ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'll ask the same question I asked K2.

Is there any part of Adam' birth, (I don't think he had a conception per se) that is similar to ours?

Even more simply, was Adam born with Original/Ancestral sin?

---

Adam's "birth" was definitely different than ours, but I think making more of it than that gets you in a lot of trouble. You could certainly make the argument that only Adam and Jesus had free will based on the idea of original sin. That leaves a major problem though. If that's the case, then Adam and Jesus were fundamentally different from us. So much different than us than you can't even call them human but instead they would be superhuman. Or else if they are human then we are subhuman. That flies in the face of all teachings that Jesus was human the same way that we are human.

I accept original sin in the context of human frailty, mortality, and the need for reproduction. In other words, I accept the physical consequences of Adam's original sin. I disagree that original sin somehow makes us different than pre-fall Adam in other ways.

---

You raise the same question I have.

Do the effects (or lack of effects) of an external force (Ancestral/Original sin) change the definition of humanity?

Not sure I am cool with that definition. The nativity of Christ was an assumption of human nature and a restoration of it to what is proper. He is all we are excepting only sin. As ancestral sin is death and corruption as being separated from God. God and the nature of man were separated by the fall. In Christ they are reunited.

So to answer your question - no. Because the tarnish is sin. He had no sin.

That question is simpler - no. Because our human-ness doesn't include sin. The fathers are clear on this. Humanity is what Christ is. Whatever is foreign to His humanity (and isn't obviously His divinity) is foreign to humanity. Namely, sin.

k2aggie07 said:

---

That question is simpler - no. Because our human-ness doesn't include sin. The fathers are clear on this. Humanity is what Christ is. Whatever is foreign to His humanity (and isn't obviously His divinity) is foreign to humanity. Namely, sin.

---

This is where I landed as well as I've thought more about this.

To ramblin_ag02's question on whether this makes Jesus and Adam superhuman, the answer would be no.

It also would mean that Mary did not need to be immaculately conceived either.

Right. And I think that's the frame of reference difference that caused the need to claim the immaculate conception.

I still don't get the whole "God looks through the tunnel of time to see what we'll do and then predestines us." We essentially predestine ourselves and God rubber stamps it.

Quote:

---

I still don't get the whole "God looks through the tunnel of time to see what we'll do and then predestines us."

---

I think the whole "God exists outside of time" argument brings many more questions than answers. I'm not saying it's not true, but it certainly doesn't simplify any of the discussion.

On top of that, i think the issue (to me) is more the loss of choice than whether God rubber stamps or ordains it himself.

"God outside of time" is just hand waving the issue. How does that help anything? It's like he's a casual observer of something he has no control over.

Quote:

---

"God outside of time" is just hand waving the issue. How does that help anything? It's like he's a casual observer of something he has no control over.

---

But it starts to beg whether there's this 3rd party though. If choice is lost, and it's not from God (because he's a causal observer), then where does this knowledge come from and is it more powerful than God?

Where is Human Free Will in the Bible?

I want to read through the posts on this intriguing thread very carefully as rather familiar with both sides, so for now just want to ask one thing about the 1762 synod. Since it was in Jerusalem, did it seek any ROC input or was it mostly Greek and Eastern Med Orthodox in flavor, if any know. Lucaris belongs to the period of the `Great Church in Captivity' [it actually somewhat continues today] that is the EOC under Turkish rule over the Oecumenical Patriarchal See. I favor the view that the confession was genuine, as nothing would have been easier and arguably wiser than for him to denounce any connection to a forgery.

My understanding is that the EP at the time had come under some Calvinist sympathies. This was a response to that.

k2aggie07 said:

---

My understanding is that the EP at the time had come under some Calvinist sympathies. This was a response to that.

---

K2,

Notice this already

Quote:

---

Cyril Lucar or Lucaris was born in what is now Greece in 1572. Although rising to the position of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril was heavily influenced by 16th century Calvinism. As a result, in the spirit of the Protestant Reformation and in strong opposition to Roman Catholicism, he attempted to reform Orthodoxy in the direction of Calvinism.

---

Could it also have not been partly pushing it in a direction more compatible with Ottoman Islam? I don't mean the doctrines, but some of the elements that are "anti-catholic" line up nicely with being more palatable to the occupiers --- much like the iconoclasm shift and accommodation on the other thread, which is what brought this to my mind.

Not for a second saying he was kowtowing to the Sultanate -- what I am saying is making Orthodoxy "less visually Catholicly" looking and sounding might have also been advantageous to being stuck in Constantinople's conditions then?

Wow. Just read the Confession itself again carefully. It is an amazing blend of Calvinist Reformed theology, and classic Catholic-Orthodox. The most obvious nod to the latter being the "ever virgin Mary". And yet in other places in placing the Bible over the Church, and dead in sin, and election, and so many others, it reads like a Reformed piece.

Did he just draw this up and start implementing it locally during his tenure? This itself sounds like it should have been properly a product of a synod, not just drawn up. Fascinating. No wonder there were fireworks.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

"God outside of time" is just hand waving the issue. How does that help anything? It's like he's a casual observer of something he has no control over.

---

I don't think it's "hand waving" per se.

God by definition has to exist outside of time or you identify a "time" when God did not exist.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

"God outside of time" is just hand waving the issue. How does that help anything? It's like he's a casual observer of something he has no control over.

---

I don't think it's "hand waving" per se.

God by definition has to exist outside of time or you identify a "time" when God did not exist.

---

Tell me how it helps. God predistines us based on our own choice. i.e. we predestine ourselves and God rubber stamps it.

If you question that, the answer is he exists outside of time. So it all makes sense.

"God exists outside of time" and the ~"God watching a movie" metaphor I used recently isn't anything more than a mental illustration and perspective to understand a more difficult point.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. Whether we have "absolute" free will or "relative" free will, from our perspective we do have free will.

What am I going to do with my free will, relative or absolute, perceived or not? That is all that really matters.

Quote:

---

What am I going to do with my free will, relative or absolute, perceived or not? That is all that really matters.

---

Amen.

Quote:

---

Ultimately it doesn't matter.

---

4 pages and the The Confession of Dositheus disagree.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Ultimately it doesn't matter.

---

4 pages and the The Confession of Dositheus disagree.

---

Explain how it disagrees with what I posted.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

"God outside of time" is just hand waving the issue. How does that help anything? It's like he's a casual observer of something he has no control over.

---

I don't think it's "hand waving" per se.

God by definition has to exist outside of time or you identify a "time" when God did not exist.

---

Tell me how it helps. God predistines us based on our own choice. i.e. we predestine ourselves and God rubber stamps it.

If you question that, the answer is he exists outside of time. So it all makes sense.

---

I don't think it helps or hurts.

I think it's simply a position that Christians should take regardless of the issues it may or may not make. We should be starting with that, not using that as an excuse. It's something Christians, in the west in particular, need to learn to get better at, which is to say, we don't know a lot about God. Only what He has revealed to us, whatever portion of His being that is.

However, I also don't think God has "predestined us based on our own choices either." Certainly sin has corrupted our will beyond human repair. So I guess that could be perceived as him predestining us, but He does give us all a chance to say Yes to Him.