socko.curt@uunet.uu.net (06/21/89)
In article <Mar.28.04.55.25.1989.8837@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: >Theologically I am a Calvinist. I believe in Original Sin. This >doctrine is taught in Gen, and I accept it. ... >... I find it very ironic that I, who believe the doctrine >that is being taught in Gen, am told that I am rejecting the Bible's >authority by so-called inerrantists who argue to their dying breath >about the literal reality of the story, but who reject the whole point >it is trying to make. At least it has been my experience that most >conservative Christians come from traditions that believe in free ^^^ >will, and therefore reject the concept of Original Sin that is being >taught here. It appears that belief in the literal accuracy of ^^^ >Scripture is not enough to guarantee that people will accept what it >is teaching. Yes, yes, I heartily agree! Many people on both sides get caught up in debates about whether or not Genesis is literal history, and then completely overlook the principles it teaches. The thing that confuses me here is the marked phrase, which implies that the concepts of Original Sin and free will are mutually exclusive. Perhaps my definition of Original Sin is wrong... I wrote down a definition from another article posted fairly recently: "the corruption that started with Adam and Eve is passed on such that each of us is corrupt". Free will is (at least as I've always heard it used) the ability in a given situation to say to God, "Yes," or to say to God, "No" (that is, to choose good or to choose evil). Given these definitions, I don't see that Original Sin and free will are mutually exclusive. In fact, they seem to deal with different things -- the former with the inherent condition of man and the latter with his capabilities for decision and/or action. So, like, what's the deal? Am I missing something? ------------------------ Curt McCorkle JOHN 3:16! uunet!littlei!socko:curt Go to hell OR littlei!donk!curt if you can't take a gift --T. Russack [We've got yet another ambiguous term. Free will has a number of meanings. In theological discussions it tends to be used in a technical sense that excludes the concept of original sin. The classical Augustinian position is that original sin so corrupted the will that it is impossible for the person to choose good. Of course he is physically able to do so. But because his will has been corrupted he never will. It is not enough for God to offer salvation, because the person would turn it down. God must through grace restore the person's will before he will even be able to accept anything God has to offer. This is the position that was taken by Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. (This particular wording is closer to Augustine than to Calvin. Augustine tends to emphasize that grace restores the true power of choice, whereas Calvin and Luther tend to emphasize that grace is "irresistible", not asking for any choice on our part. I think these accounts are consistent. Augustine is emphasizing our situation after grace has started acting on us, while Luther and Calvin emphasize its initial action, while our will is still hopelessly corrupt.) The opposing position is either that there is no original sin, or that it does not have quite this radical effect. Unless you really go to the other extreme, as in Pelagianism, the position is normally that our salvation depends entirely upon God's grace, but this grace is offered to us and we do have the freedom to accept or reject it. This is normally what is meant by free will. Depending upon the relative emphases on grace and human choice, this position is known as semi-Augustinian or semi-Pelagian. The more polite term for semi-Pelagian is Arminian, since Pelagianism is an extreme that everybody agrees is heretical. There were great theological battles in the 17th and 18th Century between the Augustinians, who in that particular incarnation were generally Calvinists, and the Arminians, whose most influential champion was probably John Wesley (founder of the Methodists). Early evangelicals in the U.S. tended to be Calvinists, but at some point (18th Cent?) this seemed to reverse. This reversal is still visible in church names such as "Free Will Baptists", the point being that early Baptists were Calvinists. It is certainly possible to conceive of free will as meaning simply the fact that we are physically capable of making a choice. In that case it does not contradict even the Augustinian concept of original sin. Similarly it is possible to conceive of an Arminian sort of original sin that leaves enough power of choice for us to accept a grace which is merely offered. Now that the vicious arguments have died down, I think most Christians recognize that grace is a paradox, and both sides of the paradox must be maintained. Thus ultimately it may be that we should use concepts of original sin and free will that are compatible with each other. However I don't think that's not the sense in which they have been used historically. --clh]
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (06/26/89)
In article <Mar.28.04.55.25.1989.8837@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: >Theologically I am a Calvinist. I believe in Original Sin. This I think we would better spend our time if we consulted the Word of God, which is a guaranteed source of authority, rather than try to gain what can at best be an infinitecimal understanding by trying to merge the philosophies of a bunch of other sinful human minds. Augustine, Luther, Calvan, and whoever else is under discussion most definitely appear to have been used of God for His purposes in the world, but we should never fall for the temptation to place their teachings, i.e. the authority of man, above what the Bible actually says, i.e. the infalable authority of God. There can be no real question that we are all considered sinners before God, and that this is a state which we have inherited from our parents who have in turn inherited it from theirs. God tells us this parabolically in Haggai 2:11-14 where He says "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests {concerning} the law, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If {one that is} unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered Haggai, and said, So {is} this people, and so {is} this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so {is} every work of their hands; and that which they offer there {is} unclean.". We know from Genesis 3 that Adam and Eve both sinned. Psalm 51:5 tells us that "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.". Psalm 58:3-5 tells us that "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison {is} like the poison of a serpent: {they are} like the deaf adder {that} stoppeth her ear; Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.". The Scriptures very clearly state that not only the unsaved but also the saved (before God actually saved them) are absolutely in no way interested in having anything to do with Him. Speaking of them, He tells us through the apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:1-3 that "And you {hath he quickened}, who were dead in trespasses and sins: Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.". He confirms this very emphatically in Romans 3:10-18, sumarizing in Romans 3:23 that "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;". Jesus tells us that the unsaved, and that's what we all start out life being, most definitely do not have a free will to choose to follow God on His own terms. In John 6:44 He tells us that "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:". Note that Jesus did not say "no one WILL come", i.e. "no one will exercise the free will to come"; He said "no one CAN come", i.e. "no one is able to come". God, through the apostle Paul in Romans 9:15-18, tells us very clearly that He, and in no way any one of us, has chosen those who are to be saved by saying "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then {it is} not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will {have mercy}, and whom he will he hardeneth.". The only remaining question is whether or not a person whom God has chosen to save has the free will to refuse the gift. God tells us in Isaiah 55:11 that "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper {in the thing} whereto I sent it.". Jesus tells us in John 6:39 that "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.". I would like to conclude with a statement of my own. 1 Corinthians 10:31 commands us "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.". If I wished to reserve for myself the right to tell God that part of the reason that I am truly saved is that I chose to accept His gift then I would still be doing just a little something to the glory of myself. Since this is not to be, the concept of us having a free will to either accept or refuse His gift cannot be. I am sure that there are several people who find themselves in disagreement with what I have said. They may have many Scriptures that would appear to contradict the position which I hold. In addition to quoting those other Scriptures to disprove what I have said, I would urge them very strongly to try to force those Scriptures which I have used to fit into any other scenario. I, on the other hand, am willing to take as much time as any one would like to show how all those other Scriptures fit into this scenario. I am assuming, of course, that the Bible is believed to be the one and only message from God to us, and that it contains absolutely no errors or contradictions because it has as its author an infinitely perfect and honest God who sincerely cares for His creation. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3 [I'm going to ignore the body of this posting, and comment on the first paragraph: I think we would better spend our time if we consulted the Word of God, which is a guaranteed source of authority, rather than try to gain what can at best be an infinitecimal understanding by trying to merge the philosophies of a bunch of other sinful human minds. Calvin is not exactly what you'd call a philosopher. He was primarily a Biblical scholar. He considered his theological works to be mostly expositions of Scripture. By refusing to listen to other "sinful human minds", you simply make it more likely that you will be misled by another sinful human mind, namely your own. Everyone brings along preconceptions when he reads the Bible. It is easy for these to cause you to miss things or misinterpret them. There is also factual background, such as historical context and information about the original Greek and Hebrew that may not be obvious from the translation. I find that people who dismiss all scholarship generally end up unconsciously taking positions that they have inherited from their parents, pastor, etc. Only when you subject your understanding to the test of comparing it with others can you hope to find these hidden preconceptions. As you will know if you have read other things I have to say, I am not a great believer in "tradition". I think in the end the only authority we can depend upon in theological matters is the Bible. But I have a low enough view of my own abilities that I am anxious to get all the assistance I can. So I read widely what others have to say. In this particular case I cited Calvin mostly as a shorthand. It is quite common that in the process of looking at other views, one will find some particular person or group of people more convincing than others. In that case, it makes sense to identify yourself appropriately. When I say that I am a Calvinist, it doesn't mean that I accept Calvin as some kind of authority over and above the Bible. Calvin himself would be horrified at that. Rather, it is an attempt to summarize my views briefly, so you will be more likely to understand the context of what I am saying. This particular posting was dealing with a different issue. Original sin came up only in passing. Rather than going into a lot of detail, I simply indicated that I take a position close to Calvin's, whose views on that subject are well known. --clh]