is sin reletive to salvation status?

[tambi]

Hello all, I'm new here and I really dig the site.

This is a concept that I have been contemplating, and I would appreciate some thoughts on the matter.

According to Christian doctrine, every human being is inherently evil. As such, bothering to try to be ‘good’ is irrelevant because even if you are near to perfect, not being perfect negates god’s love for you. The only way God will ever love you (or rather, the only way God’s love for you will manifest itself as salvation rather then hell) is if you confess Christ and become a Christian.

Since Christians are obviously as sinful as the rest of us, does sin not then become relative to doctrinal belief? If sin is what supposedly separates us from god, then why does the sinning Christian attain salvation? Because they are sorry and believe God to have a certain nature? If so, then is sin not relative?

[McCulloch]

Welcome tambi

You might want to have a look at Are people naturally good or evil and why? We have not gotten very far, so feel free to jump right in.

According to Christian doctrine, every human being is inherently evil.

Christian doctrine is not quite uniform on this issue. The Calvinists (the original Presbyterians and Reformed churches) taught that humans are completely sinful and therefore salvation is entirely up to God. Most modern Christians teach that while humans inherently cannot avoid sin, they are also made in God's image and have the capability to choose good.

Either way, the remedy is to be forgiven for your sin by Jesus' substitutionary atonement. That way, you can be seen by God as free from sin because, if you have faith in God's Son, your sin is attributed to him.

[tambi]

Thanks for the link McCulloch; I’ll check out the thread.

My question isn't exactly about the human state of good or evil, as much as it's about sin's state of relativity in Christianity. if 'sin' is what separates us from God, so much so that people end up in hell for it (annihilationism and universalism aside) then logically, wouldn't that same sin effect Christian humans?

But Christians declare themselves dead to sin, through faith in Christ's sacrifice. So to the (arminian) Christian, sin becomes irrelevant. It is a non-issue effecting only non-Christians on their lifelong path down to hell. It just seems a little too simple. "The wages of sin is death", unless you believe X about the nature of God, then it becomes a non-issue...

[McCulloch]

But Christians declare themselves dead to sin, through faith in Christ's sacrifice. So to the (arminian) Christian, sin becomes irrelevant. It is a non-issue effecting only non-Christians on their lifelong path down to hell. It just seems a little too simple. "The wages of sin is death", unless you believe X about the nature of God, then it becomes a non-issue...

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.

Knowing that they are forgiven of their sins, Christians can feel free from the burden of sin and have no reason to continue in sin.

[tambi]

Knowing that they are forgiven of their sins, Christians can feel free from the burden of sin and have no reason to continue in sin.

But the 'sin' effecting non-Christians before they accept Christ is seen as inherent in their nature. After they accept Christ, this sin-nature is washed away, but they are still capable of 'sins', which are also apparently covered by the cross.

The problem I have is that the sins that Christians commit prove that they are still indeed fallible and capable of sin, so how is it that God can accept them, if it is 'sin' itself that separates humans from god?

At what point does the sin of the non-Christian become worse then the sin of the Christian, or the sin of the Christian more acceptable then that of the non-Christian?

If sin is the problem, then logically, sinning Christians will go to hell. But the problem becomes complicated when the idea of doctrinal belief comes into the picture. Sin is not the problem, now, lack of doctrinal belief is the problem. Sin as a separation is replaced with not believing the 'right things'.

[Greatest I Am]

Men are born, live and die, perfect. God is perfect and as the maker can do no wrong. A short while ago I held a newborn and try as I might I could not perseave the slightess blemish on this new soal. Another siner born. I'f God did interfere in our humble works and heard his work denegrated in some such fashion, Hed flip out.

Regards

DL

[tambi]

Men are born, live and die, perfect.

how I wish this was the truth!

God is perfect and as the maker can do no wrong. A short while ago I held a newborn and try as I might I could not perseave the slightess blemish on this new soal.

yeah, it's really hard to see sin in the face of pure innocence

Another siner born. I'f God did interfere in our humble works and heard his work denegrated in some such fashion, Hed flip out.

Regards

DL

it is sort of a strange theology, but I guess it pulls everything else together

[tambi]

Men are born, live and die, perfect.

how I wish this were the truth!

God is perfect and as the maker can do no wrong. A short while ago I held a newborn and try as I might I could not perseave the slightess blemish on this new soal. Another siner born.

yeah, it is rather difficult to see sin in the face of pure innocence

I'f God did interfere in our humble works and heard his work denegrated in some such fashion, Hed flip out.

Regards

DL

It is sort of a strange idea, that everyone is born guilty, but I guess it pulls everything else together theologically.

[Confused]

Knowing that they are forgiven of their sins, Christians can feel free from the burden of sin and have no reason to continue in sin.

But the 'sin' effecting non-Christians before they accept Christ is seen as inherent in their nature. After they accept Christ, this sin-nature is washed away, but they are still capable of 'sins', which are also apparently covered by the cross.

The problem I have is that the sins that Christians commit prove that they are still indeed fallible and capable of sin, so how is it that God can accept them, if it is 'sin' itself that separates humans from god?

At what point does the sin of the non-Christian become worse then the sin of the Christian, or the sin of the Christian more acceptable then that of the non-Christian?

If sin is the problem, then logically, sinning Christians will go to hell. But the problem becomes complicated when the idea of doctrinal belief comes into the picture. Sin is not the problem, now, lack of doctrinal belief is the problem. Sin as a separation is replaced with not believing the 'right things'.

I am trying to grasp what you are getting at. Is sin relative to salvation, yes. In the way I understand it (mind you I am confused), there are some sins that if they are committed, you become dead to God, regardless of your repenting. Such as murder, adultery etc... Now, here is where it gets sticky, because the sin may not be relative to salvation as well. For example, you murder someone protecting your family. Is that murder? Is that a sin that you can commit and still obtain salvation? I don't know. The characteristic difference seems to be slightly implied that if you are Christian, you wouldn't do these things. However, Christians are as fallible as non-Christians, so they will still sin. The question becomes at what point does asking for forgiveness no longer become meaningful. How many times can one commit the same sin and still gain forgiveness for repenting?

By Christian standards, I don't believe there is any sin that a Christian can commit that is worse than an non-Christian. Simply being Christian negates the desire to commit sin (or at least I am told) though they are still tested, their faith is what prevents them from committing sin. Does this make sense? No. Another logical inconsistency. I know many Christians that have done a lot worse than I, yet they still believe that by Christian doctrine, they are saved. I don't understand that, but it is what I am told.

I doubt I answered any of your questions, but I can't seem to pinpoint exactly what you are seeking an answer to. But there is my two cents anyways.

[tambi]

The characteristic difference seems to be slightly implied that if you are Christian, you wouldn't do these things. However, Christians are as fallible as non-Christians, so they will still sin. The question becomes at what point does asking for forgiveness no longer become meaningful. How many times can one commit the same sin and still gain forgiveness for repenting?

It does seem like a paradox, because we see that Christians are fallible and sin enabled, but they apparently are not held accountable to the same extent (ie. hell or destruction) as non-christians, through specific Christian beliefs.

By Christian standards, I don't believe there is any sin that a Christian can commit that is worse than an non-Christian. Simply being Christian negates the desire to commit sin (or at least I am told) though they are still tested, their faith is what prevents them from committing sin. Does this make sense? No. Another logical inconsistency. I know many Christians that have done a lot worse than I, yet they still believe that by Christian doctrine, they are saved. I don't understand that, but it is what I am told.

I find it problematic, this notion that following and believing in a scripture makes one more spiritually or morally elevated then non believers, and that even the sin of such a believer is of less issue then that of the non believer.

I doubt I answered any of your questions, but I can't seem to pinpoint exactly what you are seeking an answer to. But there is my two cents anyways.

thanks for responding none the less. what I am trying to understand is how Christians can view their sins forgiven simply by believing them forgiven, while simultaneously denying this forgiveness for others simply because they are of a differing belief.

If sin is the separating factor, and intrinsic to human nature resulting from the fall, then it should effect sinning christians as it does non Christians...which is a position most christians deny. so which is the real separation between God and humanity; sin, or lack of faith in Christ?