DeletedUser8396
Guest
Grace is defined as “(in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.” Stripping away the excess, this definition boils down into the unmerited forgiveness of sins. What this means, precisely is that the sin enacted by the individual, if shown grace, was forgiven without the individual doing any act that would reasonably warrant the forgiveness.
In Romans 5:20, it states: “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.”
Basically, this verse relays that grace is more abundant than sin, essentially that grace is more than adequate in relation to the amount of sin present. And this is how it should be. For if one man, Adam, can cause the fall of more than one man, then surely the Son of man’s sacrifice provides grace for all those caused to fall. If incapable, the sacrifice is inadequate and, by extension, salvation. If capable, grace has already abounded more greatly than sin. This is seen in Romans 5:15-17.
Anyway:
In most traditional beliefs, forgiveness of sin is conditional upon several different factors ranging from “believing in Jesus”, “repentance”, and other aspects of the Christian “salvation cycle.” However, the forgiveness of sin, by very necessity cannot be based on any condition. For if Christ has died and risen and taken the punishment for all sin, all sin is warranted grace. If Christ has died and risen, but the grace has only abounded beyond the sin of those satisfying conditions, then the forgiveness is no longer grace, as it would be deserved. There is no possibility of part of humanity being granted grace and some not.
This obviously proposes an issue as it is stated that there are requirements for the forgiveness of sin. However, applying restrictions to something deemed unconditional is contradictory and cannot be done. This forms a discrepancy, which must be answered, yet cannot be answered.
There are roughly three options:
1. Forgiveness is conditional.
2. Forgiveness is unconditional.
3. Christianity is false.
Since the third option seems a bit of hurried judgement, let us take a look at the first two options.
#1 – Forgiveness is conditional.
If forgiveness is conditional, then grace cannot abound greater than the sin of those satisfying the conditions. If grace, in its nature is unconditional, then grace must apply to everyone or else it is not grace.
And if sin were to be infinite? What then? Let’s see:
Let us discuss sin’s three forms - a verb, noun and state of being.
Verb - If the act of sin warrants an eternal punishment, and the action itself is finite, then the eternal punishment is not just for the finite sin. This then creates an imbalance in punishment vs. crime and any forgiveness is irrelevant. The forgiveness, though, could forgive in a finite state, and then remove the eternal punishment, making grace extend infinitely. The problem is, that if the punishment is infinite, and the atonement is infinite, then grace did not abound more, but abounded equally (which is contradictory to Romans 5:20).
Noun – N/A
State of Being – As stated in Romans 5:12, the state of sin was passed from Adam to all men, with only Adam willfully choosing the state of sin. This state of sin, while unforgiven, gives eternal punishment. As being in a state of sin is an ongoing slight, infinite punishment is warranted. Were the state chosen, that is. One cannot be justly punished for being in a state one did not choose.
Every individual aside from Adam, having no choice in the sin state, cannot be held accountable and punished for being in the sin state (sin acts, yes – refer to prior section). If forgiveness is conditional and grace not apply to some, the eternal punishment is applied to a choice the individual did not make. Therefore, an unjust punishment.
Since the forgiveness is made necessary, then there is an imbalance between punishment and forgiveness. If there is no choice in the state of sin (which demands punishment), then there should be no choice in the forgiveness or atonement of that sin. The only way to apply it to a creature with free will without giving a choice, is by making it automatically atone for all.
If forgiveness is conditional, this is not the case. Grace therefore, under this option, does not abound infinitely, whereas the state of sin does. This then causes a discrepancy with Romans 5:20.
Option 1 falls short.
#2 – Forgiveness is unconditional.
If this stance is supported, then all requirements of scripture are filled except those that say you must believe on God to be forgiven. If a part of scripture is denied in the process of supporting scripture, then there is a discrepancy in the Bible. Since the basis of forgiveness itself is flawed, then grace itself is flawed. Grace cannot exist if it is conditional, and can only abound more than sin if it is unconditional, yet (due to restrictions in other passages) forgiveness cannot be unconditional.
If forgiveness is flawed, salvation is flawed. This means that those who are saved, are saved unjustly, and those who are condemned are condemned unjustly. If the salvation and condemnation judgments are unjust, this then means that the judge is unjust. If the judge is unjust, and God is the judge, this then means God is unjust.
If God is unjust, then He has no basis to give guidelines on what sin is, as any rules can be considered arbitrary. If He loses this ability, then He is not omnipotent, as He would lack the power to set rules and order. If He loses His omnipotence, He ceases to be God. If God ceases to be God, then option three becomes correct.
________________________________________________
One of my first arguments against the existence of God. Wrote it in HS, Senior year. Good times. Good times.
In Romans 5:20, it states: “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.”
Basically, this verse relays that grace is more abundant than sin, essentially that grace is more than adequate in relation to the amount of sin present. And this is how it should be. For if one man, Adam, can cause the fall of more than one man, then surely the Son of man’s sacrifice provides grace for all those caused to fall. If incapable, the sacrifice is inadequate and, by extension, salvation. If capable, grace has already abounded more greatly than sin. This is seen in Romans 5:15-17.
Anyway:
In most traditional beliefs, forgiveness of sin is conditional upon several different factors ranging from “believing in Jesus”, “repentance”, and other aspects of the Christian “salvation cycle.” However, the forgiveness of sin, by very necessity cannot be based on any condition. For if Christ has died and risen and taken the punishment for all sin, all sin is warranted grace. If Christ has died and risen, but the grace has only abounded beyond the sin of those satisfying conditions, then the forgiveness is no longer grace, as it would be deserved. There is no possibility of part of humanity being granted grace and some not.
This obviously proposes an issue as it is stated that there are requirements for the forgiveness of sin. However, applying restrictions to something deemed unconditional is contradictory and cannot be done. This forms a discrepancy, which must be answered, yet cannot be answered.
There are roughly three options:
1. Forgiveness is conditional.
2. Forgiveness is unconditional.
3. Christianity is false.
Since the third option seems a bit of hurried judgement, let us take a look at the first two options.
#1 – Forgiveness is conditional.
If forgiveness is conditional, then grace cannot abound greater than the sin of those satisfying the conditions. If grace, in its nature is unconditional, then grace must apply to everyone or else it is not grace.
And if sin were to be infinite? What then? Let’s see:
Let us discuss sin’s three forms - a verb, noun and state of being.
Verb - If the act of sin warrants an eternal punishment, and the action itself is finite, then the eternal punishment is not just for the finite sin. This then creates an imbalance in punishment vs. crime and any forgiveness is irrelevant. The forgiveness, though, could forgive in a finite state, and then remove the eternal punishment, making grace extend infinitely. The problem is, that if the punishment is infinite, and the atonement is infinite, then grace did not abound more, but abounded equally (which is contradictory to Romans 5:20).
Noun – N/A
State of Being – As stated in Romans 5:12, the state of sin was passed from Adam to all men, with only Adam willfully choosing the state of sin. This state of sin, while unforgiven, gives eternal punishment. As being in a state of sin is an ongoing slight, infinite punishment is warranted. Were the state chosen, that is. One cannot be justly punished for being in a state one did not choose.
Every individual aside from Adam, having no choice in the sin state, cannot be held accountable and punished for being in the sin state (sin acts, yes – refer to prior section). If forgiveness is conditional and grace not apply to some, the eternal punishment is applied to a choice the individual did not make. Therefore, an unjust punishment.
Since the forgiveness is made necessary, then there is an imbalance between punishment and forgiveness. If there is no choice in the state of sin (which demands punishment), then there should be no choice in the forgiveness or atonement of that sin. The only way to apply it to a creature with free will without giving a choice, is by making it automatically atone for all.
If forgiveness is conditional, this is not the case. Grace therefore, under this option, does not abound infinitely, whereas the state of sin does. This then causes a discrepancy with Romans 5:20.
Option 1 falls short.
#2 – Forgiveness is unconditional.
If this stance is supported, then all requirements of scripture are filled except those that say you must believe on God to be forgiven. If a part of scripture is denied in the process of supporting scripture, then there is a discrepancy in the Bible. Since the basis of forgiveness itself is flawed, then grace itself is flawed. Grace cannot exist if it is conditional, and can only abound more than sin if it is unconditional, yet (due to restrictions in other passages) forgiveness cannot be unconditional.
If forgiveness is flawed, salvation is flawed. This means that those who are saved, are saved unjustly, and those who are condemned are condemned unjustly. If the salvation and condemnation judgments are unjust, this then means that the judge is unjust. If the judge is unjust, and God is the judge, this then means God is unjust.
If God is unjust, then He has no basis to give guidelines on what sin is, as any rules can be considered arbitrary. If He loses this ability, then He is not omnipotent, as He would lack the power to set rules and order. If He loses His omnipotence, He ceases to be God. If God ceases to be God, then option three becomes correct.
________________________________________________
One of my first arguments against the existence of God. Wrote it in HS, Senior year. Good times. Good times.
