Thread: Purgatory: Does humankind have a "sinful nature"? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000894

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I have read people talking about us having a "sinful nature" but that doesn't seem right to me. We have a human nature. But we don't have some second nature called the "sinful nature."

IIRC the NIV translates σαρξ as "sinful nature" but that's the NIV. Another reason not to use it.

So where does this idea of a "sinful nature" come from? Can it be placed in the Scriptures? the Fathers? the Traditions of the Church?

[ 01. December 2012, 10:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
I can tell you're not a protestant... or you wouldn't ask this question.

IIRC the doctrine of Original sin is generally ascribed to St Francis of Assisi.

The concept of human sinfulness being innate runs through much of scripture.

Off the top of my head:
Psalm 51
Romans 3
Romans 7
Galatians 5
James 1

I'm not saying that it's the only way to understand scripture or even these specific verses, but it's not just a random idea, it's a well developed theology.

AFZ
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'm not asking if we're sinful. One look at the Romney campaign confirms that. I'm asking if we have a sinful nature.

PS I think "original sin" is ascribed to Augustine.

[ 23. September 2012, 04:45: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 

---

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
PS I think "original sin" is ascribed to Augustine.

---

Ooops, yep. Sorry That's what I meant to say - I knew there was an "A" in there somewhere.

I agree that the sinfulness of humans is self-evident; what I'm saying is that many who read these verses (and many many others) conclude that the bible is stating that we are sinful by nature. I'm not saying that's the only understanding of these scriptures, I'm saying this is where it comes from.

Recently there was another go-round on the Immaculate conception. For most protestants this is a weird argument (but that's coz of a different view of church tradition) and for me Mary was a sinner in need of salvation like the rest of us. Yet clearly a Godly and righteous woman worthy or our respect. Reading that thread, though I noted a strong need by some to see Mary as set-apart and Holy in order that Jesus might be Holy; surely that kind of thinking only makes sense if you believe the human nature is sinful?

AFZ
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I guess I need to distinguish between our having a sinful nature in addition to our human nature -- two natures warring in us -- or our having a human nature which happens to be sinful. I guess when I posed the question I was thinking of the former. Probably because of the way the NIV uses "sinful nature."

You put this two different ways, and I'm not sure if they're equivalent: Are we sinful by nature? Is human nature sinful? But I can't tease them apart this late at night so I'm going to proceed as if they're the same thing.

Well, we were not made sinful. So if our nature is now sinful, that would mean our nature -- the very core of our being -- has changed. And I don't really see the justification for that. We are still image-bearers of the divine Creator. At the core of our being is the image of God. That is our nature. Sin stains us, but it doesn't define us. It isn't who we are at base.

If human nature were sinful at the core, what does it mean to say that Christ became human? That would be impossible, because we know he was without sin. It seems one of two things are possible:

1. It's false to say that human nature is sinful,
or
2. It was sinful, but when Christ took on our nature, he made it no longer sinful.

You can't say he took on all of our nature except the sinful part -- does our nature have constituent parts? That makes no sense.
 

---

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
I would say that our nature at birth is only the potential to become something. Our real nature in its essence is the ability to think and choose, but until we develop these innate abilities and use them, they exist only in potential.

We were created to use them to follow God and accept him making us an actual image and likeness of him, each of us in our unique, individual way. But we as a species have acquired the inclination to abuse those two abilities and use them only for the sake of ourselves. That inclination is counter-balanced in each of us by the influence of God to draw us away from it, but to begin with, we are neither an image and likeness of God nor sinful. Both exist as potential from the start and only become actualities to varying degrees according to our choices.

That's how I see it.

[ 23. September 2012, 06:07: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
Human beings are made in God’s image as thinking, sentient beings, born with free will.

Sin comes when we try to use that free will for our own wishes and not God’s. Our sinful human nature is that we are incapable of not following our own will and desires, the only human who ever only followed the will of God was Jesus.

Yes he was fully human but he was sinless because his focus was the Father’s will in a way that the rest of us humans are incapable of doing.

Apologies if I don’t make proper sense, I am rushing to reply before going out to church..
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I have read people talking about us having a "sinful nature" but that doesn't seem right to me. We have a human nature. But we don't have some second nature called the "sinful nature."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not asking if we're sinful. One look at the Romney campaign confirms that. I'm asking if we have a sinful nature.

---

That just went in the quotes file.


I generally try to avoid this terminology. In my thinking, we're that point where God has drawn forth from nature, via agapastic evolution, a creature capable of bearing God's image.

I like the way my late mentor developed Irenaeus' thought. He argues that innocence is not an ignorance or pristine purity to be lost, but rather a virtue to be gained (epitomized by the Risen Christ who bears scars).

So we're hairless apes that bear the image of God. It's really quite steampunk if you think of it. We, as individuals and as a species learned to do sinful behaviors (many of which furthered our ancestors' and our survival fitness) before we could know right from wrong in a moral sense. While I wouldn't want to reduce the Incarnation to a software patch or a bit of "jiggery-pokery," as the tenth Doctor might say, the Incarnation does wed our nature with the Divine nature so that human nature, and all creation with it, has been drawn into the inner life of the Trinity (! - where's the mind-blown smilie?) in the Person of Christ, and that's the ultimate milieu for the working out of evolutionary love.

The "sinful nature" talk, IMO, is metaphor. I think it tends to get reified too much, and mixed with other similarly reified metaphors. But it's worth keeping in mind that many Christians use the term "fallen nature" synonymously - that is, they would say something like that "sinful" or "fallen" nature refers to the fact that our nature has been damaged or tarnished or something. Like software that's been degraded and so doesn't quite work right. I'll leave it up to them if they want to say that salvation is like a reinstall.

[ 23. September 2012, 08:14: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I think if you take 'sinful' to work in the same way as 'damaged' then it is an acceptable thing to say. Yes, we have a damaged nature. What we don't have is a nature that is sinful while functioning properly.

I've just been reading a book on Julian of Norwich's theology that argues that for Julian the division of our nature into sinful and pure is how we genuinely experience ourselves as sinners, but is not how things are from a non-sinful point of view.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I think that it is easy to view the body and its needs as inherently sinful - but only if we follow its promptings instead of vice versa.

That is, if we are driven by, or give free reign to, our physical appetites for food, rest, sex, etc. we will do things that people call sin. Yet these appetites are all normal, necessary and healthy. We would die without them.

So the "sinful nature" is nothing more than our inclination to listen to these voices and let them rule, as opposed to the voice of God.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I hate the very idea of people being born sinful, and cannot accept that we have a 'sinful nature' in the sense that we're naturally corrupt. Observing the attempts to squeeze this idea into the shape of a humankind made in the image of God is excruciating.

Our human nature is ideal for our adaptation into the environments of the world, and its element of consciousness enables us to adapt into the environment of the Kingdom of God too. We have the best of both worlds, but that doesn't make it easy. Tendencies developed from the former must be set aside for our adaptation into the latter.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Our human nature is ideal for our adaptation into the environments of the world, and its element of consciousness enables us to adapt into the environment of the Kingdom of God too. We have the best of both worlds, but that doesn't make it easy. Tendencies developed from the former must be set aside for our adaptation into the latter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Sin is mostly a function of consciousness.

---

quote:

---

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is:

• very far gone from original righteousness, and is
• of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit;

and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.

And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound as:

• the wisdom,
• the sensuality,
• the affection,
• the desire, of the flesh)

is not subject to the Law of God.

And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Talitha:
BTW, the NIV 2011 has gone back to "flesh" rather than "sinful nature".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
IIRC the doctrine of Original sin is generally ascribed to St Francis of Assisi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
IIRC the doctrine of Original sin is generally ascribed to St Francis of Assisi.

---

Irenaeus? Augustine?

---

See above.... I mean Augustine. Brain-malfunction


AFZ
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
We are born in to an alienated, lost, broken, ignorant, world. That'll do it. No sin gene necessary. Which would make us all blameless robots.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We are born in to an alienated, lost, broken, ignorant, world. That'll do it. No sin gene necessary. Which would make us all blameless robots.

---

quote:

---

Carl Sagan, "Contact"

You're an interesting species. An interesting mix. You're capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares. You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone, only you're not. See, in all our searching, the only thing we've found that makes the emptiness bearable, is each other.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not asking if we're sinful. One look at the Romney campaign confirms that. I'm asking if we have a sinful nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
It is pretty crazy, I agree, but that's faith, in my opinion, it's loving my neighbour, it's seeing Jesus in the prisoner and the beggar, it's John 3:16 and 17.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Sin is mostly a function of consciousness.

---

Oh boy oh boy oh boy.

That jumps out at me.

Makes sense on a first impression basis too - we don't think animals are sinful do we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I find it astounding that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people still seem to think that human beings are essentially good. I honestly believe that this unwillingness to truly take responsibility for our radical sinfulness is itself strong evidence of that very sinfulness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I find it astounding that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people still seem to think that human beings are essentially good. I honestly believe that this unwillingness to truly take responsibility for our radical sinfulness is itself strong evidence of that very sinfulness.

---

I'm back to the Carl Sagan quote I posted above. We're capable of beautiful dreams and terrible nightmares. To further develop this... We must constantly choose between good and evil, and we will 'grow into' either an evil nature or a good nature. The basic 'original sin' idea is at leasr somewhat of a corruption toward considering sin and evil as our nature first. Anyone who has held a newborn must reject this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm sorry but don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that God is favourably disposed towards the world because it's not really that bad? Are you suggesting that our command to love our neighbour is rooted in the fact that our neighbour somehow deserves to be loved because they are essentially rather good?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
we don't think animals are sinful do we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Our human nature is ideal for our adaptation into the environments of the world, and its element of consciousness enables us to adapt into the environment of the Kingdom of God too. We have the best of both worlds, but that doesn't make it easy. Tendencies developed from the former must be set aside for our adaptation into the latter.

---

I don't think that's the right way to think about it at all. It is really quite hard to fall into sin by following the promptings of the body or our adaptation into the environments of the world (assuming that by 'world' you mean what our human nature adapts us for rather than the sinful social structures that the Bible calls the world). If we followed the promptings of the body exclusively we'd perhaps be a bit lazier than we ought, and perhaps a bit more sexually active but I think less so than we're inclined to imagine. Sin is mostly a function of consciousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
When a subadult male chimp rapes a female chimp because it's his only way to have sex with anyone (the females being attracted to the alpha male), we don't call them sinners, but one would also hope that this is not God's will for chimpanzees.

---

1. Ancestral Sin is removed at baptism. We still are "sinful by nature", but it is no longer "Ancestral Sin", it is "sin after Baptism."
2. I don't (and never have) believe in "original guilt" - that is that we are born guilty of our forefathers' sins.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I find it astounding that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people still seem to think that human beings are essentially good. I honestly believe that this unwillingness to truly take responsibility for our radical sinfulness is itself strong evidence of that very sinfulness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
It is pretty crazy, I agree, but that's faith, in my opinion, it's loving my neighbour, it's seeing Jesus in the prisoner and the beggar, it's John 3:16 and 17.

---

I'm sorry but don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that God is favourably disposed towards the world because it's not really that bad? Are you suggesting that our command to love our neighbour is rooted in the fact that our neighbour somehow deserves to be loved because they are essentially rather good?

---

quote:

---

I find it astounding that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people still seem to think that human beings are essentially good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
As said in the OP, the NIV uniquely and unhelpfully uses the phrase. 'sinful nature'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not asking if we're sinful. One look at the Romney campaign confirms that. I'm asking if we have a sinful nature.

---

Is this a question about what it objectively the case, like asking if the blood in us circulates, or is a question about how we want to describe human nature, more like whether we want to call our selves Homo sapiens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I find it astounding that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people still seem to think that human beings are essentially good. I honestly believe that this unwillingness to truly take responsibility for our radical sinfulness is itself strong evidence of that very sinfulness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If we were not "sinful by nature", why would it be necessary for Christ to be unique? That is to say, without sin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
If Christ could have human nature and not be sinful then it ain't the nature that's sinful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Human beings are made in God’s image as thinking, sentient beings, born with free will. Sorry if this is tangental, but do you actually think that your god has, always has, free will?

Sin comes when we try to use that free will for our own wishes and not God’s.
Two points

1 - then why doesn't god make it clear what his wishes are, and

2 - presumably you accept that those who are incapable of knowing god's will are also incapable of sin.

Our sinful human nature is that we are incapable of not following our own will and desires, the only human who ever only followed the will of God was Jesus. So if we
a) don’t know that we are following our own will and
b) don’t know what god’s will for us is

or just follow god's will as we understand it because that's the understanding we have been taught (suicide bombers?)

???

Seems like a rigged deck to me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:

So is the nature we inherited from our pre-human ancestors a sinful nature?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If we were not "sinful by nature", why would it be necessary for Christ to be unique? That is to say, without sin?

---

Because we were sinful, but not by nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
If Christ could have human nature and not be sinful then it ain't the nature that's sinful.

---

quote:

---

Of course this begs the question, "Where did the sin come from?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sin isn't just about deeds, it's about dispositions, inclinations and proclivities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If we were not "sinful by nature", why would it be necessary for Christ to be unique? That is to say, without sin?

---

Because we were sinful, but not by nature.

---

OK mousethief - let me ask you a straightforward Orthodox question - what do we mean by "Ancestral Sin?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sin isn't just about deeds, it's about dispositions, inclinations and proclivities.

---

According to your theory, Adam would have been "morally neutral" before he disobeyed God. Correct?

Yet, he disobeyed.

Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If I commit one sinful act I'm defined as a sinner. But if I commit one righteous act, I'm not defined as righteous. Why is that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If I commit one sinful act I'm defined as a sinner. But if I commit one righteous act, I'm not defined as righteous. Why is that?

---

The way it was explained to me is: if you have a hanky with a dirty spot in the corner, that's a dirty hanky. If you have a hanky that's clean only in one corner, that's still a dirty hanky. Humanity is basically a curate's egg ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The way it was explained to me is: if you have a hanky with a dirty spot in the corner, that's a dirty hanky. If you have a hanky that's clean only in one corner, that's still a dirty hanky. Humanity is basically a curate's egg ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If I commit one sinful act I'm defined as a sinner. But if I commit one righteous act, I'm not defined as righteous. Why is that?

---

The way it was explained to me is: if you have a hanky with a dirty spot in the corner, that's a dirty hanky. If you have a hanky that's clean only in one corner, that's still a dirty hanky. Humanity is basically a curate's egg ...

---

But people aren't hankies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The way it was explained to me is: if you have a hanky with a dirty spot in the corner, that's a dirty hanky. If you have a hanky that's clean only in one corner, that's still a dirty hanky. Humanity is basically a curate's egg ...

---

How is it a curate's egg? That implies humanity is incapable of doing anything good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sin isn't just about deeds, it's about dispositions, inclinations and proclivities.

---

According to your theory, Adam would have been "morally neutral" before he disobeyed God. Correct?

Yet, he disobeyed.

Why?

---

Not morally neutral but in righteous submission to God: positively good. He disobeyed because he, along with his wife, allowed himself to be deceived into a state of unrighteousness rebellion against God: they became positively evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If I commit one sinful act I'm defined as a sinner. But if I commit one righteous act, I'm not defined as righteous. Why is that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The curate's egg is 'good in parts'. The point of the joke, though, is that an egg that's good in parts is in fact a bad egg. Similarly, a human who's righteous in parts is in fact sinful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sin isn't just about deeds, it's about dispositions, inclinations and proclivities.

---

According to your theory, Adam would have been "morally neutral" before he disobeyed God. Correct?

Yet, he disobeyed.

Why?

---

Not morally neutral but in righteous submission to God: positively good. He disobeyed because he, along with his wife, allowed himself to be deceived into a state of unrighteousness rebellion against God: they became positively evil.

---

Why would he allow himself to be deceived if he was previously in righteous submission to God and positively good?

Would that not indicate a failure or a weakness on the part of his positive goodness and supposed perfect relationship with God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The curate's egg is 'good in parts'. The point of the joke, though, is that an egg that's good in parts is in fact a bad egg. Similarly, a human who's righteous in parts is in fact sinful.

---

Yes, I am aware of the term 'curate's egg' and what it means.

I'm asking you how that works with regard to humanity, in that it would appear to suggest that humanity is incapable of doing anything good. It'd be nice if you now answered the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't understand what you're asking. I thought I had answered your question, which was 'How is humanity a curate's egg'?. Lyda*Rose asked why something that is mostly righteous is still called sinful. I answered that it was an analogous to an egg, which is still bad even when it's mostly good (as it were).

If you tell me how 'good in parts' implies 'incapable of doing anything good', I might be able to answer you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
So you are saying that humanity is capable of doing good things whilst at the same time being a rotten (sinful) egg?

I guess I'm thinking of Calvin's Total Depravity in that calling something a bad egg would appear to imply that it is rotten and therefore incapable of doing anything good.

But then that doesn't appear to be what you are saying, which is why I asked the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Why would he allow himself to be deceived if he was previously in righteous submission to God and positively good?

Would that not indicate a failure or a weakness on the part of his positive goodness and supposed perfect relationship with God?

---

Yes, that's right. Our first parents were righteous but not glorified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

Total Depravity does not mean "Completely Evil".

---

quote:

---

It means that sin has, to some extent or another, affected every aspect of our humanity. It is the simple assertion, in positive terms, that there is no inviolate core of essential goodness at the heart of the human condition. It is the belief that sin runs through the whole of who we are like the word Blackpool runs through a stick of seaside rock. A stick of rock is not all "Blackpool" but "Blackpool" is present throughout the stick. A person is not all sin but sin is present throughout the person. This why the term Root Corruption is often used instead of Total Depravity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
The dirty hanky analogy worries me because I don't think wrongdoing and virtue are like that. I don't think that what counts is never ever being soiled by even a little bit of sin. There are, after all, many people whose lives give little opportunity for sinning, yet I don't think their restraint counts for much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Why would he allow himself to be deceived if he was previously in righteous submission to God and positively good?

Would that not indicate a failure or a weakness on the part of his positive goodness and supposed perfect relationship with God?

---

Yes, that's right. Our first parents were righteous but not glorified.

---

Adam is righteous, positively good and in perfect accord with God yet still allows himself to sin.

That's obviously a pretty significant design fault.

Therefore the first sin is God's fault.

God made us this way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Why would he allow himself to be deceived if he was previously in righteous submission to God and positively good?

Would that not indicate a failure or a weakness on the part of his positive goodness and supposed perfect relationship with God?

---

Yes, that's right. Our first parents were righteous but not glorified.

---

Adam is righteous, positively good and in perfect accord with God yet still allows himself to sin.

That's obviously a pretty significant design fault.

Therefore the first sin is God's fault.

God made us this way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
What about you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Sir Jimmy Saville...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Sir Jimmy Saville...

---

Sorry Mark, you lost me at the point where you started quoting Jimmy Saville..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Sir Jimmy Saville...

---

Sorry Mark, you lost me at the point where you started quoting Jimmy Saville..

---

OK, let's try:

Sir Cliff Richard...

These are/were just men who wrote about these things the way they seemed to them. They were not theological intellectuals, that's why it's good to hear things from their side every now and again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why?

---

It's the work of subversive intellectuals which cause us to have these threads, which invariably end up in Dead Horses, and prevent us growing in Christ. That's why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well obviously it's much better to look for insights from random "celebrity Christians" who just happen to be in the public eye and therefore their ideas, good, bad or indifferent, have an outlet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well obviously it's much better to look for insights from random "celebrity Christians" who just happen to be in the public eye and therefore their ideas, good, bad or indifferent, have an outlet?

---

The problem is when you infer that only intellectuals are worth listening to, which leads to the churches becoming small societies for their intellectual elite, while ordinary lay people have nothing to say that's considered worth hearing. "Celebrity Christians" fit this latter class, but people listen to them because they are celebrities, and because what they say can easily be related to by common people.

So... bring on the celebrity christians - footballers included!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It's the work of subversive intellectuals which cause us to have these threads, which invariably end up in Dead Horses, and prevent us growing in Christ. That's why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Or to put it more simply, the doctrine of original sin or "the fall" does not explain our proclivity to sin.

Adam had it before the first sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Or to put it more simply, the doctrine of original sin or "the fall" does not explain our proclivity to sin.

Adam had it before the first sin.

---

Adam had the ability to sin, but that doesn't mean he had the proclivity, which is "A tendency to choose or do something regularly." You can do things you don't have a proclivity to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Or to put it more simply, the doctrine of original sin or "the fall" does not explain our proclivity to sin.

Adam had it before the first sin.

---

Adam had the ability to sin, but that doesn't mean he had the proclivity, which is "A tendency to choose or do something regularly."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Or to put it more simply, the doctrine of original sin or "the fall" does not explain our proclivity to sin.

Adam had it before the first sin.

---

Adam had the ability to sin, but that doesn't mean he had the proclivity, which is "A tendency to choose or do something regularly."

---

I agree. Am I right in thinking that Orthodoxy teaches that Adam was created as a 'work in progress' in the sense that he was without sin but in some sense not fully perfected? When I say perfected I don't mean morally better, I mean being fully glorified as Jesus, the second Adam, is now glorified?

---

That POV makes more sense to me than Original Sin™. If the first humans' moral compass was so open to glitches and tampering that the whole human race would be forfeit because one action had a domino effect, God would seem to be a wussy and inept Creator. If, on the other hand, God intended us to experience the consequences of our own free will, then make himself available to teach us again and again what he intends for us, inviting us to open ourselves in our pain to the Godhead's healing mercies, that is a great and good God.

(Besides, a hankie that always stays spotlessly clean has never been used as a hankie. )
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Am I right in thinking that Orthodoxy teaches that Adam was created as a 'work in progress' in the sense that he was without sin but in some sense not fully perfected? When I say perfected I don't mean morally better, I mean being fully glorified as Jesus, the second Adam, is now glorified?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Am I right in thinking that Orthodoxy teaches that Adam was created as a 'work in progress' in the sense that he was without sin but in some sense not fully perfected? When I say perfected I don't mean morally better, I mean being fully glorified as Jesus, the second Adam, is now glorified?

---

Yes. In fact we teach that even had our first parents not fallen, our Lord would have incarnated to join the human and divine natures in himself, for our glorification and for our theosis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Or to put it more simply, the doctrine of original sin or "the fall" does not explain our proclivity to sin.

Adam had it before the first sin.

---

Adam had the ability to sin, but that doesn't mean he had the proclivity, which is "A tendency to choose or do something regularly."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
That sounds appealing, logical and consistent with the nature of God's character but isn't it straying into the realms of speculation a little? Is there any evidence in the bible for it? Do the church fathers teach it? And if so, how do they justify such belief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
OK, but will glorified and deified people have the ability to sin but not the proclivity to sin? Or might Augustine be correct in thinking that the glorified will be incapable of sin, just as Christ (who is the freest being of all) in incapable of sin?

---

This also I do not know. Talk about speculation!
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Or to put it more simply, the doctrine of original sin or "the fall" does not explain our proclivity to sin.

Adam had it before the first sin.

---

Adam had the ability to sin, but that doesn't mean he had the proclivity, which is "A tendency to choose or do something regularly." You can do things you don't have a proclivity to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
We explain our own sinfulness by referring to original sin. "We are sinful because of what Adam did and our natures have somehow been changed or corrupted".

---

quote:

---

But we don't know why Adam sinned, so we do not know why we sin.

---

quote:

---

<tangent. In terms of biblical evidence for Adam's nature "changing" or "becoming sinful" or an ontological change occurring so that every human being after him was sinful - there is no evidence for that... That is pure Christian conjecture started by Paul.>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

But we don't know why Adam sinned, so we do not know why we sin.

---

There's some equivocation going on here. If I have always watched my mother do something the same way, and I do it, then I know good and well why I do it. Because my mother taught me to. I don't need to know why SHE did it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

<tangent. In terms of biblical evidence for Adam's nature "changing" or "becoming sinful" or an ontological change occurring so that every human being after him was sinful - there is no evidence for that... That is pure Christian conjecture started by Paul.>

---

This isn't a tangent. It's the reason I started the thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
OK, but will glorified and deified people have the ability to sin but not the proclivity to sin? Or might Augustine be correct in thinking that the glorified will be incapable of sin, just as Christ (who is the freest being of all) in incapable of sin?

---

quote:

---

According to the Genesis narratives, Adam's sin causes him to be chucked out of an idyllic garden and into a world that was difficult.That's it. There is no speaking of "Adam's human nature changed".

---

I don't think that's the case, although its normally preached that way. The narrative in Genesis doesn't say that.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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.

So its the knowledge of good and evil that is the problem identified here not Adam's sin. Adam was told not to obtain that ability. Its interesting to speculate what mankind would be like without it. Probably no different from the animals and without a conscience.

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: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

This knowledge of good and evil (the addition of a conscience) makes us more like God, not less ! We had a body that is like the animals with desires that are selfish, but we now have a knowledge of good and evil and can be held responsible for our behavior. God says we can't be allowed to live forever in this state (which is why we're banned from the tree of life).

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Originally our lifespan was much longer, but God got fed up with striving with us and shortened it. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

The original sin view, and Calvin's total depravity doctrine are both incorrect IMO. In fact you could argue that until the law was given there was no penalty for sin - Cain didn't get put to death for murder.

These simplistic and wrong doctrines have tried to put forward the concept that humans are evil and utterly depraved. That's not what the Bible actually says.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
I couldn't agree more Arminian.

I've just found that the straightforward approach gets you nowhere. I try be more sneaky these days.

The doctrine of original sin is not a biblical doctrine.

However, as an idea and an observation it has merit.

Something rather obviously aint right with the world and in us as human beings. We are far from perfect, nor will we ever be perfect.

Postmodernity unmasks modernity and the Enlightenment using this idea.

Bishop NT Wright has a lovely quote from this video on postmodernity

quote:

---

“Post-modernity is about announcing the Doctrine of the Fall to arrogant modernity. But the Fall is never the last word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
In the surrounding cultures at the time that Genesis was written, the snake represents wisdom acquired independently of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
[QUOTE]The original sin view, and Calvin's total depravity doctrine are both incorrect IMO. In fact you could argue that until the law was given there was no penalty for sin - Cain didn't get put to death for murder.

These simplistic and wrong doctrines have tried to put forward the concept that humans are evil and utterly depraved. That's not what the Bible actually says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

Secondly, I think the word "knowledge" in the Genesis narrative is more about "intimate acquaintance with" than it is about head knowledge or the faculty of categorical discrimination. Knowing evil for Adam is about his becoming intimately aquainted with evil, its power, its servants and its effects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:

quote:

---

According to the Genesis narratives, Adam's sin causes him to be chucked out of an idyllic garden and into a world that was difficult.That's it. There is no speaking of "Adam's human nature changed".

---

I don't think that's the case, although its normally preached that way. The narrative in Genesis doesn't say that.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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.

So its the knowledge of good and evil that is the problem identified here not Adam's sin. Adam was told not to obtain that ability. Its interesting to speculate what mankind would be like without it. Probably no different from the animals and without a conscience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

Secondly, I think the word "knowledge" in the Genesis narrative is more about "intimate acquaintance with" than it is about head knowledge or the faculty of categorical discrimination. Knowing evil for Adam is about his becoming intimately aquainted with evil, its power, its servants and its effects.

---

If that is your understanding, then Adam would have also become intimately acquainted with good, its power, its servants and its effects.

Far more than the previous "good" he had experienced when he was righteous and in correct relationship with God.

No? The scripture says he knew good and evil.

How then, does this square with the doctrine of original sin and Calvin's total depravity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think our first parents were already acquainted with good: they knew God and God knew them. The fall was about adding a forbidden acquaintanceship with evil.

---

quote:

---

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think our first parents were already acquainted with good: they knew God and God knew them. The fall was about adding a forbidden acquaintanceship with evil.

---

That's fine if you believe that. But your belief is not based on scripture.

Genesis 2 and 3 is pretty clear on what the fruit does. It gives knowledge of good AND evil.

quote:

---

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But, pace daron, you could also say that Adam and Eve were surrounded by, and embraced in, good, but didn't realize it was good per se, and couldn't realize it was good until they knew what evil was. Sort of (but not perfectly) like not realizing you have an accent until you meet people with a different accent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's a surprisingly literalist hermeneutic for you Evensong!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

Are you really suggesting that our first parents had no acquaintance with God and his love prior to eating the fruit?

---

quote:

---

The knowledge of good and evil is a different thing than knowledge of God's love.

A different state of affairs has occurred. Adam and Eve have now become more like God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's a surprisingly literalist hermeneutic for you Evensong!

---

That's not a literalist hermeneutic daronmedway, that's just looking at what the bible actually says.

---

Now, if I'd said that I'd be accused of the most heinous kind of evangelical double-think.

[ 26. September 2012, 07:37: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But, pace daron, you could also say that Adam and Eve were surrounded by, and embraced in, good, but didn't realize it was good per se, and couldn't realize it was good until they knew what evil was. Sort of (but not perfectly) like not realizing you have an accent until you meet people with a different accent.

---

Which, if it were the case, would make faith that what God says they are experiencing truly is better than any alternative. Faith not because they have no genuine experience of good, but because they have no experience of evil with which to gauge the verity of God's word. So the righteous do indeed live by faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I think there is an ambiguity there. You could say it gives you knowledge of good AND it gives you knowledge of evil. But you could say it gives you knowledge of good-and-evil, which is different from and additional to knowledge of good.

But, pace daron, you could also say that Adam and Eve were surrounded by, and embraced in, good, but didn't realize it was good per se, and couldn't realize it was good until they knew what evil was. Sort of (but not perfectly) like not realizing you have an accent until you meet people with a different accent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Evensong:

quote:

---

The knowledge of good and evil is a different thing than knowledge of God's love.

A different state of affairs has occurred. Adam and Eve have now become more like God.

---

Albeit a version with lots of bugs and glitches and in need of major patches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
@ Evensong

I don't think that's right. I was single before I married. Now I know singleness and marriage. I was a virgin before I had sexual intercourse for the first time. Now I know virginity and sexuality. However, there was a time in my childhood when I had no knowledge of my virginity or singleness: and yet I was both of those things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

It is possible that our first parents knew God, who is good and the source of all goodness, before they chose to become acquainted with evil in the same way as a child is a child before they gain knowledge of other ways of being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's a surprisingly literalist hermeneutic for you Evensong!

---

That's not a literalist hermeneutic daronmedway, that's just looking at what the bible actually says.

---

Now, if I'd said that I'd be accused of the most heinous kind of evangelical double-think.

---

I'm not familiar with the term double-think. But wiki says its accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct?

If that's true then you have misunderstood my definitions.

A "literalist hermeneutic" is an interpretation that does not take into account social, historical and canonical context.

What "the bible actually says" is the words on the page - without interpretation.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
OK
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
OK? OK? That's all you got for me??

ok
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Evensong:

quote:

---

The knowledge of good and evil is a different thing than knowledge of God's love.

A different state of affairs has occurred. Adam and Eve have now become more like God.

---

Albeit a version with lots of bugs and glitches and in need of major patches.

---

They haven't become God. They've become more like God.

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil

Sentience is a divine attribute.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
@ Evensong

I don't think that's right. I was single before I married. Now I know singleness and marriage. I was a virgin before I had sexual intercourse for the first time. Now I know virginity and sexuality. However, there was a time in my childhood when I had no knowledge of my virginity or singleness: and yet I was both of those things.

---

I don't really understand your analogy here daron. You weren't a virgin or single when you were a child because those categories were irrelevant - not on the radar. As knowledge of good and evil were irrelevant to Adam and Eve before their eyes were opened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

It is possible that our first parents knew God, who is good and the source of all goodness, before they chose to become acquainted with evil in the same way as a child is a child before they gain knowledge of other ways of being.

---

I think the biblical record testifies to the fact that they did know God. They walked in the garden together - they hung out.

But then something happened. . . . the eyes of both were opened ( and then God cast them out)

I haven't compared the vocabulary in the Greek, but it's awfully similar to the Emmaeus road story.

Luke 24:31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.

They acquired a new wisdom, a new understanding. As a child gains new ways of being perhaps?

They grew up.

The mystery is why God was angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't think that's right. I was single before I married. Now I know singleness and marriage. I was a virgin before I had sexual intercourse for the first time. Now I know virginity and sexuality. However, there was a time in my childhood when I had no knowledge of my virginity or singleness: and yet I was both of those things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
They grew up.

The mystery is why God was angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
A "literalist hermeneutic" is an interpretation that does not take into account social, historical and canonical context.

What "the bible actually says" is the words on the page - without interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't think that's right. I was single before I married. Now I know singleness and marriage. I was a virgin before I had sexual intercourse for the first time. Now I know virginity and sexuality. However, there was a time in my childhood when I had no knowledge of my virginity or singleness: and yet I was both of those things.

---

The problem with this analogy is that you knew those things existed. YOu had no experiential knowledge of them, to be sure, but you had intellectual knowledge of them. You knew they existed, and you knew something about them. A&E had no such knowledge of evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I have read people talking about us having a "sinful nature" but that doesn't seem right to me. We have a human nature. But we don't have some second nature called the "sinful nature."

IIRC the NIV translates σαρξ as "sinful nature" but that's the NIV. Another reason not to use it.

So where does this idea of a "sinful nature" come from? Can it be placed in the Scriptures? the Fathers? the Traditions of the Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
...However, I think my basic point still stands: it is possible that A & E knew good without knowing evil prior to the fall. The task of A & E was to accept by faith God's word that knowing both good and evil would damage them. This would make the original sin, the sin of unbelief.

---

Yes, this sounds good to me.
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

But, pace daron, you could also say that Adam and Eve were surrounded by, and embraced in, good, but didn't realize it was good per se, and couldn't realize it was good until they knew what evil was. Sort of (but not perfectly) like not realizing you have an accent until you meet people with a different accent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:


Adam and Eve didn't acquire anything new or good by eating the fruit. They certainly didn't become like God in any positive sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I have read people talking about us having a "sinful nature" but that doesn't seem right to me. We have a human nature. But we don't have some second nature called the "sinful nature."

IIRC the NIV translates σαρξ as "sinful nature" but that's the NIV. Another reason not to use it.

So where does this idea of a "sinful nature" come from? Can it be placed in the Scriptures? the Fathers? the Traditions of the Church?

---

For me, it comes from looking at the spam and phishing in my e-mail inbox, and the need to keep my virus checker and firewall up to date.

Seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:


Adam and Eve didn't acquire anything new or good by eating the fruit. They certainly didn't become like God in any positive sense.

---

In which case, there must some attributes of God that are bad; knowledge being one of them.

Because the text quite clearly says they became more like God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I have read people talking about us having a "sinful nature" but that doesn't seem right to me. We have a human nature. But we don't have some second nature called the "sinful nature."

IIRC the NIV translates σαρξ as "sinful nature" but that's the NIV. Another reason not to use it.

So where does this idea of a "sinful nature" come from? Can it be placed in the Scriptures? the Fathers? the Traditions of the Church?

---

For me, it comes from looking at the spam and phishing in my e-mail inbox, and the need to keep my virus checker and firewall up to date.

Seriously.

---

You can think we're fucked up without thinking we have a fucked-up nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Do you really think God's "knowledge" of evil was something good that he was withholding from Adam and Eve? That was Satan's line, Evensong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

I don't think that there are any aspects of God that are bad but I do think there are some aspects of being God that are burdensome.

God is grieved by evil, its servants, their works and their effects, but - because he's God - he isn't corrupted by them. Not so with humanity. Hence his desire to protect A & E from acquaintance with evil and its servants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
@ Evensong

I don't think that's right. I was single before I married. Now I know singleness and marriage. I was a virgin before I had sexual intercourse for the first time. Now I know virginity and sexuality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Do you really think God's "knowledge" of evil was something good that he was withholding from Adam and Eve? That was Satan's line, Evensong.

---

No it wasn't Satan's line daron. It was the serpents line. Satan comes quite a bit later in the biblical tradition.

And it wasn't the serpent's line. The serpent's line was to reiterate God's directive: the tree gives knowledge of good and evil.

It is a tree of knowledge of good and evil, not just evil.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

I don't think that there are any aspects of God that are bad but I do think there are some aspects of being God that are burdensome.

God is grieved by evil, its servants, their works and their effects, but - because he's God - he isn't corrupted by them. Not so with humanity. Hence his desire to protect A & E from acquaintance with evil and its servants.

---

You are being anachronistic again here.

The story doesn't mention any of that. That is your speculation.

Evil as a being does not exist in the Old Testament until later. Sin in the old testament is disobedience. There is no outside external force exerting pressure upon the people of Israel to disobey their God. They do this purely on their own via disobedience.

And your statement also disagrees with the doctrine of original sin. Sin only enters the world after Adam disobeys. Before this, there is no hint of sin or evil in the garden with God.

Or do you think God created evil just for the hell of it before we disobeyed?

If so, one wonders why God would want or need to create evil at the beginning of the world.

It certainly isn't in the Genesis accounts of creation.

---

quote:

---

“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”Genesis 3:5

---

It always a good idea to look for craftiness in anything the serpent says to A & E because, after all, he described as 'crafty' (Genesis 3:1). I take this description to mean some kind of malicious intent, by the way. What about you?

I've already explained why the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" does not necessarily mean that A & E had no experience or knowledge of God's goodness prior to eating its fruit. The stress could easily fall on the and. It could be about how unbelief - born of listening to Satan - moved our first parents from a state harmony with their good creator (righteousness by faith) into a state of ontological dichotomy and conflict (the rebellion of unbelief).

I think that scripture does support the idea that evil existed before the fall, yes. I also think (as mentioned) that Apostolic teaching holds that to be the case because the serpent is identified as the devil or Satan who a created angelic being in rebellion against God. Which is evil, don't ya know?
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
@ Evensong

I don't think that's right. I was single before I married. Now I know singleness and marriage. I was a virgin before I had sexual intercourse for the first time. Now I know virginity and sexuality.

---

That's experience, not knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
It's a story. You're all reading far too much into it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm finding it hard to differentiate between the categories that you identify here, mousethief. What's the difference between human beings collectively saying 'we're sinful' and 'we have a sinful nature'? Both seem to be saying 'there is something sinful about us'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Seriously, no. You can think mankind is sinful because of this or that occurrence. But that doesn't dictate the philosophical construct you use to explain or define that sinfulness. You can think we're fucked up without thinking we have a fucked-up nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The to my shame I have say that I don't think I fully understand your question! So please bear with me. I'm not deliberately being obtuse. I take the word "nature" simply to mean the "how-we-areness" of humanity. The sinful nature or flesh is simply the "how-we-areness" of sinful humanity. I don't see it as a substance or "part" of what we are, like the body and the spirit are different "parts" of what we are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We say that the human nature (φύσις, physis) and the divine nature were united in a single man, the God-man Jesus Christ. Hence the belief that Christ had only one nature, monophysitism, is heresy*.

When we say human φύσις, we mean a thing, something that exists, something we all share or partake of; it's not just a way of speaking of the how-we-are-ness of humanity. It wasn't that Christ was both "how we are" and "how God is."

Further Christ's uniting the human and divine natures, and taking our human nature up into heaven in His ascension, is part of our salvation, our glorification, our theosis -- "that [we] may be partakers of the divine φύσις" (2 Pet 1:4).

The divine φύσις is something we can partake of. It's not just "how God is."

So... human nature is for us more than "how we are." It's who we are, it's what we share, it's the thing that makes us human, it's the φύσις that Christ assumed in the Incarnation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

[H]uman nature is for us more than "how we are." It's who we are, it's what we share, it's the thing that makes us human, it's the φύσις that Christ assumed in the Incarnation.

---

quote:

---

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature (φύσις) children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

English Standard Version. 2001 (Eph 2:1–3)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We say that the human nature (φύσις, physis) and the divine nature were united in a single man, the God-man Jesus Christ. Hence the belief that Christ had only one nature, monophysitism, is heresy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The translation of sarx as sinful nature in the NIV is quite controversial among certain evangelicals. This is probably why the NIV2011 has returned to "flesh".

I do not think that "the flesh", which I take to mean something like "the weakness of human life before and outside of Christ", is a constituent part of "being human". It's not part of our "human nature".

So I think I agree that "the flesh" does not denote a "part" of human nature. I do, however, think that the term "the flesh" refers to the "how-we-areness" of sin-enslaved humanity. I guess my question would be this: what does Paul mean by φύσις in Ephesians 2:3?

quote:

---

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature (φύσις) children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

English Standard Version. 2001 (Eph 2:1–3)

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
As it stands, I'm referring specifically to sarkos/soma with is translated 'flesh' (ESV & NIV2011) and 'sinful nature (NIV1984) rather than the φύσις that you mention here. I think there's a difference, and I'm fairly sure that Orthodoxy would say that there is too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I do not think that "the flesh", which I take to mean something like "the weakness of human life before and outside of Christ", is a constituent part of "being human". It's not part of our "human nature".

So I think I agree that "the flesh" does not denote a "part" of human nature. I do, however, think that the term "the flesh" refers to the "how-we-areness" of sin-enslaved humanity.

---

quote:

---

I guess my question would be this: what does Paul mean by φύσις in Ephesians 2:3?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question: is there a difference between human ousia (essence or substance) and human physis? Or are the two terms basically synonymous?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question: is there a difference between human ousia (essence or substance) and human physis? Or are the two terms basically synonymous?

---

ουσιος is usually translated "substance." If I remember right, each individual person is a human ουσιος, but we all share (in) the human φύσις.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question: is there a difference between human ousia (essence or substance) and human physis? Or are the two terms basically synonymous?

---

ουσιος is usually translated "substance." If I remember right, each individual person is a human ουσιος, but we all share (in) the human φύσις.

---

My understanding was that ousia refers to 'what something is'. So Jesus is homoousios (of one ousia) with the Father, because they are both the same, um, the same kind of thing*, even though they are not the same individual.

---

quote:

---

Hypostasis (Gk.; pl. -ses). A technical term used in Christian formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity and of christology. In secular Gk. its most general meaning is ‘substance’, but it could also mean ‘objective reality’ as opposed to illusion (as in Aristotle), and ‘basis’ or ‘confidence’ (as in Hebrews 3. 14). In Christian writers until the 4th cent. it was also used interchangeably with ousia, ‘being’ or ‘substantial reality’. The term also came to mean ‘individual reality’ hence ‘person’. It was in this sense that it was enshrined, under the influence of the Cappadocian fathers, in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as ‘three hypostases in one ousia’.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Quite right, "ousion" means "being" and "hypostasis" means "substance" (both literally mean "to stand under"). So you can say each human being is a different being (hard not to!) but we all share the same nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:Paul's use of φύσις is interesting. As somebody here pointed out, he starts Romans by (apparently) referring to Lesbian lust as being "against nature" (παρὰ φύσιν, 1:24); then by chapter 11 verse 24 he is saying that Gentiles becoming Christians is παρὰ φύσιν -- same phrase, same two words. παρὰ φύσιν might just mean "not what you'd expect." It certainly cannot mean "evil" or you and I shouldn't be Christians. It is, to put it mildly, confusing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not sure that is correct - AIUI although substantia is a literal calque of hypostasis, it is used to translate ousia. Hence the Nicene Creed in Latin uses the phrase consubstantialem Patri as a translation of ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί 'of one being with the Father'. Hence also metousiosis as a translation of 'transubstantiation'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sin spreads through the whole nature tainting it with its presence but Christ takes on our nature sanctifying it with his presence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We must be united to him to participate in his divine nature, true. But we only have to be born to participate in the human nature, which he has sanctified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Reformed Catholic view of traditional Anglicanism suggests that sin can be likened to an "infection of nature" which makes humanity vulnerable to "the lust of the flesh", thereby creating a circularity of corruption in which, save for the intervention of God, sinful humanity is trapped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We must be united to him to participate in his divine nature, true. But we only have to be born to participate in the human nature, which he has sanctified.

---

That doesn't sound very Monophysitistic to me. It sounds like you are dividing Christ's nature at a soteriological level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Reformed Catholic view of traditional Anglicanism suggests that sin can be likened to an "infection of nature" which makes humanity vulnerable to "the lust of the flesh", thereby creating a circularity of corruption in which, save for the intervention of God, sinful humanity is trapped.

---

But is the "infection of nature" because we are born infected, or because we are born into an infected world?

---

quote:

---

21 For from within out of the heart of man come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Human nature is physis not ouisa.

---

Looking at the Greek in the Chalcedonian creed - you are indeed correct. It's two φύσεων. (ἐκ δύο φύσεων)

Which is curious.

So Jesus has a divine ousia but a human physis?

Wonder how that works.

I didn't get that bit on the chart either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

---

Here's the whole thing in an amateur diagram.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We must be united to him to participate in his divine nature, true. But we only have to be born to participate in the human nature, which he has sanctified.

---

That doesn't sound very Monophysitistic to me. It sounds like you are dividing Christ's nature at a soteriological level.

---

The two natures were conjoined in Christ without mingling.

---

quote:

---

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

---

Proposition 34 would seem to suggest that there is only one Christ with whom we can be mystically united. To be united to Christ in his Godhood is to be united with Christ in his manhood, and vice versa.

I can't see how we can claim to mystically united to Christ in his Godhead by faith without being similarly united to him in his (Ahem ) manhood by the same means in the the same way.

Surely, you're either in the one Lord Jesus Christ or you're not. I don't believe it's possible for a person to particulate in the sanctified humanity of Christ without having been mystically united by faith to him in his Godhood.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'm not talking about being mystically united to Christ, I'm talking about being born a human being. If you are born a human being, you share in the human nature. By definition.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

Surely, you're either in the one Lord Jesus Christ or you're not. I don't believe it's possible for a person to particulate in the sanctified humanity of Christ without having been mystically united by faith to him in his Godhood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

Surely, you're either in the one Lord Jesus Christ or you're not. I don't believe it's possible for a person to particulate in the sanctified humanity of Christ without having been mystically united by faith to him in his Godhood.

---

Are you deliberately trying to get a mention on
this thread?

---

Well, the claim to have done so already would only lead to accusations of either paranoia or arrogance.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not talking about being mystically united to Christ, I'm talking about being born a human being. If you are born a human being, you share in the human nature. By definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We must be united to him to participate in his divine nature, true. But we only have to be born to participate in the human nature, which he has sanctified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not talking about being mystically united to Christ, I'm talking about being born a human being. If you are born a human being, you share in the human nature. By definition.

---

I know. I don't understand why you think the incarnation of God the Son is supposed to have already changed human nature in a universal sense. How can Christ being a sinless man effect the universal sanctification of human nature? At the moment I can't see how that would work or why you would think that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We must be united to him to participate in his divine nature, true. But we only have to be born to participate in the human nature, which he has sanctified.

---

This is what I don't understand. You seem to be saying that since the incarnation all human beings are united to Christ through participation in Christ's glorified human nature. This can't be true because people still sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not talking about being mystically united to Christ, I'm talking about being born a human being. If you are born a human being, you share in the human nature. By definition.

---

I know. I don't understand why you think the incarnation of God the Son is supposed to have already changed human nature in a universal sense. How can Christ being a sinless man effect the universal sanctification of human nature? At the moment I can't see how that would work or why you would think that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
This is what I don't understand. You seem to be saying that since the incarnation all human beings are united to Christ through participation in Christ's glorified human nature. This can't be true because people still sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not talking about being mystically united to Christ, I'm talking about being born a human being. If you are born a human being, you share in the human nature. By definition.

---

I know. I don't understand why you think the incarnation of God the Son is supposed to have already changed human nature in a universal sense. How can Christ being a sinless man effect the universal sanctification of human nature? At the moment I can't see how that would work or why you would think that.

---

The incarnation provides positive proof against gnostic heretics that the flesh is inherently evil.

God affirms the world and her creation by becoming flesh and becoming human.

Humanity and the flesh are not evil. That is the heresy of gnosticism.

God did not create humans evil. God did not create human nature evil.

The biblical tradition tells us something went wrong, but our basic creation and nature is good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We must be united to him to participate in his divine nature, true. But we only have to be born to participate in the human nature, which he has sanctified.

---

This is what I don't understand. You seem to be saying that since the incarnation all human beings are united to Christ through participation in Christ's glorified human nature. This can't be true because people still sin.

---

Yes they do still sin.

Which is where all very "high" soteriology falls down - be it from the cross or from theosis or from regeneration or from moral example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not talking about being mystically united to Christ, I'm talking about being born a human being. If you are born a human being, you share in the human nature. By definition.

---

I know. I don't understand why you think the incarnation of God the Son is supposed to have already changed human nature in a universal sense. How can Christ being a sinless man effect the universal sanctification of human nature? At the moment I can't see how that would work or why you would think that.

---

Christ being GOD effects the sanctification of human nature because he is holy and sin cannot come up against holiness without being burned away. When the coal touched Isaiah's lips, they were made clean. When Christ touched human nature by becoming incarnate, it was made clean.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
This is what I don't understand. You seem to be saying that since the incarnation all human beings are united to Christ through participation in Christ's glorified human nature. This can't be true because people still sin.

---

I don't know why I seem to be saying that because I keep saying that I'm not saying that. People are not united to Christ by being born. People become humans by being born. They become partakers of human nature.

Yes they still sin because they are still in this vail of tears, this fallen world where death still dwells. Here Balaam's distinction between sin within and sin without comes into play. Sin is not within us when we are born. Newborns do not sin. And yet we all fall prey. Which is a story for another thread (or two or three).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Firstly, are you serious? Really? If the incarnation really is an affirmation of human goodness

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:


Secondly, Apostolic teaching holds that the lusts of the flesh (sarx) are evil and stand direct opposition to the Spirit of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

Thirdly, Jesus had no "flesh" in the sense in which it is being discussed on this thread. This is because the biblical term flesh (sarx) doesn't generally refer to the physical, material human body. So I think your Gnosticism angle is a red herring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Her ways are not my ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
A close reading of the New Testament should settle the matter for you daron.

---

quote:

---

4561 /sárks ("flesh") is not always evil in Scripture. Indeed, it is used positively in relation to sexual intercourse in marriage (Eph 5:31) – as well as for the sinless human body of Jesus (Jn 1:14; 1 Jn 4:2,3). Indeed, flesh (what is physical) is necessary for the body to live out the faith the Lord works in (Gal 2:20).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Well that's a pretty random quote from nowhere.

Shall I quote you something equally random?

Or perhaps I might refer you to a Greek dictionary and concordance?

quote:

---

4561 /sárks ("flesh") is not always evil in Scripture. Indeed, it is used positively in relation to sexual intercourse in marriage (Eph 5:31) – as well as for the sinless human body of Jesus (Jn 1:14; 1 Jn 4:2,3). Indeed, flesh (what is physical) is necessary for the body to live out the faith the Lord works in (Gal 2:20).]

---

---

quote:

---

Thirdly, Jesus had no "flesh" in the sense in which it is being discussed on this thread. This is because the biblical term flesh (sarx) doesn't generally refer to the physical, material human body. Emphasis added

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No, you were right in the first place. It is in the baptismal liturgy. But the reference isn't to the "sins of the" the world, the flesh and the devil, but to the things themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I wonder if it is possible to reconcile the positions of daronmedway and Evensong - and avoid having to multiply definitions of sarx?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

Therefore, flesh is not in itself sinful, but giving in to it might be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's right. We're talking about sarx as the universal sin impulse whereby people are inclined toward using their bodies as instruments of unrighteousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's right. We're talking about sarx as the universal sin impulse whereby people are inclined toward using their bodies as instruments of unrighteousness.

---

This reminds me of St. Clive's claim that he had led his body into sin far more often than it had led him.

Didn't St. Francis call his body "Brother Ass?" What did he mean by that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's right. We're talking about sarx as the universal sin impulse whereby people are inclined toward using their bodies as instruments of unrighteousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Didn't St. Francis call his body "Brother Ass?" What did he mean by that?

---

No idea. But I can't resist responding to this
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Maybe this thread has run its course and I should quit while I'm ahead but I wonder, mousethief, if you have an answer to my question here? I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

[ 02. October 2012, 17:59: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I can see how the Incarnation of God the Son effected the complete sanctification of the body prepared for him. Jesus brought the "as-we-wereness" of A & E back into creation, if you like. I agree that the man Jesus was sinless, but I just can't see how the holiness of the God-man Jesus, the Christ of God, somehow extrapolates to human nature in general. What exactly do you think has changed in human nature by virtue of the Incarnation? You seem to be saying that the Incarnation did something of universal application and import to human nature. I just can't see what.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
No. I'm saying that the divine nature united with the human nature in the Incarnation of Christ, and that changed the human nature. Being united to the divine is a pretty big deal. I can't see how the human nature could have been united to the divine nature without being changed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
No. I'm saying that the divine nature united with the human nature in the Incarnation of Christ, and that changed the human nature. Being united to the divine is a pretty big deal. I can't see how the human nature could have been united to the divine nature without being changed.

---

I can see how the union of divine and human natures changed human nature in Jesus, the God-man. I can't see how or why the union of divine and human natures changed the human nature of anyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I never did understand how God becoming man could make man god either.

Just like I don't understand how God killing himself saves us.

Objective atonement of any sort is fraught with the evidence that we are still in sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
OK. There is one human nature: a sort of generic template of who and what we are as human beings.

---

quote:

---

You seem to be saying that the incarnation changed this template in way which has real, felt, ontological ramifications. I don't see how.

---

quote:

---

Our nature isn't made into divine nature, because our created "I" doesn't become the divine "I"; our "I" is always conscious that it enjoys the blessings of knowing Christ not by its own powers or nature, but by God's grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
OK. There is one human nature: a sort of generic template of who and what we are as human beings.

---

No, not template. The human nature is what all humans share analogously to the divine nature being what the three Persons of the Trinity share. The divine nature is not a template. I'm clearly not explaining this well.

quote:

---

You seem to be saying that the incarnation changed this template in way which has real, felt, ontological ramifications. I don't see how.

---

Clearly. I don't know that I can explain it any better. Maybe better to admit we've reached a dead end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Christ's uniting the human and divine natures, and taking our human nature up into heaven in His ascension, is part of our salvation, our glorification, our theosis -- "that [we] may be partakers of the divine φύσις" (2 Pet 1:4).

So, yeah, human nature is for us more than "how we are." It's who we are, it's what we share, it's the thing that makes us human, it's the φύσις that Christ assumed in the Incarnation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sin spreads through the whole nature tainting it with its presence but Christ takes on our nature sanctifying it with his presence.

---

But if Christ has sanctified human nature then it is no longer infected through and through, is it? What God has made clean, etc. ]This is the whole lynchpin of my argument: Christ in his incarnation, by taking on our human nature, sanctified it. If it ever was "sinful" -- whether it was sinful in and of itself, or merely tainted whether in part or throughout the whole -- it has been sanctified/cleansed through Christ's entering into it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I never did understand how God becoming man could make man god either.

Just like I don't understand how God killing himself saves us.

Objective atonement of any sort is fraught with the evidence that we are still in sin.

---

Just which Christianity is it you believe in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
In what sense is human nature sanctified by virtue of the incarnation, mousethief? Who benefits? What affect does it actually have? What does it actually mean for Joe Bloggs on the street?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0