Are We Born With Sin natures, or receive One When We First Choose To Sin?

[DHK]

Well commentators like JF&B and Matthew Henry agree with me, and disagree with you. In his introduction to this chapter, Henry said (snipped for brevity only)

Check for yourself, I challenge you to do so.

I have many times. I have quoted them for you. Each time you disagree. They believe in the depravity of men. They were Presbyterians. Do you honestly think that these men would believe the same as you do? Read more carefully.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalms 51:5)
5, 6. His guilt was aggravated by his essential, native sinfulness, which is as contrary to God's requisitions of inward purity as are outward sins to those for right conduct.
--the depravity of men stated and believed by JFB.

Third, The change of tense from the past to the future--"as through Adam we were made sinners, so through Christ we shall be made righteous"--delightfully expresses the enduring character of the act, and of the economy to which such acts belong, in contrast with the for-ever-past ruin of believers in Adam.

JFB on Romans 5:19
--Our inherited sin nature came through Adam.
They have a very strong belief in the depravity of man; man's sin nature. What makes you think otherwise?

 

[Winman]

I have many times. I have quoted them for you. Each time you disagree. They believe in the depravity of men. They were Presbyterians. Do you honestly think that these men would believe the same as you do? Read more carefully.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalms 51:5)
5, 6. His guilt was aggravated by his essential, native sinfulness, which is as contrary to God's requisitions of inward purity as are outward sins to those for right conduct.
--the depravity of men stated and believed by JFB.

JFB on Romans 5:19
--Our inherited sin nature came through Adam.
They have a very strong belief in the depravity of man; man's sin nature. What makes you think otherwise?

What are you talking about? You said Ezekiel 18 was about civil law, I said this chapter was speaking of eternal judgment and death. Both Henry and JF&B agreed with me. I was not talking about total depravity.

That said, if JF&B and Henry believed Eze 18 was speaking of the eternal, of spiritual life and death, then Eze 18:20 would refute the Augustinian theory of original sin and his interpretation of Rom 5:12.

So, both Henry and JF&B are inconsistent, they say Eze 18:20 says no son shall bear his father's sin concerning spiritual death, but then they say the opposite concerning Rom 5:12.

My point was that Eze 18 was concerning eternal judgment and death, and both commentaries agreed with me, and disagreed with your interpretation.

Now, if Eze 18:20 is saying no son shall bear his father's sin concerning spiritual death, then how can your interpretation of Rom 5:12 be true?

 

[DHK]

What are you talking about? You said Ezekiel 18 was about civil law, I said this chapter was speaking of eternal judgment and death. Both Henry and JF&B agreed with me. I was not talking about total depravity.

That said, if JF&B and Henry believed Eze 18 was speaking of the eternal, of spiritual life and death, then Eze 18:20 would refute the Augustinian theory of original sin and his interpretation of Rom 5:12.

So, both Henry and JF&B are inconsistent, they say Eze 18:20 says no son shall bear his father's sin concerning spiritual death, but then they say the opposite concerning Rom 5:12.

My point was that Eze 18 was concerning eternal judgment and death, and both commentaries agreed with me, and disagreed with your interpretation.

Now, if Eze 18:20 is saying no son shall bear his father's sin concerning spiritual death, then how can your interpretation of Rom 5:12 be true?

There is interpretation and there is application. Perhaps they gave the application without the interpretation. It is very obvious from verse 18 that those who are oppressive and cruel will suffer physical punishment. How much clearer can that be? You might be able to make a spiritual application when you get to verse 20, the context and the literal interpretation is physical punishment due to civil law.

 

[DHK]

Ezekiel 18 is a repudiation of the Parable of the Sour Grapes.
In verses 1-4 The people of Judah has a proverb which blamed their sins on the failure of their ancestors:

The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

God refutes the proverb, stating that individuals are hel responsible for their own sins.

18:5-24--He then gives several examples of His principles of judgment:
1. A man who shuns sin and lives righteously shall surely live (vs.5-9).

2. A righteous man's wicked son...shall surely die (vs.10-13).
The Jews during the captivity as well as in the Lord Jesus' time prided themselves on having Abraham as their father (Luke 3:8; John 8:39). God points out that it will do no good to have a righteous father, if their own life is wicked.

3. An unrighteous man's righteous son...shall surely live (vs.14-17), but the unrighteous father...shall die for his iniquities (vs. 18).

4. A wicked man who repents and turns from his sins will live (vs.21-23).

5. A righteous man who turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity...shall die (vs. 24).

In verse 20 the punishment is temporal not eternal. It is physical death because of sin now. The principles stated in verses 5-24 are not dealing with eternal life; otherwise we would be forced to conclude that salvation is by works (vs.5-9), and that righteousness may eventually be lost, two doctrines clearly refuted by our Lord in the NT (Eph.2:8,9; John 10:228).

This is gleaned from The Believer's Bible Commentary, by William MacDonald and gives a very good exposition on the chapter. As I have been saying all along, the chapter is speaking about physical punishment.

 

[righteousdude2]

Check it out....

Please show those scriptures that say we are born dead in sin, I would be very interested in seeing them.

....in Romans 3:22-24 we are told that "all have "sinned''" and come or fallen short of His glory!" It doesn't say that everyone older than 21 years of age has sinned and fallen short, it says, "all." To me, Paul is saying that we all arrive in this life, DOA and in need of salvation.

Of course, everything a person says the Bible says, is open to discussion, disagreement and another interpretation. If you see this verse differently, so be it, and in love lets us agree to disagree. raying:

 

[HankD]

Hi FAL,

The question still remains, was human nature altered when death entered because of disobedience though it came through deception and an outside influence?

Yes I believe it was.

Did Adam and Eve then become the progenitors of the ability and/or the inclination to sin and pass it on to the adamic seed as Romans 5:12 seems to indicate?

I think what they passed on was the deadness towards God with the nature to live to or please self (sinful nature)

As Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec in Abraham (Hebrews 7:9) are we all counted as sinners in Adam (Romans 5:12)?

There is no question that all who are in Adam are sinners, just like all who are in Christ are righteous.

Or do each and every one of us act out our own Eden apart from Adam and what we received from him?

That would be no. God has only made the statement "in the day you eat you will die" about one commandment and that was about the tree. The tree is gone and the sin cannot be replicated. That one command and sin of Adam is what caused the human race to be separated from God and one act of a righteous Man Christ Jesus causes us to be joined to Him. No person since Adam has ever caused their one lost condition as we are all born in sin. We are first Sinners by birth and then sinners by practice.

Thanks FAL, I agree. Other brethren would not.

Although Romans 5 is a hard case to re-interpret from the apparent meaning that we (adamic race) all died both towards God and the via the corruption of death which consequently entered this world (our bodies, all matter - entropy).

Not only that, it is universal among mankind and an unlearned process.

HankD

 

[percho]

Percho, I do not say this to be cruel, I read your posts all the time, but I never understand what you are trying to say. Try presenting a premise that is direct and easy to understand, then maybe a scripture or two to support it, and a brief explanation as to how these scriptures support what you are trying to say.

I don't know if others have the same difficulty as me, but I cannot understand your posts.

I am trying to show it has nothing to do with human nature and or sin nature as to pertaining to us. But for what we can be in Christ.

Why did God a spirit being create man as a flesh being in the first place?

Rather than having to do with us it appears to me it actually had to do with Satan and his demons who wanted to be sons of God but never would be.

But with God creating us as flesh beings he through having his Son born in the flesh could destroy death and him who has the power of death Satan and making the way for man to become the sons of God as spiritual beings born of the spirit.

I believe the verses I used show this. Adam was created and we are born just as God intended for us that we can be changed according to God's purpose. In the day you eat not IF you eat. He was going to eat.

Adam did not alter God's plan for Satan. The Lamb was slain before the man was created. To have already been slain he would have to be something that could be slain. If by being slain all you would have is something dead. How would that help therefore before time began you have the promise of the hope of eternal life. Christ had to receive this in order for you and I to obtain it. He is the author of eternal salvation. To understand what death means, how does God compare himself to the idols, the gods of people. He is The LIVING God and they are figments of the imagination, that is they do not exist.

Does this help in understanding my previous post?

 

[Van]

Reply to Winman

Now you sound like a Calvinist, as though faith and evil are some magical essence.

There was no magic in the forbidden fruit. What happened is that for the first time they actually had "experiential" knowledge of sin. It is not unlike when we commit some foolish sin for the first time. It could be drugs, or fornication, or any sin. Before we commit the sin we are tempted. We desire to know this new experience that has been presented to us as something wonderful. But the moment we do, the guilt comes rushing in. What we thought would be a pleasing and fulfilling experience turns bitter in our mouth. What we thought would bring happiness brings guilt, remorse, and a deep unhappiness with one's self.

This is what happened to Adam and Eve. They thought all creation could see their guilt and ran and hid themselves.

1) Agreed, the fruit did not cause the fall. Adam doing what God had said not to do caused the fall.

2) Experiencing sin did not cause the fall, God spiritually "opening their eyes" caused them to fall and become corrupted.

3) Your view, Winman, did not seem to address the (a) who caused it, (b) how was it caused, aspect of the scripture that reads (Rev 3:7) Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew they were naked.

As far as sounding like a Calvinist, Reformed theology is not all wrong. Their view is God-centric with God being sovereign over everything. But they take biblical truth, i.e. the fall, and take it too far adding their own invention to the text, i.e total spiritual inability, but that does not mean the many were not made sinners, with only one way to attain the righteousness of God, and that is through belief in Christ alone. The TULI are false doctrines, but the doctrine of the fall, biblically understood, is truth.

 

[Winman]

Van, I don't know what you mean by saying I didn't explain the fall. Satan tempted Eve, but all he did was appeal to her natural lusts (lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life).

I really do not see a difference between Adam and Eve in the garden and us except for one exception, they did not have the knowledge of good and evil. They did have fleshly lusts, these are clearly described in Gen 3:6.

Original sin shifts responsibility from man to God. If we are born sinners that cannot possibly do other than sin, then it is not a transgression. You cannot condemn a blind man because he cannot see.

We are born flesh with lusts and desires that tempt us to sin, just as Eve clearly had. But we also have free will and are responsible for our actions as Adam and Eve were also. We also have the knowledge of good and evil and therefore have no excuse when we sin.

Nowhere in scripture does it say man's moral nature was affected by the fall, although we are born into a sinful world because of the sin Adam introduced. Cain had a sinful jealous nature (pride of life), but God told him he could do well and would be accepted if he did.

So, having a flesh nature with lusts and desires is no excuse. We are not guilty for having these desires, we are guilty when we actually sin, just as Eve was not guilty for her desires, but when she actually sinned.

 

[Winman]

Furthermore, I am not defending man, those who say so grossly misrepresent me. No, I am defending God. Original Sin gives every man a perfect excuse for his sin, in fact, it blames God for our sin. That is why I hate this unscriptural doctrine.

No, men are not born sinners that sin by the compulsion of their nature. Men sin because they willingly choose to sin, it is not God's fault whatsoever.

So, I am not defending man, I hold man 100% responsible for his own sin.

But those who say we are born sinners blame God and give man the perfect excuse for sin. Blasphemy!

 

[seekingthetruth]

Nature of sin VS the act of sin

I don't believe that any individual sin sends us to Hell. I believe it is the wicked heart that we are born with. The acts of sin are just the result of our sinful hearts.

Adam and Eve were the only ones that had a choice to avoid having a wicked heart, and they passed their choice on to us.

Is any man sinless after they recieve salvation? No, none. Noone ever reaches Holy, sinless perfection.

As long as I am in this flesh I will always be a dirty rotten sinner. The only difference between me and a person bound for Hell, is that I am forgiven.

And it is NOT God's fault for aloowing me to be created with a wicked heart. Man made that choice long before I was born. But it is the fault of the individual if he rejects God's Saving Grace.

 

[DHK]

Original Sin gives every man a perfect excuse for his sin, in fact, it blames God for our sin. That is why I hate this unscriptural doctrine.

1. Who do you blame for your sin?
2. Who do you blame when a child of perhaps 3 years old, needs his hands slapped because he is disobeying the rules his parents set for him. He has a knowledge of the truth, and transgresses it.
3. Why can't you live a perfect and sinless life if you have no sin nature?
Jesus could; why can't you?

 

[Winman]

I don't believe that any individual sin sends us to Hell. I believe it is the wicked heart that we are born with. The acts of sin are just the result of our sinful hearts.

Adam and Eve were the only ones that had a choice to avoid having a wicked heart, and they passed their choice on to us.

Is any man sinless after they recieve salvation? No, none. Noone ever reaches Holy, sinless perfection.

As long as I am in this flesh I will always be a dirty rotten sinner. The only difference between me and a person bound for Hell, is that I am forgiven.

And it is NOT God's fault for aloowing me to be created with a wicked heart. Man made that choice long before I was born. But it is the fault of the individual if he rejects God's Saving Grace.

Do you believe a baby that dies at birth goes to hell? You believe they are born wicked sinners because of Adam, so wouldn't they have to go to hell?

This would be a contradiction of God's word, as God says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father.

 

[DHK]

This would be a contradiction of God's word, as God says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father.

God says no such thing!!
He speaks of capital punishment; civil law under the theocracy that Israel had. The son will not die (capital punishment) for the heinous sins that his father has committed. Read the entire chapter, especially the first part, and don't take the verse out of its context.

 

[Winman]

1. Who do you blame for your sin?
2. Who do you blame when a child of perhaps 3 years old, needs his hands slapped because he is disobeying the rules his parents set for him. He has a knowledge of the truth, and transgresses it.
3. Why can't you live a perfect and sinless life if you have no sin nature?
Jesus could; why can't you?

#1 I blame myself. I do not excuse my sin saying I MUST sin because I was born with a sin nature (an unscriptural term)

#2 I blame my child, although I make allowance that he does not fully understand his actions. A child does understand that his parents are displeased when he disobeys, but he does not understand sinning before God and the eternal consequences.

#3 I could obey, but I willingly disobey many times. Jesus had the same fleshly desires we have, but he always obeyed his Father.

I do not deny that we are flesh, with lusts and desires that tempt us to sin, this is obvious to all. But we also have free will and when we mature have a knowledge of good and evil and have no excuse for sinning.

God does not hold us accountable for our flesh nature, in fact the scriptures say God pities us, he knows we are dust.

Psa 103:13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.
14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

God knows our frame, he knows we are flesh. He does not hold us accountable for our flesh nature, he holds us accountable for knowingly and willingly disobeying him.

Saying we sin because we are sinners is nothing but excusing our behavior and blaming God. I am not defending man, I am defending God.

 

[percho]

The first man Adam was created neither with or without a sin nature. He was created a natural man, a man from nature, that when he rebelled against his creator would bring death to his form (morphe) of being.

This is called by God a living soul. A soul that with the breath of life from God is living. Without the breath of life from God it, the soul becomes dead.

He and the woman taken from him being natural not spiritual beings by nature had the desires of the flesh.

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.

Because they were beings of nature they were going to sin otherwise there would have been no reason for the Lamb to have been already considered slain to take away the sin of the world.

God through this created being in his image is bringing about the means to destroy sin, death and him that had the power of death that is the devil none other than Satan.

The beings that we become at the resurrection, at the coming of the Lord will be spiritual beings, not able to nor subject to sin. We will be in the resurrected image of the son of man who is the Son of God, the last Adam he who was begotten in the flesh, a natural man, yet without sin
who died for the sin of the world. When I say died I mean literally died, that is if the one who beget him had not raised him from the dead he would still be dead today. (1 Cor. 15:16-18 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.) The one who beget him God the Father raised him from the dead, quickened his soul and changed his corruptible flesh and blood to incorruptible flesh and bone.

That is the image which we can obtain. If the man child of Mary had not received it neither could we. Jesus the firstborn from the dead, the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit, that in all he might have the preeminence.

 

[seekingthetruth]

A baby?

The first thing a baby learns about sin is the physical reprecussions of it. It only knows that when it does wrong that it will be punished by it's parents. It doesn't know that we are sinners against God until it is much older. That is when he becomes accountable to God for his sins.

When the child is 18 months old and you ask it if it did something wrong, it is it's nature to not tell you the truth for fear of punishment. Noone has to teach a child to lie, or throw a fit, or take something that isnt his. No, indeed, it already knows how to do these things on it's own. What the child has to learn is HOW TO BE GOOD, he already knows how to be bad. If a child grows up to be a criminal, it is NOT because we taught it to be a criminal, it is because we DIDN"T teach it to be good.

Even the most honest Bible teaching preacher has a sinful nature until the day he dies. Granted, people that live by the Word tend to sin alot less, but they still have the same sinful nature as the worst criminal on Earth. It is only the Grace of Jesus that keeps that nature somewhat in check.

Now, I am NOT by any means blaming my sins on my sinful nature. I am still accountable for what I do, but I am not so arrogant as to believe that I am sinless, or that my sinful nature is gone, or that if I go without looking to God for guidance every day, that I too could become a terrible criminal.

What does the Bible say about pride and a fall? As soon as I start thinking that I have overcome sin, and that I would never do the terrible things I see the rest of the world do, that is when I set myself up for a fall.

John

 

[Winman]

That is not really accurate. I have 8 kids, how many have you? So, I think I know a little about children.

Children are bluntly honest in reality, they are loving, they are forgiving, they are trusting.

Do children sin? Yes, they are not perfect, but they are not the evil monsters some here portray them as. Jesus picked up small children and said of such is the kingdom of heaven, hardly something he would say of wicked sinners.

It is when a child grows and matures having knowledge of good and evil he becomes a sinner when he knowingly sins.

Adam and Eve were flesh, they had fleshly desires as described in Gen 3:6. But they did not become sinners until they broke God's known commandment.

Children have fleshly desires as well, they also do not become sinners until they understand sin before God and willingly break a known commandment.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Children

I have 3 children, ages 6 to 31, and 3 grandchildren, so I know a little about parenting myself.

I commend you for having 8 good, loving children. It is a testament to your parental skills. Your children are what they are because of your nurturing and guidance, not because they were born good.

If your children would have been raised by alot of other parents that we have today, then they could have turned out to be the worst sort of delinquents around. They are lucky they were born to you and not Saddam Hussien. Saddam's kids were not so nice, and it is Saddam's fault.

If your children would have been born in a ghetto in a third world country, then they would have had to learn to depend on their sinful nature just to survive.

Take credit for their good behavior, you deserve it. But don't think for a second that they wouldn't be different if they had been born to other parents.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

By the way

I forgot to answer your question about "Do children sin?"

Yes, they do sin, but they are not old enough to understand the consequenses before God until they are older, at which time God will start holding them accountable.

But yes, telling a lie is a sin, no matter the age of the liar, whether they understand the consequenses or not.

Would you wait until an 18 month old is 18 years old to start teaching him that lieing is wrong? And if you refuse to hold an 18 month old accountable for lieing, do you think he will ever learn on his own? The 18 month may not fully understand why telling the truth is important, but you have to start training him to be good, because being good doesn't come automatically.

I don't remember a "Recommended Age" stamped to The Ten Commandments.

John