Ask a Protestant Christian

[Jehoshua]

Ah infighting amongst protestants... again.

As to the question regarding sin by accident. For something to be a sin it has to fulfill both the act, and the intent. So a person must willingly commit the sin. An act that is sinful in nature which is commited by accident (ie without intent) is therefore not a sin.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ah infighting amongst protestants... again.

As to the question regarding sin by accident. For something to be a sin it has to fulfill both the act, and the intent. So a person must willingly commit the sin. An act that is sinful in nature which is commited by accident (ie without intent) is therefore not a sin.

Why are you answering in ASK A PROTESTANT?

But anyway, wouldn't that mean by definition some people haven't sinned and so Romans 3:23 is wrong?

 

[PeteAtoms]

Ah infighting amongst protestants... again.

As to the question regarding sin by accident. For something to be a sin it has to fulfill both the act, and the intent. So a person must willingly commit the sin. An act that is sinful in nature which is commited by accident (ie without intent) is therefore not a sin.

So your definition of a sin is determined by the actual event and motivation/intent?

What do you mean by 'intent?' It was God's intent to kill every first born child of Egypt. This act and intent seem malicious in my mind, and a sin by your response.

Or is a sin simply something that acts defiantly/contrary to God's will? In this case, we would need to assume that ALL accidents are God's will. And I have a hard time seeing God acting in such a way. The staggering amount of sorrow, pain and anguish that come from accidents make me question what sin is. It would come down to God's personality to include evil, or God be amoral all together. Making humanity's very real belief in morals an illusion.

I forgot where I was going with this actually...

 

[Jehoshua]

Why are you answering in ASK A PROTESTANT?

But anyway, wouldn't that mean by definition some people haven't sinned and so Romans 3:23 is wrong?

I answered on this question because this understanding of what constitutes sin is general amongst Catholics and most protestant groups. And since you seemed unable to give an answer I did instead.

And no, it does not invalidate Romans 3:23 as humans naturally are born with original sin (cleansed at baptism) and are likewise naturally inclined towards sin even post baptism. Everyone sins in some way due to this fallen nature whether that be merely venial sin, or mortal sin.

 

[Jehoshua]

So your definition of a sin is determined by the actual event and motivation/intent?

What do you mean by 'intent?' It was God's intent to kill every first born child of Egypt. This act and intent seem malicious in my mind, and a sin by your response.

Or is a sin simply something that acts defiantly/contrary to God's will? In this case, we would need to assume that ALL accidents are God's will. And I have a hard time seeing God acting in such a way. The staggering amount of sorrow, pain and anguish that come from accidents make me question what sin is. It would come down to God's personality to include evil, or God be amoral all together. Making humanity's very real belief in morals an illusion.

I forgot where I was going with this actually...

Your post is a bit confusing.

Firstly God is not some puppeteer manipulating everyone to do exactly what he wants. Humans have free will and can thus act in freedom to love or reject God. Thus in the instance of an accident that would ordinarily be sinful, this not sin because the action did not originate out of ones free will, but rather accidentally and without intent.

As to natural disasters, they are the way nature works, without them the world would perhaps be an even more inhospitable place, attributing every act of nature to God is simply lessening God to another pagan god of thunder or earthquakes. But suffering can be a way to God, as through suffering we can become more in tune with the voice of God who suffered on the cross, and through the human spirit working together in times of crisis we can see the best of humanity flowing out leading to an awakening of grace within the human soul, thus leading to a greater understanding of love that may not emerge in more ordinary times.

As to Egypt, God is not only a God of love, but judge and lawgiver also. Thus in the case of Egypt they were given many times to repent of their sins and to release the children of Israel from slavery and oppression. But the pharaoh refused and thus God, after many warnings to the Egyptians sent the plague of the firstborn which finally turned the mind of pharoah to release the people of Israel. Thus you can see that God's intent was not to kill the firtborn children originally, but that in order to affect the freedom of Israel it came to such a judgement (which was fitting in response to the massacre of the israelite children) to free them in order to ensure the greater good occured.

 

[El_Machinae]

Man, you have no idea how sick that sounds. It boggles.

 

[Jehoshua]

If you are refferring to me, im not an authoritative voice on the matter and am no expert in this area, so I'd suggest going elsewhere to get the authoritative understanding. (from the ordinary and universal magisterium)

-

Likewise in another response to Domination3000 inquiring as to why I answered here, I would like to ask why he answered on the ask a catholic thread (and incorrectly as well in a catholic perspective) to the point of causing to moderator interventions in two consecutive days?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I answered on this question because this understanding of what constitutes sin is general amongst Catholics and most protestant groups.

Well, I don't inherently agree with it. I believe ANYTHING that displeases God is Sin. Then again, not all Protestants think that.

And since you seemed unable to give an answer I did instead.

Not a big deal, don't worry about it, no harm done

And no, it does not invalidate Romans 3:23 as humans naturally are born with original sin (cleansed at baptism) and are likewise naturally inclined towards sin even post baptism. Everyone sins in some way due to this fallen nature whether that be merely venial sin, or mortal sin.

True.

Do you believe baptism cleanses sin if it isn't done in a Catholic Church?

Likewise in another response to Domination3000 inquiring as to why I answered here, I would like to ask why he answered on the ask a catholic thread (and incorrectly as well in a catholic perspective) to the point of causing to moderator interventions in as many days?

When did I do that?

Firstly God is not some puppeteer manipulating everyone to do exactly what he wants. Humans have free will and can thus act in freedom to love or reject God.

Careful now! The Calvinists would disagree...

 

[Jehoshua]

Baptism is valid if it is done with the correct intent and the correct form. (the trinitarian formula) thus even a non-christian could baptise someone if the intent was to initiate someone as a christian. Thus all christian baptisms (barring mormons) using the trinitarian formula are valid in the eyes of the catholic church.

Incidentally Baptism is the only sacrament of the Church that does not require an ordained minister to enact (although the ordinary minister of baptism is someone in an ordained clerical state [deacon, priest, bishop]).

 

[GhostWriter16]

Baptism is valid if it is done with the correct intent and the correct form. (the trinitarian formula) thus even a non-christian could baptise someone if the intent was to initiate someone as a christian. Thus all christian baptisms (barring mormons) using the trinitarian formula are valid in the eyes of the catholic church.

Just for the sake of discussion, do Mormons not use the Trinitarian formula then?

 

[Bill3000]

Just for the sake of discussion, do Mormons not use the Trinitarian formula then?

They do not.

 

[Jehoshua]

I think they do.

But their understanding of the trinity (three separate gods basically) is so contradictory and abherrant that the intent is absent as the correct understanding of the holy trinity is not there. Thus the Church does not accept baptism by mormons.

In other words the Catholic Church does not recognise them as within the bounds of christianity beyond the basest and most rudimentary understanding of the term.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think they do.

But their understanding of the trinity (three separate gods basically) is so contradictory and abherrant that the intent is absent as the correct understanding of the holy trinity is not there. Thus the Church does not accept baptism by mormons.

In other words the Catholic Church does not recognise them as within the bounds of christianity beyond the basest and most rudimentary understanding of the term.

Well, I agree with Catholics on that issue.

 

[timtofly]

Man, you have no idea how sick that sounds. It boggles.

It boggles my mind how two men can think they can procreate, but to each his own image-nations.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

It boggles my mind how two men can think they can procreate, but to each his own image-nations.

What does that have to do with Exodus?

 

[timtofly]

Are bad things that happen as a result of accidents considered a sin?

Do bad things committed by mentally dysfunctional people qualify as sins?

While it is possible to recognize there is "sin" happening. Sin no longer makes or brakes a person in God's eye. Now we have laws and when someone commits an offense and found guilty, they have to repay to society the debt owed.

God does not ask anyone to pay back their debt of sin, thus sin is irrelevant. Confessing ones sin does not pay the debt, it only shows God one is repentant. One does not go to hell because one has committed a sin, one goes to hell because one is a human, who has not accepted Jesus to pay the debt for them.

So if an act is comitted either by intent or accident, our laws require repayment due the situation, but God just sees Jesus's death on the cross. If a person is declared mentally incappable of comitting with intent, then they do not have to re-pay society. God just sees Jesus and His death on the cross. Humans are continualling judging themselves and seeing things as sin. God just sees Jesus and His death on the cross.

 

[timtofly]

What does that have to do with Exodus?

It has nothing to do with Exodus. It has everything to do with El_Machinae though. Maybe he can explain it to you.

 

[Behind The Mask]

It has nothing to do with Exodus. It has everything to do with El_Machinae though. Maybe he can explain it to you.

Perhaps I'm noting this wrongly, but is this some sort of insult of the homosexual flavor?

 

[GhostWriter16]

God does not ask anyone to pay back their debt of sin, thus sin is irrelevant. Confessing ones sin does not pay the debt, it only shows God one is repentant. One does not go to hell because one has committed a sin, one goes to hell because one is a human, who has not accepted Jesus to pay the debt for them.

Actually, man goes to Hell because he sins, which everyone does. If God sent someone to Hell simply for not believing, that would be unjust, but he doesn't. He sends people to Hell for their sin. Only by the blood of Christ can that debt be paid.

 

[Jehoshua]

Actually, man goes to Hell because he sins, which everyone does. If God sent someone to Hell simply for not believing, that would be unjust, but he doesn't. He sends people to Hell for their sin. Only by the blood of Christ can that debt be paid.

exactamundi, although on the specifics we may disagree.

-

Sin is not irrelevant, you are merely equating sin with actions that have consequence in law which is fallacious (abortion is a grievous sin, and yet it is legal in many places). Sin is what separates us from God as God is perfect and nothing imperfect can exists in the presence of God. Thus one must repent of their sin sincerely and freely accept the divine mercy of God and his grace given freely through the one, eternal sacrifice of Christ on the cross in order to reach salvation.

According to your logic Timtofly I could profess Christ sincerely from the bottom of my heart and then go commit a chainsaw massacre to no ill effect on my chances at obtaining the heavenly reward.