|
Post by Josh on Jun 3, 2008 17:43:07 GMT -8
Previously, on another episode of "Essential Christian Beliefs?", the following dialogue occurred between pelag.... er, christopher and augus... hrmph.. josh:
Christopher: Actually (now that you mention it), I don't think I agree with the statement:
I don't believe God holds all people "guilty" of Adam's sin. That is an Augustinian invention and a modern day Calvinist notion IMO.
I do believe something is inherited, but I don't think it's guilt per se. I prefer to say that that all humans inherit a strong propensity to sin and therefore virtually all people do.
Josh: So are you saying some haven't?
Christopher:
Believe it or not...yes
I believe there are millions. Some of them you know very well. One of them is even in my own family.
They're called infants.
I don't believe the bible supports the concept that babies are born sinners and I believe it does support that there is a time that they do know right from wrong (Isa 7 for example) and therefore choose wrong at some point.
I want to clarify that I believe that all people that make it out of infancy (save one) do eventually sin.
Josh: Heh heh. This could be a good one. As soon as I get some time
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 3, 2008 18:05:35 GMT -8
Though I'm pretty sure this is going to end up being a discussion about hyperbole, I've gotta, of course, bring in some of the relevant passages to this debate.
I don't think the idea that all (including infants) are guilty of Adam's sin is an Augustinian invention. I think it's a idea straight from Paul:
Romans 5:12-19
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned A.— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation B., but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men C., so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners D., so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Some thoughts on A-D.
A. I don't think phrases like "all sinned" in Scripture are hyperbole.
Here are some other familiar passages:
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 3:9-18:
We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know." "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Though these quotes from the Psalms may in their original context be argued to be hyperbole, I think Paul's use of them here is much more technical, as he is speaking universally of all Gentiles and Jews.
An argument in support of "all" not being hyperbole for many, most, or "all adults" would be that in this passage it mentions that likewise "all" die because of sin. If "all" in the context of death includes infants, then why wouldn't infants be included in the other "all" in the same verse- those guilty of sin?
B, C. Death is equated with condemnation. All men are condemned to die because of Adam's sin- regardless of their individual sins. Short of a word study (no time right now), it seems that 'condemnation' implies some kind of verdict of guilt.
D. This section seems to teach point-blank that one man's sin (Adam) made "the many", that is, others, "sinners". In other words, humans can be called "sinners" simply because of Adam's sin.
A couple other points/ questions:
Another relevant passage would be:
Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Would you argue that this is merely exaggeration?
Lastly, are you saying that infants are not in need of the forgiveness of God offered in Jesus' atoning sacrifice?
This really gets to the heart of why this matters to me... I don't think that there are any special classes of humans who are not in need of redemption and forgiveness.
Of course, I think that infants will be saved by Christ's sacrifice on their behalf, but not because they are free of the guilt of sin, but because God's grace automatically extends to them before they are of the age of awareness of their sin.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 3, 2008 18:23:16 GMT -8
Just some thoughts on this: it seems to me that one doesn't have to choose wrong to do wrong. And one doesn't have to consciously choose to commit an evil act to be guilty of committing an evil act.
?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 3, 2008 20:57:47 GMT -8
I so wish I had more time tonight to answer this ... perhaps tomorrow. But I just wanted to comment on the last statement you made. I do not argue that people, even infants, cannot do something objectively wrong. I argue that they are not born with (inherit) the guilt of Adam's sin. They are two different concepts. There is much in scripture to support that notion and I'll come back to it when I have a chance. IMO Augustinian/Calvinist theology views God like a cold-hearted banker with a ledger sheet just tallying up the sins from birth (including the one they had nothing to do with...Adam's) in order to condemn those born under the curse of sin. I see God more as a Father abounding in mercy and grace AND justice doing all in His power to rescue and free man from the disease of sin. If I told you I spanked Zachary every time he fussed for no reason (lying), everyone would be horrified and turn me into CSD (I don't do that by the way, so put down the phone everyone ;D ). I do not hold Zachary accountable for things his undeveloped conscience has no concept of yet and I don't believe that my mercy exceeds that of God's. God is not unreasonable, and uncompassionate. Nor do I believe is He bound by Augustinian concepts of holiness and purity that won't allow him to even "look upon sin". Anyway, this could be a very good (and important) discussion...when I get the time.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 4, 2008 9:36:31 GMT -8
I don't think this is a fair assessment of Augustine's view, seeing as how his writings are replete with the mercy and grace of God. And sin isn't only a disease (implying we are its victims), it is also something that all men have chosen. I think part of what Paul is saying in this passage is that we can't divorce ourselves from Adam's sin. It is ours- not just his. He is everyman. Being human is to make Adam's choice. And in the timelessness or timefulness of God we are all just like him infant or adult.
That last sentence is admittedly a theory on how this might all work, but I don't think it's unclear in Paul that all humans are under the condemnation of sin- whether they have committed specific sinful acts yet or not.
But this message isn't necessarily cold-hearted though some might have turned it into that. Paul's message is one of a passionate God who goes to the greatest lengths to remove the condemnation on all men.
If infants are sinless, then did Jesus need to die for them? If their only problem is that they suffer death because of other's sins, then God could remedy that short of shedding his blood. But in fact, I believe, his blood was shed for all mankind- infant and adult, not just for some.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 4, 2008 18:07:41 GMT -8
So it turns out, after having dusted off my Erickson's systematic theology, that I've been falsely accusing you . Your view is more that of Arminius than Pelagius. I had forgotten that whereas Pelgaius rejected both that humans are born guilty AND with a tendency toward sin, Arminius accepted an innate tendency toward sin while rejecting the idea that we are born guilty of sin, much like your own view. My view, indeed, does follow Augustine (and Calvin-- one of those rare instances ), who held, largely because of this passage in Romans, that literally all have sinned in Adam- that we are born with the guilt of sin AND a proclivity toward it. I think also that I would fall under the category of a traducionist- that we all share in the soul of Adam, and therefore in his guilt (natural headship of Adam). Conversely, I might possibly accept the idea of federal headship, though it is less preferable, where God just applies Adam's guilt to us as our representative, just as he applies Jesus' foreign righteousness to us. Anyway, sorry for the mix up. Sounds like we should talk more about whether we are born with the guilt of sin or not.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 4, 2008 21:21:54 GMT -8
I can only answer your first post tonight so forgive me for not answering the others at the present. I don’t think this will be a discussion about hyperbole as much as it will be calling your NIV translation to the carpet. It’s a dynamic translation and the theological biases of the translators are sometimes glaringly obvious. Take for instance the Psalm you quoted: Ok, let’s compare with other (literal) translations: Ps 51:5 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. NKJV Ps 51:5 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. NASU I would not argue the verse is an exaggeration, I just don’t agree with the NIV translation of it. To say one was “brought forth in iniquity” is not the same as saying one was “sinful at birth”. Ok, regarding the Romans 5 passage you wrote: 1. Ok, so if you want to press the “all” thing, are you also prepared to apply that literally to vs. 18 (Universal reconciliation)? You have not made your case at all that this is not hyperbole or a limited assertion. 2. Notice the conspicuous use of the word “men”. I understand the word anthropos merely means human, but it is not necessary to press the word to apply to infants here. I doubt they are even in Paul’s view when he says “all sinned”. That would be utter nonsense IMO. In the immediate context, he’s talking about those who were dead in sin being saved by faith (vs. 1-11 and preceding passages of chapter 4). Would you also argue that babies are capable of faith in Jesus? 3. The whole argument is non-sequitur IMO. Yes, death reigned over all, even those who “did not sin” (vs. 14) because that is the consequence of the fall. Just as crack addiction reigns over a baby whose mother was an addict, so does the progeny of Adam suffer the consequences of sin, death. But it does not follow to say that babies are therefore guilty of Adam’s sin any more than we would say the crack baby is responsible for his own addiction. That would make no sense and God is not unsensible. Regarding Romans 3, you wrote: Thank you. You said exactly what I was going to say about this passage. In context, this passage is about the comparison between Jews and Gentiles, leveling the field of those who are born into Judaism, and those who aren’t. This is intended to directly challenge the snobbery of the Jews who think they are special for having a heritage of being “Gods chosen”. There’s no need to press it all the way to include infants and it’s ludicrous to do so IMO. How many babies would you describe as having the “poison of vipers on their lips” or “swift to shed blood”? Non-sequitur. Dying because of sin does not necessarily mean because of the person is guilty of sin. Many people are murdered all the time “because of sin” (but not their own sin). I don’t disagree with this. All are condemned because of their sin. Why do you think this condemnation must include infants, and why would it have to mean everyone shares the guilt of Adam’s sin rather than the tendency? The text doesn’t say that. That has to be read into it. Again, I do not disagree that all are sinners, and born with that bent. That still doesn’t make them guilty of Adam’s sin any more than the crack baby is guilty of his mother’s sin. Imagine telling someone that when they were born, they were addicted to crack and therefore they are just as guilty of smoking crack as their mother was. It’s absolute non-sense and I don’t believe for a second that God is that irrational and illogical. There’s no way around that as far as I can see. Yes, I’m saying infants are not in need of forgiveness of sin, because they are not capable of conscious sin. But they are in need of deliverance from sin (sinful nature that is). To me, those are two completely different concepts altogether. For those of us who have been fortunate enough to have reached an age of conscious choice, we need the forgiveness and deliverance because we all eventually sin premeditatedly. I don’t count an infant as a “class” of human, but an stage of human. Destined to sin, but not guilty of sin. Finally, I just want to add that Paul, in this very book, stated himself that there was a time in his life that he was not sinful. Note the use of past tense verbs here: Rom 7:7-11 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. NKJV I believe Paul is talking about himself before he knew what sin was and he says he was “alive once” and “sin was dead” but then "I died" (past tense). If Paul was born "guilty" and "dead" in sin, then how did he later die because of his sin? That’s all I have for now unfortunately. More later (Lord willing). Thanks again for the discussion. It's always very edifying and stimulating.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 5, 2008 16:09:58 GMT -8
Just real quick…I’m sure you are probably already aware of this famous passage relating to this topic, but for the sake of other readers, I’ll go ahead and post it: Ezek 18:1-20 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, 2 "What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 "As I live," says the Lord GOD, "you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. 4 "Behold, all souls are Mine;The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine;The soul who sins shall die. 5 But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right; 6 If he has not eaten on the mountains,Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,Nor defiled his neighbor's wife,Nor approached a woman during her impurity; 7 If he has not oppressed anyone,But has restored to the debtor his pledge;Has robbed no one by violence,But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing; 8 If he has not exacted usury Nor taken any increase,But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity And executed true judgment between man and man; 9 If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully--He is just;He shall surely live!"Says the Lord GOD. 10 "If he begets a son who is a robber Or a shedder of blood,Who does any of these things 11 And does none of those duties,But has eaten on the mountains Or defiled his neighbor's wife; 12 If he has oppressed the poor and needy,Robbed by violence,Not restored the pledge,Lifted his eyes to the idols,Or committed abomination; 13 If he has exacted usury Or taken increase--Shall he then live?He shall not live!If he has done any of these abominations,He shall surely die;His blood shall be upon him. 14 "If, however, he begets a son Who sees all the sins which his father has done,And considers but does not do likewise; 15 Who has not eaten on the mountains,Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,Nor defiled his neighbor's wife; 16 Has not oppressed anyone,Nor withheld a pledge,Nor robbed by violence,But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing; 17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor And not received usury or increase,But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes--He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;He shall surely live! 18 "As for his father,Because he cruelly oppressed,Robbed his brother by violence,And did what is not good among his people,Behold, he shall die for his iniquity. 19 "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?' Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. NKJV
Ok, this is not a letter from an apostle using his own words to a specific church (as inspired as they may be), but direct words from God through a prophet. He says the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, but only his own. It also seems to say that souls are individual and not somehow unified on some mysterious continuum making them “really” present (and therefore guilty) at the fall as the Augustinian view asserts (as I understand it). Also, this passage seems to support the creationist view rather than the traducian view: Ps 139:13-15 13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. 14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. NKJV But I’m not really concerned about that aspect either way (creationist vs. traducian). I’m not sure it matters. However, the Augustinian view that puts all of humanity technically present at the fall really disturbs me. That leads Augustine to logically conclude that un-baptized infants burn forever in hell. Scary stuff to be portraying God in that way.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 5, 2008 19:17:47 GMT -8
As a side-note, please be assured that I believe that as a result of prevenient grace, infants, though guilty of Adam's sin, are automatcially saved by the atoning work of Christ until such age as they are capable of rejecting Christ's sacrifice.
That's important to put out there.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 5, 2008 19:42:28 GMT -8
- The verse that is central to the point I'm trying to make, of course, is Romans 5:18
"Condemnation" according to Strongs, here, means an "adverse verdict". This is a legal term, and an adverse verdict implies guilt it seems to me. Likewise, our "justification", pitted here as the opposite of "condemnation" is being declared innocent/ free of guilt.
So, from your perspective, instead of saying that Adam's sin immediately led to condemnation of all men, are you arguing that this passage is saying that Adam's sin led to an inherited sin nature which eventually leads to the condemnation of all adults, in effect?
That wasn't my point. My point was that "all" applied to death does mean "all humans- infants and adults", so if Paul turns around and uses "all" again in regard to those who are condemned [guilty], there's a precedent that he's thinking about everyone. This isn't a strong argument, of course. And you've got a great point about consistantly applying this logic to the idea that "all" will be saved confound you!
- In regard to Psalm 51, I posted on that on the Bible Study sub-forum: www.aletheia.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=psalms&action=display&thread=825&page=1
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 6, 2008 9:11:57 GMT -8
Ok, a few minutes to answer some of your other statements.
This is exactly the kind of statment that I would reject outright. It makes no sense at all to me. This makes all humans into some sort of collective conciousness where the decisions of one make all culpable for it. It sounds very Hindu-ish to me and I don't believe that the idea is supported in scripture at all. The fact that the whole doctrine is based largely on this passage and very few others makes me suspect strongly that it is an invention of man (namely Augustine).
Holding Paul to a literal interpretation of his use of the word "all" is extremely unfair to him IMO. He shouldn't have to explain what he means by that, it should be obvious to his readers (and I dare say that up until Augustine, it was obvious).
What are your thoughts on the Romans 7 passage I cited earlier?
you also wrote:
Don't worry about it. I've been called a lot worse things than a Pelagian. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 7, 2008 12:03:15 GMT -8
So, I feel we've made some headway here... (haven't thought about this stuff in a LONG time, really). I'm chewing on a lot of the loose ends.
However, as I stated two posts above, a lot hinges on what "all men being condemned as the result of one tresspass" really means.
Here's the point again from above that I'd most like to hear your take on:
In other words, would the "heretical Chris Crombie" translation of Romans 5:18 be:
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was [eventual] condemnation for all men [adults], so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 7, 2008 15:52:20 GMT -8
I thought we'd already gone over this. I probably have not done a good job in making myself clear . I don't believe it's fair to press Paul's words to mean that because all are condemned to die, all are therefore guilty of the sin. It is often the case that progeny suffer the consequences of ancestral sin, that doesn't make them guilty of it. There are many examples in the OT of the innocent dying because of the actions of the parents, grandparents, etc. (think of the conquest of Canaan, Aichan's family in Joshua, etc.). A crack baby is "condemned" to crack addiction, but not guilty of it. (sorry for the overuse of this analogy, but it makes my point) Also, you can't have this both ways. If you're going to press "all" in the condemnation of that verse, you're going to also accept that "all" are eventually justified if you're going to be consistent. Besides all that, I'd like to hear your case for why this "condemnation" is anything other than simply death (the promised consequence of the fall). The danger of building a doctrine entirely on 1 ambiguous verse, is of course that you run the very likely risk of having contradictions in scripture (like some of the verses I cited ). The doctrine of Total depravity (and Augustinian/Calvinism in general, I think) sets up so many instances of logical contradictions and cognitive disonnance and it amazes me how many of these get ignored or rationalized away as "mystery" by those who are committed to it. I'd like to hear what your take is on the Romans 7 passage and the Ezekiel 18 passage.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 7, 2008 16:16:06 GMT -8
This is the part I hadn't heard you say yet.... "condemned" (hopefully I'm right about that) I heard you say that someone can suffer the consequence of someone else's sin without being guilty themselves. I agree with that. But my trouble is that the use of the word "condemned" seems to strongly imply a verdict of guilt. What would the need for an adverse verdict be for a person who's innocent? Why say "all men are condemned" (implying all are guilty) if instead you mean "all men must suffer for Adam's sin"? Well, anyway, I think I suggested a way out of the condundrum (which apparently you don't think is a conundrum) in my pseduopedographal crombie rendering of Romans 5:18: all men are eventually condemned by the effects of Adam's sin. The reason I haven't responded on Ezekiel and Romans 7 is because they are quite convincing for your argument Elsewhere we've discussed Ezekiel 18 at length, so, yeah, I'm prettey conversant with that discussion. I may be changing my gears in favor of an Arminian perspective on this after all (inherited tendency toward sin that is ultimately 100% fatal but not born guilty). There are still a few rabbit trails I need to explore, however. If any of them seem to be leading anywhere, I'll post them.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 9, 2008 15:58:26 GMT -8
I finally picked up the Ancient Christian Commentary on Romans from church (wish I would have picked it up earlier).
Here's a couple good ones related to this:
“Paul does not mean by this that because one manned sinned everybody else had to pay the price for it even though they had not committed the sin, for that would be unjust. Rather he says that from its beginning in Adam humanity derived both its existence and its sinfulness”
-Acacius of Caesarea
“What has Adam’s guilt got to do with us? Why are we held responsible for his sin when we were not even born when he committed it? Did not God say: “The parents will not die for the children, nor the children for the parents, but the soul which has sinned, it shall die” How then shall we defend this doctrine? The soul, I say, which has sinned, it shall die. We have become sinners because of Adam’s disobedience in the following manner… After he fell into sin and surrendered to corruption, impure lusts invaded the nature of his flesh, and at the same time the evil law of our members was born. For our nature contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is, Adam, and thus many became sinners. This was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not then exist, but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of sin. Thus, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam because of disobedience, and evil desired invaded it, so the same nature was later set free by Christ, who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin”
-Cyril of Alexandria
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 9, 2008 19:55:23 GMT -8
Thanks for posting those quotes (I can't believe there's actually something from the ECF's I actually agree with ). I had once heard it claimed that up until Augustine, the church was virtually unanimous on this point, but I had never actually verified that claim so I didn't really want to bring them into it lest I be tasked with digging up all the quotes (which I don't really have time to do). But these quotes you cited seem to show that at least some of them reasoned along Arminian lines (albeit a millennium and a half his prior). Thanks again for posting them. And thanks also for an honest discussion that is truly about discovering truth and not winning a debate. That's kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 22, 2009 10:45:48 GMT -8
we cannot inherit adams guilt. each man pays for his own sin by the guilt from it, but the guilt of the father will not be passed onto the son. however, if the son is raised by the father then certainly the son will be more likely to sin this way. but he does not inherit it genetically.
for example, christ did not take our guilt on him. the guilt of our sin is our own. however, the penalty of sin which is death, that is what he took on him. he walked into the courtroom, with satan as the accuser and us as the guilty. God was about to bang the gaveel when Jesus cried out "i object." and then he told God that becuase he has ot borken ANY law, than he is able to take the punishment for any man that had broken the law. all have sinned, and if a man keeps the whole law except for offending one point, he still ends up guilty of the whole law (james). this is becuase all these laws come from the same person. the same who said dont commit adultry also said dont murder.
so if we dont commit adultry but we do commit murder, than have we not broken the whole law even though one of the laws were not broken? (james). so since Jesus did not break ANY than he could take our penalty for sin. he could die in place of us. but our guilt is still our own.
so we all pay for the fathers sin unto the thousands of generations (dt) by dying, for our natural death is inherited. but the sdecond death is the payment for our own sins, the death that we bring upon ourselves. but jesus already payed this second death. all we have to do is accept that death as atonement.
as for "sin nature" i dont beleive in that. we will not inherit the propensity to sin or to the guilt of our fathers sin. the guilt is his own. however, if we are raised in sin, of course we will gain an evil inclination (yezer hara). now, this is not to exlude littel children from the salvation of God through Yeshua. they are still in need of it. The law was to condemn so that ALL would be in need of redemption. it cannot be followed unless we recieve the spirit, which came through the atonement and from El Shaddai, Adonai Yireh, the almighty, the provider.
once again, i am rambling. but this is one subject in my theology that i have fully matured to the point that not many people can find questions that i cant answer in it. but i am still open ot say it is wrong, although you would have to have as strong a theory as me with as much evidence.
augustine WAS a great theologian, but he was also a man who go tthings wrong. he was correct that all men have an inclination towards evil, but this is not inherited from the fathers, but rose up inside of us as a byproduct of living in evil. This is why enoch would go into caves any time he wasnt witnessing to evil (jasher) and why Paul said to flee from even appearances of evil. pure religion is undefiled from the poluution of this world (james).
we are to minister to the sinful, but we are to keep from evil as well, especcially those that know the truth and deny it or refuse to follow it. (heb; 1 cor)
uggghh. i got into rambling again. i hope i am not boring you. i hope you understand my position.
shalom- john
|
|