Hell – is it Relevant Today?

[B. W.]

I'm wondering now if you actually know what the doctrine of 'Original Sin' is. You seem to have a very different idea of what it means to the standard Reformed position. The doctrine of 'Original Sin' is not that someone sinned in the beginning, or that sin had an origin.

I agree sin had an origin. I agree that we inherit from Adam a nature which is both mortal and inevitably biased towards sin. I reject the idea that we are all morally culpable for death from birth on the basis of inheriting the guilt of his sin.

My Response: I think Locker wanted to explore all these concepts from all angles. So, can you clarify why you reject the idea that we are all morally culpable for death from birth on the basis of inheriting the guilt of his sin?

Mr. Fortigurn, do you believe that Satan, the devil, is not a being, is not a creature? Who, along with his comrades, walks about seeking whom they may devour? Whom or what to you believe the devil is? Satan?

I believe that 'satan' and 'devil' are terms which are used to describe various entities in Scripture, some real beings and some personifications or zoomorphisms.

My Response: Okay? How so?

This brings us to a unique position to explore — where did sin originate from?

Well Scripture says it arose from the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. In other words, from within the human heart (James 1:14-15).

My Response: Okay - back to square one - what is Original Sin if not these? I think Locker wants to explore these issues more. Are you willing? Locker asked the questions. Let's grant him something to work with. Agreed?

I need to get ready for work — myself — so I need to depart till later; therefore, after work I can devote more time on answering other question/responses, Fortigurn, made concerning use of scriptures I placed on thread from the New Living Translation.
-
-

[puritan lad]

Fortigurn,

Let's keep it simple (Sorry, I didn't read the book you just posted).

What does it mean to be "brought forth in iniquity"? What did David mean when he said that "in sin my mother conceived me"? That is original sin. David was in sin when he was conceived. He was already guilty.

And please don't suggest that David's mother sinned by having sex and reproducing.

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,

Let's keep it simple (Sorry, I didn't read the book you just posted).

What does it mean to be "brought forth in iniquity"? What did David mean when he said that "in sin my mother conceived me"? That is original sin. David was in sin when he was conceived. He was already guilty.

The statement is made in the context of a psalm in which David repents and confesses his sin in hyperbolic and symbolic terms. He speaks of his natural proneness to sin as being with him from birth (which it most certainly is):

Psalm 51:
5 Look, I was prone to do wrong from birth; I was a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.

He speaks of himself as being a sinner from birth in this sense. He does not speak of himself as being guilty from birth.

And please don't suggest that David's mother sinned by having sex and reproducing.

I wouldn't dream of such a thing. That's a good old fashioned Catholic and (allegedly), Reformed Theology position.

[Fortigurn]

So, can you clarify why you reject the idea that we are all morally culpable for death from birth on the basis of inheriting the guilt of his sin?

Firstly, because Scripture nowhere says that we are held morally culpable for death from birth on the basis of inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin.

Secondly, because Scripture makes it clear that the basis of accountability is knowledge and understanding, not 'being born':

John 12:
48 The one who rejects me and does not accept my words has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him at the last day.

Acts 17:
30 Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent,
31 because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Romans 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

Romans 3:
20 For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

Romans 4:
15 For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either.

Romans 5:
12 So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned—
13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin {Greek 'sin is not reckoned'} when there is no law.

Romans 7:
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”

Ephesians 4:
18 They are darkened in their understanding, being alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardness of their hearts.

1 Timothy 1:
12 I am grateful to the one who has strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he considered me faithful in putting me into ministry,
13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and an arrogant man. But I was treated with mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief,
14 and our Lord's grace was abundant, bringing faith and love in Christ Jesus.

James 4:
17 So whoever knows what is good to do and does not do it is guilty of sin.

I hope that's clear.

My Response: Okay? How so?

Do you want a new thread on this?

My Response: Okay - back to square one - what is Original Sin if not these?

Central to the doctrine of 'Original Sin' is the concept that we are held morally culpable for death from birth on the basis of inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin.

I think Locker wants to explore these issues more. Are you willing? Locker asked the questions. Let's grant him something to work with. Agreed?

Certainly.

I need to get ready for work — myself — so I need to depart till later; therefore, after work I can devote more time on answering other question/responses, Fortigurn, made concerning use of scriptures I placed on thread from the New Living Translation.

Why do you use the NLT, since it is based on the manuscript evidence which you consider to be corrupt and flawed?

[Locker]

Greetings all!

I am back. Being in sales causes me much travel. In the USA it is Thanksgiving time so I'll be around for a few days. But, I'll be taking the family to grandmas house for a few days - so keep posting.

I should have qualified my question about Orignial Sin. What I am researching is not so much what each different doctrine is about but rather if there exsist a blending.

I suggest everyone do a Google search on 'Original Sin Doctrine' and you will discover the differing view points. What I am looking for is this, can these different view points be speaking of the same thing? Instead of being different, can they gel together somehow to explain how Sin entered the world through Adam on to the rest of Us (humanity) and then how God's Justice imposes eternal punishment or eternal life in heaven.

What I am looking for is to explore - out of the box -approach to exploring the issue of original sin to see if there something that is being overlooked. So feell free to post your ideas.

B. W. had a good out of the box approach but I was not looking at exploring the origin of sin of the devil and all that. The Original Sin I am looking at, is From Adam on to the rest of us. If time permitts we can explore the devil issue later.

Let's see, in all jesting and good humor, when God confronted Adam after the fall, Adam blamed Eve, Eve told the part of the truth and blamed the devil, and the devil could not blame anyone. The irony of it all!!

For those of us with kids, have you every noticed a rebellious streak in kids appearing young as one? I sure do! Most of which, I confess, I laugh off as cute. Then comes toddler hood! Yikes!!!

Where do these kids learn to behave as they do? Is it inborn? environment" Both? Adam's Sin? What do you think?

[B. W.]

Locker - Sounds like an interesting approach. I apologize for going over board and beginning with how sin began with the devil and his fall.

So you mean that we begin with man's fall and go on from there in a discussion format concerning Original Sin and when it began with humanity in the Garden of Eden. In other words, open discussion like we were exploring this subject without any prior knowledge of it. Well, I am game.

>>>>>>><<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Now on to Mr. Fortigurn's question about my use of the NLT. First, you should have read the Trinity Thread by now and noted that I stated that it is best to use a wide array of bibles and that it is best when using a modern translation that one must note the whole context being quoted. KJV based text bibles help with finding the context easier than the modern one's do.

Why I quote from the NLT, was actually for you! I placed the contextual theme in bold letters. If a person fails to follow the theme/flow of context, the bible can be made to say anything. In the KJV translations — the theme is easier to read.

Hebrews 11-14 “1Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. 2But now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he made the universe and everything in it.” 3“The Son reflects God's own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven. 4 This shows that God's Son is far greater than the angels, just as the name God gave him is far greater than their names. 5For God never said to any angel what he said to Jesus: "You are my Son. Today I have become your Father. "And again God said, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son. "And again God said, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son." 6And then, when he presented his honored Son to the world, God said, "Let all the angels of God worship him." 7God calls his angels "messengers swift as the wind, and servants made of flaming fire." 8But to his Son he says, "Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. Your royal power is expressed in righteousness. 9You love what is right and hate what is wrong. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you, pouring out the oil of joy on you more than on anyone else." 10And,"Lord, in the beginning you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11Even they will perish, but you remain forever. They will wear out like old clothing. 12You will roll them up like an old coat. They will fade away like old clothing. But you are always the same; you will never grow old." 13And God never said to an angel, as he did to his Son, "Sit in honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet. " 14But angels are only servants. They are spirits sent from God to care for those who will receive salvation.” New Living Translation

Guess I was trying to show you — Jesus was no angel and no mere man as the contextual flow clearly shows.

As for the origin of sin concerning the devil — let's leave this alone and stick with Locker's format. Okay?


Also

Link to God and Science Document regarding Original Sin

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... l-sin.html
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Greetings all!

I am back. Being in sales causes me much travel. In the USA it is Thanksgiving time so I'll be around for a few days. But, I'll be taking the family to grandmas house for a few days - so keep posting.

I should have qualified my question about Orignial Sin. What I am researching is not so much what each different doctrine is about but rather if there exsist a blending.

I suggest everyone do a Google search on 'Original Sin Doctrine' and you will discover the differing view points. What I am looking for is this, can these different view points be speaking of the same thing? Instead of being different, can they gel together somehow to explain how Sin entered the world through Adam on to the rest of Us (humanity) and then how God's Justice imposes eternal punishment or eternal life in heaven.

What I am looking for is to explore - out of the box -approach to exploring the issue of original sin to see if there something that is being overlooked. So feell free to post your ideas.

Let's see, in all jesting and good humor, when God confronted Adam after the fall, Adam blamed Eve, Eve told the part of the truth and blamed the devil, and the devil could not blame anyone. The irony of it all!!

For those of us with kids, have you every noticed a rebellious streak in kids appearing young as one? I sure do! Most of which, I confess, I laugh off as cute. Then comes toddler hood! Yikes!!!

Where do these kids learn to behave as they do? Is it inborn? environment" Both? Adam's Sin? What do you think?

Okay, an interesting approach. I'll give it a start as if we were the first people examining the concept of original sin.

Let's note the empirical data in the bible in Genesis Chapter 1 thru 3:

1-God made the serpent and it sinned plus the serpent was in the garden

2-God made Adam and Eve — Humanity — placed them inside Eden

3-He made all the trees in the Garden of Eden and the world

4-There were two special trees - Tree of knowledge and Life

5-God gave a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge because if Adam did, death would ensue.

6-Both Adam and Eve disobeyed God — played the blame game — and in the process serpent was exposed.

7-The 10 Commandments came way after this event

8-Sin is the transgression of the Law

9-What Law was violated before Law was written?

10-God did give Adam a command — a law not to partake of the tree of knowledge

11-Bible teaches that sin is passed down from first parents

12-What was passed down and how?

Outside data — True Life Events

1-Childern at an early age act cankerous, rebellious, from a very early age as most parents note who have children — I agree with this and thought it was cute till taking my little one to the grocery store long ago and he saw a toy!

2-This observable child behavior phenomenon came from some where (I can attest they did not learn it from me!) Would anyone else agree or disagree with this — but please — only those that have children respond or help raise children respond to this single question inquiry, you can respond elsewhere if you do not have this experience.

2-Our mortal life ends and we do die of natural causes unless another sudden event interrupts this process.

3-As anyone familiar with Hospice Care can attest — there is a natural process to Dying and the body deteriorates by a measurable (but varied) progression.

Are there anymore facts we should add here? Please feel free to do so.

Original Sin came from somewhere and seems to be passed on generation to generation, evidenced by our own life courses - what is it? What is Original Sin?

Is it an idea? An act? A substance? What is this Original Sin to begin with?
Remember — we're to assume the roll of explorers who have never heard of any of the doctrines of Original Sin in this exercise,
-
-
-

[Fortigurn]

Can we at least distinguish between a proneness to sin, which I believe the Bible teaches we all inherit from Adam and Eve, and personal guilt for Adam's sin, which I believe the Bible does not teach we inherit from Adam and Eve?

[Locker]

Can we at least distinguish between a proneness to sin, which I believe the Bible teaches we all inherit from Adam and Eve, and personal guilt for Adam's sin, which I believe the Bible does not teach we inherit from Adam and Eve?

However you want too is okay with me as long as everyone uses a civil approach and explores the subject as open minded. I am not lookinng for the right or wrong here, just seeing if there is something missed, gel together, or failed to see before about subject.

[Fortigurn]

Can we at least distinguish between a proneness to sin, which I believe the Bible teaches we all inherit from Adam and Eve, and personal guilt for Adam's sin, which I believe the Bible does not teach we inherit from Adam and Eve?

However you want too is okay with me as long as everyone uses a civil approach and explores the subject as open minded. I am not lookinng for the right or wrong here, just seeing if there is something missed, gel together, or failed to see before about subject.

Thanks, that's very reasonable of you.

[B. W.]

Can we at least distinguish between a proneness to sin, which I believe the Bible teaches we all inherit from Adam and Eve, and personal guilt for Adam's sin, which I believe the Bible does not teach we inherit from Adam and Eve?

However you want too is okay with me as long as everyone uses a civil approach and explores the subject as open minded. I am not looking for the right or wrong here, just seeing if there is something missed, gel together, or failed to see before about subject.

This is sounds okay with me. Even thoe I started this thread, I'll let Locker go ahead and explore these issue as He wants. It is an interesting approach. I'll write more a little later on as I'll be busy today.

[Cook]

Hopefully the earlier parts of the topic on hell won't become forgotten, I was curious how those would develop. But on original sin:

Original Sin came from somewhere and seems to be passed on generation to generation, evidenced by our own life courses - what is it? What is Original Sin?

Is it an idea? An act? A substance? What is this Original Sin to begin with?
Remember — we're to assume the roll of explorers who have never heard of any of the doctrines of Original Sin in this exercise

Okay, an angle from the sense of exploring things with blinders on toward doctrines of original sin. Could it be the assertion of the animal tendencies people have? Not to be confused with material mechanism or evolution, us coming from monkeys or anything; whether that's a belief any of you espouse or reject, there's little doubt people are quite capable of debased and animalistic behavior, and it ain't pretty. Selfishness and being on the lookout for number 1, that's the rule of the jungle, right? And it leads to pride, pleasure seeking, all the rest. As far as I can tell, true selflessness and altruism -- loving others as yourself (which I take to be the opposite of sin) -- is unnatural except as an outcome of moral and spiritual growth. Is original sin the "beast within" that has not yet learned moral and spiritual understandings? That would be why it is more apparent in immature children.

Maybe that's a good word for it; you ask "Is it an idea? An act? A substance? What is this Original Sin to begin with?" -- I'll throw "immaturity" into the pot as a candidate answer.

[B. W.]

Hopefully the earlier parts of the topic on hell won't become forgotten, I was curious how those would develop. But on original sin:

Original Sin came from somewhere and seems to be passed on generation to generation, evidenced by our own life courses - what is it? What is Original Sin?

Is it an idea? An act? A substance? What is this Original Sin to begin with?
Remember — we're to assume the roll of explorers who have never heard of any of the doctrines of Original Sin in this exercise

Okay, an angle from the sense of exploring things with blinders on toward doctrines of original sin. Could it be the assertion of the animal tendencies people have? Not to be confused with material mechanism or evolution, us coming from monkeys or anything; whether that's a belief any of you espouse or reject, there's little doubt people are quite capable of debased and animalistic behavior, and it ain't pretty. Selfishness and being on the lookout for number 1, that's the rule of the jungle, right? And it leads to pride, pleasure seeking, all the rest. As far as I can tell, true selflessness and altruism -- loving others as yourself (which I take to be the opposite of sin) -- is unnatural except as an outcome of moral and spiritual growth. Is original sin the "beast within" that has not yet learned moral and spiritual understandings? That would be why it is more apparent in immature children.

Maybe that's a good word for it; you ask "Is it an idea? An act? A substance? What is this Original Sin to begin with?" -- I'll throw ""immaturity" into the pot as a candidate answer.

Very good point, Cook! Then immaturity would fit and thus God would need to change our mode of life.

I think that the fruit of original sin was death as God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of knowledge and thus this death sentence was imputed to all. As for the "immaturity" concept, that could be the result of the dying processes which is passed on generation to generation.

"Immaturity" would denote a debased nature to naturaly choose wrong?? By debased I mean to imply an immature rebellious streak.?? What do you think???

As for the original intent of thread - it looks like we'll come back to it as soon as the cause for such punishment is explored.
-
-

[Locker]

Hopefully the earlier parts of the topic on hell won't become forgotten, I was curious how those would develop. But on original sin:

Original Sin came from somewhere and seems to be passed on generation to generation, evidenced by our own life courses - what is it? What is Original Sin?

Is it an idea? An act? A substance? What is this Original Sin to begin with?
Remember – we’re to assume the roll of explorers who have never heard of any of the doctrines of Original Sin in this exercise

Okay, an angle from the sense of exploring things with blinders on toward doctrines of original sin. Could it be the assertion of the animal tendencies people have? Not to be confused with material mechanism or evolution, us coming from monkeys or anything; whether that's a belief any of you espouse or reject, there's little doubt people are quite capable of debased and animalistic behavior, and it ain't pretty. Selfishness and being on the lookout for number 1, that's the rule of the jungle, right? And it leads to pride, pleasure seeking, all the rest. As far as I can tell, true selflessness and altruism -- loving others as yourself (which I take to be the opposite of sin) -- is unnatural except as an outcome of moral and spiritual growth. Is original sin the "beast within" that has not yet learned moral and spiritual understandings? That would be why it is more apparent in immature children.

Maybe that's a good word for it; you ask "Is it an idea? An act? A substance? What is this Original Sin to begin with?" -- I'll throw "immaturity" into the pot as a candidate answer.

Great point Cook - So do you think this immaturity - the beast within - spread as a result of the first sin mentioned here in Genesis?

B. W. - do you think this first sin spread to all humanity thru humanities first parents? How do I word this so that I make sense...yes, I can see that death sentence for sin spread, what I am asking, do you or anyone else reading this forum, think that something else was attached that spread?

Hmmm, I'll try again to make more sense if that is possible

In Genesis 1-3 chapters - we have the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. Do you think the seeking of knowledge has anything to do with what was spread - if so - what is it?

Also - Cook - and all readers, I want to explore the topic of Hell and eternal punishment but before we can look into topic further - I want to explore the reason for this punishment by looking at Original Sin and how it spreads and from there get back to subject.

Here is my opinion so far - Sin came into the world and what God siad to Adam is true - "in the day you eat of the tree of knowledge - you will die" my paraphrase. It seems to me that the dying part was imputed because of the transgression but something else seems to have spread. Anyone else see it this way or differently? Please feel free to post.

[Byblos]

Hopefully the earlier parts of the topic on hell won't become forgotten, I was curious how those would develop. But on original sin:

Original Sin came from somewhere and seems to be passed on generation to generation, evidenced by our own life courses - what is it? What is Original Sin?

Is it an idea? An act? A substance? What is this Original Sin to begin with?
Remember — we're to assume the roll of explorers who have never heard of any of the doctrines of Original Sin in this exercise

Okay, an angle from the sense of exploring things with blinders on toward doctrines of original sin. Could it be the assertion of the animal tendencies people have? Not to be confused with material mechanism or evolution, us coming from monkeys or anything; whether that's a belief any of you espouse or reject, there's little doubt people are quite capable of debased and animalistic behavior, and it ain't pretty. Selfishness and being on the lookout for number 1, that's the rule of the jungle, right? And it leads to pride, pleasure seeking, all the rest. As far as I can tell, true selflessness and altruism -- loving others as yourself (which I take to be the opposite of sin) -- is unnatural except as an outcome of moral and spiritual growth. Is original sin the "beast within" that has not yet learned moral and spiritual understandings? That would be why it is more apparent in immature children.

Maybe that's a good word for it; you ask "Is it an idea? An act? A substance? What is this Original Sin to begin with?" -- I'll throw "immaturity" into the pot as a candidate answer.

Great point Cook - So do you think this immaturity - the beast within - spread as a result of the first sin mentioned here in Genesis?

B. W. - do you think this first sin spread to all humanity thru humanities first parents? How do I word this so that I make sense...yes, I can see that death sentence for sin spread, what I am asking, do you or anyone else reading this forum, think that something else was attached that spread?

Hmmm, I'll try again to make more sense if that is possible

In Genesis 1-3 chapters - we have the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. Do you think the seeking of knowledge has anything to do with what was spread - if so - what is it?

Also - Cook - and all readers, I want to explore the topic of Hell and eternal punishment but before we can look into topic further - I want to explore the reason for this punishment by looking at Original Sin and how it spreads and from there get back to subject.

Here is my opinion so far - Sin came into the world and what God siad to Adam is true - "in the day you eat of the tree of knowledge - you will die" my paraphrase. It seems to me that the dying part was imputed because of the transgression but something else seems to have spread. Anyone else see it this way or differently? Please feel free to post.

Well, I don't know about something else spreading. I see it the logical way (if one could use such a term theologically) which is that original sin is the defiance of God and the consequence is death. Not physical death, that was happening for quite some time, but eternal death. In other words, this was both the turning point to knowing that eternal salvation is possible and the laying of the foundation for the coming of the messiah who will free us from that original sin once and for all and give us the choice to accept or reject God. I.e. the turning point was granting us free will. Thinking about it now, I guess you could call it something else spreading.