Is Ezekiel 18:20 a proof text refuting original sin and imputed guilt?

[bbbbbbb]

This is minimalism.

We are commanded to teach the whole counsel of God.

I agree completely. Sometimes the whole counsel of God is difficult to understand with our mortal brains.

 

[SuperCow]

Do you believe that a person like Mahatma Ghandi who was a completely blameless and sincere Hindu yet who utterly and completely rejected Christianity would be found worthy to enter heaven?

It is not my business to judge Ghandi or anyone else on this planet past or present. That is left for God. (Matthew 7:1)

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is not my business to judge Ghandi or anyone else on this planet past or present. That is left for God. (Matthew 7:1)

Nevertheless, you put for the idea "So when I read this, I think that a person with no opportunity to learn about God, but nevertheless follows the general principles of Jesus in Mark. I think if you die with a legitimate feeling that you are serving a higher power and subsequently treating others with dignity, respect and hospitality, then I think you might get a pass for never being approached by a Christian missionary during your lifetime."

The Bhudda certainly seems to fit your description. It is thus much better to be born in ignorance and to die in ignorance rather than to hear the gospel, is it not? As you have noted, Ghandi, whose life certainly was unimpeachable from a human standpoint, is eternally lost because he failed to embrace Christianity, but the Bhudda, whose life was equally fine, at least might get a pass for never being approached by a Christian missionary during (his) lifetime.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

With another label.

No sure what this means. Seems pejorative. The purpose of this thread is to correct a misinterpretation of Scripture which takes a lot of words. Not correcting takes zero words, zero thinking, zero study time, and zero desire to correctly to understand Scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No sure what this means. Seems pejorative. The purpose of this thread is to correct a misinterpretation of Scripture which takes a lot of words. Not correcting takes zero words, zero thinking, zero study time, and zero desire to correctly to understand Scripture.

Correctly understanding Scripture is hardly a task which can be finished within a lifetime of the finest theological mind. The human tendency is to fob off the effort and simply drift along the currents of whichever church or pastor one chooses to follow.

 

[SuperCow]

Nevertheless, you put for the idea "So when I read this, I think that a person with no opportunity to learn about God, but nevertheless follows the general principles of Jesus in Mark. I think if you die with a legitimate feeling that you are serving a higher power and subsequently treating others with dignity, respect and hospitality, then I think you might get a pass for never being approached by a Christian missionary during your lifetime."

I am merely repeating a principle as stated in the Bible, which is different from speculating on a particular person, for whom if I try to ascertain an opinion, I am implicitly judging that person in my mind. It would not be much different from stereotyping someone because of their race.

The Bhudda certainly seems to fit your description. It is thus much better to be born in ignorance and to die in ignorance rather than to hear the gospel, is it not? As you have noted, Ghandi, whose life certainly was unimpeachable from a human standpoint, is eternally lost because he failed to embrace Christianity, but the Bhudda, whose life was equally fine, at least might get a pass for never being approached by a Christian missionary during (his) lifetime.

The story we know about may be unimpeachable, but few of us, if any know about his private life. His attitude and behavior behind closed doors with his family and his political motivations could be different from what we have been told and what we have seen in movies. As I said; I am not the one to judge.

The Buddha, assuming he was a real person and not invented, fails the first test by becoming a deity himself and not divesting to a higher power, even if his understanding of the higher power is wrong. In that case, a follower of a true God could help him repent for that, or alternatively would expose his true attitude about wanting to be worshipped as a God. (Assuming the religion based on him was not created posthumously or outside of his ability to prevent.) That's no better than a Pharaoh, Caesar, or any other king or emperor that requires people to worship him.

Sometimes the two can be in conflict. If your religious beliefs tell you that you must become a great warrior to be accepted into Valhalla, or that you must blow yourself up along with as many random infidels as possible to be accepted into heaven, then you must have had all sorts of internal tribulations to get you there. Flashes of conscience that should have warned you that it was wrong had to be suppressed. And to a lesser extreme you would have to ignore your fear in order to steal, or commit adultery or violence. This is why the Christian mission is important, because people may not have an interest in repentance, because they may not know that they are redeemable.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I am merely repeating a principle as stated in the Bible, which is different from speculating on a particular person, for whom if I try to ascertain an opinion, I am implicitly judging that person in my mind. It would not be much different from stereotyping someone because of their race.



The story we know about may be unimpeachable, but few of us, if any know about his private life. His attitude and behavior behind closed doors with his family and his political motivations could be different from what we have been told and what we have seen in movies. As I said; I am not the one to judge.

The Buddha, assuming he was a real person and not invented, fails the first test by becoming a deity himself and not divesting to a higher power, even if his understanding of the higher power is wrong. In that case, a follower of a true God could help him repent for that, or alternatively would expose his true attitude about wanting to be worshipped as a God. (Assuming the religion based on him was not created posthumously or outside of his ability to prevent.) That's no better than a Pharaoh, Caesar, or any other king or emperor that requires people to worship him.

Sometimes the two can be in conflict. If your religious beliefs tell you that you must become a great warrior to be accepted into Valhalla, or that you must blow yourself up along with as many random infidels as possible to be accepted into heaven, then you must have had all sorts of internal tribulations to get you there. Flashes of conscience that should have warned you that it was wrong had to be suppressed. And to a lesser extreme you would have to ignore your fear in order to steal, or commit adultery or violence. This is why the Christian mission is important, because people may not have an interest in repentance, because they may not know that they are redeemable.

Precisely where is this "principle" stated in the Bible? Do biblical principles exist in a vacuum without any individual application?

The Buddha never indicated any interest whatsoever in becoming a deity. His goal, as is that of any serious Hindu, was to attain the state of Nirvana, escaping the interminable cycle of reincarnation. The fact that people have chosen to revere him is not a lot different than the practice in Christianity of revering the Mother of God and saints. I am not aware that the Mother of God or any of the saints went around during their lifetimes bragging and insisting that folks revere them. One significant difference is that, as per Hindu custom, the body of the Buddha was cremated, leaving no physical remains as relics to be worshipped. However, that has not stopped successive branches of Bhuddism coming up with bits of his alleged body to convey some spiritual authenticity to pilgrimage sites.

There are innumerable fine pagans in this world who also happen to be polygamists, not to mention owners of their workforce (aka slaves). Neither practice is unbiblical, although modern folks find them entirely unacceptable. Do you think, generically, that nice pagans who happen to be polygamists and/or slave owners have any hope of entering heaven?

 

[SuperCow]

Precisely where is this "principle" stated in the Bible? Do biblical principles exist in a vacuum without any individual application?

The Buddha never indicated any interest whatsoever in becoming a deity. His goal, as is that of any serious Hindu, was to attain the state of Nirvana, escaping the interminable cycle of reincarnation. The fact that people have chosen to revere him is not a lot different than the practice in Christianity of revering the Mother of God and saints. I am not aware that the Mother of God or any of the saints went around during their lifetimes bragging and insisting that folks revere them. One significant difference is that, as per Hindu custom, the body of the Buddha was cremated, leaving no physical remains as relics to be worshipped. However, that has not stopped successive branches of Bhuddism coming up with bits of his alleged body to convey some spiritual authenticity to pilgrimage sites.

That's interesting but totally irrelevant to my posts. I don't know the spiritual heart of anyone, let alone someone who lived 2500 years ago. Furthermore, I already stated that being made a deity (in this case 200 years after his death according to Wikipedia) was not his fault. It would be the fault of those followers who created a deity out of a dead person. Therefore I would propose that it is more likely for Buddha to be positively compared under the principle in Romans 2:14 than his followers.

There are innumerable fine pagans in this world who also happen to be polygamists, not to mention owners of their workforce (aka slaves). Neither practice is unbiblical, although modern folks find them entirely unacceptable. Do you think, generically, that nice pagans who happen to be polygamists and/or slave owners have any hope of entering heaven?

There are many patriarchs from the Bible that were outstanding followers of God that also happen to by polygamists. The Catholic Church tolerated it for centuries. (At least if you were a king) There is no explicit prohibition on polygamy stated anywhere in the Bible. That is a rather modern custom that has become a societal norm. (Disclosure: I am not a polygamist, nor do I condone the custom. I am just stating the facts.)

Regarding slavery, that would depend on the circumstances. We still have slavery worldwide, even in the U.S. It is reserved as punishment for criminals, and during wartime, prisoners of war. I think putting prisoners of war into labor camps might be against the Geneva conventions, but we don't seem to be bothered by criminals being forced to work in prisons. Other short-term examples are community service and indentured servitude. (the latter not commonly practiced anymore, if at all in western countries) Having a job is slavery. You just have a choice of who to be a slave to if you want to be paid to survive. (Or in totalitarian countries you are assigned a job you may or may not want.) Military conscription is slavery. You are forced to fight for your country or be punished. Most of the slavery in the Bible is for prisoners of war, payment of debt, or for people who wanted to be there, because they seemingly had nowhere else to go. This might seem strange to us today, but 3000 years ago, if you didn't like who you were working for and had no money, you couldn't just look at the job postings in the local village and go apply as a servant somewhere else.

So again, I reserve judgement for God to decide who is mistreating his wives, his slaves, his family or fellow man. I also reserve it to God to decide who rejects him out of knowledge or ignorance.

Regarding the idea that someone is better off not knowing about Christ, because not knowing allows him to escape judgement is nonsense. If he was fully applying principles of faith in his life, then learning about Jesus would be the easiest of all transitions. If he was doing everything as perfectly as a Christian was, he wouldn't have to change his life at all. And if it became difficult, because people of his former religion began persecution of him because of his conversion, then they would be the ones that would show themselves to be unworthy, and they might need this person to help them if he could and he would be grateful for the opportunity to help his former associates, since they could be condemned without him, and without him they might never change. (And if he was not grateful for this opportunity, then he was falling short already due to his lack of care for his fellow man.)

 

[Gary K]

If anyone is interpreting the passage according to the six principles you laid out, that would be classically Pelagian. I would be shocked to see such an interpretation from any Calvinist Baptist such as Dr. Albert Mohler, given how Calvinists seek to be as anti-Pelagian as possible (and perhaps overdo it just a bit). However, clearly, we do inherit the sins of Adam, otherwise we would be able to save ourselves and behave righteously and we would not experience death. This is either via the model proposed by St. Augustine of original sin or the model proposed by John Cassian of hereditary sin, which was historically favored by the Roman Catholic Church until their theology became dominated by what we now call Scholasticism; the model of St. John Cassian remains the preferred model among the Orthodox churches (and also I believe the Church of the East also uses the model of St. John Cassian, if they consciously think about it; to a large extent Assyrian theology was on autopilot for several centuries following the massive genocide against the Church of the East waged by the Mongol-Turkic warlord Tamerlane and his sons starting in the 12th century AD.

I would disagree with your premise. Here is why.

Romans 8: 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Adam couldn't pass on to his children what he no longer possessed as there is more to sin than we realize. Something happened to Adam and Eve physically the moment they sinned. Don't ask me how it happened that's far beyond my ability to understand. I just know what scripture tells us. Sin is within us at the level of our dna. That's why it is so powerful that only the power of God can work it out of us.

According to Ezekiel we know we don't inherit the guilt of the sins our parents committed but we do inherit their physical nature which is sinful. That nature is inherited, but not the guilt from our antecedents as that would be unjust and we know God is just.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Ezekiel 18

Easy-to-Read Version

​

True Justice​

18 The word of the Lord came to me. He said, 2 “Why do you people say this proverb:
‘The parents ate the sour grapes,
but the children got the sour taste’[a]?”
3 But the Lord God says, “By my life, I swear that people in Israel will not think this proverb is true anymore! 4 I will treat everyone, child and parent, just the same. The one who sins is the one who will die!
5 “A person who is good will live! He is fair and does what is right. 6 He doesn’t go to the mountains to share food offered to idols. He doesn’t pray to those filthy idols in Israel. He doesn’t commit adultery with his neighbor’s wife or with a woman during her period. 7 He doesn’t take advantage of others. If someone borrows money from him, he might take something of value before he gives the money. But when that person pays him back, he returns what he took. He gives food to the hungry and clothes to people who need them. 8 If someone wants to borrow money from him, he lends the money and doesn’t charge interest on the loan. He refuses to be crooked. He is always fair with everyone. People can trust him. 9 He obeys my laws and studies my rules so that he can learn to be fair and dependable. He is good, so he will live.” This is what the Lord God said.
10 “But someone like that might have a son who does not do any of these good things. The son steals things and kills people. 11 He does things his father never did. He goes to the mountains and eats foods offered to false gods. He commits the sin of adultery with his neighbor’s wife. 12 He mistreats poor, helpless people. He takes advantage of them. When a debt is paid,[b] he does not give back what he took from them. He prays to filthy idols and does other terrible things. 13 He lends money to people who need it, but he forces them to pay interest on the loan. The evil son will not be allowed to live. He will be put to death because he did such terrible things, and he will be responsible for his own death.
14 “Now, that evil son might also have a son. But this son sees the bad things his father did, and he refuses to live as his father did. He treats people fairly. 15 He does not go to the mountains and eat foods offered to false gods. He does not pray to filthy idols in Israel. He does not commit the sin of adultery with his neighbor’s wife. 16 He does not take advantage of people. If someone borrows money from him, the good son takes something of value and then gives the other person the money. When that person pays him back, the good son gives back what he took. The good son gives food to hungry people, and he gives clothes to those who need them. 17 He helps the poor. If people want to borrow money, the good son lends them the money, and he does not charge interest on the loan. He obeys my laws and follows them. He will not be put to death for his father’s sins. The good son will live. 18 The father hurts people and steals things. He never does anything good for my people! He will die because of his own sins.
19 “You might ask, ‘Why will the son not be punished for his father’s sins?’ The reason is that the son was fair and did good things. He very carefully obeyed my laws, so he will live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will be put to death. A son will not be punished for his father’s sins, and a father will not be punished for his son’s sins. A good man’s goodness belongs to him alone, and a bad man’s evil belongs to him alone.
21 “Now, if evil people change their lives, they will live and not die. They might stop doing all the bad things they did and begin to carefully obey all my laws. They might become fair and good. 22 God will not remember all the bad things they did. He will remember only their goodness, so they will live!”
23 The Lord God says, “I don’t want evil people to die. I want them to change their lives so that they can live!
24 “Now, maybe good people might stop being good. They might change their lives and begin to do all the terrible things that evil people have done in the past. (The evil people changed, so they can live.) So if those good people change and become bad, God will not remember all the good things they did. He will remember that they turned against him and began to sin. So they will die because of their sin.
25 “You people might say, ‘The Lord isn’t fair!’ But listen, family of Israel. I am fair. You are the ones who are not fair! 26 If good people change and become evil, they must die for the bad things they do. 27 And if evil people change and become good and fair, they will save their lives. They will live! 28 They saw how wicked they were and came back to me. They stopped doing the evil things they did in the past. So they will live! They will not die!”
29 The people of Israel said, “That’s not fair! The Lord isn’t fair!”
“I am fair! You are the ones who are not fair! 30 Why? Because, family of Israel, I will judge each of you only for what you do!” This is what the Lord God said. “So come back to me! Stop committing those crimes and do away with those things that cause you to sin! 31 Throw away all the terrible idols with which you committed your crimes! Change your heart and spirit. People of Israel, why should you do things that will cost you your life? 32 I don’t want to kill you! Please come back and live!” This is what the Lord God said.