The Doctrine of the Sin Nature

Con’s description of sin is accurate for PERSONAL SIN and is totally compatible with my account of original sin. Original sin is not identical with personal sin, it is analogous to it. Original sin is a state, not an act. This state IS capable of being transmitted from person to person, as Paul says in his letter to the Romans. Original sin is not just man’s diminished capacities, but also his lack of grace and separation from God. Genesis shows us that Adam lost his innate intimacy with God. Nothing about sin “originating from the heart/mind of man” or not being a physical substance is incompatible with the claim that original sin has been passed down from Adam. We have inherited the deprivation of grace Adam incurred by disobeying God. Our diminished capacity to resist sin does not eliminate our free will or responsibility for our actions. We all know that certain biological states make us more vulnerable to sin. When we are hungry and tired we are more likely to be callous or cruel, we are more likely to shirk our obligations. In the same way, our spiritual state can make us more or less vulnerable to sin. When we are close to God and filled with grace, we are more capable of resisting sin. When Adam was in the garden, he was unashamed of his nudity and Eve was unabashed in hers because they were filled with grace. Their bodies did not constantly tempt them and so they had no shame After the Fall, their bodies became a burden- lust and hunger that were previously governed by reason became constant urges to sin. Man found this shameful and hid himself from God. Claiming that man’s diminished capacity to resist sin eliminates responsibility for his actions is like claiming a man who murders because he is hungry is not responsible for his actions. Our will is influenced by many factors, but so long as we have the ability to choose our actions we are morally responsible. Con claims God would be unjust to condemn sins that are a product of a deprived estate. But men who are lphysicalllly deprived of estate- i.e. born in poverty- are much more likely to commit crimes/sin. Surely God holds these men accountable for their actions, even though their sins are in part caused by their deprivation of physical estate. But again, the infinite gift of salvation for Jesus renders untenable any claim that original sin is incompatible with justice. Con claims that I accuse Jesus of having a sinful nature by claiming that original sin is the cause of temptation. But this is not my claim! The pervasiveness of sin is evidence of our fallen nature and our diminished capacity to resist temptation. Temptation clearly exists regardless of original sin since Adam was tempted by Satan. Since sin is against reason, we need an explanation for why all men sin. The explanation is that man lost the grace that allowed him to keep temptation subordinate to his reason- Jesus had this grace and so overcame temptation. Please note that Con didn't answer the questions I posed in my opening round. If we are born without sin then couldn’t some people be saved without Jesus’ sacrifice? Con’s entire case rests on the false dilemma fallacy that: Man’s will is totally uninfluenced by our nature; or Man’s will is determined by his nature He ignores the reality of life, which is that man’s will is influenced but not determined by his nature. But we need not worry about these philosophical difficultes as Paul plainly says “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” Con must jump through hoops to argue this line away. He claims the phrase doesn’t actually mean that men were made sinners, but that men are not automatically saved. Paul's language is plain, unlike Con's convoluted restructuring. The context of the passage does not support Con’s claim. Paul says “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation," setting up a dichotomy between the sin of Adam which damned all humanity by destroying the innate grace of man and the gift of Jesus which saved all humanity. Paul repeatedly ascribes the plight of humanity to Adam. Con is in denial to claim that “men were made sinners” actually means “men are not automatically accounted righteous.” Note that this passage is specifically referencing the sin of Adam, while Con largely relies on passages directed at other topics- the Ezekiel passage he cites is not about Adam or original sin. Con’s citation of Ezekiel concerns, again, personal sin. It speaks to our moral responsiblities for our actions but it does not speak to the uniqueness of the first sin. Con himself acknowledges that Ezekiel is specifically addressing the laws of Moses but claims it is relevant because it speaks to God’s justice and equality. I have shown that original sin is consistent with God’s justice and equality. God offers forgiveness and salvation from the universal sin incurred by Adam. Jesus’ gift of salvation far exceeds the deprivation of grace of original sin, thus we cannot claim that God is unjust.