MRM

MRM

Looking at your thoughts I have to go with the context of my original comment which was tied to mailloux’s original context:

A man enlivened and empowered by Grace is capable of feats completely alien to a strictly natural, fallen man (just look at the lives of the saints).

Look at her words. Completely alien is an experience and existential reality. She’s talking about how a person cannot respond due to their “fallen” state. Now comparing her context to the four items you have associated with the idea of fallen we see that the only one that matches the context is … none of what you have written. The fall I’m talking about is that idea that mankind’s basic nature was changed by Adam’s sin.

Item I is the sentence for sin God imposed. It doesn’t say God changed man’s basic nature from what it was, to use your words, static to a new state of “fallen.”

Item II It is interesting that none of the verses you cite argue for your definition of “irreversibility of yielding to temptation and sin.” I’m not even sure I know what you mean here. If by irreversibility you mean “inability” then one wonders why Scripture would give a warning that no one can heed. If on the other hand you are speaking to the effect of not yielding to temptation and sin has produced the world we live in now, that’s fine, but it still doesn’t answer her or my original assertion. None of these verses argue that man’s fundamental nature has been changed as a result of Adam’s sin. (By the way, in my estimation you have grossly misquoted Galatians 5:4 and taken it out of its proper context. Paul was not trying to support your argument about man’s “fallen” nature. I’m getting the feeling that all you did was put the word “fall” in you search engine and then just threw up a mosaic of verses whether or not they actually apply to our discussion. And why you’re quoting 1 Corinthians 10:12 totally escapes me. This is just a warning to be alert. It’s not a statement about the “irreversibility of yielding to temptation and sin” nor a declaration of support for the idea that mankind has a fallen nature.)

Item III Again by your own definition, this has nothing to do with my response to maillioux. (You know, in passing, Paul urges all believers to join the ministry of conciliation (2 Cor 5:18-21). How is that you’re out trumpeting God’s wrath? Do you enjoy striking fear in the hearts of non-believers? God has bought the right to be at peace with and to be kind to all mankind. Funny. Paul opens up all 13 of his letters declaring just that: Grace and Peace to you from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.)

Item IV You didn’t give me a useful definition to work with here, just a declaration. However, this item and these verses you cite say nothing against my original objection. (Actually in Romans 3:23, you’re a lot closer to the right view of this matter than you know—at least that’s my view.)

In closing you did get one thing right and you did agree with my original position whether you meant to or not. You referenced, “the doctrine of the Fall” and so it is—a mere doctrine of men—and not of God. And yes, I’m still waiting for a single scripture which illustrates “the Fall” as defined as that which changed man’s basic nature because of the sin of Adam.

Lastly, you should consider calling yourself “deprived” instead of “fallen.”

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. But scripturally, I have absolutely no reason to change my “bald error” nor do I consider myself to have been corrected. But thank you for trying. By the way, as I am “folicly-challenged” perhaps you should pick a different adjective, perhaps “blatant.”:-)

a) my 2 pastors who studied under Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri,
b) listened to The White Horse Inn for years, and
c) lived in The Bronx as long as I have—

you could do far better!

refrain from summary propositional encapsulations of revealed truth

Sincerely,

There is no such thing as “fallen” man. Just post a single scripture for me stating this to be the case to prove your point. I may be wrong but the idea of man being “fallen” may have originiated in the writings of your pal Augustine. It was church tradition that has “added” this concept to its teachings. It is an extra-Biblical thought–a man-derived thought.

I know you addressed this to mailloux, but I cannot let such a bald error go uncorrected. The idea of man being fallen was certainly not original with Augustine. Before getting to the Scripture(s) you requested, though:

1) If you have any inclination to play the game of “show me where the phrase ‘fallen man’ occurs in the Scriptures”, well … you’ve already lost. I will simply retort “show me where the phrase ‘extra-Biblical thought’ occurs in the Scriptures”. Not accusing you of that, but if that is your intent, you’re either going to have to refrain from summary propositional encapsulations of revealed truth as well, or agree that there can be a valid reason for such encapsulations if carefully defined.

2) By absolutely denying the concept of fallen man, are you proposing instead that the state of humanity in relation to God post-Genesis 3:6 is

2a) static, or
2b) risen, or
2c) are you denying the historicity of Genesis 3:6, or
2d) are you denying the unity of humanity in Adam?

Logical minds really want to know.

Now to the Scriptures.

I. “Fall/Fallen” is used throughout to indicate the irreversibility of death. Whence death? Romans 5, for those who missed it the first time around, takes us back to Genesis 3–ie “The Fall”; Ephesians 2:1 and Colossians 2:13 refer explicitly to all outside of Christ as dead–ie fallen.

II. “Fall/Fallen” is used to indicate the irreversibility of yielding to temptation and sin–ie exactly what Adam did in Genesis 3, and we in him. Just a few to make the point:

Psalms 9:15 The nations have fallen into the pit they have dug; their feet are caught in the net they have hidden.

Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.

Ezekiel 44:12-13 But because they served them in the presence of their idols and made the house of Israel fall into sin, therefore I have sworn with uplifted hand that they must bear the consequences of their sin, declares the Sovereign LORD. They are not to come near to serve me as priests or come near any of my holy things or my most holy offerings; they must bear the shame of their detestable practices.

1 Corinthians 10:12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!

Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

III. “Fall/Fallen” is used to indicate the utter inability of man, apart from the sheer grace of God in His Son Jesus Christ, to escape His coming wrath–again, traceable back to Adam’s sin:

Hebrews 10:31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Revelation 14:8 A second angel followed and said, “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.”

IV. Finally, the doctrine of the Fall is epitomized in:

Romans 3:23 All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

On the centrality of this verse to the doctrine of Total Depravity, John Piper refers to the whole dreadful downward plunge–ie, the Fall–detailed from Romans 1:18-3:22. The key to understanding all of the ruin in which we find ourselves begins with what Adam did, and all his children in him and in imitation of him:

Romans 1:21-23 Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Fallen.

1) There is no such thing as “fallen” man. Just post a single scripture for me stating this to be the case to prove your point. I may be wrong but the idea of man being “fallen” may have originiated in the writings of your pal Augustine. It was church tradition that has “added” this concept to its teachings. It is an extra-Biblical thought–a man-derived thought.

2) You seem to think that saints are pious. In my Bible, Samson was a saint.
And it is exactly why your claim that all people are called to be saints is off-target. I would be interested to see what Scripture supports your beliefs.

MRM

Overall I enjoyed your attempt to balance the fine line between sin and well, for lack of a better term, not-sin. Christians do seem to be a bit binary on the topic.

I could write a long response to your work. As a means of peaking your interest, I’ll just say a couple—okay, four—things:

1) As a Christian, the last person I would ever cite for support for a moral or theological argument is your Augustine of Hippo. In my estimation he derailed Christianity from what it was and forced into what it is now—a caricatured form of Judaism. (Much of the comments attached to your article show the fruits of his ideas and the effects on people today.)
2) As regards women in bathing suits, I don’t care who, are guilty of but one thing: of not loving their neighbors as themselves. Really, ladies you have to know that men have such a weakness when it comes to your attractions—your curves. A woman who wears one is “not acting in love”—even if her motive is pure.
3) Nobody is “doomed” where God is concerned (I know you will disagree with me on that point).
4) Your belief in free will makes you out to be an Arminist type of believer. (Yet Jakobus Arminius was but a theological offspring of Augustine. He never refuted most of Augustine’s pernicious teachings.) So far as I am concerned, you are celebrating the wrong thing about God. You can celebrate God giving men free will—I’ll celebrate Him giving us His Grace—and ultimately Himself.

MRM

But if she is a hypocrite, does she have a right to go out a flaunt it? What I mean is, if you are living a life of sin, then you should not be out telling people how to live their lives, you should be silently trying to fix your mistakes. Perhaps what she is saying is true (which is debatable), but she shouldn’t be trying to tell other people how to live her life.

That being said, I don’t see the big deal. She was attacked by some on the left for saying something that they believe was offensive, she got fired from her job because she was not fulfilling her duties, and she was not a good “Role Model”, and that should be the end of it. People should just accept it as it is and forget about it, rather than try to continue to attack her, or make her into a martyr.

I think we do agree on much. Where we do have different understandings can probably be explained by the differences in Catholicism and Protestantism regarding what happens after death. For Catholics, there are 3 possibilities: Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. It’s the Purgatory part (what Catholics call the “Church Suffering”) that explains my take on the virtuous Buddhist.

I don’t mean to open this up as a Catholic vs. Protestant debate on Purgatory. I only shared this as an explanation for maintaining what I’ve been saying all along.

I also want to make it clear that I respect and very highly value the friendship of all my Christian brothers and sisters regardless of denomination. Where our understanding of the faith agrees is far greater than where it differs.

Thanks again for reading, your well thought out and civil comments, and the reco too!

Take Care, mailloux

I can agree with “anybody for that matter will naturally wonder how he got here, where he is going, and what is his purpose in life… this is our built in radar for God”, but I cannot agree with this “It is our eternal self . . . the soul . . . naturally seeking its ultimate fulfillment, God.” The soul is seeking fulfillment, but it looks in all the wrong places (hence why we have social ills within our societies: abortion, sensuality, fornication, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc). I believe we are in agreement, correct me if I’m wrong, that the soul is in a corrupted state from the beginning of one’s life, but based on Romans 3:10-12 “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” one can conclude that the corruption of the soul leads us astray from the truth of the real answers to the above questions (hence Darwinism, Atheism, Buddhism, Muslims, as well as many of the denominations of Christianity). Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” The reason it is so difficult to find the right way is because sin fills the heart with pride and lust (which we don’t tend to let go of without a fight), and saving faith always begins with humility before a Holy God.

If the hypothetical virtuous Buddhist has responded to the call of God’s grace he cannot continue to be a Buddhist, anymore than Abraham could stay in the land he was born. In order for anyone to know of God’s grace they must acknowledge their misplacement of faith in other things besides God for their salvation, and once a person experiences God’s grace in even the smallest amount it drives them to change, to put off the old and put on the new. If the virtuous Buddhist has acknowledged his personal sin of misplacing his faith in Buddhism in humility before God he would be pulled away from Buddhism into seeking out this new truth that ran in direct conflict with what he used to believe. The very fact that he stays a Buddhist the remainder of his life reflects the fact that he never fully accepted the call of repentance upon his life, in my humble opinion, and therefore never changed his eternal destination.

Thanks for reading, commenting, and the reco too (and sorry for the delayed response!)

Take Care, maillloux

Take Care, mailloux

Thank you for your honest viewpoints concerning the subject material of this diary and, I’m sure, the trail of comments it inspired.

I will have to disagree with your ideas. God did not purposely create an evil side to our nature, nor does He want us to or does He condone indulging that evil side as a way to exercise our free wills and explore our human natures.

Where does that leave man? It’s actually a lot more hopeful than you may realize (that’s why, by the way, Hope is a theological virtue!). Only with God is the supernatural possible, but poor man is too often mired in only the natural. It’s kind of like this: imagine a rich fellow sees a poor and ragged soul eating scraps salvaged from a garbage can. He invites the fellow to return home with him, bathe, and then join a feast. The poor and ragged fellow refuses out of distrust and a strange fondness for his existence as it is now. He goes on rummaging through the garbage. Man, basically, cannot possibly imagine the wonders and the majesty of God and what he is capable of, though grace, when he trusts and loves God above all else. If only the poor and ragged fellow had accepted the rich man’s gracious invitation!

In a nutshell, you’d be surprised what you are capable of with God fully and completely in your life.

Thanks again for your comments.

Take Care, mailloux

Christ’s sacrifice sealed the new covenant and made Christ the spiritual head of humanity. He in effect replaced Adam as our spiritual head. He paid an infinite debt that finite creatures could never repay and his sacrifice is of infinite merit. It is an inexhaustible repository of grace and it is not limited by time or place (for God is the Lord of time and its creator . . . it does not limit Him).

The virtuous Buddhist is as human as any and is imprinted with the image and likeness of God from the moment of his conception. He is built for eternity for he is body and eternal soul, and the only source that can satisfy the eternal soul is God. There is no real and lasting joy apart from God. The virtuous Buddhist or really anybody for that matter will naturally wonder how he got here, where he is going, and what is his purpose in life . . . this is our built in radar for God. It is our eternal self . . . the soul . . . naturally seeking its ultimate fulfillment, God.

Apart from God, the fallen human soul is weak and rather stupid. It cannot save itself (for how can a finite creature repay an infinite debt?). The virtuous Buddhist doesn’t save himself. He, despite how he conceptualizes it, is responding to Christ’s saving grace. God is touching that soul and the virtuous Buddhist is virtuous because of God. Even if he remains a Buddhist his whole life, he will know the full truth of reality upon his death. Then, he will know Jesus Christ is Lord . . . and he will know that God really is love. And, it is God who will ultimately judge the soul of the Buddhist who lived a virtuous life.

Thanks again for the well thought out comments.

Take Care, mailloux

*as much as I, born-and-bred New Englander, love John Adams, by his time the name had been seriously degraded, and it gives me no end of Schadenfreude to hear of his letter to dear son John Quincy, who was resisting the old man’s new ways, in which the elder John urged him to get with the times, boasting that there would not be Calvinist alive in New England within a generation. Have I got some friends I’d love him to meet on the last day!