Oh the Calvinists. So much misinformation and bearing false witness. I'm not sure if their foolishness is intentionally misleading or just misinformed. I'll assume the latter to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lutherans and Calvinists have been linked together in many ways since the days of the Protestant Reformation. Suffice it to say, from a Lutheran standpoint, we do not believe the same things as the Calvinists, nor are we very close to believing the same things; much less be in communion together.
Here is a prime example of Calvinist misinformation, which, if a person were to do an historical study of what actually happened, would immediately see that this misinformation is just plain wrong.
The recently deceased Reformed pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul stated the following:
While discussing the Reformed doctrine of predestination in his book Chosen by God, Sproul gives a list of theologians in history who affirm predestination and those who deny it. He states: "We cannot determine truth by counting noses. The great thinkers of the past can be wrong. But it is important for us to see that the Reformed doctrine of predestination was not invented by John Calvin. There is nothing in Calvin's view of predestination that was not earlier propounded by Luther and Augustine before him." (Sproul, p. 167) So far, so good. The early Luther, while as yet an Augustinian monk in the Roman Church, did hold to double predestination. No Lutheran should dispute that, since Luther is quite clear that he did. He (Luther) did, however, hold to a doctrine of single predestination later in life, which the Calvinists cannot bear to admit in many cases. However, that is not what this post is about. Rather, it is Sproul's next statement that throws up all sorts of misinformation.
He continues, "Later, Lutheranism did not follow Luther on this matter but Melanchthon, who altered his views after Luther's death. It is also noteworthy that in his famous treatise on theology, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote sparingly on the subject. Luther wrote more about predestination than did Calvin." (Sproul, p. 167)
Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. The part of the statement to which I refer is Sproul's claim that Lutheranism followed Melanchthon and not Luther on this matter. This is simply false. It is well documented that this is not the case. The most important documentation that refutes Sproul's statement is actually our Lutheran Confessional documents the Epitome of the Formula of Concord and the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. In fact, these documents were written in view of Melanchthon's compromising and synergism, among other controversies that had crept in to the Lutheran church.
Indeed, the Evangelical Catholic Church (Lutheran) did struggle with this issue in the 16th century. The same issue popped up in the United States in the 19th century, with the first president of the Missouri Synod, C.F.W. Walther, staunchly defending the classic and Confessional Lutheran stance on predestination and monergism.
Back to the 16th century. From the years 1555-1560, the synergistic controversy was fought in the Lutheran churches. The wavering and compromising Melanchthon had written that there are three reasons people are saved. Per Melanchthon, these three are the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and the nonresistance of a person's will. It is this third reason put forth by Melanchthon that is a problem, since it teaches synergism.
Against Melanchthon, there were the Gnesio, or genuine, Lutherans, who espoused the biblical form of monergism, even opposing Melanchthon. Sadly, one of the Gnesio Lutherans in the monergism camp named Matthias Flacius, over-reacted and ended up teaching error regarding original sin, saying that original sin is the very substance of fallen humanity, which would cause God to be the author of sin.
Enter the Formula of Concord. The first two articles of both the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are on Original Sin and Free Will, respectively. The first article regarding Original Sin corrects Flacius' error while also strongly upholding the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin. The Epitome states, "We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man's nature and original sin. This applied not only when he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin [Ge 1:31], but it also applies to the way we have that nature now after the fall. In other words, we distinguish between the nature itself (which even after the fall is and remains God's creature) and original sin. This distinction is as great as the distinction between God's work and the devil's work." (Ep: I, 2)
Here is a clear rejection of Flacius' error.
However, the Epitome also states, "On the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a minor corruption. It is so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt remains in man's body or soul, in his inward or outward powers [Ro 3:10-12]" (Ep: I, 8)
The Epitome and the Solid Declaration have much more to say about Original Sin, but this will suffice for the purpose of this blog.
Likewise, the Formula of Concord also formally adopted Luther's -not Melanchthon's- view of the will of man.
"This is our teaching, faith, and confession on this subject: in spiritual matters the understanding and reason of mankind are <completely> blind and by their own powers understand nothing, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 2:14..." (Ep: II, 2)
"Likewise, we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of mankind is not only turned away from God, but also has become God's enemy. So it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written in Genesis 8:21, 'the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.' Romans 8:7 says, 'The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.' Just as a dead body cannot raise itself to bodily, earthly life, so a person who by sin is spiritually dead cannot raise himself to spiritual life. For it is written in Ephesians 2:5, 'even when we were dead in our trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ.' And 2 Corinthians 3:5 says, 'Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God.'" (Ep: II, 3)
"For without his grace, and if He does not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering (1 Co 3:5-7) -are all nothing. As Christ says <in John 15:5>, 'apart from Me you can do nothing.' With these brief words the Spirit denies free will its powers and ascribes everything to God's grace, in order that no one may boast before God (1 Co 1:29[2 Co 12:5, Jer 9:23]). (Ep: II, 6)
These Confessional statements are a clear rejection of Melanchthon's synergism and a clear affirmation of monergism. The Formula of Concord has much more to say on these topics, especially in the Solid Declaration. If the reader would like more information, go to http://www.bookofconcord.org or pick up a copy of the Book of Concord; the Epitome and the Solid Declaration are the last two Confessional documents in the book. I heartily recommend the Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord edited by Rev. Paul McCain. It can be found and purchased at http://www.cph.org.
Hence, it should be quite clear to the serious student of history and reader of the Lutheran Confessional statements that R.C. Sproul's statement that Lutherans follow Melanchthon and not Luther is in error. Frankly, we follow Scripture alone, but we happen to agree far more theologically with Dr. Martin Luther than we do with the wavering and compromising Philip Melanchthon after Luther's death.
I find it hard to believe that these statements and issues still exist in Calvinist circles and it makes me wonder why. Lutherans are not synergists, at least not Confessionally. Per Scripture, as well as the Book of Concord, we are monergists.
Not only that, but we also strongly affirm predestination. However, we affirm, with Scripture, that predestination and election pertain to believers, not unbelievers. If the reader would like to see what the Lutherans believe regarding predestination, read the Epitome XI and the Solid Declaration XI.
Nope, sorry R.C., we disagree with the post-Luther Melanchthon in the strongest manner possible.
+Pax+
Showing posts with label Original Sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Original Sin. Show all posts
10/29/15
Eastern Orthodoxy and Original Sin
I recently had a nice amicable conversation with a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. From the outset, I admit that I am no expert on Eastern Orthodoxy, but I do believe that they certainly have some excellent insights in Christian theology. But their doctrine of sin is not one of them.
If I am understanding correctly, sin in Eastern Orthodoxy is what happens when we act contrary to God. In other words, people are not sinful by nature and only become sinners when they actually sin. The East rejects the classic Christian doctrine of original sin in favor of what they call Ancestral Sin.
Naturally, our conversation came back to the topic of infants. Moreover, it led to the topic of justification and righteousness. And these are the arenas where it seems to me at least, that Eastern Orthodoxy drops the ball.
The person I was discussing this topic with asserted that to be a sinner, a person must have knowledge and choice of the will. This necessarily excludes infants. He also went on to make the claim that becoming righteous is also through a choice of the will. This also necessarily excludes infants. And there is the problem.
Infants, in this person's (EO) theology, are neither righteous nor unrighteous; neither sinner nor saint. Yet they all go to heaven. And that's fine, I don't have a problem with universal infant salvation. But there must be a basis for it, wouldn't you think? And here is where the man I was chatting with had no answer.
The first thing I posited to him is that only justified persons will enter heaven, and to be justified is also to be righteous. Thus, I questioned on what basis infants can be righteous and justified. Keep in mind, he had already asserted that infants are neither righteous nor unrighteous. He then questioned whether infants need justification at all.
So he wants universal infant salvation apart from justification and righteousness.
Here is where the person with whom I was chatting had no answer. He would not go the obvious route, because to do so would be to affirm that Luther had it right and deny the EO stances on righteousness and justification.
In other words, infants, just like the rest of us, must be imputed and clothed with the righteousness of Christ. The only alternative to this stance is that there are people in heaven that are neither righteous nor unrighteous. There are people there who are saved by innocence apart from justification.
Or, perhaps we could concoct a different path to salvation apart from the blood of Christ. I don't know, but I do know that the guy I was chatting with could not answer any of this.
Perhaps this is not an official stance of the Eastern Orthodox, but given their rejection of concupiscence, this stance makes sense in light of Orthodoxy.
Eastern Orthodoxy: Still one big (functionally Pelagian) mystery. Don't fall for the smells and bells and beautiful iconography of the East. It's still a works religion at its core.
Perhaps some persons who are more knowledgeable of the East can comment here.
+Pax+
If I am understanding correctly, sin in Eastern Orthodoxy is what happens when we act contrary to God. In other words, people are not sinful by nature and only become sinners when they actually sin. The East rejects the classic Christian doctrine of original sin in favor of what they call Ancestral Sin.
Naturally, our conversation came back to the topic of infants. Moreover, it led to the topic of justification and righteousness. And these are the arenas where it seems to me at least, that Eastern Orthodoxy drops the ball.
The person I was discussing this topic with asserted that to be a sinner, a person must have knowledge and choice of the will. This necessarily excludes infants. He also went on to make the claim that becoming righteous is also through a choice of the will. This also necessarily excludes infants. And there is the problem.
Infants, in this person's (EO) theology, are neither righteous nor unrighteous; neither sinner nor saint. Yet they all go to heaven. And that's fine, I don't have a problem with universal infant salvation. But there must be a basis for it, wouldn't you think? And here is where the man I was chatting with had no answer.
The first thing I posited to him is that only justified persons will enter heaven, and to be justified is also to be righteous. Thus, I questioned on what basis infants can be righteous and justified. Keep in mind, he had already asserted that infants are neither righteous nor unrighteous. He then questioned whether infants need justification at all.
So he wants universal infant salvation apart from justification and righteousness.
Here is where the person with whom I was chatting had no answer. He would not go the obvious route, because to do so would be to affirm that Luther had it right and deny the EO stances on righteousness and justification.
In other words, infants, just like the rest of us, must be imputed and clothed with the righteousness of Christ. The only alternative to this stance is that there are people in heaven that are neither righteous nor unrighteous. There are people there who are saved by innocence apart from justification.
Or, perhaps we could concoct a different path to salvation apart from the blood of Christ. I don't know, but I do know that the guy I was chatting with could not answer any of this.
Perhaps this is not an official stance of the Eastern Orthodox, but given their rejection of concupiscence, this stance makes sense in light of Orthodoxy.
Eastern Orthodoxy: Still one big (functionally Pelagian) mystery. Don't fall for the smells and bells and beautiful iconography of the East. It's still a works religion at its core.
Perhaps some persons who are more knowledgeable of the East can comment here.
+Pax+
11/15/14
Baptism is for Oranges
The Council of Orange (529 AD) is a famous early church ecumenical council. There are a few major points we can draw from this council.
First, the council was utterly against all forms of Pelagianism. In other words, the dispute between St. Augustine of Hippo and the (probably) British monk Pelagius was discussed at this council. The council sided with St. Augustine on this issue; precisely because Holy Scripture sides with St. Augustine's stances in this area.
The other major thing we can take away from these canons is that Orange taught divine monergism and linked it directly to Holy Baptism.
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).
CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
Second, the council affirms baptismal regeneration and rejects double predestination.
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.
To conclude, it boggles my mind how Reformed Theology loves Orange so much. True, there are things in Orange that are compatible with Reformed Theology; such as the rejection of Pelagianism. On the other hand, the council is clearly against double predestination, which every form of Reformed Theology holds to, and is clearly in favor of baptismal regeneration, which Reformed Theology rejects. The council is favorable an compatible with Lutheran teaching (in light of justification and sanctification), and with Roman Catholicism (progressive justification), properly understood.
The Early Church councils are worth our time and effort. Orange is no exception. you can find the canons of the Council of Orange here: Canons of Orange 529
First, the council was utterly against all forms of Pelagianism. In other words, the dispute between St. Augustine of Hippo and the (probably) British monk Pelagius was discussed at this council. The council sided with St. Augustine on this issue; precisely because Holy Scripture sides with St. Augustine's stances in this area.
The other major thing we can take away from these canons is that Orange taught divine monergism and linked it directly to Holy Baptism.
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).
CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
Second, the council affirms baptismal regeneration and rejects double predestination.
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.
To conclude, it boggles my mind how Reformed Theology loves Orange so much. True, there are things in Orange that are compatible with Reformed Theology; such as the rejection of Pelagianism. On the other hand, the council is clearly against double predestination, which every form of Reformed Theology holds to, and is clearly in favor of baptismal regeneration, which Reformed Theology rejects. The council is favorable an compatible with Lutheran teaching (in light of justification and sanctification), and with Roman Catholicism (progressive justification), properly understood.
The Early Church councils are worth our time and effort. Orange is no exception. you can find the canons of the Council of Orange here: Canons of Orange 529
3/21/14
Smalcald Articles - Luther on Sin
Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article I: Sin
1 Here we must confess, as Paul says in Romans 5:12, that sin originated from one man, Adam. By his disobedience, all people were made sinners and became subject to death and the devil. This is called original or the chief sin.
2 The fruit of this sin are the evil deeds that are forbidden in the Ten Commandments [Galatians 5:19-21]. These include unbelief, false faith, idolatry, being without the fear of God, pride, despair, utter blindness, and, in short, not knowing or regarding God. Also lying, abusing God's name, not praying, not calling on God, not regarding God's Word, being disobedient to parents, murdering, being unchaste, stealing, deceiving, and such.
3 This hereditary sin is such a deep corruption of nature that no reason can understand it. Rather, it must be believed from the revelation of Scripture. (See Psalm 51:5; Romans 6:12-13; Exodus 33:3; Genesis 3:7-19.) Therefore, it is nothing but error and blindness that the scholastic doctors have taught in regard to this article:
4 Since Adam's fall the natural powers of human beings have remained whole and uncorrupted, and by nature people have a right reason and a good will, as the philosophers teach.
5 A person has a free will to do good and not to do evil, and, on the other hand, to not do good and do evil.
6 By natural human powers a person can observe and keep all God's commands.
7 By natural human powers, a person can love God above all things and love his neighbor as himself.
8 If a person does as much as is in him, God certainly grants him His grace.
9 If a person wishes to go to the Sacrament, there is no need of a good intention to do good. It is enough if a person does not have a wicked purpose to commit sin, so entirely good is human nature and so effective is the Sacrament.
10 Scripture does not teach that the Holy Spirit with His grace is necessary for a good work.
11 These and many similar ideas have arisen from lack of understanding and ignorance, both about sin and about Christ, our Savior. They are truly heathen teachings that we cannot endure. For if such teaching were true, then Christ has died in vain. A human being would have no defect or sin for which He would have died. Or He would have died only for the body, not for the soul, since the soul is sound, and only the body is subject to death.
Luther has here pointed out the numerous errors of the medieval church regarding original sin. More importantly, he has also pointed out the extremely problematic conclusions of such a sloppy theology. Ultimately, it glorifies man and devalues Christ.
How much do we see this sort of theology today? I would assert that we probably see it more today than even in Luther's time. It's the standard theology in America. The only theologies that stand against such man-glorifying theology are those of the Reformation.
In short, nearly all theological errors are a result of making way too much out of humanity. We are told we have unlimited potential and that we can do whatever we put our minds to. When we carry this over into theology, we end up with Christ as an afterthought and us as the real Saviors. The more we prop ourselves us, the further we get from Scriptural theology.
This short article written by Luther is just as true today as it was then. And it's just as important too.
As we continue in Lent towards Holy Week, let us remember that it is Christ alone -not us, not us plus Christ- that saves us.
+ Grace and Peace in Christ +
10/11/13
Directly Proportional Theology
Jesus Christ is the center of everything in Christianity. No orthodox Christian body denies that. But lurking at the very beginning of the history of mankind are things like the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, Satan's deception, the fall of man, and original sin.
It is no surprise to this ramblin' man that views on original sin and the fall of man are directly proportional to soteriology. How we view the fall of man has a direct effect on the view we have of mankind in general. Likewise, it also has a direct effect on how we view salvation.
Original sin can be a tricky topic. There are some who outright deny it. This is heretical, of course. There are others who affirm it but not in its fulness. And there are yet others who hold the orthodox doctrine of it. So, we can group doctrines of original sin into these three divisions. We could assuredly come up with even smaller divisions if we wanted to, but these will suffice for us.
The first group we have are those who deny original sin. Pelagians are famous for this. Yet, we also have some folks in the postmodern Emergent Church movement who also deny it. Open (free will) theists don't by necessity deny it, but some do. Emergent Church pastor Tony Jones once quipped, "Original sin is a depraved idea." He thus dismisses original sin and the doctrine of depravity in one fell swoop.
Proponents of this view would assert that humans are born good and innocent. To put it another way, they are born in the same state as Adam was created in the Garden of Eden. This is to say, we are born good and then later learn to sin and choose to sin based on the negative influences around us.
It shouldn't surprise us then, that these proponents also are very weak on their view of God's grace. In Pelagianism, grace is nice, grace is helpful, but it's not necessary. One created innocent and sinless can attain salvation all by himself by perfect obedience. This is at least a possibility in Pelagianism, even if they would admit that it is not a practical reality.
Deniers of original sin tend to be very heavy on choices, works, and so on. In short, they're very synergistic at best. Their soteriology is dependent more so on their choices than it is on God's grace. After all, with their low view of original sin comes with it a high view of mankind. This makes sense in the grand scheme of things.
Sitting in the middle of things on this topic are bodies like the Eastern Orthodox Churches. They affirm original sin, but have a shallow view of it. Original sin, to them, is nothing more than the inherent desire for man to sin. In other words, you're still born sinless, but you have a nature that will lead you to sin sometime down the road.
Another way of saying this is that original sin does not convey guilt. Only actual sin does that. This means that infants, while properly sinful in nature, are still innocent because they have not yet acted on that.
The Orthodox Churches baptise infants, but it's not to forgive them of anything, because they have nothing to be forgiven of. It's rather to raise them in righteousness and give them Christ. All well and good, but that leads these churches as well to be very synergistic too. They properly insist on the necessity of the grace of God, but they also insist on our cooperation with it in order to be saved. After all, we don't have to act on that sinful nature and we're capable of cooperation with God in order to be saved.
The final group are bodies that fully affirm original sin; such as the Calvinists and the Lutherans. We affirm that original sin has corrupted the whole person: body, mind, and will. We are guilty in front of God by Adam's sin alone. In short, we are conceived as sinners, we are born as sinners, and we are sinners.
The indwelling sinfulness that we are conceived and born into is enough to condemn us. Infants too, are guilty, because they are what they are. And what they are is sinners.
Because of our sinfulness, we are at enmity with God. We are by nature haters of God. He is the Light and we love the darkness. For this reason, theologies that fully affirm original sin tend to be monergistic. Our sinful nature will never even desire to cooperate with God or choose Christ. Thus, God chooses us. He comes to us in grace and saves us by Himself alone. The only thing we can do in this process is reject Him. The Old Adam still wars against God, even in the justified person. The great baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon once said: "It is a remarkable fact that all the heresies which have arisen in the Christian
Church have had a decided tendency to dishonor God and to flatter man."
And that's just it. We get original sin wrong, and we end up flattering ourselves. We end up thinking we are capable of much more than we are in front of God. We attribute less to God and more to ourselves. The theological end game of this is Pelagianism and/or Open Theism. We deny original sin, we demand our right to earn things in front of God, we love our selves, and ultimately we make so much of ourselves that we start to denigrate God. First we reject the necessity and saving nature of His grace alone, then we progress to the point where He doesn't even know the future in order to protect our greatest attribute: our free will. Or so we think.
Original sin is a non-negotiable. Denial of it leads to a point that isn't even Christian. It's humanism masquerading as theology that throws the name of Jesus around sometimes.
So get it right. Original sin is true. It exists. You are a sinner, and as such, you are completely dependent upon God's grace. Thankfully, God has told us how He comes to us in grace and gives us this grace. It's found in Word and Sacrament.
Thanks be to God.
It is no surprise to this ramblin' man that views on original sin and the fall of man are directly proportional to soteriology. How we view the fall of man has a direct effect on the view we have of mankind in general. Likewise, it also has a direct effect on how we view salvation.
 |
| Tony Jones |
The first group we have are those who deny original sin. Pelagians are famous for this. Yet, we also have some folks in the postmodern Emergent Church movement who also deny it. Open (free will) theists don't by necessity deny it, but some do. Emergent Church pastor Tony Jones once quipped, "Original sin is a depraved idea." He thus dismisses original sin and the doctrine of depravity in one fell swoop.
Proponents of this view would assert that humans are born good and innocent. To put it another way, they are born in the same state as Adam was created in the Garden of Eden. This is to say, we are born good and then later learn to sin and choose to sin based on the negative influences around us.
It shouldn't surprise us then, that these proponents also are very weak on their view of God's grace. In Pelagianism, grace is nice, grace is helpful, but it's not necessary. One created innocent and sinless can attain salvation all by himself by perfect obedience. This is at least a possibility in Pelagianism, even if they would admit that it is not a practical reality.
Deniers of original sin tend to be very heavy on choices, works, and so on. In short, they're very synergistic at best. Their soteriology is dependent more so on their choices than it is on God's grace. After all, with their low view of original sin comes with it a high view of mankind. This makes sense in the grand scheme of things.
Sitting in the middle of things on this topic are bodies like the Eastern Orthodox Churches. They affirm original sin, but have a shallow view of it. Original sin, to them, is nothing more than the inherent desire for man to sin. In other words, you're still born sinless, but you have a nature that will lead you to sin sometime down the road.
Another way of saying this is that original sin does not convey guilt. Only actual sin does that. This means that infants, while properly sinful in nature, are still innocent because they have not yet acted on that.
The Orthodox Churches baptise infants, but it's not to forgive them of anything, because they have nothing to be forgiven of. It's rather to raise them in righteousness and give them Christ. All well and good, but that leads these churches as well to be very synergistic too. They properly insist on the necessity of the grace of God, but they also insist on our cooperation with it in order to be saved. After all, we don't have to act on that sinful nature and we're capable of cooperation with God in order to be saved.
The final group are bodies that fully affirm original sin; such as the Calvinists and the Lutherans. We affirm that original sin has corrupted the whole person: body, mind, and will. We are guilty in front of God by Adam's sin alone. In short, we are conceived as sinners, we are born as sinners, and we are sinners.
The indwelling sinfulness that we are conceived and born into is enough to condemn us. Infants too, are guilty, because they are what they are. And what they are is sinners.
| Spurgeon |
And that's just it. We get original sin wrong, and we end up flattering ourselves. We end up thinking we are capable of much more than we are in front of God. We attribute less to God and more to ourselves. The theological end game of this is Pelagianism and/or Open Theism. We deny original sin, we demand our right to earn things in front of God, we love our selves, and ultimately we make so much of ourselves that we start to denigrate God. First we reject the necessity and saving nature of His grace alone, then we progress to the point where He doesn't even know the future in order to protect our greatest attribute: our free will. Or so we think.
Original sin is a non-negotiable. Denial of it leads to a point that isn't even Christian. It's humanism masquerading as theology that throws the name of Jesus around sometimes.
So get it right. Original sin is true. It exists. You are a sinner, and as such, you are completely dependent upon God's grace. Thankfully, God has told us how He comes to us in grace and gives us this grace. It's found in Word and Sacrament.
Thanks be to God.
9/12/12
How Serious is it to get Original Sin and the Fall of Man Correct? Deathly Serious.
I’ve been aware that there has always been a group of
persons claiming the name of Christ who deny original sin and the fall of man. It's not like these ideas are new.
What I was unaware of is just how openly prevalent it is now days. I’ve run into many
of these folks online lately, so I am compelled to speak about this topic. The
more I think about the topic, the bigger of a deal it clearly becomes. Not that
it’s becoming any worse than it already is, but you see quite clearly what
other foolish stances people derive from this denial of these core Christian
doctrines.
If I can see OK, what I have been seeing lately is that a
denial of original sin and the fall of man results in an entire superstructure
of theology that is completely wrong and unbiblical. For the sake of ease here,
I will stick to the core belief superstructure at the root of this denial:
Pelagianism.
Pelagianism basically can be summed up in six points. Here
they are.
1.
Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
2.
Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human
race.
3.
Children just
born are in the same state as Adam before
his fall.
4.
The whole human race neither dies through Adam's
sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection
of Christ.
5.
The Mosaic Law is as good
a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
6.
Even before the advent
of Christ there were men
who were without sin.
These were the six main ideas espoused by Pelagius, a 5th
century English monk, and his close associate, Caelestius. Now, when we look at
them as a whole, they all make sense within the framework of Pelagian theology.
Namely, if we deny original sin and the fall, they fit together.
#1: Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
This assertion disregards the integrity of the original
creation. God said it was good, but He created Adam in a body of death anyways.
Scripture tells us that death itself is part of the curse that was rendered to
the whole creation as a result of Adam’s sin.
Yet this assertion makes sense within Pelagianism due to the
fact that Pelagians deny that the fall of man affected everyone else post-Adam.
Why? It’s based on evidence of the fact that everyone post-Adam has died (save
for Enoch and Elijah). Thus, death cannot be a result of sin, since that would
mean that there would be zero people who have ever lived perfectly and never
sinned. Thus, Adam had to be mortal pre-fall to account not only for sinless
living, but also to account for the fact that infants and small children, who
are not sinners, die all the time. So, this makes sense in Pelagianism because
death cannot be the result of sin, since Adam’s sin does not apply to anyone
other than Adam, and people who are innocent die all the time.
#2: Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
This is explained mainly in the last point, but again,
within Pelagianism, this makes perfect sense. This is in essence a denial of
the Christian doctrine of the fall of man. Adam had his own fall, which began a
process of spiritual dying (but not physical, because that has nothing to do
with sin). Likewise, we all have our own personal falls that starts our own
process of dying spiritually. But we certainly are not sinners by nature, we’re
only sinners after we choose to sin.
#3: Children just born are in the
same state as Adam before his fall.
Here is the blatant and outright denial of the doctrine of
original sin. Not much else needs to be said here, but this ties in directly
with the first two.
#4: The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises
again through the resurrection of Christ.
I will allow Pelagian writer Lewis Loflin to answer this one: “This is the real reason why Christianity needs the Original
Sin doctrine. If Original Sin is false as the Old Testament shows and there are
clearly men who overcame sin without faith in Jesus, then by our own efforts we
can achieve this task. Thus we don't need Christianity, its institutions, and
leaders to control our lives. One is Jesus' own relatives prior to His birth.”
In short, we don’t need Christ to save us. We enter
into life by keeping the commandments. Loflin also accuses the apostle Paul of
inventing the “inherited sin” doctrine. In short, Paul is wrong, in his view.
He also denies the bodily resurrection, saying: “Adam was expelled from the
Garden for the express purpose he would not be made immortal. It seems God
never intended humans to be immortal, which throws any idea of life after death
(bodily resurrection) into question. Pelagius was right on this count.”
Pretty much (in his view) everything Paul said was
wrong and was nothing more than a perversion of the Old Testament.
#5: The Mosaic Law is as good
a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
Of course it would be, because we are capable of keeping it
perfectly in Pelagian theology. Thus, there is no need for Christ unless you
first go and screw it up by sinning and then after you sin, you still retain
all that natural and moral ability to throw yourself on Christ for forgiveness.
This is a denial of the Gospel. It opens up an additional way of salvation.
#6: Even before the advent of Christ
there were men who were without sin.
Pelagians will quote a couple Old Testament references to
try to prove this, but none of the references they quote say anything of the
sort. Numbers 14:24 is invoked, which says “But my servant Caleb,
because he has a different spirit and has followed me fully, I will bring into
the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it.” Next
up is 2 Kings 22:2: “And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and walked in all the way of David his father, and he did not turn
aside to the right or to the left.” This one is speaking of King Josiah.
The Pelagians will even go as far as to say that Abraham was sinless pre-Christ
because God called Abraham His friend (Isa 41:8) and Daniel “beloved” (Dan
9:23, 10:11)
So those are the six major points in
Pelagian theology. Zero of them are historically Christian and zero of them get
the human condition, or God, correct. In short, the Pelagians, just like any
other false religion, wrest passages everywhere from their context, force them
to mean more than they are actually saying, or make them mean something they aren’t
saying at all.
Regarding the Apostle Paul’s writings, I
have seen Pelagians take two approaches. One approach is the one Loflin takes;
to say that Paul was just dead wrong. Loflin sees, then, that Paul does teach
original sin and the fall of man. The other approach, which is more common, is
to try to reinterpret Paul to fit with Pelagianism. I’ve seen a couple efforts
in this regard and it just doesn’t work.
Here is a sampling of what some councils
and confessions have said about Pelagianism over the years.
Council of Carthage (418 AD)
That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. (Canon 1)
That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. (Canon 1)
Council of Orange (529 AD)
If anyone denies
that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed
for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the
freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to
corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the
scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20);
and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient
slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and,
"For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).
(Canon 1)
If anyone asserts
that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if
he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for
sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one
man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the
Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man
and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men
sinned" (Rom. 5:12). (Canon 2)
And thus according
to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the
ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as
follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that
no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good
for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. (Conclusion)
Augsburg Confession
(Lutheran 1530 AD)
Our churches
condemn the followers of Pelagius and all others who deny that original sin is
truly sin. Such people argue that humans can be justified before God by their
own strength and reason. This lessens the glory of Christ’s work and its
benefits. (Art 2, 3)
We condemn the
Pelagians and all others who teach that without the Holy Spirit, by the power
of human nature alone, we are able to love God above all things. Or that by our
own power we can do the commandments of God according to the substance of the
act. (Art 18, 8)
Belgic Confession (Reformed 1561 AD)
We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread
through the whole human race.
It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even
infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in
man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that
it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly
uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from
a contaminated spring.
Nevertheless, it is not imputed to God's children for their condemnation
but is forgiven by his grace and mercy-- not to put them to sleep but so that
the awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long
to be set free from the "body of this death." (Rom 7:24)
Therefore we reject the error of the Pelagians who say that this sin is
nothing else than a matter of imitation.
Canons of Dort (Reformed 1618-19 AD)
Who teach that in election to faith a
prerequisite condition is that man should rightly use the light of nature, be
upright, unassuming, humble, and disposed to eternal life, as though election
depended to some extent on these factors.
For this smacks of Pelagius, and it clearly calls into question the words
of the apostle: We lived at one time in the passions of our flesh, following
the will of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath,
like everyone else. But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with
which he loved us, even when we were dead in transgressions, made us alive with
Christ, by whose grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with him and
seated us with him in heaven in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages
we might show the surpassing riches of his grace, according to his kindness
toward us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through
faith (and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God) not by works, so
that no one can boast (Eph. 2:3-9).
So how serious are the denials of original sin and the fall of man? Deathly
serious. Serious to the point where the followers of such grievous errors are
preachers of another Gospel and peddlers of something far outside of Christianity.
When these core doctrines are incorrect, an entire superstructure of false
theology slides in to take the place of the Scriptural report, as we have seen
above. Getting the beginning wrong, the rest falls like dominoes in a row, and you end up getting everything wrong. And it amounts to an outright denial of Christianity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)