The Implications of Original Sin

[DHK]

HP: I would like to apologize to the list for any that might be apart of the Church of Christ. Certainly I disagree with many of your positions but that does not in any way suggest in fairness that you belong to a cult.


It is certainly sad when even the moderator of this list can violate the rules of the forum with impunity and personally attack others by such subjective derogatory personal attacks on their personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

According to the ICC, baptism must be done in their church with the person being baptized having an understand that baptism saves. Combined with this, the ICC method of discipleship includes strong accountability to other members of the church as a necessary element to be considered a Christian. According to the ICC, one cannot be a Christian if he is not a true disciple, and being a disciple must precede baptism. Therefore, the International Church of Christ tends to be very legalistic and controlling. Many of its former members attest to requirements that they confess their sins to their disciple leaders, that they submit to the decisions of their disciple "leaders" regarding dating, frequency of sexual relations for married couples, jobs to take, places to move, and so on.
This discipling operation within the ICC has drawn much criticism for its intrusive practices and has been labeled as a form of brainwashing and psychological and emotional manipulation. There are numerous web sites on the Internet devoted to ex-members of the International Church of Christ who warn people not to be involved with the movement. There are also support groups to help those who have left to find healing and, hopefully, true Grace in Christ instead of legalism and bondage.

http://carm.org/what-international-church-christ


Convinced?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Convinced of what? The error they imbibe in their notions of baptism? I certainly would not agree with them on that point. I would go so far as to say they are in error, but I would not violate the rules of this list with a blanket personal attack associating them with those of a cult, i.e. being outside of the Christian faith. What I would not do is call them a cult for believing their error on that point, any more than I would call the church of some of my Baptist friends a cult for their practice of re-baptism, etc. 'especially' in light of the rules of this forum. :thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I no way am I trying to justify the actions of those in any particular group, but rather am adding this as a matter of observation over the years.

One persons legalism is often another's obedience.

 

[DHK]

I no way am I trying to justify the actions of those in any particular group, but rather am adding this as a matter of observation over the years.

One persons legalism is often another's obedience.

Nothing to do with legalism.
A works based salvation (adding baptism as a requirement to salvation), is, in essence, a denial of the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. That is one of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, if anyone calls you a heretic or claims you belong to a cult, I will flag their post for you. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

HP: From Scripture I would conclude Satan did.

But that is not what the Bible says. Perhaps I should have been more specific since the thread is speaking of mankind, I thought you would figure out that aspect for yourself.
The Bible attributes the first sin, the original sin, to Adam.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:14-15)

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5:12)

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Are you absolutely certain Eve did not sin? If one is 'deceived' does that eliminate moral responsibility or guilt?

 

[Darrell C]

Are you absolutely certain Eve did not sin? If one is 'deceived' does that eliminate moral responsibility or guilt?

Acts 17:30

King James Version (KJV)

30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

It would seem so.

Though Eve, we assume, also died.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darrell, you have me thinking. If Eve did not sin, and she certainly could not have inherited sin from her Father, Hhmmmmm. Could this be verification that the first rule is indeed correct?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eve could not have inherited sin from her Father. Eve could not have inherited sin from her husband. If Eve sinned in taking the forbidden fruit, original sin in reality started with her as well as with Adam. If she did not sin originally, who is to say if she ever sinned? If she never sinned, well we know how that would affect some doctrines. If she sinned it could not be inherited period. Why could not her original sin be inherited by her offspring if Adam's sin can be inherited via his sin?

Now we are starting to think Darrell. You have my mind whirling. :thumbsup:

 

[glfredrick]

Your mind whirls too easily...

Eve sinned by choice as a free person who was not born into sin, as did Adam. They did not inherit a sin nature as did the REST of humanity born after them as slaves to sin.

Adam and Eve were special cases, which is why Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit mentioned the "first Adam" by which sin entered the whole world and the "second Adam (Christ)" by whom that sin is atoned for forever. Christ was also born a free man and not a slave to sin by His holy pedigree, Mary's conception by the Holy Spirit. As God directly created Adam and Eve, God also concieved Christ, and they all walked as the only free men (individuals) on this earth.

Let your mind whirl around those biblical truths for a bit and see what comes of it...

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I have a question for DHK. Who was sin original with and why?

 

[glfredrick]

HP: Let me tell you exactly what I am stating. You know not whereof you speak. You simply took what some other Calvinist has to say about someone he thinks disagrees with him or another Calvinist, and present it as the truth about Pelagius and his views. If you think Pelagius was wrong, show us clearly from his own writings where he missed the boat and we can discuss it. If you cannot find anything other than hearsay concerning another, what good is it to post it other than to spread another's false notions?





HP: Who cares? I have read many writers about Calvinism supporting false doctrines, but what does that prove? Support your positions with facts and save the hearsay.

Here is an avowed Arminian writer who says essentially the same things I am saying...

by Roger E. Olson
Society of Evangelical Arminians

One of the purposes of my blog is to clarify Arminian theology and distinguish classical Arminianism from the all-too-common misrepresentations of it by some Calvinists, Lutherans and (ironically!) self-styled Arminians. One point I have been trying to get across to readers (e.g., in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, as well as in my published dialogues with Reformed theologian Michael Horton) is that much of what gets called “Arminianism” in contemporary American church life is simply semi-Pelagianism. Through sloppy scholarship and sometimes sheer ignorance (and sadly, occasional blatant misrepresentation) the two have become confused in the minds of most people. The result is that many who are classical Arminians don’t want that label applied to them.

So, further along that line, classical Arminianism, as distinct from semi-Pelagianism and its popular folk religious expressions in contemporary American church life, does affirm original sin and total depravity. All one has to do to know this is read Arminius, The Arminian Confession of 1621 (written by Arminius's successor Simon Episcopius), John Wesley, John Fletcher (Wesley’s most faithful theological interpreter during Wesley’s own lifetime), Richard Watson, William Burton Pope, Thomas O. Summers, John Miley, H. Orton Wiley, Ray Dunning, Kenneth Grider, Thomas Oden and any other faithful follower of the original teaching of Arminius. All affirm the bondage of the will to sin before and apart from supernatural, prevenient grace.

Edit: Add another quote

6. The errors charged upon these (usually termed Arminians) by their opponents, are five: (1.) That they deny original sin; (2.) That they deny justification by faith; (3.) That they deny absolute predestination; (4.) That they deny the grace of God to be irresistible; and, (5.) That they affirm, a believer may fall from grace.

With regard to the two first of these charges, they plead, Not Guilty. They are entirely false. No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either original sin, or justification by faith, in more strong, more clear and express terms, than Arminius has done. These two points, therefore, are to be set out of the question: In these both parties agree. In this respect, there is not a hair's breadth difference between Mr. Wesley and Mr. Whitefield.

Your house of cards is falling down... Even true Arminians agree with the concept of original sin.

Oh, and concerning your perjorative use of the term "Calvinism" see what Wesley said:

12. One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian Preacher, First, never, in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? -- a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners, than it is with Christianity. Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the duty of every Calvinist Preacher, First, never in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly thereof; and that the more earnestly and diligently, if they have been accustomed so to do? perhaps encouraged therein by his own example!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If Adam's sin affected his posterity (which we know it did) why did not Eve's sin affect her posterity in precisely the same manner...........or will someone dare say she was without sin?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GLF, you just don't get it. Oh well. Upward and onward. :thumbs:

 

[glfredrick]

If Adam's sin affected his posterity (which we know it did) why did not Eve's sin affect her posterity in precisely the same manner...........or will someone say she was without sin?

I'm not sure anyone but you have even suggested that it did not...

But, the Bible traces our sin nature through the head -- Adam -- to whom God gave the commandment to not eat. Are you now going to argue with God? That is what He ordained to be written.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Sin destroys the theory of Biblicist that says that one can only act in accordance to their nature beause (according to Biblicist) God can only act in acordance to His nature.

Think about it. When Adam sinned, it had to be according to something in himself dictating to him the 'choice' he made, if we are consistent with Biblicist's theory. If Adam was Holy before the fall, what lied within his nature to dictate sin?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Not so quick. You could be assuming somthing about Sripture that in fact it does not state or imply, but rather is the direct product of the heathen philosophy of Augustine, i.e., that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will. Sound familiar?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Who said sin is transmitted via Adam literally via 'physical generation' as original sin supposes? That notion is simply not set forth in Scripture. That is set forth by the humanistic theories of man, not Scripture.

 

[glfredrick]

Am I still quoting Calvinist propaganda for my position? Seems that Arminians who write on this topic agree with the stance I have put forward, including the fact that Pelagianism is heretical...

As we begin our discussion of the basics of Calvinist theology and the alternative that Wesleyan-Arminians offer, it is fitting that we begin with biblical anthropology -- that is, how the Scriptures view human beings. Calvinists like to use the term "total depravity" to describe the state of man. Oscar can correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I understand it: the doctrine of total depravity teaches us that there is absolutely nothing good in any of us.

In fact, according to this teaching we are so corrupted by the fall that it is even impossible for us to intellectually distinguish between good and evil. The fall has been complete and that includes our moral compass. As the great St. Augustine (second only to St. Paul in his influence in the development of the church) once stated, we constantly sin "in thought, word, and deed" -- often even unaware of our actions' offensiveness to God.

Upon this point, Wesleyans are in great agreement. In fact, it was specifically regarding this issue that caused John Wesley to state that he was only "a hair's breadth away" from John Calvin. I cannot claim to speak authoritatively for Wesley himself, but I personally prefer the term "original sin" to "total depravity." What is the difference? Total depravity assumes, as I mentioned above, that we are so fallen that we cannot do anything good and, indeed, we are even unaware of the good. But I find this to underestimate what Wesleyans call the power of prevenient grace.
...
Instead, I prefer the doctrine of "original sin." Wesleyan-Arminians believe that we will all sin, that all have fallen short of God's perfect standard, and that we have all inherited the sin nature of Adam and Eve. We are "bent" toward evil. When we look inside of ourselves, we can see selfishness and pride. Heck... I can see it in my two-year-old! But I like the way that the hymn writer states it in "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing": "Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it; Prone to leave the God I love." We have a "proclivity" to do evil and there is no human who has ever completely resisted that inclination except for Jesus Christ. However, we do still have a basic sense of right and wrong. We are a mixture of good and evil -- thanks only to the grace of God at work in us all.

I hope it is obvious from what I have said that Arminians do not adopt the view of Pelagius (the heretic) who taught that we are morally neutral, neither good nor bad. Far from it! We are sinful beings and only a cursory look at the newspapers reveal this. However, our evil is tempered by the ever present prevenient grace of God. And, as a result, we are not TOTALLY depraved (thanks be to Him).


I'm sure Oscar will correct me where I've misrepresented the Calvinist position. I did not touch on the wonderful doctrine of "common grace" which John Calvin espoused. And I'm curious to know now similar that understanding is to what I've just described.


Your Brother,
Greg the Arminian

[QUOTEhttp://savedthroughfaith.com/2010/07/29/what-does-arminianism-have-in-common-with-pelagianism/]

For instance, the Fall of Man. Pelagius taught that humanity was basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. Arminius, on the other hand, believed with Augustine and with Calvin that the Fall of Man brought not just physical death but spiritual death and total depravity (though Arminians would rather use the phrase "radical corruption" since Calvinists view of total depravity borders on making all men evil from birth). Arminius taught that because of the Fall, humanity is without hope of salvation apart from the sovereignty of God. Arminius taught that humanity was imputed with Adam's sin in the sense that we are all born with a corrupt image and apart from God's grace, we can not be saved. For Arminius, radical corruption meant not just that we are capable of sinning but that we can not earn salvation through human effort apart from sovereign grace.

Concerning salvation Pelagius taught that humanity has the ability in and of themselves apart from divine aid to obey God and earn eternal salvation. How far this is from Arminius' teachings. In no way did Arminius teach any of Pelagius' views on humanity regarding salvation. Arminius, like the Calvinists, teaches that salvation cannot be earned by good works or human effort or by our own free will. Arminius taught that salvation comes by the power of God through the gospel (Romans 1:16-17) and that the act of faith is a gift from God given by God to His elect through His foreknowledge (Romans 8:29-30; 1 Peter 1:2). Arminius taught that the Holy Spirit draws sinners to Christ the Savior through the preaching of the gospel (John 6:44; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14) and that salvation is accomplished through God's grace through faith (John 6:29; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; Romans 5:1-11; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7). Arminius rejected any notion that good works either obtain salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9) or that good works keep us saved (1 Peter 1:5).[/QUOTE]