The Doctrine of the Sin Nature

Response to Pro's 3 Questions from Round 2 Let me begin by answering Pro's questions which he deems problematic for Christians who deny his view of original sin. In answer to Pro's first question concerning how one might reconcile the state of the world today with that of the pre-Fall world, I simply would point to the sinfulness of man since Adam. The Bible records many of the sins of man which have brought about the condition of the world around us today. Pro's second question is similar to the first, and the following answer applies to both: to simply point out the condition of something or of a particular phenomena does not by any means, in and of itself, support any statement or claim concerning the origin or cause for such a condition or phenomena. If I said there are so many more creatures in the ocean, therefore life must have originated in the ocean, my observation in no way would support my claim. Pro's final hypothetical question concerning the possibility of not sinning does not pan out in his favor. If it were not possible for men to abstain from sin and be perfect as God is, then God's commands, reprovings, admonitions, and pleas would be in vain; God would be deceitful for commanding that which could not ultimately be kept; He would be unjust for condemning people for falling short of His perfection if it were impossible for them to maintain such perfection. So I answer your question with a resounding YES, with the qualification that all conscious, accountable men have indeed sinned despite their ability to be perfect, and therefore all are deserving of punishment. Christ came and showed that it was possible, as a man, to be perfect not to teach self-righteousness but to demonstrate God's righteousness which is according to His eternal law written on our hearts. Rebuttal of Pro's Round 3 Claims Pro states, "Con’s description of sin is accurate for PERSONAL SIN. . ." The only biblical type of sin is personal sin. Sin is the transgression of God's law and therefore requires the personal, accountable thought, action or inaction of an individual to be rightfully used in any context. Pro goes on to say, "Original sin is a state, not an act." No scripture supports such an arbitrary definition for sin. Pro seems to believe Romans 5:19 teaches such a contradictory doctrine, but as I have already shown, it in no way teaches men are accounted sinners because of Adam's sin, nor does it at all teach that men have received a fallen sin nature from Adam. If the former be true, then this refutes Pro's claim that, "our sin nature is not an instance of us being 'held accountable,'" and if the latter be true, then as previously stated, men cannot be justly held accountable for actions or thoughts they have no ultimate control over. Pro states, "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." I mostly agree with Pro's statement here except for of course his application to our "spiritual state." Such language is vague and unsupportive of Pro's case. Regardless, Pro states, prior to this explanation, that, "Our diminished capacity to resist sin does not eliminate our free will or responsibility for our actions." Again I ask, in what way is our capacity to resist sin diminished? If I am enslaved, tortured, starved, etc. and then given the opportunity to sin, my accountability and free will capacity is not hindered, affected, or altered in any way. If a soldier comes back from battle with PTSD and goes on a killing rampage in his hometown, his previous battle experiences and his PTSD have not eliminated or affected his accountability nor his capacity to will. Why is such a contradictory and illogical, not to mention heretical, doctrine as that of the doctrine of the sin nature necessary if men remain fully accountable and able to resist sin? Pro states, "When Adam was in the garden, he was unashamed of his nudity and Eve was unabashed in hers because they were filled with grace." Your usage of the word "grace" is vague and seemingly unsupportive. What do you mean by "filled with grace?" They were unashamed because they had not yet eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Pro's claims following this statement are unscriptual and hypothesis-based. Thus far I have argued for the accountability of men for their own personal sins and that no such depraved estate as a sinful nature exists. I have argued from multiple scriptures and from the logical application of said scriptures. Without Pro's wrongly interpreted v.19, his case would otherwise have no support. Again, and I hope finally, I ask Pro, if Adam's original sin has "damned" all men as you say, how can men be justly held accountable?