I am responding here to the almost 3,000 word post, copied of course from another Islamic site, which itself was copied from... dealing with the topic of original sin. The article does not discuss Christian doctrine except in a highly tendentious manner.
There’s that word again. Do you even know what it means? Your
own article is tendentious, for crying out loud. Everything both of us are saying here is tendentious! There’s nothing necessarily wrong with being tendentious.
I will begin by saying that ultimate mystery of the origin of evil is not open to explanation by man and we have no idea really from the Bible other than a few scattered hints as to why God allowed it in the first place and as a consequence He would have to find a way to forgive us. All we can say (and I think it is the same in Islam) is that God is not the author of sin, God does not need sin in order to enhance his glory, in no way is God party to repeated acts of sin and finally, the responsibility of mankind is not diminished or excused on the grounds that they had no part in its inception.
I could just as easily say that you’re not excused on the grounds of having no part in the inception in the creation of the atomic bomb. You probably hadn’t been born yet, and if you had, I doubt very much there’s anything you could have done about it. Not contributing to an act of evil yourself? Check. Not able to prevent it from happening (especially since it’s already happened)? Check. Accountable for the act yourself? Big, frickin’ red X. This is, God willing, the last I will say on the matter to you, because it has never been any more debatable than it is now.
Revelation provides the explanation of what is unequivocally a matter of universal experience—the hereditary tendency to sin which sooner or later makes itself evident in everyone. The Bible say that the consequences of sin have descended upon all men, and particularly the inherent and persistent bias towards sin. One might note in this regard Genesis 8:21 (NIV) "The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done" and Psalm 51:5 (NIV) (NIV) "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
Having a tendency to do something is not the same as doing it. Some people are born with homosexual tendencies yet refrain from the act. I myself seem to have been born with a lack of ability to empathize, yet I am capable of behaving compassionately. Inclination =/= action.
So man finds himself as the reverse of the original righteousness and he has lost the power to become and habitually to remain righteous. This does not mean than man is as bad as he could possibly be but only that the evil principle has invaded each part of human nature.
The only way evil can invade your nature is if you willingly let it in.
I have no idea in the article where this idea of banishment from Heaven comes from and the writer seems to be confusing Satan with humanity. Christianity does not condemn all humanity to hell because of Adam for we know that all have sinned and come short of God's standard. This is further made plain because EACH man/woman must come to repentance and faith themselves and like Abraham that faith is counted as righteousness, that is Gods righteousness and like Abraham we still have to live in the body so still need daily forgiveness and a daily struggle after righteousness just as he did.
You believe in free daily forgiveness for individual sins yet not in free forgiveness for anyone’s collective sins, because God can’t forgive without torturing and killing. You believe that our own struggle for righteousness is necessarily an individual thing, yet not that we should only be judged as individuals in terms of how it comes out. I don’t know which inconsistency is worse.
So no we are not punished for Adams sin but for our own.
But if our own sin is inevitable because of his own, it amounts to the same. X resulting directly from Z is tantamount to X resulting directly from Y which itself results directly from Z. This is basic transitive logic. If you need it in plain English, it’s like you’re saying, “I’m not blaming you because a genetic predisposition makes you a mouth-breather: I’m just saying that each individual breath you take that way is your own fault, and even though you inherited the condition from your father you’re not being blamed because of him.”
The issues is a simple one, if God is absolutely Holy he cannot simply even in mercy wipe the slate clean because then he would be unjust…
No he wouldn’t! Not unless forgiveness itself is inherently unjust.
And if he is unjust he cannot be absolutely Holy so he has to provide a way of salvation that preserves who he is. Even in life there is always a cost to pay for sin by someone—if you kill my bother and I forgive you then it was not a free exchange of wrong for good was it, my brother is still dead?
Of course he’s still dead. Nobody said that forgiving a murderer has to resurrect the dead. The fact that a wrong act has been forgiven does not mean that it wasn’t wrong, nor does it being wrong mean that it cannot be forgiven. What am I doing even bothering to respond to this argument???
The article quotes Isaiah chapter 1 though offered no explanation but oner notes the words found there which say "come let us reason together..." and this exactly mirrors what Abraham did with Isaac, he reasoned that God would provide a way out so again is not free, a price had to be paid.
What?
Later in the article we are told that God is perfect in every way so how can he be perfect is he lets the sinner go free, because sine is deserting of punishment.
So it’s better to punish an innocent person in the guilty one’s stead than to let the guilty one not be punished when you absolutely know that they are truly repentant?
So I can look back and what God has done through the death and resurrection and Abraham could look forward and this who never heard any revelation have the revelation in nature and we can safely leave them to God.
Again it’s hard to tell exactly what you’re saying, but I’m finding that I’m caring less and less. In any event, type more carefully next time.