Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Are You A Child of God?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Part II of IV

Yes W, we were discussing:

1. You said we are born again by water and spirit.
I disagreed.

2. In post no. 13, you said:

Baptism ALONE makes a person born again. (This includes a baptism of desire and a baptism of blood.)

I believe what you're saying is that once we are baptized we are born again?

Yes, precisely.

When Jesus said by water and spirit...some theologians believe He meant amniotic water...natural birth...and that we ALSO need to be born from above (born again).

The "amniotic fluid" theory is novel and I think it is demonstrably erroneous for a couple of reasons. First, if it does refer to natural birth, Jesus would be affirming Nicodemus' erroneous understanding of being born again. Secondly, NOWHERE in Scripture is being born synonymous with being "born of water." Lastly, our Blessed Lord says man must be born "of" water. The Greek word for "of" is ἐk, which means from / of / an origin of something. (Source) Man is not birthed from water, but rather from a mother; that is, a person. Man is not born from water / amniotic fluid. In other words, water is not the origin of man's natural birth and Scripture never refers to it as such. (e.g. Matthew 1:1-11)

This amniotic fluid idea is always put forth by anti-Sacramentalists. I am fond of saying that in Christianity, matter...matters.


The CC teaches that the water is, in fact, water baptism and the spirit is the regeneration, born from above, repentance and acceptance of God...whatever you want to call it.
John 3:5

Not exactly. Water by itself does nothing; for of and by itself it exercises no spiritual influence upon man. But baptism, by definition, involves BOTH water AND the Holy Ghost. (cf. John 3:5) Because it is a sacrament, the water in baptism is the material sign of what is communicated invisibly / spiritually in the soul.

Once again, in Christianity, matter...matters.


My point was that just because someone is baptized does not mean he is born again and headed toward heaven. I explained how the person, as an adult, must accept this baptism and must understand what it means to be born from above.

Are you disagreeing?

No, I agree and I don't think anyone has argued to the contrary.

Are you saying all baptized babies go to heaven?

Yes, I do believe all baptized babies do go to heaven. They have been regenerated and furthermore are guilty of no actual sin (since they are incapable of even committing actual sin).

Do you believe baptized babies do not go to heaven? (Be careful, as this is a sola fide trap.)


Then I said Augustine created a problem with the "invention" of Original Sin. You said I misrepresented him...I'm not sure why...but you proceeded to show me how O.S. was known before him.


I did not mean that the CONCEPT was not known...but it was HE who made a doctrine out of it,, or at least his ideas were adopted by the church and it became doctrine.

While St. Augustine may have written much and helped develop the understanding of original sin, I have demonstrated that the doctrine long preceded him.
 
Part III of IV

So I'll just go through each of what you posted...
No problem with Romans 5:12.

It's explaining how sin entered into the world.

Yes, which we call original sin. He does so again in 1 Cor. 15:21-22.


I DO like Irenaeus.
I'm not even sure why you posted this.

To demonstrate the doctrine of original sin preceded St. Augustine.


I like Tertullian too.

It states above that the human race was TAINTED and made a channel for his condemnation.
Correct. It's what I said....
We suffer from the effects of Adam's sin...
We are not held PERSONALLY responsible for it...
Which is what AUGUSTINE taught....
I agree with Tertullian.

Great.

Same comment Tertullian made.
We have the STAIN of sin.
The concept of O.S. existed before Augustine, but you cannot deny that it was he who completed the thought and made it acceptable throughout the church.

He did not make it acceptable throughout the Church, since we see it being taught long before St. Augustine arrived on the scene. However, I concede he was instrumental in helping develop the doctrine.

Here's another copy v you might want to read:
BTW, I also have not learned this way,,,but it helps at times to post links....This one explains really well my thoughts on this...

Augustine of Hippo’s notion of peccatum originale did not come out of the blue. In the scholarly discussion about the ‘traditional’ or ‘innovative’ character of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, G. Bonner and M. Hollingworth argued for its specifically African roots. In order to evaluate the possible ‘Africanness’ of Augustine’s concept of peccatum originale, the current article addresses the two main protagonists of African theological thinking before Augustine: Tertullian (2nd/3rd c.) and Cyprian (3rd c.). They explicitly reflected on (infant) baptism and (the Adamic) sin, issues relevant for the doctrine of original sin, and Augustine refers to their writings for this reason. Did Tertullian and Cyprian lay the foundations of the doctor gratiae’s highly sophisticated doctrine of original sin? To answer this question, we gathered as exhaustively as possible all available evidence. Processing this quite elaborate collection of sources shows that Tertullian and Cyprian created a conceptual framework in which it was possible for Augustine to develop all aspects of his doctrine of original sin, some of which differed considerably from the positions of Tertullian and Cyprian, including also some of the extreme implications of the Augustinian view.
source:
https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/abs/10.1484/J.REA.4.2017071

I don't disagree. However, it is important to remember that some of St. Augustine's thoughts on original sin were never accepted by the Church. (e.g. the fate of unbaptized infants)
 
Indeed.



I disagree. Concupiscence is not synonymous with the Calvinist concept of man having a sin nature. Concupiscence is an effect of original sin. (You alluded to it above, as man no longer has integrity as a result of the loss of the preternatural gifts.)

Remember that original sin is a deprivation; the lack of grace due to the fall of Adam. This does not mean man has a sin nature. In fact there are many logical and serious theological errors belief in a sin nature would pose. For example...

1. If would make God the author of sin. By stating that man is born with a sin nature, that means man's Creator creates something sinful. Consequently, with each subsequent conception, God would be creating and bringing more sin into the world.

2. It would mean that sin is not a voluntary act of the will and thus no guilt can be assigned to man for simply acting according to his nature.

3. It would mean that Christ Himself assumed a sin nature. (Hebrews 2:14-18)




Part I of IV
W, this is very interesting.
You know it's late here and this is serious stuff.
Tomorrow...

I'll only say this:
I think you're getting the sin nature mixed up with total depravity which IS calvinistic.

And God is not doing the creating of man anymore...
man is creating man.

This is called the seed something or other, can't remember right now. IOW, the sin is in the seed. It's our own fault now.

More tomorrow....
 
Part IV of IV

Please note that even here, above, it states the child is forgiven the sins of another...

Yes, in reference to original sin, not actual sin. "But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another." - St. Cyprian, Epistle 58:5


I do not believe we have the same CC before and after Nicea.

History testifies otherwise. (There is a succession that precedes Nicea and succeeds it.)

It might be the way we studied history...

It might be a particular slant of mine, having seen for myself how the church affected some areas here in Italy (and in Europe).

The Church has affected the world, not just Western Civilization. Since Christianity entered into history, we see its influence Western culture, whereby man had built a culture reflecting the transcendentals, with the end being communion with God and with his fellow man in love. That's right out of St. Augustine's De Civitate Dei! This was exemplified in the patrimony of Christian Western Civilization.


My point was that baptism does not save.
We are saved and baptism is necessary, but other factors must be present for salvation to be valid...not baptism alone.
(unless I misunderstood you).

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21)

Once again, it wasn't until the anabaptists came on the scene did attacks on baptism begin. (Zwingli famously stated the Apostles and the Fathers actually were wrong about baptism.) Some Protestants are shocked when I quote them the words of Martin Luther from his Large Catechism...

"This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, 'to be saved'. To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ's kingdom, and to live with him forever. " - Martin Luther, Large Catechism (Source


Babies were always baptized...but it was not believed they'd go to hell if they weren't.

That is where you can point to St. Augustine, for he was an absolutist and believed and taught that unless you were born again (baptized), you could not be saved. This included infants and did not think Jesus made any exceptions in John 3:5.
 
Part II of IV



Yes, precisely.



The "amniotic fluid" theory is novel and I think it is demonstrably erroneous for a couple of reasons. First, if it does refer to natural birth, Jesus would be affirming Nicodemus' erroneous understanding of being born again. Secondly, NOWHERE in Scripture is being born synonymous with being "born of water." Lastly, our Blessed Lord says man must be born "of" water. The Greek word for "of" is ἐk, which means from / of / an origin of something. (Source) Man is not birthed from water, but rather from a mother; that is, a person. Man is not born from water / amniotic fluid. In other words, water is not the origin of man's natural birth and Scripture never refers to it as such. (e.g. Matthew 1:1-11)

This amniotic fluid idea is always put forth by anti-Sacramentalists. I am fond of saying that in Christianity, matter...matters.




Not exactly. Water by itself does nothing; for of and by itself it exercises no spiritual influence upon man. But baptism, by definition, involves BOTH water AND the Holy Ghost. (cf. John 3:5) Because it is a sacrament, the water in baptism is the material sign of what is communicated invisibly / spiritually in the soul.

Once again, in Christianity, matter...matters.




No, I agree and I don't think anyone has argued to the contrary.



Yes, I do believe all baptized babies do go to heaven. They have been regenerated and furthermore are guilty of no actual sin (since they are incapable of even committing actual sin).

Do you believe baptized babies do not go to heaven? (Be careful, as this is a sola fide trap.)




While St. Augustine may have written much and helped develop the understanding of original sin, I have demonstrated that the doctrine long preceded him.
It wasn't a doctrine before A.
wish I wasn't so tired.
 
If would make God the author of sin. By stating that man is born with a sin nature, that means man's Creator creates something sinful. Consequently, with each subsequent conception, God would be creating and bringing more sin into the world.


Wouldn’t it mean that the sin nature is reproduced in the natural birth process, rather than God creating it afresh in each person?


Maybe you could explain a little more about what you mean.



Thanks JLB
 
2. It would mean that sin is not a voluntary act of the will and thus no guilt can be assigned to man for simply acting according to his nature.


The flesh of the born again Christian contains sin.


Man has the choice to live and express the righteous life of the Spirit of Christ, from within his inner man, or he can express the lustful desires of the sin (nature) within his flesh.



Man is certainly guilty of practicing the the works of the flesh, where the sin (nature) dwells.


The born again Spirit empowered Christian must live out of the new divine nature that dwells within his heart; his inner man.




JLB
 
The doctrine (teaching) is found among the Fathers long before St. Augustine was even born. You even commented on them in your previous posts!
Walpole,
I just got here.
Do you know how to handle the word limitation problem?
If not, I'll tell you....
If you try to "post reply" and it advises you it's too much...
copy the bottom half
then delete it.
now send PART 1

Go to a new empty posting box...
paste PART 2 (which you had saved)
"post reply"

It's easy.
All sites have this...
 
Yes, doctrines are the teachings of the Church.

BTW, even John Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration. Ill search around and find which institute he wrote that
The Institutes of Calvin....I think
Or the Westminster.....something..I'd have to check.

I don't think Walpole and I have a problem with regeneration...I think we're discussing what the early church taught and how it changed with Augustine.

Just got here...Have to check with him.

P.S. The Westminster Confession of Faith
Good with Inst. of John Calvin
 
The Institutes of Calvin....I think
Or the Westminster.....something..I'd have to check.

I don't think Walpole and I have a problem with regeneration...I think we're discussing what the early church taught and how it changed with Augustine.

Just got here...Have to check with him.

P.S. The Westminster Confession of Faith
Good with Inst. of John Calvin
Post 56
 
Post 56
Post 56 is mine ....

Oh. You're directing me to a calvinistic thread....
OK
 
StoveBolts

I'm no fan of calvinism because I think it changes the nature of God...that theology, I mean.

However, John Calvin did write some really good commentaries...such as the ones you posted in no. 56 of the Calvin thread.

It refers to baptism exactly like I've been telling Walpole. This is how it was believed to be in the early church....It was changed with Augustine. He came up with Original Sin and babies going to hell and all that...which the church now contradicts (about the babies only).

Thanks for the post.
I'd have a lot to say on the first one....but not today!
 
Indeed.



I disagree. Concupiscence is not synonymous with the Calvinist concept of man having a sin nature. Concupiscence is an effect of original sin. (You alluded to it above, as man no longer has integrity as a result of the loss of the preternatural gifts.)
In a previous post, I explained to you how to do something you already know how to do. No harm done....

Concupiscense and the sin nature is the same idea.
The sin nature is an effect of Original Sin. There are different names for this...some call it The Flesh. Some call it the nature of sin.

It's just what's left over from Adam's sin. Before we were perfect...now we have this "thing" in us that makes us tend toward evil if God is not present in the person's life.
I've studied in both the Catholic and Protestant church.
Conc. really refers to lust or sexual sin....but it could mean any natural condition of man that tends toward evil.
"In Sin Was I conceived"...O.T.... Psalm 51:5
The sin the CC understands this to be, is the sin of concup.
I'd rather not get into this,,,,but if you insist, I will.

Remember that original sin is a deprivation; the lack of grace due to the fall of Adam. This does not mean man has a sin nature. In fact there are many logical and serious theological errors belief in a sin nature would pose. For example...
I believe I've already said this...
I think you're confusing the sin nature with total depravity, which is calvinism. The T in TULIP.
Calvin believed man was so depraved that he could not lift himself up to see God....this is why God has to choose whom He will save with His grace and mercy (in calvinism). This is not the same as the sin nature....which only hinders man but he is still able to see God.
Romans 1:19-20

1. If would make God the author of sin. By stating that man is born with a sin nature, that means man's Creator creates something sinful. Consequently, with each subsequent conception, God would be creating and bringing more sin into the world.
No.
God made the first man.
Each subsequent man is made by man.
Man has the sin nature or Conc. in him...thus it is passed on from one human to the next.
Romans 5:12

2. It would mean that sin is not a voluntary act of the will and thus no guilt can be assigned to man for simply acting according to his nature.

3. It would mean that Christ Himself assumed a sin nature. (Hebrews 2:14-18)
I'd agree with number 2 except I feel you're not understanding about concup.

as to no. 3
The seed is passed on by the father in the human race.
Jesus did not have a human father....
He was not born with the sin nature...as you well know.




Part I of IV
[/QUOTE]
 
Back
Top