4 thoughts on “Original sin and presbyterian diversity

  1. pentamom

    Two things jump out at me from a cursory read of Joel Hunter:

    First, this doesn’t account well for the fact that the east *does* accept the Nicene Creed’s “One baptism for the remission of sins,” unless I’m misunderstanding him, which is quite possible. The way I’m reading him, the east shouldn’t be confessing a creed that speaks about baptism for the remission of sins. (I do think that there’s an answer for this, he just isn’t dealing with it.)

    Second, the solution to the problem of Mary is not either immaculate conception or “Mary as mere receptacle,” it’s accounted for nicely in a federalist view that views the human father, not the mother and not both parents , as the carrier of the sin nature. No human father, no sin problem.

    Now it’s quite likely a failure in teaching well on this and other aspects of the Incarnation, combined with post-Reformation reaction, that has led to an undervaluing of Mary. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the doctrine of original sin plus the rejection of IC *requires* a “Mary as mere receptacle” view. There are other possibilities.

    However, these concerns probably have nothing to do with your post here since I’m not familiar with any of what you’re referring to.

  2. pduggie

    “Since Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by a human man, he did not get the sin nature DNA passed to him. Of course, this makes Mary virtually irrelevant, a mere receptacle, not specially favored over any other woman.”

    yeah, it would seem to me that Mary is highly favored for her unique roll in the story.

    Isn’t Mary highly favored because God chose her, not she was so highly favored THAT God chose her?

  3. Pingback: The Boar’s Head Tavern » For Shea

  4. Pingback: The Boar’s Head Tavern » Again with the Original Sin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *