Humans were created sinful. Then we were told not to sin. Is that a fair demand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yorkshireman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi PR,The point is they are constantly saying they believe in Christ’s finished work on the cross and the suffeciency of His sacrifice but live in constant fear their actions will seperate them from God’s abundant grace. They hope their works are great enough and/or thier sins minimal enough to obtain salvation.
our actions can separate us from God’s grace. That is the result of sin. Catholics believe they have salvation through Christ’s death and resurrection, but if you fail to remain in a state of Grace then you risk losing heaven. In other words, no matter how much I believe in Jesus, if I murder my husband and do not confess my sin and asked for forgiveness I will not be in Heaven when I die.
 
1 Chor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Ah. So the verse in Romans does not say that? The one that you cited as proof that there are ZERO EXCEPTIONS? Now you’re saying that there’s ZERO EXCEPTIONS if you’re the son of Adam?

:confused:
I would be glad to talk to Muslims and atheists. I will share the truth and let God do the rest. Is 55:11 So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it.
And what will be your response when they tell you, “Hey, your Paul in Romans states that Jesus sinned because you believe that there are ZERO EXCEPTIONS and that NONE is righteous?”
 
Ah. So the verse in Romans does not say that? The one that you cited as proof that there are ZERO EXCEPTIONS? Now you’re saying that there’s ZERO EXCEPTIONS if you’re the son of Adam?

:confused:

And what will be your response when they tell you, “Hey, your Paul in Romans states that Jesus sinned because you believe that there are ZERO EXCEPTIONS and that NONE is righteous?”
:confused: I’m confused are you saying God is a sinner? Read the verses before and after they are pretty self explanatory. :confused:
 
God is not a sinner. And if somebody here is implying that Jesus/God is a sinner then they have no idea what the are talking about, and should not even begin to talk about Christianity.

There is no way possible that God is a sinner.
 
:confused: I’m confused are you saying God is a sinner? Read the verses before and after they are pretty self explanatory. :confused:
That is what your paradigm proposes, that Jesus Christ was a sinner.

You stated that there are ZERO exceptions to the verse in Romans.

:eek:

Now, the Catholic paradigm understands that when it says there are none who are righteous, that it is to be understood in the context with which it was written, and that, clearly, it does not mean ZERO exceptions.
 
That is what your paradigm proposes, that Jesus Christ was a sinner.

You stated that there are ZERO exceptions to the verse in Romans.

:eek:

Now, the Catholic paradigm understands that when it says there are none who are righteous, that it is to be understood in the context with which it was written, and that, clearly, it does not mean ZERO exceptions.
I don’t think so! 😃 You are trying to put words in my mouth because you cannot defend your position. Read all of Rom 3. God is including Jesus with himself because they are one in the same. Jesus=God=Jesus. He is talking about the “all” of humankind so ZERO is ZERO. 😉
 
I don’t think so! 😃 You are trying to put words in my mouth because you cannot defend your position. Read all of Rom 3. God is including Jesus with himself because they are one in the same. Jesus=God=Jesus. He is talking about the “all” of humankind so ZERO is ZERO. 😉
Eek! Now you’re in the position of denying Jesus’ humanity!

How will you defend this to Muslims now?
 
I don’t think so! 😃 You are trying to put words in my mouth because you cannot defend your position. Read all of Rom 3. God is including Jesus with himself because they are one in the same. Jesus=God=Jesus.** He is talking about the “all” of humankind so ZERO is ZERO. ;)**
Some points I’d like to address.
  1. Do you know what Paul was quoting, scripture wise, when he spoke of “None are righteous?”
  2. Once you check and find that it was Psalms that he was speaking of, such as Psalm 53:3, then check Psalm 52:6-7.
  3. Once you notice that the verse (mind you, I’m using an NRSV) addresses the Righteous, 'who see and fear and will laugh at the evildoer", and look at Psalm 53:3, which says “none are righteous”, you find that you cannot take it literally without context. There are righteous people, those who are hears AND doers of the word (reference James 1:22). And before then you had Job, who was “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.”
  4. In reference to Romans, if you read before, it speaks of how both the Jews and the Greeks are under the power of sin. What does that have to do with anything? Well, this reference to Scripture by Paul was to express the truth that there is now no more division. While the Jewish people remain the holders of the Original Covenant and the forebears of the New Covenant as well as the people into which Christ the Lord was born into, it was that both the Jews and the Greeks are equal under Christ. This is why the Scriptural reference was made, to show that the Jews and the Greeks (Gentiles) were not separated as they were before, with the Jews as the Chosen People. For both Jew and Greek are equal under Christ.
  5. So, yes, Paul was speaking of “all” of humankind, but not to say that there is not a single person righteous (as seen in Psalm 52 as well as Job), but that both are equal under Christ.
The only time ZERO is ZERO when referencing to Scripture is that there is ZERO proper understanding without the teaching aid of the Catholic Church. Read all of Romans 3, as you advised PRmerger earlier. 👍
 
Some points I’d like to address.
  1. Do you know what Paul was quoting, scripture wise, when he spoke of “None are righteous?”
  2. Once you check and find that it was Psalms that he was speaking of, such as Psalm 53:3, then check Psalm 52:6-7.
  3. Once you notice that the verse (mind you, I’m using an NRSV) addresses the Righteous, 'who see and fear and will laugh at the evildoer", and look at Psalm 53:3, which says “none are righteous”, you find that you cannot take it literally without context. There are righteous people, those who are hears AND doers of the word (reference James 1:22). And before then you had Job, who was “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.”
  4. In reference to Romans, if you read before, it speaks of how both the Jews and the Greeks are under the power of sin. What does that have to do with anything? Well, this reference to Scripture by Paul was to express the truth that there is now no more division. While the Jewish people remain the holders of the Original Covenant and the forebears of the New Covenant as well as the people into which Christ the Lord was born into, it was that both the Jews and the Greeks are equal under Christ. This is why the Scriptural reference was made, to show that the Jews and the Greeks (Gentiles) were not separated as they were before, with the Jews as the Chosen People. For both Jew and Greek are equal under Christ.
  5. So, yes, Paul was speaking of “all” of humankind, but not to say that there is not a single person righteous (as seen in Psalm 52 as well as Job), but that both are equal under Christ.
The only time ZERO is ZERO when referencing to Scripture is that there is ZERO proper understanding without the teaching aid of the Catholic Church. Read all of Romans 3, as you advised PRmerger earlier. 👍
Rom 3:9-18 What shall we conclude then? Are we any betterb? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”c
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”d
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”e
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”f
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”g
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”h

It is clear Paul is declaring there are none righteous Jew or Gentile because all are lost and do not seek God v11. God must first intervene in the human condition in order for anyone to be saved. PR was trying to put words in my mouth to say Jesus was not righteous because He was somehow not God.

These references are from many different scriptures and combined show how ALL are unrighteous and lost. Righteousness doesn’t take place in a vacuum. You are not righteous because YOU want to be. It is Gods’ prerogative to impart righteousness and save whom He will.

Footnotes:
a 4 Psalm 51:4
b 9 Or worse
c 12 Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20
d 13 Psalm 5:9
e 13 Psalm 140:3
f 14 Psalm 10:7
g 17 Isaiah 59:7,8
h 18 Psalm 36:1

I have read All of chapter 3.

Oh and yes, ZERO is ZERO when the Bible says so. 👍
 
PR was trying to put words in my mouth to say Jesus was not righteous -]because He was somehow not God./-]
No, jericho. You are saying Jesus is not righteous **because you say there are ZERO exceptions. **Verbatim. You said “so Zero is Zero.”

[SIGN1]Zero is Zero, according to jericho, means that there are no exceptions. NOT A SINGLE person is righteous in jericho’s paradigm.[/SIGN1]
Oh and yes, ZERO is ZERO when the Bible says so. 👍
I rest my case. :coffeeread:
 
** Righteousness doesn’t take place in a vacuum. You are not righteous because YOU want to be.** It is Gods’ prerogative to impart righteousness and save whom He will..
So, you are telling me that a person cannot choose righteousness? They cannot choose to follow God and become righteous?

So, obviously there are no bible verses that speak of people choosing to follow God.

-Job 1:1 "There once was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. That man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.

Looks like Job chose to fear God, turn away from evil, and therefore be righteous before the Lord.

-Deuteronomy 30:11-20, known as the Exhortation to Choose Life

-If you read this verse, it clearly states that it is not hard to choose to follow the Lord and become righteous.

And what of Noah? Abraham? Ezekiel? Samuel?

Oh, and what of this?

Matthew 6:33

Job 29:14-15

Psalm 34:14

These are bible verses which speak of the righteous who had the ability to choose to become righteous and follow the Lord. Salvation and righteousness is, due to Christ’s sacrifice and the Lord, attainable for all who wish and pursue it.

And that’s just off the top of my head. Again, you are lost without proper teaching. 🙂
 
Well 0.00000000000000000001% manage the challenge. It’s far easier to get in the marines or Britain’s paratroopers.
Where the heck did that statistic come from?? I don’t think you read what I wrote very carefully. Try again:
In other words (i.e., paraphrasing your OP):
Humans are born with innate inclinations towards sin, innate self-destructive tendencies. Then they were told that they need not remain enslaved to these inclinations, that they could be saved from them by their cooperation with the grace of God and freed from their self-destructive tendencies. Is it reasonable to demand such cooperation?

And the obvious answer to your question: Yes.

Please note: This response has nothing to do with the (red herring!) appeal to the fact that there are exceptions to the claim that “all have sinned,” such as the Blessed Virgin Mary and John the Baptist.

(The debate about whether Mary was sinless or not is really irrelevant. FYI, Jericho, St. Thomas was wrong: he reasoned that since Mary needed a savior, she must have first been conceived, lacking sanctifying grace, then (immediately) given sanctifying (i.e., saving) grace. Blessed John Duns Scotus pointed out that Thomas’ solution wasn’t necessary and that the traditional teaching of the Church could be reconciled with Mary’s needing a savior if we realize that God gave Mary sanctifying grace at the moment of her conception.)
 
“Humans were created sinful” ? Nonsense! There is a radical flaw in your concept of sin. Sinful activity occurs only when it is intentional. Humanity is far less evil than you make it out to be and ignorance is far more widespread than malice. There aren’t all that many murderers out on the moors… 🙂
 
“Humans were created sinful” ? Nonsense! There is a radical flaw in your concept of sin. Sinful activity occurs only when it is intentional. Humanity is far less evil than you make it out to be and ignorance is far more widespread than malice. There aren’t all that many murderers out on the moors… 🙂
That’s a straw man of Y-man’s position, based on an equivocation between “sinful” and “sinful activity” (i.e., between “inclined to sin” and “sinning”).
 
That’s a straw man of Y-man’s position, based on an equivocation between “sinful” and “sinful activity” (i.e., between “inclined to sin” and “sinning”).
It’s more akin to Puritanism than Catholicism but not even Puritans went that far! 🙂
 
This is the last post on this thread that I will make.

Please, please do a word search for the key words we are discussing. Read all the related scriptures for yourself.

Here is a link if you don’t have one of your own. biblegateway.com/keyword/

There are too many other issues intertwined for me to type a reasonable response.

Thank you, Jericho
 
That’s a straw man of Y-man’s position, based on an equivocation between “sinful” and “sinful activity” (i.e., between “inclined to sin” and “sinning”).
His notion of “sinful” is idiosyncratic. He understands the term as “designed to sin” rather than “inclined to sin”! He argues that sinful activity is inevitable because that is how God made us.

At all events he seems to have found the going too tough… 🙂
 
His notion of “sinful” is idiosyncratic. He understands the term as “designed to sin” rather than “inclined to sin”! He argues that sinful activity is inevitable because that is how God made us.
I agree, that’s an important theological point which he seems to be fudging. But at the same time I don’t think it’s a crucial one for answering his question. Even if one insists that “inclined to sin” is equivalent to “designed to sin,” it would still be entirely reasonable for God to demand cooperation with His grace in order to overcome this flaw.
At all events he seems to have found the going too tough… 🙂
It can’t be easy to successfully criticize the wisdom of the Church… He gave it a good try though. 🙂
 
Not the potential to sin. Guaranteed to sin. It’s the way we’re made.
Humans are concieved with the stain of original sin. This original sin can be erased in baptism.

Afterwards the 3 elements of temptation come into play - the most dangerous of which is our own concupiscience.

Free will would’ve been sufficiently alluring to have caused the fall of man. It was surely sufficient in the case of Lucifer and the fallen angels.

It’s so easy to blame God. Just imagen - The Lord arrives at the garden of Eden and asks Adam where are you?] Adam of course says that he was afraid because he was naked.
God asks, " who told you you were naked?"
Adam starts reaching for straws and blames the woman for giving him the forbidden fruit to eat.
So, God follows the trail to Eve. She in turn blames the Serpent !!

And this is where it gets curious because the Serpent didn’t pass the buck or blame God for creating “faulty” humans". Of the 3 participants in this crime scene - the Serpent is the only one to take responsibility (pridefully) for the whole debacle.

It’s the same story today - It’s God’s fault. Gee whiz people, wake up and smell the apples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top