The Sin Nature

[JonC]

Early in Paul's Christian life he was confused, he said, Rom. 7:21, that when he wanted to good, he found evil was present with him, he is referring to the sin nature. In 19--20 he is fighting a losing battle with this sin nature.

In vs 24 Paul asks the question, who shall deliver me from this body of death? He's referring to the sin nature he's fighting a losing battle with ruling over the good he wants to do. He asks the question, who shall deliver me from this body of death? The sin nature is pulling him away from God.

Then in vs. 25, Paul presents the answer to his own question, "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." The answer is found in Christ.

Continuing in vs 25 he identifies the sin nature as the flesh serving the Law of Sin, but with the mind he serves the Law of God.

Here is the struggle we all face in this Christian life with the sin nature. We are presented with the choice of following Christ and therefore receiving the help of the Holy Spirit to overcome the sin nature, or not having the relationship with Christ and serving the Law of Sin that leads to spiritual death and separation from God.

Paul that that the good he does is "Christ in him"


There are two options (biblically) - flesh and spirit. Adam was created flesh, and we were born flesh. Flesh cannot please God.

The Word was God and was with God. God is Spirit. But the Word became flesh. Flesh-Spirit....100%man - 100% God.

We do struggle between the flesh and spirit where those not born of the Spirit don't. Jesus was tempted by the flesh but submitted all things to the will of the Father.

No 3rd type of "nature" needed for us to sin. The desires of the flesh absent the will of the Spirit equates to sin every time.

 

[Charlie24]

Paul that that the good he does is "Christ in him"


There are two options (biblically) - flesh and spirit. Adam was created flesh, and we were born flesh. Flesh cannot please God.

The Word was God and was with God. God is Spirit. But the Word became flesh. Flesh-Spirit....100%man - 100% God.

We do struggle between the flesh and spirit where those not born of the Spirit don't. Jesus was tempted by the flesh but submitted all things to the will of the Father.

No 3rd type of "nature" needed for us to sin. The desires of the flesh absent the will of the Spirit equates to sin every time.

OK, Jon, i see where you're going. Let's consider this.

We know that the sin nature was not possible for Eve in the Garden. Sin was unknown at this point.

But yet we read in Gen 3:6 that Eve saw the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eyes (the lust of the flesh), and that the tree was desired to make one wise (the pride of life). Now remember, she had been told this fruit was off limits and the expense of death.

But she did it anyway, and she did it without any help from the sin nature.

What changed immediately after they ate that fruit?

They fell from the innocent nature of not not knowing what sin was, to the fallen state of realizing what they had done. A totally new nature, and totally depraved nature is what Paul led us to believe in his letters.

 

[JonC]

OK, Jon, i see where you're going. Let's consider this.

We know that the sin nature was not possible for Eve in the Garden. Sin was unknown at this point.

I'm taking it slow . Just this point.

If the "sin nature" refers to the nature opposed to the Spirit (Scripture gives us two natures - spirit and flesh) then Adam certainly had this nature as evidenced by his transgression.

Had Adam not had a nature that desired things not of the spirit then Adam would have never sinned.

Sin was unknown, until they sinned. I was not guilty of lying until I lied.

Human nature (this "sin nature", or "flesh") is not a sin in and of itself. Jesus had desires of the flesh that did not align with the will of the Father. But He submitted to the Fathers will, He set His mind on the Spirit.


What changed immediaty after Adam ate of the fruit?

Not their nature (they still desired things of the flesh). Their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil.

 

[Charlie24]

I'm taking it slow . Just this point.

If the "sin nature" refers to the nature opposed to the Spirit (Scripture gives us two natures - spirit and flesh) then Adam certainly had this nature as evidenced by his transgression.

Had Adam not had a nature that desired things not of the spirit then Adam would have never sinned.

Sin was unknown, until they sinned. I was not guilty of lying until I lied.

Human nature (this "sin nature", or "flesh") is not a sin in and of itself. Jesus had desires of the flesh that did not align with the will of the Father. But He submitted to the Fathers will, He set His mind on the Spirit.


What changed immediaty after Adam ate of the fruit?

Not their nature (they still desired things of the flesh). Their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil.

You can't ignore that they fell, no one can deny that, foolish to attempt that line of thinking.

They fell from pure innocence, not knowing anything about sin or wrong doing.

They fell into sin by disobeying God. Now being fallen from innocence to guilty of disobeying God, their nature changed the instant they realized they were naked, and they became ashamed.

In any man's book that is a total change of natures. Now they are totally depraved and can't come to God as they could before, God has to come to them if there is any hope of redemption.

 

[JonC]

You can't ignore that they fell, no one can deny that, foolish to attempt that line of thinking.

I never said they lost innocence. I never said they didnt fall. It is follish to assign to me things I never said.

What I did was give you what the Bible says happened immediately after Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

Their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil.

That is this "fall".

I did deny that Adam's nature changed. The readon is Scripture. The Bible does not say Adam's nature changed. In fact, the Bible tells us that Adam sinned by following his desires rather than God's command. Paul stresses this by pointing out Adam was flesh while Jesus "became a life giving Spirit".

Exactly what verse ate you looking at that states Adam's nature changed?

 

[Charlie24]

I never said they lost innocence. I never said they didnt fall. It is follish to assign to me things I never said.

What I did was give you what the Bible says happened immediately after Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

Their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil.

That is this "fall".

I did deny that Adam's nature changed. The readon is Scripture. The Bible does not say Adam's nature changed. In fact, the Bible tells us that Adam sinned by following his desires rather than God's command. Paul stresses this by pointing out Adam was flesh while Jesus "became a life giving Spirit".

Exactly what verse ate you looking at that states Adam's nature changed?

That was not a personal statement meant for only you, Jon.

The statement on the innocence and fall was a general statement meant to establish my following statements. I'm sorry that you took it that way! In time we will learn each other.

There is no word that says Trinity or Rapture in the Scripture, but we both know it is there.

The same goes for the sin nature, and the OP addresses where and how the sin nature was derived from Scripture.

 

[JonC]

@Charlie24 ,

I never quite understood why so many Protestants retained the Catholic view of original sin and all change in nature.

This was vital to Catholic theology, but not so much for most Protestant theologies. Maybe Presbyterians and Methodists....but not for most Baptists.

I believe that the Bible gives us a complete account of what we need to know about Adam's transgression. The only reason to add extra-biblical doctrines or enhancements is if one believes the Bible does not make sence.

This is the reason we started this conversation- to look at what God's Word says about these issues.


Here is an illustration - my dog likes to obey me because he likes the praise. But my dog acts on his canine nature. He likes praise. Sometimes he does not do what I want him to do, or he gripes very loudly about obedience.

This is not my dog doing evil. Now, if my dog had his eyes opened, became like us knowing good and evil, then he could be accountable for his disobedience.

His nature wouldn't change. And this would mean he would still follow his instinct or desires. But he would do this knowingly. And he would be a slave to disobedience.

Now....if I became a dog, with that canine nature, but also with my human nature, then I could show him a better way IF I could somehow endow him with a human nature (I can't). He would have to die to that canine nature and be made alive in a human nature.


That is a silly illustration, I know. But it highlights what the Bible says Jesus did for us.

 

[JonC]

That was not a personal statement meant for only you, Jon.

The statement on the innocence and fall was a general statement meant to establish my following statements. I'm sorry that you took it that way! In time we will learn each other.

There is no word that says Trinity or Rapture in the Scripture, but we both know it is there.

The same goes for the sin nature, and the OP addresses where and how the sin nature was derived from Scripture.

Gotcha. It's for others who may read the thread. That is often important, and sorry I thought it was directed at my post.

My position is Adam and Eve lost innocence. Their natures, however, remained flesh. This is the reason for Adam's transgression. Had Adam been "of the Spirit" and set his mind on spiritual things then he would have been obedient. Paul covers this very well in explaining the difference between the First Adam and Christ as a type of Adam.

 

[Charlie24]

@Charlie24 ,

I never quite understood why so many Protestants retained the Catholic view of original sin and all change in nature.

This was vital to Catholic theology, but not so much for most Protestant theologies. Maybe Presbyterians and Methodists....but not for most Baptists.

I believe that the Bible gives us a complete account of what we need to know about Adam's transgression. The only reason to add extra-biblical doctrines or enhancements is if one believes the Bible does not make sence.

This is the reason we started this conversation- to look at what God's Word says about these issues.


Here is an illustration - my dog likes to obey me because he likes the praise. But my dog acts on his canine nature. He likes praise. Sometimes he does not do what I want him to do, or he gripes very loudly about obedience.

This is not my dog doing evil. Now, if my dog had his eyes opened, became like us knowing good and evil, then he could be accountable for his disobedience.

His nature wouldn't change. And this would mean he would still follow his instinct or desires. But he would do this knowingly. And he would be a slave to disobedience.

Now....if I became a dog, with that canine nature, but also with my human nature, then I could show him a better way IF I could somehow endow him with a human nature (I can't). He would have to die to that canine nature and be made alive in a human nature.


That is a silly illustration, I know. But it highlights what the Bible says Jesus did for us.

I'm of the mind that we hold on to the principles of original sin because it's Biblical.

We're just not going to agree on this, but hey, it's not the end of the world. We are both justified by faith in Christ by the Grace of God. And that's all that really counts in the end.

 

[Charlie24]

Gotcha. It's for others who may read the thread. That is often important, and sorry I thought it was directed at my post.

My position is Adam and Eve lost innocence. Their natures, however, remained flesh. This is the reason for Adam's transgression. Had Adam been "of the Spirit" and set his mind on spiritual things then he would have been obedient. Paul covers this very well in explaining the difference between the First Adam and Christ as a type of Adam.

Being "of the Spirit" was a totally different concept before sin came into the world, meaning when Adam was innocent before the fall.

But let's just agree to disagree and move on trusting in the Lord to show us the way.

That's my general rule of thumb.

 

[JonC]

I'm of the mind that we hold on to the principles of original sin because it's Biblical.

This is what I was getting at.

I define "biblical" by being in the text of Scripture ("what is written"). That's why I believe the Doctrine of the Trinity (it is in the text of Scripture....not in one place but you can actually quote Scripture).

You seem to define "biblical" as what you believe the Bible ultimately teaches.

The problem with that definition is it means you can never actually test doctrine against "what is written". You have to test what you believe is ultimately taught by the Bible by what you believe the Bible teaches.


This is why we will have to agree to disagree. I was hoping that you had some passages that you believe described Adam's nature changing (his instinct or desires changing). But there are none (I also knew this going in).

 

[JonC]

Being "of the Spirit" was a totally different concept before sin came into the world,

Please provide a passage stating that "being of the Spirit" was different before sin entered the world.

 

[Charlie24]

This is what I was getting at.

I define "biblical" by being in the text of Scripture ("what is written"). That's why I believe the Doctrine of the Trinity (it is in the text of Scripture....not in one place but you can actually quote Scripture).

You seem to define "biblical" as what you believe the Bible ultimately teaches.

The problem with that definition is it means you can never actually test doctrine against "what is written". You have to test what you believe is ultimately taught by the Bible by what you believe the Bible teaches.


This is why we will have to agree to disagree. I was hoping that you had some passages that you believe described Adam's nature changing (his instinct or desires changing). But there are none (I also knew this going in).

Everyone considers their belief to be "Biblical" even though we all know everyone can't be correct on that belief, there's only one truth in Scripture that actually is Biblica.

But this is what goes with the territory on the boards, take it or leave it, it is what it is.

 

[Charlie24]

Please provide a passage stating that "being of the Spirit" was different before sin entered the world.

It's not written word for word, Jon, it's the concept and flow of Scripture like most everything else.

God could have but didn't spell everything out for us, if we want the truth it takes rolling up the sleeves and putting a little blood and sweat in with some effort.

 

[JonC]

Everyone considers their belief to be "Biblical" even though we all know everyone can't be correct on that belief, there's only one truth in Scripture that actually is Biblica.

But this is what goes with the territory on the boards, take it or leave it, it is what it is.

I agree. Everybody does believe their ideas are biblical.

A lot has to do with criteria. To have a meaningful discussion we should have a common criteria.

With our discussion we cannot because we are not talking about different interpretations but a different criteria.

I believe we have to, as best we can, stick with God's Word ("what is written" in Scripture). We will still have disagreements but these will be about interpretation.

There is no mention of Adam's nature changing, of "being of the Spirit" changing, of Jesus having a different human nature than the rest of mankind.


How do you test your belief if not against "what is written"?

 

[JonC]

It's not written word for word, Jon, it's the concept and flow of Scripture like most everything else.

God could have but didn't spell everything out for us, if we want the truth it takes rolling up the sleeves and putting a little blood and sweat in with some effort.

The problem is it is impossible to test what you believe is taught against what you think the Bible teaches and have any objective standard.

What if the flow of Scripture is actually the Biblical narrative?

Why look for subjective meanings when Scripture makes sence without making us the criteria of its meaning?

Why would God give us so much detail and yet not give us your ideas if your ideas are true?

 

[Charlie24]

The problem is it is impossible to test what you believe is taught against what you think the Bible teaches and have any objective standard.

What if the flow of Scripture is actually the Biblical narrative?

Why look for subjective meanings when Scripture makes sence without making us the criteria of its meaning?

Why would God give us so much detail and yet not give us your ideas if your ideas are true?

Jon, I know quite a bit about testing concepts to Scripture. That just happens to be my thing, and I've been doing it for a long time now.

So we don't see eye to eye, and there's not anything good that come from us picking this thing to death.

So my final word is that I agree to disagree!

 

[JonC]

Jon, I know quite a bit about testing concepts to Scripture. That just happens to be my thing, and I've been doing it for a long time now.

So we don't see eye to eye, and there's not anything good that come from us picking this thing to death.

So my final word is that I agree to disagree!

Oh....I agree we have to agree to disagree.

I'm not trying to understand your position (I get that) but your process.


You asked me what happened immediately after Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

My answer was that their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil.

My thought process - the Bible tells us that immediately after eating the fruit their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil.

Your answer was that Adam's nature changed, that "being of the Spirit" was different before Adam transgressed God's command.


I am interested in how you arrive at that conclusion and exactly how you test that against Scripture.

 

[percho]

I think we have to first define "nature" in "sin nature" before we can determine if it is biblical. I understand the "sin" part, but the "nature" part has to be fleshed out.

I know what happened to Adam and Eve. Their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil. This, per Scripture, was not moving from an innocent state as much as gaining a "knowledge of good and evil".

So if "sin nature" is having one's eyes opened, becoming like God knowing good and evil - and it very well may be - then we may actually agree.

I haven't thought of it that way before, but I suppose this is what happened. Adam and Eve changed and "became like God" in terms of morality yet remained flesh (Adam was created flesh, not a spirit).

Jesus is God and man. He is Spiritually alive. He could experience the desires of the flesh and remain without sin because He is spiritually alive where Adam was not.

I like this and do not exactly know how my thoughts fit. Before Adam sinned redemption from sin had already been ordained.

Adam was created of flesh. Fleshly. A little lower than the angels. And I believe when God gave him the law, thou shall not eat of it, Adam was sold under sin.

Why?

I believe it was because of; From Eph 6:12 YLT the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places;

I believe God through Adam the figure of Him to come begins the fight against, the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places;

That darkness, appears to have been on the earth in verse 2 of Genesis 1 thus the foundation of the world, Greek kosmos.

 

[JonC]

I like this and do not exactly know how my thoughts fit. Before Adam sinned redemption from sin had already been ordained.

Adam was created of flesh. Fleshly. And I believe when God gave him the law, thou shall not eat of it, Adam was sold under sin.

Why?

I believe it was because of; From Eph 6:12 YLT the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places;

I believe God through Adam the figure of Him to come begins the fight against, the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places;

That darkness, appears to have been on the earth in verse 2 of Genesis 1 thus the foundation of the world, Greek kosmos.

I always think back to Adam in that situation in the Garden. God created Adam, planted a garden, and then took Adam and put him in the Garden.

I also believe this was in accordance with God's plan.