Original sin? - Page 3 - Graybeard Outdoors
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #21 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-01-2017, 08:54 AM
Senior Member
 
littlecanoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,290
Default

Duplicate post.

Why does Doctrine matter? Doctrine connects us to the drama of the story of Christ in history.

The ultimate test of our spirituality is the measure of our amazement at the grace of God.

Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones
littlecanoe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-01-2017, 12:41 PM
Senior Member
 
littlecanoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,290
Default

TN
Considering what i posted from Augustine and your last post we have a good basis for exploring first cause and second cause and the cause and effect of each concerning the fall and redemption.

lc

Why does Doctrine matter? Doctrine connects us to the drama of the story of Christ in history.

The ultimate test of our spirituality is the measure of our amazement at the grace of God.

Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones
littlecanoe is offline  
post #23 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-01-2017, 01:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brevard, NC
Posts: 9,909
Default

LC - "My experience is that this is an ongoing error. SUBDJOE used to point out all of the new denominations that have come along since the Awakening and revivalist movements. He was right in noting that. New denominations and new theology/orthodoxy of the last 200 plus years has added nothing to orthodox Christian theology. These denominations have only watered down theology and given a thin view of God and His mercy and grace."

True, in a sense.

My point was that original orthodoxy had been lost/ignored/changed by the dominate Church (RCC) even before Augustine appeared; his writings provided the basis of what many RCC doctrines were later based on. Smart and well intentioned as he was, he mistakenly invented the allegory method of explaining what he could not explain. When you start saying the Bible doesn't mean what it says but instead means some mystical other you've lost your mooring.

Auggie got a lot right but he (wrongly) wrote that Israel had been replaced by the church in God's plans; he wrongly determined that the Great Tribulation occurred in the period of AD 70 and he was therefore living in the Millennial Kingdom, etc. By loosing sight of scripture and dreaming up doctrines of papal succession from Peter and papal infallibility, making Mary co-equal with her Son, earning salvation through purgatory, etc., it's understandable that the Church (RC) lost sight of much truth and invented much error. However wrong some men have been, I believe most changes within the church at large have been sincere efforts to return to the original teachings of scripture, not to deviate further from them.

After Augustine, move forward to late 1,400s. Luther began what we call the Reformation when he strove to take the Church back to its roots of salvation by faith in Jesus alone; the RCC threw him out for that and would have had him killed if they could. Luther got a lot of doctrine right but he retained much of the Church's (RC) wrong position on end times when he tried to take the RCC back to its roots. In the process, he laid the ground work for the Jewish Holocaust in Lutheran Germany. But what he wanted to do was correct the course of Christianity, not divide it.

In the early 1,500s, immediately following Luther, Calvin saw Luther had retained a lot of things that should have been taken OUT and he proceeded to do so. Cal got a lot further down the road to correction than Martin but he sure didn't make perfection and he watered nothing down.

Many thinkers since the Reformation have reacted to what they felt was/is wrong in the church and have tried to refine what preceded them. Some did good work, some did not. But, at least in my mind, most of them were honestly trying to get things right and return the church (at large) to what they saw as Christian orthodoxy, not to "water down" anything for personal advancement.

I mean, slack religious men like Joel Osteen and Jim Baker and weak social denominations like "liberal" Lutherans, Episcopals, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, etc, probably really believe the happy BS they spout. They have watered Christianity down a lot but I doubt even they did it for evil ends or without conviction they're right. And I doubt even they have any more deviation from orthodoxy than the splits existing within just the RCC priesthood today!

Now, after saying all that about how we got where we are today, it's without question that men like Benny Hinn and Jimmy Swagert have obtained vast personal wealth through crafted religious performances and manipulation of gullible minds. Bad men twist scripture and attract personal followers and some even form lasting cults of personality, not scripture but, so far as I KNOW, none of them have established a broadly attractive Christian denomination. In that I specifically exclude the likes of the cults of Joe Smith (LDS), Mary Eddy (SDA), Chas. Russel (JW), etc., but none of them water anything down for an easy self righteousness. Instead, cults tend to run more towards highly restrictive legalism.

Attempts to return to church orthodoxy as it existed prior to Augustine, Luther and Calvin has not been easy, nor has it yet been accomplished, but I don't think we can properly say the deviations have been deliberate dishonesty in those who have erred.

I don't have a Phd, not even a BA. But I do have a DD214.

Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Last edited by wncchester; 02-01-2017 at 01:24 PM.
wncchester is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #24 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-01-2017, 03:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wncchester View Post
LC - "My experience is that this is an ongoing error. SUBDJOE used to point out all of the new denominations that have come along since the Awakening and revivalist movements. He was right in noting that. New denominations and new theology/orthodoxy of the last 200 plus years has added nothing to orthodox Christian theology. These denominations have only watered down theology and given a thin view of God and His mercy and grace."

True, in a sense.

My point was that original orthodoxy had been lost/ignored/changed by the dominate Church (RCC) even before Augustine appeared; his writings provided the basis of what many RCC doctrines were later based on. Smart and well intentioned as he was, he mistakenly invented the allegory method of explaining what he could not explain. When you start saying the Bible doesn't mean what it says but instead means some mystical other you've lost your mooring....and on and on and on and on
.
Very, very good.
The Church of Rome gets blamed as it is the winner that makes the history but I believe one should never forget until the Caesar of Rome made it the official religion, the other congregations of the Coptic and Assyrian Christian churches had great sway in the area that was the origin of the Christian Church.

RR
Bob Riebe is offline  
post #25 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-01-2017, 06:24 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brevard, NC
Posts: 9,909
Default

Yeah Bob.

In spite of a lot of official RCC (and many other's) religious nonsense, I doubt any one since the resurrection of Jesus, including the RCC, has intentionally and diabolically added or removed anything to the Christian religion but, like Paul, Luke, Peter, John, James, many later God-led men have expanded and focused our understanding of what Jesus said.

Some men, possibly demonically deceived, have long gone wildly astray in pursuit or distortion of some points of the faith while ignoring others but, while I harshly judge their sanity at times, I don't harshly judge their intent. I just can't believe anyone would knowingly and deliberately teach blasphemy with harmful intent to deceive as many souls as possible.

I don't have a Phd, not even a BA. But I do have a DD214.

Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Last edited by wncchester; 02-01-2017 at 06:45 PM.
wncchester is offline  
post #26 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-01-2017, 09:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7,818
Default

If you consider the effect of evolutionary theory on every facet of human thought, the explosion of denominations, many of which are really cults probably, it makes a certain kind of sense. The fathers of evolutionary theory began with a pre-suppositional thought: the universe is progressing forward and becoming better. Roll that around your brain for a second, and consider where that simple presupposition must take us.


- old things are bad. Consider how the church has been fragmented by the recurring knee jerk rejection by the new generation of the old generation.
- new things are good. The gospel today is better than the gospel yesterday.
- the next thing will be even better.
- apply this to every thing, and I do mean every thing.


Apply this to the church itself, and you have the basis of Progressive Christianity which teaches that we're all already saved (whether we like it or not) and the earth is already the Kingdom, and its our job to make it safe, fair, equal, and reconciled through human effort with Jesus as our model. There won't be a day of judgment, and Christ has already returned in union with each of us individually when we participate in the progressive evolution of societies to be more like our reading of Jesus' teachings ... not literally but practically and relevantly to our time.


And we're back at the original sin. The way things were in the garden weren't good enough - there was an option for a perceived better (equality with God), the means were there (the tree), an advocate for progress was there (satan), and there was a question in our hearts as to what better my look like. Rather than be satisfied with the old (i.e. daily personal fellowship with God, no pain, no sin, all needs satisfied abundantly in him, with purpose to life) we desired progress, to have the knowledge of good and evil as well. And that would be better than the old way.


I think much of what we see in human society today is just taking the original sin and extrapolating it logically out to its natural conclusion - we are evolving into God-likeness, we desire it, we're working towards it, and one day we will be there. Consider how many cults teach a variation of that theme. Consider how Progressive Christians (across all denominations) bring God down to a very human level, to make us more alike on our standard not His.


We're quick to cite the evils of Progressivism in politics - just watch the news. But how are we at noting it in our churches, our theology/doctrine, our own hearts? Its variations of the same theme since the garden - we want more than God has offered.

"You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."
teamnelson is offline  
post #27 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-02-2017, 01:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brevard, NC
Posts: 9,909
Default

Good analysis TN.

I doubt Adam's problem was that he (or Eve) desired to eat of the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" as food because he had plenty of food. What Adam wanted was to be able to discern right and wrong himself and not have to accept God's rules as best and THAT desire clearly remains embedded in human nature. And it explains how some rudderless people decide nothing is inherently wrong and declare that sin isn't sin; they find ways to justify sin as if sin is just a human concept with no solid meaning and things change over time. That's why self-styled progressive justifications for saying homosexuals are just living an acceptable "alternate lifestyle", women serving in pulpits is great, devising their various situation ethics, etc., is all nonsense.

I don't have a Phd, not even a BA. But I do have a DD214.

Common sense is an uncommon virtue
wncchester is offline  
post #28 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-02-2017, 11:24 PM
Senior Member
 
littlecanoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,290
Default

I posted
While not original sin definitely acts of willful sin.

WN

Many thinkers since the Reformation have reacted to what they felt was/is wrong in the church and have tried to refine what preceded them. Some did good work, some did not. But, at least in my mind, most of them were honestly trying to get things right and return the church (at large) to what they saw as Christian orthodoxy, not to "water down" anything for personal advancement.


TN

And we're back at the original sin. The way things were in the garden weren't good enough - there was an option for a perceived better (equality with God), the means were there (the tree), an advocate for progress was there (satan), and there was a question in our hearts as to what better my look like. Rather than be satisfied with the old (i.e. daily personal fellowship with God, no pain, no sin, all needs satisfied abundantly in him, with purpose to life) we desired progress, to have the knowledge of good and evil as well. And that would be better than the old way.






We have in a sense drifted away from original so. But not really. It could be said with some accuracy that Adam's problem was a problem with theology. It's a safe assumption that he knew better than any since about God. With his knowledge and acquaintance with God he still coveted what was not his.

WN. You are gracious when you say that those who changed or added trying to get back to the roots had good intentions. I still content that they did nothing to improve upon orthodoxy but rather diluted it. I don't want to drag the thread down the trail of discussing the regulative principle of worship so I will leave it at say that modernists from the early 1800's forward did nothing IMO other than water down the centrality of Christ and adopt progressively pragmatic forms of worship, theology etc.

In the inspiration and prayer forum I posted the Te Deum prayer. It is an impressive prayer in that it speaks in awe and wonder concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This prayer demonstrates the focus of weekly corporate worship historically. This is what Luther was trying to maintain. God brings His good gifts to his people. His is the first voice heard in worship through word and sacrament. The congregant's response, the second voice, is raised with such praise as the Te Deum etc. I don't want to go further and am leaving out many things concerning out feelings, emotions etc in response to truth.

American evangelicalism has lost this and adopted a pragmatic approach as is generally accepted and observed. Worship has become about how we feel, an emotional unction, me singing that song that makes me really xxxxxxx (fill in the blank). While the gospel and true worship does impact the congregant the congregant is not to be the focus. What I see commonly practiced without much variation is a sort of modern day "strange fire". It is now "acceptable" to approach The worship of God however the pastor or congregant feels is appropriate. It was not always this way. However, we westerners don't know much different because we have brought what we know and have had bred into us as Americans into worship. We are self made and independent and doggoneit. We are gonna do it like we want to.

I tagged TN's comment in this post because I believe that it is pertinent. What gives or gave us the right to start deviating in worship? how we approach God etc? I believe that many if not most of these deviations, while well intended, were indeed acts of willful sin because they did not accept the simplicity of what God prescribed as good enough. Now we are stuck with the mess of what has influenced our thinking and have to try to sort through what has been ingrained in us. We come back to the original sin of bad theology.

We should have let the Arch fall. It is God's arch. He is the protector of the Arch.

Why does Doctrine matter? Doctrine connects us to the drama of the story of Christ in history.

The ultimate test of our spirituality is the measure of our amazement at the grace of God.

Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones

Last edited by littlecanoe; 02-03-2017 at 12:11 AM.
littlecanoe is offline  
post #29 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-02-2017, 11:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7,818
Default

LC,


I do believe the original sin is entirely theological, and not practical. But theological in the sense that we were dissatisfied with the perfection we knew. The story of humanity since the Fall is trying to figure out how to get back into Eden, through science, obedience and legislation ... as if that would satisfy us. We left because we were dissatisfied ... the irony.

"You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."
teamnelson is offline  
post #30 of 43 (permalink) Old 02-03-2017, 12:01 AM
Senior Member
 
littlecanoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,290
Default

First within the mind and heart. The fruit the action of eating.
And we dissatisfied. Indeed.


********
But what a horribly beautiful tragedy to be helpless and be given the gift of Christ Himself!

And what a simply beautiful reality to then need nothing more!

And what Hope! The new Jerusalem descending, God, coming to dwell with His people!

And life! Through it runs the river of life! Sin is cast down and God's people glorified and fully restored.

Why does Doctrine matter? Doctrine connects us to the drama of the story of Christ in history.

The ultimate test of our spirituality is the measure of our amazement at the grace of God.

Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones

Last edited by littlecanoe; 02-03-2017 at 12:14 AM.
littlecanoe is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Graybeard Outdoors forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome