True, but it's not a sinful nature hence irrelevant to this discussion.Where are you getting these rules?
If spiking your drug resulted in a transmittable defect like cycle-cell anemia, your descendants have cycle-cell anemia whether you or they were complicit or not.
The part where you continue to conveniently ignore my clear example of Christ's food being spiked sans sinful nature.What part of "it's not about what you did, it's about what you inherited" do you not get?
You're missing the point. This isn't a semantic debate - we're not merely quibbling over terminology.Then call it fallen nature. "Sinful nature" simply means disposed to self and self-rule rather than to God and God's rule.
Inherited, altered--see the dictionary for their definitions.@Clare73
Furthermore you can't just arbitrarily toss around terms like "inherited" or "altered human nature" without explaining precisely what that means
In birth, the same way we get all inherited traits.and how it happens. How precisely do we get the taint?
Yet the spirit of the person is dead--without eternal (God's own) life.Every time God creates a new soul, it is by nature pure
Does a holy God take it on himself to taint our spirit with death?Does a holy God take it upon Himself to taint it with a sinful nature?
A holy God fosters a spirit in a state of death - and then condemns it for not being raised from spiritual death through faith?A holy God fosters sin - and then punishes the sinner?
As long as it is not a futile how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-straight-pin type conversation.Whatever is your position, be specific. No points are granted here for incoherent gibberish.
And you know this, how?You're missing the point. This isn't a semantic debate - we're not merely quibbling over terminology.
(1) A lion who attacks Christ is NOT offensive to God (because the lion's violent disposition wasn't complicitly engendered).
(2) A real sinful nature IS offensive to God.
What you have described - a non-complicitly received disposition - is NOT offensive to God.
Let's see how this pans out, shall we? Jesus was born with a disposition inoffensive to God, and thus did not suffer radical separation from Him. Meaning that, just as Moses spoke with God face to face, so did Christ, and even more so.
The upshot is that if we have no offensive nature, we'd enjoy the same privileges from birth, we'd walk with Him face to face, as Adam did in the Garden prior to the Fall, up until his judgment:
"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden" (Gen 3).
Then you're talking about genetic/biological inheritance. (Sigh) I've addressed that several times on this thread. Suppose the carpenter Christ injures Himself and goes to a hospital. The surgeon utilizes a new technique that alters His genetics/biology. Is that a sinful nature?In birth, the same way all inherited traits are acquired.
We are not debating whether the Bible speaks of a sinful nature. We are debating which theology is consistent with that claim. Yours is not.I don't have to know how God creates souls, nor in what state they are, nor if they are altered in order to receive and believe what the Word of God written reveals regarding the nature of man and the nature of his spirit at birth.
No, you're assuming that you were non-complicit. My theory of Adam says you WERE complicit. My theory is the only one that works - you just don't want to admit it.My non-complicit received disposition is
hostile to God,
does not submit to his law,
cannot submit to his law,
cannot please God,
finds foolish the things that come from the Spirit of God, etc.
And that is not a real sin nature which is offensive to a holy God?
You gotta' be kidding.
@Clare73,
If your position is cogent, why do you keep running away from clear examples? Such as the example I gave of a surgeon influencing Christ's genetics/biology?
I "run away" from erroneous postulations.Then you're talking about genetic/biological inheritance. (Sigh) I've addressed that several times on this thread. Suppose the carpenter Christ injures Himself and goes to a hospital. The surgeon utilizes a new technique that alters His genetics/biology. Is that a sinful nature?
Of course not. As Donald Bloesch noted:
(1) You cannot plausibly define the sinful nature biologically/genetically.
(2) Transmission is insoluble/inexplicable on traditional assumptions.
He was honest enough to admit it. Why can't you be equally forthcoming?
We are not debating whether the Bible speaks of a sinful nature. We are debating which theology is consistent with that claim. Yours is not.
(Sigh) Again, you are a soul within a body. I never said that soul and body are the same thing.I "run away" from erroneous postulations.
Your assumption of one or the other, biology or spirit, is erroneous.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my position, so feel free to run, run, run - I'll be running alongside you, probably ahead of you.Paul clearly shows there are two laws (principles) operating in the one regenerated human being,
mind (spirit) and flesh (members of my body), operating in tandem (Ro 7:21-23).
Paul locates the operation of sin in the natural--body, flesh.
What is this need to improve on God's revelation regarding the matter?
What more do we need to know?
What is this need to take it ad infinitum?
Biology (material) and spirit (non-material) cannot be separated in the operation
of the earthly human being.
No correct conclusion can be derived from your erroneous premise, it makes no sense; therefore,
no conclusion will be pursued by me, rather I will "run away" from it, put as much daylight between it and me as I can.
On what authority do you presume your biased interpretations to be authoritative?On what authority do you seek to improve the God-breathed (theo neustos--expired, rather than "inspired"--2Tim 3:16) Holy Scriptures?
Let's revisit the beginning of this particular bunny trail of the last 60+ posts.That's a definition of the taint. You haven't explained how we get it.
Look, it's a logical impossibility. Anything that happens to me cannot be called a sinful nature because sin is a volitional concept. I must be complicit. Thus the notion of "transmitted taint" is an oxymoron - it's a contradiction in terms.
That's like saying a lion is complicit because he continues to execute his inherited disposition.Let's revisit the beginning of this particular bunny trail of the last posts.
In God's world, you are complicit if you agree with it by continuing to do it yourself (Lk 11:50-51), explained in the analogy of the Anthropos family business based in our own law.
This whole premise of me not being responsible for a debt I did not knowingly choose is contra-Biblical. . . . . .continuiing. . .
You're contradicting yourself again. So if I DON'T comply with sin, then I DON'T have a sinful nature? I'm thus reckoned unto God by my own behavior and thus NOT by Adamic representation/imputation?Let's revisit the beginning of this particular bunny trail of the last 60+ posts.
In God's world, you are complicit in it if you agree with it, by continuing to do it yourself (Lk 11:50-51), explained in the analogy of the Anthropos family business based in our own law.
Again, don't shove a human-system injustice down my throat. In real justice, ignorance IS an excuse, hence refusal to pay is non-incriminating.This whole premise of me not being responsible for a debt I did not knowingly choose is contra-Biblical, including responsibility for involuntary incurrence of debt:
If the Anthropos sons do not want to pay the fine for the code violations occurring at the construction of the old building by their forefathers, but only recently recognized, they get to do so involuntarily, just as those who suffered the destruction of Jerusalem did so involuntarily.
That is precisely what Jesus presents in Lk 11:50-51, and what I have demonstrated from our own legal system in my analogy of the Anthropos family business (post #511).That's like saying a lion is complicit because he continues to execute his inherited disposition.
Precisely. . .it is God who "has bound all men (Jew as well as Gentile) over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all (Gentile as well as Jew)".You yourself admitted - at the outset of this bunny trail - that
our sinful disposition is insurmountable, at least until God rescues us.
It makes total sense in the only way that matters--in God's NT written revelation.Any way you look at it, your position doesn't make sense.
Your conflating "nature" of Adam with "guilt" of Adam, both due to Adam's sin.You're contradicting yourself again. So if I DON'T comply with sin, then I DON'T have a sinful nature?
You're conflatingI'm thus reckoned unto God by my own behavior and thus NOT by Adamic representation/imputation?
Paul's revelation received in the third heaven reveals that in God's justice (Ro 1:18-32)In real justice, ignorance IS an excuse, hence refusal to pay is non-incriminating.
(Sigh). Those distinctions have always been perfectly clear to me. You're just turning this into a nitpick-my-every-word smokescreen. Not sure whom you think you're fooling.Your conflating "nature" of Adam with "guilt" of Adam, both due to Adam's sin.
That I don't comply with a particular sin simply means I am not guilty of that particular sin.
It doesn't mean I don't have a fallen (sinful) nature.
I have a fallen nature not because it is imputed to me, but because I inherited it
from my father, Adam. (non-complicity)
It's Adam's condemnation that is imputed to me (not his nature), justifiably so
because I am in agreement with the disobedience to God that caused his condemnation,
as demonstrated in my own disobedience to God (complicity).
You're conflating
fallen nature of Adam--resulting from Adam's sin and inherited by man, non-complicit, with
guilt (condemnation) of Adam--imputed to man from Adam's guilt (condemnation), complicit,
the cause of both being Adam's sin.
Adam's guilt/condemnation (imputed) <== SIN ==> Adam's fallen nature (inherited)
---------------------------------complicity <== SIN ==> non-complicity-----------------------
Please. . .stop darkening God's counsel without knowledge (Job 42:3).
Don't shove human-system injustice down my throat.Do you live in the U.S.?
In the US., "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Surely you aren't saying you are morally above the law, as well as the Word of God written.
In the words of the song, "say it isn't so."
I did not know that.(Sigh). Those distinctions have always been perfectly clear to me.
What doesn't make sense to me is making a big deal over the parking ticket when the cop has a roll of bills and a stack of stamped return envelopes which he is authorized to give out for payment of the fine.You're just turning this into a nitpick-my-every-word smokescreen. Not sure whom you think you're fooling.
My argument stands, namely that it doesn't make sense to brand an inherited disposition as something sinful, that is, offensive to God.
I was hoping to hear you "say it isn't so."Don't shove human-system injustice down my throat.
I understand that Imputation/Representation is your misreading of the Scriptures. Why are you so loyal to an interpretation that makes God look like a liar and an evil jerk? Do you WANT to feel ashamed on judgment day? Declaring 100 billion innocent people "guilty as charged" is LYING. And you see this as the correct reading of the Scriptures? You're joking, right?I did not know that.
So you have a clear understanding of God's revelation regarding
imputed guilt (condemnation), and the "flesh" ("fallen nature") -- Good!
But you reject it because it doesn't suit your sensibilities -- Not good.
Because it is the God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) Word of God written, revealed to Paul in the third heaven.I understand that Imputation/Representation is your misreading of the Scriptures.
Why are you so loyal to an interpretation that makes God look like a liar and an evil jerk?
Firstly, you haven't even attempted to show from the NT how that reading is incorrect.Do you WANT to feel ashamed on judgment day? Declaring 100 billion innocent people "guilty as charged" is LYING. And you see this as the correct reading of the Scriptures? You're joking, right?
It's not about failure to understand, it's about failure to correspond to NT revelation.Getting back to the latest issue. Again, if a physician infused the incarnate Christ with behavior-modifying medication, or a genetic-altering surgical procedure, causing Him to be irritable or even much worse, would it count as a sinful nature? No, because He wasn't complicit in those side-effects. Why is this so hard to understand?
Right. To summarize your "argument", your position is, "My Doctrine of God is correct (even though it contradicts love and justice) because I am the authority on the Word".Because it is the God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) Word of God written, revealed to Paul in the third heaven.
Nor have you shown from the NT how it is a misreading.
Firstly, you haven't even attempted to show from the NT how that interpretation is incorrect.
Secondly, my understanding of Scripture is not governed by human sentiment, but by the God-breathed (2Tim 3;16) Word of God written, revealed to Paul in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-7).
It's not about failure to understand, it's about failure to correspond to NT revelation.
NT revelation is the fulfillment and completion of OT revelation, and is the light in which all OT revelation is to be understood.
Your analogy is refuted by the NT God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) Word of God written, revealed to Paul in the third heaven, which refutation you haven't even attempted to show from the NT is incorrect.
Until you show from the NT how the refutation of your analogy is incorrect, we're just going 'round and 'round the same ole bush.
We have now arrived at our opposing premises:
your understanding of Scripture is governed by human sentiment,
my understanding of Scripture is governed by NT revelation,
which opposing premises do not allow for the resolving of our differences.
