How would God respond to Stephen Fry?

[Lees]

The teaching that man inherited sin, or a sin nature is primarily a Saul/Paul teaching. A clear and unambiguous teaching of this missing from the OT and from the Gospels.

Which makes inherited sin, or the doctrine of imputation , which is closely connected to it, Biblical. There are many doctrines that are rooted in the Old Testament and are made clearer in the New Testament.

Lees

 

[Messy]

As for a reality in which sin doesn't affect others, I'm not sure what you imagine a world like this could be like.

Yes exactly. Sin has influence on others. It would have been possible for Adam to never sin. He wasn't mislead. If he just had said that he wanted no wife, he'd still be alive and alone on earth, chilling with the animals. Problems always come when there's more than 1 person.

 

[Stravinsk]

Which makes inherited sin, or the doctrine of imputation , which is closely connected to it, Biblical.

No argument there, as every Bible I know of contains the words of this Benjamite Pharisee. So sure, it's biblical in the sense that it's contained in the bible. Congratulations on once again being Captain Obvious.

There are many doctrines that are rooted in the Old Testament and are made clearer in the New Testament.

Lees

What root would that be?

On the clarity of one New Testament writer:

James says this:
James 1:12-15
Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for, having been proved, he shall receive the crown of life, which He has promised to them that love him.
Let no man, being tempted, say, I am tempted of God. For God cannot be tempted by evil things, and himself tempts no one.
But every one is tempted, drawn away, and enticed by his own lust;
then lust, having conceived, gives birth to sin; but sin fully completed brings forth death.

Pretty clear to me that if God wanted to be responsible for a sinful inclination, He'd set up sin as some sort of inherited condition. Inherited conditions aren't something one can change. Therefore a person has certain traits based on inheritance, like blue eyes instead of brown, black hair instead of blond, skin color etc. But original sin is the doctrine that the sinful inclination is inherited for all humans, which can only be a part of God's design and need for salvation.

....which places ultimate responsibility on God for the sinful inclination inheritance problem. James refutes this. He makes it clear that it has nothing to do with God. So in a sense you are right, except the NT I was referring to is James, and yours is a Pharisee's.

 

[Lees]

No argument there, as every Bible I know of contains the words of this Benjamite Pharisee. So sure, it's biblical in the sense that it's contained in the bible. Congratulations on once again being Captain Obvious.


What root would that be?

On the clarity of one New Testament writer:

James says this:
James 1:12-15
Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for, having been proved, he shall receive the crown of life, which He has promised to them that love him.
Let no man, being tempted, say, I am tempted of God. For God cannot be tempted by evil things, and himself tempts no one.
But every one is tempted, drawn away, and enticed by his own lust;
then lust, having conceived, gives birth to sin; but sin fully completed brings forth death.

Pretty clear to me that if God wanted to be responsible for a sinful inclination, He'd set up sin as some sort of inherited condition. Inherited conditions aren't something one can change. Therefore a person has certain traits based on inheritance, like blue eyes instead of brown, black hair instead of blond, skin color etc. But original sin is the doctrine that the sinful inclination is inherited for all humans, which can only be a part of God's design and need for salvation.

....which places ultimate responsibility on God for the sinful inclination inheritance problem. James refutes this. He makes it clear that it has nothing to do with God. So in a sense you are right, except the NT I was referring to is James, and yours is a Pharisee's.

Yes, because it is Biblical then it doesn't matter who the human writer is. The Author is God.

I told you. The doctrine of Imputation. See (Lev. 16) which concerns the sacrifice of the two goats which reperesent God removing sin from Israel.

See the (Gospels) where Jesus the One died for all.

If Adam did not represent all of his race when he sinned, then Jesus cannot represent all of His race when He redeems. If all were not made sinners in Adam, then all cannot be redeemed in Christ.

Concerning the verses in James, James says nothing against sin being inheirited from Adam. He is addressing man being tempted to sin and then acting on his sin nature. James is clear that God is not tempting the man to sin. So, James obviously does not refute inheirited sin.

As far as God being responsible for inheirited sin, yes, of course He is. In this way the One can redeem the many. God has big shoulders and can bear the ultimately responsibility.

Lees

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

As for a reality in which sin doesn't affect others, I'm not sure what you imagine a world like this could be like.

The very moment a person tries to sin, they are transported into a virtual reality in which everything except for themselves is not real, but merely a vision. The humans, animals etc. in that virtual reality feel 100% real, but are merely the sinner's hallucinations. After they finish sinning, they are returned to the real world with all memories of the sin preserved as if they were real, but they aren't. The real world would have no crimes. It would have people that kept disappearing and reappearing all the time.

 

[Lees]

The very moment a person tries to sin, they are transported into a virtual reality in which everything except for themselves is not real, but merely a vision. The humans, animals etc. in that virtual reality feel 100% real, but are merely the sinner's hallucinations. After they finish sinning, they are returned to the real world with all memories of the sin preserved as if they were real, but they aren't. The real world would have no crimes. It would have people that kept disappearing and reappearing all the time.

Don't bogart that joint...my friend...pass it over to me....

Lees

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I would never put my already poor health is peril by smoking and doing drugs. Weed is not even legal in my country, nor do I care if it were cause I would never touch it.

 

[Lees]

I would never put my already poor health is peril by smoking and doing drugs. Weed is not even legal in my country, nor do I care if it were cause I would never touch it.

Sorry, I could have swore you were on drugs.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

As far as God being responsible for inheirited sin, yes, of course He is. In this way the One can redeem the many. God has big shoulders and can bear the ultimately responsibility.

Lees

Now we get to the original point, and I see you are being honest about it. This idea (of God being ultimately responsible for sin) through the inheritance mechanism is inconsistent with a holy, benevolent deity who grants humans a free will in which to make choices. Each sin, no matter what it is, can ultimately be traced to a nature man didn't give himself, although he made some choice to embrace it. James uses clear language to say that a man sins out of his own lust, and God has nothing to do with that. You can twist it and say "his own sinful nature", but if the sin nature is inherited, and God is ultimately responsible for that, then it isn't really "his own".

 

[Messy]

Now we get to the original point, and I see you are being honest about it. This idea (of God being ultimately responsible for sin) through the inheritance mechanism is inconsistent with a holy, benevolent deity who grants humans a free will in which to make choices. Each sin, no matter what it is, can ultimately be traced to a nature man didn't give himself, although he made some choice to embrace it. James uses clear language to say that a man sins out of his own lust, and God has nothing to do with that. You can twist it and say "his own sinful nature", but if the sin nature is inherited, and God is ultimately responsible for that, then it isn't really "his own".

How is God responsible for it? That's like saying it's God's fault when your kid gets sick because you drink alcohol while pregnant. It was Adam's fault to listen to satan and since then we don't get born holy and in a perfect relationship with God and everyone's body dies.

 

[Stravinsk]

How is God responsible for it? That's like saying it's God's fault when your kid gets sick because you drink alcohol while pregnant. It was Adam's fault to listen to satan and since then we don't get born holy and in a perfect relationship with God and everyone's body dies.

Yes, well, if Adam and Eve were holy and in a perfect relationship with God then they wouldn't have disobeyed, would they? According to original sin, it came from a single decision of two people who passed it on. Thus the believer in original sin can say...it's Adam's fault, or Eve's fault, or God's fault because it was part of his plan or whatever. But they don't think...if original sin didn't exist before Adam and Eve, why did they sin?

I think the whole blaming God thing inherent in Paul's teaching about OS is just blasphemous. How can one repent of a bad choice and take full responsibility if deep down...it's either an ancestor's fault or God's fault?

Romans 9:19-22 comes to mind. I find this a horrible untrue teaching.

 

[Lees]

Now we get to the original point, and I see you are being honest about it. This idea (of God being ultimately responsible for sin) through the inheritance mechanism is inconsistent with a holy, benevolent deity who grants humans a free will in which to make choices. Each sin, no matter what it is, can ultimately be traced to a nature man didn't give himself, although he made some choice to embrace it. James uses clear language to say that a man sins out of his own lust, and God has nothing to do with that. You can twist it and say "his own sinful nature", but if the sin nature is inherited, and God is ultimately responsible for that, then it isn't really "his own".

Inherited sin is not inconsistent with God Who is Holy. And just because man inherits his sin nature from Adam doesn't mean it is not his sin nature. And that is what James is addressing. Man's responsibility when being tempted.

The fact that God created angels and man places ultimate responsibility with God. Sin originated with angels. Adam and Eve later sinned. Neither Satan or Adam had anything to do with inherited sin. Could God ever sin? No. But no matter how perfect the creature God makes, angels or man, He does not make them God. The creature is always less than God. Which means he always has the propensity to sin against God. And, always will.

So, a just and holy God provided inherited sin, Adam's sin, as a means to provide inherited righteousness, Christ's righteousness for His people.

If God were to make another man and woman as Adam and Eve were, perfect, there again is His responsibility found for sin. The fact that He created them and they are not God.

Strange isn't it how that was the first sin committed in the universe. (Is. 14:14) "I will be like the most High"

Lees

 

[Messy]

Yes, well, if Adam and Eve were holy and in a perfect relationship with God then they wouldn't have disobeyed, would they? According to original sin, it came from a single decision of two people who passed it on. Thus the believer in original sin can say...it's Adam's fault, or Eve's fault, or God's fault because it was part of his plan or whatever. But they don't think...if original sin didn't exist before Adam and Eve, why did they sin?

I think the whole blaming God thing inherent in Paul's teaching about OS is just blasphemous. How can one repent of a bad choice and take full responsibility if deep down...it's either an ancestor's fault or God's fault?

Romans 9:19-22 comes to mind. I find this a horrible untrue teaching.

Ah you mean that. Yes on first glance it sounds evil and horrid, especially how Calvin explained it. God just throws dice and decides to make some people evil against their own will, like puppets and there's nothing they can do about it. That I don't believe. That's nonsense and indeed blasphemous.
I think they sinned because they were just created and without simply obeying God's one rule there was no way for them to really know how good God is, that He would even die for them to get them back. For instance when my kids were small, they were not perfect, but they knew me, so they just listened when I said don't take candy from a stranger. Yet God said actually the same thing and they trusted satan. They didn't really know Him yet.