Replies

The worst conclusion to draw is the notion of a “sin nature” (a horrible theological error). A “nature” (by definition) is “what a thing is.” If we have a “sin nature” then we not only sin – we are sin. This is blasphemous. Sin is extraneous to what it is to be human – it is a parasite.

You forget that with the first sin human nature was changed and became something unnatural. I believe even Fr. Seraphim Rose said as much.

And btw, for all you Calvinists out there, if this rejection of "sin nature" is the position of true, authentic, historic Xianity (not that anyone can get you to believe that), why was a new religion needed in the first place?