I suspect there is some chicanery going on here. I am troubled by your definition, as it seems crafted to sidestep the Main Query:
Which came first, the sin...or the sinner? Which is the cause, which is the effect?
In good Lutheran form, "Yes!" Both are true.
In Adam's case, his sin caused him to become a sinner. But in the case of Adam's seed, it is reversed: We sin because we are made sinner's by Adam's first sin.
Next. You claim, "From that point on the effects of sin will taint man." Yet you refuse to face up to what this actually means, as you've twice denied that sin is passed on. (No, I'm not saying that all our actual sins are passed on from generation to generation, but I trust that thought never occurred to you.) Instead you want to say the "sin nature" is passed on. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
No, seriously. What on earth is that supposed to mean? As I pointed out earlier in the thread, your view is riddled with coincidences and exceptions. You pull out terms and then deny their traditional definitions without further comment. I tried one possibility here...
...which you evidently didn't like very much.
So really. Go into some detail. Any detail at all would be nice.
But before you do, let's go back to your unfortunate claim that sin isn't passed on. Well, right off the bat. You're right. Actual sin isn't passed on. I don't bear the weight of my father's and grandfather's and great-grandfather's sin (and all the way up the chain, of course). Hardly. Instead, I was actually extracting the meaning of the text from Romans, instead of producing my own separate definition for what "sin being passed on" is supposed to mean.
Let's look at Romans again. Third time's the charm right?
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Please recall that Paul says this same thing over like half a dozen times. It's as though he's trying to get some important point across.)
I suspect you'll agree that Paul isn't talking about the billions of other sins that Adam committed in his life. When he says "the disobedience of one man," it's quite plain that he's referring to the First sin committed in the Garden. (Dare I say "original" sin? Shoo, Augustine, shoo.) That *first* sin, that *original* act of disobedience--*that* is what is passed on. And it most certainly *IS* passed on! That is exactly the meaning of Paul's words. It's not as though Adam disobeyed and then, by magic, we all received some nebulous "sin nature." It isn't as though there's no connection between sin and sinfulness. There is a connection. And that connection is Adam's sin. *How* where the many made sinners? Through their inheritance. We are sinners *because* we've inherited Adam's first disobedience. That, of course, is what "sin nature" is supposed to mean.
Maybe this is rocket science, after all. Please recall that *you* are the one who wants to know what sin an infant has committed. Now, I gave you a Scriptural answer which also happens to appeal to reason. No, it doesn't make much sense to say than infant is sinning while still in the womb. (Though there is that pesky problem of Psalm 51. "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")
And I say, very well, I can concede that there may be a time before which an infant may not have committed a particular actual sin. You may think this represents a contradiction on my part, but that's because you've adopted the principle (which happens to represent a rather blinkered view of Scripture) of "we are sinners because we sin." Well, Scripture actually teaches that the infant is guilty of at least one actual sin, namely, Adam's sin. Thus, we "sin because we are (already) sinners," and that teaching happens to be illustrated rather well by Jesus' assertion that a "bad tree produces only bad fruit."
Now, the key point here, and this may be where your trouble lies: A fruit bearing tree is not necessarily bearing fruit incessantly, and there is a prior to which the tree won't have produced any fruit. Likewise, there is a time prior to which an infant may not have committed any actual sins. Indeed, I have the sneaking suspicion that Jesus may have understood this. So I can say that an infant is born as a "bad tree," and is thus condemned for being a bad tree. I can also say that an infant may not have produced any fruit, but that in no way suggests that that the infant still won't be condemned for being a bad tree. Obviously, the infant will receive additional condemnation once it starts producing fruit. Please recall that Jesus never says anything about "neutral" trees or "neutral fruit." It's not simply that a bad tree can't produce good fruit. It can only produce bad fruit.
I hope I've cleared up the analogy for you, even if you still find it "troubling" or whatever. The chief point, as always, is that we are condemned for what we *are* and also for what we *do*.
There is a difference between stating 1 + 1 = 1 and *demonstrating* that 1 + 1 = 1. Which one do you think would be more interesting? (If you recall, which one did I ask for?)
Yes, and I provided a passage where David states that he was sinful from conception, so I suggested that you ask *him* instead of me. But since David's idea clearly contradicts your view, I proposed an alternate interpretation.
=======
Ah-ha, the other "original error" rears its ugly head.
Gee whiz, God would never tell us to do something unless we could do it!
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
I suspect this point will also be ignored.
But in case you were wondering, Lutherans have a wonderful little explanation for why God goes around telling us to do all this stuff we can't do. The Word of God, living and active as it is, is the very vehicle *through which* the Holy Spirit regenerates us. Thus, while *we* can't do it, the New Man within us certainly can. After all, a good tree produces only good fruit.
Holy cow, why are you still trying to force God into that tiny box of human reason? Haven't you ever read Romans 5? Try verse 18 in particular.
What was the result of one trespass? Condemnation for all men!
Amazing! Adam screws up once, and we get the blame. Notice: Paul focuses on the point that we are *chiefly* condemned for the ONE trespass. He says nothing of *our* trespasses.
Stop thinking that every one of us must be presented with the same choice that Adam had. Humanity was presented with one choice. Adam disobeyed for humanity, and now his disobedience IS our disobedience. After Adam made his free will choice, he became a sinner. Ever person born of Adam has *inherited* that choice, and is thus born a sinner, capable of producing only bad fruit. Again, the many died by the trespass of the one man. Paul says nothing about the trespasses of the many. (Although we are obviously condemned for those, too, as Scripture elsewhere makes clear.) You many think it's not fair, but Paul > you.
A bad tree is not forced to produce bad fruit, so your analogy fails.
=======
BobRyan,
Just because I believe unregenerate man can only produce bad fruit doesn't mean I'm a Calvinist. Sorry.
