What is sin? Or, why is sin, wrong/bad?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
What is sin? Or, why is sin, wrong/bad?
I believe we can look at sin in two ways. Sin is an action (whether a physical act or an act of the mind). Paul teaches the equality of all men (both Jew and Gentile) in his statement that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. His comparison was a violation of the Law (for the Jew, along the lines of Adam’s transgression) and a violation of God’s law given in the conscious of men (for the Gentile).
But most often Paul speaks of sin as a principle (we are freed from the bondage of sin and death). This is also seen in the Old Testament as in Genesis Cain is warned that if he does what is wrong sin is crouching at his door, and it desires to have him, but he must rule over it.
Perhaps in our context James’ explanation should be in view. We are tempted when we are enticed by our own lusts (ἐπιθυμία, or desires). When lust has conceived it gives birth to sin, that is, when we give in to temptation and act on the desires of the flesh sin is accomplished, bringing forth death.
What makes and act "sin" is that it violates God's covenant. Is eating fruit a sinful act for you or me?
I agree that what makes an act sinful is that it violates God's will. I disagree that it is because it violates God's covenant (I think that Paul went to great lengths to demonstrate sin apart from God's covenant).
Eating fruit is not sinful, and Adam's sin was not "eating fruit". It was transgressing God's command not to eat of the fruit of that tree. The temptation was that the fruit was good to eat, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable to make one wise. The sin was giving in to this temptation which appealed to human desire and eating the fruit (disobeying God).
The reason I say it was not a "covenant" is that Scripture does not present God's command to Adam in covenant form. For it to be a covenant certain aspects have to be assumed.
For example, we have to assume that the command was not temporary (@TCassidy explained how he viewed the prohibition to be temporary, which would exclude it from the biblical definition of "covenant"). We have to assume that Adam would not have died (even as he had not eaten of the tree of life so as to live forever) had he not eaten the fruit.
But I'm not sure all of that is important to this conversation. While I don't believe that Jesus suffered the consequences of the "covenant of works", I do believe that Jesus experienced the consequences of sin.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Death.
What do you make of Hosea 6:7 or these texts in Genesis?
But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
Genesis 1:28–30
[28] And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” [29] And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. [30] And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. (ESV)
Genesis 2:15–17
[15] The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. [16] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, [17] but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (ESV)
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
OK. How does the wrath of God fit into your understanding of penal substitution?
The Archangel
I'm not sure what you mean. God's wrath is against all unrighteousness.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Yes -- in fact He paid the debt owed by every sinner for sins such as "taking God's name in vain"
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
God's wrath is directed against sin - the wicked who are lost have rejected the Gospel though fully enabled to choose it - and have thus identified themselves with sin.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Does Jesus bear the wrath of God in our place?
The Archangel
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They sinned like Adam. I believe that Paul makes this point as well. Adam transgressed God's commandment. This is a transgression in the same manner as those who, being under the Law, transgress the Law.
No. Jesus bears our sin and experiences the consequences of sin, which is death. You are confusing death with the wrath to come (which is the second death).
Hebrews 2:9-15
9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.
11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 saying, "I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE."
13 And again, "I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM." And again, "BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME."
14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Not true in the case of Arminians such as Seventh-day Adventist - vs Calvinism.
In that case Calvinism limits its scope and redefinition of the term to "just the atoning sacrifice" then argues that since not all humanity are going to be saved the atoning sacrifice is limited.
Adventist Arminians - define "Atonement" as the full scope found in Lev 16 that includes both the "Atoning Sacrifice" completed at the cross and also the work of Christ as High Priest in heaven. Something Calvinist completely miss.
It is both - it is the "amount owed" as Luke 12 reminds us - varying degrees of debt - varying degrees of punishment. It is also the wrath of God against sin. 1 John 3:4 sin is rebellion "sin is transgression of the Law"
Luke 12
47 And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
Rev 20:12 and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
Rom 2 you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds:
2 Cor 5:10 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
===============================
As we all know a great deal of doctrinal heresy was introduced by the Catholic church after the time of the Apostles and before Calvin. So simply saying that "XYZ was believed before Calvin" does not mean the first century church necessarily taught it. But in this case the Bible points to ransom, and the wrath of God against sin, and degrees of punishment that is based on deeds as being addressed by substitutionary atoning sacrifice of Christ and also fully resolved as part of his High Priestly ministry in heaven which Hebrews 8:1 says "is the main point"
You've failed to address the key work in the text.
Hosea 6:6-7
6 For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.
You are assuming that the passage states Adam transgressed the covenant. It doesn't. The passage is speaking of Judah (not Adam) transgressing the covenant. Paul made the same link between the transgression of Adam.
Like Adam's transgression they have transgressed the covenant - they have dealt treacherously against God.
I am not much opposed to those who believe a covenant existed (that God entered into a covenant with Adam that should he not eat of the fruit he would not die) because it is a philosophical discussion (it is hypothetical as Adam did eat of the fruit and died). But the "covenant of works" is extra biblical. Both the command and the disobedience could be exactly as Scripture records (a simple command disobeyed).
What blood was shed in the making of this "covenant of works"?
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
I’m not confusing anything. Romans 3 says that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation. Propitiation is the key word. By definition it is bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin.
The Archangel
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, again you are mistaking. Propitiation does not mean "to bear" but to appease wrath. Scripture teaches that Christ bears our sin and propitiates God's wrath - not bears God's wrath.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
- Status