Simul Iustus et Peccator Source
originally before it was recast as response by koot van wyk = kvw https://christianreformedink.wordpress.com/reformed-theology-2/soteriology/simul-iustus-et-peccator/ Written by:
Kelly Kapic, Simul Iustus et Peccator. Downloaded on the 22nd of
April 2023 from https://christianreformedink.wordpress.com/reformed-theology-2/soteriology/simul-iustus-et-peccator/ [Kapic]
Why do we do the things we do? Scholars struggle to understand human nature
and, in particular, what theologians call sin. Where does it come from and why
do we do it? Book
to say ordinary people can also murder:
[Kapic]
In 2002, James Waller produced a careful work of psychology called Becoming
Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. What is
fascinating about Waller’s study is that he challenges the common assumption
that “extraordinary evil” must arise only from some abnormality within a people
or society. Such a common view of extreme evil is a comfort to those of us who
are “normal,” as it reassures us that we would never participate in such
horrific events — we are not that bad. Yet what is so unsettling about Waller’s
study is that he shows “extraordinary evil” actually arises from “ordinary
people” — people like you and me. The reality of
extraordinary and ordinary evil remains a nagging problem, not easily answered
and not easily ignored. Book
to say that environments have bad effects on people:
[Kapic]
Famed social psychologist Philip Zimbardo recently wrote The Lucifer
Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (2007), emphasizing
that the fundamental problem that leads us into offensive actions is
environmental: what corrupts us is the hostile or acidic situations in which we
find ourselves. Zimbardo is right to highlight the significance of context in
shaping a person, Kapic
announces his position in favor of peccatum iustus et peccator [kvw] [Kapic]
but he is wrong when he reduces our proclivity for evil to influences from
external situations. Something is
wrong not simply “out there” but within us. Jeremiah
text is not enough to make Kapic’s judgment [kvw] [Kapic]
Jeremiah probed the human heart and soberly declared, “The heart is deceitful
above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer 17:9). [Adventist
pastor Dennis Smith Omega Apostasy and
Laodicea 2023, he said that the Omega Apostasy is that sin cannot be
overcome and the law cannot be kept, kvw.] "Deceitful" is adult jargon. [kvw] James
1:14 text is not enough to make Kapic’s point [kvw] [Kapic]
Similarly, the apostle James did not blame God for our temptations or sin but
concluded, “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own
desire” (James 1:14). But why do we have desires that can be so hurtful to
others and so contrary to God? Why? Babies are
not lured and enticed by their own desires. [kvw] Teenagers and
Adults are. [kvw] What
is wrong with our hearts?[kvw] [Kapic]
In the early church’s struggle to understand human nature, no debate became
more significant than that between Pelagius and Augustine. [Kapic]
Zealous Pelagius, apparently frustrated by the lackadaisical ethical attitudes
he saw around him, stressed the importance of unbending moral behavior. In the
process, he argued against the idea of what we call “original sin” — when Adam
and Eve sinned, their actions fundamentally affected all who would follow.
After this fall, people are born with sinful impulses that turn them away from
God. Pelagius disagreed. Born
and Later Adult sinhood are two opposed separate issues about different states:
All adults sin. [For some born and adulthood are the same but for others born and adulthood are different cases] [kvw] [Kapic]
He believed that we are not born sinful, but we sin when we show inadequate
willpower and give in to seductive situations. We
are not like Adam or Eve born. We are born degenerated flesh which can get sick
and die [kvw] [Kapic]
Like Adam and Eve before they gave into the deceptive sounds of the serpent,
each of us begins life with the ability to remain untainted by sin. No
original sin but people sin and need Christ Pelagius said [kvw] [Kapic]
While there is no original sin, Pelagius did admit that people do sin, and thus
Jesus is still needed. Baptism [adult choice baptism not infant choiceless baptism] does everything everyone wants who is a sinner [kvw] [Kapic]
By our baptism into Christ, Pelagius argued, all of our previous sins were
forgiven, returning us to a clean slate. Now
after Baptism believers are to follow the Example of Jesus Pelagius said and
Ellen White [kvw] [Kapic]
Baptized believers are called then to follow Jesus’ perfect moral example.
Theoretically, Pelagius’ view meant that it is possible for people to live
perfectly, without sin, as long as they always make the right choices. Ascetic
passionless state could be achieved Pelagius and also Ellen White [kvw] [Kapic]
As John Anthony McGuckin, an early church historian, writes, “Pelagius thought
that if a disciple persevered in strong discipline and prayer he or she would
reach a state of stability where even the desire for sin would fade away, a
condition of ascetic passionlessness (apatheia).” Christian
has to live perfectly but temptation will not be able to lure him/her by
Pelagius and also Ellen White [kvw] [Kapic]
A Christian could live perfectly, no longer even tempted by sin. Doesn’t that
sound good? Doesn’t that sound promising, maybe even inspiring? Augustine
read Pelagius and changed his own view from similar to opposed [kvw] [Kapic]
Pelagius’ writings were sent to Bishop Augustine. The bishop found himself
reluctantly drawn into a debate he wished to avoid, especially since Pelagius
was known as a pious man and Augustine had plenty of other things to worry
about. Augustine
felt that Pelagius downplayed the gravity of sin and he should react [kvw] [Kapic]
But once Augustine carefully read how Pelagius downplayed the gravity of sin,
he immediately anticipated just how problematic and pastorally disastrous these
views were. Augustine believed he had no choice but to respond. Augustine
was not a favorite Bible reader but more Greek Classics as one can see in his repetitive
similar texts in all his works, same list of references [comment kvw] [Kapic]
Saturated (?) in Scripture, and especially the epistles of Paul, Augustine
argued that ignoring the extensiveness and intensiveness of sin creates
unexpected problems. [But overcoming
and behavioral changes promoted by Paul in Romans and elsewhere, even
perfection] kvw Remain
sins in believers idea of Augustine [kvw] [Kapic]
He was not worried just about how sin keeps non- Christians under God’s
judgment, but he also called for sober assessment of the sin that remains in
believers. Why
do people feel sinful after rebirth? Pelagius unanswered problem [kvw] [Kapic]
In other words, one of the biggest problems with Pelagius’ teachings was that
he had no satisfying explanation for the real continuing struggle that
believers have with sin in their lives. [It is not
really sin but the memory of the scars of sin that is not removed by God. We
are to call ourselves sinful until Jesus comes even if God does not view us
that way any longer, says Ellen White, kvw]. Augustine
stressed God’s grace from A to Z and trying hard not to sin, not [kvw] [Kapic]
Is it really that you and I are just not trying hard enough? Augustine knew
otherwise; he consistently stressed God’s grace, from first to last. Born
into sin? Never free from it? Soaked always in sin? Augustine’s problem [kvw] [Kapic]
Our problem is not just that we sin every now and then; our problem is that we
are soaked in sin, are born into it, and are never completely free from its presence
this side of glory. [Jesus
said to the adulterate woman: Go and sin no more. No more. No more. Not try
your best]kvw Stringing
texts like Ps 51:5; Job 14:4; Prov 20:9; Rom 5:12; James 3:2 Augustine
advocated his original sin [Kapic]
Augustine made this point by stringing together just a sampling of biblical
texts: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother
conceive me” (Ps. 51:5; see Job 14:4); “Who can say, “I have made my heart
pure; I am clean from my sin?” (Prov. 20:9); “Therefore, just as sin came into
the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all
men because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12); “For we all stumble in many ways” (James
3:2). Augustine even quoted the great biblical scholar Jerome to support his
point about original sin: “For no one is without sin, even if his life has but
a single day.” [Psalm 51:5
Environment of sin not inherent in genes Job 14:4 Prov 20:9 Romans 5:12 Wrongly
translated by the Old Latin and Vulgate of Jerome and cited by Augustine. It is
not: “because…” The Greek is more complicated. Please check. For deep
discussion and presentation of original texts, see www.egw.org
at VAN WYK NOTES and search Romans in box below. Romans 5:12 wrongly translated
by Vetus Latina and Vulgate. Romans 5:12 wrongly translated by
Vetus Latina and Vulgate and misunderstood by Augustine for original sin Augustine designed his concept of
original sin from the wrong translation of the Vetus Latina (190 CE) and Vulgate 398 CE of the
last part of Romans 5:12. I found the two original texts in
Sabatier on Romans.
Vetus Latina (190 CE)
Vulgate (398 CE) In quo omnes peccaverunt is a wrong
translation of the Greek. Augustine designed his peccatum
originale from a wrong translation of the Greek. “in which all have
sinned” after 406 when he switched in his debate with Pelagius from a similar
to a contra position including peccatum originale = original sin. Luther and
Calvin and to a lesser extend Wesley bought this original sin concept from
Augustine et al. Second point is this: Eve is
not listed by Paul but she was the first transgressor. Why did Paul not say,
since WO is presumably supported, for debate sake, after Christ, why did he not
say Eve and Adam was the first two to enter sin in this world? Adam was the first male but Eve
historically the first human to bring sin into this world. Yet, Paul dare to
use the headship for his argument? Some suggested translations due to
the confusion created by churchfathers: “in which
all have sinned” in quo Augustine, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Klee, revived by
Aberle. Beza, Erasmus Schmid. Compare Irenaeus Haeresis v. 16, 3. Not by
Stengel, Reithmayr, Bisping, Maier. Augustine
= omnes ille unus homo fuerunt. All men in the loins Hebrews 7:9-10. “upon
that which is Adam” Theophylact with Photius. Quia
omnes peccarunt …..Adamo peccante Bengel as seen correct by Meyer. Ipsu
actu, quo peccavit Adamus Koppe, Olshausen, Philippi,
Delitzsch, Kahnis, Klöpper. “all have
[individually] sinned” Reiche, Rückert, Tholuck, Fritzsce, de Wette, Maier,
Baur, Ewald, Umbreit, van Hengel, Mehring, Hofmann, Stölting, Thomasius, Mangold
following Theodoret. “on the
ground of the fact that , i.e. because, all sinned”. Adam as
example, so Pelagius, Erasmus. Weiss, Märcker. “They
were sinful” Picard and Aberle It is not an adjective so they are wrong
in their translation. Original
sin, Calvin, Flacius, It does not say original sin. It is a reading into the
text as Meyer also complains about in 1884: 199. “all have
sin” Melancthon saying: omnes habent peccatum. It is a verb not a noun and
Melancton translated wrongly. “they
have sinned” Meyer 1884: 199 “as then
all would besides have well deserved this severe fate for themselves by their
actual sins” J. Müller. “This
severe fate they would have all moreover well merited” Neander and Messner
contra Meyer who says it is fanciful. “about
which there can be no doubt in so far as all have in point of fact sinned”
Ernesti (cognitive approach) “on the
ground of the fact that all have sinned” Because
all have sinned (Luther with dieweil) “Under
the more definite condition that all have sinned” Scmidt. “that,
whereunto all sinned” Ewald “death
was present at the sinning of all those to whom it has penetrated, and it has
not been invariably brought about and introduced only through their sinning,
nor always only for each individual who sinned” Hofmann Source:
This is from www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTES at note
11 Search on google
Romans 5:12 van wyk] Kapic
thinks ontologically and throw his feelings over his interpretation of the
Bible just like Augustine did with Pelagius [Regret is scars of sin of the past
not present live original sin (kvw)] [Kapic]
The problem of sin is deep and personal. We each have done things we regret,
things we feel bad about. We remember stealing a piece of candy from a store or
yelling in anger at our children or someone else. These actions are wrong and
lamentable. But what can be even more disturbing is to begin to see the dark
hand of sin shot through all of our internal world. In the quiet, in the dark,
we begin to wonder about ourselves. Scars
of past sins makes anyone scary and should. We should never call ourselves
sinless. Only Holy Spirit does or will [kvw] [Kapic]
Working with college students, I sometimes watch them see the depth of their
own sin for the first time, and in many cases it frightens them. They would all
confess they are sinners if asked, but in truth, most of them view themselves
as basically good. What
happens is that the Holy Spirit starts to transform their lives [kvw] [Kapic]
Then something happens. They begin to learn the complexity of their own hearts:
they are surprised by how jealous they can be, how powerful addictions can
form, how manipulatively they work situations and use people, and how
accusatory their hearts can be, not just about others, but toward themselves. It
is not the bent but the scars of memory that Satan interpret for them as
original sin and a hopeless situation [kvw] [Kapic]
At some point it hits them — there is something terribly wrong, something bent
about their hearts. They often become paralyzed as they begin to see that even
their purest love grows out of mixed motives and darkened desires. It seems
better to ignore this reality, to never fully see it. But is that better? Active
sin is painful and should be. We need to overcome all active sins with the Holy
Spirit’s effective help towards complete victory [kvw] [Kapic]
When our sin is revealed to us, it is painful. We wonder why sin remains such a
violent presence in our lives, creating pain and relational destruction. Sin
is guilt but Christ removes it completely instantaneously and sin is pollution
that affects people we were involved in and after proper salvation we need to
pray for the Holy Spirit to help them too, the consequences of our past sin. Not
abiding pollution as A. Hoekema sees it but abiding scars in our memory that
God does not remove. [kvw] Abiding pollution is Augustinian paint. [Kapic]
As Anthony Hoekema observed, we face two issues with sin: the guilt it brings
and the pollution it creates. While Christians are justified in Christ and
soaked in His love and mercy (freed from sin’s guilt), we continue to wrestle
with the ongoing realities of sin (its abiding pollution). The
darkness of our hearts to see is insight from the Holy Spirit who convicts us
of sin but is the eyesalve to make us see more and see the Grace of Christ and
supply power to overcome says the Bible. Not Pelagius invented. Ellen White
says the same. [Kapic]
Once we do see the darkness of our own hearts, the last thing we need, the last
thing that seems to be helpful, is to be told, as Pelagius tells us, to try
harder. We have tried, but sin remains. For Christians, part of what can be so
troubling is that our sinful impulses do not simply disappear once we are
saved. We still live in light of the tragedy of original sin, and it affects us
not only every day, but every moment. Romans
7 is about Saul not Paul, the sinner before he/she becomes a believer not a Christian
up and down life with supposedly constant inherent sins [kvw] [Kapic]
No wonder we find it humiliating to come to terms with our sin — it makes us
confess things about ourselves that none of us really wants to admit. We are
not “good people.” Something is wrong, not just in this world, but within us.
Sin has affected not just our wills but our minds, our emotions, even our
bodies. But paradoxically, only when we see our slavery to sin can we celebrate
our liberty in Christ. In the end, it
is only when we humbly, and with unflinching honesty, come to recognize the
true nature of sin that we can finally look, in awe and wonder, at the cross.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in
Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). [Why wages of
sin? After the Investigative Judgment that determines our destiny there will be
wages given to the believer kvw]. Jesus
did not design His cross to guide us through our life but the Holy Spirit and
transformation of Character following His Example as that Guide. Not wood but
Divine Third Heavenly Being [Kapic]
Augustine concluded that our view of sin is not just a discussion about human
nature, but ultimately it is a discussion about Jesus Christ and His death. The
cross was not significant simply in order to get us “saved,” but its reality
continues to govern and guide the life of God’s children. To
be saved and afterwards a remaining in grace is absolute important Ellen White
said (kvw) [Kapic]
This means that not only are we saved by grace, but we remain dependent on
grace for our whole lives. On the one hand, yes, there is our sin. But on the
other, we behold the great, loving, and allsufficient work of Christ. And that
changes everything. We live in the paradox that the Augustinian monk Martin
Luther so rightly(?) understood: Christians are simultaneously justified and
still sinners (simul iustus et peccator) (?) [This was Hans LaRondelle’s
view in Perfection in a footnote
maybe at footnote 450? From my memory]. In this way, while we continue to
struggle with sin, we also find hope and comfort as we lift our eyes to the
cross and keep walking. [We should
continue to struggle with scars of memory of sin that reminds us of our past
weaknesses and keep us humble at the Spirit of God as transforming power and
Christ our Advocate and the Father our agape Judge] kvw.
Note by this editor kvw: LaRondelle
had a very beautiful ministry and was used by God globally and I drove many
kilometers to go and listen to his messages and enjoyed it. This is an academic
error that I point out here and we should be willing to adjust our biblical
view not on the basis of romantic views of preachers or teachers. I love
reading Calvin too and Luther but we need to academically realize their
problems for our own theological and doctrinal growth and sanctification
growth.