Posted on 11/12/2005 10:15:17 AM PST by NYer
In short...
Genesis is a parable. Matthew 13:35
"So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.""
Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God. Both Adam and Eve attempted to take the bread of life and become like God. They were deceived. Their intent was to become like God by taking what was not theirs. The tree was the knowledge of good and evil, of which they would soon know, but it was not the wisdom of God's Holy Spirit they would gain.
Man would now live on his own and by his own hands. The gifts of life and the image they were made in were not taken away. The cherubim waiving the flaming sword to and fro, blocking the way to the garden is the physics of this world.
"You believe this is an absolute denial of free will?"
It is. Free means unencumbered, unimpaired. Just as Adam and Eve were left free, so to are their progeny.
"And if it (the sin of Adam) is meaningless, for what purpose the Incarnation?"
Their sin is not meaningless. They attempted to become like God, by theft. It explains why folks are here on their own. His original conclusion and love never waivered. The gift of life He bestowed was never to be abandoned. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
God came to teach us who He is. Who is He teaching us to be like? Matt 10:25, "It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master..." John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." This bread is what is prayed for in the Lord's prayer, "give us this day our daily bread." Matthew 5:48, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
From the beginning, this was His intent, that He should teach and we should learn. We were given the gift of capacity. What would we learn, and what value would we place on life and the life of others. No sign would be given, but the sign of the resurrection - the Holy Spirit.
Granted all that, you benefit in this analysis by dealing with a completed work. You parse out its contents in the manner described, and verify the work's inspiration. Had not the compilation of the canon already been done quite a while before your denomination's existence, and 2000 years' worth of "Christian" work been compiled that needed a discerning edit to determine, at this late date, canonicity, how unwieldy would the process be? Who could even decide on the criteria to be considered? Is apostolic authorship required, or only authorship in the apostolic era? Why *can't* writings after the apostolic era be considered? Whose authority determines these things as relevant? That's just for starters, and these questions don't even treat very well to the ICE methodology.
The real legwork has long since been done. By the Church. Your method is a good corroborative apologetic tool, but it would never do to determine the canon to begin with.
You're wrong. The Canon clearly speaks to all men regarding Adam's sin.
"" If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption,"
"Moreover, the argument against original sin from Ezech. 18:20 has no force. Here is St. Thomas' rebuttal of your error (SCG 4.51):"
Well let's see.
"But any sin touching the specific nature itself may without difficulty be propagated from one to another, as the specific nature is imparted by one to others [by generation].
Nope. Man was made in the image and likeness of God. Ezekiel 18 is as clear as a bright sunny day. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
The sin of the father does not effect the nature of the son! There's no mystery and it's not genetic. It's a circular argument he's making from a false claim.
"and the due order of the parts of his soul:"
Thomas is referring to heart and mind here, when he speaks of the soul. The soul though, is the Heavenly body of a man's spirit. No one's heart and mind was effected by the sin of Adam.
"As for the argument from St. John 9:3, let St. Augustine answer you (Tractate 44 on the Gospel of St. John): Fine
"From what evil does an evil mind abstain, even though the eyes are closed? He could not see, but he knew how to think, and perchance to lust after something which his blindness hindered him from attaining, and so still in his heart to be judged by the searcher of hearts.
The searcher of hearts said, neither this man sinned, nor his parents. As, for the evil mind Augustine attributes to the man, that was given for the same reason the Pharisees blurted out that he was steeped in sin from birth when the man failed to lie about the man who healed him. According to Augustine, the scared blind man should have lie in fear of what the authorities would do to him.
Good article.
This gives me another opportunity to ask some questions of my Protestant brethren. Did Martin Luther claim that the Catholic Church did not have or no longer had the authority to determine what the canon of Scripture would be? Did he claim the authority to decide the "true" canon? If he decided, then could I take some other writings that I consider holy and add those and call it the canon?
I ask these questions in earnest.
Happy 5th FR Anniversary, NYer!
Thanks for keeping things interesting. Keep us posted.
Pax et bonum.
Your misreading of Ezechiel makes nonsense of all of Scripture. In your view, man never needed a Savior. Actually Ezechiel is clearly talking about the sins of men in his day (18:1-3), not about Adam's loss of the gifts of immortality, righteousness, etc. The righteousness of God was an unmerited gift and it was lost as a punishment for Adam's sin, and can only be restored by the grace of Christ. "Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us: that we might be made the justice of God in him." (1 Cor. 5:21). Adam's sons never deserved this gift of God's own life and so it was no injustice on His part not to give it to them at conception.
The soul is not a "Heavenly body". It is the form of the body.
As regards John 9:3, apparently you also believe that men are without sin in this world. When Christ taught his own disciples to pray that their sins would be forgiven, one wonders how this sinlessness could be possible without the grace of Christ! Was it in vain that the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans: "all have sinned and do need the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23)? Christ is just saying that the blindness of the man and his parents was not a result of any sin either of the man or his parents "but that the works of God should be made manifest in him". That is the obvious contextual reading - there is no need to jerk it out of context and pretend that for the salvation of man there is no need for "grace and truth" through our Lord Jesus Christ (St. John 1:17), since men can apparently live sinless and righteous lives through their own efforts.
According to Augustine, the scared blind man should have lie in fear of what the authorities would do to him.
There isn't any reason for the man to have lied, even under your contorted interpretation of St. Augustine and St. John. Or perhaps you are trying to say that St. Augustine believed that the blind man should have lied because, since he was a sinful man, he could do nothing but lie. This is a really dumb conclusion and it certainly has nothing to do with actual Augustinism.
I suggest you read St. Augustine's works refuting this Pelagian nonsense you're spouting.
Here Augustine is talking of the devil's persuasion. He says the free will of man was corrupted by his choice. In fact nature was corrupted.
"Whence it came to pass, that our nature having then and there been deteriorated by that great sin of the first man, not only was made a sinner, but also generates sinners; and yet the very weakness, under which the virtue of a holy life has drooped and died, is not really nature, but corruption; precisely as a bad state of health is not a bodily substance or nature, but disorder; very often, indeed, if not always, the ailing character of parents is in a certain way implanted, and reappears in the bodies of their children."
This is illogical. The propensity to sin is not passed on, as if it were genetic. Note my last post, both Enoch and Noah, who was righteous walked with God.
"Both lie; but now the accuser of the flesh alone is more bearable than the praiser, who is convicted of cruelty against the whole."
They lie? Gen 1:26-27
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
...Gen 1:31
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
This never changed.
"nor does the Pelagian permit the divine grace to come to the help of human infancy by denying original sin."
Ridiculous! The Holy Spirit is not barred as a guide by denying original sin. God's original intent is preserved, that man is in His image and likeness and not in Augustine's image and likeness.
"What advantage, then, is it to them that they say "that all sin descends not from nature, but from the will,""
That's God's word and intent is preserved. That His justice is preserved in that it was not God that provided for this faulty nature, but the minds of men who failed to see and acknowledge the innocence of children as God saw them.
Matthew 21:16
"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him. "Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read, " 'From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise'?"[Psalm 8:2]
These are the same children Augustine descibes as follows, "The infant that you look upon 'was conceived in iniquity, and in sin its mother nourished it in the womb.'" ... No one is pure from uncleanness, not even the infant whose life is of one day upon the earth.
Augustine! Read your Bible!
Mark 10:13-16
People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.
Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
Unclean, conceived in iniquity and nourished in sin indeed. Rubbish!
Amen
"The Catholic Church gave them a completed book, and they proceded to play a 16th Century Reader's Digest-style editing job in abridging it."
You know, the old "Protestant's are basically idiots" argument really doesn't hold much water.
And it get's old.
Wrong, see #61.
"Actually Ezechiel is clearly talking about the sins of men in his day (18:1-3), not about Adam's loss of the gifts of immortality, righteousness, etc."
#61 addresses most of this. Ezekiel is general and global in scope.
"The righteousness of God was an unmerited gift and it was lost as a punishment for Adam's sin, and can only be restored by the grace of Christ."
God's Love is His own gift. That Love and His intent that we should have eternal life was never abandoned, regardless of Adam's sin. Adam's sin simply explains why we live in this world.
"Adam's sons never deserved this gift of God's own life and so it was no injustice on His part not to give it to them at conception."
This denies God's unwaivering Love, simply to promote a doctrine of injustice. A doctrine not supported by either scriptural fact, or reality. Children are innocent. They do not sin except out of their own hearts and free will which were an unblemished gift in and of the image and likeness of God. Perhaps you think your own children are don't deserve your love also.
"Or perhaps you are trying to say that St. Augustine believed that the blind man should have lied because, since he was a sinful man, he could do nothing but lie.
Exactly!
"This is a really dumb conclusion and it certainly has nothing to do with actual Augustinism."Of course not! According to Augustine, children are unclean, conceived in iniquity and nourished in their mother's sin. Wretched creatures he calls children. Augustine is the author of the totally depraved man, the foundation of Calvinism.
***Some Protestants claim that they do have a way of knowing,***
In some of the Cambridge KJV bibles there is a section "From the Translator to The Reader". which delves into this.
That section is not in most KJV bibles today.
Relax and let Him do the work. It is His, regardless any effort otherwise.
BTW, Our Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and is alive today. The determination isn't merely rationalism or categorizing as some might think it. It is very much spiritually revealed to every believer as they properly think it by His methods.
There are many who consider man to have been trichotomous originally and later dichotomous after the fall until his spirit is regenerated. That perspective nicely harmonizes many verses and contexts between various portions of Scripture describing the natural or soulish man and the reborn man.
For myself, I've found that perspective to also allow the Holy Spirit to make other Scripture obvious for spiritual growth and also rational or logical understanding by the soul, and through Him available for spiritual work.
1Cor 5:21 should probably be read as 2Cor 5:21.
The translation of 'justification' is frequently made as 'righteousness' in the verse quoted. The original word, DIKAIOSUNE, might also be associated with the removal of a barrier to be made one with another.
It is sometimes used in the doctrine of justification and in the doctrine of righteousness.
Another interesting translation in this verse is the English word 'made'. The first use in the verse is the Greek POIEO, while the second is GINOMAI.
It is an illustration whose point is that, from my view, I have the Apostle before me. The words of the Apostle have greater weight than the words of those who have verified that this truly is the work of the Apostle.
And, since we have the words of an Apostle, those words have greater weight than any words from ANY source that might ensue and contradict the Apostle.
Those who have verified the words as coming from the Apostle are under the authority of the Apostle once they've verified those words.
As in the days of Josiah when the words of the Law were discovered. The words of God had greater weight than that of Hilkiah and the other priests who found them. (Of course...the hope is that they would submit themselves to the already revealed truth, and there would be unity.)
There actually is a genetic interpretation of sin, that is an old sin nature that is passed from the man to the woman, physically, and becomes part of the genetic makeup of the next human body breathed with life in his soul.
This is actually a beautiful part of God's wonderful plan. Man is condemned before he is saved. It is also for this reason that infants and mentally deficient ones will enter heaven if they die before the age of accountability. Christ has already paid the price of sin and we stand redeemed. God is now free to remain righteous and just if by His grace He accepts us into heaven by His work.
That same genetic aspect of sin also accounts for many sins that occur after salvation. Additionally, our souls are scarred from sin and we have a proclivity to sin by similar temptation where we are likely to leave the fellowship of God.
It is also interesting how this same genetic old sin nature is also resolved in the lineage of Mary and Joseph, while the RCC rightly understands the Immaculate Conception that also produced the spotless Lamb, free of any blemish.
In the trichotomous view of man, our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus was the only man since Adam born with a body, a soul, and a spirit,...without any barrier to God,..just and righteous with Him. All other men born since the fall, are born with body and breathed in a soul to form the human, still separate from God where we have no living human spirit until we are regenerated by the Holy Ghost. Such things are foolishness to the unbeliever, because they only become understood through the spirit,...not simply a soulish rationalization of things that occur.
Additionally, some sins and natre to sin may be passed on genetically to heirs. The homosexual claim that they are born with such a propensity, may be true in some cases. That still doesn't make the behavior right, nor remove them from the consequences of sin should they fall to temptation. It is also no more special than any myriad of sinful tendancies each and every man might face in other domains.
There is no temptation too great than that which may be resisted, and what wonderful assistance we have through the Holy Spirit to remain in fellowship with Him regardless the temptation or tendancy.
I would prefer that they would agree.
"IF" anyone would disagree, then the words of the Apostle would be the authority.
If the Church has verified that it has in its hands the words of an Apostle, then it is subject to those words.
The same as the cryogenic experiment....once they verify it is the Apostle Paul and bring him back to life, then they are subject to the words of the apostle.
Their job of verifying was valuable, but that doesn't give them the last word.
I'm not targeting anyone....I'm responding to the article this thread is based on.
I would prefer that the church and the words of the Apostle align.
My point is that IF there is occasion where they contradict, then the words of the Apostle bear greater weight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.