Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | inherit the sin of Adam | Ps 51:5 | Victor529 | 156130 | ||
Who are the 'old divines?', the fallible men who wrote the LBCF (a group of London Baptists?) More importantly, do you esteem them as having some particularly authoritative interpretation of the Holy Bible. Who said 'The old divines said it best': you? Is the Roman Catholic position on original sin, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism or Augustinianism, which I understand were the opposing positions. Wasn't Augustine,a Roman Catholic bishop who affirmed the sacraments and even purgatory. Did the fifth century Catholic Church hold a non-Pelagian notion of grace and original sin which you agree with? Victor |
||||||
2 | inherit the sin of Adam | Ps 51:5 | DocTrinsograce | 156174 | ||
Dear Victor, Welcome to the forum, Victor. Since you are new, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by taking your questions at face value. I trust that that assumption will be proven sound by your subsequent participation in the forum. You wrote, "Who are the 'old divines?', the fallible men who wrote the LBCF (a group of London Baptists?)" All men are fallible, son. Some men, however, deserve more attention than others. Even the simplest born-again believer can tell you things, that the most devout pope will fail to articulate. It is a simple matter to research via web the historical origins of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1644 and 1689. You would need to examine the history -- and more importantly the contents -- of the Canons of the Synods of Dort and the Heidelberg Confession of Faith. At the conclusion of this research you will know who the divines were, how they came to articulate their faith, and just how much it cost them to do so. You asked, "Is the Roman Catholic position on original sin, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism or Augustinianism, which I understand were the opposing positions." The mixture of question and statement is a bit confusing, but I'll do my best to answer. This depends on who you ask and what you mean. Historically the church affirmed what you call "Augustinianism" -- which was really nothing more than Pauline theology as articulated in his epistles, but a be better term might be Monergism -- in the Council of Ephesus. The Roman Catholic Church reaffirmed the position in the Council of Orange. However, most of the popes from that period on did what they could to shift back to a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian perspective. (Have you ever noticed how many popes were named Pelagius?) The Council of Trent, in a reaction to the Protestant Reformation, declared conclusively its semi-Pelagian stance That position has been pretty consistently espoused and vigorously taught by the Church of Rome ever since. The Roman Church has fought hard to eliminate any dissenting views that have arisen, even in its own ranks. All of this information is easily uncovered on the web. You asked, "Wasn't Augustine, a Roman Catholic bishop who affirmed the sacraments and even purgatory." Yes, Augustine was Bishop of Hippo. Although I would not call him a "Roman Catholic" bishop. Roman Catholicism didn't exist at the time. The Churches of the East and West were not divided until after his lifetime, although the Bishops of Rome had already begun the process of ceasing full political control. "Did the fifth century Catholic Church hold a non-Pelagian notion of grace and original sin which you agree with?" (sic) To the extent to which the Christians of the held to sound Biblical doctrine, that is the extent to which I would agree with them. Until the Pelagian controversy, to the best that I can determine, the notion of original sin had been pretty soundly Pauline. As you started out your post about "fallible men," I'd have to affirm that every one of us, no matter when we live, are subject to error. That is why we must continually search the Scriptures to root out the error to which we are so prone! It is no easy task, given the condition of the human heart. It has always impressed me that the divines were obviously also thinking of themselves when they wrote, "The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be NO OTHER but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. (Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23)" (1689 LBCF, Chapter 1, Paragraph 10) That is what is meant in this forum when we affirm the "authority of the Scripture." In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | inherit the sin of Adam | Ps 51:5 | Victor529 | 156213 | ||
Thank you for your lengthy answer; I am not your 'son'; if you ever say anything wise enough to warrant me esteeming you as a spiritual father figure I will let you know. The expression ‘divines’ is completely unacceptable to me and is blasphemous. My dictionary defines divine as: Of, relating to, proceding from or of the nature of God Above the nature of man, superhuman, godlike, celestial When I see fit to call a committee of dead Anabaptists “divineâ€, I will let you know. Frankly, if infant baptism was good enough for the Church of the Catacombs and the bona fide Reformers, Calvin and Luther, then it is good enough for me. I fail to see why my quote has been awarded an insulting 'sic' but would point out there are innumerable errors in your posting: ‘It is a simple matter to research via web’, you need a ‘the’ in there pal. '[T]he Christians of the held to sound', is garbled. The following does not stand alone as a sentence, it is a fragment and belongs in the preceding sentence: ‘Although I would not call him a "Roman Catholic" bishop.’ ‘[T]he Bishops of Rome had already begun the process of "ceasing" full political control’ is ridiculous and is the opposite of what you want to say. ‘This depends on who you ask’, should be 'whom' you ask. What do you mean by ‘The “Roman Catholic†Church reaffirmed the position at the Council of Orange.' You state elsewhere that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist until the East and West were divided; make your mind up. How about stating which Council of Orange so I can check it out ‘on web’; there were two Councils of Orange held in A.D. 441 and 529. ‘[P]retty soundly Pauline’, is just bad English. ‘[B]ut a be better term might be Monergism’, what is a butter bee? You have no idea how to use commas properly and use an impressive 47. You regularly end your sentences without any full stop launching into your next sentence. I don’t wish to cause offence if you are dyslexic or didn’t have much of an education through no fault of your own, but this is just too much. Augustine was obviously of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox mould because his writings show he believed in the episcopate, a literal Eucharist, the Pope of Rome, faith AND tradition, and virtually every belief of modern Roman Catholicism except he doesn't go overboard on Mary. I suspect your issue with the Catholic Church's rejection of 'faith alone' is the reason you call them semi-Pelagian. Is the Eastern Orthodox Church Pelagian / semi-Pelagian as it knows nothing of ‘faith alone.’ I have a Theological Dictionary which states Semi-Pelagianism was a French variation on Pelagianism that held that ‘the human will both deserved and made God’s grace efficacious.’ There was nothing remotely resembling such a statement made by the Council of Trent. I note there were a grand total of two popes named Pelagius. This is hardly the ‘many’ you claim, particularly when compared with the 23 Johns or 16 Benedicts. Pelagius I, was the cause of Origen rightfully being declared a heretic. Neither pope seems to have any link whatsoever with the heresies of Pelagius. Origen in fact explained humanity’s inclination to evil by a pre-corporeal fall through sin. So it would appear Pelagius I was a champion for the orthodox cause regarding the doctrine of original sin. You write: 'To the extent to which the Christians of the held to sound Biblical doctrine, that is the extent to which I would agree with them.' Please, please, do not let this mean to the extent to which they agree with your befuddled ramblings. |
||||||
4 | inherit the sin of Adam | Ps 51:5 | DocTrinsograce | 156214 | ||
Thank you for your kind and loving rebuke, young man. | ||||||