Wesley & Imputed Sin

HP: I will try and address all of the illustrations Bound uses.

Here he tries but in vain to correlate this quote to original sin. That simply cannot be done. Certainly we have inherited the nature of Adam. We are human beings you know, and as such are mortal. Yes, we are physical descendants of Adam and as such inherit the physical characteristics of him, one being mortality. Adam’s condemnation as spoken of here is nothing more than a physical consequence of sin, passed onto Adam’s posterity. That is a far cry from the notion and implications of Augustinian original sin. Augustinian original sin imputes the sin itself, while the statement Bound quotes from does no such thing. Certainly it can be said ‘in a sense’ that children die because of Adam’s condemnation, but again that is a far cry from stating as Augustine would have us to believe that children die because they are sinners.

No, this quote in no way implies any such notion as Augustinian original sin, and to try and make it to support it is simply unfounded.

 

Wickipedia on Augustine: “He framed the concepts of original sin...”

They are by no means alone on this just appropriation of the title given to Augustine as the “father of the doctrine of original sin.”

 

Impute is a legal term so why not a legal definition.

HP said, "To impute sin is simply the process that places the ‘sin’ of one upon another, as if though sin was a physical entity that attaches itself to the subsequent generation as would say a disease that is passed on from one generation to another."


Does it not in Adam's case? As in the example above the liability and its consequences are attached to the father even though the son was the negligent one. The father may not have even known the son was driving the car. The father may have even taken preventive steps in hiding the keys or other devices, yet, through the act of the son the father is irrevocably changed. While we neither were present nor participated directly in Adam's sin act we are, irrevocably, changed. An earlier poster (Joe, I believe)questioned to the effect, I thought we were created in God's image. This is addressed in Genesis 5

Certainly, and consistent with the proclamation in Genesis 1:26 to ... make man in our Image, after our likenesse... But notice the difference that follows

emphasis mine


While Adam was created in the image of God he could not convey that which he no longer possessed. Adam conveyed to Seth what Adam had become:fallen, corrupted, sinful, defiled, and mortal. Seth was not a party to Adam's sin having not yet been born. Still Seth assumes vicarious or imputed liability for the actions of his father. Seth, as we, would die. Even as he was fearfully formed in his mother's womb his days upon the earth were numbered.


It looks like the belief in the imputation of sin is not uniquely Wesleyan....

.... and early Methodist certainly did have doctrine to uphold. The 25 Articles of Religion were adapted from the Church of England's original 39. Methodist were expected to uphold the AoR as well as the accompanied General Rules of the Methodist (published 1808). You don't have to agree with a single one of them. It is unfair, and untrue, to say Wesley had none.

Link to the Articles of Religion and General Rules http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1648

 

HP: Rest assured that it was not I that posted that about Augustine, nor was that the source of my conclusions on the matter. It just happened to be the first place last night I went to check some dates out concerning him. It was not simply a coincidence that it said what it said, nor is it in any way opposed to the fact that Augustine was indeed the father of the doctrine of original sin.

Even Augustine himself believed the held beliefs of Ambrose at one time. Augustine himself stated at one time, “No one is compelled to sin either by his own nature or by another, it remains that he sins by his own will.” He also at one time stated the very thing that Pelagius used against him when he condemned Pelagius. Augustine stated, “ No one commits sin in doing that what there was no means of avoiding.” Just the same, when attacking Pelagius, he changed his position to one that formulated the thought that no man could do absolutely no good whether in thought, will, or good without God granting the grace to do so. He had adopted the idea that through the fall unregenerate man lies ‘under the sin which they have inherited by original generation” and “free from righteousness but enslaved to sin.” He viewed sin as being transmitted through the organic connection between Adam and his descendants.

If anyone denies that Augustine was not the father of the doctrine of original sin, such a one has failed to study his teachings in depth. Augustine turned from the teachings of Ambrose and even his own stated beliefs at one time, and developed his own doctrines which have became to be recognized as the doctrine of original sin. He is rightfully said to be the father of the doctrine of original sin

 

You appear to be saying that if one affirms 'Original Sin' that such an affirmation precludes 'Free Will'... I disagree that such is the foregone conclusion. I don't believe John Wesley dismissed 'Original Sin' just because he recognized 'Prevenient Grace'. In fact, such is borne out of Augustinian Theology.

"The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing [preceding] us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will." ~ John Wesley

Orthodox Anthropology:

You also appear to be suggesting perhaps 'modern' Eastern Orthodox Anthropology? I say 'modern' because such Hyper-emphasis of Platonist Emmanationism (i.e. Gregory of Nyssa, etc) is not consistant with the declarations of the Councils:

Council of Mileum II 416, Approved by Innocent and Council of Carthage (XVI) 418, Approved by Zosimus against the Pelagians

The First Canon States:

All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Chruch have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anothema.

The Second Canon states:

Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism "unto the remission of sins" is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: "Though one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned" [cf. Romans 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration.

These Carthaginian canons were accepted by the Church at the Ecumenical Council in AD 431. They were received yet again at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Nicea) in AD 787. These Canons were and 'must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it.'

Teachings of Theologians:

Nor does this 'Innovation' resemble the works of Simeon the New Theologian (i.e. The First-Created Man, Seven Homilies) who clearly presents the 'orthodox' teaching of "Original Sin"...

In the present life no one has the divine power in himself to manifest a brilliant glory, and there is no one who is clothed with glory before humility and disgrace; but every man who is born in this world is born inglorious and insignificant, and only later, little by little, advances and becomes glorious.

Therefore, if anyone, having experienced beforehand such disgrace and insignificance, shall then become proud, is he not senseless and blind? That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this expressed that mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin. - The First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Ancestral (Original) Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian

I can appreciate the Coppadocian Fathers just as much as the next guy but I have to admit that they have opted to contradict the normative interpretation of Scripture for Hellenist Philosophies (Neo-Platonism) which have distorted their teachings.

 

HP: I readily admit that Wesley tried his best to support free will. The problem is that when he started from an Augustinian position of original sin, free will is indeed logically precluded. The fact that he did believe in free will, or at least he tried to make it appear that he did, is simply one of those ‘blessed inconsistencies’ of Wesley.

HP: As I said, here is an inconsistency of Wesley's theology. If man is born in such a state that the power of contrary choice is impossible apart from God graciously granting to man the ability, (which original sin implies) choice is impossible to conceive of until God grants to man that ability. Either one has to conclude that this gracious ability he speaks of is a universal principle that applies to all men or only some men have a free will and that only subsequent to being given this special grace. Even then logic would indicate that free will only applies to the offer to some of salvation and not before, given his held belief in original sin.

Logically, Wesley’s notion lands him in the trap of fatalism in much the same way Calvinism does. Wesley would try and counter fatalism by stating that after receiving the grace then one can resist that which is graciously offered, while the consistent Calvinist would deny that any man can resist God’s gracious grace. I would like to ask Wesley if God grants to man the power to resist His offer only subsequent to granting to man prevenient grace, and if in fact free will is granted in reality only to those subsequent to being granted prevenient grace. I would then have a raft of other questions if he answered those for sure.

Neither Wesley’s notions or the notions held by Calvinists logically frees one from the false notion that their system represents God as holding man accountable for failing to do that which he had no ability to perform anything other than what he did, i.e., sin and that continually. Why? Because both the Calvinist and Wesley start from the same false Augustinian notion that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will. If Wesley had been consistent, he would have concluded that man is not even a moral agent until man is granted the power of contrary choice and the requisite abilities such a choice demands.

 

Well said HP! :thumbsup:

The practical effect of this popular false teaching is that Christians are living lives with little evidence of salvation being theirs.

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Romans 6:6

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." Romans 7:5

"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Romans 7:23-24

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" Romans 8:3

"And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:"
Col. 2:10-11

"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Gal. 5:24

If you want more I love writing them out!:godisgood:

 

HP: I would disagree. Consequences and liability are two distinct issues. God is not a taskmaster, requiring that in which there is no possibility of performing. God demands obedience. The very fact that God punishes man for disobedience is clear evidence of contrary choice. If one is born sinful, it is impossible to conceive of one possessing any ability to please God. Scripture tells us otherwise. “Ge 4:6 ¶ And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”
Certainly in society we hold the parent often responsible for the child, but you would have us to believe it would be just for the child to held accountable for the parents actions. Sorry, that is as absurd as it is unjust. Then you would have us to believe that a Just God would sentence a child to hell for eternity for the sins of the parents. Some justice that represents. If that is justice, are you certain you want anything to do with it? I certainly would not.

HP: Only an unfair judge and jury would criminally convict a father that had done everthing reasonable in his power to prevent the crime or action from being committed. If you believe otherwise, remind me, if the opportunity ever arises, to see that you not sit as judge or a jury member in any court room where justice is to be served.

HP: Certainly we have been irrevocably changed due to sin, but that is not the question. The question revolves around placing the guilt and corresponding punishment where it belongs. You would have God blaming the child for the sins of the parent. Are you certain your concepts of justice are in accordance with truth?

HP: This whole issue claiming we are born in sin due to being created in the image of Adam is simply devoid of substance. It is simply smoke and mirrors, a mere sophistic means of argumentation. In order for it to hold any water, you of necessity are forced to beg the question concerning inherited moral depravity.

HP: No one said that it was that I recall. Maybe I missed a post or so.

HP: Show me in any writing by Wesley that he required one to uphold the Articles of Religion in order to be part of his early Methodist bands or meetings. If I am wrong I will openly admit it if it can be clearly shown. I have read the rules and cannot find that requirement anywhere. Again, if I am wrong I indeed stand to be corrected. Fair enough?

 

HP: I can assure you the flesh and much of the church world will not rejoice with your post, but I believe it is in accordance to the Word of God. :thumbs:
I for one believe that much of the church world today is laying stock in dead faith.

 

HP: The problem with man is his insatiable thirst to pin the blame for his sins on something other than his own will. You can blame it on Adam, your wife, the serpant, your environment, the strength of temptation, Satan, your nature, or even as some do 'on God!'

Blame it on ANYTHING other than my own will and its formed choices and intents!

 

Fair enough.....

 

HP: What am I missing here? Where in the quote is it setting forth the Articles of Religion as that which was required of those to accept or believe in order to take part in the bands or meetings?

What does God write on 'truly awakened hearts?' Is it Articles of Religion or what is needed to influence practical obedience to God’s Word?

 

What if I modified my statement about Wesley to say that he laid stress on the practical side of obedience as opposed to simply requiring doctrine? Would that be a better statement and more in line with the way others view his rules to his bands?

 

Methodist hold that their doctrinal statement is comprised of The Articles of Religion, The General Rules, Wesley's Sermons and Wesley's Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament collectively. As stated in the ending words of the General Rules, If there be any among us who observe them not, who habitually break any of them, let it be known unto them who watch over that soul as they who must give an account. The terms of membership were, "There is only one condition previously required of those who desire admission into these societies: "a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins." But wherever this is really fixed in the soul it will be shown by its fruits." (General Rules) The condition of membership was to be a saved person. The condition to maintain membership was to abide by the doctrine of the society and to evidence fruit in their walk.

"Wesley taught that discipline was not church law; it was discipleship. Wesley insisted that true religion is 'the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus', 'the life which is hid with Christ in God,' and 'the righteousness that the true believer thirst after.' "~UMC Book of Discipline

What is doctrine without the practical side of obedience? I think we all understand the implications of the commandment "Thou shall not steal.". You could write 100 books on the subject, start the First Church of the Eighth Commandment upholding it as the commandment above all other commandments; but if it doesn't stop you from shoplifting a wristwatch from WalMart it is nothing more than academic exercise.

You might find this interesting reading. Here are two of the Articles of Religion that address the OP.

Article VII—Of Original or Birth Sin
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.

Article VIII—Of Free Will
The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

​

 

HP: How can one be necessitated as a sinner by birth and still said to have a choice? Does not a choice require that two or more possible consequents exist for any given antecedent? If man can only be a sinner due to the fact that he is a sinner from birth, is that not only one possible consequent for a given antecedent, and as such choice is impossible to conceive of? Once a sinner we all accept the notion tht apart from the shed blood of Christ there is no possible choice in ones fate.

Just the same, if we eliminate the possibility of being something other than a sinner from birth, we are clearly eliminating any possibility of choice. Are we not saying that we have became that which we are predestined to become, the sinners we are and that from birth.? No choice, simply necessitated sinners.