King of the North and King of the South.

[Athanasius]

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?

I'm not assuming that, no. It doesn't follow from what I'm saying either.

I think sin is act, yes, and I don't think human nature was corrupted through Adam's sin. I also think that all humanity suffers the consequences of Adam's sin, and our expulsion from God's presence is not insignificant in its impact on the orientation of our being, effect on our will, and so forth.

You have to answer the question as to why people are bequeathed the condition of death when they are not guilty of sin?

I already have. Death is a consequence of Adam's sin that impacts all humanity, and all humanity sins. I don't know where you're getting this idea that I think no one is guilty of sin, from.

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.

Where does that implication come from? If the wages of sin are death, and everyone sins, and everyone dies, then where does a sin nature come in? Adam sinned without a sin nature.

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.

Our salvation is by grace through faith. Striving to live a life that honours Christ is part of the life of faith. But, our salvation is not in our own overcoming sin.

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.*

This doesn't require a sin nature, no. We sin because we choose to sin. Why do we choose to sin if we don't have a sin nature? Why did Adam choose to sin, lacking a sin nature himself? There's your answer (to say nothing of sin in ignorance).

What differentiates us from Adam is our position in the world and before God, and this has no small impact on our being, which was not meant to exist out of relation with God.

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.

I know. I don't find your view compelling.

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).

Yes, there is, and it's called the doctrine of the Trinity. Your appeal to councils against others, that you then deny yourself, is hypocritical.

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?

It seems to me that we shouldn't believe things that are false.

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."

That's the thing: it's your nature, you can't overcome it. You can blame yourself though with some relief. I myself am wholly responsible. There is no appeal to 'my nature made me do it'.

I don't know what you're trying to suggest, though. What's led you to think that I think someone would sin 'without feeling any internal rise in pride, lust, greed' and so on?

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.

If you have a sin nature then that compels you to sin. I don't think we have a sin nature and we sin anyway. We all fail our temptations.

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?

Sure, and then they fail when presented with some other temptation.

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?

You may if you like.

[RabbiKnife]

If "human" = sin nature (ontologically) and,

If "sin nature" = actual sinful acts are impossible to avoid, and

If "engaging in sinful acts" = actual existence and identification as sinner in opposition to and in open defiance to God's holiness,

then it must follow that

Jesus is not human,

and it likewise must follow that Jesus is an insufficient sacrifice, an insufficient propitiation, an insufficient savior, an insufficient high priest, and a false Messiah.

[RandyPNW]

I'm not assuming that, no. It doesn't follow from what I'm saying either.

If the Scriptures indicate death is the consequence of sin, it does follow that *all* those who die sinned. You're not explaining how Adam's sin caused all of his descendants to die before they even sin!

To just say that death is the inheritance of Man, and not Sin, is to say that people die as part of the punishment of Adam. That part does make sense in isolation, because Adam may have flipped the switch to turn the temperature to freezing, and we will all die, regardless of the fact we did not turn the switch.

However, this does not explain why Adam's ancestors are punished for what Adam alone did? And it doesn't explain why *all* of his descendants capitulate to Sin, as Adam did?

If they did not inherit a Sin Nature, surely one or two of us would choose not to Sin? But if we have all inherited a Sin Nature, we can be redeemed and still have a Sin Nature that we do not completely expunge from us, but rather, choose to resist and overcome.

Let's say Adam drank a concoction filled with bacteria and viruses. Then he gave birth, through Eve, to children who did not contract any of the diseases that Adam himself contracted. They did not inherit a Disease Nature.

But let's say that Adam died from his diseases, and that his descendants also died as if from those same diseases, even though they had not contracted those diseases causing death. Does that make any sense? I don't think so.

You seem to be implying that all of Adam's descendants died without this "Disease Nature," and yet 100% chose to sin like Adam without having any predilection to do so. This just doesn't make sense to me! A Sin Nature would explain it better, in my opinion.

I think sin is act, yes, and I don't think human nature was corrupted through Adam's sin. I also think that all humanity suffers the consequences of Adam's sin, and our expulsion from God's presence is not insignificant in its impact on the orientation of our being, effect on our will, and so forth.
Adam sinned without a sin nature.

That is an irrelevant fact to me. The fact Adam did not require a Sin Nature to sin does not mean his descendants did not require a Sin Nature to sin, if indeed there is no indication any of them did not sin.

If there had been two Adams, and one chose to sin without a Sin Nature and the other chose not to sin without a Sin Nature, it would've been clear that either Adam did not have to sin. No Sin Nature imposed that upon them.

But when *every* descendant of Adam chooses to sin, I can hardly conclude that there wasn't something imposing its will on all of them to make them all sin!

[RandyPNW]

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.

I know. I don't find your view compelling.

That's hardly a basis for disagreement if you can't answer the pertinent questions. Again, people were judged by the Flood well before there was a Law. Your interpretation of the following passage does not explain that:

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.

I'm saying that this passage describes how God used the Law of Moses to explain *why* He was punishing sin even when those people did not have a full understanding of what sin was. It is not saying they had no understanding, nor is it denying that they were being punished for what they did know. It's just stating a general principle, that God's punishment is directed to people who consciously sin.

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).

Yes, there is, and it's called the doctrine of the Trinity. Your appeal to councils against others, that you then deny yourself, is hypocritical.

You didn't address the statements I made in any detail. You're just making an over-arching judgment without considering what my defense was. No sense discussing it then.

Again, Trinitarian orthodoxy does not preclude belief that God can appear in more personalities. It only establishes that there were 3 distinct personalities of God in the Bible who are the same God. Reference to theophanies were simply considered irrelevant, since they were temporary in appearance.

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?

It seems to me that we shouldn't believe things that are false.

Yes, we can agree on that point!
But if you're to be practical-minded and "irenic," as many good Christians in history have been, you'll concede that it is necessary to "agree to disagree" on many peripheral points. But if you want to argue that peripheral points are matters of "hypocrisy," you'll just keep adding fuel to the fire.

That's the thing: it's your nature, you can't overcome it. You can blame yourself though with some relief. I myself am wholly responsible. There is no appeal to 'my nature made me do it'.

You're arguing what we're trying to determine is necessary. In my view, it hasn't been decided, between us, that a Sin Nature cannot be "overcome." You seem to be arguing that we would have to stop being human if we have a Sin Nature?

But I'm arguing that though a Sin Nature forces us to have a predilection to choosing sin, we don't always have to act upon our unclean thoughts. We invariably do sin in these lesser matters of unclean thoughts. But that doesn't mean I have to take out a knife and kill you in my rage that you dare challenge my opinions!

I don't know what you're trying to suggest, though. What's led you to think that I think someone would sin 'without feeling any internal rise in pride, lust, greed' and so on?

You are claiming we don't have a Sin Nature. Satan imposed Sin on Adam without any Sin yet in Adam. Adam generated the Sin within himself before he had any "uncleanness."

But when we sin, as descendants of Adam, we have a certain "uncleanness" about ourselves, even before Sin is presented to us by Satan or by anyone else. We have *guilt,* because it is already resident within us before we capitulate to any temptations.

We are born with it, and it doesn't even have to be presented to us from without, from external forces. The pride of sin is already in us such that even innocuous information can be presented to our minds, and we will turn that into something prideful.

You seem predisposed to reject whatever I present to you. Is that because I nearly *always* give you bad information, or because you're by nature disagreeable?

I think we all have a predisposition towards being disagreeable. A Sin Nature explains why we all tend towards being disagreeable. It is our job to resist and to overcome this "disagreeability!"

[Athanasius]

If the Scriptures indicate death is the consequence of sin, it does follow that *all* those who die sinned. You're not explaining how Adam's sin caused all of his descendants to die before they even sin!

...I have, so again, everyone dies regardless of whether they've sinned or not because death is a consequence of Adam's sin, and it's a consequence we all suffer. It's a consequence just like the other curses of Genesis 3 are a consequence. I'm not sure what isn't clear so you'll have to clarify your question if this isn't doing it for you.

To just say that death is the inheritance of Man, and not Sin, is to say that people die as part of the punishment of Adam. That part does make sense in isolation, because Adam may have flipped the switch to turn the temperature to freezing, and we will all die, regardless of the fact we did not turn the switch.

I'm saying that a sinful nature is not an inheritance. I'm also saying that death is a consequence, not a punishment. It was a consequence for Adam as well (a consequence of being expelled from the Garden and God's presence). So along with this, I don't think 'punishment' is the right way to conceive of the consequences of Adam's disobedience. No punishment is necessary in light of the natural consequences that follow.

However, this does not explain why Adam's ancestors are punished for what Adam alone did? And it doesn't explain why *all* of his descendants capitulate to Sin, as Adam did?

Again, consequence, no punishment. And, we all sin because we're free to make choices, just like Adam was free to make choices. We sin all the more because we're removed from God's presence, which properly orients and grounds our being.

If they did not inherit a Sin Nature, surely one or two of us would choose not to Sin?

There's a difference between choosing to refrain from sin, and refraining from sin. Plenty of people have chosen not to sin and still sin, so apparently, it's easier said than done. Are you perfect in all your intentions? Do you love your neighbours as yourself? Your enemies? Do you love God fully and with your whole being every moment of every day? Sin nature isn't required to explain why people sin. Refraining from sin is nigh impossible.

But if we have all inherited a Sin Nature, we can be redeemed and still have a Sin Nature that we do not completely expunge from us, but rather, choose to resist and overcome.

We're still in need of redemption even if we didn't inherit a sin nature.

Let's say Adam drank a concoction filled with bacteria and viruses. Then he gave birth, through Eve, to children who did not contract any of the diseases that Adam himself contracted. They did not inherit a Disease Nature.

But let's say that Adam died from his diseases, and that his descendants also died as if from those same diseases, even though they had not contracted those diseases causing death. Does that make any sense? I don't think so.

I agree. This example doesn't make any sense.

You seem to be implying that all of Adam's descendants died without this "Disease Nature," and yet 100% chose to sin like Adam without having any predilection to do so. This just doesn't make sense to me! A Sin Nature would explain it better, in my opinion.

I'm not implying anything. I'm outright stating that Scripture doesn't teach the existence of a sin nature. In Kierkegaard's time, people thought faith was easy. In the view you're espousing, you seem to think not sinning is easy. It's not. The standard isn't attainable. Oh hello, Jesus...

That is an irrelevant fact to me. The fact Adam did not require a Sin Nature to sin does not mean his descendants did not require a Sin Nature to sin, if indeed there is no indication any of them did not sin.

You might want to check your logic circuits because that's exactly what it means. It means that a sin nature isn't necessary for sin to happen.

If there had been two Adams, and one chose to sin without a Sin Nature and the other chose not to sin without a Sin Nature, it would've been clear that either Adam did not have to sin. No Sin Nature imposed that upon them.

But when *every* descendant of Adam chooses to sin, I can hardly conclude that there wasn't something imposing its will on all of them to make them all sin!

...As I said, the curses of Genesis 3 and our expulsion from the Garden and God's presence were not insigificant. This had an immense impact on our being, our will, and so forth. You seem to be replying with the assumption that I deny Augustine's idea of a sin nature, and thus, think that people are free to choose to sin or not and weren't affected by the fall. As I said, I'm not Pelegian. The fall absolutely affected humanity. It just didn't affect it as Augustine taught.

My view also doesn't destroy sex in the process, which is a nice positive over Augustine's. I guess he had to justify his past hedonism somehow.

[Athanasius]

That's hardly a basis for disagreement if you can't answer the pertinent questions.

I think this is confused. It's one thing for me to fail to be persuaded by another view, and another for me to not have answers for myself, or for another person, that are as of yet satisfactory. To be clear, I find my answers satisfactory, but you do not. I don't find your answers compelling, in other words.

Again, people were judged by the Flood well before there was a Law. Your interpretation of the following passage does not explain that:

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.

This is the first time you've brought up Noah so it's unsurprising that I haven't given a view on it. My understanding would be that God acted because it was still the fact that humanity, save Noah and his family, were grievously sinful. Sin isn't ignored just because of ignorance. However, it's still the case that "sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law".

I'm saying that this passage describes how God used the Law of Moses to explain *why* He was punishing sin even when those people did not have a full understanding of what sin was. It is not saying they had no understanding, nor is it denying that they were being punished for what they did know. It's just stating a general principle, that God's punishment is directed to people who consciously sin.

Yes, I got that.

You didn't address the statements I made in any detail. You're just making an over-arching judgment without considering what my defense was. No sense discussing it then.

Again, Trinitarian orthodoxy does not preclude belief that God can appear in more personalities. It only establishes that there were 3 distinct personalities of God in the Bible who are the same God. Reference to theophanies were simply considered irrelevant, since they were temporary in appearance.

Detail, lol. If it helps I'll borrow from Aquinas and say what I just said, but more verbosely.

Objection One: "There aren't centuries of orthodoxy that oppose many-multiple personalities of God in theory!"

I answer that, the doctrine of the Trinity is itself opposed to the many-multiple personalities view of God in theory in name and content, namely, the affirmation of Biblical teaching that the Godhead is triune, that is, compromised of three Persons, revealed, who instantiate the divine substance. Affirmed by the most sainted Athanasius at Nicaea, the council of Chalcedon, the Cappacodian fathers, of whom was the wonder Gregory of Nazianzus and onwards.

Objection Two: "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)"

I answer that, this is a ridiculous misreading of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine, which is formed in light of and in explicit relation to the revelation of God to His Church, precludes speculation on the part of finite, mortal creatures who ought not to speak of God what God has not spoken of Himself.

Err, and it's Person, not Personality.

Yes, we can agree on that point!

But if you're to be practical-minded and "irenic," as many good Christians in history have been, you'll concede that it is necessary to "agree to disagree" on many peripheral points. But if you want to argue that peripheral points are matters of "hypocrisy," you'll just keep adding fuel to the fire.

Don't engage in hypocrisy, then. If you go after the Christology of someone else, a Christology that was settled in councils such as the ones you now denigrate as formed and informed by mere men, then afford yourself the same criticism. You go against the councils in your view, thus your view is not orthodox.

I'm not very good at being irenic. Gregory and I have something in common, although he was clearly the better orator.

You're arguing what we're trying to determine is necessary. In my view, it hasn't been decided, between us, that a Sin Nature cannot be "overcome." You seem to be arguing that we would have to stop being human if we have a Sin Nature?

That's how nature works, yes. If humanity is created with a certain nature, and that nature is corrupted, then we can only talk properly of corrupted humanity from that point going forward. Corrupted humanity is different from prelapsarian humanity.

But I'm arguing that though a Sin Nature forces us to have a predilection to choosing sin, we don't always have to act upon our unclean thoughts. We invariably do sin in these lesser matters of unclean thoughts. But that doesn't mean I have to take out a knife and kill you in my rage that you dare challenge my opinions!

The principle is that a sin nature compels you to sin, not that it compels you to commit particular sins.

You are claiming we don't have a Sin Nature. Satan imposed Sin on Adam without any Sin yet in Adam. Adam generated the Sin within himself before he had any "uncleanness."

But when we sin, as descendants of Adam, we have a certain "uncleanness" about ourselves, even before Sin is presented to us by Satan or by anyone else. We have *guilt,* because it is already resident within us before we capitulate to any temptations.

We are born with it, and it doesn't even have to be presented to us from without, from external forces. The pride of sin is already in us such that even innocuous information can be presented to our minds, and we will turn that into something prideful.

Yes, I'm claiming that this isn't taught in Scripture. Augustine was wrong on this one.

You seem predisposed to reject whatever I present to you. Is that because I nearly *always* give you bad information, or because you're by nature disagreeable?

This might blow your mind, but... I agree with a lot of people on a lot of things. We disagree on this subject because I don't find your viewpoint compelling. Theology is a serious thing, as I'm sure you know. It's serious for me. Contending with the faith is deeply existential. Theology is that thing that keeps me from staring into the abyss. It's no joke. It's a point of serious personal study and education.

I think we all have a predisposition towards being disagreeable. A Sin Nature explains why we all tend towards being disagreeable. It is our job to resist and to overcome this "disagreeability!"

There's nothing sinful about a genuine disagreement or the refusal to agree to disagree on significant matters. You're free not to continue if that's your wish, but I'm happy to continue discussing. If we do, I'm also happy to continue holding you to task for things like the hypocrisy concerning councils. Feel free to do the same if you see fit.

[RandyPNW]

...I have, so again, everyone dies regardless of whether they've sinned or not because death is a consequence of Adam's sin, and it's a consequence we all suffer. It's a consequence just like the other curses of Genesis 3 are a consequence. I'm not sure what isn't clear so you'll have to clarify your question if this isn't doing it for you.

I'm saying that a sinful nature is not an inheritance. I'm also saying that death is a consequence, not a punishment. It was a consequence for Adam as well (a consequence of being expelled from the Garden and God's presence). So along with this, I don't think 'punishment' is the right way to conceive of the consequences of Adam's disobedience. No punishment is necessary in light of the natural consequences that follow.

Again, consequence, no punishment. And, we all sin because we're free to make choices, just like Adam was free to make choices. We sin all the more because we're removed from God's presence, which properly orients and grounds our being.

There's a difference between choosing to refrain from sin, and refraining from sin. Plenty of people have chosen not to sin and still sin, so apparently, it's easier said than done. Are you perfect in all your intentions? Do you love your neighbours as yourself? Your enemies? Do you love God fully and with your whole being every moment of every day? Sin nature isn't required to explain why people sin. Refraining from sin is nigh impossible.

We're still in need of redemption even if we didn't inherit a sin nature.

I'm not implying anything. I'm outright stating that Scripture doesn't teach the existence of a sin nature. In Kierkegaard's time, people thought faith was easy. In the view you're espousing, you seem to think not sinning is easy. It's not. The standard isn't attainable. Oh hello, Jesus...

You might want to check your logic circuits because that's exactly what it means. It means that a sin nature isn't necessary for sin to happen.

...As I said, the curses of Genesis 3 and our expulsion from the Garden and God's presence were not insigificant. This had an immense impact on our being, our will, and so forth. You seem to be replying with the assumption that I deny Augustine's idea of a sin nature, and thus, think that people are free to choose to sin or not and weren't affected by the fall. As I said, I'm not Pelegian. The fall absolutely affected humanity. It just didn't affect it as Augustine taught.

My view also doesn't destroy sex in the process, which is a nice positive over Augustine's. I guess he had to justify his past hedonism somehow.

I'm not focused primarily on arguing Augustine's pov--we may agree on some points and disagree on others. But I do believe a Sin Nature explains what you seem to think is a 100% guarantee all men will sin without a Sin Nature, just because they are farther removed from God as the ground of their existence.

I do think that Death is both a punishment and a consequence of sin. Paul taught that the *wages* of sin are death. That is the equivalent of a punishment. Not only that, but God has used death all through the Scriptures in "punishing" sinners with death.

At least I understand your position, and you understand mine. I'll leave it at that unless some stones have yet to be turned over?

[RandyPNW]

If "human" = sin nature (ontologically) and,

I don't agree with the original premise here that human = sin nature. Original human = sinless human nature. Fallen human = sinful human nature.

I believe the nature of Man changed. His condition changed, and thus what it means to be "human" changed, as well. We remain human, with our original calling, despite our Fall, because God exercises His will without fail and because He has factored into our creation the possibility of redemption.

In fact God has factored into the creation of Man the necessity of redemption, since with the possibility of our Fall He must reconcile that Fall with the truthfulness of His word.  He has created human fulfillment as a necessity, as a verification that He is truthful.

[RabbiKnife]

OK, Jesus then.  Post Adam.  Adam is in his genealogy.

Born of a woman, a human with, in your view, a "sin nature."

Jesus was 100% human, I hope you agree with this.

In your Christology, does Jesus have a "sin nature" as a human that default from birth made him a sinner?

Easy question.

[Athanasius]

But I do believe a Sin Nature explains what you seem to think is a 100% guarantee all men will sin without a Sin Nature, just because they are farther removed from God as the ground of their existence.

The explanation you've received from Augustine, which is why he's the focus. And yes, he suggested it based on a poor reading of Romans 5:12. It does purport to explain why people are compelled to sin following Adam's disobedience, but it's not an explanation founded in a proper exegesis of Scripture, and it's not an explanation that accounts for Adam and Eve, and those are the salient points.

Sin nature is an unnecessary addition.

I do think that Death is both a punishment and a consequence of sin. Paul taught that the *wages* of sin are death. That is the equivalent of a punishment. Not only that, but God has used death all through the Scriptures in "punishing" sinners with death.

The distinction is that a consequence follows directly from the act, while punishment is enacted relative to the act but doesn't follow directly from it. Death is a consequence of sin because it removed us from God's presence, from the tree of life, and without those things, we 'naturally' die. God wasn't saying "if you disobey me I'll kill you and every human to ever live as punishment". He was saying, "If you disobey me this is what will happen as a consequence". It's parenting 101.

[IMINXTC]

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb 9:27

Two distinct actions:
Death.
Judgment.

[RandyPNW]

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb 9:27
Two distinct actions:
Death.
Judgment.

I'm sure you recognize that there is a different between temporal judgments and eternal judgment?

[RandyPNW]

The explanation you've received from Augustine, which is why he's the focus.

I believe the sense of a Sin Nature precedes Augustine--just different terminology. It's the same with the Trinity. The concept preceded the specific terminology of the Trinity, but the same truth preceded it, biblically.

So I'm not interested in Augustine, along with all of his theology--only with the specific thing that he called "Sin Nature." This concept of "Ancestral Sin," or "Generational Sin," utilized language that you describe as "inheriting the consequence of death." But what was really meant was that the contagion of sin was being transmitted by inheritance from Adam to his descendants.

I do understand that some believe that Augustine's "Original Sin" language is different than how it was understood before his time. Though he may have put a slightly different language to it, I think that in effect he *helped* explain the biblical concept better for those who had not been clear on it earlier.

So no, I'm not addressing Augustine, and so getting wrapped up in *everything* he taught. Nor am I strictly addressing the language he used to express this. I'm referencing the Bible in my arguments, primarily, along with my own personal experience with Sin.

And yes, he suggested it based on a poor reading of Romans 5:12. It does purport to explain why people are compelled to sin following Adam's disobedience, but it's not an explanation founded in a proper exegesis of Scripture, and it's not an explanation that accounts for Adam and Eve, and those are the salient points.

Sin nature is an unnecessary addition.

I already addressed this. And again, I'm not just addressing Augustine, nor any mistakes he may have made. His errors do not change the biblical and human realities in regard to what I'm saying.

[IMINXTC]

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb 9:27
Two distinct actions:
Death.
Judgment.

I'm sure you recognize that there is a different between temporal judgments and eternal judgment?

No need. Death has become the destiny of all men, thanks to Adam.

Judgment for sin is a separate issue.

[RandyPNW]

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb 9:27
Two distinct actions:
Death.
Judgment.

I'm sure you recognize that there is a different between temporal judgments and eternal judgment?

No need. Death has become the destiny of all men, thanks to Adam.

Judgment for sin is a seperate issue.

Perhaps then I failed to recognize what you were inferring by your statement? If so, I apologize.

You're right--the consequence of death and judgment for sin can be dealt with separately. But I continue to insist that death blends with judgment when it is viewed as a punishment for sin.

Rom 6.23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 5.12 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.

Sin was a punishment visited upon us all for *our own sins,* just as death was a punishment visited upon Adam for *his own sin.*

Sin is a punishment, and not just a consequence. Therefore, judgment and death are related. Would anyone dare to claim  that death is not a punishment when the Law of Moses specifically assigned death as a punishment for people who willfully and completely committed themselves to certain, specific sins?