A rejection of Original Sin and Atonement Theology

[TLK Valentine]

Pretty simple.

It raises the question of what forms your "conscience" as a "Christian," your personal opinion or the NT?

And, if you were a Christian, you would be a "Christian" who does not believe the NT in Romans 5:18 and Romans 3:25.

Fortunately, 1. I'm not a Christian, and 2. If I was a Christian, I'd rather believe in Christ than in Paul.

 

[Clare73]

Fortunately, 1. I'm not a Christian, and 2. If I was a Christian, I'd rather believe in Christ than in Paul.

Christians don't decide for themselves what is true and what is not in the word of God written.

Christians receive and believe all the NT word of God written, not just some of it.

 

[hedrick]

There's various versions of the doctrine. Some are impossible. Since it's virtually certain that there wasn't an individual Adam, versions that say we sin only because Adam made a bad choice are false. But the broader point that we all have a tendency to do the wrong thing is obviously true. I agree that although Paul seems to have believed in a literal Adam, his real doctrine was simply that everyone sins. It's hard to argue against that.

But there are other nuances. How radical do we think the problem is? You can reasonably take the position that we were never intended to be perfect. Humans learn by trial and error. That's actually a strength for the species. So does that just mean that we need to beware of the dangers, try to keep them under control, and repent when we fail? OT religion can reasonably be read that way. So, I think, can Jesus.

But traditional Protestantism, following at least one reading of Augustine, say that the tendency to sin makes us completely unacceptable. It means that even when God offers us forgiveness and grace we'll reject it. To become acceptable to God, we need a complete makeover, which only God can initiate. While traditional Protestants have the most aggressive form of this, traditional Catholicism had at least a form of it, in saying that (in principle, with various possible exceptions), we have to be baptized in order to be acceptable to God, because only in baptism is that stain removed.

I don't think OT religion says this, despite individual passages that can be read that way. I don't think Jesus says this. It's not so clear that even Paul says it, though there are currently lots of controversies about how to understand Paul. But certainly in the West, post Augustine that was the usual view in one manner or
another. I don't think mainline Protestantism would accept this idea.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Christians don't decide for themselves what is true and what is not in the word of God written.

Christians receive and believe all the NT word of God written, not just some of it.

If that is so (and I do not believe it to be so), then I will add it to the list of reasons I am not, nor can ever in good conscience be, a Christian.

 

[Clare73]

If that is so (and I do not believe it to be so), then I will add it to the list of reasons
I am not, nor can ever in good conscience be, a Christian.

Perhaps some tares are claiming to be wheat.

Just be sure that it is your conscience you are following.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Perhaps some tares are claiming to be wheat.

Just be sure that it is your conscience you are following.

I will follow it as opposed to another person's -- including yours.

 

[Clare73]

I will follow it as opposed to another person's -- including yours.

Which is as it should be.

 

[Ed1wolf]

This doesn't make sense -- if sin was created in Heaven, why can't it be destroyed there?

What does this world have that Heaven lacks?

Love. Angels cannot love. Only free will love of God can destroy evil forever.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Love. Angels cannot love.

How do you know this?

Only free will love of God can destroy evil forever.

Well, that's even worse... and more nonsensical.

• First, God (who is Love), creates being incapable of Love.
• These beings attempt to wreck His home, so He banishes them.
• God then gets to work on a new creation (our universe) to house beings (us) who are capable of love, so that we can fix the problem caused by his first creations.
• BUT... He forgets to lock the workshop door, and His first creations sneak into our universe and infect it with the very problem He banished them for in the first place.
• SO.... Now we have to choose to Love Him so that we can fix the problem caused by His first creation...
  • and if we don't....
    
• And of course, God, being God, knew all of this was going to turn out as it did even before He started, so none of this is a mistake that needs fixing, but rather a carefully arranged set of hoops we are expected to jump through for His pleasure, because... reasons.

Even Original Sin makes more sense than that.

 

[Eloy Craft]

"perfect" how?



Perhaps we're not incomplete -- perhaps we only think we are.

A bear can act only like a bear. Every bear, in whatever condition, is a perfect and complete example of bearness.

We are complete. What power do we lack that would make us more human? A better reason for our imperfection isn't because we are incomplete but because we are damaged.

 

[TLK Valentine]

A bear can act only like a bear. Every bear, in whatever condition, is a perfect and complete example of bearness.

You're assuming the Platonic idea that we have a designated "essence" that we are judged according to how well we fulfill it... A bear doesn't know how to be anything but a bear... but they can learn a new trick or two...

But since we're "smarter than the average bear," so to speak, we get to choose who we wish to be.

We are complete. What power do we lack that would make us more human? A better reason for our imperfection isn't because we are incomplete but because we are damaged.

Maybe we're just plain wrong. Maybe (and I'm going the Soto Zen route here), we already are what we are meant to be, and simply have difficulty recognizing it.

 

[ChetSinger]

I'm clearly not what anyone here would call a "Christian," but even if I was, I could not in good conscience accept the idea of "Original Sin" or the need to atone for it. This is why:

(I posted this in another thread some time ago; forgive the copy/paste)

Secular science and observation has shown us that:

• Life on Earth is in a constant state of change. New species rise, grow and adapt, while old species die out and go extinct. This planet has had five such extinction events in its past, and is currently in the middle of the sixth, arguably caused by... us.
• The Earth itself is in a constant state of flux. Tectonic plates shift, mountains rise and fall (very slowly, but they rise and fall nonetheless), rivers flood and dry out, the climate warms and cools, turning forests into deserts and tundra into grassland... you get the picture.
• The entire universe is ever-growing and changing. Stars, solar systems, entire galaxies, trillions in number, of which we are but the tiniest most insignificant speck in the biggest of all big pictures, are at this moment, being born, forming, going through predictable life cycles, and fizzling out on a time scale one would need a scientific calculator to even get a grip on...

Now, what does all this mean?

• "Creation" is an ongoing process, continuing to this day.
• If Creation is ongoing, then there was never a time when it was "finished."
• If it was never "finished," then it was never "perfect."
• If it was never "perfect," then there was never any kind of fall from that nonexistent "perfection."
• As there was no "fall," there was no "Original Sin," which caused it.
• Without a "fall," then Jesus' purpose on this Earth could not have been to "restore" Creation or any part of it to a "perfection" that never existed in the first place.
• This would necessarily mean that "Jesus died for our (Original) sins" is nonsensical.

I've heard it said (and I agree) that because "creation" is ongoing, its condition is not "fallen," but rather, incomplete. Jesus, therefore, is not the way to "reconcile" us with a God our mythical ancestors (Adam & Eve) sinned against, but to complete the work and bring creation to the perfect state of oneness with God that it never had before, but will someday... I can see that.

Thoughts?

Hello!

That "original sin" implies guilt at birth is a Western idea. The Eastern church doesn't subscribe to it. Neither does the Anabaptist church that I attend. It's one of the reasons we don't baptize babies: we don't think it's necessary. We believe we accumulate guilt as we age, due to our increasing number of bad choices ("whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.").

Also, just because the universe is changing does that mean it's still being "created"? What does "creation" mean, anyway, from an ancient Hebrew perspective? Creation, whatever it really includes, has a Biblical definition and is defined as being finished after humanity was created. I think if we're talking about something different then we need to find a different word to describe it.

 

[Clare73]

Love. Angels cannot love. Only free will love of God can destroy evil forever.

Who made that rule?

 

[Clare73]

Hello!

That "original sin" implies guilt at birth is a Western idea. The Eastern church doesn't subscribe to it. Neither does the Anabaptist church that I attend.

Correction: that "original sin" implies guilt at birth is a Biblical idea. . .where all mankind are made sinners and condemned
(Romans 5:18-19), being by nature (birth) objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

It's one of the reasons we don't baptize babies: we don't think it's necessary. We believe we accumulate guilt as we age, due to our increasing number of bad choices ("whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.").

Also, just because the universe is changing does that mean it's still being "created"? What does "creation" mean, anyway, from an ancient Hebrew perspective? Creation, whatever it really includes, has a Biblical definition and is defined as being finished after humanity was created. I think if we're talking about something different then we need to find a different word to describe it.

 

[ChetSinger]

Correction: that "original sin" implies guilt at birth is a Biblical idea. . .where all mankind are made sinners and condemned
(Romans 5:18-19), being by nature (birth) objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

If I must be precise then I'll word it like this:

The Western and Eastern traditions interpret Romans 5 in different ways. In the Western tradition original sin implies guilt upon birth; in the Eastern tradition original sin implies mortality upon birth.​

My Anabaptist church, while originating from the Western tradition, is actually closer to the Eastern tradition in this belief.

If you read Romans 5 carefully you might notice that Adam's sin doesn't result in guilt for all men; it results in death for all men. The word guilt never appears.

This is one of the big but largely unknown differences between the two traditions. It's why the Eastern tradition doesn't have the Immaculate Conception; it's unnecessary because they don't believe Mary was born guilty in the first place.

 

[eleos1954]

Knowing in advance what choices they were going to make.

If you give a gun to a man you know is going to use it to shoot someone, do you not share in the responsibility?



Indeed -- we are all responsible for our choices; God is no exception.

your example involves choice .... I would choose not to.

Love is not a forced issue .... it requires choice.

God IS love.

Without choice ... we would be nothing but a bunch of pre-programmed robots.

 

[Clare73]

If I must be precise then I'll word it like this:

The Western and Eastern traditions interpret Romans 5 in different ways. In the Western tradition original sin implies guilt upon birth; in the Eastern tradition original sin implies mortality upon birth.​

My Anabaptist church, while originating from the Western tradition, is actually closer to the Eastern tradition in this belief.
If you read Romans 5 carefully you might notice that Adam's sin doesn't result in guilt for all men; it results in death for all men. The word guilt never appears.

Are you sure about that?

In addition to death in Romans 5:17, Adam's sin leads to condemnation (katakrima) for all men in Romans 5:18, and to
being made sinners in Romans 5:19.

The condemnation of Romans 5:18 is about the guilt of Adam's sin presented in Romans 5:12-14.

This is one of the big but largely unknown differences between the two traditions. It's why the Eastern tradition
doesn't have the Immaculate Conception; it's unnecessary because they don't believe Mary was born guilty in the first place.

Well, the Eastern "tradition" is in contradiction of Scripture in Romans 5:18.

In Romans 5:12-14, the guilt of Adam's sin is reckoned/accounted/imputed to all those in Adam, just as righteousness is
reckoned/accounted/imputed to all those in Christ. . .in the same way as righteousness was reckoned/accounted/imputed to
Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3) by faith apart from works (Romans 4:5).

Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-14 is:

Death is the result of sin (Romans 6:23).
Sin is transgression of the law.
Therefore, where there is no law, there can be no sin (5:13b).
There was no law from Adam to Moses, therefore, there was no sin.

But sin was in the world (5:13) before the law was given, because all died from Adam to Moses, and death is the result of sin.
How was sin in the world when there was no law to sin against?
Sin entered the world through one man (5:12), and all died because of sin, even though they did not sin (transgress the law).
(Romans 5:14)

Adam's sin was accounted/reckoned/imputed to those who did not sin between Adam and Moses because there was no law
to sin against, just as it is accounted/reckoned/imputed to all mankind.

They all died between Adam and Moses because of Adam's sin which was accounted/reckoned/imputed to them.
So Paul demonstrates in Romans 5:12-14 that Adam's sin is imputed to all those in Adam,
which he then clearly states in Romans 5:18, and explains in Romans 5:19.

To impute Adam's sin to all those in Adam is to impute Adam's guilt of that sin, which guilt is the cause of the condemnation
of all those in Adam; i.e., all mankind, in Romans 5:18.

The Eastern "tradition" is not in agreement with the word of God written.

 

[ChetSinger]

...The Eastern "tradition" is not in agreement with the word of God written.

OK.

 

[TLK Valentine]

your example involves choice .... I would choose not to.

Love is not a forced issue .... it requires choice.

God IS love.

Without choice ... we would be nothing but a bunch of pre-programmed robots.

How does this address my post?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Who made that rule?

The bible says that humans are a little superior to the angels, the way that we are superior is that we are fully personal beings created in the image of God so only personal beings can love. While the bible does not explicitly say that angels cannot love, there is no biblical evidence of them loving. Angels are primarily just messengers and warriors for God. There is no need for them to love.