The totally "unoriginal" beginning of "Original sin."

Good for you!

Seems I overlooked this one. Sorry!

It is one of my favored scriptures, because it directly addresses a totally made up doctrine of Men.

And, I notice no one who disagrees with my statement addresses the scriptures i offered.

They prefer "I’ve got a doctrine to promote and protect.

I appreciate your remarks.

Enoch! Noah! Daniel! Job!
Thousands of “righteous” from among millions of people!

Address those.

The purpose of BioLogos is to discuss the intersection of faith and science. It is not to debate the fine points of theology. And to be honest I couldn’t tell what it was you were trying to say.

1 Like

I think it’s ok to address fine points of theology here. But smiting people and using the Bible to whack them on the head? Forget it.

1 Like

[quote=beaglelady]

ZZZzzz… [/quote]

And YOU just justified YOUR position!

@Theo_Book I would be glad to justify my position if only I knew what position it is you are talking about. I went back to the sermon above to try once more to understand what it was you were trying to say. Still clear as mud. So I stripped out all of the Bible Verses and then created an outline of what you said and here is what I came up with.

  1. Roman Catholicism is bad.
  2. Denominations are bad.
  3. Jesus is a created being.
  4. Some confused statement about the Law.
  5. Doctrines are bad.
  6. Teachers are bad.

So what exactly is the position you were trying to put forth?

1 Like

@Theo_Book

Because you have not yet got in the habit of at least highlighting one word from the posting in question, I really have no idea which post you are discussing.

But if you did highlight at least one word, the system would automatically point me (and all the other readers) to where the heck your comments originate…

Give it a try … it’s awfully helpful…

  1. I did not say Roman Catholicism is bad. I learned to love the son of God in 1st grade as a newbie. I was taught that Jesus was also in 1st grade, and I should consider how HE would handle the same problems that overworked me. So, I did not say it was bad. I said it was the source of a doctrine.

  2. Most denominations break away over differences in doctrines or creeds.
    I did not say denominations are bad.
    I said they need to focus on Him who died for our salvation.

  3. Jesus is called the seed of Abraham; seed of David; made of a woman. THAT makes Jesus a created being.

  4. Was the statement confused? Or were you confused as to what the statement asserted?

  5. Everyone hath a doctrine, hath a prayer, hath…
    I did not say doctrines are bad. I said Doctrines of MEN should not override scripture.

  6. I did not say teachers are bad.
    Some teachers are terrible.
    NOT THE SAME STATEMENTS.

When we are given scriptures addressing righteous men who “will save only themselves by their righteousness,” and when we are told “Gentiles who by nature, do the things of the law, are a law…” how can we conclude the doctrine of Original sin which declares everyone to be totally depraved and unable to have a righteous thought?

Anything else?

THIS ONE! And thanks again for the heads-up on navigating the system.

1 Like

That is an important point that helps people see where you are coming from.

Yes.

All doctrines are the product of fallible humans. Doctrines are the product of fallible human interpretation of Scripture so no doctrine can actually override scripture. When doctrines clash the problem is in the interpretation that lead to the doctrine.

You appear to be conflating Original Sin with Total Depravity. The first does not automatically lead to the second. BTW, I don’t hold to either of those.

2 Likes

David, our apparent disagreement may well be due to the fact that you and I had different people in mind when you used the term "unbelievers". I agree with you that missionaries who undertake the task of converting heathens (who have never heard of Jesus), it makes good sense NOT to approach them with “advance discourse on doctrines”. The examples I had in mind were: (1) my mother, who learned of Jesus,and that God is Love, at her mother’s knee, but when attending parochial school was MISinformed by her pastor that only Catholics were going to enter heaven; and (2) the missionaries in Taiwan who, in trying to convert my friend, Eric Lien, began with the doctrine that one must proclaim Jesus as one’s Savior to escape the eternal suffering of Hell.

My point in continuing this discussion is to point out that, with the best of intentions to “do God’s work”, these ministers were endangering their own souls, at least IMHO. There are few sayings that convey more truth than this: “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
So long and God bless,
Al Leo

1 Like

I agree, it the doctrine of men come from their understanding of scripture, which no one can claim complete understanding of.

That is a false dichotomy to make youself always right. You claim your interpretation of scripture as scripture, and every else’s as doctrine of man. YECs do that frequently when EC tries to say Genesis might not be literally taken.

So let’s start there, and admit that we don’t have all the answers, just our best understanding, backed up by some logic. And then also remember that it’s neat to learn more about God, it might be part of our worship to Him, but it isn’t so important as to break fellowship with a brother in Christ over.

[quote=“Bill_II, post:17, topic:38429”]
Sorry @Theo_Book I have sat through sermons that were shorter than that post.
[/quote] much of his post is scripture quotes. It wasn’t that long…says the guy who seems to write some ridiculously long walls of texts. Lol

Ezekiel 14. Your reference typo got my lost there a bit at first.

It Daniel 9:18 “We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy.”. And that entire prayer to vs 19 is admitting Daniel is not righteous.

But who is right about Daniel? God, or Daniel?
How about both? Just as we are sinners made righteous through Jesus, God sees us as righteous (through the work of the cross), but we are not righteous.

Abraham’s faith was credited as righteousness.

Noah, Job, and Daniel were all made righteous through God. I don’t ever think any of them would ever hint that their righteousness cane from their own strength or efforts, but from the grace of God.

There are no scripture references that hint that anyone is saved by their own works. Though there are many that say we are saved by our righteousness (through God).

Probably the biggest thing God emphasizes is humility, not pride. A prideful man tries to save himself, and will fail. A humble man realizes our Creator loves us and is merciful and will save us.

God created us to depend on Him. When we depend on us and put our own needs before His, we are becoming gods and violating the first commandment.

If anything is found good in me, if I am seen as righteous, it is from Him, and He deserves all the glory.

It I don’t subscribe to OS either. For what it’s worth. I just do t agree with some of your logic for not agreeing with it. I used to subscribe to original blessing like @aleo spoke of, but I have lately been modifying that slightly.

When Jesus became flesh incarnate, this was spoken about. There are many other verses that say Jesus has always been, and is not a created being.

First, the trinity, where Jesus is God. Or John 1:1-3
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

Vs 14
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”

That flesh part was the seed of David. Jesus has always been.

Or Col 1:15 or Rom 8:19 or Heb 1:3

“whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.“


The Son is the image of the invisible God,”

Think of Jesus like a “prism” that reveals the spectrum of colors of the light of God that we can’t see.

Jesus was not created being…other than His earthly representation/incarnation.

I agree with that to an extent. I am a huge fan of teaching to question the status quo or doctrine, live the life God made you to live and honor Him in it. Show others who God is through how you live, not what you or I say, or study.

Is that true? Or were we always incapable of doing anything not sinful?

None are righteous of their own strength. But Abraham’s faith in God was righteous. So the most righteous deed done, not for the glory of God is like filthy rags. In that we were created to glorify Him, through Him, so anytime He isn’t glorified, it is like a filthy rag, as in we are not living to our full potential. Just like a filthy rag cannot clean very well.

Ideally, there is no need to recruit for those things. But through the love of God in us, we want to do these things. Glorify Him through the gifts He blessed us with.

This is a fruit of the spirit. Something that comes from God, it can’t come from man.

If it is from man to help out a fellow human, why are they doing it? Like C.S Lewis said “I have never had a selfless thought since I was born.” Is it to make yourself feel better? To be praised among men? If it isn’t for the glory of God, it isn’t our full potential, this abundant life that Jesus came to give us.

I think like the one poster said, we are confusing OS with total depravity. There doesn’t need to be an OS to still subscribe to total depravity.

I think we do glorify God by smothering human ego. Humility is spoken of highly in scripture and pride is greatly earned against.

How do you do something unselfishly, but for doing it for God’s glory?

It wasn’t strictly the length. It was the tone also.

2 Likes

Exactly. Such arrogance!

1 Like

[quote=“Randy, post:4, topic:38429, full:true”]
Thanks. I do think that this is the case. To be a devils’ advocate, what do you think of the Psalm 51:5 “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me;” [/QUOTE]

The Greek is mistranslated to conform to the mistaken idea promoted by the doctrine of Original Sin. The same Greek word that is translated “in” in the King James version, “I was born in sin” is more frequently translated “into.” We are born INTO a world of sin, because it is a world of MEN who make bad choices.

But there is nothing sinful in Conception, nor in simply being born, which is never a matter of “Choice.”

[quote=“Randy, post:4, topic:38429, full:true”] …and the literalist Roman interpretations of original sin? Peter Enns would agree with you, by the way https://peteenns.com/romans-for-normal-people-with-pete-enns/

He couches that as a lesson to the Jews and Gentiles of Rome that the Gentiles no longer have to get circumcised,[/quote]

Circumcision was not required of Gentiles, It was the result of a covenant between God and Abraham, almost 300 years prior to the covenant of law given through Moses.

This statement is quite surprising, since, if God has needs, it implies that He can be changed by His continued creation; e.g. He cares whether we love him or not. In my view, he is not threatened by humans trying to “become gods”. On the contrary, he has invited us to become co-creators with him, and he asks us to be willing to make sacrifices to overcome the selfish aspects of the evolutionary process that produced Homo sapiens. This means that we should NOT mis interpret the Genesis account: assuming that, since he saw his creation as good, it means that it was perfect and only needed ‘correcting’ after the Fall.

I certainly agree that everything that is ‘good’ in the Universe is directly attributable to God, but I have misgivings about describing it as “deserves all the glory”. Science has disclosed to us that God’s creative power and wisdom is beyond human comprehension. So what need does He have for glory? The one thing we humans can freely give him is love. And that, I believe, is the one thing he desires of us. Luke 10:27. In continually seeking glory, our president has made that a rather undesirable objective.
Al Leo

IF we assume a Triune Deity, eternal in the Heaven, We can also assume BECAUSE God made MAN, it is because He NEEDS US. Because if triune God existed with ONLY triune God, that would b\have been perfect Love, and in need of NOTHING.

But if we listen to God’s OWN words, we see a theme presented that is amazing in scope and in depth and in meaning.

Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the (ELOHIYM) angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are (ELOHIYM) Gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods?

Phlppns 2:6 Who, being in a form of God,

Not only Jesus, but ALL MEN are Elohiym Psalm 82:6

But Jehovah Elohiym is SPIRIT.
Men are flesh and bones.

Therefore Men are a FORM OF God, clothed in flesh and bone, until they attain immortality at death; at which time, they will either be raised in salvation or depart in damnation; the raised to be clothed in immortality with a cloak of oikeeteerion which is the “habitation” abandoned by the Angels who left heaven to co-habit with daughters of Men.[Gen 6]

And it was God who established that in fact, yes, He has needs that are filled by MAN.

God is love. But love that is not sacrificing is unfulfilled Love. And perfect love who only has perfect love to reciprocate, cannot be fulfilled when it needs to be doing something for lesser beings.

Look at how God puts it -
Who is the HEAD of the woman? The MAN
Who is the HEAD of MAN? CHRIST!
Who is the HEAD of CHRIST? GOD!
Let’s agree, the ultimate HEAD is God;
1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Then let’s establish a need that the perfect head has for the imperfect feet -

1 Cor 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.14 For the body is not one member, but many.15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again [color=darkred]the head to the feet[/color],
[color=crimson] I have no need of you.[/color]

I am an Elohym serving as the very FOOT of the body of Christ, of whom GOD IS THE HEAD, and who says “I have need of thee.”

And the love He pours out upon me is a Humbling, Caring, Gracious, and Encouraging love, available to all who would reciprocate and need Him, and need to fulfill that need by responding to HIS Love and Need.
What say you?

Right. The Christian understanding is that God has no needs.

1 Like

[quote=“beaglelady, post:39, topic:38429, full:true”]

Right. The Christian understanding is that God has no needs.[/quote]

Agreed! God has no need of anything Man can supply. But it was GOD who supplied Man and his function. So God supplied the response to His own needs, then told us about it.

Remember,

"Christ = the HEAD of Man.
“God the head of Christ”
“Can the Head say to the foot, I have no need of thee?”

Explain this any other way.