The Fall, Man and Sin

[American Samurai]

We are all born as Hell bound Sinners.

[texan]

Since there seems to be a significant leap occurring from mankind's nature to shared guilt with Adam for his actions, would anyone claiming the two are inseparable like to provide scripture proving it which also dismisses scripture stating the opposite? There's certainly evidence given in this thread in the form of Bible verse attesting to the opposite being true and they haven't been dismissed through actual debate.




There are some unfair debate tactics being used in this thread:

- You cannot dismiss someone's argument by making blanket claims without supplying real evidence of this. 'Out of context' is a claim requiring explanation and evidence for each claimed incident, not a generalization which renders anything your opponent chooses to quote from scripture merely misunderstood.

- You cannot dismiss someone's direct evidence by supplying links to another argument. These links are often one sided or leave the issue unresolved (stating opinion as fact does not make it so), it's only fair to make your counter argument your own or concede that you're not really debating in good faith. Anyone can drown their opponent in links from other sources which agree with a given perspective, but it won't get further than ad nauseam rhetoric on source veracity rather than substance.

[texan]

Psalm 51

1 Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.
4 Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.

5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
6 Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,
And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.
7 Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Make me to hear joy and gladness,
Let the bones which You have broken rejoice.
9 Hide Your face from my sins
And blot out all my iniquities.

10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.
13 Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners will be converted to You.

14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation;
Then my tongue will joyfully sing of Your righteousness.
15 O Lord, open my lips,
That my mouth may declare Your praise.
16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

18 By Your favor do good to Zion;
Build the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then You will delight in righteous sacrifices,
In burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then young bulls will be offered on Your altar.

This has already been discussed to an extent. First off this doesn't appear to be speaking for all mankind, David is only talking about himself. Nor is it necessarily meant to be taken literally as the Psalms are poetic verse.

[American Samurai]

Hey Texan, what are you debating? That man is not a sinner?

[texan]

Hey Texan, what are you debating? That man is not a sinner?

See post #6

[American Samurai]

perhaps I should clarify what to me is the only rationally causal chain which can exist within biblical teachings given the scripture I've read.

1) God creates for you a soul
2) God is good and so are all his creations, therefore your soul starts out good and uncorrupted
3) Your flesh and blood nature, however, leads to temptation
4) Given enough time and free will to choose, sinful action is inevitable
5) Your free will to engage in this action leads to your and only your damnation (for if another's action could damn your soul you would be robbed of the will behind that action)
6) Atonement for these sins has been built into our world through the sacrifice of Christ since the time of his death
7) That atonement by extension excuses the very nature of the flesh and blood you if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior

If your soul was instead corrupt and damned at the time of your beginning, God has done this and would not be the one of the Bible. Further, sin is action, undertaking such action is what damns the otherwise good and clear soul. However simple action is not enough to constitute sin, one must understand the actions they take as being sinful yet undertake them anyway. Therefore both action and moral agency are required for something to be considered a sin, yet the latter doesn't exist in you at the time of your birth or anywhere near it.

Thus children aren't born damned, your soul will not be damned for the actions of another and your soul is always yours to redeem.

Good luck trying to argue this with the Almighty, lol.

[hasserl]

Since there seems to be a significant leap occurring from mankind's nature to shared guilt with Adam for his actions, would anyone claiming the two are inseparable like to provide scripture proving it which also dismisses scripture stating the opposite? There's certainly evidence given in this thread in the form of Bible verse attesting to the opposite being true and they haven't been dismissed through actual debate.




There are some unfair debate tactics being used in this thread:

- You cannot dismiss someone's argument by making blanket claims without supplying real evidence of this. 'Out of context' is a claim requiring explanation and evidence for each claimed incident, not a generalization which renders anything your opponent chooses to quote from scripture merely misunderstood.

- You cannot dismiss someone's direct evidence by supplying links to another argument. These links are often one sided or leave the issue unresolved (stating opinion as fact does not make it so), it's only fair to make your counter argument your own or concede that you're not really debating in good faith. Anyone can drown their opponent in links from other sources which agree with a given perspective, but it won't get further than ad nauseam rhetoric on source veracity rather than substance.

You're not an expert of hermaneutics, and you don't get to set the rules for debate here. The fact is there is danger anytime you pull scripture verses out of context. To properly understand the meaning you need to consider who is doing the writing, who the intended audience was, & what was the issue being addressed. You need to look at the entire passage, not just 1 or 2 verses, better yet, read the entire chapter and consider how those 1 or 2 verses fit into the chapter. Even better, read the entire book. Then compare what you think you've taken from those passages and compare to what has been written in other texts. Failure to do this results in much misinformation and disinformation and false teachings.

Rather than drowning anyone in links, I gave several examples of how this topic is dealt with from different perspectives from different branches within the Christian faith. Take the time to read each of them and you'll probably find what you're looking for. This so called "debate" is not a debate within Christendom. Someone who is not Christian, nor of any faith, trying to make an argument about the Christian faith, has no understanding of the context of the topic he wants to argue about.

[American Samurai]

I don't debate, so don't think I'm trying to, I just like participating in discussion.

A common misconception that a lot of people and also Christians have is that Jesus Christ died for "everyone". That is not the case at all, that would lead to Universalism (the belief that All of Man will be saved).

[WASR10]

Acrimony isn't necessary to discuss this, is it? If so, I'm out.

So you want me to post a list of verses, all out of context, and go against my own advice about not pulling scripture out of context?

I was simply asking for scriptural reference to what you assert. When it comes to doctrinal matters, I put little value on the opinions of men, and great value on the Word of God.

Here is an article on... .

Thank you for these links. I will read what these men have to say.

While there are a lot of things that different Christian church bodies disagree on, the sinful condition of man is not one of them. It is pretty universally agreed on that that is the summarization of what the entirety of holy scriptures teaches.

Original sin is actually a frequently debated topic, ever since Augustine of Hippo began writing about it in the 4th - 5th centuries. It continues today to be discussed among different denominations. Mainstream Christianity has come to accept the idea, but popularity doesn't equate truth.

Thanks for the response. If I have anything to add to the articles you have provided, I will share.

[WASR10]

You're not an expert of hermaneutics, and you don't get to set the rules for debate here. The fact is there is danger anytime you pull scripture verses out of context. To properly understand the meaning you need to consider who is doing the writing, who the intended audience was, & what was the issue being addressed. You need to look at the entire passage, not just 1 or 2 verses, better yet, read the entire chapter and consider how those 1 or 2 verses fit into the chapter. Even better, read the entire book. Then compare what you think you've taken from those passages and compare to what has been written in other texts. Failure to do this results in much misinformation and disinformation and false teachings.

I hope my scripture references inspire someone to read the passage, chapter and book to see if I use the verses correctly. I am confident they will.

Rather than drowning anyone in links, I gave several examples of how this topic is dealt with from different perspectives from different branches within the Christian faith. Take the time to read each of them and you'll probably find what you're looking for. This so called "debate" is not a debate within Christendom. Someone who is not Christian, nor of any faith, trying to make an argument about the Christian faith, has no understanding of the context of the topic he wants to argue about.

I don't know if this is in reference to myself, but I assure you that it does not apply to me.

[texan]

Good luck trying to argue this with the Almighty, lol.

I gave direct scripture substantiating the portion you bolded.

Ezekiel 18:19 - 20

[American Samurai]

I gave direct scripture substantiating the portion you bolded.

Ezekiel 18:19 - 20

You can't just take that verse out to argue that man is without sin; hasserl is right, it isn't hermeneutically sound.

[American Samurai]

The whole span of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about Jesus Christ and Man's hopelessness without Him. The old testament is the new testament concealed, the new testament is the old testament revealed.

[texan]

You're not an expert of hermaneutics, and you don't get to set the rules for debate here. The fact is there is danger anytime you pull scripture verses out of context. To properly understand the meaning you need to consider who is doing the writing, who the intended audience was, & what was the issue being addressed. You need to look at the entire passage, not just 1 or 2 verses, better yet, read the entire chapter and consider how those 1 or 2 verses fit into the chapter. Even better, read the entire book. Then compare what you think you've taken from those passages and compare to what has been written in other texts. Failure to do this results in much misinformation and disinformation and false teachings.

Rather than drowning anyone in links, I gave several examples of how this topic is dealt with from different perspectives from different branches within the Christian faith. Take the time to read each of them and you'll probably find what you're looking for. This so called "debate" is not a debate within Christendom. Someone who is not Christian, nor of any faith, trying to make an argument about the Christian faith, has no understanding of the context of the topic he wants to argue about.

My level of hermeneutic expertise isn't something you need to guess about nor is it relevant to this discussion. I've openly and honestly stated my position, explained the logic behind it rationally and given scripture to support it. Not everyone here can say that, yet you're labeling me as unqualified?

I'm not setting the rules for debate, I'm pointing out long recognized intellectually dishonest tactics which you may choose to engage in to your own folly. I am no authority in this forum but I have a right to express my opinion and will continue to do so honestly and while providing evidence for my assertions. We should all feel free to do the same.

You are still guilty of claiming that WASR10's and evidently also my scriptural quotes are somehow out of context without providing the slightest amount of direct evidence to that fact.

Do you deny that this topic breaks down to different perspectives along denominational and personal lines? This is most certainly an active debate in Christendom, just look at this thread. Differing opinions have already been expressed by Christians here in less than a day of activity.

[texan]

You can't just take that verse out to argue that man is without sin; hasserl is right, it isn't hermeneutically sound.

I'm not saying man is without sin. I clearly stated this in post #6 by referring to the sinful nature of the flesh (see points 3 and 4). What I am questioning, apparently to little avail, is how the innately sinful nature of man gets extrapolated to shared guilt of the father for actions not your own when a direct scriptural quote very clearly states this isn't so.

How is sin inherited yet not inherited? There is a breakdown in logic here.



Edit: Arguments from authority will henceforth be ignored. In fact I should probably take a day off from this thread to let the 'experts' here come to an agreement before they tell me what I can and can't possibly know.