Old Earth and Original Sin

[Noeb]

Glad4mercy, I forgot to answer you concerning Pelagius. There's his Letter to Demetrias, and his proceedings. The specific places I read the proceeding, I do not recall. A quick search yielded the following but it's better and more interesting to just read the exchange, if you can find it.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1505.htm

"We have affirmed that a man is able to be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God if he wishes, inasmuch as God has given him this ability. But we have not said that any man can be found, who from infancy to old age has never committed sin; but that if any person were converted from his sins, he could by his own exertion and God's grace be without sin; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change afterwards."

[Athanasius]

Glad4mercy, I forgot to answer you concerning Pelagius. There's his Letter to Demetrias, and his proceedings. The specific places I read the proceeding, I do not recall. A quick search yielded the following but it's better and more interesting to just read the exchange, if you can find it.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1505.htm

"We have affirmed that a man is able to be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God if he wishes, inasmuch as God has given him this ability. But we have not said that any man can be found, who from infancy to old age has never committed sin; but that if any person were converted from his sins, he could by his own exertion and God's grace be without sin; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change afterwards."

That's nice of Pelagius to "affirm that a man is able to be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God if he wishes", even while "we have not said that any man can be found, who from infancy to old age has never committed sin". This is what's known as theology divorced from the world as it really is: to affirm that man is able to be without sin, even while no such man has ever been found. If this were a scientific theory rather than a letter from a church father, it would have been disregarded long ago.

[Noeb]

You did not read what he said. If converted from his sin, is the context.

[Athanasius]

You did not read what he said. If converted from his sin, is the context.

I read what he said; I also read some of the other 27,000+ words in on the New Advent page. I'll stick to what I said earlier: theology divorced from reality (1 John 1:8).

[Noeb]

No you did not. What he said is no different than what many say here. All agree that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I hope you do too, since that is not debateable. That's what was quoted. What is debateable is whether or not we can live w/o sin after conversion. The quote says we can by the grace of God. The charge was that he believed we could without the grace of God. He did not.

If you came to any other conclusion, you did not understand what you read. It's that simple.

and what does 1jo 1:8 have to do with it? Pelagius was not Gnostic.

[Watchman]

That's nice of Pelagius to "affirm that a man is able to be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God if he wishes", even while "we have not said that any man can be found, who from infancy to old age has never committed sin". This is what's known as theology divorced from the world as it really is: to affirm that man is able to be without sin, even while no such man has ever been found. If this were a scientific theory rather than a letter from a church father, it would have been disregarded long ago.

Absolutely. If people were able to be without sin, then Christ's death would not have been required, because folks would simply live or die by their own merit...something about which they could boast. Paul says that dog won't hunt.

W

[Noeb]

That's correct W. Both Paul and Pelagius agreed, as do all believers.

[Athanasius]

No you did not.

I'm going to have to insist that I did. You can point out a misreading, if you'd like, but it's inconsequential and certainly is not, "not reading".

What he said is no different than what many say here. All agree that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I hope you do too, since that is not debateable. That's what was quoted. What is debateable is whether or not we can live w/o sin after conversion. The quote says we can by the grace of God. The charge was that he believed we could without the grace of God. He did not.

Here's what you quoted:

"We have affirmed that a man is able to be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God if he wishes, inasmuch as God has given him this ability. But we have not said that any man can be found, who from infancy to old age has never committed sin; but that if any person were converted from his sins, he could by his own exertion and God's grace be without sin; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change afterwards."

We can assume that Pelagius believed 'all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God', but it is never explicitly stated. So no, that's not what was quoted. What is of concern to me, and what was quoted, is Pelagius' belief that a man, with God's grace, can refrain from sinning. He said this twice:

- "We have affirmed that a man is able to be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God if he wishes, inasmuch as God has given him this ability."
- "if any person were converted from his sins, he could by his own exertion and God's grace be without sin;"

This is distinct from the charge you keep referring to, that Pelagius believed that a man without God's grace could be without sin. In your quote he replies with, "But we have not said that any man can be found, who from infancy to old age has never committed sin;" and then further on anathematizes anyone who does believe this (chapter 16 of the New Advent link).

If you came to any other conclusion, you did not understand what you read. It's that simple.

and what does 1jo 1:8 have to do with it? Pelagius was not Gnostic.

1 John 1:8 addresses the idea that anyone can live without sin, with or without God's grace. Regardless of whether Pelagius believed it was possible with God's help or without, he was wrong either way (as is anyone else).

[Noeb]

We don't need to assume it, he said it.

1Jo 1:8 does not say we must sin. It addresses Gnosticism that says we can sin in the physical (one nature) and be sinless in the spirit (another nature). From Greek and Eastern Dualism. Old man and new man present together at the same time. Still a huge problem in the church. These are decieved and walking in darkness.

it's not the discussion anyway.

[Athanasius]

We don't need to assume it, he said it.

1Jo 1:8 does not say we must sin. It addresses Gnosticism that says we can sin in the physical (one nature) and be sinless in the spirit (another nature). From Greek and Eastern Dualism. Old man and new man present together at the same time. Still a huge problem in the church. These are decieved and walking in darkness.

1 John 1:8 is pertinent when anyone, Gnostic or not, 'claims to be without sin'. This would seem to exclude the possibility of refraining completely from sin, with or without God's help.

I don't think an affirmation of 1 John 1:8 entails a belief that 'therefore we must sin', I'm otherwise unsure of why you made mention of that.

[glad4mercy]

He wasn't judged guilty, because he didn't, yet, know he was naked.



God didn’t create sinful people, but they have always had the potential to sin, and they did.

Can we take a look at the word "naked?" What does it mean in the following verses:



What is it that Jesus blood so effectively covers, if not the sin that is exposed in us?

What about the following scriptures (And these are just a handful)?



Lets go backwards into history:

What does Jesus blood cover, but our sins?

What did the sprinkling of blood on the mercy seat represent, but a covering of our sin?

What did the Passover represent, but a covering of our sin?

What did the ark represent in the story of Noah? Had God judge Noah righteous because of a lack of sin? No, he was judged righteous because of his faith as Abraham and everyone else is. If He had not built the ark in faithful obedience, he would have perished as everyone else did. Again, the ark covered Noah’s and his families sin.

And, finally, what did the animal skins represent that God covered Adam and Eve with, but a covering of sin?

Sin = nakedness. Nakedness = sin.

Adam and Eve were naked in the garden before they ate of the fruit. Only they were innocent, and not judged for it, because the weren’t aware of it. Until they disobeyed the only command God had given them, they had no idea they were sinful, just as a toddler might take a toy from one playing near him, never knowing that his deed is wrong until mom or dad tell him it is.

If death had not already been in the world, then what understanding of it would they have had when God warned them about it? From what I know of the original Hebrew, when God said you will surely die, it was like saying, “you wont just die, you will die die!” I think they must have already known something of death.

1. The blood of Jesus is not only the propitiation for our sins, it is also the cleansing for our sins. ( 1 John 1:7)

2. Naked is not sinful. When I take a shower, I am not sinning. Naked in the context of the verses you used from 2 Corinthians and Revelations refer to being naked in the sense that a person has not put on Christ/Christ's righteousness.

3. Adam and Eve died spiritually the day they ate the fruit. They died physically at some point later.

[glad4mercy]

Glad4mercy, I forgot to answer you concerning Pelagius. There's his Letter to Demetrias, and his proceedings. The specific places I read the proceeding, I do not recall. A quick search yielded the following but it's better and more interesting to just read the exchange, if you can find it.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1505.htm

"We have affirmed that a man is able to be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God if he wishes, inasmuch as God has given him this ability. But we have not said that any man can be found, who from infancy to old age has never committed sin; but that if any person were converted from his sins, he could by his own exertion and God's grace be without sin; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change afterwards."

Yes a man is given the the power to repent of sin and keep the commandments of God by the grace of God. Yet to say that one is without sin would mean that person not only doesnt steal, drink, lie, do drugs and all that, but also that the person's heart would be free and uncontaminated from evil thoughts, wrong motives, and selfishness. Additionally, to know to do good and not do it is also a sin, so in order to be sinless you have to always do all good perfectly and without fail. Have you ever neglected to do something you knew you should have done? If you have, you sinned. So then you needed the cleansing of the blood of Jesus for that too. The only way to be untainted by sin is through the continual cleansing of the Blood.

Have you ever noticed that 1 John 1:7 says that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin, not sins?

So, you see, sin is not only actions, it is something that is rooted in the heart,which is why our hearts need to be purified by faith. I hardly think you disagree with this. Even if you were to keep every external commandment of God blameless, and could live free from any outward sin, that does not mean that you don't have sin in your heart. ...and no, God did not create us sinful, nor is He to blame for the sin of the world. I would never say such a detestable thing.

[glad4mercy]

It addresses Gnosticism that says we can sin in the physical (one nature) and be sinless in the spirit (another nature).

This is not the position I hold. I hold that the one nature wars against the other nature and we must crucify the flesh and walk in the Spirit. No one was holding to this view here (that I know of), and I know I wasnt.

I will also read your article on Pelagian, and possibly discuss it with you at another time.

[Noeb]

You ask for sources so I provided. I just thought you would like to know Pelagius did not believe what you and most attribute to him. I disagree with a lot of his views so I'm not defending him in general, but he was correct about some things. Especially next to Augustine.

The error in Greek, Eastern, and Gnostic dualism is Dualism. It's simply impossible to have two natures. Nothing has ever existed with two natures. You don't have two natures at war within you. You have a war within your one nature.

I didn't bring up Gnosticism, Athanasius did by misusing 1Jo 1:8. I wasn't saying any one here is Gnostic.

I'm still trying to get to your other post. Hopefully tonight.

[Athanasius]

I didn't bring up Gnosticism, Athanasius did by misusing 1Jo 1:8. I wasn't saying any one here is Gnostic..

Ahem: you brought up Gnosticism in misunderstanding why I brought in 1 John 1:8 (and no, it hasn't been misused).