SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : What is sin?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: I do believe in original sin!

Quote:
THIS IS THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN. Your sin results from your own free choice. It is truly your own creation.


No, this is not the 'true' doctrine of original sin. It is an attempt to hijack a phrase which has a solid theological history and understanding. If you believe what you are saying give it another label, don't steal someone else's. That way can only lead into confusion.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/2/8 20:16Profile
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3710
Ca.

 Re:

Ron wrote:

"I do not regard 'original sin' as something I inherited from my father but something which I received direct 'in Adam'. "

This is the truth of the Word, Amen.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.

All die because of Adam's sin. Proving it by our own death and our own sin.

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2006/2/9 4:02Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Ron wrote:

Quote:
No, this is not the 'true' doctrine of original sin. It is an attempt to hijack a phrase which has a solid theological history and understanding.



This is the frustrating thing about Finney's Moral Government teachings; he pours meanings into orthodox terms that are completely at odds with ordinary Christian understanding. I don't mean to infer too much here as I have great respect for Finney and much of Finney's works; but the tactic is the same as the cults use so as to appear to use the same lingo as orthodox Christians. For those who do not know, Finney was ordained Presbyterian and they make ready use of traditional understanding of original sin tracing their understanding at least to Augustine. Finney was much closer to Pelagias' teachings. Pelagias denied the doctrines of original sin and predestination, defending innate human goodness and free will. He believed it was 'possible' for a person to keep the Law perfectly. His beliefs were condemned as heretical by the Synod of Carthage in about 418.

When one tampers with original sin they by default are tampering with everything else from the atonement to regeneration. Why would a person need to be born again if they can keep the law if they would just 'do it'? Orthodox Christians understand the need for the born again experience as an out working of the problem of Sin and death.

I fight this error continually in my circles. Many folk, and especially preachers and teachers, simply have no real appreciation for the born again experience and the transformation that takes place in the life of the regenerate. Repentance to them is a matter of praying the sinners prayer and resolving to do better. If the person drops a few bad habits its a sign they are saved, but unfortunately, they fall back in sin. I borrowed a phrase from someone and can't recall who it was, but it says, "You have to [u]frontslide[/u] before you can [u]backslide[/u]."

This is not a resolve and determination to live for the glory of God from here on out- this is a total transformation of the person spiritually that makes them a new creature in Christ. God works in them to will and to do His good pleasure by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is [u]very important[/u], because when the word and the Holy Spirit are calling the shots then mans input of volumes of man made legalisms are null and void.

Which brings me to another sticking point I have with Finney. He not only had his own definition of original sin, but had his own definition of 'sins'. The depth of his philosophy of sin virtually makes any act a human being commits that is not from pure motivation of the good of the creation and the glory of God to be a sin. Self-satisfaction is a sin or self-gratification is a sin. This is NOT biblical as he presents it. And it leads to all sorts of nonsense including the sin of salting your food or the sin of eating a candy bar.

Add all his philosopies together soteriologically and you have a crushing, burdensome doctrine that virtually eliminates any assurance of salvation unless one is conforming to his ultra strict definition of righteousness and holiness.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/2/9 8:50Profile









 Re: What is sin?


This thread has really been exercising my mind.....

I've realised the quotes from Deu 23 about 'generations' are about punishment - aren't they? (I had already worked this out before reading RonB's post on the previous screen page.)

Quote:
This passage is a serious problem for those who believe in 'generational curses' but not for those who believe in congenital sin.

In obstetrics, 'congenital' simply means a person was born with a condition. It does not imply inheritance AT ALL. Is this what you mean, philologos?

What is your definition of 'generational curses', please?

 2006/2/9 10:18









 Re: What is sin?

philologos said:

Quote:
For myself I mark a strong line between 'original sin' and 'original guilt'. ..... I believe strongly that the scriptures teach 'original sin' but just as strongly that they do not teach 'original guilt'.

Do you mean that 'guilt' is specifically the sentence of death against each person for their own sin... which is the legal position we find ourselves in after trying to keep the Law - and therefore we could not possibly have been 'born' with guilt?

Is that what is meant by 'original guilt', (which I'm sure I've heard preached somewhere....)?

 2006/2/9 10:28
lyndon
Member



Joined: 2003/12/8
Posts: 65
Manitoba, Canada

 Post deleted wrong thread

Post deleted, wrong thread.

 2006/2/9 10:37Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Is that what is meant by 'original guilt'

The biblical concept of 'guilt' must be separated from the way the word is used in common language. In common language the word has come to mean the [i]feeling[/i] of discomfort, either real or counterfeit which a person might experience. In biblical use 'guilt' is a legal verdict which is indifferent to how a person [i]feels[/i] about it.

In a legal setting, the law-court has no initial interest in the feelings of the perpetrator. Those feelings, in a modern law-court, may have significance in determining the sentence but the law court cannot deal with [i]feelings or forgiveness[/i].

In a Roman court of law the [i]specific charge[/i] was brought against the accused. If the charge were unproved, the accused was 'justified' ie declared just of the charges which had been brought against him. If the charge were 'proved' the judge gave the verdict of 'guilty'. The 'verdict' was then followed by the sentence and ultimately by the execution of any punishment. Guilt, then in biblical terms is formally-judged 'blame-worthiness'. ie culpability. The NT uses these terms very specifically but our KJV does not make the same distinction. The word for the process and the verdict would be 'krinO' but the sentence/execution would be 'katakrinO'. The KJV translates [url= [url=www.xxx.com]test Url[/url] ]katakrinO[/url] as condemnation; it is usually translated 'condemn/ation'. The confusion arises from the fact that the KJV also translates [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1139585954-1513.html]krinO[/url] as condemnation'“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn (krinO) the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned (krinO) : but he that believeth not is condemned (krinO) already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:17-18 KJVS) which is a great pity.

The two separate words are nicely distinguished in “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest (krinO)another, thou condemnest (katakrinO) thyself; for thou that judgest (krinO) doest the same things.” (Rom 2:1 KJVS)

So, I believe that the consequence of Adam's first sin has touched all our race and but that God does not hold us 'culpable' (blame-worthy) Hence, "original sin" but not "original guilt".

Someone ought to object to this and if they don't I will object in a future post. Please remind me if I forget.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/2/10 10:49Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:
Someone ought to object to this and if they don't I will object in a future post. Please remind me if I forget.



OK :-)


_________________
Mike Balog

 2006/3/20 23:45Profile









 Re: What is sin?



For a long time I have wanted to post an apology in this thread.

Firstly, there was something very wrong with my attitude. To philologos and PreachParsly particularly, I am sorry for (in my view) spoiling a good dialogue between brethren. I couldn't stop myself; but ever since then (here) I've been aware I needed to change.

Secondly: deliberately, I have not gone back to look for, and qualify, my nonsense. It was an option simply to leave this thread in the archive, edited appropriately. But I believe I needed to own up, since I'd written publicly.


There has been such a large change in my thinking, now, that I've even wondered if SI is any place for a woman. Honestly.

Then I compute that I've learned and received, how I've been helped and transformed by being taken seriously and prayed for, and I cannot imagine having come to this moment, without the love and patience I've enjoyed. That realisation alone, makes me know it was necessary, and I feel I'm just beginning to catch a glimpse of something even better for which to strive.

 2008/2/20 22:25
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

Quote:
Firstly, there was something very wrong with my attitude. To philologos and PreachParsly particularly, I am sorry for (in my view) spoiling a good dialogue between brethren. I couldn't stop myself; but ever since then (here) I've been aware I needed to change.



Well, there was no offense taken. Your appolgies are accepted.

I laughed when I read through this thread because I still struggle getting a grasp on this issue and I started this thread over 2 years ago! Although I do think that at least I understand more of the issues involved now.


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2008/2/21 11:11Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy