Original sin.

[fhansen]

I will address your comments but I asked other questions your response does not address so could you answer them?

Let me ask you this: “Would you prefer to be in a situation where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your personal ability to obey God forever (the Garden) or in a place where your eternal close relationship with God is dependent on your just accepting God’s charity (where you are today)?

I would much prefer that justice produces justice; that love produces love, IOW; that I not only know and accept God’s love but that I also, with His help, come to love Him with my whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. This constitutes man's justice, as it's intended to be.

God allowed Adam and Eve to sin and He allows all mature adults to sin, so would that mean sin has purpose and is possible necessary and also inevitable?

It may well be beneficial for man to experience evil directly in order to gain the wisdom to hate it, as God does. In this case He brings a greater good out of the evil that befell man due to the Fall.

Should we be grateful to Adam and Eve for going through the Garden situation to show them and all of us how impossible it was and would be for humans to fulfill their earthly objective in such a situation?

It’s not impossible for man to refrain from sin. The message of our faith from Genesis on is that it’s impossible for man to refrain from sin-to be righteous or who God created us to be-without Him. Adam chose the wrong path-to be apart from God, ‘apart from whom we can do nothing’.

Our situation is very different than Adam and Eve while they were in the Garden, but was it that different after they left the Garden?

No, it was the same afterwards.

You did address: Is sin really the problem since we all sin or is unforgiven sin the real problem?

You say: “God didn't create anyone to sin.”

Did God create Adam and Eve to not sin? Why have the tree of knowledge in the center, why make the fruit look good, why not have angels around the tree, why make it be knowledge and not the ability to spit 10 ft., and so on?

The existence of the tree simply symbolizes man's freedom to obey, or disobey. The eating of the fruit was an act of disobedience, of Adam placing himself and his will over God and His will. When God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit did He actually want Adam to eat of the fruit? By the same token if God created beings to sin, if He’s the ‘author of sin’, then He’s worse than satan, and certainly not trustworthy in any case.

Adam and Eve were made “very good” but that is not perfect like Christ is perfect, so why did God not just make more Christs?

Because God didn’t make Christ; Christ is God. And that’s the difference: can God make another God, or is creation always inferior-less perfect-relative to Him who is infinitely perfect?

Christ did not sin, when we go to heaven we will not sin and it appears Christians do not have to sin (although most do seem to sin), so what is man including Adam and Eve lacking from their birth?

From his creation Adam was neutral in will, still possessing the potential or possibility of disobeying God. Wisdom would’ve precluded his act of disobedience, just as it would preclude our own sin, by informing our wills. He had yet to learn of the vast difference between himself and his Creator, and of his Creator’s incomparable goodness and wisdom, and of his, Adam’s, absolute need for that goodness and wisdom, of Adam’s need for God. We’re here to learn that truth now, and Adam has presumably learned it by now as well after his sojourn here in exile from God. The “reward”, so to speak, of turning back to God and following Him is to experience fully in the next life what we now know only in part, and that full knowledge finally, completely, cinches the deal; man is incapable of turning away from God in will once he’s “seen” Him face to face-because all desire is completely satisfied at that point.

You said: “cause of sin is a basic injustice in man.” I do not get that at all since God is perfectly just/fair. It would be an injustice to hold in anyway me responsible and/or punished for what Adam and Eve personally did. Adam and Eve did demonstrate the fact humans could not fulfill their earthly objective in a Garden type scenario and we can be grateful to them for that.

No, Adam could’ve remained subjugated to God, if he had so chosen. Perhaps this choice was indicated by the eating of the Tree of Life, demonstrating a turn towards God more fully than the otherwise neutral orientation he was created in. God doesn’t force the will to act.

I like and agree with your statement: “we love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. Then we've become who God created us to be, and then sin is automatically excluded.”

But you say: “And this injustice consists of non-communion with Him, a state we're born into now, a state Jesus came to rectify and reverse”

Does God have a problem that Jesus “rectifies and reverses” or does man lack something that he needs to commune with God?

God has no problem; man does. Man turned away from God, preferring himself to God, while believing a lie about Him and His will. Man preferred his own way, man preferred darkness, man preferred to be God for all practical purposes. Man was jealous of, mistrusted and ‘hated God without reason’, and at the same time feared Him in the wrong way, primarily as an angry God, aloof in His superiority. Jesus came to reveal the true face of God when the time was ripe, after God had dealt with and graced man via His chosen people, and after man, like prodigals, had spent enough time historically in the pigsty away from God (apart from Him in terms of personal communion), so that he may learn with God’s help of the need to turn back to Him again, which begins with the virtue of faith. Jesus makes atonement for and reconciles man with God, to make this possible.

the fact Adam and Eve sinned showed they were lacking something internally in the Garden?

Adam lacked full knowledge of/communion with God. He knew enough to remain in obedience, however, but failed to do so.

Are we looking to “return” to the Adam and Eve state before they sinned or are we looking to move beyond just being sinless?

Beyond, way beyond. Man was meant for great things. God has always had man’s best interest at heart and has unimaginable plans for him.
And it all starts now.

 

[TheSeabass]

romans 5:18 would tell us that all those born in adam are born in sin.

Jesus was not born in adam.

If Rom 5:18a proves "all men" are unconditionally born sinners due to Adam, then 18b proves that same "all men" will be unconditionally justified and that is Universalism. Yet Paul already showed earlier in this chapter that men are conditionally made sinners when they choose to sin, verse 12 and conditionally justified when they have faith, verses 1,2. Paul is simply showing that anyone who has been condemned by sin since sin entered the world thru the trespass of one man Adam, that Christ has provided a remedy for sin's condemnation to them by His obedience in going to the cross. So original sin nor limited atonement is found here.

 

[Albion]

If Rom 5:18a proves "all men" are unconditionally born sinners due to Adam, then 18b proves that same "all men" will be unconditionally justified and that is Universalism.

Since it's been pointed out to you before that it proves no such thing, perhaps you could take a shot at explaining how the one part logically and linguistically requires the other to mean what you would like it to mean.

 

[TheSeabass]

the simple answer to this would be that Christ was not born in adam but was conceived by the Spirit of God.


man's sin nature has little to do with bacteria or DNA and more to do with man's standing before God and his corrupt fallen nature.

it seems you would, in fact, hold to heretical position that the LORD's Holy nature would be in subjection to man's fallen nature in that Jesus being born of God would be overcome by the sin nature of mary.

Do you deny Christ's being human, coming to the world in the flesh? If not, then He must have had original sin (if OS were true) for He was " made like unto his brethren" and " made in the likeness of men".

You cannot have it both ways saying original sin exists yet Christ did not have it for that rejects his human attributes.

 

[fhansen]

Do you deny Christ's being human, coming to the world in the flesh? If not, then He must have had original sin (if OS were true) for He was " made like unto his brethren" and " made in the likeness of men".

You cannot have it both ways saying original sin exists yet Christ did not have it for that rejects his human attributes.

Aside from the fact that sin would negate Christ's divine attributes, sin is not an innate human attribute; man was not created to sin IOW.

 

[TheSeabass]

Since it's been pointed out to you before that it proves no such thing, perhaps you could take a shot at explaining how the one part logically and linguistically requires the other to mean what you would like it to mean.

Your position is not consistence in dealing with Rom 5:18. Paul is using a type of "if-then' kind of statement.... "IF" Rom 18a is true, "then" Rom 18b is also true. If it is true all men are UNCONDITIONALLY made sinners, then it would also be just as true that all men will UNCONDITIONALLY be justified.

You are being inconsistent in trying to make 18a an UNCONDITIONAL and 18b CONDITIONAL.

No verse anywhere says men are made UNconditionally sinners or made Unconditonally justified.

 

[TheSeabass]

Aside from the fact that sin would negate Christ's divine attributes, sin is not an innate human attribute; man was not created to sin IOW.

Yes, men are created with a free will where he can choose to sin or choose to do well (Genesis 4:7) and does not have a 'nature' that forces him to sin against his own will.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, men are created with a free will where he can choose to sin or choose to do well (Genesis 4:7) and does not have a 'nature' that forces him to sin against his own will.

So the only vital thing that fallen man lacked was relationship/union with God-something Jesus did not lack. This lack, or deprivation, is said to be the essence of the state of OS.

 

[TheSeabass]

We can get back to the Scripture in a bit, but here is why your theology (let us call it the heresy of Seabasism for lack of a better term) is untenable.

1) In your view "original sin" consists of causing one man to pay a penalty (or be deprived of grace) because of the sin of another. You find this idea objectionable.

No man has to answer for another man's sin Ezekiel 18.

2) You believe that infants are born free of sin, and therefore all infants who die go to Heaven.

Yes, infants are born is a safe state and will be in heaven if they die in that safe state

3) Because you deny original sin, you assert that man's nature is not corrupted. Thus, your recognize that a hypothetical man is capable of exercising free-will and choosing good over evil his entire life, without sinning.

Original sin gives man an excuse for his sin when man has no excuse.
It makes man a victim of sin and not a perpetrator of sin.
It makes God unjust for holding all men accountable for a covenant God just made with Adam.
Since sin exist only when a transgression happens (1 John 3:4) thereby making God unjust holding men accountable for sin when no transgression took place.

Genesis 4:7 man is able to excerise his free will in choosing to well or not therefore man has no 'sin nature' that forces men to choose to not do well.

4) We asked you about the logical conclusion that stems from (3) above, which is that our hypothetical man could live his entire life without sinning, and that therefore he would not need Jesus as a savior. That is, because he never sinned, there is nothing that he needs saving from.

Theoretically men could live their entire life without choosing to sin. It actually did happen with Christ.
Yet by default original sin makes not only Christ a sinner, but infants and mentally disabled even though they did not sin.

5) To avoid the logical conclusion at (4) above, which should most certainly offend the ears of any Christian, you manufacture right out of thin air some sins for our hypothetical man to commit. That is, our hypothetical man has committed the sin of (a) unbelief, although there is no reason for him to believe that Jesus died for his sins since he has not committed any, (b) not repenting, although he has not committed any sins, (c) not getting baptized for the forgiveness of these uncommitted sins, and (d) not confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior, although there is no sin that he has committed.

Your hypothetical was flawed and you cannot prove anything based on a flawed hypothetical. Can an atheist live his entire life always choosing to do good works and never do any moral evil yet still be saved having not believed in Christ? If he can, then Christ died in vain.

6) In a previous thread concerning this same topic, I asked you about the fate of a person who has never even heard the gospel. You said that such a person was condemned, for the reasons stated above. That is, our hypothetical man would be lost for the sin of unbelief, and not getting baptized, etc., even in the case where he was born into a militant Muslim community (an ISIS camp, for example) and never once had an opportunity to hear the gospel.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

7) So our hypothetical man is completely sin free and on the way to heaven up until the age of reason (the age of seven, for example), but at the very second that he reaches the age of reason, he instantly becomes a sinner on his way to hell for not believing something that has never even heard once, and for not being baptized although there is no person who would be willing to baptize him even if he desired it.

Your hypothetical man is flawed for it does not deal with reality.

Other than Christ, can you show me one example of a full grown adult passed the age of reason who has NOT sinned? If not, then why keep up with false hypotheticals? Deal with reality and truth of the bible.

8) Even though you would say that our hypothetical man is being punished for this ridiculous sin of not believing something that he has never even heard, and for not being baptized when there is no-one to baptize him, in realty what your theology does is condemn our hypothetical man for the sins of his parents and the other members of the community in which he was born. That is, he is being punished for the sins of his parents and his community for not providing an environment in which he can hear and believe in the gospel, and in which he can be baptized



9) So in effect, what Seabasism does is take the concept of original sin, and simply moves it to a different point in time. Seabasism does exactly what you object to, but at different times and with different people than in mainline Christian theology. Instead of Adam's sin being passed down to our hypothetical person at the moment he is conceived, your theology passes down the sins of his parents and his community to our hypothetical man, at the moment that he reaches the age of reason.

You are just creating things out of thin air...out of hypotheticals.

 

[TheSeabass]

So the only vital thing that fallen man lacked was relationship/union with God-something Jesus did not lack. This lack, or deprivation, is said to be the essence of the state of OS.

Man was made in the image of God and that connection with God is still there.
A new born is born into a safe state with God and severs that state after maturing mentally and choosing to sin.
No one is born into deprivation and remains in that state where they can only choose to sin.

 

[Petros2015]

Original sin is a heresy of Augustine, Luther and Calvin.

Seabass has spoken. The matter is finished

 

[1213]

...
We need salvation because we are sinners, and we choose sin. Yet it seems impossible for a person to choose to never sin-it seems like a paradox to me.. It seems our situation is different from Adam and the angelic race falling from grace. I think they had the potential to be sinless forever.

I think it depends on how sin is defined. I understand that sin really is that person rejects God. If you don’t reject God, you have no sin. I think it is not impossible to not reject God.

 

[Sammy-San]

I think it depends on how sin is defined. I understand that sin really is that person rejects God. If you don’t reject God, you have no sin. I think it is not impossible to not reject God.

Regarding sin, how is sinning about free will if we don't like to sin?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

If Rom 5:18a proves "all men" are unconditionally born sinners due to Adam

I suppose you just chose to ignore the "Jesus wasn't born in adam" part.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Do you deny Christ's being human, coming to the world in the flesh? If not, then He must have had original sin (if OS were true) for He was " made like unto his brethren" and " made in the likeness of men".

again, Jesus wasn't born in Adam.

1 Corinthians 15:46-47

 

[fhansen]

Man was made in the image of God and that connection with God is still there.
A new born is born into a safe state with God and severs that state after maturing mentally and choosing to sin.
No one is born into deprivation and remains in that state where they can only choose to sin.

It would seem odd that all humans inevitably sin, if they aren't otherwise compelled to. Adam brought sin into the world, opening the door to it so to speak, but what does that mean? How and why does that necessarily affect his descendants? Why is sin/evil present virtually everywhere in human affairs? Is this God's intention for man? Why is man now born without knowledge of God? Why does man need to be born again? Yes, we're still made in His image; humans still possess, at least potentially, much in the way of nobility and dignity, we're still loved and esteemed by Him in spite of our sin and in spite of what some say who prefer to see man as a worthless wretched worm (WWW .)

But, again, there's something basically wrong in this life, not as things "should be". And I'd submit that the wrong thing is based simply on this lack of relationship with God that man was made for, and without which he's destined to a life of at least semi-misery and meaninglessness relative to the life he'd have with God. We were made for much more than we experience now, and we should expect much more and not settle for the material things and pleasure that people pursue in order to hope to find some modicum of happiness. Much of what we take for granted in this life as normal is far inferior to the life God had planned for man, from the beginning.

 

[EmSw]

sure, if you choose to hold to univeralism.

How is it you hold to universal condemnation from the 'all' used in this passage?

 

[EmSw]

If you think every "all" in Paul means universalism, you're going to have to ignore a lot of Paul.

But don't you hold to universal condemnation from 'all' used in Romans 5:18?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

How is it you hold to universal condemnation from the 'all' used in this passage?

what do you mean "universal condemnation"?

 

[EmSw]

what do you mean "universal condemnation"?

Don't you believe every man, woman, and child are condemned through Adam?