Reidhead and Original Sin

Honestly, I didn't read through the whole last thread and hopped in at the tail end, but today I listend to Reidhead's sermons in 1 Co. 3, I believe that's the chapter. Well, needless to say, I don't think he understands the doctrine in the least, or I don't know Augustine well enough. The way he presented the doctrine was that physical matter was evil, which simply isn't its teaching. Now, Augustine erred with respect to his view towards sex and the transferrence of sin, but that's no reason to strawman the issue.FWIW

I have to stick up for Reidhead here; he does know the doctrine. He does not deny the influence of Adam's sin. The difference is that he denies that it is Adam's sin that condemns us -- it is our own.I should also add that he is not straw-manning as much as you might think. The doctrine that matter is bad was extremely popular in the church of that day. In fact, that doctrine underlies the modern practice of celibate priests and nuns and also the practice of infant baptism. Augustine defended all of these things. I have to agree with Reidhead that Augustine was not a great theologian but a heretic.

Wow! Of course you wouldn't think it was a strawman.

Reidhead is not the only one to reject the rediculous myth of original sin. Realize that the concept of inherited sinful nature did not have its origin in Judaism, but in eastern mysticism. Augustine made the idea famous and formally introduced it into Catholic christianity. Though the idea was tossed around prior to him, he is accredited with it. I was saved in part through the ministry of Paris Reidhead. I am sure that there are few ministers today who can compare with Reidhead's intellect and character.Remember the Apostle Paul was a Jew and like all jews of his day and today, they did NOT believe in original sin. There is no truth in the idea that Paul taught original sin, You can thank dear old Augustine for that! You may want to sound like a great philosopher and spout some great logic about how true original sin is, just realize that in the end, you must have biblical evidence to support your theology.If you are interested, you can read the chapter titled "Moral depravity" in Finney's systematic theology. Also Albert Barnes commentary on Romans.Both of which do an excellent job on the subject.Tony Phillips

hmmm.....you might also want to read a very sobering book..Original Sin by Jonathan Edwards. From a Calvinistic viewpoint, defending against a total denial of original sin. Just read it with the Bible open and pray for the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truthhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.vi.ii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.vi.iii.i.i.htmlEdwards is hard to read for me, and this work has the added difficulty of being written in response to another author from that time period, but as the Proverbs say.... Printing the book out, if you have the ink and paper in the printer, helped out some in readingalso for the Wesleyan view on original sin, there is Wesley's work.. a little shorter, and more easy to read:http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-044.stm"Hence we may, Secondly, learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are put Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, "We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation." But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? Or, to come back to the text, is "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?" Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still. " -- John Weselysincerely,Karsten

This is where I think the straw man comes in, and it is on the other side. Reidhead, in denying the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, is not denying the depravity of the sinner. He is, in fact, attaching the responsibility to the sinner for his own depravity.The sinner in Augustine's system is a sinner because he inherits his "sinful nature" (a term never occurring in Scripture) from Adam. A sinner in Reidhead's (and the Bible's I should add) theology is completely responsible for his own rebellion against God.Reidhead completely acknowledges and affirms the sinfulness of all mankind. He does not, however, attribute this to a congenital "sinful nature," but to the choices of individuals to rebel against God. These individuals must repent and turn to God against their own rebellion.As Reidhead himself has said, "you tell me why 100% of the people living before the fall sinned, and I'll tell you why 100% of the people living after the fall have sinned." The responsibility is on each of us as it was Adam, for we, like Adam have each gone astray.That is Reidhead's doctrine; it attaches full responsibility to the sinner -- something that Augustinian theology cannot and will not do (although many have tried to force it to do just this because they knew that this responsibility was key to the Gospel).

Jason wrote:The sinner in Augustine's system is a sinner because he inherits his "sinful nature" (a term never occurring in Scripture) from Adam.Hello Jason,I really don't like to get into theological arguments too much on these boards or what have you.Primarily because I'm not much of a theologian :-) these are just quick little dips here....BUT Ephesians 2:3 does come to mind:"And were by nature the children of wrath"

Reidhead has a great quote. Though I must paraphrase, "The Bible does not say how man sinned, but THAT man sinned!" He went on to talk about the fact that when you try to determine why man sins you become a philosopher, I would add when to deal with the fact that man has sinned, you become an evangelist!Noone denies that man is totally sinful, that apart from the new birth man is destined for destruction. Reidhead had many contemporaries that believed just as he did. Harry Conn wrote and taught extensively on the subject. T.A. Hegre, founder of Bethany Fellowship in Minneapolis, also Held this view. Hegre and Ravenhill had many "tent" revivals together. They were very close friends. Hegre wrote a great book called "The Cross and Sactification". Ravenhill was well versed on the same subject. Winkie Pratney wrote about original sin in his book "The Nature and Character of God".

your quote: "Ravenhill was well versed on the same subject"this is in relation to Ravenhill's views on 'original sin'. I would be very grateful for your sources for this comment.

As to Ravenhill's view on original sin I said he was "well versed". I have never heard him talk much about doctrine. However, he spent a lot of time at Bethany Fellowship. He and Ted Hegre were very close friends and held many tent meetings throughout the midwest. Hegre did not believe in original sin. Harold Brokke was the associate pastor at Bethany under Ted Hegre. Harold too rejected the doctrine of original sin. Harold's wife nursed Leonard back to health after he broke his back. I am accurate when I say that Leonard Ravenhill was "well versed" and very aware of the arguments in denial of original sin. Though let me say that Brokke and Hegre did not have an axe to grind against original sin. Hegre taught powerfully the message of the cross. Harold Brokke is still alive and is one of the most holy christians I have ever met. My reason for bring up Ravenhill was to show that Paris Reidhead was not isolated in his views. It is true that not all that he was friends with held his view, but many great Christians were not offended by it. I am sure that A.W. Tozer was not as Paris preached Tozer's funeral.

Interesting. I can't say for sure that Auguestine is any sort of example to look towards. He may have professed christianity very much so... and I am not judging him by any means... but to me, his opinions and words give no meaning to anything; as far as I'm concerned, he was already "off track" along with most of the church, as far as the doctrines and teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. I little too much philisophy, and "doctrines of men" to be listening to him... that's my opinion.

How much Augustine have you read?

I love pietism, because it gives birth to this sort of nonsense. You people must realize that all of your teachings, all of your sayings, all of your thoughts are the "doctrines of men". The Bible doesn't speak to us in a vacuum, but it is interpreted by us. We all do philosophy, we all do theology, we all interpret life, but the issue is, are we doing it well and right. We must realize that we are people of our time and we don't come to the Scriptures naked, but with a post-enlightenment and for many Americans 35 and under a post-modern mentality. This colors our interpretation. To think you can hop over 2,000 yrs. of history and get to a naked text is philosophy---it is just poorly done.openairboy

Hi openairboya couple or so questions and a comment.1. "what on earth does pietism have to do with anything so far said on this thread?"2. "who is 'you people'?"3. "do you exclude your own contributions when you say 'all your teachings, all of your sayings, all of your thoughts are the doctrines of men'?"If you are saying perfect objectivity is impossible you are right, but then I don't know who would want to argue with you on that.Bible words and concepts don't have defintions, they have histories and that is why we must contintually give ourselves to prayerful study in, reading of, and meditation in the whole Book. All cultures have words with histories e.g. Alamo, Dunkirk. These are not just spots on a map but are part of the national psyche. The same is true with the Bible but with the additioan that, from the vaste amount of historial information God has at His disposal, God has carefully selected events and persons whose lives and locations have a lasting significance.We need to marinade ourselves in this book so that its phrases and idioms become our spiritual mother tongue. And even then we must be open to the voice of God in our brethren,(and sometimes our mortal enemies 2 Chron 35:22) but absolute objectivity is beyond our grasp in this world. There is a poignant comment in Wesley's diaries. Wesley said of certain he met that "they had sundry excellent qualities, but unfortunately they knew everything and therefore learned nothing."

"nonsense"????

Openairboy, you said, "We all do philosophy, we all do theology, we all interpret life, but the issue is, are we doing it well and right."Let me say that you can have the "right" theology the "right" philosophy and the "right" interpretation of life and still you could be lost in sin.You can understand every detail about redemption, but not recieve any of its benefits. Also, you can understand nothing about redemption and recieve all its benefits.This forum is about defining what it is that we believe and having others question it. In the process, hopefully, we learn.None of us have enough knowledge to boast, but it is true that there is 2000 years of Christian theology that must be considered in our interpretations. Still, the Bible must be interpreted so that it is primarily consitant with itself.I can assure you that no one has gone further than a mere "surface treatment" of the study of scripture (it will take eternity to get a little deeper).

Philologos,Thanks for the questions, so I can clarify.1. I think zaphy(something) has hints of pietistic understanding, as well as many of the other posts that think they are just "reading the Bible". It is an underlying sentiment in many posts. 2. The "you people" is referencing the aforementioned pietists. Pietism may not have been the best word, but I think that and fundamentalism captures the essence of the thinking of most.3. Nope. And that's why you won't hear me throwing out statements rejecting 2,000 yrs. of the Church. Yes, there are problems with some of our historical understandings, but to negelct the fact that we stand on Augustine's and the rest of the Church's shoulders is naive to say the least. Many of the comments, I believe, suggest this much.To act like Finney's moral government theology is in any way Hebraic thought and not the influence of American democratic ideals and the enlightenment is extremely anachronistic to say the least.openairboy

"nonsense"????Main Entry: 1non·sense Pronunciation: 'nän-"sen(t)s, 'nän(t)-s&n(t)sFunction: nounDate: 16141 a : words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas b (1) : language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense (2) : an instance of absurd action2 a : things of no importance or value : TRIFLES b : affected or impudent conduct 3 : genetic information consisting of one or more codons that do not code for any amino acid and usually cause termination of the molecular chain in protein synthesis -- compare ANTISENSE, MISSENSE

"You can understand nothing about redemption and receive all its benefits."We must understand and BELIEVE the Gospel to be saved. If we do not believe the Gospel, then we are not saved.

Openairboy,Why must we "stand on Augustine's and the rest of the church's shoulders"? Who said that Augustine was any authority on what is and what is not truth?Throughout the centuries many have rejected Augustinianism. There are no new debates being argued here!As for Finney, certainly his thoughts are no less Hebraic than are those of Augustine, Calvin, Spurgeon etc.The thread we are discussing is whether or not man comes into this world with a sinful nature by direct result of Adam.Popular Hebraic thought has rejected this. So have many Christian theologians. How do we understand the doctrine? I know I have much to learn and am here with an open heart and a willingness to grow. Still I am not going to believe something to be true just because it is popular.