The Nature of Fallen Man

[Athanasius]

How many threads is this being discussed in? Geez.

Hmm.... four altogether? Although actively only in two I believe.

[RabbiKnife]

The "original  sin," which is not a Biblical term, belongs logically to Adam, the initiator of the fall.


While we know that every human child born will  subsequently die as a result of the fall, scripturally his/her death is associated with Adam's sin, not sin particularly committed by the child. Adam's sin, the original sin, destined all of Adam's offspring to death.


So, historically and logically, original sin is that sin which separated man from God - Adam's sin.


The notion and tradition that infant Baptism will reverse that sentence  for the assumed guilty infant is erronous, confusing and uneccessary.


My grandmother lived out her days in guilty agony, being told by clerics that her son, who died as an infant, would spend eternity in "Limbo," because she had failed to get him to the "sacrament" on time


So, an important, initial question: Is every human guilty with sin before actually having commited sin?

First, allow me to give my sympathy to you for what your Grandma went through. It's outrageous for someone to make that kind of judgment, which has only do with external ceremonial performance.

Second, I don't believe Infant Baptism is real biblical baptism. Real biblical baptism is the expression of a sinner that he or she is turning from a life of sin to embrace Christ as the way, truth, and life. Infant Baptism, to me, is a form of Child Dedication. The parents are promising to raise the child in the faith.

Finally, to answer your question, guilt by itself implies have committed conscious wrong. But Sin, in my view, is a contaminant that does indeed preclude one from obtaining Eternal Life apart from the grace of Christ.

Sin is both a conscious act and a contaminant that induces us to commit sins, for which we are indeed guilty in various degrees.

So sin is an attachment to humanity that necessarily leads to acts of sin. It is a contaminant that inclines towards rebellion against God's word.

We are born with this contagion, whether we are stillborn or suffer a serious mental disability. There are extenuating circumstances that mitigate our actions at times. But we all have the Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it.

So the answer is “yes, you believe the child dying in infancy is eternally iabsent from the presence of God.”

King David was such an idiot.

[IMINXTC]

Finally, to answer your question, guilt by itself implies have committed conscious wrong. But Sin, in my view, is a contaminant that does indeed preclude one from obtaining Eternal Life apart from the grace of Christ.

Sin is both a conscious act and a contaminant that induces us to commit sins, for which we are indeed guilty in various degrees.

So sin is an attachment to humanity that necessarily leads to acts of sin. It is a contaminant that inclines towards rebellion against God's word.

We are born with this contagion, whether we are stillborn or suffer a serious mental disability. There are extenuating circumstances that mitigate our actions at times. But we all have the Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it.

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

Repeating an earlier point: An infant is destined to die, because of the fall of Adam, but is then destined to stand in judgement where he or she will give an accounting for sins committed. What you infer is that a child will answer for sins not committed, but rather, imputed by "contagion."

So you appear to subscribe to an historically popular theology that not only pronounces the innocent guilty but destines them to suffer eternal punishment - for existing.

Let's go...

[RandyPNW]

Finally, to answer your question, guilt by itself implies have committed conscious wrong. But Sin, in my view, is a contaminant that does indeed preclude one from obtaining Eternal Life apart from the grace of Christ.

Sin is both a conscious act and a contaminant that induces us to commit sins, for which we are indeed guilty in various degrees.

So sin is an attachment to humanity that necessarily leads to acts of sin. It is a contaminant that inclines towards rebellion against God's word.

We are born with this contagion, whether we are stillborn or suffer a serious mental disability. There are extenuating circumstances that mitigate our actions at times. But we all have the Sin Inclination, as the Jews call it.

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

Repeating an earlier point: An infant is destined to die, because of the fall of Adam, but is then destined to stand in judgement where he or she will give an accounting for sins committed. What you infer is that a child will answer for sins not committed, but rather, imputed by "contagion."

So you appear to subscribe to an historically popular theology that not only pronounces the innocent guilty but destines them to suffer eternal punishment - for existing.

Let's go...

You make a good point, and I remain open. Thanks for the input. The contagion that must remain outside of the pearly gates is something that apart from a resurrection to immortality will lead to sin. So the question is, are babies who are born with the contagion and yet have not sinned going to be resurrected to immortality?

How does one qualify for the resurrection to immortality, by being guiltless or by qualifying to have their contagion removed? If a baby is born that God never planned, by His word, to be born, are they still qualified, by His word, to experience a resurrection to immortality?

I don't think so, which is why I have the position that I do. I do think that those who are not allowed into Heaven, who have not yet done anything wrong, will not be punished for things they haven't done. They will enter into eternity with a negative disposition towards being under God's word. And so, they will be punished for their attitude after entering into the afterlife. But I do believe their punishment will be very light.

But I hear ya...

[IMINXTC]

Where oh where is the scripural basis for your claims?

[RandyPNW]

So, it's not the mechanism of transmission that matters as much as it is this idea that some stain, or corrupted nature, is being transmitted instead of the more proper idea that original sin results in a privation of God's gift to humanity that humanity was not owed.

What is the "privation of God's gift to humanity?" Feser is suggesting that the lack of a supernatural gift results in a state of free will in which human weakness *always* results in sinful acts? This, to me, is little different from the "contagion of sin" I've been speaking about, aka the Sin Nature.

When we are born in sin, we have, as the Jews say, a Sin tendency, or an immediate reaction against God's word, before capitulating to obedience, if indeed we go that far. An inclination towards sin always results in sinful behavior, and as such is viewed by myself as a "contagion" of sorts. It is disallowed from Heaven. It is an "uncleanness," even before it results in sinful acts.

Incidentally, I do agree with you that "Sin" itself suggests acts of sin. But Sin Nature is kept out of heaven, I believe, to prevent the unavoidable sin that will result from one who has the Sin Inclination.

You're saying much more than that. You're saying that God determined, or partially determined, or saved 144,000 or some other number of elect while leaving the rest to Satan, and so on.

1st, it cannot be 144,000 since God determined, by His word, to create a world filled with people who live in His image. So yes, God determined X number of people who will fulfill this role, both throughout history and at the end of history. "The earth will be filled with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea."

This, I believe, was God's original word. And to be true to His word, God must accomplish this despite the fact He built Free Will into the equation. The free will of men will succeed or fail to  limited degrees, but X number of people *must* freely choose to live in God's image throughout the world.

Those not originally planned, but who result from Man running wild apart from obedience to God's word will produce a multitude of people who vie with those created to live in God's image. They will freely choose to fill the world apart from living in God's image, and under the rule of His word. They were not created by His word, and thus will not be interested in living by His word.

Being created to do good, all men can freely choose to do good or ordinarily do choose to do good, to some degree. But living in God's image requires a complete commitment to being under the rule of God's word. And the people of this world, not created as a direct result of man living in obedience to God's word, will not submit to living under God's rule all the time.

Okay, this is my theoretical position. I'm not being dogmatic about it. But I came to this conclusion back in the mid 70s, and soon began to recognize significant differences between one kind of person and another. I refer to those whose hearts were drawn to God's word as "children of God." And those tending to reject being under God's word *all the time* I call "children of this world." My terms, but derived from Scriptures. I apply the terms based on premonition of where these people will end up based on how I see them now.

Unfortunately, this idea of a corrupted nature is not found in Scripture.

Well, I submitted a comparison between Paul's view of judgment in Romans 2.12-15 with James' view of the same. Paul referred to it as a "nature."

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

Granted, this is not a satisfactory proof text for a Sin Nature. It appears to prove our human nature was created to want to serve God. But it also assumes that despite this good nature we end up regretting the sins we invariably do commit. Combined with a good nature it appears it is also in this nature to have regrets? A good nature that intends to do good but invariably fails at times I would call a "Sin Nature."

This appears as if Paul indicates that all men have a conscience, acknowledging God's Law, to some degree, and yet of necessity commit sins for which they have regrets. James in nearly every chapter of his letter appears to assume we have this nature that inclines towards sin. And it appears that his assumption is that all do sin. I refer to this as a "Sin Nature," as do many theologians.

"Sin Nature" is a contagion that of necessity leads to acts of sin. It is indeed in a state lacking the supernatural lift that God intended Man to have, or what Feser referred to as "privation." But Man was intended, by his nature, to draw upon and to choose to live by that supernatural lift. As such, those left without that supernatural lift have, I believe, a corrupted nature.

[IMINXTC]

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;" RM 2:14,15

Here we have the unchurched gentiles, by nature, obeying the law or things required by the law.
Far from a "sin nature," we have the elements of God's law imprinted on the heart and conscience. Men can and will, by individual choice, obey or disobey what the conscience dictates.

Furthermore, it is a conscious reaction to the Gospel that brings men to repentance and salvation in Christ, as opposed to some ludicrous notion of predetermination.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" RM1:20


"Sin nature" does not equate with conscience. And conscience is often a tormented realm somewhat pacified by brutish unbelief.

[RandyPNW]

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;" RM 2:14,15

Here we have the unchurched gentiles, by nature, obeying the law or things required by the law.
Far from a "sin nature," we have the elements of God's law imprinted on the heart and conscience. Men can and will, by individual choice, obey or disobey what the conscience dictates.

Furthermore, it is a conscious reaction to the Gospel that brings men to repentance and salvation in Christ, as opposed to some ludicrous notion of predetermination.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" RM1:20


"Sin nature" does not equate with conscience. And conscience is often a tormented realm somewhat pacified by brutish unbelief.

You're just telling me what I've already told you. The fact that there is a conscience and there is guilt tells me that the nature of Man is necessarily defiled by his failure to live by that good that he knows to do. That is what I call a "Sin Nature."

[IMINXTC]

No,  you have been insisting that "sin-nature" is inherited - a  "contagion" bequeathed to mankind.


Your shape-shifting stance prevents or avoids reasonable discussion and smacks of non-orthodox  influences - hard to nail down, exactly, but not grounded in Scripture.

[Athanasius]

What is the "privation of God's gift to humanity?" Feser is suggesting that the lack of a supernatural gift results in a state of free will in which human weakness *always* results in sinful acts? This, to me, is little different from the "contagion of sin" I've been speaking about, aka the Sin Nature.

Did you read what Feser said?

God's gift to Adam and Eve, which they were not owed, was the beatific vision, which was, he wrote:

a direct, “face to face” knowledge of the divine essence which far transcends the very limited knowledge of God we can have through natural reason, and which would entail unsurpassable bliss of a kind we could never attain given our natural powers

The privation of this gift resulted in humanity falling back into its "merely natural state" separated from the (supernatural) gifts of God. We were, in other words, placed under the limitations of our nature, and those were limitations that direct access to God had removed.

Thus, Feser is suggesting, in accordance with the Thomistic/Scholastic view of original sin, that sin happens when individuals pursue their natural ends, which they cannot properly pursue apart from God. It's not because of a sin nature or contagion, but because our nature as it was created does not have access to everything it needs.

When we are born in sin, we have, as the Jews say, a Sin tendency, or an immediate reaction against God's word, before capitulating to obedience, if indeed we go that far. An inclination towards sin always results in sinful behavior, and as such is viewed by myself as a "contagion" of sorts. It is disallowed from Heaven. It is an "uncleanness," even before it results in sinful acts.

It depends where you're quoting in Judaism, but Judaism posits two inclinations: the inclination to sin and the inclination to do good. Is this a 'contagion' though, or the natural state of human nature, separated from God's presence?

Incidentally, I do agree with you that "Sin" itself suggests acts of sin. But Sin Nature is kept out of heaven, I believe, to prevent the unavoidable sin that will result from one who has the Sin Inclination.

Sure, I just don't think 'sin nature' is necessary, an explanation, or found in Scripture as suggested in these various discussions.

1st, it cannot be 144,000 since God determined, by His word, to create a world filled with people who live in His image. So yes, God determined X number of people who will fulfill this role, both throughout history and at the end of history. "The earth will be filled with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea."

This, I believe, was God's original word. And to be true to His word, God must accomplish this despite the fact He built Free Will into the equation. The free will of men will succeed or fail to  limited degrees, but X number of people *must* freely choose to live in God's image throughout the world.

Those not originally planned, but who result from Man running wild apart from obedience to God's word will produce a multitude of people who vie with those created to live in God's image. They will freely choose to fill the world apart from living in God's image, and under the rule of His word. They were not created by His word, and thus will not be interested in living by His word.

Being created to do good, all men can freely choose to do good or ordinarily do choose to do good, to some degree. But living in God's image requires a complete commitment to being under the rule of God's word. And the people of this world, not created as a direct result of man living in obedience to God's word, will not submit to living under God's rule all the time.

Okay, this is my theoretical position. I'm not being dogmatic about it. But I came to this conclusion back in the mid 70s, and soon began to recognize significant differences between one kind of person and another. I refer to those whose hearts were drawn to God's word as "children of God." And those tending to reject being under God's word *all the time* I call "children of this world." My terms, but derived from Scriptures. I apply the terms based on premonition of where these people will end up based on how I see them now.

Right, so you're saying more than what you said you were saying.

Well, I submitted a comparison between Paul's view of judgment in Romans 2.12-15 with James' view of the same. Paul referred to it as a "nature."

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

Granted, this is not a satisfactory proof text for a Sin Nature. It appears to prove our human nature was created to want to serve God. But it also assumes that despite this good nature we end up regretting the sins we invariably do commit. Combined with a good nature it appears it is also in this nature to have regrets? A good nature that intends to do good but invariably fails at times I would call a "Sin Nature."

This appears as if Paul indicates that all men have a conscience, acknowledging God's Law, to some degree, and yet of necessity commit sins for which they have regrets. James in nearly every chapter of his letter appears to assume we have this nature that inclines towards sin. And it appears that his assumption is that all do sin. I refer to this as a "Sin Nature," as do many theologians.

"Sin Nature" is a contagion that of necessity leads to acts of sin. It is indeed in a state lacking the supernatural lift that God intended Man to have, or what Feser referred to as "privation." But Man was intended, by his nature, to draw upon and to choose to live by that supernatural lift. As such, those left without that supernatural lift have, I believe, a corrupted nature.

See, you go from Scripture --> sin nature isn't necessarily in here --> sin nature exists. But why are we getting a 'sin nature' out of Paul or James when they wouldn't have believed in such themselves, and the human inclination to sin can be explained in other ways that are attested to in Scripture?

[RandyPNW]

What is the "privation of God's gift to humanity?" Feser is suggesting that the lack of a supernatural gift results in a state of free will in which human weakness *always* results in sinful acts? This, to me, is little different from the "contagion of sin" I've been speaking about, aka the Sin Nature.

Did you read what Feser said?

God's gift to Adam and Eve, which they were not owed, was the beatific vision, which was, he wrote:

a direct, “face to face” knowledge of the divine essence which far transcends the very limited knowledge of God we can have through natural reason, and which would entail unsurpassable bliss of a kind we could never attain given our natural powers

The privation of this gift resulted in humanity falling back into its "merely natural state" separated from the (supernatural) gifts of God. We were, in other words, placed under the limitations of our nature, and those were limitations that direct access to God had removed.

Thus, Feser is suggesting, in accordance with the Thomistic/Scholastic view of original sin, that sin happens when individuals pursue their natural ends, which they cannot properly pursue apart from God. It's not because of a sin nature or contagion, but because our nature as it was created does not have access to everything it needs.

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.

It depends where you're quoting in Judaism, but Judaism posits two inclinations: the inclination to sin and the inclination to do good. Is this a 'contagion' though, or the natural state of human nature, separated from God's presence?

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.

Sure, I just don't think 'sin nature' is necessary, an explanation, or found in Scripture as suggested in these various discussions.

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?

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.

Right, so you're saying more than what you said you were saying.

Yes, I always anticipate having to roll this out over time. I've been sharing this with only a few over some years, and I've held the core of these beliefs since the late 70s. I know that most will not want to hear it, but I also believe that some will recognize some truth in it. I pick and choose who I share with.

See, you go from Scripture --> sin nature isn't necessarily in here --> sin nature exists. But why are we getting a 'sin nature' out of Paul or James when they wouldn't have believed in such themselves, and the human inclination to sin can be explained in other ways that are attested to in Scripture?

Yes, it isn't quite to the point in the Scriptures I share. Things aren't always described Scripturally as we, outside of Judaism, like to analyze and describe them. The Trinity is a good example. You have to find words to express what you think the Scriptures are saying. Just quoting the Scriptures isn't always enough to answer our specific questions.

So yes, this is speculation. And these are Scriptures that sort of dance around the subject. I'm just giving you some things that suggest an underlying sense of a Sin Nature to me. Thanks for listening.

[RandyPNW]

No,  you have been insisting that "sin-nature" is inherited - a  "contagion" bequeathed to mankind.


Your shape-shifting stance prevents or avoids reasonable discussion and smacks of non-orthodox  influences - hard to nail down, exactly, but not grounded in Scripture.

I see more personal animosity than argument here. Yes, to me the Sin Nature is inherited as a human spirituality descending from Adam to his descendants and from parents to children. It means they inherit a condition that is universally true, which is why I suggest it is a corrupted Human Nature. If it is *always* true, then to me it is a "Nature."

The problem may be when people think that children are inheriting sins from the parents, which wouldn't be true, I agree, because sins are actions. But the Sin Nature is a condition, or a "contagion" as I've called it, because it always sets up the the results in which someone will sin, if a person is conscious and mentally stable.

That is why I think all men with this "Sin Nature" are excluded from Heaven apart from Christian redemption.  Out New Christian Nature excuses us for our Fallen Condition on the basis we choose to trade one for the other.

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.

[RabbiKnife]

OK, so now "conscious" and "mentally stable" are additional conditions which much be met before "sin nature" attaches?

Sorry, bro, but I'm having trouble tracking the moving target.

What about those that are neither "conscious" or "mentally stable?"

What about infants?

[RandyPNW]

OK, so now "conscious" and "mentally stable" are additional conditions which much be met before "sin nature" attaches?

Sorry, bro, but I'm having trouble tracking the moving target.

What about those that are neither "conscious" or "mentally stable?"

What about infants?

This isn't a "moving target." I've held to these beliefs for a *long time.* I'm not making them up as I go along. I just can't explain every element at one time. I'm arguing for life as I experience it based on my speculations about divine Predestination. I'm open to your truth, if you have better ideas?

To answer your question, I'm saying that we've *all* inherited the Sin Nature--infants, the mentally deficient, the unconscious, etc. We all have the Sin Inclination, having a human spirituality that has been defiled since Adam, and which we were all born with.

This doesn't mean we are guilty of sins Adam committed--only that we find ourselves in a condition in which we, of necessity, will sin, because we have a fallen nature that gravitates towards rejection of God's word. Actually, as Athanasius said, we have both good and bad natures, one inclining towards God's image, as we were created to do, and the other inclining towards sin, due to our inheriting Adams rebellious human nature.

The condition is disqualified from heaven, regardless of conscious sin. God's word is what determines *who* with this condition will find mercy. Those whose inclination towards obeying God's word is stronger than the inclination towards disobeying God's word will, I believe, get into Heaven. Those who, quite frankly, choose against wanting God in their life, will not get Heaven.

Heaven is God, as I understand it. It isn't just having things. It is having God. Those who don't like God won't have Him and won't have Heaven. Having a fallen Human Nature doesn't keep us out of Heaven. It is choosing against our redemption from that fallen Human Nature that keeps us out of Heaven.

And this is so because our fallen Human Nature is disqualified form Heaven because it generates acts of sin. Unless the Nature itself is dealt with, and not just individual sins, we are not really repenting, and we are not truly choosing God as our Lord.

[IMINXTC]

I see more personal animosity than argument here.

No animosity intended at all.

 

But the Sin Nature is a condition, or a "contagion" as I've called it, because it always sets up the the results in which someone will sin, if a person is conscious and mentally stable.

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

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,