Is Sin Always Bad?

[PrincetonGuy]

Is Sin Always Bad?

 

[hlaltimus]

If God is absolutely perfect in His prosecution of sin, then as far as our welfare is concerned, yes!

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Always!!!

 

[VickiY]

Emphatically, YES. Sin is anything that separates us from God, and thus, is bad.

 

[depthdeception]

If God is absolutely perfect in His prosecution of sin, then as far as our welfare is concerned, yes!

What does "prosecution of sin" mean?

 

[5stringJeff]

What does "prosecution of sin" mean?

It means how sin will be punished.

In other words, hlaltimus is saying that if God punishes all sin, then all sin is bad. And since God does punish all sin, then all sin is bad.

I think that all sin is bad, not because we will be punished for it, but because it violates God's holy nature.

 

[depthdeception]

It means how sin will be punished.

In other words, hlaltimus is saying that if God punishes all sin, then all sin is bad. And since God does punish all sin, then all sin is bad.

I think that all sin is bad, not because we will be punished for it, but because it violates God's holy nature.

But does God actually "punish" all sin? If so, why? What is it about sin that makes God desire to punish those who sin?

 

[frumanchu]

"Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor." -Habakkuk 1:13

 

[5stringJeff]

But does God actually "punish" all sin? If so, why? What is it about sin that makes God desire to punish those who sin?

Yes, God does punish all sin. The atonement for sin was made by Christ on the cross; all who accept the free gift of life through Jesus have their sins paid for. For those who reject that gift, their sins will be on their own heads, resulting in eternal punishment.

The reason that God punishes sin is that He is absolutely holy. The verse directly above supports that. God is also absolutely just. Therefore, God must punish sin; otherwise, He wouldn't be just.

 

[depthdeception]

The reason that God punishes sin is that He is absolutely holy. The verse directly above supports that. God is also absolutely just. Therefore, God must punish sin; otherwise, He wouldn't be just.

Actually, the verse quoted by frumanchu does not support the idea of GOd "punishing" humans for sin. It only speaks about how sin is antithetical to God and that God will have no fellowship with sin. It does not, however, say that God punishes humans for sin because of this. Why does God's absolute justice require that sin be punished? Allowing humans to inherit the consequences of sin actually accrues the exact same result as what you propose as being the "punishment" for sin. Humans are not damned because God is angry at them and gives them the punishment of hell. Rather, humans are damned because they have, through their own self-will, rejected relationship with God, preferring rather their own self-desires.

 

[frumanchu]

Actually, the verse quoted by frumanchu does not support the idea of GOd "punishing" humans for sin. It only speaks about how sin is antithetical to God and that God will have no fellowship with sin. It does not, however, say that God punishes humans for sin because of this. Why does God's absolute justice require that sin be punished? Allowing humans to inherit the consequences of sin actually accrues the exact same result as what you propose as being the "punishment" for sin. Humans are not damned because God is angry at them and gives them the punishment of hell. Rather, humans are damned because they have, through their own self-will, rejected relationship with God, preferring rather their own self-desires.

Scripture is pretty clear that we are sinners from birth. Are you telling me that infants reject relationship with God through their own self-will?

Scripture is also pretty clear that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men."

You have to deny large portions of Scripture to make the claim that man is not condemned because of God's wrath and anger against their unrighteousness.

 

[depthdeception]

Scripture is pretty clear that we are sinners from birth. Are you telling me that infants reject relationship with God through their own self-will?

When they reach an age in which they can exercise self-will, yes, they like all other humans will, unfortunately, reject relationship with God. Until they are able to reject God, though, it is impossible that they should be separated relationally from God.

Scripture is also pretty clear that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men."

I agree, but what does this have to do with retributive justice and punishment? It may very well be that the "revelation" of God's wrath, far from being a proactive force utilized by God, is actually "passive" in that God allows humans to inherit the natural consequences of relational dysfunction with and separation from God. "Damnation" is not something that God does to humans because God is "angry" at them. Far from it, separation from creation is the very last thing that God wants. However, humans, by their self-will, have revealed that they do not desire relationship with God. Therefore, separation from God is the natural consequence of sin (relational dysfunction with God), not something with which God "punishes" sinful humanity.

You have to deny large portions of Scripture to make the claim that man is not condemned because of God's wrath and anger against their unrighteousness.

Quite contrarily, you have to distort significant portions of Scripture to show that God's wrath is the active force in the condemnation of sinful humanity. In doing so, you suggest that the problem lies with God (for God, you say, "must" punish sinfulness) rather than locating the malady with the actual culprits (sinful, separated-from-God humanity).

 

[frumanchu]

When they reach an age in which they can exercise self-will, yes, they like all other humans will, unfortunately, reject relationship with God. Until they are able to reject God, though, it is impossible that they should be separated relationally from God.

Pelagius would be proud. The "age of accountability" is a myth concocted to circumvent the clear teaching of Scripture on man's sinfulness and wickedness from birth.

I agree, but what does this have to do with retributive justice and punishment? It may very well be that the "revelation" of God's wrath, far from being a proactive force utilized by God, is actually "passive" in that God allows humans to inherit the natural consequences of relational dysfunction with and separation from God. "Damnation" is not something that God does to humans because God is "angry" at them. Far from it, separation from creation is the very last thing that God wants. However, humans, by their self-will, have revealed that they do not desire relationship with God. Therefore, separation from God is the natural consequence of sin (relational dysfunction with God), not something with which God "punishes" sinful humanity.

God does not merely passively "allow humans to inherit the natural consequences of relational dysfunction with and separation from God." Read your Bible, dd...especially the Old Testament. God is quite active in pouring out His wrath upon the unrighteous. There was nothing "natural" about what happened to Sodom. God actively wiped them off the face of the earth. God commanded the Israelites to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites ("man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey") and then punished Saul when he did not obey.

Quite contrarily, you have to distort significant portions of Scripture to show that God's wrath is the active force in the condemnation of sinful humanity. In doing so, you suggest that the problem lies with God (for God, you say, "must" punish sinfulness) rather than locating the malady with the actual culprits (sinful, separated-from-God humanity).

Please feel free to show us why the example with the Israelites and the Amalekites above must be "distorted" to show God's wrath being the active force in the condemnation of the Amalekites (and that's just one of numerous examples).

The "must" in why God punishes sinfulness is not a flaw. Sin is an affront to Him, an abomination before Him. He has every right and reason to pour out His wrath upon the unrighteous, and it is only by His own sovereign purpose and pleasure in showing mercy upon men that He has not already done so.

 

[depthdeception]

Pelagius would be proud. The "age of accountability" is a myth concocted to circumvent the clear teaching of Scripture on man's sinfulness and wickedness from birth.

Okay, so the alternative is that sin has a substantial existence, and that it "attaches" itself by virtue of being born of a man and a woman. This is a thoroughly unbiblical concept. Sin, at the end of the day, is a relational concept. It cannot exist apart from the human in (or out of...) relationship with God and others. Therefore, if a human is incapable of rejecting relationship with God (for which they were created), then it is not possible that they would be separated from God. Or if it is possible, then God is completely capricious in deciding with whom God will have relationship.

Humans are sinful "from birth" because they are born into relationally dysfunctional environments. It is impossible that they could naturally grow up in proper relationship with God and humanity, for all that is possible for them to know, from birth, is relational dysfunction.

God does not merely passively "allow humans to inherit the natural consequences of relational dysfunction with and separation from God." Read your Bible, dd...especially the Old Testament. God is quite active in pouring out His wrath upon the unrighteous. There was nothing "natural" about what happened to Sodom. God actively wiped them off the face of the earth. God commanded the Israelites to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites ("man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey") and then punished Saul when he did not obey.

Ah, but if you read the OT, you see that the "wrath" of God is most often expressed in terms of intra-human relational disorders ("wars" being personified as the wrath of God). Why do wars happen? Because humans are at emnity with God and fellow human beings. Therefore, the natural expression of separation from God becomes manifest in the destructively dysfunctional relationships which exist between humans and their Creator.

Please feel free to show us why the example with the Israelites and the Amalekites above must be "distorted" to show God's wrath being the active force in the condemnation of the Amalekites (and that's just one of numerous examples).

God's wrath is often personsified in the OT as being manifest in the wars that occured, both against the pagans, as well as being located in unfaithfulness to the covenant between God and Israel. The Israelites understood God's presence in the midst of God's people as being a source of national security, while the separation of Israel from God through covenant disobedience was understood as "separating" Israel from God, incurring the latter's wrath. Therefore, when military crises faced the Israelites, they naturally understood the same as being the consequences of God's wrath against them for their covenental fidelity.

The "must" in why God punishes sinfulness is not a flaw. Sin is an affront to Him, an abomination before Him.

So what? There is no "affront" against God that can take away from God. The problem of sin is not that God is "offended" by it, but rather that the ones who are the object of God's love (the whole of humanity) is separated from God and destroyed by it. Therefore, the impetus of God in salvation is not to save humans from God's own wrath and anger against sin, but rather to rescue humanity from the natural consequences of being separated from God. God will continue to exist unchanged by even an infinite degree of sin; however, if a way is not made to remedy humanity's separation from God in sin, God's purposes for creation will be twarted, which is a greater concern to God than "satisfying" whatever offense sin may cause.

He has every right and reason to pour out His wrath upon the unrighteous,

Why? A "right" implies the preservation of something. As already noted, however, nothing is taken away from God in sin. Sin is a concern for God not because of what it does to God, but rather because of the ravaging toll it effects upon the object of God's love, creation.

Moreover, if understood in this way, God also has no "reason" to pour out "wrath." The only reason to pour out wrath would be to destroy sin. However it is impossible to destroy sin without destroying the sinner. Therefore, God's intentions for humanity is to change humanity from unrighteous to righteous so that they might escape the destruction which is the natural consequence of their relational dysfunction with God, not the "punishment" which God exacts upon them to satisfy God's "wrath."

and it is only by His own sovereign purpose and pleasure in showing mercy upon men that He has not already done so.

No, it is because of God's mercy that we are not left to inherit the natural consequences of our rejection of and separation from God.

 

[frumanchu]

[/i]Okay, so the alternative is that sin has a substantial existence, and that it "attaches" itself by virtue of being born of a man and a woman. This is a thoroughly unbiblical concept. Sin, at the end of the day, is a relational concept. It cannot exist apart from the human in (or out of...) relationship with God and others. Therefore, if a human is incapable of rejecting relationship with God (for which they were created), then it is not possible that they would be separated from God. Or if it is possible, then God is completely capricious in deciding with whom God will have relationship.

No, the alternative is not that sin has a "substantial existence." The alternative is the Biblical truth that man is born with a sin nature...a corrupt heart that desires self above God...and that over the course of his life it is increasingly manifest in his thoughts and actions.

Humans are sinful "from birth" because they are born into relationally dysfunctional environments. It is impossible that they could naturally grow up in proper relationship with God and humanity, for all that is possible for them to know, from birth, is relational dysfunction.

Wrong. They are sinful from birth because of the affects of Adam's transgression upon the whole of the human race.

Ah, but if you read the OT, you see that the "wrath" of God is most often expressed in terms of intra-human relational disorders ("wars" being personified as the wrath of God). Why do wars happen? Because humans are at emnity with God and fellow human beings. Therefore, the natural expression of separation from God becomes manifest in the destructively dysfunctional relationships which exist between humans and their Creator.

In other words, Scripture was lying when it said God commanded the Israelites to do this.

"It wasn't really God who said and did all these things...we're just going to blame Him for it." - Israel

Bultmann must be overjoyed.

God's wrath is often personsified in the OT as being manifest in the wars that occured, both against the pagans, as well as being located in unfaithfulness to the covenant between God and Israel. The Israelites understood God's presence in the midst of God's people as being a source of national security, while the separation of Israel from God through covenant disobedience was understood as "separating" Israel from God, incurring the latter's wrath. Therefore, when military crises faced the Israelites, they naturally understood the same as being the consequences of God's wrath against them for their covenental fidelity.

In this case we're not talking about Israel as the object of God's wrath, we're talking about the Amalekites. Apparently though you think what Scripture says about it is really a mythologized excuse made up by Israel for their decision to kill them off.

So what? There is no "affront" against God that can take away from God. The problem of sin is not that God is "offended" by it, but rather that the ones who are the object of God's love (the whole of humanity) is separated from God and destroyed by it. Therefore, the impetus of God in salvation is not to save humans from God's own wrath and anger against sin, but rather to rescue humanity from the natural consequences of being separated from God. God will continue to exist unchanged by even an infinite degree of sin; however, if a way is not made to remedy humanity's separation from God in sin, God's purposes for creation will be twarted, which is a greater concern to God than "satisfying" whatever offense sin may cause.

Then why did Christ have to die? Why does Scripture speak of imputation, justification, expiation and propitiation?

dd, your views are wholly unorthodox, unscriptural, and unsound because you deny the Biblical doctrine of original sin, the propitiatory nature (and necessity) of the death of Christ, and numerous other critically important articles of faith.

 

[depthdeception]

No, the alternative is not that sin has a "substantial existence." The alternative is the Biblical truth that man is born with a sin nature...a corrupt heart that desires self above God...and that over the course of his life it is increasingly manifest in his thoughts and actions.

I agree that all humans are born with a "sin nature," and that it is expressed in relational dysfunction with God and others (desiring the "self" at the exclusion of the "other). However, as you have defined the sinful nature (a corrupt heart that desires self above God--and I think it is a good definition), it is impossible that those who do not possess fully formed "selves" could be relationally separated from God because of it. If "sinfulness" is to be relationally separated from God because of one's self-will, those who cannot exercise self-will cannot be relationally separated from God.

Wrong. They are sinful from birth because of the affects of Adam's transgression upon the whole of the human race.

I agree that Adam's "transgression" affects the whole of the human race, because the dysfunction engendered in Adam's relation to God and other humans is perpetuated naturally throughout each subsequent generation. People are "sinful" from birth because they are born into a world of people that are destructively related to themselves, others, and God. However, until they are able to fully enter in this relational dysfunction through self-acceptance and validation of the same (as opposed to merely being the recepients of its negative effects), their state of relationship to God and the understanding of their "sinfullness" cannot be viewed in the same way as those who have fully embraced and entered into the destructive and cyclical nature of human separation from God.

In other words, Scripture was lying when it said God commanded the Israelites to do this.

No, I'm quite sure the Israelites believed that God had commanded them to destroy the pagan nations around them. Their writings relate this belief.

"It wasn't really God who said and did all these things...we're just going to blame Him for it." - Israel

Well, if you're going to go this direction (which I am not), at least get it right. They wouldn't "blame" God for it--they would have used God as justification for the aggressions.

Bultmann must be overjoyed.

Yes, let us bring out the hermeneutical whipping boy. Dance, you, dance!

In this case we're not talking about Israel as the object of God's wrath, we're talking about the Amalekites. Apparently though you think what Scripture says about it is really a mythologized excuse made up by Israel for their decision to kill them off.

I have said no such thing. But it must be understood that Israel--even if truly the legitimate arm of God's wrath against sinful Amelek--was by no means "justified" in doing what they did. In other words, it was not because Israel was "holy" that they were the arm of God's aggression (just as Cyrus was not holy because he was the arm of God's judgement against Judah). Rather, the wars which they raged, regardless of the motivations, were the result of a deep and penetrating sinfulness that expressed itself clearly in the horrors of war.

Then why did Christ have to die? Why does Scripture speak of imputation, justification, expiation and propitiation?

Christ did not "have" to die. Christ was killed because he alone amongst the throngs of sinful humanity was in proper relationship to God and humanity. However, sinful humanity, as expressed in alienation from God and proper relationship with fellow humans, could not bear such an example and judgment upon its sinfulness, so humanity killed Christ.

Christ's death was efficacious for salvation, however, because he overcame the human proclivities towards self-destructive relationships with God and others. More than once, Christ had the opportunity to enter into the sinfulness of humanity (consider his opportunity to call down the legions of heaven upon his murderers). Nonetheless, and to our benefit and transformational potential, Christ did not succomb to these temptations. Rather, in his life and death, he absorbed all of the destructive consequences of sin within his own person and overcame them by preserving his right-relatedness to God, overcoming the ultimate expression of relational dysfunction (death) in his resurrection from the dead. Because of this, Christ is able to offer, to those who will believe in him, the power to overcome sinfulness and be rightly related to God and others.

dd, your views are wholly unorthodox,

Wrong. I completely affirm all of the orthodox beliefs of the historic church. Just because I reject the Reformed interpretation of them does not mean that I, or the rest of Christians who are not Reformed (and thankfully this is a sizable number) are unorthodox.

As an aside, I am curious as to the propriety of a moderator questioning the orthodoxy of a member when said member has not denied any of the Church's orthodox creeds...

unscriptural,

Again, just because my understanding contradicts your interpretation of Scripture does not mean that the same is unscriptural.

and unsound because you deny the Biblical doctrine of original sin

No, I do not.

the propitiatory nature (and necessity) of the death of Christ

Wrong again. I completely affirm the necessity of the death of Christ.

and numerous other critically important articles of faith.

I doubt it.

 

[armothe]

The alternative is the Biblical truth that man is born with a sin nature...a corrupt heart that desires self above God...and that over the course of his life it is increasingly manifest in his thoughts and actions.

Please tell us how sin nature and corrupt hearts are passed on from one person to the next.

-A

 

[frumanchu]

I agree that all humans are born with a "sin nature," and that it is expressed in relational dysfunction with God and others (desiring the "self" at the exclusion of the "other). However, as you have defined the sinful nature (a corrupt heart that desires self above God--and I think it is a good definition), it is impossible that those who do not possess fully formed "selves" could be relationally separated from God because of it. If "sinfulness" is to be relationally separated from God because of one's self-will, those who cannot exercise self-will cannot be relationally separated from God.

So, other than they abstract term "age of accoutability," what objective point does one become or possess a "fully formed self?" At what point does an individual suddenly "exercise self-will?" I've watched my three children in their infancy and early childhood, and it is quite plainly obvious that from the get-go they have a will and exercise it quite well. It is also quite obvious that they have willfully sinned quite frequently without ever being taught to do so. And yet you seem to be saying that their sin isn't really sin because they somehow lack "self-will" and a "fully formed self."

I think this is pure psychology, not theology.

I agree that Adam's "transgression" affects the whole of the human race, because the dysfunction engendered in Adam's relation to God and other humans is perpetuated naturally throughout each subsequent generation. People are "sinful" from birth because they are born into a world of people that are destructively related to themselves, others, and God. However, until they are able to fully enter in this relational dysfunction through self-acceptance and validation of the same (as opposed to merely being the recepients of its negative effects), their state of relationship to God and the understanding of their "sinfullness" cannot be viewed in the same way as those who have fully embraced and entered into the destructive and cyclical nature of human separation from God.

So at some point everybody realizes they are relationally dysfunctional and consciously choose to accept it, validate it, and perpetuate it?

I don't recall ever making this conscious, willful choice, dd. Maybe I haven't reached the "age of accountability" yet myself

No, I'm quite sure the Israelites believed that God had commanded them to destroy the pagan nations around them. Their writings relate this belief.

But you seem to be arguing that He did not command them to do so even though Scripture presents it as such.

Scripture does not say that the Israelites thought they heard God commanding them to do what they did. It says God commanded them to do what they did.

Do you believe God actually commanded the Israelites to utterly destroy the Amalekites as the Scriptures present it?

Well, if you're going to go this direction (which I am not), at least get it right. They wouldn't "blame" God for it--they would have used God as justification for the aggressions.

A distinction without a difference. The point is that they are claiming God told them to do it when He really didn't do so. This appears to be your view.

Yes, let us bring out the hermeneutical whipping boy. Dance, you, dance!

Hey, if you want to throw in with Bultmann that's your prerogative. Orthodox theology has survived his attacks on Scripture just as with every other higher critic.

I have said no such thing. But it must be understood that Israel--even if truly the legitimate arm of God's wrath against sinful Amelek--was by no means "justified" in doing what they did. In other words, it was not because Israel was "holy" that they were the arm of God's aggression (just as Cyrus was not holy because he was the arm of God's judgement against Judah). Rather, the wars which they raged, regardless of the motivations, were the result of a deep and penetrating sinfulness that expressed itself clearly in the horrors of war.

Again, you seem to be putting forth the notion that God did not actually command Israel to utterly destroy the Amalekites, but rather Israel expressed deep and penetrating sinfulness by destroying them and then claimed falsely that God had commanded them to do so.

And you are incorrect in stating that Israel would not be justified in doing what God commanded. God punishes Saul for not doing what He commanded. Israel would be unjust in NOT doing what God commanded.

Christ did not "have" to die. Christ was killed because he alone amongst the throngs of sinful humanity was in proper relationship to God and humanity. However, sinful humanity, as expressed in alienation from God and proper relationship with fellow humans, could not bear such an example and judgment upon its sinfulness, so humanity killed Christ.

Christ's death was efficacious for salvation, however, because he overcame the human proclivities towards self-destructive relationships with God and others. More than once, Christ had the opportunity to enter into the sinfulness of humanity (consider his opportunity to call down the legions of heaven upon his murderers). Nonetheless, and to our benefit and transformational potential, Christ did not succomb to these temptations. Rather, in his life and death, he absorbed all of the destructive consequences of sin within his own person and overcame them by preserving his right-relatedness to God, overcoming the ultimate expression of relational dysfunction (death) in his resurrection from the dead. Because of this, Christ is able to offer, to those who will believe in him, the power to overcome sinfulness and be rightly related to God and others.

Yes. Thanks to Him, you can live Your Best Life Now!

Let me ask you do make explicit what is implicit in your arguments. Do you believe Christ's atonement was substitutionary in nature, whereby Christ took upon Himself the sins of His people and was sacrificed as an actual atonement for those sins?

Wrong. I completely affirm all of the orthodox beliefs of the historic church. Just because I reject the Reformed interpretation of them does not mean that I, or the rest of Christians who are not Reformed (and thankfully this is a sizable number) are unorthodox.

Please show me where the historic church understood original sin in terms of "relational dysfunction," death as the ultimate expression of "relational dysfunction," men as not being "fully formed selves" or having a "self-will" until an "age of accountability," and sin as being "relational separation from God."

As an aside, I am curious as to the propriety of a moderator questioning the orthodoxy of a member when said member has not denied any of the Church's orthodox creeds...

I never questioned your salvation, only your orthodoxy as it relates to the above issues. I apologize if you took as anything else.

Again, just because my understanding contradicts your interpretation of Scripture does not mean that the same is unscriptural.

No, but contradicting Scripture itself does.

Wrong again. I completely affirm the necessity of the death of Christ.

You said quite explicitly above that Christ did not have to die. Which is it?

I doubt it.

We'll see

 

[depthdeception]

So, other than they abstract term "age of accoutability," what objective point does one become or possess a "fully formed self?" At what point does an individual suddenly "exercise self-will?" I've watched my three children in their infancy and early childhood, and it is quite plainly obvious that from the get-go they have a will and exercise it quite well. It is also quite obvious that they have willfully sinned quite frequently without ever being taught to do so. And yet you seem to be saying that their sin isn't really sin because they somehow lack "self-will" and a "fully formed self."

I think this is pure psychology, not theology.

Well, much of theology is psychology, as it involves "thinking" God's thoughts after God.

In answer to your question, there is no "objective point" at which one becomes a fully formed self. Human nature is a messy, messy thing and cannot be quantified or qualified with precision.

And by the way, they were definitely taught to sin. In impercepitble ways you and others had a direct hand in teaching them to be relationally dysfunctional with themselves, you and others.

So at some point everybody realizes they are relationally dysfunctional and consciously choose to accept it, validate it, and perpetuate it?

Again, I am not talking about an objective point in time, or realization. It is an evolution in understanding. You do not choose to have dysfunctional relationships with others. They are a natural part of your "education" as a human, for you are raised by others (as we all are) who exist in destructive relationships with themselves and God. It is unavoidable.

I don't recall ever making this conscious, willful choice, dd. Maybe I haven't reached the "age of accountability" yet myself

See above.

But you seem to be arguing that He did not command them to do so even though Scripture presents it as such.

Nope. My point is that the wars they fought were symptomatic of the sinfulness of humanity.

Scripture does not say that the Israelites thought they heard God commanding them to do what they did. It says God commanded them to do what they did.

Yes, that is what the writers of the relevant OT Scriptures claim.

Do you believe God actually commanded the Israelites to utterly destroy the Amalekites as the Scriptures present it?

And how do the Scriptures "actually present it?"

A distinction without a difference. The point is that they are claiming God told them to do it when He really didn't do so. This appears to be your view.

I have never said that God didn't really "tell" them to do so.

Hey, if you want to throw in with Bultmann that's your prerogative. Orthodox theology has survived his attacks on Scripture just as with every other higher critic.

Yes, I am actually upset at the higher critics as well. If they wouldn't have stuck their noses into everything, the fundamentalists would have never have need to invent the absurd notion of "textual inerrancy."

Again, you seem to be putting forth the notion that God did not actually command Israel to utterly destroy the Amalekites, but rather Israel expressed deep and penetrating sinfulness by destroying them and then claimed falsely that God had commanded them to do so.

No, you are adding words to what I have said. Regardless of whether or not God actually commanded the wars, the fact that the wars occurred speak to the sinfulness of humanity and Israel's complicity within it.

And you are incorrect in stating that Israel would not be justified in doing what God commanded. God punishes Saul for not doing what He commanded. Israel would be unjust in NOT doing what God commanded.

But there are various levels of justice and injustice occuring. It is impossible to make completely pure ethical decisions--one will always have "dirty hands." For example, remember the story of the guy who made a rash vow and was compelled to sacrifice his daughter? On the one hand, he was justified in fulfilling his vow, notwithstanding the absurdity of it. However, on another hand he was unjust in destroying the life of his daughter for the sake of fulfilling his vow.

This is the human predicament. As participating in the population of earth, we are constantly destroyed and destructive to others because sin causes irreprable dysfunction between humans and themselves and God. Therefore, even though Israel might be "justified" in following God's commands (which I would still question), the fact of their participation in perpetuating the sinful situation of humanity shows that on another level they are still complicit in sin and part of the problem for which Christ came to provide a remedy.

Yes. Thanks to Him, you can live Your Best Life Now!

Is this really the extent of your interaction with my post? C'mon, surely you can be a bit more intelligent than that.

Do you believe Christ's atonement was substitutionary in nature

I believe that Christ was a substitute and representative for humanity. He was a substitute in that he absorbed within his person the totality of the consequences of humanity's sinfulness (which is death and separation from God, not punishment). Furthermore, Christ was a representative in that he not only overcame the destructive relationships engenered by humanity, but showed through the power of his life and victory over the consequeneces of sin that a "new way" had now been made available to humanity that they might "become like Christ," being reconciled once again to God and existing in right relationship to God.

whereby Christ took upon Himself the sins of His people and was sacrificed as an actual atonement for those sins?

Christ absorbed within his own person the consequences of the sins of not only His people (the Jews), but of the whole world, down to every last person born into the sinful human condition.

Please show me where the historic church understood original sin in terms of "relational dysfunction," death as the ultimate expression of "relational dysfunction,"

Start with The Incarnation by Athanasius. Then move on to Augustine. Obviously, they are not going to use these exact words, but the ideas are definitely present.

having a "self-will" until an "age of accountability,"

I have never said anything about a supposed "age of accountability." You keep wanting an "objective point." I, however, disavow the idea that there is one.

and sin as being "relational separation from God."

You don't need the father's for this one. This is the definition provided in the Scriptures.

No, but contradicting Scripture itself does.

Where have I contradicted Scripture "itself" (which still implies an entirely subjective standard)?

You said quite explicitly above that Christ did not have to die. Which is it?

Christ did not have to die, as if he was compelled by God to do so to satisfy some notion of God's "anger against sin." However, Christ did have to die because the life of relational fidelity which he lived toward his Father was intrinisically opposed to the sinfulness of humanity. Therefore, the only way Christ could have escaped death would have been to become complicit in the sinfulness of humanity. Therfore, the "necessity" of Christ's death is located in humanity's response to God's benevolent advances in the Incarnation, not some eternal "demand" placed upon Christ by God.

 

[armothe]

Please show me where the historic church understood original sin in terms of "relational dysfunction," death as the ultimate expression of "relational dysfunction," men as not being "fully formed selves" or having a "self-will" until an "age of accountability," and sin as being "relational separation from God."

The historic church believed in the inherited sin nature so strongly they would baptize their infants. Something churches today that espouse inherited sin do not do.

-A