TryingToLearn
Puritan Board Freshman
I recently watched Matt Slick's (carm.org) debate with a provisionist who denies sin nature, and while I think Matt did very well overall and it seemed to me the provisionist didn't really know what he was talking about, he did bring up one point that I think Matt didn't fully understand and I'd like to see a response to it.
The provisionist argued that since sin nature is penal, Jesus had to have had one in order to make atonement for us. The argument is because Jesus had to bear all of our penalties in order to make atonement. So, for example, the reason that Jesus had to physically die is because the physical death is penal. The reason Jesus had to spiritually die on the cross when he drank God's wrath is because spiritual death is penal. So the argument would be that since sin nature is a penal fine for sin, Jesus would have had to experience having one to atone for us.
Clearly there's some nuance that has to be done here as far as Jesus having to bear all of our penalties while at the same time affirming a sin nature is technically penal, but I'm not sure how to articulate it properly to avoid this objection.
Any thoughts here?
The provisionist argued that since sin nature is penal, Jesus had to have had one in order to make atonement for us. The argument is because Jesus had to bear all of our penalties in order to make atonement. So, for example, the reason that Jesus had to physically die is because the physical death is penal. The reason Jesus had to spiritually die on the cross when he drank God's wrath is because spiritual death is penal. So the argument would be that since sin nature is a penal fine for sin, Jesus would have had to experience having one to atone for us.
Clearly there's some nuance that has to be done here as far as Jesus having to bear all of our penalties while at the same time affirming a sin nature is technically penal, but I'm not sure how to articulate it properly to avoid this objection.
Any thoughts here?