Sin nature through the man part 2

Sin nature through the man part 2

Sin nature through the man on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

The comments on the original post have gone over 400 comments and for some reason the original page is not properly loading just by the link so I will need to find out what the problem is.  It does look fine when one goes to http://strivetoenter.com/wim and then scroll down to the March 26, 2010 post called “Adam and Eve and the sin nature that comes through the man – how does this affect the issue of women in ministry?”  It is loading okay that way so that one can read the post but when one tries to read the comments that page won’t load.  **update – It looks like the 175 pages of comments was just too much for the blog post and there is nothing I can do to get the comments to show up.  In future I will try to start a second page sooner so that this doesn’t happen again** (Note – Dec 2012: I have updated the blog and I think all the comments are now back.)

In the meantime the comments can continue on this post.

The dialog has been lively and Mark our regular complementarian blog visitor has been going through his Calvinist proof texts with me as we dialog on John 6 verse by verse discussing sin and free will.  Future comments should continue on this new part 2 post. 

8 thoughts on “Sin nature through the man part 2

  1. On part one Gazza asked this question:

    Hi Cheryl

    You have said repeatedly that Christ has bought justification for all and it has been paid for in full but that this payment is not applied universally. If I am understanding you correctly, then Jesus has paid the price for those who in remaining unrepentant will then be judged and called to pay the price again for themselves. How does this double payment reconcile with a Just God?

  2. Gazza,
    You have asked an excellent question.

    The question is one that I first dealt with years ago when I started my ministry to Jehovah’s. JW’s teaching that one’s death pays for their own personal sins so that when one is dead there is no more punishment needed. The price is paid and their debt is done away with in their view. They get this from Romans 6:23 –

    Romans 6:23 (NASB)
    23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    However Romans 6:23 does not teach that the payment for sin is death. The Greek word for “sin” is a genitive which means that sin is the possessor of the “wage”.

    the genitive normally marks a noun as the source or possessor of something, or refers to the kind of relationship that noun has to another noun. It is typically expressed in English by the preposition “of”. For example, in the phrase “throne of the king” the noun “king” is in the genitive and qualifies the type of throne. In “blood of Christ,” Christ is the genitive noun which describes possession.
    Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology.

    What this means in essence is that sin pays to you the punishment of death and we know that this punishment is not only physical but eternal spiritual death which includes a separation from God. So when a lost person goes to hell they are not “paying” for their sin. They are being paid the consequences of their sin. Therefore a person in hell is not paying for his sin, he is being punished as a consequence for his sin. This punishment is eternal.

    How does this mesh with the payment that Christ made on our behalf? The payment that Christ made completely and fully pays for the penalty of our sin. But God has Sovereignly chosen that the application of that payment will not be put onto anyone’s account without their responding to God in faith. If they refuse the payment for their sin, they must be punished eternally. It isn’t a double payment for their own punishment is not a “payment” at all. It is a consequence, not a payment. Sin pays to them that results in their punishment of spiritual death. They don’t “pay” time in hell to wipe out their sin. Their sin cannot be wiped out by suffering or works or anything else but a sinless sacrifice.

    This is why the example of a convict who refused a pardon makes a of sense in this situation. If the governor issues a pardon for one who is on death row and that person refuses the pardon, their death is not a “double payment”. Their death is the consequence of their crime and if they refused a pardon, it cannot be said that there is a “double payment” and the state then becomes guilty when they execute the criminal. We should be able to understand that if the convict refuses the pardon, the pardon has not been applied to his account. The refusal of a pardon is never considered a case double jeopardy. A person cannot claim a “double payment” if he has refused a pardon.

    Another interesting thing about pardons. A pardon cannot be given to a dead man. Years ago fans of O. Henry a short-story writer tried to get a pardon for his 1898 crime of embezzlement. O. Henry had embezzled $784.08 from his bank employer. But the fan’s attempts at getting a pardon were unsuccessful because a pardon cannot be given to anyone who cannot accept it. A dead man cannot accept a pardon.

    It is the same matter for George Wilson who refused a pardon for his conviction of robbing the U.S. Mail. His sentence of hanging was carried out even though he had been offered a pardon. The Chief Justice at the time was Chief Justice Marshall who concluded that Wilson would have to be executed. “A pardon is a slip of paper,” wrote Marshall, “the value of which is determined by the acceptance of the person to be pardoned. If it is refused, it is no pardon. George Wilson must be hanged.”

    In the same way, Christ perfectly and completely paid the price for every sinner that ends up in hell. The value of Christ’s death is not diminished, though, in essence by the refusal of one to take the pardon. But for the spiritual convict who refuses the pardon, the full value of the pardon will not be applied to his account and he will suffer eternal punishment and separation from God not because of the failure of God to provide for his spiritual release from the consequence of his sin, but because of his own failure to accept what God has freely offered him. In the justice system here on earth that is not seen as a double payment just as in the just system of God’s justice the spiritual death that sin “pays” to the spiritual convict is not a “double payment” for sin.

    Does this make sense?

  3. “It isn’t a double payment for their own punishment is not a “payment” at all. It is a consequence, not a payment. Sin pays to them that results in their punishment of spiritual death. They don’t “pay” time in hell to wipe out their sin. Their sin cannot be wiped out by suffering or works or anything else but a sinless sacrifice.”

    Cheryl,
    I agree completely. They are being paid the consequences of their sin – not paying for their sin. Regrettably, my comment didn’t go far enough in clarifying.

  4. Kay, I think you did a good job on your comment. I am just frustrated that the old post isn’t even coming up for me right now. Is anyone else able to get into it?

  5. Kay I am going to copy your comment from part one here. You said:

    “How does this double payment reconcile with a Just God?”

    Gazza,
    The unrepentant unbeliever did not acquire Christ’s atonement, which is only applicable through faith. The unrepentant unbeliever did not take what Jesus accomplished for them because it is only applied through faith.

    The only way for there to be a double payment would be if Jesus paid the price for one’s sins and the sinner received the atonement by faith and then *was still* sent to hell. In that scenario we would find an unjust double payment.

    The condition which God established for the sinner to be justified is faith in Christ’s blood (Rom. 3:24-26). Since the unbeliever is not justified, having failed to believe, in what sense can it be maintained that Christ’s sacrifice was applied to his or her account? A genuine offer of atonement was made in the unbeliever’s stead. However, the unbeliever failed to receive it by faith. A person is saved to the uttermost by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone (Acts 4; Eph. 2:8-9).

    I am going to try and unapprove a few comments and see if I can get the size down so that the old page will load again.

  6. #4 – no success here. I’m also unable to get the National Weather radar to load proper at the moment as well…but I doubt there is any connection.

  7. I don’t know what is happening. It seems to be one post alone, the rest are fine. I shut off the comments to that post and will see if my son can figure out what is wrong. When Mark comes back on line, he can email me and I will see if I can find a copy of the last number of comments that he missed so that he can comment on this post.

    Late addition** It looks like the original post on Adam and the sin nature is still there and the comments (all 400+ of them) are still there, but the page comes up blank with no script and I can’t figure out how to get it back online. I think that next time we get close to getting this many comments, I will start another blog article to carry on the comments so that this doesn’t happen again. For those who have been following the comments but who didn’t subscribe to get the comments emailed to you before the post went down, I’m sorry.

  8. For all curious about Mark, I got an email from him that he is now the father of a new baby boy. Congrats to Mark and his wife!

    Mark and I will keep going through John 6 on this post when Mark is able to have some spare time. For those interested in our dialog watch for the verse by verse dialog here. Later we will go through Romans 5 – 10 also verse by verse and I will likely create another post for that dialog to keep things easier to follow.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: