A rejection of Original Sin and Atonement Theology

[TLK Valentine]

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.

They did a magnificent job; I have nothing but respect for all of them.

But of course, their goal was to educate, not indoctrinate.

 

[ChetSinger]

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 can speak only for my own denomination, but we believe both passages are speaking of physical death. Perhaps more, as well, but definitely including physical death. It's why Adam and Eve were driven away from the tree of life: to ensure they eventually died.

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

OK. That's just the Judeo-Christian explanation of it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

And you know that, how?

The Bible only refers to humans being created in the image of God.

clare: On what basis would that even be questioned?

Some sexist but that is irrelevant to my point. There are many implicit teachings in the Bible.

clare: Did not Christ die to atone for the sins of women as well as the sins of men?

Uh. . .but I hear it quite loud and clear in the quite explicit "there is neither male nor female in Christ."

No that is not explicit. Explicit would be if there was a verse that said "Remember to include women at the Lords Supper." You are doing exactly what I did, reasoning from implicit teachings.

clare: Agreed. . .what does redemption have to do with it?

The church is the assembly of the redeemed. Read I Corinthians 1:2. No angels mentioned.

Oh, but indeed it is!

The New Jerusalem is the bride of the Lamb; i.e., the bride of Christ, which is the church!

NOT according to Hebrews 12:22-24, where the "New Jerusalem" is the bride of Christ, the church, which includes
"thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly ("assembly" = ekklesia = church)."

Your "ability to reason and learn implied teachings" is not doing too well here.

No, that verse says that you come to heaven or new heavens and new earth (New Jerusalem) where the angels reside and where the members of the church reside. But those are two different things. The church is only composed of humans. But of course, heaven has many other beings living there. Also read I Corinthians 12:28, no mention of teachers of angels if they were part of the church there would officers of the church to deal specifically with angels.

 

[Ed1wolf]

NO, it is evidence only that there was no evidence of me being there.

Ok, I stand corrected.

clare: Addressed in post #57, above.

See my response to your post.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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

We are both personal beings.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We are both personal beings.

"But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have." -- Xenophanes

 

[Ed1wolf]

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

I didnt say they were designed without love. I am just saying that they cannot love as we understand it because they are not human and not fully personal beings.

ed: 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?

Admiration and gratitude.

ed: 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.
tv: 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.

What prison? While defeat was inevitable, Satan had not yet been defeated.

tv: 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?

No, most likely angels were created prior to humans. It became a spiritual war zone after the Fall. Actually the Bible says His creation was very good not perfect. It was perfect for its purpose not necessarily the best of all possible worlds.

ed: Of course, they became warriors AFTER the rebellion.
tv: Which means they weren't intended to be warriors.

Yes, but Of course, God knew they would eventually need to be warriors.

ed: Tradition is not equal to His Word. But even if true, I was primarily referring to love for others, a significant difference.
tv: Love is love -- one can argue that a lot of "sinful" behavior is simply love misused or misdirected.

Not really, you have to remember that they are not fully personal beings, they dont understand fully what love is.

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

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

Yes.
To be continued...

 

[TLK Valentine]

I didnt say they were designed without love. I am just saying that they cannot love as we understand it because they are not human and not fully personal beings.

Do we truly understand "love"? I wonder...

Admiration and gratitude.

Which don't mean much without some degree of love -- and we've already seen what a colossal failure relying on "admiration and gratitude" turned out to be...

What prison? While defeat was inevitable, Satan had not yet been defeated.


No, most likely angels were created prior to humans. It became a spiritual war zone after the Fall. Actually the Bible says His creation was very good not perfect. It was perfect for its purpose not necessarily the best of all possible worlds.

Interesting that a perfect being would choose to create imperfection -- again, if the angels are any indication...

Yes, but Of course, God knew they would eventually need to be warriors.

Whose sole enemy would be one another.They were created to solve the problem caused by their creation.

Not really, you have to remember that they are not fully personal beings, they dont understand fully what love is.

They have been in the actual presence of God, who, according to the Bible, is Love Itself. If they hadn't figured it out, they're either dumb as a sack of doorknobs, or God didn't want them to understand love.

In the case of the latter, is it any wonder some of them rebelled?

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: 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.

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

Not the rules to be saved, the rules for salvation have never changed.

ed: 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.
tv: 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.

Well he is very intelligent and he is working with free will beings that are born with a natural repulsion of the Christian God. So those things help him.

ed: Unlike manmade gods, there are some things we dont know about the real God which is to be expected.
tv: Funny, I keep hearing a lot about what He is and isn't on these boards...

Well He has revealed a great deal but hardly anywhere near everything about Himself.

tv: Case in point...

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

• His moral character is perfect and therefore never changes. Because ours has been corrupted by sin it can change fairly often especially if you are not being guided by His holy spirit.

• tv: 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 has revealed His character in His son Jesus Christ. He has defined Himself in His word. Of course, it is not an exhaustive definition as I stated above.

• tv: "He must be just"? Again, whose rule is that? The Bible's, the Church's, or yours?

  It is His description of Himself and it is confirmed when you get in a relationship with Him.

ed: 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.

tv: 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.

No, since He is a personal being as we are and He created language He is able to communicate many truths with language about Himself though as I stated above not exhaustively.

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

While there is a good amount of poetry in Bible, He has communicated many of His truths through poetic language as well. Not poetic license however. Interpreting His word is bound by the same rules as interpreting any written text.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not the rules to be saved, the rules for salvation have never changed.

Have they not? Because I was taught that the way to Salvation was through Jesus Christ, and to acknowledge that he was the only begotten Son of God and that he died for our sins -- something he didn't actually do until approximately AD 30.

So clearly the rules must have been a little different for the people who lived and died before that time.

Well he is very intelligent and he is working with free will beings that are born with a natural repulsion of the Christian God. So those things help him.

Last I heard, God's no dummy either... although creating beings with "a natural repulsion" to Himself -- twice (first the angels and then humanity) -- might not be the strongest argument for that.

Well He has revealed a great deal but hardly anywhere near everything about Himself.

Plenty of room for His "followers" to stuff Him in a box.

• His moral character is perfect and therefore never changes. Because ours has been corrupted by sin it can change fairly often especially if you are not being guided by His holy spirit

In spite of our natural repulsion to Him? Interesting.
Also, it should be noted that "perfection" is in itself, a weakness... it makes One predictable, which is the sort of thing the Bad Guy can easily exploit... which, paradoxically enough, makes it an imperfection... funny how that works out... don't you think?

He has revealed His character in His son Jesus Christ. He has defined Himself in His word. Of course, it is not an exhaustive definition as I stated above.

Ah, yes... God defines the Universe; "His word" (the Bible) defines God; We define the Bible.
In the end, who's really in charge?

• It is His description of Himself and it is confirmed when you get in a relationship with Him.

Unless you're wrong...but that's not possible, is it?

No, since He is a personal being as we are and He created language He is able to communicate many truths with language about Himself though as I stated above not exhaustively.

Unless He is not a personal being -- unless we are forced, through the limitations of human conceptualization and launguage, to view Him as a personal being.

Language is a human tool,and as such, is limited by human thinking. Your God is either too big for it, or too small to be "God."

While there is a good amount of poetry in Bible, He has communicated many of His truths through poetic language as well. Not poetic license however. Interpreting His word is bound by the same rules as interpreting any written text.

Right -- and I stand by what I said, based precisely on my experience in interpreting written texts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

• "Creation" is an ongoing process, continuing to this day.

• If Creation is ongoing, then there was never a time when it was "finished."

• If it was never "finished," then it was never "perfect."

• If it was never "perfect," then there was never any kind of fall from that nonexistent "perfection."

• As there was no "fall," there was no "Original Sin," which caused it.

• Without a "fall," then Jesus' purpose on this Earth could not have been to "restore" Creation or any part of it to a "perfection" that never existed in the first place.

• This would necessarily mean that "Jesus died for our (Original) sins" is nonsensical.

Your logic is full of holes:

It depends on the unproven notion that Evolution = Creation

If Creation is ongoing, time has nothing to do with when it was finished.

It is reasonable to think that Creation was 'finished' as soon as it was spoken into existence. This temporal existence is what it took to accomplish that 'finished' creation.

Who says it was perfect? What is that in reference to? The finished product is perfect, i.e. complete and without flaw. Not so humanity as Adam and Eve.

What if they fell from innocence, or guiltlessness? Who said they fell from perfection?

The original sin was the fall. The fall did not come from it. Regardless, you have not shown logically there was no fall.

Who said "Jesus' purpose on this Earth... [was] ...to "restore" Creation or any part of it to a "perfection"."?

Not only are your conclusions bogus, since your logic is bogus, the things you are trying to disprove are mis-stated (to put it nicely).

Who said Christ died for our (original) sins? He is the substitute for the sins of the redeemed, his punishment was for their sinful deeds (i.e. 'sins'(plural)), not for their (original) sinful natures (i.e. 'sin' (singular)).

 

[Ed1wolf]

"But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have." -- Xenophanes

No, personhood is not physical. We are not physically made in His image because God is not physical. He created us in the image of His personhood.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Your logic is full of holes:

It depends on the unproven notion that Evolution = Creation

If Creation is ongoing, time has nothing to do with when it was finished.

Actually, if Creation is ongoing, then by definition, it is not finished.

It is reasonable to think that Creation was 'finished' as soon as it was spoken into existence. This temporal existence is what it took to accomplish that 'finished' creation.

Except our temporal existence is ongoing. Present tense, not past. We all continue to exist temporally, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I, personally, am in no hurry for that to stop.

Who says it was perfect? What is that in reference to? The finished product is perfect, i.e. complete and without flaw. Not so humanity as Adam and Eve.

Which means precisely what I said -- Creation was never perfect, i.e., never complete. As you agreed, it is ongoing by virtue of our continued temporal existence.

What if they fell from innocence, or guiltlessness? Who said they fell from perfection?

Fair enough -- a fall from moral perfection, if nothing else.

The original sin was the fall. The fall did not come from it. Regardless, you have not shown logically there was no fall.

That's an interesting theology, to say the least. Traditional Christian theology has been that original sin was the act of disobedience from God, and that "the fall" was the consequence/punishment for that act of disobedience. This falls in line with a pattern established not only in the Bible itself, but pretty consistently throughout the universe in general: cause and effect -- for every action, there are consequences, good and/or bad.

Who said "Jesus' purpose on this Earth... [was] ...to "restore" Creation or any part of it to a "perfection"."?

Not only are your conclusions bogus, since your logic is bogus, the things you are trying to disprove are mis-stated (to put it nicely).

Who said Christ died for our (original) sins? He is the substitute for the sins of the redeemed, his punishment was for their sinful deeds (i.e. 'sins'(plural)), not for their (original) sinful natures (i.e. 'sin' (singular)).

Well, once we accept that God's work was never perfect in the first place, then that's a valid point. But that point leads to a different theological question which may be outside the scope of this one: Why would a Perfect Being capable of Creation deliberately create imperfection?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, personhood is not physical. We are not physically made in His image because God is not physical. He created us in the image of His personhood.

By His personhood, do you mean the "personhood" of Jesus Christ, who was physical?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually, if Creation is ongoing, then by definition, it is not finished.

Just as I proposed. In this temporal economy it is NOT finished, but in God's economy it is; our descriptions necessarily time-relative as we have no other way to express them, it WAS finished as soon as he spoke it into existence.

Except our temporal existence is ongoing. Present tense, not past. We all continue to exist temporally, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I, personally, am in no hurry for that to stop.

Try to consider that our small view is not 'as real' as that which was before the beginning of the temporal existence —think of this temporal existence as a small envelope on God's desk. (No, don't worry, he is very organized.)

Which means precisely what I said -- Creation was never perfect, i.e., never complete. As you agreed, it is ongoing by virtue of our continued temporal existence.

Perfect implies completion. Think, envelope. God is a lot bigger than us.

So your line of logic did not prove there was no fall. You attempted to prove that all this lack of completion (which I showed was only a temporal notion, anyway), means there was no fall, because there was no perfection —yet the Bible does not claim a fall from perfection, but from innocence.

Fair enough -- a fall from moral perfection, if nothing else.

That's an interesting theology, to say the least. Traditional Christian theology has been that original sin was the act of disobedience from God, and that "the fall" was the consequence/punishment for that act of disobedience. This falls in line with a pattern established not only in the Bible itself, but pretty consistently throughout the universe in general: cause and effect -- for every action, there are consequences, good and/or bad.

What is the difference, really? They are inseparable. My point is, your claim there was no fall, since there was no perfection, is bogus.

Well, once we accept that God's work was never perfect in the first place, then that's a valid point. But that point leads to a different theological question which may be outside the scope of this one: Why would a Perfect Being capable of Creation deliberately create imperfection?

Yes. Deliberately. Romans 9: "23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— "

However, He DID create it perfectly suited for the purposes which he intended for it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just as I proposed. In this temporal economy it is NOT finished, but in God's economy it is; our descriptions necessarily time-relative as we have no other way to express them, it WAS finished as soon as he spoke it into existence.

Our universe exists in time, even if God does not. We who are not gods have no other way to perceive it.

Try to consider that our small view is not 'as real' as that which was before the beginning of the temporal existence —think of this temporal existence as a small envelope on God's desk. (No, don't worry, he is very organized.)

Nevertheless, it's the only "real" we have to work with. (Which means you have no basis to tell anyone how organized God is)

Perfect implies completion. Think, envelope. God is a lot bigger than us.

According to the Bible, Creation is complete -- Genesis 2:2. Then (spoiler alert) it all goes sideways in the next chapter.

So your line of logic did not prove there was no fall. You attempted to prove that all this lack of completion (which I showed was only a temporal notion, anyway), means there was no fall, because there was no perfection —yet the Bible does not claim a fall from perfection, but from innocence.

Innocence, or ignorance?

What is the difference, really? They are inseparable. My point is, your claim there was no fall, since there was no perfection, is bogus.

Depends on what kind of innocence we're talking about.

Yes. Deliberately. Romans 9: "23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— "

However, He DID create it perfectly suited for the purposes which he intended for it.

And what purposes were those?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Our universe exists in time, even if God does not. We who are not gods have no other way to perceive it.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Problem?

Nevertheless, it's the only "real" we have to work with. (Which means you have no basis to tell anyone how organized God is)

Sure I do. Even during this temporal, we have logic and good reason. Logic shows First Cause which shows Omnipotence with Intent which shows complete control and direction. No disorder in his character.

MQ: Perfect implies completion. Think, envelope. God is a lot bigger than us.

TV: According to the Bible, Creation is complete -- Genesis 2:2. Then (spoiler alert) it all goes sideways in the next chapter.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. What Genesis 2:2 says, is, "On the seventh day, He had finished his work of creation". It does not mention the human temporal viewpoint. Notice that verse 1 says, "By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done" —so he had completed his work of creating. Furthermore, it sounds like he had no plans for further creating on the 8th day forth. It does not say Deistically, that he had no more plans for improving what he began, nor that he had no plans to be continued during this temporal existence and made complete at the end of it.

MQ: Romans 9: "23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— "

MQ: However, He DID create it perfectly suited for the purposes which he intended for it.

TV: And what purposes were those?

To make a particular people for himself, to his Glory. The Bride of Christ, the Church.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: I didnt say they were designed without love. I am just saying that they cannot love as we understand it because they are not human and not fully personal beings.

tv: Do we truly understand "love"? I wonder...

No, we dont that is why we need God to help us understand it more fully and He has done so in His word. I do want to admit that my view is a minority view regarding angels not being fully personal. Most Biblical scholars believe they are personal beings so I could be wrong.

ed: Admiration and gratitude.

tv: Which don't mean much without some degree of love -- and we've already seen what a colossal failure relying on "admiration and gratitude" turned out to be...

Not sure exactly what you are referring to though I may have a hunch.

ed: What prison? While defeat was inevitable, Satan had not yet been defeated.

No, most likely angels were created prior to humans. It became a spiritual war zone after the Fall.
Actually the Bible says His creation was very good not perfect. It was perfect for its purpose not necessarily the best of all possible worlds.

tv: Interesting that a perfect being would choose to create imperfection -- again, if the angels are any indication...

What imperfection? The creation was created perfect, for its purpose. That doesn't mean it is imperfect.

ed: Yes, but Of course, God knew they would eventually need to be warriors.
tv: Whose sole enemy would be one another. They were created to solve the problem caused by their creation.

It was not really a problem, it had to occur, it was part of the plan.

ed: Not really, you have to remember that they are not fully personal beings, they dont understand fully what love is.
tv: They have been in the actual presence of God, who, according to the Bible, is Love Itself. If they hadn't figured it out, they're either dumb as a sack of doorknobs, or God didn't want them to understand love.

In the case of the latter, is it any wonder some of them rebelled?

See above, I could be wrong maybe they can love. But there is some evidence that after Satan rebelled God may have taken away their free will.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, we dont that is why we need God to help us understand it more fully and He has done so in His word. I do want to admit that my view is a minority view regarding angels not being fully personal. Most Biblical scholars believe they are personal beings so I could be wrong.

We don't understand love, so we read the Bible.
The angels don't understand love; they're stuck.

Not sure exactly what you are referring to though I may have a hunch.

The rebellion, of course.

What imperfection? The creation was created perfect, for its purpose. That doesn't mean it is imperfect.

You're talking in circles. What was Creation's purpose, again?

It was not really a problem, it had to occur, it was part of the plan.

"Plan"makes it problematic -- there was no "fall"; we were pushed.

See above, I could be wrong maybe they can love. But there is some evidence that after Satan rebelled God may have taken away their free will.

Now that's beyond problematic and straight into theologically nonsensical. If God took away their free will as a result of their rebellion, that implies that granting them free will in the first place was a mistake.

Which means that not only is God capable of making mistakes (which flushes His infallibility right down the drain), but that he made the same mistake by granting free will to his next creation -- humanity.

So rather than accept a fallible God who's also a slow learner, we might have to re-examine that "evidence."

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't see that as an insurmountable obstacle, given that there are many Christians, even "western" ones, that don't understand Genesis literally.

Also, some Christians have a different understanding of time, and don't necessarily think of creation as something that is an artifact of the past. Premodern peoples often had different conceptualizations of time: the creation story represents a time beyond time, like the Australian Aboriginal "Dreamtime", that is inaccessible to normal consciousness and can only be articulated through symbols.