The Origin of Sin--PART III

[Winman]

Originally Posted by Amy.G
Winman, I believe this verse is talking about God's original creation of Adam, not every man that is born. Adam was made upright, but sinned, bringing sin upon all mankind.

Amy, I would disagree. Look at the verse again.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

As you can see, Solomon was not speaking of one man, but all of us.

Even in the NT it says we are made in the similitude or likeness of God.

James 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

As you can see, James says all men are made after the similitude or likeness of God. And James was also speaking in the present tense.

 

[Aaron]

Today the word "lust" has a bad connotation. In OE the word "lust" meant two things. One could "lust" after evil things (sin), or could "lust" after good things (not sin), but the simple meaning of desire. Context determined the meaning.

The same is true with words like "tempt." Only context can determine if this was used in a sinful way or a good way.

Annnnnd. . . . your point is . . .?

 

[DHK]

Annnnnd. . . . your point is . . .?

I suppose I am agreeing with Winman in his differentiation.

Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart. (Deuteronomy 12:15)

To corrupt something means to go from good to bad. You cannot corrupt something that is already corrupt.

Having lusts and desires is not evil. In fact, the same word translated lust is often used to show a desire for something good.

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.


The word lust here is the very same word used in Luke 22:15 translated desire.

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Lust in James 1:14 and desire in Luke 22:15 are the same exact word. Lust is not necessarily evil, you can have a lust or desire for good things as Jesus did in Luke 22:15.

Jesus had the same nature we did, else where would there be a victory? If he had no lusts and desires to overcome, how could he defeat sin?

But that differentiation does not hold water when trying to attribute a sin nature to Christ, or contrary wise, denying a sin nature to man. Either position is wrong. The difference in translation from Greek to English doesn't prove a thing.

 

[DHK]

Exactly! We go astray. A sheep that never belonged to a flock cannot go astray.

The verse (Psalm 58:3) says: we "go astray as soon as we are born speaking lies." There is the context. We have a sin nature as soon as we are born and start wandering in sin from that point onward. What the Bible states I accept by faith. I may not understand everything, but the truths that it teaches I accept by faith that they are true and immutable. I don't question them. I wonder why others do??

No, it would not. We are and always will be inferior to Jesus. We are created souls and spirits, he is the Creator.

This is a serious charge, or you are just simply very confused.
1. We are created body, soul, and spirit.
2. Christ, the creator, was never created. Note that difference clearly. I trust you don't take the J.W. or Mormon position on this.
3. Though Christ was born of a virgin he still was not created. This is the truth of the incarnation. He put on flesh. He never gave up His divinity, not even in the womb.
4. Being conceived by the Holy Spirit his "flesh" was somewhat different than ours. He was made "like unto us." He did not have a human father, and thus his flesh had to be somewhat different. The people of that time were not molecular scientists and did not perform DNA tests. All such speculation is vanity.

No, it is Solomon speaking as "the preacher", the wisest man who ever lived, a prophet, and saying this is what he has found, that God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions.

I don't have time to go through the book with you now. You need to study it on your own.

What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? (Ecclesiastes 1:3)
And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith. (Ecclesiastes 1:13)
I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. (Ecclesiastes 1:14)
--I trust you can gain from these verses the theme of the book.

I agree.

The information is out there. Look and see.

You haven't done your homework have you?
Do you know where Calvin got much of his beliefs from?
They came from Augustine. Calvinism has its roots in Augustine. And you don't believe that Augustine believed in the depravity of man??

That is not what it says at all, it says we are ACCUSTOMED to do evil. To be accustomed means to become used to something through use, through habit, not that you originate in that condition.

No you are wrong. The verse uses the word accustomed, but what does the verse teach (Jer.13:23)?
The Ethiopian has black skin; that is his nature; he was born that way.
The leopard has spots; that is his nature; he was born that way.
Man is accustomed to doing evil; that is his nature; he was born that way.
He is born with a sin nature. It was inherited from Adam--part of the curse.

Porn is corrupt because it is a perversion of good wholesome movies.

No it isn't. A porn movie is corrupt from beginning to end. It never started out Cinderella and became porn. It started porn and ended porn. It started evil and ended evil. It is and was evil through and through, from beginning to end. It did not evolve from good to evil. It is not a perversion of good. It is evil, inherent evil of a depraved heart.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)
--It doesn't say that the heart started out good. It is evil, and always has been.

Even Satan became corrupt, God says he was perfect when he was created. Amazing, your doctrine teaches that babies start out more evil than Satan did.

Satan was a created being, created like the other angels in a state of angels. You were not. You were born with an evil nature. You sin because:
1. you have a propensity to sin--a sin nature.
2. You want to sin. And you have to take responsibility for your actions.
Both reasons are correct.

 

[Winman]

The verse (Psalm 58:3) says: we "go astray as soon as we are born speaking lies." There is the context. We have a sin nature as soon as we are born and start wandering in sin from that point onward. What the Bible states I accept by faith. I may not understand everything, but the truths that it teaches I accept by faith that they are true and immutable. I don't question them. I wonder why others do??

And just what do we go astray from?

This is a serious charge, or you are just simply very confused.
1. We are created body, soul, and spirit.
2. Christ, the creator, was never created. Note that difference clearly. I trust you don't take the J.W. or Mormon position on this.
3. Though Christ was born of a virgin he still was not created. This is the truth of the incarnation. He put on flesh. He never gave up His divinity, not even in the womb.
4. Being conceived by the Holy Spirit his "flesh" was somewhat different than ours. He was made "like unto us." He did not have a human father, and thus his flesh had to be somewhat different. The people of that time were not molecular scientists and did not perform DNA tests. All such speculation is vanity.

I don't have time to go through the book with you now. You need to study it on your own.

I don't know what you are talking about now. I said we are created souls and spirit, while Jesus is the Creator. You just told me the exact thing I told you.

As for #4, God is a spirit, therefore Jesus got his flesh (or at least half) from his mother. If sin is inherited through the flesh, then Jesus would have had a sin nature. The Catholics fully understood this, why do you think they invented the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that said Mary was conceived by a special grace of God without a sin nature? My position is not unorthodox at all.

And not having a human father would not prevent Jesus from inheriting a sin nature if this was true. Look at Job 15:14

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Say what you will, Jesus was born of a woman. If sin is inherited, Jesus would have been born a sinner.

What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? (Ecclesiastes 1:3)
And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith. (Ecclesiastes 1:13)
I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. (Ecclesiastes 1:14)
--I trust you can gain from these verses the theme of the book.

Everything we do in this life is vain. You can't take it with you. The only thing that really matters in life is to get saved and to make sure all your friends and family get saved by telling them the gospel. This is not some sort of philosophy, it is the truth.

You haven't done your homework have you?
Do you know where Calvin got much of his beliefs from?
They came from Augustine. Calvinism has its roots in Augustine. And you don't believe that Augustine believed in the depravity of man??

I know that Augustine believed in depravity, and he is the one credited for the doctrine of original sin. Many church fathers before him did not believe this, and there were many who disagreed afterwards, look it up. In fact, if you really study Augustine you will find he held many incredibly superstitious and unscriptural beliefs.

No you are wrong. The verse uses the word accustomed, but what does the verse teach (Jer.13:23)?
The Ethiopian has black skin; that is his nature; he was born that way.
The leopard has spots; that is his nature; he was born that way.
Man is accustomed to doing evil; that is his nature; he was born that way.
He is born with a sin nature. It was inherited from Adam--part of the curse.

No, accustomed means to be taught something, to learn something. It means to learn by habit. A person becomes accustomed to smoking. The first time they try it, most people choke and cough, their eyes water. But as they continue to smoke they become accustomed to it. It is the same with food, we try to get our kids to eat vegatables, but oftentimes they do not like them. We urge them to try it anyway. After awhile they become accustomed to them and start to enjoy vegatables.

And saying a leopard cannot change it's spots or that an Ethopian cannot change the color of his sin is speaking of absolute obstinance. These are people who are so in rebellion against God and enjoy their sin so much that he compares them to a leopard and Ethiopian. This is hyperbole.

No it isn't. A porn movie is corrupt from beginning to end. It never started out Cinderella and became porn. It started porn and ended porn. It started evil and ended evil. It is and was evil through and through, from beginning to end. It did not evolve from good to evil. It is not a perversion of good. It is evil, inherent evil of a depraved heart.

Anything that is called corrupt means it is a perversion of something that was once good, that is the very definition of the word, look it up. When men first made movies, they were generally fairly pure. But as time has gone on movies have become more and more corrupt. The same could be said of TV programming.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)
--It doesn't say that the heart started out good. It is evil, and always has been.

All of us become corrupt through sin. The more we sin, the more corrupt we become. This is simply saying that all men have corrupt deceitful hearts. That does not mean a newborn baby has a deceitful heart, they can't even form thoughts.

Satan was a created being, created like the other angels in a state of angels. You were not. You were born with an evil nature. You sin because:
1. you have a propensity to sin--a sin nature.
2. You want to sin. And you have to take responsibility for your actions.
Both reasons are correct.

Our souls and spirits are created too. God does not create evil things. Satan was not evil when God created him, but through his own rebellion became corrupt. We are the same, we are created innocent little children, but become corrupt through our own sin just like Satan did.

Matt 19:But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus speaking of little children said "for of such is the kingdom of heaven". Are you telling me heaven is full of little devils? That is preposterous.

 

[HankD]

Hank, this is very good, this is very similar to what I believe.

Where I may differ from some is that I do not understand "the fall" as other people do. I see that Adam and Eve were flesh before they sinned. They had lusts and desires. Look at what it says of Eve;

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve had lust and desires before she sinned. How was she any different that we are today? Yes, she was "very good" because she was sinless at this point. Nevertheless, she was flesh and had lusts and desires.

And I do not see even one word of God cursing man's moral nature in the garden or anywhere else in all of scripture. Now you would think something of such magnitude doctrinally would be spoken of often, but it is not. There is nowhere in scripture where it says God cursed man's nature and caused him to be depraved.

No, God cursed the ground, and said we would return to the dust. And here is something most folks might not have considered, that is a good thing. If God had not cursed us to die, we would live forever and become more and more corrupt. It is only because we have a short life and then a promised judgment that many of us repent.

In fact, I think one of the reasons God brought about Noah's flood was to shorten men's lifespan to reduce wickedness in the world. Before the flood men lived 800-900 years. You can imagine how sinful a person would be if they expected to live such long ages. Young people are often sinful because they think they have plenty of time to repent of sin later. But when a person gets near the end of their life they take the afterlife far more seriously. There were many physical changes to the earth after Noah's flood, and I believe these changes resulted in man living far shorter lifespans.

So, the curse of death was good. Otherwise if we lived forever we would never cease to become more and more wicked.

I never did like the phrase "original sin" but I understand what is meant when it is used.

The clearest explanation to the propensity of all of humanity to sin is Romans 5:12 which says that sin and death are passed upon all.

Call it "sin nature", propensity to sin, inclination to sin, whatever.

There are two things about it that speakes of an inherant "nature".

1) It is universal to mankind.
2) it is an unlearned behavior.

Those two things along with Romans 5:12 indicates it is a "genetic" thing (transmittable, else where did it come from being universal and unlearned?) but not necessarily related in its root cause to our material being because "flesh" (Gk, sarx) has a metaphysical (nonmaterial) component as well as physical. Also we are IMO tripartite (body,soul and spirit).

In addition the word "body" (Gk soma) is distinct from "flesh".

Eve's lust: Lust was born the moment her desire ideated itself into action starting with acceptance of the lie, the activation of her will and ending with her act of eating against the known will of God.

Adam also, but he was not deceived.

Previous to that, he/she had acceptable desires which were not technically lust (IMO). Once activated, lust and sin became natural to them and to their progeny and they passed it on to us.

So the transmission of this propensity to sin and the result of death roots out of Adam.

What the vehicle of transmission is I do not know for sure because the Scripture doesn't go into that kind of detail except to say (as the Scripture), it is passed from Adam. I do feel that our entire being and all of creation is involved having been corrupted.

Romans 8

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.​

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now

And when the Scripture doesn't go into deep detail on a given subject, I try to leave the details alone in terms of doctrinal conviction but I do have some strong feelings around certain of such subjects.


HankD

 

[Winman]

Hank, Romans 5:12 does not say that either sin or death are inherited. It says death passed upon all men BECAUSE all men have sinned.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

This verse does not teach that sin or death are inherited. It says sin passes upon all of us because all of us have sinned. Our death is our own fault, not Adam's.

 

[DHK]

Hank, Romans 5:12 does not say that either sin or death are inherited. It says death passed upon all men BECAUSE all men have sinned.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

This verse does not teach that sin or death are inherited. It says sin passes upon all of us because all of us have sinned. Our death is our own fault, not Adam's.

If all of what you said is true, then:
1. Show me a person that never has died.
2. Show me a person that never has sinned.

You should be able to do both, according to your above statements.

 

[Aaron]

I suppose I am agreeing with Winman in his differentiation.

I suppose I should have used the word "apetites." Our apetites are corrupted. Nothing we feel is whole or meets the glory of God. They all fall short. They are all sin. It's not "what we do with the apetites," the apetites themselves are corrupt and at enmity with God.

 

[Winman]

If all of what you said is true, then:
1. Show me a person that never has died.
2. Show me a person that never has sinned.

You should be able to do both, according to your above statements.

You know, that is the trouble, whenever someone contests original sin, you always get these folks that say you are claiming a person can live a sinless life. I have never said that, I believe every person except Jesus Christ sins. I believe little children can sin. I believe infants can do actions which are sinful, although I do not believe they are held accountable. And I have provided scripture where God himself speaks of children not KNOWING good from evil.

It is amazing we have to discuss this. Anybody who has ever looked on a newborn child knows they are absolutely innocent.

I have said and will say what the scriptures say, we are born flesh. I believe this involves more than just the body, it involves desires and emotions as well. These natural lusts and desires can influence the thoughts and intentions of the heart (soul). But the flesh itself can make no decision, it is the soul of man that makes a decision whether to sin or not.

Now, Jesus did not have a soul like ours. We are created souls and therefore inferior to Jesus who is the Creator. The creation can never be equal to the Creator.

In fact, I believe it impossible for a created being to be incapable of sinning. If so, we would be equal to God which is impossible. God cannot sin, we can. We cannot be equal to God in any attribute or characteristic.

Even though Adam and Eve were created very good, they were capable of sinning. That is obvious, because they did sin. We are born weak, we are not able to overcome the lusts and desires of our flesh.

But God cannot sin, do you see the difference?

Now, when Jesus was made flesh it raises an interesting question, could he now sin? I am not decided about this. But I do know that he never sinned. He was strong enough to overcome the lusts and desires of the flesh.

 

[Luke2427]

Lust: personally I believe that Jesus flesh (sarx) had all the appetites of our flesh.

These appetites in and of themselves are not sin: desire for food, drink, comfort, a mate, a family... etc.

Jesus had them, He hungered, was thirsty, etc...

Where sin enters in is when we satisfy these desires apart from the known will of God (in Jesus case, under the Law).

He never gave in to them, not even in the Garden where He agonized at the thought of the cross, He sweat blood as a result of the conflict (for lack of a better word).

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.​

Well put.

This is the Biblical and orthodox argument.

Anyone who says that Jesus had a sin nature is either misunderstanding what sin nature is or is simply heretical.

I think the problem here on BB is that those who say Jesus had a sin nature really don't know what they are talking about.

They seem to think that sin nature is to be equated with appetites and desires.

Of course this is utterly ridiculous since "nature" means the ingrained propensity to do something.

The desire to eat or have sex, etc... is not a propensity to sin. It is a propensity to eat and have sex- neither of which is sin at all.

If sin nature means the desire to do things such as this then sex and food are always sinful.

Of course that is not true.

It is EXACTLY as you said. Sin nature is the overwhelming desire to rebel against God- not to satisfy appetites.

Thanks for being a voice of reason and truth.

 

[Winman]

Well put.

This is the Biblical and orthodox argument.

Anyone who says that Jesus had a sin nature is either misunderstanding what sin nature is or is simply heretical.

I think the problem here on BB is that those who say Jesus had a sin nature really don't know what they are talking about.

They seem to think that sin nature is to be equated with appetites and desires.

Of course this is utterly ridiculous since "nature" means the ingrained propensity to do something.

The desire to eat or have sex, etc... is not a propensity to sin. It is a propensity to eat and have sex- neither of which is sin at all.

If sin nature means the desire to do things such as this then sex and food are always sinful.

Of course that is not true.

It is EXACTLY as you said. Sin nature is the overwhelming desire to rebel against God- not to satisfy appetites.

Thanks for being a voice of reason and truth.

That is easily proved wrong. It is very sinful to want to have sex outside marriage, and it is a sin to eat too much, that is called gluttony, and can result in severe health problems. However, it is not sinful to desire sex within marriage, and it is not sinful to eat reasonable amounts of food to maintain good health.

And I never said Jesus had a sin nature, I have repeatedly said I do not like that term as I believe it unscriptural. I have said that Jesus came in the flesh, which is the same term applied to us.

Do you deny that Jesus came in the flesh?

 

[Amy.G]

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If "all" have sinned, this includes infants does it not? However I do not believe an infant has knowledge of sin. He simply acts according to his nature.

 

[Winman]

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If "all" have sinned, this includes infants does it not? However I do not believe an infant has knowledge of sin. He simply acts according to his nature.

Yes, children simply follow their natural desires. They may fight to take a toy from a sibling for example. But they do not understand good from evil and are not accountable.
But I would not say a newborn baby can commit sin, they can barely do anything at all.
Paul said he was alive without the law once, but when the law came sin revived and he died.
Now, if we are born dead in sin, how could Paul say he was alive? And you can't argue that Paul did not know sound doctrine when he said this.
No, he was alive because he was too young to understand right from wrong, but when he matured enough to understand the law he came under condemnation and died.

 

[HankD]

I think all that can be said has been said.

Yes, winman we are responsible for our own sins.

We are not responsible for being human as we did not bring ourselves into this world.

We have however descended from the first human sinner and we (by whatever means) have had his sin and death nature (propensity to sin if you will) passed/transmitted from Adam (Romans 5:12) upon all of us.

Babies: As I said before, when the fruit appears on the tree it confirms what kind of tree it is.
The first peach on a tree does not make the tree a peach tree but declares what kind of tree it is.

HankD

 

[Luke2427]

The first peach on a tree does not make the tree a peach tree but declares what kind of tree it is.

HankD

That is an excellent and biblical analogy.

Good work!:thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

I think all that can be said has been said.

Yes, winman we are responsible for our own sins.

We are not responsible for being human as we did not bring ourselves into this world.

We have however descended from the first human sinner and we (by whatever means) have had his sin and death nature (propensity to sin if you will) passed/transmitted from Adam (Romans 5:12) upon all of us.

Babies: As I said before, when the fruit appears on the tree it confirms what kind of tree it is.
The first peach on a tree does not make the tree a peach tree but declares what kind of tree it is.

HankD

If we are born depraved without the ability to do good, how can we be responsible for failing to do good? Not only is this unjust, it is nonsensical. Can you expect a person born blind to see? Would it be just to punish this man for his inability which he had no part in?
I find it incredible that anyone could believe this!

 

[DHK]

If we are born depraved without the ability to do good, how can we be responsible for failing to do good? Not only is this unjust, it is nonsensical. Can you expect a person born blind to see? Would it be just to punish this man for his inability which he had no part in?
I find it incredible that anyone could believe this!

Yes, so did the disciples. But Jesus told them to accept it anyway for it was for the glory of God.

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered,
3 Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents:

but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. (John 9:1-3)

He was born blind through no fault of our own.
We are born sinners with a sin nature through no fault of our own.
You may think it is unfair, but it is a Biblical fact that you can ask God about when you get to heaven.

 

[DHK]

Winman, let me give you some quotes from Beale, in his book, "In Pursuit of Purity, out of the chapter 'The Advance of Liberalism in America." Here is one.

[FONT=&quot]. The more radical wing of the New England Theology, the followers of Nathaniel W. Taylor (1786-1858) of Yale Divinity School at New Haven, Connecticut, insisted that all sin is voluntary, and not inherited. According to this New Haven doctrine, which is very similar to the ancient heresy called Pelagianism, man is sinful because he sins; man does not sin because he is sinful. It proponents, such as N.W. Taylor and Charles G. Finney (1792-1875), denied the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt to his posterity.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Finney, though a great evangelist, was a heretic. He was unscrupulous in that he sought any means to gain the ends. The "mourners" bench started with him. Because man did not have a sin nature it was only natural and logical that on this earth man could attain entire sanctification. That is the logical conclusion, is it not. Finney believed so.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here is another quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Case of Oberlin College[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Charles Finney as most famous as an innovative revivalist who introduced “new measures” or pragmatic methods, such as the “anxious bench” and the protracted meeting, to induce individuals to respond to the gospel. In 1835, he became professor of theology at Oberlin College (est. 1832) in Ohio, where he remained for the rest of his life. He served as the college president from 1851 to 1865. Finney, along with Asa Mahan, Oberlin’s first president, established and popularized the institution a seedbed of New England Theology. Out of the welter of contradictory ideas at Oberlin, two distinct theological trends found significant support: Pragmatism and Perfectionism. The pragmatic tendency was revealed in Finney’s attitude toward revivals: “Revival is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means.” He justified the means that he used on the basis of the results he achieved. If his “new measures” persuaded men to make professions of faith, then they must be legitimate. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Oberlin Perfectionism taught that man is capable of attaining entire sanctification in this life. Charles Hodge, a critic of the view, maintained that the rest of this system was the assertion that “every man in virtue of being a free agent, has plenary ability fulfill all his obligations. Finney assumed that God cannot justly require a man to do anything he is unable to do, and thus the law is brought down to the level of a man’s ability. Furthermore, if every man can be entirely sanctified, then society itself is also perfectible. Mahan and Finney trained scores of professional evangelists who were noted for their zeal for social reform. This ideal of changing society was most popularly expressed in the work of Charles H. Sheldon (1857-1946), a graduate of Andover Seminary and pastor of the Central Congregational Church in Topeka, Kansas. His novel, In His Steps (1896), which he read chapter by chapter in his congregation, presented a method for reforming society through following the example of Jesus. Pragmatism and Pelagian Perfectionism blended naturally into what became the Social Gospel.

That should say it all. The theology that you believe in is associated with heresy. This gives you an idea what it leads to--the social gospel, entire sanctification, a perfect society on earth, and many other heresies. Man has a depraved nature because that is what the Bible teaches, particularly in Romans 5:12,19; Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Jer.13:23; 17:9; Rom.3:9-12, 23; and so many others.
[/FONT]

 

[Winman]

Finney, though a great evangelist, was a heretic. He was unscrupulous in that he sought any means to gain the ends. The "mourners" bench started with him. Because man did not have a sin nature it was only natural and logical that on this earth man could attain entire sanctification. That is the logical conclusion, is it not. Finney believed so.

Whether Finney was a heretic or not I will let God judge. Many people have been called heretics who are not.

Now, I would disagree with Finney that man does not have a sin nature. You may not understand me here. I do not believe man is born with a sin nature, I believe men are born flesh, with lusts and desires. These lusts and desires can lead a person to do good or evil, but they are not evil in themselves, as they have no actual control over what a man chooses to obey. You may find a wallet on the ground with a large sum of money in it. You may be tempted to keep the money and throw the wallet away. This is the lust of the flesh, because you can imagine providing yourself much comfort, ease, and enjoyment with this money. You could buy a new wide-screen TV for example that you have wanted for sometime. So this is lust or desire. But in your mind, which pertains to the soul you know this would be wrong. Still, the flesh reminds you how much you have wanted that TV, and now you have the opportunity to buy it. But again, your God given conscience, and if you are a Christian the Holy Spirit, reminds you this would be a sin. So you decide to go to the police station and turn the wallet in.

The reason I picked this example is because I found a wallet this afternoon, although it only had a small amount of money in it.

But even non-Christians have a God given conscience. Conscience by definition means we have an inner sense of right and wrong, and a desire to do that which is right. Look it up in the dictionary.

From Merriam Webster's

Conscience

a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good

The scriptures say we have a conscience.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Paul said some Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law, which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness. Note how our thoughts can either accuse us of wrong, or excuse us (rationalize) from sin.

This overthrows Total Depravity as Calvinsim understands it right there. Yes, man has lusts and desires that tempt him to do evil, but he also has the conscience and law written on his heart that pulls or tugs him to do good.

If you do not like that, take it up with God, that is what Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the scriptures. And this is very straightforward and easy to understand, not some scripture I had need of wresting to make it say what I wish.

Now, that said, I do believe man develops a sin nature. The more we sin, the easier it becomes to sin. The conscience can become scarred or seared, it can become calloused, or hardened.

1 Tim 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

This is easily observed by everyone. The first time you commit a particular sin is the most difficult. The next time is a little easier, the third time easier still. A person will rationalize their behavior, or will put the conviction of the conscience out of their mind. After awhile, the conscience bothers a person no more at all, the conscience has become deadened like seared flesh that can no longer feel sensation.

And that is what Jeremiah is speaking of when he speaks about the leopard changing his spots, or an Ethiopian changing the color of his skin. These are persons who are so accustomed to sin that their conscience has become seared. These are persons who are obstinate in their rebellion toward God as Pharaoh was.

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

You have to read the whole verse, not just the part that agrees with your personal beliefs. Jeremiah is speaking of persons who are accustomed to do evil. Accustomed means to learn something, to be taught, to learn by habit, look it up in the dictionary.

So, I do believe we develop a sin nature, we all go astray, we all corrupt ourselves.

I do not agree with Finney that a man can rehabilitate himself of his own power. I absolutely think man needs the grace of God. Man needs his sinful corrupt heart to be washed of it's sins and be given new desires.

So, do not compare me to these men, I do not believe as they do. I believe all of us need the grace of God to turn from evil and do good.