Results 1 to 30 of 52

Thread: Something small and round

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #29
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Something small and round

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    Calvin's formulation here has it's roots in the legal granting of and divesting of rights and titles. He is applying he lgal knowledge to Man's relationship with God. The concept is entirely medieval and conventional. Adam is the purjured (oath-breaking) vassal, Christ is the betrayed King who nonetheless forgives his people.

    The concept is Post-Patristic, not Scriptural.
    I've heard this idea before that Calvin was just a product of his time with the legalism etc, but regardless of the extent of the similarities you could draw between his society and his interpretation of the Bible, his ideas that you mentioned do seem to be there. Adam does break his covenant with God, and it is also humanity that breaks their later covenants throughout the OT, whether Noahide, Abrahamic etc. Also, Christ is a king betrayed by his people, who goes on to forgive them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    Further, Adam is not said to lose any qualities, save his imortality. An alegorical reading of Genesis supports the belief in Free Will, in fact. When Adam eats the fruit he comes to understand the nature of right and wrong (becoming like God), although he knows he has done wrong he nonetheless tries to hide his Sin from God (who sees all). In order to Sin one requires both the guilty act and thought. Prior to eating the fruit Adam was not capable of a guilty thought.

    ergo, he was incapable of Sin.
    I don't argue that Adam did not have free will, but I do believe his actions lost if for the rest of us. In committing that first sin, he was separated from God, and whoever sins is a slave to sin etc. To argue for free will in the Pelagian sense, you would have to deny that this original sin is passed down to Adam's descendents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    When we turn to the Gospels what we find is a message that despite transgressions God still wishes to be reunited with ALL his children, regardless of race or nationality. What Christ offers is the chance to turn back to God without the requirement to be perfectly obedient. This allows hummanity to reverse Adam's Original Sin, his choice to turn from God. Christ is therefore the enabler, he offers his hand to any who will take it, and leads his people through the Door that is himself and thence to Salvation.

    Christ alone, therefore, is the only guide who can lead the way back to God and the only gatekeeper who can unbar the door.
    I agree fully with the last bit. The controversy is over how we come to Christ in the first place. Whether we can choose to do it, or whether he grants even our faith to us as part of the 'package' he gained at Calvary. Also, if God worked to be united with all of humanity, why does Jesus in one place say that he came do to the will of his Father that sent him, and then later that he prays only for those that his Father has given him?

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    No, you are confused. You assume that the "middle ground" is neutrality, it is not. If pure water is Righteousness and Sin is oil, then man is Water tainted with oil. He is still distinctly water, but the water is tainted. However, the water is not as totally rupegnant as pure oil, either.

    Man is not a simple creature, he has a compound nature.

    In the same way, the Pope is not Pelegius, because the Pope does not argue that good deeds get you into heaven, they just get you out of purgatory.
    I know what you are saying, but how can you be sure that the sin is not part of our nature? Why the water and oil analogy, and not mixing black and white paint or something? Considering when arguing this point, we were talking about what Calvin believed, surely when he says "corruption" he implies that sinfullness not only is added on top of our soul through original sin, but becomes an actual part of it? You seem to be suggesting that our 'natural' souls are conflicted with our imputed sinfulness, however the only such conflicts mentioned in the scripture are between our regenerated souls and the flesh. Furthermore, imagery such as removing a heart of stone for a heart of flesh seems to suggest there was nothing good/pure there to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    This point hinges on Paul, whose authority hinges on Augustine (whom Calvin accepted), who declared the scripture flawed (Confessions).
    We're debating what exactly Calvin believes on the matter of total depravity, so you have to go along with giving the scripture some authority here.
    Last edited by Rhyfelwyr; 11-08-2009 at 00:05.
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO