Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@USResident

Oldman, waiting for a response to post 27

Sorry, did not think you required a response.

OldMan, the bible also says this (Eziekel 18), it does not get anymore clearer than this that no father or son is responsible for each others deeds

As I always say, one needs to take the whole Bible in context. Your quote is correct and reflects what God will do on the day of judgement. Each will be reponsible for his own conduct.

My quote (The sins of the fathers are visited on the sons (Ex.20v5; Ex.34v7; Lev.26v39-40; Num.14v18; Deut.5v9) never the sins of the mothers) reflects what God will do while they are living and that the sinful nature is traced through fatherhood, not motherhood. For example, we all are still under the “curse” put on Adam by having to work hard for a living but it will not influence our standing before God’s throne.

The sinful nature will ALWAYS ensure that all mankind sins. It is not because of Adam that we sin, but our own choice. For example, if we did not know Good from Evil, how could we sin? Because Adam ate from the tree, we all do know Good from Evil.

[ravage]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@The Old Man

Correct.

It actually is both. You have to make a choice but it depends on God whether He will accept you. He might for instance know that you might mean well, but are not earnest in your desire, He might know that you can’t keep your resolution, etc.

Whenever salvation is discussed in the New Testament, one find a two-fold action required: e.g. God knocks on the door (your heart), you open the door, etc.

That is a reasonable view regarding guidance, and pretty much what the Islamic view is as I understand it, although not necessarily God knocking first.

Everyone is held liable for his own actions only. ALL of mankind, having a sinful nature, sin though and are therefor guilty. There are NO person that can state s/he has NEVER EVER sinned. Remember that one can sin unknowingly as well.

**You don’t understand. It is not the sinning but the being infected by a sinful nature. Being infected, you carry the possibility to sin in you whatever you do or whenever you become responsible for your own actions.

You are not born with sin but with a sinful nature. ALL has this tendency to transgress God’s will.
**

**

This is why I asked the question regarding the view of man’s sinfulness in Christianity and was talking on the basis of this answer:

@The Old Man

**When Christians say “We are all sinners” that is not based on the human predisposition to sinning but that by birth every child that is born is actually a sinner by default. **
Correct

Do you therefore believe that we are only born with the possibility of sin, or are we born as sinners already? In order words, upto the point where a person commits his first sin, is he infact sinless, and does he have absolutely no consequence in his afterlife of Adam’s sin?

Can you also tell us the beliefs on this specific question of various prominent groups within Christianity, the belief that until you commit your first sin you are by nature pure?

Sin is the not performing as how God Almighty would like you to perform in any situation. The moment God’s commands are written as a set of rules and regulations to be kept, mankind will try and cicumvent it and find loopholes. That’s why Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but taught:

Matt.5v19-28 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments…You heard that it is said…‘Do not murder..’. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement…anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell…. Jesus clearly explained how serious and difficult it is to live without any sin.

Take for instance the Islamic view on interest. Now I know the taking of interest is not permitted by the Qur’an. But it is circumvented by “words” calling it “capital growth/profit”. There is NOTHING different in the way an Islamic Bank structures a “loan” relative to a non-Islamic Bank. In both cases the house will belong to the bank who can take it back if the “loan” is not paid. In both cases the amount is the same as well as the monthly payment. It is only words. Every non-Muslim look at the situation and see it for what it is.

In South Africa the growth of a insurance policy/annuity is taxable while mony paid on a loan not. Some while back some business people went to insurance brokers and ask them for a loan. The loan only to be paid out after 10 years but they will be paying the loan off in the meantime at the same rate. The final amount and the monthly installments worked out the same whether the transaction was a policy/annuity or loan. It was merelyy a play on words. The government was furious and had to change the tax laws to block the “loophole”.

With God there are no loopholes. If an Islamic scholar tells you it is OK to watch movies and he is mistaken, you could have sinned in the eyes of God. Now tell me who has never ever sinned according to above definition as per Jesus and the Bible?

So what is the consequence of Jesus’s death? Is the possibility of sin removed from those who believe in Jesus? Or are they forgiven the consequences of their sins? In the former case you are adopting far too optimistic a view of a believer’s in Christ’s sinlessness. In the latter case you are taking away personal responsibility and encouraging an attitude of laxity towards sin.

Either God’s rules make sense, in which case it should be a sin to violate them, or they are capricious, pointless tediuous rules with no real purpose except to incur God’s wrath in the event of violation, which would make sense to find a way to not have to live by them.

One get’s what one wants on the internet. Your first reference makes a gross mistake in stating that the Baptist and Assembly-of-God denominations do not teach original sin. Why should I take the rest of the article as being true? ALL Christian denominations teach that original sin came into the world by Adam’s action.
As per this link gives a somewhat more balanced view as can be seen. Some Jews believe in original sin, others not. Lately Judaism is also aflicted (similar to Christianity) with humanistic teachings.

Let’s look what the Bible (Jewish Old Testament) say on the issue:

1. All of mankind have sinned (Ps.14v2-3; Isa.53v6; Eccl.7v20; Ps.130v3; Ps.143v2)
2. All are deceiteful in nature (Jer.17v9; Gen.6v5; Ps.94v11)
3. Born in sin (Ps.51v5)
4. According to Gen.2v17-19 ALL of Adam’s offspring is penalised because of Adam’s sin. We are, for instance, not in Paradise anymore…

I gave you multiple links, and actually did not parse through articles, only gave you the first five or six links that come up with the google search judaism+“original sin”, that looked relatively reliable (with .org domain names and well developed and jewish background).

The jewish difference of opinion is not on whether man himself is sinful when born, but whether we are on earth excluded from paradise as a result of Adam’s sin, and whether death is a result of Adam’s sin (since prior to that Adam was living an eternal life). Clearly that is divergent from the topic we are discussing, that man is inherently a sinner by default regardless of what he does.

In this post though you stress that man is not a sinner regardless of what he does, but infact has the potential to sin. That is not far from the judaic and Islamic view points, which though also stress that man also has the potential for good, a notion that Christianity always seems to disregard.

I should mention though that for much of Christianity it is not merely the capacity of sin that is inherited by birth, but it is actually the sin. The belief in Limbo for catholics,where unbaptized/unfreed from original sin people such as handicapped children go is an example of that.

It was actually Jesus and not Paul that taught that his sacrifice is required to save mankind.

What I meant was that the idea that atonement for Adam’s original sin must come through Jesus’s blood was first produced in scripture by Paul (he may have been taught that by Jesus) and the need for atonement by blood for Adam’s sin does not occur anywhere before that.

None of the above. The sins they committed because of their sinful nature makes them guilty same as us. Jesus’ atonement was also for them. They also had the opportunity then to ask God for repentence and a new heart.

So in your view they will not be in Limbo?

If they commit serious sin such as homosequality after being reborn, they will have backslid and will be condemned again as before. They might not get a second chance.

Why will they be condemned? They still believe in Jesus?

It is not up to any church but up to what God’s view is.

But isnt a church’s view just a collection of people like you deciding what God’s view probably is (just as you are guaging God’s view yourself)

[SlaveofAllaah]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@The Old Man

And again I answer you: none. If you do know I would be interested in the quotation.

This is the one i was referring to, read it long time back and I had told you earlier name starts with M

Hebrew.
7:1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
7:2To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
7:3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

If we take in literal terms, he is a miracle of miracle. If i have to understand the bible and being logical, someone would read this and spring up and ask whats this all about.
Anyways, just delayed and I will pm, regarding the jinns and how we can heal such individuals. Just busy with work.

[USResident]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@The Old Man

Sorry, did not think you required a response.

As I always say, one needs to take the whole Bible in context. Your quote is correct and reflects what God will do on the day of judgement. Each will be reponsible for his own conduct.

My quote (The sins of the fathers are visited on the sons (Ex.20v5; Ex.34v7; Lev.26v39-40; Num.14v18; Deut.5v9) never the sins of the mothers) reflects what God will do while they are living and that the sinful nature is traced through fatherhood, not motherhood. For example, we all are still under the "curse" put on Adam by having to work hard for a living but it will not influence our standing before God's throne.

The sinful nature will ALWAYS ensure that all mankind sins. It is not because of Adam that we sin, but our own choice. For example, if we did not know Good from Evil, how could we sin? Because Adam ate from the tree, we all do know Good from Evil.

I will post only one verse since all of them are more or less the same:

Exo 20:4
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

If you read all the other verses it I think atleast I did, not to deduce that we inherit sin. It does not imply that anywhere in all the verses you cited. In fatc under the context it is stating a threat and warning from God should he be disobeyed he will exact punishment from the generations to follow. Similarly the contrary point of view is stated in the same verse that if he is followed he would show love to a thousand generations. His mercy prevails over his wrath. For doing good he would be willing to reward a thousand generations whereas for sinning he would only punish three or four generations. This also speaks magnitudes about his mercy compared to his wrath when people obey him. The verse addresses the present fathers not the children whose fathers may have passed away at the time this it was revealed or said. So it is a future threat.

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@ravage

Do you therefore believe that we are only born with the possibility of sin, or are we born as sinners already? In order words, upto the point where a person commits his first sin, is he infact sinless, and does he have absolutely no consequence in his afterlife of Adam’s sin?

Everyone is infected. All will test HIV+ but do not have full blown Aids. Makes ALL being sick, some will only show the symptoms/effects later. All are born sinners with a sinful nature. None is born sinless because all have the sin virus in their souls.

Can you also tell us the beliefs on this specific question of various prominent groups within Christianity, the belief that until you commit your first sin you are by nature pure?

As far as I know ALL major denominations/churches teach that man is not born sinless but tainted with Adam’s sin.

So what is the consequence of Jesus’s death?

That those that are reborn disciples’ sins will not be held against them.

Is the possibility of sin removed from those who believe in Jesus?

No, all remain with a sinful nature and do sin.

Or are they forgiven the consequences of their sins?

Their sins will not be held them at Judgement Day.

In the latter case you are taking away personal responsibility and encouraging an attitude of laxity towards sin.

Exactly why the writer of Hebrew wrote:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgement and of a raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has threated as an unholy thing of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Islamic view points, which though also stress that man also has the potential for good, a notion that Christianity always seems to disregard.

Not really. As the Apostle Paul wrote:

So I find this law at work: When I wnat to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am!

Christianity does allow for good as well as bad in a person. There is a continous struggle between the two.

What I meant was that the idea that atonement for Adam’s original sin must come through Jesus’s blood was first produced in scripture by Paul (he may have been taught that by Jesus) and the need for atonement by blood for Adam’s sin does not occur anywhere before that.

Not correct. When Jesus gave the instruction on the Holy Communion, he said: And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” - Luk.13

The first prophecy w.r.t. the coming of a Messiah is found in Gen.3v15 when God was admonishing Adam and Eve after their sinning.

The Apostle Peter wrote: Fot Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built…For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. - 1Pet.3v18-4v6

So in your view they will not be in Limbo?

No, see above quote. Various other verses in the Bible show that ALL will be judged w.r.t. Jesus sacrifice. Jesus himself said: Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad - John.8v56, indicating that the prophets of the Old Testament ALL knew about the Messiah that was to come and save the world.

The Apostle Peter also wrote: Converning the salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow - 1 Pet.1v10-11.

Why will they be condemned? They still believe in Jesus?

But they do the works of Satan. Faith should be attested by works.

But isnt a church’s view just a collection of people like you deciding what God’s view probably is (just as you are guaging God’s view yourself)

Correct, and that is why I am open for correction as long as it comes from the Holy Spirit and conforms to what I knows are written in the Bible.

[USResident]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@The Old Man

Everyone is infected. All will test HIV+ but do not have full blown Aids. Makes ALL being sick, some will only show the symptoms/effects later. All are born sinners with a sinful nature. None is born sinless because all have the sin virus in their souls.

OldMan the only thing I can agree on is that we are all sinners not born sinners. We commit sins knowingly and unknowingly. In fact in Islam (I can't remember whether this was a verse in the Quran or I read it in a hadith) that if Allah SWT chose to destroy us for our sins (all kinds major and minor) then there would be no one left on the earth. This is different from original sin and sin being inherited as you have mentioned though. It means humans sin by nature. Allah SWT created the simplest of means to rid of us our sins i.e. repentance. And the scale he created for us during this world is not balanced, infact it is in our favor. Good deeds are rewarded many times over evil ones.

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@SlaveofAllaah

Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him…
If we take in literal terms, he is a miracle of miracle.

Various Christian scholars have different views on who Melchizedek was. Some say he was the angel Michael, others Jesus Christ, still others say he was Shem. I prefer to agree with the great scholar FF Bruce.

In the only reference we have in Genesis to this priest there is nothing said about his parentage. It does not mean that he did not have parents, the scripture is just silent on it. Because Abraham, father of the Jews and revered by them, paid tithes to him, it made this priest more important than Abraham. The writer of Hebrews have just finished in the earlier chapters explaining that Jesus was greater than the angles and Moses. He now show that Jesus are also greater than Abraham because he is greater than Melchizedek.

Because Melchizedek’s parentage is unknown, nothing is said of his ancestry, his progeny or birth, the writer of Hebrews uses it as a type of Christ. The priestly order of Melchizedek carries on but different people had to follow each up for it to remain. Because Abraham had to tithe him, it made the tribe Levi, and Aaron through being Abraham’s seed/offspring, of being inferior the the order of Melchizedek. With Jesus Christ it is different. He lives forever and is the High Priest for ever and ever. That makes him greater than Melchizedek and indirectly greater than Abraham.

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

Up to now, this discussion only centered on the view of Christianity w.r.t. sin and salvation. I would like for us to discuss the way Islam view these issues.

I deduce from what were written that according to Islam:

1. A person is born without sin.
2. A person need to do good works and live a righteous life in order to be saved on the Day of Judgement.
3. Various people have lived sinless lives in the past.

I would like to know how Islam address the following:

1. Where does sin come from in the human race?
2. What is the definition of sin as per Islam?
3. What is exactly required in order to be "saved"?
4. Can a person live righteous and be "saved", not knowing about Islam, the Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's teachings?

[USResident]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

Still waiting for responses for posts #44 and #46.

Now on to your questions.

@The Old Man

Up to now, this discussion only centered on the view of Christianity w.r.t. sin and salvation. I would like for us to discuss the way Islam view these issues.

I deduce from what were written that according to Islam:

1. A person is born without sin.
2. A person need to do good works and live a righteous life in order to be saved on the Day of Judgement.
3. Various people have lived sinless lives in the past.

Yes, we believe a person is born sinless and on his natural fitrah.

A person first needs to submit to Allah SWT and then live a life according to Islam in order to be saved. This is true for people after Muhammad SAW. For people before Muhammad SAW people should have submitted to Allah SWT and lived a life according to teachings of their respective prophets.

We cannot confirm people lived sinless lives if we count minor sins as well however if you are only considering major sins than yes a lot of people have lived sinless lives.

@The Old Man

I would like to know how Islam address the following:

1. Where does sin come from in the human race?
2. What is the definition of sin as per Islam?
3. What is exactly required in order to be "saved"?
4. Can a person live righteous and be "saved", not knowing about Islam, the Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's teachings?

1 - Sin comes from a persons actions. Sinful thoughts if not acted upon are not counted as evil deeds. This was not the initial case though even in Islam.

2 - To do something against what has been defined as good by Allah SWT and his last messenger Muhammad SAW.

3 - Submission to Allah SWT and obedience to his last messenger Muhammad SAW.

4 - If the person never genuinely heard of the Quran and Muhammad SAW then from my knowledge I say yes, Inshallah!. Allah SWT does not punish without having established evidence first. Those who followed their prophets teaching properly before Islam Inshallah! should be saved. After Islam, righteousness must be accompanied by the belief Allah SWT conveyed through Muhammad SAW as it abrogates the laws of previous prophets even if some of them were kept intact. Monotheism of Allah SWT has been the central theme of every prophets teaching as we believe and without submitting to that belief the door is closed. Righteousness is done for Allah SWT and if you cannot discern Allah SWT then it is not really for him but for either you or someone else who is not God. And the reward should be demanded of them then instead of Allah SWT (if they can reward you though).

[metromomma]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@ravage

1. Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit which revealed their nakedness to them and caused their fall from heaven

Adam and Eve discovered, in that instant, greed, anger, lust etc, and were drawn to it. That is original sin.

[quote]
2. Mankind is damned because of this one sin
[/quote]

Because no one has the strength to refuse sin.

[quote]
3. God approximately 2000 years ago decided to descend to the Earth with the express purpose of dying for mankind in order to save them from this Sin.
[/quote]

Exactly. Christ is God's physical manifestation. God would never sacrifice anyone else than himself, being so merciful and loving.

[quote]
4. Now that Jesus has died on the cross anyone who wants to escape the original sin of Adam and Eve must believe that Jesus is God and he died on the cross for that sin, otherwise he is Hellbound no matter what else he believes and does.
[/quote]

Jesus died to show mankind what it was doing to each other, and to themselves. Jesus died forgiving. He lived without sinning. Since we can never achieve that our only hope is to believe in his sacrifice and let him save us. It is impossible to be saved by our own efforts.

[quote]
5. The model for heaven and hell is not do Good get Good as in Islam (Muslims will also go to Hell based on their sins) but more along the lines of accept Jesus and your soul will be transformed and as long as you accept Jesus you will go to Heaven. There is an optimistic view that if you believe in Jesus your actions will automatically tend to be good and good deeds are organic post belief in Jesus as opposed to directed at getting favour with God.
[/quote]

Accepting Jesus means repenting Your past is forgiven if you truly repent. Then Holy Spirit starts to change your nature. Our so called good deeds are like dust in God's eyes, he is not after them but after your soul, so no one should feel proud of good deeds. Only sincerety works with God so even if you do great deeds but have, for eg, anger against your neighbor, you are still sinning.

[USResident]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@metromomma

Exactly. Christ is God's physical manifestation. God would never sacrifice anyone else than himself, being so merciful and loving.

Hello Momma

I have a question to ask based on this statement of yours. When someone sacrifices themself does it mean they die?

[metromomma]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@PyariCgudia

I can't imagine why they value freedom when their religion doesn't allow them to.

There is freedom of choice but no religion gives you freedom to make your own rules.

[quote]
And Jesus is not saving anyone. To think that God put us all on this Earth and its that simple that He would take one of his prophet's lives and then say "If you believe in this guy being my son, you're all able to get into heaven" is ridiculous.
[/quote]

Why can't it be simple? Besides, it is not so simple for many, who find the changes happening within too startling and back off.

[quote]
There is no challenge then. There is no real reward for doing good and believing.
[/quote]

Christians also believe in doing good and faith. Both go together. Although no good deed can buy a ticket to heaven, still God is pleased that we use our energy for helping others rather than say, watch TV. James 2: "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

As for rewards, one of them is, Mathew:****"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

[quote]
And he's not God's son. To attribute a son to God is like attributing partners to God. Or saying there is more than one God. Then you're not a monotheist, you're a polytheist.
[/quote]

Well, that is your interpretation. You sound sure that God will not do anything you don't believe in. :)

[metromomma]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@USResident

Hello Momma

I have a question to ask based on this statement of yours. When someone sacrifices themself does it mean they die?

The traditional meaning of sacrifice within religion, yes I would think so.

[USResident]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@metromomma

The traditional meaning of sacrifice within religion, yes I would think so.

So when Jesus PBUH was sacrificed, did he die?

[metromomma]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@USResident

So when Jesus PBUH was sacrificed, did he die?

Yes.
Martin Luther said that as God, He could not die, so He became man in order to die. On the cross, he accepted the sin of man against Himself. As a perfectly innocent man he accepted the injustice of man against man.

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

Sorry, again didn’t think you require a reply.

@USResident

I will post only one verse since all of them are more or less the same:The verse addresses the present fathers not the children whose fathers may have passed away at the time this it was revealed or said. So it is a future threat.

As allready said, you don’t inherit sin, you are SUNFUL when you are born. I don’t really know what you want more from me

Allah SWT created the simplest of means to rid of us our sins i.e. repentance

How does a baby ask repentance? The baby might have sinned unknowingly.

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@USResident

Yes, we believe a person is born sinless and on his natural fitrah.

So what makes the person to start to sin?

2 - To do something against what has been defined as good by Allah SWT and his last messenger Muhammad SAW.

Interesting that the prophet is always in the picture. In Christianity only God Almighty is in the picture. (And before you mention Jesus, Christians regard him as part of God Almighty!).

4 - If the person never genuinely heard of the Quran and Muhammad SAW then from my knowledge I say yes, Inshallah!.

Those who followed their prophets teaching properly before Islam Inshallah! should be saved.

So Christians before the prophet Muhammad would be saved but none since?

So people can, even today if they don’t know Islam, be saved just by living righteous?

[USResident]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@metromomma

Yes. Martin Luther said that as God, He could not die, so He became man in order to die. On the cross, he accepted the sin of man against Himself. As a perfectly innocent man he accepted the injustice of man against man.

So when Jesus PBUH died was God still existent?

[USResident]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@The Old Man

How does a baby ask repentance? The baby might have sinned unknowingly.

To become sinful you must be of the age where you discern what a sin is. In Islam generally puberty is regarded as the age when you can somewhat realize right from wrong. Babies are not sinners.

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Spinoff from Interfaith Dialogue - Salvation and the nature of Sin

@metromomma

Yes.
Martin Luther said that as God, He could not die, so He became man in order to die. On the cross, he accepted the sin of man against Himself. As a perfectly innocent man he accepted the injustice of man against man.

Welcome to these discussions metromomma. Glad to have a fellow Christian also answering the questions.