Comments on: Augustine’s mistake about original sin http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=246 from Peter Kirk Tue, 07 Sep 2010 07:02:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Peter Kirk http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=246#comment-341620 Peter Kirk Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:46:03 +0000 http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=246#comment-341620 Thank you, Josh. Yes, the phrase could mean "on account of whom", referring back to the most recent masculine noun - but actually that is not Adam as both <i>ho kosmos</i> and <i>ho thanatos</i> (twice) come closer. But I think that as there is no clear close antecedent more likely this is a neuter pronoun with a general antecedent. And the modern commentaries agree with me. Thank you, Josh. Yes, the phrase could mean “on account of whom”, referring back to the most recent masculine noun – but actually that is not Adam as both ho kosmos and ho thanatos (twice) come closer. But I think that as there is no clear close antecedent more likely this is a neuter pronoun with a general antecedent. And the modern commentaries agree with me.

]]> By: Josh McManaway http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=246#comment-341615 Josh McManaway Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:51:47 +0000 http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=246#comment-341615 ἐπί with a dative of place can mean 'upon', but I think if Paul's using ᾧ as a dative of cause, then this is 'by whom' or 'for whom' or 'on whose account' πάντες ἥμαρτον. ἐπί with a dative of place can mean ‘upon’, but I think if Paul’s using ᾧ as a dative of cause, then this is ‘by whom’ or ‘for whom’ or ‘on whose account’ πάντες ἥμαρτον.

]]> By: Gentle Wisdom» Blog Archive » Deeply De-Christian Doctrines http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=246#comment-340917 Gentle Wisdom» Blog Archive » Deeply De-Christian Doctrines Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:47:12 +0000 http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=246#comment-340917 [...] non-Christian Manichaean teaching. I am not sure if the Manichaeans taught original sin, but, as I wrote more than two years ago, Augustine did, and justified his teaching from a misunderstanding of one poorly translated Bible [...] [...] non-Christian Manichaean teaching. I am not sure if the Manichaeans taught original sin, but, as I wrote more than two years ago, Augustine did, and justified his teaching from a misunderstanding of one poorly translated Bible [...]

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=246#comment-24963 Peter Kirk Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:03:21 +0000 http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=246#comment-24963 Thanks, Chris. I agree with most of this. I'm not sure what you mean by the last part but it sounds a good general approach. Thanks, Chris. I agree with most of this. I’m not sure what you mean by the last part but it sounds a good general approach.

]]> By: Chris http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=246#comment-24931 Chris Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:36:00 +0000 http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=246#comment-24931 I would interpret the verse as being that Adam's fall into sin gave mankind the knowledge of sin (which I believe was very real) and thus we now have it imprinted into our nature. Our fallen nature is merely an inclination to sin, and our nature cannot change without God's divine intervention. That is why Christ's work on the cross can be seen as a new creation, that he works in all of us to create a new nature in us, one that is holy, pure and justified before God. Christ's death on the cross heralded the death of our old nature, his resurrection enabled our new nature to conquer death. I guess I don't really have a problem with penal substitution, I just find it a bit boring! I think that there's a lot more to the gospel than that. And the thing i struggle with is the inconsistency of a God who wills to save everyone, yet does not. I can only presume that they must cling to their old nature, bringing themselves down with it. I would interpret the verse as being that Adam’s fall into sin gave mankind the knowledge of sin (which I believe was very real) and thus we now have it imprinted into our nature. Our fallen nature is merely an inclination to sin, and our nature cannot change without God’s divine intervention.
That is why Christ’s work on the cross can be seen as a new creation, that he works in all of us to create a new nature in us, one that is holy, pure and justified before God. Christ’s death on the cross heralded the death of our old nature, his resurrection enabled our new nature to conquer death.
I guess I don’t really have a problem with penal substitution, I just find it a bit boring! I think that there’s a lot more to the gospel than that. And the thing i struggle with is the inconsistency of a God who wills to save everyone, yet does not. I can only presume that they must cling to their old nature, bringing themselves down with it.

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=246#comment-2899 Peter Kirk Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:09:10 +0000 http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=246#comment-2899 Thank you, Rhea. Substitutionary atonement does not have to be penal, there are various nuanced versions of the teaching. As far as I am concerned, what distinguishes correct and incorrect ones is not so much whether they are "penal" as whether they imply that an innocent person, Jesus, was punished by a third party for sins which he did not commit. In the correct version, Jesus voluntarily took on himself the punishment and death which was due to us. Well, that is a quick summary of a complex issue which I don't want to get into in a comment thread. Thank you, Rhea. Substitutionary atonement does not have to be penal, there are various nuanced versions of the teaching. As far as I am concerned, what distinguishes correct and incorrect ones is not so much whether they are “penal” as whether they imply that an innocent person, Jesus, was punished by a third party for sins which he did not commit. In the correct version, Jesus voluntarily took on himself the punishment and death which was due to us. Well, that is a quick summary of a complex issue which I don’t want to get into in a comment thread.

]]> By: Rhea http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=246#comment-2897 Rhea Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:59:18 +0000 http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=246#comment-2897 So I just figured it out....I didn't realize that "penal substitutionary atonement" and "substitutionary atonement" were different things. So I just figured it out….I didn’t realize that “penal substitutionary atonement” and “substitutionary atonement” were different things.

]]> By: Rhea http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=246#comment-2896 Rhea Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:56:27 +0000 http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=246#comment-2896 I've always had an issue with "original sin." I've never quite understood how it could be "real," if you will. Just didn't seem right...didn't seem "fair" in a way. I appreciate this post...sheds a whole lot of light on the issue. You said something else though that I was curious about... "Of course this verse also undermines the theory of penal substitutionary atonement." How is this? Perhaps I just don't understand enough about what "penal substitutionary atonement" means... I’ve always had an issue with “original sin.” I’ve never quite understood how it could be “real,” if you will. Just didn’t seem right…didn’t seem “fair” in a way. I appreciate this post…sheds a whole lot of light on the issue. You said something else though that I was curious about…

“Of course this verse also undermines the theory of penal substitutionary atonement.”

How is this? Perhaps I just don’t understand enough about what “penal substitutionary atonement” means…

]]> By: Gentle Wisdom » My most popular posts http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=246#comment-2877 Gentle Wisdom » My most popular posts Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:43:25 +0000 http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=246#comment-2877 [...] read Adrian’s blog any more back in fourth position among my posts with 840 hits, followed by Augustine’s mistake about original sin with 746 and Mark Driscoll: “I murdered God”, “God hates you” on [...] [...] read Adrian’s blog any more back in fourth position among my posts with 840 hits, followed by Augustine’s mistake about original sin with 746 and Mark Driscoll: “I murdered God”, “God hates you” on [...]

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=246#comment-2430 Peter Kirk Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:04:57 +0000 http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=246#comment-2430 Thank you, Grahame. This simple description is helpful. I don't have time to read more on it at present. Thank you, Grahame. This simple description is helpful. I don’t have time to read more on it at present.

]]>