I never said that, in fct that is the complete antithesis of my position. I said that God does not specifically create anyone, not in health , salvation or ability to do right or wrong specifically. You seem to think that God creates us sinful automatically. I am saying that if we are born sinful without the ability to be righteous (without God) then we are not free at all. We are the “slaves” that Paul claims (if read literally).
I am saying that we are all born amoral, that is without sin or righteousness and can choose our own path from the information we are given. If God has written His laws on our hearts (Or we have the knowledge o good and evil automatically) then we can choose whether to be evil or righteous. And, In theory can live without sin, although in practice that is probably impossible. Having said that I am sure that God knows our intentions and does not condemn circumstance or “Hobson.s choices”. Plus of course the existence of true innocents who are incapable of sin for what ever reasons.
I refuse to accept that someone born into a Hindu family with generations of loyal and religious ancestors is automatically condemned for not being a Christian. Furthermore, promoting this idea would automatically prevent any person brought up in another faith from becoming Christian because they would not only be turning their back on their heritage they would be being asked to condemn and dismiss them all.
I am sorry but Original Sin, in any form, is wrong.
If understand tautology correctly it does not seem to match what I said. There was no repetition, nor were the arguments circular or self fulfilling. And I ma not imposing anything upon God other than the notion that he must be both supreme and incapable of manipulation or “Unfairness”. Or that He could be in anyway incompetant or unaware of the situation and ramifications of the situations He creates. God must know that you cannot leave temptation in the way of a person with free will. Even if Adam has not eaten someone would have, eventually. It was just waiting for it.
No human would do such at thing so why would God? I mean you are going to leave your front door wide open for anyone to come and go as they please and rely on the fact that none will steal anything?
If Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil, then his action cannot be caused by any notion of evil. He disobeyed a command. The only actual command that he had been given. Yes. But in any court of law there would be mitigating circumstances, not the least being… it was there! Any Judge would rule that the temptation should not have been there and, even if guilty would not pronounce such a devastating sentence on not only the perpetrator but the whole of his descendants in perpetuity! It is just not real.
Let alone the so called punishments that are not punishments at all but part of life!
I am sorry, but I do not see how anyone can take the Garden story as anything other than Doctrinal. To sin is to choose to disobey God. So if we have no choice then we are not culpable for our sins… which makes Christ’s death pointless.
Yes, that is what I think. That is why we need a Savior. I don’t think any human can be what God intends humans to be without Christ.
You are conflating judgment for sin with whether or not one is sinful at all. How the atonement applies to humanity is a totally separate theological issue from whether or not all of humanity is fallen and in need of a Savior.
Absolutely not. If sin is inherent in any way and unavoidable then we are not culpable. “I can’t help it!” becomes the mitigation. We must be culpable for our sin otherwise there is no need for forgiveness at all. If it is not your fault then you do not need Christ.
And Christianity relies on repentance as much, if not more than the act of sacrifice. Other religions rely on the ability to comply with whatever regime their faith demands. You would claim that such an approach is both futile and impossible? Why?
I want you to tell me why God would make it impossible for anyone to be righteous without His help? Because for Original Sin to exist, it must be by God’s will. It goes against everything we know and believe about God. (or at least everything I know and believe about God).
Free will is the ability to choose your actions be they good or bad, with no restrictions (or consequences) And that includes the threat of heaven or Hell. What you believe is not free at all. You are claiming that it is impossible not to sin. And you are (probably) claiming that there is only one way to live. That is dictatorial, regimental and oppressive. (no wonder so many find Christianity wrong)
Some people are born with high testosterone levels that make it difficult to control aggression. Are they not still morally responsible if they hurt someone? Some people are born with predispositions to addiction. Are they not morally responsible for deciding to take drugs?
??? We don’t need Christ just for negative reasons, to deal with guilt and shame. We need Christ for positive reasons, to be restored to our full humanity. Whether or not I need Christ depends on my condition of need, not whose fault my condition is. If you are sick, you need healing, even if the disease is not your fault.
I don’t think God made us this way. I think we are this way. I’m not a total depravity person, but I do think Christianity teaches it is impossible to meet God’s standard of righteousness without help. I don’t see how it is logically or morally necessary for God to only give us standards we are capable of reaching. I give my own children standards they cannot attain without help and standards they fail to meet all the time. That’s what grace is for, and grace is the center of everything I know and believe about God.
Actually, all I did was claim everyone was born with a predisposition to sin and a sinful corporate human identity, and everyone, without exception, actualizes that identity with their own choices. The only exception being Christ. Whether it is hypothetically possible to not sin is irrelevant to me. It doesn’t happen in reality. Everyone is a sinner.
Is why I asked what sin is. And, although I can see why you moved it in the forum it still plays a part here.
Clearly I am not comfortable with any notion of corporate human sinfulness. It implies that either we have corrupted God’s creation which seems unthinkable, or that God actually made us that way, which would be equally untenable.
Also I refuse to believe that I have no choice in life but to sin. Which is where the definition of sin would come in here.
So for now I will have to leave it as we have the capacity for both good and evil and if it is a certainty that evil reigns then God has indeed lost His sovereignty of this world and given it to the Devil. And as I do not believe that God is either impotent or dead, that would rule out any notion of Original Sin.
We must be able to be good without the help of God. Not only that, there are acts of goodness / kindness every day from people who have no faith so to suggest that God is the cause would be ludicrous. IOW reality denies Original Sin as an underlying condition.
If we have the capacity for good, as well as sin, then the definition of Original Sin, or sinfulness needs to be revised at least and dismissed preferably (IMHO).
I don’t see how either implication follows. Again, if someone is born with a gene that predisposes them to alcoholism, does that imply humanity corrupted creation or God made the person an alcoholic? I don’t think so. I don’t see how a predisposition to rebel against God is any different.
To me your argument sounds a lot like this. “I refuse to believe we have no choice in life but to age and grow old. How could a God of life create us in such a way that our destiny is death? It has to be possibly that someone could live a life without aging.”
I think sin is the spiritual equivalent of aging. We can mitigate it. We can make choices that allow us to hold on to youth longer. But when all is said and done, no one escapes it without God’s intervention. I don’t think you can earn righteousness by your choices anymore than you can earn eternal life by your choices.
I completely agree we can be good without God and many people are. But no one is sinless.
Why are you persisting with all this about congenital defects? Or perceived abhorrent nature? You understand science? You understand random deviations? You understand that they are neither designed nor specifically created? So life is unfair! That can stretch as far as poverty or an unstable family unit or even what country you are born in. You are talking of the morality of vermin. Whether they also have a right to life and existence? Humans have arrived at a standard of morality and behaviour that maybe even Nature cannot 100% comply to. Does that make it of God also? Society deals with such things as best they can, why not Christianity?
I keep bringing it up because you keep saying a God who allows people to be born sinful or creates sinful people or knew sin would exist and created the world anyway is a bad God. I don’t see why being born sinful is any bigger a theodicy problem then being born diseased or disabled. I don’t see how it poses a different challenge to the contention that a good, all-powerful, all-knowing God would/should/could have made the world or allowed the world to be the way it is.
Life is unfair. It is unfair that we are slaves to sin. How is this different than other unfairness?
I am sorry but I do not see that there is any connection. Which is why I asked you for a definition of sin. It would seem to me that the only reason you consider sin to be endemic is because of that definition. A definition that I am not convinced is shared by…
IOW I do not think that sin is as universal as you claim. The deviations you compare to are by no means common individually. And many are “treatable”. You are talking of something that, if it was a disease would be considered not only endemic, but of top priority to treat and reduce, even wipe out completely. But, society does not recognise this disease. Perhaps it just does not exist! Certainly not in the manner or seriousness that you seem to imply.
I suggest to you that this whole thing is not of God at all, and has been exaggerated to the nth degree by fanatical Christians. Maybe with the best intentions, but not for the best of the humanity that they have dismissed and condemned. It is also much more damning on God than any disease, even death.
Original Sin is unique to Christianity. It is not even a part of Judaism. Paul was primarily a Pharisee. He would not “invent” something like this, yet it is the perversion of his words that started it.
Perhaps if people understood what Paul actually was saying they wuld be less dogmatic about the state of humanity.
John Calvin thought the parable of the sower was valid for soteriology beliefs/claims. That’s one way he came up with a doctrine of the temporary faith.
I think that both David and Laura have good points here. And while the NT text has some references to people who left and were never really followers, I am not sure that this is to be taken as a blanket statement about every situation. I did myself have a long detour ------and then I returned. Others might not return, and you and I are not the ultimate judges of why or whether they were personally truly “born again” or not. I do know that God makes an effort to reach out to His wayward creation —born again or not – but ultimately the choice is still ours.
You went through for thought what I was thinking. I routinely have to counter argue against the misuse of this verse and romans 9 and “go away for I never knew you” verses.
I also think a big part is salvation itself snd when it occurs. Such as are we saved now on earth, or are we saved when we hear our names in the book of life and we escape the second death.
I have died to sin through Christ’s death. I have been raised up and have been born again… Sin is no longer my lord. Our spirits have been born of God so that we would be free from the power of sin. That is what the Cross of Christ does for us. We are no longer slaves of sin. For freedom sake Christ set us free. We have been translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of God. Christ is Lord, not sin or my flesh. And by His Spirit I am being transformed into the image of the Son of God. Even unto the full stature of Christ.
Salvation is at work in the believer now. God making our spirits a new creation brings deliverance from sin now. Not just a forgiveness but authority over it. The New Covenant of His laws written on our hearts is the grace of God at work in us. The gift of our death in Jesus has delivered us from the god of this age and the slavery to sin. God’s gifts (grace) is at work in us convicting us of what sin is so we resist it as Jesus did in the wilderness. We oppose Satan and sin through God’s word and His Spirit that He gives us. Our spirits have been circumcised from the flesh so it no longer is our master. Those who walk in step with the Spirit are sons and daughters of God. The grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly and upright lives in this present age.
You can post this link a thousand times and it will not change the fact that this is entitlement and the opposite of faith. None of the passages listed in the link supports this and a far longer list refutes it. Faith doesn’t ask such questions. Faith simply puts this in God’s hands and leaves it there.
How can you ask if you lost something that was never yours to begin with. You will never be entitled. It is never yours and never will be. It being a gift is a metaphor. It is only a gift in the sense that it is not in any way earned, but it is not a thing put into your hands for you to own. That is not what it means.