Re: [asa] Improved view of idolatry

Don -

It's true that human beings are "basically good" in that they are God's creatures even as sinners. In that sense Augustine could say that even the devil is good as far as his mere existence is concerned. The idea that sin has made humans fundamentally evil - that original sin is the "substance" of fallen human nature, was rejected by Article I of the Formula of Concord.

But the fact that that extreme view has to be rejected as heretical doesn't mean that the opposite extreme - that people are "basically good" in the popular sense that they can by their own powers do what is pleasing to God - has to be accepted. & there is quite general biblical witness that human beings are not "basically good" in that sense: That is the whole point that Paul makes in that section of Romans (1:18 - 3:20) which began this discussion - a section which concludes with a catena of OT texts to the effect that "There is no one who is righteous, not even one."

While it's true that all people "are created by God," it is manifestly false that they all "live in his fellowship." We are not from birth children of God, as the NT uses the term, but children of wrath - Ephesians 2:3.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Don Winterstein
  To: asa ; Janice Matchett
  Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:42 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Improved view of idolatry

  This sounds like sweeping accusation based on what?

  A major reason the conventional Christian view of idolatry is unacceptable IMO is partly because it makes sweeping accusations based on no info and partly because things often cited as idols are to some degree necessary for human life. For example, there is a sense in which all Christians should think of themselves as "basically good people." They are created by God and live in his fellowship. What's bad about that? God surely does not want his people to go around with totally negative images of themselves. This is not biblically justifiable. What image of himself generally did David have, do you suppose? Or Christ's apostles after Pentecost? The conventional view of idolatry IMO tends to hang multiple guilt trips on everybody all the time, and that's wrong.

  Don

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Janice Matchett
    To: Don Winterstein ; asa
    Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 12:43 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] Improved view of idolatry

    At 08:49 AM 11/4/2007, Don Winterstein wrote:

      Luther: "...To have a god is to have something in which the heart entirely trusts."
      Murphy: "What is really fundamental is where we put our ultimate trust...."
       
      By these standards there is probably little or no idolatry among God-believers in America: Very few of them, if asked, would claim that their ultimate trust is in their wealth or in anything or anyone but God. .."

    @ What they would claim is beside the point. Probably the majority of them also think that they are "basically" good people - that alone makes them idolaters.

    There are only two choices and that's why - boiled down to their essence - there are really only two religions.

    ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 5 11:06:31 2007