Hell – is it Relevant Today?

[B. W.]

I'll try to answer this as best as I can. I see within kids, a bent toward asserting their rights, and a wanting things their way, at other's expense. Sure this is immaturity, and we as parents can correct much of this. Since this is so, I kind of view this life, in the here and now, as our Heavenly Father disciplining us when we need it. The bible says the same thing about disciplining His Children He loves — which means us who love God. Again, my opinion, it seems to me that God wants to prepare us for the life to come and here on this planet, it seems we are learning what this is.

I agree with your viewpoint here. Almost entirely at least. From Jesus' parable of the prodigal son and other teachings I don't limit "His children He loves" to only "us who love God". Fatherly love not having this quid pro quo quality in my view.

Response: A very good point !

Again, my opinion, unforgivable original sin, would be rejecting God at all cost and forgivable original sin comes when we confess, owe up to, and take responsibility for our original sin — thus learn from it not to repeat it. The only way to do this is by the grace of God and relying on His plan for our salvation: Like when a child admits wrong doing without excuses verses another who makes excuses and passes the blame.

Again I mostly agree, with slightly different shadings of view. The word "original" almost seems optional in your first sentence, such that it could as easily read, "Again, my opinion, unforgivable sin would be rejecting God at all cost and forgivable sin comes when we confess, owe up to, and take responsibility for our sin — thus learn from it not to repeat it. " If that sentence reads true to you, as it does for me, then the slippery distinction of what is "original sin" gets away again unfortunately.

Response: Yes it does, but I am trying to remain true to being an explorer on the subject!

However, I do find it difficult not to insert my views on Original Sin which are in line with Cram's positions — see below links. Therefore, if I begin to wander into these during this discussion, please feel free to remind me and give a good kick in the rear to keep me in line so the topic stays in line with exploring. I am here to learn!

http://www.carm.org/questions/original_sin.htm

http://www.carm.org/questions/adamsin.htm

http://www.carm.org/questions/sins_affect.htm

Maybe the original sin of Adam and Eve and even the serpent began in the heart. If that is the case — how did God design the heart and still be innocent from creating this sin from its design? I know God is innocent — but the design of the heart seemed to become corrupt somewhere along the line. Maybe that is the original sin???

I'll bring up something B.W. said a few posts ago: "Again, my opinion, it seems to me that God wants to prepare us for the life to come and here on this planet, it seems we are learning." Perhaps God in His wisdom simply is not depriving us of learning, when he allows for the capacity of sin, giving creatures like us free will even though we seem so prone toward choosing wrongly.

Response: Locker, that post on the Heart is very interesting — How did God design the heart? To Explore? To be intelligent? To learn?? That is a great observation Cook!!!! Can you and Locker elaborate more?
-
Anyone else can fell free to join in too!
-
-
-

[Locker]

I agree with your viewpoint here. Almost entirely at least. From Jesus' parable of the prodigal son and other teachings I don't limit "His children He loves" to only "us who love God". Fatherly love not having this quid pro quo quality in my view.

Cook this is interesting - how do you define this quid pro quo quality? Covering everyone? How would this effect everyone now??

As for children — they do grow up and time comes when parents must let them go. When that happens, our kids are responsible for their own actions and deeds, not the parents. Cook — are you suggesting that parents are responsible for their adult children's actions and deeds?

No, not at all. I'm saying that since God is a Father to us, being a parent perhaps helps in the ability to see as God sees, especially in terms of realistic judgment and forgiveness. "The wages of sin is death." Well the wages of a kid stealing a piece of candy from a store is certainly not a death sentence, much less death dealt from a loving parent. What is the type of sinfulness that brings about those wages? B.W. seems to say that it is by becoming "irredeemably corrupted" that people send themselves to such judgment. I would agree with this.

Okay great answer, and next, would becoming "irredeemably corrupted" be original sin in your opinion??

Maybe the original sin of Adam and Eve and even the serpent began in the heart. If that is the case — how did God design the heart and still be innocent from creating this sin from its design? I know God is innocent — but the design of the heart seemed to become corrupt somewhere along the line. Maybe that is the original sin???

What I was trying to say in above quote was does anyone think original sin is a heart issue? If so - then Maybe, that was what it affected - the heart.

I have been looking at the heart as termed in the bible and it seems to me it was affected by something and spread to humanity.

Could this corruption have come from the act of rebellion - something in the design of the heart - or did it come from the Tree of Knowledge itself?

here are the definitions B. W. has for us and if anyone else wants to add more - please do...

Knowledge — da'ath — insight, intelligence, understanding, wisdom, cunning, technical knowledge that are gained from the senses; It denotes a moral cognition gained primarily through the senses through experience.

Good — Tov — goodness, pleasant, beautiful, excellent, lovely, fruitful, righteous, kind, and virtue of the correct nature/kind. It denotes a moral goodness.

Evil — Ra or Rah — bad, inferior quality, mischievous, malignant, noxious, severe, malice, mischief, evil, causing woe and unhappiness; It denotes a moral deficiency of unethical actions and methods.

Eve partook of the tree and gave to Adam who had to be watching at least an arms length away. Was Adam watching to see if Eve would - poof - change - or in other words - was Adam experimenting to see the effects of the fruit before He ate? I dunno??? If so, He's guilty!! or as my wife says - sounds like a guy thing

One more thing - why did God place the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden to begin with? From Theology - I know it was placed as a test but why did God see a need for such a test unless He knew something about the Heart and design of humankind???

[B. W.]

What I was trying to say in above quote was does anyone think original sin is a heart issue? If so - then Maybe, that was what it affected - the heart.

I have been looking at the heart as termed in the bible and it seems to me it was affected by something and spread to humanity.

Could this corruption have come from the act of rebellion - something in the design of the heart - or did it come from the Tree of Knowledge itself?

Eve partook of the tree and gave to Adam who had to be watching at least an arms length away. Was Adam watching to see if Eve would - poof - change - or in other words - was Adam experimenting to see the effects of the fruit before He ate? I dunno??? If so, He's guilty!! or as my wife says - sounds like a guy thing

One more thing - why did God place the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden to begin with? From Theology - I know it was placed as a test but why did God see a need for such a test unless He knew something about the Heart and design of humankind???

Good point Locker - was Adam experimenting with Eve? A Guy thing!

I am laughing so hard it is hard to write! I guess we can never know for certain what Adam was doing this side of eternity but it is a good point.

As for the placing of the Tree of knowledge in the garden - it was placed as a test but why would God see the need to test humankind at all?

You say the Heart is a clue and from it we maybe able to discern what the original sin was and is. At this time — I will look into this matter more and get back to you latter.

Anyone else have any ideas?

Cook has a great line of thought on children and parents and in correlation with God and us. This is also a great subject to explore too. Let's continue with this line of thought too.
-
-
-

[Cook]

I agree with your viewpoint here. Almost entirely at least. From Jesus' parable of the prodigal son and other teachings I don't limit "His children He loves" to only "us who love God". Fatherly love not having this quid pro quo quality in my view.

Cook this is interesting - how do you define this quid pro quo quality? Covering everyone? How would this effect everyone now??

For me the parable of the prodigal son perhaps demonstrates it best. Even though the son is separated from the love of the father, and even though he does this on purpose and goes into wasteful, riotous, sinful living, the father doesn't stop scanning the horizon for the son and wanting his return. The father doesn't love or not love the son based on whether the son loves him -- what would be "quid pro quo" -- but the love is in the father's nature whether the son knows it or not (or wants it or not). As I see it, the Father never closes his heart to anybody, but it only is his children that close their hearts to him. In how this affects everyone, I would say He accepts all who come to Him, that God is "no respecter of persons." Or, He "is not willing that any should perish."

No, not at all. I'm saying that since God is a Father to us, being a parent perhaps helps in the ability to see as God sees, especially in terms of realistic judgment and forgiveness. "The wages of sin is death." Well the wages of a kid stealing a piece of candy from a store is certainly not a death sentence, much less death dealt from a loving parent. What is the type of sinfulness that brings about those wages? B.W. seems to say that it is by becoming "irredeemably corrupted" that people send themselves to such judgment. I would agree with this.

Okay great answer, and next, would becoming "irredeemably corrupted" be original sin in your opinion??

Well, becoming irredeemably corrupted seems like more a process to me, the end of the line, and not so much the beginning. I'm still not sure about that seed that starts it all.

Response: Locker, that post on the Heart is very interesting — How did God design the heart? To Explore? To be intelligent? To learn?? That is a great observation Cook!!!! Can you and Locker elaborate more?

I've thought about this a little more, in terms of what sin "teaches" us, and remembered an aspect of Jesus' teachings that I don't know is stressed so much, but which shows up a lot of times in the four gospels. When we think of God forgiving sins, we think in terms of the wages of sin being death, and us being in the dog house. But Jesus, he also had some turning-lemons-into-lemonade attitudes in his teachings about sin and he went over them a lot.

For instance, read Matthew 18:21-35, the parable of the servant who is forgiven by a master, but refuses to forgive a fellow servant. Jesus teaches in this lesson that us being sinful and finding forgiveness should induce us to be more merciful and more forgiving toward those who sin against us. Sin teaches us about mercy.

I have this additional thought: imagine a hypothetical universe where there is perfection everywhere. God still would have this quality of being merciful, but how would anybody know? Nobody would need it and it would remain unknown perhaps. Mercy seems to me directly a quality of love, that part of justice which is conditioned by love. So does a universe in which sin comes into existence allow for an arena where God's love is revealed and expressed in ways it wouldn't be otherwise? Though He does not want people to sin, when it does happen, He is able to utilize it for wisdom and for revealing greater depths of his goodness?

Also see Luke 7:36-47, the parable about a creditor who forgives one person with a 50 denarii debt and another with a 500 denarii debt. Who is more grateful? Jesus illustrates that the "sinner" washing his feet with her tears and hair, she has much love. A person who has sinned much is able to love much. "But he who is forgiven little, loves little."

In Luke 18:9-14 is the parable of a Pharisee and tax collector praying in the temple. Jesus shows in this lesson that an acknowledgement of a sinful nature brings a person to a humble, meek, sincere attitude toward God. Sin softens people up and makes us look outward to God perhaps (whereas the Pharisee was only looking in at himself essentially).

You can also go back to the prodigal son story, the other brother was dutiful and always trying to adhere to his father's way of doing things, but he lost sight of the depth of the father's love. The sin and repentence of the prodigal son led to a display of how powerfully the Father loves his children. Here again a revelation of goodness that would have been unknown without the contrast of sin. Not just that he said, Ok, you can be like a servant (all the son dared hope for), or ok, sin is forgiven, but he overflowed with happiness and joy that the son was back and safe in the family, so happy he killed the fatted calf, put the best robe on the son, gathered everyone for a celebration. At another time Jesus says that the angels in heaven have a bigger party over 1 sinner who repents than over 99 righteous people who don't need to. So sin can lead to a more dramatic demonstration of God's love than you would otherwise likely see?

I looked at the four gospels in depth and Jesus teaches much about what can come from sin in a positive way when people are repenetant, I think mainly it's that sin teaches people to be humble, and to treat other people with understanding and forgiveness. Jesus repeats over and over "Forgive and you will be forgiven". Other parts of the New Testament say blood was needed for God's forgiveness, but Jesus almost exclusively says that forgiveness comes from forgiving others. Have other people noticed this? That seems like a big deal but I'm sure it's another topic altogether.

Locker, just had another thought. You asked, "Could this corruption have come from the act of rebellion - something in the design of the heart - or did it come from the Tree of Knowledge itself?"

The serpent's actual temptation to Eve was that if she'd eat the fruit, her eyes would be opened and she would be like God, knowing good and evil. She wanted to do that and so ate the fruit... it's interesting to me now to consider that this was the opposite of being humble. She wanted to be like God. If sin and its afflictions teach us to be humble, maybe there is a connection? I would have to think about that more, but maybe you two (or anybody else) have ideas.

What I was trying to say in above quote was does anyone think original sin is a heart issue? If so - then Maybe, that was what it affected - the heart.

I have been looking at the heart as termed in the bible and it seems to me it was affected by something and spread to humanity.

The other night, I realized that perhaps another tactic to help try and grasp things is to consider, what are the known possible ways to transmit any characteristics from one generation to another? I only know of two, to be honest, inheritance through genes, and what is picked up from surroundings as a kid grows up (culture, parents' attitudes, etc.). Can anybody think of other methods of transmission of anything from one generation to another? B.W., from your CARM links (thanks for those), I think I'm most likely to agree with the Pergias person on this, "Adam's sin influenced the human race only as a bad example and that all people are born in the same state as Adam was before his fall." Locker... since it doesn't make sense to me that genes were physically changed, if those are the only two means of transmittal, I would say yes, I'm with you on this one, it's the heart that is affected and is how sin gets around.

One more thing - why did God place the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden to begin with? From Theology - I know it was placed as a test but why did God see a need for such a test unless He knew something about the Heart and design of humankind???

I can't say I know.

I probably have said enough for now.

[B. W.]

Cook - do not worry - I have not forgot! I am still looking over all you wrrote and will respond soon

Great post with many excellent points!
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Cook this is interesting - how do you define this quid pro quo quality? Covering everyone? How would this effect everyone now??

For me the parable of the prodigal son perhaps demonstrates it best. Even though the son is separated from the love of the father, and even though he does this on purpose and goes into wasteful, riotous, sinful living, the father doesn't stop scanning the horizon for the son and wanting his return. The father doesn't love or not love the son based on whether the son loves him -- what would be "quid pro quo" -- but the love is in the father's nature whether the son knows it or not (or wants it or not). As I see it, the Father never closes his heart to anybody, but it only is his children that close their hearts to him. In how this affects everyone, I would say He accepts all who come to Him, that God is "no respecter of persons." Or, He "is not willing that any should perish."

Response: Yes, 2 Peter 3:9 states that 'God is not willing that any should perish' and I would agree with you about God loving everyone — John 3:16 states this fact too. So I guess the question is answered as you mentioned — children closing their hearts to God. Keep on reading - more on below near the end of frame...

No, not at all. I'm saying that since God is a Father to us, being a parent perhaps helps in the ability to see as God sees, especially in terms of realistic judgment and forgiveness. "The wages of sin is death." Well the wages of a kid stealing a piece of candy from a store is certainly not a death sentence, much less death dealt from a loving parent. What is the type of sinfulness that brings about those wages? B.W. seems to say that it is by becoming "irredeemably corrupted" that people send themselves to such judgment. I would agree with this.

Well, becoming irredeemably corrupted seems like more a process to me, the end of the line, and not so much the beginning. I'm still not sure about that seed that starts it all.

Response: Could be that the Heart became corrupted and we have become prodigal sons and daughters. Maybe through the toils and suffering of this world some of these sons and daughters will discover his or hers greatest need and return to God, while others will not.

Response: Locker, that post on the Heart is very interesting — How did God design the heart? To Explore? To be intelligent? To learn?? That is a great observation Cook!!!! Can you and Locker elaborate more?

I've thought about this a little more, in terms of what sin "teaches" us, and remembered an aspect of Jesus' teachings that I don't know is stressed so much, but which shows up a lot of times in the four gospels. When we think of God forgiving sins, we think in terms of the wages of sin being death, and us being in the dog house. But Jesus, he also had some turning-lemons-into-lemonade attitudes in his teachings about sin and he went over them a lot.

For instance, read Matthew 18:21-35, the parable of the servant who is forgiven by a master, but refuses to forgive a fellow servant. Jesus teaches in this lesson that us being sinful and finding forgiveness should induce us to be more merciful and more forgiving toward those who sin against us. Sin teaches us about mercy.

Response: Cook — sounds like God's point is for us to learning something during this life that has consequences beyond what we or anyone can adequately conceive.

I have this additional thought: imagine a hypothetical universe where there is perfection everywhere. God still would have this quality of being merciful, but how would anybody know? Nobody would need it and it would remain unknown perhaps. Mercy seems to me directly a quality of love, that part of justice which is conditioned by love. So does a universe in which sin comes into existence allow for an arena where God's love is revealed and expressed in ways it wouldn't be otherwise? Though He does not want people to sin, when it does happen, He is able to utilize it for wisdom and for revealing greater depths of his goodness?Also see Luke 7:36-47, the parable about a creditor…. In Luke 18:9-14 is the parable of a Pharisee and tax collector praying in the temple. Jesus shows in this lesson that an acknowledgement of a sinful nature brings a person to a humble, meek, sincere attitude toward God. Sin softens people up and makes us look outward to God perhaps (whereas the Pharisee was only looking in at himself essentially).

Response: Cook — this is a brilliant deduction! I would say God allows this arena now and we are living it now! And yes, God can use peoples own sin to reveal His greater goodness.

You can also go back to the prodigal son story, the other brother was dutiful and always trying to adhere to his father's way of doing things, but he lost sight of the depth of the father's love. The sin and repentance of the prodigal son led to a display of how powerfully the Father loves his children. Here again a revelation of goodness that would have been unknown without the contrast of sin. Not just that he said, Ok, you can be like a servant (all the son dared hope for), or ok, sin is forgiven, but he overflowed with happiness and joy that the son was back and safe in the family, so happy he killed the fatted calf, put the best robe on the son, gathered everyone for a celebration. At another time Jesus says that the angels in heaven have a bigger party over 1 sinner who repents than over 99 righteous people who don't need to. So sin can lead to a more dramatic demonstration of God's love than you would otherwise likely see?

Response: Cook - Do you think this is why God allowed sin to come into existence? So God can prove His own love?

I looked at the four gospels in depth and Jesus teaches much about what can come from sin in a positive way when people are repentant, I think mainly it's that sin teaches people to be humble, and to treat other people with understanding and forgiveness. Jesus repeats over and over "Forgive and you will be forgiven". Other parts of the New Testament say blood was needed for God's forgiveness, but Jesus almost exclusively says that forgiveness comes from forgiving others. Have other people noticed this? That seems like a big deal but I'm sure it's another topic altogether.

Response: I think God wants us to reflect His forgiveness to others as we were made in God's image. The lessons of forgiveness show that those that offend need forgiveness and the offended grant it. God's forgiveness towards us through the cross of Christ shows how we, our sins, shed innocent blood through various means — anger, strife, one-up-man ship, brown nosing, pride, stealing, coveting, and yes, even psychological murder and physical murder. These actions of ours offended God. We need to see that we have offended God and the Cross does this. We can return to God seeing our offense and ask His Forgiveness — like the prodigal. If one never sees his or her offense — what of them?

Locker, just had another thought. You asked, "Could this corruption have come from the act of rebellion - something in the design of the heart - or did it come from the Tree of Knowledge itself?" The serpent's actual temptation to Eve was that if she'd eat the fruit, her eyes would be opened and she would be like God, knowing good and evil. She wanted to do that and so ate the fruit... it's interesting to me now to consider that this was the opposite of being humble. She wanted to be like God. If sin and its afflictions teach us to be humble, maybe there is a connection? I would have to think about that more, but maybe you two (or anybody else) have ideas.

What I was trying to say in above quote was does anyone think original sin is a heart issue? If so - then Maybe, that was what it affected - the heart. I have been looking at the heart as termed in the bible and it seems to me it was affected by something and spread to humanity.

The other night, I realized that perhaps another tactic to help try and grasp things is to consider, what are the known possible ways to transmit any characteristics from one generation to another? I only know of two, to be honest, inheritance through genes, and what is picked up from surroundings as a kid grows up (culture, parents' attitudes, etc.). Can anybody think of other methods of transmission of anything from one generation to another? B.W., from your CARM links (thanks for those), I think I'm most likely to agree with the Pergias person on this, "Adam's sin influenced the human race only as a bad example and that all people are born in the same state as Adam was before his fall." Locker... since it doesn't make sense to me that genes were physically changed, if those are the only two means of transmittal, I would say yes, I'm with you on this one, it's the heart that is affected and is how sin gets around.

Response: I think that original sin must have spread to the heart and corrupted it. The original sin must have been permitted to do so — maybe to mature us? Discipline us? Cause us to return like the prodigal? All interesting hypothesis'.

Could original sin just be a simple decision that spread and influences all? A decision made in the heart and mind of humanity that conceives woe, and hardship? a decision within a free mind enabled by God to reason and think freely? The test of the Tree of Knowledge was it then a test to see whom humanity would serve? God? Or selfishness leading to a nature lived without God and his great love, a sin nature served in exchange for God's love? Oh — how we must return to God!

One more thing - why did God place the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden to begin with? From Theology - I know it was placed as a test but why did God see a need for such a test unless He knew something about the Heart and design of humankind???

Response: maybe the above answer has an answer in it regarding your question?

Or Maybe, we were, or better yet, it was God's intent for Adam and Eve to sin in order to learn the lesson of the prodigal son and voluntarily return to God?

Maybe that is why the Tree of Knowledge was left in the Garden — a test to see who will return to God and who will not. Sort of like — choosing the Master you'll serve.

How would anyone know God's greatness in all these areas if God did not create and design an arena in which these were all made known and keenly displayed? Maybe perfection's course is displayed in this current arena of the heavens and earth now permitting the course to be completed at a future date and time?
-
-

[Locker]

Could original sin just be a simple decision that spread and influences all? A decision made in the heart and mind of humanity that conceives woe, and hardship? a decision within a free mind enabled by God to reason and think freely? The test of the Tree of Knowledge was it then a test to see whom humanity would serve? God? Or selfishness leading to a nature lived without God and his great love, a sin nature served in exchange for God's love? Oh — how we must return to God! Response: maybe the above answer has an answer in it regarding your question?Or Maybe, we were, or better yet, it was God's intent for Adam and Eve to sin in order to learn the lesson of the prodigal son and voluntarily return to God?Maybe that is why the Tree of Knowledge was left in the Garden — a test to see who will return to God and who will not. Sort of like — choosing the Master you'll serve. How would anyone know God's greatness in all these areas if God did not create and design an arena in which these were all made known and keenly displayed? Maybe perfection's course is displayed in this current arena of the heavens and earth now permitting the course to be completed at a future date and time?

I am back - sorry for the delay. Busy season

I like Cook's ideas on the prodigal son - it sounds simular to Charles Finney's doctrine. Cook are you relating to Finney's position on original sin and moral depravity?

Finney uses the words moral depravity to mean moral turning, twisting, away from the right path and that this resides in the heart.Could original sin just be a simple decision within the Heart that steers one away from good and creates problems? I would agree yes... original sin must be the ability to turn, twist, reason oneself away from God.

Now - does Finney teach this? I only know a little about C. Finney - can anyone tell me more his views?

If it is okay with those reading and contributing to this thread, would all agree that 'Oiginal Sin' is an ability?

Also - I'll be more on the forum soon as Christmas Time nears - I also changed my email address to my Laptop address so when I am on the road - I'll be able to check in more often.

If we can define original sin as an 'Ability' to twist and turn away from God or not - I think we can go on to the next stage: Justice, wrath, punishment.

Cook and B W - do you agree?? or any new insights?

[B. W.]

I am back - sorry for the delay. Busy season

I like Cook's ideas on the prodigal son - it sounds simular to Charles Finney's doctrine. Cook are you relating to Finney's position on original sin and moral depravity?

Finney uses the words moral depravity to mean moral turning, twisting, away from the right path and that this resides in the heart.Could original sin just be a simple decision within the Heart that steers one away from good and creates problems? I would agree yes... original sin must be the ability to turn, twist, reason oneself away from God.

Now - does Finney teach this? I only know a little about C. Finney - can anyone tell me more his views?

If it is okay with those reading and contributing to this thread, would all agree that 'Oiginal Sin' is an ability?

Also - I'll be more on the forum soon as Christmas Time nears - I also changed my email address to my Laptop address so when I am on the road - I'll be able to check in more often.

If we can define original sin as an 'Ability' to twist and turn away from God or not - I think we can go on to the next stage: Justice, wrath, punishment.

Cook and B W - do you agree?? or any new insights?

I am hoping someone else will write tell of Charles Finney's position. If not, I'll do what I can.

As for the 'ability' you mention — I will ponder this more and get back with you.

I enjoyed Cook's prodigal son point — it is excellent! If you are still on the forum, Cook can you give us more insights before we proceed?

Locker — give me a few days to collect more for you — in the mean time anyone else with opinions on the current subject should chime in
-
-
-

[Cook]

Hi Locker, I'm not familiar with Charles Finney and would have to look into it. I'm actually unsure what categories or theological camps best quantify me, I grew up in a conservative Protestant background, in a family with its share of preachers and teachers, so am very familiar with the regular ways of looking at things (like BW's good CARM links), however I also have many other experiences in my background. I always have a curiousity about uncovering new leads that might be interesting, so if you see a familiarity between what I've written and anything you've seen or heard about Finney, that points me toward looking into him further, thanks for that.

If you are still on the forum, Cook can you give us more insights before we proceed?

Sorry I've been scarce! Sometimes I have time and sometimes it's hard to come by. I'm glad you've found some use from my views, I can say it's not complicated, how I am approaching things. You've given the links to CARM that show where you're coming from, unfortunately I don't have such a clear outside reference myself. I think in recent years a few trends in my religious understandings have developed which are being reflected here though and which are not difficult to mention. My belief is that Jesus is exactly what he says he was, the light of the world, the Son of God. As best I can tell, in his teachings and life he provides the pinnacle display of the Father's nature, revealing God in an unprecedented way it's still difficult to grasp, but which I continue to try and understand and live out. When looking for an understanding of God, I look at Jesus' words and actions, and I always have a sense that when I find an understanding through him I've found it in the highest authority possible. I rely on it and try to live up to it. I think you probably agree with that way of thinking. But I see I tend to diverge from some people because I don't see a need to look further, after I find an answer from Jesus. This is a quality of my faith that is perhaps a difference from others, in that I rely on Jesus words and life as the highest authority in a way comparable to how I see others rely on the Bible in its entirety. It continues to be an exploration for me, this way of seeing things. For example:

Response: I think God wants us to reflect His forgiveness to others as we were made in God's image. The lessons of forgiveness show that those that offend need forgiveness and the offended grant it. God's forgiveness towards us through the cross of Christ shows how we, our sins, shed innocent blood through various means — anger, strife, one-up-man ship, brown nosing, pride, stealing, coveting, and yes, even psychological murder and physical murder. These actions of ours offended God. We need to see that we have offended God and the Cross does this. We can return to God seeing our offense and ask His Forgiveness — like the prodigal. If one never sees his or her offense — what of them?

I know exactly where you are coming from, that is a well rooted way of considering the topic! This prism of mine of always first looking at Jesus' life and teachings leads me into a consideration of another perspective. Many inspired prophets and ancient Semitic teachers taught many concepts of God, including the thundering wrathful God, the offended God. But then with Jesus came not a simple teaching about what God is like as a prophet would but the highest, clearest living example from the Son of God himself. A pure and unadulterated display, where we were given not just a teaching about God. We were given a graphic demonstration of exactly what the Godlike reaction is when offense is given to him. We were shown the Godlike response when he is spit on, humiliated, beaten, tortured, and finally, when his hands have nails go through them, his response to the offense is: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

And that is the teaching also, "love your enemies", love even those who give you offense. If God is infinite in all his characteristics, for us who are so limited and so finite, his infinity would inevitably makes him a mystery. Humanity has to struggle to find God and understand his will. The Bible appears more and more to me as a beautiful record of these struggles, of thousands of years of toil, and from what I can tell Jesus life was the gift of illumination, the highest truest light to follow.

In a sense, I've liked this thread very much (even if my time hasn't let me post as much in the past week as I'd like, sorry about that!), since I'm not just trying to be an explorer but as far as I can tell I am one currently in status. I feel very secure and have no fear at all about the question of God's existence, that is far behind me, my exploration is what is the nature of God, and what I find in Jesus' teachings is a path that is "the way, the truth, and the life", especially that of considering God as a Father.

Turning back to a few of your post's comments, B.W.:

Response: Could be that the Heart became corrupted and we have become prodigal sons and daughters. Maybe through the toils and suffering of this world some of these sons and daughters will discover his or hers greatest need and return to God, while others will not.

I agree.

Response: Cook — sounds like God's point is for us to learning something during this life that has consequences beyond what we or anyone can adequately conceive.

Makes good sense to me!

Response: Cook - Do you think this is why God allowed sin to come into existence? So God can prove His own love?

[In reference to sin's capacity to lead to more dramatic demonstrations of God's love.]

I can accept that it would be a potential reason for sin to exist, yes, to reveal his goodness. I would hesitate to say it's *the* reason, because I'm sure God has many reasons beyond our capacity to understand. I think he sees the end from the beginning and isn't able to be surprised, that his infinite understanding is able to encompass the finite. Does he need to prove his love, I wonder? Instead could this also be for training purposes? The demonstration of love being guideposts for the quality of love we must also develop and be able to show others.

I have an additional thought about the prodigal son story. But now I don't have the time at the moment, I'll see if I can I return again tomorrow. Also to address more of the comments from the two of you.

[B. W.]

Locker and Cook — this is what I found for a quick guide on Charles Finney and below further discussion on topic:

Pro-Finney Writings

http://www.gospeltruth.net/1851Sys_Theo/st38.htm

http://www.intouch.org/myintouch/mighty ... 13683.html

http://members.aol.com/leohirrel/finney/

Somewhat Neutral: These sites have good brief doctrine history of several views we are reviewing:

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue53.htm

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/original.html

Anti-Finney Writings

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

http://reformednet.org/refnet/lib/docs/Finney.htm

I included both pro and con views on Finney for a balanced look at who He was and what His impacted was as well as somewhat neutral views. I have read many of Finney's later works where he admits to being in error on Christian Perfection he taught as a young Christian and corrects this later in life. Most of the Anti-Finney articles fail to note this apology. He also was in the process of correcting many of his controversial views before He died. I'll try to look these sources and privet letters up for you all soon as I am able.

“Next, Finney defines Moral depravity in His Systematic Theology: The word is derived from the Latin de and pravus. Pravus means "crooked." De is intensive. Depravo, literally and primarily, means "very crooked," not in the sense of original or constitutional crookedness, but in the sense of having become crooked. The term does not imply original mal-conformation, but lapsed, fallen, departed from right or straight. It always implies deterioration, or fall from a former state of moral or physical perfection.

“Moral depravity is the depravity of free-will, not of the faculty itself, but of its free action. It consists in a violation of moral law. Moral depravity is depravity of choice. It is a choice at variance with moral law, moral right. It is synonymous with sin or sinfulness. It is moral depravity, because it consists in a violation of moral law, and because it has moral character.”

From: http://www.gospeltruth.net/1851Sys_Theo/st38.htm

Hope this Helps!

Thank you Cook!! It is a refreshing pleasure to be with you on this thread!! I always enjoy open minded and free discussions on the Topic of Original Sin. Why? I think we can better understand the topic if we could examine it without external biases interfering. I believe we can discover what it means by doing so in the format we are using and how knows? We may discover the answer! Or an answer!

Yes, the Arena idea has really made me think and admire God more than I have before! Wow! God is absolutely awesome and His transcendent wisdom and His ways are much higher than ours!

Maybe, He just cannot help prove His Love, Justice, Mercy, Righteousness, because He is God and His presence simply animates these into what He creates? If only God existed, who would know about His Love, Justice, Mercy, and Righteousness, etc, unless He created?

This is profound!

Finally, it would be okay to define Original Sin as an 'Ability' to be able to reason and choose a crooked way verses God's pure ways. Maybe that is why God granted the ability to be moral agents so we would learn right from wrong in the University of Life?
-
-
-

[Cook]

I had a chance to read the links on Finney, thanks for those BW, and for bringing it up in the first place Locker. I can see some relatedness with regard to ideas I've had. An interesting individual perhaps I'll have to read about more.

If it is okay with those reading and contributing to this thread, would all agree that 'Oiginal Sin' is an ability?

If we can define original sin as an 'Ability' to twist and turn away from God or not - I think we can go on to the next stage: Justice, wrath, punishment.

Finally, it would be okay to define Original Sin as an 'Ability' to be able to reason and choose a crooked way verses God's pure ways. Maybe that is why God granted the ability to be moral agents so we would learn right from wrong in the University of Life?

Thinking about this terminology, on first glance it seemed to me that the definition above really is more a fit for the term "free will" than "Original Sin". But I think I can agree to it after looking at it from a slightly different angle.

I can agree that "Original Sin" is the "ability" to twist and turn from God or not -- *but*, only as an ability that has taken that initial turn away from God.

We've described original sin as a matter of a person's heart, and BW, you're saying it's being "able to reason and choose a crooked way versus God's pure way". I think we are individuals who are looking at it from the perspective of sin being erroneous choosing by a person. Like you also said BW, "a decision within a free mind enabled by God to reason and think freely". So in terms of the next step of justice, wrath, and punishment, the "original sin" concerning each person is perhaps the first turning of that person and the subsequent "foreign land" of errors their path has gone into as a prodigal child? That this is what God assesses?

It almost is as if speaking in terms of each individual person as having their own "Original Sin" which then puts them on a crooked path.

[Locker]

I had a chance to read the links on Finney, thanks for those BW, and for bringing it up in the first place Locker. I can see some relatedness with regard to ideas I've had. An interesting individual perhaps I'll have to read about more.

If it is okay with those reading and contributing to this thread, would all agree that 'Oiginal Sin' is an ability?

If we can define original sin as an 'Ability' to twist and turn away from God or not - I think we can go on to the next stage: Justice, wrath, punishment.

Finally, it would be okay to define Original Sin as an 'Ability' to be able to reason and choose a crooked way verses God's pure ways. Maybe that is why God granted the ability to be moral agents so we would learn right from wrong in the University of Life?

Thinking about this terminology, on first glance it seemed to me that the definition above really is more a fit for the term "free will" than "Original Sin". But I think I can agree to it after looking at it from a slightly different angle.

I can agree that "Original Sin" is the "ability" to twist and turn from God or not -- *but*, only as an ability that has taken that initial turn away from God.

We've described original sin as a matter of a person's heart, and BW, you're saying it's being "able to reason and choose a crooked way versus God's pure way". I think we are individuals who are looking at it from the perspective of sin being erroneous choosing by a person. Like you also said BW, "a decision within a free mind enabled by God to reason and think freely". So in terms of the next step of justice, wrath, and punishment, the "original sin" concerning each person is perhaps the first turning of that person and the subsequent "foreign land" of errors their path has gone into as a prodigal child? That this is what God assesses?

It almost is as if speaking in terms of each individual person as having their own "Original Sin" which then puts them on a crooked path.

Yes, I've been reading post and taking notes. Maybe the'Ability' twists and turns one away from God is the ability which takes that initial turn away from God.

In other words - Original Sin is the Ability to justify ones actions to attain a preconcieved benifit. Eve saw that the fruit was pleasnt to the eyes, etc, and ate. A preconcieved benifit would permit a free ability to reason and also excuse God of creating sin.

The 'Ability to justify ones actions' to attain a 'preconcieved benifit' would take that initial twisting turn away from God.

Next, there would be an imputed result as God said there would be, "In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die" Gen 2:17 NKJV

Wow - God knew Adam would eat this fruit - He said He would! The 1st Prophecy! Note:"In the day you eat of it..."

The Imputed result was the Death sentence - death entering the world through Adam and Eve.

The concept of Original sin could therefore could be the 'Ability to justify ones actions' to attain a 'preconcieved benifit' that would take the first initial twisting turn away from God as God foresaw it would. This Ability spread to us all simply because we were designed to freely reason and think on our own. God foresaw what would happpen and had a plan.

I see two things emerging from this?

It would take the Arena where there was a place where God can make all things new again by His redemptive acts and prove who He is and His perfect Just, Loving, Nature to His creation.

This is deep and profound

What do you all think?

Has anyone notice How God told Adam in Gen 2:17 -"In the day you eat of it..."

God knew of the Ability and how it would twist one away from God's ways.

Does this make sense? to anyone reading?

[B. W.]

Yes, I've been reading post and taking notes. Maybe the'Ability' twists and turns one away from God is the ability which takes that initial turn away from God.

In other words - Original Sin is the Ability to justify ones actions to attain a preconcieved benifit. Eve saw that the fruit was pleasnt to the eyes, etc, and ate. A preconcieved benifit would permit a free ability to reason and also excuse God of creating sin.

The 'Ability to justify ones actions' to attain a 'preconcieved benifit' would take that initial twisting turn away from God.

Next, there would be an imputed result as God said there would be, "In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die" Gen 2:17 NKJV

Wow - God knew Adam would eat this fruit - He said He would! The 1st Prophecy! Note:"In the day you eat of it..."

The Imputed result was the Death sentence - death entering the world through Adam and Eve.

The concept of Original sin could therefore could be the 'Ability to justify ones actions' to attain a 'preconcieved benifit' that would take the first initial twisting turn away from God as God foresaw it would. This Ability spread to us all simply because we were designed to freely reason and think on our own. God foresaw what would happpen and had a plan.

I see two things emerging from this?

It would take the Arena where there was a place where God can make all things new again by His redemptive acts and prove who He is and His perfect Just, Loving, Nature to His creation.

This is deep and profound

What do you all think?

Has anyone notice How God told Adam in Gen 2:17 -"In the day you eat of it..."

God knew of the Ability and how it would twist one away from God's ways.

Does this make sense? to anyone reading?

Yes, it makes sense but before we continue I would like to explore Cook's ideas more.

I was wondering if Adam and Eve were in some type of spiritual adolescent stage of development where God, being fair and just, righteous and just, merciful and perfect in all His ways — foreknew they would rebel at a certain time? And according to God, He had a plan in place to restore those in humanity when each reaches this state of spiritual adolescents that have learned the cost of rebelling and accept God's act of redemption?

This make sense? Understand?

[Locker]

Yes, it makes sense but before we continue I would like to explore Cook's ideas more.

I was wondering if Adam and Eve were in some type of spiritual adolescent stage of development where God, being fair and just, righteous and just, merciful and perfect in all His ways — foreknew they would rebel at a certain time? And according to God, He had a plan in place to restore those in humanity when each reaches this state of spiritual adolescents that have learned the cost of rebelling and accept God's act of redemption?

This make sense? Understand?

Cook has a great point on how we grow and how kids grow. I would say that God saw our spiritual adolescent age as well as Adams and Eve's. Maybe that is the point of the doctrine of the age of accountability?

Sorry to be off line the past few daz's - been busy with work and family...

Question: In the arena we spoke about, would God need to punish forever those who walk away from God of their own free will? How would this come about?

[Cook]

Yes, it makes sense but before we continue I would like to explore Cook's ideas more.

I was wondering if Adam and Eve were in some type of spiritual adolescent stage of development where God, being fair and just, righteous and just, merciful and perfect in all His ways — foreknew they would rebel at a certain time? And according to God, He had a plan in place to restore those in humanity when each reaches this state of spiritual adolescents that have learned the cost of rebelling and accept God's act of redemption?

This make sense? Understand?

Cook has a great point on how we grow and how kids grow. I would say that God saw our spiritual adolescent age as well as Adams and Eve's. Maybe that is the point of the doctrine of the age of accountability?

Sorry to be off line the past few daz's - been busy with work and family...

Question: In the arena we spoke about, would God need to punish forever those who walk away from God of their own free will? How would this come about?

Was eating the fruit of the tree of life a rebellion though? Or was it an error of judgment, a lack of wisdom? There is a difference to me, and it seems to have importance in the question of God's justice and attitude toward sinners. Eve didn't insolently say to herself, "Who does God think he is, telling us what to do, what to eat and not eat? That old fart can't tell me what to do." She found herself with reasons that seemed sensible: the tree was good for food, it was pleasant to the eyes, it was to be desired to make one wise.

Is it always rebellion when we sin -- don't follow God's will -- or is there an amount of immature choosing (spiritual adolescence, yes, or even spiritual childhood)? Where does one end and the other begin? What is God's attitude toward these two ways of falling short of His will (if it can be said there is this distinction)?

Rebellion connotes an active, consciencious, persistent choice to reject God to me. For instance, didn't Jesus at one point warn people that didn't believe him that they were arriving at the parting of ways? The people would have been in a state of childhood / adolescent choosing, not sure what to do, but he was warning them that their continued refusal was amounting to a rejection of the light he brought to them. A rebellion. And that hardness of heart and refusal is perhaps the "children closing their hearts to him".

I don't know if I would phrase it in terms of, would God have foreknown that people would rebel. Instead, would he know the extent that people are adolescents or even children in spiritual matters? He is our Father and in the concept of God being our Father -- especially with his infinite attributes of omniscience, seeing the end from the beginning -- I think his understanding as a Father is certainly able to distinguish the ways we are prone to fall short of His will as spiritual adolescents / children. Like any father, the attitude toward this aspect of sinfulness would be to lead the child toward wiser choosing. That is ultimately up to the person to accept or reject, and sometimes punishment is necessary, but even such punishment from a divine parent would be for corrective purposes toward this sort of sinner who is still in the process of choosing, wouldn't it?, instead of judicial retribution. The school of hard knocks again, perhaps.

We know for a certainty from Jesus' life that he had great compassion and love for sinners. To me I can comprehend this in that he said he and the Father were one. He was able to demonstrate and live with fatherly love toward sinners instead of seeing everyone in default and rebellion per se.

Locker, you ask about whether God would need to punish forever those who walk away from God of their own free will. I think one of those interesting aspects of God's nature that Jesus showed and which people before him didn't quite understand is that God does not necessarily look to punish always and he even is longing that people come to him and be in the family. He acts accordingly, and like the shepherd that has one sheep that leaves, he goes in search of his straying children. From the prodigal son story is a message that the Father is always open to the return of his children, and from the parable of the lost sheep is the message that even before the children are looking to return, He is looking for them.

I think it is almost looking at a very narrow case, the idea of considering what punishment is appropriate to those who walk away from God, because these would be the people who have finally and permanently hardened their hearts to God.

Likely the far vaster pool of people are ones in confusion, who do not know their Father well (or at all). B.W., you speak in terms of a redemptive plan God would have had even prior to default, but what about the plans to seek for these lost sheep, to restore them to the family? Certainly sending his Son into the world to minister to sinners and be a light to those in darkness is also a part of the plan. "I came to call the sinners, not the righteous," Jesus said during his life.

And this seems to also lead to our roles, a more day-to-day reality to consider. The question of how God finally punishes people who turn from him is perhaps a mental exercise for that narrow band, and I think it may put things on a plane where we are not really participants. Are we to guess or are we to persistently grow in the light Jesus has given us so that we can be a brighter light to others and bring them from darkness? How do we know what is in the hearts of our brothers and sisters and whether they really truly have permanently rebelled? To all observers, the thief on the cross next to Jesus was hopelessly lost, but he responded to the light in the last hours, and even this rebel was restored to the family.