Original Sin

[DHK]

The only thing you have proven is that you do not quote me where I have said what you have claimed. God knows.

One quote after another. I gave the URL's. I have debated you according to your beliefs. You do not believe in "original sin." You do not believe in the depravity of man. And you do not believe it is passed on from one generation to another, which is a given if you don't believe in the depravity of man in the first place. Such a position is Pelagianism.

 

[Moriah]

One quote after another. I gave the URL's. I have debated you according to your beliefs. You do not believe in "original sin." You do not believe in the depravity of man. And you do not believe it is passed on from one generation to another, which is a given if you don't believe in the depravity of man in the first place. Such a position is Pelagianism.

You have not debated me according to my beliefs. I keep telling you that you have stated my beliefs incorrectly, yet you continue with denying what I tell you. To your disgrace, you continued to give urls that showed even more posts where you falsely accuse me. You have not quoted me where I say what you claim I believe. As for Total Depravity, I do not believe in the Total Depravity of all humans. There is no such scripture in the Bible. Are you going to pretend you do not know there is a difference between Total Depravity and depravity?

 

[Moriah]

Yes, it matters Moriah. You keep posting this false allegation without evidence. You won't point out any false thing that I have said. Until you do my post stands as true and unedited. You meet the characteristics defined as a Pelagian, a known heresy from the fifth century. You have given no information that would lead me to believe otherwise. You have not denied my post or given any evidence to lead me to believe otherwise.

God knows, and that is the only One who matters.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well, to give some of you someone else to fuss at , let me say that I don't believe in original sin or total depravity, either -- at least not like the Calvinists or Lutherans do. My views are closer to the Eastern Church, the Anabaptists, and the ancient Celtic Church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, to give some of you someone else to fuss at , let me say that I don't believe in original sin or total depravity, either -- at least not like the Calvinists or Lutherans do. My views are closer to the Eastern Church, the Anabaptists, and the ancient Celtic Church.

I'm curious since you prefer to believe in Ancestrial sin rather than original sin do you also hold that baptism is the only way to get rid of it?

Both Orthodox and Catholic hold that Ancestrial/original sin is a deprivation of original holiness and justice not total depravity. The only difference between the two is the western position is that humanity also contracted the guilt (guilt in a community guilt stance) whereas the eastern position holds only the concusipence or leaning towards sin is passed on and not the guilt. Since new borns have no personal sin they aren't destined to hell. However, in both cases baptism is necessary to fix this issue.

where do you stand on that?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I'm curious since you prefer to believe in Ancestrial sin rather than original sin do you also hold that baptism is the only way to get rid of it?

Both Orthodox and Catholic hold that Ancestrial/original sin is a deprivation of original holiness and justice not total depravity. The only difference between the two is the western position is that humanity also contracted the guilt (guilt in a community guilt stance) whereas the eastern position holds only the concusipence or leaning towards sin is passed on and not the guilt. Since new borns have no personal sin they aren't destined to hell. However, in both cases baptism is necessary to fix this issue.

where do you stand on that?

That's where I would part company with both the Orthodox and Catholic. I don't believe water baptism gets rid of anything. I believe water baptism is simply a sign of -- not a conveyor of -- spiritual regeneration which occurs when one comes to faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That's where I would part company with both the Orthodox and Catholic. I don't believe water baptism gets rid of anything. I believe water baptism is simply a sign of -- not a conveyor of -- spiritual regeneration which occurs when one comes to faith in Jesus Christ.

Just curious what was the sign of spit and mud that Jesus used to cure the blind man?
Did Jewish Children who were circumsised not a part of the Abrahamic covenant?
How about the serpent lifted up on a pole? Why did people actually have to look at it to be healed and not die.

Its seems to me God's Motus Apperandi is to use things to convey things. Why would he change in the NT with the New Covenant?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thinkingstuff: Why would he change in the NT with the New Covenant?

HP: This may or may not apply to your question, but God has reasons why He does things at certain times, yet not at others. There was a time He was revealing Himself in certain ways, yet we are called upon not as part of those miraculous things that have happened, in the OT but rather to have faith in God that they did happen. Even in the NT some things that have been done in the eyes of some will not be seen by others. This verse comes to my mind.

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

God indeed has reasons and purposes for why, when, and how He chooses to act or not to act that are hidden from us for now at least. God Himself is the same, yesterday today and forever, but He has every right to alter the means by which He is revealed to us or the means and act by which He chooses to reveal certan truths etc.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Just curious what was the sign of spit and mud that Jesus used to cure the blind man?
Did Jewish Children who were circumsised not a part of the Abrahamic covenant?
How about the serpent lifted up on a pole? Why did people actually have to look at it to be healed and not die.

Its seems to me God's Motus Apperandi is to use things to convey things. Why would he change in the NT with the New Covenant?

To answer a couple of things: I don't believe one enters the New Covenant the way one entered the Old.

I believe sometimes God conveys things through the physical, according to circumstance and His will -- sometimes He does, and sometimes He doesn't. But this cannot be controlled by man or by using a formula of words and actions. The Holy Spirit does not move at man's behest. I believe, and I believe the Bible teaches, that spiritual regeneration occurs when a person comes to faith (and only then), at which time that person is baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ -- the one true baptism. Material water cannot produce or convey this; it can only witness to it, being a sign thereof. Material water can only wash dirt from the flesh; it cannot touch the spirit.

That is my belief, and I believe it is in accord with the New testament.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

To answer a couple of things: I don't believe one enters the New Covenant the way one entered the Old.

I believe sometimes God conveys things through the physical, according to circumstance and His will -- sometimes He does, and sometimes He doesn't. But this cannot be controlled by man or by using a formula of words and actions. The Holy Spirit does not move at man's behest. I believe, and I believe the Bible teaches, that spiritual regeneration occurs when a person comes to faith (and only then), at which time that person is baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ -- the one true baptism. Material water cannot produce or convey this; it can only witness to it, being a sign thereof. Material water can only wash dirt from the flesh; it cannot touch the spirit.

That is my belief, and I believe it is in accord with the New testament.

I think you misunderstand ritual. Ritual doesn't move God its man's response to God. Ritual makes noticable God's interaction with man. Ie. God presence comes before me. I bow down before him. The bow doesn't call God's presence into being but it is a response to hm being there. And there are certain ways God wants us to respond. One such way is baptism. What was it Jesus said to John the Baptist?

15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

Certainly Jesus didn't need to be baptize however it is to be the response to God but also note what happens right after Jesus Baptism

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

and note Peter's order of what men must do to be saved in Acts 2

38 Peter replied,

1)

“Repent

2)

and be baptized, every one of you

, 3)

in the name of Jesus Christ

4)

for the forgiveness of your sins.

and 5)

And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So ritual is man's response to God's movement and God inturn respons back to man and so on. But God specifies how it is we are to respond to him.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I think you misunderstand ritual. Ritual doesn't move God its man's response to God. Ritual makes noticable God's interaction with man. Ie. God presence comes before me. I bow down before him. The bow doesn't call God's presence into being but it is a response to hm being there. And there are certain ways God wants us to respond. One such way is baptism. What was it Jesus said to John the Baptist? Certainly Jesus didn't need to be baptize however it is to be the response to God but also note what happens right after Jesus Baptism and note Peter's order of what men must do to be saved in Acts 2 1) 2) , 3) 4) and 5)

So ritual is man's response to God's movement and God inturn respons back to man and so on. But God specifies how it is we are to respond to him.

I have no problem with the way you put it, but that's not what those who believe that sacraments convey grace think. The way you put it sounds like what I said -- that water baptism is our response to what God has already done by the Spirit to our spirit -- regenerated it when we come to faith. Thus, I do not hold to "baptismal regeneration" -- the teaching that we are regenerated by means of material water. Rather, the water is what we do to signify the spiritual reality that has already occurred -- new birth and baptism by the Spirit into the Body of Christ. This is one reason Quakers don't baptize with water, lest it be confused with the one baptism that makes us members of Christ's Body -- baptism by the Spirit, which happens before and apart from any baptism with outward water. Many deny that Quakers are Christians because they haven't been baptized with water; Quakers would deny that anyone is a Christian just because he or she has been baptized with outward water.

Spiritual rebirth cannot be produced by ritual words or actions. This is my belief.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have no problem with the way you put it, but that's not what those who believe that sacraments convey grace think. The way you put it sounds like what I said -- that water baptism is our response to what God has already done by the Spirit to our spirit -- regenerated it when we come to faith. Thus, I do not hold to "baptismal regeneration" -- the teaching that we are regenerated by means of material water. Rather, the water is what we do to signify the spiritual reality that has already occurred -- new birth and baptism by the Spirit into the Body of Christ. This is one reason Quakers don't baptize with water, lest it be confused with the one baptism that makes us members of Christ's Body -- baptism by the Spirit, which happens before and apart from any baptism with outward water. Many deny that Quakers are Christians because they haven't been baptized with water; Quakers would deny that anyone is a Christian just because he or she has been baptized with outward water.

Spiritual rebirth cannot be produced by ritual words or actions. This is my belief.

Rome explicitly states in their Catholoic Catechism that circumcision is parallel to baptism in regard to the nature of sacramentalism. However, Romans 4:11 explicitly denies that circumcison of an adult like Abraham has any immediate and literal connection with justification being conveyed or grace of justification being conveyed other than as an outward DECLARATIVE sign or seal of something already literally conveyed long before circumcision occurred (Gen. 15 versus Gen. 17).

Hence, neither the act of circumcision or the act of baptism has any direct literal relationship with actual justificaiton or regeneration being conveyed to those being circumcised or baptized.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have no problem with the way you put it, but that's not what those who believe that sacraments convey grace think. The way you put it sounds like what I said -- that water baptism is our response to what God has already done by the Spirit to our spirit -- regenerated it when we come to faith. Thus, I do not hold to "baptismal regeneration" -- the teaching that we are regenerated by means of material water. Rather, the water is what we do to signify the spiritual reality that has already occurred -- new birth and baptism by the Spirit into the Body of Christ. This is one reason Quakers don't baptize with water, lest it be confused with the one baptism that makes us members of Christ's Body -- baptism by the Spirit, which happens before and apart from any baptism with outward water. Many deny that Quakers are Christians because they haven't been baptized with water; Quakers would deny that anyone is a Christian just because he or she has been baptized with outward water.

Spiritual rebirth cannot be produced by ritual words or actions. This is my belief.

In one sense you are right but in another sense you are wrong about what I said. I'm trying to convey a dialogue between God and man. Let me explain further. I look at it this way ie the sacrament of baptism.


God first moves my heart to believe in him. I respond to him by being baptised as he instituted it. By the nature of my response to God and obedience to his call he commutes my sin at baptism and gives me the holy spirit. Thus the sacrament does what it represents.

But lets say I don't have faith and am being baptized because everyone else is. The baptism is not efficacious for me as I don't have faith. Its not salvific in that sense.

 

[The Biblicist]

In one sense you are right but in another sense you are wrong about what I said. I'm trying to convey a dialogue between God and man. Let me explain further. I look at it this way ie the sacrament of baptism.


God first moves my heart to believe in him. I respond to him by being baptised as he instituted it. By the nature of my response to God and obedience to his call he commutes my sin at baptism and gives me the holy spirit. Thus the sacrament does what it represents.

But lets say I don't have faith and am being baptized because everyone else is. The baptism is not efficacious for me as I don't have faith. Its not salvific in that sense.

However, your problem is that you make baptism inseparable from faith, regeneration/justification/conversion.

Romans 4:11 repudiates sacramentalism as defined by Rome. Justification was already "had" long before Abraham was circumcised rather in direct connection with circumcision. The CCC clearly and explicitly states that circumcision is paralell with baptism in regard to the nature of sacramentalism.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

However, your problem is that you make baptism inseparable from faith, regeneration/justification/conversion.

Romans 4:11 repudiates sacramentalism as defined by Rome. Justification was already "had" long before Abraham was circumcised rather in direct connection with circumcision. The CCC clearly and explicitly states that circumcision is paralell with baptism in regard to the nature of sacramentalism.

I have to say that I agree with you on this. I can't accept the Catholic view of baptism in this regard, or the mainstream denominations, either. And I can't go along with the Churches of Christ on their view, either. I could never accept a doctrine that says we need faith plus a ritual to obtain forgiveness of sins and spiritual rebirth.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

In one sense you are right but in another sense you are wrong about what I said. I'm trying to convey a dialogue between God and man. Let me explain further. I look at it this way ie the sacrament of baptism.


God first moves my heart to believe in him. I respond to him by being baptised as he instituted it. By the nature of my response to God and obedience to his call he commutes my sin at baptism and gives me the holy spirit. Thus the sacrament does what it represents.

But lets say I don't have faith and am being baptized because everyone else is. The baptism is not efficacious for me as I don't have faith. Its not salvific in that sense.

And this is where I totally disagree. I believe God commutes my sin when I come to faith, regenerates me then and there, gives me the Holy Spirit then and there, baptizes me by that Spirit into the Body of Christ then and there, and then I am baptized with water as a sign and testimony that God has already done this based on my coming to faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And this is where I totally disagree. I believe God commutes my sin when I come to faith, regenerates me then and there, gives me the Holy Spirit then and there, baptizes me by that Spirit into the Body of Christ then and there, and then I am baptized with water as a sign and testimony that God has already done this based on my coming to faith in Jesus Christ.

Ok. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to the sacraments however just a note. I think they are more in line with scriptures. And I disagree with biblicist about Roman's 4:11. A sacrament is both a sign and a seal. A seal being an actual thing that seals a contract. Romans 4 actually supports sacramentalism because Paul notes that Abraham had faith but that faith wasn't sealed until circumcision.

11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Circumcision therefore was the actual imprint of the covenant. Faith led him to have that done. Note what Peter says

and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Ok. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to the sacraments however just a note. I think they are more in line with scriptures. And I disagree with biblicist about Roman's 4:11. A sacrament is both a sign and a seal. A seal being an actual thing that seals a contract. Romans 4 actually supports sacramentalism because Paul notes that Abraham had faith but that faith wasn't sealed until circumcision. Circumcision therefore was the actual imprint of the covenant. Faith led him to have that done. Note what Peter says

Yes, and I agree with what Peter said: the water is a symbol of the baptism that saves -- which is the baptism by the Spirit into Christ. The water doesn't do that; the Spirit does, and the water baptism symbolizes the Spirit baptism. Therefore, the "one baptism" is the Spirit baptism which the water does not produce nor convey but is a sign thereof.

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm glad we can do it amicably.