Original Sin

[DHK]

HP: Yet another blatant lie. I have never called anyone on this list or referred to anyone else as a heretic. If you think I have produced a quote or you owe the list an apology.

Not a lie, HP. One doesn't have to use the word "heretic" to put one into that category. So here it is.

You will find the origin of the notion of original sin introduced into the church by Augustine, and he mixed the heathen Manichaeans notion that taught ‘an evil nature, unchangeable and coeternal with god” as cited in ‘Earlier writings’ by Augustine LCC, 6:102.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1814393&postcount=13

Manicheaism is a heresy and that is what you have associated Augustine with. If this is not calling Augustine a heretic, I don't know what is???

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Yet another blatant lie. I have never called anyone on this list or referred to anyone else as a heretic. If you think I have produced a quote or you owe the list an apology.

Your quibbling! You do not have to use the term "heretic" to call someone heretical. On the very first page of this forum you assert that Augustine manufactured the doctrine of OS from paganistic sources and that it was not scriptural. You did not need to use the term "heretic" to be clearly understood that you were characterizing them as heretical in regard to this doctrine.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: 1. You must prove that Adam's particular sin is not the subject of the first part of the verse in order to deny that spiritual death is not the consequence of that sin as spiritual death was the immediate effect "in the day" he ate as he did not physically die "in the day" he ate.

HP: No one denies that God shortening the time span of man on this earth was a direct result of sin. Where physical death is indeed a consequence of sin, Scripture never represents physical death as a penalty for sin.

Biblicist: 2. You must prove that the phrase "the wages of sin is death" excludes physical death and therefore deny that physical death is consequential to spiritual death.

HP: What you have to prove is that the word 'wages' must be interpreted to mean penalty. Check that one out in the Greek.

Biblicist: 3. You must attribute physical death to something other than "corruption" due to sin - 1 Cor. 15:53-58

HP: I would have to do no such thing. I believe physical death, when it occurs, is directly attributable to corruption due to sin. Even if death does not occur, which has happened and will again at the rapture, physical degeneration is clear evidence of the corruption due to sin. Of a truth, sin has had, and does even now have, a physical effect upon the human race. Nothing can be more true.

 

[DHK]

HP: Yet another blatant lie. I have never called anyone on this list or referred to anyone else as a heretic. If you think I have produced a quote or you owe the list an apology.

HP, I don't have time for this. Post after post, like the one just previously:

One of the most important issues noted, was the truth of Augustine as the father of the doctrine of original sin, i.e., guilt being imputed to all on the account of Adam's sin. No such notion was held by the early church prior to Augustine, and no such notion is taught in Scripture.

Where OS is as much referred to as heretical is the same as calling every Calvinist a heretic or believing in the same. Your posts are full of it. Don't deny it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Manicheaism is a heresy and that is what you have associated Augustine with. If this is not calling Augustine a heretic, I don't know what is???

HP: Quote me where I ever called Manicheaism heresy. Now that you mention it as heresy, I will have to consider that. I wonder why the connection between this heathen philosophy and Augustine would be linked so closely? Hmmmmm. That should create some interest for serious study.:thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

HP: Quote me where I ever called Manicheaism heresy. Now that you mention it as heresy, I will have to consider that. I wonder why the connection between this heathen philosophy and Augustine would be linked so closely? Hmmmmm. That should create some interest for serious study.:thumbsup:

Yes it should.
It should also bring forth an apology from you for this statement:

HP: Yet another blatant lie. I have never called anyone on this list or referred to anyone else as a heretic. If you think I have produced a quote or you owe the list an apology.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: No one denies that God shortening the time span of man on this earth was a direct result of sin. Where physical death is indeed a consequence of sin, Scripture never represents physical death as a penalty for sin.

What is this but pure mental gymnastics! Punishment in hell is called "DEATH" the "second Death" and you cannot parse the term "death" and claim one aspect is penalty for sin and the other is not! The scriptures clearly state that Christ "DIED for our sins" and thus his PHYSICAL death on the cross was penal as it is expressly stated to be "FOR our sins."

The term "death" is comprehensive of spiritual, physical and eternal and you have no biblical grounds to isolate one aspect and deny it is the penalty of sin or else you deny Christ died "FOR our sins" and thus his death did not REDEEM us from our sins.

HP: I would have to do no such thing. I believe physical death, when it occurs, is directly attributable to corruption due to sin. Even if death does not occur, which has happened and will again at the rapture, physical degeneration is clear evidence of the corruption due to sin. Of a truth, sin has had, and does even now have, a physical effect upon the human race. Nothing can be more true.

If it is attributed to sin then it is the penalty of sin or else Christ's PHYSICAL death on the cross is in vain and you are still in your sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Quote me where I ever called Manicheaism heresy. Now that you mention it as heresy, I will have to consider that. I wonder why the connection between this heathen philosophy and Augustine would be linked so closely? Hmmmmm. That should create some interest for serious study.:thumbsup:

Augustine was influenced by his Manichaeist past; that's what led to his position on original sin and total depravity.

As for Calvin, the murderer and legalist, well, need I say more. - HP Post #9

Can't get much clearer than this that both are heretical in your view.

Being the nice guy that I am, I will cite one reference I have not given for a while by Augustine himself, that shows clearly the roots of his beliefs on sin and evil.
You will find the origin of the notion of original sin introduced into the church by Augustine, and he mixed the heathen Manichaeans notion that taught ‘an evil nature, unchangeable and coeternal with god” as cited in ‘Earlier writings’ by Augustine LCC, 6:102. - HP Post #13

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Augustine was influenced by his Manichaeist past; that's what led to his position on original sin and total depravity.

As for Calvin, the murderer and legalist, well, need I say more. - HP Post #9

Can't get much clearer than this that both are heretical in your view.

Being the nice guy that I am, I will cite one reference I have not given for a while by Augustine himself, that shows clearly the roots of his beliefs on sin and evil.
You will find the origin of the notion of original sin introduced into the church by Augustine, and he mixed the heathen Manichaeans notion that taught ‘an evil nature, unchangeable and coeternal with god” as cited in ‘Earlier writings’ by Augustine LCC, 6:102. - HP Post #13

The part I highlighted in green: Actually, I was the one who said that -- that was my post.

Sorry to break in but had to correct the record -- didn't want HP to be blamed for something I said.

Trying to wean myself off this forum.

Oh, and this throwing around of the word "heretical" on this forum as if this was a damnable offense: What the word originally meant was a minority opinion -- which, btw, Augustine's was at the time. The Eastern Church never accepted Augustine's theology, and they still don't.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The part I highlighted in green: Actually, I was the one who said that -- that was my post.

Sorry to break in but had to correct the record -- didn't want HP to be blamed for something I said.

Trying to wean myself off this forum.

Oh, and this throwing around of the word "heretical" on this forum as if this was a damnable offense: What the word originally meant was a minority opinion -- which, btw, Augustine's was at the time. The Eastern Church never accepted Augustine's theology, and they still don't.

Yea & you throw around the word "Murderer" pretty liberally I see. FYI, the Council of Carthage in 418 condemned Pelegius's views. Also the Synod of Orange in 529 condemned the notion that the human soul remains unaffected by Adam's fall into sin, while denouncing the idea that Adam's sin was not passed on through the human race.

I have a suggestion for you Michael, the best thing for you is go embrace the Eastern Religions & regarding this Forum......Please try to go cold turkey.

 

[Jerome]

Another pronouncement from the Synod of Orange:

We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Another pronouncement from the Synod of Orange:

Whats this have to do with the discussion at hand?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thank you for your interesting post.

My view of "sacraments" is perhaps somewhat complex, as are many of my views. Some people on this forum have labeled me a heretic because they can't pigeonhole me. It would be good to have a discussion without being labeled.

I wouldn't use the word "symbol" to refer to the sacraments. I would call them signs. Some would say there is no difference, but to me there is -- even if a subtle one. I do believe God can and does work through the physical, not just that He uses the physical to work within us, although He does this, too. Because I believe this, I would not limit the sacraments to just two, or seven; rather, I think sacraments are innumerable.

While I believe God works through the physical, I don't believe He works at the behest of man -- I don't think God automatically does something because a human being pronounces certain words or formulas over another person. I have a favorite saying: "The Spirit bloweth where it listeth, not where man listeth that it should blow." That is just one reason that I do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

I've never known exactly where my views fit in. I couldn't be Roman Catholic, or any type of Reformed Christian. I like Eastern Christianity for the reasons I stated, but I have important differences that preclude me from being in the EOC.

I don't believe in infant baptism, but I believe water baptism and the other "sacraments" are more than merely symbols -- but not the way the Churches of Christ do, for instance. I believe in all the gifts of the Spirit being in operation today -- but not as the Pentecostals believe and define it. I used to think I was a Quaker, but I wouldn't do away with the outward, physical sacraments, and I am not a complete pacifist. Also, their views on perfection are close to Wesleyanism, while mine are not.

I would probably fit best with the General Baptists.

But to get back to the specific point of your post: I have some affinity, I believe, with your view of sacraments, but I would probably fall somewhere between your views and those who regard them as only symbols.

Again, thanks for your post; I like to discuss things like this, and in this manner. I lose my temper sometimes and can be rather sarcastic in my replies, but I don't start out that way -- at least I try not to.

I enjoy reasonable discussion as well. :thumbsup:
Its seems that your contention is (primarily) in your view that or belief that if a man follows a formula God is required to respond in some manner. Which is interesting since neither the Catholic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox view the Sacraments in this manner.
To explain a better view of the sacraments it must be explained in sections. Sacraments comes from Latin sacramentum which means mystery or the latin translation of the Greek Mysterion. These mysteries are such because as the Apostles lived out what they were taught by Jesus these things became central in the ministry of the church such as baptism, laying on of hands, etc... and as these things were done in the life of the church the Holy Spirit is revealed. So secondly Catholics and EO see these mysteries as obedience to Jesus teaching on what to do. It is how Jesus wants to extend himself to us rather than us "forcing" Jesus into doing something. How we know this view is true is that both Catholics and EO hold that conducting ceremonies without faith or the belief in God communicating himself to us through these mysteries, makes the mystery not efficacious. Ie going to confession without contrition or true repentance won't help. Save that God may use that media to effect the heart dependent on his will for that person.
Just some other thought for you to think of.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Yea & you throw around the word "Murderer" pretty liberally I see. FYI, the Council of Carthage in 418 condemned Pelegius's views. Also the Synod of Orange in 529 condemned the notion that the human soul remains unaffected by Adam's fall into sin, while denouncing the idea that Adam's sin was not passed on through the human race.

I have a suggestion for you Michael, the best thing for you is go embrace the Eastern Religions & regarding this Forum......Please try to go cold turkey.

Not at all. Calvin had Servetus murdered.

You are so good at lying, but then practice makes perfect. Nowhere have I said that I have an affinity for "Eastern Religions". I have said that I like some things about the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Maybe I'll stick around and be a thorn in your evil flesh. I have no doubt that had you lived in Calvin's day, you would have gleefully cheered on the decision to murder Servetus. I see many more fruits of the Spirit in our Catholic brethren on this forum than in you, Iconoclast, and others of your ilk.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not at all. Calvin had Servetus murdered.

You are so good at lying, but then practice makes perfect. Nowhere have I said that I have an affinity for "Eastern Religions". I have said that I like some things about the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Maybe I'll stick around and be a thorn in your evil flesh. I have no doubt that had you lived in Calvin's day, you would have gleefully cheered on the decision to murder Servetus. I see many more fruits of the Spirit in our Catholic brethren on this forum than in you, Iconoclast, and others of your ilk.

Didn't Calvin also Torture Sebastian Castello? Urge the burning of Witches and had Jacques Gruet beheaded?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Didn't Calvin also Torture Sebastian Castello? Urge the burning of Witches and had Jacques Gruet beheaded?

Yes, indeed. What a fine "Christian" he was.

 

[HankD]

When "Original Sin" is dicussed one needs to carefully define terms not only in a theological but pragmatic way.

I realized this in the Baptist Only Forums when it was said that I held to an Augustinian/Catholic view of said doctrine.

However anyone who accepts this version of Original Sin also believes that water baptism takes away Original Sin.

Why are children baptized? Simple: to remove original sin.

Found online in the Public Domain at http://www.aboutcatholics.com/worship/baptism/

Without water baptism to remove "Original Sin" there can be no doctrine of Augustinian/Latin Church "Original Sin".

My own view is that Adam (the original human sinner) passed on to all of us all the necessary equipment and ability to sin which inevitably each of us will do given the maturity of discerning good and evil.

John 3

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.​

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

What is this but pure mental gymnastics! Punishment in hell is called "DEATH" the "second Death" and you cannot parse the term "death" and claim one aspect is penalty for sin and the other is not! The scriptures clearly state that Christ "DIED for our sins" and thus his PHYSICAL death on the cross was penal as it is expressly stated to be "FOR our sins."

The term "death" is comprehensive of spiritual, physical and eternal and you have no biblical grounds to isolate one aspect and deny it is the penalty of sin or else you deny Christ died "FOR our sins" and thus his death did not REDEEM us from our sins.



If it is attributed to sin then it is the penalty of sin or else Christ's PHYSICAL death on the cross is in vain and you are still in your sins.

Now, back to the OP. Romans 5:12 teaches that death in its comprehensive meaning is what is passed down to all Adam's posterity but SPIRITUAL death is what is the immediate reference.

This is obvious for several reasons.

1. It is Adam's sin that introduces the verse and the consequence is "death by sin" and Adam did not PHYSICALLY die "in the day" he sinned but died SPIRITUALLY.

2. Death is the wages of sin in regard to PENALTY as the SECOND death is the eternal penalty of sin. PHYSICAL death of Christ on the cross was FOR OUR SINS and thus regarded as a penal death.

4. Death is comprehensive of spiritual, physical and eternal, all of which is the penal consequence of sin in Romans 5:12.

5. Hence by one man's disobedience/sin many be DEAD SPIRITUALLY which consequentially leads to physical and eternal.

 

[The Biblicist]

The part I highlighted in green: Actually, I was the one who said that -- that was my post.

Sorry to break in but had to correct the record -- didn't want HP to be blamed for something I said.

Trying to wean myself off this forum.

Oh, and this throwing around of the word "heretical" on this forum as if this was a damnable offense: What the word originally meant was a minority opinion -- which, btw, Augustine's was at the time. The Eastern Church never accepted Augustine's theology, and they still don't.

My mistake! Don't want to attribute anything to HP he did not say. However, in addition to the quotation that HP did say, I could have quoted more from the second page of this OP to prove the same point.

 

[The Biblicist]

When "Original Sin" is dicussed one needs to carefully define terms not only in a theological but pragmatic way.

I realized this in the Baptist Only Forums when it was said that I held to an Augustinian/Catholic view of said doctrine.

However anyone who accepts this version of Original Sin also believes that water baptism takes away Original Sin.



Without water baptism to remove "Original Sin" there can be no doctrine of Augustinian/Latin Church "Original Sin".

My own view is that Adam (the original human sinner) passed on to all of us all the necessary equipment and ability to sin which inevitably each of us will do given the maturity of discerning good and evil.

John 3

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.​

HankD

I agree Hank! What he "passed" to us is "death" in its comprehensive meaning. (1) Spiritual death which in turn leads to both (2) physical death and ultimately (3) eternal death.

Death in its comprehensive meaning is included in the phrase "dying thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:16) and that is exactly what Paul meant when he said "and death by sin for death has passed upon all men."

Death is the penal consequences of sin. Spiritual death is the IMMEDIATE penal consequence of sin and physical and eternal are the penal developments.