Importance of Original Sin

That was my point Jar. Your assertion in this quote is not evidence, its an assertion. Further more you couldnt from a humanist standpoint defend that assertion (logically) anymore than you could the one where you assert "God has little or nothing to do with it"Its ironic isnt it Jar the only way you know anything about Christianity is from the NT, yet you repudiate and reject nearly everything in the NTSo tell me again Jar, how and why do you consider yourself a ChristianPlease try and answer from a purely logical perspect, not an emotional or rude snipitWhere did you get your knowledge that you were a ChristianDawn Bertot

Hi. This thread has been all over the map. You certainly don't seem to be interfering in this free-for-all to me. You may find my comments to kind of steer to include the topic of "Original Sin". I believe whatever pitfalls were encountered by religious Jews in the time of Jesus' earthly ministry are dangers to Christians. Those believers in the Tanach had a strong religious tradition. Today after 2,000 plus years Christians have possibly even a more entrenched religion.And here I do not mean the word "religion" to be that positive. What I am trying to say is that as the Jews in the Gospel time had their commandments of men growing up, the Christians of today also have the same tendencies.Now of the verses you mentioned, I lingered long in praying and reading over First Peter 3:21. But I felt led to take in from verse 18 through about 4:4 for more context.The "saves you" verse 21 I think is more than justification from eternal perdition. Peter preached and witnessed the baptism of thousands in the book of Acts. And he went on to exhort the people to be saved from the then contemporary crooked generation:

quote:

---

"And with many other words he solemnly testified and exhorted them, saying, Be saved from this crooked generation. Those then who received his word were baptized, and there were added on that day three thousand souls." (Acts 2:40,41)

---

Peter's preaching goes beyond simply man's need to be saved from eternal punishment. Peter's message addresses God's need to have a people living unto God in a vibrant church life community - SAVED daily from the surrounding crooked generation.There is no way a Christian can be saved from the surrounding crooked generation without the realization that they have been crucified, buried, and raised with Jesus Christ - which baptism testifies. We cannot make it to escape the influence of the world, even if we have eternal redemption, if we are not so identified with Christ's death and resurrection. We have to stand upon the fact, by faith, that we have been crucified to the world and the world has been crucified to us.I try to consider that sometimes "saved" in the New Testament has nuances of meaning. You sited Ephesians 2:8,9:

quote:

---

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; Not of works that no one should boast."

---

This salvation certainly meets the sinner's need to know that he or she has BEEN saved [past tense] through faith in Jesus Christ. But the very next verse speaks more of God's need to have a masterpiece - POEMA. This corporate "masterpiece" is like a grand work of art or music in a divine sense. The masterpiece of God speaks of the kind of corporate "walk" the saved people should have daily in the world. This is should be a collective testimony to the world around.I put the passages together:

quote:

---

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works that no one should boast.

​

For we are His MASTERPIECE, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared before hand in order that we would walk in them."

---

I am trying to say that God's MASTERPIECE is the church consisting of the eternally saved also SAVED from the crooked society - walking in the highest standard of morality through the grace of the indwelling Christ. They who are saved from eternal judgment go on to be SAVED into the masterpiece of the normal church life testifying God's transformation power over former sinners.My opinion is that sometimes "saved" or "saves you" or "salvation" in the New Testament includes this wider scope of God's operation.See here that first the explicit apostolic teaching of Paul is that whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus will be SAVED -

quote:

---

" That if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be SAVED;

​

For with the heart there is believing unto righteousness, and with the mouth there is confession unto salvation "

---

To me this is clear and I would encourage any seeking person to have confidence in calling "Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus" to be SAVED from eternal separation from God.But let's go on in that chapter. Paul then says -

quote:

---

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all and rich to all who call upon Him. For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (vs.11,12)

---

I believe the scope of being "saved" suddenly widens. We come into the riches of Christ by daily, even hourly, even moment by moment calling on His name in order to touch Him. Experience is that calling on the Lord Jesus SAVES us from our lust, our temper, our depression, our division among other Christians, our craving for the world, etc. We go on to walk daily in Christ by enjoying the riches of His grace. And one way to release those riches is by calling on His name - "O Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus".So we are SAVED eternally by calling and confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in our hearts God has raised Him from the dead.Then we go on to be SAVED for the sake of God's masterpiece by enjoying the riches of what and who Christ is in us. Living through His indwelling presence we are SAVED from the crooked generation around the ekklesia, the church as the called out community.I think the larger scope of being saved is meant in Mark 16:16

quote:

---

"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned."

---

Over the years I have adopted the attitude that Mark's reference to believing and being baptized is for the salvation in a larger sense - to be saved not just from the last judgment, but from the whole surrounding crooked society. Believe and be baptized to be saved by faith you have been crucified, buried and raised to new life by identification with Christ.And this salvation is a ever deepening matter. This salvation is an ever growing and widening matter as we discover more and more things we really need to be saved from. We do not know all the matters yet from which the indwelling Christ operates to save us.Now if we go back to First Peter 3:21, I think like Mark 16:16 the "saves you" refers to the larger scope of salvation.Think about his analogy of the ark of Noah.
You see the ark SAVED the people from judgment.
But the WATER saved them from that current evil generation.They eight individuals in the ark were saved from God's judgment by the ark.
But they were saved from that evil generation by the water.You can see a relationship. And maybe you can see the nuances of the word "saves" or "saved".

quote:

---

"Which water, as the antitype, also now saves you, that is, baptism ... the appeal of a good conscience unto God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

---

When we proclaim "I have been crucified with Christ" faith in our identification with Christ's death saves us from many evil things in our fallen nature.When we stand by faith saying "I have been buried with Christ and raised up with Christ" we release the grace of Christ into our being.We do not trust ourselves. We do not trust any self improvement. We do not trust any self refinement. We are utterly identified with Christ in His being crucified and raised. Our history is Christ death and resurrection. And we utterly identify with being terminated with Him and raised with new life in Him.This is the immersion into Christ that saves us in the widest sense. He who believes and is baptized will be saved.Having said that, I have to add that it is not possible for me to get into the realm of arguing about modes of physical baptism -Ie. Is forward baptism more scriptural or backward?
Should it be "in Jesus name" or "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?
Should it be by sprinkling or should your head go under the water?
Should the new believer be baptized immediately or wait for awhile?I think when we get into fighting about the ritualistic aspect of how to baptized and what should be pronounced, we quickly fall into the hands of the enemy - into doctrinal divisions which are used by the enemy to cause Christians not to "hold fast the Head" of the living Person of Christ Himself.This doesn't mean I have no feeling about baptism.
I think to baptized "in the name of Jesus" can be uttered.
Or "We baptize you into the death of Christ" is just a good.
Or "We baptize you into the Body of Christ" is just as scriptural.
Or "We baptize you into one Spirit" is just as biblical.
Or "We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is just a scriptural.I think we Christians are often experts at missing the point.
Any one of these prayers / proclamations in faith is from the Bible.Of course if we baptize into the death of Christ we baptize into the one Spirit and into the Triune God's name.So I can't be drawn into a debate about Mark 16:16 or First Peter 3:21 on purely mechanical grounds of outward stuff. It is a matter of spiritual life and faith.Finally, the sense of salvation from the world is more apparent to me in Peter's passage by these things:1.) the need to be saved from the list of sinful activities \[b\]4:3

​

quote:

---

"For the time which has passed is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having gone on in licentiousness, lusts, debaucheries, carousings, drinking bouts, and lawless idolaties."

---

​

2.) the need to be saved from the "flood of dissoluteness" (v.4)

​

3.) the need to be saved from slander (v.4) and persecution's effect of discouragement (3:17) .4.) the need to be saved from "the lusts of men" (4:2) 5.) the need to be saved TO "the will of God" (4:2) So I think Peter had in mind "water" of baptism now saves the believers from the crooked generation as he also exhorted in Acts 2:40 - to be not only justified for eternal life but saved from the ways of the world which is headed for judgment.Tell me a bit about what Hank Hanegraff would say. He's a good brother with the word. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You have no point Dawn and simply continue to misrepresent, tap dance and play silly games.Why did you misrepresent my position and what I said in your [msg=715041]?Why do you continue to misrepresent my position in Message 1715071[/msg]?Did I ever make any claim that my assertion was evidence.Do you even know what the "?" symbol means? Bullshit. Only an ignorant fool or a totally dishonest con-man would even make such a silly assertion. Asked and answered repeatedly. I am a Christian because I am a confirmed member of a recognized chapter of Club Christian. The same place any knowledge comes from; personal experience.

Well in a word Yes. Ok well that clears everything. For a minute I thought you were going to vauge and pointless, then repeat yourself thats what I like about you Jar, you get right to the heart of the issue without evading the issue. So what aspect of your "Personal experience", allows you to know what parts of the NT are valid verses invalid, acceptable and believableI enjoy coversations with a man that has mastered the fine art of critical thinking. You such a blessing to us allEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Please post the link to where I did that.

ah, okay, so you're not necessarily defending christian theology? okay, so spiritual death -- like the concept of original sin -- is a no go? the one where abraham accuses god of blasphemy for wanting to kill the innocent along with the wicked? and god agrees with abraham that this would be wrong? then why is there no hint that the authors are really talking about spiritual concepts, instead of physical ones? when yahweh command israel to go kill all the ammorities and hittites and such, was he talking about making them spiritually dead, or physically dead?you just don't even get this concept until the new testament. most of old testament lacks even the concept of a spiritual world, or an afterlife. do you see jews today talking about heaven or hell? their books don't contain those concepts.

we do. and in fact, if you back it up a bit, you see a god who seems to feel guilty about doing this, and brings it to a a lowly human being for answers. "should i keep this hidden from abraham?" he asks. i think, in some regards, yahweh wants abraham to talk him out of it. well, no. christians tend to supply an incredibly simplistic, black-box idea of god to their readings of the text, but yahweh just isn't so simple, especially not in the J document, where this portion comes from. J's yahweh is dynamic, conflicted, fallible, and at the same time intensely human and utterly foreign.previous to this part of the text, yahweh had let a murderer go free. is causing more death the appropriate punishment for someone that caused death? this is a legitimate and difficult moral and ethical question, and at first, yahweh doesn't seem to have a good answer for it. in fact, he goes the other way. he protects the murder from vengeance. is revenge just? hard to say, right?from there, at some point he gets frustrated and rage quits. yahweh decides that making mankind was a mistake, and kills everyone. men, women, children. everyone, because he sees everyone as wicked. but noah, noah he likes. i think it is utterly impossible to view the story of lot and sodom in any context other than noah and the flood. they are both single familial units pulled out from a massive disaster as god metes out his wrath on the wicked. but look at what yahweh says after the flood: "i promise i won't do that again." clearly, he regrets that action, and that i think is why he's bringing this problem to abraham.it is not so simple as "there are wicked, and the wicked must die." J is painstakingly establishing ancient jewish morals and ethics, by exploring the results of injustice, even at the hands of yahweh himself. the reason for this is that it is the argument that is the foundation for the cornerstone of ancient jewish ethics, the mosaic covenant. the law. why do you think these stories are in a book that is called "the law"?instead, we are given a series of questions. "should the wicked die?" and "should the wicked die at any cost?" and here, "at what cost should the wicked die?" and it is important to consider this text in logical progression of those questions. it is absolutely not as simple as "god is the opposite of evil", particularly not in a text that has "knowledge of good and evil" being a quality that makes people like god. no, i don't either. i don't think romans necessarily represents old testament theology very well, but it doesn't say that either. not my intention; i was quoting scripture to disprove dogmatic misreadings of scripture. here's the thing, though. in that passage above, what standard is abraham using to judge that god is immoral? god is clearly not the standard for morality in this text. morality is external, possibly objective standard that god does not always live up to. i recognize that this is blasphemy to most christians, but that's what's actually in the bible. yahweh himself says in others texts in the bible (which admittedly have slightly different theologies) that he plans to do evil, or that he creates evil, etc. the idea that "it is moral because god commands it" is a completely foreign concept to ancient judaism, possibly injected by later christian authors. it does not fit very well with what's in the old testament. well, without getting into the biological, evolutionary reasons we have morality, and the neurological aspects of how it operates (seriously, look this stuff up, it's fascinating)... are you saying that you use god to answer basic moral questions, and that without someone telling you right from wrong, you wouldn't know the difference?i don't suspect that's your argument. so let me pitch your question back to you: how do you determine whether or not something is moral?

Were the innocents also killed at Sodom and the city of the plains, or not? Is your implication that either it did not happen or that only guilty people were destroyed? You sound like a modified version of Jar If hints are all you are interested in, you have it hinted in the story I gave you. "If you eat of the tree of knowledge and good and evil, you will surely die" They did not die, so clearly there is a hint at something more than physical death How bizzare is the statement you just made. Is your implication that God is really physical. If God is not physical why would you assume that something created in his image may Not at some point develope into a spiritual existence or habitationSo if there is no Spiritual world, what is God and where does he reside? Is the Old Testament still one of thier books I say this with the greatest respect, but it does give alot of insight into a persons thinking process. You cant even imagine the arrogance involved in your above statementFirst you start with "I think". Then without taking into context what the entire Old Testament says about Gods Nature and abilites you super impose silly ideas into Gods mindGods bargining with Abraham for Abrahams benifit not GodsWhile destroying Sodom brought God no pleasure, to assume he was not determinate in his plans is simply sillyThis might help you. When you develope an idea in your head, think it through to its logical conclusion. Youll find yourself in less trouble from a polemic standpoint and you wont sound generally sillyPolemics is more that just throwing points back and forth. You develope an idea then see if it will hold logicallyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

probably, yes. the text doesn't actually say. my implication is that the text does not support an idea of god being inherently, absolutely moral, and being the basis for that morality. tell me, if you click an ad on the internet that says you won a car, but you don't get a car, is that a hint that you won a spiritual car?if this question sounds like nonsense, that's because it is. "spiritual car" is a nonsense concept. similarly, "spiritual death" is a nonsense concept in the context of the old testament, specifically in genesis 2 and 3. you need only look back one chapter to find that it is the "spirit" (the breath of god, these are the same word) that makes man physically alive. if adam died spiritually, he would be dead physically as well. without that spirit, he is merely dust of the ground. yes. read the bible closely; he shows up physically several times.is your implication that god is not able to act in, or appear in the real world? that god is not real? because that would be interesting. defining god is a little tricky. perhaps that's why he chose a name for himself that simply expresses that he exists ("yahweh" is a peculiar conjugation of the verb "to be"), and when asked this question by moshe, he says, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, "i am that i am."but where does god reside? that one's easier. he has a throne on top of heaven, which in the old testament and possibly the new is a physical place. genesis 1 describes ancient israelite cosmology, and heaven is the solid object that keeps the primordial ocean out of the skies. during the exodus, yahweh resides with israel, physically leading them out of egypt as a pillar of smoke by day, and a pillar of fire by night. when they are wandering in the desert, yahweh resides for a bit at mount horeb or sinai, where he speaks to moshe, delivers him the law, and even lets moshe see him once or twice. when they build the tabernacle, and then the temple in jerusalem, yahweh resides in the inner sanctum of the temple.this metaphysical, spiritual world concept of god doesn't really come about until that temple is destroyed. because... where was yahweh? no, the old testament is about 60 of their books. either way, you should read it sometime. i do not think you have read the part of the old testament that come before this, nevermind the parts that come after. as i wrote above to raphael, you absolutely have to understand this in context: yahweh is wrestling with the concepts of morality and ethics. it is extremely wise to consult others in this, even for a being that is effectively omnipotent. in several prior stories he reacts harshly one way or the other, and bargaining -- a middle, moderate route -- is new territory for yahweh. in genesis 4, he protects a murderer from retribution. in genesis 6, he kills nearly all life on earth for the sake of the sinners. which route is the most just? justice is always a bargain, and it is an extremely progressive idea that we should debate the point about what degree of error is acceptable in the pursuit of justice.and yes, "error" is the right word. is it not within yahweh's power to kill only the sinners, and leave sodom standing? what does abraham benefit from it?no, abraham is bargaining for abraham's benefit. he's trying to protect his nephew lot. yahweh is his opponent in this debate, not his partner. it may be silly in your mind, but it's a strong implication of what the text actually says. why else would he bring it to abraham? did yahweh consult noah about the flood? did yahweh consult adam and chavah about their son qayin? did he consult anyone about babel?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

Speaking for myself here, I guess I am defending Christian theology.
So some comments.
(By the way, hello again). When Paul says that " ... you, though dead in your offenses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1) it is not reasonable to assume this being "dead" was a death that ONLY started to happen in the New Testament age.There is every reason to believe Paul's teaching of "dead in ... offenses and sins" reaches back down the ages all the way to the fall of Adam.Now if you reject the New Testament's teaching then you might have some ground to argue that "spiritual death" is at least not talked about in the Old Testament. That is "might" . But Ephesians 2:1 would mean spiritual death (for he cannot mean they were physically dead) is a part of human history as long as man has been a sinner.Then again what is death really ? Mary E. McDonough writes: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Dawn, the poster said - Actually, I agree with this in this sense -God WANTED Abraham to intercede for Lot.
Why ?Because God ... Wants ... Christ.All the positive partriarchs and saints of the Old Testament are in one way or another pointers to the One who is central to the whole Bible - Jesus Christ the Son of God.So we see something of Christ in Enoch.
So we see something else of Christ in Noah.
So we see some of Christ in Abraham.
So we see something of Christ in David.
We see something of Christ in Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah,
We see a little of Christ in Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Deborah, Samson even.In positive aspects of all the heroes of the Tanach we see aspects of the final Son of God to come.So I agree that God "needed" an intercessor for those in Sodom who were to be saved. That is why, I believe, God went down to speak with Abraham His friend as He did in chapter 18.Now I would speak to the "arrogance" issue which I think is located in the concept that Abraham accused God.These are the following expressions Genesis uses to portray not an accusative man assuming to condemn God, but humbly petitioning Him, knowing his own place -Verse 27 - " Now behold, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord, though I am but dust and ashes." Verse 30 - "Oh may the Lord not be angry if I speak." Verse 31 - "Now behold, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord." Verse 32 - "Oh let the Lord not be angry if I speak yet once more." These are humble utterances. They are not consistent with a man accusing God to His face ( in that manifestation of Himself as a man ) that He is EVIL, UNJUST, and moral monster. I can't see how anyone can read that into the text.At best, Abraham wants to assure himself that his nephew and family (who were at least believers in God themselves ) would be spared from the punishment coming on Sodom. " Far be it from You to do such a thing, to put to death the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked. Far be it from You! Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justly?" (v.25) I don't see in this verse any accusation against God.We latter see in the book of Jonah that God knew the count of people whom He should exempt from the judgment of Nineveh, at least 120,000 people.

quote:

---

"And I, should I not have pity on Nineveh, the great city, in which are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, and many cattle? " (Joshua 3:11)

---

The arrogance, I think, lies in trying to place the new atheist accusations of God being the "moral monster" into the mouth of Abraham, the father of faith.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

in other words, this is a concept only added by the new testament, and not present in the old. okay.

that's not exactly my argument. but he is plainly accusing god of injustice.the humble utterances are clearly because he is afraid of yahweh, and to soften the blow of the argument he is about to make: that yahweh himself has spoken blasphemy. because you are reading it in a translation, like every one i've read, that softens the blow further."far be it from you" is חָלִלָה. this is the hebrew word for ritual desecration. it is not a word used softly. it's used a bit like this:

quote:

---

And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods; (Joshua 24:16)

---

for things that are serious matters, like breaking the first commandment. normally things that god himself has forbidden as abominations. and this is what abraham is charging yahweh with. that was, i think, what dawn bertot was saying. but i am neither a "new atheist", nor am i putting words into the mouth of abraham. that is simply what abraham said, "חָלִלָה לְּךָ", that god was desecrating himself.

"The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".. Surely it doesnt mean just his breathOf course he showed up physically, because we see with eyes, how could we see a spirit unless he allowed itPerhaps a Spirit can have shape and form, without being physical In your limited opinion, yes. The Old Testament does not agree with you Your problem is a simple one. You have isolated passages that give God human qualities at times, its called anthropomophism. When take all the Old Testament has to say about him, your humanistic, limited picture goes awayWhat if we only spoke about the JEALOUSY of god and Never spoke of his mercy, infinite wisdom etc What does Abraham benifit from being asked to sacrifice his son? Seriously Arac. God already knows Abraham is struggling with the problem, Just maybe he will learn to trust God in his infinite wisdomAs in prophecy Arac, everything is always about God, not the incident, not the person, not the situation, just God ultimately and finally Why did God (Jesus) spend so much time confirming Peters faith, when all of the Disciples, were of little faith? He knew Peter needed more reassurance, Perhaps he had different purposes for Peter than the othersYou have to trust Gods infinite wisdom, not your limited perceptions of himEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You may very well be correct and you have directly confirmed what I have said to Arac, its always about God, with an indirect application or lesson for existence and or humansI think if we move past that idea to far, we start to sound like Job's three friends. You are suffering Job, because..............I think the two most used expressions in the hereafter will be , "Oh NOW I see" and "Now I get it"Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.