----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:28
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
I do very much think that every Christian today needs to be very diligent
in
thinking themselves through the influence of Augustine on
their
anthropolical interpretions. He has had a collosal impact on our
thinking in
this area. Perhaps when they have done that, they will continue
to agree
with him, which is their perogative. My suspision, however, is
that most are
unaware of his ifluence on their theological perspectives and
will want to
adjust their thinking, once they have worked themselves
through his
theology, and realized the influence of Manichaesm on his
thought processes.
jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he
weasel his way into "everyone's"
thinking when he's been dead for so
long?
BT: You did not need to read Augustine, Judy, to be
influenced by his thought. I know this is a real hang up for you, but you
"heard" the gospel from someone didn't you? And they heard it from someone
else, didn't they? Well, take that back to Augustine and you have the source
of several (I'll be kind to you) of your beliefs. I know you think you go to
the Scriptures with just you and the Spirit, but so do a lot of other
Christians -- yet I'll bet you'll all find things upon which to disagree: Is
it the Holy Spirit who is confusing you? The truth is, you bring things with
you to your study of Scripture, just as everyone else does, and you draw your
conclusions through that grid. Sometimes the Holy Spirit breaks through and
gets to you and corrects your assumptions, and sometimes he does not. It is
his business as to why he doesn't bring wellmeaning Christians to consensus on
every theological point, but he does not, and he does not tell us why this is
so.
Allow me to give you an example of Augustine's
thought upon your own theology: I have pointed out to you on numerous
occasions that the words "spiritual death" do not appear in the biblical text.
It is a technical term that you read into the text in your study of Scripture,
as it pertains to the human condition. If it is a correct theological term, in
that it is an accurate conclusion, you have Augustine to thank for this: it is
his term, which you are employing now as if it were a true biblical
concept. I happen to think it comes to us as a result of the dualism he
operated under, because of the Manichaeism in his past.
As I said before, you may read Augustine and find
that you agree with him -- I'm sure you would on certain points; however, if
you were honest in your inquiry, you would also discover that much of
what you consider to be very biblical finds its roots right there in
Augustine's arguments.
To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the
terms
you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning
of
"condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is
as I
stated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of A&W from
the tree
of life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all
humanity.
jt: King David wrote "Behold I was brought forth in
(a state of) iniquity
my mother was sinful who conceived me (and I too, am
sinful) (Ps 51:5 Ampl)
BT: Yes, indeed he does. And our same Bible also says
that from the fruit (and think in terms of the sperm) of his genitals, Jesus
would be born (through Mary, of course; see Acts 2.30). Why do you also deny
below that Jesus was born under the same propensities as David, from his
fathers back to Adam?
Jesus himself was born under the judgment of that condemnation -- I
think,
hmmmmm.
jt: I'd give this a lot of thought Bill. I
respectfully disagree. The iniquities
(generational curses) come down through the
Fathers and those who spoke
prophetically over him at the temple when he was an
infant along with the
angel who spoke with Mary before His birth all
referred to Him as "that
holy thing"
BT: This conclusion reflects upon your deficient
understanding of the word "holy." Holy is first and formost a term which
speaks to the quality of the relationship within the Godhead, the mutual
indwelling of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is what is in view in the
above mentioned statements. What I am saying pertaining to "the judgment of
that condemnation" is that, being human, Jesus to was born under the sentence
of death, and this in part (at least) because of the post-lapsarian (which
means after the fall) exclusion of humans from the tree of life.
I also think that all humans are born with a propensity toward
sin,
Jesus included, which is another result of Adam's offence.
jt: Jesus could have sinned without having to have
had a "propensity" for it
The first Adam chose to do it without any
propensity.
BT: Ah, but unless you are going to deny the effects
of the fall upon Adam's posterity, you will need to explain to me how Jesus,
being the "Son of Adam," born of the Seed of Woman, the Seed of Abraham, the
Seed of David, can have escaped the fleshly propensities of Adam's fall. You
say you do not deny the fall, yet you argue like one who does.
Bill
