King of the North and King of the South.

[RandyPNW]

In the case of Augustine's reading, for example, that corruption is implied in his understanding that all humanity was present "in Adam" when Adam sinned. But that's clearly a misreading.

Actually, I agree with Augustine. I don't see this as "clearly" otherwise.

Why didn't God engage in partial determinism with all of the angels too? What is gained by allowing, in your view, God's original plan to go awry?

Call it "artistic license?" God designed His own drama. If there ever was to be "sin," someone had to begin it without duress. The desire to break from divine authority had to somehow come from within. But after Satan's rebellion, Man was chosen by God to be subject to duress in his choice-making. That way, if he fell, God could fall back on the redemptive process to complete His original pre-determined goal of filling the world with people in His image.

Those who, like Satan, continued to find reason to rebel from within, and not strictly from duress, could choose to follow Satan in his choice to rebel. Thus, the place of destruction formed for Satan could also be used to imprison human followers.

It's quite a play. But it appears to be real.

Oh, so you believe that God actively predestines people to hell and damnation? Where is this in Scripture?

No, that's pure Calvinism. I'm only partly Calvinistic. Calvin believed in double predestination. I believe in free choice. Man's choices determine who are born outside of God's original plan. The children thus born still have free choices, but are drawn to the objective of their birth in rebellion against God.

If our nature is corrupted then we're less-than-human.

A rotten apple doesn't become less than an apple!

I hope not, but that's up to God. And, I acknowledge that I'm covered by the blood of Christ. But for me? my being as I am today? I have no purchase on the word 'good' if not even Jesus did while He walked the earth.

I think you misunderstand the reference. Jesus was "playing" the man, in a sense. He was binding him, theologically, to the idea that only God is good. The corollary to this is, in order for *us* to be truly good we must maintain a constant connection to God. If we think we can walk independent of God and do good, we're falling short of the true standard, which requires that we continue in the good by living in dependence upon God's word.

But you're suggesting that humans have two natures: a godly and a sin nature. How does that work if it's not a hypostatic union? Why does more than one nature exist at all?

The nature of redemption is dependent on the idea that Man, who walks in liberty can either make free choices before assuming a sin nature or can make free choices after assuming a sin nature. The Sin Nature establishes human liberty in a state of *independence from God,* or walking outside of dependence on God's word.

I believe the natural bent of Man after the Fall is self-determination before capitulating to God's word. In the history of the Christian world, the entire bent of philosophy has been looking to one's self first, to see if God exists, rather than looking through divine revelation to find meaning in the world. See Descartes, empiricism, existentialism, eg.

It reminds me of the story of the philosophers who climbed the mountain of self-exploration until upon reaching the summit they found some theologians who had long accepted God. Truth comes by God's self-revelation, and not strictly by human investigation. Have you read any of Francis Schaeffer?

Sin is transmitted from generation to generation by the word of God, which selects what gets transmitted based on the consequences of sinful or righteous choices. God also determines and effects, by His word, the selection of DNA from parent to child. One is a spiritual inheritance, and the other is a physical inheritance.

I'm assuming that by 'word of God' you mean Jesus, but you have word with a lower-case 'w', so what exactly do you mean?

The "word of God" is distinct  from Jesus, since it preexisted Jesus' human form. Jesus, as a divine Being, preceded his human revelation. So it can be said that Jesus pre-existed his human form as the Word of God.

The "word" is God's communication, period. One way that He communicates to Man is by assuming a human form, whether in pre-incarnate theophanies or by showing Himself in Jesus.

How in the world are you getting this out of Genesis 5:3?

Kind of like the way Mendel got a physical inheritance out of scientific analysis?
If you connect physical inheritances with the biblical portrait of a human sin nature, you will get this. But if you don't posit a Sin Nature, then you deny what Jews saw as the Sin Tendency. We are rebellious and independent of God's word from the start, from birth. All Israel required mitigation for sin, regardless of age or deed.

This is all about inheriting a rebellious nature from Adam, once he had chosen to live independent of God's word. Children continue to be born in his image, and yet now, that image is tarnished, and children, born in his image, are born in a sin image, having inherited both a physical and a spiritual legacy.

How about, Adam and Eve weren't awesome parents and Cain found himself in the wilderness, separate from God, etc. etc. Why are we jumping to 'spiritual mutations' when there are plenty of immediate, sensible explanations?

Cain exhibited something that warranted a biblical author calling him a "child of Satan." These are children who determine to live independent of God even after knowing that they've been misled by the Deceiver.

I see. So on that we'll point we'll have to disagree over this idea of "one and done immortality".

I don't have a problem with honest disagreement.

...and I'm complicated. You clarified what I just said in 6 words: 'mortal with the possibility of immortality'. If you want to use special definitions then go for it, but don't suggest anyone else is being complicated in joining you for the ride. Your terms are all confused.

There's nothing complicated, in my mind, about having more than one definition for a word. Webster's uses them all the time.

immortal: endless existence except when eating of the Tree of Knowledge--then it ceases to be "endless"
immortal: obtaining eternal life at the resurrection--this can never be severed

By the way, 'eternal' typically implies no beginning or end (in distinction to something that is 'temporal'), whereas 'immortal' implies a beginning with no end (im-mortal; not mortal).

As I said, words mean what they mean depending on how the author is using the terms. The context determines how the word is being used.

[Athanasius]

Actually, I agree with Augustine. I don't see this as "clearly" otherwise.

Augustine's misunderstanding is built on the Vulgate's translation of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, which didn't properly distinguish between 'in whom' and 'in which' when it came to ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. In the Vulgate we end up with in quo omnes peccaverunt, which translates to the familiar:

...in whom all have sinned.

But you can read the Greek for yourself (my emphasis added):

Romans 5:12 Διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι᾿ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ᾿ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον·

It seems to me that Augustine was mistaken, and the Vulgate's rendering of Romans 5:12 was less than ideal. Better:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—"

The -- is another translational difficulty. Did Paul lose his train of thought?

That said, where we do see ontic corruption even in Augustine's reading? If we assume that all humanity was somehow present in Adam at the fall, and guilty along with him, then how do we get from there to ontic corruption?

Call it "artistic license?" God designed His own drama. If there ever was to be "sin," someone had to begin it without duress. The desire to break from divine authority had to somehow come from within. But after Satan's rebellion, Man was chosen by God to be subject to duress in his choice-making. That way, if he fell, God could fall back on the redemptive process to complete His original pre-determined goal of filling the world with people in His image.

Those who, like Satan, continued to find reason to rebel from within, and not strictly from duress, could choose to follow Satan in his choice to rebel. Thus, the place of destruction formed for Satan could also be used to imprison human followers.

It's quite a play. But it appears to be real.

But why is sin necessary at all? Your view argues for partial determinism, so why can't God simply set up creation such that all beings are 'partially determined' to freely choose faith? Is "artistic license" a good response to related questions, like, "why do I have cancer?"

Well you see, God designed his own drama, and so on and so forth, and that's why you have cancer. Artistic license is cruel and sadistic.

No, that's pure Calvinism. I'm only partly Calvinistic. Calvin believed in double predestination. I believe in free choice. Man's choices determine who are born outside of God's original plan. The children thus born still have free choices, but are drawn to the objective of their birth in rebellion against God.

What does this mean, then, if not double predestination?

"Those who were not predestined are the product of independent human choice, along with the infection of Satan's rebellion. They are called, properly, "children of Satan."

If God predestines some for salvation and not others, then those others are actively predestined as well.

A rotten apple doesn't become less than an apple!

Rotting is to an apple as disease is to a human. What rotting is not comparable to, however, is ontic corruption. What you're talking about is a changing of or alternation to fundamental human nature. A being whose nature has been altered is no longer the same being. Ontically corrupted humanity =/= prelapsarian humanity. We look the same but we aren't, if we take to Augustine's view.

I think you misunderstand the reference. Jesus was "playing" the man...

...no I get that. I'm making the same rhetorical point.

The nature of redemption is dependent on the idea that Man, who walks in liberty can either make free choices before assuming a sin nature or can make free choices after assuming a sin nature. The Sin Nature establishes human liberty in a state of *independence from God,* or walking outside of dependence on God's word.

I believe the natural bent of Man after the Fall is self-determination before capitulating to God's word. In the history of the Christian world, the entire bent of philosophy has been looking to one's self first, to see if God exists, rather than looking through divine revelation to find meaning in the world. See Descartes, empiricism, existentialism, eg.

It reminds me of the story of the philosophers who climbed the mountain of self-exploration until upon reaching the summit they found some theologians who had long accepted God. Truth comes by God's self-revelation, and not strictly by human investigation. Have you read any of Francis Schaeffer?

I think if Francis Schaeffer were alive to read this response to my question he would have flown you to Switzerland just so you could hear his laments in person. But don't worry, because after a few minutes of lamenting I'd slap him for mishandling Kierkegaard as badly as he did in How Should We Then Live?.

So yes, I've read Schaffer.

The "word of God" is distinct  from Jesus, since it preexisted Jesus' human form. Jesus, as a divine Being, preceded his human revelation. So it can be said that Jesus pre-existed his human form as the Word of God.

The "word" is God's communication, period. One way that He communicates to Man is by assuming a human form, whether in pre-incarnate theophanies or by showing Himself in Jesus.

Yo, what?

Kind of like the way Mendel got a physical inheritance out of scientific analysis?

If you connect physical inheritances with the biblical portrait of a human sin nature, you will get this. But if you don't posit a Sin Nature, then you deny what Jews saw as the Sin Tendency. We are rebellious and independent of God's word from the start, from birth. All Israel required mitigation for sin, regardless of age or deed.

This is all about inheriting a rebellious nature from Adam, once he had chosen to live independent of God's word. Children continue to be born in his image, and yet now, that image is tarnished, and children, born in his image, are born in a sin image, having inherited both a physical and a spiritual legacy.

No, I asked how you arrived at your conclusion about Cain. Is this an explanation for it, and I'm simply not well read enough on the alchemical astrological sciences?

...Judaism rejects the idea of a 'sin nature' so I don't know how you're connecting the dots.

Cain exhibited something that warranted a biblical author calling him a "child of Satan." These are children who determine to live independent of God even after knowing that they've been misled by the Deceiver.

"A biblical author" and no reference... what? Do you mean 1 John 3 or something else? How does the reply above or 1 John 3 support the idea of a 'spiritual mutation'?

There's nothing complicated, in my mind, about having more than one definition for a word. Webster's uses them all the time.

immortal: endless existence except when eating of the Tree of Knowledge--then it ceases to be "endless"
immortal: obtaining eternal life at the resurrection--this can never be severed

...why not just use two words like everyone else does?

As I said, words mean what they mean depending on how the author is using the terms. The context determines how the word is being used.

The was I be no there you dude hey banana.

Author's intention and context, amirite?

[RandyPNW]

Augustine's misunderstanding is built on the Vulgate's translation of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, which didn't properly distinguish between 'in whom' and 'in which' when it came to ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. In the Vulgate we end up with in quo omnes peccaverunt, which translates to the familiar:

...in whom all have sinned.

I agree  with Augustine not because he got the Greek correct, but because I agree with his belief that the Bible assumes a Sin Nature that all of mankind is born with. My Greek Interlinear reads "inasmuch as" with respect to ἐφ᾿ ᾧ.

I  agree that Paul's argument can be read incorrectly and have something read into it that isn't there. But that doesn't mean that there is no underlying assumption when it is everywhere assumed throughout Scriptures.

But why is sin necessary at all? Your view argues for partial determinism, so why can't God simply set up creation such that all beings are 'partially determined' to freely choose faith?

I answered that.
1) Partial Determinism is dependent on God determining what is absolutely determined and what is left up to free choice. 2) The angels could choose apart from duress. And in order to preserve God's word for Man part had to be determined despite the possible choice for sin.

God did in fact determine faith for those originally determined to be His people. The addition of people as a product of Man acting outside of God's will does not allow God to pre-determine their faith.

On  the contrary, their inclination is towards rebellion against God's word, since they are the products of that rebellion. It is a predictable free choice that they will make.

What is not determined is how much good and how much bad someone who rebels will do. The good that they do will mitigate some of their punishment and choice to act apart from God's good will.

Well you see, God designed his own drama, and so on and so forth, and that's why you have cancer. Artistic license is cruel and sadistic.

God prepared cancer as a consequence of Man acting outside of His word.

What does this mean, then, if not double predestination?

I do ally with Calvinism. But I don't believe God determines people to reject Eternal Life. Indirectly, I suppose one could say in effect He does by setting the ground rules for the human consequence of rebelling against His word.

Man has produced children of disobedience, in which some will incline towards his original calling and some will incline against God's word. It is, I agree, predictable, and as such, looks entirely determined. In a Free Choice sense, I suppose one could call it that.

The point is that God absolutely determined a set number of people to fill His world. The addition of people due to Man's rebellion cannot alter that number.

But those who do not gravitate towards Salvation nevertheless have free will, and freely choose in the direction they gravitate towards. Furthermore, they determine, by free choice, how much they choose to obey God, and so mitigate their punishment for choosing to live independent of God's word.

Rotting is to an apple as disease is to a human. What rotting is not comparable to, however, is ontic corruption. What you're talking about is a changing of or alternation to fundamental human nature. A being whose nature has been altered is no longer the same being. Ontically corrupted humanity =/= prelapsarian humanity. We look the same but we aren't, if we take to Augustine's view.

You are the one arguing for defining Man's nature  so as to exclude a Sin Nature--I'm not. Once Man has sinned, then that is what he has become--a Sinner.

I think if Francis Schaeffer were alive to read this response to my question he would have flown you to Switzerland just so you could hear his laments in person. But don't worry, because after a few minutes of lamenting I'd slap him for mishandling Kierkegaard as badly as he did in How Should We Then Live?.

So yes, I've read Schaffer.

I wouldn't be as harsh on Kierkegaard as Schaeffer was either. But I was referring to how Schaeffer places revelation ahead of understanding.

Yo, what?

You asked why I referred to God's word without a capital "W."  And so, I told you. Don't you understand what I said?

God's word is His vehicle of communication, just like it is ours. Only, He can create things with His word, whereas we might tell someone to make us something.

Since God's word is also His own Person, He can form, through His word, into a human being who expresses His person. And that's what He did in OT theophanies, and also what he did in producing Christ.

Just for interest I would suggest that God is potentially much more than a Trinity, on the basis of what I just said. God can create an infinite number of expressions of His person. He didn't have to stop with producing only Christ!

No, I asked how you arrived at your conclusion about Cain. Is this an explanation for it, and I'm simply not well read enough on the alchemical astrological sciences?

Yes, you're not well acquainted! And I'm glad you're not.

My argument for Cain was the language in describing him as a "child of the Devil." And he is used as the archetype for one who rebels against God's word, not just temporarily, but as a life choice leading into eternity.

He chose to be Lost, separated form God forever, determined to live by his own independent choices and grumbling about God wanting control over his life and not being happy with what he thought were benign or perfectly good choices. Murder was the result of his "innocent" choices.

...Judaism rejects the idea of a 'sin nature' so I don't know how you're connecting the dots.

My understanding was they reject anything remotely connected to Christian Theology, and a supposed "Sin Nature" in that sense. But as I understand it, many of them have described something similar as a "Sin Inclination."

"A biblical author" and no reference... what? Do you mean 1 John 3 or something else? How does the reply above or 1 John 3 support the idea of a 'spiritual mutation'?

Yes, the Apostle John. I'm answering your question about how Cain is depicted biblically, or how biblical authors understood someone who not only sinned on occasion, but settled on a Sin Nature.

We all gravitate towards a Sin Nature because we are *born with it.* Women giving birth under the Law had to go through cleansing ceremonies. It wasn't just about the uncleanness of blood, but more, about the uncleanness of sin.

Jesus made a big deal by suggesting that food passing through our stomachs are not what makes us spiritually unclean, but rather, the thoughts that go through our head. Jesus is here suggesting we all have a Sin Nature, the moment evil passes through our minds, and we latch onto it. We do collect evil thoughts, and can dispose of them or indulge them. But it does give us a sense of vulnerability to it, right?

And our thoughts are the product not just of cold reasoning, but more a consultation of the heart, in connection with what the eyes see, etc. We gravitate towards wanting what we see, as opposed to consulting with God or with others as to whether they want the same thing before us.

Author's intention and context, amirite?

Of course, if you can't communicate it properly, then the author's intention won't be known. Ubecha

[Athanasius]

I agree  with Augustine not because he got the Greek correct, but because I agree with his belief that the Bible assumes a Sin Nature that all of mankind is born with. My Greek Interlinear reads "inasmuch as" with respect to ἐφ᾿ ᾧ.

I  agree that Paul's argument can be read incorrectly and have something read into it that isn't there. But that doesn't mean that there is no underlying assumption when it is everywhere assumed throughout Scriptures.

It seems that your answer to the question "where is ontic corruption in Romans 5:12" is to assert that in fact, "the Bible assumes a Sin Nature". This is not an answer to the question of where we read ontic corruption in Romans 5:12. So is it there, or are you reading it into the text from our post-Augustinian perspective? If it's there, where is it? If it's not there, is it possible that 'sin nature' is better understood as something else, maybe like how it's understood in Thomistic/Scholastic schools of thought?

I answered that.
1) Partial Determinism is dependent on God determining what is absolutely determined and what is left up to free choice. 2) The angels could choose apart from duress. And in order to preserve God's word for Man part had to be determined despite the possible choice for sin.

God did in fact determine faith for those originally determined to be His people. The addition of people as a product of Man acting outside of God's will does not allow God to pre-determine their faith.

On  the contrary, their inclination is towards rebellion against God's word, since they are the products of that rebellion. It is a predictable free choice that they will make.

What is not determined is how much good and how much bad someone who rebels will do. The good that they do will mitigate some of their punishment and choice to act apart from God's good will.

This isn't an answer, it's circular. The answer seems to be that God didn't orient all of creation to faith because more babies showed up than God was expecting. So, the answer must be "because God didn't know". What other answer is there?

God prepared cancer as a consequence of Man acting outside of His word.

You think... God created cancer?

I do ally with Calvinism. But I don't believe God determines people to reject Eternal Life. Indirectly, I suppose one could say in effect He does by setting the ground rules for the human consequence of rebelling against His word.

Yes, it's double predestination indirectly, which is still double predestination if the other bit is direct/active.

Man has produced children of disobedience, in which some will incline towards his original calling and some will incline against God's word. It is, I agree, predictable, and as such, looks entirely determined. In a Free Choice sense, I suppose one could call it that.

The point is that God absolutely determined a set number of people to fill His world. The addition of people due to Man's rebellion cannot alter that number.

So like, He determined to save 144,000 and then screw the rest?

But those who do not gravitate towards Salvation nevertheless have free will, and freely choose in the direction they gravitate towards. Furthermore, they determine, by free choice, how much they choose to obey God, and so mitigate their punishment for choosing to live independent of God's word.

Oh okay, so Dante now.

You are the one arguing for defining Man's nature so as to exclude a Sin Nature--I'm not. Once Man has sinned, then that is what he has become--a Sinner.

I'm rejecting the notion that sin introduced ontic corruption into humanity. You haven't shown it in Scripture so far. You've only told me that Scripture assumes it, but this isn't clear.

You asked why I referred to God's word without a capital "W."  And so, I told you. Don't you understand what I said?

God's word is His vehicle of communication, just like it is ours. Only, He can create things with His word, whereas we might tell someone to make us something.

Since God's word is also His own Person, He can form, through His word, into a human being who expresses His person. And that's what He did in OT theophanies, and also what he did in producing Christ.

Just for interest I would suggest that God is potentially much more than a Trinity, on the basis of what I just said. God can create an infinite number of expressions of His person. He didn't have to stop with producing only Christ!

Yeah, I got what you said. An expression of a person is an analogy for modalism, and if you're suggesting more than a Trinity then that's clearly heterodox, or you're favourite word, heresy. What you seem to be saying is that God can express Himself any way He wishes. So no Trinity at all, but a Modal God. Are you sure you left that cult way back when?

Yes, you're not well acquainted! And I'm glad you're not.

My argument for Cain was the language in describing him as a "child of the Devil." And he is used as the archetype for one who rebels against God's word, not just temporarily, but as a life choice leading into eternity.

He chose to be Lost, separated form God forever, determined to live by his own independent choices and grumbling about God wanting control over his life and not being happy with what he thought were benign or perfectly good choices. Murder was the result of his "innocent" choices.

Yeah, I read Jung instead. Right, so it's not an explanation at all for what you said.

My understanding was they reject anything remotely connected to Christian Theology, and a supposed "Sin Nature" in that sense. But as I understand it, many of them have described something similar as a "Sin Inclination."

It's too bad they didn't come up with the concept, apparently clear in Scripture, over those few thousand years they had on Christians. So, a bad connection then on your part.

Yes, the Apostle John. I'm answering your question about how Cain is depicted biblically, or how biblical authors understood someone who not only sinned on occasion, but settled on a Sin Nature.

We all gravitate towards a Sin Nature because we are *born with it.* Women giving birth under the Law had to go through cleansing ceremonies. It wasn't just about the uncleanness of blood, but more, about the uncleanness of sin.

Jesus made a big deal by suggesting that food passing through our stomachs are not what makes us spiritually unclean, but rather, the thoughts that go through our head. Jesus is here suggesting we all have a Sin Nature, the moment evil passes through our minds, and we latch onto it. We do collect evil thoughts, and can dispose of them or indulge them. But it does give us a sense of vulnerability to it, right?

And our thoughts are the product not just of cold reasoning, but more a consultation of the heart, in connection with what the eyes see, etc. We gravitate towards wanting what we see, as opposed to consulting with God or with others as to whether they want the same thing before us.

Again, this is an explanation that assumes the sin nature it attempts to demonstrate. Is there anything in the text that attests to a sin nature and not 'just', say, the misdirection of the will towards ungodly ends?

Of course, if you can't communicate it properly, then the author's intention won't be known. Ubecha

Exactly.

[RandyPNW]

If it's not there, is it possible that 'sin nature' is better understood as something else, maybe like how it's understood in Thomistic/Scholastic schools of thought?

Again, the Sin Nature is assumed, logically, in Rom 5.12. It is logically demanded, but not spelled out. To argue Augustine or Thomas Aquinas requires that we argue from the perspective of Greek philosophical assumptions, which can end us in a quagmire.

We don't have to go that far. The Bible assumes Man is a spiritual being, like God Himself, that he is made in God's character, being a moral agent with choice. And having made a choice against God's word in the garden, he became something different, which we call being "endowed with a Sin Nature." Man's nature changed without Man ceasing to be Man and without him ceasing to have his original calling.

Since Jesus pointed out that sin is not physical, but spiritual, and from the heart, we know that the Sin Nature is a spiritual quality in Man that corrupts his thoughts. We are born with it, even though we still know our original calling--perhaps subconsciously. And we can still do good. Having a Sin Nature, we can overcome it with greater enlightenment in our intellectual darkness.

This isn't an answer, it's circular. The answer seems to be that God didn't orient all of creation to faith because more babies showed up than God was expecting. So, the answer must be "because God didn't know". What other answer is there?

It's an answer *for me,* because it explains how things only seemed to get out of God's control.

You think... God created cancer?

I not only think it--I know it. God created everything that exists, good and evil. What He originally wanted is a different thing.

So like, He determined to save 144,000 and then screw the rest?

Leave the 144,000 out--that confuses things. We can use the real number. God wanted X number of people to *fill the world.* Only God knows X, but we know it must fill the world.

The excess babies originate from natural creative human processes that God gave to Man, for reproduction. The fact that Man compromised his spiritual nature, adopting a Sin Nature, was not God's idea, but Man's idea.

The choice of these "excess children" to choose for a life of independence from God follows from the spiritual nature of their parents to rebel, whereas God did not ever choose them to come into being in the first place. God simply is following through on the creative processes He gave to Man, and Satan is using that to obtain a following.

Yeah, I got what you said. An expression of a person is an analogy for modalism...

I came up with my own view in opposition to the modalism of the cult I was leaving! The rest of your false characterization about my beliefs I'll omit for now. No, I'm not heterodox in my view of the Trinity. I've given you the Scriptural basis for a Sin Nature that is now part of Man's spiritual makeup. It is apparently insufficient for you, but it does help me. As in many things, I am open to correction.

[RabbiKnife]

I don't assume anything, and Romans 5 is far from either an explicit statement or inference of it.

Adam did not have a "sin nature," yet he clearly sinned.

"Sin nature" is not logically demanded anywhere, and in fact, is clearly contraindicated in the creation narrative itself.

[IMINXTC]

Adam did not have a "sin nature," yet he clearly sinned.

"Sin nature" is not logically demanded anywhere, and in fact, is clearly contraindicated in the creation narrative itself.

Pastors pounding "you have a sin nature" into the minds of congregants weekly. Sad. Debilitating.

[RandyPNW]

I don't assume anything, and Romans 5 is far from either an explicit statement or inference of it.

Adam did not have a "sin nature," yet he clearly sinned.

"Sin nature" is not logically demanded anywhere, and in fact, is clearly contraindicated in the creation narrative itself.

I couldn't disagree more. Adam didn't have to have a Sin Nature to sin. But those born after the Fall had to sin because they had a Sin Nature.

Rom 5.13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

What Paul is saying is that sin existed as a spiritual reality resident in Man even without an official record of what Sin was. It's just that the Law was given to clarify what Sin was so that mankind would be judged for remaining in it, when there is an option to leave it.

Since it is in us, we can depart from living in Sin, even if we can't expunge it from our being. The fact that we are told to "overcome" Sin indicates it is always with us, as part of our makeup since the Fall.

[IMINXTC]

those born after the Fall had to sin because they had a Sin Nature.

emphasis mine.

This is just one of many such sweeping statements you have made without any careful scriptural foundation.

Seeing how this is a Bible forum, I would adjure you to Biblically establish just where it is that men after the fall "had to sin," and do you grasp the significance of such a revolutionary teaching?


Actually, my sin is on me because I acted out of free will, just like Adam.

[Athanasius]

I couldn't disagree more. Adam didn't have to have a Sin Nature to sin. But those born after the Fall had to sin because they had a Sin Nature.

Rom 5.13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

What Paul is saying is that sin existed as a spiritual reality resident in Man even without an official record of what Sin was. It's just that the Law was given to clarify what Sin was so that mankind would be judged for remaining in it, when there is an option to leave it.

Since it is in us, we can depart from living in Sin, even if we can't expunge it from our being. The fact that we are told to "overcome" Sin indicates it is always with us, as part of our makeup since the Fall.

What does verse 14 say?

14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

If Paul is arguing for an ontic corruption, sin nature, etc., then it's odd to write "even over those who did not sin by breaking a command". Why should that matter if everyone after Adam possessed a sin nature? It's because Paul isn't writing ontology in this portion of Romans. When in v13 he says that sin is in the world, he means exactly what a Jew would have meant by that: sin instantiated by people, missing the mark in their faith, behaviours, etc. People sinned though they weren't aware of it. God doesn't judge people over what they don't know.

But what should it matter if God doesn't judge people over what they don't know if those very same people have sin natures that condemn them? Paul, like the good Jew that he was, did not teach that people had an ontic sin nature. That we're told to 'overcome' sin indicates that we always have the choice in how we act and how we live. It does not indicate any kind of nature or makeup of humanity.

[RandyPNW]

I couldn't disagree more. Adam didn't have to have a Sin Nature to sin. But those born after the Fall had to sin because they had a Sin Nature.

Rom 5.13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

What Paul is saying is that sin existed as a spiritual reality resident in Man even without an official record of what Sin was. It's just that the Law was given to clarify what Sin was so that mankind would be judged for remaining in it, when there is an option to leave it.

Since it is in us, we can depart from living in Sin, even if we can't expunge it from our being. The fact that we are told to "overcome" Sin indicates it is always with us, as part of our makeup since the Fall.

What does verse 14 say?

14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

If Paul is arguing for an ontic corruption, sin nature, etc., then it's odd to write "even over those who did not sin by breaking a command". Why should that matter if everyone after Adam possessed a sin nature? It's because Paul isn't writing ontology in this portion of Romans. When in v13 he says that sin is in the world, he means exactly what a Jew would have meant by that: sin instantiated by people, missing the mark in their faith, behaviours, etc. People sinned though they weren't aware of it. God doesn't judge people over what they don't know.

But what should it matter if God doesn't judge people over what they don't know if those very same people have sin natures that condemn them? Paul, like the good Jew that he was, did not teach that people had an ontic sin nature. That we're told to 'overcome' sin indicates that we always have the choice in how we act and how we live. It does not indicate any kind of nature or makeup of humanity.

Verse 14 indicates that Sin was a spiritual inheritance Man had, even without knowing the details of what Sin was. It began as an attitude of rebellion against God's word in the garden of Eden, and was then passed on down to future generations.

Sin required the Law of Moses in order to clarify to a nation what exactly God wanted, so that they could understand how to oppose this inner urge to rebel. They had to be told to resist anger and murder, covetousness and theft.

Sin was already in them, and they were already being judged. But God wanted to teach the nations how to be in covenant with Himself, and so they had to know the basis of this covenant relationship. They had to know what Sin actually was in order to overcome it. In a practical sense, they had to be told certain behaviors were indicative of sin and should be avoided.

Just as judgment of sin continued without a full knowledge of what Sin was, so did death continue without people knowing, in detail, was Sin was. Sin, judgment, and death all continued before Israel even had the Law.

But God wanted Israel to know the kinds of things that bring on judgment and death so that they could avoid them, to some degree. A covenant relationship could be had even in their imperfection simply by living an overcomer's life, resisting the inner sin, and choosing to walk in the likeness of God.

And they only had to add to this knowledge of God and obedience an involvement in the ceremonies representing what repentance was and what it would mean for God to forgive them their Sin. Thus the Law brought about a greater understanding of the cost of forgiveness, both to God and to ourselves. And we continue to pay that cost by bearing our own Sin and the need to continually overcome it.

[Athanasius]

Verse 14 indicates that Sin was a spiritual inheritance Man had, even without knowing the details of what Sin was. It began as an attitude of rebellion against God's word in the garden of Eden, and was then passed on down to future generations.

Sin required the Law of Moses in order to clarify to a nation what exactly God wanted, so that they could understand how to oppose this inner urge to rebel. They had to be told to resist anger and murder, covetousness and theft.

Sin was already in them, and they were already being judged. But God wanted to teach the nations how to be in covenant with Himself, and so they had to know the basis of this covenant relationship. They had to know what Sin actually was in order to overcome it. In a practical sense, they had to be told certain behaviors were indicative of sin and should be avoided.

Just as judgment of sin continued without a full knowledge of what Sin was, so did death continue without people knowing, in detail, was Sin was. Sin, judgment, and death all continued before Israel even had the Law.

But God wanted Israel to know the kinds of things that bring on judgment and death so that they could avoid them, to some degree. A covenant relationship could be had even in their imperfection simply by living an overcomer's life, resisting the inner sin, and choosing to walk in the likeness of God.

And they only had to add to this knowledge of God and obedience an involvement in the ceremonies representing what repentance was and what it would mean for God to forgive them their Sin. Thus the Law brought about a greater understanding of the cost of forgiveness, both to God and to ourselves. And we continue to pay that cost by bearing our own Sin and the need to continually overcome it.

Verse 14 indicates that we live with the consequences of Adam's sin insofar as Paul is contrasting death in Adam with life in Christ. What we inherit is a broken relationship with God, with creation, with each other. Death. We aren't beneficiaries of the same grace given to Adam and Eve in the garden at their creation.

Verse 14 does not indicate that we possess some kind of corrupted nature as a result of Adam's sin in Genesis 3. Neither does verse 12, or verse 13, or any of the discussion in Romans 5, which isn't ontological.

When you say "Sin was already in them, and they were already being judged" you go against Paul. Paul is clear in v13 that no one is judged for sin they commit in ignorance. He also says that this doesn't nullify the consequences of Adam's sin, which is death. So, people who aren't judged still die because through Adam's disobedience death entered into the world. Paul isn't talking about death as judgment for sin committed in ignorance, but death as a consequence of Adam's sin.

It's ludicrous, of course, to suggest that only with the giving of the Law did people learn that murder and theft were wrong. People already knew this; the ancients weren't idiots. What they didn't know was that these wrongs extended beyond morality. It's not simply morally wrong to murder someone, it's a sin against God. It's not just a value that's being violated, but a relationship. We don't relate to an abstract moral order, but being.

But again, in all of this there's no hint of a corrupted human nature. This is humanity separated from God. If Adam could sin in the Garden, then how much more can we sin in the wilderness? Quite a lot more, it seems.

[RandyPNW]

Verse 14 indicates that we live with the consequences of Adam's sin insofar as Paul is contrasting death in Adam with life in Christ. What we inherit is a broken relationship with God, with creation, with each other. Death. We aren't beneficiaries of the same grace given to Adam and Eve in the garden at their creation.

Verse 14 does not indicate that we possess some kind of corrupted nature as a result of Adam's sin in Genesis 3. Neither does verse 12, or verse 13, or any of the discussion in Romans 5, which isn't ontological.

The exact opposite is true. Vs. 14 teaches that all men have the exact same nature as Adam had after he had indulged in Sin, even though they didn't commit the initial act of rebellion against God's word that Adam committed. How else could all men be in this predicament if they had not sinned as Adam had? Do you think each individual human being partakes of the Tree of Knowledge? If not, then the insinuation is that we have all inherited Adam's sinful nature.

In the same way we inherit our parents' DNA all men inherit a Sin Nature from Adam and Eve. However, DNA is a physical inheritance, whereas a Sin Nature is a spiritual inheritance. Both are real.

If you speak of a "broken relationship with God," then you are not merely speaking of the common mortal lot of humanity, but more, of the cause that brings this about, which is a Sin Nature. Individual Sins would have to be committed before one could be called "mortal."

Rom 5.13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

This is inherited, ontological Sin! It is not just an act, which certainly wouldn't be true of anybody not yet born. Rather, it is an inherited quality, anticipated on behalf of all future generations until the resurrection, the re-creation of our human nature to be sinless by nature.

When you say "Sin was already in them, and they were already being judged" you go against Paul. Paul is clear in v13 that no one is judged for sin they commit in ignorance. He also says that this doesn't nullify the consequences of Adam's sin, which is death. So, people who aren't judged still die because through Adam's disobedience death entered into the world. Paul isn't talking about death as judgment for sin committed in ignorance, but death as a consequence of Adam's sin.

Nobody dies simply because Adam died! They die because like Adam they allow Sin to either enter within them or they indulge in the Sin that is already within them as a tempting force. Death continues in mankind because all of mankind is cursed with a Sin Nature.

I don't believe Paul said people are not judged without a law informing them of what Sin is. On the contrary, Paul was arguing that they were judged even before the Law came, because Sin existed in them whether they fully understood what it was or not. They weren't being specifically judged under the Law, but they were being judged nonetheless, eg by suffering death.

It's ludicrous, of course, to suggest that only with the giving of the Law did people learn that murder and theft were wrong. People already knew this; the ancients weren't idiots. What they didn't know was that these wrongs extended beyond morality. It's not simply morally wrong to murder someone, it's a sin against God. It's not just a value that's being violated, but a relationship. We don't relate to an abstract moral order, but being.

Of course. This illustrates my point, that Paul was referring to a judgment that God wished to bring along with greater understanding. And God did this so that Israel would also know how to live in covenant relationship with God by overcoming this Sin inclination.

Sin was already there. But God wanted Israel to have a greater understanding of it so as to sufficiently avoid it and thereby remain in covenant relationship with God.

But again, in all of this there's no hint of a corrupted human nature. This is humanity separated from God. If Adam could sin in the Garden, then how much more can we sin in the wilderness? Quite a lot more, it seems.

You're really standing outside of centuries of belief. But I suppose you must live by your own faith? I believe in a Sin Nature because I experience its temptations every day, and I sure don't invite it in!

[Athanasius]

The exact opposite is true. Vs. 14 teaches that all men have the exact same nature as Adam had after he had indulged in Sin, even though they didn't commit the initial act of rebellion against God's word that Adam committed. How else could all men be in this predicament if they had not sinned as Adam had? Do you think each individual human being partakes of the Tree of Knowledge? If not, then the insinuation is that we have all inherited Adam's sinful nature.

As Paul wrote: we're in the predicament we're in because we all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, death (even when we're ignorant of sin). Further, we all sin just like Adam and Eve sinned. But this is the emphasis: act. The emphasis is not being. Paul is not insinuating that we've inherited Adam's sinful nature. What we've inherited is death, broken relationships, the withdrawing of God's grace in the way that we had it in the garden, and so forth.

In the same way we inherit our parents' DNA all men inherit a Sin Nature from Adam and Eve. However, DNA is a physical inheritance, whereas a Sin Nature is a spiritual inheritance. Both are real.

So you keep saying.

If you speak of a "broken relationship with God," then you are not merely speaking of the common mortal lot of humanity, but more, of the cause that brings this about, which is a Sin Nature. Individual Sins would have to be committed before one could be called "mortal."

The cause that brought about our broken relationship with God was Adam's sin and the consequent withdrawing of God/expulsion of humanity from God's presence. Everyone is mortal by virtue of the fact that humanity was created mortal. So, if you think individual sins are required then that's something to answer in your own view, not mine.

Rom 5.13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

This is inherited, ontological Sin! It is not just an act, which certainly wouldn't be true of anybody not yet born. Rather, it is an inherited quality, anticipated on behalf of all future generations until the resurrection, the re-creation of our human nature to be sinless by nature.

Paul, the Jewish scholar that he was, isn't arguing for an ontological sin nature. What he has in view is sin-as-act. For example, Adam's sins (lack of faith, disobedience, etc.) were in the world before the law was given. Death reigns as a consequence of Adam's sin. This is external to human being. It's a consequence of our expulsion from God's presence of the privation of the grace(s) we had in the garden.

Nobody dies simply because Adam died!

Everybody dies because through Adam death entered into the world.

They die because like Adam they allow Sin to either enter within them or they indulge in the Sin that is already within them as a tempting force. Death continues in mankind because all of mankind is cursed with a Sin Nature.

Well, like Adam we all sin, but Paul isn't positing an ontological sin nature in saying that.

I don't believe Paul said people are not judged without a law informing them of what Sin is. On the contrary, Paul was arguing that they were judged even before the Law came, because Sin existed in them whether they fully understood what it was or not. They weren't being specifically judged under the Law, but they were being judged nonetheless, eg by suffering death.

Paul said what he said:

"sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law."

You know my view, so you'll need to account for this in your own view. He was not saying:

"sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law, except when it comes to death."

You're really standing outside of centuries of belief. But I suppose you must live by your own faith? I believe in a Sin Nature because I experience its temptations every day, and I sure don't invite it in!

You've disqualified yourself from appealing to centuries of belief until you apply that own standard to your view concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.

With that said, I don't in fact stand outside centuries of belief. My view is in line with the Thomistic/Scholastic conception of original sin. That view isn't in line with the Calvinist understanding, so as far as Calvinism is concerned I'm heterodox or worse on this matter. I don't care much for Calvin though so that doesn't bother me.

You experience temptations, just as Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, experienced temptation. You didn't invite it, but there it is, and sometimes it talks to you. No sin nature required, just agency. Or, I mean, I guess in your view it's all either determined or partially determined and God invited it in on your behalf.

[RandyPNW]

As Paul wrote: we're in the predicament we're in because we all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, death (even when we're ignorant of sin). Further, we all sin just like Adam and Eve sinned. But this is the emphasis: act. The emphasis is not being. Paul is not insinuating that we've inherited Adam's sinful nature. What we've inherited is death, broken relationships, the withdrawing of God's grace in the way that we had it in the garden, and so forth.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. You think Sin is purely actions people decide to take. So you're assuming that every single person is innocent and dies in that innocence without having to Sin?

The cause that brought about our broken relationship with God was Adam's sin and the consequent withdrawing of God/expulsion of humanity from God's presence. Everyone is mortal by virtue of the fact that humanity was created mortal. So, if you think individual sins are required then that's something to answer in your own view, not mine.

You have to answer the question as to why people are bequeathed the condition of death when they are not guilty of sin? As for my own defense of the position, the Bible says that the "wages of sin are death." That means, death is earned by sinful actions. And since we all die, the implication is that we all have a Sin Nature, prompting us to sin, in lesser or greater measures.

Our salvation is not in not sinning. Rather, it is in overcoming sin by choosing a lifestyle that rejects sin. We choose Christ as our life, and by default reject a life in which sin overcomes us.

Well, like Adam we all sin, but Paul isn't positing an ontological sin nature in saying that.

That is for me a meaningless statement, a claim without justification. Adam sinned, so we all choose to sin? That doesn't follow unless we all have a Sin Nature guaranteeing that we *will* sin. Yes, sin is an action, but it is guaranteed to take place because of our corrupted *nature.*

Paul said what he said:
"sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law."

You know my view, so you'll need to account for this in your own view. He was not saying:
"sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law, except when it comes to death."

I'm trying to get you to reconsider your view. The passage, to me, suggests that the Law was not designed to judge men who otherwise would not be judged. On the contrary, well before the Law the Flood judged the world at that time.

You've disqualified yourself from appealing to centuries of belief until you apply that own standard to your view concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.

Not at all. There aren't centuries of orthodoxy that oppose many-multiple personalities of God in theory! On the contrary, defending the Trinity for 20 some centuries guarantees that we have a right to define an omnipotent God in mortal terms without limitation (ie in finite terms that we as humans can understand).

With that said, I don't in fact stand outside centuries of belief. My view is in line with the Thomistic/Scholastic conception of original sin. That view isn't in line with the Calvinist understanding, so as far as Calvinism is concerned I'm heterodox or worse on this matter. I don't care much for Calvin though so that doesn't bother me.

Yes, I can see where you stand on this. To me, it makes little difference if you think we don't have a Sin Nature and yet Sin, or if I think that we have a Sin Nature and therefore Sin. The point is, we all Sin and require Christian redemption, right?

I'm not even comparing your view to heresy or heterodoxy--I'm just honestly discussing what I think the Bible teaches. If it isn't completely clear on this subject for you or for me or for others, we all have different backgrounds. We'll work through it, hopefully.

For me, the only way I can explain my compulsion to sin is by reference to a Sin Nature. If you don't, I have a difficult time understanding that. You willfully sin without feeling any internal rise in pride, lust, greed or covetousness? You don't get angry except that someone outside of yourself makes you angry? I can only blame myself for failure, and yet console myself that I've been born with this "disability" called Sin. I can overcome it, but it isn't pleasant having it taint everything I do, rendering me "contaminated."

You experience temptations, just as Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, experienced temptation. You didn't invite it, but there it is, and sometimes it talks to you. No sin nature required, just agency. Or, I mean, I guess in your view it's all either determined or partially determined and God invited it in on your behalf.

I don't think Adam and Eve had Sin within themselves, until they capitulated to the temptation. On the other hand, everybody after the Fall has sin generated within them from birth.

You can claim it's external forces acting upon us to generate Sin within us, but I really think we have to admit that nothing can *make us Sin,* except ourselves. If Satan tempts us, we can ignore it unlike Adam and Eve.

But the fact we fail *every time* indicates that this isn't just a matter of ignoring Satanic temptations or not. Surely someone would successfully ignore Satan's temptations  and not Sin?

But this isn't what we find. We find that we *all* capitulate, meaning that if Adam and Eve were not initially weak, we are now. We've inherited a weakness, however you want to describe it. Even more than a weakness, it leaves us feeling guilty and flawed in *everything* we do!

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree?