/
RSS Feed
In this episode, Adam, Brett, and Jason continue their examination of Article 19 of the Augsburg Confession and Apology. Correctly identifying and labeling sin allows us to accurately proclaim and receive the Gospel.
Hey guys,
I haven’t posted on here for a while but that doesn’t mean I haven’t been listening, enjoying, and learning from you guys. I thought this episode was so good and helpful. Of course, we could have a great discussion about how y’all view the Calvinistic understanding of double predestination. However, you indicated no desire to do so and I will acquiesce to your wish. 🙂
The part of this episode that I found so good and helpful was your discussion about “brokenness”. It is an issue that it is currently a HUGE problem in my denomination (the PCA). We are having a denomination-wide debate as it relates to same-sex attracted people. Jason’s assessment that in the Church “brokenness begins to be referred to as an acceptable state of disrepair” is simply outstanding. He has put into words exactly, to a T, the thoughts I have had on the issue confronting our denomination but found myself incapable of articulating.
Thank you and keep up the good work.
Your brother in Christ,
JT
Hey,
I would like some clarification about the difference/similarity between original sin and committed sin. It seems to me that the reason we are condemned is not because we have committed this or that sin. Rather we sin because we are sinful from the moment of conception (in sin did my mother conceive me), so then we sin. In that sense, God’s wrath against the unrighteousness and ungodliness of humanity is for all (all have sinned) in that we are all born dead in our trespasses and sin. The gospel follow-up is that it is God’s desire that we all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. So just as all have sinned, so the only way for us all to be declared not guilty (justified) is because Jesus became our sin and suffered our punishment (death) in our place (the free gift of His grace through the redemption – His bloody propitiation – that is in Christ Jesus). So, while yes, we do need to take responsibility of sin, our death happened at conception and prior to actually sinning. Yes?
I think we need to make the distinction that we are condemned both for original sin and for actual, committed sin. While it is true that we commit sins because of the taint of original sin, we must recognize that sin is sin and incurs God’s wrath and punishment.
This is also why we make the distinction in the Gospel that we are both not guilty (because of Christ’s passive righteousness in being punished for our sin), but God also declares us to be righteous (because of the active righteousness of Christ in perfectly fulfilling the Law).
As far as death is concerned, I also think it’s a both/and situation. We are dead in our trespasses and sins – including being physically born in a dead spiritual state. But Romans 1 (on which I am preaching for Ash Wednesday) also indicates that our spiritual death continues as we commit actual sins (God continually “giving us up” because of our sin and lack of repentance).
I hope this helps…feel free to bounce back if I missed anything.
My concern is that we don’t make it seem that we even have an option not to sin. Yes, it’s both, but your emphasis in this particular episode seems to be on committed sin rather than that we commit sin because we are by nature sinful. While I don’t want to paint Calvin or Arminius as “enemies,” we do disagree with both. It seems that Arminianism might be more pervasive in Western Christianity than is Calvinism. It also seems to me that thinking there might be some good in us that can “not sin” is more “dangerous” than is “double predestination.”
The Romans 1 passage that you quote speaks of unrighteousnesses and ungodliness. I see the first (unrighteousness) as being “not right” before God (i.e., original sin) and the second (ungodliness) as not acting like him (i.e., actual sin). Also the Romans 3 passage does say all have sinned (i.e., original sin) but it also goes on to say, “and fall short of the glory of God” (i.e., ongoing actual sin). Both are in view at our justification. The one happens because of the other. It’s important that we see justification as being for both. We need a new nature because our natural self is corrupt from birth. But we also need to understand the justification deals with our actual sin as well. This is why we can say that Jesus paid for our sins (plural) past, present, and future. I, however, do not see this as two separate things as much as two aspects of the same event.