It very well could be exactly the same action. One human killing another. It's the motive that makes one wrong and not the other, right?
Saying it doesn't make it so, Psychlo.
Think it through. Imagine a scenario where someone gets killed by someone else. While I'm sure that someone might be able to concoct a hypotheitical scenario where everything is identical except for the motive but that wouldn't ever happen in real life. The more details you give the scenario, the clearer it will become that the only things that the two have in common are the characters, the weapon and the fact that someone ends up dead. It is precisely because the motive is different that this is so. Different motives lead to different actions. Different actions leads to different evidence. Different evidence allows one to be proven as murder and the other not.
No, it's the entire point. It's the most important point. Motive is everything. Mind you, I'm referring to culpability for sin, not just a "wrong action". I just want to be clear that we're talking about a sinful action vs a non-sinful action. Motive separates the two. Can you sin by accident? Can you sin by proxy? Can you sin unwillingly?
Well, yeah, according to the bible you absolutely can!
Numbers 15:22 ‘If you sin unintentionally, and do not observe all these commandments which the Lord has spoken to Moses— 23 all that the Lord has commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day the Lord gave commandment and onward throughout your generations— 24 then it will be, if it is unintentionally committed, [
d]without the knowledge of the congregation, that the whole congregation shall offer one young bull as a burnt offering, as a sweet aroma to the Lord, with its grain offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance, and one kid of the goats as a sin offering. 25 So the priest shall make atonement for the whole congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them, for it was unintentional; they shall bring their offering, an offering made by fire to the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord, for their unintended sin. 26 It shall be forgiven the whole congregation of the children of Israel and the stranger who dwells among them, because all the people
did it unintentionally.
27 ‘And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. 28 So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the Lord, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. 29 You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.
There are, however, some sins that cannot be committed accidentally. Murder being one of them, along with any other sin that is also a crime.
But doing something accidentally vs. intentionally isn't
quite the same thing as talking about motive. Murder is the intentional, offensive (i.e. as apposed to defensive) taking of a person's life without due process of law. Accidental killings, killing in the defense of other innocent people or of yourself, the killing that happens during a just war and the execution of those convicted of capital crimes fall outside that definition and so are not murder. Beyond that, however, the motive is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why someone murders someone else in so far as their guilt is concerned. It might be relevant in an effort to prevent other people from committing additional murders but in so far as the guilt of the murderer is concerned, it makes no difference. If you intentionally kill someone and you weren't fighting in a war or defending yourself or some other innocent person, then you are guilty of murder, regardless of why you did it. In fact, intent is the critical factor to the extent that those who attempt to murder someone should be punished as though they succeeded.
There's a fair amount of conjecture in this paragraph. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but we must remain clear on what we're inferring and what we know for certain. This is especially critical as we build a larger and larger case based on compounded inferences.
The effort here is, or should be, to maintain a fully biblical and rationally coherent worldview. As such, one particular issue will pretty much always touch several others. The degree to which one issue is found to be interwoven through other seemingly unrelated issues is the degree to which that issue can be used as a test to determine whether one's beliefs are internally consistent vs. disconnected, discordant or outright contradictory.
All of that to say this...
While issues like the ones I brought up are definitely potential rabbit trails that are not directly relevant to the topic being discussed, it is something of an overstatement to call them conjecture. I can, for example, make a strictly biblical case for the idea that Lucifer was in Eden. In fact, it would be one who was making the opposite case who would be forced to resort to conjecture because the bible directly states as much.
I don't subscribe to the idea of Federal Headship in relation to sin nature. I understand why some folks believe that way, but I don't think there's enough substance of scripture to support it convincingly.
There is more than one thing that you could be referring to by the use of the term "Federal Headship".
If you are referring to the ridiculously unjust notion of "Original Sin" where all mankind is held guilty before God because of Adam's sin then we are in agreement. The Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is heresy of the highest order and cannot survive even a cursory, surface reading of Ezekiel 18 (the whole chapter).
1. We're not given why Adam bore the sin nature as opposed to Eve, if that's even true. The inference you assert is a definite possibility, but not the only one. Adam was the first human, and he may very well bare a natural responsibility by God's design. Throughout the Bible, men are always the leaders - whether civil, military, family, royalty, priestly, etc. There are very few exceptions, and those were extenuating circumstances, IMO. This was God's design. He created man first and woman from man.
There can be no doubt at all about the fact that Adam is THE source of the sin nature.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned
The "why" is a different question. We do know from the biblical record that Eve was deceived and that Adam was not (Genesis 3:9-13 & 2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Tim 2:13-14). Perhaps that fact is what makes the difference and perhaps its based on the very valid observations you've made about Adam being the first human, etc. (Maybe it's a bit of both.) It does seem plausible that had Adam not joined with Eve that God could have created a new helper for Adam in the same way He had created Eve.
2. We're not told it was Adam's "fully cognizant decision" that made the difference. Eve was every bit as guilty of sin, no?
She sinned, yes but "every bit as guilty"?
How would that be consistent with what you've said about intent and motive?
In fact, it could be argued that she was double-guilty (if that were such a thing) since she not only ate (sin #1), but then she knowingly gave it to her husband to eat (sin #2).
No doubt that both actions were sinful but again, isn't the motive important here? Not in answering the question of whether she sinned but only the type and degree of her sin. She was deceived into believing that she was doing good. She wanted to be like God and Lucifer deceived her into believing that to eat of the Tree was a way to accomplish exactly that. Is it any surprise that she'd want Adam to come along side?
Put that together with the fact that Paul states that the reason that Adam had authority over Eve is two-fold: He was created first, and because she was deceived and he wasn't. 1 Tim 2:13-14 So the strong indication is that Eve's sin was, in a sense, "less responsible(?)" than Adam's. Note: I've also heard it taught that Adam sinned purposely to take responsibility on himself and "cover" his wife's sin as the head of household. I don't see any scriptural merit to that, but it's interesting. Is that by chance what you're suggesting?
So, there's nothing here to disagree with but I just wanted to take a second here to say that, while I was reading this section of your post, it just occurred to me how enjoyable this discussion has been! This is what TOL is supposed to be! Awesome!
3. We're not told that the sin nature only passes on through males. Through the sperm but not eggs? What are the scriptures for that notion? I believe this is a spiritual or metaphysical event, not physical. Sin nature is not physical, correct?
Holy cow. To much to go into here but just to touch it...
I didn't say it passes through sperm, although that is a distinct possibility.
As for sin being spiritual vs physical, I think that it's definitely both.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death,
What is death?
Death is a separation. Physical death is when one's spirit separates from their body. Spiritual death happens when one is separated from the Father, who is Life. Both are a consequence of sin. This is further evidenced by the fact that Jesus died in both ways...
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
John 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
Further, by what method, other than physical, would it be passed that would be consistent with the biblical record and with the necessity of Christ NOT being burdened by the sin nature in order to qualify as our Kinsman Redeemer? The bible teaches that a man and his wife become one flesh. I think that
1 Corinthians 6:16 proves that this happens when the two have physical relations. That sounds kind of physical to me. Perhaps there's more going on that just the physical but the physical is definitely involved. Either way you slice it, it seems that Mary HAD TO BE a virgin.
4. We're not told how Jesus was conceived. This was a one-time, unique event. God could have used whatever means He wanted. He did not need an egg of Mary's, just as He didn't need sperm from Joseph.
Jesus could have just appeared in utero as an untainted human being. So I see no need to search for a way to explain Jesus's lack of sin nature by way of Federal Headship.
This is definitely incorrect.
Jesus HAD TO BE a physical blood descendant of David.
Matthew's gospel traces His line back through Joseph to David as proof of His qualification of being King. (i.e. Jesus' legal title to the throne of King David was through Joseph.)
Luke's gospel traces His line, through Mary, not only through David but all the way back to Adam showing not only Christ's humanity but establishing His blood title to David's throne.
John gives a genealogy of sorts at the beginning of his gospel (John 1:1-5 & 14) where he presents Jesus as the incarnate God Himself.
Thus, Christ is God Himself become man through the line of David and, as such, He is the rightful heir to David's throne.
And, in case you're thinking it, I don't believe the "seed" argument is adequate reason to need FH either. These are spiritual conditions, not genetic. When Christ died and was raised, his forgiveness didn't have to pass backward through the DNA of all of the deceased faithful folks. Sin, just like the forgiveness of it, is on the spiritual plane, not physical.
This doesn't seem to follow.
Forgiveness doesn't pass to anyone at all - period.
Neither does guilt, for that matter. (Again see Ezekiel 18)
The sin nature, or what Paul calls "the flesh", however, is a different matter.
How much more physical of a reference can be made to the sin nature than to refer to it as "the flesh", by the way?
I realize I'm in the minority on this view, and I'm okay with that.
As you should be. The truth is never held by the majority.
These are just my thoughts, and I wouldn't bet my life on any of them. But it is nice to contemplate and discuss these things with others who think deeply. I appreciate everyone's input. Growth is good.
I said it earlier but it bares being said again....
This discussion is what TOL is supposed to be! To Christian people coming together, discussing Christian issues with depth of thought and mutual respect. I haven't had this much fun on TOL in years!
Clete
