My fault Nick.
Just watch the 1st 4 minutes of this. As loud as you can bear, full screen.
My apologies for the egregious solecism corrected above. Yours is in interpolating the indefinite article. Google is your friend. Definition 1.
You need to tint, shade and tone up. Get a bigger, better, more nuanced colour solid.
By âNo sense of rhetoricâ, which is not a sentence I used, I meant in context that the fundamentalist historical grammatical hermeneutic has no sense of the rhetorical, no sense of the Bible as literature, that it is no less 100% fully human, of its time, place, culture than Jesus. But it is certainly much, much less divine.
We are metaphorically autistic, illiterate with fear; we regress on hearing the words of Jesus, which was not His intent which was for the time, place, culture[,] and worked there. Barely. The disciples didnât know what He was on about until they saw.
He started a trajectory and as usual in social evolution, we try every cul-de-sac deviation from it. Which cannot be helped. There is no lesson of history but that.
So tone down the fear, the judgement, the condemnation, the knee jerk, the Bible says. The damnationism.
Tone down justifying God as a pathologically righteous genocidal sadist guilty until somebody else dies instead anachronism and calling it Love. Saying, âItâs a Good Lifeâ.
Thank you, again, for your kind (as always) response.
Iâm not sure I agree. If sin is indeed so evil that one single sin would separate us from God (or cast us into Hell), is endowed sin an equalizer? And what of those who never heard or could not understand adequately? Does the sin equalize them? If God made us inherently sinful, is that not His fault?
Is a fetus guilty of sin? When can a child be considered able to make decisions of this magnitude, that he or she would wind up in eternal condemnation? Paul, like many in the Bible, uses sweeping statements that are meant for emphasis (âI am the worst of sinners.â) Such equalizing actually seems to me to be a gnostic impression, rather than truly to do with correction.
What of the ârighteous manâ that is often spoken of throughout the OT and especially Psalms?
There is a great deal of nuance here, and Enns âEvolution of Adamâ incorporates the intertestamental books, including âWisdom of Solomon,â in assessing Paulâs interpretation.
But this canât refer to salvation, can it; itâs spoken before His death and resurrection, to a few people. From that time, all the Jews and even gentiles who did not know of Him did not go automatically to condemnation. This passage deserves a different contextual interpretation, I think you will agree.
True, but in that case is he really going to send people to Hell for what He caused us to do? This is a quote of the OT, appropriated in regard to NT believers. Eternal conscious torment would appear to be vindictive or retributive, not corrective. On the other hand, C S Lewis and Macdonald appeared to believe in universal reconciliation, where Hell is actually an area of continuing correction (not torment; see Lewisâ comments on Macdonald, and Macdonaldâs sermon on âJustice.â)
Psalm 103ââAs a father has compassion on his children, the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him. For He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust.â
Thank you again for your discussion. I appreciate your time sincerely.
In thinking over this, itâs a monumental task. I agree that quoting those brief points from Enns can be misleading in isolation. Lewis, Macdonald and Rachel Held Evansâ books provide pathos and reasoning for me to search for nuance on this; Enns has helped in this book to provide some. I need to listen to âEvolution of Adamâ again. He does go into Jewish exegesis and his training from Harvard helps here. Beverly Gaventaâs (Baylor) interview with him on his podcast also helped. Also, I need to re read Romans again. Have a good Sunday. We are having church using the âBible Projectâ for the kids, and likely streaming a podcast from a local church.
I have a lot more to read.
2 Likes
Apparently you are not here to be understood. You have my personal encouragement to discuss these points with anyone else other than me.
To me, you are a hugely distracting time sink.
You know what to do about that.
Hi Randy,
I enjoy my discussions with you, as well! 
Yes, this question about people who have never heard the Gospel was one of the main ones I had before I became a believer. I asked this question of many friends in a University Christian group I was visiting as a seeker.
While we cannot know how God reaches those who have not have not had access to the Gospel, we do know that our God is completely loving and completely just. Thus, we can assume that God must judge people based on the knowledge that they do have, what little knowledge that might be.
To specifically address a couple examples you mention, I believe that children in the womb are innocent and go directly to heaven when they die, as do newborn babies. This is why David expected to see his deceased child again in heaven:
2 Samuel 12
22 He answered, âWhile the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, âWho knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.â 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.â
By the way, I have a strong preference for believers baptism, rather than infant baptism, because I believe that Faith saves, not any type of Work.
I have also read about and heard testimonies from people who have been saved through dreams and visions in places where they are isolated from the Gospel. Thus, God is completely able to draw to Himself all people who would call on His name and believe in Him.
Hebrews 11 also talks about how people who knew God before Jesus came to earth were also saved by their faith in God. They believed that God had a future heavenly city prepared for them:
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better countryâa heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
On the other Original Sin thread, Mi Krumm posted this, which I agreed with. Note that Mi Krumm states on this thread that he does not believe in Original Sin. However, I think that these statements that he made about how free will would fit with Godâs sovereignty are true regardless of your belief in or against Original Sin, but they could help us come to terms with the concept of how God handles our sin.
You also asked
You could ask that question even in the absence of the concept of Original Sin. In the same way, we could ask: Couldnât God make people who would not be capable of sin? Couldnât God make us all have faith, believe and follow Him? However, He does not compel our obedience. And for some reason, all people do sin. I do not see the Christian faith as being any more or less acceptable in the presence or absence of the concept of Original Sin. Yet, somehow the Gospel tells me the truth about humanity and about myself. I sin, and all of humanity sins. It is somewhat mysterious as to when and why that became true, but somehow it is true. Thus, I affirm the concept of Original Sin. Others would like to think about it in a different way. Saying that God holds us accountable for our own Sin and requires belief in Jesusâs death and resurrection (with or without believe in original sin) raises those same questions. Calling that concept âoriginal sinâ is not any more abhorrent than saying that we all need a sacrifice for the sins that we ourselves have committed.
âall have sinnedâ (Romans 3:23)
âthere is no one righteousâ (Romans 3:12, Psalms 14:3; Psalms 53:3; Ecclesiastes 7:20)
1 Like
To be clear, original sin does not refer to the first sin committed by Adam and Eve, but to the result of that first sin. Original sin is the corruption or hereditary sinful taint visited on the progeny of our first parents as punishment for the original transgression.
Original sin is not an act, but a spiritual condition.
We distinguish between Sin and sin.
- Sin with a little s refers to the bad deed,
- Sin with a capital S refers *to the condition that produces the act.
Original sin refers to the depravity of our heart that resulted from the sin of Adam that has been the source of sinful acts ever since.
Is that fair you ask? I donât get a choice? Why should I suffer because Adam blew it?
Yet we all benefit because of the one-act Christâs substitutionary work.
Our sins come out of our sinful nature. By way of contrast, Adam started out with a good nature and then sinned. The punishment for Adamâs sin includes the sinful nature. That is again⌠original sin is not the sin of Adam but an aspect of the punishment for Adamâs sin.
Some may ask why should I be punished for Adamâs sin?
Why should I die along with 300 passengers because the captain of the aeroplane committed suicide?
But this view says in essence in Adam we all had our hands on those controls with the captain. I disgress.
Original sin is both sin, and also the punishment for sin. The punishment that we inherit
The degree of corruption involved with original sin has been a perennial point of debate among theologians. The consensus of historic Christianity, nevertheless, is that the biblical view of the fall requires us to affirm some concept of original sin.
However, denying original sin, Pelagius argued that human nature was created not only good but incontrovertibly good - Sin does not change our essential moral nature. We may sin, but we remain âbasically good.â The idea of mankindâs basic goodness is a cardinal tenet of humanistic philosophy, and some Christians hold this view.
Pelagius said the idea of original sin was a blasphemous theory.
He insisted it would be unrighteous of God to transmit or impute the sin of one man to others. God would not usher new creatures into a world laden with a burden of sin that was not their own.
Original sin would involve changing manâs constituent nature from good to bad. Man would become naturally bad. If man were bad by nature either before or after Adamâs sin, then God would again be deemed the author of evil.
If manâs nature became sinful or bad, then it would also be beyond redemption. If original sin is natural, then Christ would have had to possess it and would be unable to redeem himself, let alone anyone else.
For Pelagius, Adamâs sin affected Adam and Adam alone. Hence Randyâs kidâs comments. For Pelagius, there is no inherited condition of corruption known as original sin. Our will remains entirely free and retains the capacity for indifference, meaning it is not predisposed or inclined toward evil. All people are born free of any predisposition to sin. We are all born in the same moral condition as Adam enjoyed before the fall.
For Pelagius, there is no connection between Adamâs sin and ours. The idea that sin could be propagated via human generation is absurd. âIf their own sins do not harm parents after their conversion,â Pelagius says, âmuch more can they not through the parents injure their children."
Pelagius also taught that it was possible for people to live holy lives in accordance with Godâs will and merit salvation by good works.
Pelagianism is rejected by all orthodox Christians including Calvinists, Arminians, and Wesleyans, though the strain of thought is prevalent in modern secularism and humanism
2 Likes
But that would mean God pretty much EXECUTES that broadcast of corruptionâŚ
There is no quantum, physical or biological taint that can cause this corruption of our environment⌠it is not caused by toe nail clippings⌠it is not caused by brain waves.
And if you are fine with that ⌠then I donât think you need the Augustine view of Original Sin any more, right ?
The doctrine of original sin is central to Augustineâs understanding of both grace and free will. Original sin makes grace necessary. Original sin defines the bondage of the will. Oneâs view of grace and free will is inseparably related to oneâs understanding of original sin. He who embraces Augustineâs view of original sin is compelled to probe his understanding of grace and the fallen will.
Augustine understood the will to be a faculty that is part of the constituent nature given to man in creation. Brain waves, toe clippings - no. It makes man a volitional creature and makes it possible for him to be a moral creature.
Creatures who lack minds or wills cannot be moral beings. To be capable of moral action, either virtue or vice, a being must be able to make moral choices.
For example, when a drop of rain falls to the ground, we do not regard this as a moral falling. A fall from the sky is not a fall from righteousness.
Gottfried Leibniz distinguished between several types of evil, such as metaphysical evil, physical evil, and moral evil.
Metaphysical âevilâ refers to finitude or the lack of pure being (like that found in God).
Physical âevilâ refers to natural disasters like floods or earthquakes. We think of such events as bad, but we do not attribute moral culpability to the water that floods or the earth that shakes.
Moral evil refers to the actions of volitional creatures.
Augustine regarded man as fallen and as a sinner, but he did not mean that in the fall man had lost his moral agency.
Indeed, it is because man remains a volitional being that he is culpable for sin. âThere is ⌠always within us a free willâbut it is not always good,â Augustine says.
âFor it is either free from righteousness when it serves sinâand then it is evilâor else it is free from sin when it serves righteousnessâand then it is good.â
Augustine clearly affirms that man before and after the fall possesses free will.
The ability to choose, or the faculty of the will, remains in man even after the fall. Augustine insists we âalwaysâ have a free will. **The direction of the will, however, may be to either good or evil.
We can have a good free will or an evil free will.
Augustine defined free will as the ability to make voluntary decisions free from external constraint or coercion. It is self-activity. Self-activity refers to actions caused by the self, not to actions caused by an external force.
The person is not an inert object or a passive puppet. This freedom is a necessary condition or prerequisite for moral behaviour of any kind.
At times Augustine seems to deny all freedom to the will of fallen man. In The Enchiridion, for example, he writes: "when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost.â
How can we square this statement with Augustineâs insistence elsewhere that man always has freedom of the will?
The sinner sins because he chooses to sin, not because he is forced to sin.
Without grace, the fallen creature lacks the ability to choose righteousness. He is in bondage to his own sinful impulses.
To escape this bondage the sinner must be liberated by the grace of God.
For Augustine the sinner is both free and in bondage at the same time, but not in the same sense.
He is free to act according to his own desires, but his desires are only evil.
In an ironic sense, he is a slave to his own evil passions, a slave to his own corrupted will. This corruption greatly affects the will, but it does not destroy it as a faculty of choosing.
1 Like
Thank you for that helpful clarification between:
- Original Sin = corruption = spiritual condition of humanity, which was NOT the first act of sin committed by Adam and Eve
- sin = act of transgression
Thank you , Paul, for that explanation. I am reminded that common perceptions are often quite different than how real theologians define things. Often we lay people only see a caricature of the real picture.
1 Like
Thanks. Unfortunately, this still appears to mean he is unable to choose otherwise. A good father would not ensure his children were not able to choose good; he made their wills, after all.
Pelagiusâ views can be a bit of a strawman, it seems to me. Isnât it more likely that we should shed the presupposition of being born âgoodâ or âevil,â and instead assess that we are born with evolutionary tendencies that are mainly to survive? Itâs our forebrain that helps us learn (and our parents to teach us) how to bend those tendencies appropriately into situations where they are either advantages; or trim them down if they are disadvantages.
I once read the Irenaeus, who was only a few degrees removed from John through Polycarp, believed that sin was not a foundation of our being, but that God treated our impulses as a parent does?
Thanks.
Can you also clarify the âmetaphysical evilâ term? It sounds gnostic? One contrast between Judaism and gnostic Greeks was that the Jews affirmed that God had made the world, and it was good.
Thank you for your discussion.
In addition, the quotes that âman was continuallyâ in evil, etc, are generalizations, just as saying a man is righteous is a generalization. Obviously, we do not continually do evil. In fact, as Lewis put it in the Screwtape Letters, one of the barriers to the devilâs influence is that there are so many really good things we can do. They fill up our minds, keeping us from doing bad.
4 Likes
To add up here.My view on this is that sin always existed we just "didnt know"until our fall.Hense satans rebellion
Hi Randy,
This is exactly the view of Pelagius and many believers.
I understand why people hold this view. I would suggest it is a sub-Biblical view.
In fallen humanity, there is still a little bit of good - that can do good works that contribute to our salvation. Whereas, others theologians there is none and we are dependent upon the work of Christ.
Can we shed Good and Evil?
Really good question, Randy.
When I was a University student I was also taught "good and evilâ are social constructs.
We evolved to the point at which we constructed our own ethical or moral culture; that is, what has evolved is a social environment in which individuals behave in ways determined in part by their effects on others.
Hence we are not innately good or evil nor do we have âan inborn need or demand for ethical standards.
Instead, as evolved humans, we are intrinsically nonmoral, the product of a nonmoral environment which in turn causes us to act in ways we call âmoral.â
If we are essentially nonmoral, what then is the âgoodâ?
The good, or rather those things we call good, are positive reinforcers, and those things we call bad or evil are negative reinforcers.
What determines what is good behaviour and what is bad?â
My secular university lecturerâs answer was that whatever the members of oneâs culture find reinforcing as the result of their genetic endowment and the natural and social contingencies to which they have been exposed will be that cultureâs value system.
In brief, a personâs culture determines what is right or wrong, good or bad; it makes such value judgments because it has been caused to do so by nonmoral physical causes, namely heredity and environment.
If we want people to be better âmorallyâ we must proceed to the design of better environments.
Finally, the concept of God is a personification of what we think is good. A very ant-biblical position but understandable.
Randy, I think you are referring to- metaphysical dualism.
Gnostics construe the world in thoroughgoing dualistic terms.
Two realms exist, that of matter and materiality versus that of spirit.
The material world is evil or inferior, while the spiritual realm defines good.
The inferior and evil material world comes not from the high God of the spiritual realm, but from an inferior being.
Many gnostic myths function to explain the catastrophe of the creation of the material world.
I was referring to solutions to the problems of metaphysical (doctrine of) and moral evil that do not, in and of themselves, solve the problem of physical evil.
Or I can put it this way: the solution to the problem of metaphysical evil (i.e., evil is a privation) merely shows how evil is possible in a perfectly good, finite world created by an absolutely perfect God.
The answer to the problem of moral evil merely shows how good creatures could activate evil by freely choosing their own finite preferences above the infinite good of God.
But if youâre interested neither of these indicates why there are many physical evils in the world that do not appear to be the result of any free choices.
Why do many innocent people suffer from floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes?
There seems to be no connection with their own free choices nor any justification for their innocent suffering.
If nature were an independent entity operating autonomously apart from God, the theist might have ready recourse to an answer.
But the problem is made more acute for the theist since he believes God is in sovereign control of the natural world.
This leads to the Problem of Physical Evil
One of the most famous contemporary examples of an objection to theism from the point of physical evil can be seen in the example used from - The Plague by Albert Camus which coudl apply to todays pandemic.
The logic may be summarized as follows:
Either one must join the doctor and fight the plague God sent for manâs sin, or else he must join the priest and not fight the plague.
But not to fight the plague is inhumane.
And to fight the plague is to fight against God who sent it.
Hence, if humanitarianism is right, then theism is wrong.
Humanitarianism is right, and it is right to work to alleviate suffering.
Therefore, theism is wrong.
There are several assumptions the theist would challenge in Camusâs argument.
First, according to the Bible, one cannot conclude that people who suffer tragedy through a natural disaster are suffering because they are more wicked than those who are not likewise suffering (see Luke 13:3, 4).
-
Second, if the âplagueâ is viewed broadly as the curse of sin on the whole fallen world, then it might be better to describe it as what man brought on himself by his own free choice (Gen. 3:14; 5:12; 8:19, 20).
-
Third, it is not wrong for a theist to work against unjust suffering. In fact, because it was a man who brought the fall to the world (brought evil into the world), he can work to remove the effects of that fall (i.e., suffering) without being concerned about fighting against God.
-
Fourth, although the biblical theist is concerned for the plagueâs victims, he works against the general plague of evil at the most effective levelâthe cause of the plague, not merely the results. Evil is the ultimate cause of plague, even physical evils, and the life-transforming message of the cross of Jesus Christ is the most effective cure for evil know to man. It is not wrongâin fact, it is goodâto treat symptoms and put bandages on suffering men, but it is even better to treat and cure the disease that is causing the sickness.
Christian theism offers exactly what is neededâan internal change in man that enables him to overcome evil. I ramble
3 Likes
Thank you @Randy and @Paul_Allen1 for continuing this thoughtful and stimulating discussion. I find it good and helpful to think about these questions.
This makes me think of how when Jesus came into the world, one way that He demonstrated His power and identity as God was by healing the sick. His healing of the sick not only showed His compassion, but also showed His power to forgive sins.
Mark 2 (healing the paralytic)
9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, âYour sins are forgiven,â or to say, âGet up, take your mat and walkâ? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.â So he said to the man, 11 âI tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.â
Matthew 9
11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, âWhy does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?â
12 On hearing this, Jesus said, âIt is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: âI desire mercy, not sacrifice.â For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.â
2 Likes
Yes, perhaps you are right, calling sin an âequalizerâ is not a good way of expressing what I am thinking exactly. Perhaps I should edit my top post, as well, but I am having a hard time putting the idea into words.
What I do appreciate in Paulâs writings are the sense of humility that faith in Jesus brings to a person. This humility comes from knowing that we are all sinners and thus we also experience incredible gratitude in knowing that God came into the world to pay the debt of our sin, that He loves us so much that died for us, because He wants a relationship with us.
Romans 3
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his bloodâto be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunishedâ 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded.
3 Likes
Thank you. Yes, but humility also doesnât require all fetuses and infants to be born with original sin, does it? It can come from recognition that God is God. From the time of birth, we respect and honor our parents for their discipline, love and guidance.
Every one of us that sins relies on God for forgiveness. We as Christians believe that it comes through Jesus Christ. Thanks.
From my very unclear understanding, Paulâs main purpose here was to point out to the Jewish and Gentile Christians that it has always been through repentance, never through the outward sign of the covenant (circumcision, etc), that we are reconciled with God.
Thank you for your reply. Would you kindly clarify this sentence? Is it that some believe there is a little goodness, and others none at all?
I want to clarify that the belief that a sense of good and evil arises out of genetics and conditioning does not negate the existence of God, nor of true good and evil. Justin Barrett of Cambridge, then Fuller Theological Seminary, studied cognitive science of religion, and examined the hardwiring we have for belief. In one of his videos, he and his partners commented that Dawkins would not be able to use CSR to argue against faith. Itâs similar to the idea that evolution does not rule out God because we understand how creation came to be.
There is good evidence that the conscience is an evolved part of our psyche. It is not a universally correct âstill, small voice.â We are not all the same in how we react, for example. My own children vary much from one another. James Dobson wrote on that, too!
Itâs interesting how we can variously grow up to be the âover meticulousâ (Wesley referred to those who were constantly worried about small sins and their salvation), to the socio-and psychopaths, who may have a genetic difficulty with the concepts of shame and guilt. Iâm finding the evolution of shame and guilt particularly interesting, as it plays out in our Covid national consciousness. Hereâs an article I have set myself the task of reading (but have not finished yet) The evolution of shame and guilt - PMC
I very much enjoyed your teaching on gnosticism and evil of various types. Thank you! So, would we consider pain an âevilâ when it is not related to our actions?
I struggle with this concept. Surely Adam (whether allegorical or literal), who worked or cared for the garden, found some struggle, or âevilâ there? Yet, with evolution, we see that death and natural pain occurred throughout history. Thus, this is not a curse, nor even âevilâ in and of itself. Lamoureux describes the four Ancient Near East motifs of De Novo Creation, Lost Idyllic Age, Great Flood, and Tribal Formation (with a founding male). The thought is, as I understand it, that God used these motifs not as teaching points in themselves, but to convey His love of chasing after us.
I, too, struggle with the idea of God controlling everything, yet allowing so much pain. That is something I am going to have to ask God more about in Heaven. Thank you.
1 Like
Hi Randy,
Just a few brief responding comments.
Pelagius - We have the ability or goodness to choose God.
Calvin - Ephesians 2:1 weâre dead in sin - dead people are unable to choose God
Conscience - you make an interesting point. I have read those reports on brain activity and belief. Possibly the same ones you mention.
My university philosophy lecturer - loved to ridicule believers in his class: regarding the falsity of conscience and the ghost in the machine; namely the soul is a manifestation of the brain and doesnât exist. But he was most anti-catholic re: soul inseted from heaven etc.
2 Likes
Thanks for your comments. You certainly have much to teach me.
Certainly, everything we have comes form Godâso that if we have a desire for God, the ability to do so presumably also comes from Him, ultimately. However, it seems like some in my tradition have told me that in order to have a free will, God made us unable to choose good. That seems to me to ignore the undistributed middle in which free choice would exist, and set God up for being rather unfair.
I am sorry. It sounds like you had a horrible experience. I purposely avoided philosophy and related classes in undergrad in order to avoid that sort of thing. I would personally want to stay far away from a ridiculing professor like you had.
Justin Barrett is a strong Christian. He argues how Christianity is reasonable and spoke for the Veritas forum. (It is on YouTube from 2011 and 2012, Justin Barrett - Why Would Anyone Believe in God? - Veritas at UC Davis - YouTube
Maybe you can help me discern the difference between Barrett and your prof. I have not read his books.
Barrett graduated from Calvin for his undergrad. Presumably, heâs a Calvinist; I would be interested to find what he thinks of this in relationship to Calvinism.
Iâm not trying to argue for a given evolutionary perspective on shame and guilt. Rather, I am trying to understand how God can be fair, and how the doctrine of original sin might play out. Iâm rather uncomfortable with this interpretation, as it seems that it predisposes God to not be fair.
Thanks again.
1 Like