Wednesday, November 30, 2016

THE IMPACT OF ADAM AND EVE’S SIN ON THE WORLD


THE IMPACT OF ADAM AND EVE’S
 SIN ON THE WORLD



Submitted to
Global School of Open Learning




In Partial fulfilment of the

Requirement for the Course

THEOLOGY 1








 by

Jose  M M
ID No. M12J025

24 September 2016








GLOBAL SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING, BANGALORE


Table of contents                                                 Page no.
1.     Introduction:                                                                  3
2.     Defination of sin                                                            3 
3.     Origin of sin                                                                   3
4.     The doctrine of inherited sin                                          4 
1.     Inherited guilt                                                            4
2.     Inherited corruption                                                  6
                                                                                                           
Conclusion                                                                                          8
Bibliography                                                                                        9     



















Introduction
I take Christian Education class for the church members. One day a young person asked “ It is unfair we are counted guilty because of Adam’s sin as Rom 5:12-21 teaches.
I made a study and took a session to answer him so that his sense of unfairness will not become a hindrance in his relationship with God. I give here the details of the study on sin.
The Definition of Sin
The history of the human race as presented in Scripture is primarily a history of man in a state of sin and rebellion against God and of God’s plan of redemption to bring man back to himself. Therefore, it is appropriate now to consider the nature of the sin that separates man from God.
We may define sin as follows: Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. Sin includes not only individual acts such as stealing or lying or committing murder, but also attitudes that are contrary to the attitudes God requires of us.
Here God specifies that a desire to steal or to commit adultery is also sin in his sight. The Sermon on the Mount also prohibits sinful attitudes such as anger (Matt. 5:22) or lust (Matt. 5:28). Paul lists attitudes such as jealousy, anger, and selfishness (Gal. 5:20) as things that are works of the flesh opposed to the desires of the Spirit (Gal. 5:20). Therefore a life that is pleasing to God is one that has moral purity not only in its actions, but also in its desires of heart. In fact, the greatest commandment of all requires that our heart be filled with an attitude of love for God: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). [1]
The Origin of Sin
Where did sin come from? How did it come into the universe? First, we must clearly affirm that God himself did not sin, and God is not to be blamed for sin. It was man who sinned, and it was angels who sinned, and in both cases they did so by wilful, voluntary choice.
Even before the disobedience of Adam and Eve, sin was present in the angelic world with the fall of Satan and demons. But with respect to the human race, the first sin was that of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1–19). Their eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is in many ways typical of sin generally.
 First, their sin struck at the basis for knowledge, for it gave a different answer to the question, “What is true?” Whereas God had said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate from the tree (Gen. 2:17), the serpent said, “You will not die” (Gen. 3:4). Eve decided to doubt the veracity of God’s word and conduct an experiment to see whether God spoke truthfully.
Second, their sin struck at the basis for moral standards, for it gave a different answer to the question “What is right?” God had said that it was morally right for Adam and Eve not to eat from the fruit of that one tree (Gen. 2:17). But the serpent suggested that it would be right to eat of the fruit, and that in eating it Adam and Eve would become “like God” (Gen. 3:5). Eve trusted her own evaluation of what was right and what would be good for her, rather than allowing God’s words to define right and wrong. She “saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,” and therefore she “took of its fruit and ate” (Gen. 3:6).
Third, their sin gave a different answer to the question, “Who am I?” The correct answer was that Adam and Eve were creatures of God, dependent on him and always to be subordinate to him as their Creator and Lord. But Eve, and then Adam, succumbed to the temptation to “be like God” (Gen. 3:5), thus attempting to put themselves in the place of God.[2]
The Doctrine of Inherited Sin
How does the sin of Adam affect us? Scripture teaches that we inherit sin from Adam in two ways.
1. Inherited Guilt: We Are Counted Guilty Because of Adam’s Sin. Paul explains the effects of Adam’s sin in the following way: “Therefore...sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
When Adam sinned, God thought of all who would descend from Adam as sinners. Though we did not yet exist, God, looking into the future and knowing that we would exist, began thinking of us as those who were guilty like Adam. This is also consistent with Paul’s statement that “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). Of course, some of us did not even exist when Christ died. But God nevertheless regarded us as sinners in need of salvation. The conclusion to be drawn from these verses is that all members of the human race were represented by Adam in the time of testing in the Garden of Eden. As our representative, Adam sinned, and God counted us guilty as well as Adam.
When we first confront the idea that we have been counted guilty because of Adam’s sin, our tendency is to protest because it seems unfair. We did not actually decide to sin, did we? Then how can we be counted guilty? Is it just for God to act this way?
In response, three things may be said:
(1) Everyone who protests that this is unfair has also voluntarily committed many actual sins for which God also holds us guilty. These will constitute the primary basis of our judgment on the last day, for God “will render to every man according to his works” (Rom. 2:6), and “the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done” (Col. 3:25).
 (2) Moreover, some have argued, “If any one of us were in Adam’s place, we also would have sinned as he did, and our subsequent rebellion against God demonstrates that.”
(3) The most persuasive answer to the objection is to point out that if we think it is unfair for us to be represented by Adam, then we should also think it is unfair for us to be represented by Christ and to have his righteousness imputed to us by God. For the procedure that God used was just the same, and that is exactly Paul’s point in Romans 5:12–21: “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). Adam, our first representative sinned—and God counted us guilty. But Christ, the representative of all who believe in him, obeyed God perfectly—and God counted us righteous. That is simply the way in which God set up the human race to work. God regards the human race as an organic whole, a unity, represented by Adam as its head. And God also thinks of the new race of Christians, those who are redeemed by Christ, as an organic whole, a unity represented by Christ as head of his people.
2. Inherited Corruption: We Have a Sinful Nature Because of Adam’s Sin. In addition to the legal guilt that God imputes to us because of Adam’s sin, we also inherit a sinful nature because of Adam’s sin. This inherited tendency to sin does not mean that human beings are all as bad as they could be. The constraints of civil law, the expectations of family and society, and the conviction of human conscience (Rom. 2:14–15) all provide restraining influences on the sinful tendencies in our hearts. Therefore, by God’s “common grace” people have been able to do much good in the areas of education, the development of civilization, scientific and technological progress, the development of beauty and skill in the arts, the development of just laws, and general acts of human benevolence and kindness to others. In fact, the more Christian influence there is in a society in general, the more clearly the influence of “common grace” will be seen in the lives of unbelievers as well. But in spite of the ability to do good in many senses of that word, our inherited corruption, our tendency to sin, which we received from Adam, means that as far as God is concerned we are not able to do anything that pleases him.
This may be seen in two ways:
In Our Natures We Totally Lack Spiritual Good Before God: It is not just that some parts of us are sinful and others are pure. Rather, every part of our being is affected by sin—our intellects, our emotions and desires, our hearts (the center of our desires and decision-making processes), our goals and motives, and even our physical bodies. Paul says, “I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh” (Rom. 7:18), and, “to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted” (Titus 1:15). Moreover, Jeremiah tells us that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). In these passages Scripture is not denying that unbelievers can do good in human society in some senses. But it is denying that they can do any spiritual good or be good in terms of a relationship with God. Apart from the work of Christ in our lives, we are like all other unbelievers who are “darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (Eph. 4:18).
 In Our Actions We Are Totally Unable to Do Spiritual Good Before God: This idea is related to the previous one. Not only do we as sinners lack any spiritual good in ourselves, but we also lack the ability to do anything that will in itself please God and the ability to come to God in our own strength. Paul says that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). Moreover, in terms of bearing fruit for God’s kingdom and doing what pleases him, Jesus says, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). In fact, unbelievers are not pleasing to God, if for no other reason, simply because their actions do not proceed from faith in God or from love to him, and “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb. 11:6). When Paul’s readers were unbelievers, he tells them, “You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once walked” (Eph. 2:1–2). Unbelievers are in a state of bondage or enslavement to sin, because “every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John8:34). Though from a human standpoint people might be able to do much good, Isaiah affirms that “all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” (Isa. 64:6; cf. Rom. 3:9–20). Unbelievers are not even able to understand the things of God correctly, for the “natural man does not receive the gifts [lit. “things’] of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14 RSV mg.). Nor can we come to God in our own power, for Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44).
But if we have a total inability to do any spiritual good in God’s sight, then do we still have any freedom of choice? Certainly, those who are outside of Christ do still make voluntary choices—that is, they decide what they want to do, then they do it. In this sense there is still a kind of “freedom” in the choices that people make.14 Yet because of their inability to do good and to escape from their fundamental rebellion against God and their fundamental preference for sin, unbelievers do not have freedom in the most important sense of freedom—that is, the freedom to do right, and to do what is pleasing to God.
The application to our lives is quite evident: if God gives anyone a desire to repent and trust in Christ, he or she should not delay and should not harden his or her heart (cf. Heb. 3:7–8; 12:17). This ability to repent and desire to trust in God is not naturally ours but is given by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and it will not last forever. “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Heb. 3:15).[3]



Conclusion
Without the supernatural regeneration by the Holy Spirit, all men would remain in their fallen state. But in His grace, mercy and loving-kindness, God sent His Son to die on the cross and take the penalty of our sin, reconciling us to God and making eternal life with Him possible. What was lost at the Fall is reclaimed at the Cross.[4]
















Bibliography
Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, GS books Hyderabad 2015

Question: "How did the Fall affect humanity?" Available from http://www.gotquestions.org/fall-affect-humanity.html accessed on 14 Sept 2016










[1]  Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology ( GS books Hyderabad 2015 ) 490

[2]  Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology ( GS books Hyderabad 2015 ) 492

[3]  Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology ( GS books Hyderabad 2015 ) 494

[4]Question: "How did the Fall affect humanity?" Available from http://www.gotquestions.org/fall-affect-humanity.html accessed on 14 Sept 2016

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

AGE OF THE MORDERN MISSIONARY MOVEMENT


AGE OF THE MORDERN
MISSIONARY MOVEMENT



Submitted to
Global School of Open Learning




In Partial fulfilment of the

Requirement for the Course

CHURCH HISTORY II








 by

Jose  M M
ID No. M12J025

26 November 2016







GLOBAL SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING, BANGALORE


Table of contents                                                   Page no.
Introduction:                                                                                      3
1.     Age of the modern missionary movement                                  3
2.     The positive effects of the movement.                                        4
3.     The negative effects of the movement                                        5
4.     Role of different individuals in the Missionary movement        5
a.     William Carey                                                                  5
b.      Bishop Samuel Ajayi Crowther                                             6
c.      Hudson Taylor                                                                 6
d.     Florence Selina Harriet Young                                        7     
5.     The effect of Theological revaluation on the growth of the church 8
a.     Darwinism                                                                        8
b.     Theological liberalism                                                      9
c.      Communism                                                                     9
                                                             
                                                                                                           
Conclusion                                                                                                  10
Bibliography                                                                                              10   














Introduction

The modern mission movement of the nineteenth century was the beginning of a new era in mission work. Before the 1800’s the church felt its call to missions consisted only of reaching the lost with the message of salvation. As the new century dawned the social and political climate began to change the missionary momentum came to a standstill. For the first time church was challenged to consider the social needs of the day. This challenge led to a new perception of missions that continue change the face of the mission work even today.
Age of the modern missionary movement
The beginning of the first era in the modern history of the missionary movement can be traced back to 1792 with the publication of a book entitled An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, written by the 31-year-old Baptist minister and former shoemaker William Carey. Carey explained why involvement in missionary work is so essential. (He was criticised severely by church leaders in England because of his conviction that "the nations of the world need Christ" and that it was the responsibility of the Christian leadership to make sure that "heathens" were exposed to the Gospel.) The book also provides readers with a brief history of the Christian missionary movement dating from the Apostolic era, as well as practical solutions on how to reach the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Carey's book caused an upheaval among some Protestant Groups. In Kettering (England) a new missionary organisation - the Baptist Missionary Society - was founded under whose auspices Carey worked in India from 1793. He was involved in missionary work in India for more than forty years. New missionary organizations were launched in England, Scotland, the Netherlands and America soon afterwards. Their aim was to send out missionaries and to motivate congregations and prayer groups to establish support networks for these workers. During the same time, Protestant missionaries from Europe and America were sent out to the New World - primarily Asia and Africa. They settled in the coastal regions and concentrated on reaching groups living in these areas. Many missionaries - especially those working in Africa died trying to fulfil their calling. During the first era and over a period of sixty years more than 90% of the missionaries who worked in Africa died within two years of arrival on the continent due to tropical diseases such as malaria.[1]
The positive effects of the movement.
The moral crusade
In the nineteenth century Christians saw many injustice in their society and they tried to correct them. By Gods power, they wanted to change the world in number of ways.
  Reforms
Preachers denounced the evils from the pulpits, newspapers printed and large meetings increased the pressure for change. Christians rallied to support many causes such as securing legal protection for women winning the right for women to vote.
In India William carry stood against the practice of Sati and encouraged education for women in India. The worked for liberation from prostitution alcohol and slavery.
Missionary work
 The concern of American Christians were not limited to their own country. Many of them were challenged by the story of Adoniram Judson to enter foreign missionary service. Many new missionary societies were established, and all denomination had mission boards to promote missionary support.
Urban needs
The rapidily growing cities posed the greatest challenge. Some of the churches established missions in the urban centres. They offered aid to the poor and alternatives to drinking and gambling, and they included aggressive evangelism. The missionaries established hospitals, orphanages and schools.
Personal holiness
With so much of wickedness in society, many churches emphasized the message that only answer was personal holiness. Holy lives that would , in turn produce a holy society. This gave rise to the holiness movement which seemed to touch all churches.
Bible translations
Bible was translated to many native languages. By the time of the death of William Carey in 1834 he translated some parts of the Bible into 40 Indian languages.
Slave trade
English evangelicals fought vigorously to abolish the slave trade. The British Parliament made slavery illegal in British land.
The negative effects of the movement
Social Ministries
Churches became institutional in an attempt to provide programs such as gymnasiums libraries, clinics, and social rooms for all aspects of life. It sometimes addressed the physical needs and did not demand a new-birth experience
Theological revolutions
There were major changes in the way some theologians understood the nature of Christianity. They declared that advances of science and historical studies demanded a change in Christianity. This theological revolution included Darwinism, liberalism and biblical criticism.

Role of different individuals in the Missionary movement
William Carey
It was in 1793 that Carey went to India. At first his wife was reluctant to go so Carey set off to go nevertheless, but after two returns from the docks to persuade her again, Dorothy and his children accompanied him. They arrived with a Dr. Thomas at the mouth of the Hooghly in India in November, 1793. There were years of discouragement (no Indian convert for seven years), debt, disease, deterioration of his wife's mind, death, but by the grace of God and by the power of the Word, Carey continued and conquered for Christ!
When he died at 73 (1834), he had seen the Scriptures translated and printed into forty languages, he had been a college professor, and had founded a college at Serampore. He had seen India open its doors to missionaries, he had seen the edict passed prohibiting sati (burning widows on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands), and he had seen converts for Christ.[2]
Bishop Samuel Ajayi Crowther 
Ajayi was in his 12th year when he was captured, along with his entire village, by Muslim Fulani slave raiders in 1821 and sold to Portuguese slave traders. Before leaving port, his ship was boarded by a Royal Navy ship under the command of Captain Henry Leeke, and Crowther was taken to Freetown, Sierra Leone and released. While there, Crowther was cared for by the Anglican Church Missionary Society, who taught him English. He converted to Christianity, was baptized by Rev. John Raban, and took the name Samuel Crowther in 1825.
In 1841 Crowther was selected to accompany the missionary James Frederick Schön on an expedition along the Niger River. The goal of the expedition was to spread commerce, teach agricultural techniques, spread Christianity, and help end the slave trade. Following the expedition, Crowther was recalled to England, where he was trained as a minister and ordained by the bishop of London. He returned to Africa in 1843 and with Henry Townsend, opened a mission in Abeokuta, in today's Ogun State, Nigeria.
Rev. Dr. Crowther began translating the bible into the Yoruba language and compiling a Yoruba dictionary.[3]
Hudson Taylor
Taylor was born to James and Amelia Taylor, a Methodist couple fascinated with the Far East who had prayed for their newborn, "Grant that he may work for you in China." Years later, a teenage Hudson experienced a spiritual birth during an intense time of prayer as he lay stretched, as he later put, "before Him with unspeakable awe and unspeakable joy." He spent the next years in frantic preparation, learning the rudiments of medicine, studying Mandarin, and immersing himself ever deeper into the Bible and prayer.
His ship arrived in Shanghai, one of five "treaty ports" China had opened to foreigners following its first Opium War with England. Almost immediately Taylor made a radical decision (as least for Protestant missionaries of the day): he decided to dress in Chinese clothes and grow a pigtail (as Chinese men did). His fellow Protestants were either incredulous or critical.
Taylor, for his part, was not happy with most missionaries he saw: he believed they were "worldly" and spent too much time with English businessmen and diplomats who needed their services as translators. Instead, Taylor wanted the Christian faith taken to the interior of China. So within months of arriving, and the native language still a challenge, Taylor, along with Joseph Edkins, set off for the interior, setting sail down the Huangpu River distributing Chinese Bibles and tracts.
When the Chinese Evangelization Society, which had sponsored Taylor, proved incapable of paying its missionaries in 1857, Taylor resigned and became an independent missionary; trusting God to meet his needs. The same year, he married Maria Dyer, daughter of missionaries stationed in China. He continued to pour himself into his work, and his small church in Ningpo grew to 21 members. But by 1861, he became seriously ill (probably with hepatitis) and was forced to return to England to recover.[4]

Florence Selina Harriet Young (1856-1940),
Florence Selina Harriet Young (1856-1940), missionary, was born on 10 October 1856 at Motueka, near Nelson, New Zealand, fifth child of Henry Young, farmer, and his wife Catherine Anne, née Eccles, both Plymouth Brethren from England
Settling in Sydney in 1878, after the death of her parents Florence moved in 1882 to Fairymead, a sugar plantation near Bundaberg, Queensland, run by two of her brothers. With timidity, she began to hold prayer meetings for planters' families and, with one assistant, established the Young People's Scriptural Union which eventually attracted 4000 members. Her attentions were increasingly devoted to the Melanesian sugarworkers whose responsiveness to kindness she applauded and whose 'heathen' customs and 'addictions' to 'white men's vices' she abhorred. Asking that God instruct 'the teacher and the scholars', she conducted classes in pidgin English, using pictures, rote biblical phrases and a chrysalis to explain the resurrection.
Under Miss Young's guidance, the Queensland Kanaka Mission was formally established at Fairymead in 1886 as an evangelical, non-denominational church. Relying on unsolicited subscriptions and stressing 'salvation before education or civilization', it spread to other plantations and won considerable approval. The Q.K.M. aimed to prepare the Melanesians for membership of established Christian churches after their repatriation and employed paid missionaries and members of Florence's extended family. Reassuring in its message of hope, its open-air hymn singing and its mass baptisms in local rivers, at its height in 1904-05 the Q.K.M. engaged nineteen missionaries and 118 unpaid 'native teachers', and claimed 2150 conversions. As she embraced departing converts, Florence exhorted them: 'No forget 'im Jesus'.[5]
The effect of Theological revaluation on the growth of the church
Darwinism
During the life time of Charles Darwin he published a number of books that claimed to show how life developed or evolved into its present forms. According to Darwin’s theory, the most fit of species survive and the week are destroyed. Science man is obliviously the most highly evolved animal, he is assumed to meagrely a sophisticated ape.
The idea of evolution have challenged Christianity continually until modern times. Christians saw the theory of evolution is a direct challenge to the view that man is created by a wise and a loving god the creator. The indirect impact of  evolution , however was even greater then the direct challenge. The philosophy behind Darwin’s theory was that man was getting better and better.
Many new inventions of man proved this fact. Christianity the highest of all religions must also be a product of evolution which some day will surpass all religion.



Theological liberalism,
 Sometimes known as Protestant Liberalism, is a theological movement rooted in the early 19th century German Enlightenment, notably in the philosophy of Imanuel Kant and the religious views of Friedrich Schleiermacher. It is an attempt to incorporate modern thinking and developments, especially in the sciences, into the Christian faith. Liberalism tends to emphasize ethics over doctrine and experience over Scriptural authority. While essentially a 19th century movement, theological liberalism came to dominate the American mainline churches in the early 20th century. Liberal Christian scholars embraced and encouraged the higher biblical criticism of modern Biblical scholarship.
Protestant liberal thought in its most traditional incarnations emphasized the universal Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the infinite value of the human soul, the example of Jesus, and the establishment of the moral-ethical kingdom of God   on Earth. It has often been relativistic, pluralistic, and non-doctrinal.[6]


Communism
Lenins victory in the famous October Revelution of 1917 in Russia established a new system of government controlled by the Communist. Private property including church property was confiscated. The communist government emptied Monasteries and church building turned into museums and gymnasiums. Thousands of priests and monks were sent to prision camps were they died. All evangelism and religious education was banned.
Conon




Conclusion
The purpose of the modern mission was to create an avenue by which the protestant Church could attempt to fulfil the great commission. William Carey’s vision caught on and through the midst of persecution, war, social and political unrest there were men and women ready to pick up the torch and keep the fire lit. In spite of disagreements and setbacks the modern missionary Movement prevailed, exploding churches, converting thousands, and reaching the poor and dying in their greatest need.

Bibliography

[1] “The Christian Missionary Movement in the Modern Era” available from  www.philadelphiaproject.co.za/downloads/christian/christian_misionary_movement_modern_era.pdf assessed on 14 Nov. 2016

[2]“Christian history” Available from  http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-36/why-did-1800s-explode-with-missions.html, assessed on 14 November 2016

[3]SAMUEL AJAYI CROWTHER” available from   http://satucket.com/lectionary/samuel_crowther.htm , assessed on 14 November 2016


[5] “ Australian dictionary of Biography“ Available from http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/young-florence-selina-9214 accessed on 14 Nov 2016

[6] Theopedia" available from http://www.theopedia.com/theological-liberalism assessed on 14 Nov. 2016