The Words 'sin nature' in Scripture

[Dave...]

Romans 7:18 and Galatians 5:17 Neither one actually says "sin nature' in the Greek. These words never appear together in Scripture as far as a I know.

No doubt, we're naturally in bad shape separated from God, but is the term 'sin nature' misleading in any way as to the truth of our natural state as it is being taught in Scripture?

Is it really a nature?

 

[Ben1445]

Romans 7:18 and Galatians 5:17 Neither one actually says "sin nature' in the Greek. These words never appear together in Scripture as far as a I know.

No doubt, we're naturally in bad shape separated from God, but is the term 'sin nature' misleading in any way as to the truth of our natural state as it is being taught in Scripture?

Is it really a nature?

Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

 

[JonC]

It is really a nature, but not exactly to sin. The Bible gives us two natures - flesh and Spirit.

The flesh has desires of the flesh. The forbidden fruit was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and desirable to make one wise.

The problem is not the desires of the flesh (Jesus had desires of the flesh and was tempted in all points as is common to man). The problem is when we have a mind set on the flesh (which is death).

Natural man comes first, then the spiritual. The problem is man needed to be made spiritually alive *needed to be born of the Spirit). Man without the Spirit of God cannot please God, cannot but have a mind set on the flesh.

 

[JesusFan]

It is really a nature, but not exactly to sin. The Bible gives us two natures - flesh and Spirit.

The flesh has desires of the flesh. The forbidden fruit was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and desirable to make one wise.

The problem is not the desires of the flesh (Jesus had desires of the flesh and was tempted in all points as is common to man). The problem is when we have a mind set on the flesh (which is death).

Natural man comes first, then the spiritual. The problem is man needed to be made spiritually alive *needed to be born of the Spirit). Man without the Spirit of God cannot please God, cannot but have a mind set on the flesh.

We are born as spiritually dead state, as having only physical life until born again from above

 

[JesusFan]

Romans 7:18 and Galatians 5:17 Neither one actually says "sin nature' in the Greek. These words never appear together in Scripture as far as a I know.

No doubt, we're naturally in bad shape separated from God, but is the term 'sin nature' misleading in any way as to the truth of our natural state as it is being taught in Scripture?

Is it really a nature?

Definition: Sarx
flesh, body, the soft tissue of a creature, often in contrast to bone, ligament, or sinew; by extension human, humankind, with a focus on the fallen human nature, which is frail and corrupt in contrast to immaterial (spiritual) things, thus the NIV (1984) translation sinful nature.
flesh, Lk. 24:39; Jn. 3:6; the human body, 2 Cor. 7:5; flesh, human nature, human frame, Jn. 1:13, 14; 1 Pet. 4:1; 1 Jn. 4:2; kindred, Rom. 11:14; lineage, Rom. 1:3; 9:3; flesh, humanity, human beings, Mt. 24:22; Lk. 3:6; Jn. 17:2; the circumstances of the body, material condition, 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:28; Phlm. 16; flesh, mere humanity, human fashion, 1 Cor. 1:26; 2 Cor. 1:17; flesh as the seat of passion and frailty, Rom. 8:1, 3, 5; carnality, Gal. 5:24; materiality, material circumstance, as opposed to the spiritual, Phil. 3:3, 4; Col. 2:18; a material system or mode, Gal. 3:3; Heb. 9:10

σάρξ

flesh, body, the soft tissue of a creature, often in contrast to bone, ligament, or sinew; by extension human, humankind, with a focus on the fallen human nature, which is frail and corrupt in contrast to immaterial (spiritual) things, thus the NIV (1984) translation sinful nature. flesh, Lk...

www.billmounce.com

 

[Dave...]

Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Hey Ben.

In that passage Paul says nature, but not sin nature. The word 'nature' seems to be attached to 'children of wrath'.

As I pointed out in another thread that bears repeating....

Romans 2:14-15 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

Maybe their motives are tainted, thus "there are none righteous, no not one", but their desire (if it's possible for motive and desire to be different), wants to do what is good. Isn't that what Paul is saying here?...

Romans 7: 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

Is it possible that the "by nature the children of wrath" in Ephesians 2:3 is a statement of justification as much as anything else? In other words, born into it, being in the flesh and not the Spirit. Later in verse six (my favorite part of that whole passage 1-10), comes the result of being placed into Christ, and thus raised up with Him, born again. (Romans 6:3-11, Col. 2:10-14, 1 Peter 3:21, Gal. 3:26-29). The Life....

Ephesians 2:6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Maybe it's not the tern 'nature', but the meaning that we usually attach to it. When we see 'nature, in our minds we think 'sin nature' and not legally, but morally. For most people, sin nature means total depravity. In other words it's a moral limitation, rather than a legal limitation, as in justification, or righteousness by the flesh according to the Law. Perhaps the moral limitation is assumed into the legal limitation, but not to the extent of what is called total depravity.

Should we see it that way?

 

[JonC]

We are born as spiritually dead state, as having only physical life until born again from above

Yes. Paul explained this as well. First the natural and then the spiritual.

 

[JonC]

I think it is important to remember that, biblically, our nature never "fell". We fall when we follow the desires of the flesh in opposition to the will of the Spirit.

 

[Charlie24]

Romans 7:18 and Galatians 5:17 Neither one actually says "sin nature' in the Greek. These words never appear together in Scripture as far as a I know.

No doubt, we're naturally in bad shape separated from God, but is the term 'sin nature' misleading in any way as to the truth of our natural state as it is being taught in Scripture?

Is it really a nature?

It's in Rom. 5:21 that the "sin nature" comes into focus with Paul.

"That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

Paul uses the definite article before the word "sin" that makes it a noun.

It reads "the sin" referring to the original sin in the Garden. It is a reference to the sin nature that came from the original sin.

Paul speaks of the "the sin" as a king reigning in man unto death, but just the same, so does Grace reign unto eternal life.

Paul goes on in Rom. chap. 6-8 to explain that this sin nature (the sin) will not have dominion over you if you walk in the Spirit.

 

[Zaatar71]

It is really a nature, but not exactly to sin. The Bible gives us two natures - flesh and Spirit.

The flesh has desires of the flesh. The forbidden fruit was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and desirable to make one wise.

The problem is not the desires of the flesh (Jesus had desires of the flesh and was tempted in all points as is common to man). The problem is when we have a mind set on the flesh (which is death).

Natural man comes first, then the spiritual. The problem is man needed to be made spiritually alive *needed to be born of the Spirit). Man without the Spirit of God cannot please God, cannot but have a mind set on the flesh.

This poster is of necessity, quite confused on this issue as he does not understand the Events of Creation of man, in his original righteousness, and subsequently his fall into sin and death, with the lasting effects of the judgment. His anthropology is way off. Read with extreme caution!

 

[JesusFan]

I think it is important to remember that, biblically, our nature never "fell". We fall when we follow the desires of the flesh in opposition to the will of the Spirit.

You deny the biblical truth of original Sin then?

This poster is of necessity, quite confused on this issue as he does not understand the Events of Creation of man, in his original righteousness, and subsequently his fall into sin and death, with the lasting effects of the judgment. His anthropology is way off. Read with extreme caution!

Adam was created with a sinless human humanity, sinless nature, which got affected by the fall big time, and we share in that same Fall as now born into Adam likeness and receiving his same fallen sin nature

 

[JonC]

You deny the biblical truth of original Sin then?

No. I do believe in original sin.

Adam was created with a sinless human humanity, sinless nature, which got affected by the fall big time, and we share in that same Fall as now born into Adam likeness and receiving his same fallen sin nature

I will tell you like I told @Zaatar71 . I am not interested in arguing theories vs theiries, theologies vs theologies, or traditions vs traditions.

There was a time in my life when I found that interesting, but that time has passed and I now find it a waste of time.

I am, however, always interested in discussing Scripture.

So of you are asking about a passage, wanting to discuss a passage, presenting a passage....of Scripture....then I am interested.

Otherwise I really do not care for tales fit for old women.

God's Word is foolishness to many. But to me it is the standard of my faith and practice.

 

[JonC]

This poster is of necessity, quite confused on this issue as he does not understand the Events of Creation of man, in his original righteousness, and subsequently his fall into sin and death, with the lasting effects of the judgment. His anthropology is way off. Read with extreme caution!

Actually I just orovided what is in the Bible. I know people like the "what if's", but I never found the appeal.

If you want to talk about actual Scrioture, that is something I'd be interested in.

But I lost interest in comparing ideas about the Bible several years back. About 20 years ago I would have been interested. That was my reason for attending seminary (I was interested in theology and Church history). But now that I am older I find that as distractions. I prefer to study Scripture.

 

[JesusFan]

Ahhhh....now you deny Scripture. That, my friend, is between you and God.

All I posted about the events of Creation were verses, and only about God creating man, planting a garden, putting man in that Garden.

But of you ever want to discuss God's Word, then I am willing. Just give the passage (if you do not own a Bible you can easily find one online).

Thus far you have avoided the Bible like the plague.

No, both he and I deny your understanding in regards to the issues regarding Genesis and the Fall of mankind

No. I do believe in original sin.


I will tell you like I told @Zaatar71 . I am not interested in arguing theories vs theiries, theologies vs theologies, or traditions vs traditions.

There was a time in my life when I found that interesting, but that time has passed and I now find it a waste of time.

I am, however, always interested in discussing Scripture.

So of you are asking about a passage, wanting to discuss a passage, presenting a passage....of Scripture....then I am interested.

Otherwise I really do not care for tales fit for old women.

God's Word is foolishness to many. But to me it is the standard of my faith and practice.

So the vast majority of reformed and Baptists who would agree with our take on this would be all wrong, denying the scriptures, and resorting to "old wives tales?"

 

[JonC]

No, both he and I deny your understanding in regards to the issues regarding Genesis and the Fall of mankind

But I did not give you my understanding. What you are calling wrong IS Scrioture.

I gave what Paul said regarding natures.
I gave what God said to Adam because of his disobedience.

i did not expound, or offer my understanding. There are things I believe about the fall but have not brought uo because, like your faith, it exceeds God's Word.

Here is an exercise:

1. What , in the Bible - did God tell Adam would occur due to his disobedience?

2. What - in the Bible -did Paul say of Adam in terms of the natural and spiritual?

3. What - in the Bible - is the basis God forgives sins?

So the vast majority of reformed and Baptists who would agree with our take on this would be all wrong, denying the scriptures, and resorting to "old wives tales?"

Yes, the vast majority of Reformed Baptists (essentually Presbyterians who actually baptize) would agree with you. But Reformed Baptists are a small sect among Baptists....so who cares?

But yes, many of these theories and philosophies amount to nothing but old wives tales, not fit for a believer.

That said, I would love to discuss God's Word.

 

[JonC]

@JesusFan

Is there a reason you are so hesitant to fis uss actual biblical passages?

I ask because everything I ask you what passage gave you such and such idea you always say something like "most Reformed Baptists believe that".

I seriously would like to discuss God's Word. That is why I am a member here. But you and @Zaatar71 seem to think just because someone you like says something, or because you think most Reformed Baptists believe something, the discussion should end.

But what about God's Word. Doesn't what God actually said matter to Christians anymore???


A missionary once explained why they send so many missionaries to the United States and UK. The country that sends the most missionaries per population is South Korea.

He said that they send so many missionaries to the US and UK because Christoanity has become nothing more than traditions. It is the tradition of being a "Christian", the tradition of certain theories, "Christian" philosophies, etc.

But "Christianity" in our countries have for the most part lost their "First Love". They lost their mission, their focus, and their faith.

On that day, many will cry out "Lord, Lord" only to hear "I never knew you". Jesus said "you never"...what? Read a John Murray book? Stand up for John Calvin? Defend Reformed Baptist teachings? OR "you never clothed me, fed me....".

John Owen, John Knox, John Murray, John Calvin....these men did not save us. God saved us. Should we not place a higher focus on what God says?

Christians need to stop looking for distilled "truth" and turn back to God.

Why not turn to God's Word and, even if we differ, stand on every word coming from God?

 

[Dave G]

Romans 7:18 and Galatians 5:17 Neither one actually says "sin nature' in the Greek. These words never appear together in Scripture as far as a I know.

No doubt, we're naturally in bad shape separated from God, but is the term 'sin nature' misleading in any way as to the truth of our natural state as it is being taught in Scripture?

Is it really a nature?

Yes it is.

In fact, it is so strong that born again believers even have trouble with the remnants of it in their flesh...
Which Paul admitted to having his own personal war with in Romans 7, and he told the churches about in Galatians 5.

Also, I agree with you that Scripture never uses the words, "sin nature" to describe what all men are mired in;
Rather, it is understood out of many references to how we ( as a race ) act, and how we ( as a race ) are drawn to "death" when lust has conceived ( James 1 ).

It also depends upon whether or not a person sees the "death" that was passed down from Adam in Romans 5, as being spiritual in nature or simply physical;
Whether it really is an inherited spiritual condition...
or if we're not "burdened as a result of Adam's sin", and do indeed have a morally "unbound will" to freely choose good or evil as Pelagius taught.


However, since you're questioning whether or not it is a "nature",
I can only conclude that you're convinced from your own understanding of the Scriptures, that it is not.

 

[Dave...]

It is really a nature, but not exactly to sin. The Bible gives us two natures - flesh and Spirit.

The flesh has desires of the flesh. The forbidden fruit was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and desirable to make one wise.

The problem is not the desires of the flesh (Jesus had desires of the flesh and was tempted in all points as is common to man). The problem is when we have a mind set on the flesh (which is death).

Natural man comes first, then the spiritual. The problem is man needed to be made spiritually alive *needed to be born of the Spirit). Man without the Spirit of God cannot please God, cannot but have a mind set on the flesh.

Hey Jon

It's late, but I'll take the chance that I still can communicate without it sounding scatter brained.

Then would you equate our being spiritually dead, what we inherited from Adam, the flesh, as simply a separation from God? In other words, we are evil because of a disconnect to God, Who alone is good, rather than an inherent evil inside us that separates us from God. Or Both? Could one be legal and the other moral?

Basically, I think that God cannot deny Himself, so we could not be made inherently good, like Him. The next best thing is that we were created/made dependent on God as the source of good. Adam and Eve had that being with God. Plus they were protected from sin in ignorance of good and evil. Adam falls, that's a separation from God, Who alone is good. The vine, Who without we can do nothing, for what do we have that we did not receive? The gifts, anything good that comes from us for the Church, is the fruit of the Spirit. So, inheriting a separation from that source of good, God alone, is inheriting a separation from being able to be plugged into God, Who alone is good. Jesus bridges the gap, allowing us to be plugged in again. So, that's the separation, that we call sin nature. What say you?

Dave

 

[Ben1445]

Hey Ben.

In that passage Paul says nature, but not sin nature. The word 'nature' seems to be attached to 'children of wrath'.

As I pointed out in another thread that bears repeating....

Romans 2:14-15 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

Maybe their motives are tainted, thus "there are none righteous, no not one", but their desire (if it's possible for motive and desire to be different), wants to do what is good. Isn't that what Paul is saying here?...

Romans 7: 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

Is it possible that the "by nature the children of wrath" in Ephesians 2:3 is a statement of justification as much as anything else? In other words, born into it, being in the flesh and not the Spirit. Later in verse six (my favorite part of that whole passage 1-10), comes the result of being placed into Christ, and thus raised up with Him, born again. (Romans 6:3-11, Col. 2:10-14, 1 Peter 3:21, Gal. 3:26-29). The Life....

Ephesians 2:6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Maybe it's not the tern 'nature', but the meaning that we usually attach to it. When we see 'nature, in our minds we think 'sin nature' and not legally, but morally. For most people, sin nature means total depravity. In other words it's a moral limitation, rather than a legal limitation, as in justification, or righteousness by the flesh according to the Law. Perhaps the moral limitation is assumed into the legal limitation, but not to the extent of what is called total depravity.

Should we see it that way?

If the grammar is thought out and the statements logically and reasonably considered, I do not see any doctrinal error in saying sin nature.
“We were by nature the children of wrath.”
We were the children of wrath.
“The children of wrath” is a predicate nominative. It renames “we.”
How are we that way? By nature or naturally.
Why are children of wrath called by that name? Because of their sin. It is not a stretch at all. It his more difficult to divorce the sin from the “nature” in the context than it is to put them together.
I don’t see a sin nature as total depravity as described by most Calvinists. I would like to describe myself as well balanced. The guy in the mirror is probably the easiest person to find who agrees with me on that.
There are lots of things that Calvinist teach that are correct. I think that is why it is so easily accepted. There are some areas where IMO, they bank on the other correct areas and back some definitions that must be made by a professional verbal contortionist. These stretched notions, which ironically, limit the work of Christ, I fully reject. This is why Calvinist’s have never yet thought I am balanced. (I don’t match their balances)
I agree with you that those who have not the law do by nature the things in the law means that man is not totally calvinistically depraved. When Jesus said that the Pharisees were evil but knew how to do good, He showed that man is not calvinistically depraved.
There is a correct thought in their Total depravity as far as redemption is concerned, but some go so far as to say that they can’t understand and believe in Christ. If this is the case, they can’t even reject Christ because they don’t have an option. I don’t mean to steer the conversation this direction. Inevitably it will. Both they and I know that we disagree. We have discussed it at length already. They will require special revelation from God on this matter. They will not accept reason from me. So for any of you Calvinists or whatever your preferred name is, (please don’t accuse me of dead naming you) I have no intention of replying to on this subject in particular. I don’t mind discussing the thread topic.

 

[JesusFan]

@JesusFan

Is there a reason you are so hesitant to fis uss actual biblical passages?

I ask because everything I ask you what passage gave you such and such idea you always say something like "most Reformed Baptists believe that".

I seriously would like to discuss God's Word. That is why I am a member here. But you and @Zaatar71 seem to think just because someone you like says something, or because you think most Reformed Baptists believe something, the discussion should end.

But what about God's Word. Doesn't what God actually said matter to Christians anymore???


A missionary once explained why they send so many missionaries to the United States and UK. The country that sends the most missionaries per population is South Korea.

He said that they send so many missionaries to the US and UK because Christoanity has become nothing more than traditions. It is the tradition of being a "Christian", the tradition of certain theories, "Christian" philosophies, etc.

But "Christianity" in our countries have for the most part lost their "First Love". They lost their mission, their focus, and their faith.

On that day, many will cry out "Lord, Lord" only to hear "I never knew you". Jesus said "you never"...what? Read a John Murray book? Stand up for John Calvin? Defend Reformed Baptist teachings? OR "you never clothed me, fed me....".

John Owen, John Knox, John Murray, John Calvin....these men did not save us. God saved us. Should we not place a higher focus on what God says?

Christians need to stop looking for distilled "truth" and turn back to God.

Why not turn to God's Word and, even if we differ, stand on every word coming from God?

I would see the Bible alone as the only inspired revelation to us from God, but I would also acknowledge that He gave to us as teachers and expositors of that Bible the very sa,e persons who you like to put down like a Calvin or a a Spurgeon, as while do not think either were infallible and had perfectr understanding of the scriptures, would trust many of the views over some of what you have postulated to us