Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Little johnny boy has his panties in a knot again!
ECT Augustine and His Many Blunders
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Little johnny boy has his panties in a knot again!
God's Truth
New member
Right. He died physically and the children of the world were now affected by his sin. Everyone born is affected by Adam's sin.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
There is no doubt about that because no one since Adam is able to eat of the Tree of Life.
God's Truth
New member
My beliefs are that God cast out Adam and Eve; and when He did that, humans did not get to live forever physically anymore and people's spirits were lost in their flesh bodies. A person had to be taught about God. No one is born anymore just knowing God and only good; now people have to be taught what is of God and what is of the devil.
I believe therefore that humans died physically and spiritually. We do not literally die spiritually because spirits do not die; however, we can go through life not recognizing what is spiritual. We all are inclined to good and evil---negative and positive. We must all be taught about God. We must be taught and that is from where faith comes.
When one is saved, we are put back in the body of Christ, back to the body in which man was first created and eventually kicked out from.
Jesus is the tree of life and we eat from him and live. We live spiritually because of Jesus. However, we still die physically; but, Jesus promises us new bodies that will not die, if we believe and obey him.
Wow,"big" Jer! Think that spam is really cute, do you weasel, boosting your lack of confidence state, eh, sweetie? Weighty, old, frail little punk.
So there.
Put up your pic, metro-s. Thought so, tough "guy."
Hey, kid! Is that not "cool," that a lost person agrees with you, often? Yes... He must be a Mormon, like you.
Jerry, anyone who denies original sin is by definition a humanist and, therefore, a Pelagian. I am assuming you are familiar with Pelagius. And seriously? The church was in the Dark Ages until the time of Luther? I suppose that in your mind Paul was in the Dark Ages, and John and Peter and Athanasius, and the rest who stood up against deceitful heresies.
Further, have you read "Bondage of the Will" by Luther? I daresay you would change your end-point of the "Dark Ages."
As far as your quote of Moo, well that supports what I say, does it not? Now, I disagree with his assertion about verse 12 based on the grammatical construction of the entire Greek sentence and on exegetical principles. But he sees that the unavoidable conclusion of verse 19 is that men die because of Adam's sin (not their own). He is also right in not going beyond the text and trying to reconcile (as he sees it) the apparent difference.
As far as Blocher goes, he is simply not an authority. He may not think it is clear, but it actually is, especially in the Greek. Just because one person does not think something is clear does not mean that the passage is unclear. A ten-year-old could comprehend Paul's point. Besides, Blocher holds to the framework interpretation of creation, which means that he is not a good source for exegetical hermeneutics.
Further, have you read "Bondage of the Will" by Luther? I daresay you would change your end-point of the "Dark Ages."
As far as your quote of Moo, well that supports what I say, does it not? Now, I disagree with his assertion about verse 12 based on the grammatical construction of the entire Greek sentence and on exegetical principles. But he sees that the unavoidable conclusion of verse 19 is that men die because of Adam's sin (not their own). He is also right in not going beyond the text and trying to reconcile (as he sees it) the apparent difference.
As far as Blocher goes, he is simply not an authority. He may not think it is clear, but it actually is, especially in the Greek. Just because one person does not think something is clear does not mean that the passage is unclear. A ten-year-old could comprehend Paul's point. Besides, Blocher holds to the framework interpretation of creation, which means that he is not a good source for exegetical hermeneutics.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Who did I quote who denies the theory of Original Sin?
If you do not agree with the conclusions of those people then tell us where they made a mistake. The subject of this thread is about Augustine's teaching concerning the fall of Adam. That is why I quoted Genesis 3:22 and compared what is there with what Augustine said about it.
If I said something about that passage which is in error then tell me what I said that is wrong.
And while you are at it perhaps you can tell us why you believe that Adam's physical body was changed by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I noticed that you did not say anything about what Douglas Moo said about Romans 5:12:
"Paul says nothing explicitly about 'how' the sin of one man, Adam, has resulted in death for everyone; nor has he made clear the connection between Adam's sin (v. 12a) and the sin of all people (v. 12d)." [emphasis added] (Douglas J. Moo, Fallen: A Theology of Sin, 122).
In his commentary on the epistle to the Romans William Barclay quotes Romans 5:12-21 and then says that "no passage of the New Testament has had such an influence on theology as this; and no passage is more difficult for a modern mind to understand. It is difficult because Paul expresses himself in a difficult way, we can see, for instance, that the first sentence never ends, but breaks off in mid-air, while Paul pursues another idea down a sideline" [emphasis added] (William Barclay, The Letter to the Romans [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975], 78.).
Meredith Kline writes that "My immediate interest here is the intriguing exegetical puzzle posed by this parenthesis...As I see it, the customary interpretations of Rom 5:13-14, irrespective of theological perspective, are alike in one respect: their failure to account satisfactorily for the particular segment of history Paul selects to make his point" [emphasis added] (Meredith Kline, Gospel Until the Law Romans 5:13-14).
It's total confusion among all of these people. They don't know if they are coming or going! That is why they call the theory of Original Sin a mystery. But in truth it is what is written at Romans 5:12 which is a mystery to them. According to Blaise Pascal the idea of Original Sin is a "mystery, the most incomprehensible of all":
"Without doubt nothing is more shocking to our reason than to say that the sin of the first man has implicated in its guilt [men and women] so far from the original sin that they seem incapable of sharing it. The flow of guilt does not seem merely impossible to us, but indeed most unjust....Certainly nothing jolts us more rudely than this doctrine, and yet, but for this mystery, the most incomprehensible of all, we remain incomprehensible to ourselves" [emphasis added] (Blaise Pascal, Pensees, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer [New York: Penguin, 1966], 65).
God's Truth
New member
By the way, I would not go by any doctrine about original sin from Augustine or any Catholic or protestant.
Jerry, I did in fact respond to your quote from Moo, I'm not sure if you saw it or not, but I will not repeat myself here. And in regard to the so-called confusion: those men may be confused, but I am not. The teaching of Scripture is abundantly clear: all men stand condemned before God because of Adam's sin. There is absolutely no other exegetical way to read Romans 5:18-19.
And frankly, I have no regard for anything Pascal says. I do not come to philosophers for matters of theology. Our only authoritative source is Scripture. And you still have not shown how Romans 5:18-19 can be construed to fit your Pelagian ideas.
God's Truth
New member
Well, all men are not condemned because of Adam. Where do you get that from?
From the Scripture that I referenced in my response to Jerry.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
So he goes from having an incorruptible body to having a corruptible one but there is no change to it?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
OK, look at Romans 5:12-14 and tell me exactly how Adam's sin resulted in all people dying when they sin. Moo wrote that "Paul says nothing explicitly about 'how' the sin of one man, Adam, has resulted in death for everyone." So tell us exactly how that happened. And it is of upmost importance to determine what kind of death is spoken of at Romans 5:12. Why don't you start there?
Yes, but the theory of Original Sin is completely destroyed by the fact that verse 19 makes it plain that "many" were made sinners but not "all." If you want to say that "many" means "all" then the same word "many" must mean "all" here: "by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
Of course the meaning there is "many" and not "all." Not all have been made righteous. So for your theory to be right you MUST ABSOLUTELY have the meaning of the word "many" to mean "all" the first time it is used and then "many" the next time it is used.
In these verse we see Paul employ a figure of speech called Parallelism:
"Parallelism ; or, Parallel Lines. The repetition of similiar, synonymous, or opposite thoughts or words in parallel or successive lines" (The Companion Bible; King James Version [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1990], Appendix 6: Figures of Speech, 11).
John Murray recognized this same literary device, writing that "Adam is the type of the one to come (v. 14). Adam as the one is parallel to Jesus Christ as the one (v. 17). The one trespass unto condemnation is parallel to the one righteousness unto justification (v. 18). The disobedience of the one is parallel to the obedience of one (v.18)" (John Murray, The Imputation of Adam's Sin [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1959], 33).
In order to be logically consistent in regard to this parallelism the Greek word translated "many" cannot have one meaning the first time it is used and then have an entirely different meaning the second time it is used. Therefore, it is impossible that Paul is saying that as a result of Adam's sin "all" were made sinners. And that by itself destroys the theory of Original Sin because according to that theory all must have been made sinners.
Paschal was a highly regarded theologian of the 17th century and was an advocate of the theory of Original Sin.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Where did you get the idea that Adam had an incorruptible body to begin with?
He had a corruptible body to begin with because if he was going to live forever it was necessary for him to eat of the Tree of Life. That cannot be speaking of an incorruptible body.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
So he was eating of the Tree of Life before he ever ate of the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The Scriptures do not say one way or the other. However, we do know that in order to live forever the eating of the Tree of Life was absolutely necessary. Therefore, Adam was created in a mortal body.
And I see no evidence that his body was changed in any way when he ate of the forbidden tree.
Do you?
genuineoriginal
New member
Another way to look at it, which matches scripture better than your explanation, is that eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil changed Adam'a incorruptible body into a corruptible body and only eating from the tree of life could prevent Adam from dying.
Genesis 2:17 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. |
Genesis 3:22 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: |
This part suggests that Adam's body was changed: " in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Adam was not created in an incorruptible body because in order for him to live forever it was necessary for him to eat of the tree of life.
If he was created in an incorruptible body he would have had no need to eat of the Tree of Life to live forever.
genuineoriginal
New member
God told Adam that he would die if he ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good an evil.
That does not suggest Adam was in body that could die from accidents or any other means, it suggests that Adam's body was changed after eating.