Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[pnattmbtc]

You're making many of the same points and asking many of the same questions I have. A lot of times religious language is used without really thinking about that the phrases mean.

A life-changing moment for me was when I realized that although I paid lip service to Jesus' claim, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," I hadn't really believed it. That is, I thought of God differently than I thought of Jesus (the nice one). I've found much joy and peace in meditating upon the fact that God really as every bit as good (and kind/compassionate/merciful/gentle/humble/etc.) as Jesus Christ, and that it's really true that when we've seen Jesus Christ, we've seen the Father. As you've been pointing out, under the traditional view of the atonement, this isn't possible.

[pnattmbtc]

From another topic.

1) God does not accept human sacrifices

[fccool]

The true idea of the atonement makes God and Christ equal in their love, and one in their purpose of saving humanity. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.’ The life of Christ was not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but that life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely. (Fifield, "God is Love")

That's a beautiful quote. Thank you for it. I've always asked the question... who was the price paid to? Was it the Father? Was it the Satan? Who is the benefactor for the price, and who is making the payment ultimately?

It's clear that Christ paid the price, but it's clearly that it was not to the Father. Father sent the Son, so it would not make any sense from that viewpoint. I think this scenario is worth examining:

Father sends the son to repay for the debt He demands from humanity. Such is done by humans killing the Son, upon which God unloads His wrath instead of unloading it on us.

If the above makes sense to anyone, I'd challenge them to explain to me the underlying logic? The Son ends up suffering twice. First through rejection by His creation, and second the rejection by the Father (again, based on the current doctrine of atonement).

Somehow I don't think this was the case. How about this scenario?

Father sends His Son (Himself in human form essentially) to reconcile with humans KNOWING that they will kill Him and reject Him. Thus he is paying the price of suffering and rejection to make an atonement (reconciliation) effort with humanity by giving Himself up for a terrible death. The ultimate sign of forgiveness for those who will believe that Father is willing to forgive those who repent.

Which one do you think is more consistent with God's nature?

[fccool]

"Here's someone who owes me something. I'll forgive Him His debt," His thinking is more along the lines of, "Here's something who needs to be reconciled to Me. I'll do whatever is necessary (short of forcing his will) to bring this about, regardless of the cost to Myself."

You are finishing my thoughts as I write these See above!

[fccool]

This is assuming the debt analogy holds. Is there really a debt involved? Or is it simply a manner of living contrary to the principles of God's kingdom, needing to repent of that, and start living in accordance with those principle, in harmony and peace with God, as opposed to fighting against Him and His principles?

More regarding debt, I think that it's natural for sinful humans to feel this way, and for those who have this baggage, God provides a means of healing. But I don't think God thinks of it in these terms.

I have not really thought about it that way, perhaps due to the analogy overuse. The more you repeat something, the more true it seems .

On the other hand, it's difficult to depart from analogies of debt that Christ himself draws up... in the Lord's Prayer, and the parable of the wicked servant. But, even then it's a matter of cultural perspective.

If you think of it in terms of reverse parable of the workers: wicked who commits 1000 transgressions dies together with the one who commits a million. The end result is the same. So, in these terms there are really only two judgements: live or die. Can anyone die more than another?

[pnattmbtc]

Father sends His Son (Himself in human form essentially) to reconcile with humans KNOWING that they will kill Him and reject Him. Thus he is paying the price of suffering and rejection to make an atonement (reconciliation) effort with humanity by giving Himself up for a terrible death. The ultimate sign of forgiveness for those who will believe that Father is willing to forgive those who repent.

Which one do you think is more consistent with God's nature?

I've told the following story to illustrate this point.

I was dating a woman who, at a get together, got jealous of another woman, and became angry at me, although I was innocent of any wrong doing. When I discovered she was upset, I took a day off work, and drove 3 hours to visit her, to make things right.

She hadn't noticed when I arrived, and I could see she was moping around, clearly not feeling well. When she saw me, her face lit up, and the negative feelings went away.

I had propitiated her wrath. How? Even though I was the innocent party, I made a sacrifice, which brought about a reconciliation.

I like this story. (It's amazing how time flies).

[pnattmbtc]

I have not really thought about it that way, perhaps due to the analogy overuse. The more you repeat something, the more true it seems .

On the other hand, it's difficult to depart from analogies of debt that Christ himself draws up... in the Lord's Prayer, and the parable of the wicked servant. But, even then it's a matter of cultural perspective.

If you think of it in terms of reverse parable of the workers: wicked who commits 1000 transgressions dies together with the one who commits a million. The end result is the same. So, in these terms there are really only two judgements: live or die. Can anyone die more than another?

I think the debt issue is certainly something *we* need to deal with. It seems to be an inevitable result of sin. Regardless of the culture, humans are fixated with the idea that they have to do something to gain God's favor. So God had to do something to deal with this issue. I think Adam and Eve had it, after they sinned.

Sin does something to us. It causes us to think things about God which aren't true. Then God has to deal with these issues.

[Gerr]

Quote:

I can see that your problematic view of atonement stems from your problematic view of nature of sin.

Methinks your problematic view of the atonement stems from your problematic view of the nature of sin.

Quote:

FACTS FOR THE BIBLE ABOUT SIN:

Sin is nothing more than act.

Absolutely NOT!!! If sin is nothing more than an act, would you consign someone to oblivion for eating a fruit? No. Sin is MORE than just an act. It is a principle. It is an attitude. It is a way of thinking. It is a way of living!

Quote:

It does not exist outside of person's action.

Adultery is MORE than just the wrong phallus in the wrong genitalia! Murder is MORE than just the act of taking another person's life! King David had already committed adulter before he got into bed with Bathsheba, and murder before Uriah died. Jesus said, "“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Mt 7:27-28 ESV. And, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire." 7:21-22 ESV.

Quote:

READ EZEKIEL 18 FOR CRYING OUT LOUD

I am well acquainted with Ez 18, but just to make sure, I looked at it again. And BTW, shall we stick only to Ez 18? or shall we look at what the rest of the Bible has to say?

Quote:

To say that we are sinful from birth is to ignore the nature of sin.

Likewise, to say that we are not sinful from birth is to ignore the very nature of sin.

Quote:

We can't be sinful (full of sin) from birth, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING.

Of death #1 - "..in Adam all die, ..." 1 Cor 15:22 ESV. "were by nature children of wrath ," Eph 23:3 ESV, or as the NCV puts it, "because we were sinful by nature." This is precisely the predicament of the man described by Paul in Rom 7. "Yes, I know that nothing good lives in me—I mean nothing good lives in the part of me that is earthly and sinful. I want to do the things that are good, but I do not do them. I do not do the good things I want to do, but I do the bad things I do not want to do So if I do things I do not want to do, then I am not the one doing them. It is sin living in me that does those things. Rom 7:18-20 NCV

Quote:

The apologists refer to Baby's crying as act of selfishness, but it's not. It's a simple instinct and communication for food as reaction to hunger pain. It has nothing to do with "sinful nature".

You are exactly right. Babies cry even when they poop or when wet. But I can also guarantee you that even if the mother was starving to death or dying of thirst, the baby still wants what it wants no matter what! Because the universe is centered on him!

Quote:

The implications of the "sinful nature" doctrine are in fact saying that man is not able to make right choices. This is incorrect.

"For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out." Rom 7:18 ESV. Why not? If sin is just an act, he should be able to just quit, right? But Paul makes it clear - "For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me." Rom 7:15-17 ESV

Man IS able to make the right decisions, he just doesn't have the ability to carry it out. And if you read Rom 7, it is because of sin that dwells in every fiber of our being!

[Gerr]

Quote:

I think that the present idea of atonement kind of splits God in half. Half is vengeful, the other half is merciful. So, we tend to think that Jesus is more relatable, because He is gentle and friendly, unlike the Father. That's not the case. Both, the Father and the Son embody mercy and patience. They let men choose death if they desire so, as was the case in the garden of Eden.

So then, let us find out what THE BIBLE says about atonement. Forget about what men are presently talking about it.

Quote:

The current doctrine of atonement equates or "sin nature" to hunger. I.E. We eat because we are hungry, and Christ gives us power to resist hunger so to speak. I don't think it's an accurate way to portray sin... as a natural condition, rather than a mental choice.

I would like to see the Biblical basis for your idea. Read Rom 6-8 and you will find that there is a principle, a power at work in him/her that makes a person do crazy things, even do the very thing he hates!

Quote:

But eventually, people think that it's all about sitting back and letting God take over.

Sanctification, holification if you please, is a joint effort. As Paul says, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Phil 2:12-13 ESV.

Quote:

When I ask what they mean by that... they are stumped.

Who is "they?"

[fccool]

Quote:

Absolutely NOT!!! If sin is nothing more than an act, would you consign someone to oblivion for eating a fruit? No. Sin is MORE than just an act. It is a principle. It is an attitude. It is a way of thinking. It is a way of living!

I don't think you understand the nature of what was happening. The eating the fruit was a condition... it had nothing to do with a severity of offense, which is irrelevant in that case. It could have been anything. It could have been "If you say the word "Peanut" that day you'll die". I do agree with your logic that sin is MORE than just an act. It is a principle. It is an attitude. It is a way of thinking. It is a way of living! But it renders to be a contradiction to what you are about to drag into the concept of it.

You can't read into sin what it's not. When God is saying "Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you." ... do you really think He is speaking about some entity outside of ourselves? To say that is to depart from definition and completely abnegate any personal responsibility! After all... it's not me, but sin in me that made me do it!

Quote:

Adultery is MORE than just the wrong phallus in the wrong genitalia! Murder is MORE than just the act of taking another person's life!

But it still does not live outside of the realm of your mind and your decision. It's not something that is dormant... it's a decision. Your thought is a decision, as Jesus points out in that verse... the only thing that is missing is an opportunity for you to carry it out. So, in that sense it's the same as the actual act in the eyes of God.

Likewise, it is true that our sin affects other people around us, but it does not mean that it jumps from one person to other like a disease that we can't control.

There's nothing in these passages that would indicate that. Quite the opposite. Jesus is urging for us not to do that... otherwise he should not even hold us accountable. Would you blame the blind person for not being able to see? But that would be the implication if you believe that we are born sinful, with sin controlling us the why would God demand for us to be what seems to be an impossible task to be righteous?

Quote:

I am well acquainted with Ez 18, but just to make sure, I looked at it again. And BTW, shall we stick only to Ez 18? or shall we look at what the rest of the Bible has to say?

Sure, let's look at some other examples.

The very obvious one is God demanding Israel to be holy. How could they? How could they keep the law if they could not? Why would God ask of them an impossible task?

"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth…for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." Genesis 6:7, 12

The flesh had corrupted in the process. It was not born corrupt.

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16

"Far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked. That be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Genesis 18:25

"When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." Romans 2:14-15

Describes moral nature... not excusing them because they can't do good.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death” (James 1:14,15)

"But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin." II Chronicles 25:4

"Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it." Deuteronomy 1:39

Age of accountability issue here, which kind of goes along with your idea of "selfish babies". They don't know that mother dying of thirst. Do you expect them to get up and help her out??? Are you really going to make this point ???? LOL. My cat was born sinner too, I guess! Such as selfish animal for not getting me glass of water when I'm dying of thirst or calling 911 if I fall down

Or perhaps a more reasonable explanation would be... babies don't have knowledge to understand their surroundings. Would you call a deaf person selfish for not hearing what you are saying, or when you cry for help? But that's the illustration that you are drawing .

Christ said that unless we are like little children, we can not enter the kingdom of God. Why would he say that?

Quote:

You are exactly right. Babies cry even when they poop or when wet. But I can also guarantee you that even if the mother was starving to death or dying of thirst, the baby still wants what it wants no matter what! Because the universe is centered on him!

You are right! It has nothing to do with the fact that the baby does not understand what's going on, and the only way it can communicate is by crying

Quote:

"For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out." Rom 7:18 ESV. Why not? If sin is just an act, he should be able to just quit, right?

No. There's a certain thing that we call habits. You see, when we do certain things long enough... these things become ... what's the word... OH... SECOND NATURE TO US .

Whenever Paul talks about "weak in flesh" he is referring to our inability to resist temptation due to our habitual sin. Thus "the sin dwells in me" is in fact a sinful habit that dwells in us as a mental pattern. So, when temptation comes it becomes almost an automatic response by to repeat the habit.

It's easy to sin. It's hard to live Godly life and obey the God. If Paul was talking about our complete inability to do good, then why would we be seeking God if we are incapable of doing so? Why should we preach the Gospel if the people are incapable of understanding it due to their sinful and rebellious nature?

It does not make any sense for us to blame the sinners, because after all they are merely victims of their condition, just like disabled people can't walk. So, if God demand people to walk, then how in the world are they able to do so?

Likewise, how can God demand us to repent of our sins, if in fact we would not want it naturally? Explain to me the mechanics of it? This idea renders the concept of free will obsolete. We sin, because we have that nature. If I'm naturally blind, can I see the light? How can I do anything other than to not see?

The other explanation would be... we are able to choose God, because we are able to choose what is good, just like we are able to choose what is evil. Without God's guidance, we choose more evil than good, but it does not mean that we are incapacitated to do so.

[fccool]

Quote:

I would like to see the Biblical basis for your idea. Read Rom 6-8 and you will find that there is a principle, a power at work in him/her that makes a person do crazy things, even do the very thing he hates!

Can you show me this principle anywhere outside the book of Romans? PS... that power is called bad habits. If an unsaved person can stop smoking on their own... what can that tell you about your idea of "sin makes me do it" ?

PS... there is no Biblical basis for my idea, because I don't believe that the idea of sin being a natural urge we inherit by birth is Biblical concept. That would mean that drug addicts should birth drug addicts. That's not the case. A child has a choice in light of temptation, just like Jesus did.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Can you show me this principle anywhere outside the book of Romans?

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jer 17:9 ESV.

"More than anything else, a person’s mind is evil and cannot be healed. Who can understand it?"NCV

"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5 ESV

"The Lord observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil." NLT

"They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." Ps 14:3 ESV

"What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?" Job 15:4 ESV

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander." Mt 15:19 ESV

"All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath." Eph 2:3 NIV

"The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil." Isa 1:5-6 ESV

"We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away." Isa 64:6 ESV

Quote:

PS... that power is called bad habits. If an unsaved person can stop smoking on their own... what can that tell you about your idea of "sin makes me do it" ?

If sin is not an inborn principle, it would be just as easy to do good as to do evil. That is clearly not the case.

Quote:

PS... there is no Biblical basis for my idea, because I don't believe that the idea of sin being a natural urge we inherit by birth is Biblical concept. That would mean that drug addicts should birth drug addicts. That's not the case. A child has a choice in light of temptation, just like Jesus did.

I'm confused You say that your idea is not a Biblical concept, yet you say the idea that the propensity to sin is not a Biblical concept either. What then is the Biblical concept of sin? I have just given you scripture after scripture showing you that the Bible views man as depraved from the time of conception.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Christ said that unless we are like little children, we can not enter the kingdom of God. Why would he say that?

There are some childlike qualities that we need to have to enter heaven. There are also qualities that Paul in 1 Cor 13 says we should grow out of.

:

Absolutely NOT!!! If sin is nothing more than an act, would you consign someone to oblivion for eating a fruit? No. Sin is MORE than just an act. It is a principle. It is an attitude. It is a way of thinking. It is a way of living!

Originally Posted By: fccool

I don't think you understand the nature of what was happening. The eating the fruit was a condition... it had nothing to do with a severity of offense, which is irrelevant in that case. It could have been anything. It could have been "If you say the word "Peanut" that day you'll die". I do agree with your logic that sin is MORE than just an act. It is a principle. It is an attitude. It is a way of thinking. It is a way of living! But it renders to be a contradiction to what you are about to drag into the concept of it.

Your answer leads me to believe that you are agreeing with what I'm saying - i.e. sin is more than just an act. You have been saying that sin is nothing more than an act. That means to me that sin is only something that I do, perform, carry out. The apostle goes farther than that - he says that if we know what is good to do but do it not, it would even be sin for us. So now you are saying that the taking of the fruit is not just an act, it was a "condition."

[Gerr]

Quote:

The current doctrine of atonement equates or "sin nature" to hunger. I.E. We eat because we are hungry, and Christ gives us power to resist hunger so to speak. I don't think it's an accurate way to portray sin... as a natural condition, rather than a mental choice.

Sin is not only a condition, it is also a choice. For Adam, it was purely a choice because his condition was righteous. For his descendants, it is not an either or, it is both. You can put a baby in the most ideal environment and it will still sin when grown. So then, how can a sinner be condemned for something he could not help doing? I think the answer is in Jn 3:19 "They are judged by this fact: The Light has come into the world, but they did not want light. They wanted darkness, because they were doing evil things." NCV.

[fccool]

Quote:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jer 17:9 ESV.

"More than anything else, a person’s mind is evil and cannot be healed. Who can understand it?"NCV

I understand now! Our heart that pumps blood is actually deceives us somehow? Or perhaps that verse is talking about symbolic idea of our mind being easily deceived.

Quote:

"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5 ESV

"The Lord observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil." NLT

At certain point of time, when we lapse into sin... it goes circular and we completely "go to the dark side". Nowhere in this verse does it imply that we are born that way. Otherwise God is warranted to wipe us out at any time. Read Nineveh. Noah preached for 120 years for them to repent. Jonah preached for a couple of days and Nineveh repented. What was different in Nineveh? These people were also continually evil and were awaiting destruction!

Quote:

"They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." Ps 14:3 ESV

Does it say that they were born corrupt, or they become corrupt? I don't understand how you can read that and see "born sinful".

Quote:

"What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?" Job 15:4 ESV

These are the words of Eliphaz, who was trying to prove Job wrong and tell him that he in fact did sin by doing nothing , when God specifically testifies in heaven that Job is righteous, and later says that Eliphaz did not hold the truth. Job 42:7

After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.

God said that Job was righteous! What does righteousness imply? It does not imply merely faith, but implies the actions that stem from such faith. Faith should have some proof behind it.

But, let's say that Eliphaz was correct. Then Christ is completely unrelated to us, because he cheated. He came to this world with advantage over us? Or perhaps he was also born of a woman, and had the same body as we do... that had the same temptations as we do, yet without sin.

Quote:

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander." Mt 15:19 ESV

Yes, these things do come out of our heart. The heart in the Bible is not referring to the blood pumping organ, but to the core of our being, which is our mind. It is by our mind we fall into temptation, and follow our own desires.

"Above all else guard your heart!" Meaning, watch what you think. Christianity is not "change of heart" as we romantically poeticize it. It's change of MIND ie. Romans 9.

That verse has nothing to say about born full of sin. It talks about a life full of sin. If we were born with default condition that either more evil, or already sinful... then all babies are condemned to hell before they even get a chance to do anything. God clearly states that that's not the case. He does not punish kids for sins of their parents. Such condition of a sin nature would be punishment just by means of being born into such world.

Quote:

"All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath." Eph 2:3 NIV

Again, it's talking about a certain life-style. Job lived a righteous lifestyle. Enoch lived a righteous lifestyle. I don't know, perhaps Job or Enoch were unrighteous at certain point, but there is no indication of it. Living by faith brings about righteous lifestyle. Living through your own understanding gets you confused because you can't properly understand this world without God's guidance. Such is the condition of humanity. Bad company breeds bad character. Good company breeds good character. God, again and again points that out. Otherwise, good company of christian believers would do absolutely nothing for our children, who would be totally evil until they accept Christ.

Quote:

"The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil." Isa 1:5-6 ESV

"We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away." Isa 64:6 ESV

The key word is BECOME. That word is there for a reason. Our state of "uncleanness" is developed over our life time. We don't default from it.

Some may ask in despair... can something "clean" come out of the "unclean"? I then would reverse the same question. When we are saved God says that He cleans us. Does it mean that our children then will be "clean"?

I hope you get my point. Children are neutral. That's the whole point for the judgement and accountability age. We have to know and understand before it accounts to us as evil. Children don't. They merely act on instincts. If we blame them for these instincts, then we actually blame God for creating these. Instincts are not inherently evil. These protect us. When we hungry, we cry. If we did not cry we would starve to death or be malnourished and our parents would not even know it.

[fccool]

Sin is not only a condition, it is also a choice. For Adam, it was purely a choice because his condition was righteous. For his descendants, it is not an either or, it is both. You can put a baby in the most ideal environment and it will still sin when grown. So then, how can a sinner be condemned for something he could not help doing? I think the answer is in Jn 3:19 "They are judged by this fact: The Light has come into the world, but they did not want light. They wanted darkness, because they were doing evil things." NCV.

You are contradicting yourself here and pointing to a very faulty logic that confuses many people that we are witness to. I'll demonstrate it to you.

1) Adam sin and passed on a condition to us where we can't help but to sin.

2) Everyone who is born has this condition which, to put it lightly, gives us inclination to sin. Thus it actually gives us a push towards sin, so whenever we make ANY choice we will sin I know that you are not saying it, but only because you avoid the inevitable thought pattern that results from such thinking.

If we have sinful nature, then ANY choice that we make will result in sin! Such are the implications.

So, when you go to the mall and witness to the bistanders... their nature would dictate to reject God and curse you. Such are the implications.

Likewise, if there's an opportunity to steal, our nature would incline us to steal. When there's opportunity to kill, our nature would incline us to kill. When there's opportunity to rape, our nature would incline us to rape.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO MISS THIS POINT. This is the inevitable pattern of such thoughts. If we have sinful nature, then we will choose to do bad things even when presented with good choices.

I think you can see the absurdity of such view. You'd have to back away from it and somehow explain HOW IS IT PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO DO RIGHTEOUS THINGS WHEN THEY HAVE SINFUL NATURE?

[fccool]

Quote:

Your answer leads me to believe that you are agreeing with what I'm saying - i.e. sin is more than just an act. You have been saying that sin is nothing more than an act. That means to me that sin is only something that I do, perform, carry out. The apostle goes farther than that - he says that if we know what is good to do but do it not, it would even be sin for us. So now you are saying that the taking of the fruit is not just an act, it was a "condition."

I agree with what you saying to as much that it was not my or Biblical view Your original question pointed out a condition in which I equated sin with hunger and asked me to prove it from the Bible. My pointing out was for the purpose to show you that sin is not like that.

Sin is certainly more than just an act in a sense that it stems from a thought and eventually a habit. Jesus pointed out in sermon on the mountain that even if we think, then that thought is accounted as act or unrighteousness.

Likewise Paul complains about "the sin in him" and the "sin that drives him to do certain things"... meaning the habits that he at that time struggling to overcome.

The entire point of "the test in Eden" was whether the mankind would choose the guidance of God resulted in life, or guidance of Satan resulted in death. Once guidance of Satan was chosen, God withdrew his guidance and protection from people who reject Him. He would no longer guide them directly, but indirectly.

Israel typifies that guidance. God creates them anew by taking them out of the Egypt. He gives them a commandment and choice to follow him as creator. They reject him and don't follow him. He relentlessly pursuing them to the point of personally coming as one of them and showing them mercy and direction. They reject him again by killing Him, yet he is still willing to forgive even after they did that.

But as in the case of antediluvian people, we are creating a complete environment of death and destruction, greed and corruption. Thus God has to let people who choose death to have death, and the people who choose life to have life.

BUT, WE CAN'T MAKE THAT CHOICE WITH SIN NATURE HANGING OVER OUR HEADS DICTATING TO MAKE WRONG CHOICES

Otherwise asking people to share gospel would be illogical.

[fccool]

I'm confused You say that your idea is not a Biblical concept, yet you say the idea that the propensity to sin is not a Biblical concept either. What then is the Biblical concept of sin? I have just given you scripture after scripture showing you that the Bible views man as depraved from the time of conception.

I just explained why the passages that you give me do not teach that. We have to read the Bible as a whole, and not pick a couple verses and string them into a doctrine.

As a whole Bible teaches coming to repentance. That would be impossible if we were unable to do so.

Either we can make that choice, or we can't. Some people would say... well... we can do SOME good. But how ???? The doctrine of original sin teaches sinful nature that propels us to sin.

Bible teaches the presence of both good and bad nature in a sense that we can make any choice we want to when temptation comes. Jesus demonstrated it. The doctrine of the sin nature teaches us that we WILL make the sinful choice when temptation comes. See the problem here?

Jesus came not only to die, but to demonstrate that God is not unjust for asking us to keep the law. It is possible to do that in human body. Otherwise, God would be a tyrant, punishing us for something that is impossible to do. It's like punching a short person in a face every time he can't jump high enough! That's not the case at all!

We CAN and NEED to repent!

[Gerr]

Quote:

You are contradicting yourself here and pointing to a very faulty logic that confuses many people that we are witness to. I'll demonstrate it to you.

1) Adam sin and passed on a condition to us where we can't help but to sin.

Show me where this is not true. "In Adam we all die." "For by one man's disobedience the many were made [kathistemi - to set, place, put, make, cause to be] sinners," Ro 5.

Quote:

2) Everyone who is born has this condition which, to put it lightly, gives us inclination to sin. Thus it actually gives us a push towards sin,

Again, show where this is not true.

You are correct up to this point in stating what I have said.

Quote:

so whenever we make ANY choice we will sin

Faulty conclusion! Nowhere did I say that or even implied. Choice, freedom of the will is one thing that is never taken away even from sinful man, except perhaps the one who has committed the unpardonable sin. Paul made it abundantly clear when he said, and I've quoted this to you before- "I have the desire to to do what is right but not the ability to carry it out." Ro 8. And the Apostle John made a bold statement that "no one who abides in him keeps on sinning," 1 Jn 3. And I had just quoted what Jesus said in Jn 3:19 that it is in the rejection of light and their choosing of darkness that they are condemned. So how can you conclude from what I said that ANY choice is we make we will sin?

Quote:

I know that you are not saying it, but only because you avoid the inevitable thought pattern that results from such thinking.

If we have sinful nature, then ANY choice that we make will result in sin! Such are the implications.

So, when you go to the mall and witness to the bistanders... their nature would dictate to reject God and curse you. Such are the implications.

Again, wrong conclusion, because I never said sinners can't make a choice.

Quote:

Likewise, if there's an opportunity to steal, our nature would incline us to steal. When there's opportunity to kill, our nature would incline us to kill. When there's opportunity to rape, our nature would incline us to rape.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO MISS THIS POINT. This is the inevitable pattern of such thoughts. If we have sinful nature, then we will choose to do bad things even when presented with good choices.

I think you can see the absurdity of such view. You'd have to back away from it and somehow explain HOW IS IT PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO DO RIGHTEOUS THINGS WHEN THEY HAVE SINFUL NATURE?

BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT IS STILL AT WORK EVEN on/in THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW HIM!!! " Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right." Ro 2:14-15 NLT. Otherwise, here is how the Bible views the natural person:

“None is righteous, no, not one;

11 no one understands;

no one seeks for God.

12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

no one does good,

not even one.”

13 “Their throat is an open grave;

they use their tongues to deceive.”

The venom of asps is under their lips.”

14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”

15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;

16 in their paths are ruin and misery,

17 and the way of peace they have not known.”

18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ro 3:10-18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

THAT IS THE CONDITION OF NATURAL MAN. And please note that that these statements were not original with Paul, they were quotes from the OT

[Gerr]

I'm confused You say that your idea is not a Biblical concept, yet you say the idea that the propensity to sin is not a Biblical concept either. What then is the Biblical concept of sin? I have just given you scripture after scripture showing you that the Bible views man as depraved from the time of conception.

I just explained why the passages that you give me do not teach that. We have to read the Bible as a whole, and not pick a couple verses and string them into a doctrine.

A couple of verses? Excuse me? About the only reference you have given relevant to the subject at hand was Ez 18. I have given you references from several books that show us the natural condition of man.

Quote:

As a whole Bible teaches coming to repentance. That would be impossible if we were unable to do so.

Either we can make that choice, or we can't. Some people would say... well... we can do SOME good. But how ???? The doctrine of original sin teaches sinful nature that propels us to sin.

Show me one statement where I said that we are unable to choose. JUST ONE!

Quote:

We CAN and NEED to repent!

Of course!!! Otherwise we're all doomed!!! My point at the start of my responses to this thread was that this repentance is prompted by a SACRIFICE! You were keying on the repentance and seemed to downgrade the blood sacrifice, while this is very important, my point is that the BLOOD SACRIFICE that prompts repentance is even MORE important. It takes precedence over repentance. It is what makes repentance possible. It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance. We love Him BECAUSE He first loved us!

[fccool]

Quote:

Of course!!! Otherwise we're all doomed!!! My point at the start of my responses to this thread was that this repentance is prompted by a SACRIFICE! You were keying on the repentance and seemed to downgrade the blood sacrifice, while this is very important, my point is that the BLOOD SACRIFICE that prompts repentance is even MORE important. It takes precedence over repentance. It is what makes repentance possible. It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance. We love Him BECAUSE He first loved us!

In that case you completely misunderstand my point. I don't dispute that the love of God extends towards us through His sacrifice of love. The nature of the sacrifice I do question.

The original doctrine of atonement requires blood as payment to God for all of the sins humanity committed. Here's how John 3:16 is read by the doctrine of atonement:

God so loved to world, that He gave his only son as a sin offering that He required to collect from the people that owned him a debt of death, so that anyone who believed that Jesus was a blood offering will not perish, but his sins will be forgiven and he can start over by appreciating Jesus who was willing to be unjustly punished, and God who was willing to unjustly punish Jesus in our stead.

I read John 3:16 as:

For God so loved us, that He himself came down from Heaven in our form, and lived a sinless life of healing, teaching repentance, and mercy, knowing that He will be rejected and killed... so whoever believes that God is merciful and just and worthy of trust and obedience as He demonstrated again and again... will repent and receive mercy.

God's sacrifice and goodness is the initiator, as I have clarified before. But OUR SALVATION begins with acknowledgment that God is good, which is followed by the repentance.

You see, the world out there does not believe that God is good, partially because we confuse them. God is good, but He will take innocent blood as way of covering sin. That is not a definition of goodness. Goodness has to be consistent with justice. No one can sit in jail for you if you commit a murder. That would be ludicrous. Yet, we put Jesus in this imaginary "grave jail" instead of us... so we can live. This is not the message God wants us to hear. This is not quite forgiveness , if Jesus merely satisfied God's wrath.

Let me give you another example.

If you broke into my house and at night killed my son by firing a blind shot in the darkness. I saw you do that.

At the court date, there's prosecution and jury. The prosecution makes their case based on the evidence that clear points to you being killer. But, you stand up and genuinely admit your fault and ask me for forgiveness.

What was your sin? Murder. What is your penalty? Death.

BUT, I stand up in front of jury and say... I know this man broke the law, and he deserves death. But I can see that he is genuinly repented of his ways. So I forgive him, and although he has done irrepairable damage to the world, I vouch on his behalf and ask you to forgive him.

This man killed my son, and in a sense I'm paying for his suffering for not demanding justice.

There's nothing that you can do to repair the damage that you did! You can't make your good and obedient friend die instead of you and make me happy. That would be two wrongs instead of one!

So, I forgive you pointing that I've paid the ultimate sacrifice with my son being dead.

That's the message of the cross! Not that two wrongs make it right!

[fccool]

Quote:

BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT IS STILL AT WORK EVEN on/in THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW HIM!!! " Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right." Ro 2:14-15 NLT.

But now you contradict yourself, which doctrine of original sin inevitably does.

In the above statement, the Gentiles have the conscious understanding of right and wrong based on their moral nature (knowing right from wrong based on the embedded law). But how can that be if the nature of sin is by definition IMMORAL?

Please, please ... explain it to me . It's like to hear that. Are all people born with indwelling Holy Spirit at work?

[pnattmbtc]

This has been an interesting discussion, but I'm not sure why the digression into sinful nature. Perhaps another thread could be started to continue it.

Regarding the doctrine of the atonement, the usual argument goes along these lines:

1.The law of God requires perfect obedience.

2.Everybody has sinned.

3.Therefore all deserve the sentence of death.

4.Christ paid this price, so that a person can escape the sentence of death, if they accept Christ.

This doesn't depend upon the doctrine of original sin.

I'm hoping the discussion will continue (on original sin), as it's certainly been an interesting dialog, but commented on the possibility of starting a new thread on this topic so that the topic of this thread can continue.

[fccool]

If you replace #2 with

2. Everyone sinned by mere fact of being born... thus inheriting Adam's sins

Then, perhaps it makes more sense that we are unable to repent if confronted, thus we need God to perform the magic of convincing through Holy Spirit. All of this does not exist on the mental level of the believer, but on some sort of "spiritual plain" that we don't understand... i.e. it's a mystery.

Thus the work of the the Holy Spirit becomes somewhat mysterious. If a person has a good thought... then it's Holy Spirit convincing him. That's the implication.

It kind of results in a ball of incoherent statements that no-one can clearly understand or explain...

Quote:

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

How does the Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment? Let me give you a hint... Why does God ask US (filled with His Spirit) to witness, to feed the poor, to show mercy, to shine as a city on a hill ? How does Spirit work through our lives to convince unbelievers of

1) Their sins

2) The nature of righteousness

3) Judgement

???

Is there anything that we (who are filled with the Spirit) called to do to convince the world of these concepts?

It's not some magical whisper in the ear or "dreaming the dreams" concept, although I don't discount the rare cases of this happening. It's US talking to unbelievers about need for salvation. It's always been the case:

Quote:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.[a]' 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Who is doing the convicting here? It's obvious that the Holy Spirit!

It's relevant, due to the nature of the Salvation work on part of God, and what He saves us from (consequences of sin, which judgment is a part of). The original sin doctrine would imply that God saves us from our bodies :)

[pnattmbtc]

I don't understand what your response has to do with what I said. Please explain. All I did was to suggest splitting off two threads, one to discuss the atonement, and the other the nature of man. I was just showing that the doctrine of the atonement, as traditionally taught, did not depend upon the doctrine of the nature of man, which is why this could logically be split into different threads.

I'm hoping the doctrine of the atonement will be continued to be discussed here.

Again, I've not said anything about being unable to repent if confronted, so do not understand what motivated your response.