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 22^nd 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.