You said that to “live a good life”:
According to the Christian teaching in Galatians 5:14 someone living according to the maxim “treating other as you would yourself” will NOT be condemned.
By contrast you claim:
Is this not “cruel beyond devilment”?
That was my whole point
Richard
Maybe. The term there can also be rendered as “Shining One”, in which case he only took on the appearance of a serpent. If you want to go beyond just the word, some Hebrew mythology says that heavenly beings (i.e angels) can take on any form they wish, though for dealing with humans they tend to take human form.
I like that translation because it gives a link to the name Lucifer, which literally is “light-bearer”, and a “shining one” would be bearing light.
So you’re going “behind the scenes”. But in doing so you’re making a claim of dualism: if indeed “sin is”, then there’s a source of things other than God; scripturally, the only entity of which a bald “is” my be predicated is God as it implies a property of non-contingency.
That’s more an enlightenment definition than anything. The scripture says that “all have sinned” and “none is righteous”, but gives no indication that all those sins are “informed choice”.
The scriptures define sin as wandering or as missing the mark. While the second requires at least an awareness that there is a mark, the first does not require knowledge of anything other than to “move” spiritually.
Doubtful – Adam knew that his wife had eaten and what the results were. He made an “informed choice” to follow her example. The reason why has consumed thousands upon thousands of pages down through the centuries, and range from not wanting to divide the human race into sinners and sinless to recognizing that he had already sinned because he was responsible for his wife to preferring his wife to God to that it was God’s plan!
And thus a knowledge of God isn’t an essential aspect of sin, because (as Paul notes) we are born with some idea that there are marks and what constitutes missing them – so we are without excuse.
What the Law does is the same thing that Jesus did later: the Law shows us how pervasive sin is compared to our natural understanding, and Jesus goes farther by showing that even the Law is inadequate to get us see the real situation, both with His “but I tell you” sayings and on the Cross.
I’m going to have to track down a talk by an Orthodox scholar on the plaintive cry “I did not choose to be alive!” I can’t remember the perspective, only that it was surprising.
There was a lecture I heard that took “selfishness” and “self-centeredness” and chose the latter, then argued that in reality it is “self-cannibalization-ness”, that we actually consume ourselves, illustrating it by comparing the self to a circle where every pint within it trends toward the middle almost like a black whole will drag everything nearby into its grasp. This circle of self was presented as being surrounded by other circle-selves, all of them feeding their center – and all of them quite willing to feed other circles to their center as well.
Scary, but it sure illustrated the destructiveness of sin!
Agreed. Romans 1:20 is not about a knowledge of God’s existence being obvious – it says nothing about God’s existence. It assumes a belief in God. And it is from this belief which His power and deity is clear to us. So those who know God’s existence are without excuse in rejecting the challenges of life.
No, we are not born with any ideas.
God’s purpose in the creation of the universe was creating the conditions for life. Thus it is our rejection of life which is missing the mark. Sin consists of self-destructive habits – habits which refuse the challenge of life to learn and do better.
Yes, I see the similarity. Like a black hole, the more sin consumes of us the bigger and stronger it gets… until it consumes everything of value within us including our freedom of will. This is why I am skeptical of universalism. This doesn’t look all that reversible to me. Yeah miracles happen and turning our self-destructive habits around is the greatest of all miracles.
And notice I am not buying into some set of arbitrary authoritarian commands as the basis of sin. If something is self-destructive then we should be able to see the self-destructive effects (accepting the most basic premise that we are part of and depend upon a cooperative community).
Of course we are – due to Adam we all die and are all sinners. That wasn’t just a physical death (that got postponed), it was spiritual death.
Then you deny that we need a Savior – or do you see Christ as a Bandaid for the weaker sorts that sin?
Paul makes it plain that we all sin because we are all born into death – concerning which, wee above.
In context He is referring to the specific sin. That just shows that particular sins can be conquered.
When the messenger is altering the message, shooting him is not out of the question.
Never heard of sarcasm? All have sinned, which is as strong a statement that it is not possible to not sin as your citations of particular admonitions Jesus made.
As a superb preacher and a far better theologian than you once said, “There are no ‘ninety and nine’.” Talking as if there are is just a way Jesus uses to let the self-righteous continue in their sin – something He mentioned to the disciples.
Actually we have the admonition of the apostle to do so. Especially when you make statements such as this:
All have sinned. That most definitely covers the saints. And since we are born into death, we are born into sin.
It’s possible to believe and teach quite a bit of heresy in the Anglican church, so that credential is a negative recommendation. I’ve encounted Docetism and a lot more among Anglicans, so that credential weighs against you.
Right – that applies to Jesus, not to any of us.
No, they made it clear that there is no such thing, especially when we are told that our righteousness is as filthy rags – in modern English, the best we can so is just diarrhea-filled diapers.
In this case, a judgment that the apostle commands good Christians to make.
LOL
Jesus laid it on thick like no one else when He pointed out that even feeling human urges that we cannot control counts as sin – mere lust is adultery, mere anger is murder. If we extend His principle, then coveting is theft.
Wow. Most people treat themselves like crap – and most people actually recognize that. One of the great tasks of psychologists is getting people to stop treating themselves like garbage.
At this point you lose all credibility.
You claim to have superior knowledge/understanding than the church!
God provides a means of forgiveness… so you (et al) decide that, not only is this the only means of forgiveness (everything else is null and void) but, because it is from God, it must be the only way to live. You change a free gift into a mandatory part of life.
Even if Original sin existed it has been cancelled by Christ. Adam did it? Christ canceled it.
Whether you believe it or not is actually irrelevant. It does not change the action, or the way God looks at sin. A flame will burn you whether you believe it or not. God is the judge, not you.
You are so obsessed with your definition of sin and death that you twist the word of God and actually denigrate God Jesus did not come to condemn. God did not create us to be judged. This life is not about the next one or booking a place to it.
Judge not or be judged still applies. You think you know God’s judgment?
That is a very specific view of Genesis. It is not what is written. It is what you infer or conclude.
There is no Original sin in Judaism. Paul was primarily a Pharisee. He would not just “invent” it. Jeremiah and Ezekiel specifically deny it.
The view “I’m alright Jack” (because I am saved) is not Christian, it is selfish.
Richard
Perhaps you could try again without attacking my faith, my qualifications and the Church.
If you have a dispute with my interpretations show me how you derive yours instead of just rejecting them out of hand. I can argue both using Scripture and answering your citations.
I have been a Christian for 63 years and a Lay preacher for over 40 of them. You have no right to criticise my abilities unless you have seen me lead worship. Forum discussions have a different dynamic to preaching and worship so do not think that you know anything about my abilities to lead worship or even preach. And you certainly have no right to deride or even contest my faith or status as a Christian…
Richard
Me too, I refute such a hypothesis.
The transmission of ‘original sin’ does not mean transmission of “a personal guilty” deserving damnation, but transmission of “a state of disrupted creation” characterized by illness, death, and concupiscence.
Notice that my theological-biological explanation is completely different from the Tertullian’s one you refer to.
And like you, “I build my understanding about the ‘original sin’ on the biblical scriptures”.
My explanation works as follows:
“Abilities”? I don’t particularly care about your abilities to “lead worship”.
I do know that you contradict what is written by the inspired Apostle.
I also know this about the Anglican church:
I can’t find an Episcopal church or an Anglican one within a ninety-minute drive that adheres to the Nicene Creed in more than word. And it isn’t just them; one branch of Lutherans permits the first two items I put down above while another has gone heterodox with YECism; the Methodists have gone more social-Gospel than actual Gospel; and the Roman Catholics have returned to the aborted form of the Eucharist referred to as communion in one kind. Apostasy seems to be the order of the day among Eucharistic churches.
It is easy to find faults in churches that do not strictly follow your own interpretations about biblical teaching and traditions. As a member of a free evangelical church I could probably add some opinions to those of yours.
In my opinion, finding flaws is not a productive way to approach others. We need enough of courage to tell our own interpretations and why you think it is the correct one but otherwise, cooperation is usually better than judging others. They stand in front of the Lord and are responsible for Him, not us. If someone is willing to listen why we have a different interpretation, then we can explain the teachings of the biblical scriptures and let that person make her/his own decision.
From what I have read you only know a few small examples of American Anglican churches.
You do not like diverse theology?
You would like to see “heretics” disciplined? Asuming there is a sinlge theological stance in all things.
You have made your judgments. Prepare to be judged yourself (but not by me)
Good luck finding a church that shares your views.
Richard
This isn’t really about my interpretations, it’s about orthodox Christianity: no church that tolerates departure from the Nicene Creed is orthodox; at best they are heterodox.
That’s very much like saying that finding poison in a dish is not a productive way to approach food.
Show me where Paul instructed anyone to cooperate with false teachers.
That is not a justification for embracing error. Paul’s instruction is to have nothing to do with them.
We are not just invited but commanded to judge all things and to depart from those who do not stand firm on the truth. Accepting those with a different Gospel and a different Christ is forbidden because it is the way of death – it is impossible to be fed at a church that doesn’t care about getting the very basics of the faith right.
I have encountered Anglican and Episcopalian churches in a dozen states in the U.S. and only a handful were not heterodox.
The New Testament does not like “diverse theology” when it means preaching a different Gospel and a different Christ, which is what departure from the Nicene Creed constitutes. No church that teaches or allows teaching contrary to the Nicene Creed is offering spiritual food, only counterfeits.
Teaching that does not conform to the Nicene Creed isn’t theology in the first place because it isn’t about God, it’s about someone’s fantasies.
That is what the inspired Apostle commanded, to cast them out and have nothing to do with them.
It’s not about a church that shares my views, its about finding a church that qualifies as Christian. Denying the bodily Resurrection or the physical Incarnation may be beliefs that make someone happy, but they are not Christian beliefs and thus any church that teaches them is not Christian.
Would you trust a bridge designed by someone who denies the law of gravity and pays no attention to things like the strengths of materials? Trusting a group that claims to be a church yet denies that Jesus was actually human is worse because it is a guarantee of death.
The Nicene creed is said and accepted throughout the churches of the UK that I am affiliated with. Anyone contradicting it is on the fringe rather than the body of the church. As far as I know, I have never contradicted the Nicene creed on this forum.
Richard
Now I understand better why you had such a strong reaction against the false teachings. If someone denies our Lord, incarnate, crucified and risen from the grave and then into heaven, that is not anymore Christianity, it is another religion.
The referred citations do not refute an inherited state of need of Redemption.
Certainly, we are judged by our actions. But we are tainted by concupiscence. And concupiscence is a retroactive effect of the first sin, i.e.: an action of the first sinner (“Adam”).
It is in principle possible not to sin.
No personal sin can be transmitted like a disease.
However, the state of illness, death and concupiscence (the so called “state of original sin”) is transmitted encoded in Sapiens DNA, and to this extent inherited like a disease.
Note that:
As far as this state is encoded in Sapiens DNA, I inherit it since the very moment of my conception (the fertilization I originate from), even if the first sinner (“Adam”) is not my genetic ancestor, i.e. my DNA does not originate by replication of “Adam” ’s DNA.
This is the reason why, after the first sin, God lets sinners on earth submitted to illness, death, and concupiscence: to have mercy on them all!
Death s a necessary part of the life cycle. The earth could not work without it. We would die whether Adam existed or not.
God is not so stupid as to be dictated by man.
The whole Garden of Eden story shows God as inept and basically human, with a temper to match. It could only have been written by man.
Richard
That’s a proposition I would expect from an atheist trying to make the scriptures look bad, and if you really believe that you shouldn’t be preaching anywhere because you really don’t get it!
What the Eden story shows is God’s love via providing the opportunity to make a choice that would show love for God (versus love for self) and God’s justice and compassion in requiring them to depart from a place they were no longer fit for while meeting them where they were by providing for their new condition. Quite contrary to showing God as having a temper it shows His understanding and calm response!
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.