Featured The fundamental causes of mankind's sin nature.

I think it is simple.

Adam was created flesh. His mind was set on the flesh (if his mind was set on the Spirit then he woukd not have sinned).

Romans 8:5–9 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.


Scripture never speaks of man now as having a nature different from Adam in the Garden. That is the point.

Adam was tempted by his desires and gave into those temptations.

 

I think you misunderstand. I was talking about a "sin nature" in the sense that Adam's nature changed.

I agree that his eyes were opened and he became like God, knowing good and evil.

BUT I do not believe that having ones eyes opened and becoming like God, knowing good and evil equates to a sin nature as I do not believe God has a sin nature.

AND my comment was that Scripture itself dors not speak of Adam experiencing a change to a "sin nature".

Adam being created without sin does not mean that Adam was created without a human nature, without the ability to be tempted, or even "of the Spirit" rather than "of the flesh".

Adam did not sin....until he did. And Adam dinned with his human nature (not some fallen nature).


You have not provided even one passage supporting your position. We all agree tgat Adam's eyes were opened and he became like God knowing good and evil.


This is what the Bible says happened:

Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—


Now, where fo you get the idea that Adam had two natures (pre and post fall) with one being a "sin nature"?

 

I am not asking you to reason with me. I am asking how you arrived at your notions as they are foreign to the actual biblical text.

Let's work through the actual text.

 

We can read and discuss what is actually in the Bible, explaining how we get to other things that are not.

Let’s look at what we should be able to agree on (Scripture):

God created Adam.

God planted a Garden.

God put Adam in the Garden.

God commanded Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

God told Adam that on the day he ate of the tree death would be certain (an emphatic, i.e., double use of “die”)

God made Eve from Adam.

Satan tempted Eve, telling her that eating of the fruit would open her eyes to the knowledge of good and evil, making her like God (in that respect).

Eve saw that the fruit was desirable and ate.

Adam ate of the fruit as Eve offered it to him and transgressed God’s command.

Adam’s eyes were opened and he became like God, knowing good and evil.

 

Just for fun, let’s look at the Doctrine of Original Sin.

This doctrine is that we inherit a sin nature from Adam.

This is a one point where the Hebrew religion and Christianity departs for many. The idea of the transmission of heredity sin, or even a change in the nature of Adam because of sin (a “sin nature”) to the human race is something that was never present in the Hebrew faith.

Additionally, the idea that man is tainted (the Catholics would refer to this as the “stain of sin”) or that Adam’s nature changed to a “sin nature” that we in turn inherit, is foreign to the biblical text. There are, however, areas that can be used to develop such ideas.

In fact, prior to the 4th century Christianity had no doctrine of Original Sin.

So it may be interesting to see how this doctrine developed.

Tertullian was the first Christian to believe in heredity sin. He developed this belief on the basis of traducian theory (that parents not only pass on physical but also spiritual attributes to their children). Tertullian was interested in the origin of the human soul, and reasoned that since the physical body is derived from a child’s parents, so also is the child’s soul derived from his or her parents. As we all ultimately descended from Adam and Eve there must, then, be aspects of their soul that were passed on to us. God created Adam directly, and Adam sinned. Therefore we also would sin.

Cyprian reasoned that men were born as sinners, already possessing guilt, because this spiritual trait was passed on to all men as descendants of Adam.

Cyril, however, reasoned that men were born guiltless and sinless but having inherited Adam’s spiritual attributes were inclined to sin.

The next development seems to be Augustine. Augustine reasoned that Adam’s sin was transmitted via concupiscence (a harmful desire). This is the first instance where the idea that when Adam sinned human nature changed. Concupiscence was transmitted through human relations to the parents offspring.

The problem was that Adam was created by God and sinned in the state God had created Adam. Logic dictates that sin cannot be attributed to a transformation of human nature because Adam was created perfect and even still Adam sinned. Augustine’s concupiscence was largely rejected.

The next major step was Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas addressed the Augustine problem by theorizing that Adam possessed supernatural and natural attributes. Relying on natural attributes Adam sinned, and in so doing lost the supernatural attributes. We, then, are born as natural man without the higher attributes Adam possessed prior to his fall.

This theory became the Roman Catholic doctrine. It combined Tertullian’s idea of heredity sin, Cyprian’s conclusion that we were born sinners, Cyril’s reasoning that we are technically guiltless at birth, and Augustine’s idea of concupiscence by putting them together in a way that man is so inclined to sin that it is impossible for man not to sin, and this is inherited through Adam via physical reproduction.

Aquinas’ theory became official Roman Catholic doctrine with the Counsel of Trent.


The next change was with the Protestant Church.

Martin Luther developed the theory that men inherit the guilt of Adam at conception. This was a result of Luther’s work on justification. One strange fact is that Luther agreed with Catholics that Mary was sinless (which does not actually work with his view that we are all conceived as sinners).


For most Protestants, the idea of a “fallen nature” and “original sin” goes back to John Calvin. Calvin developed a systematic theology of Augustine, one that incorporated the theological developments throughout the centuries. He viewed the inheritance of original sin on the grounds of complete depravity.

 

Spoken like a husband .

Yes. That is what I posted.

Eve ate and offered to Adam.

But God commanded Adam (not Eve) not to eat of the fruit.

Given Eve's comments I think it reasonable that at a minimum Adam communicated that to Eve. She knew it was something they were not to do.

 

I think their eyes were opened to know hood and evil is sufficient (it is pretty self-explanatory).

The problem comes in equating that verse to mean that human nature was transformed into a sin nature.

A better explanation is that they then knew good and evil because they had done evil (they came to a god-type of knowledge from the opposite spectrum).

At best this would be an understanding of their inability to meet God's standard of good.

 

That is what every believer of a newer (not initially held) doctrine believes.

We saw this with the Penal Substitution Theory. Grudum explained that while we know it did not exist until the Reformation, all of those elements were there....the Reformers just put them together.

Now with the doctrine of original sin...while not stated as such it was believed.


IF the early church believed it then it would have been stated because it (both) are necessary if correct to be an explanation of our faith and the early church gave us several defenses of the faith.


Think about it. You are defending Christianity and explaining what you believe to a pagan (in writing).

It would be necessary to mention a sin nature if that is what was believed.

It would be necessary in witnessing to any person because the Jews did not believe (and still find it very odd) the Christian theory of original sin, and the pagans did not believe the idea either.

 

I saw a news show about a toddler killed by 3 dogs. A couple with their child was visiting friends and playing in the back yard. Their friends e dogs attacked, and killed, the child.

The owner yelled at the dogs and they ran to him, tails wagging.

The dogs apparently did not see a consequence for their actions (I'd place this on the owner). But more importantly they did not know they had done wrong (animals understand consequence, but their eyes are not opened to know good and evil).



God gave Adam a command with a consequence. Adam's eyes, at that time, was not opened to the knowledge of good and evil. Upon eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were opened.

This is not "Adam inheriting a sin nature" but Adam's eyes being opened to the knowledge of good and evil.

Man has a knowledge that actions have moral attributes, not just consequences.

 

I agree. We often get into discussions without agreeing (or defining) terms. This is evident in the current "free-will" debate.

We also have not agreed on criteria when it comes to these discussions.

Is it theological theories built upon theological theories? Is it theological development? Is it Scripture?

I suggest when important topics are involved it has to be Scripture.


With this issue, the idea of original sin transforming man's nature into a "sin nature" is tradition and not Scripture.

It is foreign to the Hebrew religion (the OT faith) and Judaism. It is not present in early Christian belief.

So what does the Bible actually say?

God tells us that Adam's eyes were opened to knowing good and evil. This is how Adam knew he was naked (God asks "who told you", knowing that Adam now has a moral conscience).

What does Scripture NOT say? God never tells us that Adam's nature changed.


Adam transgressed God's command. This was a transgression, not a moral sin (Adam's eyes were not yet opened).

Through that transgression sin entered the world. Why? Because man was now moral creatures (had eyes opened to the knowledge of good and evil...and knowingly did evil).

The problem with the "sin nature" theory is simply that it is a way of unbiblically speaking of human nature in a moral environment.

Adam was fine....until he ate of the fruit. This isn't a change in nature (per Scripture) but a statement about how human nature fails to meet the moral standard of God.