original Sin vs Sinful Nature

[BobRyan]

What is the differnce between the doctrine of "original sin" and the teaching in the Bible on the Sinful Nature?

For example - here are some NIV quotes regarding the Sinful Nature.

1. Romans 7:5
   For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.
   )
2. Romans 7:18
   I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
   
3. Romans 7:25
   Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
   
4. Romans 8:3
   For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
   
5. Romans 8:4
   in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
   
6. Romans 8:5
   Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
   
7. Romans 8:8
   Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
   

But is that the same thing as the doctrine on original sin? It seems like there is a big difference to me.

We are not born guilty of Adam's Sin. We can not suffer die or pay the 2nd death penalty for Adam.

What say you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Zenas]

Romans 5:12 says clearly that through one man sin entered the world, and death passed to all men. "Original sin" simply means we are born with a sinful nature, a proclivity to sin, and like Adam, we will all die.

 

[tragic_pizza]

The idea of "original sin" being anything more than a predisposition to sin leads to some interesting, and dangerous, theoloical contortions. Limbo, for example.

We are born dying, so that's part of being "in sin." We are born in a world separated from its Creator, so that's part of being "in sin," too. We grow into rebellion, and this is part of being "in sin" that leads to sin. Yet God in God's mercy still calls to us, drawing us to reconciliation with God.

Cool, huh?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: here are some NIV quotes regarding the Sinful Nature.

HP: This does nothing more than to highlight an error by those responsible for this corrupt version, in that they translated the word 'flesh' as 'sinful nature.' This is a convenient insertion into the texts wording that would appear to bolster and support the false notion of original sin. This was done by these so-called translators shortly after the largest revival of religion this nation has ever seen was lead by a man that rightfully rejected the notion of OS as false and unscriptural.

 

[webdog]

The idea of "original sin" being anything more than a predisposition to sin leads to some interesting, and dangerous, theoloical contortions. Limbo, for example.

We are born dying, so that's part of being "in sin." We are born in a world separated from its Creator, so that's part of being "in sin," too. We grow into rebellion, and this is part of being "in sin" that leads to sin. Yet God in God's mercy still calls to us, drawing us to reconciliation with God.

Cool, huh?

If we are born dying...what do you do with Ezekiel 18:4 "The soul that sins shall die"? How does a soul born dead then die?

 

[webdog]

BR: here are some NIV quotes regarding the Sinful Nature.

HP: This does nothing more than to highlight an error by those responsible for this corrupt version, in that they translated the word 'flesh' as 'sinful nature.' This is a convenient insertion into the texts wording that would appear to bolster and support the false notion of original sin. This was done by these so-called translators shortly after the largest revival of religion this nation has ever seen was lead by a man that rightfully rejected the notion of OS as false and unscriptural.

How should "flesh" be translated in your view? In the Bible it's always used to show the sinfulness of man.

 

[tragic_pizza]

If we are born dying...what do you do with Ezekiel 18:4 "The soul that sins shall die"? How does a soul born dead then die?

We aren't born dead, but we will all die.

Beyond that, I see no need to discuss a prooftext.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: If we are born dying...what do you do with Ezekiel 18:4 "The soul that sins shall die"? How does a soul born dead then die?

HP: From one hat lover to another, (or just between you and I, could that be from one bald or balding head to another :laugh: ) you raise an excellent point.

The question I would like to ask is, was not man created mortal? Scripture states that ‘things that are seen are temporal.’ Was not Adam, at least from a physical perspective, created in the ‘seen’ world, that would have had to put on immortality, endure a change at some point in time, in order to live eternally with God? Where do we get the notion that Adam, created in a physical world, could have remained in a physical world eternally? There is far more reasons than one this is logically impossible to conceive of, and simply not supported in Scripture that I know of anyway.

I believe that man was created mortal from the start, and as off spring of our mortal father we also are mortals. That is what it means to have the nature of man or the nature of Adam. We are by nature mortal beings, and inherit that nature from our parents which in turn inherited it from Adam and Eve, which were in turn created as mortals by God.

 

[JDale]

As someone noted above, Romans 5:12 tells us that sin came to ALL humanity through Adam. Thus, we are all born GUILTY, and with a "sinful nature" that will -- at the first opportunity -- assert itself.

This isn't to say that children are then condemned -- Scripture teaches that they are "safe" (though not "saved") until the age of accountability (whatever that means -- a debate for another thread).

If one contends that humans are born "without sin," then they adopt a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian theological model, which the Church has rejected for 0ver 1500 years as heresy.

Man is not born a blank slate. Man is not born morally "neutral." Man is born in Original Sin -- guilty by virtue of inheritance (or imputation) or Adam's sin, and predisposed by that sinful nature to sin volitionally -- of their own choice and free will -- which humans do at the earliest opportunity (Genesis 6:5; Romans 5:12; Jeremiah 17:9).

JDale

 

[Rippon]

JDALE , what Scripture says that children are safe until the age of accountability ? Oops ... there is no Scripture -- just a fiction that has been made into a supposed article of faith for some here .

 

[tragic_pizza]

Rippon, you hit on the problem I have with the idea of being "born guilty."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: How should "flesh" be translated in your view? In the Bible it's always used to show the sinfulness of man.

HP: One would have to look carefully at every reference. Just the same, there is never a reason to insert OS into the word ‘flesh.’ Sure the word flesh can refer to the sinfulness of the individual in certain cases, but that cannot be extrapolated into inserting the notion of OS into any text, or the false notion that sin lies in the physical constitution of man and that by this physical corruption sin is passed onto the next generation as the false notion of Augustine known as original sin claims.

Our whole being becomes sinful ‘in a sense’ as we individually yield to sin, just as Scripture states we all have. The effects of the sins of our father, having affected their physical flesh, indeed is passed onto their posterity in the form of physical depravity. That effect, coupled with our own willful choices to yield our members to the selfish tendencies of this corruption, is indeed sin. Having sinned, the necessitated mental and physical corruption that results from sin indeed joins with the physical corruption we are born with, and together it serves as a formidable influence to sin.

It is folly to place the root of sin in the flesh. Sin is a selfish act of the will as opposed to benevolence, and is in reality a moral issue, not a physical issue. Sin affects the physical, but sin does not reside in the physical realm for it is a moral issue. The propensities to sin that are gendered by the flesh as the results of sin, that serve to influence the will, (even overcoming the will in certain cases) that have formed habits etc., that have stemmed from repeated yielding of those propensities and influence, is that which Paul speaks of as the ‘sin that lieth within us.’ Sometime, in common parlance, influences and propensities are ‘IN A SENSE” spoken of as sin or at least in our confusion we would refer to it as sin.

The effects of, and proclivities to sin, become so interwoven in our makeup, that we can find it all but impossible at times to sort out whether our will is actually yielding to the propensity, or feeding the propensities, or if in fact it is not just the propensities themselves raising their ugly heads. It is hard to sort out simply temptation from actual sin. I believe any true child of God will cry out to God at times when thoughts or impulses run through our minds and bodies, praying that God will convict us if in fact it is our wills involved, or give us faith to trust that in spite of it all we are still His child and in His care, and being kept by the power of God! We can receive an assurance by God that indeed it is not us that are willing these temptations and proclivities into being, but it is still the effects of sins and choices that are past that still pull on our spirits to succumb to the tempter and or our own fleshy lusts. That is how I see Paul as he cries out 'it is no longer I that sinneth, but the sin that lieth within me.'

It is not that Paul was saying that he was still active in the commission of sin as a believer, but rather that he was sensing the power of sin, those proclivities to sin, within him, attempting to draw him away from Christ, and loathing these propensities, and wishing for freedom from these allurements of sin, Paul saw himself ‘in a sense, and in this light, as a sinner to the point he cries out, “Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver men from this body of death!”

Thanks be to God that his cry did not stop there in despair, but shouted victoriously after feeling this despair, “Ro 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” Paul had obviously come to the point through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit that he was new creature in Christ Jesus and was no longer captive to the flesh and its propensities. Ro 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” That should be shouting ground for every believer!

Paul found true victory over the flesh in this present world, and was raised new by the power of the Holy Spirit which enabled him to live victoriously in spite of every proclivity or influence to sin. He no longer had to live according to the proclivities of the flesh, that even now does in fact beset us all, but could live and will his life victoriously day by day as he trusted by faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to deliver him victorious over every temptation or influence to sin. Paul still had the propensities, but they had lost their power to entice him away from God!

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Can we all say “Thank you Lord! I believe, now help thou my unbelief!”

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: JDALE , what Scripture says that children are safe until the age of accountability ? Oops ... there is no Scripture -- just a fiction that has been made into a supposed article of faith for some here .

HP: An astute observation indeed. Such notions are manufactured to provide cover for the false but logically necessitated deductions of Augustinian original sin, i.e., that sin lies in the flesh as opposed to the will, and as such all children are born as sinners.

 

[webdog]

We aren't born dead, but we will all die.

Beyond that, I see no need to discuss a prooftext.

You don't hold to total depravity? I thought you were reformed...

 

[webdog]

HP: From one hat lover to another, (or just between you and I, could that be from one bald or balding head to another :laugh: ) you raise an excellent point.

While we may both like our hats...I like my full head of hair, too

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JDale: If one contends that humans are born "without sin," then they adopt a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian theological model, which the Church has rejected for 0ver 1500 years as heresy

HP: Augustine introduced into the church the notion that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh as opposed to the will of man. Augustine is clearly recognized as the father of the doctrine of original sin. Augustine held clear sway over much of the Church of his day, and believing as he taught, why would not he consider all that opposed his teachings as heretics?

If you will do some research, you will find that Pelagius was completely exonerated by at least two Church councils. It was not until he stacked the deck with the third council that he finally got the conviction he so desperately desired. Why would it seem so strange to you, that the church subsequently, seeing what happened to Pelagius when opposing the power that be, and worse consequences to others who dare raised their voice in opposition to a church edict, follow blindly on in his error? Not surprising to me in the least.

The question is, does Scripture teach that all men are born in sin and as such antecedent to the first choice deserve to be punished for eternity for something they had no part in? Will a Fair and Just God condemn men for the sins of their fathers, simply because they happen to be the physical offspring of them? Does Scripture state that sin is passed on by physical means from parent to child and that all are sinners from birth born with original sin as was Augustine’s contention? I will listen carefully to your responses.

 

[DQuixote]

Webdog......

Ezekiel 18:4 "The soul that sins shall die"

For the NT Christian, the scripture you referenced simply indicates that a person without Christ will expire, and that without hope.

Old enough to remember Andy Griffith and his first appearance (long before he was Sheriff of Mayberry, and his sidekick was the delightful Barney Fife)?

"It's in the book!"

:laugh:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: While we may both like our hats...I like my full head of hair, too

HP: Noticing your age from the picture, who wouldn't enjoy such amenities?, By the way, where is your hat? We need to keep up with appearances you know. :laugh:

 

[webdog]

JDALE , what Scripture says that children are safe until the age of accountability ? Oops ... there is no Scripture -- just a fiction that has been made into a supposed article of faith for some here .

Just finished reading something that pertained to an age of accountability...
Neh 9:38 In view of all this, we are making a binding agreement in writing on a sealed document containing the names of our leaders, Levites, and priests.
Neh 10:1 Those whose seals were on the document were

(fast forward through the names)


Neh 10:28 The rest of the people--the priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, and temple servants, along with their wives, sons, and daughters, everyone who is able to understand (not the sons and daughters who CAN'T understand ) and who has separated themselves from the surrounding peoples to obey the law of God--
Neh 10:29 join with their noble brothers and commit themselves with a sworn oath to follow the law of God given through God's servant Moses and to carefully obey all the commands, ordinances, and statutes of the LORD our Lord.

Sure looks like an age of accountability to me!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DQ: "It's in the book!"

HP: There you go debating again.:laugh:

What do you call that inward drive and proclivity to do that which in reality claim you despise?