I am a Christian, which (I think often times unjustly) tends to get people labeled as intolerant. However, the Libertarian in me is accepting of all races, cultures, and life styles that don’t victimize others or prey on people weaker than themselves. I also don’t think there’s any need for evangelism in America. We’ve all heard the story and those who believe it, do. There’s no way to ever make a person believe in something. You can make them agree, or even want to believe, but you can never convince someone to believe.
Not only that, but I have friendships with several atheists. I count them among some of my closest friends and there are several that I respect and admire more than many self-professing Christians. I find that in general atheists are more prone to logic and reason than Christians. Christians are prone to say things like, “God said it and so I believe it!” This, in and of itself, is not terrible logic. However, it’s usually used in reference to something that they believe, yet God never said. Furthermore, it’s used as a shield against logic and critical thought, which is exactly what God calls us to.
To that effect I’ve kept this blog pretty nonreligious I think. I don’t have links up to religious affiliations. I don’t typically promote religious ideas or suggest others do. For the most part I don’t have much respect for organized religion because it depends on the power and wisdom of Man, of which I have very little faith.
However, I am going to post now on a decidedly religious issue. In doing so I will be referencing the Bible, but not only that but also our ability to reason that I think even an agnostic can agree with. The issue I’d like to examine is the idea that we, as humans, have what is commonly known as a sinful nature. It is my position that such a thing does not exist. That, in fact, our nature is one that seeks to please God, not one that is inherently opposed to him.
There are several arguments against my line of thinking, and I’d go so far as to say the vast majority of Christians hold to the doctrine of Sinful Nature, though not always in the full fashion that Calvin himself did. Though consistently in my life I’ve talked to people about this doctrine (once my neighbor went so far as to invite his pastor over to correct my thinking) I’ve never been able to find a logical and biblical argument for it.
Logically, the argument for Sinful Nature usually revolves around the fact that, indeed, we all sin. This sin is directly attributed to our nature due to the shear volume. Let’s be clear about this: I’m not claiming that there are those without sin, only that when they do sin they are going against their nature.
Biblically there are two different routes that people will take. The first is to point out scriptures that say we are sinful from birth. I don’t disagree with this, but I will disagree that it is due to our nature. The second is to point out scriptures that actually have the words “sinful nature” in them. This seems logical seeing as the Bible is the inspired word of God and all, but I’d like to examine what is the actually word of God and what is translation based on theology.
The translation in your bible that may say the words ‘sinful nature’ come from the Greek word ‘savrx.’ The word is used 151 times in the New Testament. It is my opinion that it’s correct translation is flesh. This is made obvious by several passages that use it in a very literal way to represent body parts. Many modern translations, The NIV for instance, takes 24 of those instances and changes them to “sinful nature.” However, the phrase sinful nature never appears in the Greek text.
In fact let’s look at the Greek word for ‘nature’. It’s ‘fuvsiß’ and it’s used just 11 times in the New Testament. Each and every time it’s used it in reference to man’s nature it says that our nature is to do what is good. Look them up yourselves. I’ll give you the verses. Ro 1:26, Ro 2:14, Ro 2:27, Ro 11:21, Ro 11:24, 1Co 11:14, Ga 2:15, Ga 4:8, Eph 2:3, Jas 3:7 , 2Pe 1:4. That’s a list of EVERY verse in the New Testament that has the Greek word for ‘nature’ in it. I’ve not omitted any to prove my point. I'll post a few verses that are relevant to this discussion:
Here Paul is describing some vile passions and appeals to nature itself for the argument against it.
Here Paul makes a case that Gentiles that do not have Jewish Law taught to them still make an attempt to adhere to those laws (murder, stealing, etc.) Again he claims that the reason they know this is nature.
Now if Paul wanted to tell us we had a sinful nature wouldn’t he say it at least one time? ONE TIME? Was he really that bad of a writer that we need to correct his message with our own translations? Maybe the Holy Spirit just didn’t convey God’s message to him properly. Good thing we have enlightened bible translations to fix that problem!
The correct translation for ‘savrx’ is flesh. As in your body. Your body is not naturally evil; it’s naturally self-serving. "Oh! But Scott, selfishness is evil!" Wrong, not in it's natural state. Your body's natural needs are not evil. It needs to be fed. It needs to sleep. It needs to be touched. It needs emotional exchanges with other people. It needs sexual contact. It needs knowledge. All very natural things. It has all these needs and NONE of them are inherently evil or sinful. However, we can choose to fulfill them all with either godly or ungodly means. And when we make the choice to fulfill them with evil means it’s not because it’s in our nature to do so. It’s against our nature. It’s a perversion. It’s wrong and unnatural, which is why each and every one of us need a savior. After all, if we we’re just following our nature to sin then what exactly would we need to be saved from?
By claiming we have a sinful nature you’re in effect blaming God for your sin, because if we did have a sin nature who would have put it there? God is the only one who could create such a thing. And if God created it, it’s God’s fault that we sin and he would have no right to judge us. In fact if he did give us a sin nature it would be his moral duty to save us and there would be no grace involved.
Furthermore, if the sinful nature came about after Adam, why did Adam sin? And if he got a sinful nature after the fall then some sort of physical change would have taken place in him. And it would require a physical change for any of us to be saved. Why does the Bible never talk about that? There’s not mention of a change in Adam’s nature or a change in your physical makeup after being saved.
What caused Adam to sin is the same thing that causes you and I to sin. The neutral desire to fulfill the needs of the body, and the choice to use evil means to do it. What’s the biblical proof of that? Genesis 3:6:
Why, it looks as though Eve was tempted by the same thing we are tempted by. Pleasing the flesh. The fruit TASTED good. It LOOKED beautiful. It would enhance her WISDOM. All fleshly needs that are not inherently sinful. It’s the same for you and I. And it’s the same for Christ who was tempted by the desires of his flesh but withstood in holiness like no other human being was able to. How silly would Romans 8:3 be if “God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” was translated, “God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful nature?” You’d agree, I’m sure, that Christ didn’t have a sinful nature. He just had flesh, the same as you and I.
There’s more I could say about this. I’ve thought about it a lot, I’ve pondered it, and I’ve studied it, and I've debated it. To finish I’ll just leave you with this:
Thoughts?
47 comments:
Scott I love this. I know that you have been studying this for years and trying to understand it and trying to explain it so others could understand. You did a beautiful job explaining this and I GET IT!!! You have an incredible gift in writing Scott. I believe what is written here is truth.
Firstly you seem to be making the assumption that mankind is either inherently good or inherently evil. You coming down on the side of good which is then perverted..
You are also making the (quite understandable from your point of view) assumption that we are here to please God.
OK, I agree that man is not inherently sinful/evil. But I disagree that man is inherently good either. Personally I don't think that we have a 'nature' in the way you mean. Godd people are 'made' in the same way 'evil' people are made - by circumstance and experience of life.
Whilst not exactly a blank slate on birth, it is possible to 'teach' people to be good or evil. We are maleable creatures which is the prime reason why we are on top of the food chain. We adapt to circumstance. Part of that adaptive skill is the ability to be made either good or evil.
Being an atheist I (obviously) cannot agree with your statement that we are here to please God. I don't believe that we are here for any reason (over and above the biological one) other than those we give ourselves. Some choose ready made reasons, some reject reasons and some manufacture their own.
Of course I believe that somethings are 'right' and somethings are 'wrong' but is that my upbringing or my culture or my genes....? Probably a mixture of all three.. not forgetting my free will of course...
Good topic for discussion BTW. I've been thinking of posting something on this for a while now.
Firstly you seem to be making the assumption that mankind is either inherently good or inherently evil. You coming down on the side of good which is then perverted..
Well, not exactly. I wouldn't go so far as to say we are inherently good as in we need to strive against all that is in us to do the wrong thing. I don't even believe that man has some type of entity like a nature that bends him one way or the other. But all of us, and all of creation, is made in God's image and therefore is, naturally, God pleasing.
Okay, that's a bunch of theology so you're obviously not going agree with it. I do agree that we are incredibly adaptive, and that our propensity to do right and wrong can be greatly altered by our environment. However, that doesn't absolve us of guilt though when we choose incorrectly.
Of course a large portion of this post is generally geared more toward the Christian, and specifically the long held doctrinal belief that Man is sinful by nature. I've attempted to at the very least show that it's not biblical, because we Christians tend to care about that scriptural thing.
scott said: Okay, that's a bunch of theology so you're obviously not going agree with it.
Very true. I'll do my best to keep the "I don't agree's" to a minimum. You'll just have to take as a default standpoint that any assertion based on God or the Bible will cause me a problem.
scott said: However, that doesn't absolve us of guilt though when we choose incorrectly.
Most people feel guilt at one time or another. It normally happens when we break (or bend) part of our internalised moral code.
scott said: Of course a large portion of this post is generally geared more toward the Christian..
I had noticed [grin]. However, its still an interesting question from a secular PoV.
Finallt scott said: I've attempted to at the very least show that it's not biblical, because we Christians tend to care about that scriptural thing.
I've noticed that too - it certainly bamboozles me.. and doesn't seem to stop the arguments within the Christian community either...
I am lovin' this discussion!!! =)
Scott, I agree with you in that man does have some good in him, but I also believe that without divine influence, we would come to ruin.
The example that comes to mind first is that of a child.
As a child grows, he begins to discover that there are others in the world, who have conflicting interests with his own. He starts out by forcefully taking what he wants. His parents (hopefully) correct him and guide him in the ways of socially acceptable behavior.
I believe this struggle continues throughout life. I would be constantly seeking what pleases me, fulfills my desires, and serves my needs/wants best if not for Christ.
This is nature. It is animalistic instict, self preservation. We humans take that a step further and make it into self promotion. We all want to be the "silver-back" gorilla in our group. This is what I think the scriptures refer to as the desires of the flesh.
I think this is what Jesus came to redeem us from.
The Christian ideals of selflessness is the basis for a code of behavior. This is anti-self teaching. This is placing other people's needs/wants, desires ahead of my own. This is against my nature, and this is what I believe is the Christian way.
Your last statement though, is erred.
Man is subject unto the laws of the society in which he lives, just as the zebra and the tiger are subject unto the laws under which they live.
Our society and its laws are largely based on Christian principles. This is why we abhor perversity as you mention. There have been societys in history which have honored such acts, and endorsed them. The Romans were revered if they could seduce a cherub faced boy. The thought of which makes me want to puke.
Let me know what you think...
Great topic, btw
For the most part I don’t have much respect for organized religion because it depends on the power and wisdom of Man, of which I have very little faith.
I want to agree with you on that statement all the way but I'm afraid it's a touch too harsh. When Christians gather together to encourage one another--it's an awesome feeling...be it inside of a building, or not.
on the topic of sinful nature, I'm going more with Swinging Sammy on this one. Sammy said...
but I also believe that without divine influence, we would come to ruin.
I would agree to this.
Scott, you mentioned Adam.
Can you explain to me why God told Adam that the punishment for eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was "death"? Because Adam ate and so did Eve but they didn't "die". I need to know your view on the punishment for this sin before I can understand the rest.
Scott, I just wrote this great comment full of wisdome and nuggets of truth. Then Safari "lost connection".
Dang it!
Anyhoo, if my previous comment doesn't show up, I basically asked you to explain why God said that Adam and Eve would "die" if they ate from the tree.
I'm trying to get a better understanding of your take on what happened in the garden.
I always considered the whole Adam/Eve thing an allegory myself.....
I also want to add to my prior comment. I believe there is more of a need for evangelism now than ever before. There are so many false voices out there, that a great number of people haven't heard the true story of what Jesus did for us.
I am not talking about beating down people's doors, or carrying signs that say "turn or burn," but merely sharing your story, what Christ did for you personally. I don't believe there is anything more powerful. This is what the disciples did, and the Holy Spirit added 3000 believers to their number in one day!
Jesus Himself said to share His good news, and I would like to hear Him say to me "Well done, good and faithful servant..."
As far as organized religion, I agree with you to a point. I would love to see home churches, and smaller fellowships within the greater church environment. The idea of particular denominations based on tradition rather than the Word of God, is not what I believe God intended. They are based on human preference rather than his word, and I although we have to speak to people's needs in order to reach them, telling folks that this is the only way to worship God is the worst kind of hypocrisy. This is one of the reasons that evangelism and Christians in general leave such a bad taste in people's mouths.
but I also believe that without divine influence, we would come to ruin.
That's hardly debatable and as I stated in the post I'm not claiming there is a man without sin. The question is not whether man sins, but if it's some nature that God placed in him after the fall that causes him to sin, or at the very least makes Man's offspring inherently guilty due to Adam's sin.
It is my assertion that we currently live with the same exact physical constitution as Adam. The result of the Fall was simply separation from the physical presence of God.
Can you explain to me why God told Adam that the punishment for eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was "death"? Because Adam ate and so did Eve but they didn't "die".
Well they did die, didn't they? I mean that *was* their ultimate fate. Indeed it's held by many bible scholars that God sacrificed an animal in the place of both Adam and Eve to keep them alive for the moment. I tend to agree with such assertions. However, at the same time God took them from the Garden, why? Because if he didn't they, and all their ancestors, could eat from the Tree of Life and LIVE forever. (ge 3:22)
Yes. That was essentially the answer I was looking for. They did die a spiritual death. There are certain camps of Christians that believe in some other weird gobble-de-gook that I didn't even want to mess with if such was the case.
Okay, now I guess the next logical question would be:
Romans 5: 12-21 talks about Death through Adam, Life through Christ.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to ALL men, because ALL sinned--"
How do you interpret this Scripture? 12-21.
Wait, what was that?
"spiritual death"
Nope, I didn't say that. Physical death is what they suffered. Like I said, not at the moment, but eventually it was their fate DUE to the separation from the tree of life. Is that the "weird gobble-de-gook" that you are referring to? That the tree of life offered physical healing and sustainment? It's an admittedly miraculous claim but God has never shy-ed away from such things.
Following thought this line of thinking coincides with Romans 5 exactly. When you see death in Romans 5 think of it as physical death and when you see life think of it as physical life. After all, the idea of spiritual death never occurs in the Bible.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to ALL men, because ALL sinned--"
One man sinned (Adam) and (physical) death entered through that sin (Adam was punished by being removed from the Garden, and separated from the tree of life) and death came to ALL men (because all men are descendants of Adam and are thus separated from the tree as well).
Romans 5 is actually an excellent chapter to support my case because Paul spends a considerable amount of time in Romans 1-4 trying to convince us all that we are sinful BECAUSE of what we have done. It wouldn't make logical sense to stop at that point and change his argument to be that we are sinful for what Adam did.
Furthermore, Paul uses the same comparison technique in 1 Corinthians 15:21 where he claims again that death came into the world by man, and by another man will come..... resurrection of the dead. If you read 1 Corinthians 15:21 in it's context I don't think there is any way it can be conceived as talking of anything but actual physical death and actual physical resurrection. Which is a direct response to Christ's actual physical resurrection on the third day.
Wait, what was that?
"spiritual death"
Nope, I didn't say that. Physical death is what they suffered. Like I said, not at the moment, but eventually it was their fate DUE to the separation from the tree of life.
Yes, Scott. Spiritual death is the ultimate ruin of man. You said it yourself, Adam and Eve were separated from God. I can't think of anything worse.
The physical death came later but the immediate punishment was their separation from God. Remember, these two walked with God in the Garden. They had no blame before God. The minute they sinned, they hid from God. They could no longer have that relationship with God.
They suffered physical death, yes, but that is not the sting of death--death it's self--the sting of death is not having life eternal with the Lord.
This is what we have been delivered from. This is the hope in Christ--he defeated "physical death" by rising from the dead but that was not the victory, the victory is that he is with the Father in Heaven and so shall we be also.
Just so we're clear.
:)
Whilst all very interesting isn't the best way to determine mans nature the study of man... rather than the study of scripture?
Surely we would find out more about mans nature by looking at his History, Sociology & Psychology?
Just a thought.............
Scott, I'm just not convinced that you are right. I know about the debates between using the word flesh and nature, etc. . . time for some studying.
Do you think, then, that man is able not to sin? Also, you use the logic that if God is responsible for our natures in their sinful state then there would be no need for grace but God would be morally obligated to offer salvation to all. I have too often tried to put moral obligations on God and have to say that this argument does not hold for me at all. Our minds are too small to understand God or assume obligation (or non obligation for that matter). more later- after I re read and study Romans 8
Sadie, the term spiritual death exists only in theology and has no biblical foundation.
I'm really not even exactly sure what it entails. Could you clear that up for me and maybe explain what it means in the context of the idea of sinful nature? I'm really unclear as to what it means and can't really argue against it without knowing what it is.
Sarah,
Do you think, then, that man is able not to sin?
In each and every case man is free to choose whether to sin or not. Of course, the deck is so stacked against him that it's impossible to avoid sin. Still, Paul alludes to the fact that we can, theoretically, be saved by our works in Romans 2:6-7 as well as other places.
Also, you use the logic that if God is responsible for our natures in their sinful state then there would be no need for grace but God would be morally obligated to offer salvation to all. I have too often tried to put moral obligations on God and have to say that this argument does not hold for me at all.
Paul does the same in Romans 3:5-6. It's not surprise that taking the blame for what Adam did seems unjust to most people. After all, we're created in his image, and therefore have a similar sense of justice. Sure that can be perverted by outside influences, but I think most people would agree taking blame for other peoples actions is unjust.
Which in the end is my biggest gripe with this doctrine. We're presenting an unjust portrait of God.
Kitten,
I agree that we can learn quite a bit about man from Science, but this discussion is also about doctrinal issues on how man became the way he is. These are beliefs that came not from science originally, but from doctrine. So it makes sense to examine them from a scriptural aspect. While probably not particularly interesting to my atheist friends, it's relevant to discuss among those who believe the Bible.
scott said: I agree that we can learn quite a bit about man from Science, but this discussion is also about doctrinal issues on how man became the way he is. These are beliefs that came not from science originally, but from doctrine. So it makes sense to examine them from a scriptural aspect. While probably not particularly interesting to my atheist friends, it's relevant to discuss among those who believe the Bible.
Very true. I guess that I failed to realise that you wanted to discuss the 'nature of man' purely from a Biblical/Scriptual perspective rather than discussing the thing itself. I'll try and read your original posting more clearly in future.
As to understanding the *origins* of human nature - personally I'd start with Anthropology [grin].
Enjoy your debate/discussion. I'll bug out now as I can't realistically contribute to any discussion on Biblical nitty-gritty.....
You are indeed a very eloquent writer! You sound so much like my husband. This is just the type of "discussion" that would interest him. All I can say for now is that I too have a distaste for Christians (and people in general) who base their arguments solely on faith or because "God said so" instead of on logic, reason, or critical thinking. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. I will be reading the Scriptures you've listed and will comment more later....
P.S. The thing that is interesting me more at this moment is what prompted this post in the first place if, as you say, in the past you have been blogging "nonreligiously". Hmmmm.....
Wow great comments and thoughts everyone! =)
I do think things got a LITTLE off topic in the sense that I think this post was originally about the nature of mans sin not if he sins.
I tried to see where it was said in the post that men do not sin and I can't find it? I'm pretty sure that is because you didn't say it.
I'm thinking that maybe it is thought that it said that because to most people when someone says “sinful nature” that means "sin". So where you said, "If man had a sinful nature...." maybe that is being interpreted to you saying if men sinned…?
I did see that you did say a few times that you do not believe man is without sin...."Logically, the argument for Sinful Nature usually revolves around the fact that, indeed, we all sin. This sin is directly attributed to our nature due to the shear volume. Let’s be clear about this: I’m not claiming that there are those without sin, only that when they do sin they are going against their nature."
When I read your post I didn't get the impression that you were saying men were without sin. And I know that this post wasn't about if men sin or not. In fact I read over and over again that you were not trying to say that at all...
"Biblically there are two different routes that people will take. The first is to point out scriptures that say we are sinful from birth. I don’t disagree with this, but I will disagree that it is due to our nature."
BUT I totally understand the confusion. =)
I have always been confused when growing up because I was always told I have a sinful nature and that we were made to want to sin. And I thought OK. I would wonder about it and whenever it was talked about in church it never really made complete sense to me (because I also knew I wanted to please God in whatever way that meant to me as a kid) but I never questioned it either because I was just a kid and I didn’t think to and the church said it was true so it must be. But since you first brought this up years ago I often would find myself very confused. Because I know I sin and I choose sin nearly everyday over Christ (i.e. eat more than I should, I’m quick to anger, I “yell” at my husband or my kids, I will be lazy, speak out of selfish anger rather than speak soft words of God. Stuff like that and that doesn’t include all the really bad stuff!). BUT at the SAME TIME my heart longs to serve and please God but because of my flesh wanting to ALWAYS be gratified I LET it get in the way of my desire to glorify the Lord. Does that make sense? So I would wonder why I would feel guilty for sinning and that was because I knew that God didn’t want me to. Why would I feel guilty unless naturally I wanted to please God or be good? I think that if I naturally wanted to sin I wouldn’t feel guilty about it because it was natural, right? But the fact is I DO feel bad when I mess up (even though I know we have a loving God and all of my sins then, now, and later are forgiven it still makes me feel bad). I do want to please God and honor Him and serve Him.
I don’t really know much of anything so I tend to write in emotion and feel rather than logic and sense. But I tried my best to be logical in my girl sort of way.
Seriously great post Scott.
=oD
Hi Rebecca! *waves at Rebecca*
I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at with the Adam thing . . . I'm sure I iwll have more to say later but for now -
While I was thinking about this I came up with some verses and would like to know how you handle them: (I won't wirte about their context because I'm sure you will look them up and everything yourself.)
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
I also came across Mark 7:20 which is more in your favor- it was interesting to look at it in a different light
Eph 2:3
3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity
Also, why can't man be born desiring to please God but with a sinful nature as well.
I also think your verses are not supporting our argument as those are things that do not have to do with the very nature of man but of sexual sin or how man is, not sin nature.
My comment leads to me think about what about non-Christians (or the retarded or young children or people who haven't heard the gospel??). I don't think they want to serve and honor God because either they don't believe in Him or because insert A or B. BUT we were ALL created by God so wouldn't that mean that they too would naturally want to please Him? I think that naturally they want to be "good" people though so that is probably what drives them??? I know that there are a LOT of really bad and EVIL people out there like Pedophiles and murders and rapist were they born that way??? I don't think so; I think that is where free will and environment comes into play. (Free will meaning these people were raised by bad adults who freely choose to gratify their flesh in all ways evil who had the same thing happen to them and then these people choose to repeat history again).
Just thinking out loud and I'm curious what you would say.
Thanks for the kind words Rebecca and Jamie. I've been meaning to make this post for a while now, but I guess what got me to actually write it all out was a debate on another forum that this topic came up in.
I seem to get in debates a lot. :)
Sarah, I guess the Adam piece comes into play because this idea of Sinful Nature is so closely inter twined with the doctrine of Original Sin. In truth, they are two separate entities but share many of the same principles so in discounting one, the other kind of gets involved as well.
Plus, if we get our Sin Nature after Adam, or as a result of what he did, then we need to ask the question; Why did Adam sin?
And your verses:
Jeremiah 17:9
I answer it by saying indeed the heart is deceitful and beyond cure. That due to our own actions we're desperately in need of a Christ. However, sin is not a sign of our nature, it is a sign of our free will.
Ephesians 2:3
Indeed this is the verse, isn't it? I mean it *says* that it's by nature that we are sinners, doesn't it? I mean that's what it's saying RIGHT?
Well I don't think it is exactly. I think it's simply stating a fact. It's saying all of us did take part in the sin that the heathens do. And that the result of that sin is God's judgment and wraith.
It's like if you were to go to a smoker, who smoked his whole life and at the end of the life he found out he had lung cancer. You might say, this man smoked cigarettes his whole life, and by nature he got cancer. I mean it's just the natural course of events. Smoke, get cancer. Sin, get wraith. I don't think it's referring to man's nature, but rather the natural result of sin.
ps 51:5
I take this passage to be written figuratively, not literally. David's writings are filled with figurative language. Language that if taken literally would make for some pretty odd ideas. Such as "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Literally speaking this would mean that babies start lying as soon as they exit the womb. I don't see this being true.
Which leads to another problem with the whole Original Sin/Sin Nature line of reasoning. IF man is *born* sinful then he is born worthy of God’s wraith. That means that God will take a little baby that dies and throw it into the Lake of Fire without a second thought because that is exactly what that baby deserves, just as every sinner deserves it. Now I think I know that no one believes that to be true but that is what is required if we inherit inequity from Adam. Further more what about the mentally handicapped that Crystal brought up? Are they worthy of damnation as well? They are if they are born into inequity.
However, this isn’t what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God’s wraith is given to those who have a complete understanding of what is right and wrong, but choose to do what is against their own conscience. (Romans 1:18) There is no way a child can understand truth. There is no way a mentally handicapped person can understand truth. And if they do? Well them they have no one to blame but themselves when they stand before God. But that’s all about God’s judgment, which is a whooooooole nother blog post in itself, in’it?
Oh, and Sarah the verses I posted weren’t exactly to support my argument, but rather to point out all of the verses that have the word nature in them. My point was if Paul wanted to tell us we had a Sin Nature, wouldn’t he use the words together at least once?
I guess I have to say that I'm still not convinced. I think sometimes we make logical assumptions about God which aren't necessarily true. Who am I to assume God's judgement or mercy for that matter. We are made in his image so we do have a understadging of mercy and judgement but it's so small in comparison to God's. I don't think God throws little babies into the lake of fire. (Which technically is after the judgement so God is not doing that anyway) :)
Adam sinned because he was given the opportunity to. Why was he given the opportunity to? Well, Satan. But God is the most powerful force in the universe. So ultimately, God cause Adam's sin? A Good calvinist would say that God brings about sin through morally responsible agents in order to bring about his kingdom and bring glory to himself. This blows my mind, the implications are huge and horrible and, frankly, I cannot say I beleive this. But I cannot see the other way either.
If Adam wasn't given the opportunity to sin . . . where would the glory be in his obedience? All of that to say, I don't know what I believe about it. 4 years of studying the Bible at a renound Bible college, and I don't know and I am certainly not alone.
I'm all debated out. peace.
Crystals comment has prompted me to 'bug in' again. She said: BUT we were ALL created by God so wouldn't that mean that they too would naturally want to please Him?
As a non-Christian (though neither a child nor retarded - I just LOVE the way you lumped them all together) I must question your assertion (and that's all that it is) that we are all created by God & therefore should want to please Him. There are many people who don't believe in any God (like myself) and those who do not believe in your version of God. Why then should any of these two very large groups want to please *your* God?
Cyberkitten bugging out again... [grin].
CK great questions. If you re-read my comment I said...
"I don't think they want to serve and honor God because either they don't believe in Him or because insert A or B. BUT we were ALL created by God so wouldn't that mean that they too would naturally want to please Him? I think that naturally they want to be "good" people though so that is probably what drives them??"
I think I worded this part poorly:
"BUT we were ALL created by God so wouldn't that mean that they too would naturally want to please Him?"
I should have written this as,
"Scott according to your post since ALL men are created by God wouldn't that mean according to your understanding (AND mine) that men would "naturally" want to please God?"
And then I answered myself saying that NO I don't think that they naturally want to serve GOD (i.e. direct worship or acknowlegement or his existence). I think their nature is too want to be good over not being good. Does that make sense??? And after a person becomes a Christian they realize that that desire is to really serve God. I know you don't believe in God, but don't we all make an effort to better ourselves and "do the right thing?"
And I didn't "lump" children and retarded (is that politically correct or not I can't keep up. I was told it is okay to say by my friend whose child is "retarded") as a "throw out the leftovers in the garbage" sort of way or "these are the lower class less than me people" AT ALL. =) I did so because of course Christians believe in God, BUT children, and a lot of mentally challenged do not because they are not capable of understanding depending on age and whatever. And I put non-Christians in there for people who do not believe in my God either.
And the people who do not believe in my God still want to naturally serve and please their version of God. Because my God, I believe made us that way.
I hope I made some sense even though you probably won't agree with me I hope it's at least understandable what I am trying to say. =)
Scott--
*befuddled*
So are you saying that Adam's punishment for sinning was physical death and removal from the garden?
LOL, Hey dudette I was just working my buttsey off!! I woke up extra early today and did laundry, took a shower, got my baby up and dressed, made her breakfast, folded clothes, did more laundry, played with baby, fed the dog...
I have only popped in here a few times to check my e-mail and this blog.
It took me 3 mins to read and respond to this and now I am off to finish folding some clothes and play with my baby. Then I am going to go pick up Emily and Frank from my mom's bring them home to shower feed everyone lunch. Have them put their clothes away. Buy the time this is done it will be time to take Frank to the doctor.
After that Maddie takes a nap, Emily and Frank have to read for 45 mins, and I will be back on here again for some computer time.
Then the kids and I will pick up the house so it's nice and clean for Daddy. Then I will drop them off at my mom's again because Scott and I have our Tuesday thing.
Then I will come home and make dinner.
I'm workin' girl I'm workin'.
Now I have been on here for 6 mins.
Love you!!
Oh and I was on here this morning before I woke Maddie to search for school curriculums and to research Cushing’s Syndrome with now I think I have!! YIKES!!!
K, LURVE you again!! =oD
get to work!
No.
crystal said: I know you don't believe in God, but don't we all make an effort to better ourselves and "do the right thing?"
In the main, yes. But what has that to do with God?
crystal also said: And the people who do not believe in my God still want to naturally serve and please their version of God. Because my God, I believe made us that way.
Putting atheism to one side for a moment... there are also the Buddhists who don't believe in any God.. I'm guessing that neither group care to please anyones conception of God... You see my point I hope? I certainly understand your argument more... but I (of course) cannot agree with you... as always. Though I'm sure there will be a first time!
Ah, more good questions and comments!! =o)
In the main, yes. But what has that to do with God?
It has to do with subject of this post. That being that it is of our opinion (Scott and I) that the Bible supports Scott's position that God created men with a nature to serve Him. It's the "argument" or stance we are trying to assert. And we are taking it from a Biblical and Christian view point.
Yes, I know that Buddhist do not believe in a God and they would just fit into my cozy little non-Christian category. I can't list each and every belief or non belief that people think. I had to generalize it the best I could...
But yes I see your point and I think we are making the same one, actually. =) I agree that neither Atheists nor Buddhists care to please anyone’s conception of God. I am saying though that Atheists and Buddhists alike naturally want to strive to do what is right. It's simply my opinoin that "doing right" is in line with what God wants us to do and so therefore is pleasing to him.
But as I said I see your point and agree. Maybe that is our first?? I could be wrong though? =)
Crystal... I only think that we seem to be agreeing..... [grin].
Of course I had this long and well written comment and then when I went to publish the connection went wonky & I lost it. DH and I had a long conversation regarding your post and it does prove to be a very deep & intersting (not to mention somewhat complicated) topic. I am wondering where the aspect of conversion fits into your "stance" regarding sin nature? You never address this in your original post. DH believes that the sin nature was a consequence of the fall and is passed on through Adam's seed. This is why it is possible that we could have a sin nature and Jesus did NOT have a sin "nature", because He did not come from "seed" and was conceived immaculately. Also, I guess the word "nature" is a little unclear to me. Are we thinking "innate"? Inherent? You say:
By claiming we have a sinful nature you’re in effect blaming God for your sin, because if we did have a sin nature who would have put it there? God is the only one who could create such a thing. And if God created it, it’s God’s fault that we sin and he would have no right to judge us. In fact if he did give us a sin nature it would be his moral duty to save us and there would be no grace involved.
I don't think that you could say that it would be God's fault if we sin even if He did create us with a sin nature as that would completely eliminate the element of free will. I guess I'm thinking of "nature" more as a "propensity towards" or as a "predisposition to". For example, a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism (which I'm not even sure I believe) does not excuse a person from becoming an alcoholic, they still make the choices that get them there, just as we still make the choices to sin.
I guess I keep coming back to what happens at the point of conversion. Isn't it possible that we are in fact born with a sin nature and then at the point of conversion this nature is changed and we are "new creations"?
I, like Crystal, am doing a lot of thinking out loud here. (you mean I'm not the only one who does that? *wink) Maybe you can clear up some of my questions so I can give this more thought.....
I don't have to work toay because yesterday was my last day! horray! Today we go to Idaho for a few days and 12 days after we get back, Mooseheart, here we come!
Jami *hugs* thanks!
Scott this was a most excellent post but now I'm ready for a new one!
=D
Yes I dito that thanks Scott for this awesome post!! LURVE YOU!!
Jami ~ CALL ME this week and tell me about this talk!
sorry, has been a very busy couple of weeks, but I have been checking in...
your response to my post missed my point, and i guess i wasn't articulate enough to get it across properly.
The question is not whether man sins, but if it's some nature that God placed in him after the fall that causes him to sin
i don't think God placed this nature in man, I believe it was man who to accepted the responsibility for disobeying God's direct order that led to this "tendancy toward sin." This btw, is my personal definition of sinful nature.
i also believe that we are all (speaking to you, crystal, jamie, cyberkitten, etc.) raised under the Judeo-Christian societal mores. This, more than our nature, contributes to our feeling guilty when we choose ourselves over others.
I still go back to my first comment, humans as a whole, tend to try to better themselves, elevate themselves over their peers. I think this is what is the heart of the sinful nature or the flesh. Our animalistic insticts fight for control of us. these insticts battle against our intellect. This is the heart fo the battle of the flesh.
am I making any sense? I would love to be able to meet and talk with you face to face...
swinging sammy asked: am I making any sense?
To an extent yes.... but I still fail to understand why some have the need to bring God into the debate about the nature of Man. Certainly IMO it can be explained without the existence of a Supreme Being. I continually fail to understand why God must be added into the 'mix' to explain a natural phenomena... but then I would being who and what I am [grin].
um...
a new post is in order.
signed,
The Post Police
In a belated comment...I was thinking about pretty much the same thing the other day - the whole is man inherently good or inherently bad debate - and wanted to do a post, but your's pretty much captures a lot of what I wanted to say and more.
Especially liked the looking at how tranlations can alter the meaning of passages. More people should study older versions of the Bible and not depend on only contemporary translations.
Cheers.
I would love to know what your thoughts are on Jews. As I am Jewish and know that a Christians view is that they say they love and respect the "chosen" however, there will come that time that if you don't accept the Lord as your savior, you will go straight to hell..so how does that play out with love and respect.? I ask this because I was recently employed with Born Agains and they know of my faith but also wanted me to read information from their church which is disrespectful yet I was told how much they respect me..etc...
I mean no disrespect with my comment. I do like to educate myself, hence my thoughts and questions..
First off I would say that my views are maybe not representative of Christians on a whole. So what I might say may not coincide with what another "born again" might say.
That being said, I don't believe for a second that God judges ANYONE according to what they believe. When judgment falls on a person it will be based solely on what that person has DONE. For those who have gone through their life living up to the demands of their own conscience, God will reward them with eternal life. However, those who violate their own conscience and in turn nature itself will receive much wraith.
That goes for Jews, Gentiles, Muslims, Grandmas, teachers, preachers, and presidents. All men will stand before God as equals.
Now for those of us who have found that we cannot live up to the demands of our own conscience, God has offered abundant grace in the from of his Son. This does, in fact, require belief to enact, but the judgment of God is always based on the deeds we have done not what we believe.
I hope that's not an entirely disrespectful stance.
take a good look at your life scott
Anything in particular I should be looking to find, oh wise anonymous?
These anonymous comments are getting really weird and sad for me. I don't understand what it's all about.
Scott you are amazing and I love you.
Hi Scott. I came across you due to a fluke of my blog stats. I'm so glad to meet a Christian who seems to think much as I do on this topic. My blog right now is not relevant to it, but other entries are - one is listed under my favourite entries (losing my religion).
I'll come back. I like your style.
Post a Comment