Fall 2007 Online Certificate Students:
View all sessions below. Then log all your comments, questions, discussion question answers, criticisms, or thoughts below.
NOTE: This is not the place for general discussion and questions. Go to the foyer for general discussion and refer to the FAQ on the right for question. Time spent in the comments section will apply toward your one hour of community time per week. To download audio sessions, visit the course homepage on the TTP site. The next session will be posted each Wed.
_____________________________
What is the Augustinian view of Original Sin? Part 1 [20:29m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download What is the Augustinian view of Original Sin? Part 2 [15:55m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download What is the Arminian view of Original Sin? [13:35m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Summary of Original Sin [10:39m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Powered by FireStats
October 14th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I’m out of town for a week, so here are my answers to the discussion questions for this lesson:
1. Although I am not sure exactly why the early church condemned Pelagianism, it seems to me there might have been a few reasons. First and foremost, Pelagianism reduces the glory and power of God. Since man doesn’t need God to turn his will, he could in theory never sin and then he would not be under wrath at all or need a savior. In the first few seconds of his\her existence their perfection would be complete, and this would blur the lines between a human and God. Secondly, why did Adam sin in the first place if Pelagius is correct? Who was his bad example?
2. Prevenient grace as described in Arminianism has some attractive qualities. It still seems to keep the fairness inherent in Pelagianism where we are not held responsible for Adam’s sin, and therefore has an emotionally attractive quality (allows us to still think we are inherently good). Unfortunately there are some problems with this theory. First of all the doctrine of prevenient grace is not really anywhere in the Bible. One might argue it is implied in parts of John 12:32 (“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” NetBible), but the rebalancing aspects of the doctrine are not spelled out as such anywhere that I’m aware of. One must therefore derive the doctrine, but in a way less tenuous than other derived doctrines like the trinity for example, and then try to explain away Romans 5:12-18. The other problem I see with prevenient grace is that it appears that it could be avoided. Now I admit I do not understand prevenient grace enough to properly argue this, but Adam’s sin becomes a curiously unnecessary act if it is always removed by prevenient grace. Why did Adam sin at all if God was just going to wipe it out?
3. Augustinian’s doctrine of the fall of man appears to create some logical issues for us. If this fall is to such a degree that man needs God’s help to choose God, and therefore escape the negative results of the fall, then why was man created with such a corrupted nature to start with? Here is where the link to Christ, as outline in Michael’s paper on original sin, comes into play. If we take the stance that the apparently unnecessary nature of the sin & condemnation is reversed by the appearance of the salvation in Christ, then we have a way out of the logical trap of why a sovereign God creates a being that would sin and then be punsished, only to be saved later. Augustianism may reduce the sovereignty of man by having any movement away from sin only a result of God’s choice, but it thereby increases the sovereignty of God who now is controlling what happens instead of waiting and being required to respond to any individual human’s actions. And then finally, much of Romans 9 and parts of Romans 5 seem to confirm Augustianism.
4. For difficult and apparently contradictory concepts like Original Sin, I think it is necessary to tread lightly. In my experience, it is far too easy to find a neat logical box to sit in and ignore all the other aspects or difficult situations raised. To me paramount is to recognize the unfathomable knowledge, power, and sovereignty of God. As such we “puny humans” are just trying to wrap our brains around these difficult topics. I then ask myself what can we rely on that is least affected by analysis of us intellectually weak humans? The only answer is the Bible for me in these cases, as it is free of sin and without error (I won’t defend inerrancy here, but just state that it is free from conceptual errors in the original manuscript). So, this is why Romans is so important in this area as the simple, Occam’s razor, interpretation of Romans 5 leads to Augustinianism.
5. This lesson had a big affect on me as I was quite unclear on this topic. My heart wanted to believe a Pelagian approach with the inherent “fairness”, but I had read the passages in Romans and was unable to reconcile them. Although still not 100% sure of which option is true, I have been able to clear the mental fog a bit and better understand how Augustianism could be true (since it’s what I think actually is true, or maybe it’s better to say it’s closest to the truth of the options we appear to have now).
October 19th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
H & S Session 7
1. Some of the reasons the church might have condemned Pelagianism:
• Pelagius believed we are inherently good, which contradicts various biblical passages that describe us as sinful and unrighteous by nature
• Pelagianism teaches that we are born with a neutral will. If we’re born with a neutral will, there should be some individuals who never sin, but that has never been the case (except for Jesus).
• if original sin were not a consequence of the Fall, we would have no need for redemption, which would negate Christianity.
Augustinianism might have been preferred because the bible supports that we have a corrupt nature that is inherited from our parents, and is seen in the fact that we all die and we all sin.
2. The Arminian view, to my understanding, is that the Fall corrupted man’s nature, so we are inclined to sin, but Adams sin is only imputed to us when we commit personal sin. Since we are unable to respond to God due to our nature, but He still requires faith, God provides prevenient grace. This enables us to make the choice to believe, though does not guarantee salvation, as we may still choose to reject God. The merits of this view is that it is consistent with the belief in original sin, need for grace and free will. A potential problem with this view is that it may not reflect salvation by grace alone.
3. Augustinianism and Arminianism are similar in the belief that inherited sin is mediated through parents. The differences are in the manner in which sin is imputed and the degree of free will. In the Augustinian view, imputed sin is immediate in that we are depraved from birth rather than through personal sin and teaches that we have free will, but it is limited because of our corrupt nature.
4. Initially, when we covered Pelagianism, it made absolute logical sense to me, but now I can see why it was/is considered a heretical view. Both Augustianism and Arminianism have merits, but I don’t yet have a clear-cut position. I lean toward the Augustinian view because I don’t think our free will is absolute. And my personal experience with being saved didn’t exactly feel like a choice to me. I felt I was being lead to seek more and be restored. In fact, when I pray, I thank God for “bringing me back to him”, so I think my choice of words when I pray is telling.
5. This is the first time I’m learning about these views, so it’s been a struggle to sort through and understand the merits and weaknesses of each. But, it is fascinating!
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Humanity & Sin Discussion Questions Session 7
Discussion Question #1
I think the church was startled by the statement Pelagius thought that man was basically good and could choose to do either good or evil on his own. Pelagius thought that people sin because of bad examples of other’s sin. I think the church denounces this thought because the Bible says that people are inherently evil.
Discussion Question #2
Prevenient grace is the belief that God intervenes in the lives of people with a helping grace to enable them to choose Him. When God does this, He neutralizes man’s inclination toward sin and makes him as Adam was in the garden before the fall.
Discussion Question #3
Augustiniamism states that man sins because he is a sinner. His free will is regulated by his sinful nature. God must choose man in order for man to be able to choose God. This brings to mind the verse that says we love God because he first loved us (1 John 4:19) The bible also states that man is inherently evil. I am at this time more inclined to agree with Augustine.
Discussion Question #4
I am leaning more toward the views of Augustine. Please see Question #3.
Discussion Question #5
I had heard of Arminianism before but did not fully understand the view. I had more of an understanding of Augustinianism and am still thinking that I agree most with that belief. I think this lesson has helped affirm that belief.