The Doctrine of the Sin Nature

Con utterly fails to answer the three questions I posed in R2. Genesis tells us that man, God, and nature lived in harmony at the beginning of the world. God says the world is “good” - God notes no deficiency or flaw in his creation. But the world around is clearly deficient. Con’s only response is that man has been sinful since Adam, but this does not answer the question of WHY man has been sinful since Adam. Sin is against reason. The creation deemed “good” be God should act in accordance with reason and avoid sin; this was God's plan. Some rare men might sin, but governance of reason would result in trust and obedience in God. Instead, we see a world ravaged by sin- man is incapable of submitting temptation to reason. Con simply dodges the question “why do all men sin?” All phenomena have an explanation. Con’s argument about sea creatures is a non-sequitur and has nothing to do with my case. The fact that all men sin is incompatible with the perfection of creation described in Genesis- we require some explanation for why man today does not resemble pre-Fall man. The pervasiveness of sin is incompatible with man created in God’s image. We require some explanation. Con says it would be unjust for God to make a command we can not keep. It is logically conceivable for man to abstain from personal sin, but his sinful nature makes it exceedingly improbable. It is possible for us to live without sin, but despite the guidance of reason which urges us against sin, billions of people over thousands of years have all succumbed to temptation. One would expect that if man were born without a sinful nature, at least ONE person would have managed not to sin. Only a sinful nature, a nature which has left our will weakened but not captive, explains the pervasiveness of sin. Con simply concedes that it is logically possible for man to be saved without Jesus; he only says that all men have sinned so this hasn’t happened. This is the most unbiblical thing in this debate! We know that the only way to salvation is through Jesus: “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) Jesus didn’t say "no man yet born," he said NO MAN. If man is born without sin, it is logically possible that some men do not need Jesus for salvation. Original sin is what necessitates the sacrifice of Jesus for our salvation. Before the Fall, Adam lived in a state of grace- he would not have needed Jesus. But Adam’s sin condemned all humanity, necessitating universal salvation. Denial of original sin is denial of the need for universal salvation. Jesus did more than show humanity how to live, he died on the cross in penance for the sins of humanity. Rebuttal to Con’s R3: Con simply asserts that the only biblical type of sin is personal sin, but Romans speaks of universal sin, I will rest my case on that in addition to the description of the Fall in Genesis. Additionally, the symmetry of Christ’s salvation and the universal sin of Adam supports the idea of original sin- see my argument 5) in R2. Pro asks in what way our capacity to resist sin has been diminished- I have answered him by way of analogy. Our capacity to resist temptation is diminished by fear and hunger; in a similar way our capacity to resist sin is diminished by the loss of Adam’s original grace. Con concedes that our accountability and free will is not harmed by fear and hunger. My argument is thus: P1. Biological factors diminish our ability to resist temptation. P2. Biological factors do not destroy moral accountability or free will C1. Diminished ability to resist temptation does not destroy moral accountability or free will. P3. Our sin nature diminishes our ability to resist temptation. C2. Sin nature does not destroy moral accountability or free will. I argue that our sin nature does not compel us to sin, it only diminishes our ability to resist temptation. Where temptation was subordinate to Adam’s reason, post-Fall man is unable to properly subordinate temptation to reason. But just as None of my argument is incompatible with Con’s claims that men are accountable for their personal sins none his citation of passages such as Ezekiel. Con’s entire case relies on mistakenly asserting that passages which speak to to the nature of personal sin are in fact addressed at fundamental truths about the nature of man. At the same time, Con seeks to dismiss the very plain language or Romans: “For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners” There is no tension between Ezekiel and Romans. Romans is specifically addressing the relationship between Adam, humanity, and Jesus while Ezekiel is speaking about the laws of Moses. In conclusion I will respond to Con’s final question: “If Adam's original sin has "damned" all men as you say, how can men be justly held accountable?” Adam condemned all humanity but Jesus’ sacrifice offer salvation to all. Man still has the freedom to spurn the offer of salvation- those who sin and do not repent will be held accountable.