One Died For All

[JAL]

I find its principle comporting with our own laws which, in some cases, do hold men personally responsible for debt they did not personally incur. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

I don't recall that you provided a valid example of people born into debt without any voluntary consent. Also debt is not sin. It's possible to enjoy a very high standard of living without ever being debt-free - many people have done so for decades.

You're just begging the whole question of the Problem of Evil - if debt will cause unjust suffering to an innocent person, why doesn't an omnibenovelent God preemptively fix it? Can't He afford to?

My answer: if we sinned volitionally in Adam, as my theory of Adam explains, it is NOT unjust suffering. It is suffering that we brought down on our own heads.

Okay, that's not about reincarnation.
John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah (Lk 1:17),
announcing a spiritual kingdom of spiritual power, if you accept it (Mt 11:14-15),
a parallel of Elijah (Mt 17:13, 15) whose work (John's work) Jesus (Joshua) came to finish,
as Elisha came to finish Elijah's work.

Overlooks a key principle of sound exegesis - linguistic precedent. Nobody talks that way. I've never heard someone say, "Go forth and preach in the spirit and power of pastor Bob" connoting "spiritually" as you say. We DO have precedent for the term "spirit" literally referring to a specific soul, in this case Elijah. That's NORMAL USAGE in Scripture.

When hermeneutics ignores the principle of linguistic precedent, exegesis becomes chaotic. The exegete can literally make the Bible say anything they want it to say.

Also, NORMAL USAGE is the default position in cases of ambiguity. Or, as some people put it, "We interpret the unclear passages in light of the clear ones."

Yes, what was difficult to accept was not reincarnation, but that the kingdom was not earthly,
and was entered only through faith in Jesus (Jn 3:16, 38).

Totally unconnoted in the statement. Grasping at straws is NOT exegesis.

Following his own laws. .

While contradicting one of His laws. Lovely. Why not opt for a consistent position, like I did?

And yet, Paul, who received his revelation in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-9), presents it so
(Ro 5:12-14) when he informs that the death of those from Adam to Moses was the result of sin,
even when sin was not accounted to them because there was no law to sin against.
You can't get around Paul's revelation there, and its basis for his revelation of
Adam's sin being imputed to all his descendants.

Sin is always accounted. You don't need to hear a specific law/command from God's voice, as Adam did, to be under God's law. Take a look at Romans chapters 1 and 2. Example:

"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law... (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."

Paul seems to affirm in Romans 5 that IF there were no law - not even law in the sense of conscience - we'd all be innocent.

"Sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law" (verse 13).

I don't see why you think this passage is a problem for me. And personally I don't find verses 13 and 14 particularly lucid anyway. Not the best way to build a water-tight case.

 

[JAL]

The glory due God is more important than the salvation of men.

Only if God is a jerk. Why would an infinitely self-sufficient God need glory from us? He wouldn't and thus would be a jerk to demand it at the expense of 100 billion innocent people.

Again, the Problem of Evil isn't merely about what God is ALLOWED to do. It is about maximum kindness, also known as omnibenevolence. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For example, one solution is to claim that God is NOT perfectly benevolent - perhaps He is quite selfish. Trouble is, then you have to reconcile that claim with Scripture. Good luck with THAT endeavor.

 

[Clare73]

In post #546

God changes? He's not the same yesterday, today, and forever? You're not getting it. God's holiness isn't changing. His values don't change. The definition of justice doesn't change. Your way of dealing with Ezekiel 18 is to claim that God's justice changed? Next you're going to tell me that His definition of love changed? It's no longer a matter of kindness?

No, God doesn't change, and examination of Ex 20:5 and Eze 18:14-17 shows such.

First, we begin with Adam, whose sin of disobedience to God's command (law) caused his death,
and all mankind has been subject to death ever since.

In Ex 20, when God gave the law to Moses, he attached sin and its punishment to disobedience of the law. In Ex 20:5, he declared that he restricted punishment for the sin of the fathers to those children who hated and disobeyed him, who continued to sin as their fathers.

In Eze 18:17, God declared he does not punish for the sin of their fathers the children who love and obey him, because they do not continue to sin as their fathers did (vv.14-16).
Ex 20:5 and Eze 18:14-17 are in harmony.

In Ro 5:12-21, Paul reveals what he received in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-7).
He goes to Ex 20, where sin was attached to the law (Ex 20:5), and where God's restricted punishment for the sin of the fathers is only to those children who continued the sin of their fathers,
to demonstrate that, since sin was not attached to the law until Sinai, prior to that time
(from Adam to Moses), sin was not taken into account because there was no law to sin against.
But death is through sin, and death came to all men (v.12), so all men sinned.
But sin is not taken into account where there is no law, and yet death came to all men?
So what sin caused the death of those between Adam and Moses who had not sinned against the Law?
Paul reveals it was the trespass of Adam, we all die by the trespass of Adam (v.15),
because we all continue in Adam's sin of disobedience.

Ro 5:12-21 is in agreement with Ex 20:5, which is in harmony with Eze 18:17.

Ro 5:12-21 => Ex 20:5 <= Eze 18:14-17.
Two things in agreement with the same thing are in agreement with each other.

Thus the alleged conflict between Eze 18:14-17 and Ro 5:12-21 is resolved.

 

[JAL]

No, God doesn't change, and examination of Ex 20:5 and Eze 18:14-17 shows such.

First, we begin with Adam, whose sin of disobedience to God's command (law) caused his death,
and all mankind has been subject to death ever since.

In Ex 20, when God gave the law to Moses, he attached sin and its punishment to disobedience of the law. In Ex 20:5, he declared that he restricted punishment for the sin of the fathers to those children who hated and disobeyed him, who continued to sin as their fathers.

In Eze 18:17, God declared he does not punish for the sin of their fathers the children who love and obey him, because they do not continue to sin as their fathers did (vv.14-16).
Ex 20:5 and Eze 18:14-17 are in agreement.

In Ro 5:12-15, Paul returns to Ex 20 to demonstrate that, since sin was attached to the law at Sinai,
prior to that time sin was not taken into account because there was no law to sin against.
But death is through sin, and death came to all men (v.12), so all men sinned.
But since sin is not taken into account where there is no law, and death came to all men,
then what sin caused their death?
It was the trespass of Adam, we all died by the trespass of Adam (v.15).

Ro 5:12-21 is in agreement with Ex 20:5, which is in agreement with Eze 18:17.

Ro 5:12-21 => Ex 20:5 <= Eze 18:14-17.
Two things in agreement with the same thing are in agreement with each other.

Thus the alleged conflict between Eze 18:14-17 and Ro 5:12-21 is resolved.

I am not following your argument. I don't think Ex 20:5 is the top priority. If you can first establish how Adam made us guilty, then Ex 20:5 falls under that guilt-umbrella as already noted.

Ezekiel 18 says that the child shall not suffer for the sins of his father. Yet representation claims that Adam's children SHOULD suffer for his sins. That's the conflict, and I don't see where you've resolved it.

Your dispensational claims are dubious - I personally think that dispensationalism is nonsense. To suggest, for example, as you did, that:

"prior to that time sin was not taken into account because there was no law to sin against"

flies in the face of Noah's flood. Again, I cited Romans 1 and 2 to remind you that the law of conscience is ALWAYS in effect.

In Eze 18:17, God declared he does not punish for the sin of their fathers the children who love and obey him, because they do not continue to sin as their fathers did (vv.14-16).

Huh? That verse - and the whole chapter - is a long winded statement to the effect that:
(1) A child shouldn't be punished if he lives uprightly
(2) he certainly shouldn't suffer for his father's sins

Look, it's tautological - the chapter is merely reaffirming the human concept of justice. ALL of us know that's how justice should work. He who does wrong should be punished, he who does right should be exonerated, even if his father was evil. It's not complicated.

Representation/Imputation violates that simple, self-evidenct concept of justice. THAT's the conflict with Ezek 18 and I'm just not following your rationale for touting resolution of it.

At this point I'd like to mention three noted scholars in Reformed theology - three scholars who, like you, held to Representation/Imputation based on Romans 5.

John Murray
S. Lewis Johnson
G.C. Berkouwer - author of the church-dogmatics volume "Sin"​

The first 2 wrote articles reviewing the 600 page book "Sin". Here's what they claim in their reviews. They claimed that Berkouwer was the most erudite scholar, exegete, theologian in the history of the world - exceeding in sheer acumen and genius even the renowned Karl Barth. Literally they devoted entire pages describing their complete awe of this man. But both men concluded that he could find no valid defense for Representation/Imputation - he couldn't resolve the apparent contradictions and injustice involved. All three men were in agreement that the problem of Adam, even today, still seems insoluble on traditional assumptions. Here's a quote from one of the articles. S. Lewis Johnson summarized:

"Berkouwer has shrewdly pointed out the weaknesses of both realism and federalism, but as John Murray has commented, ‘Berkouwer is not successful in providing a fruitful alternative’” (S. Lewis Johnson, “G. C. Berkouwer and the Doctrine of Original Sin,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 132:528 (1975), pp. 316-26).

Given that the most erudite Christian theologian in world history found himself baffled on this issue, you will hopefully understand my skepticism of your claim that you just solved it. Just say'n...

 

[Clare73]

I am not following your argument. I don't think Ex 20:5 is the top priority.

Eze 18:14-17 is in harmony with Ex 20:5.

If you can establish how Adam made us guilty, then Ex 20:5 falls under that guilt-umbrella

Biblically, you've got it upside down.
Adam making us guilty does not cause Ex 20:5 itself to fall under the "guilt-umbrella."
Rather, it is Ex 20:5 itself that causes us, to be put under Adam's guilt, because we continue in Adam's sin of disobedience.

Your dispensational claims are dubious - I personally think that dispensationalism is nonsense.

I couldn't agree more regarding dispensationalism.

In Eze 18:17, God declared he does not punish for the sin of their fathers the children who love and obey him, because they do not continue to sin as their fathers did (vv.14-16).

Huh? That verse - and the whole chapter - is a long winded statement to the effect that:
(1) A child shouldn't be punished if he lives uprightly
(2) he certainly shouldn't suffer for his father's sins

And in Ex 20:5, a child doesn't suffer punishment for his father's sins if he lives uprightly.

In Ro 5:12-21, Paul reveals what he received in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-7).
He goes to Ex 20, where sin was attached to the law (Ex 20:5), and where God's restricted punishment for the sin of the fathers is only to those children who continued the sin of their fathers,
to demonstrate that, since sin was not attached to the law until Sinai, prior to that time
(from Adam to Moses), sin was not taken into account because there was no law to sin against.
But death is through sin, and death came to all men (v.12), so all men sinned.
But sin is not taken into account where there is no law, and yet death came to all men?
So what sin caused the death of those between Adam and Moses who had not sinned against the Law?
Paul reveals it was the trespass of Adam. . .we all die by the trespass of Adam (v.15),
because we all continue in Adam's sin of disobedience.

Paul's revelation, being from the third heaven, transcends in truth and authority any and all opinions of men, no matter how many men, nor how illustrious their reputations.
.

 

[JAL]

You keep regurgitating needless truisms.

Eze 18:14-17 is in harmony with Ex 20:5.

Truism. Of course they are in harmony. Who said the Bible is a bunch of contradictions? The question is which theologies can account for that harmony with coherence and without contradictin.

First, we begin with Adam, whose sin of disobedience to God's command (law) caused his death,
and all mankind has been subject to death ever since.

Truism. Where have I denied that everything hinged on Adam? The question is whether Adam's role was representational (your view) or corporately volitional (my view).

In Ro 5:12-21, Paul reveals what he received in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-7).

Relevance? What has the third heaven got to do with anything? You seem to be rambling.

He goes to Ex 20, where sin was attached to the law (Ex 20:5), and where God's restricted punishment for the sin of the fathers is only to those children who continued the sin of their fathers, to demonstrate that, since sin was not attached to the law until Sinai, prior to that time
(from Adam to Moses), sin was not taken into account because there was no law to sin against.

I already refuted that twice. Both before, during, and after Mosaic law, sin is ALWAYS attached to us via the law of conscience. Consider Noah's generation, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc - all these people suffered judgment for sin apart from Mosaic law. You claim to repudiate dispensationalism but that's precisely what you've fallen into - the notion that God's system of justice changes from generation to generation.

You've misunderstood Romans 5. God has never sanctioned a nihilism or anarchy where sin goes unaccounted for lack of any laws. Every violation of conscience - every idle word - will be accounted for at the judgment seat of Christ.

Let me make it simple for you - the authority of conscience is the ONLY law. I have entire threads on this fact. Thus when Moses gave explicit laws to Israel, the Spirit had to convict/convince the conscience of the people to accept those laws as truth, because God can't expect people to obey Moses if they don't believe him. "Belief" and "Conscience" are basically synonyms.

Biblically, you've got it backwards.
Adam making us guilty does not cause Ex 20:5 to fall under the "guilt-umbrella."
Ex 20:5 puts us under Adam's guilt because we continue in Adam's sin of disobedience.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you claim that Adam's sin incriminated us, and now you claim that our own sin brought us into condemnation. And that would be one heck of a pickle. Let me get this straight - God cruelly allows a sinful nature to befall 100 billion innocent people and then punishes them for sinning? Isn't such a malicious God the one meriting punishment?

But death is through sin, and death came to all men (v.12), so all men sinned.
But sin is not taken into account where there is no law, and yet death came to all men?
So what sin caused their death? Paul reveals it was the trespass of Adam. . .we all die by the trespass of Adam (v.15)....

You begin with a huge truism - irrelevant because we both already agree that Adam was pivotal. But then you draw a conclusion:

....because we all continue in Adam's sin of disobedience.

Here again contradicting yourself. You just said:
(1) We all die by the trespass of Adam (as if Adam's sin originally incriminated us)
(2) because we all continue in Adam's sin (as if our own sin is the real culprit).

So by #2 you mean that if I had lived righteously (which is impossible since you believe I got a sinful nature from Adam), I would be innocent? So I am punished only for my own volitional sin? In that case you've abandoned Representation/Imputation !!!

You're talking in circles.

I don't plan to continue on this topic indefinitely. It's become quite clear that you don't have a real solution, and I already referenced three top-notch scholars on the insolubility of the problem. So I'm not finding this conversation terribly productive.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73

And that's not even to mention ANOTHER problem - a problem which Donald Bloesch admitted to be insoluble on traditional assumptions, namely the question as to how the sinful taint is TRANSMITTED from Adam to us. As Bloesch noted, biological/genetic "explanations" don't make sense. In my ontology it's not even an issue - for me, there is no transmission, we are sinful in nature because we ARE the Adam who sinned.

 

[Clare73]

I don't recall that you provided a valid example of people born into debt without any voluntary consent.

The Anthropos son volunteered to continue the family business, not knowing at the time about the
to-be-discovered structural defect in the building, which obligated him to a debt for which he would not have volunteered had he known several years earlier.

Also debt is not sin.

Sin incurs debt to the justice of God, just as a speeding ticket incurs debt to the court in the name of justice under the law.

Sin is always accounted. You don't need to hear a specific law/command from God's voice, as Adam did, to be under God's law. Take a look at Romans chapters 1 and 2.

Example: "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law (Gentiles), and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law (Jews)...

[[Parenthetical: (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)]]

16 ...This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."

Paul seems to affirm in Romans 5 that IF there were no law - not even law in the sense of conscience - we'd all be innocent.

Which is the very issue his revelation from the third heaven addresses: i.e.,
you'd think that without the law, including the law of conscience, we would be innocent,
but our death belies that fact because our death comes through sin.

I don't see why you think this passage is a problem for me.

Because you think that without the law, including the law of conscience, we would be innocent.
Paul's revelation from the third heaven is that we are not innocent.

And personally I don't find verses 13 and 14 particularly lucid anyway. Not the best way to build a water-tight case.

Sorry you think that Paul's revelation from the third heaven is not lucid,
and fails to build a water-tight case.
That's an issue you will have to take up with him, not me.

 

[JAL]

The Anthropos son volunteered to continue the family business, not knowing at the time about the to-be-discovered structural defect in the building, which obligated him to a debt for which he would not have volunteered had he known several years earlier.

Actually I have no idea what "Anthropos son" is. But anyway: Human justice systems are imperfect, they don't allow ignorance of the law as an excuse. In real justice - in God's justice - ignorance should not and does not spell consequences for a blameless individual who heeded his conscience in all matters. At least that's my understanding of God's fairness. The point is that you can't shove a human-system injustice down my throat as proof that God is equally unjust. If you could convince me that this Anthropos scenario really is perfectly fair and just, you'd at least have an argument. But that's not going to happen, because I believe that ignorance IS a valid excuse, unless the ignorance is due to conscience-violating negligence.

Which is the very issue his revelation from the third heaven addresses: i.e.,
you'd think that without the law, including the law of conscience, we would be innocent,
but our death belies that fact because our death comes through sin.

Huh? Without the law of conscience (viz. animals) we WOULD be innocent. Conscience is the only real Law, ultimately, as I explained.

Because you think that without the law, including the law of conscience, we would be innocent.
Paul's revelation from the third heaven is that we are not innocent.

Read Romans 1 and 2. All men know they have done evil, and their conscience bears witness to it every day. One hardly needs to be carried away to the third heaven to realize it. Furthermore you've lapsed into random exegesis - the passage you're referring to is not a clear treatise on original sin, the fall, Problem of Evil, imputation, etc, and thus has little or no bearing on this discussion. You're grasping at straws.

 

[Clare73]

From Post #565:

Biblically, you've got it upside down.
Adam making us guilty does not cause Ex 20:5 itself to fall under the "guilt-umbrella."
Rather, it is Ex 20:5 itself which causes us to be put under Adam's guilt, because we continue in Adam's sin of disobedience.

Paul reveals what he received in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-7).

Relevance?

What has the third heaven got to do with anything?

It shows the foolishness of trying to improve his revelation because one thinks it conflicts with God's kindness.
It is your understanding, not Paul's revelation, that needs to improve.

From post #566:

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you claim that Adam's sin incriminated us, and now you claim that our own sin brought us into condemnation.

I said:
(1) We all die by the trespass of Adam
(2) because we all continue in Adam's sin.

Our own sin was the same as the sin of Adam--disobedience, which brought the condemnation of Adam's sin on us.

@Clare73And that's not even to mention ANOTHER problem - a problem which Donald Bloesch admitted to be insoluble on traditional assumptions, namely the question as to
how the sinful taint is TRANSMITTED from Adam to us. As Bloesch noted, biological/genetic "explanations" don't make sense. In my ontology it's not even an issue - for me, there is no transmission, we are sinful in nature because we ARE the Adam who sinned.

It is transmitted through the sinful nature we received from Adam, what Paul refers to as "the flesh," the disposition to sin, in contrast to our spirit which has received eternal (God's own) life in the rebirth.

 

[Clare73]

Actually I have no idea what "Anthropos son" is.

It is the analogy of post #557, p.26, demonstrating personal responsibility for debt not personally incurred.
.

 

[JAL]

It is transmitted through the sinful nature we received from Adam, what Paul refers to as "the flesh," the disposition to sin, in contrast to our spirit which has received eternal (God's own) life in the rebirth.

That's not an explanation of how.

 

[Clare73]

That's not an explanation of how.

Indeed it is.
What has changed from Adam's original nature to the unregenerate descendant of Adam (Ro 8:5-8) is
a disposition toward sin, toward self before God, toward
what we desire (v.5),
hostility to God (v.7),
inability to submit to God's law (v.7),
inability to please God (v.8)
inability to understand the things of God (1Co 2:14), etc.
.

 

[JAL]

Indeed it is.
What has changed from Adam's original nature to the unregenerate descendant of Adam (Ro 8:5-8) is
a disposition toward sin, toward
what we desire (v.5),
hostility to God (v.7),
inability to submit to God's law (v.7),
inability to please God (v.8)
inability to understand the things of God (1Co 2:14), etc.
.

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.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Volition isn't about what happens to me, it's about what I choose.
Volition is governed by disposition, which is why man does not have total free will (volition).

I choose (volition) what I desire, what suits me (disposition).
Fallen man doesn't desire God nor his ways--that is a matter of disposition ("heart").

The snake chooses the sun most of the time, the frog chooses the wet most of the time,
because that's what suits them.

 

[JAL]

Volition isn't about what happens to me, it's about what I choose.

Right.

Volition is governed by disposition, which is why man does not have total free will (volition).

Exactly. Here again, another definition of the sinful nature.

I choose (volition) what I desire, what suits me (disposition).
Fallen man doesn't desire God nor his ways--that is a matter of disposition ("heart").

Exactly. Here again, another definition of the sinful nature.

(Sigh) The definition of the sinful nature doesn't explain how we got it.

The snake chooses the sun most of the time, the frog chooses the wet most of the time,
because that's what suits them.

Proves my point. The frog didn't opt for that disposition - God gave it to them. Therefore it cannot be called a SIN nature. The most you can say is that it is frog nature. So for example, if Adam somehow endued me with excessive libido - without my consent - it wouldn't be a "sinful" nature on my part. Or to give another example, suppose Jesus went to a party, and someone spiked His food with a powerful aphrodisiac. Does such endue Him with a sinful nature? Hardly.

Again, what HAPPENS to me cannot be called a sinful nature. While I agree that:

Fallen man doesn't desire God nor his ways--that is a matter of disposition ("heart").

My point is that you cannot justifiably call it a "sinful" nature unless I was sinfully complicit in the acquisition of that disposition. If that disposition was thrust upon me without my consent it's not sinful in nature.

Conclusion: The only way that Adam can precipitate a sinful nature in me is if I myself was the Adam complicit in his original sin. "Transmitted taint" is a self-contradictory concept.

 

[Clare73]

(Sigh) The definition of the sinful nature doesn't explain how we got it.

It was part of God's punishment for Adam's rebellion.

You think the Creator who fashioned the nature of Adam in the first place can't alter that nature of Adam if he chooses to do so?

Adam went from a nature without an inclination to sin, to a nature with the inclination to sin.

The frog didn't opt for that disposition - God gave it to them.

Therefore it cannot be called a SIN nature. The most you can say is that it is frog nature.

That is precisely what it is, a nature to be frog.
And the frog didn't choose it, but he got it--he gets to be frog, also known as snake bait.
You could call frog nature snake-bait nature if you like.

And the altered human nature of Adam from "human nature pleasing God" to
"human nature pleasing self," which in God's world is sinful, is called sinful human nature.
And like the frog, Adam didn't choose that nature, but he got it--he gets to be sinful (inclined to self), also known as wrath-bait.
You could call human nature wrath-bait nature if you like.

Sin nature, fallen nature, sinful nature, flesh are all the same thing, the natural (by nature) inclination/disposition to sin, as frog nature means the nature to be frog.

Again, what HAPPENS to me cannot be called a sinful nature.

I can call "sinful nature" that human nature disposed to sin, just as I can call "frog nature" that living unit of matter disposed to be frog.
What would you call a natural disposition/inclination to sin which defines the whole human race?

My point is that you cannot justifiably call it a "sinful" nature unless I was sinfully complicit in the acquisition of that disposition.
If that disposition was thrust upon me without my consent it's not sinful in nature.

Who made that rule? Not God.
Frog nature was thrust on the frog without his consent, but he is still snake-bait.

It's not about what you did, it's about what Adam did to his nature, which you inherited.

Conclusion: The only way that Adam can precipitate a sinful nature in me is if I myself was the Adam complicit in his original sin.

Sez who?

I don't have to be personally complicit in anything to inherit an altered nature.

 

[JAL]

It was part of God's punishment for Adam's rebellion.

You think the Creator who fashioned the nature of Adam in the first place can't alter that nature of Adam if he chooses to do so?

Adam went from a nature without an inclination to sin, to a nature with the inclination to sin.

That is precisely what it is, a nature to be frog.
And the frog didn't choose it, but he got it--he gets to be frog, also known as snake bait.
You could call frog nature snake-bait nature if you like.

And the altered human nature of Adam from "human nature pleasing God" to
"human nature pleasing self," which in God's world is sinful, is called sinful human nature.
And like the frog, Adam didn't choose that nature, but he got it--he gets to be sinful (inclined to self), also known as wrath-bait.
You could call human nature wrath-bait nature if you like.

Sin nature, fallen nature, sinful nature, flesh are all the same thing, the natural (by nature) inclination/disposition to sin, as frog nature means the nature to be frog.

I can call "sinful nature" that human nature disposed to sin, just as I can call "frog nature" that living unit of matter disposed to be frog.
What would you call a natural disposition/inclination to sin which defines the whole human race?

Who made that rule? Not God.
Frog nature was thrust on the frog without his consent, but he is still snake-bait.

It's not about what you did, it's about what Adam did to his nature, which you inherited.

Sez who?

I don't have to be personally complicit in anything to inherit an altered nature.

All of this was already rebutted - use whatever term you like "transmitted" or "inherited" or "altered" or whatever. Makes no difference. If I was not complicit it's not a sinful nature. I gave you a clear example. If someone had spiked Christ's food with a behavior-modifying drug, it's not a "sinful" nature since He wasn't complicit.

And like the frog, Adam didn't choose that nature, but he got it--he gets to be sinful (inclined to self), also known as wrath-bait.

Baloney. That's PRECISELY the difference between Adam and the frog. He DID choose to rebel, he DID choose to violate his conscience, he DID choose evil, he DID choose to transform himself from something basically good (God's creation) to something evil and depraved. He CHOSE that evil disposition.

And if I wasn't there, if I existed only later, if I wasn't complicit, then I am just like the frog, I cannot be considered sinful in nature.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73

Furthermore you can't just arbitrarily toss around terms like "inherited" or "altered human nature" without explaining precisely what that means and how it happens. How precisely do we get the taint? Every time God creates a new soul, it is by nature pure. Does a holy God take it upon Himself to taint it with a sinful nature? A holy God fosters sin - and then punishes the sinner? Whatever is your position, be specific. No points are granted here for incoherent gibberish.

 

[Clare73]

All of this was already rebutted - use whatever term you like "transmitted" or "inherited" or "altered" or whatever. Makes no difference. If I was not complicit it's not a sinful nature. I gave you a clear example. If someone had spiked Christ's food with a behavior-modifying drug, it's not a "sinful" nature since He wasn't complicit.

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.
It's about what you inherit, not about what you are complicit in.

Baloney. That's PRECISELY the difference between Adam and the frog. He DID choose to rebel, he DID choose to violate his conscience, he DID choose evil, he DID choose to transform himself from something basically good (God's creation) to something evil and depraved. He CHOSE that evil disposition.

Adam is comparable only to the first frog in creation, from which all its descendant frogs get their nature.
Adam rebelled, and passed on to his descendants a nature altered (fallen) from the nature with which he was created.
The first frog passed on to his descendants the unaltered nature with which he was created.

And if I wasn't there, if I existed only later, if I wasn't complicit, then I am just like the frog, I cannot be considered sinful in nature.

What part of "it's not about what you did, it's about what you inherited" do you not get?

Then call it fallen nature. "Sinful nature" simply means disposed to self and self-rule rather than to God and God's rule.
.