- Balderdash! You see dots in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 18, and imagine that they refute a far more ancient belief and replace any earlier dots. To whom was the Torah given, to Jeremiah’s or Ezekiel’s Israel? No! it was given to the Jews who stood at Sinai, not Adam and Eve in the Garden.
- Thimk! Chronology matters!!!
- Do your inability or refusal or both prevent you from recognizing the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to sinners? Wake up! The righteousness of Jesus, who underwent crucifixion and death 2,000+ years before me is what saves me in this world, not my past or current or future deeds!
- Merit and sin can be and are imputed and inherited.
1 Like
Er,um. That is the whole point.
Jeremiah and Ezekiel are refuting precisely what you are claiming.
And the origin or individuality of sin does not affect Christ’s salvation in the least.
I am not denying the existence of sin, nor the fact that I have sinned. I am denying the notion that it is impossible not to sin. Or that sin can be transmitted or inherited like a disease.
Christ told several people not to sin again. If that is impossible why say it?
Your anger is misplaced. Do not shoot the messenger.
Richard
- From one curmudgeon to another: Yer zonkers! You think it’s “either/or” and that one exists while the other doesn’t.
- And I’m telling you it’s “both/and” and that both the inherited and the personal, present day contribute to the future.
- What the heck is Baptism for, whether infant or adult? Bath water? If it’s bath water, take a bath everyday, to wash off the day’s accumulated dirt.
- Is there no end to your obtuseness?
- What are you talking about? Sin not only erodes, it prevents. Christ’s righteousness is sufficient. Your works, my works, anyone’s works do not save.
- And you’re a pastor? a “hireling”?
- Nah, nah, nah, … not so fast, Slick. Cite the “several” instances.
- Anger? What anger? Exasperated disbelief, maybe; but no anger.
- Messenger? Not so humble a messenger, IMO; and a clear distorter of the Gospel Message.
2 Likes
I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.(Luke 15:7)
Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” (John5 :14)
“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:11)
If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin (John 15:24)
Not to metion the times Jesus iplies tht there are those who have not sinned. He came to savr the sinners. Only thr sick need healers and so on.
Jesus knew what sin is. You do not.
I am a Lay preacher of over 40 years standing with recognised authority to preach in vertually every nonconformist and Anglican church in the UK. with qualifications to match.
What am I distorting? The Gospel is the forgiveness of sins. (Sinners)
You would load the burden of sin onto even a declared saint? Or maybe you believe in OSAS? (That is a separate debate that would not fit on this forum)
You would condemn a baby? A person with limited mental abilities?
Understand, only God can condemn. You cannot.
You have no right to condemn me or the words I write. Judge not or be judged. I have nothing to hide.
Richard
Pardon. OSAS = Once saved, always saved
Richard
Um, I know? Maybe your senior vision didn’t see the link?
It is not anything to do with science. That is the current ruling. (Probably after the discussion you are referring to.)
Richard
(There were multiple discussions referred to in that link – it was a search result.)
Actually, ‘OSAS’ (used almost exclusively and wrongly as a pejorative) is a legitimate topic because it relates to science involving time and God’s omnitemporallity.
You do not need to be saved if you have not sinned. We are not talking about rewards or buying a stairway to Heaven.
Jesus did not accuse the Pharisees of sinning. He called them hypocrites for making the Law so complex that people could not obey it. You go one better. You claim that tthe law is useless and people cannot obey it. What is the point of having a guideline if it is automatically null and void? Are you calling God a liar when He made decrees about how to live? “If you keep my commandments…” (sorry that is impossible!) Prophets did not criticise good behaviour. They criticised false beliefs and behaviour. You also seem to think that humanity is so powerful it can overturn God’s perfect creation. One man could completely taint everything God did. Brilliant.
Richard
.
- You are not competent to describe my theology. Quit wasting your time trying, … or don’t. Matters not to me, … anymore.
- You’re dismissed.
The response of a week argument.
RIchard
- Silly boy! There is no argument. There are only irreconcilable differences and you’re so blind you can’t see them.
2 Likes
If you are talking about the cosmos, last I read it was “very good”, not perfect. Any place that sin can exist is not perfect.
But we should repent, ask God for reparation, and be resolved to leave our life of sin.
If after sinning God had left us on earth as if “nothing had happened” and we did not experience any consequence for our sins, we would not be moved to repent and stop sinning.
So, God let us sinners on earth submitted to illness, death, and concupiscence in order we are aware of our weakness and realize that we need God’s help to reach eternal life.
1 Like
Tell me, do you think that a non-believer feels any consequences? And we do not have the right to cast judgment or sentence. Is that deceitful? A person could do the very best to live a good life and still be condemned just because they either had not heard, or did not believe the message of Christianity. And there are many reasons for not believing, some of which might be seen as justifiable. Do you think God is like the statue above the Old Bailey, (Blindfolded weighing facts alone)
Original sin is callous beyond belief. (Certainly beyond my allegiance and worship.)
Richard
Could you please clarify, what do you mean by “to live a good life”?
I would have thought the definition of “good” does not rely on any preconception of religion or God. Even the basic maxim of “treating others as you would yourself” would probably suffice. Not doing anything overtly evil like killing, stealing etc… I d not think it necessary to be any more specific. We all know the basic criteria for social living whether taken from scripture or not.
Richard
Genesis 9:5-6
And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
Galatians 5:14
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
So, according to you “to live a good life” means to live keeping a command which is “the entire law” (Galatians 5:14) and actually acknowledging that God made mankind in the image of God (Genesis 9:6).
But then, how can you claim that people living in such a way “could still be condemned just because they either had not heard, or did not believe the message of Christianity”?
I said no such thing.
Most people consider saints to be freaks. The idea of perfection seems unreal, yet Christianity seems to demand it. Christ criticised the Pharisees for laying it on too thick and making obedience impossible. Christianity with or without Original seem would appear to take the expectations even further.
Some Anti-virus programmers have been accused of creating a virus that only they can clean. It would appear that God has done just that. Which would make His grace and benevolence a mockery and sham.
Surely God knew about sin even before Adam committed it? He is supposed to be omnipotent and all-knowing. Do you think that perhaps humanity in general and Christianity, in particular, is a little harsh on itself? Original Sin is cruel beyond devilment. Maybe so is the Christian view of those who do not believe in Christ.
Richard