What is Original Sin, and how does it relate to free will?

[TrueMyth]

Such acts may seem good to us, but they are of no merit to God.

I would disagree, PETE. I believe these actions are, really and truly, good. I also believe that it is only God's grace that allows them to occur. They are not of salvific merit to God, but that does not mean they are of no merit.

When a man is faced with his bad thoughts, feelings, and actions, what does he do? He often will feel worthless, evil, or dirty. He might even try to destroy himself. Rarely will he feel proud of himself. This shame and despair might lead him to God, but if it does it is only because God allows him to come. Left on his own, a man will never come to God, no matter how bad things get, because he cannot desire God.

When a man is faced with his good thoughts, feelings, and actions, what does he do? If these thoughts, feelings, or actions are not isolated incidences-- in short, if he is a good man-- he will be humble about it, attributing his success to others or to some Higher Power. If he is not a good man, these events will cause one of two outcomes: 1) he will feel that he is a good man after all and become falsely proud; or 2) he will be so shamed of his other actions that he will seek restitution and restoration.

Remember the story of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables? He just got out of 19 years of forced hard labor for stealing a loaf of bread and when he is put up for the night by a local bishop, Valjean repays the bishop by stealing his silver cutlery. Upon being caught in the act by the gendarmes, he claims that they were a gift by the bishop. The gendarmes are understandably suspicious, so they bring in the bishop to verify this. The bishop not only confirms Valjean's story, but he also gives Valjean a further present of his gold candlesticks. The bishop lets Valjean go, saying that with these gifts, he has bought Valjean's soul for God. Valjean is so humbled and shamed by this display of Christian love that he leaves a life of crime behind for good.

God, in his prevenient grace, evens the scales for us when He allows us to do good. He allows us to choose: self (be proud of our accomplishments) or Him (good shame leads us to seek redemption). Before His grace intervenes, we cannot choose at all.

 

[Rick Otto]

Original Sin resulted in immediate spiritual death, later physical death.
We are then spiritualy still-born, dead in Original trespasses & sin. Thus the need for regeneration- being born again.

Free Will is simply an illusion.

When we are reborn, we can reckon ourselves dead to sin, but our body of corruption remains until dead or glorified at His coming. So we struggle. Making choices is not a demonstration of freedom, it is a demonstration of the tension between restraining grace, keeping sinners from sinning, & providential grace - Jesus doing HIS will thru us.

I respect Ump's grasp, but I must take exception to his assertion that God cannot lie. And someone else said God does no evil.

In Isaih 45:7 God explicitly states that He creates evil.
He does so for good reason. Judge by the motive, not the action.

In Kings & Chronicles He puts a lying spirit in the mouth of Isreal's prophets.

Lying (bearing false witness)is not a sin. Bearing false witness against your neighbor is. We are not God's neighbors.

 

[JimfromOhio]

God is in control and He will allow us to have freewill only if its according to His will. We have to understand that God controls everything including our freewill. The "freewill" is always subject to God's sovereignty and His divine freewill. The key is that God is ALWAYS in control even in our own freewill. Jesus gave an example about God's will when He revealed His holiness when He cried in His agony, "Not my will, but thine, be done" (Luke 22:42). Here two wills, the lower will of the human who was God and the higher will of the God who was Man, and the higher will always prevail. So, by following Christ's example, we are to follow God's will and decisions. Every Christian must decide whether they will us their liberty to decide on their moral decisions. We are free, but our freedom must prove a source of real temptation of this world. We are free from the chains of sin because by grace we are saved by Christ that we are forgiven. It is God's gift that we have the complete spiritual freedom and loving dependence upon one another. The mystery of our free will is too easy because when God said to Adam and Eve: "Thou shalt not eat from this tree." Here was a divine requirement calling for obedience on the part of those who had the power of choice and will. They had only ONE commandment.

No matter what we do, God is always guiding us through our circumstances (good and bad). Nothing is impossible for Him. God is Good and at the same time, God is Holy and Sovereign. The Apostles, Joseph, Joshua, Daniel, Job, David and other great biblical characters lived in the same world, but how differently they interpreted their relationship with God. Learning from them, I can see that circumstances did not control them; it is their reaction to circumstances that determined what kind of people they were and most importantly, how faithful they were.

Often I noticed that the providential of God leads me to what I call "coincidences" in my life which perhaps God will make sure that His wills will be done at His right time and place. There are two worlds, set over against each other, dominated by two wills, the will of man (me) and the will of God, respectively.

 

[sawdust]

It is certain that human beings have a propensity to do evil.

Humans have a propensity to sin, not to evil. There is a difference.

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. Rom.7:15

If Paul was evil he would have loved what he did as a sinner not hated it.

My understanding to date regarding the questions you raise in your original post:

Original Sin = the sin originally committed by Adam when he disobeyed the word of God regarding the tree in the garden.

This act caused him to die (spiritually). His spirit left his body and returned to the Lord. His body was then made corrupt, don't know exactly how but similar to how brain cells would die if it is deprived of oxygen. This corruption is what we term the sin nature and it resides in every cell of our body (including male sperm but not female ovum, hence the virgin birth).

but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. Rom.7:23

It is, as it were, a law unto itself that is wholly antagonistic to God. It is this "law" that traps our minds (ie our inner being = soul) and prevents it from doing the good that we want to do. There is no way out for our soul. No amount of will power will eradicate the sin nature within and it's influence over our soul.

This is coupled with the fact that without a human spirit we cannot know spiritual matters and as God is Spirit, that means all things relating to God cannot be known by us.

the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Rom.8:7

The "sinful mind" is the soul under the dominance of the sin nature that resides in our flesh and in an unbeliever (which we all once were) is a person without a human spirit which is why Paul says that person cannot submit to God's law because they have no "compartment" (human spirit) with which to understand spiritual mattters.

We are sinners from birth because we genetically inherit the sin nature through the male line. Our soul which, God imputes at birth is neutral in terms of good and evil, our bodies are defunct and we have no human spirit. This is why we are condemned, we are not what God originally designed and we are without hope of ever re-creating ourselves so that we might have life.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom.5:12

That a man (unbeliever) can come to see good is by the grace of God. If a man does good it is also by the grace of God for if he had not heard the word of God, ie "do not murder" and believed it to be true, then he would have no power to do good.

This is where free will comes into the picture. Apart from grace, no mans will is free to chose and do good. The sin nature ensures this propensity and eventually it would transform our souls into an evil thing. This is my understanding of the doctrine of total depravity. Not that we are born evil but rather because of the sin nature within and no human spirit to know God we would ultimately slide downhill to the very depths of evil and we would be completely unaware that it is even happening to us.

The darkness into which we are born would be all we ever know and we would have no choice in the matter. All we could ever do is continue to feed upon the darkness in which we found ourselves.

However, "In the beginning was the Word", and Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. He took the responsibility upon Himself from the beginning that we should have a choice to choose life or death. He does not cause us to believe Him but He causes us to see His truth beginning with His sovereignity and deity.

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Rom.1:19&20

To those who respond positively? these ones are drawn further into His truth.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. Jn.6:44

How far a person will be drawn, only the Lord knows. However, the way in which He causes us to see His truth along the way is by His grace which is the greater power to temporarily disable the power of the sin nature within (in a manner of speaking) so our will is made free for a moment and we might make a choice according to our own desires.

The Lord is able to do this because:
1. He is merciful and wants all men to come to know the truth and..
2. Because Christ is the Lamb that was slain prior to sin.

Hence, sin is not the primary issue and in a sense never has been. The issue of sin the Lord took care of Himself in Christ. The issue for humanity is "Who do you say I am?"

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Matt.16:15

In the garden? Adam should have believed what the Lord said about the tree simply because it was the Lord who said it. He should have obeyed because he believed the Lord but he chose not to believe.

This is why the righteous will live by faith because faith is in the One who is true.

peace

 

[TrueMyth]

Original Sin resulted in immediate spiritual death, later physical death.
We are then spiritualy still-born, dead in Original trespasses & sin. Thus the need for regeneration- being born again.

Free Will is simply an illusion.

When we are reborn, we can reckon ourselves dead to sin, but our body of corruption remains until dead or glorified at His coming. So we struggle. Making choices is not a demonstration of freedom, it is a demonstration of the tension between restraining grace, keeping sinners from sinning, & providential grace - Jesus doing HIS will thru us.

I respect Ump's grasp, but I must take exception to his assertion that God cannot lie. And someone else said God does no evil.

In Isaih 45:7 God explicitly states that He creates evil.
He does so for good reason. Judge by the motive, not the action.

In Kings & Chronicles He puts a lying spirit in the mouth of Isreal's prophets.

Lying (bearing false witness)is not a sin. Bearing false witness against your neighbor is. We are not God's neighbors.

I really don't know how to respond to all this. Well, actually I do: Goodbye!

This is so absurd and scary it doesn't really merit the dignity of a response, but here goes anyway:

Isaiah 45:7-- "I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things."

Clearly states that God creates evil, eh? Not simply light and darkness?

If free will is an illusion, then why do we have it? Since you think God lies, then it is just as likely He (although I'm not sure I should capitalize the proper noun when speaking of your God) put this falsehood in our heads as it is likely that Satan did (or the Fall). In a world without free, rational, moral agents, God simply uses us as chess pieces, and then throws us away to eternal damnation when He is finished with us.

Even if God had created evil, this does not mean that He does evil. Or, at least, it wouldn't mean that if He did so in order that humans might have a free choice, but since you reject free will, I guess it does mean that.

Your overall position seems to be that God is supreme, all-powerful, and sovereign: therefore, He can do whatever He wants, and He is above and beyond petty human things such as good and evil. What He does is, by definition (at least for us), good. If God told us to rape our sisters, that would be good, and we could say nothing against it. "But God would not command that," you say, "because He is good!" Oh really? What evidence do you have of that? So far we have-- under your idea-- a God who lies and gives us the cruel illusion of free will, and then rapes what wills we have just so He can have us with Him. If that's good, then we humans have absolutely no idea what good is, and for all we know God might order us to rape our sisters. Why not? He rapes us, apparently.

Again, I will stick with what I should have stuck with at the beginning: Goodbye!

 

[UMP]

I respect Ump's grasp, but I must take exception to his assertion that God cannot lie.

Titus 1:
[2] In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

 

[Zeena]

God is Holy!

Unlike those who do not seek after Christ Jesus for Life!

Everything God does is Holy, though it may seem harsh in our eyes.. And if it does seems harsh in our eyes it's 'cuz we're eating from the WRONG TREE!

 

[TrueMyth]

God is in control and He will allow us to have freewill only if its according to His will. We have to understand that God controls everything including our freewill. The "freewill" is always subject to God's sovereignty and His divine freewill. The key is that God is ALWAYS in control even in our own freewill. Jesus gave an example about God's will when He revealed His holiness when He cried in His agony, "Not my will, but thine, be done" (Luke 22:42). Here two wills, the lower will of the human who was God and the higher will of the God who was Man, and the higher will always prevail. So, by following Christ's example, we are to follow God's will and decisions. Every Christian must decide whether they will us their liberty to decide on their moral decisions. We are free, but our freedom must prove a source of real temptation of this world. We are free from the chains of sin because by grace we are saved by Christ that we are forgiven. It is God's gift that we have the complete spiritual freedom and loving dependence upon one another. The mystery of our free will is too easy because when God said to Adam and Eve: "Thou shalt not eat from this tree." Here was a divine requirement calling for obedience on the part of those who had the power of choice and will. They had only ONE commandment.

No matter what we do, God is always guiding us through our circumstances (good and bad). Nothing is impossible for Him. God is Good and at the same time, God is Holy and Sovereign. The Apostles, Joseph, Joshua, Daniel, Job, David and other great biblical characters lived in the same world, but how differently they interpreted their relationship with God. Learning from them, I can see that circumstances did not control them; it is their reaction to circumstances that determined what kind of people they were and most importantly, how faithful they were.

Often I noticed that the providential of God leads me to what I call "coincidences" in my life which perhaps God will make sure that His wills will be done at His right time and place. There are two worlds, set over against each other, dominated by two wills, the will of man (me) and the will of God, respectively.

I agree that God is sovereign, and that He is good. I agree that God has absolute control over all things. However, I want to be careful what we mean about these concepts.

For example, can God order us to rape our sisters (to use my earlier example)? Of course not! God is omnipotent, but He is also good. Omnipotence is the quality of having no external constraints on His actions; or, if you prefer, the ability to do all that is logically possible. God, as God, cannot order us to rape our sisters, but this is not because of some external contraint: it is because He will never will it, because He is good. The only "constraint" present is His own nature, which is no more of a constraint on His will than it is on ours. Alternatively, we could say that to will us to rape our sisters would be logically impossible, for then we have a being whose nature is Perfect Goodness willing an act which is purely evil. For God to do so would be to contradict the very subject of the sentence and the act.

Therefore, when we say "God is sovereign" and "His will be done in all things", we want to be careful that we do not sneak in there some idea that He will do otherwise than His nature and character. Just as He will never ask us to rape our fellow creatures, He will never Himself rape our wills. Making this statement in no wise limits His omnipotence, His will, or His sovereignty. It is merely avoiding logical contradiction.

God, when He created the world, created out of necessity, but not external necessity: He created out of the necessity of His own nature. Therefore, we can say that since we have free rational wills, God thinks this is good. And who are we to argue with God? Indeed, we see this in our own (poor) reflection of the divine nature: we value love which is freely given, not coerced. God, in giving us free rational wills, will not infringe upon these wills on matters of salvific importance-- it is against His Good nature, and to do so will create a logical contradiction. God is the Potter, and we are the Clay, but in creating the clay, giving it a desire for goodness, and giving it a free will to choose goodness, God also created a special kind of relationship between the Potter and the clay. If He wanted to run roughshod over our selves, He would not have given us wills and an awarenes of our own selves (I'll leave aside the question of whether or not He could have created otherwise than He did, being Perfect Goodness). He created a world where He enters into genuine relationships with His creatures-- a world where He does not rape, He only woos. Thus, we see the Potter caring for the clay, desiring its free submission, and refusing to forcibly drag it into His love.

 

[TrueMyth]

Titus 1:
[2] In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Good job UMP! Also:

Num. 23:19-- "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"

Heb. 6:18-- "God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged."

 

[UMP]

I agree that God is sovereign, and that He is good. I agree that God has absolute control over all things. However, I want to be careful what we mean about these concepts.

For example, can God order us to rape our sisters (to use my earlier example)? Of course not! God is omnipotent, but He is also good. Omnipotence is the quality of having no external constraints on His actions; or, if you prefer, the ability to do all that is logically possible. God, as God, cannot order us to rape our sisters, but this is not because of some external contraint: it is because He will never will it, because He is good. The only "constraint" present is His own nature, which is no more of a constraint on His will than it is on ours. Alternatively, we could say that to will us to rape our sisters would be logically impossible, for then we have a being whose nature is Perfect Goodness willing an act which is purely evil. For God to do so would be to contradict the very subject of the sentence and the act.

Therefore, when we say "God is sovereign" and "His will be done in all things", we want to be careful that we do not sneak in there some idea that He will do otherwise than His nature and character. Just as He will never ask us to rape our fellow creatures, He will never Himself rape our wills. Making this statement in no wise limits His omnipotence, His will, or His sovereignty. It is merely avoiding logical contradiction.

God, when He created the world, created out of necessity, but not external necessity: He created out of the necessity of His own nature. Therefore, we can say that since we have free rational wills, God thinks this is good. And who are we to argue with God? Indeed, we see this in our own (poor) reflection of the divine nature: we value love which is freely given, not coerced. God, in giving us free rational wills, will not infringe upon these wills on matters of salvific importance-- it is against His Good nature, and to do so will create a logical contradiction. God is the Potter, and we are the Clay, but in creating the clay, giving it a desire for goodness, and giving it a free will to choose goodness, God also created a special kind of relationship between the Potter and the clay. If He wanted to run roughshod over our selves, He would not have given us wills and an awarenes of our own selves (I'll leave aside the question of whether or not He could have created otherwise than He did, being Perfect Goodness). He created a world where He enters into genuine relationships with His creatures-- a world where He does not rape, He only woos. Thus, we see the Potter caring for the clay, desiring its free submission, and refusing to forcibly drag it into His love.

You seem to be a very intelligent person. However, our only guide to faith and practice is the Bible, not opinion.
The Bible is clear that man in his natural state is a slave to sin, unable to do good, "dead in trespasses and in sin".

 

[cygnusx1]

I agree that God is sovereign, and that He is good. I agree that God has absolute control over all things. However, I want to be careful what we mean about these concepts.

For example, can God order us to rape our sisters (to use my earlier example)? Of course not! God is omnipotent, but He is also good. Omnipotence is the quality of having no external constraints on His actions; or, if you prefer, the ability to do all that is logically possible. God, as God, cannot order us to rape our sisters, but this is not because of some external contraint: it is because He will never will it, because He is good. The only "constraint" present is His own nature, which is no more of a constraint on His will than it is on ours. Alternatively, we could say that to will us to rape our sisters would be logically impossible, for then we have a being whose nature is Perfect Goodness willing an act which is purely evil. For God to do so would be to contradict the very subject of the sentence and the act.

Therefore, when we say "God is sovereign" and "His will be done in all things", we want to be careful that we do not sneak in there some idea that He will do otherwise than His nature and character. Just as He will never ask us to rape our fellow creatures, He will never Himself rape our wills. Making this statement in no wise limits His omnipotence, His will, or His sovereignty. It is merely avoiding logical contradiction.

God, when He created the world, created out of necessity, but not external necessity: He created out of the necessity of His own nature. Therefore, we can say that since we have free rational wills, God thinks this is good. And who are we to argue with God? Indeed, we see this in our own (poor) reflection of the divine nature: we value love which is freely given, not coerced. God, in giving us free rational wills, will not infringe upon these wills on matters of salvific importance-- it is against His Good nature, and to do so will create a logical contradiction. God is the Potter, and we are the Clay, but in creating the clay, giving it a desire for goodness, and giving it a free will to choose goodness, God also created a special kind of relationship between the Potter and the clay. If He wanted to run roughshod over our selves, He would not have given us wills and an awarenes of our own selves (I'll leave aside the question of whether or not He could have created otherwise than He did, being Perfect Goodness). He created a world where He enters into genuine relationships with His creatures-- a world where He does not rape, He only woos. Thus, we see the Potter caring for the clay, desiring its free submission, and refusing to forcibly drag it into His love.

I neither agree with your position nor brother Rick Otto's.

God cannot lie , God can never sin... but He can send out lying spirits , and God can deceive men !


2 Thessalonians 2:11

Because of this, God sends them a working of error, that they should believe a lie; (WEB)
And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie: (ASV)
And for this cause, God will give them up to the power of deceit and they will put their faith in what is false: (BBE)
And for this reason God sends to them a working of error, that they should believe what is false, (DBY)
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (KJV)
And for this cause God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (WBS)
2 Thessalonians 2:11 WEY: And for this reason God sends them a misleading influence that they may believe the lie; 2 Thessalonians 2:11 YLT: and because of this shall God send to them a working of delusion, for their believing the lie,

but as for God not being able to command men to "sin" ........ Thou shalt not kill (written on every human heart) did not stop God from commanding Abraham to kill his son Isaac .

a sin is a sin because God said it is , and if God commanded you to do something (even though you had good reasons not to do it) it would still be a sin to reject God's command.

The Law is layed down for sinners , God is above The Law.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I agree that God is sovereign, and that He is good. I agree that God has absolute control over all things. However, I want to be careful what we mean about these concepts.

For example, can God order us to rape our sisters (to use my earlier example)? Of course not! God is omnipotent, but He is also good. Omnipotence is the quality of having no external constraints on His actions; or, if you prefer, the ability to do all that is logically possible. God, as God, cannot order us to rape our sisters, but this is not because of some external contraint: it is because He will never will it, because He is good. The only "constraint" present is His own nature, which is no more of a constraint on His will than it is on ours. Alternatively, we could say that to will us to rape our sisters would be logically impossible, for then we have a being whose nature is Perfect Goodness willing an act which is purely evil. For God to do so would be to contradict the very subject of the sentence and the act.

Therefore, when we say "God is sovereign" and "His will be done in all things", we want to be careful that we do not sneak in there some idea that He will do otherwise than His nature and character. Just as He will never ask us to rape our fellow creatures, He will never Himself rape our wills. Making this statement in no wise limits His omnipotence, His will, or His sovereignty. It is merely avoiding logical contradiction.

God, when He created the world, created out of necessity, but not external necessity: He created out of the necessity of His own nature. Therefore, we can say that since we have free rational wills, God thinks this is good. And who are we to argue with God? Indeed, we see this in our own (poor) reflection of the divine nature: we value love which is freely given, not coerced. God, in giving us free rational wills, will not infringe upon these wills on matters of salvific importance-- it is against His Good nature, and to do so will create a logical contradiction. God is the Potter, and we are the Clay, but in creating the clay, giving it a desire for goodness, and giving it a free will to choose goodness, God also created a special kind of relationship between the Potter and the clay. If He wanted to run roughshod over our selves, He would not have given us wills and an awarenes of our own selves (I'll leave aside the question of whether or not He could have created otherwise than He did, being Perfect Goodness). He created a world where He enters into genuine relationships with His creatures-- a world where He does not rape, He only woos. Thus, we see the Potter caring for the clay, desiring its free submission, and refusing to forcibly drag it into His love.

We are so entangled with "reasonings" regarding the doctrine of God's Sovereign because in Romans 8:28: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” There are great amounts of evil and suffering in this world and there should be no denial of that fact. Nobody would argue that there is evil in the world. Everybody admits that. God is not the author of evil. If God created evil, then God would be both good and evil. And if God were both good and evil, there would be no hope for the ultimate triumph of good, which the Bible promises. Another good example is Pharaoh. Satan have been using Pharaoh to persecute Jewish people for years. In Exodus 9:16 "But I (God) have raised you (Pharaoh) up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Paul confirmed this in Romans 9:17 "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' " God will take advantage of Satan's evil desires and motives to accomplish His will. Jesus said in Matthew 10:29: Are not two sparrows sold for a penny ? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. How do we put up with Evil that God allow to happen? The Apostles, Joseph, Joshua, Daniel, Job, David and others like Corrie ten Boom how differently they interpreted their relationship with God. Learning from them, I can see that circumstances did not control them; it is their reaction to circumstances that determined what kind of people they were and most importantly, how faithful they were. No matter what we do, God is always guiding us through our circumstances (good and bad, including sickness like Joni Tada). The confusion will continue because of lack of understanding when we study "Doctrine of God's Sovereign". One thing I have learned is that God's will don't appear to be "logic". I have asked myself: "Mr Spock... let's look at this from the logic point of view" What was God's will in Joseph life? What was God's will for Corrie ten Boom? What was God's will for Joni Tada? What was God's will for Billy Graham? God used people according to HIS will. In other words, my destiny is God's will, not mine. For example Joseph: In Genesis 50:20, "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." (KJV) "As for you, it was in your mind to do me evil, but God has given a happy outcome, the salvation of numbers of people, as you see today." (Bible in Basic English) "As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people." (New Living Translation).

No matter how we look at it. God is not the author of evil but He will take adavantage of Satan's actions. Satan had neither the power nor the authority to do anything without the permission of God. It was consistent with God's nature and will for him to have allowed those things to happen to anyone like the story of Job. Satan may not be aware that God is taking advantage of Satan's plans. God knows everything before Satan even think up a plan. Satan may be powerful but not all knowing as God. God is ruling all things to work together for our good and His purpose.

 

[TrueMyth]

The word sin (and its synonym, trespass) is the key word in Romans 5:12, just as it is in Paul’s description of the human condition in the first three chapters of this epistle. How are we to understand what Paul means by that term? What is his understanding of the origin of the human situation which he describes with this term?
Paul’s understanding of human sinfulness is expressed in two phrases: (1) “they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God” (Rom 1:28) and (2) “you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God” (2:17). Sin is seen as refusal to accept our creatureliness, to acknowledge our dependence on our Maker, to recognize our limitations. “We are sinners” does not mean, primarily, that we have moral problems, but that in the deepest and final sense we are severed from relationship with God because of refusal or bragging.

This is a very interesting position! While I will discuss some concerns I have with it in the next paragraph, I will focus here on where I see support for it.

It certainly makes sense with what we know of the first sin: Satan's refusal to acknowledge God. Pride is said to be the first sin and the one which is at the bottom of all the others, so this approach makes sense of that. Also, I have always been bothered by the use of "bad" and "evil" and "sin" interchangeably. Is what is bad always sin? All sin is certainly bad, but it is not as clear that all bad is sin. Your approach clearly delineates the two. Finally, this is an answer to the question of "Did God create sin?" since sin is merely a descriptive relationship, with no true ontological status, any more than "being a mile away" has existence.

Sin is not a genetic defect. The idea that sin is passed on genetically and thereby becomes the property of each individual through heredity ultimately led to a low view of sex. Sex came to be seen as the prime locus of human sinfulness—tolerated for the purpose of procreation, but not celebrated as a part of God’s economy for human wholeness and fulfillment.

Nor is sin a perverted inner nature. The problem with this understanding of sin is that it divides the individual into a number of separate boxes. It arises from the idea that the Fall resulted in the perversion of one essential part of ourselves. A number of candidates for this part have been proposed. For some, the perverted part is the will. For others, it is the emotions or passions. For still others, it is reason. The pervasive mood of anti-intellectualism in some Christian circles is traceable to such an understanding. Since the mind was affected by the Fall, our reasoning capacity is perverted and depraved and the quest of the mind cannot be trusted. But such a view does not do justice to all the biblical data. As total persons we are fallen and stand under the judgment of God. Both our heads and hearts stand under the signature of death. Both are dust.
From the biblical point of view, the term sin designates a particular kind of relationship between the creature and the Creator. And a relationship cannot be inherited; it can only be established or destroyed, affirmed or denied. Sin is thus a relational reality.
We are sinners insofar as we are unrelated to God. The questions raised by that statement are: Why are we that? Why is that our condition? Why do we find ourselves in such a dilemma? Paul’s answer to such questions is found in Romans 5:12–13.
This text has traditionally been seen as the biblical foundation for the Christian doctrine of original sin: “We all stand under the Fall of first man; that is why we are in the mess we are in!” But this view is inadequate. For Paul does not say that we sin because Adam sinned. He does not say that we die because Adam sinned. What he does say is this: Sin (alienation from God) entered the stage of history in the first man’s rebellion (“sin entered the world through one man”). The result of that separation is disintegration and death. But the universal penetration of that condition is due to the fact that all persons have sinned; all persons have become revolutionaries against God (“because all sinned”).

I find a lot of sense in what you say that to separate and compartmentalize our selves (reason, will, heart, etc.) in some sense does injustice to our selves as a whole. You are also correct that often this approach has led to abuses, as we see in the case of the traditionally Christian squeamish and skeptical attitude toward sex. However, I'm not sure that the approach you are suggesting (sin as a relational quality) holds water.

Unless I am mistaken, it seems like your approach is to state that sin is like the branch rebelling against the roots-- it results in death. But where your position is hard to swallow is when you say that while sin results in death, it is not itself the cause of death. I think that no one would deny that sin results in death, or that it is a relational quality between us and God. However, we must ask why and how this state of affairs came about, and also why and how it results in death.

First, it seems that the sin relation (which is how I will refer to your position from now on) came about in conjunction with the Fall. Adam and Eve, in their actions, caused a state of affairs which results in death for all their descendants (and indeed all of nature as well). But if it is merely a relation, and as such cannot be inherited, how are we all sinners as well? If it is just a general severing of the branch of the universe from its Root, then it raises the question of what fault is that of ours, and why we ought to bear the consequences as well? Of course, it is folly for the branches to ask that of the other branches; they have no will to do so. But for us who have wills and awareness of both self and others, the situation is different. If "justice" means anything, it is punishment and reward according to merit. What merit is there in merely being part of a sin relation? Thus, where is justice to be considered when there is no state of merit; there is only a fact, neither good nor bad in itself.

If anything, this creates a moral compulsion on God to save us, since without it we will receive punishment (death) without merit-- surely injustice, if anything is.

I think it is possible to state "We have a sinful nature" without compartmentalizing our nature and/or our selves. We can say (as you indicate) that all parts of it are "wounded", as the Catholic church puts it. Sin must be more than a mere relational fact, since it is intrinsically tied to concepts of justice and merit, which have no bearing on a mere relational fact.

 

[TrueMyth]

You seem to be a very intelligent person. However, our only guide to faith and practice is the Bible, not opinion.
The Bible is clear that man in his natural state is a slave to sin, unable to do good, "dead in trespasses and in sin".

Ummm... OK. I agree with you. I don't think I ever said otherwise, but I could be wrong.

There is one difficulty I would like to point out, however; since it's off-topic, I will offer it and then leave it: When you say "Our only guide to faith and practice is the Bible, not opinion", I am a little confused as to which part (if any) of what I have said you are referring to. I would agree that where the Bible speaks, our opinion is secondary. However, I want to be clear here: it is absolutely impossible to attempt to follow what the Bible says without inserting our own opinion.

The Bible is very clear on some points-- it cannot be argued with, and its meaning and intent is transparent. The only interpretation which is done with such passages is one wherein we take these clear principles and doctrines and apply them to other areas of our life. In themselves, however, the Bible is clear and opinion does not enter in. There are other points, however, where opinion must enter in, and these points are the vast majority of the Bible. I once heard a pastor say, "Even when we think the Scriptures are without error, it is a mistake to think our understanding is without error." We must remember that this is a sword which cuts both ways: for our own selves and for anyone whose opinion differs from ours. For example, how are we to interpret the Cursing Psalms? How are we to interpret Jesus' statement that some of his disciples would not die before they saw Him coming in His kingdom, with all the angels? How are we to interpret Ecclesiastes, with its mood of depression and hopelessness? The interpretation of Song of Solomon is still debated. Revelation is virtually impossible to interpret. How are we to interpret Paul's charge to women to keep their heads covered and their mouths shut in church? The Bible is full of these verses. We may disagree on which verses are clear and which are not, but the charge of valuing opinion over Scripture cannot be thrown about indiscriminately, since there are many obvious circumstances where Scripture must be tempered with interpretation (opinion). Finally, there are some issues on which Scripture is absolutely silent, and we must either infer doctrine from what is clearly stated, or we must utilize clearly stated principles to guide our lives.

I have heard the Bible often referred to as a map, or a guidebook, for our lives and for our understanding of God. It certainly is. But what kind of map/guidebook is it? It is most certainly not exhaustive and absolutely clear. I see it as a map in a particular direction (God/heaven), where some points are clearly marked out. On other stops, there seems to be a point which is marked out, but it is confusing why that point would be there. Therefore, we must understand it before we embark down that path. On other areas, we are given merely general guidance and left on our own for a step-by-step path. Where the Bible is clear, opinion should never be superior. Where it is not, honest Christians can disagree (and also about where it is or isn't). Where the Bible is silent, we can speculate as best we can, but we should never allow our opinions to be on par with the points the Bible is clear. We are not God. Only He Is.

 

[TrueMyth]

I neither agree with your position nor brother Rick Otto's.

God cannot lie , God can never sin... but He can send out lying spirits , and God can deceive men !


2 Thessalonians 2:11

Because of this, God sends them a working of error, that they should believe a lie; (WEB)
And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie: (ASV)
And for this cause, God will give them up to the power of deceit and they will put their faith in what is false: (BBE)
And for this reason God sends to them a working of error, that they should believe what is false, (DBY)
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (KJV)
And for this cause God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (WBS)
2 Thessalonians 2:11 WEY: And for this reason God sends them a misleading influence that they may believe the lie; 2 Thessalonians 2:11 YLT: and because of this shall God send to them a working of delusion, for their believing the lie,

but as for God not being able to command men to "sin" ........ Thou shalt not kill (written on every human heart) did not stop God from commanding Abraham to kill his son Isaac .

a sin is a sin because God said it is , and if God commanded you to do something (even though you had good reasons not to do it) it would still be a sin to reject God's command.

The Law is layed down for sinners , God is above The Law.

I agree that God is above the Law-- after all, He created it! However, let us also remember that God will never act against His own character and perfectly good nature, not God will not do absolutely anything. Someone pointed this out earlier: there is a difference between sin and evil/badness. I thank him/her for making this distinction, and I agree with it. Therefore, I agree with you that God will never sin. However, we must ask what sort of distinction there is between evil/bad and sin.

I think there is some truth to what PETE was saying, that sin consists (at least primarily) of a relational fact about creature and Creator. Thus, by definition, God cannot sin. But we must mean more than that in praising God, or else we are praising a rock for not being soft. We must mean that God loves what is good and pursues after it, and that perfectly, since it is His own nature to do so. Even if we chalk this exact relationship up to mystery and merely state "God is good", we cannot mean that whatever He does is good AND that He can do absolutely anything. If this is true, then we must ask, could God order us to rape our sisters? Or, if you would prefer, torture babies? May such thoughts be confined to Hell where they belong! The only conscionable position is that it is not simply the case that what God commands is good-- What God commands is good, but it is because He is Goodness Itself, and He will not do otherwise than His nature.

As for the verses you present (2 Thes. 2:11 and Abraham sacrificing Isaac), I will attempt a brief response. Regarding the Thessalonian verse, there is one note which sticks out to me from all the different translations alone. One says, "God will give them up to the power of deceit" (BBE), and another says likewise, "So God will make sure that they are fooled into believing a lie" (CEV), and again, "and because of this shall God send to them a working of delusion, for their believing the lie" (YLT), and finally, "And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie" (ASV). In all of these translations, we see God as being less than active, especially in BBE and CEV. In these, He merely allows or ensures that the thing will happen. Even in YLT and ASV, where He literally "sends", we see Him sending merely a "working of error [delusion]," which is a very different story from Him sending a lying spirit. If God sends/allows Satan to rule the earth in the end times (which is the temporal context of the verse), and then retracts His Holy Spirit (as is often thought He will do), then He is hardly at fault for the choices of the men during that time. Sending Satan as a "working error [delusion]" and then allowing his work to continue unhindered is a far cry from actively deceiving someone through a lying spirit. So we can see there is some debate and confusion on how to interpret the meaning of the verse. Even further, there is also confusion on the severity of the delusion/error which God sends: "And for this God shall send them a strong delusion..." (KJV) compared with "And for this God will send them a misleading influence..." (WEY) It seems clear to me that merely misleading someone is less false than directly deluding them. In any case, this verse is fraught with confusion in translation, and ought not be dogmatically asserted as pure fact.

As for Abraham and Isaac, this is one which has been sufficiently answered several times. For one, we must observe the time and level of revelation given to Abraham. If all are judged based on what light they are given (Rom 2:13-15), we must consider that Abraham, as the first Patriarch, had very little revelation given to Him. He was surrounded by Semitic tribes who worshipped cruel Gods such as Ba'al, and while Abraham had never seen God act like that before, he had reason to question his experience as being rightfully limited. Thus, from Abraham's persective, he was justified in following what he was commanded to do because God was still in the process of revealing Himself to the world. For us who bear the benefit of God's full revelation in Christ and Scripture, we have been given more light than Abraham, and we would be quite incorrect to think that God would call us to sacrifice our children.

So much for Abraham's side of the issue. But what about God's? Why did He order this? Obviously because He knew that Abraham would do it, and that God would stop him; He desired to test Abraham's faith. God had no intention of letting Abraham carry through on it, the exercise was merely for Abraham's benefit. Again, if in fact God really would have been OK with Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, this makes God's goodness of such an unknown quality to us humans that it is meaningless. We cannot then praise God for being good anymore than we can praise Him for being flibbertygibbet. As well, we have no guarantee that what we will find in heaven will not be a Cosmic Sadist.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I tried to post this thread elsewhere, but I didn't get much of a response, so I'll try here. I am very very very interested in what people might have to say on this topic.

I have a twofold question to ask of the people here, because I have yet to receive a rationally complete answer.

1) What is Original Sin? This phrase gets bandied around an awful lot, but it is like some current PC topics where there is an understanding that such a thing exists, but it is invoked more as a given that everyone understands but no one dares define. Is it transmitted in some fashion at birth? Is it a sinful nature that we all have, and if so, when do we acquire it? What is the substance of this sinful nature? Is it merely a propensity to sin (a weighted die, so to speak), or is it a certainty that at some point, all will sin? I agree that all of us deserve death; but at what point do we deserve death? At birth? At the age of accountablity? After we have heard of Jesus? After we sin? Etc. I would be interested in everyone's opinion on all this.

2) What is human free will? Is it such that for any given choice, it is within person A's ability to do both X and not X (libertarian free will)? Is it such that person A is free, but only in respect to their character (compatibilist/soft determinist)? Or is it something else, something to the effect that it doesn't matter what the ontology of the choice is, as long as we are aware of the choice and believe that we have free will, then we are responsible for the moral content of our choices? As this relates to #1-- Can we ever be said to be free, if we have a sinful nature? Or, if you prefer, if "all have sinned" and this makes us objects of God's just wrath, then how much responsibility do we bear for sinning if we are borth with a sinful nature? Is it just for God to weight the dice, and then punish us when we roll a craps?

There is also another corollary to this which is probably important to square away first, and that is this: What is sin? If we say of action Q "That is sin" and of action P "That is also sin", what is the connecting thread between the two? Or, if action R is not sin, what does it lack or possess which Q and P either have or don't have, respectively?

I am going to cut to the chase here.

If it were NOT for free will, we would not have sin. Therefore sin is a direct response to the free choice of choosing it.

[AND as with all things, in order to have, there must be a first...an original.]

 

[TrueMyth]

I am going to cut to the chase here.

If it were NOT for free will, we would not have sin. Therefore sin is a direct response to the free choice of choosing it.

[AND as with all things, in order to have, there must be a first...an original.]

But the question is, what is the effect of that first, that original, sin? Is it to make us totally depraved? Is it to transmit some sin gene to all of us?

And yes, free will makes sin possible. But if we are said to have a sinful nature, and we can only choose according to our nature, then how are we free, since that nature is not itself freely chosen or even deserved because we did not sin to obtain it?

 

[cygnusx1]

But the question is, what is the effect of that first, that original, sin? Is it to make us totally depraved? Is it to transmit some sin gene to all of us?

And yes, free will makes sin possible. But if we are said to have a sinful nature, and we can only choose according to our nature, then how are we free, since that nature is not itself freely chosen or even deserved because we did not sin to obtain it?

a person may be said to act freely if he is not forced against his will , he also may be said to act freely if he is not compelled from without.

Judas acted freely , even though he was destined to betray Christ.

 

[TrueMyth]

a person may be said to act freely if he is not forced against his will , he also may be said to act freely if he is not compelled from without.

Judas acted freely , even though he was destined to betray Christ.

It depends on what you mean by "destined". I have heard much made of the supposed contradiction between God's foreknowledge and human free will. There is no such thing, and the belief that there is is based on a logical fallacy called "Sleigh's Fallacy". PM if you desire any explanation of what this is. Therefore, I have no problem with stating both "God infallibly knew that Judas would betray Christ" and "Judas freely betrayed Christ".

However, where I believe there is contradiction is in the statements "God was the efficient cause of Judas' betrayal" and "Judas freely betrayed Christ". Again, it depends on what we mean by "destined" or "predestined". Is God's predestination based on knowledge of our choices (and His as well), or on His choice alone? If it is based on His choice, then how does He effect this state of affairs He has chosen? If He implants any irresistable impulse, we may say that He is the efficient cause of the state of affairs.

Your statement is that Judas was destined to betray Christ, and he did so freely. You also state that freedom is the quality of having no external compulsion on the will (which I agree with). Since Judas did in fact betray Christ, we must ask why he did so. If all the necessary factors were contained in his nature without external influence, then we may say that Judas acted freely (this is the divine foreknowledge position). If, however, some other factor was externally introduced into Judas' nature, and without it Judas would not have had all that was necessary to commit the deed, we can say that Judas was not free (this is the divine predestination position); at the very least, we can say that he was suspiciously influenced, perhaps against his will.

So, in what way was Judas destined to betray Christ?

 

[WarriorAngel]

But the question is, what is the effect of that first, that original, sin? Is it to make us totally depraved? Is it to transmit some sin gene to all of us?

And yes, free will makes sin possible. But if we are said to have a sinful nature, and we can only choose according to our nature, then how are we free, since that nature is not itself freely chosen or even deserved because we did not sin to obtain it?

Effects;
Seperation from God. [sin cannot be near God]
Knowledge of good and evil.
The choice to follow good or evil.

Remember, without their choosing sin, it was not known to Adam or Eve.
The serpent was deception when he said they would have the same knowledge as God.

Our parents brought mortality and that same 'knowledge' with them when they were reduced to a mortal life and death and trials. [which was exactly what they choose...when seeking the knowledge of bad, pain, suffering..etc]

So how could they reproduce good children, if as an example, they would have this knowledge? [and were seperated from God by this choice]

Therefore the mortal body took on sin when the parents of that sin were exiled from God, and all of us have the human nature.


Unlike the angels who fell and knew God and knew good and evil, humans have sinned through cunningness of satan against innocence, and this is why The Lord committed Himself to reopening the gates.
UNLIKE the fate of the angels who deliberately willed to hate Him, they now reside in a complete and permanent seperation from Him.

Now...as a hypothetical here.... lets just pretend demons could procreate...Since they made a decision to disobey, that their children's upbringing in their hatred would ever be able to produce a being that would love God?

Same for our parents. Since they took on sin, their children of the same nature also took on that sin regardless if they merited it or not. Perhaps with our limited understanding we do have our environment and how we are raised is a factor of who we become.

And lets face it...although children are innocent of willful sinning...they are quite capable of sinning without fault. As an example; you must teach lil Johnny what is bad or harmful...correct? He bites his sister. He is about 3, and doesnt understand sin, but he is of the nature to sin. So although incapable of willfully tormenting his sister...he is still displaying an act of his nature. IT became 'inborn' when our parents choose this for us.

God would not seperate the free will of the being from their nature.

Sure you wish you were sinless, but since you have free will, you are choosing to desire to be abstinent from sin by deciding sin is not good.

But you are still deciding.

Not sure this came out as clear as it is in my mind.