can opt out.

You are at least partly right. But, it seems pretty clear that much more is going on. Since none of us has ever witnessed a legal claim resulting in an earthquake, lots of us will write off the opening of the seven seals as an interesting metaphor for something far more benign than actual catastrophe. But, for the inerrant view, there is plenty of evidence that the substance of everything is bound up in this sin regime. And it certainly acts like a regime, not just a tendency of a species.

Christ is unique in that He is fully human and fully divine. He and he alone could and did make that choice. He could speak a new and good narrative apart from that of death alone. And because of that choice and that new narrative we mere humans are provided with a pathway that leads to a different end than eternal unholiness and death.

Certainly Jesus was best able to speak for God and best able to deliver the good news. He was also best able to deliver the substance of that liberation, such as by making the blind see. There is plenty of evidence that something far more substantial and far reaching was happening, however.

The essential dispute is 1. between those who use a modern worldview to "prove" that the Bible is primarily metaphorical; and 2. those who say the Bible primarily speaks historically. Let's not retrace that dispute. If one were to read the Bible apart from a modern worldview, the Bible would say to that reader that sin has altered the substance of everything and created bondage in a legal sense.

 

[Assyrian]

You keep missing the point with metaphor. The description is not real but what is being described is. Oppenheimer quoted the Bhagavad Ghita when the first atomic bomb was detonated "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds". It was a metaphor. He wasn't saying he literally had become scythe wielding Death or a Hindu deity. But the destructive power of the atom bomb he was describing in the metaphor was frighteningly real. So was the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Bible is also pretty clear that a legal relationship is involved, though the exact workings there are murky as well to our way of thinking. Satan clearly has an authority over Job, for example, in a legal sense. He is the "god of this world" and the "prince of the power of the air", both terms being fraught with meaning. They are easily dismissed if you "metaphor" makes it maleable for you. But, that doesn't do it justice either.

The bible does talk of Satan being god of this world and the prince of the power of the air, but how is this lessened by saying it wasn't a literal snake in the garden?

The essential dispute is 1. between those who use a modern worldview to "prove" that the Bible is primarily metaphorical; and 2. those who say the Bible primarily speaks historically. Let's not retrace that dispute.

Having been a literalist in the past, I would say that it was a modern worldview that lead me to read the bible like a textbook. It was only when I immersed myself in the rich figurative a language of the bible that I began to understand rich variety of ways God speaks to us in his word.

If one were to read the Bible apart from a modern worldview, the Bible would say to that reader that sin has altered the substance of everything and created bondage in a legal sense.

I don't know anywhere in the bible it says 'sin has altered the substance of everything', however sin certainly does create deep bondage. The question is whether the bondage in the world today comes from some original sin, or because each generation, and each individual renews that bondage for themselves. When does this bondage lapse? Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? You think the bondage entered into by Adam is still binding on his descendants, but that contradicts God's declaration in Exodus 20:5 I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me. That contract has long elapsed it is only the fact that the human race has kept renewing it that leaves it in force. Or as Paul puts it in Romans 5:12 because all sinned.

 

[shernren]

Didn't Adam's transgression show he had the possible option of sin too?

Indeed. And if our biological inheritance of Adam's fallen nature in us is the one Christian explanation for our sin, then what made Adam sin? At the expense of stating the obvious, Adam didn't inherit Adam's fallen nature. Neither, for that matter, did Eve. In fact, God explicitly declared His entire creation "very good". But the events of Genesis 3 completely mess with our intereptation of Genesis 1:31.

It was perfectly possible for Adam and Eve to sin without being under our conception of original sin. Why then should it be impossible to conceptualize our sin without the conception of original sin?

In fact, come to think of it, this doctrine comes back to bite itself in the tail. It attempts to trace our sin to our ancestors' by virtue of a biological inheritance external to our control; but by the very premises of the doctrine, that biological inheritance was completely foreign to our ancestors who supposedly started it for us.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think Mark has agreed with any of my six points, Shernren, though I did mean them for fellow TEs to reply to.

Try listing the six points with a challenge like this.

I am curious, however, whether if he agrees if saying "yes" to all six constitutes an acceptance of the "Biblical Gospel" (for whatever that might mean). Mark, instead of treating me as a so-called "troll" (a false title at that), why don't to answer those questions asked of you by Mel, Shernren, and myself?

"Now I make known to you brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:1-4)​

The Old Testament prophets starting with Moses all told of Christ. The New Testament is an exposition of the predictive prophecy directly tied to the incarnation, death, resurrection and soon return.

Otherwise, I will simply take any non-answer as a silent omission of retraction of your original position.

My position has not changed, if I change my mind about something I'll tell you that in no uncertain terms. My impression of the TEs is that they are performers in the 'theater' of the mind (using Bacon's image). What I think is at the heart of the issue is whether the naturalistic assumptions of TOE undermine the authority of Scripture:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Time 3:16-4:4)​

Since first being introduced to TOE as natural history I have come to regard it as a modern mythology. At the other end of the academic spectrum the Bible is considered a book of poetic myths with no bearing on actual history. My position is simple enough, I hold to the Scriptures as authoritative and altogether reliable in it's historical narratives.

"What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. " (1Cor 14:36-38)​

When challenged to defend my views on a scientific basis I use scientific sources. I rarely use the Scriptures since the tendency of TOE apologists is to mock and scoff at things they have not the slightest understanding of, particularly Christian theism. When discussing Creationism as a Scriptural doctrine and it's foundational principles it becomes unavoidable.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 1:20-2:1)​

Original sin as a formal doctrine was no necessary until the rise of Pelagianism:

After some time the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death -- this being more easily understood as we see that parents transmit to their children hereditary diseases -- but they still violently attacked the transmission of sin (St. Augustine, "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", IV, iv, 6). And when St. Paul speaks of the transmission of sin they understood by this the transmission of death. This was their second position, condemned by the Council of Orange [Denz., n. 175 (145)], and again later on with the first by the Council of Trent [Sess. V, can. ii; Denz., n. 789 (671)]. To take the word sin to mean death was an evident falsification of the text, so the Pelagians soon abandoned the interpretation and admitted that Adam caused sin in us. They did not, however, understand by sin the hereditary stain contracted at our birth, but the sin that adults commit in imitation of Adam. This was their third position, to which is opposed the definition of Trent that sin is transmitted to all by generation (propagatione), not by imitation [Denz., n. 790 (672)]. Moreover, in the following canon are cited the words of the Council of Carthage, in which there is question of a sin contracted by generation and effaced by generation [Denz., n. 102 (66)].

The leaders of the Reformation admitted the dogma of original sin, but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism. Original Sin, Principle Advesaries​

The central focus of the Scriptures is one of the most important elements of Protestant theology. Since this is Christmas Eve I am in a generous mood so in the spirit of the season I will share this little gem with you.

Enjoy!

William Tyndale tells a group of clerics that if God spares his life a plowboy will know more of the Scriptures then they do. That made him a fugitive.

Protestant Reformation, William Tyndale. God's Outlaw, Part 1

Strangely, his the Archbishop of Canterbury buys up copies of Tyndale's works to burn them. This finances the revised version.

God's Outlaw Part 2

He is charged with teaching Justification by faith apart from works. More then anyone else this man is responsible for our English translation from the originals.

God's Outlaw Part 3

A Merry Christmas to one and all.

 

[PaladinValer]

Try listing the six points with a challenge like this.

"Now I make known to you brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:1-4)​

​

Did you even read what the six queries were? If not, Please go back, review them, and then come back and answer the new question I posed here since you really didn't actually answer it but danced around it.

In addition, by the looks of your reply (which for brevity and since you didn't truly address my queries, was not debated as it doesn't have anything to do with a real reply), it doesn't seem you paid close attention to the replies of the TEs. They answered "yes" to all six, be they conservative, moderate, or liberal; be they Protestant or Apostolic; be they mainline or evangelical (!!).

And since some of the queries dealt specifically with original sin, brining it up as if they answered "no" is not only a Straw Man, but could be considered to be libel.

 

[mark kennedy]

[/INDENT]Did you even read what the six queries were? If not, Please go back, review them, and then come back and answer the new question I posed here since you really didn't actually answer it but danced around it.

I'm not reviewing the thread, either ask them again or I'll simply dismiss this as rhetoric.

In addition, by the looks of your reply (which for brevity and since you didn't truly address my queries, was not debated as it doesn't have anything to do with a real reply), it doesn't seem you paid close attention to the replies of the TEs. They answered "yes" to all six, be they conservative, moderate, or liberal; be they Protestant or Apostolic; be they mainline or evangelical (!!).

I'm an evangelical and I have always affirmed the fundamentals of the faith. You keep demanding an answer to a question you won't repeat.

And since some of the queries dealt specifically with original sin, brining it up as if they answered "no" is not only a Straw Man, but could be considered to be libel.

The contention was the Augustine invented the original sin doctrine based on a faulty translation from the Latin. That is absurd and the Scriptures speak clearly on this issue in both the Old and New Testaments. You have completely ignored the carefully prepared post I made earlier only to tell me to go fish the thread.

Theistic evolution is nothing more then an attack on creationism. It has no Scriptural basis but is in fact a compromise with the spirit of the age. Now if you want to ignore the authority of Scripture as a doctrinal issue then I can only conclude you don't care about it.

Post your queries if you want me to respond to them but I do not compromise my religious convictions based on secular philosophy.

Another fine theory of modern times is disproved by our text [Mark 7:20-23]. According to this evolution doctrine, as applied to theology, the new birth is a development of that which is naturally within the heart. I hope we may be spared such births and evolutions. According to this theory we have had some fine specimens of regenerate people of late; for we have heard of evolutions or developments which have brought out from within evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, and wickednesses of more than average proportions. God save us from all development of sin which dwells in man!

Philosophically, the dogma of evolution is a dream, a theory without a vestige of proof. Within fifty years, children in the school will read of extraordinary popular delusions, and this will be mentioned as one of the most absurd of them. Many a merry jest will be uttered bearing upon the follies of science in the nineteenth century. In its bearing upon religion, this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail; but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearings upon scriptural truth the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s word is true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter; this is not a time for soft speaking. ( Charles H. Spurgeon Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit )​

Evolution is a secular philosophy that is contrary to Biblical theism. Evolution as natural history is nothing more then a modern mythology and if you find it is compatible with Christian theism then I have no problem with you. It's when you tell me I don't know my own theology or that somehow Creationism is imported into the Scriptures then it goes to another level. Then there has to be serious questions raised with regards to the Scriptures and the historicity of the Gospel. You can't just take a secular philosophy and translate it into theological terms.

 

[shernren]

I'm not reviewing the thread, either ask them again or I'll simply dismiss this as rhetoric.

Two pages isn't that long ago.

1. Do you believe in the Nicene Creed?
2. Do you believe that Christ died for all sins, original and actual?
3. Do you believe that, due to an event far ago in the prehistoric past, humanity Fell?
4. Do you believe that, from this Fall, humanity has been "broken" so that we are unable to be fully good and have a pure and wholly innocent conscience, will, and nature?
5. Do you believe that it is only by Christ's Grace that we were healed, are being healed, and will be healed of our imperfections that we "inherited" (for a lack of a better term) from the Fall?
6. Do you believe therefore that the Bible speaks the truth in that humanity Fell, Christ died for humanity's sins and for the healing of humanity's souls and nature, and that Christ is therefore infact a Second Adam?

 

[gluadys]

Original sin as a formal doctrine was no necessary until the rise of Pelagianism:

After some time the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death -- this being more easily understood as we see that parents transmit to their children hereditary diseases -- but they still violently attacked the transmission of sin (St. Augustine, "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", IV, iv, 6). And when St. Paul speaks of the transmission of sin they understood by this the transmission of death. This was their second position, condemned by the Council of Orange [Denz., n. 175 (145)], and again later on with the first by the Council of Trent [Sess. V, can. ii; Denz., n. 789 (671)]. To take the word sin to mean death was an evident falsification of the text, so the Pelagians soon abandoned the interpretation and admitted that Adam caused sin in us. They did not, however, understand by sin the hereditary stain contracted at our birth, but the sin that adults commit in imitation of Adam. This was their third position, to which is opposed the definition of Trent that sin is transmitted to all by generation (propagatione), not by imitation [Denz., n. 790 (672)]. Moreover, in the following canon are cited the words of the Council of Carthage, in which there is question of a sin contracted by generation and effaced by generation [Denz., n. 102 (66)].

The leaders of the Reformation admitted the dogma of original sin, but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism. Original Sin, Principle Advesaries​

I am wondering when you will announce your conversion to Roman Catholocism.

Several points to be made here.

Yes, the doctrine of original sin was formally defined in response to Pelagianism. However, it appears not to have been defined at any time by the whole church. The Councils of Carthage were limited to North Africa. And it is not until the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent, which is specifically Roman Catholic, that the transmission of original sin by biological generation is affirmed.

Another point to note is that the anti-Pelagian movement closely connected original sin with the regenerative power of baptism and the necessity to baptise infants. This is clearly seen in the canons of the Council of Orange, and also in the Carthaginian canons. How does that sit with your evangelical approach?

And, of course, none of this relates to actual sins and whether there is a need to receive atonement for actual sins.

I really don't have a problem with the doctrine of original sin. I have a huge problem with the idea that Christ died only to redeem us from original sin, such that if there is no original sin, Christ died for nothing.

If Christ's death does not atone for actual as well as original sin, how are we forgiven for actual sins?

 

[gluadys]

The contention was the Augustine invented the original sin doctrine based on a faulty translation from the Latin.

No, that is not the contention. And if you think it is, you have not been reading the posts, especially Assyrian's.

The contention is that Augustine erred when he asserted that "in Adam all sinned" and that the source of this error is a mistranslation in the Vulgate which in the original Greek says "because all men sinned."

Both phrases support original sin, but the first is incorrect in stating the relationship of original sin to Adam.

To the extent that your interpretation of original sin depends on the phrase "in Adam all sinned", it is therefore also incorrect.

That does NOT mean the doctrine of original sin is being rejected, but rather a false understanding of original sin.

 

[Assyrian]

Another fine theory of modern times is disproved by our text [Mark 7:20-23]. According to this evolution doctrine, as applied to theology, the new birth is a development of that which is naturally within the heart. I hope we may be spared such births and evolutions. According to this theory we have had some fine specimens of regenerate people of late; for we have heard of evolutions or developments which have brought out from within evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, and wickednesses of more than average proportions. God save us from all development of sin which dwells in man!​

Philosophically, the dogma of evolution is a dream, a theory without a vestige of proof. Within fifty years, children in the school will read of extraordinary popular delusions, and this will be mentioned as one of the most absurd of them. Many a merry jest will be uttered bearing upon the follies of science in the nineteenth century. In its bearing upon religion, this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail; but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearings upon scriptural truth the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s word is true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter; this is not a time for soft speaking. ( Charles H. Spurgeon Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit )​

You should have given the date he made this prophecy. I googled it and got:

Charles H. Spurgeon
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit,
vol. 32 (1886), p. 403​

'Within fifty years' would bring us to 1936, by then Evolution should have been dismissed as a scientific folly of the nineteenth century, if Spurgeon was hearing from God. Over a hundred and twenty years later and evolution is still going strong. Clearly Spurgeon was speaking for himself that day.​

 

[mark kennedy]

1. Do you believe in the Nicene Creed?

Absolutely

2. Do you believe that Christ died for all sins, original and actual?

I would agree here with just one reservation. I don't see sin as just offenses, it's also the lack of righteousness. Sins of omission must be included but semantical hair splitting aside, yes I believe Jesus died for our sins.

3. Do you believe that, due to an event far ago in the prehistoric past, humanity Fell?

The fall is a part of recorded history but yes, I believe the fall to have been an event in the distant past.

4. Do you believe that, from this Fall, humanity has been "broken" so that we are unable to be fully good and have a pure and wholly innocent conscience, will, and nature?

Yes, apart from the work of Christ applied by the Holy Spirit according to the will of the Father it is absolutely impossible.

5. Do you believe that it is only by Christ's Grace that we were healed, are being healed, and will be healed of our imperfections that we "inherited" (for a lack of a better term) from the Fall?

Using the term inherited is awkward since we still have unredeemed flesh. Since I am sure that the meaning is meant to be general I would agree with only certain semantical reservations.

6. Do you believe therefore that the Bible speaks the truth in that humanity Fell, Christ died for humanity's sins and for the healing of humanity's souls and nature, and that Christ is therefore infact a Second Adam?

Absolutely!

Thanks for reposting it shernren, a very Merry Christmas to you and your's.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I am wondering when you will announce your conversion to Roman Catholocism.

When their Popes and Councils affirm Justification by grace through faith apart from works.

Several points to be made here.

Yes, the doctrine of original sin was formally defined in response to Pelagianism. However, it appears not to have been defined at any time by the whole church. The Councils of Carthage were limited to North Africa. And it is not until the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent, which is specifically Roman Catholic, that the transmission of original sin by biological generation is affirmed.

It was nevertheless a doctrine affirmed by the church since Paul. Original sin was a given until challenged by members of our own ranks, then it became a formal doctrine.

Another point to note is that the anti-Pelagian movement closely connected original sin with the regenerative power of baptism and the necessity to baptise infants. This is clearly seen in the canons of the Council of Orange, and also in the Carthaginian canons. How does that sit with your evangelical approach?

I don't believe that the ceremony of baptism actually remits anyones sins, infant or adult. Don't get me wrong, I think it's important to be baptized but the baptism into Christ is by faith. I still agree with their foundational approach to original sin, in fact, Calvinists are even more radical with total depravity.

And, of course, none of this relates to actual sins and whether there is a need to receive atonement for actual sins.

You sin because you are a sinner, you were born a sinner. It's not just something you do, it's something you are by nature.

I really don't have a problem with the doctrine of original sin. I have a huge problem with the idea that Christ died only to redeem us from original sin, such that if there is no original sin, Christ died for nothing.

Without original sin there is a choice and the Scriptures are clear that you have none.

If Christ's death does not atone for actual as well as original sin, how are we forgiven for actual sins?

It atones for both, it has to and I really don't understand how anyone would want to separate the two.

Merry Christmas

Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

You should have given the date he made this prophecy. I googled it and got:

Charles H. Spurgeon
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit,
vol. 32 (1886), p. 403​

'Within fifty years' would bring us to 1936, by then Evolution should have been dismissed as a scientific folly of the nineteenth century, if Spurgeon was hearing from God. Over a hundred and twenty years later and evolution is still going strong. Clearly Spurgeon was speaking for himself that day.​

That would be the time of the synthesis of Darwin and Mendel, Darwinism would have died a natural death if it had not been blended into Mendelian genetics. Darwinism and evolution as universal common ancestry is not science, it's supposition. It only persists because the alternative is repulsive to secular scientists and academic professionals who have sword against theistic reasoning.

I'm with Spurgeon:

"Philosophically, the dogma of evolution is a dream, a theory without a vestige of proof. Within fifty years, children in the school will read of extraordinary popular delusions, and this will be mentioned as one of the most absurd of them. Many a merry jest will be uttered bearing upon the follies of science in the nineteenth century."​

Blending of characteristics and the Piltdown debacle comes to mind as extraordinary delusions. I would just say that he underestimated the depth of the delusion.

Merry Christmas

Mark

 

[Assyrian]

It seems the 'delusion' is getting deeper and deeper the more evidence turns up supporting it. Of course Mendel helped evolution along, like Newton's gravitation and Kepler's laws of planetary motion helped Copernicus. That is how science works.

 

[Assyrian]

It was nevertheless a doctrine affirmed by the church since Paul. Original sin was a given until challenged by members of our own ranks, then it became a formal doctrine.

How do you know it was a given if no one mentions it? It is not as if you can find 'all sinned in Adam' in the writings of Paul.

The Catholic church also claims traditions like Mary's immaculate conception and assumption into heaven are actually apostolic teachings handed down through the generations long before they were first mentioned. How is your 'all sinned in Adam' any different? If you think your doctrine is different, how do you tell them apart? A false doctrine can claim to be the teaching of the church that everyone assumed until it was challenged. But if no one mentioned it before how do you know it was handed down instead of just made up then?