King of the North and King of the South.

[RabbiKnife]

I think the idea of "perfection," i.e., sinless perfection, which certainly wasn't the result for A&E, is simply not found in Scripture.  The idea of a "perfect" creation goes beyond the text.  God called man... and all of creation... "good," not "perfect."  "Perfection," as the term is used in description of or in contract with Augustinian "sin nature," implies a qualitative difference.


Were Adam and Eve cursed because of their sin?  Absolutely, but nothing in that text says that, "oh, and by the way, you are now ontologically different that you were before your sin, and oh, even more by the way, your children will be different ontologically than you were 14 minutes ago."

Adam and Eve had the ability to sin.  They did sin.  We don't believe that babies sin, yet some claim that babies are "sinners", then we make up exceptions to "all sinners need salvation" by our semantics of "special grace" or "age of accountability" or "babies are safe, but not saved."

All of that theological kibuki theatre is unnecessary unless we promote the doctrine of original sin.

I'm not a proponent of sinless perfection at all.  I have myself as by prime example.  I'm all grace, all the time, only, period, end of discussion.

But I don't think we have to create a new class of human to get to that point.

And let's please not discuss Enoch.

[RandyPNW]

Yes, I saw where you were going with that. It's like a truism--a perfect Man cannot be anything but a perfect Man--otherwise, he ceases to be a Man. However, I see a Man that sins as a "flawed Man," who has become something different. He remains a Man, but now an "imperfect Man." The sin nature now embedded in him taints his heart, his will, his desires. He tends towards rebellion against God's word.

I speak from experience. I always have to fight against the propensity to do my own thing. I have pride, and resist someone telling me to do things their way. That's why I get into arguments with my wife--we both want our own way!

I'm saying that humanity wasn't created with qualitative perfection. You have your idea of a "flawed Man", where I offer a humanity that exists outside of the relationships we were intended to exist within, and this has had a supremely disordering effect in no small part because it's removed us from the very things that act to ground our existence. So, there is still no 'sin nature' as some ontic reality as the result of the fall. Nor is there a need for one to explain the sin, evil and depravity of humanity. Adam and Eve presumably had no such nature prior to their first sin - or at least, they weren't corrupted by - yet they sinned all the same.

It's an ordering and explanatory issue:

- Adam and Eve sin
- Human nature is corrupted

But Adam and Eve sinned. I think what we've received in Augustine is this idea that the whole of humanity was re-oriented as a result of Adam and Eve's sin, and this idea requires the transmission of a sin nature (through sex, of course, which Augustine ruined for a great many people). But it doesn't explain the first sin, and the hesitancy of Augustine to suggest anything else wasn't entirely divorced from his going against Pelagius.

All true. I, however, don't think much about rehashing formulas unless that actually make sense to me and prove true in my own experience. Historically, Scholasticism became dead wood in the late Middle Ages. And in the Protestant World, each Protestant group seemed to have to come up with a creed of their own. We should be able to agree on some essentials, but there's always going to be something added.

I've worked out my own understanding of the Trinity, and I've tried to work out my beliefs on virtually all of the important theological issues. I hold to "Imperfect Man" simply because it's true to life for me. Man has not lost what makes him "Man." But he doesn't have to be "Perfect Man" to be "Man," in my view. There does seem to be something that poisoned his spirit, rendering him oriented towards rebellion, and yet capable of rectifying this to some degree.

I'm not sure the Bible describes anything more than the fact that Man is indeed flawed. And Israel's worship under the Law required all men to be covered by sacrifices and blood, regardless of what good or bad they had done. This was, I think, an assumption of a flawed *Nature.*

I think we're all informed by our experience. But, I'm saying that humanity is imperfect by virtue of our creation and not because of corruption so that last bit would fit within that.

What are your thoughts, then, on Adam and Eve's sin prior to the fall?

It's a great matter to consider! What kind of "perfection" did Adam and Eve enjoy before they took from the Tree of Life, which at any rate, they failed to take from?

My view is similar to yours only in the sense that they did not have *Christian perfection yet--you call it an "imperfect creation?" And by this, you mean not a sinful humanity, but one that remained, as yet, imperfect in performance?

Adam and Eve, in my view, did not yet have *eternal life,* because they had not yet taken from the Tree of Life. I would compare this to drinking a magic potent of a sort, in which a person is transformed spiritually, and not just by passing a test with 100%.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they chose to disbelieve God's word, and instead accepted Satan's lie, giving them what they desired and coveted--independence and self-autonomy. We were designed, I believe, to live in harmony with God's word, making our own decisions and yet making decisions only in consultation with God's Spirit and word.

So when Adam and Eve drank the cup of poison from Satan, they became what they lusted after, which was separation from God and His word. They were transformed spiritually.

I wouldn't at all call this a physical inheritance  passed on through sex, though there are certainly physical consequences, including death. Rather, this is a spiritual inheritance passed on through sex. The sex passes on a *spiritual inheritance,* which is what sin is--a transformation to something spiritually degrading us from our original pristine state.

I agree that the original status of Man, therefore, was not perfection as in a spiritual transformation into immortality and sinlessness. Man was clearly capable of sinning, having been created in a temporal state of existence. This put them in the class of trying to become perfect on a scale of 100% performance. The real intention, however, was for Man to choose to eat from the Tree of Life, in my opinion. 100% performance merely kept them to the status quo until they made this decision.

But as I said, the Tree of Life indicated a need for a spiritual transformation, which could not be obtained by sustaining a 100% performance. Ultimately, Man would fail if he did not eat from the Tree of Life, because in rejecting that spiritual transformation he was choosing to remain in a place of indecision, being tempted by Satan.

I don't know if I'm adequately addressing our issues, but I'm trying. Part of the problem may be the words we're choosing to use to describe the conditions Man was in before the Fall and after the Fall.

[RandyPNW]

I think the idea of "perfection," i.e., sinless perfection, which certainly wasn't the result for A&E, is simply not found in Scripture.  The idea of a "perfect" creation goes beyond the text.  God called man... and all of creation... "good," not "perfect."  "Perfection," as the term is used in description of or in contract with Augustinian "sin nature," implies a qualitative difference.


Were Adam and Eve cursed because of their sin?  Absolutely, but nothing in that text says that, "oh, and by the way, you are now ontologically different that you were before your sin, and oh, even more by the way, your children will be different ontologically than you were 14 minutes ago."

Adam and Eve had the ability to sin.  They did sin.  We don't believe that babies sin, yet some claim that babies are "sinners", then we make up exceptions to "all sinners need salvation" by our semantics of "special grace" or "age of accountability" or "babies are safe, but not saved."

All of that theological kibuki theatre is unnecessary unless we promote the doctrine of original sin.

I'm not a proponent of sinless perfection at all.  I have myself as by prime example.  I'm all grace, all the time, only, period, end of discussion.

But I don't think we have to create a new class of human to get to that point.

And let's please not discuss Enoch.

Interesting set of statements! I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I would add my own thoughts to things we agree on. I agree that we're both sinful and in need of grace regularly! And I think the Bible is less clear on the ontological state of Man both before the Fall and after the Fall.

In my view, it simply is referred to having been sinless and good, and afterwards, sinful and yet still created to be good. As I just told Athanasius, our brother, my sense of Adam and Eve before the Fall is as sinless, and yet perfect only in the sense of not having yet proven to be 100% on record sinless until a final decision is made about the Tree of Life.

In other words, before the Fall man is not yet perfect as in spiritually transformed, but only perfect in a temporal sense, not yet having made a decision, and still capable of making the wrong decision and batting less than a thousand.

Once, however, Man ate from the Tree of Knowledge, which was an act of rebellion, the spiritual condition of Man changed. He remained created good, and still could do good, but he could not undo his less than 100% record.

Even worse, he had obtained a spiritual existence that was poisonous, always tending to resist divine control over his life. So Man went from an unproven track record to a transformative spiritual experience, the opposite of which God intended him to do with respect to the Tree of Life.

If Man had chosen immediately to eat from the Tree of Life, he would've maintained his 100% track record, but more importantly, would've chosen the transformative spiritual experience that would've guaranteed his immortality, or "perfection." So Man's original condition was "perfect" only in a temporal sense, and not yet in a spiritual sense. And after the Fall, he lost his perfect track record, and no longer batted a thousand.

But God's grace extends to us a spiritual quality that now, through Christ, guarantees our ultimate perfection, spiritually, as well as endows us currently with a down payment on this spiritual inheritance. We are already made perfect in Christ, who in heaven stands in for us with his perfect track record, and continues to dispense to us his spiritual riches, despite our sinful condition and flawed track record. As Christians we've already "drunk from the cup of God's salvation," even though we remain in a state of having a fallen human nature.

[Athanasius]

It's a great matter to consider! What kind of "perfection" did Adam and Eve enjoy before they took from the Tree of Life, which at any rate, they failed to take from?

It seems to me, at the very least, that they enjoyed creation as God intended it to be.

My view is similar to yours only in the sense that they did not have *Christian perfection yet--you call it an "imperfect creation?" And by this, you mean not a sinful humanity, but one that remained, as yet, imperfect in performance?

By imperfect I mean, imperfect in quality. That is, pace Butler, I don't think perfection is performative. Oh wait, she was talking about something else entirely...

But yeah, I don't have in mind a 'perfect record', as it were. Nor do I think I want to go in that direction because what I think God is looking for is faithfulness, not a perfect track record, and if we go for the latter then I suspect we'll fail at the former.

Adam and Eve, in my view, did not yet have *eternal life,* because they had not yet taken from the Tree of Life. I would compare this to drinking a magic potent of a sort, in which a person is transformed spiritually, and not just by passing a test with 100%.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they chose to disbelieve God's word, and instead accepted Satan's lie, giving them what they desired and coveted--independence and self-autonomy. We were designed, I believe, to live in harmony with God's word, making our own decisions and yet making decisions only in consultation with God's Spirit and word.

So when Adam and Eve drank the cup of poison from Satan, they became what they lusted after, which was separation from God and His word. They were transformed spiritually.

Okay, but how did Adam and Eve make this poor decision prior to being (spiritually?) transformed. There has to be a moment, be it ever so quick, where Adam and Eve chose to sin from a place of sinlessness, and if they can do that, then so can we, and an ontic corruption is not required.

I wouldn't at all call this a physical inheritance  passed on through sex, though there are certainly physical consequences, including death. Rather, this is a spiritual inheritance passed on through sex. The sex passes on a *spiritual inheritance,* which is what sin is--a transformation to something spiritually degrading us from our original pristine state.

See, Augustine's ruined sex for everyone.

I think this view only really works well when we hold that the body and spirit are distinct parts of a person that can be separated, rather than as two parts of a person that are inseparable. But if a human is a synthesis of the finite and infinite, of the physical and the spiritual, then does the experience of her existence exist in the relation of these things relating? And if so, can it be said that a person properly exists as a person if she is one or the other, but not both? That is if she is half of the relation but not the full relation? Or rather, if there is no relation at all?

Or to jump out of Kierkegaard's brain for a minute: where does Scripture suggest that sex propagates sin nature spiritually but not physically? This was guesswork on Augustine's part, and I don't think anyone can do anything but guess, because Scripture doesn't tell us. How is a sin nature passed down? It's not, there's no need for it.

I agree that the original status of Man, therefore, was not perfection as in a spiritual transformation into immortality and sinlessness. Man was clearly capable of sinning, having been created in a temporal state of existence. This put them in the class of trying to become perfect on a scale of 100% performance. The real intention, however, was for Man to choose to eat from the Tree of Life, in my opinion. 100% performance merely kept them to the status quo until they made this decision.

As an aside, I don't think the tree of life was a tree with actual, eternal-life-granting fruit. It's an excellent literary device, much like the tree of knowledge, but I don't take them that concretely myself.

I don't know if I'm adequately addressing our issues, but I'm trying. Part of the problem may be the words we're choosing to use to describe the conditions Man was in before the Fall and after the Fall.

Indeed.

[RandyPNW]

By imperfect I mean, imperfect in quality. That is, pace Butler, I don't think perfection is performative. Oh wait, she was talking about something else entirely...

But yeah, I don't have in mind a 'perfect record', as it were. Nor do I think I want to go in that direction because what I think God is looking for is faithfulness, not a perfect track record, and if we go for the latter then I suspect we'll fail at the former.

Yes, that was one of the points I wished to make. God was concerned with sin, but that was not His ultimate concern. His ultimate concern was getting done what His word had promised, the creation of men in His image. That wasn't going to be thwarted--not even by human sin and rebellion.

So God's big concern was the thing that guaranteed He would get what He wanted from Man. And the innocent state of Man before the Fall did not guarantee the performance of the thing from Man He wanted. The only thing that could guarantee that was eating from the Tree of Life.

Okay, but how did Adam and Eve make this poor decision prior to being (spiritually?) transformed. There has to be a moment, be it ever so quick, where Adam and Eve chose to sin from a place of sinlessness, and if they can do that, then so can we, and an ontic corruption is not required.

I see no need for a "quick decision." I do not assume, in advance, that a human state of innocence needs to sort of be primed and pumped in order to get out of a state of innocence.

Humans, in a state of innocence and sinlessness, are not "blank slates," but are nevertheless open to input from outside of their pristine environment. Anytime a devil walks in and tempts them, they can consider their options.

Adam and Eve simply chose not to believe the "warning label," maybe even more so having been in a somewhat "naïve" environment, with no reason to believe they would be deceived.

I talked with my wife today about this, and came to an interesting consideration. God never *commanded* Man to eat of the Tree of Life, but suggested he had freedom to choose to eat from any of the trees of the garden, save that of the Tree of knowledge.

What this means is that God deliberately left it open to Man to choose for or against His ways. He did not have to eat from the Tree of Life, and by choosing not to do so would condemn himself to ultimately be tempted and fail.

See, Augustine's ruined sex for everyone.

Yes, despite Augustine's brilliant mind, truth is in the category of faith--not purely intellect. God gives us information, and we choose to believe it or not. Not everything Augustine believed was likely correct, particularly because he came "late to the party." He did not grow up a believer.

I do believe sex is the element by which God determines what and when to pass on a spiritual inheritance, both good and bad.  We are all the product of sex originating from Adam and Eve, and thus God chooses to pass on their fallen spiritual nature to all of us, their children.

But this isn't a chemical process like DNA is. Rather, it is processed by God's word itself, and determined as a consequence for parental behavior, as if affects the children. DNA is certainly passed on, to show the impact of parent influence on their children. But in the same way, a spiritual inheritance is passed on, as well.

For example, an alcoholic may pass on certain biological conditions that makes the children equally vulnerable to drug and alcohol dependence, depending on the same conditions existing. But beyond the physical and mental traits, I think there is also a spiritual trait that can be passed on, causing children to aim towards alcoholism, apart from biological factors, even though children can also fight this tendency.

Though the above is purely theoretical, by my experience it is true of sin in general, that we all inherit from Adam and from our more immediate parents a tendency towards their very same sins, regardless of there being different biological factors. The tendency to resist God's word is always there, and often the same kind of resistance that existed in our more immediate parents is in us, as well.

It's interesting that sometimes godly parents have rebellious children, which they cannot control due to free will. But God retains their godly characteristics in a spiritual inheritance that often appears later in their grandchildren or great grandchildren.

I think this view only really works well when we hold that the body and spirit are distinct parts of a person that can be separated, rather than as two parts of a person that are inseparable. But if a human is a synthesis of the finite and infinite, of the physical and the spiritual, then does the experience of her existence exist in the relation of these things relating? And if so, can it be said that a person properly exists as a person if she is one or the other, but not both? That is if she is half of the relation but not the full relation? Or rather, if there is no relation at all?

I don't think the "spiritual" necessarily equates to the "infinite." We are indeed a hybrid, consisting of both spiritual and physical elements. The soul is spiritual, whereas the body is physical. The mind is sort of the junction between them, the mind being capable of autonomous thought as well as being capable of receiving transcendent divine revelation. Greek thought seemed to deny this was even possible, and so we have all these questions about what can or cannot be.

Or to jump out of Kierkegaard's brain for a minute: where does Scripture suggest that sex propagates sin nature spiritually but not physically? This was guesswork on Augustine's part, and I don't think anyone can do anything but guess, because Scripture doesn't tell us. How is a sin nature passed down? It's not, there's no need for it.

Yes, but I'm giving you my thoughts about it above, because that's all we have to work with--our own considered thoughts, informed by our ability (or not) to hear from God.

As an aside, I don't think the tree of life was a tree with actual, eternal-life-granting fruit. It's an excellent literary device, much like the tree of knowledge, but I don't take them that concretely myself.

I think it had to be an actual tree, but like you suggest, it being a tree is not the essential thing. It was the obedience, or disobedience, surrounding them that determined the important role in all this.

Choosing for eternal life brought a spiritual transformation, disallowing further rebellion against God's word. It was to be the final union between God and man, eternally.

Though that failed in the choice in the garden Man made to separate from God in his decision-making we can still eat from the Tree of Life, so to speak, by accepting Christ. Having what I believe to be a Sin Nature does not prevent us from simultaneously eating from the Tree of Life, and receiving a new spirit that certifies our eternal relationship with God.

In an innocent, pre-existent state before the Fall, man was sinless and innocent, but not yet fulfilled. He needed to eat from the Tree of Life, which he *was not* commanded to do! It was left to him to be able to go against his innocent condition.

And this determined his *nature*--not his sinlessness, nor his innocence, but rather, his ability to choose for or against God's word. That his nature was his personal volition, to be able to make decisions for himself, to choose whatever good he wanted to do, or to choose whether to do good at all!

Choosing against God's word could not, however, undo God's will. Though some would fall forever, and never choose union with God, some would find repentance the path back to the Tree of Life.

Sorry if this isn't very satisfying. A very interesting conversation to me, personally!

[Athanasius]

I see no need for a "quick decision." I do not assume, in advance, that a human state of innocence needs to sort of be primed and pumped in order to get out of a state of innocence.

Humans, in a state of innocence and sinlessness, are not "blank slates," but are nevertheless open to input from outside of their pristine environment. Anytime a devil walks in and tempts them, they can consider their options.

Adam and Eve simply chose not to believe the "warning label," maybe even more so having been in a somewhat "naïve" environment, with no reason to believe they would be deceived.

I talked with my wife today about this, and came to an interesting consideration. God never *commanded* Man to eat of the Tree of Life, but suggested he had freedom to choose to eat from any of the trees of the garden, save that of the Tree of knowledge.

What this means is that God deliberately left it open to Man to choose for or against His ways. He did not have to eat from the Tree of Life, and by choosing not to do so would condemn himself to ultimately be tempted and fail.

Right, so Adam and Eve sinned prior to any supposed corruption of their nature, spiritual or otherwise.

What we have, then, is an issue, and it's the question: what question is the notion of ontic corruption, or a distinct 'sin nature', answering? Is it an answer to Scripture? Is it an answer to a question particular to Augustine? Is it an answer to Pelagius, and more about contradicting Pelagius than teaching what's in scripture? Is it an answer derived from a poor translation of a text, and so, is framed relative to the wrong question?

I'd suggest that Augustine's answer is predicated on a misunderstanding of Romans, in service against what was understood to be the danger of Pelagius' view. I think we have other explanations with the same explanatory power that also avoid funny little things like, 'how did Adam and Eve sin without a sin nature?' or 'is everyone a sinner deserving of hell or does God make exceptions for cute babies? I mean, evil abhorrent spawns of humanity?'.

I don't think people realise just how scary they are, and Christians especially don't realise this because they fall back on some nebulous 'sin nature' as the force behind all their sin. The reality is much worse for them -- the sin because they choose it, because they don't care about the 'warning label' in the moment. They don't sin because they're corrupted.

I do believe sex is the element by which God determines what and when to pass on a spiritual inheritance, both good and bad.  We are all the product of sex originating from Adam and Eve, and thus God chooses to pass on their fallen spiritual nature to all of us, their children.

But this isn't a chemical process like DNA is. Rather, it is processed by God's word itself, and determined as a consequence for parental behavior, as if affects the children. DNA is certainly passed on, to show the impact of parent influence on their children. But in the same way, a spiritual inheritance is passed on, as well.

I don't follow what you're trying to convey. What does "it is processed by God's word itself" mean? How exactly does God "pass on a spiritual inheritance" when He insisted the procreative process -- surely that takes care of things, no intervention required? My view also avoids notions like God passing on corrupted spiritual natures as explanations for people's sin.

For example, an alcoholic may pass on certain biological conditions that makes the children equally vulnerable to drug and alcohol dependence, depending on the same conditions existing. But beyond the physical and mental traits, I think there is also a spiritual trait that can be passed on, causing children to aim towards alcoholism, apart from biological factors, even though children can also fight this tendency.

Though the above is purely theoretical, by my experience it is true of sin in general, that we all inherit from Adam and from our more immediate parents a tendency towards their very same sins, regardless of there being different biological factors. The tendency to resist God's word is always there, and often the same kind of resistance that existed in our more immediate parents is in us, as well.

In the old world, we'd call this inheritance of the father's sin. I think I must reject the view for that reason.

It's interesting that sometimes godly parents have rebellious children, which they cannot control due to free will. But God retains their godly characteristics in a spiritual inheritance that often appears later in their grandchildren or great grandchildren.

It's interesting but it's complicated, highly theoretical, not supported in Scripture explanation when there are more elegant, less troublesome alternatives.

Choosing for eternal life brought a spiritual transformation, disallowing further rebellion against God's word. It was to be the final union between God and man, eternally.

I'd consider a spiritual transformation in the sense of (1) altering their position before God and (2) impacting on their self-understanding in light of the realisation of their guilt, regret, anxiety, etc. I don't think it was an ontological transformation of the spirit.

In an innocent, pre-existent state before the Fall, man was sinless and innocent, but not yet fulfilled. He needed to eat from the Tree of Life, which he *was not* commanded to do! It was left to him to be able to go against his innocent condition.

What do you say humanity wasn't fulfilled? Augustine had us as immortal at the time, for what his view is worth.

And this determined his *nature*--not his sinlessness, nor his innocence, but rather, his ability to choose for or against God's word. That his nature was his personal volition, to be able to make decisions for himself, to choose whatever good he wanted to do, or to choose whether to do good at all!

Are you suggesting that God didn't create humanity with a nature, but waited until the fall before giving them a nature?

Sorry if this isn't very satisfying. A very interesting conversation to me, personally!

Interesting is good.

[RandyPNW]

Right, so Adam and Eve sinned prior to any supposed corruption of their nature, spiritual or otherwise.

Yes. In my view, there is no other explanation. It would be like saying water cannot be contaminated by pouring toxins into a glass of water. The human will can indeed be contaminated by introducing deception and malice.

I understand your argument, that a benevolent will would not seriously entertain a malicious option. But apparently that's what we read happened.

I would only say that Adam and Eve, in their state of innocence, were not purely "benevolent," but more, in the arena of "innocence," open to influence. They were created to be good, but had not yet fully decided to remain good.

What we have, then, is an issue, and it's the question: what question is the notion of ontic corruption, or a distinct 'sin nature', answering? Is it an answer to Scripture? Is it an answer to a question particular to Augustine? Is it an answer to Pelagius, and more about contradicting Pelagius than teaching what's in scripture? Is it an answer derived from a poor translation of a text, and so, is framed relative to the wrong question?

I understand. All of those questions are valid and can play a role in this discussion. For me, the biggest question involves what you call "ontic corruption." What makes my view consistent for me is the possible notion of a primitive innocence, followed by the need for a new condition, adding permanence to the innate goodness of Man.

Innocence had to be followed by eating of the Tree of Life, which brought permanence to Man's goodness. It involves Man's choice to go beyond being created good, and beyond his innocence, to actually choosing for permanence in the good.

To do that he had to become something different and something new. He had to be "born from above," to choose to remain in fellowship with God forever. For this to happen he had to ingest something, to ingest the fruit of the Tree of Life, and so become something more, something decidedly spiritual and permanently bonded with God.

Obviously, it was not the fruit, nor the food itself, that should bring about any spiritual transformation. Rather, it should be the choice to do something--even in the material world--that brings Man's will into conformity with God's Spirit through obeying His word or by choosing to conform with His word.

To be born of water, ie natural childbirth, is one thing, but to be born from above is another thing entirely. One is the natural state of existence in the primeval age of innocence. The primeval status of Man was as yet undecided, although existing in a pristine environment.

But the goal, for God, was not that Man should be commanded to do the right thing and so be coerced to become good forever, but rather, that Man should choose for himself to do the right thing and so be aligned with God forever. So the ultimate status of Man was predetermined, or foreordained, to become "fixed" as Man, born anew from above, so that a final decision is arrived at. The primeval state was undetermined, and the goal was Man's final choice to become fixed as such.

I'd suggest that Augustine's answer is predicated on a misunderstanding of Romans, in service against what was understood to be the danger of Pelagius' view. I think we have other explanations with the same explanatory power that also avoid funny little things like, 'how did Adam and Eve sin without a sin nature?' or 'is everyone a sinner deserving of hell or does God make exceptions for cute babies? I mean, evil abhorrent spawns of humanity?'.

The matter of Augustine and Pelagius may have to do, at some level, with how much genuine good Man can do outside of a fixed relationship with God. Man was created, I believe, to be able to choose to do good, Christian or not. Non-Christians can definitely choose to do good. Even Cain, "child of the Devil," could choose to do genuine good, according to God in the account in Genesis.

So even if Pelagius was right that Man can do genuine good, apart from a continuous, determined relationship with God, then the issue concerns the question as to how important it was for Man to be born again? If he can do good without being born again, why the need to be born again?

I would assert that choosing to be born again is the equivalent of choosing not just to do good, but to *be good.* It is the choice for a nature, not just in an equivocal, undecided state of innocence, but more, for an existence continuously reliant upon God for doing good.

The point is for Man to choose to be good continually, rather than just sporadically or periodically. To "be good" requires that one adopt a nature of wanting to do good--not just do good when it is convenient for selfish motives.

Even the non-Christian, to do good, must depend on God, whether conscious of it or not. Goodness flows from God to all men willing to live by their informed conscience (though consciences can be perverted or seared).

To be born again is to add to the choice to do good the choice to *be good,* to adopt a nature in which God is resident in *everything* the person does, indeed a choice for God's continual dwelling with us.

We shouldn't just want to do good periodically, to have God assist us in doing good whenever we so desire. Rather, we should want God to in a sense "dwell in our conscience," informing us *all the time* of the good we should do, and then enabling us to make use of His virtues.

I don't think people realise just how scary they are, and Christians especially don't realise this because they fall back on some nebulous 'sin nature' as the force behind all their sin. The reality is much worse for them -- the sin because they choose it, because they don't care about the 'warning label' in the moment. They don't sin because they're corrupted.

I agree that the choice to do wrong should not be "excused" by falling back on anything short of taking responsibility. "Sin Nature," however, is not "nebulas" to me--it is the character I exhibit all the time, every day, because I personally recognize my tendencies. I'm an irritating person, and there is no shortage of those who remind me of this, or at least hint at it.

I don't follow what you're trying to convey. What does "it is processed by God's word itself" mean? How exactly does God "pass on a spiritual inheritance" when He insisted the procreative process -- surely that takes care of things, no intervention required? My view also avoids notions like God passing on corrupted spiritual natures as explanations for people's sin.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't believe the "spiritual DNA" is passed on, mechanically, like "physical DNA" is. Our physical inheritance is directly passed on from parents to children by cause and effect through a physical means. Spiritual inheritances are passed on from parents to children by God, apart from any material process, cause and effect.

God simply "assigns" inheritances from parents to children--it is part of his creative prerogative, determined by laws His own word has created. This is part of His creation of Mankind, and His plan for them in reproduction, in filling the world with people. The children take on the characteristics of the parents, both physically and spiritually, without sacrificing their free choices.

As such, people inherit the original mandate that was given to Adam and Eve so as to fulfill God's plan for them to fill the earth in God's image. If the parents and the children live as they should, in God's image, they fulfill God's plan and are blessed. But if the same do not cooperate with God's word, the same ungodly tendencies persist and may even get worse.

The Sin Nature does not prevent God's plan for Man from continuing, but it does mean that there is no escape  from the inheritance of resistance to God's word. All men display this kind of disobedience, even if they also display a willingness to cooperate with God's word, and even more, to have God reside within them on a continuous basis.

In the old world, we'd call this inheritance of the father's sin. I think I must reject the view for that reason.

It's not the same thing as mandating that children produce the same sins as the parents. Rather, it's a mandate that the children find themselves with a corrupted will. There is at birth the tendency to resist God's word in making choices. Even in a state of innocence, children reveal their resistance to God's word. They are angry when they don't get their way.

But God also designed a reward system in which the obedience of the parent improves the condition of the child, and the disobedience of the parent does harm to the child. We all inherit certain virtues and disabilities from our parents, though this does not impose upon us anything to the loss of our own free choices.

We inherit conditions, but are not forced to make our parents' same choices! It is, for example, an honor to inherit a poor condition from a parent and then to choose to not be deterred in doing good despite it.

I'd consider a spiritual transformation in the sense of (1) altering their position before God and (2) impacting on their self-understanding in light of the realisation of their guilt, regret, anxiety, etc. I don't think it was an ontological transformation of the spirit.

When God comes to reside in us, after we've made the choice to have Him there forever, we do feel transformed. Many reborn Christians have referred to this transformation. When we choose to have God abide in us all the time, we feel His permanent residence with us!

Every act of goodness, in a sense, may appear "transformative," because we are taking upon ourselves the choice to align with heavenly virtues, as opposed to purely selfish interests. But to choose God's virtue *all the time* causes us to feel transformed as in obtaining an entirely new nature. We are putting on "heavenly clothing" as a permanent gift.

I believe God wanted Adam and Eve to thus be transformed even before they sinned, or perhaps evolved and completed. And this would've happened, I think, if they had chosen immediately to eat of the Tree of Life.

That would've been the equivalent of choosing to imbibe and to ingest God's presence internally forever--not just to temporally have God's help to do some good on a temporary basis. Our purpose, again, was, I think, to evolve to a final state of determination, to *become good.* The evolution is from a created state of being made good to a self-determined state to act out that good in an eternal way.

What do you say humanity wasn't fulfilled? Augustine had us as immortal at the time, for what his view is worth.

I can't speak for Augustine. It really depends on what he meant by "immortal." Our NT sense of "immortality" has to do with a transformative experience at the resurrection, ie our glorification.

Adam and Eve, were, as I said, in a state of innocence, I believe. They were not "immortal" in the sense of having taken of the Tree of Life, and having God indwell in them forever. They hadn't yet chosen to permanently "become good." Though they had been made good, they were designed to choose to "become good" permanently, which was not yet true in their original state of existence.

Are you suggesting that God didn't create humanity with a nature, but waited until the fall before giving them a nature?

No. God wanted them to transcend their original earthly nature to put on an eternal heavenly nature. It was the choice they were created for, I believe, though this is entirely theoretical.

Interesting is good.

I think so! (I've had to make numerous editions to this post, so be aware. I'm trying to ensure the language I use is comparable to the biblical language.)

[Athanasius]

Yes. In my view, there is no other explanation. It would be like saying water cannot be contaminated by pouring toxins into a glass of water. The human will can indeed be contaminated by introducing deception and malice.

So you're arguing that... while Adam and Eve were capable of sinning prior to any supposed corruption of their nature, this did in fact corrupt them regardless, and every human to follow?

Where is that in Scripture, again?

I understand your argument, that a benevolent will would not seriously entertain a malicious option. But apparently that's what we read happened.

That's not what I'm arguing.

I would only say that Adam and Eve, in their state of innocence, were not purely "benevolent," but more, in the arena of "innocence," open to influence. They were created to be good, but had not yet fully decided to remain good.

I would use the term 'morally neutral'. They had potential that was not actualised until they chose.

r me, the biggest question involves what you call "ontic corruption." What makes my view consistent for me is the possible notion of a primitive innocence, followed by the need for a new condition, adding permanence to the innate goodness of Man.

So you think sin is a necessary condition for permanence vis-a-vis the introduction of a renewed creation?

Innocence had to be followed by eating of the Tree of Life, which brought permanence to Man's goodness. It involves Man's choice to go beyond being created good, and beyond his innocence, to actually choosing for permanence in the good.

I think you're confusing God's utterance that His creation is good, and the idea that humanity was created morally good. So, innocence isn't something to celebrate, but to overcome, in either direction. Overcoming innocence implies a growing knowledge of God: is that a knowledge given by revelation or taken through disobedience? Adam and Eve chose the latter.

To do that he had to become something different and something new. He had to be "born from above," to choose to remain in fellowship with God forever. For this to happen he had to ingest something, to ingest the fruit of the Tree of Life, and so become something more, something decidedly spiritual and permanently bonded with God.

Jesus talks about faith and we go on talking about magic mushrooms. The answer is faith, not some magical spiritual object.

Obviously, it was not the fruit, nor the food itself, that should bring about any spiritual transformation. Rather, it should be the choice to do something--even in the material world--that brings Man's will into conformity with God's Spirit through obeying His word or by choosing to conform with His word.

Uh, yes... but this thing and the thing you said above aren't consonant with each other.

To be born of water, ie natural childbirth, is one thing, but to be born from above is another thing entirely. One is the natural state of existence in the primeval age of innocence. The primeval status of Man was as yet undecided, although existing in a pristine environment.

So, so close to one of those many gnosticisms.

But the goal, for God, was not that Man should be commanded to do the right thing and so be coerced to become good forever, but rather, that Man should choose for himself to do the right thing and so be aligned with God forever. So the ultimate status of Man was predetermined, or foreordained, to become "fixed" as Man, born anew from above, so that a final decision is arrived at. The primeval state was undetermined, and the goal was Man's final choice to become fixed as such.

Yes, God does have a plan.

The matter of Augustine and Pelagius may have to do, at some level, with how much genuine good Man can do outside of a fixed relationship with God. Man was created, I believe, to be able to choose to do good, Christian or not. Non-Christians can definitely choose to do good. Even Cain, "child of the Devil," could choose to do genuine good, according to God in the account in Genesis.

So even if Pelagius was right that Man can do genuine good, apart from a continuous, determined relationship with God, then the issue concerns the question as to how important it was for Man to be born again? If he can do good without being born again, why the need to be born again?

Did Pelagius say that?

I would assert that choosing to be born again is the equivalent of choosing not just to do good, but to *be good.* It is the choice for a nature, not just in an equivocal, undecided state of innocence, but more, for an existence continuously reliant upon God for doing good.

You would assert, yes.

The point is for Man to choose to be good continually, rather than just sporadically or periodically. To "be good" requires that one adopt a nature of wanting to do good--not just do good when it is convenient for selfish motives.

Right, and I'm suggesting that Scripture teaches we were created with exactly such a nature that wasn't corrupted.

To be born again is to add to the choice to do good the choice to *be good,* to adopt a nature in which God is resident in *everything* the person does, indeed a choice for God's continual dwelling with us.

Would you then say of yourself that are now good, and don't merely do good?

We shouldn't just want to do good periodically, to have God assist us in doing good whenever we so desire. Rather, we should want God to in a sense "dwell in our conscience," informing us *all the time* of the good we should do, and then enabling us to make use of His virtues.

But if you're arguing for a change in nature this wouldn't be a problem. Natures are serious things.

I agree that the choice to do wrong should not be "excused" by falling back on anything short of taking responsibility. "Sin Nature," however, is not "nebulas" to me--it is the character I exhibit all the time, every day, because I personally recognize my tendencies. I'm an irritating person, and there is no shortage of those who remind me of this, or at least hint at it.

It's a good thing being irritating isn't sinful. But if you do have a corrupted human nature, which you call a sin nature, then you really couldn't help it. Or maybe you have a good, renewed nature in Christ? But then why would you say you have a sin nature?

What I'm trying to say is that I don't believe the "spiritual DNA" is passed on, mechanically, like "physical DNA" is. Our physical inheritance is directly passed on from parents to children by cause and effect through a physical means. Spiritual inheritances are passed on from parents to children by God, apart from any material process, cause and effect.

God simply "assigns" inheritances from parents to children--it is part of his creative prerogative, determined by laws His own word has created. This is part of His creation of Mankind, and His plan for them in reproduction, in filling the world with people. The children take on the characteristics of the parents, both physically and spiritually, without sacrificing their free choices.

What Scripture are you appealing to for this view?

As such, people inherit the original mandate that was given to Adam and Eve so as to fulfill God's plan for them to fill the earth in God's image. If the parents and the children live as they should, in God's image, they fulfill God's plan and are blessed. But if the same do not cooperate with God's word, the same ungodly tendencies persist and may even get worse.

The children inherit the sin of their parents is what this means.

It's not the same thing as mandating that children produce the same sins as the parents. Rather, it's a mandate that the children find themselves with a corrupted will. There is at birth the tendency to resist God's word in making choices. Even in a state of innocence, children reveal their resistance to God's word. They are angry when they don't get their way.

Children reveal their resistance to putting on pants, too. What you're suggesting is that God actively passes on corrupted human natures. Where is that in Scripture?

But God also designed a reward system in which the obedience of the parent improves the condition of the child, and the disobedience of the parent does harm to the child. We all inherit certain virtues and disabilities from our parents, though this does not impose upon us anything to the loss of our own free choices.

No, He didn't. What you're suggesting here is an overly worded version of "person suffers because sin".

We inherit conditions, but are not forced to make our parents' same choices! It is, for example, an honor to inherit a poor condition from a parent and then to choose to not be deterred in doing good despite it.

No, it's not an honour. It's a burden. I'm sure you didn't mean it, but this is the worst kind of navel-gazing theological position.

When God comes to reside in us, after we've made the choice to have Him there forever, we do feel transformed. Many reborn Christians have referred to this transformation. When we choose to have God abide in us all the time, we feel His permanent residence with us!

Uh, what does this have to do with Adam and Eve's choice, which is what we were talking about?

Every act of goodness, in a sense, may appear "transformative," because we are taking upon ourselves the choice to align with heavenly virtues, as opposed to purely selfish interests. But to choose God's virtue *all the time* causes us to feel transformed as in obtaining an entirely new nature. We are putting on "heavenly clothing" as a permanent gift.

I'm sitting here wondering if you realise just how significant nature is.

I believe God wanted Adam and Eve to thus be transformed even before they sinned, or perhaps evolved and completed. And this would've happened, I think, if they had chosen immediately to eat of the Tree of Life.

It seems to me to have been one choice of likely many, and many more. I broadly agree on the larger, ultimate goal, but I don't think this would have been a choose-right-and-be-set circumstance.

That would've been the equivalent of choosing to imbibe and to ingest God's presence internally forever--not just to temporally have God's help to do some good on a temporary basis. Our purpose, again, was, I think, to evolve to a final state of determination, to *become good.* The evolution is from a created state of being made good to a self-determined state to act out that good in an eternal way.

So, so wordy.

Is there anything to suggest that prior to sinning, Adam and Eve were only doing good on a temporary basis, or something like that?

I can't speak for Augustine. It really depends on what he meant by "immortal." Our NT sense of "immortality" has to do with a transformative experience at the resurrection, ie our glorification.

Adam and Eve, were, as I said, in a state of innocence, I believe. They were not "immortal" in the sense of having taken of the Tree of Life, and having God indwell in them forever. They hadn't yet chosen to permanently "become good." Though they had been made good, they were designed to choose to "become good" permanently, which was not yet true in their original state of existence.

Immortal as in, how everyone understands the word: "living forever". Augustine believed humanity was created to live forever, but lost its immortality upon sinning. Is that the view you take?

No. God wanted them to transcend their original earthly nature to put on an eternal heavenly nature. It was the choice they were created for, I believe, though this is entirely theoretical.

Heyyyy :claps: we got to some Gnosticism in the end :claps: some would call that heresy, not just theoretical.

I think so! (I've had to make numerous editions to this post, so be aware. I'm trying to ensure the language I use is comparable to the biblical language.)

Actually it was incredibly wordy, confusing, and I have no idea how the majority of the view expressed is in any way supported by Scripture.

[RabbiKnife]

I don't remember if Pelagius said that "Man can do genuine good, apart from a continuous, determined relationship with God", but Jesus sure did.

Just sayin'.

[RandyPNW]

I don't remember if Pelagius said that "Man can do genuine good, apart from a continuous, determined relationship with God", but Jesus sure did.

Just sayin'.

Yes, I've thought about the problem of free will for a long time. After all, Luther wrote in "The Bondage of the Will" that nobody can do good except by Divine impulse. Though I was raised a Lutheran, and am not now, I respectfully disagree with Luther.

I believe unbelievers are people who sometimes obey God's word and sometimes don't. They don't have to be conscious of what they're responding to within themselves.

They aren't delegitimized for the Kingdom of God based on their inability to do good, but for their failure to embrace the *nature* of Christ, which is to choose for a nature of deference to Christ in place of making independent choices.

To be clear, God would never have failed to accomplish His goal with Man by his making a single bad choice. By His kind nature God chose, in advance, to be willing to forgive human indiscretions.

His purpose, therefore, was to provide a way of showing the way to success through a repentance acknowledging the error of independent judgment. People have been given genuine free will, but not to act outside of the Spirit of God's love.

People can still have freedom when acting in conjunction with God if they keep God's Spirit and input in mind. As long as they have been given freedom in advance, they can choose to eat "from any tree of the garden," except the one forbidden by God.

You can know you have freedom to choose between several opportunities when each choice is done "in God's love." At times, though, God determines what choice He wants us to make. Whether we make the wrong choice or not, God determines what the possible outcomes will be.

[RandyPNW]

So you're arguing that... while Adam and Eve were capable of sinning prior to any supposed corruption of their nature, this did in fact corrupt them regardless, and every human to follow?
Where is that in Scripture, again?

Rom 3.9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.
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.

So you think sin is a necessary condition for permanence vis-a-vis the introduction of a renewed creation?

No, I believe God did not *want* Man to sin to start with! He wanted Man, I think, to verify what God wanted him to do, to obey Him and to choose to live forever in that obedience. God wasn't going to make that decision for him.

Innocence had to be followed by eating of the Tree of Life, which brought permanence to Man's goodness. It involves Man's choice to go beyond being created good, and beyond his innocence, to actually choosing for permanence in the good.

I think you're confusing God's utterance that His creation is good, and the idea that humanity was created morally good. So, innocence isn't something to celebrate, but to overcome, in either direction. Overcoming innocence implies a growing knowledge of God: is that a knowledge given by revelation or taken through disobedience? Adam and Eve chose the latter.

As you state your position, it sounds similar to mine. I believe, like you, that innocence was not God's ultimate objective. Man was innocent until he decided for the Tree of Life or for the Tree of Knowledge. If he chose life, he was choosing as God hoped, that Man would want a permanent nature to want to live in eternal obedience, to be in eternal fellowship with God, to consult with God over everything.

But to choose for the Tree of Knowledge was to be compromised, to choose to live independent of God, to sometimes choose to obey and at other times to choose to disobey.

God only wanted people who would be with Him on everything always, without compromise. He wanted choice for a permanent nature of good, not the choice to live independent of Him. God wanted, after the Fall, a kind of redemption that was initiated by choice for a new spiritual nature, born of Christ.

Jesus talks about faith and we go on talking about magic mushrooms. The answer is faith, not some magical spiritual object.

Jesus came up with the "eat my flesh" analogy. Jesus seemed to relish throwing off those who wanted to over-literalize his comments. People who do that aren't serious.

Did Pelagius say that?

At this point I'm only discussing the idea of Man's universal ability to do authentic "good." Can unbelievers subconsciously "obey God?" I believe so.

So the idea of Salvation is not simply to obey God, but more importantly, to choose for a nature that wishes to live in obedience to God all the time, and not just do good occasionally or intermittently.

Right, and I'm suggesting that Scripture teaches we were created with exactly such a nature that wasn't corrupted.

Yes, I believe Man was created uncorrupted.

Would you then say of yourself that are now good, and don't merely do good?

Yes, I am good. God made me good, and He gave me a new spiritual nature--one that does not wish to sin. I'm talking about how God sees our choice to live by His new nature. He sees us as "good" for doing that, and rewards us with Eternal Life.

This is not saying I'm not bad in an entirely different sense. We're talking about how God sees us spiritually, rather than how we fare against Christ's perfect record!

It's a good thing being irritating isn't sinful. But if you do have a corrupted human nature, which you call a sin nature, then you really couldn't help it. Or maybe you have a good, renewed nature in Christ? But then why would you say you have a sin nature?

I have a godly nature--one that seeks God all the time, since it has come to dwell in me. But I also have a Sin Nature, which is a corrupted human nature. DNA is physically transmitted through the generations. But the Sin Nature is spiritually transmitted through the generations.

It is evident that Sin also impacts our physical nature inasmuch as we see DNA transmitting errors, along with good qualities, from generation to generation. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about DNA and chemistry. But I believe Sin is a spiritual nature transmitted from generation to generation, including Satan's original rebellion of choosing to live independently of God's word, and also including the sins of our ancestors.

God simply "assigns" inheritances from parents to children--it is part of his creative prerogative, determined by laws His own word has created. This is part of His creation of Mankind, and His plan for them in reproduction, in filling the world with people. The children take on the characteristics of the parents, both physically and spiritually, without sacrificing their free choices.

What Scripture are you appealing to for this view?

Gen 5.3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

But God also designed a reward system in which the obedience of the parent improves the condition of the child, and the disobedience of the parent does harm to the child. We all inherit certain virtues and disabilities from our parents, though this does not impose upon us anything to the loss of our own free choices.

No, He didn't. What you're suggesting here is an overly worded version of "person suffers because sin".

No, I said what I said. We inherit DNA errors, and when we disobey God's word there are "spiritual mutations," for lack of a better word. The way we choose to live may come back to haunt us, and will haunt our children, as well.

This is why, I think, those who sin may suffer judgment to the 3rd generation, or even more. In the same way, the obedient may pass their blessings on to a thousand generations! Exo 20.5-6.

We inherit conditions, but are not forced to make our parents' same choices! It is, for example, an honor to inherit a poor condition from a parent and then to choose to not be deterred in doing good despite it.

No, it's not an honour. It's a burden. I'm sure you didn't mean it, but this is the worst kind of navel-gazing theological position.

I don't think you understand what I meant. I'm not saying it's an honor to inherit a physical or mental deficit of any kind! We all do, and rightfully feel angry to some degree.

But what I'm saying is that after inheriting these things from parents who made bad choices, it is an honor to go on, forgiving those who want it, and refusing to let bitterness cripple us from living a loving, joyful, righteous life. This brings great honor to God.

Of course, if you're unable to do that, I can understand it. I've personally experienced great bitterness in my own life. And I always have to overcome it. It's a regular discipline, and it's a choice I must make.

So, so wordy.

Sorry about that. In choosing for the "Tree of Life" we are choosing for a new nature in Christ, which is the opposite of choosing to live an independent life, sometimes choosing to obey and at other times choosing to disobey. To choose a "nature" is to decide that living in relationship with God all the time is right, and that living independently is wrong.

Is there anything to suggest that prior to sinning, Adam and Eve were only doing good on a temporary basis, or something like that?

The whole setup in the garden of Eden was by historical example a temporary setup. Man was set to choose for the Tree of Life or for the Tree of Knowledge. This suggested that doing good, ie eating from other trees of the garden were only temporary forms of "doing good," until they ultimately decided for or against an eternal nature of righteousness.

Of course, we know they didn't choose for that, but instead chose for the Tree of Knowledge, which was only a setback for some, but an eternal setback for others. After falling, mankind could still choose for an eternal righteous nature of living with God. But it would this time come not by a Tree, but only by the Cross. (Note: The Tree of Life was a naturally living tree, like our natural existence. And the Cross is a dead tree, representing the need for resurrection from the dead.)

Immortal as in, how everyone understands the word: "living forever". Augustine believed humanity was created to live forever, but lost its immortality upon sinning. Is that the view you take?

Augustine, I'm sure, had his own context, and I'd have to go back and look at how he used the term. I feel confident he didn't see things exactly as I see them--I have the advantage of hindsight, recognizing the difficulty in expressing "immortality" in two senses, one as eternal existence, and the other as eternal life.

Words mean what they mean *as the author intends to use those words.* My technical application of "immortality" here, as Augustine apparently meant it, is "eternal existence.' Man was created in the image of God with eternal existence, and we haven't lost that.

When Man sinned, his death was a physical death, but not a cessation of existence. Neither is the "2nd Death" cessation of existence. Instead it is loss of eternal life after physical death.

The object in the Garden was for Man to take of the Tree of Life. Then he would add to his eternal existence "immortality," which I'm using in the technical sense for Eternal Life.

No. God wanted them to transcend their original earthly nature to put on an eternal heavenly nature. It was the choice they were created for, I believe, though this is entirely theoretical.

Heyyyy :claps: we got to some Gnosticism in the end :claps: some would call that heresy, not just theoretical.

Yea, it kind of sounds like that, but.....no! Haven't you read:

2 Cor 4.7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us...10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body.

Col 3. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

Actually it was incredibly wordy, confusing, and I have no idea how the majority of the view expressed is in any way supported by Scripture.

If you got nothing out of it, I hope somebody did.

[Athanasius]

Rom 3.9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.
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.

You're going to need to expand on where you see ontic corruption taught in either of these.

No, I believe God did not *want* Man to sin to start with! He wanted Man, I think, to verify what God wanted him to do, to obey Him and to choose to live forever in that obedience. God wasn't going to make that decision for him.

If God engages in partial determinism, then why not rig this situation such that Adam and Eve authentically choose obedience?

As you state your position, it sounds similar to mine. I believe, like you, that innocence was not God's ultimate objective. Man was innocent until he decided for the Tree of Life or for the Tree of Knowledge. If he chose life, he was choosing as God hoped, that Man would want a permanent nature to want to live in eternal obedience, to be in eternal fellowship with God, to consult with God over everything.

I don't view the trees as an either/or, though. The account posits a restriction, with a choice to obey/disobey, and not a choice between the two trees. For all we know, God's plan was for Adam and Eve to eat from both trees in His own timing, in keeping with the language of the account.

Jesus came up with the "eat my flesh" analogy. Jesus seemed to relish throwing off those who wanted to over-literalize his comments. People who do that aren't serious.

Yeah, but you're mixing the metaphor: Adam and Eve had to ingest something, not the fruit or food itself, but the choice that brings conformity between God's spirit and humanity's will. I'm all for waxing poetic, but this pretty meh.

So the idea of Salvation is not simply to obey God, but more importantly, to choose for a nature that wishes to live in obedience to God all the time, and not just do good occasionally or intermittently.

In other words, what's important is faith?

Yes, I believe Man was created uncorrupted.

I'm also saying that this nature hasn't been corrupted. To this day it is is exactly as it was created.

Yes, I am good. God made me good, and He gave me a new spiritual nature--one that does not wish to sin. I'm talking about how God sees our choice to live by His new nature. He sees us as "good" for doing that, and rewards us with Eternal Life.

This is not saying I'm not bad in an entirely different sense. We're talking about how God sees us spiritually, rather than how we fare against Christ's perfect record!

Is there a difference between God seeing you as good through the lens of Jesus' sacrifice, and you being good insofar as your daily actions, thoughts, etc., are concerned? Jesus didn't accept the words of the man who called Him good, and He was without sin, so is an appeal to how God sees us appropriate when answering an ontological question about our very being? If you have a good nature, and have chosen to do good, then why do you do continue to do evil?

For my part, I am not good. I am one police tour in Poland away from utter monstrous depravity.

I have a godly nature--one that seeks God all the time, since it has come to dwell in me. But I also have a Sin Nature, which is a corrupted human nature. DNA is physically transmitted through the generations. But the Sin Nature is spiritually transmitted through the generations.

I see, so Jesus had a human nature and a divine nature, and you think Christians have their own hypostatic union: a godly nature and a sin nature?

But I believe Sin is a spiritual nature transmitted from generation to generation...

You just don't know how, but don't want to pin the transmission on sex as Augustine did?

Gen 5.3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

How does this teach that God assigns inheritances? Seth was always going to be Adam's son, in Adam's likeness and image, which by extension, is in God's image.

No, I said what I said. We inherit DNA errors, and when we disobey God's word there are "spiritual mutations," for lack of a better word. The way we choose to live may come back to haunt us, and will haunt our children, as well.

But what does that mean? What's a spiritual mutation? What does it look like? Is God involved in generating mutated spiritual natures and placing them in babies?

This is why, I think, those who sin may suffer judgment to the 3rd generation, or even more. In the same way, the obedient may pass their blessings on to a thousand generations! Exo 20.5-6.

Is Exodus 20 teaching judgment, or that children in homes that practice idolatry will likely continue to practice idolatry? I - and a great many others - very much doubt this is teaching judgment, or a literal thousand generations.

I don't think you understand what I meant. I'm not saying it's an honor to inherit a physical or mental deficit of any kind! We all do, and rightfully feel angry to some degree.

But what I'm saying is that after inheriting these things from parents who made bad choices, it is an honor to go on, forgiving those who want it, and refusing to let bitterness cripple us from living a loving, joyful, righteous life. This brings great honor to God.

Of course, if you're unable to do that, I can understand it. I've personally experienced great bitterness in my own life. And I always have to overcome it. It's a regular discipline, and it's a choice I must make.

I got that. It's not an honor.

Sorry about that. In choosing for the "Tree of Life" we are choosing for a new nature in Christ, which is the opposite of choosing to live an independent life, sometimes choosing to obey and at other times choosing to disobey. To choose a "nature" is to decide that living in relationship with God all the time is right, and that living independently is wrong.

Faith, then?

The whole setup in the garden of Eden was by historical example a temporary setup. Man was set to choose for the Tree of Life or for the Tree of Knowledge. This suggested that doing good, ie eating from other trees of the garden were only temporary forms of "doing good," until they ultimately decided for or against an eternal nature of righteousness.

But the implication of the account is that had Adam and Eve obeyed, they would have continued to live in the garden. It's not like their obedience was temporary, and there's nothing to suggest the garden was temporary, so... is it that their innocence was temporary, rather than their acting out of faith (different than merely doing good)?

The object in the Garden was for Man to take of the Tree of Life. Then he would add to his eternal existence "immortality," which I'm using in the technical sense for Eternal Life.

Right, so you don't think that humanity was created immortal, but mortal, with the possibility of immortality.

Yea, it kind of sounds like that, but.....no! Haven't you read:

2 Cor 4.7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us...10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body.

Col 3. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

I have, have you? What you said is not what Paul is saying.

[ross3421]

 Now just who are they?

 Dan 11:40  And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
Dan 11:41  He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
Dan 11:42  He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
Dan 11:43  But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
Dan 11:44  But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
Dan 11:45  And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

Col

the only kings of a north and south the bible speak is the kingdom of isreal so i would say they are future kings of israel. divided in two parts 10/2.  ummmm did you ever wonderer who the 10 kings where.  notice a total of 12 in rev 13 so it appears the king of the south, second beast with the two horns who is claiming to be god and marries the woman prevails between the two.

[RandyPNW]

You're going to need to expand on where you see ontic corruption taught in either of these.

Actually, I'd like you to explain why you think Scriptures do *not* teach ontic corruption? That is, how is it *not* teaching corruption when we're told we are born in sin? We're told we have a sin nature.

If God engages in partial determinism, then why not rig this situation such that Adam and Eve authentically choose obedience?

That could've happened except that God created the angels with a different type of choices. Satan's decision to spread his rebellion against God's word to Man interfered with the normal progress of obedience in Man. It's called "duress." And God obligated Himself to allow Satan to sin, and Man to fail under this duress. This was, I believe, the mitigating factor in God's allowing Man to be redeemed.

I don't view the trees as an either/or, though. The account posits a restriction, with a choice to obey/disobey, and not a choice between the two trees. For all we know, God's plan was for Adam and Eve to eat from both trees in His own timing, in keeping with the language of the account.

The Tree of Knowledge was verboten, period. Man's being barred from the Tree of Life indicates God's disappointment that Man had not immediately made that choice. I do believe it was a choice between trees, and in the proper order. Redemption allows a reversal of the order for those originally predestined to do so. 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."

In other words, what's important is faith?

If faith alone was the object, James would not have dismissed the shallow use of the same. Faith must have the proper object. And so, faith must be directed to God petitioning not just for an occasional act of obedience, but rather, for a new nature always wanting to remain in compliance.

I'm also saying that this nature hasn't been corrupted. To this day it is is exactly as it was created.

The original design of human nature is what it is, corrupted or not. We remain "human," as you seem to be suggesting. But we're corrupted people, not ceasing to be people, but becoming flawed people.

Is there a difference between God seeing you as good through the lens of Jesus' sacrifice, and you being good insofar as your daily actions, thoughts, etc., are concerned?

Of course. That's the nature of forgiveness. You look past the bad and see the redeeming qualities in a person, if indeed they are there. God's standard is in seeing a choice for a new nature, and that nature must therefore be truly in evidence.

For my part, I am not good. I am one police tour in Poland away from utter monstrous depravity.

I appreciate your honesty and your humility, but talking with you I truly don't see you as anywhere close to Hell.

I see, so Jesus had a human nature and a divine nature, and you think Christians have their own hypostatic union: a godly nature and a sin nature?

Of course, a hypostatic union is something different, uniting two different substances by an infinite divine substance. I'm not confusing godly and sin natures--just showing how one is redemptive, while the other needs redemption.

You just don't know how, but don't want to pin the transmission on sex as Augustine did?

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.

How does this teach that God assigns inheritances? Seth was always going to be Adam's son, in Adam's likeness and image, which by extension, is in God's image.

It is obvious to us all that we are created with chromosomes from both parents, and as such, produce different versions based on our parents' genetic makeup. The fact God determined this is evident inasmuch as God produced children like the parents in the same way that He produced children like Himself. This is both material and spiritual inheritance.

The fact that Seth *replaced* the loss of Abel indicates a choice *against* the replication of Cain. It suggests God is operating in an intelligent way, using human reproduction, to achieve a particular condition, leading to a replacement of Abel's behavior.

But what does that mean? What's a spiritual mutation? What does it look like? Is God involved in generating mutated spiritual natures and placing them in babies?

Look at the difference between Adam and Cain, and you will see evidence of a "spiritual mutation." New conditions present an opportunity for Cain to choose for something bad apart from duress. It is his wish to sin without pressure to do so. Adam was not like that.

But the implication of the account is that had Adam and Eve obeyed, they would have continued to live in the garden. It's not like their obedience was temporary, and there's nothing to suggest the garden was temporary, so... is it that their innocence was temporary, rather than their acting out of faith (different than merely doing good)?

What was temporary was Adam's condition of having eternal existence without having eternal life. God meant for that condition to be temporary because He wished for them to eat of the Tree of Life, and thereby obtain Eternal Life. Once we have Eternal Life, we have more than eternal existence, and have what the Bible calls "immortality."

Right, so you don't think that humanity was created immortal, but mortal, with the possibility of immortality.

Leave it to you to make complex what otherwise is quite simple! Again, there are two ways to use "immortal," as "eternal existence," or as "eternal life." Eternal existence is not the same as eternal life, and therefore is a temporary condition, relative to eternal life, until one chooses for or against eternal life.

Let's not confuse the two different applications of the word "immortal." I don't have to argue how Augustine framed it or used the word. It is the one presently speaking who defines how he is using the word "immortal." And I have no problem using "immortal" as a synonym for "eternal existence" as long as in context I'm making it plain that that is how I'm using the word.

Ordinarily, I use the word "immortal" as synonymous with our resurrection to eternal life. That is also how I think the Bible uses the word.

[Athanasius]

Actually, I'd like you to explain why you think Scriptures do *not* teach ontic corruption? That is, how is it *not* teaching corruption when we're told we are born in sin? We're told we have a sin nature.

I can't show you what's not there. I don't think these verses teach ontic corruption because I don't see that in the text. In the case of Romans 5:12, I see Paul teaching that sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience, and all humanity thus suffers death and separate as a consequence, but where's the ontic corruption? 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.

In Romans 3:9 we read only that "all are under the power of sin" with respect to Paul's argument that Jews do not have an advantage over gentiles, and that gentiles aren't disadvantaged relative to Jews. But even if we consider all the way to v20 I'm not seeing anything to suggest ontic corruption.

As far as I can see you're importing an ontic 'sin nature' into the text, based on an Augustinian misreading that doesn't apply to modern translations of Romans 5:12 specifically. Ontic corruption is not required for anything Paul writes in Romans.

That could've happened except that God created the angels with a different type of choices. Satan's decision to spread his rebellion against God's word to Man interfered with the normal progress of obedience in Man. It's called "duress." And God obligated Himself to allow Satan to sin, and Man to fail under this duress. This was, I believe, the mitigating factor in God's allowing Man to be redeemed.

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?

The Tree of Knowledge was verboten, period. Man's being barred from the Tree of Life indicates God's disappointment that Man had not immediately made that choice. I do believe it was a choice between trees, and in the proper order. Redemption allows a reversal of the order for those originally predestined to do so. 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."

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

If faith alone was the object, James would not have dismissed the shallow use of the same. Faith must have the proper object. And so, faith must be directed to God petitioning not just for an occasional act of obedience, but rather, for a new nature always wanting to remain in compliance.

Yes, I meant faith, not the modern idea of faith as mere intellectual assent in the existence of X. Faith, the thing that orders one's entire life with reference to the thing believed in, because, in the case of God, one cannot have faith in God and continue to live in a way that denies God. Which goes along quite well with James.

What I'm hinting at is that you're glossing over faith to talk about 'doing good'.

The original design of human nature is what it is, corrupted or not. We remain "human," as you seem to be suggesting. But we're corrupted people, not ceasing to be people, but becoming flawed people.

If our nature is corrupted then we're less-than-human. So, if we're less-than-human, and Jesus, not possessing a sinful nature, is properly fully human, then how analogous was His earthly experience to ours such that He can claim to understand what we go through?

Of course. That's the nature of forgiveness. You look past the bad and see the redeeming qualities in a person, if indeed they are there. God's standard is in seeing a choice for a new nature, and that nature must therefore be truly in evidence.

I appreciate your honesty and your humility, but talking with you I truly don't see you as anywhere close to Hell.

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.

Of course, a hypostatic union is something different, uniting two different substances by an infinite divine substance. I'm not confusing godly and sin natures--just showing how one is redemptive, while the other needs redemption.

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?

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?

It is obvious to us all that we are created with chromosomes from both parents, and as such, produce different versions based on our parents' genetic makeup. The fact God determined this is evident inasmuch as God produced children like the parents in the same way that He produced children like Himself. This is both material and spiritual inheritance.

Uh huh... and?

The fact that Seth *replaced* the loss of Abel indicates a choice *against* the replication of Cain. It suggests God is operating in an intelligent way, using human reproduction, to achieve a particular condition, leading to a replacement of Abel's behavior.

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

Look at the difference between Adam and Cain, and you will see evidence of a "spiritual mutation." New conditions present an opportunity for Cain to choose for something bad apart from duress. It is his wish to sin without pressure to do so. Adam was not like that.

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?

What was temporary was Adam's condition of having eternal existence without having eternal life. God meant for that condition to be temporary because He wished for them to eat of the Tree of Life, and thereby obtain Eternal Life. Once we have Eternal Life, we have more than eternal existence, and have what the Bible calls "immortality."

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

Leave it to you to make complex what otherwise is quite simple! Again, there are two ways to use "immortal," as "eternal existence," or as "eternal life." Eternal existence is not the same as eternal life, and therefore is a temporary condition, relative to eternal life, until one chooses for or against eternal life.

Let's not confuse the two different applications of the word "immortal." I don't have to argue how Augustine framed it or used the word. It is the one presently speaking who defines how he is using the word "immortal." And I have no problem using "immortal" as a synonym for "eternal existence" as long as in context I'm making it plain that that is how I'm using the word.

Ordinarily, I use the word "immortal" as synonymous with our resurrection to eternal life. That is also how I think the Bible uses the word.

...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.

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).