The Nature of Fallen Man

[RandyPNW]

No animosity intended at all.

Respectfully, sin is not the only option to choose from and men choose out of free will.

Thanks, I agree. We have free will to do many different kinds of good. We're God's children--not slaves. The choice to sin was not, I believe, what God wished for us to choose, but it was still an option.

Having chosen that, Adam passed on consequences to his descendants. We all agree on that. Some call it "death," and some, like myself, call it the "Sin Nature."

We are forgiven on the basis that we repent not just of the acts of sin, but more, because we choose to have a new Nature that alone is an acceptable replacement for a Nature that causes sin. We repent both of our acts of our sin, and also of the fallen condition that Adam passed on to us.

Again, respectfully, we are forgiven by believing in the blood of Christ. The new life is imparted to us at the cross.
It is freely given. Yes, we have repented of dead works and seek to live the new life. The basis of our forgiveness is Christ alone.

Seeing as our concern here is to establish what the Bible actually says, speculation should be in light of contextual scripture. That is not always easy,

I agree--the Bible dictates doctrine, but speculation is just that: speculation. I find nothing wrong with speculating, as long as we have some basis in Scripture. I'm certainly not being dogmatic about anything here!

I agree that Christ is the basis of our Salvation, and that we can freely choose for it. I only believe that some gravitate towards Christ, and some do not. It is not just a gravitation towards wants and needs, but more a gravitation towards Christ himself that saves.

Thanks for your comments.

[Athanasius]

That's exactly what I was referring to. Yes, I got it the 1st time. I'm explaining that Feser's notion of the Natural State of Man, having lost the Supernatural relationship with God, is little different from the "Sin Nature" I advocate. It is a Sin Tendency, or a Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it. Without a relationship with God, which is what I think the Tree of Life represented, Man does not fulfill what his Human Nature was designed to evolve into.

Feser's is a very different explanation than what you've written thus far. Feser argues for the privation of a gift, which is external. You've been arguing for sin as an ontologically corruptive force, or contagion, and an act, or nature or spiritual inheritance distributed by the Word, and so forth. Feser isn't saying any of these things. It's hardly a little different unless you've changed your mind?

That's the whole point I'm driving at. My sense of a "contagion" is little different from Feser's sense of the Natural State of Man, separated from the Supernatural Aid of God. Apart from God's Help, Man tends towards Sin. He invariably sins, and is in effect "unclean," and disqualified from Heaven.

Well, then it's not a contagion if you think you're saying the same thing as Feser. It also makes me wonder why you've argued against the idea this whole time when I argued it before mentioning Feser.

You can use any language that you, as the speaker, wish to use. But if the logical outcome of your point is that Man, of necessity, sins, then how is that any different from the language of a Sin Nature that I use?

I can't use any language I want if I want to state my claims accurately.

As for the difference, have you read what you've written? We all agree that everybody sins, but what's been under debate is the explanation for why. The explanation you and I have given has varied wildly. If you now think that we're of a similar viewpoint, then how do you bridge the gap between what you said previously and what you're saying now?

God did not make Man to sin. But He made him with the capacity to have a Sin Nature, once he chose to ignore the Tree of Life, which Feser is calling the Natural Life, separated from the Supernatural Aid of God. Failing that, Man invariably sins, not having the Supernatural Help he needs to not sin.

So what, this whole time you've been using words in ways that no one else uses?

[RandyPNW]

That's exactly what I was referring to. Yes, I got it the 1st time. I'm explaining that Feser's notion of the Natural State of Man, having lost the Supernatural relationship with God, is little different from the "Sin Nature" I advocate. It is a Sin Tendency, or a Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it. Without a relationship with God, which is what I think the Tree of Life represented, Man does not fulfill what his Human Nature was designed to evolve into.

Feser's is a very different explanation than what you've written thus far. Feser argues for the privation of a gift, which is external. You've been arguing for sin as an ontologically corruptive force, or contagion, and an act, or nature or spiritual inheritance distributed by the Word, and so forth. Feser isn't saying any of these things. It's hardly a little different unless you've changed your mind?

No, I haven't changed my mind. I explained why I thought there was "little difference." What is a big difference to you is the fact that Feser is deliberately avoiding language suggesting an "ontic Sin Nature." To me, this is incidental, because in effect what he is arguing is, I think, a Sin Nature. A Sin Inclination is, I think, a Sin Nature.

The Jewish view is similar, calling it a Sin Inclination, but not a Sin Nature. Where I might bend somewhat is  in the notion that I've agreed with you that Sin is itself Actions--not the Contagion itself perhaps. The Sin Contagion is a state of privation, as Feser said, but it is, I believe, a "Contagion!" It is a state of privation, induced by an act of Sin--Adam's Sin, such that this deprived state ultimately must sin.

Therefore, I continue to see this Privation as a Contagion, or as an Uncleanness, since it was caused by sin and leads to sin. It was caused, however, by the sin of Adam and Eve. Those who contract the Contagion, ie Adam's descendants, ultimately must sin, since they've inherited the Contagion.

That's the whole point I'm driving at. My sense of a "contagion" is little different from Feser's sense of the Natural State of Man, separated from the Supernatural Aid of God. Apart from God's Help, Man tends towards Sin. He invariably sins, and is in effect "unclean," and disqualified from Heaven.

Well, then it's not a contagion if you think you're saying the same thing as Feser. It also makes me wonder why you've argued against the idea this whole time when I argued it before mentioning Feser.

Rather, you've been using Feser to argue against my position, and I've just been trying to compare what he said with what I'm saying. The positions are different, since he denies the "contagion." But in effect Man sins 100% of the time--that argues for a "contagion" to me.

No, obviously I'm not arguing the same thing as Feser. There is "little difference" in the outcome, whether it is called a state of "privation" or a "contagion." The ultimate result 100% of the time are acts of sin.

[Athanasius]

No, I haven't changed my mind. I explained why I thought there was "little difference." What is a big difference to you is the fact that Feser is deliberately avoiding language suggesting an "ontic Sin Nature." To me, this is incidental, because in effect what he is arguing is, I think, a Sin Nature. A Sin Inclination is, I think, a Sin Nature.

Feser isn't merely avoiding language. We've been discussing why people sin. The points of difference are the discussion, which you're now flattening because the result is, in effect, the same (you say). That's confusing; "people sin" was always in view. That's never been under dispute.

The Jewish view is similar, calling it a Sin Inclination, but not a Sin Nature... The Sin Contagion is a state of privation, as Feser said, but it is, I believe, a "Contagion!" It is a state of privation, induced by an act of Sin--Adam's Sin, such that this deprived state ultimately must sin.

Therefore, I continue to see this Privation as a Contagion, or as an Uncleanness, since it was caused by sin and leads to sin. It was caused, however, by the sin of Adam and Eve. Those who contract the Contagion, ie Adam's descendants, ultimately must sin, since they've inherited the Contagion.

A privation and contagion are two different things. If you don't mean two different things, then maybe it's worth using language that accurately describes the view you're trying to outline? Is what you're talking about the privation of a gift, or a contagion in the form of corruption? Is it a privation that leads to a corruption of nature? Feser is only talking about privation and nature, which isn't corrupted. This 'contagion' language doesn't fit his view, and possibly not yours either.

Rather, you've been using Feser to argue against my position, and I've just been trying to compare what he said with what I'm saying. The positions are different, since he denies the "contagion." But in effect Man sins 100% of the time--that argues for a "contagion" to me.

It seems to me that we've been discussing Feser's view. If I've been using it against your position, it's only in the capacity of outlining how Feser's view is different from your own.

I don't think people sin 100% of the time. What do you mean by this?

No, obviously I'm not arguing the same thing as Feser. There is "little difference" in the outcome, whether it is called a state of "privation" or a "contagion." The ultimate result 100% of the time are acts of sin.

Just having a whole 'nother discussion over there huh?

[RandyPNW]

No, I haven't changed my mind. I explained why I thought there was "little difference." What is a big difference to you is the fact that Feser is deliberately avoiding language suggesting an "ontic Sin Nature." To me, this is incidental, because in effect what he is arguing is, I think, a Sin Nature. A Sin Inclination is, I think, a Sin Nature.

Feser isn't merely avoiding language. We've been discussing why people sin. The points of difference are the discussion, which you're now flatting because the result is, in effect, the same (you say). That's confusing; "people sin" was always in view. That's never been under dispute.

The Jewish view is similar, calling it a Sin Inclination, but not a Sin Nature... The Sin Contagion is a state of privation, as Feser said, but it is, I believe, a "Contagion!" It is a state of privation, induced by an act of Sin--Adam's Sin, such that this deprived state ultimately must sin.

Therefore, I continue to see this Privation as a Contagion, or as an Uncleanness, since it was caused by sin and leads to sin. It was caused, however, by the sin of Adam and Eve. Those who contract the Contagion, ie Adam's descendants, ultimately must sin, since they've inherited the Contagion.

A privation and contagion are two different things. If you don't mean two different things, then maybe it's worth using language that accurately describes the view you're trying to outline? Is what you're talking about the privation of a gift, or a contagion in the form of corruption? Is it a privation that leads to a corruption of nature? Feser is only talking about privation and nature, which isn't corrupted. This 'contagion' language doesn't fit his view, and possibly not yours either.

Rather, you've been using Feser to argue against my position, and I've just been trying to compare what he said with what I'm saying. The positions are different, since he denies the "contagion." But in effect Man sins 100% of the time--that argues for a "contagion" to me.

It seems to me that we've been discussing Feser's view. If I've been using it against your position, it's only in the capacity of outlining how Feser's view is different from your own.

I don't think people sin 100% of the time. What do you mean by this?

No, obviously I'm not arguing the same thing as Feser. There is "little difference" in the outcome, whether it is called a state of "privation" or a "contagion." The ultimate result 100% of the time are acts of sin.

Just having a whole 'nother discussion over there huh?

Yes, you seem to be using Feser's position to discredit my theory--I know you share with him a denial of the Sin Nature.

What I mean about 100% acts of sin will result from mankind after the Fall is just that--every human being who you say is deprived the supernatural help of God commits acts of sin. That results from what I think is the "contagion" of sin, and not simply from being deprived help in resisting temptation.

To be deprived help in this sense is a disability--a contagion, and not a good nature operating under "privation." A perfect person can be deprived water, and die from thirst, and yet not turn to sin. And a perfect person with a good nature who is denied assistance in resisting sin can still resist sin, in my opinion.

The implication you have is that people require supernatural help to avoid sin. I don't believe Adam and Eve needed that help in the garden. All they had to do was choose the Tree of Life to escape the test of the Tree of Knowledge.

[IMINXTC]

Adam walked with God in the garden and God spoke directly with him amidst the bliss of a sinless, deathless paradise.

Mankind was driven from Eden into this cursed world and marked for death.

One can barely begin to comprehend what Adam left behind, but this is fallen man's lot: a sin-sickened realm harassed and decieved by devils as Satan himself prowls the ranks of the masses.

It's a tough place to live sinlessly, and none have, save Christ.

But men, as opposed to being plagued with a sin nature, are compelled to choose from among options, as was Adam.

What many percieve as a liability is the absense of what Adam knew and experienced before the fall. But it was not sufficient to keep Adam from falling.

Men will freely choose, as did Adam.

This should serve to highlight the immense dignity imparted to mankind - The power to choose, freely.

[Athanasius]

Yes, you seem to be using Feser's position to discredit my theory--I know you share with him a denial of the Sin Nature.

That's not my intent. My intent was to show that a denial of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin is not unusual, and that there are other views that are equally historically attested. It was, after all, presented in a reply to IMINXTC in reply to the question, "What does the Bible actually say?".

In any case, my understanding of original sin is Thomistic, pace Augustine.

What I mean about 100% acts of sin will result from mankind after the Fall is just that--every human being who you say is deprived the supernatural help of God commits acts of sin. That results from what I think is the "contagion" of sin, and not simply from being deprived help in resisting temptation.

Gotcha. That's not "But in effect Man sins 100% of the time". It's that it's inevitable that someone will sin (with one exception), not that someone sins 100% of the time. I get what you're saying, though.

To be deprived help in this sense is a disability--a contagion, and not a good nature operating under "privation." A perfect person can be deprived water, and die from thirst, and yet not turn to sin. And a perfect person with a good nature who is denied assistance in resisting sin can still resist sin, in my opinion.

Okay? Again, 'contagion' doesn't seem to fit what you're describing.

The implication you have is that people require supernatural help to avoid sin. I don't believe Adam and Eve needed that help in the garden. All they had to do was choose the Tree of Life to escape the test of the Tree of Knowledge.

And did they choose the tree of life?

[RandyPNW]

That's not my intent. My intent was to show that a denial of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin is not unusual, and that there are other views that are equally historically attested. It was, after all, presented in a reply to IMINXTC in reply to the question, "What does the Bible actually say?".

I'm sure I don't agree with Augustine on everything either. But belief in a Sin Nature is nearly universal in Christianity.

Col 3.5 5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

The literal Greek translation is a little different than this, but this is how Christians scholars tend to view it. It may indicate we have "earthly bodily members."

In any case, my understanding of original sin is Thomistic, pace Augustine.

Thomas Aquinas was pretty dry in his theology, and perhaps more intellectual than revelational. I respect him, but wouldn't count him representative of typical Christian views.

The fact is, a good many great Christian leaders had aberrant beliefs. This is the cost of being "apart from the crowd." And I respect that. But we still have to sort of rein them in, due to the fact that their greatest qualities must have excised from them some of these questionable beliefs.

For example, Origen had some weird beliefs about our preexistence. The Catholic Church had a weird belief about Transubstantiation. Luther had a sort of fatalistic predeterminism. Calvin believed the lost were predestined to be lost. Wesley believed God didn't predestine an elect number of people.

We could go on. But as I understand it, most Christians in history believed in a Sin Nature, regardless of how it is being described. I think that even Thomas Aquinas was expressing Sin Nature using a description that he was more comfortable with.

What I mean about 100% acts of sin will result from mankind after the Fall is just that--every human being who you say is deprived the supernatural help of God commits acts of sin. That results from what I think is the "contagion" of sin, and not simply from being deprived help in resisting temptation.

Gotcha. That's not "But in effect Man sins 100% of the time". It's that it's inevitable that someone will sin (with one exception), not that someone sins 100% of the time. I get what you're saying, though.

No, it's inevitable that we choose acts of sin because we have a Sinful Nature. I don't argue fatalistic predetermination, remember?

To be deprived help in this sense is a disability--a contagion, and not a good nature operating under "privation." A perfect person can be deprived water, and die from thirst, and yet not turn to sin. And a perfect person with a good nature who is denied assistance in resisting sin can still resist sin, in my opinion.

Okay? Again, 'contagion' doesn't seem to fit what you're describing.

How can one admit that 100% of mankind chooses to sin if Man is not struck with a universal contagion? You either argue that it is a limited contagion or not a contagion at all.

In this case, you would be able to isolate the negative choices to a certain environment. But we get these choices to sin in *all* environments, which is roughly the equivalent of the worst kind of plague imaginable!

The implication you have is that people require supernatural help to avoid sin. I don't believe Adam and Eve needed that help in the garden. All they had to do was choose the Tree of Life to escape the test of the Tree of Knowledge.

And did they choose the tree of life?

Adam and Even could've indeed chosen for the Tree of Life and avoided falling into a state of independent mindedness. Of course, since both of them chose to sin, that also was 100% choice to sin. However, that was when there were only two people. And they were both in proximity of one another, and thus under added duress.

It was not a contagion that they received from a preceding generation. If anything it was a contagion contracted from Satan himself, by accepting his lies.

I don't think sin was a contagion from the beginning. But listening to Satan opened the door to this spiritual virus. And it has indeed spread throughout the human race, not by DNA but by a kind of "spiritual DNA." We are all wayward, we all tend to challenge God's word, and we all choose to make bad decisions at times of weakness.

[Athanasius]

I'm sure I don't agree with Augustine on everything either. But belief in a Sin Nature is nearly universal in Christianity.

Col 3.5 5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

The literal Greek translation is a little different than this, but this is how Christians scholars tend to view it. It may indicate we have "earthly bodily members."

Belief in original sin and its consequences, however both are understood, is near-universal. Belief in a sin nature, in the truest sense of the word 'nature', is not remotely universal. Colossians 3 talks about an 'earthly nature', or, whatever it is in our nature that 'belongs to the earth'. But it doesn't tell us to put to death our 'sin nature'. If that's how we understand 'sin nature', then in this sense it becomes technical language, and not a description of contagion, corruption, and so forth.

Thomas Aquinas was pretty dry in his theology, and perhaps more intellectual than revelational. I respect him, but wouldn't count him representative of typical Christian views.

I don't doubt that he's not representative in the groups of people you might associate with, but he's quite representative of a great many Christians. Like Augustine, Aquinas is one of those people who permeates theology.

The fact is, a good many great Christian leaders had aberrant beliefs. This is the cost of being "apart from the crowd." And I respect that. But we still have to sort of rein them in, due to the fact that their greatest qualities must have excised from them some of these questionable beliefs.

No one has perfect beliefs; everyone believes something considered 'aberrant' by someone.

I think that even Thomas Aquinas was expressing Sin Nature using a description that he was more comfortable with.

Implying that he would have used different language if he wasn't uncomfortable with it? This is a strange claim. Aquinas used the language he used because he presumably thought it best described what he believed. I don't take issue with Augustine's notion of sin nature merely because of discomfort.

No, it's inevitable that we choose acts of sin because we have a Sinful Nature. I don't argue fatalistic predetermination, remember?

This is arguing for the sake of arguing. We weren't talking about sin nature, but the phrasing of the claim "But in effect Man sins 100% of the time", which isn't accurate.

How can one admit that 100% of mankind chooses to sin if Man is not struck with a universal contagion? You either argue that it is a limited contagion or not a contagion at all.

It's not an admission, it's an affirmation. Sin nature is not required to explain why people sin (Adam and Eve sinned in the direct presence of God, of all places!).

Adam and Even could've indeed chosen for the Tree of Life and avoided falling into a state of independent mindedness. Of course, since both of them chose to sin, that also was 100% choice to sin. However, that was when there were only two people. And they were both in proximity of one another, and thus under added duress.

It was not a contagion that they received from a preceding generation. If anything it was a contagion contracted from Satan himself, by accepting his lies.

I don't think sin was a contagion from the beginning. But listening to Satan opened the door to this spiritual virus. And it has indeed spread throughout the human race, not by DNA but by a kind of "spiritual DNA." We are all wayward, we all tend to challenge God's word, and we all choose to make bad decisions at times of weakness.

So no, they didn't choose the tree of life.

[RandyPNW]

Col 3.5 5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

The literal Greek translation is a little different than this, but this is how Christians scholars tend to view it. It may indicate we have "earthly bodily members."

Belief in original sin and its consequences, however both are understood, is near-universal. Belief in a sin nature, in the truest sense of the word 'nature', is not remotely universal. Colossians 3 talks about an 'earthly nature', or, whatever it is in our nature that 'belongs to the earth'. But it doesn't tell us to put to death our 'sin nature'. If that's how we understand 'sin nature', then in this sense it becomes technical language, and not a description of contagion, corruption, and so forth.

I think Aquinas referred to "privation" because Paul refers to what is "earthly," which is the world that has been separated from God's blessing. I wouldn't say God is gone from the earth--only that His *blessing* has been removed from the earth, leaving it cursed and desolate.

A "nature" we cannot get rid of when we have it. To put it to death would be to completely excise it from our being, which we aren't able to do, in my opinion. We have, I believe, a Sin Nature, which is a permanent feature of our physical being until we are resurrected to immortality.

Like the desolated, cursed earth we are a desolated humanity. We are not only deprived of divine blessings, but we also produce the "thorns," or deeds, of a Sin Nature.

The thing we are to "put to death" is the reliance we may have on this independent earthly nature. The terminology, "put to death," has reference to Christ putting his entire physical being to death in order to redeem us from the contamination sin has infected our beings with.

Sin, as a contagion, resides within our physical being, and in order to be forgiven this existence, Christ had to completely put his own physical being to death, providing for us a perfect sacrifice.

He was already perfect, but in dying for us he provided a perfect sacrifice that we required. We required access to a spiritual life that had had the association with its physical being completely removed, thereby leaving any guilt associated with the body also removed.

We had to choose to live in his sacrifice, which was a complete dismissal of our physical being in its state of having a Sin Nature. It was a choice, and obviously not an actual physical death.

In relying on Christ's help, we still have a Sin Nature, and are still weak, infected, and commit sins. But we are able to access virtues that come from Christ, cleansing us in him.

We are constantly putting to death our body in our identification with Christ, and so obtain both virtue and cleansing from him spiritually. Anyway, that's how I see it.

Like Augustine, Aquinas is one of those people who permeates theology.

I think he was important in the age of Scholasticism, when the Catholic Church had to find a solid recourse to Scriptural Truth, just as the Protestants later relied on Sola Scriptura. His reason was based more on the assumption of Scriptural veracity than on philosophical argument, as I understand it. He attempted to dictate Scriptural truth by Natural Reason, which Modern Philosophy has largely disproven.

I think Aquinas set up Luther's reliance on Scripture, abandoning any attempt to prove it by Natural Reason. This was an appeal to divine revelation as the basis of truth. And I do credit Aquinas for indirectly accomplishing this.

No one has perfect beliefs; everyone believes something considered 'aberrant' by someone.

You think?

I think that even Thomas Aquinas was expressing Sin Nature using a description that he was more comfortable with.

Implying that he would have used different language if he wasn't uncomfortable with it? This is a strange claim. Aquinas used the language he used because he presumably thought it best described what he believed. I don't take issue with Augustine's notion of sin nature merely because of discomfort.

There is no other reason I can see for denying a Sin Nature other than being uncomfortable with the idea God imposed the necessity of Sinning on future generations who had not committed the Original Sin! Explaining this as a "Privation" is an escape hatch for the claim that God is unfair to Adam's posterity.

We weren't talking about sin nature, but the phrasing of the claim "But in effect Man sins 100% of the time", which isn't accurate.

You need context for that statement. It sounds like I was saying a person continuously indulges in theft, murder, and adultery!

Obviously, that's not what I was saying. I meant to say that everybody, without exception, sins. We all choose to sin, whether in greater or lesser measure.

Even the Christian who lives a saintly life battles sin every day in lesser ways. The idea is to reduce sin in our lives by choosing to embrace the power of Christ's spiritual life. This significantly reduces sin in display in our lives, and also awards us with Eternal Life.

Sin nature is not required to explain why people sin (Adam and Eve sinned in the direct presence of God, of all places!).

I disagree in a way. Even though Satan himself did not originally have a Sin Nature, the idea of a Sin Nature was predicated in God's gift to Satan to choose for or against obedience to God's word. So, the idea of a Sin Nature was there even before Satan was actually guilty of sin.

And it was Satan's own Sin Nature that bedeviled Adam and Eve, their acquiring from Satan his own Sin Nature. They didn't acquire Satan's own sin, but only his Sin Nature. That's why, I believe, Adam's children produce both kinds, those who sin like the Devil and those who reconsider after having been duped, returning to God's original word of creation.
 

[Athanasius]

There is no other reason I can see for denying a Sin Nature other than being uncomfortable with the idea God imposed the necessity of Sinning on future generations who had not committed the Original Sin! Explaining this as a "Privation" is an escape hatch for the claim that God is unfair to Adam's posterity.

If you can't see any other reason than discomfort, then how deeply are you looking? If you take this attitude towards views that don't align with your own, then how might this risk contaminating the intellectual integrity of your interactions with those other views?

Here's a good reason that doesn't come down to discomfort: sin nature, as you've explained it, is not taught in Scripture. At least, that's the claim. There's no deeper psychological meaning, no discomfort that's being avoided.

You need context for that statement. It sounds like I was saying a person continuously indulges in theft, murder, and adultery!

Obviously, that's not what I was saying. I meant to say that everybody, without exception, sins. We all choose to sin, whether in greater or lesser measure.

I thought so, that's why I asked.

[RandyPNW]

There is no other reason I can see for denying a Sin Nature other than being uncomfortable with the idea God imposed the necessity of Sinning on future generations who had not committed the Original Sin! Explaining this as a "Privation" is an escape hatch for the claim that God is unfair to Adam's posterity.

If you can't see any other reason than discomfort, then how deeply are you looking? If you take this attitude towards views that don't align with your own, then how might this risk contaminating the intellectual integrity of your interactions with those other views?

Here's a good reason that doesn't come down to discomfort: sin nature, as you've explained it, is not taught in Scripture. At least, that's the claim. There's no deeper psychological meaning, no discomfort that's being avoided.

Sorry, that's all I have for now. Yes, there is no Sin Nature Theology that I can locate in the NT Scriptures. But then again, there is no Trinitarian Theology that I can locate there either!

I have no better explanation for what Christians universally call the "fallen condition of Man," stemming from the original sin. One calls it "privation," and another calls it a "Sin Nature."

I prefer the latter because it best explains my own struggles with sin. I do not find that I wish to sin, but like Paul, I find sin within me--something we're born with, prodding me to do what is against my sense to do.

Rom 7.So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Paul referred to our weakened, sin-infected bodies as the "flesh." It is indeed in a state of privation. But I don't believe it is neutral and unstained, simply lacking God's assistance.

Rather, I believe it is actually "cursed," just as the ground was cursed and less responsive to cultivation and farming. Even if Man wants to do good, and he does, he finds himself fighting against our natural reliance upon God to do so. We have a bent against God's assistance and word.

I don't feel I have a complete handle on what I believe. But this is the best I can do for now.

[Athanasius]

Sorry, that's all I have for now. Yes, there is no Sin Nature Theology that I can locate in the NT Scriptures. But then again, there is no Trinitarian Theology that I can locate there either!

Confusing phrasing, but I know what you mean. Thanks for engaging.

[CONSPICILLUM]

RabbiKnife asked for scripture and exegesis for this topic. Is there any chance either of those might be forthcoming? This is a very poor and invalid treatment of Hamartiology.

I’d like to join the convo somehow, but it’d be like trying to jump on a merry-go-round already spinning at 84mph with some guy still pushing it to go faster. I don’t want to risk tetanus from the rusty bars with it spinning at this speed. LOL.

[CONSPICILLUM]

BTW… Does the PNW in RandyPNW stand for Pacific North West?