One of the most important aspects of this discussion lies in the word ‘nature.’ Proponents of the doctrine of original sin try and make the word nature automatically infer a depraved mortal nature from birth, i.e. original sin, when that is simply not the case. Because the word ‘nature’ is used does not infer ‘from birth’ neither does it necessitate any such idea as original sin implies. There is no Scriptural evidence that the word ‘nature’ necessitates or implies any moral guilt from birth as those supporting the doctrine of original sin often claim.
Nature first and foremost refers to the physical world. When we think of nature our minds automatically go to the realm of the physical. That is not to say that one does not nor cannot consider ones nature as moral in essence, but it does not necessary have to be moral for the word nature to be used. For instance, I can say that in a sense we have a nature to sin and that from birth, yet the reader should be aware that I do not believe in the Augustinian dogma of original sin. I generally refrain from using the words sinful nature or nature to sin because of the false notions of original sin such words gender in the minds of the Church world, and also the fact that they are not Scriptural terms. Just the same, I can, and on rare occasion do, refer to mankind as having a sinful nature or a nature to sin, but this is what I mean by that and I believe Scripture is referring to when it speaks of our nature.
As I pointed out we are clearly born with depraved sensibilities as a direct result of the fall. Our ‘nature’ includes those desires of the flesh that arise from our depraved sensibilities that influence our wills to desire and in the end choose selfishness. Clearly that physical nature is depraved, thus one can allude to one having a 'nature to sin.'
Alluding to a sinful nature is a bit more confusing. First, sin is not a state we are born into. Scripture gives us numerous passages that define sin. Sin is never defined as our necessitated nature from birth. Scripture defines sin in terms of being a will transgression against a known commandment of God. Never is sin referred to as a necessitated force part of our nature that cannot be resisted as original sin implies. Never does Scripture imply in any way that children from birth are sinful. I have addressed every passage used by those holding to original sin that I believe they use, and will be happy to address any and all objections as they arise. If one denies guilt as attached to ones ‘sinful nature’, then why allude to it as sinful? Would not a better way be to term it ‘a nature that encourages or tempts one to sin,’ rather that to simply attach the word ‘sinful’ to it where no actual sin may have yet occurred, such as in the case of an infant? I certainly think so. Consequently, when one refers to a ‘sinful nature,’ I believe it can only be properly referring to a nature developed by habit of yielding to selfishness prior to the age of accountability, and subsequent to the age of accountability by acts of direct sin. Certainly one can ‘in a sense’ speak of the nature that influences to sin, or serves as a proclivity to sin, as a sinful nature, if one is careful to denote that such a nature in no wise necessitates the individual as a sinner until they yield their wills in accordance to that nature , tendency, or proclivity. The easiest thing for me to do when speaking, if I desire to be clearly understood, is to avoid words such as ‘sinful nature’ or ‘nature to sin’ due to the many misconceptions such terms gender and in light of the misconceptions of the word ‘nature,’ the false notions original sin genders, and to what in Scriptural is in reality implied.
