Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why did Paul say that Adam brought sin into the world? Didn't Eve sin first?You may as well say that Adam's sin ... ushered humankind into phase 2 of God's program of spiritual growth ...
So ... we're only here to evaluate your thoughts on this ?Because you didn't address my arguments. Does that help?
If you cite my words in the pretense of responding to my objections, then I'd only expect you to address what I said. You didn't. Fine, but in that case why act surprised if I classify it as a shallow reply to my arguments?So ... we're only here to evaluate your thoughts on this ?
No other thought is allowed ???
Therefore, ... no valid search for truth, ... only validation for yourself ???
That's okay ... I can find real discussion elsewhere ...
You do realize that the current view is that Adam passes his SEED on to every subsequent member of the human race, right ???On my reading it makes sense. In my view Eve was a subsection of that one material soul named Adam. Thus we can truly say that Adam brought sin in to the world.
But on a traditional view of Adam, it doesn't make sense.
Because you propose to be on a search for truth ...If you cite my words in the pretense of responding to my objections, then I'd only expect you to address what I said. You didn't. Fine, but in that case why act surprised if I classify it as a shallow reply to my arguments?
I think you're referring to the means of transmission (how the sinful nature is propragrated to Adam's descendants).You do realize that the current view is that Adam passes his SEED on to every subsequent member of the human race, right ???
You are only guilty in Adam because he is your true representative. You and he are the same kind ... as it regards morality. There is no reason to expect any better from you ... than from Adam ...I think you're referring to the means of transmission (how the sinful nature is propragrated to Adam's descendants).
Donald Bloesch - one of the most prominent evangelical theologians of our generation - admitted in his systematic theology that the problem of transmission is "insoluble" (his word) on traditional assumptions (and he holds to the traditional Original Sin of Protestants and Catholics).
A few years back I read a segment of a Catholic Catechism that said the same.
Regardless of how the sin-nature is transmitted, the doctrine of Original Sin finds us guilty in Adam by representation.
Wrong if you hold to the Protestant and Catholic view that Adam was our rep. And that view is based on Paul's claim that we all sinned in Adam.
I'm not satisfied with this but rather than respond directly, I'd like to refocus on Adam. Could you clarify where you stand? The Catholic/Protestant view? The Orthodox view?
This is a monstrosity. 100 billion people are guilty of 'involuntary sin' (surely an oxymoron) that Adam caused?Yes we inherited our sin from Adam like Paul says. Because we are all descendants of Adam. But we are not held responsible for his sins. If it were possible to live in a world where sin was voluntary Adam and those who sinned after Adam would be the ones declared guilty. But sadly once Adam sinned sin became involuntary and something we can't help so all of us are guilty because of Adam's first sin but we do not have to give an account for his sins we have to give an account for our own.
Right. It's clear to me that Scripture doesn't teach the Catholic/Protestant theory of Adamic representation.In other words they were judged according to the books that are recorded by God on every single person. It contains everything they've ever done good and bad and God will judge them based on that. Notice it doesn't say "and they were judged according to what they and Adam had done" just themselves.
You're not understanding me at all. God is love. I'm sure of it. The only time I doubted it was back when I held to a traditional understanding of God and Adam.And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Adam was given authority over the earth, therefore Adam was the one who brought sin into the world because he had the final say.
From my understanding, a sinful nature is passed through Adam's seed, therefore Jesus wasn't a decendant of Adam because he wasnt conceived through a male but born from the spirit of God. It is the reason why Jesus conception had to be different and wy Jesus knew no sin.
God gave dominion over earth to Adam. Adam brought sin into the world. Would it then be right for God to say i didnt give you the earth to bring sin into it, so im going to take back all from you that I have given.
God still loves us, even though we are sinners. Instead of letting us die in our sin, which would be just. God decides to send Jesus to suffer and die in our place instead.
I don't know what point your trying to make Jal. Its easy to point the finger and blame everything on God and Adam. I guess if anything you could blame it on God's love for us, as God's love stopped him from destryoing man completely, even though he deeply grieved.
The same love that instead of destroying man, God decides to give up his son to bear the wrath of our sin. The only one who knew no sin, and did not deserve to die or suffer at all.
I urge you to spend some time in prayer, and ask God to reveal his love in your heart. God loves you very much.
Ok let's be precise. In my view Adam was the first human. His soul was new. It was not a fallen angel. Everything prior to Adam was an animal in my view, and my claim is that animal souls are fallen angels. Otherwise, you end up with a God, supposedly maximally kind, allowing innocent species to suffer for, say, 200 million years at least. I don't know why anyone would prefer a position that casts aspersions on the goodness of God.
HEBREWS 12:7
Suffering is part of your training; God is treating you as his sons. Has there ever been any son whose father did not train him?
LOL. The problem of evil is nonsense? Chistianity 101 is a good idea, but History 101 and Philosophy 101 might actually be useful as well. Historically, the problem of evil is the atheist's number one objection to the existence of God. From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"The primary argument for atheism [is] the argument from evil".
I am convinced that my own brother accepted Christ as Lord as a kid. But he lost touch with his faith as grew old and his heart has grown cold. I hold out hope that some small part of his heart still has salvation, but the problem of evil seems to be his main objection to the existence of God. He can't seem to get past it. He thought there was no solution but he was surprised when I explained to him my understanding of God. He hasn't come back yet but I'm seeing signs of hope.
I know a Christian girl who tried to commit suicide in her 20's because she couldn't reconcile a supposedly good God with the existence of evil.
Not on Protestant assumptions anyway. In the Protestant and Catholic view, all men are born guilty by representation on account of Adam's sin.
You're skating over the larger question as to why an infinitely self-sufficient being would need that kind of pleasure
And then you punish 100 billion people for the sin of Adam? What sort of monster do you think God is?
Except our hearts are so hardened and polluted by this awful world and sinful nature that such might be impossible without special grace from the Holy Spirit. You're not doing very well here, in terms of theodicy.
You would rather have never been created.. than have to (oh the horror) admit that you sinned and ask for the salvation offered to you at no cost?Hardly. Why not show kindness from the outset, or abstain from making us at all? I would have accepted one of those options, if it were up to me.
The majority of atheists (including my own brother) make that claim, and it 's clearly not preposterous. You are evidently in denial - and if tomorrow you found out that your salvation wasn't secure (hypothetically speaking), you'd be the first to suspect the possibility of monstrosity in such theodicy.
Ok that reaction doesn't make sense. A religion seen as stupid in the eyes of atheists further hardens their hearts. Do you know why the problem of evil is an issue for atheists? Because Christians have never offered a viable solution. They have only been claiming/pretending to have offered satisfactory answers for 2,000 years (as many have done on this thread) but the atheists themselves are not fooled by these shallow answers. Yes, indeed, Christians are in denial about this issue. There shouldn't even BE a problem of evil today. It should have been been decisively solved 2,000 years ago but unfortunately the theologians are still clinging dogmatically to assumptions that simply do not work. The theologians can fool themselves, they can even fool other Christians, but they are not fooling the unbelievers. Atheists think we're stupid, they think our religion is stupid (just ask my brother), and the apparent stupidity further hardens their hearts.The "question" of God being evil is nonsense to Christians. I understand that non believers will be drawn into this facade by the enemy. However, to argue it on a Christian forum is surprising at the very least.
Monstrous. You want to cling to a monstrous view of God indoctrinated into you by irresponsible theologians? Fine. That's hardly necessary but it's your prerogative. There's nothing I can do about it. Meanwhile I'll opt for a view that fully glorifies and fully magnifies Him.Even when children do sin.. we all see it... they know that they shouldn't take the toy or extra cookie or push their little brother.. but they do. The knowledge of good and evil is written on our hearts.. it's in our DNA.
However, until we are of a mental capacity to comprehend that we are sinners and that our punishment is death.. then how can we be held accountable?
If someone has never played soccer before and picks up the ball to run with it.... You stop them and explain and do not penalize them... they were ignorant of their crime.
So, no, we are not born guilty.. but born with the undeniable fact that we will sin.
Pleasure from what? Sin? God doesn't take pleasure in sin. You seem to be putting words in my mouth and conveniently deflecting my actual rebuttal. Here is what I complained:Did you say "pleasure"? What "pleasure"? God loves every single one of us.. If you were born and lived your life without sin.. as Christ did... you would go directly to heaven.... bar none.. But.. we all sin...
God does not take pleasure in this.... He sacrificed His own sun to pay for my sin...
Where on earth did you get the idea that God gets pleasure from this?
But by your own words, Adam's sin is causal to your sin! How then are you not getting punished for Adam's sin? Sorry your position doesn't make sense. You're equivocating.He doesn't punish me for Adam's sin... He punishes me for my sin. Sin came into the world through Adam but I sinned myself.. I am guilty myself... I must pay the penalty myself. Christ died for me.. I accept that or not.
But that's not easy to do if a man has a heart-hardening sinful nature passed down from Adam. Without special help from the Holy Spirit, he'll probably never repent.And, He is so loving that I don't even have to do anything to get salvation other than admit that I am a sinner...
Huh? Where have I denied any of this? Aren't you just putting words in my mouth as a pretense of winning the debate? Isn't this commonly called a strawman argument?Deny that I am a sinner. Deny Christ's work on the cross. Deny that Jesus is your savior. Deny that Christ is who He said He was and did what the bible says He did... and then why would you want to go live with Him for eternity.
You don't see any sign of special grace being needed? Anyone can come to the gospel by simple choice? If that's your view, I'm not quite sure about it. Jesus said:I'm not a theologian... but I understand the gospel. It's not "special" grace.. It's just God's grace... Giving me something I don't deserve..(salvation) AND.. Mercy... not giving me something I really do deserve. (death)
Believe it.You would rather have never been created.. than have to (oh the horror) admit that you sinned and ask for the salvation offered to you at no cost?
I cannot believe that.
That's not the issue. The issue is maximal kindness and irreproachable conduct at all times. A leader who visits the sins of one man upon huge populations is hardly irreproachable. And to suggest that God behaves this way contradicts Eze 18.AND... He did show kindness from the onset.. He gave them paradise to live in...
I'll agree that for the atheist, there are many barriers to entry. Let's not making it any harder for them. And let's not cling to a viewpoint that, when extrapolated, casts doubt on the unqualified benevolence of God.These are not atheists.... If they were, they wouldn't care... I am not worried about twenty foot saber tooth tigers because they don't exist... Why is a so called atheist worried about anything biblical if it's just a story and God, heaven, hell and Satan don't exits.. Why waste your time?....... Because they know, in their heart... that there is truth...
Ok that reaction doesn't make sense. A religion seen as stupid in the eyes of atheists further hardens their hearts. Do you know why the problem of evil is an issue for atheists? Because Christians have never offered a viable solution. They have only been claiming/pretending to have offered satisfactory answers for 2,000 years (as many have done on this thread) but the atheists themselves are not fooled by these shallow answers. Yes, indeed, Christians are in denial about this issue. There shouldn't even BE a problem of evil today. It should have been been decisively solved 2,000 years ago but unfortunately the theologians are still clinging dogmatically to assumptions that simply do not work. The theologians can fool themselves, they can even fool other Christians, but they are not fooling the unbelievers. Atheists think we're stupid, they think our religion is stupid (just ask my brother), and the apparent stupidity further hardens their hearts.
My sister has cancer. When one of us proposed to pray for her, my brother chimed in, 'Why would I want to pray to your evil God who gave her the disease to the begin with?' He openly declares that our religion is stupid.
This is the correct arena to discuss this issue because Christians need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Monstrous.
Meaning the pleasure of creating us to fellowship with us, obviously at the great expense of sacrificing His own Son.
How is it "casual"?But by your own words, Adam's sin is causal to your sin!
How then are you not getting punished for Adam's sin? Sorry your position doesn't make sense. You're equivocating.
But that's not easy to do if a man has a heart-hardening sinful nature passed down from Adam. Without special help from the Holy Spirit, he'll probably never repent.
Huh? Where have I denied any of this? Aren't you just putting words in my mouth as a pretense of winning the debate? Isn't this commonly called a strawman argument?
You don't see any sign of special grace being needed? Anyone can come to the gospel by simple choice? If that's your view, I'm not quite sure about it. Jesus said:
""No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
Believe it.
That's not the issue. The issue is maximal kindness and irreproachable conduct at all times. A leader who visits the sins of one man upon huge populations is hardly irreproachable. And to suggest that God behaves this way contradicts Eze 18.
I'll agree that for the atheist, there are many barriers to entry. Let's not making it any harder for them. And let's not cling to a viewpoint that, when extrapolated, casts doubt on the unqualified benevolence of God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?