“…And there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it is said, ‘See, this is new?’ It has been already in the ages before us.” Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 Thank you, Alisa, for once again bringing us such deep and thought-provoking theological content for us to meditate on. I hope you truly enjoy your time off!
Alisa, I truly appreciate your work and this video. I am passionate about natural theology and the work of the church fathers who have gone before us especially those like Pascal who also had a love for science. If you are reading this I would encourage you to have some voices on your show with different understandings of original sin. I believe that many people come to struggle with the version of original sin taught to them in the church they grew up in and then reject the doctrine altogether. We must let those who are struggling know that there is a long tradition of differences on this issue within the historic Christian church and just because they have a problem with part of the doctrine doesn't mean it needs to be thrown out altogether. As someone who was raised Southern Baptist, there is a reason why the Baptist Faith and Message says, "Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation." The real struggle most people have is inherited guilt, not an inherited sinful nature. Plenty of Christians reject inherited guilt, including many in the SBC, the world's largest protestant denomination, the entire Eastern Orthodox Church, and many in the Wesleyan tradition. I do not want people to feel they need to deconstruct from Christianity when they may only need to switch denominations.
Am I the only one who got the impression that Pascal was a bit idolized here? I loved the interview altogether. There was just a lot of emphasis on one man.
I didn't get that feeling at all. The whole purpose of the interview was to talk about his ideas to point out what may be helpful to modern Christians as we face ideas in our own time. And of course he's excited to share about that; it's a big part of his life work.
"Original sin" is a doctrine of man, namely Augustine. It's not Biblical. The RCC had and still has influence on Protestantism. Bibical Christianity is different. It's very clear from Genesis to Revelation that sin is a choice.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period? The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Whereas it's true that there are no new questions, it's also true that there are no new answers. And yet the new books ( Ecclesiastes 12: 9-14) just keep coming. Why is that ? Is that something that is essential to the health of the church of Jesus Christ ? Or would it be reasonable to say that all of the books, music and videos are just a distraction ? If none of these had ever been ; would the members of the self identifying body of Christ be found deficient? If there were no philosophers, no academics, no theological advanced degrees, no credentials or laudets bestowed by men; would the Word of God in conjunction with the indwelling Holy Spirit be sufficient to produce a flourishing child of God? I don't find a teaching or model in New Testament scripture for seminary. Which is not to say that a modern in Christ person should not be knowledgeable of correct interpretation and application of scripture but that at the heart of Jesus teaching and example purity of motive and simplicity is the higher calling. I believe it was the apostle Paul that stated he was determined to know if nothing else Jesus Christ and him crucified. Additionally, that the kingdom of God was not merely a matter of words but of power. I've seen no evidence to show that the power of the Holy Spirit is awarded through any amount of intellectual endeavor or wrangling of words. The body of Christ in the earth; Christ Jesus the head does not suffer from a dearth of philosophers, theologians, speakers, writers, books, icons and idols. But to an injurious degree it suffers from a glut of these; to the neglect of the most needful. There is no end to all sorts of "Christian" distraction and not nearly enough Holy Spirit empowered discernment or knowledge of the Word of God; correctly interpreted , correctly understood , correctly lived out. I believe I understand the allure, the gratification, the seduction, the addiction of intellectualism and the attendant ego flexing but I've also seen too many times how all of this supposed higher thought has not actually improved a person's relationship with God or their brothers and sisters in Christ. All of the head knowledge did not make them better disciples of Jesus; to the contrary they became prideful elitist and eventually heretical. Again referring to something the apostle Paul said, inspired by the Holy Spirit; "Knowledge puffs up but love builds up". Could it be that the greater knowledge is found in what Jesus says at Mark 10:13-16. For all of Blaise Pascal's genius he was not smarter than God the Father,God the Son or God the Holy Spirit and should not be deferred to as if he was or idolized. For those of us that are familiar with the history of the Roman Catholic church from it's inception I was surprised to find out that Pascal was an allegiant. Everything I know about Roman Catholic history, doctrine, policy and practice has caused me to believe that the RCC from it's inception is a particularly insidious Satanic counterfeit instituted by the polytheistic emperor Constantine around 312 A.D. when he supposedly made Christianity the state religion. In my investigations of RCC doctrines, policies and practices I've come to believe that virtually all are false, not consistent with scriptural truth and many outright blasphemous. For all of Pascal's brilliance he was apparently horribly deceived or otherwise deluded. The adulation of man should never be confused with the approval of God. Of the philosophies, ideologies, opinions, deceptions, delusions of man there is no end and in the end the only thing that matters is the truth of God's Word and how we respond to it. I can see now how some of my comments might stir up a hornets nest ; that was not my intention ; but if that's what happens ; maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe that would really make people think.
There might not be any new 'great' questions, but there are many new (thank God for science) answers! One of them demonstrates the failure of Pascal's Wager. Since you tout Pascal's Wager, when it is such an abysmal failure, filled with logical fallacies and errors and has long been debunked, I'm disinclined to spend a valuable hour of my life listening to more of the same.
I agree with you about Pascal's wager, and I am not sure why that is what he is known for. I not sure he thought it was a strong argument. The Pensees is a brilliant work, even though it is just his "notes"-- which was to be a part of a greater work defending the faith. I think you might benefit from reading the Pensees. The Wager is not even a part of it.
@@rdrift1879 Perhaps his Wager is better known since the vast majority of us are far too under-educated to have even heard of his Pensees! So, you are suggesting that his Wager is not indicative of his general cognitive and philosophical abilities? He was drunk at the time? Laudanum? And that his Pensees is magnitudes of order superior? If he didn't think it a valid/strong argument, why allow it? I wouldn't. As for your assumption that reading the Pensees would benefit me, I would say that I have never perceived anything that was not of, one way or another, benefit! ;)
@@nameless-yd6ko You can't blame Pascal for a weak argument he was toying with becoming popular. The Pensees is among Britannica's "Great Books of the Western World" collection. The only "Great Book" that is just in note form, since he died before writing his magnum opus. It was not published by him. So, the wager portion is just "thoughts" he jotted down to consider, and it is not presented in the popular form we have all heard. Give the guy a little credit for his notes being so highly regarded.
@@rdrift1879 Alright, even with your ad-populum fallacy, and his shameful Wager, I might take a critical glance at the rest of his work. See if i can find something to 'draw me in'. ;)
My soninlaw went to DenverTS, and Dr. G was his philosophy prof. What a gift of God for this age. I listen to many podcasts!
Groothuis is amazing. I love his books!!!
Great podcast episode Alisa!! Yes I will humbly admit that those of the past were much wiser than me
“…And there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it is said, ‘See, this is new?’ It has been already in the ages before us.” Ecclesiastes 1:9-10
Thank you, Alisa, for once again bringing us such deep and thought-provoking theological content for us to meditate on. I hope you truly enjoy your time off!
Alisa, I truly appreciate your work and this video. I am passionate about natural theology and the work of the church fathers who have gone before us especially those like Pascal who also had a love for science. If you are reading this I would encourage you to have some voices on your show with different understandings of original sin. I believe that many people come to struggle with the version of original sin taught to them in the church they grew up in and then reject the doctrine altogether. We must let those who are struggling know that there is a long tradition of differences on this issue within the historic Christian church and just because they have a problem with part of the doctrine doesn't mean it needs to be thrown out altogether.
As someone who was raised Southern Baptist, there is a reason why the Baptist Faith and Message says, "Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation." The real struggle most people have is inherited guilt, not an inherited sinful nature. Plenty of Christians reject inherited guilt, including many in the SBC, the world's largest protestant denomination, the entire Eastern Orthodox Church, and many in the Wesleyan tradition.
I do not want people to feel they need to deconstruct from Christianity when they may only need to switch denominations.
The Baptist “Faith” was founded in 1609.
The “Baptist Faith” was founded in 1609.
Beautiful!! ✨❄️🦄 😻
Am I the only one who got the impression that Pascal was a bit idolized here? I loved the interview altogether. There was just a lot of emphasis on one man.
I didn't get that feeling at all. The whole purpose of the interview was to talk about his ideas to point out what may be helpful to modern Christians as we face ideas in our own time. And of course he's excited to share about that; it's a big part of his life work.
Question: How do you reconcile Ezekiel 18 with original sin ?
"Original sin" is a doctrine of man, namely Augustine.
It's not Biblical. The RCC had and still has influence on Protestantism.
Bibical Christianity is different.
It's very clear from Genesis to Revelation that sin is a choice.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Whereas it's true that there are no new questions, it's also true that there are no new answers. And yet the new books ( Ecclesiastes 12: 9-14) just keep coming.
Why is that ? Is that something that is essential to the health of the church of
Jesus Christ ? Or would it be reasonable to say that all of the books, music and videos are just a distraction ? If none of these had ever been ; would the members of the self identifying body of Christ be
found deficient? If there were no philosophers, no academics, no theological advanced degrees, no credentials or laudets bestowed by men;
would the Word of God in conjunction with
the indwelling Holy Spirit be sufficient to
produce a flourishing child of God? I don't
find a teaching or model in New Testament scripture for seminary. Which is not to say that a modern in Christ person should not be knowledgeable of correct interpretation and application of scripture but that at the heart of Jesus teaching and example purity of motive and simplicity is the higher calling. I believe it was the apostle Paul that stated
he was determined to know if nothing else Jesus Christ and him crucified. Additionally, that the kingdom of God was not merely a matter of words but of power. I've seen no evidence to show that
the power of the Holy Spirit is awarded
through any amount of intellectual endeavor or wrangling of words. The body
of Christ in the earth; Christ Jesus the head does not suffer from a dearth of philosophers, theologians, speakers, writers, books, icons and idols. But to an
injurious degree it suffers from a glut of
these; to the neglect of the most needful.
There is no end to all sorts of "Christian"
distraction and not nearly enough Holy Spirit empowered discernment or knowledge of the Word of God; correctly
interpreted , correctly understood , correctly lived out. I believe I understand
the allure, the gratification, the seduction,
the addiction of intellectualism and the
attendant ego flexing but I've also seen too many times how all of this supposed
higher thought has not actually improved
a person's relationship with God or their
brothers and sisters in Christ. All of the
head knowledge did not make them better disciples of Jesus; to the contrary they became prideful elitist and eventually heretical. Again referring to something the
apostle Paul said, inspired by the Holy Spirit; "Knowledge puffs up but love builds up". Could it be that the greater knowledge is found in what Jesus says at
Mark 10:13-16. For all of Blaise Pascal's genius he was not smarter than God the Father,God the Son or God the Holy Spirit
and should not be deferred to as if he was
or idolized. For those of us that are familiar with the history of the Roman
Catholic church from it's inception I was surprised to find out that Pascal was an
allegiant. Everything I know about Roman Catholic history, doctrine, policy and practice has caused me to believe that the
RCC from it's inception is a particularly insidious Satanic counterfeit instituted by
the polytheistic emperor Constantine around 312 A.D. when he supposedly
made Christianity the state religion. In my
investigations of RCC doctrines, policies and practices I've come to believe that virtually all are false, not consistent with
scriptural truth and many outright blasphemous. For all of Pascal's brilliance
he was apparently horribly deceived or otherwise deluded. The adulation of man
should never be confused with the approval of God. Of the philosophies, ideologies, opinions, deceptions, delusions of man there is no end and in the end the only thing that matters is the truth of God's Word and how we respond
to it. I can see now how some of my comments might stir up a hornets nest ;
that was not my intention ; but if that's
what happens ; maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe that would really make people think.
Is paskal in latin
Convert to the True Faith-Traditional Catholicism.
Sounds like Ecclesiastes...
There might not be any new 'great' questions, but there are many new (thank God for science) answers! One of them demonstrates the failure of Pascal's Wager.
Since you tout Pascal's Wager, when it is such an abysmal failure, filled with logical fallacies and errors and has long been debunked, I'm disinclined to spend a valuable hour of my life listening to more of the same.
I agree with you about Pascal's wager, and I am not sure why that is what he is known for. I not sure he thought it was a strong argument. The Pensees is a brilliant work, even though it is just his "notes"-- which was to be a part of a greater work defending the faith. I think you might benefit from reading the Pensees. The Wager is not even a part of it.
@@rdrift1879 So, you are saying that his famous Wager is not reflective of the greater content of his work? Is my 'condemnation' premature? ;)
@@rdrift1879 Perhaps his Wager is better known since the vast majority of us are far too under-educated to have even heard of his Pensees!
So, you are suggesting that his Wager is not indicative of his general cognitive and philosophical abilities? He was drunk at the time? Laudanum? And that his Pensees is magnitudes of order superior?
If he didn't think it a valid/strong argument, why allow it? I wouldn't.
As for your assumption that reading the Pensees would benefit me, I would say that I have never perceived anything that was not of, one way or another, benefit! ;)
@@nameless-yd6ko You can't blame Pascal for a weak argument he was toying with becoming popular. The Pensees is among Britannica's "Great Books of the Western World" collection. The only "Great Book" that is just in note form, since he died before writing his magnum opus. It was not published by him. So, the wager portion is just "thoughts" he jotted down to consider, and it is not presented in the popular form we have all heard. Give the guy a little credit for his notes being so highly regarded.
@@rdrift1879 Alright, even with your ad-populum fallacy, and his shameful Wager, I might take a critical glance at the rest of his work. See if i can find something to 'draw me in'. ;)