Sin in Christianity

[RDKirk]

Instead of redefined, one could simply use the original Hebrew definition that means...

missing the mark.

The "mark" is perfect obedience to God, fulfilling His mission and purpose for us with every action, as Jesus did.

Know ye not that to whomever ye yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants ye become whom ye obey, whether of sin which leads unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? -- Romans 6

When we make an decision, take any action that is in service or by the will of anyone other than God--service to a master other than God--that is sin.

Most often, we sin by making decisions in service to our own flesh...and all of us do that nearly constantly. We learned as babies to heed the lusts of our flesh, and it's a hard bond to break.

For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! -- Romans 7

Addition: It's not that the body itself is "sinful" or even that its natural lusts are sinful. The body is nonintellectual and makes not choices--it only has its needs (lusts). It's when we as intellectual beings choose to obey our bodies rather than God that is sinful.

 

[LoAmmi]

I don't think I can agree with any bit of your post, RD.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think I can agree with any bit of your post, RD.

Don't forget that the topic is "Sin in Christianity," not "Sin in Judaism."

 

[LoAmmi]

Don't forget that the topic is "Sin in Christianity," not "Sin in Judaism."

I forget nothing. You commented on my post and I said I cannot agree with what you said.

 

[Masihi]

What confusion? Certainly not from my point of view.

Correct, they once were.

alright thanks.

 

[Masihi]

The "mark" is perfect obedience to God, fulfilling His mission and purpose for us with every action, as Jesus did.

Know ye not that to whomever ye yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants ye become whom ye obey, whether of sin which leads unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? -- Romans 6

When we make an decision, take any action that is in service or by the will of anyone other than God--service to a master other than God--that is sin.

Most often, we sin by making decisions in service to our own flesh...and all of us do that nearly constantly. We learned as babies to heed the lusts of our flesh, and it's a hard bond to break.

For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! -- Romans 7

Addition: It's not that the body itself is "sinful" or even that its natural lusts are sinful. The body is nonintellectual and makes not choices--it only has its needs (lusts). It's when we as intellectual beings choose to obey our bodies rather than God that is sinful.

I like this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let's address a classic problem, What causes people to sin or do evil?

1. God has only predestined a few people to heaven so that your life is scripted, sin included. You have no control.
2. The devil or demonic forces makes otherwise neutral people do bad things
3. People are inherently evil and cannot do good.

Thoughts?

4. Our humanity is inherently broken, fallen, fractured; and the result is that we live our lives curved inward upon ourselves, aiming toward ourselves rather than outwardly toward God and others. Lutheran jargon speaks of man being incurvatus in se--curved or bent inward to himself. As a result our chief object of love and devotion is ourself, and even when we act generally good, we are still constrained by our own self-interest. It can be as simple (and very often is) as giving a blanket to a homeless man, and walking away feeling awfully good about ourselves.

In this we often try to self-justify, that is, we aim to be righteous by our own standards. There's another Lutheran term we like to throw around, the opinio legis, the "opinion of the law". It's that thing deep in us that keeps saying, "I can do this, I can be right, I can do right". Usually used in specifically intra-Christian context (that is, we Christians struggling with the opinio legis), where rather than recognizing our inability to do the righteousness expected of us and therefore be--in ourselves--righteous we establish for ourselves a system whereby we can self-justify.

Hence why Lutherans emphatically place emphasis on God's grace, God's own generosity and kindness, gifting us with His own goodness, His own righteousness; and thus our salvation, our believing, our hope, indeed everything exists outside of ourselves and apart from ourselves, found solely in what God Himself has said and done. We confess that we are not righteous, and that in this life we will never be righteous, but rather trust in the God who makes us righteous by giving us His own righteousness by placing us in Jesus Christ, adopting us as children and heirs.

When we turn again inward, that's sin. When we turn toward ourselves, that's sin. Because what we are supposed to be doing is always aimed outward, toward others, never inward toward ourselves. And until that is fixed (which Christians confess has happened, is happening, and will happen in Resurrection--Christ's and ours) we dwell in this mess of brokenness, of having a broken, backward, bent or crooked humanity that is not in alignment with God's creative purpose. And thus the need to set us--and all of creation--right, which is what the Gospel of Jesus' death and resurrection preaches.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Zoness]

Well first you have to ask what is Sin and how are actions measured and get applied with that label.

Personally...I think sin is a concept made by man to have an influence on the actions of others (when it is used outside of the intended religion).

Right. This discussion is sort of artificial since I don't believe in the concept of Sin as Christians do, but I wanted Christians to answer me in this context because every answer I've heard is different.

Don't forget that the topic is "Sin in Christianity," not "Sin in Judaism."

I forget nothing. You commented on my post and I said I cannot agree with what you said.

I was thinking about widening the subject but I didn't. I don't really have a good reason for it, maybe I should reform the OP to account for that.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Which was first taught by St. Augustine, the doctrine of "original sin" and all that. Does that not make people inherently evil? I've heard a middle position that people are "inherently evil" but they CAN do good. It depends on the theological persuasion of the person.

Well St. Augustine put forward a systematic theology concerning that, Original Sin; but St. Augustine was building upon what came before, and ultimately building upon the Pauline theology found in such places such as Romans and 1 Corinthians.

One doesn't necessarily need an Augustinian view to affirm the basic Pauline premise that in/through Adam sin and death has come upon the world and we dwell and exist in that mess (the Orthodox and other Eastern Churches do just that, without ascribing to Augustinianism).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Zoness]

Well St. Augustine put forward a systematic theology concerning that, Original Sin; but St. Augustine was building upon what came before, and ultimately building upon the Pauline theology found in such places such as Romans and 1 Corinthians.

One doesn't necessarily need an Augustinian view to affirm the basic Pauline premise that in/through Adam sin and death has come upon the world and we dwell and exist in that mess (the Orthodox and other Eastern Churches do just that, without ascribing to Augustinianism).

-CryptoLutheran

That certainly sheds light on why so many churches understand the concept of original sin but do not extrapolate it to Calvin's ideas, rather considering them heretical [which I probably would too if I were Christian].

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That certainly sheds light on why so many churches understand the concept of original sin but do not extrapolate it to Calvin's ideas, rather considering them heretical [which I probably would too if I were Christian].

Thanks for the clarification.

It's somewhat rather fascinating that Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism are all confessedly quite Augustinian (St. Augustine was the most important patristic theologian for both Luther and Calvin, and he is of course theologian par excellence in Roman Catholicism), and yet we all sharply disagree even with what Augustine himself taught.

Probably not surprising, when one considers that A) Augustine is perhaps the most prolific writer of the patristic era, and thus his body of work seems rather immense and complex; and B) Augustine's importance in the Western theological tradition meant that to be taken seriously as a theologian meant to stand within the Augustinian tradition. Which is why even St. Thomas Aquinas had to walk on eggshells so as to ensure that he didn't come across going against Augustine when he introduced Aristotelian philosophy into Western ecclesiastical thought; and more interesting (I think) is that one of the chief theological complaints from the Protestant Reformers was Medieval Scholasticism, which was seen as having turned away from solid theology and diluted it with philosophical speculation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LoAmmi]

I was thinking about widening the subject but I didn't. I don't really have a good reason for it, maybe I should reform the OP to account for that.

Perhaps. The nature of humanity is another big divide between traditional Judaism and traditional Christianity.

 

[Zoness]

It's somewhat rather fascinating that Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism are all confessedly quite Augustinian (St. Augustine was the most important patristic theologian for both Luther and Calvin, and he is of course theologian par excellence in Roman Catholicism), and yet we all sharply disagree even with what Augustine himself taught.

Probably not surprising, when one considers that A) Augustine is perhaps the most prolific writer of the patristic era, and thus his body of work seems rather immense and complex; and B) Augustine's importance in the Western theological tradition meant that to be taken seriously as a theologian meant to stand within the Augustinian tradition. Which is why even St. Thomas Aquinas had to walk on eggshells so as to ensure that he didn't come across going against Augustine when he introduced Aristotelian philosophy into Western ecclesiastical thought; and more interesting (I think) is that one of the chief theological complaints from the Protestant Reformers was Medieval Scholasticism, which was seen as having turned away from solid theology and diluted it with philosophical speculation.

-CryptoLutheran

That's a good point. I don't see many theologians writing in opposition to Augustine because that seems to automatically disqualify that author from having an orthodox opinion. I see that's been changing but its a slow going and has its ups and downs. I have no strong opinion on Augustine himself as I haven't read his works. It sort of shows how even with huge groups of people in an introspective an analytic tradition such as theology can run into their own confirmation biases. I do it when testing software all of the time.

Perhaps. The nature of humanity is another big divide between traditional Judaism and traditional Christianity.

I expanded the thread's scope so that would compare and contrast Judaism and Christianity in this regard, as well as other religions.

 

[dlamberth]

Paul.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all
sinned. Romans 5:12

The image of the Fall because of man's sin nature originated with Paul?


.

 

[Deacon Don]

The image of the Fall because of man's sin nature originated with Paul?

No, it originated in the Garden of Eden. Paul was making that
clear.

 

[LoAmmi]

The image of the Fall because of man's sin nature originated with Paul?


.

I would say it started with Christianity at least. We don't even call it "The Fall" as we don't see it that way.

 

[Deacon Don]

I would say it started with Christianity at least. We don't even call it
"The Fall" as we don't see it that way.

Whether or not it's called the fall is irrelevant.

 

[LoAmmi]

Whether or not it's called the fall is irrelevant.

The interpretation of the events and what it means was not the same. What I meant is that it is not interpreted as a fall of mankind. I think you have been a bit dismissive of my comments a few times here and that's not really cool.

 

[Masihi]

I would say it started with Christianity at least. We don't even call it "The Fall" as we don't see it that way.

I know for a surety that the only propitiation of all this sin is by blood. Period. Fanciful imaginations of propitiation by way of vocalized sacrifices is contrary to everything Torah.

 

[Supreme]

I think people sin because we're not perfect creatures and so are bound to go wrong at some point. Some people are more prone to sin than others of course. As to why that is, who knows? It could be the work of Satan, but I've never thought too much of Satan, especially since God is so much more powerful.