You understand very little about the cross, or even the bible as a whole really. Your whole theology is built on flawed premises. At the moment, I would like to focus on one of your key fallacies (probably
the key fallacy), i.e., that man does not have a corrupt, sinful nature.
Man is not born with a corrupt sinful nature. That teaching gained credence in Christian orthodoxy through Augustine of Hippo.
Read up on your history...
Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some of the early commentators on scripture alluded to a vice of origin but it was Augustine who formulated Original Sin in the context of the sin of Adam corrupting the nature of his progeny. Thus it was under Augustinian theology that it began to be taught that "sin is necessitated by the flesh."
Those who say they do not have a corrupted nature are
liars Genuine Christian's do not have a corrupted nature because they have had their heart purified via abiding faithfully in Jesus Christ. Sinners have a corrupted nature yet they are not born with it. The Bible teaches that human beings corrupt themselves via sinning, they are not born corrupted., because all do sin and it is
impossible to sin without a corrupted, sinful nature.
How did Adam and Eve sin then? How did they corrupt their natures BEFORE they sinned? How did Satan first sin? The simple act of turning away from the Word unto one's own devices brings corruption and is in fact sin. Sin is rooted in iniquity and iniquity is rooted in the heart. A heart set upon one's own way apart from the will of God. Biblically speaking, a tree either produces good fruit or bad fruit depending on its nature
A nature which grows and develops through the choices we make, either a sin nature if we yield to temptation and sin, or the divine nature if we endure temptation and yield to God; but a good tree cannot produce bad fruit; and there is no such thing as an
amoral tree that produces bad fruit, yet that is essentially what you teach. Don't try to suggest that Adam and Eve chose to sin in a state of perfection.
Where did Adam and Eve inherit their corrupted, sinful nature then? If they corrupted themselves through an act of the will then why is it not the same today? The Bible does not teach anywhere that Adam's sin corrupted the nature of all his descendents. You don't find any such teaching in Genesis 4 where it lists the results of the curse. Sin cannot come from perfection, nor can it come from a vacuum.
Again, where did Adam and Eve's sin come from? I attest that it came from an exercise of the free will in that they exercised a CHOICE to yield to the tempter. I also attest that it is no different for people today. Sin is a choice and not a disease which is passed down. Due to sin being a choice WE ARE RESPONSIBLE.They both
corrupted their natures first, then chose to sin out of their corrupted natures. Eve corrupted herself by loving the world more than GOD, and Adam corrupted himself by loving his wife more than GOD.
I would attest that loving the world more than God IS sin. I notice you don't use the Bible much, you just assert these things as true.
Sin, by definition, is not doing GOD's will
Sin unto death is rebellion or transgression (Rom 6:16, Jam 4:19, 1Joh 3:4). When Adam sinned he became one spirit with sin, and was therefore
separated from GOD. This condition was now his
nature. As a natural man, without being one with GOD's spirit he could not know GOD's will perfectly; and therefore wasn't able to do the will of GOD perfectly. He was by his very nature a sinner.
Adam was a sinner because he sinned. There is no need to complicate it with the philosophy of man. Adam CHOSE to walk His own way and thus like the Prodigal Son he separated himself from the Father.
Adam's corrupted nature has been passed from generation to generation
Where does the Bible teach this? Where exactly does the Bible teach that "Adam's corrupted nature has been passed from generation to generation"?
The Bible says...
Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Yet Original Sin teaches that the son does indeed bear the iniquity of the father. Original sin teaches we are born already guilty and condemned and enslaved to sin.
, not by some ethereal substance passed through the sperm (per your straw man argument),
It is not a straw man argument, it is what they teach in the seminaries, I didn't make it up. By calling it a "strawman" you are just writing it off in order to avoid discussing it. There are two views taught as to how the sin of Adam is propogated to his descendents.
1. Traducianism - Natural Head Theory - All Adam's descendents were present in his loins and thus sinned with him and this guilt and corruption of this sin is passed down in the male seed. Jesus was born of a virgin in order to avoid the stain of sin.
2. Creationism - Federal Head Theory - Adam was the federal head or representative of all mankind. The guilt due his sin and the corruption of his sin is passed down via imputation (ie. God imputes sin to the soul at conception).
An example of a Traducianist is John MacArthur who teaches...
God ordained it as a symbol, as a sign, a very important one. Not just for physical benefit but as a spiritual reminder. And the reminder is simply this, and I'll see if I can give you a full understanding of it. Nowhere or at no point is a man's depravity more manifest than in the procreative act. You say, "Why do you say that?" Well, we know man is a sinner by what he says, we know man is a sinner by what he does. We know man is a sinner by the attitude, the bearing that he carries. We can see on the outside sinful deeds. But how do we know man is a sinner at the base of his character? How do we know man is a sinner at the root of his existence? The answer, by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked because man is wicked. So I say to you, nowhere then in the anatomy of a man or in the activity of a man is depravity more manifest than in the procreative act because it is at precisely that point which he demonstrates the depth of his sinfulness because he produces a sinner. And I would remind you that Jesus Christ had no human father because there was no human father who could produce a perfect person. The Spirit of God had to plant a perfect seed in Mary and bypass a human father.
The male organ then is the point at which human depravity is most demonstrated. You see not the deeds of sin but the nature of sin passed on to the next generation.
http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/50-27
Is John MacArthur preaching a strawman? NO! It is what he believes.
R.C Sproul is an example of someone who holds to the Federal Head view...
In the latter half of Romans 5, Paul teaches that God deals with the human race under a system known as “federalism.” Simply put, federalism has to do with representation, with one person acting on behalf of another. God has appointed two representatives in history: Adam and Christ. Adam did not represent the race well; he disobeyed God. As a result, all of his descendants are born with an inclination to sin, and they all share in his guilt and suffer the same penalty he received—death.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/our-first-federal-head/
but through the
spiritual inheritance passed from father to son. Since it is impossible for any creature of GOD to sire offspring contrary to its nature, Adam's children inherited his corrupted, sinful nature.
If one is to blame Adam for their sin then how can they be truly repentant? There is no possible way for someone who believes that their sinning is not their fault to be truly contrite over it. They may feel sorry for their situation but they will most certainly not feel responsible for their situation. This doctrine of "Inherited Sin" utterly destroys repentance.