-- Posted by barnabas at 11:33 am on Nov. 5, 2008 We were talking about sin in one of my classes today and a debate sprung up over whether or not sin was a state you exist in, a seperation from God that exists down to the very marrow of your bones, or if sin is an act, something you can choose not to do everytime a situation occurs and theoretically be perfect. what are your thoughts? -- Posted by Darraaagh at 11:34 am on Nov. 5, 2008 I do not believe in sin and I am not Christian, however, I always assumed it to be an act. -- Posted by jamesish at 11:35 am on Nov. 5, 2008 I guess I sorta combine the first two. -- Posted by Epicure at 11:35 am on Nov. 5, 2008 I don't believe sin is anything. I believe in right and wrong, good and bad. I don't believe there is such a thing as sin as I don't believe there is a heaven or a hell or a God. Sin just doesn't exist for me. -- Posted by greatescape at 5:01 pm on Nov. 5, 2008 "Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions. Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny." Behavior is essentially our only outward form of portraying who we are as a person.  Since no one besides ourselves can possibly be conscious of what our true beliefs, attitudes, feelings and morals are; our actions must speak for us.  Therefore, sin (to me) has to be a state you exist in.   True, sin is an action.  But those actions are the basis for how you are perceived before others, and before God.  It would be ridiculous to say, "Yes, I sinned but that's not what I really believe so therefore I'm not a sinner."  That's like saying, "Yeah I smoke but I don't think I should....so I'm not a smoker."  Intention does not negate action. That being said, of course people make mistakes and no can be expected to never sin.  I believe that ties in more to the idea of free will....we have the ability to create that seperation from God, and (in my opinion) everyone does it at some point. In the end, we all may be considered sinners to some degree.  Ehhh....Romans 3:10 -- Posted by gronk at 5:16 pm on Nov. 5, 2008 sin is the state of man, being manifested down in our actions.   Read Romans 1-6 in particular 5:12-14   Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. -- Posted by barnabas at 7:07 pm on Nov. 5, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 7:01 pm on Nov. 5, 2008 "Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions. Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny."   Behavior is essentially our only outward form of portraying who we are as a person. Since no one besides ourselves can possibly be conscious of what our true beliefs, attitudes, feelings and morals are; our actions must speak for us. Therefore, sin (to me) has to be a state you exist in. True, sin is an action. But those actions are the basis for how you are perceived before others, and before God. It would be ridiculous to say, "Yes, I sinned but that's not what I really believe so therefore I'm not a sinner." That's like saying, "Yeah I smoke but I don't think I should....so I'm not a smoker." Intention does not negate action. That being said, of course people make mistakes and no can be expected to never sin. I believe that ties in more to the idea of free will....we have the ability to create that seperation from God, and (in my opinion) everyone does it at some point. In the end, we all may be considered sinners to some degree. Ehhh....Romans 3:10 and yet I think many try to claim "I lie, but I am not a liar. Or, I had committed the act of adultery but I am not an adulterer etc. some attempt to differentiate between the action and the actor. It bothers me, and in class today it bothered me, that we attempt to differentiate, compartmentalize, seperate it all out and attempt to distance ourselves from the concept of sin. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 6:40 am on Nov. 6, 2008 I'm twenty minutes from chapel at the moment, so I may have to expound on this once I get to work, but I'm fairly certain there is biblical justification for the idea that to be in Sin is to be in a state of sinfulness apart from grace, something different from committing a sin.  (As I write this, I can't find the verse about which I'm thinking.) My knee jerk answer is that to be in Sin is to be in a state of depravity (free will depravity, not ordained depravity) apart from grace, and that to sin is to act contrary to the will of God.  Thus, to sin does not mean someone is in Sin.  One may be in Christ and sin, trusting that the blood will blot out that sin.  I guess the whole concept appeals because my mind requires that a dramatic change in state must occur at the moment of salvation (I'm not liking that phrase, but you know what I'm talking about).  There is something metaphysically different about me lying and someone outside Christ lying.  (This is said more to indict than to absolve.)  That difference is easily understood by saying that I am no longer in Sin, but in Christ.  My sin is thus no longer due to my depravity but my active rebellion against grace. If you couldn't tell, I'm working through this as I go, and I think my conclusion is that I agree with the things the people who are upsetting you are saying (e.g. "I lie, but I'm not a liar"), but I think that should be something of which they are truly ashamed not something by which they are comforted. Edit: You know it just takes me a minute to systematize. Here, I made a chart. The more I think about this though, it is less about your question and more about the metaphyisical implications of sin with regard to the eternal disposition of one's soul. Edit 2: Okay, that's tiny, but you can enlarge it in my Public Album. -- Posted by barnabas at 8:23 am on Nov. 6, 2008 So are differentiating between sin and Sin? Sin being the state of "free will depravity" and sin being the acts you commit? so both is your answer? you did indeed get a bit sidetracked, but it is helping the conversation. Question to you/anyone willing to answer: Do you believe that it is possible, theoretically, for a normal person to be sinless? -- Posted by Prince o palities at 8:38 am on Nov. 6, 2008 I'm a naughty Pelagian.  I believe, contrary it would appear to Dr. Fortner, that a person can always choose right in theory. For that not to be true, one of two things must be the case.  Either: 1) In a given situation, there is no right mode of behavior and therefore people are trapped in no-win situations.  For this to be true, there must be holes in the ethical imperatives of God, that is situations He did not anticipate or for which He did not plan.  God's will in the world is incomplete. 2) If in every situation we assert that there is both a right and wrong moral action, then for man to be incapable of always making the right choice, God must infringe upon free will forcing man to do evil either by ordination (predestined depravity) or intervention (the situational suspension of free will), thus making God culpable in the sin and absolving man of his responsibility in it. If you believe that every situation has a right and a wrong method of behavior and that God does not infringe upon free will, then you must, in my opinion, believe it is possible in theory for man to live without sin. Moreover, what is the incarnation if it does not represent the real human capability to live without sin?  If Jesus was only sinless because of his divine nature, then he has set an impossible standard for man.  He is an ethical type which cannot be mimicked.  We cannot be imitators of Christ if he was not just as susceptible to sin on earth as we are. -- Posted by barnabas at 8:50 am on Nov. 6, 2008 And yet, I question the  idea that man can be perfect. If we could, why do we need CHrist and his death on the cross? if I can acheive a sinless state on my own (in theory) why is the crucifixion important for me? -- Posted by Prince o palities at 8:57 am on Nov. 6, 2008 It's important to you because you haven't been sinless in practice.  If you cannot achieve a sinless state on your own, then you proclaim that God has ordained sin, predetermined you for damnation. -- Posted by barnabas at 9:03 am on Nov. 6, 2008 Could A person born on this earth, achieve sinlessness? if so, would they go to heaven? -- Posted by Prince o palities at 9:09 am on Nov. 6, 2008 Why shouldn't they? -- Posted by barnabas at 9:12 am on Nov. 6, 2008 because sinlessness is not what saves us, belief in Christ is. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 9:23 am on Nov. 6, 2008 Universally, entering Christ is about our sins being atoned for.  I Peter 3, the washing of sins in baptism by the pledge of a clean conscience.  Acts 2, baptism for the forgiveness of your sins.  1 John 1 walking in the light allows for the blood of Jesus to cover all our sins.  Romans 6 (?) to become alive in Christ we must die to sin. Sin is what creates the need for an atoning savior.  Belief in that savior is what gives man a conduit for becoming sinless because he has no way to atone for his own sins except through death and damnation.  Being sinless doesn't save us because to be sinless would be to not need salvation. -- Posted by barnabas at 9:24 am on Nov. 6, 2008 Right. can we say that we do not need salvation? can we make that claim about a person?   oh. .well..Josephine doesnt need salvation. she got into heaven on her own? throwing in your favorite gospel: all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.. what are we to make of that in light of this thought that sinlessness is theoretically possible? -- Posted by Prince o palities at 9:35 am on Nov. 6, 2008 If Josephine has never sinned.  Of course, Josephine has sinned so she's in real trouble if she tries to manage on her own. -- Posted by barnabas at 9:41 am on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from Prince o palities at 11:35 am on Nov. 6, 2008 If Josephine has never sinned. Of course, Josephine has sinned so she's in real trouble if she tries to manage on her own. But I cannot bring myself to admit the possibility that she could be in a sinless state. sigh. off to read some theology, which will only further confuse me. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 9:49 am on Nov. 6, 2008 You're arguing like Jesse.  You can't just ignore the facts and keep saying "but I just can't accept that." Sin separates from God, yes?  Then without sin, there is nothing to separate men from God.  You have to either assert that God ordained man to sin or that man is capable of not sinning. -- Posted by barnabas at 12:21 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from Prince o palities at 11:49 am on Nov. 6, 2008 You're arguing like Jesse. You can't just ignore the facts and keep saying "but I just can't accept that." Sin separates from God, yes? Then without sin, there is nothing to separate men from God. You have to either assert that God ordained man to sin or that man is capable of not sinning. how rude. I am not. I am just struggling to put it all together.  I am reading bonhoffer, luther, and moltmann who all have a lot to say about the sinful state and I am struggling to get an answer that I find to be true. I was speaking of a personal struggle, not a theological disacceptance. I apologize. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 12:46 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I'm just giving you a hard time.  The point is that I can't imagine a way to safely say that man cannot be sinless of his own free will. Are Luther and Bonhoffer disagreeing?  Don't you read any proper theologians? -- Posted by barnabas at 12:54 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from Prince o palities at 2:46 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I'm just giving you a hard time. The point is that I can't imagine a way to safely say that man cannot be sinless of his own free will. Are Luther and Bonhoffer disagreeing? Don't you read any proper theologians? I had a debate with him recently. it hurt my brain. I hope I am not that bad at arguing theology. bonhoffer and luther compare sin to cancer. they claim it impact the very marrow of our bones. hello, have you met me? I am at a lutheran seminary. -- Posted by Shaknbake at 5:21 pm on Nov. 7, 2008 I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe in sin.   However, I have plenty of pennies and will deign to give you two. If we don't accept a literal understanding of The Fall of man, there's no reason to think that any event brought man into a state of sin. If that is so, then we are now just as God created us, and just as he intended for us to be. Unless God intended a sinful creation from the beginning, it doesn't follow that sin is a state, but that sinfulness is our tendency. I'd be inclined to say that to sin is to act in a way out of accordance with God's prescribed ways, and if a human somehow had the capacity to avoid doing that, they would live and die sinless*. Edit: Having read some of the discussion, I'll add that I think with (*) there'd be no need for salvation. -- Posted by nik1 at 11:39 am on Nov. 11, 2008 I don't like any of the choices.  I think the list of sins can start with the Ten Commandments for which needs to be updated. Rape, molestation and incest should be added and anyone committing these plus murder should be executed. -- Posted by barnabas at 2:21 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from nik1 at 1:39 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 I don't like any of the choices. I think the list of sins can start with the Ten Commandments for which needs to be updated.   Rape, molestation and incest should be added and anyone committing these plus murder should be executed. that has nothing do to with what we are talking about.