Mohler’s Unoriginal Non Sequitur

As we’ve seen in previous installments of this series, Al Mohler alleges that kinists are heretics. We looked at his bogus claim about “racial superiority.” Now let’s start to look at the theological basis of his allegation: our allegedly defective view of human nature. For starters, this is an interesting place to root one’s definition of heresy or orthodoxy, as Christians have squabbled violently over the nature of humanity for thousands of years. Our varying views of soteriology – the doctrine of salvation – largely depend on our varying views of human nature. Is mankind innately wicked and sinful, pretty sinful but otherwise morally capable, or completely capable but sometimes ignorant? Depending on how you answer, you’re either a Calvinist/Lutheran, a semi-Pelagian/Roman Catholic/Arminian/Eastern Orthodox, or a Pelagian/Gnostic/New Ager. There is therefore precedent for basing part of one’s definition of orthodoxy vs. heresy on one’s definition of the nature of man. Having said that, however, it is a post-Nicene development. Human nature is not the subject of the Nicene Creed, often referred to as one of the most basic Christian confessions of faith. In that creed, phrases like“for us men and for our salvation…and was made man,” and “one baptism …

Read more at the Faith and Heritage blog
(The opinions in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Southern Nation News or SN.O.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *