the sin nature - let's get deeper with it

[Aki]

can we discuss this as more of a class discussion rather than a debate? because this is a couple of deserving questions where everyone can benefit from.

1. if each man was not passed the sin nature, will each man ever commit his own sin? because, you see, Adam, when he was created, he had no sin nature with him. yet he committed his sin.

and now we have this sin nature that causes us to sin. yet even without this nature Adam has shown that still man can sin.

2. is the sin nature really the cause that each one commits his personal sin?

 

[William C]

In my opinion God created the means for sin to enter the world. He created the tree and made the rule that they couldn't eat from it. Why?

If God didn't want sin in the world why did He create a rule? Let them eat from the stinking old tree and sin never comes in, right?

But God had a purpose! He wanted man to have knowledge of both good and evil so as to understand the difference between the two and appreciate goodness all the more. Also, he wanted to destroy evil thus showing his power and revealing his glory. But, I also believe He wanted to accomplish His purpose in redemption which was to have created beings choose to love Him back, without forcing their love or creating them as having to love Him like the angels. How did He accomplish this?

"He bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all."

Who did he bind over to disobedience? "all men"

Who may he have mercy on? "them all"

By allowing us to chose to enter into Covenant with Him through faith, God accomplishes His purpose in creation and in allowing sin to enter into our world.

 

[Yelsew]

can we discuss this as more of a class discussion rather than a debate? because this is a couple of deserving questions where everyone can benefit from.

1. if each man was not passed the sin nature, will each man ever commit his own sin? because, you see, Adam, when he was created, he had no sin nature with him. yet he committed his sin.

If Adam did not have a sin nature, how did he come to sin? If Adam was Holy how did he come to sin? Those without sin are Holy.

and now we have this sin nature that causes us to sin. yet even without this nature Adam has shown that still man can sin.

Adam had a sin nature or he would not, no, could not have sinned. For All, including Adam, have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.

2. is the sin nature really the cause that each one commits his personal sin?

Yes, The sin nature, or better designated The disobedience nature causes every human to sin. The first sin that any human being does is the act of disobedience against authority, the same sin the Adam committed in the Garden because of his sin nature.

 

[Aki]

Yelsew:

first, consider that God commented in His creation that everything was good. next, God created Adam in His own image. if God would have created Adam in His own image yet with a sin nature, it would imply that God has a sin nature too. nothing on you, but it is a blasphemous idea! also, consider that God is not the author of sin, both directly and indirectly. if He did create Adam with a sin nature, then God would author sin, either directly or inderectly.

but then i see your point. what you are saying is that if Adam (or any other people) had no sin nature, he would not sin and vice versa. the fact that Adam sinned means he had a sin nature.

but this is not accurately the case, Yelsew. how? actually what you are talking about is the ability to sin, and not the sin nature. well, God gave Adam volition which means God also gave Adam the ability to sin. perhaps i should straightly tell you, the ability to sin and the sin nature are two different things. if God gave Adam the sin nature, God would be authroring sin. but in no way did God did that. rather, God gave Adam the ability to sin.

i should give you the difference.

the ability to sin does not produce temptation to sin. but the sin nature does.

this was Adam's case when he was created: no sin nature, but with volition. thus he has the ability to sin, and the ability not to sin all his life.

this is each man's case: having volition yet with a sin nature, man has no ability not to sin all his life. moreover, it should be qualified that it was not God who caused man to have the sin nature, which is the source of temptation for each one. rather, the sin nature is passed to each man seminally.

but i can see that with what i said, a question still stands: yes Adam had the ability to sin, but what will make him to actually sin apart from the sin nature? well, first, with Eve, she was decieved and thus sinned. with Adam, however, he knows everything. he knows what will happen to him, to humankind, and all creation with regards to his decision. but he had the ability not to disobey, should he choose to. yet, with his own, he decided to sin. after that act did only the sin nature plunged into each man. so now the ability of not to sin has been out.

the case of Jesus Christ, however, is different. Jesus Christ had much similarity with that Adam. first, not being born out of man, Jesus Christ had no sin nature. but eventually he was also tempted by Satan. this means that Jesus Christ, while not having the sin nature, has the ability to sin, and the ability not to sin. if he succumbed, then man has lost his only chance for salvation. if Jesus Christ had not sinned, then He would be the the savior. you know the rest.

With God he created man with the ability to sin. With Adam man became sinful. so we had the sin nature because of Adam? yes. did we have the sin nature because of God? definitely not!


Brother Bill:

If God didn't want sin in the world why did He create a rule? Let them eat from the stinking old tree and sin never comes in, right?

God created the rule not for sin to enter the world. yup, that rule created the gateway for sin. but the intention of building that gateway is not for sin to pass, but rather to test man whether he would let it sin to pass that gate or not. God made Adam with the ability to resist it or not, and the creation of the rule was to test Adam's obedience, and not for Adam to actully disobey.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
the same sin the Adam committed in the Garden because of his sin nature.

Adam was created perfect. He did not have a sin nature until after he sinned.

 

[Frogman]

If Adam did not have a sin nature, how did he come to sin? If Adam was Holy how did he come to sin? Those without sin are Holy.

Those do not exist. For a short period man enjoyed sinlessness in the Garden of Eden, now Those without sin do not exist.

God Bless.

Bro. Dallas

 

[4study]

Aki,

First of all, it's difficult to have a valuable discussion without defining terms. "Sin" and "Sin nature" are terms in and of themselves that could be discussed at length.

Regarding 1.
I believe "sin" existed before Adam transgressed (i.e. Lucifer).

I believe the essence of Adam's nature is "choice".

While Adam was guiltless from sin, I do not believe he was created "holy" or "perfect". He lived under imputed righteousness.

Regarding 2.
There is a lot of confusion about what "sin nature" is. I'm not sure there is such a thing. IMO, sin is the result of choice. I also believe Adam's nature was not altered as a result of his transgression. So we have the same nature as Adam.

 

[Aki]

Frogman:

how about the babies? are they sinless? or deeper, are they acceptable in God's sight upon birth?

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If Adam did not have a sin nature, how did he come to sin? If Adam was Holy how did he come to sin? Those without sin are Holy.

Those do not exist. For a short period man enjoyed sinlessness in the Garden of Eden, now Those without sin do not exist.

God Bless.

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, that is my point! The very first humans to exist sinned because they had in them the ability to not only respond to God, but to respond to sin. WE STILL DO!

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Aki:
Frogman:

how about the babies? are they sinless? or deeper, are they acceptable in God's sight upon birth?

As babies they are sinless until they can, by an act of their will, disobey the authority over them, their parents or gardians. They are helpless unto themselves.

Acts such as spitting out food is not sin, but it says that the food is not what tasted good to them or what would satisfy the unsettled condition within them. Such an act has nothing to do with disobedience. Crying at all hours of the night is not sin, there is something causing the infant to cry, some discomfort, some condition that causes hurt, solid food where milk should have been, bad formula, constipation, diahria, clothing too tight , clothing too loose, something poking or pressing the flesh. You name it, and it is not sin. Open defiance of authority, testing if you will, is sin.

Now, do babies have a predisposition to sin? Yes, but they haven't yet got the skill to apply that predisposition.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Ken H:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
the same sin the Adam committed in the Garden because of his sin nature.

Adam was created perfect. He did not have a sin nature until after he sinned. </font>[/QUOTE]That is your hypothesis. However, scripture does not say that Adam was made Holy and sinless, that is, being unable to sin. Scripture say that God looked on his creation and called it Good!

There is more than one way to look at the word "good". The scientists on the Manhattan project, looked at their designed and built Atomic Bomb and called it Good, not because it's purpose was good, but because the result of their design was Good, it would work as designed, and yes it did work as designed.

When God looked at his creation and called it good, he was not declaring it to be holy and sinless, for he had foreknowledge from before the foundation of the world what was to come forth out of his creation. That is why he established "the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world". And why there are names written in the Lamb's book of life from before the foundation of the world. God established all that would happen to and in the creation, He knew from before the foundation of the world. So for Adam and Eve, He made them in his image with everthing they would need to accomplish their part in his creation, and that includes the ability to succeed or fail, to sin or not sin, to choose for themselves what they will do. We still have those attributes. Frankly, I think God would have been surprized if either Adam or Eve had refused to Sin, because He knew from before the foundation of the world that they would both sin.

No Adam was not created Holy and incapable of Sin. He was instead created, and it was good!

 

[Yelsew]

Yelsew:

first, consider that God commented in His creation that everything was good.

The word "good" has several meanings, only one of which can be Holy and sinless, Perfect, etc. Other meanings include that God's creation was finished in accordance with His design, and that it is therefore good because it meets the design, and that "good" has nothing to do with the nature of what is created, but that it meets the design of the creator.

Next, God created Adam in His own image. If God would have created Adam in His own image yet with a sin nature, it would imply that God has a sin nature too. nothing on you, but it is a blasphemous idea!

No! The creator can make his creation in his image, giving the image whatever attributes the creator wants the image to have, without the image having the essence of the creator. I illustrated in another post the Atomic Bomb. The bomb though not made in the image of the designers, also did not have the essence of the designers contained there in. They quite simply designed a device that would grow mushrooms in the sky while scorching the earth.

also, consider that God is not the author of sin, both directly and indirectly. if He did create Adam with a sin nature, then God would author sin, either directly or inderectly.

Here you overlook all the scriptures that speak of God's knowledge and work "before the foundation of the world" (before he created). If you look at all that is said of happenings "before the foundation of the world", you will see that before God created the earth, He established "the lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world", and "the Lamb's book of life" with all the names that are written there in before the foundation of the world. You will see that God planned that man would sin, thus God is the author of sin in the big picture. You are right however to say that God is not the author of sin in the individual human's life, but God did create that human life to be able to sin as well as not sin, and he knew from the foundation of the world that man would sin.

but then i see your point. what you are saying is that if Adam (or any other people) had no sin nature, he would not sin and vice versa. the fact that Adam sinned means he had a sin nature.

but this is not accurately the case, Yelsew. how? actually what you are talking about is the ability to sin, and not the sin nature. well, God gave Adam volition which means God also gave Adam the ability to sin. perhaps i should straightly tell you, the ability to sin and the sin nature are two different things. if God gave Adam the sin nature, God would be authroring sin. but in no way did God did that. rather, God gave Adam the ability to sin.

Again, you must look from eternal God's perspective. Before the foundation of the world, God knew what would happen and he planned it that way.

i should give you the difference.

the ability to sin does not produce temptation to sin. but the sin nature does.

this was Adam's case when he was created: no sin nature, but with volition. thus he has the ability to sin, and the ability not to sin all his life.

this is each man's case: having volition yet with a sin nature, man has no ability not to sin all his life. moreover, it should be qualified that it was not God who caused man to have the sin nature, which is the source of temptation for each one. rather, the sin nature is passed to each man seminally.

Did God create Lucifer? You know the one who attempted to usurp the throne of God, and the one who was cast down from heaven with a third of the angels who followed him? Sin existed long before Adam. And by virtue of the fact that God knew before the foundation of the world that there was need of a savior, the Sacrificial Lamb of God, and that the Lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world, should give you some indication that God is in fact the creator who allowed sin into his creation.

but i can see that with what i said, a question still stands: yes Adam had the ability to sin, but what will make him to actually sin apart from the sin nature? well, first, with Eve, she was decieved and thus sinned.

So, sin existed before Eve ate of the fruit, because the very act of deception is sin!

with Adam, however, he knows everything. he knows what will happen to him, to humankind, and all creation with regards to his decision.

No, Adam was not God in that he knew everything. All that God told him was that if he ate of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, that He Adam would surely die. Adam had not even known Eve carnally in order to know that there was such a thing as fathering children. All he knew is that He existed.

but he had the ability not to disobey, should he choose to. yet, with his own, he decided to sin. after that act did only the sin nature plunged into each man. so now the ability of not to sin has been out.

I understand what you are attempting to say, but believe you are wrong. God created into man all the attributes of God, with the exception of the omni-attributes, but he also put some attributes into man that He, God, did not possess, and one of those attributes was the disobedience attribute. That attribute functions thusly, when authority commands us to not do something, our first inclination is to do what we are commanded by authority to not do, thus we disobey authority. You see it in young children when they are first exercising their God given will. Their parent tells them to not do something, and what do they do? That's right, what their parent told them to not do. God commanded Adam to not eat of the tree in the midst of the garden. Perhaps not right away, but eventually, man did eat of the tree in the midst of the garden, thus the first recorded act of disobedience!

the case of Jesus Christ, however, is different. Jesus Christ had much similarity with that Adam. first, not being born out of man, Jesus Christ had no sin nature. but eventually he was also tempted by Satan. this means that Jesus Christ, while not having the sin nature, has the ability to sin, and the ability not to sin. if he succumbed, then man has lost his only chance for salvation. if Jesus Christ had not sinned, then He would be the the savior. you know the rest.

The rest is that Jesus had the spirit of God because he was "sired by God" and in fact was the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". So no matter how much like man Jesus was, he was not man! He existed before the foundation of the world.

With God he created man with the ability to sin. With Adam man became sinful. so we had the sin nature because of Adam? yes. did we have the sin nature because of God? definitely not!

Open you spiritual eyes so that you can see the "before the foundation or the world" truths.

 

[Frogman]

I'll try to respond to everyone's question in this post. I believe concerning the creation as follows:

God created all that is created, we are given this at Gen. 1.1 onward. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Lucifer was a created angel. In the original creation at Gen. 1.1. there was not the confusion of sin in the universe. Later it was found in the heart of Lucifer and was pride. This follows I think from Is. 24 and Ez. 14 or maybe vice versa. I don't remember, nevertheless, he was cast out and those angels he took with him, which I believe is seen in Rev. 13.

Now back to Genesis 1.2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The first part is a result of the judgement of Lucifer and the fallen angels. Sin now thrives in the universe.

vs. 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Here begins the work of creation that forms the cattle, beasts etc and man. Separates the atmosphere from the firmament etc.

On the sixth day man was created, sinless, but not HOLY, nor in righteousness as he will be in the resurrection. He was in a righteousness I call 'original' because he was made without sin. But this was in the universe and through Lucifer, now Satan, was in the world, even the Garden of Eden.

Man by his (then) free-will chose to become a partaker of this sin and thus is the sinfulness of man.

Concerning babies.

This is a much more difficult question. The best example in scripture is that of the child of David and Bathsheba. Not only does this child have the full nature of man, he can rightly agree with David that he too was formed in iniquity (as a direct result of the sin of David). Yet David has a faith which when the child is alive he fasts and prays, but once the child dies he is resolved in his faith that he cannot bring the child back to him, but can go to the child.

The problem here is two fold, as I see it. First, the child obviously did not live long enough to add to his sin nature his own personal sins as we have and countless others.

Next, if not careful here we can fall into the false belief held among Catholics of being able to pray someone into salvation once they are passed away. I can see how this episode would encourage that thought and cause the formulation of a doctrine around it.

What is at the core of the question "What of infants dying before reaching the age of accountability?"

I believe it is that our human emotions desire the comfort of knowing that though we have been deprived of the joy of this person, our child, etc. we will be able to "join" that child in the next world.

The problem with this is it is built not entirely upon the Word of God, but draws its strength from human emotion and desire. Did the child possess a sin nature, sure, all born of man and woman do. Is the child received into the arms of Christ at death, this is what is taught, but I believe it is so taught from the wrong motivations. If it is true, it adds strength to the Primitive Baptist belief that not all will hear the Gospel, certainly the infant never heard a man preach the Gospel, even in cases where they live two or three years, to where they are able to understand it. However, this does not prohibit the regeneration of the infant by the Holy Spirit, who, as He did with Abraham, does also with the infant, and preaching the Gospel becomes the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The child then, upon death has been regenerated by the Spirit and not one effort at evangelism from human means has occurred. We must believe this if we are going to use this as a comfort to those parents who have suffered this loss.

Again, the problem becomes one of where the source of our conviction lays. Is it in the seat of the heart of man, or is it from the Fountain of Eternal Truth?

This question is deeper than what I can fully answer. But we must grasp onto the Truth that is in God and be done with what we envision as equality or human rights. If all who die in infancy are saved, then the Devil is only defeating himself by encouraging abortions . I admit this is the doctrine which I have always heard, but at the same time I hear it said that men are not elected, or that they must hear the Gospel preached, that this is now through the instrumentality of man, but none of this is true to the Word of God, what is true?, that preaching of the Gospel, regeneration, is all a full and complete work of the Holy Spirit, that it will be accomplished with or without man's involvement.

Then to deny the sin nature to infants until they reach an age to where they are accountable presents another problem, only God knows this age. Further, the problem, and much greater one at that IMO, is that we produce a scenario where it may be possible for one to be born (remember not possessing the sin nature), who is capable of living a sinless life by choice and thus make the cross of no effect. If one can do it why not others, then we have a blunder on the part of God for 'so loving the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life' this blunder is evident because if just one is able to be saved by choice of living a sinless life, then all would and there is no real need for a Savior, but man becomes his own redeemer.

Then the argument may be heard that noone can live a sinless life. But I beg to differ, in truth, if they are born not weighed down with the sin nature, then once they come to the age of accountability they choose to sin, from where did this choice originate? If you say they sin before they realize it, then you cut your own throat, because if they know not the consequence of their actions they have not obtained the secret age of accountability.

The truth must ultimately lie with God. I agree with Scripture, let everyman be a liar. And again, that the mouths of men may be stopped. Amen.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

Open defiance of authority, testing if you will, is sin.

What of those who cry and there is nothing wrong, except that they want(ed) to be held. Is this not a form of a lie, to use the crying and the concern of the parents to deceive and acquire something that they want, but do not necessarily need at the moment?

Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Open defiance of authority, testing if you will, is sin.

What of those who cry and there is nothing wrong, except that they want(ed) to be held. Is this not a form of a lie, to use the crying and the concern of the parents to deceive and acquire something that they want, but do not necessarily need at the moment?

Bro. Dallas

</font>[/QUOTE]No! There is a reason for the child to cry, whether it be physical or emotional. Loneliness, caused by separation is a strong reason for an infant to cry, afterall the first nine months of its life is was in very close proximity to its mother 24 X 7, receiving virtually ever element of its life after conception, from its mother, and now it is separated from the mother for reasons not known or understood by the infant. The separation is not severence, but only a temporary condition, but that doesn't matter the the infant, because all the infant knows is that it is alone.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
No Adam was not created Holy and incapable of Sin.

I didn't say the Bible teaches that Adam was incapable of sin. Read what I wrote. I said Adam was not created with a sin nature like you and I have. If you do not believe this, then you are casting your lot in with the heresy of Pelagianism.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Ken H:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
No Adam was not created Holy and incapable of Sin.

I didn't say the Bible teaches that Adam was incapable of sin. Read what I wrote. I said Adam was not created with a sin nature like you and I have. If you do not believe this, then you are casting your lot in with the heresy of Pelagianism. </font>[/QUOTE]Let's see, you refuse to believe that Sin existed before Adam, and that sin existed in the world before God created man, but man was the last of God's creation, the serpent who beguiled (deceived), was created before man.

I believe that all mankind are made in the very same image that Adam was made, no differences, period. Adam had everything that we have and vice versa. When God created Adam, and made Eve from Adam, he broke the mold so there could be no differences henceforth.

I also believe that man was predestined to sin, lest there be no purpose for the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world.

Consider all that was set in place before creation, and you are compelled to accept that we were predestined to sin, to be in need of a Savior, and to choose to be redeemed so that we become the children of God for the Glory of God.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
I believe that all mankind are made in the very same image that Adam was made, no differences, period.

Then you believe a heresy - Pelagianism. As I said before, you should check out the Church of Christ denomination as a church home. It is very Pelagian in doctrine.

 

[Frogman]

Yelsew,

Could you answer my post of March 12, 11.36 a.m.?

Babies are sweet I have had the blessing of holding three of my own flesh in my arms, yet all three of them early displayed the ability to lie in one form or the other.

If we are going to comfort one another with a doctrine of a mysterious age of accountability, then we must assume this accountability is taught to the infant prior to death. Unless we accept the doctrine of Spirit regeneration whereby those of the elect are saved in the same manner any other individual possessing the sin nature is regardless of age.

Sin is much deeper than my children disobeying me or their mother or any other elder. Sin is not a personal affront to me or to you, though we try to make it thus, it is a transgression of the Law of God. All humans have the sin nature. Just as Cain inherited it, and noone taught him murder, yet he committed this sin.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Babies are sweet I have had the blessing of holding three of my own flesh in my arms, yet all three of them early displayed the ability to lie in one form or the other.

Yep, they're your flesh awright!

Did they know they were lying? Had you commanded them to not lie? Probably not! Therefore, no sin was committed. Where there is no law, there is no sin!

Sin is much deeper than my children disobeying me or their mother or any other elder. Sin is not a personal affront to me or to you, though we try to make it thus, it is a transgression of the Law of God. All humans have the sin nature. Just as Cain inherited it, and noone taught him murder, yet he committed this sin.

Cain was not an child, but he was disobedient!