The Doctrine of the Sin Nature

Pro states, "Man lost his special relationship with God and doomed himself to a weakened state. The sin nature is a loss of grace- an inability to perfectly sublimate his desires to reason and the law of God. The sin nature is the weakened state of man." This is a statement based on hypothetical reasoning and not based on scripture itself. Genesis, and all of scripture for that matter, does not even remotely hint at what Pro has claimed. Pro states, "I do not agree with Pro's [Con's] description of sin nature; his description is a strawman." What part of my description do you deem a "strawman?" I'm quite sure Pro's statements concerning sin nature fall within the definition domain of my description. Pro states, "Only through man’s fall from grace can we understand that our world is not the world before the Fall." On the contrary, we understand the pre-Fall world because of revelation from holy scripture itself. Regardless, this statement does not support Pro's main thesis in any way as it again is a hypothetical claim based on Pro's theological preconceptions. Pro states, " Unlike personal sin, original sin is not a personal fault earned by an individual but a state of being inherited by virtue of Adam’s loss of grace." As I was sure of, Pro's idea of sin nature falls precisely within the bounds of my description. People sin because of a corrupted nature, according to Pro's view, and therefore cannot be justly condemned for their actions, inactions or thoughts, rather, their sins are a product of their natural inborn estate, not a derivative of their own personal fault. Pro's argument clearly falls apart through basic logical deduction. Either God is unjust in condemning sinners, or Pro is wrong. Men are either directly responsible for their sins, or they are not, their is no middle ground. Pro states, "Original sin does not bind the will of man. We are free to make our own decisions, and we all are able to refuse the temptation of sin." In a poor attempt to reconcile Pro's obvious logical contradiction, he posits that man is still able refuse sin, then what role does sin nature play? Why is it necessary to explain the sinfulness of man? Pro goes on to state that, "Our capacity to resist sin is diminished, but not destroyed." What does this mean? If our will is not in some way bound to our fallen nature, in Pro's view, then in what way is our capacity to resist sin diminished? Clearly it cannot be both. Pro states, ". . .still the temptation of sin does exist, and therein is the evidence of our sin nature. Our sin nature results in the constant temptation that all humanity is subject to, it is the cause of the eternal battle of good and evil over the soul of man." Pro utilizes the reality of temptation as an evidence for his case, but in doing so he unwittingly accuses Jesus of having a sinful nature. Matthew 4 and Hebrews 2:18 clearly indicate that Jesus was tempted, but he was without sin because He overcame those temptations. God has given us desires for food, comfort, etc. It is not desire itself that is the cause of sin but rather the willful misappropriation of said divinely prescribed natural desires; the misuse of what God has given man. Pro states, ". . .our sin nature is not an instance of us being 'held accountable' but of our inherited separation from God and lack of grace." While Pro's claims are clearly an unbiblical usage of such phrases, his assurance that men are not held accountable for Adam's sin does not remove the fallacy of his overall argument in that men remain unaccountable for their sins if a natural inborn precondition weakens, in any way, their capacity to will. Pro's emphasis of Romans 5:19, in a seeming attempt to support his case, is refuted by Pro himself when he previously stated that men can choose to resist temptation. If men have the capacity to willfully resist or give-in to the temptations of sin, then they cannot be accounted sinners because of Adam's orginal sin. Again, we see that it is painfully clear, either men have an unguided will and are thus accountable for their sins, or they have a will guided by their inherent sinful nature and are thus not accountable for their sins. Pro cannot have it both ways. Regardless, if this is indeed how Pro intended to use v. 5:19, we must consider the parallel being made. To determine the meaning of "many were made sinners" we must consider how it is "many be made righteous." From scripture we recognize that men are made righteous by believing in the propitiatory shed blood of the righteous Christ as the atonement and payment for their sins (Romans 3:24-26). Therefore all men are not automatically accounted righteous by virtue of being human but rather must follow Christ in faith to obtain imputation of the righteousness of Christ (Romans 4:24). Likewise men are not accounted sinners by virtue of being Adam's descendants, but rather must follow Adam in disobedience to obtain the imputation of sin (Romans 4:6-8). Out of space. . .