DAVEH: As I review this post, DavidM.....I just realized that I responded to some of it in reply to another TTer's post. So......I'm going to go through it again because I think there was material (yours) edited out of my previous response.
David Miller wrote:
DAVEH wrote:DAVEH: Interestingly, DavidM......I see this as a strength rather than weakness (problem, in your words) of LDS theology!
> That is correct, DavidM. How could A&E have sinned, IF
> they did not know right from wrong? Once they transgressed
> by partaking of the forbidden fruit, they then had acquired
> knowledge of 'good and evil' and were capable of sinning.Wow! Let me say that again. WOW! :-)
This is a major problem in Mormon theology.
I think I need to go orderDAVEH: ??? Huh.......why do you think Lucifer does not know the difference between right and wrong??? Of course he does. 1Jn 3:8 tells us the devil sinneth from the beginning.
my plane ticket right now for the April Mormon convention to set you
guys straight on this. :-)Hang on. Let me catch my breath. I cannot believe this. All these
years we have conversed, and look what Kevin exposes in just a matter of
weeks. Thank you Kevin.One does not need to know right from wrong in order to sin. Lucifer is
a prime example of this.
Furthermore, Mormon theology here is veryDAVEH: LDS theology does not preach such at all. You have drawn that faulty conclusion on your own, DavidM.
suggestive of something even more shocking. God himself has a knowledge
of good and evil, how? BY SINNING HIMSELF!
Is that what you believe?DAVEH: No to both. (And....sorry.....I remember answering these questions before, but I just want to make sure everybody understands my belief regarding them.)
Do you believe that Father God has sinned? Do you believe that Jesus
Christ has sinned?
DaveH wrote:DAVEH: Often (most) times that is the case. But not always, IMHO.
> Until then, they merely transgressed, with the (pre-explained)
> resulting effect being death. I haven't studied this to much
> depth, so I am sticking my neck out......please be gentle when
> you lop it off!I'm trying, but it is hard! I'm on the edge of my seat here, Dave. :-)
It does not help that this is one doctrinal area wherein I have received
divine revelation and if I shared that revelation right now, you could
not bare to hear it.DaveH wrote:
> But.....is there any place in the Bible where A&E's eating
> of the forbidden fruit is referred to as a sin, or......do
> the Bible authors simply refer to it as a transgression?A transgression is sin.
Look at James 4:17.......
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."
.........This begs the question, does it not........did Adam & Eve knoweth to do good prior to partaking of the fruit that brought them the knowledge of good and evil? I assume you believe they did know the difference between good and evil before eating the FF, DavidM? IF they did not know the difference, then I would submit to you that they did not necessarily sin in their transgression.
Now, let me pursue a different thought, which I mentioned to Judy a few days ago. As I pointed out previously, God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden for a reason. And IMHO, he not only knew Adam would partake of the FF, but he intended him to do so. I assume you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior and Redeemer before the foundation of the world, DavidM? (1Pt 1:10). If that is so, then God had to place the FF in the presence of A&E in order that they could partake of it, as it was part of God's plan. The only way His plan could have been foiled would have been IF Adam had not partaken of the FF. That inaction would have thwarted Jesus' foreordained calling as our Savior.
Consider the following passage to see how theDAVEH: I don't think you quite understand my position, DavidM.....I do believe in most instances, transgressions do equate with sin. But I believe there are at least two exceptions.....first, the transgression of Adam which was never referred to as a sin in itself, though it introduced sin into the world. The second instance is the transgressions of those incapable of knowing the difference between good and evil....such as with children or perhaps severely mentally deficient people.
Greek words used here are interchangeable.
Moreover the law entered, that the offence (paraptoma) might abound. ButDAVEH: OS is something LDS theology considers erroneous doctrine. We believe men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. That is why Christ's free gift of the (physical) resurrection is given to all men, whether good or bad.
where sin (hamartia) abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin
(hamartia) hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through
righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans
5:20-21 KJV)The Greek word "paraptoma" corresponds to our word "transgression" or
"offense." In the above passage, you can see that it speaks about the
offence or transgression ABOUNDING, then in the next phrase, it
interchanges the word usually translated sin (hamartia) and speaks about
it abounding.Now back up a few verses and you will see that it speaks about one man's
offense.For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which
receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign
in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one
judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness
of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For
as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience
of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:17-19 KJV)Also consider that this same Greek word translated as "offence" or
"transgression" also is translated as sin in the following passages:In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace; (Ephesians 1:7 KJV)And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
(Colossians 2:13 KJV)DaveH wrote:
> It seems to me that (original) sin was attributed
> to Adam's transgression in post Biblical traditions
> of the apostate church.The term "Original Sin" refers to the idea of a sin nature passed on to
Adam's descendants.
DaveH wrote:DAVEH: I find your explanation to be interesting, DavidM. Earlier you defined sin as a trangression....now you are painting its effects as the determining factor. If a small child is told to not do something, and he does it anyway because he does not know good from evil (as Adam)......then you are suggesting IF his action causes harm, it is sinful......but IF his actions cause no harm, his disobedience is not sinful? Hmmmmmm......yeah DavidM, we certainly view this differently!
> Look at it another way, DavidM. If you tell your 3 year
> old child that they should not pet a particular dog even
> if it looks friendly and fun to play with. But the choice
> is theirs....IF they pet the dog, the dog will bite them.
> So.....the dog looks so inviting, you kid goes ahead and
> pets the fluffy critter who then bites your child. Would
> you consider their desire (and resulting action of petting
> the dog) to be a sin???Yes. Men try to define sin by motive and attitude, but I believe that
is a big mistake. Sin is defined by its negative effects. So a child
petting a dog and getting bit because of that is a sin regardless of
motives, in my opinion. We might not ascribe the same amount of
culpability when evil motives are not involved, but it is still sin.
DaveH wrote:DAVEH: FTR.....I do not.
> Now let me ask you a question, DavidM.....Do you believe
> in the original sin of Adam? It is my understanding that
> this is a Catholic doctrine. Has it been widely adopted
> by Protestants too?Yes, I believe in the concept of original sin.
Most Protestants believeDAVEH: Just curious, DavidM......do you believe those who are not born again will be punished after this life for the sins their parents may have committed? I ask that to try to understand how Adam's sins transfer to you. Or.....is it just Adam's transgression that transfers, and not his other sins? To me it seems a bit strange that God would hold somebody responsible for another's sins, but I'm looking at it through biased eyes.
in original sin. It is an important doctrine of Calvin and so those who
associate with Reformed theology certainly believe in it. There have
been some who have not believed in original sin. They are called
Pelagianists after the monk Pelagius of the fourth century who
articulated the view and was the brunt of Augustine's many rebuttals.
Now there is a major difference between the way that many ProtestantsDAVEH: Yikes.......this is starting to get confusing. So in other words, there isn't a consensus of opinion on this..... Which way do you believe, DavidM?
think about original sin and the Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics
believe that original sin brings guilt upon the descendants of Adam.
Some Protestants believe this also (hence the idea of infant baptism
continuing among them), but many Protestants do not believe that
original sin brings guilt.
They would say that it refers only to theDAVEH: LOL.....Guess I should have read the whole post before responding, eh!
sin nature which we have received, and we do not incur actual guilt
until we follow that sin nature and commit actual sin. I am of this
latter camp in my theology.
Hmmmm......maybe we aren't too far apart on this after all. So......you do not believe you inherited any original sin from Adam, but rather the capacity or ability to commit sin.....is that correct?
That begs a few questions. If Adam had not partaken of the FF, and if you had subsequently been born, do you believe you would be capable of sinning? If you are to answer no, then wouldn't it seem incongruous with the proposed original sin theory?
If on the other hand you answer yes, then why would you be different than Adam---assuming he needed to partake of the FF to become a sinner. Would you likewise need to do so, or could you become a sinner without partaking of the FF?
Hmmmmmm.........The more I ponder the possibilities, the more questions I want to ask, DavidM. I am curious how you perceive all this.
John Wesley's theology is an interesting one to study in this regard.DAVEH: That alone fascinates me. Why would JW feel a need for baptism if it does not have any cleansing effect in itself on sin as most modern Protestants believe? Has Reformed theology changed its stance on this since JW?
While he articulated a difference between the effect of original sin and
actual transgression in regards to guilt, he still practiced infant
baptism to deal with the problem of original sin.
BTW.......I want to apologize for taking so long to respond to you on this.....
Peace be with you.--
David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
