A rejection of Original Sin and Atonement Theology

[TLK Valentine]

Created in righteousness, holiness and knowledge of him (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10)

Going by that definition, the angels would be even closer to God's image than we are. Surely they are righteous and holy, and they know from first hand experience that God exists, while we humans take it on faith... or not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let's look at Romans 5:12:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,

and death through sin,

so also death was passed on to all men,

because all sinned.

And yet, death, rather than being the punishment for sin, is clearly observed to be a necessary part of the normal function of Creation.

Our world is living, growing, dying, and regrowing continuously.

I've heard before that Augustine, the "Father of Original Sin" in the West had a faulty translation of Romans and if I remember right it was specifically Romans 5:12. In the end, death is passed to all men because all sinned. Not that death passed to all men absent their own sin but only because a form of sin was passed along to them. It was because all sinned that death was passed on to them. I've wondered before what would become of a person who lived without sinning at all. Would they live forever? I don't know.

The problem is, everything dies. Not just Man, but everything in creation -- the butterflies, the anteaters, the water buffalos... What sin was passed onto them, and who passed it?

Now, you say that "it's an atrocious mockery of anything that could be considered "justice." But we have resolved conflicts the same way all through history. Some war is going on, especially a civil war, and some king or another offers amnesty to the opposing side if they lay down their arms and live peacefully. And a lot of war criminals go unpunished. That is in effect the gist of Christianity. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and God wants it to end. To end it He offers the sacrifice of Christ to all who will accept it and live in peace.

The issue isn't who doesn't get punished -- that's mercy.

The issue is who does. God requires no sacrifice, unless he demands one.

Christianity is God's terms for peace.

Strikes me as a tad melodramatic. If God insists on sacrificing... something, well, that's His prerogative; He's God, after all.

But the idea of "Christ died for our sins" still rings hollow. He died because God demanded it, and made it happen.

 

[ChetSinger]

That's a term that gets tossed around a lot without discussion. What does it mean to be "in the image of God"?

I've read it means we represent him here on earth. We have his mandate to run the place and we've been given the intelligence, creativity, and free will to get the job done.

Some of God's pre-existing angelic family already had those attributes as well, which is why God said "Let us create man in our image".

Another possible translation of the phrase is "Let us create man as our image" which reinforces the idea that we are his representatives.

Taken from here, a book I recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Supernatural-Bible-Teaches-Unseen-Matters-ebook/dp/B016LT2YHA

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've read it means we represent him here on earth. We have his mandate to run the place and we've been given the intelligence, creativity, and free will to get the job done.

*Looks around at the state of the world* Hmmm...

Some of God's pre-existing angelic family already had those attributes as well, which is why God said "Let us create man in our image".

Something He never does again anywhere in the Bible...

 

[ChetSinger]

*Looks around at the state of the world* Hmmm...

Yeah. That's a potential consequence of free will. As a parent of children I can attest to both the joy and the hurt of it.

Something He never does again anywhere in the Bible...

Right. The bible describes only this age and this world, and "creation" was complete with the creation of us, his images who were made from it and given authority over it. We get but glimpses of the previous age and the next one. Did you know that the phrase usually translated as "eternal life" is actually "life across the ages" in the original language?

 

[Clare73]

Going by that definition, the angels would be even closer to God's image than we are. Surely they are righteous and holy, and they know from first hand experience that God exists,

They may be. . .and?

However, humanity has now entered the Godhead. The angelic has not.
And those in Christ have done the same.

while we humans take it on faith... or not.

I take it on the experience of faith and the Holy Spirit within me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah. That's a potential consequence of free will. As a parent of children I can attest to both the joy and the hurt of it.

Right -- which has nothing to do with "Original Sin." The ignorance, selfishness, and shortsightedness we see is a direct result of our choices in the here and now, not in some mythical past.

Right. The bible describes only this age and this world, and "creation" was complete with the creation of us, his images who were made from it and given authority over it. We get but glimpses of the previous age and the next one. Did you know that the phrase usually translated as "eternal life" is actually "life across the ages" in the original language?

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing what this has to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: While the Bible does not teach it explicitly it is implied by never providing an example where angels loved. Only God and humans can love.

tk: It is also never taught explicitly or implied that Jesus ever once went to the bathroom... but we can safely infer (or at least sincerely hope for his own sake) that he did so at least once in his earthly lifetime.

Yes, because the Bible explicitly teaches that He had a human body and ate food more than once. So it is with this argument it is a rational extrapolation from what the bible explicitly teaches about angels.

tkv: An argument from silence is not a good argument.

You can make rational extrapolations. See above.

ed: Yes, angels primary duties are to bring messages and engage in spiritual warfare. No need for love.

tk: Wow, just... wow. Where to begin...

First of all, "No need for love" is nothing less than the mantra of a sociopath. Anything denied love will live (assuming it lives at all) as a monster.

Raise a dog without love and you get a beast whose only place is fighting in the pits...

...and needs to be put down lest it get loose and chew off some toddler's face... or your own.

Raise a human as such and you're guaranteed to breed a serial killer.

They were not "raised without love". Since God has "infinite lovingkindness" He plainly loved and loves His angels.

tk: Second, "bring messages" to whom? angels were created before humans, and indeed everything else, so it's not like God's phone was ringing off the hook.

Actually we dont know that they were created before everything else, but after He created humans their primary mission was to deliver important messages to humans like Gabriel did to Mary.

tk: Similarly, "spiritual warfare" against whom? Obviously they were created before there was any hint of rebellion -- indeed, before they were created, there was nobody to rebel -- so who were they created to go to war against... the Klingons?

Of course, they became warriors AFTER the rebellion.

ed: Well we dont know exactly what happened but it appears one named Lucifer wanted omnipotent power like God so God threw him out along with some minions of his.
tk: Christian tradition claims that Lucifer suffered from pride -- which torpedoes your entire argument as pride is a misuse of love -- excessive love for self, to be more precise.

Tradition is not equal to His Word. But even if true, I was primarily referring to love for others, a significant difference.

ed: No, God allowed Satan in to test us spiritually because the stronger we are spiritually the better we can defeat evil but we failed.
tk: There's a lot of failure to go around -- after all, evil was created in God's very presence by His very creation... If we were created to be better than the angels, God dropped the ball... again.

We can love and grow spiritually, they cannot, that is a huge difference.

ed: Yes, but He has given us Christ and His spirit to help us under the new covenant.

tk: Because the old covenant was a bust.
Another failure?

No, it wasn't a failure He just changed the way of administering the covenant, why? we dont know. The mode of salvation is the same in both Covenants.

ed: Because if we dont, we are helping the evil one.

tk: Funny -- they way you tell the story, "the evil one" is the only one who's actually succeeded at anything he set out to do.

Actually he has already lost, he just doesnt know it yet. But he does win some individual battles by convincing some people to reject God.

ed: Not for His pleasure but to destroy evil forever. Apparently this is the only way it can be done.
tk: "Apparently"? You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

Unlike manmade gods, there are some things we dont know about the real God which is to be expected.

ed: Just like God cannot go against logic, there are other rules of reality He cannot go against.

tk: God gets weaker and weaker... painting himself into a corner.

He cannot go against His own character, He must be just. And He cant do things that are logically impossible.

tk: Now, I bring this up because it shows an important point -- the more we literalize these stories, the deeper down the rabbit hole we go in vain attempts to explain/justify the literalism, until we're stuck in near total incoherence.

Nothing I have stated is anywhere near incoherence. At least to most people.

tk: (literalism, btw, is another one of those reasons I'm not, and most likely won't ever be, a Christian)

Actually contrary to popular atheist belief not everything in His word is meant to be taken literally. The bible contains many different types of literature.

 

[ChetSinger]

Right -- which has nothing to do with "Original Sin." The ignorance, selfishness, and shortsightedness we see is a direct result of our choices in the here and now, not in some mythical past.

The result of original sin was death (Genesis 3:16-17 and Romans 5:12-17). We were denied access to the tree of life so now we are all mortal. No one escapes death.

I'm Anabaptist, so we don't believe we're born guilty as some denominations do. It's why we don't baptize babies: we don't see a need for it.

However, we do believe that everyone will eventually sin, and that tendency to sin is inherited. Think about it: do you have to teach children to tell lies? To be selfish? Nah, it's innate and is guaranteed to appear eventually.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing what this has to do with the topic at hand.

OK, no problem.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The result of original sin was death (Genesis 3:16-17 and Romans 5:12-17). We were denied access to the tree of life so now we are all mortal. No one escapes death.

Obviously, "death" here can't refer to physical death -- you know: 6-foot hole in the ground, pushing up daisies, food for worms -- so we must mean some sort of spiritual death.

I'm Anabaptist, so we don't believe we're born guilty as some denominations do. It's why we don't baptize babies: we don't see a need for it.

However, we do believe that everyone will eventually sin, and that tendency to sin is inherited. Think about it: do you have to teach children to tell lies? To be selfish? Nah, it's innate and is guaranteed to appear eventually.

...which doesn't necessarily mean it came from one specific action back at the beginning of the world.

 

[Clare73]

Obviously, "death" here can't refer to physical death -- you know: 6-foot hole in the ground, pushing up daisies, food for worms --
so we must mean some sort of spiritual death.

It refers to both. . .spiritual death (loss of eternal life) at the time of the sin, and physical death; i.e., the end of their physical life.

...which doesn't necessarily mean it came from one specific action back at the beginning of the world.

It does if you believe Genesis and Romans 5:12-14, Romans 5:18.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, because the Bible explicitly teaches that He had a human body and ate food more than once. So it is with this argument it is a rational extrapolation from what the bible explicitly teaches about angels.


You can make rational extrapolations. See above.

I don't consider "angels were designed without love" to be such a rational extrapolation... so we'll have to agree to disagree.

They were not "raised without love". Since God has "infinite lovingkindness" He plainly loved and loves His angels.

Are they capable of returning that love?

Because if they can't, what is their motivation for serving Him?

Actually we dont know that they were created before everything else, but after He created humans their primary mission was to deliver important messages to humans like Gabriel did to Mary.

Well, if we accept the common belief that the Serpent in Eden was, in fact, Satan, then it's pretty clear that the creation of angels, the rebellion, and banishment... and that Satan had already tunneled his way out of his prison at least once.

Or... First came the Creation of Eden, then the Angels (but not as messengers; you'll notice that God spoke to Adam personally), and the rebellion and banishment all happened "offstage" while Adam and Eve were frolicking around in the Garden. Which means that God's perfect creation had turned into a warzone, and He didn't think to keep a closer eye on his new pets -- literally the only thing in the universe worth protecting?

Not a good move.

Of course, they became warriors AFTER the rebellion.

Which means they weren't intended to be warriors.

Tradition is not equal to His Word. But even if true, I was primarily referring to love for others, a significant difference.

Love is love -- one can argue that a lot of "sinful" behavior is simply love misused or misdirected.

We can love and grow spiritually, they cannot, that is a huge difference.

They serve, they fight -- and they have no chance of ever being anything else?

Small wonder a few of them rebelled against the system... big wonder more of them didn't.

No, it wasn't a failure He just changed the way of administering the covenant, why? we dont know. The mode of salvation is the same in both Covenants.

He changed the rules -- let us pray He never chooses to change them again.

Actually he has already lost, he just doesnt know it yet. But he does win some individual battles by convincing some people to reject God.

He's gone toe-to-toe with the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the infinite universe... one would be hard-pressed to explain how he's won any battles.

Unlike manmade gods, there are some things we dont know about the real God which is to be expected.

Funny, I keep hearing a lot about what He is and isn't on these boards...

Case in point...

He cannot go against His own character, He must be just. And He cant do things that are logically impossible.

I agree with the latter -- the definition of omnipotence is the ability to do absolutely anything that can be done... but "Can't go against His own Character"?

• Anyone can do that -- a man who's character is kind and considerate can always have a bad day... Even the most unrepentant psychopath can stop to pet a kitten once in a while. We humans are not slaves to our "character" -- and are we any better than God?
• And who's to say what God's "character" actually is? The Bible? The Church? You? To attempt to define God is the second greatest act of hubris... the greatest being to demand He follow your definition.
• "He must be just"? Again, whose rule is that? The Bible's, the Church's, or yours?

Nothing I have stated is anywhere near incoherence. At least to most people.


Actually contrary to popular atheist belief not everything in His word is meant to be taken literally. The bible contains many different types of literature.

I'll go a step further and say that most of the Bible is not meant to be taken literally -- certainly nothing that pertains to God... after all, the very concept of "God" is beyond human comprehension, which includes human language.

And since "God" is a prevalent theme in the Bible, we must allow for a lot of poetic license...

 

[TLK Valentine]

It refers to both. . .spiritual death (loss of eternal life) at the time of the sin, and physical death; i.e., the end of their physical life.

...which makes for an unpleasant future if you stop and think about it... as it is, physical death is a necessary part of the smooth operation of this world -- birth, life, death, rebirth...

to say the least, taking death out of the equation would lead to things getting pretty crowded around here exponentially fast.

It does if you believe Genesis and Romans 5:12-14, Romans 5:18.

The entire point of this thread is that I do not.

 

[Clare73]

Obviously, "death" here can't refer to physical death -- you know: 6-foot hole in the ground, pushing up daisies, food for worms --
so we must mean some sort of spiritual death.

The entire point of this thread is that I do not.

I guess I got confused by your interpreting Scripture.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I guess I got confused by your interpreting Scripture.

I can interpret Scripture without believing it. Years of Catholic education does wonders.

 

[Clare73]

I can interpret Scripture without believing it. Years of Catholic education does wonders.

Would you tell me about your Catholic education.

 

[hedrick]

Correction: that "original sin" implies guilt at birth is a Biblical idea. . .where all mankind are made sinners and condemned
(Romans 5:18-19), being by nature (birth) objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

Actually I think this is questionable. Paul says that we are made sinners. That doesn't imply that we are guilty for Adam's sin, but that as sinners we are guilty on our own. In the context of 5:12-14 the condemnation does seem to take the form of death, which of course was the punishment threatened in Gen 2-3.

This passage doesn't actually talk about imputation. It compares Adam as the source of death and Jesus as the source of life. I'm not saying Paul doesn't talk about imputation at other places, but that's not the parallel he is drawing here.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would you tell me about your Catholic education.

Certainly -- four years of high school under the Jesuits, another four years of college under the Dominicans.
Plus another eight years teaching in the Catholic school system alongside the Vincentian-Setonians. Granted, I wasn't teaching religion, but you don't share a lunch table with the nuns for that long without picking up a thing or two...

 

[Clare73]

Actually I think this is questionable. Paul says that we are made sinners. That doesn't imply that we are guilty for Adam's sin, but that as sinners we are guilty on our own. In the context of 5:12-14 the condemnation does seem to take the form of death, which of course was the punishment threatened in Gen 2-3.

In the context of 5:12-14, the issue is what sin caused the death of mankind between Adam and Moses.
Paul concludes it was Adam's sin which caused their death/condemnation.
The queston being resolved is the sin, not the death/condemnation

This passage doesn't actually talk about imputation.

Correct.

We got that in Romans 4:3-5, where Paul establishes that all rightelousness is credited/imputed, as it was to Abraham.
Likewise, all righteousness is from God alone (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21), for mankind has none (Romans 3:9-10).

Therefore, the one act of righteousness (obedience of the cross) made the many righteous (by faith) just as it did Abraham; i.e., by accreditation/imputation.

And because Romans 5:18-19 are carefully constructed parallels, contrasting the two imputations (sin/condemnation and justification/righteousness) where we already know righteousness is accredited/imputed, the parallel requires imputation of Adam's sin if the parallels are not to be destroyed.

It compares Adam as the source of death and Jesus as the source of life. I'm not saying Paul doesn't talk about imputation at other places, but that's not the parallel he is drawing here.

Granted, Adam is the source of death and Jesus is the source of life, but in my Bible, the parallels of 5:18-19 are of
Adam's condemnation and disobedience, not death, and of Christ's righteousness and obedience, not life.

 

[Clare73]

Certainly -- four years of high school under the Jesuits, another four years of college under the Dominicans.
Plus another eight years teaching in the Catholic school system alongside the Vincentian-Setonians. Granted, I wasn't teaching religion, but you don't share a lunch table with the nuns for that long without picking up a thing or two...

That's some serious educators you were involved with there.

What turned you off, I would expect that group to do a pretty good job.