“Sin” as Deliberate Animosity Towards God
A false and misleading assumption used to provoke fear of retribution, and at the same time obscures the true extent of our sinfulness and fosters an “us vs them” mentality while evils against humanity are excused
The Augustinian interpretation of “total depravity” posits a DELIBERATE motive of “sin”. This is what justifies the harsh judgment of Hell, and also according to the derivative Calvinist argument, that God leaves the majority of mankind trapped in this state, and is “gracious” just to save “any”.
It’s like if you jump off a roof, you’re ‘lucky’ if someone comes to save you. Your default, “freely chosen” fate, is death, so you shouldn’t complain it is ‘unfair’ if no one saves you, as you are plummeting to the ground.
Problem is, the analogy doesn’t fit, as it’s based on the assumption of what they call “federal headship”; this deliberate initial turn away from God was not actually done by you, but by our progenitor, and God simply “charged” us all with it (and we now act it out through our daily sins). The end result, of you being trapped in Hell without a chance of not going there, is plugged into Romans 9 (which is really not even describing what people think it is!)
It only makes sense given an Origenist concept of the preexistence of all souls. The later Church fails to realize how much their doctrine is influenced by him and his “Alexandrian school”.
So with sin as deliberate hostility toward God, the instinctual basis of our behavior can be dismissed and relegated to just another manifestation of this active “rebellion”. The key “proof texts” for this doctrine are primarily Gen.6:5 and 8:21, showing the “evil” that stemmed from the Fall, and if you look at it, the “evil” (bad) behaviors displayed there are basically a reversion to pure instinct (survival), much like the animals. Then, there’s Rom.8:7, which is talking about the limitation of us in our nature to please God, not any necessary “deliberate intention”. Of course, individual sins can be deliberate, but we’re talking about the entire state of being a “sinner”, which is attributed to the “sin nature”, with the individual “sins” springing forth from the nature).
In this system, there is no such thing as an honest “mistake”. Any “error” is really a deliberate attack on God, and since “His people” are on His side, it’s an attack against them as well.
So this shaped all of Christian history. It created the “us vs them” mentality that drives many Christians’ beliefs today, leading to much of the strife between them and larger society. The Christians built a “godly America”, and it was taken from them by the “godless”, and they now demand it back. Only they have noble intentions; everyone else has an evil agenda.
The entire generation that rebelled a half century ago wasn’t reacting to legitimate problems of hypocrisy and overboard rigidity, power abuse and neuroses in the generations that raised them. It was all a big conspiracy by “the forces of godlessness” who “captured their minds” from right under our noses, through the “education” and “media”.
The racial minorities fighting for equality only wanted “free handouts” and were really better off under slavery and segregation, but the Leftists (and the “globalists” or “deep state” behind them) took advantage of them in their plot to destroy America, and this is what along the way destroyed the inner cities for decades, as well as the economy.
Evolutionism was a conspiracy to destroy “Western civilization” (which is what all of these issues always comes back to, some where, eventually), by destroying the “faith” that guided the “morality” (through fear). At first, Christians claimed the Devil planted the fossils. Then, they later accepted the fossil record, but tried to enter the game of archaeology themselves with “Creation Science” to say the evidence really supported their strict interpretation of a “young earth”. (Nothing in life even looks like it might support it, or it’s at best ambiguous, and they just ignore the scientists showing why many Creationist arguments can’t be considered “science”; using Romans 1, they’ll say God “showed” everyone the truth of the young earth, but they “held the truth in unrighteousness” all so they could “hold onto their sin” and not have any “accountability”. That’s what it’s all about!)
Continuing in this strain, climate change is a conspiracy against the “freedom” of Western business, and the evidence really supports the idea that pumping all sorts of pollutants into the air has absolutely no effect on the global ecology. In both cases, the scientists are the ones seen as going against the evidence, all to fulfill their “agenda”. As one meme aptly puts it: “How sad it must be believing that scientists, scholars, historians, economists and journalists have devoted their entire lives to deceiving you, while a reality TV star with decades of fraud and exhaustively documented lying is your only beacon of Truth and Honesty”.
Fighting against “secular humanism”, some concluded “mental illness is a choice”. Psychotherapy then is just a plot to remove people from “responsibility” before God (whose job is Christians to enforce).
LGBT, (through their own personal lives) are just “jaded”, from overindulgence in sex (and so had to try something else), and are also trying to destroy the nation. People condemning them may claim to be actually “loving” them by trying to “save their souls”, but they quickly make it clear as they continue talking, that what they are really trying to save is “the nation” (meaning their own interests, such as a perceived right to rule granted by God, to a “righteous nation”. Based on a set of scriptures directed to Old Testament Israel).
All of this is leading to the “One world end-time deception”, where all of biblical prophecy is to be fulfilled “soon”, (even though it’s no longer “soon” from when it was written, and so must have been referring to something else). And it’s all about us (Western Christians), the “good guys” (who’ll be ‘raptured’ away before the real bad stuff starts, but nevertheless still must fight for their power now).
The world will all unite, under the Satanically-led phony premises of “love”, “unity” and “acceptance”, against God’s holy people, displaying [His nature of] hatred and disunity (even fighting amongst themselves when they see each other “compromising”, in the name of keeping the Church “pure”) in His war against “sin”. So hatred and discord are good and from God, and love is bad and the deception of Satan. (None of them sees anything wrong with this scenario! In passages like Christ’s “I came not to bring peace, but rather a a sword” you have to look at who would be using that “sword” against whom!)
So in the midst of all this, Trump learns how to speak their language, and all of his moral and scriptural lapses no longer matter. He’s “on our side”, and so the argument is now that he’s human and forgiven, so the “liberals” are just using all of this in their conspiracy against the “unborn”, and other “Christian values”. On a Christian board I swing by, anyone who questions Trump is loudly blasted as a “DNC operative” sent to the board just to attack him!
Tracing this kind of thinking back through this “historic Christian orthodoxy”; from the fourth century to now, if a group got the doctrine of the Godhead wrong, it’s not because the Church’s understanding of scripture on the subject is fallible and limited, and perhaps there are some points they have glossed over that others pick up (like the implications of the Son specifically being “generated” from the Father, while the Father is ungenerated, which is what made the symmetrical language of the official Creeds questionable to many). It’s a deliberate “attack” on “the Truth” (presumed to have been handed down from the apostles), by “the enemies of Christ” (even though history shows the doctrine developed into its present form), and thus to be strongly condemned with “anathemas”, which as the power of the Church grew, often translated into executions! Today, they’re deemed lost and hellbound, for not believing in “the real” Jesus of “historic orthodoxy”.
But even among the so-called “orthodox”; Luther, Calvin, the Catholics talked hostilely to and about not only the “heathen” or “heretics”, but even each other! We look back at this and think nothing of it (while many talk about how “uncivil” modern generations are).
Of course, detractors to “Christian orthodoxy” followed suit, and returned in kind, so that sects like Jehovah’s Witnesses and various sabbatarian groups such as Armstrongism portray “traditional Christian” beliefs and practices as having been brought into the Church by the “pagans”, who were apparently on this mission to corrupt the Church and take it over.
Inasmuch as we see Christian doctrine taking shape in the early centuries, it looked like they had more of a point (hence, me getting sucked into the latter movement), but in reality, the pagans had no desire to change the Church. They minded their own business, as their religions had room for everything. Even the emperor only demanded worship of himself from the religious groups and did not otherwise try to change their beliefs or practice (as Armstrong himself pointed out in his synopsis of Church history), and the trouble came because the Jews could not accept that, and yet had managed to get immunity from this rule, and excommunicating the Christians among them left the fledgling Church vulnerable to the emperor’s demand. This was the source of much of the “persecution” the first century Church faced, and why the Temple system was what was actually portrayed as the corrupt “Babylon” of prophecy, not some literal “pagan” religion. (And even those who did seem “pagan”, such as Simon the Sorcerer, and maybe even many of the “gnostics” were actually errant Israelites, not pure Greeks or Romans!)
So the real movement trying to take over, control and corrupt the Church wasn’t the “lawless pagans”, it was Christ-rejecting, Law-preaching Israel, which similarly took a “we’re God’s people and the ‘sinners’ of the world are deliberately against us, and God promised us rule over it” assumption. The Messiah sent to them did not meet their expectations, so they turned against Him and His followers.
The Church would ironically eventually pick this up right where Israel left off (while continuing to embrace rather than reject Christ), instead of running counter to this pattern. The “Gospel” became a fight between God and man (and Satan) over pleasure versus pain, with God making a sort of “deal” with us ‘fallen’ creatures, where He will “save” whoever’s willing to trade the pleasure for pain. (Even if He’s the one to make them willing, as the purer Augustinians will argue). Most of course go for the pleasure, just to spite Him.
Popular old-time evangelical leader A.W. Tozer is cited:
We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum.
A term like “ultimatum” is clearly the language of aggression and CONTROL, and while they insist it is God’s control, it is still coming through them (the preachers), and they are very angry that they have been losing it for centuries. So they take themselves out of the equation of ‘sin’, and believe it is their mission to straighten everyone else up, but most people today won’t listen, so this creates the “us vs them” premise of war, which they think is justified, because, hey; “we’re not supposed to be diplomats!” (This is also why many of them would think Trump was “God’s man” specifically because of how offensive he is!) All of this makes us “contrary to all men”, which wasn’t a good thing to be, from the way Paul uses it (1 Thess. 2:15), but rather marked the enemies of Christ!
Continuing with this sentiment is a quote is made of Walter Martin, who always defended what he called “the historic orthodox Christian faith.” circa 1975:
Christianity today is in conflict; in conflict against the secular world; in conflict with world religions — which are hostile to us — in conflict against the Kingdom of the Cults — and the Occult; in conflict against corrupt theology in our theological seminaries — and oftentimes in our pulpits; in conflict against all forms of evil surrounding us on all sides. And it is a foolish person indeed, who does not recognize that the Church was born in conflict; lives in conflict, and will triumph in conflict. We have been called to be soldiers of the Cross.
(Christianity In Crisis, CD Rom)
The thing is, this makes it sound as if the Church today was initially minding its own business and everyone is coming up against them just because they have Christ. That was the way it was originally in the NT Church of the first century. They were being opposed primarily by the religious establishment of the day (the originally God-ordained “conservatives”, NOT the “liberals”; and, as mentioned, by the “godless pagans”, only inasmuch as the religious establishment turned them over to them!) They gave their testimony of Christ, but weren’t trying to take “back” any “culture” (for they never had one to take back, unless they were Israelites in which case they gave up that physical inheritance, as Christ taught).
It’s a completely different scenario with this “historic orthodoxy”, which right there by its own professed title is now the religious establishment like the one in Christ’s day, that believes in DOING most of the confronting against “the world”, (in the name of “spreading truth” and trying to maintain “order” in society with parts of the Law) likewise, in defense of their previous power. No one ever picks up this important difference.
So then, conversion is portrayed as God removing this hostile “nature” from us. This is what allows them to take themselves out of the equation, when judging the sins of society and the rest of humanity. All evil must be the fault of outside influences (Darwin, Marx, Freud, “compromisers” within, etc.) Anything can then be justified because the “spirit-filled saints” are doing or favoring it, and their natures have been “changed”, so they only do what’s right.
(Hence, Trumpism, and preaching “freedom” for themselves, while denying it for others. He clearly showed his waffling position on his own need for personal repentance, or at least placed it on “Communion” [“that’s asking forgiveness, you know, it’s a form of asking forgiveness.”] Yet, it’s apparently his position on abortion that shows he’s “changed”. [Substituting one “work” for lack of others, which is precisely what James 2:11 speaks against. Add to that stuff that is not even biblical “works”, but if anything might be contrary, but goes along with the “values” of the supposedly “changed” people, such as Israel policy, our borders, tax cuts for the rich, etc.]. So all that other stuff is just his “past” and thus “forgiven”. Or, “we’re not electing him to be our pastor”; even though they always placed much higher moral demands on earlier elected leaders).
Cory Marquez of New Abbey Church in the sermon “Advent/With Us” (https://newabbey.podbean.com/e/advent-with-us) points out how this “they’re bad” (and God needs to fix that bad thing) doctrine (that Protestant theology became even “more obsessed” with) was used to “subjugate” the planet. “You [as white colonial Europeans] believe you’ve received the message that you’re OK now, because this Jesus bled out for you. All of the people you’re going to colonize; they’re bad. And so you have the authority to do whatever you want to their lands, because you have ‘salvation’ for them”.
This is why racism was not seen as sin in the past. Sin is man’s active hostility towards God, NOT towards other men, who can only be the aggressors in this hostility. So God can call people to execute some of His wrath on others, in the form of rule, if not sometimes extermination (as can be cited from the Old Testament. Of course, this was assumed to carry over to the New Testament as well, even though the Church was never commanded any of this).
The summation of the Law, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is turned on its ear, in favor of a pre-suppositional “will of God”, or other concepts that aren’t well defined for the subject, like “His Holiness”. (Which means “set apart”, but is often assumed to be this “thing” involving behavioral perfection that gets “offended”, causing intense wrath towards men when they don’t behave or repent).
The instinctual drives to pleasure and survival are (admittedly) still there in the convert, and presumed to be “forgiven” (and are only NOW allowed as forgivable “mistakes”) once he has “done his part” and “given his life to Christ”, and received the “new nature”.
From there comes the notion they must “struggle” against this “old nature” to both “prove themselves saved”, and to “grow”. (The “sin” lies in the instinctual drive, but is not seen as caused by it, but rather the other way around. So then nature itself is what’s “fallen”, but then they’re also on the other hand insisting it’s absolute proof of divine “design” and moral imperative; as in the Romans 1 argument). This is “hard”, but with “God’s help”, they are able to “overcome”, in total contrast to “the world”, that takes the “easy path” of just indulging in whatever feels good. THAT’s what the world is presumed to be condemned by.
To see what “sin” really is, we should look at the biblical definitions:
exposited: “transgression of the Law” (1 John 3:4)
hermeneutical: “missing the mark” (hamartia)
Both definitions agree, for the Law was the “mark” or “bullseye”, and transgressing it was “missing” the mark, or “falling short” (Rom.3:23, hystereo, “behind”).
Other definitions in scripture, such as involving the “conscience” (James 4:17, 1 Cor.8, Rom.14:23, etc.) would also amount to “transgressing the Law”, even if it’s in its “spiritual” form.
So this doctrine of deliberate antagonism toward God totally confounds what “sin” really is (actually making it less than what it actually is), and makes it easier to see as something only “others” do.
It also makes nonbelievers protest that they don’t feel this evil intent inside. It becomes a form of “gaslighting”, as you’re basically telling people “no matter what you think or feel, this ‘shaking your fist at God’ (as they often portray) is what you’re doing, [and that’s why God is so angry at you]!” (It’s actually appealing to the “unconscious”, which the more fundamentalistic Churches would otherwise strongly reject as a teaching of “godless pagan humanistic psychology”. Yet they do use it when needing to “prove” these otherwise unprovable hidden evil motives in people. Meanwhile, the toned down modern version of hell insists we go because “we don’t want Him”, instead of Him angrily “punishing” us, but this just as much the same thing; about our deliberate animosity toward Him).
This too stems from the Augustinian-Calvinist concept of “depravity”, where God really does expect men to stop, recognize and repent of sin (He’s “shown” them), even when (in the case of electionism) He withholds from them the “ability” to do so. This even leads to God being “justified” in deliberately steering man the wrong way and making him “responsible” for it, such as in Calvin’s claim He gives “reprobates” a “false faith” which he then “takes away” so they can be lost (this is called “evanescent grace”); and “Augustine says that a feature of the Scriptures is obscurity and that obscurity is the result of sin: that is, God made the Scriptures obscure in order to motivate and challenge our fallen minds.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_doctrina_Christiana
(Which has ensured that the Christian world is divided with everyone using the same scriptures, but coming up with different teachings, and condemning each other over them.
It then leads to the old rule that an individual is not supposed to try to understand the scriptures apart from Church authority. So much for “Sola Scriptura” as argued by Augustinian theology-holding “Reformation” views, some of which do contradictorily insist you shouldn’t try to interpret scripture without the “creeds and confessions”).
It should be easy to see why such a belief system would be very threatening to people (especially when it’s hard to prove or disprove and appeals to something as shaky as “conscience”, — which teachers then dismiss as ‘seared’ if it doesn’t agree with their beliefs and rules). But because they claim to be promoting the “Truth” of an angry, offended God, they can just steamroll over everyone with it, but then claim to be ‘persecuted’ at the slightest pushback.
Such a lopsided system like this, where only their “humanity” figures, (when it comes to ‘rights’, ‘grace’ and ‘benefits to civilization’; and others’ ‘humanity’ only figures when it comes to ‘sin’, ‘error’ and ‘smallness’), is NOT “Good News”! If anything, it’s the same belief system of conquerors (with their intended subjects dehumanized), and hence why it gets lumped in with other forms of “superiority” and “discrimination” (even if the detractors’ defensive actions may cross over into discrimination as well eventually).
So everyone is trying to censure and control others, before they control you, but the religious view is the one that starts it, both in being the once dominant view, with their need to try to ‘restore’ that, and also to ‘save’ others’ souls through it.
It also, ever so ironically, ends up fostering sin in the converts themselves. If you’ve ever wondered how conservative Christians could preach so hard against sexual sin and homosexuality, and then fall into it themselves (and often the most vile and even “unspeakable” i.e. 1 Cor. 5:1 “not even named among the gentiles”, such as child molestation), it’s believing that as long as they are “officially” against it, and “fighting” it (shown most visibly by “making a stand” against it, meaning preaching loudly and publicly against it, especially in others), then this is the “evidence” they have “repented” of it (which is seen as the basis of “justification”); now acknowledging that once justified, it’s still possible to “slip” and “fall” (temporarily).
That’s different than “wallowing” in sin. Or the other term, “practicing” sin (based on a translation of 1 John 5:8, which would otherwise appear to teach “perfectionism”). It’s possible to fall into all sorts of big sins like that, but not actually be “practicing” them. The key is that you’re not doing it “deliberately” (i.e.“willfully”, according to yet another scripture that’s been taken out of its context) — you know, like all those other “sinners” outside of Christ who “do as they please” with no fear!
This page, criticizing Philip Yancey (who’s seen as “too soft” on the gay issue): https://www.9marks.org/review/whats-so-amazing-about-grace-philip-yancey/ says “Yes, we are all sinners, but the difference between a Christian and those marchers is that the Christian cowers under the judgment of God and repents of his sin. Those marchers revel in their sin, celebrate it, and arrogantly sing ‘Jesus loves me.’” (This presumes that the gays are “celebrating” it as “sin” [i.e. agreeing or believing themselves that it is sin, but doing it anyway] and ignoring that many have answered that claim — and I believe it is more likely from a hormonal difference for most of them. This is the other main area Christians appeal to Romans 1 and the “deliberate” motives of “holding onto sin” (you know; as verse 32 says); but the context, as can be shown going into chapter 2, is people under the Law [i.e. Old Covenant], who preach it to others, and yet do the same things themselves! Precisely as I’m addressing now! (Conservative Evangelical Protestants essentially spent the 500th anniversary of the Reformation getting together to write a statement against homosexuality. They probably premised the gays and the secular society that has accepted them as the new “hierarchy” that’s “oppressing” them with their deliberate “agenda”, just the way the Church of Rome persecuted the Reformers. They’ve said the same things about liberal politics and religion, evolutionism and education, where the treat the secular “world” as if it’s a part of the Church that has “fallen away” and now their job to fix, which is what’s been reflected in much of their preaching).
It also ignores all the “sins” that “Christians” reveled in, but decided weren’t sin, such as racism and colonialism, but supposedly without affecting their status as “godly Christians”! The love of Confederate monuments is basically “arrogantly celebrating” belief in God’s support of a “Lost Cause” that centered around the subjugation of other people, justified by gross scripture-twisting. But they never see it that way!)
When I argue with “Torah observers” (“Messianic” or otherwise), who (as the most consistent in “Law” and “obedience”-preaching) openly reject “faith/grace alone”, this effort-based premise is what they give. Salvation is to “keep trying”, and “repent after every sin”.
But this, while creating a long-term overall [fear based] motivation against sin, really does no good in the moment of a sin, and especially a momentary, impulsive passion-driven one (that may very likely be really egregious and damaging to other parties). That’s how these “falls” occur.
If you tell any of these people that “personal repentance” is not needed for salvation (such as the “Fulfilled view” that condemnation ended [the “Blessed Hope” they were actually waiting for] when the Law was removed with the Temple, in AD70), they will roar that you’re “removing all morality” and “allowing sin to run rampant”. But we see it doesn’t even really deter sin in their own lives, but if anything, may be having the opposite effect! Romans 7 really comes to life here.
To realize sin is the falling short of the Law that comes from our instinctual drives (and the sense of SHAME, from taking on the “knowledge of good and evil”, which was the scriptural definition of the “Fall”), and that the Law was to show us the futility of our efforts (which “orthodox” Protestantism professes in theory) removes the whole “deliberateness” assumption without denying “sin”, and keeps converts in the equation of “sin” that may affect life negatively (i.e. it’s not all everyone else’s fault). It then becomes the reminder of their own sin (that the old Church figured constant “preaching on sin” was to accomplish).
It would show them how much they too are still driven by instincts, just like the rest of the world they can observe clearly. (Like when they tell others to be “thankful” and not “anxious” about life, while fighting and trying to maintain control against others they see as trying to ‘destroy’ them).
To sum it up, this doctrine defines “sin” as a “deliberate” animus towards God which is presumably removed in the “elect” (“true” Christian converts; and also justifies the larger societies they influence, as long as they hold onto the “values” and “principles”). In actual practice (though likely denied in theory), this makes them generally “right” in their beliefs and actions (in certain important issues), which in turn grants them the right to rule over culture and command the beliefs and behavior of others, seen as “enemies” of themselves and God, who thus “deserve” whatever pain may come their way.
A general outline of “traditional Christian” in practice beliefs
1) God got mad at man for disobeying a commandment in the garden and then retaliated
2) From then on, man deserves pain (starting with the temporal pain of the “cursed” ground, and culminating with eternal fire after death). This curse gave him a “fallen nature”, which was about deliberate intentions of defiance toward God.
3) God gave the Law to try to fix man’s behavior, but because of the fallen nature, he couldn’t keep it, so God sent Christ to die to forgive man’s sins, (creating a “blank slate”, initially).
4) But since God’s ultimate goal was behavioral order (called “holiness”), He still had to fix that problem, so He then created the plan of “conversion” to reverse this hostile nature and make people able to keep select parts of the Law better, to measure up to their salvation and create good societies. They’re still “imperfect”, but because they have “done their part” and given [their lives] back to God, they are now “forgiven”.
The True Gospel
1) Man took the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which instilled in him a sense of shame and the need for covering
2) God held man up to his new knowledge, and added the Law and its punitive and atonement system to address man’s problem.
3) Man as a whole could not keep this Law, but only became self-righteous about it, while his sin was still present.
4) God sent His Son to keep the Law and die to represent the propitiation of the requirement of the Law and gain the pardon man needed and then removed the Law system
This story originally published on Eripedia