The Nature of Fallen Man

[Athanasius]

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.

Feel free to start from the start. All the speculation has been speculated.

[RandyPNW]

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

Yes, but I've been on the other side of the world, and the same God here is the same God there. Truth is universal, and arguing is also universal. Please join the conversation!

[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.

Feel free to start from the start. All the speculation has been speculated.

At this point, I think it would be much more benefitical to just post a thorough summary treatise on Hamartiology, Ponerology, and Thanatology; but I can make a few clarifying points.

The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.

Sin is hamartia. It comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share/part/place) indicating sin is “the missing share, part, or place”. It’s a privation. As a noun, it’s a somethinglessness rather than a something. It’s only something like a hole or void is a something. So the point about whether it’s a privation or a contagion is a huge point. Sin is the former.

In Greek, hamartia is anarthrous. This means the term in its singular form is primarily referring to the state of being and condition. SinnING is the verb (hamartano), and the resulting acts are sinS (hamartemata). Hamartema/ta (singular and plural) are utilized in the text only 4 times, so the scriptural references to sin are virtually always to the state of being and condition. And this state/condition is devoid of the original share, part, and place (estate) that man originally had in creation.

The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.

During the propagation of a human soul in conception as procreation, the nature of man is dependent upon the qualitative existence of the hypostasis which underlies the ousia and all else. If this hypostasis is not vivified by faith (which is an hypostasis), then spiritual life is not the foundation of human existence. This is the plight of all mankind. We are given physical life while conceived in spiritual death. If not resurrected unto spiritual life in Christ during physical life, then physical death means everlasting spiritual death.

There are a lot of lexical technical details, but I’ve tried to make this conversational in a lexcial manner instead. The guilt for Adam and Eve is not rooted in the action they did. It’s rooted in what that action did TO them internally. It abrogated the constant communion with God that is spiritual life (zoe). And in that day they died. They died spiritually and ensured their physical death. It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.

[RandyPNW]

At this point, I think it would be much more benefitical to just post a thorough summary treatise on Hamartiology, Ponerology, and Thanatology; but I can make a few clarifying points.

The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.

Sin is hamartia. It comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share/part/place) indicating sin is “the missing share, part, or place”. It’s a privation. As a noun, it’s a somethinglessness rather than a something. It’s only something like a hole or void is a something. So the point about whether it’s a privation or a contagion is a huge point. Sin is the former.

Good point. But word origins or word breakdowns are sometimes worthless inasmuch as words in their component parts mean something different separated as they might put together. Now if we don't put the parts together and retain them separately  like "apart from normal," then you would have a point. But when joined together, they may or may not mean what they would mean separated.

Even the sense "apart from normal" may mean "deprived from normal" and also mean "abnormal," which could be a contagion. Something that spreads, would you agree, is a contagion? If so, why did Jesus refer to sin as a leaven that leavens the whole lump?

And why is sin depicted as mold under the Law, which spreads (if indeed it is so depicted). A person with leprosy is considered "unclean" until the spreading is completed. Then it is a matter of how one behaves once his contagion is complete and it is no longer contagious.

I don't believe sin spreads like a physical disease, such as bacteria or a virus. But it does spread generationally, and excessive exposure to it risks getting the "disease."

It is, however, a spiritual disease, and describing that is beyond me. That being said, I don'[t know how the word "disease" may be literally applied to sin in the Bible except inferentially?

In Greek, hamartia is anarthrous. This means the term in its singular form is primarily referring to the state of being and condition. SinnING is the verb (hamartano), and the resulting acts are sinS (hamartemata). Hamartema/ta (singular and plural) are utilized in the text only 4 times, so the scriptural references to sin are virtually always to the state of being and condition. And this state/condition is devoid of the original share, part, and place (estate) that man originally had in creation.

The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.

Actually, couldn't we say that Israel had the Law, together with its righteous standards, and still had something "missing?"

During the propagation of a human soul in conception as procreation, the nature of man is dependent upon the qualitative existence of the hypostasis which underlies the ousia and all else. If this hypostasis is not vivified by faith (which is an hypostasis), then spiritual life is not the foundation of human existence. This is the plight of all mankind. We are given physical life while conceived in spiritual death. If not resurrected unto spiritual life in Christ during physical life, then physical death means everlasting spiritual death.

I believe we are in a state of death, but not obviously *dead.* We are not, therefore, spiritually dead at birth, since we are not dead at all at birth (unless stillborn). The term "spiritual death" refers, I think, to the idea that we are only in intermittent contact with God, due to the sin contagion. And this keeps us from moving beyond physical death. Therefore, we are "spiritually dead," ie destined to die and be separated from God in paradise.

In other words, sin a contagion that inclines towards rebelling against God's word. That inclination to rebel passes down from Adam to *all* human beings, save Christ. This is why I call it a contagion, because it spreads, almost without exception through the generations from Adam.

It is not being passed on down as in a baton in a race. It is being passed on unconsciously, just like the brain and the heart are active apart from our managing them. And if it causes something bad, or can be considered a "curse," then I would define it as a spiritual contagion or disease.

What we are deprived of is a clean relationship with God, in which we are free from internal duress to rebel against God's word. In that sense yes, I think it is a privation. But because it is passed on down, it becomes ontologically true of all men, not by choice but by unconscious transmission. It is therefore a spiritual disease. Man stopped being clean man and became, by evolution, unclean man.

There are a lot of lexical technical details, but I’ve tried to make this conversational in a lexcial manner instead.

I get this regularly from my brother, who is also a "lexical" guy. He confesses that he's much more into the language than into the theology. And I agree--the language is very important.

The guilt for Adam and Eve is not rooted in the action they did. It’s rooted in what that action did TO them internally. It abrogated the constant communion with God that is spiritual life (zoe). And in that day they died. They died spiritually and ensured their physical death. It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.

Well, that's certainly logical, but not really how I would phrase it. But then again, I'm not sure how I'd phrase it. I don't believe "faith gives life to the substance of our being." Lacking faith does mean we may be "spiritually dead," but it doesn't mean that with faith we stop being fallen Man.

When gaining faith we still have a Sin Nature, or an inclination to rebel against God's word. We're unclean in our fallen nature, but made clean in our new nature, which is made possible by faith.

Thanks for your ideas. I'm thinking about them...

[Athanasius]

At this point, I think it would be much more benefitical to just post a thorough summary treatise on Hamartiology, Ponerology, and Thanatology; but I can make a few clarifying points.

Those things do seem to be a start. Out of curiosity, why choose the words hamartiology, ponerology, and thanatology over the more obvious sin, evil, and death? A summary treatise on sin, evil, and death in ~421 words, no less.

The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.

Sin is hamartia. It comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share/part/place) indicating sin is “the missing share, part, or place”. It’s a privation. As a noun, it’s a somethinglessness rather than a something. It’s only something like a hole or void is a something. So the point about whether it’s a privation or a contagion is a huge point. Sin is the former.

In Greek, hamartia is anarthrous. This means the term in its singular form is primarily referring to the state of being and condition. SinnING is the verb (hamartano), and the resulting acts are sinS (hamartemata). Hamartema/ta (singular and plural) are utilized in the text only 4 times, so the scriptural references to sin are virtually always to the state of being and condition. And this state/condition is devoid of the original share, part, and place (estate) that man originally had in creation.

The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.

During the propagation of a human soul in conception as procreation, the nature of man is dependent upon the qualitative existence of the hypostasis which underlies the ousia and all else. If this hypostasis is not vivified by faith (which is an hypostasis), then spiritual life is not the foundation of human existence. This is the plight of all mankind. We are given physical life while conceived in spiritual death. If not resurrected unto spiritual life in Christ during physical life, then physical death means everlasting spiritual death.

There are a lot of lexical technical details, but I’ve tried to make this conversational in a lexcial manner instead. The guilt for Adam and Eve is not rooted in the action they did. It’s rooted in what that action did TO them internally. It abrogated the constant communion with God that is spiritual life (zoe). And in that day they died. They died spiritually and ensured their physical death. It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.

Early in the thread, I linked to a discussion from Dr Feser regarding original sin as entailing the privation of God's gift(s) (beatific vision, and others). The above seems to be along these lines, but are there any differences between that view and yours? Perhaps pertaining to vivification?

I think Randy has been using 'contagion' language since the '70s, so best of luck.

[CONSPICILLUM]

At this point, I think it would be much more benefitical to just post a thorough summary treatise on Hamartiology, Ponerology, and Thanatology; but I can make a few clarifying points.

The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.

Sin is hamartia. It comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share/part/place) indicating sin is “the missing share, part, or place”. It’s a privation. As a noun, it’s a somethinglessness rather than a something. It’s only something like a hole or void is a something. So the point about whether it’s a privation or a contagion is a huge point. Sin is the former.

Good point. But word origins or word breakdowns are sometimes worthless inasmuch as words in their component parts mean something different separated as they might put together. Now if we don't put the parts together and retain them separately  like "apart from normal," then you would have a point. But when joined together, they may or may not mean what they would mean separated.

Even the sense "apart from normal" may mean "deprived from normal" and also mean "abnormal," which could be a contagion. Something that spreads, would you agree, is a contagion? If so, why did Jesus refer to sin as a leaven that leavens the whole lump?

And why is sin depicted as mold under the Law, which spreads (if indeed it is so depicted). A person with leprosy is considered "unclean" until the spreading is completed. Then it is a matter of how one behaves once his contagion is complete and it is no longer contagious.

I don't believe sin spreads like a physical disease, such as bacteria or a virus. But it does spread generationally, and excessive exposure to it risks getting the "disease."

It is, however, a spiritual disease, and describing that is beyond me. That being said, I don'[t know how the word "disease" may be literally applied to sin in the Bible except inferentially?

In Greek, hamartia is anarthrous. This means the term in its singular form is primarily referring to the state of being and condition. SinnING is the verb (hamartano), and the resulting acts are sinS (hamartemata). Hamartema/ta (singular and plural) are utilized in the text only 4 times, so the scriptural references to sin are virtually always to the state of being and condition. And this state/condition is devoid of the original share, part, and place (estate) that man originally had in creation.

The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.

Actually, couldn't we say that Israel had the Law, together with its righteous standards, and still had something "missing?"

During the propagation of a human soul in conception as procreation, the nature of man is dependent upon the qualitative existence of the hypostasis which underlies the ousia and all else. If this hypostasis is not vivified by faith (which is an hypostasis), then spiritual life is not the foundation of human existence. This is the plight of all mankind. We are given physical life while conceived in spiritual death. If not resurrected unto spiritual life in Christ during physical life, then physical death means everlasting spiritual death.

I believe we are in a state of death, but not obviously *dead.* We are not, therefore, spiritually dead at birth, since we are not dead at all at birth (unless stillborn). The term "spiritual death" refers, I think, to the idea that we are only in intermittent contact with God, due to the sin contagion. And this keeps us from moving beyond physical death. Therefore, we are "spiritually dead," ie destined to die and be separated from God in paradise.

In other words, sin a contagion that inclines towards rebelling against God's word. That inclination to rebel passes down from Adam to *all* human beings, save Christ. This is why I call it a contagion, because it spreads, almost without exception through the generations from Adam.

It is not being passed on down as in a baton in a race. It is being passed on unconsciously, just like the brain and the heart are active apart from our managing them. And if it causes something bad, or can be considered a "curse," then I would define it as a spiritual contagion or disease.

What we are deprived of is a clean relationship with God, in which we are free from internal duress to rebel against God's word. In that sense yes, I think it is a privation. But because it is passed on down, it becomes ontologically true of all men, not by choice but by unconscious transmission. It is therefore a spiritual disease. Man stopped being clean man and became, by evolution, unclean man.

There are a lot of lexical technical details, but I’ve tried to make this conversational in a lexcial manner instead.

I get this regularly from my brother, who is also a "lexical" guy. He confesses that he's much more into the language than into the theology. And I agree--the language is very important.

The guilt for Adam and Eve is not rooted in the action they did. It’s rooted in what that action did TO them internally. It abrogated the constant communion with God that is spiritual life (zoe). And in that day they died. They died spiritually and ensured their physical death. It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.

Well, that's certainly logical, but not really how I would phrase it. But then again, I'm not sure how I'd phrase it. I don't believe "faith gives life to the substance of our being." Lacking faith does mean we may be "spiritually dead," but it doesn't mean that with faith we stop being fallen Man.

When gaining faith we still have a Sin Nature, or an inclination to rebel against God's word. We're unclean in our fallen nature, but made clean in our new nature, which is made possible by faith.

Thanks for your ideas. I'm thinking about them...

You and I are at very different places in how we deal with theological topics, which is why I initially didn’t want to respond here.

I was answering the general questions in accord with historical, exegetical, and systematic theology using lexical definitions as the foundation. You seem to be just internally reasoning your way through this. I don’t really have these kinds of conversations. I prefer the objective over the subjective, and the concrete over conjecture. These questions have been answered for a very long time. No need to rehash them from a blank foundation upward. Hamartia indeed means exactly what I posted, so I’m not sure what other clarity you’ll be able to receive.

[CONSPICILLUM]

At this point, I think it would be much more benefitical to just post a thorough summary treatise on Hamartiology, Ponerology, and Thanatology; but I can make a few clarifying points.

Those things do seem to be a start. Out of curiosity, why choose the words hamartiology, ponerology, and thanatology over the more obvious sin, evil, and death? A summary treatise on sin, evil, and death in ~421 words, no less.

Habit, I suppose. Sometimes it would serve to sort out those who do and don’t know what those areas of doctrine are. For example, if someone doesn’t know what a Theodicy is, I doubt they can really provide a decent apologetic that includes evil.

The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.

Sin is hamartia. It comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share/part/place) indicating sin is “the missing share, part, or place”. It’s a privation. As a noun, it’s a somethinglessness rather than a something. It’s only something like a hole or void is a something. So the point about whether it’s a privation or a contagion is a huge point. Sin is the former.

In Greek, hamartia is anarthrous. This means the term in its singular form is primarily referring to the state of being and condition. SinnING is the verb (hamartano), and the resulting acts are sinS (hamartemata). Hamartema/ta (singular and plural) are utilized in the text only 4 times, so the scriptural references to sin are virtually always to the state of being and condition. And this state/condition is devoid of the original share, part, and place (estate) that man originally had in creation.

The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.

During the propagation of a human soul in conception as procreation, the nature of man is dependent upon the qualitative existence of the hypostasis which underlies the ousia and all else. If this hypostasis is not vivified by faith (which is an hypostasis), then spiritual life is not the foundation of human existence. This is the plight of all mankind. We are given physical life while conceived in spiritual death. If not resurrected unto spiritual life in Christ during physical life, then physical death means everlasting spiritual death.

There are a lot of lexical technical details, but I’ve tried to make this conversational in a lexcial manner instead. The guilt for Adam and Eve is not rooted in the action they did. It’s rooted in what that action did TO them internally. It abrogated the constant communion with God that is spiritual life (zoe). And in that day they died. They died spiritually and ensured their physical death. It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.

Early in the thread, I linked to a discussion from Dr Feser regarding original sin as entailing the privation of God's gift(s) (beatific vision, and others). The above seems to be along these lines, but are there any differences between that view and yours? Perhaps pertaining to vivification?

I think Randy has been using 'contagion' language since the '70s, so best of luck.

I don’t know about Feser. I’ll have to go read the article to answer.

Yes, I didn’t really post to convince Randy. I posted to answer the questions. It’s been a while since I’ve been on a forum, so I’ve reverted to teaching mode rather than debate/argue/convince mode.

[RandyPNW]

I think Randy has been using 'contagion' language since the '70s, so best of luck.

No, I've not had to argue sin as a "privation." So I haven't had to resort to the language of "contagion." If your insinuation is that I'm hard-headed and stuck in my ways, I wouldn't agree. I've had a life-time of change. But as soon as I refine my message, I teach it as if I've always believed it.

[IMINXTC]

The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.

Theology often falls short. The core problem remains to be that scripture does not confirm a sin nature.

The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.

Okay. Something is missing in man's fallen state. Where is the scripture that indicates a sin nature?

It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.

(emphasis mine).


Technical wording notwithstanding, this thread has yet to produce a scriptural basis for a sin nature in fallen man.

[RandyPNW]

Technical wording notwithstanding, this thread has yet to produce a scriptural basis for a sin nature in fallen man.

Rom 7.8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting.... 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do... 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me... 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature... 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.

The fact that "fallen man" reproduces "fallen children" indicates a kind of spiritual heredity. It doesn't have to be spelled out in language that we prefer. But in effect, it seems to indicate there is a Sin Nature passed on from generation to generation. It is not just lack of God's presence in our lives from generation to generation, although I think that is true also. What keeps God at a distance is, I think, our contamination with sin, our uncleanness. And even though we can experience redemption through Christ, and receive a new nature, we continue to have the old sinful nature. And that is apparent because we continue to sin even after God comes into our lives, giving us spiritual rebirth.

[RabbiKnife]

I sin because I like it.

More than I like not sinning.

I like me more than I like God.


We are working on that.

[CONSPICILLUM]

The biggest problem in theological expression and discussion is not defining terms or addressing grammatical forms. That’s the core problem here, and indicates that word definitions aren’t understood.

Theology often falls short. The core problem remains to be that scripture does not confirm a sin nature.

The nature of man is the physis. Scripture indicates that there is sin (state/condition) in both the nature and the members. Sin is latently the state of being for man for both ontology (being) and economy (doing). Man’s nature has something missing. Man’s members (of the body) have something missing. What is missing is the righteous standards of God for inward character and outward conduct.

Okay. Something is missing in man's fallen state. Where is the scripture that indicates a sin nature?

It is this spiritual death that is passed to us with the attendant state of being and condition of sin in our nature and members.

(emphasis mine).


Technical wording notwithstanding, this thread has yet to produce a scriptural basis for a sin nature in fallen man.

Lengthy diatribes of subjective opinion notwithstanding, you have yet to define “nature” (physis) and establish what man’s nature even is. It’s in the lexicography and the systematic application of other lexicography. The Patristics and theologians and linguists of the last 2 millennia haven’t been wrong.

[RandyPNW]

I sin because I like it.

More than I like not sinning.

I like me more than I like God.


We are working on that.

Well said! It isn't really funny, but it's strange that we want to do things contrary to our conscience and contrary to our reborn nature. We truly need to learn to put the revelation of God's love above what appears to us to look desirable. That's the issue as I see it.

[RabbiKnife]

My spirit is reborn, my nature remains as Adam’s was in the garden

I’m responsible for my decisions

[CONSPICILLUM]

I sin because I like it.

More than I like not sinning.

I like me more than I like God.


We are working on that.

Well said! It isn't really funny, but it's strange that we want to do things contrary to our conscience and contrary to our reborn nature. We truly need to learn to put the revelation of God's love above what appears to us to look desirable. That's the issue as I see it.

Would you please provide scripture that indicates our nature is reborn?