Babababa Bad to the Bone, Naturally or Not?

[HeirofSalvation]

the specific idea that man is not born with a sin nature.

From wikipedia:
Pelagius taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life, although he believed that God's grace assisted every good work. Pelagius did not believe that all humanity was guilty in Adam's sin, but said that Adam had condemned humankind through bad example, and that Christ’s good example offered humanity a path to salvation, through sacrifice and through instruction of the will.​

It seems to me, even if we were to attempt to be generous toward the ideas above, that the idea that the human will is "sufficient to live a sinless life" is a failed idea and at best a useless theoretical idea. IMO, it seems that even with a 'neutral' human nature, the fact that sinful behavior and attitude has been modeled to and impressed upon every human being since Adam and Eve would make it impossible for any person who is mentally competent to remain guiltless to death.
Given this, I do not see how it could be the case that a mature human would unfailingly love God and man in every deed and thought. ​

The thing about Pelagius (as I understand him) is this....he did indeed believe that it is a facet of LFW that one might "Theoretically" live sinlessly....but he clearly also taught that there was no such person who had ever lived. You speak of a "useless" theoretical idea....But no "theoretical" idea is completely useless..... "Infinity" (for instance) cannot exist in actuality (as a strictly ontological reality) but it is still useful to understand it's implications. Similarly, Pelagius taught that "Free-will" might "theoretically" allow for a being who was without sin...yet Pelagius also taught that there WAS no such thing as said being. These are not (strictly-speaking) contradictory, but they imply something more perhaps. They might both be incidentally true, and this seems more probable to me than not.

I am open to corrective ideology here...but my present thinking is this:
Namely...that "Free-Will" (at least to the extent given to man) entails something of a personal "self-awareness" and a "self-desire" and a tendency towards a personalized "self-actualization"....This is not inherently "evil" per se, but it is also an inextricable property of God's decision to grant man the level or form of Free will that he has. That being the case, it is ostensibly "impossible" that a man possessed with such a thing will not tend towards self-sufficiency, or that "desire to be as gods" which resulted in sin. Thus, although "theoretically", all men make their own decisions and sin "willfully"....there is an inestimably powerfull drive towards a "sense of self" which invariably results in an action of "self-willed" sin.

I would also argue that even if sin were not a 'nature' problem and even though we now have "Jesus' good example", I don't think either of those two combined, being as they may for argument's sake, I don't think they can overcome the OTJ training we get through our parents, older siblings, and other selfish, 'bad behaving' influencers. Again, I do not see how it could be the case that a mature human -after Adam- would unfailingly love God and man in every deed and thought.

I agree with this, and I think it sheds more light per my thinking expressed above. Namely, the "Nature/Nurture" question has never been (strictly-speaking) and either-or scenario...I do believe that it was quite possible for Adam to have successfully been "sinless" and not sinned....but referencing his progeny....that natural "nature" (as explained by possession of free-will above) coupled with that "nurture" (as you explain with bad examples) renders sinlessness an un-reachable goal. In other words:......I (perhaps with Pelagius) think that one might indeed be "sinless" if they ever surpass a 55' standing High jump....and God has not (strictly-speaking) ruled otherwise....it's just, well, find me such a person, and then we will talk. It is "theoretically" possible, but ontologically un-obtainable.

I do not think that Winman's view is Pelagius's or even close to it.

His ideas may be closer to those of Pelagius' than is commonly taught...One thing we must understand about Pelagius is that few of us has ever actually studied the man (in his own words) or accurately represented him. Calvinists often know MANY things....the doctrines that Pelagius himself actually taught (from his own mouth) are never one of them. They know what they have learned to be identified as "Pelagianism"....only, Pelagius (as far as I can tell) wasn't a "Pelagian". Calvinists don't read Pelagius' views...they never have. This isn't a insulting slight, it's an expression of historical reality; most Arminians haven't read his works either.

Pelagius' actual works have been lost to history until about 60 years ago or so, and have only been available in English for about 30....there is no concievable way any Calvinist Theologian either current or historical is even passingly aware of anything Pelagius actually said for himself. I am curious to see what effect these newly-discovered works of his might have on modern Western Theology.

I, for one, find Winman's idea compelling, at least for me, to warrant further discussion and research.

I am with you....I don't quite buy his conclusions yet....but no one (quite frankly) posts more Scripture with fewer assumptions, and allows them to speak for themselves than Winman does. I don't agree with him really.....but, it's like the Ontological Argument is for philosophers...It's very easy to conclude that his reasonings are false....but it's incredibly hard to explain precisely why!! I recall a quote by an Atheist Philosopher (I think) that I paraphrase (very loosely) here:

We all initially believe the "Ontological Argument" is sound, and we believe it's conclusion. Then we assume for years that it is obviously flawed and false, and we dismiss it out of hand....and then we grow up, and we admit that although we don't accept it's conclusions, we don't know why, and we only explain that it is wrong, but we don't understand why it's wrong.

I appreciate Win's postings...and quite frankly, I rarely see his detractors post more erudite Scripture with properly basic arguments to refute him. They express indignation of course, but indignation is not, and never was, an argument. They call him a heretic, but they never explain why...not from Scripture anyway, but only tradition. I find his arguments compelling, but I reject them.....the problem is....like the Atheist above, I am not sure WHY. I only know that I have yet to see anyone successfully refute them (on this board anyway). I hope they do. I would love to remain in the mainstream of (Western) believers who accept the idea of O.S. I do so now, but, I can't explain precisely why, and our Calvinist friends have heretofore done an abyssmal job of refuting him, all told. We non-Calvinists aren't required to....our Soteriology would not crumble, it would need some adjustment, but it wouldn't crumble. But Calvinist World-view demands this foundation. I plead with them to refute the man.

So with that I will summarize the above and put forward the subject for this thread, "It seems that even with a 'neutral'/null human nature, the fact that sinful behavior and attitude has been modeled to and impressed upon every human being since Adam and Eve would make it impossible for any person who is mentally competent to remain guiltless to death. Given this, I do not see how it could be the case -post Adam- that a mature human would unfailingly love God and man in every deed and thought. I bring up this issue so that we can focus on the specific idea that man is not born with a sin nature."

Yeah...that. I ostensibly agree. My immediate belief is like Pelagius' (to my knowledge). It COULD happen, (only with God's grace), but it also never WILL, and never has.​

 

[HeirofSalvation]

For all you "thinkers", Is it possible for God to have created any creature without the possibility and potentiality of sin and corruption?

Certainly!!!! I think he has...but not, ones with the level or "type" of LFW that he appears to have given us.

Can God produce another "creature" with the same inherent properties of perfection that He has? If yes, other than the obvious, how would "they" be different than ourselves?

I read this several times, and I don't think you worded this correctly, to suggest what you wanted it to suggest. I might be mistaken, so perhaps you can clarify. "Perfection"....is not, I think, what you meant. Man is made in the "image" of God...but that doesn't necessarily imply "perfection" (in the sense of a set of properties as you describe it). "Perfection"....I would only say exist as properties of God alone, and they might include such properties as aseity or holiness, neither of which man possesses by nature.

Looking at the created order as I often do through a somewhat objective lens of "mathematics", it is easy to see that all created things naturally possess entropy, as if it is a natural property of things created.

I bolded what I think to be incorrect...."Entropy" (as a not strictly mathematical principle) is, I think according to Scripture, more a result of the fall, but not something that is inherent in the initial creative act. I do not think "Entropy" was a part of initial creation, but rather the curse upon the ground which now controls physical nature. I believe man's (Spiritual) "Entropy", not a bad way to describe it really, has moved God to impose (Physical) "Entropy". The Earth "Waxes old, as doth a garment", and In Adam, "all die"...including non-humans...but it wasn't intial creative decree. Thus, if you are suggesting that "corruption" or "entropy" is a part of the initial creation....than I disagree, but it is rather the end result of the curse.

 

[quantumfaith]

What are the inherent properties of perfection that He has?

So, would this resonate with you: in the beginning there was all matter in a chaotic state of existence, perhaps of the highest form and from this God created all the systems. Since His creative act all systems are in a state of entropy (or they will all trend that way eventually), toward chaos or equilibrium.

In such a scenario sin is not the cause of entropy, but rather entropy is natural. Some say (or at least I think they say) that the universe experiences entropy due to the first sin (adam's or satan's?).

I am less impressed with that answer now but still of an unsettled opinion. (I try to question all of my assumptions now)

What do you think?

No, not my intention, my personal conviction that "nothing" existed prior to the creative command of God, His creative fiat was the origination of all that was, perhaps I am too "shallow" I "thought" my question was rather simple and interesting to ponder. I do not "necessarily" see sin as the cause of entropy, but rather quite simply entropy was a property that God formed the created with.

 

[quantumfaith]

Certainly!!!! I think he has...but not, ones with the level or "type" of LFW that he appears to have given us.



I read this several times, and I don't think you worded this correctly, to suggest what you wanted it to suggest. I might be mistaken, so perhaps you can clarify. "Perfection"....is not, I think, what you meant. Man is made in the "image" of God...but that doesn't necessarily imply "perfection" (in the sense of a set of properties as you describe it). "Perfection"....I would only say exist as properties of God alone, and they might include such properties as aseity or holiness, neither of which man possesses by nature.



I bolded what I think to be incorrect...."Entropy" (as a not strictly mathematical principle) is, I think according to Scripture, more a result of the fall, but not something that is inherent in the initial creative act. I do not think "Entropy" was a part of initial creation, but rather the curse upon the ground which now controls physical nature. I believe man's (Spiritual) "Entropy", not a bad way to describe it really, has moved God to impose (Physical) "Entropy". The Earth "Waxes old, as doth a garment", and In Adam, "all die"...including non-humans...but it wasn't intial creative decree. Thus, if you are suggesting that "corruption" or "entropy" is a part of the initial creation....than I disagree, but it is rather the end result of the curse.

By "perfection" I mean to suggest can God form creatures able to perfectly know good and evil and have the inability to act with evil actions or intentions.

 

[percho]

By "perfection" I mean to suggest can God form creatures able to perfectly know good and evil and have the inability to act with evil actions or intentions.

Would this not be that perfection?

Eph. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created (being created) in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

I showed that as being created because as it was so in Jesus the Christ so shall it be in us, Example 1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

 

[psalms109:31]

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil pre-fall and sinned, Jesus had the knowledge of good and evil and did not sin.

What does that mean to you?


I say
The point I was making is Adam was never in total image of the Father and Jesus has always been!.

I did write this earlier because I thought for the longest that before the fall Adam and Jesus was in total image, but the above scripture shows that they are not Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil and sinned, Jesus had the knowledge of good and evil and did not sinned. So when you see Jesus you see the Father and Adam was never in the total image of the Father he was either missing the knowledge of good and evil then sinned against God.

John 14

1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[Or Believe in God]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”
Jesus the Way to the Father

5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[Some manuscripts If you really knew me, you would know] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

 

[percho]

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil pre-fall and sinned, Jesus had the knowledge of good and evil and did not sin.

What does that mean to you?


I say
The point I was making is Adam was never in total image of the Father and Jesus has always been!.

I did write this earlier because I thought for the longest that before the fall Adam and Jesus was in total image, but the above scripture shows that they are not Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil and sinned, Jesus had the knowledge of good and evil and did not sinned. So when you see Jesus you see the Father and Adam was never in the total image of the Father he was either missing the knowledge of good and evil then sinned against God.

John 14

1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[Or Believe in God]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”
Jesus the Way to the Father

5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[Some manuscripts If you really knew me, you would know] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

I agree with you. The first man Adam was never intended to be the created man in the total image of God. That image was going to come through the Son of God who also was the son of Adam, the Lamb of God slain from before the first man Adam was created let alone sin. The creation of man in the total image of God would come through the resurrected Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth then we men could be created in his the resurrected image of Jesus, thus we also will be in the image of God. The first man Adam was created for this but not at that time, he like all men born of the flesh (living souls subject to death) will need to be born again.

The, "what is man," passage in Hebrews 2 explains all of this and shows the man Jesus as having received this from God his Father. Man (Adam and his children) were created to inherit everything that Jesus the Son of God has inherited. We are joint heirs with Christ, but we at this present time are only heirs, not yet inheritors.

 

[psalms109:31]

The hardest thing to wrap our head around is God being fully man in Jesus. Jesus was given a life to Himself a free agency without this we could do nothing but the will of God, if we had no life to our self a free agency. Jesus had the will of the flesh and the Holy Spirit the will of God. The will of the flesh wanted food, wanted sleep, and did not want to die on the cross. He said not my will, but His will (the Fathers )be done. The free agency was tempted but by the power of the Holy Spirit that He relied on said not my will but your will(the Fathers) be done.

Hebrews 5:
7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.

 

[humblethinker]

Pelagius' actual works have been lost to history until about 60 years ago or so, and have only been available in English for about 30....there is no concievable way any Calvinist Theologian either current or historical is even passingly aware of anything Pelagius actually said for himself. I am curious to see what effect these newly-discovered works of his might have on modern Western Theology.

I could probably find it but would you mind sharing a link to this information? Regarding only 'knowing' what someone believes based on how others represent him: I am highly skeptical of 'reliable representation' of someone's belief from the mouth of people who have been morally discredited, for example, John Calvin, Zwingli, Martin Luther, and many more. I base this on what I've read and to this point undrestand and acknowledge that I may have read incorrectly so I am open to and welcome correction. What I've read about these people is very damning.

 

[humblethinker]

So when you see Jesus you see the Father and Adam was never in the total image of the Father he was either missing the knowledge of good and evil then sinned against God.

For all you "thinkers", Is it possible for God to have created any creature without the possibility and potentiality of sin and corruption? Can God produce another "creature" with the same inherent properties of perfection that He has? If yes, other than the obvious, how would "they" be different than ourselves?

I think one way that they 'could' be different than us is regarding the solidification of our character. The theoretical creature you've suggested could have been created with a settled character such that while they could technically choose independence form God they would not choose independence from God.

It seems to me that we humans do not have a solidified character and that this life is the process in which we have a part in achieving character solidification.

 

[humblethinker]

Looking at the created order as I often do through a somewhat objective lens of "mathematics", it is easy to see that all created things naturally possess entropy, as if it is a natural property of things created.

I agree with you.

Is it the case that it is impossible for us in an entropic universe to consider with 'mathematic objectivity' a negentropic universe? Would it make sense to propose that objectivity would require a different kind of mathematical lens than what we currently have? Would you say that prior to Adam's or Satan's sin the creation was necessarily affected by entropy or that entropy existed? Could it be the case that sin's existence altered the created reality and that mathematics simply comports to reality?

Of the two proposals below, which would you accept or maybe you would propose a different one altogether?:
1) God created the heavens and the earth and they were 'without form, void', which is to describe them to have a high entropy. During the creative six days, God brought order out of the chaos, resulting in a universe of negentropy.
2) God created the heavens and the earth and they were 'without form, void', which is to describe them to have a high entropy. During the creative six days, God brought order out of the chaos, resulting in a universe of low entropy.

I don't purport to have the answers... just a lot of questions. I like to talk with people who have either a high degree of certainty or at least have a greater reason to have a higher degree of certainty than i do.