Unjustified Imputed Guilt

[bcbsr]

Unjustified Imputed Guilt

Many hold to a version of imputed guilt whereby God reckons people guilty of crimes they haven't actually committed. That itself would seem to be a definition of injustice. In fact some such people I have spoken to will end up saying in defense, "God is not just in human terms." To which I respond that they can drop the phrase "in human terms" seeing as the Bible was written to humans. If they are preaching to humans, they should just come out and admit that according to their theology God is unjust.

As for cases in point take for example the theory of Unconditional Election in which people are fated to eternal damnation prior to them even being born, and thus prior to them committing sin. Reasonable people recognize that as being inherently unjust.

Many Christians reckon people born guilty of Adam's sin. Adam's sin was Adam's sin, not the sin of others who had not even been born. Likewise many think the God pretended that Jesus was guilty of the sins of the world, crimes that he didn't actually commit, and that God consequently pour wrath on him, knowing that he was innocent.

What do these say of the character of the god that such people believe in? In contrast to such a god, the God of scripture is just. (Rom 3:26, 2Thess 1:6) Many fail to interpret scripture in light of God's character and end up believing in a different god.

 

[Dave L]

Unjustified Imputed Guilt

Many hold to a version of imputed guilt whereby God reckons people guilty of crimes they haven't actually committed. That itself would seem to be a definition of injustice. In fact some such people I have spoken to will end up saying in defense, "God is not just in human terms." To which I respond that they can drop the phrase "in human terms" seeing as the Bible was written to humans. If they are preaching to humans, they should just come out and admit that according to their theology God is unjust.

As for cases in point take for example the theory of Unconditional Election in which people are fated to eternal damnation prior to them even being born, and thus prior to them committing sin. Reasonable people recognize that as being inherently unjust.

Many Christians reckon people born guilty of Adam's sin. Adam's sin was Adam's sin, not the sin of others who had not even been born. Likewise many think the God pretended that Jesus was guilty of the sins of the world, crimes that he didn't actually commit, and that God consequently pour wrath on him, knowing that he was innocent.

What do these say of the character of the god that such people believe in? In contrast to such a god, the God of scripture is just. (Rom 3:26, 2Thess 1:6) Many fail to interpret scripture in light of God's character and end up believing in a different god.

We wore Adam's guilt even though we had nothing to do with it. He was our representative. We now wear Jesus' righteousness even though we had nothing to do with it. He was our representative. So it depends on God who assigned each person to their representative and from there treats them accordingly.

 

[bcbsr]

We wore Adam's guilt even though we had nothing to do with it. He was our representative. We now wear Jesus' righteousness even though we had nothing to do with it. He was our representative. So it depends on God who assigned each person to their representative and from there treats them accordingly.

That's guilt by association, like putting children in prison for the crimes of their father. Reasonable people recognize that as inherently unjust.

 

[Peter J Barban]

As a young Christian, I once thought that people were born as a "blank slate". Neither good nor evil because they had done nothing yet. It seemed logical at the time.

However, after studying the Bible, it became clear that the traditional understanding of Adam's sin is truly biblical. Although you can disagree on the technical details of imputation and such, the Bible shows that God considers us all separated from him because of Adam. Nobody is born saved, or even neutral.

Assuming that the Bible is right, you must have an error in your logic or in your unexamined assumptions. Usually, it the unexamined assumptions that trip up most thinkers.

 

[bcbsr]

As a young Christian, I once thought that people were born as a "blank slate". Neither good nor evil because they had done nothing yet. It seemed logical at the time.

However, after studying the Bible, it became clear that the traditional understanding of Adam's sin is truly biblical. Although you can disagree on the technical details of imputation and such, the Bible shows that God considers us all separated from him because of Adam. Nobody is born saved, or even neutral.

Assuming that the Bible is right, you must have an error in your logic or in your unexamined assumptions. Usually, it the unexamined assumptions that trip up most thinkers.

You fail to interpret scripture in light of God's character.

 

[Peter J Barban]

You fail to interpret scripture in light of God's character.

You assume facts that are not in evidence. That's very trollish of you.

 

[bcbsr]

You assume facts that are not in evidence. That's very trollish of you.

But for the fact that I've extensively studied the scriptures. See my site BCBSR - The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources: Bible Study Guides for Christians

 

[Peter J Barban]

Show us your understanding by stating as neutrally as possible the position that you disagree with. If you can't do that, then you have no business creating this thread.

 

[bcbsr]

Show us your understanding by stating as neutrally as possible the position that you disagree with. If you can't do that, then you have no business creating this thread.

Already done.

 

[Dave L]

That's guilt by association, like putting children in prison for the crimes of their father. Reasonable people recognize that as inherently unjust.

Under the best circumstances, we proved to be a corrupt species. Adam was our best shot.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Sorry, I don't feel that you understand the traditional doctrine at all. You can't just throw out some straw men. It is not valuable to discuss deep ideas with people who can only evidence shallow understanding.

 

[royal priest]

Unjustified Imputed Guilt

Many hold to a version of imputed guilt whereby God reckons people guilty of crimes they haven't actually committed. That itself would seem to be a definition of injustice. In fact some such people I have spoken to will end up saying in defense, "God is not just in human terms." To which I respond that they can drop the phrase "in human terms" seeing as the Bible was written to humans. If they are preaching to humans, they should just come out and admit that according to their theology God is unjust.

As for cases in point take for example the theory of Unconditional Election in which people are fated to eternal damnation prior to them even being born, and thus prior to them committing sin. Reasonable people recognize that as being inherently unjust.

Many Christians reckon people born guilty of Adam's sin. Adam's sin was Adam's sin, not the sin of others who had not even been born. Likewise many think the God pretended that Jesus was guilty of the sins of the world, crimes that he didn't actually commit, and that God consequently pour wrath on him, knowing that he was innocent.

What do these say of the character of the god that such people believe in? In contrast to such a god, the God of scripture is just. (Rom 3:26, 2Thess 1:6) Many fail to interpret scripture in light of God's character and end up believing in a different god.

Pease explain Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-21.

 

[Danielwright2311]

Unjustified Imputed Guilt

Many hold to a version of imputed guilt whereby God reckons people guilty of crimes they haven't actually committed. That itself would seem to be a definition of injustice. In fact some such people I have spoken to will end up saying in defense, "God is not just in human terms." To which I respond that they can drop the phrase "in human terms" seeing as the Bible was written to humans. If they are preaching to humans, they should just come out and admit that according to their theology God is unjust.

As for cases in point take for example the theory of Unconditional Election in which people are fated to eternal damnation prior to them even being born, and thus prior to them committing sin. Reasonable people recognize that as being inherently unjust.

Many Christians reckon people born guilty of Adam's sin. Adam's sin was Adam's sin, not the sin of others who had not even been born. Likewise many think the God pretended that Jesus was guilty of the sins of the world, crimes that he didn't actually commit, and that God consequently pour wrath on him, knowing that he was innocent.

What do these say of the character of the god that such people believe in? In contrast to such a god, the God of scripture is just. (Rom 3:26, 2Thess 1:6) Many fail to interpret scripture in light of God's character and end up believing in a different god.

When you are dead and in the kingdom of heaven the earthy questions you pose will not matter, and to top it off everything will be full of life and love for ever.

Why ponder on if God is just?

You are judging Gods character over other people opinions and others twisting scripture.

Jesus was a sacrifice for us, our sin so we can go to heaven, its a free gift, If Jesus death was unjust then what about his resurrection back to life to be the king of all kings?

Also if Living in the kingdom for ever with perfect love is our reward for the torment we live on this earth, how is that unjust?

Also We do not need to be judged for Adams sins when we have our own sins.

Also All children are perfect till they grow into the sin filled ways we live now.

Also sin has nothing to do with anything any longer due to Jesus forgiving us for our sins.

 

[FenderTL5]

...the traditional understanding of Adam's sin is truly biblical..

I agree, but it's not the traditional view of Adam's sin that you seem to be defending.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I agree, but it's not the traditional view of Adam's sin that you seem to be defending.

I imagine that Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants have differing ideas over what "the Traditional view" means. Please assume that I am consistent within my own faith tradition. If your faith tradition has a different view, I welcome your input.

 

[FenderTL5]

I imagine that Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants have differing ideas over what "the Traditional view" means. Please assume that I am consistent within my own faith tradition. If your faith tradition has a different view, I welcome your input.

Fair enough, but your profile and avatar leave your faith tradition undefined. That makes understanding your view impossible without engaging in dialog.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Unjustified Imputed Guilt

Many hold to a version of imputed guilt whereby God reckons people guilty of crimes they haven't actually committed. That itself would seem to be a definition of injustice. In fact some such people I have spoken to will end up saying in defense, "God is not just in human terms." To which I respond that they can drop the phrase "in human terms" seeing as the Bible was written to humans. If they are preaching to humans, they should just come out and admit that according to their theology God is unjust.

As for cases in point take for example the theory of Unconditional Election in which people are fated to eternal damnation prior to them even being born, and thus prior to them committing sin. Reasonable people recognize that as being inherently unjust.

Many Christians reckon people born guilty of Adam's sin. Adam's sin was Adam's sin, not the sin of others who had not even been born. Likewise many think the God pretended that Jesus was guilty of the sins of the world, crimes that he didn't actually commit, and that God consequently pour wrath on him, knowing that he was innocent.

What do these say of the character of the god that such people believe in? In contrast to such a god, the God of scripture is just. (Rom 3:26, 2Thess 1:6) Many fail to interpret scripture in light of God's character and end up believing in a different god.

Essentially you have three accusations of error:
1. "take for example the theory of Unconditional Election in which people are fated to eternal damnation prior to them even being born, and thus prior to them committing sin."
2. "Many Christians reckon people born guilty of Adam's sin."
3. "In fact some such people I have spoken to will end up saying in defense, "God is not just in human terms." "

Do you understand why we say these things? We didn't create it out of whole cloth. We had evidence in the Bible which led us to believe this way. Do you know what that Biblical evidence is? Can you examine our evidence and show us our mistakes?

 

[Peter J Barban]

Fair enough, but your profile and avatar leave your faith tradition undefined. That makes understanding your view impossible without engaging in dialog.

Since as you say, it is impossible without prior dialog, then stop attempting the impossible. Dialog first, then find error.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Unjustified Imputed Guilt

Many hold to a version of imputed guilt whereby God reckons people guilty of crimes they haven't actually committed. That itself would seem to be a definition of injustice. In fact some such people I have spoken to will end up saying in defense, "God is not just in human terms." To which I respond that they can drop the phrase "in human terms" seeing as the Bible was written to humans. If they are preaching to humans, they should just come out and admit that according to their theology God is unjust.

As for cases in point take for example the theory of Unconditional Election in which people are fated to eternal damnation prior to them even being born, and thus prior to them committing sin. Reasonable people recognize that as being inherently unjust.

Many Christians reckon people born guilty of Adam's sin. Adam's sin was Adam's sin, not the sin of others who had not even been born. Likewise many think the God pretended that Jesus was guilty of the sins of the world, crimes that he didn't actually commit, and that God consequently pour wrath on him, knowing that he was innocent.

What do these say of the character of the god that such people believe in? In contrast to such a god, the God of scripture is just. (Rom 3:26, 2Thess 1:6) Many fail to interpret scripture in light of God's character and end up believing in a different god.

Well B,
We finally agree on something!
There is much misunderstanding about this.

We are born AFFECTED by Adam's sin...
we are not IMPUTED with his sin.

We are only responsible for our own sins,,,not for the sins of others. Due to Adam's sin we are born with its effects: which are, for example: Death, sickness, and most of all the SIN NATURE. Man tends toward evil and is born lost and must be saved to enter into heaven.

We are imputed with Christ's righteousness exactly because He died to redeem us and gave His blood for us.

But we are NOT imputed with the sin of any other person.

 

[RaymondG]

We wore Adam's guilt even though we had nothing to do with it. He was our representative. We now wear Jesus' righteousness even though we had nothing to do with it. He was our representative. So it depends on God who assigned each person to their representative and from there treats them accordingly.

However, after studying the Bible, it became clear that the traditional understanding of Adam's sin is truly biblical. Although you can disagree on the technical details of imputation and such, the Bible shows that God considers us all separated from him because of Adam. Nobody is born saved, or even neutral.

Can you two explain why, you believe, God decided to make the guilt of Adams sin falling on man Mandatory....But the Salvation of Jesus' Sacrifice optional?