-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are individuals born evil or made that way?
- Thread starter Neonap
- Start date
-
- Tags
- philosophy questions the world
The point I am trying to focus on is that men are, as you say, born spiritually dead, and that because they have not the Spirit of God.
So, rather than being born "with something (a sin nature)," they are born...
...without something (the Spirit of God).
That is why they sin. And while one might call that a sin nature, and it would be basically true (because man will inevitably sin), that does not mean that we view babies in the womb as "sinners," for they have not yet sinned. Similar to this train of thought is the concept of being "guilty (which I agree with)" due to being a descendant. But let's look at two passages in relation to this thought process:
Romans 5:12-14
King James Version (KJV)
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:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Here we see that rather than sinned being imputed...it is not. The reason? Because (1) the context of this passage is contrasting the Law with the current (Paul's Day) ministry of God through Christ (as pointed out yesterday), and (2) there is a distinction drawn between Adam's sin and the sin of the individuals Paul is referring to (which is not all of mankind throughout history, but those within this particular Age).
Similar to Levi paying tithes in Abraham, even so we all have "sinned" in Adam, but, we cannot ignore a very explicit statement of Paul:
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Now, let's go back to Levi paying tithes in Adam, mankind "sinning" in Adam, and look at the Remedy:
Romans 5:17-19
King James Version (KJV)
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
As also noted yesterday (perhaps I could coin a term and call that Yestersay? lol), it is death Paul keeps hammering home. Death came on man when sin entered the world. Judgment (man's guilt) came when sin entered the world (not men, as though it is a disease).
Now I ask all of you...is it your righteousness by which you receive life?
Answer that question if nothing else.
And not sure what happened, but this posted mid stride, so being limited on time this morning I will try to work the other passage into my response to Hank.
But this post is open to all to respond to. This is an intriguing line of inquiry for me and appreciate any and all comments.
God bless.
Don't take that the wrong way, I am not trying to offend you, just pointing out that I view man having a "sin nature" in the sense that it is a disease passed from father down.
It is the popular view, but I think we can make better sense by sticking with what we know is true, which is man sins because he is bereft of the Spirit of GOd, which is why God is reconciling the World to Himself through Christ, which is the only means of man changing from the state he is conceived in (death) to a state of having Life."
And so far the passages presented to prove a "sin nature" have to have, in my view, that concept inserted.
Take a look at my response to Yeshua, I would definitely like you to comment on that.
Not sure how you get I don't think we should have human teachers, lol. That is simply part of the process God has established in the Church for both instruction as well as p[reservation of Pure Doctrine.
I have had some formal training but do not view that as much of a contributor to the positions I hold to today. Of all men, probably the most influential Teacher I have had is John MacArthur. Where I disagree with Him I have had the Spirit of God instruct me in.
This is true, but as pointed out yesterday I do not see where we automatically include all of mankind from a temporal standpoint into that. There is a primary theme of contrast between what has passed and what is taking place at the time of the writing, and a contrast between that and two primary economies that went before, the Age from Adam to Moses, and from Moses unto Christ.
And that is precisely backward (in light of the point I am striving to make): Only those separated from God sin (and yes, that means all men of all time). However, we narrow the focus back to, for instance, the babe in the womb. Do we look at that babe and say they have sinned?
I say no.
That does not deny they are still under condemnation, and this, again, because they are separated from God. So we then ask, "How then can the babe in the womb, under judgment, under the condemnation that has befallen all mankind through Adam's sin...
...have any hope of redemption?
And the simple answer is that Scripture teaches a consistent pattern of God ever and only judging man based upon his response to the revelation available to them.
Let me say that again, because I think one of the most important lessons Scripture teaches us: Scripture teaches a consistent pattern of God ever and only judging man based upon his response to the revelation available to them.
Secondly, we look at the timing of Eternal Redemption. Many impose Eternal Redemption into Old Testament Economies, and that is not what Scripture teaches. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, that is when it took place (see also Hebrews 9:12-15 as an example).
So the Old Testament Saint, just like the babe in the womb...both died not having the central problem they faced remedied. That is, that they are separated from God at conception. So there is no difference between God bestowing grace and mercy to those not regenerated through the process currently in place, which the Comforter enlightening the natural man to the Way of Truth, and the natural man responding (rejectiong or receiving). Now it is in the natural man ability to reject, but it is only through the ministry of God that he can receive the Gift of God.
Continued...
"sin is not imputed where there is no law"...
In the case of children, there is no law because they have not the intellectual capacity of understanding the law which is tantamount to "no law" for them.
The sin nature is in them however and according to Romans 5:12 they were there in Adam when he sinned.
ASV Romans 5:12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:
The three verbs are aorist indicative - completed action in past time (as has been shown in a Greek grammar).
sin entered
death passed
all sinned (not - all will sin).
It cannot be any other way - we were all there in Adam when he sinned.
Which was "passed" on to us in the time continuum.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
HankD
In the case of children, there is no law because they have not the intellectual capacity of understanding the law which is tantamount to "no law" for them.
The sin nature is in them however and according to Romans 5:12 they were there in Adam when he sinned.
ASV Romans 5:12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:
The three verbs are aorist indicative - completed action in past time (as has been shown in a Greek grammar).
sin entered
death passed
all sinned (not - all will sin).
It cannot be any other way - we were all there in Adam when he sinned.
Which was "passed" on to us in the time continuum.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
HankD
Last edited:
According to the theory being presented Romans 5:12 would have to say:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for all will sin.
It doesn't say that. All sinned in Adam.
HankD
Romans 5:12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for all will sin.
It doesn't say that. All sinned in Adam.
HankD
I agree, however, they are inseparable because they are results of the Fall. But I think we have to consider that while all are under condemnation, we emphasize that it is not because they grew up and sinned, it is because...they are separated from God. That condition has to be remedied before men can have life. All are conceived...dead.
Three deaths in their successive order:
1. Spiritual death;
2. Physical death;
3. Eternal death.
The remedy is life through Christ, which occurs when Christ indwells those who are dead.
A number of people could be named. The drunk driver in an accident. A mother aborting her child, or using drugs.
But the question before us is...is the babe considered to have the ability to sin?
Again, I say no.
The babe is just as much under condemnation as any that grows up and sins, but, I don't think we can look at the babe and say "You are a sinner."
One member pointed out, rightly, that we don't have to train a child to sin, they will. This is true, but that is the case because that child has not the Spirit of God.
My view doesn't even consider that, because that is not the point. The child in the womb is not, as I said before, considered "Sinless." They are still in a condition which does not allow for what has to be in place to set that child outside of the human condition, and that is relationship with God. Nothing in the human experience changes that condition, only God can change that.
Consider:
Romans 5:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
I feel I can say with Scriptural confidence...I am not guilty of Adam's sin.
Not even Eve was guilty of Adam's sin (in the sense that it is not Eve that is attributed with man's Fall).
I know, Hank, that is just an implication of viewing the "sin nature" as though it is a disease passed down from father to son and daughter.
Again, the primary point I am striving to make is that it is not a matter of something passed down, but a matter of something not passed down, which is...relationship with God. Men are conceived bereft of the Spirit of God, through Whom comes the only righteousness which applies to an eternal perspective. Sure, men can be righteous from a temporal perspective, the parents of John the Baptist show us that, but, despite that Biblical declaration...they too were in need of the Redemption that comes only through Christ.
David also said he had sinned only against God (Psalm 51:4). I can name at least two people he sinned against in his transgression.
And I am not saying I discount David's sentiment, just pointing out that there is a broader viewpoint in what took place. There is the temporal (David's), and there is the Eternal (God's).
And again David's statement is true, because that is the condition of the world. I just don't take that statement to mean that he was indwelled by a disease-like spiritual substance called sin that was passed down from father and mother.
I think David gives us a glimpse of the Eternal when he states...
Psalm 139:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
His father Adam made him a sinner by destroying the relationship Adam had with God through sin.
I did not eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Neither did you.
When we are judged, my friend...that won't be on the list.
And for all men, the severity of the condemnation they will face, or lack thereof (through Redemption in Christ), will be determined by their personal actions, not by Adam's.
God bless.
Again, you are not taking into account the historical context of Paul's teaching.
When he states all have sinned there is a specific group in view:
Romans 5:12-14
King James Version (KJV)
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:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
So he speaks about the group prior to the Law, and those under Law have already been included.
I agree whole-heartedly that we can include all men of all time, from a perspective of the condition of man. We could never say "Well not all will sin," or, as I said, that because a babe that dies in the womb does not personally sin they are exempt from that condemnation. But that is the point, it is not sinning that we should look at, but the very condition of man itself, which is one of separation from God.
And that is all the time I have today, Hank, just give it some though, and Lord willing we will discuss it further.
God bless.
There has been this statement that I have likened sin to a disease passed down from father to son.
I won't deny that comparison except to say that sin and death is a state of being which has already been "passed" though the human race at the moment of Adam's sin.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
There is no past, present or future tense in Hebrew, only perfect and imperfect.
Perfect - completed action.
imperfect - incomplete action
"I was shapen" Hebrew chul ... birth process (labor pains, etc) this is a polal completed action verb in the text, (Theological Wordbook of the OT 01719(2) writhing in labor pains).
David admits he was not only conceived in sin but in his development and at the birth process as well he was already (perfect tense) guilty of sin and iniquity (both at conception in his mother's womb and at birth).
HankD
I won't deny that comparison except to say that sin and death is a state of being which has already been "passed" though the human race at the moment of Adam's sin.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
There is no past, present or future tense in Hebrew, only perfect and imperfect.
Perfect - completed action.
imperfect - incomplete action
"I was shapen" Hebrew chul ... birth process (labor pains, etc) this is a polal completed action verb in the text, (Theological Wordbook of the OT 01719(2) writhing in labor pains).
David admits he was not only conceived in sin but in his development and at the birth process as well he was already (perfect tense) guilty of sin and iniquity (both at conception in his mother's womb and at birth).
HankD
I am going to try to bow out of this debate but may enter back in - don't know.
As all can see I am stuck on a couple of verses that are basic and essential to what is called "original sin" to me "inherited sin" is a better moniker.
I want to avoid the inevitable animosity. Already it is knocking at the door (my bad - actually it's Adam's fault in the first place
).
I agree with Darrell in that we should all think about both sides of the issue as to where we find agreement or even have another view.
Thanks Darrell for being a gentleman.
HankD
As all can see I am stuck on a couple of verses that are basic and essential to what is called "original sin" to me "inherited sin" is a better moniker.
I want to avoid the inevitable animosity. Already it is knocking at the door (my bad - actually it's Adam's fault in the first place
).I agree with Darrell in that we should all think about both sides of the issue as to where we find agreement or even have another view.
Thanks Darrell for being a gentleman.
HankD
Last edited:
God imputes towards all in Adam spiritual death, and we have a sin nature, while he imputes eternal life to all now in Christ!
The capacity to have relationship/fellowship with God as Adam had in creation was lost to him, and to all after him save Jesus, as born spiritually dead and sinners estranged from God due to be found in Adam and sinners now!
I didn't intend to be specific to you, Hank, but more of the popular belief as it is widely held. For years I went around, while witnessing, explaining it just like that, lol. But what I have found in my studies is that I can no longer hold to that, because there is, I feel, a better understanding of it.
As I said, rather than a matter of something being passed down, it is a matter of what is not passed down. It is almost an assumption to say that Adam was indwelt of God, but, that is, I think, the very basis for the death he underwent which brought about man's condition now. It is almost like becoming another species, if that is appropriate to say.
Many view the Tree of Life, and loss of access to it, as the source of everlasting life and the reason why men die physically. However, the source of Life, for us, is our union with God. In the Eternal State there will be a Tree of Life (more than one, in fact), yet we do not assume that is the source of our life, we receive that prior to death now.
And I think that is the crux of the matter: the "state of being" is the very "condition" I have spoken of. Yet it is not a matter of giving "sin" some kind of substance, but rather a matter of simply acknowledging that Adam's sin brought about the "state of being," or, "condition" his descendants had thrust upon them.
Over the years I have witnessed many, many people offer grammatical arguments to support doctrine that was in error, so I try to stick with a more contextual approach. As I said before, It doesn't change the matter we are discussing that we have a completed action in the past, and that from two perspectives. First, I see the context having the past in view (and I am referring to our earlier discussion of Romans 5), so I don't view Paul as commenting from an eternal perspective which includes all men of all time.
Secondly, in regards to David's statement, we could give an example of what he is saying maybe like this: "My time in the womb did not separate me from the fallen conditions of the world. It was under these conditions that I was conceived."
Rather than attributing a sinful quality to the process of procreation.
But we get back to the same question: was David actively guilty of the sin and iniquity, or is this simply stating the conditions in which his development took place in.
The Psalm reflects sorrow concerning his sin (which he was without question guilty of, as it took place during an unquestionably knowledgeable time (he knew better).
And again I would point out this:
Psalm 51
King James Version (KJV)
1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Now does his statement reflect a concrete truth (and I am not saying he is lying)? Meaning, when he murdered Uriah, couldn't we say...he sinned against Uriah? The point being that his statement has a singular focus, from a perspective that is eternal, it is God David has sinned against, but, from a temporal perspective, which cannot be ignored, he has sinned against Uriah, Bathsheba, and the Kingdom.
Nathan makes that clear in 2 Samuel 12.
Just something to think about.
God bless.
I would disagree with that: you can't impute something that is a reality, and the reality is that all are...spiritually dead.
When God, for example, imputed righteousness to Abraham, that is not the same as the righteousness of Christ being imputed to a believer.
And that is why I am asking for verses or passages that reflect that. So far I ahve not seen anything that specifically states that.
Do you, or anyone else, have anything else?
Again, I would disagree, because the "life" we have received is eternal life that is not imputed, but a reality. We have life through our union with Christ. That is what Adam lost. God does not simply "reckon" us to have life, but bestows eternal life through our being placed in Him, and He in us.
That is the heart of the point I have striven to make, lol.
And I agree with that, however, we are looking at the condition of man, and why he sins. He sins because he has not the Spirit of God. And the only way any man has ever had relationship with God is not from anything found within the natural condition, but through the intervention of God. It is God that initiates relationship with men throughout Scripture, and to Him we give the credit for the relationships we see in Scripture. No man has ever first sought God, and then established relationship with Him:
Romans 3:10-12
King James Version (KJV)
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Thanks for the discussion guys, I have enjoyed it.
God bless.
I would certainly agree that there are two conditions of sin
Inherited sin of which we incurred (past tense) guilt as having been there when Adam sinned.
This is out point of conflict.
And then actual sin in which we put our stamp of approval on that which we know we are, sinners, and that we came into the world as such of which David gives testimony.
I don't think either of us will move in our position but, hey, we're brethren, Christians of Baptist persuasion.
Somewhere in the future this subject will be revisited.
Thanks for the good debate brother.
HankD
Inherited sin of which we incurred (past tense) guilt as having been there when Adam sinned.
This is out point of conflict.
And then actual sin in which we put our stamp of approval on that which we know we are, sinners, and that we came into the world as such of which David gives testimony.
I don't think either of us will move in our position but, hey, we're brethren, Christians of Baptist persuasion.
Somewhere in the future this subject will be revisited.
Thanks for the good debate brother.
HankD
And this is true even after Regeneration.
And as I have pointed out, it is not because of a substance of sin that indwells us, but the fact of our condition, or, state of being (as Hank put it I think).
Though we have been restored to relationship, we still remain in fallen flesh. It is relevant to the physical, not the spiritual.
The next time you sin, would you fail to ask forgiveness based on an argument "No need to worry about that sin, my sin nature made me do it."
Is that a valid argument to present to the Lord?
God bless.
The sin nature was in charge at the time of the sinning, so yes, I allowed it to :make me do it"
We sin because we are sinners by nature at conception. As soon as an infant is capable of expressing themselves, no one needs to teach them to do wrong as it comes by nature. No circumstance is necessary for them to be evil by nature but only necessary to express evil.
Jesus said "BEING evil" not "becoming" evil.
Mt 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Mt 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Lu 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
In all three cases the word "being" translates the present tense participle "ontes". If children of Adam "became" evil the Greek word "egeneto" would have been used in the Aorist tense.
Jesus said "BEING evil" not "becoming" evil.
Mt 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Mt 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Lu 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
In all three cases the word "being" translates the present tense participle "ontes". If children of Adam "became" evil the Greek word "egeneto" would have been used in the Aorist tense.
Last edited:
We are born to sin. The easiest way I have to show this apart from the many scriptures that show such, which are being debated, is with the Sermon on the Mount. Who has avoided being openly angry their whole life? Who has avoided calling someone a degrading name their whole life? Who has avoided lusting for a person with their eyes? Who has never lied or reneged on a promise their whole life? The list goes on and on. When we flip to the epistles and scan the moral imperatives to the churches asking the same questions things get to the point where it becomes even more clear.
I find this very important to note in this culture because a big argument nowadays is "I was born that way." Well yeah, everyone is born with a bunch of certain temptations and proclivities to sin. I certainly have been born with a bunch of sins that seem completely second nature to me and which I must struggle with.
I would say the difference between Christianity and the culture on this one is that we say that we must overcome and master our temptations and proclivities to sin and not be mastered by them including all the ones we are born with. Whereas, the culture says that it is perfectly alright to let human nature take its course in controlling a person's behavior lock, stock, and barrel; something referred to as "being who you are."
I find this very important to note in this culture because a big argument nowadays is "I was born that way." Well yeah, everyone is born with a bunch of certain temptations and proclivities to sin. I certainly have been born with a bunch of sins that seem completely second nature to me and which I must struggle with.
I would say the difference between Christianity and the culture on this one is that we say that we must overcome and master our temptations and proclivities to sin and not be mastered by them including all the ones we are born with. Whereas, the culture says that it is perfectly alright to let human nature take its course in controlling a person's behavior lock, stock, and barrel; something referred to as "being who you are."